Steve Soto at The Left Coaster has the sorry list of Democrats who voted for both the repeal of the Paris Hilton Inheritance Tax AND the Leave No Credit Card Company Behind Bill.
As Soto says, I don't care what they want to call themselves, New Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats, or Ring Around The Rosy Democrats, legislators that vote in favor of the wealthiest one day, and in favor of bankers the next are Republicans.
Friday, April 15, 2005
What He Said
I was thinking of posting something about the latest round of the Democratic-Party-culture-and-values debate, but then I noticed that Billmon went and said exactly what I was thinking.
So, please, go and enjoy a good read.
So, please, go and enjoy a good read.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
His Ethics Are His Best Quality
Here's Tom DeLay in an interview with the Moonie Times:
I blame Congress over the last 50 to 100 years for not standing up and taking its responsibility given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them.
1. So, the reason the judiciary imposed an "unconstitutional" separation of church and state is because Congress didn't stop them (the courts)...
2. And the reason we have judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them...
3. And the reason we have a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them...
Let's examine these statements from the House Majority Leader about the Constitution and our civil liberties for just a moment, beginning with the most stupid of them.
2. Judicial Review. I'm pretty sure the principle of judicial review has been around since, oh, I don't know, the Jefferson Administration.
1. Separation of Church and State. The Majority Leader doesn't believe in the principle of the Separation of Church and State. Which means he believes that Church and State should be united. Which means he believes that the State, through the Church, or a Church, can impose itself and its doctrines on the rest of us, seemingly without regard for the rights enumerated to us in the Bill of Rights. Which means he doesn't believe in democracy or any of the principles given to us by the founding generation.
Paging Howard Dean and Harry Reid. You're wanted on deck. I trust I'll find your responses in my morning newspapers.
3. Tom DeLay hates the right to privacy. Tom DeLay is against the right to privacy, for individuals to have the right to their persons and the liberty to conduct themselves within the confines of their homes and bodies as they see fit provided they don't interfere with the rights of others. Tom DeLay and the Party he heads are against this. Yes. He. Actually. Said. That.
Memo to any prospectives 2008 Democratic candidates: You should emphatically and unapologetically state your support for the right to privacy, the separation of church and state, and reaffirm the two centuries long principle of judicial review in your declaration of candidacy. You can get a lot of the other stuff wrong, but these are the essential items you need to get right. I know it all sounds pretty basic, but that's what things have come to in the year 2005.
If there's one thing you can't say about today's Republican Party, that is that they haven't shown us. They have shown us. They are telegraphing in perfectly clear language where they want to take the country, if only the "courts" weren't in there way.
How will we respond?
I blame Congress over the last 50 to 100 years for not standing up and taking its responsibility given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them.
1. So, the reason the judiciary imposed an "unconstitutional" separation of church and state is because Congress didn't stop them (the courts)...
2. And the reason we have judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them...
3. And the reason we have a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them...
Let's examine these statements from the House Majority Leader about the Constitution and our civil liberties for just a moment, beginning with the most stupid of them.
2. Judicial Review. I'm pretty sure the principle of judicial review has been around since, oh, I don't know, the Jefferson Administration.
1. Separation of Church and State. The Majority Leader doesn't believe in the principle of the Separation of Church and State. Which means he believes that Church and State should be united. Which means he believes that the State, through the Church, or a Church, can impose itself and its doctrines on the rest of us, seemingly without regard for the rights enumerated to us in the Bill of Rights. Which means he doesn't believe in democracy or any of the principles given to us by the founding generation.
Paging Howard Dean and Harry Reid. You're wanted on deck. I trust I'll find your responses in my morning newspapers.
3. Tom DeLay hates the right to privacy. Tom DeLay is against the right to privacy, for individuals to have the right to their persons and the liberty to conduct themselves within the confines of their homes and bodies as they see fit provided they don't interfere with the rights of others. Tom DeLay and the Party he heads are against this. Yes. He. Actually. Said. That.
Memo to any prospectives 2008 Democratic candidates: You should emphatically and unapologetically state your support for the right to privacy, the separation of church and state, and reaffirm the two centuries long principle of judicial review in your declaration of candidacy. You can get a lot of the other stuff wrong, but these are the essential items you need to get right. I know it all sounds pretty basic, but that's what things have come to in the year 2005.
If there's one thing you can't say about today's Republican Party, that is that they haven't shown us. They have shown us. They are telegraphing in perfectly clear language where they want to take the country, if only the "courts" weren't in there way.
How will we respond?
Monday, April 11, 2005
Why Go Nuclear?
As I've been shaking in my boots (OK, I don't wear boots, but you know what I mean) waiting for the Senate Republicans to drop the nuclear bomb on the filibustering of judicial nominees, I've suddenly taken to wondering why they're bothering. It seems like a move that will get them a lot of negative press and provide Democrats with a 2006 campaign issue, all just so they can shoehorn 8-10 more radical Bush nominees through the confirmation process. I have a hard time imagining they couldn't as easily line up an alternative slate of conservative candidates with equally appalling views and authoritarian aims who wouldn't have the damaging paper trail and disreputable baggage. Of course as I write this I recognize the "pre-emptive" element here; by changing the law they would not only get to ram the backlog through, but also be given more leeway to choose even more hideous nominees. In any event, it seems risky. A good Democrat could take advantage of this.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Friday Theology (cont)
I've suggested a couple of reasons why attempts by the Democratic Party to appeal to Christians on the basis of a shared humanitarian social and economic agenda may not bare fruit. One, the social gospel ranks below the issue of debating whether God exists or not and whether He created the world. Two, today's U.S. Christians are basically materialistic and don't really take the New Testament and its teachings that literally at least to the extent that it would threaten their lifestyle and material aspirations.
A third reason is that the Christian Right's agenda and its following is stimulated by what one of my fellow bloggers (sorry, can't remember where I read this) has identified as an "outrage" quotient (my paraphrase). Terri Schiavo, Ten Commandments, school prayer, abortion, gays, Christian Nation, etc, are all issues that are designed to provoke outrage and fear on the part of the Christian community that they and their existence is threatened by the Secular Left and liberal democratic institutions (see the recent hysteria about the courts). Trying to appeal to most Christians' compassion for others simply doesn't generate the same level of outrage, if it provokes any outrage or concern at all. In the case of corporate abuses, most Christians are not conditioned to see this as a threat against Christianity or themselves, while considerably less substantive issues, like school prayer, do seem more like a threat, and are so framed by members of the religious elite to stoke up their congregants' resentment that they--Christians--are under seige. The need to help the poor doesn't provoke the same kind of reaction.
And among many Christians, there is a not uncommon view that at least in the U.S., the Poor aren't really "poor". And compared to the poor of other countries, there's some truth to this view.
But in any event, the conservative symbolic issues that have gained traction among Christians have done so because of their ability to provoke fear on the part of Christians that they can't or soon won't be free to practice their religious beliefs. As a Christian myself, I don't share these fears, and I think the Christian Right's attempts to manipulate church goers this way takes advantage of our relative ignorance of political issues and our naturally inclined self centeredness and desire for self preservation.
So, unfortunately, I suspect appeals to U.S. religious identifiers on the basis of a more humanitarian gospel will not have a great impact. But I'm willing to be convinced wrong.
A third reason is that the Christian Right's agenda and its following is stimulated by what one of my fellow bloggers (sorry, can't remember where I read this) has identified as an "outrage" quotient (my paraphrase). Terri Schiavo, Ten Commandments, school prayer, abortion, gays, Christian Nation, etc, are all issues that are designed to provoke outrage and fear on the part of the Christian community that they and their existence is threatened by the Secular Left and liberal democratic institutions (see the recent hysteria about the courts). Trying to appeal to most Christians' compassion for others simply doesn't generate the same level of outrage, if it provokes any outrage or concern at all. In the case of corporate abuses, most Christians are not conditioned to see this as a threat against Christianity or themselves, while considerably less substantive issues, like school prayer, do seem more like a threat, and are so framed by members of the religious elite to stoke up their congregants' resentment that they--Christians--are under seige. The need to help the poor doesn't provoke the same kind of reaction.
And among many Christians, there is a not uncommon view that at least in the U.S., the Poor aren't really "poor". And compared to the poor of other countries, there's some truth to this view.
But in any event, the conservative symbolic issues that have gained traction among Christians have done so because of their ability to provoke fear on the part of Christians that they can't or soon won't be free to practice their religious beliefs. As a Christian myself, I don't share these fears, and I think the Christian Right's attempts to manipulate church goers this way takes advantage of our relative ignorance of political issues and our naturally inclined self centeredness and desire for self preservation.
So, unfortunately, I suspect appeals to U.S. religious identifiers on the basis of a more humanitarian gospel will not have a great impact. But I'm willing to be convinced wrong.
Friday Theology
Majikthise has a theologian in residence who contends that Democrats can and ought to appeal to Christian adherents on the basis of the progressivism of The New Testament and the teachings of Jesus.
I won't disagree that there isn't some room for Democrats to win over religiously-principled persons and to reframe the values debate in a manner that would reconcile the positions and advance the ideals of both.
But I'm less optimistic about this than I once was. The two basic problems I see are:
1) The evolution versus creation debate; and paradoxically,
2) Liberal assumptions about how "literally" most Christian conservatives take the Bible.
On the first point, the debate over our earth's and humanity's origins is what we might call a basic "worldview" conflict. In other words, this issue is likely to trump most others, and if Christians think (or are convinced by their religious elite) that Democrats are the "liberal" party, and that "liberals" essentially discount God's influence in creating us and sustaining the world (and are against "school prayer", the planting of religious monuments on government property, and other issues of highly symbolic, if lowly substantive value), then Christians are likely to discount anything else Democrats may put forward for a political agenda. In addition, Christians may justify to themselves their support of corporate appeasing Republican policies on a number of grounds so as to avoid ideological and mental "dissonance" or confusion in order to prioritize their basic worldview. Of the justifications Christians typically offer to minimize political support for more liberal economic policies are a) support for the poor should be carried out by individuals and churches and not the government; b) government programs are wasteful and ineffective (The "failure" of The War on Poverty, for example); c) blaming the poor themselves (personal responsibility); d) social programs are socialism-communism; e) more important to keep taxes low (so Christians can give more to charity, etc); and on and on.
As to point two, it's a paradox that the "strict constructivism" if you will, that Christians apply to Genesis and Exodus, and the belief that the Bible is infallible and should be understood literally, typically doesn't carry over to the New Testament where in most Christian churches, the essentials of Jesus's teachings simply don't get much attention. The Christian church of today is essentially a middle class phenomenon, concerned with its own and its members' prosperity. Strangely, while movies about Christ's death may sell in Evangelic-nation, movies about his ministry and teaching haven't. My basic point here is that most Christians are more likely to take their political cues from their pulpit than from the Bible. In other words, I'm afraid that the popular form of Christianity today is elite-driven and may not be suseptible to a "bottom up" revolution inspired by the followers in the pews.
I won't disagree that there isn't some room for Democrats to win over religiously-principled persons and to reframe the values debate in a manner that would reconcile the positions and advance the ideals of both.
But I'm less optimistic about this than I once was. The two basic problems I see are:
1) The evolution versus creation debate; and paradoxically,
2) Liberal assumptions about how "literally" most Christian conservatives take the Bible.
On the first point, the debate over our earth's and humanity's origins is what we might call a basic "worldview" conflict. In other words, this issue is likely to trump most others, and if Christians think (or are convinced by their religious elite) that Democrats are the "liberal" party, and that "liberals" essentially discount God's influence in creating us and sustaining the world (and are against "school prayer", the planting of religious monuments on government property, and other issues of highly symbolic, if lowly substantive value), then Christians are likely to discount anything else Democrats may put forward for a political agenda. In addition, Christians may justify to themselves their support of corporate appeasing Republican policies on a number of grounds so as to avoid ideological and mental "dissonance" or confusion in order to prioritize their basic worldview. Of the justifications Christians typically offer to minimize political support for more liberal economic policies are a) support for the poor should be carried out by individuals and churches and not the government; b) government programs are wasteful and ineffective (The "failure" of The War on Poverty, for example); c) blaming the poor themselves (personal responsibility); d) social programs are socialism-communism; e) more important to keep taxes low (so Christians can give more to charity, etc); and on and on.
As to point two, it's a paradox that the "strict constructivism" if you will, that Christians apply to Genesis and Exodus, and the belief that the Bible is infallible and should be understood literally, typically doesn't carry over to the New Testament where in most Christian churches, the essentials of Jesus's teachings simply don't get much attention. The Christian church of today is essentially a middle class phenomenon, concerned with its own and its members' prosperity. Strangely, while movies about Christ's death may sell in Evangelic-nation, movies about his ministry and teaching haven't. My basic point here is that most Christians are more likely to take their political cues from their pulpit than from the Bible. In other words, I'm afraid that the popular form of Christianity today is elite-driven and may not be suseptible to a "bottom up" revolution inspired by the followers in the pews.
I Wrote the Infamous Schiavo "Talking Points" Memo
I, Senator Jay Billington Bulworth, wrote the memo, and I'm terribly sorry. I admit I was playing politics with the issue and wished only to advance my own sorry, stalled career. But a lot of innocent Republican officials and conservative bloggers have suffered from my chicaneries. And for that, I wish to confess my wrongs.
It should have been clear to all that my Republican friends and conservative colleagues had no political ambitions with the Schiavo case. After all, they passed a bill in Texas that explicitly allows hospitals to pull the plug on patients, regardless of the family's wishes, so why would they have sought political advantage from this one case? In addition, if the Republicans really wanted to play politics with the "culture of life", why, they wouldn't have proposed such drastic cuts in the Medicaid program, which as I understand it, was helping to underwrite Terri Schiavo's care. Finally, the fact that Republicans have pushed so hard for legislation limiting medical malpractice awards--the kind which supported most of Ms. Schiavo's care--and for legislation restricting the ability of working families to declare bankruptcy due to medical crises, should have perfectly illustrated the Republican Party's stance on this issue and the broader range of "culture of life" matters.
So, regardless of whatever you may hear in the next few days about some staffer from Senator Martinez's office having written the memo, rest assured dear friends, that I, Jay Bulworth, deserve the blame for this terrible tragedy. However, I bare no responsibility for the words uttered by Tom DeLay, when at a recent gathering of the Family Research Council, he said:
Its more than just Terri Schiavo. It is a critical issue for people in this position, and it is also a critical issue to fight the fight for life, whether it be euthanasia or abortion. And I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to elevate the visibility of whats going on in America...This is exactly the issue thats going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others. The point is, the other side has figured out how to win and defeat the conservative movement, and that is to go after people personally, charge them with frivolous charges, link that up with all these do-gooder organizations funded by George Soros, and then get the national media on their side. That whole syndicate that they have going on right now is for one purpose and one purpose only, and thats to destroy the conservative movement. Its to destroy conservative leaders, not just in elected office but leading. I mean, Ed Feulner of the Heritage Foundation was under attack in the National Journal. This is a huge, nationwide, concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in. You need to look at this, at whats going on, and participate in fighting back. One way they stopped churches from getting into politics was Lyndon Johnson, who passed a law that said you couldnt get into politics or you were going to lose your tax-exempt status because they were all opposed to him when he was running for President. That law were trying to repeal; its very difficult to do that. But the point is, when they knock out a leader, then no other leader will step forward for a while, because they dont want to go through the same thing. If they go after and get a pastor, then other pastors shrink from what they should be doing. It forces Christians back into the church, and thats whats going on in America...
