“I think many people, millions of people, in this country are upset with the tenor and the attitude of our people. I think America has become very angry and people are upset about that. They don’t feel that our government is working together to solve problems, and the reason they feel that way is because they’re not. And people are very, very angry. There are people in the industry that you’re in who make a pretty good living off of keeping the public very angry. I think that there are a lot of political people that feel that it’s to their advantage to keep people angry at the government.”– Prima County sheriff Clarence Dupnik

Words matter.

Here are comments grabbed from Sarah Palin’s Facebook page yesterday, January 9th regarding the murders Saturday in Arizona–specifically Chris Taylor-Green. H/T to ObamaLondon:

Let me say this:  I believe words are powerfiul.  You can make someone feel wonderful with words.  You can make somjeone feel the sting of pain and rejection.  You can also make someone angry.  Words are living, breathing mechanisms that can alter the emotional state.  That point is indisuputable.

With that said, let’s not play games of pass the buck here.  Sarah Palin and her ilk did not advocate for the death of Representative Gabby Giffords.  But their use of words and imagery–intentional or not–have caused a super-heated climate of anger and mistrust.  Why would she tolerate that kind of talk on her Facebook page?  Why not simply scrub them away, just as she does with comments perceived as negative toward her?

It would be advisable–in my opinion–if the former governor recognizes this point. Real leaders recognize their strengths and weaknesses.  By championing the cause of calm– and recognizing her error in judgement for her use of gun sight imagery and language– she would establish a stronger leadership presence, and I’d wager she’d gain substantial respect.

It starts by being responsible.  It starts by recognizing your role in the degradation of American discourse.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This post was originally published August 27, 2009

“… the perpetuation of an atrocity cannot and should not be a basis for losing sight of who we are … Mr. Al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power. It’s one that no court … could revoke or overrule. It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die.”

Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi is the convicted terrorist responsible for exploding a bomb on a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988.  270 people were killed.  His was the sole conviction in a case that paralyzed and terrified the world community.  Mr. Al-Megrahi was released after serving only eight years of his life sentence.  The Scottish government felt it necessary to release him on compassionate grounds.  Mr. Al-Megrahi has cancer, and it was deemed appropriate to allow this man to live out the rest of his days with family, in the seclusion of his home back in Libya.  Are you outraged yet?  I am.  I am completely baffled and incensed.

Let me unequivocally say that I believe in compassion.  I believe that all of us have an inherent feeling toward righting wrongs done to our fellow man or woman, and meting out humane justice when necessary.  I also believe in ethics.  I believe that we should recognize certain rules of conduct and apply them for certain human actions.  The society of man has moral principles and laws that should be obeyed. We need ethics to keep our society from crashing into the abyss and to prevent complete anarchy.  Scotland and Great Britain, in my estimation, have made a grave error in judgment and divine presumptuousness.  Here are two reasons for my opinion:

1. If Al-Megrahi’s sentence was a death sentence, it was fairly safe to assume that he would die in prison.  I would imagine that there are no allowances or variations on how he should die.  It could have been old age.  It could have been prison food, or too much sunlight.  It could have been by a crudely-made sharp object lodged into the base of his skull. Or, it could have been his cancer.  His conviction on 270 counts of mass murder made his sentence what it was.  Compassion aside, he deserved his fate.  I do not know how Kenny MacAskill arrived at his decision. I don’t know what ordained light shined brightly in his mind, giving him the authority from on high to pardon this man.  Perhaps this “sentence from a higher power,” as MacAskill put it, was God’s retribution.  I am too insignificant to say, but I’m sure the victims of Al-Megrahi’s ruthlessness wished to the heavens that they had such divine intervention.  Then maybe their loved ones would be alive today.

2. Speaking of the victims’ families, how must they be taking this news?  Not well, I assure you.  I wonder if Scottish and British authorities spoke to the families about this decision?  I can’t help but wonder where the compassion was for the families and victims of this tragedy?  Surely Mr. MacAskill believes proper deference should have been paid to those still reeling from losing their family.  This decision, however, does not reflect that in the slightest.

This decision has sparked clear outrage throughout the world, a clear example of how cohesive and necessary our ethical code is.  We must live by these rules, lest we be cast into the fiery pits of madness. Compassion should have its place, but never at the expense of our ethics, and never at the expense of a just society.  Al-Megrahi should die in prison.

UPDATE:  Did BP influence Scotland’s decision to release Al-Megrahi because of commercial interests in Libya?

Could this add another layer to BP’s rotten onion?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I sat riveted in my chair for a good 20 seconds before I realized this was one of the most futile exchanges I’ve seen in a while.  Debating whether or not American citizens should have Miranda rights is anathema to American ideals.  Throwing the baby out with the bath water.  I’m amazed that conservative fervor toward combating terrorism, blinds them to the very tenets of freedom they champion so strenuously.  Anyway, watch Beck and O’Reilly have at it:

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Photo courtesy of Reuters

“Now, the president, with all the vast nuclear experience that he acquired as a community organizer and as a part-time senator, and as a full-time candidate, all that experience, still no accomplishment to date with North Korea and Iran.”  Sarah Palin, speaking at SRLC, April 9th, 2010

President Obama is hosting 47 world leaders in Washington, D.C. for a two day summit on nuclear non-proliferation and terrorism.  It is the first summit of its kind in more than 50 years, and it has already borne fruit.  The Ukraine has decided to eliminate its nuclear material.  This is a real policy victory.  Former Soviet republics like the Ukraine, have an abundance of enriched uranium, shining like a beacon to terrorist organizations seeking such to craft a weapon.  The crux of the summit is to secure world cooperation in eliminating the threat of nuclear material falling into the hands of terrorists–and ultimately reducing the threat of nuclear warfare.

This is most admirable, even if it may not be totally achievable.  Does the president have the will and experience to tackle such a difficult subject? Let’s take a closer look into the president’s work on nuclear non-proliferation. While doing so, please keep the above quote from Sarah Palin in mind.

The Obama administration has negotiated its first major arms control treaty: a new pact between the U.S. and Russia that would cut by 30 percent the number of strategic nuclear warheads each country is permitted to deploy.

In 2005, in his first foreign trip as a U.S. senator, Obama traveled to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), then-chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. The purpose of the trip was to examine facilities for the storage and destruction of conventional, biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Obama and Lugar subsequently co-wrote a December 2005 Washington Post op-ed on the issue and appeared together in a discussion at the Council on Foreign Relations on “Challenges Ahead For Cooperative Threat Reduction,” in which Obama detailed ways to improve the U.S. program to control, secure, and dismantle weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union.

Obama and Lugar co-authored the “Lugar-Obama non-proliferation initiative,” which “enhances U.S. efforts to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles and to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction throughout the world.” The legislation was signed into law by President Bush in January 2007. According to a June 28, 2007, press release from Lugar, he and Obama subsequently secured “$36 million for programs to destroy heavy conventional weapons, $10 million for efforts to intercept weapons and materials of mass destruction, and $2 million for rapid response to proliferation detection and interdiction emergencies.”

Obama introduced the Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 2007 (S.1977), with then-Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) as an original co-sponsor, which would “provide for sustained United States leadership in a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use of nuclear technology.”

Obama reportedly authored his college thesis on “Soviet nuclear disarmament.” Moreover, Washington Monthly reported in September 2006: “On the campaign trail in 2004, Obama spoke passionately about the dangers of loose nukes and the legacy of the Nunn-Lugar nonproliferation program, a framework created by a 1991 law to provide the former Soviet republics assistance in securing and deactivating nuclear weapons. Lugar took note, as ‘nonproliferation’ is about as common a campaign sound-bite for aspiring senators as ‘exchange-rate policy’ or ‘export-import bank oversight.’”

Moving beyond the red-meat rhetoric and empty firebrand talking points, one gets the sense that the president’s credibility on this issue is nuanced, iron-clad and genuine.  It comes from a position of strength and knowledge.   His efforts will result in a more secure world, where all nations–even nations in which Sarah Palin is a part– will play a role in being accountable for nuclear security and non-proliferation.  Does this mean we’re all safe from nuclear holocaust?  No, but the path is more clear, and the foundation has been laid to advance the summit’s goal. 

Nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism pose the greatest threat to the collective security of all nations, and it’s time someone led the charge against it.  And those that question the president’s initiatives– without full knowledge of his experience on them– should be advised to think before they speak.  Bravo Mr. President.

HT: Media Matters

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Liz Cheney’s ridiculous outfit Keep America Safe should investigate this:

It turns out that among the many high-profile lawyers who have represented so-called “terrorist detainees” is a top attorney with Rudy Giuliani’s firm, Bracewell Giuliani, according to court documents examined by TPMmuckraker.

Bracewell Giuliani Attorney Carol Elder Bruce, a distinguished white collar litigator, is listed as counsel in two detainee habeas cases, EL-MASHAD et al v. BUSH et al and ALLADEEN et al v. BUSH et al. Both are in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia.

El-Mashad, an Egyptian national who was captured near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in late 2001, was released to Albania late last month.

Cheney’s group is known for its propagandist, blisteringly false critiques of the Obama administration’s stance on foreign policy– and its approach to the war on terror.  Lately Cheney has sounded off on Justice Department officials who have represented Guantanamo detainees.  Here’s one of the group’s ads regarding Gitmo representation.

Will Cheney call Guiliani out for his firm’s business dealings with suspected terrorists?  Here’s her opportunity to prove she’s not a shrill mouth piece for her father’s antiquated views, and defend her position without demagoguery.   Or not.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Who is Vernon Hunter?  I wouldn’t have known the answer to that question if it weren’t for a few dedicated writers.  They decided to spotlight the real hero of last week’s domestic terrorist attack against an Austin IRS building.  Vernon Hunter was a father.  He was a husband.  He was a Vietnam veteran, who was employed at the IRS building at the time of Joe Stack’s premeditated, cowardly attack.   Ask yourself this question:  Why would the media focus so intimately on Stack’s dementia and anarchist views, and not on the man who was killed as a result of them?  Ken Hunter, Vernon’s son, wonders aloud to reporters last week that very same thing:

“There was just too much going on about what the guy did and what he believed in, and enough’s enough. They don’t need to talk about him. Talk about my dad. You know, some people are trying to make this guy out to be a hero, a patriot. My dad served two terms in Vietnam. This guy never served at all. My dad wasn’t responsible for his tax problems.”

Lost in the madness of the act itself, and the fascination with the culprit, is the real tragedy.  The human tragedy that seems is being ignored.  Amidst the Stack frenzy– the plaudits from fringe elements hailing him as a hero and the profane, chilling attempt at humor by Jed Babbin at the CPAC conference– where is the attention on the man who was killed?  Why is the focus not on a man who leaves behind a family who loved and honored him?  Could it be because Mr. Hunter did not have blond hair and blue eyes as writers have suggested here and here? I only have questions to ask at this point.

I will do my part to remember Vernon Hunter, the man who perished in a senseless attack.  The man who just went to work that day, engaging in the mundane routine so many of us take for granted.  The man who ably, proudly served two tours of duty in a foreign land fighting an unwinnable war and survived unscathed– only to see his life snuffed out by exploding fuel and twisted steel in his own country.  Vernon Hunter did not deserve to die this way any more than Joe Stack deserves his surreal turn in the spotlight.  I am outraged.  Outraged and embarrassed.  Embarrassed because we don’t love heroes anymore.  We love sideshows.  We love television movies of the week– the more lurid and sick, the better.

I am sorry Mr. Hunter, that your country did not think more of you than this.  At least in my eyes, your death is not an insignificant occurance.  Perhaps after this, it won’t be in the eyes of others as well.

HT: Brown Man Thinking and Joan Walsh

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

QUOTE OF THE DAY:

“We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we’ve had one under Obama.” -Rudy Giuliani on ABC’s Good Morning America.

…

Wow. The pathology of some of these wingnuts is astounding.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

From Andrew and the Dish:

Bloggers have had a great time exposing the inconsistency on the pro-torture right. Why should Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab be tortured as an enemy combatant while Richard Reid was prosecuted by civilian authorities under Bush? Isn’t the unconscious truth obvious? One has an English name; the other has a very foreign-sounding Muslim name. One was born in Bromley and one in Kenya. One is “us”; the other is “them”. And it is much easier to torture them than to torture us. It just seems to me that this distinction has no moral, legal or strategic basis.

There are quite a few inconsistencies with the Shoe bomber case and the Underwear bomber case– beginning with the hypocritical reaction on the right toward the Obama administration’s response to Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab’s attempt at mass murder– and their muted response to Richard Reid’s attack at the time.  Can one make a case for bigotry in this instance?  I wouldn’t rule it out.  We hate Muslims.  We hate dark-skinned Muslims even more.  Hey, I have an idea; why don’t we just profile young Muslims in America?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

What the hell is wrong with full body scanners?  If it enables me to fly unencumbered by the threat of assholes with  C-4 in their thongs, then I’m all for it.  I’ll take a little discomfort for safety any day of the week.  Let’s get on with it TSA.  Make it happen!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Scott Roeder, accused of killing abortion doctor George Tiller

From a reader of The Daily Dish, June 1, 2009:

I remember sitting in my bible study shortly after the Sept 11 attacks.  The women were discussing the horrible things Islamic terrorists do in the name of their God and their religion.  I was too private to let them know my experiences.

I ran three Plan Parenthood Clinics in the early 90s.  I worked for Planned Parenthood when Dr Gunn was murdered in Pensacola.

I had been followed home from work.  I had my car vandalized with pictures of aborted fetuses.  My nurses had to receive police escorts to their cars in our parking lots.  My office had rocks thrown through it.  The clinic had to be searched by bomb sniffing dogs one night after being broken into.  I received threats in the mail on a regular basis. My parents were always afraid I would be shot at going to work.

All this in the name of a Christian God and a Christian religion.  It was religious terrorism.  And it was US Citizen on US Citizen happening right here in our suburbs.

Hmmm… Are we allowing a virulent strain of religious fanaticism to engulf us?  Don’t we already condemn and repudiate this behavior in Muslim extremists?

This was a poignant, all-to real letter from an American citizen– worried about our disintegrating politics– and our inhumanity to one another.  The murder of abortion doctor George Tiller tore a new chasm into the fabric of the abortion debate.  And it also created a parallel argument– one that asks the question: are rabid anti-abortionists religious terrorists?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.