When I wrote my January 22, 2010, article entitled "There is no 'war on terror,'" I believed that no one could or would argue that declaring a "war on poverty" meant that the government could then shoot poor people in the streets or imprison them on the accusation of being poor without a trial.
I might have been wrong.
Speaking about poor people and welfare, Andre Bauer, Republican Lt. Governor of South Carolina and candidate for governor of that state, said on Thursday, January 21, 2010, that his grandmother had informed him he should " ... quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating that problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that."
Apparently, Lt. Governor Bauer believes that the solution to poverty is to starve the poor people until their reproductive organs cease to function.
One may argue that I am taking his comments "out of context" or that "he didn't really mean that." I disagree. I think the comments are in precisely accurate context and that, yes, that really is what he believes, even if it isn't exactly what he said.
The notion that the idea of feeding stray animals and therefore allowing them to breed more stray animals would come to his mind when thinking about poor people fully reveals the context and opens a wide window to know how he feels about poor people. Other human beings. Not to mention hungry and homeless dogs.
According to his web site, "André is a member of Union Methodist Church." Well. I see.
Now, according to the Today's New International Version of the Holy Bible, Jesus of Nazareth told a rich young man, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."
I guess Jesus hadn't had the benefit of knowing Lt. Governor Bauer's grandmother. Apparently, she would have set the young preacher straight on what a mistake it was to give to the poor. Thank goodness she was around to help out little Andre.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
There is no "war on terror"
One of the few things on which Rush Limbaugh and I agree is that "words mean something."
When a word is used divorced from its true meaning, it can create all kinds of havoc. When it is used divorced from its true meaning on purpose, it is often a lie. The speaker intends you to believe something that is not true, based on what the speaker says.
Let us be clear. There is no war on terror in the literal, military sense. There can't be. It isn't possible. That is not what the word means.
The phrase "war on terror" has been used the way a magician uses his hat. He puts one thing in, and takes something else out, and hopes the audience will believe they are the same thing.
Words have meaning. The New Oxford American Dictionary tells us the meaning of the word "war."
n a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state [emphasis added]: Japan declared war on Germany; Iran and Iraq had been at war for six years.
SPECIAL USAGE
- a particular armed conflict: after the war, they emigrated to America.
- a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups [emphasis added]: she was at war with her parentsa price war among discount retailers.
- a sustained effort to deal with or end a particular unpleasant or undesirable situation or condition: the authorities are waging war against all forms of smugglinga war on drugs.
That is what the word "war" means.
Terror (or terrorism) is not a nation or a state. It is not a group within a nation or state. It is not even a person or a group of people.
Unless the conflict is between nations or states or groups within nations or states, it is not war in the literal, military sense. And, thus, it does not invoke either the rules or the law of war.
Just as a "war on drugs" does not allow the government - any government - to shoot down suspected drug dealers without trial, the "war on terror" does not allow the government - any government - to shoot down suspected terrorists. Just as the "war on poverty" does not allow the government - any government - to capture and imprison poor people until the end of the "war on poverty," the "war on terror" does not allow the government to capture and imprison terrorists until the end of the "war on terror."
Would anyone seriously argue that if the government announced a "war on bank robbery," that the government could, merely because of the announcement, shoot suspected bank robbers on sight, or keep them imprisoned indefinitely without any criminal charges and without a trial?
Terror (or terrorism) is a tactic. Like "sneak attack" or "frontal assault" or "carpet bombing."
Terror (or terrorism) may be illegal, but it also may perfectly legal.
If two nations are at war, a soldier of one nation can legally sneak into the barracks of the soldiers of another nation and blow himself up, killing them in the process. If he could succeed at that, it might create a feeling of terror among his enemies. "We are not safe anywhere!" It would be terrorism as a tactic, and the soldier commiting the act would be a terrorist, but it would not be illegal.
On the other hand, if the person blowing himself up were not a soldier, or his country was not at war with the soldiers in the barracks, or, even if they were, he walked into an orphanage and blew himself up, that would be exactly the same act - terrorism - but it would be a crime.
No one would suggest that the government could now employ its soldiers to shoot anyone that someone in the government thought might walk into an orphanage and blow himself up one day. Or even imprison them without a trial.
George Bush put the phrase "war on terror" into his magician's hat. When he put it in, it had one meaning, a meaning that did not invoke the rules of war. A metaphorical meaning. But, when he pulled it out of that hat, he had changed the meaning to a literal meaning, one that did invoke the rules of war, and hoped no one would notice. But, "war on terror" did not, does not, and cannot have that meaning. It was not, is not, and can never be a literal, military war.
And Barrack Obama is just as bad and maybe worse, because he's continued to use the phrase "war on terror" with George Bush's impossibly incorrect meaning. I think George Bush knew better, but I admit, he wasn't very good with English. I'm convinced that Barrack Obama, intelligent, educated, constitutional law scholar that he is, knows better.
And that makes it a lie.
When a word is used divorced from its true meaning, it can create all kinds of havoc. When it is used divorced from its true meaning on purpose, it is often a lie. The speaker intends you to believe something that is not true, based on what the speaker says.
Let us be clear. There is no war on terror in the literal, military sense. There can't be. It isn't possible. That is not what the word means.
The phrase "war on terror" has been used the way a magician uses his hat. He puts one thing in, and takes something else out, and hopes the audience will believe they are the same thing.
Words have meaning. The New Oxford American Dictionary tells us the meaning of the word "war."
n a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state [emphasis added]: Japan declared war on Germany; Iran and Iraq had been at war for six years.
SPECIAL USAGE
- a particular armed conflict: after the war, they emigrated to America.
- a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups [emphasis added]: she was at war with her parentsa price war among discount retailers.
- a sustained effort to deal with or end a particular unpleasant or undesirable situation or condition: the authorities are waging war against all forms of smugglinga war on drugs.
That is what the word "war" means.
Terror (or terrorism) is not a nation or a state. It is not a group within a nation or state. It is not even a person or a group of people.
Unless the conflict is between nations or states or groups within nations or states, it is not war in the literal, military sense. And, thus, it does not invoke either the rules or the law of war.
Just as a "war on drugs" does not allow the government - any government - to shoot down suspected drug dealers without trial, the "war on terror" does not allow the government - any government - to shoot down suspected terrorists. Just as the "war on poverty" does not allow the government - any government - to capture and imprison poor people until the end of the "war on poverty," the "war on terror" does not allow the government to capture and imprison terrorists until the end of the "war on terror."
Would anyone seriously argue that if the government announced a "war on bank robbery," that the government could, merely because of the announcement, shoot suspected bank robbers on sight, or keep them imprisoned indefinitely without any criminal charges and without a trial?
Terror (or terrorism) is a tactic. Like "sneak attack" or "frontal assault" or "carpet bombing."
Terror (or terrorism) may be illegal, but it also may perfectly legal.
If two nations are at war, a soldier of one nation can legally sneak into the barracks of the soldiers of another nation and blow himself up, killing them in the process. If he could succeed at that, it might create a feeling of terror among his enemies. "We are not safe anywhere!" It would be terrorism as a tactic, and the soldier commiting the act would be a terrorist, but it would not be illegal.
On the other hand, if the person blowing himself up were not a soldier, or his country was not at war with the soldiers in the barracks, or, even if they were, he walked into an orphanage and blew himself up, that would be exactly the same act - terrorism - but it would be a crime.
No one would suggest that the government could now employ its soldiers to shoot anyone that someone in the government thought might walk into an orphanage and blow himself up one day. Or even imprison them without a trial.
George Bush put the phrase "war on terror" into his magician's hat. When he put it in, it had one meaning, a meaning that did not invoke the rules of war. A metaphorical meaning. But, when he pulled it out of that hat, he had changed the meaning to a literal meaning, one that did invoke the rules of war, and hoped no one would notice. But, "war on terror" did not, does not, and cannot have that meaning. It was not, is not, and can never be a literal, military war.
And Barrack Obama is just as bad and maybe worse, because he's continued to use the phrase "war on terror" with George Bush's impossibly incorrect meaning. I think George Bush knew better, but I admit, he wasn't very good with English. I'm convinced that Barrack Obama, intelligent, educated, constitutional law scholar that he is, knows better.
And that makes it a lie.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Happy New Year
I should have done this earlier, on New Year's Day to be precise, but, better late than never. I hope.
Happy New Year! May God bless the entire world in 2010! No exceptions.
Happy New Year! May God bless the entire world in 2010! No exceptions.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
How Much Is Too Much?
Society always exists in a tug-of-war between security and liberty. The line shifts from nation to nation, society to society, and time to time.
In the United States, we have always drawn that line much closer to liberty than to security. We have always considered it more important to be free than to be safe.
Since September 11, 2001, however, that line seems to have been moving closer and closer to security and farther and farther away from liberty. I could multiply examples, but allow me to use just one: the airport.
Since the terrorist crimes of September 11, 2001, Americans have been willing to submit to ever greater intrustions into their liberty in order to increase their security. We have submitted, sheep-like, to standing in lines, to walking through machines, to emptying our pockets, to taking off our shoes (and, in my case, sometimes even my shirt), to the sullen stares of government agents eyeing us suspiciously and ordering us around.
I understand the fear. I understand the yearning to be able to simply fly from one place to the other, to visit family, or take a vacation, or conduct business, without the worry that you will die in a fiery explosion at 30,000 feet.
But, I wonder two things. First, does it really make us safer, or does it just make us feel safer?
We struggle to make sure no one gets a bomb on a plane. After all, the Locherbie terrorists used a bomb on the Pan Am flight they blew up. But, the September 11th hijackers didn't use a bomb. They overpowered the crews of their planes with box cutters. So, we try to keep bombs and box cutters off the planes, but they sneak them on in their sneakers. So, we make everyone take off their shoes and walk bare-foot through the metal detectors while some government agent examines our shoes on an x-ray machine. And so someone puts the bomb, not in his shoes, but in his underpants. They make bombs out of liquids, so they won't let us take liquids on the plane. So, they make the bomb out of powder. Now we can't take powder on the plane. But, there are people trained to kill with their bare hands? What if one of them kills a stewardess and overpowers the flight crew? Will we consent to being shackled to our seats during the flight?
And, why just planes? There are lots of trains or theaters or malls where a bomb that was made out of metal that never had to go through any security at all could kill at least as many people as are on your average jet liner. What will we do when a terrorist blows himself up with a bomb in his underwear in a movie theater? Submit to a strip search so we can watch a movie?
Do we really think we can keep ahead of large groups of people who are willing to die in order to kill us?
I don't know if it really makes us safer. I'll leave that question to be debated by the experts. But, I wonder.
The second thing I wonder about is, when is enough enough? When is it too much?
I hear that air lines either have decided to impose or have actually imposed a rule that you can't have anything on your lap or go to the air plane's rest room during the last hour of a flight.
Really? Really! I can't read my book during the last hour of my flight? If I have to go to the bathroom during the last hour of my flight, I just have to sit in my seat and wet my pants? Really?!
I know this: I already avoid flying whenever I possibly can, because I detest submitting to the humiliating treatment one must undergo to get on an air plane. I'm toying with the fantasy of defying authority by holding my paper back copy of 1984 right up next to my crotch during the last hour of the next flight I can't avoid and daring the stewardess to take it away from me.
I know how to make air flight perfectly safe. You do, too. Every passenger must submit to a strip search, complete with body cavity examinations, and then fly naked chained hand and foot to their seats. Our physical safety, at least, would be secured. I don't think I'm going to agree to that, though. How about you?
So, taking a deep breath and trying to think reasonably, what ever happened to the idea of allowing American citizens to submit to thorough background checks which, if passed, would entitle the citizen to a security card that would allow them to pass through airport security with a minimum of screening? I'm pretty sure, if the FBI were to check me out as carefully as they possibly could, they'd decide that I'm really not going to blow up a plane.
So, what ever happened to that idea?
In the United States, we have always drawn that line much closer to liberty than to security. We have always considered it more important to be free than to be safe.
Since September 11, 2001, however, that line seems to have been moving closer and closer to security and farther and farther away from liberty. I could multiply examples, but allow me to use just one: the airport.
Since the terrorist crimes of September 11, 2001, Americans have been willing to submit to ever greater intrustions into their liberty in order to increase their security. We have submitted, sheep-like, to standing in lines, to walking through machines, to emptying our pockets, to taking off our shoes (and, in my case, sometimes even my shirt), to the sullen stares of government agents eyeing us suspiciously and ordering us around.
I understand the fear. I understand the yearning to be able to simply fly from one place to the other, to visit family, or take a vacation, or conduct business, without the worry that you will die in a fiery explosion at 30,000 feet.
But, I wonder two things. First, does it really make us safer, or does it just make us feel safer?
We struggle to make sure no one gets a bomb on a plane. After all, the Locherbie terrorists used a bomb on the Pan Am flight they blew up. But, the September 11th hijackers didn't use a bomb. They overpowered the crews of their planes with box cutters. So, we try to keep bombs and box cutters off the planes, but they sneak them on in their sneakers. So, we make everyone take off their shoes and walk bare-foot through the metal detectors while some government agent examines our shoes on an x-ray machine. And so someone puts the bomb, not in his shoes, but in his underpants. They make bombs out of liquids, so they won't let us take liquids on the plane. So, they make the bomb out of powder. Now we can't take powder on the plane. But, there are people trained to kill with their bare hands? What if one of them kills a stewardess and overpowers the flight crew? Will we consent to being shackled to our seats during the flight?
And, why just planes? There are lots of trains or theaters or malls where a bomb that was made out of metal that never had to go through any security at all could kill at least as many people as are on your average jet liner. What will we do when a terrorist blows himself up with a bomb in his underwear in a movie theater? Submit to a strip search so we can watch a movie?
Do we really think we can keep ahead of large groups of people who are willing to die in order to kill us?
I don't know if it really makes us safer. I'll leave that question to be debated by the experts. But, I wonder.
The second thing I wonder about is, when is enough enough? When is it too much?
I hear that air lines either have decided to impose or have actually imposed a rule that you can't have anything on your lap or go to the air plane's rest room during the last hour of a flight.
Really? Really! I can't read my book during the last hour of my flight? If I have to go to the bathroom during the last hour of my flight, I just have to sit in my seat and wet my pants? Really?!
I know this: I already avoid flying whenever I possibly can, because I detest submitting to the humiliating treatment one must undergo to get on an air plane. I'm toying with the fantasy of defying authority by holding my paper back copy of 1984 right up next to my crotch during the last hour of the next flight I can't avoid and daring the stewardess to take it away from me.
I know how to make air flight perfectly safe. You do, too. Every passenger must submit to a strip search, complete with body cavity examinations, and then fly naked chained hand and foot to their seats. Our physical safety, at least, would be secured. I don't think I'm going to agree to that, though. How about you?
So, taking a deep breath and trying to think reasonably, what ever happened to the idea of allowing American citizens to submit to thorough background checks which, if passed, would entitle the citizen to a security card that would allow them to pass through airport security with a minimum of screening? I'm pretty sure, if the FBI were to check me out as carefully as they possibly could, they'd decide that I'm really not going to blow up a plane.
So, what ever happened to that idea?
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
It Would Cost Money to Save Lives, So, We Shouldn't Do It
Things that make you go, "Huh?"
The Environmental Protection Agency has made a finding that there is "compelling scientific evidence that global warming from manmade greenhouse gases endangers Americans' health." Austin American-Statesman, December 8, 2009, Kindle Version.
The finding opens the way for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases.
Now, I think this is a no-brainer. It seems to me obvious that there is "compelling scientific evidence." However, clearly, reasonable, good-hearted, intelligent people could disagree on the point, and many do.
That disagreement, however, is different from the response of U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Did they disagree with the conclusion that there was "compelling scientific evidence" that Americans' health was being hurt by manmade greenhouse gases? No. That was not their response. Their response was - it's going to cost money to reduce greenhouse gases, therefore we shouldn't do it, the health of Americans be damned.
Actually, the precise words were, "'It will choke off growth by addding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project,' said Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ... ."
Um. Okay. So do fire codes. If we didn't have to build buildings with two exits so people could escape in case of fire, they'd be cheaper. Explain that to the people who were burned to death in the Lame Horse nightclub fire in Russia. "Hey! It's okay you were roasted! The building was cheaper! Get it?"
So do other kinds of health rules for buildings. If we could use asbestos insulation in buildings, they'd be cheaper. Everyone would get asbestosis, but the buildings would be cheaper, don't you know?
Or electrical codes. Or plumbing codes. Or lighting codes. Or elevator safety codes. Gee, buildings would be so much cheaper if we just didn't have all these pesky codes protecting people, of all things. I mean, what do people matter when you're talking construction costs? First things first, you know?
Fine, argue with me about whether the world needs saving from global warming. I don't think there's much to argue about there, but at least we can have a principled argument. But, when you start in that it will cost too much to save the world, I'm getting off your train. I'm not going there.
And, the fact that, for some reason, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce thinks there are Americans who will agree - it just costs too much to save humanity - is deeply troubling.
The Environmental Protection Agency has made a finding that there is "compelling scientific evidence that global warming from manmade greenhouse gases endangers Americans' health." Austin American-Statesman, December 8, 2009, Kindle Version.
The finding opens the way for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases.
Now, I think this is a no-brainer. It seems to me obvious that there is "compelling scientific evidence." However, clearly, reasonable, good-hearted, intelligent people could disagree on the point, and many do.
That disagreement, however, is different from the response of U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Did they disagree with the conclusion that there was "compelling scientific evidence" that Americans' health was being hurt by manmade greenhouse gases? No. That was not their response. Their response was - it's going to cost money to reduce greenhouse gases, therefore we shouldn't do it, the health of Americans be damned.
Actually, the precise words were, "'It will choke off growth by addding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project,' said Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ... ."
Um. Okay. So do fire codes. If we didn't have to build buildings with two exits so people could escape in case of fire, they'd be cheaper. Explain that to the people who were burned to death in the Lame Horse nightclub fire in Russia. "Hey! It's okay you were roasted! The building was cheaper! Get it?"
So do other kinds of health rules for buildings. If we could use asbestos insulation in buildings, they'd be cheaper. Everyone would get asbestosis, but the buildings would be cheaper, don't you know?
Or electrical codes. Or plumbing codes. Or lighting codes. Or elevator safety codes. Gee, buildings would be so much cheaper if we just didn't have all these pesky codes protecting people, of all things. I mean, what do people matter when you're talking construction costs? First things first, you know?
Fine, argue with me about whether the world needs saving from global warming. I don't think there's much to argue about there, but at least we can have a principled argument. But, when you start in that it will cost too much to save the world, I'm getting off your train. I'm not going there.
And, the fact that, for some reason, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce thinks there are Americans who will agree - it just costs too much to save humanity - is deeply troubling.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Politics of Pounding
Alexander Hamilton, Revolutionary War hero, one of the drafters of the U.S. Contstitution, one of the authors of The Federalist Papers, first Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, trusted advisor to President George Washington, Federalist, and constant target of Jeffersonian Republicans' attacks, wrote:
"[N]o character, however upright, is a match for constantly reiterated attacks, however false."
