(no subject)
Jan. 10th, 2011 12:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mrockwellWriting
Things are moving forward in regards to that news I mentioned last week; I'll have more to say when all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. Stay tuned!
In the meantime, check out this interview with my gal pal, Gini Koch. Why? Because she talks about me, for one. For another, she's a very funny lady, and I figure we can all use a laugh or two today.
Also, I want to take a moment to wish a very Happy Birthday to my fellow Inquisitive author Jeff LaSala. Hope it's a great one, Jeff!
Everything Else
And now for something a little more serious.
You all know I live in AZ. My husband was actually in Tucson on Saturday, not too terribly far from the Safeway where the shootings took place, surrounded by law enforcement personnel who had to respond to that awful call.
What happened in Tucson was a heartbreaking tragedy, an attack not just on the victims, but on all Americans and on our way of life.
As horrible as it was, however, what I find even worse is the finger-pointing given fuel by Sheriff Dupnik's inappropriate comments during the press conference following the attacks. Any law enforcement official will tell you that it was highly unprofessional for the sheriff to imply that the shooter's motives were somehow linked to the current climate of vitriolic political discourse in this country -- something that could not have been known at that time (and isn't fully known now, and may never be). You just don't DO that -- you don't speculate on motive, you don't imply motive, you don't infer motive. Not EVER, but certainly not at a national press conference, not before all the facts are known. Because it can influence the course of an investigation (perhaps wrongly) and because it can come back to bite you in the ass at the trial.
Whether the sheriff's vocal assumptions will negatively impact the investigation and trial remains to be seen, but it has already negatively impacted the country. Cries for right-wing politicos to renounce their use of violent rhetoric or else abandon public life altogether are rampant. Those calls ignore the fact that there is NO evidence such rhetoric played any role whatsoever in the shooter's actions. The man is clearly deranged, and crazy people do crazy things with little or no provocation -- that's sort of the meaning of the word. They do not need justification for what they do -- it's we, on the outside, in the sane world, who search for such justification in the aftermath of tragedy, for someone or something to blame, as a way to make sense of the senseless. But just because we want and need such justification for our own peace of mind, doesn't mean it actually exists. Bad things happen to good people all the time and sometimes there just is no good answer to the question, "Why?" As the mother of a child with cancer, I know this better than most.
Those calls also ignore the fact that violent rhetoric is a tool commonly used by politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle. Sarah Palin's crosshairs graphic is no more or less incendiary than Barack Obama's "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" comment. Violence and violent imagery are pervasive in our society -- we want to "kick butt" in a game, "shoot" for the stars, "crush" our opponents at the polls. We all use violent rhetoric every day, so if Sarah Palin and the right are responsible for what happened in Tucson, then so are Barack Obama and the left. So am I. So are you.
That's not to say that the use of such rhetoric by public figures ON BOTH SIDES is not irresponsible, because it is, and, really, we should ALL tone it down. But what's even MORE irresponsible, IMO, is using that rhetoric as an excuse to curb free speech. Because when we let the crazy people of the world start dictating what we can and can't say or do -- either through what they've done or through the fear of what they might do -- then we ALL lose.
Things are moving forward in regards to that news I mentioned last week; I'll have more to say when all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. Stay tuned!
In the meantime, check out this interview with my gal pal, Gini Koch. Why? Because she talks about me, for one. For another, she's a very funny lady, and I figure we can all use a laugh or two today.
Also, I want to take a moment to wish a very Happy Birthday to my fellow Inquisitive author Jeff LaSala. Hope it's a great one, Jeff!
Everything Else
And now for something a little more serious.
You all know I live in AZ. My husband was actually in Tucson on Saturday, not too terribly far from the Safeway where the shootings took place, surrounded by law enforcement personnel who had to respond to that awful call.
What happened in Tucson was a heartbreaking tragedy, an attack not just on the victims, but on all Americans and on our way of life.
As horrible as it was, however, what I find even worse is the finger-pointing given fuel by Sheriff Dupnik's inappropriate comments during the press conference following the attacks. Any law enforcement official will tell you that it was highly unprofessional for the sheriff to imply that the shooter's motives were somehow linked to the current climate of vitriolic political discourse in this country -- something that could not have been known at that time (and isn't fully known now, and may never be). You just don't DO that -- you don't speculate on motive, you don't imply motive, you don't infer motive. Not EVER, but certainly not at a national press conference, not before all the facts are known. Because it can influence the course of an investigation (perhaps wrongly) and because it can come back to bite you in the ass at the trial.
Whether the sheriff's vocal assumptions will negatively impact the investigation and trial remains to be seen, but it has already negatively impacted the country. Cries for right-wing politicos to renounce their use of violent rhetoric or else abandon public life altogether are rampant. Those calls ignore the fact that there is NO evidence such rhetoric played any role whatsoever in the shooter's actions. The man is clearly deranged, and crazy people do crazy things with little or no provocation -- that's sort of the meaning of the word. They do not need justification for what they do -- it's we, on the outside, in the sane world, who search for such justification in the aftermath of tragedy, for someone or something to blame, as a way to make sense of the senseless. But just because we want and need such justification for our own peace of mind, doesn't mean it actually exists. Bad things happen to good people all the time and sometimes there just is no good answer to the question, "Why?" As the mother of a child with cancer, I know this better than most.
Those calls also ignore the fact that violent rhetoric is a tool commonly used by politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle. Sarah Palin's crosshairs graphic is no more or less incendiary than Barack Obama's "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" comment. Violence and violent imagery are pervasive in our society -- we want to "kick butt" in a game, "shoot" for the stars, "crush" our opponents at the polls. We all use violent rhetoric every day, so if Sarah Palin and the right are responsible for what happened in Tucson, then so are Barack Obama and the left. So am I. So are you.
That's not to say that the use of such rhetoric by public figures ON BOTH SIDES is not irresponsible, because it is, and, really, we should ALL tone it down. But what's even MORE irresponsible, IMO, is using that rhetoric as an excuse to curb free speech. Because when we let the crazy people of the world start dictating what we can and can't say or do -- either through what they've done or through the fear of what they might do -- then we ALL lose.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-01-10 11:53 pm (UTC)Why? Because of GENOCIDE. Every genocide, ever, started with "just words." Let's take the forgotten genocide as an example: Rwanda. After years of propaganda and "mere rhetoric," 800,000 men, women, and little children were slaughtered, often by their own neighbors.
Anybody who thinks "Oh, it can't happen here!" should be sent back in time to Germany, 1941, with a gold star sewn to their coat. Or to Bosnia in the 1990s. Or Cambodia in the 1970s. Look it up.
I'm sure nobody in those places imagined such things could happen - except possibly the architects. I sometimes wonder if even they were surprised at how successful they were at dehumanizing the opposition and hitching the "average citizen" to the machinery of death.
Of course, detachment from reality is one of the signs of insanity, so I harbor doubts about whether anything will really change here. But maybe we'll get lucky and things will calm down. The 1970s were notably pock-marked with violent acts, and we managed to survive them.
But seriously - it's a hideously dangerous road to go down. All the people involved should get a grip on reality and return to less violent language and imagery. It's much, much more risky than they've been willing to admit so far.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 02:46 am (UTC)I agree. But ALL, not just one side or the other, because both sides engage in it with EQUAL delight and disregard. We all need to take it down a notch or three.
But, also, we are at the top of a very slippery slope wrt "dangerous" rhetoric. Not too far down that slope is a place where no one is free to speak at all, because there were no words spoken, ever, that did not offend SOMEONE. And where no one is free to speak is soon where no one is LEFT to speak.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 01:56 am (UTC)But also...thank you.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 02:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 04:25 am (UTC)Dupnik never mentioned a side, but there was a reason why it was obvious to everyone exactly who he was talking about. There was no confusion from anyone. The Left knew who he meant and the Right saw their reflection in the mirror he held up.
He was a man who is in a community that saw one of the most viscious campaigns in recent history filled with death threats and violence against two people elected to serve this community who happened to vote in a different way from what some people wanted. He is a man who lost a friend and is seeing another in a coma.
Finally, Arapaio has made every fucking appearance in front of a camera into a political statement, but you never breathed a word about that. His brand of updating is fine and dandy but you take issue with Dupnik?
I can't talk to you now. Heading to my journal to vent.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 05:21 am (UTC)I understand Dupnik's hurt and anger, and I don't blame him for those feelings, but they are precisely why he should not have been the one giving that press conference. There was no way he could be objective, and objectivity was what was needed then, and what is still needed now.
As I think I've made pretty clear in my post, I reject the idea that "the Right saw their reflection" in his comments. If there was a mirror being held up, then it reflected EVERYONE who has ever used any kind of violent rhetoric, right OR left. And both sides HAVE used it; the Obama quote above is only the tip of the iceberg. As for the Palin graphic, there are many like it on the other side of the fence, if anyone cares to look: http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647. Violent rhetoric is not exclusive to any political party, or even to politics at all.
Finally, Arpaio. How often do I talk politics here? Not very often at all. On the rare occasion that I do, I talk about things that really matter to me. Arpaio doesn't make that list, so why I would be expected to have addressed anything he might or might not have said in the past is beyond me. I'm not a political pundit and I'm not bound by the constraints of some "equal time" rule. Regardless, when I do talk politics, I generally try to be as fair about it as I can be (though I've had my moments of rantiness, just like anyone). I think I've been fair here, and reasonable, and objective. I'm sorry if you disagree.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 05:36 am (UTC)My point about Arapaio is you claim Dupnik is somehow unprofessional for saying what he did (and ignores the fucking death threats and attacks on campaign offices for Giffords and Grijalva - the man didn't pull the possibility that this political assassination attempt might be fucking political *gasp* out of his ass), because he made the press conference political. You called him out for that. Again, Arapaio does it constantly, but I suppose when Arapaio gives Palin some pink panties he's just doing his job in law enforcement, but Dupnik? No, when Dupnik speaks, one most become outraged at how he's not doing his job to your exact specifications.
Finally - if it wasn't a mirror held up to the Right to see their reflection, why did the Right have a meltdown? He never said GOP, Tea Party, The Right, Fox News, or breathed a pundit's name. But somehow, go figure, you knew who he meant.
I wonder why that was.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 05:58 am (UTC)And they're BOTH deplorable, a point which I thought I'd made clear but perhaps did not.
And if you go back and read what I actually wrote, you'll see that I'm saying Dupnik was unprofessional for speculating on the motive behind the attack. Those aren't "my specifications," but SOP for law enforcement.
Finally, by the time that press conference was aired, the mainstream media had already had a field day with the Palin graphic, etc, so anybody who'd been watching the coverage couldn't have helped but assume that's what Dupnik was referring to when he made his comments.
If you want to have a calm, civil discussion about this, I'm more than happy to continue, but I think maybe that might not be possible at the moment and for the sake of our friendship, it might be better to end this now.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-11 06:04 am (UTC)