VITRIOL, PUBLIC DISCOURSE, AND THE ROLE OF THE COLUMNIST

I think Dave Cramer said it best.  At our churches’ annual meeting last Sunday, he repeatedly urged the congregation to “be firm in your beliefs, but be fair in your comments.”  Dave is Emanuel Lutheran Church’s council president and he was speaking in regards to the highly contentious “gender issue” that is dividing the Evangelical Lutheran Churches of America, of which of Emanuel is, for now, a member. 

            However, this column is not about whether or not my congregation should leave the ELCA in response to some its position on gay pastors.  Well—maybe it is a LITTLE about that—but, more generally, this column will deal with the general tone of debate in this country—the “vitriol” in our public discourse, so defined by Arizona Sheriff Dupnik.

            Liberal talk radio host Chris Bradshaw (98.3 FM Des Moines) summarized the change in rhetoric as “We’ve gone from ‘I’m right; you’re wrong’ to ‘I’m right; you’re evil or you’re un-American or you’re un-Christian’.”  I think both Bradshaw and Cramer have a point. Although there has always been strident political debate in America, the tone of this debate has definitely taken a sharp turn to the gutter in the past decade.  AND—the standard to which we should ALL strive is that of disagreeing in a passionate way—but doing so in a civilized manner.  In other words, if you don’t like my stand on the gender ruling or the war in Iraq—that’s fine—but you shouldn’t tell me I am unChristian or unAmerican because I disagree with you.  And, yes, I have been called these things many times.

            After quite a bit of research and pondering, I have decided that I do not think that the shooting of Congressperson Gabby Giffords was primarily inspired by political rhetoric. There is no evidence Jared Lee Loughner was a Palinite or a Glenn Beck fan or a Tea Partier.  There is quite a bit of evidence that he was crazy as a loon.  However, the horrific incident in an Arizona parking lot should serve as a wake-up call to all of us that actively participate in political debate.

            And—by all of us I mean ME too.  Do I—in my writings and my speeches—defend my beliefs passionately, while still remaining respectful of others?  Not always.   I have been known to throw the term “idiot” out when referring to Representative Steve King and to mock Sarah Palin at every given opportunity.    Perhaps it is time for me to stop that—no matter how entertaining it is for you to read. 

            I, personally, have been particularly vitriolic in response to blog posters.  They don’t have to sign their name so they can say truly nasty things with absolutely no accountability.  This really ticks me off.  SO—I “take the high road” and sign my name--but I say even nastier things back.  Since I sign my name, does this make me a better person than “anonymous”?

I am beginning to think that that isn’t the point.  It doesn’t seem to matter if I am “more right” than the person to whom I am responding—the power of my words is not changed by my “rightness” or my “wrongness.”  Even the most innocuous speech can be taken to the extreme by an unhinged listener or reader and some of the comments I’ve made on blogs are certainly not innocuous.  And—even if I am completely in the right—a deranged person can take my words, twist them, and use them as an excuse to do evil.

            I’m pretty sure Sarah Palin didn’t mean anything malevolent when she placed cross hairs over Gifford’s district on her web site—it was just a oft-used symbol.  BUT—every symbol has power and we all have to be careful of the symbols we throw around.

I will say that I have been careful to NEVER go as far as many of today’s talk radio icons.  For example, I’ve never said anything CLOSE—in any forum--to this quote from Beck from May 17, 2005: ''I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong?''

Or this Beck quote from 2003:''Every night I get down on my knees and pray that Dennis Kucinich will burst into flames.''

I’ve also never said, “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”  Nopers—that racist quote belongs to Rush Limbaugh.

            I could literally go on for pages citing conservative talk radio quotes that I DIDN’T say—but I think you get the point.  Even though I have never said anything THAT bad (for one thing, I’m not THAT famous), I do need to learn a lesson from the Arizona tragedy and watch my vitriol as well—in all formats in which I publish.

            So, I, for one, am going to try to do my small part to raise the standard of political discourse in regards to this column. I urge all my fellow commentators—liberal and conservative—to join me in this effort to be more civil.  You hear that Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Savage—let’s work together to make a better world.

            However, I’m thinking moderate speech doesn’t sell as well as vitriol and the Becks of the world will not temper their speech as long as they are making TONS of money. So, in order for the voice of reason to be heard, we all have to STOP buying the products that advertise on these offensive radio shows.  Seriously—no more Snapple, no more pajamagrams, and not more Survival Seed Banks.  If we want the voice of reason to be hard, we have to hit the “haters’ in the pocketbook and that means going after the advertisers.  As long as Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh (among others) can make a gazillion dollars a day spewing hate—they are gonna keep doing it. 

I, for one, do not get paid for my gig writing “Coffee Break,” so I guess you could say I have nothing to lose by “Oprahizing” my column. New Year’s Resolution #425:  I will consider both sides when dealing with a controversial issue and I will not call people who disagree with me names.  Resolution #426:  I will actively boycott all products that advertise on shows that use vitriolic speech. Join me in these resolutions, my friends, and let’s work to make this word a better—safer—place.

No More Cloak and Dagger? OLD SCHOOL DIPLOMACY MEETS THE INFORMATION AGE

In early December, a web site entitled “Wikileaks” published 251,287 cables from more than 250 US embassies around the world, causing a great of embarrassment to the diplomatic community.   Many of these cables do not paint our diplomats in a very good light.  This includes Secretary of State, my girl, Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Was this an example of good, old investigative journalism or espionage at its worst?

Apparently, it depends on who you ask—and, surprisingly, many tried and true liberals are agreeing with (gasp) Fox News on this one.  Vice-President Joe Biden is one of those that insists that Wikileaks has “endangered lives and damaged U.S. diplomacy.”   Others argue that Wikileaks is only doing its job as the “fourth branch of government” and using journalism to keep American politicians honest. 

