Pick Your Poison
With a week having passed after the shootings in Tucson, I think we're now able to discuss some angles of the story. I think Jon Stewart had things exactly right when he addressed the nation on The Daily Show. You can't explain crazy, sometimes people do things you can't explain, and trying to divine meaning from the actions of a whacked-out pothead malcontent is a fool's errand. If you haven't seen it, I suggest you track down the nine-minute lead-off section, it is well worth watching.
The biggest takeaway for me is people who are trying to leverage the shootings for their own gain. Whether it is Clarence Dupnik, the no-talent assclown sherriff of Pima County, who leapt right up to blame the Tucson shootings on political commentators and the ugliness of politics. Or Rep. Peter King, a Republican representing New York's fightin' 3rd district, who wants a bill that would disallow guns whenever a Congressman was within 1,000 feet. Those are just the two that I remember; you've read other news items that use the shootings as a lever to bring up their chosen issue. Shame on them all.
This will probably sound terribly crass, but let it sink in. What if he used a car to mow down attendees? Would you ban cars? Of course not. But the response to a shooting death is “gotta legislate away gun ownership.” I read about someone who wants there to be restrictions on ownership of guns by the mentally ill. Here's the problem: crazy people think they're normal. Whether it is a chemical imbalance or genetics, they don't think that anything's wrong with them. Who gets to determine what is mental illness, and where that line is? Any such law would just hamper the law abiding, because even though laws are supposed to suppress criminals, not the other way around. Criminals don't worry about things like “am I in a no-carry zone? I had better stow my pistol in the trunk, otherwise I'd get arrested.” That's not how it works. Changing of laws like this should be taken up with clear headed rationality, and not as a reaction to a tragedy. If it was a good law, it would have been done before the tragedy, and not as a result of it.
In other news, I would be happy if “poisonous rhetoric” became one of those banned phrases that some dictionary-or-other publishes every year. If you went to kindergarten in this country, this will make sense: you will encounter people with whom you disagree. That doesn't make you mortal enemies. It just means you disagree on the role of government, or a stance on religion, or whatever the topic is. “Us versus them” isn't necessarily bad on its face, but it can become bad if taken too far, which is true for just about everything. You learn to share, and how to bring about conflict resolution, and that ranges from a space on the swing set up to nationalizing health care. Debate doesn't have to be meek and at an “indoor voice,” but the other end doesn't accomplish anything either. Yelling might release a few endorphins and make you feel good that you got your point across, but that isn't debate. The happy middle ground is between kumbayah and pitchforks, and also much more enlightening and interesting.
You cannot just wave the flag of “you're using poisonous rhetoric” to make someone stop saying things you disagree with, because those people are still going to say and believe what they do, even if you stamp your foot and call them names. They're still not going to agree with you, and now you've ticked them off--congratulations. There is no magic trump card that you can play to win whatever argument you choose, and I hope that anyone who is told that they should stop using “poisonous rhetoric” says “if you take issue with my language, that's your problem. Words have meanings, and I'm not going to worry about what you think of the way I express myself. So go soak your head.” That's what I'll do. You can disagree with what I have to say (and there are throngs of you out there who do) but I get to say it, and you get to tell me how much of a nut I am. That's what makes our country exceptional. We all get to have our say, and as long as we stay within the bounds of the rules, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Saying “I think the country is moving in the wrong direction” or “I don't like how that policy will affect local business” or “I think the Governor crapped the bed on that particular news item” isn't poisonous rhetoric, that's my opinion. If you want to live life in a weener bubble where if somebody has nothing good to say about something, they say nothing at all...too bad, no joy. If you think I'm wrong, tell me why. Maybe there's something I haven't looked at. Maybe I did look at that angle and it doesn't dissuade me.
It shouldn't take some whacked-out pothead shooting up a Safeway to give us a thump upside the head and say “hey, we're doing it wrong. Chill down, step back and realize that there is a way to hash out our differences, and that differences aren't bad or wrong or something to be weeded out.” We have not reached a point of no return, we are still the America that I learned about in school, we have the same rights as enumerated in the Constitution, when government overreaches, the voters respond and pull back toward the center. We band together in times of crisis and in sadness. That's something to be proud of, and something to recall the next time someone disagrees with you. It is silly to censor our commentators because it might “inflame the mentally ill”. Rhetoric should be toned down not because some whiner says so, but because to go with the corrupt and bad politicians, there are good ones out there, who are working to keep us free and this country great, and they do deserve respect and the benefit of the doubt.