Jan 13 2011

Obama Speech. University of Arizona, Tucson. January 12, 2011

This post was written by Observer

To the families of those we’ve lost; to all who called them friends; to the students of this university, the public servants gathered tonight, and the people of Tucson and Arizona: I have come here tonight as an American who, like all Americans, kneels to pray with you today, and will stand by you tomorrow.

There is nothing I can say that will fill the sudden hole torn in your hearts. But know this: the hopes of a nation are here tonight. We mourn with you for the fallen. We join you in your grief. And we add our faith to yours that Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the other living victims of this tragedy pull through.

As Scripture tells us:

There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,
the holy place where the Most High dwells.
God is within her, she will not fall;
God will help her at break of day.

On Saturday morning, Gabby, her staff, and many of her constituents gathered outside a supermarket to exercise their right to peaceful assembly and free speech. They were fulfilling a central tenet of the democracy envisioned by our founders – representatives of the people answering to their constituents, so as to carry their concerns to our nation’s capital. Gabby called it “Congress on Your Corner” – just an updated version of government of and by and for the people.

That is the quintessentially American scene that was shattered by a gunman’s bullets. And the six people who lost their lives on Saturday – they too represented what is best in America.

Judge John Roll served our legal system for nearly 40 years. A graduate of this university and its law school, Judge Roll was recommended for the federal bench by John McCain twenty years ago, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, and rose to become Arizona’s chief federal judge. His colleagues described him as the hardest-working judge within the Ninth Circuit. He was on his way back from attending Mass, as he did every day, when he decided to stop by and say hi to his Representative. John is survived by his loving wife, Maureen, his three sons, and his five grandchildren.

George and Dorothy Morris – “Dot” to her friends – were high school sweethearts who got married and had two daughters. They did everything together, traveling the open road in their RV, enjoying what their friends called a 50-year honeymoon. Saturday morning, they went by the Safeway to hear what their Congresswoman had to say. When gunfire rang out, George, a former Marine, instinctively tried to shield his wife. Both were shot. Dot passed away.

A New Jersey native, Phyllis Schneck retired to Tucson to beat the snow. But in the summer, she would return East, where her world revolved around her 3 children, 7 grandchildren, and 2 year-old great-granddaughter. A gifted quilter, she’d often work under her favorite tree, or sometimes sew aprons with the logos of the Jets and the Giants to give out at the church where she volunteered. A Republican, she took a liking to Gabby, and wanted to get to know her better.

Dorwan and Mavy Stoddard grew up in Tucson together – about seventy years ago. They moved apart and started their own respective families, but after both were widowed they found their way back here, to, as one of Mavy’s daughters put it, “be boyfriend and girlfriend again.” When they weren’t out on the road in their motor home, you could find them just up the road, helping folks in need at the Mountain Avenue Church of Christ. A retired construction worker, Dorwan spent his spare time fixing up the church along with their dog, Tux. His final act of selflessness was to dive on top of his wife, sacrificing his life for hers.

Everything Gabe Zimmerman did, he did with passion – but his true passion was people. As Gabby’s outreach director, he made the cares of thousands of her constituents his own, seeing to it that seniors got the Medicare benefits they had earned, that veterans got the medals and care they deserved, that government was working for ordinary folks. He died doing what he loved – talking with people and seeing how he could help. Gabe is survived by his parents, Ross and Emily, his brother, Ben, and his fiancĂ©e, Kelly, who he planned to marry next year.

And then there is nine year-old Christina Taylor Green. Christina was an A student, a dancer, a gymnast, and a swimmer. She often proclaimed that she wanted to be the first woman to play in the major leagues, and as the only girl on her Little League team, no one put it past her. She showed an appreciation for life uncommon for a girl her age, and would remind her mother, “We are so blessed. We have the best life.” And she’d pay those blessings back by participating in a charity that helped children who were less fortunate.

Our hearts are broken by their sudden passing. Our hearts are broken – and yet, our hearts also have reason for fullness.

Our hearts are full of hope and thanks for the 13 Americans who survived the shooting, including the congresswoman many of them went to see on Saturday. I have just come from the University Medical Center, just a mile from here, where our friend Gabby courageously fights to recover even as we speak. And I can tell you this – she knows we’re here and she knows we love her and she knows that we will be rooting for her throughout what will be a difficult journey.

And our hearts are full of gratitude for those who saved others. We are grateful for Daniel Hernandez, a volunteer in Gabby’s office who ran through the chaos to minister to his boss, tending to her wounds to keep her alive. We are grateful for the men who tackled the gunman as he stopped to reload. We are grateful for a petite 61 year-old, Patricia Maisch, who wrestled away the killer’s ammunition, undoubtedly saving some lives. And we are grateful for the doctors and nurses and emergency medics who worked wonders to heal those who’d been hurt.

