Re: [Marxism] What makes Arizona's killer just a loner, not a terrorist?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == > Jeff Goodwin wrote: > >> Just a small point: LOUGHNER may think there's an insanity defense. > > Which just goes to show how crazy he is. > Michael J. Smith > m...@smithbowen.net Actually, lots of perfectly sane but misinformed Americans believe that the insanity defense is used frequently and successfully. For a fairly recent study of (appropriately enough) college undergraduates, see Angela L. Bloechl, Michael J. Vitacco, Craig S. Neumann, and Steven E. Erickson, “An empirical investigation of insanity defense attitudes: Exploring factors related to bias,” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Volume 30, Issue 2, March-April 2007, pp. 153-161. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] What makes Arizona's killer just a loner, not a terrorist?
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == > Jay Moore: >> For what it's worth to this discussion which has probably gone on too >> long, Loughner's ex-girlfriend testifies that he was quite >> anti-government political and is feigning his mental illness to avoid >> jail because he did not die as planned: >> http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13834898 >> >On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Louis Proyect wrote: > Doesn't anybody read anything that gets posted here? There is no more > insanity defense. The laws were changed after Hinckley shot Reagan. The > prisons are filled with schizophrenics. Sheesh. Just a small point: LOUGHNER may think there's an insanity defense. Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Loughner's last close friend said that he ignored TV and talk radio
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == It's hard to know what to make of this interview. This kid hasn't talked to Loughner in two years (for which he berates himself). Having taught American undergraduates for 20 years (mainly white and middle class), I can testify that the political views of normal 20-year-olds can be quite inchoate and malleable; these views can change dramatically in a matter of months, often in confused and contradictory ways. There's no denying that Loughner is mentally ill, but it seems possible that we will discover, when all the evidence is available, that his anger toward Giffords may have stemmed from his sense that government (represented by Giffords) and perhaps other institutions (universities?) attempt to dominate and control people, including their very thoughts. He didn't shoot Giffords randomly or without premeditation, after all. Now, the idea that government tries to dominate people is not of course an exclusively right-wing sensibility. It's a central tenet of Marxism. Recall that Loughner's favorite books include “Animal Farm,” “Brave New World,” “Fahrenheit 451,” “One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest,” and “The Communist Manifesto” in addition to Ayn Rand's "We, the Living." (Would we be surprised to find Herman & Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" on his list?) So while Loughner clearly does not possess a coherent political ideology, he was obviously not insulated from political ideas, however much his mind may have distorted these. These ideas, moreover, seem to include left- as well as right-wing notions about the evils of government. Perhaps we'll learn later on that Loughner was more caught up in right-wing ideas than is evident now. Of course, until we know more, this is all just so much speculation. On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Louis Proyect wrote: > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/jared-loughner-shooting-at-world-12597553 > > > > > > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/jgoodwin.nyu%40gmail.com > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Why Loughner shot Giffords
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Some interesting letters to the NY Times, contesting an article by the conservative scum bag David Brooks, who suggests that Loughner's rampage had nothing to do with politics: January 11, 2011 To the Editor: I disagree with the narrow way that David Brooks presents the Arizona shootings in “The Politicized Mind” (column, Jan. 11). The suspect, Jared L. Loughner, seems to be a disturbed individual, but all societies have mentally unstable citizens, and yet the United States has a high rate of these killing sprees; Columbine, Fort Hood and Virginia Tech come to mind. These mass killings do not happen with such frequency in any other developed country. There must be unique contributing factors beyond the mere presence of mentally ill members in American society. I can think of at least three: ¶The easy, unfettered access to guns. ¶The difficulty of obtaining health care for the mentally ill. ¶The toxic and inflammatory political rhetoric in this country. It is incredible to me that it is easier to buy a semiautomatic pistol than to operate a car in the United States. There is great irony that Representative Gabrielle Giffords’s support for the law to provide health care for more Americans like Mr. Loughner inspired vitriolic opposition. All societies have their share of Loughners, but only the United States has the unique environment and lack of support systems that cause them to act out at a higher rate and with such devastating consequences. Chris Librie Racine, Wis., Jan. 11, 2011 To the Editor: I take exception to David Brooks’s efforts to separate the climate of political hate from the shooting rampage in Tucson. If Jared L. Loughner had staged his rampage at his workplace, or in his neighborhood or in some other place devoid of political implications, Mr. Brooks would be right — another senseless mass killing by a man in need of treatment in a country in need of better gun control. But Mr. Loughner was not, as Mr. Brooks contends, “locked in a world far removed from politics as we normally understand it.” Mr. Loughner, even if mentally disturbed, chose his venue — a political gathering — and chose his victim, a Democratic congresswoman. Furthermore, he made these choices in an atmosphere fired by hate speech, much of it explicitly directed at Democrats. Mr. Brooks is correct that we don’t know whether the Tea Party or Sarah Palin’s targeting of Gabrielle Giffords using cross hairs played any explicit role in influencing Mr. Loughner’s choice of victim, but his heinous act, however irrational, was inescapably political. Mary-Lou Weisman Westport, Conn., Jan. 11, 2011 To the Editor: The explanation on your opinion pages for the Tucson shooting seems to divide along liberal and conservative lines. While liberal columnists like Paul Krugman (“Climate of Hate,” Jan. 10) emphasize the current political environment that they contend encourages outrage and violence, conservatives, like David Brooks, point out that the suspect is mentally ill and answers mainly to the voices in his own head. Both offer interpretations that confirm their and their readers’ worldview. Is it not possible that they are both correct? Edward Abrahams Bala Cynwyd, Pa., Jan. 11, 2011 Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
