via BoingBoing, here's part of an essay written after 9/11, but which is equally apropos today:
Many people will use this terrible tragedy as an excuse to put through a political agenda other than my own. This tawdry abuse of human suffering for political gain sickens me to the core of my being. Those people who have different political views from me ought to be ashamed of themselves for thinking of cheap partisan point-scoring at a time like this. In any case, what this tragedy really shows us is that, so far from putting into practice political views other than my own, it is precisely my political agenda which ought to be advanced.
Not only are my political views vindicated by this terrible tragedy, but also the status of my profession. Furthermore, it is only in the context of a national and international tragedy like this that we are reminded of the very special status of my hobby, and its particular claim to legislative protection. My religious and spiritual views also have much to teach us about the appropriate reaction to these truly terrible events.
Countries which I like seem to never suffer such tragedies, while countries which, for one reason or another, I dislike, suffer them all the time. The one common factor which seems to explain this has to do with my political views, and it suggests that my political views should be implemented as a matter of urgency, even though they are, as a matter of fact, not implemented in the countries which I like.
I'm a little turned-off by the self-righteous chest-thumping on liberal blogs these days, I guess.
Meh. Liberal blogs complained about the crosshairs from the beginning. They complained about “reload” from the beginning. They complained about Sharon Angle’s “second amendment solution” from the beginning.
Should we stop saying that violent rhetoric is unacceptable *after* somebody gets shot?
Should we stop saying that violent rhetoric is unacceptable *after* somebody gets shot?
i don’t think that’s what the essay is saying. it’s saying that people will use this tragedy as unquestionable validation of all their political views. and they are. i realize it’s probably just commenters blowing off steam and getting hyperbolic about things, but i was hoping for a little more restraint.
i got no issue with pointing out and complaining about violent rhetoric. but frankly i don’t think anything will change – it didn’t change after JFK, after RFK, or after King; it didn’t change after OKC; it doesn’t change after anti-abortion nuts kill doctors; it doesn’t change when people are discovered with garages full of weapons and plans to use them. we wring our hands for a few days, then we get right back to business as usual.
that doesn’t mean i don’t think people should be quiet about violent rhetoric, just that i think it’s kind of a hopeless pursuit.
The whole essay just seems too much like, “well, the right shoot people, and then the left complain about it, so both sides are equally guilty.”
i guess i don’t get that. the essay doesn’t actually say ‘left’ or ‘right’. and i’m not trying to say “both sides are equally guilty”.
It doesn’t have to say left or right. There was an attempted assassination this weekend, an explicitly political killing, and the boingers want the members of her party to ignore the past two years of threats.
an explicitly political killing,
well, i don’t buy that. AFAIK, we don’t know the guy’s motives. and given his apparent mental illness, i’m not sure he even knows what they are.
and there’s a difference between killing a politician and a killing based on that person’s politics. John Hinckley shot Reagan, but it wasn’t because of Reagan’s politics – it was because Hinckley was trying to emulate Travis Bickle (who tries assassinating a politician) from Taxi Driver in an attempt to impress Jodie Foster. he also stalked Carter for a while, until he was sent to a psych hospital. Carter’s and Reagan’s politics were irrelevant.
at this point, i don’t think we know if politics were a factor, or if Giffords just happened to be the closest politician.
the boingers want the members of her party to ignore the past two years of threats
they do? where did they say that?
i don’t think i’ve heard anyone say that.
it didn’t change after JFK, after RFK, or after King; it didn’t change after OKC; it doesn’t change after anti-abortion nuts kill doctors; it doesn’t change when people are discovered with garages full of weapons and plans to use them
I keep wondering when the last time a US national conservative politician was shot/killed in what was a politically motivated shooting (such that, Reagan doesn’t count, and neither does George Wallace).
was wondering that too. i looked around a bit but i could only find lists of Presidential attempts.
McKinley, the pres who Teddy R veeped for. Shot by an anarchist.
Lincoln was a Republican, but he was also a liberal, so wouldn’t count on the list of assassinated conservatives.
Shot by an anarchist.
and a guy tried to shoot TR because he thought McKinley’s ghost told him to.
At the rate things are going, by the end of the week the “real” victim of the shootings will be conservatives because of all the nasty things liberals have said about their violent rhetoric. I can hear Rush Limbaugh now, in fact, he probably just needs to dust off his transcripts from after the Oklahoma City bombing and do a find and replace.
@Ugh: Won’t somebody think of the wingnuts?
I can hear Rush Limbaugh now, in fact, he probably just needs to dust off his transcripts from after the Oklahoma City bombing and do a find and replace.
Have they started saying he was working for Iraqi intelligence yet?
i’m sure it will happen.
until then… bird die-offs are due to the repeal of DADT !
Wha