In the dazed aftermath of the mayhem in Tucson, there has been much digital ink spilled measuring out the blame for the attack on the indiscriminate rhetoric of America's permanent campaign culture as if specific percentages of culpability could be affixed to the loose and unpleasant lips of a Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. I am not about to defend the lazy and toxic hyperbole of the prevailing political culture, certainly there has been far too much talk of tyranny, treason, and "second amendment" responses in recent cultural-political "debates." I do think words matter and can move people in unpredictable and potentially tragic ways. But it is virtually impossible to know were to draw a line on speech if you hope to achieve a certainty that any speech will not affect unbalanced minds.
To me a more important problem related to the Tucson attack has drawn far less attention than it merits--perhaps after so many similar incidents we have simply grown inured to the problem or weary of the fight. But firearms remain far too easy to acquire in American daily life and mental health services remain too weak and their institution too haphazard. There will be inflammatory rhetoric on the right and left in the United States; there will also be any number of potential Travis Bickles out there who may be affected by such rhetoric ... or maybe not. Maybe they will commit violent acts for reasons, as it appears in this case, that will never make sense because it is their illness that is the agent of their behavior, not the individuals themselves. Jared Lee Loughner bought his weapon a little more than a month ago without apparent difficulty. Owing to his clearly troubled demeanor, however, it did take two trips to separate Walmarts before he was able to acquire bullets for his overloaded magazine. In a sensible society, you would make every effort to keep people with mental illness from acquiring handguns. Can we be satisfied that we approach this problem sensibly after this parade of carnage from Columbine to Virginia Tech to Tucson?
Sad to say, it is a hardship to even raise the matter of improving controls on firearms sales in our culture, as self-evident as this event and a catalog of others make that need appear. Loughner has been broadcasting his mental illness for months, perhaps years before this awful attack. As a mentally ill person it was not his responsibility to find and map out his own treatment plan, that was our job (I've no doubt that has family was put through a ringer trying to get help for their son; that's an old story). We failed. As a mentally ill person he should never have been allowed to get his hands on a gun. We failed again. What happened in Tucson on Saturday was horrible and tragic and ghastly, but no one should be truly shocked. Spectacles like Tucson are the inevitable, occasional horror that we appear willing to tolerate in American society in order to limit to the absolute minimum our spending on mental health services and extend to the maximum the intentions of the second amendment. Frankly, and I hate to write this, I'm surprised such tragedies don't happen more often.
Certainly, if you enjoy listening to them and enjoy having your emotions, rather than your intellect, aroused, please go ahead and continue to enjoy them. However, it would be my preference if, like the author of the article cited by Jim, above, the mainstream media would treat all utterances that sound mentally disturbed the same, as in not broadcasting them just because they come out of a famous person.
In my opinion, Beck, and Limbaugh, for sure, have mental problems or they would not come up with the ideas that they do. I'm sorry but I do not have a political agenda when I say I dislike the sound of Sarah Palin and that she should keep doing travelogues about life in Alaska if she wants to make a positive contribution to life in the country.
We'll see if Scott Brown lasts in Massachusetts the way Kennedy did. I lived in Massachusetts for a lot of years, and people there might just have voted for him because he was good looking, sorry to say.
(Also, Tom, you might want to type more slowly or proofread before you post)
And it’s most definitely a system woefully inadequate from a Catholic perspective. Would be nice if a prelate in Arizona devoted some energy to this.
At any rate, as far as guns are concerned the clear fact about guns is a conflict can be life ending rather than ending up with a bloody nose, sore ribs, jaw etc. That is the point. The fact that a rogue organization like the National Rifle Association can have so much power is a terrible blot on the nation. I understand they have money and influence.
My heart goes out to the victims of this tragedy and their families. And I can only imagine the nightmare that Mr. Loughner's family is living right now.
While we lived there, the staff of a Pizza Hut were slaughtered by three young men who had nothing better to do. A woman opening a shop for the day was stabbed to death and then the same killer murdered the guard at one of the parks before most people were up and about. These are just a few of the many random murders that occurred while we were there. Illegal immigrants would be found dead in the desert every day, and people objected loudly when a Baptist church put out water stations.
I was approached by the guidance counselor at my son's school because she needed someone to give a ride to a little girl in kindergarten who had been adopted and whose adoptive parents were getting divorced and therefore decided to give her back up for adoption like she was a pet. The guidance counselor also mentioned that a single father had left his children, the oldest of which was ten, alone in their apartment with food for a week and instructions to get themselves off to school. This was in the most prestigious school system in the area.
This stuff was so unrelenting that we could not stay there. Good luck getting them to see that they don't individually need guns to protect themselves from the threatening atmosphere of the place.
Blaming anyone else for Jarad Lee Loughner's crimnal actions e is very inappropriate and or irresponsible. Blaming other social conditions is also not acceptable. Most people do not murder under any circumstances.
Like the John Kennedy assination these assination willbe endlessly exploited without basis by political opportunist. Scores of people from Lyndon Johnson to Fidel Castro to organized crime etc were blamed for the Kennedy asscination over a twenty year period. The same will happen with the Tuscon asscinations.
In the end this is a lone gunman with his own motives acting alone without any larger political implications.
The only thing that comes out of these experinces is public gathering require security protection. Lack of security is a big mistake as shown in the 1960s were a dozen public figures were killed by lone gunman usually of unknown or unusual political affiliation.
This assination should not be turned into a politcal witch hunt against innocent people not involved with this crime.
I fully agree. The mental health system in Arizona may be characterized by an almost wanton disregard for public safety. My nephew is easily agitated into violent rages by the rhetorical overkill (in words or actions) of others he hears or witnesses.
http://www.karengrepin.com/2011/01/protecting-public-health-from-private.html
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/On-the-Self-Indulgence-of-the-Tucson-Media-Orgy
Maybe there are much more important things to be worried about.
Now a lot of people here admire the president and he has many admirable qualities but should also he held to what he says in public. For example, the following are quotes of President Obama either while he has been president or while campaigning.
Obama at a campaign rally: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
Obama on ACORN: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
Obama to His backers: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
Obama to Democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”
Now, do I believe this led to the Gifford shooting. No but could it have raised the anger level in the country. Maybe. but probably not nearly as effectively as the way the healthcare legislation was developed which is so proud of.
Also an extremely liberal and popular blog, The Daily Kos, Published a thread two days before the shooting talking how Congressman Giffords was dead to them. Did this have an effect on the shooting. Probably not because the shooter was extremely wierd before this posting.
As for Palin, her use of gun rhetoric is the peak of idiocy. Especially since she is a gun owner. I don't talk about guns and politicians or anyone in the same sentence because I AM a gun owner and want to demonstrate that I am NOT a danger to my fellow citizens. That I am in control of my behaviour. Nasty, violent rhetoric from big mouth gun owners like Palin and their organizations will eventually backfire.
I don't have any problem with gun restrictions. And states have the right to set them as they please. Pennsylvania has liberal gun laws with respect to New Jersey but restrictive with respect to Arizona. Private and public establishments should not be coerced into allowing firearms to be brought on their premises. I abide by the rules of whatever state I'm in and will continue to. Would that access to automobiles by crazy, irresponsible people were restricted. Every time I pull out of my driveway, I wonder how many lunatics I'll encounter on the road.
"For Some Young Men, a Dangerous Age for Mental Illness"
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/for-young-men-a-dangerous-age-for-mental-illness.html
Interview with a retired ATF expert on how Arizona's gun laws compare to others:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june11/gunownership_01-11.html
"Mental Illness and Warning Signs" Discussion with mental health leaders
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june11/mental_01-11.html
"The Tucson Shooter and the Case for Involuntary Commitment" - a controversial opinion piece by Bill Galston - the comments are almost as interesting as the article:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/william-galston/81228/the-tucson-shooter-and-the-case-involuntary-commitment
And just for fans of Rush Limbaugh, here's an excerpt from his show yesterday:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/rush-limbaugh-jared-loughner-full-support-democrat_n_807543.html
(tee hee)
This is Sarah Palin main probelm: she is a Republican with a very effective Republican messages which nowadays with new personal communication technologies are readily available for broadcast to the entire nation all the time. The author of the article is correct in saying we have a perpetual campaign political environment very much due to new technical advances that Sarah Palin is very adapt at using. This communication ability give Palin hugh political power which she use to advance endorse and advances candidates across the country very effectiely which created an overwhelming Republican majority in the House of Congress.
Fairly credited Palin is extremely able political power without being in office.
This makes her a super threat to liberal Democrat who miss no opportuity to smear her in vain hopes she will marginalized. But out of office her still audience grows. Liberal smears are backfiring by making Palin known to even more poeple. The old liberal domination of media has been broken.
The author asserts in the very first sentence of this article titled the Tuscon Tragedy that many people blame what he labels the "indiscriminate rhetoric of America permanent campaign culture ... ". So we are talking about political speech i.e rhetoric which the author judgees is indicriminate as a cause for the violence in Tuscon. He further mention disapprovingly Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin as sharing in the culpability for the tragedy. That is pretty serious assertions that the public is blaming Gleen Beck and Sarah Palin whom he adds his own disapproval of their speech.
The author than refuses to defend the prvailing political culture meaning it is ok with him if people want to think that political speech of the people he just mentioned are to blame for the tragedy in Tuscon which is an outrageously false proposition. The author sets up the proposition of linkage of political speech to violence and then walks away leaving the impression that political speech is distateful and dangerous which is false.
The author further condemns political speech by declaring that certaily there has been far too much talk ...
The author then declares his belief that words matter and can move people unpredictable and potentially tragic ways. In other words are causes for other peoples actions. He doubles back and say in effect he not sure but Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck could be responsible for the tradegy in Tuscon at least theoretically which is giving to words super human power of control of others minds and actions. Its metaphysical propostion very much like saying Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin words have mind controlling power which is nonsense and therefore may have caused the tragedy in Tuscon.
The Constitution does allows free speech free of politcal accountability and political witch hunts and censorship.
The perpetrator acted on his own but might have been so distant from reality that what he did would not be something he would do in his right mind.
No, it most certainly does not do that. You get to speak. Other people can criticize your speech just as freely. They can approve or disapprove of speech at the ballot box or through the political process. If anything, the Constitution revels in political accountability for speech.
If someone grows up in that environment, especially as an only child, he may either have his natural empathy destroyed or have become seriously self-involved for lack of other options. It may not be strictly defined as mental illness but rather an antisocial mindset cultivated in him by his environment.
Yes, I do want to lock up the mentally ill and deprive them of the voice they use when they are in the throws of their mental illness. I want to tell people like the guy in Tucson that they are wrong. I prefer that we be the kind of society that does not isolate people and allow them to become outcasts who resemble those whose mental illness has physical causes.
It would be unworkable to outlaw what people say, and given the freedom to speak, I think we can say that we have tired of the likes of Beck, Palin, and Limbaugh. I think the majority of people weighing in on this are simply asking that the hostile, and frequently absurd, comments be toned down for their own sake, as the fruits of this will not be ripe for another decade or so and are likely to resemble what we see in the individual in Tucson.
It is exteremely presumptious for the author and others to think we are all still loyal Democrats willing to accept Sheriff Dupnik rediculous ideas that political speech of the opposition party causes the Tuscon violence soition casues which even he admits is only his opiniion , he has no evidence that assertion.
So the ideas that we are all tired of Palin , Beck and Limbaugh is just on the average not going to be true. You should speak for yourself not for all Catholics.
America magazine and many Catholic collges with liberal Democrat leanings still have not got the news that the Rerpublicans sweept the Congress by a 75 year record high margin of 64 seats much of that due to tea party supporters who do not agree with the early 20th century old liberal Democrat from Chicago, New York, Boston and San Francisco and their lack of tolerance for anyone who is not a liberal Democrat.
And of cousrse Catholics are only 25 percent of the population so their are even bigger differences in non-Catholic circles politically, thank goodness.
But how out of touch can a person be to not recognize the central importance of the First Amendment free speech clause of the U.S. Constitution and overwhelming American tradition to foster free speech? The attemp to demonize political speech is just not viable outside the ever-narrowing base of the Democrat party.
