Egypt unrest: does America stand up for the cause of liberty or not?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_egypt_protest

In the recent SoU speech, Obama did offer token support to the Tunisian reform movement (as if 30% of Americans could even find Tunisia on a map), and he delivered that famous address in Cairo trying to repair relations with the Muslim world and encourage democratic changes in repressive Mideast regimes. But now that the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt is at its weakest state in decades, Washington is deathly silent. Heck even this AP article barely explains why Egyptians are protesting to begin with (tired of decades of martial law, repressed expression, huge wealth gap and unemployment, etc.), I suppose feeding more misunderstanding and the stereotype of the angry Arab. Mubarak is a former military officer who has been president since 1981, miraculously winning numerous landslide re-elections similar to the ousted Tunisian despot (and now Mubarak is grooming his son to take over as head of state, yeah very democratic). Maybe part of that is due to his thugs beating down opposition parties, even the deceptively named Muslim Brotherhood, which is mostly non-violent, advocates many Western-friendly reforms, and has nothing to do with extremist Islam. Mubarak outlaws public demonstrations and speaking out against the government too. Yet US leaders have supported this man for years, even selling him weapons and such. Well, after some deal-making Carter got Egypt to recognize Israel, and they do control the Suez Canal after all, so we have to buddy up to them, no matter what type of ruler they have.

America claims that it opposes tyranny, and we supposedly stood by the Iranian anti-government protests a few years ago, which is pretty much the same situation as Egypt except that their government is Islamic and pursuing nukes. We supported Kosovo against Serbia, and Bush even recognized Kosovo's independence a few years ago, much to the dismay of Serbia and Russia - diplomatic ties with those nations are much more critical than with Kosovo/Albania. Then recently a European report concluded that the current Kosovo regime is led by criminals. So we go out of our way to bomb and kill hundreds of Serbs to ostensibly defend the human rights of Kosovar Albanians, then legitimized the state of Kosovo, only to watch as a criminal regime develops. And yet we also tolerate regimes in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Egypt that routinely commit abuses? How can we expect anyone to take our foreign policy seriously?

------

More on Egypt: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2011/01/on_egypt_white_house_is_ignore.html

"If there is a democratic revolution, US-Egyptian relationships are in for a world of trouble... There will be some anti-US sentiment among the protesters because they believe the US has been trying to prop up the regime until the last moment."

Or is the US (irrationally) scared "that democracy would 'open up the flood gates' to Islamic revolution"?

-BBC

From Nobel laureate and Egyptian opposition leader Mohammed El-Baradei:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-26/mohamed-elbaradei-the-return-of-the-challenger/

"If you would like to know why the United States does not have credibility in the Middle East, [our handling of Egypt over the years] is precisely the answer... You reaffirmed their belief that you are applying a double standard for your friends, and siding with an authoritarian regime just because you think it represents your interests. We are staring at social disintegration, economic stagnation, political repression, and we do not hear anything from you, the Americans, or for that matter from the Europeans.

Of course, you in the West have been sold the idea that the only options in the Arab world are between authoritarian regimes and Islamic jihadists. That’s obviously bogus. If we are talking about Egypt, there is a whole rainbow variety of people who are secular, liberal, market-oriented, and if you give them a chance they will organize themselves to elect a government that is modern and moderate."

------------

I boycott most cable news, but part of me was curious as to how FOX may spin the events in Egypt into their worldview. I shouldn't have wondered. Warning: if you click the link to the Glenn Beck footage on YouTube, it's like "The Ring" and you will die in 3 days from a stroke (the brain can only handle so much idiocy), unless you show it to someone else first (pick someone you don't like).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH7GPPpsw6g

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/12199_glennbecksegyptfreakouthowtheuprisingsplitsusconservatives;_ylt=Ahl6zEsNcBy8S9ddBSa8g3Fg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTRtOWhxZDE0BGFzc2V0Ay9zL2RhaWx5YmVhc3QvMTIxOTlfZ2xlbm5iZWNrc2VneXB0ZnJlYWtvdXRob3d0aGV1cHJpc2luZ3NwbGl0c3VzY29uc2VydmF0aXZlcwRjY29kZQNtcF9lY184XzEwBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA3RoZXJpZ2h0c2VneQ--

Since the war in Iraq, it seems, Beck, like others on the right, has changed his mind about the desirability of Middle Eastern democracy. It was only a few years ago, you'll remember, that conservatives were crowing about a new birth of freedom in the Muslim world.

You couldn't make this stuff up: "We've shown you tonight that Hamas, Code Pink"—the feminist anti-war group—"and the Muslim Brotherhood are all linked together." With the future bleak, Beck called on his viewers to pray for "our way of life" and for Israel.

"The whole world starts to implode... This is coordinated."

It must be hilarious to watch Beck play Risk. So it's fine when a bunch of Anglo-Saxon slave-owning farmers demand independence from the tax-and-spend British Empire, but when brown-skinned Muslims take to the streets, tired of their president-for-life and 30% unemployment, it's a radical fundamentalist-progressive conspiracy (if you could get those two camps to conspire together, you would be a master negotiator). All his paranoid talk about the Islamist insurrection spreading across the Mideast and even penetrating Europe is basically McCarthyism 2.0. We later found out that Cold War commies had a really tough time getting along, much less unite and overthrow the capitalist pigs. Does Beck really think that a unified Muslim caliphate will suddenly form across dozens of nations, ethnic groups, sects, etc. in order to destroy us? Even the Muslims in tiny Palestine can't get along. Yes when you dare to let people determine their own destinies, sometimes the results are not to your liking. But that doesn't mean that the worst-case scenario will occur every damn time. This is not an easy situation for the US and other Western powers, and maybe inaction is better than intervention (even on the side of "liberty") and possible backlash from our perceived meddling.

I think El Baradei ruffled a lot of feathers at FOX when he compared the Muslim Brotherhood's influence in Egyptian politics to that of the Evangelicals in the US. I'd probably go further and say that the Evangelicals are more of a threat to Western democracy.

But it is interesting how the Egypt situation is creating a rift among conservatives:

It was never entirely clear how the right's support for political freedom in the Muslim world meshed with its overwhelming contempt for Muslim people... an interesting divide is opening up on the right. On one side are those who actually took all that democracy stuff seriously. On the other are those who see the Muslim world only as an enemy to be crushed and controlled. With a Republican primary approaching, it remains to be seen which view of Middle Eastern policy will triumph among conservatives. 


Not surprisingly, the politicians closest to the religious right have been the quickest to side with Mubarak... At least some neoconservatives, meanwhile, have shown an admirable consistency, urging support for Egypt's demonstrators. Michael Rubin of the AEI, for example, wrote a piece for Forbes.com headlined "The U.S. Should Not Fear Regime Change." 


This highlights an interesting difference of opinion between neoconservatives and conservative Israelis, who are often thought to move in lockstep. "Israelis aren't on board on the democracy game," says Rubin. "They'd much rather rely on aging dictators to keep things quiet. They're perfectly happy selling out Lebanon to Syria, and perfectly happy selling out the Egyptian people to Hosni Mubarak."

- Michelle Goldberg

Controversy over the Tiger Mother

Maybe you guys have heard about this recent parenting memoir from a Chinese-American law prof at Yale who tried to raise her two daughters in the traditional, strict Chinese way. Here is an excerpt:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html

So of course the descriptions of verbal abuse and hours of forced piano practice rubbed many the wrong way, and Chua felt the need to explain herself on various interview shows: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201101201000. She comes across as very open-minded and compassionate, the exact opposite tone of her WSJ piece.

I have not read her book, but the WSJ article suggests that the point of it is to promote the "Chinese way" of raising kids with obscene academic expectations (A- = F, get to Carnegie Hall or Harvard or both) and draconian rules (no TV, no sleepovers, no extra-curriculars except piano or violin, which they will have to practice 3 hrs/day even during vacations). Even the title, "Why Chinese Mothers are Superior" says it all. Chua's argument is basically Western parents spoil and coddle too much (maybe true), and if they truly love their kids, it behooves them to push them to excel and give them tools to survive in the cruel world, rather than constantly tolerating or even praising mediocrity and lack of direction. Previous emails have touched on this, and i think she has a point. But clearly the opposite extreme is not healthy either, and since many of us are children of Asian immigrants, we know that excessive micromanaging, criticism, and such may push us to get over the hump and into a good college, but may also end up damaging the parent-child relationship thereafter.

http://www.pacificcitizen.org/site/details/tabid/55/selectmoduleid/373/ArticleID/490/reftab/36/Default.aspx?title=The_Growing_Rate_of_Depression,_Suicide_Among_Asian_American_Students_

There are plenty of anecdotes of Asian-Americans grateful for their strict parents now that they have gone to MIT or become successful surgeons. These stories are counterbalanced by many alienated or strained family relationships, and worse tragedies. The incidence of depression and suicide among Asian-heritage students is higher than other races in America, and it's even worse in nations like India, Korea, and China with a super-competitive college preparatory process. I think Cho who killed all those people at Virginia Tech was raised very strictly and always told by his Asian immigrant parents that he wasn't good enough, and a failure compared to his older sister who went to the Ivy League. There's no point pushing a kid too far. You can't let your kid be a lazy slacker in life (well I guess you can, but there are consequences for that too), but there has to be a middle ground. 

So long story short, the WSJ article created a parenting buzz, the blogosphere lit up, and Chua was blitzed with mostly negative feedback. She then engaged in damage-control PR mode, claiming that WSJ chose that inflammatory title without her knowledge or permission, and her eldest 18-year-old daughter felt the need to write to the WSJ and defend her mother. Chua's explanation is that the book is exaggerating and satirical (half of the mean things she wrote about doing to her kids never actually happened), and that theme comes out if you read it, so the WSJ piece was taken out of context. In fact, after some resistance she finally let her kids volunteer, hang out with friends, and play tennis instead of piano. She says that she has a great, loving relationship with her kids, they've had many fun leisure times together, and they are not traumatized introverts or whatnot. Her book was meant to be a cautionary tale, as her journey climaxed in a big fight with her younger, more resistant daughter who finally told Chua that she had it. Chua realized that piano wasn't as important as losing her child, so she relented and vowed to change. So all the talk about the verbal abuse and forced practicing was a snapshot into the "bad mom" before she saw the light. That is all fair and good, but then why publish the misleading and limited WSJ piece? If I have one page to entice readers and give a glimpse of my relationship with my family, I probably wouldn't focus on the worst times.

Maybe it was just a strategic (and apparently successful) piece of marketing. She usually writes about foreign policy legal issues, so this was her first foray into pop literature. So why not make a big splash, ruffle feathers, and get people talking about a previously unknown?

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/blogs/the_angle/2011/01/amy_chua_manipu.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed6

But then what is her point? She claims to want to fight stereotypes about Asian parents, yet she writes a semi-fictional book with silly discipline stories that perpetuate some stereotypes? And without a disclaimer or explanatory note, how is the reader to really know what is factual? I didn't read the book so maybe her intentions would be clearer if i did, but humor and sarcasm are subjective and can be misinterpreted in print (I would know). I really took Chua's WSJ comments to be literal at first because I do know of real Asian parents who do things like that (no dinner if the kid gets an A-, hit them with a stick if they miss a note during piano practice, never saying good job or I love you, etc.), so I didn't know if she was mocking or promoting those tactics. I guess she tried some of it herself, so she must have bought into the approach, but later realized that she had to change. Unless she just wants to start a controversy and attract attention to boost sales, I don't know why she wrote the book in that manner. Just stick to the history, don't exaggerate to make a point. It's a memoir, there doesn't have to be an agenda.

Some Asian women have said that the last part of the book (where Chua and her younger daughter Lulu are really falling out) made them cry. So there is a good story arc there with conflict and redemption, but why not stick with that and dispense with the distracting exaggeration, parental politics, and ethnic-baiting at the beginning? She tried to do what she thought was best for her kids, she tried to love them in the best way she knew how, which was the strict example from her Chinese parents. And it worked for her apparently - she is a Yale prof, but so is her husband who grew up in a liberal, relaxed Jewish household, so there are many ways to nurture success and a kid's future is not 100% determined by parenting. She even attempted to train her dogs in the "Chinese way," and it failed miserably: "Don't you want them to realize their potential?" she asked her husband (OK, that is good humor to include). But later she realized that she didn't have it all figured out and had to change when she and Lulu had a breakdown. That is a great message for families of any race struggling with many of the same issues. Who wouldn't want to hear their mom admit that she was wrong? Why not put some of that in the WSJ? It would have made her look more reasonable and human instead of a psycho. But I guess her kids did accuse her of being that from time to time. They're already rich, why do they need to create a shit-storm around the book for sales? No one likes to get racist hate-mail all day saying they're a cold bitch. So basically, I think the controversy is not helpful to advance the discussion on good parenting and multiculturalism.


--------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html

http://resistracism.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/p-s-you-suck/ 

As I am considering starting a family, my biggest fear is to get caught up in this competitive BS. My top goal would be to raise a kid who has good values and who respects him/herself and others. Someone who makes a positive difference and be a better person than I was. The last thing the world needs is another selfish, competitive jerk. I don't know how Chua's kids are in terms of manners, personality, morals. But for the successful peers I know who were raised by super strict Asian parents (who think A- = F), I find them to be shallow, narrow-minded, uninteresting, uncaring people when they were kids and as adults. All they know how to do is obey and study. It's almost like a hollow person. I don't want that for my kid.

So what if they don't win awards or go to Harvard? That is not the measure of a person's worth. Of course you want to equip kids to be able to survive in this cruel world (for all the advantages I had growing up, I am struggling now just to make ends meet and keep a job). You want to help your kids survive, but not at the cost of their soul and their honor. I'd rather my kid be happy going to San Jose State than pushing and fighting and being someone they're not just to get into Yale. All the religions talk about humility, living a balanced life, and putting others before you. It is totally opposite to be a crazy parent like Chua pushing their kids to be the best.

What is the point of being an expert in a musical instrument these days anyway? Either the kid is a prodigy or not, you can't "create" a Mozart. If a kid needs 3 hrs/day to be good at piano, maybe it's not what they were destined to do? I know practice makes perfect, but even very good musicians can't make a living doing that. Maybe it will help them get into an elite college, but think of all those hours Chua's kids have spent practicing those old symphonies. I'd rather teach my kids economics, computer programming, and more practical stuff. Even better, I'd rather they spend time VOLUNTEERING to help others (you can also put than on resume), or just reading and learning about the world. The more kids know, the better decisions they will make in life.

I think the kid who killed all those people at Virginia Tech was raised very strictly and always told by his Korean immigrant parents that he wasn't good enough, and a failure compared to his older sister who went to the Ivy League. There's no point pushing a kid too far. You can't let your kid be a lazy slacker in life, but there has to be a middle ground.

I'm sure you are familiar with the term "helicopter parent". This psychological study thinks that the emergence of helicopter parents in the US, but not in Canada, is due to the vast inequality in our colleges. In Canada, there are good and not-so-good schools too, but the difference is meager. Parenting is a lot more relaxed up there, and the kids turn out fine. In the US, your career prospects are so much different if you have a Harvard vs. a Chico State degree. And this fuels the ridiculous industry of trying to give kids every possible tutoring and extra-curricular and advantage or they will be "left behind". It's an interesting topic though. I am not a parent so I can't claim to know anything about what works and what doesn't, but I know that many parents go too far and miss the big picture. Do they push their kids out of love, or is it for their own egos and insecurities?

http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/03/23/helicopter-moms-sacrifice-self-for-kids/12322.html

Here's another longer article on the subject: http://nymag.com/news/features/67024/

--------

Interview with Amy Chua: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201101201000

I found her interview very interesting, and I feel bad that I jumped to so many negative conclusions about Chua - but she didn't help herself with the bad press and lack of clarification on her part.

She is basically deflecting all the controversy about her book by saying that the book was taken out of context: definitely not a how-to guide for parenting, nor a promotion that the Chinese style of parenting is best. She admits that there is a lot of variation in parenting among Chinese, as well as other cultures who adopt the "Chinese style".

She is saying that half of the mean things she claimed to do to her kids never happened, and a lot of her writing is meant to be exaggerating and satirical. But you'd think that if Chua really just wanted to write a semi-fictional satirical memoir, there would be some sort of explanatory note in the book so it wouldn't be misinterpreted, as she is saying it is.

Chua said that the Chinese style wasn't working with her youngest, more resistant daughter, and it got to the point where she decided to change, because she feared losing her daughter after they had a big fight. Eventually Chua let her quit the violin and do tennis instead to be happier, because discipline without love is a recipe for disaster. So this book was meant to be a journey explaining some mistakes she made and the parenting lessons she learned. Her claims that A- is failure was an exaggeration, although all of us know parents who feel like that. Her message is that Western parents may have too low expectations, and are too quick to accept mediocre performance from their kids (maybe except for sports, where Western parents go crazy about football and Asians don't care). I guess Chua just wanted to make sure that her kids gave max effort and realized their potential. That is reasonable, but what do you do when the kids are not living up to your expectations - how do you motivate improvement without anger, threats, etc.?

I really took Chua's comments to be literal at first because I do know of real Asian parents who do things like that (no dinner if the kid gets an A-, hit them with a stick if they miss a note during piano practice, never saying good job or I love you, etc.), so I didn't know if she was mocking or promoting those tactics. I guess she tried them herself, so she must have bought into the approach, but later realized that she had to change. But unless she just wants to start a controversy and attract attention to boost sales, I don't know why she wrote the book in that manner. Just stick to the history, don't exaggerate to make a point. I didn't read the book so maybe her intentions would be clearer if i did, but the excerpt in the Wall St. Journal was taken out of context and it made it look like she was promoting harsh Chinese parenting. She says that WSJ did this without her knowledge, and even her eldest daughter wrote an op-ed defending her mom in the same paper.

Like in the interview, if she also communicated to the audience that she felt that her family was still a loving household, she currently has a good relationship with her kids, and that she hit bottom, doubted herself, and eventually relented, it would have made her look more reasonable and human instead of a psycho. But I guess her kids did accuse her of being that from time to time.

AZ Shooting: shut up, Palin

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20110112/pl_politico/47477_1
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/10/132801364/arizona-gun-laws-among-most-lenient-in-u-s

Maybe you have heard about Palin's TV response to the AZ massacre and how she thinks the liberal media is supposedly blaming the political right and right-wing media for it all. First, Palin is not and should not be a spokesperson for our social consciousness, nor for all conservatives (half of whom oppose her running for any major public office). Just because you are famous doesn't mean we care about what you have to say. She's a celebrity, not a commentator.

Second, will the GOP ever get over their infallibility and persecution complex? Nixon was not a crook, Bush never made a mistake, and now Palin can't even shut her mouth. Yes, when a centrist Dem gets shot in the head by someone who was only able to do so because of loose laws imposed by the gun lobby and its GOP supporters, of course the first thing I think of is, "Oh those poor Republicans." Can they ever just be gracious, or at the very least shut the hell up if they have nothing useful to add? No one directly blames Palin et al. for what that deranged shooter did. But when she was responsible for 2010 campaign ads that showed gun cross-hairs targeting Rep. Gifford's district, at the very least she could have apologized to the victims for such inappropriate imagery, and caution others to not follow that example. Many other Republicans have called for restraint, toning down rhetoric, and cooperation in order to promote healing during this difficult time. But I guess that's too much for the Momma Bear.

Third, I find it insulting that Palin spent most of that drawn-out TV spot defending the First Amendment and freedom of expression. Considering the context, is she trying to defend the right to voice political extremism? Now is not the time to politicize a tragedy, especially when she is accusing the left of doing so already. I suppose the killer was trying to express himself too with his atrocious actions. We may have the right to say stupid, offensive, inflammatory things, but that doesn't mean we should celebrate it while a victim of possible political extremism is still clinging for life. And if I recall, it was the GOP that keep saying dissent against Bush and his wars was unpatriotic (Palin wasn't really part of that conversation in 2001-2004, but I'm sure she wasn't speaking out in defense of GOP opponents' right to protest). Well, everything changes once your party loses power.

For argument's sake, what if the shooter was an ultra-liberal, or a MUSLIM, and the victim was Glen Beck or John Boehner? Can you imagine the reaction from Palin and the right? Would their defense of free expression, and belief that the shooter was not politically influenced, still hold? All this makes me sick.

