Barack Obama will lead the ceremony at 11 Washington time (1600GMT) on the south lawn of the White House. Flags across America will fly at half-mast and Congress has postponed all legislative debates next week, including a controversial bill to repeal Obama's healthcare reform.
Jared Loughner, the 22-year-old man described as a social outcast with extreme views, is scheduled to make his first court appearance at 2100 GMT on charges that he tried to assassinate congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in a shooting that left six people dead.
A federal judge, a congressional aide and a young girl were among the six people killed, while Giffords and 13 others were injured in the bursts of gunfire outside a supermarket.
Loughner is charged with one count of attempted assassination of a member of Congress, two counts of killing an employee of the federal government and two counts of attempting to kill a federal employee. More charges are expected.
The FBI director, Robert Mueller, who travelled to Tucson, Arizona, to take charge of the investigation, said that one focus of the inquiry is whether far-right organisations and websites played a role.
An official familiar with the investigation has said that local authorities were looking at a possible connection between Loughner and an online group known for white supremacist, anti-immigrant rhetoric called the American Renaissance website for possible motives.
The New York Daily News claims to have discovered "chilling occult dimension in the mind of the deranged gunman" and carries pictures from inside Loughner's house.
Barack Obama and Michelle are now on the White House lawn for the minute's silence. They stand head bowed with the sound of clicking cameras in the background.
They re-enter the White House, their arms around each other. A host of White House staff, also out on the lawn, now stream back into their offices.
The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, who is travelling in the United Arab Emirates, says the Arizona shooting shows that America has a problem with its own extremists. Here is the Reuters account of her comments.
At a televised town hall-style meeting, Clinton was asked why US opinion often appears to blame the entire Arab world for 9/11. Clinton said this was due to misperceptions and the media impact of political violence.
"We have extremists in my country. A wonderful, incredibly brave young woman Congress member, Congresswoman Giffords, was just shot by an extremist in our country," she said. "We have the same kinds of problems. So rather than standing off from each other, we should work to try to prevent the extremists anywhere from being able to commit violence. The extremists and their voices, the crazy voices that sometimes get on the TV, that's not who we are, that's not who you are, and what we have to do is get through that and make it clear that that doesn't represent either American or Arab ideas or opinions."
Here is that "target list" with the crosshairs from Sarah Palin's political action committee, complete with slogan IT'S TIME TO TAKE A STAND. Rightwing websites point out, however, that Democrats used similar language in 2004.
Sheriff Clarence Dupnik says Loughner is not cooperating and told ABC News the suspect had said "not a word" to investigators, the Associated Press reports. Dupnik said authorities were all but certain Loughner acted alone, saying "he's a typical troubled individual who's a loner."
The Arizona shooting again highlights the issue of gun crime and gun laws in the US. In 2009 - the latest year for which detailed figures are available - there were 13,636 murders in the US. Of those, 9,146 were caused by firearms. In fact, gun crime, like all crime across the US is going down. Our Data Blog has the figures state-by-state. Giffords, herself, is a staunch supporter of gun rights. She welcomed a 2008 supreme court decision that struck down Washington DC's handgun ban. "As a gun owner, I am a strong supporter of the second amendment," Giffords said at the time. "This is a common-sense decision that reaffirms the constitutional right - and Arizona tradition - of owning firearms."
Is the Tea Party to blame? Mark Schmitt, from The American Prospect and Daniel Foster of National Review Online thrash the issue out on this Bloggingheads debate.
Earlier this year, the governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, a Republican, signed a bill that made Arizona became only the third state - after Alaska and Vermont - to make it legal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Brewer's predecessor as governor, Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, had vetoed similar efforts in the past. Republican Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky, the son of presidential candidate Ron Paul, says he doesn't think the concealed weapon law was relevant. "I don't think that that plays into this at all. Really, I think they're unrelated."
A fascinating piece from Obama London, the website for Obama supporters in the UK. It spotted how moderators on Sarah Palin's Facebook page were busy bees, removing negative posts about Palin and yet left a very nasty post about the nine-year-old girl, Christine Green, who was killed.
Doctors treating the victims of the shooting say there is no change to Giffords, which they say is good news.
It seems incredible that Gabrielle Giffords has survived despite being shot in the head. The Guardian's Alok Jha explains what happened, with an accompanying interactive from Paddy Allen.
"If [the bullet] had gone lower down into the brain and damaged the areas that affect respiration, then she would have died immediately," said Tipu Aziz, a neurosurgeon at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford. "I understand that, since she is obeying commands even before surgery, the bullet didn't traverse that area of the brain."
In the initial surgical procedure after the shooting, doctors removed gunshot debris and a portion of her skull, to relieve the pressure on the brain as it swells in response to the trauma. "The major reasons for fatalities are really to do with the fact that the brain lives inside a confined box called the skull and, if pressure increases within that confined box, that's what's going to really lead to death," said Masud Husain, a clinical neurologist at the National Hospital for Neurology & Neurosurgery in London.
Medicareblogger pays a simple but moving tribute to Giffords and one of her aides, Gabe Zimmerman, who died in the shooting, on TucsonCitizen.com.
When I met Gabby Giffords in September 2010, she was gracious enough to spend a few minutes talking to me. I told her I was an insurance agent and that I was grateful for her vote in support of the health care reform bill. She listened attentively as I described my experience with people who could not get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions.
Congresswoman Giffords looked me in the eye and said the vote on health care reform was probably the most important vote she would ever make in Congress. She said she knew it might cost her the 2010 election, but she said, "so be it", because something had to be done to fix our health care and health insurance systems.
Congresswoman Giffords knew her vote on health care reform could cost her her job, but she showed courage and conviction with her vote. Thank you, Gabby.
Glenn Beck, the Fox News pundit, has been reading some his email exchange with Sarah Palin, reports the Politico website. They sound like a couple of peaceniks.
"Sarah, as you know, peace is always the answer. I know you are felling the same heat, if not much more on this," Beck wrote.
Beck expressed concern about Palin's safety, and urged her to hire the same Los Angeles-based security firm that he uses.
"I hate violence," Palin wrote back. "I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence."
Keith Olbermann, the liberal MSNBC commentator, addresses some sharp words to Sarah Palin and other rightwing figures, including Glenn Beck.
If Glenn Beck who obsesses about gold and debt and who joked about killing Michael Moore and Bill O'Rreilly who said Tiller the killer until it was burned into the minds of their viewers. if they do not begin their broadcasts with an apology. then those commentators and the others must be repudiated by viewers and listeners, by all politicians who are appear on their programmes including President Obama... and by the networks that employ them.
That's it from me for now, My colleague, Haroon Siddique, is taking over for the rest of the evening. Loughner is due to appear in court in Phoenix at 2pm local time (2100 GMT). He will be represented in court by Judy Clarke, the lawyer who defended Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.
Hello, this is Haroon here. The debate continues to rage over whether the right bear any culpability for the Arizona shootings.
John Wellington Ennis, on the Huffington Post, has written a thoughtful article defending Sarah Palin, although it is not very flattering about the former Alaska governor and the press come in for criticism for the "inordinate amount of media coverage" it affords her:
Right now, to Sarah Palin, she herself is the victim in this situation. It's not that she wants people to go shoot her political enemies; for one, it looks really bad, obviously. She wants people to be incited enough with vitriol to listen to her and do what she says, but not alienate the mainstream she desperately wants to be accepted by.
When you are projecting victimhood constantly on your followers, however, it is possible that some people are already so alienated, this manufactured force of celebrity media, political vanity, and fear mongering sends these troubled individuals over the edge.
It's not Sarah Palin and her rhetoric that make crazy people do crazy things. It's making her crazy rhetoric matter that does.
Rupert Murdoch has been sent a chastening letter by Media Matters, an organisation dedicated to "to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media", TPM reports.
The letter from Media Matters founder David Brocks says Murdoch, as chief executive officer of News Corp, must take responsibility for reining in the right wing rhetoric on Fox News. Brocks writes:
Beck and Palin are two of Fox's most recognizable figures. Before this heartbreaking tragedy in Arizona, you were either unwilling or unable to rein in their violent rhetoric. But now, in the wake of the killings, your network must take a stand. You have the power to order them to stop using violent rhetoric, on and off of Fox's air. If they fail to do so, it is incumbent upon you to fire them or be responsible for the climate they create and any consequences thereof.
One of the doctors treating Giffords has told Channel 4 News he believes the congresswoman is "100%" certain to survive. Dr Peter Rhee is also optimistic that she will not be left in a vegatative state.
He said:
As a physician I'm going to get into a lot of trouble for this but her prognosis for survival is 100% as far as it being short term. What her recovery is going to do I really don't know. I'm optimistic however she's not going to be in a vegetative state. I think she's going to make a fair amount of recovery but what kind of deficits she'll have in the future I really can't say but I'm very optimistic.
In an act of bad taste, that will come as no surprise to those familiar with the notorious Westboro Baptist Church, it has said it is going to picket the funeral of 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green, and all the other victims of the Arizona shootings, because it supported the gunman. The church, unaffiliated to any recognised Baptist association, is run by Fred Phelps. An idea of the type of organisation he runs can be gleaned from the fact that its website is under the domain godhatesfags.com. Phelps has in the past picketed, or threatened to picket, numerous events, including funerals of victims of hate crime against homosexuals and funerals of returning US troops from Iraq. In a video on the group's website Phelps begins: "Thank God for the violent shooter, one of your soldier heroes in Tucson."
The Phelps were the subject of a Louis Theroux documentary in 2007.
Daniel Hernandez, the man hailed as a hero for his attention to the victims of the Arizona shootings, including Giffords, is praised by Salon as an "extraordinary young man". Mary Elizabeth Williams writes that the fact that Hernandez, a certified nursing assistant who had been interning in Giffords' office only five days, is gay and Hispanic "does matter" (as is perhaps demonstrated by my previous post at 8.17pm). She writes:
It's still far too easy for a small-minded yahoo to champion discrimination based on orientation and race, and it's just as easy for another small-minded yahoo somewhere else to believe the red states are indeed "meccas of racism and bigotry." If any good can come out of something as unfathomably horrible as Saturday's mass shooting, let it be that it shakes up a few preconceptions. That it shows the world that a hero can be gay or straight, can speak English or Spanish or both, and that stupid laws can exist in places full of good people. And anyone who has any doubt of what kind of person deserves to serve next to him in battle, or stand before their community and declare their love, or go to school, or walk down the street without being asked for paperwork needs to hear that and remember that, again and again until it sinks in. Yes, the "gay Hispanic American" saved a life on Saturday, and yes, it does matter.
There are reports that the family of Loughner, due to appear in court imminently on charges of murder and attempted murder, have barricaded themselves into their home, north of Tucson and refused entry to FBI agents. The barricade has apparently been built 4-by-4 double-thick plywood Let's hope that they are just trying to keep out the media and it is nothing more sinister than that.
A warm tribute was paid today to one of the heroes of Saturday, says the National Journal on Twitter
Arizona Legislature just gave a standing ovation to hero intern Daniel Hernandez who helped save #Giffords' life.
Loughner is in court and proceedings are underway, according to Sky News, but there are no cameras inside the court.
The Associated Press says Loughner has appeared in the federal court. He was ordered to be held until further notice, without bail, and was assigned the lawyer from Oklahoma City bombing case, Judy Clarke.
Apparently, the only word Loughner said was "yes", in response to questions from the judge. He entered the courtroom handcuffed, wearing an inmate's uniform with his head shaved and a cut on his right temple and looked directly at the crowd gathered in the courtroom, according to the BBC.
Here's some more details of the court hearing from AP:
The suspect in a deadly Arizona shooting is being held without bail and has been assigned a lawyer who defended Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Timothy McVeigh.
Jared Loughner entered the courtroom Monday handcuffed and wearing a tan inmate uniform. His head is shaved and he has a cut on his right temple.
The 22-year-old is accused of killing six people on Saturday and injuring 14 others, including US Representative Gabrielle Giffords.
His expression was impassive as he walked in, looked straight at the crowd at the back of the room packed with reporters, then turned around to speak to his attorney, Judy Clarke. He responded "yes" when asked if he understood his rights.
The courtroom was under heavy guard with about a dozen U.S. marshals.
The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168 people and injured more than 600 others, was the worst act of domestic terrorism committed by an American citizen.
Giffords' brother-in-law Scott Kelly, commander of the international space station, had strong words to say before he led a minute's silence at the space station today, indicating that he believes the heated political rhetoric is at least partly to blame for Saturday's tragic events:
As I look out the window, I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful - unfortunately, it is not. These days, we are constantly reminded of the unspeakable acts of violence and damage we can inflict upon one another, not just with our actions but also with our irresponsible words.
Evening summary:
• At a court hearing in Phoenix, a judge ordered Jared Loughner, accused of killing six people on Saturday and injuring 13 others, to be held without bail. Judy Clarke, who defended Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Timothy McVeigh, has been assigned as his lawyer (9.42pm).
• Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said Loughner was not cooperating and had said "not a word" to investigators (4.30pm).
• Barack Obama, with his wife Michelle, led a minute's silence for the victims of the shooting from the White House lawn. Flags across the US flew at half mast. The president said the US was "still grieving and in shock" and paid tribute to those who responded with courage at the site of Saturday's shooting (4.01pm).
• Gabrielle Giffords is still in a critical condition at a Tucson hospital following emergency brain surgery. Doctors treating the victims of the shooting said there had been no change to Giffords' condition, which they said was good news (5.12pm).
• The row over the influence, if any, that right wing rhetoric may have had on the gunman continued. Media Matters which monitors the conservative US media, has written to Rupert Murdoch calling on him to "rein in" Fox News pundit Glen Beck and Sarah Palin (7.01pm).
I'm going to leave it there for tonight. Thanks for all your comments today. Goodnight.
Comments in chronological order (Total 235 comments)
10 January 2011 3:56PM
But will anything change? Does anyone have the balls to stand up to the NRA and the demand change? It is peoples lives, and they are infinitely more important than any vested interest.
10 January 2011 3:57PM
American Renaissance?
American Dark Ages more like.
10 January 2011 3:58PM
May God rest the souls of the victims, punish the murderer, and enlighten all those who encouraged this carnage through their violent rhetoric.
10 January 2011 4:02PM
The Greatest Democracy on Earth - NOT!
10 January 2011 4:02PM
After the shootings, once again America looked inward into itself ... and found nothing ..... and so decided to go shopping instead ... at a gun store ...... and revive its economy
10 January 2011 4:04PM
Please be aware that the far-right organisations will be completely innocent.
That the Fanatical Religious Evangelists will have no blame attached.
The Gun Lobby cleared absolutely.
It will all come down to a poor deranged outcast, who has probably been influenced by Cuba, and has a distant relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald.
10 January 2011 4:04PM
The comments on the New York Daily News piece linked to are possibly the most depressing thing I've seen on the Internet, and that's saying something.
10 January 2011 4:07PM
The US gun lobby campaigns for the right to bear arms, not least as it is claimed to enable citizens to protect themselves from people threatening them with guns. Could they clarify how that works, please.
10 January 2011 4:10PM
How did someone with a long history of mental illness legally obtain a firearm? Same with the asian kid a few years ago who shot all those people...time for tighter gun controls...if it means the government has to shoot a few rednecks to get their guns off them...then so be it.
10 January 2011 4:10PM
Americans don't seem to realise, or don't want to accept, that they are at more risk of losing their lives at the hands of one of their fellow countrymen armed with a gun, than by the actions of any foreign 'terrorist'.
10 January 2011 4:12PM
The intolerance in the U.S Republican party is now comparable with that of its other religious zealots in Afghanistan, Pakistan and few other places.
God save the U.S of A.
10 January 2011 4:12PM
weathereye
It's primarily to enable the people to protect themselves from the government, who have guns by default.
It's also to enable people to protect themselves from other people who would have guns whether they were legal or not. If you criminalise guns then only criminals will have them.
10 January 2011 4:12PM
On the NY Daily News site accompanying the piece is a poll, and currently 81% of respondents think "Current laws are too strict. Any infringement upon gun owners' rights is an infringement upon the 2nd amendment". - I think the NRA has been hard at work again, arseholes.
10 January 2011 4:17PM
Salman Taseer......Gabrielle Giffords....Pakistan's gun laws are as silly as the USA's as it happens.
However you can't disarm a whole bunch of individualists with guns because they'll shoot you. That goes for both countries.
10 January 2011 4:17PM
MatthewMorris
Not just a few rednecks, It would take a full scale civil war for that to happen and I'm not completely convinced the government would win.
10 January 2011 4:20PM
I was interested to see what the types who post on the Telegraph site were saying...surprisingly, and unusually, none of the articles on this shooting have any comments allowed, nor is there anything at all in their "comments" section.
I would guess that the Telegraph know what their readership is likely to say, and daren't allow it. We don't have to cross the Pond to find reasons to despair.
10 January 2011 4:20PM
From the same country which pioneered the move to ban smoking because of the health risk of 'second-hand' smoke .... how many are killed each year by second-hand guns?
10 January 2011 4:22PM
@Strummered
Yes, most of those comments defy any sort of rational response. The 'Report Offensive Post' feature should have a 'Check All' option.
10 January 2011 4:27PM
remember who owns the NY Post ... Murderoch of course
10 January 2011 4:27PM
Like in the UK - where gun crime is on a par with the US? No, wait....
10 January 2011 4:27PM
Shooting and mourning is pretty much the USA's lifecycle - bacteria have more going for them than your average red-neck US citizen.
10 January 2011 4:28PM
Bizarre, IngSoc. So do you have to ‘shoot the government’ first, whoever they are, or wait until they come for you and shoot them only in self-defence?
So that all those extra legally held guns are not in the hands of ‘criminals’ too, or that formerly law-abiding people just happen to do wicked things on impulse or by design.
Many of us feel and definitely are a lot safer where guns are the exception rather than the rule.
10 January 2011 4:29PM
Try under comments and blogs on the site, there are pieces by Alex Spillus, James Delingpole, Daniel Hannan, Daniel Knowles, Toby Harnden, and I dare say a few others on this subject (and responses to it) all with comments enabled.
10 January 2011 4:33PM
That sounds like a good argument, but really it isn't.
First, the number of professional criminals who will get guns regardless of the laws is going to be dwarfed by the number people who, from time to time, find themselves in a state where if a gun is at hand they will shoot someone.
Plus IIRC you're much more likely to survive an armed attack if you are unarmed than if you are armed. This isn't surprising. Armed robbers want to rob; they don't as a rule want to shoot. If you don't think you have a chance of defending yourself, you give them your stuff and they leave. However if they think they are going to shot they will (on average) probably be more decisive in pulling the trigger than the victim (who in most cases will never have shot anyone before) .
It's really better that only criminals (and a relatively few, very well trained coppers) have guns than.
10 January 2011 4:33PM
Sorry, I think that should have been directed to JonathanCR's post.
10 January 2011 4:33PM
It's tempting to blame the right for this.
But lets try not to take responsibility away from the person who did the shooting.
10 January 2011 4:33PM
Deaths in the USA from terrorism in the last 5 years...0?
Deaths from guns - any ideas?
If Fundamentalist fanatics want to kill Americans, the best thing they can do is finance the NRA.
10 January 2011 4:34PM
And as usual, all you calm, reasoned Europeons will show us ignorant Americans the proper way to have a civil discourse:
Grauniad columnist Charlie Brooker, October 24th, 2004
But those respectable Democrats are above all that:
Barack Obama, June 13th 2008
10 January 2011 4:37PM
"Rightwing websites point out, however, that Democrats used similar language in 2004"
They point to a list on a blog that talks about 'targeting' in the sense of intending to do something - a far cry from cross hairs on a map of targets and fundraisers in a rifle range. The Tea Party need to stop trying to spin their way out of this and accept ownership of their rhetoric - anything else is just moral cowardice.
10 January 2011 4:38PM
There are six mentioned at the top of this page, although the press are strangely reluctant to call it that.
10 January 2011 4:38PM
It's an American decision. They have guns. They have to accept the consequences and they appear to do so including a huge number of accidental deaths from shooting. As a result of the 1783 Treaty of Paris, we have no say in this.
Strict gun control didn't stop Derrick Bird.
10 January 2011 4:40PM
ReadingOldBoy, you are right and thank you for pointing out the existence of those blogs - I wouldn't have known they were there. However, if you look at the Telegraph site, would you not agree that "normally" there would be comments enabled on at least some of the half-dozen articles on the shooting linked off the front page? Although those blogs are there, there is nothing in the comments section, which was my next port of call. Nor, it has to be said, is there any linking to the relevant blogs from anywhere I could see. Obviously, we can only conjecture...
10 January 2011 4:41PM
@MidOff It's just pistol envy. While you Americans get to go around shooting people you don't like we have to settle for poking old people through a car window with a stick.
10 January 2011 4:42PM
I see that right wingers still don't understand the concept of metaphors.
10 January 2011 4:44PM
Question: how many NRA rallies have their been since the shooting ?
Theres surely gotta be a lot of rednecks out there just dying to shout, 'From my cold dead hands!' ,
or do they only have rallies when kids get shot?
10 January 2011 4:45PM
Isn't that just paraphrasing a pretty famous quote from The Untouchables though?
10 January 2011 4:47PM
weathereye
What's bizarre about my statement?
It was entirely the intention of the second amendment of the US constitution, to enable the people to keep a check on the standing army raised by the state.
10 January 2011 4:48PM
She may have changed her mind by being next to a fatally wounded 9 year old and also having her own brains entered by a bullet but that was pretty much Giffords' opinion too it seems.
10 January 2011 4:48PM
I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill (although I don't particularly like the change to navigation that they made last week, I don't think anything is being deliberately hidden), and Alex Spillus' piece seems to be the 2nd link on the comments section (with 4 other similar blogs underneath it).
10 January 2011 4:49PM
Sarah Palin blasted accusations that the Tea Party was to blame by saying suggestions were "repulsive".
No less repulsive than the posters in her name which mocked up Gabrielle Giffords's face as a gun target.
If any good can come out of this it will be America taking a long hard look at itself. Those of us who admire this country recognise that something toxic has been brewing for some time.
It's being stirred by irrational egomanics like Sarah Palins no doubt but the rest of America need to look at areas where they can be more concillitory and express more humility.
10 January 2011 4:49PM
@MidOff
Charlie Brooker is, of course, a comedy writer/journalist.
You might not find him funny but you shouldn't take him too seriously.
10 January 2011 4:52PM
"The right" had as much to do with this shooting as Marilyn Manson, hiphop or Grand Theft Auto.
10 January 2011 4:53PM
The shootings in Arizona over the weekend are simply part of the bigger American social, political and cultural scene. Yes, they were carried out by a ‘nut case’ - but cannot be divorced from the country’s international policy or its own internal policies. The ‘nut case’ is the evolutionary result of the society.
But most worrying is that as a nation we are joined at the hip to the States. There is – or certainly was - much to admire and aspire to in the United States. Sadly, this diminishes by the week. The cheap, violent and aggressive influence of Hollywood on our TV screens or cinemas does not offer us anything to aspire to except violence and aggression. The aggression and failings of ‘big business’ and unfettered capitalism has wreaked havoc on economies throughout the world. The biggest threat by far to the environment comes from the US. The imperialistic standpoint taken by the US in terms of international relations which ensures that their foreign policy is based upon the ‘I’m the biggest and I will thump you if you don’t do as say’ theory of international relations has ensured strife throughout the world. The inherent violence of its culture, its films, its capitalist system, its politics, its relationship with other nations have caused a deep and spreading disease in the fabric of its society. Arizona is simply a manifestation of this.
Why do our politicians (of all persuasions) seek a special relationship with a country that still executes people? Why would we want a special relationship with a country found to be complicit in torture? Why would we want a special relationship with a country that has a higher proportion of its population in prison than any other? Why would we want a special relationship with a country that, despite many gun related killings every year, still clings to the belief that the right to own a gun is a basic human right? Why would we want a special relationship that allows each state to execute people but is comfortable with the situation that euthanasia is illegal. Why would we want a special relationship with a country who writhes in agony at the thought of a ‘free at the point of delivery’ health service for its population and describe these compassionate plans as a ‘socialist monstrosity’. In short why would we want a special relationship with a country which puts aggression and violence above the care of its citizens? Why would we want a special relationship with a society who can even vaguely entertain the possibility that someone like Sarah Palin could be President and the most powerful person in the world – a woman who claims that Africa is a country and that the Great Depression was caused by the New Deal! Having said that, they elected George Bush a man so dim that he believed that ‘the French do not even have a word for entrepreneur’ .
If my next door neighbour was all in favour of his right to walk down the street with a gun, if he delighted in torturing anyone with different views, if he cheerfully executed those he thought might be criminals (and invited all the people on the road to pop in to watch the execution), if he wouldn’t help me when I called for help because I had slipped and fallen until I paid him, if he delightedly watched pornographic and violent films and so on, then I think I would steer clear of this guy. I’d keep my kids close. I would not be seeking a special relationship with him – so why do we do this at international level?
I can’t help thinking that if I lived in a small village in (say) Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan I might look at my little TV set and see the violence portrayed from Hollywood, I might look at the bull knecked US soldiers with their skinhead hair cuts and guns, I might hear of my neighbour being kicked by these soldiers because he was suspected of some misdemeanour, I might see my children being influenced by the ‘attractions’ of McDonalds or Coke, I might worry that my long held religious beliefs might not be followed by my children when they see the society portrayed on American films on my little TV set, I might be concerned that my daughters might give up the role and position that women have traditionally occupied in my society for many thousands of years, I might take great exception when I saw the American GI photographed in the Guardian of 26th July 2010 proudly boasting on each finger of his gloves the inimitable phrase ‘F**k You.’ Yes, I think I would be worried – and I think we Brits too should be worried. Our ‘special relationship’ with the US means that, as has been the case for decades, what happens in the States will happen in the UK a few years down the line.
America might be the richest most powerful nation in the world. It is, however, a nation in decline. The accelerating decadence of its society, the increasingly polarised and bizarre politics and politicians, its crude response to people and situations, its inherent aggression mean that Caligula –
10 January 2011 4:54PM
AGeekTragedy
You first point loses some validity in a country where there are more guns than people.
I'm not sure about your second point, but given the choice I'd rather be able to defend myself against an armed attacker on equal terms; rather than roll over and throw myself on their mercy - even if, as you say, I'd be statistically better off begging for my life than fighting for it.
10 January 2011 4:54PM
that hero of the decline of Rome - would not look at all out of place there.
There will be many more Arizonas and, sadly and worryingly, because of our ‘special relationship’, they will also come to a street near you in the not too distant future! Things will not improve until America takes a long hard look at itself and halts the moral, political and social decline of many generations.
10 January 2011 4:56PM
You can make it illegal to own a gun but then what - make it illegal to own a knife, a baseball bat? As seen in UK, if someone wants a gun, they find it and they use it. It may make it more difficult to get but someone who is hellbent on getting a gun will get it. And as seen in UK knife crime is an issue - knives kill, and if you can't get a knife then you use bat, a hammer, a saw!?
Seems the whole thing that happened in AZ has a lot to do with with that 'them against us' mentality. Sure, heated debates will always be a part of the process but it seems there is a different level of person running for office these days. Just look at 'good old boy' Sarah Palin. She isn't terribly educated or if she is she doesn't act like it. All of those people who feel she represents the common man- well, maybe that says something about what has happened. At some point you need people who while representing you will also use a bit of class and decorum to get the point across. The whole process seems to have fallen apart and with the likes of all these radio and tv talk show right wingers screaming about everyone at centre or left of centre being socialists - well, it seems to have gotten way out of hand.
Perhaps if there were a limited time to campaign - one month prior to vote, like Australia, it would cut out all this grandstanding and make people do the jobs they were voted in for instead of always campaigning for office.
Sad what happened but maybe those who have been the most vial and vocal will be spotlighted for what they have helped to fuel - hate, anger, them against us - like Obama or not but I do think he tried to bring side together but you can only do so much when the tea baggers and republicans wanted to set him up to fail. Now look what has happened.
10 January 2011 4:57PM
The Tea Party is not to “blame”. They are not literally calling on people to shoot politicians. If anyone takes that seriously, then it’s the same argument for censorship of violence on television – if you have a nutter, a gun and a poster, I’d rather take the gun from the nutter than blame the poster. Besides which, if you take this alleged shooter’s comments about the government changing grammar to control minds, the first target would surely be Palin.
What might have contributed to the whole thing is the heightened rhetoric in an era of 24 hour news, where everyone is shouting nobody can get a message across – so some people shout louder than ever. To that extent the Tea Party is a major contributor to the dumbing down of political debate.
Which adds to the whole gun thing. The Second Amendment was basically there because the US didn’t have an army at the time. It does now, so the need for a citizen militia (as stated in the Amendment, the basis for gun ownership) is truncated. As it is, the US Constitution is grotesquely unfair to democracy; basically a self-selecting oligarchy exclusively made up of a few dozen white slaveowning males has set up a system that overcomes the wishes of maybe 200 million Americans today. And even if the Constitution were amended you have the attitude of prising weapons “from my cold dead hands”; you have an entire sector of a population who are ostensibly saying that they will refuse to comply with laws – and they have guns. Surely that in itself shows they are not suitable to hold weapons…
10 January 2011 4:58PM
I am a bit surprised that the right-wing nutcases who troll here have not yet blamed all this on the BBC licence fee. Come on, you know you want to. After all, this is the sort of thing that simply MUST happen here if you are "forced" to pay a tax amounting to about 40p a day for public broadcasting which is free of adverts?
10 January 2011 5:04PM
Charles Darwin wrote:
When I see the average Republican extremist (like Palin, Beck, O'Reilly et al), I find myself agreeing with Darwin.
10 January 2011 5:05PM
So now, Is it war?