It was never my intention to become so lax, so absent, but this year has again been very busy.  My main work has been very busy plus in my own small business I have seen major changes to all my current clients sites, a new client addition – one which needs a complete site build from the ground up and will be the most major client on my books.

I have also done some print designs and designs for a couple of singles that are now on iTunes, Amazon etc.

That doesn’t mean I don’t follow the subjects that interest me, but despite having so much I have wanted to say, sadly have not had the time to say it.

So as we near the end of another year – I’m not ditching the blog – just yet – if time gives it I may be back.

Take care all and thank you again to those that have taken an interest even when the site has been so dormant

The poll which also looks at other Presidents effect on the population during their tenure says that:

President Barack Obama’s job approval ratings were even more polarized during his second year in office than during his first, when he registered the most polarized ratings for a first-year president.

They go on to state that his “81% of Democrats and 13% of Republicans” approval, a 68 point difference makes him “easily” the most polarized second year President.

But the question that has arisen across the blogosphere is, Is Obama really polarizing in what he does or are people polarized against him?  After all when you have spent every day since you came into office fighting off Marxt, Commie, Kenyan, Muslim etc charges and rumors, it’s no wonder that one side, the side that thinks this is of you, is less likely to support your plans.

Politics Daily’s “Poll Watch” contends that:

Even some of Sarah Palin‘s supporters might concede she is a polarizing figure. But she gets some stiff competition on that score from President Obama.

But is this a fair comparison?  After all to do some, one may be guilty of missing the dynamics at work in this instance. Just because the public may be seen to be polarized around the figure does not mean that the figure is polarized.

Take for example Sarah Palin.  She has spent the time from her VP nomination and onwards, creating a spector of “Real Americans” which suggests that she thinks there are many that are not.  For example take  a fundraiser speech she made in Greensboro in October 2008, she said:

“We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. … We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.”

Now doesn’t that suggest that she believes some American’s are not “real” or what she perceives as real?  Compare this with Obama who campaigned on uniting the country not through red states and blue states but the UNITED States of America. He came to power attempting to rebuild the bridge of bipartisanship.

So why is Obama polarizing?  Well according to Gallup, it is a trend that has set forth since GWB‘s tenure, and they suggest that in the past 8 years, spanning 6 years of Bush and Obama’s first 2, “have ranked in the 10 most polarized years in presidential approval ratings since 1953″.

From Gallup's recent poll

Many would suggest it is his policies that have created his divison of the populace against him and it is only when he has made efforts to work with Republicans he has seen his approval shoot up.  However Obama has shown – take the Health Care bill for example – that he is willing to work with the Right – the only problem is when he does, he ends up biting him badly.  See my article from last year about McCain asking for concessions to see my further thoughts on that.

Obama is not polarizing in his actions – at least not 100% – of course there will always be those who will draw at party lines and deem anything else as divisionary.  However as I mentioned earlier, when Obama has been accused by his opponents of being a Communist, a Marxist, a Muslim usurper with a Kenyan birth certificate, therefore not eligible for office, when he has been accused of “palling around with terrorists” and called “unconstitutional” at every turn he makes, it becomes clear that the polarization is less to do with Obama and more to do with what people perceive him to be.  His opponents, as they have never been able to do before despite great attempts, smeared him in such a way that worryingly many now believe these accusations, therefore ensuring that support will always be out of reach.

Ryan Jaroncyk from the CA Independant Voter Network suggests that America itself has to bear some the blame for this polariztion therefore;

Perhaps the American people should bear part of the blame, then. Obama’s approval rating, like that of Bush, may be more reflective of a populace that has succumbed to mindless partisanship, rather than independent-minded critical thinking.  “Cheering for one’s team” has replaced fair-minded evaluation and results-oriented policy assessment.

And he is right – just look at message boards and blogs – I guess I am part of the problem too – politics has become so much about ticking boxes that it has almost come down to passing a litmus test and to be a part of the party, you must display the right result or you are accused of being a RINO or DINO.  There are no elastic parameters any more – it’s an either or.

Robert Gibbs suggested that it is Washington itself that is possibly to blame;

“I think we live in a divided country…Washington has been a polarizing place for quite some time.”

It is certainly true that America’s people feel teh government is very out of step with the people and the state the country was left in following Bush has not helped in healing divisions.

However is it just Obama?  I do not think so.  And I think you only have to look at the events of the past two years to see this, the rise of the Tea Party and the increasing division between America’s various representatives.  When America’s media are now seen as one side of the aisle of the other – and one side with a notable viewer command is the basis for most of the polarizing commentary, I ask again, Is Obama really polarizing in what he does or are people polarized against him?

BTW compare this once again with Palin, who is believed to be the most polarizing political figure in America.  According to an AP-GFK Poll, Palin is “the most polarizing of the potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates, while impressions of Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney lean more positive” (MSNBC)

As Outside the Beltway suggests:

This is consistent with polls that we’ve seen for months that show that the public’s opinion of Sarah Palin is largely set in stone. People either like her or dislike her, and in both cases the feeling is typically strong and seemingly immobile.

Again this is typically down partisan lines – Republicans love her but Democrats and Independents do not by and large.

Related Articles

• Most Polarizing President Since Eisenhower (politicalwire.com)
• “Purple Action Item: Obama named most polarizing president…how to make that word stick to him.” and related posts (hillbuzz.org)
• Obama says polarized nation needs healing (charlotte.news14.com)
• Four ways to kick the polarized partisan habit (csmonitor.com)
• Polls show Obama on uptick (politico.com)
• Palin: America out of step with Reagan’s values – Boston Globe (news.google.com)
• Sarah Palin warns America is on the ‘road to ruin’ (ctv.ca)
• Sarah Palin Remains The Most Polarizing Political Figure In America (outsidethebeltway.com)

There is a particular mantra we have heard from the Right over the past couple of years – get out of my business! They, with the Tea Party have rallied against the Obama administration, citing numerable instances of what they see as government over reach – the Health Care bill springs to mind, which of course has seen hilarious instances of Tea Party protestors with signs declaring “hands off my medicare” – even though medicare is government-run anyway.

Now with the GOP in control of the House, we have seen over the past few weeks, the wheels of progression assaulted as they attempt to roll back anything and everything the Obama administration has put forward, regardless of whether they agree with it in principle.

This despite the overwhelming numbers of unemployed and the fact that they were elected by the people to do something about job creation – guess it’s not really a priority!

So what is?

Well if you are part of the blogosphere, twitter etc, you have probably seen a story about the GOP’s latest intrusion into your life.  Shocked? Not really, because despite what they say and have been saying for the past two years, they are more than happy to interfere in your life if it suits their agenda.

Republican Chris Smith, has put together a bill which MoveOn.org calls “a far-reaching anti-choice bill” which looks to redefine rape.

Yes really, the GOP want to redefine the terms of rape as if it isn’t hard enough already for rape victims to gain justice for the vile misdeeds they have had to endure.

The bill, H.R.3, or the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act seeks to redefine the definition of rape to only include “forcible rape.” To verify, the part of the bill which is causing the most consternation is:

‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion–

‘(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or

‘(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

This led Washingon Post‘s Jonathan Capehart to label it as the “scary part” of the bill.  He goes on:

‘Forcible rape‘? The very concept is offensive on its face. How is that even defined? There is no definition in the bill. Maybe I’m a do-gooder liberal who fell for the whole “no means no” mantra of my childhood. Or that rape isn’t sex, its violence.

So in instances of “statutory or coerced rape”, then it’s not rape anymore, at least according to Chris Smith.  For example, as Mother Jones highlights:

If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.

Jason Linkins from the Huffington Post went further:

What’s off the table? Well, if you are a woman coerced, drugged or otherwise incapacitated by a rapist, too bad! Also, if you are a young child, statutory rape is off the table, too, unless incest is involved. (The incest exception lapses for adults, crazily.)

Yes, so if you are the victim of incest after the age of 18, then sorry you must have the baby, which makes me wonder, what the GOP would say to the daughter of Josef Fritzl who was locked in a basement, raped repeatedly and made to carry and bring up their offspring?

Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women’s Law Center, wrote a piece on their website and said:

“H.R. 3 would allow federal funding for abortion only in circumstances where the woman could prove that she was the victim of “forcible” rape, taking us back to a time when just saying no wasn’t enough.”

The GOP know that it is going to be hard to go after abortion as such so instead they are attempting a back alley attempt to redefine the terms in which abortion may be funded by the state and then in their overreach, impose a tax penalty on anyone else. As Steph Sterling continues in her article: “The bill would also impose tax penalties on individuals and small businesses with insurance plans that include abortion.  That’s right.  Tax penalties.  As in, people with insurance plans that cover abortion would have to pay higher taxes than people whose health plans don’t.”

However the major problem despite the attempt to use taxes – wait I thought the Right were against taxing people and using taxes to overreach into people’s lives – is the attempt to redefine rape and the way they are doing it without carefully constructing what the Bill means by “forcible rape”.  As law.cornell.edu points out, the law does not define forcible rape and neither do the creators of the bill, which I might add, is supported by 173 legislators – for the most part Republicans, but there are a handful of Democrats who are supporting this bill too. Which means this leaves the legislation open to interpretation, which as we all know could and most likely will, see injustices being committed in law.

Donna Crane, the policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America said that the Bill is “unbelievably cruel and heartless.”

So how prevalent is this? Because it would seem the GOP want to redefine rape to stop on overuse of the excuse of rape to get an abortion (GOP logic not mine).  Well Time Magazines, Swampland Blog sheds some light here:

How does a woman go about getting Medicaid funding for an abortion if she’s been raped? …Is it just a matter of walking into an abortion clinic, declaring you’ve been raped, and getting a check from Medicaid four weeks later to cover the cost of the abortion?

Not exactly. Eligibility rules under the Hyde exceptions differ by state, but many states are like Tennessee, which requires a doctor to certify that “there is credible evidence to believe that the pregnancy is the result of rape” and to attach “documentation from a law enforcement agency indicating the patient has made a credible report as the victim of incest or rape” before Medicaid will consider issuing payment for an abortion procedure.

So that scourge of false rape reports–or even, let’s say, “non-forcible” rapes? It doesn’t exist. I couldn’t find numbers more recent than 2001, but these shocked me. In that year, the total number of abortions covered by Medicaid was 56. That’s all abortions for cases in which the mother’s life was in danger, the pregnancy was a result of incest, or in the case of rape.

The GOP, has  long been against abortion, even in some cases, if the pregnancy is a result of rape – see Sharron Angle’s “lemonade” equivalence; “I think that two wrongs don’t make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade.”

So to me it is no surprise that they find a way to start to limit abortion by going after a very vulnerable group of people who need help, not a bunch of people up high, who are supposed to make Bills which protect out rights, instead working hand over fist to do their utmost to screw people over even more so.  Jessica Wakeman from thefrisky.com in her op-ed writes that “this bill is just about politicians posturing as being anti-abortion.” I’m inclined to agree with her.  The bill as she notes has “no hope of succeeding” but still 173 members of the legislative branch are pushing it through?  Why? Appealing to their base?  I would suspect so. After all the GOP are seen as the crusaders against abortion.

Laurie Levenson, former US attorney and now an expert on criminal law at Loyola Law School in LA says that “This is a bill that could have a dramatic effect on women, and language is important. It sure sounds like somebody didn’t want [the exception to cover] all the different types of rape that are recognized under the law.” And with the way the term “forcible rape” is being used in this bill as an accepted term, but a term which as I pointed out has no legal definition, and possibly many interpretations on how it fits, it seems to be a Bill that not only has far-reaching consequences in terms of overreach on taxes, but has far-reaching consequences for people who look to their government to protect them.

Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FLA) blasted the bill as “a violent act against women” and called the attempts to redefine rape as “absolutely outrageous.”

Speaking to Raw Story she says:

“It really is — to suggest that there is some kind of rape that would be okay to force a woman to carry the resulting pregnancy to term, and abandon the principle that has been long-held, an exception that has been settled for 30 years, is to me a violent act against women in and of itself…Rape is when a woman is forced to have sex against her will, and that is whether she is conscious, unconscious, mentally stable, not mentally stable”.

Her stance, and may I say she is the first high-profile representative to speak out against it, mirrors a campaign Moveon.org have mounted in which they state:

As far too many women know, bruises and broken bones do not define rape – a lack of consent does.

This bill has the potential to be very dangerous for women who have fought long and hard for rights for choice and to not be treated as second-rate because of the actions of another individual. And from a party that have spent the past two years rallying loudly against what they see as overreach from Obama, well to me this smacks of out-and-out hypocrisy – but then when I mentioned this Bill to a friend, they said “Republicans right”.

By the way, Moveon.org have set up a petition to fight against this bill.  You can find out more and sign it by clicking their logo below:

UPDATE: There has been a development in this story:

From Talking Points:

Report: Republicans Give Up On Redefining Rape

Related Articles

• Why Are Politicians Attempting To Redefine Rape? (thefrisky.com)
• The Truth About “Redefining” Rape [Roe V World] (jezebel.com)
• “Federal Bill HR 3: Rape Only if “Forcible,” Statutory Rape Okay” and related posts (aboveavgjane.blogspot.com)
• ‘Rape’ definition in GOP bill riles abortion-rights advocates (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Redefinition of rape in abortion act is offensive (sfgate.com)
• A new assault on women’s rights (timesunion.com)

Despite backing up, we needed access to the back end of the site to retrieve two inporant files to get the back-up to work – and the host would not give.  So I had to get the site rebuilt and back up – luckily I could do it alot quicker than I had when the site was originally built.  Two weeks from start to finish – all up, live and done.

And then I needed a little break to spend some time with my husband who had been sadly neglected during the period of downtime.  So I took some well needed r and r with him.

But I’m back – you have been warned!

This is of course very different from the UK standard – not that we do not have opinions – look at our publications and you will see the left, right and center are all represented in our media.  However one thing separates us from being in line with American media – our journalistic ethics and standards which means that holding an opinion does not mean one can get away with slander, libel etc and media has to be beholden to accuracy and standards in factual reporting.

My first trip to America, my husband and I took a tour of NBC studios in New York.  The tour guides were very pleasant and as they told us, did tours to supplement their studies to become journalists and they both hoped to be working at the NBC empire once they had finished their studies.  One of the things that the tour guide said that amazed both myself and my husband, (he is still an active journalist at the BBC and I have moved from journalism as a full time venture) was that their lead anchor edited his own news.  He was the person who wrote the news and edited it for accuracy. No one checked his work so what he wrote, what he said, went out without a second look – no one verified his work.

Now we all know, as writers, that it’s often good to get someone to go over your work – especially if you are trying to present an argument which supports all facts. As a journalist my husband has to make sure all work is submitted to an editor before his work is made live to make sure all sides are represented in the story, to make sure any legal arguments have been dealt with and that ethics are adhered to.  All BBC journalists go on courses throughout their career to make sure they are up-to-date with libel laws etc.

That doesn’t mean their work is always without fault – it happens sometimes but at the same time if a fault is found further training is given.  Because for journalists in the UK the code they must adhere means readers are more likely to be guaranteed of reading or seeing a news piece that is fairly covered.  And if it is not and if someone feels a story has been written that portrays them unfairly – then they can take it to the Press Complaints Commission.  Although this is a self-regulated body which some still believe should not be – and I agree – those being investigated should not be investigated by their own in my view – the PCC has upheld many complaints and dealt with the publications that have violated these standards.

This is not as some would suggest a violation of freedom of speech – after all the publications are still in place. What this standard does is ensure that the reader or viewer etc, is represented with all sides, fairly and accurately at all times.

And this takes me over the US.

In the US, no law exists to protect the integrity of the story anymore.  Once there did – this is the Fairness Doctrine.

Established in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine was to ensure that broadcast companies, of which there were only three at the time (NBC, ABC, CBS), operated in the fairness of the audience – meaning that the media at all times adequately informed citizens of important news of public issues and that all news must be fair in reflecting opposing views.

However the Doctrine was set on a case by case basis meaning it was not mandated.  An attempt to do so during the Reagan years saw it vetoed by the President in 1987.

The life of the Fairness Doctrine had not been easy with several court actions which questioned it’s constitutionality, especially with what many saw as it being a violation of the First Amendment right.

For example, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC,  (1969).  This established that broadcast stations could not be regulated without good reason. It argued that the FCC’s doctrine which established that all media must represent both sides – ie: give fair coverage, violated their rights – infringing “the speech of the station’s editorial judgment”.  Specifically to a clause within the Fairness Doctrine by the FCC which added “equal time rule” and a “response to personal attack” rule.

The FCC won their case here with the Justice, Byron White declaring:

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others…. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount (Epic.org)

This was because at the time there were still only a limited number of stations.  Justice White did warn that if the doctrine ever restrained freedom of speech then it’s constitutionality would be called into question.

Which is fair – as with the UK equivalent, the right to speak should not be stopped as long as the right to rebuttal is always given and the utmost is done to retain the facts.

But in 1984, with the Reagan Administration, FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a Reagan appointee, worked to revoke the Doctrine not for what he saw as partisan reasons but because he believed it violated the 1st Amendment.

As he told Mark Levin in 2009, he explained his staff’s position at the time to Reagan by explaining that the Doctrine was the one thing that kept the main stations from ripping completely into the President:

The only thing that really protects you from the savageness of the three networks — every day they would savage Ronald Reagan — is the Fairness Doctrine, and Fowler is proposing to repeal it!

But Reagan did repeal it.

And in 2000, the Doctrine’s last hold on the media – the personal attack rule – was removed.  This now meant media had an open forum to attack anyone they saw fit without, as they had to previously, provide a full transcript to the subject of the attack and no chance to rebuttal.

In fact the only thing that really stands now is the Equal Time Rule.  This is a political ruling which means broadcasters must provide equal opportunity to an opposing candidate if they request it.  The only exceptions are “if the air-time was in a documentary, bona fide news interview, scheduled newscast or an on-the-spot news event the equal-time rule is not valid”.

Because of private ownership and more importantly big corporations hold on media – with less and less game players which has seen in America for example, the dominance of the Rupert Murdoch empire News Corps, the media landscape has changed but not necessarily as Rush Limbaugh would have you believe because of the revoking of the Fairness Doctrine. As Dr Mark Lamont Hill points out:

“the rise in conservative radio has been paralleled by an equally sharp drop in local ownership over the past twenty years. Since the 1980s, the number of large media companies has shrunk from over fifty to lesser than ten. At the same time, thanks to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, locally owned networks have been swallowed up by companies like Clear Channel, which owns more than 1,200 radio stations around the country. This reorganization of ownership has rendered the market anything but free.

Simply put, conservative radio dominates because American people don’t have a choice.”

One of the many myths that are used against the reinstalling of any kind of Fairness Doctrine is its impact on talk radio,.  But as Fair.org points out:

Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine all that stood between conservative talk-show hosts and the dominance they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talk shows. Indeed, the talk-show format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talk-show schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren’t, Rendall et al., 1995). The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views.

As the Fair.org article goes on to say, in reference to the Fairness Doctrine and it’s seeming violation of the 1st Amendment:

In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: “The Supreme Court unanimously found [the Fairness Doctrine] advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public’s right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters’ rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion.

The removal of the Fairness Doctrine has seen less and less fairness to the issues and more and more focus on networks being the voice piece for one opinion or another – just look at fans of MSNBC or Fox whose arguments always include “your station is the mouthpiece of the Republicans/Democrats”.

Talk radio, backed by major money backer’s, many of whom are conservative in their nature, have seen an explosion in right-wing talk shows.  The biggest names being Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Ollie North etc – and many of whom also go on to television networks, most notably Fox, to double down on that view.  So for example, Glenn Beck has five hours a day of unfettered broadcast, with no one on to oppose his views.

In 2002, Edward Monks, a lawyer in Eugene Oregon, conducted a study of two local radio stations in his area. He found “80 hours per week, more than 4,000 hours per year, programmed for Republican and conservative talk shows, without a single second programmed for a Democratic or liberal perspective.”  He concluded “Political opinions expressed on talk radio are approaching the level of uniformity that would normally be achieved only in a totalitarian society. There is nothing fair, balanced or democratic about it.”

Robert Kennedy Jnr argued in his book Crimes Against Nature, that “The FCC’s pro-industry, anti-regulatory philosophy has effectively ended the right of access to broadcast television by any but the moneyed interests.”

This is borne out by many who argue for its reinstatement.

In 2007, the Center for American Progress and Free Press, released the first report of its kind which showed the political make-up of talk radio. The report (which you can read here), was entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio”.  It raised serious questions about whether companies who are issued licences to broadcast where addressing the needs of all Americans.

As the report states:

In the spring of 2007, of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9 percent was progressive.

– Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk — 10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.

– 76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative, while 24 percent is progressive.

Now Conservative’s will have you believe that this is a corporate issue and a choice issue. They use the demise of Air America as an example.  They argue that people want to listen solely to a conservative view – if they didnt’t liberal stations would flourish.  However as the report goes on to state:

Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.

This is not a view shared by the Conservative media.  As National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg argues:

“Does anyone really believe liberals would even entertain this renewed passion for the fairness doctrine if talk radio were overwhelmingly liberal? It just strikes me as so transparently opportunistic and unprincipled.”

Rasmussen in 2008, commissioned a poll which found that 47% of American’s favor a “Government Mandated Political Balance on Radio and TV”.

Nearly half of Americans (47%) believe the government should require all radio and television stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary, but they draw the line at imposing that same requirement on the Internet. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say leave radio and TV alone, too.

But the Fairness Doctrine remains safely locked away and according to the Obama Administration, they have no plans to reinstate it.  Which also debunks a Conservative myth that the Left – championed by Obama, do want to see it in effect.  The Left do, for good reasons, Obama does not. And in February 2009 the Senate voted 87-11 to keep federal regulators from instituting it.

Their arguments for this vote were according to CBS; “Reinstating the doctrine, they argue, would destroy their industry because radio stations that now largely air conservative talk shows would be forced to air liberal shows – which are not as popular and thus not as profitable.”

Despite this no one actually wants to stifle free speech – what people want to see is an end to unbridled one-sided speech.  It is not helpful to the populace and many polls show that bias on media stations can influence the viewer negatively.  For example polls in 2007 and 2010 have shown Fox viewers are the “least informed”.  Surprisingly to some but not to others, the 2007 poll found that viewers of Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show were more informed.

The 2010 poll came after a series of memos leaked from Fox, that issues such as health care and the environment were to be spun in a light more favorable to the Republican agenda.

To be fair the 2010 poll also showed that MSNBC viewers – a channel more favored by the Left – were also misinformed. But this equally highlights my point.  The Fairness Doctrine to be reinstated would help create more balance – not just because people would be represented by two views instead of one, but because they would be able to make a more informed opinion based on more informed reporting of all the facts, not just the ones that favored a particular agenda.

Since the shootings in Arizona the call to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine have been ramped up – especially with many calling for an end to violent rhetoric.  Conservatives believe this will silence right-wing radio, but as I showed earlier, right-wing radio thrived with the Doctrine in place.  The right would also have us believe that in a free market we can not reinstate the Doctrine because that would force them to take on unpopular liberal shows – but doesn’t that say more about the corporate takeover of media – profit before all the facts?

But others will argue without it, all you will hear – left or right – is propoganda without journalistic truth. After all what is really wrong with hearing all sides of the argument on one show? The corporate, free market hold has meant profits are put before a voice therefore if a show can not make the millions that say a heavily syndicated show like Rush Limbaugh can make – it is removed, regardless of whether it is serving a genuine purpose. With FCC fees running into five figures and more, it is understandable that big corporations who have the money have been able to dominate the airwaves.

The Fairness Doctrine was not perfect and was abused by government and program directors alike – whether it be to force and agenda on the airwaves or make sure unpopular shows were only heard on the graveyard shift but without it, there is no balance – the scales are one sided.

However as with the UK’s journalistic standards, those who are for the Doctrine’s return argue that all it will do is make sure journalists do their job and not those of the corporation that is pushing it’s own agenda – see my comment about the Fox leaked emails earlier. And it would mean people like Rush Limbaugh could not bloat on and on without anyone being able to call him out.  After all if you view is watertight, surely it will hold up to scrutiny and you will be able to defend it.

The Guardian in a 2008 article pointed out that the Fairness Doctrine was gone, and for good reason but it didn’t let the current state of media off the hook.

The article’s author Craig Aaron stated that:

Political imbalance on the radio dial shouldn’t be blamed on the fairness doctrine’s demise. The real culprit is runaway media consolidation. The biggest companies like Clear Channel and Cumulus have swallowed up hundreds of local stations, shuttering newsrooms and supplanting local talent to pipe in the same cookie-cutter, mostly conservative content from coast to coast.

He went on to say:

Both the left and the right widely agree that the corporate media is too concentrated and ignores local needs. Instead of policing content, Congress and the FCC should adopt policies to increase the diversity of owners…We also need to open up the airwaves with policies that allow more low-power and other community radio stations. …Rather than trying to limit the range of opinions, we should be working to foster as many alternatives as we can imagine. The public debate we should be having is about how well the media is serving our communities and bolstering our democracy.

I agree the Fairness Doctrine as it was is defunct but the idea prevails – more should be done to open the airwaves therefore ensuring more views are heard.  The core principles of the Fairness Doctrine should be restored – IE: restoring the ruling against personal attack and allowing the right to reply.

No one should be afraid of standards in media – standards do not mean an end to free speech – it just means the airwaves can not be used to shout fire all the time.

Today America honors one of the greatest visionaries they have ever seen.  A man who fought for revolution, for justice and freedom with no more than his words, his empathy and his soul as his weapon.  He believed not in action through violence but in action through protest, through talking, through appealing to the better nature of others.

That man is Dr Martin Luther King Jnr.

I’m not going to write lots today regarding King – history has done him more justice than I could ever do, but I did want to dedicate today to reminding people of today that despite their attempts to rewrite history, to redefine what King stood for, history, the man’s own words prove them wrong.

Case in point: On January 13 this year Defense Department general counsel Jeh Johnson announced that Martin Luther King would have supported the current wars the US are in. He said:

“I believe that if Dr. King were alive today, he would recognize that we live in a complicated world, and that our nation’s military should not and cannot lay down its arms and leave the American people vulnerable to terrorist attack,”

Of course, he believes is very different from what may be true.  King was a vehement opponent of the Vietnam war and I have addressed this piece with a speech Martin Luther King gave, in the image above.

Many condoned Johnson’s words including Jeremy Scahill who said it was:

“[o]ne of the most despicable attempts at revisionist use of Martin Luther King Jr. I’ve ever seen.”

Salon’s Justin Elliott, pointed to King’s A Time To Break Silence speech, from where I have lifted my own quote above (you can hear it here). Elliott says King’s;  “political philosophy, as outlined in his landmark 1967 speech against the Vietnam war, strongly suggests that he would be an opponent of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, for that matter, the secret wars in Yemen and Pakistan.”

King called the US “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” and said: “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”

The idea that King would support the wars of today therefore is an interesting opinion, but King himself shows that opinion may be very wrong. It not only amazes me that someone would think this true but that they would, as an official of the Pentagon, think America would have so easily forgotten the positions King did stand for.

As Alternet writes:

No, it’s safe to say that Dr. King would not regard any conflict that killed 10,000 people in a year as a humanitarian exercise. Nor would he “understand” how a nation in the grip of an economic meltdown like this one could again throw lives and resources away for almost a decade. It’s safe to say that he would move beyond the “prophesying of smooth patriotism” and stand up to end this war that’s not making us safer and that’s not worth the cost.

Martin Luther King was a peaceful man, who is admired for his continuance on that path no matter the anger he faced in opposition to himself – he kept on a path to peace as a viable means to an endgame because he was a man of principles.  Today America remembers the man who was the blueprint for social activism through nonviolence.

I have added as a tribute, a video from Linkin Park’s official site, a song called “Wisdom Justice and Love” which uses the words I have referenced from King. Enjoy.

I understand fully that Palin felt the need to defend herself against people who have laid the blame squarely at the feet of the former Governor.  It’s not easy being the subject of a feeding frenzy of opinion and rhetoric – much as Gabrielle Gifford felt when her name appeared on a “crosshair” target list in the run up to the november 2011 election.  So much so that Gifford herself felt compelled to mention this in the media. Gifford spoke to MSNBC in March 2010 about the threats, vandalism and harrassment she had been on the receiving end of.

For example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action,”

Gifford never blamed Sarah for the attention she was now receiving, she merely pointed out that when people use a certain type of rhetoric it can have consequences.  As I said, there is no evidence Jared Loughner was influenced by Palin but even the Secret Service noted in 2008 that Palin’s rhetoric had caused a spike in the threats against then Candidate Obama.  According the The Telegraph:

The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of “palling around with terrorists”…The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling “terrorist” and “kill him” until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric….The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin’s attacks.

The media and America have been waiting for Sarah Palin to comment on the events of the weekend in Arizona and on the attacks, some which I disagree with very much.  To some of us though it seemed, with four days gone, Palin’s choose of the day of the memorial for the victims in Arizona to put out a 7 + minute video on her Facebook page to rebut the allegations and accusations that have been flung her way was a little attention seeking.  Many felt she deliberatley chose to put out her video to position herself as another “victim” of the shooting.

Although I agree with Palin’s assertion that words are not the sole responsibility of the tragedy in Arizona, but Sarah Palin did a damned good job of at once condemning the rhetoric and yet condoned her own rhetoric by heaping on some more.

As Bob Cesca in a piece for the Huffington Post wrote:

But when she so often contradicts herself, it’s difficult to tell whether Sarah Palin agrees with Sarah Palin.

Sarah had a chance to appear humble, tone down the rhetoric as had once been asked of her before, and at least acknowledge that words can have consequences, but instead she chose to dig her heels in, double down on the defiance and continue with one swoop in her “grievance based politics” (Politico).

Contrast this to the moving speech President Obama gave at the memorial service at the University of Arizona who used his speech to remind “even his critics of his ability to rally disparate Americans around a message of reconciliation” (Politico).

As Politico also notes:

Palin was defiant, making the case in a taped speech she posted online why the nation’s heated political debate should continue unabated even after Saturday’s tragedy in Tucson. And, seeming to follow her own advice, she swung back at her opponents, deeming the inflammatory notion that she was in any way responsible for the shootings a “blood libel.”

In a 7+ minute speech Sarah spent a minute and half speaking about the tragedy – she then spent the remainder of the video talking about her, how she had been wronged, reneweed her attack on the media and her detractors.

And it’s a terrible shame in some respects – if ever there was a time Palin wanted to show she was a leader, this was the time.  She started her speech with incredible sympathy and seemed to be mirroring the countrie’s calls for a change in rhetoric – not a an end to passionate speech that as she notes is one of the enduring features of a great America. She channelled her hero President Reagan quoting him saying:

“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” (Full transcript can be found at Politico)

But within moments she contradicted herself and used her speech to attack again showing that she has no intention of joining for the calls to calm the rhetoric.

As The Guardian noted: “the Republicans have a real problem on their hands. Palin thrives where she can persuade her people that the establishment is against her…Let them see what kind of demagogue they’ve unleashed. Nothing would be more fitting than for this most expert retailer of conservative victimhood politics to bring down her own party because of it”.

Now I do not agree with the commentator so much that Palin could bring the party down but if they really want to be seen as credible they really need to wonder and look at the two speeches from Wednesday – which one spoke to the masses more – Sarah Palin who largely used her video to make an unapologetic case for her style of rhetoric and showed she had no intention of changing a single thing – or Barack Obama who used his speech to call the country together and honor the victims of Saturday’s heinous bloodshed.

I know many Palin fans will claim it is only the left that have a problem with Palins video which is a self preservation video as well as a callous attempt to deviate the limelight from the victims to the self made victim.  But many on the Right have also condemned Palin, particularly for her use of the term “Blood Libel” which Politico notes is a term used to “refers to the anti-Semitic accusation from the Middle Ages that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzo for Passover”.

Former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer said: “By using those words she failed to rise above and focus on the victims”

According to SarahPAC Treasurer Tim Crawford, speaking to Politico, the timing of the release of the video was meant to “redirect media attention back to the tragedy and away from the raging political blame game”.

All Palin has served to do is dominate the headlines once again and detracting from what should have been a day of memorial, soul searching, unity and tragic comfort and made it once again about herself. Although she may have also inadvertedly served to bolster the word’s of the President who said the following during his speech:

“Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.”

As Bob Cesca concludes in his Huffington Post piece:

…her nincompoopery and fumbly ignorance was completely eclipsed today by her reprehensible tastelessness, proved by the ill-considered timing of her video, and, even worse, by her unforgivable lack of deference to the men and women who have more than earned our attention for at least one uninterrupted day

I, following an article I read in the Huffington Post yesterday, wrote a piece calling for a Change the Rhetoric Pledge.  You may have seen it – the graphic I put together, which links to the page (also seen on the top nav bar) sits on the right hand side of this blog – but no one, not left, nor right, has signed it of yet.  Not one person.

And why, why should they?  I mean it seems as if the events in Tuscon have not quelled the fire but added more fuel to it.  You have the left saying that Palin has blood on her hands and the right claiming Jared Loughner has the full support of the Democratic Party.  Yes I had to stop when I read that too.

Yesterday on his talk radio show, Rush Limbaugh, a controversial figure who often uses over the top rhetoric to gain a reaction from the left, made the audacious claim that Jared lee Loughner who had appeared before a Federal Judge to answer charges regarding the shooting on Saturday, somehow had the full support of the Democratic Party -  all this based on a goofy grin the defendant had when he appeared in court.

“What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. He’s sitting there in jail. He knows what’s going on, he knows that…the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame. He knows if he plays his cards right, he’s just a victim. He’s the latest in a never-ending parade of victims brought about by the unfairness of America…this guy clearly understands he’s getting all the attention and he understands he’s got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing everything that they can to make sure he’s not convicted of murder – but something lesser.”

When I first read this, I had to catch myself or I would have thrown my whole “Change the Rhetoric Pledge” out the window in the space of 140 characters on Twitter.  However unlike Mr Limbaugh I am not going to do that, I am simply going to argue with passion and civility why he is wrong and why he is reprehensible for making such a claim.

First of all I would like Mr Limbaugh, or any of his supporters to show me the exact time anyone from the Democratic Party has shown their support of Jared Loughner. Does Mr Limbaugh include the critically injured Democratic victim Gabrielle Gifford in this, or her supporters, her family, including her brother-in-law astronaut Commander Scott Kelly, who led a minute silence on Monday and spoke from space regarding the shooting.

“As I look out the window, I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not….These days, we are constantly reminded of the unspeakable acts of violence and damage we can inflict upon one another, not just with our actions but also with our irresponsible words. We are better than this. We must do better.” (BBC)

By making such a reaching and incendiary statement, Mr Limbaugh does nothing to quell the rhetoric stream.  Granted it is not just him but at the same time, to suggest that the left, the Democrats are trying to deflect blame to get Jared Loughner off on a lesser charge is beyond absurd.  No one is pointing out to the rhetoric that has infested American politics in an attempt to downplay Loughner’s actions and neither do they want to see him get away with his deeds.  For goodness sake Mr Limbaugh, out of the dead and wounded, do not forget, a nine-year old little girl was murdered in cold blood! Or have you forgotten this?

By highlighting the crosshairs’ of Sarah Palin, or reminding people of the rhetoric Glenn Beck hyperbole, we do not do it to deflect, we do it because this event, this tragedy, has served as a stop sign to many people.  How can America go on with violent, incendiary language, demonizing the other side of the political aisle after this event – especially when we remind ourselves that Gabrielle Gifford was a the subject of many threats herself.

Of course Rush Limbaugh is not the only person who has decided that the short-lived truce on the rhetoric is over.  MSNBC launched an attack on their “rival’s failure to tone down the vitriol” (Media life Magazine) and some people on the left felt it clever to start a Facebook page entitled: “I hate it when I wake up and Sarah Palin is still alive” (BTW I have reported this page, it serves no good purpose).  I wonder f the people who started that page raged against the Facebook page started by a right-wing supporter entitled: “DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN” [title posted straight from the FB page so all typo's etc are the group authors].

However I will also point out, some right-wing supporters feel there is nothing wrong with starting fake Twitter accounts saying Jared is a Jew, even though there is nothing that yet suggests he is and besides so what?  Does the creator of the page forget Gabrielle Gifford’s is of the Jewish faith? Given that the creator of that twitter account links to a website that is anti-Semitic, I doubt he cares too much. I was made aware of this when a Twitter friend and fellow blogger, who is Jewish, was sent a rather disgusting post which he has screenshot for me and allowed me to use on this post:

Screen comes from twitter.com/JaredTheJEW passed on to me by twitter friend twitter.com/shainethomas

None of this helps, none of this solves anything.  While people hoped that America would unite behind this tragedy, much as it had after 9/11, it seems that in trying to fling blame, the hope of a truce has been lost and the vitriol has become as much as and even more so, extreme.

It’s obvious Rush made his comments for an effect – even he is aware that Jared Loughner did not commit his murders to play one political group off against the other – one doubts he cares about it.

Loughner is the one responsible – there is no doubt about this.  He deserves the full force of the judicial system brought down on him as far as I am concerned.  The only thing that is clear is that someone failed a man who is without doubt, mentally ill – but that doesn’t mean he should not be held culpable – nothing yet suggests any illness he may have had made him any less of a cold calculating murderer – his last comments on his now defunct MySpace page show this, when he told his friends “Goodbye Friends … Please don’t be mad at me” (Goodis.com), but when one also looks at the posts he made from Summer 2010 onwards, you can see a person loosing a real gripe on reality (see screenshots here – please be warned they are very graphic).

Loughner is responsible, no doubt and again I call for Limbaugh to clarify exactly where any Democrat and which Democrats he includes in that charge have supported Loughner.  And as to his allegations about attempting to deflect blame, although no link has been found to connect Loughner’s actions to Palin, Limbaugh or Beck et al, is still does not excuse their over the top rhetoric. After all if Sarah Palin felt her “target list” was fine why did she take it down from her website within an hour and a half of the shooting?  She must know that it is wrong.

A cousin of Gabrielle Gifford has written an impassioned plea to Sarah Palin which you can read here: Dear Sarah Palin: A Gifford’s Cousin Speaks Out, and people have said they hope Mrs Palin responds with “as much dignity and respect as you [Paltrow] have mustered for her”.  The cousin asked three questions of Palin:

Do you believe it is appropriate to bring about political change in America through the use of or threat of violence?
When you suggest targeting candidates, use gun-sight crosshairs to do so, and speak repeatedly about guns, locking and reloading do you mean that violence is or could be properly used to encourage or ensure certain outcomes of elections or legislative votes?
If you do not mean literally that elected officials should be targeted with rifles and threatened by political activists armed with loaded weapons, what do you mean? What should politically frustrated Americans do when their views are not prevailing?

I think these are important questions that one hopes Palin will answer, although she has today responded to the wider criticism with a video that charges against the “blood libel” her opponents are exacting upon her. Sadly Palin comes across as trying to blame the victim.

I still hope people will sign my pledge – although I have doubts anyone who agrees with Palin, Limbaugh, will do – although I am very ready to be surprised -  but I do hope people can see the chance we have – even if people like Rush Limbaugh do not.

Sadly, it seems that a backlash is beginning, an attempt by some to create an alternate narrative in an attempt to gloss over what is fact and instead deflect attention on others.

As I said in my piece yesterday, no one is directly blaming the right, no one is directly blaming Palin and if they are they are wrong, but surely it is not wrong to be asking that we look again at the way the political spectrum has been so widely divided and changed that some think using emotive language such as “second amendment remedies” or “reload” as a campaign strategy is right?!

On Saturday, Pima County Sherriff Clarence Dupnik, held a press conference in which he decried the “anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous”. Never once did he point his finger at a single political party or a single political movement, but he made a statement that on its own merit made sense.

However almost immediately the backlash began.

Conservative supporters on various message boards, forums, news sites and blogs, accused Dupnik of being “partisan” and for directly naming the right as the culprit.

Senator John Kyl (R), speaking to CBS’s “Face The Nation”  said:

“It was speculation. I don’t think we should rush to speculate.”

However never once did Dupnik speculate that rhetoric is the cause of the shooting or what motivated Jared Loughner.  He gave an opinion regarding the way some people may react to rhetoric by saying “When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government,” but he did not say it was the cause – to be fair, Dupnik speaks the truth, unstable people do react to things they hear, which is why people need to be held responsible for what they say. Take Glenn Beck for example and his “fan” Bryon Williams who cited Beck as an influence for attempting to take on the Tides Foundation. As Williams said to Media Matters:

And it was the things that he did, it was the things he exposed that blew my mind

And everyone is aware Beck has a big grievance against the Tides Foundation for example. No Beck did not put the gun in Williams hands but he must be aware that there will always be someone out there to whom words are the justification they need to do something.  For example Jared Loughner put up a You Tube video which showed his thoughts regarding “anti-government” etc – a narrative which has been part of certain political groups for the past two years and beyond.

Right wing radio host Jon Justice, went further and asked for Dupnik’s resignation stating:

“To say, as Dupnik did, that comments made on the airwaves essentially motivated this person to commit this crime is exactly what he blamed talk radio of doing, inciting through pure rhetoric,”

The thing is Justice by calling for Dupnik’s resignation, he seems more concerned about words than what Dupnik was saying.  It is true that certain “people in the radio business and some people in the TV business and what we see on TV and how are youngsters are being raised”.  I do not believe he was wrong in that – listen to the airwaves, read the comments, you see the narrative unless you blind to it or willfully ignoring it.  The Sherriff did not blame talk radio as a whole but instead stated;

“that may be free speech, but it’s not without consequences.”

And in essence he is right – speech has consequences.

However unlike say, Keith Olbermann who took time during his Special on Saturday to apologise “any thing in my past that may have even inadvertently encouraged violence” instead the right are busy deflecting attention.

Megan Kelly of Fox News “debated” with Sherriff Dupnik on her program. Where she was correct to ask the Sherriff is anything the investigation on Loughner had turned up to suggest he was “listening to radio or watching television and was in any way inspired by what he heard or saw?”, to which Dupnik stated the investigation had only just begun, Kelly then decided to make what were open comments on a wider narrative concerning political commentary on all sides, into partisan comments.

“With respect, sheriff, I know that you’re a Democrat and you ran for office as a Democrat, and I just want to press you on that a little. I’m sure some of our viewers are asking themselves why you are putting a political spin on this…” (Huffington Post)

Instead of debating whether there was merit in what the Sherriff was saying, instead of widening this to the general debate taking places since the shooting, which asks if political rhetoric which is incendiary has any place following Saturday’s shooting, no matter what side is using it, Megan Kelly, as with a lot of the Right, decided to make this about a supposed liberal smear campaign.

Kelly’s colleague Geraldo also spoke to Dupnik and pushed him on this.  The Sherriff gave answers to which the Right are now claiming shows unmistakable fact that he is indicting by name both Sharron Angle and Sarah Palin as people who he sees as responsible for the horrific mass shooting in Arizona on Saturday.

From the transcript:

Geraldo: Do you regret, Sheriff, in any way speculating on the motive, and bringing in the ‘political vitriol,’ in your words?

Sheriff: Not in any way, shape or form. It’s my feeling that his personality is the type that is susceptible to this kind of behavior. It doesn’t surprise me that people from the right would be upset that people..people like myself and maybe people from the left, and a whole lot of other people in America feel as I do that the anger that’s purposely generated by people who make a living off of it, uh, serves one particular party better than the other. And it wouldn’t surprise me if it continues at least through 2012.

Geraldo: I regret that you just made it so political in a way, Sheriff, … But Sheriff, do you want to change anything you said? Do you want to alter the record in any regard?

Sheriff: Not in any way, shape or form. When you have people like Sharron Angle in Las Vegas, running against Harry Reid, making outrageous statements such as ‘we may need to resort to taking the 2nd Amendment in..into..into certain cases,’ and for people like Sarah Palin to say ‘We have people like Gabby Gifford’s in our cross-hairs,’ I think those statements are totally irresponsible and they’re not without consequences, and I think we may be seeing the fruit of it here.

Now let me break this down for you.

He made a statement that is – especially given this story and other stories concerning the conservative political reaction, a statement of fact – the right have thrown their arms up with a victim mentality instead of saying that all political rhetoric that uses violent overtones should be condemned – ALL!

And this seems to be the tone that a worrying number of Right wing politicians and supporters are taking.

Take for example Tea Party Nation Founder Judson Phillips emailed his members “warning them they would be called upon to fight leftists in the days ahead and defend their movement” (Atlantic.com)

The email leaked to the wider press. In it Phillips called Loughner “a leftist lunatic” and accused Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of being a “leftist sheriff” stating he “was one of the first to start in on the liberal attack.” As I showed Dupnik never blamed the Right for the shooting but merely mentioned a narrative that has taking hold is “not without consequences”.

The Atlantic goes on to state that Phillips has called on his movement to blame the liberals for the attack on Gabrielle Giffords.

“The left is coming and will hit us hard on this. We need to push back harder with the simple truth. The shooter was a liberal lunatic. Emphasis on both words.”

And the Democrats are in no way clear of any criticism regarding this.  According to Politico:

One veteran Democratic operative, who blames overheated rhetoric for the shooting, said President Barack Obama should carefully but forcefully do what his predecessor did.

“They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers,” said the Democrat. “Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.”

Happily Judson Phillips views are not shared by every Tea Party member and I applaud Tea Party Express Chairwoman Amy Kremer who in a statement published by the New York Times said:

These heinous crimes have no place in America, and they are especially grievous when committed against our elected officials. Spirited debate is desirable in our country, but it only should be the clash of ideas.  An attack on anyone for political purposes, if that was a factor in this shooting, is an attack on the democratic process. We join with everyone in vociferously condemning it.”

Sadly too many influential voices are ignoring the words of Kremer and instead are circling the wagons and hitting out instead of listening to the narrative of the country as a whole.

And some are trying to completely rewrite their own statements and meanings.

As I noted in my blog yesterday, Sarah Palin took down her “target list” image and her website “takebackthe20″ following the shootings on saturday. She also attempted to delete tweets and Facebook notes regarding this.

Her aide Rebecca Mansour, stated that the crosshairs weren’t actually crosshairs and that anyone suggesting it had anything to do with gun sights is wrong.  Speaking to Tammy Bruce she said:

“We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights. It was simply crosshairs like you’d see on maps.”

Tammy Bruce suggested that they could be “surveyor’s symbols.”

But if they were, then why was the accompanying language one that suggest otherwise?

Take for example Palin’s own tweets concerning this at the time:

Scrubbed from Palin's twitter account following the Gifford shooting

The image linked to a note: Don’t Get Demoralized! Get Organized! Take Back the 20! in which she said:

We’ll aim for these races and many others. This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will bring common sense to Washington.

Again anything in bold there is my emphasis.

And Tammy Bruce really wants us to believe these were “surveyor’s symbols”????

As I stated yesterday, I am not, NOT saying Sarah Palin is directly responsible, however for her base and friends to try and claim that this is not what we thought it was when her own language at the time points undeniably to otherwise, well tell me who is trying to continue to ignore the people and not living in the real world?

Senator Lamar Alexander also defended Palin. Speaking to Candy Crowley of CNN’s “State of the Union,” the Senator objected to what he saw as Crowley’s inference that Crowley was directly blaming Palin.  HEre is the transcrpit of the exchange (Huffington Post):

CROWLEY: Let’s — let’s cut that connection then, and let me just ask you as a question separate and of itself, is it over the line politically these days, given the kind of climate we’re in, to be talking about or graphically showing a politician in the crosshairs or talking about taking them out?

Is that — was it over the line, sort of, specifically, since it’s now being talked about everywhere, with Sarah Palin’s web ads about people that she would like to see targeted for political defeat?

ALEXANDER: Well, Candy, I think you’re — I think you’re responsible, by bringing this up, of doing the very thing you’re trying to condemn. I mean, you’re making and implying a direct connection between Sarah Palin and what happened yesterday.

CROWLEY: No, I specifically said we need to tie it away from that.

ALEXANDER: By picking out a particular — picking out a particular incident. Well, I think the way to get away from it is for you not to be talking about it.

CROWLEY: No, Senator Durbin did bring it up, so that’s, kind of, why I am.

I leave you to make your own opinion on this, but for the record, from my own point of view, Crowley did not say Palin was to blame but brought up a question regarding a narrative that is out there.

One thing is clear, despite the backlash people are seeing a chance to clear the air – move forward and change all rhetoric.  Senator Dick Durbin (D) on speaking about Palin’s “Don’t retreat; reload.” said:

“These sorts of things, I think, invite the kind of toxic rhetoric that can lead unstable people to believe this is an acceptable response”

Representative Raul Grijalva (D) said that the attack may have been the work of an individual, a “single nut” but the nation must reflect on “an atmosphere where the political discourse is about hate, anger and bitterness.”

Representative Raul Labrador (R) told NBC’s “Meet The Press”:

“I just hope we can have some civility and move forward. You have extremes on both sides; you have crazy people on both sides. Your job as a leader is to talk to people in a rational way . to bring down the rhetoric”.

And according to Politico an unnamed GOP Senator has also called for calm and a change to the rhetoric:

“There is a need for some reflection here – what is too far now?” said the senator. “What was too far when Oklahoma City happened is accepted now. There’s been a desensitizing. These town halls and cable TV and talk radio, everybody’s trying to outdo each other.

Related Articles

• “Arizona Sherriff Clarence Dupnik Blames Right-wing Rhetoric for the Shootings There” and related posts (tjwalker.com)
• Clarence Dupnik, Arizona Sheriff, Criticized By Sen. Jon Kyl Over Shooting Comments (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Megyn Kelly Debates Sheriff Clarence Dupnik About His Comments On Arizona Shooting (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Swearing off the rhetoric of violence (salon.com)
• Obama speaks with Giffords’ husband (salon.com)
• Marty Kaplan: The Vitriol in Our National Bloodstream (huffingtonpost.com)

The attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Gifford, and the tragic death of innocent bystanders, including a 9-year-old little girl, taken tot he public event because, as her uncle Greg Segalini told the Arizona Republic, she had recently been elected to the student council and was interested in government, has brought a stark reality on many as to the way American politics has been conducted over the past couple of years.

The gunman, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner has yet to cooperate with police and therefore no one is any nearer to knowing exactly what his motivations were.  However one thing has become clear, people are sitting up and taking a stand – a stand to say enough is enough, an end to the violent and hateful rhetoric that has dominated American politics.

When you have politicians or those out there making a career out of political commentary, using language such as “Second Amendment remedies” or who put out an image with crosshairs over candidates who chose to use their democratic to vote for healthcare, and use rhetoric such as “It’s time to RELOAD” to put this point across, we really have to ask ourselves is this the way we want politics to be?  Is this even politics or is it just jingoistic visceral sound bytes that are doing nothing more than stir up a divide and a hatred between fellow members of a nation just because they have different political ideas?

Palin's "target list"

Now I am not saying Sarah Palin is directly to blame for the shooting in Arizona.  She did not after all put a gun in the assassin’s hand and as yet we know not really, beside some obscure You Tube videos, what motivated Jared Lee Loughner.  But given Sarah Palin took down her “take back the twenty” website last night and removed all traces of her “target list” from her sites, surely even she knows that what she has done is push too far – if she felt she was not wrong in what she said, surely that would still be up?

Sadly for Sarah but good for the rest of us who have been sick and tired of the fear mongering from the far right in America, which includes Fox’s Glenn Beck predicting “rivers of blood” and casting himself as a “progressive hunter”, no matter how much Palin attempts to scrub her past, the internet has a funny habit of keeping things in the foreground. For example my twitter feed was full of retweets of people posting the “target list” – and I retweeted it too – not because I say Palin did this, but because I have had enough of the people who think using incendiary language is okay in democracy.

Keith Olbermann, on his Countdown program delivered a special comment on the shootings:

“Left, right, middle – politicians and citizens – sane and insane. This morning in Arizona, this age in which this country would accept “targeting” of political opponents and putting bullseye’s over their faces and of the dangerous blurring between political rallies and gun shows, ended.”

He concluded his show by saying:

“Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our Democracy, and I apologize for and repudiate any act or any thing in my past that may have even inadvertently encouraged violence. Because for whatever else each of us may be, we all are Americans.”

You can see his Special here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/keith-olbermann-arizona-shooting_n_806311.html

And this is a lot more than Palin did – not long after her site had been removed and her list scrubbed, she put out a statement on her Facebook account where she spoke of her “sincere condolences” to the “tragic shooting in Arizona” but unlike Olbermann who was man enough to admit that in the past he may have said something that had “inadvertently encouraged violence”, Palin acted as if she had not. Which when you look back at the mentality of certain right-wing figures, is the norm – when your words come back to bite you in the ass, act as if you never said them in the first place.

Palin also took pains to remove a Facebook post she had made where she also criticized Gifford’s and where she also posted her “target list”.  As sayitaintsoalready.com points out:

About two hours ago I took this picture of one of Sarah Palin’s Facebook pages — the page that targeted Gabrielle Gifford’s in a gun sight:

A little digging though and one finds the post still around: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=373854973434

In the post she says:

We’re paying particular attention to those House members who voted in favor of Obamacare…..We’ll aim for these races and many others. This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will bring common sense to Washington.

The emboldened words are my emphasis to highlight the incendiary language used.

Gifford had spoken to MSNBC about her concerns, following a brick being thrown through her window:

“For example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action,”

Palin also removed the tweet associated with this Facebook post:

Scrubbed from Palin's twitter account following the Gifford shooting

Now again let me make myself clear – I am not, NOT saying Sarah Palin is directly responsible, however what I am saying is that yesterday’s event shows that we must draw a line underneath this kind of rhetoric. It should not be part of the norm that we think this language should be part of political debate.

Screen from opponents events record

Gabrielle Gifford for her political views had been a target of threats before and her opponent, Republican Jesse Kelly, in the midterms had put together a fundraiser where he invited  supporters to help him remove Gifford from office by joining him to shoot a fully loaded M-16 rifle. Kelly was quick to dismiss his event and the shooting on saturday as having any connection and he would be right for the most part but when you put up a post on your Upcoming Events when you are running for political events which reads: “Get on Target for Victory November Help remove Gabrielle Gifford’s from office Shoot a fully automatic M-16 with Jesse Kelly”, (the punctuation is not mine but a direct quote from the event board – see image to left) the question should be “was that really the right way to conduct politics?”

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik  blamed the “vitriolic political rhetoric” that has consumed so much of America.

“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous,”

Everywhere I go today this is what I am seeing, this is what I am hearing – enough.  How have we come to a point where our politics is okay with people not debating the issues but using smears, fear and vitriol to campaign?

As Gary Hart, a scholar in Residence at the University of Colorado wrote in the Huffington Post “words have consequences”.

The degree to which violent words and phrases are considered commonplace is striking. Candidates are “targeted”. An opponent is “in the crosshairs”. Liberals have to be ”eliminated”. Opponents are “enemies”.

He goes on to say that if we continue to tolerate this kind of vitriol or treat it as “cute” or “reward it” then “we place all those in public life, whom the provocateurs dislike, in the crosshairs of danger.”

MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan was more measured in his own blog post on the Huffington Post when he said:

It goes without saying that the events of today are a wake-up call for every American, regardless of their position in this society. And as we stand as a group at this violent fork in the road, will those within the power class take this wakeup call to acknowledge the responsibility they have to utilize their influence to serve the interests of increased fairness in America…the personal indulgence of this exploitation by some in order to accumulate wealth and power is done so at a mortal danger to all Americans

Much as America did after 9/11, its citizens need to take a stand, a stand of unity, a stand of togetherness and a stand of “no more”. If America wishes to restore its country, restore the people so that no matter your political divide nothing will make you see reason in using incendiary language, then maybe out of the tragic events of saturday a lesson can be learned.

As Nancy Pelosi, when still Speaker of the House at a weekly news conference in 2009 said:

“I think we all have to take responsibility for our actions and our words. We are a free country and this balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance…his kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.” (The Hill)

My deepest sympathies to those whose lives were lost:

• Arizona Supreme Court Judge John Rolls
• Gabriel Zimmerman, 30, Gabrielle Gifford’s’ director of community outreach
• Dorwin Stoddard, 76, pastor at Mountain Ave. Church of Christ
• Dorthy Murray, 76
• Phyllis Scheck, 79

And 9-year-old Christina Greene, a little girl meeting her Congresswoman because she herself was interested in politics.

My thoughts are also with the others injured as a result of the shooting and with Gabrielle Gifford and her family – latest reports suggest that doctors are optimistic about her recovery, although it is clear, she will never be the same person she was.

UPDATE:

You can always count on the Westboro Church:

Westboro Church to picket the funeral’s of Arizona Shooting Victims

Hateful rhetoric personified

Related Articles

• Michael Shaw: Reading the Pictures: The Giffords Shooting and the Palin Graphic: Almost Predictable (huffingtonpost.com)
• The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords (newstatesman.com)
• Giffords warned heated rhetoric could have “consequences” (thehill.com)
• Rob Warmowski: Following Giffords Shooting, Sarah Palin’s Crosshairs Website Quickly Scrubbed From Internet (huffingtonpost.com)