IDEO: Political and Social Commentary

The Illusion of Safety in the Land of the Free There can be no mistaking the fact that recent events in Tucson were tragic. With six people killed by a lone gunman and another fourteen injured the grief and outrage are natural enough, especially considering that a nine-year-old girl is among the dead. That which follows is not any way an examination of the tragedy itself, but rather my opinion on the reaction to this sad affair. In other words, no disrespect is intended toward any of the victims or their families. Not long after the ambulances cleared the scene the media, politicians, and talk-show pundits went into high gear. I think the pattern of coverage following this type of calamity is well established and should by now be familiar to us all—shock and outrage rapidly followed by interviews with friends and acquaintances of the perpetrator(s), at least some of whom will remark on their past concerns regarding actions, statements, and the overall stability of the guilty party. Such of course is the case with this latest gunman, and while these post-crime revelations feed even more outrage into the pipeline—"How could they not have seen this coming? Why was preemptive action not taken?"—I have difficulty understanding why any of this should come as a shock? I am of the opinion that anyone who opens fire with the intent of killing people, irregardless of motive or venue, surely has at least some issues regarding mental-stability, and in most cases there are likely to be signs of this prior to whatever breaking point tips them over the edge. The problem in a free society is not only discerning what behavior requires intervention, but also, who is going to get involved and to what extent? Who defines what is potentially dangerous from what may just be strange; for that matter, who defines strange? Ultimately, who can predict what any one person may or may not be capable of under duress? I suspect that, in all but the most extreme cases, the answer is no one. The mass media and pundits, along with a fair sampling of our elected officials, apparently feel otherwise. I sampled a little of the online reporting on the Tucson event, as well as the talk radio circuit, and not surprisingly found most of it disappointing if not downright idiotic. We of course have the normal political finger-pointing—socialists blaming both the left and the right; some members of the left blaming the right, and vice versa; pundits from across the political spectrum blaming "harsh rhetoric," and Sarah Palin's map using gun-sights to denote target states— along with calls for stronger gun-control and hand-wringing commentary on how we need to make our country more safe. To cover just a couple of examples, I read a post on the World Socialist Web Site, and found this to be the first line— "The shooting rampage on Saturday in Tucson, Arizona was clearly an act of right-wing terrorism." A little farther down page one is even more astounding news— "But the facts are clear. The initial information about the gunman…establishes that he was under the influence of ultra-right politics…references to the [second] US Constitution, treasonous laws, currencies not backed by gold—which reproduce the coded language of the far right." Let me say here that I have not previously visited this website, and therefore have no idea what their overall credibility rating is, but this piece is one of wildest and most incredible bits of journalism I have ever read. I suppose it may be possible that Jared Loughner is just a cog in the machine of a larger conspiracy, this despite a complete lack of evidence at this date. Most dismaying of all, if having a problem with the Federal Reserve makes a person ultra-right, I am going to have completely review my own personal philosophy; perhaps I am not a "left-of-center moderate" after all?! At any rate, being under the influence of any rhetoric, not to mention seeing a political map with gun-sights displayed, should in no way steer a normal person to violence. From NYDailyNews— Former Governor Sarah Palin: "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle…It's inexcusable and incomprehensible why a man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day." This may be the first time I have agreed with anything Sarah Palin has said. Finally, from MSNBC— Representative Dutch Rupersberger's press secretary: "The congressman is determined to keep interacting with the public, but wants to make sure he and his constituents are not put at risk." This morning's headline story is entitled: "Lessons of Tucson: Can We Learn From Them? A week later, citizens wonder if we'll ever know enough to stop the next rampage…" I understand that both the politicians and the media have a job to do, the people need to hear something, and I suppose it would be politically incorrect and/or dangerous for job-security to speak the truth. Since I have no such restrictions, I will lay it out, or at least, the truth as I see it. Assuming that we wish to continue to live in a free country, we will never be able to either "eliminate risk" or "know enough to stop the next rampage." Unless we want to ride around in APCs, wear body armor, and arm the entire populace, we will remain vulnerable, there being no preventative measures that can protect us from the occasional madman. As noted above, identifying potential "gunmen" is problematic, again assuming that we value our civil liberties, and as a staunch supporter of our Constitution, I am unalterably opposed to more aggressive gun control. Although I am certainly not a fan of clichés, "guns do not kill people, people kill people" is a statement with which I heartily agree. I was handling a rifle before the age of ten, and spent most of my youth with a grandfather who owned several pistols, shotguns, high-powered rifles, and semi-automatic carbine of World War II vintage; we never shot anyone, and in all likelihood never will. Likewise, that pesky First Amendment makes it difficult if not impossible to regulate public discourse, so we can forget about any rhetoric being toned-down; it is, at any rate, ridiculous to blame words for the action of the deranged. I am certainly not suggesting that we accept things as they are. Stringent efforts towards making our country safer are absolutely necessary for the good of the public. We simply must be realistic with our expectations, and not be prepared to give up any more of our freedom for the perception of safety; there has been more than enough of this since September 11, 2001. We need to understand that any amount of freedom, once relinquished, is very difficult indeed to regain. Safety is truly an illusion. —John Stegall