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.
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Friday, June 12, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)