Discussion:
[Marxism] Loughner's last close friend said that he ignored TV and talk radio
Louis Proyect
2011-01-12 18:35:45 UTC
Permalink
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/jared-loughner-shooting-at-world-12597553
Jeff Goodwin
2011-01-12 22:38:13 UTC
Permalink
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.
======================================================================
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 at lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/jgoodwin.nyu%40gmail.com
Mark Lause
2011-01-12 23:14:28 UTC
Permalink
I'm astonished that a subject we really don't know anything about is pursued
with such doggedness.

There is no question but that Loughner was very disturbed. Legions of
people are without taking this kind of action.

The question isn't whether the quality of political rhetoric "triggered" the
action, much less "caused" it. It was part of the context in which he acted
and was reasonably a reasonable factor in what made him feel justified to
act.

How and how much these things are not going to be resolved here or in the
media, are they?

ML
Louis Proyect
2011-01-12 23:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Lause
I'm astonished that a subject we really don't know anything about is pursued
with such doggedness.
Yeah, well, I happen to know a whole lot about schizophrenia. I guess
those comrades who know next to nothing feel no qualms about shooting off
their mouth.
Mark Lause
2011-01-13 02:22:49 UTC
Permalink
I, for one, have every appreciation for your expertise in these problems.

I spent time myself tutoring schizophrenics in a half-way house, and found
them often very volatile. Gaining any real trust on any level was hard to
achieve and remarkably easy to lose. But if we're all agreed that Loughner
is a disturbed person, the agreement takes us no closer to understanding why
he would turn to violence in a certain time and space and circumstance....

Put in an entirely different context, nobody really doubts that Charles
Guiteau, the assassin of President James A. Garfield was clearly disturbed,
but that doesn't explain why did what he did when he did it....
Specifically, Guiteau couldn't get a civil service job and was disturbed
enough to take it all very personally. However, that doesn't explain what
created his sense that killing Garfield was justifiable. For that, you have
to look at the context beyond the illness....

But how important this or that feature of the context might be is really
beyond what any of us can know or should be expected to know at this point.

ML
Michael Smith
2011-01-13 02:28:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:22:49 -0500
Post by Mark Lause
But if we're all
agreed that Loughner is a disturbed person, the agreement takes us no
closer to understanding why he would turn to violence in a certain
time and space and circumstance....
Right. Why did Hurricane Katrina happen in 2005 and not 2004? Why did it
hit New Orleans rather than Tampa? There are 'why' questions that have no
answers, apart from very specific and path-dependent contingencies of the
time and place and, in Loughner's case, person.
--
--

Michael J. Smith
mjs at smithbowen.net

http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org
http://www.cars-suck.org
http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com
Mark Lause
2011-01-13 03:23:38 UTC
Permalink
I don't think anybody has actually suggested that Loughner was part of a
secret tea party cabal, did they? Admittedly, I've not followed this
discussion that closely....

Ah, here comes Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> comparing human
behavior--individual human behavior, no less--to natural disasters:

"Why did Hurricane Katrina happen in 2005 and not 2004? Why did it hit New
Orleans rather than Tampa? There are 'why' questions that have no answers,
apart from very specific and path-dependent contingencies of the time and
place and, in Loughner's case, person."

...and

"Thought experiment: if Loughner's congresscritter had been a right-wing
Republican rather than a right-wing Democrat, would s/he have been at less
risk? Anybody out there who feels they can confidently answer this question,
either way?"

Brilliantly persuasive shit....persuasive that I should go do something
useful.....

ML
Louis Proyect
2011-01-13 03:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Lause
I don't think anybody has actually suggested that Loughner was part of a
secret tea party cabal, did they? Admittedly, I've not followed this
discussion that closely....
What I am talking about is communications, either in print or electronic,
that expressed an affinity with the Tea Party. Not membership. Or
corroboration from his friends that he was a "birther" or something like
that. I think that efforts to turn his ruminations on grammar and currency
into evidence that he was a Sarah Palin follower are far outweighed by the
sheer lunacy of his overall observed behavior.
Michael Smith
2011-01-13 05:54:31 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:23:38 -0500
Post by Mark Lause
Ah, here comes Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> comparing human
You missed the point, Mark. Although of course weird human
behavior is a natural disaster in every sense of the term.
Post by Mark Lause
Brilliantly persuasive shit....persuasive that I should go do
something useful.....
I strongly encourage it.
--
--

Michael J. Smith
mjs at smithbowen.net

http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org
http://www.cars-suck.org
http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com
Louis Proyect
2011-01-13 02:28:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Lause
I spent time myself tutoring schizophrenics in a half-way house, and found
them often very volatile. Gaining any real trust on any level was hard to
achieve and remarkably easy to lose. But if we're all agreed that Loughner
is a disturbed person, the agreement takes us no closer to understanding why
he would turn to violence in a certain time and space and circumstance....
I would say that if there was a shred of evidence connecting him with the
Tea Party, then I would say that could go along with the schema
constructed by Gary Younge, Tom Hayden, Paul Krugman and Lenin's Tomb.

