Born Of Bloodshed, A Self-Proclaimed Age Of Civility Dawned In Congress On Tuesday As They Tone Down The Rhetoric After The Arizona Shootings
Born of bloodshed, a self-proclaimed Age of Civility dawned in Congress on Tuesday. Republicans and Democrats of the House spoke without angry shouts and debated legislation to repeal the nation's year-old health care law without rancor.
By unspoken agreement, manners mattered, although there were few overt references to the reason _ the shooting rampage in Arizona 10 days ago that left six dead, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords wounded and lawmakers of both parties stunned.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said no directives had gone out to rank-and-file lawmakers cautioning them about their behavior as the House convened to debate a highly controversial bill.
"We expect the debate to ensue along policy lines," he said, suggesting one that did not stray from the merits of the legislation itself.
Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the second-ranking Democrat, agreed.
"My expectation is that members will heed their own advice and will address the issues in a way that will deal with them on the merits," he said. In the past, he added, too much of the public debate was "about incitement rather than informing . about making people angry, disrespecting the ... point of view of the other side."
The change in tone was evident from the opening moments of the debate about a bill Republicans promised in last fall's campaign to make an early 2011 priority.
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., referred to the "job-destroying health care bill" that President Barack Obama won from a Democratic-controlled Congress last year. It was a small but notable change from "job-killing" _ the term Republicans had invariably preferred before the shootings in Arizona.
A few moments later, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., took a moment to congratulate Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas on his ascension to chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee. It was a post Conyers was forced to surrender when the GOP won a majority in last fall's elections.
A vote on the legislation is set for Wednesday. Its passage is not in doubt in a House now controlled by Republicans who voted against the health care bill a year ago, plus newcomers who campaigned on its repeal. Democrats are expected to vote overwhelmingly if not unanimously against the GOP measure.
The White House has said Obama will veto the bill if it reaches his desk, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. has vowed not to let it get that far.
At a news conference, Cantor challenged Reid to reconsider his earlier statements that he would not call for a vote on the measure. "He should bring it up for a vote if he's so confident he's got the votes," the House majority leader said.
| |
10 Most (And 10 Least) Tolerant States In America
Martin Luther King Jr. once wisely said, "Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity." So, how far have we come since King's time in conquering the hate in our society? The Daily Beast put some metrics together to understand which states are the most and least tolerant in the U.S.
Here's how they did it:
For each state we considered the number of hate crimes according to the FBI, the extent of hate-crime statutes, the number of complaints of discrimination filed through the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the extent of fair-housing and fair-workplace laws, the percentage of residents that support same-sex marriage, the extent of legal rights for same-sex couples, and the percentage of residents that are accepting of various religions. Each state was given a score out of 100 points. Ties were broken based on hate-crime statistics--if the total points matched, the state with fewer hate crimes in the last year ranked higher.
And now for the breakdown ... Wisconsin wins for being the most tolerant. It's religious tolerance was quite good, it's gay tolerance leaves room for improvement. Others in the top 10 were Maryland in second, then Illinois, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, California, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Hampshire and New Mexico.
And on the flip-side, the 10 least tolerant states are Alabama, finishing 40th in the nation, then it gets worse going to Kentucky, North Dakota, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Ohio, Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas and then Wyoming finishes dead last.
This wasn't included on the list, but interestingly, the 10 most tolerant states all went Democratic in the 2008 election and the 10 least tolerant states are all red states, with the exception of Ohio.
But here's what the study did list: scores for tolerance, hate crimes, discrimination, gay rights, religious tolerance, hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents, population in support of same-sex marriage, and population that believes many religions lead to eternal life (sadly, no ranking for how many people don't think any religions lead to eternal life). A few more interesting high- and low-lights from the study: Massachusetts had the most number of people in support of same-sex marriage (62 percent) and Utah was the lowest (22 percent); New Jersey ranked as having the most hate crimes per 100,000 residents and Hawaii had the least; and Maryland has the least amount of discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents while Wyoming had the most.
Clearly the information collected in the study doesn't tell us everything we need to know about the scope of the issue -- especially statistics of hate crimes and discrimination cases since those are only the reported instances and so many times discrimination and hate crimes fly beneath the radar. Still it's a good jumping off point to a much larger conversation about hate in our society. Another good place to look for information is the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has been vigilant at tracking and analysis of hateful activity and they've put together at Hate Map, which lists the hate groups operating in each state. Of course, the most-populated states like California and Texas, show up with the most groups -- but they also provide a list of that names the groups, where they're located and their "type" -- everything from racist skinhead to black separatist to anti-gay.
Really, it seems, what all this information shows is that we still have a long road in front of us. And while it's worth noting that measures of tolerance are a good starting point for examining our evolution as a society, it's still a pretty low bar. It's great to get beyond hate, that's for sure, but it would be better if we could move from mere tolerance of people who are different from us, to understanding and respect. That would be a world, I think, that would make King proud.
In the four-plus decades since Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, America has surely moved closer to a country where people are judged more by content of their character than the color of their skin—or their gender, religion or sexual orientation. In honor of today’s national holiday, and mindful of the debate fostered by the massacre in Tucson nine days ago, The Daily Beast sought to examine which states are the most tolerant, devising a thorough point system that measures each state’s residents based on their actions and opinions, as well the scope of state laws guaranteeing equal rights and protections, which reflects the broader political will.
Specifically, for each state we considered the number of hate crimes according to the FBI, the extent of hate-crime statutes, the number of complaints of discrimination filed through the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the extent of fair-housing and fair-workplace laws, the percentage of residents that support same-sex marriage, the extent of legal rights for same-sex couples, and the percentage of residents that are accepting of various religions. Each state was given a score out of 100 points. Ties were broken based on hate-crime statistics—if the total points matched, the state with fewer hate crimes in the last year ranked higher. So how does your state fare on the tolerance scale? . For the full methodology, read below.
METHODOLOGY
- Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents = Maximum of 20 points
Points were assigned based on percentile. A state in the 90th percentile (with the least amount of hate crimes) was given 20 points. A state in the 80th percentile was given 18 points, etc. Statistics are according to FBI hate crime statistics for 2009, except for Hawaii, which did not report statistics to the FBI, but compiled its own report through the office of the state’s Attorney General.
| 1, Wisconsin Tolerance score: 77 out of 100 Hate crime score: 27 out of 40 Discrimination score: 39 out of 40 Gay rights score: 3 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 1.0 (10 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 9.2 (5 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 44% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 79% 2, Maryland Tolerance score: 75 out of 100 Hate crime score: 25 out of 40 Discrimination score: 37 out of 40 Gay rights score: 5 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 1.8 (19 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 7.8 (1 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 51% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 72% 3, Illinois Tolerance score: 74 out of 100 Hate crime score: 30 out of 40 Discrimination score: 31 out of 40 Gay rights score: 5 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 1.5 (16 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 14.5 (24 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 48% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 74% 4, Pennsylvania Tolerance score: 72 out of 100 Hate crime score: 29 out of 40 Discrimination score: 31 out of 40 Gay rights score: 4 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 0.4 (5 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 11.8 (13 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 51% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 75% 5, Hawaii Tolerance score: 71 out of 100 Hate crime score: 34 out of 40 Discrimination score: 27 out of 40 Gay rights score: 4 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 0.1 (1 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 20.3 (35 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 54% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 66% 6, California Tolerance score: 70 out of 100 Hate crime score: 30 out of 40 Discrimination score: 29 out of 40 Gay rights score: 5 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 2.7 (29 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 15.9 (28 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 56% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 67% 7, Minnesota Tolerance score: 70 out of 100 Hate crime score: 21 out of 40 Discrimination score: 38 out of 40 Gay rights score: 3 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 6.0 (49 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 8.7 (4 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 47% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 74% 8, New Jersey Tolerance score: 69 out of 100 Hate crime score: 18 out of 40 Discrimination score: 35 out of 40 Gay rights score: 8 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 6.3 (50 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 12.1 (14 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 55% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 74% 9, New Hampshire Tolerance score: 68 out of 100 Hate crime score: 18 out of 40 Discrimination score: 32 out of 40 Gay rights score: 10 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 2.1 (21 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 12.3 (16 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 55% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 79% 10, New Mexico Tolerance score: 67 out of 100 Hate crime score: 32 out of 40 Discrimination score: 25 out of 40 Gay rights score: 4 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 1.3 (12 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 12.2 (15 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 49% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 62% 11, Virginia Tolerance score: 66 out of 100 Hate crime score: 24 out of 40 Discrimination score: 35 out of 40 Gay rights score: 1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 1.9 (20 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 8.5 (2 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 42% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 69% 12, Iowa Tolerance score: 64 out of 100 Hate crime score: 34 out of 40 Discrimination score: 16 out of 40 Gay rights score: 6 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 0.6 (7 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 37.5 (48 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 44% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 73% 13, North Carolina Tolerance score: 63 out of 100 Hate crime score: 25 out of 40 Discrimination score: 30 out of 40 Gay rights score: 2 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 1.1 (11 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 11.5 (10 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 36% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 62% 14, Connecticut Tolerance score: 63 out of 100 Hate crime score: 18 out of 40 Discrimination score: 27 out of 40 Gay rights score: 10 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 5.6 (47 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 16.8 (30 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 57% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 73% 15, Florida Tolerance score: 61 out of 100 Hate crime score: 32 out of 40 Discrimination score: 21 out of 40 Gay rights score: 0 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 0.7 (9 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 18.7 (32 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 41% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 72% 16, Louisiana Tolerance score: 59 out of 100 Hate crime score: 34 out of 40 Discrimination score: 19 out of 40 Gay rights score: 0 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 0.5 (6 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 14.8 (25 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 36% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 70% 17, New York Tolerance score: 59 out of 100 Hate crime score: 18 out of 40 Discrimination score: 27 out of 40 Gay rights score: 6 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 3.3 (35 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 17.8 (31 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 58% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 77% 18, Massachusetts Tolerance score: 59 out of 100 Hate crime score: 18 out of 40 Discrimination score: 23 out of 40 Gay rights score: 10 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 5.1 (43 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 21.1 (37 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 62% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 79% 19, West Virginia Tolerance score: 58 out of 100 Hate crime score: 24 out of 40 Discrimination score: 26 out of 40 Gay rights score: 2 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 1.4 (13 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 12.6 (18 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 41% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 70% 20, Nevada Tolerance score: 58 out of 100 Hate crime score: 25 out of 40 Discrimination score: 23 out of 40 Gay rights score: 2 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 2.1 (23 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 15.9 (27 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 50% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 73% 21, Montana : 58 out of 100 : 15 out of 40 : 36 out of 40 : 1 out of 10 : 6 out of 10 :: 2.9 (30 out of 50 states) :: 8.7 (3 out of 50 states) :: 45% :: 63% 22, Rhode Island Tolerance score: 57 out of 100 Hate crime score: 22 out of 40 Discrimination score: 22 out of 40 Gay rights score: 5 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 3.4 (37 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 24.4 (45 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 60% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 73% 23, Alaska Tolerance score: 56 out of 100 Hate crime score: 13 out of 40 Discrimination score: 34 out of 40 Gay rights score: 1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 3.1 (31 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 9.3 (6 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 45% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 77% 24, Washington Tolerance score: 56 out of 100 Hate crime score: 22 out of 40 Discrimination score: 22 out of 40 Gay rights score: 6 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 3.1 (32 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 20.6 (36 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 54% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 68% 25, Vermont Tolerance score: 56 out of 100 Hate crime score: 16 out of 40 Discrimination score: 22 out of 40 Gay rights score: 10 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 4.0 (39 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 21.7 (39 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 59% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 79% 26, Oregon Tolerance score: 56 out of 100 Hate crime score: 18 out of 40 Discrimination score: 28 out of 40 Gay rights score: 4 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 5.5 (45 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 12.9 (20 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 52% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 70% 27, Maine Tolerance score: 55 out of 100 Hate crime score: 19 out of 40 Discrimination score: 19 out of 40 Gay rights score: 7 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 10 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 3.8 (38 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 22.5 (40 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 55% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 82% 28, Delaware Tolerance score: 53 out of 100 Hate crime score: 13 out of 40 Discrimination score: 28 out of 40 Gay rights score: 4 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 4.2 (40 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 15.8 (26 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 50% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 71% 29, Texas Tolerance score: 52 out of 100 Hate crime score: 32 out of 40 Discrimination score: 15 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 0.7 (8 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 18.8 (34 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 35% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 65% 30, Michigan Tolerance score: 52 out of 100 Hate crime score: 21 out of 40 Discrimination score: 22 out of 40 Gay rights score: 1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 3.2 (34 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 21.2 (38 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 46% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 72% 31, Colorado Tolerance score: 52 out of 100 Hate crime score: 16 out of 40 Discrimination score: 26 out of 40 Gay rights score: 2 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 4.2 (41 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 10.3 (8 