The 10:00 Seinfeld episode showing on UPN channel 24 last night was a greatest hits one, so I flipped to CNN to see what Aaron Brown had to say on NewsNight.
His "news" program was all about military unit 507, the one with Jessica Lynch. It was entitled What Really Happened? Sigh. It was pretty much a puff piece about the glorious military.
Call me crazy but I'd a thought it might be worth covering Tom DeLay's comments about the separation of church and state, or his comments on the right to privacy (he opposes both), or the John Bolton nomination and its intersection with current U.S. military plans regarding Iran and its supposed nuclear ambitions and the nomination of John Negroponte as head intelligence czar (BTW, have you ever seen anyone as self evidently evil as Negroponte?).
Maybe they'll get around to covering Bolton, Negroponte and Iran once the administration finishes cooking the intelligence books on Iran, is saying that "inspections aren't working", and that before we endure a "mushroom cloud", we have to strike Tehran.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Changing the Culture in Washington
TPM has an apt summary of an article in today's NYT highlighting Senate Majority Leader Frist's pandering to the theocratic right, which we now understand will take the form of a Family Research Council-mega church sponsored video conference alleging that by opposing a few of Bush's judicial nominees, Democrats are conducting a war against "people of faith". Dobson, Sheldon, and the usual despotic gang of Bible abusers and faith malpracticers are expected to be on hand to encourage the fatwa.
This on the heels of the publishing this week of Tom DeLay's stated and vigorous opposition to the separation of church and state, judicial review, and the right to privacy.
This on the heels of this week's guilty plea entered by theocratic terrorist (I'm using the conservatives' own loose definition of the word) Eric Rudolph for bombing abortion clinics AND Atlanta's Olympic Park.
This on the heels of last week's conference in Washington in which prominent conservatives called for the impeachment of the Republican appointed Supreme Court.
And this on the heels of last month's pandering to the theocratic right regarding Terri Schiavo and the lust for judicial blood it spawned.
And this on the heels of last year's Gay Marriage Amendment and the eleven anti-gay "marriage" state constitutional amendments it birthed last fall.
For the record, I am a "people of faith" and I don't support Bush, Frist, DeLay or this conference or its organizers or intentions.
This on the heels of the publishing this week of Tom DeLay's stated and vigorous opposition to the separation of church and state, judicial review, and the right to privacy.
This on the heels of this week's guilty plea entered by theocratic terrorist (I'm using the conservatives' own loose definition of the word) Eric Rudolph for bombing abortion clinics AND Atlanta's Olympic Park.
This on the heels of last week's conference in Washington in which prominent conservatives called for the impeachment of the Republican appointed Supreme Court.
And this on the heels of last month's pandering to the theocratic right regarding Terri Schiavo and the lust for judicial blood it spawned.
And this on the heels of last year's Gay Marriage Amendment and the eleven anti-gay "marriage" state constitutional amendments it birthed last fall.
For the record, I am a "people of faith" and I don't support Bush, Frist, DeLay or this conference or its organizers or intentions.
Hall of Shame
Steve Soto at The Left Coaster has the sorry list of Democrats who voted for both the repeal of the Paris Hilton Inheritance Tax AND the Leave No Credit Card Company Behind Bill.
As Soto says, I don't care what they want to call themselves, New Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats, or Ring Around The Rosy Democrats, legislators that vote in favor of the wealthiest one day, and in favor of bankers the next are Republicans.
As Soto says, I don't care what they want to call themselves, New Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats, or Ring Around The Rosy Democrats, legislators that vote in favor of the wealthiest one day, and in favor of bankers the next are Republicans.
What He Said
I was thinking of posting something about the latest round of the Democratic-Party-culture-and-values debate, but then I noticed that Billmon went and said exactly what I was thinking.
So, please, go and enjoy a good read.
So, please, go and enjoy a good read.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
His Ethics Are His Best Quality
Here's Tom DeLay in an interview with the Moonie Times:
I blame Congress over the last 50 to 100 years for not standing up and taking its responsibility given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them.
1. So, the reason the judiciary imposed an "unconstitutional" separation of church and state is because Congress didn't stop them (the courts)...
2. And the reason we have judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them...
3. And the reason we have a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them...
Let's examine these statements from the House Majority Leader about the Constitution and our civil liberties for just a moment, beginning with the most stupid of them.
2. Judicial Review. I'm pretty sure the principle of judicial review has been around since, oh, I don't know, the Jefferson Administration.
1. Separation of Church and State. The Majority Leader doesn't believe in the principle of the Separation of Church and State. Which means he believes that Church and State should be united. Which means he believes that the State, through the Church, or a Church, can impose itself and its doctrines on the rest of us, seemingly without regard for the rights enumerated to us in the Bill of Rights. Which means he doesn't believe in democracy or any of the principles given to us by the founding generation.
Paging Howard Dean and Harry Reid. You're wanted on deck. I trust I'll find your responses in my morning newspapers.
3. Tom DeLay hates the right to privacy. Tom DeLay is against the right to privacy, for individuals to have the right to their persons and the liberty to conduct themselves within the confines of their homes and bodies as they see fit provided they don't interfere with the rights of others. Tom DeLay and the Party he heads are against this. Yes. He. Actually. Said. That.
Memo to any prospectives 2008 Democratic candidates: You should emphatically and unapologetically state your support for the right to privacy, the separation of church and state, and reaffirm the two centuries long principle of judicial review in your declaration of candidacy. You can get a lot of the other stuff wrong, but these are the essential items you need to get right. I know it all sounds pretty basic, but that's what things have come to in the year 2005.
If there's one thing you can't say about today's Republican Party, that is that they haven't shown us. They have shown us. They are telegraphing in perfectly clear language where they want to take the country, if only the "courts" weren't in there way.
How will we respond?
I blame Congress over the last 50 to 100 years for not standing up and taking its responsibility given to it by the Constitution. The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them. The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them.
1. So, the reason the judiciary imposed an "unconstitutional" separation of church and state is because Congress didn't stop them (the courts)...
2. And the reason we have judicial review is because Congress didn't stop them...
3. And the reason we have a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them...
Let's examine these statements from the House Majority Leader about the Constitution and our civil liberties for just a moment, beginning with the most stupid of them.
2. Judicial Review. I'm pretty sure the principle of judicial review has been around since, oh, I don't know, the Jefferson Administration.
1. Separation of Church and State. The Majority Leader doesn't believe in the principle of the Separation of Church and State. Which means he believes that Church and State should be united. Which means he believes that the State, through the Church, or a Church, can impose itself and its doctrines on the rest of us, seemingly without regard for the rights enumerated to us in the Bill of Rights. Which means he doesn't believe in democracy or any of the principles given to us by the founding generation.
Paging Howard Dean and Harry Reid. You're wanted on deck. I trust I'll find your responses in my morning newspapers.
3. Tom DeLay hates the right to privacy. Tom DeLay is against the right to privacy, for individuals to have the right to their persons and the liberty to conduct themselves within the confines of their homes and bodies as they see fit provided they don't interfere with the rights of others. Tom DeLay and the Party he heads are against this. Yes. He. Actually. Said. That.
Memo to any prospectives 2008 Democratic candidates: You should emphatically and unapologetically state your support for the right to privacy, the separation of church and state, and reaffirm the two centuries long principle of judicial review in your declaration of candidacy. You can get a lot of the other stuff wrong, but these are the essential items you need to get right. I know it all sounds pretty basic, but that's what things have come to in the year 2005.
If there's one thing you can't say about today's Republican Party, that is that they haven't shown us. They have shown us. They are telegraphing in perfectly clear language where they want to take the country, if only the "courts" weren't in there way.
How will we respond?
Monday, April 11, 2005
Why Go Nuclear?
As I've been shaking in my boots (OK, I don't wear boots, but you know what I mean) waiting for the Senate Republicans to drop the nuclear bomb on the filibustering of judicial nominees, I've suddenly taken to wondering why they're bothering. It seems like a move that will get them a lot of negative press and provide Democrats with a 2006 campaign issue, all just so they can shoehorn 8-10 more radical Bush nominees through the confirmation process. I have a hard time imagining they couldn't as easily line up an alternative slate of conservative candidates with equally appalling views and authoritarian aims who wouldn't have the damaging paper trail and disreputable baggage. Of course as I write this I recognize the "pre-emptive" element here; by changing the law they would not only get to ram the backlog through, but also be given more leeway to choose even more hideous nominees. In any event, it seems risky. A good Democrat could take advantage of this.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Friday Theology (cont)
I've suggested a couple of reasons why attempts by the Democratic Party to appeal to Christians on the basis of a shared humanitarian social and economic agenda may not bare fruit. One, the social gospel ranks below the issue of debating whether God exists or not and whether He created the world. Two, today's U.S. Christians are basically materialistic and don't really take the New Testament and its teachings that literally at least to the extent that it would threaten their lifestyle and material aspirations.
A third reason is that the Christian Right's agenda and its following is stimulated by what one of my fellow bloggers (sorry, can't remember where I read this) has identified as an "outrage" quotient (my paraphrase). Terri Schiavo, Ten Commandments, school prayer, abortion, gays, Christian Nation, etc, are all issues that are designed to provoke outrage and fear on the part of the Christian community that they and their existence is threatened by the Secular Left and liberal democratic institutions (see the recent hysteria about the courts). Trying to appeal to most Christians' compassion for others simply doesn't generate the same level of outrage, if it provokes any outrage or concern at all. In the case of corporate abuses, most Christians are not conditioned to see this as a threat against Christianity or themselves, while considerably less substantive issues, like school prayer, do seem more like a threat, and are so framed by members of the religious elite to stoke up their congregants' resentment that they--Christians--are under seige. The need to help the poor doesn't provoke the same kind of reaction.
And among many Christians, there is a not uncommon view that at least in the U.S., the Poor aren't really "poor". And compared to the poor of other countries, there's some truth to this view.
But in any event, the conservative symbolic issues that have gained traction among Christians have done so because of their ability to provoke fear on the part of Christians that they can't or soon won't be free to practice their religious beliefs. As a Christian myself, I don't share these fears, and I think the Christian Right's attempts to manipulate church goers this way takes advantage of our relative ignorance of political issues and our naturally inclined self centeredness and desire for self preservation.
So, unfortunately, I suspect appeals to U.S. religious identifiers on the basis of a more humanitarian gospel will not have a great impact. But I'm willing to be convinced wrong.
A third reason is that the Christian Right's agenda and its following is stimulated by what one of my fellow bloggers (sorry, can't remember where I read this) has identified as an "outrage" quotient (my paraphrase). Terri Schiavo, Ten Commandments, school prayer, abortion, gays, Christian Nation, etc, are all issues that are designed to provoke outrage and fear on the part of the Christian community that they and their existence is threatened by the Secular Left and liberal democratic institutions (see the recent hysteria about the courts). Trying to appeal to most Christians' compassion for others simply doesn't generate the same level of outrage, if it provokes any outrage or concern at all. In the case of corporate abuses, most Christians are not conditioned to see this as a threat against Christianity or themselves, while considerably less substantive issues, like school prayer, do seem more like a threat, and are so framed by members of the religious elite to stoke up their congregants' resentment that they--Christians--are under seige. The need to help the poor doesn't provoke the same kind of reaction.
And among many Christians, there is a not uncommon view that at least in the U.S., the Poor aren't really "poor". And compared to the poor of other countries, there's some truth to this view.
But in any event, the conservative symbolic issues that have gained traction among Christians have done so because of their ability to provoke fear on the part of Christians that they can't or soon won't be free to practice their religious beliefs. As a Christian myself, I don't share these fears, and I think the Christian Right's attempts to manipulate church goers this way takes advantage of our relative ignorance of political issues and our naturally inclined self centeredness and desire for self preservation.
So, unfortunately, I suspect appeals to U.S. religious identifiers on the basis of a more humanitarian gospel will not have a great impact. But I'm willing to be convinced wrong.
Friday Theology
Majikthise has a theologian in residence who contends that Democrats can and ought to appeal to Christian adherents on the basis of the progressivism of The New Testament and the teachings of Jesus.
I won't disagree that there isn't some room for Democrats to win over religiously-principled persons and to reframe the values debate in a manner that would reconcile the positions and advance the ideals of both.
But I'm less optimistic about this than I once was. The two basic problems I see are:
1) The evolution versus creation debate; and paradoxically,
2) Liberal assumptions about how "literally" most Christian conservatives take the Bible.
On the first point, the debate over our earth's and humanity's origins is what we might call a basic "worldview" conflict. In other words, this issue is likely to trump most others, and if Christians think (or are convinced by their religious elite) that Democrats are the "liberal" party, and that "liberals" essentially discount God's influence in creating us and sustaining the world (and are against "school prayer", the planting of religious monuments on government property, and other issues of highly symbolic, if lowly substantive value), then Christians are likely to discount anything else Democrats may put forward for a political agenda. In addition, Christians may justify to themselves their support of corporate appeasing Republican policies on a number of grounds so as to avoid ideological and mental "dissonance" or confusion in order to prioritize their basic worldview. Of the justifications Christians typically offer to minimize political support for more liberal economic policies are a) support for the poor should be carried out by individuals and churches and not the government; b) government programs are wasteful and ineffective (The "failure" of The War on Poverty, for example); c) blaming the poor themselves (personal responsibility); d) social programs are socialism-communism; e) more important to keep taxes low (so Christians can give more to charity, etc); and on and on.
As to point two, it's a paradox that the "strict constructivism" if you will, that Christians apply to Genesis and Exodus, and the belief that the Bible is infallible and should be understood literally, typically doesn't carry over to the New Testament where in most Christian churches, the essentials of Jesus's teachings simply don't get much attention. The Christian church of today is essentially a middle class phenomenon, concerned with its own and its members' prosperity. Strangely, while movies about Christ's death may sell in Evangelic-nation, movies about his ministry and teaching haven't. My basic point here is that most Christians are more likely to take their political cues from their pulpit than from the Bible. In other words, I'm afraid that the popular form of Christianity today is elite-driven and may not be suseptible to a "bottom up" revolution inspired by the followers in the pews.
I won't disagree that there isn't some room for Democrats to win over religiously-principled persons and to reframe the values debate in a manner that would reconcile the positions and advance the ideals of both.
But I'm less optimistic about this than I once was. The two basic problems I see are:
1) The evolution versus creation debate; and paradoxically,
2) Liberal assumptions about how "literally" most Christian conservatives take the Bible.
On the first point, the debate over our earth's and humanity's origins is what we might call a basic "worldview" conflict. In other words, this issue is likely to trump most others, and if Christians think (or are convinced by their religious elite) that Democrats are the "liberal" party, and that "liberals" essentially discount God's influence in creating us and sustaining the world (and are against "school prayer", the planting of religious monuments on government property, and other issues of highly symbolic, if lowly substantive value), then Christians are likely to discount anything else Democrats may put forward for a political agenda. In addition, Christians may justify to themselves their support of corporate appeasing Republican policies on a number of grounds so as to avoid ideological and mental "dissonance" or confusion in order to prioritize their basic worldview. Of the justifications Christians typically offer to minimize political support for more liberal economic policies are a) support for the poor should be carried out by individuals and churches and not the government; b) government programs are wasteful and ineffective (The "failure" of The War on Poverty, for example); c) blaming the poor themselves (personal responsibility); d) social programs are socialism-communism; e) more important to keep taxes low (so Christians can give more to charity, etc); and on and on.
As to point two, it's a paradox that the "strict constructivism" if you will, that Christians apply to Genesis and Exodus, and the belief that the Bible is infallible and should be understood literally, typically doesn't carry over to the New Testament where in most Christian churches, the essentials of Jesus's teachings simply don't get much attention. The Christian church of today is essentially a middle class phenomenon, concerned with its own and its members' prosperity. Strangely, while movies about Christ's death may sell in Evangelic-nation, movies about his ministry and teaching haven't. My basic point here is that most Christians are more likely to take their political cues from their pulpit than from the Bible. In other words, I'm afraid that the popular form of Christianity today is elite-driven and may not be suseptible to a "bottom up" revolution inspired by the followers in the pews.
I Wrote the Infamous Schiavo "Talking Points" Memo
I, Senator Jay Billington Bulworth, wrote the memo, and I'm terribly sorry. I admit I was playing politics with the issue and wished only to advance my own sorry, stalled career. But a lot of innocent Republican officials and conservative bloggers have suffered from my chicaneries. And for that, I wish to confess my wrongs.
It should have been clear to all that my Republican friends and conservative colleagues had no political ambitions with the Schiavo case. After all, they passed a bill in Texas that explicitly allows hospitals to pull the plug on patients, regardless of the family's wishes, so why would they have sought political advantage from this one case? In addition, if the Republicans really wanted to play politics with the "culture of life", why, they wouldn't have proposed such drastic cuts in the Medicaid program, which as I understand it, was helping to underwrite Terri Schiavo's care. Finally, the fact that Republicans have pushed so hard for legislation limiting medical malpractice awards--the kind which supported most of Ms. Schiavo's care--and for legislation restricting the ability of working families to declare bankruptcy due to medical crises, should have perfectly illustrated the Republican Party's stance on this issue and the broader range of "culture of life" matters.
So, regardless of whatever you may hear in the next few days about some staffer from Senator Martinez's office having written the memo, rest assured dear friends, that I, Jay Bulworth, deserve the blame for this terrible tragedy. However, I bare no responsibility for the words uttered by Tom DeLay, when at a recent gathering of the Family Research Council, he said:
Its more than just Terri Schiavo. It is a critical issue for people in this position, and it is also a critical issue to fight the fight for life, whether it be euthanasia or abortion. And I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to elevate the visibility of whats going on in America...This is exactly the issue thats going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others. The point is, the other side has figured out how to win and defeat the conservative movement, and that is to go after people personally, charge them with frivolous charges, link that up with all these do-gooder organizations funded by George Soros, and then get the national media on their side. That whole syndicate that they have going on right now is for one purpose and one purpose only, and thats to destroy the conservative movement. Its to destroy conservative leaders, not just in elected office but leading. I mean, Ed Feulner of the Heritage Foundation was under attack in the National Journal. This is a huge, nationwide, concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in. You need to look at this, at whats going on, and participate in fighting back. One way they stopped churches from getting into politics was Lyndon Johnson, who passed a law that said you couldnt get into politics or you were going to lose your tax-exempt status because they were all opposed to him when he was running for President. That law were trying to repeal; its very difficult to do that. But the point is, when they knock out a leader, then no other leader will step forward for a while, because they dont want to go through the same thing. If they go after and get a pastor, then other pastors shrink from what they should be doing. It forces Christians back into the church, and thats whats going on in America...
So, again, don't blame the Republicans or Powerline for the Schiavo memo. President Harry Truman was known for the placque on his desk that said The Buck Stops Here. Well, friends, the buck truly does stop here. I wrote the memo and deserve whatever penalty may befall me.
It should have been clear to all that my Republican friends and conservative colleagues had no political ambitions with the Schiavo case. After all, they passed a bill in Texas that explicitly allows hospitals to pull the plug on patients, regardless of the family's wishes, so why would they have sought political advantage from this one case? In addition, if the Republicans really wanted to play politics with the "culture of life", why, they wouldn't have proposed such drastic cuts in the Medicaid program, which as I understand it, was helping to underwrite Terri Schiavo's care. Finally, the fact that Republicans have pushed so hard for legislation limiting medical malpractice awards--the kind which supported most of Ms. Schiavo's care--and for legislation restricting the ability of working families to declare bankruptcy due to medical crises, should have perfectly illustrated the Republican Party's stance on this issue and the broader range of "culture of life" matters.
So, regardless of whatever you may hear in the next few days about some staffer from Senator Martinez's office having written the memo, rest assured dear friends, that I, Jay Bulworth, deserve the blame for this terrible tragedy. However, I bare no responsibility for the words uttered by Tom DeLay, when at a recent gathering of the Family Research Council, he said:
Its more than just Terri Schiavo. It is a critical issue for people in this position, and it is also a critical issue to fight the fight for life, whether it be euthanasia or abortion. And I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to elevate the visibility of whats going on in America...This is exactly the issue thats going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others. The point is, the other side has figured out how to win and defeat the conservative movement, and that is to go after people personally, charge them with frivolous charges, link that up with all these do-gooder organizations funded by George Soros, and then get the national media on their side. That whole syndicate that they have going on right now is for one purpose and one purpose only, and thats to destroy the conservative movement. Its to destroy conservative leaders, not just in elected office but leading. I mean, Ed Feulner of the Heritage Foundation was under attack in the National Journal. This is a huge, nationwide, concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in. You need to look at this, at whats going on, and participate in fighting back. One way they stopped churches from getting into politics was Lyndon Johnson, who passed a law that said you couldnt get into politics or you were going to lose your tax-exempt status because they were all opposed to him when he was running for President. That law were trying to repeal; its very difficult to do that. But the point is, when they knock out a leader, then no other leader will step forward for a while, because they dont want to go through the same thing. If they go after and get a pastor, then other pastors shrink from what they should be doing. It forces Christians back into the church, and thats whats going on in America...
So, again, don't blame the Republicans or Powerline for the Schiavo memo. President Harry Truman was known for the placque on his desk that said The Buck Stops Here. Well, friends, the buck truly does stop here. I wrote the memo and deserve whatever penalty may befall me.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Exceeding Low Expectations
If you've been watching any of the after-death-Pope coverage on cable (and face it, how can you get away from it?) than you might have noticed many of the punditeers praising the deceased Pope's commitment to the "culture of life". This is univerally seen to be a very great thing. Even Franklin Graham, son and apparent heir to father Billy Graham's evangelical ministry, louded the Pope's contribution to the "culture of life".
Now, maybe Graham, and the rest of them, didn't know what else to say. But does it seem to you, as it does to me, that this bit about the "culture of life" in regards to the Pope is rather a strange way to praise a just deceased priest, a man of the cloth, a someone who was the head of the Catholic Church for 26 years? Having a commitment to the "culture of life" seems to me to be a rather low bar of expectations. I mean, what did they think the Pope would do? That the Pope would have led a bloody inquisition? That he would have announced his support for a new "abortion on demand" policy?
It is true that a few anti-hagiography pieces about the Pope have been printed in the last few days, namely one from Thomas Cahill in yesterday's NYT, detailing not only the decline in Catholic church attendance in the U.S. and Europe during the Pope's reign, and the decline in the number of priests, but the authoritarianism of this Pope, which has created a certain climate of conformity and "yes" men among the Cardinals he's appointed, and a stifling of intellectual and moral dissent.
It's also strange in a way that the multitude of anti-papacy voices among the Protestant congregations and evangelical elite have been strangely muted through all this. Even Franklin Graham preferred to stress the similar goals, rather than the theological differences, existing between Catholocism and Protestantism.
I've been thinking of trying my hand at addressing some of those distinctions in the coming days. Perhaps the advent of a new Pope will provide an opportunity for these issues to be discussed on the nation's airwaves. But I doubt it.
Now, maybe Graham, and the rest of them, didn't know what else to say. But does it seem to you, as it does to me, that this bit about the "culture of life" in regards to the Pope is rather a strange way to praise a just deceased priest, a man of the cloth, a someone who was the head of the Catholic Church for 26 years? Having a commitment to the "culture of life" seems to me to be a rather low bar of expectations. I mean, what did they think the Pope would do? That the Pope would have led a bloody inquisition? That he would have announced his support for a new "abortion on demand" policy?
It is true that a few anti-hagiography pieces about the Pope have been printed in the last few days, namely one from Thomas Cahill in yesterday's NYT, detailing not only the decline in Catholic church attendance in the U.S. and Europe during the Pope's reign, and the decline in the number of priests, but the authoritarianism of this Pope, which has created a certain climate of conformity and "yes" men among the Cardinals he's appointed, and a stifling of intellectual and moral dissent.
It's also strange in a way that the multitude of anti-papacy voices among the Protestant congregations and evangelical elite have been strangely muted through all this. Even Franklin Graham preferred to stress the similar goals, rather than the theological differences, existing between Catholocism and Protestantism.
I've been thinking of trying my hand at addressing some of those distinctions in the coming days. Perhaps the advent of a new Pope will provide an opportunity for these issues to be discussed on the nation's airwaves. But I doubt it.
Friday, April 01, 2005
Thrown a Curve
In case you were lured into watching CNN's ghoulish ghoulfest "Life and Death: America Speaks Out" gongshow last night, a three hourish parade of absolute slimy gutterring gusterbunk, the network milking for one last time the Terri Schiavo media carnival, with its "priests for life" calling the Schiavo death a "killing" and a "judicial homicide", in case you got sucked into that, you might have missed the rolling out of the presidential bipartisan commission's report on how we and the media all got snuckered by the president's Iraq war propaganda, which, in the final analysis, after the war was over, and the two years since, has resulted in not one iota of evidence to sustain the "weapons of mass destruction" claim trumpted by the administration and used by its lackeys in the media into intimidating us all to support the immoral Iraq invasion.
Now, I will attest to the fact that as Lindsay Beyerstein notes, this report follows the sad tradition of its predecessors investigating 9-11 in passing the buck of blame to the nation's "intelligence" agencies instead of the political administration that heads and manipulates them. In addition, it might be tempting to think that because we now all know what a farce the rhetoric in the lead up to the war was, that this report has all the value of a wad of phlegm, too little, much too late.
But bretheran, sisters of the ya ya liberal order, I beseech you to give the report and its coverage in the newspapers a glance. The Rude Pundit has. And you should to. Because the report provides us with an introduction to the Iraqi dupe used by the administration to buttress its case with its phony information. His name? Special Agent Iraqi Special Informant "Curveball". Curveball was the code name given to this source that provided much of the bogus information used in then Secretary of State Powell's UN presentation that did so much to build support in the country for the invasion and to moderately pacify those nations that disagreed with the Project for a New American Century's Leader. Now this Curveball is quite a piece of work as the Rude Pundit explains. The short version of course is that this "Curveball" served the administration some curveballs of its own, dubious claims of Iraqi mobile biological weapons. the administration brandished in the lead up to the war but in its aftermath was found to be eroneous.
But while CNN and the other cable TV "news" shoutfests were giving us yet one more comprehensive play by play, while medical expert Pat Boone was given one more chance to be on national television to preclaim his belief that Terri Schiavo could have recovered, a report on Curveball was being issued about the curveball thrown us by the administration in its Iraq war methods. Now maybe some of you saw CNN interrupt its coverage of the Schiavo aftermath or its coverage of the Pope's condition to bring us an analysis of the commission's report, but I'm afraid I must have missed it. Thrown a curve by both the administration and its ratings happy media outlets, we might have missed the addition of yet another damning report on the administration's conduct, that however clouded in blame for patsy agencies, provides additional illumination on the administration's values and goals.
Speaking of the "special" three hour "news" coverage by CNN (the most trusted name in news!), you know it says a lot to say that the professional wrestling show Smackdown! which aired at the same time, was, despite its well documented choreographed and oversexed promotional "sporting" highlights, by far the classier of the two programs airing last night.
And just to recognize what strange bed fellows this media-congressional republican led onslaught on decency and privacy has made, I hope you'll all go over to Crooks and Liars to see Christopher Hitchens give Joe Scarborough a scathing smackdown of his own, blasting the former congressman's and media's treatment of the Schiavo marathon. Who ever thought I'd have anything good to say about Hitchens ever again, but I do.
Now, I will attest to the fact that as Lindsay Beyerstein notes, this report follows the sad tradition of its predecessors investigating 9-11 in passing the buck of blame to the nation's "intelligence" agencies instead of the political administration that heads and manipulates them. In addition, it might be tempting to think that because we now all know what a farce the rhetoric in the lead up to the war was, that this report has all the value of a wad of phlegm, too little, much too late.
But bretheran, sisters of the ya ya liberal order, I beseech you to give the report and its coverage in the newspapers a glance. The Rude Pundit has. And you should to. Because the report provides us with an introduction to the Iraqi dupe used by the administration to buttress its case with its phony information. His name? Special Agent Iraqi Special Informant "Curveball". Curveball was the code name given to this source that provided much of the bogus information used in then Secretary of State Powell's UN presentation that did so much to build support in the country for the invasion and to moderately pacify those nations that disagreed with the Project for a New American Century's Leader. Now this Curveball is quite a piece of work as the Rude Pundit explains. The short version of course is that this "Curveball" served the administration some curveballs of its own, dubious claims of Iraqi mobile biological weapons. the administration brandished in the lead up to the war but in its aftermath was found to be eroneous.
But while CNN and the other cable TV "news" shoutfests were giving us yet one more comprehensive play by play, while medical expert Pat Boone was given one more chance to be on national television to preclaim his belief that Terri Schiavo could have recovered, a report on Curveball was being issued about the curveball thrown us by the administration in its Iraq war methods. Now maybe some of you saw CNN interrupt its coverage of the Schiavo aftermath or its coverage of the Pope's condition to bring us an analysis of the commission's report, but I'm afraid I must have missed it. Thrown a curve by both the administration and its ratings happy media outlets, we might have missed the addition of yet another damning report on the administration's conduct, that however clouded in blame for patsy agencies, provides additional illumination on the administration's values and goals.
Speaking of the "special" three hour "news" coverage by CNN (the most trusted name in news!), you know it says a lot to say that the professional wrestling show Smackdown! which aired at the same time, was, despite its well documented choreographed and oversexed promotional "sporting" highlights, by far the classier of the two programs airing last night.
And just to recognize what strange bed fellows this media-congressional republican led onslaught on decency and privacy has made, I hope you'll all go over to Crooks and Liars to see Christopher Hitchens give Joe Scarborough a scathing smackdown of his own, blasting the former congressman's and media's treatment of the Schiavo marathon. Who ever thought I'd have anything good to say about Hitchens ever again, but I do.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
The NRTLC Continues To Shill for Bush
Last week I tendered an email to the National Right to Life Committee asking them to explain the inconsistency between their opposition to the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube with their support of Texas legislation passed and signed by then governor George W. Bush in 1999 that explicitly gave hospitals and medical professionals the prerogative to disconnect life support measures--including feeding tubes--when they believed further care was futile.
Although NRTCL didn't personally respond to my email they have added a link on their web site attempting to explain their dually competing positions.
Basically their response is that the bill W signed and which the NRTLC helped write was the best they could do and better than existing law. So there.
But this response is just bupkes.
First of all, the ten day window for finding an alternative care-giver doesn't even remotely prevent the discontinuing of life support when in fact, no alternative providers or institutions can be found. The family of Sun Hudson only recently discovered this fact as Sun, a seven month old child, was taken off life support against his mother's wishes and died when no alternative care could be arranged. And as has been documented elsewhere, had Terri Schiavo lived in Texas, the law there would have ensured her a speedier demise than in Florida.
Second, the NRTLC claim that the Texas law was the best they could do is just lame. Texas is well-known for its allegedly conservative values. If the preservation of life was really the issue, it shouldn't have been difficult to line up enough support in the legislature (and from governor Bush) to ensure a law that as the president now says would have allowed the state "to err on the side of life".
If the NRTLC wants to throw charges of murder against Michael Schiavo, the multi governmental level and bipartisan judiciary that has consistently ruled on his side, and congress, then the NRTLC will have to do a lot better than a bill in Texas that is "far from ideal".
On the other hand, as befitting an organization that is above all dedicated to the election of conservative Republicans to high office regardless of their performance, then the flimsy NRTLC defense of themselves and their president is at least partially understandable if not commendatory.
Although NRTCL didn't personally respond to my email they have added a link on their web site attempting to explain their dually competing positions.
Basically their response is that the bill W signed and which the NRTLC helped write was the best they could do and better than existing law. So there.
But this response is just bupkes.
First of all, the ten day window for finding an alternative care-giver doesn't even remotely prevent the discontinuing of life support when in fact, no alternative providers or institutions can be found. The family of Sun Hudson only recently discovered this fact as Sun, a seven month old child, was taken off life support against his mother's wishes and died when no alternative care could be arranged. And as has been documented elsewhere, had Terri Schiavo lived in Texas, the law there would have ensured her a speedier demise than in Florida.
Second, the NRTLC claim that the Texas law was the best they could do is just lame. Texas is well-known for its allegedly conservative values. If the preservation of life was really the issue, it shouldn't have been difficult to line up enough support in the legislature (and from governor Bush) to ensure a law that as the president now says would have allowed the state "to err on the side of life".
If the NRTLC wants to throw charges of murder against Michael Schiavo, the multi governmental level and bipartisan judiciary that has consistently ruled on his side, and congress, then the NRTLC will have to do a lot better than a bill in Texas that is "far from ideal".
On the other hand, as befitting an organization that is above all dedicated to the election of conservative Republicans to high office regardless of their performance, then the flimsy NRTLC defense of themselves and their president is at least partially understandable if not commendatory.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Recent Study Shows Anti-Intellectuals and Ideologues Opposed to Science and Debate Under-Represented among University Faculty
Good Grief. There they go again. Yet another "study" documenting the alleged "liberal bias" of America's colleges and universities.
Gee, I don't know. Maybe conservatives will be more widely represented in academia when they decide books should be read, not burned. Maybe there'll be more conservatives in college when they decide that open mindedness, intellectualism, and tolerance for the ideas and values of others are good things.
Of course, for conservatives there's always the option of teaching here, where they can be assured that only their view of history can be promoted and nary a dissenting voice will be heard.
Gee, I don't know. Maybe conservatives will be more widely represented in academia when they decide books should be read, not burned. Maybe there'll be more conservatives in college when they decide that open mindedness, intellectualism, and tolerance for the ideas and values of others are good things.
Of course, for conservatives there's always the option of teaching here, where they can be assured that only their view of history can be promoted and nary a dissenting voice will be heard.
Friday, March 25, 2005
The rattlesnakes are starting to commit suicide
Maybe my predictions about the marriage between right wing interest groups and the Republican leadership was premature.
Atrios says Jeb!'s in a jam.
Jeb!, DeLay, Frist, and W might yet find out that the bill for all those "values" votes in the Fall is coming due.
Atrios commenter says "pass the popcorn". I'll have mine with butter, please.
Atrios says Jeb!'s in a jam.
Jeb!, DeLay, Frist, and W might yet find out that the bill for all those "values" votes in the Fall is coming due.
Atrios commenter says "pass the popcorn". I'll have mine with butter, please.
The Republican Money Machine and Race
I came across this post from last year by the Gadflyer. It's a good read.
Basically, the few black conservative interest groups are, shall we say, pretty multicultural. And funded by a rather unusual group of racial healers.
Here's the money quote:
If you believe that the most pressing problems facing the African-American community today are the minimum wage, too many regulations on energy companies and too many people trying to get kids to quit smoking, then maybe you should join the black conservative movement yourself. You don't have to be black, or even know anyone who is.
Basically, the few black conservative interest groups are, shall we say, pretty multicultural. And funded by a rather unusual group of racial healers.
Here's the money quote:
If you believe that the most pressing problems facing the African-American community today are the minimum wage, too many regulations on energy companies and too many people trying to get kids to quit smoking, then maybe you should join the black conservative movement yourself. You don't have to be black, or even know anyone who is.
Who's Using Who?
This post over at Seeing the Forest is reflective of some commentary in the leftist blogosphere questioning whether the Republicans really intended to "save" Terri Schiavo's life and whether the ambivalence suggests that Republicans have again cynically used Christian groups for their own purposes without yielding them anything of substance. And consequently, whether the Christian Right groups are finally going to recognize they're being used and rebel in some fashion. A slightly different form of this argument was posed by Thomas Frank in this past summer's sleeper book hit, What's The Matter With Kansas?
In WTMWK? Frank makes the provocative point that not only are conservative Republicans betraying the material interests of many of their lower class conservative supporters, their so-called culture war has also been a complete bust. So are conservative voters and interest groups being betrayed by their Republican sponsors?
My simple answer to this question is that both groups--the Republican leadership and the various cultural warrior interest groups--are using each other. The genuine interest of both groups in actually changing anything, whether it be the abortion laws or TV programs or whatever, is I think highly suspect. The over-reaching in the Schiavo case--one woman in a permanent vegatative state for 15 years who courts have found had expressed the desire, and thus has the legal right, to die peacefully, is a case in point. The imbalance in committment and coverage by the various anti-abortion groups to the Schiavo case seems to indicate to me that their true interest is in causing strife, not in generating universal change (witness the relative lack of attention by these groups to the Texas medical futility cases).
Further, as I suggested in a post earlier this week, the flagship anti-abortion group (National Right To Life Committee) has corporate interests that transcend or align themselves with their purported social aims. And in many cases, these groups have both a narrow political agenda, and a broader interest in electing Republicans to office. The NRTLC piece on the increase in abortions since Bush took office is reflective of this value.
Will there be some conservatives exasperated with the Republicans over these failures and manipulations? Sure. But the essential intellectual and financial infrastructure won't change much, regardless of what Republicans do or don't do, or whether or not they're perceived as merely using the conservative base. The conservative base is using them, too.
In WTMWK? Frank makes the provocative point that not only are conservative Republicans betraying the material interests of many of their lower class conservative supporters, their so-called culture war has also been a complete bust. So are conservative voters and interest groups being betrayed by their Republican sponsors?
My simple answer to this question is that both groups--the Republican leadership and the various cultural warrior interest groups--are using each other. The genuine interest of both groups in actually changing anything, whether it be the abortion laws or TV programs or whatever, is I think highly suspect. The over-reaching in the Schiavo case--one woman in a permanent vegatative state for 15 years who courts have found had expressed the desire, and thus has the legal right, to die peacefully, is a case in point. The imbalance in committment and coverage by the various anti-abortion groups to the Schiavo case seems to indicate to me that their true interest is in causing strife, not in generating universal change (witness the relative lack of attention by these groups to the Texas medical futility cases).
Further, as I suggested in a post earlier this week, the flagship anti-abortion group (National Right To Life Committee) has corporate interests that transcend or align themselves with their purported social aims. And in many cases, these groups have both a narrow political agenda, and a broader interest in electing Republicans to office. The NRTLC piece on the increase in abortions since Bush took office is reflective of this value.
Will there be some conservatives exasperated with the Republicans over these failures and manipulations? Sure. But the essential intellectual and financial infrastructure won't change much, regardless of what Republicans do or don't do, or whether or not they're perceived as merely using the conservative base. The conservative base is using them, too.
America Under Seige: Day 5
It has been 5 days since I kindly emailed the kind folks at the National Right To Life Committee (NRTLC) asking them to explain their support for Texas legislation that allows hospitals to pull the plug on patients even over family's objections. One patient, a six month old child, recently died when his life support was ended, although the mother pleaded with the hospital to maintain her child's life support. The legislation approving the child's death was made law under then Governor, now President George W. Bush.
The NRTLC has neither responded to my email, nor made evident on their organization's website, the basis for their conflicting positions and imbalance in their devotion and coverage of the respective cases.
America is under seige. You can help. E-mail or call the NRTLC headquarters and ask them to respond to my email message (see my post containing the full message) or to update their web page to reflect their organization's position and justification.
Or if you want, you can just send me money. Rest assured it will be used to further the cause of Texas patients, their families, and liberal bloggers--like me--the world over.
Don't wait. Time is of the essence. Together, we can confront the mammoth corporate beast that is the NRTLC and thwart their maniacal ambitions and twisted political agenda.
The NRTLC has neither responded to my email, nor made evident on their organization's website, the basis for their conflicting positions and imbalance in their devotion and coverage of the respective cases.
America is under seige. You can help. E-mail or call the NRTLC headquarters and ask them to respond to my email message (see my post containing the full message) or to update their web page to reflect their organization's position and justification.
Or if you want, you can just send me money. Rest assured it will be used to further the cause of Texas patients, their families, and liberal bloggers--like me--the world over.
Don't wait. Time is of the essence. Together, we can confront the mammoth corporate beast that is the NRTLC and thwart their maniacal ambitions and twisted political agenda.
Sweet Thomas Jefferson, I Can't Stand Robert Ehrlich
First, he whines about the newspaper coverage.
Then he whines that Democrats don't respect him.
Then he's caught harboring an aide who likes to be known as the Prince of Darkness and is a well known hitman in the world of slime politics, because he got caught floating rumors about one of Governor Ehrlich's potential 2006 rivals, Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley.
Now, and perhaps to deflect attention from said aide, he's whining that some state worker is trying to blackmail him.
What an obnoxious lout. Will vote for a potted plant if it runs against Ehrlich in 2006.
Then he whines that Democrats don't respect him.
Then he's caught harboring an aide who likes to be known as the Prince of Darkness and is a well known hitman in the world of slime politics, because he got caught floating rumors about one of Governor Ehrlich's potential 2006 rivals, Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley.
Now, and perhaps to deflect attention from said aide, he's whining that some state worker is trying to blackmail him.
What an obnoxious lout. Will vote for a potted plant if it runs against Ehrlich in 2006.
Marriage Under Attack
Here is my internets crush, DC Media Girl, highlighting the first in what is certain to be a disturbingly long list of marriages that right-wing pundits declare as unfit.
The silver lining to grotesque spectacles like the Schiavo story, or impeachment, or the Elian case, is that they throw a spotlight on some of the more extreme elements of the GOP, who are happy to gravitate towards the banks of microphones and spout off. So what have we learned? That not only do the wingnuts advocate mob rule and reject sound medical opinion, they’re also in favor of deciding whose marriage is worth preserving. Bill Bennett confessed as much on HANNITY AND COLMES:
Colmes asked Bennett about DeLays comment dismissing the importance of Michael Schiavo’s wishes which seems to contradict the conservative ideal of preserving marriage. "I don’t care what her husband says! " Delay said on the Senate floor.
Bennett quickly jumped to Delay’s defense proclaiming his respect for him adding,"We don’t care about preserving marriages like that. That’s not a good marriage."
The silver lining to grotesque spectacles like the Schiavo story, or impeachment, or the Elian case, is that they throw a spotlight on some of the more extreme elements of the GOP, who are happy to gravitate towards the banks of microphones and spout off. So what have we learned? That not only do the wingnuts advocate mob rule and reject sound medical opinion, they’re also in favor of deciding whose marriage is worth preserving. Bill Bennett confessed as much on HANNITY AND COLMES:
Colmes asked Bennett about DeLays comment dismissing the importance of Michael Schiavo’s wishes which seems to contradict the conservative ideal of preserving marriage. "I don’t care what her husband says! " Delay said on the Senate floor.
Bennett quickly jumped to Delay’s defense proclaiming his respect for him adding,"We don’t care about preserving marriages like that. That’s not a good marriage."
Drinking Liberally
As promised, I went to last night's Drinking Liberally, DC chapter, in the hopes of intruding upon the George Soros syndicate that Tom DeLay was ranting about. As it turned out, the Soros syndicate was not meeting there, but nonetheless, I did get to enjoy some good conversation with the great Alt Hippo, and to see--but not meet--Big Media Matt Yglesias (I sadly had to leave early for another engagement). Also got to hear and ask questions of Steve Clemons from the Washington Note. Clemons is a sort of foreign policy specialist for the lack of another definition and he had some very enlightening things to say, not only about UN ambassador nominee Bolton, but also about the apparent friction or rivalry between Cheney and Rice. Very interesting stuff and kudos to the Drinking Liberally organizers for making these events happen and lining up such great speakers. In past weeks, the charming Rox Populi was on hand and in two weeks, Amy Sullivan from the Washington Monthly is scheduled to be there. So be there or be square. Get ye to the DL link and sign up for the list-serve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)