Tom DeLay says we need to increase the minimum wage

"It's not a pay raise," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. "It's an adjustment so that they're not losing their purchasing power."

What? What do you mean he's talking about a Congressional pay raise? Oh. Well, never mind.

Guess It Couldn't Have Happened to a Better Newspaper

Seattle's Post-Intelligencer may be biting the dust.

That would be the Post-Intelligencer that ran this column from a Focus on the Family rep:

The ongoing controversy surrounding Focus on the Family's upcoming "Love Won Out" conference on Saturday [held in Seattle] reveals the hypocrisy of liberals who call for tolerance and unquestioned acceptance of diversity yet attempt to stifle all opposing views to their politically correct, pro-gay agenda. As a result, another liberal mantra -- the freedom to choose -- is denied to those seeking to walk out of unwanted homosexuality.

Apparently, in today's America, you can still Be Who You Want to Be -- so long as it isn't "ex-gay."

Thanks to Here's What's Left for the link.

Oceania Meets its Quota

Good news, comrades! The Ministry of Plenty has just reported that this month's production of pig iron has exceeded its regular quota!

In other news, the ministry also reported that the ration of chocolate would be raised to 2 grams per month.

Update: Damn the Internets!

nineelevenagain

I can't say I'm angry that the president again evoked the events of 9-11 as a justification for supporting his war policies in Iraq. Or that he casually linked the war on Iraq with the perpetrators of Sept 11.

No, I think this appeal is about done. The president and his party have gotten about all the mileage out of that connection as has been possible.

I do, however, believe the war in Iraq will continue to be public topic number one when the 2006 elections roll around and probably even for the 2008 presidential election. The question is, which Democrats, if any, are poised to capitalize on the current quagmire? Or to at least address the problem in a reasonably competent manner?

I know there are lots of good reasons for not setting an arbitrary withdrawal date, and a lot of highly qualified people making those arguments. But if the best Democrats can do is the best that the bush administration could do last night, which is to say, spout the conventional rhetoric about the need to defeat terrorism, invoke the honor and courage of the military, and to pledge our committment to making Iraq a free, democratic and pluralistic society, then I don't know that they will succeed in reshaping the contours of American politics.

The most important issue I believe a Democratic candidate could address is the likely failure of trying to fight an unconventional war using conventional military means. The administration has at times offered remarks that have blurred the lines between conventional and nonconventional tactics and strategies. In the days after 9-11 the president acknowledged that the war against terrorism was not going to be like other wars, given the allusiveness of the enemy. At the same time, he made bellicose threats against nations supposedly harboring terrorists and threatened on them the might of the American military machine if they did not cooperate with us in routing out members of Al qaeda.

Democratic candidates could begin a newer and I believe more authentic critique of the president's policies by drawing attention to this distinction, with the state of affairs in Iraq (and Afghanist) being a symbol of the problems involved with conventional military force.

Karl Rove made a point of criticizing liberals' perceived preference for prosecuting terrorists as criminals rather than wanting to bludgeon them with smart bombs. But certainly returning to a treatment of the problem of terrorism as an international law and justice problem would both be in tune with instruments the administration has itself used, as well a more accurate reaction to the nature of the problem the country faces.

At the same time, Democratic candidates could carefully argue that part of the portfolio of options in responding to terrorism is that of re-examining our interventionist and exploitive policies in the middle east. Simply put, acknowledge that our actions have not always been altruistic and that there are valid reasons much of the region has been unhappy with our government (but not necessarily with us as people). Granted, there would be a violent and vile reaction to such an argument by the lunatic fringe, but I believe the time has passed where the American public can continue to be denied the truth of the context of our world environment and what will be necessary to establish greater security or at least be confronted by a more objective discussion of the role our own policies have had in shaping current events.

At the same time, it is well past time when Democrats should be afraid of jingoistic appeals by conservatives and threats by opponents of what consequences will result if Democrats dare to sound as if they are "blaming America." If America is at least partly at fault in causing our own problems, then the responsible, if not necessarily politically popular, thing to do would be to confront that responsibility. It might even win Democrats some respect for a change. And it would be much better policy.

The president's bizarre speech

I didn't watch it, but I did hear snippets of it on Democracy Now!. I was especially intrigued by this strange line:

The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent.

I guess the president really isn't connected to all those "values voters" after all.

exhibit 1

exhibit 2

exhibit 3

exhibit 4

exhibit 5

exhibit 6

exhibit 7

Why the War Supporters Who are Eligible to Enlist but don't are Hypocrites

Wash Monthly links to a piece by Hitchens that basically says that the fact that war supporters and their kids don't enlist is no big deal since, after all, we support police officers, fireman, and social workers but don't necessarily feel inclined to join any of those occupations.

No, wait, I got this one.

This comparison is just bupkis.

The situations are not analogous because (a) there is a well documented and urgent shortage of enlistees to serve as cannon fodder in Iraq; there is not an equivalently well documented and urgent shortage of police, firepersons, or social workers here (and if there were, there is the question of how willing the public would be to fund them, which is to say, not very much).

and (b) I don't know of anyone, or any organization that is going around saying that if you don't support the police, the firepersons, or social workers, that you are unAmerican and traitorous. In contrast, this is exactly what is being alleged of those that don't "support the war".

And I don't know of anyone that is going around saying that if you don't like governor (insert name of republican or democratic officeholder) or if you are unhappy with the high level of (insert description of social ill) than you are against and are in fact inflicting harm upon that state's police, firepersons, social workers and teacher's unions (oops, forgot this last group is group non grata in conservative circles).

But this is exactly what conservatives like Rove and Hitchens are alleging about liberals. They are saying that people that oppose the president or his war policies are hurting the war effort while simultaneously claiming that they themselves are exempt from criticism and that so long as they slap a Support Our Troops magnet on their SUV then they are in the clear while liberals who insist on criticizing the administration and the media that carries its water and shines its shoes are not.

So, yes, chickenhawks, especially of the young, College Republican variety, are hypocrites. If they claim the right to criticize liberal opposition to the war or the president, but don't act in direct support of the policies they favor than they are hypocrites and don't deserve a proper hearing in the court of public opinion. Put up or shut up.

Thus endeth the lesson for today.

Urban Legend

I don't think I could let the ten commandments rulings pass without commenting on that most ubiquitous of mindless statements from the lunatic fringe:

They take prayer out of schools, they take the Ten Commandments down and they wonder whats wrong with our society. Its just wrong, said Joe Kidd, who was working at a fireworks stand in Whitley City [KY].

This is just a very silly statement. It's anti-pluralist, it's anti-individual, and it's absolutely devoid of any understanding of history, human nature or society.

And it serves as your basic boilerplate for every condemnation of pluralism, modernity, and human rights that has been advanced by conservatives over the last century and a half.

"They [let women work outside the home, let women, blacks and factory workers vote, don't require church attendance, disbanded the committee to promote virtue and punish vice, let people protest against their government, put an end to public flogging and executions, ended slavery, ended segregation], and they wonder what's wrong with our society."

So it's a totally dopey thing to say. Yet it's pretty typical of what you hear in and around many fundie churches. And that should really make you "wonder what's wrong with our society."

What the Fuss?!

So yesterday, the SCOTUS released its conclusions on two cases related to the placing of the ten commandments (one from Kentucky, and the other from TX) in monument form in or near public buildings or on public property.

I'm not going to get all into the specifics of how the cases were decided and why certain groups were displeased with the outcomes.

But I do think it's an opportune time to discuss just what exactly it is about the ten commandments that has everybody, particularly the fundies, so upset and implacable. Just how meaningful are these edicts from ~3,000 BCE?

The first commandment is "thou shall have no other gods before me". It's not clear how this would get translated into public policy. Let's continue.

The second commandment is "thou shall not bow down to any graven images". Not sure how this would get applied either but it makes me wonder about the whole pledge of allegiance thing.

The third commandment is "thou shall not take the name of the lord thy god in vain". This has commonly been interpreted as meaning thou shall not swear or use the name of god as a curse word. Do the fundies want a prohibition against all curse words or just against those that include god's name in them?

The fourth commandment is "remember the sabbath day to keep it holy". Do the fundies want to enforce a day of worship? If so, which one? The commandment specifies that the seventh day is the sabbath, but most christians worship on sunday.

The fifth commandment is "honor thy father and thy mother". Sounds good. But how do we do that? What if our parents are bad or don't like god?

The sixth commandment is "thou shall not steal". This seems pretty straight forward.

The seventh commandment is "thou shall not commit adultery". This seems pretty marriage specific. I take it then that homosexuality, masturbation, and pornography are outside the domain of this law. Do the fundies want more penalties against divorce?

The eighth commandment is "thou shall not kill". See response to number six.

The ninth commandment is "thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor". Usually interpreted as thou shall not lie. Most people don't like lying so this seems like a good one.

The tenth commandment is "thou shall not covet thy neighbor's [property]". Sounds like a thought crime to me. Unenforceable.


So outside of numbers six and eight, I don't see much here that can be applied to today's society. But numbers six and eight also don't strike me as terribly original. Most societies, with or without a judeochristian heritage think stealing and murder are bad things.

So what is it that the fundies think they're contributing to the debate and the ordering of society by having the commandments erected everywhere for all to see?

There they go again

Maybe you've had this experience, too; you read something on one of the blogs you regularly frequent, or on a blog to which that blog has linked, but you neglect to save it or link to it right away, and then when you think about it again and want to post something about it, you don't remember where you saw it.

Anyway, I recall reading a somewhat counterintuitive analysis a week or two ago of the infamous "pro-war" rallies orchestrated by Clear Channel and other self annointed "patriotic" media sultans and other conservative big money funders.

The analysis was that the rallies were not actually pro-war, or pro-military, or even pro-American. Rather, they were anti-American. They were anti-American in that their targets, the subjects the rallies set forth as the "enemy" were in fact, other Americans. Politically incorrect Americans that were perceived as not supporting the administration's push for "preventative war" to rout out possessors of WMD, etc, or else there would be another 9-11, blah blah blah. According to this perspective, which I share, the real enemies for conservatives and the administration are other Americans. Us. (and it is perhaps not so surprising that this conservative, anti-Americans angle has a religious twist, too).

Now, this is not necessarily a new finding, as the books spit out by the conservative publishing houses, talk show warriors, and the rhetoric on Fox News have been painting "liberals" with the brush of "treason" ever since Bush the younger entered the WH. And if we really tried hard enough, we could probably find some features of this attack in any one of the president's re-election speeches delivered somewhere in middle America last year.

But we hadn't really heard anything like this from the administration itself, at least so bluntly and coldly, and off the campaign trail, as was delivered by Karl Rove last week, accusing "liberals" of wanting harm to come to the "troops" and that liberalism as a philosophy and as a group of adherents, is inherently traitorous.

But as the war in Iraq has helped bring down the president's approval ratings, the administration/conservative establishment's need to find an internal enemy is hitting the big time.

Now the Wall Street Journal has an editorial up about how the failure of the war* in Iraq is our fault. Not the fault of the administration. Not the fault of the soldiers in the field (see Andrew Basevich's WashPost column today for an unusual but needed take on this last point). It's the liberal's fault. The WSJ's stupidity on this is as glaring as if we were to decide that the reason the NY Yankees (or pick your team) are losing is because the fans are too negative.

All of this is to suggest that the administration's failure in the Iraq war will soon be, and is even now being turned against its perceived opponents, the "unsupportive" and "un-American" elements in America.

For more on this, and I'm not sure how I missed this the first time through, here is another insightful analysis by the Whiskey Bar's Billlmon of the direction that the post-Iraq-war debacle is likely going to take:

But what Friedmans comment really drove home for me is how perilous the postwar political environment is likely to be for the remnants of American liberalism, and for the anti imperialist left in particular.

This may seem counterintuitive, since the national greatness conservatives and their Friedmanesque collaborators have just taken such a spectacular geostrategic belly flop. But if you look back at Americas post Vietnam experience, you may see my point. After a brief period of 70s soul searching, a rare example of American glasnost, the silent majority quickly repressed all doubt and buried the memory of defeat under the jingoism and cheap patriotism of Rambo Ron Reagan. The antiwar left had been right about Vietnam, practically as well as morally, (Ben Stein can bite me) and was punished for it.

It may have been inevitable. Great powers rarely accept military defeat gracefully, especially when the loss isnt total enough to compel acceptance. The Soviet defeat in Afghanistan may have been one of the rare exceptions where a lost war actually resulted in positive political change for the loser, positive at least when compared to the decaying Stalinist system it destroyed. But even there it was a close run thing.

In most cases, though, national humiliation tends to begat national denial and rage, and a hunt for someone or something to blame. As Robert Paxton observes about a certain central European country in his book The Anatomy of Fascism:

Germans had been shaken to their roots by defeat in 1918. The emotional impact was all the more severe because German leaders had been trumpeting victory until a few weeks before. So unbelievable a calamity was easily blamed on traitors.

Having led America to a thoroughly humiliating defeat in Iraq, the neocons and their Texas proteges will soon have an urgent need for scapegoats of their own. So will the journalistic and foreign policy elites who rushed to join Shrubs march of folly like the children of Hamlin following the pied piper. So will the Israel lobby. So will the pro-war Democrats.

The best scapegoat, of course, is one that is both blameless and weak. Blameless, because it relieves the truly guilty parties of the need to decide who among them must take the fall. Weak, because the guilty themselves have been weakened by defeat, and even a modest defense might enable a truly blameless set of scapegoats to convince the country of their innocence.

The antiwar left would seem to fit the bill quite nicely. It has little money, no power, few friends among the pundit class, and has largely been shunned by the leaders of the supposed opposition party, with the exception of Dr. Dean, and even he knows enough to keep his distance.

Unlike the antiwar libertarians, the antiwar left is not useful to the administration on other issues, like Social Security privatization. And, since the antiwar movement has been effectively blacked out in the media and is rarely visible in the streets, it certainly cant be rationally blamed for failure in Iraq, which means it almost certainly will be blamed, and not just by Tom Friedman.

Maybe tonight's "special" speech on Iraq by the president will continue the trend.


*The "failure" of the war in Iraq here is understood as its negative effect for the administration. Determining failure or success in this or any war is a more complex undertaking that involves a broader understanding of the war mission's range of objectives, both internal and external, both domestic and foreign.

Ain't Life a B*&^%?!

Gee Whiz. What's a conservative media outlet to do? It stacks the decks in favor of the Republican administration and congress and still can't come up with a unified response to last week's Karl Rove remarks?

While we're on this subject again, will all the liberals and Democrats responding to Rove's remarks with their up-with-nationalism, yeah-but-we-supported-the-war-in-afghanistan crap, please shut the hell up. You're hurting America.

Democrats don't need any more me-too-ism on the "war on terra". There may have once been a time when questioning the administration's war policies--in afghanistan as well as in iraq--was risky business. But not anymore. The president's poll numbers stink. Even his poll numbers on terrorism and foreign policy are down. Now is not the time to retreat to gingoistic, tough guy talk when the supposed tough guy is looking pretty feeble.

Now where was I? Oh, yes, Rove. Like Bilmon suggested last week, I think Rove's outburst of bile to a NY group of conservatives may actually be an encouraging sign for progressives.

First, it demonstrates that an administration barely six months into its second term is already coming apart at the seems. It shows that even with the media and congress on its side, it still thinks its base is shaky. And that since Rove's speech didn't show any signs of wanting to make friends or influence people, it sounds an awful lot like they've given up on any significant policy measures until at least after the 2006 elections.

Second, Democrats could use the opportunity Rove provided for re-evaluating our response to the events of 9-11. Despite all the rhetoric from conservatives that liberals supposedly just wanted to blame America for the attacks, there has been precious little attention given in the media or in our nation's response policies to just what extent our historical involvement in the middle east contributed to the attacks on the towers and pentagon.

It isn't wrong to blame America if in fact, America deserves some blame. I doubt the public wants to hear that message, but until it does, further Iraq's may be more likely to happen.

However, despite the range and volume of their critique of the administration's war policies, Democrats have not clearly stated an alternative. Now would be a good time to start doing so.

What would such an alternative set of policies look like?

Tune in next time and Bulworth will lay out some starting principles.

Republicans Heart the Families of 9-11

Well, some of them. The ones that don't get all uppity. The ones that don't ask bothersome questions.

In Kristen Breitweiser's smackdown of Karl Rove, she noted the administration didn't want the 9-11 commission to exist and didn't bend over backwards to support it once it was established.

And those mighty members of the 101st Keyboarders who had been bathing in 9-11 imagery suddenly discovered that maybe these 9-11 families weren't all to be sympathized with after all.

Can we find some more love from Republicans for the families and survivors of 9-11?

Let's see:

here's one.

and another.

hmmm, another.

and here.

and, well, I think you get the picture.

Now That You Mention It...

While we liberals are getting all steamed by Rove's remarks and the WH's and Republican Party's official support of them, let's pause a few moments to give the WH advisor's contentions more serious consideration.

Rove states that we liberals have a different philosophy about fighting the war on terra and responding to 9-11.

First, he says we were all about seeking indictments instead of just bombing the shit out of them. Well, as it turns out, we did end up getting a few indictments. Lookie here:

But wait. Is Rove saying that the Bush administration didn't prepare any indictments as a reaction to 9/11?What about this, from former Attorney General John Ashcroft, whom--I believe--George W. Bush appointed?

"This morning, a federal grand jury indictment charging Nuradin M. Abdi, a 32-year-old Somali national, was unsealed in Columbus, Ohio. Abdi was arrested on immigration charges and has been held by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement since November 28, 2003. I note that an indictment is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. The charges against Abdi are:* Conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists;* Conspiracy to provide material support to al Qaeda; and,* Two counts of fraud and misuse of documents."

Gee, Rove must have been just furious at Ashcroft. Not only did he deal with Abdi with a mere indictment rather than personally taking him out and putting two bullets behind his ear, but he openly announced that he was presumed innocent!! What a wimp. What a marshmallow. And he calls himself a "Conservative"!

But what about Rove's overall pitch, that somehow liberals didn't approve of bombing the shit out of them? Well, naturally, roll call votes exist to show the level of support for bombing the shit out of Afghanistan, and as it turns out, only one Democrat didn't support the Afghanistan resolution on September 14, 2001.

However, let's not stop there, content as we might be to proudly show our militant colors so those big bad Republicans won't beat us up and steal our lunch money anymore.

Let's ask the question: How well, exactly, has the bombing and take-over of Afghanistan gone?

We knocked over the Taliban, whose crime it was to have provided a country for bin Laden and his gang to play around in. But we didn't actually get the guys who orchestrated 9-11 did we? Not sure what the proper metrics should be to evaluate the bombing campaign, but wouldn't one of them be that we actually succeed in nailing the main culprits?

Now, we got our guy in Afghanistan, but the drug trade there is booming, and it turns out we're still fighting Taliban remnents while simultaneously trying to establish permanent military bases in Afghanistan's Iraq neighbor.

Let's address a final matter: US culpability for 9-11. What's wrong with suggesting that our policies were at least part of the reason we were attacked? Isn't this called taking personal responsibility? Rove's buddies in the evangelical world attributed the 9-11 attacks to our own supposed moral failings as a nation. And surely, if we could be honest for a moment, we have to recognize that we've been mucking around in the Middle East for decades, usually covertly, for our nation's material and ideological benefit but often to the detriment of the region's population.

So, yes, I accept the charge that as a liberal, my philosophy of how to respond to 9-11 is different compared to that of some others. I think mine is the more responsible response.

Wondering about the troops

There's been a lot of back and forth between Lawyers, Guns and Money and Steve Gillard about encouraging the members of the 101st fighting keyboarders to enlist in a war they say they support so much.

What I'm wondering is, how much longer can the demands in Iraq be supported by the current numbers and members of the military currently stationed there? That is, is there a certain point, say, when troops stationed in other garrisons around the world have to get transfered to Iraq in order to give the guys and girls there a break? What relation is there, if any, between the number of new draftees, er, I mean, new enlistees, and the number of troops stationed in Iraq that have to be replaced either due to death or the end of their enlistment period?

Can the number and identification of the current band of troops in Iraq be maintained indefinitely? Is there some sort of rotation that enables some to return here while others stationed here go over there?

Getting Grouchy

Like my blogging compatriot, Alt Hippo, I, too, can get cranky now and then.

What usually serves to make me grouchy is when I haven't had my morning egg-and-bagel, when I haven't had my mid-morning caffeine break, and when James Wolcott hasn't updated his blog.

Fortunately, after I satisfied the first two requirements, James Wolcott came through with a new post. And, boy, is it a goodie. I especially loved this line:

This marks a tactical shift from the stay-the-coursers. Only a few weeks ago, White House flacks and their shoeshiners in the media were shrugging off the bad poll numbers with "Hey, polls go up and down." You know, sorta like the stock market. You just gotta ride out these bumps. But now that it's clear even to Bush fantasists that the polls numbers on Iraq aren't going up and down, they're only going in one direction, and picking up speed as they descend, they're saying that the opinion of the American people must be discounted for their own good.

Shoeshiners in the media. That's a gem. Not sure if it's copyrighted, but I intend to insert it wastefully in future posts. At least you'll known where I got it from.

Meltdown

I keep returning to Bilmon's Rove post. Especially this segment:

But I actually think Rove's rant should be seen as a somewhat encouraging sign. Rove and his idiot chorus aren't roaring at the top of their lungs to try to drown out the liberals -- that would be absurd overkill, given how effectively the corporate media has ridiculed and/or demonized the likes of Howard Dean and Dick Durbin. No, Rove's hate rally is aimed squarely at suppressing the growing doubts of the great silent majority -- and even, to a certain extent, those of the conservative true believers, some of whom are showing ominous signs of war weariness.

The rhetorical assault on the liberals, in other words, is the core of the PR counteroffensive the White House has been promising to unleash for the past week.

Having been advised by the "moderates" to level with the American people and explain just how badly things have gone off the track in Iraq, and how much time, treasure and blood it will take to redeem Bush's casual promises of victory, the Rovians apparently have decided they can't do it -- not without suffering unacceptable casualties on the home front. American troops, after all, are expendable. But Bush's political capital is both precious and increasingly scarce. Much too scarce, apparently, to waste on an exercise as frivolous as a presidential appeal for patriotic unity and shared sacrifice.

A few things strike me as particularly interesting.

First, Rove didn't make these comments in a broader, public context. He made them at a fundraiser for or with a gathering of New York state conservatives. So, as Bilmon suggests, this rancid denunctiation of "libruls" was intended to help sure up the administration's base, which may be at risk of getting itchy, given all the turmoil overseas generated by Bush-Cheney-Rove.

Second, while Rove's comments were no doubt calculated and deliberate, they nonetheless indicate signs of the administration coming unglued. It's as if Rove took the talking points that regularly get fed to Fox, Ann Coulter, Rush, and Powerline and simply said them himself. As Bilmon notes, the administration has been challenged by its more moderate party members to come clean about the challenges the country faces in Iraq and elsewhere. Bush-Rove have listened to this advice and have essentially told them and us to stick it. For whatever reason, they believe the only option open to them now is to attack "the enemy within".

Whatever one might say about this administration up till this point, they have at least appeared to be in control. But the Rove salvo is an indication that as was promised a few weeks ago, the WH is gearing up for an all-out assault on its in country opponents. Its naked partisan ambition is coming out of the closet. Although his party controls both houses of Congress and is responsible for a majority of the members sitting on the courts, W still feels this isn't enough.

He promised to change the tone in Washington. Now we may get to see what he meant by that. Change the tone alright. Change it so that only Republican voices get heard.

The president has never shown an inclination to compromise or recognize the merits of the minority party's rights and the constituencies it represents. But he's bitter nonetheless that members of another party, which supported him in large measure against its better judgement in the first years after 9-11, but remaining unconsulted by the administration in matters of policy, and ridiculed by the administration's allies in the press, won't go along entirely with his agenda.

As the administration continues its assault against opponents and dissenters, we can expect things to only get worse.

Letter to Karl

Kristen Breitweiser layeth the smacketh down on the president's chief political advisor.

Thinking Outside the Box for '08

This was a Washington Monthly article a few months back but I wanted to link to it again because while I gather the article was intended half in jest, I am of the opinion the Democrats need to reach beyond the normal list of suspects for returning the party to the presidency.

I'm particularly intrigued by the idea of having a major CEO running for the job. Ultimately, Democrats need someone media savy, not necessarily policy wonkish to run for the top job. Presidents are decision makers and responsibility delegators. Democrats will also need someone who can transcend the current political climate.

I would have added someone like Bill Moyers to this list. But we can work on that.

The Edwards Gamble*

I believe I shared a view common to lots of others about John Edwards' campaign for president in 2004. That is, that while he was a good guy with a good message, he was running before his time, and that moreover, it was foolish of him (and not good for the Democratic party either) to give up his Senate seat. On the latter point, if his 2004 gamble didn't payoff, he'd be without a political office from which to launch a later bid, say in 2008.

But now I'm thinking I was wrong. Maybe Edwards did the right thing at the right time by running last year.

