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.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
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.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Fewer Monuments, More Acts of Graciousness
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.
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.
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.
I understand how, I just don't understand why
Maybe like me, you've been pondering the case of this administration and invasion of Iraq. Maybe like me, you're truly confounded by the administration's arrogance and seeming disregard for the aftermath of the invasion, an apparent total lack of recognition for the resistance that the U.S. military would likely face after Saddam's paper army was dispensed with in the first month of the "conflict".
Maybe like me you've wondered how a democratic government would be set up in Iraq that would simultaneously and obstensibly be responsive to the demands of the population while paying homage to its American benefactors.
Maybe like me you've wondered just what it was about Iraq that got the fires going in the bellies of the PNAC. Oil? Sure, I guess, to an extent. But I'll admit it's never satisfied me completely, this natural resources rationale.
Maybe like me you've even taking to wondering if the ambitions for the war were really as simple as the desire for greater world hegemony now that the Soviet Union was for all practicable purposes, off the stage. But hegemony for what purpose?
Maybe like me you've found yourself wondering that I understand the how, I just don't understand the why, like some Winston Smith apparation from 1984 come to life.
In recent months many of us liberal bloggerers have engaged in a much deserved revelry of disbelief and criticism of this hapless administration as it attempts to spin itself out of the trouble of insurgent numbers and attacks, indefinite forecasts of troop needs, the endless cycle of keeping National Guardsmen and other part timers on past their agreed to service periods and then not adequately providing for them or their families needs, of having the temerity to not provide the military with adequate protection and armor, and on and on the seemingly endless circus of mistakes, incompetence, and national burden continues.
And maybe like me you've started to think that after each insurgent attack or election, or hand over of sovereignty or whatever, that plans will be made to peacefully leave Iraq and leave the country and its oil to the people that live there.
But maybe like me you've regretfully come to believe that this is all a farce, that there is no end sought, that the administration had no exit plan because it didn't plan an exit. Maybe like me you've come to believe that the administration wasn't just unprepared for the insurgent response, that it didn't much care one way or the other how rebellious Iraqis responded the American occupation. Sure, we realize, American troop leaders no doubt would have preferred a less violent transition to American rule, but ultimately, the condition of ongoing Iraqi counterattacks is just immaterial to the task at hand, and that is to establish a foothold of military bases in the country and stay as long as we feel like it there and for whatever reason.
Maybe like me you've come to realize the administration knew that the circumstances of ongoing war, endless battles, serve a purpose for the military and corporate elite in democratic countries as in any other country. Maybe like me you've come to believe that the administration believes in war because it serves to distract the country from more meaningful debates about Who Governs? and enables the expansionist needs of American capitalism to be served.
Maybe like me you've come to believe that whatever happens in Iraq (elections, insurgent attacks, constitution unveilings, etc) over the next several months and years will not change anything, and that besides, we don't have any real idea of knowing what's actually going on over there anyway.
Maybe like me you've reached that point where you realize that more verbage about Iraq is close to senseless and are starting to wonder what we do next.
Maybe like me you've wondered how a democratic government would be set up in Iraq that would simultaneously and obstensibly be responsive to the demands of the population while paying homage to its American benefactors.
Maybe like me you've wondered just what it was about Iraq that got the fires going in the bellies of the PNAC. Oil? Sure, I guess, to an extent. But I'll admit it's never satisfied me completely, this natural resources rationale.
Maybe like me you've even taking to wondering if the ambitions for the war were really as simple as the desire for greater world hegemony now that the Soviet Union was for all practicable purposes, off the stage. But hegemony for what purpose?
Maybe like me you've found yourself wondering that I understand the how, I just don't understand the why, like some Winston Smith apparation from 1984 come to life.
In recent months many of us liberal bloggerers have engaged in a much deserved revelry of disbelief and criticism of this hapless administration as it attempts to spin itself out of the trouble of insurgent numbers and attacks, indefinite forecasts of troop needs, the endless cycle of keeping National Guardsmen and other part timers on past their agreed to service periods and then not adequately providing for them or their families needs, of having the temerity to not provide the military with adequate protection and armor, and on and on the seemingly endless circus of mistakes, incompetence, and national burden continues.
And maybe like me you've started to think that after each insurgent attack or election, or hand over of sovereignty or whatever, that plans will be made to peacefully leave Iraq and leave the country and its oil to the people that live there.
But maybe like me you've regretfully come to believe that this is all a farce, that there is no end sought, that the administration had no exit plan because it didn't plan an exit. Maybe like me you've come to believe that the administration wasn't just unprepared for the insurgent response, that it didn't much care one way or the other how rebellious Iraqis responded the American occupation. Sure, we realize, American troop leaders no doubt would have preferred a less violent transition to American rule, but ultimately, the condition of ongoing Iraqi counterattacks is just immaterial to the task at hand, and that is to establish a foothold of military bases in the country and stay as long as we feel like it there and for whatever reason.
Maybe like me you've come to realize the administration knew that the circumstances of ongoing war, endless battles, serve a purpose for the military and corporate elite in democratic countries as in any other country. Maybe like me you've come to believe that the administration believes in war because it serves to distract the country from more meaningful debates about Who Governs? and enables the expansionist needs of American capitalism to be served.
Maybe like me you've come to believe that whatever happens in Iraq (elections, insurgent attacks, constitution unveilings, etc) over the next several months and years will not change anything, and that besides, we don't have any real idea of knowing what's actually going on over there anyway.
Maybe like me you've reached that point where you realize that more verbage about Iraq is close to senseless and are starting to wonder what we do next.
Remember Ralph Reed?
The once chair of The Christian Coalition? Yeah, him. Well, in a little noticed news item this morning, Reed announced what had long been rumored, that he would seek the office of Lieutenant Governor of Georgia next year. Reed, if he's slipped off your radar screen for the last several years, is currently the chair of the Georgia state Republican Party.
Some of you might find this reference, and Reed, amusing. You might think it's just another example of those silly right wing Christian nuts, again, going and gettin' involved in matters that are beyond their expertise, something that will only make them and himself out to be fools.
I'm here to say that you should be concerned. Very concerned. You may not like Bush, what, with all the references to his supposed "faith" (It's practically an obstacle course to wade through all the fawning books about Bush and his "faith" when I'm at my local Christian bookstore--where much of the other material there is actually very good) and his insufferable and pandering claim in 2000 that Jesus was his favorite "political philospher", but the reality is that about most things political and most things Christian, dubya is about as connected and concerned as a wad of phlegm. Reed, on the other hand, really means that stuff about "morals" and "Christian Nation". Reed might have some dirty fingers in the financial world, too, and we might think his Christian views hypocritical, but his intentions about remaking America into his and his followers image of a Christian theocracy are real enough.
And Reed is very disarming on television. He appears sane, level headed, good natured, and intelligent (which he is).
And it won't take long for him to merge from state office to the national stage.
So don't say I didn't warn you.
This is why Democrats need to address head-on the ideology permeating beneath the cover of the Christian Nation movement (which consists of most Southern Baptists, independent megachurches, radical evangelicals, and television evangelists) and not wait until someone like Reed shows up, and its too late.
Some of you might find this reference, and Reed, amusing. You might think it's just another example of those silly right wing Christian nuts, again, going and gettin' involved in matters that are beyond their expertise, something that will only make them and himself out to be fools.
I'm here to say that you should be concerned. Very concerned. You may not like Bush, what, with all the references to his supposed "faith" (It's practically an obstacle course to wade through all the fawning books about Bush and his "faith" when I'm at my local Christian bookstore--where much of the other material there is actually very good) and his insufferable and pandering claim in 2000 that Jesus was his favorite "political philospher", but the reality is that about most things political and most things Christian, dubya is about as connected and concerned as a wad of phlegm. Reed, on the other hand, really means that stuff about "morals" and "Christian Nation". Reed might have some dirty fingers in the financial world, too, and we might think his Christian views hypocritical, but his intentions about remaking America into his and his followers image of a Christian theocracy are real enough.
And Reed is very disarming on television. He appears sane, level headed, good natured, and intelligent (which he is).
And it won't take long for him to merge from state office to the national stage.
So don't say I didn't warn you.
This is why Democrats need to address head-on the ideology permeating beneath the cover of the Christian Nation movement (which consists of most Southern Baptists, independent megachurches, radical evangelicals, and television evangelists) and not wait until someone like Reed shows up, and its too late.
