MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
I like to read what others are saying about events here. Other publications and sites from around the world. It gives one a better perspective or at least a different one. Here is something that has been put on the DW World site out of Germany. A review of some of the European Press.
The shooting of Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords has reignited a debate in the US over the dangers of extremist political rhetoric. The discussion is no less heated in the European press.
Die Presse from Vienna writes that the Republicans did not argue against the despised health reform - they ranted and raved. The Austrian paper writes that people who brand the US president "Hitler" and call his policies "armageddon" und "holocaust" and allow demonstrators to carry posters with crosshairs of a gunsight over his photo contribute to an atmosphere in which others "are not just political opponents but targets."
"Hatred for Barack Obama, his supporters and everything America's first black president stands for is the manure currently fertilizing US soil," writes Italy's La Repubblica. "Words can become bullets in a society where too many people have too many weapons." And so, the Rome newspaper says, the 22-year-old shooter from Arizona is not an alien: he is a child of "planet America."
But the Spanish daily El Mundo cautions that, so far, the only known fact is that a mentally unstable man shot at a politician. "In politics, there is hardly anything worse than attempting to ascribe an assassination to the victim's political opponents," the Spanish paper says, pointing out that the Arizona shooting is widely being associated with the ultra-conservative Tea-Party movement - although there is no evidence that the shooter had anything to do with the organisation. "Maybe the US needs to ask itself once again whether gun control laws shouldn't be tightened after all," the Madrid paper concludes.
A mirror blurred by hatred
America is shocked and, for the time being, stopped in its tracks, comments Germany's left-leaning Tageszeitung. The paper points out that the Tucson assassination puts a spotlight on the extent to which naked hatred has become part of political rhetoric in the US. The Tucson shooting will leave its mark on the conservative camp, the paper writes. The killings narrow Sarah Palin's chances of asserting herself as a presidential candidate while moderate Republicans stand to profit politically. And they, the Berlin paper says, are just the people Obama needs to help him protect a country bogged down in an economic and ideological crisis from such extremely aggressive anti-democrats.
"Gabrielle Giffords' name will go down in US history written in blood," says Die Welt. "There hasn't been an incident like this since the attack on Ronald Reagan 30 years ago." The Berlin-based newspaper feels that pessimism prevails in a country that used to be so upbeat. "In the wake of the attack on Gabrielle Giffords, Americans are peering into a mirror blurred by hatred and fear. That is not America. Americans and others must ask themselves how the country can come to terms with itself."
The Sueddeutsche Zeitung comments that political violence has rocked the US before, and that in the wake of the Arizona shooting, the writing is on the wall again. "Let's hope that conservative political leaders in the US recognize the fatal, deadly power words have," the German paper writes. "It is time for them to stop short. Otherwise, America again threatens to be caught up in a vicious circle of violence."
A vicious cycle of violence. That pretty much nails it. But then as I have pointed out before, what can you expect from a country and culture where the favorite past times of so many are video games about blowing the bad guys to smithereens. And folk heroes include such pillars of respectability as Jessy James, Pretty Boy Floyd, Bonney and Clyde, Al Capone and Charles Manson.
Comments
Interesting that every one of them refer to Republicans, Right Wingers and the Tea Party. It's not as if anyone ever listens to the Liberals/Progressives, so where is it coming from? Is it that obvious? Tell that to the Republicans/Right Wingers/Tea Partiers. They don't see it.
by Ramona on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 4:19pm
This discussion will not end for months, but that is fine with me.
Oh this has nothing to do with gun control, the right says.
Damn!!!
This shooter was sick and could get a gun at a moment's notice with no registration necessary, no waiting period.
Wyatt Earp would have disarmed the guy as soon as he got to town. ha!
by Richard Day on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 7:00pm
Should we ban automobiles too?
Maybe we could invoke TSA guidelines, a Soda Can with a false bottom, mixing the two chemicals within the can and you have a bomb,
In the Vietnam war I heard reports of cigarette lighters blowing up.
The instrument is inanimate, unless acted upon it''ll remain inanimate.
by Resistance on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 7:20pm
Not the 'cars are like semi-automatic handguns' spiel, and soda cans to boot.
by NCD on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 8:32pm
oh NO not the overturn the second amendment, because someone used a gun rather than a bomb or a car, or any other object. Will you ban Skil saws, You better fear them, it'll just jump off the saw horses and hurt you.
