The Arizona Republic is a conservative newspaper. Since, 1890, when it was founded, it has never endorsed a Democrat for President. Until now. It published an editorial endorsing Hillary Clinton and said that Donald Trump was neither conservative nor qualified.
Then the death threats began. On her show tonight, Rachel Maddox put this into context. Forty years ago, she said, an investigative reporter for the newspaper was murdered by a bomb placed in his car. Now, the callers invoke the name of the assassinated reporter, Don Bolles.
This was the response of the newspaper’s publisher to the death threats. It is magnificent. It gives us hope for the survival of basic democratic values long after this vicious, degrading election is over.
Please read it.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
To me being truly American means, in part, supporting press freedom. Obviously the terrorists who are threatening the Republic think otherwise. Our schools need to do a better job of defining “American” as something other than being white and Christian, because apparently 40% of us think that’s what it means.
LikeLike
I just came across this disturbing bit of info. Also read the comment left on it.
http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2016/10/podesta-promoted-gop-fringe-to-make.html?spref=tw
LikeLike
Sorry, blaming the DNC, Podesta, the Democrats and Bill Clinton for the rise of Trump is really laughable. Nobody could have predicted that Trump would have beat out 15 or 16 other GOPers. Trump is the fault, first and foremost, of a radicalized far right wingnut GOP that has gone nutzo years ago. The GOP candidate was bound to be a horror show with or without the help of the Democrats. In any case, politics has been a dirty, nasty and underhanded game since the inception of the republic. We have improved somewhat, no more duels and congressmen do not assault each other in the house or senate.
LikeLike
To the owner of this blog:
Thank you so much for the second link.
😎
LikeLike
The threats are what we can expect from the “deplorables” that support Donald Trump.
LikeLike
That line went through my head in a roundabout way: I thought, isn’t it deplorable how quickly some people use death threats these days.
LikeLike
Yes, it is deplorable that people make death threats these days, but it has been my experience that talk often does not lead to action. Most who actually attempts to kill someone they don’t agree with politically/religiously will probably do it with no public warning.
A thread on Quora focused on this issue:
https://www.quora.com/How-common-are-death-threats
Its easy to get angry and pop off a phone call or e-mail threatening to kill someone but then later after the mental perp calms down and thinks of the possible consequences, they probably change their minds.
It’s always risky to go off half cocked out of anger to murder or injure someone else. Easier to say than do. Want-to-be killers who act on the urge often end up dead or in prison for life with their own life and family ruined.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The threats are horrible & inexcusable. I remember well the Don Bolles case–sickening.
Having said that, do read the link provided by Conny Jensen, & the comments.
are disturbing, indeed, & whoever/wherever the hacker(s) come from (& I don’t believe the Russia theories), it’s nothing new or surprising to many of us who worked for & supported Bernie.
It is ALL despicable. Worst presidential election cycle in U.S. history.
LikeLike
I believe the intelligence professionals. They are not political.
LikeLike
“They are not political.”
Yes, they are political. Just as teachers are not supposed to be political, they are. We all are even those who make a statement by denying they are political. Life is political. To live a social life (which by definition is what each and everyone of us do/has done as there is no getting around interactions with other humans) is to live a political life.
Now I may believe the “intelligence professionals”, or not, but my question to you, Diane, is how do you know that what you hear from those supposed “intelligence professionals” is anywhere near truth? Are there independent, open, transparent checks and balances (as we demand of public schools and government in general) on those “intelligence professionals”? I think not! I trust them not, to be apolitical!
LikeLike
Agreed, that is a magnificent response from the newspaper. Thanks for sharing it.
LikeLike
Take heart. The voices writing the newspapers are not the voices Cali g for fire and sword. Recall that it was the firey Marat who called daily in the streets of Paris for heads to roll, and it was his opposition, radicalized by his own words, that ended his reign of hatred. We are not there.
But a caution also. When Marat died, it gave extremism in France a saint, whose iconic likeness even graced the canvass of David in a Christ pose. We must strive to understand the worries that produced trumpism. We must address the agony of some of his followers, who have come not to believe in the system. Just as we strive to understand all on the fringes of reason, we must approach the supporters with the two qualities of moderation, love and logic. We do not want a defeated candidate to become a maryter for a vague cause.
LikeLike
I don’t like the approach. Here’s why. It relies on the biographies and personal attributes of the owners and staff to defend political speech.
It isn’t about that.
They don’t have to be people who go to church, or people who have been discriminated against, or rock-ribbed conservatives . It isn’t about whether the speaker “deserves” or “has earned” decent treatment because if it is what if the staff DIDN’T go to church or vote Republican or work hard? Would it be okay to threaten them? No, I don’t think so.
No one who works at a newspaper should be threatened as a result of an endorsement. Period. They don’t have to prove they are worthy of not being threatened because that implies that this standard or norm of behavior is earned, and it’s not. It’s a given.
LikeLike
The danger in this election is that the lunatic fringe, the deplorables, the Trumpsters, become alienated, and then unify as a powerful, organized, political block like Hitler’s Brown Shirts before his rise to political power, or Mao’s Little Red Guard that terrorized all of China for about a decade during the Cultural Revolution.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Diane Ravitch’s blog wrote:
> Allen commented: “There are no ideological disagreements between Clinton > democrats and Cheney republicans, only tactical disagreements. While Trump > is a bigot and a racist he is definitely not an aberration- he is a > reflection of the depravity of liberalism itself and the” >
LikeLike
To whoever believes that FREE SPEECH is earned or given as HUMAN RIGHTS:
It is all about humanity versus savage, gullible Beasts.
In the past 200 years, USA has shown the world that humanitarian actions worth standing up for. On the other hand, many Empires colonial invaders, who have had 1000 up to 5000 years of civilization or owning slavery, always use terrorized tactics to control, to enforce, to impose and to abuse their power upon all sentient humans beings on Earth.
Yes, liberty and free speech WILL:
1) require compassion
2) require an open debate
3) require bravery
4) value hard work and equal opportunity.
5) hold the powerful accountable.
6) come at a cost or a sacrifice of the short term PAIN or comfort to have the long term GAIN
7) allow to exchange ideas freely, fairly, without fear.
In short, any LEADERS do not experience, offer or fulfill the above 7 critical conditions, their ideology about liberty and free speech is all about LIP-SERVICE.
All tactics gear to terrorize, to inspire hatred and divisiveness are enemy to humanity and try to bring down humanity to the level of being slavery and being beasts. Back2basic.
LikeLike
Like!
LikeLike