DOWNLOADS: (235)

PLAYS: (3229)

Embed

Civility is dead. It was diagnosed as terminal on January 20, 2009, and by July 14, 2009 -- the day the House of Representatives reported out the first version of the Affordable Care Act -- it was dead, cold, and buried fifty feet under in a concrete box lined with lead to counter the radioactivity of the atmosphere above.

The killers weren't liberals or progressives, though it's true that they laughed and ridiculed pretty strongly on the Tea Party's birthday on April 15, 2009. The killers were the talkers like Rush and Beck and their many clones on the AM radio dial who had no problem saying the most outrageous things. The more outrageous they were, the better it was for the hate talkers.

Which is why it makes me laugh in a cynical, annoyed sort of way when I see the right wing go all whiny about how mean President Obama is to them. To which I say, more meanness please. Bipartisanship is dead. Civility is dead. Meanness is what's called for.

Paul Krugman:

Which brings me to those calls for a bipartisan solution. Sorry to be cynical, but right now “bipartisan” is usually code for assembling some conservative Democrats and ultraconservative Republicans — all of them with close ties to the wealthy, and many who are wealthy themselves — and having them proclaim that low taxes on high incomes and drastic cuts in social insurance are the only possible solution.

This would be a corrupt, undemocratic way to make decisions about the shape of our society even if those involved really were wise men with a deep grasp of the issues. It’s much worse when many of those at the table are the sort of people who solicit and believe the kind of policy analyses that the Heritage Foundation supplies.

So let’s not be civil. Instead, let’s have a frank discussion of our differences. In particular, if Democrats believe that Republicans are talking cruel nonsense, they should say so — and take their case to the voters.

Exactly. I'm not calling for us to start photoshopping Allen West into overtly racist pictures here, but enough with the pretense of civil discourse. When Andrew Breitbart tells liberals to STFU in public with 5,000 of them just on the other side of a barrier, civility just isn't a worthwhile goal. Conservatives' vision for this country is dark, dystopian, and deeply pessimistic. It's also hypocritical and serves only the goals of their Fortune 500 masters. It does not have to be this way.

The president's microphone wasn't "accidentally" left on last week. That's what people do when they want to say it without it being "official". That message was intentional and conservatives can't deny the truth of what he said, no matter how hard they try.

Unless we let them. David Brooks can wish on every shooting star in the sky, but there isn't going to be a beer summit and congenial lunch with Paul Ryan and the president anytime soon. Those days are past. The Party of Loons and Pessimists wants to put Mom in the hands of insurance companies, corporate providers and ration her health care while cutting her Social Security benefits to shreds. This does not call for civility. It calls for open, loud, hostile calls for attention.

Sean Hannity Calls Congressman "Asshole"

via Oliver Willis

Sean Hannity, the talking-point spouting mouthpiece on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes was recently caught by Harry Shearer slamming a Democratic congressman as an "asshole" when Hannity didn't realize he was being recorded.

Click here and listen.

Strangely, Hannity is constantly decrying the lack of civility from Democrats, but in the recording goes on to say "I hate these people"

Lawyers, Guns & Money: "Traitor-in-Defense-of-Slavery-American" would be fine

Consortiumnews: GOP's double standard on anger

The Impolitic: Republicans say "hell no" to civility

alicublog: The Pantload and The Perfesser Do America

BAGnewsNotes: Obama on Offense: Taking off the Mitts (and the Karls)

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: WashPost FAIL...Perhaps the stupidest man on planet Earth...NPR Ombudsman...West coast Newspaper War...NYT FAIL...Saving Real Journalism...Depends on what you call news...Hannity’s Scam:...Christian stenos...'Hed' shots...Dragged, kicking & screaming...Inside Iraq...(Un) Covering El Salvador death squads...Boston Newspaper Guild rips Times Co....O'Reilly DOESN"T AGREE with wingnut!...