But I would say that people who are leaning in that direction better step
back from the precipice unless they want to appear foolish. This latest
item I posted from the NYT that clarified his "anti-abortion" views is a
wake-up call: "He said that the class had been talking about abortion,
which made him think of death, which made him think of suicide bombers,
which made him think of babies as suicide bombers."
Louis Proyect
2011-01-12 23:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Goodwin
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.
That's right. There was premeditation just as there was when Hinckley shot
Reagan. This premeditation will be the excuse that the government uses to
kill him, even if he decided to assassinate Giffords because she was
involved in conspiracy to control his mind through the use of grammar.
Lucky old Hinckley. Nowadays, planning to kill Reagan in order to "impress
Jodie Foster" would have not helped him at all. The prosecution would
establish that he had planning to kill Reagan for months, no matter how
psychotic he was.

I think part of the problem in discussing these matters is that
schizophrenia is a bit of a mystery to most people. Unless you have had a
relative or a friend who suffers from the disease, you really can't make
sense out of what was clearly a very ill individual in this instance.
Marv Gandall
2011-01-12 23:32:45 UTC
Permalink
While there is no clear indication that Loughner was directly influenced by right-wing ideology - it still remains to be seen whether he was or wasn't - there seems little doubt, based on his emails and the testimony of those who knew him, that his rage, confusion, incoherence, virulent misogyny, attraction to guns and the military, dark suicidal thoughts, and immersion in a white community feeling itself under threat from an alien race(s), all fit the profile of the authoritarian personality described by Adorno and others which is typically attracted to right wing causes. I don't believe anyone has gone so far as to describe him as schizophrenic.
Louis Proyect
2011-01-12 23:51:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marv Gandall
While there is no clear indication that Loughner was directly influenced
by right-wing ideology - it still remains to be seen whether he was or
wasn't - there seems little doubt, based on his emails and the testimony
of those who knew him, that his rage, confusion, incoherence, virulent
misogyny, attraction to guns and the military, dark suicidal thoughts, and
immersion in a white community feeling itself under threat from an alien
race(s), all fit the profile of the authoritarian personality described by
Adorno and others which is typically attracted to right wing causes. I
don't believe anyone has gone so far as to describe him as schizophrenic.
Well, I describe him as schizophrenic based on the evidence. So does the
psychiatrist interviewed in Salon.com. I think people have to think less
in terms of Adorno than the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM).

Diagnostic Criteria for Schizophrenia

A. Characteristic symptoms: Two (or more) of the following, each present
for a significant portion of time during a 1-month period (or less if
successfully treated):

* delusions
* hallucinations
* disorganized speech (e.g., frequent derailment or incoherence)
* grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior
* negative symptoms, i.e., affective flattening, alogia, or avolition

Note: Only one Criterion A symptom is required if delusions are bizarre or
hallucinations consist of a voice keeping up a running commentary on the
person's behavior or thoughts, or two or more voices conversing with each
other.

B. Social/occupational dysfunction: For a significant portion of the time
since the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of functioning
such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care are markedly below the
level achieved prior to the onset (or when the onset is in childhood or
adolescence, failure to achieve expected level of interpersonal, academic,
or occupational achievement).
Marv Gandall
2011-01-13 02:49:06 UTC
Permalink
...I describe him as schizophrenic based on the evidence. So does the
psychiatrist interviewed in Salon.com.
So does another psychiatrist interviewed on CNN, but she is not unwilling to take the political context into account:

BLITZER: So what makes a schizophrenic, even a paranoid schizophrenic, become dangerous?

LIPMAN: It isn't even a paranoid schizophrenic, but it's especially a paranoid schizophrenic. Schizophrenics as a whole are not dangerous. A psychopath would be more dangerous. But a paranoid is afraid more than anything else, Wolf, that someone is out to get them.

BLITZER: Are they hearing things? Are people talking to them in their brains?

LIPMAN: Some have hallucinations and some have delusions. But the key here and the connection to Giffords is that if someone believes that the government is out to get them in a delusional way, that it's filling their mind and running through their mind, and around them is rhetoric which is hostile and chaotic, research shows that it makes the symptoms worse, that because they are paranoid and believe that people are out to get them, they believe in the threat, and in that case they act on it. And that's what I believe.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1101/11/sitroom.01.html
Louis Proyect
2011-01-13 02:55:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marv Gandall
So does another psychiatrist interviewed on CNN, but she is not unwilling
LIPMAN: Some have hallucinations and some have delusions. But the key here
and the connection to Giffords is that if someone believes that the
government is out to get them in a delusional way, that it's filling their
mind and running through their mind, and around them is rhetoric which is
hostile and chaotic, research shows that it makes the symptoms worse, that
because they are paranoid and believe that people are out to get them,
they believe in the threat, and in that case they act on it. And that's
what I believe.
But this is not "the political context" that is under debate. For example,
if someone believes that the CIA is spying on him through the television
set, this is not a political context. It is just the psychological
furniture of the ill person. By the same token, if someone stabbed a
stranger on the street because Jesus commanded him to, we wouldn't connect
this act to Christianity.
Marv Gandall
2011-01-13 04:02:49 UTC
Permalink
On 2011-01-12, at 9:55 PM, Louis Proyect wrote:

...if someone stabbed a
Post by Louis Proyect
stranger on the street because Jesus commanded him to, we wouldn't connect
this act to Christianity.
A complete stranger, no. The act would be incomprehensible. It would have no evident relationship to Christianity. But if the target were an abortion provider, we might well say that the delusions which triggered the murderous act were shaped by his fundamentalist Protestant or Catholic milieu, and that the target was not a random stranger on the street, an unfortunate victim of a deranged mind. This is what I understood the psychiatrist on CNN to be saying. Loughner deliberately targeted Giffords, the widely-publicized metaphorical target of white Republicans in Arizona, and there is enough his ramblings which evoke right-wing themes, to suggest that his evidently schizophrenic behaviour can't entirely be disassociated from the social and political climate which nurtured it.
Louis Proyect
2011-01-13 12:47:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marv Gandall
Loughner deliberately targeted Giffords,
the widely-publicized metaphorical target of white Republicans in Arizona,
and there is enough his ramblings which evoke right-wing themes, to
suggest that his evidently schizophrenic behaviour can't entirely be
disassociated from the social and political climate which nurtured it.
No, there is not enough in his ramblings. His obsession with grammar,
logic, reality, etc., telling a math professor that 8 is really 16,
telling a poetry professor that babies were suicide bombers, stating that
the trees were orange is psychotic and has no connection to the Tea Party.
The guy was out to lunch, as just about everybody who knew him states.
There are people who kill because they overdosed on hate radio. He was not
one of them.
Marv Gandall
2011-01-13 16:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Proyect
Post by Marv Gandall
Loughner deliberately targeted Giffords,
the widely-publicized metaphorical target of white Republicans in Arizona,
and there is enough his ramblings which evoke right-wing themes, to
suggest that his evidently schizophrenic behaviour can't entirely be
disassociated from the social and political climate which nurtured it.
No, there is not enough in his ramblings. His obsession with grammar,
logic, reality, etc., telling a math professor that 8 is really 16,
telling a poetry professor that babies were suicide bombers, stating that
the trees were orange is psychotic and has no connection to the Tea Party.
The guy was out to lunch, as just about everybody who knew him states.
There are people who kill because they overdosed on hate radio. He was not
one of them.
Loughner did not overdose on talk radio, but he reportedly did frequent internet sites like Above Top Secret and Zeitgeist which see 9/11, the financial crisis, and other contemporary political issues as conspiracies hatched at the highest levels of government and Wall Street. The conspiracist subculture, which draws a higher proportion of paranoid and otherwise disturbed individuals, combines tropes common to both right and left in contradictory, incoherent, and fantastical ways. It's devotees may or may not identify with groups or individuals at either end of the political spectrum, may not even be aware of the political roots of their own ideas, but in the sense they are preoccupied with the shadowy control exercised over them by the state and finance capital they are not apolitical, but politically confused in the extreme. Their rhetorical and real targets, as in Loughner's case, are political rather than random, and their motives and political connections are inevitably subject to fierce debate on both the left and right. By contrast, the Columbine and other school shootings did not provoke the same controversies because they were, by contrast, random massacres devoid of political content. Discussion in these cases turned instead on gun control, schoolyard bullying, and excessive exposure to violent video games.

Given Loughner's place of residence and his choice of target, it's not unreasonable to suppose his paranoia was at least to some degree a pathological expression of the right-wing political paranoia which afflicts a large part of Arizona's white community.
Louis Proyect
2011-01-13 16:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marv Gandall
Loughner did not overdose on talk radio, but he reportedly did frequent
internet sites like Above Top Secret and Zeitgeist which see 9/11, the
financial crisis, and other contemporary political issues as conspiracies
hatched at the highest levels of government and Wall Street. The
conspiracist subculture, which draws a higher proportion of paranoid and
otherwise disturbed individuals, combines tropes common to both right and
left in contradictory, incoherent, and fantastical ways.
The documentary film Zeitgeist is not really Tea Party fare. In fact,
mostly sounds like the sort of thing that would be sent out as a premium
during a WBAI fund drive:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_The_Movie

The film opens with animated abstract visualizations, film and stock
footage, a cartoon and audio quotes about spirituality, followed by clips
of war, explosions, and the September 11 attacks. This is followed by the
film's title screen. The film's introduction ends with a portion of the
late comedian George Carlin's monologue on religion accompanied by an
animated cartoon.

"Part I", entitled The Greatest Story Ever Sold, questions religions as
being god-given stories, arguing that the Christian religion specifically
is mainly derived from other religions, astronomical facts, astrological
myths and traditions, which in turn were derived from or shared elements
with others. In furtherance of the Jesus myth hypothesis, this part argues
that the historical Jesus is a literary and astrological hybrid, nurtured
politically.

The 9/11 attacks are the subject of Part II of the film.

"Part II", entitled All the World's a Stage, uses integral footage of
several 9/11 conspiracy theory films to claim that the September 11
attacks were either orchestrated or allowed to happen by elements within
the United States government in order to generate mass fear, initiate and
justify the War on Terror, provide a pretext for the curtailment of civil
liberties, and produce economic gain. These claims include that the US
government had advance knowledge about the attacks, the response of the
military deliberately let the planes reach their targets, and the World
Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 underwent a controlled demolition.

In a March 17, 2009 New York Times article, Alan Feuer reported that Peter
Joseph had indicated that he had "moved away from" his opinion on whether
the September 11 attacks were an inside job perpetrated by the U.S.
government.[7] Peter Joseph later stated that his stance on 9/11 had not
changed.[11]

The United States Government's income tax is claimed to be unconstitutional.

"Part III", entitled Don't Mind the Men Behind the Curtain, argues that
three wars of the United States during the twentieth century were waged
purely for economic gain by what the film refers to as "international
bankers". The film alleges that certain events were engineered as excuses
to enter into war including the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, the Attack
on Pearl Harbor, and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.


Same thing with abovetopsecret.com:

AboveTopSecret.com is the Internet's largest and most popular discussion
board community dedicated to the intelligent exchange of ideas and debate
on a wide range of "alternative topics" such as conspiracies, UFO's,
paranormal, secret societies, political scandals, new world order,
terrorism, and dozens of related topics with a diverse mix of users from
all over the world.
dave x
2011-01-13 16:28:28 UTC
Permalink
The context here is obvious - first we learn he was heavily into (probably
violent) online video games and now according to this latest article by
Louis we learn he had abandoned his sax and was into heavy metal music! What
more do we need to know? Somebody call Tipper!

Seriously though, Louis if you want to know what alienated youth do today
that probably describes a large chunk of them. The difference with Loughner
being that he was also a paranoid schizophrenic.
dave x
2011-01-13 16:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by dave x
The context here is obvious - first we learn he was heavily into (probably
violent) online video games and now according to this latest article by
Louis we learn he had abandoned his sax and was into heavy metal music! What
more do we need to know? Somebody call Tipper!
Seriously though, Louis if you want to know what alienated youth do today
that probably describes a large chunk of them. The difference with Loughner
being that he was also a paranoid schizophrenic.
I also can't say I know any alienated youth who are into Glenn Beck, Palin
or right wing talk radio (in fact I find the notion almost laughable). This
is in my experience mostly a problem for alienated 60+ year olds and
conservative Christians which Loughner obviously was not.
Michael Smith
2011-01-13 03:07:45 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:51:07 -0500
Post by Louis Proyect
I think people have to
think less in terms of Adorno than the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
Fair enough. But the dry prose of the DSM omits a non-technical,
though vivid, expression that practitioners in this business use
among themselves: "word salad." It refers to a volubility clearly
driven by some strong inner need, where the formal structures of
language remain intact but what is being said just makes no sense --
colorless green ideas sleep furiously, to borrow a phrase from the
great Noam. There are people who really talk like that. Their
cognitive capacity is profoundly disrupted, to a degree that's
hard to imagine unless you've known a few. Loughner clearly
belongs to this category.