Any object in the wrong hands can cause injury. Object; as in, inanimate object
Guns really don't kill people, people kill people. The gun is an inanimate object.
Evidently you haven't researched why, owning a gun is in the Bill of Rights.
by Resistance on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 9:41pm
Oh please...skil saws? Guns are compelling, hyponotic, beautiful. They are heavy under your armpit, always in your consciousness.
Just like damscene swords, chain mail, armor, guns represent the allocation of great amounts of surplus value.
They are not just like cars.
And they prey upon the mind of the simple and tormented like no other object of daily use.
by jollyroger on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 10:05pm
Resistance, the second amendment argument doesn't fit here. Owning a gun isn't the issue, and never was. Hauling out the second amendment is the easy way to dodge the obvious: all guns should be licensed and regulated. Law enforcement should be able to track gun ownership in order to keep us all safer.
I personally don't believe the second amendment ever gave permission for individuals to carry guns--I believe it's a state's rights issue--but even though I don't like guns and don't own one, I'm not one who wants to ban them outright. People have the right to own guns in this country, and most gun owners are responsible. But we can't pretend that no policing is necessary, or that guns aren't dangerous. That's just not so.
by Ramona on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 10:11pm
Precious Blood of the Sweet Baby Jesus, Arizona thinks the proper application of police power is to make sure that your university is not permitted churlishly to curtail your right to pack!
by jollyroger on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 10:19pm
Do you really think our forefathers forgot Concord Bridge? The farmers had rocks and the government had guns.
The forefathers said guns for a reason, and it wasn't for hunting purposes.
The right to hunt shall not be abridged? No
by Resistance on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 10:58pm
Do you serioously propose that in any universe save the fevered fanstasies of the weekend militia that handguns or even assault rifles are what stand between the sturdy yeomanry and the tanks and grenade launchers of the 101st airborne? Cause that's who you are talking about standing up to.
This ain't George Washington's field of battle, where Daniel Shays and his rebellion could really pose a counterweight to the central gov.
by jollyroger on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 11:04pm
I really like these arguments you give, and I would really like to keep going, but my comments are still getting blocked as spam.
I hope this one gets through, its very frustrating.
You are very knowledgeable and at times it's a pleasure to read your arguments
Here goes
by Resistance on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 11:12pm
I tried to post a prepared argument in response and again i got a spam notice.
I don't know if it is the Word Insert acting up. Here is one argument for you
Sheeplike ones are always the victims of predators,
BAAAAaaaa ,Baaaaa, where 's the officer with the gun to protect me when I need them BAAaaaaa
Officer arriving on the scene AFTER the carnage, "we will catch this culprit who committed this heinous crime"
Boy am I relieved, for a moment there ,I thought the assailant would get away with murder,
by Resistance on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 11:29pm
as you will perhaps have gleaned from my remark about the weight of a piece under your armpit I have spent some time in my life packing.
No one with any imagination thinks the po-po will do much for him except bag the evidence post facto.
So if you argue for a right to carry late at night, in isolated or dangerous venues, sure.
I would caution that the comfortable knowledge that one is armed kind of tends to creep out into one's daily interactions where, really, it is not nearly as easily defended, but that said, it is simply romantic idiocy to propose that the reason we want a second amendment is to control government tyranny.
by jollyroger on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 11:39pm
Except the forefathers did attempt to safeguard us from that very thing, a Tyranical government.
Checks and balances, because they too, feared a government with too much power
The ultimate guarantor of "independence" freedom, was the people themselves, people with a right to bear arms, was the ultimate check.
Remeber the saying We love our country, but we fear our government. Why would the people fear their governent.
Why did our forefathers fear our government so much, they reigned in their power Not very trustworthy were they? Bill of Rights an added insurance policy?
by Resistance on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 11:49pm
all very true. And, probably, before the horrendous mechanization of human conflict (surely by wwI, if not maybe the Civil War, ) you could argue the 2nd amendment as part of the armamentarium of freedom (to make perhaps a bad pun).
But once you're past the Alamo, where it's sharpshooters and troops in the low thousands of numbers, it's game over.
by jollyroger on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 11:52pm
Unaccustomed as I am to the necessity to sleep, having missed last night entirely, I must now crash...Sorry to post and run, as it were.
by jollyroger on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 11:59pm
Take care
by Resistance on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:05am
It wasn't so much their gov't they feared, it was any gov't, especially a monarchy where the monarch's power was derived from God as a divine right. So they set out to make a gov't where the power was derived from the people. But at the time the 2nd amendment was born, tyranny was not an issue and nowhere did they announce they were so afraid of the government they had just created that they wanted everyone armed to the teeth with semi-automatics. :-)
What they had qualms about was a well-equipped standing army.
by seashell on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 2:27am
I always thought the Second Amendment was the largely the result of Shay's Rebellion and other localized uprisings that were quashed by the brand new republican governments. Events leading to the Whiskey Rebellion probably played a role as well.
by EmmaZahn on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 3:28am
Glad you brought that up Emma. People seem to forget that not everyone was thrilled with the American Revolution and more than a few were very OK with Briton being in charge.
by cmaukonen on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 11:07am
SUBJECTS OF THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITY
I too, could never understand how a country founded on Christianity as the Tea party claims could violate a command.
The superior authority at the time was the British Crown.That meant the colonists were going against GOD.
(Romans 13:1-3) . . .Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will receive judgment to themselves. 3 For those ruling are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. . .
by Resistance on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:03pm
While what you say is accurate, it is slightly misleading given that my two examples were rebellions led by former Revolutionary War soldiers and both were financial/tax rebellions
by EmmaZahn on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:48pm
Emma, I wasn't sure so had to look it up. The answer is below, where there's more room.
by seashell on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 5:53pm
Especially when the government has more and better weapons than you do and there for you are hopelessly out gunned.
by cmaukonen on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 11:50pm
Algiers, Iraq; civilians by day, fighters at night
by Resistance on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 12:04am
Have at it.
by cmaukonen on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 8:47am
Good morning to you C
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imb4tYOk8GE
by Resistance on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 9:00am
by trkingmomoe on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 7:26pm
Reply to Emma, Resistance, cmaukonen, etc -
OK, so I had to go look these things up 'cause now I wasn't sure. This is the result:
The Bill of Rights had been promised during the debates over the Constitution, largely in response to Virginia delegate George Mason's nagging. They were drawn from Mason's Virginia Declarations of Rights and the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and incorporated into the Constitution in 1791. The pertinent parts are shown below:
Shay's rebellion is considered significant because it led to the belief that there was a need for a strong central government, rather than the government as it was under the Articles of Confederation.
The Whiskey Rebellion started in 1791 and culminated in 1794, so it may have had some influence on the 2nd amendment.
I'll stand by my claim to Resistance that the 2nd Amendment was not intended because the founders wanted the population armed to the teeth in case the federal gov't should go all tyrannical on them. They felt that power should be given to the states. And they did worry about standing armies.
by seashell on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 6:22pm
I'll stand by your claim, too, seashell.
by Ramona on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 7:00pm
“That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
Men did not give up the inalienable right to defend themselves and live; the legal right is subservient to the first.
Thank you for your research, but I am not moved to conclude as you have ,that the States wanted a strong Central government. It was forced upon them by a government heavily armed.
At the time of the signing of the Declaration, had it been said, “ the States shall relinquish all control in favor of Washington dictating” . I seriously doubt they would have United.
Had they known the Declaration they signed, was just the camel's nose under the tent, in the eventual destruction of States rights.
The tyranny was veiled.
They would soon find out in the Civil war..
The very thing the forefathers who signed were afraid of, A central government to strong, to tyrannical, dictating to the States, against the will of the people. They would secede because this was not what they signed onto.
You also forget the history of the church against the Protestants.
Do you believe for one minute, the people would leave themselves unarmed, should the church start another wave of persecution, as history has shown time and time again.? Imagine a government official saying, you cannot have arms to defend yourself, while the persecutor is armed to the teeth, and paying bribes.
The second amendment is a legal law, in support of an inalienable right.
by Resistance on Tue, 01/11/2011 - 7:50pm
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness may come first in theory, but the legal realm trumps the inalienable when the state takes away life with the death penalty, which follows a long imprisonment that took away liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Are you seriously saying that the delegates who signed the Constitution did so because their lives were threatened by persons holding weapons? Or even by persons who threatened to hold weapons?
The southern states seceeded because of slavery and the economics of slavery.
