- This topic has 925 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by
Arraya.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 10, 2011 at 11:11 PM #652107January 10, 2011 at 11:30 PM #651003
surveyor
ParticipantActually someone wrote a really good article on how I felt so I will use it here:
With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman’s words, a “climate of hate.”
The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors—”lock and load”—and talked about “targeting” opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s district on a list of congressional districts “bullseyed” for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language like Mr. Obama’s famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”—it’s just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.
There’s a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn’t derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.
…
So as the usual talking heads begin their “have you no decency?” routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?
Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on “rhetoric” and a “climate of hate” to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.
To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?
But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America’s political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.
Where is the decency in that?”
Where is the fairness in saying that both sides use the same language, but yet one side is persecuted and accused for it unfairly?
What is the logic in reconciling with those who blood libel you and do not admit their error?
Are conservatives just supposed to not say anything to the obvious hypocrisy and the clear massive smear that the liberals and MSM continue to perpetuate?
When you have liberals pointing a finger at Palin and the Tea Party and aided and abetted by the MSM, who is really dividing whom?
You might want to start with that.
January 10, 2011 at 11:30 PM #651072ParticipantActually someone wrote a really good article on how I felt so I will use it here:
With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman’s words, a “climate of hate.”
The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors—”lock and load”—and talked about “targeting” opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s district on a list of congressional districts “bullseyed” for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language like Mr. Obama’s famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”—it’s just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.
There’s a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn’t derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.
…
So as the usual talking heads begin their “have you no decency?” routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?
Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on “rhetoric” and a “climate of hate” to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.
To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?
But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America’s political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.
Where is the decency in that?”
Where is the fairness in saying that both sides use the same language, but yet one side is persecuted and accused for it unfairly?
What is the logic in reconciling with those who blood libel you and do not admit their error?
Are conservatives just supposed to not say anything to the obvious hypocrisy and the clear massive smear that the liberals and MSM continue to perpetuate?
When you have liberals pointing a finger at Palin and the Tea Party and aided and abetted by the MSM, who is really dividing whom?
You might want to start with that.
January 10, 2011 at 11:30 PM #651653ParticipantActually someone wrote a really good article on how I felt so I will use it here:
With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman’s words, a “climate of hate.”
The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors—”lock and load”—and talked about “targeting” opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s district on a list of congressional districts “bullseyed” for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language like Mr. Obama’s famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”—it’s just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.
There’s a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn’t derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.
…
So as the usual talking heads begin their “have you no decency?” routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?
Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on “rhetoric” and a “climate of hate” to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.
To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?
But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America’s political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.
Where is the decency in that?”
Where is the fairness in saying that both sides use the same language, but yet one side is persecuted and accused for it unfairly?
What is the logic in reconciling with those who blood libel you and do not admit their error?
Are conservatives just supposed to not say anything to the obvious hypocrisy and the clear massive smear that the liberals and MSM continue to perpetuate?
When you have liberals pointing a finger at Palin and the Tea Party and aided and abetted by the MSM, who is really dividing whom?
You might want to start with that.
January 10, 2011 at 11:30 PM #651790ParticipantActually someone wrote a really good article on how I felt so I will use it here:
With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman’s words, a “climate of hate.”
The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors—”lock and load”—and talked about “targeting” opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s district on a list of congressional districts “bullseyed” for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language like Mr. Obama’s famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”—it’s just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.
There’s a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn’t derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.
…
So as the usual talking heads begin their “have you no decency?” routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?
Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on “rhetoric” and a “climate of hate” to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.
To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?
But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America’s political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.
Where is the decency in that?”
Where is the fairness in saying that both sides use the same language, but yet one side is persecuted and accused for it unfairly?
What is the logic in reconciling with those who blood libel you and do not admit their error?
Are conservatives just supposed to not say anything to the obvious hypocrisy and the clear massive smear that the liberals and MSM continue to perpetuate?
When you have liberals pointing a finger at Palin and the Tea Party and aided and abetted by the MSM, who is really dividing whom?
You might want to start with that.
January 10, 2011 at 11:30 PM #652117ParticipantActually someone wrote a really good article on how I felt so I will use it here:
With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman’s words, a “climate of hate.”
The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors—”lock and load”—and talked about “targeting” opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s district on a list of congressional districts “bullseyed” for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language like Mr. Obama’s famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”—it’s just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.
There’s a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn’t derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.
…
So as the usual talking heads begin their “have you no decency?” routine aimed at talk radio and Republican politicians, perhaps we should turn the question around. Where is the decency in blood libel?
Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on “rhetoric” and a “climate of hate” to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.
To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?
But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America’s political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.
Where is the decency in that?”
Where is the fairness in saying that both sides use the same language, but yet one side is persecuted and accused for it unfairly?
What is the logic in reconciling with those who blood libel you and do not admit their error?
Are conservatives just supposed to not say anything to the obvious hypocrisy and the clear massive smear that the liberals and MSM continue to perpetuate?
When you have liberals pointing a finger at Palin and the Tea Party and aided and abetted by the MSM, who is really dividing whom?
You might want to start with that.
January 11, 2011 at 12:24 AM #651023sdrealtor
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=jstoesz]
Oh, and EST here is some research for you…Not quite like “one flew over the cuckoos nest” anymore…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy%5B/quote%5D
I know two people who were treated by ECT (not called EST).. and they were never the person they were before the treatment. One committed suicide a few years later. Patients treated with ECT became more like a withdrawn shell of their former self. ECT can be viewed as an aversive training, much like severe/brutal punishing of an animal. After the punishment, they tend to go around cowering.My personal belief is that ECT is a form of quackery put forth by psychologists who saw Skinner’s experiments (basically aversive training) and presumed it could be blindly applied to humans. It is a relatively easy form of ‘treatment’ where the psychologist doesn’t have to find the root cause for a problem in the patient, instead the psychologist presents the patient with the scenario of their psychosis and then zap..
BTW: The other person that I knew was treated by ECT was a young girl at the time, about 13, who my family suspected was raped and her psychosis at the time was her process of trying to cope with being raped by her father. From the time of her treatment on, she basically had to live in an assisted care facility; this from a former introverted by straight-A student.[/quote]
To counter this, I know a person who was treated by ECT. She was the most loving, funny, smart and wonderful person I know until her husband passed away. After that her mind began spinning out of control and she reverted to infancy unable to function as an adolescent no less an adult. She feared everything and was unable to sleep as her mind ruminated out of control. The doctors reccomended ECT to snap her out of it and it was my decision to make whether to proceed. I researched it thoroughly as all I could think of was Jack in One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
Full of fear, I decided it was the right thing to do. It worked wonderfully. Not only did it bring her back to where she was before her husband passed but she was actually able to think better and more clearly than she had been in many years. That was 19 years ago and she remains in the great mental health that ECT restored for her. Not a day goes by that I am not thankful for what ECT did for my mother who celebrated her 80 birthday last Summer.
January 11, 2011 at 12:24 AM #651092Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=jstoesz]
Oh, and EST here is some research for you…Not quite like “one flew over the cuckoos nest” anymore…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy%5B/quote%5D
I know two people who were treated by ECT (not called EST).. and they were never the person they were before the treatment. One committed suicide a few years later. Patients treated with ECT became more like a withdrawn shell of their former self. ECT can be viewed as an aversive training, much like severe/brutal punishing of an animal. After the punishment, they tend to go around cowering.My personal belief is that ECT is a form of quackery put forth by psychologists who saw Skinner’s experiments (basically aversive training) and presumed it could be blindly applied to humans. It is a relatively easy form of ‘treatment’ where the psychologist doesn’t have to find the root cause for a problem in the patient, instead the psychologist presents the patient with the scenario of their psychosis and then zap..
