Gabrielle Giffords on the mend; still a long way to go…

Many of you may remember the horrific shooting that took place in Tucson, Arizona, in January of this year, in which Jared Lee Loughner, a clearly disturbed 22-year-old man, opened fire outside a supermarket and shot 19 people, killing six and seriously wounding Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who received a bullet in the head and was pronounced dead by several media sources. News updates on her recovery have been overwhelmingly positive – perhaps too much so, for someone with such a serious injury – suggesting that she has made astonishing progress, to the point where some are pushing for her to run for the Senate in 2012.

The Arizona Republic has a more realistic, if still encouraging, account of her progress, which suggests that Giffords has come leaps and bounds since the shooting, but is still in a fragile condition. It’s worth reading the whole article, but here are some key snippets:

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is left-handed now… Her handwriting looks different in the letter she recently wrote to her husband, astronaut Mark Kelly, than it did the last time he went into space. Giffords’ mother helped her pen the traditional NASA sendoff note two weeks ago. She wrote to her “sweetie pie,” and that part – those words – were the same.

Many other things are different since Giffords’ brain was pierced by a bullet during the shootings near Tucson on Jan. 8. Her hair is short, maybe 2 inches long, says Pia Carusone, her chief of staff, so there are scars on her scalp that show through. Eventually, her hair will cover them. A thin scar across the top of her forehead is healing well and fading, and her face, though sometimes swollen, is otherwise the same as before, Carusone says.

Giffords speaks most often in a single word or declarative phrase: “love you,” “awesome,” even “get out” to doctors in her room at the end of a taxing day. She longs to leave the rehab center, repeating “I miss Tucson” and wheeling herself to the doors at the end of the hall to peer out. When that day comes, Giffords told her nurse, she plans to “walk a mountain.”

Longer sentences frustrate Giffords. She must search her brain for the words she wants, which feels like trying to pull out the name of a familiar face you can’t quite place, her doctors say. Once she builds the sentence in her mind, she speaks clearly and at a normal rate, and can offer as many words as she has the patience to string together. The doctor overseeing her rehabilitation places her in the top 5 percent of patients recovering from this injury.

At the end of week 15, she can stand on her own and walk a little but is working to improve her gait, says Dr. Gerard Francisco, the physiatrist and chief medical officer at TIRR Memorial Hermann who works with Giffords five days a week.

Use of her right arm and leg is limited but improving, he says – a common effect of a bullet wound on the left side of the brain. She pushes a grocery cart up and down the hospital halls as therapy, focusing on using the correct muscles, says nurse Kristy Poteet, who has worked with Giffords since she arrived in Houston on Jan. 21. More therapy comes from games of bowling and indoor golf, Poteet says. Giffords used to be right-handed. Maybe she will be again. That answer, like so many others, will come long after week 15.

It’s an at times heart-warming, at times tragic, account of the determination of doctors, family and friends, and the inner strength of a woman who is fighting serious brain trauma to regain a semblance of normality in her life. What’s clear is that Giffords is making enormous progress, but that she’ll never truly be the same – and people should be realistic about further advances in her condition. The woman was shot in the head, for Christ’s sake. It’s remarkable that she’s regained such an astonishing command of her intellect and bodily functions, and that her personality has changed so little (one of the most common consequences of brain trauma is an often substantial change in personality). If she is able to walk, talk and interact with her family normally again, that in itself will be more than 95% of people in her position. We shouldn’t be expecting that she’ll somehow make a miraculous recovery and run for the Senate. It’s comfort enough that she’s got that far – and without being too corny, it’s the perfect Easter story of rebirth, renewal and the tenacity of life in the face of adversity.

Oh, that reminds me – Happy Easter, everyone!

Advertisements

The conventional wisdom says one thing on guns – the polls say another…

Gun control is an issue that most people agree is politically dead – the NRA and the gun lobby have won the argument, or at least beaten their opponents into submission. Gun owners’ perceived electoral might has meant that republicans march in lockstep with the National Rifle Association, while democrats are too scared of being seen as anti-gun to propose even the most minor measures, like reinstating the Brady Bill or banning assault weapons. Indeed, despite hope that Americans might soften their stance on guns in the wake of the Arizona shooting, lawmakers in that state are pressing on with efforts to make it even easier to own and carry a gun. On the other side of the country, in Virginia, gun enthusiasts protested on Monday in favour of increased gun rights, even going so far as to march outside the state capitol with their weapons in tow (see here for images and details).

So it is with some shock (and joy) that we learn that Americans do not necessarily agree with these brandishers of firearms and passionate champions of the Second Amendment, as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg explains in the Huffington Post:

A new poll shows a remarkable consensus among Americans on gun issues. The poll, conducted jointly by a Democratic and Republican polling firm, was released today by the bi-partisan coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Among its key findings…

  • Americans overwhelmingly believe that felons, drug abusers, and the mentally ill should not have access to guns and that more needs to be done to ensure that their records are in the federal background check system: 90% of Americans and 90% of gun owners support fixing gaps in government databases that are meant to prevent the mentally ill, drug abusers and others from buying guns. Likewise, 89% of Americans and 89% of gun owners support full funding of the law a unanimous Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed after the Virginia Tech massacre to put more records in the background check database.
  • Americans overwhelmingly believe that its time to close the loophole that make it possible for people to buy guns without background checks: 86% of Americans and 81% of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from.

