Sticks and Stones May Hurt My Bones, but----

A relatively quiet Saturday was shattered with the news of the awful tragedy in Arizona. It wasn't the first time we became aware that our country is not free from senseless shootings. It's been going on a long time from the assassinations of President Kennedy, then later his brother, Robert who was running for President, then the attempted murder of Ronald Reagan. Add to the mix, the murder of Martin Luther King, drive-by shootings by gang members, school shootings, and the Oklahoma City incident, not to mention attacks on our very own military bases, and other sordid incidents. And those tragedies are just some of the ones we know about----there are countless threats made every day, that we are never made aware of for security reasons. We are not a country safe from violence on our streets and public places. What's going on here? Are we coming apart at the seams as a society? The media would have us believe that while we may not be unraveling, we are being attacked from within by our own violent, virulent rhetoric. This concept was articulated carelessly by the sheriff of Tuscon on Saturday, when he implied that the perpetrator of the shootings may very well have been influenced by people who have expressed views counter to those of Mrs. Griffiths, an advocate against stricter immigration laws sought by Arizona. Not only was this imprudent of the sheriff in terms of possibly tainting the case against the shooter, it was an indictment against anyone who chooses to speak strongly their political differences and a threat against one of our most treasured rights---free speech. Turns out that we have now learned that the young man had some very strange habits, but listening to political dialogue on TV or radio, were not among them. But even if that had been the case, are we to pander or shrink from our freedoms because of the actions of one mentally unbalanced individual? It was a ridiculous and wrong-headed comment, which in of itself could be considered a virulent, political attack on those who disagree with the sheriff's views. Would he have us all bow meekly to whatever political power is in office, afraid that we might cause or be blamed for another tragedy? It would seem he thinks the opposing parties to his beliefs, namely the Republicans and most specifically the conservatives, should use kinder, softer words. If that be the case, then perhaps he should also advise and caution those on the other side of the political aisle and remember back to the Bush years ---when the well known directive was to take President Bush down by impugning his presidency and character at every opportunity. The attacks were and continue to be savage.President Obama personally called the sheriff and congratulated him on a job well done shortly after the attack. It would have been refreshing, presidential, and leaderly of the president to have added that airing of the sheriff's political view would better be left unsaid at the scene of a terribly sad and devastating crime.

Emotions run high during times of tragedy and loss---but please---let's stop playing the blame game---particularly when there is really no one to blame, except the person who committed the crime. Harsh words are never pleasant, but nicer words would not have stopped this young man from his actions. Perhaps our efforts should better be directed towards offering more concern and aid to those who are mentally ill, before they become a threat to society and themselves.


Self righteousness and hypocrisy from both parties are nothing new in the political realm---in fact, they are often bedfellows with speechifying and self proclaimed positions of moral leadership---which is why a lecturing tone by any politician never goes down very well with the American public,particularly when done during times of heart-breaking, emotional events. It comes across as opportunistic, and the current polls are reflecting that feeling toward the sheriff and the recent media tone.

We, as a nation, may be polarized and in the throes of much political narrative---but we are not coming apart at the seams, mentally unbalanced, or out of control. We are exercising our rights to be heard and if that sometimes means using disagreeable words, not withstanding slander or libel, that is the nature of politics and a free country--- not attractive or admirable, but part of who we are. Love her or hate her, Sarah Palin could be the poster politician for verbal and written abuse. She has endured endless professional and deeply persoanl attacks from the left, and very few have come to her rescue or defense. Absolutely, civil discourse should always be the aim, and "civil" means to use one's words within a frame work of common respect and dignity for the opposing view point--not to intimidate, ridicule, or overpower, but to persuade, enlighten, clarify and even respectfully point out weaknesses of the other side. We expect this from our civil servants, and judge them accordingly. But what about right wing talk radio and left wing t.v. pundits? Should they be allowed to speak their very opinionated views, which at times could be said to be not so civil? Do they not have their rights as well, and we to listen, if we so choose? Some people within the government think not-- there are already legislative moves underway to silence conservative talk radio and prohibit use of certain symbols or language. Whose rules and standards, one wonders, would govern and monitor these actions? This type of self appointed arbitrator of our rights to speak and listen to and read other opinions has always been referred to as "censorship"---it bears intense watching. And what about our very violent and often politically motivated movies and TV programs---or should we also seek to silence them?

President Obama last night spoke before a crowd of heart broken people in Arizona, anxious for comforting and inspirational words. He gave them exactly that in a 30 minute speech. But it began to sound like a lecture as he advised the country to speak in healing words, not those which would wound. Wound? That was a strange choice of word---words of opposition will hardly ever heal, and may offend---but the word "wound" seemed a bit dramatic. One hopes he will take his own advice in the future and not refer to his opponents as "the enemy" as he has done on occasion. His style has not been of healing, but often combative, as in when he said the Republicans could sit at the back of the car, but not be allowed to speak, or when he mentioned in regards to his opponents that if they bring a knife to the fight, his side should bring a gun. President Obama is human, with flaws like the rest of us, but hopefully as he matures, his presidency will lift him above his own instincts and elevate his rhetoric to a more uniting tone. He showed great promise last night that perhaps he, too, will change and lead the country to a place of more civility. That would be lovely. But the goal should also include the hope for more, not less discourse. Many people already do not voice their opinions for fear of being called rabble rousers or trouble makers. We need to keep talking and not be discouraged from doing so---for therein lies our strength to stay able to do so--and to remain a free, democratic society. Weakness would soon follow a country afraid to speak out --China , Russia, Iran come to mind---very "civil" countries, but their citizens best keep their opinons to themselves.

Become more civil? Oh, yes-- that's what this blog is all about--civil, sprightly conversation and debate without anger, malice, arrogance, or personal attacks----but more is the worry that in our efforts to become so very politically correct and non-offensive to anyone, we will become less inclined to say anything at all. Silence can be worse than words---