The Insanity About the Insanity Defense

Obama Administration

Prediction: The same people who today are saying that the Tucson shooting was completely random because Jared Loughner was too crazy to have been influenced by anything other than the moths in his head will, in a few weeks, spin on a dime and claim that Loughner knew what he was doing and is “sane” enough to be tried and executed.

Just watch.

Share Button


  1. c u n d gulag  •  Jan 12, 2011 @11:09 am

    Nope, I ain’t bitin’!
    In the words of the immortal Chico Marx, “Ah, you crazy Boss. Ainna no sucha thing as a Sanity Clause!”

  2. c u n d gulag  •  Jan 12, 2011 @11:38 am

    BTW – “The Whore of Babblin’ On” released a video this morning.
    No reporters, no questions, just a staged video-op.
    And she used the term “Blood Libel.” Nice! Not only ‘blood’ and ‘libel,’ but I’m sure it resonated in dogwhistle to the anti-Semitic among her followers.

  3. maha  •  Jan 12, 2011 @11:53 am

    You can count on Moosewoman to make everything about her.

  4. Preston  •  Jan 12, 2011 @12:06 pm

    As I recall, Palin used the word reprehensible to describe those who would suggest that mere rhetoric could lead one to commit such a despicable act. I, however, submit that nothing is more reprehensible than those times when she moves her mouth to speak.

  5. moonbat  •  Jan 12, 2011 @12:35 pm

    I was curious about the article Muldoon referenced in the previous post (but had trouble linking to it), and so I did some digging. Try this link: Tory voters found to have larger ‘primitive’ lobe in brain. Muldoon summarizes it:

    Brain scans reveal that Right wing conservatives have a larger amygdala (fear and other primal emotions) than do liberals, as well as decidedly smaller anterior cingulates (decision making, optimism, courage). To wit: they are more easily frightened and less capable of making intelligent, courageous decisions.

    Hope this works better. You’re welcome.

    If we’re lucky, this trial could turn into something much larger than being merely about the events that happend in Tucson, in much the way that the Scopes trial was famously bigger than being merely about teaching evolution in Tennessee. I read that the defense hired Ted Kaczynski’s attorney, I don’t know who will represent the state.

  6. Steve M.  •  Jan 12, 2011 @1:21 pm

    Their argument, if I understand it correctly, is that he’s not crazy, he’s crazy-evil, and therefore he knows exactly what he’s doing. Limbaugh:

    We, I, don’t seek a deeper understanding of a madman like this who has committed the worst kind of crime. You see this guy’s mug shot? I mean, this is the mug shot of all mug shots. This guy’s getting exactly what he’s wanted: Attention out the wazoo….

    He’s a victim, he’s deranged, and yet he’s smiling. He’s snickering at every one of us in that mug shot.


    It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.

    Diminished capacity for reason? Nothing to see here, move along.

  7. Steve M.  •  Jan 12, 2011 @1:22 pm

    (The “He’s a victim” line in Limbaugh’s statement was a reference to his theory that we Dems/liberals have Loughner’s back.)

  8. uncledad  •  Jan 12, 2011 @1:24 pm

    “And she used the term “Blood Libel.”

    Wow does she know the congresswomen is a jew? What an imbecile, keep diggin Sarah!

  9. Felicity  •  Jan 12, 2011 @1:51 pm

    moonbat – interesting. That makes sense of what i read in my latest ‘Harpers.’ There’s a gene for liberal – which seemed really out there. I’ve always contended that ‘fear’ is the basis for most irrational behavior. Years ago a Biblical scholar (on a lazy Sunday afternoon with nothing else to do) went through the entire Bible looking for the phrase that appears the most often. It turns out to be “fear not.”

  10. joanr16  •  Jan 12, 2011 @1:54 pm

    I’ve just about reached the point where I think we can sit back quietly and let Limbaugh, Palin et al make our case for us. Unfortunately, I don’t think most people know what (for example) “Blood Libel” refers to, and I sure don’t expect the dimwitted nodding-heads of the MSM to explain it. Maybe when Rep. Giffords sits up and starts talking, she’ll do it for them.

  11. ShortWoman  •  Jan 12, 2011 @2:52 pm

    How true!

  12. c u n d gulag  •  Jan 12, 2011 @4:14 pm

    Davis X. Machina at Steve M’s site, just noted what a commenter at BJ wrote. It’s too good not to pass on:
    ‘She’s not trolling a blog. She’s trolling and entire nation.’
    I wish I’d said that.
    Sarah Palin, “National Troll.”

  13. c u n d gulag  •  Jan 12, 2011 @4:51 pm

    Wow, even the obtuse ‘King of Equivalence,’ Howard Kurtz noticed that “Blood Libel” was inappropriate: *

    She’ll always have her followers, but if she loses the MSM, maybe the rest of us can finally say, “Say Goodnight, Graceless…”

    * Of course, he’s Jewish, so I can see some of the fommenters of hate coming out with, ‘Well, of course they don’t like her. The Liberal Media is full of Jews!”

  14. moonbat  •  Jan 12, 2011 @5:30 pm

    I think “blood libel” is one of those dog-whistle terms. I didn’t know what it meant, and I doubt if 99% of her followers, or even SP herself knew what it meant. Regardless of its actual meaning, the imagery sounds like “Attack!” to me. And so while the intelligentsia is getting twisted up over the literal meaning and implications of the term, her followers are thinking (and more importantly, feeling) “redrum”.

  15. Tom B  •  Jan 12, 2011 @8:13 pm

    @c u n d gulag: “No reporters, no questions, just a staged video-op.”

    Kind of like that dude with the beard the Taliban pull out whenever they want the late Osama Bin Laden to chastise the infidels. Except we know moose gurl really IS sitting in her bunker somewhere (maybe sipping muscatel with Dick Cheney) spewing this drivel.

  16. Doug Hughes  •  Jan 12, 2011 @9:59 pm

    I don’t know a lot about Congresswoman Gifford. From what I hear, she will survive, but how much damage to cognitive and speech centers is not known. Suppose her luck continues, as we all do hope. Long before the 2012 election, she’s quite possibly going to be in front of the cameras answering real questions from live reporters. Something Saint Sarah of Holy Victimhood won’t do.

    Congresswoman Gifford is being lauded by the left and right. The right can’t do anything else but… she’s quite possibly going to have a thing or two to say later this year. This might not be a blip that will be gone by 2012. It may turn out to be central if the Congresswoman decides to be vocal. To crib a line from the Beatles – “Let it be.”

  17. Swami  •  Jan 12, 2011 @10:57 pm

    Rodney King should have delivered Obama’s speech tonight. He’s already said essentially the same thing but in a lot less words.

  18. Pat  •  Jan 12, 2011 @11:30 pm

    The accumulation of psychobabble from psychos is enough to make me throw up just a little in my mouth. He’s crazy…no he’s not crazy. I think you might well be right in your prediction.

    I’m trying to parse the reasoning of those who start out by saying Palin and her ilk are not responsible. But they just say “I believe…” without explaining why they believe it. Does responsible mean entirely responsible or not just a little responsible. If we get an axe and 1,000 of us each take one hack at a tree and it finally falls who was responsible? If there’s this broke down guy sitting on a ledge thinking of jumping and I yell “you worthless son of a bitch!” then he jumps then by this logic “I was not responsible”.

    We know what the law says about aiding and abetting — if you knew what was planned or what might happen and you help you are responsible and the crime is yours as much as the one who carried it out.

    In my youth I once knew a boy named Brad. He was a big lunk of a farm boy and very slow. You would never want to mess with him should be become angry. That would have been very risky. But some kids used to tease him in ways he was not bright enough to see for what it was. One favorite of some of the meaner kids was to tell him something like “Oh man, you should hear what Joe said about you!” then sit back and enjoy the thrashing of Joe. They knew what would happened and they helped it happen.

    The conservative approach to this would have been that Brad is accountable for his own actions and no one else. They fail to recognize the complexity and how something would not happen without seemingly negligible contributions from a confluence of sources. In reality this is how most things happen but that’s too nuanced for them.

  19. c u n d gulag  •  Jan 13, 2011 @7:53 am

    I always thought it was Bill O’Reilly, not Brad O’Reilly. Well, live and learn…
    Just kidding.
    The rest was very well said.
    And they don’t want to own any responsibility for anything bad – and only anything good if it benefits their world view. In other words, if some legislation they passed accidentally helped poor people, they’d run away from it and change it as fast as possible.

  20. Pat  •  Jan 13, 2011 @1:47 pm

    Thanks C-u. 3 points that occurred after waking up clear-headed:

    1. Many seem unable to distinguish between “responsibility for” and “direct involvement”
    2. This represents an emotional bent and longing for where to place blame which apparently cannto be divided amongst multiple sources. This has nothing to do with a dispassionate, earnest examination of cause and effect.
    3. There’s no question over whether this person should be found guilty or locked away so what’s really being argued is “freedom from responsibility”

    Freedom as a tribal totem and intoxicant not tempered by responsibility is anarchy. I’m hoping that most people have an innate, primal fear of chaos and that those sentiments get moved to the foreground rather quickly.

  21. c u n d gulag  •  Jan 13, 2011 @1:53 pm

    The problem is that righties live on creating chaos, and then they marshall the fear that’s generated. That’s their only genious.

  22. Felicity  •  Jan 13, 2011 @1:57 pm

    Swami – I thought of Rodney King too. As far as Palin? It’s smoke and mirrors, intentionally. Her ‘presentations’ (all of them) are intended to deceive, fool an audience into believing that she has the capabilities necessary to be president. For Sarah who is obsessed with being the center of attention, with being where the spotlight always lands, being president is the only thing that will satisfy this narcissistic drive for attention.

1 Trackback