So, again, don't blame the Republicans or Powerline for the Schiavo memo. President Harry Truman was known for the placque on his desk that said The Buck Stops Here. Well, friends, the buck truly does stop here. I wrote the memo and deserve whatever penalty may befall me.
It should have been clear to all that my Republican friends and conservative colleagues had no political ambitions with the Schiavo case. After all, they passed a bill in Texas that explicitly allows hospitals to pull the plug on patients, regardless of the family's wishes, so why would they have sought political advantage from this one case? In addition, if the Republicans really wanted to play politics with the "culture of life", why, they wouldn't have proposed such drastic cuts in the Medicaid program, which as I understand it, was helping to underwrite Terri Schiavo's care. Finally, the fact that Republicans have pushed so hard for legislation limiting medical malpractice awards--the kind which supported most of Ms. Schiavo's care--and for legislation restricting the ability of working families to declare bankruptcy due to medical crises, should have perfectly illustrated the Republican Party's stance on this issue and the broader range of "culture of life" matters.
So, regardless of whatever you may hear in the next few days about some staffer from Senator Martinez's office having written the memo, rest assured dear friends, that I, Jay Bulworth, deserve the blame for this terrible tragedy. However, I bare no responsibility for the words uttered by Tom DeLay, when at a recent gathering of the Family Research Council, he said:
Its more than just Terri Schiavo. It is a critical issue for people in this position, and it is also a critical issue to fight the fight for life, whether it be euthanasia or abortion. And I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to elevate the visibility of whats going on in America...This is exactly the issue thats going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others. The point is, the other side has figured out how to win and defeat the conservative movement, and that is to go after people personally, charge them with frivolous charges, link that up with all these do-gooder organizations funded by George Soros, and then get the national media on their side. That whole syndicate that they have going on right now is for one purpose and one purpose only, and thats to destroy the conservative movement. Its to destroy conservative leaders, not just in elected office but leading. I mean, Ed Feulner of the Heritage Foundation was under attack in the National Journal. This is a huge, nationwide, concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in. You need to look at this, at whats going on, and participate in fighting back. One way they stopped churches from getting into politics was Lyndon Johnson, who passed a law that said you couldnt get into politics or you were going to lose your tax-exempt status because they were all opposed to him when he was running for President. That law were trying to repeal; its very difficult to do that. But the point is, when they knock out a leader, then no other leader will step forward for a while, because they dont want to go through the same thing. If they go after and get a pastor, then other pastors shrink from what they should be doing. It forces Christians back into the church, and thats whats going on in America...
So, again, don't blame the Republicans or Powerline for the Schiavo memo. President Harry Truman was known for the placque on his desk that said The Buck Stops Here. Well, friends, the buck truly does stop here. I wrote the memo and deserve whatever penalty may befall me.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Exceeding Low Expectations
If you've been watching any of the after-death-Pope coverage on cable (and face it, how can you get away from it?) than you might have noticed many of the punditeers praising the deceased Pope's commitment to the "culture of life". This is univerally seen to be a very great thing. Even Franklin Graham, son and apparent heir to father Billy Graham's evangelical ministry, louded the Pope's contribution to the "culture of life".
Now, maybe Graham, and the rest of them, didn't know what else to say. But does it seem to you, as it does to me, that this bit about the "culture of life" in regards to the Pope is rather a strange way to praise a just deceased priest, a man of the cloth, a someone who was the head of the Catholic Church for 26 years? Having a commitment to the "culture of life" seems to me to be a rather low bar of expectations. I mean, what did they think the Pope would do? That the Pope would have led a bloody inquisition? That he would have announced his support for a new "abortion on demand" policy?
It is true that a few anti-hagiography pieces about the Pope have been printed in the last few days, namely one from Thomas Cahill in yesterday's NYT, detailing not only the decline in Catholic church attendance in the U.S. and Europe during the Pope's reign, and the decline in the number of priests, but the authoritarianism of this Pope, which has created a certain climate of conformity and "yes" men among the Cardinals he's appointed, and a stifling of intellectual and moral dissent.
It's also strange in a way that the multitude of anti-papacy voices among the Protestant congregations and evangelical elite have been strangely muted through all this. Even Franklin Graham preferred to stress the similar goals, rather than the theological differences, existing between Catholocism and Protestantism.
I've been thinking of trying my hand at addressing some of those distinctions in the coming days. Perhaps the advent of a new Pope will provide an opportunity for these issues to be discussed on the nation's airwaves. But I doubt it.
Now, maybe Graham, and the rest of them, didn't know what else to say. But does it seem to you, as it does to me, that this bit about the "culture of life" in regards to the Pope is rather a strange way to praise a just deceased priest, a man of the cloth, a someone who was the head of the Catholic Church for 26 years? Having a commitment to the "culture of life" seems to me to be a rather low bar of expectations. I mean, what did they think the Pope would do? That the Pope would have led a bloody inquisition? That he would have announced his support for a new "abortion on demand" policy?
It is true that a few anti-hagiography pieces about the Pope have been printed in the last few days, namely one from Thomas Cahill in yesterday's NYT, detailing not only the decline in Catholic church attendance in the U.S. and Europe during the Pope's reign, and the decline in the number of priests, but the authoritarianism of this Pope, which has created a certain climate of conformity and "yes" men among the Cardinals he's appointed, and a stifling of intellectual and moral dissent.
It's also strange in a way that the multitude of anti-papacy voices among the Protestant congregations and evangelical elite have been strangely muted through all this. Even Franklin Graham preferred to stress the similar goals, rather than the theological differences, existing between Catholocism and Protestantism.
I've been thinking of trying my hand at addressing some of those distinctions in the coming days. Perhaps the advent of a new Pope will provide an opportunity for these issues to be discussed on the nation's airwaves. But I doubt it.
Friday, April 01, 2005
Thrown a Curve
In case you were lured into watching CNN's ghoulish ghoulfest "Life and Death: America Speaks Out" gongshow last night, a three hourish parade of absolute slimy gutterring gusterbunk, the network milking for one last time the Terri Schiavo media carnival, with its "priests for life" calling the Schiavo death a "killing" and a "judicial homicide", in case you got sucked into that, you might have missed the rolling out of the presidential bipartisan commission's report on how we and the media all got snuckered by the president's Iraq war propaganda, which, in the final analysis, after the war was over, and the two years since, has resulted in not one iota of evidence to sustain the "weapons of mass destruction" claim trumpted by the administration and used by its lackeys in the media into intimidating us all to support the immoral Iraq invasion.
Now, I will attest to the fact that as Lindsay Beyerstein notes, this report follows the sad tradition of its predecessors investigating 9-11 in passing the buck of blame to the nation's "intelligence" agencies instead of the political administration that heads and manipulates them. In addition, it might be tempting to think that because we now all know what a farce the rhetoric in the lead up to the war was, that this report has all the value of a wad of phlegm, too little, much too late.
But bretheran, sisters of the ya ya liberal order, I beseech you to give the report and its coverage in the newspapers a glance. The Rude Pundit has. And you should to. Because the report provides us with an introduction to the Iraqi dupe used by the administration to buttress its case with its phony information. His name? Special Agent Iraqi Special Informant "Curveball". Curveball was the code name given to this source that provided much of the bogus information used in then Secretary of State Powell's UN presentation that did so much to build support in the country for the invasion and to moderately pacify those nations that disagreed with the Project for a New American Century's Leader. Now this Curveball is quite a piece of work as the Rude Pundit explains. The short version of course is that this "Curveball" served the administration some curveballs of its own, dubious claims of Iraqi mobile biological weapons. the administration brandished in the lead up to the war but in its aftermath was found to be eroneous.
But while CNN and the other cable TV "news" shoutfests were giving us yet one more comprehensive play by play, while medical expert Pat Boone was given one more chance to be on national television to preclaim his belief that Terri Schiavo could have recovered, a report on Curveball was being issued about the curveball thrown us by the administration in its Iraq war methods. Now maybe some of you saw CNN interrupt its coverage of the Schiavo aftermath or its coverage of the Pope's condition to bring us an analysis of the commission's report, but I'm afraid I must have missed it. Thrown a curve by both the administration and its ratings happy media outlets, we might have missed the addition of yet another damning report on the administration's conduct, that however clouded in blame for patsy agencies, provides additional illumination on the administration's values and goals.
Speaking of the "special" three hour "news" coverage by CNN (the most trusted name in news!), you know it says a lot to say that the professional wrestling show Smackdown! which aired at the same time, was, despite its well documented choreographed and oversexed promotional "sporting" highlights, by far the classier of the two programs airing last night.
And just to recognize what strange bed fellows this media-congressional republican led onslaught on decency and privacy has made, I hope you'll all go over to Crooks and Liars to see Christopher Hitchens give Joe Scarborough a scathing smackdown of his own, blasting the former congressman's and media's treatment of the Schiavo marathon. Who ever thought I'd have anything good to say about Hitchens ever again, but I do.
Now, I will attest to the fact that as Lindsay Beyerstein notes, this report follows the sad tradition of its predecessors investigating 9-11 in passing the buck of blame to the nation's "intelligence" agencies instead of the political administration that heads and manipulates them. In addition, it might be tempting to think that because we now all know what a farce the rhetoric in the lead up to the war was, that this report has all the value of a wad of phlegm, too little, much too late.
But bretheran, sisters of the ya ya liberal order, I beseech you to give the report and its coverage in the newspapers a glance. The Rude Pundit has. And you should to. Because the report provides us with an introduction to the Iraqi dupe used by the administration to buttress its case with its phony information. His name? Special Agent Iraqi Special Informant "Curveball". Curveball was the code name given to this source that provided much of the bogus information used in then Secretary of State Powell's UN presentation that did so much to build support in the country for the invasion and to moderately pacify those nations that disagreed with the Project for a New American Century's Leader. Now this Curveball is quite a piece of work as the Rude Pundit explains. The short version of course is that this "Curveball" served the administration some curveballs of its own, dubious claims of Iraqi mobile biological weapons. the administration brandished in the lead up to the war but in its aftermath was found to be eroneous.
But while CNN and the other cable TV "news" shoutfests were giving us yet one more comprehensive play by play, while medical expert Pat Boone was given one more chance to be on national television to preclaim his belief that Terri Schiavo could have recovered, a report on Curveball was being issued about the curveball thrown us by the administration in its Iraq war methods. Now maybe some of you saw CNN interrupt its coverage of the Schiavo aftermath or its coverage of the Pope's condition to bring us an analysis of the commission's report, but I'm afraid I must have missed it. Thrown a curve by both the administration and its ratings happy media outlets, we might have missed the addition of yet another damning report on the administration's conduct, that however clouded in blame for patsy agencies, provides additional illumination on the administration's values and goals.
Speaking of the "special" three hour "news" coverage by CNN (the most trusted name in news!), you know it says a lot to say that the professional wrestling show Smackdown! which aired at the same time, was, despite its well documented choreographed and oversexed promotional "sporting" highlights, by far the classier of the two programs airing last night.
And just to recognize what strange bed fellows this media-congressional republican led onslaught on decency and privacy has made, I hope you'll all go over to Crooks and Liars to see Christopher Hitchens give Joe Scarborough a scathing smackdown of his own, blasting the former congressman's and media's treatment of the Schiavo marathon. Who ever thought I'd have anything good to say about Hitchens ever again, but I do.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
The NRTLC Continues To Shill for Bush
Last week I tendered an email to the National Right to Life Committee asking them to explain the inconsistency between their opposition to the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube with their support of Texas legislation passed and signed by then governor George W. Bush in 1999 that explicitly gave hospitals and medical professionals the prerogative to disconnect life support measures--including feeding tubes--when they believed further care was futile.
Although NRTCL didn't personally respond to my email they have added a link on their web site attempting to explain their dually competing positions.
Basically their response is that the bill W signed and which the NRTLC helped write was the best they could do and better than existing law. So there.
But this response is just bupkes.
First of all, the ten day window for finding an alternative care-giver doesn't even remotely prevent the discontinuing of life support when in fact, no alternative providers or institutions can be found. The family of Sun Hudson only recently discovered this fact as Sun, a seven month old child, was taken off life support against his mother's wishes and died when no alternative care could be arranged. And as has been documented elsewhere, had Terri Schiavo lived in Texas, the law there would have ensured her a speedier demise than in Florida.
Second, the NRTLC claim that the Texas law was the best they could do is just lame. Texas is well-known for its allegedly conservative values. If the preservation of life was really the issue, it shouldn't have been difficult to line up enough support in the legislature (and from governor Bush) to ensure a law that as the president now says would have allowed the state "to err on the side of life".
If the NRTLC wants to throw charges of murder against Michael Schiavo, the multi governmental level and bipartisan judiciary that has consistently ruled on his side, and congress, then the NRTLC will have to do a lot better than a bill in Texas that is "far from ideal".
On the other hand, as befitting an organization that is above all dedicated to the election of conservative Republicans to high office regardless of their performance, then the flimsy NRTLC defense of themselves and their president is at least partially understandable if not commendatory.
Although NRTCL didn't personally respond to my email they have added a link on their web site attempting to explain their dually competing positions.
Basically their response is that the bill W signed and which the NRTLC helped write was the best they could do and better than existing law. So there.
But this response is just bupkes.
First of all, the ten day window for finding an alternative care-giver doesn't even remotely prevent the discontinuing of life support when in fact, no alternative providers or institutions can be found. The family of Sun Hudson only recently discovered this fact as Sun, a seven month old child, was taken off life support against his mother's wishes and died when no alternative care could be arranged. And as has been documented elsewhere, had Terri Schiavo lived in Texas, the law there would have ensured her a speedier demise than in Florida.
Second, the NRTLC claim that the Texas law was the best they could do is just lame. Texas is well-known for its allegedly conservative values. If the preservation of life was really the issue, it shouldn't have been difficult to line up enough support in the legislature (and from governor Bush) to ensure a law that as the president now says would have allowed the state "to err on the side of life".
If the NRTLC wants to throw charges of murder against Michael Schiavo, the multi governmental level and bipartisan judiciary that has consistently ruled on his side, and congress, then the NRTLC will have to do a lot better than a bill in Texas that is "far from ideal".
On the other hand, as befitting an organization that is above all dedicated to the election of conservative Republicans to high office regardless of their performance, then the flimsy NRTLC defense of themselves and their president is at least partially understandable if not commendatory.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Recent Study Shows Anti-Intellectuals and Ideologues Opposed to Science and Debate Under-Represented among University Faculty
Good Grief. There they go again. Yet another "study" documenting the alleged "liberal bias" of America's colleges and universities.
Gee, I don't know. Maybe conservatives will be more widely represented in academia when they decide books should be read, not burned. Maybe there'll be more conservatives in college when they decide that open mindedness, intellectualism, and tolerance for the ideas and values of others are good things.
Of course, for conservatives there's always the option of teaching here, where they can be assured that only their view of history can be promoted and nary a dissenting voice will be heard.
Gee, I don't know. Maybe conservatives will be more widely represented in academia when they decide books should be read, not burned. Maybe there'll be more conservatives in college when they decide that open mindedness, intellectualism, and tolerance for the ideas and values of others are good things.
Of course, for conservatives there's always the option of teaching here, where they can be assured that only their view of history can be promoted and nary a dissenting voice will be heard.
Friday, March 25, 2005
The rattlesnakes are starting to commit suicide
Maybe my predictions about the marriage between right wing interest groups and the Republican leadership was premature.
Atrios says Jeb!'s in a jam.
Jeb!, DeLay, Frist, and W might yet find out that the bill for all those "values" votes in the Fall is coming due.
Atrios commenter says "pass the popcorn". I'll have mine with butter, please.
Atrios says Jeb!'s in a jam.
