Article on Arizona Political Rally shooting: Laughner. My take on the incident for thinking it through.
Despicable Me: Thought For the Day by Rev. Patricia BeBeau, January 11, 2011
Reflecting today on the past events of one Jared Loughner's sadistic shooting spree in Tucson, Az on January 8, and the reports in todays newspapers that he stood silent in front of the judge bring to mind questions of concern that may never be answered. First question is: Why? Next question is: What game is he playing at? and again: Is he truly mentally unstable or Is his silence really a mask for smirking within over a job well done? Many psychatrists have made their professional comments respective to their jobs, and some see patterns emerging based on the facts of other extremists who had become violent and are now in custody or possibly dead. These records of past psychological misfits (as some would have it) and their odious deeds give substantial proof to society that there are, indeed, those who act out using weapons of destruction to get their point across. So, is it correct to say that Laughner gave off warnings and no one thought to examine his previous behavior and upsets to get him help? Is it also correct to say that he is so disturbed within over present political issues and behavior that treatment would not have been affective and he still would have shot all those people? His parents seem surprised and shocked although they have admitted he was acting strange. Is it their fault?
If you haven't seen the movie Despicable Me you should know its main theme: A villain captures the moon to control the world with the help of minions (that have become adorable to our kids) and is rehabilitated by three small children he is caregiver to. Even this last anecdote caregiving he uses for his own evil purposes. Never mind that all his plans backfire, he does capture the moon which eventually is his undoing, and becomes a fitting human being again. 99% of the viewers would say that “to capture the moon to control the masses of Earth” is an outrageously insensitive act; 1% might believe it has merit. Some may act on it.
Yelling and screaming matches in politics, backbiting campaign ads of recent, mob mentality over persons of discriminatory acts against others and commercials featuring harmful incidents to get insurance coverage, etc., not to mention superhero video games our kids interact with are all programmers of violence. The question here is: Is this Laughner's trigger point? How about all the other young people, does this affect their impressionable minds?
As I see it from a laywoman's view, after Laughner met and corresponded with Gifford he reasoned that 1) She is a woman, 2) Her rhetoric (to him) was politically insincere, and 3) She was out for profit not for the “good of all” and is a very good actress. I think he is transparent and believes that to prove his point that the system is corrupt and incompetent, his silence will get him off from being judged a cold blooded murderer. Tonights TV news seems to imply just that, the insanity clause. I would label him a fanatic like so many other terrorists and assassins world over today. A fanatic reasons that governments and governing bodies all bode secret agendas for their own personal gain. Who today will argue with that in the light of recent hostilities in China, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, Africa and the US's cover-ups of Area 51? A fanatic understands that to raise the alarm on government coverups a risk must be taken in order to bring it to justice. Not just words but an invasive action deemed to take lives. This person takes on judge, jury and executioner as the prerogative of choice to combat injustice. It is the making of “superheros” so he believes. But is he just acting? Does he fancy himself righteous and justified to intercede in this manner? Some groups today see it just that way and have become terrorists righting wrongs. To insure against fear there has to be a justifiable belief system that serves and protects all. Yet we all know that governments the world over including ours are not perfect and that injustices are happening within the systems all the time.
Peaceful Civil disobedience is one way nations have to alert governments that all is not well and changes are in order. Ignoring this leads to fanaticism which in turn leads to rebellion by the masses. In a democracy it is the goal to avoid such uprisings with “we the people” as the basis of governing.
Notes: This article brings to mind these questions:
-is Laughner acting out?
-is he really mentally unstable?
-is he a product of our society?
-is he being labeled for our (society) blatant inattention* to a suffering soul?
Not caring about another's behavior; not wanting to take any risks with him because then responcibility is a must; exposing our sins for allowing social decline in all realms of society.
1/12/11 Radio AM talk: Dignitary* speaking about stopping violence today, “... yield to the best instincts of the many.” Direct quote. Isn't that translated to “we the People”?*
** didn't catch the name of person speaking.*