(h/t nr for the graphic)

OK, let's have some fun. There's a new Harris poll that was just released and the results are pretty hysterical. It's not scientific, but based on who decided to take it online during the height of the health care debate, so take it for what it is:

On the heels of health care, a new Harris poll reveals Republican attitudes about Obama: Two-thirds think he's a socialist, 57 percent a Muslim—and 24 percent say "he may be the Antichrist."

To anyone who thinks the end of the health-care vote means a return to civility, wake up.

Obama Derangement Syndrome—pathological hatred of the president posing as patriotism—has infected the Republican Party. Here's new data to prove it:

67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall) believe that Obama is a socialist. The belief that Obama is a “domestic enemy” is widely held—a sign of trouble yet to come.

57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president" 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did" Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist." These numbers all come from a brand-new Harris poll, inspired in part by my new book Wingnuts. It demonstrates the cost of the campaign of fear and hate that has been pumped up in the service of hyper-partisanship over the past 15 months. We are playing with dynamite by demonizing our president and dividing the United States in the process. What might be good for ratings is bad for the country.

• Michelle Goldberg: What the Polls Really Show The poll, which surveyed 2,230 people right at the height of the health-care reform debate, also clearly shows that education is a barrier to extremism. Respondents without a college education are vastly more likely to believe such claims, while Americans with college degrees or better are less easily duped. It's a reminder of what the 19th-century educator Horace Mann once too-loftily said: "Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge."

The poll was based on John Avlon's new book: Wingnuts. If nothing else it speaks to the people that are clicking through and then taking the poll. Clearly there is a derangement syndrome going on in America today. We know this by the behavior we see everyday and the actions...oh...like...cutting someone's gas line. Things like that.

We've remarked before on the lack of civility in today's society. Part of it, I suspect, is as it's always been (According to Plato, Socrates famously complained about the disrespect of the youth of his time and warned against the growing indolence of society). Part of it is the ease of anonymity of the internet age allowing you to express your basest self without fear of being known. But we have also become a society where facts matter less than emotion, where self-righteousness and demonization triumphs debate and understanding and too many people assume that you exercising your freedoms mean less for them. It all adds up to a society for which kindness is the least appreciated virtue.

Curiously, according to a recent study, that's actually going against our most successful instincts:

Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, are challenging long-held beliefs that human beings are wired to be selfish. In a wide range of studies, social scientists are amassing a growing body of evidence to show we are evolving to become more compassionate and collaborative in our quest to survive and thrive.

In contrast to "every man for himself" interpretations of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Dacher Keltner, a UC Berkeley psychologist and author of "Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life," and his fellow social scientists are building the case that humans are successful as a species precisely because of our nurturing, altruistic and compassionate traits.

They call it "survival of the kindest."[..]

While studies show that bonding and making social connections can make for a healthier, more meaningful life, the larger question some UC Berkeley researchers are asking is, "How do these traits ensure our survival and raise our status among our peers?"

One answer, according to UC Berkeley social psychologist and sociologist Robb Willer is that the more generous we are, the more respect and influence we wield. In one recent study, Willer and his team gave participants each a modest amount of cash and directed them to play games of varying complexity that would benefit the "public good." The results, published in the journal American Sociological Review, showed that participants who acted more generously received more gifts, respect and cooperation from their peers and wielded more influence over them.

"The findings suggest that anyone who acts only in his or her narrow self-interest will be shunned, disrespected, even hated," Willer said. "But those who behave generously with others are held in high esteem by their peers and thus rise in status."

I want so deeply in my heart for this to be true...I would love to see us champion the generous over the self-interested more. Think how few Republicans would be celebrated. :)

They say he's in good spirits and doing well, but you always have to worry whenever heart surgery is involved:

Former President Bill Clinton is "in good spirits" after a procedure to place two stents in one of his coronary arteries, according to a spokesman.

"President Clinton is in good spirits, and will continue to focus on the work of his Foundation and Haiti's relief and long-term recovery efforts," said adviser Doug Band said in a statement.

He is expected to stay the night at Columbia Campus of New York Presbyterian Hospital, where he was admitted earlier Thursday.

It'll be interesting to watch the civility-conscious right-wingers who were all aghast at liberals' comments when Rush Limbaugh was hospitalized.

DOWNLOADS: (1582)

PLAYS: (3122)

Embed

President Obama ignored warnings not to appear at the National Prayer Breakfast today, since it was organized by fundamentalist religionists whose animus towards not just him but all progressives has been all too obvious for years. But he did anyway -- and, as Sam Stein at HuffPo reports, actually managed to deliver an important message about the critical role of civility in a democratic society.

The main point was that right-wing nutcases, and their frothing about Obama's supposed foreignness and radicalism and hatred of Christianity, make it impossible to even have a rational discussion:

Obama: Civility also requires relearning how to disagree without being disagreeable -- understanding, as President [Kennedy] said, 'Civility is not a sign of weakness.' Now I am the first to confess I am not always right. Michelle will testify to that. But surely, you can question my policies without questioning my faith. Or for that matter, my citizenship.

No doubt, the talkers at Fox will take this as evidence that he hates the "jes' folks" who populate the Tea Parties.

Oh dear. What can the matter be?

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Wednesday ripped the Senate's "newest members" for the lack of comity in the upper chamber.

In a floor speech Wednesday night, Dodd said there is "nothing wrong" with partisanship, but added he has "been deeply disturbed by some of the [healthcare] debate I have heard, usually from newer members, usually those who have been here one, two, three years, who do not have an appreciation of what this chamber means and how we work together."

Dodd did not name names, and spokesmen for the Connecticut senator did not respond to requests for comment.

[...] During his speech on Wednesday, Dodd repeatedly revisited his disappointment with the newest members of the Senate: "It is always the newest members who fail to understand how the Senate has worked for more than two centuries. We need to get back to that sense of civility once again ... Even though we have had very strong disagreements, I never once in my life in this chamber ever questioned the patriotic intentions of any member ... the idea you challenge another's patriotism, honesty, their integrity, does a great disservice to this institution, in my view."

He later added, "Again, I regret sometimes the newer members who fail to understand the importance of maintaining that which our Founders envisioned when they created this institution."

Yes, Sen. Dodd, the same Founders who were so angry over their treatment by the crown that they started a violent revolution were certainly much more concerned about manners. Tarring and feathering was simply an elaborate social ritual!

Sen. Dodd is upset about this, and rightfully so. It seems that Sen. Al Franken has this upsetting habit of demanding information from Republicans, and even mocking them when they evade him. One of them apparently went whining to Sen. Dodd and asked him to chastise the horrid Franken.

In case you didn't know, rudeness about political ideology that destroyed this country is on a par - nay, far exceeds the misdeeds of those questioned.

Would that we sought a more genteel way to show our displeasure:

Despite the current constitutional crisis, despite the abandonment of every principle that truly made us the land of the free, the Beltway contingent still believes the problem is merely one of etiquette.

But really, who am I to argue? Maybe they have something here. I’m partial to something I once read in a Regency novel (Jane Austen, I believe). When a societal outcast whose behavior was quite beyond the pale was presumptuous enough to present his hand to you in public, the proper response was to extend to him or her only your pinky.

Get it? You’re such a lowlife, you’re not even deserving of a handshake! I spit on your vileness – in the most polite possible way! I fling my pinky at the likes of you!

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that this just might work. Think about it: You’re at a Georgetown cocktail party, and Alberto Gonzales is making small talk by the shrimp bowl. “Your name?” he says, extending his hand.

This is the man who’s decimated the Bill of Rights, mind you. What to do? Do you rip off your shirt, revealing a Code Pink T-shirt and embarrassing the rest of the guests with your sheer crassness – or do you extend your pinky? (Oh, I think you already know the answer.)

Say you’re at a speakers panel somewhere and someone invited Donald Rumsfeld. You’re in the receiving line afterward and you’re getting a little weirded out, yes? Well, you have a few options here. Think it through: If you get into a loud shouting match over the seemingly pointless deaths of soldiers and civilians in Iraq, or threw a vial of pig’s blood on his French handmade shirt, what real impact will you have? (Not to mention, it’s terribly déclassé.) Rummy will just tune you out and everyone else will pretend they didn’t hear you.

Ah, but if you extend your pinky, you’ve said it all – in the most genteel way possible.

Yes, while we may eventually live in a nation of radically reduced liberties, a broken economy and a state of perpetual war, we will have the satisfaction of knowing when the going got rough, we didn’t descend to their level.

We did the right thing. We extended our pinkies, thus earning the thanks of a grateful Village.

Or if that doesn't appeal to you, Sen. Dodd, you could always tell your lobbyist friends to go screw them themselves and vote on behalf of the taxpayers... just kidding!

DOWNLOADS: (1107)

PLAYS: (2257)

Embed

Sure enough, just as Nicole wondered, Juan Williams was pretty bent out of shape over Warren Ballentine's calling him out -- using black cultural lingo -- for being such a willing supplicant to the "Limbaugh is being oppressed by mean black people" meme currently popular in right-wing circles.

So who does he bring on to buttress his claim that liberals are being bigots? Why, none other than Tammy Bruce and ... the Rev. Ken Hutcherson!

Bruce is bad enough. This is the person who called Michelle Obama "trash"

But Hutcherson? That's rich.

Folks outside the Seattle area may not know a lot about Hutcherson, so

they just see him as a black conservative. Which is common enough, especially on Fox. It's more genuine than being a fake liberal like Williams, at least.

But he's also one of the most prominent anti-gay bigots in the state, and for that matter on the West Coast.

This is a man who told his flock that "God hates effeminate men".

He also headed up an initiative to legalize anti-gay discrimination in Washington state. (It went down in flames.)

Of even deeper concern is his heavy involvement in promoting a virulent and violent anti-gay organization called Watchmen on the Walls. This is a global evangelical-Christian outfit that, elsewhere in the world (particularly in Eastern Europe) is associated with violent anti-gay hate crimes.

I reported on a Watchmen gathering in nearby Lynnwood a couple of years ago (photos here). I also remember his sermon very clearly:

Continue reading »

Here's another edition of "The Stupids," written by Tom Grubisich. The newest straw man is an attack on the pseudonym. First it was the civility of our commenters (Read Howard Kurtz on The Huff Post) and now this. It's really simple. Some people feel the need to protect themselves when they express a "freedom of ideas." Others are working in an environment that doesn't allow them to reveal themselves publicly and want to speak out. Why are certain reporters so afraid of blogging?

Marcy Wheeler has a take on it. So does the Agonist and even Ben Franklin.

Ezra writes:

Grubisich thinks the public square has become too open, and he wants to erect some new barriers to entry. That's what the pseudonymity discussions are always about: Privileged members of the media feeling great anxiety that they're no longer set apart simply by access to microphones and looking for ways to keep the barbarians off the stage. But whatever, I'm willing to meet them halfway. I'll start running background checks on my readers if Grubisich and his colleagues consents to some symmetrical constraints: If they write something stupid, inflammatory, or wrong, they will lose their jobs. If what you want is for new entrants to the public sphere to feel more vulnerable when participating, it's only fair that you do the same.

Duncan: This is it in a nutshell. And, as Ezra suggests, the club that they want to use is the "consequences," which for most of us is about having current or future employment prospects threatened because someone googles our names and discovers that we don't like George Bush enough, or we hate her favorite rock band, or some other reason. This, of course, is a barrier too high for plenty of people. Which is the point.