Wednesday, February 23, 2011

A Kinder, Gentler Rhetoric

When Congresswoman Giffords was shot, we were told to "tone it down" in political rhetoric.  It was now unacceptable to use certain rhetoric...because, you know, it will make crazy people do crazy things.  And let's create an "institute" to educate non-crazy people on how crazy people can be crazy if we say the wrong crazy things.  Yeah, I'm confused too.

I guess it only applies to one side of the aisle, huh?

Bloody, indeed.

I've never had a problem with using "battleground" terminology in politics.  If someone has a problem saying "battleground state" or "put your opponent in the cross-hairs", they're being too politically correct...and need to find something more important to worry about in their spare time.

But, it's the "it's good enough for you, but not for us" that bothers me.  Double standards stink...period.  Especially when we're discussing real issues.  If we are seriously worried about the safety of our fellow Americans, then let's all agree to tone it down.  Otherwise, focus on the real issues.

Speaking of safety, is this what we want for our elected officials?

But, if it's just another method of silencing your opponents with terms like "racist", "hater", or "dangerous" instead of actually debating real issues, then shame on them.

Isolated incident?  Nope.


And, nope.


  1. Is a double standard like when someone asks for a head rub without having reciprocated from the last one, or is that something else?

  2. It always seems the knee-jerk reaction to tragedy is to spend money for ridiculous programs. It implies that we are not really responsible for our bad must be that other people did not do a good enough job teaching us right from wrong. While I do believe that we must punish someone for crying fire in a crowded theater when in fact, there was none...we cannot be responsible for all crazy behavior stemming from poorly chosen words. The person choosing those words should have to be held accountable for being stupid, and the crazies need to be held accountable and be punished for choosing to act in what our society has already deemed unacceptable behavior. We have laws...all we need to do is inforce. Once a person has chosen to break that law, it is no longer our responsibility to try to rehabilitate, but to punish....I'm just sayin'.

  3. I agree with the above post with the exception of one part: "The person choosing those words should have to be held accountable for being stupid."

    What should accountable look like? Who decides what or whom is stupid? The beauty of free speech is that people can say stupid things. What you think is stupid is bound to be different from what I think is stupid, but we are both free to speak. If you were only speaking of legally agreed upon things such as yelling fire in a theater, then I do digress.

  4. ...let me explain when I said being accountable for being stupid. I did not mean that for that offense, (and grant is in the eyes of the beholder)we take legal action. I meant for stupid actions, the guilty need to deal with the consequences it brings and move on. I think that people tend to justify their actions or words by trying to say "the other guy" was worse.

  5. So I ask you, dear Anonymous, what would the lawyers do for work then?