Rhetoric didn’t pull the trigger in Tucson. That, most people have come to agree upon.
So what did?
That’s the question those who’ve extricated themselves from the rhetoric debate have been focusing on in the past few days: what in Jared Lee Loughner’s head, home, city, or past contributed to his decision to shoot Congresswoman Giffords and so many others last Saturday.
The best reporting on that question has come from the diggers—those reporters who’ve gone into records from Pima Community College, for example, and found a troubling history of instances which hint at an as yet unproven mental illness. Or those like Chris Cillizza, who reported that Loughner was once a registered independent, and brought some clarity to the initial political blame game that followed the weekend shooting. Yet these are all fragments from which to speculate until the picture fills out.
Time’s Maia Szalavits tries to enhance our picture of Loughner in a post titled “Politics, Parenting, Pot or Psychosis: What Caused the Arizona Shootings.”
It’s an interesting run-through of issues which seem to be increasingly germane to any discussion of Loughner—the relationship between schizophrenia and violence, the role that smoking pot may play in exacerbating that, or not. But ultimately we are left with just more questions as complications crowd and prevent simple connections being drawn.
And just to make things even more complicated, there’s another factor that contributes not just to the risk for violence, but to the risk for both addiction and schizophrenia. That’s child abuse and childhood exposure to traumatic violence. Although we don’t know much about Loughner’s childhood, a neighbor told the New York Times that Loughner’s father is “very aggressive.”
That paragraph hints at some of the frustration inherent in trying to piece together the reasons behind a tragedy like Arizona—there are always more factors, and we only have the vaguest of evidence (“a neighbor said”) to hint at which factors might be relevant. Still, it is good to ask, and prod, as at the very least these seem to be the right questions to be struggling with as the reporting becomes clearer.
In other corners, though, questions are becoming distractions, feeding a hunger for more Loughner tidbits, and more “analysis,” while adding next to no value in our understanding of his person or motivations. This certainly seems to be the case with reporting on Loughner’s high school girlfriend, Kelsey Hawkes, who spoke exclusively to British tabloid the Daily Mail for a story headlined “‘Our high school love split tipped gun killer over edge’: Childhood sweetheart of Jared Loughner speaks of his descent into madness.” It asks—and then answer in the affirmative—did heartbreak make the monster?
Hawkes is quoted:
Speaking exclusively to the Daily Mail, Miss Hawkes, 21, said: ‘My breaking up with him was not the cause of him going off the rails but it was definitely the start of it.
‘Something changed in him, he was not the same person when I told him it was over. ‘I remember his face clearly—he just looked like he had nothing to live for. It was my first relationship and it was his first relationship.
From there, Loughner allegedly began drinking and taking drugs. Interestingly, another friend tells Mother Jones that Loughner stopped partying completely in 2008, quitting smoking and pot for a healthy lifestyle, and after that, “he was just off the wall.” We’re left with speculation, some he said then she said, and not much more of value.
But we expect that from the Mail. More troubling are reports like this eyeball-snatching post on the Daily Beast today, which asks if the legal drug salvia divinorum had anything to do with the shooting. The question arises from an ABC News Radio report, in which a one-time friend says that Loughner had used the drug following the breakup. You may have heard of salvia—it was the drug Miley Cyrus was caught smoking, the Daily Beast reminds us in the precede, and again in the body of the text.

Over the holidays C-Span ran a very interesting interview with the director of the documentary Terror in Mumbai. They discovered recordings which document that the Mumbai shooters were in fact directed, via cell phone, by someone else in a remote location to commit the rampage as it was happening. The language used was cajoling and ideological. The director talked about how much work they did, with some distance from the events, to find clear links to someone else's influence on their violence. Meaning, the AZ shooting likely has none of those features---but if it did, it might look more like Mumbai. And it's unlikely the full story can be told properly in less than seven days from the event.
