Ads


Elizabeth Scalia

view all featured authors »

The Year of Living Anxiously

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:

1.11.2011 | 9:36am
Billy says:
Never mind, that 1) the peretrator's own blog, blamed the "Government," (and its control of "grammar," or better said, semantics) -for the problem?

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?

"
1.11.2011 | 9:48am
cpmr says:
Elizabeth: Why do you immediately comment that the response to an obvious effort on the part of the left, including the sheriff of the county, to blame right-wing media for this crazed, pot-smoking leftist creep's actions is "cynical, craven and banal?" Why didn't you condemn the left-wing media's response first - it was obviously completely lacking in evidence, their typical knee-jerk reaction to any crisis. The families and relatives of the victims heard first that this tragedy was a result of a toxic atmosphere generated by the right - an outright lie. Why didn't you say that THAT was hurtful, cynical, and shameful. I'm disappointed in you.
1.11.2011 | 10:06am
It is in the political interest of many to down-play or even deny the obvious connections between the Arizona tragedy and the current political climate. To see the obvious fallacy in denying these connections, one need only reflect for a moment on a hypothetical scenario where the shooter had had intimate connections to radical muslim circles, had been reading radical muslim literature, had been articulating ideas of radical muslim origin in his blog entries and youtube videos, etc.

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.
1.11.2011 | 10:54am
Oh Billy, Billy... didn't get the chance to read Mark Thiessen's column in the Washington Post yet today (1/11) did ya?

"...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.
1.11.2011 | 11:00am
Daizie says:
Church member - in your "hypothetical scenario" where actual, verifiable connections to "violent rhetoric" and a pattern of behavior related to same exist, the media would be cautioning us all against a rush to judgment instead of calling out unrelated third parties and demanding they prove their non-involvement.
1.11.2011 | 11:09am
CatScratch says:
I'm sorry, Church of the East, but you are simply wrong. The more we learn about Jared Loughner, the clearer it is that a) He is severely mentally ill, most likely with some form of schizoid disease; b) he is not "right wing" or "conservative" and it is unlikely that his actions were influenced by any cogent political philosophy or political commentator - left or right. Expressing "anti-government" sentiments does not make one "right wing." Conservatives are not, in fact, "anti-government" but are pro-"good government" which they generally take to mean smaller, more humble government that is as localized as possible. c) This was not an act of political violence, anymore than Hinckley's shooting of Reagan was political violence. Instead, it seems that a mentally ill man has fixated on a public figure, and the shooting was an evil act born of terrible sickness and delusion. Yes, there are people out there on both the left and right who offer plenty of heat but no light. Yes, there are groups with social/political agendas at the far extremes of both left and right who are willing to use violence to achieve their twisted aims. Jared Loughner is not an example of that. He is a mentally ill man who became socially isolated, which further aggravated his condition. I do believe he knew what he was doing was wrong, but I believe he progressed past the point of caring. Rather than having cheap political arguments over this, people of goodwill should be focusing on how we can better recognize and deal with people like this in our communities before it is too late.
1.11.2011 | 11:16am
I cannot understand why Ms. Scalia thinks that speculation about this horrible tragedy being exploited for political gain in any way diminishes the horror that decent people are experiencing about this crime.

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?
1.11.2011 | 11:32am
I am sorry, but in their desperation to connect Loughner's action to conservative "rhetoric", both the media and everyday liberals and Democrats are forgetting that Loughner has been identified by those that knew him as "quite liberal". Clearly he is not, then, one likely to tune in conservative talk radio or the speeches of conservative figures like Palin, or even if he had heard them, he is unlikely to have given them any weight.
1.11.2011 | 11:58am
When I was growing up, and a young liberal, I was taught by my parents that the essence of prejudice and bigotry is to take isolated acts by one person in a group and then extend the blame to all of them.

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.
1.11.2011 | 12:22pm
Doug says:
When did we stop holding people responsible for their own actions? Can graphics on a campaign website or inflammatory rhetoric from a talk-show host really be the cause of such violence? To quote Chris Rock, "Whatever happened to just calling people crazy?"
1.11.2011 | 12:23pm
Judith L says:
Thank you, once again, Anchoress for a calming word in troubled times.
1.11.2011 | 12:35pm
Fred says:
Overlooked in the comments: even if Loughner were some sort of right wing extremist, blaming ordinary conservatives for his actions is like blaming LBJ for the Weathermen or Martin Luther King for the Black Panthers. It's just silly. In this case, it's even sillier, since he wasn't even a political extremist, just a paranoid nut case.
1.11.2011 | 12:37pm
PaulR says:
What is the point of this article? Ms. Scalia is being very hyprocritical it seems. She issues the same hyperbolic eulogy that we have seen scores of times before over the last 48 hours.

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?
1.11.2011 | 1:10pm
Is there any evidence to connect this man to anyone else. No. Is there any evidence that anything that anyone has said in the political arena caused this man to do what he did. No. Could this have happened in any political climate. Yes, and it has. So what we have is many liberals, with no evidence, pointing their fingers at the alleged singular vitriole of the right, the left being above anything so base, and calling for a more civil discourse. Since they don't do this sort of thing, engage in vitriole, it is the right that has engaged in this partnerless tango of incivility and it is they that should change their tone. This sounds a lot like the adage about not letting a crisis go to waste and as it happens there have been liberal voices suggesting this very thing in the midst of this tragedy. So to recap; a madman engages in slaughter for no discernible reason and before the blood has dried the left blames the right, turning a tragedy into a political oppurtunity to lecture the right on its incivility and divisiveness which they have been doing all along anyway. It seems as though their outrage at this tragedy is mere theater when their real outrage is reserved for the right and their intractible attachment to their political beliefs. I suspect that in the not to distant future we will see attempts to expand the meaning of hate speech carefully constructed so as not include theirs.
1.11.2011 | 1:58pm
DWiss says:
47 years after JFK's assassination people are still trying to find evidence a conspiracy - anything to prove that such a calamity was caused by something big. Who wants to think that some confused nut could tip the nation over the way that event did?

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.
1.11.2011 | 2:45pm
I keep hearing :the devil made him do it". .the devil, metaphor, for right wing, foxnews, rush limbaugh, george will, shannity, o'reilly.

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. . .
1.11.2011 | 2:49pm
J Terry says:
Couldn't be the 8,000 (Nielsen) simulated murders a typical child witnesses on television by the time he graduates elementary school. In light of the hours children spend viewing TV, listening to violent song lyrics and playing violent video games, I'm a little skeptical about the "violent political rhetoric" explanation.
1.11.2011 | 3:04pm
whodathought says:
W W J D or say
1.11.2011 | 3:39pm
Diane says:
Sorry, but you are wrong.
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.
1.11.2011 | 3:58pm
The Moz says:
The hypocricy on the Left is giving me a headache. When the hard-line Muslim extremist shot up his military buddies we were warned not to draw any conclusions, to not make a logical connection, no matter how obvious and logical it was,:we were warned. Now there are no logical connections, or just very tenous ones and we MUST draw conclusions. Why was it not ok then but is ok now? Something's rotten in the state of Denmark.
1.11.2011 | 4:09pm
Dear Francis Beckwith,

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?
1.11.2011 | 4:35pm
Flamen says:
Little has been said about the very lax gun laws in Arizona. Now in Florida the legislature is considering a law allowing guns to be carried openly in a holster. Just like the old wild west. Federal laws prohibiting the type of gun used against Giffords were allowed to expire. I have read that Giffords at times carried a gun and was a member of the national Rifle Association. There seems to be little chance of tighter gun control laws due to this event. Unfortunately, as you sow so shall you reap.
1.11.2011 | 4:42pm
Diane (and Billy, et alia) I do say that is what would happen if the situation were reversed, and I can prove it. The situation is reversed, right before your eyes. Insofar as Loughner was political at all, he is left-wing, and the number of Democrats who have used violent rhetoric in the last few years is higher, yet no one on the right is accusing them of having caused these deaths. (They are accused of bearing false witness, however.) One does not need to go to any hard-right sites to get this info - one need only stay off explicitly left-leaning ones. You have been given selected information, with much left out. On this one, it is not a tu quoque, but the scales tipped dramatically in the other direction.

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.
1.11.2011 | 5:44pm
Mike says:
I thought Mrs. Scalia’s tributes were touching and appropriate, and we should all pray for the victims, their friends and families, and yes, even the perpetrator.

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.
1.11.2011 | 5:44pm
Gil Costello says:
Marshall McLuhan really needs to be revisited. This Canadian Catholic philosopher was the first to look directly into where modern man and woman is moving, media as their elaborate extension. David Cronenberg, the Canadian filmmaker, used McLuhan’s theories in his film, "Videodrome". I'll misquote the McLuhan character in the film (Dr. Brian Oblivion): "The television has become the retina of the mind's eye. What we now perceive on television is more real than what we perceive in reality. That's why I choose to appear on television ON TELEVISION." (He always appears on television interviews on a television monitor instead of in person to establish more presence.)

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.
1.11.2011 | 5:59pm
I will be the first to admit that I don't know if the man was crazy or a political fanatic or what. However, Father Joseph, perhaps it is not just a metaphor:

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.
1.11.2011 | 6:53pm
Billy Bean says:
"What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." If some are eager to find a "right-wing" provenance for Loughner's crime, let's not forget that a peculiar hostiliity and paranoia about "the establishment" has always been securely entrenched in the political left. For every Obama "birther" and John Bircher in this country, I could probably show you at least ten "911 Truthers" and JFK assassination conspiracy buffs who seriously entertain the idea that our government is not seriously compromised by corruption (duh!), but completely evil and worthy of violent overthrow. So do we really want to go down this road?
1.11.2011 | 7:05pm
Billy Bean says:
And, by the way, Francis Beckwith, as usual, hits the nail on the head. He articulates what fools such as I would like to say, had we the argumentative skills and rhetorical power. My fellow Church of the East member: Almost thou persuadest me to throw in my lot with Rome.
1.11.2011 | 7:21pm
Billy Bean says:
Dianne: My heart truely goes out to you, because I think I really understand what you're saying. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal several years ago --"No Guardrails," or something like that -- that hit me in the guts. Yes, there are many in our society today, bereft of the psychological stability of a good home and the moral tradition of the Christian faith which has sustained this country through good times and bad since the founding (whether or not the Source of the tradition was acknowledged). These delicate souls are not strong enough to stand upright in the violent and sensual winds that are now overtaking our spiritually amnesiac nation. They are vulnerable because our families and our schools have largely failed them, and the result is the rambling incoherence and random violence of an Oswald, a Hinkley or a Loughner. I'll make a deal with you: I won't blame the Left for Oswald and Loughner if you won't blame the Right for McVeigh and Loughner.
1.11.2011 | 7:47pm
This from MOTHER JONES. Mr. Tierney was a friend to Jared Houghton>

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.
1.11.2011 | 9:29pm
whodathought says:
If Jesus were to come again as promised, I think he just might be disgusted with the way humanity has turned out. Threatening rhetoric, references to shooting, targeting, pure hatred between political adversaries, and total disregard for His teachings.He probably would turn his back on us and deliver humanity to its fitting eternal damnation.
1.11.2011 | 9:45pm
Jody says:
I'm Catholic, and progressive. Do you conservatives hate me?
1.11.2011 | 11:09pm
Gail F says:
Many people here are quick to insist that political rhetoric influenced this poor guy, but let me tell you, if you really think that you simply don't know anything about severe mental illness.

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.
1.12.2011 | 1:14am
ENOUGH ROPE says:
O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy.
1.12.2011 | 8:16am
John Wickey says:
I am a retired Ph.D. psychologist, who began his career in the mid-50s as an attendant nurse in a state hospital, where Thorazine was used and the subject of research. Over the years, I have watched the closing of the state hospital systems, without adequate management of such people who cannot be responsible for the management of their lives. Many are in jail. Many are dead. Many resist treatment. A small percentage become dangerous. This event could have been predicted and such events will happen again. State governments are not facing these kinds of issues because they do not have the money, because solutions involve changes to the rights of the individual and because such problems are low on their priority list.
1.12.2011 | 8:17am
I'm not sure which is worse: using this tragedy as a political tool to mitigage against the historic gains made by conservatves in November, or, does the left really believe that the proverbial bulls-eye icon is sufficient to incite mass murder, or, is the sun setting on human reason - have we finally put the ideal of objective truth in the trash bin and are all of our relationships now based on "want" rather than "ought?" We live in scary times.
1.12.2011 | 9:13am
Kudos to Gil, Gail, and John W - I will reinforce that these are not simply people who agree with my POV, but precisely those people who know something about psychotic disorders. This is not a spiritual or emotional fragility we are discussing (though both can result), but a broken brain. Look no further. Seek no deeper explanation on young Mr. Loughner. (I do take some issue with Gil on this - I think he is describing result, not cause - but the difference may be slight).

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.
1.12.2011 | 1:41pm
Blake says:
DWiss, Lee Harvey Oswald has been portrayed relentlessly as "just" a nut, but - unlike this situation here - his actions were almost certainly politically motivated.

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!
1.12.2011 | 2:47pm
Gil Costello says:
Assistant Village Idiot,

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.
1.12.2011 | 4:01pm
TeaPot562 says:
As far as "groups to blame":
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
1.12.2011 | 8:43pm
Nora says:
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? ~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.
1.13.2011 | 2:05pm
Gil Costello says:
Nora - You write, "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!"

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.
1.13.2011 | 4:58pm
Nora says:
Gil,

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.
1.13.2011 | 5:39pm
Gil Costello says:
"If someone feels the need to start that garbage, and no one responds, the ugliness dies a natural death..." This is a tat naive. Cable, Internet, FB, Twitter and the rest are here to stay, and thus so is the continuing venomous rhetoric. What you're missing here is that many progressives are taking seriously Rahm Emmanuel's number one rule from his political play book: “Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste.”

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.
1.14.2011 | 9:28am
Nora says:
So what? A lot of things are here to stay. Pornography, prostitution, corruption, greed...doesn't mean we throw up our hands and figure if everyone else is doing it, we might as well do it, too.

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.
1.14.2011 | 1:55pm
Gil Costello says:
"There isn't a single thing you said about what one 'side' did that the other 'side' didn't do, too."

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?
1.14.2011 | 6:33pm
Nora says:
Like I said, it's the timing, the shrill nature of the reporting, the hysteria, the tit-for-tat back-and-forth of it all that's the problem. A reasonable, thoughtful discussion can't be had until people have had time to think, to turn a thing over and examine it from various perspectives. There's no objectivity to be had in the middle of a feeding frenzy.

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...
3.27.2011 | 1:56pm
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! I will be the first to admit that I don't know if the man was crazy or a political fanatic or what. However, Father Joseph, perhaps it is not just a metaphor:
8.26.2011 | 10:37am
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. 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." ?
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact