It's time to tone down the rhetoric; it's time to stop the hate

Before the blood of the victims of the tragic mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona had dried on the pavement of a Safeway parking lot, there were already strong echoes throughout the media world as to what sparked such an act of violence that left six people dead and 14 others wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the target of the attack, fighting for her life.

It didn't take long for the media to get the answer to their questions. And the person who answered was not a journalist, pundit or activist. The person who answered the cries of understanding and stepped into the spotlight without hesitancy to place blame on the events was none other than Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. The out-spoken sheriff didn't even have to ponder what was to blame for the tragic events as he spoke at a news conference Saturday evening, for the evidence had been right in front of him for the past two years. And with one word he was able to sum up the one thing that was on many people's minds as they watched the tragedy unfold - "vitriol".


"I'd just like to say that when you look at unbalanced people, how they are - how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths, about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," Dupnik said in a nationally televised news conference.

Vitriol, defined as "cruel and bitter criticism", has been, as many believe, the fuel that has inflamed a public that is already unstable with the struggles of the economy and high-unemployment rates. The vile rhetoric that spews from the mouths of not only our elected officials, but our news pundits on a daily basis, help to reaffirm the anger and fears felt by people and groups on both sides of the political aisle over who is to blame for the death of the American dream. Sheriff Dupnik, however, on that day, right or wrong, summed up the thoughts of many Americans who are disgusted by the rhetoric coming from our news outlets and elected officials today with one word. And with it, he has sparked a heated debate over hateful rhetoric that no one else in American media or politics has been able to successfully raise in decades - probably the one positive thing to come from this tragedy.

While it appears this was the act of a mad man with unidentifiable political ideology at this time, there is no hiding the fact that the tone in language and discourse in this country has taken a horrifying turn toward anti-government and pro-gun rhetoric, and anyone who ignores this fact is blinded to the reality of what this type of language has on the American psyche and most importantly certain segments of our society. How can people be expected to create a civil dialogue and debate over the major issues facing our nation when there are media figures and elected officials who intentionally misinform the public and use violent rhetoric to threaten those who don't share their views.


Now, it would be wrong to place blame solely on Republicans in this tragic incident, and while Sheriff Dupnik was short of laying blame at anyone group or person, it was evident to all of us, liberals and conservatives alike, who had been the culprit of much of the vitriol in recent years - conservative pundits and politicians. While liberal pundits and officials have been known to use some reprehensible language, it is the violent rhetoric of conservative media celebrities like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, Tea Party activists and a number of right-wing elected officials who have used fear and hate speech to persuade Americans that the Obama administration is destroying the American way of life in recent years. Who can forget Glen Beck accusing President Barack Obama of being a racist or Rep. Joe Wilson shouting "you lie!" at the president or the congressional map featuring crosshairs over districts Sarah Palin targeted for Republican victories or the calls from Senate candidate Sharon Angle to use "2nd ammendment remedies" or Rep. Michelle Bachman calling upon Minnesotans to be "armed and dangerous".

And we have seen the effects of such candor. During a political rally for Rand Paul a Democratic supporter was thrown to the ground and had her head stomped on by an angry group of supporters and campaign staff, racial slurs met African American members of Congress as they approached the Capital Building to cast their vote on the historic health care bill, 10 Democratic congressional office windows, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, were smashed following the health care vote, gun touting men showed up to protest outside presidential events during the health care debate, not to mention two separate violent attacks and one attempted attack by people who have admitted to being influenced by Beck and Palin's words. It is a volatile political environment in which we live today, and while this act might not have been directly correlated with the hateful language conveyed throughout our political and news networks, there have been acts of violence and many instances of people using violent language and actions to threaten those who don't share their political ideology. For we all have the right to express our differences in our democracy, we all have a right to debate passionately and say what we feel, but these rights provided by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution don't come without responsibility. And if we can place the blame of violence on things like music and video games, why can't we at least question what effects violent and hateful rhetoric that plays on the fears of the weak minded can have on our society as well. Nobody is saying our elected officials can't take part in passionate debate, but to threaten violence or characterize people and elected officials as evil if they don't vote in a way that is inline with conservative "values", is a threat to not only our elected officials and the people who support such values, but our democracy and freedoms.


As law enforcement officials try to piece together what led Jared Lee Loughner to go on a killing spree last Saturday morning, we must for now be careful to place blame and instead spend more time memorializing those who lost their lives, caring for those who are still alive, and better understanding what we can do as a nation to curb the hostile environment for which we all had a hand in creating. We must not miss this opportunity to admit that we have all said some things, myself included, that we regret. And instead of trying to deflect the blame we should use this as a time to reflect on how we can better express our differences without villainizing our detractors. If not for our democracy, for 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green, Gabe Zimmerman, Dorwin Stoddard, Dorthy Morris and Phyllis Schneck, who all lost their lives taking part in the most basic American right - freedom of peaceful assembly. For we are all Americans, we all love this country, and the sooner we start acknowledging that we are all on the same side, that we are all one big "American family", the sooner we can start to settle our differences and heal as a nation.

It's time to tone down the rhetoric. It's time to stop the hate.

The Top 10 Craziest Quotes by Tea Party Candidates (so far)

The Tea Party is a "revolution" or so they would lead you to believe, but in the larger context of American history they're just the same nuts that always appear when a Democrat holds the highest office. But this year, the nuts on the far-right have taken crazy to a new level. Whether it's Former Nevada GOP Senate hopeful Sue Lowden telling people instead of health care they should just barter chickens or GOP candidate Rand Paul of Kentucky saying he thinks business owners should have the freedom to segregate lunch counters again, here are 10 quotes from the wacky Tea Party candidates that are sure to make you want to vote Democrat in the November elections.

1. "I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." —Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle, floating the idea of an armed revolt by conservatives in a radio interview, Jan. 2010 

2. "I’m telling you that this works. You know, before we all started having health care, in the olden days our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor, they would say I’ll paint your house. I mean, that’s the old days of what people would do to get health care with your doctors. Doctors are very sympathetic people. I’m not backing down from that system." Former Nevada GOP candidate for Senate, Sue Lowden, defending her remarks about how people should barter chickens for Heatlh Care, April 19, 2010.

3."I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it." —Rand Paul, taking issue with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while arguing that government should not force integration on private business, interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, May 21, 2010  

4."Instead of handing out the welfare checks, we'll teach people how to earn their check. We'll teach them personal hygiene ... the personal things they don't get when they come from dysfunctional homes. These are beautiful properties with basketball courts, bathroom facilities, toilet facilities. Many young people would love to get the hell out of cities. You have to teach them basic things — taking care of themselves, physical fitness. In their dysfunctional environment, they never learned these things." - GOP New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino, saying that the state's poor should be housed in prisons.

5. "I think that two wrongs don't make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade." —Sharron Angle, explaining why she is against abortion even in cases of rape or incest, July 8, 2010 

6. "What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I've heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it's part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen." —Kentucky GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul describing how corporations like BP should be allowed to regulate themselves, May 21, 2010  

7."It is not enough to be abstinent with other people, you also have to be abstinent alone. The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. You can't masturbate without lust! ... You're going to be pleasing each other. And if he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?" —Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, advocating against masturbation in a 1996 MTV interview

8. "We needed to have the press be our friend ... We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported." —Sharron Angle, describing how her campaign belives media should work for her and not the people, during an interview with Fox's Carl Cameron, Aug. 2, 2010


9. 'We took the Bible and prayer out of public schools, and now we're having weekly shootings practically. We had the 60s sexual revolution, and now people are dying of AIDS." —Christine O'Donnell, during a 1998 appearance on Bill Maher's 'Politically Incorrect'"

10."People ask me, 'What are you going to do to develop jobs in your state?' Well, that's not my job as a U.S. senator." —Sharron Angle, May 14, 2010

The Daily Show to hold 'Rally to Restore Sanity'

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rally to Restore Sanity
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Freedom of Religion not Location should be focus of NYC Mosque debate

For the past month the political headlines have been dominated by news that the evil Muslims, who killed more than 3,000 Americans in the attacks of 9/11, are planning to build a Mosque on the "sacred ground" where the ashes and bones of those who lost their lives still lie. The site of the former World Trade Center buildings that currently houses 17 pizza shops, 18 bank branches, 11 bars, 10 shoe stores, 17 salons, a strip club, a off-track betting parlor and a smaller mosque, has suddenly become the talk of the nation as Republicans are using the volatile issue as a political football to force Democrats into defending freedom of religion.

Since this issue arose, right-wing swine like Sarah Palin have jumped all over this issue and attempted to pressure Democrats into a tricky political situation just before the crucial November elections that could swing control in the House back to the Republicans - which would in theory make the walking Melanoma tumor, John Bohener, the next speaker-in-waiting. If you ask me, Americans should be more concerned about a 60-year-old version of The Situation running the House than a well-known, peaceful Muslim sect exercising their constitutional rights to practice freedom of religion in the most diverse city on the planet - but hey, what do I know.

While this is obviously a volatile issue for many Americans, including the 9/11 victims families, who paid the greatest price, it is important that we look past the smokescreens that Republicans so graciously hypnotize our minds with and focus on the real issue in the debate - freedom of religion. Now Republicans have done a masterful job of framing this issue in a way that says, 'we aren't against a Mosque being built, just it being built at Ground Zero.' Of course I find it interesting that someone like Sarah Palin, who is constantly defending her own religious views and deeming people living in liberal city's like New York and San Francisco as not being "real Americans", has now found it important to defend the 9/11 site, where more than 3,000 New Yorker's of all different religious backgrounds lost their lives, but I guess even blatant hypocrisy is viewed as an opinion in today's America.

If this issue had arose say last summer, it probably would have been a non-issue nationally but since an election is right around the corner, the right is taking full advantage of distorting the facts and dividing us once again as a nation. Because at first glance a Mosque at the Ground Zero site might seem in bad taste to the average American. You might think the argument that Muslim's have the right to build a Mosque, just not on the site where 16 Muslim hijackers attacked us in the name of Allah, but I guess you could also argue that a Catholic Church should not be built across from the Oklahoma City Building because Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. But I guess philosophical arguments like the previously mentioned don't hold much weight in a country that is predominantly Christian. So maybe we should look at the facts about the Mosque. First, the Muslim group that is planning to build the $100 million dollar multi-use facility, which will house a pool, gymnasium, a 500-seat auditorium and a Sept. 11 memorial, in addition to a prayer space, has operated in and around the Ground Zero site for more than 30 years - making them more victims of the 9/11 attacks than Sarah Palin, myself and most any other American living outside of the 212 area code. Second, the local Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has received high praise from Jewish groups, not to mention the State Department has declared him a "bridge builder" between the Muslim and Christian world. But all of this has been overshadowed by the angry right who continue to try to make themselves out to be the protectors of the Ground Zero site, while also torch bearers for freedom of religion and the constitution in this country. Unfortunately, I don't think they can have it both ways and when they start to take up this issue with other Mosque's being built in other locations across the country - like the act of arson recently perpetrated at the construction site of a Tennessee Mosque - I think the moderates in this nation will begin to realize the true intentions of the Republicans to divide us at the polls and extinguish religious freedom beyond Christianity. Of course it might be too late for the November elections, but historically speaking I think the right will lose in the end, just like they have on most every other controversial issue they have defended throughout our nation's history (i.e. segregation).

When it comes right down to it, this issue for me has nothing to do with the supposed hallowed ground of the Ground Zero site, I mean for god sakes there are numerous bars, strip clubs and gambling parlors, and other establishments of perversion in the same location and no one seems to find those places distasteful. It is about Republicans once again dividing us as a nation and further disrespecting the religious and cultural freedoms of the rest of the world. It is about the right taking the focus off the fact that they have no real plan to move this country forward by dividing us on issues that are in reality non-issues. And yes, the majority of New Yorker's and Americans don't support the building of a Mosque at Ground Zero, but a majority of Americans also didn't support Medicare or Social Security, which have today become the two most popular pieces of legislation in our nation's history. A majority of Americans at one time also supported George W. Bush, the Iraq War and Segregation, but that doesn't mean Americans were right. Actually quite often public support for an issue is wrong in the long run, let's just hope our public leaders, just like they did during the Medicare and Social Security debate, ignore the will of the people and do not what the people support, but rather what is morally and constitutionally right - for that is what this country was founded upon.

And all this is coming from a person who if they had their way, would rid the world of all religions and turn every church, mosque and temple in this country into a Chuck E. Cheese - hey, it couldn't make them any less useless.

Good Night, and Good Luck!

LeBronidict James brings his brand and ego to Miami

It was the moment all NBA basketball fans had been waiting for: LeBron James' announcement of where he would play in 2011. And after reports swirled earlier in the day that the self-proclaimed "King" would wind up in Miami along with All-Stars Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh, the two-time MVP confirmed the rumor during an hour-long, ego-driven ESPN special, "The Decision".

The fall-out over the announcement and how it was handled has not been pretty for James, to say the least. And if you expect me to be any kinder to the future billion dollar athlete, you might want to stop reading now. Since the announcement quivered off James' chattering lips, criticism of the once beloved baller has included everything from how he dealt with the situation to whether or not him winning a title in Miami will be lessened by the great players he has surrounded himself with.

While there has been more criticism than praise over the past 24-hours, he has received a great deal of praise for his supposed unselfishness in putting winning over money. However, I would argue that his decision was completely motivated out of self-interest. And while it is true that he will certainly give up numbers, a minut amount of money and his reputation in his home state of Ohio, in the end, if he is able to win multiple titles and cement himself as one of the greats in NBA history, he will put himself on a path to be a billion dollar athlete. For while I have heard many people talk about how it was so "unselfish" for LeBron to put winning over ego and money, I would argue that is just what he did. For if LeBron had stayed in Cleveland and never won a title, his brand for the future, which will certainly make him richer than any contract, would be in great jeopardy. For in the end, while he may take a slight pay cut, about 96 percent of the salary instead of the 100 percent he would have earned if he were to go back to Cleveland, he will in the long-run make hundred's of millions of dollars in endorsements if he is able to win multiple titles. Plus, Florida doesn't have a State tax, so in the end he will probably end up making more money than he ever would have in Cleveland, New York or Chicago. So while there are people in this country struggling to feed their families and pay their mortgages, analysts are praising LeBron for supposedly putting winning over money, and I am just not buying it.


Now if LeBron was truly being unselfish, he would have chosen to go back to Cleveland and help not only win the city a title, but continue to help rebuild the economy that has been left in ruins since the recession hit. For Cleveland's whole economy was built around LeBron, and maybe, just maybe, if he had chosen to stay and put the people that have cheered him on for the past seven-years over his future earnings, we could sit here 20 years from now and praise the man for choosing to sacrifice multiple rings and beautiful beaches, for the people who admired and needed him most.