------

Sorry, below is my "politicization" of the recent tragedy now. I am not blaming anyone for what happened, but I am merely arguing that it was potentially preventable if our leaders made different decisions. Plus I don't speak to an audience of millions, so I should be able to get away with more than Palin does.

Yes, Palin was correct that we Americans enjoy more political freedom than most humans today and throughout history, and despite that, political violence is exceedingly rare on our soil (I realize that the tragedy of this weekend has not been definitively classified as political, but the attack was not random and Giffords is a public official). Our fairly clean track record in recent history (excluding Kent State, Blair Mountain, etc.) is a testament to the strength and wisdom of our system. But one may argue that this shooting may have never occurred if the political vitriol of the past few years was not so nasty, and the dysfunctional Congress was able to pass or at least seriously discuss immigration, budgetary, and economic reforms. People in AZ and elsewhere are under a lot of stress from this long recession borne of greed and political irresponsibility, tired of bickering fools on the TV, and those living on our southern border are also very upset about the immigration impasse that affects their security and other aspects of their daily lives. Maybe the accused didn't care about any of that, but if America took better care of its finances (don't engage in wars you can't pay for) and cared more about improving quality of life for citizens (instead of giving tax breaks to the rich), maybe there would have been more opportunities and support services available for that individual to seek help instead of resorting to violence.

Or maybe in a nation with millions of guns in circulation (many which are not accounted for due to NRA resistance to gun tracking) and millions of disturbed people (many of whom are not monitored due to logistics and privacy), things like this are bound to happen now and then, even if we had a perfectly harmonious society. After all, in one-party-system, dissent-snuffing China, people stabbed and killed innocent school kids also. School shootings took place in Finland, ranked by Newsweek to be the best country in the world for having a productive, healthy, happy life. In fact, to me it's kind of amazing that tragedies like Tucson and VA Tech are not more frequent. More people die in America from auto accidents and Rx drug abuse/misuse than from gunshots if you can believe (http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201101070900). So these acts of violence can't just be attributed to violent video games, angry political rhetoric, or problems at home. There are unfortunately just random and chance components.

Among a certain population of people who have access to weapons, there are going to be a few who are willing to use them on their fellow man. Their motives may vary a lot, which makes it very hard to prevent them from harming others. Since the Tucson and VT shooters were both students (or recently students), now there's debate on whether to monitor for warning signs and force young people to seek help. Well, the VT shooter was seen for his mental issues and it didn't prevent his rampage. Surely it could have been handled better, but now are we supposed to turn each other in the minute we start to exhibit depressive, withdrawn symptoms? Educators estimate that amazingly one fourth of all college students exhibit some manifestations of mental illness or are on behavioral medication (http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201101120900). Student-vs-student murders have taken place from MIT to community college, and the weapons, student backgrounds, and circumstances have varied. Preventing an Al Qaeda attack is much easier in comparison, with far fewer variables.

So if we can't identify and prevent attackers, then we have to control the weapons, right? I know that the gun lobby is one of the most powerful in America, but if the government was able to break up Standard Oil, put a man on the moon, and freely give rights to minorities and women, it is possible. There is really no 2nd Amendment justification for high-capacity magazines and they should be prohibited (they were used during Columbine, VT, Tucson, and probably many other cases). Congress may take this up this term, but it will be an uphill battle. Fewer bullets mean fewer victims, and on the bright side for gun enthusiasts, it will encourage them to become better marksmen to make every shot count. Also, if we need licenses to drive cars, we should require certification to possess guns (basic competency, safety awareness, mental health). If employers make workers pass credit checks and drug tests, then the same should apply for gun buyers. We're just trying to protect ourselves and make sure only trustworthy people are armed. Even these measures won't prevent every attack, but it may help.

-------

I know what you mean. It's like when a coach fires up his players that we hate rival team X, they're a bunch of no-good punks, they're trash, let's kill 'em. When one of his riled up players pulls cheap shot in the game and sends a guy to the hospital, the coach can't just throw his hands up and say he never told him to do that. If you incite, you're partly responsible.

But for AZ, I am not sure if it's even established that he knows anything about Palin or watches FNC. He had some history with Giffords going back some years, so maybe it was just a personal obsession rather than a blind targeting of liberals or elected officials. After all, he killed a judge and a kid and others totally unaffiliated with politics, but maybe by then he was just berserk.

Those yahoos who interrupt town hall meetings or shout epithets at Obama and such are more likely directly influenced by right-wing media, but as far as I know they haven't really engaged in political violence. Maybe there were some assassination plots vs. Obama that we don't know about, but I'm not sure what to make of it.

-------

Just some updates on the AZ shooting story:

Apparently Loughner did say that he admired Palin and the Tea Party on some social media. He also liked Das Kapital and Mein Kampf, so like most semi-ignorant rebellious college-age kids (like I was), he's a bit politically confused. I think he distrusted government/establishment and viewed them as the enemy (yet he tried to enlist in the military?). It's too bad that he manifested his feelings on Gifford, who really contributes very little to government injustice. I guess this is a fairly common portrait of a paranoid schizo, unfortunately. Interestingly, some classmates thought of Loughner as a liberal pothead, but that was subjective of course.

FYI, the GOP opponent that Giffords ran against (and defeated) in Nov., Jesse Kelly, held a campaign event where he let supporters fire an automatic rifle, and used language like "targeting Giffords". Not sure if Loughner knew about it, but apparently people were ok with that type of campaigning until this weekend. Palin has also used gun references like "Don't retreat, reload". I have no idea what that means politically, but I doubt that she does either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11district.html

I was wrong about conservatives/Teabaggers not being violent. Here is a local case with circumstantial evidence linking Fox News to political violence:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/07/21/oakland_police_shooting_beck_tides

Apparently Glen Beck has often railed against the leftist Tides Foundation (I've never heard of them until this week, but apparently they are on Professor Beck's famous blackboard of the liberal conspiracy). So one of his listeners (Byron Williams of rural Groveland, CA near Yosemite) was on his way to SF to shoot up the ACLU and Tides buildings in July, but was stopped by Oakland PD and got in a firefight with them instead (he had body armor and several guns). Beck had referenced Tides 5 days before the Williams shooting. I know it's not causal, but we invaded Iraq with less.

From Salon:

Williams' mother Janice told a local ABC affiliate her son often became angry watching TV news and "[h]e feels the people of this country are being raped by our government and politicians." She told the San Francisco Chronicle that Byron Williams was also upset at "the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items." 

If Williams was indeed motivated by anger at the government -- and it's important to note that police still haven't commented on motive -- then this is, by our count, the third recent case of people angry at the government or the Obama Administration opening fire on police. The other two cases share some strands with the Williams case (bullet-proof vests, lots of guns, traffic stops), but they resulted in the deaths of several police officers.

In April 2009, 22-year-old Richard Poplawski allegedly opened fire on police who responded to a 911 call from Poplawski's mother. Poplawski, who was wearing a bullet-proof vest and was armed with an assault rifle and two other guns, survived the ensuing four-hour gun battle -- but three police officers were killed. His friends said he feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon."

This past May, Jerry Kane and his teenage son Joe opened fire on police, killing two officers, when  after they were pulled over on the highway in West Memphis, Arkansas. Kane and his son, who were killed by police later that day, traveled the country giving debt-elimination seminars based on an anti-government theory that all bank loans and modern finance are fundamentally illegitimate. Kane had also complained about being stopped at a "Nazi checkpoint" in New Mexico and fantasized about beating up IRS agents.

Let's say the GOP held Washington, and right-wing media was in defense mode rather than attack. Then if McCain implemented the exact same policies as Obama/Pelosi (and he certainly would have done some), would we still have these incidents from angry conservative people ostensibly fighting gov. tyranny? If the answer is no, then we could arguably conclude the right-wing media and hateful political rhetoric led to violent acts against the police and innocent citizens. What's terribly sad is that the shooters were mad at government and Obama on false pretenses. I am not sure if FNC ever alluded to Obama taking our guns, but if they did (likely) then they are contributing to misinformation that led to deaths. If, without evidence, you tell a deranged person that the government is spying on him, and he gets all paranoid and shoots the postman, you are on the hook right? I know there are free speech considerations, but where do you draw the line?