Brooks nails it:
When this country was founded, James Madison envisioned a noisy public square with different religious denominations arguing, competing and balancing each other’s passions. But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.
The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious. I’m assuming that Romney left that out in order to generate howls of outrage in the liberal press.
The second casualty of the faith war is theology itself. In rallying the armies of faith against their supposed enemies, Romney waved away any theological distinctions among them with the brush of his hand. In this calculus, the faithful become a tribe, marked by ethnic pride, a shared sense of victimization and all the other markers of identity politics.
In Romney’s account, faith ends up as wishy-washy as the most New Age-y secularism. In arguing that the faithful are brothers in a common struggle, Romney insisted that all religions share an equal devotion to all good things. Really? Then why not choose the one with the prettiest buildings?
In order to build a voting majority of the faithful, Romney covered over different and difficult conceptions of the Almighty. When he spoke of God yesterday, he spoke of a bland, smiley-faced God who is the author of liberty and the founder of freedom. There was no hint of Lincoln’s God or Reinhold Niebuhr’s God or the religion most people know — the religion that imposes restraints upon on the passions, appetites and sinfulness of human beings. He wants God in the public square, but then insists that theological differences are anodyne and politically irrelevant.
Romney’s job yesterday was to unite social conservatives behind him. If he succeeded, he did it in two ways. He asked people to rally around the best traditions of America’s civic religion. He also asked people to submerge their religious convictions for the sake of solidarity in a culture war without end.
-------
I don't agree with Brooks that "most New Age-y secularism" is "wishy-washy", but at least Brooks, from his perch on the right-center side of things, appears to recognize the hypocrisy and ridiculousness of Christianism's victim-identity politics for what it is.
The true absurdity of Romney's argument is his claim that religious faith is both essential to political life and American community while it is nevertheless to be exempted from challenge and any form of rational debate.
And if secularism is a religion, even a religious faith, are atheists, agnostics, humanists and other free thinkers therefore equal partners in this community? Romney's derision would seem to indicate not, but the armies of the New Calvinists and their fellow travelers can't simultaneously whine that secularism is a religion while claiming that their religion and all religion--but not the world views of secularists--should be revered and protected by the State.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Pass-the-buck Huck blames the Cletus
I originally missed this part of Huckabee's DuMond defense:
Huckabee said it was the decision by former Arkansas Govs. Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker that made DuMond eligible for parole, and Huckabee declined to reduce DuMond's sentence further.
So, first, according to the anti-Clinton wing-nuts, it was Bill Clinton's fault this guy was prosecuted (and persecuted) at all. Now Huckabee is claiming that it was really Clinton himself who set the wheels in motion for this murderer and seriel rapist to go free? I wish the wing-nuts would keep their stories, and their finger-pointing, straight.
Huckabee said it was the decision by former Arkansas Govs. Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker that made DuMond eligible for parole, and Huckabee declined to reduce DuMond's sentence further.
So, first, according to the anti-Clinton wing-nuts, it was Bill Clinton's fault this guy was prosecuted (and persecuted) at all. Now Huckabee is claiming that it was really Clinton himself who set the wheels in motion for this murderer and seriel rapist to go free? I wish the wing-nuts would keep their stories, and their finger-pointing, straight.
Huckabee--Not Taking Responsibility
Given our current experience with a president and an administration that loaths accountability and avoids taking any responsibility for its actions, Huckabee's claim that he isn't responsible in the case of Wayne DuMond is not encouraging. He certainly wasn't the only government entity involved. But I don't know why he wouldn't own up to his own role and acknowledge his mistake.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Hugo loses
I share the irritation of Atrios concerning how Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is reported on by the corporate media and, in contrast, regarded by Chavez's American socialist apologists. Neither perspective is terribly informative about the facts and context of any particular situation.
The largely socialist Democracy Now! reported on Friday of last week that (a) the CIA was working in opposition to Chavez's referendum and trying to stir up trouble generally and that (b) the fact that former supporters of Chavez were against the referendum only served to illustrate the fact that many of Chavez's original supporters were a disparate group of sunshine patriots/corporatists who were really in up to their elbows in some kind of corruption or another and were now turning against Chavez because the reforms would undermine their livelihoods, etc.
Meanwhile, the NYT reported, also on Friday, that the document claimed by the Venezuelan government and Chavez supporters to reveal CIA involvement in the opposition to the referendum was most probably a fake.
Still, given the now acknowledged role the U.S. government played in encouraging and supporting the failed 2002 coup against Chavez, it's not surprising that Chavez and his supporters, in and out of Venezuela, are suspicious of present and future U.S. Government involvement and the words of the American corporate press, which also wrote in support of Chavez's brief ouster in 2002.
The upshot of all this mishmash of biased reporting is to make one more cynical in doubting that any news source can be trusted.
The largely socialist Democracy Now! reported on Friday of last week that (a) the CIA was working in opposition to Chavez's referendum and trying to stir up trouble generally and that (b) the fact that former supporters of Chavez were against the referendum only served to illustrate the fact that many of Chavez's original supporters were a disparate group of sunshine patriots/corporatists who were really in up to their elbows in some kind of corruption or another and were now turning against Chavez because the reforms would undermine their livelihoods, etc.
Meanwhile, the NYT reported, also on Friday, that the document claimed by the Venezuelan government and Chavez supporters to reveal CIA involvement in the opposition to the referendum was most probably a fake.
Still, given the now acknowledged role the U.S. government played in encouraging and supporting the failed 2002 coup against Chavez, it's not surprising that Chavez and his supporters, in and out of Venezuela, are suspicious of present and future U.S. Government involvement and the words of the American corporate press, which also wrote in support of Chavez's brief ouster in 2002.
The upshot of all this mishmash of biased reporting is to make one more cynical in doubting that any news source can be trusted.
Another Fine Mess
I know a lot of people blew their fuses yesterday afternoon when Joe Gibbs inexplicably called a second straight "ice 'em" time out in the final seconds bringing on a fifteen-yard penalty, a much shorter game winning kick, and ultimately the loss. (I didn't realize it was a penalty either).
But the Redskins couldn't run the ball to save their lives yesterday. Everybody who's been complaining about Portis not getting enough carries hear this: Portis carried 25 times yesterday for 50 friggin yards.
And the Skins defense allowed a third string back to run on them to the tune of 82 yards on 16 carries. That's 5+ yards/carry.
And how on earth does a defense give up a 31-yard pass play in the final minute of the game--on third down no less?
After some efficient first half drives that resulted in FG's instead of TD's, and finally crossing the goal-line early in the third period, the offense just shut down.
But it was a total team loss. While Gibbs muffed up, he manned up at his press conference saying there wasn't anyone to blame but himself. But DC Williams has some explaining to do.
But the Redskins couldn't run the ball to save their lives yesterday. Everybody who's been complaining about Portis not getting enough carries hear this: Portis carried 25 times yesterday for 50 friggin yards.
And the Skins defense allowed a third string back to run on them to the tune of 82 yards on 16 carries. That's 5+ yards/carry.
And how on earth does a defense give up a 31-yard pass play in the final minute of the game--on third down no less?
After some efficient first half drives that resulted in FG's instead of TD's, and finally crossing the goal-line early in the third period, the offense just shut down.
But it was a total team loss. While Gibbs muffed up, he manned up at his press conference saying there wasn't anyone to blame but himself. But DC Williams has some explaining to do.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Do Democrats Suffer From Abused Spouse Syndrome?
Glenn Greenwald points out how the so-called liberal media, such as Time magazine, regularly piss all over Democrats while cowering in fear from Republicans:
Regarding the virtual silence from Democrats in the face of media assaults like the one Time launched here, consider this most amazing revelation, from The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz:
In his new memoir "No Excuses," veteran Democratic consultant Robert Shrum says Time columnist Joe Klein doubled as a "sometime adviser," and that the Massachusetts senator "craved his approval."
Klein "would chastise Kerry on the phone when he didn't like a speech, counseling both Kerry and me about what the candidate should say and what our strategy should be," down to the kind of health care plan the senator should propose, Shrum writes.
John Kerry "craved the approval" of Joe Klein. Most Beltway journalists fear conservatives. But those same journalists intimidate, mock and step on Democrats, because they know that Democrats "crave their approval."
Thus, the path of least resistance for media outlets is to do what Joe Klein does -- loyally pass on GOP-fed smears of Democrats, because they know that conservatives will pat them on the head for it, while Congressional Democrats not named "Rush Holt" will remain passive and silent, all in the hope that by doing so, the press will like them more and treat them better next time.
That's why Rep. Holt's aggressive response to Time's falsehoods today was so impressive, and so rare.
And Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog notices Republican Mike Huckabee's unapologetic shout out to religious conservatives in a recent Iowa campaign ad?
Regarding the virtual silence from Democrats in the face of media assaults like the one Time launched here, consider this most amazing revelation, from The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz:
In his new memoir "No Excuses," veteran Democratic consultant Robert Shrum says Time columnist Joe Klein doubled as a "sometime adviser," and that the Massachusetts senator "craved his approval."
Klein "would chastise Kerry on the phone when he didn't like a speech, counseling both Kerry and me about what the candidate should say and what our strategy should be," down to the kind of health care plan the senator should propose, Shrum writes.
John Kerry "craved the approval" of Joe Klein. Most Beltway journalists fear conservatives. But those same journalists intimidate, mock and step on Democrats, because they know that Democrats "crave their approval."
Thus, the path of least resistance for media outlets is to do what Joe Klein does -- loyally pass on GOP-fed smears of Democrats, because they know that conservatives will pat them on the head for it, while Congressional Democrats not named "Rush Holt" will remain passive and silent, all in the hope that by doing so, the press will like them more and treat them better next time.
That's why Rep. Holt's aggressive response to Time's falsehoods today was so impressive, and so rare.
And Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog notices Republican Mike Huckabee's unapologetic shout out to religious conservatives in a recent Iowa campaign ad?
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Why Social Security "Reform" Needs to Wait a While
This morning brought an op-ed in the Washington Post by someone named Ruth Marcus giving the smack down to Paul Krugman's rebuke of the Washington, D.C. Insider's cries for Social Security reform on the basis of that program's "crisis" status.
You can follow the back and forth here.
But the most important issue to address regarding Social Security's long term financing status is taken up by Josh Marshall in a post I am going to quote at length here. In particular, Marshall challenges the conventional wisdom that Social Security reform must start sooner rather than later in order to minimize the magnititude of the tax increases/benefit cuts establishing long term solvency would require. As Marshall points out, this is just wrong:
I said last night that I disagreed with the oft-stated claim that it just gets harder to 'fix' the non-existent Social Security crisis the longer you wait. In fact, as I thought about Obama's proposal to remove or retool the cap on Social Security taxes I got to thinking that it's not just not necessary to do right now but that it actually might be a bad idea altogether.
Many have argued that having this debate at all buys into the right-wing argument that there's a 'crisis' that needs to be solved and thus that the politics are all wrong. But put that aside, let's talk about whether it makes sense even on substance.
When it comes to the policy and number-crunching nitty-gritty of Social Security I'm definitely an amateur. But I think I've got a decent sense of the political-economy of the question. We need to remember that now and for at least a decade into the future Social Security is actually subsidizing the rest of the federal budget. The program brings in much more than it pays out. As we all remember from the voluble debates two years ago, the surplus is being used to buy US government bonds which go into the Trust Fund. And that socked away money will keep the program solvent through the middle of this century as the baby boomers retire, and revenues in no longer cover promised payments out.
We've been doing that for about a quarter of a century.
The problem on the political side of the equation is that the enemies of Social Security have spent a couple decades arguing that the Trust Fund doesn't exist or that it is simply a bookkeeping device with no true financial meaning. If that's true, it means that American workers have spent the last twenty-five years using their payroll taxes to subsidize general revenues and make it easier to float big tax cuts for upper-income earners without getting anything in return.
If we start pumping a lot more money into Social Security coffers now it will by definition go into more government bonds, which is another way of saying that it will go toward funding our current deficit spending. In fact it will enable more deficit spending and probably more upper-income tax cuts because it will make the consequences of both easier to hide.
If we want to push the buffer of the Trust Fund further out onto the horizon, then fiddle with payroll taxes when Social Security would need to start dipping into Trust Fund. In other words, in a decade or so. I see no reason why this approach doesn't work just as nicely then as it would now.
As Paul Krugman noted in the interview I did with him a few weeks ago, the window of time we had to seriously pare down the national debt to prepare for the retirement of the baby-boomers is close to over. Still, though, our best way of ensuring the future health of Social Security is to stop running up the national debt now. So I'm very reluctant to put more payroll taxes in the pot while we're still running big deficits because of the Bush tax cuts. The money will just go to subsidizing that irresponsible fiscal policy.
If there is any sense in which the 'Trust Fund' is not 'real' it is that it must be paid back from general revenues. And that will only be harder the more other debt we're running up. So rather than solving the problem, I think we're actually enabling it.
The second problem is that we need a national agreement or consensus that the Trust Fund is real, that it will be honored, and have the debate about the future of the program on that basis. Otherwise, we're still risking getting played in the same bait-and-switch privatizers have been trying to pull for years -- using regressive payroll taxes to fund current government spending and then telling future recipients that that money has disappeared and thus Social Security has to be phased out altogether.
Lifting the payroll tax cap while Social Security is still running a big surplus not only solves a problem that doesn't exist it enables the very policies that put the program in danger. Perhaps this is all another way of saying that I'm not a fan of putting more hens in the hen house while the foxes are still at the door, or even in the house.
---------
This I think is exactly right. The only thing a benefit reduction or tax increase to Social Security would do now, is what it has succeeded in doing for the past two decades, and that is subsidize the rest of the federal budget, allowing for income, capital gains, corporate and other tax cuts, which would benefit mostly the well to do, and encourage deficit spending generally, both of which are bad for Social Security and its recipients, further magnifying the ultimate day of reckoning when Social Security's bonds will come due.
You can follow the back and forth here.
But the most important issue to address regarding Social Security's long term financing status is taken up by Josh Marshall in a post I am going to quote at length here. In particular, Marshall challenges the conventional wisdom that Social Security reform must start sooner rather than later in order to minimize the magnititude of the tax increases/benefit cuts establishing long term solvency would require. As Marshall points out, this is just wrong:
I said last night that I disagreed with the oft-stated claim that it just gets harder to 'fix' the non-existent Social Security crisis the longer you wait. In fact, as I thought about Obama's proposal to remove or retool the cap on Social Security taxes I got to thinking that it's not just not necessary to do right now but that it actually might be a bad idea altogether.
Many have argued that having this debate at all buys into the right-wing argument that there's a 'crisis' that needs to be solved and thus that the politics are all wrong. But put that aside, let's talk about whether it makes sense even on substance.
When it comes to the policy and number-crunching nitty-gritty of Social Security I'm definitely an amateur. But I think I've got a decent sense of the political-economy of the question. We need to remember that now and for at least a decade into the future Social Security is actually subsidizing the rest of the federal budget. The program brings in much more than it pays out. As we all remember from the voluble debates two years ago, the surplus is being used to buy US government bonds which go into the Trust Fund. And that socked away money will keep the program solvent through the middle of this century as the baby boomers retire, and revenues in no longer cover promised payments out.
We've been doing that for about a quarter of a century.
The problem on the political side of the equation is that the enemies of Social Security have spent a couple decades arguing that the Trust Fund doesn't exist or that it is simply a bookkeeping device with no true financial meaning. If that's true, it means that American workers have spent the last twenty-five years using their payroll taxes to subsidize general revenues and make it easier to float big tax cuts for upper-income earners without getting anything in return.
If we start pumping a lot more money into Social Security coffers now it will by definition go into more government bonds, which is another way of saying that it will go toward funding our current deficit spending. In fact it will enable more deficit spending and probably more upper-income tax cuts because it will make the consequences of both easier to hide.
If we want to push the buffer of the Trust Fund further out onto the horizon, then fiddle with payroll taxes when Social Security would need to start dipping into Trust Fund. In other words, in a decade or so. I see no reason why this approach doesn't work just as nicely then as it would now.
As Paul Krugman noted in the interview I did with him a few weeks ago, the window of time we had to seriously pare down the national debt to prepare for the retirement of the baby-boomers is close to over. Still, though, our best way of ensuring the future health of Social Security is to stop running up the national debt now. So I'm very reluctant to put more payroll taxes in the pot while we're still running big deficits because of the Bush tax cuts. The money will just go to subsidizing that irresponsible fiscal policy.
If there is any sense in which the 'Trust Fund' is not 'real' it is that it must be paid back from general revenues. And that will only be harder the more other debt we're running up. So rather than solving the problem, I think we're actually enabling it.
The second problem is that we need a national agreement or consensus that the Trust Fund is real, that it will be honored, and have the debate about the future of the program on that basis. Otherwise, we're still risking getting played in the same bait-and-switch privatizers have been trying to pull for years -- using regressive payroll taxes to fund current government spending and then telling future recipients that that money has disappeared and thus Social Security has to be phased out altogether.
Lifting the payroll tax cap while Social Security is still running a big surplus not only solves a problem that doesn't exist it enables the very policies that put the program in danger. Perhaps this is all another way of saying that I'm not a fan of putting more hens in the hen house while the foxes are still at the door, or even in the house.
---------
This I think is exactly right. The only thing a benefit reduction or tax increase to Social Security would do now, is what it has succeeded in doing for the past two decades, and that is subsidize the rest of the federal budget, allowing for income, capital gains, corporate and other tax cuts, which would benefit mostly the well to do, and encourage deficit spending generally, both of which are bad for Social Security and its recipients, further magnifying the ultimate day of reckoning when Social Security's bonds will come due.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Time for another blogger ethics panel
Gee, it doesn't seem all that long ago when we terribly partisan and vitriolic bloggers were being lectured on our having lowered the tone of political discourse to previously unheard of vile depths, posing an existential threat to the happy bipartisan landscape. But I guess our Very Serious Village Elders are taking some time out from their let's all get along musings to get their own little raunchy oats on:
From the November 14 edition of CNN's American Morning:
CHETRY: All right, so then on the flip side, let's go over to the GOPs for a second, and maybe being too candid can be the problem in this case. This was a campaign event of John McCain's in South Carolina on Monday. And let's just listen to what happened.
[begin video clip]
FEMALE QUESTIONER: How do we beat the bitch?
[laughter]
McCAIN: May I give the translation?
[laughter]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: Leave it alone.
McCAIN: The way that --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: John, I thought she was talking about my ex-wife.
[laughter]
McCAIN: But that's an excellent question. ... I respect Senator Clinton. I respect anyone who gets the nomination of the Democrat [sic] Party.
[end video clip]
CHETRY: All right, Mike, does that hurt McCain?
[Politico scribe Mike] ALLEN: Oh, give me a break. Of course not. First of all, I think it's kind of funny. You watch that tape, it's clear to him who she was referring to. He could have said, whoever were you talking about? Which might have been the deftest way to handle it.
CHETRY: But he said that's an excellent question.
ALLEN: All right. But what Republican voter hasn't thought that? What voter in general hasn't thought that? And what people like about McCain is his straight talk, his candor, and if he had folded or buckled under that question, that would have looked ridiculous. There's no question about, as he said, the respect that the two of them have -- this is something actually your viewers would not know -- Senator McCain and Senator Clinton actually do have a genuine friendship in part because of their overseas travels from the Armed Services committee, so they do not attack each other. But Kiran, this was just a funny moment on the campaign trail.
CHETRY: Well, it's only funny unless you're offended by somebody calling a woman the b-word. And I'm sure there are many who are. So it'll -- I mean, yes or no before I let you go: Should Hillary address this or just leave it alone?
ALLEN: This question? I think she should leave it alone because others will address it for her. People who are upset about it will have seen this clip, and Senator McCain will pay that price.
CHETRY: All right, it was great to have you on the show this morning. Mike Allen, chief political correspondent for Politico. Thanks.
ALLEN: Likewise, have a good week Kiran.
CHETRY: You too.
From the November 14 edition of CNN's American Morning:
CHETRY: All right, so then on the flip side, let's go over to the GOPs for a second, and maybe being too candid can be the problem in this case. This was a campaign event of John McCain's in South Carolina on Monday. And let's just listen to what happened.
[begin video clip]
FEMALE QUESTIONER: How do we beat the bitch?
[laughter]
McCAIN: May I give the translation?
[laughter]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: Leave it alone.
McCAIN: The way that --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: John, I thought she was talking about my ex-wife.
[laughter]
McCAIN: But that's an excellent question. ... I respect Senator Clinton. I respect anyone who gets the nomination of the Democrat [sic] Party.
[end video clip]
CHETRY: All right, Mike, does that hurt McCain?
[Politico scribe Mike] ALLEN: Oh, give me a break. Of course not. First of all, I think it's kind of funny. You watch that tape, it's clear to him who she was referring to. He could have said, whoever were you talking about? Which might have been the deftest way to handle it.
CHETRY: But he said that's an excellent question.
ALLEN: All right. But what Republican voter hasn't thought that? What voter in general hasn't thought that? And what people like about McCain is his straight talk, his candor, and if he had folded or buckled under that question, that would have looked ridiculous. There's no question about, as he said, the respect that the two of them have -- this is something actually your viewers would not know -- Senator McCain and Senator Clinton actually do have a genuine friendship in part because of their overseas travels from the Armed Services committee, so they do not attack each other. But Kiran, this was just a funny moment on the campaign trail.
CHETRY: Well, it's only funny unless you're offended by somebody calling a woman the b-word. And I'm sure there are many who are. So it'll -- I mean, yes or no before I let you go: Should Hillary address this or just leave it alone?
ALLEN: This question? I think she should leave it alone because others will address it for her. People who are upset about it will have seen this clip, and Senator McCain will pay that price.
CHETRY: All right, it was great to have you on the show this morning. Mike Allen, chief political correspondent for Politico. Thanks.
ALLEN: Likewise, have a good week Kiran.
CHETRY: You too.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
We Did Not Vote for Chavez
In the genteel world of bridge, disputes are usually handled quietly and rarely involve issues of national policy. But a team of women who represented Venezuela at the world bridge championships in Shanghai last month is facing sanctions, including a yearlong ban from competition, for a spur-of-the-moment protest.
At issue is a crudely lettered sign, scribbled on the back of a menu, that was held up at an awards dinner and read, “We did not vote for Chavez.”
By e-mail, angry bridge players have accused the women of “treason” and “sedition.”
“This isn’t a free-speech issue,” said Jan Martel, president of the Venezuelan Bridge Federation, the nonprofit group that selects teams for international tournaments. “There isn’t any question that private organizations can control the speech of people who represent them.”
Internet bloggers loyal to the Chavez administration also lashed out at the Bridge team:
"...how about we add suspending their passports for a couple of years and put them on a no-fly and no-drive list to prevent them from leaving the country during that time …"
At issue is a crudely lettered sign, scribbled on the back of a menu, that was held up at an awards dinner and read, “We did not vote for Chavez.”
By e-mail, angry bridge players have accused the women of “treason” and “sedition.”
“This isn’t a free-speech issue,” said Jan Martel, president of the Venezuelan Bridge Federation, the nonprofit group that selects teams for international tournaments. “There isn’t any question that private organizations can control the speech of people who represent them.”
Internet bloggers loyal to the Chavez administration also lashed out at the Bridge team:
"...how about we add suspending their passports for a couple of years and put them on a no-fly and no-drive list to prevent them from leaving the country during that time …"
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Pakistan
While the U.S. army continues to occupy Iraq and while Bush and Cheney continue to issue bellicose threats against Iran, the country that continues to host the growing remnants of those who attacked us on 9/11 and which is under seige from those who legitimately appear to represent the much vaunted Islamofascists of wingnut lore doesn't get any attention from our government or teevee-talk radio media, but this NY Times piece is pretty informative--and chilling.
And Pakistan, unlike Iraq or Iran, actually does possess nuclear weapons.
And Pakistan, unlike Iraq or Iran, actually does possess nuclear weapons.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Gail Collins on Conservatives and Huckabee
From today's NYT:
[W]hy aren’t the social conservatives rallying around this guy? Unlike any of the major candidates, he’s still on his first wife and first position on abortion...
Yet the leaders of the Values Voters keep waiting for one of the top-tier candidates to change — a strategy that any woman who’s had an unsatisfactory boyfriend could warn them is never going to pan out. They pace around muttering that maybe Fred Thompson will start acting more ... alive, or that Mitt Romney will stop being a Mormon. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, seems to think Rudy Giuliani has come around on gay marriage. (Perkins should talk to Rudy’s gay former roommate Howard Koeppel about the time the then-mayor promised to marry Koeppel and his partner as soon as the laws change.)
Huckabee’s problems say more about the leaders of the religious right than about him. They’re united mainly by their hatred of abortion and gay marriage, and a desire to win. Considerations like who has the most Christian attitudes toward illegal immigrants don’t register. And the fact that as governor Huckabee spent a lot of time trying to spend money on the needy doesn’t go over all that well with the ones who believe that God’s top priority is eliminating the estate tax.
Lately, anti-Huckabee conservatives have been suggesting he’s soft on crime. The story involves an Arkansas man, Wayne DuMond, who was accused of kidnapping and raping a high school cheerleader in 1985. While he was free awaiting trial, masked men broke into his home, beat and castrated him. His testicles wound up in a jar of formaldehyde, on display on the desk of the local sheriff. At the trial, he was sentenced to life plus 20 years. When Huckabee became governor, DuMond was still in an apparently hopeless situation, though theoretically eligible for parole. Huckabee championed his cause, and wrote him a congratulatory letter when he was finally released in 1999. Then in 2000 DuMond moved to Kansas City, where he sexually assaulted and murdered a woman who lived near his home.
“There’s nothing you can say, but my gosh, it’s the thing you pray never happens,” the clearly tortured Huckabee recently told The National Review. “And it did.” If by some miracle he became the presidential nominee, there would obviously be many opportunities to point out that Michael Dukakis never sent a letter to Willie Horton celebrating his furlough.
Why do the leaders of the religious right keep sidling away from a Baptist minister whose greatest political sin seems to have been showing compassion to a prisoner who appeared to deserve it? Why can’t they rally around the candidate who pushed for more government spending to promote poor children’s health and education, and reminded his conservative critics that when they talk about being pro-life, “life doesn’t begin at conception and end at birth?”
I think we have answered the question.
[W]hy aren’t the social conservatives rallying around this guy? Unlike any of the major candidates, he’s still on his first wife and first position on abortion...
Yet the leaders of the Values Voters keep waiting for one of the top-tier candidates to change — a strategy that any woman who’s had an unsatisfactory boyfriend could warn them is never going to pan out. They pace around muttering that maybe Fred Thompson will start acting more ... alive, or that Mitt Romney will stop being a Mormon. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, seems to think Rudy Giuliani has come around on gay marriage. (Perkins should talk to Rudy’s gay former roommate Howard Koeppel about the time the then-mayor promised to marry Koeppel and his partner as soon as the laws change.)
Huckabee’s problems say more about the leaders of the religious right than about him. They’re united mainly by their hatred of abortion and gay marriage, and a desire to win. Considerations like who has the most Christian attitudes toward illegal immigrants don’t register. And the fact that as governor Huckabee spent a lot of time trying to spend money on the needy doesn’t go over all that well with the ones who believe that God’s top priority is eliminating the estate tax.
Lately, anti-Huckabee conservatives have been suggesting he’s soft on crime. The story involves an Arkansas man, Wayne DuMond, who was accused of kidnapping and raping a high school cheerleader in 1985. While he was free awaiting trial, masked men broke into his home, beat and castrated him. His testicles wound up in a jar of formaldehyde, on display on the desk of the local sheriff. At the trial, he was sentenced to life plus 20 years. When Huckabee became governor, DuMond was still in an apparently hopeless situation, though theoretically eligible for parole. Huckabee championed his cause, and wrote him a congratulatory letter when he was finally released in 1999. Then in 2000 DuMond moved to Kansas City, where he sexually assaulted and murdered a woman who lived near his home.
“There’s nothing you can say, but my gosh, it’s the thing you pray never happens,” the clearly tortured Huckabee recently told The National Review. “And it did.” If by some miracle he became the presidential nominee, there would obviously be many opportunities to point out that Michael Dukakis never sent a letter to Willie Horton celebrating his furlough.
Why do the leaders of the religious right keep sidling away from a Baptist minister whose greatest political sin seems to have been showing compassion to a prisoner who appeared to deserve it? Why can’t they rally around the candidate who pushed for more government spending to promote poor children’s health and education, and reminded his conservative critics that when they talk about being pro-life, “life doesn’t begin at conception and end at birth?”
I think we have answered the question.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
"The Standard Washington Way of Doing Business"
The NYT reports today about contributions to Senate Intellegence Committee Chair Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) from the executives at the two biggest telephone companies, AT&T and Verizon. Rockefeller's Intellegence Committee is supporting legislation to grant legal immunity to the companies regarding the company's participation in the NSA wire-tapping, eavesdropping program, which it turns out, was illegal under the nation's FISA law. AT&T and Verizon, unsurprisingly, strongly support the legislation. In the eyes of some observers, the contributions, a sudden increase from past contributions from the company's executives to the Senator, are indicative of some kind of pay-for-play.
But no, we're assured, this isn't really the case at all.
“The idea that John Rockefeller could be bought is kind of ridiculous,” said Matt Bennett, vice president for Third Way, a moderate Democratic policy group that has supported immunity for the phone carriers.
“That these companies are going to focus their lobbying efforts where their business interests are is no revelation,” Mr. Bennett said. “That’s the standard Washington way of doing business. But you’re not going to buy a Rockefeller.”
Somebody smarter than me is going to have explain to me how this statement is consistent and logical.
On the one hand we're told that it's quite natural for companies to "focus their lobbying efforts where their business interests are"---and by "lobbying" I assume this would include making cash payments to the politicos connected to the company's "business interests". But on the other hand we're told that in now way is such lobbying or such payments in any way indicative of a politician's being bought. Then what are the companies giving money for?
I guess it's just all too difficult for me to understand, this "standard Washington way of doing business."
But no, we're assured, this isn't really the case at all.
“The idea that John Rockefeller could be bought is kind of ridiculous,” said Matt Bennett, vice president for Third Way, a moderate Democratic policy group that has supported immunity for the phone carriers.
“That these companies are going to focus their lobbying efforts where their business interests are is no revelation,” Mr. Bennett said. “That’s the standard Washington way of doing business. But you’re not going to buy a Rockefeller.”
Somebody smarter than me is going to have explain to me how this statement is consistent and logical.
On the one hand we're told that it's quite natural for companies to "focus their lobbying efforts where their business interests are"---and by "lobbying" I assume this would include making cash payments to the politicos connected to the company's "business interests". But on the other hand we're told that in now way is such lobbying or such payments in any way indicative of a politician's being bought. Then what are the companies giving money for?
I guess it's just all too difficult for me to understand, this "standard Washington way of doing business."
Monday, October 22, 2007
I Have Too Much Health Care
I confess I am guilty of violating the new rule about health insurance coverage. Simply put, I have too much health care.
I went to have a physical exam today (I'm 41). According to the statement I received at the end of my visit, the charge for the exam was $385. That, plus a barrage of blood tests recommended by my doctor brought my total doctor visit bill to over $1,000. Of course, like the true welfare dependent I am, I did not fork over that much money. I only paid $15, my co-pay set by Blue Cross and Blue Shield and my employer.
I realize now I should have spent time going through the entire Washington, D.C. and Maryland phone books for doctors, asking each about their charges, instead of relying on the professional referral of someone else. I also should have delayed my bloodwork until I was certain that it would be analyzed by the lab offering the lowest price.
I sincerely regret my actions, but the devil--I mean, my insurance company, made me do it.
%*@# private health insurance companies! We need "market reform".
I see Matt Yglesias is guilty of the same offense.
I went to have a physical exam today (I'm 41). According to the statement I received at the end of my visit, the charge for the exam was $385. That, plus a barrage of blood tests recommended by my doctor brought my total doctor visit bill to over $1,000. Of course, like the true welfare dependent I am, I did not fork over that much money. I only paid $15, my co-pay set by Blue Cross and Blue Shield and my employer.
I realize now I should have spent time going through the entire Washington, D.C. and Maryland phone books for doctors, asking each about their charges, instead of relying on the professional referral of someone else. I also should have delayed my bloodwork until I was certain that it would be analyzed by the lab offering the lowest price.
I sincerely regret my actions, but the devil--I mean, my insurance company, made me do it.
%*@# private health insurance companies! We need "market reform".
I see Matt Yglesias is guilty of the same offense.
Isn't "Market Reform" an Oxymoron?
Matt Yglesias visits Mitt Romney's website:
I was interested to learn more about Romney's plans for health care reform. So I clicked over to the Romney health care issues page where I learned that "The health of our nation can be improved by extending health insurance to all Americans, not through a government program or new taxes, but through market reforms." And that's it. Absolutely no further explanation or elaboration.
Aren't markets supposed to be, you know, kind of self-generating? Supply and demand, all that stuff? Why should government "reform" the market if markets are inherently good, efficient and unneedful of government interference?
I was interested to learn more about Romney's plans for health care reform. So I clicked over to the Romney health care issues page where I learned that "The health of our nation can be improved by extending health insurance to all Americans, not through a government program or new taxes, but through market reforms." And that's it. Absolutely no further explanation or elaboration.
Aren't markets supposed to be, you know, kind of self-generating? Supply and demand, all that stuff? Why should government "reform" the market if markets are inherently good, efficient and unneedful of government interference?
Even More Belly-Aching from the "Values Voter", Part II
Indeed, for three days, it was a huddle of people with "shared values." The 2,000-plus participants banded together, bracing themselves for the constant attacks they expect on their beliefs as Christians. They are fighting on multiple fronts -- fighting the government, fighting pop culture and fighting universities.
"I think people of conservative beliefs, people who take their faith beliefs very seriously, find themselves very isolated," said Alan Sears, CEO and president of the Alliance Defense Fund, the Christian-based legal group.
The first bolded segment highlights the culture of paranoia and victimology that permeates the fundamentalist community.
The second bolded segment highlights the fundamentalists' belief about themselves, which is that they claim to take their "faith beliefs" very seriously, and that as a consequence, they are a poorly understood lot. But do they in fact take their faith beliefs all that seriously? Do they really believe in and practice all the things written in their holy books? And if their beliefs are a matter of faith, and not evidence, is there a reason why people should take them seriously?
"I think people of conservative beliefs, people who take their faith beliefs very seriously, find themselves very isolated," said Alan Sears, CEO and president of the Alliance Defense Fund, the Christian-based legal group.
The first bolded segment highlights the culture of paranoia and victimology that permeates the fundamentalist community.
The second bolded segment highlights the fundamentalists' belief about themselves, which is that they claim to take their "faith beliefs" very seriously, and that as a consequence, they are a poorly understood lot. But do they in fact take their faith beliefs all that seriously? Do they really believe in and practice all the things written in their holy books? And if their beliefs are a matter of faith, and not evidence, is there a reason why people should take them seriously?
More Belly-Aching From the "Values Voters"
From today's Wash Post Style section:
In a session addressing the plight of Christian rights on campus, David French, senior attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, told those assembled: "You will find more political diversity in a suburban mega-church than you will find in an elite university faculty. Now, that has consequences. One of those consequences is professors do not like Christians."
You mean, like the political diversity at the "values voters summit"?
In a session addressing the plight of Christian rights on campus, David French, senior attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, told those assembled: "You will find more political diversity in a suburban mega-church than you will find in an elite university faculty. Now, that has consequences. One of those consequences is professors do not like Christians."
You mean, like the political diversity at the "values voters summit"?
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
George Will Practices a Little Slight of Hand
In today's Wash Post, George Will sticks in a paragraph about the dubiousness of the SCHIP extension:
SCHIP is described as serving "poor children" or children of "the working poor." Everyone agrees that it is for "low-income" people. Under the bill that Democrats hope to pass over the president's veto tomorrow, states could extend eligibility to households earning $61,950. But America's median household income is $48,201. How can people above the median income be eligible for a program serving lower-income people?
Wow. That sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? If the median household income is $48k why should we be subsidizing health care for people making $62k?
Ah, but notice Will plays a little mixitup with state and national income amounts. He first says that states "could" extend eligibility to households earning $62k. Then he points out that the national median household income is lower than this 62k giveaway, being only 48k, again, nationwide.
Now, it stands to figure, doesn't it, that if the national median household income is 48k, that some states probably average higher than that, right? So, if a state is going to raise its income eligibility amount, it will probably be in these higher income states, right?
Fortunately, Robert Pear, writing in today's NYT gives us a little more info:
In general, children with family incomes below the poverty level ($20,650 for a family of four) are eligible for Medicaid. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program is meant for families with too much income to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private insurance.
OK. So, we find here that the goal of SCHIP is to subsidize health insurance coverage for families with income above the poverty level, which for a family of four is about $21k. So, automatically, we can assume that qualifying income for SCHIP is going to be in excess of $21k to be compatible with the program's goals and intent.
But let's return to Pear's article:
States establish income limits for the child health program. A recent survey by the Congressional Research Service found that 32 states had set limits at twice the poverty level or less, while 17 states had limits from 220 percent to 300 percent of the poverty level. Only one state, New Jersey, has a higher limit. It offers coverage to children with family incomes up to 350 percent of the poverty level, or $72,275 for a family of four.
In New York, which covers children up to 250 percent of the poverty level, the Legislature this year passed a bill that would have raised the limit to 400 percent of the poverty level, or $82,600 for a family of four. The Bush administration rejected the proposal, saying it would have allowed the substitution of public coverage for private insurance.
States that cover middle-income children often charge premiums and co-payments on a sliding scale, so the coverage is not free.
So, 32 states fund SCHIP at 200% of poverty or less. This in effect means that the income cutoff for families in a majority of states is about $42k, $6k less than Will's national median household income.
Meanwhile, the state with the highest income cutoff, New Jersey, had a median household income of $62k in 2004, which ranked it #1 among the 50 states in that income category. And the state of NJ's median household income of $62k was $14k higher than Will's national median.
Thus endeth the lesson.
SCHIP is described as serving "poor children" or children of "the working poor." Everyone agrees that it is for "low-income" people. Under the bill that Democrats hope to pass over the president's veto tomorrow, states could extend eligibility to households earning $61,950. But America's median household income is $48,201. How can people above the median income be eligible for a program serving lower-income people?
Wow. That sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? If the median household income is $48k why should we be subsidizing health care for people making $62k?
Ah, but notice Will plays a little mixitup with state and national income amounts. He first says that states "could" extend eligibility to households earning $62k. Then he points out that the national median household income is lower than this 62k giveaway, being only 48k, again, nationwide.
Now, it stands to figure, doesn't it, that if the national median household income is 48k, that some states probably average higher than that, right? So, if a state is going to raise its income eligibility amount, it will probably be in these higher income states, right?
Fortunately, Robert Pear, writing in today's NYT gives us a little more info:
In general, children with family incomes below the poverty level ($20,650 for a family of four) are eligible for Medicaid. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program is meant for families with too much income to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private insurance.
OK. So, we find here that the goal of SCHIP is to subsidize health insurance coverage for families with income above the poverty level, which for a family of four is about $21k. So, automatically, we can assume that qualifying income for SCHIP is going to be in excess of $21k to be compatible with the program's goals and intent.
But let's return to Pear's article:
States establish income limits for the child health program. A recent survey by the Congressional Research Service found that 32 states had set limits at twice the poverty level or less, while 17 states had limits from 220 percent to 300 percent of the poverty level. Only one state, New Jersey, has a higher limit. It offers coverage to children with family incomes up to 350 percent of the poverty level, or $72,275 for a family of four.
In New York, which covers children up to 250 percent of the poverty level, the Legislature this year passed a bill that would have raised the limit to 400 percent of the poverty level, or $82,600 for a family of four. The Bush administration rejected the proposal, saying it would have allowed the substitution of public coverage for private insurance.
States that cover middle-income children often charge premiums and co-payments on a sliding scale, so the coverage is not free.
So, 32 states fund SCHIP at 200% of poverty or less. This in effect means that the income cutoff for families in a majority of states is about $42k, $6k less than Will's national median household income.
Meanwhile, the state with the highest income cutoff, New Jersey, had a median household income of $62k in 2004, which ranked it #1 among the 50 states in that income category. And the state of NJ's median household income of $62k was $14k higher than Will's national median.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Friday, October 12, 2007
E.J. Dionne Speaks, You Listen
Democratic candidates for President, Democratic Senate (Schumer) and House Campaign Committee Chairs (Chris Van Hollen), please pay attention.
From today's Washington Post Op-Ed page:
Conservatives claim to be in favor of stable families, small businesses, hard work, private schools, investment and homeownership. So why in the world are so many on the right attacking the family of Graeme Frost?
Frost is the 12-year-old from Baltimore who delivered the Democrats' reply to a radio address by President Bush in September. The seventh-grader pleaded -- in vain, it turned out -- that the president not veto Congress's $35 billion expansion of the children's health care program known as SCHIP. A car crash in December 2004 left two of Halsey and Bonnie Frost's children comatose, Graeme with a brain stem injury and Gemma, his sister, with a cranial fracture.
The kids were treated, thanks to SCHIP. The Frosts spoke out so the public would know that real people lie behind the acronym.
Their reward was to be trashed on right-wing blogs and talk radio as if they were multimillionaires ripping off the system. The assault on the Frosts apparently began on the Free Republic Web site and quickly spread to National Review Online, Power Line and Michelle Malkin's blog, as well as Rush Limbaugh's radio show.
And of what were the Frosts guilty? Well, they own their own home, which they bought for $55,000 in 1990 and which is now worth about $260,000; they invested in a commercial property, valued at $160,000; Halsey Frost, a self-employed woodworker, once owned a small business that was dissolved in 1999; and Graeme attends a private school on scholarship. I rely here on facts reported this week in the Baltimore Sun and the New York Times, both of which set straight the more outlandish claims made by the Frosts' attackers.
The right is unapologetic. "The Democrats chose to outsource their airtime to a Seventh Grader," wrote National Review's Mark Steyn. "If a political party is desperate enough to send a boy to do a man's job, then the boy is fair game."
Okay, the Democrats are "fair game," but a 12-year-old? No wonder nobody talks about compassionate conservatism anymore.
(snip)
...[R]ather than just condemn the right-wingers as meanies, let's take their claims seriously. Doing so makes clear that they are engaged in a perverse and incoherent form of class warfare.
The left is accused of all manner of sins related to covetousness and envy whenever it raises questions about who benefits from Bush's tax cuts and mentions the yachts such folks might buy or the mansions they might own. But here is a family with modest possessions doing everything conservatives tell people they should do, and the right trashes them for getting help to buy health insurance for their children.
Most conservatives favor government-supported vouchers that would help Graeme attend his private school, but here they turn around and criticize him for . . . attending a private school. Federal money for private schools but not for health insurance? What's the logic here?
Conservatives endlessly praise risk-taking by entrepreneurs and would give big tax cuts to those who are most successful. But if a small-business person is struggling, he shouldn't even think about applying for SCHIP.
Conservatives who want to repeal the estate tax on large fortunes have cited stories -- most of them don't check out -- about farmers having to sell their farms to pay inheritance taxes. But the implication of these attacks on the Frosts is that they are expected to sell their investment property to pay for health care. Why?
Oh, yes, and conservatives tell us how much they love homeownership, and then assail the Frosts for having the nerve to own a home. I suppose they should have to sell that, too.
The real issue here is whether uninsured families with earnings similar to the Frosts' need government help to buy health coverage. With the average family policy in employer-provided plans now costing more than $12,000 annually -- the price is usually higher for families trying to buy it on their own -- the answer is plainly yes. All the conservative attacks on a boy from Baltimore who dared to speak out will not make this issue go away.
---------
The conservative logic, or lack thereof, regarding SCHIP funding is conspicously empty-headed, mean-spirited, and shot full of inconsistent holes. As if Democrats weren't holding enough cards as the 2008 campaign approaches, the Republican administration and its congressional rubber-stampers seem intent on providing some more.
Send the over-paid political consultants home and ask Dionne if it would be OK to use his words verbatim in your TV and radio ads, and in your mailings.
From today's Washington Post Op-Ed page:
Conservatives claim to be in favor of stable families, small businesses, hard work, private schools, investment and homeownership. So why in the world are so many on the right attacking the family of Graeme Frost?
Frost is the 12-year-old from Baltimore who delivered the Democrats' reply to a radio address by President Bush in September. The seventh-grader pleaded -- in vain, it turned out -- that the president not veto Congress's $35 billion expansion of the children's health care program known as SCHIP. A car crash in December 2004 left two of Halsey and Bonnie Frost's children comatose, Graeme with a brain stem injury and Gemma, his sister, with a cranial fracture.
The kids were treated, thanks to SCHIP. The Frosts spoke out so the public would know that real people lie behind the acronym.
Their reward was to be trashed on right-wing blogs and talk radio as if they were multimillionaires ripping off the system. The assault on the Frosts apparently began on the Free Republic Web site and quickly spread to National Review Online, Power Line and Michelle Malkin's blog, as well as Rush Limbaugh's radio show.
And of what were the Frosts guilty? Well, they own their own home, which they bought for $55,000 in 1990 and which is now worth about $260,000; they invested in a commercial property, valued at $160,000; Halsey Frost, a self-employed woodworker, once owned a small business that was dissolved in 1999; and Graeme attends a private school on scholarship. I rely here on facts reported this week in the Baltimore Sun and the New York Times, both of which set straight the more outlandish claims made by the Frosts' attackers.
The right is unapologetic. "The Democrats chose to outsource their airtime to a Seventh Grader," wrote National Review's Mark Steyn. "If a political party is desperate enough to send a boy to do a man's job, then the boy is fair game."
Okay, the Democrats are "fair game," but a 12-year-old? No wonder nobody talks about compassionate conservatism anymore.
(snip)
...[R]ather than just condemn the right-wingers as meanies, let's take their claims seriously. Doing so makes clear that they are engaged in a perverse and incoherent form of class warfare.
The left is accused of all manner of sins related to covetousness and envy whenever it raises questions about who benefits from Bush's tax cuts and mentions the yachts such folks might buy or the mansions they might own. But here is a family with modest possessions doing everything conservatives tell people they should do, and the right trashes them for getting help to buy health insurance for their children.
Most conservatives favor government-supported vouchers that would help Graeme attend his private school, but here they turn around and criticize him for . . . attending a private school. Federal money for private schools but not for health insurance? What's the logic here?
Conservatives endlessly praise risk-taking by entrepreneurs and would give big tax cuts to those who are most successful. But if a small-business person is struggling, he shouldn't even think about applying for SCHIP.
Conservatives who want to repeal the estate tax on large fortunes have cited stories -- most of them don't check out -- about farmers having to sell their farms to pay inheritance taxes. But the implication of these attacks on the Frosts is that they are expected to sell their investment property to pay for health care. Why?
Oh, yes, and conservatives tell us how much they love homeownership, and then assail the Frosts for having the nerve to own a home. I suppose they should have to sell that, too.
The real issue here is whether uninsured families with earnings similar to the Frosts' need government help to buy health coverage. With the average family policy in employer-provided plans now costing more than $12,000 annually -- the price is usually higher for families trying to buy it on their own -- the answer is plainly yes. All the conservative attacks on a boy from Baltimore who dared to speak out will not make this issue go away.
---------
The conservative logic, or lack thereof, regarding SCHIP funding is conspicously empty-headed, mean-spirited, and shot full of inconsistent holes. As if Democrats weren't holding enough cards as the 2008 campaign approaches, the Republican administration and its congressional rubber-stampers seem intent on providing some more.
Send the over-paid political consultants home and ask Dionne if it would be OK to use his words verbatim in your TV and radio ads, and in your mailings.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Where are "Pro-Family" Conservatives on SCHIP?
Mostly AWOL. One of the things I sometimes like to do when hot-button, socio-economic issues like SCHIP come on the agenda is check out what our supposedly "pro-family" groups on the "right" have to say. Regarding SCHIP, which affects millions of families and children, these groups must be going 24/7 emploring their readers to contact their congresspeople and demand that the program be expanded and the president's veto be over-ridden.
So, here is the summary of my research:
Checked the National Right to Life site, and nuthin'.
Checked Focus on the Family, and zippo.
Checked the site for the Family Research Council, which counsels against the bill for a variety of tangential reasons having to do with Planned Parenthood. I wonder why the NRTLC wasn't all over this angle?
Sigh. This has been another edition of your irregular What Do Conservative "Pro-Family" Groups Have To Say About Public Policy That Affects Families?
Hope you'll tune in next time when I ask, Where are "Pro-Family" Conservatives on Blackwater and how the Shoot to Kill Stategeries of Independent Mercenary Contractors in Iraq are Endangering Iraq's Families.
Thanks for watching.
So, here is the summary of my research:
Checked the National Right to Life site, and nuthin'.
Checked Focus on the Family, and zippo.
Checked the site for the Family Research Council, which counsels against the bill for a variety of tangential reasons having to do with Planned Parenthood. I wonder why the NRTLC wasn't all over this angle?
Sigh. This has been another edition of your irregular What Do Conservative "Pro-Family" Groups Have To Say About Public Policy That Affects Families?
Hope you'll tune in next time when I ask, Where are "Pro-Family" Conservatives on Blackwater and how the Shoot to Kill Stategeries of Independent Mercenary Contractors in Iraq are Endangering Iraq's Families.
Thanks for watching.
Paging Dr. Gupta
This is instructive. Michael Moore makes a movie about the state of U.S. healthcare and CNN devotes significant manpower to try to debunk the movie's claims.
When an anonymous commenter at the Huffington Post made some "nasty" and "vulgar" comments about Vice, CNN's (and the Washington Post's) Howard Kurtz emerged to condemn such "vile" expressions.
Meanwhile, large, bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress approve of extending SCHIP by a minute fraction of what the war in Iraq is costing us. Democrats showcase a middle class family that has benefited from the program. Leading representatives (not stray commenters) of conservative talk radio and the Internets put out a hit on the family, including stalking and harassment, and making random, erroneous claims--easily disproved--about them, and CNN rushes to the defense of...
Well, the right-wing goon squad of course.
When an anonymous commenter at the Huffington Post made some "nasty" and "vulgar" comments about Vice, CNN's (and the Washington Post's) Howard Kurtz emerged to condemn such "vile" expressions.
Meanwhile, large, bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress approve of extending SCHIP by a minute fraction of what the war in Iraq is costing us. Democrats showcase a middle class family that has benefited from the program. Leading representatives (not stray commenters) of conservative talk radio and the Internets put out a hit on the family, including stalking and harassment, and making random, erroneous claims--easily disproved--about them, and CNN rushes to the defense of...
Well, the right-wing goon squad of course.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Absurdly Early VP Picks
Picking up on Howard Fineman's speculations, I've been thinking a little about this for a few weeks at least.
Bayh and Vilsack seem obvious choices to me. I don't know what to think of Richardson as VP. While he's certainly knowlegeable on foreign affairs he still seems like an odd duck to me. Too easy to imagine him making a gaffe or drawing attention to himself in an unhelpful way. Think of Bob Graham and the diaries.
I hadn't thought of Salazar, the Senator from Colorado, or Bredesen, the governor of Tennessee. And I don't know enough about them to have an opinion on them yet. Both come from states that could be up for grabs, although Tennessee may still be too far away.
How about Joe Biden? He wouldn't bring anything electorally to the position, but he would bring a reputation for foreign policy "seriousness" and experience more broadly. I think the pundit class likes him, and that might not be too bad. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. But Biden talks too much, and like Richardson, might not be inclined to keep things under wraps as a suitable VP.
How about if Obama is the nominee?
I'm inclined to think that someone like Bill Bradley might fit Obama pretty well. Someone more experienced, a somewhat "reformer" reputation, someone to compliment Obama's campaign against the politics of usual. That was sort of Bradley's schtick in 2000 and if I'm not mistaken, he wrote a book about it. Bradley would bring a "substance over style" impression and I don't think he'd upstage Obama but would nonetheless be a well-regarded pick. A sort of "elder statesman" choice, not too far removed from politics or too old, but despite his experience, different.
Bayh and Vilsack seem obvious choices to me. I don't know what to think of Richardson as VP. While he's certainly knowlegeable on foreign affairs he still seems like an odd duck to me. Too easy to imagine him making a gaffe or drawing attention to himself in an unhelpful way. Think of Bob Graham and the diaries.
I hadn't thought of Salazar, the Senator from Colorado, or Bredesen, the governor of Tennessee. And I don't know enough about them to have an opinion on them yet. Both come from states that could be up for grabs, although Tennessee may still be too far away.
How about Joe Biden? He wouldn't bring anything electorally to the position, but he would bring a reputation for foreign policy "seriousness" and experience more broadly. I think the pundit class likes him, and that might not be too bad. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. But Biden talks too much, and like Richardson, might not be inclined to keep things under wraps as a suitable VP.
How about if Obama is the nominee?
I'm inclined to think that someone like Bill Bradley might fit Obama pretty well. Someone more experienced, a somewhat "reformer" reputation, someone to compliment Obama's campaign against the politics of usual. That was sort of Bradley's schtick in 2000 and if I'm not mistaken, he wrote a book about it. Bradley would bring a "substance over style" impression and I don't think he'd upstage Obama but would nonetheless be a well-regarded pick. A sort of "elder statesman" choice, not too far removed from politics or too old, but despite his experience, different.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
"It's Not THAT Important"
John Cole discusses the war-mongering right-wing's fanatic affection for wars of existential importance but strangely hostile stances towards either serving in, or paying the taxes for, these wars--
I never met a tax I liked, but I do like the fact that I will get to watch the Patriots (and I don’t mean Tom Brady and Randy Moss) in the right blogosphere go BALLISTIC over this proposal. I mean, come on- when they spent the last five years telling you, me, and everybody that this is the greatest struggle of our lifetime and we have to win or Muslim radicals are going to force us to wear burkhas, they didn’t mean it was so fucking serious we had to have a tax increase.
Let’s have some god damned perspective, Democrats. Sure- the war is super important, but when we said sacrifice we meant defacing your car with a patriotic bumper sticker. Not raising taxes. Jesus. It isn’t THAT important.
Glenn Greenwald adds--
Our Beltway establishment today is even worse than the sickly culture about which Smith warns, since they will not even tolerate mild increases in taxes to fund their war amusements. This is a critical disease in our political culture: that all appendanges of our political class (other than the military itself) bear no sacrifice whatsoever for the wars they cheer on, and hence, are "dissatisfied with the return of peace, which puts an end to their amusement, and to a thousand visionary hopes of conquest and national glory from a longer continuance of the war."
(snip)
Preventing any fundamental examination of America's role in the world -- questioning why we invade and bomb and occupy and interfere in the governance other countries more than anyone else by far -- is one of the top objectives of Beltway orthodoxy. Obama has been flirting with challenging these orthodoxies, but given how entrenched they are, flirtation is not nearly enough.
I never met a tax I liked, but I do like the fact that I will get to watch the Patriots (and I don’t mean Tom Brady and Randy Moss) in the right blogosphere go BALLISTIC over this proposal. I mean, come on- when they spent the last five years telling you, me, and everybody that this is the greatest struggle of our lifetime and we have to win or Muslim radicals are going to force us to wear burkhas, they didn’t mean it was so fucking serious we had to have a tax increase.
Let’s have some god damned perspective, Democrats. Sure- the war is super important, but when we said sacrifice we meant defacing your car with a patriotic bumper sticker. Not raising taxes. Jesus. It isn’t THAT important.
Glenn Greenwald adds--
Our Beltway establishment today is even worse than the sickly culture about which Smith warns, since they will not even tolerate mild increases in taxes to fund their war amusements. This is a critical disease in our political culture: that all appendanges of our political class (other than the military itself) bear no sacrifice whatsoever for the wars they cheer on, and hence, are "dissatisfied with the return of peace, which puts an end to their amusement, and to a thousand visionary hopes of conquest and national glory from a longer continuance of the war."
(snip)
Preventing any fundamental examination of America's role in the world -- questioning why we invade and bomb and occupy and interfere in the governance other countries more than anyone else by far -- is one of the top objectives of Beltway orthodoxy. Obama has been flirting with challenging these orthodoxies, but given how entrenched they are, flirtation is not nearly enough.
What The Next President Faces
Pakistan Seen Losing Fight Against Taliban And Al-Qaeda
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, October 3, 2007; Page A01
PESHAWAR, Pakistan -- Pakistan's government is losing its war against emboldened insurgent forces, giving al-Qaeda and the Taliban more territory in which to operate and allowing the groups to plot increasingly ambitious attacks, according to Pakistani and Western security officials.
The depth of the problem has become clear only in recent months, as regional peace deals have collapsed and the government has deferred developing a new strategy to defeat insurgents until Pakistan's leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, can resolve a political crisis that threatens his presidency.
Meanwhile, radical Islamic fighters who were evicted from Afghanistan by the 2001 U.S.-led invasion have intensified a ruthless campaign that has consumed Pakistan's tribal areas and now affects its major cities. Military officials say the insurgents have enhanced their ability to threaten not only Pakistan but the United States and Europe as well.
"They've had a chance to regroup and reorganize," said a Western military official in Pakistan. "They're well equipped. They're clearly getting training from somewhere. And they're using more and more advanced tactics."
Pakistan's military, on the other hand, is considering pulling back from the fight -- at least partially -- in the face of mounting losses, the official said.
"They're not trained for a counterinsurgency. It's not their number one priority. It's not even their number two priority," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "These are the reasons things aren't going their way."
Pakistani military officials concede they are searching for a new strategy now that the old one has gone awry. But with Musharraf struggling to stay in office and expected to soon step down from the military, no decisions are likely until questions over the country's leadership are settled.
"The federal government is busy with its problem of legitimacy. Getting Musharraf elected for another five years -- that is keeping everything on hold," said retired Brig. Gen. Mehmood Shah, who until 2005 was a top security official in the tribal areas.
In recent years, Pakistan has relied on deals with insurgents to keep them from launching offensives. But two such agreements -- in North and South Waziristan -- fell apart this summer when insurgent leaders abruptly announced they were backing out.
The main criticism of the deals, both in Pakistan and in the West, had been that they gave al-Qaeda and the Taliban sanctuary in which to train, plot and launch attacks.
Now, security experts say Pakistan is paying the price for not confronting the problem head-on, with insurgent groups capitalizing on their newfound strength.
Last month, a suicide bomber attacked a bus carrying workers with the nation's hugely influential spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, killing 22 people. Just a week later, a bomber reportedly wearing a military uniform breached one of the most secure army installations in the country, where elite commandos train. The assailant detonated his explosives in the officers' mess during dinnertime, leaving 17 soldiers dead.
The latest blows came Monday, when a suicide bomber killed 15 people, including four policemen, in the northwestern town of Bannu. Late Monday night, more than 20 Frontier Corps troops went missing after their post near Bannu came under attack.
The insurgent strikes represent a humiliating breakdown in security for the world's sixth-largest army. But most embarrassing is the fact that about 250 soldiers remain in Taliban hands more than a month after they were taken hostage.
The soldiers were traveling in a supply convoy through the hostile terrain of South Waziristan on Aug. 30 when their route was blocked by a group of local fighters. Although they were vastly outnumbered, the fighters managed to persuade the soldiers to surrender without firing a shot. Since then, the government has been unable to win the soldiers' freedom because the Taliban is seeking major concessions.
"This kidnapping is a lesson to the government to honor its peace deal with us," said Zulfiqar Mehsud, a spokesman for the Taliban, which blames the government for violating the agreement. Mehsud's group wants to transform Pakistan into a radical Islamic state modeled after Afghanistan before the 2001 U.S.-led invasion.
The troops' surrender has called into question the army's commitment to fighting an unpopular war that requires Pakistanis to kill their countrymen. It has also exposed the army to ridicule.
"In Waziristan, people are laughing at the army," said Lateef Afridi, a tribal elder and lawyer. "I really feel pity for these soldiers."
One of those soldiers, Najmul Hasan, 29, recently spent 50 days in Taliban captivity in Waziristan. "The ringleaders would threaten on a daily basis to behead us if the government didn't release their members," Hasan said. He and two others eventually escaped, but other soldiers were, in fact, beheaded. The Taliban videotaped one such incident in which an execution was carried out by a teenage boy.
While Waziristan is believed to be the operational headquarters for the insurgency, militant groups have expanded their reach significantly over the past year. They now have a firm grip not only on the tribal areas that line the Afghan border but on other sections of northwest Pakistan as well.
Residents of this frontier city are beginning to feel besieged, with the surrounding countryside falling under insurgents' sway and assailants occasionally carrying out attacks in Peshawar.
Even hard-line religious leaders are not safe. Last month, one of Peshawar's most prominent clerics, Maulana Hassan Jan, was assassinated as he rode in his car to evening prayers. Although he had been outspoken in his criticism of the United States and was revered among many who want to bring Islamic law to Pakistan, he was not radical enough to satisfy insurgent groups, who are blamed for his killing. He had, for instance, shunned the pro-Taliban clerics at Islamabad's Red Mosque, or Lal Masjid, when they instigated an armed standoff with the government in July.
"Traditional religious and political leaders are losing ground because people consider them very soft against Pervez Musharraf and America," said Qibla Ayaz, dean of the Islamic studies program at Peshawar University. "Among the youth, their influence is weakening."
The United States has pumped about $10 billion into Pakistan since 2001, the vast majority of it for the military. But the aid does not seem to have won the United States many friends here. Nor has it successfully prepared the Pakistani army to battle insurgents.
"The sad thing about it is that a lot of these militants are better off than the Frontier Corps," said the Western official, referring to the Pakistani force that is supposed to be on the front lines fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The militants "have rockets. They have advanced weapons. And the Frontier Corps has sandals and a bolt-action rifle."
Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has sought to exploit the Pakistani military's deficiencies and its unpopular ties to the United States. Last month, he released an unusual audio recording in which he focused almost all of his wrath on Musharraf and called on Pakistanis to overthrow their government.
Shah, the retired general, said that knowing how strong al-Qaeda has become, Pakistani officials are deluding themselves if they think insurgents will back down anytime soon.
"Pakistan should have no doubt about what these people have done, and what they can do," he said. "They have declared war on Pakistan. Now the army must make a war plan."
------------------------------------------
While the U.S. is mired in the war in Iraq, threatening to add another war against Iran, there is, remarkably, in Pakistan still another more problematic area that is largely being ignored.
The next president will have to clean up the mess left it and confront a growing danger in Pakistan. If the next president is a Democrat, you can be assured that the pressure on him or her to confront Osama bin Forgotten in Pakistan before he and his renegades take over that country will be ramped up to a level spared, for reasons unclear to this blogger, the current occupant.
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, October 3, 2007; Page A01
PESHAWAR, Pakistan -- Pakistan's government is losing its war against emboldened insurgent forces, giving al-Qaeda and the Taliban more territory in which to operate and allowing the groups to plot increasingly ambitious attacks, according to Pakistani and Western security officials.
The depth of the problem has become clear only in recent months, as regional peace deals have collapsed and the government has deferred developing a new strategy to defeat insurgents until Pakistan's leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, can resolve a political crisis that threatens his presidency.
Meanwhile, radical Islamic fighters who were evicted from Afghanistan by the 2001 U.S.-led invasion have intensified a ruthless campaign that has consumed Pakistan's tribal areas and now affects its major cities. Military officials say the insurgents have enhanced their ability to threaten not only Pakistan but the United States and Europe as well.
"They've had a chance to regroup and reorganize," said a Western military official in Pakistan. "They're well equipped. They're clearly getting training from somewhere. And they're using more and more advanced tactics."
Pakistan's military, on the other hand, is considering pulling back from the fight -- at least partially -- in the face of mounting losses, the official said.
"They're not trained for a counterinsurgency. It's not their number one priority. It's not even their number two priority," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "These are the reasons things aren't going their way."
Pakistani military officials concede they are searching for a new strategy now that the old one has gone awry. But with Musharraf struggling to stay in office and expected to soon step down from the military, no decisions are likely until questions over the country's leadership are settled.
"The federal government is busy with its problem of legitimacy. Getting Musharraf elected for another five years -- that is keeping everything on hold," said retired Brig. Gen. Mehmood Shah, who until 2005 was a top security official in the tribal areas.
In recent years, Pakistan has relied on deals with insurgents to keep them from launching offensives. But two such agreements -- in North and South Waziristan -- fell apart this summer when insurgent leaders abruptly announced they were backing out.
The main criticism of the deals, both in Pakistan and in the West, had been that they gave al-Qaeda and the Taliban sanctuary in which to train, plot and launch attacks.
Now, security experts say Pakistan is paying the price for not confronting the problem head-on, with insurgent groups capitalizing on their newfound strength.
Last month, a suicide bomber attacked a bus carrying workers with the nation's hugely influential spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, killing 22 people. Just a week later, a bomber reportedly wearing a military uniform breached one of the most secure army installations in the country, where elite commandos train. The assailant detonated his explosives in the officers' mess during dinnertime, leaving 17 soldiers dead.
The latest blows came Monday, when a suicide bomber killed 15 people, including four policemen, in the northwestern town of Bannu. Late Monday night, more than 20 Frontier Corps troops went missing after their post near Bannu came under attack.
The insurgent strikes represent a humiliating breakdown in security for the world's sixth-largest army. But most embarrassing is the fact that about 250 soldiers remain in Taliban hands more than a month after they were taken hostage.
The soldiers were traveling in a supply convoy through the hostile terrain of South Waziristan on Aug. 30 when their route was blocked by a group of local fighters. Although they were vastly outnumbered, the fighters managed to persuade the soldiers to surrender without firing a shot. Since then, the government has been unable to win the soldiers' freedom because the Taliban is seeking major concessions.
"This kidnapping is a lesson to the government to honor its peace deal with us," said Zulfiqar Mehsud, a spokesman for the Taliban, which blames the government for violating the agreement. Mehsud's group wants to transform Pakistan into a radical Islamic state modeled after Afghanistan before the 2001 U.S.-led invasion.
The troops' surrender has called into question the army's commitment to fighting an unpopular war that requires Pakistanis to kill their countrymen. It has also exposed the army to ridicule.
"In Waziristan, people are laughing at the army," said Lateef Afridi, a tribal elder and lawyer. "I really feel pity for these soldiers."
One of those soldiers, Najmul Hasan, 29, recently spent 50 days in Taliban captivity in Waziristan. "The ringleaders would threaten on a daily basis to behead us if the government didn't release their members," Hasan said. He and two others eventually escaped, but other soldiers were, in fact, beheaded. The Taliban videotaped one such incident in which an execution was carried out by a teenage boy.
While Waziristan is believed to be the operational headquarters for the insurgency, militant groups have expanded their reach significantly over the past year. They now have a firm grip not only on the tribal areas that line the Afghan border but on other sections of northwest Pakistan as well.
Residents of this frontier city are beginning to feel besieged, with the surrounding countryside falling under insurgents' sway and assailants occasionally carrying out attacks in Peshawar.
Even hard-line religious leaders are not safe. Last month, one of Peshawar's most prominent clerics, Maulana Hassan Jan, was assassinated as he rode in his car to evening prayers. Although he had been outspoken in his criticism of the United States and was revered among many who want to bring Islamic law to Pakistan, he was not radical enough to satisfy insurgent groups, who are blamed for his killing. He had, for instance, shunned the pro-Taliban clerics at Islamabad's Red Mosque, or Lal Masjid, when they instigated an armed standoff with the government in July.
"Traditional religious and political leaders are losing ground because people consider them very soft against Pervez Musharraf and America," said Qibla Ayaz, dean of the Islamic studies program at Peshawar University. "Among the youth, their influence is weakening."
The United States has pumped about $10 billion into Pakistan since 2001, the vast majority of it for the military. But the aid does not seem to have won the United States many friends here. Nor has it successfully prepared the Pakistani army to battle insurgents.
"The sad thing about it is that a lot of these militants are better off than the Frontier Corps," said the Western official, referring to the Pakistani force that is supposed to be on the front lines fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The militants "have rockets. They have advanced weapons. And the Frontier Corps has sandals and a bolt-action rifle."
Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has sought to exploit the Pakistani military's deficiencies and its unpopular ties to the United States. Last month, he released an unusual audio recording in which he focused almost all of his wrath on Musharraf and called on Pakistanis to overthrow their government.
Shah, the retired general, said that knowing how strong al-Qaeda has become, Pakistani officials are deluding themselves if they think insurgents will back down anytime soon.
"Pakistan should have no doubt about what these people have done, and what they can do," he said. "They have declared war on Pakistan. Now the army must make a war plan."
------------------------------------------
While the U.S. is mired in the war in Iraq, threatening to add another war against Iran, there is, remarkably, in Pakistan still another more problematic area that is largely being ignored.
The next president will have to clean up the mess left it and confront a growing danger in Pakistan. If the next president is a Democrat, you can be assured that the pressure on him or her to confront Osama bin Forgotten in Pakistan before he and his renegades take over that country will be ramped up to a level spared, for reasons unclear to this blogger, the current occupant.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Faith Matters
Atrios makes a valid point here. How is it that (Christian) "faith" is important for candidates to have, but the specifics of that faith are off-limits for discussion?
On a more positive note, I have to admire Fred Thompson's unpopular position admitting that he doesn't go to church regularly. Then again, I'm sure that were he to without reservation support the Christianist positions on their favorite issues, all would be excused.
On a more positive note, I have to admire Fred Thompson's unpopular position admitting that he doesn't go to church regularly. Then again, I'm sure that were he to without reservation support the Christianist positions on their favorite issues, all would be excused.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Just You Wait Till We Have a Democratic Congress
Sure, Congress sure was teh stupid this week, approving in the House and the Senate, resolutions condemning the Constitionally protected, private, paid for, speech of Moveon.org. And the Senate also approved a pre-emptive resolution to wage preventative war on Iran, a maneuver we can rest assured that the Israel Lobby had absolutely no interest in, and the Israel Lobby, which has no influence in Washington, D.C., probably wasn't even aware of the thing.
But what do you expect? This is why we need a Democratic Congress. A Democratic Congress would never let this kind of stuff happen.
But what do you expect? This is why we need a Democratic Congress. A Democratic Congress would never let this kind of stuff happen.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
AIPAC Bullies Moran (Updated below)
Today's Washington Post:
Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA.) had what might be characterized as a "come to Moses" meeting with a handful of Jewish constituents angered by his recent assertion that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) pushed the United States into war in Iraq.
Six members of AIPAC, five of whom are Moran's constituents, aired their grievances during a private meeting in the congressman's Capitol Hill office last Thursday. The essence of their message, as one participant summarized, was: "Cut it out, Jim."
The participant said the group explained to Moran -- a repeat offender in the eyes of the Jewish community -- that his comments were "false and seriously offensive" and told him they hoped he would "check his facts better before he talks" in the future.
That source and another participant who spoke about the meeting on the condition of anonymity said they're now waiting to see how Moran will respond and whether he will seek to mend fences with constituents he offended. Both used the expression, "The ball's in his court."
As to whether that means the group hopes to get an apology or a clarification from the congressman, one of the sources said, "I have no expectations on this." A third source familiar with the meeting said Moran neither apologized nor offered to retract his comments about the pro-Israel lobby.
The meeting was called in response to Moran's explosive comments in an interview with Tikkun magazine in which he said AIPAC "has pushed this war from the beginning...They are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful -- most of them are quite wealthy -- they have been able to exert power."
Moran's Jewish Democratic colleagues, led by influential Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), denounced the Virginia lawmaker in an angry letter last week, saying, "The idea that the war in Iraq began because of the influence of Jewish Americans is factually incorrect and unfortunately fits the anti-Semitic stereotypes some have used historically against Jews."
House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer called Moran's comments "inaccurate, wrong and unfortunate." And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi piled on, saying, "I disagree and reject Congressman Moran's characterization of AIPAC. AIPAC did not lead us into this disastrous war in Iraq. President Bush and Vice President Cheney did."
Then came the private face-to-face in Moran's office last week. The meeting was called by AIPAC member Jerome Chapman, an attorney with Arnold & Porter who has lobbied Moran for years on issues dear to AIPAC.
Chapman, who is also a constituent of Moran's, said, "It wasn't the first time he has made remarks in this vain. What I'm hoping is it's the last time." (He was alluding, of course, to Moran's other infamous comment, in 2003, when the congressman said, "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this.")
Chapman was relieved this week to see Moran voting with AIPAC on a bill to impose tough sanctions against Iran. He even sent a thank-you email to Moran's chief of staff saying, "Please let Jim know that I thank him for the vote."
The vote on Iran sanctions was one thing, an apology on his inexplicable belief that AIPAC lobbied for the war in Iraq may be quite another.
Moran spokesman Austin Durrer said, "The Congressman met with local AIPAC leaders for two hours last week and appreciated hearing their concerns. His opinion still differs from theirs but the lines of communication will remain open to discuss the underlying issues raised in the Tikkun article."
--------
So, this article says that Congressman Jim Moran has an "inexplicable belief that AIPAC lobbied for the war in Iraq" and that said belief is "false and seriously offensive" and that furthermore, to say such a thing would be "factually incorrect".
Leaving aside the fact that, in regards to AIPAC and Iraq, AIPAC doth protest too much, does anyone else see the blatant irony in the fact that a member of Congress is at once berated for alleging that AIPAC lobbied for the war in Iraq while being praised for voting "with AIPAC" in favor of a bill to "impose tough sanctions on Iran"? The news article doesn't identify the bill in question, but I wonder if it wasn't a House version of this one.
Ah, it looks like this is the bill in question.
In any event, when the U.S. goes to war with Iran, will AIPAC try to bamboozle away its pressure for that war, too?
Update: my reading of this link at AIPAC's webpage is that AIPAC was in favor of the Senate bill, too.
The AIPAC apologists mentioned in the above news article appear to be claiming that, in addition to not forcing the Iraq war down America's throat, that AIPAC itself isn't all that influential and doesn't really have an agenda. That the AIPAC rep would then gush in support of Moran's support for the sanctions measure would seem to counter that innocuous conclusion.
Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA.) had what might be characterized as a "come to Moses" meeting with a handful of Jewish constituents angered by his recent assertion that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) pushed the United States into war in Iraq.
Six members of AIPAC, five of whom are Moran's constituents, aired their grievances during a private meeting in the congressman's Capitol Hill office last Thursday. The essence of their message, as one participant summarized, was: "Cut it out, Jim."
The participant said the group explained to Moran -- a repeat offender in the eyes of the Jewish community -- that his comments were "false and seriously offensive" and told him they hoped he would "check his facts better before he talks" in the future.
That source and another participant who spoke about the meeting on the condition of anonymity said they're now waiting to see how Moran will respond and whether he will seek to mend fences with constituents he offended. Both used the expression, "The ball's in his court."
As to whether that means the group hopes to get an apology or a clarification from the congressman, one of the sources said, "I have no expectations on this." A third source familiar with the meeting said Moran neither apologized nor offered to retract his comments about the pro-Israel lobby.
The meeting was called in response to Moran's explosive comments in an interview with Tikkun magazine in which he said AIPAC "has pushed this war from the beginning...They are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful -- most of them are quite wealthy -- they have been able to exert power."
Moran's Jewish Democratic colleagues, led by influential Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), denounced the Virginia lawmaker in an angry letter last week, saying, "The idea that the war in Iraq began because of the influence of Jewish Americans is factually incorrect and unfortunately fits the anti-Semitic stereotypes some have used historically against Jews."
House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer called Moran's comments "inaccurate, wrong and unfortunate." And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi piled on, saying, "I disagree and reject Congressman Moran's characterization of AIPAC. AIPAC did not lead us into this disastrous war in Iraq. President Bush and Vice President Cheney did."
Then came the private face-to-face in Moran's office last week. The meeting was called by AIPAC member Jerome Chapman, an attorney with Arnold & Porter who has lobbied Moran for years on issues dear to AIPAC.
Chapman, who is also a constituent of Moran's, said, "It wasn't the first time he has made remarks in this vain. What I'm hoping is it's the last time." (He was alluding, of course, to Moran's other infamous comment, in 2003, when the congressman said, "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this.")
Chapman was relieved this week to see Moran voting with AIPAC on a bill to impose tough sanctions against Iran. He even sent a thank-you email to Moran's chief of staff saying, "Please let Jim know that I thank him for the vote."
The vote on Iran sanctions was one thing, an apology on his inexplicable belief that AIPAC lobbied for the war in Iraq may be quite another.
Moran spokesman Austin Durrer said, "The Congressman met with local AIPAC leaders for two hours last week and appreciated hearing their concerns. His opinion still differs from theirs but the lines of communication will remain open to discuss the underlying issues raised in the Tikkun article."
--------
So, this article says that Congressman Jim Moran has an "inexplicable belief that AIPAC lobbied for the war in Iraq" and that said belief is "false and seriously offensive" and that furthermore, to say such a thing would be "factually incorrect".
Leaving aside the fact that, in regards to AIPAC and Iraq, AIPAC doth protest too much, does anyone else see the blatant irony in the fact that a member of Congress is at once berated for alleging that AIPAC lobbied for the war in Iraq while being praised for voting "with AIPAC" in favor of a bill to "impose tough sanctions on Iran"? The news article doesn't identify the bill in question, but I wonder if it wasn't a House version of this one.
Ah, it looks like this is the bill in question.
In any event, when the U.S. goes to war with Iran, will AIPAC try to bamboozle away its pressure for that war, too?
Update: my reading of this link at AIPAC's webpage is that AIPAC was in favor of the Senate bill, too.
The AIPAC apologists mentioned in the above news article appear to be claiming that, in addition to not forcing the Iraq war down America's throat, that AIPAC itself isn't all that influential and doesn't really have an agenda. That the AIPAC rep would then gush in support of Moran's support for the sanctions measure would seem to counter that innocuous conclusion.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Why is the Progressive Blogosphere MIA on Jena?
Pam Spaulding points out what I alluded to below, that the progressive blogosphere has not had the case of the Jena 6 on its radar, although it was highlighted by Democracy Now's Amy Goodman over two months ago.
Reading Pam's post, and surfing through the leading progressive blogs is a trip of cognitive dissonance, particularly as Pam notes, many of these same blogs are only to eager to capitalize on the Republican candidates' dissing of minority-moderated debates and events.
Why such a blindspot among us?
-------
I started this post yesterday (September 20) and briefly let it publish before returning to it to make some revisions and ultimately to send it back to draft status when I couldn't get it together in a way that suited me.
In the interim, the peaceful marching and demonstration in Jena of "tens of thousands" of mostly African Americans from around the country has taken place.
And still. No commentary from the blogosphere (except for Pandagon's Pam Spaulding). (cue the sound of crickets chirping)
This is really shocking to this white senator.
How to explain it?
The answer I was trying to put together yesterday had to do with the fact that we white bloggers are mostly consumed with the Great Partisan Debate. This preoccupation lends itself to a focus on national issues, like war and the economy, and to national figures, like party officials and media elites. That is to say, if an issue, development or situation can be immediately and directly plugged into the Great Partisan Debate, than it is fodder for the blogger mill. But if the issue is perceived as parachial (i.e. local or limited in application) or ambigious, and most of all, if it is not easy to see its connection to the Great Partisan Debate, than that issue will whither on the vine.
And I still think this explains a lot of it. But to not have any of the A-list blogs commenting on yesterday's demonstration and the situation in Jena TODAY, after the demonstration and the national media coverage paid to it has me completely baffled.
A secondary but related feature of the Jena case that gives it the blogosphere kiss of death is its criminal justice component. Criminal justice issues, inequality in sentencing, the Drug War, prison conditions, AIDS in prison, prison rape and violence, gangs in prison, rehabilitation and especially, the racial intercept of all these issues, are the political black hole (no pun intended but it may apply anyway) of national politics. Hence, the A-list of white bloggers consumed with national issues, national personalities, and the Great Partisan Debate, shy away from criminal justice issues in the states and localities (unless the criminal case is in Washington, DC and involves administration officials).
For all our talk about how myopic and self indulgent the Washington Beltway class is, most of us bloggers are not much better or different in regards to things taking place in the lives of regular people outside of major metropolitan areas and to the culture and vibes of truly alternative media and community fronts (i.e black radio).
All I can say today is that the White Out regarding Jena is simply astounding. I'm embarassed.
Post Script
I have to say that Al Sharpton had a good one at yesterday's demonstration. He said (I'm paraphrasing from what I heard him say from this morning's Democracy Now broadcast).
"The first Civil Rights struggle was against Jim Crow. Today's Civil Right's struggle is against James Crow, Jr. Esq. The first Civil Right's struggle was about a seat on the bus. Today's Civil Right's struggle is about our seat in the courtroom."
Post Script II
Those A-listers who have briefly raised the subject of the Jena 6 have done so in the context of--wait for it--the statements about the Jena released by the Democratic presidential candidates. This is that What Are You Doing For The Great Partisan Debate? angle I discussed above. See the 7th bulleted item in this Daily Kos post for an example of the same.
Post Script III
I think the left blogosphere has been silent on this matter due in no small part to the fact we are without the late, great Steve Gilliard. It's times like these when his presence is most missed. Steve brought more of a real world connection to the reality based blogosphere.
Post Script IV
The Daily Kos and FireDogLake (in an ambigously worded post-title) now have frontpage posts up about Jena.
Reading Pam's post, and surfing through the leading progressive blogs is a trip of cognitive dissonance, particularly as Pam notes, many of these same blogs are only to eager to capitalize on the Republican candidates' dissing of minority-moderated debates and events.
Why such a blindspot among us?
-------
I started this post yesterday (September 20) and briefly let it publish before returning to it to make some revisions and ultimately to send it back to draft status when I couldn't get it together in a way that suited me.
In the interim, the peaceful marching and demonstration in Jena of "tens of thousands" of mostly African Americans from around the country has taken place.
And still. No commentary from the blogosphere (except for Pandagon's Pam Spaulding). (cue the sound of crickets chirping)
This is really shocking to this white senator.
How to explain it?
The answer I was trying to put together yesterday had to do with the fact that we white bloggers are mostly consumed with the Great Partisan Debate. This preoccupation lends itself to a focus on national issues, like war and the economy, and to national figures, like party officials and media elites. That is to say, if an issue, development or situation can be immediately and directly plugged into the Great Partisan Debate, than it is fodder for the blogger mill. But if the issue is perceived as parachial (i.e. local or limited in application) or ambigious, and most of all, if it is not easy to see its connection to the Great Partisan Debate, than that issue will whither on the vine.
And I still think this explains a lot of it. But to not have any of the A-list blogs commenting on yesterday's demonstration and the situation in Jena TODAY, after the demonstration and the national media coverage paid to it has me completely baffled.
A secondary but related feature of the Jena case that gives it the blogosphere kiss of death is its criminal justice component. Criminal justice issues, inequality in sentencing, the Drug War, prison conditions, AIDS in prison, prison rape and violence, gangs in prison, rehabilitation and especially, the racial intercept of all these issues, are the political black hole (no pun intended but it may apply anyway) of national politics. Hence, the A-list of white bloggers consumed with national issues, national personalities, and the Great Partisan Debate, shy away from criminal justice issues in the states and localities (unless the criminal case is in Washington, DC and involves administration officials).
For all our talk about how myopic and self indulgent the Washington Beltway class is, most of us bloggers are not much better or different in regards to things taking place in the lives of regular people outside of major metropolitan areas and to the culture and vibes of truly alternative media and community fronts (i.e black radio).
All I can say today is that the White Out regarding Jena is simply astounding. I'm embarassed.
Post Script
I have to say that Al Sharpton had a good one at yesterday's demonstration. He said (I'm paraphrasing from what I heard him say from this morning's Democracy Now broadcast).
"The first Civil Rights struggle was against Jim Crow. Today's Civil Right's struggle is against James Crow, Jr. Esq. The first Civil Right's struggle was about a seat on the bus. Today's Civil Right's struggle is about our seat in the courtroom."
Post Script II
Those A-listers who have briefly raised the subject of the Jena 6 have done so in the context of--wait for it--the statements about the Jena released by the Democratic presidential candidates. This is that What Are You Doing For The Great Partisan Debate? angle I discussed above. See the 7th bulleted item in this Daily Kos post for an example of the same.
Post Script III
I think the left blogosphere has been silent on this matter due in no small part to the fact we are without the late, great Steve Gilliard. It's times like these when his presence is most missed. Steve brought more of a real world connection to the reality based blogosphere.
Post Script IV
The Daily Kos and FireDogLake (in an ambigously worded post-title) now have frontpage posts up about Jena.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
The Jena 6
There hasn't been much left-blogosphere attention to this case, so far. Pandagon's Pam Spaulding has written about it. But I haven' t seen it blogged about anywhere else. I first heard about it at least a month ago on Democracy Now.
The details still seem a little fuzzy to me. First example, the fight at the school in which six black kids supposedly assaulted one white kid. There was a report that a racial epithet started the fight, but that, again, is a little unclear. As is whether anyone else was involved, and whether the attack was pre-meditated (among the charges against the Six was Conspiracy, which would imply pre-meditation).
And then, as Democracy Now reported, there was the District Attorney coming to the campus amidst the initial White Tree crisis and threatening the students:
The story of the Jena Six began at the start of the school year last year, when an African American student asked at a school assembly if he could sit down under a schoolyard tree unofficially reserved for white students. The next morning, three nooses were hanging from the tree's broad, leafy branches. African American students protested, gathering under the tree. Soon after, the district attorney, Reed Walters, came to the school with the police, threatening, “I could end your lives with the stroke of a pen.”
Who, or which students, were the target of this statement from the DA? All of them? The black students only? Those who hung the nooses? It is unclear what the full context of the DA''s remark was.
But in any event, the extent of the charges (Conspiracy, Second Degree Attempted Murder) and the possible sentences call to mind the abuses behind the drug arrests in Tulia, Texas a few years ago.
It's also distressing and a bit curious to read, as I did today, that the first convicted defendent, Mychal Bell, has had his conviction tossed out because Bell was tried as an adult instead of as a child. But Bell is still in jail, unable to raise the $90,000 for bail. With all the volunteers and protesters in Jena today, one would hope that they could pass the hat around, if it is as simple as that.
Fortunately, with thousands of protesters converging on Jena, the national media is finally beginning to pay attention. Hopefully we will learn more details about the charges against the 6 and if, as seems apparent, the charges are excessive, the teens will have their charges reduced or be released.
The details still seem a little fuzzy to me. First example, the fight at the school in which six black kids supposedly assaulted one white kid. There was a report that a racial epithet started the fight, but that, again, is a little unclear. As is whether anyone else was involved, and whether the attack was pre-meditated (among the charges against the Six was Conspiracy, which would imply pre-meditation).
And then, as Democracy Now reported, there was the District Attorney coming to the campus amidst the initial White Tree crisis and threatening the students:
The story of the Jena Six began at the start of the school year last year, when an African American student asked at a school assembly if he could sit down under a schoolyard tree unofficially reserved for white students. The next morning, three nooses were hanging from the tree's broad, leafy branches. African American students protested, gathering under the tree. Soon after, the district attorney, Reed Walters, came to the school with the police, threatening, “I could end your lives with the stroke of a pen.”
Who, or which students, were the target of this statement from the DA? All of them? The black students only? Those who hung the nooses? It is unclear what the full context of the DA''s remark was.
But in any event, the extent of the charges (Conspiracy, Second Degree Attempted Murder) and the possible sentences call to mind the abuses behind the drug arrests in Tulia, Texas a few years ago.
It's also distressing and a bit curious to read, as I did today, that the first convicted defendent, Mychal Bell, has had his conviction tossed out because Bell was tried as an adult instead of as a child. But Bell is still in jail, unable to raise the $90,000 for bail. With all the volunteers and protesters in Jena today, one would hope that they could pass the hat around, if it is as simple as that.
Fortunately, with thousands of protesters converging on Jena, the national media is finally beginning to pay attention. Hopefully we will learn more details about the charges against the 6 and if, as seems apparent, the charges are excessive, the teens will have their charges reduced or be released.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
What I'm Reading
Seizing Destiny: How America Grew from Sea to Shining Sea, by Richard Kluger
The Terror Presidency by Jack Goldsmith
Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy, by Charlie Savage
The first of these is a work of history, basically describing the settlement of America and the spread of the colonies and territories across the continent. It is not a breezy read; it requires careful attention. But it is written very eloquently and is very picturesque in its prose.
The Terror Presidency is by the former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush Administration from 2003 to 2004. The author is a small-c conservative, supportive of greater presidential prerogatives in the war on terror but an opponent of warrant-less surveillance and of the wholesale disregarding of the Geneva conventions. A more personal, easy to read book but well balanced in its writing and unlike many first hand accounts, well structured and light on the self-indulgence.
Takeover is by Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe who was among the first to write about the Bush Administration's use of "signing statements" and other dimensions of the "unitary executive theory" the administration employed in the aftermath of 911 to respond to the crises of the day but also in strategic response to ideas first formulated by, among others, Dick Cheney, first during his stint as President Ford's Chief of Staff and later, as a congressman and ranking House Republican on the joint Iran-Contra committee. From the later post, Cheney bonded with a Republican legislative aid, David Addington, and went on to issue a minority report dissenting from the full Iran Contra committee's scolding of the Reagan White House. The Cheney minority used the unitary executive theory concocted by Ed Meese's Federalist Society staffed Justice Department to argue that the White House was not obligated to follow or obey the Boland Amendment which had prohibited aid to the Contras. Not all of Cheney's Republican colleagues signed on to his minority report. The leading Senate Republican on the committee, New Hampshire's Warren Rudman signed the majority report and ridiculed the radicalism of the minority report and, presumably, its authors. Very riveting stuff.
The Terror Presidency by Jack Goldsmith
Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy, by Charlie Savage
The first of these is a work of history, basically describing the settlement of America and the spread of the colonies and territories across the continent. It is not a breezy read; it requires careful attention. But it is written very eloquently and is very picturesque in its prose.
The Terror Presidency is by the former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush Administration from 2003 to 2004. The author is a small-c conservative, supportive of greater presidential prerogatives in the war on terror but an opponent of warrant-less surveillance and of the wholesale disregarding of the Geneva conventions. A more personal, easy to read book but well balanced in its writing and unlike many first hand accounts, well structured and light on the self-indulgence.
Takeover is by Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe who was among the first to write about the Bush Administration's use of "signing statements" and other dimensions of the "unitary executive theory" the administration employed in the aftermath of 911 to respond to the crises of the day but also in strategic response to ideas first formulated by, among others, Dick Cheney, first during his stint as President Ford's Chief of Staff and later, as a congressman and ranking House Republican on the joint Iran-Contra committee. From the later post, Cheney bonded with a Republican legislative aid, David Addington, and went on to issue a minority report dissenting from the full Iran Contra committee's scolding of the Reagan White House. The Cheney minority used the unitary executive theory concocted by Ed Meese's Federalist Society staffed Justice Department to argue that the White House was not obligated to follow or obey the Boland Amendment which had prohibited aid to the Contras. Not all of Cheney's Republican colleagues signed on to his minority report. The leading Senate Republican on the committee, New Hampshire's Warren Rudman signed the majority report and ridiculed the radicalism of the minority report and, presumably, its authors. Very riveting stuff.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Our "Liberal" Washington Post Sunday Outlook Section
Top left hand corner op-ed by David Broder
Lindsey Graham's Realism
-- Are you kidding me? Nah, I didn't read this one.
Top dead center op-ed by Henry Kissinger
The Disaster of Hasty Withdrawal
-- What, again? Nah, I didn't read this one either. Would you?
Top right hand corner op-ed by David Ignatius
Cooling the Clash with Iran
-- This title sounds more promising, but knowing Ignatius' columns, I opted out of this op-ed, too.
Below the fold op-ed by Jim Hoagland
From Hope to Fear in Iraq
-- I did briefly skim this one, but only for the purposes of wrapping up this post. Didn't do wonders for me.
Lindsey Graham's Realism
-- Are you kidding me? Nah, I didn't read this one.
Top dead center op-ed by Henry Kissinger
The Disaster of Hasty Withdrawal
-- What, again? Nah, I didn't read this one either. Would you?
Top right hand corner op-ed by David Ignatius
Cooling the Clash with Iran
-- This title sounds more promising, but knowing Ignatius' columns, I opted out of this op-ed, too.
Below the fold op-ed by Jim Hoagland
From Hope to Fear in Iraq
-- I did briefly skim this one, but only for the purposes of wrapping up this post. Didn't do wonders for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)