Gabrielle Giffords and President Obama: Trying To Bring "Meaning" To a Meaningless Act

Let me first say that I have no great problem with what President Obama said in his memorial speech. It was a speech he had to make, and he did his best to be all things to all people--to avoid offending anyone. You can say the speech was too long, and tried to do too much (and what was this APPLAUSE as to lines in the speech--ildly inappropriate, in my view. Do we ordinarily hear APPLAUSE at memorial services? Sell, I have not attended that many, but I just can't see it as the right response, as if this is all about PRESIDENT OBAMA,.). As usual with Obama, the speech sounded more like a dissertation on grief and loss than a real expression of grief and loss (which Bill Clinton did so well). But those are quibbles, and not the fundamental problem with the speech.

The fundamental problem with the speech--but it is the fundamental problem with our reaction to EVERY one of these big tragic events, including 9/11--is that President Obama felt obligated (for god reason) to try to give meaning to an event which has NO meaning, other than that bad things are going to happen no mater what we do. In fact, President Obama SAID that (quoting Job, and rightly saying that we will NEVER be able to make sense of all of the bad things that happen, because we are not God). Yes, the speech contained numberous internal contradictions, because it really did try to do way too much--tryig to be all things to all people.

The main point here--and the central reason it is impossible for this kind of speech to chnge anything about America, or fo this tragedy to changed anything about America--is that the tragedy itself tells us NOTHING. Oh, you can say it raises questiions about some things. How much security should Congrss people have, and who should pay for it? Should we do more about making it easier to involuntarily commit people? Should we prohibit the selling of extended ammunition clips? But even these are really OLD issues, and even on these old issues the tragedy does not really give us any SUBSTANTIAL indication of the correct path forward. Prsident Obama said that w shouyld "debate" how to "prevent" this kind of event from occurring in the future--debate that BECAUSE this tragedy occurred. That is simply not true. The tragedy MAY highlight the reason we need to pay attention to these issues, but it is absurd to suggest that we need to avoid this kind of event happening any more urgently AFTER the tragedy than before the tragedy. We KNEW this kind of event COULD happen (and still can, not matter what we do), and the fact this tragedy occurred adds NOTHING to the debate. That was not true of 9/11, because 9/11 caused us to have to wake up to the fact that we were in a WAR against Islamic extremism--a war they were already fighting, but we were not. But the mass shooting by a madman changes nothing about the know threat of which we were already aware.

I read--many years ago--the definitive book (in my view) about the "Texas Tower" mass shooting by an "all-American boy" at the University of Texas in the 1960x. There was all of this search for "answers" at the time, including a FALSE rumor about a brain tumor (Kinky Friedman satirical song: "There was a rumor of a tumor"). The book I read--coreectly, from all indications) rejected the idea of any deep meaning or "answers" to that tragedy. The books conclusioni about the "cause" of the shooting: "The shooter was a mean SOB." Yes, the University of Texas closed off the observation deck on the Texas Tower on the University of Texas campus, but that did not prevent the Virginia Tech mass shooting, or Columbine. Nor did the Virginia Tech shooting or Columbine really give us any clear path as to stopping similar shootings (or bombings) in the future. Yes. Some things changed slightly, but there is simply no way to stop this kind of thing from ever happening again (even the imposition of a Soviet Union style pollice state). Shootings by disturbed individuals--as old as guns and projectile weapons, including arrows--can NEVER add anything to the "debate" about how to stop those things in the future, except in a marginal way such as closing off the Texas Tower or beefing up security, because each tragedy adds NOTHING to our knowledge about these meaningless events, other than that we need to realize that the danger exists. But we knew that already.

The worst contradiction in the Obama speech was on "civility" in political discourse (which Obama himself has often ignored). President Obama correctly said that lack of civility in political discourse did NOT cause the mass shooting in Arizona. Like I said, President Obama did his best to be all things to all people, and to avoid offending anyone. However, Obama immediately CONTGRADICTAED himself, and then tried to avoid the contradiction by an ABSURD statement that made absolutely no sense.

If lack of civility did not cause the shooting, then the shooting has NOTHING to do with the issue of "civility" in politics? Right. Yes, that IS right. And that is a fact. The shooting of those people in Arizona by a madman has NOTHING to do with the "issue" of civility in politics. It is absurd to say with one breath--as Obama did--that lack of civility did not cause the shooting, and that we have no way of knowing what triggered the shooter, and then say in the next breath that the shooting should cause us to change our manner of political discourse. That makes no logical sense, and Obama actually realized it. Therefore, he said something that made even less sense.

Obama said that we should engage in more civility in political discourse NOT because of the shooting itself, but because we should want to make the victims PROUD of us Say what? I am sorry, mister President. That is ABSURD and ridiculous. I would like my CHILDREN to be proud of me, although even there I do not weigh every word with that in mind. Will the victimns of the Arizona shooting be "proud" of you if you drink to much? If you commit adultery? If you lie? Is that what you are going to be thinking of when you contemplate those things, or any of the other vices and faults all of us have in one way or another (remember "original sin"?). Would you really think more of what the victims, living and dead, of the Arizona tragedy would think of you more than what your own children would think of you? More than what Jesus would think of you (if you are aa Christian, as I am not)? More than what the soldiers who have died for this country would think of you? Nope. It is ABSURSD, and the kind of absurdity that becomes inevitable when you try to give too much meaning to an essentially meaninglesss act. Yes, I KNOW Obama "meant well", and that it sort of sounds good. That does not change that it is STUPID. All Obama is really saying is that we need to be "civil" because that is the right thing to do. That may be correct (see below), but the Arizona tragedy has NOTGHING to do with it. The "issue" is UNRELATED in any way to the Arizona tragedy, and Obama himself said so--before trying to bootstrap back into the same argument with an absurdity.

What is "civility"? That is the problem, isn't it. To the mainstream media\, and the left, "civility" is not criticizing the President, the government and Democrats in Congress. That is, that is "civility" unless the President is George W. Bush, or the person in Congress is not Michelle Bockman, or the "government" is not the government of Arizona. Does the Arizona tragedy tell you ANYTHING about what is proper exercise of free speech, criticsm, and exprssion of poplitical opinion, and what is "incivility". Of course it does not. For the mainstream media and the left, it is "uncivil" to disagree with themin a passinate and assertive manner--or often in any manner at all, as with criticism of Obama labeled as "racist" just because Obama happens to be black, even if the criticism is of POLICY (as almost all of it is).

Yes, I am going to continue my series on the "murderers" out there, apllying the standards of the Pima Country sheriff 9not my standards). The next article willl explain why the Pima Country sheriff himself is a "murderer", along with Eliot Spitzre, CNN, MSNBC, Alicia Menendez, Bill Clinton and probably Hillary Clinton. And yes, they are all the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth, on tow legs are four (along with the rest of the mainstream media and most of the rest of the left). The article after that will explain why this whole "civility" push is a mere continuation of the AGENDA of the mainstream media, and the left, BEFORE the Arizona tragedy. They are all merely trying to USE the tragedy to push that agenda-a sick and perverted thing. If you have to USE this tragedy to push your already exiting agenda of your idea of civility, then you are a sick persson. Yes, that applies to almost all of the people of CNN and MSNBC--nopt to mention the rest of the mainstream media.

Did I just call the President of the United States a sick person with a sick mind? Nope. I do think the President tried to dress up the SICK concept being pushed by the mainstream media to USE this tragedy to push their already existing agenda (NOT--as the President asserted was the only proper role this tragedy should play--a concept the mainstream media came up with because of "introspectdion" brought on by this tragedy). Too many Democrat politicians, and others on the left, have pushed this concept for years--and certainly since Obama has been President. The idea that this tragedy has "inspired" them to introspection is more ABSURDITY. This tragedy has merely "nspired" them to try to USE this tragedy for their own political purposes and to supoport their own agenda. I don't think Obama quite did that, although he deliberately tried to have it both ways. Absurd as it is, calling for "civility" because it would make the shooting victims "proud" of you is not really the same as eequating criticsim of Democrats and Obama with hate speech (while ignring your own similar speech). As stated, I don't have that much problem with Obama's actual speech, since I think he felt obligated to try to be all things to all people, and he can hardly be too harshly criticized for trying to place too much meaning on an essentiallyu meaningless tragedy. We seem unable, as a society, to avoid that particular absurdity. But the mainstream media, AND a lot of leftist Democrats, should realize that Obama has accused THEM of tryihng to use this tragedy for political purposes--correctly.

Don't I worry that I am being "uncivil" by continuing my series on MURDERERS creating this "climate of hate" that helped lead to the Arizona shooting? Nope. As I have clearly explained, my series is a PARODY of the statements of the Pima Country sheriff, and so many leftists out there. I am using THEIR standards, since I can't be sure that their standards are wrong. Well, yes I can. I can be sure that their standards are wrong, and that they are deliberately trying to USE this tragedy to advance their political agenda. However, as a rhetorical device, and a means of satire, it is useful to presume that they might be corredt in their professed standards. I know hat their REAL standard is that criticism of leftist Democrats, Democrat members of government, and similar people is "uncivil"--while criticism of conservqtives and Republicans--including President Bush--is the highest expression of American patriotism. But I refuse to emply a standard that obviously wrong, even as an exercise in parody, and herefore apply the PROFESSED, neutral "standards" of the Pima County sheriff, the mainstream media, and leftist Democrats in my parodies.

P.S. Note, again, that the above has neither been prooferead nor spell checked, because of my poor eyesight--unless this note is deleted

P.P.S. What happens if these truly senseless murders by mentally disturbed individuals (that is, high profile mass murders or murders of prominent people, as some 16,000 murders occur ev every year in the USA) begin to happen every week--instead of being relatively rare events that give us no reason to radically change this country? Well, in that event we would have to try to figure out what has changed to change the pattern that has existed as long as modern civilization. And we will probably have to try to figure out some way of stopping such a sudden epidemic of mad killers. As it is, these isolated high profile events involving mentally disturbed killers provide NO reason to believe that anything has changed from what we have always known is a rare risk out there. Yes, there are a LOT of mentally disturbed killers. Luckily for politicians and crowds, however, they are mainly a danger to people they know or have a very personal grievance against. Islamic extremists are an organized force trying to destroy us, and kill us. Mentally disturbed individuals are, almost by definition, an isolated danger (even within the mentally ill) where isolated high profile events change NOTHING about the overall danger. I would mention that we now have many more people than we once had--meaning that mass and high profile murders almost have to become somewhat more frequent (again having nothing to do with "civility"). What level of frequency requires a reevaluation of the threat with the idea that we HAVE to "do something", even at the cost of a lot more money and risk to our way of lif? I don't know. I just know that we have not yet reached that level, and that the Arizona shooting is NOT a "reason" (beyond simly being another isolated datapoint) for ANY major change in policy or behavior--beyond, again, isolated measures which might be considered (like closing the Texas Tower). Psychologically, of course, members of Congress are fre to arrange more security for their peace of mind, even though this one incident does not change at all the threat they are KNOWN to face from deranged assassins. I have long noted the absurdity of the "magic wand theory of government", whereby it is assumed that all we have o do is wave a magic wand (usually by the Federal Government) and "solve" a problem. In my former life, I was a personal injury attorney in a case where a psychiatric facility (Timberlawn, in the Dallas area) released a mentally disturbed individual who immediately went and shot family members KNOWN to be the subjects of his irrational anger. We lost the case on the defense that the profession of psychiatry is incapable of accurately predicting "dangerousness". What is interesting about that case, moreover, is that the shooter HONESTLY answered the old qluestion on the gun purchase form (pre-background check) about whether he had been in facility because of mental illness, or been diagnosed with a mental illness (however that question was worded). The gun shop IGNORED THE ANSWER (probably because the form was a mere formality where no one expected an honest answer). See what I mean about the "magic wand theory of government"? Just because you pass a law does not mean that a problem is "solved", even when the law seemingly should have worked (very often not the case, as with the background checks, which have a use but hardly "solve" the problem).