The Arizona Shooting and American Political Discourse

[Hatta]

Or it could be that we don't think it should be illegal.

Really? You don't think it should be illegal to crash the economy? To cost millions of innocent people their jobs and their homes? What is the point of having a government then? What does it matter if the police are there to bust the thug who steals $100 from the corner quickie mart, if they can't stop men in suits from stealing trillions of dollars?

Every other property crime committed in this country is nothing but statistical noise when compared to the damage done by the financial crisis. That is not hyperbole. The losses to the banks alone (not counting any other businesses, government, or individuals) is around 4 trillion, total property crime in 2009 only amounted to 15 billion.

It would not be disproportionate to suggest that the entire law enforcement budget of the US should be directed towards convicting those responsible for the financial crisis. It's beyond bizarre that anyone could argue that they don't deserve punishment.

Or maybe that coming up with legislation that would cover what happened is extremely difficult in the legal sense. All they did was not think far enough forward and took on risk.

Not only did they take on too much risk, but they misrepresented the risk. They misrepresented the derivative products they sold, and they misrepresented the health of their own companies to share holders. Remember all that uncertainty during the crash, nobody knew what they owned. That uncertainty is what should be criminal. They have a responsibility to know what they have and what they are selling.

People would rather self police than have government oversight and regulation.

Great idea. We should let the burglary industry police itself as well. Let's let the shoplifting industry police itself too. Honestly, are people really that gullible?

Personally I just want the government to protect the people.

That's all I want too. The problem is that the people they should be protecting us from are the people calling the shots.


I really don't understand you Popo. When it comes to something innocuous like smoking pot, you're ready to throw me in jail. When it comes to people crashing the entire economy, you don't think anyone needs to go to jail. There is something seriously wrong with your sense of justice.

[Flake]

Hatta you have still failed to point out what laws were broken? Poor choices were made, yes. But you cannot go around locking people up for poor choices. The government relaxed regulation of the housing industry and an artificial housing boom occurred as a result. The bubble broke and a series of events have led us to this point.

Mistakes were made but no laws were broken. The laws have since been modified to prevent the same thing from happening again. What more do you want?

[Hobie-wan]

Around the 9th grade, recalls Mr. Montanaro, Mr. Loughner abandoned the old games and started playing Earth: 2025, now called Earth Empires, a text-based game in which players assume the form of a country and develop its economy. Players form clans and battle other clans.

I'm still waiting for some nutjob's post murder story to say something like this:

At an early age Bobby played innocent games with other children throwing around a ball that was strangely pointed on the ends. Despite this oddity nobody thought much of it at the time. As time went on these gatherings grew more violent. Children formed gangs where some all wore the same color and others chose to obscenely run around half naked in full view outdoors.

By the time Bobby entered high school these gatherings involved violent collisions and frequent injuries to the point that the participants deemed it it necessary to don armor. Even more shocking is that parents often gathered to watch these sickening spectacles and teens were often driven large distances just to bully each other and fight other rival gangs.

[J T]

Sorry, this thread is tl;dr, but I still want to contribute my 2 cents.

I don't like the state of political discourse in America. In fact, calling it "discourse" is a disservice to the word. Somehow, we have been swindled by the media and our political leaders into thinking that there are but two world views: the conservative republican and the liberal democrat. I say "we", because I catch myself being guilty of the same thing. But that is not how it is. People are not easily divided into these two classes.

What Keith Olbermann has said about this shooting and how it relates to the way in which people talk about politics is an interesting point. I wish he would not have named names though. Before he started finger pointing, he made a very good point that this country has divided itself and begun to use violent and war-like metaphors to discuss their disagreements and debates with each other. I don't think that kind of language creates a killer like Jared Loughner- it might add to the pot, but it's not the only or even a necessary ingredient. The rhetoric and mind frame of political discussions today do encourage division and competitiveness though (and I'm not talking about healthy competition here). I really think that we should think about how we talk politics, and I think our political leaders should be especially careful about the words they choose. We should be in the business of trying to hear everybody out and come up with reasonable solutions to problems (despite the inability to please everybody). Shouting matches between stodgy pundits does little to benefit the nation.

[MrPopo]

Or it could be that we don't think it should be illegal.

Really? You don't think it should be illegal to crash the economy? To cost millions of innocent people their jobs and their homes? What is the point of having a government then? What does it matter if the police are there to bust the thug who steals $100 from the corner quickie mart, if they can't stop men in suits from stealing trillions of dollars?

Every other property crime committed in this country is nothing but statistical noise when compared to the damage done by the financial crisis. That is not hyperbole. The losses to the banks alone (not counting any other businesses, government, or individuals) is around 4 trillion, total property crime in 2009 only amounted to 15 billion.

It would not be disproportionate to suggest that the entire law enforcement budget of the US should be directed towards convicting those responsible for the financial crisis. It's beyond bizarre that anyone could argue that they don't deserve punishment.

Except there's a huge difference between when someone takes your wallet and when a financial company loses you money. In the former it's robbery. In the latter you entered into an agreement with the financial company wherein you agreed that they might lose all your money. The fact that you didn't pay attention to that clause is your own damn fault. As for the innocent people harmed by it, well that's tough shit. If you work for a company and the management doesn't know how to sell it's product and the company goes under you lose your job. Should the CEO be prosecuted because you lost your job?

Not only did they take on too much risk, but they misrepresented the risk. They misrepresented the derivative products they sold, and they misrepresented the health of their own companies to share holders. Remember all that uncertainty during the crash, nobody knew what they owned. That uncertainty is what should be criminal. They have a responsibility to know what they have and what they are selling.

This one I'll give you. I have no problems with legislation that holds companies accountable for intentionally misleading their customers.

People would rather self police than have government oversight and regulation.

Great idea. We should let the burglary industry police itself as well. Let's let the shoplifting industry police itself too. Honestly, are people really that gullible?

Aside from the small part where the two activities listed are already illegal. If that's your best counter argument then I'm rather disappointed in you.

I really don't understand you Popo. When it comes to something innocuous like smoking pot, you're ready to throw me in jail. When it comes to people crashing the entire economy, you don't think anyone needs to go to jail. There is something seriously wrong with your sense of justice.

I'm ready to throw you in jail because smoking pot is illegal, and I haven't seen a convincing argument to making it legal. When it comes to this issue I have not come out and said "I don't think anyone should be in jail." All I've been doing is asking whether or not they've broken any laws. We can't just throw people into prison because we don't like them; that'd turn us into the same police state I'm fairly certain you're against.

[Limewater]

I really think that we should think about how we talk politics, and I think our political leaders should be especially careful about the words they choose. We should be in the business of trying to hear everybody out and come up with reasonable solutions to problems (despite the inability to please everybody). Shouting matches between stodgy pundits does little to benefit the nation.

I think we should get back to the old days, when politicians were men and had duels and shot each other and stuff.

[Hatta]

Hatta you have still failed to point out what laws were broken?

Whether or not the acts were illegal, they definitely should have been. Paying legislators to, for instance, repeal the laws against murder doesn't make murder right. Murder is wrong and bad whether it's illegal or not. The same goes for fraud.

Poor choices were made, yes. But you cannot go around locking people up for poor choices.

First, you can, it's called negligence. Second, I don't believe for an instant that these were poor choices. These were smart people making rational decisions to further their self interest, and they got rewarded for making those choices.

The government relaxed regulation of the housing industry and an artificial housing boom occurred as a result.

Right, and why did the government relax regulation of the housing industry and allow a housing bubble to occur? Because of corruption. Corruption no one seems willing to acknowledge or do anything about.

Mistakes were made but no laws were broken. The laws have since been modified to prevent the same thing from happening again. What more do you want?

The laws have not been modified to prevent the same thing from happening again. The laws have been modified slightly to get people to shut up about reform, but not enough to actually do anything to stop a repeat of the financial crisis. Again, this is misdirection. Learn some magic tricks and you'll learn to spot it.