Saturday, January 08, 2011

poor taste

the face of terrorism in america is today jared loughner's. he's not muslim. he's not anything but a murderer of (so far) among others a federal judge and a 9-year-old boy, unless we also count him the assailant who has but a bullet in the head of arizona congressional representative gabrielle giffords. (which he has). a good number of others have been wounded as well. (near unbelievable story here).

of course, not everything occurs in a vaccuum, and, lest we forget, they indeed are crosshairs that were chosen to represent the representatives (including gabrielle giffords) on a certain tv personality's "hit list". nobody believes (i hope) the intention was as has occurred. but nobody should mistake that rhetoric should come with responsibility, and i'll be curious to hear the wording of the communique that i should hope will be soon forthcoming. it should be, at the very least, interesting.

until then, color me continued to be aghast at what passes for popular statesmanship these days, and with solidarity and respect for the grief of those who have been devastated by today's events. this particular tweet has today been removed, but its memory lingers. so does the memory of a june 12th event, sponsored by giffords' electoral opponent, jesse kelly, to "shoot a fully automatic m16" to "get on target" and "remove gabrielle giffords". this stuff can't be made up, and even that would be too much. there should be more said from the right than is.

2 Comments:

Blogger C R Krieger said...

A terrible thing.  That the Representative survived is good news.  All the other deaths are each a tragedy.

I am not sure I would call this a terrorist event.  In my mind there is a difference between the mentally disturbed, the anarchist and the terrorist.  For the victim there is no difference, but for understanding what is happening and for working to prevent it and for dealing with it after the act it is important.

Regards  —  Cliff

11:04 PM  
Blogger kad barma said...

Why is this not a terrorist event? The absence of a cogent manifesto?

The spontaneously combusting missives on the East Coast aren't nearly as deadly, but I find we lose our way the moment we try to understand "motive" behind a sociopathic act. Some Americans only recognize "terrorism" when it is associated with Muslims. You may agree with me that this is too narrow a definition, but I infer that you still maintain a suggestion that such distinctions are important.

A rose by any other name. Quacks like a duck. Disaffected high schoolers are no less lethal than any other sort of perpetrator of violence.

I object to the word "terror" being used at all in these cases, just as I think it was narrow-minded to become pathologically afraid of "anarchists" back in the day, or "communists" in the 50's. Subversion of our social fabric, or our Constitution, should warrant the same response regardless of the motives and associations of those who would tear them down. My civil disobedience is to use the word "terrorism" as liberally as it applies until we all wake up and address sociopathy and not our own political, religious, racial or any other kind of bias.

8:30 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home