The War Has Begun in Earnest
As I mentioned earlier, I intended to write more about the article in which Teddy Kennedy swiftly and adeptly rebuked Tom DeLay’s outrageous statement that was issued shortly after Terri Schiavo died. I want to start by clarifying exactly what the GOP’s agenda regarding the judiciary is:
Republicans, many of whom led the charge to focus federal attention on Terri Schiavo, are vowing to hold the judiciary system responsible for rulings in the case that some believe were tantamount to murder.A declaration of war against the judiciary. That is indeed an apt assessment. Leading the charge are, unsurprisingly, Tom DeLay and Rick Santorum.
[…]
While Democrats on Thursday lamented Congress' intervention in the ordeal, some Republicans vowed to cure what they considered to be a moral injustice.
"This is almost a declaration of war from conservatives against the judiciary," said Washington Times reporter Bill Sammon.
DeLay:
Speaking with reporters later in Houston, DeLay said lawmakers "will look at an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president."Can someone please sign Tom DeLay up for a remedial social studies course, so he can learn that the judiciary isn’t meant to bow to the will of Congress and the president?
Santorum:
"As you look at the judges who are activists in the manner I've suggested, those judges are not conservative, but liberal and not [following] the law," said Santorum, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. "To suggest this was unimportant is a judicial creation ... not how the law is intended to be interpreted. President Bush is putting forward judges who don't do that."That the judges ruling in the Schiavo case were liberal activists is, of course, an outright lie. That a US Senator has no compunction about advancing such a demonstrable falsehood in furtherance of his party’s agenda is not only indicative of their dependence on Americans’ ignorance and apathy, but also borders on quite a remarkable pathology, the contemplation of which makes my brain hurt.
In a later conference call with reporters, Santorum said the courts had practiced nothing less than "judicial tyranny" in this case and took aim at those who say Congress overstepped its bounds.I’m not sure if the press realizes it, either, not to mention the American people, although I’m concerned for entirely different reasons than Santorum.
"[This is] routinely done by the courts — deciding they are now a super-legislature," Santorum said. "I'm not sure if the press realizes how serious this conflict is between the branches of government and how gravely concerned members of Congress are with [the] kinds of judicial tyranny we've seen."
Social progression in America has always worked like the stock market—you’ve got ups and downs, but the net is always upward over a long period of time. If the GOP has their way, eliminating the filibuster, stacking the courts with conservative ideologues, and rendering the judiciary impotent, we’re looking at the social equivalent of a major market crash.
Historically, we have depended on the judiciary to make decisions about the application of Constitutional guarantees in spite of popular opinion, and many times, they have secured protections for marginalized groups literally decades before the legislature, which more closely tracks public opinion, would have enacted legislation affording the same protections. Recently, I quoted a statistic provided by John Rogers of Kung Fu Monkey that epitomizes that of which I write:
... when the Supreme Court struck down the bans against interracial marriage in 1968 through Virginia vs. Loving, SEVENTY-TWO PERCENT of Americans were against interracial marriage. As a matter of fact, approval of interracial marriage in the US didn't cross the positive threshold until – sweet God – 1991.Clearly, waiting for the whole of society to be on board with granting equal rights to everyone is not always in our collective best interest. The judiciary is ostensibly blind to the prejudices which would otherwise stem the natural flow of progressive social movements, which is what makes them so very, very important.
We take their essential role in the promotion of equality for granted. The conservatives, on the other hand, have (correctly) identified the judiciary as the last obstacle against free reign to realize their radical agenda, from criminalizing abortion, to codifying discrimination against gays and lesbians into the Constitution, to eradicating protections for individuals against corporate malfeasance. Hence, the war against the judiciary with which we are now confronted.
I’ve never been an alarmist, or I wasn’t, before the Bushies pitched their terrifying tent at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. But this is fucking alarming. If the GOP is successful in this wicked undertaking, we will officially be living in a dictatorship, with little more than kangaroo courts stripped of all power—the last shreds of our system of checks and balances completely decimated. If the courts are in their pocket, forget fair elections. Wave goodbye to equal rights. Bid adieu to the middle class. If they conquer the judiciary, nothing stands between them and ultimate and unlimited control. Don’t expect the feckless, ineffective mess that is the Democratic Party or the fading remnants of an objective media to save us. If the judiciary is effectively subverted, it’s over.
They have been laying the groundwork for this day for thirty years or more, but the war has now begun in earnest. Make no mistake—fighting the losing battle over Terri Schiavo was a strategic move to launch this attack, and the blatant lie associating the judges involved in the case (who had the support of the American people) with the judges who rule against bans on gay marriage (who don’t), by lumping them together under the banner of “activist judges,” is the next step in convincing the electorate that the judiciary is out of control and must be stopped.
There is a part of this government that is out of control and must be stopped, but it isn’t the judiciary. And we must fight tooth and nail to stop them from sabotaging that which stands between the America we know and the America of their diabolical dreams. If you think that’s a fine little bit of dismissible hyperbole, then you tell me: if the judiciary is removed from the equation, what is left to stop them?
They’ve signaled their intentions, and I’m signaling mine. I will keep this issue front and center, and I request that anyone with her or his own blog do the same. Talk to people; inform them. Write to your Democratic Senators and Representatives and let them hear your concerns. And get fucking angry.
Too many of us speak in calm and measured tones when there’s so much at stake. You won’t find that here. I’m not sure why there aren’t more liberal bloggers who aren’t ready to storm the capitol, but I will not respond to a declaration of war against the future of my country with plaintive posts or serene epistles. This blogger, this American, is as mad as hell, and she’s not going to take it anymore.
[On a related note, fearing that we face a whole new level of bullshit about which we will, and should, be visibly angry, and preparing myself thusly, comments and emails composed specifically to tell me to stop using bad language or to start being less aggressive, less hostile, less antagonistic, less bitchy, less arrogant, less belligerent, less vitriolic, less nasty, less acerbic, or less of a poopyhead, are as welcome as any other, but I feel obligated to inform all potential authors of such missives that they are, however, a waste of time.
If I get my facts wrong, let me know. If you don’t like my tone, tough. At this bus stop in the blogosphere, I’m Queen Cunt of Fuck Mountain, and I’m mean for a reason. Once we get our country back on the right track, there will plenty of time for nursery rhymes.]
WaPo Takes the Lead in the Race to the Bottom
I think we've now gained pretty key insight into the psychosis that has gripped the Washington Post editorial board. Apparently it is their belief that one should not criticize leaders for doing so could undermine them.Wow is right.
Wow.
The editorial focuses on criticisms of Wolfowitz’s nomination as president of the World Bank, and reads, in part:
People who care about this institution and its mission -- as many of Mr. Wolfowitz's detractors do -- should think carefully before they damage it by attacking its new boss. Criticism of Mr. Wolfowitz's agenda for the bank may be healthy once that agenda emerges. But preemptive condemnation because of the Iraq war is not.Complete disregard for the fact that most of those who have raised concerns over his appointment have done so not because of his role as an architect of the Iraq war, but because he has negligible qualifications—and that this nomination appears to be yet another example of a Bush loyalist being promoted into a position sans appropriate credentials as a reward for ideological fidelity, rather than out of any interest in selecting the best man or woman for the job. Instead, the WaPo editors attack the straw man of a blindly hateful liberal, who cannot dissociate Wolfowitz’s financial résumé from his foreign policy positions, in order to silence criticism.
Unconscionable.
Notes from the Management
I’ve gotten a couple of complaints about the hover over links on the blog, so I’ve changed it. No more jumping in size. It never bothered me, unless the link was at the end of a line, and I realize that this might happen more often for people with different screen resolutions, so I just made a quick edit. Hopes this works better for people who were having problems with it.
I’ve also changed it so that if you click on the Bard, it will take you back to the home page. I always found the little “home” link at the end of post pages annoying. They’re still there, for those who have grown accustomed to them, but now you can also use the Bard to help navigate you home again.
Thank you.
We now return to our regularly scheduled ranting.
I Heart Ted Kennedy
In response to Tom DeLay’s unbelievable statement earlier today, the grand old senior senator from Massachusetts had this to say:
Mr. DeLay's comments today were irresponsible and reprehensible. I'm not sure what Mr. DeLay meant when he said 'the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior.' But at a time when emotions are running high, Mr. DeLay needs to make clear that he is not advocating violence against anyone ... it is time for mourning and healing not for more inflammatory rhetoric, and responsible national leaders should understand that and stop this exploitation.Right on, Teddy! Right on.
That's the fighting spirit we need more of—that willingness to call a spade a fucking spade and draw a firm line in the sand. We can't allow this kind of radical bullshit, or the pissants who spout it, an inch, a millimeter, of latitude.
I pulled the quote, by the way, from a story Mr. Shakes forwarded to me, which I highly recommend—the Right is, as predicted, going to use the Schiavo fiasco as a springboard to castrate the judiciary. The war is really just beginning.
More on this topic later, as time allows. In the meantime, strap yourselves in, Shakers. It’s going to be a bumpy ride for the foreseeable future.
Let the Delurkization Begin!
Via The Heretik (care of Rox), we find out that this week is, apparently, International Blog Comment Week. So if you’ve been lurking around silently, now’s as good a time as any to declare yourself a Shaker (or a ShakeHater) with a comment.
Disgusting
Joe at AMERICAblog notes:
At 11:30 a.m., CNN had Bush on live making a statement on the death of Terri Schiavo. Okay, took him five days to mention the 10 people killed in the Minnesota shooting last week. But, he uses the first opportunity to jump in front of cameras to talk about Schiavo. Never mentions any individual member of the military killed in action, but, boy, he has to mourn Terri by name publicly.If it weren’t for the security concerns, he’d probably attend her funeral, too.
Meanwhile, Think Progress shares Tom DeLay’s statement:
Mrs. Schiavo’s death is a moral poverty and a legal tragedy. This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change. The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today. Today we grieve, we pray, and we hope to God this fate never befalls another. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Schindlers and with Terri Schiavo’s friends in this time of deep sorrow.Did you catch that? Tom DeLay just threatened Michael Schiavo and the judges involved in this case. If pressed, he’d no doubt claim he was couching it in terms of their having to answer to God, because just like his president, he’s good at doublespeak. Nonetheless, it was clearly a thinly veiled incitement to those who have dedicated the most recent shard of their fractured lives to the cause he championed—not saving Terri’s life, but turning her into an icon, the holy woman-child of the culture of life movement. Your work isn’t done, Father DeLay assures them. There are those who need to pay, and it’s up to you to collect the fee.
Read-ems
The Green Knight on Framing While the Earth Burns. (Are you reading the Green Knight regularly yet? If not, why the heck not?!) Related reading on environmental issues can be found here, in which the WaPo examines the unlikely alliances that interested in alternative fuels is forging, and here, in which Kevin Drums talks to us about global dimming. (I had no idea what global dimming was; it’s nice to have something new to contribute to my insomnia.)
Pam on peace in the Middle East…as Christians, Jews, and Muslims unite against gays and lesbians.
Faggoty-Ass Faggot on wanting what he can’t have, and being a mail-order bride in Ohio.
John at Big Brass Blog on the Bush administration’s lack of intelligence. No wait, sorry…make that the bad intelligence they used as a rationale to take the country to war.
PZ Meyers on another example of why we need to learn to draw a line in the sand between being tolerant of differing viewpoints and simply encouraging lunacy.
T Rex on the Right’s decision to fight dirty…again.
Waveflux on Paul Bremer’s parting gift to Iraq.
And Pundentilla at Skippy gives us all a good laugh.
Question of the Day
I would imagine the vast majority of passers-by this little space of mine tend to be pretty passionate about politics, and today I want to hear some stories about the origins of those passions. When did your infatuation begin? Were you inspired by a person? A book? A film? Did you used to be in a different party and now find yourself on the other side of aisle? Did you study politics? Are you a news junkie? Do you, like me, have childhood memories of struggling to understand politics, feeling the draw, the importance, of the political realm, long before you even knew what a Democrat or a Republican was?
What has stirred in you that fervor for politics that’s brought you to my virtual doorstep?
[UPDATE: I'm moving this back up to the top, because there are lots of very interesting comments to read, and I'm hoping to encourage additional contributions, too.]
Question of the Day (Morbid Relief Edition)
Now that the troubling, protracted battle over her life, which, by the end, involved everyone from the hospice orderlies to the president, is finally over, who should Terri haunt first?
(As suggested by True Blue Liberal in comments.)
R.I.P. Terri Schiavo
Link:
Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman at the heart of a bitter right-to-die dispute that drew in the U.S. Congress and President Bush, died on Thursday, 13 days after a court halted her tube feeding, a spokesman for her parents said.
Headline of the Day
If I want to be preached at, I'll go to church. If I'm in a pharmacy, what I want is my prescription filled.Ha!
Drum Roll
You’ve heard me say it before, and now I’ll say it once more: Kevin Drum’s at it again.
Except this time, I’m not complaining. Since I last uttered (as it were) those fated words, Kevin has introduced great female guest bloggers at Washington Monthly, and yesterday, he wrote a piece on Sex and Gender that shows he really appears to be taking the issue seriously.
Rox has an interesting critique here, which I recommend as follow-up reading, as it does address a couple of little problems with the post, into none of which I’m going to delve, because that’s not really the point of this post.
The point is this: Kevin, to his credit, did not take my criticisms personally, and treated them, at least in correspondence with me, as the fair critique of an important issue they were intended to be. Never did he accuse me of fishing for links; never did he accuse me of attempting to tell him what to do with his blog. And if his follow-up endeavors are an accurate representation of his attitude toward my (and others’) having raised concerns about gender-related politics being treated as secondary issues, he has regarded raising those concerns as a political disagreement worthy of response.
The truth is, often when things like this happen, the lesser known blogger is inevitably automatically accused of trying to attain some sort of notoriety, of wanting nothing more than a link, traffic, attention of one sort or another. And I weathered the backlash of those who indicted me with being little more than a self-interested opportunist after my last post addressing a post of Kevin’s. I realize there are a lot of people who’ve had enough of the blogosphere navel-gazing, but I believe it’s important to acknowledge the treatment of this issue by Kevin himself, which was to regard is as a legitimate argument, thereby creating a productive discussion. Sure, there are going to be times when lesser known bloggers fish for links, or believe they are pursuing a legitimate issue with a larger blogger when it’s simply not the case, but there are also going to be times when lesser known bloggers raise a pertinent issue that really does need addressing. My intention was to effect change by shifting the nature of the debate about women bloggers and gender politics (which was an existing issue long before I was around), and Kevin’s willingness to take it at face value, instead of throwing up a barricade of self-protection behind accusations of ulterior motives, is commendable.
It is unlikely that anything written here would ever warrant his criticism, by nature of the size of this blog as opposed to its content, but should such a situation ever present itself, I shall endeavor to return the favor.
[UPDATE: Pam’s got a great follow-up post on this, too.]
Of Course They Do
On her plane to Afghanistan, where Laura Bush is going to do outreach to inner city youth, or something, she told reporters that she and the president both have living wills.
"The president and I have living wills and of course our parents do and they wanted us always to be aware of it. I think that is important for families to have opportunities to talk about these issues," she said.Huh. So it’s important for families to talk about these issues, is it? But isn’t that what Michael Schiavo’s been asserting lo these long 15 years? That Terri had talked to her husband about her wishes? Oh, but see, Mrs. Bush is careful to note that they have also discussed the issue with her parents and the president’s parents. Everybody knows everyone else’s wishes in the Bush fam. Because only by distorting the definition of family to necessarily include parents as possible decision-makers, and thereby undermining the Schiavo’s marriage, Terri’s family by design, was Mrs. Bush able to wrap up with the following:
"I just feel like the federal government has to be involved. It is a life issue that really does require government to be involved," she said.Right.
As for all you folks who are dying because you’ve got no healthcare to cover the expensive medical treatments required to save your life, and as for you dirty Injuns in Minnesota, and as for you Africans dying from AIDS, genocide, or hunger, and as for you soldiers sent under false pretenses to a war which will forever alter your every sense of what life should be, and as for you family members of Nicola Calipari, and as for you Iraqi civilians who have lost loved ones—also civilians—to our thrilling shock and awe, and as for you proven-innocent-in-the-end victims of our torture tactics, and everyone else whose lives seem just not quite as important as Terri Schiavo, your life issues apparently don’t require the government to be involved. Sorry about that. Better luck next time.
Culture of Life: Plasticized Remains Edition
I’m no professional profiler or anything, but something tells me that investigators might want to check anyplace religious wingnuts like to hang out to find their suspects on this one:
Police in Los Angeles were searching on Wednesday for two women observed via security cameras taking a plastic-coated human fetus from the traveling "Body Worlds" exhibit at the California Science Center over the weekend.
The 13-week-old "plastinated" fetus was part of Gunther von Hagens' popular and controversial "Body Worlds 2: The Anatomical Exhibition of Real Human Bodies."
Von Hagens, a German anatomy professor, preserved 200 donated human bodies and body parts by replacing body fluids with plastics, then placing the skinless forms in sometimes whimsical poses.What a shocker that only in America would a plasticized fetus be stolen from an art exhibit.
The fetus, which had been in an unlocked case, was a taken early on Saturday morning while the science center was open around the clock to accommodate crowds on the last day of the exhibit, police said.
More than 16 million people worldwide have viewed the traveling exhibits. The theft was the first associated with the exhibits, Los Angeles police said.
By the way, if you haven’t seen this exhibit, or pictures of it, although it may sound gruesome, it’s really quite amazing. (AP Photo.)
This. Totally. Rules.
"We are idiots."
You have to, have to, check this site out, which has more pictures from the day Chuck (pictured) and his pals infiltrated the circus outside the hospice. I love these guys.
(Link via Truthout, via AMERICAblog.)
Culture of Life: Italian Edition
Body and Soul’s Jeanne d’Arc raises some very interesting questions about the death of Nicola Calipari, the Italian intelligence agent who was shot and killed earlier this month by American soldiers as he was transporting kidnap victim and Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena to safety, including:
When does our press start showing some interest in how and why Nicola Calipari died?A fine question indeed. Surely, in light of that “culture of life” we’ve been celebrating, the loss of Mr. Calipari’s life, caused by our own hand, warrants some concern…
Jeanne covers some new information provided by Sgrena and posts some additional photos of the car in which they were traveling. Check it out. Just because the American press and (most of) the American people don’t care about this, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t, either.
Media Whores and the Bloggrrl Who Loathes Them
Oh for cripes sake. Every time I resolve not to write another flippin’ word about the Schiavo mess, something else happens that just about sends me halfway to the moon:
The Rev. Jesse Jackson pleaded on Tuesday for Terri Schiavo to be kept alive as the brain-damaged Florida woman at the center of a bitter family and political dispute slipped toward death.You know what? Fuck off. I’m so sick of this bullshit. There’s absolutely nothing either immoral or unnecessary about ending the life of someone who requested not to be kept alive by extraordinary measures. Decisions like this have to be made by families across the country every day, and no one was (literally) making a federal case out of the hundreds? thousands? of people who are removed from respirators, feeding tubes, etc. until the Schindlers started their crusade on behalf of their poor, unhelpable daughter. God damn them if they end up taking away our rights to sign living wills and DNR orders because people like infinitely idiotic Jesse Jackson have jumped on the bandwagon about how “immoral and unnecessary” it all is. It’s bad enough we can’t request a needle in our arms to die a painless and dignified death the way our pets can, even if we’ve been diagnosed with some uncurable death sentence, but so help me, if the tumult these selfish, desperate people have caused takes away the rights of others to die in the same situation as their daughter, I will leave this country and never return.
"She is being starved to death, she is being dehydrated to death. That's immoral and unnecessary," the civil rights leader told reporters after meeting Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, near the hospice where she is being cared for.
The Schindler's invited Jackson to visit to boost their effort to keep their daughter alive against court orders and her husband's wishes.One inveterate media whore deserves another, I guess.
Michael Schiavo believes his wife, 41 and severely brain-damaged for 15 years, would never have wanted to live in this state.You know what, Jesse? You’re right. And you’re on the wrong fucking side of it, buddy.
"This is one of the profound moral issues of our time," said Jackson, adding he was in touch with members of the Florida legislature to try to get them to intervene.
"We ask today for some hard hearts to be softened up."What a pile of dog wank that is! Like my support of the removal of her feeding tube (which is a totally obnoxious thing to have to say; why did her parents insist on making this a public spectacle upon which we all were compelled to form an opinion?) is really down to a hard heart. To the contrary, I feel very deeply. My compassion, however, is for Terri. I believe she did tell her husband she wouldn’t want to live like that, and you know why? Because 87% of people say the same fucking thing, and the other 13% are probably the idiots calling the Sean Hannity Show with a painfully evident misunderstanding of what her condition actually is.
And my compassion is for Terri because all the plonkers who are fighting so hard for her life regard her as little more than a political tool to advance their agenda, and though they are accusing liberals of the same thing, what agenda, exactly is that? The agenda that every person should have a say over his or her own life? Well, fine—then that’s my agenda. But really all I can think about is the shell of a human, mindless and senseless and never destined to recover, and how her wishes in all of this have become secondary. Even the headlines themselves ignore them as they blare that the Schindlers have lost their latest bid, rather than suggesting instead that Terri has gotten one step closer to having her wishes fulfilled. She is a pawn in a game that I can well imagine was being played long before her tragic injury, self-inflicted, we ought remember, as a result of a disease that is found in those who struggle to properly manage control over their own lives, whether due to external or internal circumstance, or both.
Let her finally win this battle. Let her will, at long last, be done.
Boo Hoo
Jerry Falwell in Critical Condition
Good riddance to bad rubbish.The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen'.
-- Jerry Falwell, on who bears the responsibility for 9/11
No Legitimacy; No Surrender
Paul Krugman has an excellent column in the NY Times today about the dangers of letting the religious right continue to strengthen their stranglehold on the government unfettered. Connecting the dots between Congress’ intervention in the Schaivo case, “conscience legislation” (i.e. pharmacists legally able to refuse to fill prescriptions based on their religious beliefs), and the encroachment of religion into the public educational system, he isn’t really saying anything that one hasn’t been able to find on blogs such as this one for quite some time, but it’s a good sign (I think, I hope) that we’re starting to see from people in positions like Krugman’s a determination to quash this radical uprising before it gets completely out of control.
The notion Krugman poses, that we’re collectively wary to address the threat to our nation’s future posed by the extremists within our own borders, goes back to what I wrote earlier in the month about the need for selective intolerance. Cloaked in the protective chain mail of their religion, Christian fundamentalists, and more importantly their political ideas and objectives, have become unassailable.
Any criticism of the increasingly voracious appetite of the religious right for power within and over the government is denounced as religious intolerance, irrespective of the source of the criticism; even other Christians, moderates and liberals alike, are held in contempt by their conservative counterparts, dismissed and vilified as “false” Christians—a denouncement the media is strangely willing to embrace as it fans the flames of this culture war, conjuring elaborate stories of Christmas-haters out of the thinnest of air, and inevitably juxtaposing the godly conservative Christians and the heartless, bah humbug secularists. If one only existed in the false reality of television news, one would never know there were plenty of Christians who respect the public sphere, and the non-Christians with whom they share it. So it becomes a Christian versus non-Christian (or, if you’re watching Fox, anti-Christian) argument, a specious and likely deliberate misconstruing of reality; two sides indeed exist, but they are comprised of those who have respect for the public sphere and everyone who travels in it, and those who have no respect for anything but satiating their ravenous hunger for control.
After 9/11, and the disclosure that its perpetrators were Islamic fundamentalists, great pains were taken by government officials, the media, moderate and liberal religious leaders of all religious, and lots of average Americans, to carefully and thoughtfully address the difference between Islam and its teachings, and radical Islamic fundamentalists and their (mis)interpretations of its teachings. Over and over we heard, as we collectively wrung our hands and hoped against backlash attacks on our Muslim neighbors, Fundamentalists do not represent the tenets of Islam; most Muslims are not like that. It was an important distinction to make; liberals were keen to see it made, as well we should have been. Yet within our own borders, we cower from the ideological brethren of the perpetrators of 9/11—a radical element seeking to advance an agenda designed to undermine the American democracy, operating under a shroud of religion, both as their protection against censure and the justification for their radicalism.
Krugman notes, ominously, that we are seeing with escalating frequency “politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right. … And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law.” As politicians bow every more willingly to the demands of the radicalized Christians, the latter become further emboldened in their goals and strategies, howling for the involvement of a state governor, Congress, and the President himself, who jump to attention at their behest on behalf of a woman whose live they want saved.
"Christians are a lot more bold under Bush's leadership, he speaks what a lot of us believe," said [pastor and parent Ray Mummert, 54, of Dover, PA, a town currently deeply at war over teaching Darwin or Christian creationism in its schools].They got a mandate, too, you see.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," he said.Though such a comment seems, well, fairly amusing, the truth is—it’s quite unnerving. They don’t need intellect; they’ve got faith. They don’t need education; they’ve got the Word of God. Intelligence and education can be challenged. Faith and the very word of God Himself, however, are untrumpable.