Jeb!, DeLay, Frist, and W might yet find out that the bill for all those "values" votes in the Fall is coming due.
Atrios commenter says "pass the popcorn". I'll have mine with butter, please.
The Republican Money Machine and Race
I came across this post from last year by the Gadflyer. It's a good read.
Basically, the few black conservative interest groups are, shall we say, pretty multicultural. And funded by a rather unusual group of racial healers.
Here's the money quote:
If you believe that the most pressing problems facing the African-American community today are the minimum wage, too many regulations on energy companies and too many people trying to get kids to quit smoking, then maybe you should join the black conservative movement yourself. You don't have to be black, or even know anyone who is.
Basically, the few black conservative interest groups are, shall we say, pretty multicultural. And funded by a rather unusual group of racial healers.
Here's the money quote:
If you believe that the most pressing problems facing the African-American community today are the minimum wage, too many regulations on energy companies and too many people trying to get kids to quit smoking, then maybe you should join the black conservative movement yourself. You don't have to be black, or even know anyone who is.
Who's Using Who?
This post over at Seeing the Forest is reflective of some commentary in the leftist blogosphere questioning whether the Republicans really intended to "save" Terri Schiavo's life and whether the ambivalence suggests that Republicans have again cynically used Christian groups for their own purposes without yielding them anything of substance. And consequently, whether the Christian Right groups are finally going to recognize they're being used and rebel in some fashion. A slightly different form of this argument was posed by Thomas Frank in this past summer's sleeper book hit, What's The Matter With Kansas?
In WTMWK? Frank makes the provocative point that not only are conservative Republicans betraying the material interests of many of their lower class conservative supporters, their so-called culture war has also been a complete bust. So are conservative voters and interest groups being betrayed by their Republican sponsors?
My simple answer to this question is that both groups--the Republican leadership and the various cultural warrior interest groups--are using each other. The genuine interest of both groups in actually changing anything, whether it be the abortion laws or TV programs or whatever, is I think highly suspect. The over-reaching in the Schiavo case--one woman in a permanent vegatative state for 15 years who courts have found had expressed the desire, and thus has the legal right, to die peacefully, is a case in point. The imbalance in committment and coverage by the various anti-abortion groups to the Schiavo case seems to indicate to me that their true interest is in causing strife, not in generating universal change (witness the relative lack of attention by these groups to the Texas medical futility cases).
Further, as I suggested in a post earlier this week, the flagship anti-abortion group (National Right To Life Committee) has corporate interests that transcend or align themselves with their purported social aims. And in many cases, these groups have both a narrow political agenda, and a broader interest in electing Republicans to office. The NRTLC piece on the increase in abortions since Bush took office is reflective of this value.
Will there be some conservatives exasperated with the Republicans over these failures and manipulations? Sure. But the essential intellectual and financial infrastructure won't change much, regardless of what Republicans do or don't do, or whether or not they're perceived as merely using the conservative base. The conservative base is using them, too.
In WTMWK? Frank makes the provocative point that not only are conservative Republicans betraying the material interests of many of their lower class conservative supporters, their so-called culture war has also been a complete bust. So are conservative voters and interest groups being betrayed by their Republican sponsors?
My simple answer to this question is that both groups--the Republican leadership and the various cultural warrior interest groups--are using each other. The genuine interest of both groups in actually changing anything, whether it be the abortion laws or TV programs or whatever, is I think highly suspect. The over-reaching in the Schiavo case--one woman in a permanent vegatative state for 15 years who courts have found had expressed the desire, and thus has the legal right, to die peacefully, is a case in point. The imbalance in committment and coverage by the various anti-abortion groups to the Schiavo case seems to indicate to me that their true interest is in causing strife, not in generating universal change (witness the relative lack of attention by these groups to the Texas medical futility cases).
Further, as I suggested in a post earlier this week, the flagship anti-abortion group (National Right To Life Committee) has corporate interests that transcend or align themselves with their purported social aims. And in many cases, these groups have both a narrow political agenda, and a broader interest in electing Republicans to office. The NRTLC piece on the increase in abortions since Bush took office is reflective of this value.
Will there be some conservatives exasperated with the Republicans over these failures and manipulations? Sure. But the essential intellectual and financial infrastructure won't change much, regardless of what Republicans do or don't do, or whether or not they're perceived as merely using the conservative base. The conservative base is using them, too.
America Under Seige: Day 5
It has been 5 days since I kindly emailed the kind folks at the National Right To Life Committee (NRTLC) asking them to explain their support for Texas legislation that allows hospitals to pull the plug on patients even over family's objections. One patient, a six month old child, recently died when his life support was ended, although the mother pleaded with the hospital to maintain her child's life support. The legislation approving the child's death was made law under then Governor, now President George W. Bush.
The NRTLC has neither responded to my email, nor made evident on their organization's website, the basis for their conflicting positions and imbalance in their devotion and coverage of the respective cases.
America is under seige. You can help. E-mail or call the NRTLC headquarters and ask them to respond to my email message (see my post containing the full message) or to update their web page to reflect their organization's position and justification.
Or if you want, you can just send me money. Rest assured it will be used to further the cause of Texas patients, their families, and liberal bloggers--like me--the world over.
Don't wait. Time is of the essence. Together, we can confront the mammoth corporate beast that is the NRTLC and thwart their maniacal ambitions and twisted political agenda.
The NRTLC has neither responded to my email, nor made evident on their organization's website, the basis for their conflicting positions and imbalance in their devotion and coverage of the respective cases.
America is under seige. You can help. E-mail or call the NRTLC headquarters and ask them to respond to my email message (see my post containing the full message) or to update their web page to reflect their organization's position and justification.
Or if you want, you can just send me money. Rest assured it will be used to further the cause of Texas patients, their families, and liberal bloggers--like me--the world over.
Don't wait. Time is of the essence. Together, we can confront the mammoth corporate beast that is the NRTLC and thwart their maniacal ambitions and twisted political agenda.
Sweet Thomas Jefferson, I Can't Stand Robert Ehrlich
First, he whines about the newspaper coverage.
Then he whines that Democrats don't respect him.
Then he's caught harboring an aide who likes to be known as the Prince of Darkness and is a well known hitman in the world of slime politics, because he got caught floating rumors about one of Governor Ehrlich's potential 2006 rivals, Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley.
Now, and perhaps to deflect attention from said aide, he's whining that some state worker is trying to blackmail him.
What an obnoxious lout. Will vote for a potted plant if it runs against Ehrlich in 2006.
Then he whines that Democrats don't respect him.
Then he's caught harboring an aide who likes to be known as the Prince of Darkness and is a well known hitman in the world of slime politics, because he got caught floating rumors about one of Governor Ehrlich's potential 2006 rivals, Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley.
Now, and perhaps to deflect attention from said aide, he's whining that some state worker is trying to blackmail him.
What an obnoxious lout. Will vote for a potted plant if it runs against Ehrlich in 2006.
Marriage Under Attack
Here is my internets crush, DC Media Girl, highlighting the first in what is certain to be a disturbingly long list of marriages that right-wing pundits declare as unfit.
The silver lining to grotesque spectacles like the Schiavo story, or impeachment, or the Elian case, is that they throw a spotlight on some of the more extreme elements of the GOP, who are happy to gravitate towards the banks of microphones and spout off. So what have we learned? That not only do the wingnuts advocate mob rule and reject sound medical opinion, they’re also in favor of deciding whose marriage is worth preserving. Bill Bennett confessed as much on HANNITY AND COLMES:
Colmes asked Bennett about DeLays comment dismissing the importance of Michael Schiavo’s wishes which seems to contradict the conservative ideal of preserving marriage. "I don’t care what her husband says! " Delay said on the Senate floor.
Bennett quickly jumped to Delay’s defense proclaiming his respect for him adding,"We don’t care about preserving marriages like that. That’s not a good marriage."
The silver lining to grotesque spectacles like the Schiavo story, or impeachment, or the Elian case, is that they throw a spotlight on some of the more extreme elements of the GOP, who are happy to gravitate towards the banks of microphones and spout off. So what have we learned? That not only do the wingnuts advocate mob rule and reject sound medical opinion, they’re also in favor of deciding whose marriage is worth preserving. Bill Bennett confessed as much on HANNITY AND COLMES:
Colmes asked Bennett about DeLays comment dismissing the importance of Michael Schiavo’s wishes which seems to contradict the conservative ideal of preserving marriage. "I don’t care what her husband says! " Delay said on the Senate floor.
Bennett quickly jumped to Delay’s defense proclaiming his respect for him adding,"We don’t care about preserving marriages like that. That’s not a good marriage."
Drinking Liberally
As promised, I went to last night's Drinking Liberally, DC chapter, in the hopes of intruding upon the George Soros syndicate that Tom DeLay was ranting about. As it turned out, the Soros syndicate was not meeting there, but nonetheless, I did get to enjoy some good conversation with the great Alt Hippo, and to see--but not meet--Big Media Matt Yglesias (I sadly had to leave early for another engagement). Also got to hear and ask questions of Steve Clemons from the Washington Note. Clemons is a sort of foreign policy specialist for the lack of another definition and he had some very enlightening things to say, not only about UN ambassador nominee Bolton, but also about the apparent friction or rivalry between Cheney and Rice. Very interesting stuff and kudos to the Drinking Liberally organizers for making these events happen and lining up such great speakers. In past weeks, the charming Rox Populi was on hand and in two weeks, Amy Sullivan from the Washington Monthly is scheduled to be there. So be there or be square. Get ye to the DL link and sign up for the list-serve.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
The Legal Issues as to Schiavo
The initial court summary that found in favor of Michael Schiavo's request to end life support for Terri is here.
A longer discussion of the issues by someone knowledgeable on the Florida courts is here.
Thanks again to Lindsay Beyerstein for the link.
A longer discussion of the issues by someone knowledgeable on the Florida courts is here.
Thanks again to Lindsay Beyerstein for the link.
I Unravel the Schiavo Mystery
If you're like me, you may be at least a little confused by the babble of rhetoric related to the Schiavo case, and additionally baffled by the legalities of the case, which seem to get a surprising low level of attention in most of the media and web accounts that substitute instead, emotive pleas and accusations. Well, fear not. I, Senator Jay Billington Bulworth, with the help of other masters of the internets, am here to clarify the case for you.
As readers of this humble blog know, I've been perplexed about the inordinate attention given to the Schiavo case in contrast to the sparsity of attention given to what seem to me to be similar cases in Texas where the plug was pulled without anybody from The Family Research Council or Focus on the Family batting an eye. An even though the National Right to Life Committee has not seen fit to respond to my email (give 'em a break--they've been busy) I think I have sorted out the distinctions between the cases, again, based on helpful analysis from other sources, such as Lean Left, Mark Kleiman, and Lindsay Beyerstein.
So without further ado, here goes.
The primary issue at stake in the Schiavo case is the right to die. Terri Schiavo's medical condition is secondary, at least as far as her parent's supporters and "religious" conservatives in Congress are concerned. This is important because the cases in Texas are about medical futility. And we've seen that the so-called right to life groups don't object to pulling the plug based on medical futility. They helped write the Texas law that explicitly allows hospitals to do so, even when families object. Consequently, despite what many of them are saying, the supporters of Terri Schiavo's parents are not primarily and perhaps not even remotely concerned about "starving" Terri by removing the feeding tube or the physical or emotional duress the withdrawing of such medical support might produce. The Texas law the right supported allows this and makes little difference whether the patient is in a permanent vegitative state or is merely terminal or whatever. Removing life support--and feeding tubes are that--may produce extreme discomfort in the patient regardless of whether they live in Texas or Florida. The essential matter is the right to die, which the "prolife" crowd objects to. And here I think we can see an incongruence between the agendas of Terri's parents and those of their "supporters". The former just want their daughter to remain alive in whatever state, while the latter objects to Terri's right to die, as determined by the Florida courts.
Which brings us to point two. What have been the legal determinations of the Florida courts (and the federal courts which had previously declined to intervene in the case) so far? The courts' findings have been two-fold. One, that Terri's right to die, as communicated to her husband Michael Schiavo and other friends was that in cases of medical futility, she did not want to remain on life support. Two, neurological examinations have indicated that Terri Schiavo is in a PVS, and cat scans have revealed flat, or no brain activity.
So the appropriate legal challenges for Terri Schiavo's parents are to 1) challenge the finding of Terri's desire to die if her condition was one of medical futility, and since she did not have a written will, and since allegations have been made as to Michael Schiavo's motives, Terri's parents remain suspicious on this point, and failing that, to 2) challenge the court's finding of medical futility on which Terri's alleged desire to be taken of life support is conditioned.
The problem for Terri's parents is that the courts, state and federal, have issued legal findings that declare that 1) Terri Schiavo did express a desire to be taken off life support in the event of such an occurence, and that 2) Terri Schiavo is in a PVS and her case is thus medically futile.
Now, if we go by what many of Terri's parents' friends and advisors say, there are substantial questions about both of these points: that being taken off life support really was Terri's wish, and that her case is medically futile.
But again what the courts have consistently found is that Terri both wanted to be removed from life support in case of medical futility and that in fact, her condition is a medically futile one.
This is why the case is where it is today. Now, the courts could be wrong. Liberals of all people should be willing to admit that, and sympathize with those who question the courts' rulings in some cases. But the problem is, for the "prolife" crowd, that the weight of evidence supports the courts' conclusions.
As Lindsay Beyerstein has pointed out, the basis for a legal challenge in the case stems from the State of Florida's violation of Terri's equal rights or due process. Neither has been demonstrated to have occured. Consequently, the federal courts have refused to overturn the decisions of the lower courts.
In sum, it is necessary to recognize what the so-called "right to life" groups want here. They don't object to pulling the plug or "starving" patients if the case is medically futile. They do object to a person's right to die. And in their battle against removing Terri's feeding tube, they are in essence objecting to the court's finding of her right to die. To undermine the courts' decisions, the "right" is trying to whip up emotion against Michael Schiavo and the courts as to the finding of Terri's right to die, and against the medical neurologists whose finding of medical futility is driving the right to die finding.
Post-Script: And as I've mentioned previously, the bizarre thing about all this is that the cases in which an institutional hiearchy (i.e. a hospital) is determining that someone's life support should be cut off even over the family's objections (i.e. The Texas cases) get a free pass from the so-called "prolife" forces, but a case in which there is evidence and in which a trial has been conducted, where witnesses are called and examined, and where a decision has been rendered, that the patient herself didn't want to stay on life support, it is this case that the so-called "prolife" groups are adamantly opposing. They don't care when institutions order the removal of feeding tubes but they do object when an individual has been found to have wanted their own life support removed.
As readers of this humble blog know, I've been perplexed about the inordinate attention given to the Schiavo case in contrast to the sparsity of attention given to what seem to me to be similar cases in Texas where the plug was pulled without anybody from The Family Research Council or Focus on the Family batting an eye. An even though the National Right to Life Committee has not seen fit to respond to my email (give 'em a break--they've been busy) I think I have sorted out the distinctions between the cases, again, based on helpful analysis from other sources, such as Lean Left, Mark Kleiman, and Lindsay Beyerstein.
So without further ado, here goes.
