Democratic Representative Gabrielle Gifford of Arizona, continued

At some point, I have to stop following links; ending up staring in horror at therightfangirl earnestly strategizing about how to defend themselves from the liberals that will totally blame them for this or blankly watching unironic use of this tragedy to earnestly shout about gun control and political capital being amassed because yeah, this tragedy shouldn't be about the people who were actually victims for any longer than absolutely necessary. By that I mean, not at all.

I do get the fact this is probably a politically-motivated crime by someone who may or may not be mentally ill (the youtubes are--IDEK, something). Surprisingly, I'm politically and socially aware enough to realize that yeah, Palin's truly inspired use of gun rhetoric is pretty questionable and the entire rhetoric of violence currently permeating political thought is something that should have been curtailed or hell, at least acknowledged as more than extreme right wing rhetoric when the extreme right has controlled conservative thought for so long I'm not sure they even remember they used to be so much more. It's human nature to want to make sense of what goes pear-shaped and human nature to want it to be prevented. It's human nature to blame and to defend and to be really douchey in the name of politics because politics is the decider of a lot of how we live our lives. It's kind of how we even get to live our lives.

OTOH, there's a very thick and easily-visible line between political consciousness and outright douchery; it's not hard. If within five hours of the attempted assassination of a sitting United States Representative to Congress, your biggest worry is making sure those liberals don't blame you, you're a douche. If within five hours of the death of a nine year old child you're already exploding self-righteously about the evils of guns, do I need to repeat this? It's not like the spectrum of political behavior is moderate or assassin; there's a wide and surprisingly unpopulated in between that can be navigated that balances preventing future tragedies and tracing relationships between rhetoric and reality without fodderizing a woman being shot for her politics and a child dying.

Extremism is dangerous, but it's not just militias and assassinations. Moderate does not mean "Does not shoot people for opposing beliefs" or even "Does not pull a Henry II about meddlesome Democrats." That's not a standard of behavior; that's a fairly clear sign the baseline needs to change. This list does not need to be expanded.

*****

At Huffington it is reported that Representative Gifford has not yet woken up nor spoke to anyone.

In more uplifting news, Daniel Hernandez's role in Representative Gifford's survival is documented here. I'm pretty sure most college interns don't sign up with this in mind, and his actions in the wake of the shooting are everything you hope to see in someone who might one day serve the public.

Comments

[dreamatdrew]

Is it wrong that I'm amused that as I started reading this "Green Day - Minority" came up on rhythmbox?

TL;DR i am dead in my soul

[fightingarrival]

In a sick kind of way I can kind of - kind of, mind you - see how the right's first thought might be 'how can I not get blamed for this?' even though my reaction so far has been 'if the shoe fits, y'all.' Because whenever I get wind of a major crime one of first thoughts will always invariably be some variation 'please let them not be black, please don't be of color, please let the perp be white' and preparing for whatever windfall that may come of it if my hopes don't come true, 'cause I'm all cynical like that.

Of course racial background != a political party or movement whatever people may want to frame it. But I don't think that people thinking ahead to what's going come of this and what shockwaves it might send is the worst thing ever even though I may disagree with their aims on an ideological level. I mean, I probably wouldn't know about this attempted murder all the way up in MA or particularly cared if it hadn't been elevated to possible attempted political assassination, callous as that may sound.

My thoughts are still with the victims and their families, but as with any act of terrorism the effects go beyond this one incident.

Re: TL;DR i am dead in my soul

[seperis]

Because whenever I get wind of a major crime one of first thoughts will always invariably be some variation 'please let them not be black, please don't be of color, please let the perp be white' and preparing for whatever windfall that may come of it if my hopes don't come true, 'cause I'm all cynical like that.

Hopefully this comes out right...

That's a sane reaction though. Any crime not committed by a white guy, no matter what it is, has concrete reprecussions for anyone of the race--or suspected to be of the race--of the perpetrator. I'm white and I twitch when the news talks about how the perpetrator is described as Hispanic; it's like a countdown to a whole new slew of nastiness about immigration and stealing jobs, most ironically from people who happily exploit day labor.

