Yesterday and Today

They’re four days late, but the StarPhoenix finally got around to putting forward an opinion on the Tucson shootings. For once, they don’t parrot the New York Times, although they continued to make sure to take a few cheap jabs at conservative opinion makers.

Because they can’t help themselves.

Here’s my letter to the editor:

I was pleasantly surprised to see that the StarPhoenix did not follow the likes of the New York Times or their star columnist Paul Krugman in assigning blame on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement for inciting the murderous rampage in Tucson. This contemptible line of thought, first brought forth by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik immediately following the attack, was erroneously repeated by many media commentators. Most reasonable people now agree the motivation for this horrible shooting rests solely within the mind of an apolitical, mentally unsound individual.

Taking a different tack, the SP thought the reaction of the event showed a mature civic dialogue: “The violence that was evident in the Tucson murder of six people and the wounding of the 14 others — including Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords — may have become the classical American story, but in many ways, the resulting debate it spawned is the sign of a healthy society.” (Editorial, Jan. 12)

A laudable sentiment, indeed, and a far cry from what was written on this same page last year: “Politicians and activists who sow disdain for government indirectly encourage the mistrust that breeds violence. Unless the American political debate matures, there will be blood spilled.” (Editorial, April 19, 2010) Just to clarify, then: has the political debate since matured, or does the SP believe there remains blood to be spilled at the hands of “politicians and activists” who “sow disdain for government”?

Rob Huck

Saskatoon, SK

We’ll see if they publish it, or if they do, how the edits will alter my intent.

Because they can’t help themselves.

UPDATE: Two more things.

First, from the January 12 editorial, what the hell do they mean by an assassination attempt being “the classical American story”? Is that their way of being poetic?

Second, regarding last year’s disgusting diatribe, how does mistrust of government all of a sudden “breed violence”? I don’t trust my elected representative, and therefore I will eventually want to try to kill him? Is that what they mean? Jesus Christ, how does that connection get made?

These people are ridiculous.

UPDATE: The letter was published on January 18. I’m not sure how the edits helped, but they didn’t do too much damage either. Except for the title: How does “Time for re-evaluation” relate to my letter?

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: