I have been reading with interest what is being said and written following the tragedy in Tucson. I came up with the following observations:
Rhetoric (the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing). The first thing we do as a modern society is to point the finger of blame and, in all too many cases, it is political. How do we, as a modern society, stop this type of senseless rhetoric?
Washington, no, our entire country, is laced with corruption at all levels. What does this corruption breed as it is fueled by bias? Inflammatory rhetoric.
As I did research to determine how and why the system failed, it became apparent that we, the people, have accepted this failure. Neither party will or can fix it, as they are both guilty.
The proof of this is we can't quote a national figure unless we put "R" or "D" next to their name. This is called "automatic finger pointing."
I found it interesting that the head of Fox News came out immediately to say he has cautioned all of Fox News to closely measure their rhetoric. Unfortunately, I find myself wondering if he did this as a matter of conscience or guilt.
What part of our current economic and cultural crisis belongs to the Republicans during the George W. Bush years and what part belongs to the current administration under Barack Obama's leadership?
Answer: It belongs to us.
Norm Smith, Poland
Report a correction
The Only Person That is Guilty...
About the events in Tucson, AZ is the guy that pulled the trigger...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.“Washington, no, our entire
“Washington, no, our entire country, is laced with corruption at all levels.”
I hear people make similar comments every day. When I ask them what “corruption” they are referring to, they can’t give me a clear answer or a concrete example. It’s just a gut feeling they have that all government is corrupt.
Corruption use to be the use of powers by elected officials for illegitimate or illegal, personal gain.
It seems to me the definition of the word corruption has changed to anything one doesn’t agree with.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Well said Norm
Norm,
I like the way you presented the reflective questions to all of us, making readers consider how we each contribute to the negative and disturbing rhetoric that has come to light. As a society, we all incite or encourage one way or another, and whatever leader is in office has the responsibility to lead in a manner that will move us forward. Some may see progressiveness with employing "R" or "D" ideals, then again, there is a new organization that includes leaders from all political ideologies called "No Labels" (http:www.nolabels.org). I am excited to see that this group is bringing together people from all sides, not to leave their current parties, but to find common ground that we can move our nation ahead in a positive manner.
That said, how can we, in our own communities become agents of change without inciting violent behaviors or aggravating those with opposing views? Do you think this can be accomplished or is it wishful thinking for a Utopian society?
Linda Sherwood
Auburn, Maine
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The guy that killed all of
The guy that killed all of those innocent people is a nut case and political rhetoric had nothing at all to do with it. The beauty of our country is that we can disagree with each other. We don't need to go overboard and agree just for the sake of being agreeable.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.taxpayer, Loughner's attack
taxpayer, Loughner's attack WAS politically motivated as evidenced by the fact that a US Representative was the intended target. There is evidence, in writing, to support this. Representative Giffords was shot first, at point blank range. The others were innocent bystanders.
This is not to say that the rabid political rhetoric we are fed on a daily basis was the cause.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I find it interesting ...
... that only FOX made the slightest attempt to measure their rhetoric. I find myself wondering if other "news" outlets even acknowledge such concepts as conscience or guilt - applied to them. You're right, Mr. Smith, the blame belongs to all of us and should be shared liberally among all reporting agencies.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You know this how????
??
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It is FOX News that employs
It is FOX News that employs the person who put 'crosshairs' on congresswoman. It is FOX News that labels someone a 'babykiller,' who was later murdered. Time and again FOX News incites its viewers to violence. Tell me another news organization that has those credentials, then we can spread the blame around. Although I do not agree with FOX News bias, I fully support their right to it, I just wish they were more careful with how they infect their viewers with them.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (6) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Which is more violent?
A crosshair or a bullseye? Here's one from a D website, long since sanitized.
The concept of political target has been around for a long time, used by both sides.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Primitive vs Modern
These targets on your map are for a bow and arrow. A bow is very primitive and doesn't have near the range of the high powered rifle that Palin's scope fits on.
But seriously, neither side meant for their illustration to encite violence.
Does the sign on the Target stores make you want to shoot something? Only if you are a nutcase already.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I fail to see the comparison,
I fail to see the comparison, but I guess that's your point. Where do you see that the DNC has threatened those states with violence? Where the threat of gun usage? Why do you take this example to justify Sarah Palin targeting the congresswoman? And more importantly, how many people on this map were shot at and how many people died because of this map? The nuances between being targeted for defeats is vastly different than being targeted for death, or don't you see the difference?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (4) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Targeted for death?
You may not like Palin (I don't much either) but to accuse her of "targeting for death"?
That is a pretty serious accusation, and ones that a person should be prepared to back up if they are taken to court for libel or slander.
Just how do you know this? How do you know her intent was to cause death?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Of course I see the difference.
What you don't see is there's not one shred of evidence that Palin, FOX or anyone else, except one lunatic, targeted the congresswoman for death. This has been acknowledged by many news outlets on all sides. For example:
MSNBC/NBC
Some liberals quick to point the finger are linking 22-year-old shooter Jared Loughner to the Tea Party—showing the same lack of restraint and tendency to demonize their ideological opponents that they accuse the right of having.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.