It's horrible to have to live in a world where this is true, but that kind of reaction is smart; it helps head off nasty surprises. I don't live as a victim of it, just with friends and family who get the side-eyes and the commentary and the rhetoric and the potential dangers, so I know it's not the same as the concrete knowledge that x goes straight to y ever time being part of daily life.

I need to think how to frame this; it's inevitable, but instead of it being a motivator for people, it's an excuse. Instead of the mourning of the dead, some are entering this with either a resentful attitude, how dare this happen because obviously now those icky Liberals think they are right and have evidence, or almost--gleeful whee proof of rightness. I hate to say it's a tone thing, but I've read conservative commentary that refutes the Palin-gun thing that didn't make me rage and liberals about guns that didn't piss me off. I didn't agree, but I didnt' feel they were coming from a place of exploitation for gain, if that makes sense.

My thoughts are still with the victims and their families, but as with any act of terrorism the effects go beyond this one incident.

Dear God is that true. Five Congressmen, four presidents; the historically interested and sickly curious part of me wants to line up our stats with other countries and see how we're doing in political bloodsport.

Re: TL;DR i am dead in my soul

[elaran]

Because whenever I get wind of a major crime one of first thoughts will always invariably be some variation 'please let them not be black, please don't be of color, please let the perp be white' and preparing for whatever windfall that may come of it if my hopes don't come true, 'cause I'm all cynical like that.
:S Huh, I read that and just realised that I do it too.

[scy]

*nods*

Sadly I saw this sort of blame deflecting coming, and am not surprised. Sickened, yes, surprised, no.

[mecurtin]

If within five hours of the death of a nine year old child you're already exploding self-righteously about the evils of guns, do I need to repeat this?

False equivalence, babe. Strongly advocating for non-violence (which I guess is what you mean by "exploding self-righteously about the evils of guns") is *not* the moral equivalent of butt-covering. What would count as exploding about gun violence *non*-self-righteously? Refraining from saying "we told you so" when we did, in fact, tell you so? And when the Republicans are very busy denying that they were ever told so?

[seperis]

Not so much when responding to a specific incident. And no, not strongly advocating for non-violence. The entire gun control evil guns blah blah blah.

And yes, if you can't hold in your whee, we told you so while the parents are still in shock and the body of their kid isn't cold while another woman is having brain surgery, yes, that's douchey. If it is somehow kills people if they can't smugly blog within twelve hours about how if only there weren't guns, no one would die, yes, that's douchey. If within a few hours this is used as a fun test hypothetical for the mandatory death penalty, that is fucking douchey.

It's not false equivalence; it's a mindset that thinks that everything is fodder, even a mass murder. The concept of fodder isn't a flattering one; fodder has no value except in how it is used and exploited.

If a person can't even bother to hide that this is less a tragedy to them than a way to score points, and more, that we're okay with that, because hey, it's a higher goddamn purpose, we end up right where we started. I know there's a middle ground between insta!pundit and refusing to put this in the context of the degrading and frightening atmosphere in politics. It's pretty deserted though; possibly because the very idea of not being first to say "I told you so!" or "Not me! It was you!" might mean someone else gets to do it first and everyone does love being special.

[ithiliana]

Thank you for the link about Daniel Hernandez' actions!

I love your phrase about about the "line between political consciousness and outright douchery"--and agree, but sort of waver a bit. I completely agree that such treatment of human beings SHOULD not happen. Remembering the earliest assassination I saw covered on the media (President Kennedy's), it just seems inevitable.

I wish there was a way to stop it, but I don't think there is.

That is, I think it's absolutely bedrock human behavior to fit events into our existing narratives--but there are differences between what goes on in our head and what is said in our immediate circle and what is circulated online. And of course there is a huge difference between what narratives people are using, if that makes sense.

I think for far too many people (I'm writing a post about this issue), the existing narrative is "lone crazy gunman" -- but I'm seeing the other narratives circulating as well which is why, yes, I NEVER never watch mainstream media anyway, but especially not in the wake of such tragedies like this one, because the way those dominant media narratives get spun anger me so much (the last time I watched msm coverage of events was the Clarence Thomas hearings, and watching what was done to Anita Hill made me swear off ever watching any sort of televised news again). That's just my solution, and it may be a cowardly one, but the dehumanization of victims of tragedy seems inevitable in these circumstances.

There are a few places/people who are avoiding that dehumanization, and I appreciate them--as I do your post--especially linking to the story of Hernandez.

Thank you.

[seperis]

Some bloggers and news are more careful to contextualize without the dehumanization--and thank you, I couldn't quite get the word I wanted for that--but some of them didn't even try. It's not like I don't get or agree with the entire crosshairs thing, but please to be stop sounding so pleased to be proved right. We don't like the rhetoric because it can contribute to violence; no one should actually want to be proved right like this.

Daniel Hernandez was great. I get the feeling he was minimizing his involvement and glad someone got a chance to get everything about what happened; that kind of good sense after what happened is so rare, not to mention courage.

[seperis]

Here's another one:

Heroic Woman Charged Jared Loughner

I've been tearing up about this for a few minutes now.

[eatsscissors]

That aide is one hell of a brave kid. Good on him.

Possibly I'm dead in my soul, too, because I'm trying very hard to sit on my hands so that I don't start pointing fingers, but the people saying, "Well, we can't be responsible for our violent rhetoric!" just--they make me froth. Political speeches are intended to spur constituents into action. That's what they're for. Being so stunned that a mentally unstable person might not be able to parse metaphorical language strikes me as deliberately obtuse. (On the part of the rhetoricians, not you.)

In the meantime, I'm going to mourn the dead and be glad that Rep. Giffords appears to be on the receiving end of every possible piece of luck she could get after the shooting.

[seperis]

The denial happening almost immediately was enlightening, and not in a good way. therightfangirl just killed me. Just--really. You're assembling links of how icky liberals do things too while we're not even sure if Representative Gifford is alive or dead? Really?

Pretty sure that's what ended up setting me off.

[seperis]

...and they are still strategizing. Why did I go back to see if I was just overreacting? That comm is a cesspool.

[nianeyna]

I have to admit when I first started reading your post I thought you might be overreacting - after all, as a conservative it's reasonable to react to this with, oh ugh, now they're going to brand us all as child killers, or as someone who spends a lot of time campaigning for gun control to think, if only access to guns was more limited this wouldn't have happened. But no, you're right, there is a difference between that and "IT WASN'T OUR FAULT, that's very tragic and all but IT WASN'T OUR FAULT REMEMBER" or "HAHA SEE WE WERE RIGHT," and maybe sometimes that difference can be small but it is significant.

To be honest I haven't been following this very closely. It makes my heart hurt too much. :(

[vickita.livejournal.com]

Thank you. This is one of the sanest things I've seen anyone say about any of this.

[archaeologist-d.livejournal.com]

If nothing else, people who use radical rhetoric to forward their agenda should at least acknowledge it. Palin is one example; Engle with her 2nd amendment remedies is another. I know that Bill O'Reilly targeted an abortion doctor, calling him a murderer who was later killed. The radical left is just as bad.

I get that people do have opinions that are completely opposite at times and that's good. It makes people think. But using language that promotes violence is just not right and they should be called on it.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

The more I watch, teh more bewildered I am by the right becoming a bastion of violent rhetoric.

not to burst your bubble

[(Anonymous)]

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but I haven't seen the "extreme left" use the words that the Terrorist Right has used. I use the term Terrorist, because that is exactly what it is. Anytime you incite violence for a political gain, then by the very definition its terrorism.
This was a very tragic thing to have happened, but it was known to be coming. It should come as no shock when you have people saying that "Democrats are the Devil's Children." (Glenn Beck) Some people are going to take these things too far, and being an entertainer like Beck Hannity and O'Reilley are in the public eye day in and day out, they should have seen that there voices do incite others to action.
Let's not forget that we are in a war, too, a war about keeping the truth the truth, and not to give it spin. When Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of News Corp, was in front of Congress back in the 90's, he was asked about his Fox News channel keeping with the truth, he said "We are not a News Organization, we are in the Entertainment Business." Meaning to say that his brand of News can be twisted. We see the end results.

Re: not to burst your bubble

[amireal.livejournal.com]

Olberman used to do a segment on people he thought were better dead. I believe the word dead was actually used. That's close enough for me. While I'd wager the left doesn't have the same level of revved up hysteria atm, words matter and I'm not a fan of that segment.

[omglawdork.livejournal.com]

If within five hours of the attempted assassination of a sitting United States Representative to Congress, your biggest worry is making sure those liberals don't blame you, you're a douche. If within five hours of the death of a nine year old child you're already exploding self-righteously about the evils of guns, do I need to repeat this?

YES. YES. A THOUSAND TIMES YES. I was going to explain why I love this so hard, but I'd just be repeating everything you've said. Basically: this. Exactly this.

[girlnamedpixley.livejournal.com]

Thank you, Jenn, for every. single. word of this. You said everything I've been thinking since yesterday afternoon.

[pir8fancier.livejournal.com]

What I find incomprehensible about this entire situation is the double speak. Someone like Bill O'Reilly, who makes a damn good living out of words and who uses words to push his agenda, backs away from accepting responsibility for Tiller's death even though he himself on national television put out the cry for someone to "silence" this guy. Gifford's opponent in the last congressional race used inflammatory rhetoric, citing using an M-16 to deal with her. Same with Palin's gunsights (which are now surveryor's sites? Please. Her PAC has already scrubbed that from her website, although she can't deny the Tweet that encourages people to reload). Words matter. There's a reason why we put our Constitution down in words. Why the Bill of Rights is in words. Words have power. You can't have it both ways. You just can't. OWN UP, DAMMNIT

I think that at every Sarah Palin rally people should attend and wear armbands for those killed in Arizona. This inflammatory language has consequences. Just like the Constitution does. Words matter.

[angels3.livejournal.com]

You know I think it's time for all of our repersentatives to grow up and take responsiblity for their actions and I do mean all of them no matter what party. I'm sure no matter who said what NO ONE wanted the events of yesterday to happen.

A nut with a screw loose does not embody what any of the parties believe in and unfortuantely there's way too many violent nut cases with their own agenda and saying it's in the name of blah blah blah.

I hope in the wake of this tragedy that they will get out of the high school muck raking and character bashing behavior and do a better job than they have been.

[fengi.livejournal.com]

It's natural to have standards of taste and emotion, and make judgmental comments based on them, but these are subjective things, not a "thick and easily-visible line".

Placing events in context - political or otherwise - is a natural human reaction, and what this post is doing as well. Shocking events beyond normal comprehension make people flail for meaning. Appropriate depends on the context - lengthy musings on livejournal is different than public statements by the powerful, or using it to make policy, fundraise, etc.

therightfangirl strategies may be offensive in content, or if it fits a pattern of her having cold responses to human suffering. But musing on how to respond to political fallout from the shooting political figure is shot is not inherently wrong, especially the fallout is swift and strong.

Denouncing knee jerk reactions is also a predictable knee jerk reaction, one I find more problematic as labeling people douches for "using" a shocking event also uses the event, in this case to adopt a superior pose and perhaps dismiss ideas without addressing them.

Again it's natural and cathartic but decorum is subjective and just as politically loaded. Calling for silence and restraint can prevent assessment between valid and invalid ideas - I'd argue it's this decorum which helped The Patriot Act arise from 9/11.

For example, I think discussing gun violence after a horrific act of gun violence is very different from inventing blame when the gunman's motivations are unknown. That the guy was able to kill and injure a lot of people with a gun is not in dispute, even if the meaning is open. I question calling people douches for expressing heartfelt beliefs about guns after someone is shot.

Also, while I freely employ "douchebag" in my profane lexicon, it's interesting it's used her to define unacceptable and morally unclean. Why do things directly related to the vagina - and women - carry more negative weight? Why not just use asshole?

[seperis.livejournal.com]

I question using people as inanimate objects to further a political agenda within hours of a tragedy. It's an act of dehumanization.

Also, while I freely employ "douchebag" in my profane lexicon, it's interesting it's used her to define unacceptable and morally unclean. Why do things directly related to the vagina - and women - carry more negative weight? Why not just use asshole?

...of course if you use it, it's okay. Color me shocked.