Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
OK, seriously, folks. Let's avoid the false dilemma of "he was crazy" or "he was motivated by political rhetoric." Both are probably to some extent true--but in the end, it doesn't matter. A nine-year old girl and five others are dead.
I like Obama's take: we don't know what caused this event; it happened within a deranged mind, and we'll never understand it. Let's not try. Instead, let's have a political debate that is worthy of the people that we lost.
This event wasn't "caused" by crosshairs on candidates, or rhetoric calling for "second-amendment solutions." But can you seriously suggest that in the post-Tucson climate, such rhetoric is still appropriate? It isn't, and it has to stop. Anyone who can't see that is a fool.
|
It would certainly be inappropriate to use shooting metaphors for the next while. Although after this tragedy is more distant I really see no problem with them being used. I don't believe either side was trying to incite violence by their use nor has it to date.
The problem I see is that your political foes will start taking every thing you say the wrong way to make political noise. It will be like when Barack was first elected and any criticism of him was met with a charge of racism. Political correctness is counter productive in that it allows a person to ignore the merits of your argument and change the conversation.