HerringLaw: Civil Rights & Discrimination Law in Iowa

"Great" Nixon Quote

I'm finalizing the materials for a presentation tomorrow on the topic of Privacy and Social Media in the Workplace and ran across the following quote which I find rather interesting and apropos - 

“Get a good night’s sleep, and don’t bug anybody without asking me.”

Richard M. Nixon to re-election campaign manager Clark MacGregor, recorded on tape [Christian Science Monitor, 8/14/80]

Interesting website: BagNewsNotes

http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/

 

If you're interested in progressive politics, the media, photo journalism, meanings behind and use of photographs in the news, this is an interesting site to check out.

Shutdown?

Those who say 'shut it down' don't much care about whether the Federal Government goes out of business, for a few days or forever.  And they certainly don't care about the people who will be affected.

What has happened to the Republican Party of Honest Abe and the Roughrider? And, where is the Silent Majority?

Back in the 20th Century there was a time where the models for the Republican Party were Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, men of consequence and vision, men who did not toddy to public whims.  Even Robert Taft, a conservative Repuiblican of the 1940’s and ’50’s, was seen as a Profile in Courage for his opposition to the Nuremberg Trials.  JFK Library.

Today, the Republican Party is being led by small people afraid of their own shadow.  Town-hall audiences question President Obama’s birthplace and qualification to be President [‘birtherism’] and not one Republican ‘leader’ has the temerity to draw a line in the sand.  GOP Post-Birtherism.  That’s also true of the questions raised about Obama’s Christian beliefs.  Leaders of the GOP mollify their base by making jokes about the issues and parroting the same, bland line:   “taking him at his word”  [see Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Michele Bachman].  

The result of this is predictable, a reinforcement of these conspiracy beliefs.  A high percentage [51%] of GOP primary election voters erroneously believe the President was not born in the US, and, similarly, that he is not a practicing Christian.  The latter is a private matter but the former issue can affect the qualifications of a person to run for President.  So strong is the birtherism belief that it’s become a screen used by pollsters to gauge the views of the conservative Republcan base.  A Screen for Ideology.  As pointed out by one commentator in 2010, some people “want to hold onto doubt regardless of evidence.”  Cagle.

The problem isn’t the existence of questions;  people will always ask questions.  The problem is that they are being used to call into doubt the legitimacy of the election and Presidency of Barack Obama and to chip away at his authority to lead us at a time when one would think issues of jobs, the economy, climate change, the wars, etc., would be primary issues of concern.  

And the birtherism and religion questions aren’t the only challenges being made to Obama’s authority to govern, and giving rise to the decried lack of ‘civility’ in our discourse.  Instead of challenging a person’s public policies through the use of evidence, facts, reasoning and arguments, challenges are posed by questioning a person’s authenticity, authority, patriotism, personal belief system, and perhaps their very right to exist.  [Congressman Paul Broun laughed recently when an member of his townhall audience asked “Who’s gonna shoot Obama”?  TalkingPointsMemo ]

A significant cause of these challenges to authority instead of policy is the participation of various Republican ‘leaders’ in those challenges, as shown by the examples above.  Rather than debate various Obama policy positions on facts and evidence rather than belief and wonder, Republican ‘leaders’ try to deflect serious discussions about serious issues by changing the question to whether the issue is even worthy of discussion because of the illegitimacy of those on the other side of the issue.  

President Obama discussed this problem back in early 2010 when he met with House Republicans at their retreat in Baltimore.  He pointed out the very real danger to finding policy solutions:  

I'm a big believer not just in the value of a loyal opposition, but in its necessity. Having differences of opinion, having a real debate about matters of domestic policy and national security -- and that's not something that's only good for our country, it's absolutely essential. It's only through the process of disagreement and debate that bad ideas get tossed out and good ideas get refined and made better. And that kind of vigorous back and forth -- that imperfect but well-founded process, messy as it often is -- is at the heart of our democracy.  . . These are serious times, and what's required by all of us -- Democrats and Republicans -- is to do what's right for our country, even if it's not always what's best for our politics. . . . So all I'm saying is, we've got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality. I'm not suggesting that we're going to agree on everything, whether it's on health care or energy or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don't have a lot of room to negotiate with me.

I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America.

And I would just say that we have to think about tone. It's not just on your side, by the way -- it's on our side, as well. This is part of what's happened in our politics, where we demonize the other side so much that when it comes to actually getting things done, it becomes tough to do.

Barack Obama.

And despite the rise in assassination commentary and plots, violence against those of differing opinions, the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, and other examples of our diminished public discourse, leaders of the Republican Party string their adherents along and fail to confront their own responsibility for this situation.  And, ultimately, the responsibility lies with individual voters and citizens who view themselves as Republicans or conservatives, who don’t have any problems with the right of  President Obama to hold his office or practice his religion, but who stay silent.  Spiro Agnew used to speak of the Silent Majority.  The question now is whether the Republican Party or conservative cause has a Silent Majority of people who want to challenge policies based on facts, evidence, argument, rather than vitriol.  And whether they will rise to their duty to refocus the debate on issues and not personality.

 

Protests for Libya in Paris, France earlier this week

We were walking around Paris earlier this week and happened on this protest meeting, in the rain, of Libyans objecting to the Ghaddafi regime's behavior in the conflicts of the past week or two [or more]. Serious, peaceful and hopeful as well;  few women that I could see.

 

The context of Arizona shootings: normalization of violence and eliminationism

From Australia:  The social significance of the Arizona massacre - obviously, the shooter was insane [how could he be normal?] but it actually reflects the normalization of deadly force in our society, at home and at war.  

That's why it's so wrong to see the Tucson massacre as an isolated incident, the result of an individual crazy flipping his wig. It's a symptom of something much more than that, a society in a profound social crisis.

The author notes that the violent acts at schools, work, and now in the political sphere, arise from the economic dislocation since the mid-80's and the eliminationism aimed at liberals and Democrats.  Quoting from another commentator:

eliminationism fundamentally differs from the anti-Republican stylings of Moore or Al Franken because of its rhetorical violence. Once you diagnose liberalism as a cancer, its excision is already implied.

 

 

The good and bad of Twitter, blogging and the Kaput Tiger

When Saturday's shooting in Arizona occurred, I checked both CNN and NYTimes online but went to Twitter and found up to the minute information, which of course had to be discounted a bit.  Just now I was reviewing a post on Guardian online and it made an excellent point about Twitter [and the story of the Kaput Tiger is pretty interesting as well, right below the post.

Last night, some of the Tunisia tweeters found themselves in the situation that journalists dread: getting a story seriously wrong. . . – probably a case of people being too eager to believe the rumours they want to believe.  This morning, the over-hasty tweeters are licking their wounds and their mistake will no doubt fuel the argument that Twitter, and citizen journalism more generally, is unreliable as a source of information.

But it's not quite as simple as that. Unreliable in comparison to what? If you read the Tunisian newspapers and nothing else, you would scarcely be aware that an uprising is taking place. The country's citizen journalists, on the other hand, have been providing a much more complete picture.

Another point to keep in mind is that tweeters may get things wrong, but they are rarely wrong for long. Other tweeters can challenge them, often within minutes.

The beauty of Twitter and other social media is that they are largely self-correcting. The coup story was disputed and, before long, a consensus had been reached that there was probably nothing in it. The erring tweeters were embarrassed but graciously admitted their mistake. Which is more than can be said for the regime of Zine el Abidine Ben Ali.

Or others who take to the airwaves in this country to discuss thoughts and emotions, but not verifiable facts.

 

 

Thoughts on the Arizona Shootings

I've been mulling over my own reaction to the shootings and the talk arising from them and have the following views, which I hope are adding to and not detracting from the necessary dialog:

1.  Facts matter.  As Rachel Maddow said on her show Monday, January 10th, especially now it is very important to be careful of how we use language [i.e., what’s being called “rhetoric” is not “rhetoric”, it’s metaphor] and how we cite facts [i.e., the picture now being used of Mr. Loughner is not a ‘mug shot’, it’s a photograph taken in the County Sheriff’s office, but in no way a mug shot].  [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/] 

2.  Good question, also from Rachel’s show: “Do we know how to stop the next one?” [see above link for the video].  Excellent demonstration of how much and often in this country we seem to have multiple deaths arising from the use of guns.  This collection of incidents was particularly troubling.

3.  Guns alone don’t kill people, but people with guns do kill people and people with guns with the ability to shoot 20-30 bullets kill more people, while a deer or elk doesn’t need to be hunted using a 20-30 bullet magazine.  It’s not a 2nd Amendment violation to limit the magazines available for purchase and treat ammunition as a dangerous drug, subject to some controls.

4.  Mentally ill people need early intervention and assistance where possible and while expensive, developing a better system for identifying and assisting people with mental issues would be one good result.  However, it is important that if people believe someone else is becoming a danger to him/herself or others, some method of reporting the issue to someone who can help that person [rather than just exiling them] would be good.  The difficulty will be to protect people who are ‘different’ from being the target of people and the protection of those who do report responsibly.

5.  While titular leaders [those elected or appointed to public office] do have the responsibility to model their behavior to encourage civil debate and discourse, others do as well.  Where are religious leaders speaking out?  What about captains of industry?  What about entertainment or sports idols?  Rabid arguments should be condemned by all sorts of leaders, not just political leaders.  

6.  And what about the responsibility of each of us, every individual?  Shouldn’t each of us try to discuss and learn from each other?  Not shout down those we disagree with?  Refrain from demonizing people while criticizing their policies or positions?  Our children look to us to set the standard and each person has the responsibility to encourage us to work together to solve our issues, not cast blame and aspersions on others.

7.  It is true that violence has always been a part of the history of the United States and that ‘both sides have done it’ over that history, but what is not true is that there is a equivalence of behavior at this point in time.  As amply proven by others, the behavior of purported leaders [political especially, but some religious] towards those they disagree with over the past 30 or so years has involved much more heated or charged language and behavior from the conservative right side of the philosophical spectrum.  Not that those on the left of the middle haven’t said such things, but the vitriol largely has been coming from the right over the past two or three decades.

That means that it is the responsibility of those on the conservative or right side of the philosophical spectrum to speak out against hatred, bigotry, violent metaphors or language.  It’s easy enough for those on the ‘other side’ to speak out, but that means nothing if those who are the compatriots of those spewing violent rhetoric don’t seek to tamp it down.  And those people ‘caught’ in the middle, what can be called [again] the Silent Majority, should speak out as well.  A majority needs to be as responsible for seeking civil discussion as the wings.

8.  Mentally ill people, or those not categorized as mentally ill but still susceptible to emotional appeals, will have thoughts and emotions formed as a result of the acts and words of those they see as leaders in this society.  Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Sharon Angle certainly [I hope] were not actually intending that people arm themselves and resort to guns if the election did not go their way, but people who look up to them as leaders internalize those thoughts and often respond to them.

9.  It is not the place of government to require civil discourse, that would be helpful but might violate the lst Amendment.  However, it is the role of government’s leaders and leaders in religion, business, and other spheres of influence in this society to promote the concept that we should respect other people even as we disagree and argue over the views of those people.

10.  Christians, especially, have a duty to love their perceived enemies.  Luke 6:27-36:  "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.”  That may not be easy at times, but it’s a good rule to follow in general and would improve public discussion.

In the world of thoughts and ideas, in the world of political debate, that means that we should make it clear that while we respect and honor a person for their viewpoint, that we may not agree with the viewpoint while still respecting the person.

11.  The Greek inscription from the temple of Apollo at Delphi, “Nothing in Excess” is a good credo to govern our lives.  Both as to our physical lives [avoid excess in food, sun, diet, medicines, alcohol, etc.] and our mental lives [avoid hatred, vitriol], that credo is a good motto for us all.  The more each of us avoids excess, the more we will reach a center where discussion and debate will flourish.

12.  The whole concept of the United States is built upon and dependent upon the free exchange of ideas - “The public interest is best served by the free exchange of ideas.”  Judge John Kane.  This is what underpins our idea of a representative democracy, of free speech, of free press, of open elections, etc.  In order to be involved in the free exchange of ideas we need to pull back from emotion and focus on views and ideas of our own and of others.  Those who cannot do that, for some reason, assault the basic beliefs behind and principles of the United States.

 

Great Alternatives in Gift Giving

I did some tangible gifts of course but was thinking of some others that might be meaningful, both for me and the recipient [though the recipient much more I hope].  

One that I recently read about is TisBest which allows people to provide a gift to someone which lets them pick out which charity to give to.  TisBest has all sorts of charities, for animals, arts & culture, children faithbased, women's issues = loads of national and local categories.  I really do not like to have someone choose the charity to give to in my name and this seems to fill the desire to give and let the person who gets the gift truly enjoy it.

[there are other such organizations;  one excellent one which also helps research charities is 

CharityNavigator

Another which I am really high on is Kiva.org - it lets you lend to people all over the world and in all sorts of categories in $25 increments.  I started just a few years ago at $25 a crack and am up to a total loan amount so far of $875.  Of that all has been repaid or is in repayment.  I have a 0.00% default or delinquency rate!  Of course, my first rule is to lend to women.  Then I read about the project and the partner in the loan process.  It's amazing how even a little loan means so much to people and how far the US dollar can go in other countries.

Comedy Central Scoops News Organizations

It's pretty sickening when the 4th Estate is so incapable of raising a ruckus over important legislation that a comedic show of faux-news has to deal with the issue.  Fortunately, there is The Daily Show which can provide more news and wisdom in its 30 minutes than the major channels do in a full day [I've stopped watching ABC, CBS and NBC entirely].

In this case it was the 9/11 Responders bill and in two segments Daily Show presented the facts and demonstrated the hypocrisy of Republicans [who kept using procedural tactics and filibusters to stop an up-or-down majority vote from happening].  Those links are set forth below and well worth watching:

December 13th Daily Show

And the particularly devastating interview Jon Steward did with 4 of those Responders, with cancer, heart and other types of health issues none of us would wish on our worst enemy:  December 15th Daily Show

 

Kudos to The Daily Show and Shame on the filibustering Republicans and the News Media which abets them.