Blogger's being more than a little difficult this morning (yesterday it was completely nonfunctional, so I guess that's an improvement). But, as promised, I'm going back to David Klinghoffer's essay on Ted Haggard and how that justifies opposition to same-sex marriage. Or whatever. This is really long -- print it out and sit down with it over your coffee -- or take your laptop to brunch.
By way of caveat and introduction, it seems fairly obvious to me that Klinghoffer is writing, not from a "conservative" perspective, as he claims (except as that term has been corrupted by rightwing religious political activists), nor even from a mainstream Christian perspective. It is germane, I think, to point out that he's a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, best known for its determined attempts to replace science with the Bible. His stance is simply that of a political Christianist, a wannabe theocrat.
Klinghoffer begins by spinning history:
Accused of conducting a sordid homosexual affair, he admitted on Sunday, “The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. There’s a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life.”
No, that's not quite accurate. First he denied it; then he admitted to hiring Jones for massages; then he admitted bying crystal meth but throwing it away. Then he finally admitted it all. Whatever the motivations (and I have no doubt that fear and disgust were major ones), there's a certain amount of hypocrisy involved here, in spite of what Jack Balkin says (see below).
And then, of course, there is the characterization of same-sex orientation as "repulsive and dark."
The conservative case against redefining marriage is based on the observation of human vulnerability to temptation. Haggard confirms what we’ve said all along. It is pervasive moral weakness that makes such things necessary.
There are a host of problems with this statement. First, the view that anything that does not fit the conservative Christian idea of "morality" is a temptation. (Based, of course, on the Christian idea that people are essentially bad.) On its face, that makes perfect sense, but step back a bit -- Christians see everything outside what I consider narrow boundaries as "temptation." The whole religion is built on resisting temptation to sin, which includes eating, drinking, sex, art, music, dancing, and just about everything humanity has created that makes life worth living. A second step back, and let's please remember that we are living in a secular republic in which not only is everyone not a conservative Christian, but not everyone is even Christian and there are significant minorities that do not even recognize "sin" as such. That such a consideration is not even on the theocrats' radar is borne out by Klinghoffer's next statement:
If everyone were in control of his appetites, there would be no need for the government to be involved in endorsing some sexual relationships while withholding endorsement from others. The more society undermines ancient standards of moral conduct, the harder it becomes to withstand temptation.
In other words, the government should be enforcing Klinghoffer's view of morality, which is based on the teachings of a very narrow and restrictive brand of Christianity. My own view, of course, is that the government has no business doing any such thing, in the absence of coercion.
As for marriage specifically, Klinghoffer keeps rolling:
This is why gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage. When the awe in which people once held matrimony is diluted, by treating it as a man-made and thus amendable institution rather than a divinely determined one, heterosexuals find sexual sins of all sorts harder to resist.
This is so specious I can hardly figure out where to start. The point is, of course, that marriage, especially civil marriage, is a man-made institution, purely and simply. Even the religious ceremony can't reasonably be demonstrated to be anything else: the idea that it is otherwise relies on dictum, with no basis except that men have decided to ascribe this particular institution to god -- once again, a human decision. I mean, let's look at it head on: organized religion itself is a human institution, no matter what its claims. As for the threat, see what Jack Balkin has to say below.
But if even Haggard, this Christian fighter against homosexual culture, succumbed, doesn’t that prove that gay identity is natural, inborn, and therefore normal? Well, yes, in a way it does. But all temptations are natural, many are inborn, and to be called to fight against them in ourselves, according to a religious view, is the most normal thing in the world.
That's something I can dispute as well. If the whole idea of temptation is a religious construct out of the minds of prophets and saints, then how can it be "natural"? (This presupposes that we're referring to "natural" as it actually occurs, i.e., something that takes place outside of the control of humanity,, not in the sense of an arbitrary concept created by dictat, as in "homosexual behavior is unnatural," which it demonstrably is not.) It strikes me that among human societies, those most in touch with nature and least "civilized" from our point of view also tend to have less conflict of this sort -- if there is sin, it is a social event, a transgression against the group, not against the gods. The more the gods take primacy of place, the more artificial the society becomes. No, sorry -- temptations are not natural, or at least not entirely: they are, by and large, the result of imposing artifical constraints on natural behavior (same-sex attraction, for example) and the excesses available in an artificial culture, particularly when there is no real need to do so. Let's face it, from the time of the first god-kings, religion has been a means of controlling the population.
After more of the same, Klinghoffer gets into outright lies:
When we fail, it hardly impugns the Biblical framework. This basic religious view, whether in its Christian or Jewish version, stands at loggerheads with secularism. The latter denies personal moral responsibility, which may in turn be the bottom-line point of disagreement between conservatives and liberals.
That's simply not true. It's a repetition of the false argument that only religion is the basis of morality, which, quite frankly, doesn't hold up under any sort of scrutiny. In fact, one could, without too much trouble, recognize the exact opposite as the case: morality grows out of the requirements of sociality (don't eat the neighbors, etc.) and religion, given a creature with creativity but as of yet (in this historical view) limited intellectual capacity, becomes a way of transmitting those necessities. "God" is a nice way of conceptualizing everything you don't understand about the universe, and best of all, it serves as a concise description. Transmission of culture is, after all, one thing that distinguishes us (and our cousins) from the so-called "lower" animals. As for the idea that conservatives have a hammerlock on personal moral respponsibility, has anyone taken a look at Congress lately? There's been several million dollars' worth of lack of moral responsibility in play there. (Aside from the fact that the assumption itself is blatantly false.)
Of course, Klinghoffer would just claim that this proves his point: temptation is everywhere, and anyone can fall, which is an argument that I find as intellectually dishonest as his claim that Christians and Jews are somehow intrinsically more moral than secularists. (By the way, notice that Muslims, followers of the other major monotheism, are not included.) For that matter, one can be both religious and a secularist. That's a gimme.
Essentially, Klinghoffer's stance is that of a Christian Dominionist, which is what really underpins of the entire conservative Christian political movement -- the Chrtistianists. The reasoning lacks coherence, the assumptions are insupportable, and the view lacks depth, completely ignoring the real context of the question, which is simply, as I noted, we live in a secular state, and, as much as they might like to be, the Christianists are not in control.
Update:
Ran across this this morning at Andrew Sullivan. This comment by Jonah Goldberg is telling:
I work from the Hayekian assumption that there is a vast amount of social-evolutionary knowledge and utility embedded in traditional marriage that should be respected even if I cannot tell you what it is...
This, to me, is more an argument in favor of same-sex marriage than against it. As Sullivan points out in the quote from his own book, given that the social context changes, the conservative response -- which I think is the only rational response -- is to fit the changes into existing institutions to cause as little disruption as possible. (Unless, of course, the institutions were inappropriate to begin with.) The right, in this case, casts this as a major restructuring of marriage, which it is not. It's merely an expansion of the marriageable class, not too different than adjustments in that particular institution that have taken place in the past. The question is really whether we want to bring gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American culture. Ultimately, the answer will be "yes," as both Goldenberg and Sullivan concede.
Fascinating take by Jack Balkin on Ted Haggard. He's headed toward the same place I am, I think, but from a different (and much more forgiving) perspective (although I'm getting there):
Viewed from Ted Haggard's perspective-- a man who, despite his shame and guilt, is attracted to other men-- gay marriage and the gay lifestyle really are a threat to heterosexual relationships and heterosexual marriage. That is because they are a threat to his heterosexual identity and his heterosexual marriage. He knows the Devil is always tracking him, waiting for him to slip up. That is because he conceptualizes his sexual desires as sin and as alienation from God, and not as the expressions of something that might actually become valuable to him if accepted them as part of himself. If Haggard accepted that he was bi-sexual or even gay, and that it was morally permissible to be either of these things, he would have to change his understandings of his own desires and what they mean. He would have to view himself and his relationship to God very differently. But he has not been able to accept these things, because he is closeted from himself. That is why he has been a vocal opponent of people he has a great deal in common with.
I really do find Balkin's take on this very interesting. Being a Pagan, I have no conflicts between my gods and my sexuality. (Nor, apropos of nothing, does evolution threaten my faith -- in fact, it reinforces it.) I'd like to hear from any of you who think of such things about your relationship with your god(s) in light of your sexual orientation, particularly those of you who still profess Christianity. I know there are gay Christians, but I don't think I know any personally.
By the way, read the comments to Balkin's piece, especially the one by Andrew:
Pastor Ted, and his congregation, have a deeply held world view which allows them to make sense of the challenges of life. He didn't, and doesn't, lack self knowledge. He frames it in a very different way than I would.
For what it's worth, his congregation, and others with that world view, absolutely will not see his actions as hypocrisy. They see themselves as battling the armies of Satan every day, just as our troops are battling terrorist armies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We do not morally condemn a soldier or marine for being killed in Ramadi or Fallujah by an IED. To the sacralist, falling into sin is something we all can do. Provided we repent and abjure the sin, salvation is still held out to us, along with the welcoming arms of the believing community.
That resonates very nicely with this note from Towleroad:
"When I was on a radio program down in Colorado Springs, they all thanked me. In fact, when I was checking into the hotel in Colorado Springs last night, the desk clerk, he goes, 'Are you the Mike Jones of....' I answered, 'Maybe.' And he said, 'I want you to know that I am from the New Life Church.' And he extended his hand and said, 'Thank you. You did us a service for Ted and our church so he can get the help he needs.'"
In spite of what I consider a very warped attitude toward gays, there is an underlying sense of goodwill that, while it may be absent from too many of the pastors, seems to linger on in the parishioners.
I should make it clear my objections to Christianity as a religion are largely theoretical -- the denial of the female half of deity, its historical disregard of stewardship of the earth, that sort of thing. To followers of Christ, I have no real objection. For the most visible "Christians" I have no use: theirs is a narrow, punitive, hypocritical view that has less to do with the teachings of Christ than I do.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Who's In Charge Here?
Glenn Greenwald, as usual, got me thinking with this post highlighting the consensus on the right (such as that may be) that "the terrorists" welcome the Democratic victory in the elections. He links to a number of pundits, but this particularly brainless post from Ann Althouse really struck me:
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei interprets the American election.
What will the Democrats do to push back against that?
I left a comment there, which basically boiled down to: Why should the Democrats have to push back? (I used to read Althouse regularly, but she's so determinedly irrelevant that I stopped.)
This is sort of a capsule version of comments I've seen all over the place, both from the left and the right, which all boil down to: The Democrats are now in charge. COming from the right and the MSM, it's a nice way to avoid any responsibility for anything: now, according to this mantra, if the Democrats are so smart, why don't they fix it?
Well, no.
They've taken Congress. Not the White House. (Pity, that, although I can't think of a Democrat I'd like to see there except maybe Al Gore or Bill Clinton.) They're in a position to put the brake on some of the administration's excesses (can we hopefully kiss the Patriot Act and the Torture Bill good-bye?). I'm looking for two years of deadlock, which might be the best thing.
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei interprets the American election.
"With the scandalous defeat of America's policies in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, America's threats are empty threats on an international scale."
What will the Democrats do to push back against that?
I left a comment there, which basically boiled down to: Why should the Democrats have to push back? (I used to read Althouse regularly, but she's so determinedly irrelevant that I stopped.)
This is sort of a capsule version of comments I've seen all over the place, both from the left and the right, which all boil down to: The Democrats are now in charge. COming from the right and the MSM, it's a nice way to avoid any responsibility for anything: now, according to this mantra, if the Democrats are so smart, why don't they fix it?
Well, no.
They've taken Congress. Not the White House. (Pity, that, although I can't think of a Democrat I'd like to see there except maybe Al Gore or Bill Clinton.) They're in a position to put the brake on some of the administration's excesses (can we hopefully kiss the Patriot Act and the Torture Bill good-bye?). I'm looking for two years of deadlock, which might be the best thing.
Shorts
I took a poll yesterday, and a few of the questions stopped me because they asked things like "Do you consider yourself . . . ?" with the usual multiple choice answers ranging from "Very Conservative" to "Very Liberal."
My answer: "Yes."
From a reader at TPM:
Was anyone besides me delighted to note that the last two Republican senators to concede were Burns and Allen?
Say goodnight, Gracie.
I read a whole column by Ann Coulter the other day. People actually pay attention to this woman? Why? I've seen more politically informed -- and better written -- grafitti in bus station johns.
My answer: "Yes."
From a reader at TPM:
Was anyone besides me delighted to note that the last two Republican senators to concede were Burns and Allen?
Say goodnight, Gracie.
I read a whole column by Ann Coulter the other day. People actually pay attention to this woman? Why? I've seen more politically informed -- and better written -- grafitti in bus station johns.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
The Election, In General
Ballot Initiatives:
Here's a listing from CNN of the results on various ballot initiatives in the states. On same-sex marriage, there is an interesting trend: Arizona defeated a constitutional amendment handily (please note, this was without the participation of the national organizations, which leads me to wonder if perhaps HRC should just stay in Washington where they can't do any harm). Of the remaining seven states with similar initiatives, only two -- Tennessee and South Carolina -- were within the ranges of previous vote totals on this question. The margins on the other five were much narrower, mostly in the 50+/40+ category. That's significant.
Add in this report from the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund:
The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund today reported unprecedented success in electing openly gay candidates this year. Sixty-seven Victory-endorsed candidates were elected to federal, state and local offices, with some winning historic races that make them the first openly gay or lesbian candidates ever elected in their states or legislative bodies.
Rending of Garments, Wingnut Style:
OK -- Just in case you thought anyone at Townhall had all their marbles, this should help you figure it out. Hugh Hewitt has it nailed:
Handed a large majority, the GOP frittered it away. The chief fritterer was Senator McCain and his Gang of 14 and Kennedy-McCain immigration bill, supplemented by a last minute throw down that prevented the NSA bill from progressing or the key judicial nominations from receiving a vote.
You see, it's all McCain's fault.
Here's the prizewinner:
Senator Santorum is now available for a seat on the SCOTUS should one become available.
I mean, do I really have to say anything? Anything at all?
The summation:
The GOP couldn't recover from Foley's repulsive conduct, and the enemy was willing to kill randomly in the run-up to the vote in order to demoralize an American public.
If it sounds incoherent, is that really a surprise?
The comments on this piece are interesting. Several people had giggle fits over the idea of Santorum on the Supreme Court. What's most disturbing is the repeated characterization of Democrats as the "enemy." What can you do with a mindset like that?
Glenn Greenwald, as usual, hits it right on the head:
Hewitt took the data that he didn't like, literally changed it in his own mind to make it more pleasant, and then embraced the fictitious data as his reality. And he expressly acknowledged doing so by insisting that data is biased.
I'm still trying to figure out how polling data can automatically and by definition be biased in favor of Democrats.
The really scary thing is that the far right takes this sort of shit as gospel.
Speakinng of Santorum:
Yes, I'm overjoyed that bigoted prick is out of the Senate. I like Dan Savage's gloat, particularly this part:
It would have been a lot easier to be a total dick about Santorum’s defeat if he hadn’t made such a gracious—and apparently sincere—concession speech last night. I almost fell off the couch when Santorum asked the crowd to give a round to applause to Bob Casey.
Where was this graciousness and respect for political differences while Rick Santorum was in the U.S. Senate? And where was this graciousness during the actual campaign? Santorum stopped just short of accusing Bob Casey of flying off to Pakistan twice a week to rim Osama bin Laden. If Santorum had spent the last 12 years in the Senate being the person he was for 12 minutes during his concession speech, well, he might not have made so many enemies in Pennsylvania and all over the country.
Santorum thinks that the pursuit of happiness is bad:
Maybe the Republicans as a whole should take that to heart. Why don't y'all just try being reasonable people? Why don't you stop playing politics with people's lives and just do your effin' jobs?
Rumsfeld:
He's resigned. Dubyah knew last week that he was out. You can read all about Bush's lying about it on the lefty blogs, about how Our Leader is no longer saddled with a liability on the righty blogs, but I wonder.
The election was a repudiation of Bush and his policies, and, I think, if you look at things like the numbers of openly gay candidates who were elected, the figures on the "values" ballot initiatives, and the like, of the religious right.
Given Bush's history, I'm betting that he will see it as all fixed now that Rumsfeld is gone. You see, it wasn't about him at all.
Bipartisanship (Yawn), Again:
I love Glenn Greenwald. He usually voices my questions just as I get them formulated. The preznit is all of a sudden conciliatory, and looks forward to working with the Congress.
You know as well as I do that it's a crock.
But what the Bush administration really means by "bipartisanship" -- as they are already making quite clear -- is that the Democrats in Congress do nothing to stand in their way and, most especially, that Democrats recognize that there will be no looking into what the Leader has done or subjecting his Decisions to any scrutiny. From Time's Mike Allen, today:
Think about that: "consolidate our gains." What kind of administration thinks like that?
Oh, and the "executive usually wins those battles"? Have you read the Hamdan decision? (And of course Greenwald brought up that point as soon as I thought it.)
The next couple of years should be really, really interesting. I just hope the Democrats don't fold. I think most people in this country have the same attitude I do: I want transparency in government, I want openness, I don't want energy policy decided by power and oil companies behind closed doors, I don't want James Dobson dictating AIDS policy, I don't want ranchers and logging companies deciding environmental policy, I don't want the administration lying about everything and the Congress going right along with it.
"Witch hunts" my ass. Nail the bastards.
Epilogue:
And after all that, something to level us off a bit. If you want to saturate yourself with something beautiful, weird, and totally fascinating, visit Orchid Species Photographs by Eric Hunt. They are great photos, and there are pages and pages of them, eveything from Aa to Zygostates. Out of respect for the work Hunt has put into this, and for his rights as the creator of these photos, I'm not uploading a picture here, but check out Cyprepedium kentuckiense. It's a native ladyslipper, and he has several juicy shots.
Later -- I'm on deadline again. . . .
Here's a listing from CNN of the results on various ballot initiatives in the states. On same-sex marriage, there is an interesting trend: Arizona defeated a constitutional amendment handily (please note, this was without the participation of the national organizations, which leads me to wonder if perhaps HRC should just stay in Washington where they can't do any harm). Of the remaining seven states with similar initiatives, only two -- Tennessee and South Carolina -- were within the ranges of previous vote totals on this question. The margins on the other five were much narrower, mostly in the 50+/40+ category. That's significant.
Add in this report from the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund:
The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund today reported unprecedented success in electing openly gay candidates this year. Sixty-seven Victory-endorsed candidates were elected to federal, state and local offices, with some winning historic races that make them the first openly gay or lesbian candidates ever elected in their states or legislative bodies.
Rending of Garments, Wingnut Style:
OK -- Just in case you thought anyone at Townhall had all their marbles, this should help you figure it out. Hugh Hewitt has it nailed:
Handed a large majority, the GOP frittered it away. The chief fritterer was Senator McCain and his Gang of 14 and Kennedy-McCain immigration bill, supplemented by a last minute throw down that prevented the NSA bill from progressing or the key judicial nominations from receiving a vote.
You see, it's all McCain's fault.
Here's the prizewinner:
Senator Santorum is now available for a seat on the SCOTUS should one become available.
I mean, do I really have to say anything? Anything at all?
The summation:
The GOP couldn't recover from Foley's repulsive conduct, and the enemy was willing to kill randomly in the run-up to the vote in order to demoralize an American public.
If it sounds incoherent, is that really a surprise?
The comments on this piece are interesting. Several people had giggle fits over the idea of Santorum on the Supreme Court. What's most disturbing is the repeated characterization of Democrats as the "enemy." What can you do with a mindset like that?
Glenn Greenwald, as usual, hits it right on the head:
Hewitt took the data that he didn't like, literally changed it in his own mind to make it more pleasant, and then embraced the fictitious data as his reality. And he expressly acknowledged doing so by insisting that data is biased.
I'm still trying to figure out how polling data can automatically and by definition be biased in favor of Democrats.
The really scary thing is that the far right takes this sort of shit as gospel.
Speakinng of Santorum:
Yes, I'm overjoyed that bigoted prick is out of the Senate. I like Dan Savage's gloat, particularly this part:
It would have been a lot easier to be a total dick about Santorum’s defeat if he hadn’t made such a gracious—and apparently sincere—concession speech last night. I almost fell off the couch when Santorum asked the crowd to give a round to applause to Bob Casey.
Where was this graciousness and respect for political differences while Rick Santorum was in the U.S. Senate? And where was this graciousness during the actual campaign? Santorum stopped just short of accusing Bob Casey of flying off to Pakistan twice a week to rim Osama bin Laden. If Santorum had spent the last 12 years in the Senate being the person he was for 12 minutes during his concession speech, well, he might not have made so many enemies in Pennsylvania and all over the country.
Santorum thinks that the pursuit of happiness is bad:
Maybe the Republicans as a whole should take that to heart. Why don't y'all just try being reasonable people? Why don't you stop playing politics with people's lives and just do your effin' jobs?
Rumsfeld:
He's resigned. Dubyah knew last week that he was out. You can read all about Bush's lying about it on the lefty blogs, about how Our Leader is no longer saddled with a liability on the righty blogs, but I wonder.
The election was a repudiation of Bush and his policies, and, I think, if you look at things like the numbers of openly gay candidates who were elected, the figures on the "values" ballot initiatives, and the like, of the religious right.
Given Bush's history, I'm betting that he will see it as all fixed now that Rumsfeld is gone. You see, it wasn't about him at all.
Bipartisanship (Yawn), Again:
I love Glenn Greenwald. He usually voices my questions just as I get them formulated. The preznit is all of a sudden conciliatory, and looks forward to working with the Congress.
You know as well as I do that it's a crock.
But what the Bush administration really means by "bipartisanship" -- as they are already making quite clear -- is that the Democrats in Congress do nothing to stand in their way and, most especially, that Democrats recognize that there will be no looking into what the Leader has done or subjecting his Decisions to any scrutiny. From Time's Mike Allen, today:
Advisers expect a battle royale over the balance of powers if Democrats use their new subpoena power to try to conduct what the White House is already calling "witch hunts." Bush and Vice President Cheney have made the expansion of executive power one of their hallmarks, and advisers say they do not plan to give up any of the ground they have won without a fight all the way to the Supreme Court. "We're going to have a fierce constitutional showdown over the boundaries of power between the executive and legislative branches," one adviser said. "The executive usually wins those battles, so we think we'll consolidate our gains."
Think about that: "consolidate our gains." What kind of administration thinks like that?
Oh, and the "executive usually wins those battles"? Have you read the Hamdan decision? (And of course Greenwald brought up that point as soon as I thought it.)
The next couple of years should be really, really interesting. I just hope the Democrats don't fold. I think most people in this country have the same attitude I do: I want transparency in government, I want openness, I don't want energy policy decided by power and oil companies behind closed doors, I don't want James Dobson dictating AIDS policy, I don't want ranchers and logging companies deciding environmental policy, I don't want the administration lying about everything and the Congress going right along with it.
"Witch hunts" my ass. Nail the bastards.
Epilogue:
And after all that, something to level us off a bit. If you want to saturate yourself with something beautiful, weird, and totally fascinating, visit Orchid Species Photographs by Eric Hunt. They are great photos, and there are pages and pages of them, eveything from Aa to Zygostates. Out of respect for the work Hunt has put into this, and for his rights as the creator of these photos, I'm not uploading a picture here, but check out Cyprepedium kentuckiense. It's a native ladyslipper, and he has several juicy shots.
Later -- I'm on deadline again. . . .
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Marriage and a Warped World View
Just skimming this post from Tristero at Hullaballoo on David Klinghoffer's defense of the defense of marriage from people who want to get married. (Here's Klinghoffer's essay.)
I want to come back to this, although Tristero does a nice dissection. What's obvious on first reading is that to those Klinghoffer claims to be speaking for, there is only one possible view of the world -- theirs. He assumes as fact some things that are not and bases his arguments on those assumptions. The arguments, as far as I can tell on first reading, are junk. This statement is particularly noteworthy:
If everyone were in control of his appetites, there would be no need for the government to be involved in endorsing some sexual relationships while withholding endorsement from others.
There's little need for the government to be endorsing most sexual relationships, except for disapproving those of a predatory nature, and there's nothing religious about that.
(OK -- I should have realized. Klinghoffer is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institution, which is a strong indication that reality does not impinge on his discourse to any great extent. You are, after all, known by the company you keep.)
At any rate, this is one that I do want to spend some time on, so you may see another post about it this weekend or so.
I want to come back to this, although Tristero does a nice dissection. What's obvious on first reading is that to those Klinghoffer claims to be speaking for, there is only one possible view of the world -- theirs. He assumes as fact some things that are not and bases his arguments on those assumptions. The arguments, as far as I can tell on first reading, are junk. This statement is particularly noteworthy:
If everyone were in control of his appetites, there would be no need for the government to be involved in endorsing some sexual relationships while withholding endorsement from others.
There's little need for the government to be endorsing most sexual relationships, except for disapproving those of a predatory nature, and there's nothing religious about that.
(OK -- I should have realized. Klinghoffer is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institution, which is a strong indication that reality does not impinge on his discourse to any great extent. You are, after all, known by the company you keep.)
At any rate, this is one that I do want to spend some time on, so you may see another post about it this weekend or so.
Haggard
Michelangelo Signorile interviewed Michael Jones, the escort who outed Ted Haggard. It wasn't until I read that interview (excerpts posted at AmericaBlog) and had a chance to think about it that I really began to feel for Haggard. I still have no sympathy for this gay bashing, and never will, but I feel for the person.
MJ: He said he wanted an appointment with me. He came to my apartment. And the clothes came right off. The first time it was pretty much mutual masturbation, then in time oral sex. He was really pretty vanilla. Only once in three years did we try anal sex.
MS: Was he a top or bottom? What was he interested in?
MJ: When I was on the radio show in Denver, the question was asked: Did you practice safe sex? I said, 'We used a condom once." The talk show host goes, "You mean he wore the condom once?" I said, "Uh, no, I did."
Strange as it may seem, this is the part that got to me. It describes a man who is tentative, maybe a little fearful, and desperate -- not for hot sex, but for sex of any sort with a man, and maybe something more. I started to wonder if maybe the sex wasn't just an excuse. Maybe not -- Jones said they never spent more than an hour together. Haggard obviously wasn't interested in a relationship other than the barely physical. Of course, that could also be because he subscribes to a religion that sees sex as only physical, when his soul knows better, even if his mind doesn't. (Remember, it's not the godless liberals who want to turn everyone into breeding stock.)
Among other things, acting the bottom means you want to be held, you want to give up your "masculine" role for a while, maybe even feel cherished and protected. (If you have the right partner.) I don't know -- I can't know, in this case -- but maybe.
At any rate, that suddenly became my image: frightened, desperate, and maybe finally just tired of living a lie.
MJ: He said he wanted an appointment with me. He came to my apartment. And the clothes came right off. The first time it was pretty much mutual masturbation, then in time oral sex. He was really pretty vanilla. Only once in three years did we try anal sex.
MS: Was he a top or bottom? What was he interested in?
MJ: When I was on the radio show in Denver, the question was asked: Did you practice safe sex? I said, 'We used a condom once." The talk show host goes, "You mean he wore the condom once?" I said, "Uh, no, I did."
Strange as it may seem, this is the part that got to me. It describes a man who is tentative, maybe a little fearful, and desperate -- not for hot sex, but for sex of any sort with a man, and maybe something more. I started to wonder if maybe the sex wasn't just an excuse. Maybe not -- Jones said they never spent more than an hour together. Haggard obviously wasn't interested in a relationship other than the barely physical. Of course, that could also be because he subscribes to a religion that sees sex as only physical, when his soul knows better, even if his mind doesn't. (Remember, it's not the godless liberals who want to turn everyone into breeding stock.)
Among other things, acting the bottom means you want to be held, you want to give up your "masculine" role for a while, maybe even feel cherished and protected. (If you have the right partner.) I don't know -- I can't know, in this case -- but maybe.
At any rate, that suddenly became my image: frightened, desperate, and maybe finally just tired of living a lie.
The Election
OK -- we've won. Whoever "we" is. We may even wind up with a government that works. Or doesn't work in the right ways.
This morning's NYT headline says the Democrats picked up 24 seats. It's now more.
The DCCCC has an ongoing tally. I'm pretty disappointed in some of the results -- Pete Roskam won in IL-06, Marilyn "Marriage Is the Most Important Issue Facing the Country" Musgrave in CO-04, Jean "Murtha is a Coward" Schmidt in OH-02 (very narrowly). It's easy to say that the voters in those districts got what they deserved, but the rest of us don't.
So far, TBogg's predictions seem to be right on target.
Even some of the disappointments have a positive side: the margins on anti-marriage amendments were on average much smaller than in the past (except for Virginia, which is now officially on my boycott list), and three "Red" states handed the conservatives a good slap: South Dakota repealed its abortion law, New Mexico dumped an anti-marriage amendment, and Missouri came out in favor of stem-cell rsearch.
The preznit has called a press conference for this morning. Any bets on whether he's going to declare all Democrats enemy combatants? (Sorry, but sometimes I get a kick out of playing at being a lefty wingnut, mostly because the rightwingers have so much trouble understanding the concept of "playing.")
Damned activist voters! I'm tired of this electoral tyranny!
Update: Faith Exonerated:
Just ran across this post with a much-needed dose of level-headedness from Glenn Greenwald:
Karl Rove isn't all-powerful; today, he is a rejected loser. Republicans don't possess the power to dictate the outcome of elections with secret Diebold software. They can't magically produce Osama bin Laden the day before the election. They don't have the power to snap their fingers and hypnotize zombified Americans by exploiting a New Jersey court ruling on civil unions, or a John Kerry comment, or moronic buzzphrases and slogans designed to hide the truth (Americans heard all about how Democrats would bring their "San Francisco values" and their love of The Terrorists to Washington, and that moved nobody).
All of the hurdles and problems that are unquestionably present and serious -- a dysfunctional and corrupt national media, apathy on the part of Americans, the potent use of propaganda by the Bush administration, voter suppression tactics, gerrymandering and fundraising games -- can all be overcome. They just were.
Q. E. D.
This morning's NYT headline says the Democrats picked up 24 seats. It's now more.
The DCCCC has an ongoing tally. I'm pretty disappointed in some of the results -- Pete Roskam won in IL-06, Marilyn "Marriage Is the Most Important Issue Facing the Country" Musgrave in CO-04, Jean "Murtha is a Coward" Schmidt in OH-02 (very narrowly). It's easy to say that the voters in those districts got what they deserved, but the rest of us don't.
So far, TBogg's predictions seem to be right on target.
Even some of the disappointments have a positive side: the margins on anti-marriage amendments were on average much smaller than in the past (except for Virginia, which is now officially on my boycott list), and three "Red" states handed the conservatives a good slap: South Dakota repealed its abortion law, New Mexico dumped an anti-marriage amendment, and Missouri came out in favor of stem-cell rsearch.
The preznit has called a press conference for this morning. Any bets on whether he's going to declare all Democrats enemy combatants? (Sorry, but sometimes I get a kick out of playing at being a lefty wingnut, mostly because the rightwingers have so much trouble understanding the concept of "playing.")
Damned activist voters! I'm tired of this electoral tyranny!
Update: Faith Exonerated:
Just ran across this post with a much-needed dose of level-headedness from Glenn Greenwald:
Karl Rove isn't all-powerful; today, he is a rejected loser. Republicans don't possess the power to dictate the outcome of elections with secret Diebold software. They can't magically produce Osama bin Laden the day before the election. They don't have the power to snap their fingers and hypnotize zombified Americans by exploiting a New Jersey court ruling on civil unions, or a John Kerry comment, or moronic buzzphrases and slogans designed to hide the truth (Americans heard all about how Democrats would bring their "San Francisco values" and their love of The Terrorists to Washington, and that moved nobody).
All of the hurdles and problems that are unquestionably present and serious -- a dysfunctional and corrupt national media, apathy on the part of Americans, the potent use of propaganda by the Bush administration, voter suppression tactics, gerrymandering and fundraising games -- can all be overcome. They just were.
Q. E. D.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
You're Doing a Heckuva Job, Part II
I received this via e-mail from Teresa Chambers, and I'm posting it here in full:
The plight of whistleblowers – those employees who sound the alarm about anything from dangerous conditions in the workplace to missed or ignored intelligence regarding our nation's security – is a story that seems to grow stronger and with more frequency every day. My guess is that those stories have always been there; I suspect I am just paying closer attention to them now.
You see, I joined the "ranks" of whistleblowers on December 2, 2003, when a major newspaper printed a story in which I confirmed for them what many of us already knew – we, the members of the United States Park Police, could no longer provide the level of service that citizens and visitors had grown to expect in our parks and on our parkways in Washington, D.C., New York City, and San Francisco. The world changed for all of us on September 11, 2001, and the expectations of police agencies across the country grew exponentially overnight. As the Chief of the United States Park Police, an organization responsible for the safety and security of some of America's most valued and recognizable symbols of freedom – including such notable sites as the Washington Monument, the Statue of Liberty, and the Golden Gate Bridge area – I knew it was my duty, as chiefs of police across the country do every day, to inform the community of the realities of the situation.
For being candid – for being "honest" – while still being supportive of my superiors, I was, without warning, stripped of my law enforcement authority, badge, and firearm, and escorted from the Department of the Interior by armed special agents of another Federal law enforcement entity in December of 2003. Seven months later, the Department of the Interior terminated me.
Frighteningly, the issues I brought to light about our citizens' and visitors' safety and security and the future of these American icons have not been addressed – other than to silence me. In fact, there are fewer United States Park Police officers today than there were in 2003 when I was sent home for daring to say that we weren't able to properly meet our commitments with existing resources. Other security concerns I raised internally have also gone un-addressed.
Imagine the outcry if I had stayed silent and if one of those symbolic monuments or memorials had been destroyed or the loss of life had occurred to someone visiting one of those locations. I did not want to be standing with my superiors among the ruins of an American icon or in front of a Congressional committee trying to explain why we hadn't asked for help.
Despite the serious First Amendment and security implications of my case for each American, there has been no Congressional intervention, no Congressional hearing, no demand of accountability by elected officials for those who took action to silence me and who have ignored all warnings about the perils to which I alerted them. Through it all, it has become clear that Federal employees have little protection for simply telling the truth. Following my termination and the publicity that accompanied it, it is unlikely that any current Federal employee will be willing to speak up with straightforward, accurate information about the realities of any danger we face now or in the future.
My story is told on a website, www.HonestChief.com, established by my husband in December 2003 so that the American people could "witness" the issues in this case. Through the webmaster’s regular updates, the website has provided transparency to my situation by including an audio library and making key documents available for viewing, including the transcripts of depositions of top officials and their testimony during a key administrative hearing.
Suppression of information is spreading – gag orders, nondisclosure agreements, and the government's refusal to turn over documents. In agencies that span Federal service, conscientious public servants are struggling to communicate vital concerns to their true employers – the American public. Is anyone listening?
Teresa Chambers
It brings to mind this administration's record on honesty and integrity in the government. There was Sibel Edmonds:
Sifting through old classified materials in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, FBI translator Sibel Edmonds said, she made an alarming discovery: Intercepts relevant to the terrorist plot, including references to skyscrapers, had been overlooked because they were badly translated into English.
Edmonds, 34, who is fluent in Turkish and Farsi, said she quickly reported the mistake to an FBI superior. Five months later, after flagging what she said were several other security lapses in her division, she was fired.
It's not just the administration, however -- it's his whole damned, bloodsucking, corrupt party. I posted about Stuart Bowen yesterday. Glenn Greenwald has covered that in more depth.
[I]t seems that "the termination language was inserted into the bill by Congressional staff members working for Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and who declared on Monday that he plans to run for president in 2008."
Hunter also happens to have a nice campaign chest stuffed with money from -- guess who: the people that Bowen was nailing.
And the U.S. Attorney in Guam, whose name I've unfortunately forgotten (which limits my ability to come up with links) who was "reassigned" at the request of Jack Abramoff.
Update:
Thanks to Erik Kosberg at Epinions Addicts:
Fred Brown was Acting U.S. Attorney for Guam and the Northern Marianas Islands when he began a corruption investigation that centered on Jack Abramoff. It's an old story, but here's a bare summary:
Fred Black, the acting U.S. Attorney in Guam, advised the public integrity section of the Justice Department in November 2002 that he had opened an investigation of Jack Abramoff. Days later, Black was demoted. His new boss then prohibited him from pursuing public corruption cases.
There's a slightly more substantial report at B12 Partners Solipsism.
Ken Mehlman, who at the time was a senior White House advisor and reportedly was contacted by Abramoff, is now dodging questions about the whole thing.
In the meantime, butt-sucking incompetents get medals.
The plight of whistleblowers – those employees who sound the alarm about anything from dangerous conditions in the workplace to missed or ignored intelligence regarding our nation's security – is a story that seems to grow stronger and with more frequency every day. My guess is that those stories have always been there; I suspect I am just paying closer attention to them now.
You see, I joined the "ranks" of whistleblowers on December 2, 2003, when a major newspaper printed a story in which I confirmed for them what many of us already knew – we, the members of the United States Park Police, could no longer provide the level of service that citizens and visitors had grown to expect in our parks and on our parkways in Washington, D.C., New York City, and San Francisco. The world changed for all of us on September 11, 2001, and the expectations of police agencies across the country grew exponentially overnight. As the Chief of the United States Park Police, an organization responsible for the safety and security of some of America's most valued and recognizable symbols of freedom – including such notable sites as the Washington Monument, the Statue of Liberty, and the Golden Gate Bridge area – I knew it was my duty, as chiefs of police across the country do every day, to inform the community of the realities of the situation.
For being candid – for being "honest" – while still being supportive of my superiors, I was, without warning, stripped of my law enforcement authority, badge, and firearm, and escorted from the Department of the Interior by armed special agents of another Federal law enforcement entity in December of 2003. Seven months later, the Department of the Interior terminated me.
Frighteningly, the issues I brought to light about our citizens' and visitors' safety and security and the future of these American icons have not been addressed – other than to silence me. In fact, there are fewer United States Park Police officers today than there were in 2003 when I was sent home for daring to say that we weren't able to properly meet our commitments with existing resources. Other security concerns I raised internally have also gone un-addressed.
Imagine the outcry if I had stayed silent and if one of those symbolic monuments or memorials had been destroyed or the loss of life had occurred to someone visiting one of those locations. I did not want to be standing with my superiors among the ruins of an American icon or in front of a Congressional committee trying to explain why we hadn't asked for help.
Despite the serious First Amendment and security implications of my case for each American, there has been no Congressional intervention, no Congressional hearing, no demand of accountability by elected officials for those who took action to silence me and who have ignored all warnings about the perils to which I alerted them. Through it all, it has become clear that Federal employees have little protection for simply telling the truth. Following my termination and the publicity that accompanied it, it is unlikely that any current Federal employee will be willing to speak up with straightforward, accurate information about the realities of any danger we face now or in the future.
My story is told on a website, www.HonestChief.com, established by my husband in December 2003 so that the American people could "witness" the issues in this case. Through the webmaster’s regular updates, the website has provided transparency to my situation by including an audio library and making key documents available for viewing, including the transcripts of depositions of top officials and their testimony during a key administrative hearing.
Suppression of information is spreading – gag orders, nondisclosure agreements, and the government's refusal to turn over documents. In agencies that span Federal service, conscientious public servants are struggling to communicate vital concerns to their true employers – the American public. Is anyone listening?
Teresa Chambers
It brings to mind this administration's record on honesty and integrity in the government. There was Sibel Edmonds:
Sifting through old classified materials in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, FBI translator Sibel Edmonds said, she made an alarming discovery: Intercepts relevant to the terrorist plot, including references to skyscrapers, had been overlooked because they were badly translated into English.
Edmonds, 34, who is fluent in Turkish and Farsi, said she quickly reported the mistake to an FBI superior. Five months later, after flagging what she said were several other security lapses in her division, she was fired.
It's not just the administration, however -- it's his whole damned, bloodsucking, corrupt party. I posted about Stuart Bowen yesterday. Glenn Greenwald has covered that in more depth.
[I]t seems that "the termination language was inserted into the bill by Congressional staff members working for Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and who declared on Monday that he plans to run for president in 2008."
Hunter also happens to have a nice campaign chest stuffed with money from -- guess who: the people that Bowen was nailing.
And the U.S. Attorney in Guam, whose name I've unfortunately forgotten (which limits my ability to come up with links) who was "reassigned" at the request of Jack Abramoff.
Update:
Thanks to Erik Kosberg at Epinions Addicts:
Fred Brown was Acting U.S. Attorney for Guam and the Northern Marianas Islands when he began a corruption investigation that centered on Jack Abramoff. It's an old story, but here's a bare summary:
Fred Black, the acting U.S. Attorney in Guam, advised the public integrity section of the Justice Department in November 2002 that he had opened an investigation of Jack Abramoff. Days later, Black was demoted. His new boss then prohibited him from pursuing public corruption cases.
There's a slightly more substantial report at B12 Partners Solipsism.
Ken Mehlman, who at the time was a senior White House advisor and reportedly was contacted by Abramoff, is now dodging questions about the whole thing.
In the meantime, butt-sucking incompetents get medals.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
At Random, 11/4/06
Speechless.:
This sort of says it all:
According to former senior U.S. military officers and others interviewed by TIME, sending a convicted abuser back to Iraq to train local police would have sent the wrong signal at a time when the U.S. is trying to bolster the beleaguered government in Baghdad, where the horrors of Abu Ghraib are far from forgotten. "If news of this deployment is accurate, it represents appallingly bad judgment," says retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who commanded a division in the first Gulf War. "The symbolic message perceived in Iraq will likely be that the U.S. is simply insensitive to the abuse of their prisoners."
What does anyone expect of the Torture President?
You're Doin' a Heckuva Job:
And then, there's this. Let's hear it for the Rubber-Stamp Congress:
Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.
And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen’s supporters believe is his reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.
The order comes in the form of an obscure provision that terminates his federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, on Oct. 1, 2007. The clause was inserted by the Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections of Democratic counterparts during a closed-door conference, and it has generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no idea it was in the final legislation.
Do I really need to say anything here?
Ah, Yes -- Ted Haggard
Is this a surprise to someone? Anyone? Well, maybe in the particulars, but Haggard joins a long line of super-evangelists who preach one thing and do another. Tristero, at Hullabaloo, makes some cogent comments on the morality of those who preach "morality." Particularly interesting is this post by David Wayne at Jolly Blogger. Tristero objects to this statement by Wayne, or at least hte last sentence:
But lets also be careful that we not assume some moral superiority to, or moral authority over, Ted Haggard. Those of us who do not base our ministries on moral superiority and moral authority may feel morally superior to those who do. We may feel morally superior because we rely on grace not moral superiority.
The truth is, I am Ted Haggard, we are all Ted Haggard, and Ted Haggard is all of us.
I object to the last sentence, but I wonder about the substance of the quote. Wayne rejects moral superiority as a grounds for interaction with non-Christians (even though he may not realize it), and moral superiority is the main message of the political arm of the evangelical movement. (Wayne also notes that evangelicals are uneasy with political activity, or should be, but I wonder how true that is. Maybe we need some further slicing and dicing here -- I know that not all evangelicals are of the Dobson Gang mold, but I wonder if they do, and I wonder how many of them realize they're hanging out where they don't belong.)
No, I am not Ted Haggard because I am not a hypocrite. For starters, I'm a very poor liar. Mostly, it never occurs to me to lie, and when it does, I fumble it, so I long ago decided it just makes more sense to be as truthful as possible all the time. Nor do I castigate people for doing things that I do myself.
Granted, Haggard has not been as anti-gay as others in his movement, but if anything, I'm less patient with those who would grant us a second-class existence in the name of "charity." I don't need your charity. Just get out of my way.
If Haggard were unique, it would be one thing. But. . . .
New Jersey Redux:
See Jon Rowe's comments on the New Jersey decision.
I've read the opinion, and had actually started writing a post on it, and forget whether I ever posted it. I find the dissent's argument that the majority's reasoning is circular to be convincing -- "it's never been this way, so it can never be this way" just doesn't really cut it for me, y'know?
While it makes political sense to pass the question of means back to the legislature, I'd be happier with a firmer stance on constitutional absolutes. But, as Rowe points out, it takes time, and while an unwilling populace could be brought into line with the Constitution as far as racial bias goes, times have changed, the opponents of equality have much better funding and are much more vocal. In the absence of anyone in a position of prominence to call them on their lies, I guess we'll just have to wait until the Democrats develop some morality of their own.
I hate to think they've got the courts on the run, though.
Footnote: Remember that the majority and the dissenters all found that same-sex couples merit the full protection of the law, and that the only real difference in the opinions is that the dissenters -- including one Republican -- felt that, indeed, a rose by any other name would not smell as sweet.
Another Page Scandal:
This is the way it ought to be handled:
Some lawmakers have said parts of the special legislative session should be held behind closed doors to protect the page when he testifies, but Schoenbeck said he believes the entire session should be open.
If testimony is heard in private, all 35 senators and the other people involved would later give their own interpretation of what happened, Schoenbeck said. It would be better for the public to hear the testimony firsthand, he said.
"The public either gets to see the facts in an open session or they hear a bunch of different people's versions of the facts after a closed session," he said.
Anti-Marriage:
It looks as though anti-marriage amendments in South Dakota and Wisconsin might fail, and even that big nasty in Virginia won't get the margin that was normal at the height of the panic.
There's something very comforting about being on the right side of history.
This sort of says it all:
According to former senior U.S. military officers and others interviewed by TIME, sending a convicted abuser back to Iraq to train local police would have sent the wrong signal at a time when the U.S. is trying to bolster the beleaguered government in Baghdad, where the horrors of Abu Ghraib are far from forgotten. "If news of this deployment is accurate, it represents appallingly bad judgment," says retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who commanded a division in the first Gulf War. "The symbolic message perceived in Iraq will likely be that the U.S. is simply insensitive to the abuse of their prisoners."
What does anyone expect of the Torture President?
You're Doin' a Heckuva Job:
And then, there's this. Let's hear it for the Rubber-Stamp Congress:
Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.
And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen’s supporters believe is his reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.
The order comes in the form of an obscure provision that terminates his federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, on Oct. 1, 2007. The clause was inserted by the Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections of Democratic counterparts during a closed-door conference, and it has generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no idea it was in the final legislation.
Do I really need to say anything here?
Ah, Yes -- Ted Haggard
Is this a surprise to someone? Anyone? Well, maybe in the particulars, but Haggard joins a long line of super-evangelists who preach one thing and do another. Tristero, at Hullabaloo, makes some cogent comments on the morality of those who preach "morality." Particularly interesting is this post by David Wayne at Jolly Blogger. Tristero objects to this statement by Wayne, or at least hte last sentence:
But lets also be careful that we not assume some moral superiority to, or moral authority over, Ted Haggard. Those of us who do not base our ministries on moral superiority and moral authority may feel morally superior to those who do. We may feel morally superior because we rely on grace not moral superiority.
The truth is, I am Ted Haggard, we are all Ted Haggard, and Ted Haggard is all of us.
I object to the last sentence, but I wonder about the substance of the quote. Wayne rejects moral superiority as a grounds for interaction with non-Christians (even though he may not realize it), and moral superiority is the main message of the political arm of the evangelical movement. (Wayne also notes that evangelicals are uneasy with political activity, or should be, but I wonder how true that is. Maybe we need some further slicing and dicing here -- I know that not all evangelicals are of the Dobson Gang mold, but I wonder if they do, and I wonder how many of them realize they're hanging out where they don't belong.)
No, I am not Ted Haggard because I am not a hypocrite. For starters, I'm a very poor liar. Mostly, it never occurs to me to lie, and when it does, I fumble it, so I long ago decided it just makes more sense to be as truthful as possible all the time. Nor do I castigate people for doing things that I do myself.
Granted, Haggard has not been as anti-gay as others in his movement, but if anything, I'm less patient with those who would grant us a second-class existence in the name of "charity." I don't need your charity. Just get out of my way.
If Haggard were unique, it would be one thing. But. . . .
New Jersey Redux:
See Jon Rowe's comments on the New Jersey decision.
I've read the opinion, and had actually started writing a post on it, and forget whether I ever posted it. I find the dissent's argument that the majority's reasoning is circular to be convincing -- "it's never been this way, so it can never be this way" just doesn't really cut it for me, y'know?
While it makes political sense to pass the question of means back to the legislature, I'd be happier with a firmer stance on constitutional absolutes. But, as Rowe points out, it takes time, and while an unwilling populace could be brought into line with the Constitution as far as racial bias goes, times have changed, the opponents of equality have much better funding and are much more vocal. In the absence of anyone in a position of prominence to call them on their lies, I guess we'll just have to wait until the Democrats develop some morality of their own.
I hate to think they've got the courts on the run, though.
Footnote: Remember that the majority and the dissenters all found that same-sex couples merit the full protection of the law, and that the only real difference in the opinions is that the dissenters -- including one Republican -- felt that, indeed, a rose by any other name would not smell as sweet.
Another Page Scandal:
This is the way it ought to be handled:
Some lawmakers have said parts of the special legislative session should be held behind closed doors to protect the page when he testifies, but Schoenbeck said he believes the entire session should be open.
If testimony is heard in private, all 35 senators and the other people involved would later give their own interpretation of what happened, Schoenbeck said. It would be better for the public to hear the testimony firsthand, he said.
"The public either gets to see the facts in an open session or they hear a bunch of different people's versions of the facts after a closed session," he said.
Anti-Marriage:
It looks as though anti-marriage amendments in South Dakota and Wisconsin might fail, and even that big nasty in Virginia won't get the margin that was normal at the height of the panic.
There's something very comforting about being on the right side of history.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
More on New Jersey
I'm still wading through the opinion -- too much to write to spend too much time reading right now, and so, of course, none of it's getting done. It does seem a little strained. I take it as an indication that the Rabids have the courts on the run, even when the courts know what they're doing.
GayPatriot is pleased at being channeled by WSJ. I guess there's something to be said for lowered expectations.
They set great store by this annoying OpEd by James Taranto:
These provisions resulted from a backlash after the courts' rulings in Vermont and Massachusetts--a backlash that has probably served the electoral interests of Republicans, who, despite the president's liberal views on civil unions, remain the party less eager to expand gay rights. In the long run, though, the move toward legal same-sex unions may prove inexorable. All those state restrictions on same-sex unions could be struck down by five Supreme Court justices.
We have mixed feelings about all this. We sympathize with both the traditionalists' resistance to redefining marriage and gay couples' desire to enjoy both the tangible benefits of marriage and the affirmation that comes with legal recognition. We guess we're with President Bush in thinking civil unions are a reasonable compromise. But we'd also be happier if this were thrashed over democratically rather than forced upon society by the courts.
First off, the backlash was fed and watered by the Republicans -- let's call a spade a spade. It was a made-to-order feeding frenzy for the Dobson Gang. Some of those loons were quoted at the time as saying that it was just what they needed to fill their coffers. Of course they went for it: money is power. And I am really, really, really tired of this crap about the courts "forcing" constitutional guarantees down the people's collective throat. Because that's all it is -- crap from the ever-fruitful shit machine of the Dobson Gang.
I feel like I keep harping on this, but it seems as though it should be quite clear -- the people have limited sovereignty in this country. That's always been the case. That's why Senators are elected for longer terms than Representatives, that's why federal judges are appointed for life, that's why any law that treats one group differently is subjected to several tiers of scrutiny in order to determine whether it has a rational basis and is not merely a product of popular bias. That's why there is a Bill of Rights sewn into the Constitution -- to save us from the whim of the people. This is actually addressed with some intelligence in the comments to this post by Matt at The Malcontent. See this one, as well, by Chris Crain. It's nice to see someone else who understands the right question.
I'm still waiting for a rational argument against same-sex marriage. I still haven't seen one. I guess that's the problem when you're dealing with an emotional issue that should be decided rationally. Lord knows I don't have much success doing that myself in day-to-day life.
Of course, it means being a real grown-up. How many of us can pull that off 24/7?
GayPatriot is pleased at being channeled by WSJ. I guess there's something to be said for lowered expectations.
They set great store by this annoying OpEd by James Taranto:
These provisions resulted from a backlash after the courts' rulings in Vermont and Massachusetts--a backlash that has probably served the electoral interests of Republicans, who, despite the president's liberal views on civil unions, remain the party less eager to expand gay rights. In the long run, though, the move toward legal same-sex unions may prove inexorable. All those state restrictions on same-sex unions could be struck down by five Supreme Court justices.
We have mixed feelings about all this. We sympathize with both the traditionalists' resistance to redefining marriage and gay couples' desire to enjoy both the tangible benefits of marriage and the affirmation that comes with legal recognition. We guess we're with President Bush in thinking civil unions are a reasonable compromise. But we'd also be happier if this were thrashed over democratically rather than forced upon society by the courts.
First off, the backlash was fed and watered by the Republicans -- let's call a spade a spade. It was a made-to-order feeding frenzy for the Dobson Gang. Some of those loons were quoted at the time as saying that it was just what they needed to fill their coffers. Of course they went for it: money is power. And I am really, really, really tired of this crap about the courts "forcing" constitutional guarantees down the people's collective throat. Because that's all it is -- crap from the ever-fruitful shit machine of the Dobson Gang.
I feel like I keep harping on this, but it seems as though it should be quite clear -- the people have limited sovereignty in this country. That's always been the case. That's why Senators are elected for longer terms than Representatives, that's why federal judges are appointed for life, that's why any law that treats one group differently is subjected to several tiers of scrutiny in order to determine whether it has a rational basis and is not merely a product of popular bias. That's why there is a Bill of Rights sewn into the Constitution -- to save us from the whim of the people. This is actually addressed with some intelligence in the comments to this post by Matt at The Malcontent. See this one, as well, by Chris Crain. It's nice to see someone else who understands the right question.
I'm still waiting for a rational argument against same-sex marriage. I still haven't seen one. I guess that's the problem when you're dealing with an emotional issue that should be decided rationally. Lord knows I don't have much success doing that myself in day-to-day life.
Of course, it means being a real grown-up. How many of us can pull that off 24/7?
More on Dumb
TBogg alerted me -- again -- to the latest from much too long interview with Camille Paglia. The money quote again:
The Democrats have to start fresh and throw out the entire party superstructure. I was bitterly disappointed after voting for Ralph Nader that he didn't devote himself to helping build a strong third party in this country.
If she hasn't figured Ralph Nader out by now. . . . Well. Maybe she, Nader, and Joe Lieberman should form the "It's All About Me" Party. I'm sure that would have some resonance somewhere.
TRex also takes her on over at Firedoglake.
She then goes on to spout a bunch of hateful crap about how if Matthew Shepard hadn't been out cruising for sex, he'd still be alive. But see, in Paglia's "mind", this is the inherent state of gay men, perpetual and uncontrollable erotic arousal.
What I don't understand is why people keep listening to self-appointed "cultural critics" who are demonstrably out of touch, ignorant, and not very smart to begin with.
I begin to understand "bloviate" on a deep, almost visceral level.
Gavin, at Sadly, No!, has a list of money quotes.
I remember reading Paglia's pronouncements years ago and thinking then that she was full of shit. I can't see any reason to change that opinion. My point then was that if you're going to call yourself a "cultural critic," which she was doing at that point, you have to be able to step out of your culture to look at it. She's not. She's like an academic Ann Coulter -- same stance, she just uses longer words.
Of course, there are those who think she's right on target. Which only proves what a wide range of meanings "think" has.
It seems very odd to me that there are so many people out there who do not ask questions. They just suck it all in, even when the source is an obvious idiot. Even when we've seen what six years of not asking questions has done to us.
I'm sure Paglia has a high IQ. I'm equally sure that she's So. Out. There.
The Democrats have to start fresh and throw out the entire party superstructure. I was bitterly disappointed after voting for Ralph Nader that he didn't devote himself to helping build a strong third party in this country.
If she hasn't figured Ralph Nader out by now. . . . Well. Maybe she, Nader, and Joe Lieberman should form the "It's All About Me" Party. I'm sure that would have some resonance somewhere.
TRex also takes her on over at Firedoglake.
Completely missing from the major media's avalanche of formulaic liberal outrage was any reference to the gay-male practice of cruising, which is constantly going on with indefatigable energy virtually everywhere in the industrialized world. Rock star George Michael's arrest in a Hollywood public toilet in April this year was quickly suppressed by the major media and given significant coverage in the United States only by the tabloids. Despite the recent turn by some gay male writers toward reexamination of gay hedonism, the issue remains unconfronted by gay organizations and their media supporters, who dismiss or deride Christian conservatives' claim that there is a negative "gay lifestyle."
She then goes on to spout a bunch of hateful crap about how if Matthew Shepard hadn't been out cruising for sex, he'd still be alive. But see, in Paglia's "mind", this is the inherent state of gay men, perpetual and uncontrollable erotic arousal.
What I don't understand is why people keep listening to self-appointed "cultural critics" who are demonstrably out of touch, ignorant, and not very smart to begin with.
I begin to understand "bloviate" on a deep, almost visceral level.
Gavin, at Sadly, No!, has a list of money quotes.
I remember reading Paglia's pronouncements years ago and thinking then that she was full of shit. I can't see any reason to change that opinion. My point then was that if you're going to call yourself a "cultural critic," which she was doing at that point, you have to be able to step out of your culture to look at it. She's not. She's like an academic Ann Coulter -- same stance, she just uses longer words.
Of course, there are those who think she's right on target. Which only proves what a wide range of meanings "think" has.
It seems very odd to me that there are so many people out there who do not ask questions. They just suck it all in, even when the source is an obvious idiot. Even when we've seen what six years of not asking questions has done to us.
I'm sure Paglia has a high IQ. I'm equally sure that she's So. Out. There.
Friday, October 27, 2006
New Jersey
I haven't had time to read the opinion yet, but of course the Christianists are up in arms about "activist judges" ramming gay marriage down people's throats, and the people should decide, and on and on and on. (And don't forget that in Illinois, when opponents of same-sex marriage couldn't get a referendum on the ballot, they took the matter to the courts -- looking for an activist judge to throw out Illinois' election laws.)
Glenn Greenwald has some interesting things to say about these "experts."
He also has a link to the opinion (pdf).
Glenn Greenwald has some interesting things to say about these "experts."
He also has a link to the opinion (pdf).
Dumb, Smart, Really Dumb
Clueless:
A much-too-long interview with Camille Paglia, self-appointed "cultural critic," at Salon. TBogg has the money quote:
The Democrats have to start fresh and throw out the entire party superstructure. I was bitterly disappointed after voting for Ralph Nader that he didn't devote himself to helping build a strong third party in this country.
The woman's an idiot.
Hillary:
From Pam's House Blend. If you can get past Pam's knee-jerk bad attitude toward Hillary (sounds to me like Spaulding has swallowed the Republican talking points on that topic whole), you can see that Clinton is what I've always said she is: an intelligent and adaptable politician. She's a pragmatist, which used to be what we wanted in elective office in this country.
She's obviously intelligent -- probably a little bit more than intelligent -- and thoughtful, but most important, I don't think it matters what her personal beliefs are, because I don't think she would govern on that basis. What seems to have both the left and the right twisted up about her is that she's not an ideologue. She pays attention to what's going on in the country and she's a realist. After the debacle with health care early in her husband's administration, I think she learned real fast to figue out what she could get away with and work from that basis. I think she also developed a strong sense of how vicious and unprincipled the right is.
I don't think Clinton should run for president in 2008 simply because her mere candidacy would give the Christianists a new lease on life. I also don't think, as socially backward as we've become under Republican tutelage that we're ready for a woman president. (Y'know, that's sad -- that's really sad. The land of the free hasn't yet joined such countries as Iceland, Finland, Israel, India, Sri Lanka, Britain, Germany, Latvia, and the Philippines in having a woman head of government.) We really can't afford another four years of their being in control of the government -- or even thinking they are. There are some serious fixups that need to be done in this country which are only going to be more difficult if we're distracted by their non-issues.
I have to say, though, that after the past six years, couldn't we do with a little realism in Washington?
Jean Schmidt:
From Atrios, this letter from Jean "Murtha Is A Coward" Schmidt. (It's a pdf file.)
The letter is close to priceless. The "rules" that Schmidt is referring to are rules applying to members of the House of Representatives. Victoria Mursin is not a member of the House -- yet.
Extraordinarily stupid.
A much-too-long interview with Camille Paglia, self-appointed "cultural critic," at Salon. TBogg has the money quote:
The Democrats have to start fresh and throw out the entire party superstructure. I was bitterly disappointed after voting for Ralph Nader that he didn't devote himself to helping build a strong third party in this country.
The woman's an idiot.
Hillary:
From Pam's House Blend. If you can get past Pam's knee-jerk bad attitude toward Hillary (sounds to me like Spaulding has swallowed the Republican talking points on that topic whole), you can see that Clinton is what I've always said she is: an intelligent and adaptable politician. She's a pragmatist, which used to be what we wanted in elective office in this country.
She's obviously intelligent -- probably a little bit more than intelligent -- and thoughtful, but most important, I don't think it matters what her personal beliefs are, because I don't think she would govern on that basis. What seems to have both the left and the right twisted up about her is that she's not an ideologue. She pays attention to what's going on in the country and she's a realist. After the debacle with health care early in her husband's administration, I think she learned real fast to figue out what she could get away with and work from that basis. I think she also developed a strong sense of how vicious and unprincipled the right is.
I don't think Clinton should run for president in 2008 simply because her mere candidacy would give the Christianists a new lease on life. I also don't think, as socially backward as we've become under Republican tutelage that we're ready for a woman president. (Y'know, that's sad -- that's really sad. The land of the free hasn't yet joined such countries as Iceland, Finland, Israel, India, Sri Lanka, Britain, Germany, Latvia, and the Philippines in having a woman head of government.) We really can't afford another four years of their being in control of the government -- or even thinking they are. There are some serious fixups that need to be done in this country which are only going to be more difficult if we're distracted by their non-issues.
I have to say, though, that after the past six years, couldn't we do with a little realism in Washington?
Jean Schmidt:
From Atrios, this letter from Jean "Murtha Is A Coward" Schmidt. (It's a pdf file.)
The letter is close to priceless. The "rules" that Schmidt is referring to are rules applying to members of the House of Representatives. Victoria Mursin is not a member of the House -- yet.
Extraordinarily stupid.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Scum
Rush Limbaugh. Attacking Michael J. Fox for "faking it" in ads for candidates who support federal funding for stem cell research. Slimy.
In fact, the disabled seem to be the new Gay for Republicans. Tammy Duckworth, who left her legs in Iraq, was accused by her opponent of wanting to "cut and run." Barbara Cubin in Wyoming threatened to attack her Libertarian opponent. Of course, Ann Coulter accused Max Cleland of wounding himself, so there's a history here.
Of course, they're still running racist ads in Tennessee. I hear George Allen may want to borrow them, if they can work in the word "macaca." So maybe Black is the new Gay.
And homophobia still works, just not quite as well. Maybe because the cat's out of the bag: Karl Rove thinks' James Dobson's a joke.
So I guess Gay is the new Gay.
Whatever.
In fact, the disabled seem to be the new Gay for Republicans. Tammy Duckworth, who left her legs in Iraq, was accused by her opponent of wanting to "cut and run." Barbara Cubin in Wyoming threatened to attack her Libertarian opponent. Of course, Ann Coulter accused Max Cleland of wounding himself, so there's a history here.
Of course, they're still running racist ads in Tennessee. I hear George Allen may want to borrow them, if they can work in the word "macaca." So maybe Black is the new Gay.
And homophobia still works, just not quite as well. Maybe because the cat's out of the bag: Karl Rove thinks' James Dobson's a joke.
So I guess Gay is the new Gay.
Whatever.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Compassion
David Kuo again, on "compassionate conservatism":
The president's question first needed to be answered. He wanted to know how much we had spent on compassion programs in his first two years in office. We made some calls and did some calculations and discovered that if we applied his definition of compassion to federal social servoices programs, we were actually spending about $20 million a year less on them than before he had taken office. That number never actually made it to the president. The question was deemed, "still in process of being accounted for."
The president's question first needed to be answered. He wanted to know how much we had spent on compassion programs in his first two years in office. We made some calls and did some calculations and discovered that if we applied his definition of compassion to federal social servoices programs, we were actually spending about $20 million a year less on them than before he had taken office. That number never actually made it to the president. The question was deemed, "still in process of being accounted for."
Pat Tillman's Birthday Is Coming
This was written by Kevin Tillman, Pat Tillman's brother. Read it. Then post it yourself, or e-mail it to someone, or something.
It is Pat’s birthday on November 6, and elections are the day after. . . .
In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.
Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday.
It is Pat’s birthday on November 6, and elections are the day after. . . .
In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.
Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat’s birthday.
Angry
This post at Andrew Sullivan got me thinking, and maybe I've said this before, but it's something that can't be said often enough.
I'm really angry, and I'm angry because I'm disappointed. I believe in America, even though I recognize its frailties and its missteps. America is a dream. It always has been, for just about everyone, and some of us have had the chance to live in it.
I'm angry and disappointed because I see our elected officials and our public spokesmen screwing everything up again and again, every chance they have, not from principles, not even from misguided idealism, but because they want to hold on to power. I figured that out a while ago, so the latest stories about how they're playing their base just confirm it.
Somehow, and maybe I'll figure out just how before I'm finished here, the sentiments expressed in this quote from Barry Goldwater fit:
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are?
Especially when contrasted to something like this from Joseph Farah, the editor of WingNutDaily:
Do you believe God will honor an administration that behaves this way? Do you believe God will continue to protect a country that flagrantly disregards His laws? Do you believe God will be mocked like this without consequences? Do you believe God will bless a party that acts so duplicitously?
Personally, I think the gods are waiting for us to figure it out for ourselves. They're not real big on interfering, at least in my experience. They don't want to get involved, and why should they? It's our problem.
OK -- The Christianists make me angry because I think, in case you haven't noticed, that they are fundamentally and overtly anti-American. They deny our basic principles as a nation, and belittle every attempt to make us a nation. They're small, mean-spirited people, and I don't have a lot of patience with that.
I believe in the system. I don't believe it's a perfect system -- there's too much evidence otherwise, especially right now -- but I believe that in general, it does work for the common good, as long as we can keep it from being subverted by people like the current Republican party.
But we used to understand that we have to compromise. That's the only way to make it work. We can't all just run around doing whatever we want because we have to live together and we don't all agree on what's appropriate or permissible. So we talk about it and arrive at something that's workable, if not ideal from any particular point of view. (Unless, like me, you think that "workable" is pretty close to "ideal." I suppose that leaves me open to charges of lowered expectations, but I'm pretty easy to get along with.)
Maybe it's because I see things from a perspective slightly different that most of my fellows. I'm always aware in the irony implicit in things like this -- two quotes from Andrew Sullivan's posts:
"He leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country," - Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Donald Rumsfeld.
and
"One day I will be asked whether I have been in touch with someone who told me we would win, and I will respond: 'Yes, I have been in touch with God'," - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
It's a travesty on both parts. "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
I think one thing that makes me angry (here comes the connection) is the use of "morality" as a marketing tool. There is a place for morality in the public life of this country, but not the so-called "morality" of the Christianists of no conscience. We have a public morality; its basic rules are set out in our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution, and that's good enough for me. We don't need some church telling us to behave ourselves -- if they can't teach their members to treat others with respect and generosity, what the hell are they in business for? this, from Digby, is part of what I mean:
As I look at all these issues that have come to the forefront in the last few years, I'm struck by how dumb it is to let the Republicans claim the mantle of values and morality. People who believe that torture is ok or that it's better to let blastocysts be thrown away rather than use them to save living breathing human beings are immoral. If they want to play politics on that field, I say bring it on.
This ties in with more self-serving crap from the Catholic hierarchy:
Setting its tone early in the text by reminding the flock that all "are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess an innate human dignity that must be acknowledged and respected," the document asserts that "Those who would minister in the name of the Church must in no way contribute to... injustice" against homosexuals -- with the subsequent caveat that "it is not unjust... to limit the bond of marriage to the union of a woman and a man" nor to "oppose granting to homosexual couples benefits that in justice should belong to marriage alone," i.e. civil unions.
They haven't abandoned the canard that homosexual behavior is "intrinsically disordered," but they now are doing a little dance on the theme that the "inclination" is not intrinsically diordered. No one but a Catholic theologian could come up with doubletalk like that. I'm with Goldwater on this one: who the hell do they think they are? An institution that can wink at the abuse of children tells me that I am "intrinsically disordered" because I act on what to me are natural impulses toward expressing love toward another adult? What a load of crap.
Lest there be any doubt, look at the history: the Church has never been averse to holding political power, which makes its sincerity as an institution devoted to the teachings of Jesus suspect -- "Render unto Caesar. . . ."
What I can't believe is that Republican strategists are so open about their rationale, while religious "leaders" are flogging Morality as a means to power. Shouldn't someone be running for office based on something besides holding onto power? Anyone?
I have a message for the Bushes and the Falwells and the Bendicts:
You killed my dreams. That, I can't forgive.
I'm really angry, and I'm angry because I'm disappointed. I believe in America, even though I recognize its frailties and its missteps. America is a dream. It always has been, for just about everyone, and some of us have had the chance to live in it.
I'm angry and disappointed because I see our elected officials and our public spokesmen screwing everything up again and again, every chance they have, not from principles, not even from misguided idealism, but because they want to hold on to power. I figured that out a while ago, so the latest stories about how they're playing their base just confirm it.
Somehow, and maybe I'll figure out just how before I'm finished here, the sentiments expressed in this quote from Barry Goldwater fit:
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are?
Especially when contrasted to something like this from Joseph Farah, the editor of WingNutDaily:
Do you believe God will honor an administration that behaves this way? Do you believe God will continue to protect a country that flagrantly disregards His laws? Do you believe God will be mocked like this without consequences? Do you believe God will bless a party that acts so duplicitously?
Personally, I think the gods are waiting for us to figure it out for ourselves. They're not real big on interfering, at least in my experience. They don't want to get involved, and why should they? It's our problem.
OK -- The Christianists make me angry because I think, in case you haven't noticed, that they are fundamentally and overtly anti-American. They deny our basic principles as a nation, and belittle every attempt to make us a nation. They're small, mean-spirited people, and I don't have a lot of patience with that.
I believe in the system. I don't believe it's a perfect system -- there's too much evidence otherwise, especially right now -- but I believe that in general, it does work for the common good, as long as we can keep it from being subverted by people like the current Republican party.
But we used to understand that we have to compromise. That's the only way to make it work. We can't all just run around doing whatever we want because we have to live together and we don't all agree on what's appropriate or permissible. So we talk about it and arrive at something that's workable, if not ideal from any particular point of view. (Unless, like me, you think that "workable" is pretty close to "ideal." I suppose that leaves me open to charges of lowered expectations, but I'm pretty easy to get along with.)
Maybe it's because I see things from a perspective slightly different that most of my fellows. I'm always aware in the irony implicit in things like this -- two quotes from Andrew Sullivan's posts:
"He leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country," - Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Donald Rumsfeld.
and
"One day I will be asked whether I have been in touch with someone who told me we would win, and I will respond: 'Yes, I have been in touch with God'," - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
It's a travesty on both parts. "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
I think one thing that makes me angry (here comes the connection) is the use of "morality" as a marketing tool. There is a place for morality in the public life of this country, but not the so-called "morality" of the Christianists of no conscience. We have a public morality; its basic rules are set out in our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution, and that's good enough for me. We don't need some church telling us to behave ourselves -- if they can't teach their members to treat others with respect and generosity, what the hell are they in business for? this, from Digby, is part of what I mean:
As I look at all these issues that have come to the forefront in the last few years, I'm struck by how dumb it is to let the Republicans claim the mantle of values and morality. People who believe that torture is ok or that it's better to let blastocysts be thrown away rather than use them to save living breathing human beings are immoral. If they want to play politics on that field, I say bring it on.
This ties in with more self-serving crap from the Catholic hierarchy:
Setting its tone early in the text by reminding the flock that all "are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess an innate human dignity that must be acknowledged and respected," the document asserts that "Those who would minister in the name of the Church must in no way contribute to... injustice" against homosexuals -- with the subsequent caveat that "it is not unjust... to limit the bond of marriage to the union of a woman and a man" nor to "oppose granting to homosexual couples benefits that in justice should belong to marriage alone," i.e. civil unions.
They haven't abandoned the canard that homosexual behavior is "intrinsically disordered," but they now are doing a little dance on the theme that the "inclination" is not intrinsically diordered. No one but a Catholic theologian could come up with doubletalk like that. I'm with Goldwater on this one: who the hell do they think they are? An institution that can wink at the abuse of children tells me that I am "intrinsically disordered" because I act on what to me are natural impulses toward expressing love toward another adult? What a load of crap.
Lest there be any doubt, look at the history: the Church has never been averse to holding political power, which makes its sincerity as an institution devoted to the teachings of Jesus suspect -- "Render unto Caesar. . . ."
What I can't believe is that Republican strategists are so open about their rationale, while religious "leaders" are flogging Morality as a means to power. Shouldn't someone be running for office based on something besides holding onto power? Anyone?
I have a message for the Bushes and the Falwells and the Bendicts:
You killed my dreams. That, I can't forgive.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Remember When We Still Had Rights?
They aren't wasting any time. From WaPo:
In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that "no court, justice, or judge" can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.
Glenn Greenwald has one of his normally thoughtful posts on this issue, but I think he's missing something.
Because the threat posed by The Terrorists is so grave and mortal, maximizing protections against it is the paramount, overriding goal. As a result, no other value really competes with that objective in importance, nor can any other objective or value limit our efforts to protect ourselves against The Terrorists. That's what the President is arguing when he said: "Yet, with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat." All that matters is whether we did everything possible to protect ourselves.
We are, in direct succession to the British, a nation of shopkeepers. The middle class is the paradigm. (I actually heard a woman whose apartment in Chicago is worth a million dollars describe herself as "upper middle class." Perhaps she's right -- we don't acknowledge an "upper class" in this country, even though it exists, and even though we fawn over foreign aristocrats.)
Liberty is not a high priority for the middle class. It is a bourgeois virtue only if it is circumscribed: freedom is the freedom to make a good living. (And now Bush has taken that away from most of us.) Ideas are not of particular value, particularly abstractions. "Security" is the overriding requirement, and I have to hand it to the Republican strategists, they nailed that one right on the head.
Bourgeois are necessarily materialists. They are invested in their property, their income, the visible results of their ability to succeed in a mercantile environment. That makes them horribly vulnerable -- all of that can be taken away so easily.
And so morality becomes fluid. I'm not speaking of the "morality" of the Pope and James Dobson, largely concerned with other people's crotches. (Yes, there is lip service toward poverty and injustice, at least from the Pope, but the main thrust and the strongest statements concern other people's sex lives. When the Pope calls the war in Iraq "intrinsically disordered," then I might start to listen to him.) The morality embodied in our constitution, which is the real repository of our values, is something to be approached with distrust. Read Keith Olbrman's comments on what we've just given away.
This is why there is so little public outcry, I think, against the Patriot Act, and the Torture Act, laws which violate everything that makes us America. Ideals have little value in the marketplace, and the middle class is all about the marketplace, and enjoying the fruits thereof.
It leads, apparently inevitably, to a head-in-the-sand attitude, and gives traction to ludicrous statements such as "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." What about the fact that what goes on in my living room, or bedroom, or any other room in my abode is none of your damned business? We fought a war to establish that fact.
Towleroad came up with this quote:
Jonathan Turley, Professor of Constitutional Laws at George Washington University, lays it all out: "The Congress just gave the President despotic powers and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to Dancing With the Stars."
I think the best summation of this whole nightmare was stated quite succinctly in the New York Times letters column:
"It can't happen here."
It did.
In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that "no court, justice, or judge" can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.
Glenn Greenwald has one of his normally thoughtful posts on this issue, but I think he's missing something.
Because the threat posed by The Terrorists is so grave and mortal, maximizing protections against it is the paramount, overriding goal. As a result, no other value really competes with that objective in importance, nor can any other objective or value limit our efforts to protect ourselves against The Terrorists. That's what the President is arguing when he said: "Yet, with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat." All that matters is whether we did everything possible to protect ourselves.
We are, in direct succession to the British, a nation of shopkeepers. The middle class is the paradigm. (I actually heard a woman whose apartment in Chicago is worth a million dollars describe herself as "upper middle class." Perhaps she's right -- we don't acknowledge an "upper class" in this country, even though it exists, and even though we fawn over foreign aristocrats.)
Liberty is not a high priority for the middle class. It is a bourgeois virtue only if it is circumscribed: freedom is the freedom to make a good living. (And now Bush has taken that away from most of us.) Ideas are not of particular value, particularly abstractions. "Security" is the overriding requirement, and I have to hand it to the Republican strategists, they nailed that one right on the head.
Bourgeois are necessarily materialists. They are invested in their property, their income, the visible results of their ability to succeed in a mercantile environment. That makes them horribly vulnerable -- all of that can be taken away so easily.
And so morality becomes fluid. I'm not speaking of the "morality" of the Pope and James Dobson, largely concerned with other people's crotches. (Yes, there is lip service toward poverty and injustice, at least from the Pope, but the main thrust and the strongest statements concern other people's sex lives. When the Pope calls the war in Iraq "intrinsically disordered," then I might start to listen to him.) The morality embodied in our constitution, which is the real repository of our values, is something to be approached with distrust. Read Keith Olbrman's comments on what we've just given away.
This is why there is so little public outcry, I think, against the Patriot Act, and the Torture Act, laws which violate everything that makes us America. Ideals have little value in the marketplace, and the middle class is all about the marketplace, and enjoying the fruits thereof.
It leads, apparently inevitably, to a head-in-the-sand attitude, and gives traction to ludicrous statements such as "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." What about the fact that what goes on in my living room, or bedroom, or any other room in my abode is none of your damned business? We fought a war to establish that fact.
Towleroad came up with this quote:
Jonathan Turley, Professor of Constitutional Laws at George Washington University, lays it all out: "The Congress just gave the President despotic powers and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to Dancing With the Stars."
I think the best summation of this whole nightmare was stated quite succinctly in the New York Times letters column:
"It can't happen here."
It did.
This Is The Best They Can Offer?
Via Towleroad, this choice quote from St. John McCain:
"I think gay marriage should be allowed if there's a ceremony kind of thing if you want to call it that. I don't have any problem with that..."
Before your jaw drops too far, McCain went on to say "I think private ceremonies are fine. I do not think gay marriage should be legal."
What a condescending asshole.
"I think gay marriage should be allowed if there's a ceremony kind of thing if you want to call it that. I don't have any problem with that..."
Before your jaw drops too far, McCain went on to say "I think private ceremonies are fine. I do not think gay marriage should be legal."
What a condescending asshole.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Rereading
I'm so tired of politics. I've been writing madly again -- not only here, but another deadline for GMR, catching up at Rambles, and so yesterday I took a break -- reading. How ironic is that?
Sometimes -- actually, usually, when I'm sort of burned out on reviewing, I like to curl up with an old friend (book, that is) and just read a story I love without having to worry about whether it's good or what I'm going to say about it. I run out of things to say after a while, believe it or not.
I managed to complete Glen Cook's Black Company series. I now have them all to date. (Timing is everything -- I happened to walk into one of my favorite used bookstores just after they had shelved a complete set.) Cook's one of those writers I can read any time, on any pretext. I don't think I've read a book of his (and I've read most of them) that I haven't enjoyed thoroughly. My proof copy of The Tyranny of the Night is pretty worn at this point. Great book.
Ellen Kushner's Swordspoint is another. I just reread that one, again. (And another that's getting kind of tattered.) I used to think that Alec was my favorite character in literature, but Richard is starting to have a distinct appeal. They're both infused with a kind of vulnerability that I find irresistible.
Don't get me wrong -- I do enjoy reading new books and discovering new authors. I've come across some really great things this past year, people like Jonathan Lethem (not new this year, but his latest chapbook was a prize), Elizabeth Bear, Kim Stanley Robinson (new for me), and new series by old favorites, like Tanya Huff's new one.
Yes, I read a lot of fantasy. I also read a lot of folklore and mythology. You have to remember that "mainstream" literature, the realistic novel dealing with real people in real-life situations, is a fairly recent offshoot of that big general category known as literature, and most of it has been, to one degree or another, the literature of the fantastic. (If you don't believe me, go back and read something like the Odyssey or even something as late as Chretien de Troyes. Or The Tempest.)
I actually think it's kind of funny that a book like Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow (or any of his earlier works, for that matter) takes the literary establishment by storm when it's sort of old hat to any reader of science fiction. Formally adventurous, yes, but not conceptually.
Now I'm going to go back and catch up some more on Charles de Lint, also another old favorite that I've lost track of. Discovering the Newford stories, which are choice and very rewarding. (Check them out -- any of them -- Dreams Underfoot, The Ivory and the Horn, Memory and Dream, Widdershins, any of them.) It's a way of easing myself back into the traces -- I have to write about him (actually, the piece is almost done, but it needs a rewrite -- now that I think about it, I started off in the wrong place; easy to fix, though, if I can remember the brilliant revisions I had in mind as I was falling asleep last night).
Since it's a cold gloomy day in Chicago, that sounds like a good idea to me. I think I'll make some soup, too.
Sometimes -- actually, usually, when I'm sort of burned out on reviewing, I like to curl up with an old friend (book, that is) and just read a story I love without having to worry about whether it's good or what I'm going to say about it. I run out of things to say after a while, believe it or not.
I managed to complete Glen Cook's Black Company series. I now have them all to date. (Timing is everything -- I happened to walk into one of my favorite used bookstores just after they had shelved a complete set.) Cook's one of those writers I can read any time, on any pretext. I don't think I've read a book of his (and I've read most of them) that I haven't enjoyed thoroughly. My proof copy of The Tyranny of the Night is pretty worn at this point. Great book.
Ellen Kushner's Swordspoint is another. I just reread that one, again. (And another that's getting kind of tattered.) I used to think that Alec was my favorite character in literature, but Richard is starting to have a distinct appeal. They're both infused with a kind of vulnerability that I find irresistible.
Don't get me wrong -- I do enjoy reading new books and discovering new authors. I've come across some really great things this past year, people like Jonathan Lethem (not new this year, but his latest chapbook was a prize), Elizabeth Bear, Kim Stanley Robinson (new for me), and new series by old favorites, like Tanya Huff's new one.
Yes, I read a lot of fantasy. I also read a lot of folklore and mythology. You have to remember that "mainstream" literature, the realistic novel dealing with real people in real-life situations, is a fairly recent offshoot of that big general category known as literature, and most of it has been, to one degree or another, the literature of the fantastic. (If you don't believe me, go back and read something like the Odyssey or even something as late as Chretien de Troyes. Or The Tempest.)
I actually think it's kind of funny that a book like Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow (or any of his earlier works, for that matter) takes the literary establishment by storm when it's sort of old hat to any reader of science fiction. Formally adventurous, yes, but not conceptually.
Now I'm going to go back and catch up some more on Charles de Lint, also another old favorite that I've lost track of. Discovering the Newford stories, which are choice and very rewarding. (Check them out -- any of them -- Dreams Underfoot, The Ivory and the Horn, Memory and Dream, Widdershins, any of them.) It's a way of easing myself back into the traces -- I have to write about him (actually, the piece is almost done, but it needs a rewrite -- now that I think about it, I started off in the wrong place; easy to fix, though, if I can remember the brilliant revisions I had in mind as I was falling asleep last night).
Since it's a cold gloomy day in Chicago, that sounds like a good idea to me. I think I'll make some soup, too.
Map Talk
I'm spreading. Europe and the US are pretty well covered, but there are some new places showing up: looks like Tunisia, Egypt is there, Israel (finally), quite a few in Turkey, looks like someone stopped by from Beijing, Argentina is showing up, and -- Easter Island?
Welcome, all.
Welcome, all.
A Brief History of Partisanship
Digby has an excellent and very long post on the rise of partisanship in government. He quite correctly attributes it to Newt Gingrich and follows the course of how the pitiful excuse we have for a government has developed in just twelve years. Quoting Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann:
Now it is tribal warfare. The consequences are deadly serious. Party and ideology routinely trump institutional interests and responsibilities. Regular order -- the set of rules, norms and traditions designed to ensure a fair and transparent process -- was the first casualty. The results: No serious deliberation. No meaningful oversight of the executive. A culture of corruption. And grievously flawed policy formulation and implementation.
Digby himself:
This was was way beyond what we had long accepted as the polite language of politics that allowed people to battle over issues but maintain decent human relationships when the workday was over. The kind of "bipartisanship" that the old lions are constantly going on about was killed in the 80's and 90's by a political machine that consciously set out to demonize first liberals and then Democrats. David Broder and his friends in Washington can't wrap their minds around the fact that there was a deliberate right wing strategy to kill bipartisanship because they reluctantly went along with it, were duped by it or embraced it themselves.
He also devotes some space to characters like Barack Obama, whom I have come to consider a nonentity. I can't believe the man is being touted for president (granted, mostly by the right, but the Democrats are too befuddled to understand the strategy there).
Read Digby's post. All of it.
And the next time a Republican starts whining about "bipartisanship," throw it in his face.
Now it is tribal warfare. The consequences are deadly serious. Party and ideology routinely trump institutional interests and responsibilities. Regular order -- the set of rules, norms and traditions designed to ensure a fair and transparent process -- was the first casualty. The results: No serious deliberation. No meaningful oversight of the executive. A culture of corruption. And grievously flawed policy formulation and implementation.
Digby himself:
This was was way beyond what we had long accepted as the polite language of politics that allowed people to battle over issues but maintain decent human relationships when the workday was over. The kind of "bipartisanship" that the old lions are constantly going on about was killed in the 80's and 90's by a political machine that consciously set out to demonize first liberals and then Democrats. David Broder and his friends in Washington can't wrap their minds around the fact that there was a deliberate right wing strategy to kill bipartisanship because they reluctantly went along with it, were duped by it or embraced it themselves.
He also devotes some space to characters like Barack Obama, whom I have come to consider a nonentity. I can't believe the man is being touted for president (granted, mostly by the right, but the Democrats are too befuddled to understand the strategy there).
Read Digby's post. All of it.
And the next time a Republican starts whining about "bipartisanship," throw it in his face.
Faith-Based and Blind
From Digby, David Kuo tells this story:
All this information trickled in to our office when we requested updates on the Compassion Capital Fund. It took a while, but we finally got the list of recommended grantees. It was obvious that the ratings were a farce.
[A few years later,] my wife Kim and I were together with a group of friends and acquaintances. Someone mentioned that I used to work at the White House in the faith-based office. A woman piped up and said, "Really? Wow, I was on the peer-review panel for the first Compassion Capital Fund." I asked her about how she liked it and she said it was fun. She talked about how the government employees gave them grant review instructions – look at everything objectively against a discreet list of requirements and score accordingly. "But," she said with a giggle, "when I saw one of those non-Christian groups in the set I was reviewing, I just stopped looking at them and gave them a zero."
At first I laughed. A funny joke. Not so much. She was proud and giggling and didn't get that there was a problem with that. I asked if she knew of others who'd done the same. "Oh sure, a lot of us did." She must have seen my surprise, "Was there a problem with that?"
I told her there was actually a huge problem with that. The programs were to be faith-neutral. Our goal was equal treatment for faith-based groups, not special treatment for them. This was a smart and accomplished Christian woman. She got it immediately. But what she did comported with her understanding of what the faith-initiative was supposed to do – help Christian groups – and with her faith. She wanted people to know Jesus.
Kuo's putting a very charitable face on it. The reality is, these right-wing Christianists just don't get it. It doesn't penetrate that under the Constitution of the United States, which these great patriots obviously think was written in Martian or something, "non-Christian" and "Christian" are equal before the law. Not part of their worldview. Not possible in their reality. And it never occurs to them that a stunt like this woman pulled is fundamentally dishonest and immoral -- non-Christian groups can't be religious, because only their particular sect of Christianity is a real religion.
And Digby's not giving this cheating bitch the benefit of the doubt:
And I hate to be nasty about this, but this woman he describes is not actually an innocent. She giggled about how clever she was for automatically giving the non-[]Christian groups a zero because she was among people whom she obviously assumed would approve of such behavior. When she saw that she was dealing with someone of integrity she backed off and pretended not to have realized that she was not being a good Christian or a responsible adult. It was not a simple misunderstanding.
Digby calls it: not a responsible adult, and not a good Christian. Look, I've actually been in discussions with nutcases who don't consider the Pope a Christian. These guys have a hammerlock on Truth. Reality doesn't have any bearing.
They are fundamentally amoral. And fundmentally anti-American.
All this information trickled in to our office when we requested updates on the Compassion Capital Fund. It took a while, but we finally got the list of recommended grantees. It was obvious that the ratings were a farce.
[A few years later,] my wife Kim and I were together with a group of friends and acquaintances. Someone mentioned that I used to work at the White House in the faith-based office. A woman piped up and said, "Really? Wow, I was on the peer-review panel for the first Compassion Capital Fund." I asked her about how she liked it and she said it was fun. She talked about how the government employees gave them grant review instructions – look at everything objectively against a discreet list of requirements and score accordingly. "But," she said with a giggle, "when I saw one of those non-Christian groups in the set I was reviewing, I just stopped looking at them and gave them a zero."
At first I laughed. A funny joke. Not so much. She was proud and giggling and didn't get that there was a problem with that. I asked if she knew of others who'd done the same. "Oh sure, a lot of us did." She must have seen my surprise, "Was there a problem with that?"
I told her there was actually a huge problem with that. The programs were to be faith-neutral. Our goal was equal treatment for faith-based groups, not special treatment for them. This was a smart and accomplished Christian woman. She got it immediately. But what she did comported with her understanding of what the faith-initiative was supposed to do – help Christian groups – and with her faith. She wanted people to know Jesus.
Kuo's putting a very charitable face on it. The reality is, these right-wing Christianists just don't get it. It doesn't penetrate that under the Constitution of the United States, which these great patriots obviously think was written in Martian or something, "non-Christian" and "Christian" are equal before the law. Not part of their worldview. Not possible in their reality. And it never occurs to them that a stunt like this woman pulled is fundamentally dishonest and immoral -- non-Christian groups can't be religious, because only their particular sect of Christianity is a real religion.
And Digby's not giving this cheating bitch the benefit of the doubt:
And I hate to be nasty about this, but this woman he describes is not actually an innocent. She giggled about how clever she was for automatically giving the non-[]Christian groups a zero because she was among people whom she obviously assumed would approve of such behavior. When she saw that she was dealing with someone of integrity she backed off and pretended not to have realized that she was not being a good Christian or a responsible adult. It was not a simple misunderstanding.
Digby calls it: not a responsible adult, and not a good Christian. Look, I've actually been in discussions with nutcases who don't consider the Pope a Christian. These guys have a hammerlock on Truth. Reality doesn't have any bearing.
They are fundamentally amoral. And fundmentally anti-American.
The Duplicitous Harry Reid
From Media Matters:
By comparison, CNN has aired only 65 words about a land deal in which House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) made nearly $2 million, a story which was first reported by the Chicago Sun-Times on June 15. By contrast, the Reid land deal first broke a week ago, when the Associated Press reported on October 11 that Reid had made $700,000 "on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years."
Hastert's property appreciated in value after he earmarked taxpayer funding for a highway near the property
The story about Reid was John Solomon's hatchet job. If you've been looking, you know that Solomon is known as an open market for oppo researchers, and not too strong on fact-checking. He also seems to have a woody for Reid.
The interesting part is that the MSM have given Hastert a free ride. They're also handling him with kid gloves over Foleygate.
"Liberal" bias? How about this: the press is just as corrupt as their Republican handlers.
By comparison, CNN has aired only 65 words about a land deal in which House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) made nearly $2 million, a story which was first reported by the Chicago Sun-Times on June 15. By contrast, the Reid land deal first broke a week ago, when the Associated Press reported on October 11 that Reid had made $700,000 "on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years."
Hastert's property appreciated in value after he earmarked taxpayer funding for a highway near the property
The story about Reid was John Solomon's hatchet job. If you've been looking, you know that Solomon is known as an open market for oppo researchers, and not too strong on fact-checking. He also seems to have a woody for Reid.
The interesting part is that the MSM have given Hastert a free ride. They're also handling him with kid gloves over Foleygate.
"Liberal" bias? How about this: the press is just as corrupt as their Republican handlers.
Right-Wing Fairy Tales
The inevitable Glenn Reynolds:
It's true, of course, that the Democrats are worse, and if you had any doubt about that, the creepy sexual McCarthyism that we've seen this week would be proof enough.
I'm not sure what "sexual McCarthyism" is, or which Democrats have been espousing it. It's the Republican theocrats who are calling for witch hunts, after all -- but then, that's normal, I guess. (If Republicans do it, it's OK.)
Of course, it's kind of a stretch to believe that, "of course," Democrats are worse than hypocritical, dishonest, lying, money-grubbing congressmen, senators, and administration officials who wouldn't know a coherent policy from a fire hydrant, have legalized torture, have damn near made George W. Bush a divine-right king, who nearly cum in their pants at seeing Our Leader, who think it's OK for congressmen to be harassing pages as long as no one outisde the club knows about it, who have handed the treasury to their corporate supporters, have done everything they can do to trash the economy, the environment, and the lives of private citizens.
Given the strength of the economy and the general success of the war on terror, congressional Republicans should be in pretty good shape.
Have you stopped laughing yet? On the economy, since the indicators seem to be built largely on the performance of the stock market, I take them with a grain of salt. I guess the economy is fine if you're an investor, but if you actually have to work for a living, it's a different story. Oh, and the housing market is starting to tank.
The "general success" of the war on terror? There must be an infinite supply of Kool Aid somewhere.
Because if the future of Western civilization is at stake, you shouldn't blow your credibility on pork and pocket-stuffing.
Take yourself pretty seriously, much?
This is just another reason that Reynolds is in the "Alternate Realities" listing.
What an ass.
It's true, of course, that the Democrats are worse, and if you had any doubt about that, the creepy sexual McCarthyism that we've seen this week would be proof enough.
I'm not sure what "sexual McCarthyism" is, or which Democrats have been espousing it. It's the Republican theocrats who are calling for witch hunts, after all -- but then, that's normal, I guess. (If Republicans do it, it's OK.)
Of course, it's kind of a stretch to believe that, "of course," Democrats are worse than hypocritical, dishonest, lying, money-grubbing congressmen, senators, and administration officials who wouldn't know a coherent policy from a fire hydrant, have legalized torture, have damn near made George W. Bush a divine-right king, who nearly cum in their pants at seeing Our Leader, who think it's OK for congressmen to be harassing pages as long as no one outisde the club knows about it, who have handed the treasury to their corporate supporters, have done everything they can do to trash the economy, the environment, and the lives of private citizens.
Given the strength of the economy and the general success of the war on terror, congressional Republicans should be in pretty good shape.
Have you stopped laughing yet? On the economy, since the indicators seem to be built largely on the performance of the stock market, I take them with a grain of salt. I guess the economy is fine if you're an investor, but if you actually have to work for a living, it's a different story. Oh, and the housing market is starting to tank.
The "general success" of the war on terror? There must be an infinite supply of Kool Aid somewhere.
Because if the future of Western civilization is at stake, you shouldn't blow your credibility on pork and pocket-stuffing.
Take yourself pretty seriously, much?
This is just another reason that Reynolds is in the "Alternate Realities" listing.
What an ass.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Gerry Studds
Gerry Studds died yestereday.
Once outed, however, Mr. Studds refused to buckle to conservative pressure to resign.
“All members of Congress are in need of humbling experiences from time to time,” Mr. Studds said at the time. But he never apologized. He defended the relationship as consensual and condemned the investigation, saying it had invaded his privacy.
He went on to win re-election in 1984, surprising both supporters and opponents.
Gerry Studds, of course, is the first one that Republicans blame for Mark Foley.
The thing about Gerry Studds -- well, there are several things. He wasn't harassing pages with dirty IMs or e-mails. He had an affair with a 17-year-old page. From reports that the page appeared with him at press conferences when the scandal broke, I have to conclude that the relationship was indeed consensual (as well as being legal) and that the two remained on good terms. No reports of anyone being "creeped out."
Second, he was re-elected. Twice. He probably would have been re-elected again, but he chose to retire when the Neanderthal right took over Congress. Now, let's go back to those who are the first to scream "the will of the people" when a court hands down a decision they don't like. Obviously, Studds' constitutents felt that he was correct -- the affair was his business and not theirs -- and that he'd been an effective representative.
Third, Studds was censured by a Democratic-controlled Congress. No one tried to sweep it under the rug, although as scandals go, by today's standards that one was pretty tame. (Please note also that when William Jefferson was discovered to have $90,000 in cash in his freezer, the Democrats stripped him of his committee assignments. Bob Ney, on the other hand, who has pleaded guilty to felony in court, has yet to be disciplined at all by the Republican leadership.)
There's no real comparison between Studds and Mark Foley, except in the mind of some loon like Donald Wildmon, and if he believes half the crap he spouts I'd be more than amazed.
Of course, this all happened back in the days when Democrats and gay men still had balls.
Once outed, however, Mr. Studds refused to buckle to conservative pressure to resign.
“All members of Congress are in need of humbling experiences from time to time,” Mr. Studds said at the time. But he never apologized. He defended the relationship as consensual and condemned the investigation, saying it had invaded his privacy.
He went on to win re-election in 1984, surprising both supporters and opponents.
Gerry Studds, of course, is the first one that Republicans blame for Mark Foley.
The thing about Gerry Studds -- well, there are several things. He wasn't harassing pages with dirty IMs or e-mails. He had an affair with a 17-year-old page. From reports that the page appeared with him at press conferences when the scandal broke, I have to conclude that the relationship was indeed consensual (as well as being legal) and that the two remained on good terms. No reports of anyone being "creeped out."
Second, he was re-elected. Twice. He probably would have been re-elected again, but he chose to retire when the Neanderthal right took over Congress. Now, let's go back to those who are the first to scream "the will of the people" when a court hands down a decision they don't like. Obviously, Studds' constitutents felt that he was correct -- the affair was his business and not theirs -- and that he'd been an effective representative.
Third, Studds was censured by a Democratic-controlled Congress. No one tried to sweep it under the rug, although as scandals go, by today's standards that one was pretty tame. (Please note also that when William Jefferson was discovered to have $90,000 in cash in his freezer, the Democrats stripped him of his committee assignments. Bob Ney, on the other hand, who has pleaded guilty to felony in court, has yet to be disciplined at all by the Republican leadership.)
There's no real comparison between Studds and Mark Foley, except in the mind of some loon like Donald Wildmon, and if he believes half the crap he spouts I'd be more than amazed.
Of course, this all happened back in the days when Democrats and gay men still had balls.
Support the Troops
From the America's Heroes Calendar:
I like this idea. Proceeds go to help disabled and wounded vets and their families. C'mon everyone -- Lord knows the do-nohting Congress ain't helping.
And does anyone think that the biggest audience for this calendar is straight women? Please.
(Thanks to Andrew Sullivan.)
I like this idea. Proceeds go to help disabled and wounded vets and their families. C'mon everyone -- Lord knows the do-nohting Congress ain't helping.
And does anyone think that the biggest audience for this calendar is straight women? Please.
(Thanks to Andrew Sullivan.)
Insidious
Steve Gilliard on the latest page "scandal":
What people forget is thart Kolbe could be a nice guy, be great with everyone, but then express interest in a teenager, and everyone see it as natural. Foley was a sloppy drunk. Kolbe could have been much more clever in his approaches to teen boys. Even on the trip, some people saw things, some didn't. Because some people are very clever in what they do
But my point is this: when adults seek to spend time with kids they don't know well, and having pages over to your home is as much a red flag as anything. Which is why he invited two kids along as well.
Oh, it's a witchhunt, oh, you don't understand how gay men mentor teens.
Bullshit.
Mentoring is fine. They do it all the time at the Hetrick-Martin institute, New York school for openly gay teens. However, of all the reports of teachers who date kids, none from that school. Why? Because maybe they screen their teachers carefully?
Kolbe's interest in pages, opening his home to them, taking them on trips, which is far more than people would expect from their bosses.
Ignore the fact that it's largely incoherent. Let's look at some subtext here.
This is from the news story Gilliard's working from (Note: Gilliard's link no longer works, and I couldn't turn up the story googling; here's a brief story from MSNBC that has a little additional information.):
NBC also interviewed the two former pages, who are now in their late 20s. One of them said that Kolbe was a gentleman and never acted in an improper fashion. He recalled that the pair spent time in Kolbe's house at one point — and briefly were alone with him on the trip — and that Kolbe always acted professionally and decently.
The other would not comment on Kolbe's behavior during the trip or characterize it in any way.
"I don't want to get into the details," he said. "I just don't want to get into this... because I might possibly be considered for a job in the administration."
However, the former page — who is the one to whom Kolbe allegedly paid special attention — said he had a "blast" on the trip and did not report anything improper to this parents or any House officials after the trip. He said he has a favorable impression of the page program to this day and likes Kolbe.
Here's Gilliard's comment that comes right after the quote":
What I said Monday and maintain, is that it is improper to take teenage pages on a trip with adult staff. Doing so leads to charges of an alternative agenda.
Just for comparison, this is the headline from a post on the story at Hot Air, another bastion of conservative rationality: "Rep. Jim Kolbe had “inappropriate” camping trip with pages". (It's interesting that even on that site, several of the commenters feel the same way I do about this: What story?)
OK -- one participant out of the group -- and it was a group, including Kolbe, his sister, for crying out loud, several staffers, Park Service personnel, and a couple of pages -- said some of the attention Kolbe paid to one of the pages made him "uncomfortable." The page to whom Kolbe paid this "attention" seems to have felt that nothing improper occurred, if I'm reading the story properly -- it's hard to tell just who is being quoted where, in places, although I think it's hard to miscontrue "always acted professionally and decently."
So what's Gilliard's beef? Aside from a deepseated prejudice, that is. (And note that Gilliard starts off his post with a picture of the Grand Canyon captioned "The Grand Canyon is for dating." That says a lot more than Gilliard intended, I think.)
Let's link up a couple more pieces here. First, this piece by Tristero from Hullaballoo linking pedophilia and gay sex (Tristero even throws in statutory rape, which didn't happen). It's a subtle thing, sort of part of a catalogue of horrors, but the placement jumped out at me:
This is AN EXCLUSIVELY REPUBLICAN SCANDAL involving pedophilia, gay sex, cybersex, lying, spinning sexual harassment and statutory rape to make it seem unimportant. . . . (Emphasis added.)
Apparently Tristero thinks this is a natural progression. (Leaving aside for the time being the question of why gay sex should be any more scandalous than straight sex. This is, after all, in the context of the "values voters," to whom anything pretty much is scandalous. Frightening to realize how much that kind of narrow point of view has come to dominate this country.)
Then there's the St. Andrew's story (and be sure to read Scootmaroo's comments on that one), and I have to wonder: what would the reaction have been if the teacher had not been gay? For some reason, I doubt that a straight teacher would have been given a choice between acting and teaching. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but then, paranoia and anger are two basic elements of gay men's psychological makeup.
And these reactions are coming from the "liberals."
Overall, it seems that there is still a very strong undercurrent in American thought, be it right, left, center, or out in space, that determines that any association between gay men and teenagers is questionable. Steve Gilliard seems to think that one must use exceptionally strict standards when screening teachers for gay youth or hanky-panky is inevitable. Tristero probably never even thought about the sequence "pedophilia, gay." The St. Andrew's snarl is just that, but I'm not the only commentator who sees a thread of anti-gay bias.
I've had a few things to say about overly sensitive PC types, none of them good, but you have to be tuned to these sorts of things or you make no progress at all. You have to challenge them. I won't call them "offensive," however, since that's yet another word that no longer has much meaning. "Dangerous," I think, fits better in this case. "Insidious," for sure.
As an antidote to the above, read this article by John Ireland, who served as a page before Mark Foley was in Congress.
Because it was too far to travel back to my home in California, I accepted the invitation of a Capitol Hill staffer to join her family for Thanksgiving at her home in Virginia. She was one of the many adults who served as surrogate parents and confidantes as I struggled with homesickness and the typical ups and downs of my junior year of high school. I imagine this sort of friendship might become less possible, due to the culture of distrust that is emerging in the wake of the page scandal.
Many adults on the Hill look out for the best interest of the pages, exactly because of their obvious vulnerability. I did not choose to “come out” to anyone while I was a page—it was years later before I was ready for that. I did, however, have an opportunity to see a variety of people, some more flawed than others, make their own choices in the real world, and live with the consequences.
I am confident that if early concerns about Foley had been brought to the bipartisan Page Board, they would have been dealt with promptly and effectively. Moving forward, the greatest challenge will be restoring faith in the Congress—that the politicians charged with the well-being of teenagers on Capitol Hill will treat them as if they were their own children.
Sorry (not really), but it seems as though whatever the Republicans touch turns to toxic waste.
What people forget is thart Kolbe could be a nice guy, be great with everyone, but then express interest in a teenager, and everyone see it as natural. Foley was a sloppy drunk. Kolbe could have been much more clever in his approaches to teen boys. Even on the trip, some people saw things, some didn't. Because some people are very clever in what they do
But my point is this: when adults seek to spend time with kids they don't know well, and having pages over to your home is as much a red flag as anything. Which is why he invited two kids along as well.
Oh, it's a witchhunt, oh, you don't understand how gay men mentor teens.
Bullshit.
Mentoring is fine. They do it all the time at the Hetrick-Martin institute, New York school for openly gay teens. However, of all the reports of teachers who date kids, none from that school. Why? Because maybe they screen their teachers carefully?
Kolbe's interest in pages, opening his home to them, taking them on trips, which is far more than people would expect from their bosses.
Ignore the fact that it's largely incoherent. Let's look at some subtext here.
This is from the news story Gilliard's working from (Note: Gilliard's link no longer works, and I couldn't turn up the story googling; here's a brief story from MSNBC that has a little additional information.):
NBC also interviewed the two former pages, who are now in their late 20s. One of them said that Kolbe was a gentleman and never acted in an improper fashion. He recalled that the pair spent time in Kolbe's house at one point — and briefly were alone with him on the trip — and that Kolbe always acted professionally and decently.
The other would not comment on Kolbe's behavior during the trip or characterize it in any way.
"I don't want to get into the details," he said. "I just don't want to get into this... because I might possibly be considered for a job in the administration."
However, the former page — who is the one to whom Kolbe allegedly paid special attention — said he had a "blast" on the trip and did not report anything improper to this parents or any House officials after the trip. He said he has a favorable impression of the page program to this day and likes Kolbe.
Here's Gilliard's comment that comes right after the quote":
What I said Monday and maintain, is that it is improper to take teenage pages on a trip with adult staff. Doing so leads to charges of an alternative agenda.
Just for comparison, this is the headline from a post on the story at Hot Air, another bastion of conservative rationality: "Rep. Jim Kolbe had “inappropriate” camping trip with pages". (It's interesting that even on that site, several of the commenters feel the same way I do about this: What story?)
OK -- one participant out of the group -- and it was a group, including Kolbe, his sister, for crying out loud, several staffers, Park Service personnel, and a couple of pages -- said some of the attention Kolbe paid to one of the pages made him "uncomfortable." The page to whom Kolbe paid this "attention" seems to have felt that nothing improper occurred, if I'm reading the story properly -- it's hard to tell just who is being quoted where, in places, although I think it's hard to miscontrue "always acted professionally and decently."
So what's Gilliard's beef? Aside from a deepseated prejudice, that is. (And note that Gilliard starts off his post with a picture of the Grand Canyon captioned "The Grand Canyon is for dating." That says a lot more than Gilliard intended, I think.)
Let's link up a couple more pieces here. First, this piece by Tristero from Hullaballoo linking pedophilia and gay sex (Tristero even throws in statutory rape, which didn't happen). It's a subtle thing, sort of part of a catalogue of horrors, but the placement jumped out at me:
This is AN EXCLUSIVELY REPUBLICAN SCANDAL involving pedophilia, gay sex, cybersex, lying, spinning sexual harassment and statutory rape to make it seem unimportant. . . . (Emphasis added.)
Apparently Tristero thinks this is a natural progression. (Leaving aside for the time being the question of why gay sex should be any more scandalous than straight sex. This is, after all, in the context of the "values voters," to whom anything pretty much is scandalous. Frightening to realize how much that kind of narrow point of view has come to dominate this country.)
Then there's the St. Andrew's story (and be sure to read Scootmaroo's comments on that one), and I have to wonder: what would the reaction have been if the teacher had not been gay? For some reason, I doubt that a straight teacher would have been given a choice between acting and teaching. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but then, paranoia and anger are two basic elements of gay men's psychological makeup.
And these reactions are coming from the "liberals."
Overall, it seems that there is still a very strong undercurrent in American thought, be it right, left, center, or out in space, that determines that any association between gay men and teenagers is questionable. Steve Gilliard seems to think that one must use exceptionally strict standards when screening teachers for gay youth or hanky-panky is inevitable. Tristero probably never even thought about the sequence "pedophilia, gay." The St. Andrew's snarl is just that, but I'm not the only commentator who sees a thread of anti-gay bias.
I've had a few things to say about overly sensitive PC types, none of them good, but you have to be tuned to these sorts of things or you make no progress at all. You have to challenge them. I won't call them "offensive," however, since that's yet another word that no longer has much meaning. "Dangerous," I think, fits better in this case. "Insidious," for sure.
As an antidote to the above, read this article by John Ireland, who served as a page before Mark Foley was in Congress.
Because it was too far to travel back to my home in California, I accepted the invitation of a Capitol Hill staffer to join her family for Thanksgiving at her home in Virginia. She was one of the many adults who served as surrogate parents and confidantes as I struggled with homesickness and the typical ups and downs of my junior year of high school. I imagine this sort of friendship might become less possible, due to the culture of distrust that is emerging in the wake of the page scandal.
Many adults on the Hill look out for the best interest of the pages, exactly because of their obvious vulnerability. I did not choose to “come out” to anyone while I was a page—it was years later before I was ready for that. I did, however, have an opportunity to see a variety of people, some more flawed than others, make their own choices in the real world, and live with the consequences.
I am confident that if early concerns about Foley had been brought to the bipartisan Page Board, they would have been dealt with promptly and effectively. Moving forward, the greatest challenge will be restoring faith in the Congress—that the politicians charged with the well-being of teenagers on Capitol Hill will treat them as if they were their own children.
Sorry (not really), but it seems as though whatever the Republicans touch turns to toxic waste.
Friday, October 13, 2006
At Random, 10/13/06
Wingnuttiest
Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media. John Aravosis calls this column "hate filled." I think it's just lunacy (although I will allow that it might have been penned by a Goebbels or McCarthy, but there's no way that undercuts my description).
It's early in the probe, but we may be looking at emerging evidence of a homosexual recruitment ring that operated on Capitol Hill. It's time to get beyond partisan politics and follow the evidence wherever it leads. Our media should not be intimidated by charges of "gay bashing." They must lead the way in getting to the bottom of this terrible abuse of power.
And now it's coming out that these people are laughingstocks in their own party. How odd. Of course, the only ones unhinged enough to think they should be taken seriously are them. Speaking of the Christian Right and the Republican Party, see this discussion by Digby (scroll down to "Cogs in the Machine").
Lies, Damned Lies
Media Matters pinpoints the lies being spread by the Republicans and their conservative media (including NYT and WaPo) about the Foley scandal.
A couple of excellent pieces by Eric Boehlert at Media Matters, here and here about the press coverage of the Foley brouhaha, and how they have fumbled it over and over again.
Kudos to Condi
I ran across this story yesterday. It's now popping up in the blogosphere:
At a State Department ceremony this week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warmly acknowledged the family members of Mark Dybul, whom she was swearing in as the nation's new global AIDS coordinator.
As first lady Laura Bush looked on, Rice singled out his partner, Jason Claire, and Claire's mother. Rice referred to her as Dybul's "mother-in-law."
John Aravosis wonders why Rice is making this gesture right now. Let's drop back a bit and take a bigger look: State has, in this administration, taken second place to Defense. Powell resigned because of it. Something tells me Rice isn't as enchanted by the preznit as most sources make her out to be, and this looks like a good way to stick it to him without making huge waves.
'Nuff said?
Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media. John Aravosis calls this column "hate filled." I think it's just lunacy (although I will allow that it might have been penned by a Goebbels or McCarthy, but there's no way that undercuts my description).
It's early in the probe, but we may be looking at emerging evidence of a homosexual recruitment ring that operated on Capitol Hill. It's time to get beyond partisan politics and follow the evidence wherever it leads. Our media should not be intimidated by charges of "gay bashing." They must lead the way in getting to the bottom of this terrible abuse of power.
And now it's coming out that these people are laughingstocks in their own party. How odd. Of course, the only ones unhinged enough to think they should be taken seriously are them. Speaking of the Christian Right and the Republican Party, see this discussion by Digby (scroll down to "Cogs in the Machine").
Lies, Damned Lies
Media Matters pinpoints the lies being spread by the Republicans and their conservative media (including NYT and WaPo) about the Foley scandal.
A couple of excellent pieces by Eric Boehlert at Media Matters, here and here about the press coverage of the Foley brouhaha, and how they have fumbled it over and over again.
Kudos to Condi
I ran across this story yesterday. It's now popping up in the blogosphere:
At a State Department ceremony this week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warmly acknowledged the family members of Mark Dybul, whom she was swearing in as the nation's new global AIDS coordinator.
As first lady Laura Bush looked on, Rice singled out his partner, Jason Claire, and Claire's mother. Rice referred to her as Dybul's "mother-in-law."
John Aravosis wonders why Rice is making this gesture right now. Let's drop back a bit and take a bigger look: State has, in this administration, taken second place to Defense. Powell resigned because of it. Something tells me Rice isn't as enchanted by the preznit as most sources make her out to be, and this looks like a good way to stick it to him without making huge waves.
'Nuff said?
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Bias Is Not Right-Handed
This story, which came to me via e-mail, for some reason disturbed me a lot. I'm not sure why -- it's of a piece with so many stories recently about rabidly right-wing parents assaulting schools who try to deal with reality. (See this story, from the Brisbane Courier-Mail, and this one, from 365gay.com).
Maybe because in the St. Andrew's case, the discrimination is coming from the left, from a school that prides itself on openness and diversity, run by a denomination that is, at least, grappling honestly with the issue of gays.
One thing that struck me is that at no point, apprently, did the school administration address the issues openly with the students and parents. This was all behind closed doors stuff. What is the message there? "It's OK to be different if you keep it hidden"? Or is it simply "Don't worry, we know what's best"?
From the comments published, it seems that to the overwhelming majority of students and parents, the real issue was the rumors and the administration's reaction, not the teacher's acting roles. The students and most of the parents seem to feel this man is an exceptional teacher and the administration should have fought to keep him.
The headmaster's statement to parents, which is on the school's website, comes well after the fact and strikes me as essentially self-serving. He stresses that Mr. Giombetti "chose" to leave, while dismissing the thinly veiled threats from Giombetti's supervisor reported by Giombetti. (Considering what the context must have been, it's clear Giombetti didn't feel he had much of a choice.) This, I think, in light of the outcry from students and parents, is pretty much a CYA vehicle. "Working with" in this instance, based on the news reports and Giombetti's statements, seems to mean "do it our way or else." What's to work? As far as I'm concerned, a schoolteacher is entitled to a life, and not all of it needs to be under the school administration's supervision. I realize it's sort of foreign to the monotheistic world view, but the best solution is just to treat people like thinking, independent beings and level with them. (Apparently, one reason the students loved the teacher is that he did just that.)
And this is coming from the Left, to all intents and purposes. Maybe I'm getting too cynical, but I think I have reason: I remember too many instances from my own young manhood in which "liberal" friends and acquaintances couldn't quite keep the condescending tone hidden when my relationships came up. The worst part is, I think these people had convinced themselves that they were truly accepting of my life. I don't really think that attitude has changed much -- we're still not real people to most of the country, no matter how many of us are out.
I know -- it takes time, and continued contact, and a lot of challenging people on their basic assumptions and their habit of accepting without question whatever they hear from someone with an agenda.
It still pisses me off.
Maybe because in the St. Andrew's case, the discrimination is coming from the left, from a school that prides itself on openness and diversity, run by a denomination that is, at least, grappling honestly with the issue of gays.
One thing that struck me is that at no point, apprently, did the school administration address the issues openly with the students and parents. This was all behind closed doors stuff. What is the message there? "It's OK to be different if you keep it hidden"? Or is it simply "Don't worry, we know what's best"?
From the comments published, it seems that to the overwhelming majority of students and parents, the real issue was the rumors and the administration's reaction, not the teacher's acting roles. The students and most of the parents seem to feel this man is an exceptional teacher and the administration should have fought to keep him.
The headmaster's statement to parents, which is on the school's website, comes well after the fact and strikes me as essentially self-serving. He stresses that Mr. Giombetti "chose" to leave, while dismissing the thinly veiled threats from Giombetti's supervisor reported by Giombetti. (Considering what the context must have been, it's clear Giombetti didn't feel he had much of a choice.) This, I think, in light of the outcry from students and parents, is pretty much a CYA vehicle. "Working with" in this instance, based on the news reports and Giombetti's statements, seems to mean "do it our way or else." What's to work? As far as I'm concerned, a schoolteacher is entitled to a life, and not all of it needs to be under the school administration's supervision. I realize it's sort of foreign to the monotheistic world view, but the best solution is just to treat people like thinking, independent beings and level with them. (Apparently, one reason the students loved the teacher is that he did just that.)
And this is coming from the Left, to all intents and purposes. Maybe I'm getting too cynical, but I think I have reason: I remember too many instances from my own young manhood in which "liberal" friends and acquaintances couldn't quite keep the condescending tone hidden when my relationships came up. The worst part is, I think these people had convinced themselves that they were truly accepting of my life. I don't really think that attitude has changed much -- we're still not real people to most of the country, no matter how many of us are out.
I know -- it takes time, and continued contact, and a lot of challenging people on their basic assumptions and their habit of accepting without question whatever they hear from someone with an agenda.
It still pisses me off.
Our Leader: Sieg Heil!
A lot of people are probably going to think that's an inflammatory header. Unfortunately, if Josef Stalin or Benito Mussolini had an equally concise and pungent tagline, I don't know it.
I was going to title this post "The Torture President," but that doesn't quite encompass the enormity of what this bastard has done to this country.
Glenn Greenwald on the president's authority to torture, among other things. This is exactly what many of us have objected to in the Patriot Act and now the brand-new Torture Act (to call it by its proper name). It's a long post, but read it.
Greenwald highlights this comment. The commenter, a municipal police offer, hits it right on the nose:
Regardless of Mr. Padilla's genuine guilt or innocence of any act, the bare facts of his confinement make an absolute mockery of the death of every soldier, sailor, airman or police officer who has ever been killed in the performance of their duties. To retort that this raw power is necessary to "protect Americans" is to assume that there is nothing in being a citizen of this nation for any of us beyond the mere fact of being alive.
Yet that's the theme that Bush is pushing: simply being alive is "American" enough. We can all sit back while he flushes our values down the toilet -- and I mean our real values, not the other-people's-crotches values so dear to his base.
Gods, these people disgust me no end.
(Fine -- I'm angry. If you're not, you should be. The real horror is that I don't trust the Democrats, even if they don't fumble the election, to spend any effort on fixing it.)
I was going to title this post "The Torture President," but that doesn't quite encompass the enormity of what this bastard has done to this country.
Glenn Greenwald on the president's authority to torture, among other things. This is exactly what many of us have objected to in the Patriot Act and now the brand-new Torture Act (to call it by its proper name). It's a long post, but read it.
Greenwald highlights this comment. The commenter, a municipal police offer, hits it right on the nose:
Regardless of Mr. Padilla's genuine guilt or innocence of any act, the bare facts of his confinement make an absolute mockery of the death of every soldier, sailor, airman or police officer who has ever been killed in the performance of their duties. To retort that this raw power is necessary to "protect Americans" is to assume that there is nothing in being a citizen of this nation for any of us beyond the mere fact of being alive.
Yet that's the theme that Bush is pushing: simply being alive is "American" enough. We can all sit back while he flushes our values down the toilet -- and I mean our real values, not the other-people's-crotches values so dear to his base.
Gods, these people disgust me no end.
(Fine -- I'm angry. If you're not, you should be. The real horror is that I don't trust the Democrats, even if they don't fumble the election, to spend any effort on fixing it.)
The Base
Tony Perkins loses it:
Perkins, via Andrew Sullivan:
This raises yet another plausible question for values voters: has the social agenda of the GOP been stalled by homosexual members and or staffers?
No, Tony, it's people who really do hold American values turning up their noses at your anti-American, completely-out-of-touch-with-reality agenda.
In that vein, see this wonderful OpEd by Eugene Robinson from WaPo.
The culture war is supposed to be about morality, but really it's a crusade to compel Americans to follow certain norms of private behavior that some social and religious conservatives believe are mandated by sociology, nature or God. Republican officeholders have paid lip service to this crusade, all the while knowing that the human family is diverse and fallible. They know that the gravest threat to marriage is the heterosexual divorce rate. They know that Republicans drink, swear, carouse and have affairs, just like Democrats. They know that homosexuals aren't devils.
Most Americans know all of this, too, by the way. Main Street hasn't been Hicksville for a long time.
Just in case anyone was wondering, this exchange between Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson should clarify things. (It's all over the Internet this morning. This version's from Andrew Sullivan -- who got linked from AmericaBlog, if you can imagine such a thing.)
CARLSON: It goes deeper than that though. The deep truth is that the elites in the Republican Party have pure contempt for the evangelicals who put their party in power. Everybody in ...
MATTHEWS: How do you know that? How do you know that?
CARLSON: Because I know them. Because I grew up with them. Because I live with them. they live on my street. Because I live in Washington, and I know that everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals. And the evangelicals know that, and they're beginning to learn that their own leaders sort of look askance at them and don't share their values.
MATTHEWS: So this gay marriage issue and other issues related to the gay lifestyle are simply tools to get elected?
CARLSON: That's exactly right. It's pandering to the base in the most cynical way, and the base is beginning to figure it out.
I've sort of hesitated to spell it out, but it's been my feeling that those who follow people like Dobson, Reed, Bauer, Sheldon, Wildmon and the rest of those sewer crocodiles aren't really the brightest porch lights on the block.
I mean, it only took them twelve years to get it?
Perkins, via Andrew Sullivan:
This raises yet another plausible question for values voters: has the social agenda of the GOP been stalled by homosexual members and or staffers?
No, Tony, it's people who really do hold American values turning up their noses at your anti-American, completely-out-of-touch-with-reality agenda.
In that vein, see this wonderful OpEd by Eugene Robinson from WaPo.
The culture war is supposed to be about morality, but really it's a crusade to compel Americans to follow certain norms of private behavior that some social and religious conservatives believe are mandated by sociology, nature or God. Republican officeholders have paid lip service to this crusade, all the while knowing that the human family is diverse and fallible. They know that the gravest threat to marriage is the heterosexual divorce rate. They know that Republicans drink, swear, carouse and have affairs, just like Democrats. They know that homosexuals aren't devils.
Most Americans know all of this, too, by the way. Main Street hasn't been Hicksville for a long time.
Just in case anyone was wondering, this exchange between Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson should clarify things. (It's all over the Internet this morning. This version's from Andrew Sullivan -- who got linked from AmericaBlog, if you can imagine such a thing.)
CARLSON: It goes deeper than that though. The deep truth is that the elites in the Republican Party have pure contempt for the evangelicals who put their party in power. Everybody in ...
MATTHEWS: How do you know that? How do you know that?
CARLSON: Because I know them. Because I grew up with them. Because I live with them. they live on my street. Because I live in Washington, and I know that everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals. And the evangelicals know that, and they're beginning to learn that their own leaders sort of look askance at them and don't share their values.
MATTHEWS: So this gay marriage issue and other issues related to the gay lifestyle are simply tools to get elected?
CARLSON: That's exactly right. It's pandering to the base in the most cynical way, and the base is beginning to figure it out.
I've sort of hesitated to spell it out, but it's been my feeling that those who follow people like Dobson, Reed, Bauer, Sheldon, Wildmon and the rest of those sewer crocodiles aren't really the brightest porch lights on the block.
I mean, it only took them twelve years to get it?
St. John the Vote Whore
Does he honestly think "blame Clinton" is still going to work?
Republican Sen. John McCain on Tuesday accused former President Clinton, the husband of his potential 2008 White House rival, of failing to act in the 1990s to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.
One hardly knows where to start.
Let me just mention that North Korea stopped developing nuclear capability while Clinton was president, and within six years of Bush taking over has tested an atomic bomb. Obviously, it's Clinton's fault.
See this little refresher course from Josh Marshall (hat tip, Tom Tomorrow):
President Clinton eventually concluded a complicated and multipart agreement in which the North Koreans would suspend their production of plutonium in exchange for fuel oil, help building light water nuclear reactors (the kind that don't help making bombs) and a vague promise of diplomatic normalization.
President Bush came to office believing that Clinton's policy amounted to appeasement. Force and strength were the way to deal with North Korea, not a mix of force, diplomacy and aide. And with that premise, President Bush went about scuttling the 1994 agreement, using evidence that the North Koreans were pursuing uranium enrichment (another path to the bomb) as the final straw.
Remember the guiding policy of the early Bush years: Clinton did it=Bad, Bush=Not whatever Clinton did.
All diplomatic niceties aside, President Bush's idea was that the North Koreans would respond better to threats than Clinton's mix of carrots and sticks.
Then in the winter of 2002-3, as the US was preparing to invade Iraq, the North called Bush's bluff. And the president folded. Abjectly, utterly, even hilariously if the consequences weren't so grave and vast.
This comment by Marshall sort of sums up the Bush presidency:
So the President talked a good game, the North Koreans called his bluff and he folded. And since then, for all intents and purposes, and all the atmospherics to the contrary, he and his administration have done essentially nothing.
Since McCain has turned into one of Bush's biggest cheerleaders (second only to Joe Lieberman), can we expect any better from him?
Republican Sen. John McCain on Tuesday accused former President Clinton, the husband of his potential 2008 White House rival, of failing to act in the 1990s to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.
One hardly knows where to start.
Let me just mention that North Korea stopped developing nuclear capability while Clinton was president, and within six years of Bush taking over has tested an atomic bomb. Obviously, it's Clinton's fault.
See this little refresher course from Josh Marshall (hat tip, Tom Tomorrow):
President Clinton eventually concluded a complicated and multipart agreement in which the North Koreans would suspend their production of plutonium in exchange for fuel oil, help building light water nuclear reactors (the kind that don't help making bombs) and a vague promise of diplomatic normalization.
President Bush came to office believing that Clinton's policy amounted to appeasement. Force and strength were the way to deal with North Korea, not a mix of force, diplomacy and aide. And with that premise, President Bush went about scuttling the 1994 agreement, using evidence that the North Koreans were pursuing uranium enrichment (another path to the bomb) as the final straw.
Remember the guiding policy of the early Bush years: Clinton did it=Bad, Bush=Not whatever Clinton did.
All diplomatic niceties aside, President Bush's idea was that the North Koreans would respond better to threats than Clinton's mix of carrots and sticks.
Then in the winter of 2002-3, as the US was preparing to invade Iraq, the North called Bush's bluff. And the president folded. Abjectly, utterly, even hilariously if the consequences weren't so grave and vast.
This comment by Marshall sort of sums up the Bush presidency:
So the President talked a good game, the North Koreans called his bluff and he folded. And since then, for all intents and purposes, and all the atmospherics to the contrary, he and his administration have done essentially nothing.
Since McCain has turned into one of Bush's biggest cheerleaders (second only to Joe Lieberman), can we expect any better from him?
Monday, October 09, 2006
Chickenhawks
Of all varieties.
From Taylor Marsh at Huffington Post:
If it's election season it must be time for swiftboating. And that's exactly what happened on Friday, when Mike Fitzpatrick decided to hold a press conference and attack the military service of Patrick Murphy.
Flanked by a few veterans, the swiftboating began. As usual, the guy behind the swiftboating, Mike Fitzpatrick [R-Pa], has never worn the uniform.
By the way -- if you go to Fitzpatrick's campaign website, please note the subhead about his "independent voting record."
Another page comes out:
In the messages, Maf54 described how years earlier, he had looked to see whether the former page had an erection in his tight white pants while the then-teenager was working near the congressman. Maf54 also speculated about the sexual attributes of other males in the same page class, including the observation that one young man was "well hung."
(Hat tip: AmericaBlog)
From Taylor Marsh at Huffington Post:
If it's election season it must be time for swiftboating. And that's exactly what happened on Friday, when Mike Fitzpatrick decided to hold a press conference and attack the military service of Patrick Murphy.
Flanked by a few veterans, the swiftboating began. As usual, the guy behind the swiftboating, Mike Fitzpatrick [R-Pa], has never worn the uniform.
By the way -- if you go to Fitzpatrick's campaign website, please note the subhead about his "independent voting record."
Another page comes out:
In the messages, Maf54 described how years earlier, he had looked to see whether the former page had an erection in his tight white pants while the then-teenager was working near the congressman. Maf54 also speculated about the sexual attributes of other males in the same page class, including the observation that one young man was "well hung."
(Hat tip: AmericaBlog)
More Lies
Now they're swiftboating CREW and everyone else they can think of. From Media Matters:
[Chris] WALLACE: Let me ask you about that, Congressman Kingston. What does [House Democratic Leader] Nancy Pelosi and [Rep.] Rahm Emmanuel [D-IL] -- they, of course, are two Democratic leaders -- what do they have to go under oath about?
{Rep. Jack] KINGSTON {R-Ga}: Well, Chris, what I don't understand is, where have these emails been for three years? Are we saying that a 15-year-old child would have sat on e-mails that were X -- triple X-rated for three years and suddenly spring them out right on the eve of an election? That's just a little bit too suspicious, even for Washington, D.C. We do know that George Soros, a huge Democrat [sic] backer, has a group called CREW, it's a 527 partisan group, they apparently had the emails as late as this April and did not do anything about it.
Facts: CREW is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization; they received the emails on July 21 and the same day sent them to the FBI, which has bungled the matter, or at least can't get its story straight. And isn't it strange that Republicans would consider a group devoted to ethical behavior in government, "liberal"?
Kingston again, as quoted by Digby (scroll down):
"Just as it must be determined whether any Republican Members or political operatives were aware of and attempted to conceal Mr. Foley's activities, it must also be determined whether any Democrat Members or political operatives were aware of, and attempted to conceal these same activities," Kingston wrote in the letter.
Why on earth would Democrats keeps something like this, involving a Republican Congressman, under wraps for any length of time at all?
From Christianist liar James Dobson, as reported at Pam's House Blend:
"(It was released by liberals on) the last day of the session of Congress, when it couldn't be responded to do — the last day," he said. "It is the day you would not want something like this to break. And they've known it for years. They've held it for years, and then they threw it out there on the last day of the session demanding that the speaker of the house resign."
Fact: ABC's source for the emails was a Republican staffer in Washington, which has been publicly stated. But it doesn't really matter:
Dobson again:
As it turns out, Mr. Foley has had illicit sex with no one that we know of, and the whole thing turned out to be what some people are now saying was a -- sort of a joke by the boy and some of the other pages.
The sex part is true, as far as we know. The "prank" mantra is already a howler.
[Chris] WALLACE: Let me ask you about that, Congressman Kingston. What does [House Democratic Leader] Nancy Pelosi and [Rep.] Rahm Emmanuel [D-IL] -- they, of course, are two Democratic leaders -- what do they have to go under oath about?
{Rep. Jack] KINGSTON {R-Ga}: Well, Chris, what I don't understand is, where have these emails been for three years? Are we saying that a 15-year-old child would have sat on e-mails that were X -- triple X-rated for three years and suddenly spring them out right on the eve of an election? That's just a little bit too suspicious, even for Washington, D.C. We do know that George Soros, a huge Democrat [sic] backer, has a group called CREW, it's a 527 partisan group, they apparently had the emails as late as this April and did not do anything about it.
Facts: CREW is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization; they received the emails on July 21 and the same day sent them to the FBI, which has bungled the matter, or at least can't get its story straight. And isn't it strange that Republicans would consider a group devoted to ethical behavior in government, "liberal"?
Kingston again, as quoted by Digby (scroll down):
"Just as it must be determined whether any Republican Members or political operatives were aware of and attempted to conceal Mr. Foley's activities, it must also be determined whether any Democrat Members or political operatives were aware of, and attempted to conceal these same activities," Kingston wrote in the letter.
Why on earth would Democrats keeps something like this, involving a Republican Congressman, under wraps for any length of time at all?
From Christianist liar James Dobson, as reported at Pam's House Blend:
"(It was released by liberals on) the last day of the session of Congress, when it couldn't be responded to do — the last day," he said. "It is the day you would not want something like this to break. And they've known it for years. They've held it for years, and then they threw it out there on the last day of the session demanding that the speaker of the house resign."
Fact: ABC's source for the emails was a Republican staffer in Washington, which has been publicly stated. But it doesn't really matter:
Dobson again:
As it turns out, Mr. Foley has had illicit sex with no one that we know of, and the whole thing turned out to be what some people are now saying was a -- sort of a joke by the boy and some of the other pages.
The sex part is true, as far as we know. The "prank" mantra is already a howler.
Backlash
With all the reporting on gay GOP staffers and office-holders in Washington and the possible (read "inevitable") witchunt (led by liberals, of course), no one's paying attention to where the witchhunts will actually happen: the Red states, especially towns and smaller cities, and even the redder portions of Blue states. We're already having problems in Illinois.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)