Three Card Monte
There he goes again. Krugman is still calling the administration's Social Security phase-out plan "privatization", long after the WH has let it be known that they don't like that word and that that is not what their plan does.
But Krugman goes on to link the administration's talk of invading Social Security with its invasion of Iraq. The comparison goes something like this: The administration wants to go to war with Iraq and in issuing a call to arms happens to make a reference or several references to 9-11 or Al Qaeda in the same speech. Some french-loving commentators or bloggerers on the Internets counter that there is no connection between Iraq and 9-11. The administration responds that, yes, technically, there is no connection, but then right away goes back to its "Iraq-911-Osama bin Laden-Iraq-terrorists-911-Iraq-Saddam Hussein-911-terrorists" shell game. The administration ultimately rallies the American people (or at least the gangbangers on Fox "News" and NRO) and launches an invasion of Iraq.
Now, Krugman tells us, the administration is playing the same game with Social Security. The administration says Social Security is going bankrupt, and that it wants to introduce "personal investment accounts" to help people build wealth in Social Security. But, critics of the administration's Social Security scheme say, privatizing Social Security does nothing to alleviate the system's (very) long term financing difficulties emenating from the aging and increasing longevity of the population. The administration responds that, "yes, this is technically true, privatization will not solve Social Security's long term deficit", and then returns to its "Social Security bankruptcy-personal accounts-wealth-bankruptcy-Social Security-private accounts-assets-bankruptcy-inheritance-wealth-bankrupcy" spiel.
In order to inject some much needed bipartisan spirit into these discussions, I would like to clearly state, unequivocally, and on the record, that there is not, nor has there ever been, a connection between Iraq and Social Security. The administration's conduct on Iraq and Social Security have nothing to do with each other. Nothing. There is no link between the lies on Iraq and Social Security. They are a completely different set of lies. Iraq-Social Security-Iraq-bankruptcy-weapons of mass destruction-mushroom clouds-Social Security crisis-bankruptcy-Saddam Hussein-Iraq-Social Security-privatization-Iraq-911-saving Social Security-Iraq...
I hope this has cleared that up.
Meanwhile, those hoping for some bipartisan resolution to the crisis that is the administration's plan for getting rid of Social Security suffered yet another stinging defeat yesterday when House Majority leader Tom Delay announced his objections to suggestions to raise Social Security's taxable maximum amount (currently $90,000) that President Bush, in a moment of candor, admitted might be worthy of consideration if Social Security's 75 year financing estimates are to be strengthened. But The Hammer objected (and will soon, I suspect, see to it that the WH gets the memo on no taxable maximum increase on the TPS reports). That would be a tax increase, said Mr. Delay, and this Congress didn't come here to raise taxes. OK. But does Delay realize that the taxable maximum amount increases every year anyway? It does. It's increased each year by the growth in the average wage index. Does Delay consider this indexing a "tax increase", too?
Now, as for the bipartisanship the Republican Party and media suddenly want Democrats to embrace on Social Security (and everything else), what is it that the Republican Party is willing to compromise on? If there is nothing, then our votes are not needed and nor will they be offered. If Republicans are not willing to compromise on anything, does that mean that they are the "obstructionists"?
Just checking.
But Krugman goes on to link the administration's talk of invading Social Security with its invasion of Iraq. The comparison goes something like this: The administration wants to go to war with Iraq and in issuing a call to arms happens to make a reference or several references to 9-11 or Al Qaeda in the same speech. Some french-loving commentators or bloggerers on the Internets counter that there is no connection between Iraq and 9-11. The administration responds that, yes, technically, there is no connection, but then right away goes back to its "Iraq-911-Osama bin Laden-Iraq-terrorists-911-Iraq-Saddam Hussein-911-terrorists" shell game. The administration ultimately rallies the American people (or at least the gangbangers on Fox "News" and NRO) and launches an invasion of Iraq.
Now, Krugman tells us, the administration is playing the same game with Social Security. The administration says Social Security is going bankrupt, and that it wants to introduce "personal investment accounts" to help people build wealth in Social Security. But, critics of the administration's Social Security scheme say, privatizing Social Security does nothing to alleviate the system's (very) long term financing difficulties emenating from the aging and increasing longevity of the population. The administration responds that, "yes, this is technically true, privatization will not solve Social Security's long term deficit", and then returns to its "Social Security bankruptcy-personal accounts-wealth-bankruptcy-Social Security-private accounts-assets-bankruptcy-inheritance-wealth-bankrupcy" spiel.
In order to inject some much needed bipartisan spirit into these discussions, I would like to clearly state, unequivocally, and on the record, that there is not, nor has there ever been, a connection between Iraq and Social Security. The administration's conduct on Iraq and Social Security have nothing to do with each other. Nothing. There is no link between the lies on Iraq and Social Security. They are a completely different set of lies. Iraq-Social Security-Iraq-bankruptcy-weapons of mass destruction-mushroom clouds-Social Security crisis-bankruptcy-Saddam Hussein-Iraq-Social Security-privatization-Iraq-911-saving Social Security-Iraq...
I hope this has cleared that up.
Meanwhile, those hoping for some bipartisan resolution to the crisis that is the administration's plan for getting rid of Social Security suffered yet another stinging defeat yesterday when House Majority leader Tom Delay announced his objections to suggestions to raise Social Security's taxable maximum amount (currently $90,000) that President Bush, in a moment of candor, admitted might be worthy of consideration if Social Security's 75 year financing estimates are to be strengthened. But The Hammer objected (and will soon, I suspect, see to it that the WH gets the memo on no taxable maximum increase on the TPS reports). That would be a tax increase, said Mr. Delay, and this Congress didn't come here to raise taxes. OK. But does Delay realize that the taxable maximum amount increases every year anyway? It does. It's increased each year by the growth in the average wage index. Does Delay consider this indexing a "tax increase", too?
Now, as for the bipartisanship the Republican Party and media suddenly want Democrats to embrace on Social Security (and everything else), what is it that the Republican Party is willing to compromise on? If there is nothing, then our votes are not needed and nor will they be offered. If Republicans are not willing to compromise on anything, does that mean that they are the "obstructionists"?
Just checking.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Making an Impact
While we're only 5 days into Howard Dean's DNC-ship, we can already see his presence is having the intended effect of driving conservative columnist Robert Novak around the bend.
For example, as he ponders Dean, Novak suddenly discovers the virtues of "nuance" in foreign policy discussion:
On those Sunday programs, Dean will be asked what to do about Iraq. He will not imitate Joe Biden's nuanced analysis, but instead will serve up red meat. It is unlikely Dean would or could adjust to the new atmosphere observed by sophisticated Democratic strategists since the Iraqi elections. Bashing George W. Bush and his war policy, Dean's specialty, no longer seems so suitable.
Meanwhile, he also graces us with a disparaging quote about Dean from one of those treasures, "a Democratic veteran": ''Dean will have a circus on Sunday, and we'll clean up the elephant droppings on Monday,'' a Democratic veteran told me.
All together now: "Some people say...."
Finally, Novak offers us his analysis as to why Dean won: The grassroots? Nah. Nary a friendly word about Kos or any of the rest of the progressive bloggership that outted competitors Roemer and Frost as pseudo-Democrats and that deluged DNC members with emails supportive of the former Vermont governor. Instead:
Dean's accession to the chairmanship does not represent a conscious decision by prominent Democrats, but rather drift and inaction...Dean won because he was the only candidate who pestered DNC members with repeated phone calls. He did not go to all this trouble to be a potted plant. The party, therefore, is stuck with somebody who believes that the fiercer the rhetoric the better, and there is ''fat chance'' that he will change.
I don't know if anyone is counting, but this has got to be Novak's fourth or fifth column about Dean in the past month. Me thinks he's worried Dean's penchant for bomb-throwing will make life uneasy for Republicans. Let's hope.
For example, as he ponders Dean, Novak suddenly discovers the virtues of "nuance" in foreign policy discussion:
On those Sunday programs, Dean will be asked what to do about Iraq. He will not imitate Joe Biden's nuanced analysis, but instead will serve up red meat. It is unlikely Dean would or could adjust to the new atmosphere observed by sophisticated Democratic strategists since the Iraqi elections. Bashing George W. Bush and his war policy, Dean's specialty, no longer seems so suitable.
Meanwhile, he also graces us with a disparaging quote about Dean from one of those treasures, "a Democratic veteran": ''Dean will have a circus on Sunday, and we'll clean up the elephant droppings on Monday,'' a Democratic veteran told me.
All together now: "Some people say...."
Finally, Novak offers us his analysis as to why Dean won: The grassroots? Nah. Nary a friendly word about Kos or any of the rest of the progressive bloggership that outted competitors Roemer and Frost as pseudo-Democrats and that deluged DNC members with emails supportive of the former Vermont governor. Instead:
Dean's accession to the chairmanship does not represent a conscious decision by prominent Democrats, but rather drift and inaction...Dean won because he was the only candidate who pestered DNC members with repeated phone calls. He did not go to all this trouble to be a potted plant. The party, therefore, is stuck with somebody who believes that the fiercer the rhetoric the better, and there is ''fat chance'' that he will change.
I don't know if anyone is counting, but this has got to be Novak's fourth or fifth column about Dean in the past month. Me thinks he's worried Dean's penchant for bomb-throwing will make life uneasy for Republicans. Let's hope.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
The Sleeper Issue of '08
The Separation of Church and State.
Among the many issues that Republicans have managed to put back on the agenda, half a century after it appeared to have been settled in a manner favorable to the cause of individual liberties, is whether the state or the country should enforce religious adherence or worship.
Julie at Sisyphus Shrugged and Steve from No More Mister Nice Blog clue us in to the beliefs of one of the judges Bush has renominated. Like Alan Keyes in this past summer's Illinois U.S. Senate campaign, Janice Rogers Brown thinks the states should have the authority to have a state religion and require religious tests or oathes. This is on the heels of very public and emphatic efforts by radical evangelicals to get the "wall" between church and state torn down (see my earlier posts on D. James Kennedy and Rod Parsley, televangelists extraordinaire). The position of these advocates of theocracy is that the Wall between church and state is a fiction, that the First Amendment restrictions on government intervention in religious affairs as interpreted by "liberal" jurists have been distorted, and that policymakers should return us to the glory days when America was a "Christian Nation" (Left2Right has had some very good posts on this).
To his credit, but probably because he didn't have much choice, Bush addressed the matter of his faith during the last presidential debate and clearly stated his recognition that the government shouldn't and can't compel religious belief or devotion on the part of its citizens, and that the people were free to worship God or not as they so chose. But this is a view that is dying out among most Republicans or is one that they disagree with, if their many other public and private comments are any indication of their preferences. Remember U.S. Senate candidate Liddy Dole remarking that the "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion".
In the 1992 election, the media reacted scornfully to the vengeful "culture war" speeches during the Republican convention and afterwards proclaimed that the influence of evangelicals had hurt the GOP's chances. After the Republican triumph of 1994, that perception changed, and conservative evangelicalism was reported to be "Back". But four years later, Democratic pickups in 1998 during the impeachment battle were used by some commentators to suggest that Republican conservatives had overplayed their hand and done more to help Clinton than to hurt him. Now, after the elections of 2000 and 2004, the pendulum has swung again back to the evangelicals' side and Democrats are being challenged to reach out more to socially conservative voters.
Democratic officials and liberal bloggers should make sure this issue does not get swept under the carpet in the months ahead.
Among the many issues that Republicans have managed to put back on the agenda, half a century after it appeared to have been settled in a manner favorable to the cause of individual liberties, is whether the state or the country should enforce religious adherence or worship.
Julie at Sisyphus Shrugged and Steve from No More Mister Nice Blog clue us in to the beliefs of one of the judges Bush has renominated. Like Alan Keyes in this past summer's Illinois U.S. Senate campaign, Janice Rogers Brown thinks the states should have the authority to have a state religion and require religious tests or oathes. This is on the heels of very public and emphatic efforts by radical evangelicals to get the "wall" between church and state torn down (see my earlier posts on D. James Kennedy and Rod Parsley, televangelists extraordinaire). The position of these advocates of theocracy is that the Wall between church and state is a fiction, that the First Amendment restrictions on government intervention in religious affairs as interpreted by "liberal" jurists have been distorted, and that policymakers should return us to the glory days when America was a "Christian Nation" (Left2Right has had some very good posts on this).
To his credit, but probably because he didn't have much choice, Bush addressed the matter of his faith during the last presidential debate and clearly stated his recognition that the government shouldn't and can't compel religious belief or devotion on the part of its citizens, and that the people were free to worship God or not as they so chose. But this is a view that is dying out among most Republicans or is one that they disagree with, if their many other public and private comments are any indication of their preferences. Remember U.S. Senate candidate Liddy Dole remarking that the "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion".
In the 1992 election, the media reacted scornfully to the vengeful "culture war" speeches during the Republican convention and afterwards proclaimed that the influence of evangelicals had hurt the GOP's chances. After the Republican triumph of 1994, that perception changed, and conservative evangelicalism was reported to be "Back". But four years later, Democratic pickups in 1998 during the impeachment battle were used by some commentators to suggest that Republican conservatives had overplayed their hand and done more to help Clinton than to hurt him. Now, after the elections of 2000 and 2004, the pendulum has swung again back to the evangelicals' side and Democrats are being challenged to reach out more to socially conservative voters.
Democratic officials and liberal bloggers should make sure this issue does not get swept under the carpet in the months ahead.
08
Jerome has an interesting post and internets poll results for potential Republican candidates in '08.
My take:
I doubt Rice's juice will last. She doesn't hold up well under the glare of unfriendly questions and attention. And she's got three years to go before the administration's foreign policy positions will have to stand up to opponent's attacks, something that could be especially difficult if troops are still in Iraq and the administration is making noice about invading Syria or Iran, if it hasn't already done so.
I can't see either Guiliani or McCain getting the nomination.
I don't see anybody else on the R side having the electoral upside of Jeb! He's a governor. And while much has been made of the difficult electoral college Democrats face, the fact is Republicans have to win Ohio and Florida to win the EC. As the current governor of FL, Jeb! gives them the best chance to do that. But then again there is likely to be some Bush-name fatigue which if Jeb! gets the nomination, could help us.
Overall, I have a hard time seeing anybody but Jeb! getting the R nomination in '08.
Democrats.
Mark Warner and Evan Bayh have gotten some play. I've heard Biden's name out there. Edwards has launched a poverty center at UNC and already made a trip to NH to keep his name in the mix.
I doubt Kerry will run. He has a better record in the Senate than his campaign chose to amplify, but even though he finished well for someone challenging an incumbent, he didn't inspire much confidence other than his supposed ability to win. Gore's name hasn't been out there much. While the common feeling maybe that Gore had his chance, his spirited denunctiations of Bush's policies last year makes him an intriguing choice should he throw his hat in the ring.
I have a hard time seeing Hilary making the run. And I have a hard time imagining her not running. I'd accept her, of course, if she ran and won the nomination, but I don't favor her. While Republicans will attempt to crucify whoever the Dem nominee is, Hilary would give them a lot more amunition than anyone else, and although I appreciate Bill Clinton's contributions to the party, I'd prefer to see a non-Clinton get the nomination and thus give the party a different face and set of policy approaches. If there is another Bush-Clinton election I think I'd go crazy.
My take:
I doubt Rice's juice will last. She doesn't hold up well under the glare of unfriendly questions and attention. And she's got three years to go before the administration's foreign policy positions will have to stand up to opponent's attacks, something that could be especially difficult if troops are still in Iraq and the administration is making noice about invading Syria or Iran, if it hasn't already done so.
I can't see either Guiliani or McCain getting the nomination.
I don't see anybody else on the R side having the electoral upside of Jeb! He's a governor. And while much has been made of the difficult electoral college Democrats face, the fact is Republicans have to win Ohio and Florida to win the EC. As the current governor of FL, Jeb! gives them the best chance to do that. But then again there is likely to be some Bush-name fatigue which if Jeb! gets the nomination, could help us.
Overall, I have a hard time seeing anybody but Jeb! getting the R nomination in '08.
Democrats.
Mark Warner and Evan Bayh have gotten some play. I've heard Biden's name out there. Edwards has launched a poverty center at UNC and already made a trip to NH to keep his name in the mix.
I doubt Kerry will run. He has a better record in the Senate than his campaign chose to amplify, but even though he finished well for someone challenging an incumbent, he didn't inspire much confidence other than his supposed ability to win. Gore's name hasn't been out there much. While the common feeling maybe that Gore had his chance, his spirited denunctiations of Bush's policies last year makes him an intriguing choice should he throw his hat in the ring.
I have a hard time seeing Hilary making the run. And I have a hard time imagining her not running. I'd accept her, of course, if she ran and won the nomination, but I don't favor her. While Republicans will attempt to crucify whoever the Dem nominee is, Hilary would give them a lot more amunition than anyone else, and although I appreciate Bill Clinton's contributions to the party, I'd prefer to see a non-Clinton get the nomination and thus give the party a different face and set of policy approaches. If there is another Bush-Clinton election I think I'd go crazy.
2 More Cents
On the Ward Churchill issue. Then I'll drop it. I swear.
We don't have to like or agree with Churchill's comments or essay, but I think we should all recognize the severity of the threat posed to the right of freedom of expression, especially on campus and by academicians, that the right wing's babble machine is mustering over this issue, as they attempt to further suppress dissent towards the current gang of thugs regime hanging out in the WH and Congress and their attempts to force the rest of us to conform--at least outwardly--to their idealized vision of an innocent, glorious America, that can broker no questioning, criticism or demands for accountability.
This militant, hyper-nationalism on the part of the rightwing is the scarriest aspect of the changes during the past decade in American politics. And as I attempted to point out in an earlier post, it is highly ironic and Orwellian to the nth degree that wingnut ideology demands the framing of issues as being choices between "right and wrong", yet refuses to consider the moral implications of its arrogant and abusive policies, both domestic and foreign, and responds angrily and vindictively when it is challenged to do so.
An aside: I recently came across the minutes from the meeting in which former Florida congressman turned cable TV screecher Joe Scarborough pitched his idea of a new shoutfest show to MSNBC executives. Let's listen in.
MSNBC executive: So, Joe, what's this idea for a show you wanted to talk to us about?
Scarborough: It's a show about nothin'.
MSNBC executive: A show about nothin'? What does that mean?
Scarborough: I mean it's a show about nothin'.
MSNBC executive: what happens on the show? what would you talk about?
Scarborough: Nothin'.
MSNBC executive: than why am I watching the show?
Scarborough: because it's on TV.
MSNBC executive: not yet....
Scarborough: listen, this is the show, and I'm not changin' it. Now if you just want to go ahead and keep doing the same old thing that everybody else is doing, then go ahead. But I refuse to sacrifice my artistic integrity....
MSNBC executive: a show about nothin', huh?
Scarborough: that's right.
MSNBC executive: I think you may have something here.
Next: Bill O'Reilly, Shepherd Smith, and Cal Thomas pitch their ideas for shows to Roger Ailes (the bad one).
We don't have to like or agree with Churchill's comments or essay, but I think we should all recognize the severity of the threat posed to the right of freedom of expression, especially on campus and by academicians, that the right wing's babble machine is mustering over this issue, as they attempt to further suppress dissent towards the current gang of thugs regime hanging out in the WH and Congress and their attempts to force the rest of us to conform--at least outwardly--to their idealized vision of an innocent, glorious America, that can broker no questioning, criticism or demands for accountability.
This militant, hyper-nationalism on the part of the rightwing is the scarriest aspect of the changes during the past decade in American politics. And as I attempted to point out in an earlier post, it is highly ironic and Orwellian to the nth degree that wingnut ideology demands the framing of issues as being choices between "right and wrong", yet refuses to consider the moral implications of its arrogant and abusive policies, both domestic and foreign, and responds angrily and vindictively when it is challenged to do so.
An aside: I recently came across the minutes from the meeting in which former Florida congressman turned cable TV screecher Joe Scarborough pitched his idea of a new shoutfest show to MSNBC executives. Let's listen in.
MSNBC executive: So, Joe, what's this idea for a show you wanted to talk to us about?
Scarborough: It's a show about nothin'.
MSNBC executive: A show about nothin'? What does that mean?
Scarborough: I mean it's a show about nothin'.
MSNBC executive: what happens on the show? what would you talk about?
Scarborough: Nothin'.
MSNBC executive: than why am I watching the show?
Scarborough: because it's on TV.
MSNBC executive: not yet....
Scarborough: listen, this is the show, and I'm not changin' it. Now if you just want to go ahead and keep doing the same old thing that everybody else is doing, then go ahead. But I refuse to sacrifice my artistic integrity....
MSNBC executive: a show about nothin', huh?
Scarborough: that's right.
MSNBC executive: I think you may have something here.
Next: Bill O'Reilly, Shepherd Smith, and Cal Thomas pitch their ideas for shows to Roger Ailes (the bad one).
About Last Night
So last night I tuned into Law and Order: Criminal Intent, for no particular reason; not anything else on worth watching. Turns out it's an episode about "secret prisoners" being housed in a NY prison, all part and parcel of the war on terra. In the course of pursuing your regular seemingly run of the mill murder, the LAO investigators turn up evidence of mysterious goings on in one of the nearby prisons. The show shines the spotlight on terrorism suspects being held secretly, indefinitely, and brutally. Surprisingly, the episode was pretty good, hard hitting. To tell you the truth, I had almost forgotten about all of this.
Which reminded me of a post from Alt Hippo the other day, lamenting the "issue of the day" approach employed by most bloggers. Something exciting happens. We write about it. Then we forget it and go on to the Next Big Thing. There are some exceptions to this: Josh Marshall's unrelenting focus on Social Security Privatization; The Demagogue's attention to the crisis in Sudan. But for the most part, we're a flighty, short attention span bunch, usually content to respond to issues as they emerge. Now of course, most of us are doing this on the side to our regular employment so we aren't putting the time or effort into researching or journalisming any one issue as some of our blogging colleagues get to do. Still fewer of us have any expectation of changing the world. But there's something to be said for FOCUS and PERSISTENCY. We, and our elected representatives, shouldn't let up on the efforts of this administration to detain people unlawfully for the obstensible purpose of fighting a so-called war on terrorism (and I'm not particularly interested in the distinction between citizens and non-citizens of the U.S. being rounded up: while the thought that citizens are being deprived of their constitutional rights should be and is chilling, it wouldn't offer much more consolation to me to know that the "only" people having their natural rights abused were "other people"). It's not a large leap to get from persecuting non citizens to persecuting citizens, as it seems abundantly clear is happening anyway.
Ironically, while I was watching LAO:CI, I also happened to be reading Amartya Sen's book, Development as Freedom, for a class on the political economy of development I'm taking at the UMD-College Park. And I was further ironically in the part of the book that highlights the benefits of democracy as preventing official corruption and stemming the effects of natural disasters and famines, due to the accountability supplied on governing officials by a free press and oppositional parties. Hmmmm, I wondered. (If we only had a free press and oppositional parties).
But isn't it interesting that the issue of the administration's detainment policies has kinda slipped off the front page and television leads? What is being done to follow up on past reports and to ensure that detainees are given proper access to their lawyers and families, as well as being treated humainly?
So thanks to Hollywood and the producers and cast of LAO:CI for drawing our attention back to this problem and to the actions of the current regime that we still need to change even as the electoral mechanism was turned aside last November. We still have a job to do in our democracy of holding our representatives to account.
Special Feature: When one of the CI cast makes a reference in the course of the episode to the Patriot Act, the Chris Noth character replies that he read the Patriot Act in its original version--(the book) 1984. Priceless.
Which reminded me of a post from Alt Hippo the other day, lamenting the "issue of the day" approach employed by most bloggers. Something exciting happens. We write about it. Then we forget it and go on to the Next Big Thing. There are some exceptions to this: Josh Marshall's unrelenting focus on Social Security Privatization; The Demagogue's attention to the crisis in Sudan. But for the most part, we're a flighty, short attention span bunch, usually content to respond to issues as they emerge. Now of course, most of us are doing this on the side to our regular employment so we aren't putting the time or effort into researching or journalisming any one issue as some of our blogging colleagues get to do. Still fewer of us have any expectation of changing the world. But there's something to be said for FOCUS and PERSISTENCY. We, and our elected representatives, shouldn't let up on the efforts of this administration to detain people unlawfully for the obstensible purpose of fighting a so-called war on terrorism (and I'm not particularly interested in the distinction between citizens and non-citizens of the U.S. being rounded up: while the thought that citizens are being deprived of their constitutional rights should be and is chilling, it wouldn't offer much more consolation to me to know that the "only" people having their natural rights abused were "other people"). It's not a large leap to get from persecuting non citizens to persecuting citizens, as it seems abundantly clear is happening anyway.
Ironically, while I was watching LAO:CI, I also happened to be reading Amartya Sen's book, Development as Freedom, for a class on the political economy of development I'm taking at the UMD-College Park. And I was further ironically in the part of the book that highlights the benefits of democracy as preventing official corruption and stemming the effects of natural disasters and famines, due to the accountability supplied on governing officials by a free press and oppositional parties. Hmmmm, I wondered. (If we only had a free press and oppositional parties).
