The body politic is shaken by the Tucson attack and I agree with representative Boehner who said that, "attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve". We are all asking, “How can we prevent such in the future?”
From his police record and the content of his Youtube videos, Jared Loughner, is clearly an angry, mentally unstable individual. While his political views are scattered and not easy to discern from the limited information we have, his actions seem to be quite politically motivated.
The quickness with which many have linked the tragedy in Tucson with the distressingly high levels of vitriol, distrust, dishonesty, anger and hatred in our political discourse is entirely understandable. According to the Senate Sergeant at Arms, threats against members of congress are up 300% since the beginning of 2010. There needs to be a toning down of the rhetoric of violence...by all of us.
For instance, the language of violent threat needs to be dropped from American political life. When Michelle Bachman says that we all need to be 'armed and ready' we need to tell her that won’t do. Or in March of 2010, when Sarah Palin released a map featuring 20 House Democrats she was targeting, there should have been a greater outcry. (The map used crosshair images to show their districts. Many sggested at the time that she was encouraging violence by using the crosshairs imagery and for later writing on Twitter to her supporters, "'Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!'") She specifically cited Representative Giffords and said, "We'll aim for these races and many others."
In response to the Giffords shooting, Palin posted the following on Facebook, "My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona. On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice."
In the comments section below Palin's statement, critics had strong responses:
"More than condolences, I hope you will think carefully in the future when you call on supporters to 'take aim' at opponents, and refer to elections as 'salvos,'" wrote Kirsten Sherk. "A child was killed today by someone who can't tell the difference between 'inspiring' speech and a call to arms. I was appalled by your violent speech before, I'm horrified now."
But while I agree with the concern, Palin cannot become a scapegoat in all this. Her ill-thought-out decision to use a weapon-sights metaphor against the political opposition must be seen as an expression of a larger national culture that celebrates violence. Palin got a lot of support for her approach. And her approach is just one of many violent frameworks laid on the political scene. We can't ignore the analysis that the pro-violence aspects of our culture may well encourage people like Loughner to action but in doing so we can’t, as President Obama said today, “use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.”
So let’s find a way to stop the attack-mentality including our own. It is easy to want to put Palin in our own "cross-hairs" for this. It is much harder to ask ourselves how we can move away from the extreme political discourse, the vilifying of the opposition, and the winner-take-all, no-compromise attitude that seems to have taken hold in American politics.
One of the heroes in the moment was a new intern Daniel Hernandez who said he ‘just did what he had to do’ in response to the tragedy being played out in front to him. We all need to consider what it is we have do. Can we hear the call to a better America, being part of a better day, without having an enemy to respond to? Can we be motivated to resist the violence itself and not project and 'enemy' banner onto those who disagree with us? This is going to require a new day of civility from all of us. What a challenge worth taking on!
Holy One, Our Only Home; to the One I know as Jesus the Christ,
Hear the cry of your children in distress, and longing for your presence.
Today we mourn the death of innocent victims in the Tuscan, Arizona shooting. We pray for the healing of Gabrielle Giffords, we pray for everyone injured, we pray for the families of those who lost their lives. With you, we carry in our hearts the families, the neighborhood, Tuscan, and all of Arizona.
The body politic is rocked by this senseless tragedy. Give us courage to stand together with all of our members of Congress, all our public servants, and recognize the courage it takes to lead.
We give thanks for the ray of hope in all the actions of courage and help at the scene. We give thanks for intern Daniel Hernandez and his courageous presence and for his reminder that we each “just have to do what we can’. Give us wisdom to know what we can do.
We confess that we have been feeding anger, hatred, and division, as Rep. Grijalva has declared and we ask with him if this can be time for elected officials and leaders in this country that have been feeding that disease to realize that there are consequences to it. Hear our prayer of heart-breaking confession.
The body politic is threatened by the senseless tragedy in Tucson, Arizona. Life as a civil democracy seems rocked by this action. May this incident bring about "soul searching," as Sheriff Dupnik suggested. Lead us as a nation to be about the soul searching we need to redeem our calling.
Give us courage that we may offer some kind of redemption to this moment as we pledge ourselves to reject the language of ‘enemy’ and look to each other to hold each other, each, as a valued child of God. Give us courage as we pledge to look to each other to find the values we share. Give us courage as we look to each other for strong debate even as we hold to civil respect and regard.
The body politic, communities, and families are shaken. But we know Your heart breaks with ours. We know Your healing will grasp us. We know You walk with us. You hope in us. You act through us. And, together, we will not let the fear win. Together we will trust in Your promise. Together we will find a way to live in harmony. Your hope is more than any can destroy. Your will more than any can topple. Together, we will transcend and live into the promise of democracy. In your most holy name, Amen.
Well, here we go (again) a new congressional year. Let’s talk about the values of public life in this settings. What are the highest values you hold for our life together and how do those values get played out in the decisions of Congress? Where do they come from and why do you hold them? I have a list: safe infrastructure and environment, education, community health, concern for neighbor, jobs for everyone who can work - at a fair wage, support for those down on their luck, providing a hope for all children’s future, public safety and protection, international safety. Those are some of mine but not necessarily in the order of importance. Mine come from my faith. How about you? Where do your elected officials fall on these questions?
There are components of our community that might answer very similarly but with significant differences. Safe infrastructure and environment (but not if it means holding corporations accountable), education (for some), community health (of the highest degree, for those who can afford it), concern for neighbor (just the ones on either side of me), jobs for everyone who can work - at a fair wage (a job force that can produce for the owners), support for those down on their luck (if we mean the top 1 % because for them the issue is luck, for everyone else it is their own fault), providing a hope for all children’s future (well, some children), public safety and protection (against those who are different), international safety (through fighting, not in diplomacy). Well, you get my drift. We all need to know which values we want lifted up and why and then let’s talk about our differences and see what compromises we can some up with.
In Speaker Boehner's speech Wednesday he promised to use the House's rules in an open, neutral way; to work through the "scar tissue" that had built up between Democrats and Republicans in recent years; to administer the House without gimmicks or shortcuts; "to disagree without being disagreeable." There is certainly a set of values I can get behind.
But a few hours later, as reported in the Washington Post, “Republicans seized control of the House with gusto.....The rules rewrite, which sailed through the House on a strict party-line vote, will also make it easier to increase the national debt by exempting trillions of dollars in GOP priorities from pay-as-you-go rules put in place by Democrats. For example, House Republicans could extend the Bush administration's tax cuts for the wealthy past their 2012 expiration or create a significant new tax break for businesses without regard for the holes those policies would blow in the nation's finances”.
So much for playing well with others. Well, on with the debate and we have be part of that debate. What are the values we want manifest in this Congress? Speak now, plans are being made.
So the U.S. Senate and House are looking at unemployment compensation and dropping tax cuts for the wealthy. Senate Republican leadership kept the Senate from dropping those tax cuts (which were given to the wealthy in the Bush era). Such taxes cuts, for personal taxes - especially for the most wealthy - need to be dropped to maintain needed programs like unemployment benefits and to help reduce the deficit.
While Congress is having this conversation, Wall Street is figuring out how to do an end-around such cuts, like giving bonuses early. If Congress does drop the Bush-era tax cuts for the highest income levels, a worker who earns a $1 million bonus would pay $40,000 to $50,000 more in taxes next year than this year. Oh my, I am concerned about that. Making a million and then having to pay .0005 of that in taxes. Oh my .(report Louise Story and Gretchen Morgenson)
We should be demonstrating our deomcratic gifts in a big, big way right now - in this economy, when so many are out of any kind of job - when somebody makes $1 million in a bonus – a bonus, for goodness sake - one should pay taxes on that bonus. This is not corporate taxes we’re talking about these are individuals’ dollars.
The Senate Republican leadership said Sunday that they expect to get an extension of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts in exchange for extending unemployment compensation. What about dropping the tax cuts AND extending unemployment.
Ending the tax cuts for those making more than $1 million in bonuses AND extending unemployment - that’s the right thing to do. Whose side are they on? Perhaps too many in the Senate are themselves millionaires and forget what America is really like out here. Ending the tax cuts for the wealthy AND extending unemployment - that’s the right thing to do. Here’s where deomcratic capitalism really needs it’s democratic aspect to weigh in. We need to tell them what to do.
But they won’t do it unless we all call for it. So call you members of the Senate and of the House...today. Message: extend unemployment compensation but not tax cuts for the wealthy!
How are you feeling about your kids today? Your grandkids? The kids on your block? In your neighborhood? Throughout the city? Around the state? What’s the future have in store for all God’s kids? Decisions are being made every day that will affect children for years to come. Where and how do you get your information about such things? Where and how do you step out on behalf of kids in such decisions?
I’m going to marching for kids this Sunday. Me and 10,000 of my closest friends. Come on out and join us. It will be great.
The event is organized by Children’s defense Fund. I have been a fan of CDF for about as long as I can remember. Our state chapter has lots of resources, which includes this reflection from one of the staff, Norma Bourland. I commend it. She writes:
“As adults we to talk around the real issue of ‘How are the children?’ and instead focus on self-interests, such as who pays taxes and how much, who can get a marriage license and who can’t, and many other issues that are secondary when a child’s life and future are at stake.
Common sense, as well as research tells us that investments in the early years of a child’s life pay dividends for the rest of that child’s life. Indeed, when we invest in children, we’re investing in all our futures. What we give a child is never wasted and what we don’t give a child is to our own peril.
I’m waiting for a candidate that puts children at the top of the state budget. Someone who will be bold enough to commit to fully funding Head Start so every low-income child can be ready for school; to create a child care system that benefits children and keeps families working without making them choose between quality care for their child and a job; to make education fit the child’s needs and doing whatever it takes to train quality teachers and pay them well; to invest in after and before school programs that build leadership and character and give children an opportunity to contribute to the community. I want a candidate who will take a hard look at how we criminalize children who are wounded and acting out–trying hard to get the recognition and support they need emotionally or spiritually–and finding a better way to give them the help they need.
I’m waiting for a candidate who will make sure that health care for our children is easy to access and is comprehensive, so that every child is automatically given the medial and mental healthcare they need. Why is this so hard?!
Children are now the fastest growing segment of the homeless population. When a child has to spend even one night in a shelter, the healthy development of that child is impacted. Families with children are now the fastest growing segment of those using food shelves. When even one child has to skip a meal or go without good nutrition, the healthy development of that child is impaired.
Minnesota does a good job taking care of most of our children–just not all of our children and just not good enough. We could do so much better if our leaders asked and answered ‘How are the children?’”