These men and women remind us that heroism is found not only on the fields of battle. They remind us that heroism does not require special training or physical strength. Heroism is here, all around us, in the hearts of so many of our fellow citizens, just waiting to be summoned – as it was on Saturday morning.

Their actions, their selflessness, also pose a challenge to each of us. It raises the question of what, beyond the prayers and expressions of concern, is required of us going forward. How can we honor the fallen? How can we be true to their memory?

You see, when a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations – to try to impose some order on the chaos, and make sense out of that which seems senseless. Already we’ve seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health systems. Much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, “when I looked for light, then came darkness.” Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.

For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.

So yes, we must examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.

But what we can’t do is 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.

After all, that’s what most of us do when we lose someone in our family – especially if the loss is unexpected. We’re shaken from our routines, and forced to look inward. We reflect on the past. Did we spend enough time with an aging parent, we wonder. Did we express our gratitude for all the sacrifices they made for us? Did we tell a spouse just how desperately we loved them, not just once in awhile but every single day?

So sudden loss causes us to look backward – but it also forces us to look forward, to reflect on the present and the future, on the manner in which we live our lives and nurture our relationships with those who are still with us. We may ask ourselves if we’ve shown enough kindness and generosity and compassion to the people in our lives. Perhaps we question whether we are doing right by our children, or our community, and whether our priorities are in order. We recognize our own mortality, and are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this earth, what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame – but rather, how well we have loved, and what small part we have played in bettering the lives of others.

That process of reflection, of making sure we align our values with our actions – that, I believe, is what a tragedy like this requires. For those who were harmed, those who were killed – they are part of our family, an American family 300 million strong. We may not have known them personally, but we surely see ourselves in them. In George and Dot, in Dorwan and Mavy, we sense the abiding love we have for our own husbands, our own wives, our own life partners. Phyllis – she’s our mom or grandma; Gabe our brother or son. In Judge Roll, we recognize not only a man who prized his family and doing his job well, but also a man who embodied America’s fidelity to the law. In Gabby, we see a reflection of our public spiritedness, that desire to participate in that sometimes frustrating, sometimes contentious, but always necessary and never-ending process to form a more perfect union.

And in Christina we see all of our children. So curious, so trusting, so energetic and full of magic.

So deserving of our love.

And so deserving of our good example. If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should, let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost. Let’s make sure it’s not on the usual plane of politics and point scoring and pettiness that drifts away with the next news cycle.

The loss of these wonderful people should make every one of us strive to be better in our private lives – to be better friends and neighbors, co-workers and parents. And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse, let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud. It should be because we want to live up to the example of public servants like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each other’s ideas without questioning each other’s love of country, and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American dream to future generations.

I believe we can be better. Those who died here, those who saved lives here – they help me believe. We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us. I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us.

That’s what I believe, in part because that’s what a child like Christina Taylor Green believed. Imagine: here was a young girl who was just becoming aware of our democracy; just beginning to understand the obligations of citizenship; just starting to glimpse the fact that someday she too might play a part in shaping her nation’s future. She had been elected to her student council; she saw public service as something exciting, something hopeful. She was off to meet her congresswoman, someone she was sure was good and important and might be a role model. She saw all this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism or vitriol that we adults all too often just take for granted.

I want us to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it. All of us – we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations.

Christina was given to us on September 11th, 2001, one of 50 babies born that day to be pictured in a book called “Faces of Hope.” On either side of her photo in that book were simple wishes for a child’s life. “I hope you help those in need,” read one. “I hope you know all of the words to the National Anthem and sing it with your hand over your heart. I hope you jump in rain puddles.”

If there are rain puddles in heaven, Christina is jumping in them today. And here on Earth, we place our hands over our hearts, and commit ourselves as Americans to forging a country that is forever worthy of her gentle, happy spirit.


Jan 12 2011

The Palin Crosshairs Map

This post was written by admin

Below is the map, put out by Sarah Palin during the 2010 elections, which drew crosshairs on the districts of Democratic congressional representatives that she was targeting. Immediately following the Tucson shootings, she took it down from her website.


Jan 12 2011

Speech. Politics. Violence.

This post was written by admin

Three articles by Judith McDaniel, Ph.D., formerly of Albany and currently of Tucson — written immediately after the shootings in Tucson, January 2011

1.

Today in Tucson, January 8, 2011

Judith McDaniel, Ph.D.Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot today.  President Obama spoke the shooting and he didn’t talk about guns.  Governor Brewer spoke and she didn’t talk about guns.

I want to talk about guns.  About the fact that this person who shot 16 people with an automatic weapon in just a few minutes this morning did not need a license to carry that gun, nor any permit to conceal it on his person until he got in range, nor was there any background check, nor did he have to have any training in gun safety or use.

I want to talk about the fact that Jesse Kelly, Gifford’s opponent in the congressional race just a few months ago, held a fund raiser inviting his supporter to come out and shoot automatic weapons with him.

I want to talk about the fact the Sarah Palin posted a map on her website that drew a rifle bead on congresspeople who voted in favor of the healthcare law.  Gabrielle Gifford’s office had a rifle target posted on it.

I want to talk about the fact that both of the southern Arizona congresspersons’ offices were vandalized and/or shot at during this last campaign.

I want to talk about the fact that the Arizona state legislature has introduced a bill that would prevent the university, where I teach, from banning guns on campus, whether student or faculty.

I want to talk about the fact that the man who has been arrested in this shooting was escorted off of the University of Arizona campus at least once.

And I don’t care whether he is a Nazi or insane or just angry.

I care that the people–who should be modeling a way for us to live together in community whether we agree with one another or not—our “leaders”—have abdicated their responsibility to us.  They are calling for “second amendment remedies” to further their cause.  I have heard it in the midterm election campaigns, I have heard it on talk radio, I have read it on blogs.

And I am sick and tired of it.  Sick in my heart.  And I will keep talking about guns and responsibility to one another for a long time.

__________________________

2.

First Amendment Rights and Second Amendment Remedies

Christina Taylor-GreenFirst Amendment rights to “free speech” are invoked over and over again.  And yet we are confused, very confused, about what that means.  I understand some of that confusion.  Some of it was created by our Supreme Court, which has ruled that money = speech, and therefore limiting the amount of money spent on campaigning is not “constitutional.”  I’m sure the founding fathers would be confounded by that one.

But one aspect of free speech was clarified years ago.  You cannot create a “clear and present danger” with your speech and expect it to be protected.  The example usually given is that you cannot shout “Fire” in a crowded theater.  Well, you can, but the results are predictable and if you are apprehended in the aftermath, you will be charged with a crime, not rewarded for practicing your First Amendment rights.

Drawing the line is the problem.  Is it okay to call one another names?  Liberals are corrupt and evil (Rush Limbaugh).  Conservatives are stupid ditto heads (practically every liberal).

When Sharon Angle, running for the U.S. Senate in Nevada called on her followers to exercise Second Amendment remedies (which she did not specify), did that qualify?  When Sarah Palin pasted a rifle target on Gabriel Gifford’s office, did that qualify?

And now we have the religious fringe, Fred Phelps and his “church” thanking God for the shooter who gunned down 18 people in Tucson, killing six of them.  He had posted his rant on YouTube yesterday before the dead were even named or in funeral homes and he promises to picket each and every funeral, thanking his God for the murder—even the murder of a 9-year-old child. Is he allowed First Amendment rights? How close is the nexus between thanking God for murder and creating more murders?

Free speech isn’t free.  It is balanced by responsibility.  Let’s face it.  We are all living in that crowded theater now. And dozens of people with influence are shouting FIRE FIRE FIRE. I’d like a tidal wave of protest letters sent to them.

___________________________

3.

First Amendment Rights, Second Amendment “Remedies” and the Responsibility of the Press

News organizations, have an obligation to investigate stories and tell the truth. That’s not too far-fetched or radical, is it?  Historically, they haven’t just reported what people said, they actually investigated to see if the story had any basis in fact.

We expect them to do this.  It is in their job description.

In 1964 the Supreme Court decided a case involving The New York Times.  Individuals in Southern states who had felt maligned by reporting in The New York Times about the racist incidents in the South had sued the paper for defamation and libel. The intimidation was huge and deliberate. The lawsuits were devastating to all reporting of events in the South during the civil rights struggle, because individuals could allege defamation even when the reporting of events was accurate. When the case finally went to trial, pending civil actions against many newspapers and news organizations totaled about $300 million. Few reporters or editors wanted to report “all the news” when it meant they could be penalized, even for telling the truth.  The victory of the New York Times in this case lifted the self-imposed restrictions and allowed the civil rights movement to be reported in full.

The Supreme Court said this:  A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves “actual malice”–that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan)

Reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Newspapers can’t be sued unless they print statements with reckless disregard of the truth.

Like, what newspaper would ever do that?  Actually, a lot of newspapers have done that recently by simply reporting without investigating.

People in the public eye can be expected to tell it their way. That is certainly what segregationists and anti-Civil Rights politicians in the south did during the fifties and sixties. But the press actually tried to say what really happened.

Today a public figure makes a statement and, no matter how outrageous, it is immediately broadcast on the internet, on the radio, television, and finally, the newspapers.  At some point in this cycle, there may be someone who says, wait, is this true?  But by then the statement has gone around the world at least twice.  Michelle Bachman says President Obama’s trip to India will cost $200 million a day.  It is not true.  It was never true.  But three days later, when the real figure was published, it didn’t matter. If you’d like to read dozens of similar statements of non-fact asserted as truth, check out this blog.

So United States law was adjusted during the 1960s to allow the press to report events as they happened, even when the primary players weren’t happy with the reporting. It seems to me that creates an obligation that the press at least make an attempt to determine the accuracy of an assertion. Why this reversion to pre-1964 timidity?