Desiring of seeing whether the NRTLC cares about life outside of abortion I perused their website.
Basically their two main concerns are abortion and euthanasia, although there was an entry for Medicare, which I opened eagerly, hoping to see something about prescription drugs perhaps, or something about making sure that seniors are ensured proper access to providers or are not overcharged when the provider fees are considerably greater than the Medicare allowance. Nah.
All the NRTLC cares about with Medicare is making sure there are no "price controls" and no "rationing" in Medicare. In case you don't know, "price controls" and "rationing" are industry propaganda buzz-words used to fear monger the public into protecting the industry's profits.
An additional item of interest on the NRTLC webpage is a rebuttal to a study that showed abortions declining in the 1990's but increasing since W took office. The NRTLC didn't like the implication of this. And the NRTLC authors have a point. The decline in abortions was greatest from 1990-1995 and the original Stassen article was incorrect about two of the states he had claimed saw increases since 2000, meaning that of the 16 states he gathered information for, eight saw increases and eight either remained the same or declined in abortion incidence. So the relation between politics and abortion is more muddled than the original Stassen piece would make it seem. Fair enough. But the rebuttal piece is pretty snarky, considering that the linkage between the political balance of power and abortion incidence is murky at best. Why get all huffy about this? If I was affiliated with the NRTLC or a similar organization I might be concerned about any demonstrated lack of connection between the election of supposedly anti-abortion politicians and the incidence of abortion. Or I would be if my interest was in seeing the number of abortions reduced. However, if all I was interested in was overturning the abortion rights law or propping up the Republican Party, then I might be eager to rebut any claim that the number of abortions wasn't effected by the election of anti-abortion candidates.
So despite it's label, the NRTLC isn't concerned about life as much as it is in supporting the Republican Party and conservative reactionary politics. As such it joins a long list of such dubious entries as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council in presenting itself as a lamb but whose politics is that of a dragon.*
*a reference to Revelation 13.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Next Meeting Tomorrow Night, 6:00 sharp
Tom DeLay unplugged:
And so it’s bigger than any one of us, and we have to do everything that is in our power to save Terri Schiavo and anybody else that may be in this kind of position.
And let me just finish with this: This is exactly the issue that’s going on in America. That attacks against the conservative movement, against me, and against many others.
The point is, it’s, the other side has figured out how to win and defeat the conservative movement. And that is to go after people, personally charge them with frivolous charges, and link that up with all these do-gooder organizations funded by George Soros, and then, and then get the national media on their side. That whole syndicate that they have going on right now is for one purpose and one purpose only and that’s to destroy the conservative movement. It’s to destroy conservative leaders and it’s, uh, not just in elected office but leading. I mean Ed Feulner, today at the Heritage Foundation, was under attack in the National Journal. I mean they, they, this is a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in, and, and you need to look at this and what’s going on and participate in fighting back.
Don’t, you know, the one way they stopped churches from getting into politics was Lyndon Johnson, who passed a law that said you couldn’t get in politics or you’re going to lose your tax exempt status because they were all opposed to him when he was running for president. That law we’re trying to repeal; it’s very difficult to do that. But the point is, is when they can knock out a leader then no other leader will step forward for awhile because they don’t want to go through the same thing. When, if they go after and get a pastor then other pastors shrink from what they should be doing. It forces Christians back into the church and that’s what’s going on in America: “The world is too bad. I’m going to go get inside this building and I’m not going to play in the world.” Uh, that’s not what Christ asked us to do. And, and so this, they understand that it is a political maneuver, and, and they are, uh, going to try to destroy the conservative movement and we have to fight back.
So, please, this afternoon, each and every one of you, if you know a senator give him a call. Tell him, they’ll say, “Our bill can pass in the House.” Tell him, “That’s fine. Your bill’s okay but the House bill is better and, uh, I want the House bill.” Particularly if you know Democrats, uh, don’t let them get off the hook, um, by hiding behind one House and the other is adjourned. We can do anything we need to do to pass any bill that we need to pass. So I appreciate what you’re doing. God bless you and thank you for the Family Research Council.
I don't know about you, by I'm pretty damned pissed I haven't been invited to any of these syndicate meetings. Maybe they're going on at the local Drinking Liberally. I'll go tomorrow and see.
And so it’s bigger than any one of us, and we have to do everything that is in our power to save Terri Schiavo and anybody else that may be in this kind of position.
And let me just finish with this: This is exactly the issue that’s going on in America. That attacks against the conservative movement, against me, and against many others.
The point is, it’s, the other side has figured out how to win and defeat the conservative movement. And that is to go after people, personally charge them with frivolous charges, and link that up with all these do-gooder organizations funded by George Soros, and then, and then get the national media on their side. That whole syndicate that they have going on right now is for one purpose and one purpose only and that’s to destroy the conservative movement. It’s to destroy conservative leaders and it’s, uh, not just in elected office but leading. I mean Ed Feulner, today at the Heritage Foundation, was under attack in the National Journal. I mean they, they, this is a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in, and, and you need to look at this and what’s going on and participate in fighting back.
Don’t, you know, the one way they stopped churches from getting into politics was Lyndon Johnson, who passed a law that said you couldn’t get in politics or you’re going to lose your tax exempt status because they were all opposed to him when he was running for president. That law we’re trying to repeal; it’s very difficult to do that. But the point is, is when they can knock out a leader then no other leader will step forward for awhile because they don’t want to go through the same thing. When, if they go after and get a pastor then other pastors shrink from what they should be doing. It forces Christians back into the church and that’s what’s going on in America: “The world is too bad. I’m going to go get inside this building and I’m not going to play in the world.” Uh, that’s not what Christ asked us to do. And, and so this, they understand that it is a political maneuver, and, and they are, uh, going to try to destroy the conservative movement and we have to fight back.
So, please, this afternoon, each and every one of you, if you know a senator give him a call. Tell him, they’ll say, “Our bill can pass in the House.” Tell him, “That’s fine. Your bill’s okay but the House bill is better and, uh, I want the House bill.” Particularly if you know Democrats, uh, don’t let them get off the hook, um, by hiding behind one House and the other is adjourned. We can do anything we need to do to pass any bill that we need to pass. So I appreciate what you’re doing. God bless you and thank you for the Family Research Council.
I don't know about you, by I'm pretty damned pissed I haven't been invited to any of these syndicate meetings. Maybe they're going on at the local Drinking Liberally. I'll go tomorrow and see.
Among The Unborn and The Undead
Lawyers, Guns and Money has more on the links between Terry Schiavo's "supporters" and the religion-abortion nexus being used by the religious-right to increase support for their cause. It's interesting to see that some conservatives aren't buying it.
But also of interest is this post from Balkinization that LGM links to, regarding what will happen when Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Against my will and better judgement I tuned into Larry King Live! last night and saw The Purpose Driven Life author Rick Warren on. Now, I have a copy of The Purpose Driven Life and have read from it. I think it's a good book and I generally like Warren and I believe in the message of his book and his broader ministry. He's a good man usually willing to go against traditional orthodoxy to reach people, and for that, he has my gratitude.
But of course, and unfortunately, Warren was asked to weigh in on the Schiavo controversy. And of course, and unfortunately, he merely parroted the lines being recited by her parents and supporters: Terry's alive, she can talk, respond, feel, etc and that attempts to disconnect her feeding tube were actions worthy of the worst of Nazism, etc.
This is why I've come to the painful conclusion that ministers of the Gospel should refrain from entering into political debates, particularly when they don't understand all the issues involved (and this goes for liberal preachers and liberal causes, too).
Now, the obvious counter to this is, well, what about cases in which the government is behaving as the Nazis did, rounding up people for extermination, launching unwise wars, etc?
My answer would be that when the government begins to indiscriminately arrest and confine people and launch wars, then there is a basis for the church to respond. But in the case of Terry Schiavo, and the abortion-culture wars, there is no orchestrated or mandated government activity occuring. In the case of Terry Schiavo and the millions of women that seek to terminate a pregnancy and in the cases of individuals of terminal health who want to the right to die peacefully, it is not the government that is collectively or forceably taking action. It is merely allowing individual action to take place.
It is peculiar that it is precisely this set of arrangements that the so-called religious-right and the dubiously entitled right-to-life groups are so vehemantly against.
On the other hand, instances of where it is the government or an institution that is taking life, such as is the case with the death penalty and in the case of the Texas law allowing hospitals to disconnect feeding tubes and other life support mechanisms, are left unaddressed by the forces of the conservative right.
However, it is this second level of cases that I think presents the most alarming cases of governmental or institutional abuse versus the individual. But about these, conservative groups have no complaint at all. What about wrong-ful executions? Where is the National Right to Life Committee on this? We know they have occured and can occur without adequate protections. But these many religious conservatives seemed unconcerned about.
So the risk for church involvement seems to me to rest along two main points. One, most issues are complex enough that they cannot be easily summarized or remedied from the pulpit. Unless the government or an institution is acting against the interests of an individual, the church should allow the government and its representatives to do their job. Just as pastors are trained for their profession, lawyers, policy analysts, and educators are trained for theirs. Before you weigh in on an issue, make sure you have a good grasp of the conflicting sides of the story before passing judgement.
The second point is that far too often, church involvement because of its ignorance, is set up to be duped by alliances that don't have the church's true interests at heart. Such is the case, I would argue, with many of the anti-abortion groups that rely on religious support but in actuality, attend to only a narrow range of issues and don't embrace the concern for the whole life that the church and its Teacher and Lord, Jesus Christ, advocates.
Before pontificating on the fate of Terry Schiavo I would hope that in the future Warren, and other evangelical leaders will be willing to ask similar questions of bankruptcy "reform", tort "reform", Medicare and Medicaid "reform" and other initiatives that stand to have a much wider inpact on life than the removal of a feeding tube from one individual.
But preferably, I'd like to see church leaders take the position towards public issues as that taken by Alcoholics Anonymous and other twelve-step groups: "AA has no opinion on outside issues and seeks no controversy." To do otherwise is to impinge upon the church's primary task--preaching the gospel and changing individual hearts and minds, which alone will produce a more fair, just and peaceful society.
But also of interest is this post from Balkinization that LGM links to, regarding what will happen when Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Against my will and better judgement I tuned into Larry King Live! last night and saw The Purpose Driven Life author Rick Warren on. Now, I have a copy of The Purpose Driven Life and have read from it. I think it's a good book and I generally like Warren and I believe in the message of his book and his broader ministry. He's a good man usually willing to go against traditional orthodoxy to reach people, and for that, he has my gratitude.
But of course, and unfortunately, Warren was asked to weigh in on the Schiavo controversy. And of course, and unfortunately, he merely parroted the lines being recited by her parents and supporters: Terry's alive, she can talk, respond, feel, etc and that attempts to disconnect her feeding tube were actions worthy of the worst of Nazism, etc.
This is why I've come to the painful conclusion that ministers of the Gospel should refrain from entering into political debates, particularly when they don't understand all the issues involved (and this goes for liberal preachers and liberal causes, too).
Now, the obvious counter to this is, well, what about cases in which the government is behaving as the Nazis did, rounding up people for extermination, launching unwise wars, etc?
My answer would be that when the government begins to indiscriminately arrest and confine people and launch wars, then there is a basis for the church to respond. But in the case of Terry Schiavo, and the abortion-culture wars, there is no orchestrated or mandated government activity occuring. In the case of Terry Schiavo and the millions of women that seek to terminate a pregnancy and in the cases of individuals of terminal health who want to the right to die peacefully, it is not the government that is collectively or forceably taking action. It is merely allowing individual action to take place.
It is peculiar that it is precisely this set of arrangements that the so-called religious-right and the dubiously entitled right-to-life groups are so vehemantly against.
On the other hand, instances of where it is the government or an institution that is taking life, such as is the case with the death penalty and in the case of the Texas law allowing hospitals to disconnect feeding tubes and other life support mechanisms, are left unaddressed by the forces of the conservative right.
However, it is this second level of cases that I think presents the most alarming cases of governmental or institutional abuse versus the individual. But about these, conservative groups have no complaint at all. What about wrong-ful executions? Where is the National Right to Life Committee on this? We know they have occured and can occur without adequate protections. But these many religious conservatives seemed unconcerned about.
So the risk for church involvement seems to me to rest along two main points. One, most issues are complex enough that they cannot be easily summarized or remedied from the pulpit. Unless the government or an institution is acting against the interests of an individual, the church should allow the government and its representatives to do their job. Just as pastors are trained for their profession, lawyers, policy analysts, and educators are trained for theirs. Before you weigh in on an issue, make sure you have a good grasp of the conflicting sides of the story before passing judgement.
The second point is that far too often, church involvement because of its ignorance, is set up to be duped by alliances that don't have the church's true interests at heart. Such is the case, I would argue, with many of the anti-abortion groups that rely on religious support but in actuality, attend to only a narrow range of issues and don't embrace the concern for the whole life that the church and its Teacher and Lord, Jesus Christ, advocates.
Before pontificating on the fate of Terry Schiavo I would hope that in the future Warren, and other evangelical leaders will be willing to ask similar questions of bankruptcy "reform", tort "reform", Medicare and Medicaid "reform" and other initiatives that stand to have a much wider inpact on life than the removal of a feeding tube from one individual.
But preferably, I'd like to see church leaders take the position towards public issues as that taken by Alcoholics Anonymous and other twelve-step groups: "AA has no opinion on outside issues and seeks no controversy." To do otherwise is to impinge upon the church's primary task--preaching the gospel and changing individual hearts and minds, which alone will produce a more fair, just and peaceful society.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
More Fun with Contradictions
Yet another braniac has weighed in on the "distinction" between the Texas law signed by then Governor now President Bush allowing hospitals to pull the plug on terminal or incapacitated patients against family wishes and the bill passed by Congress and signed by the President essentially kicking the decision on Terri Schiavo's feeding tube upstairs to the federal courts.
His name is Tom Mayo and he's an associate prof of law at SMU who it so happens, helped write the 1999 Texas legislation. Here's the money quote:
"It's not really a conflict, because the (Texas) law addresses different types of disputes, meaning the dispute between decision-maker and physician," he said. "The Schiavo case is a disagreement among family members."
So there you have it friends. When the dispute is between the physicians (and the hospital) and the patient's guardian or family, then the physicians-hospitals win, the plug gets pulled, and the patient dies. No get out of jail free card, no special visits from Randall Terry and the National Right to Life Committee, and no special pleading from Peggy Noonan, Cal Thomas, or Tom Delay.
The case in Florida, on the other hand, is much, much different. It's a dispute between family members. When the dispute is between family members, than the "sanctity of life" is paramount, and the family member that wants continued medical care ended is a murderer.
Got it?
His name is Tom Mayo and he's an associate prof of law at SMU who it so happens, helped write the 1999 Texas legislation. Here's the money quote:
"It's not really a conflict, because the (Texas) law addresses different types of disputes, meaning the dispute between decision-maker and physician," he said. "The Schiavo case is a disagreement among family members."
So there you have it friends. When the dispute is between the physicians (and the hospital) and the patient's guardian or family, then the physicians-hospitals win, the plug gets pulled, and the patient dies. No get out of jail free card, no special visits from Randall Terry and the National Right to Life Committee, and no special pleading from Peggy Noonan, Cal Thomas, or Tom Delay.
The case in Florida, on the other hand, is much, much different. It's a dispute between family members. When the dispute is between family members, than the "sanctity of life" is paramount, and the family member that wants continued medical care ended is a murderer.
Got it?
Schiavo-Texas Medical Futility Cases Roundup
Lean Left has a thorough discussion of the issues here. The thrust of Lean Left's take is that there is more to the basis of these medical futility cases than can be adequately determined through emotion and the medical awareness of families and supporters for any particular case.
Mark Kleiman accedes these points but goes on to mention that:
Thanks to a reader, I've finally managed to make sense out a distinction that might be made by those who are outraged about Schiavo but silent about the Texas cases. They can't breathe without assistance; she is able to breathe on her own, but can't swallow and therefore needs to be fed through a tube.
Some of the major religious traditions regard assisted breathing, but not tube-feeding, as an "extraordinary" measure, so that taking away her feeding tube counts as killing while taking away Sun Hudson's breathing tube didn't.
That distinction seems utterly arbitrary to me. In particular, it doesn't distinguish between a "terminal" and a "non-terminal" case in any meaningful sense; in each instance, it might be possible to maintain the heartbeat and brainstem indefinitely.
Still, it might seem valid to someone else, who could then have at least a subjective good-faith reason to want to keep Schiavo alive while not minding the removal of life support from Hudson and Nikolouzos. (I'd still argue that awareness is morally relevant to the question of ending care, while the specific function that needs assistance and the life expectancy of the patient are irrelevant, but your mileage may vary.)
Nonetheless, if the distinction among the cases is so fine-grained, it's hard to credit the sincerity of people who throw around terms such as "murder" and "Dachau" when talking about Schiavo but make no objection to the Texas law, especially since the Texas law specifically lists "artificial nutrition and hydration" as among the services that can be discontinued.
Moreover, the law allows for (even if in the Hudson and and Nikolouzos cases it did not actually involve) the termination of life-sustaining treatment for patients with "irreversible" conditions (i.e., conditions from which they will not recover and which leave them unable to care for themselves) even if their higher brain functions are completely normal. Indeed, the law contemplates that a fully competent patient may be served by his health-care provider with a 10-day notice to find another provider or have his plug pulled; it even provides that the patient has the right to attend the committee meeting at which his fate is to be decided. (Sec. 166.046) And the law provides no substantive guidance other than the provider's decision that the requested life-sustaining care would be "inappropriate."
So, if I read the Texas law correctly, it would allow for Terri Schiavo's feedling tube to be disconnected if her health care provider so decided, and if her family couldn't find another provider willing to take the case, even if her higher brain functions were entirely normal (rather than, as appears to be the case, entirely absent), even if she were awake and asking to be allowed to live.
So, I repeat, where's the outrage? If you think Terri Schiavo is being murdered, you think that George W. Bush signed a bill allowing murder in 1999, and that bill is still on the books. Perhaps Mr. Bush flew to the wrong capital on Sunday; some people in Austin seem to need instruction about the "presumption in favor of life."