The primary issue at stake in the Schiavo case is the right to die. Terri Schiavo's medical condition is secondary, at least as far as her parent's supporters and "religious" conservatives in Congress are concerned. This is important because the cases in Texas are about medical futility. And we've seen that the so-called right to life groups don't object to pulling the plug based on medical futility. They helped write the Texas law that explicitly allows hospitals to do so, even when families object. Consequently, despite what many of them are saying, the supporters of Terri Schiavo's parents are not primarily and perhaps not even remotely concerned about "starving" Terri by removing the feeding tube or the physical or emotional duress the withdrawing of such medical support might produce. The Texas law the right supported allows this and makes little difference whether the patient is in a permanent vegitative state or is merely terminal or whatever. Removing life support--and feeding tubes are that--may produce extreme discomfort in the patient regardless of whether they live in Texas or Florida. The essential matter is the right to die, which the "prolife" crowd objects to. And here I think we can see an incongruence between the agendas of Terri's parents and those of their "supporters". The former just want their daughter to remain alive in whatever state, while the latter objects to Terri's right to die, as determined by the Florida courts.
Which brings us to point two. What have been the legal determinations of the Florida courts (and the federal courts which had previously declined to intervene in the case) so far? The courts' findings have been two-fold. One, that Terri's right to die, as communicated to her husband Michael Schiavo and other friends was that in cases of medical futility, she did not want to remain on life support. Two, neurological examinations have indicated that Terri Schiavo is in a PVS, and cat scans have revealed flat, or no brain activity.
So the appropriate legal challenges for Terri Schiavo's parents are to 1) challenge the finding of Terri's desire to die if her condition was one of medical futility, and since she did not have a written will, and since allegations have been made as to Michael Schiavo's motives, Terri's parents remain suspicious on this point, and failing that, to 2) challenge the court's finding of medical futility on which Terri's alleged desire to be taken of life support is conditioned.
The problem for Terri's parents is that the courts, state and federal, have issued legal findings that declare that 1) Terri Schiavo did express a desire to be taken off life support in the event of such an occurence, and that 2) Terri Schiavo is in a PVS and her case is thus medically futile.
Now, if we go by what many of Terri's parents' friends and advisors say, there are substantial questions about both of these points: that being taken off life support really was Terri's wish, and that her case is medically futile.
But again what the courts have consistently found is that Terri both wanted to be removed from life support in case of medical futility and that in fact, her condition is a medically futile one.
This is why the case is where it is today. Now, the courts could be wrong. Liberals of all people should be willing to admit that, and sympathize with those who question the courts' rulings in some cases. But the problem is, for the "prolife" crowd, that the weight of evidence supports the courts' conclusions.
As Lindsay Beyerstein has pointed out, the basis for a legal challenge in the case stems from the State of Florida's violation of Terri's equal rights or due process. Neither has been demonstrated to have occured. Consequently, the federal courts have refused to overturn the decisions of the lower courts.
In sum, it is necessary to recognize what the so-called "right to life" groups want here. They don't object to pulling the plug or "starving" patients if the case is medically futile. They do object to a person's right to die. And in their battle against removing Terri's feeding tube, they are in essence objecting to the court's finding of her right to die. To undermine the courts' decisions, the "right" is trying to whip up emotion against Michael Schiavo and the courts as to the finding of Terri's right to die, and against the medical neurologists whose finding of medical futility is driving the right to die finding.
Post-Script: And as I've mentioned previously, the bizarre thing about all this is that the cases in which an institutional hiearchy (i.e. a hospital) is determining that someone's life support should be cut off even over the family's objections (i.e. The Texas cases) get a free pass from the so-called "prolife" forces, but a case in which there is evidence and in which a trial has been conducted, where witnesses are called and examined, and where a decision has been rendered, that the patient herself didn't want to stay on life support, it is this case that the so-called "prolife" groups are adamantly opposing. They don't care when institutions order the removal of feeding tubes but they do object when an individual has been found to have wanted their own life support removed.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
National Right To Life Committee Another Corporate Interests Front Group
Desiring of seeing whether the NRTLC cares about life outside of abortion I perused their website.
Basically their two main concerns are abortion and euthanasia, although there was an entry for Medicare, which I opened eagerly, hoping to see something about prescription drugs perhaps, or something about making sure that seniors are ensured proper access to providers or are not overcharged when the provider fees are considerably greater than the Medicare allowance. Nah.
All the NRTLC cares about with Medicare is making sure there are no "price controls" and no "rationing" in Medicare. In case you don't know, "price controls" and "rationing" are industry propaganda buzz-words used to fear monger the public into protecting the industry's profits.
An additional item of interest on the NRTLC webpage is a rebuttal to a study that showed abortions declining in the 1990's but increasing since W took office. The NRTLC didn't like the implication of this. And the NRTLC authors have a point. The decline in abortions was greatest from 1990-1995 and the original Stassen article was incorrect about two of the states he had claimed saw increases since 2000, meaning that of the 16 states he gathered information for, eight saw increases and eight either remained the same or declined in abortion incidence. So the relation between politics and abortion is more muddled than the original Stassen piece would make it seem. Fair enough. But the rebuttal piece is pretty snarky, considering that the linkage between the political balance of power and abortion incidence is murky at best. Why get all huffy about this? If I was affiliated with the NRTLC or a similar organization I might be concerned about any demonstrated lack of connection between the election of supposedly anti-abortion politicians and the incidence of abortion. Or I would be if my interest was in seeing the number of abortions reduced. However, if all I was interested in was overturning the abortion rights law or propping up the Republican Party, then I might be eager to rebut any claim that the number of abortions wasn't effected by the election of anti-abortion candidates.
So despite it's label, the NRTLC isn't concerned about life as much as it is in supporting the Republican Party and conservative reactionary politics. As such it joins a long list of such dubious entries as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council in presenting itself as a lamb but whose politics is that of a dragon.*
*a reference to Revelation 13.
Basically their two main concerns are abortion and euthanasia, although there was an entry for Medicare, which I opened eagerly, hoping to see something about prescription drugs perhaps, or something about making sure that seniors are ensured proper access to providers or are not overcharged when the provider fees are considerably greater than the Medicare allowance. Nah.
All the NRTLC cares about with Medicare is making sure there are no "price controls" and no "rationing" in Medicare. In case you don't know, "price controls" and "rationing" are industry propaganda buzz-words used to fear monger the public into protecting the industry's profits.
An additional item of interest on the NRTLC webpage is a rebuttal to a study that showed abortions declining in the 1990's but increasing since W took office. The NRTLC didn't like the implication of this. And the NRTLC authors have a point. The decline in abortions was greatest from 1990-1995 and the original Stassen article was incorrect about two of the states he had claimed saw increases since 2000, meaning that of the 16 states he gathered information for, eight saw increases and eight either remained the same or declined in abortion incidence. So the relation between politics and abortion is more muddled than the original Stassen piece would make it seem. Fair enough. But the rebuttal piece is pretty snarky, considering that the linkage between the political balance of power and abortion incidence is murky at best. Why get all huffy about this? If I was affiliated with the NRTLC or a similar organization I might be concerned about any demonstrated lack of connection between the election of supposedly anti-abortion politicians and the incidence of abortion. Or I would be if my interest was in seeing the number of abortions reduced. However, if all I was interested in was overturning the abortion rights law or propping up the Republican Party, then I might be eager to rebut any claim that the number of abortions wasn't effected by the election of anti-abortion candidates.
So despite it's label, the NRTLC isn't concerned about life as much as it is in supporting the Republican Party and conservative reactionary politics. As such it joins a long list of such dubious entries as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council in presenting itself as a lamb but whose politics is that of a dragon.*
*a reference to Revelation 13.
Next Meeting Tomorrow Night, 6:00 sharp
Tom DeLay unplugged:
And so it’s bigger than any one of us, and we have to do everything that is in our power to save Terri Schiavo and anybody else that may be in this kind of position.
And let me just finish with this: This is exactly the issue that’s going on in America. That attacks against the conservative movement, against me, and against many others.
The point is, it’s, the other side has figured out how to win and defeat the conservative movement. And that is to go after people, personally charge them with frivolous charges, and link that up with all these do-gooder organizations funded by George Soros, and then, and then get the national media on their side. That whole syndicate that they have going on right now is for one purpose and one purpose only and that’s to destroy the conservative movement. It’s to destroy conservative leaders and it’s, uh, not just in elected office but leading. I mean Ed Feulner, today at the Heritage Foundation, was under attack in the National Journal. I mean they, they, this is a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in, and, and you need to look at this and what’s going on and participate in fighting back.
Don’t, you know, the one way they stopped churches from getting into politics was Lyndon Johnson, who passed a law that said you couldn’t get in politics or you’re going to lose your tax exempt status because they were all opposed to him when he was running for president. That law we’re trying to repeal; it’s very difficult to do that. But the point is, is when they can knock out a leader then no other leader will step forward for awhile because they don’t want to go through the same thing. When, if they go after and get a pastor then other pastors shrink from what they should be doing. It forces Christians back into the church and that’s what’s going on in America: “The world is too bad. I’m going to go get inside this building and I’m not going to play in the world.” Uh, that’s not what Christ asked us to do. And, and so this, they understand that it is a political maneuver, and, and they are, uh, going to try to destroy the conservative movement and we have to fight back.
So, please, this afternoon, each and every one of you, if you know a senator give him a call. Tell him, they’ll say, “Our bill can pass in the House.” Tell him, “That’s fine. Your bill’s okay but the House bill is better and, uh, I want the House bill.” Particularly if you know Democrats, uh, don’t let them get off the hook, um, by hiding behind one House and the other is adjourned. We can do anything we need to do to pass any bill that we need to pass. So I appreciate what you’re doing. God bless you and thank you for the Family Research Council.
I don't know about you, by I'm pretty damned pissed I haven't been invited to any of these syndicate meetings. Maybe they're going on at the local Drinking Liberally. I'll go tomorrow and see.
And so it’s bigger than any one of us, and we have to do everything that is in our power to save Terri Schiavo and anybody else that may be in this kind of position.
And let me just finish with this: This is exactly the issue that’s going on in America. That attacks against the conservative movement, against me, and against many others.
The point is, it’s, the other side has figured out how to win and defeat the conservative movement. And that is to go after people, personally charge them with frivolous charges, and link that up with all these do-gooder organizations funded by George Soros, and then, and then get the national media on their side. That whole syndicate that they have going on right now is for one purpose and one purpose only and that’s to destroy the conservative movement. It’s to destroy conservative leaders and it’s, uh, not just in elected office but leading. I mean Ed Feulner, today at the Heritage Foundation, was under attack in the National Journal. I mean they, they, this is a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in, and, and you need to look at this and what’s going on and participate in fighting back.
Don’t, you know, the one way they stopped churches from getting into politics was Lyndon Johnson, who passed a law that said you couldn’t get in politics or you’re going to lose your tax exempt status because they were all opposed to him when he was running for president. That law we’re trying to repeal; it’s very difficult to do that. But the point is, is when they can knock out a leader then no other leader will step forward for awhile because they don’t want to go through the same thing. When, if they go after and get a pastor then other pastors shrink from what they should be doing. It forces Christians back into the church and that’s what’s going on in America: “The world is too bad. I’m going to go get inside this building and I’m not going to play in the world.” Uh, that’s not what Christ asked us to do. And, and so this, they understand that it is a political maneuver, and, and they are, uh, going to try to destroy the conservative movement and we have to fight back.
So, please, this afternoon, each and every one of you, if you know a senator give him a call. Tell him, they’ll say, “Our bill can pass in the House.” Tell him, “That’s fine. Your bill’s okay but the House bill is better and, uh, I want the House bill.” Particularly if you know Democrats, uh, don’t let them get off the hook, um, by hiding behind one House and the other is adjourned. We can do anything we need to do to pass any bill that we need to pass. So I appreciate what you’re doing. God bless you and thank you for the Family Research Council.
I don't know about you, by I'm pretty damned pissed I haven't been invited to any of these syndicate meetings. Maybe they're going on at the local Drinking Liberally. I'll go tomorrow and see.
Among The Unborn and The Undead
Lawyers, Guns and Money has more on the links between Terry Schiavo's "supporters" and the religion-abortion nexus being used by the religious-right to increase support for their cause. It's interesting to see that some conservatives aren't buying it.
But also of interest is this post from Balkinization that LGM links to, regarding what will happen when Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Against my will and better judgement I tuned into Larry King Live! last night and saw The Purpose Driven Life author Rick Warren on. Now, I have a copy of The Purpose Driven Life and have read from it. I think it's a good book and I generally like Warren and I believe in the message of his book and his broader ministry. He's a good man usually willing to go against traditional orthodoxy to reach people, and for that, he has my gratitude.
But of course, and unfortunately, Warren was asked to weigh in on the Schiavo controversy. And of course, and unfortunately, he merely parroted the lines being recited by her parents and supporters: Terry's alive, she can talk, respond, feel, etc and that attempts to disconnect her feeding tube were actions worthy of the worst of Nazism, etc.
This is why I've come to the painful conclusion that ministers of the Gospel should refrain from entering into political debates, particularly when they don't understand all the issues involved (and this goes for liberal preachers and liberal causes, too).
Now, the obvious counter to this is, well, what about cases in which the government is behaving as the Nazis did, rounding up people for extermination, launching unwise wars, etc?
My answer would be that when the government begins to indiscriminately arrest and confine people and launch wars, then there is a basis for the church to respond. But in the case of Terry Schiavo, and the abortion-culture wars, there is no orchestrated or mandated government activity occuring. In the case of Terry Schiavo and the millions of women that seek to terminate a pregnancy and in the cases of individuals of terminal health who want to the right to die peacefully, it is not the government that is collectively or forceably taking action. It is merely allowing individual action to take place.
It is peculiar that it is precisely this set of arrangements that the so-called religious-right and the dubiously entitled right-to-life groups are so vehemantly against.
On the other hand, instances of where it is the government or an institution that is taking life, such as is the case with the death penalty and in the case of the Texas law allowing hospitals to disconnect feeding tubes and other life support mechanisms, are left unaddressed by the forces of the conservative right.
However, it is this second level of cases that I think presents the most alarming cases of governmental or institutional abuse versus the individual. But about these, conservative groups have no complaint at all. What about wrong-ful executions? Where is the National Right to Life Committee on this? We know they have occured and can occur without adequate protections. But these many religious conservatives seemed unconcerned about.
So the risk for church involvement seems to me to rest along two main points. One, most issues are complex enough that they cannot be easily summarized or remedied from the pulpit. Unless the government or an institution is acting against the interests of an individual, the church should allow the government and its representatives to do their job. Just as pastors are trained for their profession, lawyers, policy analysts, and educators are trained for theirs. Before you weigh in on an issue, make sure you have a good grasp of the conflicting sides of the story before passing judgement.
The second point is that far too often, church involvement because of its ignorance, is set up to be duped by alliances that don't have the church's true interests at heart. Such is the case, I would argue, with many of the anti-abortion groups that rely on religious support but in actuality, attend to only a narrow range of issues and don't embrace the concern for the whole life that the church and its Teacher and Lord, Jesus Christ, advocates.
Before pontificating on the fate of Terry Schiavo I would hope that in the future Warren, and other evangelical leaders will be willing to ask similar questions of bankruptcy "reform", tort "reform", Medicare and Medicaid "reform" and other initiatives that stand to have a much wider inpact on life than the removal of a feeding tube from one individual.
But preferably, I'd like to see church leaders take the position towards public issues as that taken by Alcoholics Anonymous and other twelve-step groups: "AA has no opinion on outside issues and seeks no controversy." To do otherwise is to impinge upon the church's primary task--preaching the gospel and changing individual hearts and minds, which alone will produce a more fair, just and peaceful society.
But also of interest is this post from Balkinization that LGM links to, regarding what will happen when Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Against my will and better judgement I tuned into Larry King Live! last night and saw The Purpose Driven Life author Rick Warren on. Now, I have a copy of The Purpose Driven Life and have read from it. I think it's a good book and I generally like Warren and I believe in the message of his book and his broader ministry. He's a good man usually willing to go against traditional orthodoxy to reach people, and for that, he has my gratitude.
But of course, and unfortunately, Warren was asked to weigh in on the Schiavo controversy. And of course, and unfortunately, he merely parroted the lines being recited by her parents and supporters: Terry's alive, she can talk, respond, feel, etc and that attempts to disconnect her feeding tube were actions worthy of the worst of Nazism, etc.
This is why I've come to the painful conclusion that ministers of the Gospel should refrain from entering into political debates, particularly when they don't understand all the issues involved (and this goes for liberal preachers and liberal causes, too).
Now, the obvious counter to this is, well, what about cases in which the government is behaving as the Nazis did, rounding up people for extermination, launching unwise wars, etc?
My answer would be that when the government begins to indiscriminately arrest and confine people and launch wars, then there is a basis for the church to respond. But in the case of Terry Schiavo, and the abortion-culture wars, there is no orchestrated or mandated government activity occuring. In the case of Terry Schiavo and the millions of women that seek to terminate a pregnancy and in the cases of individuals of terminal health who want to the right to die peacefully, it is not the government that is collectively or forceably taking action. It is merely allowing individual action to take place.
It is peculiar that it is precisely this set of arrangements that the so-called religious-right and the dubiously entitled right-to-life groups are so vehemantly against.
On the other hand, instances of where it is the government or an institution that is taking life, such as is the case with the death penalty and in the case of the Texas law allowing hospitals to disconnect feeding tubes and other life support mechanisms, are left unaddressed by the forces of the conservative right.
However, it is this second level of cases that I think presents the most alarming cases of governmental or institutional abuse versus the individual. But about these, conservative groups have no complaint at all. What about wrong-ful executions? Where is the National Right to Life Committee on this? We know they have occured and can occur without adequate protections. But these many religious conservatives seemed unconcerned about.
So the risk for church involvement seems to me to rest along two main points. One, most issues are complex enough that they cannot be easily summarized or remedied from the pulpit. Unless the government or an institution is acting against the interests of an individual, the church should allow the government and its representatives to do their job. Just as pastors are trained for their profession, lawyers, policy analysts, and educators are trained for theirs. Before you weigh in on an issue, make sure you have a good grasp of the conflicting sides of the story before passing judgement.
The second point is that far too often, church involvement because of its ignorance, is set up to be duped by alliances that don't have the church's true interests at heart. Such is the case, I would argue, with many of the anti-abortion groups that rely on religious support but in actuality, attend to only a narrow range of issues and don't embrace the concern for the whole life that the church and its Teacher and Lord, Jesus Christ, advocates.
Before pontificating on the fate of Terry Schiavo I would hope that in the future Warren, and other evangelical leaders will be willing to ask similar questions of bankruptcy "reform", tort "reform", Medicare and Medicaid "reform" and other initiatives that stand to have a much wider inpact on life than the removal of a feeding tube from one individual.
But preferably, I'd like to see church leaders take the position towards public issues as that taken by Alcoholics Anonymous and other twelve-step groups: "AA has no opinion on outside issues and seeks no controversy." To do otherwise is to impinge upon the church's primary task--preaching the gospel and changing individual hearts and minds, which alone will produce a more fair, just and peaceful society.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
More Fun with Contradictions
Yet another braniac has weighed in on the "distinction" between the Texas law signed by then Governor now President Bush allowing hospitals to pull the plug on terminal or incapacitated patients against family wishes and the bill passed by Congress and signed by the President essentially kicking the decision on Terri Schiavo's feeding tube upstairs to the federal courts.
His name is Tom Mayo and he's an associate prof of law at SMU who it so happens, helped write the 1999 Texas legislation. Here's the money quote:
"It's not really a conflict, because the (Texas) law addresses different types of disputes, meaning the dispute between decision-maker and physician," he said. "The Schiavo case is a disagreement among family members."
So there you have it friends. When the dispute is between the physicians (and the hospital) and the patient's guardian or family, then the physicians-hospitals win, the plug gets pulled, and the patient dies. No get out of jail free card, no special visits from Randall Terry and the National Right to Life Committee, and no special pleading from Peggy Noonan, Cal Thomas, or Tom Delay.
The case in Florida, on the other hand, is much, much different. It's a dispute between family members. When the dispute is between family members, than the "sanctity of life" is paramount, and the family member that wants continued medical care ended is a murderer.
Got it?
His name is Tom Mayo and he's an associate prof of law at SMU who it so happens, helped write the 1999 Texas legislation. Here's the money quote:
"It's not really a conflict, because the (Texas) law addresses different types of disputes, meaning the dispute between decision-maker and physician," he said. "The Schiavo case is a disagreement among family members."
So there you have it friends. When the dispute is between the physicians (and the hospital) and the patient's guardian or family, then the physicians-hospitals win, the plug gets pulled, and the patient dies. No get out of jail free card, no special visits from Randall Terry and the National Right to Life Committee, and no special pleading from Peggy Noonan, Cal Thomas, or Tom Delay.
The case in Florida, on the other hand, is much, much different. It's a dispute between family members. When the dispute is between family members, than the "sanctity of life" is paramount, and the family member that wants continued medical care ended is a murderer.
Got it?
Schiavo-Texas Medical Futility Cases Roundup
Lean Left has a thorough discussion of the issues here. The thrust of Lean Left's take is that there is more to the basis of these medical futility cases than can be adequately determined through emotion and the medical awareness of families and supporters for any particular case.
Mark Kleiman accedes these points but goes on to mention that:
Thanks to a reader, I've finally managed to make sense out a distinction that might be made by those who are outraged about Schiavo but silent about the Texas cases. They can't breathe without assistance; she is able to breathe on her own, but can't swallow and therefore needs to be fed through a tube.
Some of the major religious traditions regard assisted breathing, but not tube-feeding, as an "extraordinary" measure, so that taking away her feeding tube counts as killing while taking away Sun Hudson's breathing tube didn't.
That distinction seems utterly arbitrary to me. In particular, it doesn't distinguish between a "terminal" and a "non-terminal" case in any meaningful sense; in each instance, it might be possible to maintain the heartbeat and brainstem indefinitely.
Still, it might seem valid to someone else, who could then have at least a subjective good-faith reason to want to keep Schiavo alive while not minding the removal of life support from Hudson and Nikolouzos. (I'd still argue that awareness is morally relevant to the question of ending care, while the specific function that needs assistance and the life expectancy of the patient are irrelevant, but your mileage may vary.)
Nonetheless, if the distinction among the cases is so fine-grained, it's hard to credit the sincerity of people who throw around terms such as "murder" and "Dachau" when talking about Schiavo but make no objection to the Texas law, especially since the Texas law specifically lists "artificial nutrition and hydration" as among the services that can be discontinued.
Moreover, the law allows for (even if in the Hudson and and Nikolouzos cases it did not actually involve) the termination of life-sustaining treatment for patients with "irreversible" conditions (i.e., conditions from which they will not recover and which leave them unable to care for themselves) even if their higher brain functions are completely normal. Indeed, the law contemplates that a fully competent patient may be served by his health-care provider with a 10-day notice to find another provider or have his plug pulled; it even provides that the patient has the right to attend the committee meeting at which his fate is to be decided. (Sec. 166.046) And the law provides no substantive guidance other than the provider's decision that the requested life-sustaining care would be "inappropriate."
So, if I read the Texas law correctly, it would allow for Terri Schiavo's feedling tube to be disconnected if her health care provider so decided, and if her family couldn't find another provider willing to take the case, even if her higher brain functions were entirely normal (rather than, as appears to be the case, entirely absent), even if she were awake and asking to be allowed to live.
So, I repeat, where's the outrage? If you think Terri Schiavo is being murdered, you think that George W. Bush signed a bill allowing murder in 1999, and that bill is still on the books. Perhaps Mr. Bush flew to the wrong capital on Sunday; some people in Austin seem to need instruction about the "presumption in favor of life."
Last night's cable TV "news" coverage included a Keith Olberman interview with the political reporter from the Dallas Morning News who inexplicably argued that Bush's position was "consistent" when he both agree to the 1999 Texas legislation allowing hospitals to pull the plug over patient's families' objections but at the same time rushing back to DC to sign into law the Terri Schiavo bill in order to err on the side of "life". Unfortunately, Olberman, reliable as he usually is, let the Dallas reporter off the hook by not challenging his conclusion.
Surprisingly, of all people, Larry King referred to the Texas statutes on his show and in interviewing Michael Schiavo, indicated that one of the reasons hospitals could use to deny continued treatment was the "ability to pay".
Although I lean towards Kleiman's view here, you should read the analysis from Lean Left as well.
Post Script: And, oh yeah, Bush's press guy, Mark McClellan, yesterday, LIED about what the Texas law did. But you probably knew that already.
Mark Kleiman accedes these points but goes on to mention that:
Thanks to a reader, I've finally managed to make sense out a distinction that might be made by those who are outraged about Schiavo but silent about the Texas cases. They can't breathe without assistance; she is able to breathe on her own, but can't swallow and therefore needs to be fed through a tube.
Some of the major religious traditions regard assisted breathing, but not tube-feeding, as an "extraordinary" measure, so that taking away her feeding tube counts as killing while taking away Sun Hudson's breathing tube didn't.
That distinction seems utterly arbitrary to me. In particular, it doesn't distinguish between a "terminal" and a "non-terminal" case in any meaningful sense; in each instance, it might be possible to maintain the heartbeat and brainstem indefinitely.
Still, it might seem valid to someone else, who could then have at least a subjective good-faith reason to want to keep Schiavo alive while not minding the removal of life support from Hudson and Nikolouzos. (I'd still argue that awareness is morally relevant to the question of ending care, while the specific function that needs assistance and the life expectancy of the patient are irrelevant, but your mileage may vary.)
Nonetheless, if the distinction among the cases is so fine-grained, it's hard to credit the sincerity of people who throw around terms such as "murder" and "Dachau" when talking about Schiavo but make no objection to the Texas law, especially since the Texas law specifically lists "artificial nutrition and hydration" as among the services that can be discontinued.
Moreover, the law allows for (even if in the Hudson and and Nikolouzos cases it did not actually involve) the termination of life-sustaining treatment for patients with "irreversible" conditions (i.e., conditions from which they will not recover and which leave them unable to care for themselves) even if their higher brain functions are completely normal. Indeed, the law contemplates that a fully competent patient may be served by his health-care provider with a 10-day notice to find another provider or have his plug pulled; it even provides that the patient has the right to attend the committee meeting at which his fate is to be decided. (Sec. 166.046) And the law provides no substantive guidance other than the provider's decision that the requested life-sustaining care would be "inappropriate."
So, if I read the Texas law correctly, it would allow for Terri Schiavo's feedling tube to be disconnected if her health care provider so decided, and if her family couldn't find another provider willing to take the case, even if her higher brain functions were entirely normal (rather than, as appears to be the case, entirely absent), even if she were awake and asking to be allowed to live.
So, I repeat, where's the outrage? If you think Terri Schiavo is being murdered, you think that George W. Bush signed a bill allowing murder in 1999, and that bill is still on the books. Perhaps Mr. Bush flew to the wrong capital on Sunday; some people in Austin seem to need instruction about the "presumption in favor of life."
Last night's cable TV "news" coverage included a Keith Olberman interview with the political reporter from the Dallas Morning News who inexplicably argued that Bush's position was "consistent" when he both agree to the 1999 Texas legislation allowing hospitals to pull the plug over patient's families' objections but at the same time rushing back to DC to sign into law the Terri Schiavo bill in order to err on the side of "life". Unfortunately, Olberman, reliable as he usually is, let the Dallas reporter off the hook by not challenging his conclusion.
Surprisingly, of all people, Larry King referred to the Texas statutes on his show and in interviewing Michael Schiavo, indicated that one of the reasons hospitals could use to deny continued treatment was the "ability to pay".
Although I lean towards Kleiman's view here, you should read the analysis from Lean Left as well.
Post Script: And, oh yeah, Bush's press guy, Mark McClellan, yesterday, LIED about what the Texas law did. But you probably knew that already.
Monday, March 21, 2005
I Admit My Error
I have two words for you today, but since I can't put those in blog print, I'll go with two other words: ability to pay. OK. Technically those are three words, but you get my point.
In an earlier post today I referred to a law in Texas, signed by then governor George W. Bush allowing hospitals to pull the life support plug on indigent patients. I suggested that this was an example of rank hypocrisy of the highest order when compared to Republican and Christian-conservative advocacy of maintaining Terri Schiavo's feeding tube on the basis of the respect for the "sanctity of life" although her husband and legal guardian, backed by years of trying to help her get well, and with the backing of medical evidence, wants it removed. The Left Coaster goes even further to suggest that the law in Texas may have racial implications. So as Mark Kleiman wonders, where's the outrage over this Texas law? What gives? Why do Republicans support the Texas law, that has already resulted in at least one death, but get all up in arms about Terri Schiavo? Isn't this law in Texas the most cruel, inhumane piece of garbage legislation to ever walk the face of this earth?
But now I have to offer my sincerest apologies. It now turns out that the Texas law isn't really all that.
According to K.J. Lopez, who writes for the National Review's "Corner", a right-wing blog, here is how the Texas law really works:
During the debate tonight, Democrats in the House have said that the president is inconsistent on Terri Schiavo because when he was governor of Texas he signed a bill that was recently used in a terrible case in Texas to deny lifesaving treatment to a baby against the child’s family’s wishes. But according to a source familiar with what went down in Texas, the then-governor signed into law something better than what Texas hospitals were already doing. There were not enough votes in the Texas legislature to require life-saving treatment to patients, which is what the governor would have preferred….
Wow. The Texas law really is OK, because although it commits murder, it really is a much better piece of law than what was there before. I'm really glad she said that. I'm glad she made the parameters of the Texas law plain for all of us to see, so that we can distinguish between it, and the Florida-Schiavo case. Because if she hadn't, I would have continued to believe that the Republican Party and its Christian Coalition-Randall Terry supporters laying seige to the Florida hospice and threatening Michael Schiavo were trying to pull the wool over our eyes in having us be concerned about the case of one woman in Florida that is enabling Focus on the Family and the National Right to Life Committee to fill their organizations' treasuries and giving Republican members of Congress something to scream about all the while ignoring the plight of other, equally at risk families elsewhere in the nation.
In an earlier post today I referred to a law in Texas, signed by then governor George W. Bush allowing hospitals to pull the life support plug on indigent patients. I suggested that this was an example of rank hypocrisy of the highest order when compared to Republican and Christian-conservative advocacy of maintaining Terri Schiavo's feeding tube on the basis of the respect for the "sanctity of life" although her husband and legal guardian, backed by years of trying to help her get well, and with the backing of medical evidence, wants it removed. The Left Coaster goes even further to suggest that the law in Texas may have racial implications. So as Mark Kleiman wonders, where's the outrage over this Texas law? What gives? Why do Republicans support the Texas law, that has already resulted in at least one death, but get all up in arms about Terri Schiavo? Isn't this law in Texas the most cruel, inhumane piece of garbage legislation to ever walk the face of this earth?
But now I have to offer my sincerest apologies. It now turns out that the Texas law isn't really all that.
According to K.J. Lopez, who writes for the National Review's "Corner", a right-wing blog, here is how the Texas law really works:
During the debate tonight, Democrats in the House have said that the president is inconsistent on Terri Schiavo because when he was governor of Texas he signed a bill that was recently used in a terrible case in Texas to deny lifesaving treatment to a baby against the child’s family’s wishes. But according to a source familiar with what went down in Texas, the then-governor signed into law something better than what Texas hospitals were already doing. There were not enough votes in the Texas legislature to require life-saving treatment to patients, which is what the governor would have preferred….
Wow. The Texas law really is OK, because although it commits murder, it really is a much better piece of law than what was there before. I'm really glad she said that. I'm glad she made the parameters of the Texas law plain for all of us to see, so that we can distinguish between it, and the Florida-Schiavo case. Because if she hadn't, I would have continued to believe that the Republican Party and its Christian Coalition-Randall Terry supporters laying seige to the Florida hospice and threatening Michael Schiavo were trying to pull the wool over our eyes in having us be concerned about the case of one woman in Florida that is enabling Focus on the Family and the National Right to Life Committee to fill their organizations' treasuries and giving Republican members of Congress something to scream about all the while ignoring the plight of other, equally at risk families elsewhere in the nation.
I Write to the National Right to Life Committee
I'm aware of how diligently you've been following theTerri Schiavo case in Florida, but why did your organization support the law in Texas that allows hospitals to "pull the plug" on patients on life support even when their family disagrees? Is not the same sanctity of life at stake with Terri Schiavo the same as that of patients in Texas, including Sun Hudson, the six month old baby that died when his life support ended despite his families wishes?
Here is the link to an article that indicates your organization's support for the Texas legislation.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3079622
And here is the link to the story of Sun Hudson.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934
Sincerely,
Here is the link to an article that indicates your organization's support for the Texas legislation.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3079622
And here is the link to the story of Sun Hudson.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934
Sincerely,
More Republican Hypocrisy
Although Republicans have led the charge to maintain Terri Shiavo's life-support-giving feeding tube in the face of the conflict between Terri's husband and parents, if you click here, and here, you will read how Republicans in Bush's Texas have conspired to ensure that in other cases that have not received the same media attention, feeding tubes and other measures of life support can be removed by hospital beaucracies even over the objections of parents and family members.
An opposition party in Congress might recognize the incongruence between these circumstances in Texas and the Shiavo case in Florida and suggest that in the interest of valuing the sanctity of life, a law having universal application be passed that protected not just Shiavo, but the families of Nikolouzos, Sun Hudson, and any others facing life-support conflicts, whether with faceless bureaucracies or with other family members.
And of course, we wouldn't want the issue of monetary payment or insurance coverage to determine whether the mechanism of life support was removed, now would we? Digby says:
Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country.
Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far.
Those of us who read liberal blogs are aware that the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schiavo's because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming.
These cases, and these issues are inter-related. If the sanctity of life is of utmost value--and I certainly argue that it is--then we must agree to do all in our power to protect it from whatever forces threaten it. An opposition party would not let the ruling majority wring it's hands and grandstand over the fate of one individual from one state while passing social-Darwinian legislation that negated the value and sanctity of life in every other case.
UPDATE: Perhaps anticipating that the inhumane, always-support-the-rights-of-corporations- over-the-rights-of-individuals law in Texas might make for bad press in the Shiavo case, there has been a change of heart in the Nikolouzos case in Texas.
Liberals shouldn't be decrying the attention paid to Shiavo. If we're lucky, it will present a great opportunity to push for laws that favor the interests and lives of vulnerable individuals rather than the corporate moneyed interests conservatives typically favor.
UPDATE II: It turns out that the National Right to Life (and here is an oxymoron if there ever was one) supported the Texas legislation allowing hospitals to pull the plug on terminal patients who couldn't pay up. I'll leave you alone for a few moments to consider the implications of this further hypocrisy and cruelty.
UPDATE III: Here is a cartoon you might enjoy, which captures the hypocrisy involved. Thanks to Pandagon for the link.
An opposition party in Congress might recognize the incongruence between these circumstances in Texas and the Shiavo case in Florida and suggest that in the interest of valuing the sanctity of life, a law having universal application be passed that protected not just Shiavo, but the families of Nikolouzos, Sun Hudson, and any others facing life-support conflicts, whether with faceless bureaucracies or with other family members.
And of course, we wouldn't want the issue of monetary payment or insurance coverage to determine whether the mechanism of life support was removed, now would we? Digby says:
Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country.
Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far.
Those of us who read liberal blogs are aware that the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schiavo's because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming.
These cases, and these issues are inter-related. If the sanctity of life is of utmost value--and I certainly argue that it is--then we must agree to do all in our power to protect it from whatever forces threaten it. An opposition party would not let the ruling majority wring it's hands and grandstand over the fate of one individual from one state while passing social-Darwinian legislation that negated the value and sanctity of life in every other case.
UPDATE: Perhaps anticipating that the inhumane, always-support-the-rights-of-corporations- over-the-rights-of-individuals law in Texas might make for bad press in the Shiavo case, there has been a change of heart in the Nikolouzos case in Texas.
Liberals shouldn't be decrying the attention paid to Shiavo. If we're lucky, it will present a great opportunity to push for laws that favor the interests and lives of vulnerable individuals rather than the corporate moneyed interests conservatives typically favor.
UPDATE II: It turns out that the National Right to Life (and here is an oxymoron if there ever was one) supported the Texas legislation allowing hospitals to pull the plug on terminal patients who couldn't pay up. I'll leave you alone for a few moments to consider the implications of this further hypocrisy and cruelty.
UPDATE III: Here is a cartoon you might enjoy, which captures the hypocrisy involved. Thanks to Pandagon for the link.
Friday, March 18, 2005
OK, We'll Talk 'Values', But You Might Not Like It When We Do
Conservatives in the Republican Party and among Republican-leaning Democratic institutions and the media have expressed a desire for Democratic candidates to speak Bible and Values.
Very well. But are you sure you'll like it when we do?
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that our destruction of Iraq and consequent occupation is immoral have been called traitors, unpatriotic, subversive, and injurious to "the troops".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that the President's tax cuts for the rich and Medicaid cuts for the poor are immoral have been told we're trying to foment "class warfare".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that the Leave No Credit Card Company Behind Bill (i.e. the Bankruptcy "reform" legislation passed by the Senate last week) unjustly rewarded larcenous credit merchants at the expense of working families were told we were opposed to "personal responsibility".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that gay people by nature and our Constitution have the same inalieable rights as the rest of us have been told we're against "the family".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that those accused of crimes should have access to competent legal counsel and that death penalty inmates should be granted access to DNA tests where applicable to help ensure against the risk of wrongful executions have been labeled as "soft on crime".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that it is immoral to impose religious doctrine and worship demands on people have been told we're violating our heritage as a "Christian nation".
The few of us who have ventured out to support organizations that fight for everyone's civil liberties (even those we don't agree with), like the ACLU, have been told we're against God and Law and Order.
The problem isn't that progressive haven't talked and acted upon values. The problem is, you haven't recognized it when we have. And the problem is your demand for more "values" is self-centered. While claiming you want a society founded on absolute values you have been unwilling to subject your own behaviors to the same standard you want applied to others. That's the ultimate example of moral relativism.
It isn't up for us to come closer to you, it's up to you to come closer to us.
Very well. But are you sure you'll like it when we do?
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that our destruction of Iraq and consequent occupation is immoral have been called traitors, unpatriotic, subversive, and injurious to "the troops".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that the President's tax cuts for the rich and Medicaid cuts for the poor are immoral have been told we're trying to foment "class warfare".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that the Leave No Credit Card Company Behind Bill (i.e. the Bankruptcy "reform" legislation passed by the Senate last week) unjustly rewarded larcenous credit merchants at the expense of working families were told we were opposed to "personal responsibility".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that gay people by nature and our Constitution have the same inalieable rights as the rest of us have been told we're against "the family".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that those accused of crimes should have access to competent legal counsel and that death penalty inmates should be granted access to DNA tests where applicable to help ensure against the risk of wrongful executions have been labeled as "soft on crime".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that it is immoral to impose religious doctrine and worship demands on people have been told we're violating our heritage as a "Christian nation".
The few of us who have ventured out to support organizations that fight for everyone's civil liberties (even those we don't agree with), like the ACLU, have been told we're against God and Law and Order.
The problem isn't that progressive haven't talked and acted upon values. The problem is, you haven't recognized it when we have. And the problem is your demand for more "values" is self-centered. While claiming you want a society founded on absolute values you have been unwilling to subject your own behaviors to the same standard you want applied to others. That's the ultimate example of moral relativism.
It isn't up for us to come closer to you, it's up to you to come closer to us.
Bartlett '08
No, not the congressman from upper Maryland. The fake president on TV's West Wing.
I hadn't been watching West Wing for some time, but a friend of mine suggested I tune in because it was still very good. I did and it is. As some of you may know, the fictional Democratic President Bartlett is nearing the end of his second term and as the Democratic candidates jostle in the primaries, the president and his advisors are planning what to do with the rest of their term in establishing some sort of legacy.
Because I love political campaigns I've especially enjoyed watching the show's treatment of the primary season and the contenders in it, including Jimmy Smits, a Hispanic congressman from Houston, TX, as well as the two vice-presidents, the former one (that guy from Animal House) and the current one (Office Space's Lundberg).
But this week's episode went back to the WH for its premise. The subject was Cuba.
Even if you didn't see the episode you might have an idea what it was about.
Which I guess is where I start thinking of our friend Peter Beinert, his buddy Senator Lieberman, and the rest of the gang at TNR, PNAC, and whatever associations are continuing to flog the demand for American hegemony and to purge any and all Democrats that dissent.
Beinert and his collaborators want us all to shut up about foreign policy and do whatever the elite at the Foreign Affairs institute or whatever its called want us to do, which for the last several years appears to be to continue our Cold War policies of escalating our armaments industry and threatening/intervening in the affairs of other countries as we see fit, all designed to protect ourselves from our enemies and to wage a new war on terrorism.
The problem with this siren's call of militarism as I see it is that since not all of us agree that it makes sense, that someone should attempt to articulate the basis for an alternative course of policies. Optimally, this should be the Democratic Party's task, as the out-party, not just for the sake of opposing, but because many of its membership think there is a policy rationale for doing so.
Which brings me back to Cuba and our 40-year, failed policy of an economic embargo against that island and its people. Of course our policy has been more than that over the years. Somewhere stashed in the halls of Congress or the Pentagon is a resolution or a white paper saying how our policy is "regime change" there. But the policy has been a practical and moral failure.
Wouldn't it be great if one or more of the Democratic candidates in 08 were to say this out loud? There would be immediate cries of course that in doing so we would be kissing off Florida and its irate but politically significant group of Cuban exiles or that we were offering a policy of "appeasement" towards a "brutal dictator".
Some of you may suggest that as admirable as such a call may be, this one position is not worth the risk. You may be right. But it's that tact that has continued to yield the failed policy and inadvertantly, a view of the Party as spineless and pandering. Why not put forward a publically unpopular policy, which at the same time happens to be a reasonable one, if for no other reason that it deserves discussion in a obstensibly democratic society?
So I say let's give Bartlett a try, since his eight years in the TV White House don't count, he can still run. It might just look like courage.
I hadn't been watching West Wing for some time, but a friend of mine suggested I tune in because it was still very good. I did and it is. As some of you may know, the fictional Democratic President Bartlett is nearing the end of his second term and as the Democratic candidates jostle in the primaries, the president and his advisors are planning what to do with the rest of their term in establishing some sort of legacy.
Because I love political campaigns I've especially enjoyed watching the show's treatment of the primary season and the contenders in it, including Jimmy Smits, a Hispanic congressman from Houston, TX, as well as the two vice-presidents, the former one (that guy from Animal House) and the current one (Office Space's Lundberg).
But this week's episode went back to the WH for its premise. The subject was Cuba.
Even if you didn't see the episode you might have an idea what it was about.
Which I guess is where I start thinking of our friend Peter Beinert, his buddy Senator Lieberman, and the rest of the gang at TNR, PNAC, and whatever associations are continuing to flog the demand for American hegemony and to purge any and all Democrats that dissent.
Beinert and his collaborators want us all to shut up about foreign policy and do whatever the elite at the Foreign Affairs institute or whatever its called want us to do, which for the last several years appears to be to continue our Cold War policies of escalating our armaments industry and threatening/intervening in the affairs of other countries as we see fit, all designed to protect ourselves from our enemies and to wage a new war on terrorism.
The problem with this siren's call of militarism as I see it is that since not all of us agree that it makes sense, that someone should attempt to articulate the basis for an alternative course of policies. Optimally, this should be the Democratic Party's task, as the out-party, not just for the sake of opposing, but because many of its membership think there is a policy rationale for doing so.
Which brings me back to Cuba and our 40-year, failed policy of an economic embargo against that island and its people. Of course our policy has been more than that over the years. Somewhere stashed in the halls of Congress or the Pentagon is a resolution or a white paper saying how our policy is "regime change" there. But the policy has been a practical and moral failure.
Wouldn't it be great if one or more of the Democratic candidates in 08 were to say this out loud? There would be immediate cries of course that in doing so we would be kissing off Florida and its irate but politically significant group of Cuban exiles or that we were offering a policy of "appeasement" towards a "brutal dictator".
Some of you may suggest that as admirable as such a call may be, this one position is not worth the risk. You may be right. But it's that tact that has continued to yield the failed policy and inadvertantly, a view of the Party as spineless and pandering. Why not put forward a publically unpopular policy, which at the same time happens to be a reasonable one, if for no other reason that it deserves discussion in a obstensibly democratic society?
So I say let's give Bartlett a try, since his eight years in the TV White House don't count, he can still run. It might just look like courage.
The Blogger's Tale
From Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale (1985)
On the way home, they stop at an old Puritan church. The government "[has not] fiddled with the gravestones, or the church either. It's only the more recent history that offends them." Chapter 6, pg. 31 Ofglen bows her head in prayer, and Offred assumes her piety is a show. They then head to the Wall, which is the face of Gilead's prison. Six male corpses are hanging by their necks on the Wall from a Men's Salvaging earlier that morning. The men are identified as former abortionists by signs hung around their necks bearing images of fetuses. The men's heads are covered in white bags. One has a bloodstain like a mouth. Ofglen trembles, but Offred is not tempted to inquire or even look at her. "Ordinary, said Aunt Lydia, is what you are used to. This may not seem ordinary to you now, but after a time it will. It will become ordinary." Chapter 6, pg.33
One morning, Offred attends a district Women's Salvaging, execution. All the Handmaids kneel on red cushions in front of a stage set up inside the former university. Offred thinks of making love until she sees the women to be salvaged, two Handmaids and one Wife, sitting on the stage. Two Aunts and the executioners take the stage. Offred recognizes Aunt Lydia and realizes she hates her. She ignores Aunt Lydia's speech. Aunt Lydia announces that a description of the crimes of the prisoners will be dispensed with because similar accounts during televised executions have been followed by an increase in similar crimes. "The crimes of others are a secret language among us. Through them we show ourselves what we might be capable of, after all. This is not a popular announcement." Chapter 42, pg. 275 The first woman is brought up to the noose. A Handmaid behind Offred begins vomiting. Offred has seen this before, has symbolically consented to the executions before. She does not want to see anymore.
