Thoughts On The Tragedy In Arizona

A few days ago a horrible tragedy occurred in the state of Arizona, as a gunman opened fire at a small political even in the city of Tucson. A young man named Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat. Almost immediately, this story began to explode in the media, but for all the wrong reasons.

Almost right out of the gate fingers began to point as to what caused this person to try and kill over a dozen people. One of the initial reactions came from the fact that Sarah Palin had once put out a graphic that pointed out various Democratic members of the House, whose seats were up for reelection in 2010, via cross-hairs and the use of the word "re-load." Before anyone learned about who Loughner was or what his motive was, people were already attacking Palin, blaming her before any of the facts were known.

As it turned out, Loughner's motives appeared to have had nothing to do with politics. Judging from what friends, teachers and various online profiles of his say, he was a peculiar individual, not a political fanatic. We may never understand his reasons for why he carried through with what he did, but we can learn from how the media reacted to this.

Several things happened as the mystery behind the shooting unraveled:

1. People made assumptions. The target was a Democrat, so therefore the shooter must have been a right wing extremist. Giffords was one of the targets Sarah Palin had hoped to defeat in the 2010 election, so therefore the shooter must have been influenced by Palin. The assailant used a gun, so therefore greater guns control is needed.
2. People politicized the shooting. Liberals began to go after the likes of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, who have used rhetoric that some felt went too far. One of the Tea Party affiliates sent out a fund-raising email in which they claimed that Loughner was a liberal and warned of impending danger from other liberals.
3. People began overreacting. There were calls to tone down political rhetoric, address gun control and address the Westboro Baptist Church, which plans to protest at the victems' funerals. Yet none of these suggestions are necessary.

I see nothing wrong with the speech and rhetoric used by Sarah Palin and other recognizable political figures. I do not at all believe that Palin wished harm to anyone she put on the map of politicians who were highlighted with cross-hairs. While to some cross-hairs may come off as violent, I have no problem with such a map. It was not intended to incite violence. It had a clear meaning that in no way was meant to be taken to such extremes as has been claimed.

Nor do I believe that she should receive any blame or criticism for her rhetoric or have to tone down what she says. I am an extreme advocate of free speech and do not believe that anything should be off-limits. I do not think there should be any limitations on what a person says (except for fighting words, which Palin, to my knowledge, has never engaged in) when trying to speak publicly to an audience. While often times I do not agree with what she says or how she says it, I will defend her right to say it.

The same goes for the Westboro Baptist Church. Legislation is quickly being passed in Arizona to try and distance their protests from the victims' funerals. Now don't get me wrong, I think the Westboro Baptist Church is one of the most vile things on this earth, but again I will defend their constitutional right to protest (at least until they are finally shown to be using fighting words and thus inciting hatred, which is not protected under the 1st Amendment).

There are also concerns being raised that have to do with gun control. Rather than to continue to argue back and forth without getting anywhere, I think it would be more beneficial to focus on things that can be remedied easier that are not as fiery an issue as gun control legislation.

I would like to quickly address Sarah Palin's response to the unfair media attacks on her, in which she claimed to be a victim of blood libel. She seems to be unaware of what connotation that phrase means (anti-Semitic claim that Jews murdered Christian children to use their blood in rituals). She probably (hopefully) had no idea what the term actually meant but she missed an opportunity to put herself above the media circus.

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy