The Arizona shootings and reaction

Lots of reflection about the horrible shooting in Arizona.

On Facebook yesterday, I made it clear that I do not believe that the vitriolic rhetoric "caused" this guy to shoot Representative Giffords.

However, I think that the way we treat one another...especially those we do not agree with...says something to those who observe the behavior. When it's done in very public settings, the potential influence increases. When the rhetoric gets turned up to "life or death" or "the country is in jeopardy", it's not a stretch to conclude that the environment contributes to people choosing to act out.

Again, I'm not saying right/left rhetoric caused this disturbed man to do this, but the environment helped set the stage. I think that transforming the way we publicly disagree with one another sends a powerful message. Those who make their money off saying outrageous things (talk radio, "news commentary" shows) aren't going to change: after all, their ratings go up in the midst of the outrageous.

However, I think that most politicians become so because they believe they are going to make their country better. They are the ones that need to see that it is in EVERYONE'S best interest not to demonize the other.

My friend Emily Ingalls posted this quote:

"We do not consider patriotism desirable if it contradicts civilized behavior."
-- Friedrich Durrenmatt

Additionally, I posted this on Facebook, along with some of the responses:

• Kurt C. Wiesner

  I don't know why it still surprises me when the best commentary by far that I have seen on the events in Arizona comes from The Daily Show. Stewart reflects without casting blame...

  

  Arizona Shootings Reaction - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 01/10/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

  www.thedailyshow.com

  Airdate - 01/10/11

  Yesterday at 10:16am
  

  • • 

      Kurt C. Wiesner

      After being clear that he refuses to blame political rhetoric for this sad event, Stewart says this:
      
      "I do think it is important for us to watch our rhetoric. I do think it is a worthwhile goal not to conflate our political opponents with ...enemies, if for no other reason than to draw a better distinction between the manifestos of paranoid madmen and what passes for acceptable political and pundit speak. You know, it would really be nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn't in anyway resemble how we actually talk to each other on TV."

      
      
    • (Carrie agreed with the above statement, but also addressed my initial query as to why Stewart is able to reflect without blame)
    • 
      
    • Caroline Matras Polli: Because at the core - he's a comedian. He doesn't have a party to align with or a news sponsor that expects an agenda. He can say what he likes. The privileged of being the King's Fool.
    • 
      
    • 

      Kurt C. Wiesner Carrie: I can't argue with you there about Stewart's role as "King's Fool"...but I also am either naive or hopeful enough to believe that politicians can do this too. I think that in reality, most politicians get involved because they believe they are going to make their country better, and that’s true even when they drastically oppose my view (even when I happen to be correct). They are the ones that need to see that it is in EVERYONE'S best interest not to demonize the other.
    • 
      
    • 

      Lee Crandall: What sets Jon Stewart apart is that he has no desire to be politically correct or "balanced" when that term means giving flat-earthers the same credence as scientists. He is a seeker of truths, not an appeaser of corporate profits.