Rush Limbaugh -- along with the Weekly Standard and the rest of the usual suspects -- is spinning his remarks like crazy.
What he really meant was soldiers who claim to have served but haven't. His example is John Murtha. I would have thought he meant someone like Matt Sanchez.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Constitution Day, or Thereafter
I'm not going to join the dogpile on John McCain for his less-than-fortunate remarks to BeliefNet (can you say "pander"?), but do read this bit at Carpetbagger Report. It's pretty depressing.
Sixty-five percent of Americans believe that the nation’s founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation and 55% believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation, according to the “State of the First Amendment 2007″ national survey released today by the First Amendment Center. […]
Just 56% believe that the freedom to worship as one chooses extends to all religious groups, regardless of how extreme — down 16 points from 72% in 2000. […]
25% said “the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees,” well below the 49% recorded in the 2002 survey that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, but up from 18% in 2006.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. Now you know how the Dobson Gang and the Bush Gang have managed to get away with their likes and distortions, not to mention dismantling the Bill of Rights -- not enough people know enough about the Constitution to object, if they wanted to in the first place.
For the irony of the day, here's Bush's proclamation in honor of Constitution Day.
You can follow the links in the Carpetbagger piece to the "State of the First Amendment" report, but please also take note of this article by Charles C. Haynes on separation of church and state.
Footnote: If your stomach is strong today, here's a partial transcript of McCain's interview at BeliefNet. It's beyond pandering. Way beyond.
Sixty-five percent of Americans believe that the nation’s founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation and 55% believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation, according to the “State of the First Amendment 2007″ national survey released today by the First Amendment Center. […]
Just 56% believe that the freedom to worship as one chooses extends to all religious groups, regardless of how extreme — down 16 points from 72% in 2000. […]
25% said “the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees,” well below the 49% recorded in the 2002 survey that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, but up from 18% in 2006.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. Now you know how the Dobson Gang and the Bush Gang have managed to get away with their likes and distortions, not to mention dismantling the Bill of Rights -- not enough people know enough about the Constitution to object, if they wanted to in the first place.
For the irony of the day, here's Bush's proclamation in honor of Constitution Day.
You can follow the links in the Carpetbagger piece to the "State of the First Amendment" report, but please also take note of this article by Charles C. Haynes on separation of church and state.
Footnote: If your stomach is strong today, here's a partial transcript of McCain's interview at BeliefNet. It's beyond pandering. Way beyond.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
All, or Nothing At All?
(Updated and smoothed out from this morning's initial post.)
The big fight over ENDA -- within the community, at least -- is whether to go for passage of a bill that focuses on sexual orientation or go for defeat of a bill that includes gender identity and expression. John Aravosis has a couple of posts on the debate, the first including Barney Frank's statement on the possibilities, and the second outlining the options. I happen to agree with Frank and Aravosis on this one -- get what we can and build from that. (And please, let's give the Democrats a chance to pass something.)
Pam Spaulding seems to be touting the other side in this argument, and there are some holes in her post:
The one thing we have on our side in the battle for a trans-inclusive ENDA is the fact that corporations have already dealt with this -- and it was clearly in evidence at this conference, where the large vendor hall featured a ton of Fortune 500 companies in just about every sector you could imagine - defense contractors (Raytheon, Boeing), banking and finance (Capital One, ING, Wachovia, HSBC, Merril Lynch, Wells Fargo), retail (Best Buy, Target, JC Penney, McDonalds), Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, Toyota, Motorola, Sun, the list goes on and on. For most of them, LGBT anti-discrimination policies are a no-brainer, a done deal -- it's good for business, recruitment and retention, and a source of pride. That level of inclusion and commitment to equality makes this internal debate and debacle on the Hill about stripping down ENDA look petty -- and cowardly.
That's just the least little bit slanted. Yes, corporations are in the forefront on this -- and this is news exactly how? We're dealing with the government here, a/k/a the last bastion of the derriere garde, and I think Frank has a lot deeper understanding of the way it can work to best advantage. His statement makes a lot more sense to me than Joe Solmonese's (quoted in Spaulding's post): Solmonese seems to be getting ready for a major pout and I have no patience to spare for that. That is too much the tone of most of the statements I've heard on ENDA from the left wing of the community. It's just counterproductive and fairly immature and isn't getting us anywhere. Sure, it's quite noble to stick to your principles, but let's get real, just a little bit: the reaction to transgendered persons is not the same as to gay persons and the education process, without which nothing, is not at the same place.
Spaulding has an earlier post in which she attempts to analyze the strategies, but her focus is on HRC and the major gay and trans rights groups. I think she's also badly misreading the likely results in this Congress:
The latter point brings me to a thought that immediately came to mind when I heard trans inclusion was in jeopardy. The concern of Pelosi and others that there would be a "bruising" debate on ENDA that focused on the "T" seems like a red herring. Of course it will be bruising. No matter when this came up for debate, the usual suspects -- the professional anti-LGBT forces -- would blast disinformation and bigotry non-stop. There would be high volume bleating and hysteria based on "she-males," transvestism, drag queens, bathroom paranoia, etc.
Quite frankly, I feel like this needs to come out in debate on the House floor, and better that it does under the mantle of the Bush Administration and the legacy of a Republican run Congress, which has done everything to foment anti-LGBT sentiment for years. They should own this. The Democrats don't have the juice to undo years of this BS in the short time that they have been in power.
ENDA will fail, no matter its configuration because George Bush and allies on the Hill have shamelessly obtained their power by cultivating political support on a base of fear, hate and ignorance. The bill might as well fail now, and hold up its defeat as the first step in reviving a commitment to unite, not divide, and to move the civil rights bar forward.
As for the Republicans "owning" the defeat of ENDA, they already do, and it has done them no damage whatsoever. Having the whole bill go down because of a debate on the transgender part of it is a recipe for disaster for just the reasons that Frank outlines. (It also seems to be the mode that HRC has developed over the past twelve years: pull defeat out of the jaws of victory.) First, the debate on the House floor will happen on the Republicans' terms, because that is the pattern of the past twelve years and it hasn't been broken yet. We have absolutely no reason to believe that ENDA will be the bill to break it because, to be very honest, gay rights for most people is trailing sadly behind the war, the economy, and immigration. And, if that debate happens the Democrats are not going to tar and feather the Republicans with it because a significant number of Democrats will be joining the anti-bill forces because it includes transgenders, to whom they are not personally sympathetic and which they are going to have a lot more trouble justifying to their constituents. Basically, HRC, Spaulding and the others on that side of the issue are demanding that the Democrats set up a no-win situation for themselves, without reference to the reality of what can be done -- I guess because it's somehow ballsy.
I'd rather get ENDA passed without the transgender inclusion so we at least have something to build on. What the national rights groups seem to be supporting is an "I'll take my ball and go home" strategy. Nadine Smith has a post on this at Bilerico Project that I found highly instructive. I don't agree with her, although her historical parallels are powerful -- I'm just not sure if they're really parallel. Solid cases can be made for inclusion of sexual orientation and, in the case of the Americans with Disabilities Act, of HIV+ status in nondiscrimination laws on the basis of science and a history of increasing understanding. I think, if you stop to realize it, that gays and people with HIV are innately more sympathetic to most people simply because they are better known -- transgenders are new and strange and scary, while gay people live down the street and HIV patients are suffering from a virus. Transgenders are not the same. They are gays were a generation or two ago in terms of understanding, and the neanderthal right would, indeed, make heavy capital out of their inclusion -- their strategy rests on a very solid foundation of fear. (Actually, Smith makes a couple of statements I find ludicrous -- the remark about "This is not the time to do the bigots' work for them" is senseless -- if we were doing that, we'd just kill ENDA, which is what the transgender inclusionists want to do if they can't have their way. 'Scuse me -- just who is doing the bigots' work for them?) It's all very passionate and stirring, and I'm sure it goes down easy -- if you're a college sophomore.
Standing up for principle is laudable. When you stand up for your principles at the expense of those who are really suffering, then I start to find it not so laudable -- in fact, I find it somewhat self-absorbed and immature. (Yes, I know that transgenders are truly disadvantaged in this country, but look at it this way: because of the Black civil rights movement and the women's movement, the gay movement has had a much easier time of it. Get it?) This is democracy at work -- no one gets everything they want, not right off the bat.
After thirty years, I'd like to get something through Congress.
(PS -- I may come back to this later today -- it's a huge controversy -- although not all that substantial, really -- and I'm still catching up on it.)
Update:
Chris Crain reports on a WaPo editorial that really lays out my own position quite nicely:
It requires time and patience to educate the public and lawmakers about how prejudice harms some people. That's what gays and lesbians have been doing in their quest for equality for nearly 40 years.
And that's what transgender people will have to do. Delaying passage of ENDA, which was first introduced in the House in the mid-1970s by Rep. Bella Abzug (D-N.Y.), until the transgender community changes enough hearts and minds would be a mistake.
Read this post from Crain as well. Strikes me as right on the money.
The big fight over ENDA -- within the community, at least -- is whether to go for passage of a bill that focuses on sexual orientation or go for defeat of a bill that includes gender identity and expression. John Aravosis has a couple of posts on the debate, the first including Barney Frank's statement on the possibilities, and the second outlining the options. I happen to agree with Frank and Aravosis on this one -- get what we can and build from that. (And please, let's give the Democrats a chance to pass something.)
Pam Spaulding seems to be touting the other side in this argument, and there are some holes in her post:
The one thing we have on our side in the battle for a trans-inclusive ENDA is the fact that corporations have already dealt with this -- and it was clearly in evidence at this conference, where the large vendor hall featured a ton of Fortune 500 companies in just about every sector you could imagine - defense contractors (Raytheon, Boeing), banking and finance (Capital One, ING, Wachovia, HSBC, Merril Lynch, Wells Fargo), retail (Best Buy, Target, JC Penney, McDonalds), Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, Toyota, Motorola, Sun, the list goes on and on. For most of them, LGBT anti-discrimination policies are a no-brainer, a done deal -- it's good for business, recruitment and retention, and a source of pride. That level of inclusion and commitment to equality makes this internal debate and debacle on the Hill about stripping down ENDA look petty -- and cowardly.
That's just the least little bit slanted. Yes, corporations are in the forefront on this -- and this is news exactly how? We're dealing with the government here, a/k/a the last bastion of the derriere garde, and I think Frank has a lot deeper understanding of the way it can work to best advantage. His statement makes a lot more sense to me than Joe Solmonese's (quoted in Spaulding's post): Solmonese seems to be getting ready for a major pout and I have no patience to spare for that. That is too much the tone of most of the statements I've heard on ENDA from the left wing of the community. It's just counterproductive and fairly immature and isn't getting us anywhere. Sure, it's quite noble to stick to your principles, but let's get real, just a little bit: the reaction to transgendered persons is not the same as to gay persons and the education process, without which nothing, is not at the same place.
Spaulding has an earlier post in which she attempts to analyze the strategies, but her focus is on HRC and the major gay and trans rights groups. I think she's also badly misreading the likely results in this Congress:
The latter point brings me to a thought that immediately came to mind when I heard trans inclusion was in jeopardy. The concern of Pelosi and others that there would be a "bruising" debate on ENDA that focused on the "T" seems like a red herring. Of course it will be bruising. No matter when this came up for debate, the usual suspects -- the professional anti-LGBT forces -- would blast disinformation and bigotry non-stop. There would be high volume bleating and hysteria based on "she-males," transvestism, drag queens, bathroom paranoia, etc.
Quite frankly, I feel like this needs to come out in debate on the House floor, and better that it does under the mantle of the Bush Administration and the legacy of a Republican run Congress, which has done everything to foment anti-LGBT sentiment for years. They should own this. The Democrats don't have the juice to undo years of this BS in the short time that they have been in power.
ENDA will fail, no matter its configuration because George Bush and allies on the Hill have shamelessly obtained their power by cultivating political support on a base of fear, hate and ignorance. The bill might as well fail now, and hold up its defeat as the first step in reviving a commitment to unite, not divide, and to move the civil rights bar forward.
As for the Republicans "owning" the defeat of ENDA, they already do, and it has done them no damage whatsoever. Having the whole bill go down because of a debate on the transgender part of it is a recipe for disaster for just the reasons that Frank outlines. (It also seems to be the mode that HRC has developed over the past twelve years: pull defeat out of the jaws of victory.) First, the debate on the House floor will happen on the Republicans' terms, because that is the pattern of the past twelve years and it hasn't been broken yet. We have absolutely no reason to believe that ENDA will be the bill to break it because, to be very honest, gay rights for most people is trailing sadly behind the war, the economy, and immigration. And, if that debate happens the Democrats are not going to tar and feather the Republicans with it because a significant number of Democrats will be joining the anti-bill forces because it includes transgenders, to whom they are not personally sympathetic and which they are going to have a lot more trouble justifying to their constituents. Basically, HRC, Spaulding and the others on that side of the issue are demanding that the Democrats set up a no-win situation for themselves, without reference to the reality of what can be done -- I guess because it's somehow ballsy.
I'd rather get ENDA passed without the transgender inclusion so we at least have something to build on. What the national rights groups seem to be supporting is an "I'll take my ball and go home" strategy. Nadine Smith has a post on this at Bilerico Project that I found highly instructive. I don't agree with her, although her historical parallels are powerful -- I'm just not sure if they're really parallel. Solid cases can be made for inclusion of sexual orientation and, in the case of the Americans with Disabilities Act, of HIV+ status in nondiscrimination laws on the basis of science and a history of increasing understanding. I think, if you stop to realize it, that gays and people with HIV are innately more sympathetic to most people simply because they are better known -- transgenders are new and strange and scary, while gay people live down the street and HIV patients are suffering from a virus. Transgenders are not the same. They are gays were a generation or two ago in terms of understanding, and the neanderthal right would, indeed, make heavy capital out of their inclusion -- their strategy rests on a very solid foundation of fear. (Actually, Smith makes a couple of statements I find ludicrous -- the remark about "This is not the time to do the bigots' work for them" is senseless -- if we were doing that, we'd just kill ENDA, which is what the transgender inclusionists want to do if they can't have their way. 'Scuse me -- just who is doing the bigots' work for them?) It's all very passionate and stirring, and I'm sure it goes down easy -- if you're a college sophomore.
Standing up for principle is laudable. When you stand up for your principles at the expense of those who are really suffering, then I start to find it not so laudable -- in fact, I find it somewhat self-absorbed and immature. (Yes, I know that transgenders are truly disadvantaged in this country, but look at it this way: because of the Black civil rights movement and the women's movement, the gay movement has had a much easier time of it. Get it?) This is democracy at work -- no one gets everything they want, not right off the bat.
After thirty years, I'd like to get something through Congress.
(PS -- I may come back to this later today -- it's a huge controversy -- although not all that substantial, really -- and I'm still catching up on it.)
Update:
Chris Crain reports on a WaPo editorial that really lays out my own position quite nicely:
It requires time and patience to educate the public and lawmakers about how prejudice harms some people. That's what gays and lesbians have been doing in their quest for equality for nearly 40 years.
And that's what transgender people will have to do. Delaying passage of ENDA, which was first introduced in the House in the mid-1970s by Rep. Bella Abzug (D-N.Y.), until the transgender community changes enough hearts and minds would be a mistake.
Read this post from Crain as well. Strikes me as right on the money.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Health Care vs. Insurance
An important post at Firedoglake on health care.
Americans are unhappy with their health care system. And it’s not just because 47 million American don’t have health insurance. As Jane has courageously discussed here, those who are insured are also frustrated — they’re angry — because medications, testing, and treatment that their doctors are telling them are medically necessary are being routinely denied coverage by an insurance industry whose financial health depends on such denials.
We have a system that largely depends on insurance companies, but the financial interests of insurance companies are directly at odds with the interests of people who need health care. This conflict is pervasive, pernicious, and fundamental, and it cannot be easily overcome through “reforms” that keep private insurance in the central role, no matter how well conceived and implemented.
Key concept.
I want to do more on this, but I have no more time this morning. Maybe later.
Update: See also this post by Barbara O'Brien at Mahablog on S-CHIP.
Americans are unhappy with their health care system. And it’s not just because 47 million American don’t have health insurance. As Jane has courageously discussed here, those who are insured are also frustrated — they’re angry — because medications, testing, and treatment that their doctors are telling them are medically necessary are being routinely denied coverage by an insurance industry whose financial health depends on such denials.
We have a system that largely depends on insurance companies, but the financial interests of insurance companies are directly at odds with the interests of people who need health care. This conflict is pervasive, pernicious, and fundamental, and it cannot be easily overcome through “reforms” that keep private insurance in the central role, no matter how well conceived and implemented.
Key concept.
I want to do more on this, but I have no more time this morning. Maybe later.
Update: See also this post by Barbara O'Brien at Mahablog on S-CHIP.
Remember Brandon Mayfield?
He may become one of the great American heroes. He's won his suit against the government -- the judge ruled two provisions of the Patriot Act in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Mayfield claimed that secret searches of his house and office under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act violated the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Aiken agreed with Mayfield, repeatedly criticizing the government.
"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law _ with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," she wrote.
By asking her to dismiss Mayfield's lawsuit, the judge said, the U.S. attorney general's office was "asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so."
I wrote extensively on the Mayfield case back in 2004. Not only did the FBI screw up big-time, as well as lying to a judge, but the Spanish authorities told them point-blank that Mayfield's prints were not a match.
We'll see how far the gov wants to fight this one -- and how many times the DoJ says "9/11" in its arguments.
I'm out of time this morning. I may post more on Mayfield and the whole Patriot Act nightmare if I find the time.
Mayfield claimed that secret searches of his house and office under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act violated the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Aiken agreed with Mayfield, repeatedly criticizing the government.
"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law _ with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," she wrote.
By asking her to dismiss Mayfield's lawsuit, the judge said, the U.S. attorney general's office was "asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so."
I wrote extensively on the Mayfield case back in 2004. Not only did the FBI screw up big-time, as well as lying to a judge, but the Spanish authorities told them point-blank that Mayfield's prints were not a match.
We'll see how far the gov wants to fight this one -- and how many times the DoJ says "9/11" in its arguments.
I'm out of time this morning. I may post more on Mayfield and the whole Patriot Act nightmare if I find the time.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Ahmadinejad, the Morning After
Josh Marshall lays it out neatly:
Now, was that so hard?
As you know, Iranian President Ahmadinejad spoke yesterday before a raucous crowd at Columbia University. The president of the university excoriated him. He backtracked a bit from his statements about Israel, perhaps as some commentators have noted because they've caused him trouble within Iran. In other cases he put together a fairly incoherent mix of religious interpretation and political rambling. And in still more he simply sounded ridiculous, as when he assured the audience that there were no gays in Iran -- a claim that prompted a round of guffaws from the audience.
I think it's hard to come to any conclusion but that Ahmadinejad was diminished by yesterday's events, not elevated. And America seemed bigger for not having cowered before him, as so many wanted to.
I really don't have anything to add to that, except to ask you to think about just who it was who didn't want to allow Ahmadinejad to speak.
Now, was that so hard?
As you know, Iranian President Ahmadinejad spoke yesterday before a raucous crowd at Columbia University. The president of the university excoriated him. He backtracked a bit from his statements about Israel, perhaps as some commentators have noted because they've caused him trouble within Iran. In other cases he put together a fairly incoherent mix of religious interpretation and political rambling. And in still more he simply sounded ridiculous, as when he assured the audience that there were no gays in Iran -- a claim that prompted a round of guffaws from the audience.
I think it's hard to come to any conclusion but that Ahmadinejad was diminished by yesterday's events, not elevated. And America seemed bigger for not having cowered before him, as so many wanted to.
I really don't have anything to add to that, except to ask you to think about just who it was who didn't want to allow Ahmadinejad to speak.
Green Christianity
A very interesting post at Andrew Sullivan, courtesy of one of his readers, on "Green Christianity." Benedict has finally jumped on the wagon, but it seems that the Patriarch Bartholomew was way ahead of him. I particularly like his take on consumerism:
In an address given in Venice in 2002 before signing a dual declaration for environmental awareness with then Pope John Paul II, the Patriarch argued, “we are to practice a voluntary self-limitation in our consumption of food and natural resources. Each of us is called to make the crucial distinction between what we want and what we need. Only through such self-denial, through our willingness sometimes to forgo and to say, ‘no’ or ‘enough’ will we rediscover our true human place in the universe …Greed and avarice render the world opaque, turning all things to dust and ashes. Generosity and unselfishness render the world transparent, turning all things into a sacrament of loving communion -- communion between human beings with one another, communion between human beings and God. This need for an ascetic spirit can be summed up in a single key word: sacrifice. This exactly is the missing dimension in our environmental ethos and ecological action.”
That sentiment has a lot in common with Witchcraft as I practice it. I am, in case I hadn't mentioned it before, a notorious non-consumer, and I can find a lot of empathy with Bartholomew's words. One word we seem to have forgotten in the West is "enough," at least insofar as what it actually means: enough is getting what we need, and what we need is not the same as what we want. In fact, it seems to work out that when we focus on getting what we want, we stand a good chance of not getting what we need.
Bartholomew sounds like someone with his head screwed on straight, at least in broad terms.
Dunderhead du jour
Andrew Sullivan demonstrates once again that essential cluelessness that is such an integral part of his charm. This time, he takes after the Columbia Queer Alliance for their statement on Ahmadinejad. The first part he approves of, because they don't approve of Iran's human rights violations. However, they go on to elaborate (which was probably a mistake, but they're radical college kids, OK?), of which he does not approve.
The unfortunate part, from the standpoint of Sullivan's claim to brains, is that the college kids are absolutely correct, as anyone with any passing familiarity with the social sciences will tell you. Overwrought, maybe, but correct: "gay" is a cultural definition, specifically an American definition which, although it has been gaining currency worldwide, is still not applicable in many cultural contexts. To put it most succinctly, it has no meaning outside of our own particular cultural context.
Of course, one could posit that Sullivan, being the Anglo-American cultural imperialist that he is, sees no reason to consider the way others see themselves as relevant (which I guess means the homophobic right can call us "hommaseksuals" without being offensive). And of course, if "gay" has those limitations, then one looks a fool crowing about the death of gay culture.
As for the statement itself, it is a bit over the top, and almost too readily revealing of the left-wing tendency to try to include everything and everyone lest someone get their sensibilities bruised. On that score, my reaction is simply, "Stuff happens. Then you die."
But surely Sullivan could come up with a more intelligent critique than that.
The unfortunate part, from the standpoint of Sullivan's claim to brains, is that the college kids are absolutely correct, as anyone with any passing familiarity with the social sciences will tell you. Overwrought, maybe, but correct: "gay" is a cultural definition, specifically an American definition which, although it has been gaining currency worldwide, is still not applicable in many cultural contexts. To put it most succinctly, it has no meaning outside of our own particular cultural context.
Of course, one could posit that Sullivan, being the Anglo-American cultural imperialist that he is, sees no reason to consider the way others see themselves as relevant (which I guess means the homophobic right can call us "hommaseksuals" without being offensive). And of course, if "gay" has those limitations, then one looks a fool crowing about the death of gay culture.
As for the statement itself, it is a bit over the top, and almost too readily revealing of the left-wing tendency to try to include everything and everyone lest someone get their sensibilities bruised. On that score, my reaction is simply, "Stuff happens. Then you die."
But surely Sullivan could come up with a more intelligent critique than that.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Moving Day
Today is the day to move the computer to its new location, away from cold drafts and crowded corners. I may even be able to start writing again.
I'm so excited.
I had planned to go out looking for a small side table and/or a footstool, but the forecast is molto thunderstorms. But then, I've never really minded dodging hail.
I'm so excited.
I had planned to go out looking for a small side table and/or a footstool, but the forecast is molto thunderstorms. But then, I've never really minded dodging hail.
Just Stand Up And Say It
A wonderful post at Box Turtle Bulletin, about how one lesbian stymied a panel of anti-gay "experts" in the nicest possible way. Read it.
Selective Something-Or-Other
I'm a little tired of the various pitches on Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University. This one, from Andrew Sullivan, is typical:
But I wonder: would Columbia ever invite a right-wing extremist with the same views as Ahmadinejad on women, gays, Israel and the Holocaust? Or do you have to be a brown-skinned, terrorist-enabling, nuclear-proliferating, certifiable nut-job to get the invite?
Columbia invited Jim Gilchrist to speak in 2006. Gilchrist is the founder of the Minutemen (who among other things spend so much time and effort guarding our border with Canada against illegal Mexican immigrants -- don't ask). I'd hardly consider him the prototype of rational centrist democratic ideals. Sullivan is 'way off base here, but I guess if you think the country resides in your navel, you're going to miss a few.
I've seen this too much, all from the right, and from the left I am hearing statements about let him express his ideas and see where the chips fall. Y'know what? He gave his speech, he got laughed at and booed, especially on the statements on gays in Iran that Sullivan quoted. Does Sullivan mention that? No. Inconvenient truths somehow don't make it into the monologue. (To be fair, he does mention laughter in a general way in a later post.)
I'm also finding an almost universal stance (not a wide stance, mind you, but a narrow one, fitting the vision) that "well, see, only left-wing radicals get invited to speak at major American universities." Demonstrably not true. And how can anyone link Admedinejad and the American left? Anyone aside from a Republican, I mean -- we do recognize the logical deficits in that camp. (Hmm -- I wonder who gets invited to speak at Liberty University? Or Regent University? Any guesses?)
One comment I have about this: if you want to see the free marketplace of ideas in action, look at speakers at university campuses. Sure, the kids are easily influenced (look how many go from Marx to Ayn Rand). But they are also idealists, in love with ideas, and absolutely fearless when it comes to pinning you to the wall demanding justifications and reasons for what you say. That's what it means.
To get a sense of the kinds of dialogues and comments I'm talking about here, check out the discussion at EA Forums on this topic. Quite instructive.
If you want a good take on what's really been happenening, here's Admadeniblog, coverage by the staff of the Columbia Spectator. And note the audience reaction after the "no gays in Iran" remark.
I've asked this question before and I'm asking it again, of all those who think we should limit free speech: What are you afraid of?
But I wonder: would Columbia ever invite a right-wing extremist with the same views as Ahmadinejad on women, gays, Israel and the Holocaust? Or do you have to be a brown-skinned, terrorist-enabling, nuclear-proliferating, certifiable nut-job to get the invite?
Columbia invited Jim Gilchrist to speak in 2006. Gilchrist is the founder of the Minutemen (who among other things spend so much time and effort guarding our border with Canada against illegal Mexican immigrants -- don't ask). I'd hardly consider him the prototype of rational centrist democratic ideals. Sullivan is 'way off base here, but I guess if you think the country resides in your navel, you're going to miss a few.
I've seen this too much, all from the right, and from the left I am hearing statements about let him express his ideas and see where the chips fall. Y'know what? He gave his speech, he got laughed at and booed, especially on the statements on gays in Iran that Sullivan quoted. Does Sullivan mention that? No. Inconvenient truths somehow don't make it into the monologue. (To be fair, he does mention laughter in a general way in a later post.)
I'm also finding an almost universal stance (not a wide stance, mind you, but a narrow one, fitting the vision) that "well, see, only left-wing radicals get invited to speak at major American universities." Demonstrably not true. And how can anyone link Admedinejad and the American left? Anyone aside from a Republican, I mean -- we do recognize the logical deficits in that camp. (Hmm -- I wonder who gets invited to speak at Liberty University? Or Regent University? Any guesses?)
One comment I have about this: if you want to see the free marketplace of ideas in action, look at speakers at university campuses. Sure, the kids are easily influenced (look how many go from Marx to Ayn Rand). But they are also idealists, in love with ideas, and absolutely fearless when it comes to pinning you to the wall demanding justifications and reasons for what you say. That's what it means.
To get a sense of the kinds of dialogues and comments I'm talking about here, check out the discussion at EA Forums on this topic. Quite instructive.
If you want a good take on what's really been happenening, here's Admadeniblog, coverage by the staff of the Columbia Spectator. And note the audience reaction after the "no gays in Iran" remark.
I've asked this question before and I'm asking it again, of all those who think we should limit free speech: What are you afraid of?
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Hit Counter
I was ambivalent about putting in the counter again, but I was able to resurrect the old one. (Yay, Bravenet!) So it's only a little off.
So I guess I'll try to retrieve the map, next.
Now if someone will explain RSS, Digg, and all that other stuff to me. . . .
So I guess I'll try to retrieve the map, next.
Now if someone will explain RSS, Digg, and all that other stuff to me. . . .
Save the Children
Another one from Steve Benen:
Today, Bush emphasized what he describes as a "philosophical" opposition to the ipartisan legislation -- the White House concedes this is about ideology, not results -- in his radio address, which ironically accused lawmakers of putting S-CHIP in jeopardy.
I find it hard to credit the idea that Bush has an ideology beyond that of any sophomore frat boy. So now, instead of pandering to the likes of Bill Kristol or James Dobson, he's pandering to Grover Norquist. And the same compassionate conservatism is at work: fuck the children.
The key factor is that the president has misrepresented the bill to the public to justify his threatened veto, which he will do not based on any analysis of the public good, but on his ideology, such as it is. (And don't think that his disdain for universal health care is linked to anything more than the interests of his real constituency.) Be sure to check out the link to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities commentary. Sort of blows Bush out of the water.
Today, Bush emphasized what he describes as a "philosophical" opposition to the ipartisan legislation -- the White House concedes this is about ideology, not results -- in his radio address, which ironically accused lawmakers of putting S-CHIP in jeopardy.
I find it hard to credit the idea that Bush has an ideology beyond that of any sophomore frat boy. So now, instead of pandering to the likes of Bill Kristol or James Dobson, he's pandering to Grover Norquist. And the same compassionate conservatism is at work: fuck the children.
The key factor is that the president has misrepresented the bill to the public to justify his threatened veto, which he will do not based on any analysis of the public good, but on his ideology, such as it is. (And don't think that his disdain for universal health care is linked to anything more than the interests of his real constituency.) Be sure to check out the link to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities commentary. Sort of blows Bush out of the water.
Iraq, Cherrypicking, Population Genetics
From Steve Benen at TPM, this comment:
But what I find really odd is that GOP lawmakers are circulating polls about Iraq at all. How many more surveys do Republicans really need to see before they realize that the country rejected the Bush policy quite a while ago? Their political expectations regarding U.S. public opinion appear to be about as realistic as their expectations for Iraq.
This in relation to the latest Repubican cherrypicking venture. But I think Benen misses a point here: it's not about the Republicans not realizing that the country at large has lost patience with the Bush agenda. It's really another facet of the same syndrome that keeps the Democrats completely ineffectual in a Congress in which they hold the majority. Call it kabuki, call it politics, call it business as usual. The point is, they don't have the intelligence, creativity, what-have-you to break the mold -- there's no resilience there. They're married to a strategy, and even though the strategy no longer has a foundation, they're still going through the motions.
It's the same syndrome that has made the Beltway pundits -- and the president, now that I think of it -- pretty much irrelevant. They talk to each other, don't really say anything, don't listen, and no new information seems to penetrate the fog.
News flash for the Beltway: Adapt or die. (This public service announcement brought to you by Charles Darwin.)
But what I find really odd is that GOP lawmakers are circulating polls about Iraq at all. How many more surveys do Republicans really need to see before they realize that the country rejected the Bush policy quite a while ago? Their political expectations regarding U.S. public opinion appear to be about as realistic as their expectations for Iraq.
This in relation to the latest Repubican cherrypicking venture. But I think Benen misses a point here: it's not about the Republicans not realizing that the country at large has lost patience with the Bush agenda. It's really another facet of the same syndrome that keeps the Democrats completely ineffectual in a Congress in which they hold the majority. Call it kabuki, call it politics, call it business as usual. The point is, they don't have the intelligence, creativity, what-have-you to break the mold -- there's no resilience there. They're married to a strategy, and even though the strategy no longer has a foundation, they're still going through the motions.
It's the same syndrome that has made the Beltway pundits -- and the president, now that I think of it -- pretty much irrelevant. They talk to each other, don't really say anything, don't listen, and no new information seems to penetrate the fog.
News flash for the Beltway: Adapt or die. (This public service announcement brought to you by Charles Darwin.)
"Green Crab's Shell," by Mark Doty
The poem of the week. Thanks to AmericaBlog.
I'm adding the site to the sidebar. I've not been reading enough poetry lately. Nor eating enough onions. For the reasoning behind that statement, visit Booklag.
Doty's one of my favorite contemporary poets. Maybe I'll start doing a poem of the week, from my own collection, which is, after speculative fiction, the single largest category in my library.
I'm adding the site to the sidebar. I've not been reading enough poetry lately. Nor eating enough onions. For the reasoning behind that statement, visit Booklag.
Doty's one of my favorite contemporary poets. Maybe I'll start doing a poem of the week, from my own collection, which is, after speculative fiction, the single largest category in my library.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Hillary Clinton
This, reported by Towleroad, from the new Advocate interview with Hillary Clinton:
As any good therapist would say, no partner is perfect. At least Clinton’s willing to try. "I cannot promise results," she says to me. "I can only promise my best effort. I can only promise to do everything that I can do to make the case, to put together the political majority, to take the message to the country, and I will do that. But there are no guarantees in life or politics."
So, I say to her, even if the negative feedback is deafening, would you still push forward on repealing "don’t ask, don’t tell"? "I’m certainly going to continue to push forward," she says. "But again, I can’t guarantee that the negative feedback will go away. The president is not a king, despite George Bush’s efforts to be one…and don’t forget, there’s another set of agenda items too. We’ve got ENDA and hate crimes."
"If they reached your desk,' I press, 'you’d promise to sign them?"
"Absolutely, because as president I would be trying to get them to my desk," she says with an exasperated laugh. "That’s the whole point!"
What negative feedback? Who are these people listening to? Here is an article from Military Education Initiative surveying poll results on DADT over the past several years. The trend is obvious -- a clear majority of Americans, including servicemembers, favors repeal. I would venture to guess, from my latest recollection, that the trend holds true for ENDA and hate crimes legislation.
How very brave of Hillary, to be willing to stand up to the Beltway elite on gay issues. Well, mostly.
I'm being a little snarky, because frankly, out of the whole field, right and left, she's one of the two candidates I can possibly support. Obama is not the other. Don't ask me why -- it's a very visceral thing, but I just don't trust him. But I'm really tired of the Democrats dodging this issue, because yes, boys and girls, it is the litmus test this time around. Someone needs to have the balls to reframe the whole discussion, and I don't see it happening.
I read too much about Hillary being "calculating." Well, yeah. What's your damage? I'd rather have her calculating on how to get decent policies in effect than how to make the entire government an arm of any particular political party. Frankly, the whole triangulation argument leaves me cold, because, after all, it works. Maybe it doesn't make everyone happy, but that's politics for you. Yes, she's a politician, and a very successful one -- they adore her in New York, by all reports, even though she started out being called things like "carpetbagger." I do object to her making any attempt to pander to the Republican base -- there are enough politicians doing that already, and I, for one, would find it refreshing if one of them would simply point out that these people at their very strongest comprise about 25% of the electorate, and it's about time the other 75% of us received some attention. After all, I'll be voting for a leader, not a follower.
Read the interview. Kennedy makes no bones about his feelings toward Clinton and her candidacy, but they're not the same feelings and he seems willing to take a cold look at her positions.
As any good therapist would say, no partner is perfect. At least Clinton’s willing to try. "I cannot promise results," she says to me. "I can only promise my best effort. I can only promise to do everything that I can do to make the case, to put together the political majority, to take the message to the country, and I will do that. But there are no guarantees in life or politics."
So, I say to her, even if the negative feedback is deafening, would you still push forward on repealing "don’t ask, don’t tell"? "I’m certainly going to continue to push forward," she says. "But again, I can’t guarantee that the negative feedback will go away. The president is not a king, despite George Bush’s efforts to be one…and don’t forget, there’s another set of agenda items too. We’ve got ENDA and hate crimes."
"If they reached your desk,' I press, 'you’d promise to sign them?"
"Absolutely, because as president I would be trying to get them to my desk," she says with an exasperated laugh. "That’s the whole point!"
What negative feedback? Who are these people listening to? Here is an article from Military Education Initiative surveying poll results on DADT over the past several years. The trend is obvious -- a clear majority of Americans, including servicemembers, favors repeal. I would venture to guess, from my latest recollection, that the trend holds true for ENDA and hate crimes legislation.
How very brave of Hillary, to be willing to stand up to the Beltway elite on gay issues. Well, mostly.
I'm being a little snarky, because frankly, out of the whole field, right and left, she's one of the two candidates I can possibly support. Obama is not the other. Don't ask me why -- it's a very visceral thing, but I just don't trust him. But I'm really tired of the Democrats dodging this issue, because yes, boys and girls, it is the litmus test this time around. Someone needs to have the balls to reframe the whole discussion, and I don't see it happening.
I read too much about Hillary being "calculating." Well, yeah. What's your damage? I'd rather have her calculating on how to get decent policies in effect than how to make the entire government an arm of any particular political party. Frankly, the whole triangulation argument leaves me cold, because, after all, it works. Maybe it doesn't make everyone happy, but that's politics for you. Yes, she's a politician, and a very successful one -- they adore her in New York, by all reports, even though she started out being called things like "carpetbagger." I do object to her making any attempt to pander to the Republican base -- there are enough politicians doing that already, and I, for one, would find it refreshing if one of them would simply point out that these people at their very strongest comprise about 25% of the electorate, and it's about time the other 75% of us received some attention. After all, I'll be voting for a leader, not a follower.
Read the interview. Kennedy makes no bones about his feelings toward Clinton and her candidacy, but they're not the same feelings and he seems willing to take a cold look at her positions.
I <3 Digby
If for no other reason, because she has the intestinal fortitude to actually read the wingnut blogs and articles. I'm sorry -- my gag reflex is too high. She also calls it like it is and lets the chips fall where they may.
And it's one of the reasons why so many people viscerally loathe Democrats. They allow themselves to be mau-maued over and over and over again, and whether they do it for some purpose or just because they get out-maneuvered, it has helped create the image of cowardice that is far, far more dangerous for them than being affiliated with a an aggressive, in-your-face activist group. It plays right into the Republicans hands for the timorous Dems to scurry like scared little creatures every time a GOPer says boo. So they say "boo" a lot.
And frankly, if the Democrats are going to fold because the Republicans say "boo!" what are they going to do when there's a real issue?
An open question for my Congressional delegation: Why should I bother to vote for you? It won't make a damned bit of difference.
Update:
This post by publius at Obsidian Wings could apply just as much to the Democrats as to the "moderate" Republicans.
In other words, Snowe was willing to do exactly nothing to actually change the policy. Presumably, she disagrees with banning habeas because she ultimately voted Yea. But if her vote had actually mattered, she would have voted the other way. Thus, the Anguished Moderate gets to go on TV and take credit for her brow-furrowing, while doing exactly nothing to change the policy.
And it's one of the reasons why so many people viscerally loathe Democrats. They allow themselves to be mau-maued over and over and over again, and whether they do it for some purpose or just because they get out-maneuvered, it has helped create the image of cowardice that is far, far more dangerous for them than being affiliated with a an aggressive, in-your-face activist group. It plays right into the Republicans hands for the timorous Dems to scurry like scared little creatures every time a GOPer says boo. So they say "boo" a lot.
And frankly, if the Democrats are going to fold because the Republicans say "boo!" what are they going to do when there's a real issue?
An open question for my Congressional delegation: Why should I bother to vote for you? It won't make a damned bit of difference.
Update:
This post by publius at Obsidian Wings could apply just as much to the Democrats as to the "moderate" Republicans.
In other words, Snowe was willing to do exactly nothing to actually change the policy. Presumably, she disagrees with banning habeas because she ultimately voted Yea. But if her vote had actually mattered, she would have voted the other way. Thus, the Anguished Moderate gets to go on TV and take credit for her brow-furrowing, while doing exactly nothing to change the policy.
Why Do We Diss Baptists?
Andrew Sullivan gets it half right:
I wouldn't be quite so blunt. But for me, the evolution issue is very hard to get past. Those who believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and that human life has not evolved from more primitive forms are people I cannot engage with in civil discourse. To posit faith in things unprovable and unknowable is one thing. To posit faith in something demonstrably falsifiable is another. I simply have no tolerance for creationism or for those who enable it. Creationists are as much an insult to reasonable Christians as they are to rational thought. And they perpetuate the notion that religious faith is indistinguishable from idiocy.
I wouldn't say idiocy -- I'd say willful ignorance, which is what I can't deal with. I can deal with stupidity, although it demands the most from my admittedly limited store of patience, but a refusal to acknowledge evidence just does it to me.
There's more to it, of course. Baptists have also made themselves synonymous with bigotry, spiritual meanness, and close-mindedness. No one did that to them -- they did it to themselves. The weird part of it is that in purely one-on-one interactions, they can be among the most generous and compassionate people alive (like many of my North Carlina relatives). And then you run head-on into their version of Truth, and their unwillingness to consider the possibility that another idea might have some validity.
And, frankly, I think designating the recipients of this attitude simply as "Baptists" also misses the point. It's a set of characteristics that are not limited to Baptists, but do seem to adhere to many coming from a particular group of religious traditions. It seems that a certain brand of religious authoritarianism attracts the incurious and docile.
I don't understand those people at all.
I wouldn't be quite so blunt. But for me, the evolution issue is very hard to get past. Those who believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and that human life has not evolved from more primitive forms are people I cannot engage with in civil discourse. To posit faith in things unprovable and unknowable is one thing. To posit faith in something demonstrably falsifiable is another. I simply have no tolerance for creationism or for those who enable it. Creationists are as much an insult to reasonable Christians as they are to rational thought. And they perpetuate the notion that religious faith is indistinguishable from idiocy.
I wouldn't say idiocy -- I'd say willful ignorance, which is what I can't deal with. I can deal with stupidity, although it demands the most from my admittedly limited store of patience, but a refusal to acknowledge evidence just does it to me.
There's more to it, of course. Baptists have also made themselves synonymous with bigotry, spiritual meanness, and close-mindedness. No one did that to them -- they did it to themselves. The weird part of it is that in purely one-on-one interactions, they can be among the most generous and compassionate people alive (like many of my North Carlina relatives). And then you run head-on into their version of Truth, and their unwillingness to consider the possibility that another idea might have some validity.
And, frankly, I think designating the recipients of this attitude simply as "Baptists" also misses the point. It's a set of characteristics that are not limited to Baptists, but do seem to adhere to many coming from a particular group of religious traditions. It seems that a certain brand of religious authoritarianism attracts the incurious and docile.
I don't understand those people at all.
More on MoveOn, Petraeus
A follow up to the MoveOn story, from WaPo. You want to see what kind of thinking is going on in the White House? Get a load of this:
In response to a question at a news conference yesterday, the president said that few Democrats had condemned the ad, "which leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org, or more afraid of irritating them than they are of irritating the United States military."
Excuse me? Democrats have to worry about irritating the U.S. military? Well, maybe under a Bush administration. . . .
Go ahead -- tell me it can't happen here.
Rudy Giuliani was somewhat less specific, but just as scary.
Hillary Clinton voted against the Republican resolution. Barack Obama didn't vote.
"The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements,'' Obama said. "This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq.''
What would John Edwards have done?
"I respect and honor General Petraeus' service, but I would have opposed the Cornyn amendment as an irresponsible waste of time -- the Senate should be working on ending the war, not dithering over newspaper ads."
As for the grassroots response, read this press release from MoveOn, quoting some of the e-mails they've received from military families and personnel.
A further note: Matthew Yglesias, who is one of those I panned at one point for repeating the "the ad was dumb" mantra, got one thing right:
As best I can tell, it's all basically bullshit. The whole fracas of Petraeus, Crocker, MoveOn, etc. has had, to a good first approximation, no impact whatsoever on anything of any significance. Bush continues to be stubborn. Republicans continue to back Bush. The war continues to go poorly and continues to be unpopular. There was nothing else that ever could have happened. A bunch of editors and politicians talked themselves into believing that this September showdown was crucially significant, but they were all wrong and their theory never made any sense.
The only showdown that mattered happened months ago. Democrats passed a war appropriation that funded the phased withdrawal of troops. Bush vetoed that appropriation and said he would only sign an appropriation that funded open-ended war. Bush sought to portray a congressional refusal to appropriate money for an open-ended military involvement in Iraq as some kind of plot to leave the troops starving and without bullets in Iraq. The press largely bought into this frame, which was re-enforced by the fact that many leading Democrats immediately decided to buy into as well. The party then decided not to try to fight to reframe the issue but, instead, to accept it. Given that framing of the question, the only thing to do was surrender and give Bush his money. And given that precedent, the only thing to do is to keep on surrendering any time Bush rhetorically holds the troops' well-being hostage to his preference for perpetual war.
That's the Democratic strategy: keep on surrendering.
Scott Lemieux nails it:
Whether MoveOn didn't take out the ad or had chosen to superimpose a picture of Benedict Arnold on Petraeus makes absolutely no difference to anything. The war would have gone on anyway. The war would remain unpopular. GOP Senators would find some other way to run out the clock at the hearings that most people don't watch because they're at work and also find some other way of claiming that opposition to their disastrous war means hating the troops. It's all a completely empty kabuki. (And to echo djw, I can't believe Reid let a vote on this get to the floor.)
In response to a question at a news conference yesterday, the president said that few Democrats had condemned the ad, "which leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org, or more afraid of irritating them than they are of irritating the United States military."
Excuse me? Democrats have to worry about irritating the U.S. military? Well, maybe under a Bush administration. . . .
Go ahead -- tell me it can't happen here.
Rudy Giuliani was somewhat less specific, but just as scary.
Hillary Clinton voted against the Republican resolution. Barack Obama didn't vote.
"The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements,'' Obama said. "This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq.''
What would John Edwards have done?
"I respect and honor General Petraeus' service, but I would have opposed the Cornyn amendment as an irresponsible waste of time -- the Senate should be working on ending the war, not dithering over newspaper ads."
As for the grassroots response, read this press release from MoveOn, quoting some of the e-mails they've received from military families and personnel.
A further note: Matthew Yglesias, who is one of those I panned at one point for repeating the "the ad was dumb" mantra, got one thing right:
As best I can tell, it's all basically bullshit. The whole fracas of Petraeus, Crocker, MoveOn, etc. has had, to a good first approximation, no impact whatsoever on anything of any significance. Bush continues to be stubborn. Republicans continue to back Bush. The war continues to go poorly and continues to be unpopular. There was nothing else that ever could have happened. A bunch of editors and politicians talked themselves into believing that this September showdown was crucially significant, but they were all wrong and their theory never made any sense.
The only showdown that mattered happened months ago. Democrats passed a war appropriation that funded the phased withdrawal of troops. Bush vetoed that appropriation and said he would only sign an appropriation that funded open-ended war. Bush sought to portray a congressional refusal to appropriate money for an open-ended military involvement in Iraq as some kind of plot to leave the troops starving and without bullets in Iraq. The press largely bought into this frame, which was re-enforced by the fact that many leading Democrats immediately decided to buy into as well. The party then decided not to try to fight to reframe the issue but, instead, to accept it. Given that framing of the question, the only thing to do was surrender and give Bush his money. And given that precedent, the only thing to do is to keep on surrendering any time Bush rhetorically holds the troops' well-being hostage to his preference for perpetual war.
That's the Democratic strategy: keep on surrendering.
Scott Lemieux nails it:
Whether MoveOn didn't take out the ad or had chosen to superimpose a picture of Benedict Arnold on Petraeus makes absolutely no difference to anything. The war would have gone on anyway. The war would remain unpopular. GOP Senators would find some other way to run out the clock at the hearings that most people don't watch because they're at work and also find some other way of claiming that opposition to their disastrous war means hating the troops. It's all a completely empty kabuki. (And to echo djw, I can't believe Reid let a vote on this get to the floor.)
Friday, September 21, 2007
Brave Words
Andrew Sullivan's Quote for the Day:
"Men, do not rest content with parrying the attacks of a superior, but often strike the first blow to prevent the attack being made. And we cannot fix the exact point at which our empire shall stop; we have reached a position in which we must not be content with retaining but must scheme to extend it, for, if we cease to rule others, we are in danger of being ruled ourselves. Nor can you look at inaction from the same point of view as others, unless you are prepared to change your habits and make them like theirs," - Alcibiades' Oration before the Sicilian expedition, Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War.
Sullivan presents it without comment, under a highly impressionistic photo captioned "Fallujah."
Let me be the one to point out that the Sicilian expedition was an unmitigated disaster for the Athenians. They lost the Peloponnesian War in Sicily.
"Men, do not rest content with parrying the attacks of a superior, but often strike the first blow to prevent the attack being made. And we cannot fix the exact point at which our empire shall stop; we have reached a position in which we must not be content with retaining but must scheme to extend it, for, if we cease to rule others, we are in danger of being ruled ourselves. Nor can you look at inaction from the same point of view as others, unless you are prepared to change your habits and make them like theirs," - Alcibiades' Oration before the Sicilian expedition, Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War.
Sullivan presents it without comment, under a highly impressionistic photo captioned "Fallujah."
Let me be the one to point out that the Sicilian expedition was an unmitigated disaster for the Athenians. They lost the Peloponnesian War in Sicily.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)