Does careless talk really cost lives?

The heading I have given this post refers to an old wartime slogan, and invokes a paranoia, or at the very least a wariness about what you choose to talk about in public. Now, however, the villain appears to be a gun toting maniac, not invisible German spies.
 I am, of course, referring again to the shootings in Tucson, Arizona and the accusations that the gunman, Jared Loughner, was egged on by the increasingly inflammatory political debate which permeates both Arizona, but also wider American politics. I, for one, am sceptical of such ideas. Whilst I didn't like Sarah Palin's statement in the aftermath, believing it to be cloying and safe, the idea that she is somehow, however indirectly, responsible for Loughner's actions is questionable.
 That is not to say that the political climate in the USA is not heated and that, in investigating the context of Loughner's killing spree, we have not stumbled on some of the more troubling aspects of US political discourse.
 Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the most high-profile victim in Loughner's rampage, criticised Sarah Palin for targeting key Democratic seats with "cross-hairs". A rhetoric of "take up arms", an anti-government sentiment that also happens to be pro-guns, a Second Amendment, giving American citizens the right to "bear arms" which sits at the heart of the Tea Party's love of the hallowed US Constitution; this is, broadly speaking, the culture that is now being blamed for Loughner's actions. But the blame is nebulous, it is difficult to place it on one person, there is no neat causality chain leading back from Loughner himself. And so, as it was with the 9/11 attacks, public consciousness has to try and create one.
 What it speaks to instead is the new politics of America. Obama and Palin are, after all, the first generation of political icons to embrace social networking, the Internet, to whip up campaign support and spread their respective messages. This presents a problem when it comes to explaining Mr Loughner. The blame for his actions could lie with no one, but if you scoured the Internet, it could lie with about fifty different people. Online marketing, Internet movements, they are harder to put a name to than one might think. Loughner and the Tea Party may share ideals when it comes to their anti-government sentiment. Yet, overlap does not equal blame, as the online world continues to make politics ever more individualistic.
 Talks of reforming what can and cannot be said in public are somewhat futile in the world of the 24 hour new cycle. Obama last week proved that the only way to combat hateful talk is by utilising its opposite. Indeed, his White House has been too silent for too long, and this is part of the problem.
 More importantly, movements can become fads very quickly in this day and age; for an example closer to home, consider the brief mobilisation of the curious beast that is Mumsnet, against the producers and writing staff of Eastenders. Already the outrage has been swallowed by more important and up-to-date news. It will probably now remain where it belongs, tucked away in the first week of 2011, to be resurrected by a review of the year. This is where Loughner belongs: whatever his problems, it is his victims and not him, that deserve to be remembered.