What I learned this week

First off, I learned that I got off track on the way to making my point in Monday’s post.  I was unhappy, but not surprised, that speculation about political influence as a motivation in the Tucson shootings was at the top of the agenda for every broadcast and cable network last weekend.

I think it is both natural and appropriate for us to wonder why someone would shoot 19 people in a grocery store parking lot, and it is a valuable service when journalists report what they’ve learned in their investigation.  But it is irresponsible and inflammatory of you, Mr. Fourth Estate, to let us listen to your imagination while you work.

It is said that there are two things you don’t want to see being made: sausage and legislation; journalism makes it three things.  If you don’t know something, say you don’t know—don’t then list all the speculative and unsubstantiated possibilities and rumors as if they all deserve equal and serious consideration…and certainly not at the point in time when you don’t even know the suspect’s name!

But, we need to say something to fill up the air time…no, you don’t.  When you’re finished reporting what you know, stop talking—go to a commercial; go back to regular programming and break back in to recap or when you have something new to report.  That need to fill time is one of the root causes of the decline in your standards and, as a result, the decline in the trust people put in you and your work.

Second, the capacity of the human body to withstand injury is just stunning.  A bullet fired from close range forced its way through Gabrielle Giffords’ head from front to back, and although in critical condition a week later she is making a miraculous recovery—moving her extremities, responding to commands, and today the doctors removed her breathing tube.

Third, you can’t outsmart crazy.  It seems clear that Jared Loughner didn’t open fire on the congresswoman and the crowd because of any perceived encouragement in the political speech of an elected official or candidate for office, or from radio or television entertainers; he’s mentally disturbed.  We could debate whether Arizona’s gun control laws made it too easy for a mentally disturbed man to legally acquire a gun, or whether people who knew Loughner should have tried, or tried harder, to get him help for his mental illness, but people (crazy and otherwise) can get guns no matter what the law allows, and we don’t lock people up because of what we think they might do. 

Last, we got off to a good start on a reasonably serious discussion about just what the hell it is that has people in this country so polarized about almost everything.  I’ll pick it up there next time.

“We are better than this; we must do better”

I knew it:  I knew right away that whether or not there was any evidence that the person who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was motivated by the loudmouths on radio and TV, that some of those loudmouths would be blaming the others for inciting political violence.  And I was right…I also predicted the sun would rise in the east this morning.

405992-giffordsMore than two days after the fact and there is no evidence (of which I’m aware) that the man who shot Giffords and 19 [1/12, authorities have revised the figure to] 18 others was persuaded to lethal levels of violence by radio and TV stars; short of his declaration that “so-and-so said it was the right thing to do,” I don’t see that there ever will be.  So let’s leave that alone.

Starting with Sheriff Clarence Dupnik at Saturday’s news conference, there has been a lot of ink spilled calling for restraint, for throttling back the vitriol that fuels so much of the political discussion in our halls of government and our radio and television studios.  It is worth considering to what extent the personal viciousness—and the attendant self-satisfied smugness—of the professional politicians and the paid-to-be-controversial “opinion hosts” has created an environment where consideration of physical violence becomes less theoretical.

I’ve written about the tone of modern political discussion, which is clearly not intended to appeal to the intellect but to rouse the emotions and appeal to paranoia.  And I’m troubled by how successful those messengers and their messages are.

Sure, I’d like to see more restraint and less accusation in political speech, but I know that real world politics isn’t an academic debate.  And I agree with Jack Shafer’s insistence that there be no government-imposed restriction on political speech—the First Amendment makes clear that is not allowed.  (Check my We the People page for a collection of quotations on free expression.)

But I wish there was more self-control when it comes to speech intended to demonize political opponents: to say not just that someone’s position or opinion is wrong, but that those people are evil, or hostile to American ideals and virtues, because of what they believe.  Disagree with me?  Fine; argue my conclusion, dispute my facts, prove me wrong, ridicule my reasoning, do so with vigor; but to respond that my disagreement with your point of view is evidence of imbecility or treason is not a rebuttal.  It’s a sign of the weakness of your position; it’s a sign that you have nothing to say.

One of the more touching observances of a moment of silence for the victims of the shootings in Tucson came this morning from Giffords’ brother-in-law: NASA astronaut Scott Kelly, the current commander of the International Space Station.  (Full disclosure—I work at NASA Johnson Space Center and am acquainted with both Scott Kelly and his brother Mark Kelly, Giffords’ husband.)  The good stuff starts 1:27 into the clip–

We have a unique vantage point here aboard the International Space Station.  As I look out the window I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful; unfortunately, it is not.  These days we are constantly reminded of the unspeakable acts of violence and damage we can inflict upon one another, not just with our actions but also with our irresponsible words.  We are better than this; we must do better.  The crew of ISS Expedition 26 and the flight control centers around the world would like to observe a moment of silence in honor of all the victims, which include my sister-in-law Gabrielle Giffords, a caring and dedicated public servant.  Please join me and the rest of the Expedition 26 crew in a moment of silence.

A belated Happy New Year

An incredibly busy week at work, and since I don’t get any kick out of torture I won’t bore you with the details.  But it was enough to force my attention away from here; so, anything interesting happen during the first week of 2011?  Hmm…

The new Congress convening opens up some avenues for productive discussion (and some fun at Speaker Boehner’s expense)…Haley Barbour’s unfortunate attempt to rewrite the history of the Jim Crow South was good for a “did he really say that” Danny Thomas spit take…I want to talk about reading the Constitution, and taking on budget deficits, and court rulings on televised nudity, and the repeal amendment, and the lie of the year.  And I will, in time.

But first, did you see the results of the election for new members to the Baseball Hall of Fame?  I mean, the guys at the bottom of the list.

Here in southeast Texas especially, this election grabbed our attention  because it’s the first time a full-blooded Houston Astro had a real chance to get into the Hall.  There are HOFers who played in Houston—some, like Joe Morgan, started their careers here; some, like Nolan Ryan, were here in their prime; and some, like Robin Roberts and Eddie Mathews, passed through heading for the end of the line.  But not one Hall of Famer wears an Astros cap on his plaque, even though there’s been a team here for almost 50 years.

t1_bagwellJeff Bagwell spent his whole major league career as an Astro, and this was his first year of eligibility.  There are legitimate arguments for and against him being in the Hall, but he was one of the best in the game during the 1990s and early 2000s and a fan favorite; he was the first Astro to have a real chance, and he’ll have 14 more…Craig Biggio is in the on deck circle for 2013, and he won’t need that many swings to get a hit.

There are always arguments about who deserves to be in the Hall, and that’s fun.  But why are some of these guys even on the ballot: Carlos Baerga?  Lenny Harris?  B.J. Surhoff?  Kirk Rueter?

The requirements to be on the ballot are only that you played ten seasons in the majors (granted, no mean feat) and that you’ve been retired for five seasons, and that’s why some of the worthies coming up for consideration soon will be Jeromy Burnitz, Scott Erickson (oh geez), Phil Nevin (Phil Nevin?) and Alex S. Gonzalez along with Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux.

And we can have those arguments later.  For now, close your eyes and listen to those sweetest of words: pitchers and catchers report in less than six weeks.

Last Call for 2010

party-hat I’m cleaning out files and dumping what I’ll never use—some of it because the crummy foreign-made hyperlinks are broken—and while reorganizing the rest I found some things that need to be posted now, as a benchmark, because I’m sure this stuff isn’t over yet.

I’ve been very interested in the growing disaffection with American politics and politicians, and not just what’s coming from tea parties.  Back in April Mark McKinnon and Lawrence Lessig called for a constitutional convention if only to shock the legislative classes into understanding that people have had enough of the corruption that has institutionalized itself  in Washington, D.C.  By fall, of course, Jon Stewart got tens of thousands to rally for simple reasonableness in politics and government, and by the end of the year McKinnon and some other esteemed names were launching the No Labels approach to finding solutions to problems.  This could just generate “passionate ambivalence”, but I’m optimistic: the dismissive comments coming out of the loudest mouths on both ends of the spectrum might just mean the center has found a weapon to use against the unreasonable and the extreme.

Inconceivably, the Roman Catholic Church took the disgrace of the priest sex abuse scandal, and made it worse: first a senior official says criticism of the church is like anti-Semitism; then we learn that while in his prior job the man who now leads this church had authority directly from Pope John Paul II to act in these cases, and for 20 years chose not to; and now for Christmas, the pope says western society and its permissive sexual attitudes are partly to blame for many of the church’s celibate employees sexually abusing underage members of their parishes.  Like I said before, why aren’t these people in jail?

On the subject of blogging, I recently found some great sites that have helped boost traffic here at the corner idea stand.  Take a look at Blogiche, Alpha Inventions, and BlogSurfer if you want to get more eyeballs on your blog; you’ll get a new insight into what else is out there, too.

I’ll wrap up with syndicated columnist Scott Burns and his column from last January which reminded us then (and now) that everything old is new again: there’s always a crisis, we can’t rely on our government to take care of us, and we are getting better as the years go by.

The greatest story ever told…by some kids

Finally, after waiting for millennia—the real story of the first Christmas:

image

Thank you, Kids Act Out, Aol Video and Landline TV.

Merry Christmas to all!