Although my psychiatrist--for purposes related to my sanity and usefullness to mankind--has advised me not to read any transcripts, or watch any shows, radio or otherwise, in which media critic and conservative scold Michael Medved makes an appearance, I continue to be perplexed by this most recent rant of his where prior to interviewing Hans Riemer from Rock the Vote on the subject of Social Security "reform", had this to say:
MEDVED: Fourty-four minutes past the hour on The Michael Medved Show. My question for our guest Hans Riemer. He is with the "I Heart Social Security" campaign of Rock the Vote. It's sort of an alliance of slackers and geezers to try to make sure that we continue bankrupting the country to pay very high and continually rising Social Security benefits. Given the fact that in really a couple years -- we're talking about seven years, it could be that soon -- we will be paying out more in benefits than we are taking in in payroll taxes, where is -- how are you going to continue paying people these promised benefits without either raising the payroll tax or taking more money out of general revenues?
Now, I realize I'm treading on dangerous ground in trying to decipher anything Michael Medved--reportedly an entertainment/movie critic by training and profession--might have to say about the structure and finances of the Social Security program.
But in just one paragraph he manages to let fly several whoppers. Let's parse this sentence from the wise one: "...make sure we continue bankrupting the country to pay very high and continually rising Social Security benefits". Social Security benefits are bankrupting the country? Well, I admit I hadn't heard any allegations that the country was currently being bankrupted at the present moment, not to mention that Social Security was the guilty party. Maybe he means the country is being bankrupted by the President's tax cuts for the rich and the continuing war in Iraq.
And then "....very high and continually rising Social Security benefits"? Very high? All the other conservatives I've heard mention the level of Social Security benefits claim its a bad deal, the rate of return stinks, etc. Maybe Medved didn't get the memo.
And then there's his claim that (gosh this is getting painful) "...in really a couple of years--we're talking about seven years--it could be that soon, we will be paying out more in benefits than we are taking in in payroll taxes..." Seven years? I'm surprised Hans Riemer didn't eat Medved there on the spot. Seven years? Um, no. 2017 is the projected date that incoming payroll taxes will start to fall below projected benefit payouts. Seven years? Twelve is more like it. And what will happen then? Well, because Social Security pays benefits as long as the Trust Funds show positive assets, the benefit checks will keep going out, till at least 2050 according to the Congressional Budget Office.
But he's not done demonstrating his thorough lack of knowledge in the field of public policy. "...how are you going to keep paying...benefits...without...taking money out of general revenues". Another memo Medved hasn't gotten. All the Social Security "reform" bills favored by his pals raid the general fund to the tune of $3 to 7 trillion--more, I might add, than the indefinite Social Security deficit.
Not content do botch the dollar and sense part of the argument, however, Medved gets snippy about those who disagree with them and his president. "...sort of an alliance of slackers and geezers..."
Slackers and geezers. That's what Medved and his conservative friends think of you and me. And your mother who relies on Social Security benefits all the while Medved has to make due on his book royalties and radio host salary (paid, it seems to me, by someone with a most gracious spot in their heart for someone lacking even the most rudimentary knowledge about anything).
Slackers and geezers. Medved should take time off from watching the Passion to get a copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Credibility Gap
I must admit I'm baffled by the flurry of remarks flowing from the Pentagon and the White House in response to the Newsweek article on the Koran and the toilet.
This AP article seems to suggest both that the Pentagon is continuing to investigate the allegation of Gitmo interrogators flushing a copy or copies of the Koran down the jon and that the allegations are false, unfounded, and damaging to the U.S. "image".
Which is it? Is the investigation continuing or has it been thoroughly investigated and found to be false?
The Newsweek "apology" is strange, too. Sounds a lot like, "we're sorry we printed the truth and that violence erupted as a result." Sounds a lot like the type of nonapology apology one utters after discovering a horse's head under your bedcovers.
But I especially liked this gem:
Lawrence Di Rita, the top spokesman for the Pentagon, called the editor's note "very tepid and qualified." He added later, "They owe us all a lot more accountability than they took."
Accountability. Yeah, the Pentagon is well positioned to talk about the need for accountability. Nigerian yellowcake? Weapons of Mass Destruction, anyone?
Jerry (to George at the coffeeshop): Artistic integrity? You're not artistic, and you have no integrity!
Dear Pentagon: this is what happens when you have no credibility or integrity. When you flush your credibility down the proverbial toilet by saying you aren't abusing detainees and than pictures surface that demonstrate you are, outsiders are more likely to believe reports that your interrogators flushed the Koran down an actual toilet, too.
This AP article seems to suggest both that the Pentagon is continuing to investigate the allegation of Gitmo interrogators flushing a copy or copies of the Koran down the jon and that the allegations are false, unfounded, and damaging to the U.S. "image".
Which is it? Is the investigation continuing or has it been thoroughly investigated and found to be false?
The Newsweek "apology" is strange, too. Sounds a lot like, "we're sorry we printed the truth and that violence erupted as a result." Sounds a lot like the type of nonapology apology one utters after discovering a horse's head under your bedcovers.
But I especially liked this gem:
Lawrence Di Rita, the top spokesman for the Pentagon, called the editor's note "very tepid and qualified." He added later, "They owe us all a lot more accountability than they took."
Accountability. Yeah, the Pentagon is well positioned to talk about the need for accountability. Nigerian yellowcake? Weapons of Mass Destruction, anyone?
Jerry (to George at the coffeeshop): Artistic integrity? You're not artistic, and you have no integrity!
Dear Pentagon: this is what happens when you have no credibility or integrity. When you flush your credibility down the proverbial toilet by saying you aren't abusing detainees and than pictures surface that demonstrate you are, outsiders are more likely to believe reports that your interrogators flushed the Koran down an actual toilet, too.
Friday, May 13, 2005
Not knowing the truth will not set you free
It seems like ages ago, but really it was only last week, that the Washington Post put this article about Bob Jones and Bob Jones University in its Style section for me to read at my breakfast table, in the parking lot on route 95, or on the Green Line to Branch Avenue, whichever I chose. Now, as an aside, if I was a conspiracist, which I'm not, I might contend that the Post's Style section seems to, with alarming regularity, print mushy stuff about conservatives that you really never wished you'd have to read about. (But I won't carry on and on about how the Post's Style section, with alarming regularity, seems to have room for just one more slice of life bit about some member or institution of the conservative illuminati.)
And so read I did.
And I found this gem highlighting the philosophical viewpoint of the university that was once known for its rule prohibiting interracial dating--in the year 2000.
The difference between Bob Jones and secular schools, Pait says, is that at BJU every teacher is a fundamentalist Christian and every subject is taught from a "Christian worldview."
"In secular schools, they say, 'Let's use science to discover the unknown truth,' " Pait says. "We say, 'We know the truth -- how does this glorify the truth, who is God?' "
They know the truth. So your purpose, dear student, is to accept that truth. Don't ask questions. Don't question orders. Don't question who we tell you to vote for. Don't pass go, don't collect $2000 (the original $200 has been increased due to inflation--ed).
Don't question our truth, dear student, even when this is the truth as we see it:
Bob Jones Jr. pilloried Secretary of State Alexander Haig as "a monster in human flesh" and publicly prayed that God would "smite him hip and thigh, bone and marrow, heart and lungs."
Bob Jones III denounced Ronald Reagan as "a traitor to God's people" for the sin of choosing as his vice president George H.W. Bush, whom Jones called "a devil."
And all this time I thought Reagan was God's right hand man.
And, no, we don't have an ego issue here at Bob Jones University:
Pait points out the university's academic spinoffs: a Bob Jones preschool, Bob Jones Elementary School, Bob Jones Junior High School, and a 600-student high school called Bob Jones Academy.
It's possible to go from preschool to a PhD and never attend a school that isn't named after Bob Jones.
Meanwhile, back to the truth that we already know:
Bob Jr. was also as fiery a fundamentalist as his father. He denounced the National Council of Churches as "satanic" and the National Association of Evangelicals as "traitors to the cause of Christ."
When Gov. George Wallace stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to prevent a black student from registering, Bob Jr. awarded him an honorary doctorate and praised him as "David, warring against the giant, Tyranny."
In 1964, when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, Bob Jr. refused to sign a document promising not to discriminate, denouncing it as a "highhanded scheme to force all educational institutions under the control of a federal agency."
That year, Bob Jr. barnstormed for Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater under the slogan "Only a divine miracle can save America now."
But have no fear, even if the church/Bob Jones University was wrong about everything, it was surely right in general. And its pronouncements are just as essential today:
Last year, on the day after the presidential election, Dr. Bob took to the pulpit at the school's compulsory daily chapel service to read a letter he'd written to President Bush:
"In your reelection, God has granted America -- though she doesn't deserve it -- a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. . . . Don't equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ."
The students cheered.
And when Dr. Bob broke the news that Tom Daschle, the Senate's Democratic leader, had lost his bid for reelection, they cheered again.
And so read I did.
And I found this gem highlighting the philosophical viewpoint of the university that was once known for its rule prohibiting interracial dating--in the year 2000.
The difference between Bob Jones and secular schools, Pait says, is that at BJU every teacher is a fundamentalist Christian and every subject is taught from a "Christian worldview."
"In secular schools, they say, 'Let's use science to discover the unknown truth,' " Pait says. "We say, 'We know the truth -- how does this glorify the truth, who is God?' "
They know the truth. So your purpose, dear student, is to accept that truth. Don't ask questions. Don't question orders. Don't question who we tell you to vote for. Don't pass go, don't collect $2000 (the original $200 has been increased due to inflation--ed).
Don't question our truth, dear student, even when this is the truth as we see it:
Bob Jones Jr. pilloried Secretary of State Alexander Haig as "a monster in human flesh" and publicly prayed that God would "smite him hip and thigh, bone and marrow, heart and lungs."
Bob Jones III denounced Ronald Reagan as "a traitor to God's people" for the sin of choosing as his vice president George H.W. Bush, whom Jones called "a devil."
And all this time I thought Reagan was God's right hand man.
And, no, we don't have an ego issue here at Bob Jones University:
Pait points out the university's academic spinoffs: a Bob Jones preschool, Bob Jones Elementary School, Bob Jones Junior High School, and a 600-student high school called Bob Jones Academy.
It's possible to go from preschool to a PhD and never attend a school that isn't named after Bob Jones.
Meanwhile, back to the truth that we already know:
Bob Jr. was also as fiery a fundamentalist as his father. He denounced the National Council of Churches as "satanic" and the National Association of Evangelicals as "traitors to the cause of Christ."
When Gov. George Wallace stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to prevent a black student from registering, Bob Jr. awarded him an honorary doctorate and praised him as "David, warring against the giant, Tyranny."
In 1964, when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, Bob Jr. refused to sign a document promising not to discriminate, denouncing it as a "highhanded scheme to force all educational institutions under the control of a federal agency."
That year, Bob Jr. barnstormed for Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater under the slogan "Only a divine miracle can save America now."
But have no fear, even if the church/Bob Jones University was wrong about everything, it was surely right in general. And its pronouncements are just as essential today:
Last year, on the day after the presidential election, Dr. Bob took to the pulpit at the school's compulsory daily chapel service to read a letter he'd written to President Bush:
"In your reelection, God has granted America -- though she doesn't deserve it -- a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. . . . Don't equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ."
The students cheered.
And when Dr. Bob broke the news that Tom Daschle, the Senate's Democratic leader, had lost his bid for reelection, they cheered again.
Give'em some love (and some cash)
In the six months of this humble blog's existence, I have not made an appeal for cash, for myself or anyone else.
And since I don't have any expenses I don't need any money from my loyal readers.
But for those of you seeking a respectable and worthy recipient of your largesse, I hope you will consider your local, friendly neighborhood progressively independent public radio outlet.
In the Washington, DC area, that station is WPFW 89.3 which carries the Pacifica Network's Democracy Now! radio program with Amy Goodman. For those of you unacquainted with Amy Goodman, she is the author of Exception to the Rulers, an investigative expose of the power elite. She hosts a great radio program at 8 am/6 pm repeat on weekdays, where she plays host to progressive thinkers, activists and journalists from around the world, reporting on the news the murdoch media doesn't want you to know.
WPFW is carrying on a special fundraising drive this week during which your donations will not only help to allow the station to carry on its work, but also give you some goodies in return.
I donated this morning, and will be getting in return, besides a membership with the station, a two dvd disc set containing a documentary on the life of progressive historian Howard Zinn, as well as a supplementary book to his well known A People's History of the United States.
If you live in the Washington area, give Amy Goodman's show a listen (also see the link I have on the right to the Democracy Now! webpage). And if you can, give WPFW a call and donate to the progressive cause.
If you do, I promise you it will make Michael Medved cry.
And since I don't have any expenses I don't need any money from my loyal readers.
But for those of you seeking a respectable and worthy recipient of your largesse, I hope you will consider your local, friendly neighborhood progressively independent public radio outlet.
In the Washington, DC area, that station is WPFW 89.3 which carries the Pacifica Network's Democracy Now! radio program with Amy Goodman. For those of you unacquainted with Amy Goodman, she is the author of Exception to the Rulers, an investigative expose of the power elite. She hosts a great radio program at 8 am/6 pm repeat on weekdays, where she plays host to progressive thinkers, activists and journalists from around the world, reporting on the news the murdoch media doesn't want you to know.
WPFW is carrying on a special fundraising drive this week during which your donations will not only help to allow the station to carry on its work, but also give you some goodies in return.
I donated this morning, and will be getting in return, besides a membership with the station, a two dvd disc set containing a documentary on the life of progressive historian Howard Zinn, as well as a supplementary book to his well known A People's History of the United States.
If you live in the Washington area, give Amy Goodman's show a listen (also see the link I have on the right to the Democracy Now! webpage). And if you can, give WPFW a call and donate to the progressive cause.
If you do, I promise you it will make Michael Medved cry.
Ignorance is Strength
I was reading this post at the CarpetBaggerReport and particularly liked this summary from commenter Donald McFarland:
I think Matt Yglesias gives Michael Kinsley too much credit, albeit with tongue firmly in cheek, I’m sure. Painfully dumb conservative columnists are the inevitable result of the painful and deliberate dumbing down of conservative thought and education by their extremist leaders.
Their purpose was to make it easier to gain and hold power among the sheep-like masses. What they’re left with, however, are just a bunch of stupid people mindlessly repeating the nonsense they’ve been programmed with. They simply don’t have the intellect to maintain the illusion of superiority they have thrived on up to now and it’s really starting to show.
Now, that the conservative movement in general, and its Christian-Nationalist agenda in particular, is profoundly and purposely anti-intellectual, is not news to anybody that reads this blog.
And that there are, or at least could be, adverse consequences of that policy for the conservative movement--and for those it governs--flows from that understanding.
But the discussion reminded me of something I've been thinking a lot about lately, and that is the intersection between the stated ideals and ambitions of Christian Dominionists* such as James Dobson, and the "double think" that characterizes the totalitarian state of Oceania's Inner Party leaders in George Orwell's 1984. Of course the linking of the reconstructionist right with Orwellian tendencies isn't shockingly original.
But what I do think is intriguing is the idea that like Oceania's Inner Party, today's conservatives, and Christian Dominionists in particular, simultaneously believe, and don't believe, the rhetoric they spout.
Take the much noted "persecution complex" Christian Dominionists are known for trumpeting, and which even some mainstream conservatives like George Will, don't give serious credence to. Dobson and his posse must know that they and their ilk are not seriously under attack, but that rather, the rhetoric is used as a means of making the Christians in the pews think that they are so that they will open their checkbooks for their "ministries" as well as vote for the party that will give the Dominionists the political power they want. The language and medium serve both to inflame passions and discourage thought. So, on the one hand, I have to think that the Dobson, Tony Perkins, D. James Kennedy, Rod Parsley and Janet Parshells of the Dominionist's world know that what they're pushing is propaganda designed to bring their flock into allegiance.
The supposed threat from gays and homosexuality is used the same way.
At the same time, the sheer repetitiveness and paranoia involved probably serves in a way to convince the Dominionist's leaders that they really are in fact under attack and that gayness really is a threat to them and their imagined way of life.
So, much like Oceania's Inner Party which manipulates a climate of fear and discouragement of thought--both within the state and within their party--to preserve power, but which is itself both an executor, as well as the target of, that same repression, the Christian Dominionists intend to attract a partisan, highly emotional, and thus, highly malleable mass of support by promoting a climate of fear, do themselves become a part of the lie they're perpetuating.
*The origin of this term is uncertain, but it appears in Chris Hedge's article in the current Harper's magazine "Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters". The term Dominionist may be used by some inside the Christian Nationalist umbrella of groups or it may be only an outsider's reference. In any event, given their agenda, it seems an appropriate moniker.
I think Matt Yglesias gives Michael Kinsley too much credit, albeit with tongue firmly in cheek, I’m sure. Painfully dumb conservative columnists are the inevitable result of the painful and deliberate dumbing down of conservative thought and education by their extremist leaders.
Their purpose was to make it easier to gain and hold power among the sheep-like masses. What they’re left with, however, are just a bunch of stupid people mindlessly repeating the nonsense they’ve been programmed with. They simply don’t have the intellect to maintain the illusion of superiority they have thrived on up to now and it’s really starting to show.
Now, that the conservative movement in general, and its Christian-Nationalist agenda in particular, is profoundly and purposely anti-intellectual, is not news to anybody that reads this blog.
And that there are, or at least could be, adverse consequences of that policy for the conservative movement--and for those it governs--flows from that understanding.
But the discussion reminded me of something I've been thinking a lot about lately, and that is the intersection between the stated ideals and ambitions of Christian Dominionists* such as James Dobson, and the "double think" that characterizes the totalitarian state of Oceania's Inner Party leaders in George Orwell's 1984. Of course the linking of the reconstructionist right with Orwellian tendencies isn't shockingly original.
But what I do think is intriguing is the idea that like Oceania's Inner Party, today's conservatives, and Christian Dominionists in particular, simultaneously believe, and don't believe, the rhetoric they spout.
Take the much noted "persecution complex" Christian Dominionists are known for trumpeting, and which even some mainstream conservatives like George Will, don't give serious credence to. Dobson and his posse must know that they and their ilk are not seriously under attack, but that rather, the rhetoric is used as a means of making the Christians in the pews think that they are so that they will open their checkbooks for their "ministries" as well as vote for the party that will give the Dominionists the political power they want. The language and medium serve both to inflame passions and discourage thought. So, on the one hand, I have to think that the Dobson, Tony Perkins, D. James Kennedy, Rod Parsley and Janet Parshells of the Dominionist's world know that what they're pushing is propaganda designed to bring their flock into allegiance.
The supposed threat from gays and homosexuality is used the same way.
At the same time, the sheer repetitiveness and paranoia involved probably serves in a way to convince the Dominionist's leaders that they really are in fact under attack and that gayness really is a threat to them and their imagined way of life.
So, much like Oceania's Inner Party which manipulates a climate of fear and discouragement of thought--both within the state and within their party--to preserve power, but which is itself both an executor, as well as the target of, that same repression, the Christian Dominionists intend to attract a partisan, highly emotional, and thus, highly malleable mass of support by promoting a climate of fear, do themselves become a part of the lie they're perpetuating.
*The origin of this term is uncertain, but it appears in Chris Hedge's article in the current Harper's magazine "Feeling the hate with the National Religious Broadcasters". The term Dominionist may be used by some inside the Christian Nationalist umbrella of groups or it may be only an outsider's reference. In any event, given their agenda, it seems an appropriate moniker.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
The Grand Old Party: Screwing People since 1876*
I neglected to mention this before, but I went to my 20th high school reunion this past weekend. Yeah. So you know what that means. My old time chums get to see my bumper stickers reflecting my evolution from spaced out rock and roller to somewhat politically aware and concerned citizen.
One of my old pals, after parking next to my car at a restaurant, jokingly said that she wouldn't be able to park next to me anymore (referencing my bumper stickers).
Remarks like that, even when said in jest and general inoffensiveness, always make me think, even if just for a second, whether or not I'm aligned with the wrong group. Am I a traitor to my religion and families across the good ole US of A because I vote for the candidate and Party that generally supports abortion rights, doesn't want religious worship enforced in the school, blah blah.
Um, on second thought, no.
Remember that bankruptcy bill? Via Atrios, via Ezra Klein, via John Cole, this is a smidget of what majority Republicanism has wrought.
Thought you would like to know. Feel free to take this to your next reunion.
*The modern Republican Party was birthed around 1856 and offered us Abraham Lincoln and General Grant as candidates and presidents from 1860 to 1876. Abe and Grant get a pass in my book. Teddy R was a somewhat positive interlude around the turn of the century, but the Party ultimately gave him the boot for his heretical ways.
UPDATE: via John Cole again, that man of the people--Rush Limbaugh--tells pensioners to go eat cake.
UPDATE II: but, um, the gubmit will pick up the tab, since the pensions are guaranteed through the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp, which will compensate to some degree United's 134,000 people. Doesn't the gubmit suck?
One of my old pals, after parking next to my car at a restaurant, jokingly said that she wouldn't be able to park next to me anymore (referencing my bumper stickers).
Remarks like that, even when said in jest and general inoffensiveness, always make me think, even if just for a second, whether or not I'm aligned with the wrong group. Am I a traitor to my religion and families across the good ole US of A because I vote for the candidate and Party that generally supports abortion rights, doesn't want religious worship enforced in the school, blah blah.
Um, on second thought, no.
Remember that bankruptcy bill? Via Atrios, via Ezra Klein, via John Cole, this is a smidget of what majority Republicanism has wrought.
Thought you would like to know. Feel free to take this to your next reunion.
*The modern Republican Party was birthed around 1856 and offered us Abraham Lincoln and General Grant as candidates and presidents from 1860 to 1876. Abe and Grant get a pass in my book. Teddy R was a somewhat positive interlude around the turn of the century, but the Party ultimately gave him the boot for his heretical ways.
UPDATE: via John Cole again, that man of the people--Rush Limbaugh--tells pensioners to go eat cake.
UPDATE II: but, um, the gubmit will pick up the tab, since the pensions are guaranteed through the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp, which will compensate to some degree United's 134,000 people. Doesn't the gubmit suck?
CNN: We're Rolling Up Our Sleeves
We don't do much media analysis here in Senator Bulworth's office. There are others who have more time and better expertise, and to be frank, we've all but given up on the media as a responsible outlet anyhow.
But the Senator was listening to Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! broadcast this morning, where Seymour Hersh was calling the situation in Iraq basically a civil war. The Senator couldn't remember when the television media, especially the cable variety, talked about Iraq. Mostly what the Senator recalls from cable tv news is stuff like this reported over at DC Media Girl (my secret Internets crush) .
I don't know about you, but I was glad to hear that CNN was "rolling up its sleeves" and doing some honest to goodness, real reporting, for change. Well, that is, after they, quote, put that (Schiavo) story on the national agenda, unquote (so now you know who to blame). And, that is, after the "runaway bride" story settled down.
They've had Anderson Cooper over to Lebanon and Syria to talk about the burgeoning of democracy going on there, and Frank Sesno (yeah, he still works there) to Germany to, quote, report on a story of Hitler's secret family history, unquote.
And that's probably what all of you have been getting, too.
Meanwhile, on this morning's Democracy Now! broadcast, the Senator heard journalist Seymour Hersh say this to host Amy Goodman about Iraq:
So today's paper says 100 rebels. We're getting a body count going again, killed in western Iraq. And inside the story, it says -- they quote some Colonel in a telephone interview, because as you, I'm sure, know, the press in Baghdad, this is not their fault. They can't do anything much. They stay behind the Green Zone, which is pretty much penetrated, too, I believe, so I'm told, by the opposition, but, you know, the insurgency or the resistance. What will happen there, God knows. When they choose to do something inside the Green Zone, they will do it.
(snip)
Its complicated because what happens is we're going along -- the way the war is, its sort of this dreary pattern. Were going along, our troops, and they're going down roads. It's really sort of astonishingly stupid. We patrol, which is stupid to begin with. What good does that do? They go down roads, certain fixed roads, certain times, certain places, usually in groups of three, four, five Humvees, Bradley tanks, Strikers, other heavy vehicles. One gets blown up. The Americans start screaming in pain. The other vehicles stop, run out. The soldiers are jammed into the back. Youve seen some tapes or TV stuff about how they do it. They come running out and they shoot at anything that runs. And thats the war.
(snip)
In any case, the paper also says -- this is the last one of these things that I found great interest -- that the Lummi tribe, one of the members – its a major tribe in the Sunni heartland of Baghdad, the four provinces that Saddam -- the center post of the resistance, the Lummi tribe probably had something to do with turning in Saddam. He had turned on some of those people. Anyway, the new Defense Minister is a Sunni, from the tribe, and he says hes going to continue the policies of Mr. Allawi, the former Defense Minister, which is what? What's the defense policies of Allawi, the former interim Prime Minister? Well, basically, what we have done since -- in the last year, is we have recreated the Iraqi Mukhabarat. This is the heavy-hitting secret police that Saddam ran. We have gone in and recreated many of the members, put them through a little acid test, made them vow that their allegiance – to what? – I guess, to America, or they're no longer Saddamites.
In any case, this is our main force right now. This is the force that Allawi controls. This is a force, the former, you know, whatever the guys, whatever you want to call them, the former roughest guys that Saddam had are now working for us. Theyre our most prominent security force. And we have had really an amazing spectacle of the Secretary Of Defense, Rumsfeld, making at least two trips in the last five months, I think it’s three, but I know of two, I think it was three, though -- going in and basically -- once before the election was announced, and two more trips -- basically pleading on the inside for the two major factions, the Kurds and the Shia, I am assuming some knowledge of -- I hope I am not -- Iraq? -- you know, the country? and there's -- anyway, I dont want to kid you. But we're negotiating -- obviously the whole point of the election was to keep Allawi in play so that he could serve as a bridge, our man, between the Kurds and the Shia. And what he delivers is, of course, is the Mukhabarat.
(snip)
And here you have Rumsfeld. We went to war to get rid of Saddam and all of that. Here you have Rumsfeld going at least twice in the last four months or so to beg, to beg for Allawi to stay in, and beg basically for the former Mukhabarat security forces to continue doing what they do, terrorizing. It was an amazing piece in The New York Times Magazine. I mean, amazing in its inability to go beyond the immediacy of what they were reporting about one of these militias that are former Mukhabarat, former Saddam people, that are now working for us, killing, (quote, unquote), insurgents, which means theyre basically -- I dont know, when do you describe what is going on as a civil war? I dont know. When is somebody going to say that? But if its not a civil war, its very close. And I dont know -- I cant see an end game.
(snip)
But I think what is more important than that is that this guy, this Bush, absolutely believes in what hes doing. Hes not like a nervous Richard Nixon, worried about, you know, They're coming after me, or Lyndon Johnson quitting over Vietnam with great uncertainty about whether he is doing the right thing. This guy is absolutely convinced.
(snip)
So, this guy (Bush) cant be reached by us. Not just me. I mean, they can ignore me, but the networks, any time theres a good story, not a blip. And what does that mean? That means, you know, the body bags arent going to stop him. This is a guy who is convinced for whatever reason that even 1,000 or another -- you know, the body count goes on. It just goes on. Of course, nobody counts the Iraqis. I love the stories -- every time you talk about Vietnam, it's always -- the Vietnam war is summarized this way, 58,000 American killed and anywhere between 2 and 3 million Vietnamese.
(snip)
He (Bush) is strange in one way. You know, Wolfowitz, who if nothing, if not smart, would understand this, but Bush is truly a Trotskyite, a believer in permanent revolution. We have never had one as a president before. He wouldnt understand that, but Wolfowitz would. He truly is. And he is doing it -- what he thinks he has to do, the revolutions he has to create, without any information, without any -- without an ability to absorb information that's counter to what he wants to hear. And so, I don't know where you are when you have a man with as much power as he controls and as much ability to do something.
So, yeah, CNN, please go ahead and keep giving us those, quote, provocative, character-driven narratives, unquote.
Meanwhile, we have no idea, no idea, what is going over in Iraq, other than that the bulk of the forces we sent over there two years ago are still there and not likely to be coming back anytime soon. That's all we know folks. Let the administration's Internets supporters talk about democracy in Iraq, winning the war on terrorism, and all the rest of it. But before we allow ourselves to get bamboozled that what's going over there is anything other than a clusterbunk, remember the press (such as it is) is holed up in the Greenzone, feeding us the same garbage that's passed to them from the military overlords, with absolutely no way of knowing what's going on there.
But if we're lucky, maybe there will be another missing white woman story we can zoom in on while the undeclared civil war is transpiring under our auspices in Iraq.
But the Senator was listening to Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! broadcast this morning, where Seymour Hersh was calling the situation in Iraq basically a civil war. The Senator couldn't remember when the television media, especially the cable variety, talked about Iraq. Mostly what the Senator recalls from cable tv news is stuff like this reported over at DC Media Girl (my secret Internets crush) .
I don't know about you, but I was glad to hear that CNN was "rolling up its sleeves" and doing some honest to goodness, real reporting, for change. Well, that is, after they, quote, put that (Schiavo) story on the national agenda, unquote (so now you know who to blame). And, that is, after the "runaway bride" story settled down.
They've had Anderson Cooper over to Lebanon and Syria to talk about the burgeoning of democracy going on there, and Frank Sesno (yeah, he still works there) to Germany to, quote, report on a story of Hitler's secret family history, unquote.
And that's probably what all of you have been getting, too.
Meanwhile, on this morning's Democracy Now! broadcast, the Senator heard journalist Seymour Hersh say this to host Amy Goodman about Iraq:
So today's paper says 100 rebels. We're getting a body count going again, killed in western Iraq. And inside the story, it says -- they quote some Colonel in a telephone interview, because as you, I'm sure, know, the press in Baghdad, this is not their fault. They can't do anything much. They stay behind the Green Zone, which is pretty much penetrated, too, I believe, so I'm told, by the opposition, but, you know, the insurgency or the resistance. What will happen there, God knows. When they choose to do something inside the Green Zone, they will do it.
(snip)
Its complicated because what happens is we're going along -- the way the war is, its sort of this dreary pattern. Were going along, our troops, and they're going down roads. It's really sort of astonishingly stupid. We patrol, which is stupid to begin with. What good does that do? They go down roads, certain fixed roads, certain times, certain places, usually in groups of three, four, five Humvees, Bradley tanks, Strikers, other heavy vehicles. One gets blown up. The Americans start screaming in pain. The other vehicles stop, run out. The soldiers are jammed into the back. Youve seen some tapes or TV stuff about how they do it. They come running out and they shoot at anything that runs. And thats the war.
(snip)
In any case, the paper also says -- this is the last one of these things that I found great interest -- that the Lummi tribe, one of the members – its a major tribe in the Sunni heartland of Baghdad, the four provinces that Saddam -- the center post of the resistance, the Lummi tribe probably had something to do with turning in Saddam. He had turned on some of those people. Anyway, the new Defense Minister is a Sunni, from the tribe, and he says hes going to continue the policies of Mr. Allawi, the former Defense Minister, which is what? What's the defense policies of Allawi, the former interim Prime Minister? Well, basically, what we have done since -- in the last year, is we have recreated the Iraqi Mukhabarat. This is the heavy-hitting secret police that Saddam ran. We have gone in and recreated many of the members, put them through a little acid test, made them vow that their allegiance – to what? – I guess, to America, or they're no longer Saddamites.
In any case, this is our main force right now. This is the force that Allawi controls. This is a force, the former, you know, whatever the guys, whatever you want to call them, the former roughest guys that Saddam had are now working for us. Theyre our most prominent security force. And we have had really an amazing spectacle of the Secretary Of Defense, Rumsfeld, making at least two trips in the last five months, I think it’s three, but I know of two, I think it was three, though -- going in and basically -- once before the election was announced, and two more trips -- basically pleading on the inside for the two major factions, the Kurds and the Shia, I am assuming some knowledge of -- I hope I am not -- Iraq? -- you know, the country? and there's -- anyway, I dont want to kid you. But we're negotiating -- obviously the whole point of the election was to keep Allawi in play so that he could serve as a bridge, our man, between the Kurds and the Shia. And what he delivers is, of course, is the Mukhabarat.
(snip)
And here you have Rumsfeld. We went to war to get rid of Saddam and all of that. Here you have Rumsfeld going at least twice in the last four months or so to beg, to beg for Allawi to stay in, and beg basically for the former Mukhabarat security forces to continue doing what they do, terrorizing. It was an amazing piece in The New York Times Magazine. I mean, amazing in its inability to go beyond the immediacy of what they were reporting about one of these militias that are former Mukhabarat, former Saddam people, that are now working for us, killing, (quote, unquote), insurgents, which means theyre basically -- I dont know, when do you describe what is going on as a civil war? I dont know. When is somebody going to say that? But if its not a civil war, its very close. And I dont know -- I cant see an end game.
(snip)
But I think what is more important than that is that this guy, this Bush, absolutely believes in what hes doing. Hes not like a nervous Richard Nixon, worried about, you know, They're coming after me, or Lyndon Johnson quitting over Vietnam with great uncertainty about whether he is doing the right thing. This guy is absolutely convinced.
(snip)
So, this guy (Bush) cant be reached by us. Not just me. I mean, they can ignore me, but the networks, any time theres a good story, not a blip. And what does that mean? That means, you know, the body bags arent going to stop him. This is a guy who is convinced for whatever reason that even 1,000 or another -- you know, the body count goes on. It just goes on. Of course, nobody counts the Iraqis. I love the stories -- every time you talk about Vietnam, it's always -- the Vietnam war is summarized this way, 58,000 American killed and anywhere between 2 and 3 million Vietnamese.
(snip)
He (Bush) is strange in one way. You know, Wolfowitz, who if nothing, if not smart, would understand this, but Bush is truly a Trotskyite, a believer in permanent revolution. We have never had one as a president before. He wouldnt understand that, but Wolfowitz would. He truly is. And he is doing it -- what he thinks he has to do, the revolutions he has to create, without any information, without any -- without an ability to absorb information that's counter to what he wants to hear. And so, I don't know where you are when you have a man with as much power as he controls and as much ability to do something.
So, yeah, CNN, please go ahead and keep giving us those, quote, provocative, character-driven narratives, unquote.
Meanwhile, we have no idea, no idea, what is going over in Iraq, other than that the bulk of the forces we sent over there two years ago are still there and not likely to be coming back anytime soon. That's all we know folks. Let the administration's Internets supporters talk about democracy in Iraq, winning the war on terrorism, and all the rest of it. But before we allow ourselves to get bamboozled that what's going over there is anything other than a clusterbunk, remember the press (such as it is) is holed up in the Greenzone, feeding us the same garbage that's passed to them from the military overlords, with absolutely no way of knowing what's going on there.
But if we're lucky, maybe there will be another missing white woman story we can zoom in on while the undeclared civil war is transpiring under our auspices in Iraq.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
A Bold List of Bold Wishes, Boldly
We keep getting told how bold President Bush is, on Iraq, on Social Security, you name it. People like him, it is said (well not really if recent polls are any indication), because he seems willing to say what he believes regardless of what others say, or the circumstances may be.
This has kind of gotten me to thinking about what sort of boldness we should hope for in our next batch of Democratic presidential aspirants. At the risk of bringing down the wrath of blogdom, I am going to be bold today, and list some of my bold wishes, in the hopes that other bloggers will pick up on them, or add some bold wishes of their own.
Boldness #1: End the Cuba embargo and all the associated nonsense about travel restrictions and cigars. It is a dumb policy, with absolutely no relevance to the nation's security or interests. And it's been a spectacular failure, Castro is still in charge (after 40+ years), and the embargo hurts only the country's poor citizens. Tell the cuban exiles in Miami, we're sorry, but $%& off. Will we lose Florida? Probably. But we lost it last time and the time before that. Ignore the electoral college. Just be bold.
Boldness #2: End the Drug War. It is a war against people. It's a violation of civil liberties, and like our Cuba policy, it's a spectacular failure. The only beneficiaries are the police, prison industries, and justices who are employed as a result of it.
Boldness #3: Support the Constitution, the separation of church and state, and judicial review. Not exactly bold, since they're only our nation's laws and 200 year old precedents. But as Donald Rumsfeld might say, you go with the bold wishes that you have.
Boldness #4: Scale down the military and the armaments industry. What is our military for? If it is for defense, than we can get by with a lot less than we have now. As a Democratic society, we should be discussing these things.
Boldness #4a: End our occupation of Okinawa. That's an island off the shore of Japan, that our military has pretty much been running since the end of WWII. Tell us what purpose our military installations serve there or dismantle them.
Boldness #5: Bring our socialized health care system out of the closet. Right now we socialize medicine in pieces (unequal ones) through employers, public health insurance, and various forms of subsidized indigent care. Let's end the hypocrisy of acting like the socialized medicine through employer coverage is somehow OK and free marketish, but the socialized medicine through public health plans is somehow bad.
That's my bold list for now. But I reserve the right to be bold later.
This has kind of gotten me to thinking about what sort of boldness we should hope for in our next batch of Democratic presidential aspirants. At the risk of bringing down the wrath of blogdom, I am going to be bold today, and list some of my bold wishes, in the hopes that other bloggers will pick up on them, or add some bold wishes of their own.
Boldness #1: End the Cuba embargo and all the associated nonsense about travel restrictions and cigars. It is a dumb policy, with absolutely no relevance to the nation's security or interests. And it's been a spectacular failure, Castro is still in charge (after 40+ years), and the embargo hurts only the country's poor citizens. Tell the cuban exiles in Miami, we're sorry, but $%& off. Will we lose Florida? Probably. But we lost it last time and the time before that. Ignore the electoral college. Just be bold.
Boldness #2: End the Drug War. It is a war against people. It's a violation of civil liberties, and like our Cuba policy, it's a spectacular failure. The only beneficiaries are the police, prison industries, and justices who are employed as a result of it.
Boldness #3: Support the Constitution, the separation of church and state, and judicial review. Not exactly bold, since they're only our nation's laws and 200 year old precedents. But as Donald Rumsfeld might say, you go with the bold wishes that you have.
Boldness #4: Scale down the military and the armaments industry. What is our military for? If it is for defense, than we can get by with a lot less than we have now. As a Democratic society, we should be discussing these things.
Boldness #4a: End our occupation of Okinawa. That's an island off the shore of Japan, that our military has pretty much been running since the end of WWII. Tell us what purpose our military installations serve there or dismantle them.
Boldness #5: Bring our socialized health care system out of the closet. Right now we socialize medicine in pieces (unequal ones) through employers, public health insurance, and various forms of subsidized indigent care. Let's end the hypocrisy of acting like the socialized medicine through employer coverage is somehow OK and free marketish, but the socialized medicine through public health plans is somehow bad.
That's my bold list for now. But I reserve the right to be bold later.
Conservatives: We're Afraid of People
I was minding my own business this morning, calmly reading the Washington Post on the metro ride into work, when all of sudden, this article just jumped out at me.
It seems as if North Carolina is one of a handful of states that has a law on the books against "cohabitation". The law dates from the early 1800's and is rarely enforced. But it turns out that a certain NC sheriff near Wilmington has it down pat, and wanted one of his slav--er, workers, to abide by it, or risk being canned.
The woman has enlisted the ACLU to file suit against the law.
Conservatives, who routinely trumpet their love of freedom and freedom fries, can't seem to spare any for regular Americans.
A spokesman from some outfit called the NC Family Policy Council (how goulish is that?) thinks the law is just dandy because "studies show" that people who cohabitate before, or in substitute for marriage are more prone to break up, leading to less stability in marriage as a result. Well, bless their hearts. Stability trumps freedom. We must surrender our freedom so the Family Policy Councils of the world can feel "stabile". Sound familiar? Freedom is Slavery?
Fortunately, a minister from a church in Raleigh introduced some regular folk sanity to the debate by contending that the state's got better things to do than to dictate people's private lives to that extent.
Amen.
It seems as if North Carolina is one of a handful of states that has a law on the books against "cohabitation". The law dates from the early 1800's and is rarely enforced. But it turns out that a certain NC sheriff near Wilmington has it down pat, and wanted one of his slav--er, workers, to abide by it, or risk being canned.
The woman has enlisted the ACLU to file suit against the law.
Conservatives, who routinely trumpet their love of freedom and freedom fries, can't seem to spare any for regular Americans.
A spokesman from some outfit called the NC Family Policy Council (how goulish is that?) thinks the law is just dandy because "studies show" that people who cohabitate before, or in substitute for marriage are more prone to break up, leading to less stability in marriage as a result. Well, bless their hearts. Stability trumps freedom. We must surrender our freedom so the Family Policy Councils of the world can feel "stabile". Sound familiar? Freedom is Slavery?
Fortunately, a minister from a church in Raleigh introduced some regular folk sanity to the debate by contending that the state's got better things to do than to dictate people's private lives to that extent.
Amen.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Dissing the Family Research Council or Duping the Press (and us)?
I meant to blog about this when it happened but I got sidetracked. At his press conference after the notorious "Justice Sunday" orchestrated by the Family Research Council and James Dobson's Focus on the Family, Bush was asked about the opposition by Democrats to (a handful of) his judicial nominees as being a prejudice against "people of faith". Bush responded that--
I don’t ascribe a person’s opposing my nominations to an issue of faith.
Many in the press fell over themselves praising the President's response as somehow denoting his fair-mindedness. CNN's Jeff Greenfield highlighted the response in his post-news-conference analysis. Frank Rich gave the President credit for the response in his recent Sunday NYT op-ed. Sean Hannity flagged the President's response and asked his blog readers to comment. The FRC's Tony Perkins (a former Republican operative and U.S. Senate candidate in Louisiana) fudged the President's response and claimed that he and the President really were in agreement.
So, was Bush being high-minded and reasonable in not aping the right's rhetoric on this? Perhaps.
But let's consider the issue and the exchange a bit further before leaping to praise the President.
First, this was a televised news conference, when presumably, the whole nation would be watching. Sounds like a good time to utter words that sound as if they're designed to sound fair minded and counter to some interest groups believed to be in the President's corner. The whole change the tone of Washington thing.
Second, the President nominated these judges. Now, the President won re-election, increased his party's hold on Congress, and perhaps is entitled to feel his nominees, right or wrong, should get a vote, and that he shouldn't have to endure the same minority party blocking rights that other presidents have faced. But he hasn't exactly sought common ground with Democrats and others squeemish about this gang of anti-Enlightenment thinkers either. And as I've suggested previously, it wouldn't seem difficult to find other judges to replace these ones, who were as equally as conservative but not as beset by a paper trails or bad rulings. But the President hasn't done that.
Finally, the President knew about this whole Justice Sunday thing, and the rhetoric that emerged from it was not a surprise. There had been weeks of lead up to it, full of religious misdirection and demagoguery. If the President disagreed with the strategy his backers were taking in this case, if he didn't like their rhetoric, do you think it's possible, if not likely, that he would have had Rove get on the phone to these guys, telling them to knock it off? Technically, of course, these organizations are independent entitities and however well they might regard the President, they may not have been willing to stifle themselves on the matter. Furthermore, the President might have believed any attempts by him to regulate the behavior of these groups would either be beneath the office of the Presidency, or just not politically worth it. Still, this President seems to have a pretty tight control over message and I'm not sure that hold is limited to the official elected institutions of America.
So I wouldn't necessarily buy the President's act here.
I don’t ascribe a person’s opposing my nominations to an issue of faith.
Many in the press fell over themselves praising the President's response as somehow denoting his fair-mindedness. CNN's Jeff Greenfield highlighted the response in his post-news-conference analysis. Frank Rich gave the President credit for the response in his recent Sunday NYT op-ed. Sean Hannity flagged the President's response and asked his blog readers to comment. The FRC's Tony Perkins (a former Republican operative and U.S. Senate candidate in Louisiana) fudged the President's response and claimed that he and the President really were in agreement.
So, was Bush being high-minded and reasonable in not aping the right's rhetoric on this? Perhaps.
But let's consider the issue and the exchange a bit further before leaping to praise the President.
First, this was a televised news conference, when presumably, the whole nation would be watching. Sounds like a good time to utter words that sound as if they're designed to sound fair minded and counter to some interest groups believed to be in the President's corner. The whole change the tone of Washington thing.
Second, the President nominated these judges. Now, the President won re-election, increased his party's hold on Congress, and perhaps is entitled to feel his nominees, right or wrong, should get a vote, and that he shouldn't have to endure the same minority party blocking rights that other presidents have faced. But he hasn't exactly sought common ground with Democrats and others squeemish about this gang of anti-Enlightenment thinkers either. And as I've suggested previously, it wouldn't seem difficult to find other judges to replace these ones, who were as equally as conservative but not as beset by a paper trails or bad rulings. But the President hasn't done that.
Finally, the President knew about this whole Justice Sunday thing, and the rhetoric that emerged from it was not a surprise. There had been weeks of lead up to it, full of religious misdirection and demagoguery. If the President disagreed with the strategy his backers were taking in this case, if he didn't like their rhetoric, do you think it's possible, if not likely, that he would have had Rove get on the phone to these guys, telling them to knock it off? Technically, of course, these organizations are independent entitities and however well they might regard the President, they may not have been willing to stifle themselves on the matter. Furthermore, the President might have believed any attempts by him to regulate the behavior of these groups would either be beneath the office of the Presidency, or just not politically worth it. Still, this President seems to have a pretty tight control over message and I'm not sure that hold is limited to the official elected institutions of America.
So I wouldn't necessarily buy the President's act here.
I'm With Stupid
As I'm sure everybody knows by now, a Baptist minister in North Carolina told parishioners before the 2004 election that they either needed to vote for President Bush or (1) seek repentance or (2) take their church membership some place else.
Now, beyond the fact that the attempt to wed one's spiritual membership and eternal salvation to one's partisan affiliation and voting behavior is a violation of the freedom of concience, is totally unfounded and stupifyingly dictatorial, it also makes you seem either (a) dumb as a stump, and that you should stick to what you are supposed to be educated and trained to do, or (b) you're fully aware that the Republican Party today as currently constituted is a criminal conspiracy against the personal liberties and economic interests of freedom loving Americans and a threat to the majority of peaceful nations in the world, and that by shamefully trying to manipulate his congregation's blind allegiance to it, is engaging in an act of utmost maliciousness and demagoguery.
Apparently, some of the parishioners, who stuck around that church longer than I would have, have taken the pastor up on his appeal and taken their presence, good sense, tolerance, and tithe money to another church or churches that presumably demonstrate some level of intelligent life.
Now, beyond the fact that the attempt to wed one's spiritual membership and eternal salvation to one's partisan affiliation and voting behavior is a violation of the freedom of concience, is totally unfounded and stupifyingly dictatorial, it also makes you seem either (a) dumb as a stump, and that you should stick to what you are supposed to be educated and trained to do, or (b) you're fully aware that the Republican Party today as currently constituted is a criminal conspiracy against the personal liberties and economic interests of freedom loving Americans and a threat to the majority of peaceful nations in the world, and that by shamefully trying to manipulate his congregation's blind allegiance to it, is engaging in an act of utmost maliciousness and demagoguery.
Apparently, some of the parishioners, who stuck around that church longer than I would have, have taken the pastor up on his appeal and taken their presence, good sense, tolerance, and tithe money to another church or churches that presumably demonstrate some level of intelligent life.
Ensuring Future Pain
I know a lot of you will have already read Krugman today, but I thought it worthwhile to at least include this segment because I think it deserves further attention:
Before I take on this final insult to our intelligence, let me deal with a fundamental misconception: the idea that President Bush's plan would somehow protect future Social Security benefits.
If the plan really would do that, it would be worth discussing. It's possible - not certain, but possible - that 40 or 50 years from now Social Security won't have enough money coming in to pay full benefits. (If the economy grows as fast over the next 50 years as it did over the past half-century, Social Security will do just fine.) So there's a case for making small sacrifices now to avoid bigger sacrifices later.
But Mr. Bush isn't calling for small sacrifices now. Instead, he's calling for zero sacrifice now, but big benefit cuts decades from now - which is exactly what he says will happen if we do nothing. Let me repeat that: to avert the danger of future cuts in benefits, Mr. Bush wants us to commit now to, um, future cuts in benefits.
This accomplishes nothing, except, possibly, to ensure that benefit cuts take place even if they aren't necessary.
I also think another part of his column is important but for different reasons and pertaining to a different subject.
Hell hath no fury like a scammer foiled. The card shark caught marking the deck, the auto dealer caught resetting a used car's odometer, is rarely contrite. On the contrary, they're usually angry, and they lash out at their intended marks, crying hypocrisy.
This sort of introduction would apply equally well as a response to the high-jacking of religion for alterior purposes, the sort of which is being carried out by Dobson's posse, by the National Right to Life Committee (which is backing the Bush court nominees unreservedly, like a good GOP flack should, despite the fact that, as it seems to me, other equally ardent foes of abortion are likely to be found among other, more qualified nominees, and that perhaps the NRTLC might think about that before throwing themselves under the bus on behalf of these nutcases that want to roll back the clock of progressive economic reforms to the pre-New Deal era), and from goons like this guy.
Al Gore and current Colorado Senator Ken Salazar have started calling the Christian Right out. Naming names. And the Christian Right hasn't liked it. Hopefully, other courageous leaders will step up to do the same. Despite the angry harping that will come as a result.
As the Republican majority has increased its hold on government, religious groups once content to play significant, if behind the scenes roles, are increasingly coming out of the closet, if you will. And I think they'll be sorry they did (and so will the rest of us, regardless of the long term outcome). Whatever figleaf nonpartisanship that might have previously characterized their endeavors, has been discarded. And the images they're now making of themselves as their radicalism becomes more widely seen has not been a pretty sight to behold. The further they inject themselves into partisan politics, the greater will be their organization's challenge to maintain at least some facade of genuine Christianity.
Before I take on this final insult to our intelligence, let me deal with a fundamental misconception: the idea that President Bush's plan would somehow protect future Social Security benefits.
If the plan really would do that, it would be worth discussing. It's possible - not certain, but possible - that 40 or 50 years from now Social Security won't have enough money coming in to pay full benefits. (If the economy grows as fast over the next 50 years as it did over the past half-century, Social Security will do just fine.) So there's a case for making small sacrifices now to avoid bigger sacrifices later.
But Mr. Bush isn't calling for small sacrifices now. Instead, he's calling for zero sacrifice now, but big benefit cuts decades from now - which is exactly what he says will happen if we do nothing. Let me repeat that: to avert the danger of future cuts in benefits, Mr. Bush wants us to commit now to, um, future cuts in benefits.
This accomplishes nothing, except, possibly, to ensure that benefit cuts take place even if they aren't necessary.
I also think another part of his column is important but for different reasons and pertaining to a different subject.
Hell hath no fury like a scammer foiled. The card shark caught marking the deck, the auto dealer caught resetting a used car's odometer, is rarely contrite. On the contrary, they're usually angry, and they lash out at their intended marks, crying hypocrisy.
This sort of introduction would apply equally well as a response to the high-jacking of religion for alterior purposes, the sort of which is being carried out by Dobson's posse, by the National Right to Life Committee (which is backing the Bush court nominees unreservedly, like a good GOP flack should, despite the fact that, as it seems to me, other equally ardent foes of abortion are likely to be found among other, more qualified nominees, and that perhaps the NRTLC might think about that before throwing themselves under the bus on behalf of these nutcases that want to roll back the clock of progressive economic reforms to the pre-New Deal era), and from goons like this guy.
Al Gore and current Colorado Senator Ken Salazar have started calling the Christian Right out. Naming names. And the Christian Right hasn't liked it. Hopefully, other courageous leaders will step up to do the same. Despite the angry harping that will come as a result.
As the Republican majority has increased its hold on government, religious groups once content to play significant, if behind the scenes roles, are increasingly coming out of the closet, if you will. And I think they'll be sorry they did (and so will the rest of us, regardless of the long term outcome). Whatever figleaf nonpartisanship that might have previously characterized their endeavors, has been discarded. And the images they're now making of themselves as their radicalism becomes more widely seen has not been a pretty sight to behold. The further they inject themselves into partisan politics, the greater will be their organization's challenge to maintain at least some facade of genuine Christianity.
Putting the Mary back in Christmas
(although more than six months remain before the end of the year, several noted conservatives recently gathered at the headquarters of the Fox News Network to lay plans for the further politicizing of religion and to punish any heretics during the gift-giving season such as store clerks who say "happy holidays" instead of Merry Christmas, local jurisdictions that fail to erect nativity scenes, etc. The meeting was held at the Fox headquarters due to the fact that since so many of the conservative elite work there already, it would have been costly and unnecessary to arrange a different location--ed. Although much of the group consisted of Fox employees or consultants, some additional conservatives were brought in to provide "fairness" and "balance". Among the non-Fox staff included James Dobson from the busybody, Focus on Everyone's Family institute, John Stossel, conservative scold from ABC's 20/20 and the new pope, The Grand Inquisitor, Benedict XVI).
Oh'Really?: So what do we do this year to capitalize on the attention we got last year?
Hume: We could stake out some leftish grocery store like Fresh Fields or some equally leftish
company like Target to try to catch them in the act of saying "happy holidays" instead
of Merry Christmas.
Barnes: I disagree. That's so last year. We need to make it all seem like some anti-Christian
jihad. We could focus on people who aren't going to church during the season or the lack of nativity scenes in Aspen, Colorado.
The Grand
Inquisitor: The whole problem with Americans and Christmas is you totally negate the importance of the Virgin Mary. I've never understood all the huballoo
about the Christ child anyway.
Stossel: And we have to make sure the innkeepers in this story don't end up giving hotel/motel industry a bad name. How come Joseph and Mary didn't just make reservations?
Stephen
Moore: They couldn't make reservations because the Roman government made them
leave early to register for taxes. The whole thing was a government conspiracy.
Let's use the opportunity of Christmas to attack taxes and the government. I'll
have our Club start working on ads.
Dobson: I agree with the Grand Inquisitor. This child gets too much attention. I bet he was a
loud, crying malcontent that deserved a spanking. And I don't that story in Luke about
how the Christ slid out from under his parents' noses and went off to the temple to
argue with the teachers did any good. Luke makes it sound like it was the parents' fault
Jesus was lost. If I'd had my belt...
The Grand
Inquisitor: I should also like to point out that you Americans never remember that
the mas in Christmas means "mass". Mass as in Catholic. You should all
convert to Catholicism.
Oh'Really?: Shut up!!! Shut up!!!!!! Cut off his mike!!!!
Medved: How about a movie about Christmas and the war effort. The glories of Americans in
war never get enough attention.
Cal Thomas: You know I have a show around here called After Hours.
(a knock on the door interrupts the proceedings. Oliver North, convicted criminal and host of Fox's War Stories appears. )
North: Hey fellas. I was looking for the Up With War meeting. Know where it is?
Oh'Really: Get out of here, Pinhead. Your meeting is the next door on the right.
Sajak: You know, the whole anti-Christian thing is a Hollywood conspiracy. Hollywood hates Christmas and Christians.
Cavuto: the important thing here is to make sure that our retailers can keep racking in the bucks so I can keep saying that the Bush economy is humming along.
Shepherd Smith: Well, I like the personal interest stories myself. Last year I had to go and rip down people's wreaths and Santa displays to ginny up some outrage.
Fox and Bush Friends: Oh let's get Laura to come on our show.
(another knock on the door. Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich appear.)
Hannity: Roger wants us all in the conference room. Seems as if some good looking white bride has gone missing somewhere in the South.
Oh'Really: I bet she's been murdered. I'm on it.
The Grand Inquisitor: Is she Catholic?
Dobson: undoubtedly, her disappearance and failure to make the wedding is because of the fact that Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage.
(while everyone scurries away to cover the runaway bride story, and the lights are shut off, Cal Thomas lingers behind)
Thomas: Excuse me. Excuse me. Well, that's it. That's the last straw. I'm going to set the place on fire.
Oh'Really?: So what do we do this year to capitalize on the attention we got last year?
Hume: We could stake out some leftish grocery store like Fresh Fields or some equally leftish
company like Target to try to catch them in the act of saying "happy holidays" instead
of Merry Christmas.
Barnes: I disagree. That's so last year. We need to make it all seem like some anti-Christian
jihad. We could focus on people who aren't going to church during the season or the lack of nativity scenes in Aspen, Colorado.
The Grand
Inquisitor: The whole problem with Americans and Christmas is you totally negate the importance of the Virgin Mary. I've never understood all the huballoo
about the Christ child anyway.
Stossel: And we have to make sure the innkeepers in this story don't end up giving hotel/motel industry a bad name. How come Joseph and Mary didn't just make reservations?
Stephen
Moore: They couldn't make reservations because the Roman government made them
leave early to register for taxes. The whole thing was a government conspiracy.
Let's use the opportunity of Christmas to attack taxes and the government. I'll
have our Club start working on ads.
Dobson: I agree with the Grand Inquisitor. This child gets too much attention. I bet he was a
loud, crying malcontent that deserved a spanking. And I don't that story in Luke about
how the Christ slid out from under his parents' noses and went off to the temple to
argue with the teachers did any good. Luke makes it sound like it was the parents' fault
Jesus was lost. If I'd had my belt...
The Grand
Inquisitor: I should also like to point out that you Americans never remember that
the mas in Christmas means "mass". Mass as in Catholic. You should all
convert to Catholicism.
Oh'Really?: Shut up!!! Shut up!!!!!! Cut off his mike!!!!
Medved: How about a movie about Christmas and the war effort. The glories of Americans in
war never get enough attention.
Cal Thomas: You know I have a show around here called After Hours.
(a knock on the door interrupts the proceedings. Oliver North, convicted criminal and host of Fox's War Stories appears. )
North: Hey fellas. I was looking for the Up With War meeting. Know where it is?
Oh'Really: Get out of here, Pinhead. Your meeting is the next door on the right.
Sajak: You know, the whole anti-Christian thing is a Hollywood conspiracy. Hollywood hates Christmas and Christians.
Cavuto: the important thing here is to make sure that our retailers can keep racking in the bucks so I can keep saying that the Bush economy is humming along.
Shepherd Smith: Well, I like the personal interest stories myself. Last year I had to go and rip down people's wreaths and Santa displays to ginny up some outrage.
Fox and Bush Friends: Oh let's get Laura to come on our show.
(another knock on the door. Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich appear.)
Hannity: Roger wants us all in the conference room. Seems as if some good looking white bride has gone missing somewhere in the South.
Oh'Really: I bet she's been murdered. I'm on it.
The Grand Inquisitor: Is she Catholic?
Dobson: undoubtedly, her disappearance and failure to make the wedding is because of the fact that Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage.
(while everyone scurries away to cover the runaway bride story, and the lights are shut off, Cal Thomas lingers behind)
Thomas: Excuse me. Excuse me. Well, that's it. That's the last straw. I'm going to set the place on fire.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Sympathy for James Dobson
Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith
And I was 'round when America
Held its National Day of Prayer
Made damn sure that Tom DeLay
Spoke my words and shielded his hate
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around Colorado
Where I preached it was a-time to beat all the children and the pets
Kill the judges and their Senators
Democrats screamed in vain
I cheered the tanks
And the general's ranks
When the Shock and Awe raged
And the infidel bodies stank
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, ah yeah
(whoo whoo, whoo whoo)
I watched with glee
as the bankruptcy reform bill passed (whoo whoo)
and the tax cuts for the rich (whoo whoo)
made me rich real fast (whoo whoo)
I shouted out, (whoo whoo)
"Who killed the Iraqis?" (whoo whoo)
When after all (whoo whoo)
It was you and me (whoo whoo)
Let me please introduce myself (whoo whoo)
I'm a man of wealth and taste (whoo whoo)
And I merged Church and State (whoo whoo)
Duping you all as I took my place (whoo whoo, whoo whoo)
Pleased to meet you (whoo whoo)
Hope you guessed my name, (whoo whoo)
oh yeah (whoo whoo)
Confusion (whoo whoo)
Is my game(whoo whoo),
oh yeah, get down, baby (whoo whoo)(whoo whoo, whoo whoo)
(whoo whoo)(whoo whoo)(whoo whoo) ..........
Pleased to meet you (whoo whoo)
Hope you guessed my name, (whoo whoo)
oh yeah (whoo whoo)
But what's confusing you (whoo whoo)
Is just the nature of my game (whoo whoo)
um yeah (whoo whoo)
Just as every cop is a criminal (whoo whoo)
And all the sinners saints (whoo whoo)
As heads is tails (whoo whoo)
Just call me James Dobson (whoo whoo)
'Cause I'm in need of some restraint (whoo whoo)
So if you meet me (Dobson)(whoo whoo)
Have some courtesy (whoo whoo)
Have some sympathy, (whoo whoo)
and some taste (whoo whoo)
Use all your well-learned politesse (whoo whoo)
Or I'll lay your(whoo whoo)
soul to waste,(whoo whoo),
um yeah (whoo whoo)
Pleased to meet you (whoo whoo)
Hope you guessed my name, (Dobson)(whoo whoo)
um yeah (whoo, whoo)
Confusion (whoo whoo)
Is my game, (whoo whoo)
um mean it, (whoo whoo)
get down (whoo whoo) (whoo whoo)(whoo whoo) (whoo whoo)
Woo, who (whoo whoo)
Oh yeah, get on down (whoo whoo)
Oh yeah (whoo whoo)(whoo whoo, whoo whoo)(whoo whoo, whoo whoo)........
Oh yeah! (whoo, whoo)
Tell me baby,(whoo whoo)
what's my name(Dobson)(whoo whoo)
Tell me honey,(whoo whoo)
can ya guess my name (Dobson) (Whoo whoo)
Tell me baby, (whoo whoo)
what's my name (Dobson)(whoo whoo)
I tell you one time, (whoo whoo)
you're to blame (whoo whoo)
Woo Who (whoo whoo)
Woo Who (whoo whoo)
Woo (whoo whoo)
alright (whoo whoo)
Oh, who who, oh, who who, (whoo whoo)
oh, who who
Oh Yeah (whoo whoo)
Woo, who who (whoo whoo)
Woo, who who (whoo whoo)
Ah yeah, a-what's my name (Dobson(Whoo whoo)
Tell me, baby, (whoo whoo)
what's my name (Dobson)(whoo whoo)
Tell me, sweetie, (whoo whoo)
what's my name (Dobson)(whoo whoo)
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
Oh, who, who (whoo whoo)
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
Ah, yeah!
Whoo whoo Woo Who WhoWhoo whoo
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith
And I was 'round when America
Held its National Day of Prayer
Made damn sure that Tom DeLay
Spoke my words and shielded his hate
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around Colorado
Where I preached it was a-time to beat all the children and the pets
Kill the judges and their Senators
Democrats screamed in vain
I cheered the tanks
And the general's ranks
When the Shock and Awe raged
And the infidel bodies stank
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, ah yeah
(whoo whoo, whoo whoo)
I watched with glee
as the bankruptcy reform bill passed (whoo whoo)
and the tax cuts for the rich (whoo whoo)
made me rich real fast (whoo whoo)
I shouted out, (whoo whoo)
"Who killed the Iraqis?" (whoo whoo)
When after all (whoo whoo)
It was you and me (whoo whoo)
Let me please introduce myself (whoo whoo)
I'm a man of wealth and taste (whoo whoo)
And I merged Church and State (whoo whoo)
Duping you all as I took my place (whoo whoo, whoo whoo)
Pleased to meet you (whoo whoo)
Hope you guessed my name, (whoo whoo)
oh yeah (whoo whoo)
Confusion (whoo whoo)
Is my game(whoo whoo),
oh yeah, get down, baby (whoo whoo)(whoo whoo, whoo whoo)
(whoo whoo)(whoo whoo)(whoo whoo) ..........
Pleased to meet you (whoo whoo)
Hope you guessed my name, (whoo whoo)
oh yeah (whoo whoo)
But what's confusing you (whoo whoo)
Is just the nature of my game (whoo whoo)
um yeah (whoo whoo)
Just as every cop is a criminal (whoo whoo)
And all the sinners saints (whoo whoo)
As heads is tails (whoo whoo)
Just call me James Dobson (whoo whoo)
'Cause I'm in need of some restraint (whoo whoo)
So if you meet me (Dobson)(whoo whoo)
Have some courtesy (whoo whoo)
Have some sympathy, (whoo whoo)
and some taste (whoo whoo)
Use all your well-learned politesse (whoo whoo)
Or I'll lay your(whoo whoo)
soul to waste,(whoo whoo),
um yeah (whoo whoo)
Pleased to meet you (whoo whoo)
Hope you guessed my name, (Dobson)(whoo whoo)
um yeah (whoo, whoo)
Confusion (whoo whoo)
Is my game, (whoo whoo)
um mean it, (whoo whoo)
get down (whoo whoo) (whoo whoo)(whoo whoo) (whoo whoo)
Woo, who (whoo whoo)
Oh yeah, get on down (whoo whoo)
Oh yeah (whoo whoo)(whoo whoo, whoo whoo)(whoo whoo, whoo whoo)........
Oh yeah! (whoo, whoo)
Tell me baby,(whoo whoo)
what's my name(Dobson)(whoo whoo)
Tell me honey,(whoo whoo)
can ya guess my name (Dobson) (Whoo whoo)
Tell me baby, (whoo whoo)
what's my name (Dobson)(whoo whoo)
I tell you one time, (whoo whoo)
you're to blame (whoo whoo)
Woo Who (whoo whoo)
Woo Who (whoo whoo)
Woo (whoo whoo)
alright (whoo whoo)
Oh, who who, oh, who who, (whoo whoo)
oh, who who
Oh Yeah (whoo whoo)
Woo, who who (whoo whoo)
Woo, who who (whoo whoo)
Ah yeah, a-what's my name (Dobson(Whoo whoo)
Tell me, baby, (whoo whoo)
what's my name (Dobson)(whoo whoo)
Tell me, sweetie, (whoo whoo)
what's my name (Dobson)(whoo whoo)
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
Oh, who, who (whoo whoo)
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
Ah, yeah!
Whoo whoo Woo Who WhoWhoo whoo
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
War is as War does
Philips is blowing smoke and Ezra Klein is either forgetting or is just purposely being gentle here, but the term "jihad" is not a radical or inaccurate one when used to describe the activities of the religious right and its corporate sponsors in America.
Philips may think he and his clan are just a bunch of sweet folks, but maybe Philips didn't see this call to religious war from one of Bush's judicial nominees.
And maybe Philips was too busy to go to this conference where self confessed religious believers talked about dispensing with judges that, Republican-appointed or not, didn' t rule as they liked.
And maybe Philips' neighborhood church wasn't showing this on its telescreens.
And maybe Philips didn't catch this comment by James Dobson comparing the independent judiciary to the KKK.
And maybe Philips doesn't remember this morsel from Ann Coulter and that this prominent evangelical minister invited Ann along on his latest bookstorming tour.
So, yeah, John Philips, we think the Jihad term fits, it works, and we'll keep using it.
Philips may think he and his clan are just a bunch of sweet folks, but maybe Philips didn't see this call to religious war from one of Bush's judicial nominees.
And maybe Philips was too busy to go to this conference where self confessed religious believers talked about dispensing with judges that, Republican-appointed or not, didn' t rule as they liked.
And maybe Philips' neighborhood church wasn't showing this on its telescreens.
And maybe Philips didn't catch this comment by James Dobson comparing the independent judiciary to the KKK.
And maybe Philips doesn't remember this morsel from Ann Coulter and that this prominent evangelical minister invited Ann along on his latest bookstorming tour.
So, yeah, John Philips, we think the Jihad term fits, it works, and we'll keep using it.
Abusing Religion
For some reason the Washington Post felt obligated to print this on its op-ed pages this morning, the latest of a long number of snide, whining pieces from a supposedly agrieved Christian, complaining about how misunderstood and maligned he and his cohorts are for wanting to coerce the nation's children to pray and to require us all to bow in homage to whatever monument conservative Christians want to place on every street corner.
As I've said before, as a daily-Bible-reading, practicing Christian, I find the religious right and its arguments repugnant, silly, unhelpful, and offensive to the degree that they attempt to define my religion and dictate what and how Christians should respond to issues in the public square.
But that isn't why I chose to reference this latest piece of Christian-right demagoguery.
Instead, I mention it because I want to compare it to this, which appeared in today's same Washington Post, on page 3, in the reporting section of the paper. Apparently, there are concerns that there is a hostile religious climate at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado*. Only the hostility is not towards evangelical Christian "people of faith" as the organizers of last week's Justice Sunday broadcasted around the country, but rather, by radical evangelical Christians towards Jewish, non-radical evangelical Christians, and non-Christians service members. The climate includes but is not limited to proselytizing from the front of the classroom and from the academy's chaplains, and hazing-like shaming rituals for those that don't adopt the radical evangelical line. To look into these concerns, which go back a number of years according to academy alumni, the Air Force has established a task force.
In what I am sure is only coincidental, the article also noted as an aside that two years ago, the Air Force was beset by accusations of the sexual abuse of its female service members. It is no doubt a coincidence only that a military institution happens to face charges of sexual abuse of its female service members and the evangelical coercing of both its female and male company. I have no doubt that it is merely a coincidence that the conservative, traditional, hierarchical evangelical Christianity that disdains the rights and progress of women would be dominant at an institution that has also experienced problems of the sexual abuse of women (which as we know is not about sex but about power).
I'm sure that this is all a coincidence.
And is there also a coincidence between the op-ed column arguing that we need to let the State establish the conservative's evangelical Christianity throughout the land, and the fact that the sexual abuse of women has been occuring in an institution that is also reported to be guilty of religiously bullying its members?
A coincidence? I report, you decide.
*Colorado Springs, Colorado also happens to be the haven of James Dobson's Focus on the Family militia "ministry". But I'm sure that the proximity between the Air Force Academy and the Focus on the Family compound and the religious climate at the former is purely coincidental.
Update: Here's a great post from Juan Cole on religious freedom. Although it's based on Pat Robertson's comments on This Week, it also has a lot to say about the subject of this post.
As I've said before, as a daily-Bible-reading, practicing Christian, I find the religious right and its arguments repugnant, silly, unhelpful, and offensive to the degree that they attempt to define my religion and dictate what and how Christians should respond to issues in the public square.
But that isn't why I chose to reference this latest piece of Christian-right demagoguery.
Instead, I mention it because I want to compare it to this, which appeared in today's same Washington Post, on page 3, in the reporting section of the paper. Apparently, there are concerns that there is a hostile religious climate at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado*. Only the hostility is not towards evangelical Christian "people of faith" as the organizers of last week's Justice Sunday broadcasted around the country, but rather, by radical evangelical Christians towards Jewish, non-radical evangelical Christians, and non-Christians service members. The climate includes but is not limited to proselytizing from the front of the classroom and from the academy's chaplains, and hazing-like shaming rituals for those that don't adopt the radical evangelical line. To look into these concerns, which go back a number of years according to academy alumni, the Air Force has established a task force.
In what I am sure is only coincidental, the article also noted as an aside that two years ago, the Air Force was beset by accusations of the sexual abuse of its female service members. It is no doubt a coincidence only that a military institution happens to face charges of sexual abuse of its female service members and the evangelical coercing of both its female and male company. I have no doubt that it is merely a coincidence that the conservative, traditional, hierarchical evangelical Christianity that disdains the rights and progress of women would be dominant at an institution that has also experienced problems of the sexual abuse of women (which as we know is not about sex but about power).
I'm sure that this is all a coincidence.
And is there also a coincidence between the op-ed column arguing that we need to let the State establish the conservative's evangelical Christianity throughout the land, and the fact that the sexual abuse of women has been occuring in an institution that is also reported to be guilty of religiously bullying its members?
A coincidence? I report, you decide.
*Colorado Springs, Colorado also happens to be the haven of James Dobson's Focus on the Family militia "ministry". But I'm sure that the proximity between the Air Force Academy and the Focus on the Family compound and the religious climate at the former is purely coincidental.
Update: Here's a great post from Juan Cole on religious freedom. Although it's based on Pat Robertson's comments on This Week, it also has a lot to say about the subject of this post.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Pondering Gore
I've been thinking about this piece by Ezra Klein. I'd been wondering the same thing for several weeks, if not months since the election. Is Gore worth another look? He's certainly embraced a much more fiery tone, and his remarks last Wednesday to the MoveOn.org gathering, while not stunning in their style, were nonetheless encouraging for their bold attack on the theocratic movement, even naming names (Dobson, Perkins).
So, should progressives give him serious consideration? I don't know what the answer to that question is yet. Fortunately, we have three years until the official primary season is upon us, and maybe at least two more years until candidates begin setting up exploring committees and raising cash.
But as much as I like the new Gore, I think there are problems. Of course he would carry the stigma of "loser", although he won the popular vote in 2000. Worse, it wouldn't take much for the media to resurrect much of the same baggage that haunted him last time (the Internet reference, no governing legal authority, etc), and while his approach to issues and tone of speech have evolved, his general style and charisma have not. And I'm afraid that his new tone, while an accurate reflection of the challenges the country faces from the right, are too angry to bridge the gap between liberal base and typical voter. Most of all, I don't think he's done much to make himself likeable, and ironically, any attempts to do might only worsen his image. I admire his new fight, but think it probably would be best if someone else carried the banner.
And who might that someone be? Although I panned him for his pro-bankruptcy "reform" vote, Joe Biden might be the best candidate Democrats could put forward. Mind you, I've not even in the vacinity of having a favorite candidate at this point, I'm merely making an objective determination based on a number of factors. He would be taken seriously on the national security front. And while he isn't especially charismatic, he comes across as more approachable and believable than either Gore or Kerry appeared. And he took the trouble to chastize Republicans and the radical right for their court and Justice Sunday shennadigans during a speech in Columbia, SC (of all places) last month. So he demonstrates at least some awareness of the looming threat from conservative totalitarianism that to me is so important.
On economic issues, Edwards would be a more satisfying choice. But I'm afraid his relative inexperience and boyish appearance could be a detriment. I've also not really heard him take on the religious right. Maybe he has. But if he runs, I would like to hear him address the cultural issues head on.
The other candidates as I see them are Hilary, Russ Feingold, Bayh and Warner. Of the four, only Feingold could be considered a progressive.
It's early, but never too soon to be thinking of who our standard bearer should be next time, and perhaps most importantly, what sort of platform and selection of issues they should run on.
So, should progressives give him serious consideration? I don't know what the answer to that question is yet. Fortunately, we have three years until the official primary season is upon us, and maybe at least two more years until candidates begin setting up exploring committees and raising cash.
But as much as I like the new Gore, I think there are problems. Of course he would carry the stigma of "loser", although he won the popular vote in 2000. Worse, it wouldn't take much for the media to resurrect much of the same baggage that haunted him last time (the Internet reference, no governing legal authority, etc), and while his approach to issues and tone of speech have evolved, his general style and charisma have not. And I'm afraid that his new tone, while an accurate reflection of the challenges the country faces from the right, are too angry to bridge the gap between liberal base and typical voter. Most of all, I don't think he's done much to make himself likeable, and ironically, any attempts to do might only worsen his image. I admire his new fight, but think it probably would be best if someone else carried the banner.
And who might that someone be? Although I panned him for his pro-bankruptcy "reform" vote, Joe Biden might be the best candidate Democrats could put forward. Mind you, I've not even in the vacinity of having a favorite candidate at this point, I'm merely making an objective determination based on a number of factors. He would be taken seriously on the national security front. And while he isn't especially charismatic, he comes across as more approachable and believable than either Gore or Kerry appeared. And he took the trouble to chastize Republicans and the radical right for their court and Justice Sunday shennadigans during a speech in Columbia, SC (of all places) last month. So he demonstrates at least some awareness of the looming threat from conservative totalitarianism that to me is so important.
On economic issues, Edwards would be a more satisfying choice. But I'm afraid his relative inexperience and boyish appearance could be a detriment. I've also not really heard him take on the religious right. Maybe he has. But if he runs, I would like to hear him address the cultural issues head on.
The other candidates as I see them are Hilary, Russ Feingold, Bayh and Warner. Of the four, only Feingold could be considered a progressive.
It's early, but never too soon to be thinking of who our standard bearer should be next time, and perhaps most importantly, what sort of platform and selection of issues they should run on.
Triangulating the Democrats
During the '90's it was fashionable to talk about how President Clinton had successfully triangulated the Republicans and co-opted their policy positions for his political benefit. But it seems to me that the '00's are witnessing the triangulating of the Democrats by faux liberal pundits and the media. Let's consider the evidence.
Democrats need to exorcise Michael Moore and Moveon.org from the party and talk as tough as Republicans on the "war on terror".
Lead Adherents: Peter Beinart, New Republic magazine, Al From, DLC, Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator from Connecticut.
Implication: Democrats ought not subject the instruments and aims of war to democratic debate.
Reality: Attempts to shield America's war policies (covert and overt) from political debate risks creating the same abuses of power that ended two presidencies and has generated the blowback from five decades of not challenging American's intervention overseas.
Democrats need to offer a Social Security reform proposal of their own and agree to negotiate with President Bush.
Lead Adherents: Washington Post editorial board; Op-ed columnists Richard Cohen and Michael Kinsley.
Implication: Democrats should accept Republican arguments that Social Security is in trouble and must be phased out.
Reality: Social Security is not in crisis; the federal budget is, and its causes are the 2001-2003 tax cuts and the ending of the estate tax Republicans have pushed through with Democratic Party support.
Democrats should support bankruptcy "reform" because, um, because, well, some people are abusing the bankruptcy laws and we need to scold the poor so they develop "personal responsibility" and so that the credit card companies will be good to us and lower interest rates.
Lead Adherents: Al From, New Democrat Network, U.S. Senators from MBNA, Joe Biden and Tom Carper.
Implication: Democrats should ignore the power inbalances inherent between corporations and individuals, and accept Republicans argument that individuals, especially poor individuals, are the problem.
Reality: The bankruptcy "reform" bill was a shameless piece of legislation shopped around Congress for seven years by the credit card industry. Its passage will establish neither "personal responsibility" or lower interest rates.
Democrats should move to the "center" on abortion and other issues of interest to "values" voters.
Lead Adherents: Al From, DLC, Hilary Clinton
Implications: As with bankruptcy "reform", siren calls for Democrats to adopt conservative Republican policy positions on abortion, gays and other personal issues tempts Democrats to concede the Republicans' point that individuals are the problem and that the main duty of the state is to discipline them.
Reality: The problem with and the threat from the two worst regimes of the 20th century(Hitler's fascist Germany and Stalin's Communist Soviet Union) were not caused by their countries' individual behavior, but from their corrupt and power hungry leadership and military ambitions. Individuals are not the problem, institutions and ideologies of power and repression are.
Conclusion: Democrats need to change the debate from coercing individuals to challenging concentrated power and pockets of privilege.
Democrats need to exorcise Michael Moore and Moveon.org from the party and talk as tough as Republicans on the "war on terror".
Lead Adherents: Peter Beinart, New Republic magazine, Al From, DLC, Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator from Connecticut.
Implication: Democrats ought not subject the instruments and aims of war to democratic debate.
Reality: Attempts to shield America's war policies (covert and overt) from political debate risks creating the same abuses of power that ended two presidencies and has generated the blowback from five decades of not challenging American's intervention overseas.
Democrats need to offer a Social Security reform proposal of their own and agree to negotiate with President Bush.
Lead Adherents: Washington Post editorial board; Op-ed columnists Richard Cohen and Michael Kinsley.
Implication: Democrats should accept Republican arguments that Social Security is in trouble and must be phased out.
Reality: Social Security is not in crisis; the federal budget is, and its causes are the 2001-2003 tax cuts and the ending of the estate tax Republicans have pushed through with Democratic Party support.
Democrats should support bankruptcy "reform" because, um, because, well, some people are abusing the bankruptcy laws and we need to scold the poor so they develop "personal responsibility" and so that the credit card companies will be good to us and lower interest rates.
Lead Adherents: Al From, New Democrat Network, U.S. Senators from MBNA, Joe Biden and Tom Carper.
Implication: Democrats should ignore the power inbalances inherent between corporations and individuals, and accept Republicans argument that individuals, especially poor individuals, are the problem.
Reality: The bankruptcy "reform" bill was a shameless piece of legislation shopped around Congress for seven years by the credit card industry. Its passage will establish neither "personal responsibility" or lower interest rates.
Democrats should move to the "center" on abortion and other issues of interest to "values" voters.
Lead Adherents: Al From, DLC, Hilary Clinton
Implications: As with bankruptcy "reform", siren calls for Democrats to adopt conservative Republican policy positions on abortion, gays and other personal issues tempts Democrats to concede the Republicans' point that individuals are the problem and that the main duty of the state is to discipline them.
Reality: The problem with and the threat from the two worst regimes of the 20th century(Hitler's fascist Germany and Stalin's Communist Soviet Union) were not caused by their countries' individual behavior, but from their corrupt and power hungry leadership and military ambitions. Individuals are not the problem, institutions and ideologies of power and repression are.
Conclusion: Democrats need to change the debate from coercing individuals to challenging concentrated power and pockets of privilege.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Remember This?
It seems as if blog hearts are all a flutter these days, debating the administration's rationales for war in Iraq, and about how despite all the stuff about WMD's and mushroom clouds the whole thing was all really just a loving desire to bring Haliburton style democracy to the Middle East.
Well, it's amazing what you can still find on the Internets. It turns out that the neo-conservative government in exile in Clinton years ran a little operation called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and back in 1998, they wrote a letter to President Clinton stating the urgent need to invade Iraq. If you don't believe me, you can read the thing here.
Now, the first thing I'd like to do is review this letter and identify some of its main words, just to get an idea as to what the fine folks at PNAC were up to. Specifically, let's identify a couple of words and see how many times this letter references them. Ready? Here we go.
Democracy: 0
Liberty, liberate or variations thereof: 0
Freedom or freedom fries: 0
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) or variations thereof: 3
Oil: 1
Vital National Interests or variations thereof: 3
Next, let's take note of the many good Americans that signed this letter and play "where are they now", which so happens to be one of my most very favorite games. Ready, here we go.
Donald Rumsfeld: Current Position: Secretary of War/Defense. Claim to Fame: Directed Invasion and Occupation of Iraq in 2003; In response to soldier's question about supply of armor remarked that you go to war with the army that you have.
Paul "Wolfy" Wolfowitz: Current Position: Deputy Secretary of War/Defense. Claim to Fame: Said we had to make up that stuff about liberation and democracy and all that to get public's approval. Next gig: World Bank.
William Kristol: Current Position: Editor and Chief, Weakly Standard; Regular special guest policy political consultant for Fox News, conservative scold extraordinaire. Clame to fame: Counceled Republicans to oppose any and all efforts by President Clinton to pass health care reform in 1994.
Richard Perle: Current Position: wondering around the AEI or PNAC. Former position: Chairman, Defense Policy Board until 2004, a Pentagon group that urged war on Iraq after 9-11. Claim to Fame: Nickname, Prince of Darkness.
John Bolton: Current Position: Undersecretary of State for arms proliferation. Claim to fame: bullied peon analysts that disagreed with his goal of manipulating intelligence data. Next gig: United Nations.
Elliot Abrams: Current Position: Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democratic Strategy. Claims to fame: too numerous to mention but was instrumental in helping to lead failed coup against democratically elected government in Venezuela in 2002.
Robert Z0ellick: Current Position: Deputy Secretary of State. Former position in W administrationL U.S. Trade Rep from 2001-2004. Claim to Fame: Served on Advisory Council for Enron.
Paula Dobriansky: Current Position: Under Secretary State, Global Affairs. Claim to Fame: Kinda cute. Marital status unknown.
Richard L. Armitage: Current Position: Unknown. Former Position: Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell.
Well, I'm afraid that's all the time we have today, folks. But I hope you can see that the organization that helped push for the war in Iraq, and which is now widely represented in the administration, didn't seem to care much for democracy or freedom fries or any of that mushy-gooshy stuff back in 1998. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. I report, you decide.
Well, it's amazing what you can still find on the Internets. It turns out that the neo-conservative government in exile in Clinton years ran a little operation called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and back in 1998, they wrote a letter to President Clinton stating the urgent need to invade Iraq. If you don't believe me, you can read the thing here.
Now, the first thing I'd like to do is review this letter and identify some of its main words, just to get an idea as to what the fine folks at PNAC were up to. Specifically, let's identify a couple of words and see how many times this letter references them. Ready? Here we go.
Democracy: 0
Liberty, liberate or variations thereof: 0
Freedom or freedom fries: 0
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) or variations thereof: 3
Oil: 1
Vital National Interests or variations thereof: 3
Next, let's take note of the many good Americans that signed this letter and play "where are they now", which so happens to be one of my most very favorite games. Ready, here we go.
Donald Rumsfeld: Current Position: Secretary of War/Defense. Claim to Fame: Directed Invasion and Occupation of Iraq in 2003; In response to soldier's question about supply of armor remarked that you go to war with the army that you have.
Paul "Wolfy" Wolfowitz: Current Position: Deputy Secretary of War/Defense. Claim to Fame: Said we had to make up that stuff about liberation and democracy and all that to get public's approval. Next gig: World Bank.
William Kristol: Current Position: Editor and Chief, Weakly Standard; Regular special guest policy political consultant for Fox News, conservative scold extraordinaire. Clame to fame: Counceled Republicans to oppose any and all efforts by President Clinton to pass health care reform in 1994.
Richard Perle: Current Position: wondering around the AEI or PNAC. Former position: Chairman, Defense Policy Board until 2004, a Pentagon group that urged war on Iraq after 9-11. Claim to Fame: Nickname, Prince of Darkness.
John Bolton: Current Position: Undersecretary of State for arms proliferation. Claim to fame: bullied peon analysts that disagreed with his goal of manipulating intelligence data. Next gig: United Nations.
Elliot Abrams: Current Position: Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democratic Strategy. Claims to fame: too numerous to mention but was instrumental in helping to lead failed coup against democratically elected government in Venezuela in 2002.
Robert Z0ellick: Current Position: Deputy Secretary of State. Former position in W administrationL U.S. Trade Rep from 2001-2004. Claim to Fame: Served on Advisory Council for Enron.
Paula Dobriansky: Current Position: Under Secretary State, Global Affairs. Claim to Fame: Kinda cute. Marital status unknown.
Richard L. Armitage: Current Position: Unknown. Former Position: Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell.
Well, I'm afraid that's all the time we have today, folks. But I hope you can see that the organization that helped push for the war in Iraq, and which is now widely represented in the administration, didn't seem to care much for democracy or freedom fries or any of that mushy-gooshy stuff back in 1998. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. I report, you decide.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Focus on James Dobson
This is the headline and news blurb about the "nuclear option" on Dobson's Focus on the Family site. I was going to excerpt it, but really think you need to read the whole thing to begin to comprehend the pure demagoguery and ridiculousness of this man and his organization.
Time is Running Out to Strike a Blow Against Judicial Tyranny
Judicial tyranny? I thought the problem was with the legislature, the Senate in particular. Let's read on.
Key senators in several states still need to hear from their constituents on the importance of stopping the Senate filibusters that are denying qualified judicial nominees a simple up-or-down. If you believe in the Constitution, the time is now for you to take a stand to ensure its survival.
You can do so by letting one or both of your senators know, today, that you have had enough of filibusters to stop qualified judges from serving on the federal courts. This obstructionism, unprecedented in U.S. history, is being carried out by Democrats simply because they don't want men and women who believe in strictly interpreting the Constitution to be confirmed to the bench.
Do you believe in the Constitution? Well, you need to ensure its survival by making sure that (Bush's) judicial nominees get a "simple up-or-down", although no where in the Constitution is the demand for a "simple up or down" specified.
And this "obstructionism" is "unprecedented in American history"? Well, only if you consider that Republicans have rarely been in charge of all branches of government is it "unprecedented".
And what's the deal with "men and women who believe in strictly interpreting the Constitution"? Is it possible for a strict interpretation to be against what Dobson and his gang want, or is it simply a rhetorical device to mean interpret the Constitution in a way that's favorable for Big Business and the goals of theocracy?
What kind of judges do the liberals want? Those like the ones who allowed Terri Schiavo to be starved and dehydrated to death. Those like the ones who don't believe it should be illegal for abortionists to suck the brains out of nearly-delivered children. Those who believe pornography showing women being raped, mutilated and defecated upon is protected by the First Amendment, but the Ten Commandments are not.
Um, since I have a number of Bibles at home, Bibles I purchased from various retail establishments, and these Bibles contain the Ten Commandments (as well as the Beatitudes and other instructions), and as I have not been arrested or even challenged about possessing Bibles with such commandments in them, then I would have to say that I think the Ten Commandments are protected under the First Amendment. And since the Second Commandment is that you shall not make unto yourselves any graven images like unto anything that is in heaven, and since the First Amendment doesn't say anything about abortion or pornography but does say that Congress (and the states by way of the 14th Amendment) shall not establish a religion, then I think this apples to oranges comparison is just silly.
Keeping judges like this in power is the real motivation for the blockade of President Bush's judicial nominees. That's why the "constitutional option" for ending this impasse must be enacted: restoring Senate tradition to ensure nominees with the support of a majority of senators are confirmed. That is, after all, the process as it is has been observed for more than 200 years.
200 years? Um, no it hasn't. 60-some Clinton nominees never made it onto a Committee agenda, much less onto the floor where a "simple up or down" could have been allowed.
Below, youll find the names of senators in several key states, if both are listed, its because both are resistant to constitutionally ending Democrats filibusters. If you live in one of these states, please take a few minutes to call them at all of the district office numbers youll find when you click on their names, and politely deliver this simple message: "Stop judicial filibusters by enacting the constitutional option."
Constitutionally ending Democratic filibusters? Are there unconstitutional ways to end Democratic filibusters? Is it that Democratic filibusters are unconstitutional or filibusters in general? If justices "deserve a simple up or down", shouldn't all legislation and procedure? ARe there no allowances for supermajority votes, such as treaties, and Constitutional amendments? If they enjoy "majority" support, why can't they be passed, too?
You might also want to reemphasize that message in a followup email, using the forms you'll find on the contact information page you get when you click on each senator's name. If you don't live in one of these states, your senators have come down on one side or the other in this debate. You can still make your views known to them, however, by visiting the CitizenL:ink Action Center and typing your ZIP code into the space provided.
Phewwww! I don't know about you, but I've become dumberer already just by reading this.
Time is Running Out to Strike a Blow Against Judicial Tyranny
Judicial tyranny? I thought the problem was with the legislature, the Senate in particular. Let's read on.
Key senators in several states still need to hear from their constituents on the importance of stopping the Senate filibusters that are denying qualified judicial nominees a simple up-or-down. If you believe in the Constitution, the time is now for you to take a stand to ensure its survival.
You can do so by letting one or both of your senators know, today, that you have had enough of filibusters to stop qualified judges from serving on the federal courts. This obstructionism, unprecedented in U.S. history, is being carried out by Democrats simply because they don't want men and women who believe in strictly interpreting the Constitution to be confirmed to the bench.
Do you believe in the Constitution? Well, you need to ensure its survival by making sure that (Bush's) judicial nominees get a "simple up-or-down", although no where in the Constitution is the demand for a "simple up or down" specified.
And this "obstructionism" is "unprecedented in American history"? Well, only if you consider that Republicans have rarely been in charge of all branches of government is it "unprecedented".
And what's the deal with "men and women who believe in strictly interpreting the Constitution"? Is it possible for a strict interpretation to be against what Dobson and his gang want, or is it simply a rhetorical device to mean interpret the Constitution in a way that's favorable for Big Business and the goals of theocracy?
What kind of judges do the liberals want? Those like the ones who allowed Terri Schiavo to be starved and dehydrated to death. Those like the ones who don't believe it should be illegal for abortionists to suck the brains out of nearly-delivered children. Those who believe pornography showing women being raped, mutilated and defecated upon is protected by the First Amendment, but the Ten Commandments are not.
Um, since I have a number of Bibles at home, Bibles I purchased from various retail establishments, and these Bibles contain the Ten Commandments (as well as the Beatitudes and other instructions), and as I have not been arrested or even challenged about possessing Bibles with such commandments in them, then I would have to say that I think the Ten Commandments are protected under the First Amendment. And since the Second Commandment is that you shall not make unto yourselves any graven images like unto anything that is in heaven, and since the First Amendment doesn't say anything about abortion or pornography but does say that Congress (and the states by way of the 14th Amendment) shall not establish a religion, then I think this apples to oranges comparison is just silly.
Keeping judges like this in power is the real motivation for the blockade of President Bush's judicial nominees. That's why the "constitutional option" for ending this impasse must be enacted: restoring Senate tradition to ensure nominees with the support of a majority of senators are confirmed. That is, after all, the process as it is has been observed for more than 200 years.
200 years? Um, no it hasn't. 60-some Clinton nominees never made it onto a Committee agenda, much less onto the floor where a "simple up or down" could have been allowed.
Below, youll find the names of senators in several key states, if both are listed, its because both are resistant to constitutionally ending Democrats filibusters. If you live in one of these states, please take a few minutes to call them at all of the district office numbers youll find when you click on their names, and politely deliver this simple message: "Stop judicial filibusters by enacting the constitutional option."
Constitutionally ending Democratic filibusters? Are there unconstitutional ways to end Democratic filibusters? Is it that Democratic filibusters are unconstitutional or filibusters in general? If justices "deserve a simple up or down", shouldn't all legislation and procedure? ARe there no allowances for supermajority votes, such as treaties, and Constitutional amendments? If they enjoy "majority" support, why can't they be passed, too?
You might also want to reemphasize that message in a followup email, using the forms you'll find on the contact information page you get when you click on each senator's name. If you don't live in one of these states, your senators have come down on one side or the other in this debate. You can still make your views known to them, however, by visiting the CitizenL:ink Action Center and typing your ZIP code into the space provided.
Phewwww! I don't know about you, but I've become dumberer already just by reading this.
Gaining the Whole World but Losing Your Own Soul
Dear Zell,
Wow, what a difference a year makes. It was about one year ago when you began making plans to give the keynote address to the Republican Convention in New York City. And you were the best selling author of A National Party No More, a polemic against modern liberalism and the Democratic Party that had sponsored you throughout your life and political career. Railing against Democrats, liberals, and American citizens with opposing views of society, the right to dissent, and the war in Iraq, you stood on stage in New York and loudly and vicously condemned opponents of George W. Bush and the Republican Party as traitors. Later, when challenged for some your vitriolic rhetoric by Chris Matthews, you issued a threat to the anchor to an old time duel.
And although some in the media may have thought you had lost your mind, and your old party may have thought you had lost your soul as well, you were basking in the limelight conservative Republicans typically offer to new converts, giving interviews, traveling around the country giving anti-Kerry speeches, and popping up on Cable TV "news" to provide the role of dutiful and principled Democratic opposition to the Democratic Party and its candidate. Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Gibson, Oh'Really? and the rest of the Faux News bunch ate it up. They loved you.
But then as the new year came, you found yourself retired, voluntarily stepping down from your seat in the U.S. Senate. And with your retirement, and in particular, your now lack of bonified Democratic affiliation, your clout and usefulness to the conservative establishment diminished considerably.
Meanwhile, your old Party, vilified after the election for losing the "values" voters, and facing even greater odds in a more heavily Republican represented Congress, has moved on without you. And there are signs of life that it is gaining some backbone. Our new Senate minority leader Harry Reid--an anti-abortion guy, just like you--has taken hold of the Party's opposition to the Republicans in both name and in deed. He's been leading Party efforts to prevent the most extreme of Bush's judicial nominees from being appointed to lifetime tenure positions on the courts, and is provoking Republicans into breaking Senate rules to advance its agenda, which if opinion polls are any reflection, is causing an emergence of second thoughts among the populace about who they have put into power.
In the House, 30 some Blue Dog and New Democrats are whining about how their unqualified support for the Leave No Credit Card Company Behind "bankruptcy reform" bill has generated a bit of a backlash among actual members of the Democratic Party.
No, Zell, it's not the same old Democratic Party, either from your pro-segregation days in Georgia or from your time in the U.S. Senate. It may not be the "national" party you claim to desire. But it is beginning to learn what minority and opposition parties do, and it is beginning to reflect the impact of progressive activists, both online and off. That rowdy former Vermont Governor, Howard Dean is our chair. He's not your kind of accomodationist. But we like him just the same.
Now that the hooplah over the 2004 election is passed, you're wondering what's next for you. The conservatives felt sorry for you and invited you out to the last conservative conference where you were invited on stage by your old, short time friends, to give an "award" to the angry Swift Boat Vets for their disgraceful pilloring of Senator Kerry's honorable war service and record. But now what? Maybe do a few more of these stand up acts at the latest big money funded shindig?
Was it worth it, Zell? Think the conservatives will continue to remember you and include you in their next fatwah, now that you're less than the token Democrat they once needed but now can discard, the better to pave the way for the "religious" snake oil salesmen they can get to headline their acts?
Was it worth it, Zell, to gain the whole world of conservative admiration, and lose your soul? What will a man gain in exchange for his soul?
Zell, there's still time for a change of heart. You once aspired to more progressive aims. You championed Bill Clinton's candidacy and defended him in the face of criticism about his military record and womanizing. You appeared to embrace the progressive spirit of the Clinton-Gore revival. We remember that and appreciate it. We're not totally sure what has transpired since then. But unlike the other party, Democrats are forgiving. And tolerant. A soul is too valuable to lose.
Wow, what a difference a year makes. It was about one year ago when you began making plans to give the keynote address to the Republican Convention in New York City. And you were the best selling author of A National Party No More, a polemic against modern liberalism and the Democratic Party that had sponsored you throughout your life and political career. Railing against Democrats, liberals, and American citizens with opposing views of society, the right to dissent, and the war in Iraq, you stood on stage in New York and loudly and vicously condemned opponents of George W. Bush and the Republican Party as traitors. Later, when challenged for some your vitriolic rhetoric by Chris Matthews, you issued a threat to the anchor to an old time duel.
And although some in the media may have thought you had lost your mind, and your old party may have thought you had lost your soul as well, you were basking in the limelight conservative Republicans typically offer to new converts, giving interviews, traveling around the country giving anti-Kerry speeches, and popping up on Cable TV "news" to provide the role of dutiful and principled Democratic opposition to the Democratic Party and its candidate. Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Gibson, Oh'Really? and the rest of the Faux News bunch ate it up. They loved you.
But then as the new year came, you found yourself retired, voluntarily stepping down from your seat in the U.S. Senate. And with your retirement, and in particular, your now lack of bonified Democratic affiliation, your clout and usefulness to the conservative establishment diminished considerably.
Meanwhile, your old Party, vilified after the election for losing the "values" voters, and facing even greater odds in a more heavily Republican represented Congress, has moved on without you. And there are signs of life that it is gaining some backbone. Our new Senate minority leader Harry Reid--an anti-abortion guy, just like you--has taken hold of the Party's opposition to the Republicans in both name and in deed. He's been leading Party efforts to prevent the most extreme of Bush's judicial nominees from being appointed to lifetime tenure positions on the courts, and is provoking Republicans into breaking Senate rules to advance its agenda, which if opinion polls are any reflection, is causing an emergence of second thoughts among the populace about who they have put into power.
In the House, 30 some Blue Dog and New Democrats are whining about how their unqualified support for the Leave No Credit Card Company Behind "bankruptcy reform" bill has generated a bit of a backlash among actual members of the Democratic Party.
No, Zell, it's not the same old Democratic Party, either from your pro-segregation days in Georgia or from your time in the U.S. Senate. It may not be the "national" party you claim to desire. But it is beginning to learn what minority and opposition parties do, and it is beginning to reflect the impact of progressive activists, both online and off. That rowdy former Vermont Governor, Howard Dean is our chair. He's not your kind of accomodationist. But we like him just the same.
Now that the hooplah over the 2004 election is passed, you're wondering what's next for you. The conservatives felt sorry for you and invited you out to the last conservative conference where you were invited on stage by your old, short time friends, to give an "award" to the angry Swift Boat Vets for their disgraceful pilloring of Senator Kerry's honorable war service and record. But now what? Maybe do a few more of these stand up acts at the latest big money funded shindig?
Was it worth it, Zell? Think the conservatives will continue to remember you and include you in their next fatwah, now that you're less than the token Democrat they once needed but now can discard, the better to pave the way for the "religious" snake oil salesmen they can get to headline their acts?
Was it worth it, Zell, to gain the whole world of conservative admiration, and lose your soul? What will a man gain in exchange for his soul?
Zell, there's still time for a change of heart. You once aspired to more progressive aims. You championed Bill Clinton's candidacy and defended him in the face of criticism about his military record and womanizing. You appeared to embrace the progressive spirit of the Clinton-Gore revival. We remember that and appreciate it. We're not totally sure what has transpired since then. But unlike the other party, Democrats are forgiving. And tolerant. A soul is too valuable to lose.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Too Much Justice For Justice Sunday
According to The Nation, there was only one black clergy member on stage for Justice Sunday.
Bishop Harry Jackson, from Hope Christian Church in College Park, Maryland, was Justice Sunday's only black speaker. Jackson had recently unveiled his "Black Contract With America," a document that highlights wedge issues like gay marriage that would presumably pry black churchgoers away from the Democratic Party. But so far he has been disappointed. "Black churches are too concerned with justice," Jackson lamented in his speech.
Get that? Sunday's event was billed Justice Sunday in protest over Democratic filibustering of 7, yes that's 7, of Bush's farthest right judicial nominees, one of whom wishes to turn the clock back to 1800, but the good bishop is discouraged with his flock because they are too concerned about "justice" to get suckered into bashing gays for Justice Sunday.
So yes, one of the leaders of Justice Sunday thinks his black congregants are too concerned about justice.
I'm too stupified to say anything further.
Bishop Harry Jackson, from Hope Christian Church in College Park, Maryland, was Justice Sunday's only black speaker. Jackson had recently unveiled his "Black Contract With America," a document that highlights wedge issues like gay marriage that would presumably pry black churchgoers away from the Democratic Party. But so far he has been disappointed. "Black churches are too concerned with justice," Jackson lamented in his speech.
Get that? Sunday's event was billed Justice Sunday in protest over Democratic filibustering of 7, yes that's 7, of Bush's farthest right judicial nominees, one of whom wishes to turn the clock back to 1800, but the good bishop is discouraged with his flock because they are too concerned about "justice" to get suckered into bashing gays for Justice Sunday.
So yes, one of the leaders of Justice Sunday thinks his black congregants are too concerned about justice.
I'm too stupified to say anything further.
The Janice Rogers Brown Report
The CarpetBagger has it.
She hates Social Security, the minimum wage, thinks the elderly are cannibals, and along with most conservatives, pants breathlessly for a return to America's Golden Age (1787-1900) when corporate icons were king and the peasants ate cake.
And yesterday, just for good measure, she pulled out the "religious war" card.
Yeah, by all means, let's compromise and allow this female neanderthal lifetime tenure on the court.
Conservatives, ye may not know it, but we are doing this for you own good. Our filibustering is an act of love. We are saving you (and us) from yourselves.
She hates Social Security, the minimum wage, thinks the elderly are cannibals, and along with most conservatives, pants breathlessly for a return to America's Golden Age (1787-1900) when corporate icons were king and the peasants ate cake.
And yesterday, just for good measure, she pulled out the "religious war" card.
Yeah, by all means, let's compromise and allow this female neanderthal lifetime tenure on the court.
Conservatives, ye may not know it, but we are doing this for you own good. Our filibustering is an act of love. We are saving you (and us) from yourselves.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Bad at Math
I was listening to Randi Rhoads last night on Air America (like radio, only smarter) and one of the obvious points she mentioned about the filibustering of 7, 7 of Bush's nominees (out of some 200+) was that, hey, Republicans have 55 members in the U.S. Senate. This means they only need 5 Democrats--5--to break the filibuster. There are 44 Democrats in the U.S. Senate (and one Independent). We don't think asking you to get 5, that is, one-two-three-four-five, Democrats to cross over is all that much to ask for. If the Republicans and their allies can't get 5, that is f-i-v-e Democrats to cross over and vote for their nominees, than what does that tell you? It tells you your nominee stinks. Pick someone else.
Conservative Greatest Hits
WMD's have been found in Iraq...
That "Schiavo" memo is a fake, it was undoubtedly circulated by Democrats...
We've never used the filibuster on Democratic court nominees...
We never said "nuclear option"; that's a Democratic and liberal media creation...
We never said we wanted to "privatize" Social Security; that's a Democratic and liberal media creation...
The reconstruction in Iraq is going splendedly...
The liberal courts are out of control...
Canada supported U.S. in Vietnam; contributed troops...
And it's only April...
That "Schiavo" memo is a fake, it was undoubtedly circulated by Democrats...
We've never used the filibuster on Democratic court nominees...
We never said "nuclear option"; that's a Democratic and liberal media creation...
We never said we wanted to "privatize" Social Security; that's a Democratic and liberal media creation...
The reconstruction in Iraq is going splendedly...
The liberal courts are out of control...
Canada supported U.S. in Vietnam; contributed troops...
And it's only April...
Monday, April 25, 2005
Some People Have Had Enough
Here's Senator Biden on Friday in South Carolina, of all places, for the Jefferson-Jackson Day speech in Columbia, SC:
(paraphase) The other side is trying to claim God is on their side. Well, as one of our most important leaders once said, "it isn't whether God's on our side, it's whether we're on God's side".
Here's Jim Wallis, author of God's Politics:
Liberal groups, meanwhile, stepped up their attacks on both Dr. Frist and the proposed rule change. About 1,200 liberal Christians gathered at a rally at a Presbyterian church here to protest what one speaker, the left-leaning evangelical Jim Wallis, called "a declaration of a religious war" and "an attempt to hijack religion."
Here's Washington Post columnist Colbert King:
Angered by Democratic opposition to some of President Bush's judicial nominees, Perkins's group has also put out a flier charging that "the filibuster . . . is being used against people of faith." To suggest Democrats are out to get "people of faith" is despicable demagoguery that the truly faithful ought to rise up and reject.
But will that occur in American pulpits tomorrow? The Christian right counts on the religiously timid to keep their mouths shut. So why not exploit religion for their own ends? They will if we let them.
And that's just it. Americans of faith -- and those lacking one -- ought to vigorously resist attempts by power-hungry zealots to impose their religious views on the nation. That means standing up to them at every turn.
It means challenging them when they say of Americans who support a woman's right to choose; the right of two adults to enter into a loving, committed, state-sanctioned, monogamous relationship; the right to pursue science in support of life; the right of the aggrieved to launch aggressive assaults against racism, sexism and homophobia, that they are not legitimate members of the flock. Where do those on the religious right get off thinking they have the right to decide who is in and who is out? Who appointed them sole promoters and defenders of the faith? What makes them think they are more holy and righteous than the rest of us?
They are not now and never will be the final arbiters of Christian beliefs and values. They warrant as much deference as religious leaders as do members of the Ku Klux Klan, who also marched under the cross.
They should be resisted, not pandered to by politicians. Case in point: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. The Republican leader is going to appear by videotape at tomorrow's self-pity party. He shouldn't. But if he does, Frist should use the occasion to tell the assembled that they are wrong in saying Bush's nominees are being blocked because they are people of faith. He should say that invoking Christianity as an instrument to advance a political agenda or to vanquish a political opponent is divisive, demagogic and beyond the pale in American politics. And if Frist shows up on TV and passes on the opportunity to place his party on the side of tolerance and goodwill, then his performance will be Exhibit A in the case to be made against his presidential quest.
The Bergen Record in Hackensack, N.J., editorialized that the attempt by the Christian right to dominate all three branches of government "has to frighten anyone who is not a Christian conservative. It should frighten us all." Baloney. It should make us mad. Fighting mad.
Here's Senator Reid from a conference call with bloggers:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, on a conference call with bloggers today:
They are great with names. On Social Security, they have been trying to call private accounts personal accounts. They can talk about the constitutional option all they want. Its privatization, and its the nuclear option. They created those terms, and they are going to wear them around their necks from now till Doomsday.
Here's Colorado's conservative Democratic Senator Ken Salazar laying the smacketh down on Focus on the Family:
Newly-elected Sen. Ken Salazar, D, Colo., a moderate Dem by anyones standards, tried to be patient in dealing with Focus on the Family, which is located in his home state. James Dobsons group continued to attack Salazar, with increasingly incendiary rhetoric, until last week, Salazar had heard enough.
Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., intensified his war of words with Focus on the Family on Thursday, accusing its evangelical Christian leaders of trying to turn the United States into a theocracy.
I think that the way Focus on the Family and the conservative right wing is attempting to take the country will threaten the basic cornerstone of our freedom, Salazar said in an interview.
Over the weekend, Dobsons supporters decided to respond to Salazars criticisms, by going after his wifes Dairy Queen.
In Westminster Sunday, about two dozen conservative Christians gathered Sunday in front of the Dairy Queen owned and operated by the Salazar family. The protesters signs bore messages such as Salazar is anti Christian or Salazar mocks God.
Minister Bob Enyart said he stands against the things Salazar advocates, adding that the senator openly supports immorality.
Cant you just feel the Christian love?
Not surprisingly, the senator was not amused, telling reporters, Its outrageous to target my wifes Dairy Queen. They can protest me wherever they want. These tactics are outrageous and unAmerican and simply will not work.
(paraphase) The other side is trying to claim God is on their side. Well, as one of our most important leaders once said, "it isn't whether God's on our side, it's whether we're on God's side".
Here's Jim Wallis, author of God's Politics:
Liberal groups, meanwhile, stepped up their attacks on both Dr. Frist and the proposed rule change. About 1,200 liberal Christians gathered at a rally at a Presbyterian church here to protest what one speaker, the left-leaning evangelical Jim Wallis, called "a declaration of a religious war" and "an attempt to hijack religion."
Here's Washington Post columnist Colbert King:
Angered by Democratic opposition to some of President Bush's judicial nominees, Perkins's group has also put out a flier charging that "the filibuster . . . is being used against people of faith." To suggest Democrats are out to get "people of faith" is despicable demagoguery that the truly faithful ought to rise up and reject.
But will that occur in American pulpits tomorrow? The Christian right counts on the religiously timid to keep their mouths shut. So why not exploit religion for their own ends? They will if we let them.
And that's just it. Americans of faith -- and those lacking one -- ought to vigorously resist attempts by power-hungry zealots to impose their religious views on the nation. That means standing up to them at every turn.
It means challenging them when they say of Americans who support a woman's right to choose; the right of two adults to enter into a loving, committed, state-sanctioned, monogamous relationship; the right to pursue science in support of life; the right of the aggrieved to launch aggressive assaults against racism, sexism and homophobia, that they are not legitimate members of the flock. Where do those on the religious right get off thinking they have the right to decide who is in and who is out? Who appointed them sole promoters and defenders of the faith? What makes them think they are more holy and righteous than the rest of us?
They are not now and never will be the final arbiters of Christian beliefs and values. They warrant as much deference as religious leaders as do members of the Ku Klux Klan, who also marched under the cross.
They should be resisted, not pandered to by politicians. Case in point: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. The Republican leader is going to appear by videotape at tomorrow's self-pity party. He shouldn't. But if he does, Frist should use the occasion to tell the assembled that they are wrong in saying Bush's nominees are being blocked because they are people of faith. He should say that invoking Christianity as an instrument to advance a political agenda or to vanquish a political opponent is divisive, demagogic and beyond the pale in American politics. And if Frist shows up on TV and passes on the opportunity to place his party on the side of tolerance and goodwill, then his performance will be Exhibit A in the case to be made against his presidential quest.
The Bergen Record in Hackensack, N.J., editorialized that the attempt by the Christian right to dominate all three branches of government "has to frighten anyone who is not a Christian conservative. It should frighten us all." Baloney. It should make us mad. Fighting mad.
Here's Senator Reid from a conference call with bloggers:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, on a conference call with bloggers today:
They are great with names. On Social Security, they have been trying to call private accounts personal accounts. They can talk about the constitutional option all they want. Its privatization, and its the nuclear option. They created those terms, and they are going to wear them around their necks from now till Doomsday.
Here's Colorado's conservative Democratic Senator Ken Salazar laying the smacketh down on Focus on the Family:
Newly-elected Sen. Ken Salazar, D, Colo., a moderate Dem by anyones standards, tried to be patient in dealing with Focus on the Family, which is located in his home state. James Dobsons group continued to attack Salazar, with increasingly incendiary rhetoric, until last week, Salazar had heard enough.
Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., intensified his war of words with Focus on the Family on Thursday, accusing its evangelical Christian leaders of trying to turn the United States into a theocracy.
I think that the way Focus on the Family and the conservative right wing is attempting to take the country will threaten the basic cornerstone of our freedom, Salazar said in an interview.
Over the weekend, Dobsons supporters decided to respond to Salazars criticisms, by going after his wifes Dairy Queen.
In Westminster Sunday, about two dozen conservative Christians gathered Sunday in front of the Dairy Queen owned and operated by the Salazar family. The protesters signs bore messages such as Salazar is anti Christian or Salazar mocks God.
Minister Bob Enyart said he stands against the things Salazar advocates, adding that the senator openly supports immorality.
Cant you just feel the Christian love?
Not surprisingly, the senator was not amused, telling reporters, Its outrageous to target my wifes Dairy Queen. They can protest me wherever they want. These tactics are outrageous and unAmerican and simply will not work.
Two Paradigms
Following conservative rhetoric for the better part of 17 years or so leads me to conclude, perhaps not with any originality, that for conservatives, the essential problem of politics is individual morality. Sex, drugs, rock and roll, and anti-war, anti-empire protesting. The problem is the individual and the "immoral" masses. They must be controlled. Conservative authorities must be obeyed (this leads to a strange kind of moral relativism when it comes to war and American interests, but that's a post for another day).
For conservatives, individuals are the problem. Conservatism is not individualistic in a positive sense. It is anti-individual. Even its screeds against the "gestapo" Environmental Protection Agency and other governmental bureacracies are really cries on the behalf of collective interests in the form of business groups (there's another bizarre twist for you--conservatives as collectivists--but again, a post for another day). Conservativism's anti-governmental posture is not anti-government in general, its just anti-governmental control of business groups.
Whether its calls for greater "moral clarity", "personal responsibility", "family values", "moral absolutes", "strict constructivism" in interpreting the Constitution, the need for an "academic bill of rights", or railings against "activist judges", "the liberal media", "Hollywood", "academic elites", the problem and the call to arms is the same--individual thought and behavior is out of control. People must be strictly controlled and conformity to conservative aspirations and authority enforced, brutally if necessary.
Notice the steam and drool of anger and fear that eminate from televangelists such as Rod Parsley and Focus on the Family head James Dobson when they call for fire from heaven on "courts" that are "out of control". In what sense are the courts "out of control"? Because they will not allow religious worship to be imposed in public schools. Because they can find no Constitutional basis for denying equality to gay people. Because they cannot find a Constitional basis for requiring religious or Christian affiliation for America's officials and citizens. Because the courts have ruled in favor of a Right to Privacy, the right for individuals to live as they please provided they do not directly harm others. In these and other judicial findings, conservative totalitarianism has had the door slammed on its demands and vision for control.
But this conservative paradigm of anti-individual, punative totalitarianism is, I would submit to you, my illustrious readers, the dominate paradigm in American politics today. Even many Democrats, sadly, embrace much of this paradigm, albeit often in softer, more nuanced forms. Consider Democratic appraisals of the "The 1994 Crime Bill", the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, "abortion should be legal but rare" talk, support for civil unions but opposition to "gay marriage", bipartisan bills to regulate video games and set movie ratings, calls for Democratics to "talk in the language of faith and values" and on and on. However squeemishly or reluctantly, Democrats have too often embraced much of what the conservative right has set out to do over the last 40 years, if not in deed, often in rhetoric.
My view is that not only does this paradigm hold alarming implications for individual freedom, but as an indictment of society it is just plain wrong. It just isn't the case that laws enforcing "school prayer", religious devotion, and "patriotism" and laws against marijuana, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, and other perceived social ills or irregularities will make a better, more just society. Now do I think you and I would better off individually if we were monogamous, avoided drugs and alcohol, worshipped God and read the Bible? Yes. But on a broader scale, this is not the worst problem facing our society.
The social problem isn't individual morality, the social problem is power. This is the second paradigm I would invite for your consideration. The Fascist Nazi and Stalin Communist regimes were the most ruthless and dispectable of our time, but the problem presented by these societies was not their individual morality, the threat they posed to their citizens and the world around them was that of their brutal power. Each ruthlessly sought to break first their own citizens, and secondly, any and all enemies to their world view.
It is my view that Democrats should and need to begin to articulate the basis for this paradigm as an alternative to that posed by conservatives. Democratic opposition is more than just filibusters. It is a recognition of the necessity of, and the courage to challenge totalitarian conservativism at every point. If we express opposition to conservatism's course of action, but accept its paradigm, we will ultimately fail to strengthen our party and preserve our free society. We must not accept conservatism's framing of issues, its rhetoric, or its definition of the problem. Democrats must resurrect and rehabilitate the principles and language of liberalism, and call the conservatism on display at last night's "Justice Sunday" and in the halls of Congress and the West Wing by its right name--totalitarianism.
For conservatives, individuals are the problem. Conservatism is not individualistic in a positive sense. It is anti-individual. Even its screeds against the "gestapo" Environmental Protection Agency and other governmental bureacracies are really cries on the behalf of collective interests in the form of business groups (there's another bizarre twist for you--conservatives as collectivists--but again, a post for another day). Conservativism's anti-governmental posture is not anti-government in general, its just anti-governmental control of business groups.
Whether its calls for greater "moral clarity", "personal responsibility", "family values", "moral absolutes", "strict constructivism" in interpreting the Constitution, the need for an "academic bill of rights", or railings against "activist judges", "the liberal media", "Hollywood", "academic elites", the problem and the call to arms is the same--individual thought and behavior is out of control. People must be strictly controlled and conformity to conservative aspirations and authority enforced, brutally if necessary.
Notice the steam and drool of anger and fear that eminate from televangelists such as Rod Parsley and Focus on the Family head James Dobson when they call for fire from heaven on "courts" that are "out of control". In what sense are the courts "out of control"? Because they will not allow religious worship to be imposed in public schools. Because they can find no Constitutional basis for denying equality to gay people. Because they cannot find a Constitional basis for requiring religious or Christian affiliation for America's officials and citizens. Because the courts have ruled in favor of a Right to Privacy, the right for individuals to live as they please provided they do not directly harm others. In these and other judicial findings, conservative totalitarianism has had the door slammed on its demands and vision for control.
But this conservative paradigm of anti-individual, punative totalitarianism is, I would submit to you, my illustrious readers, the dominate paradigm in American politics today. Even many Democrats, sadly, embrace much of this paradigm, albeit often in softer, more nuanced forms. Consider Democratic appraisals of the "The 1994 Crime Bill", the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, "abortion should be legal but rare" talk, support for civil unions but opposition to "gay marriage", bipartisan bills to regulate video games and set movie ratings, calls for Democratics to "talk in the language of faith and values" and on and on. However squeemishly or reluctantly, Democrats have too often embraced much of what the conservative right has set out to do over the last 40 years, if not in deed, often in rhetoric.
My view is that not only does this paradigm hold alarming implications for individual freedom, but as an indictment of society it is just plain wrong. It just isn't the case that laws enforcing "school prayer", religious devotion, and "patriotism" and laws against marijuana, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, and other perceived social ills or irregularities will make a better, more just society. Now do I think you and I would better off individually if we were monogamous, avoided drugs and alcohol, worshipped God and read the Bible? Yes. But on a broader scale, this is not the worst problem facing our society.
The social problem isn't individual morality, the social problem is power. This is the second paradigm I would invite for your consideration. The Fascist Nazi and Stalin Communist regimes were the most ruthless and dispectable of our time, but the problem presented by these societies was not their individual morality, the threat they posed to their citizens and the world around them was that of their brutal power. Each ruthlessly sought to break first their own citizens, and secondly, any and all enemies to their world view.
It is my view that Democrats should and need to begin to articulate the basis for this paradigm as an alternative to that posed by conservatives. Democratic opposition is more than just filibusters. It is a recognition of the necessity of, and the courage to challenge totalitarian conservativism at every point. If we express opposition to conservatism's course of action, but accept its paradigm, we will ultimately fail to strengthen our party and preserve our free society. We must not accept conservatism's framing of issues, its rhetoric, or its definition of the problem. Democrats must resurrect and rehabilitate the principles and language of liberalism, and call the conservatism on display at last night's "Justice Sunday" and in the halls of Congress and the West Wing by its right name--totalitarianism.
UnHolly Alliance
I've been wonderning about the contradictions in this, too:
...Pastor Rod Parsley hosted two national celebrities of the Christian right for a Central Ohio rally. Professional liberal baiter Ann Coulter -- who's on the cover of this week's Time magazine -- and perennial candidate Alan Keyes came to Parsley's World Harvest Church to help with a flashy launch of the pastor's new book, Silent No More.
Excuse me? Coulter is now a "national celebrity of the Christian right"? I know she's always loved to denounce abortion (in the most graphic, shock-the-bourgeois language possible), but since when is she a woman of God?Morally, it's far from an exact fit.
This is from the Web site of Parsley's Center for Moral Clarity:
Teaching children that their bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit from a young age is key to personal responsibility. Waiting for sex until marriage is a commitment to purity – to being holy vessels God can work through. Children should be taught that they should be holy and consecrated – set apart for a divine purpose – at an early age.
This is Coulter, as portrayed in Time:
"When I first met her," says a fellow conservative, "she was walking around with a black miniskirt and a mink stole, making out with Bob Guccione Jr. in the stairwell." (Coulter dated publisher Guccione, son of the porn mogul, for six months. She says the stairwell story "could be" true, although "I make out in public less often now that I'm publicly recognizable."...)
Here's a Parsley tip for troubled souls:
Have an alcohol problem? www.overcomersoutreach.org
Here's Coulter:
As for living on chardonnay and cigarettes, Coulter says that's "definitely true."
Parsley:
Next, in the chapter entitled "Homosexuality: The Unhappy Gay Agenda," Parsley defines for us "the profile of the new 'political correctness' ... [and] of 'cultural diversity,' 'tolerance,' and 'inclusiveness.'" According to the pastor, those of us in favor of equality will stop at nothing in order to "abolish marriage altogether," instruct all children in homosexual behavior, force "older people' to accept homosexuality, and "expunge a number of passages from [the] Scriptures and rewrite others." The gay agenda is absurd regardless, Parsley reasons, because "gays [are] turning away from the homosexual life and culture in record numbers."
Coulter:
Coulter ... hardly ever misses the drag queens' Halloween parade in Greenwich Village.
Coulter is about as Christian as my office wall. But as someone who's turned into Parsley's cable TV sweating rant a thons on occassion to see what the good pastor is up to, I can say his "ministry" is about 95% politics and 5% water. This is what the fascist right has sunk to and why as a Christian, its initiatives and leaders lack credibility to me.
...Pastor Rod Parsley hosted two national celebrities of the Christian right for a Central Ohio rally. Professional liberal baiter Ann Coulter -- who's on the cover of this week's Time magazine -- and perennial candidate Alan Keyes came to Parsley's World Harvest Church to help with a flashy launch of the pastor's new book, Silent No More.
Excuse me? Coulter is now a "national celebrity of the Christian right"? I know she's always loved to denounce abortion (in the most graphic, shock-the-bourgeois language possible), but since when is she a woman of God?Morally, it's far from an exact fit.
This is from the Web site of Parsley's Center for Moral Clarity:
Teaching children that their bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit from a young age is key to personal responsibility. Waiting for sex until marriage is a commitment to purity – to being holy vessels God can work through. Children should be taught that they should be holy and consecrated – set apart for a divine purpose – at an early age.
This is Coulter, as portrayed in Time:
"When I first met her," says a fellow conservative, "she was walking around with a black miniskirt and a mink stole, making out with Bob Guccione Jr. in the stairwell." (Coulter dated publisher Guccione, son of the porn mogul, for six months. She says the stairwell story "could be" true, although "I make out in public less often now that I'm publicly recognizable."...)
Here's a Parsley tip for troubled souls:
Have an alcohol problem? www.overcomersoutreach.org
Here's Coulter:
As for living on chardonnay and cigarettes, Coulter says that's "definitely true."
Parsley:
Next, in the chapter entitled "Homosexuality: The Unhappy Gay Agenda," Parsley defines for us "the profile of the new 'political correctness' ... [and] of 'cultural diversity,' 'tolerance,' and 'inclusiveness.'" According to the pastor, those of us in favor of equality will stop at nothing in order to "abolish marriage altogether," instruct all children in homosexual behavior, force "older people' to accept homosexuality, and "expunge a number of passages from [the] Scriptures and rewrite others." The gay agenda is absurd regardless, Parsley reasons, because "gays [are] turning away from the homosexual life and culture in record numbers."
Coulter:
Coulter ... hardly ever misses the drag queens' Halloween parade in Greenwich Village.
Coulter is about as Christian as my office wall. But as someone who's turned into Parsley's cable TV sweating rant a thons on occassion to see what the good pastor is up to, I can say his "ministry" is about 95% politics and 5% water. This is what the fascist right has sunk to and why as a Christian, its initiatives and leaders lack credibility to me.
About Those Judges
In the span of a month we've endured the Terri Schiavo spectacle, the wall-to-wall coverage of the death of one pope, the selection of the new one, and last night, the fascist right's "Justice Sunday" broadcast, calling for the end of the Senate filibuster, a congressional provision which is, so far as I know, a Constitutionally legal means of ensuring the protection of minority rights, a concept that with Republicans controlling all three branches of government, the majority party and its theocratic colluders believe is incompatible with their agenda.
Just in case there are doubts about why Senate Democrats have been blocking the approval of these judges, Steve from No More Mister Nice Blog gives us a clue:
I've been meaning to write something about the big article on "Constitution in Exile" judges that ran this past Sunday in The New York Times Magazine. You should certainly read it -- these people want to overturn the New Deal, and maybe not stop there, and the Bush administration might well succeed in putting a number of them on the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. We learn a few tidbits about some of the Bush nominees who are currently being held off by the Democrats -- a century ago the Supreme Court first dealt with minimum-wage and maximum-hours laws, finding them unconstitutional, and we're told that Bush nominee Janice Rogers Brown thinks those rulings were just swell (a good point to remember next Sunday, when preachers and Bill Frist are telling us that Democrats hate Bush's appointees because they're so Christian).
The Republican, Fox News approved talking points on the "nuclear option" are that (1) we goofed by calling it the "nuclear option"--our ending of the filibuster is really the "Constitutional" option, and its those Democrats who are calling it the "nuclear option", even though we were the ones that started calling it that; and (2) hey, why can't we just have an up or down vote on these judges?
TP 1 is of course reminiscent of the administration's Social Security bamboolzepalooza tour where it initially referred to its Social Security phase out plan's diversion of payroll taxes as "privatization" until that term was deemed to be unhelpful by the party strategists who recommended changing the term to "personal accounts" and then went on to chastize Democrats and members of the media who insisted on using the old Republican TP term "privatization".
TP 2 basically means that with Republicans in charge those pesky Constitutional provisions preventing majority votes, such as the filibuster, the 2/3 rds vote required for treaties, Constitutional amendments, Senate impeachment convictions, and so forth, are now and should be null and void. Huh?
I watched Friday's C-Span coverage of Joe Biden's Jefferson-Jackson Day speech in Columbia, SC, in which, after talking about COPS and all the good we were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, did manage to mention the upcoming "Justice Sunday" telecast and weigh in against it, and for a return to a strict-constructivist upholding of the Separation of Church and State. But he didn't say anything about the opposed Bush nominees themselves.
But according to Crooks and Liars, Biden appeared to backtrack on Sunday's This Week and expressed some willingness to comprise on the "nuclear option". I hope he and the party don't. What's more, I hope Reid and the gang will let the media know about the range of Brown's, Owen's and Pickering's positions that we find objectionable, besides their opposition to abortion. It's not about faith, it's about undoing the consumer and worker protections of the New Deal, and the improvements in civil liberties since the 1960's. Conservatives want to undo all that. We don't and don't think most Americans do either.
Just in case there are doubts about why Senate Democrats have been blocking the approval of these judges, Steve from No More Mister Nice Blog gives us a clue:
I've been meaning to write something about the big article on "Constitution in Exile" judges that ran this past Sunday in The New York Times Magazine. You should certainly read it -- these people want to overturn the New Deal, and maybe not stop there, and the Bush administration might well succeed in putting a number of them on the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. We learn a few tidbits about some of the Bush nominees who are currently being held off by the Democrats -- a century ago the Supreme Court first dealt with minimum-wage and maximum-hours laws, finding them unconstitutional, and we're told that Bush nominee Janice Rogers Brown thinks those rulings were just swell (a good point to remember next Sunday, when preachers and Bill Frist are telling us that Democrats hate Bush's appointees because they're so Christian).
The Republican, Fox News approved talking points on the "nuclear option" are that (1) we goofed by calling it the "nuclear option"--our ending of the filibuster is really the "Constitutional" option, and its those Democrats who are calling it the "nuclear option", even though we were the ones that started calling it that; and (2) hey, why can't we just have an up or down vote on these judges?
TP 1 is of course reminiscent of the administration's Social Security bamboolzepalooza tour where it initially referred to its Social Security phase out plan's diversion of payroll taxes as "privatization" until that term was deemed to be unhelpful by the party strategists who recommended changing the term to "personal accounts" and then went on to chastize Democrats and members of the media who insisted on using the old Republican TP term "privatization".
TP 2 basically means that with Republicans in charge those pesky Constitutional provisions preventing majority votes, such as the filibuster, the 2/3 rds vote required for treaties, Constitutional amendments, Senate impeachment convictions, and so forth, are now and should be null and void. Huh?
I watched Friday's C-Span coverage of Joe Biden's Jefferson-Jackson Day speech in Columbia, SC, in which, after talking about COPS and all the good we were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, did manage to mention the upcoming "Justice Sunday" telecast and weigh in against it, and for a return to a strict-constructivist upholding of the Separation of Church and State. But he didn't say anything about the opposed Bush nominees themselves.
But according to Crooks and Liars, Biden appeared to backtrack on Sunday's This Week and expressed some willingness to comprise on the "nuclear option". I hope he and the party don't. What's more, I hope Reid and the gang will let the media know about the range of Brown's, Owen's and Pickering's positions that we find objectionable, besides their opposition to abortion. It's not about faith, it's about undoing the consumer and worker protections of the New Deal, and the improvements in civil liberties since the 1960's. Conservatives want to undo all that. We don't and don't think most Americans do either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)