Offensive, Over-the-Top Rhetoric in Opposition to a Domestic Partnership Bill

I don't normally like to bash other religions. However, sometimes an official statement from a religious official bears mention and critique.

Apparently Guam is considering a domestic partnership proposal. For those who forget, Guam is actually a territory of the United States, has a non-voting member in Congress, votes in the presidential election (though without any electoral votes, that vote is meaningless), and sends delegates to the Republican and Democratic national conventions. Like other states that have considered domestic partnership laws (or gay marriage or other civil rights issues related to sexual orientation), debate on the issue is apparently impassioned.

However, the Catholic Archdiocese of Agaña (Guam) has stepped over -- way over -- the line of decency in a political debate on domestic issues. Here is the penultimate paragraph of a letter (the entire letter can be read here), allegedly* from the Archdiocese:

The culture of homosexuality is a culture of self-absorption because it does not value self-sacrifice. It is a glaring example of what John Paul II has called the culture of death. Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. That is why they repress such behavior by death. Their culture is anything but one of self-absorption. It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers (women as well as men) is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice. Terrorism as a way to oppose the degeneration of the culture is to be rejected completely since such violence is itself another form of degeneracy. One, however, does not have to agree with the gruesome ways that the fundamentalists use to curb the forces that undermine their culture to admit that the Islamic fundamentalist charge that Western Civilization in general and the U.S.A. in particular is the “Great Satan” is not without an element of truth. It makes no sense for the U.S. Government to send our boys to fight Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, while at the same time it embraces the social policies embodied in Bill 185 (as President Obama has done). Such policies only furnish further arguments for the fundamentalists in their efforts to gain more recruits for the war against the “Great Satan.”

I'm short on time today, so I'm not going to go through a line-by-line examination of how flawed the reasoning and offensive the conclusions of this letter really are. Besides, I think the letter really does speak for itself. But query what it is about homosexuality -- and not, by way of comparison, the death penalty, torture, degradation of the environment, or any of a host of other issues -- that leads anyone, let alone a church, to condone such an offensive viewpoint.

*I say "allegedly" because I have been unable to confirm that this letter really does come from the Archdiocese of Agana. The website for the Archdiocese does not appear to have been updated since February 2009 (at the latest). However, I have seen numerous references to the above-quoted letter as well as a second (far less inflammatory letter on different letterhead from the Archbishop of Agaña) and I have not found any indication of a claim by the Archdiocese that it is not responsible for the quoted letter. Nevertheless, I recognize that until the authorship of the letter has been verified, criticism of the Archdiocese needs to be tempered. If this letter was not authored by the Archdiocese, you would certainly expect a strong (and prompt?) denunciation of the viewpoints attributed to the Archdiocese by the author of the letter. If, on the other hand, the Archdiocese is the author of the letter, then I would also expect strong denunciations of those viewpoints from a whole host of sources.

IN Touch: Sick Kids in Class (update)

Last Friday, I posted my most recent entry on The Indianapolis Star's IN Touch blog. The good news is that my post was published in today's print edition of The Indianapolis Star. The bad news is that, once again, my post was been edited in a way that removes part of the point that I was trying to make (note the entire last paragraph that was omitted). So, just for the hell of it, below is my original post. I've lined through the parts that were omitted from the printed version and underlined additions made by the Star’s editorial staff. What do you think? Were the changes made by the Star's editorial staff appropriate? Do they change the meaning?

As we go through the process of debating the merits of various proposals for health-care reform, we should also take the time to examine certain hidden health-care-related societal costs.

We hope that, when faced with a sick child, most parents would keep that a sick child home from school and take the child to see a doctor. But how many parents can't do this keep their child home because they don't have alternate child-care arrangements? And what are the ramifications of sick children being sent to school because a parent can't stay home with the child? ¶ Similarly, how many children stay sicker longer or return to school earlier than they should because the family cannot afford to see the doctor or pay for medicines? And what is the cost to society for sick children attending school and no doubt sickening other children?

We teach our children not to steal or cheat. When it comes to their classmates, we teach them not to fight or hurt one another. But how many parents extend that teaching to include a responsibility not to expose a classmate to germs?

