(...Talkin' 'bout my generation)
Hi Everyone,
Yes, I'm going for a twofer tonight. I'm back to talk briefly about America's younger generation, my generation, now that I've got that Who song stuck in your head (ha ha ha). Anyway, I'd like to elaborate briefly on perceptions about my generation, and what I've come to realize. I wrote this past February about a new trend in activism among young, college-age people like me. And since then, I've come to realize a lot more about my peers.
I was in Borders yesterday, and I spotted this book with the title on the cover reading The Dumbest Generation. The subtitle said something about how our generation's tech-savviness would bring about the end of reading, but I forget the exact wording of it. It seems to me that to be disparaging about the younger generation is a sure-fire crowd-pleaser in certain circles. It seems safe to complain of the forgotten values of "our generation." It seems like one can use this line over and over and not encounter any resistance.
I bought into this idea myself. When I was younger, I thought that no one around me thought deeply about anything, that they were all preoccupied with themselves, that they couldn't appreciate anything non-tech, and a myriad of other concerns. I believed all this myself for a while. But reading those articles that I discussed with you really changed. In an ethics class I took this past spring, along with a poli sci class, I found people my age very engaged and in the know about the things I've talked about with you, the reeders.
Now, I still understand some skepticism of the younger generation. We are quite imperfect. I am quite imperfect. There are plenty of things we could be better about. But this sort of cynicism about us is just the new verse of an old song. That old song is wrong. Elders similarly complained of the Baby Boomers, even of the Greatest Generation. It is not surprising, then, that the Millenial Generation, as we've come to be known (people born in the 80's and early 90's, would be the subject of similar derision. I'd like to elaborate more on this, but it is now about 1 in the morning, so it will have to wait for another day.
One last thing I'd like to leave you with is this clip. In it, Fox News's Steve Doocy talks to young children, much younger than me, even, about governmental policy towards school. Whether or not you agree with what these kids have to say, you have to acknowledge that these kids are knowledgeable, and that they are engaged in the issues. Listen to the one girl. Listen to her answers, and then remember that she is 11 years old. If only I'd been that smart when I was 11...just think of where I'd be now. Oh well, I'm plenty bright as it is.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Peace Without Appeasement: How to Stand Up to Violent Regimes
Hi Everyone,
Since my mammoth post last March in which I laid out some ideas on how to create peace, the tpoic has been on my mind a lot. I have been thinking about it in conjunction with North Korea, the Middle East, particularly Iran. How to lay the groundwork for peace and stability in such a chaotic world? Well, I've been thinking, and yesterday, I came back to an old video clip I saw a while back.
The youtube clip comes from a May 2008 episode of Hardball with Chris Matthews. Then-President Bush had just implied, in an appearance in Israel, that then-Senator Obama's promise that he would meet with the enemies, principly Iran, without preconditions, was tantamount to the appeasement of Adolf Hitler in the run-up to World War II. Los Angeles talk radio host Kevin James went on Hardball to reinforce this point of view, and when Matthews started playing hardball, James struck out.
In the clip, James states that he wished the President (Bush) had been more direct in calling out the man who would become his successor. James began talking indirectly about how Obama's plans were dangerous for Israel and the US, and that he was an appeaser. Matthews then pressed James with a simple, but poignant question "What did Neville Chamberlain do wrong?" James continued with his line about appeasement and all the rest, but Matthews wouldn't let him get away. He kept asking, again and again "What did he do?"(If you watch the video, you'll see he asks at least 23 times) Finally, James just said "I don't know what [Bush] was referring to." This was probably one of Matthews' finest moments. I probably would have done the thing a little differently, but Matthews' point is right on the money.
What James and Matthews were referring to, what Chamberlain did wrong, was the Munich Agreement. When Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain traveled to Munich to meet with Hitler. He then signed an agreement allowing Hitler to annex part of Czechoslovakia, the Sudetenland, I think it was called, in September 1938. Chamberlain promised the agreement would bring "Peace in our time." Well, we all know how that worked out. Hitler violated the agreement, and when the Germans invaded Poland, everyone realized the only way to stop them was to fight.
The point here is that what Chamberlain did wrong was not talk to the enemy. What he did wrong was allow Hitler to grab up all the territory, on hopes that the problem would go away if they let Germany get what it asked for. This strategy of avoiding the issue does not work with any issue, whether personal or international. Regimes need to be confronted. This is the mistake that Chamberlain and others made, which eventually made the most violent war in history inevitable.
It is also important to realize that confrontation is not just about military might. This is the philosophy that fuels the tyrant. Confronting the issue also involves diplomacy. Diplomacy is different than just caving into demands. Tough diplomacy entails talking to hostile countries, offering deals, but also consequences. One strong point is knowing where the person is coming from. Matthews later elaborated to Rachel Maddow that perhaps if more of the leaders at the time had heard about Mein Kampf, they would have known who they were dealing with.
Matthews also talked about how these slogans, like "cut-and-run," "appeaser," are used irresponsibly to drown out criticism. The process and history of this warrants a post in its own right, but let's just look at this appeasement line. All negotiation with hostile powers is not appeasement; ceding territory for the sake of placating those powers are. They talk about "dealing from a position of strength." But it is possible to deal from a position of strength while acknowledging fault on both sides. Indeed, it seems to me that this is what is required to deal with the situation we now find ourselves in. Thankfully, this seems to be the strategy that President Obama is now implementing.
For all those people who think any talks or deals with hostile forces is appeasement, think of this. What about Richard Nixon? More importantly, what about Ronald Reagan? Did they not talk to the leaders of hostile nations? Nixon had his success with China, and more memorably, Reagan had his success with the Soviet Union. One of the things that people remember about President Reagan was that he was "a statesman." Doesn't being a staesman require talking to hostile leaders? Funnily enough, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, at the time, was extremely concerned about Reagan's engagement of Gorbachev and the USSR. He, too, likened it to Chamberlain's appeasement.
So why is this important. Two, well, several, reasons: Iran, North Korea, Israel, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan. All of these places are hostile territories, and they will all have to be dealt with with a strong diplomatic approach. Thankfully, it seems one of the President's strong points is comunication. Whether dealing with skeptical voters, critics, or audiences in the Middle East, he has shown talent for communicating seldom seen in anyone. Say what you will about his policies, who can doubt his intelligence when it comes to communication skills? So, going forward, we must not be afraid of dealing in messages of strength and perception. History has shown that strong diplomacy, not appeasement, works.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Since my mammoth post last March in which I laid out some ideas on how to create peace, the tpoic has been on my mind a lot. I have been thinking about it in conjunction with North Korea, the Middle East, particularly Iran. How to lay the groundwork for peace and stability in such a chaotic world? Well, I've been thinking, and yesterday, I came back to an old video clip I saw a while back.
The youtube clip comes from a May 2008 episode of Hardball with Chris Matthews. Then-President Bush had just implied, in an appearance in Israel, that then-Senator Obama's promise that he would meet with the enemies, principly Iran, without preconditions, was tantamount to the appeasement of Adolf Hitler in the run-up to World War II. Los Angeles talk radio host Kevin James went on Hardball to reinforce this point of view, and when Matthews started playing hardball, James struck out.
In the clip, James states that he wished the President (Bush) had been more direct in calling out the man who would become his successor. James began talking indirectly about how Obama's plans were dangerous for Israel and the US, and that he was an appeaser. Matthews then pressed James with a simple, but poignant question "What did Neville Chamberlain do wrong?" James continued with his line about appeasement and all the rest, but Matthews wouldn't let him get away. He kept asking, again and again "What did he do?"(If you watch the video, you'll see he asks at least 23 times) Finally, James just said "I don't know what [Bush] was referring to." This was probably one of Matthews' finest moments. I probably would have done the thing a little differently, but Matthews' point is right on the money.
What James and Matthews were referring to, what Chamberlain did wrong, was the Munich Agreement. When Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain traveled to Munich to meet with Hitler. He then signed an agreement allowing Hitler to annex part of Czechoslovakia, the Sudetenland, I think it was called, in September 1938. Chamberlain promised the agreement would bring "Peace in our time." Well, we all know how that worked out. Hitler violated the agreement, and when the Germans invaded Poland, everyone realized the only way to stop them was to fight.
The point here is that what Chamberlain did wrong was not talk to the enemy. What he did wrong was allow Hitler to grab up all the territory, on hopes that the problem would go away if they let Germany get what it asked for. This strategy of avoiding the issue does not work with any issue, whether personal or international. Regimes need to be confronted. This is the mistake that Chamberlain and others made, which eventually made the most violent war in history inevitable.
It is also important to realize that confrontation is not just about military might. This is the philosophy that fuels the tyrant. Confronting the issue also involves diplomacy. Diplomacy is different than just caving into demands. Tough diplomacy entails talking to hostile countries, offering deals, but also consequences. One strong point is knowing where the person is coming from. Matthews later elaborated to Rachel Maddow that perhaps if more of the leaders at the time had heard about Mein Kampf, they would have known who they were dealing with.
Matthews also talked about how these slogans, like "cut-and-run," "appeaser," are used irresponsibly to drown out criticism. The process and history of this warrants a post in its own right, but let's just look at this appeasement line. All negotiation with hostile powers is not appeasement; ceding territory for the sake of placating those powers are. They talk about "dealing from a position of strength." But it is possible to deal from a position of strength while acknowledging fault on both sides. Indeed, it seems to me that this is what is required to deal with the situation we now find ourselves in. Thankfully, this seems to be the strategy that President Obama is now implementing.
For all those people who think any talks or deals with hostile forces is appeasement, think of this. What about Richard Nixon? More importantly, what about Ronald Reagan? Did they not talk to the leaders of hostile nations? Nixon had his success with China, and more memorably, Reagan had his success with the Soviet Union. One of the things that people remember about President Reagan was that he was "a statesman." Doesn't being a staesman require talking to hostile leaders? Funnily enough, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, at the time, was extremely concerned about Reagan's engagement of Gorbachev and the USSR. He, too, likened it to Chamberlain's appeasement.
So why is this important. Two, well, several, reasons: Iran, North Korea, Israel, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan. All of these places are hostile territories, and they will all have to be dealt with with a strong diplomatic approach. Thankfully, it seems one of the President's strong points is comunication. Whether dealing with skeptical voters, critics, or audiences in the Middle East, he has shown talent for communicating seldom seen in anyone. Say what you will about his policies, who can doubt his intelligence when it comes to communication skills? So, going forward, we must not be afraid of dealing in messages of strength and perception. History has shown that strong diplomacy, not appeasement, works.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Today We're All Iranians
Hi Everyone,
You remember after 9/11, when a French newspaper ran a headline proclaiming "We are all Americans." Well, you've heard about the situation in Iran. People there are being put odwn by their own government for simply wanting a redo of the election. There is now a famous video available n youtube of a young girl getting shot by one of the Revolutionary Guard. All I know is that her name was Neda. Since justice, freedom, and peace are my passion, I urge you all to remember Neda. Since all of us cherish our freedom and crave a more just world, today we are all Iranians.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
You remember after 9/11, when a French newspaper ran a headline proclaiming "We are all Americans." Well, you've heard about the situation in Iran. People there are being put odwn by their own government for simply wanting a redo of the election. There is now a famous video available n youtube of a young girl getting shot by one of the Revolutionary Guard. All I know is that her name was Neda. Since justice, freedom, and peace are my passion, I urge you all to remember Neda. Since all of us cherish our freedom and crave a more just world, today we are all Iranians.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Some Thoughts on the Iranian Crisis
Hi Everyone,
Well, I'm sure you've all heard about what's going on in Iran. The election between the incumbent, the hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, and the moderate, somewhat pro-western Mir-Hossein Mousavi (His name's Hussein, too! Well, kinda). Ahmedinejad claimed a landslide victory, which seems very fishy. The people of Iran smelled fraud, and took to the streets in massive numbers. Iran's Revolutionary Guard, under Ahmedinejad's and the Iranian Ayatollah's direction, have attempted to put down the massive protests, and as a result, shots were fired, and eight people were killed. Today, the Guard has backed down, and even more people have come out in what Mousavi has decreed a "day of mourning" for those lost.
What has made this interesting is that technology has played a huge role in fueling the protester's efforts. Photos of the guards have been taken and sent to the outside world through Facebook, and updates sent out through Twitter. Finally, Twitter has come in handy. This is one of the good things technology can help you do. Another thing is the generational factor. Most of Iran's population is under 30. Middle-aged Iranians were largely lost in their war with Iraq in the 1980's.
Remember that election in Lebanon a week or two ago? The one where the radical, pro-Hezbollah faction was thrown out and the pro-Western party came in the day after the Cairo speech? Well, perhaps the leaders of Iran were worried about a similar thing happening in their country, so they pulled something fishy like this. I don't know that this is the case, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. Not that this Mousavi would be a huge change; technically, the Ayatollahs would still be calling the shots. But the hard-line element of Iranian leadership would be curtailed. This Mousavi told Ahmedinejad that his denial of the Holocaust was making Iran "a laughingstock."
Something interesting is definitely happening now. Remember the Revolution of 1979? That was the response to the brutal Shah that was installed by the West in 1953. This began the West's tense relationship with Iran. That was when the hard-line, anti-American Ayatollah was put in power. Now, it seems something similar is happening, only it's not working to the Ayatollah's benefit. Anyway, I found this one post here about the role of Iran's younger generation in this. It notes that the same kind of generational shift that fueled Barack Obama's rise in the United States may deliver change in Iran. And the people of Iran have shown their newfound commitment to a more democratic government (this is much more important to people who haven't had it).
If you ask me, which you are now, I'd say that whether the election results were legitimate or fraudulent, the leaders of Iran better pay attention to this trend, or suffer the consequences. Maybe we can say again the words I paraphrased last week,"Mr. Ahmedinejad, tear down these walls!" As this instability continues in Iran, my (and I hope yours, too) prayers are that the people of Iran may find a more peaceful, free and just country, the kind you and I take for granted. So be thankful, and keep your thoughts and prayers with Iran.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Well, I'm sure you've all heard about what's going on in Iran. The election between the incumbent, the hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, and the moderate, somewhat pro-western Mir-Hossein Mousavi (His name's Hussein, too! Well, kinda). Ahmedinejad claimed a landslide victory, which seems very fishy. The people of Iran smelled fraud, and took to the streets in massive numbers. Iran's Revolutionary Guard, under Ahmedinejad's and the Iranian Ayatollah's direction, have attempted to put down the massive protests, and as a result, shots were fired, and eight people were killed. Today, the Guard has backed down, and even more people have come out in what Mousavi has decreed a "day of mourning" for those lost.
What has made this interesting is that technology has played a huge role in fueling the protester's efforts. Photos of the guards have been taken and sent to the outside world through Facebook, and updates sent out through Twitter. Finally, Twitter has come in handy. This is one of the good things technology can help you do. Another thing is the generational factor. Most of Iran's population is under 30. Middle-aged Iranians were largely lost in their war with Iraq in the 1980's.
Remember that election in Lebanon a week or two ago? The one where the radical, pro-Hezbollah faction was thrown out and the pro-Western party came in the day after the Cairo speech? Well, perhaps the leaders of Iran were worried about a similar thing happening in their country, so they pulled something fishy like this. I don't know that this is the case, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. Not that this Mousavi would be a huge change; technically, the Ayatollahs would still be calling the shots. But the hard-line element of Iranian leadership would be curtailed. This Mousavi told Ahmedinejad that his denial of the Holocaust was making Iran "a laughingstock."
Something interesting is definitely happening now. Remember the Revolution of 1979? That was the response to the brutal Shah that was installed by the West in 1953. This began the West's tense relationship with Iran. That was when the hard-line, anti-American Ayatollah was put in power. Now, it seems something similar is happening, only it's not working to the Ayatollah's benefit. Anyway, I found this one post here about the role of Iran's younger generation in this. It notes that the same kind of generational shift that fueled Barack Obama's rise in the United States may deliver change in Iran. And the people of Iran have shown their newfound commitment to a more democratic government (this is much more important to people who haven't had it).