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Documenting-the-Mumbai-Terror-Attacks/10737418307/
On Sunday, our guest on Q&A is Dan Reed, director and producer of the documentary film “Terror in Mumbai.”
The film is about the terror attacks in Mumbai, India, on Nov. 26, 2008, when over 175 people were killed and at least 300 wounded. Reed tells the story using security camera video, actual intercepted telephone calls from the killers and their handlers, and interviews with survivors.
Mr. Reed discusses the process of making the film, the different people involved, and how it differs from many other documentaries. Dan Reed has been a freelance producer and director since 1998. Some of his previous films include “Terror in Moscow,” “The 9/11 Liars,” and his feature film “Straightheads.”
#1 Posted by MB, CJR on Thu 13 Jan 2011 at 04:37 PM
I know, I know.
Nevermind.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/being-tutsi.html
Don't' bother.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/26813/americans_believe_hussein_was_involved_in_9_11/
Just because a paranoid guy with weird obsessions about currency must have heard something about Obama's deficits and how the democrats were destroying the dollar and the economy as part of a socialist conspiracy, because that talk is everywhere - especially in tea party hardy Arizona, we can't assume the general speech somehow inspired a psycho to shoot a democrat in the head.
And we can't assume that radio created a culture in which Tutsi's were considered cockroaches to be exterminated. Coincidental genocide.
And we can't assume that high percentages of America's population were influenced to believe Saddam was involved in 9-11 just because pundits and presidents used the two in sentences together frequently.
We can't assume hate and fear rhetoric was responsible for this one rampage, so therefore the only sane response is to excuse all of it. It must have been Saliva or his high school sweetheart that inspired his obsession with currency and his urge to shoot a democrat in the head. Didn't he say that he considered Giffords to be a big phony? I blame Catcher in the Rye. There, that will get me published.
Pathetic.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 13 Jan 2011 at 06:38 PM
I know! Let's blame Richard Linklater!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yJE1iiO0qI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2viaW0xMMKA
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 13 Jan 2011 at 07:09 PM
All of a sudden, every political journalist in the US has become a psychiatrist, diagnosing the clinical, serious mental illness of schizophrenia by anecdote. Interesting. Bill Frist has nothing on these guys.
I posit that developing the narrative that the guy was "schizophrenic" based on no medical evaluation whatsoever helps journos make sense of this senseless act, and allows them to deny and smooth over the arguments against extreme, eliminationist rhetoric that dominates on the right side of the aisle these days, and allows them their pious, finger-wagging false equivalence without troubling themselves for any broader, deeper insight into the toxic politics in our country.
I grant that by all accounts, the guy has been acting bizarrely. As the parent of a daughter who has been (actually medically) diagnosed with schizophrenia, I feel for the guy's family as well as the victims and their families. For my daughter, a team of actual psychiatrists, psychologists, mental health nurses, and social workers made the diagnosis after a period of careful observation, assessment, and evaluation. So I'm really impressed that every cheap journo and pundit in Washington can do for free what this fine team of mental health experts took several months and a great deal of expertise to do.
But riddle me this. In the moments just before 19 people were mowed down by a guy carrying an automatic weapon in Tucson, how would you tell the difference between Jared Loughner and this guy and this guy? Is there really any difference there? Is obsession with carrying semi-automatic weapons around in public just as bizarre as obsession with linguistics and the gold standard? I say yes.
#4 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 13 Jan 2011 at 10:57 PM
Here's an actual psychologist and neuroscientist:
http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Drew_Westen_092425C7-C168-41C6-A44B-075518A8FE6C.html
"As a psychologist, I find it remarkable that we’re having this discussion at all, especially in light of both the weight scientists put on prediction – Gabby Giffords’ own interview at the Capitol during the election when she warned that Palin putting people like her in the crosshairs has “consequences”— and what we know about what neuroscientists call priming, the influence of a prior stimulus on a later reaction, usually unconsciously.
Do we really believe that physician George Tiller’s assassination by a radical Christian jihadist was totally random, casually unrelated to Bill O’Reilly’s constant reference to “Tiller the Killer”? The terrorist who killed Dr. Tiller had over 300 million other targets and chose this one...
the entire culture of the right has become a culture of vitriol that includes the idea of using bullets if ballots fail, and it is not equivalent to Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow pointing that out and attacking that for its dangerousness — a false symmetry perpetrated by the media attempting to be “fair and balanced.”
Our political culture now countenances paranoid personalities with low IQs, poor self-restraint, and absolute conviction in their ideas — and in the evil of those who disagree with them — to “lock and load” on their way to Congress, whether as a member or as a bully with a guy outside town hall meetings. And our media no longer call them out for either being unstable or ignorant... Sarah Palin is only the tip of an iceberg, and you can see fanaticism and fascism from her porch."
You should probably ignore that. It doesn't mention he was a registered independent who used marijuana before shooting a democrat, and her assumed supporters in the crowd, in the head. What does a real psychologist know about crazy people anyways.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 13 Jan 2011 at 11:22 PM
Don't watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f29kF1vZ62o
It has nothing to do with Arizona and the Democrat who got shot in the head.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 13 Jan 2011 at 11:27 PM
All this searching for motives, and "soul-searching," smacks of a horrendous double standard.
Question: What motivates "al qaeda" and other "Islamic extremists" to commit suicide attacks against U.S. targets?
Answer: Don't be silly. The news media are not supposed to ask THAT question.
Question: Is that because the "soul-searching" might reveal the MSM's failure to adequately expose the U.S. govt's unconstitutional, economy-draining, mass-murderous, dictatorship-empowering, imperial policies these past, oh, 10–110 years?
Answer: Of course not. They hate us for MTV and Big Macs. They are self-radicalized, by Islam, to commit un-Islamic violence. Islam must be reformed (at gunpoint). Democracy! Freedom! Now move along, folks (after we strip search you).
#7 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 13 Jan 2011 at 11:28 PM
Some muslims are radicalized because of Israel, some are radicalized because of American presence in their holy zones (Saudi Arabia for instance), but many are radicalized because they have nothing, corrupt governments that are supported by the world community give them nothing while they perch themselves on gold plated toilets, and the social gap becomes filled by religious organizations who educate and provide charity to the people.
The education may come in the form of the madrassa and the charity may come in the form of arms and weapons, but that is the result of the policy choices we've chosen.
But, judging from this latest incident, we should not conclude that a madrassa has a radicalizing influence. Those radical muslims probably did drugs and broke up with their high school sweethearts and "Death to America" is just their way of expressing pain over unrelated things.
They're irrational people.
You can't blame mullahs for the actions of irrational people.
These dirty accusations against Osama Bin Limbaugh really ought to stop. It's a blame game you're playing.
And from what I can see, being shot in the head means you lose.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 13 Jan 2011 at 11:52 PM
No doubt, Thimbles.
BTW, I tried to respond to your comment on another post ("Room For Debate?"), but kept getting denied by a "CGIWrap error."
Anyway, for what it's worth, here's that response:
=============================================
Thanks for the hat-tip, Thimbles.
"As Dan A points out, if Ron Paul can do it, and he's admired by many for doing so, why can't the rest of them?"
Perhaps this is why: "The reality to which increasing numbers of people are becoming aware, is that politics is a violent and corrupt racket that functions on generating fears among those to be ruled. Politicians and other government officials are attracted to political careers not because they want to serve others, but because they have their own visions of what would be 'good' for such others, and desire the power to enforce by violence — which is the essence of every government — their expectations."
Ron Paul, a "righty" (and, e.g., Glenn Greenwald, a "lefty"), defies the partisan stereotype because he consistently promotes and defends moral and constitutional principles and ideals: life, liberty, peace, prosperity, non-aggression, non-intervention, anti-warfare, decentralization, anti-imperialism. He knows, from studying the historical record and contemporary events, that "war is the health of the State," and that it is not so much The Right v The Left as it is The State v You and Me.
"Nobody is calling for restriction of speech freedoms except for the guys who are walking around with their guns holstered ..."
I wouldn't say "nobody . . . except." But, if you are referring to "the guys" in the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, the FDA, the DHS, FEMA, Blackwater/Xe, the Pentagon, the FedGov in general, the Tuscon Sheriff's Dept., and the like, then I concur in that regard.
================================================
(What the heck is a "CGIWrap error" anyway?)
#9 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 14 Jan 2011 at 12:39 AM
I think Jared Loughner Needs to DIE!
#10 Posted by Tabitha Hicky, CJR on Fri 14 Jan 2011 at 02:29 PM
Yeah Dan, I know what you mean. I've lost a couple of posts to the caps "html head missing CGI wrap" put in their a**. I suspected it might have been a filter problem (as in me, I'm the problem) but know I think it's a technical issue.
CGI is totally gangsta.
Speaking of the problem that is me.
"Rhetoric didn’t pull the trigger in Tucson. That, most people have come to agree upon.
So what did?"
I think the question is why can't a Matt Bai loving journalist offer truly insightful analysis like the Tabbi piece here?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/the-giffords-tragedy-is-the-media-partly-at-fault-20110110
Why don't you try that approach sometime. Readers appreciate knowledgeable honesty a lot more than the washington common wisdom BS you made above.
Just a thought.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 14 Jan 2011 at 09:38 PM
Here's a journalist's approach, as a mental illness expert about a mental illness incident. What do you get?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/mental_illness_expert_we_shoul.html
"A leading expert in mental illness tells me that asking whether the Arizona shooter's violent behavior might have been partly triggered by the nation's political climate is a wholly appropriate line of inquiry -- even if the shooter is found to be insane.
"It's a reasonable question to ask," Dr. Marvin Swartz, a psychiatry professor at Duke University who specializes in how environment impacts the behavior of the mentally ill, said in an interview this morning. "The nature of someone's delusions is affected by culture. It's a reasonable line of inquiry to ask, `How does a political culture affect the content of people's delusions?'"
Dr. Swartz's assessment goes directly to the heart of the raging debate over the shooting between right and left. Conservatives have pointed out that Jared Loughner is deeply disturbed, and that there's no connection between his violent behavior and the current political climate -- whether it be violent imagery, eliminationist rhetoric, references to armed revolution or secession, or hints that the political opposition is illegitimate...
"We know the manifestation of mental illness is affected by cultural factors," Dr. Swartz said. "One's cultural context does effect people's thinking and particularly their delusions. It gives some content and shape to their delusions. While we don know whether there was a specific relationship between the political climate that he was exposed to and his thinking, it's a reasonable line of inquiry to explore."
Of course there may be something to this washington journalist analysis:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/political-pundits-surprisingly-good-at-getting-ins,18817/
"According to media analysts, the nation's TV commentators and political pundits have proved uncannily accurate when describing the deeply disturbed inner thoughts of accused Arizona gunman Jared Loughner. "It's strange, but when it comes to getting inside the mind of this human being who seems to possess no empathy, sense of morality, or hold on reality, and who is motivated only by personal animus and self-glorification, the nation's major political pundits have been amazingly adept," said Horizon Media analyst Bob Cullen, who has studied extensive tape of commentators on all major TV news programs and found their remarks on "what the killer is thinking" to be consistently thorough and detailed across the board."
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 17 Jan 2011 at 06:32 PM
By the by, I submitted the above twice and the first time I got:
Publish error in template 'Comment Response': Error in tag: Can't find included template module 'HTML Head'
and no post. I've lost comments to this technical difficulty in the past. Anyone know what's up?
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 17 Jan 2011 at 06:37 PM
I get that "HTML Head" message sometimes too. What a drag.
#14 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Tue 18 Jan 2011 at 01:36 AM