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