As reported by HuffingtonPost/AP:
Pima County [Tucson] . . . sheriff blamed the vitriolic political rhetoric that has consumed the country, much of it centered in Arizona.
"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," he said. "And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
Giffords expressed similar concern, even before the shooting. In an interview after her office was vandalized, she referred to the animosity against her by conservatives, including Sarah Palin's decision to list Giffords' seat as one of the top "targets" in the midterm elections.
"For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action," Giffords said in an interview with MSNBC.
In the hours after the shooting, Palin issued a statement in which she expressed her "sincere condolences" to the family of Giffords and the other victims.
During his campaign effort to unseat Giffords in November, Republican challenger Jesse Kelly held fundraisers where he urged supporters to help remove Giffords from office by joining him to shoot a fully loaded M-16 rifle. Kelly is a former Marine who served in Iraq and was pictured on his website in military gear holding his automatic weapon and promoting the event.
"I don't see the connection," between the fundraisers featuring weapons and Saturday's shooting, said John Ellinwood, Kelly's spokesman. "I don't know this person, we cannot find any records that he was associated with the campaign in any way. I just don't see the connection.
"Arizona is a state where people are firearms owners - this was just a deranged individual."
This is a real problem -- that they don't see the connection. No, I am not saying that the political rhetoric of violence caused this shooting. No one gave this disturbed young man orders to shoot Giffords and put a loaded gun in his hands. Nor am I even saying that it was a major factor in this individual case. Prior evidence suggests that he was a very disturbed young man with paranoid thinking, which quite typically focuses on government as the enemy. Senseless, paranoid killings have taken place in the calmest of environments.
Nor am I suggesting that those who promote the proper use of shooting weapons are to blame. People kill people even where there are not many guns. Easily available assault guns make it easier to kill lots of people fast before the shooter can be stopped.
But words do have consequences. Individual minor influences do add up in the psychotic minds of those who kill. And these particular people, attending this particular event, got wounded and killed. Ironically, this anti-government psychotic man killed a government official who had come to listen to the people, not to impose government on them.
I think it is a problem that radio/tv entertainers and politicians who encourage hatred and violence, who push the idea that your political enemy is a mortal enemy and should be eliminated -- it's a problem that they don't realize that this rhetoric contributes to the culture of violent solutions to perceived problems. It all adds up -- and it takes only one deranged mind to put their rhetoric into tragic action.
What I would like to see is that this not turn into an even fiercer battle over gun rights or civility in public discourse. I would like to see Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck take the lead in publicly calling a halt to this culture of hate and violence in favor of rational discourse and civil negotiation.Ralph
A Palin staffer is defending the "crosshairs" map, saying they never, ever intended it to be taken as gunsights. "It was simply crosshairs like you'd see on maps" and could just as well be seen as surveyers' symbols.
ReplyDeleteShe said it never occurred to them that anyone would consider it violent, and any attempts to politicize the Arizona tragedy are "repugnant."
And what associations do they expect to draw when Sarah Palin repeatedly says during her campaigning, "Don't retreat; reload."
I'm sorry. If you use gun metaphors as your chief political rhetoric, it's impossible for most people not to associate that to violence.
Am I wrong?
Any Psychology 101 student knows the effectiveness of "subliminal" communication. You flash words on a screen in such a short duration that the subject is not consciously aware of having seen them. Yet there is experimental evidence that the words have some impact on the subject's tested associations or behavior.
ReplyDeleteSarah Palin's March 23,2010 Facebook entry, when she introduced the now infamous "map" with the crosshairs on it, is rather innocuous on the face of it. But, in addition to the crosshairs on the accompanying map -- which, they're right, could just as well be surveyors marks -- contain the following words in appropriate sentences -- yet nevertheless, with the accompanying map, will be unconsciously interpreted as gun-related.
The three words I spotted in the text (emphasis added):
"We're going to FIRE them," meaning these 20.
"We'll AIM for these races."
"This is just the first SALVO in the fight.
Maybe they didn't conciously mean gun violence, but their unconscious, subliminal communication tells the tale.
It has also been pointed out that Palin herself refers to defeating the people on her "bullseye" list.
ReplyDeleteAnd what of her "dont' retreat; reload" comment?
There is no doubt, Palin uses gun metaphors all the time -- including upclose images of her shooting guns. She seems to relish the killing of animals, etc.
Perhaps she doesn't think of shooting guns and killing things as violent. Then what does she think of it as?
I still haven't quite made my point clear about what I hope would happen.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the Palin staffer who defended the use of the crosshairs --
I would like it if she -- or, better, Palin herself -- would say: "You know, we didn't ourselves think of it as inciting violence. But now in this new context, we can see how it does contribute to the atmosphere of wanting to eliminate your political enemies, not just defeat them at the polls.
And, because it does have this effect, we are going to change how we communicate our political message. It is too important to be side-lined because the message itself carries the wrong tone. From here on, we will be committed to solutions that are non-violent.
That's what I would like. Some reflection on what has happened. But, will it happen? No.