Casually violent rhetoric shamelessly insensitive

Last Sunday, I published a column the gist of which said that it's utterly wrong to exploit tragedies such as the Arizona shooting for political gain. Politically left to right, or right to left -- it's wrong.

By "wrong" I mean two things: morally wrong, of course, but also specious on its face. Lots of people listened to Sarah Palin stump for Republicans in the last election, and lots of people saw her advertisements with the high-powered rifle scope, err, surveyors scope plastered across the face of a Democratic opponent and didn't get a gun and go on a random, homicidal rampage.

Just like lots of folks grew up listening to Bugs Bunny say, "Of course you know, this means war," and didn't settle their conflicts with neighbors by mailing them dynamite charges.

What I resist -- oh, hell, I'm being coy -- what I deplore is rendering such a damaging indictment the basis of which goes something like: "If you run for office, you will be accountable for any bad thing a grievously mentally ill person does after listening to your political advertisements, public speeches and writings.

Uh-huh. And J.D. Salinger is responsible for John Lennon's death because he wrote "Catcher In the Rye."

Now, having restated my case, allow me to make a new one: I did not say we are not responsible for our rhetoric. I did not say there is no legitimate case to be made against inflammatory, ad hominem, violent rhetoric. There is.

The argument against casually violent rhetoric is not that we "know" it causes crazy people to become rampage killers. Because we don't know that. A second semester high school debate team would spot that as a specious argument in a heartbeat. The case against casually violent rhetoric is made for me, not as homicide prevention, but at a more basic level of values. Casually violent rhetoric is indecent, dishonorable and shamelessly insensitive.

I try so hard not to be one of those "remember the good ol' days" sorta folks. I avoid at all cost the conclusion that "the world is going to hell in a handbasket." But, I cannot avoid the observation that American culture is a runaway train of shamelessness. And we like it. We laud it. We're proud of it. It is our inherent right to be shameless.

I'd like to believe the founders of this country who, when they included free speech in the Bill of Rights, never anticipated the nation they fought and died for would someday value shamelessness.

Before the NFL divisional playoff game between Baltimore and Pittsburgh, Raven linebacker Terrell Suggs donned a purple shirt. The shirt said, "Hey Pittsburgh." Underneath was a caricature of a raven, whose wingtips had becomes hands and fingers. And one of those hands was giving the finger in an exaggerated pan to the foreground.

Ironically, Terrell's shirt is not the focus of my offense. No, what fills me with despair is what Terrell then said about his shirt: "(The shirt) is not sending a message. ... They rep their city, and I'm repping mine."

Rep? Repping? Can I assume you mean "representing"? Oh, the people of Baltimore must be so proud.

Not sending a message? I can barely type for the incredulity. Let me get this straight: "(Expletive) Pittsburgh," but I'm not sending a message?

See, Terrell is a poster child for modern America. He is not merely indecent and dishonorable in public discourse. The more serious issue is that he's shameless. Shameless, I say.

In Tucson, there's this billboard hawking the Rush Limbaugh radio show. It says, "Rush Limbaugh: straight shooter." The billboard sports depictions of several bullet holes.

If he asked, I'd tell Rush to take down that ad, and I'd cite three reasons:

■ It's ambiguous and potentially confusing. If those bullet holes are the result of a "gun" that Rush is shooting, then why is he shooting at his own advertisement? If, instead, the holes are from other shooters, then how does that help me understand that Rush is a straight shooter?

■ If Rush is as right and as brilliant as he says, then why haven't his self-promotional metaphors advanced beyond the machismo bravado of a seventh-grade playground?

■ In a world beset by gun violence, violent rhetoric is, on a good day, insensitive. It's beneath you, Rush.

But no part of my argument would be, "Hurry and take the sign down before it makes a mentally ill person go on a random shooting spree."

Steven Kalas is a behavioral health consultant and counselor at Clear View Counseling Wellness Center in Las Vegas and the author of "Human Matters: Wise and Witty Counsel on Relationships, Parenting, Grief and Doing the Right Thing" (Stephens Press). His columns appear on Sundays. Contact him at skalas@reviewjournal.com.