But isn't it interesting that the issue of the administration's detainment policies has kinda slipped off the front page and television leads? What is being done to follow up on past reports and to ensure that detainees are given proper access to their lawyers and families, as well as being treated humainly?
So thanks to Hollywood and the producers and cast of LAO:CI for drawing our attention back to this problem and to the actions of the current regime that we still need to change even as the electoral mechanism was turned aside last November. We still have a job to do in our democracy of holding our representatives to account.
Special Feature: When one of the CI cast makes a reference in the course of the episode to the Patriot Act, the Chris Noth character replies that he read the Patriot Act in its original version--(the book) 1984. Priceless.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Privacy
Left2Right has a post calling the conservative's "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution what it is--bupkes.
Don Herzog goes on to explain in a scholarly way what I've long believed is the basis for this conservative mantra, the self interest of conservatives and the needs of the powers they wish to protect, not the dis-interested, objective conclusions required of careful jurisprudence. This topic will be chapter 423 of my forthcoming book, Why I am not a Conservative.
Chapter 89 will cover the perplexing state of affairs that has conservatives claiming to be about and for "less government", but adamantly opposed to the Right to Privacy.
As Jesse Taylor point out last week, conservatives are not actually against big government, or activist judges, they're just against liberalism.
Don Herzog goes on to explain in a scholarly way what I've long believed is the basis for this conservative mantra, the self interest of conservatives and the needs of the powers they wish to protect, not the dis-interested, objective conclusions required of careful jurisprudence. This topic will be chapter 423 of my forthcoming book, Why I am not a Conservative.
Chapter 89 will cover the perplexing state of affairs that has conservatives claiming to be about and for "less government", but adamantly opposed to the Right to Privacy.
As Jesse Taylor point out last week, conservatives are not actually against big government, or activist judges, they're just against liberalism.
The Answer
Mark Schmidt is wondering where the Social Security privatization liberals are and, indirectly, why Bush doesn't seem to care about cultivating them and achieving some measure of a bipartisan consensus on reforming Social Security.
Here is my answer:
Bush only cares about Republican votes in the House and picking off a few scared, potentially vulnerable Democrats from Red States up for re-election in 2006 on the Senate side. The Rove-Norquist-Delay Strategy is intimidation, not cooperation. It worked for taxes, the war, and for establishing the union-broken Department of Homeland Security. But I don't think it will work for Social Security. Who knows, maybe it's not even intended to. From the Republican point of view, maybe it's enough that they've gotten this far with the debate.
Here is my answer:
Bush only cares about Republican votes in the House and picking off a few scared, potentially vulnerable Democrats from Red States up for re-election in 2006 on the Senate side. The Rove-Norquist-Delay Strategy is intimidation, not cooperation. It worked for taxes, the war, and for establishing the union-broken Department of Homeland Security. But I don't think it will work for Social Security. Who knows, maybe it's not even intended to. From the Republican point of view, maybe it's enough that they've gotten this far with the debate.
Dear Paul
I really enjoyed your column today, but there is one problem.
The label. Moderate. Fighting Moderates. Here is what you say about the elevation of Dr. Dean to the chairmanship of the DNC:
Those words tell us what the selection of Mr. Dean means. It doesn't represent a turn to the left: Mr. Dean is squarely in the center of his party on issues like health care and national defense.
Then you go on to tell us how Dean as governor of Vermont balanced budgets even when he didn't have to, so "it was always absurd to call Mr. Dean a left-winger". Instead Dean is a "fighting moderate".
I know you mean well, and much of what I am about to contend may be more a matter of semantics than substance, but the problem is, the style of the thing, and the words we use matter. Now, when we use words like "moderate" and "centrist" and "center", we are really being cowardly, in my view. And the more we talk like this, the more Republicans continue to proudly assert their "conservatism" and the whole debate becomes a "moderate" versus "conservative" thing, and the result is, the debate and the policies and the "center" keep getting pushed further and further to the right.
Here's an idea. We are liberals. Why not say that? The truth is, yes, I want today's politics and policies to make a turn to the left. You say that Dean's ascension does not represent a turn to the left. But shouldn't it?
"Well, 'liberal' has a bad name". And why is that? Because the conservatives have made it so. We need to correct and reverse that notion. Because the reality is, liberalism is good. Liberalism works. We have a whole century of social progress to look back on that says liberalism is good and that liberalism does work.
While attempts to claim the moderate label or the center of the political debate may be smart politics today, they are bad politics for tomorrow, and for the day after that.
The problem is not just today's bad policies. The bad policies of today stem from our decision yesterday to abandon the ideals of liberalism for a short cut to the electoral promised land (and that hasn't worked either, if you've noticed). The problem is the political frame and context, including symbols, in which the political discourse occurs. This is what must change. By claiming we are moderates we are sounding reasonable, but people don't respect it, or at least people that are motivated to go to the polls don't. And I don't remember the conservative movement, in picking up the pieces after 1932 or 1964 making efforts to become "more moderate". No, they went back to their ideology's roots, and attempted to swing the culture to their point of view, rather than attempting to move themselves to fit the changing environment. Yeah, they've used soft talk and code words when they've had to, but they didn't turn away from their basic idea of a conservative heaven or apologize for opinions that were unpopular to some people. And today, as a result, we are talking about tearing down the foundation of the New Deal. This is how far the debate has shifted.
Paul, you have a valuable platform. Please recognize that the problem is not just today's policy debate. It is today's political environment, including the words we use and how we identify ourselves. If we seem apologetic about our history and our values, others will sense that, and we will continue to lose ground.
Yeah, the media and the Republicans are loudly proclaiming that Dean is a "liberal". I actually think this is a good thing. We should leave the media and the Republicans with this impression. We shouldn't be spending valuable time trying to debunk this idea by yapping about balanced budgets and NRA ratings.
Liberal. It's OK. You can say it. And we'll all be the better for it later.
The label. Moderate. Fighting Moderates. Here is what you say about the elevation of Dr. Dean to the chairmanship of the DNC:
Those words tell us what the selection of Mr. Dean means. It doesn't represent a turn to the left: Mr. Dean is squarely in the center of his party on issues like health care and national defense.
Then you go on to tell us how Dean as governor of Vermont balanced budgets even when he didn't have to, so "it was always absurd to call Mr. Dean a left-winger". Instead Dean is a "fighting moderate".
I know you mean well, and much of what I am about to contend may be more a matter of semantics than substance, but the problem is, the style of the thing, and the words we use matter. Now, when we use words like "moderate" and "centrist" and "center", we are really being cowardly, in my view. And the more we talk like this, the more Republicans continue to proudly assert their "conservatism" and the whole debate becomes a "moderate" versus "conservative" thing, and the result is, the debate and the policies and the "center" keep getting pushed further and further to the right.
Here's an idea. We are liberals. Why not say that? The truth is, yes, I want today's politics and policies to make a turn to the left. You say that Dean's ascension does not represent a turn to the left. But shouldn't it?
"Well, 'liberal' has a bad name". And why is that? Because the conservatives have made it so. We need to correct and reverse that notion. Because the reality is, liberalism is good. Liberalism works. We have a whole century of social progress to look back on that says liberalism is good and that liberalism does work.
While attempts to claim the moderate label or the center of the political debate may be smart politics today, they are bad politics for tomorrow, and for the day after that.
The problem is not just today's bad policies. The bad policies of today stem from our decision yesterday to abandon the ideals of liberalism for a short cut to the electoral promised land (and that hasn't worked either, if you've noticed). The problem is the political frame and context, including symbols, in which the political discourse occurs. This is what must change. By claiming we are moderates we are sounding reasonable, but people don't respect it, or at least people that are motivated to go to the polls don't. And I don't remember the conservative movement, in picking up the pieces after 1932 or 1964 making efforts to become "more moderate". No, they went back to their ideology's roots, and attempted to swing the culture to their point of view, rather than attempting to move themselves to fit the changing environment. Yeah, they've used soft talk and code words when they've had to, but they didn't turn away from their basic idea of a conservative heaven or apologize for opinions that were unpopular to some people. And today, as a result, we are talking about tearing down the foundation of the New Deal. This is how far the debate has shifted.
Paul, you have a valuable platform. Please recognize that the problem is not just today's policy debate. It is today's political environment, including the words we use and how we identify ourselves. If we seem apologetic about our history and our values, others will sense that, and we will continue to lose ground.
Yeah, the media and the Republicans are loudly proclaiming that Dean is a "liberal". I actually think this is a good thing. We should leave the media and the Republicans with this impression. We shouldn't be spending valuable time trying to debunk this idea by yapping about balanced budgets and NRA ratings.
Liberal. It's OK. You can say it. And we'll all be the better for it later.
Monday, February 14, 2005
My Esteemed Colleagues...
The Leftcoaster has a stunning headline and argument entitled The Coming Days of Rage.
I've been thinking a lot along these lines for some time now although I'll admit I hadn't really clued into the economic dimension as is presented at this post before. But the economic angle does suggest that there may be changes of more importance besides the aggregate indicators (unemployment rates, inflation, economic growth, etc) most pundits rely on to predict economic security and political contentment with the current regime. In short, if the wrong Americans (i.e. well educated, white) are angry, it won't matter how well the professional economists say we are doing to cause a political crisis.
Then add on the religious element, America's military interventions, the threat--real or imagined--presented by terrorism by The Other that can strike anywhere at any time, the anti-dissension hysteria fanned by institutions like Fox and talk radio, and we have a recipe for craziness.
I've been thinking a lot along these lines for some time now although I'll admit I hadn't really clued into the economic dimension as is presented at this post before. But the economic angle does suggest that there may be changes of more importance besides the aggregate indicators (unemployment rates, inflation, economic growth, etc) most pundits rely on to predict economic security and political contentment with the current regime. In short, if the wrong Americans (i.e. well educated, white) are angry, it won't matter how well the professional economists say we are doing to cause a political crisis.
Then add on the religious element, America's military interventions, the threat--real or imagined--presented by terrorism by The Other that can strike anywhere at any time, the anti-dissension hysteria fanned by institutions like Fox and talk radio, and we have a recipe for craziness.
Good and Evil
So I happened upon a speech by Ward Churchill playing on C-Span over the weekend, that apparently was from earlier last week.
I agreed with most, if not nearly everything, he said. Americans tell pollsters they like someone who tells it straight up, who isn't afraid to say or do what isn't popular. Conservatives blanch at "political correctness" and say they admire people who speak the "truth" even if the person saying the truth isn't very nice about it. But what if the straight up truth isn't popular and doesn't come out very polite-like? Well, that's Ward Churchill. He thinks America's been exploitive and murderous and he doesn't much care whether you like that suggestion or him very much.
Alongside the good the country has done, America has also shed much blood in a variety of open as well as hidden causes, not to mention exploited the lives and natural resources of others for the sake of profit and power. And if there is a Higher Power that ultimately judges such things, then we can expect America to face the consequences of these actions, regardless of whether the American press knows of them or reports them if they do.
But it is the course of things in the U.S. that the murkier sides of America's involvement overseas has received little or no attention, much less thoughtful analysis or debate. So understandably, most people have little sense of what Churchill and others are talking about and are for that reason, offended, and easily provoked by the right wing rabble that does or should understand the basis for Churchill's comments but would rather glamorize America's past and present for the purposes of achieving its own cultural and ideological objectives.
Furthermore, because of the harmful acts of America's military establishment and corporate empires overseas, I don't think it's a big stretch to suggest that the events of 9-11 were a payback of sorts, if not directly to the real or imagined grievances cited by Al Qaeda, then to that of a Higher Authority, who has informed us that He Will Repay. Abraham Lincoln himself mused that the elongated course of the Civil War may have served in part to repay the nation for the sin of slavery through the blood that was shed. In the same way, decades of persecuting political opponents of corporatism and militarism in Latin America, favoring profits over healing in Africa, and offhandedly supporting or opposing dictators in the Middle East based on material or ideological concerns rather than human rights will bear fruit.
That the innocent also suffered on 9-11 is no refutation of this fact. The innocent always suffere for the sins of others. It is the nature of evil. And furthermore, the notion of 9-11 as a divine rebuke was not lost on religious conservatives such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell in the days and weeks afterward, who while pointing to different national sins as the root of the trouble, also fingered God as at least allowing the events to take place.
Although religious conservatives like to claim the God of the Bible is on their side, the judgements of God on the nations recorded in Holy Scripture suggests something else is at work in the mind of the Almighty. Pride, violence, and the trampling of the poor play as critical role, if not more so, than sexual immorality in causing God to first warn, and then inflict punishment upon nations that will not repent. And above all else, America is a proud nation. Pride goeth before a fall, the scriptures tell us. Surely it would be folly for us to not recognize the eventual harmful effects of an exploitive and militant foreign policy?
Which leads me to another point. Conservatives frequently complain that issues should be discussed and decided on on the basis of their contribution to the struggle between Right and Wrong (rather than on some cost-benefit ratio determination--although conservatives themselves favor this efficiency approach on many business regulatory matters, but that's another post for another day). But in doing so, conservatives should recognize that in trying to move the arguing of public policy to this domain, that they also risk having the moral implications of policies turned back on themselves, particularly in matters related to social justice and when the issues involve our killing of others in foreign lands for dubious or self serving purposes.
And it also means that the terms and tones of the debates will not necessarily lend themselves to being able to fudge the differences, to claim that a strict black and white definition of a particular problem (such as the conflict between tax cuts for the rich and cuts in food stamps) doesn't apply in their pet case. They are opening a can of worms they may regret later.
And it also means that if the other side adopts the same confrontational rhetoric and tactics that they themselves practice, conservatives will find themselves enraged by and attempting to argue with a lot more Ward Churchills.
As for Ward Churchill, I hope he hangs in there and rides out the attempts to fire him. At the same time, I concede that his style is not one that encourages reasonable debate and isn't geared towards winning over opponents. But, as I've indicated, this is the fallout for conservatives from pushing a strict, no holds barred, right or wrong way of looking at the world, a debate they will not always win or be able to control.
I agreed with most, if not nearly everything, he said. Americans tell pollsters they like someone who tells it straight up, who isn't afraid to say or do what isn't popular. Conservatives blanch at "political correctness" and say they admire people who speak the "truth" even if the person saying the truth isn't very nice about it. But what if the straight up truth isn't popular and doesn't come out very polite-like? Well, that's Ward Churchill. He thinks America's been exploitive and murderous and he doesn't much care whether you like that suggestion or him very much.
Alongside the good the country has done, America has also shed much blood in a variety of open as well as hidden causes, not to mention exploited the lives and natural resources of others for the sake of profit and power. And if there is a Higher Power that ultimately judges such things, then we can expect America to face the consequences of these actions, regardless of whether the American press knows of them or reports them if they do.
But it is the course of things in the U.S. that the murkier sides of America's involvement overseas has received little or no attention, much less thoughtful analysis or debate. So understandably, most people have little sense of what Churchill and others are talking about and are for that reason, offended, and easily provoked by the right wing rabble that does or should understand the basis for Churchill's comments but would rather glamorize America's past and present for the purposes of achieving its own cultural and ideological objectives.
Furthermore, because of the harmful acts of America's military establishment and corporate empires overseas, I don't think it's a big stretch to suggest that the events of 9-11 were a payback of sorts, if not directly to the real or imagined grievances cited by Al Qaeda, then to that of a Higher Authority, who has informed us that He Will Repay. Abraham Lincoln himself mused that the elongated course of the Civil War may have served in part to repay the nation for the sin of slavery through the blood that was shed. In the same way, decades of persecuting political opponents of corporatism and militarism in Latin America, favoring profits over healing in Africa, and offhandedly supporting or opposing dictators in the Middle East based on material or ideological concerns rather than human rights will bear fruit.
That the innocent also suffered on 9-11 is no refutation of this fact. The innocent always suffere for the sins of others. It is the nature of evil. And furthermore, the notion of 9-11 as a divine rebuke was not lost on religious conservatives such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell in the days and weeks afterward, who while pointing to different national sins as the root of the trouble, also fingered God as at least allowing the events to take place.
Although religious conservatives like to claim the God of the Bible is on their side, the judgements of God on the nations recorded in Holy Scripture suggests something else is at work in the mind of the Almighty. Pride, violence, and the trampling of the poor play as critical role, if not more so, than sexual immorality in causing God to first warn, and then inflict punishment upon nations that will not repent. And above all else, America is a proud nation. Pride goeth before a fall, the scriptures tell us. Surely it would be folly for us to not recognize the eventual harmful effects of an exploitive and militant foreign policy?
Which leads me to another point. Conservatives frequently complain that issues should be discussed and decided on on the basis of their contribution to the struggle between Right and Wrong (rather than on some cost-benefit ratio determination--although conservatives themselves favor this efficiency approach on many business regulatory matters, but that's another post for another day). But in doing so, conservatives should recognize that in trying to move the arguing of public policy to this domain, that they also risk having the moral implications of policies turned back on themselves, particularly in matters related to social justice and when the issues involve our killing of others in foreign lands for dubious or self serving purposes.
And it also means that the terms and tones of the debates will not necessarily lend themselves to being able to fudge the differences, to claim that a strict black and white definition of a particular problem (such as the conflict between tax cuts for the rich and cuts in food stamps) doesn't apply in their pet case. They are opening a can of worms they may regret later.
And it also means that if the other side adopts the same confrontational rhetoric and tactics that they themselves practice, conservatives will find themselves enraged by and attempting to argue with a lot more Ward Churchills.
As for Ward Churchill, I hope he hangs in there and rides out the attempts to fire him. At the same time, I concede that his style is not one that encourages reasonable debate and isn't geared towards winning over opponents. But, as I've indicated, this is the fallout for conservatives from pushing a strict, no holds barred, right or wrong way of looking at the world, a debate they will not always win or be able to control.
Friday, February 11, 2005
18 Suckers
Sam Heldman says the class action "reform" bill is crazy. And 18 of our boys and girls in the U.S. Senate voted for it. 18.
[I checked some of the Senate member websites to see what rationale they were offering for why they supported or opposed this legislation. Tom Carper has a press release on his site, explaining why he voted for it, but most of the others have nothing.]
While Kos is encouraged by reports of a new unity among the Senate Democratic caucus, Seeing the Forest concludes we have work to do.
What I wanna know is, how many bills supported by Clinton and the Democratic majority during the 1993-1994 session, got 18 Republican votes in the Senate? I can't imagine 2, let alone 18, Republicans voting for anything Clinton supported. Republicans would have voted against a bill to have a likeness of Ronald Reagan carved into Mount Rushmore, if Clinton or the Democrats favored it.
Harry, Nancy, I know you're trying. And I know you object to having the DNC chair trying to control policy, but when you can't keep our own guys in line on something like this, you don't exactly do a lot for our confidences, you know what I mean?
In other news, President Bush has vowed to veto any changes to the Medicare prescription drug bill passed last year. With cost estimates for the bill--which prevents price negotiations with drug companies over the cost of drugs the federal government would cover for beneficiaries--now projected to rise to $724 billion over the next decade, some members of Congress are calling for changes in the government's bargaining position. But Bush is pledging to veto any such changes on the grounds that "I signed Medicare reform proudly, and any attempt to limit the choices of our seniors and to take away their prescription drug coverage under Medicare, will meet my veto".
Now obviously, Bush's remarks and veto threat have nothing to do with wanting or being able to fullfill the promises of the legislation to Medicare beneficiaries. Rather, he wants to make sure the profits of the pharmaceutical companies and the lifestyles of its executives are protected at all cost.
If only we had a real news media, and a real oppositional party...
[I checked some of the Senate member websites to see what rationale they were offering for why they supported or opposed this legislation. Tom Carper has a press release on his site, explaining why he voted for it, but most of the others have nothing.]
While Kos is encouraged by reports of a new unity among the Senate Democratic caucus, Seeing the Forest concludes we have work to do.
What I wanna know is, how many bills supported by Clinton and the Democratic majority during the 1993-1994 session, got 18 Republican votes in the Senate? I can't imagine 2, let alone 18, Republicans voting for anything Clinton supported. Republicans would have voted against a bill to have a likeness of Ronald Reagan carved into Mount Rushmore, if Clinton or the Democrats favored it.
Harry, Nancy, I know you're trying. And I know you object to having the DNC chair trying to control policy, but when you can't keep our own guys in line on something like this, you don't exactly do a lot for our confidences, you know what I mean?
In other news, President Bush has vowed to veto any changes to the Medicare prescription drug bill passed last year. With cost estimates for the bill--which prevents price negotiations with drug companies over the cost of drugs the federal government would cover for beneficiaries--now projected to rise to $724 billion over the next decade, some members of Congress are calling for changes in the government's bargaining position. But Bush is pledging to veto any such changes on the grounds that "I signed Medicare reform proudly, and any attempt to limit the choices of our seniors and to take away their prescription drug coverage under Medicare, will meet my veto".
Now obviously, Bush's remarks and veto threat have nothing to do with wanting or being able to fullfill the promises of the legislation to Medicare beneficiaries. Rather, he wants to make sure the profits of the pharmaceutical companies and the lifestyles of its executives are protected at all cost.
If only we had a real news media, and a real oppositional party...
Thursday, February 10, 2005
How I Connect Two Seemingly Unrelated Events...
So I went to the Capital City Brewery last night to hear Howard Dean after RSVP-ing to the Democracy For America website, along with about 1200 other people. I don't know how many people were actually there, but both levels of the place were filled to standing room only, and later on I realized there was a substantial crowd standing outside as well, to which Dean afterward went out to provide a second speech. Yeah, I know, this is DC, land of policy wonks, government workers, and political staff, not the revered "heartland" of conservative Republican lore where things like this transpire, but I digress...now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
Other than the substance and passion typical for Dean, and the surprise accompaniment of fellow Vermonter, Senator Jim Jeffords, who joined him on stage, two things stood out for me. One, I have a hard time imagining someone like Tim Roemer, or Donnie Fowler, or, heaven forbid, Martin Frost, generating this kind of turnout or enthusiasm. In fact, I have a hard time imagining any Democrat besides the Clintons getting this kind of reaction.
Two, while I don't want to overstate the importance of Saturday's upcoming DNC election and Dean's likely victory in it, for its ability to dramatically change the political landscape (a point Dean underscored last night), it is clear that at a minimum, a different wind is blowing in Democratic politics. Whatever else happens, business as usual in the Democratic Party is over. The blogosphere and emerging grassroots progressive movement typified by Dean has changed how the party responds to its constituency, current events, and selects its leadership. While the change in party head may take time to produce tangible benefits, the change in process and selection this time indicates a new, more ground-up era, where we have a voice in shaping the party's and country's destiny.
The other seemingly unrelated event concerns the de-talonization of "Talon News" and its Bushie devotie and propogandist, "Jeff Gannon" masquerading as a "journalist" with press credentials and White House briefing room access. Although the Howard Kurtz piece in today's Post credits Kos, Atrios, and World O' Crap with the "outing", David Brock and Media Matters for America got the ball rolling.
And here's a memo to the wingnuts (and Reynolds, this means you) who are now crying foul: If you want to be the Administration's waterboy, at least use your own damn real name. And if you now think it's A-OK for journalists and their employers to be biased, than shut y're trap about "media bias". If you don't care that this guy was a partisan shill, than your whole bogus haranging of The Liberal Media is a sham.
Anyway, so what's the connection? The connection is that despite November's losses, there are signs of life that a new progressive movement is beginning to gel and have focus. The Democratic Party and the conservative establishment have been put on notice. We're paying attention.
Other than the substance and passion typical for Dean, and the surprise accompaniment of fellow Vermonter, Senator Jim Jeffords, who joined him on stage, two things stood out for me. One, I have a hard time imagining someone like Tim Roemer, or Donnie Fowler, or, heaven forbid, Martin Frost, generating this kind of turnout or enthusiasm. In fact, I have a hard time imagining any Democrat besides the Clintons getting this kind of reaction.
Two, while I don't want to overstate the importance of Saturday's upcoming DNC election and Dean's likely victory in it, for its ability to dramatically change the political landscape (a point Dean underscored last night), it is clear that at a minimum, a different wind is blowing in Democratic politics. Whatever else happens, business as usual in the Democratic Party is over. The blogosphere and emerging grassroots progressive movement typified by Dean has changed how the party responds to its constituency, current events, and selects its leadership. While the change in party head may take time to produce tangible benefits, the change in process and selection this time indicates a new, more ground-up era, where we have a voice in shaping the party's and country's destiny.
The other seemingly unrelated event concerns the de-talonization of "Talon News" and its Bushie devotie and propogandist, "Jeff Gannon" masquerading as a "journalist" with press credentials and White House briefing room access. Although the Howard Kurtz piece in today's Post credits Kos, Atrios, and World O' Crap with the "outing", David Brock and Media Matters for America got the ball rolling.
