There is NO Zen in Politics....

WARNING: Political discussion ahead. Please feel free to skip if you lack the ability to disagree with someone and still embrace them as a friend.

Arizona. That is all I need to say today and you know exactly what I am referring to. Ten years from now that may or may not be the case, however today you can get updates on the tragedy as often as you can hit refresh. But should that be the case?

The first soap box I am going to hop up on is the speed of the news cycle today. In these modern times (for which I am grateful, as I am fond of most advancements in technology,) information can be found instantaneously. It takes mere moments to go from a question about something to a Google result of 100k pages with answers, and that is clearly amazing. Moreover, possibly without knowing Douglas Adams was making an amazing prediction with “The Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy.” The worlds knowledge all within the confines of an electronic book? Have you looked at your smart phone recently, the only thing missing is a bright read cover saying “Don’t Panic.”

However, in this day of instant information, the news cycle has become instant as well. Now this instant news cycle has some positive attributes. News is now reported by more people in more ways than ever before. It is often uncensored and unedited as directly from the source. This means that it is harder and harder for any person or group to unilaterally manipulate the raw news information. However, it also means that the information that we are presented with has not been critically analyzed.

Combine this lack of critical analysis with the attempt by the professional news reporters attempting to stay ahead of the story, buy getting response to reports rather than analyzing the reports, and you can very quickly run into “mob mentality” in the intellectual realm along with the physical realm.

A perfect example of this is the Arizona shooting. The factual report was that there was a shooting at Gabby Giffords’ personal appearance, and that the shooter had been stopped at the scene. The shooter was identified as a young man. That becomes where the factual information stopped and reaction and assumptions began. A critical analysis of the situation would lead you to ask, was the shooting politically motivated? So you would then look to see what the Congresswoman’s political leanings were. But you would also have to look to see what the shooter’s political leanings were, not just assume that they were diametrically opposed to the Congresswoman’s. These were the questions I asked myself. But because of the speed of the news cycle when the idea that the shooter was motivated by the Tea Party, or extremist radio, or even the general vitriol was floated all the news sources were more interested in being the first to report it, rather than asking the logical question, is there any evidence that any of those things motivated the shooter?

Unfortunately, now, since the claims were given affect thorough the repeated reporting without questioning, and then the necessity of those blamed for this, outside of the shooter themselves, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to find the answers to what should have been simple questions. Why is it so difficult? Human nature. Once someone takes a stance, even without evidence, then they have a natural tendency to find evidence to support their stance.

If we accept a slower news cycle, and don’t rush to re-post everything that is said that supports what we already believe, THEN we could potentially have some chance of coming to some truth.

NEXT SOAPBOX:

Rep. Robert Brady apparently was intending to purpose legislation to outlaw speech that could be “perceived” as threatening a federal government official. There are so many problems with that, and that type of thinking that I don’t know if I can even outline it all here.

First, there is a standard in the law that threats or words can never be a defense for assault or battery. What that means simply is that it does not matter what anyone says, an individual has the choice to act, and is responsible themselves for that act, regardless of the provocation. That is called personal responsibility. If the person using only language to taunt goes beyond taunting and wanders in to actual threats, then there is legal action that can be taken by the authorities. So too, if that person wanders beyond just taunting and makes libelous statements against you, and there is harm, again there is legal action that can be taken. So, if you take physical action against them, you, not them are liable.

Why is this the case? Because what one person perceives as a threat, or something that might insight violence is very different from one person to another. So there is no line that can be drawn for what is improper in the speech area. However, the act of physically striking out has a very bright line.

MOREOVER, the 1st amendment’s freedom of speech clause has to mean something. It is this freedom of speech that allows the U.S. to survive the pendulum swings of political mood without the necessity of a violent coup.

Wow, I’m tired of talking about this already. Maybe that is why I don’t do a lot of political commentary.

IN CLOSING:

The blame for the Arizona shooting goes directly on the shoulders of the shooter himself. Now if this causes us to look at ourselves and realize that there is a gap in Mental Health treatment, how we parent, what imagery we put out to the world, that is all great. But again, that is not the CAUSE, and that is to be introspective.

STEPPING OFF THE SOAP BOX

Clint