The purpose of this column is to make the reader aware of current events in politics and media and to explain the facts from both sides to get a real picture of the argument instead of having message skewed through mainstream media. This is one man trying to relate to college students the hot issues of the world so as to make the information for accessible. The column will present an opinion but will do the it’s best to only use opinions supported by lines of evidence.Tragic events occur in our world that lead people to question what we could have done differently to prevent them. It’s only natural that we try to solve a problem.
Patrick Olds
– Opinions Editor –
A few weeks ago, Jared Loughner walked up to a political rally and shot U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in the head and continued on to murder a federal judge, a 9-year-old girl and four others. Only by the grace of God did a few people find the courage to disarm this killer before he did more damage.
After this horrific crime, it was the national media’s duty to report what occurred. It was difficult to find a report that wasn’t already blaming people or groups who “had influenced” the shooter to commit such an act.
National media were blaming lack of gun-control, the political environment, and — most of all — violent rhetoric. It had to be a problem we understood. It had to be something political. It had to be something motivated by policy differences.
Why was it so hard to think that Mr. Loughner was just a murderer, a psycho — someone who didn’t have all the screws on tight? No, he had to have been influenced by the tea parties, by Rush Limbaugh, by Glenn Beck — never mind that, they never once motivated people to assassinations or murdering.
There is a bigger issue on display here that everyone, most importantly college students, should take to heart. The national media believes we are to be dolts, ignorants, cattle, etc. We can’t think for ourselves; we need an explanation — and if need be fabrication — of the facts to properly explain events or issues.
We must now outlaw the use of “violent political rhetoric.” The depths that national pundits will take this truly incredible.
On CNN, host John King apologized on air for something a guest said. What was the offensive statement? He apologized for his guest using the word “crosshairs,” saying that they at CNN hold themselves to a higher standard and they were really trying to “get away from” that “violent rhetoric.”
Are we really that stupid? Can we not say certain words now that have anything pertaining to violence? Are we really stooping to this level of political correctness to the point where we will implement real-world word police? It’s completely asinine to think that because King’s guest said the word “crosshairs” that one of his viewers was now motivated to load his sniper rifle and kill someone.
Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey, talked about the difference between “violent rhetoric” and “straight talk” on a Sunday news program. He said plainly that “violent rhetoric” had to be toned down. When questioned whether his town hall meeting, where he used the words “that’s a load of crap,” was the kind of language that needed to be toned down, he responded that there is indeed a difference between that and violent speech, straight talk is fundamental.
Politicians must be available to the public and politicians should be straight with the American people. There is no other way around this. In the end, there is no way to police free speech. When hearing the words “violent rhetoric,” decide how to take it but in reality there’s no way, in this country, to police speech.