If you ask me, which you are now, I'd say that whether the election results were legitimate or fraudulent, the leaders of Iran better pay attention to this trend, or suffer the consequences. Maybe we can say again the words I paraphrased last week,"Mr. Ahmedinejad, tear down these walls!" As this instability continues in Iran, my (and I hope yours, too) prayers are that the people of Iran may find a more peaceful, free and just country, the kind you and I take for granted. So be thankful, and keep your thoughts and prayers with Iran.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Countering Extremism American Style
Hi Everyone,
Today's post will be about a topic I have touched on in a few other posts. I'm talking now of Domestic Terrorism. Remember how, in the late '60's and early '70's, radical left-wing groups became increasingly violent, and how they bombed buildings, universities and such? Well, today, the people doing most of the bombings, murders and so forth are radical right-wing groups. I didn't really want to get into a left-right sparring match on this blog. The blog is supposed to be issues-based rather than person- or group-based.
However, I feel this is worth noting, since there is a route one side of the debate has gone that the other side has not. This route entails commiting acts of violence in the service of an extremist ideology. Quite simply, this constitutes domestic terrorism. So before you react, favorably or not, listen to this full reeder's analysis of what's been going on.
Let me say this upfront. Just being on the right is not what makes these perpetrators, which I will identify shortly, terrorists. It is not even holding ideas that are truthfully, illogical and hateful, that makes them terrorists. No. It is the action on such ideas that makes them terrorists. In America, it is not (or at least should not be) illegal to have certain ideas, however wrong or hateful. The point is that when one acts on the ideas, they will be prosecuted accordingly, and people will reject those ideas. This is what is so ingenious about the American system, but I digress.
Anyway, what are these incidents I refer to? There was the murder if Dr. Tiller two weeks ago. There was a man in Pittsburgh back in March who shot three police officers because he thought the government was coming to get his guns. Another man in Florida shot police officers for the same reason. A man up in Maine was arrested with dirty bomb materials. He was planning to assassinate the President. Another man was seen at a bank in St. George, Utah, saying that he "better get his money back" or he would kill the President. Just this week, a man walked in to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, with a rifle. He killed a guard who ultimately stopped him from going into the museum and killing others. Our thoughts and prayers are obviously with the deceased guard, Stephen Tyrone Johns.
Remember that Homeland Security report back in April that pointed to a rising tide in right-wing extremist terrorism? The republican and conservative camps were outraged. They saw a personal, political vendetta in the report. It was quite ironic that people who were the biggest supporters of the previous Administration's PATRIOT Act, who told us that "you don't need to worry if you don't have anything to hide," who shouted down any protest as "treason," as "aiding and abetting the terrorists," now protesting the findings of that same agency they helped create as "a DHS hit job." Oh ,the irony is so heavy. Shep Smith of Fox News, who has the uncomfortable habit of sometimes telling the truth (a habit that can get you fired from Fox News), is concerned about the backlash against legitimate counterterror efforts.
The report was only talking about radical groups, the people that would kill other people, attack establishments. People that would "target their own country." Now, we must ask, why would the conservative establishment, the Michelle Malkins and the Rush Limbaughs and such, be protesting the government trying to protect the people from terrorists. Isn't this what the conservatives were so concerned with? I mean, it's not like the people on the right would ever aid and abet the enemy.
This resurgence of anti-government extremism and terrorism is not a new phenomenon. In the early 1990's, there were a series of attacks against government agents and establishments. The Ruby Ridge standoff in Idaho in 1992, where ATF agents faced off against members of the Aryan Nation. The Waco Siege against the Branch Davidian cult in 1993. This series ultimately culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing of April 19, 1995, in which 169 men, women and children were killed. This was the most deadly attack on the US after 9/11. So this isn't new, and it can have very serious consequences.
The reason I bring this up is not so much because of the actions themselves. There have been rogue, violent acts by all ideologies. What makes it especially worthy of concern is what is going on in the media. The level of rhetoric against the government, against President Obama, against that doctor, George Tiller, by the right wing media outlets, Fox News and talk radio, has reached a tone of sheer alarmism.
These spokespeople, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck most notably, say things that aren't true in order to gin up highly emotional reactions in their followers. Rather than look at the issue, the candidate, and state whom or what they support and back it up with facts, they shout things that aren't true, guaranteed to gin up reactions of hatred against their targets. While they seldom say directly (although G. Gordon Liddy said of ATF agents "Kill the sons of bitches!") go out, attack or kill this person or these people, they seldom back off of their incendiary rhetoric. In fact, Rush Limbaugh claimed that the Holocaust Museum gunman was somehow "a leftist." This is the same man who believed that Obama is not an American citizen, and that he was created by "jew owners." So they refuse to back off of this rhetoric. If anything, they have been upping this level of reactionary talk ever since Barack Obama just announced. After he was elected, they have risen, or should I say sunk, to a new level.
This recent trend hasn't just included irresponsible talk radio shock jockies, or even irresponsible TV shills posing as journalists. Mainstream politicians have gotten in on this bad game. A collection of politicians on the right have been spreading falsehoods about Barack Obama, in particular, in order to foster fear and hatred among their constituents. They talk in extrememly polarizing terms to gin up emotional fire in their followers against their opponents. Rather than go through their ideas logically and come up with other ideas, they go straight to bullying people into submitting or making them into enemies not just of them, but of this country. They seek to deprive those who don't agree with them of that which they have always been granted.
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska are the most devout practitioners of this kind of politics. Remember Palin's "pro-America" remarks? Bachmann took it one step further. She said she would be interested to see an "expose" of who in the Congress was "pro-America or anti-America," and she implied that Barack Obama might be one of those Senators. Several people at the Governor's rallies last year shouted things like "terrorist," "traitor," "kill him." She said nothing, did nothing, apparently having few qualms about having ginned up violent rage against then-Senator Obama. The irony is that for all their lip service of this country's ideals, these two practice the very kind of divisive power brokering that represents the greatest threat to American ideals.
I recognize that free speech needs to be safeguarded in these cases. As I said at the top of the post, the true genious of the system is that when hateful ideas are brought to the surface, they are, in the end, rejected. My free speech rights were safe, well, relatively safe, when I criticized the previous Administration, so if someone has legitimate criticism of this Administration, it needs to be allowed. But when you have people on the radio, on the TV, and in public offices, saying these things about the legally elected President of the United States, and other law-abiding citizens of the United States, and these things happen, there needs to be responsibility.
Last year, a man walked into a Unitarian Church in Tennessee and shot several people because he wanted to "kill liberals." Several books by Sean Hannity and Bernard Goldberg were found in his possession later. He said he had wanted to kill the 100 people whom Goldberg said were screwing up America. Imagine the outrage all over the conservative media if it had been a democrat who had said he wanted to kill conservatives.
I realize, of course, that these radio, TV hosts and politicians, cannot be held responsible for every loon supporter out there who wished, or committed violence against an opponent. But when there is such a demonstrable pattern of reactionary attack, threats of violence, and acts of violence, and nothing is said or done to distance mainstream conservatives from this kind of lynch-mob mindset, but instead the opponents are blamed, something needs to be done. Somebody in the mainstream conservative establishment needs to stand up and say "No more of this. We're not going to take part in the politics of hate and violence." Someone there needs to step up and take charge of this before it gets out of hand, before someone else gets hurt or killed.
One last thing I would like to leave you with. The reason that Barack Obama is so successful is not because his predecessor was so unpopular. It was not because people were, for some reason, finally "ready" for a black President. It was because of his approach and communication. The crux of his message was that, for all of our differences, we were living in the "United States of America." For all of the demographic, cultural, political differences that the media played up, we were all in this together. This is everyone's country, this is everyone's future at stake. Obama had these ideas he communicated with the country, and the classy, intelligent way in which he communicated these ideas to the country were what made his campaign so successful, and what is serving him so well in the presidency.
If someone has a vision, regardless of ideology, the best thing is to think through it, how would it apply to you, how would it apply to others, and then communicate it to others. Engage other ideas, go through them logically, then determine why, on that basis, your ideas are the best. President Obama has proven again and again that he is in a class by itself when it comes to this. If conservatives have legitimate positions, perhaps they can take a page from Obama's book. But the way those on the right are going now, kicking out the Colin Powells, even the McCains, as Limbaugh wants to do, is truly a dark road that leads nowhere. But what everybody needs is for someone in that camp to step up and take responsibility, and stem this troubling tide. The nation awaits.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Today's post will be about a topic I have touched on in a few other posts. I'm talking now of Domestic Terrorism. Remember how, in the late '60's and early '70's, radical left-wing groups became increasingly violent, and how they bombed buildings, universities and such? Well, today, the people doing most of the bombings, murders and so forth are radical right-wing groups. I didn't really want to get into a left-right sparring match on this blog. The blog is supposed to be issues-based rather than person- or group-based.
