The Conservative Opinion: Tucson

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Lessons from Tucson: Part II

The tragedy of the shooting in Tucson leaves people asking all sorts of questions. "Why did he do it?" "Why didn't someone stop him before he started shooting" "Can such tragedies be prevented" etc. One of the answers that the politicians love to give is that yes it can be prevented (giving comfort to their constituents) and all they have to do is pass a bill to provide more protection. Protection, a word which here means restrictive and ineffective laws, is usually anything but. (read more...)

Monday, January 17, 2011

Lessons from Tucson: Part I

We are saddened by the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords. We wish to express our heartfelt condolences to the families of the other victims: Judge John Roll, Dorwan Stoddard, Dorothy Murray, Phyllis Schenk, Gabe Zimmerman and 9 year old Christina Green. Our prayers and faith are with Representative Giffords and the others injured. We hope that they all recover.

How horrific that a gunman should kill in America at a peaceful political assembly. Unfortunately there has been a nationwide rush to blame talk radio, Sarah Palin, and political rhetoric. The fact that Loughner didn't like the news, politics, or tv, didn't stop the media from making the connection between Loughner's violence and vitriolic rhetoric. (read more...)

Friday, January 14, 2011

CBS Poll: Tucson Shooting and Rhetoric Not Related

Breaking news!

CBS just did a poll indicating that over 55% of people don't feel that the Tucson shooting and political rhetoric are related.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028105-503544.html

Contrary to the suppositions of those clamoring for the FCC to reinstate the "fairness doctrine" (regulation requiring radio broadcasters to give equal time to opposing voices) people are able, at least in this instance, to see what is reported to them and decide the truth for themselves.

Now, how much more informed would we be if the news outlets would actually report?

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Anger is a feeling, not a crime.

Although the president referred to his political opponents as enemies requiring punishment, it appears that he has turned a new leaf calling for us to remove anger from our political discourse. That begs the question, "Is there a case for political anger?"

First of all, anger is not violence. What Loughner did was horrific, but it was an action, and not a feeling. (And since when are we supposed to be legally judged on our feelings?) Anger is a feeling, which in this case means that people feel strongly about what is going on in government. Most people are fed up with the actions taken by the Obama Administration (e.g. the Food Safety Bill, Obamacare, TARP, forced selling of Chrysler and GM, the offshore Oil drilling ban, EPA regulation of CO2 etc.)and their willing accomplices in Congress.

Most people who feel like this (over half of the country) have spoken up, voted, and tried to stop the Federal government from doing similar things. Will getting rid of this "anger" help political discourse?

Probably not.

(read more...)

The Conservative Opinion