Additional thoughts on the context and consequences of yesterday's assassination attempt that left six dead, including a nine-year-old girl, and 14 wounded:
Most importantly, it is hopeful that the target of the gunner, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, has survived surgery and is able to communicate with doctors. It is notable that several prestigious news organizations reported that she had died yesterday, then had to pull back.
This happens a lot in media these days. Any big event -- earthquakes, shootings, elections -- seems to lead to inaccurate reports by organizations competing to be "first" with the story. Most journalists would tell you it is better to be second and right than to be first and wrong.
The effect of that untrue report -- that she had died -- on people who knew and loved her must have been devastating. But we live in a time when the splintering of media into a thousand channels (which provides many benefits, of course) carries increased risk of inaccurate reporting.
The rest of the reporting on the incident seems to have been fairly accurate. That then brings us to the context. Blogs, such as this one, are places for people to express their opinions about events such as occurred yesterday.
Yes, some of us do break news on blogs, but more often it is hyper-local (or hyper-personal) in nature. Part of what I did yesterday in monitoring the situation was to open Twitscoop, which has a tag cloud of the key terms gaining the most momentum on Twitter.
I fell for the initial reports of her death because all sources indicated she had been shot through the head at point-blank range. Very few people survive such attacks. But as I watched Twitscoop, I developed doubts about the death report. The keyword "died" did grow for a moment but then it started shrinking.
This is a fairly good way to assess what millions of people are absorbing from various sources, mostly other media channels. The "crowd" will get things right more often than not if you just give it a few minutes to sort through all the noise.
We live in a media-saturated society, which causes all manner of trouble for most of us. We also live in a state of "always on" to a frightening degree, where feeling connected has replaced being connected to other people. This worries me a lot.
The political context of this shooting, as I indicated yesterday and last night (when hundreds of people visited this tiny site) indeed raises the question of over-heated rhetoric by political leaders. Most major news organizations reported the Palin webpage last night and this morning -- it is directly relevant in that Rep. Giffords was specifically "targeted" on the map with the familiar symbol of a gun target on her name.
The problem was not the word "targeted;" that is used by political figures all the time, as in which districts to target in upcoming campaigns. And to be fair to Palin, that is what she meant no doubt by her usage.
The problem was the symbol of a gun target. That transformed the meaning of an everyday political term, embellishing it with dangerous implications and suggesting a call to action. I'm sure Palin and her supporters thought of it as funny, perhaps even tongue-in-cheek.
But that isn't how it was received. Rep. Giffords herself was aware of Palin's campaign against her and other Democrats, and expressed her concerns publicly, as I noted yesterday. After the shooting, of course, Palin quickly removed the website with its explosive imagery, and I doubt she, at least, will revert to that style of rhetoric anytime soon.
All politicians tend to use over-heated rhetoric at times; Obama's widely-quoted campaign statement that if others brought knives to the fight, he'd bring a gun is an example. I would no more defend that than Palin's, but I would note it did not come close to resembling a call to action. It was clearly a reference to how ugly political infighting can become; still, it was an error on his part, and something I'm sure he now regrets.
Perhaps all politicians will now, at least for a while, refrain from such excess. It is absolutely true that the attacks on Obama and on Democrats in general have reached a feverish pitch unparalleled in modern political history. Historians will conclude, I believe, that Obama's race was a central component of the rhetorical excesses used by those on the right after he became President.
But I was also disturbed during the Bush, Jr., years by leftists who made statements like "Bush and Cheney should die." I posted here on one occasion the little-known fact that both Bush and Cheney were generous philanthropists, who did their good deeds with a minimum of public notice.
Beyond that, I don't think it is appropriate to state that public officials should die, or even imply this, simply because of how vulnerable those officials are to attack in this gun-crazed culture of ours. As we all now know too well, members of Congress have little or no security at their numerous public events.
So any nut with a gun can wreak havoc. I won't even get into the many tragedies in schools or other mass shootings that make this country a scary place to many people around the world living in places where gun ownership is more tightly regulated.
Oh, I get the Second Amendment and all that; I was a hunter and still own my own shotgun, etc., and I understand the fear of an honest person that if they have no weapons, an evil person may assault them, leaving them every bit as vulnerable as the Congresswoman was yesterday.
But the notion that the federal government is some sort of evil monster that will suppress the rights of free people unless the latter are heavily armed and form militias to defend against that happening is a delusion. A dangerous delusion.
