From CNN.com:
Authorities have charged an Owosso, Michigan, man with two counts of first-degree premeditated murder in the Friday shooting deaths of an anti-abortion activist and another man, a prosecutor’s office said.
Authorities say the suspect, Harlan James Drake, was offended by anti-abortion material that the activist had displayed across from the school all week.
Drake, 33, is accused of shooting anti-abortion activist Jim Pouillon, 63, and Michael Fuoss, 61, who were killed in separate locations Friday morning, the prosecutor’s office in Shiawassee County said.
Full story, right here.
Usually, we hear about fringe anti-abortion protesters bombing clinics. Lately we’ve seen heated town hall meetings where people often shout inaccurate spin. Now people opposed to literature a person with free speech rights is providing kills someone else because they don’t like their anti-abortion message. With all of this in mind, are we getting too out of control in our public debates? Is rational conversation not a possibility? I’d love to get your answers to those questions in the comments below on this weekend where we remember a national tragedy that occurred because some don’t like the way we do things and their only answer is violence.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Ferndale is having their first Town Hall meeting on the 14th….I hope we don’t have any extreme happenings there! I”m sure our locals can maintain their civility
September 12th, 2009 at 1:42 AM
I keep trying. I don’t know if people are ready to face disagreement without making it cause for rudeness or worse.
September 12th, 2009 at 2:09 AM
The fringe is the fringe regardless of side, and I see no difference between this murder and the Tiller murder, and violence going back for many years.
Are we getting out of control in public debates? That’s been a rhetorical question for years. The bigger question is ‘Are people adaptable to change?” and the answer is increasingly becoming no, and as the changes in the world have become more sudden, so too has the desperation to maintain static world perceptions.
September 12th, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Sam,
Are you a victim of the MSM’s political narrative? Is everything always the fault of the “dirty f’n’ hippies”?
Anti-abortion religious fanatics commit arson, bombings and murders, teabag protesters disrupt townhall meetings, hang congress members in effigy, make a show of carrying guns as part of their ‘protest’ and threatening to overthrow the government if they don’t get their way, Rightwing demagogues spin fairytales about communitst take-overs that would make Joe McCarthy blush… but the question “Is rational conversation not a possibility?” doesn’t come up until there’s a single incident in which a Rightwinger is shot? Personally, I’m tired of the false equivalencies.
We “left-leaning” American’s are trying to have a rational discussion.
September 12th, 2009 at 10:13 AM
The remarks of Steve Lydolph and Biker are an absolutely amazing example of liberal moral relativity. Both men were apparently outraged at the abominable actions of the anti-abortion nuts. Then they turn around use the existence of radicals on the right to justify the criminal idiocy on the left.
For the left, I guess two wrongs do make a right.
The criminal actions of radical fringe have little to do with the level of discourse, however. Political discourse in this country has seldom been civil. Saul Alinsky, the high priest of socialist action advised his followers to use ridicule and personal attacks to gain control of a situation. We witnessed those actions for the eight years of George Bush. Now that the left has the power, the so-called radicals are on the other side, using some of the same tactics. The rude shout down by Joe Wilson was actually a much milder reaction than some of the Democrats exhibited when George Bush spoke.
“plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
September 12th, 2009 at 10:14 AM
This is why the Founders of this Republic limited the Federal Government. A Supreme Court chose to legislate from the bench in Roe vs. Wade, pushing the law past the limits of public opinion. It was bad law. It should have been left to the states. Some states would have loosened their abotion laws sooner than others, a few still would not have done. But peace would have reigned, as our Founders intended.
September 12th, 2009 at 10:21 AM
We Teapartiers had our townhall meeting right here in Bellingham on August 24. The two Senators and the Congressman did not show up, although they were invited. Anyone who was part of the full house at the magnificent, beautiful and inspiring “We The People” event at the Mt. Baker Theater last night would have seen the video of regular folk addressing three empty chairs.
September 12th, 2009 at 12:45 PM
What’s interesting is how some posters pride themselves in attaching their real names to their comments, in an effort to project transparency and civility, while simultaneously posting their truer-felt sniveling, sarcastic remarks under a pseudonym, and actually believe it will go unnoticed.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Steve, I’m honestly not even sure if I’m going to respond to your questions today. Sorry.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:56 PM
First of all, the shooter is obviously a madman, and shooting is what some madmen do. I don’t think this story has anything at all to do with political or religious debate. The shooter made a decision to shoot that most everyone else would have resisted, regardless of their beliefs. He is clearly nuts, and whether he is also a liberal, conservative, or moderate doesn’t explain much of anything, at all, about the shooting.
The fact that some people DO think the shooting is a reflection of our current political state-of-affairs, doesn’t indicate to me that the overall debate is an entirely rational one.
Yesterday, I read that this shooter targeted the anti-abortion protester only because he didn’t like the large photo of a “fetus” that was plastered on the victim’s sign, who was protesting at a public school with kids present. And neither would I, but I wouldn’t shoot someone dead over it.
I’d probably go for the kneecap, instead.
September 12th, 2009 at 5:54 PM
what goes around…comes around…
it’s OK for the pro lifers to shoot and kill doctors etc… but it’s not OK
when some pro lifer gets the same thing…
what a bunch of f’n hypocrites …
your all a bunch of kooks…
a DARWIN AWARD for all of you!
September 12th, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Those who live by the sword, shall die by it.
September 12th, 2009 at 7:41 PM
“The remarks of Steve Lydolph and Biker are an absolutely amazing example of liberal moral relativity. Both men were apparently outraged at the abominable actions of the anti-abortion nuts. Then they turn around use the existence of radicals on the right to justify the criminal idiocy on the left.”
Um, no. I said a shooting was a shooting, and there is no justification for it whether you think you are protecting unborn babies or a person’s right to choose. It’s wrong either way.
Sam, I do take issue with your language in this post. You start out by saying that “bombing clinics” is “fringe”, and then go on to say “people… kill someone else” (when it was just one person) without any words to disassociate this act from being something everyday people do like you did with the bombings. It makes it sound like this is a normal tactic instead of the extremism it is. This is further reinforced by essentially asking if this is the new norm in policy debate.
A better question might have been, “Is extremism gaining ground?” since your example shows there is extremism on both sides. And to that question, I’d have to say unfortunately yes, because extremism is precisely what 9-11 was and what that event should have steered us away from.
September 12th, 2009 at 8:28 PM
I grew up in this small town that the shooting happened in and as a child saw these photos first hand. The are very graphic and not the type that any child needs to be subjected to. This man picked very public places to display the photos–think of driving down the Guide and seeing photos of a dismembered, aborted fetus. That being said there is no excuse to kill someone for their views. This should have gone through the courts and there should have been a restraining order from him protesting on or near elementary school grounds (which he did).
September 12th, 2009 at 10:16 PM
Nobody’s perfect, BIkerBob. I was attempting to spur discussion but it’s clear Steve is in a mood and didn’t like the way I asked it. I wasn’t trying to pick on any side. I was giving examples so that people could go from there. But Steve doesn’t like the way I write.
September 12th, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Who’s Steve?
September 13th, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Oh I see what Steve. Meanwhile I was pointing out stuff in a logical, level-headed way, but you lumped me in with emotional, name-calling Steve and dismissed the issue I was trying to discuss by dismissing both of us at the same time. The only two relevant sentences to me are, “I wasn’t trying to pick on any side. I was giving examples so that people could go from there.” but it still doesn’t answer my question of why “has it gone too far?” or “is it getting too out of control?” are appropriate questions to ask only once there becomes a single example of extremism demonstrating both sides can exhibit extremism, instead of how much total extremism actually exists?
September 13th, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Sam’s right, I was in a mood and just feelin’ mean
September 13th, 2009 at 8:26 PM
I thought your post was fair and even handed,
and best of all,
completely true.
Go figure.
I must be wearing my tin-foil hat.
September 13th, 2009 at 9:01 PM
The rhetoric and violence that has escalated in recent times is frightening.
The United States is as divided as it’s been in probably fourty years.
I sometimes think we would all be a lot better off if we had less media access and coverage.
The media on both sides is guilty of “ginning up” their base.
I do believe the rightwing are more influenced and more susceptible to the hate inspired by the likes of Rush,Hannity,Beck,Savage et.al. Consequently,there are a lot more purveyors of hate
and a lot more violence in their camp. Factor in the surprising number of racists in their party,and it’s surprising there are not more incidents.
I also think a factor in the recent increase in crazy/angry outbursts by the right is the fact that they and their ideals were so resoundly rejected in the last election.Demorilizing loss. They had become complacent and after Bush destroyed their party,thay have no idea how to,or if they can rebuild.
Shouting down other people including the President is so far about all they’ve got.
September 13th, 2009 at 9:33 PM
BikerBob - what you’re asking is basically exactly what I was trying to ask to spur conversation. Have we gone too far? Can we not simply talk over issues any more? Will it all be bombings and shootings and physical altercations and yelling at town hall meetings? From what I learned in school, America’s Democracy is the discussion of mature adults who care about free-form though and coming to consensus — if not always full agreement — in order to preserve the nation.
September 13th, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Sam asked, “are we getting too out of control in our public debates?”
To answer this question in the affirmative, all you have to do is regularly read the comments to Herald articles.
Take this one for example: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/102/story/1067017.html
It prompted 81 comments in less than 24 hours, a great many of which are vitriolic. Talk about mudslinging across a political divide. Sheesh.
For nearly two decades now, the country has been so divided that the ideological schism has been regularly referred to as the “culture wars.”
People are anxious, and I think this anxiety feeds the culture wars. Since the hyper-inflationary seventies, real wages for the middle and lower classes have flat-lined. The savings rate is essentially zero. Consumer debt is at an all time high. Many are in economically precarious situations, and we are experiencing the most severe recession in decades. It’s no wonder people are upset with government spending.
What frightens me even more is the extent to which people have lost faith and confidence in their local, state, and federal governments.
For example, the latimes.com reported poll results today showing that “Only 20% of Californians, and only 15% of regular voters, felt the government elected by the people and for the people had any interest in the people, broadly speaking. And . . . Everyone distrusts government, or at least huge majorities of all political groups do.” And, for good reason. Special interests on K Street regularly run roughshod over our Congress, not the least of which are financial interests on Wall Street, and the people know it.
Many political scientists agree that a democracy cannot long last without the legitimacy of the people. An angry, politically divided, and easily propagandized citizenry on the verge of desperation is a recipe for rapid, and revolutionary, political transformation. Consequently, I worry for the future of the Republic.
Here’s the link to the article quoted above: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-week13-2009sep13,0,1040374.story
September 14th, 2009 at 9:25 AM
I put people killing/hurting other people over their political views in the same category as people killing/hurting people over their race, their religion, or just being different.
This is nothing new in the history of this world, it happens on all sides, and it is just as wrong today as it has been in the past.
AFY!! (informally known as AFY!!!)
September 14th, 2009 at 12:19 PM
If government were less intrusive, politics would be less divisive.
The level of hostility over political issues should give us a clue about government intrusiveness. Perhaps we should solve that problem.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Of course nobody should be killed for being a troublemaking protestor.
That said, Freedom of expression does not mean you can shout “Fire !” in a crowded theater. It just means that you can express an unpopular view, in a civil manner, without fear of arrest or a lynch mob.
So, this guy with the giant photos of dead fetuses across from innocent young children at a school is out of line and undermining the parents’ choices for how and when they want their children to learn about such things. People would be equally upset if the photo was graphic sexuality, heroin use, photos of dead and dismembered adults, or any other matter not intended for a child to see while learning abc’s and geography.
I would be interested as to whether complaints to police and city authorities were made, and if so, the basis for allowing such a disruption to continue.
.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Camille caught my eye with this comment:
Since I’m one of the proponents of transparency and civility, I have no patience for by this kind of behavior. Sam should have access to the raw data, and I hope he would call out (or ban) people who do this.
September 14th, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Speaking of transparency, Karl, are you gonna post your group’s budget, income and expenses on the Bham tea party website? I’m still particularly interested in where the admissions revenue for 9/11 went.
September 14th, 2009 at 2:08 PM
bikerbob if I was Karl, which I am not but me answer to your inquiry would be like this, It’s none of your “the thing that block rivers” business!
AFY!! (informally known as AFY!!!)
September 14th, 2009 at 2:29 PM
AFY, you are correct sir. It isn’t my call anyway.
September 14th, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Karl writes, “The level of hostility over political issues should give us a clue about government intrusiveness. Perhaps we should solve that problem.”
How do you intend to solve “that problem” Karl?
Dismantle the federal government and the U.S. Constitution — so you can remake American government all over again — with the U.S. Constitution?
I spent ten years assisting constitutents who took the time to help legislators craft good public policy. Citizens, not lobbyists.
And I am proud to report our government is working - exactly the way our founding fathers intended!
September 14th, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Madam E, now I know who’s idea it was when the Post Office was having too many complaints about lines being too long and how they solved it, is everyone ready?
THEY TOOK DOWN THE CLOCKS!
AFY!! (informally known as AFY!!!)
September 14th, 2009 at 3:39 PM
AFY!!!
Just for you - a quote from Thomas Jefferson:
‘I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.’
I may be little, AFY!!!, but I’m armed to the teeth with founding father quotes!
September 14th, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Madam E, there a two things I really like about you, you got plenty of spunk and you got plenty of spunk!
You can’t quote TJ too many times for me, when you get tire of that go down the road a little and quote some James Madison, and if you really want to turn me on, do a little Thomas Paine (now if you want to know a secret, methinks ST has a soft spot for John Adams!)!
AFY!! (informally known as AFY!!!)
September 14th, 2009 at 3:55 PM
AFY don’t tell everyone I’m a nerd and I watched the John Adams miniseries via my Netflix account!
September 14th, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Ok I won’t !
AFY!! (informally known as AFY!!!)
September 14th, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Ok, madam E, you showed me yours, so one good turn deserves another:
“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you & I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves.” our man TJ!!
AFY!! (informally known as AFY!!!) but in his heart is a sheepdog!
September 14th, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Elisabeth, I would argue that the government is not working the way the founders intended. I do not want to dismantle the Constitution. Quite the opposite. It is already dismantled and I want to return to the contract that James Madison and everyone else who created it and ratified it understood it to be.
I actually do have a solution, and it has been on the table in its present form since Friday, June 19, 2009: http://antikakistocrat.blogspot.com/2009/06/proposal-limited-government-amendment.html, thank you for asking.
September 14th, 2009 at 6:23 PM
It sounds as if TJ would have frowned on the Federal Reserve Bank controlling our money supply. I do not believe that he thought banks themselves were evil. Savings and loan institutions are essential to any free market economy. We need a quote to explain how he intended the economy to work if banks are off the table.
September 14th, 2009 at 6:57 PM
I’m always surprised when people yearn for a Founding Fathers approach to modern politics,
economics and society.
Those boys would be absolutely clueless when faced with the complexities and sheer numbers of citizens that all have to harmonize today.
As are those that cling to some type of simplification for the role of government.
Wakey wakey!
Been there,
done that,
never works.
September 14th, 2009 at 7:12 PM
So are you saying, Citizen, that liberty, the Constitution as ratified, and the free market are obsolete? If the Constitution is obsolete, then we must amend it to make it compatible with our present needs instead of simply disregarding the parts that we don’t like, or that we think don’t work. It is a contract after all. You don’t ignore it, you renegotiate it.
You do realize that the free market is capable of dealing with the individual issues of economics and society. Local feedback doesn’t require central control. And it works great with the sheer number of citizens that you mention. It’s central control that can’t handle it.
I’m not sure what you mean by “modern politics”. If you are referring to the oligarchy that we have been sliding into for the past 100 years, I’m willing to concede that liberty is incompatible with it.
September 14th, 2009 at 8:40 PM
Karl, why isn’t it any of my business? If you guys are a non-profit group, then the government and by extension, I myself, am giving you a tax break. Does that make it my business yet? If you guys are a for-profit group, then don’t any of your members or people who contribute to your cause who also advocate for transparency and want to know where the money goes in government have the right to know where the money goes in your organization? In that case, how much does it cost to contribute to your cause for it to be my business and get financial transparency from the group that advocates for financial transparency in government?
September 15th, 2009 at 9:53 AM
As with any nonprofit organization, there are legal rules and laws that must be complied with and that information is available as much as the requiring authorities are transparent.
However to require every non profit organization to answer to you because you are a taxpayer makes as much sense (or would be the same) as me saying that the ACLU or NAACP should answer to me (even though at one time in my life I was a card carrying member of both).
AFY!! (informally known as AFY!!!)
September 15th, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Oh, I’m familiar with the 501(c)(3) laws, or the 501(c)(4) laws as I imagine the TEA Party better fits that one. I know that non-profit organizations are not required to show the public an itemized list or even a summation of their budget. But since the TEA Party is championing for pretty much that or more from the government because they pay into it and have a right to know or whatever, it seems two-faced when they don’t do it themselves.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:16 PM
bb it is your right to think something or someone is two faced for sure about just about anything you want but having a right don’t make you right and I reckon for the rest of us we can decide that for ourself, therefore methinks it is IMHO the right of the tea party organization to do what they want without having to cater to what every you desire or command as long as it is legal!
Some people do have a lot of gall however for me to say that would be the pot calling the kettle black for sure!
AFY!! (informally known as AFY!!!)
September 15th, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Karl,
As a former government employee, I’ll admit that there were days that I hated well-funded special interest groups. Nevertheless, those groups have a legal right to participate in the crafting of legislation. In fact, they often succeed in influencing legislation that is not necessarily in the public’s best interest.
In the Federalist #10, Madison asserts that we cannot eliminate factions. To do so would require either denying civil liberties (which he considered worse than having factions) or, enforcing conformity (which is impracticable at many levels).
Factions are natural — and Madison felt that the most common cause of factions is the “unequal distribution of property.”
“If men were angels,” writes Madison, “no government would be necessary. But because men are not angels, government is necessary– and this creates a paradox. We must give our representatives sufficient power to govern us, yet prevent them from using this power against us. After all, we cannot assume that our representatives will be any more angelic than the rest of us.”
Some have dubbed this “Madison’s dilemma”
A Republican form of government requires “size” if it is to be effective. (Federalist #9). Larger republics have more interests than smaller republics, thus, a national union has advantages over smaller (state) republics, in that a faction in one state is unlikely to spread to other states.
A built in system of checks and balances…
We can talk about Thomas Jefferson’s views on a private banking system in the future.
September 15th, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Madam E took my advice and went down the road a little, for anyone who haven’t done it, if you ever get to Virginia, it is a very easy same day stop to visit both Jefferson and Madison homes, those two guys were not only friends but neighbors and had a little bit of history between them, if you know what I mean.
Here is one of my favorite Madison quotes:
All that seems indispensible in stating the account between the dead and the living, is to see that the debts against the latter do not exceed the advances made by the former.
AFY!! (informally known as AFY!!!)
September 16th, 2009 at 8:27 PM
elisabeth,
Okay… no surprises there. I just feel the size and scope of the federal government far exceeds any justifiable cause, and there are better ways to solve problems that the government has insinuated itself into solving.
If government were less intrusive, politics would be less divisive. At its current size and scope, it is producing factions.
We can talk about engineering, dynamic systems, negative feedback and control theory in the future.
September 16th, 2009 at 8:40 PM
bikerbob1016,
I understand that you might be curious about The Bellingham Tea Party balance sheet. I have not been given that information, and if I had, I cannot say if I would be authorized to publish it. As a reporter, Sam would be justified in asking one of the WCCF officers about that — perhaps as part of the big front page story about the event. Oh wait…