Good news. Yet gun control is probably one of those issues where the conventional wisdom will prevail for some time hence, for the simple reason that the people who shout the loudest and carry the biggest guns generally get their way. It’s a shame. Without for a second disputing the validity and sacrosanctity of the Second Amendment, the mentally ill and those with a history of violence should not be allowed to own or carry guns. Whether forbidding them from doing so would have stopped Jared Lee Loughner from killing six people in Tucson is a matter for debate – but it probably would have saved a few lives over the past few years.

Then and Now: Can America Heal Itself?

Robert Samuelson writes in the Washington Post that, for all of the talk of tea party madness and hateful rhetoric, and its potential contribution to Gabrielle Giffords’s shooting in Tucson a little over a week ago, things were at least as bad in the 1960s. As he points out:

Precisely the same sort of breakdown occurred in the Sixties, and although the causes were very different, the consequences as measured by public divisiveness and anxieties were as great or greater. “The country was more divided than at any time since 1861, just before the Civil War,” says historian Allen Matusow of Rice University, author of the acclaimed Sixties’ history “The Unraveling of America.”

He’s probably right. In a sense, the 1960s can be viewed as a minor civil war, or at least a societal revolution, not only in terms of racial politics, but also more generally in terms of the reactionary forces of yesteryear doing whatever was in their power to stymie the march of the forces of societal progress. For Christ’s sake, segregation was still the law of the land in vast swathes of the South! Even New York still had anti-sodomy laws! George Wallace, the king of racial hatred, won five states, 46 electoral votes and 13.5% of the popular vote in the 1968 presidential election! Open discrimination against women in the workplace was legal, tolerated and open!

Looking at then and now, we can find cause for triumph. On this, Martin Luther King Day 2011, while much still has to be done to further the cause of minority, women’s and gay rights, an African-American is now sitting in the White House, having narrowly beaten a female candidate. LGBT Americans can now openly serve in the military. The South now boasts two Indian-American governors (both Republican). There is much for which we can be thankful.

The horrific shooting in Arizona cannot be forgotten. A Congressman was shot through the head, and still lies in a serious condition in hospital, despite remarkable progress. Six people lost their lives, including a nine-year-old girl and a federal judge. Yet none of this compares to the deaths of Jack and Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X – all in the space of less than five years, from November 1963 (JFK) to June 1968 (RFK).

The country has moved on from the ’60s. This does not mean, however, that we can dismiss the events of the past weeks, months and couple of years. While Gabrielle Giffords will probably pull through, there is a climate of hatred in America that cannot be ignored – and it is directed mainly at the current president, and all that he represents and stands for. Consider this, from the North Iowa Tea Party:

Or this, from Sarah Palin:

Or any of the fearful conspiracy-theory nonsense about President Obama’s socialist, Muslim, communist, marxist, fascist, nazi, black supremacist, Chicago thug agenda, and the people who support it, like Gabrielle Giffords (who, by-the-by, was a moderate, pro-gun democrat from a red state).

There’s a great video of Reverend Wright, Barack Obama’s controversial former pastor, talking about America’s chickens coming home to roost. He, of course, was talking about America getting its comeuppance for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He could just as easily have been talking about the right wing’s cynical manipulation of the natural paranoia that lurks in the hearts of so many Americans, and its inevitable, bloody, tragic consequences.

For two years, talk radio hacks like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News hate-mongers like Glenn Beck have tried everything in their power to convince Americans that their current head of state lacks all legitimacy, and is actually working to destroy the very country in which he was born and raised. Their violent rhetoric, and their supporters have responded by brandishing guns at political rallies. Then, when a sitting member of Congress is gunned down in broad daylight, they express shock and horror that anyone would even think that their words could have pushed an already insane, paranoid individual to pull the trigger.

I am not accusing Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh of wanting a congresswoman dead. What I am saying, however, is that if we want to avoid seeing another generation of young idealistic leaders gunned down by nuts, the right must realise that violent words beget violent deeds. While we live in a more tolerant society than ever before, we seem more politically divided than ever before, and less willing and able to understand and speak to one another. While we watch the same television and read the same magazines, we no longer speak the same language.

This does not mean that we cannot disagree. Respectful disagreement is the foundation of political debate. Part of what I cherish in a friend – and I believe that I am not alone in this – is the ability to spar over politics and ideology while still enjoying one another’s company. But what if we were a little more like the West Wing – where disagreement does not mean demagoguery and dishonesty – instead of the West Bank, where we lob bombs at one another?

Perhaps the situation that I am describing is completely unrealistic. Perhaps it is naïve. Manipulating the people is always easier and certainly more effective in the short term than being honest with them. I simply fear that without a realisation of the consequences of our words and acts, the coming decade will be as divisive and bloody as that of my parents’ childhoods. And maybe Martin Luther King Day is the one moment where we can actually come together and say no to hatred and division.

Probably not, though.