Last night's cable TV "news" coverage included a Keith Olberman interview with the political reporter from the Dallas Morning News who inexplicably argued that Bush's position was "consistent" when he both agree to the 1999 Texas legislation allowing hospitals to pull the plug over patient's families' objections but at the same time rushing back to DC to sign into law the Terri Schiavo bill in order to err on the side of "life". Unfortunately, Olberman, reliable as he usually is, let the Dallas reporter off the hook by not challenging his conclusion.
Surprisingly, of all people, Larry King referred to the Texas statutes on his show and in interviewing Michael Schiavo, indicated that one of the reasons hospitals could use to deny continued treatment was the "ability to pay".
Although I lean towards Kleiman's view here, you should read the analysis from Lean Left as well.
Post Script: And, oh yeah, Bush's press guy, Mark McClellan, yesterday, LIED about what the Texas law did. But you probably knew that already.
Mark Kleiman accedes these points but goes on to mention that:
Thanks to a reader, I've finally managed to make sense out a distinction that might be made by those who are outraged about Schiavo but silent about the Texas cases. They can't breathe without assistance; she is able to breathe on her own, but can't swallow and therefore needs to be fed through a tube.
Some of the major religious traditions regard assisted breathing, but not tube-feeding, as an "extraordinary" measure, so that taking away her feeding tube counts as killing while taking away Sun Hudson's breathing tube didn't.
That distinction seems utterly arbitrary to me. In particular, it doesn't distinguish between a "terminal" and a "non-terminal" case in any meaningful sense; in each instance, it might be possible to maintain the heartbeat and brainstem indefinitely.
Still, it might seem valid to someone else, who could then have at least a subjective good-faith reason to want to keep Schiavo alive while not minding the removal of life support from Hudson and Nikolouzos. (I'd still argue that awareness is morally relevant to the question of ending care, while the specific function that needs assistance and the life expectancy of the patient are irrelevant, but your mileage may vary.)
Nonetheless, if the distinction among the cases is so fine-grained, it's hard to credit the sincerity of people who throw around terms such as "murder" and "Dachau" when talking about Schiavo but make no objection to the Texas law, especially since the Texas law specifically lists "artificial nutrition and hydration" as among the services that can be discontinued.
Moreover, the law allows for (even if in the Hudson and and Nikolouzos cases it did not actually involve) the termination of life-sustaining treatment for patients with "irreversible" conditions (i.e., conditions from which they will not recover and which leave them unable to care for themselves) even if their higher brain functions are completely normal. Indeed, the law contemplates that a fully competent patient may be served by his health-care provider with a 10-day notice to find another provider or have his plug pulled; it even provides that the patient has the right to attend the committee meeting at which his fate is to be decided. (Sec. 166.046) And the law provides no substantive guidance other than the provider's decision that the requested life-sustaining care would be "inappropriate."
So, if I read the Texas law correctly, it would allow for Terri Schiavo's feedling tube to be disconnected if her health care provider so decided, and if her family couldn't find another provider willing to take the case, even if her higher brain functions were entirely normal (rather than, as appears to be the case, entirely absent), even if she were awake and asking to be allowed to live.
So, I repeat, where's the outrage? If you think Terri Schiavo is being murdered, you think that George W. Bush signed a bill allowing murder in 1999, and that bill is still on the books. Perhaps Mr. Bush flew to the wrong capital on Sunday; some people in Austin seem to need instruction about the "presumption in favor of life."
Last night's cable TV "news" coverage included a Keith Olberman interview with the political reporter from the Dallas Morning News who inexplicably argued that Bush's position was "consistent" when he both agree to the 1999 Texas legislation allowing hospitals to pull the plug over patient's families' objections but at the same time rushing back to DC to sign into law the Terri Schiavo bill in order to err on the side of "life". Unfortunately, Olberman, reliable as he usually is, let the Dallas reporter off the hook by not challenging his conclusion.
Surprisingly, of all people, Larry King referred to the Texas statutes on his show and in interviewing Michael Schiavo, indicated that one of the reasons hospitals could use to deny continued treatment was the "ability to pay".
Although I lean towards Kleiman's view here, you should read the analysis from Lean Left as well.
Post Script: And, oh yeah, Bush's press guy, Mark McClellan, yesterday, LIED about what the Texas law did. But you probably knew that already.
Monday, March 21, 2005
I Admit My Error
I have two words for you today, but since I can't put those in blog print, I'll go with two other words: ability to pay. OK. Technically those are three words, but you get my point.
In an earlier post today I referred to a law in Texas, signed by then governor George W. Bush allowing hospitals to pull the life support plug on indigent patients. I suggested that this was an example of rank hypocrisy of the highest order when compared to Republican and Christian-conservative advocacy of maintaining Terri Schiavo's feeding tube on the basis of the respect for the "sanctity of life" although her husband and legal guardian, backed by years of trying to help her get well, and with the backing of medical evidence, wants it removed. The Left Coaster goes even further to suggest that the law in Texas may have racial implications. So as Mark Kleiman wonders, where's the outrage over this Texas law? What gives? Why do Republicans support the Texas law, that has already resulted in at least one death, but get all up in arms about Terri Schiavo? Isn't this law in Texas the most cruel, inhumane piece of garbage legislation to ever walk the face of this earth?
But now I have to offer my sincerest apologies. It now turns out that the Texas law isn't really all that.
According to K.J. Lopez, who writes for the National Review's "Corner", a right-wing blog, here is how the Texas law really works:
During the debate tonight, Democrats in the House have said that the president is inconsistent on Terri Schiavo because when he was governor of Texas he signed a bill that was recently used in a terrible case in Texas to deny lifesaving treatment to a baby against the child’s family’s wishes. But according to a source familiar with what went down in Texas, the then-governor signed into law something better than what Texas hospitals were already doing. There were not enough votes in the Texas legislature to require life-saving treatment to patients, which is what the governor would have preferred….
Wow. The Texas law really is OK, because although it commits murder, it really is a much better piece of law than what was there before. I'm really glad she said that. I'm glad she made the parameters of the Texas law plain for all of us to see, so that we can distinguish between it, and the Florida-Schiavo case. Because if she hadn't, I would have continued to believe that the Republican Party and its Christian Coalition-Randall Terry supporters laying seige to the Florida hospice and threatening Michael Schiavo were trying to pull the wool over our eyes in having us be concerned about the case of one woman in Florida that is enabling Focus on the Family and the National Right to Life Committee to fill their organizations' treasuries and giving Republican members of Congress something to scream about all the while ignoring the plight of other, equally at risk families elsewhere in the nation.
In an earlier post today I referred to a law in Texas, signed by then governor George W. Bush allowing hospitals to pull the life support plug on indigent patients. I suggested that this was an example of rank hypocrisy of the highest order when compared to Republican and Christian-conservative advocacy of maintaining Terri Schiavo's feeding tube on the basis of the respect for the "sanctity of life" although her husband and legal guardian, backed by years of trying to help her get well, and with the backing of medical evidence, wants it removed. The Left Coaster goes even further to suggest that the law in Texas may have racial implications. So as Mark Kleiman wonders, where's the outrage over this Texas law? What gives? Why do Republicans support the Texas law, that has already resulted in at least one death, but get all up in arms about Terri Schiavo? Isn't this law in Texas the most cruel, inhumane piece of garbage legislation to ever walk the face of this earth?
But now I have to offer my sincerest apologies. It now turns out that the Texas law isn't really all that.
According to K.J. Lopez, who writes for the National Review's "Corner", a right-wing blog, here is how the Texas law really works:
During the debate tonight, Democrats in the House have said that the president is inconsistent on Terri Schiavo because when he was governor of Texas he signed a bill that was recently used in a terrible case in Texas to deny lifesaving treatment to a baby against the child’s family’s wishes. But according to a source familiar with what went down in Texas, the then-governor signed into law something better than what Texas hospitals were already doing. There were not enough votes in the Texas legislature to require life-saving treatment to patients, which is what the governor would have preferred….
Wow. The Texas law really is OK, because although it commits murder, it really is a much better piece of law than what was there before. I'm really glad she said that. I'm glad she made the parameters of the Texas law plain for all of us to see, so that we can distinguish between it, and the Florida-Schiavo case. Because if she hadn't, I would have continued to believe that the Republican Party and its Christian Coalition-Randall Terry supporters laying seige to the Florida hospice and threatening Michael Schiavo were trying to pull the wool over our eyes in having us be concerned about the case of one woman in Florida that is enabling Focus on the Family and the National Right to Life Committee to fill their organizations' treasuries and giving Republican members of Congress something to scream about all the while ignoring the plight of other, equally at risk families elsewhere in the nation.
I Write to the National Right to Life Committee
I'm aware of how diligently you've been following theTerri Schiavo case in Florida, but why did your organization support the law in Texas that allows hospitals to "pull the plug" on patients on life support even when their family disagrees? Is not the same sanctity of life at stake with Terri Schiavo the same as that of patients in Texas, including Sun Hudson, the six month old baby that died when his life support ended despite his families wishes?
Here is the link to an article that indicates your organization's support for the Texas legislation.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3079622
And here is the link to the story of Sun Hudson.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934
Sincerely,
Here is the link to an article that indicates your organization's support for the Texas legislation.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3079622
And here is the link to the story of Sun Hudson.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934
Sincerely,
More Republican Hypocrisy
Although Republicans have led the charge to maintain Terri Shiavo's life-support-giving feeding tube in the face of the conflict between Terri's husband and parents, if you click here, and here, you will read how Republicans in Bush's Texas have conspired to ensure that in other cases that have not received the same media attention, feeding tubes and other measures of life support can be removed by hospital beaucracies even over the objections of parents and family members.
