There are different conclusions that different people can arrive at from the Tucson massacre. From the event, after some cosmetic corrections, not a few of us can confirm conclusions that they had always needed to have verified. As so often, frequently the concept came first, the convenient and creative corroboration could be picked off the shelf thereafter. Some of the twisted interpretations that circulate support the thesis.  The news-management of the event tells less about the facts than about the way stories are built. One of the popular containers into which the tale is stuffed has to do with the “hate” which allegedly obsesses America. Accordingly, especially in Europe, “hate propaganda” is when someone criticizes Obama or some of the Democrats. The civic duty postulated by the fans abroad is that, by adhering to civility and good political manners, one is to support Obama. The enthusiasm is to be as ardent as is the officially sanctioned approval here.

When evaluating Loughner and his motives, one is to affirm that he had been influenced by the right wing. The working definition implies that anything that is located on the scale right of Pelosi is rightist extremism. When Loughner’s taste for the apostles of violence, and within that category, the attraction for Marx comes up then he is to be depicted as a plain nut. Being insane he remained uninfluenced by leftist collectivism. If any shred of evidence that he also liked right-totalitarians is mentioned then this must be connected to Palin and the Tea Parties. Emphasizing the connection between the old left and its current mutations is hate propaganda and as such unfair. Meanwhile, the rightist components of the man’s delusions are to be taken seriously. That makes Loughner into a conscious and therefore responsible member of that movement.

As a part of the tactic to assign blame wherever it fits the preconception if not the facts, quite a lot is made out of the “target” business. Everyone, from Sarah Palin through Reagan, and ending with the newborn, is responsible for the shooting. How? By having ever used the telling term “targeting”, such as in “targeting Congressman X in the election” or “targeting reckless driving”.

Nearly everybody has some command of English. However, idiomatic expressions are frequently beyond the reach of those that are the product of school English plus a few additional weeks of “total immersion”. “Targeting” does not mean, “to try to shoot” unless the venue is something like a marksman’s dugout. It is just as in the case of the admonition “keep your powder dry”. That appeal is not lifted from a “how-to” manual instructing the user in how to demolish structures.

What the writer has been missing is suggestions that the Target chain is not only an expression of America’s preference for violent solutions but also responsible for the mayhem. On that basis, Target should be proscribed. The same goes for Costco and Sears. They are just like Target.

To persecute “haters” is the gist of much of the advice provoked by “Tucson”. Let us agree. However, moving against haters might oblige one to move against the Islamists. This is the juncture where, at least for the members of some circles, the project runs into a barrier. Islamist ultras are protected by the enshrined tenets of multiculturalist mantra. Furthermore, the in itself condemning suspicion of racism and religious persecution can also be dutifully invoked. In the light of that, the best advice is to forget this aspect of the project. Not dropping the matter or being consistent about it might make you wind up wearing the stamp of a certified right-wing extremist that hates mankind.