In Arizona, it's very difficult to get confinement for more than 7-10 days at a time. The system is designed more to keep taxpayer expenses (at least on the mental health side, not the prison side....) down than to address the public safety risks. They go out of their way to spring people out before they have even stabilized, let alone treated. This has happened *many* times with my nephew. Seriously.
"Partisans already playing the victim card." Seems true here and on other blogs.
Seems Loughner acted alone, but his action -so heinous - has raised for many the question of discouse and ugliness in it in our society, and i think that's more than reasonable.
Moderate voices, not the NRA, are calling for looking at gun and magazines for them regulation.
That strikes me as not unreasonable.
Mental illness is a difficult fish to deal with.
Once we emptied out the "asylums" (quite properly), we were still left with how to deal with "dangerous" individuals and what that meant, and fear by professionals of litigation in case they incapacitated someone.
Which returns me to the first point about the victim card.
A lot of noise from some about rights but very little about public safety.
How to balance them in our divisive atmosphere strikes me as not only a reasonable but compelling question.
" Witch hunt" of course comes from the frenzied actions of the righteous and moralistic Puritans of Massachusetts in the 1690s (very much like the righeous and moralistic Catholic people of today) who in their zeal to protect and improve society from precieved evils officially executed 20 innocent people - fourteen women and six men - for the imaginary crimes of "witchcraft" and related imaginary crimes of being in league with the devil. In their righteous zeal they accepted wild and unverifiable accusations of teenage girls who saw metaphysical implications of satanic evil in the aged appearances of elderly persons whom the girls elaborately accusations of witchcraft. Their fantastic accusations were uncritically accepted as true without testing their reasonableness or verifying the wildly false claims. Mass moralizing overwhelmed reason. Gross falsehoods were accepted as true and resulted in the execution of 20 innocent people.
Assasinations do trigger powerful moral reactions much of which are wildly false and misdirected. We need to be careful to do no harm to society in the name of helping society. We need to beware of the destructive effects of moral rage where society turns in on itself and destroys innocent people and institutions . The French Revolution would be an another example of out-of-control moral frenzy. The moral outrage at the assaination of an Austiran king set off a chain of events that caused World War I.
This article is an example of ill-considered moral outrage misdirected at free speech. This article implies that America has an underlying problem with words, debate and free speech. The author fails to defend the unqualified right of free speech of all people. Instead the author see some free speech distasteful and potentially harmful, leading to political excesses that may encourage unstable people to violence . Word may be dangerous. Becasue of this potential danger the author see free speech as a right that needs to be more controlled rather than allowed to be unabriged as the Constitution mandates in the First Amendment. Apparently the author thinks free speech needs to be fixed but just has not found the right formulation to limit speech and methods of implementation to enforce official limititation on speech just yet.
Limiting or controlling free speech is censorship which is pure hell fire that should be avoided by all means. Any suggestion of limiting anyone's speech for any purpose is an extremely poor idea that most Americans will storngly oppose.
American society does not have a First Amendment problem that needs to be fixed. Words, open debate and Freedom of Speech are not problems but critically essential freedoms that make America able to distool needed to make known, discuss and correct societies problem. Free speech available to all is essential American political instituion. The benefits of free sppech have always far exceeded any potential risks of evil or petty annoyance from open and free debate and intense political criticism.
The author fails the reader in his ambiguity in defending our First Amendment political rights and political environment even for Glenn Beck and Sarah Paline.
There's an interesting tendency of today's right wing (and it is almost exclusively the right wing;please don't haul out the ghosts of the 1960s) to attack with hyperbole, then claim victim status when their speech or actions are criticized (as opposed to suppressed, which has not occurred). Limbaugh did it yesterday when he raised the specter on his radio show of the Tucson shooting becoming an excuse to suppress all political dissent; Mr. Maher did it today when he compared this comments thread to what happened during the Salem Witch Trials.
I'm mindful of the old advice not to argue with a fool in public, since passersby will be unable to tell who is who. But it would be nice to have reasonable conversations here, even if we have to agree to disagree.
Most of the article was about gun control and mental health. But then why were the names of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck brought up especially since many commentators immediately went after Sarah Palin. A way to tone down the rhetoric would be to criticize those who attacked Palin.