So—should a flaming liberal who also happens to dabble in journalism respect Wikileaks founder Julian Assange as a true journalist or call for his arrest because of the damage he caused to this Democratic administration?  I’m afraid I have no clear answer to that question. Joe Biden—a good “lib” if I ever saw one--recently called Assange a “high tech terrorist” on “Meet the Press”—strangely echoing a statement from Sarah Palin.  I guess politics do make for strange bedfellows.

The liberal website “The Progressive Reader” recently asked the question:   “Is Julian Assange a courageous freedom fighter battling to buttress democracy through his dedication to government transparency, or a craven, shameless brat?”  After conducting my research, I think perhaps the answer is both—Assange is a huge jerk who truly sees his website as doing a necessary and honorable service to the world.

There are some out there that says there has been no punishment at all for this huge leak of information.  This simply isn’t true.  The U.S.Army private that gave Assange the highly classified documents is currently paying some severe consequences.  Bradley Manning has been in solitary confinement at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico for five months now and the end is nowhere in site. His activities are severely restricted. He is not allowed to exercise and he has been denied a pillow and bed sheets.  Before being sent to Quantico, he spent two months in a military jail in Kuwait.  Manning could even be executed for his crime.

Assange’s punishment is a little bit trickier because his is an AUSTRALIAN citizen who lives in England.  He can’t be a “traitor,” as some on Fox news have suggested, because he isn’t an American.    The U.S. Justice Department is pulling no punches as it tries to punish Assange and get him in an American courtroom.  They are currently seeking to have him extradited from England—and by the time you read this they very may well have succeeded.  Most people seem to think they had a hand in his arrest in London on sex charges last month.  The timing of arrest in a country with which the United States has a “special” relationship does seem more than a tad coincidental.

In addition to the problem of prosecuting someone in an American court who is not an American and who does not even live in America, many people around the world seem to idolize the pasty-faced computer hacker.  Italy’s “Rolling Stone” magazine recently named him Rock Star of the Year.   This makes the politics of extradition even trickier.

In conclusion, this liberal (for once) falls somewhere in the middle of this particular controversy.  Obviously, it is appropriate to punish the private who initially gave the information to Wikileaks, although I would like him to be punished in a humane way.    He stole documents from his workplace and that is a punishable offense.  I am anti-death penalty in all cases, so I obviously don’t think a firing squad is in order.

As for Assange, I think the U.S. should stop pushing for his prosecution on what appears to be bogus rape charges and continue to look for legal ways to get him before an American judge and jury.  And—the diplomatic corps needs to realize that in the 21^st century there is no thing as “top secret” and they’d better be darn careful saying or writing anything they don’t want the world know. 

Look for a column in upcoming weeks on one issue on which I DO have an opinion: the “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule in the military—and one issue on which I am still undecided:  the new gun laws that went into effect in Iowa January 1.  In the meantime, anyone with an opinion on either of these hot topics, drop me a line and give me some things to think about.     Gotta do something to keep my  mind from rotting during these cold Iowa winters!

Reflecting on the new Gun Law in iowa

 

If I had my druthers, all handguns would be illegal.  Period. I’m a touchy, feely pacifist, dang it, and the thought of handguns scares me to death.    And, apparently, handguns aren’t just for crazed psychopaths anymore.  I was recently introduced to the new concept of pink handguns “for the ladies.”  Just the thought made me throw up in my mouth a little.  It is with this background that I am going to take a look at Iowa’s new gun law, which went into effect about two weeks ago. 

            YIKES!  Although it makes sense to me that all 99 counties in Iowa should have the same rules on guns, some of the other provisions in the new law are downright frightening.    The new law, for example, allows a person to carry a CONCEALED weapon into places that serve ALCOHOL.   Seriously?  Who thinks that is a good idea?  I mean, who literally sat in a room and said, “Hey, let’s mix liquor and bullets—that’ll be a hit!  It’s always worked so well in the inner cities.”?

Businesses, however, have the right to place a sign on their door that says they do no allow concealed weapons in their establishment.  Yeah—I’m bettin’ that’s real enforceable. I ask the person who came up with this winner of an idea:  if you can’t SEE the weapon because it is CONCEALED, how in the heck can you tell if a customer if violating your store’s rule?  I mean, once they pull the gun on you, it’s a little late to deny service.

            The new gun law also allows a person to carry their gun in plain sight.  This means, a person can walk Fido at night while carrying a sidearm, in case they are attacked by squirrels or something.   I don’t relish living in a society when people can just walk around with their gun in a holster like Little Joe in Bonanza.  Remember how all of Little Joe’s girlfriends died before the end of the episode?  Anyone else see a connection between that and his open carrying of a six shooter????  I’m thinking GUNS promote DEATH—just a thought.

            Under the new law, authorities also cannot restrict the movement of people with loaded guns in vehicles.   Another great combination---just like peanut butter and jelly, guns and automobiles are made for each other—NOT!

            There are restrictions on gun ownership for convicted criminals and people under 21.  Other than that—and the completion of a gun safety course--pretty much anything goes. The new unrestricted five-year gun permits are going like hotcakes, so apparently there are going to be a bunch of new gun owners carrying weapons on our fair streets and in our local businesses.    Great—just great.

            Hey, I have another idea.  Let’s go ahead and make guns available to pretty much anyone for the asking and let them carry them openly, concealed, in their car, and even in their bicycle basket.  However, let’s pass a new law that each bullet and/or shell must cost at least $10,000, with $9,950 of those dollars going to charity, education, and other good causes.    Once again, I’ve taken life’s legislative lemons and turned them into lemonade.  I’ve made the new gun law almost palatable and raised a ton of money for good causes.  Now, if the solution to global warming were just that easy!