As one of those weird people, all eight of us, who is both leftist and Christian, I suppose I should say something about the latest installment in the Leave No Ten Commandments Monument Behind series, this one concerning a monument in Texas whose constitutional presence is being debated in front of the Supremes this week.
For all of my heathen readers, I will offer my two reasons as to why some Christians get particularly charged about this issue:
1) Some Christians, particularly of the more extreme variety, feel threatened by secular society; Being able to see the Commandments stationed publicly somewhere makes them feel better.
2) Some Christians, particularly of the more extreme variety, are unhappy with the fact that in America, individuals are pretty much free to engage in whatever behavior they like as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else (one person's sexual licentiousness is another person's freedom and liberty). These Christians see the posting of the Ten Commandments as a means of trying to reverse the direction of social norms in this area first through symbolism, and later, if needed, through the political process. If the Ten Commandments can be seen as a basis for society's laws, than behavior Christians don't like can be outlawed and punished.
View #1 is basically self-focused in that it's concern is with the individual Christian's security and self-identity. It lacks any true evangelical focus and is concerned only with the Christian's own feelings of self worth.
View #2 is basically self-focused as well in that it seeks to use religion as a tool for making other people conform to the Christian's stated ideals. Again, its intention is not evangelical in the truest sense of the term, but in this sense is punitive in emphasis.
In his book, What's So Amazing About Grace, Christian author Philip Yancey wonders why prostitutes, tax collectors (ancient Israel's equivalent of traitors and swindlers), and other so-called "sinners" of the day were attracted to Jesus, but today, most of society's outcasts are not attracted by us Christians (and to Jesus through us). Instead, the church has become middle class and exclusive, jealous of its image and protective of its institutions. Yancey concludes that the Christian church of today lacks the same grace that Jesus displaced towards others, and therefore, has not been the Light of the world that Jesus intended.
In their book, How To Talk About Jesus Without Freaking Out, authors Karen and Jim Covell and Victorya Rogers add that today, "there is entirely too much God talk and not nearly enough God activity" in the work of Christian evangelism.
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus instructed his disciples that it was not those who said "Lord, Lord" that would enter the kingdom, but those who Did the will of His Father in Heaven.
Let there be more grace and Godly activity among us Christians, and fewer demands for monuments and symbols.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Blowback
I'm reading Chalmer Johnson's book, Blowback, which was published shortly before the events of 9-11.
Johnson's argument is that America's (mostly covert or at least unreported) military presence and activities around the world are laying the groundwork for retaliation, particularly through acts of terrorism, which are tools used against powers otherwise believed to be invulnerable.
As I said, this book appeared BEFORE the 9-11 holy day, and as such, his arguments were widely dismissed by the Foreign Affairs crowd. His arguments have since received slightly more attention.
Johnson is a specialist in Asian affairs, so the book concentrates mostly on America's post-WWII interventions in Japan (Okinawa), Indonesia, and the Koreas. There are about 100,000 U.S. troops in East Asia, about half of which are in Japan (and more than half of those in Japan are on Okinawa, an island south of the mainland). Most appalling about the book's reports are America's treatment of the residents on Okinawa and our continued arms sales to Japan, Indonesia, and countries throughout Latin America that are justified by our military establishment as necessary to "modernize" the militaries of these countries and provide "stability" in these regions. Needless to say, Johnson questions the validity of these arguments and of the necessity for America's policy of military imperalism. Johnson also throws water on the actions of the various military dictatorships the U.S. has supported in South Korea, including the 1948 genocide of some 30,000 South Koreans from one of the neighboring islands, south of the peninsula. In addition to our military outposts and arm sales around the globe, the U.S. also countenances the widescale provision of "military advice" and training to various regimes, through both public and private entitities (some of the latter of which have received some attention in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion and the conduct at Abu Graib prison).
I'll give more of a summation when I'm done reading the book, but it suffices to say that one of the great tragedies of the post 9-11 era has been the failure to scrutinize our foreign policies as possible causes of those events. Since 9-11 we've had two wars, one department of homeland security established, one reorganization of national intelligence, but no serious attention to or coverage of our military and foreign policies. And far from favoring Democrats, Johnson implicates them, too, for their contributions to our imperial policies and unwillingness to challenge the military establishment.
I'm tempted to blame the media for this failure to consider seriously our contributions to the 9-11 blowback, and I do think they deserve their share of the blame.
But I think our political leadership is more at fault for their failure to raise these issues with the public. Yes, the media's stupid and overly fixated on the Scott Petersons of the world. But the media is a money enterprise and naturally, they are going to do business based on that notion. Serious research and news reporting has costs, both financial and political, for corporate media chieftains.
The political leadership (yes, Democratic Party leaders, this means you) are the ones that have the most knowledge of our nation's military and foreign policies, and they've not chosen to bring them into the debate (because that has costs, too, I'm afraid). We made a big whoop to do over the 9-11 commission and whether Bush would or wouldn't testify, but that is really besides the point. If the commission and members of congress had no real intention of making a broad based investigation of the terrorist attacks and the policies that at least partly brought them into being, than most of the hooplah over Bush and Rice's testimonies were little more than partisan grandstanding. While our intelligence failures and border patrols have come in for questioning, half century long military tactics have not.
This our leaders have failed to do. So instead of introducing bills calling for more troops, Senator Reid, how about a serious call for examining our nation's foreign policies? While media attention may be hard to control, there's no doubt that questioning our nation's policies will draw a response. Just ask Ward Churchill.
Johnson's argument is that America's (mostly covert or at least unreported) military presence and activities around the world are laying the groundwork for retaliation, particularly through acts of terrorism, which are tools used against powers otherwise believed to be invulnerable.
As I said, this book appeared BEFORE the 9-11 holy day, and as such, his arguments were widely dismissed by the Foreign Affairs crowd. His arguments have since received slightly more attention.
Johnson is a specialist in Asian affairs, so the book concentrates mostly on America's post-WWII interventions in Japan (Okinawa), Indonesia, and the Koreas. There are about 100,000 U.S. troops in East Asia, about half of which are in Japan (and more than half of those in Japan are on Okinawa, an island south of the mainland). Most appalling about the book's reports are America's treatment of the residents on Okinawa and our continued arms sales to Japan, Indonesia, and countries throughout Latin America that are justified by our military establishment as necessary to "modernize" the militaries of these countries and provide "stability" in these regions. Needless to say, Johnson questions the validity of these arguments and of the necessity for America's policy of military imperalism. Johnson also throws water on the actions of the various military dictatorships the U.S. has supported in South Korea, including the 1948 genocide of some 30,000 South Koreans from one of the neighboring islands, south of the peninsula. In addition to our military outposts and arm sales around the globe, the U.S. also countenances the widescale provision of "military advice" and training to various regimes, through both public and private entitities (some of the latter of which have received some attention in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion and the conduct at Abu Graib prison).
I'll give more of a summation when I'm done reading the book, but it suffices to say that one of the great tragedies of the post 9-11 era has been the failure to scrutinize our foreign policies as possible causes of those events. Since 9-11 we've had two wars, one department of homeland security established, one reorganization of national intelligence, but no serious attention to or coverage of our military and foreign policies. And far from favoring Democrats, Johnson implicates them, too, for their contributions to our imperial policies and unwillingness to challenge the military establishment.
I'm tempted to blame the media for this failure to consider seriously our contributions to the 9-11 blowback, and I do think they deserve their share of the blame.
But I think our political leadership is more at fault for their failure to raise these issues with the public. Yes, the media's stupid and overly fixated on the Scott Petersons of the world. But the media is a money enterprise and naturally, they are going to do business based on that notion. Serious research and news reporting has costs, both financial and political, for corporate media chieftains.
The political leadership (yes, Democratic Party leaders, this means you) are the ones that have the most knowledge of our nation's military and foreign policies, and they've not chosen to bring them into the debate (because that has costs, too, I'm afraid). We made a big whoop to do over the 9-11 commission and whether Bush would or wouldn't testify, but that is really besides the point. If the commission and members of congress had no real intention of making a broad based investigation of the terrorist attacks and the policies that at least partly brought them into being, than most of the hooplah over Bush and Rice's testimonies were little more than partisan grandstanding. While our intelligence failures and border patrols have come in for questioning, half century long military tactics have not.
This our leaders have failed to do. So instead of introducing bills calling for more troops, Senator Reid, how about a serious call for examining our nation's foreign policies? While media attention may be hard to control, there's no doubt that questioning our nation's policies will draw a response. Just ask Ward Churchill.
Dude, Where's My Truth? Dispatches from the Academic Bill of Rights III
Point 4 of the ABOR makes this remarkable claim:
Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate.
What? The uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas?
Sounds like relativism to me. Isn't the whole conservative vision based on the idea of absolute truth in everything? RenewAmerica seems to think so. And this conservative says that "right and wrong" are not open for debate. If that's so, than the whole academic exercise and the freedom to express oneself in debate on the basis of study, observation or human experience is useless. Come to think of it, if "right and wrong" are not up for discussion, then there's little basis for the Bill of Rights and the freedom of expression it protects either.
Now we might be tempted to give the "right" some leeway on this. Maybe they only mean "moral" issues are absolute. But what is or isn't "moral" in nature? Just about everything under the humanities and social sciences umbrella has some moral implications. Even issues like the events of 9-11 and the war on Iraq have moral implications that would seem to require investigation. But Horowitz and his gang say there's only one truth about the so-called "war on terror"--theirs. So how does Horowitz and the (Orwellian named) Students for Academic Freedom prepose that we handle this apparent conundrum? What is it about the humanities and social sciences that Horowitz thinks is uncertain and unsettled? If truth is already known or absolute (about Iraq or anything else), than why are we bothering with the university, and what does it matter whether or not a curricula's reading list is diverse or not?
So does Hororwitz just want a seat at the table of academic discourse for conservatives, where uncertain and unsettled matters of the humanities and social sciences are freely debated, or do he and his posse just want their views trumpeted, and no search for truth actually conducted?
Interestlingly, Horowitz seems willing to let the "left" have a say in things and even stated his opposition to those calling for the resignation or firing of outspoken University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. Most other conservatives have decided that the absolute truth is on their side in this matter and that Churchill and those like him should be banished from the academy and society. But is Horowitz really as open to opposing views as he suggests?
Return with me tomorrow and we'll examine the "truth" about ABOR's claim to want a "civil exchange of ideas".
Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate.
What? The uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas?
Sounds like relativism to me. Isn't the whole conservative vision based on the idea of absolute truth in everything? RenewAmerica seems to think so. And this conservative says that "right and wrong" are not open for debate. If that's so, than the whole academic exercise and the freedom to express oneself in debate on the basis of study, observation or human experience is useless. Come to think of it, if "right and wrong" are not up for discussion, then there's little basis for the Bill of Rights and the freedom of expression it protects either.
Now we might be tempted to give the "right" some leeway on this. Maybe they only mean "moral" issues are absolute. But what is or isn't "moral" in nature? Just about everything under the humanities and social sciences umbrella has some moral implications. Even issues like the events of 9-11 and the war on Iraq have moral implications that would seem to require investigation. But Horowitz and his gang say there's only one truth about the so-called "war on terror"--theirs. So how does Horowitz and the (Orwellian named) Students for Academic Freedom prepose that we handle this apparent conundrum? What is it about the humanities and social sciences that Horowitz thinks is uncertain and unsettled? If truth is already known or absolute (about Iraq or anything else), than why are we bothering with the university, and what does it matter whether or not a curricula's reading list is diverse or not?
So does Hororwitz just want a seat at the table of academic discourse for conservatives, where uncertain and unsettled matters of the humanities and social sciences are freely debated, or do he and his posse just want their views trumpeted, and no search for truth actually conducted?
Interestlingly, Horowitz seems willing to let the "left" have a say in things and even stated his opposition to those calling for the resignation or firing of outspoken University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. Most other conservatives have decided that the absolute truth is on their side in this matter and that Churchill and those like him should be banished from the academy and society. But is Horowitz really as open to opposing views as he suggests?
Return with me tomorrow and we'll examine the "truth" about ABOR's claim to want a "civil exchange of ideas".
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
CNN Spotlight
There was a time, many many years ago, when CNN was a real news station. Or maybe I was under the delusion that CNN was a real news station.
But in the aftermath of the shocking and aweful war campaign coverage, I stopped watching cable TV news.
Maybe because I'd forgotten what it was like, I tuned into CNN's Lou Dobbs last night in the course of my channel surfing. I only stayed around for about 86 seconds, the time it took Dobbs and his cohost (Kitty Partridge or something) to present the latest "outrage" from Canada.
Turns out that Canada has decided it doesn't want to be a part of the US's "missile defense system". No reason was given, but the helpful headline to the piece from CNN identified Canada as "freeriding" on the back of the US's starwars escapade. You see, if somehow, someway, there was to be a nuclear missile launched at Canada by someone, for some reason, then the US would intervene and shoot the thing down anyway, regardless of whether Canada was a partner with the US on the missile defense deal or not. The segment also told me that Canada spends like only 1% of its budget or GDP or whatever on defense. Then there was some light hearted snarkery between Dobbs and Patridge about why Sec of State Ofgeorge canceled her trip to Canada (was it because of Canada's decision, or was it because of a scheduling conflict??--inquiring minds want to know).
That was pretty much the segment.
Nothing about what the US was demanding in return, no discussion of what the nature of the partnership was to be, no mention of the missile defense system's failures, no mention of the money spent on the thing, no discussion of the likelihood of such a threat making the missile defense boondoggle necessary. Nothing. I realized I was getting dumber just by watching so I switched the channel.
But hey, thanks CNN. That was just terrific. Great work, guys. I bet you'll catch Fox news in the ratings anytime now.
But in the aftermath of the shocking and aweful war campaign coverage, I stopped watching cable TV news.
Maybe because I'd forgotten what it was like, I tuned into CNN's Lou Dobbs last night in the course of my channel surfing. I only stayed around for about 86 seconds, the time it took Dobbs and his cohost (Kitty Partridge or something) to present the latest "outrage" from Canada.
Turns out that Canada has decided it doesn't want to be a part of the US's "missile defense system". No reason was given, but the helpful headline to the piece from CNN identified Canada as "freeriding" on the back of the US's starwars escapade. You see, if somehow, someway, there was to be a nuclear missile launched at Canada by someone, for some reason, then the US would intervene and shoot the thing down anyway, regardless of whether Canada was a partner with the US on the missile defense deal or not. The segment also told me that Canada spends like only 1% of its budget or GDP or whatever on defense. Then there was some light hearted snarkery between Dobbs and Patridge about why Sec of State Ofgeorge canceled her trip to Canada (was it because of Canada's decision, or was it because of a scheduling conflict??--inquiring minds want to know).
That was pretty much the segment.
Nothing about what the US was demanding in return, no discussion of what the nature of the partnership was to be, no mention of the missile defense system's failures, no mention of the money spent on the thing, no discussion of the likelihood of such a threat making the missile defense boondoggle necessary. Nothing. I realized I was getting dumber just by watching so I switched the channel.
But hey, thanks CNN. That was just terrific. Great work, guys. I bet you'll catch Fox news in the ratings anytime now.
Academic Bill of Rights, II
Point 6 of the ABOR stipulates that the university must support and promote "intellectual pluralism".*
Pluralism? Pluralism!?!?!? (Playoffs?! Playoffs!!!?!)
As every card carrying conservative knows, pluralism sucks. Pluralism blows. Pluralism bites the big one.
So what of this sudden interest on the part of conservatives for pluralism? Have they changed their minds about the need for divergent materials, information and views and the need and benefits of the tolerance of opposing values and cultures? Or is this call for more pluralism in academia simply a self-serving position by conservatives designed to win by legislative fiat and social suppression what conservatives have lost on the battlefield of the academic free market?
But some of you are saying, hey Bulworth, you're distorting the issue. Conservatives distinguish between intellectual, academic pluralism, where differences in social and scientific inquiry have yielded multiple interpretations of various phenomena on the one hand, and cultural, moral and religious pluralism (which presumably are bad) on the other hand, since they deny the idea of absolute truth as preached by conservatives.
I'm glad you raised this point. What of the nature of truth? Is it something we search for or that can be determined on the basis of agreed upon methods? Or is it something that just is, and which cannot be questioned (as is the case with religious doctrine, or as is the assumption by conservatives that "America is Great and Always Right")? Or is there some middle ground? Are there types of, or multiple forms of, truth?
Tune in tomorrow, when Bulworth will continue his dissecting of the ABOR regarding its treatment of truth.
* Interestingly, the version of ABOR introduced by the Ohio state legislature does not use the word 'pluralism' in its version of the bill, although it does make references to 'diversity' and the need for 'neutrality' in the use of guest speakers on college campuses. The version of the ABOR I cited yesterday was from the ABOR sponsor's website and is, I take it, supposed to be the official version.
Pluralism? Pluralism!?!?!? (Playoffs?! Playoffs!!!?!)
As every card carrying conservative knows, pluralism sucks. Pluralism blows. Pluralism bites the big one.
So what of this sudden interest on the part of conservatives for pluralism? Have they changed their minds about the need for divergent materials, information and views and the need and benefits of the tolerance of opposing values and cultures? Or is this call for more pluralism in academia simply a self-serving position by conservatives designed to win by legislative fiat and social suppression what conservatives have lost on the battlefield of the academic free market?
But some of you are saying, hey Bulworth, you're distorting the issue. Conservatives distinguish between intellectual, academic pluralism, where differences in social and scientific inquiry have yielded multiple interpretations of various phenomena on the one hand, and cultural, moral and religious pluralism (which presumably are bad) on the other hand, since they deny the idea of absolute truth as preached by conservatives.
I'm glad you raised this point. What of the nature of truth? Is it something we search for or that can be determined on the basis of agreed upon methods? Or is it something that just is, and which cannot be questioned (as is the case with religious doctrine, or as is the assumption by conservatives that "America is Great and Always Right")? Or is there some middle ground? Are there types of, or multiple forms of, truth?
Tune in tomorrow, when Bulworth will continue his dissecting of the ABOR regarding its treatment of truth.
* Interestingly, the version of ABOR introduced by the Ohio state legislature does not use the word 'pluralism' in its version of the bill, although it does make references to 'diversity' and the need for 'neutrality' in the use of guest speakers on college campuses. The version of the ABOR I cited yesterday was from the ABOR sponsor's website and is, I take it, supposed to be the official version.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Academic Bill of Rights, I
Since this has been discussed here and there on the web I thought I would provide a full copy of it verbatim here (remember, this is supposedly a conservative response to an academy they fear disagrees with them too much):
1. All faculty shall be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise and, in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives. No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs.
2. No faculty member will be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.
3. Students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs. 4. Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate. While teachers are and should be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints. Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions.
5. Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.
6. Selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers programs and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism.
7. An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.
8. Knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about which methods, facts, and theories have been validated by research. Academic institutions and professional societies formed to advance knowledge within an area of research, maintain the integrity of the research process, and organize the professional lives of related researchers serve as indispensable venues within which scholars circulate research findings and debate their interpretation. To perform these functions adequately, academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry.
Tomorrow, I'll be back to help deconstruct this document's demands in light of its obvious contradictions with conservative thought control expressed elsewhere in different forums by conservatives for different purposes.
1. All faculty shall be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise and, in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives. No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs.
2. No faculty member will be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.
3. Students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs. 4. Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate. While teachers are and should be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints. Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions.
5. Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.
6. Selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers programs and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism.
7. An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.
8. Knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about which methods, facts, and theories have been validated by research. Academic institutions and professional societies formed to advance knowledge within an area of research, maintain the integrity of the research process, and organize the professional lives of related researchers serve as indispensable venues within which scholars circulate research findings and debate their interpretation. To perform these functions adequately, academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry.
Tomorrow, I'll be back to help deconstruct this document's demands in light of its obvious contradictions with conservative thought control expressed elsewhere in different forums by conservatives for different purposes.
I Support The War but Not The Troops
I hereby dedicate this post to that Onion article whenever you need it.
Is It Just Me?
Or did anyone else notice that the most recent bombing in Iraq that killed 120+ people didn't generate much more than a yawn from the media? Are we that used to the violence and the deaths now that this seems like minor stuff?
