Shakesville

“I’ve got a Mandate!”

The first month of President Bush’s second, triumphant term has sure been a doozy, hasn't it? Let's review:

•Fanatical bigot James Dobson played “I’ve got a Mandate!” and leds [sic] a mob of pitchfork wielding bible-thumpers in telling Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, the GOP, and President Bush that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. This despite the desire of a vast majority of Americans to do no such thing. Specter got the nod as Judiciary Chair, but not after publicly supplicating
himself to Dobson and others.
•House Majority Leader Tom DeLay played “I’ve got a Mandate!” and strongarmed his Republican colleagues to change their own rule and allow him to continue wielding his hammer even if he is indicted in the Texas redistricting scandal.
•Continuing to sow their oats, House Republicans played “I’ve got a Mandate!” and torpedoed the intelligence reform bill. This was done either in defiance of Bush or because unlike the American people the President agrees that keeping brown people out of the country is more important than national security.
•Iraqi insurgents, who thanks to Bush double as the newest tag-team partners of al Qaeda, played “I’ve got a Mandate!” and almost made November the deadliest month for American soldiers since the invasion last March. Meanwhile, the U.S. continued to play a losing game of whack-a-mole, demolishing a relatively empty Fallujah while insurgents continued to wage civil war in Mosul and other cities.
•Oklahoma Congressman James Istook, apparently at the behest of a mysterious cabal at the IRS, played “I’ve got a Mandate!” and tried to slip language into the appropriations bill that would allow Senators and their staff to look at people’s tax records.
•Partisan Hack and new Director of the CIA Porter Goss played “I’ve got a Mandate!” and purged the agency of the only people in the administration who actually got it right on Iraq and the War on Terror, making clear in a memo to staffers that analysts’ first duty is to Bush, not the facts or, god forbid, the security of the American people.
•Congress played “I’ve got a Mandate!” and raised the national debt ceiling by a mere $800 billion to $8.18 trillion. In a related story, even the dollar has gotten into the act, dropping faster than Bush’s election day percentage of the Hispanic vote, which now appears to be closer to 40 percent than 44.

To recap, in just one short month, Bush and the Republican Party have taken the mandate from an allegedly realigned country and disregarded the desire of the vast majority of Americans to:

•Keep abortion safe, legal and rare
•Be safe from terrorist attacks
•See a competent resolution to the Iraq quagmire
•Have a strong economy •Have some privacy

Phew! Bush was right: Presidenting is hard work!

Open Wide...

Grim

From Salon's War Room:

Twenty-one months after the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. military is on track to post its highest monthly death toll of the war. According to the Associated Press, as of Tuesday, at least 134 soldiers had been killed in November, one shy of the watershed mark set in April this year. As has been the pattern in Iraq for months, U.S. troops are taking roughly 95 percent of the coalition casualties. Since president Bush appeared on the USS Abraham Lincoln in May, 2003, standing beneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner, approximately 1,100 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq. Nearly 400 have died since June 28, when sovereignty was officially handed over to Iraq.

Of course the fighting in the insurgence outpost of Fallujah -- a battle put off by U.S. commanders until after the U.S. elections -- is driving the spike in causalities. The AP notes, "On Nov. 8, U.S. forces launched an offensive to retake Fallujah, and they have engaged in tough fighting in other cities since then. More than 50 U.S. troops have been killed in Fallujah since then, although the Pentagon has not provided a casualty count for Fallujah for more than a week."

When the final tally for November is calculated sometime in December, the official death toll will likely top 140, a rate of U.S. soldiers killed not seen by the Pentagon since the Vietnam War.

Open Wide...

The newest installment of The Progressive’s McCarthyism Watch focuses on the plight of eighth-grader Stephen Truszkowski from Middletown, Delaware, whose choice of attire has evoked threats of suspension. The t-shirt, made by Stephen’s stepbrother, had two handwritten messages on it:

On the front it said, "The Real Terrorist Is in the White House."

On the back, "End the Tyranny."

Claude McAllister is the principal at Everett Meredith Middle School in Middletown, Delaware, and he didn't take kindly to Truszkowski's shirt. The 13-year-old had worn it to school two times before, according to the News Journal, which broke the story. Both times he had complied with the school's demand that he take the shirt off or put something over it. But this time he wanted to challenge the school's policy.

[…]

"I wore the shirt to school, and they told me to cover it up, and I just refused," he
says. "The school counselor came to my homeroom and he took me to the principal's office, and I spent all first period arguing with the principal about whether the shirt was appropriate or not."

Truszkowski says the principal admitted to having a personal stake in the issue. "He said he was angry because he had a son and a nephew over there," Truszkowski says. "I said I respected them 100 percent, but I didn't respect the reason why they were over there."

According to Truszkowski, Principal McAllister said he was being disruptive and told him that "some of our rights stop right there when we walk through the school door."

McAllister also called Truszkowski a terrorist and taunted him by saying that he should wear a shirt that says, "I'm a terrorist," Truszkowski recalls.

"Why would I do that?" he says he asked the principal.

"Because you're pretty much just splitting the school in half," McAllister said, according to the student.

So, let me get this straight. Stephen should wear a shirt that says, “I’m a terrorist,” because he is splitting the school in half by wearing a shirt that says, “The Real Terrorist is in the White House.” If politically splitting a school in half makes someone a terrorist, then what, pray tell, would Mr. McAllister call someone who splits an entire country? If, by chance, it’s a terrorist, then I believe that makes Stephen’s shirt rather accurate by Mr. McAllister’s own definition. I suppose the only bone he might have to pick with the sentiment is that Bush should be wearing the shirt, instead of Stephen.

McAllister did not return my phone call. Nor did the superintendent of the Appoquinimink School District. It has a policy that says students can't wear clothes that are distracting or that hinder the educational process, the News Journal noted. Lillian Miles, a district spokeswoman, told the paper that Truszkowski's shirt "has now become a distraction."

I don’t suppose that has anything to do with the kid being called down to the principal’s office each time he wears it.

Truszkowski himself is eager to challenge the school's policies-in court, if he has to.

"I'm not fighting it just for me or anything," he says. " I want students in fourth or fifth grade and students in the future to be able to express themselves on issues without being suspended."

Stephen’s story is just the latest in a string of stories about heavy-handed tactics being used against proponents of this administration. It starts from the top down. When torture tactics are used without hesitation, when our intelligence agencies are purged of those who refuse to march in lockstep, when groups of dissenters are infiltrated by government operatives, we can expect nothing less of those who share the administration’s views when they find themselves in a position of authority over anyone who disagrees.

Children will be punished, people will be fired, and families will be harassed; this cannot let us dampen our determination. Indeed, these continued assaults on the demonstrations of our sensibilities should serve to motivate us as we persist in our efforts to hold back this tide of subjugation. It waits to wash over this great land at the first sign of a flagging vigilance against its current.

Open Wide...

Ed Paschke

I read last night that the artist Ed Paschke died over Thanksgiving. If you’re not familiar with his work, a gallery can be viewed at his website.

His art was bold and unique, and people tend to have a visceral reaction to it—they either loved it or hated it. I fall into the former category, having originally fallen in love with Matinee (below), and later attending a Paschke exhibition at the Art Institute of Chicago, where I became enamored with the rest of his work. It’s atypical of the art I tend to appreciate, but for some reason it moved me. At the exhibition, I bought a small reprint of Matinee, which now, almost half my life later, I still hold onto—tucked into a box of mementos from an age where life was nothing but art and books and films and wonder, set to a soundtrack of The Smiths.

This doesn’t really have anything to do with politics. Ed Paschke just happened to be a man whose art fascinated and thrilled me. Thanks for sharing your vision with us, Ed.

Open Wide...

Al Rules

BlondeSense heavily excerpts the transcript from this Sunday’s Meet the Press, which featured Dr. Jerry Falwell, The Faith and Values Coalition; Dr. Richard Land, President, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention; Reverend Al Sharpton, National Action Network; and Reverend Jim Wallis, Convener, Call to Renewal, Editor, Sojourners Magazine. Check out the MSN transcript to see the full exchange between the right- and left-leaning men of faith.

My favorite quote, however, comes from the Rev. Al Sharpton on the question of trying to legislate a Christian morality:

We're talking about whether we have the right to impose what we believe on people that may disagree with us. Even God gives you a choice of heaven and hell. We don't have a right to tell people we're going to force them to live in a way that we want them to live…

Even God gives you a choice of heaven and hell. Absolutely brilliant.

Say what you like about the Rev. Al (and yes, I know he has baggage), but he has been on fire recently. He was awesome in the primary debates, and even better at the Democratic Convention. I don’t think he’s Oval Office material (having never held an elected office, for a start), but I don’t believe he thinks he is, really, either. His unique voice comes from the fact that he will likely never be a viable candidate, which allows him to say things that someone like Senator Kerry cannot.

