As we approach the holiday remembering USA African-American rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., one wonders if anyone ever said he was a cause of more violence to non-whites of his day due to his refusal to peacefully insist on civil and voting rights; or if anyone said from his time to date that his talk agitated already-upset KKK members and other whites (together with already-upset then-militant non-white headliners) who would occasionally indulge mob actions of one kind or another over tensions. One also wonders if anyone today would say that the King holiday was always meant to be a focal point for remembering that the legacy of civil rights activism is it makes some people crazy, and for learning that it's better for a vast majority to appease relative needles-in-haystacks who might pop their corks...only today's media and politicos can answer such King-related questions.

Then there's the scenario of Democratic Senator Fulbright daily lambasting Democrat President Lyndon Johnson over escalations in the Vietnam war; didn't Fulbright see the concurrent Weathermen, SDS, and other bombings, riots, and other mayhems caused nationwide by anti-war protesters amid Fulbright's public disgust? Didn't America call Fulbright a criticizer of a sitting President in war time, or a suggestion-planter to organized violence, and either way call for his silencing or expulsion? No, Fulbright to this day is fondly remembered as the man for whom a number of scholarships were given before Pell...Democrat official "fronting for hit squads" was never inferred, and I agree it should not be.

Consider too that absolutely no one has ever or can ever predict who will do what crime(s) when for rage/revenge/otherwise, when a particular normal-seeming person's cork will pop, or both; if it were otherwise, a random post-Gifford tragedy like this (http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20110112/UPDATE/110112042/Keizer-police-arrest-man-in-murder-of-wife-Lisa-Zielinski) could have been avoided...as it is, through no fault of theirs, DHS through local law just couldn't know who what where when here, and there is no present mechanism for locking away the mentally unbalanced even IF known....shall we assume a man wouldn't kill his wife if we all were happy and said not a thing in the world was our worry, or that his motive was allied to a voice from a TV or radio?

And what about nuts who just want to be shot by police and will seek out for the to them best chance of it? Gifford's attacker is reported as having posted suicide notes on Facebook in December 2010; what if he thought a really good way to chance swift execution at police hands would be to fire into a crowd gathered for an official function of any kind? And some people DO in 2011commit Federal felonies with the exact expectation and wish for police to shoot them to death; for example, one week to the day before the Gifford incident, a man in Salem Oregon went about appearing to abduct a woman from Riverfront Park for the sole and express wish and belief that doing so would result in police blasting him into non-existence (http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20110104/NEWS/101040328/1001/UPDATE ). Should we assume this man, a transient sex offender from Illinois, would have been more upbeat if the rest of us just dropped all concern for anything we hear from media and official sources, or pursue in intellectual interests, or was motivated by what anyone else thought of anything?

Wherefore, I respectfully submit that it's bubble gum philosophy to assert random violence is a absolutely controllable simply by not talking about or acknowledging its occurrences, and by pretending anything anybody "in authority or in the know" anybody tells IS good for us and motivated only by saintly, avuncular, selfless desires for us to be as responsibly free, empowered, financially secure, and participatory...in the reflex, it is also incompetent to say enough persons need third-party stimulus for violence it's worth sacrificing all free speech and intelligent criticisms.