Truth

From Commentary: Restore civility by Kevin McKinney:

We need to find the truth again.

Isn't that what's been missing in all this? Truth and justice used to be considered the essential building blocks of a democracy, our democracy. Admittedly, politics and lies to some degree have always gone hand in hand. Nothing new there. Anymore though, we live in an age, and amid a harsh political landscape that leaves virtually no room for the truth to flourish. It's lost its value - a reflection of us losing our values. The truth is treated as a novelty, incorporated only when convenient to serve a particular political agenda. It's the first casualty of political warfare.

In the absence of the truth, all bets are off. The groundwork is laid for further deception. The escalation begins. Arrogant lies become common place. And our country suffers.

What Is The Matter With Us?

From Helpless in the Face of Madness by Bob Herbert:

What is the matter with us? Are we really helpless in the face of the astounding toll that guns take on this society?

More than 30,000 people die from gunfire every year. Another 66,000 or so are wounded, which means that nearly 100,000 men, women and children are shot in the United States annually. Have we really become so impotent as a society, so pathetically fearful in the face of the extremists, that we can’t even take the most modest of steps to begin curbing this horror?

Where is the leadership? We know who’s on the side of the gun crazies. Where is the leadership on the side of sanity?

Mr. Herbert, I agree with you and ask the same questions. Many Americans, however, see this issue in a way that is completely reversed from how you present it. To them gun control is crazy, and the sane solution is more guns, not less. This is a big part of what is the matter with us.

Where is the leadership on the side of sanity? Well, The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is one starting point. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is another. Send them some money if you want to support them. I agree that we are facing madness, however, I like to think that we are not helpless.

How The Least Rational Person Takes It

From The Crying Shame of John Boehner by Matt Taibbi:

Another Ohio Democrat, Steve Driehaus, clashed repeatedly with Boehner before losing his seat in the midterm elections. After Boehner suggested that by voting for Obamacare, Driehaus "may be a dead man" and "can't go home to the west side of Cincinnati" because "the Catholics will run him out of town," Driehaus began receiving death threats, and a right-wing website published directions to his house. Driehaus says he approached Boehner on the floor and confronted him.

"I didn't think it was funny at all," Driehaus says. "I've got three little kids and a wife. I said to him, 'John, this is bullshit, and way out of bounds. For you to say something like that is wildly irresponsible.'"

Driehaus is quick to point out that he doesn't think Boehner meant to urge anyone to violence. "But it's not about what he intended — it's about how the least rational person in my district takes it. We run into some crazy people in this line of work."

Political Rhetoric That's Beyond The Pale

From Linking Uncivil Rhetoric With Violent Acts by Emily Badger:

Some 95 percent of people said they believe civility in politics is important for a healthy democracy — the good news, in Shea’s eyes. But nearly 50 percent said they believe civility has been on the decline since Barack Obama took office (and those paying close attention to politics were four times more likely to say this than those paying only moderate attention).

Most surprising are the responses when people were asked to define what should be out of bounds. “If you were able to create a rule book for civility in politics,” subjects were asked, “which of the following would not be OK — would be, that is, against the rules?” Overwhelming majorities opposed belittling or insulting someone (89 percent), questioning someone’s patriotism because they have a different opinion (73 percent), and personal attacks on someone they disagree with (87 percent).

Most Americans, in short, think entirely commonplace occurrences in politics today constitute political rhetoric that’s beyond the pale. We’re not even talking gun sights or “second-amendment remedies.”

Blood Libel

Right wingers think that the 1st amendment applies only to them. They are free to say anything that they want to. They are free to say nasty and violent things. They are free to lie about things.

If anyone on the left voices the least bit of criticism of the right, then the right-wingers are outraged. Doesn’t the left know that the 1st amendment only applies to the voices of the right wing?

Are there any adults left in the world of the Republican right-wing monstrosity? The right-wing act like spoiled little children. Most of them are bullies (Rush Limbaugh) or like little two year olds saying “No, I won’t do it, you can’t make me.” (The Republican Senate) Not to mention the childish, bully Bill O’Reilly who responds to any challenge with a loud obnoxious “Shut up.”

The left is not telling Sarah Palin to shut up. Many of us wish she would, but we are not telling her to. We would like her to consider her words more carefully. We would like her to realize that words have meaning. We would like her act like an adult. We would like a little civility.

Obviously the right-wingers think that guns and gun owners breed civility. If the left questions that belief we are accused of “blood libel.”

From Sarah Palin accuses critics of "blood libel" by David Morgan:

Prominent Republican Sarah Palin on Wednesday accused critics of "blood libel" by blaming her rhetoric for contributing to the shooting rampage in Tucson that killed six and wounded 14, including Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them," the conservative Tea Party favorite and former Alaska governor said in her first major response to critics.

"Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."

Some commentators and bloggers questioned whether last year's election rhetoric from conservative Republicans including Palin and some Tea Party candidates created a climate that bred violence.

If  “Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own” then why did the right-wing want to go after Saddam Hussein because of 9/11? Why do so many right-wingers hate all Muslims, even the ones who are not criminals? Words do have consequences. If they didn’t Sarah Palin would not have responded to the commentators and bloggers accusing them of “blood libel.” She didn’t like what we said. She has a right to respond. However, she is simply wrong to think that words cannot compel people to action. Barack Obama’s words compelled people to vote for him. Sarah Palin’s words compelled people to vote for him. Soon we celebrate the birth of Martin Luther King. Need I say more? Well I will. I’d rather have a dream than reload.

Also, does Sarah Palin have any bone in her body that cries out for logic? First she says that her words could not have incited violence. Then she says that journalists and pundits can incite violence with words. What’s that all about?

I am tired of the right-wingers. I am fed up with the right-wingers. Whatever happened to the melting pot? The United States is a country with all kinds of people. We should nourish our diversity, not starve the parts that you disagree with, simply because they disagree with you.

Listening seems to be a lost art. Contemplation seems to be a lost art. Compromise seems to be a lost art. Hate, however, seems to be thriving, and Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and all the rest who preach the gospel of hate are the reason why.

I am tired of the hate. I am tired of politics as war. I am tired of being seen as an enemy of the country I am a citizen of. I am tired of Sarah Palin and her ilk always being on the offensive, as well as being offensive.

The United States needs to be positive in it’s thinking. All that I hear from the right is “No.” All I hear from the right is “Shut up.”

By the way, what the hell does “blood libel” even mean?

Update:

Now I know. You learn something everyday. Why did Palin choose those words?

Our Sickness

From Climate of Hate by Paul Krugman:

It’s important to be clear here about the nature of our sickness. It’s not a general lack of “civility,” the favorite term of pundits who want to wish away fundamental policy disagreements. Politeness may be a virtue, but there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.

The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.

And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.