Angry gasbags

There's very little I could say to be of any comfort to the folks who've been affected by the Tuscon shooting of Rep. Giffords and the other innocents who were murdered or injured by douchebag Jared Loughner. A terrible day for all involved and the country at large.

Of course, this being a country with several 24/7 "news" outlets and a large punditry class who deliver judgments and wisdom from on high, everyone has heard the political fallout of a distinctly non-political event. A child was murdered, as were five other people (I think it was five). Go ahead, try and convince me that was politically motivated. If one wants to argue semantics, there's a world of difference between the terms "assassination" and "shooting rampage." Clearly, this creep was the latter, and not the former. As a country I understand the desire to "define" his motives and to associate them with something larger, but perhaps he was indeed just a nutcase. Time and trial will tell, on that count.

We had a particularly angry election last November. Arizona was a flashpoint for disagreement on the issues of illegal immigration and (for Rep. Giffords) healthcare reform. There was much talk of "freedom dying" as a result of the healthcare bill, for example.

We seem to love the use of hyperbole these days.

Mrs. Palin, at some point, decided it was a good idea to post an electoral map that contained rifle sights over Rep. Gifford's district. Sharon Angle decided to refer to something called "2nd amendment remedies". I'm guessing that both individuals would like to be able to take those words and actions back today. NOT because, in either case, the words directly incited this criminal act, BUT simply because of how those words appear in light of these events.

Neither extreme of American politics has clean hands. In the early 1900's, leftist nutjobs assassinated or attempted to assassinate Pres. Garfield and Pres. McKinley. Recall the Black Panthers, and the fear that organization instilled in white America. Or the Pattie Hearst kidnappers. On the right, we have Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City.

Now, leave those examples behind us, and consider how people in this country have behaved, and are behaving right this minute. Liberals branded Pres. George W. Bush a traitor over the Iraq invasion. They demonized VP Cheney and Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld. Conservatives, after 9-11, branded liberals as "weak" on homeland security, essentially calling them Chamberlain-esque "appeasers." Pres. Obama has also been labelled many less-than-flattering things. In every case, hyperbole trumped truth and bullshit trumped any substance.

Politicians are creatures of opportunity. I think we all know this. It is distasteful to see Democratic politicians try to use this event to push an agenda or bury someone they oppose (like Mrs. Palin). It is likewise ludicrous to attempt to defend her PAC website's "map" as a collection of survey signs, or to announce that Ms. Angle's statement could not possibly have been misconstrued.

We're taught at a young age that words don't hurt, but they can and do. For a person of national prominence who inflames the passions of the people, those words can sometimes be twisted into actions the speakers do not intend. This is why the people who take public office usually speak carefully, because when you say something you're then and forever after responsible for what you've said. And stuck with the consequences, however unfair that may be.

Hypothetically speaking, if a black man had attempted to assassinate a Tea Party figure, would any of you reading this be surprised to see a political "spin?"

There is ZERO evidence that the political babble spouting from Fox "News" or CNN or the unwatchable and overtly-liberal MSNBC or the legions of talk-show hosts (or the aforementioned well-reported examples I've already cited) inspired douchebag Jared Loughner to undertake his evil deeds. People are attempting to draw a line between the angry and vitriolic political rhetoric and his act. That line, as of right now, does not exist.

But the angry and vitriolic rhetoric is very real, and in my opinion it's (at the very least) not constructive to dialogue. It's simply two sides yelling at each other about....everything. It's like the North-Going Zax and the South-Going Zax from the Dr. Seuss story, each puffing its' chest out with pride and stating that - if you're FOR it, I'm AGAINST it. And who truly loses in this scenario?

The rhetoric does have consequences. It coarsens us, makes us angry at each other, and exploits. Anger is not a healthy emotion, not individually and not in a group. Violent rhetoric or using military-esque terms to illustrate AN ELECTION could, conceivably, inspire the lunatics out there. Politicians should be aware of this concept, even if they are not sensitive to it.

I think Sheriff Dupnik of Pima County said it best, "that may be free speech, but it's not without consequences."