| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Arizona Shootings Reaction | ||||
| ||||
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Panda pajamas
John Stewart handles the Arizona shootings better than anyone else, as only he could handle it.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
The aftermath of the Giffords shooting
When I first heard the news that a congresswoman in Arizona had been shot in the head at an event in Arizona, my first reaction was that this was likely an attempt by some crazed individual to influence legislation through violence.
Then as I read postings from my friends on Facebook, a more sinister possibility surfaced, the Sarah Palin ad, which I now repost:
What this ad shows was Sarah Palin's target list for the 2010 election. Gabrielle Giffords is one of the U.S. Reps on the list, with a gun sight targeted over her district. Giffords herself talks about the consequences of violence creeping into the political process in this video, and in particular about the Palin ad at about 2:20:
But as we have learned more about the suspected shooter, we get a picture of him from Internet postings and YouTube that he was an incoherent and deeply troubled individual. He included both "Mein Kampf" and the "Communist Manifesto" as his favorite books. Think about that. One is an example of extreme right, fascist thinking and the other is the ultimate blueprint for the extreme left. Nazis and Communists were bitter enemies during World War II, remember?
More importantly, there is no evidence that this suspect was a supporter of Sarah Palin, did not seem to advocate for her political platform and does not seem to have been motivated by her ad or by any particular vote by Giffords as a congresswoman. (At least not as far as we know now.)
And yet, Palin should be ashamed of how she has conducted herself. "Violent rhetoric, when legitimized, will always trickle down to someone who is unstable enough to take the literal message to heart," as Derrick Stamos posted on Facebook. I don't know Derrick, but it rings with truth, especially when you remember how Glenn Beck's rhetoric presumably led to a shoot-out in Oakland:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073003254.html
We have the right to free speech, but violent rhetoric abuses that right. We can say what we want, but we can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because it will get someone killed. It seems to me that Palin and Beck have been getting closer to crossing that line. It is a line that no sane American wants to see crossed.
On the day that politicians in this country are shot and killed because of their political views, that will be the day America dies. And the more this brand of rhetoric is used, the closer we get to that day.
In any event, if Palin has any conscience, decency or at least basic smarts, it will be a long time before she uses the phrase "Don't retreat, reload," or use guns and gun sights in her ads.
My hope is that we have reached a high-water mark for violent rhetoric in American politics. My hope is that most Americans have felt enough disgust over the shooting in Tuscon that we will no longer welcome such inflammatory and divisive politics.
Then as I read postings from my friends on Facebook, a more sinister possibility surfaced, the Sarah Palin ad, which I now repost:
What this ad shows was Sarah Palin's target list for the 2010 election. Gabrielle Giffords is one of the U.S. Reps on the list, with a gun sight targeted over her district. Giffords herself talks about the consequences of violence creeping into the political process in this video, and in particular about the Palin ad at about 2:20:
But as we have learned more about the suspected shooter, we get a picture of him from Internet postings and YouTube that he was an incoherent and deeply troubled individual. He included both "Mein Kampf" and the "Communist Manifesto" as his favorite books. Think about that. One is an example of extreme right, fascist thinking and the other is the ultimate blueprint for the extreme left. Nazis and Communists were bitter enemies during World War II, remember?
More importantly, there is no evidence that this suspect was a supporter of Sarah Palin, did not seem to advocate for her political platform and does not seem to have been motivated by her ad or by any particular vote by Giffords as a congresswoman. (At least not as far as we know now.)
And yet, Palin should be ashamed of how she has conducted herself. "Violent rhetoric, when legitimized, will always trickle down to someone who is unstable enough to take the literal message to heart," as Derrick Stamos posted on Facebook. I don't know Derrick, but it rings with truth, especially when you remember how Glenn Beck's rhetoric presumably led to a shoot-out in Oakland:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073003254.html
We have the right to free speech, but violent rhetoric abuses that right. We can say what we want, but we can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because it will get someone killed. It seems to me that Palin and Beck have been getting closer to crossing that line. It is a line that no sane American wants to see crossed.
On the day that politicians in this country are shot and killed because of their political views, that will be the day America dies. And the more this brand of rhetoric is used, the closer we get to that day.
In any event, if Palin has any conscience, decency or at least basic smarts, it will be a long time before she uses the phrase "Don't retreat, reload," or use guns and gun sights in her ads.
My hope is that we have reached a high-water mark for violent rhetoric in American politics. My hope is that most Americans have felt enough disgust over the shooting in Tuscon that we will no longer welcome such inflammatory and divisive politics.
Using the N-word
Recently on Facebook a group of my friends were debating the new edition of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," which had been edited to change the n-word into "slave."
Overwhelmingly, we hated the idea. There were a lot of great points about it. The best point was that Twain's work gives us a window into a shameful period of American history, and we need to be able to confront that honestly.
I wrote: "You can definitely oversanitize history. The problem is that by sanitizing history, later generations don't even realize how offensive the words can be. They don't realize the history, meaning and pain behind words, symbols and actions. Twa...in's use of the n-word is an opportunity for a teaching moment with the kids, and it can be handled in a way that is not offensive or hurtful.
Editors: Put down that red pen and move away from the literature!"
But I have one additional point to make. When I read the full story about the new edition, the editor explained that he wanted to make the change because he had to deal with negative reactions from audiences when he read the book aloud.
I get it. I understand. I have to say I would have a great deal of trouble saying that word out loud to a group of people, even if it was in the context of one of the greatest works of American literature. It is a word that carries so much pain that I do not think anyone can give me sanction to say it out loud, even if Mark Twain were to rise from his grave and tell me so himself. (And he wouldn't have far to walk. He's buried in the next town over from me.)
Anyway, the debate is pointless. The sanitized edition is being published. It will be out next month. But it does not mean that this edition will replace, supercede or be superior to earlier editions. It is an option that is now available for audiences that had not been able to read this work before. It can go on library bookshelves and read in middle schools, where it had often been banned.
But it should be read with the understanding that the full, original version is out there and if someone wanted to have a complete experience and have a unsanitized version of this work, they should go out and find it. Perhaps it is not a book for middle schoolers (ironic because Tom Sawyer, Becky Thatcher and Huckleberry Finn were roughly middle school aged) but readers who are at least high school age should read the unchanged work.
Overwhelmingly, we hated the idea. There were a lot of great points about it. The best point was that Twain's work gives us a window into a shameful period of American history, and we need to be able to confront that honestly.
I wrote: "You can definitely oversanitize history. The problem is that by sanitizing history, later generations don't even realize how offensive the words can be. They don't realize the history, meaning and pain behind words, symbols and actions. Twa...in's use of the n-word is an opportunity for a teaching moment with the kids, and it can be handled in a way that is not offensive or hurtful.
Editors: Put down that red pen and move away from the literature!"
But I have one additional point to make. When I read the full story about the new edition, the editor explained that he wanted to make the change because he had to deal with negative reactions from audiences when he read the book aloud.
I get it. I understand. I have to say I would have a great deal of trouble saying that word out loud to a group of people, even if it was in the context of one of the greatest works of American literature. It is a word that carries so much pain that I do not think anyone can give me sanction to say it out loud, even if Mark Twain were to rise from his grave and tell me so himself. (And he wouldn't have far to walk. He's buried in the next town over from me.)
Anyway, the debate is pointless. The sanitized edition is being published. It will be out next month. But it does not mean that this edition will replace, supercede or be superior to earlier editions. It is an option that is now available for audiences that had not been able to read this work before. It can go on library bookshelves and read in middle schools, where it had often been banned.
But it should be read with the understanding that the full, original version is out there and if someone wanted to have a complete experience and have a unsanitized version of this work, they should go out and find it. Perhaps it is not a book for middle schoolers (ironic because Tom Sawyer, Becky Thatcher and Huckleberry Finn were roughly middle school aged) but readers who are at least high school age should read the unchanged work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)