It was a lesson hard-learned by Secretary Hamilton, and one we would do well to consider today.
"[N]o character, however upright, is a match for constantly reiterated attacks, however false."
It was a lesson hard-learned by Secretary Hamilton, and one we would do well to consider today.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
A Letter to Leonard Pitts
On July 6, 2009, Leonard Pitts, a columnist with the Miami Herald whose work appears regularly in the Austin American-Statesman, wrote an article about Governor Mark Sanford. It moved me to write him this e-mailed letter to him on the same day:
"Dear Mr. Pitts,
"I must start by saying how much I enjoy your work. I look forward to seeing your commentary in my local paper, the Austin American-Statesman, and you are possibly the only commentator whose work I always read when I see it.
"I have to admit, this is partly because I so often agree with you, but I like to think it is also because you are thoughtful, logical, and a good writer.
"I put your commentary on Governor Sanford's infidelity in the same category: thoughtful, logical, and well-written.
"Yes [sic], I was jarred by part of it. So jarred that I felt ocmpelled [sic] to write to you. I know how I feel about what you wrote - that jarring part - but I am as yet unsure what I think about it. So, I'm not saying you should not have written it. I am saying it really jarrred me and I'm very troubled.
"'Next time some politician goes before the cameras with his figurative pants down around his metaphoric ankles and says "I made a mistake," let's form a mob and drag him from the podium. You bring the lanterns, I'll bring the pitchforks.'
"I would have thought you might be more sensitive to the images that get conjured up by the words 'mob,' and 'lanterns and pitchforks,' than the average commentator. For me, those words conjure up some pretty terrible images.
"It is not that I don't think that sort of treatment is exactly what the hypocrites deserve, and I think their behavior says much more about their character and fitness to serve than you managed to mention. I just don't think mobs, lanterns, and pitchforks are the right response.
"Perhaps you will respond that you didn't mean those words literally. To that, I respond that I have heard that said to excuse the crowds at the John McCain rallies calling for the death of Barack Obama. 'We didn't mean to literally kill him.' And to excuse the incendiary rhetoric used by abortion opponents in describing what they thought ought to be done to those who provide reproductive services to women. 'Oh, we didn't mean to literally kill them or burn their clinics.'
"Yet, those words, whether meant literally or not, have an effect. Even if they don't produce the literal result called for, they have an effect on the way people think about each other. To have someone of your credibily and stature say that we ought to form mobs and drag politicians from the podium gives people license to think that's just what we ought to do to another human being. If not that one, then someone else.
"I think the Republicans and conservatives of this nation are consumate hypocrites. Governor Sanford could be exhibit A in the trial of Republicans and conservaties on the vile charge of gross hypocrisy.
"But, lest we be hypocrites ourselves, then we must accept the same standards of restraint on our language that we ask them to accept on theirs. If incendiary language directed against those we support is wrong, then incendiary language directed against those we oppose is just as wrong.
"So, I'm feeling bad - jarred - by your language, and especially so because it came from you, for whom I have such incredible respect. I don't know what I think about it yet. I haven't had time to sort that out, but I feel jarred.
"And, I cannot send this without adding that I still have incredible respect for you. I just feel - maybe - you made a mistake.
"Sincerely,James W. Collins"
I received this response from Mr. Pitts' e-mail address:
"Thanks for your thoughtful letter; I'm replying only because Mr. Pitts will be away for two weeks and I'm afraid he will be overwhelmed trying to get caught up, but I will be sure he sees your email, even if he doesn't have time to respond.
"Judi Smith
"Assistant to Leonard Pitts, Jr."
Mr. Pitts has never responded to my letter personally. If he has responded in his column, I missed it. I'm not sure if Ms. Smith's response was a canned response, but it could have been. I cannot even be sure if Ms. Smith actually exists.
And now we have the opponents of universal health care in America shouting down our elected representatives at their meetings on the topic, screaming at other Americans who are trying to express their opinions in support of universal health care, bringing weapons to the meetings, and even getting into physical conflicts with others at the meetings. We have elected representatives in the United States of America who feel the need to be escorted by armed police from thier own meetings because the crowd seems so close to violence.
And so it begins, Mr. Pitts. And so it begins.
"Dear Mr. Pitts,
"I must start by saying how much I enjoy your work. I look forward to seeing your commentary in my local paper, the Austin American-Statesman, and you are possibly the only commentator whose work I always read when I see it.
"I have to admit, this is partly because I so often agree with you, but I like to think it is also because you are thoughtful, logical, and a good writer.
"I put your commentary on Governor Sanford's infidelity in the same category: thoughtful, logical, and well-written.
"Yes [sic], I was jarred by part of it. So jarred that I felt ocmpelled [sic] to write to you. I know how I feel about what you wrote - that jarring part - but I am as yet unsure what I think about it. So, I'm not saying you should not have written it. I am saying it really jarrred me and I'm very troubled.
"'Next time some politician goes before the cameras with his figurative pants down around his metaphoric ankles and says "I made a mistake," let's form a mob and drag him from the podium. You bring the lanterns, I'll bring the pitchforks.'
"I would have thought you might be more sensitive to the images that get conjured up by the words 'mob,' and 'lanterns and pitchforks,' than the average commentator. For me, those words conjure up some pretty terrible images.
"It is not that I don't think that sort of treatment is exactly what the hypocrites deserve, and I think their behavior says much more about their character and fitness to serve than you managed to mention. I just don't think mobs, lanterns, and pitchforks are the right response.
"Perhaps you will respond that you didn't mean those words literally. To that, I respond that I have heard that said to excuse the crowds at the John McCain rallies calling for the death of Barack Obama. 'We didn't mean to literally kill him.' And to excuse the incendiary rhetoric used by abortion opponents in describing what they thought ought to be done to those who provide reproductive services to women. 'Oh, we didn't mean to literally kill them or burn their clinics.'
"Yet, those words, whether meant literally or not, have an effect. Even if they don't produce the literal result called for, they have an effect on the way people think about each other. To have someone of your credibily and stature say that we ought to form mobs and drag politicians from the podium gives people license to think that's just what we ought to do to another human being. If not that one, then someone else.
"I think the Republicans and conservatives of this nation are consumate hypocrites. Governor Sanford could be exhibit A in the trial of Republicans and conservaties on the vile charge of gross hypocrisy.
"But, lest we be hypocrites ourselves, then we must accept the same standards of restraint on our language that we ask them to accept on theirs. If incendiary language directed against those we support is wrong, then incendiary language directed against those we oppose is just as wrong.
"So, I'm feeling bad - jarred - by your language, and especially so because it came from you, for whom I have such incredible respect. I don't know what I think about it yet. I haven't had time to sort that out, but I feel jarred.
"And, I cannot send this without adding that I still have incredible respect for you. I just feel - maybe - you made a mistake.
"Sincerely,James W. Collins"
I received this response from Mr. Pitts' e-mail address:
"Thanks for your thoughtful letter; I'm replying only because Mr. Pitts will be away for two weeks and I'm afraid he will be overwhelmed trying to get caught up, but I will be sure he sees your email, even if he doesn't have time to respond.
"Judi Smith
"Assistant to Leonard Pitts, Jr."
Mr. Pitts has never responded to my letter personally. If he has responded in his column, I missed it. I'm not sure if Ms. Smith's response was a canned response, but it could have been. I cannot even be sure if Ms. Smith actually exists.
And now we have the opponents of universal health care in America shouting down our elected representatives at their meetings on the topic, screaming at other Americans who are trying to express their opinions in support of universal health care, bringing weapons to the meetings, and even getting into physical conflicts with others at the meetings. We have elected representatives in the United States of America who feel the need to be escorted by armed police from thier own meetings because the crowd seems so close to violence.
And so it begins, Mr. Pitts. And so it begins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)