Saturday, January 8, 2011
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords
On Thursday Newsbites gave the Arizona congresswoman a shout-out for submitting a bill calling for the next Congress to take a 5% pay cut.
Today... the Congresswoman lies in a hospital, the victim of a madman's bullet.
Even hours after the fact I don't believe we can depend upon the accuracy of ongoing news coverage. This isn't a slam of the media per se but rather a recognition that in today's age of instant communication the flip-side is instant miscommunication.
In any case, it's being reported that the Congresswoman survived the shooting and the subsequent surgery. Reports are that she was shot in the head and that the bullet went through and through.
I've heard several times that Congresswoman Giffords is expected to "recover."
Being shot in the head... through and through... I'm not sure what the word "recovery" means in this particular case, but my thoughts and prayers go out for the congresswoman and to her husband, family, friends, and loved ones.
Others were shot in the same attack. Some are wounded; some were killed.
I pray for all the victims and their loved ones.
As of now it's being reported that the shooter is basically a nut.
Time and further investigation will tell...
I'm hearing a great deal of talk concerning "upgrading security" around our elected representatives. My reaction: NO!
No one wants our elected representatives and government officials to be under threat, but to a certain extent it's part of the price one pays for power or celebrity.
Our nation is a Republic. Public officials are public servants. Our politicians are already isolated from normal citizen experiences far more than is good for them - or more importantly, good for us. The last thing we need to do is to "protect" them in a fashion that will place Members of Congress on a higher pedestal than they're on already.
Any Member of Congress or Senator who feels the risk of public service is too high... resign or retire at the end of your next term.
Frankly, I believe the presidency has too much security. Not just Obama... but Bush before him... Clinton before him... Bush before him... Reagan before him...
I believe inconveniencing hundreds of thousands of people every time a sitting president comes to New York or Los Angeles or Chicago or any other major city is too high a price to pay in order to raise the "safety" level from 99.99998% to 99.99999%.
I'm not saying we remove all security from the president and other protectees; I'm simply saying that there's got to be more cost/benefit arithmetic applied.
In any case... as concerns Members of U.S. House and U.S. Senate... no, I don't want them to have government security unless specific creditable threats are in play - the kind of creditable threats that would get a private citizen police protection.
What happened in Tuscan today is a tragedy. That said, the nation can't overreact. We can't increase the separation between leaders and led.
And that's my two cents worth...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/136791-grijalva-calls-for-greater-security-for-members-of-congress
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D), Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's colleague in Arizona, is calling for more security for members of Congress.
* SURE HE IS... (*SIGH*)
Asked what he would change, Grijalva responded, "I would certainly insist on more security ... [so] we can make sure this doesn't happen again."
* OBVIOUSLY NO AMOUNT OF "SECURITY" IS AIRTIGHT; THERE'S SIMPLY NO WAY TO "MAKE SURE" THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.
In a separate interview on CNN, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said he normally does not have security, but will "have to think about that, obviously" in the wake of Saturday's events.
* WELL, JERRY... IF YOU GO BEYOND JUST "THINKING ABOUT IT" MAKE SURE YOU DO SO ON YOUR OWN DIME. AGAIN... UNLESS THERE'S A SPECIFIC, CREDIBLE THREAT THAT WOULD LEAD POLICE TO PROTECT ANY CITIZEN, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO "RISK" LIVING LIKE A NORMAL HUMAN BEING.
Nadler drew a link between the shooting and the intense political rhetoric of the last year.
* THAT'S BECAUSE NADLER IS A SCUMBAG. (*SHRUG*)
Former Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) said Saturday the shooting of Giffords could "fundamentally change the way that congressional members go about doing work in their districts."
* BULL. (AND BTW... THANK GOD THIS CLOWN IS A "FORMER" REPRESENTATIVE.)
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/136895-dem-planning-bill-that-would-outlaw-threatening-lawmakers
Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.
* SEE WHAT I MEAN ABOUT SOME OF THESE BASTARDS, FOLKS? THEY WANT SPECIAL RIGHTS... SPECIAL PROTECTIONS; THEY HOLD THEMSELVES ABOVE THE CITIZENRY THEY CLAIM TO "SERVE."
* I SAY NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES BEYOND WHAT THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS THEM. A THREAT TO A FEDERAL OFFICIAL OR MEMBER OF CONGRESS SHOULD BE TREATED IN THE SAME MANNER AS A THREAT TO ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN - WITH THE SERIOUSNESS IT DESERVES; NO MORE, NO LESS.
Brady told CNN that he wants federal lawmakers and officials to have the same protections against threat currently provided to the president.
* HEY BOBBY BOY... IF YOU WANT THE SAME "PROTECTIONS" AS THE PRESIDENT, THEN IN 2012 CHALLENGE BARAK OBAMA AND IF YOU WIN YOUR PARTY'S NOMINATION AND THEN THE ELECTION... WELL... YOU'VE GOT IT, BUD!
(*SMIRK*)
"The president is a federal official," Brady told CNN in a telephone interview. "You can't do it to him; you should not be able to do it to a congressman, senator or federal judge."
* THE PRESIDENT IS CHIEF OF STATE AS WELL AS HEAD OF GOVERNMENT YOU MORON.
(*SMIRK*)
* SERIOUSLY... HOW DO THESE UNDEREDUCATED HALFWITS MAKE IT TO THIS LEVEL...???
Post a Comment