Meditations on the cause

Earlier today, a friend posted on Facebook a personal response to news stories suggesting that Loughner—who is being held responsible for the murder of 9 people and attempted assassination of Arizona Representative Giffords—had been motivated by Tea Party ideology and rhetoric. My response was never made on that particular comment thread, but I decided I wanted to post it here (largely unedited, except for the removal of the first paragraph which on second glance wasn't as relevant as I'd initially thought) instead.

"Regardless of the gunman's condition, or his past affiliations, or what rhetoric may have informed his actions, one thing is absolutely true: ANY time is an appropriate time to critique the culture of violence in this country. Violent crime—while on a downward trend (http://bit.ly/7C4qtu courtesy of Bureau of Justice Statistics under the Department of Justice)—is distressingly normative. According to the DOJ, approximately 2 million instances of violent crime occurred in 2005, of which a bit over half were recorded by police, and only half of THAT number resulted in arrests. According to the same source, "In 2009 the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey) measured about 4.3 million nonfatal violent victimizations of persons age 12 or older. Violent crime victimizations were experienced by 17.1 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older." (http://bit.ly/hpXLZx)

Let's discuss media industries that, through television, film, and music, profit off the sensationalism of violent behavior, and perpetuate the myth of redemptive violence. Any sort of killing catches the public interest. The Tea Party also catches the public interest. Put the two together? Instant buzz that people will tune into, boosting ratings, boosting earnings. News media is biased toward profit, not toward politics.

Let's discuss how this country's legislature feeds off divisiveness and ill will to fuel both extreme rightist and leftist stances, intentionally leading people away from center ground where compromise and discourse are viable options.

Let's discuss how one of this country's most popular sports, football, being a simulation of violent encounter (Although for what it's worth, for the purposes of teaching football is an excellent analogy for warfare).

How about the Department of Defense being one of the largest indirect employers in the United States, providing contracts to companies that accounted for an estimated $26 billion in Massachusetts last year(http://bit.ly/fT6Z1j), approximately 10% of Florida's economy (http://bit.ly/fbUked), and likely comparable values in most other states. (There's an anecdote I heard a few years back that I can't confirm about a vote to reduce military spending by canceling a contract for a specific line of aircraft that had been replaced with a better model, but when it came to a vote the nearly-unanimous decision was to maintain the contract, because the contractor (I think it was Boeing) had spread their facilities so that widgets, parts, and sub-systems were manufactured in over 35 different states, and no senator was willing to risk being accused of voting to take away jobs from his or her constituents). So long as weapons are manufactured, reasons to USE those weapons will also be manufactured.

It might do well to bring up that, with Eisenhower, Johnson, and Carter as exceptions, every President of the United States since 1933 has been the target of at least one assassination attempt.

I PASSIONATELY maintain that there is never an appropriate time to engage in violence against another...although it is with great disappointment I acknowledge that until this belief is universal, the cycle of violence is unlikely to be escaped."