However, I feel this is worth noting, since there is a route one side of the debate has gone that the other side has not. This route entails commiting acts of violence in the service of an extremist ideology. Quite simply, this constitutes domestic terrorism. So before you react, favorably or not, listen to this full reeder's analysis of what's been going on.
Let me say this upfront. Just being on the right is not what makes these perpetrators, which I will identify shortly, terrorists. It is not even holding ideas that are truthfully, illogical and hateful, that makes them terrorists. No. It is the action on such ideas that makes them terrorists. In America, it is not (or at least should not be) illegal to have certain ideas, however wrong or hateful. The point is that when one acts on the ideas, they will be prosecuted accordingly, and people will reject those ideas. This is what is so ingenious about the American system, but I digress.
Anyway, what are these incidents I refer to? There was the murder if Dr. Tiller two weeks ago. There was a man in Pittsburgh back in March who shot three police officers because he thought the government was coming to get his guns. Another man in Florida shot police officers for the same reason. A man up in Maine was arrested with dirty bomb materials. He was planning to assassinate the President. Another man was seen at a bank in St. George, Utah, saying that he "better get his money back" or he would kill the President. Just this week, a man walked in to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, with a rifle. He killed a guard who ultimately stopped him from going into the museum and killing others. Our thoughts and prayers are obviously with the deceased guard, Stephen Tyrone Johns.
Remember that Homeland Security report back in April that pointed to a rising tide in right-wing extremist terrorism? The republican and conservative camps were outraged. They saw a personal, political vendetta in the report. It was quite ironic that people who were the biggest supporters of the previous Administration's PATRIOT Act, who told us that "you don't need to worry if you don't have anything to hide," who shouted down any protest as "treason," as "aiding and abetting the terrorists," now protesting the findings of that same agency they helped create as "a DHS hit job." Oh ,the irony is so heavy. Shep Smith of Fox News, who has the uncomfortable habit of sometimes telling the truth (a habit that can get you fired from Fox News), is concerned about the backlash against legitimate counterterror efforts.
The report was only talking about radical groups, the people that would kill other people, attack establishments. People that would "target their own country." Now, we must ask, why would the conservative establishment, the Michelle Malkins and the Rush Limbaughs and such, be protesting the government trying to protect the people from terrorists. Isn't this what the conservatives were so concerned with? I mean, it's not like the people on the right would ever aid and abet the enemy.
This resurgence of anti-government extremism and terrorism is not a new phenomenon. In the early 1990's, there were a series of attacks against government agents and establishments. The Ruby Ridge standoff in Idaho in 1992, where ATF agents faced off against members of the Aryan Nation. The Waco Siege against the Branch Davidian cult in 1993. This series ultimately culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing of April 19, 1995, in which 169 men, women and children were killed. This was the most deadly attack on the US after 9/11. So this isn't new, and it can have very serious consequences.
The reason I bring this up is not so much because of the actions themselves. There have been rogue, violent acts by all ideologies. What makes it especially worthy of concern is what is going on in the media. The level of rhetoric against the government, against President Obama, against that doctor, George Tiller, by the right wing media outlets, Fox News and talk radio, has reached a tone of sheer alarmism.
These spokespeople, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck most notably, say things that aren't true in order to gin up highly emotional reactions in their followers. Rather than look at the issue, the candidate, and state whom or what they support and back it up with facts, they shout things that aren't true, guaranteed to gin up reactions of hatred against their targets. While they seldom say directly (although G. Gordon Liddy said of ATF agents "Kill the sons of bitches!") go out, attack or kill this person or these people, they seldom back off of their incendiary rhetoric. In fact, Rush Limbaugh claimed that the Holocaust Museum gunman was somehow "a leftist." This is the same man who believed that Obama is not an American citizen, and that he was created by "jew owners." So they refuse to back off of this rhetoric. If anything, they have been upping this level of reactionary talk ever since Barack Obama just announced. After he was elected, they have risen, or should I say sunk, to a new level.
This recent trend hasn't just included irresponsible talk radio shock jockies, or even irresponsible TV shills posing as journalists. Mainstream politicians have gotten in on this bad game. A collection of politicians on the right have been spreading falsehoods about Barack Obama, in particular, in order to foster fear and hatred among their constituents. They talk in extrememly polarizing terms to gin up emotional fire in their followers against their opponents. Rather than go through their ideas logically and come up with other ideas, they go straight to bullying people into submitting or making them into enemies not just of them, but of this country. They seek to deprive those who don't agree with them of that which they have always been granted.
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska are the most devout practitioners of this kind of politics. Remember Palin's "pro-America" remarks? Bachmann took it one step further. She said she would be interested to see an "expose" of who in the Congress was "pro-America or anti-America," and she implied that Barack Obama might be one of those Senators. Several people at the Governor's rallies last year shouted things like "terrorist," "traitor," "kill him." She said nothing, did nothing, apparently having few qualms about having ginned up violent rage against then-Senator Obama. The irony is that for all their lip service of this country's ideals, these two practice the very kind of divisive power brokering that represents the greatest threat to American ideals.
I recognize that free speech needs to be safeguarded in these cases. As I said at the top of the post, the true genious of the system is that when hateful ideas are brought to the surface, they are, in the end, rejected. My free speech rights were safe, well, relatively safe, when I criticized the previous Administration, so if someone has legitimate criticism of this Administration, it needs to be allowed. But when you have people on the radio, on the TV, and in public offices, saying these things about the legally elected President of the United States, and other law-abiding citizens of the United States, and these things happen, there needs to be responsibility.
Last year, a man walked into a Unitarian Church in Tennessee and shot several people because he wanted to "kill liberals." Several books by Sean Hannity and Bernard Goldberg were found in his possession later. He said he had wanted to kill the 100 people whom Goldberg said were screwing up America. Imagine the outrage all over the conservative media if it had been a democrat who had said he wanted to kill conservatives.
I realize, of course, that these radio, TV hosts and politicians, cannot be held responsible for every loon supporter out there who wished, or committed violence against an opponent. But when there is such a demonstrable pattern of reactionary attack, threats of violence, and acts of violence, and nothing is said or done to distance mainstream conservatives from this kind of lynch-mob mindset, but instead the opponents are blamed, something needs to be done. Somebody in the mainstream conservative establishment needs to stand up and say "No more of this. We're not going to take part in the politics of hate and violence." Someone there needs to step up and take charge of this before it gets out of hand, before someone else gets hurt or killed.
One last thing I would like to leave you with. The reason that Barack Obama is so successful is not because his predecessor was so unpopular. It was not because people were, for some reason, finally "ready" for a black President. It was because of his approach and communication. The crux of his message was that, for all of our differences, we were living in the "United States of America." For all of the demographic, cultural, political differences that the media played up, we were all in this together. This is everyone's country, this is everyone's future at stake. Obama had these ideas he communicated with the country, and the classy, intelligent way in which he communicated these ideas to the country were what made his campaign so successful, and what is serving him so well in the presidency.
If someone has a vision, regardless of ideology, the best thing is to think through it, how would it apply to you, how would it apply to others, and then communicate it to others. Engage other ideas, go through them logically, then determine why, on that basis, your ideas are the best. President Obama has proven again and again that he is in a class by itself when it comes to this. If conservatives have legitimate positions, perhaps they can take a page from Obama's book. But the way those on the right are going now, kicking out the Colin Powells, even the McCains, as Limbaugh wants to do, is truly a dark road that leads nowhere. But what everybody needs is for someone in that camp to step up and take responsibility, and stem this troubling tide. The nation awaits.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
An Update on President Obama's Mideast Visit
Hi everyone,
Thanks for sticking with me after that last post. It's always hairy dealing with subjects like that. You never know who will agree with you and who will react violently. These issues often lend themselves to fiery arguments that make great fodder for the news, rather than the kind of thoughtful talk that these issues deserve. But thanks for sticking with me. Anyway, today's matter will be a little more promising.
To start off, though, there some alarming news. In North Korea, two journalists from San Francisco, I think, were captured. They were charged with illegal entry into the country, and with an "unspecified grave crime" (don't know what that means, although in North Korea, just calling Kim Jong-il a "loser" would constitute a grave crime).
