What can we do to make our public officials safer?
Posted at 5:00 AM on January 10, 2011
by Eric Ringham
(62 Comments)
Filed under: 2010 Governor's Race, Politics/Government
The shootings of a congresswoman, a judge and 18 others in Arizona on Saturday are a graphic reminder of the dangers of public service. Today's Question: What can we do to make our public officials safer?
Update: Commentary Editor Eric Ringham spoke with Host Tom Crann on All Things Considered about what we've been hearing from listeners:
Comments (62)
So funny!
Did I really read someone saying to just listen to NPR for the truth on health care?
lol.
I worry that the political process has gotten so out of hand that no one is safe. I realize that this person may not have been directly motivated by hate speech, but our whole culture is increasingly rude, disrespectful and angry. It is a matter of time, in my opinion, until that boils over. It is naive to assume that all of this speech has no impact - it does or those that engage in it wouldn't bother.
It's not a left or a right thing - we need to hold the media and politicians themselves accountable for their actions, their words and the atmosphere they create. Best way is to turn those stations off, don't buy those magazines and certainly don't vote for those that distort truths and demean their opponents. Enough is really enough, isn't it? I am just so sick of the anger and the hatred. It's pathetic, really.
Legalize cannabis,
end the war on drugs...
it appears he was off his meds
the only harmless one being cannabis, more than likely kept the shooter away from guns until recently.
Want to have safety for everyone?
watch "The Union" and act accordingly:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007#
It is true what they say, "It takes a village.”
As I heard the name of the shooter in Tucson, I was relieved that it was not our nephew, a mentally ill homeless young man living in Arizona.
In his last call to us before Christmas, he told us he had been beaten up during the night by 2 men trying to steal his only possessions. He said he managed to shoot at least one of them with a gun that he carries for protection. I tried calling the police the day before the Senator was shot to leave a number where I could be reached but precincts only follow-up when an individual has an address in their area of jurisdiction. Without an address, you don’t exist until you are the victim or perpetrator of a crime.
This young man’s only resources is $400 a month from SSI to cover housing, food, a long of list medications and anything else one needs. Since recent co-pays were instituted, he had to give up a shared apartment.
His mother suffers from the same disorders and is a ward of the state in Minnesota and his father has terminal cancer. This angry young adult could be the next “assassin.”
All he wants is a home, food, medical care and an opportunity for a productive life. As great a country as this is, many people like this don’t have a chance without a supportive family that is willing and able to help them.
I feel bad about what happened in Arizona but this is a symptom of a country that can’t do everything they aspire to without important values falling through the cracks. We have extremes of wealth and poverty putting a lot of stress and anger on a large segment of a population that has lost hope that anyone cares.
We should do nothing. `Safer' generally means more isolated. Our public officials need to be more engaged, not more isolated. Our efforts to make the United States `safer' since 9/11 have only made our country more isolated. Let's not make our problems worse by further isolating public officials from their constituents. Jefferson said something to the effect that those who trade liberty for security deserve neither. Isolation breeds fear and that is the last thing we need as a country and as human beings. If anything, we need to return to the days when a citizen could easily walk into public buildings to see public officials, when the White House could be visited without the countless hassles and when one could fly without being treated like a criminal.
why only officials. I haven't heard anyone say what is movitations were. No proof its politically motivated.
Why would you limit it to making elected officials safer; what about the rest of us?
First - Ban automatic weapons, they are in no way necessary for "self protection" or hunting.
Second- better access and more affordable mental health treatment
Third - rather than encouraging the talking heads who spew vicious hatred take a stand to ostracize them as well as the corporate entities who countenance such maliciousness, If the ratings drop, the tone might change (at least publicly.)
One thing I wish is better access to our leaders.
And its a shame that one of our leaders was shot while involved in doing just that, a meeting with constituents.
We can complain about mental health system, we can complain about gun laws, and we can complain about lack of security.