An opposition party in Congress might recognize the incongruence between these circumstances in Texas and the Shiavo case in Florida and suggest that in the interest of valuing the sanctity of life, a law having universal application be passed that protected not just Shiavo, but the families of Nikolouzos, Sun Hudson, and any others facing life-support conflicts, whether with faceless bureaucracies or with other family members.
And of course, we wouldn't want the issue of monetary payment or insurance coverage to determine whether the mechanism of life support was removed, now would we? Digby says:
Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country.
Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far.
Those of us who read liberal blogs are aware that the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schiavo's because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming.
These cases, and these issues are inter-related. If the sanctity of life is of utmost value--and I certainly argue that it is--then we must agree to do all in our power to protect it from whatever forces threaten it. An opposition party would not let the ruling majority wring it's hands and grandstand over the fate of one individual from one state while passing social-Darwinian legislation that negated the value and sanctity of life in every other case.
UPDATE: Perhaps anticipating that the inhumane, always-support-the-rights-of-corporations- over-the-rights-of-individuals law in Texas might make for bad press in the Shiavo case, there has been a change of heart in the Nikolouzos case in Texas.
Liberals shouldn't be decrying the attention paid to Shiavo. If we're lucky, it will present a great opportunity to push for laws that favor the interests and lives of vulnerable individuals rather than the corporate moneyed interests conservatives typically favor.
UPDATE II: It turns out that the National Right to Life (and here is an oxymoron if there ever was one) supported the Texas legislation allowing hospitals to pull the plug on terminal patients who couldn't pay up. I'll leave you alone for a few moments to consider the implications of this further hypocrisy and cruelty.
UPDATE III: Here is a cartoon you might enjoy, which captures the hypocrisy involved. Thanks to Pandagon for the link.
An opposition party in Congress might recognize the incongruence between these circumstances in Texas and the Shiavo case in Florida and suggest that in the interest of valuing the sanctity of life, a law having universal application be passed that protected not just Shiavo, but the families of Nikolouzos, Sun Hudson, and any others facing life-support conflicts, whether with faceless bureaucracies or with other family members.
And of course, we wouldn't want the issue of monetary payment or insurance coverage to determine whether the mechanism of life support was removed, now would we? Digby says:
Those of us who read liberal blogs are also aware that Republicans have voted en masse to pull the plug (no pun intended) on medicaid funding that pays for the kind of care that someone like Terry Schiavo and many others who are not so severely brain damaged need all across this country.
Those of us who read liberal blogs also understand that that the tort reform that is being contemplated by the Republican congress would preclude malpractice claims like that which has paid for Terry Schiavo's care thus far.
Those of us who read liberal blogs are aware that the bankruptcy bill will make it even more difficult for families who suffer a catastrophic illness like Terry Schiavo's because they will not be able to declare chapter 7 bankruptcy and get a fresh start when the gargantuan medical bills become overwhelming.
These cases, and these issues are inter-related. If the sanctity of life is of utmost value--and I certainly argue that it is--then we must agree to do all in our power to protect it from whatever forces threaten it. An opposition party would not let the ruling majority wring it's hands and grandstand over the fate of one individual from one state while passing social-Darwinian legislation that negated the value and sanctity of life in every other case.
UPDATE: Perhaps anticipating that the inhumane, always-support-the-rights-of-corporations- over-the-rights-of-individuals law in Texas might make for bad press in the Shiavo case, there has been a change of heart in the Nikolouzos case in Texas.
Liberals shouldn't be decrying the attention paid to Shiavo. If we're lucky, it will present a great opportunity to push for laws that favor the interests and lives of vulnerable individuals rather than the corporate moneyed interests conservatives typically favor.
UPDATE II: It turns out that the National Right to Life (and here is an oxymoron if there ever was one) supported the Texas legislation allowing hospitals to pull the plug on terminal patients who couldn't pay up. I'll leave you alone for a few moments to consider the implications of this further hypocrisy and cruelty.
UPDATE III: Here is a cartoon you might enjoy, which captures the hypocrisy involved. Thanks to Pandagon for the link.
Friday, March 18, 2005
OK, We'll Talk 'Values', But You Might Not Like It When We Do
Conservatives in the Republican Party and among Republican-leaning Democratic institutions and the media have expressed a desire for Democratic candidates to speak Bible and Values.
Very well. But are you sure you'll like it when we do?
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that our destruction of Iraq and consequent occupation is immoral have been called traitors, unpatriotic, subversive, and injurious to "the troops".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that the President's tax cuts for the rich and Medicaid cuts for the poor are immoral have been told we're trying to foment "class warfare".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that the Leave No Credit Card Company Behind Bill (i.e. the Bankruptcy "reform" legislation passed by the Senate last week) unjustly rewarded larcenous credit merchants at the expense of working families were told we were opposed to "personal responsibility".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that gay people by nature and our Constitution have the same inalieable rights as the rest of us have been told we're against "the family".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that those accused of crimes should have access to competent legal counsel and that death penalty inmates should be granted access to DNA tests where applicable to help ensure against the risk of wrongful executions have been labeled as "soft on crime".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that it is immoral to impose religious doctrine and worship demands on people have been told we're violating our heritage as a "Christian nation".
The few of us who have ventured out to support organizations that fight for everyone's civil liberties (even those we don't agree with), like the ACLU, have been told we're against God and Law and Order.
The problem isn't that progressive haven't talked and acted upon values. The problem is, you haven't recognized it when we have. And the problem is your demand for more "values" is self-centered. While claiming you want a society founded on absolute values you have been unwilling to subject your own behaviors to the same standard you want applied to others. That's the ultimate example of moral relativism.
It isn't up for us to come closer to you, it's up to you to come closer to us.
Very well. But are you sure you'll like it when we do?
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that our destruction of Iraq and consequent occupation is immoral have been called traitors, unpatriotic, subversive, and injurious to "the troops".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that the President's tax cuts for the rich and Medicaid cuts for the poor are immoral have been told we're trying to foment "class warfare".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that the Leave No Credit Card Company Behind Bill (i.e. the Bankruptcy "reform" legislation passed by the Senate last week) unjustly rewarded larcenous credit merchants at the expense of working families were told we were opposed to "personal responsibility".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that gay people by nature and our Constitution have the same inalieable rights as the rest of us have been told we're against "the family".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that those accused of crimes should have access to competent legal counsel and that death penalty inmates should be granted access to DNA tests where applicable to help ensure against the risk of wrongful executions have been labeled as "soft on crime".
The few of us who have ventured out to suggest that it is immoral to impose religious doctrine and worship demands on people have been told we're violating our heritage as a "Christian nation".
The few of us who have ventured out to support organizations that fight for everyone's civil liberties (even those we don't agree with), like the ACLU, have been told we're against God and Law and Order.
The problem isn't that progressive haven't talked and acted upon values. The problem is, you haven't recognized it when we have. And the problem is your demand for more "values" is self-centered. While claiming you want a society founded on absolute values you have been unwilling to subject your own behaviors to the same standard you want applied to others. That's the ultimate example of moral relativism.
It isn't up for us to come closer to you, it's up to you to come closer to us.
Bartlett '08
No, not the congressman from upper Maryland. The fake president on TV's West Wing.
I hadn't been watching West Wing for some time, but a friend of mine suggested I tune in because it was still very good. I did and it is. As some of you may know, the fictional Democratic President Bartlett is nearing the end of his second term and as the Democratic candidates jostle in the primaries, the president and his advisors are planning what to do with the rest of their term in establishing some sort of legacy.
Because I love political campaigns I've especially enjoyed watching the show's treatment of the primary season and the contenders in it, including Jimmy Smits, a Hispanic congressman from Houston, TX, as well as the two vice-presidents, the former one (that guy from Animal House) and the current one (Office Space's Lundberg).
But this week's episode went back to the WH for its premise. The subject was Cuba.
Even if you didn't see the episode you might have an idea what it was about.
Which I guess is where I start thinking of our friend Peter Beinert, his buddy Senator Lieberman, and the rest of the gang at TNR, PNAC, and whatever associations are continuing to flog the demand for American hegemony and to purge any and all Democrats that dissent.
Beinert and his collaborators want us all to shut up about foreign policy and do whatever the elite at the Foreign Affairs institute or whatever its called want us to do, which for the last several years appears to be to continue our Cold War policies of escalating our armaments industry and threatening/intervening in the affairs of other countries as we see fit, all designed to protect ourselves from our enemies and to wage a new war on terrorism.
The problem with this siren's call of militarism as I see it is that since not all of us agree that it makes sense, that someone should attempt to articulate the basis for an alternative course of policies. Optimally, this should be the Democratic Party's task, as the out-party, not just for the sake of opposing, but because many of its membership think there is a policy rationale for doing so.
Which brings me back to Cuba and our 40-year, failed policy of an economic embargo against that island and its people. Of course our policy has been more than that over the years. Somewhere stashed in the halls of Congress or the Pentagon is a resolution or a white paper saying how our policy is "regime change" there. But the policy has been a practical and moral failure.
Wouldn't it be great if one or more of the Democratic candidates in 08 were to say this out loud? There would be immediate cries of course that in doing so we would be kissing off Florida and its irate but politically significant group of Cuban exiles or that we were offering a policy of "appeasement" towards a "brutal dictator".
Some of you may suggest that as admirable as such a call may be, this one position is not worth the risk. You may be right. But it's that tact that has continued to yield the failed policy and inadvertantly, a view of the Party as spineless and pandering. Why not put forward a publically unpopular policy, which at the same time happens to be a reasonable one, if for no other reason that it deserves discussion in a obstensibly democratic society?
So I say let's give Bartlett a try, since his eight years in the TV White House don't count, he can still run. It might just look like courage.
I hadn't been watching West Wing for some time, but a friend of mine suggested I tune in because it was still very good. I did and it is. As some of you may know, the fictional Democratic President Bartlett is nearing the end of his second term and as the Democratic candidates jostle in the primaries, the president and his advisors are planning what to do with the rest of their term in establishing some sort of legacy.
Because I love political campaigns I've especially enjoyed watching the show's treatment of the primary season and the contenders in it, including Jimmy Smits, a Hispanic congressman from Houston, TX, as well as the two vice-presidents, the former one (that guy from Animal House) and the current one (Office Space's Lundberg).
But this week's episode went back to the WH for its premise. The subject was Cuba.
Even if you didn't see the episode you might have an idea what it was about.
Which I guess is where I start thinking of our friend Peter Beinert, his buddy Senator Lieberman, and the rest of the gang at TNR, PNAC, and whatever associations are continuing to flog the demand for American hegemony and to purge any and all Democrats that dissent.
Beinert and his collaborators want us all to shut up about foreign policy and do whatever the elite at the Foreign Affairs institute or whatever its called want us to do, which for the last several years appears to be to continue our Cold War policies of escalating our armaments industry and threatening/intervening in the affairs of other countries as we see fit, all designed to protect ourselves from our enemies and to wage a new war on terrorism.
The problem with this siren's call of militarism as I see it is that since not all of us agree that it makes sense, that someone should attempt to articulate the basis for an alternative course of policies. Optimally, this should be the Democratic Party's task, as the out-party, not just for the sake of opposing, but because many of its membership think there is a policy rationale for doing so.
Which brings me back to Cuba and our 40-year, failed policy of an economic embargo against that island and its people. Of course our policy has been more than that over the years. Somewhere stashed in the halls of Congress or the Pentagon is a resolution or a white paper saying how our policy is "regime change" there. But the policy has been a practical and moral failure.
Wouldn't it be great if one or more of the Democratic candidates in 08 were to say this out loud? There would be immediate cries of course that in doing so we would be kissing off Florida and its irate but politically significant group of Cuban exiles or that we were offering a policy of "appeasement" towards a "brutal dictator".
Some of you may suggest that as admirable as such a call may be, this one position is not worth the risk. You may be right. But it's that tact that has continued to yield the failed policy and inadvertantly, a view of the Party as spineless and pandering. Why not put forward a publically unpopular policy, which at the same time happens to be a reasonable one, if for no other reason that it deserves discussion in a obstensibly democratic society?
So I say let's give Bartlett a try, since his eight years in the TV White House don't count, he can still run. It might just look like courage.
The Blogger's Tale
From Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale (1985)
On the way home, they stop at an old Puritan church. The government "[has not] fiddled with the gravestones, or the church either. It's only the more recent history that offends them." Chapter 6, pg. 31 Ofglen bows her head in prayer, and Offred assumes her piety is a show. They then head to the Wall, which is the face of Gilead's prison. Six male corpses are hanging by their necks on the Wall from a Men's Salvaging earlier that morning. The men are identified as former abortionists by signs hung around their necks bearing images of fetuses. The men's heads are covered in white bags. One has a bloodstain like a mouth. Ofglen trembles, but Offred is not tempted to inquire or even look at her. "Ordinary, said Aunt Lydia, is what you are used to. This may not seem ordinary to you now, but after a time it will. It will become ordinary." Chapter 6, pg.33
One morning, Offred attends a district Women's Salvaging, execution. All the Handmaids kneel on red cushions in front of a stage set up inside the former university. Offred thinks of making love until she sees the women to be salvaged, two Handmaids and one Wife, sitting on the stage. Two Aunts and the executioners take the stage. Offred recognizes Aunt Lydia and realizes she hates her. She ignores Aunt Lydia's speech. Aunt Lydia announces that a description of the crimes of the prisoners will be dispensed with because similar accounts during televised executions have been followed by an increase in similar crimes. "The crimes of others are a secret language among us. Through them we show ourselves what we might be capable of, after all. This is not a popular announcement." Chapter 42, pg. 275 The first woman is brought up to the noose. A Handmaid behind Offred begins vomiting. Offred has seen this before, has symbolically consented to the executions before. She does not want to see anymore.
When the Salvaging is concluded, Aunt Lydia asks all the Handmaids to form a circle for a Particicution. Two Guardians drag a beaten man into the center of the circle. Offred thinks he looks drunk. Aunt Lydia announces his crime as rape involving the murder of an unborn child. This announcement inspires hatred in all the Handmaids. Aunt Lydia blows a whistle and before the man can protest the crowd of Handmaids is upon him. Ofglen makes her way to the front and knocks out the fallen man with a few well-placed kicks to his head. Offred is shocked and revolted by this at first, but Ofglen quickly explains that the man was not a rapist at all. He was a member of her network and was being killed for political crimes. She was simply making his death less painful for him. Janine walks by with an absent smile on her face and a clump of the man's hair in her fist. Offred is notices that she is ravenously hungry. She thinks it is her body's self-affirming reaction to death.
exerpted from bookrags.com
Today
From prominent wingnut blogger, and UCLA Constitional Law professor, Eugene Volokh, proudly identifying with the government of Iran's preferred method of capital punishment:
I particularly like the involvement of the victims' relatives in the killing of the monster; I think that if he'd killed one of my relatives, I would have wanted to play a role in killing him. Also, though for many instances I would prefer less painful forms of execution, I am especially pleased that the killing — and, yes, I am happy to call it a killing, a perfectly proper term for a perfectly proper act — was a slow throttling, and was preceded by a flogging. The one thing that troubles me (besides the fact that the murderer could only be killed once) is that the accomplice was sentenced to only 15 years in prison, but perhaps there's a good explanation.
I am being perfectly serious, by the way. I like civilization, but some forms of savagery deserve to be met not just with cold, bloodless justice but with the deliberate infliction of pain, with cruel vengeance rather than with supposed humaneness or squeamishness. I think it slights the burning injustice of the murders, and the pain of the families, to react in any other way.
Don't worry. It Can't Happen Here.
On the way home, they stop at an old Puritan church. The government "[has not] fiddled with the gravestones, or the church either. It's only the more recent history that offends them." Chapter 6, pg. 31 Ofglen bows her head in prayer, and Offred assumes her piety is a show. They then head to the Wall, which is the face of Gilead's prison. Six male corpses are hanging by their necks on the Wall from a Men's Salvaging earlier that morning. The men are identified as former abortionists by signs hung around their necks bearing images of fetuses. The men's heads are covered in white bags. One has a bloodstain like a mouth. Ofglen trembles, but Offred is not tempted to inquire or even look at her. "Ordinary, said Aunt Lydia, is what you are used to. This may not seem ordinary to you now, but after a time it will. It will become ordinary." Chapter 6, pg.33
One morning, Offred attends a district Women's Salvaging, execution. All the Handmaids kneel on red cushions in front of a stage set up inside the former university. Offred thinks of making love until she sees the women to be salvaged, two Handmaids and one Wife, sitting on the stage. Two Aunts and the executioners take the stage. Offred recognizes Aunt Lydia and realizes she hates her. She ignores Aunt Lydia's speech. Aunt Lydia announces that a description of the crimes of the prisoners will be dispensed with because similar accounts during televised executions have been followed by an increase in similar crimes. "The crimes of others are a secret language among us. Through them we show ourselves what we might be capable of, after all. This is not a popular announcement." Chapter 42, pg. 275 The first woman is brought up to the noose. A Handmaid behind Offred begins vomiting. Offred has seen this before, has symbolically consented to the executions before. She does not want to see anymore.
When the Salvaging is concluded, Aunt Lydia asks all the Handmaids to form a circle for a Particicution. Two Guardians drag a beaten man into the center of the circle. Offred thinks he looks drunk. Aunt Lydia announces his crime as rape involving the murder of an unborn child. This announcement inspires hatred in all the Handmaids. Aunt Lydia blows a whistle and before the man can protest the crowd of Handmaids is upon him. Ofglen makes her way to the front and knocks out the fallen man with a few well-placed kicks to his head. Offred is shocked and revolted by this at first, but Ofglen quickly explains that the man was not a rapist at all. He was a member of her network and was being killed for political crimes. She was simply making his death less painful for him. Janine walks by with an absent smile on her face and a clump of the man's hair in her fist. Offred is notices that she is ravenously hungry. She thinks it is her body's self-affirming reaction to death.
exerpted from bookrags.com
Today
From prominent wingnut blogger, and UCLA Constitional Law professor, Eugene Volokh, proudly identifying with the government of Iran's preferred method of capital punishment:
I particularly like the involvement of the victims' relatives in the killing of the monster; I think that if he'd killed one of my relatives, I would have wanted to play a role in killing him. Also, though for many instances I would prefer less painful forms of execution, I am especially pleased that the killing — and, yes, I am happy to call it a killing, a perfectly proper term for a perfectly proper act — was a slow throttling, and was preceded by a flogging. The one thing that troubles me (besides the fact that the murderer could only be killed once) is that the accomplice was sentenced to only 15 years in prison, but perhaps there's a good explanation.
I am being perfectly serious, by the way. I like civilization, but some forms of savagery deserve to be met not just with cold, bloodless justice but with the deliberate infliction of pain, with cruel vengeance rather than with supposed humaneness or squeamishness. I think it slights the burning injustice of the murders, and the pain of the families, to react in any other way.
Don't worry. It Can't Happen Here.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
This Just In...
Scott Peterson was officially sentenced to death yesterday...
Actor Robert Blake was found not guilty of killing his wife and CNN's court-room TV-babe Nancy Grace is pissed...
Michael Jackson is still on trial in Caleefornia on charges of child molestation...
That guy that killed the judge in a courtroom in Atlanta is still in custody...
President Bush called on Democratic opponents to put forward a plan for saving Social Security but declined to submit his own, claiming that all first bills are dead on arrival...
Conservative columnist Robert Novak writes today about how so far off the reservation that Republican governor of Indiana is for agreeing to raise taxes to balance the budget and about what a great conservative American that Mississippi Governor and former National Republican Party Chairman, Haley Barbour is for bravely opposing any and all tax increases for his state, which has amazed us all for its history of economic progress, high standard of living, and democratic values. For this reason, soon to be World Bank prez Paul Wolfowitz has declared his intention to use the State of Mississippi as a model example of how developing countries should remake their economies and political institutions. "With the world's help, we will do our darndest to make sure that today's third world countries maintain a system of low wages, crumbling infrastruture, high levels of military and armaments spending, and religious and jinoistic fanaticism."
The debate over Social Security is still in its early stages and the next two weeks will be critical as President Bush and Republican members of Congress really start boldly advocating privatization reform and rallying Americans young and old, black and white, to the righteousness of their cause. Really. They mean it this time. For the first time yesterday, Republican lawmakers announced that Social Security was enacted in 1935 during the Great Depression, which most Americans are no doubt unaware of. In a separate news conference Republican members of Congress held up 1789's U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and announced their intention to "modernize" the document and its principles.
By a narrow, 51-49 margin, The U.S. Senate yesterday voted to allow oil-drilling in the Alaskan Arctic Reserve, as proponents vowed to finally, once and for all, sever the nation's dependence on foreign oil, especially the kind found in those middle easter, gulf countries that we keep invading in order to make the region more "secure".
Hey, whatever happened to that other stupid, middle class, white guy from middle America that was charged with killing his young, smart, pretty, and white wife in Utah? If we can stay fixated on Peterson for all this time, how come we can't give it up for this guy, too?
Actor Robert Blake was found not guilty of killing his wife and CNN's court-room TV-babe Nancy Grace is pissed...
Michael Jackson is still on trial in Caleefornia on charges of child molestation...
That guy that killed the judge in a courtroom in Atlanta is still in custody...
President Bush called on Democratic opponents to put forward a plan for saving Social Security but declined to submit his own, claiming that all first bills are dead on arrival...
Conservative columnist Robert Novak writes today about how so far off the reservation that Republican governor of Indiana is for agreeing to raise taxes to balance the budget and about what a great conservative American that Mississippi Governor and former National Republican Party Chairman, Haley Barbour is for bravely opposing any and all tax increases for his state, which has amazed us all for its history of economic progress, high standard of living, and democratic values. For this reason, soon to be World Bank prez Paul Wolfowitz has declared his intention to use the State of Mississippi as a model example of how developing countries should remake their economies and political institutions. "With the world's help, we will do our darndest to make sure that today's third world countries maintain a system of low wages, crumbling infrastruture, high levels of military and armaments spending, and religious and jinoistic fanaticism."
The debate over Social Security is still in its early stages and the next two weeks will be critical as President Bush and Republican members of Congress really start boldly advocating privatization reform and rallying Americans young and old, black and white, to the righteousness of their cause. Really. They mean it this time. For the first time yesterday, Republican lawmakers announced that Social Security was enacted in 1935 during the Great Depression, which most Americans are no doubt unaware of. In a separate news conference Republican members of Congress held up 1789's U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and announced their intention to "modernize" the document and its principles.
By a narrow, 51-49 margin, The U.S. Senate yesterday voted to allow oil-drilling in the Alaskan Arctic Reserve, as proponents vowed to finally, once and for all, sever the nation's dependence on foreign oil, especially the kind found in those middle easter, gulf countries that we keep invading in order to make the region more "secure".
Hey, whatever happened to that other stupid, middle class, white guy from middle America that was charged with killing his young, smart, pretty, and white wife in Utah? If we can stay fixated on Peterson for all this time, how come we can't give it up for this guy, too?
Monday, March 14, 2005
The Myth of "Personal Responsibility"
Well maybe it isn't so much a myth as it is yet another right-wing propaganda slogan or concept that many Democrats feel somehow compelled to mimic.
Such was the case with last week's sorrowful meltdown on bankruptcy by Democrats in the U.S. Senate.
As the data gathered by the Left Coaster seems to indicate, campaign cash from the credit card cartel was unlikely the main reason why so many Democrats wilted on the roll call (Delaware's Biden and Carper, and SD's Johnson aside). Those Democratic senators who have offered an explanation as to their vote used the same "personal responsiblity" canard that has been used by conservatives to justify everything from welfare "reform" to abortion restrictions, abstenance education, Medicare cuts, Social Security "reform", and just about every other item on the cultural war itinerary.
I know the "consultants" say the phrase "personal responsiblity" is a winner in their focus groups, but as for policy, the phrase stinks. I wish Democrats would stop using it. Better yet, whenever it surfaces from some Republican talking points memo Democrats should counter by demanding corporate "responsibility" from the business world and political "responsibility" from the Administration--a gang known far and wide for their refusal to admit mistakes and lies--and from Republican members of Congress who, when the going gets tough, change the House rules to protect themselves from ethic charges.
It's high time Democrats made the phrase "personal responsibility" walk the plank. It's a conservative buzz word used as a wedge for their narrow, anti-individual welfare agenda, which we are not obligated to assist them with.
Such was the case with last week's sorrowful meltdown on bankruptcy by Democrats in the U.S. Senate.
As the data gathered by the Left Coaster seems to indicate, campaign cash from the credit card cartel was unlikely the main reason why so many Democrats wilted on the roll call (Delaware's Biden and Carper, and SD's Johnson aside). Those Democratic senators who have offered an explanation as to their vote used the same "personal responsiblity" canard that has been used by conservatives to justify everything from welfare "reform" to abortion restrictions, abstenance education, Medicare cuts, Social Security "reform", and just about every other item on the cultural war itinerary.
I know the "consultants" say the phrase "personal responsiblity" is a winner in their focus groups, but as for policy, the phrase stinks. I wish Democrats would stop using it. Better yet, whenever it surfaces from some Republican talking points memo Democrats should counter by demanding corporate "responsibility" from the business world and political "responsibility" from the Administration--a gang known far and wide for their refusal to admit mistakes and lies--and from Republican members of Congress who, when the going gets tough, change the House rules to protect themselves from ethic charges.
It's high time Democrats made the phrase "personal responsibility" walk the plank. It's a conservative buzz word used as a wedge for their narrow, anti-individual welfare agenda, which we are not obligated to assist them with.
Friday, March 11, 2005
5 More for the No Credit Card Company Left Behind, Bankruptcy "Reform" bill
On Tuesday, 14 Senate Democrats incomprehensively voted with the Republican majority for cloture on S. 256, killing further debate on the bankruptcy "reform" bill and effectively ensuring its passage.
Yesterday, 18 Senate Democrats voted with the Republican majority to provide credit card companies with even more power than they already possess by finally passing the legislation, which will now head to the House.
You probably want to know who the extra Democrats were that went from "nay" on the vote for cloture to a "yea" on the vote for the bill's final passage, don't you?
Well, one member of the original 14 played the bait and switch by voting "nay" for the final bill--Joementum Lieberman. So the result was 5 additional Senate Democrats who bowed down to the corporate god Molech in the hopes they would still be able to get the support of the finance industry for their next campaign.
Here they are, five more Senators who will never be Democratic nominees for President:
Baucus (MT)
Bingaman (NM)
Inouye (HI)
Reid (NV)
Bayh (IN)
Congratulations, men. Like Esau of old, you have sold your birthright for a bowl of pottage.
Fortunately, not every Democratic in or out of Congress was amused.
Members of the party's more liberal wing were openly frustrated that Republicans had ample Democratic help passing the bankruptcy bill on a 74-to-25 vote in the Senate...
"This is not where we as Democrats ought to be, for crying out loud," said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, after Republicans beat back amendment after amendment offered by Democrats in their efforts to soften the bankruptcy measure. "We are making a terrible mistake by thinking that we can have it both ways. We have to remember where our base is."
As the bankruptcy bill emerged, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, sought to rally members of his party around a series of amendments that would offer special protection for those whose bankruptcy was attributed to health care costs or other unexpected expenses. But on that and nearly every other attempted change, solid Republican opposition, bolstered by a handful of Democrats, prevailed.
On the call to cut off debate on the bill, 13 Democrats joined Republicans, some of whom said privately that they were astonished that Democratic opponents of the bill were losing so many from their own party.
The support drew a scolding from John Podesta, a top Clinton administration official who now leads the Center for American Progress, a Washington research group. In a memo widely circulated on Capitol Hill, Mr. Podesta said lawmakers who viewed the bankruptcy bill as an easy probusiness vote were overlooking the impact it could have on the middle-class Americans who are being sought after by both parties.
In an interview, Mr. Podesta said the support by some Democrats for legislation like the bankruptcy bill contributed to the party's continuing erosion among working-class voters. "You have got poll after poll saying there is no distinction between the parties on these core economic issues and one has to say, no wonder," Mr. Podesta said.
Amen, brother, halleluyah.
It's Time: Harkin '08
It's Time: Podesta '08
It's Way Past Time: Kennedy '08
Yesterday, 18 Senate Democrats voted with the Republican majority to provide credit card companies with even more power than they already possess by finally passing the legislation, which will now head to the House.
You probably want to know who the extra Democrats were that went from "nay" on the vote for cloture to a "yea" on the vote for the bill's final passage, don't you?
Well, one member of the original 14 played the bait and switch by voting "nay" for the final bill--Joementum Lieberman. So the result was 5 additional Senate Democrats who bowed down to the corporate god Molech in the hopes they would still be able to get the support of the finance industry for their next campaign.
Here they are, five more Senators who will never be Democratic nominees for President:
Baucus (MT)
Bingaman (NM)
Inouye (HI)
Reid (NV)
Bayh (IN)
Congratulations, men. Like Esau of old, you have sold your birthright for a bowl of pottage.
Fortunately, not every Democratic in or out of Congress was amused.
Members of the party's more liberal wing were openly frustrated that Republicans had ample Democratic help passing the bankruptcy bill on a 74-to-25 vote in the Senate...
"This is not where we as Democrats ought to be, for crying out loud," said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, after Republicans beat back amendment after amendment offered by Democrats in their efforts to soften the bankruptcy measure. "We are making a terrible mistake by thinking that we can have it both ways. We have to remember where our base is."
As the bankruptcy bill emerged, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, sought to rally members of his party around a series of amendments that would offer special protection for those whose bankruptcy was attributed to health care costs or other unexpected expenses. But on that and nearly every other attempted change, solid Republican opposition, bolstered by a handful of Democrats, prevailed.
On the call to cut off debate on the bill, 13 Democrats joined Republicans, some of whom said privately that they were astonished that Democratic opponents of the bill were losing so many from their own party.
The support drew a scolding from John Podesta, a top Clinton administration official who now leads the Center for American Progress, a Washington research group. In a memo widely circulated on Capitol Hill, Mr. Podesta said lawmakers who viewed the bankruptcy bill as an easy probusiness vote were overlooking the impact it could have on the middle-class Americans who are being sought after by both parties.
In an interview, Mr. Podesta said the support by some Democrats for legislation like the bankruptcy bill contributed to the party's continuing erosion among working-class voters. "You have got poll after poll saying there is no distinction between the parties on these core economic issues and one has to say, no wonder," Mr. Podesta said.
Amen, brother, halleluyah.
It's Time: Harkin '08
It's Time: Podesta '08
It's Way Past Time: Kennedy '08
Thursday, March 10, 2005
What Is To Be Done, II
The Kos has a link to a Democratic staffer in the House who tries to explain the behavior of the 14 Senate Democrats who voted to throw consumers and working families under the proverbial bus on behalf of the credit card cartel.
From an academic, Rational Choice kind of perspective, his conclusion sadly makes some sense--there are concentrated, organized interests with dollars to give on one side, and a disorganized, dispersed, and underfunded mass on the other side. So going for the Big Money isn't totally illogical. Politicians are rational actors, who will respond to various issues based on the balance of interests--and the potential for those interests to provide pleasure or inflict pain on the legislator.
Very well.
But as I posted over at Rising Hegemon, isn't it exactly this inbalance of competing interests and incentives that the political party in general, and the Democratic Party in particular, is supposed to correct?
The problem seems to be how the party's grassroots can apply pressure to the party's leadership, which can then act on the party's governing members. In the absence of organized interests--such as the AARP and others on the Social Security debate--how do progressives connect with the party's hierarchy to, at a minimum, express it's opinion and distaste for a bill such as this, and preferably, impress the party leadership that the grassroots are able and prepared to supply a "stick" should the party or a sizeable number of its members act contrary to progressive principles?
First, there needs to be an acknowledged point of contact. Is this, or should it be a) Dean and the DNC; b) Reid's office or c) Pelosi's office; or any and all of the above? Are either of the congressional leadership offices open to voices of the party's, as opposed to just that member's local or state constituency? If the DNC is not supposed to do policy, as Reid and Pelosi warned prior to Dean's election, what can the DNC accomplish?
Second, to the extent that their is a progressive consensus on a matter before Congress, what incentives or disincentives can be promised or threatened? Certainly to a limited extent, progressives on the web can be a source of campaign resources, or the lack thereof, as well as a source of negative or positive press.
Josh Marshall's TPM has been an illustration of what progressive activism can look like, regarding Social Security "reform". But obviously more needs to be done.
From an academic, Rational Choice kind of perspective, his conclusion sadly makes some sense--there are concentrated, organized interests with dollars to give on one side, and a disorganized, dispersed, and underfunded mass on the other side. So going for the Big Money isn't totally illogical. Politicians are rational actors, who will respond to various issues based on the balance of interests--and the potential for those interests to provide pleasure or inflict pain on the legislator.
Very well.
But as I posted over at Rising Hegemon, isn't it exactly this inbalance of competing interests and incentives that the political party in general, and the Democratic Party in particular, is supposed to correct?
The problem seems to be how the party's grassroots can apply pressure to the party's leadership, which can then act on the party's governing members. In the absence of organized interests--such as the AARP and others on the Social Security debate--how do progressives connect with the party's hierarchy to, at a minimum, express it's opinion and distaste for a bill such as this, and preferably, impress the party leadership that the grassroots are able and prepared to supply a "stick" should the party or a sizeable number of its members act contrary to progressive principles?
First, there needs to be an acknowledged point of contact. Is this, or should it be a) Dean and the DNC; b) Reid's office or c) Pelosi's office; or any and all of the above? Are either of the congressional leadership offices open to voices of the party's, as opposed to just that member's local or state constituency? If the DNC is not supposed to do policy, as Reid and Pelosi warned prior to Dean's election, what can the DNC accomplish?
Second, to the extent that their is a progressive consensus on a matter before Congress, what incentives or disincentives can be promised or threatened? Certainly to a limited extent, progressives on the web can be a source of campaign resources, or the lack thereof, as well as a source of negative or positive press.
Josh Marshall's TPM has been an illustration of what progressive activism can look like, regarding Social Security "reform". But obviously more needs to be done.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
The Brewing Storm
A while ago I made a post about how the nationalization of policy over the last half-century has had the unfortunate effect of diluting the Democratic Party's attention to local issues and reduced its connection to its constituencies.
I think its fair to say that yesterday's Democratic Senate vote over the bankruptcy "reform" bill is a pretty clear demonstration of that effect. Most of these Democratic Senators are so divorced from any contact with the voters that they were either just plain tone deaf to any arguments besides those of the credit card industry or worse, were being openly contemptious of any potential negative response from the voters or from the party's more progressive grassroots.
On a somewhat related point, a political party with real community roots would strive to improve economic conditions and livelihoods so that the credit card companys' siren song to obtain more credit would not have the lustful appeal it has for individuals and families seduced by television and radio advertising to buy or replace products and services they don't need. This is the dark side of capitalism, a system that requires more and more production and more and more selling and buying, which requires increasingly more credit to stay afloat, a system that will ultimately crash and burn when the people can't keep playing the game.
While the credit card oligarchy can loudly bray about its victory, it's seriously hard to see how policy choices like these are not going to create some serious blowback at some point in time, when the whole deck of cards (no pun intended) that is the "new economy" comes crashing down in a heap of debtor ruin from the corporate shell games of inflated profits from nonproductive pursuits (i.e. the jobs and profits "gained" from exorbitant interest rate and late fee charges), exported jobs, national deficits and inequitable rule-gaming that allows the power elite to run amock.
I think its fair to say that yesterday's Democratic Senate vote over the bankruptcy "reform" bill is a pretty clear demonstration of that effect. Most of these Democratic Senators are so divorced from any contact with the voters that they were either just plain tone deaf to any arguments besides those of the credit card industry or worse, were being openly contemptious of any potential negative response from the voters or from the party's more progressive grassroots.
On a somewhat related point, a political party with real community roots would strive to improve economic conditions and livelihoods so that the credit card companys' siren song to obtain more credit would not have the lustful appeal it has for individuals and families seduced by television and radio advertising to buy or replace products and services they don't need. This is the dark side of capitalism, a system that requires more and more production and more and more selling and buying, which requires increasingly more credit to stay afloat, a system that will ultimately crash and burn when the people can't keep playing the game.
While the credit card oligarchy can loudly bray about its victory, it's seriously hard to see how policy choices like these are not going to create some serious blowback at some point in time, when the whole deck of cards (no pun intended) that is the "new economy" comes crashing down in a heap of debtor ruin from the corporate shell games of inflated profits from nonproductive pursuits (i.e. the jobs and profits "gained" from exorbitant interest rate and late fee charges), exported jobs, national deficits and inequitable rule-gaming that allows the power elite to run amock.
What Is To Be Done?
Here are the 14, 14, Democratic Senators who voted for cloture (i.e. voted to end debate) over the hideous bankruptcy "reform" bill, written and sponsored by the credit card industry and drug around the corridors of Congress for the past eight years until enough whores could be found to support it.
Biden (D-DE)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stabenow's was the most surprising name of the group, as I had pegged her as some sort of progressive for some reason.
Of the rest, two particularly stand out--Arkansas's Pryor and Lincoln. There's an analysis begging to be done here on the correlation between that state's per capita or median family income and the voting inclinations of these two "senators". Now, the usual spiel we get about the conservatism of the south is that it's cultural or social in origin, concerned about gays, guns, and God. But if that's true, than what the hell is the incentive for voting with the credit card companies on this bill? I have a hard time seeing where the homestate pressure is to support a bill like this. The state is poor. In 2003, it's per capita income was 24,296. If you're keeping score at home, that puts it 49th out of the 50 states (Thank God for Mississippi). What in the name of all that's holy can Lincoln and Pryor see with backing this bill?
And you thought Bush's re-election was bad. What use is to complain about Bush if our own guys and gals are committing fornication with the gods of greed?
So What Is To Be Done?
Well, we can remember Biden when he wants to run for prez in 08.
As for the others, I'm seriously considering providing financial and moral support for whoever runs against them in their next election cycle. I'll even support their Republican opponents. Why not? What use is it to have these corporate handmaids in Congress if they are going to vote like this? I'd rather have real Republicans to deal with.
Update: Atrios has a link to the number of bankruptcy filings by state and guess what? The top 11 states (those with the highest number of bankruptcy filings) are da red states. I'm not sure what to make of this other than it seems to be yet another blatant example of representatives voting against their states' economic interests. And oh, yeah, Arkansas clocks in at number 7. Nice going Lincoln and Pryor.
Biden (D-DE)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stabenow's was the most surprising name of the group, as I had pegged her as some sort of progressive for some reason.
Of the rest, two particularly stand out--Arkansas's Pryor and Lincoln. There's an analysis begging to be done here on the correlation between that state's per capita or median family income and the voting inclinations of these two "senators". Now, the usual spiel we get about the conservatism of the south is that it's cultural or social in origin, concerned about gays, guns, and God. But if that's true, than what the hell is the incentive for voting with the credit card companies on this bill? I have a hard time seeing where the homestate pressure is to support a bill like this. The state is poor. In 2003, it's per capita income was 24,296. If you're keeping score at home, that puts it 49th out of the 50 states (Thank God for Mississippi). What in the name of all that's holy can Lincoln and Pryor see with backing this bill?
And you thought Bush's re-election was bad. What use is to complain about Bush if our own guys and gals are committing fornication with the gods of greed?
So What Is To Be Done?
Well, we can remember Biden when he wants to run for prez in 08.
As for the others, I'm seriously considering providing financial and moral support for whoever runs against them in their next election cycle. I'll even support their Republican opponents. Why not? What use is it to have these corporate handmaids in Congress if they are going to vote like this? I'd rather have real Republicans to deal with.
Update: Atrios has a link to the number of bankruptcy filings by state and guess what? The top 11 states (those with the highest number of bankruptcy filings) are da red states. I'm not sure what to make of this other than it seems to be yet another blatant example of representatives voting against their states' economic interests. And oh, yeah, Arkansas clocks in at number 7. Nice going Lincoln and Pryor.
Monday, March 07, 2005
Paging Focus On The Family
As I am sometimes wont to do, I have wondered over to the Focus On The Family website to see what James Dobson--a prominent self-appointed spokesperson of the Christian community--has to say about the bankruptcy "reform" bill, a measure of utmost rancid slimeness, now slithering its way through Congress.
The only thing I could find was this, a piece of commentary and handwringing from February 21, that is, predictably, only concerned about the potential for an anti-anti-abortion amendment being tacked onto the bill (as it was last session) preventing ardent pro lifers from being able to declare bankruptcy in the event they find themselves financially and legally liable for any actions relating to their protests.
But Dobson and the FOTF gang seem to favor bankruptcy "reform". Their summary of the legislation goes like this--
America needs to reform its bankruptcy laws, but every time Congress tries to do so, harsh amendments aimed at punishing pro-lifers are dumped onto the bill. This year is no exception.
Isn't that special?
I guess the only families FOTF is concerned with are those whose millions will ensure they aren't affected.
FOTF, you are hypocrites, money changers running wild in the temple.
The only thing I could find was this, a piece of commentary and handwringing from February 21, that is, predictably, only concerned about the potential for an anti-anti-abortion amendment being tacked onto the bill (as it was last session) preventing ardent pro lifers from being able to declare bankruptcy in the event they find themselves financially and legally liable for any actions relating to their protests.
But Dobson and the FOTF gang seem to favor bankruptcy "reform". Their summary of the legislation goes like this--
America needs to reform its bankruptcy laws, but every time Congress tries to do so, harsh amendments aimed at punishing pro-lifers are dumped onto the bill. This year is no exception.
Isn't that special?
I guess the only families FOTF is concerned with are those whose millions will ensure they aren't affected.
FOTF, you are hypocrites, money changers running wild in the temple.
Bankrupt Politics
I'm linking to this post at DailyKos about the Leave No Credit Card Company Behind Bill, aka, the "bankruptcy bill" the Republicans are trying to ram through Congress.
Among the things I find deeply troubling about all this is the roster of Democrats that have been consistently voting with the Republicans on a series of amendments designed to aleviate the bill's adverse effects.
Two of the Democratic Senators that are carrying the water for credit card companies on this bill are not surprising--Delaware's Biden and Carper. MBNA is headquartered there as are a number of other credit card outfits calling Delaware home because of that state's favorable corporate tax policies.
The other two--Nebraska's Nelson and South Dakota's Johnson are more of a puzzle. I seem to recall that CitiBank has an operation in South Dakota or did at one time. That could be the basis for Johnson's vote. As for Nelson, I don't know.
But these two fellas are from the plain states, The Heartland, home of the original populist movement and the opposition to the wall street money cartels. And they're supposed to be Democrats. So what in the name of George W. Norris is going on out there? I wonder what the balance is of creditors to debtors out there in SD and Nebraska?
I take you back to President Truman:
I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who's hitting you?...
Among the things I find deeply troubling about all this is the roster of Democrats that have been consistently voting with the Republicans on a series of amendments designed to aleviate the bill's adverse effects.
Two of the Democratic Senators that are carrying the water for credit card companies on this bill are not surprising--Delaware's Biden and Carper. MBNA is headquartered there as are a number of other credit card outfits calling Delaware home because of that state's favorable corporate tax policies.
The other two--Nebraska's Nelson and South Dakota's Johnson are more of a puzzle. I seem to recall that CitiBank has an operation in South Dakota or did at one time. That could be the basis for Johnson's vote. As for Nelson, I don't know.
But these two fellas are from the plain states, The Heartland, home of the original populist movement and the opposition to the wall street money cartels. And they're supposed to be Democrats. So what in the name of George W. Norris is going on out there? I wonder what the balance is of creditors to debtors out there in SD and Nebraska?
I take you back to President Truman:
I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who's hitting you?...
Plain Speaking
You remember the big boom and the great crash of 1929. You remember that in 1932 the position of the farmer had become so desperate that there was actual violence in many farming communities. You remember that insurance companies and banks took over much of the land of small independent farmers -- 223,000 farmers lost their farms....
I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who's hitting you?...
The Democratic Party represents the people. It is pledged to work for agriculture.... The Democratic Party puts human rights and human welfare first.... These Republican gluttons of privilege are cold men. They are cunning men.... They want a return of the Wall Street economic dictatorship....
President Harry S. Truman, campaigning in 1948 (thanks to Buzzflash for the link).
Today, from Nathan Newman:
Santorum's Sweatshop Expansion Bill -
Sweatshops Expanded, Overtime Attacked, and State Minimum Wage Laws Undermined
Yes, How Many Times?, is the question.
I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who's hitting you?...
The Democratic Party represents the people. It is pledged to work for agriculture.... The Democratic Party puts human rights and human welfare first.... These Republican gluttons of privilege are cold men. They are cunning men.... They want a return of the Wall Street economic dictatorship....
President Harry S. Truman, campaigning in 1948 (thanks to Buzzflash for the link).
Today, from Nathan Newman:
Santorum's Sweatshop Expansion Bill -
Sweatshops Expanded, Overtime Attacked, and State Minimum Wage Laws Undermined
Yes, How Many Times?, is the question.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)