When the Salvaging is concluded, Aunt Lydia asks all the Handmaids to form a circle for a Particicution. Two Guardians drag a beaten man into the center of the circle. Offred thinks he looks drunk. Aunt Lydia announces his crime as rape involving the murder of an unborn child. This announcement inspires hatred in all the Handmaids. Aunt Lydia blows a whistle and before the man can protest the crowd of Handmaids is upon him. Ofglen makes her way to the front and knocks out the fallen man with a few well-placed kicks to his head. Offred is shocked and revolted by this at first, but Ofglen quickly explains that the man was not a rapist at all. He was a member of her network and was being killed for political crimes. She was simply making his death less painful for him. Janine walks by with an absent smile on her face and a clump of the man's hair in her fist. Offred is notices that she is ravenously hungry. She thinks it is her body's self-affirming reaction to death.
exerpted from bookrags.com
Today
From prominent wingnut blogger, and UCLA Constitional Law professor, Eugene Volokh, proudly identifying with the government of Iran's preferred method of capital punishment:
I particularly like the involvement of the victims' relatives in the killing of the monster; I think that if he'd killed one of my relatives, I would have wanted to play a role in killing him. Also, though for many instances I would prefer less painful forms of execution, I am especially pleased that the killing — and, yes, I am happy to call it a killing, a perfectly proper term for a perfectly proper act — was a slow throttling, and was preceded by a flogging. The one thing that troubles me (besides the fact that the murderer could only be killed once) is that the accomplice was sentenced to only 15 years in prison, but perhaps there's a good explanation.
I am being perfectly serious, by the way. I like civilization, but some forms of savagery deserve to be met not just with cold, bloodless justice but with the deliberate infliction of pain, with cruel vengeance rather than with supposed humaneness or squeamishness. I think it slights the burning injustice of the murders, and the pain of the families, to react in any other way.
Don't worry. It Can't Happen Here.
On the way home, they stop at an old Puritan church. The government "[has not] fiddled with the gravestones, or the church either. It's only the more recent history that offends them." Chapter 6, pg. 31 Ofglen bows her head in prayer, and Offred assumes her piety is a show. They then head to the Wall, which is the face of Gilead's prison. Six male corpses are hanging by their necks on the Wall from a Men's Salvaging earlier that morning. The men are identified as former abortionists by signs hung around their necks bearing images of fetuses. The men's heads are covered in white bags. One has a bloodstain like a mouth. Ofglen trembles, but Offred is not tempted to inquire or even look at her. "Ordinary, said Aunt Lydia, is what you are used to. This may not seem ordinary to you now, but after a time it will. It will become ordinary." Chapter 6, pg.33
One morning, Offred attends a district Women's Salvaging, execution. All the Handmaids kneel on red cushions in front of a stage set up inside the former university. Offred thinks of making love until she sees the women to be salvaged, two Handmaids and one Wife, sitting on the stage. Two Aunts and the executioners take the stage. Offred recognizes Aunt Lydia and realizes she hates her. She ignores Aunt Lydia's speech. Aunt Lydia announces that a description of the crimes of the prisoners will be dispensed with because similar accounts during televised executions have been followed by an increase in similar crimes. "The crimes of others are a secret language among us. Through them we show ourselves what we might be capable of, after all. This is not a popular announcement." Chapter 42, pg. 275 The first woman is brought up to the noose. A Handmaid behind Offred begins vomiting. Offred has seen this before, has symbolically consented to the executions before. She does not want to see anymore.
When the Salvaging is concluded, Aunt Lydia asks all the Handmaids to form a circle for a Particicution. Two Guardians drag a beaten man into the center of the circle. Offred thinks he looks drunk. Aunt Lydia announces his crime as rape involving the murder of an unborn child. This announcement inspires hatred in all the Handmaids. Aunt Lydia blows a whistle and before the man can protest the crowd of Handmaids is upon him. Ofglen makes her way to the front and knocks out the fallen man with a few well-placed kicks to his head. Offred is shocked and revolted by this at first, but Ofglen quickly explains that the man was not a rapist at all. He was a member of her network and was being killed for political crimes. She was simply making his death less painful for him. Janine walks by with an absent smile on her face and a clump of the man's hair in her fist. Offred is notices that she is ravenously hungry. She thinks it is her body's self-affirming reaction to death.
exerpted from bookrags.com
Today
From prominent wingnut blogger, and UCLA Constitional Law professor, Eugene Volokh, proudly identifying with the government of Iran's preferred method of capital punishment:
I particularly like the involvement of the victims' relatives in the killing of the monster; I think that if he'd killed one of my relatives, I would have wanted to play a role in killing him. Also, though for many instances I would prefer less painful forms of execution, I am especially pleased that the killing — and, yes, I am happy to call it a killing, a perfectly proper term for a perfectly proper act — was a slow throttling, and was preceded by a flogging. The one thing that troubles me (besides the fact that the murderer could only be killed once) is that the accomplice was sentenced to only 15 years in prison, but perhaps there's a good explanation.
I am being perfectly serious, by the way. I like civilization, but some forms of savagery deserve to be met not just with cold, bloodless justice but with the deliberate infliction of pain, with cruel vengeance rather than with supposed humaneness or squeamishness. I think it slights the burning injustice of the murders, and the pain of the families, to react in any other way.
Don't worry. It Can't Happen Here.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
This Just In...
Scott Peterson was officially sentenced to death yesterday...
Actor Robert Blake was found not guilty of killing his wife and CNN's court-room TV-babe Nancy Grace is pissed...
Michael Jackson is still on trial in Caleefornia on charges of child molestation...
That guy that killed the judge in a courtroom in Atlanta is still in custody...
President Bush called on Democratic opponents to put forward a plan for saving Social Security but declined to submit his own, claiming that all first bills are dead on arrival...
Conservative columnist Robert Novak writes today about how so far off the reservation that Republican governor of Indiana is for agreeing to raise taxes to balance the budget and about what a great conservative American that Mississippi Governor and former National Republican Party Chairman, Haley Barbour is for bravely opposing any and all tax increases for his state, which has amazed us all for its history of economic progress, high standard of living, and democratic values. For this reason, soon to be World Bank prez Paul Wolfowitz has declared his intention to use the State of Mississippi as a model example of how developing countries should remake their economies and political institutions. "With the world's help, we will do our darndest to make sure that today's third world countries maintain a system of low wages, crumbling infrastruture, high levels of military and armaments spending, and religious and jinoistic fanaticism."
The debate over Social Security is still in its early stages and the next two weeks will be critical as President Bush and Republican members of Congress really start boldly advocating privatization reform and rallying Americans young and old, black and white, to the righteousness of their cause. Really. They mean it this time. For the first time yesterday, Republican lawmakers announced that Social Security was enacted in 1935 during the Great Depression, which most Americans are no doubt unaware of. In a separate news conference Republican members of Congress held up 1789's U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and announced their intention to "modernize" the document and its principles.
By a narrow, 51-49 margin, The U.S. Senate yesterday voted to allow oil-drilling in the Alaskan Arctic Reserve, as proponents vowed to finally, once and for all, sever the nation's dependence on foreign oil, especially the kind found in those middle easter, gulf countries that we keep invading in order to make the region more "secure".
Hey, whatever happened to that other stupid, middle class, white guy from middle America that was charged with killing his young, smart, pretty, and white wife in Utah? If we can stay fixated on Peterson for all this time, how come we can't give it up for this guy, too?
Actor Robert Blake was found not guilty of killing his wife and CNN's court-room TV-babe Nancy Grace is pissed...
Michael Jackson is still on trial in Caleefornia on charges of child molestation...
That guy that killed the judge in a courtroom in Atlanta is still in custody...
President Bush called on Democratic opponents to put forward a plan for saving Social Security but declined to submit his own, claiming that all first bills are dead on arrival...
Conservative columnist Robert Novak writes today about how so far off the reservation that Republican governor of Indiana is for agreeing to raise taxes to balance the budget and about what a great conservative American that Mississippi Governor and former National Republican Party Chairman, Haley Barbour is for bravely opposing any and all tax increases for his state, which has amazed us all for its history of economic progress, high standard of living, and democratic values. For this reason, soon to be World Bank prez Paul Wolfowitz has declared his intention to use the State of Mississippi as a model example of how developing countries should remake their economies and political institutions. "With the world's help, we will do our darndest to make sure that today's third world countries maintain a system of low wages, crumbling infrastruture, high levels of military and armaments spending, and religious and jinoistic fanaticism."
The debate over Social Security is still in its early stages and the next two weeks will be critical as President Bush and Republican members of Congress really start boldly advocating privatization reform and rallying Americans young and old, black and white, to the righteousness of their cause. Really. They mean it this time. For the first time yesterday, Republican lawmakers announced that Social Security was enacted in 1935 during the Great Depression, which most Americans are no doubt unaware of. In a separate news conference Republican members of Congress held up 1789's U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and announced their intention to "modernize" the document and its principles.
By a narrow, 51-49 margin, The U.S. Senate yesterday voted to allow oil-drilling in the Alaskan Arctic Reserve, as proponents vowed to finally, once and for all, sever the nation's dependence on foreign oil, especially the kind found in those middle easter, gulf countries that we keep invading in order to make the region more "secure".
Hey, whatever happened to that other stupid, middle class, white guy from middle America that was charged with killing his young, smart, pretty, and white wife in Utah? If we can stay fixated on Peterson for all this time, how come we can't give it up for this guy, too?
Monday, March 14, 2005
The Myth of "Personal Responsibility"
Well maybe it isn't so much a myth as it is yet another right-wing propaganda slogan or concept that many Democrats feel somehow compelled to mimic.
Such was the case with last week's sorrowful meltdown on bankruptcy by Democrats in the U.S. Senate.
As the data gathered by the Left Coaster seems to indicate, campaign cash from the credit card cartel was unlikely the main reason why so many Democrats wilted on the roll call (Delaware's Biden and Carper, and SD's Johnson aside). Those Democratic senators who have offered an explanation as to their vote used the same "personal responsiblity" canard that has been used by conservatives to justify everything from welfare "reform" to abortion restrictions, abstenance education, Medicare cuts, Social Security "reform", and just about every other item on the cultural war itinerary.
I know the "consultants" say the phrase "personal responsiblity" is a winner in their focus groups, but as for policy, the phrase stinks. I wish Democrats would stop using it. Better yet, whenever it surfaces from some Republican talking points memo Democrats should counter by demanding corporate "responsibility" from the business world and political "responsibility" from the Administration--a gang known far and wide for their refusal to admit mistakes and lies--and from Republican members of Congress who, when the going gets tough, change the House rules to protect themselves from ethic charges.
It's high time Democrats made the phrase "personal responsibility" walk the plank. It's a conservative buzz word used as a wedge for their narrow, anti-individual welfare agenda, which we are not obligated to assist them with.
Such was the case with last week's sorrowful meltdown on bankruptcy by Democrats in the U.S. Senate.
As the data gathered by the Left Coaster seems to indicate, campaign cash from the credit card cartel was unlikely the main reason why so many Democrats wilted on the roll call (Delaware's Biden and Carper, and SD's Johnson aside). Those Democratic senators who have offered an explanation as to their vote used the same "personal responsiblity" canard that has been used by conservatives to justify everything from welfare "reform" to abortion restrictions, abstenance education, Medicare cuts, Social Security "reform", and just about every other item on the cultural war itinerary.
I know the "consultants" say the phrase "personal responsiblity" is a winner in their focus groups, but as for policy, the phrase stinks. I wish Democrats would stop using it. Better yet, whenever it surfaces from some Republican talking points memo Democrats should counter by demanding corporate "responsibility" from the business world and political "responsibility" from the Administration--a gang known far and wide for their refusal to admit mistakes and lies--and from Republican members of Congress who, when the going gets tough, change the House rules to protect themselves from ethic charges.
It's high time Democrats made the phrase "personal responsibility" walk the plank. It's a conservative buzz word used as a wedge for their narrow, anti-individual welfare agenda, which we are not obligated to assist them with.
Friday, March 11, 2005
5 More for the No Credit Card Company Left Behind, Bankruptcy "Reform" bill
On Tuesday, 14 Senate Democrats incomprehensively voted with the Republican majority for cloture on S. 256, killing further debate on the bankruptcy "reform" bill and effectively ensuring its passage.
Yesterday, 18 Senate Democrats voted with the Republican majority to provide credit card companies with even more power than they already possess by finally passing the legislation, which will now head to the House.
You probably want to know who the extra Democrats were that went from "nay" on the vote for cloture to a "yea" on the vote for the bill's final passage, don't you?
Well, one member of the original 14 played the bait and switch by voting "nay" for the final bill--Joementum Lieberman. So the result was 5 additional Senate Democrats who bowed down to the corporate god Molech in the hopes they would still be able to get the support of the finance industry for their next campaign.
Here they are, five more Senators who will never be Democratic nominees for President:
Baucus (MT)
Bingaman (NM)
Inouye (HI)
Reid (NV)
Bayh (IN)
Congratulations, men. Like Esau of old, you have sold your birthright for a bowl of pottage.
Fortunately, not every Democratic in or out of Congress was amused.
Members of the party's more liberal wing were openly frustrated that Republicans had ample Democratic help passing the bankruptcy bill on a 74-to-25 vote in the Senate...
"This is not where we as Democrats ought to be, for crying out loud," said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, after Republicans beat back amendment after amendment offered by Democrats in their efforts to soften the bankruptcy measure. "We are making a terrible mistake by thinking that we can have it both ways. We have to remember where our base is."
As the bankruptcy bill emerged, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, sought to rally members of his party around a series of amendments that would offer special protection for those whose bankruptcy was attributed to health care costs or other unexpected expenses. But on that and nearly every other attempted change, solid Republican opposition, bolstered by a handful of Democrats, prevailed.
On the call to cut off debate on the bill, 13 Democrats joined Republicans, some of whom said privately that they were astonished that Democratic opponents of the bill were losing so many from their own party.
The support drew a scolding from John Podesta, a top Clinton administration official who now leads the Center for American Progress, a Washington research group. In a memo widely circulated on Capitol Hill, Mr. Podesta said lawmakers who viewed the bankruptcy bill as an easy probusiness vote were overlooking the impact it could have on the middle-class Americans who are being sought after by both parties.
In an interview, Mr. Podesta said the support by some Democrats for legislation like the bankruptcy bill contributed to the party's continuing erosion among working-class voters. "You have got poll after poll saying there is no distinction between the parties on these core economic issues and one has to say, no wonder," Mr. Podesta said.
Amen, brother, halleluyah.
It's Time: Harkin '08
It's Time: Podesta '08
It's Way Past Time: Kennedy '08
Yesterday, 18 Senate Democrats voted with the Republican majority to provide credit card companies with even more power than they already possess by finally passing the legislation, which will now head to the House.
You probably want to know who the extra Democrats were that went from "nay" on the vote for cloture to a "yea" on the vote for the bill's final passage, don't you?
Well, one member of the original 14 played the bait and switch by voting "nay" for the final bill--Joementum Lieberman. So the result was 5 additional Senate Democrats who bowed down to the corporate god Molech in the hopes they would still be able to get the support of the finance industry for their next campaign.
Here they are, five more Senators who will never be Democratic nominees for President:
Baucus (MT)
Bingaman (NM)
Inouye (HI)
Reid (NV)
Bayh (IN)
Congratulations, men. Like Esau of old, you have sold your birthright for a bowl of pottage.
Fortunately, not every Democratic in or out of Congress was amused.
Members of the party's more liberal wing were openly frustrated that Republicans had ample Democratic help passing the bankruptcy bill on a 74-to-25 vote in the Senate...
"This is not where we as Democrats ought to be, for crying out loud," said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, after Republicans beat back amendment after amendment offered by Democrats in their efforts to soften the bankruptcy measure. "We are making a terrible mistake by thinking that we can have it both ways. We have to remember where our base is."
As the bankruptcy bill emerged, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, sought to rally members of his party around a series of amendments that would offer special protection for those whose bankruptcy was attributed to health care costs or other unexpected expenses. But on that and nearly every other attempted change, solid Republican opposition, bolstered by a handful of Democrats, prevailed.