I need to add that I've been rethinking my underlying premises about presidential campaigns and about what Democrats need to do the next time around. I'm increasingly coming to think that the Democrats need an outsider to run in 2008, someone capable of changing the terms of the debate (and I think the Rove speech this week helps show why this is necessary), and the ability for a candidate to that is inversely related to the degree he or she is embedded in the culture of Washington.

Yeah, this isn't entirely a brilliant new deduction that no one's thought of before. The Outsider is perenually everyone's favorite candidate, like the second string quarterback. Until that Outsider shows his or her inexperience in the public arena and the calls for someone "electable" regain their novelty.

But I think it will be even more important in 2008, if my and many others' suspicions about the likely evolving of events from Baghdad to Capital Hill prove to be correct.

In short, I think Edwards' being out of office will make him a better candidate in 2008.

While political experience is a well sought after attribute for presidential contenders, members of Congress are notoriously bad campaigners, partly because they have spent their lives casting votes on thousands of measures that can't help but prove to be fertile mining fields for op-research teams. These thousands of votes prove difficult to explain sometimes. The result is a statement like "I voted for it before I voted against it". Surely, we can't go through that again.

By the time Edwards runs again in 2008, his voting record, relatively meager as it is, thankfully, won't give opponents as much to go on as it has for other candidates. And the three years out in the public and traveling around will help Edwards hone his message and increase his already substantial ability to connect with voters. He'll be someone who can point to some political experience, he has good name recognition, but he can campaign as a non-Washingtonian, non-establishment figure.

Obviously much more can be said about Edwards' chances, but for now, I'll leave it here. I would like to see, however, other progressive bloggers start sketching out there ideas as to what sort of candidate should run in 2008.


*The first of an intermittent series dealing with the 2008 election

The Administration is desperate and in its final death throes

I wasn't sure whether to post anything about the latest hate-filled screech by Rove, but then I turned to Bilmon's Whiskey Bar and saw that he laid out the case better than I would have. So go read.

The only thing I'd add or extract from Bilmon's take is:

1. Rove's speech was calculated and deliberate
2. Anything Rove says should be understood as coming from Bush himself
3. The speech indicates they know the war in Iraq is failing and they are trying to establish a scapegoat for when the inevitable happens

Breitweiser, '08

What? You think we have somebody better?

Check out the video clip.

Don't know if she could be convinced to run. But it would be worth a shot.

Take it Back

Dick,

I was sorry to hear the pressure got to you, and that you decided you needed to make a teary recantation the other day for your remarks about Gitmo.

The bad news is the wingnuts and freepers calling for your head still hate you, and liberals sympathetic to you are disappointed you allowed yourself to be bullied.

The good news is you can still take it back. You can recant your apology. Because what you said needed saying. I know Daley is a force in your state, but Daley also happens to be on crack. And his mother dresses him funny.

The more good news is you don't even have to spend anytime on a replacement speech. Someone in your state has prepared a suitable draft for you already. Go read it.

Recanting previous recants has a proud history. Consider Jerome of Prague, the compatriot of the Protestant reformer, John Huss. Jerome was bullied by the church to recant in order to save his life. Although he initially succumbed to this pressure, he later recanted his recantation. True, yes, he was finally burned at the stake for it. But men and women whose stories live on are those who exhibit courage in the face of severe obstacles and threats.

Think about Galileo, too. Galileo, building on the work of other astronomers such as Nick Copernicus, argued, on the basis of evidence derived from telescopes, that the earth was not the center of the universe, after all, as the church fathers, relying on the bible for their guide, has assumed. Rather, it was the earth that revolved around the sun.

Now, it turns out the church fathers didn't dig what Galileo had to say. They demanded he recant his scientifically derived observations on the pain of death. Although Galileo recanted under this duress, his conclusions were later determined to be correct, and the catholic church admitted as such, finally, in 1991 when Pope JPII apologized on the behalf of the faith.

Time will later prove you to be on the right side, as well.

Best,

Jay Bulworth

Confederacy of Dunces

I don't know about you, but I was shocked, absolutely shocked, that the piece on anti-gay politics in last weekend's NYT included this aside about some southern Marylanders all fumed up about gays getting married:

The Grays have converted their basement -- paneled, wall-to-wall-carpeted, decorated with Jim Gray's Confederate memorabilia (a portrait of Jeb Stuart, framed currency) and the twinkling lights -- into an office. They each have a desk here, stacked with brochures and books and buttons. Evalena is Maryland's grass-roots director for Concerned Women for America; she and her husband devote all of their spare hours to convincing fellow citizens of the danger that the institution of marriage is facing.

The religious fundamentalists sure have some spokesmen, don't they?

Flag Burning Amendment = Bud Bowl XVI

Don't tell me we're going to have to go through this every year?!

Anyone old enough to remember the Bud Bowl advertisements that used to accompany the Super Bowl? The Bud Bowl pitted tall neck bottles of regular Bud versus Bud Light on a mock football field, an advertising campaign contrived to pump sales for the beer brand. It was interesting at first. But then it continued every year. Thankfully, I think it was finally put out of its misery (and ours) a few years back.

But the annual flag burning amendment show reminds me a lot of the old Bud Bowl spectacles. It comes up every year, usually, and perhaps not coincidentally, amidst the presence of a lot of other bad news, so as to try to distract the body politic from more relevant matters. It's completely ridiculous, and I don't give a shit if that makes me sound like some latte-sipping, volvo driving, Vermont living, cultural elitist smuck. And it's always accompanied by a biggie size order of hyper nationalism, mindless drivel mascerading as "patriotism" and "love of country", although bizarrely, it serves only to place the interests of a piece of cloth over those of human beings.

Last year the flag burning amendment charade was joined by the anti-gay marriage amendment as cultural warriors continued their never ending campaign to enshrine restrictions and prejudice into the Constitution.

And oh yes, all of this garbage is brought to us courtesy of the "less government" crowd.

If the flag amendment finally passes it will be another in the long line of proofs designed to show that we do finally get the government we deserve.

UPDATE: The Rude Pundit says that if you buy an American flag, doesn't that mean that it's your property, and that you can dispose of your property as you wish?

Another Flag Burning Amendment

Which is downright Nazi like. It's a fascist piece of legislation, designed to intimidate dissent, enforce nationalistic conformity, and to distract the ignorant from the elite's abuse of power by focusing on a piece of cloth.

It's the kind of thing Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot would have done.

And I'm not apologizing.

Slouching Towards Biblical Government

There was a news item the other day that I've not been able to track down for this post, but in sum, it announced the formation of a new progressive religious group intending to challenge the religious hegemony enjoyed by christian conservatives on the nation's airwaves and in its public debate.

On the subject of progressives and religious liberals joining hands, I'm of two minds on the subject.

On the one hand, as someone affliliated with a Christian church my whole life, and as someone who still embraces spiritual values, I welcome any effort to puncture the common misconception about religion that conservatives have engendered. The intolerant, anti-pluralist, imperialistic christianity trumpted by the right continues a long and sad history by religious leaders to gain political power by marginalizing or exterminating their opponents.

As a Democrat and a progressive, I similarly welcome any effort to undermine the Republican party's attempts to manipulate religious symbols and to confront traditional conservatives with the hypocrisy of their "values" claims.

But on the other hand, I'm afraid attempts by Democrats to color their rhetoric in values hues aggreable to religious adherents and to challenge conservatives on their policy applications of bible teachings risks making Democrats fight on the Republicans' terms and terrain. Such conflicts usually end up benefitting the latter.

The Bible is a mighty strange book. As a source for spiritual contemplation, it is an important tool. As a source for determining public morals and public policy, the whole of it leaves a lot to be desired, not the least of which because the Bible's components were written between 2000 and 3000 years ago, in a different language, for a vastly different audience and for reasons that are largely misunderstood or unrecognized.

While Democrats should be sympathetic to "people of faith" and our desire to worship as we please, Democrats must also affirm the value of keeping church and state separate, uplift the values of political and religious pluralism, and caution the body politic of the necessity for basing policy decisions on grounds that recognize the advancements of science and expansion of human freedom over the last several centuries.

The Bush Rove Strategery

Once again I delve into the world of media and come up with two pieces of literature , released on the same day, pointing up a conundrum.

The NYT has a column by Thomas Friedman wondering why the Bush Administration left itself without an heir apparent

Meanwhile, over on MSNBC.com (and probably in the latest Newsweek) is a column by Howard Fineman that while peripheral to his talking up of John McCain's 2008 candicacy, alludes to much of the same thing.

If Karl Rove's dream of a new Republican hegemony is to be realized, why does it appear, appear I say, that the choice of the next standard bearer is being left to chance?

I offer a few theories:

1) Call it the "system" theory or "machine" theory of electoral politics. Who the candidate (and his or her opponent as well) is relatively unimportant. This may seem strange considering the cult of personality constructed around Bush and the prominence of Bush's last name. But think about it. If a cult of personality can be constructed around someone who went AWOL during the Vietnam War, and who prior to being elected Texas governor was mostly known for his fortunate placement on various corporate boards and who left several businesses worse off than when he entered them, then what can't the Rove imagery consultants do?

If there is a machine in place to generate votes, to harangue the public with wedge issues, to divert the public's attention from substantive policy issues, but able to produce favorable "analysis" when needed, then again, who the candidate is may not be as important.

This is an analogy that has considerable import in the world of professional sports, especially football, where the success of running backs and quarterbacks in particular is often passed off as being caused by the team or coach's "system". So a political application of this view may not be out of the question.

2) There really is no confusion at all, Rove and W intend for Jeb! to run and to win. The choice of Cheney as VP six years ago enabled W to give the voters an impression that there would be an adult minding the store, while at the same time, helping to ensure that Cheney, because of his health, would not likely run in 2008 (should W win a second term as he did), opening up the electoral field to W's brother to continue the family and party dynasty.

3) Despite all the hooplah about the magical powers of Rove, neither he or his bosses have particularly thought that far ahead. Cheney was selected in 2000 to address that year's deficiencies, nothing more. There was no long term view. If Friedman's befuddlement of why Bush is seemingly giving his successor so many problems to solve is any indication, maybe this theory has some merit.

4) Rove and Bush believe that they need to pick their battles, and the battle for a sucessor is one that would only serve to distract Bush and his lieutenants from other more important, and winnable matters.

5) the lack of an obvious successor allows the president to eventually play kingmaker, forcing potential suitors to line up for the president's support, perhaps winning concessions for the current occupant along the way while maintaining the president's status as party leader for a longer period of time.

Obviously, not all of these theories are mutually exclusive. In some sense, it may be possible that each theory has merit. Given the administration's penchant for seeming to hold contradictory views, this possibility may have even more validity.

Oh, THAT War on Terror(ism)

This morning's Wash Post contained two features of interest. The first was the op-ed column by Harold Meyerson that suggested a counterintuitive correlation between the publics' view of the success of the Iraq venture and the presence of an anti-war movement. Oddly, it seems that instead of allowing the conservative media a free hand to shape the public's image of the war, the decline of anti-war protests has somehow resulted in, or at least paralleled, the wider American public's view that the war is going badly and that the administration is not handling it or the war on terror well.

Meyerson himself acknowledges a confusion generated by this development. One the one hand, united Democratic opposition to the president's Social Security plan seems to have stalled the move towards privatization, suggesting that the traditional duty of the opposing party is to oppose can bear political fruit. On the other hand, Democratic acquicence to the Iraq war and the administration's broader war policies seems to have allowed the Republican Party to sink in the mire of its own ineptness.

Whatever the actual causes of the public's shift in sentiment, however, the decline in protests means the administration has lost a group to demonize, leaving itself to bear the brunt of its policies without the benefit of shifting the blame and allowing the public to draw its own conclusions, despite the best efforts of Sinclair Broadcasting, Faux Nooz and the other tentacles of the conservative establishment to glamorize the war and the administration they support.

The other item of interest escaped my attention at first. It was the picture above the fold on A1. The picture is of an American serviceman with a group of Arabic looking villagers and children surrounding him. At first I assumed the picture was taken in Iraq and was meant to imply one of those feel good stories about Americans winning hearts and minds.

I was wrong. The picture was of an American serviceman and Arabic villagers in AFGHANISTAN. The article highlighted the fact that there are still American troops in that country trying to ward off remnents of the Taliban. Almost forgot about that war on terror(ism). But it's still going on.

The combined effect was to confirm the messiness of our endeavors in the Middle East for which I don't believe there are any easy solutions. For the party out of power this represents an opportunity. I'm not sure I believe the conventional wisdom that suggests that Democrats must have an alternative narrative for the war on terra or on any other issue. I'm not big on CW anyway. But Democrats would perhaps do well to study the lessons from their approaches to opposing the administration on Social Security while allowing it a wider range of latitute on foreign policy. It suggests to me that despite the party's well documented failings and the electoral obstacles it faces, the party's best friend may turn out to be the party in power it opposes.

Week in Review

I was on vacation last week, hence the lack of posts. But what a week it was. Let's review.

Michael Jackson, not guilty on ten counts of child molestation, corrupting minors with alcohol, etc. Court TV scribes, Nancy Grace and Diane Dimond, not happy, as they're caught, cold busted, insinuating, if not proclaiming, his guilt throughout the length of the trial. Grace eats crow before proceeding to the next round of celebrity trials where she can declare the culprit guilty before proven innocent.

Terri Schiavo autopsy results released, confirming everything science had said about her condition over the past 15 years but also including the new fact that Schiavo was also absolutely flat out blind. Couldn't see. And no evidence of abuse. Not willing to leave well enough alone, however, wingnuts respond by again raising spector of judicial homicide; act as if autopsy results are unimportant. An ill-timed Mark Furman book on the case is soon to be released.

The world's worst congressman*, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, is found cashing in on the graciousness of his campaign contributors.

Demonstrating profound courage, in the only way that one can after the contentiousness of the acts has long passed, and the matter is not longer contentious, The U.S. Senate passed a resolution apologizing for its failure to pass an anti-lynching bill during the time over the last century when it might have been useful.

I finally bought a new Dell computer on-line last night and expect it to come in over the next week or two. Whooo hooo! The computer currently holding up dust in my study at home has been dated by archaeologists to have been manufactured in or about the year 1999.

*Well, who would you nominate?

Truth, Religion and Pluralism

With all this talk about democracy and pluralism, it's necessary to say a few words about religion, especially Christianity, and the truth claims it makes, as well as the pluralism (or relativism, take your pick) that it has taken to so often denouncing.

Christians tend to sling around the word "truth" rather haphazardly, as if there was one truth that everybody was obligated to uphold or that Christian truth has only one dimension.

In actuality, Christian truth really exists in two dimensions. The first dimension of truth is what I would call "inner truth". This inner truth is truth in the sense that the verses and books of the Bible agree with one another and that the Bible's many passages can be linked into a form of consistent doctrine.

For example, the ten commandments stipulate that the seventh day of the week is to be the holy day, the day in which all work ceases and humanity is to worship god. The seventh day of the week is, according to our calendars, saturday. Yet most Christians do not worship on this day. They worship on sunday. There are a variety of explanations for this change from the biblical statute. The most common is that because christ arose on sunday, the church changed the holy day to sunday. Other than a few new testament references to the christian church breaking bread together on that day, there is very little in the way substantion for this new claim, but because worship on sunday soon gained the blessing of the state and the church during the Roman era, sunday has continued to be the day that most christians honor by going to church.

So what is the biblical truth here? Well, needless to say, there is not a universal consensus in the christian world about what the truth is on this matter, or even to what degree any day should be honored and if so, how. In any event, this is one example of "truth" in the bible and in church. And again, needless to say, issues like these continue to be of considerable debate and because many christians have not come to a consensus on them, various denominations and creeds based on the bible have proliferated.

The second dimension of religious truth is what I would call "universal truth". Universal truth is that truth that is held to apply to matters beyond the church walls and be applicable for all communities, all societies, everywhere in time. Now, while this is a common assumption among christians, or at least those christians that appear on TV, it is seldomly challenged openly. However, universal truth as it is based on the bible is extremely difficult to verify. In fact, I don't know of any portion or teaching of the bible that is verifiable, except that of bible prophesy. And the proof claims of bible prophesy are themselves matters of dispute within the christian world (see Daniel 7-9; Mark 13; Matthew 24). All of this makes christian attempts to regulate society on the basis of biblical truth or at least the truth expounded by their church or creed highly suspect.

So christian calls for absolutism, demands to adhere to their "truth", and attempts to coerce others into following their own beliefs and behavior should be openly challenged and opposed.

So if truth isn't verifiable from the bible, than what is truth, and how can it be used to establish norms and procedures for society?

Fortunately for the pluralist, this impreciseness regarding any universal "truth" is recognized as the problem that it is, and because of that, allowance is made for the development of society and the interest to accommodate different points of view and rights of others that have been the hallmark of the modern era. For many christians, this view is intolerable, a condition that is made the worse by the chorus of words heard from the pulpit urging its followers to reject the changing conditions of society on the basis of biblical "truth", although most members in the pews are not often admonished to search the bible for the truth themselves and are urged only to conform to those "truths" that their church or pastor has deemed meaningful.

Bulworth Interviews Mr. Subliminal

Bulworth: Thank you, Mr. Subliminal, for joining us today.

Mr. Subliminal: My pleasure (republican leaders have never earned an honest living).

Bulworth: Now, I want to turn to the comments of Democratic chairman, Howard Dean.

Mr. S: All right (Republican Party is exclusive).

Bulworth: I think you would agree with me that Dean was way out of line when he criticized the Republican Party the other day.

Mr. S: Well, as you know, Dean does not speak for the party (Republicans are for the rich, white Christian men)

Bulworth: Do you think Dean was right when he called Republicans "weenie dogs"?

Mr. S: Dean's doing a great job but I sometimes wish he would take on targets other than the Republicans (Republicans purple heart bandaids)

Bulworth: Do you think Dean should apologize to the Republicans in Congress whose feelings he might have hurt?

Mr. S: I would hope that he would clarify his remarks to say that he really loves Republicans (Janice Rogers Brown Social Security Democracy=slavery)

Bulworth: Will Dean be asked to resign?

Mr. S: Dean's doing a great job but he will have to learn to speak more nicely (Downing Street Memo)

Bulworth: Do you like Republicans?

Mr. S: Some of my best friends are Republicans (Justice Sunday)

Bulworth: Do you think Republicans are hard working?

Mr. S: I'm sure they're good Americans (Are we going to war with Iran?)

Bulworth: Don't you think Dean was wrong to malign white Christian men?

Mr. S: Democrats embrace all types of people (Guatanemo Bay torture)

Bulworth: After all, Republican leaders have never said anything bad about Democrats.

Mr. S: We are all Republicans, We are all Democrats (Democrats enemy normal americans)

Bulworth: What do you think will happen in the Michael Jackson trial?

Mr. S: I trust the jury will make the right decision (record budget deficit)

Bulworth: What do you think happened in Aruba to that young, good looking white girl from Alabama?

Mr. S: I sure hope she's found alive and if not that the perpetrators are brought to justice
(Tom DeLay Mariana Islands sweatshops)

Bulworth: Once again, thank you, Mr. Subliminal, for joining us today.

Mr. S: My pleasure (ann coulter).

Democracy as Pluralism

John McGowan, the blogger at Public Intelligence, but who is also guest blogging over at Michael Berube's perch, weighs in on the Republican assault on democracy:

Because liberalism aims to insure peace and prevent tyranny in pluralistic societies, it often works to establish zones of mutual indifference. Liberalism strives to place lots of individual actions outside the pale of politics, beyond interference from the state or other powers. And, culturally, it strives to promote tolerance, where tolerance is, at a minimum, indifference to the choices and actions of others and, at best, a recognition that diversity yields some social benefits.

(snip)

Except for what are generally weak claims for the benefits of diversity (weak not in the sense of being unconvincing, but weak in the sense that no very major social benefit is claimed and some costs are acknowledged), the liberal argument for non-political interference, for privacy and individual autonomy, is primarily negative. Conflict is the result of trying to tell people what to believe and what to do, so we are better off cultivating a talent for resisting our inclinations to insist that others see the world and run their lives the way I do.

But liberalism also provides a positive response to pluralism. It guarantees, through freedoms of speech, the press, and association, and through the institutional mechanisms of election, jury trials, and legislative deliberations, the active engagement of citizens with one another. Liberals should, I believe, promote in every way possible the existence of a vibrant, accessible, and uncensored public sphere (or, to use another term for it, civil society). In short, liberalism proliferates the occasions where citizens of different opinions, backgrounds, creeds etc. mingle with one another, express their views, and argue about specific issues. And, in some but not all cases, these settings have to move to a decision that is then accepted, even when not very satisfying, by all the parties involved.

The key point here is that democratic procedures of decision-making, which guarantee to all interested parties their chance to say their piece (their chance to sway others by argument) and use the vote and majority rule to adjudicate differences, is a vital liberal expedient for keeping the peace. That's because democracy, amazingly enough, has proven an astoundingly effective way to get people to accept peacefully the fact that they have ended up on the losing side of a political debate that was resolved by a vote.

(snip)

The larger point, however, is the decline of the commons... So I am definitely talking about a perennial problem in all liberal democracies. Liberalism is always kicking against the pricks, is always struggling against powers' desire to exclude, to consolidate, to have it all its way. Establishing and maintaining a vital public sphere is never easy.

First off, I want to paraphrase John's essay and say that what John is suggesting here is that the essential dilemma in American politics is between those who favor and want to continue the process of pluralism (liberals, progressives) and those who do not (conservatives). Obviously I agree with this viewpoint and think much of our current debates either avoid this conflict, or otherwise tilt to the wrong side of it (in the case of Faux News, Ann Coulter, etc, it's not a matter of tilting--it's an all-out assault on the assumption and value of pluralism).

I also want to highlight what otherwise might be marginalized in his essay by suggesting that, as John says, "Liberalism is always kicking against the pricks." In other words, liberals are tempted to think that there was once a golden age of liberalism that conservatives have gradually and subtedly taken away. I think this perception is false, in that the American story has always been one of trying to push the boundaries of prejudice and power to including more people (whether they be of another race as in past struggles, or whether they be of different religious preferences and sexual norms, as is the primary struggle today). But I don't think it's accurate to believe that the current conservative juggernaught is in some way a change from a more liberal, Democratic era. I don't believe it is.

Probably best to recognize, as Bilmon does in his post from the other day, that liberals are for the most part going against the grain of conformity and authoritarianism in their support of minority rights and interests.

Finally, it's again worth noting that for conservatives, the "problem" is "personal responsibility" or the supposed lack thereof, meaning that government and society's role is a punitive one, designed to make people "behave" and conform to nationalistic or imagined majority norms.

For liberals, the problem is how to minimize the abuses of power, particularly as it concerns the rights and aspirations of society's "irregulars".

Needless to say, this has always been, and will undoubtedly continue to be, a struggle of monumental proportions, and a struggle in which there will likely be more losses than wins. Over time, however, liberalism hopes to advance the causes of the traditionally disenfranchised, establish the grounds for a productive and safe pluralistic society and to expand the room and tenor of the commons.

Go Read Bilmon's Whiskey Bar

He has a great post here on the Democratic Party's past, present and future fortunes. And I think he gets it mostly right, although I'm probably not as pessimistic about the Party's presidential prospects and don't find as much reason for defeatism in last year's presidential election as he and others do for reasons I've discussed previously.

Nonetheless, I think he has the bigger picture about right.

However, the question I find myself returning to is, to the extent we believe that Democratic Party fortunes have been adversely affected by a cultural "backlash" (Thomas Franks' term), why has there been and why does there continue to be this backlash? In other words, what is causing this backlash and why has it proven to be as significant as it has, at least in some areas of the country if election results are any guide and exit poll surveys are to believed?

More specifically, why, in an age of modernity, increasing urbanization and globalization, and comparative prosperity, has the language and politics of reactionism (nationalism, religious fundamentalism, among other isms) proven to be as robust as it has?

Undoubtedly there's no one single, simple answer to such an inquiry.

But because I think it's important, and because I have roots in it I think I can talk about it with at least some awareness of its complexity, I'll try to dissect the role played by religious fundamentalism.

The first comment I'd like to make about the subject is that religious fundamentalism as a reactionary and driving political force in America is certainly not anything new. It's influence has ebbed and flowed as society has changed and various national developments have affected it. So I don't think its re-emergence in the past three decades--especially in the last 10 years or so--represents some fantastically unique or original dimension of American political life.

The second comment I'd like to make is one that will sound rather counter-intuitive, but it is this:

Today's religious fundamentalism is not being driven primarily, or perhaps not even remotely, by, considerations of Bible teaching. For all intent and purposes, today's weekly church goer that reports voting for Bush is functionally biblically illiterate.

Today's religiousity seems to be comprised of an ever increasingly conservative Catholic church, and the emergence of the so-called "mega-church" phenomenon within Protestant evangelicalism.

Of the first, Roman Catholicism pays little regard for the Bible, but bases most of its authority on tradition.

Of the second, there seem to be two types: those that are overtly political; and those that are not. Both are "conservative", although the latter is conservative only in the small "c" sense of the word.

The overtly political strands are best represented by D. James Kennedy, the pastor of the Fort Lauderdale based Coral Ridge Ministries, and Rod Parsley, the pastor of the Columbus, OH World Harvest church. Both have shows on cable television, although Kennedy can also be seen on regular TV. Both shows are almost exclusively devoted to political issues, namely those of abortion, gays, school prayer, in particular, and that of a Christian Nation concept in general. If there TV shows are any indication, their "ministries" are almost wholely devoid of any meaningful Biblical instruction or commitment.

The second, less politically driven type is represented by Joel Osteen's Houston based Lakewood church, and Rick Warren's (The Purpose Driven Life) Saddleback church in Lake Forest, (southern) California. While neither are politically centered, both ministries represent the Christian church's attempt to reach a new, more modern society. Both use religion as a means of enhancing the lives of their parishioners. Some label them as "self help" religions, and in the case of Osteen, a type of "prosperity gospel". But neither are known as seriously doctrinaire leaders. Of the two, Warren is the more Biblically attentive, but neither is concerned with the task of interpreting and applying the full range of Bible narratives and instructions.

So for both the overtly political, as well as the more open groups, the Bible itself plays a rather small role, used only sparingly as the circumstances demand. Although I didn't include him here, The Houston based T.D. Jakes fits in generally with the more "open", self help type of religion, but again as with the others, his focus is not biblical interpretation.

Now, granted, there are some religious professionals on the circuit who are on TV and who are more biblically focused, such as Charles Stanley, and to a lesser extent, John Haggi. But in terms of where the mass movement in religion seems to be, it is of a less rigorously Biblically applied variety.

All of this is to suggest that the emerging new religious institutions should not be thought of as monolithic or as necessarily representing a divide between modernist and fundamentalist. I believe its more nuanced that that. Obviously, the less political of the mega church movements represent the least dangerous facets of religion and represent the most likely partners in any new Democratic faith venture that is more secular than patriarchical.

Under Their Skin

From the Poor Man:

a lot of techniques have been tried to make Republicans care that they, and their party, are supporting torture. Reporting facts has been tried, unsuccessfully. Releasing graphic photographs was also tried, to no avail. Asking nicely didnt work, begging didnt work, and guilt-tripping didnt work either.

But there was one thing that hadnt been tried yet, not really, not until Amnesty tried it the other day:

name calling.

Childish? Can be. But effective. Report, photograph, explain, analyze, moralize, all useless. But it the post-modern world of the modern right wing, where objective facts are socially constructs and the endlessly mutable text is all that really is, there is still one thing that has the power to inspire a reaction: words. Pick your word carefully, like, say, the word gulag, and watch the fun begin:

And from Arthur Silber

I see that Drudge has now launched what promises to be a full scale war against Howard Dean, making Dean into the devil incarnate. Im sure it will be all over the right blogosphere within hours, if it isnt already. Take the major warning: if you dare to tell the truth in unflinching, unapologetic terms, the rightwing propaganda machine, aided by our craven, servile media, will destroy you.

The offending language is the following:

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, unapologetic in the face of recent criticism that he has been too tough on his political opposition, said in San Francisco this week that Republicans are a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. Its pretty much a white Christian party.

The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people, Dean said Monday, responding to a question about diversity during a forum with minority leaders and journalists. Were more welcoming to different folks, because thats the type of people we are. But thats not enough. We do have to deliver on things: jobs and housing and business opportunities.

I also noted this passage later in the story:

Dean, speaking in a roundtable discussion Monday, downplayed the controversy over his rhetoric.

This is one of those flaps that comes up once in awhile when I get tough, Dean said. We have to be rough on the Republicans. Republicans dont represent ordinary Americans and they dont have any understanding of what it is to go out and try and make ends meet.

Dean said that he had been addressing the matter of Americans standing in long lines to vote.
What I said was the Republican leadership didnt seem to care much about working people, he said. Thats essentially the gist of the quote.


I detect a pattern here. The conservative empire doesn't much care about facts or pictures or problems, but name calling just drives it batty. More of this, please.

Republicans Announce Vision for America

This is just the beginning.

What you wear.

What you read.

What you say.

What You Should Know

WE, ANONYMOUS
Guess who's beating breasts about unnamed sources?

By Matt Taibbi

Give the American media a story about American interrogators defacing the Quran, and journalists are so appalled there's no time for fact checking before they dash off to see the latest exhibition of Piss Christ.
—Ann Coulter, on the Newsweek scandal

Ann Coulter has taken up the cause of journalistic ethics. Last week she joined 100 million other Americans in courageously denouncing Newsweek magazine, which has now entered the pantheon of entrenched, all-powerful anti-American conspirators. It joins, among others, Bill Clinton, the ACLU and Piss Christ creator Andres Serrano.

In the safe haven of its secret underground lair, this apparently tireless bund of traitors concocted a brilliant scheme to screw up the attribution on a story about the Quran being flushed down toilets in Guantanamo Bay. They might have succeeded, had not Ann Coulter and a few other brave souls stepped in to defend the besieged minority of true patriots.

It was humorous to see how quickly Newsweek lost its cachet with Middle America. So long as it went about its usual revolting Neanderthal literary mission—wrapping 4000 words of inane speculations about the historical Jesus around breathless updates on the value of Martha Stewart stock (Pie Chart, p. 37!), and startling new insights about "the real George Washington"—no one had any problem with Newsweek.

An ethical magazine is one that uses up its news pages asking questions like Can smiling prevent cancer? and makes sure at least twice each calendar year to do a "What the fuck is wrong with our ungrateful, disobedient children?" story, so that angry suburban parents have something to read in the doctor's office while they wait to have their bunions shaved. That—plus the occasional feature on Shrek 2 as the crowning achievement of the human creative impulse, and the odd investigation into why cell phones in restaurants are so darn annoying—is what good journalism is all about.

As is almost always the case when our population works itself into an indignant furor over some fresh moral atrocity, virtually every respected commentator in the country leaped onto the soapbox once it became clear which way the wind was blowing. Windbag after windbag lined up to denounce the use of unnamed sources as a crime roughly equivalent to the buggering of orphans.

"Unless hard digging provides real verified facts, the anonymous stuff should be flushed down the toilet," croaked USA Today founder and renowned press ethicist Al Neuharth.

Added the Arizona Republic, in a house editorial non-hysterically titled "Sources of Shame": "Accepting the word of unnamed sources is traveling in landmine territory."

Martin Peretz of the New Republic went so far as to draw a general conclusion about the seamy character of all journalists from the Newsweek episode. "All of Newsweek's penitential protestations notwithstanding," he said, "what emerges from this episode is the image of a profession that is complacent, self-righteous, and hopelessly in love with itself."

It's funny. The only time anyone thinks to blast the use of "unnamed sources" is when the mistake occurs in that rarest of phenomena in mainstream journalism: the dissenting piece of investigative journalism.

The reality is that unnamed sources are used about 10,000 times a day by the more patriotic and upstanding members of our working press, only they're not used to wonder about the goings-on at places like Guantanamo Bay. Instead, they're used to kiss ass and make icons out of morons—to turn George Bush into Winston Churchill, Dick Gephardt into Eugene Debs, Tom Clancy into Tolstoy.

Most consumers of news magazines will recognize the format, which typically involves an unnamed spokesman whispering that such-and-such Croseus-rich politician is a great lover of NASCAR races, or lies awake at night worrying about the poor: "Aides say Kerry is particularly concerned about the plight of the southern white jobless, whose situation deeply touched him when he last visited..."

The practice is especially common in campaign journalism and in the political profile genre, where it never offends self-appointed trade moralists like Marty Peretz. Newsweek, the current "unnamed sources" villain, is and always has been the very worst offender in this area.

No one bitched at the magazine on January 24 of this year, for instance, when reporter Richard Wolffe wrote a slobbering cover profile on the "Bush you don't know" that was filthy with unnamed sources.

An example from the text:

Bushs leadership style belies his caricature as a disengaged president who is blindly loyal, dislikes dissent and covets his own downtime. In fact, Bushs aides and friends describe the mirror image of a restless man who masters details and reads avidly, who chews over his mistakes and the failings of those around him, and who has grown ever more comfortable pulling the levers of power.

This, just months after Bush himself admitted during a presidential debate that he really couldn't remember any mistakes that he'd ever made, and after Bush himself admitted that he doesn't even read newspapers, let alone books. (During the 2000 campaign, Bush carried around the same copy of a biography of Dean Acheson for six months in an effort to convince reporters he was a reader.) Yet Newsweek allows Bush aides to insist, as unnamed sources, that Bush agonizes over his mistakes and is an "avid reader."

In another part of the article, Wolffe quotes an unnamed "Republican senator" on the matter of Bush's command of detail:

When he wants to be, hes a real stickler for details, says one Republican senator. When he calls you to talk about a bill, he knows the nitty gritty. You dont get the sense hes been reading the Cliffs Notes guide to an issue.

So you think Newsweek didn't work hard enough to confirm the Quran-toilet story? How hard do you think Richard Wolffe worked to confirm that George Bush "knows the nitty-gritty"? I bet he burned up the phone lines working on that one.

They just throw this stuff out there week after week, and no one ever complains about it. That's because kissing ass is not a crime in America, while questioning the government often is. At least, you better not screw it up if you try. God help you then.

The most absurd aspect of the Newsweek scandal was the whole idea of a "media out of control." Many people, even allegedly responsible people like Peretz, took the position that the post-Watergate American press is now so sick with self-love and power-lust that it reflexively sheds its ethics whenever it smells blood.

In Santa Maria, California this week, I am one of over 1500 media personnel accredited to cover the Michael Jackson trial, one of the most pointless and idiotic news stories of all time. By the thousands, we chase tornadoes, wring our hands over Brad and Jennifer, film babies fallen in wells, do one-hour interview specials with Scott Peterson's cellmate.

Once every year or so, one or two of us steps out of line to cover some serious matter involving war or corruption or torture. If that's "out of control," what would we be if we were really working?

Volume 18, Issue 21

Thanks to Mutualist for the link.

Is This As Good As It Gets?

Last week was a really good week. I went to Drinking Liberally and had a good time. There were several attractive progressive women there, fellow bloggers like the great Alt Hippo were there, and we all got to hear and be inspired by the efforts of local communities and grassroot-oriented activists to change the labor practices of WalMart--America's largest and grinchiest employer.

Today I don't know. If you saw my movie you might recall the opening scene where I'm watching a campaign video my team has produced lauding my support for welfare reform and family values, policy stances I embraced in order to get re-elected, all the while I'm sitting amidst the clutter of my office which also includes pictures of me with famous civil rights leaders from the sixties, with the unspoken but implicit thought being, What The Hell Happened?

I feel a little like that today. Not that I've sold out or anything. Just not sure whether my little spot on the Internets is worth anything. For instance, I turn to Alt Hippo today and see where he, perhaps in a mood similar to mine, takes a stab at rebutting the charge that "liberals hate America". Now, this charge has angered me a great deal. And the Hippo's attempt to deal with this nonsense is admirable. But I can't bring myself to try to answer this charge because to do so would mean that I accord it with some legitimacy and that in doing so I am implying that the charge and the subject is something that is worth my time. If I have to stoop to responding to charges like this from the blogistan, and to have to continue to return to it month after month, blog after blog, then "the terrorists have won."

Then I turned to James Wolcott's blog. It appears that the blogistan thinks there's finally a movie out now that affirms their reactionism and that won't make Michael Medved cry. Wolcott includes comments from the NRO:

Cinderella Man, starring Russell Crowe and directed by Ron Howard, is a thrilling piece of work. No, more than thrilling. I left the screening room this afternoon exhilarated, moved, excited, stirred and overwhelmed, convinced that Cinderella Man is one of the best movies ever made.

and

Braddock is no ball of fire. He's not motivated by a passion for boxing, like Maggie in last fall's hit, Million Dollar Baby. He doesn't even have the horsy competitiveness of Seabiscuit, subject of Hollywood's last inspirational-underdog-of-the-Depression venture. If Braddock is an underdog, he wears it well: He's doglike in his loyalty, gentleness, and nobility of spirit. When life gives him a kick in the pants, he accepts it uncomplainingly; when it tosses him a bone, he's sincerely grateful.

and

Cinderella Man is not really a movie about boxing, it's a movie about what it means to be a man. In the character of Jim Braddock, we can read what today's audiences are wistful for: a man who works hard to support his wife and kids, who teaches his kids to be honest, who communicates his delight in his wife with every glance.


This sort of commentary is so stupifying I don't even know where to begin. Fortunately Wolcott sums it up about as best as anyone could:

It isn't audiences that are wistful, but politically motivated critics who want to turn back the clock to that character-building time before the New Deal wove a safety net so that men didn't have to bash each other senseless to keep their families decently clothed and fed.


But is this what's it's all come to? I feel like we're going 'round and 'round in circles. Liberals hate America. Don't'cha just wish that America was like it was during its "goldenage"? Blah blah blah.

Like my friend Jack Nicholson asked in his movie, As Good As It Gets, "What if this is as good as it gets?" Is this as good as it gets? Is there meaning to life? Can the progressive community reach beyond the numbnuts to help advance the causes of justice, knowledge, and individual freedom? Or are we just doomed to an endless cycle of stuff like this:

...inside the gym, the crowd was clearly adoring. "Family values is what it's all about," said Joel Victory, 62, a stockbroker from Cleburne to the south. He had no problem with the setting, he said. "Look at your coins," he said. "Our currency is built on 'In God We Trust.' "

What's the Matter with Ben Nelson?

There was a Wash Post article on Sunday about Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson. The Kos psts some of it here and goes on to say how we need to cut Senators like Nelson some slack, given the conservatism of his constituency and all.

There's some merit to Kos's argument. But once again, I have a hard time understanding how it is that a farm state like Nebraska would produce a Senator so beholden to the interests of the Chamber of Commerce. An audience member from an appearance the Senator made to the group praised him for his support on the tort "reform" bill. Now, I have a hard time believing that any more than eight people besides this audience member in Nebraska care about the tort "reform" bill or were even aware of its existence.

How is it that we've come to this point? Surely this is an apt illustration of the failure of the Democratic Party to provide a real alternative to the business-religious elite. I can understand why a Senator from Nebraska might not want to come off sounding like he's against religion, but what in the world would drive him or her to align with the Chamber of Commerce or to vote for such "reforms" as the class-action and bankruptcy bills? Surely not the actual interests of a majority of Nebraskans?

War Solutions

As a member of the U.S. Senate, it is my duty to help solve problems for the American people. One of those problems is the declining enrollment in our military, especially now that we're at war.

I was prepared to ask my staff to present me with an array of possible solutions and recommendations that I could make in committee. Fortunately, however, I awoke this morning to find that two web bloggers, a TBogg and a No More Mister Nice Blog, have been hard at work in this area and have made several important suggestions. I intend to package these ideas into a bill and to present them before Congress in the next few days.

But more needs to be done. We need your support. Please call your member of Congress today and let them know that you support the "voluntary" enlistment of America's young war advocates. College and university attendance, not to mention, punditry obligations, should not be a barrier to service for the many men and women who yearn to fight abroad with real weapons. These classes have been neglected far too long, and I urge that they be afforded every opportunity to fulfill their goals and live their values.

Cox to SEC: Another Thumb in the Eye from Bush

George H.W. "Poppy" Bush, 41, is remembered for his notorious thumb-in-the-eye campaign tactics in 1988. The Willie Horton ad. The Pledge of Allegiance. Card-Carrying ACLU Member.

His First Son, W, 43, with a re-election under his belt, and control of Congress to boot, is masterminding the art of thumb-in-the-eye policy-making. UN-bashing John Bolton has been nominated as the US rep to the UN; John Negroponte, a veteran of the Reagan administration's wars against Latin America, is the intell czar. For judicial nominees he gave us Janice Rogers Brown, who thinks we should go back to America the way it was before the Great Depression. And now?

Now we get Chris Cox, Republican Congressman from California, to head the Security and Exchange Commission. I remember it as if it was just yesterday, when the Enron scandal came to light. Thousands of workers and investors got bilked, while the company's managers attempted to parachute their way out of bankruptcy into luxury. A reform bill was passed to curtail future abuses and the political class, coming off its financial-contribution-induced hangover, scurried to cover its tracks and to pledge future and forever devotion to the people over the needs of corporations.

But time has passed. And now, with the minds of the people diverted by Paris Hilton, the Runaway Bride, and Michael Jackson, the corporate class has again turned its attention to the laws that restrain it and deemed them "burdensome". William Donaldson, the SEC chair, had to go. Although he was more in tuned to the ambitions of corporations than his predecessors, especially that meddlesome Arthur Levitt, the SEC's Republican members were getting itchy with his rule and made their demands known to the White House for someone of a more amiable spirit.

Chris Cox, who wasn't all that crazy about the Sarbanes-Oxley reform bill, and who has voted in lock step with the demands of corporate america, and who has garnered healthy campaign contributions as a result, is now the man of the hour for Wall Street kingpins.

I'm running out of eyes to thumb.

Further reading:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202084.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060200641.html

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4355.html

http://billmon.org/archives/001869.html