by far the best produced, articulated and most comprehensive I've seen.
If you have an hour, find it. But missing was the acceptance of war
and militarism that is fully adopted as a national right, now led by the
Obama administration. It has not only eviscerated any mass peace
movement, but provided a bedrock for the inhuman behavior now
escalating throughout our society. From legitimating torture and
assassination, to leading the world in imprisonment and to Sarah
Palin's target map, is no great stretch. Serious discussion of this
ultimate darkness at the end of our tunnel is nowhere on the public
agenda - even on MSNBC's most progresive shows. A sea change,
from bottom up, is critical. But in the face of everything going on, how
or even whether that can happen is problematic.
Ed
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
Climate of Hate
Paul Krugman
NY Times Op-Ed: January 10, 2011
When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely
surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this
atrocity to happen?
Put me in the latter category. I've had a sick feeling in the pit of my
stomach ever since final stages of the 2008 campaign. I remembered the
upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton's election in 1992 - an
upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see,
just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to
happen again. The Department of Homeland Security reached the same
conclusion: in April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing
extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence.
Conservatives denounced that report. But there has, in fact, been a rising
tide of threats and vandalism aimed at elected officials, including both
Judge John Roll, who was killed Saturday, and Representative Gabrielle
Giffords. One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level.
And now someone has.
It's true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally
troubled. But that doesn't mean that his act can or should be treated as an
isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.
Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of
Congress, which were already up by 300 percent. A number of the people
making those threats had a history of mental illness - but something about
the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than
before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in,
political violence.
And there's not much question what has changed. As Clarence Dupnik, the
sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it's
"the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the
radio business and some people in the TV business." The vast majority of
those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but
some, inevitably, cross that line.
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 for violence,
explicit or implicit. 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.
Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O'Reilly are responding to popular
demand. Citizens of other democracies may marvel at the American psyche, at
the way efforts by mildly liberal presidents to expand health coverage are
met with cries of tyranny and talk of armed resistance. Still, that's what
happens whenever a Democrat occupies the White House, and there's a market
for anyone willing to stoke that anger.
But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesn't excuse those who
pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people.
Unfortunately, that hasn't been happening: the purveyors of hate have been
treated with respect, even deference, by the G.O.P. establishment. As David
Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has put it, "Republicans originally
thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox."
So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It's really up
to G.O.P. leaders. Will they accept the reality of what's happening to
America, and take a stand against eliminationist rhetoric? Or will they try
to dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual, and go on
as before?
If Arizona promotes some real soul-searching, it could prove a turning
point. If it doesn't, Saturday's atrocity will be just the beginning.
***
From: earthactionnetwork@earthlink.net
www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-manning
LA Times Editorial: January 10, 2011
Soldier's inhumane imprisonment
For five months, Pfc. Bradley Manning is confined to his cell for 23 hours a
day, with no sheets and without exercise, while he awaits trial on charges
of providing documents to WikiLeaks.
Pfc. Bradley Manning, the 23-year-old Army intelligence analyst suspected of
providing documents to WikiLeaks, can't reasonably complain that the
military has him in custody. But the conditions under which he is being held
at the Marine detention center at Quantico, Va., are so harsh as to suggest
he is being punished for conduct of which he hasn't been convicted.
Manning has been charged with unlawfully downloading classified information
and transmitting it "with reason to believe that the information could cause
injury to the United States." He has been incarcerated at Quantico for five
months and has yet to receive the military equivalent of a preliminary
hearing.
Nevertheless, Manning is in "maximum custody." Also, under a "Protection of
Injury" order, he is confined to his cell for 23 hours a day, even though
his lawyer says a psychologist has determined he isn't a threat to himself.
His lawyer also says that Manning is denied sheets and is unable to exercise
in his cell, and that he is not allowed to sleep between 5 a.m. and 8 p.m.
If he attempts to sleep during those hours, he is made to sit up or stand by
his guards.
Some speculate that by treating Manning harshly, officials hope to induce
him to implicate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (though Assange would be
subject to civilian, not military, justice). But a desire to secure his
cooperation isn't a justification for protracted imprisonment under the
conditions imposed on Manning.
The Pentagon said that a board will be convened to assess whether Manning
suffers from a mental disease that made him unable to appreciate the
wrongfulness of his actions and whether he is competent to stand trial. That
process brings Manning closer to a trial, but it doesn't guarantee that the
conditions of his confinement will improve.
Manning's status is periodically reviewed. Ideally, the next review will
confirm what seems obvious: that he doesn't pose a threat to himself or
others and that his presence at future legal proceedings can be secured with
a much more humane confinement. If the review doesn't lead to a change in
Manning's treatment, the Pentagon should conduct its own inquiry.
Some see Manning as a whistle-blower who deserves leniency for exposing
official duplicity; others believe that, like anyone who engages in civil
disobedience, Manning, if guilty, should accept punishment for his actions.
But regardless of one's view of his alleged conduct, the conditions under
which he is being held are indefensible.
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list,
If you want to be on our list, email earthactionnetwork@earthlink.net
For more info on Earth Action Network: www.earthactionnetwork.org
"We are dealing with a far more ominous threat than sickness and death. We
are dealing with the dark side of humanity -- selfishness, avarice,
aggression. All this has already polluted our skies, emptied our oceans,
destroyed our forests and extinguished thousands of beautiful animals. Are
our children next? . It is no longer enough to vaccinate them or give them
food and water and only cure the symptoms of man's tendency to destroy
everything we hold dear. Whether it be famine in Ethiopia, excruciating
poverty in Guatemala and Honduras, civil strife in El Salvador or ethnic
massacre in the Sudan, I saw but one glaring truth; these are not natural
disaster but man-made tragedies for which there is only one man-made
solution - Peace."
~Audrey Hepburn, April 1989, in a speech given while serving as goodwill
ambassador for Unicef
No comments:
Post a Comment