And here's a memo to the wingnuts (and Reynolds, this means you) who are now crying foul: If you want to be the Administration's waterboy, at least use your own damn real name. And if you now think it's A-OK for journalists and their employers to be biased, than shut y're trap about "media bias". If you don't care that this guy was a partisan shill, than your whole bogus haranging of The Liberal Media is a sham.
Anyway, so what's the connection? The connection is that despite November's losses, there are signs of life that a new progressive movement is beginning to gel and have focus. The Democratic Party and the conservative establishment have been put on notice. We're paying attention.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Can I Get a Witness?
Jesse Taylor says:
The Washington Post details today conservative concerns over the expansion of federal government under Bush. The typical objections are kindly trotted out, paraded around the sparsely populated arena, and trotted back in to the stables to a smattering of lazy claps and overheard questions about why hot dogs cost three dollars.
It's a nice show, but the core of Republican attitudes on the federal government are less an ideological opposition to the expansion of government power than an ideological opposition to the expansion of liberalism....
It's the decimation of personal control, the wholehearted embrace of the federal government's power to remove power from the individual. It's not about helping, supporting through hard times, ensuring a basic standard of living. It's about restriction, whether through fear, judicial fiat, or simple gross paternalism. It has nothing to do with the liberal embrace of the government's power to ensure and expand opportunity - the conservative ideal of government declares that its only power is to restrict rights...and they're perfectly fine with that.
The Washington Post details today conservative concerns over the expansion of federal government under Bush. The typical objections are kindly trotted out, paraded around the sparsely populated arena, and trotted back in to the stables to a smattering of lazy claps and overheard questions about why hot dogs cost three dollars.
It's a nice show, but the core of Republican attitudes on the federal government are less an ideological opposition to the expansion of government power than an ideological opposition to the expansion of liberalism....
It's the decimation of personal control, the wholehearted embrace of the federal government's power to remove power from the individual. It's not about helping, supporting through hard times, ensuring a basic standard of living. It's about restriction, whether through fear, judicial fiat, or simple gross paternalism. It has nothing to do with the liberal embrace of the government's power to ensure and expand opportunity - the conservative ideal of government declares that its only power is to restrict rights...and they're perfectly fine with that.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
6
The title of this post refers to:
a) The name George Constanza wanted to give his child;
b) The number of U.S. Senators elected to the Presidency while serving in the Senate;
c) The number of blogs that have linked to this humble blog;
d) The number of NHL teams that don't make the playoffs on any given non-strike year
Did you choose this blog's self-serving answer "C"? Then you were correct.
Blogging for two months and the number of my linked bloggers has increased to 6:
That Colored Fella
Suburban Guerilla
Seeing The Forest
Blonde Sense
Alt Hippo
The Rogue Progressive
If you've linked to me and I've neglected your inclusion in this list, please let me know. To those who have, thank you very much.
a) The name George Constanza wanted to give his child;
b) The number of U.S. Senators elected to the Presidency while serving in the Senate;
c) The number of blogs that have linked to this humble blog;
d) The number of NHL teams that don't make the playoffs on any given non-strike year
Did you choose this blog's self-serving answer "C"? Then you were correct.
Blogging for two months and the number of my linked bloggers has increased to 6:
That Colored Fella
Suburban Guerilla
Seeing The Forest
Blonde Sense
Alt Hippo
The Rogue Progressive
If you've linked to me and I've neglected your inclusion in this list, please let me know. To those who have, thank you very much.
Don't I Know You?
Republican Fascism
There have been a number of references from progressive blogosland to this article in the American Conservative, which expresses a concern from the right about the fascist tinges of America's current political climate. In particular, this passage was insightful:
"I dont think there are yet real fascists in the administration, but there is certainly now a constituency for them, hungry to bomb foreigners and smash those Americans who might object. And when there are constituencies, leaders may not be far behind. They could be propelled into power by a populace ever more frustrated that the imperialist war it has supported, generally for the most banal of patriotic reasons, cannot possibly end in victory. And so scapegoats are sought, and if we cant bomb Arabs into submission, or the French, domestic critics of Bush will serve."
If I hadn't known any better, I would have bet my house that that passage had come from some leftish blog or from The Nation. That it is coming from the right is telling.
The AC article is of a special interest, coming as it does on the heels of yet another, previous warning shot from the (admittedly libertarian) right about the new state-embracing, freedom snuffing, "Red-State Bourgeoisie" that has come of age in the hyper-post-9-11-Iraq-War era.
That the conservative movement-turned-establishment harbors anti-democratic tendencies is not news to most of us on the left. It has been evident more or less since the country's founding in one form or another, regardless of whichever party label it cared to clothe itself with for the purposes of the moment. And there are many more capable than I who have outlined the excruciating details of the modern conservative fascist strain (in particular, see David Niewert) , so I won't attempt a further elucidation here, other than to note, as I have previously, what I believe to be its two main, distinguishing features: militant nationalism; and authoritarian religious sentiment; along with a third, more derivative pillar, corporate oligarchy.
This is not to label all Republicans or even all conservatives as fascists. To a large extent, I doubt whether most party adherents and group activists on the right think at this level of abstraction or would salute these darker ends if it was laid out to them.
But I would go further than the AC article's author in identifying the new radical evangelicalism (of both protestant and catholic stripes) as being a considerable source from which this red-state bourgeoisie may emerge. And I believe its a problem that, however present in the masses, is particularly evident in the religious hierachy and elite. Some of these figures and organizations I have identified before: D. James Kennedy (The Coral Ridge Hour television program from Fort Lauderdale, FL), Rod Parsley (from Columbus, OH, and who also hosts his own show on cable), and of course, James Dobson from Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, CO. Each enthusiastically calls for a "return to America's Christian heritage", which manages to combine both a seemingly historical patriotism with a call for greater restrictions on individual liberty and the freedom of conscience.
And as I have also argued previously, it is this threat, more than generalities about improving economic welfare, that should be recognized by the Democratic Party, and because of which, I believe it to be a mistake for Democrats to try to accomodate the right-ward drift in American politics for the purposes of expendiency.
"I dont think there are yet real fascists in the administration, but there is certainly now a constituency for them, hungry to bomb foreigners and smash those Americans who might object. And when there are constituencies, leaders may not be far behind. They could be propelled into power by a populace ever more frustrated that the imperialist war it has supported, generally for the most banal of patriotic reasons, cannot possibly end in victory. And so scapegoats are sought, and if we cant bomb Arabs into submission, or the French, domestic critics of Bush will serve."
If I hadn't known any better, I would have bet my house that that passage had come from some leftish blog or from The Nation. That it is coming from the right is telling.
The AC article is of a special interest, coming as it does on the heels of yet another, previous warning shot from the (admittedly libertarian) right about the new state-embracing, freedom snuffing, "Red-State Bourgeoisie" that has come of age in the hyper-post-9-11-Iraq-War era.
That the conservative movement-turned-establishment harbors anti-democratic tendencies is not news to most of us on the left. It has been evident more or less since the country's founding in one form or another, regardless of whichever party label it cared to clothe itself with for the purposes of the moment. And there are many more capable than I who have outlined the excruciating details of the modern conservative fascist strain (in particular, see David Niewert) , so I won't attempt a further elucidation here, other than to note, as I have previously, what I believe to be its two main, distinguishing features: militant nationalism; and authoritarian religious sentiment; along with a third, more derivative pillar, corporate oligarchy.
This is not to label all Republicans or even all conservatives as fascists. To a large extent, I doubt whether most party adherents and group activists on the right think at this level of abstraction or would salute these darker ends if it was laid out to them.
But I would go further than the AC article's author in identifying the new radical evangelicalism (of both protestant and catholic stripes) as being a considerable source from which this red-state bourgeoisie may emerge. And I believe its a problem that, however present in the masses, is particularly evident in the religious hierachy and elite. Some of these figures and organizations I have identified before: D. James Kennedy (The Coral Ridge Hour television program from Fort Lauderdale, FL), Rod Parsley (from Columbus, OH, and who also hosts his own show on cable), and of course, James Dobson from Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, CO. Each enthusiastically calls for a "return to America's Christian heritage", which manages to combine both a seemingly historical patriotism with a call for greater restrictions on individual liberty and the freedom of conscience.
And as I have also argued previously, it is this threat, more than generalities about improving economic welfare, that should be recognized by the Democratic Party, and because of which, I believe it to be a mistake for Democrats to try to accomodate the right-ward drift in American politics for the purposes of expendiency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)