I Do, But I Don't

I Do, But I Don't

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Tucson Through The Looking Glass

It is fascinating to see how quickly the discussion of the terrible events of this past Saturday where innocent lives were lost at the hands of a madman.  Critical thought, reason and rationale have been left at the doorstep of ideological suppositions and rather than watching, waiting and seeing what will come of the investigation, ludicrous accusations are flying.

It's Rush Limbaugh's fault.
It's Sarah Palin's fault.
It's Sharon Angle's fault.
It's President Obama's fault.

And so on, so forth.

The macabre loss of life has within itself a multitude of questions that will eventually need answers, but that's just not enough for those who are far too ready to affix blame to someone - anyone.  Almost immediately after the killing, pundits on the left began to say that Sarah Palin and her "target" of House Districts and the use of crosshair imagery must be to blame because Congresswoman Giffords' House District was one Palin targeted.

Nevermind the fact that Palin never advocated violence against anyone.  Nevermind the fact that the killer never said anywhere that Palin influenced him nor did her graphic design work influence or motivate him to this act of violence.

Sarah Palin issues a statement in the form of a video and her use of the term "blood libel" somehow is used to underscore her (non-existent) fault?  Seriously?   We are so far through the looking glass, people, that Alice is laughing her ass off at us.

The same voices who have called for "cooler heads" and for calm are members of the mainstream media who are at present, pushing the issue further and inciting an emotional tsunami and it simply proves that if the presupposition exists wherein you despise one political affiliation and adore another, the aggregate result is that even normal flatulence will be a causal factor in the tragedy in Tucson.  "Oh my Lord!  Sarah Palin passed gas!  See!  She is a fascist and because of her smelly tooting, the madman in Tucson was motivated to kill a Democratic Congresswoman!"

Do you see how stupid that sounds?

Another example:  A story has a title, "PETA Targets Canadian Tourism Industry With New Seal-Slaughter TV Spot."
PETA used the term, "target."  Is PETA targeting tourists to Canada?  Is this a threat of violence to the Canadian tourism industry?  Should visitors to Canada be worried about physical violence?  Hell no.  See how silly that is?

Democrats and Republicans alike have used militaristic language in campaigns.  Liberals and Conservatives alike have used imagery that cause the hyper-sensitive thought-police to tinkle in their bio-degradable, non-flammable, recycled underpanties.  Unfortunately, they will probably point to this blog and the fact that I have a picture of myself at the gun range, enjoying my 2nd Amendment rights, to mean that I have sinister motives.  It is absolutely insane.

It's time we grow the hell up and remember that context matters and stop being so sensitive and so willing to jump to ridiculous conclusions!  Remember:  We have no idea at this point why the deranged gunman opened fire in Tucson.  

I will type that again slowly so the tinkle-panties out there can understand:  We have no idea at this point why the deranged gunman opened fire in Tucson.

Objectivity is paramount right now.  Guess what?  It's the shooter's fault.  Period.