[Peace-discuss] Another amendment goes

[E.Wayne Johnson]

A CBS poll showed that Americans aren't buying the Democrat rhetoric that the shooting occurred because of excessive rhetoric.  Even the Dems aren't buying it this line of crap.

  ...CBS said its nationwide telephone poll found that, "57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did."

  Rejection of a link was strongest among Republicans, 69 percent of whom felt harsh rhetoric was not related to the attack, while 19 percent thought it played a part.

  Among Democrats 49 percent placed no blame on the heated political tone against 42 percent who did. Among independents the split was 56 percent to 33 percent, CBS said.

***

I handed out copies of the Bill of Rights at the Farmer's Market on a couple of Saturdays 
and there were actually to my unquelled surprise people who told me that there were some items 
in the Bill of Rights that they could not agree with and which they felt should be removed.

***
Assassinations are sort of an Ultimate Political Solution.  
This obscure gal in Arizona hardly seems worthy of an assassin's bullet.

Particularly not when there are so many other much more sneeringly and 
swaggeringly worthy Liberty Valences around just begging for a perforation, perhaps less accessible.

The American political class has some idea who the "truly worthy targets" might be.

It's hard to say that Loughner is any sort of hero in the sense of a "Tom Doniphan" 
or like that guy who ended George Tiller's mad killing spree.
Nor is he anything of a Timothy McVeigh, nor is he any sort of modern day Jehu, Ehud, or Elijah.  
For one thing, those all rather thoroughly dispatched their victims, which is something
that Loughner failed to do.  Mission Failed.  
He took out one judge who was part of the Drug War, but there was much much collateral
damage.  Definitely not a CIA-quality job.  Massive fail.

Not even Mad Aline Albright would say that this was "worth it".

Violence is part of the political process.  There are those who would seek to tell us otherwise, but
clearly such is not true.

The US Government is the largest purveyor of political violence on the planet.
They have the really big guns and the muscle to point them where ever they want. 

It doesnt matter whether one condones violence or not.

Violent resistance against such an enemy is not just futile, it's absurd.

There has to be a better way.

Just say NO.




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
To: "Peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 7:20 AM
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Another amendment goes


Citing Shooting, Congressmen Eye New Curbs on Political Speech
Rep. Slaughter Urges FCC to 'Sanction' Critics
by Jason Ditz, January 11, 2011

Shortly after the shooting of Rep. Giffords (D – AZ) in Tucson on Saturday, 
officials and pundits from across the political spectrum were looking to make 
political hay out of it, struggling to tie the shooter to some rival political 
faction or other.

Now, however, a number of Congressmen are looking to turn that endeavor into a 
more concerted effort to introduce a series of new curbs on political speech, 
particularly political dissent, insisting that certain criticism of seated 
officials is “too incendiary” to be allowed.

Rep. Brady (D – PA) has promised to introduce new legislation to criminalize any 
political speech which could be perceived as incendiary, and other Democrats 
suggested that there should be a blanket ban on all speech and symbols which 
might be conceivably interpreted as incendiary against members of Congress.

Brady went on to claim that a number of Congressmen’s wives were terrified to 
hear of the shooting and questioning whether it was safe to remain on Congress. 
He insisted the only solution to this was to curb political speech. “The 
rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this 
down,” Brady insisted.

The ability of Congress to pass such a bill is likely not in doubt, but 
convicing the courts to allow broad-based censorship of explicitly political 
speech is likely to be an uphill battle. For some officials, this means that the 
effort should be more regulatory than legal.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D – NY) insisted that the FCC should work hard to 
restrict political speech that “could incite people,” adding that “no one owns 
the airwaves” and that she clearly felt the FCC was not doing enough to regulate 
political commentary nor to sanction those whose criticism were unacceptable to her.

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/01/11/citing-shooting-congressmen-eye-new-curbs-on-political-speech/
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110112/516839fc/attachment.html>