But what I notice is the lack of balance and honest fairness in our NEWS and from our leaders. If you tune into one news source that is geared more for talk or entertainment that only feeds one side of the debate, you begin to think the answer is so obvious.
That why has no one acted on it.
That is when the nut jobs then use this information as their crutch and excuse to act.
If a source of news and information comes into play, one in particular comes to mine that uses NEWS in the name but does more opinions and no fact checking.... then you have fuel to the fire of irrational actions.
Personally if a channel says its news it needs to be reporting news, not giving opinions. And it needs to do fact checking, offer a fair balance reporting on the issue, and stop pretending its news when its 'legally' entertainment.
Same goes for leaders, less hate, more listening, and people will calm down knowing their voice is honestly heard.
This guy obviously is in lock step with the rhetoric from the extreme right. And I will bet he never heard any counter points to his beliefs.
Our mental health care system needs to find a way to find those that are out of touch with reality and at risk for harming others, get them treatment and keep them from harming themselves and others. I know people have rights to decline care, but when they are at risk for harming others and educators and coworkers realize they are at risk for injuring others we need to figure out how to get them help. And we all need to treat eachother with respect regardless of our political and religious beliefs.
Under the circumstances, this question doesn't seem to me to address the core issue.
The congresswoman was not killed but 6 members of the public were and others were wounded. It is so seldom that I hear of an elected representative being the target of a shooting, I can't remember the last time it happened. But I hear of regular anonymous persons being murdered and terrorized every day.
Our country is the source of most of the violence in the world today. We lead the world in arms exports to other countries and persons. Our military budget is 8 times that of China. Our leaders have made it easy for anyone to obtain firearms.
Americans need to get used to this kind of event or change the character of our society to one that is more peaceful.
6 people were killed today in Afghanistan. President Obama didn't say jack about that.
Peace
Ban Conceal / Carry Gun Laws; register all hand guns.
Tone down political rhetoric. Ask party leaders to be more statesman like and use less hateful rhetoric.
Allow wider political views and exhibit greater tolerance-i.e. Gov Al Quie was intolerantly throw out of the Republican Party.
How keep elected officials safe? Very simple: Do not allow anyone who is not rabidly conservative to serve in public office. They'll be safe as newborn kittens.
Gordon near TwoHarbors wrote: "The addresses of folks like Shawn Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, etc. are circulated on the internet, and their constant whereabouts disseminated via Twitter.
Let those subversives spend their days worrying about taking a bullet to the head, instead of the good people who strive daily to make our democracy strong."
..and yet so many people who have here today say it is the right wing/Tea Party/conservatives/Sarah Palin who say these things filled with vitriol. This is not a recent development: You have an NPR reporter (who is still working for NPR today) who wished, just a few years ago, that a politician's grandchildren would come down with AIDS so he would learn a lesson for voting the way he did. How is that any different than what is seen and heard today (read the post from "Gordon" below which was a response to how "terrible the rhetoric" is)?
The vitriol comes from both sides of the political spectrum the right and the left. To use this incident as a reason to silence the people you disagree with is reprehensible.
The congresswoman herself supported individuals gun rights and praised the recent Supreme Court decision on gun rights. To use this incident as a reason to enact stringent restrictions on gun ownership is reprehensible.
Why don't we first identify the reason this individual committed this act, be it political, racial, mental, etc. and then identify how this individual was able to find the means to commit this act before we make knee jerk reactions. Once we find these elements then we can try to find a way to prevent someone with similar reasons from having the means to repeat this act.
Look in the mirror before you blame the other guy for the tone in the conversation - it takes two to tango.
Put a muzzle on Palin and Bachmann and others of their ilk.
With all of our technilogical advances is there not some instrument (which could be in use when our officialls are meeting in public) which would issue an alert? For instance when there is a change in the level and/or location of the amount of metal with which firearms are produced?
Granted, this would not provide a wide specttrum of protection from harm by other means, but would at least afford a measure of security against weapons likely to be available to the average person.
If find it amazing that a shooter was able to get so close to the her.
Politians and other public figures need to follow the advice of their security specialists. They are there to help prevent an act of this nature. Wear a bullet proof vest, allow controlled areas for speeches, allow screening of attendees, etc. We are all used to increased security measures. If we want to talk to our public figures, we should expect increased measures. When we enter a courthouse, we are subject to metal detectors and x-ray machines. Seeing a public figure should not be any different nor should it come across as the politians being unavailable to their constituents.
People are passionate about their causes...some even fanatical. You can put all of the security measures in place that you would like but the fact of the matter is...if someone really wants to commit an act of this nature, they will find a way if they are not stopped first through prevention.
Society will always have the right to free speech, to assembly, to carry weapons, and to vote. As a military vetern, I fought for those rights. Changing gun laws or trampling on other rights of society is not the answer.
As always happens after the fact, there were signs of this event all over his social pages, his conversations with people, prior contact with the victim, ect.
We will never be able to predict a persons behavior nor change the fanaticals mind...all we can do is try to prevent these events through paying attention to those around us and what they are talking about, allowing for increased security procedures wherever we go, and fostering a home and public that values respect above everything else.
There are many things in this instance that need addressing. This young man is obviously mentally unstable if not actually mentally ill. The military saw it, his college saw it, I am sure his family saw it. Public discourse can be done in a civil tone. Let's curb the impulse to use inflamimtory retoric in trying to get our points across. Politicians can be sure what they are saying is true and not something inflated to make them look better and the opponent look bad. I think Here in Minnesota we have several politicians that could claim the Liar Liar pants on fire award in countering political points. I am just going to pray for all the politicians who try very hard for our country and their constiuents. I will pray hard for all those killed and injured in this horrific tragedy.
This question presupposes that something needs to be done. It's been a long, long time since there has been a successful assault on a public official, meaning that the security we have in place is working. If we as a nation continue to put into place unnecessary security functions because of singular acts, we are going to burden and tax ourselves for no purpose.
There is no perfect defense against the fringe, the best we can hope for is secure enough to avoid these tragedies most of the time, and we are there already.
The obvious first step is to get rid of any law allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons. Is there any wonder that this shooting occurred in Arizona, which has the most liberal gun laws in the land?
I blame extremist politicians / political activists and the media minions for the attempted assassination of the AZ congresswomen.
While the first amendment guarantees’ the freedom of speech, what has happened truth and honesty in the public discourse of our politician and the media outlets. Putting forward augments to issues based on personal opinion, in correct information, and some cases outright lies seems to me only benefiting a limited percentage of the population at the expense of the majority of the population. In addition the negative dialogue only serves widen our differences. Whether you believe we are a center right or a center left nation, what seems to be lost is that most Americans’ are citreous. The last several election cycles clearly shows that the political parties care more about winning elections and less about governing the states and the nation to benefit all of its citizens.
Wrapping yourself around the flag/constitution/bible does not allow you to demonize someone who has an option/position that does not matchup with your/theirs.
Civility starts with our political leaders, if they cannot conduct themselves in an honest and truthful manor, how does anyone expect the average citizen to respect the political process and/or politicians.
I thought the TV and Radio media outlet are supposed to serve the public’s good under the guidance of the FCC. The media’s true function is too accurately and factually report issues or proposals and not to twist or spin information to matchup with a politician / political parties position or reviews.
I think it all starts with using First Amendment rights responsibly. Too many people hide behind the First Amendment, thinking they have the "right " to lie, slander, distort the truth, and subvert the government.
Is anybody really surprised that these latest shootings happened??
We need to have some playground sensibilities here -- you don't flap your mouth on the playground because you'll get punched in the nose or have your teeth knocked out. There is a natural restraint in most face-to-face encounters, that is absent among the many, mostly right-wing, political commentators that dominate talk radio and Fox "News".