The Protestants were not persecuted in the new land and I've never heard that they armed themselves in order to protect themselves from possible persecution. Please point me to a credible source that documents your claim.
The second amendment has been interpreted wrongly by people who have something to gain by that interpretation. And I've already explained how inalienable actually works.
by seashell on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:46am
I'm afraid that partner R is not a constitutional scholar, hence overlooks the important fact that the Bill of Righs had nothing to do with protecting the freedom of the individual from tyrannical government...The states were left free to be as tyrannical as they wanted; prior to the 14th amendment the government that counts, the local one, could confiscate weapons ad libidum
by jollyroger on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 1:26am
But he or she certainly cherishes what he or she conceives of as a flair for dramatic periphrasis.
by jollyroger on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 1:29am
Your points are hilarious. And right on, I fear. I declare you the winner, especially in the pursuit of happiness. :-)
Thanks. Also thanks to Ramona for the support. It was needed!
by seashell on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 2:21am
I am famously singleminded in an alliterative pursuit, (happiness in my case curiously meows...).I say nothing more explicit as I have, in the past, been accused of giving offense.(I got banned from the New York Times, no less, for innocently announcing my intention to go to a demonstration that I was sure would be "wall to wall ______")
by jollyroger on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 2:35am
That whole Second Amendment argument gets so bloody tiresome, and part of the reason is that there is no real clear-cut definition left to us by those who wrote it. But a "militia" is not a single individual, and there is no reason to believe the framers would add an amendment specifically giving each of us the right to carry a gun. For what purpose?
State militias were made up of private citizens who theoretically would need to be at the ready in case of an insurgence, so they added the "right to keep and bear arms". That's my reading of it, anyway. The NRA and other anti-gun control folks have claimed ownership to that one phrase, twisting it to mean the right to keep and bear Semi-automatics and Cop Killer bullets and any other damn thing that can do the greatest damage, without regard to who's keeping them and bearing them and using them and why.
That's nuts.
by Ramona on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 7:40am
It is actually a lot more complicated of an issue. Looking at Hamilton, Madison and Jay's Federalist Papers shows that there was opposition to and fear of the very idea of a standing army - probably based on watching European armies in action.
In #24, Hamilton writes that Pennsylvania and North Carolina had in their constitutions: "As standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, THEY OUGHT NOT to be kept up." New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Delaware, and Maryland had in each of their bills of rights: "Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE" But Hamilton wanted a strong federal government, and argued that the lack of a standing army was too great a risk. So in #25, he wrote, "... it should be resolved to extend the prohibition to the RAISING of armies in time of peace, the United States would then exhibit the most extraordinary spectacle which the world has yet seen, that of a nation incapacitated by its Constitution to prepare for defense, before it was actually invaded." One should read issue #29 in it's entirety, but clearly one component of the Second Amendment was to override the fears of the states and to make sure there were trained soldiers in militias before they were needed.
However, many scholars have also argued that the inclusion of the right to bear arms was also a reaction to English game laws restricting ownership and use of weapons to the gentry. Though in some places and at some times only free American men could bear arms, as a practical matter America was much less restrictive about ownership and use of weapons. Ordinary Americans really liked owning weapons. Besides the practical matters of hunting and self-defense, it made them feel equal and free. They do still associate owning weapons with freedom.
by Donal on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 9:24am
The Second amendment, guaranteed a bulwark against despotism.
George Washington’s farewell, addressed how despotism takes over the country. "The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual".......
“to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property”
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual;" Geo Washington
Under despotism, the government doesn’t want armed citizens, Miseries; we got plenty of those.
Tell the people, how Government protected the people in Bosnia at the "Srebrenica massacre" or in the "Rwandan Genocide"
Jolly, tell us what Josephus reported when civil chaos broke out in the siege of Jerusalem.
Whether to carry a gun or not is a personal matter; but why should those who wish not to; leave citizens to face a bleak prospect, unarmed.
by Resistance on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 7:43am
On the face of it, these seem like reasonable statements (although I'm a little unnerved by what you might mean by "a bleak prospect"). But it stops being a personal matter when people try to force the government to sanction the owning and carrying of weaponry more suited to the battlefield than the dresser drawer. That is what the NRA and anti-gun control proponents have been so successful at foisting on us, and I'm always surprised at how many people buy into it.
With rights come responsibilities, but that notion has been conveniently discarded when it comes to an issue as important as gun control. You can't keep pretending that gun ownership is an inviolate freedom. It isn't--or rather, it shouldn't be.
by Ramona on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 8:03am
"it's a recession when my neighbor is out of work, it's a depression when I'm out of work" is so true.
Bleak seems so bland, compared with desperate times.
In some peoples minds, the government has become despotic. Does the government really care; really; about the downtrodden, or more about serving privilege?
Bad trade policies, banker bailouts, home foreclosures, desperate times, and food costs so high, just living is so difficult.
Oh sure, we here the same old song and dance from Washington, “We feel your pain. (Really) It's just lip service
Here’s where the guns will probably come into play
If it gets any bleaker or more desperate, and the voices of anger, the fearing mobs, I imagine the government is probably prepared to quash dissent.
Evidently, it’s so much cheaper than actually helping the people.
The government will have guns, pointed at civilians, wanting redress.
Remember the soldiers who camped out in Washington and were violently dispersed? They and their families cast aside
I can sense trouble ahead, the "agitation of the sea (of mankind), stirring up seaweed and mire.
A government unresponsive to the needs of it's lowliest.
The rising tide we heard so much about; instead of lifting all boats is drowning the majority under a sea of debt.
I rely on historical supporting evidence, of what happens when the Government becomes unresponsive to the needs of the governed. (Declaration of Independence) and when it did respond, it used force
If the Government now cuts services, one can only imagine the desperation.
The new ideology, the people need to be more self reliant, in other words; every man, woman and child for themselves. Good Luck I suppose the guns will really be coming out then.
As for me, I put all my trust in God. What else can one do, the government won’t help.
But hey, we can hope for a better day, have a good one Ramona
I am not an advocate for killing, and I am torn about the gun control issue. I just believe that train has already left and we're going to have to face the reality, of the days ahead. Armed or unarmed?
by Resistance on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 8:59am
The key word here is responsibility. What the right wants is freedom to do what they want without responsibility or consequences to their actions. But they refuse to come out and actually state this one overriding belief.
by cmaukonen on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 9:14am
Many safety minded factory managers mount a wall calandar
15 days since an industrial accident...
We need a similar 5 hrs since a gratuitous and irrelevant scriptural reference from Resistance...
by jollyroger on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 4:14pm
I won't even try to count the inapposite historical analogies; they tumble forth like the gentle rain from heaven...
by jollyroger on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 4:19pm
Then the gentle rains turned into a torrent
(Matthew 24:39) 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, . . .
by Resistance on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 5:13pm
Reset the clock....
2 minutes....
by jollyroger on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 5:16pm
If anything were to rain down from heaven, I'd like to think they would be historically accurate narratives instead of conspiracy theories dating back 300 years born from a single 20th century brain.
by seashell on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 5:31pm
What conspiracy are you referring to dating back 300 years?
by Resistance on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 5:37pm
single (fevered) 20th century brain...
Partner R is so fixated on his/her last stand bunker shoot out with the black helicopters, he/she is unwilling to address the fact that, by definition, any system that lets a flagrant nut like Loughner arm himself needs remediation.
by jollyroger on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 6:18pm
Look, let's abandon my politically correct but seriously clumsy formula.
It's 99% sure that Resistance suffers from testosterone poisoning. I know the symptoms well...Pending correction, I'm going with "his" "He" "him" etc.
by jollyroger on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 6:21pm
Your olfactory receptors have been corrupted
You have become desensitized .
You are unaware of the stench, of a dying world system.
The air around you is poisonous, it has even affected your mind
(Ephesians 2:2) . . .in which YOU at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that now operates in the sons of disobedience. .
by Resistance on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 6:42pm
sons of disobedience.
They don't call me Roger the Blasphemer for nothing...
by jollyroger on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 6:47pm
That's to your face
by Resistance on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 6:51pm
Yeah, but that "Impaler" thing is an outright fabrication...
by jollyroger on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 6:54pm
Oh my, what have you been smoking or breathing.
The shooter in Arizona was having "conscious dreaming" too.
by Resistance on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 7:02pm
Actually, he seems to have garbled it into "conscience" dreaming.
Carlos Castenada whirls.
by jollyroger on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 7:08pm
What conscience?
by Resistance on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 8:16pm
well, that's the irony, isn't it?
by jollyroger on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 8:33pm