On the call to cut off debate on the bill, 13 Democrats joined Republicans, some of whom said privately that they were astonished that Democratic opponents of the bill were losing so many from their own party.
The support drew a scolding from John Podesta, a top Clinton administration official who now leads the Center for American Progress, a Washington research group. In a memo widely circulated on Capitol Hill, Mr. Podesta said lawmakers who viewed the bankruptcy bill as an easy probusiness vote were overlooking the impact it could have on the middle-class Americans who are being sought after by both parties.
In an interview, Mr. Podesta said the support by some Democrats for legislation like the bankruptcy bill contributed to the party's continuing erosion among working-class voters. "You have got poll after poll saying there is no distinction between the parties on these core economic issues and one has to say, no wonder," Mr. Podesta said.
Amen, brother, halleluyah.
It's Time: Harkin '08
It's Time: Podesta '08
It's Way Past Time: Kennedy '08
Thursday, March 10, 2005
What Is To Be Done, II
The Kos has a link to a Democratic staffer in the House who tries to explain the behavior of the 14 Senate Democrats who voted to throw consumers and working families under the proverbial bus on behalf of the credit card cartel.
From an academic, Rational Choice kind of perspective, his conclusion sadly makes some sense--there are concentrated, organized interests with dollars to give on one side, and a disorganized, dispersed, and underfunded mass on the other side. So going for the Big Money isn't totally illogical. Politicians are rational actors, who will respond to various issues based on the balance of interests--and the potential for those interests to provide pleasure or inflict pain on the legislator.
Very well.
But as I posted over at Rising Hegemon, isn't it exactly this inbalance of competing interests and incentives that the political party in general, and the Democratic Party in particular, is supposed to correct?
The problem seems to be how the party's grassroots can apply pressure to the party's leadership, which can then act on the party's governing members. In the absence of organized interests--such as the AARP and others on the Social Security debate--how do progressives connect with the party's hierarchy to, at a minimum, express it's opinion and distaste for a bill such as this, and preferably, impress the party leadership that the grassroots are able and prepared to supply a "stick" should the party or a sizeable number of its members act contrary to progressive principles?
First, there needs to be an acknowledged point of contact. Is this, or should it be a) Dean and the DNC; b) Reid's office or c) Pelosi's office; or any and all of the above? Are either of the congressional leadership offices open to voices of the party's, as opposed to just that member's local or state constituency? If the DNC is not supposed to do policy, as Reid and Pelosi warned prior to Dean's election, what can the DNC accomplish?
Second, to the extent that their is a progressive consensus on a matter before Congress, what incentives or disincentives can be promised or threatened? Certainly to a limited extent, progressives on the web can be a source of campaign resources, or the lack thereof, as well as a source of negative or positive press.
Josh Marshall's TPM has been an illustration of what progressive activism can look like, regarding Social Security "reform". But obviously more needs to be done.
From an academic, Rational Choice kind of perspective, his conclusion sadly makes some sense--there are concentrated, organized interests with dollars to give on one side, and a disorganized, dispersed, and underfunded mass on the other side. So going for the Big Money isn't totally illogical. Politicians are rational actors, who will respond to various issues based on the balance of interests--and the potential for those interests to provide pleasure or inflict pain on the legislator.
Very well.
But as I posted over at Rising Hegemon, isn't it exactly this inbalance of competing interests and incentives that the political party in general, and the Democratic Party in particular, is supposed to correct?
The problem seems to be how the party's grassroots can apply pressure to the party's leadership, which can then act on the party's governing members. In the absence of organized interests--such as the AARP and others on the Social Security debate--how do progressives connect with the party's hierarchy to, at a minimum, express it's opinion and distaste for a bill such as this, and preferably, impress the party leadership that the grassroots are able and prepared to supply a "stick" should the party or a sizeable number of its members act contrary to progressive principles?
First, there needs to be an acknowledged point of contact. Is this, or should it be a) Dean and the DNC; b) Reid's office or c) Pelosi's office; or any and all of the above? Are either of the congressional leadership offices open to voices of the party's, as opposed to just that member's local or state constituency? If the DNC is not supposed to do policy, as Reid and Pelosi warned prior to Dean's election, what can the DNC accomplish?
Second, to the extent that their is a progressive consensus on a matter before Congress, what incentives or disincentives can be promised or threatened? Certainly to a limited extent, progressives on the web can be a source of campaign resources, or the lack thereof, as well as a source of negative or positive press.
Josh Marshall's TPM has been an illustration of what progressive activism can look like, regarding Social Security "reform". But obviously more needs to be done.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
The Brewing Storm
A while ago I made a post about how the nationalization of policy over the last half-century has had the unfortunate effect of diluting the Democratic Party's attention to local issues and reduced its connection to its constituencies.
I think its fair to say that yesterday's Democratic Senate vote over the bankruptcy "reform" bill is a pretty clear demonstration of that effect. Most of these Democratic Senators are so divorced from any contact with the voters that they were either just plain tone deaf to any arguments besides those of the credit card industry or worse, were being openly contemptious of any potential negative response from the voters or from the party's more progressive grassroots.
On a somewhat related point, a political party with real community roots would strive to improve economic conditions and livelihoods so that the credit card companys' siren song to obtain more credit would not have the lustful appeal it has for individuals and families seduced by television and radio advertising to buy or replace products and services they don't need. This is the dark side of capitalism, a system that requires more and more production and more and more selling and buying, which requires increasingly more credit to stay afloat, a system that will ultimately crash and burn when the people can't keep playing the game.
While the credit card oligarchy can loudly bray about its victory, it's seriously hard to see how policy choices like these are not going to create some serious blowback at some point in time, when the whole deck of cards (no pun intended) that is the "new economy" comes crashing down in a heap of debtor ruin from the corporate shell games of inflated profits from nonproductive pursuits (i.e. the jobs and profits "gained" from exorbitant interest rate and late fee charges), exported jobs, national deficits and inequitable rule-gaming that allows the power elite to run amock.
I think its fair to say that yesterday's Democratic Senate vote over the bankruptcy "reform" bill is a pretty clear demonstration of that effect. Most of these Democratic Senators are so divorced from any contact with the voters that they were either just plain tone deaf to any arguments besides those of the credit card industry or worse, were being openly contemptious of any potential negative response from the voters or from the party's more progressive grassroots.
On a somewhat related point, a political party with real community roots would strive to improve economic conditions and livelihoods so that the credit card companys' siren song to obtain more credit would not have the lustful appeal it has for individuals and families seduced by television and radio advertising to buy or replace products and services they don't need. This is the dark side of capitalism, a system that requires more and more production and more and more selling and buying, which requires increasingly more credit to stay afloat, a system that will ultimately crash and burn when the people can't keep playing the game.
While the credit card oligarchy can loudly bray about its victory, it's seriously hard to see how policy choices like these are not going to create some serious blowback at some point in time, when the whole deck of cards (no pun intended) that is the "new economy" comes crashing down in a heap of debtor ruin from the corporate shell games of inflated profits from nonproductive pursuits (i.e. the jobs and profits "gained" from exorbitant interest rate and late fee charges), exported jobs, national deficits and inequitable rule-gaming that allows the power elite to run amock.
What Is To Be Done?
Here are the 14, 14, Democratic Senators who voted for cloture (i.e. voted to end debate) over the hideous bankruptcy "reform" bill, written and sponsored by the credit card industry and drug around the corridors of Congress for the past eight years until enough whores could be found to support it.
Biden (D-DE)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stabenow's was the most surprising name of the group, as I had pegged her as some sort of progressive for some reason.
Of the rest, two particularly stand out--Arkansas's Pryor and Lincoln. There's an analysis begging to be done here on the correlation between that state's per capita or median family income and the voting inclinations of these two "senators". Now, the usual spiel we get about the conservatism of the south is that it's cultural or social in origin, concerned about gays, guns, and God. But if that's true, than what the hell is the incentive for voting with the credit card companies on this bill? I have a hard time seeing where the homestate pressure is to support a bill like this. The state is poor. In 2003, it's per capita income was 24,296. If you're keeping score at home, that puts it 49th out of the 50 states (Thank God for Mississippi). What in the name of all that's holy can Lincoln and Pryor see with backing this bill?
And you thought Bush's re-election was bad. What use is to complain about Bush if our own guys and gals are committing fornication with the gods of greed?
So What Is To Be Done?
Well, we can remember Biden when he wants to run for prez in 08.
As for the others, I'm seriously considering providing financial and moral support for whoever runs against them in their next election cycle. I'll even support their Republican opponents. Why not? What use is it to have these corporate handmaids in Congress if they are going to vote like this? I'd rather have real Republicans to deal with.
Update: Atrios has a link to the number of bankruptcy filings by state and guess what? The top 11 states (those with the highest number of bankruptcy filings) are da red states. I'm not sure what to make of this other than it seems to be yet another blatant example of representatives voting against their states' economic interests. And oh, yeah, Arkansas clocks in at number 7. Nice going Lincoln and Pryor.
Biden (D-DE)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stabenow's was the most surprising name of the group, as I had pegged her as some sort of progressive for some reason.
Of the rest, two particularly stand out--Arkansas's Pryor and Lincoln. There's an analysis begging to be done here on the correlation between that state's per capita or median family income and the voting inclinations of these two "senators". Now, the usual spiel we get about the conservatism of the south is that it's cultural or social in origin, concerned about gays, guns, and God. But if that's true, than what the hell is the incentive for voting with the credit card companies on this bill? I have a hard time seeing where the homestate pressure is to support a bill like this. The state is poor. In 2003, it's per capita income was 24,296. If you're keeping score at home, that puts it 49th out of the 50 states (Thank God for Mississippi). What in the name of all that's holy can Lincoln and Pryor see with backing this bill?
And you thought Bush's re-election was bad. What use is to complain about Bush if our own guys and gals are committing fornication with the gods of greed?
So What Is To Be Done?
Well, we can remember Biden when he wants to run for prez in 08.
As for the others, I'm seriously considering providing financial and moral support for whoever runs against them in their next election cycle. I'll even support their Republican opponents. Why not? What use is it to have these corporate handmaids in Congress if they are going to vote like this? I'd rather have real Republicans to deal with.
Update: Atrios has a link to the number of bankruptcy filings by state and guess what? The top 11 states (those with the highest number of bankruptcy filings) are da red states. I'm not sure what to make of this other than it seems to be yet another blatant example of representatives voting against their states' economic interests. And oh, yeah, Arkansas clocks in at number 7. Nice going Lincoln and Pryor.
Monday, March 07, 2005
Paging Focus On The Family
As I am sometimes wont to do, I have wondered over to the Focus On The Family website to see what James Dobson--a prominent self-appointed spokesperson of the Christian community--has to say about the bankruptcy "reform" bill, a measure of utmost rancid slimeness, now slithering its way through Congress.
The only thing I could find was this, a piece of commentary and handwringing from February 21, that is, predictably, only concerned about the potential for an anti-anti-abortion amendment being tacked onto the bill (as it was last session) preventing ardent pro lifers from being able to declare bankruptcy in the event they find themselves financially and legally liable for any actions relating to their protests.
But Dobson and the FOTF gang seem to favor bankruptcy "reform". Their summary of the legislation goes like this--
America needs to reform its bankruptcy laws, but every time Congress tries to do so, harsh amendments aimed at punishing pro-lifers are dumped onto the bill. This year is no exception.
Isn't that special?
I guess the only families FOTF is concerned with are those whose millions will ensure they aren't affected.
FOTF, you are hypocrites, money changers running wild in the temple.
The only thing I could find was this, a piece of commentary and handwringing from February 21, that is, predictably, only concerned about the potential for an anti-anti-abortion amendment being tacked onto the bill (as it was last session) preventing ardent pro lifers from being able to declare bankruptcy in the event they find themselves financially and legally liable for any actions relating to their protests.
But Dobson and the FOTF gang seem to favor bankruptcy "reform". Their summary of the legislation goes like this--
America needs to reform its bankruptcy laws, but every time Congress tries to do so, harsh amendments aimed at punishing pro-lifers are dumped onto the bill. This year is no exception.
Isn't that special?
I guess the only families FOTF is concerned with are those whose millions will ensure they aren't affected.
FOTF, you are hypocrites, money changers running wild in the temple.
Bankrupt Politics
I'm linking to this post at DailyKos about the Leave No Credit Card Company Behind Bill, aka, the "bankruptcy bill" the Republicans are trying to ram through Congress.
Among the things I find deeply troubling about all this is the roster of Democrats that have been consistently voting with the Republicans on a series of amendments designed to aleviate the bill's adverse effects.
Two of the Democratic Senators that are carrying the water for credit card companies on this bill are not surprising--Delaware's Biden and Carper. MBNA is headquartered there as are a number of other credit card outfits calling Delaware home because of that state's favorable corporate tax policies.
The other two--Nebraska's Nelson and South Dakota's Johnson are more of a puzzle. I seem to recall that CitiBank has an operation in South Dakota or did at one time. That could be the basis for Johnson's vote. As for Nelson, I don't know.
But these two fellas are from the plain states, The Heartland, home of the original populist movement and the opposition to the wall street money cartels. And they're supposed to be Democrats. So what in the name of George W. Norris is going on out there? I wonder what the balance is of creditors to debtors out there in SD and Nebraska?
I take you back to President Truman:
I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who's hitting you?...
Among the things I find deeply troubling about all this is the roster of Democrats that have been consistently voting with the Republicans on a series of amendments designed to aleviate the bill's adverse effects.
Two of the Democratic Senators that are carrying the water for credit card companies on this bill are not surprising--Delaware's Biden and Carper. MBNA is headquartered there as are a number of other credit card outfits calling Delaware home because of that state's favorable corporate tax policies.
The other two--Nebraska's Nelson and South Dakota's Johnson are more of a puzzle. I seem to recall that CitiBank has an operation in South Dakota or did at one time. That could be the basis for Johnson's vote. As for Nelson, I don't know.
But these two fellas are from the plain states, The Heartland, home of the original populist movement and the opposition to the wall street money cartels. And they're supposed to be Democrats. So what in the name of George W. Norris is going on out there? I wonder what the balance is of creditors to debtors out there in SD and Nebraska?
I take you back to President Truman:
I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who's hitting you?...
Plain Speaking
You remember the big boom and the great crash of 1929. You remember that in 1932 the position of the farmer had become so desperate that there was actual violence in many farming communities. You remember that insurance companies and banks took over much of the land of small independent farmers -- 223,000 farmers lost their farms....
I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who's hitting you?...
The Democratic Party represents the people. It is pledged to work for agriculture.... The Democratic Party puts human rights and human welfare first.... These Republican gluttons of privilege are cold men. They are cunning men.... They want a return of the Wall Street economic dictatorship....
President Harry S. Truman, campaigning in 1948 (thanks to Buzzflash for the link).
Today, from Nathan Newman:
Santorum's Sweatshop Expansion Bill -
Sweatshops Expanded, Overtime Attacked, and State Minimum Wage Laws Undermined
Yes, How Many Times?, is the question.
I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who's hitting you?...
The Democratic Party represents the people. It is pledged to work for agriculture.... The Democratic Party puts human rights and human welfare first.... These Republican gluttons of privilege are cold men. They are cunning men.... They want a return of the Wall Street economic dictatorship....
President Harry S. Truman, campaigning in 1948 (thanks to Buzzflash for the link).
Today, from Nathan Newman:
Santorum's Sweatshop Expansion Bill -
Sweatshops Expanded, Overtime Attacked, and State Minimum Wage Laws Undermined
Yes, How Many Times?, is the question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)