![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jan. 10th, 2011 12:54 pmWriting
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.