The Obama administration has said it will do whatever it has to not only to get the two journalists free, but also to keep North Korea from exporting missiles and other nuclear weaponry to other places. The North Korean government has said that any attempt to board their cargo ships and search would be considered "an act of war." Luckily, when it comes to the hostages, that American journalist that was captured in Iran has now been released and is back in the US. But this missile situation is eerily similar to the Missile Crisis of 1962. So stick with me here.
Anyway, on to some more heartening news. I presume you have all seen at least part of President Obama's speech on Middle East peace in Cairo. If you have not seen the speech, you can watch the whole thing here. So I will give an overview of the visit, and the speech.
This may not have been his best speech, but this is Barack Obama. It's nearly impossible to pick the best of his speeches. But I thought this was among the best. I thought he touched on all the notes that need to be touched on when it comes to the Mideast peace process. Addressing the Invasion of Iraq, laying out the new strategy for success in Afghanistan, addressing the plight of the Palestinian people, countering stereotypes of Arabs, Jews and Americans. Also, and these are the issues that need to be addressed in the Middle East, curbing extremism, advocating democracy, and promoting women's rights. These are all things which, in my outsider's view, are a crucial part to establishing peace.
The President started out by noting the significant, but largely unnoticed, contribution to America's history. He noted that tere are about 7,000,000 Muslims living in the United States. According to the speech, there is at least one mosque in every state in the Union(even Wyoming and Alaska?). He also noted that, following a Treaty from Morocco recognizing the US as a country, Thomas Jefferson kept a Qu'ran in his library. It was with this same Qur'an that the first Muslim to become a Congressman, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, was sworn in to his office. When I first watched it, I wasn't quite sure of it. Next day, when I was at Borders, I picked up a history book, and, sure enough, Jefferson had obtained a copy of the Qur'an, and kept it in his library.
Iwas very pleased to see that the President had gone into depth as much as he did on this. If you've been a reeder here with me, you'll know that I believe that this issue is one of great complexity. I noted in my post about the 2008-2009 Conflict in Gaza that I believe that both sides will have to make some concessions if we are to come together. This was the tone that I got from the speech in Cairo. The speech took place, first off, in a University in Cairo. This is indicative of Obama's emphasis on the younger generation as the best hope for peace.
This speech was similar in tone to the famous "A More Perfect Union" speech during last year's primary. When Jeremiah Wright's infamous "God Damn America" remarks inflamed tempers on both sides, then-Senator Obama gave an extensive speech addressing the sensitive issue of race, at the same time condemning Wright's remarks while not disowning Wright himself. Looking back, it was probably just the right tone to strike. I think we can all figure out if the speech worked for him.
So can this same tone, one that acknowledges rights and faults on both sides, and seeks unity over division, work when applied to an international context. Well, it's been a few days since the speech, so let's look at the reaction. The visit and the speech was received pretty well in the Muslim World. In Lebanon, there was an election the day after the speech. The polls indicated for weeks before that the hard-line, pro-Hezbollah faction would win. The day after, the more moderate, pro-US party won in an unexpected upset.
Joe Scarborough, a fomer Republican congressman from Florida and the host of MSNBC's Morning Joe, said, "Barack Obama could be the biggest challenge to Osama Bin Laden since he was being chased out of Torah Borah. This is a real threat to the continued expansion of Al-Qaeda." Scarborough is a key conservative voice at the moment.
Tellingly, at the same time that President Obama was speaking in Cairo, Osama Bin Laden and his lieutenant, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, each released audiotapes attacking the President and urging Muslims everywhere to battle the infidels and their allies. This is because Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other such groups offer no future to the people of the affected areas. They have only an extremist ideology and they use the despair of the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and beyond to build their membership, and forward this hateful ideology that leads nowhere.
If the United States offered to help build a stable future, which is what President Obama, and a key general (I forget what his name was) say needs to be done to succeed in Afghanistan, Al-Qeada would lose all their recruiting tools, they would lose their base, their mission would collapse. Hearteningly, in the Pakistani tribal areas, villagers have started to kick out Taliban warlords. Interestingly enough, most people in the Muslim world were listening, except for in Iran. It seems that the Iranian government jammed the communication lines so that people of Iran could not hear the speech, or the part that was addressed directly to Iran.
The next day, President Obama stopped in Germany. in the speech, Obama had repudiated those who denied the Holocaust, plainly stating it was wrong to do so (interestingly enough, some criticized him for denying the Holocaust). So, this day, last Friday, President Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and Elie Wiesel, a survivor of the Holocaust and the Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1986, visited Buchenwald Concentration Camp (the video is available in three parts 1,2,3). The appearance was extremely moving. I was unable to watch it, or even read the remarks, without getting tears in my eyes. Listen to the remarks, or read them, and tell me if you were as moved by them as I was.
In conclusion, I would like to again offer my hope that the process of peace can begin now. I believe that people here in America, overin Germany, and in the Middle East, are increasingly tired of the other option and are ready. It feels profane to offer a quote from the orchestrator of that most evil thing in our history, Hermann Goering, whose ideas and methods are wholeheartedly detestable. But he did say something that is worth noting here.
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country and it is a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
This perpetrator of the greatest evil in human history understood that people are not born or given to violence and evil. It must be driven into them. Driven by cold, dark minds. Minds that are angry, alienated, and ultimately afraid. As Goering said, it is only when people believe that the other group is attacking that the leaders can move in, dehumanize the other group, and work their violence on the other. This has been seen everywhere from Germany to Kosovo to Rwanda to Sudan.
It is this that the President was trying to avoid with this visit to Cairo. It was appropriate that he, along with a man who survived that infinite nightmare and went on to become among the best advocates for peace, and with the current leader of Germany, now a peaceful and prosperous ally of the US, returned to pay tribute to this. Too few world leaders, in my mind, have taken this lesson to heart. One leader in particular, President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran, denies that the event even happened. Mr. Ahmedinejad continues to promote such an inhuman attitude that builds walls between peoples and can ultimately leads to this pain. As we commemorate six words that shook the world 22 years ago this week, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," we all must again quote President Ronald Reagan and say, "Mr. Ahmedinejad, tear down these walls."
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Thanks for sticking with me after that last post. It's always hairy dealing with subjects like that. You never know who will agree with you and who will react violently. These issues often lend themselves to fiery arguments that make great fodder for the news, rather than the kind of thoughtful talk that these issues deserve. But thanks for sticking with me. Anyway, today's matter will be a little more promising.
To start off, though, there some alarming news. In North Korea, two journalists from San Francisco, I think, were captured. They were charged with illegal entry into the country, and with an "unspecified grave crime" (don't know what that means, although in North Korea, just calling Kim Jong-il a "loser" would constitute a grave crime).
The Obama administration has said it will do whatever it has to not only to get the two journalists free, but also to keep North Korea from exporting missiles and other nuclear weaponry to other places. The North Korean government has said that any attempt to board their cargo ships and search would be considered "an act of war." Luckily, when it comes to the hostages, that American journalist that was captured in Iran has now been released and is back in the US. But this missile situation is eerily similar to the Missile Crisis of 1962. So stick with me here.
Anyway, on to some more heartening news. I presume you have all seen at least part of President Obama's speech on Middle East peace in Cairo. If you have not seen the speech, you can watch the whole thing here. So I will give an overview of the visit, and the speech.
This may not have been his best speech, but this is Barack Obama. It's nearly impossible to pick the best of his speeches. But I thought this was among the best. I thought he touched on all the notes that need to be touched on when it comes to the Mideast peace process. Addressing the Invasion of Iraq, laying out the new strategy for success in Afghanistan, addressing the plight of the Palestinian people, countering stereotypes of Arabs, Jews and Americans. Also, and these are the issues that need to be addressed in the Middle East, curbing extremism, advocating democracy, and promoting women's rights. These are all things which, in my outsider's view, are a crucial part to establishing peace.
The President started out by noting the significant, but largely unnoticed, contribution to America's history. He noted that tere are about 7,000,000 Muslims living in the United States. According to the speech, there is at least one mosque in every state in the Union(even Wyoming and Alaska?). He also noted that, following a Treaty from Morocco recognizing the US as a country, Thomas Jefferson kept a Qu'ran in his library. It was with this same Qur'an that the first Muslim to become a Congressman, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, was sworn in to his office. When I first watched it, I wasn't quite sure of it. Next day, when I was at Borders, I picked up a history book, and, sure enough, Jefferson had obtained a copy of the Qur'an, and kept it in his library.
Iwas very pleased to see that the President had gone into depth as much as he did on this. If you've been a reeder here with me, you'll know that I believe that this issue is one of great complexity. I noted in my post about the 2008-2009 Conflict in Gaza that I believe that both sides will have to make some concessions if we are to come together. This was the tone that I got from the speech in Cairo. The speech took place, first off, in a University in Cairo. This is indicative of Obama's emphasis on the younger generation as the best hope for peace.
This speech was similar in tone to the famous "A More Perfect Union" speech during last year's primary. When Jeremiah Wright's infamous "God Damn America" remarks inflamed tempers on both sides, then-Senator Obama gave an extensive speech addressing the sensitive issue of race, at the same time condemning Wright's remarks while not disowning Wright himself. Looking back, it was probably just the right tone to strike. I think we can all figure out if the speech worked for him.
So can this same tone, one that acknowledges rights and faults on both sides, and seeks unity over division, work when applied to an international context. Well, it's been a few days since the speech, so let's look at the reaction. The visit and the speech was received pretty well in the Muslim World. In Lebanon, there was an election the day after the speech. The polls indicated for weeks before that the hard-line, pro-Hezbollah faction would win. The day after, the more moderate, pro-US party won in an unexpected upset.
Joe Scarborough, a fomer Republican congressman from Florida and the host of MSNBC's Morning Joe, said, "Barack Obama could be the biggest challenge to Osama Bin Laden since he was being chased out of Torah Borah. This is a real threat to the continued expansion of Al-Qaeda." Scarborough is a key conservative voice at the moment.
Tellingly, at the same time that President Obama was speaking in Cairo, Osama Bin Laden and his lieutenant, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, each released audiotapes attacking the President and urging Muslims everywhere to battle the infidels and their allies. This is because Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other such groups offer no future to the people of the affected areas. They have only an extremist ideology and they use the despair of the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and beyond to build their membership, and forward this hateful ideology that leads nowhere.
If the United States offered to help build a stable future, which is what President Obama, and a key general (I forget what his name was) say needs to be done to succeed in Afghanistan, Al-Qeada would lose all their recruiting tools, they would lose their base, their mission would collapse. Hearteningly, in the Pakistani tribal areas, villagers have started to kick out Taliban warlords. Interestingly enough, most people in the Muslim world were listening, except for in Iran. It seems that the Iranian government jammed the communication lines so that people of Iran could not hear the speech, or the part that was addressed directly to Iran.
The next day, President Obama stopped in Germany. in the speech, Obama had repudiated those who denied the Holocaust, plainly stating it was wrong to do so (interestingly enough, some criticized him for denying the Holocaust). So, this day, last Friday, President Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and Elie Wiesel, a survivor of the Holocaust and the Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1986, visited Buchenwald Concentration Camp (the video is available in three parts 1,2,3). The appearance was extremely moving. I was unable to watch it, or even read the remarks, without getting tears in my eyes. Listen to the remarks, or read them, and tell me if you were as moved by them as I was.
In conclusion, I would like to again offer my hope that the process of peace can begin now. I believe that people here in America, overin Germany, and in the Middle East, are increasingly tired of the other option and are ready. It feels profane to offer a quote from the orchestrator of that most evil thing in our history, Hermann Goering, whose ideas and methods are wholeheartedly detestable. But he did say something that is worth noting here.
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country and it is a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
This perpetrator of the greatest evil in human history understood that people are not born or given to violence and evil. It must be driven into them. Driven by cold, dark minds. Minds that are angry, alienated, and ultimately afraid. As Goering said, it is only when people believe that the other group is attacking that the leaders can move in, dehumanize the other group, and work their violence on the other. This has been seen everywhere from Germany to Kosovo to Rwanda to Sudan.
It is this that the President was trying to avoid with this visit to Cairo. It was appropriate that he, along with a man who survived that infinite nightmare and went on to become among the best advocates for peace, and with the current leader of Germany, now a peaceful and prosperous ally of the US, returned to pay tribute to this. Too few world leaders, in my mind, have taken this lesson to heart. One leader in particular, President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran, denies that the event even happened. Mr. Ahmedinejad continues to promote such an inhuman attitude that builds walls between peoples and can ultimately leads to this pain. As we commemorate six words that shook the world 22 years ago this week, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," we all must again quote President Ronald Reagan and say, "Mr. Ahmedinejad, tear down these walls."
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
What To Do About George Tiller
Hi Everyone,
On thursday, I celebrated my birthday. Yes, I am now 19 years young. Now that I am using that phrase, I guess I am getting up there. I got a new camera and I have enjoyed using it. I enjoyed taking a day to relax with my family. So if any of you have any idea of what I should do in this next year, send me a comment below. So, this was the easy part.
Now, on to the much heavier business we have ahead of us. We have a topic which inflames tempers on both sides. This is a subject that has come up in the wake of the murder of a doctor in a church in Kansas last weekend. The doctor, as you likely know, performed abortions. I know that this can inflame many of your tempers, as well. I even debated whether or not to do this post, for fear of inciting tempers. But as I said earlier, this blog is not about ducking controversial issues. So I am going to take this gamble and examine this fiery issue, even if I am playing with live ammunition.
First of all, let me start by saying I am torn on the issue. Unlike gay marriage, which I discussed before, believe this is a genuinely ethical issue. Whatever you may think, I do not like the thought of abortion. I want children to be born. I like life. Don't let anyone tell you differently. I believe that women do need to take the baby's life into account when thinking of such a decision. I am deeply torn by my consideration for the baby's right to be given a chance at life, and what is often the reality of the situation.
The reality is that women rarely, if ever, take such a decision lightly. Many anti-abortion people chant, again and again, "babykiller," "babykiller," "babykiller." They compare people who get an abortion to nazis, terrorists, pedophiles, and murderers. But look at the attributes of an actual killer or despot. The key attribute that enables them to inflict pain, suffering, and death, is the inability to feel the other's humanity. To the killer, the victim has no worth as a person. They are just a fragment in the killer's mind, so they can be destroyed without any thought or feeling. Think about how illogical this statement is. "I hate my baby, it's worthless, I have to kill it!" How many women do you think have that in their minds when they get an abortion? Seriously?
Some reasons that women do have to resort to this are health reasons, for their health and the child's health. As Randi Rhodes put it, women do not get abortions because they are procratinators, because they had meant to get one before going to a concert, but they forgot. It is wrong, in my mind, to belittle the concerns for the health of pregnant women. Would it really be good for the child if the mother died giving birth? If the mother is ready to have the child live without its mother, then she can have the baby. But it would be wrong to force a mother to deny the care that would keep her alive.
Then there is the concern for the child's health, too. The child could be born with a mental or physical deformity. It could be born without key organs or limbs. Still, many women do choose to have the baby anyway. My bottom line here is that if a woman wants to have a baby with the condition that it is in, more power to her. But, I also believe that if someone is going to have a child, they must be ready to raise the child. But again, this must be a decision for her to make.
The next key issue in this is the disturbing attitude of pro-life activists. Since the murder, many of the main prolife people have refused to back down or admit any wrongdoing at all. Fox News, in particular, one of its top commentators, Bill O'Reilly, have referred to Dr. Tiller as "Tiller the Baby Killer," several times. O'Reilly has said on several different occasions that Tiller was "executing babies" and said that "there's gotta be a special place in hell for this guy." What sort of reactoin do you expect this will elicit? Not the type of deep ethical considerations the issue warrants.
When confronted with the fact that things he said may have lead to this murder, O'Reilly chose to attack the critics. He complained, as he often does, of a "far left" effort to "hate Fox News." He also said, "if these people [his critics] were so compassionate, so concerned for the rights and welfare of others maybe they might have written something, on things, about the 60,000 fetuses who will never become American citizens." O'Reilly neglected to mention that the vast majority of those "60,000 fetuses," if that's even close to the actual number, would have lived with huge physical difficulties. And you can bet that O'Reilly would raise objections to providing health care for these children. Some compassion Mr. O'Reilly has for others' welfare. Sometimes O'Reilly can border on comical (as in the Inside Edition meltdown) but there's nothing funny about this.
Another organization worth paying attention to is Operation Rescue, the antiabortion activist group. The names and numbers of this group's leaders were found in possession of Scott Roeder, the man who murdered Dr. Tiller. The words and actions of its founder and leader, Randall Terry, raise particular concern.
Now let me digress for a moment here. I was originally going to do this post a lot earlier. I got the idea for talking about abortion back in January. This was because I had heard an NPR interview with two prolife activists, one of which was Mr. Terry. One of the activists made some productive points. I forget who he was, but he did acknowledge some genuine intent on the part of the prochoice people to lower the number of abortions, and he seemed willing to work with them to do so. Mr. Terry ignored all these points, trodding out an extreme "abortion is bad, any woman who gets an abortion is Hitler" argument. He acknowledged none of the complexity and none of the considerations that this issue entails.
A woman from Ohio called in to the show. She said she was 31, and that she had had to get an abortion for some medical reason that I forgot what it was. She also said that her position was prolife, and that she too wanted to see the number of abortions go down, as do I, as does almost anyone I can think of. Tellingly, Mr. Terry acknowledged none of the points the woman raised. He brought up the same line of argument again. Such brazen and dogmatic an argument struck me at the time as being sort of arrogant. I thought of responding in a post, but you know how these things go, other stuff came up, and I had to move on, and it kept slipping my mind.
Back to the present, this George Tiller was murdered, and the subject of abortion came up for discussion again. And Mr. Terry came up again. This time, in response to the murder, he said, "We [prolife activists] must not give an inch." He raised fears that the Obama Administration would "take away [the prolife movement's] most powerful weapon." He said again and again that "Tiller had blood on his hands." He urged his followers to "say again and again" that "Tiller was a mass murderer."
When Air America's Randi Rhodes confronted him and asked him what he would do to quell the violence and hate speech, he replied "hate can be a very good thing." Terry said he regretted that "[Tiller] didn't have a chance to make things right with his maker, to be tried and properly executed." What? Executed? So this guy is pro-life, but he thinks executions are okay, and he thinks hate can be a good thing? Tell me, is this really pro-life?
I am not alarmed so much by the words of O'Reilly, Terry, and others, as I am by the actions that they refuse any responsibility for. These actions are the murder of Dr. Tiller, and, more importantly, terrorism. Not, let's be clear, Terry is not a terrorist, nor is Operation Rescue a terrorist organization. Roeder, the assassin, is. He does fit the description of terrorist. He killed a man, he has been spotted vandalizing property, and he has assaulted people. And to top it all off, he was arrested for possessing explosives in 1996. So, he uses violence and threats of violence to impose his ideas on others. There's only one thing to call this: domestic terrorism.
This is hardly the first episode of such violence. Remember, back in the early '90's, there were multiple instances of this: bombings of abortion clinics, harassment of doctors, medical workers, violence against them, stalking, threatening, on and on. Is this how people seek to safeguard the sanctity of human life? By ruining or destroying the lives of other humans? Then there is the fact that many who consider themselves staunchly pro-life, when you ask them about the death penalty, world hunger, poverty, and war, they are often deafeningly apathetic. This inconsistency is what sticks out in my mind.
Also, many of the pro-life activists are opposed to measures that would give better health care for young children, including those with mental and physical disabilities, whom they insist must be born. They continually cut funding for such measures, and continue to rail against the "socialist" health care methods that would give care to the very children they fight so hard to keep from being aborted. The message here seems to be "We'll fight to the death for you in the womb. But once you're born, good luck, you're on your own. Oh, and if you grow up to be a criminal, an Afghan, an Iraqi, a Palestinian, an Arab, or an abortion clinic worker, we may just have to take your life away. Because that's how pro-life we are." Is this the pro-life legacy that conservatives are so proud of?
I'm not trying to deny the validity of pro-life sentiments. I believe that life should be safeguarded and abortion should be avoided wherever possible. However, I think life needs to be safeguarded and taken into consideration at all of its stages, not just during conception. Once a child is born, it must be given the care its life warrants. This care must be adequately funded. If the child acts up and becomes a criminal, any possible attempt should be made to cure it of its criminal tendencies, or at least to keep it so that it does not have to be executed. If the child lives in a poor nation, some organization needs to be out there working so that it may survive and have its life improved. All this would be my pro-life activism.
In closing, all I want to say to those who disagree with me is this: it is your right to see things differently than I. You may have some valid reasons for thinking the way you do, and I have mine. But, with every point of view you decide to advocate ask yourself, honestly, does this perspective provide the most benefit for the most living beings as effectively as possible? Ask yourself, is this perspective truly pro-life? Well, thanks, everyone, for listening. Thank you for baring with me on such a divisive topic. I will have some more lighthearted material for you up soon.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
On thursday, I celebrated my birthday. Yes, I am now 19 years young. Now that I am using that phrase, I guess I am getting up there. I got a new camera and I have enjoyed using it. I enjoyed taking a day to relax with my family. So if any of you have any idea of what I should do in this next year, send me a comment below. So, this was the easy part.
Now, on to the much heavier business we have ahead of us. We have a topic which inflames tempers on both sides. This is a subject that has come up in the wake of the murder of a doctor in a church in Kansas last weekend. The doctor, as you likely know, performed abortions. I know that this can inflame many of your tempers, as well. I even debated whether or not to do this post, for fear of inciting tempers. But as I said earlier, this blog is not about ducking controversial issues. So I am going to take this gamble and examine this fiery issue, even if I am playing with live ammunition.
First of all, let me start by saying I am torn on the issue. Unlike gay marriage, which I discussed before, believe this is a genuinely ethical issue. Whatever you may think, I do not like the thought of abortion. I want children to be born. I like life. Don't let anyone tell you differently. I believe that women do need to take the baby's life into account when thinking of such a decision. I am deeply torn by my consideration for the baby's right to be given a chance at life, and what is often the reality of the situation.
The reality is that women rarely, if ever, take such a decision lightly. Many anti-abortion people chant, again and again, "babykiller," "babykiller," "babykiller." They compare people who get an abortion to nazis, terrorists, pedophiles, and murderers. But look at the attributes of an actual killer or despot. The key attribute that enables them to inflict pain, suffering, and death, is the inability to feel the other's humanity. To the killer, the victim has no worth as a person. They are just a fragment in the killer's mind, so they can be destroyed without any thought or feeling. Think about how illogical this statement is. "I hate my baby, it's worthless, I have to kill it!" How many women do you think have that in their minds when they get an abortion? Seriously?
Some reasons that women do have to resort to this are health reasons, for their health and the child's health. As Randi Rhodes put it, women do not get abortions because they are procratinators, because they had meant to get one before going to a concert, but they forgot. It is wrong, in my mind, to belittle the concerns for the health of pregnant women. Would it really be good for the child if the mother died giving birth? If the mother is ready to have the child live without its mother, then she can have the baby. But it would be wrong to force a mother to deny the care that would keep her alive.
Then there is the concern for the child's health, too. The child could be born with a mental or physical deformity. It could be born without key organs or limbs. Still, many women do choose to have the baby anyway. My bottom line here is that if a woman wants to have a baby with the condition that it is in, more power to her. But, I also believe that if someone is going to have a child, they must be ready to raise the child. But again, this must be a decision for her to make.
The next key issue in this is the disturbing attitude of pro-life activists. Since the murder, many of the main prolife people have refused to back down or admit any wrongdoing at all. Fox News, in particular, one of its top commentators, Bill O'Reilly, have referred to Dr. Tiller as "Tiller the Baby Killer," several times. O'Reilly has said on several different occasions that Tiller was "executing babies" and said that "there's gotta be a special place in hell for this guy." What sort of reactoin do you expect this will elicit? Not the type of deep ethical considerations the issue warrants.
When confronted with the fact that things he said may have lead to this murder, O'Reilly chose to attack the critics. He complained, as he often does, of a "far left" effort to "hate Fox News." He also said, "if these people [his critics] were so compassionate, so concerned for the rights and welfare of others maybe they might have written something, on things, about the 60,000 fetuses who will never become American citizens." O'Reilly neglected to mention that the vast majority of those "60,000 fetuses," if that's even close to the actual number, would have lived with huge physical difficulties. And you can bet that O'Reilly would raise objections to providing health care for these children. Some compassion Mr. O'Reilly has for others' welfare. Sometimes O'Reilly can border on comical (as in the Inside Edition meltdown) but there's nothing funny about this.