As a society, we don't tolerate violent children. So why do we tolerate parents who send sick children to school? And what can we, as a society, do to help those parents and their children learn right from wrong and be in a position where the child can be safely kept home from school when necessary without forcing the family to make unacceptable sacrifices?

And what can we do to help schools with budgets determined by the number of children in attendance? Schools should not be encouraging sick children to attend classes so that the school can receive additional funds.

IN Touch: Sick Kids in Class

My eleventh post on The Indianapolis Star's IN Touch blog is now online. I took the themes that I addressed here on Wednesday and re-worked them in a post for the Star. As I've said previously, I'm going to keep re-posting those entries here (at least until someone from the Star asks me to stop). Go ahead and visit the post on the IN Touch site, anyway.

As we go through the process of debating the merits of various proposals for health-care reform, we should also take the time to examine certain hidden health-care-related societal costs.

We hope that, when faced with a sick child, most parents would keep that child home from school and take the child to see a doctor. But how many parents can't keep their child home because they don't have alternate child-care arrangements? And what are the ramifications of sick children being sent to school because a parent can't stay home with the child? Similarly, how many children stay sicker longer or return to school earlier than they should because the family cannot afford to see the doctor or pay for medicines? And what is the cost to society for sick children attending school and no doubt sickening other children?

We teach our children not to steal or cheat. When it comes to their classmates, we teach them not to fight or hurt one another. But how many parents extend that teaching to include a responsibility not to expose a classmate to germs?

As a society, we don't tolerate violent children. So why do we tolerate parents who send sick children to school? And what can we, as a society, do to help those parents and their children learn right from wrong and be in a position where the child can be safely kept home from school when necessary without forcing the family to make unacceptable sacrifices?

And what can we do to help schools with budgets determined by the number of children in attendance? Schools should not be encouraging sick children to attend classes so that the school can receive additional funds.

The Costs of Sick School Children

I want to tease out a little scenario. Little Billy is a 3rd grader at Clinton Bush elementary school. One morning Billy wakes up with a fever. His mother, always concerned for Little Billy, keeps him home from school and takes him to see the doctor. Billy is given an antibiotic and stays home from school for a few days while his mother takes loving care of him. At least that is how it should work.

But let’s look at how things work in the real world. First of all, for a lot of Little Billys, there isn’t a mother who can stay home to care for him or take him to the doctor. She has to work to put food on the table. So instead of staying home, Little Billy, even though he is sick, goes to school. Chances are good that within a few days, several of Billy’s school mates will also be sick and their families will be in the same position as Billy’s. What are the costs to the families and community for all of those other sick kids? And what are the costs to the school itself for the days of missed attendance (especially in states where school funding programs are based on the number of children in attendance on any given day or ability to achieve certain test scores)?

And even for the Billys who are able to stay home from school, how many of them aren’t making a doctor visit? For too many families, there may be no insurance (or limited insurance) to pay for the doctor visit. Others may have insurance but need to self-ration their own healthcare because of inability to afford co-pays or deductibles, let alone medicines. In these cases, Billy may get worse or may miss more school than he should or return to school too early. In some cases, Billy may have insurance (through programs like CHIP), but his family may be unaware of the availability; even if that insurance is available, the family may not be able to take the necessary time to care for Billy.

Sure there is a cost to insuring Little Billy. But what is the true cost of Billy being sick for longer, of going back to school too soon and getting other kids sick, of additional children missing additional days of school, of parents having to weigh the importance of work versus caring for a sick child or medicine versus food? What are those costs to our society?

When my kids have a fever, they stay home. My wife can stay home with them. We keep them home for their own well being and so that every other child in their class is not exposed to their germs. But the number of times that I’ve heard about another child being sent to school with a fever or severe cough or runny nose and sneezing, is almost mind-boggling. What is the cost to my family when my children get sick because another parent either couldn’t or wouldn’t keep their child home? If another child pushes and injures my child, I can look that that family’s insurance to pay for the medical costs that my child will incur; if another child goes to school sick and gets my child sick, should I be able to look to that family’s healthcare insurance? (And if not, why not? Before answering, consider the following: If you are in an automobile accident with an uninsured motorist, you can usually look to a state pool that is funded by a premium for uninsured motorists that you pay as a part of your own insurance…)

The health of our children is our responsibility as parents. But the health of our children’s school mates is also our responsibility to the extent that our children are sick. That is a shared responsibility that we have as members of a community and civil society. We all recognize that our children shouldn’t hit one another; so why are so many parents unwilling to recognize their responsibility to be sure that their children don’t sicken others?