What the federal government can rightly be said to be is a set of runaway bureaucracies that waste taxpayer money, and that tie many of us up in red tape. It also is home to a truly evil IRS that audits honest citizens and takes away their money -- much as any other bully would.
These aspects of government make me angry and at times I might even use an expletive or two about the situation. But I'm not delusional about these bureaucratic forces, nor do I feel powerless to resist them. I can, and do, vote for candidates who pledge to bring government waste under control, although I have noticed that most politicians of any stripe tend to talk the talk more than they actually walk the walk once they are in office.
The new Republican majority in the House of Representatives swept to power promising to cut "$100 billion" of government waste. Last I checked, once in power, they had reduced this to "around $50 billion," maybe.
Not that Republicans are any more likely to make excessive promises than Democrats. There are plenty of similar examples from both major parties.
It is time for reasonable people to be heard. Those who simply shout out conspiracy theories and hate speech may seem to hold sway in this society at the moment, but there are many more of us who are disgusted by their excesses than support them.
It is to be deeply hoped that yesterday's tragedy finally encourages the voices of reason to take our country's political debate back from the extremists. They've had their run the past two years, and they got themselves pretty worked up by drinking their own Kool-Aid too long.
Just so that nobody mistakes me, I am not singling out the Tea Party here; in fact this is my only mention of it and I believe it to be composed mainly of sincere citizens who are angry about the economic circumstances of our present lives and the government excesses mentioned above. I don't have a problem with the Tea Party; I have a problem with extremists who circulate hate speech and who incite others to violence.
This, then, is Palin's crime, although as far as I know she broke no laws so it is a moral crime -- knowing full well how her target symbols would be received, she nonetheless launched a campaign to circulate them far and wide, raising lots of money in the process for her own political ambitions and inciting a group of people already worked-up to excessive proportions to entertain at least the thought of actual physical violence.
I will always staunchly defend her right to free speech, as well as yours and mine. And, by exercising that right today, I accuse her of a moral crime. Furthermore, I believe she would agree with me if she could bring herself to be honest. Why else would she have so rapidly removed her targets from public view? Out of common decency? It's a little too late for that. The damage has already been done -- not necessarily literally in yesterday's tragedy (who knows if the gunman even knew who Palin is), but to Palin's own reputation as a potential future leader.
She has a lot of work to do now if she is to recover. Those who continue to defend her should think a beat before blaming the so-called "liberal media," which is neither liberal nor at fault here. That is simply blaming the messenger.
No, in this case something else was at fault. That was Palin's message.
-30-
7 comments:
Thank you for acknowledging that some rhetoric on the left is equally inflammatory.
Remember there was even a book published on how to assassinate George Bush, as well as a movie and play about the same subject.
And let's remember, too, that Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos, the largest left-wing community online, put Gabrielle Giffords on a target list with a bullseye. Just as Sarah Palin removed her post, Markos removed his.
But just the other day another Daily Kos writer penned a post saying Congresswoman Giffords was dead to him.
I think we need to condemn all instances of this kind of rhetoric and guard against it, whether on the right or the left.
And of course to keep Congresswoman Giffords and the other victims in our thoughts and prayers.
I always welcome all sane comments here and have for the almost five years this blog has been around. I've never made any exclusive claim on the truth. As a journalist, I tend not trust those with unyielding political ideologies, although I respect everyone's opinion. I do not believe, when it comes to hate speech and inciting others to violence, that any major political figure can compare to Sarah Palin at the moment. On the other hand, there are pretenders to that throne on the left and on the right. My sincere hope is that Palin will tone down her dangerous tactics from now on -- for all of our good. Thank God for her and for our country that there does not appear to be a direct connection between her targets website and the gunner, at least not that has come to light yet. I hope there is no such connection, because that would only confirm the worst assumptions of extremists of all types. Most of what I have written can be properly interpreted as a moral appeal to Palin to knock it off and start joining the reasonable debate that our country needs. If she proves incapable of that, she is de facto incapable to hold public office, IMHO. The people who should be making the strongest appeals to her to reform her ways should be conservatives and Republicans. Because it is their cause that is being damaged in the process. Democrats and liberals couldn't be happier at Palin's excesses. Apparently it takes simple little bloggers like me to shine a light on this kind of issue -- it is a shame there is so little civil debate in this country. Anyone who knows me knows how much I value ideas and debate, honesty and integrity. In my pantheon are those who rise above partisanship to serve the country with honor. To date, there is no honor in the matter at hand, except that of the fallen Congresswoman. She deserves not only our prayers but our gratitude for exemplifying the essence of leadership. And, BTW, she is not a liberal but a conservative. If she were my representative in Congress, I'd be proud to vote for her, which is more than I can say for the one I actually have...
Well said, and a moral crime indeed.
The early part of this post had me thinking about the famous "Dewey Defeats Truman" photograph. Some things never change, although technology does.
In the face of violence, the divisions between the humanly weak and the humanly strong are sharply lit.
Weakness is characterized by flailing excitement with a desperate inability to process the realities of the moment. It renders one incapable of focused, reasoned action to arrest the cause(s) and limit harm.
Strength is characterized by immediate and purposeful response. We have been told by the local authorities that a woman was first to respond at the scene by attempting to tackle the shooter, preventing him from reloading his weapon, probably saving many lives in so doing. She was apparently followed by two men who helped to completely arrest the cause and end the carnage. Human strength on display.
If the witness accounts are accurate, we have a woman and two men who were immediate heroes. Next came the first responders - those few present and able to respond with focused purpose, who seem always to show their unusual courage as such tragedies unfold. They would help calm the hysterical, begin tending to the injured, and direct emergency response. Then came the law enforcement and EMS personnel, followed by the incredible hospital staff who saved Mrs. Giffords' life and no doubt mitigated injuries to the other wounded. And all of these wonderful people acted as servants to the greater good.
In contrast, we have had countless weaklings spouting holier-than-thou admonishments in virtually every direction and in every media format, seemingly determined to be the most righteous authority on what went wrong. They are generally the last people one wants in an emergency; they show themselves to be very small.
The facts will present themselves in time, and in that time will be the appropriate venue for sorting out the good, the bad, and the much in between. If we wish to be helpful, we will offer our prayers for all those harmed by this, along with our quiet contemplation for now.
In the face of violence, the divisions between the humanly weak and the humanly strong are sharply lit.
Weakness is characterized by flailing excitement with a desperate inability to process the realities of the moment. It renders one incapable of focused, reasoned action to arrest the cause(s) and limit harm.
Strength is characterized by immediate and purposeful response. We have been told by the local authorities that a woman was first to respond at the scene by attempting to tackle the shooter, preventing him from reloading his weapon, probably saving many lives in so doing. She was apparently followed by two men who helped to completely arrest the cause and end the carnage. Human strength on display.
If the witness accounts are accurate, we have a woman and two men who were immediate heroes. Next came the first responders - those few present and able to respond with focused purpose, who seem always to show their unusual courage as such tragedies unfold. They would help calm the hysterical, begin tending to the injured, and direct emergency response. Then came the law enforcement and EMS personnel, followed by the incredible hospital staff who saved Mrs. Giffords' life and no doubt mitigated injuries to the other wounded. And all of these wonderful people acted as servants to the greater good.
In contrast, we have had countless weaklings spouting holier-than-thou admonishments in virtually every direction and in every media format, seemingly determined to be the most righteous authority on what went wrong. They are generally the last people one wants in an emergency; they show themselves to be very small.
The facts will present themselves in time, and in that time will be the appropriate venue for sorting out the good, the bad, and the much in between. If we wish to be helpful, we will offer our prayers for all those harmed by this, along with our quiet contemplation for now.
David, take a look at the event sponsored by her opponent Jesse Kelly. This was a much more direct incitement to violence against her. It's on my Facebook listings. Giffords is my congresswoman, actually, and the problems with politics in Arizona go much deeper than discourse, as you know.
When these tragedies happen- everyone on all sides of the political fence should take a step back and realize there needs to be a change in their rhetoric and actions. How fast words can turn into vicious acts- and we all need to be careful of what we say.
Ephesians 4:29- Be careful of every word which proceeds from your mouth, make sure it is a word which is edifying for the needs of the moment that it may impart grace to the hearers.
If we would be more mindful of this verse- we would talk less negatively and start doing more positive things. I have found- once a negative word leaves my mouth (or my fingertips)...it is very difficult to erase the effects. Let us pray that all concerned will be more careful in the future!
Post a Comment