Another organization worth paying attention to is Operation Rescue, the antiabortion activist group. The names and numbers of this group's leaders were found in possession of Scott Roeder, the man who murdered Dr. Tiller. The words and actions of its founder and leader, Randall Terry, raise particular concern.
Now let me digress for a moment here. I was originally going to do this post a lot earlier. I got the idea for talking about abortion back in January. This was because I had heard an NPR interview with two prolife activists, one of which was Mr. Terry. One of the activists made some productive points. I forget who he was, but he did acknowledge some genuine intent on the part of the prochoice people to lower the number of abortions, and he seemed willing to work with them to do so. Mr. Terry ignored all these points, trodding out an extreme "abortion is bad, any woman who gets an abortion is Hitler" argument. He acknowledged none of the complexity and none of the considerations that this issue entails.
A woman from Ohio called in to the show. She said she was 31, and that she had had to get an abortion for some medical reason that I forgot what it was. She also said that her position was prolife, and that she too wanted to see the number of abortions go down, as do I, as does almost anyone I can think of. Tellingly, Mr. Terry acknowledged none of the points the woman raised. He brought up the same line of argument again. Such brazen and dogmatic an argument struck me at the time as being sort of arrogant. I thought of responding in a post, but you know how these things go, other stuff came up, and I had to move on, and it kept slipping my mind.
Back to the present, this George Tiller was murdered, and the subject of abortion came up for discussion again. And Mr. Terry came up again. This time, in response to the murder, he said, "We [prolife activists] must not give an inch." He raised fears that the Obama Administration would "take away [the prolife movement's] most powerful weapon." He said again and again that "Tiller had blood on his hands." He urged his followers to "say again and again" that "Tiller was a mass murderer."
When Air America's Randi Rhodes confronted him and asked him what he would do to quell the violence and hate speech, he replied "hate can be a very good thing." Terry said he regretted that "[Tiller] didn't have a chance to make things right with his maker, to be tried and properly executed." What? Executed? So this guy is pro-life, but he thinks executions are okay, and he thinks hate can be a good thing? Tell me, is this really pro-life?
I am not alarmed so much by the words of O'Reilly, Terry, and others, as I am by the actions that they refuse any responsibility for. These actions are the murder of Dr. Tiller, and, more importantly, terrorism. Not, let's be clear, Terry is not a terrorist, nor is Operation Rescue a terrorist organization. Roeder, the assassin, is. He does fit the description of terrorist. He killed a man, he has been spotted vandalizing property, and he has assaulted people. And to top it all off, he was arrested for possessing explosives in 1996. So, he uses violence and threats of violence to impose his ideas on others. There's only one thing to call this: domestic terrorism.
This is hardly the first episode of such violence. Remember, back in the early '90's, there were multiple instances of this: bombings of abortion clinics, harassment of doctors, medical workers, violence against them, stalking, threatening, on and on. Is this how people seek to safeguard the sanctity of human life? By ruining or destroying the lives of other humans? Then there is the fact that many who consider themselves staunchly pro-life, when you ask them about the death penalty, world hunger, poverty, and war, they are often deafeningly apathetic. This inconsistency is what sticks out in my mind.
Also, many of the pro-life activists are opposed to measures that would give better health care for young children, including those with mental and physical disabilities, whom they insist must be born. They continually cut funding for such measures, and continue to rail against the "socialist" health care methods that would give care to the very children they fight so hard to keep from being aborted. The message here seems to be "We'll fight to the death for you in the womb. But once you're born, good luck, you're on your own. Oh, and if you grow up to be a criminal, an Afghan, an Iraqi, a Palestinian, an Arab, or an abortion clinic worker, we may just have to take your life away. Because that's how pro-life we are." Is this the pro-life legacy that conservatives are so proud of?
I'm not trying to deny the validity of pro-life sentiments. I believe that life should be safeguarded and abortion should be avoided wherever possible. However, I think life needs to be safeguarded and taken into consideration at all of its stages, not just during conception. Once a child is born, it must be given the care its life warrants. This care must be adequately funded. If the child acts up and becomes a criminal, any possible attempt should be made to cure it of its criminal tendencies, or at least to keep it so that it does not have to be executed. If the child lives in a poor nation, some organization needs to be out there working so that it may survive and have its life improved. All this would be my pro-life activism.
In closing, all I want to say to those who disagree with me is this: it is your right to see things differently than I. You may have some valid reasons for thinking the way you do, and I have mine. But, with every point of view you decide to advocate ask yourself, honestly, does this perspective provide the most benefit for the most living beings as effectively as possible? Ask yourself, is this perspective truly pro-life? Well, thanks, everyone, for listening. Thank you for baring with me on such a divisive topic. I will have some more lighthearted material for you up soon.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
How About Some Empathy?
Hi everyone,
Well, I'm sure many of you have been following the coverage of Sonia Sotomayor in the last week. Some choose to complain because President Obama has picked a minority woman to be on the Supreme Court. They complain that this means that white men are now somehow the oppressed minority. How this works, I'm not sure, since most of the justices are still white males.
There is also her qualifications. She would bring the most qualifications to the bench of anyone in a very long time. She practiced for years in New York, she graduated with honors from Princeton and Yale Universities. She has ruled on both sides of the issue when it comes to businesses vs. employees, and in discrimination suits as well. So this charge of her being a racist makes no sense.
But here is the central point of this post. One criticism raised against her is that she would bring empathy into her decisions. Many conservative critics are up in arms about empathy. They just can't stand the thought of empathy working alongside the rule of law. If that happened, it owuld be a lot harder to justify focusing wealth in the hands of those at the top while everybody else suffers. This method seems to be a pattern with the right in its current form: take something admirable, like empathy (or community organizing or helping the environment), and mock it, barf all over it, in effect.
On the topic of empathy in law and government, I will offer this quote. You may recognize it, but it has been shifted to fit our current context:
"The point is that empathy, for lack of a better word, is good. Empathy is right, empathy works. Empathy clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Empathy, in all its forms; empathy for life, for other people, animals, points of view has marked the upward surge of mankind. And you mark my words, empathy will not only guide Judge Sotomayor, but that other burgeoning servant of justice called the USA. Thank you."
Recognize it? That was taken from Michael Douglas's (as Gordon Gekko's) famous "greed is good" speech from the movie Wall Street. I took out the word "greed" and put "empathy" in its place. This was my chance to take a hateful message, and by changing the idea, make it good. It is a chance I do not often get, but I just love when it comes along, don't you? Well, I'll have more material for you soon.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Well, I'm sure many of you have been following the coverage of Sonia Sotomayor in the last week. Some choose to complain because President Obama has picked a minority woman to be on the Supreme Court. They complain that this means that white men are now somehow the oppressed minority. How this works, I'm not sure, since most of the justices are still white males.
There is also her qualifications. She would bring the most qualifications to the bench of anyone in a very long time. She practiced for years in New York, she graduated with honors from Princeton and Yale Universities. She has ruled on both sides of the issue when it comes to businesses vs. employees, and in discrimination suits as well. So this charge of her being a racist makes no sense.
But here is the central point of this post. One criticism raised against her is that she would bring empathy into her decisions. Many conservative critics are up in arms about empathy. They just can't stand the thought of empathy working alongside the rule of law. If that happened, it owuld be a lot harder to justify focusing wealth in the hands of those at the top while everybody else suffers. This method seems to be a pattern with the right in its current form: take something admirable, like empathy (or community organizing or helping the environment), and mock it, barf all over it, in effect.
On the topic of empathy in law and government, I will offer this quote. You may recognize it, but it has been shifted to fit our current context:
"The point is that empathy, for lack of a better word, is good. Empathy is right, empathy works. Empathy clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Empathy, in all its forms; empathy for life, for other people, animals, points of view has marked the upward surge of mankind. And you mark my words, empathy will not only guide Judge Sotomayor, but that other burgeoning servant of justice called the USA. Thank you."
Recognize it? That was taken from Michael Douglas's (as Gordon Gekko's) famous "greed is good" speech from the movie Wall Street. I took out the word "greed" and put "empathy" in its place. This was my chance to take a hateful message, and by changing the idea, make it good. It is a chance I do not often get, but I just love when it comes along, don't you? Well, I'll have more material for you soon.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)