Stand there. My thoughts on yesterday’s tragic events, and the predictable reactions to them.
[Update a few minutes later]
“You can almost hear the disappointment on the left that he was a pot head rather than a Tea Partyer.”
“Almost hear” it? Hell, it’s palpable.
[Update later morning]
Two sicknesses on display on Arizona.
[Update a few minutes later]
A colossal failure of journalism. In other words, business as usual.
[Update a couple minutes later]
In defense of inflamed rhetoric:
For as long as I’ve been alive, crosshairs and bull’s-eyes have been an accepted part of the graphical lexicon when it comes to political debates. Such “inflammatory” words as targeting, attacking, destroying, blasting, crushing, burying, knee-capping, and others have similarly guided political thought and action. Not once have the use of these images or words tempted me or anybody else I know to kill. I’ve listened to, read—and even written!—vicious attacks on government without reaching for my gun. I’ve even gotten angry, for goodness’ sake, without coming close to assassinating a politician or a judge.
From what I can tell, I’m not an outlier. Only the tiniest handful of people—most of whom are already behind bars, in psychiatric institutions, or on psycho-meds—can be driven to kill by political whispers or shouts. Asking us to forever hold our tongues lest we awake their deeper demons infantilizes and neuters us and makes politicians no safer.
Well, actually, it may make politicians somewhat safer, but I’m not sure that the safety of politicians should be the highest priority goal. Partly because infantilizing and neutering us is what it’s all about for many politicians and their media enablers.