Normally I avoid quoting the New York Times, except by way of
mockery, but they did quote some psychiatrist a day or two ago,
who noted, in a nice turn of phrase, that paranoid schizophrenics
"pick up on the grand themes of the culture" vel sim.

Loughner seems to have done some of that, but not as much as one might
expect. His reading list is a miscellaneous, attitudinizing adolescent
grab-bag. His preoccupation with grammar is actually quite original.

The null hypothesis is that he went after Giffords because she was *his*
Congresscritter. A senator or governor would have been a much better target,
and a president best of all, of course, but they're not so easy to get to,
these days.

Thought experiment: if Loughner's congresscritter had been a right-wing
Republican rather than a right-wing Democrat, would s/he have been at less
risk? Anybody out there who feels they can confidently answer this question,
either way?
--
--

Michael J. Smith
mjs at smithbowen.net

http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org
http://www.cars-suck.org
http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com
Ruperto31
2011-01-16 06:43:16 UTC
Permalink
You said : "I don't believe anyone has gone so far as to describe him as
schizophrenic." I haven't heard this either, but he seems a little schizy
to me. He is associations are so loose you could drive a truck through them.
Have you ever seen his "syllogisms"? Here are some comments from
Loughner's philosophy professor, who says his impression was as "someone
whose brains were scrambled."
.
http://www.slate.com/id/2280653/

________________________________________________
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-Marxism--Loughner%27s-last-close-friend-said-that-he-ignored-TV-and-talk-radio-tp30655933p30676142.html
Sent from the Marxism mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Tom Cod
2011-01-13 01:50:32 UTC
Permalink
uh-huh, and we were different from them in what ways at age 20 back in circa
68-73 or whenever?
Havingtaught 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.
MICHAEL YATES
2011-01-13 17:10:20 UTC
Permalink
Marv says that right wing paranoia afflicts a large proportion of Arizona's white population.
I have lived in Tucson and spent a few months in Flagstaff. In neither place did I find this to be true.
There are plenty of Tea Party types, etc., but I think Denver, CO and much of the state of Colorado is worse by far, just for
one example. Talk radio in Tucson was, when we lived there, much milder than in Colorado, where hatred rules.
In Tucson, there is a large university, big American Indian, Chicano, and Mexican populations, and many whites who are
liberal in outlook.

It is amusing sometimes to listen to leftists from the east or other nations talk about the US southwest as if it were
alien territory. It is not. Western Pennsylvania, where I lived for 55 years, is worse in terms of racism, for example, than
Utah, Arizona, etc. I can attest to this from personal experience.

Trying to make political connections between what Loughner did and the rightwing nightmare that is the United States seems foolish to me.
In Flagstaff, after Rush Limbaugh urged his troops to be at a city council meeting where the city was considering a lawsuit against
Arizona's draconian anti-immigrant law, those opposed to Rush's people showed up en masse and the pathetic Tea Partiers
were exposed as the fools they are. This, union organizing, immigrant organizing, campaigns againt fascish sheriff
Joe Arpaio, etc., these are what we should be doing. Not to mention agitating on behalf of the mentally ill like Loughner.
Otherwise we're just like the people on MSNBC, who spend so much of there time bashing the far right and no time supporting the left.
Marv Gandall
2011-01-13 22:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by MICHAEL YATES
Marv says that right wing paranoia afflicts a large proportion of Arizona's white population.
I have lived in Tucson and spent a few months in Flagstaff. In neither place did I find this to be true.
There are plenty of Tea Party types, etc., but I think Denver, CO and much of the state of Colorado is worse by far, just for
one example. Talk radio in Tucson was, when we lived there, much milder than in Colorado, where hatred rules.
In Tucson, there is a large university, big American Indian, Chicano, and Mexican populations, and many whites who are
liberal in outlook.
It is amusing sometimes to listen to leftists from the east or other nations talk about the US southwest as if it were
alien territory. It is not. Western Pennsylvania, where I lived for 55 years, is worse in terms of racism, for example, than
Utah, Arizona, etc. I can attest to this from personal experience.
My comments could have been more nuanced. The impressions of outsiders like myself have, for better or worse, been formed by news accounts of Arizona's anti-immigrant legislation and vigilantism, the political thuggery of the tea party in the recent elections, and comments from those such as Pima county sheriff Clarence Dubnik who calls the state a "mecca for prejudice and bigotry". I was startled by Dupnik's outspokeness until I learned he hailed from Tucson and that was a Democrat, which puts your own comments above about the city in perspective. Like Austin, another university town, I had understood Tucson to not be representative of the political culture of the state. Am I right in doubting that Dupnik could have been elected or made his comment in any other white majority county? Unfortunately, because it was being boycotted, my wife and I missed the opportunity to glean any first-hand impressions of Arizona on our swing through the US Southwest and West last year.
Debordagoria
2011-01-13 19:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Sadly, I have started hearing tea party talking points from more and more of my college students. Anyone else having the same experience?

Michael D.

--- On Thu, 1/13/11, dave x <dave.xx at gmail.com> wrote:

also can't say I know any alienated youth who are into Glenn Beck, Palin
or right wing talk radio (in fact I find the notion almost laughable).
Mark Lause
2011-01-13 19:39:29 UTC
Permalink
I don't know the extent to which I'd call them particularly tea party
assumptions--these seem to me the kind of dumbest version of
neoconservativism.

...but, yes, I hear it all the time and from most of the students...things
like the private sector works better than the public sector...government is
anti-business...media is liberal...war is good for the economy...race is a
dead issue...etc.

I think it's just because they're not really hearing much else. They figure
it out pretty well, if they invest some thought in it. But when the
assumptions are presented to them as self-evident truths, they tend not to
invest much in thinking about them....

ML
dave x
2011-01-13 19:58:05 UTC
Permalink
I have to say I am shocked to hear that reactionary and confused ideas are
utterly pervasive in our society - still, I am willing to bet if we did a
venn diagram of Palin fans and fans of death metal the intersection would be
vanishingly low. Jon Stewart on the other hand... We will just have to hope
that none of these confused alienated young people get the notion that
democratic party pols might be something other than a bulwark against tea
party reaction and an expression of their own best interest. The results
might be tragic.
======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================
I don't know the extent to which I'd call them particularly tea party
assumptions--these seem to me the kind of dumbest version of
neoconservativism.
...but, yes, I hear it all the time and from most of the students...things
like the private sector works better than the public sector...government is
anti-business...media is liberal...war is good for the economy...race is a
dead issue...etc.
I think it's just because they're not really hearing much else. They figure
it out pretty well, if they invest some thought in it. But when the
assumptions are presented to them as self-evident truths, they tend not to
invest much in thinking about them....
ML
________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/dave.xx%40gmail.com
Joseph Catron
2011-01-13 20:07:08 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:58 PM, dave x <dave.xx at gmail.com> wrote:

I am willing to bet if we did a
Post by dave x
venn diagram of Palin fans and fans of death metal the intersection would be
vanishingly low.
I don't know - in my experience, a lot of military guys (specifically the
white ones in the combat arms) go for the loud, thrash-y stuff.
--
"Hige sceal ?e heardra, heorte ?e cenre, mod sceal ?e mare, ?e ure m?gen
lytla?."
dave x
2011-01-13 22:44:58 UTC
Permalink
Granted. It helps with the stress, PTSD, etc. But Loughner wasn't in the
military.
======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================
I am willing to bet if we did a
Post by dave x
venn diagram of Palin fans and fans of death metal the intersection would be
vanishingly low.
I don't know - in my experience, a lot of military guys (specifically the
white ones in the combat arms) go for the loud, thrash-y stuff.
--
"Hige sceal ?e heardra, heorte ?e cenre, mod sceal ?e mare, ?e ure m?gen
lytla?."
________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/dave.xx%40gmail.com
Mark Lause
2011-01-13 22:57:14 UTC
Permalink
You do get the occasional soldier like that, but most are among the most
thoughtful and politically reliable people I teach.

It's always a treat watching the look on a veteran's face as one of the
patriotic frat boys rambles on about how "we" (that is other people) need to
defend "national honor."

ML
Loading...