Sticks and stones and words, words, words

Mere hours after Jared Loughner gunned down 6 people in Tuscon, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik took to the airwaves to, among other things, lay the blame at the feet of the “vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.”[1]  Some immediately bristled at the statement, reading in the words a not-too-subtle attack on the side of the spectrum that largely dominates those two media venues—specifically the so called “political right” or “conservatives.”  After several rounds of back and forth, such speculation was seemingly confirmed by Mr. Dupnik himself, when, in an interview with Diana Sawyer, he further focused his remarks as follows:

“The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information, attacks people, angers them against government, angers them against elected officials and that kind of behavior in my opinion is not without consequences.”[2]

If such statements were only being made by a single Sheriff in Arizona, the issue would most likely have been moot.  But the talking point was soon picked up and trumpeted by the political “left” with amazing speed.  And while the aspersions were often subtle, they were aspersions, none-the less.  Jesse Jackson, for example, managed in three sentences to say that “right wing” groups were both not guilty and incapable of escaping guilt:

“There is no evidence that Jared Loughner, the alleged gunman in Tucson, was a member of a right-wing hate group. He was clearly a young man whose mind was unraveling. But it is exactly the mentally unstable who are most likely to be influenced by an atmosphere filled with hate and murderous rhetoric.”[3]

But in the rush (for once, no pun intended) to lay the blame for Loughner’s heinous crime on voices from the political “right,” one important detail was lacking: namely, facts.  With the information supplied by Jared’s one time friend, Zach Osler, some of those are finally being revealed.

" ‘He did not watch TV, he disliked the news,’ Zach Osler said. ‘He didn't listen to political radio, he didn't take sides, he wasn't on the left, he wasn't on the right.’ ” [4]

So much for blaming “right-wingers” on “talk-radio” and television.  What then might have been the real influences on Loughner?  The ABC interview with Mr. Osler highlights several things:  heavy alcohol use (including at least one hospitalization for alcohol poisoning), hallucinogenic drugs, and a supposed documentary called ‘Zeitgeist.’[4]  A cursory review of the Wikepida page for “Zeitgeist: The Movie” reveals it makes three primary assertions: that Jesus was a myth, the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the US government, and that the current banking system is a conspiracy to “manipulate the international monetary system and the media in order to consolidate power.”[5]

Now based on these facts, an interesting question arises:  which of the extreme political boxes in this country would Loughner best fit into?  Would the “far-left” or the “far-right” be more likely to champion hard alcohol & drug use, a “Christ myth,” government complicity in 9/11, or an international banking conspiracy?

But lest someone misconstrue the point of this writing, let me clarify:  I am NOT attempting to turn the tables and pin the blame for Loughner’s actions on the “left.”  As Jon Stewart so aptly stated on The Daily Show on January 10^th, 2011, “You can’t outsmart crazy.”[7]  NOR am I attempting to cast a mantle of protection over those spewing “vitriol.”  I do not hold Michael Moore any more responsible than Rush Limbaugh.  Nor do I condone the inflammatory or partisan statements either may utter.  The point I am attempting to make is very simple and very ancient and stated far more succinctly by a better mind than mine: 

“Judge not, that ye be not judged.  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?  Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:1-5)

Good is never served by scoring verbal points at the expense of truth.  Correction will never be made at the point of an insult or threat.  If cooler heads are to prevail, cooler heads must be engaged from the start.  Our words can come to haunt and mock us if we do not use them wisely.  And that will always be the case—left, right, or center.

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath (James 1:19)

__________________________________________________________

[1] Dupnik Denounces 'Vitriolic Rhetoric' With Left-Wing Vitriolic Rhetoric; http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2011/01/13/dupnik_denounces_vitriolic_rhetoric_with_left-wing_vitriolic_rhetoric, accessed 1/13/2011

[2] Arizona Sheriff Blasts Rush Limbaugh for Spewing 'Irresponsible' Vitriol; http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/arizona-sheriff-blasts-rush-limbaugh-spewing-irresponsible-vitriol/story?id=12583285; 1/10/2011, accessed 1/13/2011

[3] Hate Speech in Arizona; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-jesse-jackson/hate-speech-lit-blaze-in_b_807485.html; 1/11/2011, accessed 1/13/2011

[4] Tucson Shooting: Jared Loughner Stopped for Traffic Violation Hours Before Shooting; http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-shooting-friend-jared-loughner-speaks-motive-alleged/story?id=12597092; 1/12/2011, accessed 1/13/2011.

[5] Zeitgeist: The Movie; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist,_the_Movie; accessed 1/13/2011

[6] The Daily Show; http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-january-10-2011-denis-leary; 1/10/2011; accessed 1/13/2011

Welcome to the "Brave New World"

Aldous Huxley's dystopian depiction of the decoupling of reproduction from procreation, the inverting of sexual norms, drug-induced societal controls, pervasive authoritarian government, and protagonists aware of yet largely apathetic to all of it no doubt seemed disturbing in 1932.  I know it was for me when my wife first encouraged me to read it.  But that was nearly 13 years ago. Today the most disturbing facet of the book is not that it described such a society, but how  how much closer to such we have come in 2011.  Modern in vitro fertilization techniques render the formerly "nuclear" family moot and antiquated.  The rise of the "hook-up" and the promulgation of casual sex engaged in by teenagers and elderly alike has decoupled the sexual act from any form of true love or romance (indeed we march ever more toward that "brave" new "norm" where its is promiscuity that allays our friends fears and monogamy that raises their eyebrows).  Drugs, both illegal and proscription, have coated every nook and cranny of our lives, and deadened our every anxiety much like Huxley's Soma.  The expansion of governmental power, and its intrusion into and control of almost every corner of our lives continues at an astonishing rate.  And above it all, our society seems to care more about ogling Idols who win their fame on television and idles who win their fame simply by being famous than about considering in any depth the absolutely transformative nature of the chains being wound about us.

One more "small" link in those chains will be forged in February of this year when the State Department expunges from Passport applications the words "mother" and "father" and replace them with the much more  "global" terms "parent one" and "parent two."  This which will allow "many different types of families to be able to go and apply for a passport for their child without feeling like the government doesn’t recognize their family."  Such makes me wonder how I should feel if I prefer the terms mother and father, how I should feel if I am glad that I had them, or how I should feel if indeed I believe there is an inherent value in having not just a certain number of generic "parents," but of actually having one be a mother and one be a father.

" 'Mother,' 'Father' Changing to 'Parent One,' 'Parent Two' on Passport Applications " http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/07/passport-applications-soon-gender-neutral/

The change follows one made to "passports and consular reports of birth abroad" begun on the 10th day of "Gay Pride" month (June) last year, wherein "the State Department no longer requires that individuals provide proof that they have had sex reassignment surgery, but only requires certification from an 'attending physician' that the individual received 'appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition,' which may or may not include surgery."  If I were truly unloving and unkind, I might wonder if such changes might facilitate an enterprising terrorist in "reassigning" himself as a female in order to wear a burka.  But such a question would surely be hurtful to the transgendered and the terrorist alike, and therefore should certainly never be asked.  I suppose it might be less hurtful but perhaps just as foolish to ask just what such documents are even recording anymore, if such old fashioned terms as "mother" and "father," "male" and "female" no longer have relevance in our modern world.

"State Dept. Changes Passport Policy to Accomodate People Who Change Gender, Even Without Surgery" http://www.cnsnews.com/node/67708

These may be small signs, but they are touchstones to a much more fundamental shift being promulgated in our nation and our world.  Lest someone someone accuse me of over-reacting ("it is after all only words on one simple little form"), consider the following:  on December 23rd, no less than the Chairman of the House Finance Committee, openly homosexual congressman, Barney Frank, "own[ed] up" to a "radical homosexual agenda" (his own words) and issued a clear and confident challenge to any who would hold differing views or attempt to oppose such an agenda: "...for those who are worried about the radical homosexual agenda, let me put them on notice – two down, two to go."

"Barney Frank: ‘Let Me Own Up’ to the ‘Radical Homosexual Agenda’ " http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barney-frank-let-me-own-radical-homosexu

In that light, his comments made two days earlier that the belief that heterosexuals should not be forced to shower together with open homosexuals exhibits "a degree of discrimination that goes far beyond this" is startling at best, and ominous at worst.  No longer is my discomfort with with making myself an object of objectionable desire simply petty or backward--it is now, in fact, discriminatory.  It does not take much creativity (or paranoia) to hear in his follow up comments that "people who don't want to shower with gay people, then they better not play sports, they better not belong to gyms, they better not go to colleges where not everyone has their own bathroom" the foggy undertones of threat, the creak of the wheels of history turning completely about, or the "freedom" of today becoming the "obligation" of tomorrow.  How long until the showering together of males and females moves from the column of that which will "disrupt people" (Frank's own inexplicable and possibly hypocritical words) to the column of just another thing people "better" accept?  And is it too far-fetched to imagine the list of "better nots" growing?  "...they better not go to the store, they better not go to the school, they better not go to a job, they better not buy a house, they better not speak their mind, they better not..."  I pray I extrapolate much too far.