All of these costs impact our families and our communities. All of these costs impact the overall cost of healthcare in America. Yet I’m not sure that these sorts of “hidden” costs are being considered in the ongoing debate over reforming America’s healthcare system.

Guns: A Fable

Well, maybe not a fable, per se, but I was having a hard time coming up with a title for this post. Anyway, I’m going to let a few videos and stories make my point today.

 

This incident apparently happened in Ohio on October 10, 2009.

These next two videos are from Gun Show: Undercover (A Project of the City of New York). Thinking of the bar shootout video above, keep in mind that Ohio was one of the states that New York’s investigators focused on for the Gun Show: Undercover.

 

Next, read the story “Should these men have been allowed to carry a gun?” published in The Indianapolis Star on October 11, 2009.

Now watch the video below:

The article that goes with this video (from the Sun Sentinal) describing the gathering of the Broward County Republicans at the gun range includes this additional fact:

One of the shooters at the Tuesday evening event was Robert Lowry, a Republican candidate hoping to unseat U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston. Lowry's target had the letters "DWS" next to the silhouette head.

Lowry said he didn't know who wrote Wasserman Schultz' initials on his target, but said he knew they were there before he started shooting. He initially described it as a "joke," but after answering several questions he said it "was a mistake" to use a target labeled "DWS."

That’s right: A candidate for Congress thought it was a joke to shoot a weapon at a target labeled with the initials of the incumbent member of Congress (and his opponent … or is that enemy?). Hah, hah, hah. Here is the response from Rep. Wasserman Schultz:

There is nothing light or funny about pretending to shoot someone. At a time in our country when people are bringing guns to Town Hall Meetings and a preacher is calling for the death of our President, I find this type of action serious and disturbing. Tonight I am going to have to talk to my young children about why someone is pretending to shoot their mother. Trivializing violent behavior is the kind of extreme view that has no place in American politics.

With all of this firmly in mind, recall these photos that I posted previously:

And finally, take a look at these news videos:

 

 

I know that there are a lot of disparate elements in these videos and stories. I also recognize that there is no direct link between some of the concerns raised in the initial videos and stories and those at the end of this post. However, the nexus between these videos and stories – guns – is real. I could spend a lot of time writing about my thoughts on these videos and about guns. But I think that the videos and stories speak for themselves and provide ample evidence of issues about which we should be concerned.

NPR’s Bias in Reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

I like National Public Radio (NPR). I really do. NPR’s programs Morning Edition and All Things Considered are my primary news source and I look forward to sitting in my car and listening to NPR news. However, I’ve long felt that NPR’s reporting was unfairly biased against Israel. For example, in January of this year, I criticized NPR’s reporting of the fighting in Gaza. NPR is not alone in anti-Israel bias, but a news organization with the reputation that NPR has should not be so obviously biased. And a report on yesterday’s edition of All Things Considered was so biased that I had to comment.

The report in question was presented by NPR’s new (as of June 2009) Jerusalem bureau chief, Lourdes Garcia-Navarro. NPR’s site has both the audio and transcript of the story. For convenience (and in case the transcript is later removed), here is the full text of the story:

MELISSA BLOCK, host:

You're listening to ALL THINGS CONSIDERED from NPR News.

It has been a violent week in Jerusalem. Thousands of Israeli police have been deployed in and around the Old City. That's after several days of clashes between Muslim residents of east Jerusalem and Israeli security forces. Today, Israeli police arrested a cleric accused of inciting the violence.

From Jerusalem, NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro reports.

Unidentified Man #1: (Foreign language spoken)

Unidentified Man #2: (Foreign language spoken)

LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO: Just outside the al-Aqsa Mosque compound known to Jews as the Temple Mount, around a dozen Israeli policemen stood guard this afternoon, making sure that no men under the age of 50 entered - restrictions that had been put in place because of the recent unrest.

Unidentified Children: (Chanting) (Speaking foreign language)

GARCIA-NAVARRO: A group of children walk by the policemen chanting: With our heart and our blood we will sacrifice all to you, al-Aqsa. One throws a rock, and then they all run down a cobblestone alleyway. The tensions are palpable here. For the past 10 days there have been numerous confrontations that have resulted in arrests and injuries.

Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. Israel annexed it after the 1967 war, a move that has not been recognized by the international community. The friction now centers around the mosque compound, which stands on a vast stone platform that was once the site of an ancient Jewish temple.

The orator of the al-Aqsa Mosque, Akramah Sabri, says that the recent unrest was kicked off by worries that extremist settler groups will be allowed in joining the current Jewish festival of Sukkot. He says that at least 400 Palestinians are holed up inside the mosque.

Mr. AKRAMAH SABRI (Orator, Al-Aqsa Mosque): (Through Translator) They are there to defend the holy sanctuary. They are not taking action against the Israelis. We are providing them with food and drink while they sleep at the site.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: For its part, Israel alleges that the violence is part of a coordinated campaign led by Muslim extremists in both the West Bank and Israel's Arab community. Micky Rosenfeld is the Israeli police spokesperson.

Mr. MICKY ROSENFELD (Spokesman, Israel Police): We can see that there's definitely incitement going on both from within inside East Jerusalem, as well as from leaders from the north.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: This evening, one of the men Israel accuses of fostering discontent was detained. Raed Salah, head of the northern branch of Israel's Islamic Movement, was taken into custody. He has been arrested numerous times before. NPR spoke with him before his arrest at a crowded tent just outside the walls of the Old City, where he was holding court.

Mr. RAED SALAH (Israel Islamic Movement): (Through Translator) My message is first to Israel. Give back the sanctuary to its lawful owners. I also call on Palestinians who are able to come out to the holy sanctuary to come and stay there to protect it from these Jewish aggressors. They should come and pray whenever they can in order to show their presence and strength.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: The Second Palestinian Intifada, or uprising, was triggered in 2000 after a visit to the al-Aqsa Mosque by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Salah said he does not rule out another uprising.

Mr. SALAH: (Through Translator) They are Judaizing the whole of Jerusalem. They are turning it into a Jewish entity away from its real identity as a sanctuary that represents Muslims worldwide.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Back in the Old City, Samir Shaludi(ph), who owns a small grocery store, says he expects more trouble.

Mr. SAMIR SHALUDI: (Speaking foreign language)

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think it will escalate, he says. They won't stop, and we won't stop. Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, NPR News, Jerusalem.

Did you find any bias in that story? Well, let’s go back and take a much closer look at Garcia-Navarro’s report. First, let’s look at Garcia-Navarro’s very first statement:

Just outside the al-Aqsa Mosque compound known to Jews as the Temple Mount …

The bias here is subtle, but present. By referring to the area in question as the al-Aqsa Mosque and then noting that Jews have a different name, Garcia-Navarro is essentially telling listeners that the Muslim name for the site is correct while the Jewish name is at best limited to Jews or possibly even wrong. This has the effect of legitimizing Muslim claims to the site and delegitimizing competing Jewish claims. Think how much less biased (and more objective) the report would have begun had Garcia-Navarro simply said:

Just outside the site known to Muslims as the al-Aqsa Mosque and Jews as the Temple Mount …

A slight word change provides balance in place of subtle bias.

Garcia-Navarro then mentions a group of children throwing a rock at Israeli police. Of course the image conjured up by this description is of the poor, helpless Palestinians –- children no less! –- being tormented by the big, bad Israeli military machine. Of course, her description fails to explain to the listener that it is not just children throwing stones. Garcia-Navarro fails to mention that Israeli police found wheelbarrows full of rocks that had been smuggled into the mosque compound, apparently in preparation for pre-planned riots. She fails to mention that Muslims threw stones at Orthodox Jews (civilians) the day before. And Garcia-Navarro fails to explain that in previous riots, Muslims have thrown stones from the mosque compound over the Western Wall and down onto worshipping Jewish civilians. A description of Muslims pre-planning riots where the could throw rocks on Jewish worshippers certainly creates a different image than Garcia-Navarro’s description of a group of children throwing a rock.

The next statement in Garcia-Navarro’s report is the most troubling, by far:

Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. Israel annexed it after the 1967 war, a move that has not been recognized by the international community. The friction now centers around the mosque compound, which stands on a vast stone platform that was once the site of an ancient Jewish temple.

There are several things from this statement that deserve comment. It is true that Palestinians want East Jerusalem as their capital; it is true that Israel annexed East Jerusalem following the Six Day War (in 1967); and it is true that most of the international community has not recognized that annexation. However, Garcia-Navarro’s shorthand description does not provide all of the necessary context for these facts. Without going into a long, drawn out history lesson, it is worth noting that from 1948 until 1967, East Jerusalem was controlled by Jordan, not Palestinians. Moreover, during that period, Jews were not allowed to visit the Temple Mount or worship at the Western (Wailing) Wall (more on that in a minute). Once Israel gained control over East Jerusalem (in a defensive war), the decision could have been made to take control of the Temple Mount (in particular the al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount) away from the Muslims; many on the far right want a new Jewish Temple to be built on the site. But Israel choose to allow the Muslim Waqf to retain control of the al-Aqsa Mosque and to allow Muslims to continue to worship there. If Israelis are so evil, why did they choose to treat Muslim worshippers better then they themselves were treated by the Muslims between 1948 and 1967? Garcia-Navarro mentions none of this; nor does she remind listeners that the final status of Jerusalem and its holy sites is one of most difficult issues to be negotiated as a part of a final Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

And when Garcia-Navarro mentions friction, is she talking about the overall friction between Israelis and Palestinians or is she talking about the more immediate rioting? Because if she is referring to the overall friction, then she is playing into the Palestinian talking position that Israel should not be allowed to control the Western Wall (in fact, some Palestinian leaders have even argued that there is no archeological evidence linking Judaism and Jews to Jerusalem).

And now read, once again, the final sentence of that last part of Garcia-Navarro’s report. I’ve added a bit of emphasis this time:

The friction now centers around the mosque compound, which stands on a vast stone platform that was once the site of an ancient Jewish temple.

Did you notice anything in that last statement? According to Garcia-Navarro’s report, the al-Aqsa Mosque stands on the site of an ancient Jewish temple. “An” ancient temple, as if it was one of many. In a report aired on Monday on Morning Edition (but which is not available on NPR’s website), also by Garcia-Navarro, she noted that the al-Aqsa Mosque is the third holiest site in Islam. However in neither that report nor the one that I’ve reprinted above, did Garcia-Navarro also mention that the Temple Mount (in particular the Western Wall) is the holiest site (perhaps even the only holy site) to Jews! Yet in Garcia-Navarro’s warped world, the Temple Mount and Western Wall are reduced from Judaism’s holiest site to merely the site of an ancient temple (as if there were many…). When Muslims pray, they face Mecca (the holiest site in Islam; they don’t face the Al-Aqsa Mosque); by comparison, when Jews pray they face Jerusalem and, in particular, the Temple Mount. Yet with the simple use of the word “an” Garcia-Navarro endeavors to erase millennia of Jewish connection to Jerusalem and to the ancient Temple.

So, let’s continue to look at Garcia-Navarro’s report:

The orator of the al-Aqsa Mosque, Akramah Sabri, says that the recent unrest was kicked off by worries that extremist settler groups will be allowed in joining the current Jewish festival of Sukkot.

Think about what is being said. Muslims are worried that extremist settler groups “will be allowed [to join] the current Jewish festival of Sukkot”. Oh, my. Jews might be allowed to worship? How could that be permitted. Jews might be permitted to worship at the holiest site in Judaism? Gasp! We must prevent such outrages. Perhaps we should riot! Really, think about it. That’s what Garcia-Navarro and Mr. Sabri are saying, isn’t it? And of course Garcia-Navarro completely fails to mention that for the month of Ramadan, Israeli police took security precautions to be sure that Muslims were permitted to worship at the al-Aqsa Mosque. How unfair those Israelis must be!

The rest of the report essentially contains more of the same. Rather than continue a virtual line-by-line discussion, let me just point out a few highlights (or would those be lowlights?). First, I note that Garcia-Navarro interviews or quotes three Muslims (Akramah Sabri, Raed Salah [one of the men Israel accuses of instigating the current violence), and Samir Shaludi). Between them, they get approximately 125 words in Garcia-Navarro’s report. On the Israeli side, one Israeli police spokesman is quoted and he gets a mere 25 words. And note that Garcia-Navarro does not solicit comments from Israeli civilians or Jewish worshippers. “Man in the street” interviews are limited to Muslims.

It is also worth noting that Garcia-Navarro provides no context to the statements from the Muslims that she interviews. For example, Mr. Sabri claims that Muslims “are there [the al-Aqsa Mosque] to defend the holy sanctuary”. Yet Garcia-Navarro fails to note that Jews, let alone Jewish “extremists,” have not tried to wrest control of the al-Aqsa Mosque from Muslims. Similarly, when Garcia-Navarro interviews Mr. Salah, she fails to note that he is an Israeli citizen, and not a Palestinian resident of the West Bank or East Jerusalem. Imagine the audacity of those Israelis to arrest an Israeli citizen for trying to incite violence against Israel! Moreover, she does not challenge Mr. Salah’s plea:

Give back the sanctuary to its lawful owners. I also call on Palestinians who are able to come out to the holy sanctuary to come and stay there to protect it from these Jewish aggressors.

If her interest was in a balanced report, Garcia-Navarro might have asked Mr. Salah what Jewish aggressors he was referring to. Or she might have noted, as mentioned previously, that Israel has allowed the Muslim Waqf to maintain control of the al-Aqsa Mosque. But a listener without a thorough understanding of the history and issues involved, might be led to believe that Israel had taken the al-Aqsa Mosque from its “lawful owners” (and who might those be, anyway?) or that Jewish aggressors were, in fact, trying to take control of the Mosque.

In fact, Garcia-Navarro exacerbates the problem by not only failing to add this context, but by then adopting and stating as “fact” the Palestinian narrative of the events leading up to the Second Intifada:

The Second Palestinian Intifada, or uprising, was triggered in 2000 after a visit to the al-Aqsa Mosque by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

That “trigger” is commonly claimed by Palestinians; however, facts don’t support the claim (for example, it appears that there was quite a bit of pre-planning that went into the supposedly spontaneous riots; add to that, the fact that the violence seems to have been orchestrated by Yasser Arafat as a way to deflect attention from his unwillingness to agree to a peace deal). Yet Garcia-Navarro uncritically repeats the claim as fact, again making Israel look bad. And note what “bad act” is said to have caused the entire Second Intifada: A visit by Ariel Sharon (who was not at the time the Prime Minister). A mere “visit”; not a “taking control of” or an “attack” or even a “demonstration” or “speech”; just a “visit”. In other words, we are expected to accept the Palestinian claim that spontaneous riots that lasted for years broke out merely because of a visit by Ariel Sharon. But a discussion of the origins of the Second Intifada and the birth of Pallywood is beyond the scope of this post.

Perhaps the entire story is properly summed up by the grocery store owner that Garcia-Navarro quotes at the conclusion of her report:

They are Judaizing the whole of Jerusalem. They are turning it into a Jewish entity away from its real identity as a sanctuary that represents Muslims worldwide.

In other words, Jews are trying to turn Jerusalem, the very center and focus of Jewish life for millennia, long before the birth of either Christ or Muhammad, into something Jewish and prevent it from being a “sanctuary” for Muslims (notwithstanding that prior to 1948 or even 1967 Jerusalem was essentially ignored by Islam, notwithstanding that Islam’s holiest places are secure in Saudi Arabia, and notwithstanding, that prior to 1948, Jerusalem had a very large Jewish population).

When it comes to disputes as complicated and difficult to resolve as those between Israel, the Palestinians, and the rest of the Arab and Muslim world, NPR does its listeners a tremendous disservice by offering biased, rather than balanced, reporting. Furthermore, by offering biased reporting of the kind found in Garcia-Navarro’s report, NPR may be encouraging even more anti-Israel actions or violence. That is not how a well-respected news organization should behave.

The Dangers of Visceral Hatred: Columns Worth Reading

A few weeks ago, I recommended a column by Pierre Atlas in The Indianapolis Star. To really see how coarse the debate has gotten, take a few minutes to read Atlas' column and then read the comments posted by readers of The Indianapolis Star. Now, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has written a column that echoes Atlas' concerns and looks at the danger to our country from the repeated efforts to delegitimize the President (whether it be President Obama or his immediate predecessors). Please take the time to read Friedman's column as well (and take some time to read some of the comments, too).

Because online columns are sometimes removed after a few weeks, I've elected to reprint both Atlas' and Friedman's columns below. I hope that neither The Indianapolis Star nor The New York Times will mind...

----------

Beware extreme rhetoric

By Pierre Atlas
September 10, 2009
Reprinted from The Indianapolis Star

There are many legitimate concerns about health-care reform. But what is getting the most attention from the media and ordinary Americans is the long list of false accusations and terrifying hyperbole about "death panels" and a government takeover of the health-care sector, neither of which is proposed in any of the bills being debated in Congress. Most disturbing, however, is the extreme rhetoric of demonization against the president — rhetoric that might produce horrific consequences.

Every day on the Fox News Channel, Glenn Beck launches into a diatribe against Obama, using bizarre flow charts, channeling Joe McCarthy with accusations of Communists in the White House and calling the president a dangerous dictator. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts steadily attack Barack Obama's legitimacy as president. The so-called "birthers" question Obama's citizenship despite the fact that he has a birth certificate from Hawaii. Some protesters at health-care town hall meetings held posters suggesting it was time for a bloody revolution, while others held pictures of Obama depicted as Hitler.

Of course, extremists on the left made Hitler analogies to President George W. Bush. In April 2003, I wrote a column for The Star about an anti-war protest I witnessed in Chicago in which one of the marchers held a highly offensive sign that said "Bush: Mein Kampf is not the Bible." But there is something palpably different about the extreme right's paranoid obsession with Obama and the hateful vitriol that is being aimed at him. It is more hysterical, more existential. Obama is being portrayed as a threat to everything that is American, as a disease that needs to be eradicated rather than the democratically elected president of the United States. The irrational fear that Obama would indoctrinate schoolchildren with "socialist ideas" in a speech he gave on Tuesday is but the latest example.

Last month, Pastor Steven Anderson gave a sermon in his Faithful World Baptist Church in Arizona titled "Why I Hate Barack Obama." It is available for viewing on YouTube. In the sermon, Anderson declares, "I am not going to pray for his good. I am going to pray that he dies and goes to hell."

Anderson came to public attention when one of his congregants protested outside Obama's speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix, carrying a semi-automatic assault rifle. The man told reporters that he belonged to Anderson's congregation and that he had been inspired to take the gun to the event after listening to Anderson's anti-Obama sermon.

Extreme rhetoric of hate and demonization set the stage for the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. I was in Israel about 16 months before the assassination. Outside the official prime minister's residence in Jerusalem, I saw banners proclaiming that Rabin had "the blood of Jews on his hands" and denouncing him as a "traitor" to Israel and the Jewish people. Extremist rabbis declared that, according to Jewish law, Rabin could be justifiably killed for being willing to withdraw from territories captured in the 1967 war. Rabin was depicted in a Nazi SS uniform. Rather than denouncing the extremists, opposition leaders and future prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu egged on the anti-Rabin rhetoric for their own political purposes. It was from this vile atmosphere that the lone and unrepentant assassin Yigal Amir emerged to take the prime minister's life and alter the course of Middle East peace, perhaps forever.

When I see and hear repeated instances of anti-Obama hysteria and hate, I can't help but think of that atmosphere in Israel. Responsible Americans — and especially responsible Republicans and conservatives — need to denounce the hateful and dangerous rhetoric that has filled town hall meetings, the airwaves, cyberspace, and the cable news channels. With rights come responsibilities, and this includes our constitutional rights to free expression. Democracy isn't endangered by ignorant hotheads making hysterical statements and accusations. But it can be endangered when responsible and rational people remain silent in the face of potentially violent hate speech.

----------

 
Where Did ‘We’ Go?

By Thomas L. Friedman
September 30, 2009
Reprinted from The New York Times
I hate to write about this, but I have actually been to this play before and it is really disturbing.

I was in Israel interviewing Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin just before he was assassinated in 1995. We had a beer in his office. He needed one. I remember the ugly mood in Israel then — a mood in which extreme right-wing settlers and politicians were doing all they could to delegitimize Rabin, who was committed to trading land for peace as part of the Oslo accords. They questioned his authority. They accused him of treason. They created pictures depicting him as a Nazi SS officer, and they shouted death threats at rallies. His political opponents winked at it all.

And in so doing they created a poisonous political environment that was interpreted by one right-wing Jewish nationalist as a license to kill Rabin — he must have heard, “God will be on your side” — and so he did.

Others have already remarked on this analogy, but I want to add my voice because the parallels to Israel then and America today turn my stomach: I have no problem with any of the substantive criticism of President Obama from the right or left. But something very dangerous is happening. Criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination.

What kind of madness is it that someone would create a poll on Facebook asking respondents, “Should Obama be killed?” The choices were: “No, Maybe, Yes, and Yes if he cuts my health care.” The Secret Service is now investigating. I hope they put the jerk in jail and throw away the key because this is exactly what was being done to Rabin.

Even if you are not worried that someone might draw from these vitriolic attacks a license to try to hurt the president, you have to be worried about what is happening to American politics more broadly.

Our leaders, even the president, can no longer utter the word “we” with a straight face. There is no more “we” in American politics at a time when “we” have these huge problems — the deficit, the recession, health care, climate change and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — that “we” can only manage, let alone fix, if there is a collective “we” at work.

Sometimes I wonder whether George H.W. Bush, president “41,” will be remembered as our last “legitimate” president. The right impeached Bill Clinton and hounded him from Day 1 with the bogus Whitewater “scandal.” George W. Bush was elected under a cloud because of the Florida voting mess, and his critics on the left never let him forget it.

And Mr. Obama is now having his legitimacy attacked by a concerted campaign from the right fringe. They are using everything from smears that he is a closet “socialist” to calling him a “liar” in the middle of a joint session of Congress to fabricating doubts about his birth in America and whether he is even a citizen. And these attacks are not just coming from the fringe. Now they come from Lou Dobbs on CNN and from members of the House of Representatives.

Again, hack away at the man’s policies and even his character all you want. I know politics is a tough business. But if we destroy the legitimacy of another president to lead or to pull the country together for what most Americans want most right now — nation-building at home — we are in serious trouble. We can’t go 24 years without a legitimate president — not without being swamped by the problems that we will end up postponing because we can’t address them rationally.

The American political system was, as the saying goes, “designed by geniuses so it could be run by idiots.” But a cocktail of political and technological trends have converged in the last decade that are making it possible for the idiots of all political stripes to overwhelm and paralyze the genius of our system.

Those factors are: the wild excess of money in politics; the gerrymandering of political districts, making them permanently Republican or Democratic and erasing the political middle; a 24/7 cable news cycle that makes all politics a daily battle of tactics that overwhelm strategic thinking; and a blogosphere that at its best enriches our debates, adding new checks on the establishment, and at its worst coarsens our debates to a whole new level, giving a new power to anonymous slanderers to send lies around the world. Finally, on top of it all, we now have a permanent presidential campaign that encourages all partisanship, all the time among our leading politicians.

I would argue that together these changes add up to a difference of degree that is a difference in kind — a different kind of American political scene that makes me wonder whether we can seriously discuss serious issues any longer and make decisions on the basis of the national interest.

We can’t change this overnight, but what we can change, and must change, is people crossing the line between criticizing the president and tacitly encouraging the unthinkable and the unforgivable.