Or so we allow them to be, resisting categorical denunciations of such manifest lunacy, because that’s just what they believe is still an acceptable excuse for good Christians, no matter how unChristlike and indefensible their behavior. But is it really acceptable that these alleged supporters of the nebulously-named “culture of life” have murder on their minds because they aren’t getting what they demand? How far are they willing to go…if we aren’t willing to stop them?
These people deserve to be regarded with the same disdain we reserve for the other dregs and bottom-feeders who endlessly scrabble around in the muck, yowling sanctimoniously about how right they are and eating each other alive—the white supremacists, the neo-Nazis, Ralph Nader. They don’t deserve a place at the table of ideas at which the national debate is commenced. They don’t deserve to have one of their members substitute on news shows. They don’t deserve legitimacy in any way.
If we continue to consent to offering it, we must brace ourselves for a grim future indeed.
Curious
This seems strangely underreported, don’t you think?
Everyone knows about the attempt to circumvent the courts through "Terri's law." But there has been little national exposure for a Miami Herald report that Jeb Bush sent state law enforcement agents to seize Terri Schiavo from the hospice - a plan called off when local police said they would enforce the judge's order that she remain there.If any enterprising Shaker can find the article in the Miami Herald for me, I’d be much obliged.
Question of the Day
If not Hillary, who?
Let this be a dream category. Go ahead and say Barack Obama, even though we all know he won't be ready in '08, or Dick Durbin, even though he's got no name recognition (hot damn, Illinois is lucky!), or Barbara Boxer, or Louise Slaughter, or Al Sharpton, or whoever you like. Just explain why you like 'em--and why we should, too.
Patients' Rights? Not So Much.
I was going to post something about the whole pharmacist v. patient bullshit, but I’m crabby, and Linnet has already posted something excellent at Big Brass Blog upon which I couldn’t improve, anyway.
I love how "religious freedom" has been redefined as the freedom to deny people basic healthcare if they don't follow your religious beliefs.I’m sure that’s far too sensible to ever happen. Especially when allowing healthcare workers to pick and choose their patients will allow those who will accept commonly discriminated-against patients to raise their fees, and allow the insurance industry to hike up their premiums, too. I mean, hey—what greater health risk is there than being someone a whole slew of doctors refuses to treat? Wankers.
It's also interesting that they specify that individual healthcare providers have this right, not only institutional ones. So not only are you allowed to form your own We Hate Women and Gays Pharmacy--you're also allowed to refuse to treat women and gays while you're in the employ of the Decent and Sane Pharmacy.
This type of legislation raises some interesting questions.
[…]
If a conservative Christian is a healthcare provider, can he refuse to treat a woman without her husband's permission? The Bible does say that the husband is the head of the wife, after all.
[…]
How about if we apply this principle outside the realm of healthcare? Does a biology teacher have the right to refuse to teach evolution? Can a Hindu work at a fast-food place but refuse to serve beef? Can a Republican politician refuse to lie?
Or, you know, maybe we could all exercise our common sense and say that if your conscience gets in the way of an integral aspect of your work, you should choose another line of work.
Read the rest here.
Fun Stuff
I’ve had such an annoying day that I’m ready to thump someone but good, and now Blogger is being a pain in the ass (again). So this little quiz (via Feministe) is about the perfect speed for what I can handle at the moment.
You are Andie Walsh (from Pretty In Pink)!
Misunderstood and full of angst, you are
intelligent, talented and will probably go on
to do great things...once you're out of the
hell of high school.
Which John Hughes Character Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
Important Action Item for Fellow Bloggers
Go here. You’ll know what to do. And John’s got more info at AMERICAblog.
Just When You Thought…
…Ralph Nader couldn’t get any batshit crazier, he finds yet another way to prove that there’s just no limit to his lunacy (link):
Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader and Wesley J. Smith, author of the award winning book "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America" call upon the Florida Courts, Governor Jeb Bush and concerned citizens to take any legal action available to let Terri Schiavo live.Okay then. Buh-bye now.
"A profound injustice is being inflicted on Terri Schiavo," Nader and Smith asserted today. "Worse, this slow death by dehydration is being imposed upon her under the color of law, in proceedings in which every benefit of the doubt-and there are many doubts in this case-has been given to her death, rather than her continued life."
[…]
"This outrageous order proves that the courts are not merely permitting medical treatment to be withheld, it has ordered her to be made dead," Nader and Smith assert.
Another Conspiracy Bites the Dust…
…because it turns out to be the truth.
The episode has been retold so many times in the last three and a half years that it has become the stuff of political legend: in the frenzied days after Sept. 11, 2001, when some flights were still grounded, dozens of well-connected Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, managed to leave the United States on specially chartered flights.The indomitable Senator Schumer has, of course, called for an investigation. It’s probably as likely to happen as the seemingly infinite number of GOP media shills who used the scene in Fahrenheit 9/11, in which it was suggested that the government helped Saudi nationals out of the country after only cursory interviews, to denounce Michael Moore as a lair and traitor, issuing him a well-deserved apology.
Now, newly released government records show previously undisclosed flights from Las Vegas and elsewhere and point to a more active role by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in aiding some of the Saudis in their departure.
The F.B.I. gave personal airport escorts to two prominent Saudi families who fled the United States, and several other Saudis were allowed to leave the country without first being interviewed, the documents show.
[…]
The documents were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Justice Department by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, which provided copies to The New York Times.
[…]
The debate was heightened by the filmmaker Michael Moore, who scrutinized the issue in "Fahrenheit 9/11," but White House officials have adamantly denied any special treatment for the Saudis, calling such charges irresponsible and politically motivated.
The Sept. 11 commission examined the Saudi flights in its final report last year, and it found that no Saudis had been allowed to leave before national airspace was reopened on Sept. 13, 2001; that there was no evidence of "political intervention" by the White House; and that the F.B.I. had done a "satisfactory screening" of the departing Saudis to ensure they did not have information relevant to the attacks.
The documents obtained by Judicial Watch, with major passages heavily deleted, do not appear to contradict directly any of those central findings, but they raise some new questions about the episode.
The F.B.I. records show, for instance, that prominent Saudi citizens left the United States on several flights that had not been previously disclosed in public accounts, including a chartered flight from Providence, R.I., on Sept. 14, 2001, that included at least one member of the Saudi royal family, and three flights from Las Vegas between Sept. 19 and Sept. 24, also carrying members of the Saudi royal family. The government began reopening airspace on Sept. 13, but many flights remained grounded for days afterward.
[…]
In several other cases, Saudi travelers were not interviewed before departing the country, and F.B.I. officials sought to determine how what seemed to be lapses had occurred, the documents show.
The F.B.I. documents left open the possibility that some departing Saudis had information relevant to the Sept. 11 investigation.
"Although the F.B.I. took all possible steps to prevent any individuals who were involved in or had knowledge of the 9/11/2001 attacks from leaving the U.S. before they could be interviewed," a 2003 memo said, "it is not possible to state conclusively that no such individuals left the U.S. without F.B.I. knowledge."
[…]
"From these documents, these look like they were courtesy chats, without the time that would have been needed for thorough debriefings," said Christopher J. Farrell, who is director of investigations for Judicial Watch and a former counterintelligence interrogator for the Army. "It seems as if the F.B.I. was more interested in achieving diplomatic success than investigative success."
I won’t be holding my breath in anticipation of either one.
Question of the Day
Another hot topic at the aforementioned party was that of Hillary running in ’08. I’m not really keen on trying to discern at this point who will be the best candidate in ’08, since so much can change in three years, but I am curious to know, how do you feel about Hillary running and why?
I personally find her too centrist and opportunistic, and I’d rather see someone else get the nom, someone who doesn’t, as Mahablog noted, move right to find "common ground" with the wingnuts or provide butt cover for Bush, specifically someone more liberal, but if the Dems are determined to nominate a right-chasing, butt cover-supplying centrist, then I’ve got no (intrinsic) problem with Hillary.
What are your thoughts?
Who Needs Dick?
At the discreet and sophisticated soiree thrown by Mr. Furious this weekend, at which there was absolutely no alcohol consumption and certainly not any bad behavior from the collection of urbane, dignified professionals who had gathered for a tranquil evening of genteel conversation and cucumber sandwiches, there happened to be a quite a bit of political conversation, much of which (fearfully) focused on who the ’08 GOP nominee might be. As it turns out, no one, regardless of how much Earl Gray had passed his or her lips, believed that it would be Cheney; there was more support for the idea that he would be replaced sometime over the next three years than for the thought he might run himself.
It so happens that back in the blogosphere, the same discussion was taking place, with Jonathan Chait weighing in here, and Yglesias weighing in here, both in support of the possibility that Cheney will run. Ezra, on the other hand, disagrees (with them, and agrees with the party-goers); it won’t be Dick (emphasis mine):
First of all, no party intent on self-preservation is going to hand Cheney the baton. Sure Bush and a few party bigfoots might give it a shot, but there's not a less appealing candidate out there, the operatives dedicated to advancing the movement would never, ever buy it. Hunting trips with Scalia? Closed door meetings with Enron? Connections to Plame? Cussing Leahy out on the Senate floor? And a scowling visage that makes him look hungry for human flesh? This is the party of Reagan and Bush Jr., these folks aren't going to abandon their taste for outdoorsy, handsome balls of reg'lar guy charisma to give the physical manifestation of greed a shot at the crown.Two key points there: Cheney’s uniquely unlikable, and though the whole ties-to-Halliburton thing didn’t stick to the VP, it’d be a lot harder to shrug off as candidate for the higher office, particularly as support for the war continues to dwindle. By ’08, if the people are looking for someone to blame for that mess (and they well may be), you don’t want the guy with ties to the biggest war profiteer leading the charge to the White House.
More to the point, even if Bush did decide Dick was the way to go, he'd only split the party more. Cheney was picked for a number of reasons, but one of the most overt was to calm the many potential presidents in the party by publicly refusing to pick an heir apparent.
[…]
McCain, Frist, Giuliani, Graham, Santorum, Hagel, Allen, etc have no interest in letting Bush pull the tube from their presidential chances. If he tries, they'll pull the plug on his agenda.
Second, we’d all do well to remember, as Ezra noted, that one of Cheney’s “draws” was that he wouldn’t be seen as a presumed successor—of which he was all too aware, having, let’s recall, chosen himself.
It’s unlikely he’s developed designs on the presidency in the interim. He might be many things, but he’s not a fool. He knows what a mess there will be to clean up when Bush is through, and Cheney strikes me as the kind of man who leaves cleaning messes to the maid. No, Cheney will leave the business of running the country (into the ground) to some other schlub; his Halliburton stock options are worth a lot these days, and he’s ready to enjoy his retirement.
(On a side note: major props to Ezra for slipping in the line even if Bush did decide Dick was the way to go, he'd only split the party more. That’s one of the finest double entendres I’ve seen in a while…even if it was unintentional. Which I doubt.)
Must-Read
The Dark Wraith on The 21st Century: Opus One at Big Brass Blog. Definitely check it out. (And if you haven’t been heading over there during the weekend, there’s tons of other good stuff to read, too.)
As for me, I’ve just returned from a weekend away with Mr. Furious and Mr. Curious, which was much fun, particularly Saturday night, which preceded a Sunday of lying on the couch moaning and watching terrible television and one good movie. (Brigitte Nielson and Flava Flav are dating? WTF? I had no idea. That’s just...disturbing.)
Ten points to the person who can name the film: “That’s three portions French fries, extra crispy, with lots of catsup.” Here’s a hint: Udo Kier rules.
The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same
Shaker and fellow blogger (of Daily Mendacity) Patrick directed me to this DKos diary which reports that the Pentagon has decided to take “no action” on the ongoing problem of sexual assaults at the Air Force Academy (which is, of course, only one place where female soldiers face the threat of being sexually assaulted by their male cohorts).
(See here for a previous post on women in the war zone dealing with the same.)
From the press release issued by Rep. Louise Slaughter, included in the referenced diary:
Washington DC. The following are excerpts from a response letter released yesterday by Acting Secretary of the Air Force Mr. Peter Teets:I’m not even really sure where to begin with this, but let’s start here: I am a rape victim.
"The Acting Secretary of the Air Force has reviewed the Department of Defense Inspector General's (DoD/IG's) report and the Fowler report on sexual assault problems at the AF Academy. After considering all the facts and weighing all the interests at stake, the Acting Secretary found that no administrative action is warranted against those officers identified in those reports as bearing some responsibility for Academy's sexual assault problems.
The Acting Secretary gave significant weight to their uniformly excellent and lengthy service and to the fact they were not intentionally or willfully derelict in their duties. He also found that any mistakes or misjudgments some of them may have made are mitigated by the complexity of the issues faced, the necessity of policy tradeoffs and compromises, and the difficulty of measuring program effectiveness."
Congresswoman Slaughter reacted to the announcement by making the following statement:
"It is reprehensible that the rights of sexual assault victims are so easily sidelined by the Pentagon as `too complex' to address. This is the kind of `head in the sand' approach we would have expected from the military in the 1950's; in 2005 it is an abomination. Where is the accountability?"
"What the Pentagon clearly doesn't want to discuss, and what all Americans should know, is that women are being sexually assaulted on an ongoing basis in the military and at our nation's military academies by their colleagues. Action must be taken. Until the Pentagon insists on accountability, there can be no real change and as a result, our women in uniform will continue to suffer. Is this the best we can do for young Americans who put their lives on the line to protect our freedom?"
When I was 16 years old, I was (in all that all-too-pleasant vernacular) date-raped by someone whom I had briefly dated. It was the first event in a series stretching across three very long years, during which I attempted to get various authorities involved to no result. Though the attacks were horrific in ways I cannot describe, the loneliness and futility of trying to put an end to the nightmare are what have had the most lasting effects on me, having changed me forever in ways that I am still realizing years later.
It is terrible to be a victim of sexual assault; it is unbearable to be revictimized by being left to deal with it on one’s own, to watch as the offender goes unpunished, to hear the actions of those who enable such abuses to continue be excused. When I found myself in dark moments, opening my skin with my own fingernails or the methodical scraping of an emery board in the same spot, until I bled and bled, to numb my anguish by finding solace in a pain I could control, it was not my rapist who filled my thoughts. The question I wanted answered was why does no one care?
To be sure, it was hard to believe the champion swimmer and honors student who was the monster under my bed could have been capable of the things he did—just as it is, to many, inconceivable that some of the same men who would bravely put their lives on the line in service of their country could be the perpetrators of such horrific acts against fellow soldiers. And it is this disbelief, and the somehow uneradicatable suspicion with which rape victims are regarded, that allowed what happened to me to happen, and allows now what is happening to our female soldiers who have been victims of sexual assault. That the problem is “complex” should not be a deterrent but instead a cause for resolve to find a solution.
I am disgusted and enraged by the Pentagon’s reaction to this problem. It is indeed not the best we can do for our female soldiers, and it is a poor message to send to women outside the armed forces, too. We don’t care about rape victims. It’s no different than the apathetic authorities I encountered, and to know that this no-accountability precedent is being set from the country’s leadership is discouraging, and speaks, sadly, to the fact that women’s bodies are still not seen as their own, still given less value than the careers of their male counterparts.
I am angry, yes. I am angry about what happened to me, and I am angry about what continues to happen to female soldiers. And yet, I am mostly sad—sad for the women who are only beginning the journey I have been on for the last 14 years—and hopeful that they will continue to speak out, and that women like Rep. Louise Slaughter will continue her fight to see things change, and that by telling my story, I will let someone one there know that they are not alone, even though it most certainly feels that way.
Fun Stuff
If you’re a science geek, and a movie fan, this site is for you. I love it! (Via The Disgruntled Chemist.)
Belated Friday Blogrollin’
Trying to manage the links list both here and at Big Brass Blog is clearly too much for my puny brain to handle. I left some people off the list that I intended to blogroll today.
Bitch, PhD.
MediaGirl
Rampaging PMS
Iddybud
Trish Wilson
Body and Soul
This Space for Rent (The People’s Democratic Republic of Ross!)
Check ’em out.
A Slight Indulgence
Yesterday (and the day before), we had a very lively debate on religion at Shakespeare's Sister, which generated more comments than any other topic before at this blog, and although there were many commenters all contributing on a topic about which people have extremely deep feelings, it stayed a civil (and thereby productive and interesting) discussion the entire time.
To that end, I just want to say thank you.
I don't know why I'm blessed with such amazing, thoughtful, and just generally cool readers, but I sure am grateful for all of you.
(Especially since you'll allow me the occastional rant when something really gets my goat.)
Read-ems
Echidne on Peacekeeper Babies. Seriously. Go.
Oliver Willis on what happens when the President makes the demands of radicals gain legitimacy.
Mahablog on Hillary rising, who says, in part:
The Dems are not getting it. We don't want a candidate who moves right to find "common ground" with the wingnuts. We don't want a candidate who has ever provided butt cover for Bush. We don't want a candidate who voted for that abomination of a bankruptcy bill (Biden).Amen.
Dems are preparing to package Hillary into their idea of a marketable political product. Everything from her speeches to her hair style will be focused-grouped to death, and eventually she'll be made over into whatever some Beltway "consultants" decide is what people want, and off she'll march to the 2008 nomination. And then they'll wonder why sales are off.
I'm hoping the Blogosphere has a major impact on the 2006 mid-terms. Then the Washington powers that be would be given notice that they have to haul their heads out of their butts and pay attention to us.
…and His Heart Ain’t In Great Shape, Either
Building on my last post about the president’s rather curious priorities, here’s yet another example of Bush’s selective concern for his electorate:
Native Americans across the country -- including tribal leaders, academics and rank-and-file tribe members -- voiced anger and frustration Thursday that President Bush has responded to the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history with silence.You know what, Clyde? I don’t think so, either. Unless, of course, it was a poor white community, or one which looked decidedly blue on an electoral map, or for any other reason didn’t tickle his political fancy. See, Bush just continues to prove that he doesn’t give a shit about anyone unless he’s going to garner more political capital that he can spend on behalf of furthering the agenda of his beloved corporatists or throwing a bone to the voracious fundies, who are so determined to claw their way to preeminence that they ignore the corporate monolith-favoring policies of which their great leader is so fond, that will eventually come back to bite them in their poor, bankrupt, minimum-wage, no-healthcare, no-legal recourse asses.
Three days after 16-year-old Jeff Weise killed nine members of his Red Lake tribe before taking his own life, grief-stricken American Indians complained that the White House has offered little in the way of sympathy for the tribe situated in the uppermost region of Minnesota.
"From all over the world we are getting letters of condolence, the Red Cross has come, but the so-called Great White Father in Washington hasn't said or done a thing," said Clyde Bellecourt, a Chippewa Indian who is the founder and national director of the American Indian Movement here. "When people's children are murdered and others are in the hospital hanging on to life, he should be the first one to offer his condolences. . . . If this was a white community, I don't think he'd have any problem doing that."
The reaction to Bush's silence was particularly bitter given his high-profile, late-night intervention on behalf of Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman caught in a legal battle over whether her feeding tube should be reinserted.Yeah, it tells you what an absolute plonker he is.
"The fact that Bush preempted his vacation to say something about Ms. Schiavo and here you have 10 native people gunned down and he can't take time to speak is very telling," said David Wilkins, interim chairman of the Department of American Indian Studies at the University of Minnesota and a member of the North Carolina-based Lumbee tribe.
Even more alarming than Bush's silence, he said, is the president's proposal to cut $100 million from several Indian programs next year.Alarming. Right. Par for the motherfucking course.
Why is it that every time there’s some group that’s been offended, ignored, affronted, or otherwise slighted, or conversely, cynically celebrated as a cause de jour, by Bush & Co., a quick look at the budget shows massive cuts in funding to some sort of program or other that would have benefited them?
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, in an informal discussion with reporters Tuesday, said: "Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who were killed."How about instead of thoughts and prayers, you put that $100 million back into the budget? If you can’t, because your rampant warmongering and insistence on further padding the pockets of the already-wealthy with further tax cuts won’t allow such “discretionary spending,” maybe you ought to just shut the fuck up.
Brain Dead
In addition to the myriad of other hypocrisies of the Bush administration that the Schaivo case has pointedly highlighted, this might be the ultimate cherry on top of the gigantic sundae of unmitigated temerity (hat tip WTF Is It Now?):
According to doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., 60 percent of the wounded soldiers coming back from Iraq have traumatic brain injuries.That’s right. Bush’s proposed 2006 budget includes cutting a $9 million program for treating people with traumatic brain injury, which completely eliminates the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Federal Traumatic Brain Injury Program. The Traumatic Brain Injury Act of 1996 was passed
Unfortunately, the Bush administration has recently completely zeroed out funding for the Federal TBI Act, which provides exactly this kind of help.
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the conduct of expanded studies and the establishment of innovative programs with respect to traumatic brain injury, and for other purposes.This endeavor, however, was considered expendable by the President who now undermines the checks and balances of our system of government, issuing an edict from the executive branch to direct the legislative branch to undermine the judicial branch. Willing to subvert one of the fundamental tenets of our democracy, he was not willing to earmark $9 million for the continuation of a program that studies traumatic brain injury—despite its importance in developing possible treatments for fully 60% of our returning wounded soldiers. Support the troops indeed.
And note—the program did not require a specific amount of funding to keep it alive. Indicating a $1 million budget, or even a $100,000 budget, for the program would have sealed its reauthorization, but refusing to fund it at all was its death sentence.
I guess there are some plugs worth pulling when nobody’s paying attention.
Sign of the Apocalypse #154: Pat Buchanan Agrees with the Rabbi
Crooks and Liars has the video of the Daily Show on the media coverage of the Schiavo Fiasco here.
Friday Limerick
Ode to the Real Euthanasia Candidates (or, Please Put Us Out of Our Misery)
The revolting yet priggish Bill Frist,
Is first on our expendables list.
I can tell him, “So long!”
With no hope I’m wrong
That he’ll never, ever be missed.
Next up is our leader King George;
Who hopes an alliance to forge
With bigwigs galore
And wingnuts who ignore
The two groups’ vast moral gorge.
And what of Jebbie, his brother?
In him we find yet another
Who in Terri sees
A chance to please
Both the fundies and a ballbreaking mother.
And lastly the prick Tom DeLay
As repugnant as long is the day.
Oh please pull the plug
On this hideous thug
And send him at last Satan’s way.
Friday Blogrollin'
Here we go:
Preposterous Universe. Go read anything; it’s all good.
Liberty Street, whose author generously shares a very emotional story here from the perspective of someone who lost a daughter and shows with subtlety that it can be done privately and with dignity.
Alas (a Blog). This is a recent favorite.
Heraldblog. All good, all the time.
Oliver Willis, who should have been on my blogroll a long time ago.
Who Says It's Women Who Can't Hack the "Food Fight?"
Yesterday, over at Big Brass Blog, a brave (ahem) anonymous commenter said about me:
[F]rom your writing in general (vitriol, aggression, hate, intolerance) I'd say you were one of the least respectful people I've encountered in my blogosphere.My response:
Yeah, I'm a regular Ann Coulter of the Left.
Not that witty, I know, but I just couldn’t be bothered arguing. Who cares?
Why share this little anecdote? Well, to point out that criticisms of bloggers come with the territory. Sometimes they’re fair, and sometimes they’re not. But hey, as they say, if you can’t take the heat, then get out of the kitchen. Or, perhaps more accurately, if you can’t ignore the heat, then stop turning on the stove.
Yesterday, a lesser known blogger posted a critique of Atrios’ Eschaton that was critical, but respectful. Atrios responded by providing a link, which was followed by the Atriosian Army, who proceeded to do the dirty work that Atrios no doubt knew that they’d do. It got ugly—and it didn’t have to.
Pam’s got the whole story at Big Brass Blog.
Bush and Political Opportunism, Part 9,826 and Counting
The Sun-Sentinel reports (link via Raw Story):
As the second hurricane in less than a month bore down on Florida last fall, a federal consultant predicted a "huge mess" that could reflect poorly on President Bush and suggested that his re-election staff be brought in to minimize any political liability, records show.Read the rest at Big Brass Blog.
Two weeks later, a Florida official summarizing the hurricane response wrote that the Federal Emergency Management Agency was handing out housing assistance "to everyone who needs it without asking for much information of any kind."
Open Thread
Okay, the religion discussion is getting hard to keep up with across three different comments threads, so let's continue it all here, shall we?
Keep going, everyone--it's superb! I've really enjoyed reading all your thoughts on the topic.
Read-Ems
Busy today, but here are a few of my recommendations from around the blogosphere:
Rox Populi on Wolfowitz’s girlfriend (oy!), who ii just so happens works for the World Bank. Huh.
Amanda at Pandagon on the unlikelihood of an uproar if Terri Schaivo were, instead, a man.
Echidne on professional screeching harpy Peggy Noonan’s assertion that the Dems are the pro-death party. (Yes, the Dems—which is far, because we did lead the country into a war of choice based on cooked intelligence. Oh wait. That wasn’t us at all, was it?)
Tangentially, Body and Soul on the unfortunate side effects of torture…like death.
The Green Knight wants to know What’s the Matter with Florida? (Paging Ms. J….)
And Bark Bark Woof Woof makes a good point about the Dems:
The Democrats, wisely or not, have been largely silent in the Schiavo case itself. …[T]hey have probably learned their lesson that when your opponent is going out on a limb, the best thing to do is let him carry his own saw while you stand back and watch. That may draw the ire of some, but in the long term it may just work.Originally, I was fairly certain that the Dems were stealing defeat from the jaws of victory again, but the longer this goes on, the more I think that this is a case of giving the GOP enough rope with which to hang themselves if ever I saw one. It would have been nice if no Dems had voted for intervention, but failing a unanimous opposition, just keeping their collective mouth shut and letting other Republicans (like John Warner and Chris Shays) point out how far the party has fallen, is a damn fine idea.
(Also, there’s plenty of good stuff going on over at Big Brass Blog, as always.)
Eugh
JJ’s got a fun (though rather revolting) post up over at Big Brass Blog that starts with this:
Fast food is one of the 4 main food groups that keeps me alive. I have tried dieting but just can't get past my recommended daily allowance of cheeseburgers. However, this makes me think twice about the quality of food that I am consuming……and ends with this:
…tell us what has been your worst fast food experience?I know you’ve got stories to share, Shakers. Head on over.
Question of the Day—Part Two
This one’s for secular liberals.
As part of the first question, I outlined my own difficulties with trusting and understanding religious liberals, but maybe your beef with them (if you have one) is different. If so, this question’s for you.
Secular libs, what’s your main problem with religious liberals?
(Please note, this is specifically about religious liberals, not the fundies with whom we all have a problem.)
Question of the Day--Part One
This one’s for the religious liberals.
I think part of the reason that there are many liberals who feel intolerant toward religious people is that when the fundamentalist adherents of any of the major religions are questioned about positions that seem anti-women’s equality, anti-gay, anti-choice, and even, in some cases, racist, they can cite places in their religious texts that do indeed inform those positions, if not overtly advocate them.
A source of pride among liberals is, of course, a respect for logic and reason, and many secular liberals, myself included I must admit, struggle to reconcile a respect for religious liberals when it seems as if calling oneself a Christian (for example) and also denouncing the idea that homosexuals are hellbound sinners (for example) requires a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty.
I have a minor degree in theology, and I’ve studied with some brilliant Jesuits who were, frankly, unable to ever give me a satisfactory answer to that question. I’ve heard everything from the Bible has gone through many translations to hate the sin; love the sinner, but none of them really convinces a secular (and rational) liberal that either you’re not relying on some kind of convoluted mental gymnastics to justify or erase the parts of your religion you don’t like, or that you’re not quite as dependable a political ally as you assert.
So I’m opening it up for discussion. It’s part and parcel of the discussion started below, which I found quite fascinating, and now I want to see if we can talk about the real problem, which is, to put it succinctly, a mistrust of religious liberals.
Religious libs, how do you square your own tolerance and egalitarianism with some of the more intolerant and decidedly illiberal teachings of the religion to which you subscribe?
Me and You and God
I consider myself an atheist, in the sense that I have no relationship with or belief in any type of anthropomorphic god. I believe there is plenty about this existence that is outwith the capacity for human understanding, much of that falling into a category that might best be described with that muddy and imprecise word "spiritual," but I am, for all intents and purposes, an atheist.
That said, I have respect for those who are religious, as long as they don't wield it like a weapon and regard my beliefs with the same respect I extend to them—a reciprocity generally determined by one’s opinion about whether religion belongs in the public sphere. Once it starts creeping beyond privacy and into a place where I am expected to conform to religion’s expectations of its adherents, that’s when the problems begin.
There have been a lot of problems with just that sort of invasiveness lately, and, consequently, the intensity of the response of the nonreligious to such incursions has escalated. To that end, the Green Knight, a liberal Christian blogger, whose contributions on religious topics are invaluable, has written an interesting piece on the intolerance of the Left toward religion, questioning, quite fairly, whether much of the contempt shown toward religion (and, by association, religious people, irrespective of their politics) was birthed by possible injustices meted out by the religious (or just plain old intellectual snobbery), and noting, quite rightly, that we’re going to have to excise those demons if we don’t want to alienate potential allies.
It’s a dialogue we need to have on the Left; undeniably there is a backlash against religion as a result of the insurgence of religiously driven wingnuttery that has become such a prominent part of the national debate, but many liberals have become incapable of tolerating the merest presence of godspeak. And not all religious people are intolerant; indeed, some of the kindest, most inclusive, most welcoming people I’ve known have been devoutly religious, letting a belief in God inform a rare and wonderful empathy, rather than narrowly construe their boundaries of acceptance into something odiously judgmental and unrecognizable as an intention of the tenets of any major religion. It is tempting, and easy, to cast the religious in together as a uniform lot, especially when the most vitriolic of their numbers are the ones who seem to have the loudest voices. But good godly people dissociate themselves from that garbage, and we should be willing to do the same.
Cackle...Sob...Cackle
Me4President on irony:
In an effort to appeal to both liberals and conservatives, I have come up with a new campaign slogan. I think the "I support the troops, Fuck the President" is good. But I need those swing voters. Therefore me and my crack campaign staff of myself has come up with a new one.It kind of makes me laugh and cry at the same time.
I believe everyone has a right to live and I am willing to kill to protect it.
Karl Rove will be so jealous. Especially after I turn it into a fake news story.
Compassion Fatigue
Mahablog hits the nail on the head:
This is going to sound very cold, I realize, but it's the honest truth: I was reading the umpteenth news story quoting poor Mrs. Schindler pleading for somebody to step in and "save" her daughter, and a wave of pure, unadulterated annoyance swept over me. I suspect I am not alone.Indeed. And with 87% of the American populace wanting to be put out of their misery were they in the same position as Terri (and I tend to believe that most of the remaining 13% don’t fully comprehend what her situation actually is), most probably feel little compassion for the Schindlers, and a great amount for Terri (and her husband, Michael). The Schindlers, you might reasonably suspect, have lost the plot, and are not acting out of anything but self-interest at this point. And you’d be right (as noted by Emma at the American Street):
The Schindlers have had the Florida governor and legislature at their disposal for the past several years, and now the United States Congress and the President have taken unprecedented steps to intervene in their little family drama. Today the Schindlers are shopping federal courts to find one that will give them what they want. I don't watch much television news, but I bet the Schindlers are on somewhere on cable nearly 24/7.
I don't know what percentage of Americans have watched a hospitalized love one die, or what percentage have dealt with heartbreaking questions about DNR orders, life support, organ transplants, etc. I suspect that a whopping majority of people over the age of 40 have been there and done that. And, nearly always, these decisions are made quietly and privately. It doesn't occur to most people to make a federal case out of their grief.
How many of these Americans are looking at the Schindlers and thinking, who the hell do you think you are? How many are thinking, I loved my baby, my child, my wife, my father just as much, but I could let them go without setting the whole country in an uproar.
One of the most enlightening documents is the Guardian Ad Litem report that had to be filed under Florida’s Terri’s law(which was later found unconstitutional). Several sections spoke to the Schindler’s motivations. Here’s the most horrifying:That’s some seriously fucked up shit right there. (I’d like to say something more eloquent, but my brain is only capable of its basest animal reaction to that gruesome revelation, I’m afraid.)
Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition, and trail testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery. There was additional, difficult testimony that appeared to establish that despite the sad and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of her environment given the persistent vegetative state. Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state.
My sympathies for the Schindlers dried up right about here, out of fear, I think. Or horror. They would keep a mindless, limbless husk in a bed, because it would make them feel joy?
Terri doesn’t need saving anymore; the Schindlers do. Although I fear they are as far beyond help as is their daughter.
(Associated reading: Digby on the very real possibility that this is an example of “‘conservative’ people who want to control their children's lives long past the time they are legally and morally allowed to do so.”)
What She Said
What She Said’s Morgaine is putting together a list of liberal male bloggers. Now, I could have just put in all the names of my favorites, but instead, I’m going to let you go over and introduce yourself to Morgaine.
She has a great blog (which has now been blogrolled) and a kickass blogroll rife with cool bloggrrls, which you should definitely check out while you’re over there.
Have fun!
Question of the Day
Finish this simile:
Tom DeLay is as corrupt as...
Or, if you don't like that one:
The Bushies' radical agenda is as scary as...
Have at it!
McCain’s Slide into Irrelevance Continues Unabated
Not to be all Seinfeldian about this or anything, but what is with this guy?!
Sen. John McCain said Tuesday the conclusions of a commission investigating intelligence failures on weapons of mass destruction should not lead to new questions about whether the Iraq war was justified. "America, the world and Iraq is better off for what we did in bringing democracy," McCain said…(Read the rest at Big Brass Blog or Ezra’s juke joint.)
The Bozo Show
All right. I have just about had it with these plonkers (link via AMERICAblog):
IMAX theaters in several Southern cities have decided not to show a film on volcanoes out of concern that its references to evolution might offend those with fundamental religious beliefs.
[…]
The film, "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," makes a connection between human DNA and microbes inside undersea volcanoes.
[…]
IMAX theaters in Texas, Georgia and the Carolinas have declined to show the film, said Pietro Serapiglia, who handles distribution for Stephen Low, the film's Montreal-based director and producer.
"I find it's only in the South," Serapiglia said.
Critics worry screening out films that mention evolution will discourage the production of others in the future.
"It's going to restrain the creative approach by directors who refer to evolution," said Joe DeAmicis, vice president for marketing at the California Science Center in Los Angeles and a former director of an IMAX theater. "References to evolution will be dropped."
Seriously, get with it, people! This ain’t the fucking dark ages. Nitwits!
By the way—my disagreement with something never stopped me from learning about it (which is why I can always out-debate fundies on the topic of what’s actually in the Bible, for example). In fact, I’ve always found that challenging my own beliefs by investigating alternative theories to be an enlightening experience. It’s called knowledge; check it out sometime.
And if your faith is so fragile as to warrant your avoidance of anything that might challenge it, it’s not really much of a faith at all, is it?
Take Me Out to the Ballgame
I’ve noticed there are quite a few baseball fans who frequent Shakespeare’s Sister, and those who have been around here awhile know that I am the most tragic of baseball fans—a diehard Cubs fan (still currently in mourning over the loss of my beloved Alou).
So the following is for all of you, and is also an homage to my dad, to whom I owe many of the good parts of myself, including both my passion for politics (even though my political leanings are perhaps not what he had hoped) and my passion for baseball.
When my dad was a kid, he was a spectacular baseball player—a pitcher. He had an awesome arm that fell to the mercy of its own talent; this was just before regulations were instituted prohibiting pitching limitless consecutive innings, and so at 21, he blew out his elbow after years of overuse. However, the year before, he had the opportunity to pitch against Satchel Paige.
Satchel was 65, and had arrived in West Lafayette, Indiana as part of a tour of retired players. An exhibition game was held with the local team, and my dad had the great honor of being the starting pitcher. The game was called for rain; the All-Stars won, in no small part due to the paralyzing awe that plagued their young opponents.
After the game, my dad was able to speak with Mr. Paige, and their picture was taken for the paper.
I’m 30 years old, and I have heard this story countless times. Last night, I asked to hear it again. And I will ask to hear it again and again, each spring, as I anticipate the start of a new season.
Play ball!
Attention!
For any California readers that might pass through, I give you Marching Orders, a great blog for Callyfornyuns. March on over and check it out.
Republican Renaissance?
On Monday, I asked where all the “real Republicans” are, and, if there are any of them left, whether they could be bothered to try to reclaim their party from the lunatics who have hijacked it. Well, it seems like the tenuous stitching that holds together the mangled remains of the party of Lincoln may well have been put under enough pressure by the Schiavo case that the unholy alliance between the corporatists and the Jesus freaks, upon which the GOP depends for its supremacy, is beginning to tear at the seams…
Read the rest at Big Brass Blog.
It's Du-MAH
Cool:
The mystery of who killed Admiral Nelson is to be explained in a previously unknown novel by Alexandre Dumas, author of "The Three Musketeers," discovered by a French researcher and going on sale in June, the book's publisher said.Get ready, Barnes and Noble. Here I come.
"Le Chevalier de Sainte-Hermine" (The knight of Saint-Hermine) is a classic Dumas adventure story about the start of the Napoleonic empire and includes a swashbuckling account of the battle of Trafalgar, according to Jean-Pierre Sicre of Phebus press.
"The description of Trafalgar is undescribably brilliant. And in it we learn that it is the hero of the book - the chevalier himself -- who shoots Nelson," he said.
[…]
The 900-page book appeared in serial form in a French newspaper and lacked just a few chapters when Dumas died in 1870. Claude Schopp, the Dumas specialist who made the discovery, has added a short section to bring the tale to its conclusion.
"The first clue goes back to 1988," said Schopp.
"I was trying to check a detail for an article and after months of research had to look through copies of 'Le Moniteur Universel.' Imagine my surprise when among the spools of microfiche I came across an almost completed serial signed Alexandre Dumas," he said.
"For a quarter of an hour, in contact with this treasure, I had the feeling I had the world in my hands," he said.
[…]
The opening lines of the novel are classic Dumas:
"'Here we are in the Tuileries,' said first consul Bonaparte to his first secretary Bourrienne, as they entered the palace where Louis XVI made his penultimate residence between Versaille and the scaffold. 'We must make certain that we stay here.'"
The grandson of a Haitian slave, Dumas was a hugely prolific writer, producing more than 250 works including plays, novel and even a cookbook. He remains today the most widely read French writer around the world. He died in 1870 at the age of 68.
Mobilize
In all of the coverage of the Schiavo fiasco across the liberal blogosphere, I’ve seen a lot of outrage (as well there should be) and a lot of frustration (as well there should be) and a lot of shock (as well there should be) with the government’s astonishing decision to get involved. What I haven’t seen is much mourning for how truly tragic a day it was for the American democracy.
I have been called a conspiracy theorist, a pessimist, a radical, and every name in the book for sounding alarms about what this administration is doing to our country, and yet, yesterday, we saw the legislative branch acting against the will of the people (by a significant majority, according to any poll one reads) at the behest of the executive branch to supercede the decisions of the judicial branch. Two fundamental breaches of the major tenets of democracy—overtly acting against the will of the people and a complete disregard for our system of checks and balances. And bear in mind, this was indeed a bipartisan decision.
I despair for the future of America that the trust between the people and our elected representatives is regarded with such apathy by the former and treated with such contempt by the latter. Opportunism has always been a part of the political landscape, but never has it come at the price of sacrificing the very principles of democracy; never have the precepts upon which this country was founded been subverted with such cynical proclamations of goodness when the motivation was sheer avarice, the unmitigated desire to retain power at all costs.
Yes, that is reason to be outraged, and frustrated, and shocked. But it also reason to grieve. That in which we believe, that love of country and democracy which motivates us each day to do what we do, to inform ourselves and others, is slipping away from us, and in large part, we react with the jaded sense that nothing really surprises us anymore. The resignation to such insufferable behavior is frightening.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, call me a pessimist, call me a radical, call me every name in the book. But it doesn’t change the reality that we are on the brink of losing that which is dear to us, perilously close to going over the edge, where the damage to our democracy becomes irreparable.
America is so big, and more importantly, so wealthy, that the average American experiences little difference in his or her day-to-day life regardless of who is president. It takes so very, very long for the reality of bad (or good) policy to affect personal circumstances—and even then, often such changes are untraceable for those who are not immersed in politics. Most people do not see, nor care about, the changes that are happening in our government; most people wouldn’t believe you if you tried to tell them. By the time they “get it,” it will be too late.
So what are we to do? We’ve recently discovered our ability to push stories into the mainstream media. It’s really our only chance. We must repeat over and over and over again that we will not let this stand; we must point out that this maneuver was not simply foolhardy or politically expedient, but in fact seditious; we must identify those who seek to destabilize our system of checks and balances as the treasonous opportunists that they truly are; we must make noise. There are traitors among us, but it is not we on the Left, who rightfully question bad policy and are branded as such for our refusal to toe another party’s line in furtherance of the mindless nationalism they substitute for new and good ideas. It is instead the ruling party, who promote a radical ideology wrapped in a flag that used to stand for the very principles they disdain. We must recapture that flag from these scornful interlopers, and with it, everything it is meant to represent.
We must make noise about their intentions, before it is too late.
