This weekend I watched the story of the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D - AZ) with both horror and regret.  This kind of action could only have been conducted by someone who is truly mad and not by anyone who supports or defends our Constitution or our way of life.  My heart goes out to Congresswoman Giffords and her entire family as well as to the victims and the families of all those hurt or killed by the 22 year old monster who attacked the Congresswoman.  

As I watched the story unfold there were a number of statements made by persons in the Congress, by the local Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik and by others that I believe deserve a response.  I was especially disheartened by the comments of the Pima County Sheriff who blamed bigotry and prejudice as the probable cause for this attack.  He identified his own state as the capital of such emotion.  He spoke of the violent rhetoric on radio and cable TV as causal without knowing a thing about the perpetrator of the attack.  The same thing happened after the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.  Could someone with a destroyed mental capacity be encouraged to action by a radio talk show host?  Certainly.  But is this an indication that radio talk show hosts be silenced?  Certainly not. 

It was wrong for the sheriff to project the prejudice or bigotry that may be present in a crazy radical over those who loudly protest the illegal immigration problem.  It is also wrong for the sheriff to project the blame for such a horrible action to those who speak their opinions vociferously as is their right and is their duty to do as Americans.  

I listened to Donna Brazile call for a return to civility and her call to politicians to temper their statements in light of what happened in Tucson.  She said, "...the use of violence has no place in our democracy."  I certainly would agree that politicians should not purposely provoke citizens in a manner that would incite violence but at the same time I would also remind Ms. Brazile that our country would never have been formed were it not for violence.  Violence does have a place in our democracy.  It is the constant threat of violence that protects us from tyranny.  The problem is that this was neither the time nor the place.   

I listened to Congressman James Clyburn (D - SC) call for greater security for Representatives including a separate means to move through airports where the Congressman apparently feels most vulnerable.  My thoughts immediately went to current TSA procedures and how a means of allowing Representatives a separate line or separate procedures would work to separate us further from our Representatives and perhaps actually generate more incivility.  No, as stated by Brit Hume and others, it is the role of our Congressional Representatives to "represent" their constituents.  This is simply a risk of our form of government.  Representatives must not create a wall between themselves and their constituents that might prevent them from truly representing us.  These are not kings, queens, princes or princesses.  They must be a part of us if they are to represent us.  I would think it insane for representatives to place themselves in a privileged state that separates them from the American people.  

Dick Armey provided the best analysis when he responded to the question: Why did the person do this?  "This answer will come from psychology, not sociology or political science.  If we really want to understand deviance and its danger to the country we should apply the correct field of study and correct discipline and focus understanding with rigor and responsibility not by exercising  popular sociology out of our hip pocket."

George Will spoke of the normal search to understand why someone would do such a thing by searching our social environment to find what might have been a prompting that could have caused this to make it more understandable.  Others spoke of wishing to quiet the discourse that might cause citizens to call other citizens names like Socialist, Nazi, Communist, etc. 

This statement was made by Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D - MD)

We would all agree there is a place for a vigorous and spirited debate but we need to do it in a way that is respectful of other people's views.  How can you have debate without crossing the line that leads to super charged rhetoric that leads to unintended consequences?

My first thought went to the anger that was generated by the failure of the 111th Congress as led by Nancy Pelosi to allow debate.  I thought to the 111th Congress refusal to permit amendments or discussion on issues like healthcare.  I thought to the characterization of the Tea Party and people attending the Town Hall Meetings en masse by Nancy Pelosi as Nazis.  I thought to the tens of thousands of citizens who gathered at the Capitol Steps to plead that the 111th Congress not pass Obamacare, only to be ignored.  The propensity for violence doesn't occur when people debate too strenuously.  The propensity for violence occurs when people are ignored or when they are provoked by actions like the infamous Pelosi march through the Tea Party demonstration in what appeared as an attempt to provoke in order to gain a 30-second video or sound bite they could use to further their cause.   

Senators and Representatives from the Democrat coalition in 1994 accused republicans of wishing to take food from the mouths of babies, deny the elderly their pensions, etc.  They knew these were mischaracterizations but they put statements in the media to frighten people about a Republican victory in 1994.    

Juan Williams asked those in Arizona to reflect on why they are so angry that someone would take this kind of action.  I contend that this action had nothing to do with the people in Arizona but was instead the action of a radical who has now been reported to us to have both right and left wing fanatical positions on varying subjects.  Jared Loughner's favorite books included the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf.  He was described as a loner by those who knew him and an anti-semite. 

Time may tell us that he is a mentally disturbed young man with confusing ideologies who has nothing to do with any organized political movement.  Let us wait for this analysis and in the meantime avoid the desire to attribute his actions to right wing radio talk show hosts or to any specific issue like illegal immigration.  Instead let's take a few days to mourn the loss of the nine year old Christine Taylor Green who had the promise to become a model citizen.   Let us mourn the deaths of all the victims of this shooting with an understanding that in an open society this could happen again.  This is something that as much as we might like, we cannot completely control.