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 52% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 72% 32, Georgia Tolerance score: 50 out of 100 Hate crime score: 24 out of 40 Discrimination score: 21 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 0.1 (2 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 12.5 (17 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 34% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 63% 33, Indiana Tolerance score: 49 out of 100 Hate crime score: 18 out of 40 Discrimination score: 21 out of 40 Gay rights score: 2 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 1.5 (14 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 16.4 (29 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 37% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 73% 34, Tennessee Tolerance score: 49 out of 100 Hate crime score: 21 out of 40 Discrimination score: 23 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 2.7 (26 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 13.8 (23 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 31% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 63% 35, Oklahoma Tolerance score: 48 out of 100 Hate crime score: 25 out of 40 Discrimination score: 18 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 1.6 (17 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 13.8 (22 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 26% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 65% 36, South Carolina Tolerance score: 48 out of 100 Hate crime score: 13 out of 40 Discrimination score: 30 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 2.7 (27 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 10.6 (9 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 32% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 61% 37, Missouri Tolerance score: 47 out of 100 Hate crime score: 24 out of 40 Discrimination score: 15 out of 40 Gay rights score: 0 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 2.1 (22 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 29.4 (46 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 37% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 73% 38, Mississippi Tolerance score: 46 out of 100 Hate crime score: 27 out of 40 Discrimination score: 16 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 4 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 0.2 (3 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 11.6 (11 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 27% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 59% 39, South Dakota Tolerance score: 46 out of 100 Hate crime score: 10 out of 40 Discrimination score: 28 out of 40 Gay rights score: 0 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 5.8 (48 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 9.4 (7 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 38% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 79%  40, Alabama Tolerance score: 44 out of 100 Hate crime score: 26 out of 40 Discrimination score: 15 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 4 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 0.3 (4 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 12.8 (19 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 26% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 59% 41, Kentucky Tolerance score: 43 out of 100 Hate crime score: 14 out of 40 Discrimination score: 24 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 4.7 (42 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 13.4 (21 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 31% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 69% 42, North Dakota Tolerance score: 42 out of 100 Hate crime score: 16 out of 40 Discrimination score: 18 out of 40 Gay rights score: 0 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 2.3 (25 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 32.8 (47 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 38% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 79% 43, Arizona Tolerance score: 42 out of 100 Hate crime score: 20 out of 40 Discrimination score: 15 out of 40 Gay rights score: 1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 3.4 (36 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 18.7 (33 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 48% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 64% 44, Utah Tolerance score: 41 out of 100 Hate crime score: 16 out of 40 Discrimination score: 24 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 2 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 1.7 (18 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 11.8 (12 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 22% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 45% 45, Idaho Tolerance score: 41 out of 100 Hate crime score: 22 out of 40 Discrimination score: 16 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 4 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 2.3 (24 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 23.9 (42 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 33% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 60% 46, Ohio Tolerance score: 40 out of 100 Hate crime score: 15 out of 40 Discrimination score: 16 out of 40 Gay rights score: 1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 3.1 (33 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 24.2 (44 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 45% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 76% 47, Nebraska Tolerance score: 40 out of 100 Hate crime score: 17 out of 40 Discrimination score: 16 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 5.1 (44 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 38.8 (49 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 35% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 78% 48, Kansas Tolerance score: 38 out of 100 Hate crime score: 12 out of 40 Discrimination score: 18 out of 40 Gay rights score: 0 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 5.6 (46 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 23.0 (41 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 37% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 71% 49, Arkansas Tolerance score: 37 out of 100 Hate crime score: 15 out of 40 Discrimination score: 17 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 2.7 (28 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 23.9 (43 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 29% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 63% 50, Wyoming Tolerance score: 32 out of 100 Hate crime score: 16 out of 40 Discrimination score: 8 out of 40 Gay rights score: 2 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 1.5 (15 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 201.9 (50 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 37% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 63% |
When a survivor of the Tucson shooting told a Tea Party leader, "You're dead," he was arrested and committed. Why is Glenn Beck any different? Read More
Mark Howard / News Corpse
The Smoking Gun: Here Is Why Glenn Beck Should Be Fired NOW!