Ultimately, this situation will only change when:
The addresses of folks like Shawn Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, etc. are circulated on the internet, and their constant whereabouts disseminated via Twitter.
Let those subversives spend their days worrying about taking a bullet to the head, instead of the good people who strive daily to make our democracy strong.
Public officials are already pretty safe-- what percentage of them are successfully attacked, over any given period of time?
The issue in AZ has more to do with the derangement of the shooter than anything else. Medical intervention could have done wonders for him, or at least kept him off the streets and away from guns. But the mentally ill are less likely to seek out medical care than others, and are dramatically less likely to have either the insurance or the resources to pay for it even if they want to.
Wow. How about each of us start changing the tone of our discourse. We can't make our public servants completely safe but maybe it would help if we took the rhetoric down a notch.
For those posters that like to direct the blame for this action on the right, such as Palin, Beck and Fox News, seem to forget our Presidents close friend, William Ayers, a member of the weatherman underground and his terrorist activities, or that of Hanoi Jane and her actions, ot how about the anti war people during the Vietnam war. THIS IS WERE THE VIOLENT ACTIVITY STARTED. It subsided somewhat during the Reagan and Bush 1 years but began to escalate again during the George Bush years. If anyone needs to tone down the anger it needs to start on the left.
I think that some of the comments go too far...Getting rid of all guns is complete overkill (pardon the pun). There is a definite use and want and need for guns classified as hunting oriented firearms. I think that things need to be specified. Handguns and "assault-style" guns are at the center of the real issue. There is no real need for them. Just saying that getting rid of all guns lumps in the masses of law abiding sportsmen in the US. In my opinion there should be definite tight regulations on who can own a handgun. But there will always be a way for people who really want them, to get them. Which is very unfortunate.
To the question at hand, perhaps a "pope-mobile" style setup for public officials should be considered. However it prevents the personal contact that is so vital to the system of representation. To every "solution" there is always a negative.
Why should our public officials be safer than anyone else? It is a dangerous world, and always has been. They are not "Gods".
I agree with the person who wrote "tighten gun control laws." To me, the situation in our country is ridculous, that it is so easy for an individual to get a weaon, and then carry it into a crowd. I hope the story is pursued and well covered as to how this individual, who seems to have some very serious mental health problems, got his weapon.
i dont think anything can be done except getting rid of guns entirely and early detection of disturbed behavior and intervention!
Peter, you left out one thing: they also have to stop manufacturing outrage at things that aren't inherently outrageous. Unfortunately, folks like Bachmann, Palin, and the talking hotheads on right-wing media rake in lots of money when they push those buttons. Ranting about death panels or calling our president a marxist inflames anger that would not otherwise exist to such a degree. Yes, the left wing does some of that, too, but it's the right wing that has made in into a high art and a key election and fund-raising tactic.
The perpetrator should never be the only armed person in a crowd. Gun-control policies are similar to the War on Drugs, claiming to address a real problem, but only amplifying the problem.
We need to remove the stigma and glamour around guns. The more people responsibly own and carry guns the less vulnerable everyone will be.
I have heard Erik Paulsen refer more than once to the new health care law as being "a government takeover of health care." Statistically, this is simply not true. In other words, when he says this he is telling a lie and he knows, or should know, it is a lie. I also heard, I believe as recently as the end of last week in an intereview, I believe with Cathy Wurzer, Michele Bachmann decry the recent huge premium increases in health insurance and blame that on the new health care law. That is also simply not true. All you have to do is listen to NPR's own health policy specialist, Julie Rovner, to know this is not true, yet the interviewer did not hold Michele Bachmann at all responsible for this lie. And, again, Michele Bachmann knows or should know that this is a lie.
As long as politicians such as Erik Paulsen and Michele Bachmann are allowed to lie about the issues with impunity, and as long as politicians such as Michele Bachmann continue to use heated, divisive, over-the-top partisan rhetoric, the potential for tragedy such as just occurred in Arizona exists. Politicians must always be mindful that there is probably at least one unbalanced person listening to everything they say.
Saturday we saw an outrageous response to the frustration with our lawmakers.
Our representatives have to stop cheating, lying, stealing and manipulating reality to line their own pockets and/or suit individual agendas. They have to earn respect to stop driving people close to the edge, over the edge. All sides have to tell the truth, act with dignity and be accountable to eliminate the public outrage that causes those unstable few to take matters into their own hands.
If you look back at the tragedies that have had results similar to what happened yesterday in Tucson, there appears to be a common denominator of untreated mental illness. What is lacking in our country is adequate care and education of mental illness. We need to put more resources into treatment and research so that individuals who could benefit from treatment can receive it. Also if people recognized the behaviors of a person who needs help, there would be appropriate avenues to take to get the help people could benefit from.
I am greatly annoyed with all the gun control and political kumbaya comments regarding today's question. Can we please keep in mind that the shooter was likely a mentally sick person, who may have schizophrenia, and would likely have committed violence regardless of who controls the Congress or the guns.
Return freedoms and liberties to the people, revolution is in the air and it will not stop. When did you all stop being Americans and start being Europeans? Do you gun control advocates not understand that this is a right as much as your right to free speech? It is amazing how much we have become a bunch of pansies as a country.
We have to remember that this was one mentally unstable individual and we should not allow this horrible attack to limit our 1st Amendment rights (or other constitutional rights). Perhaps we need a couple of secret service agents for each congress person or at local events congress members can coordinate with local law enforcement who can send an officer or two just for additional protection.
I don't believe we can do anything structurally to make public officials safer. Certainly better gun control would help, but the most critical thing that needs to change is the vitriolic rhetoric that has become pervasive in our culture. From Rush Limbaugh to Sarah Palin to Michelle Bachman there is inflammatory rhetoric that the 24-7 news cycle loves to play, and that rhetoric is interpreted by those already on the edge as giving them permission to commit acts of violence. We seem to have lost any sense of respect and self-censorship in our language and actions towards each other.
The question in wrong; the question is how we can make anyone (everyone?) more safe. It seems to me that women "protected" by restraining orders are killed by those very men, etc. If the suspect was suspected of having significant mental illness, that should have been pursued. It would appear that we make sure that infectious diseases are monitored and treated for the safety of the population; we avoid serious conversation about similar quarantine for mental illness.
One way to tone down some of the rhetoric and especially the shear volume of it is for the FCC to bring back the old equal time regulations that existed before Reagan. That would be a good start.
One way to tone down some of the rhetoric and especially the shear volume of it is for the FCC to bring back the old equal time regulations that existed before Reagan. That would be a good start.
Gun control, of course, but also coming up with a better way to identify mentally unstable people before they act out. Why was Giffords shooter out and about in society? He should have somehow been flagged long ago as a person in need of some kind of intervention and/or treatment.
We make public officials safer by making everyone safer. I don't believe in the notion that public officials are more deserving of safety than anyone else. While they might be a more prominent target of disaffected individuals, and their security does need to take that into consideration, are they really at any more real risk than anyone else? On whole, is there a greater statistical chance of a public official (barring police & public safety) being injured in the work than anyone else? Sure, they get the news coverage, but because they're public officials it becomes a big story.
Public officials are safer when everyone is more protected from the crazy people in the world. We can't stop people from doing crazy things. We can however make it harder for them to multiply their effect by the use of semi-automatic handguns with large magazines. We can make it harder for them to become fixated on a particular political target by reducing the vitriol in what are "only" political disagreements.
There should be no place in politics for "reload, not retreat", "Second Amendment remedies" or "armed and dangerous" opposition. Yes, I chose three examples from the right side of the aisle, but mostly because I cannot recall hearing such things from the left.
We must stop the demonization of those who do not share our own views. Those who are different are not necessarily wrong. And it's entirely possible that no one is correct on a particular issue.
"Can't we all just get along?"
I believe that constituents are being endangered by the elected officials who create these public gatherings for no good reason.
Shutdown MSNBC News, get that fat ass ed Shultz and the rest of the lying liar far left off the news asap.
I agree with the general view that curbing the vitriol and polarized, hateful rhetoric in our public dscourse would go a long way toward making our public officials safer. Specifically, I believe that if we could allow the nuance of reasoned argument to re-enter the picture, rather than presenting everything as completely black and white, we could, as a society, have the capacity for more reasoned responses to those with whom we disagree.
The gun laws need revision. No citizen needs to own attack weapons. We can do better at identification of those citizens who are mentally ill and dangerous but will never completely stop some of their actions. We can control weapons designed for mass murder.
Tighten gun control laws!
Shut down Fox Spews. That would do more to raise the intelligence and safety level of American political discourse than any other positive action. Rupert Murdock and his minions are a locus of hate and evil. Murdock should have his citizenship revoked, and then be deported.
This is not about free speech; it is a "you can not yell: FIRE! in a darkened theater" issue.
How interesting that in Arizona, with it's extremely libertarian gun laws, the shooter was tackled, not shot! Where were the gun-toting citizens who were, according to the NRA's rhetoric, supposed to be available to "take out" such miscreants? Why was the shooter not deterred by the supposedly well-armed populace? When will we learn that more guns means more violence, not less?
Words have power. Rhetoric influences behavior. I treasure our right of freedom of speech, but with rights come responsibilities. As a society (if such we aspire to be-- not sure we really are one), we need to hold each other accountable for the consequences of what we say. When political ads show crosshairs over opponents, and politicians talk of "2nd Amendment solutions," it shouldn't surprise us when mentally unstable people take such things seriously and put them into action.
Sadly, in a culture where we think aggressiveness is a good attribute and our dominant metaphor for just about any endeavor is a fight, the odds of this changing are not good.
All public figures - civic leaders, religious leaders, parents, teachers, writers, bloggers, broadcasters on radio and TV, sports and entertainment celebrities - should take their social prominence seriously, and remind their listeners/followers that, here in America, human life is precious, all human beings (even those we disagree with) deserve basic respect, and "the government" is not some evil conspiracy out to get us: WE the people of the United States ARE our government. WE have the right, and responsibility, to use free and legal elections to choose our public officials - unlike in so many countries around the world. There is no excuse for those who preach hatred and violence in the name of "patriotism." That's not patriotism; that's nothing more than self-serving, self-aggrandizing greed. Freedom of speech allows anyone to say any hateful, vicious thing they like - but the rest of us don't have to listen to such garbage, and certainly shouldn't reward those who preach fear and hatred with our attention or support.
I personally think the easiest way is to demand that all political appearances be insured, have security and metal detectors for all parties going forward. The cost of Arizona was largely, not exclusively, to innocent bystanders. The cost of irresponsible rhetoric to politicians is zero, it gains or loses votes and gets free publicity the more outrageous it is. Make the parties play by the same rules all other public organizations do- security,safety and insurance cost money, make the parties pay and make the big parties share most of the cost. Free speech is only free for politicians, not the public. Time to raise that old "accountability" canard they like to spew.
The question is too narrow. Everyone's safety would be increased if those public servants who are now so worried about their own safety could set a better example of civil discourse. If our elected officials cannot negotiate their differences without polarizing vitriol, what example is set for the nation--which, of course, includes individuals who may be even more unbalanced than the politicians who resort to name-calling, personal attacks and idiotic invective?
It seems Americans are rarely moved to right our course except in response to a tragedy. Perhaps the shooting will motivate our so-called leaders to re-establish the grand old tradition of reasoned, respectful discourse, recognizing that viewpoints other than our own are equally valid, and that all deserve to be heard if any consensus--rather than endless combat--is to be achieved.
It seems to me that we have an epidemic of violence against individuals that have somehow offended us. We seem to have no respect for others. We don't seem to be able to engage in civil discourse, to discuss our differences, and be tolerant of different points of view.
All of us need to be able to be safe in public and in our homes. Perhaps, if we listen a little more and rant a little less; perhaps if we accept mistakes a bit more and judge less; perhaps if we show a bit more kindness and courtesy to others we can put an end to some of the senseless violence we see around us.
This unfortunately might be a dear price we pay for being a free and open society. But we should take the vitriol comments by Sarah Palin and Jesse Kelly a little more seriously and hold people accountable for suggesting violence.
I'll just say +1 to DMox 7:31am!
I am from AZ, and familiar with the gun laws there. A few years ago, right before I moved here, they passed a law making it legal to possess guns in a bar or tavern. The pro-gun rights movement claimed that it was a security measure, as criminals would already have access to guns, so allowing law abiding citizens to have guns to defend themselves, would deter criminals from starting something, and would allow for people to "take out" criminals in the act, and prevent further deaths.
So where were all the guns Saturday morning? I know where one gun was, at the end of the arm of a deranged and unstable young man, who was able to obtain a gun quite easily. Where were the others?
If we want to eradicate a disease, we reduce the amount of that organism available to infect, through medicine & quarantine. If we want to eradicate a plague of animal or insect, we limit the availability of food and breeding. To eradicate gun violence, we have to do reduce the number guns, reduce the access of guns to people, and reduce the production of guns. It's that simple.
If we want to be safe, we have to look past an antiquated constitutional amendment, and decide that the safety of our elected officials, our families, and ourselves, is more important. Protecting democracy from tyranny is paramount in our country. If you want to claim that those who sacrifice freedoms for security deserve neither, please do so in a letter to one of the victims of Saturday's violence in Tucson. If you want to claim constitutional rights, please address those rights with the parents of that nine-year-old girl, and the parents of the shooter.
The answer is less guns. Period.
The political discourse should be conducted in a more civil manner. People we disagree with are not our enemies. This is one of the things that set our democracy apart from other forms of government. We are opponents, yes, but not enemies. The merchants of fear don't know or don't care that fear is a poor servant and a terrible master. To ride the tiger of fear to achieve your goals is foolish, because you cannot control it, at best you can hang on to it's tail, and as we see today there are teeth in the other end.
Create a more tolerant, honest society. That begins with education, about calling out the extremists when they lie and demanding honesty and responsible behavior from our political, corporate and civic leaders. And, just as importantly, our media.
Our media by and large has deteriorated to either pro-agenda shills or lapdogs who read press releases handed to them by politicians, corporate press officials and biased think tanks. That's how extremists from all sides get their 15 minutes and more, in this day of 24-hour news cycles to fill. If more journalists were themselves better informed, actually confronted the extremists when they are caught in a lie and seriously investigated, that would go a long way toward an informed public.
Bullies will only bully when they are not confronted. Time for journalists to step up their game.
As long as public officials wish to meet the public, providing safety for them will be difficult. And as long as the public reacts to negative politics in a way that makes this technique effective, the demonizing of political opponents will continue. Only when analysis of political strategy shows that negative politics is ineffective will the rhetoric begin to decrease but currently there is no evidence that this is about to happen.
AZ has a very liberal gun policy and people used to solving altercations with violence. If people are presented violence as an option, some may choose it. Members of the media and public figures that disagree with public officials should emphasize action against that official by peaceful means such as "getting out the vote", voting, being politically active.etc. Violence should never be a theme of their rhetoric. Members of the media and other public figures should look to their actions to stop this.
Decide as a nation that those who disagree with us are not evil people.
| January 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock