Loading...

joi, 13 ianuarie 2011

Dezbatere pe tema asasinatelor din motive politice in SUA si discurs pentru toleranta

Un articol foarte interesant pe care l-am citit pe site-ul Slate.com:

Are Assassins More Likely To Target Liberals?

It's complicated.
By Brian Palmer

Iata ce arata printre altele:
"Historically, have American politicians on the left side of the spectrum suffered more attacks than their right-leaning colleagues?


Yes, but don't jump to any conclusions. Eleven U.S. presidents have been targeted for assassination, and eight of them—a clear majority—could be described as left-of-center. But that statistic is meaningless, because only Abraham Lincoln was killed by a right-winger with political motives. (Neither Lincoln nor his assassin, John Wilkes Booth, would likely have used the term right or left to describe their politics, but the labels seem fair in retrospect.) Some would-be assassins were motivated by personal revenge, like the delusional men who tried to kill James A. Garfield and Andrew Jackson (who's claimed by both the left and the right)."

Iata si un alt articol:

From Texas to Arizona


How Obama can talk about tolerance without trivializing a tragedy.

By John Dickerson

"But Obama will also have to talk about tolerance. And he will have to find a way to talk about the need to civilize our debate when he is aligned with only one side in that debate.


Even addressing the idea of tolerance is going to close some ears. Conservatives will hear an accusation even if he says there is no connection between the shooter and Tea Party rhetoric. If there's no connection, why are you bringing it up—at a memorial service, of all places? Liberals who hear the president call out his own side will be irritated by the false equivalence. How can you compare us in any way to those people who say you hold office illegally?

The solution may be to focus not on the political conversation that existed before the shooting but on the one that's come out of it. This allows the president to avoid the question of what motivated the shooter but does not limit his ability to talk about the problems with our political culture. He has fresh evidence, minted by the hour, of the problems of our political conversation."

Interesant ce spune si in final:
"All the president has to do to restore a little balance to this debate is talk about the people whose lives it did not define. In doing so, he will make the case for tolerance far better than any words directly aimed at the topic."
In acest caz interesanta este si pozitia Gruparii Tea Party:

Tea Party Group Blames 'Leftist' for Giffords Shooting

Iata ce se arata, printre altele:
"Showing no sign of tamping down on divisive political rhetoric in the wake of the shooting of 20 people that left six dead in Tuscon Saturday, the Tea Party Nation group e-mailed its members Sunday warning them they would be called upon to fight leftists in the days ahead and defend their movement.


TPN founder Judson Phillips, in an article linked off the e-mail "The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and the left's attack on the Tea Party movement," described the shooter as "a leftist lunatic" and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik as a "leftist sheriff" who "was one of the first to start in on the liberal attack." Phillips urged tea party supporters to blame liberals for the attack on centrist Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who was shot through the head and is now fighting for her life, as a means of defending the tea party movement's recent electoral gains."
dar si:
"Other tea party groups took a less combative tone. Tea Party Express Chairwoman Amy Kremer said Saturday her group was "shocked and saddened" by the "terrible tragedy."


"These heinous crimes have no place in America, and they are especially grievous when committed against our elected officials. Spirited debate is desirable in our country, but it only should be the clash of ideas," Kremer said in a statement published by the New York Times. "An attack on anyone for political purposes, if that was a factor in this shooting, is an attack on the democratic process. We join with everyone in vociferously condemning it.""
Un articol interesant si in The Washington Post:

In Wednesday speech in Arizona, Obama is seeking right tone

by Anne E. Kornblut and Scott Wilson

In final se arata:
"But there are also reasons for a president to pause before weighing in at such a moment. Investigators are still gathering evidence about the shooter's motives. Before discussing the attack in the context of inciting political rhetoric, the proliferation of guns, or a lack of care for the mentally ill, Jamieson said, Obama should collect as much information as possible about what happened and why.

Reagan delivered his moving remarks about the Challenger explosion only hours after it occurred, largely because what happened was clear.


Clinton, by contrast, waited four days before traveling to Oklahoma City to deliver remarks at a prayer service for the victims. Until then, he participated in other commemorative events."
 Iata ce spune Slate Magazine despre declaratiile facute de Sarah Palin:

Palin Fails the Test

Sarah Palin's response to the Tucson shooting is defensive, illogical, distracting—and late.
By John Dickerson

Si aici declaratia facuta de Sarah Palin pe Facebook.

Iar despre vizita lui Obama la Tucson aflam din The Washington Post:

Obama visits surviving victims in Tucson, plans to speak at memorial service
by Anne E. Kornblut, Philip Rucker and Dana Hedgpeth

Articole demne de toata atentia. Le recomand a fi citite!

2 comentarii: