Cross-posted locally.
OK, technically Wikileaks is a website, and websites can’t pull triggers.
Unless it’s Sarah Palin’s website.
And so the Republic is tested again.
This is the only story in politics right now. The House could declare war on Canada, and I would hardly notice, as long as the Senate hadn’t voted yet.
I want Gabrielle Giffords to get well and hold a press conference. I want her to crack a joke, and to announce that her next “Congress on the Corner” event will take place as soon as she is healthy enough to do it. I know that I may not get this, any of it, but that’s what I want. And all of that is to say, I’m not making fun of her, the victims, or the situation.
But I find it odd that, last month, so many people were defending Wikileaks, which was dealing with matters of life and death and war. This month, some of the same people are saying, “Words matter. Words have consequences.”
Um … yes. That’s why we use them.
I’ve read the threads at Blue Mass Group and Blue Hampshire with great interest. Three comments spoke the loudest to me: this one by elwood, this one by Tim C., and this one by Mr. Lynne. Everything said, in all three of those comments, is absolutely true. The Michael Moore quote in the last link is killer. The Tom Tomorrow quote right under it is even better.
But none of this matters. We could debate, for the next 10 years, about the rhetoric of the left and right, and (in my opinion) the left would win, every day. But we would win nothing, because that is the wrong battle to fight.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
— (probably never said by) Voltaire
Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle are not at fault here. If Palin opened a chain of gun shops, and offered guns personally signed by her and had a store in Arizona, she would not be at fault here. Sharron Angle is a Senate candidate who lost, a powerless goofball somewhere in Nevada. The man she lost to has real power, and he used it last year to (among other things) vote for an Afghan war funding bill proposed by his president, the most articulate, reasonable, and well-spoken politician in the country. Use of words is a big part of why Obama is president, and part of why Sharron Angle has no power. Words matter. Words have consequences.
But those tanks in Afghanistan have even greater consequences. It’s hard to reply to bullets.
Why do we accuse others of causing actual harm through inappropriate speech? Do we not recall that such accusations have been made about us, and will be again?
Political speech is dangerous. Politics is dangerous.
It is dangerous because it matters. It is not good that it is dangerous, but it is good that it matters. This is the price of freedom. With great freedom comes great irresponsibility. God bless America.
As people who care about political speech and engage in it, we have to grant others the same freedom we grant ourselves. That means, in part, that we give them the broadest possible benefit of the doubt. We should assume that they mean well and want the best for our country. We should not hurl accusations over what we consider their irresponsible behavior.
Of course “Second Amendment remedies” is over the proverbial line. But who gets to draw the line? Any satirist will tell you that you don’t know where the line is until you step over it.
It might help that I’m in my 40s, which means I’ve had 30 years or so of Baby Boomer media telling me that I’m screwed up. A grieving Dad decided to sue Judas Priest over his son’s suicide, and some goofy judge dragged the entire band into the courtroom for months. I didn’t even like Judas Priest, but anyone could see that there but for a bit of luck went a lot of bands I do like. Tipper Gore became nationally famous for crusading against rock lyrics, and then came to regret it, even asking the PMRC to disband before Al ran for president (they refused). The Clash’s Combat Rock tour was called their “North American Campaign,” and I’m pretty sure the T-shirts had something on them that looked like targets, over the cities. So clearly …
Until a couple of years ago, we still used Blockbuster Video in our town, which is named after “blockbuster” movies, which are named after blockbuster bombs. Speaking of war, strafing is a good strategy if you play DOOM, which you should if you never have. I’m pretty sure that game made me less violent, not more so.
When I write about politics, I tend to avoid profanity because I know its power. I want to be read, and I don’t want to give someone an excuse to ignore me. But that’s my choice, and it’s meaningless if profanity isn’t allowed. I use a music analogy: I sing (poorly) in one key, but I want all keys available.
I cite no less an authority than John Candy.
I was taught that the word fuck is something sacred, something that could always get a laugh when needed.
Fuckin’ A right, John. RIP.
I don’t like Sarah Palin or Sharron Angle, and I really don’t like Mike Huckabee (who I predict will be heard from next, after Pawlenty). But I want to defeat these people at the ballot box, because we won a battle of ideas, not because they said something stupid and irresponsible. I wouldn’t wish that on our candidates, and I don’t wish it on their candidates.
On to 2012. Here’s to a speedy recovery for Rep. Giffords. If she decides to run in 2016, I’m with her. I’ve learned a lot about her in the last few days, and she seems to be the kind of leader we need.
Deserves front page
It even makes me reluctant to express disagreement as that would mar its poetry.
You are our resident Calvin Trillian with your pithy comments.
Are you suggesting some kind of equivalency between wikileaks and the righties who use violent rhetoric? If so I reject the comparison. Neither Manning nor Assange called for violence; they just spoke and disseminated the truth.
If I understand JimC correctly, the point is that democracy grants speech enormous power. We see that in both the Wikileaks case and in the ‘climate of hate’. He also points out, rightly, that we also see it in the continuation of the Afghanistan War — and that that has ended more lives than Loughner by a few orders of magnitude.
When I read it, I took away something different –
<
p>
<
p>What I took that to mean was that when some pointed out the possibility that Assange could be endangering people with these leaks, the primacay of speech was cited regardless of potential danger to American clandestine supporters in hostile countries. And now, many who disparaged the possible danger in war zones are urging a crackdown and assignment of blame to those whose speech they disagree with by citing this shooting and the potential for more violence. And that the two were incompatible – that potential harm by Assange and potential harm by Angle are one and the same, and should be supported and decried regardless of one’s own political beliefs, not support one because you agree and supress the other because you don’t.
<
p>Not only do words matter, but even an identical arrangement of them can be understood in different ways.
… it too. The thing is, in regards to Wikileaks, I’ve remained open minded that there may have been real harm in the leak. Whether or not there is harm in the leak would depend on the leak of course. Everyone I saw wringing their hands about such harm didn’t really demonstrate any harm of consequence (relative to the public being better informed about their own government thanks to a break in the wall of (usually unnecessary) frequency). I still haven’t heard a demonstration of harm that I’d find an unacceptable trade-off. When I do I feel perfectly justified in criticizing wikileaks, and remain open to just such a view. I do think the words matter – and they matter in terms of what they can do. The words in the wikileaks case demonstrate a different harm (actual or potential) both in kind and context than the words in right-wing rhetoric. As such, because they are different, it isn’t hypocritical to evaluate them with different results.
<
p>See my response to KBush below.
<
p>
Has been identified by the Pentagon. Not one.
…noticed that too. Moreover, I’m not sure anything truly important under the umbrella of ‘national security’ came out either. My take, so far, on the incident was much the same as Fareed Zakaria:
<
p>
has been attributed to talk radio, or sarah palin. But that hasn’t stopped your fellow travelers from arguing that, has it?
… blame either of them for the act, I blame them for contributing to rhetoric that, quite frankly, does and should make the secret service more nervous than in the past.
What is going on today is actually tame compared to late 18th century and 19th century political discourse.
lets not forget that the level of vitriol in 18th and 19th centuries also led to corresponding outbreaks of actual violence. I would not like to see that repeated.
A number of duels (Hamilton v. Burr probably best known)
Brawls on the floor of Congress
Bleeding Kansas
John Brown’s Raid
CIVIL WAR
You have just asserted that the Civil War was caused by words.
<
p>You might want to rephrase that.
Did you mean to reply to Christopher?
<
p>However, I think it is far to say that the violent rhetoric of that time was a factor in pushing the South into seceding.
Sorry about that. Errant click.
<
p>”A factor” — sure, OK. But in general, aren’t the people who engage in rhetoric people who reflect the times?
<
p>Was rhetoric a factor in the American revolution?
<
p>
Yes, both the Revolution and Civil War were culminations of increasingly hostile rhetoric in the years leading up to those events.
Practice what you preach, EaBo. If you call people “fellow travelers” you’re calling them communists — people many would say this country fought a long Cold War against.
<
p>It is as if someone wrote “but that hasn’t stopped your fellow jihadis at RMG from arguing that, has it?”
I would call conservatives my fellow travelers as well. Pardon my ignorance.
<
p>Do you ever use the term “beyond the pale”? Did you know that you are using a derogatory term against all people of Gaelic Irish descent if you do? For everything beyond the Pale according to the medieval English were savages. Who was beyond the Pale? That’s right the Irish.
<
p>Words and phrases enter the common lexicon Bob and have different meanings.
but I did read a quote from a Taliban spokesman “If they are US spies, then we know how to punish them.”, so I fully expect some of these people to end up dead because of the Afghanistan document leak at some point or another.
<
p>
… the source is the very secretive government that is protesting here. The article talks a lot about “could” and “might”. In the context of an overly secretive government crying foul about leaks, they don’t get much ‘benefit of the doubt’ from me. My guess is that if they had actual examples, they’d be broadcasting about them since they’d bolster their case.
I think you are probably right that the US would probably want to make public any harm caused by the leak, but it is possible that they might want to keep it quiet for security reasons. Who knows?
<
p>My feeling was that leaking these documents without bothering to redact the identities of people who might face retribution was extremely irresponsible and there is simply no excuse for it.
.. the point of giving speech power is to hold up competition in the marketplace of ideas as a core value of the republic. That said, it is absolutely right that such things as Palin’s website are not to be outlawed. However, this value is also absolutely consistent with criticism of rhetoric. The elevation of free speech is not the same as elevation of freedom from criticism. What’s happening now is criticism, not calls for censorship. The wisdom of leaking on Wikileaks or targets on campaign images is a matter to be debated, and it has been debated. The difference now is that there are new contexts in which such a debate is taking place. That this new context has changed the emphasis and tenor of the debate is to be expected.
<
p>Criticism of speech that is, and should remain, free is in keeping with our value of free speech.
<
p>I get the angst that can be had watching the zeitgeist’s dysfunction regarding of freedom of speech that JimC points out here. But I very much disagree that “We should not hurl accusations over what we consider their irresponsible behavior.” If what we find is that there is behavior that is irresponsible, the values of civic participation and the freedom of speech compels us to assert as such in the marketplace of ideas. I don’t know of anyone calling for the suppression of speech in any way other than what might be termed in conservative circles as ‘taking personal responsibility’. The distinction between criticism and outlawing is important because they differ with respect to freedom of speech.
<
p>I’d furthermore argue that it is at least possible to hold a view where it isn’t inconsistent to criticize Palin’s image while not criticizing Wikileaks. In the context of an overly classified and secretive government, there is societal utility to subverting the mechanisms of such secretiveness – subject to the relative weight of potential harm. In the context of people showing up to campaign events with guns and the intent to disrupt, there is societal utility in keeping rhetoric from being inflammatory – subject to the relative weight of potential harm (and certainly, limiting speech should be considered a harm in this context). Simply put, it isn’t inconsistent to believe that the relative harm (demonstrated and potential) in the Wikileaks case should err on one side while the relative harm of right-wing rhetoric (potential and demonstrated) might err on the other. It’s all contextual. Moreover, despite protestations otherwise, I think it’s clear that comparing the context of the right and of the left with regard to ‘volatility’, the utility as stated is more sensitive on one side than the other.
<
p>My 2 cents.
I’ve seen on this subject.
<
p>Anyone who utters this sentence:
<
p>
<
p>and cannot fathom the sort of speech that fuels hatred, violence, and intolerance and the sort of speech that comes with the publishing of leaked governmental documents is either ill-equipped to appreciate that all speech is not equal or is rather inartfully trying to suggest an equivalence for less than respectable reasons.
<
p>Asking political leaders not to use violent, murderous imagery to make a point is a lot like asking them not to use the bigoted imagery of old, say, like a fawning black man as butler or a beaming high-heeled woman with set & comb-out in the kitchen, or a hook-nosed man, or an effeminate male to convey their ideas and is nothing like publishing documents that hold governments accountable to its citizenry.
<
p>It’s not heresy or an infringement of anyone’s speech rights to ask people to be thoughtful about what they say or convey when they are trying to convince people to take action. It is not unreasonable to ask that our politicians elevate both their discourse and their diction.
<
p>Your comparison to the “speech” of WikiLeaks is not only faulty but is, imho, an affront to the value of investigative journalism, governmental accountability, and citizen empowerment.
Most critics of Palin, Angle, etal that I’ve heard and read are condemning these people for their words without suggesting that they should be held criminally responsible for anyone’s death. Most are agreeing with Sheriff Dupnik that free speech has consequences and that we should be more mindful of the toxicity of our political rhetoric particularly when it appears to encourage violence.
I’ve defended WikiLeaks here and believe your analogy is weak. As Glenn Greenwald so often repeats
Your suggestion — unless I’ve misunderstood — is otherwise. And as we all know Julian Assange is being charged by many with crimes worse than what Palin and company are being accused of.
might have a slightly different take on your views that right-wing rhetoric has not effect on people’s actions.
<
p>Be sure you read the transcript of his phone messages, as eloquent as they are.
<
p>Mr. Habermann is just another anti-tax, anti-immigrant, homophobic, anti-Obama nut clearly immune to extremist right-wing rhetoric. Why, I suspect not one word of hate radio or Glenn Beck would affect him one way or another.
and you usually do.
<
p>
<
p>I bet we could make a long list of libertarian tax resisters who barricaded themselves in their homes and threatened FBI agents trying to bring them into custody, who don’t even have a TV, never mind get the daily paper delivered, but listen to voices in their heads.
<
p>It’s the commentators on the left and right who use them to illustrate and illuminate their own political agenda.
some of these people are NOT affected by what they read and hear on hate radio? Really?
“affected” adjective acted upon; influenced., influenced in a harmful way; impaired, harmed, or attacked, as by climate or disease, (of the mind or feelings) impressed; moved; touched: She was deeply affected by their generosity.
<
p>Maybe, maybe not.
<
p>Voices in the head of potential shooters tend to drown out voices on hate radio.
<
p>And potential shooters with the undiagnosed personality disorders or other conditions that impair their judgment AND who listen to hate radio probably do get support and relief discovering others think like them in the real airwaves.
<
p>(I suspect the less impaired actually call in to hate radio for added support and relief and to drive masochistic liberal listeners to despair.)
<
p>But what do I know, being smothered at the moment by differing strong opinions by family members and friends.
<
p>I just want a little support and relief from my President tonight.
have undiagnosed or even diagnosed personality disorders and there is absolutely no evidence that that is the case. Besides, that sort of reasoning ignores all the other types of violence that don’t rise to that level–vandalism, stalking, harassing phone calls, assaults, etc. You don’t have to shoot someone in the head, you know, to be influenced by hyperbolic violent rhetoric. Sometimes you just might throw a brick through a window or smash a windshield or key a car or set fire to campaign headquarters in the middle of the night. Sometimes people without personality disorders do things they might not do because they’ve been frightened so much into believing that Obama is illegitimate or that their guns are going to be taken away or that our country is turning “socialist” or teh gayz are trying to convert our young people. Sometimes you can just be ignorant and stupid and be goaded into action.
about ordinary people, NOT just the ignorant and stupid, to be goaded into action…………
<
p>
Hope emerges, but a lot of other stuff does too.
<
p>I apologize for not commenting sooner. We lost power, and my daughter is sick. But that was fortuitous, because the replies defending my post are more eloquent than my replies would have been. Crowd sourcing!
<
p>On the matter of “comparing” Offensive Thing X to Wikileaks: I am not doing that. But I am pointing out that “violent rhetoric” is everywhere. Some people are choosing to hear it selectively because, at this moment, it suits their political agenda. Fine, but don’t complain when it’s done to you or your allies, because it will be.
<
p>It is simply wrong, in the heat of tragedy, to blame anyone but the perpetrator. Michael Moore made the point about the theoretical “Detroit Muslim” with targets on a map. Well, if he got arrested based on that, wouldn’t we defend him? Shouldn’t we, if he had no direct connection to the incident? Conversely, someone on Blue Hampshire highlighted the video about the aide who helped Giffords, and he happens to be a Hispanic immigrant and gay, so someone said, “This man deserves equal rights!” Another person pointed out that he deserves equal rights regardless. Exactly.
<
p>Do I make value judgments about what people say? Do I prefer King Lear to “Let’s get ready to rumble?” Yes I do, and yes we can, and as Mr. Lynne notes, the freedom to criticize what other people say is absolutely integral to the First Amendment.
<
p>Are you a football fan? Do you think that the Pats will beat/thrash/kill the Jets this weekend? I wish it was Miami, I’ll bet the Pats would really Squish that Fish.
<
p>Blog on, mates. Thanks for reading, and for commenting.
<
p>
…in what came out of wikileaks.
No rhetoric came out of Wikileaks. The latest batch was diplomats talking to each other.
<
p>But the society that’s most affected by Wikileaks depends on free speech, and the wellspring of free speech is the First Amendment, and that’s the tension that Wikileaks rides. Without the First Amendment, they can throw Julian Assange in jail, and you and I can’t say anything about it. He may yet be thrown in jail — who knows? But he’ll get due process, at least … probably. :-!
<
p>Personally I’d like to hear more about the lighter side of Wikileaks.
<
p>
are arguing to put Palin or Beck in jail.
And just because it may be futile to trace this or other violent acts directly to a particular hateful or provocative speech, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t point out the danger of this sort of speech because of the potential consequences.
I think you’re confused on this.
THEY DIDN’T COMMIT ANY CRIMES! So people do other things, like make dark assertions about who’s to blame. The shooter is to blame. Next question.
<
p>Why do you hate America, Marc?
<
p>Oh wait, sorry, that’s a rude question … I remember being offended when it was asked of people like me.
<
p>You’re right, I am confused.
<
p>
that it’s wrong to point out that some rhetoric can have bad consequences? I don’t, so long as it’s based on facts and good logic.
People can say that I hate my country as much as they want, but this sort of attack doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny. They can and should say what they think but should also be prepared to back up what they say with facts.
It sounds to me that you’re arguing that since some criticism is unfair and irrational, we should refrain from all criticism.
… when it reads like this?
<
p>
<
p>
many people on the left have made value judgments on what Palin and Bachmann and Angle have said and yet you criticize us for doing so. As far as I know very few are saying that these same people are directly responsible for what Loughner did, but that their speech has contributed to a climate where violence of this type is more likely to occur.
Here’s my problem.
<
p>
<
p>If that is true, and their speech is responsible, then the obvious followup question is, why wasn’t our more measured speech able to prevent it? Don’t we all contribute to the climate? It’s not 2002 anymore; until recently Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House. We haven’t been silent. Who created this climate?
<
p>And please don’t misunderstand me. I am NOT blaming us either. I blame Loughner, and his accomplice if one emerges.
<
p>We can, and we should, criticize other people’s speech.
<
p>But when actual violence occurs, I say let’s focus on the actual violence and not exploit it for our short-term political goals. And to be selfish about it, part of why I say this is that I believe, firmly, that free speech serves our long-term political goals. Or perhaps free speech is our long-term political goal.
<
p>
… one sided, but I do believe it is salient. The GOP has, for a long time now, relied on a tactic of stoking their base. If people get upset, they see that as a benefit. It’s not an accident that the tea party is largely right wing and they nurture it. When you say “Don’t we all contribute to the climate?”, I’d have to point out that the people getting upset here are not likely to listen to us.
<
p>”But when actual violence occurs, I say let’s focus on the actual violence and not exploit it for our short-term political goals. And to be selfish about it, part of why I say this is that I believe, firmly, that free speech serves our long-term political goals. Or perhaps free speech is our long-term political goal.”
<
p>It’s not just a political goal that violent rhetoric should be called out. It looks political because most of the rhetoric has been created for a political context. We didn’t do that. Focusing on the actual violence is great – but I have a problem. Criticizing the shooter doesn’t really help much – he’s crazy. Being focused on how crazy he is similarly doesn’t really help much. The speech that created the context surrounding his actions? – now there is something we can address.
But re: “the speech that created the context,” what have we been doing all these years? “Criticizing the shooter” doesn’t help at all, and is not what I’m calling for.
<
p>Re: the Tea Party, no it’s not an accident, it’s the deliberate design of Dick Armey and a few other people. But I’m not sure the GOP writ large nurtures the Tea Party. I think John Boehner, for one, is aware that he is one of the leaders of a divided GOP right now.
<
p>And I want to talk about that. I don’t want to re-litigate the statements of Sharron Angle. She had her day before the voters, and she lost. Let’s move on.
<
p>It’s all a matter of choice, Mr. Lynne.
<
p>As noted, in the original post, I agree that the left has been more reasonable, more measured, more responsible.
<
p>Now what?
<
p>
… pretty clear what side we’ve been on with regard to charged rhetoric. If the charged rhetoric is particularly a problem within a divided GOP, then it seems to me that the most effective way to deal with it is for the GOP to step up and set what is and isn’t acceptable within their own party down in stone. I don’t think they will. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere – the ones that might do this are afraid to. They’ve stoked an angry mob and are now afraid of it. We can denounce the rhetoric from our side, but they’re not listening to us. They have to listen to the calmer voices that they are willing to listen to. Hard for me to intervene without being accused of partisanship and dismissed.
Good choice of words. Surely you’ve heard of the 11th Commandment?
<
p>Maybe they’ll repeal it this year. We’ll see.
1) Cite?
<
p>2) No. Stoking the base is a top down effort. The extent to which the ‘activists’ represent the ‘base’ depends on how popular with the base that particular chant is. I don’t recall these words then repeated by the party’s leaders or any significant minority of ‘the base’.
1) Cite?
<
p>2) No. Stoking the base is a top down effort. The extent to which the ‘activists’ represent the ‘base’ depends on how popular with the base that particular chant is. I don’t recall these words then repeated by the party’s leaders or any significant minority of ‘the base’.
A Kennedy said it, so it must be true
<
p>
… a cite as well. Without one chalking it up to rhetoric trying to find ‘common ground’ is parsimonious.
I am not saying that it didn’t happen, but I never heard about that. I don’t think that kind of rhetoric really appeals to the base of the Democratic party even if some overzealous happens to use it once in a while. That kind of thing really is not common in the modern party and is mostly restricted to fired-up college kids. You don’t hear that from Democratic politicians or commentators.
<
p>The fact is that the general philosophical approach of the Democrats is based more on altruism where Libertarian and small-government Republican philosophy is based more on retaining personal wealth, and self sufficiency. It should be too surprising that violent rhetoric is generally less appealing to Democrats.
Being concerned for the welfare of others is altruistic regardless of whether they want you to be concerned. Even if it is misguided.
<
p>I don’t know what you are talking about in any case. Are you saying that when Democrats express concern about unemployed people losing their benefits, that those people actually don’t want their unemployment benefits? Are you saying that homeless people who benefit from housing and healthcare programs, don’t actually want those programs? It is fair to say that some people don’t want to have to pay to help others, but who doesn’t want help themselves?
<
p>In any case, my point was that Democratic political philosophy — even if you consider it misguided — is generally antithetical to violent thinking. The kind of people who think it is a good idea to use tax money to make life better for the downtrodden, aren’t so quick to call for the death or physical harm of people they dislike.
<
p>
I’m pretty sure they were not embraced by Democrats.
giving you zeros? Because I cannot find any evidence of “Activists chanting ‘Death to Cheney’,” either.
<
p>Are you having especially vivid dreams lately?
If by contributing you mean offering progressive legislation, constructive arguments and rational criticism of the other side.
As MannyGoldstein says in a comment on his own current diary
<
p>
<
p>No way is it even comparable to anything I’ve heard from a liberal media figure or Democratic candidate.
To not point out how outrageous this rhetoric is — even now — is cowardly and irresponsible.
You, sir, are writing about politics on a political blog. Sorry to be the one to tell you.
<
p>That doesn’t mean we all contribute in the same way.
<
p>
<
p>So I’m listening more carefully Marc and what I hear is a lot of anger and frustration that we are powerless to stop these haters and their hate speech. And we can’t. Not in America.
<
p>So what to do? Finish releasing your anger here and there and and then work harder to promote justice. Everywhere, everyplace, every waking hour.
<
p>Our speech is not as loud as their speech. We don’t have a Fox News blaring 24/7, we don’t have a Rush Limbaugh and all his clones on the radio, we don’t have Glenn Becks and Sean Hannitys. Republican voices outnumber Democratic voices 3:1 on Sunday morning talk shows. Our measured speech can’t be heard given the overwhelming presence of right-wing voices in the media. So, in short, we don’t all contribute to the climate equally.
<
p>It doesn’t matter who controls the White House or the House or the Senate; what matters is who controls the microphone, and for quite a long time, it hasn’t been us.
<
p>As for you suggestion, too, that we not focus on speech and focus more on the actual violence, I bet the people of Rwanda sure wish someone had focused on the hate speech that flooded their radio waves during the run-up to and the duration of the genocide. “Tutsi Cockroaches” indeed. Speech has implications. Silent tolerance is not the response to violent or hateful speech. Speech that recommends or suggests violence deserves to be roundly condemned by all civilized and right-thinking people.
<
p>All of which, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with WikiLeaks.
<
p>They say — I disagree, but they say it — that we have the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Globe, and every TV channel that isn’t Fox.
<
p>I’m not addressing your point about Rwanda. I don’t know enough about what happened there. I’m talking about this country.
<
p>
“Major milestone” in recovery —
<
p>http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
to save lives by discouraging our global belligerence and collateral damage. Assange and Wikileaks have a higher purpose in freeing information (whether you disagree with that purpose or not).
<
p>The rhetoric of the GOP has no higher purpose other than perpetuating its own power. Negative politics was bad in the 19th century, but I think most of us would like to think we’ve made progress. Testing the limits of inciting violence against political opponents, as Palin and many tea partiers have done, is not, I would submit, progress in the political arena.