Trending
In a recent column, Mr. Cliff Reiders asked who is to blame for the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul. I think that, phrased in this way, the question can only produce a muddle of confusing, subjective, speculative answers. Two other questions more likely to elicit clear, objective, verifiable information are: who attacked Mr. Pelosi and why.
The simple answer to the "who" question is that the alleged attacker is David DePape, 42, of Berkeley, California -- oddly never mentioned even once in the entire article. Right now, Mr. DePape and no one else is facing multiple federal charges including for assault on the immediate family member and attempted kidnapping of a federal official on account of the performance of official duties. He is also facing a number of state charges including attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and false imprisonment of an elder adult.
The answer to the "why" question is that investigators say they are still trying to definitively determine his motives for the crimes. At this point, other answers to the "why" question are speculation.
In response to his own question about who is to blame, the writer at first suggests those who are partially at fault are heterogeneous groups of people and entities whose names have many possible meanings -- Republicans (which), Democrats (which?), mental health or the internet (can you "blame" an unspecified condition or media modality for a crime?), terrorism (not a specific group of terrorists). He then concludes with this assignment of blame to the question of who should be blamed: "All of these answers and none of them account for the attack on the speaker's husband."
One second, please. If none of these answers account for the attack, then all of the answers cannot account for the attack. And if all of these answers do not account for the attack, one cannot say that none of them do not account for it. Mutually exclusive, contradictory statements, by definition, cannot be simultaneously true. To argue otherwise is not paradoxical.
The writer goes on to devote several paragraphs reversing and undermining his own previous argument by explaining how political parties, mental health, the internet and terrorism did indeed play a role in violent attacks like the one on Paul Pelosi.
He concludes his column with this final question and answer: "Who is to blame for all of this? "Well we are of course, he answers.
Really? Good grief, wait a second. I don't know about you, but, I, for one plead not guilty to smashing Paul Pelosi's skull with a hammer. If all of us are said to be responsible and no one of us is held accountable, then no one is responsible. And someone IS responsible. We may find out exactly who else, beyond the alleged attacker, might bear any responsibility for this vicious crime, if and when we find out exactly why the attack happened. In the meantime, assigning the blame to everyone and at the same time, to no one is an exercise in illogical sophistry, and a badly bungled attempted sleight of hand.
TIM MANNELLO
Williamsport
Submitted by email