Both the WashPost and the NYT gave it front page coverage but relegated it to a rather small corner above the fold, and the WashPost had as its splashy picture a scene from Lebanon. USAToday had a larger font headline that was spread over the width of the front page, but the television coverage last night was pretty minimal.
Both the WashPost and the NYT gave it front page coverage but relegated it to a rather small corner above the fold, and the WashPost had as its splashy picture a scene from Lebanon. USAToday had a larger font headline that was spread over the width of the front page, but the television coverage last night was pretty minimal.
I love this
those out of touch, liberal academics in the high fallutin ivory towers...
The survey says...
Thanks to the PoorMan for the link.
The survey says...
Thanks to the PoorMan for the link.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Senator Santorum Discovers Democracy
From MyDD:
Mr. Santorum complained that he was dogged all week by opponents of the White House plan who dominated news coverage. Mr. Santorum, who is the third-ranking Republican in the Senate leadership and chairman of the subcommittee on Social Security, was heckled by college students - the very audience the Bush administration was counting on - and peppered with questions from retirees.
"Clearly the other side is better organized," Mr. Santorum said. "They got people to all these events. They had seniors lined up to ask questions, they had staff people running up passing them notes."
Damn, democracy's a &^%$#, ain't it?
Mr. Santorum complained that he was dogged all week by opponents of the White House plan who dominated news coverage. Mr. Santorum, who is the third-ranking Republican in the Senate leadership and chairman of the subcommittee on Social Security, was heckled by college students - the very audience the Bush administration was counting on - and peppered with questions from retirees.
"Clearly the other side is better organized," Mr. Santorum said. "They got people to all these events. They had seniors lined up to ask questions, they had staff people running up passing them notes."
Damn, democracy's a &^%$#, ain't it?
Ready to Deal
From The Leftcoaster:
"An article in The Washington Post on Sunday suggested that the Republicans were ready to deal on Social Security..."
Ready to Deal. Ready to Deal?
There's a hugely hilarious analogy that's begging to be written about the proposterousness of this statement.*
But I'm worried a future report might read something like this,
"After months of town hall meetings at which Republican members have been chastized by a skeptical public on Social Security reform, and poll after poll has shown weak support for any changes to the program, Republican members of Congress today announced the elements of a compromise plan with moderate Democrats that would permit individuals to divert a portion of their payroll taxes into personal savings account, as President Bush outlined in his state of the union message last February. The plan would also reduce the growth of benefits for new retirees by changing the indexing of the benefit formula from wages to prices, a provision also preferred by the president. The plan is projected to make Social Security solvent into the next century.
Asked about this remarkable turn of events, House and Senate Democrats were apopolectic. 'We just felt we had to give some ground, be willing to compromise to save Social Security. All in all, we're pleased we were able to stave off demands by some more extreme members of Congress to gut the program completely.' Responding to suggestions that Democrats did not gain much from the compromise, given the public mood, Democratic leaders said today that 'we were all aware of what these outside groups (USA Next, Club for Growth) and the talk show circuit can do to our reputations, so we thought it best to do what we could to get a bill passed and not be thought of as being obstructionists.'
Democratic leaders also said today that despite the overhaul of Social Security promised by the bill, that they would continue to fight President Bush and Congressional Republicans on matters important to working Americans and to stand up for the interests of the poor."
I mean, can you just see this?
*I'm thinking of that scene from My Cousin Vinny where the stuttering defense attorney is questioning the witness about what he saw, and then remembering that the witness wore glasses, asks him if he had his glasses on when he saw the youths coming out of the store, and when told he didn't, suddenly smirks until the witness tells him that the glasses are reading glasses. The stuttering defense lawyer responds emphatically, "I have no more questions for this witness." He returns to the defense table and leans back and says, "wooooo, he was a tough one." I'm picturing Congressional Democrats like that stuttering lawyer. The Republicans fall flat on their faces with the town hall meetings and public opinion polls and Democrats still act as if there's something they need to do to bargain with Republicans and thus save them from being humiliated, and allowing a Social Security reform bill to pass anyway.
Let's hope not.
"An article in The Washington Post on Sunday suggested that the Republicans were ready to deal on Social Security..."
Ready to Deal. Ready to Deal?
There's a hugely hilarious analogy that's begging to be written about the proposterousness of this statement.*
But I'm worried a future report might read something like this,
"After months of town hall meetings at which Republican members have been chastized by a skeptical public on Social Security reform, and poll after poll has shown weak support for any changes to the program, Republican members of Congress today announced the elements of a compromise plan with moderate Democrats that would permit individuals to divert a portion of their payroll taxes into personal savings account, as President Bush outlined in his state of the union message last February. The plan would also reduce the growth of benefits for new retirees by changing the indexing of the benefit formula from wages to prices, a provision also preferred by the president. The plan is projected to make Social Security solvent into the next century.
Asked about this remarkable turn of events, House and Senate Democrats were apopolectic. 'We just felt we had to give some ground, be willing to compromise to save Social Security. All in all, we're pleased we were able to stave off demands by some more extreme members of Congress to gut the program completely.' Responding to suggestions that Democrats did not gain much from the compromise, given the public mood, Democratic leaders said today that 'we were all aware of what these outside groups (USA Next, Club for Growth) and the talk show circuit can do to our reputations, so we thought it best to do what we could to get a bill passed and not be thought of as being obstructionists.'
Democratic leaders also said today that despite the overhaul of Social Security promised by the bill, that they would continue to fight President Bush and Congressional Republicans on matters important to working Americans and to stand up for the interests of the poor."
I mean, can you just see this?
*I'm thinking of that scene from My Cousin Vinny where the stuttering defense attorney is questioning the witness about what he saw, and then remembering that the witness wore glasses, asks him if he had his glasses on when he saw the youths coming out of the store, and when told he didn't, suddenly smirks until the witness tells him that the glasses are reading glasses. The stuttering defense lawyer responds emphatically, "I have no more questions for this witness." He returns to the defense table and leans back and says, "wooooo, he was a tough one." I'm picturing Congressional Democrats like that stuttering lawyer. The Republicans fall flat on their faces with the town hall meetings and public opinion polls and Democrats still act as if there's something they need to do to bargain with Republicans and thus save them from being humiliated, and allowing a Social Security reform bill to pass anyway.
Let's hope not.
Grass in the Roots
All the talk about how Democrats need to go back to the grassroots to resurrect the party, and how we need to compete in every state, at every level of political office, be it the local water management district, library board, school board, or county council, has reminded me of a favorite topic of mine, a thesis point, if you will.
My thesis point is that a return to the grassroots is important for reasons beyond the mere building of the party's infrastructure and farm team. It is necessary to demonstrate that Democrats can make government work (again).
Democrats suffer from a Yes, But What Have You Done For Me Lately? problem. If you remember from a recent post of mine, I bragged about liberalism's accomplishments in the last century as a reason why the party shouldn't be embarrassed about its liberal roots. Although I still hold to this, I also have to point out that the party's last period of remarkable contributions was 40 years ago.
One of the "downsides" to the party's success at the national level with civil rights legislation, Medicare and Medicaid, higher education assistance, and so on, was that it took it's focus off of the state and local arenas of political action, believing, rightly in many cases, that federal action was preferable to state and local action because the latter was restricted by a lack of resources or political will to address problems, or both.
But the result of this has been stagnation at the national level as liberalism has seemingly run out of ideas, its candidates and platforms derided for being out of touch, and its past a target of Republicans calling for change. Another result of the national strategy was that the party suffered a drought in its state and local farm team, as Republicans gained in strength in state legislatures, and so fewer Democratic officeholders were ready to make the leap to Congress and beyond.
With fewer state and local officeholders, and few recent national accomplishments, its little wonder that many members of the party's elite have become defensive about the whole progressive agenda and at times frequently battle with Republicans for the contention of who is the true conservative. This is a significant tragedy of both political and policy proportions.
One of the benefits of returning to the grassroots to contest seats for every office is the opportunity to go back to the drawing board, so to speak, and to get involved in making government work again, to actually solve problems and make things better at the local level to the extent possible.
As I hinted above, we know that many problems, such as poor schools, poverty, crime, and the lack of adequate health care are in part the product of broader, national and global structural conditions, but at the same time, Democrats need to recognize the opportunities for creating effective change and improvement in our communities where possible.
The result of this will be not only a party that has a longer list of candidates ready to run for higher offices, but also a stronger party with new and proven ideas for making government work and improving people's lives.
In future posts, I will attempt to add more meat to this idea.
My thesis point is that a return to the grassroots is important for reasons beyond the mere building of the party's infrastructure and farm team. It is necessary to demonstrate that Democrats can make government work (again).
Democrats suffer from a Yes, But What Have You Done For Me Lately? problem. If you remember from a recent post of mine, I bragged about liberalism's accomplishments in the last century as a reason why the party shouldn't be embarrassed about its liberal roots. Although I still hold to this, I also have to point out that the party's last period of remarkable contributions was 40 years ago.
One of the "downsides" to the party's success at the national level with civil rights legislation, Medicare and Medicaid, higher education assistance, and so on, was that it took it's focus off of the state and local arenas of political action, believing, rightly in many cases, that federal action was preferable to state and local action because the latter was restricted by a lack of resources or political will to address problems, or both.
But the result of this has been stagnation at the national level as liberalism has seemingly run out of ideas, its candidates and platforms derided for being out of touch, and its past a target of Republicans calling for change. Another result of the national strategy was that the party suffered a drought in its state and local farm team, as Republicans gained in strength in state legislatures, and so fewer Democratic officeholders were ready to make the leap to Congress and beyond.
With fewer state and local officeholders, and few recent national accomplishments, its little wonder that many members of the party's elite have become defensive about the whole progressive agenda and at times frequently battle with Republicans for the contention of who is the true conservative. This is a significant tragedy of both political and policy proportions.
One of the benefits of returning to the grassroots to contest seats for every office is the opportunity to go back to the drawing board, so to speak, and to get involved in making government work again, to actually solve problems and make things better at the local level to the extent possible.
As I hinted above, we know that many problems, such as poor schools, poverty, crime, and the lack of adequate health care are in part the product of broader, national and global structural conditions, but at the same time, Democrats need to recognize the opportunities for creating effective change and improvement in our communities where possible.
The result of this will be not only a party that has a longer list of candidates ready to run for higher offices, but also a stronger party with new and proven ideas for making government work and improving people's lives.
In future posts, I will attempt to add more meat to this idea.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Awards
As a new blogger I have been vaguely aware of the Koufax awards process and heartily congratulate the winners.
But I think it is worthwhile to pay special notice to the work of two blogs in particular of late for their yeoman work on Social Security and Gannon-Guckert respectively. They are Josh Marshall's TPM and John Aravosis' AmericaBlog, the latter of which I only recently heard of and added to my blogroll when the WH press scandal began to break.
While TPM was always good, his content was random depending on the day until he emerged to give a lazer beam focus on the issue of Social Security "reform", identifying position stances of elected representatives, calling their offices for comments, picking apart the nuances of their responses and media coverage, chasing down leads as to the origins of the various front groups posing as SS "reformers" and generally providing minute by minute coverage of the administration's efforts to take down the program. He's done a great service in strengthening the forces for protecting the program from its ideological opponents and encouraging a solidification in Democratic responsiveness in Congress and throughout the country.
As to the continuing Gannon scandal, the relentless coverage of John Aravosis (and his fantastic TV appearances) has made this about the most embarassing conservative escapade in recent memory. He's provoked the normally ready for TV, cocky folks at Powerline to sputtering profanities and hissing at their website's passersby like some trapped-in-its-cage, deranged dead-alive character out of Salem's Lot or 28 Days Later. AmericaBlog's efforts have finally caused Ann Coulter to crawl up from her sewer to cry about how everyone in the world who gets into the White House briefing room and gains access to classified materials uses a pseudonym and runs sex-fetish websites, as the spittle flies from her mouth and runs down her chinny-chin-chin.
To TPM and AmericaBlog I express my deepest appreciation and admiration.
But I think it is worthwhile to pay special notice to the work of two blogs in particular of late for their yeoman work on Social Security and Gannon-Guckert respectively. They are Josh Marshall's TPM and John Aravosis' AmericaBlog, the latter of which I only recently heard of and added to my blogroll when the WH press scandal began to break.
While TPM was always good, his content was random depending on the day until he emerged to give a lazer beam focus on the issue of Social Security "reform", identifying position stances of elected representatives, calling their offices for comments, picking apart the nuances of their responses and media coverage, chasing down leads as to the origins of the various front groups posing as SS "reformers" and generally providing minute by minute coverage of the administration's efforts to take down the program. He's done a great service in strengthening the forces for protecting the program from its ideological opponents and encouraging a solidification in Democratic responsiveness in Congress and throughout the country.
As to the continuing Gannon scandal, the relentless coverage of John Aravosis (and his fantastic TV appearances) has made this about the most embarassing conservative escapade in recent memory. He's provoked the normally ready for TV, cocky folks at Powerline to sputtering profanities and hissing at their website's passersby like some trapped-in-its-cage, deranged dead-alive character out of Salem's Lot or 28 Days Later. AmericaBlog's efforts have finally caused Ann Coulter to crawl up from her sewer to cry about how everyone in the world who gets into the White House briefing room and gains access to classified materials uses a pseudonym and runs sex-fetish websites, as the spittle flies from her mouth and runs down her chinny-chin-chin.
To TPM and AmericaBlog I express my deepest appreciation and admiration.
How Did This Happen?
As Bulworth has tirelessly flagged for the last three months or so now, liberalism has a bad rep and it needs to be rescusitated if the Democratic Party is going to have a future. I might also add, the redeeming of liberalism is essential for the good of us all, for us to be free and all that. Think I'm exaggerating?
Consider this:
In the last century progressive politics has fought for and given us Social Security, health care for the elderly and the poor, the right of workers to unionize, civil rights, voting protections for minorities, expansion of civil liberties, formal institutions and laws designed to protect workers and consumers from the power of corporations, greater freedom of religion, opened the doors of college education to just about anyone who wants to go through the GI Bill, Pell Grants, and student loans, and general economic prosperity.
Here is what conservatism has given us:
Opposition to all of the above. Conservatives are on record as having opposed the assistance and greater rights provided by all of these initiatives. Legislatively they've given us the Patriot Act, rising budget deficits, and a promise to take out Social Security.
On the literary front conservatism has given us books with titles such as these:
Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism
The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith and Military
In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in WWII and the War on Terror
Why the Left Hates America: Exposing the Lies that have Obscured Our Nation's Greatness
(The Enemy Within; Treason. Who thinks like this?)
The practitioners and purveyors of conservatism have also in recent months said:
We should bring back McCarthism
Physically intimidate liberals (by killing the likes of John Walker Lindh)
The Democratic Party is against America and President Carter is "on the other side"
Opponents of the Iraq War should "Shut Up"
Our freedom of speech may very well become our bondage
Our freedom of speech may very well become the defeat of our soldiers
Accused the ACLU of "not helping" in the war on terror
Yes, conservatives will claim that liberalism has also "kicked God out of the schools" and given us abortion. On the former case, all that was declared unconstitutional was the practice of enforcing school children to worship (that's what corporate prayer is) a god of that teacher or school's understanding. Individual, private prayer is still a very real presence in schools, and will remain so as long as there are tests in schools. On the latter case, ask yourself if conservatives have actually done anything to reduce abortions. Many conservatives oppose birth control which would reduce the need for abortions in most cases. And as we know, the rate of abortions has actually gone up under Republican presidencies. Moreover, many of the so called family values issues and indicators cited by conservatives as a call to arms are worse in conservative states (i.e. higher rates of teen pregnancy, divorce, etc) than in liberal ones.
And Liberalism has the bad name around here. How did that happen?
Consider this:
In the last century progressive politics has fought for and given us Social Security, health care for the elderly and the poor, the right of workers to unionize, civil rights, voting protections for minorities, expansion of civil liberties, formal institutions and laws designed to protect workers and consumers from the power of corporations, greater freedom of religion, opened the doors of college education to just about anyone who wants to go through the GI Bill, Pell Grants, and student loans, and general economic prosperity.
Here is what conservatism has given us:
Opposition to all of the above. Conservatives are on record as having opposed the assistance and greater rights provided by all of these initiatives. Legislatively they've given us the Patriot Act, rising budget deficits, and a promise to take out Social Security.
On the literary front conservatism has given us books with titles such as these:
Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism
The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith and Military
In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in WWII and the War on Terror
Why the Left Hates America: Exposing the Lies that have Obscured Our Nation's Greatness
(The Enemy Within; Treason. Who thinks like this?)
The practitioners and purveyors of conservatism have also in recent months said:
We should bring back McCarthism
Physically intimidate liberals (by killing the likes of John Walker Lindh)
The Democratic Party is against America and President Carter is "on the other side"
Opponents of the Iraq War should "Shut Up"
Our freedom of speech may very well become our bondage
Our freedom of speech may very well become the defeat of our soldiers
Accused the ACLU of "not helping" in the war on terror
Yes, conservatives will claim that liberalism has also "kicked God out of the schools" and given us abortion. On the former case, all that was declared unconstitutional was the practice of enforcing school children to worship (that's what corporate prayer is) a god of that teacher or school's understanding. Individual, private prayer is still a very real presence in schools, and will remain so as long as there are tests in schools. On the latter case, ask yourself if conservatives have actually done anything to reduce abortions. Many conservatives oppose birth control which would reduce the need for abortions in most cases. And as we know, the rate of abortions has actually gone up under Republican presidencies. Moreover, many of the so called family values issues and indicators cited by conservatives as a call to arms are worse in conservative states (i.e. higher rates of teen pregnancy, divorce, etc) than in liberal ones.
And Liberalism has the bad name around here. How did that happen?
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Feeling Minnesota
If you're like me, maybe you've wondered how it is that the most lunatic fringe of the "we must win the war on terra and libruls are a threat to national security" gang resides in a state that--bless its Paul Wellstone soul--is in a climate so cold and locale so out of the way it couldn't attract a terrorist to it if it elected Walter Mondale to the U.S. Senate.*
I won't bother to link to or directly quote the wildly bizarre, fascist comments by some Minnesota lawyer-bloggers we know in addition to some professional columnists types who claim they used to be libruls but now just have to be conservatives because of the war on terra and the Democratic party that "left them". But you know the ones I mean: Democrats are against America. Democrats are on the "other side". Democrats aren't committed to "winning" the "war on terra". Former President Carter is on the other side. Yada Yada Yada.
The "rocket" got so upset the other day he launched an online, profanity-laden tirade against someone who had the temerity to email his site and disagree with his ostrich-head-in-the-ground defense of a pseudojournalist attending WH press conferences under an assumed name with access to secret CIA documents who also wasn't the master of his domain. Nah, why should anybody be concerned about that if the powerline trio isn't.
And it isn't as if a concern for the suffering that may happen to innocent Americans as a result of "terrorism" means anything to them. This gang couldn't care less about the sanctity of life. They joked about Rachel Corrie being killed by Israeli tanks. They didn't want the names and faces of Americans killed in Iraq shown on Nightline. They joked that the OKC perpetrators should have bombed the NYT. They advocate the killing of journalists. They don't care how many Iraqi civilians die in the cause of their war. They pretty much want to incinerate the whole Middle East. They place a higher value on symbolic things, like a three colored cloth flag, and silly jingoist pledges and songs than they place on people. They want to imprison or at least disenfranchise Americans that oppose any U.S. military action or disagree with them.
So living in the mid west means they have no realistic physical fears from terrorism (aside from the homegrown variety) and they don't give a fig about human life, American or otherwise. So what is it that incenses them so much about this so-called war on terrorism that they feel the terms of it can't be debated?
Bulworth says that what incenses mid-western wingnuts on the web, and wingnuts everywhere, is pride. Their identity is as an "American". Not the people mind you. Just the American image. If America is powerful, they feel powerful. If American is vulnerable, they feel vulnerable. Add that to the fact that they just don't like it when anybody disagrees with them and you have the makings of a vitriolic, militant-nationalist web of hate
* The unholy trinity at Powerline and Lileks.
I won't bother to link to or directly quote the wildly bizarre, fascist comments by some Minnesota lawyer-bloggers we know in addition to some professional columnists types who claim they used to be libruls but now just have to be conservatives because of the war on terra and the Democratic party that "left them". But you know the ones I mean: Democrats are against America. Democrats are on the "other side". Democrats aren't committed to "winning" the "war on terra". Former President Carter is on the other side. Yada Yada Yada.
The "rocket" got so upset the other day he launched an online, profanity-laden tirade against someone who had the temerity to email his site and disagree with his ostrich-head-in-the-ground defense of a pseudojournalist attending WH press conferences under an assumed name with access to secret CIA documents who also wasn't the master of his domain. Nah, why should anybody be concerned about that if the powerline trio isn't.
And it isn't as if a concern for the suffering that may happen to innocent Americans as a result of "terrorism" means anything to them. This gang couldn't care less about the sanctity of life. They joked about Rachel Corrie being killed by Israeli tanks. They didn't want the names and faces of Americans killed in Iraq shown on Nightline. They joked that the OKC perpetrators should have bombed the NYT. They advocate the killing of journalists. They don't care how many Iraqi civilians die in the cause of their war. They pretty much want to incinerate the whole Middle East. They place a higher value on symbolic things, like a three colored cloth flag, and silly jingoist pledges and songs than they place on people. They want to imprison or at least disenfranchise Americans that oppose any U.S. military action or disagree with them.
So living in the mid west means they have no realistic physical fears from terrorism (aside from the homegrown variety) and they don't give a fig about human life, American or otherwise. So what is it that incenses them so much about this so-called war on terrorism that they feel the terms of it can't be debated?
Bulworth says that what incenses mid-western wingnuts on the web, and wingnuts everywhere, is pride. Their identity is as an "American". Not the people mind you. Just the American image. If America is powerful, they feel powerful. If American is vulnerable, they feel vulnerable. Add that to the fact that they just don't like it when anybody disagrees with them and you have the makings of a vitriolic, militant-nationalist web of hate
* The unholy trinity at Powerline and Lileks.
Old Time Religion
The new USA Next, aka, United Seniors Association, aka, Swiftboat Veterans for the Ministry of Truth shell group launched a peculiar broadside against AARP for the senior organization's opposition to President Bush's idea for privatizing Social Security, suggesting AARP supported gays but opposed "the troops".
I don't know who or what the new swift boats were trying to target, but via Sisyphus Shrugged, we learn that AARP has a response that includes:
AARP calls your attention to these efforts because media coverage is clear about the aggressive tone of the language. We question why neoconservatives would choose these tactics.
AARP urges you to judge critically the motivations behind statements made against AARP. For example, whenever you see attempts to discredit AARP presented on Fox News Channel or other media outlets like talk radio shows that regularly carry the neoconservative lobbying group messages, AARP urges you to consider these important background facts:
USA Next is a lobbying group that "has poured poured millions of dollars into Republican policy battles" as reported in the New York Times.
As reported by UPI, USA Next has hired a public relations firm with "plans to spend as much as $10 million to counterattack Democrats opposed to changing Social Security, has hired Chris LaCivita, a former Marine who advised Swift Vets on its media campaign and helped write its potent commercials attacking Bush's opponent, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass."
Creative Response Concepts of Alexandria, Virginia is the public relations firm hired by USA Next. As reported by PR Watch, in 2004 "this firm used right-wing blogs and news sites to turn a CBS report casting doubt about President George W. Bush's National Guard services into a potential black eye for both the network and the Democrats."
As readers of this blog have no doubt recognized, Bulworth says Democrats have a problem in that Republicans have successfully demonized the liberal label, forcing Democrats to campaign and legislate from a mystical and ever shifting "center". Embedded in AARP's response to the swift boat attack ads, lies a potential aid in changing this dynamic.
Notice, if you will, my bold italics of the word neoconservative, which come up in the first couple of paragraphs of AARP's talking points. Now, the label neoconservative, is obviously not a new one, but what is relative new is the association of neoconservatism with a domestic issue. We know from the hub-ub surrounding the Iraq war that conservatives hate the term neoconservative. Conservatives have said the label of neoconservative is, alternatively, anti-semitic (because the said proponents of neoconservatism are Jewish and primarily concerned with the protection of the State of Israel) and a fantasy (because there is no such thing as neoconservative*), and on and on.
Bulworth says, let's associate any and all administrative actions that are injurious to working people and the values of liberalism and freedom as neoconservative even if the policy issue is domestic in nature. The label neoconservative sounds suspicious, and it makes conservatives edgy. Given the intent of the neoconservatives surrounding the Iraq war and the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction, it makes good sense to label any significant policy actions and political actions by the administration as being one and the same as the foolhardy and erroneous neoconservative words and policies in the realm of foreign policy. I would also point out that this association is far from being a mere linguistic one. The neoconservative goal has both a domestic-economic and a foreign-economic policy component.
Thanks, AARP.
* "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist".
I don't know who or what the new swift boats were trying to target, but via Sisyphus Shrugged, we learn that AARP has a response that includes:
AARP calls your attention to these efforts because media coverage is clear about the aggressive tone of the language. We question why neoconservatives would choose these tactics.
AARP urges you to judge critically the motivations behind statements made against AARP. For example, whenever you see attempts to discredit AARP presented on Fox News Channel or other media outlets like talk radio shows that regularly carry the neoconservative lobbying group messages, AARP urges you to consider these important background facts:
USA Next is a lobbying group that "has poured poured millions of dollars into Republican policy battles" as reported in the New York Times.
As reported by UPI, USA Next has hired a public relations firm with "plans to spend as much as $10 million to counterattack Democrats opposed to changing Social Security, has hired Chris LaCivita, a former Marine who advised Swift Vets on its media campaign and helped write its potent commercials attacking Bush's opponent, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass."
Creative Response Concepts of Alexandria, Virginia is the public relations firm hired by USA Next. As reported by PR Watch, in 2004 "this firm used right-wing blogs and news sites to turn a CBS report casting doubt about President George W. Bush's National Guard services into a potential black eye for both the network and the Democrats."
As readers of this blog have no doubt recognized, Bulworth says Democrats have a problem in that Republicans have successfully demonized the liberal label, forcing Democrats to campaign and legislate from a mystical and ever shifting "center". Embedded in AARP's response to the swift boat attack ads, lies a potential aid in changing this dynamic.
Notice, if you will, my bold italics of the word neoconservative, which come up in the first couple of paragraphs of AARP's talking points. Now, the label neoconservative, is obviously not a new one, but what is relative new is the association of neoconservatism with a domestic issue. We know from the hub-ub surrounding the Iraq war that conservatives hate the term neoconservative. Conservatives have said the label of neoconservative is, alternatively, anti-semitic (because the said proponents of neoconservatism are Jewish and primarily concerned with the protection of the State of Israel) and a fantasy (because there is no such thing as neoconservative*), and on and on.
Bulworth says, let's associate any and all administrative actions that are injurious to working people and the values of liberalism and freedom as neoconservative even if the policy issue is domestic in nature. The label neoconservative sounds suspicious, and it makes conservatives edgy. Given the intent of the neoconservatives surrounding the Iraq war and the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction, it makes good sense to label any significant policy actions and political actions by the administration as being one and the same as the foolhardy and erroneous neoconservative words and policies in the realm of foreign policy. I would also point out that this association is far from being a mere linguistic one. The neoconservative goal has both a domestic-economic and a foreign-economic policy component.
Thanks, AARP.
* "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist".
Uh, We Didn't Mean That. We Were Just Kidding.
I found this gem yesterday on David Neiwert's page from a self described "real conservative":
Your blog is entertaining, but your running, one sided debate is mostly with straw men of the kosher conservative variety. The real right doesn't take Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh seriously...
Now, this line about "real" conservatives not taking the hysterical, vitriolic, fascist screechings of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage seriously is not a new line of thought or response. I've heard this defense statement before. But in the same breath we're typically reminded about the imposing force represented by Rush's 15 million number radio audience, Ann Coulter's record book sale figures, and on and on. And I might point out that Ann herself is a frequent presence on cable television, including Chris Matthew's. Somebody is taking them seriously.
As is the case with their attempts to claim liberal media bias while trumpeting the success of Fox "News" in the ratings wars, conservatives are trying to have it both ways, to have their cake and eat it, too (and it's working). They want the benefits of Rush and Ann's hatred and propaganda but want to disassociate themselves from it when they fear it may backfire on them.
Your blog is entertaining, but your running, one sided debate is mostly with straw men of the kosher conservative variety. The real right doesn't take Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh seriously...
Now, this line about "real" conservatives not taking the hysterical, vitriolic, fascist screechings of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage seriously is not a new line of thought or response. I've heard this defense statement before. But in the same breath we're typically reminded about the imposing force represented by Rush's 15 million number radio audience, Ann Coulter's record book sale figures, and on and on. And I might point out that Ann herself is a frequent presence on cable television, including Chris Matthew's. Somebody is taking them seriously.
As is the case with their attempts to claim liberal media bias while trumpeting the success of Fox "News" in the ratings wars, conservatives are trying to have it both ways, to have their cake and eat it, too (and it's working). They want the benefits of Rush and Ann's hatred and propaganda but want to disassociate themselves from it when they fear it may backfire on them.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Can Everyone Who Bought One of Those "Let Freedom Reign" Labels Please Return Them?
Now that they have the control of government, conservatives are increasingly backtracking from the whole "less government" thing:
Linda Chavez, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, argued that "one of the things that most concerns people is the sexualization of culture," and that "in the culture wars, they are burning down our houses." She cited a recent experience of stopping at a traffic light as the car next to her played "an incredibly vile rap song. I couldn't avoid hearing simulated sexual intercourse."
and
Leon Kass, Hertog Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said that "it will be no great victory" to win new individual freedoms "if the uses of those freedoms are debased, if families decay, if the general moral vision diminishes."
So now they tell us.
Post Script: You know it's a sorry state of affairs when you're reading a summary of a political pow-wow and Grover Norquist--Grover Norquist!-- comes off as the sensible one
Linda Chavez, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, argued that "one of the things that most concerns people is the sexualization of culture," and that "in the culture wars, they are burning down our houses." She cited a recent experience of stopping at a traffic light as the car next to her played "an incredibly vile rap song. I couldn't avoid hearing simulated sexual intercourse."
and
Leon Kass, Hertog Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said that "it will be no great victory" to win new individual freedoms "if the uses of those freedoms are debased, if families decay, if the general moral vision diminishes."
So now they tell us.
Post Script: You know it's a sorry state of affairs when you're reading a summary of a political pow-wow and Grover Norquist--Grover Norquist!-- comes off as the sensible one
Friday, February 18, 2005
The Trail of "Treason" and The Coming Fascism of the Political Right
Although the notion has been around ever since the country's founding, the word "treason" is increasingly being applied to opponents of the current administration's policies and the ideology of its supporters. The 9-11 attacks and the assumption of power by a Republican majority since 2000 have dramatically increased the trend whereby those who disagree with the ruling regime's ideas and actions are being labeled as traitors to the country.
Below I have included links to a snapshot of issues and persons that illustrate this trend. In some cases, the links depict a summary of right wing commentary and accusations, and in some cases, the right wing sources are clearly peripheral. In addition, it must be admitted that some opponents of the Bush administration have themselves referred to the president and his actions as traitorous. So it's important to acknowledge the necessary qualifications. At the same time, the growing frequency and intensity of the accusations of "treason" from the right represents a great cause for concern.
Below are some of the names of those accusing the "left" of treason and those being accused, which I have indicated following the link:
Michael Moore accused
Ann Coulter accuser
Eason and CNN accused
Ward Churchill accused
John Kerry accused
NY Sun - War Protestors accuser and accused
Southern Reconstructionists accuser
The UN accused
Zell Miller accuser
Washington Times and Marvin Olasky accusers
NewsMax accusers
Powerline and President Carter accuser and accused
As I said, this represents the product of only a quick google search. Maybe someone with more time and better expertise could do a more detailed and thorough investigation. But I think it's enough to show the degree to which the charge is being made against opponents of Bush and the conservative establishment.
Fascism in Nazi Germany was above all else, a hyper-violent strain of nationalism, which in addition to its goals of world domination, violently oppressed its opponents at home. Is it looking familiar here? Welcome to the new Conservative Political Correctness.
Below I have included links to a snapshot of issues and persons that illustrate this trend. In some cases, the links depict a summary of right wing commentary and accusations, and in some cases, the right wing sources are clearly peripheral. In addition, it must be admitted that some opponents of the Bush administration have themselves referred to the president and his actions as traitorous. So it's important to acknowledge the necessary qualifications. At the same time, the growing frequency and intensity of the accusations of "treason" from the right represents a great cause for concern.
Below are some of the names of those accusing the "left" of treason and those being accused, which I have indicated following the link:
Michael Moore accused
Ann Coulter accuser
Eason and CNN accused
Ward Churchill accused
John Kerry accused
NY Sun - War Protestors accuser and accused
Southern Reconstructionists accuser
The UN accused
Zell Miller accuser
Washington Times and Marvin Olasky accusers
NewsMax accusers
Powerline and President Carter accuser and accused
As I said, this represents the product of only a quick google search. Maybe someone with more time and better expertise could do a more detailed and thorough investigation. But I think it's enough to show the degree to which the charge is being made against opponents of Bush and the conservative establishment.
Fascism in Nazi Germany was above all else, a hyper-violent strain of nationalism, which in addition to its goals of world domination, violently oppressed its opponents at home. Is it looking familiar here? Welcome to the new Conservative Political Correctness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)