The media craziness about Rep. Gifford's shooting has reached a new level. At this point, if I was asked to identify the mentally disturbed person in the story, I don't know if I'd pick the shooter or several of the major news media outlets. That is frightening.
Of course everyone has got something to say about this, and I'm no exception, so I'm just going to toss out a few thoughts on the tragedy.
1. To the news media: If the TEA Party birthed a violent revolutionary who decided to shoot and kill just one political opponent, even just one of our political opponents who was also a Congressman, it sure as heck wouldn't be some Arizona representative whose name I never even heard until this tragedy. We wouldn't be going after a Blue Dog moderate who voted against Obama on almost every issue, voted against Pelosi as minority leader, and supported the Arizona laws on immigration.
2. The leftists are pursuing a false dichotomy. They announce that the shooter was a conservative crazy and then claim that the only way for us to refute it is to prove that he was a liberal crazy. I even heard one fellow make the remarkable claim that the shooter once called someone a terrorist for having an abortion, therefore he was unquestionably a TEA Party Conservative Palin Supporter. Look, guys, this is like saying that a man has brown hair unless you can prove that it's blonde. There are more than two colors to choose from here.
3. "This just proves that political rhetoric should be kinder and gentler, like it used to be." Since when? This claim is being made by people who apparently never had a comprehensive history class, and used to justify yet another push for the return of the un-"Fairness Doctrine", which says that the liberal viewpoint must make up 80% of the news media, 95% of the state-run education system, and 50% of talk radio. So to what kinder, gentler era do they want to revert our political rhetoric? Back when politicians used to settle their arguments with duels and fistfights? Are they aware that the distances between people during Congressional talk was set so that they were out of sword's reach of each other? Is that where they want to return us?
4. It was a surveying symbol on Palin's map, not a crosshairs. If you want to blame the rhetoric of targeting symbols used to drive crazy people to murder, look to the Democrats and their bullseye map. It's worth noting also that only days before this tragedy, multiple liberal constituents weighed in on Daily Kos to exclaim that their congresswoman was "DEAD to me" for having not voted for Pelosi as minority leader.
5. What is it about Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto that nearly every non-Muslim terrorist nut in the past however many years has been a fan? Are these books our modern-day equivalent of Sauron's One Ring, in some way inherently corrupting to all who read it? Or are they just the most accessible materials of the sort that crazy people might use to justify their actions? If we're going to look into shutting up Rush Limbaugh for the sake of someone who went off the rails after favoring socialist and fascist fundamentals, isn't it time to ask libraries to consider banning these books for our own safety? (I ask this tongue-in-cheek. I do not support a ban.)
6. Above all, please remember what this poor woman was nearly killed for: She refused to answer, at a town meeting, the question, "How do you know words mean anything?"
That was it. That is what started it.
What political persuasion asks questions like that? Where is that on Palin's website? Where is it on Pelosi's website?
This was a madman, pure and simple.
No comments:
Post a Comment