"Barney Frank: Not Allowing Gays and Straights to Shower Together is ‘Discrimination’ " http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-frank-straight-and-gay-soldiers-must

It is not my aim to be paranoid or reactionary.  But neither do I believe it a sign of wisdom to allow history to be rewritten without comment.  As a nation we once tried to obscure the indelible.  We attempted to demote the value of a man from "created equal" and "endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights" to a mere "three-fifths."  We paid for the undoing of that folly with the blood of half a million lives in war and untold thousands more in the ensuing 100 years of "peace."  Now even clearer markers are being slowly chipped away.  Seemingly brick by brick, the nation that was founded some 235 years ago is being dismantled.  Line by line, foundational precepts that have under-girded human civilization for some 4000 years and more, since its very inception, are being turned upside-down.    Who but the fool cannot but tremble at the "wonders" we now work?

I ask that you pray for us, that we give in neither to hysteria nor despair, paranoia nor sorrow.  Pray for our children, that they have the strength to face the even braver world that we may yet leave to them.  And "follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14).

Jeremiah 5:30-31  A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?
Jeremiah 8:12  Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
Jeremiah 6:16  Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

Matthew 5:16  Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Never fight with logic. Its really sharp and pokey and you might get hurt.

Note the title of the following article on AOL:

"Study: Alcohol More Lethal Than Heroin, Cocaine" [1]

Now, before you get all panicky, the author will ease your fears by inserting the mandatory caveat: "When drunk in excess, alcohol..." [emphasis added].  Phew!  And another one, just for good measure (and to lessen that panicky feeling even more): "Heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamine, or crystal meth, were the most lethal to individuals." [emphasis added].  Double Phew!

BUT....even with those caveats, the findings were attention-getting to say the least:  "When considering their wider social effects, alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine were the deadliest."  In fact, "overall, alcohol outranked all other substances..."  Even the "when drunk in excess" phrase (and "excess" is never defined, by the way) is followed by some pretty serious stuff: "...alcohol damages nearly all organ systems. It is also connected to higher death rates and is involved in a greater percentage of crime than most other drugs, including heroin."  In fact even without the "excess" thrown in, the article states that alcohol "has devastating consequences not only for drinkers but for those around them."  Apparently it ranks so much higher than the others "because it is so widely used."  Wim van den Brink "a professor of psychiatry and addiction at the University of Amsterdam" goes so far as to say "Drugs that are legal cause at least as much damage, if not more, than drugs that are illicit."

Whoa, Whoa WHOA!   I thought alcohol was just a socially-acceptable, adult beverage that helped you be healthy and happy and brought joy and brotherhood to the broader society. But if the above information is true...  Hmm...  And if it is the case alcohol is so damaging because of its wide use, wouldn't it make sense to consider limiting said wide use.  Someone might even (gasp) suggest something like limiting its access.

But no, because "experts said it would be impractical and incorrect to outlaw alcohol."  (Well, if EXPERTS say it, then...)  In the best argument yet to avoid the backward-headedness of one who might put two and two together and come up with four (legal alcohol + serious detriment = at least a consideration of the effect on society if it is no longer legal), Leslie King, "an adviser to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and one of the study's authors"  gives the following air tight defense of setting up another round: "We cannot return to the days of prohibition. ... Alcohol is too embedded in our culture and it won't go away."  And If that doesn't convince you, maybe you will be swayed by what van den Brink points out: "...considerations about revenue and taxation, like those garnered from the alcohol and tobacco industries, may influence decisions about which substances to regulate or outlaw."  Well, why didn't you say so in the first place?

There you have it folks: the final word from the experts. I shall summarize in the following illogical sillygism:

1) Experts know alcohol is devastating
2) Experts know alcohol has a worse impact than heroin, cocaine, crack, meth, or [insert name of any other illegal drug here]
3) Experts know alcohol has such a massive impact because it is readily available
4) Experts know alcohol is readily available because it is legal

 THEREFORE:

5) Experts know alcohol cannot be limited in any way because that would be impractical and incorrect, would return us to the days of Al Capone et al, would deprive the State of lots of revenue, and, besides, its just too hard to do.

The logic is inescapable and air-tight, as you can clearly see.  So stop worrying about it already.  And remember, there are lots of things that aren't "embedded in our culture" and that "experts" have not yet said are "impractical...to outlaw," so there are still plenty of evils we can rid society of, like: stopping people from driving without a seat-belt, making sure people put 7 year-olds in booster seats, making sure every American purchases health care (whether they want/need/can afford it or not), preventing stores from selling "evil' incandescent bulbs (beginning 2013), etc, etc, etc.

After all, we don't get any taxes from those things, right?

________________
1. Maria Cheng, "Study: Alcohol More Lethal Than Heroin, Cocaine"; <http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/31/study-alcohol-more-lethal-than-heroin-cocaine/>; 10/31/2010; accessed 12/16/2010.