Meet the New Year - Worse Than the Old Year

After the holidays I had planned to write a typical New Year's post reflecting on the past year, and talking about this year's resolutions. I hadn't gotten around to it before the tragedy in Tucson took place. Now it seems like a moot point. Given the larger issues surrounding us, my paltry resolutions to have more self-control, eat less, drink less, etc., now seem totally petty.

So here we are, barely into 2011, and six people have been killed, and 13 wounded, at a "Congress on Your Corner" event in Tucson, AZ, hosted by Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who was badly wounded in the attack by a 22-year-old man, Jared Loughner.

I spent two days on Facebook, reading and commenting on a myriad of links, articles and other people's postings. Immediately after the shooting, many of us on the left, including myself, blamed those on the right who have fomented violence through their hateful rhetoric.

But as time went on, it became apparent that Loughner was not particularly political, despite the fact that he talked about currency and other subjects sometimes discussed by the far right; he seemed to be mentally unbalanced, possibly a schizophrenic. His obsession with Gabrielle Giffords did not seem to be directly in response to any right wing speech, but instead tied in to his bizarre beliefs about government, the currency, and other strange delusions that he had harbored for several years. In fact, he had attended one of Giffords' Congress on Your Corner events as long ago as 2007, and disliked her response to a question he had asked. Friends said he had changed radically from the person he was earlier in high school, consistent with the age at which schizophrenia often begins in young men.

Could the partisanship and hateful rhetoric, the gun imagery and other events have given him encouragement? Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know. If anything, he seems to have been out of touch with reality and living more in a world of "lucid dreaming," which was a subject he was most interested in during the last few months, according to acquaintances. There is no evidence that Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" map had anything to do with him shooting Representative Giffords.

I have to admit I was as riled up as anyone right after this happened, and was posting links to petitions saying Sarah Palin should be prosecuted for being an accessory to murder. But the more strident these accusations became against Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the rest, and the more I read about Loughner, I realized it just wasn't their fault that this troubled man pulled the trigger.

That said, do I believe that hateful rhetoric COULD lead to violence among radical followers of these rightwing pundits and politicians? Absolutely, yes. We know this can happen, we've seen it before. Did it happen in this case? Hard to say.

So, how have the spokespeople on the left and right reacted to this tragedy?

The first responses from the right were to strike back against the left for accusing them of fomenting this madman's rage. Bill O'Reilly called out the New York Times, Paul Krugman, and the left in general, calling them "merchants of hate" and castigating them for accusing the right of causing the shootings. Later he said that he himself has to have security at all times due to threats he receives but the New York Times never mentions that.


Rush Limbaugh attacked the Democrats directly, saying the gunman had the "full support" of the Democratic party.

And what did Sarah Palin do? After her first response (on Facebook) expressing her condolences for the victims and their families on January 8, on the 12th she posted a video, which probably was meant to make her look Presidential, in which she took the opportunity to reaffirm her right to exercise her freedom of speech. There was no inkling that maybe, just maybe, she might have gone too far in her gun-related metaphors; that maybe she, among others, had contributed to a climate of violence in this country not seen since the 1960s. Oh no, it was all about her being the victim of people who were "attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event." And on top of that she called this an attempt to establish a "blood libel." She has to have known this was a painful reference for people of Jewish heritage, since it refers to the canard that Jews murder Christian children and use their blood in their religious ceremonies. Did she know this? Did she care? If you can stomach it, here is Palin's speech:

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.
OK, so what about the left? Are they innocent of fomenting a climate of hate? Maybe not completely. During Bush's tenure as President, there were many left wing radicals who did post hateful rhetoric and protesters carrying signs that urged others to "kill Bush," showing him as a Nazi, etc. (See below for a few examples:)

However, there is a big difference. The left has never had the kind of media pundits that the right has had, nor as many; these signs were carried by ordinary people - shameful, yes, wrong, yes, but people who did not have a lot of power to influence others. In addition, during Bush's administration, protests were often carefully kept at a distance and out of the headlines. We didn't see these signs on television all the time the way people have seen the Tea Partiers and their signs during the Obama administration.

The left has various publications and blogs to get their message out; and Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann and a few others on television. But liberal talk radio has never really taken off, for whatever reason. Maybe liberals are just less apt to waste their time calling in to spout off their views on the radio. Maybe liberals are more apt to write rather than talk. I don't know the reason.

What I do know is, that Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, although clearly liberals, don't go around comparing the Republicans to Nazis and implying death threats. And how did they react to the Tucson shootings?

Rachel went through a litany of previous horrific killings that have all taken place since Jared Loughner was born, showing that he did grow up surrounded by violence, and that America is a violent country. She also pointed out that, after Yemen, the United States is THE most heavily armed country in the world.

