Republicans Defend Their Violent Rhetoric

Eye Roll, Please 

Politico reports Republicans are saying their violent rhetoric has nothing to do with the attack on Paul Pelosi.

And National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), who posted a video last week of himself firing a gun with the hashtag #FirePelosi, deflected a question about whether he should have used a weapon along with the hashtag.

Instead, Emmer sought to contrast the media’s treatment of the Pelosi attack with what he argued was a comparable lack of attention to the 2017 politically motivated shooting of House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.).

Seems like the kind of tit-for-tat I used to hear in middle school. An adult needs to step in and tell Mr. Emmer that was over five years ago, and I seem to recall extensive coverage of the shooting of Steve Scalise. 

I Googled the shooting. There are over 750 thousand links to the shooting and reaction well after the event.

And what was Nancy Pelosi's response to the shooting of Mr. Scalise and others at that practice? I found this at FactCheck.org.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — who was the Democratic House minority leader at the time — held a press conference the day after the shooting, in which she referenced the people who “lose their lives to gun violence in America every day.  Within many families and communities across America, the anguish that we are feeling personally in Congress today is altogether too familiar.”

Answering a question about political vitriol, Pelosi at one point referred to inaction on the issue.

“I think our energy should be used in our thoughts and prayers for Steve Scalise and Mr. Mika, and that’s really where our hearts are right now,” she said. “It’s a question of gun safety that, you know, has never happened. Little babies, little children in kindergarten, were massacred and nothing happened.”

There's a huge difference in the responses. Can you see it? Do you understand the difference?

Facing the Truth

Dissent

Is it okay to dissent, to hold an opposing view? Not in some circles. To have a dissenting view in Trump's America is disloyal, even treasonous. In places like China or Russia, a dissenting view leads to a re-education camp. In some countries, you might just disappear. 

To some people in this country, if you speak of systemic racism, or critical race theory, you run up against their views of our republic's history. And today, you become the enemy. Don't believe it. What just happened to Nancy Pelosi's husband? Threats against our political leaders are spiking. 

According to data provided by the United States Capitol Police, a law enforcement agency charged with protecting members of Congress, cases related to "concerning statements and threats" jumped from 3,939 in 2017 to 9,625 in 2021.

But our history isn't just about our successes or our failures. It isn't all this or all that. And to ask questions makes our democracy stronger. To question is not unpatriotic. To question uncovers the facts.

"A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots." -Marcus Garvey

Denial will not protect us from the inevitable when the truth is discovered.

And they'll jerk from their beds and think they're dreamin'
But they'll pinch themselves and squeal
And know that it's for real
The hour when the ship comes in… -Bob Dylan

Things That Work / Change

 

How is a call to change named shame, / named penance, named chastisement? / How does one say / what if / without reproach?

- Claudia Rankine, “what if”

There is no progress without change. Without change, we get mired in the same downward spiral, and isn't it the definition of insanity to keep doing things the same way and expect a different result.

Change gets a bad rap because change is rarely perfect. Perfection isn't the goal. Improvement is! 

Standing in the door to block progress because it's not perfect is an excuse to do nothing. Those who would block change are invested in and profit from the status quo. Making life better for all is not in their self interest.

Things That Work / Lucy Nalpathanchil

 

WNPR’s Lucy Nalpathanchil named to new senior leadership position at Connecticut Public

Lucy is the second host of CT Public's Where We Live. The program was created in 2006, largely through the efforts of John Dankosky and his staff,  as the centerpiece of WNPR's efforts to create content focused on local and regional issues, and put those issues in the context of national and international trends and events. The success of Where We Live is central to the success of Connecticut Public Radio. 

Lucy's ability to connect community with larger issues is moving on up to the C-Suite at Connecticut Public. Nalpathanchil, in the statement, said “We’re a trusted source for news and information because the journalists here are top notch and are committed to their craft. I’m excited to expand the relationships we’ve developed to further connect Connecticut Public with different communities and groups, all working to make where we live a better, more equitable place.”

CT Public CEO Mark Contreras says, Connecticut Public’s Frankie Graziano and Walter Smith Randolph will step in Nov. 7 on an “interim basis to share host duties for Where We Live, as they identify a permanent host.”

More about the change is here.

Things That Work is an occasional series featured on this site. 

War is not the answer!

Then, why can't we find another answer?

War is defined as an active conflict that has claimed more than 1,000 lives. Has the world ever been at peace? Of the past 3,400 years, humans have been entirely at peace for 268 of them, or just 8 percent of recorded history. Jul 6, 2003 nytimes

Why?

There are many reason for war. Economic disparity, revenge, and religion are on the list.

And, like everything else, there are lists available on the internet. Owlcation.com, a social sciences website, lists eight main reasons for war.

1. Economic Gain
2. Territorial Gain
3. Religion
4. Nationalism
5. Revenge
6. Civil War
7. Revolutionary War
8. Defensive War

What is the answer? Is it peace? It depends on what we mean by peace.

Nelsonmadella.org defines it this way:

Peace is not just the absence of conflict; peace is the creation of an environment where all can flourish, regardless of race, colour, creed, religion, gender, class, caste, or any other social markers of difference.

Look at that list. With the exception of the last reason, we are in a constant state of war because of selfishness and greed. We are blind. 

We are unwilling to work through our differences. We can't see our way through, because we can't stop, look and listen. Politicians (nationalists) are taking advantage of our weaknesses and dividing us for the purpose of their own selfish gains, for personal power.

Maybe John Lennon had it right. "Imagine."