BTW: The other person that I knew was treated by ECT was a young girl at the time, about 13, who my family suspected was raped and her psychosis at the time was her process of trying to cope with being raped by her father. From the time of her treatment on, she basically had to live in an assisted care facility; this from a former introverted by straight-A student.[/quote]
To counter this, I know a person who was treated by ECT. She was the most loving, funny, smart and wonderful person I know until her husband passed away. After that her mind began spinning out of control and she reverted to infancy unable to function as an adolescent no less an adult. She feared everything and was unable to sleep as her mind ruminated out of control. The doctors reccomended ECT to snap her out of it and it was my decision to make whether to proceed. I researched it thoroughly as all I could think of was Jack in One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
Full of fear, I decided it was the right thing to do. It worked wonderfully. Not only did it bring her back to where she was before her husband passed but she was actually able to think better and more clearly than she had been in many years. That was 19 years ago and she remains in the great mental health that ECT restored for her. Not a day goes by that I am not thankful for what ECT did for my mother who celebrated her 80 birthday last Summer.
January 11, 2011 at 12:24 AM #651672Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=jstoesz]
Oh, and EST here is some research for you…Not quite like “one flew over the cuckoos nest” anymore…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy%5B/quote%5D
I know two people who were treated by ECT (not called EST).. and they were never the person they were before the treatment. One committed suicide a few years later. Patients treated with ECT became more like a withdrawn shell of their former self. ECT can be viewed as an aversive training, much like severe/brutal punishing of an animal. After the punishment, they tend to go around cowering.My personal belief is that ECT is a form of quackery put forth by psychologists who saw Skinner’s experiments (basically aversive training) and presumed it could be blindly applied to humans. It is a relatively easy form of ‘treatment’ where the psychologist doesn’t have to find the root cause for a problem in the patient, instead the psychologist presents the patient with the scenario of their psychosis and then zap..
BTW: The other person that I knew was treated by ECT was a young girl at the time, about 13, who my family suspected was raped and her psychosis at the time was her process of trying to cope with being raped by her father. From the time of her treatment on, she basically had to live in an assisted care facility; this from a former introverted by straight-A student.[/quote]
To counter this, I know a person who was treated by ECT. She was the most loving, funny, smart and wonderful person I know until her husband passed away. After that her mind began spinning out of control and she reverted to infancy unable to function as an adolescent no less an adult. She feared everything and was unable to sleep as her mind ruminated out of control. The doctors reccomended ECT to snap her out of it and it was my decision to make whether to proceed. I researched it thoroughly as all I could think of was Jack in One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
Full of fear, I decided it was the right thing to do. It worked wonderfully. Not only did it bring her back to where she was before her husband passed but she was actually able to think better and more clearly than she had been in many years. That was 19 years ago and she remains in the great mental health that ECT restored for her. Not a day goes by that I am not thankful for what ECT did for my mother who celebrated her 80 birthday last Summer.
January 11, 2011 at 12:24 AM #651809Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=jstoesz]
Oh, and EST here is some research for you…Not quite like “one flew over the cuckoos nest” anymore…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy%5B/quote%5D
I know two people who were treated by ECT (not called EST).. and they were never the person they were before the treatment. One committed suicide a few years later. Patients treated with ECT became more like a withdrawn shell of their former self. ECT can be viewed as an aversive training, much like severe/brutal punishing of an animal. After the punishment, they tend to go around cowering.My personal belief is that ECT is a form of quackery put forth by psychologists who saw Skinner’s experiments (basically aversive training) and presumed it could be blindly applied to humans. It is a relatively easy form of ‘treatment’ where the psychologist doesn’t have to find the root cause for a problem in the patient, instead the psychologist presents the patient with the scenario of their psychosis and then zap..
BTW: The other person that I knew was treated by ECT was a young girl at the time, about 13, who my family suspected was raped and her psychosis at the time was her process of trying to cope with being raped by her father. From the time of her treatment on, she basically had to live in an assisted care facility; this from a former introverted by straight-A student.[/quote]
To counter this, I know a person who was treated by ECT. She was the most loving, funny, smart and wonderful person I know until her husband passed away. After that her mind began spinning out of control and she reverted to infancy unable to function as an adolescent no less an adult. She feared everything and was unable to sleep as her mind ruminated out of control. The doctors reccomended ECT to snap her out of it and it was my decision to make whether to proceed. I researched it thoroughly as all I could think of was Jack in One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
Full of fear, I decided it was the right thing to do. It worked wonderfully. Not only did it bring her back to where she was before her husband passed but she was actually able to think better and more clearly than she had been in many years. That was 19 years ago and she remains in the great mental health that ECT restored for her. Not a day goes by that I am not thankful for what ECT did for my mother who celebrated her 80 birthday last Summer.
January 11, 2011 at 12:24 AM #652137Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=jstoesz]
Oh, and EST here is some research for you…Not quite like “one flew over the cuckoos nest” anymore…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy%5B/quote%5D
I know two people who were treated by ECT (not called EST).. and they were never the person they were before the treatment. One committed suicide a few years later. Patients treated with ECT became more like a withdrawn shell of their former self. ECT can be viewed as an aversive training, much like severe/brutal punishing of an animal. After the punishment, they tend to go around cowering.My personal belief is that ECT is a form of quackery put forth by psychologists who saw Skinner’s experiments (basically aversive training) and presumed it could be blindly applied to humans. It is a relatively easy form of ‘treatment’ where the psychologist doesn’t have to find the root cause for a problem in the patient, instead the psychologist presents the patient with the scenario of their psychosis and then zap..
BTW: The other person that I knew was treated by ECT was a young girl at the time, about 13, who my family suspected was raped and her psychosis at the time was her process of trying to cope with being raped by her father. From the time of her treatment on, she basically had to live in an assisted care facility; this from a former introverted by straight-A student.[/quote]
To counter this, I know a person who was treated by ECT. She was the most loving, funny, smart and wonderful person I know until her husband passed away. After that her mind began spinning out of control and she reverted to infancy unable to function as an adolescent no less an adult. She feared everything and was unable to sleep as her mind ruminated out of control. The doctors reccomended ECT to snap her out of it and it was my decision to make whether to proceed. I researched it thoroughly as all I could think of was Jack in One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
Full of fear, I decided it was the right thing to do. It worked wonderfully. Not only did it bring her back to where she was before her husband passed but she was actually able to think better and more clearly than she had been in many years. That was 19 years ago and she remains in the great mental health that ECT restored for her. Not a day goes by that I am not thankful for what ECT did for my mother who celebrated her 80 birthday last Summer.
January 11, 2011 at 12:45 AM #651008NotCranky
ParticipantUcodeng,
I hope that understanding it helps. If the roots of much of this are in the indoctrination to violence for “National Strength”, like I think it is…well, left or right the fear of being weak is overriding. I think when we became international bullies the slippery slope of all slippery slopes was greased up.
Surveyor, Those questions have been answered on this thread. I do find it interesting how both the left and right think they have a case for the MSM being against them. Bizarre.
January 11, 2011 at 12:45 AM #651077ParticipantUcodeng,
I hope that understanding it helps. If the roots of much of this are in the indoctrination to violence for “National Strength”, like I think it is…well, left or right the fear of being weak is overriding. I think when we became international bullies the slippery slope of all slippery slopes was greased up.
Surveyor, Those questions have been answered on this thread. I do find it interesting how both the left and right think they have a case for the MSM being against them. Bizarre.
January 11, 2011 at 12:45 AM #651658ParticipantUcodeng,
I hope that understanding it helps. If the roots of much of this are in the indoctrination to violence for “National Strength”, like I think it is…well, left or right the fear of being weak is overriding. I think when we became international bullies the slippery slope of all slippery slopes was greased up.
Surveyor, Those questions have been answered on this thread. I do find it interesting how both the left and right think they have a case for the MSM being against them. Bizarre.
January 11, 2011 at 12:45 AM #651795ParticipantUcodeng,
I hope that understanding it helps. If the roots of much of this are in the indoctrination to violence for “National Strength”, like I think it is…well, left or right the fear of being weak is overriding. I think when we became international bullies the slippery slope of all slippery slopes was greased up.
Surveyor, Those questions have been answered on this thread. I do find it interesting how both the left and right think they have a case for the MSM being against them. Bizarre.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.