And what of Keith Olbermann, the more outspoken partisan of the two? He called for an end to using gun metaphors, and called for violent rhetoric to end. But in addition he apologized for any times he himself has gone over the edge in this regard.


You'll never hear Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or Sarah Palin ever apologize for anything. Yes, they were right to say this tragedy should not be politicized. But they are the ones politicizing it themselves and refusing to share in any regret for the possibility that their words could spur violence - maybe not for this particular incident, but for another incident yet to come. And that is one of the differences between the left and the right.

Overall, the right has a stronger effect on the national discourse than the left and the results have been skewed against the left.

As S.W. Anderson says over at "Oh!Pinion,"

"Despite words to the contrary from CNN’s Jon King and others, there is no equivalence of violence-inciting rhetoric from the left and right. Nor is there anything remotely approaching equivalence when it comes to violent acts against public officials and political candidates."

But he goes on to warn that if the current climate continues, it's only a matter of time before both sides get in on the violence. Please take the time to go read his excellent post.

The hateful rhetoric needs to stop to keep us, as a country, from going over the edge into chaos.

Jon Stewart summed up his reactions on Monday night's Daily Show. His thoughts were what made me start to rethink my initial reaction to blame the right for the shooting.

"Did the toxic political environment cause this?...I have NO f*cking idea."

He then points out that the urge to blame is understandable, because it would mean that there could be a way to prevent this kind of incident. However, he goes on to say that unfortunately, that's not the case: "You can't outsmart crazy."

But the other important thing he said was that it would be "really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn't in any way resemble how we actually talk to each other on TV."
Watch:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Arizona Shootings Reaction
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

At the end Stewart says:

"For all the hyperbole and the vitriol that's become a part of our political process, when the reality of that rhetoric, when actions match the disturbing nature of words, we haven't lost our capacity to be horrified...Let us hope we never become numb to what the real horror, what the real blood of patriots looks like..."

He goes on to say that it would be a "shame if we didn't take this opportunity...to make sure that the world we are creating now...isn't better than the one we've previously lost."

Once again Jon Stewart, a comedian who is starting to be the voice of reason in our time, struck the right tone in the face of this tragedy.

Below is President Obama's speech at the memorial yesterday in Tucson. The President was comforting, inspiring and non-partisan in his speech, encouraging us to heal and not to blame. I hope everyone who heard this speech will really listen to him and take his message to heart, on both sides of the aisle.


And with that, I'll sign off. I'll save till another day my thoughts on what can be done, if anything, to prevent these ongoing tragedies in our country. During my days on Facebook earlier this week I got into some long conversations with a conservative friend of mine about gun control, and of course there is also the issue of how we address the problem of mentally ill people in general.

Members of Congress are proposing laws about having a gun within 1000 feet of an elected official (impractical and rather self-centered I would say), adding Plexiglass to the Congressional chamber (what, on top of the metal detectors I'm sure are already in place?), and worst of all, trying to pass a law outlawing certain types of speech and images (First Amendment rights, anyone?). But those are topics for another day.

I hope that in the coming days Representative Giffords will continue the amazing progress she has made so far, and that she eventually recovers completely. I hope that's not too much to hope for. I also send my deepest sympathies to the families of those killed and injured and I hope that the political discourse will calm down of its own accord in the wake of these events and maybe, just maybe Congress might try to work together for a change. I know, probably too much to ask for. But one has to have hope.

Discouraged and Fearful for this Country

I've been wanting to write about President Obama's reluctance to live up to the promises he has made regarding civil rights for the gay community, including his pledge to do away with Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the Defense of Marriage Act. So far he has done neither of those things, and as many have already talked about, the Department of Justice recently dismissed a case pertaining to gay marriage by upholding the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act and basically saying it had to defend that law.

"Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Friday that the department, as it generally does, is defending existing law in court.

'The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) couples from being granted equal rights and benefits,' she said. 'However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.'"

That's all well and good, but where's the beef? If President Obama is so keen on getting DOMA repealed, why doesn't he demand that Congress bring him a law to sign that would repeal it? He hasn't been making this a priority, and I don't blame the LGBT community, and everyone who believes in civil rights for all of our citizens, for being upset about this.

As for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, that is another sore subject. Harry Truman integrated the armed forces with an executive order. I don't see why Obama couldn't do the same for the gays and lesbians serving already serving honorably in our armed forces. The idea that the armed forces should only allow gays to serve if they hide who they are, and if they don't, they are subject to dismissal, is absurd, and it is clear discrimination. I don't understand how anyone could see it otherwise.

It is well past time to right these wrongs; justice deferred is justice denied.

Those who defend Obama's inaction on these issues may say that he has a lot on his plate and that he will get to them in good time. But people are tired of being told to wait and there really isn't any excuse to delay these changes any further.

If the Republicans were making any effort whatsoever to work with the President and the Democratic Congress, you might think that he is trying to get some of his other priorities, such as healthcare, pushed through with bipartisan support and doesn't want to rock the boat until he has accomplished these goals. But since the GOP has done absolutely nothing to try to work with him (with the exceptions of the few moderate Republicans left in Congress), this explanation doesn't hold water. He has absolutely nothing to lose by fulfilling his campaign promises and I dearly hope he will come through soon.

I am still hopeful that this President does mean well and will do what he has promised. But his willingness to compromise with those who mean him and the rest of us no good is disturbing. Maybe he'll learn his lesson if the healthcare initiative is stymied by these obstructionists and he'll realize that if he wants something he has to just make it happen despite them. We shall see.

But in the meantime, with the shooting at the Holocaust Museum, the murder of Dr. Tiller, and the the continual hatefulness of the neocons and those who speak for them in the media, my alarm at these recent developments is even eclipsing my indignation about the lack of action regarding gay rights on Obama's part.

Frank Rich wrote today about the upsurge in hatred that has apparently helped to spur the increase in right-wing vigilanteism and points out the kind of language that is no doubt adding to the increase in violence we've been seeing lately.

Rich reports that Shepard Smith, the Fox news anchor, has been seeing a huge increase in hate-filled e-mail.

"What he reported was this: his e-mail from viewers had 'become more and more frightening' in recent months, dating back to the election season. From Wednesday alone, he 'could read a hundred' messages spewing 'hate that’s not based in fact,' much of it about Barack Obama and some of it sharing the museum gunman’s canard that the president was not a naturally born citizen. These are Americans 'out there in a scary place,' Smith said."

This scares me a lot. Barack Obama is the first African-American President. That alone puts him in danger. Then when right-wing talk show hosts and others continue to spew hateful rhetoric about him and his policies (calling them both socialist and fascist - a dichotomy that is a little hard to achieve), it just builds up more hatred, which puts President Obama and the very fabric of this nation at risk.

Whatever our disagreements with some of President Obama's actions - or inactions - since he became president, they pale in comparison to the disagreements we all have with the Republican policies and beliefs. Let's remember which side we are on and make sure that we stick up for this man. He does not have an easy job of it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize him if he's not doing what he said, and certainly we must write and let him know when we disagree with him. But he has enough enemies out there - we need to support him.

I am getting very discouraged about this country. There are too many people out there who are completely out of touch with reality and who truly believe their own lies, that Obama is a Muslim, that he's not really an American citizen, and all the rest. These absurd beliefs, coupled with the increase in gun sales that has been happening, are a frightening combination.

I don't know what this country stands for anymore. There are whole groups of people out there who really don't believe in democracy; they feel that if their side loses, they don't owe the duly-elected president any loyalty at all. And they don't have any interest in compromise or working within the system.

Today we were driving with the "60's on 6" satellite radio on, and they played Barry McGuire's "Eve of Destruction." The words seemed eerily appropriate even more than 40 years after the song first came out.

The eastern world, it is exploding
Violence flarin’, bullets loadin’
You’re old enough to kill, but not for votin’
You don’t believe in war, but what’s that gun you’re totin’
And even the Jordan River has bodies floatin’

But you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

Don’t you understand what I’m tryin’ to say
Can’t you feel the fears I’m feelin’ today?
If the button is pushed, there’s no runnin’ away
There’ll be no one to save, with the world in a grave
[Take a look around ya boy, it's bound to scare ya boy]

And you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

Yeah, my blood’s so mad feels like coagulatin’
I’m sitting here just contemplatin’
I can’t twist the truth, it knows no regulation.
Handful of senators don’t pass legislation
And marches alone can’t bring integration
When human respect is disintegratin’
This whole crazy world is just too frustratin’

And you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

Think of all the hate there is in Red China
Then take a look around to Selma, Alabama
You may leave here for 4 days in space
But when you return, it’s the same old place
The poundin’ of the drums, the pride and disgrace
You can bury your dead, but don’t leave a trace
Hate your next-door neighbor, but don’t forget to say grace
And… tell me over and over and over and over again, my friend
You don’t believe
We’re on the eve
Of destruction
Mm, no no, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

Speaking Up

In view of the discussion on the return of Imus to the radio and the many valid comparisons of his brand of hatefulness to the hatefulness of other radio personalities (Limbaugh, Hannity, et al), I thought I'd write today about why it is so important to continue to speak out against these people.

Free speech should never be curtailed. But we must speak out against those whose free speech is akin to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. They are making intolerant, hateful speech part of our culture. As Tomcat said in his comment on the Imus post, "Bush, the GOP, the neocons and the theocons have made hate mainstream." And this is the real danger of this type of free speech. It makes hate acceptable in our culture.

While we were in the Adirondacks two weekends ago, Leonard Pitts, who writes a syndicated column for the Miami Herald, had a very interesting op-ed piece that was published in the local town newspaper near where we were staying.

His article concerned the remarks Ann Coulter had made about Jews on a recent program:

"Last week, Coulter said that in her perfect America, everyone would be a Christian. She said this to Donny Deutsch, who was hosting her on his CNBC program, The Big Idea. Deutsch, who is Jewish, expressed alarm. Whereupon Coulter told him that Jews simply needed to be ''perfected'' -- i.e., made to accept Jesus as savior. Which is, of course, one of the pillars (along with the slander of Christ's murder) supporting 2,000 years of pogroms, abuse and Holocaust."

Pitts said that many people would be telling him he shouldn't be wasting his time condemning Ann Coulter, and that it would be better to ignore her. But he refuted this idea, saying:

"I suspect the reason some people believe that kind of ignorance is best ignored is that they find it difficult to take it seriously, or to accept that Coulter -- or those who embrace her -- really believes what she says. After all, this is not 1933, not 1948, not 1966. It is two-thousand-by-God-oh-seven, post-Seinfeld, post-Gore-Lieberman, post-Schindler's List. We no longer live in the era when open anti-Semitism could find wide traction. This is a different time.

But time, Martin Luther King once observed, is neutral. Time alone changes nothing. It is people who make change in time. Or not. So you have to wonder if this determined sanguinity in the face of intolerance is not ultimately an act of monumental self-delusion."

Pitts went on to say that in fact, letting remarks like Coulter's pass without protesting them, without shouting out that they are wrong, will just give the impression that this type of hatefulness is acceptable in society.

"While some of us are cheerfully assuring one another that They Don't Really Mean It, the Southern Poverty Law Center reports that the number of hate groups in this country has risen by a whopping 40 percent in just the last seven years. If you had spent those years, as I have, jousting in print the agents of intolerance, you would not be surprised. It would be all but impossible to quantify, but I've noted a definite spike, not simply in the hatefulness of some people, but in the willingness to speak that hatefulness openly and without shame. What used to be anonymous now comes with a name and address.

Like Coulter, many of those people find intellectual cover under the cloak of conservatism. It is a development that thoughtful conservatives (the very need to use that qualifier makes the case) ought to view with alarm. For all that Colin Powell, J.C. Watts, ...and others have done to posit a friendly new ''big tent'' conservatism, Coulter and others have done even more to drag the movement back toward open intolerance.

That will be read as criticism of conservatism, but I intend a larger point. After all, liberalism has had its own unfortunate extremes -- the drug use of the '60s, the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army and the like. The difference is, say what you will about Michael Moore or Jesse Jackson, they are not pushing back toward that which has been discredited. Coulter is.

And if some of us are laughing that off, not everybody is.

So this is not about bashing conservatives. It is, rather, about challenging them, and all of us. Within living memory, we have seen Jews in boxcars and blacks in trees and silence from those who should have been shouting. They pretended it wasn't happening until it already had.

So, what about Ann Coulter? What about the push-back against diversity, pluralism and tolerance, that she represents? I keep hearing that we should just ignore it.

My point is, that's been tried before. It didn't work."

(emphasis added)

So we must keep protesting when we hear hateful commentary on the air waves. We have to keep pointing out that this type of speech is wrong and is not to be tolerated. We must urge people not to listen to these voices. Our country has free speech. But we are also free to protest what is said.

I'm going to skip the haiku today and instead quote this, by Pastor Martin Niemoller:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

More Incivility on the Air - Imus Returns

Today's Star Ledger announced the bad news - Imus is coming back on the radio - and worse yet, he's taking the place of Curtis & Kuby on WABC's 6-10 a.m. morning slot.

For those from other areas who may not be familiar with Imus, he is the radio "shock jock" who was booted off the air for making racist and sexist remarks on his radio show. I said "good riddance" back then and am sorry to see him return to the airwaves.

I am particularly sorry to see him take the place of Curtis & Kuby. As I pointed out in my post from April, their show included both sides of a story, both right and left. And opinions were delivered with civility, and even good humor, on both sides. Sure, sometimes discussion was heated, but it never crossed the line. And most of the issues they talked about were serious subjects discussed with intelligence.

Now WABC will have Imus on instead; and I'm sure he isn't going to tone down his rhetoric one bit. And if calling a bunch of Rutgers women hateful, disrespectful names is an example of his form of discussion, I wouldn't call it intelligent. I suppose he will bring his own audience of fans with him, but WABC has lost this one.

Today's Haiku:

Curtis and Kuby
Now gone but not forgotten
How will I survive?