Phyllis Scheck, age 79; Dorthy Morris, age 76; Dorwin Stoddard, age 76; Judge John Roll, age 63; Gabriel Zimmerman, age 30; Christina Green, age 9.
As you read this, those six human beings–mostly anonymous to the world but beloved of their families and friends–are being grieved, waked, remembered, mourned, celebrated and interred. They were murdered at a shopping center, on January 8 by an incoherent, mentally ill young man who was somehow able to get hands on a gun.
With the exception of Zimmerman and Green, the dead were senior citizens. Had they not been killed, it is likely that a couple of them would have lived long enough to observe the nation enter into serious discussion about what will be the defining issue of the new decade: the value of human life when it is “advanced” in age, imperfect in form, and too expensive to justify on the healthcare spread sheets. They are now past wondering if the lives they had, and wished to keep, would pass cost-analysis muster. In the language of the most-compassionate among us, they—and their families—have been “spared” those “quality of life” anxieties.
Zimmerman had just entered the ripest years of adulthood–the time when adolescent dreaming has been dashed upon the rocks of practicality; first-strivings have mercifully passed, and one is finally getting a sense of self, where one fits in, and what is still possible. His was an age of dreams re-defined, then refined. As an aide to Gabrielle Giffords, a congresswoman who–by all accounts–is liked and respected by her D.C. colleagues, Zimmerman could justly envision a future full of promise–one protected from most downturns, economic or electoral, thanks to the useful connections gathered during meetings, or purposeful strolls through the halls of the capital building. The pre-empting of all of that promise is grievous. And doubtlessly for the hundreds of thirty-ish political aides working in federal buildings and state capitals–those whom we called “young guns” before last weekend–Zimmerman’s violent death has produced a life-quality-impacting anxiety from which they and their families cannot be spared, but which over time will wane.
Nine year-old Christina Taylor Green was born on September 11, 2001. Some pundits have described her life as “bookended by tragedy,” but for her parents, Christina’s too-brief years must seem like the fast fanning-through of a treasured book, one they had anticipated reading at a leisurely and pleasant pace, only to have it cruelly snapped shut before their eyes. Their pain is terrible to see, worse to contemplate. Having lost their beloved daughter in this random, unimaginable fashion, will they ever take innocent leave of their young son? Will they be able to drop him off for soccer practice or at a friend's house without holding their breath until he safely returns home?
And at this moment, Gabrielle Giffords–a pretty, curious, energetic woman who was struck down while attempting to be an accessible and authentic representatives is probably sleeping, healing, and restoring. Giffords’ body has much healing and restoration to undertake. The body seeks homeostasis, and Giffords’ body, having survived as grave a wound as any the body may encounter, is looking for ways to come back. Neurological pathways are forging new connections; traumatized areas are slowly draining of the protective fluids that immediately rush to injured sites; equilibrium is being sought after on a cellular level.
Giffords is no more aware of that process than the rest of us would be on any given day. But we are told she is responsive to simple instructions, and that she has recognized her husband, and so she is probably aware, on some level, of rhythmic monitors, snatches of conversations, a tender touch. She may be hearing whispered words of love, urges to fight for her life. Perhaps she is hearing–in a way we cannot imagine–the prayers of so many who are holding her in their hearts and minds. Perhaps Ms. Giffords is feeling fearful, anxious of the unknown path onto which she and her family have been involuntarily thrust. If so, this might be–against all instincts–the rare instance where such feelings are a good and a gift; an indication of reasonable function, even if the function is anxiety, in this one case might be a paradoxical sign of hope in a world full of mysteries. A world which, despite all of our knowledge, we really do not understand all that well, and can never correctly predict.
Let us pray for Gabrielle Giffords, and for her families, and the families of all of a disturbed young man’s dead. Let us pray for healing, restoration, a lessening of anxiety, a strengthening of trust.
And let us pray that neither Ms. Giffords, or her family, or the brother of Christina Taylor Green, or the mother of Gabriel Zimmerman ever have to read that their pain, their grief, their loss has been reduced to something as cynical and craven and ultimately banal as “[Democrats] need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers . . .Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.”
No, let them never, never read that, nor hear it spewed from a monitor.
Those cold words, uttered by operatives in marble halls, are for the rest of us to be anxious about.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here
Comments:
In such a scenario, the very same constituencies who deny and decry those who point out the actually extant presence of "right-wing" ideas and connections in the shooter's life would have had no hesitation in calling attention to the relevance of the muslim background. Well, you cannot have it both ways: If the ideas of your political enemies are relevant in partially explaining acts of individual violence, then they are, mutatis mutandis, equally relevant in partially explainin acts of political violence that were partially influenced by your political friends.
"...an hour after Giffords was shot, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas actually tweeted: "Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin." He conveniently failed to mention that his Daily Kos had put a "bull's eye" (their words) on Giffords in 2008 - including her on a list of centrist Democrats who should be "targeted" in Democratic primaries. Mission accomplished, Markos?"
And who could forget the President last year stirring the health-care supporters into taking action by declaring "if the other side brings a knife to the argument, we bring a gun."
Plenty more examples to go around, but you get the idea. If it can be fairly deemed as a means to incite gun violence in the mentally fragile - and think long and hard before affirming this view - seems to me like both the goose and the gander have earned their sauce on this one.
Does thinking about a tragedy and its possible effect on other areas of our common life negate the fact that all people of good will are heartbroken for the victims and their families?
Does alarm about carelessly mistaken or biased journalism and broadcast media reports constitute cynicism?
But in that case, you have something worse than bigotry, since we don't even really know what group the killer belongs to? One writer above says we know he is conservative because he said he was "against the Government." That's an odd criterion, since many left-wing movements are "against the government." Illegal immigrants, for example, break the law and are thus "against the government." Vietnam Draft Dodgers, all pardoned by President Carter, were "against the government," and today are generally praised by liberals as anti-war heroes. Are they and Carter conservatives? Many liberal citizens, including the president's justice department, sued Arizona over its recent law. Since they are the government and they sued the government, are they both pro and anti-government at the same-time. Should we put them on suicide watch?
Although I carry no brief for the Arizona law, it seems that liberals who oppose it are in precisely the same position as conservatives who oppose Obamacare. In both cases, both groups of citizens, feel strongly that their government passed legislation that is deeply unjust. Both sides are in a sense "anti-government." But both sides are also pro-government, since each presented government solutions to the problem. The conservatives, in accordance with our laws, changed the composition of the House. The liberals, with the assistance of the Obama justice department, sued the state of Arizona. In both camps, there were protestors and letter writer making their cases along a continuum of ferocity. Some were polite, some stupid, and some down-right nasty.
Liberals who "see" conservatism in this senseless insane murder have to be very careful. After all, the killer exhibited some of the characteristics of paranoid schizophrenia, and likely suffers from it. Such individuals--like "A Beautiful Mind"'s John Nash--"see" connections between events and people that simply are not there. So, liberals who claim to "see" connections between conservatism and this atrocity come perilously close to sounding like the killer himself. For that reason, they should be careful in offering their claims as legitimate theory, since there are still Loughners out there who may hear you and really believe that conservatives are in fact literally to blame for the murder of innocents. Consequently, by using the language and "reasoning" of the paranoid schizophrenic to make your "case," you may inadvertently confirm to one of these weak and malformed souls something that inspires them to take the life of an innocent conservative, such as Sarah Palin, former President Bush, or members of their families.
I do not believe you want to do that, or intend to do that. After all, you are, as you and your compatriots often claim, a champion of reason and science, both of which require evidence of a demanding sort. To reject this noble posture by embracing the epistemology of the paranoid schizophrenic for the sake of making a political point runs counter to the rich tradition of rationality and liberality that is central to liberalism's well-earned reputation.
And then she says - don't let the victims see that this was used for political purposes - and then goes ahead and does exactly that!
Or did I read it wrong?
Same thing here. Everything we've learned about Loughner so far says he was a seriously disturbed person. Maybe political commentary influenced him, but anything might have influenced such a sick person. Jody Foster influenced Ronald Reagan's attepted assassin. Did we blame her? The day that Rush Limbaugh's radio show causes some soccer mom to do what Loughner did is the day we have to start seriously re-thinking things. But if we impair free speech because of what unstable people do with what they hear then we're on the way to something we don't want to be.
Gracious God, let's grow up folks and stop all the childish pointing of fingers. There was one shooter .. .he pulled the trigger .. he is accountable. Period.
I hear all the above journalist from time to time, but, not one of them have induced me to anything except go and get more informed.
We have now become so silly in this matter, that it is hard to take.
I have never seen so many self-righteous people that have come out of the closet. . .
One of these days we will start taking responsibility for our own actions.
No one condones violence toward anyone. But don't forget, we choose in spite
of the environment. . .we choose our own actions. . .
Sarah palin pit a gun site over 20 Democrats name. She then directed her faithful to that site with a comment on twitter Don't retreat reload.
The Don't retreat, reload was again referenced on her tv reality series by her dad with a gun in his hand.
If not now when? If not after the deaths of so many then when?
She has used these reference on a woman who was ultimately shot and people were killed.
I dare any of you to say, that if the situations were reversed, that the republicans would not be screaming for that Democrats head.
Words do have consequences. She may not have pulled that trigger, but she lowered the discourse to include violent remedies.
Violent remedies have also been portrayed on Glenn Beck show, showing Nancy Pelosi drinking poisoned wine and wishing somebody would kill Michael Moore.
And didn't the church blame Henry the second for Thomas Becket death when zealous knights killed him after hearing Henry say "... Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest." ?
He did not . He did not swing the axe, but he was blamed for the murder anyway.
Would you be willing to apply the force of your argument to the way individual muslim terrorists are often evaluated in mainstream political discourse? That is, would you be willing to assert, in line with your argument, that drawing sweeping conclusions about the inherently menacing nature of Islamic civilization on the basis of the violence perpetrated by a fewindividual Muslim extremists is also an instance of paranoid schizophrenic thought-patterns?
Church of the east, the word "obvious" jumped out at me. Always, always, be wary of that word when it springs from your lips, in any context. "Obvious," and synonyms such as undoubtedly, clearly, and indisputably, are the easiest ways that we hide from ourselves that we have no evidence, but it just seems right to everyone in our tribe.
To all three - stating an opinion with force, emphasis, and accusatory tone does not increase its truth values - but it does tell us something about the writer.
On Mr. Loughner, I do have something of value to offer. I have been a psychiatric social worker at a state hospital for over three decades and have had several patients like him, three of which came to national attention. These plus another five I briefly discuss over at my own site. (Yes, I am deeply careful of confidential information in all cases.) Short version: ignore the political associations and statements, left or right.
I especially commend her statement calling out the unconscionable use by some, who should know better, to try to chill dissenting speech. In particular, shame on the New York Times for its harsh, McCarthyistic attacks on individuals who have strongly differing opinions views. There of course have been inappropriate excesses, but the Times’ excesses over the last couple days have been borderline inflammatory and probably made matters worse, based on highly speculative conclusions. A lot of the criticisms in response to these commentaries are appropriate and necessary for a freedom loving nation. To fly off the handle and express bizarre conclusions out of nowhere further erodes their credibility.
I think we especially need to commend several organizations like that Washington Post who have printed several commentaries questioning how some have jumped to conclusions without any knowledge of the motives of the perpetrator, as well as a very good commentary in yesterday’s The New Republic trying to bring some sanity to all this. They same less afraid of people expressing opinions they disagree with. We may disagree, but we can still talk.
We must express truth and do it in love. And, we must not allow ourselves to either respond harshly, or be afraid to respond to the truth out of intimidation. We should respond to truth so that they know we are Christians by our love.
When mentally disturbed persons begin to disintegrate/dissociate, they are most fearful of their own unreality, and in this new landscape of media projected persons being more real than actual persons, mentally disturbed persons are desperate to make themselves real. If they use a political notion to assassinate someone, that's a smokescreen: they simply want to establish themselves as real for themselves, and to be immortally real would require killing someone who is famous, or at least someone the media would be concerned about, necessitating the killer's constant reaffirmation that he is real on the television monitor.
Scapegoating politicians is not only ridiculous in these scenarios; it is downright unethical at the highest level, using the terrible tragedy of so many to advance hate-filled political goals.
When mentally disturbed pesons begin to dissociate, they are most fearful of their own unreality, and in this new landscape of media being more real than perons, mentally disturbed persons are desperate to make themselves real. If they use a politicalnotion to assasinate someone, that's a smokescreen: they simply want to estblish themselves as real for themselves, and to be immortally real would require killing someone who is famous, or at least someone themedia would be concerned about, necessitating the killer's constant reafirmation that he is real on the television monitor.
Scapetoating politicians is not only ridiculous in these scenarios; it is downright unethical at the highest level, using the terrible tragedy of so many to advance hate-filled political goals.
http://womenofgrace.com/breaking_news/?p=6573
"The New York Daily News is reporting that investigators found a shrine hidden in a camouflage tent behind Loughner’s Tucson home. The altar contained a skull sitting on a pot filled with shriveled oranges. A row of ceremonial candles and a bag of potting soil lay nearby. Experts said all the items are elements typically featured in occult ceremonies."
...Just saying there could be yet another motivation, one beyond the natural. I don't know but prayers are in order regardless for everyone affected, regardless of why he did it.
As for why Loughner allegedly continued shooting after Giffords went down, [Bryce] Tierney said Loughner was a nihilist who like creating mayhem. "I think the reason he did it was mainly to just promote chaos. He wanted the media to freak out about this whole thing. He wanted exactly what's happening. He wants all of that," he said, comparing his friend to the Joker: "He f[----]s things up to f[--]k s[--]t up, there's no rhyme or reason, he wants to watch the world burn. He probably wanted to take everyone out of their monotonous lives: 'Another Saturday, going to go get groceries'—to take people out of these norms that he thought society had trapped us in.
•••
That sounds convincing to me, because it describes a Godless person, entirely devoid of a soul.
A schizoid, paranoid, and/or psychotic person can indeed rail about "the government" without any actual government people or instances in mind, just as he can about aliens or devils or Communists. These people do not have a normal thought process. They are as likely to be set off by something inherently innocuous as by something other people would find disturbing.
Moreover, the political climate of this country has been much more vitriolic many, many times in our past. Right now, millions of people have guns in this country. Millions of people play violent video games and watch violent movies for hours every day -- probably far, far more people than pay any attention to politics. Yet they are not out murdering people. The person in question is a plain old raving madman. They have been around since the beginning of time.
And Elizabeth Scalia is right. To exploit the death of six people and the grave injury of the congresswoman for political purposes is despicable. There are funerals to attend.
Jody F - Why on earth we you think we hate you? We are furious about many ideas, and we do get irritated at individuals - I, in fact, am irritated by nearly everyone, including the people I agree with, and perhaps even myself - but hatred is not so common here. You will find some.
Thanks to Jack Ruby, we can never know what he would have said at his trial. But we do know that Jackie Kennedy was upset when she learned her husband was killed by a (quote) "silly little communist", instead of a more noble social justice type of death.
At the time, people were heavily invested in the idea that paranoid conservatives worried about a "communist threat" were the real threat to America.
There are IMO some striking similarities between the way the left rushed to judge this shooting's motivations, & the way the left immediately re-wrote the JFK assassination as being, not because of a communist, but because of a deeply corrupted and hate-filled nation. We all killed JFK!
Yes, I am describing result, i.e., ways of adapting to an illness for which the etiology can be determined only by the afflicted one in consort with a professional and/or a very involved family that has an understanding of the illness the person is afflicted with. But I think as a society we should concern ourselves with how the mentally afflicted do adapt with what is provided to them culturally, especially concerning prevailing philosophical views that advance illness, actually support the worsening of the condition. Then we need to be critical of that, too, and look for ways to openly oppose that philosophy, not by silencing it as the totalitarians would have it on the right or left, but by providing a more healthy alternative way of looking at one’s life and the world, especially for children who are so malleable and not neurologically able to discern at an appropriate level, and in cases where we know certain cognitive constructs can actually alter the personality of children, that information should not be given to them, which would, I know, be conceived by many as a violation of children’s rights, but there is no other way to protect children: they simply do not have the powers of discernment to process many high abstractions that are being imposed on them in our schools. For example, the abstract notion that abortion, the killing of a child, is a healthy form of contraception. This abstraction defies truth at every turn, yet adults can take a child to an abortion clinic without the parents being notified.
John Wickey,
I agree with all that you write here. It's tragic that in the context of a cultural and legal environment that promotes radical individualism we now have no recourse to intervention when it is obvious that a particular person could at any moment in his dissociative and hallucinatory state do violence to himself and others. We are helpless to intervene: we are legally denied intervention!
I was homeless for a year about 4 years ago, and I would encounter many mentally disabled persons who needed to be hospitalized, persons who were thrown to the wayside in promoting their “rights”. I am now involved with a person who was committed, but he is having a hearing soon and will no doubt be released, and he is obviously at an intersection psychologically where he could do harm to himself or others. This is a social madness that came with the territory of a perceived liberty that defies the common good, including the good of the afflicted, for a truism that most can accept is that all systems that teach there is a duality of mind and body lead us down a path to disintegration in the war of mind and body. And when I look at the modern or post-modern world, what I see is an extreme duality of mind and body, the mind taking precedence over the body in highly abstract imaginings; for instance (a) that people can actually be in a relationship via the internet, (b) that because one mentally desires a particular behavior in defiance of what the body tells us about the consequences of the behavior, the body becomes irrelevant in its service to the “good” of the liberated mind, and (c) what one aspires to for self-fulfillment, including pleasure, can be attained independent of any concern for others, so why be absolutely committed, truly intimate, with anyone when it would only be an imposition, a sacrifice of self to others?
What we know concretely, what Martin Buber demonstrated conclusively in my opinion, is that relationship is the highest ground in self-fulfillment, and society is the only possibility for a gestalt of human relatedness. To deny this time-proven reality with any high abstraction that separates us from others in the depths of our understandings is to set the conditions for solipsistic self-absorption that we can get a close glimpse of in psychotics who kill to affirm, especially on national television, their radical sense of self separate from all others.
Consider that the Columbine killers were apparently atheists; and the arrested suspect in the Tucson case has expressed a general antipathy to "Religion", and styles himself an atheist.
Perhaps legislation preventing atheists from acquiring guns and ammunition w/o a 72-hour period of psychiatric evaluation w/b useful.
I don't know where either Richard Speck (Chicago nurse mass killer) or the Texas Tower killer would fit on this spectrum (of belief or non-belief in God). Anyone else have a thought on this suggestion?
Te4aPot562
Or did I read it wrong? ~PaulR
Yeah. Exactly. I find myself scratching my head and thinking "huh"? Especially in light of Ms. Scalia's more recent blogposts re this topic.
All I know is a mentally ill young man shot these people for no reason at all, and folks on both "sides" (how are there "sides" to a human tragedy like this...??) are all screaming at each other and calling names and pointing fingers.
Jeez. The bodies aren't even cold yet. C'mon folks -- can't we all do better than this?
What happened to the days when something awful like this happened and we all quietly, privately whispered a prayer, hugged our kids, and got about our business?
People are dead. Real people. Flesh and blood people. Their families and friends are in mourning. Yes, incidents like this have a wide impact, but we're the lucky ones -- we've been spared this. Can't we all just chill and stop the shrieking and blaming and spinning and grasping at attention over this?
Who cares who said what first or who started it? Who's gonna stop it?
All this posturing and grasping at attention over this while there are parents in Arizona burying a little girl is sickening.
When something terribly inappropriate occurs that harms the body politic, not only is it newsworthy, but also a moral responsibility to report it for collective discernment. Scalia in my view is reporting something terrible that happened: a gang of liberal politicians and media folk, including a sheriff who violated his oath of office in suggesting a motive in a criminal investigation that had no evidence supporting it, obviously politically motivated, deciding to exploit a human tragedy for strictly political ends with no concern with how this would affect the surviving victims and their loved ones, as well as giving the assailant what would have been an absurd defense if it hadn’t been given credence by a sheriff, politicians and respected media folk. Keep in mind that there was absolutely no evidence of the assailant being influenced by any right-wing rhetoric, particularly by the persons whose names were alluded to in making these outrageous claims, which makes the behavior even more abominable. Should we not talk about this wretched behavior? That would be irresponsible on many levels, but most importantly it would be a sign to these political thugs that we won’t hold them accountable for their wretched behavior in the future.
I agree that this incident has given rise to serious questions about the tone public discourse has taken on, about the challenges of identifying people who are likely to engage in some kind of violent behavior and about public safety at casual appearances like the one Gabby Giffords was hosting. Those are all good questions and should be addressed. But not in the same breath as or, worse, under the guise of eulogizing the dead.
The ugliness coming from the worst extremes of both ends of the political spectrum in the wake of this tragedy was stomach-turning, and no one side was better or worse than the other.
Before 24/7 cable news and FB and Twitter, events like this one took their right course. The dead and the grieving were attended to first, and by the people closest to them. You or I might read about the tragic event, but we weren't pressured to actively participate outside of private prayer and reflection. Nowadays, everyone feels they have to weigh in, that their opinion is the be all and end all of the moment, that if they don't Twitter their outrage at the gunman, this pundit, that politician, whatever, the world will stop spinning on its axis. And so the fire builds and is fueled by narcissistic individuals mindlessly joining in from all quarters without ever once stopping to take a breath, to put things in their right order, to listen, to reflect.
A week or two from now, when people have more facts, when emotions have subsided, when the bereaved have had time to bury their dead and console each other and begin to put their lives back together, there should absolutely be a dialogue about who we are as a nation united, what the tone of recent public discourse says about how far we've strayed from that identity, and about the mental illness issues and law enforcement issues as well. Just not now.
If someone feels the need to start that garbage, and no one responds, the ugliness dies a natural death -- that's the way it should be. People who use an incident like this to stir up division and fear and doubt, or to put themselves or their agenda, or "side" forward, should be shamed by the silence of this nation, not fueled by everyone sinking to their level.
Progressives are beginning to be contested like never before, and the evidence is in that most Americans are turning more and more to the rhetoric of the right. This is why you hear politicians on the left talking seriously about censorship of radio and television to suppress the rhetoric on the right. Be clear: they are protesting that rhetoric only because their own rhetoric is becoming more and more irrelevant. If their own equally vitriolic rhetoric got them political gains, they wouldn’t be demanding censorship of rhetoric, but quite the opposite: our right to free speech.
This incident of trying to deceitfully blame the Tucson tragedy on right-wing rhetoric, and actually naming names, is simply despicable, and needs to be named for what it truly is. No person from a position of self-assuredness would have stooped to such outrageous bad taste in exploiting the deaths of an assassin’s bullets in the same hour of the shock and horror and the beginning of a grieving process, so I must assume that the progressives who decided to do this are not content with licking their wounds when they suffer political defeat. They are more than willing to grab straws from Satan’s hat. And persons of good will—right, left and center—would be morally irresponsible in not calling them on it.
There isn't a single thing you said about what one "side" did that the other "side" didn't do, too. All you're saying is the one side did it first, so it's fine that the other jumped in and responded in kind.
Sounds like something my kids would've said when they were little and fighting over something. He started it, she did it first, it's not fair, did not, did too.
My response to the supposed grownups -- all of them -- from any "side" -- who've been behaving that way this past week is about the same as it was when my kids acted like that -- I don't care who started it or why, I only care about who's gonna be the first to stop.
It's funny how so many Christians claim that God is the center of all things, the focus, all good things flow from Him, and that, as Chrisians, all we do, say & think should be for the greather glory of God, but time after time we let the fringe elements who are as far removed from God as it gets on earth pull our attention away from the center, from God, from where our eyes should be.
If Sarah Palin had made a statement that left wing rhetoric was instrumental in causing Jared Lee Loughner to kill the people he did, and proceeded to name names, I suspect her political career would be over. That you believe the outrageous behavior of some left wing politicians and media commentators making such incredible accusations against conservatives was replicated by conservative politicians and media commentators during this tragic moment in our history is simply a case of myopia, which is lamentable.
I agree with you that civil discourse is the desired norm in rhetorical fisticuffs, and both you and I and most all Americans appreciate those men and women who persist in that methodology. But in an age of judicial usurpation of politics, when political parties impose their flawed vision of an ethical society on the majority (unlimited abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage come to mind), rhetorical vitriol is inevitable, especially when lives are being destroyed, and the reason is that democracy itself is being undermined. And now there is an increasing movement on the left to silence criticisms of these undemocratic policies, and this present situation is an example of how far they are willing to go in their tyrannical ambitions. I just don't see it on the right, although it did occur on the right in the past, as when Richard Nixon was in office.
But even in vitriolic rhetoric, persons go too far when they engage in libelous accusations, character assassination with absolutely no rational link to actual events. And this was initiated by a police chief who had sworn to uphold the law and not engage in creating evidence to help any accused person. Where is the conservative that did the same thing? And when a police chief did it, how many liberals jumped on board? And what conservative retaliated with equally libelous accusations?
If someone made a libelous accusation, they should be held responsible via the courts. Let the victim of the accusation sue them for libel. Why should I have to be burdened with the sordid details of their personal problems? Don't they have lawyers for that? Likewise, if a public official behaved unethically, bring it to the attention of those who deal with such things.
Unrelated parties dickering over it on blogs and twitter and FB, and every pundit shrieking and screaming to be heard over the one before just makes me think everyone involved, the perp., the victim, the pundits, the bloggers, the tweeters, the FBers, all just have far too much time on their hands. Why doesn't everyone go for a nice long walk? Amazing what you stumble across when you take the time to take some time, ya know? I could've gotten caught up in some stupid argument about some reality television personality, but then I'd have missed the school of bat rays swimming the length of Mission Creek, or the sea lions cartwheeling in McCovey Cove.
Me, I'd rather have the sea lions and bat rays...



Never mind that 2) Sarah Palin's office earlier had issued a graphic, with Congresswoman G's district, in the crosshairs?
Never mind that 3) some Republicans appealed to the "second amendment" - and the right to bear arms - as the real solution to Republican problems?
Never mind all that; never look for sins in yourself; 4) never look for the "beam in your own eye?
"