There’s nothing funny in today’s Morning Jolt. It’s just that kind of a day.
I don’t want to live in a country where we all have to self-censor for fear that our particular choice of words might be what triggers a madman to go on a shooting spree. Because the key word in that sentence is “madman.” Madness. We on the sane side of the equation can barely understand it.
One more point: we’re starting to hear more reports of people who sensed this man was deeply troubled and potentially dangerous, suggesting another egregious, unforgivable pattern in modern American life. After the Columbine massacre, endless amounts of media coverage declared that sometimes a troubled teen is much more than a troubled teen; sometimes they’re ticking time bombs. In the years after the unparalleled Colorado shooting, students, teachers, and parents were encouraged and constantly reminded that if they saw signs of potentially threatening behavior, to inform the authorities immediately. Fast forward almost a decade, and a particularly troubled Virginia Tech student generated more than his share of red flags: writing in a school assignment that he wanted to “repeat Columbine,” professors describing his behavior as “menacing”, removal from class, at least three stalking incidents, repeated reports to the student affairs office, the dean’s office, and the campus police.
Time and again, students and teachers did what they had been instructed to do — report troubling behavior — and yet the shooter was never seriously impeded from this ultimate murderous act. I suspect it was a combination of bureaucratic inertia, fears of action triggering a lawsuit, and flat-out underestimation and dismissal of the danger the shooter presented.
Do we ever break this cycle?
Going to the facts, from the contents of his safe it is obvious that an already mentally unstable Loughner had a personal animus toward Giffords stemming from his meeting with her in 2007 - before Sarah Palin became a household name and before the advent of the TEA Party.
In other words, this has nothing to do with politics - harsh rhetoric or otherwise. This was no more than a tragic random event involving a mentally deranged young man.
That said, what truly bothers me about this is that none of the people on the Left blaming this tragic incident on "reckless" "incendiary" rhetoric truly believe it. This is all political posturing - the typical liberal rush to politically profit off personal tragedy.
What could be more reckless or incendiary than accusing someone (Palin - who was thousands of miles away) of being directly responsible for a murder attempt with no evidence whatsoever? If Krugman et al truly believed that "reckless" "incendiary" rhetoric can directly lead to murder ...
... then I am forced to conclude that they (Paul Krugman, Markos Moulitsas, Michael Daly, Keith Olbermann, the NYT editorial board, etc.) are making these reckless and incendiary charges in the fervent hope that some Weatherman wanna-be would now have the justification to trail Sarah Palin to a book signing and open fire.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGoing to the facts, from the contents of his safe it is obvious that an already mentally unstable Loughner had a personal animus toward Giffords stemming from his meeting with her in 2007 - before Sarah Palin became a household name and before the advent of the TEA Party.
In other words, this has nothing to do with politics - harsh rhetoric or otherwise. This was no more than a tragic random event involving a mentally deranged young man.
That said, what truly bothers me about this is that none of the people on the Left blaming this tragic incident on "reckless" "incendiary" rhetoric truly believe it. This is all political posturing - the typical liberal rush to politically profit off personal tragedy.
What could be more reckless or incendiary than accusing someone (Palin - who was thousands of miles away) of being directly responsible for a murder attempt with no evidence whatsoever? If Krugman et al truly believed that "reckless" "incendiary" rhetoric can directly lead to murder ...
... then I am forced to conclude that they (Paul Krugman, Markos Moulitsas, Michael Daly, Keith Olbermann, the NYT editorial board, etc.) are making these reckless and incendiary charges in the fervent hope that some Weatherman wanna-be would now have the justification to trail Sarah Palin to a book signing and open fire.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Do we ever break this cycle?" I don't think we can, for the reasons you list. We are not perfect, and neither are our abilities to predict who the dangerous ones really are. I'm not a psychiatrist or psychologist, and I may be completely out to lunch, but it seems that the leading indicators or markers for this kind of crime aren't very reliable. Very few internet ranters will commit dangerous acts, and occasionally someone with little or no "history" will pop up and commit mass murder.
I don't think we can just throw up our hands, however, and say "Oh well, bad stuff happens." We have to continue to do as we've "been instructed to do" - and maybe get someone the help they may need, and head off a tragedy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJim, you are going to have to change the name of your blog, the word "campaign" might be outlawed if some in congress get their way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse