Words can motivate the less stable to act

Words can motivate the less stable to act

As I started to read Ken Kitzing’s letter in this morning’s paper (“Don’t blame Palin for Tucson tragedy,” Feb. 4), I nodded in agreement that “targeting” has been used in politics for years and that Ms. Palin had nothing to do with the gunman in Tucson. But then he said, “If it was part of a Palin-inspired assassination conspiracy, she would have cross-haired a more deserving candidate.” May I ask, Mr. Kitzing, which candidate is “more deserving” of assassination?

Words like this have consequences. While words did not motivate the Tucson shooter, they have motivated others to act violently. I was shocked to see this expressed in print.

During the heat of the health care bill debate, John Boehner, now speaker of the House, commented that a legislator who favored the bill “may be a dead man” and “can’t go home to Cincinnati because the Catholics will run him out of town.” That legislator, Steve Driehaus, told Boehner that his office received death threats and a website published directions to his house. Boehner replied that he had not intended to motivate anyone to violence with his comments. Driehaus told Boeher something that everyone should heed when he said, “It’s not about what you intended — it’s about how the least rational person in my district takes it.”

How many disenfranchised people are out there unemployed or longing for a better time in America. They hear a steady stream of rhetoric about “taking our country back” and that the other side is to blame for their lot in life. Then they read Mr. Kitzing’s letter and maybe they start to have some really bad ideas. I don’t think that’s what he intended, but did he consider what the least-rational person would think?

Patti Siwicki

Elk Grove Village