I have documented numerous examples of right-wing advocacy of violence, as have many others. But nobody crosses further over the line, or more often, than Glenn Beck. And here is the ultimate display of deliberate hostile intent. It is an overt call for violence and an instruction to viewers:
“Tea parties believe in small government. We believe in returning to the principles of our Founding Fathers. We respect them. We revere them.Shoot me in the head before I stop talking about the Founders. Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government.
I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don’t. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep’s clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.
You’ve been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.
They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind.” ~ Fox News, June 10, 2010
This cannot possibly be justified as acceptable political discourse. This is not merely an expression of opinion. It is not metaphorical. It is a call to arms. And Beck’s audience is listening. They have heard him say that “The country will be washed with blood.” They have heard him warn that he may have to speak in code:
“I fear that there will come a time when I cannot say things that I am currently saying. I fear that it will come to television and to radio, and I will stop saying these things. Understand me clearly. Hear me now. If I ever stop saying these things, you will know why. Because I will have made a choice that I can only say certain things, and I haven’t lost all of the rights. But know that these things are true. And if you hear me stop saying these things, it’s because I can no longer say them to you. But hear them between the sentences. Hear them, please. I will be screaming them to you.“
One of those to whom Beck was screaming was Byron Williams who was apprehended following a police shootout as he was on his way to San Francisco to kill people at the ACLU and the Tides Foundation. In a prison interview he said…
“Beck is gonna deny everything about violent approach and deny everything about conspiracies, but he’ll give you every reason to believe it. He’s protecting himself, and you can’t blame him for that. So, I understand what he’s doing.”
That’s right, Byron understands what Beck is doing, and so do I. A new poll by Public Policy Polling reports that 13% of Tea Partiers say the that violence against the current American government is justifiable. While that may sound like a small percentage, there are two things to keep in mind: 1) It’s more than three times the percentage of non-Tea Partiers who say violence is justifiable. And 2) It only takes one lone nut to wreak havoc. One lone nut like Byron Williams or, perhaps, Jared Loughner, as we learned in Tucson a week ago.
Let me be crystal clear. I am not associating Loughner to Glenn Beck. There has been no evidence (yet) to link the two. However, there have been other lone gunmen in addition to Williams who were indisputably linked to Beck.
It is because of statements like the one above that Beck has forfeited his privilege of hosting national broadcasts. His language is brazenly irresponsible and he knows it. He cannot escape accountability for the tragic consequences it produces. And neither can Roger Ailes or Rupert Murdoch.
In addition to his hostile streak, Beck also has demonstrated a flagrant prejudice against blacks and Jews. I previously noted that a rather large proportion of Beck’s targets are black, beginning, of course, with Barack Obama. Media Matters recently made note of Beck’s program on “The Big Lie” wherein Beck cited nine individuals whom he implicated in a tyrannical plot to control the minds of Americans in order to advance a socialist agenda.
Was it just a coincidence that eight of them were Jewish?
This racist, anti-Semitic, provocateur must not be be permitted to conduct his terror campaign on America’s airwaves. Now that does not mean that he should be subjected to censorship or suppression of his First Amendment rights, but the First Amendment does not guarantee everyone a television show. Radio and television networks, and the advertisers and audience that support them, must be persuaded to act responsibly. And that is our job.
You can go to Glenn Beck Unhinged and click on “Take Action” for a list of organizations that are working to hold the media accountable. Then pass the links around to spread the word.
The quote above is not an isolated incident. The results of such rhetoric are predictable. His disciples believe that he is giving them covert directions, and he encourages that belief. So we have to redouble our efforts to make people like Glenn Beck pay for the harm they do to our nation. And we have to do it before there is further violence or loss of life.
[Update to Inquire] Eric Fuller, a victim of the Tucson shooting, was arrested and involuntarily committed to a mental facility for psychiatric examination. This occurred after he attended a town hall meeting and said “You’re dead,” to a Tea Party leader while snapping his picture. That’s it. Just words. He had no weapon and made no threatening gestures or movements toward anyone. If that warrants arrest and commitment then why isn’t Beck undergoing a similar examination after explicitly advising his viewers to shoot their political adversaries in the head?
Similar Articles
· More Glenn Beck Messianic Delusions 8/6/09
Palin has gotten so embarrassing that even folks on her side of the spectrum are vocally calling for her to just stand down and be quiet. READ MORE
By Sarah Seltzer, Julianne Escobedo Shepherd / AlterNet : January 18, 2011
As she loses respect by the second due to her outrageous insertion of her own agenda into the Tucson tragedy, Sarah Palin is digging herself in deeper and deeper by pushing the credibility-lacking narrative of her own victimization. It’s gotten so bad that even folks on her side of the political line are vocally calling for her to stand down and be quiet for a while. A few conservatives like Karl Rove have slammed Palin before, and now others are joining in and actively warning her to watch what she says.
“Dear everyone in the world: no one is as unfairly persecuted as me, perennial victim Sarah Palin.” At least that's what Palin, our nation’s consummate narcissist-patriot, appears to believe based on a new interview which aired Monday night. The televised chat with Sean Hannity was her first since last week’s shameful “blood libel” comments; during its course, the infamous tweeter of “Don't Retreat; RELOAD” held true to her credo.
But surely it wasn't politically motivated, the far right will say. It was the act of a deranged individual who had no political inclinations at all. It's just coincidence that it was a Martin Luther King, Jr. celebration.
Whenever the U.S. Government wants to demonize a person or group in order to justify attacks on them, it follows the same playbook: it manufactures falsehoods about them, baselessly warns that they pose Grave Dangers and are severely harming our National Security, peppers all that with personality smears to render the targeted individuals repellent on a personal level, and feeds it all to the establishment American media, which then dutifully amplifies and mindlessly disseminates it all. That, of course, was the precise scheme that so easily led the U.S. into attacking Iraq; it's what continues to ensure support for the whole litany of War on Terror abuses and the bonanza of power and profit which accompanies them; and it's long been obvious that this is the primary means for generating contempt for WikiLeaks to enable its prosecution and ultimate destruction (an outcome the Pentagon has been plotting since at least 2008).
When WikiLeaks in mid-2010 published documents detailing the brutality and corruption at the heart of the war in Afghanistan, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, held a Press Conference and said of WikiLeaks (and then re-affirmed it on his Twitter account) that they "might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family." This denunciation predictably caused the phrase "blood on their hands" to be attached to WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, in thousands of media accounts around the world.
But two weeks later, the Pentagon's spokesman, when pressed, was forced to admit that there was no evidence whatsoever for that accusation: "we have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," he admitted. Several months later, after more flamboyant government condemnations of WikiLeaks' release of thousands of Iraq War documents, McClatchy's Nancy Youssef -- in an article headlined: "Officials may be overstating the danger from WikiLeaks" -- reported that "U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date" that the disclosures resulted in the deaths of anyone, and she detailed the great care WikiLeaks took in that Iraq War release to protect innocent people.
The disclosure of American diplomatic cables triggered still more melodramatic claims from government officials (ones faithfully recited by its servants and followers across the spectrum in Washington), accusing WikiLeaks of everything from "attacking" the U.S. (Hillary Clinton) and "plac[ing] at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals" and "ongoing military operations" (Harold Koh) to being comparable to Terrorists (Joe Biden). But even Robert Gates was unwilling to lend his name to such absurdities, and when asked, mocked these accusations as "significantly overwrought" and said the WikiLeaks disclosures would be "embarrassing" and "awkward" but would have only "modest consequences."
Since then, it has become clear how scrupulously careful WikiLeaks has been in releasing these cables in order to avoid unnecessary harm to innocent people, as the Associated Press reported how closely WikiLeaks was collaborating with its newspaper partners in deciding which cables to release and what redactions were necessary. Indeed, one of the very few documents which anyone has been able to claim has produced any harm -- one revealing that the leader of Zimbabwe's opposition privately urged U.S. officials to continue imposing sanctions on his country -- wasactually released by The Guardian, not by WikiLeaks.
To say that the Obama administration's campaign against WikiLeaks has been based on wildly exaggerated and even false claims is to understate the case. But now, there is evidence that Obama officials have been knowingly lying in public about these matters. The long-time Newsweekreporter Mark Hosenball -- now at Reuters -- reports that what Obama officials are saying in private about WikiLeaks directly contradicts their public claims:
Internal U.S. government reviews have determined that a mass leak of diplomatic cables caused only limited damage to U.S. interests abroad, despite the Obama administration's public statements to the contrary.
A congressional official briefed on the reviews said the administration felt compelled to say publicly that the revelations had seriously damaged American interests in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers. . . .
"We were told (the impact of WikiLeaks revelations) was embarrassing but not damaging," said the official, who attended a briefing given in late 2010 by State Department officials. . .
But current and former intelligence officials note that while WikiLeaks has released a handful of inconsequential CIA analytical reports, the website has made public few if any real intelligence secrets, including reports from undercover agents or ultra-sensitive technical intelligence reports, such as spy satellite pictures or communications intercepts. . . .
National security officials familiar with the damage assessments being conducted by defense and intelligence agencies told Reuters the reviews so far have shown "pockets" of short-term damage, some of it potentially harmful. Long-term damage to U.S. intelligence and defense operations, however, is unlikely to be serious, they said. . . .
Shortly before WikiLeaks began its gradual release of State Department cables last year, department officials sent emails to contacts on Capitol Hill predicting dire consequences, said one of the two congressional aides briefed on the internal government reviews.
However, shortly after stories about the cables first began to appear in the media, State Department officials were already privately playing down the damage, the two congressional officials said.
In response to Hosenball's story, Obama officials naturally tried to salvage the integrity of their statements, insisting that "there has been substantial damage" and that there were unspecified "specific cases where damage caused by WikiLeaks' revelations have been assessed as serious to grave." But the only specific cases anyone could identify were ones where the U.S. was caught by these documents lying to its own citizens or, at best, concealing vital truths -- such as the far greater military role the U.S. is playing in Yemen and Pakistan than Obama officials have publicly acknowledged.
And this, of course, has been the point all along: the WikiLeaks disclosures are significant precisely because they expose government deceit, wrongdoing and brutality, but the damage to innocent people has been deliberately and wildly exaggerated -- fabricated -- by the very people whose misconduct has been revealed. There is harm from the WikiLeaks documents, but it's to wrongdoers in power, which is why they are so desperate to malign and then destroy the group.
Just as was true in 2003 -- when the joint, falsehood-based government/media demonization campaign led 69% of Americans tobelieve that Saddam Hussein participated in the planning of the 9/11 attacks (the Bush era's most revealing fact about American politics) -- this orgy of anti-WikiLeaks propaganda has succeeded, with polls reliably showing the American public largely against the group and even favoring its prosecution (citizens in countries not subjected to this propaganda barrage view the group far more favorably).
As has been demonstrated over and over, when the U.S. Government and its media collaborate to propagandize, its efficacy is not in doubt. And as Marcy Wheeler notes, these lies were told not only to distort public opinion and justify prosecuting WikiLeaks for doing nothing more than engaging in journalism, but also to coerce private corporations (MasterCard, Amazon, Visa, Paypal) to cut all services to the group.
The case against WikiLeaks is absolutely this decade's version of the Saddam/WMD campaign. It's complete with frivolous invocations of Terrorism, grave public warnings about National Security negated by concealed information, endlessly repeated falsehoods, a competition among political and media elites to advocate the harshest measures possible, a cowardly Congress that (with a few nobleexceptions) acquiesces to it all on a bipartisan basis and is eager to enable it, and a media that not only fails to subject these fictions to critical scrutiny, but does the opposite: it takes the lead in propagating them. One might express bewilderment that most American journalists never learn their lesson about placing their blind faith in government claims, but that assumes -- falsely -- that their objective is to report truthfully.
More: Glenn Greenwald
Glenn Greenwald: It's Like Bush-Cheney All Over, But Worse!
By Jennifer Rubin
The left-leaning Glenn Greewald, who unlike virtually all other liberal bloggers has taken a consistent position on the war on terror (criticizing Obama on the same basis on which he excoriated the Bush administration), writes:
Obama has single-handedly eliminated virtually all mainstream debate over these War on Terror policies. At least during the Bush years, we had one party which steadfastly supported them but one party which claimed (albeit not very persuasively) to vehemently oppose them. At least there was a pretense of vigorous debate over their legality, morality, efficacy, and compatibility with our national values.
Those debates are no more. Even the hardest-core right-wing polemicists -- Gen. Hayden, the Heritage Foundation, Dick Cheney -- now praise Obama's actions in these areas. Opposition from national Democrats has faded away to almost complete nonexistence now that it's a Democratic President doing these things. What was once viewed as the signature of Bush/Cheney radicalism is now official, bipartisan Washington consensus: the policies equally of both parties and all Serious people. Thanks to Barack Obama, this architecture is firmly embedded in place and invulnerable to meaningful political challenge.
What is more, Greenwald argues, "Obama's embrace of these policies has completely rehabilitated the reputations and standing of the Bush officials responsible for them." Obama won't admit that, of course. It would be gracious if he did, but it's pleasing for conservatives to hear that the left understands the extent of the Bush rehabilitation.
What is key, aside from the sense of satisfaction for conservatives, is that we may be moving toward that bipartisan consensus on national security that so many have pined for. That leaves the left out in the cold, but given Obama's discovery that the left's policy preferences simply don't work, that's a good thing.
War Crimes in Afghanistan? Time To Investigate | MyFDL
By Josh Mull
We're not talking about one bad moment, one soldier losing his cool and committing a crime. We might be looking at a top-down, leadership-approved policy of violating the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan. War crimes. ...Firedoglake - http://firedoglake.com/
By Josh Mull
We're not talking about one bad moment, one soldier losing his cool and committing a crime. We might be looking at a top-down, leadership-approved policy of violating the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan. War crimes. ...Firedoglake - http://firedoglake.com/
War Crimes in Afghanistan? Time To Investigate | Politics in the Zeros
By Josh
We have clear evidence that there may be an ongoing policy of collective punishment and expulsion,war crimes under international and US law, happening in Afghanistan, and it's time for the House oversight committee to investigate. Politics in the Zeros - http://polizeros.com/
By Josh
We have clear evidence that there may be an ongoing policy of collective punishment and expulsion,war crimes under international and US law, happening in Afghanistan, and it's time for the House oversight committee to investigate. Politics in the Zeros - http://polizeros.com/
(I am the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for Brave New Foundation. You can read my work onFiredoglake or at Rethink Afghanistan. The views expressed here are my own.
A few weeks ago, Rep. Darrell Issa, the new Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House GOP’s self proclaimed “chief watchdog,” released his agenda for upcoming investigations in the new congress. Some of the issues he intends to focus on are dubious and partisan, but others slated for investigation are very serious.
One of these serious issues is the war in Afghanistan. Politico reported at the time)
Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals ...
By Pursuances
Why do our governments sometimes display such striking idealism in the face of war crimes and atrocities abroad, and at other times cynically abandon the pursuit of international justice altogether? Why today does justice seem so slow ...Pursuances - http://www.pursuances.com/
By Pursuances
Why do our governments sometimes display such striking idealism in the face of war crimes and atrocities abroad, and at other times cynically abandon the pursuit of international justice altogether? Why today does justice seem so slow ...Pursuances - http://www.pursuances.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment