RSS
SUPER BOWL
Showing posts with label Gabrielle Giffords. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gabrielle Giffords. Show all posts

The Gabrielle Giffords Tragedy—and Ours

Martha note: Denise Zito is a regular contributor to WMRA's Civic Soapbox -- in fact one of her essays is set to air this Friday. She sent me the following reaction to the Arizona shootings because, she said, she "needed to vent." And I hope it will stimulate some constructive venting in you as well. 


As surely as the sun rises in the east, the public, repetitive analysis begins as to why someone would pull a gun and shoot into a crowd of people. This time, the shooting takes place at a shopping center and a Congresswoman in Tucson and fourteen others are gunned down.

Columbine. Oklahoma City. Blacksburg, Virginia and so many others.

Some argue that the political climate is so caustic that the mentally vulnerable are driven to act out the metaphorical language that ‘targets’ politicians for removal from office.

Others claim that these are simply individual acts, and the sole responsibility of the shooter.

Those who attended religious services this weekend heard some version of these opinions in the petitions served up to God.

This time, I’m observing an interesting twist. As an example of how ‘unhinged’ Jared Loughner supposedly is, a reporter listed the books that Loughner posted on his Facebook page: Brave New World, Animal Farm, Alice in Wonderland and others that nearly every high school student in the country is asked to read. How does this list classify someone as ‘unhinged’?

Loughner also posted a disturbing video of a hooded figure in the desert, burning an American flag. Yes, I find this disturbing, and I would ask if anyone has been to a movie theater lately? I find many movie previews to be as horrifying as Loughner’s video posting. Nearly half of all movie previews these days involve guns, car chases and intense terror.

I’m not writing to advocate movie censorship, only pointing out that a ready supply of guns and the persistent glorification of violence in our society are moving us toward an expected outcome. But nothing about this incident should surprise us. Our political climate characterizes one side as ‘the enemy’ when in fact we are Americans with different opinions. One party allows the demonizing of our President and our elected officials. One party uses imagery of weapons and war in describing political debate.

As expected, we’ll all line up to reflect on the tragedy of Congresswoman Giffords and the others as either the random act of a mentally ill person, or the playing out of the worst scenario of our culture of violence.

The most discouraging part of this for me, is that I’ve stopped expecting anything in our society to change, no matter how horrific the acts of violence. I’ve concluded that only the small, personal acts of kindness are in my control. This is a sad commentary in a Democracy.
                   --Denise Zito lives in Free Union.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Just shut up?

Those of you who follow us on Facebook, know that the traditional first post of the day is "Bob's Morning Edition  pick," which is Bob Leweke's choice as the do-not-miss  feature of the day. Today, Bob's pick was "Shooting Fallout: Political Rhetoric Takes the Heat ."  At npr.org, Corey Dade begins his story begins this way:

The shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) has raised concerns about the effect of inflammatory language that has become a steady undercurrent in the nation's political culture.
No kidding? You think maybe that might be the case?

Later on in the same article, Corey Dade brings up "The Crosshairs Controversy,"
During the midterm elections, Giffords and other Democratic House candidates were featured on the website of Sarah Palin's political action committee with crosshairs over their districts. Giffords, disturbed at the reference, said at the time, "When people do that, they have got to realize there's consequences to that."
In a Sunday interview with talk radio host Tammy Bruce, Rebecca Mansour, who works for Palin's PAC, said the images of crosshairs weren't intended to evoke violence: "We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights," she said.


The controversial image (which SarahPac took down over the weekend) is shown above. As someone who occasionally target shoots, it seems to me both disingenuous and unhelpful to claim those circles with crosses in the middle have nothing to do with targets and shootings. Isn't denying the obvious yesterday tantamount to squirting gasoline on today's rhetorical flames? I mean, truth still exists, right? Surely, the meaningful question about the above image is not what is it, but what are its consequences.

There have been many, many calls for moderation in our political language over the last 24-hours. However, Fox News seems to be complaining today that . . .
. . . many on the American Left said the horror could be traced to the malign influence of American conservatives; members of the Tea Party; right-wing pundits Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck; former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin; and Fox News. 
Among the "many" cited by Fox News (4 in all) was Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who wrote yesterday, "We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was.  . . . " And Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, a Democrat and friend of Gabrielle Giffords, who, according to the article, "argued that the 'vitriol' of the country's harshly polarized political climate was partly to blame, arguing that unbalanced individuals are uniquely 'susceptible' to vitriol."


Which, you know, just might be the truth. And what's wrong with speaking that, I'd like to know?


Gabrielle Gifford on the way to intensive care
The New York Times today writes in its lead editorial that
Jared Loughner, the man accused of shooting Ms. Giffords, killing a federal judge and five other people, and wounding 13 others, appears to be mentally ill. His paranoid Internet ravings about government mind control place him well beyond usual ideological categories.
But he is very much a part of a widespread squall of fear, anger and intolerance that has produced violent threats against scores of politicians and infected the political mainstream with violent imagery. With easy and legal access to semiautomatic weapons like the one used in the parking lot, those already teetering on the edge of sanity can turn a threat into a nightmare.
Okay, okay, enough!

The point I'd like to make is who cares anymore whose fault our poisonous partisan state of affairs is? Hasn't who said what, when, and to whom after yesterday become much less than important. Can't we all just shut up, calm down, and start our political conversation over at a much lower pitch..

And another thing. Jared Lougher seems to have been obviously lurching  toward Sunday's violent murder spree. Why didn't we do something? Were we just too busy talking heated and pointless nonsense to realize that the last thing we needed was to allow Jared Lougher's mental illness to  go untreated, while, at the same time allowing him access to a gun?

Your thoughts?

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...