I’m glad to have Rev. Al on our side. He says it like it is, and I like that about him immensely.

Open Wide...

Matthew Shepard News

20/20 recently aired a special that sought to undermine the hate crime definition of Matthew Shepard’s murder. I see no intrinsic value to their decision to air this appalling revisionist history, but nonetheless, they did. Pam’s House Blend has a good synopsis of what aired, and also reprints Matthew’s parents’ response to the show.

And I will, of course, have to revoke Andrew Sullivan’s Tentative Conservative Hero Award, since he saw fit to take part in the whole sordid debacle. One step forward, two steps back, Sully.

Open Wide...

Talk about an Evolution, well….

Majikthise has an interesting post addressing the evolution vs. creationism issue. (How and why this is even still an issue is a topic for another day.) It lays out a very reasoned argument as to why those who advocate evolution cannot be accused of forcing a secular worldview on creationists, which I suspect is an argument many of us would be wise to have at hand in the foreseeable future.

Open Wide...

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

It was nice to take a little break from the news, I have to admit. To get us all back into the swing of things, I’ll start with some good news. Mr. Furious directed me to an article by Leonard Steinhorn at Salon (you may need to watch an ad to read it) that takes a look at the hope for progressiveness’ future. Apparently, when all the old fogies die, things will start looking up:

How little the "moral values" voter represents the future is evident in surveys of today's youth, who may be the most inclusive, tolerant and socially liberal generation in our nation's history. From the media we hear all about the controversies of the so-called culture war, such as the occasional school superintendent who shuts down all school clubs to keep gay and straight high school students from forming "gay-straight" clubs. But what we don't hear is that these clubs have quietly formed in about 2,800 schools nationwide. In fact, research on young people confirms that they have little patience for intolerance, that they have no problem accepting homosexuality, that most even support the right of gay people to marry.

Indeed, today's youth reject many of the social rigidities, prejudices and orthodoxies of old. As many as half of all teens say they've dated across racial or ethnic lines, including more than a third of white teens, and most of these are "serious" relationships. On race, homosexuality, premarital sex, gender roles, the environment and issues involving personal choice and freedom, younger Americans consistently fall on the liberal and more tolerant side of the spectrum.

If younger voters were the only ones with these attitudes, social conservatives might be able to lay claim to a "moral values" mandate for a very long time. But younger voters represent the mainstream much more than the initial exit polling would indicate. The illusion of a predominant "moral values" voting bloc has much to do with the fact that the most traditional and socially conservative Americans, pre-baby boomers, are living much longer lives and voting in very large numbers -- skewing exit polls and thus our image of the mainstream. Once younger voters begin to replace them, the socially conservative vote will return to the margins of American life.

I would have liked to see Steinhorn address in some way the tendency for people to trend conservative as they age, although perhaps that’s simply not quantifiable.

And, although Churchill famously said (to paraphrase) if you’re not a liberal at 20 then you don’t have a heart, and if you’re not a conservative at 40 then you don’t have a brain, I wonder is it really that people’s views change, or is it that the world changes, and someone who seems a liberal by 2004 standards will seem a conservative by 2024 standards? Hopefully, it’s a combination of the two, as neither option seems very attractive. I’d like to think that my views will change to reflect a world that is changing.

Open Wide...

Leisure Reading

Interesting diary at DailyKos that's worth a read, including the comments thread. Written by a former conservative, the author and the commenters make some really great points about individualism, empathy, change of hearts, and other issues that have some real relevance to those on the Left who might seek to change hearts and minds. Check it out.

Open Wide...

Happy Thanksgiving

I'm thankful for Mr. Shakespeare's Sister. (I guess that would make him Shakespeare's Brother-in-Law.) I'm thankful for my family. I'm thankful for Mr. Furious and his partner, Mr. Curious, for Ben Grimm, for the Evil Herbivore, for (Fuck-off-I'm) The Queen, for the World's Biggest Alice Cooper Fan, and all my other friends, even the conservative ones.

Happy Thanksgiving, everybody.

Open Wide...

Mr. Furious and Shakes

Highly illogical.

Open Wide...

Oh Shit

Salon's War Room Quote of the Day:

"My fellow conservatives, we have waited our entire lives for the chance the American people have given us in the next two years. I pledge to each and every one of you, we will seize it."

-- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Tx., regarding the outcome of election '04 in a recent speech.

Open Wide...

Identity Crisis

After signing up on the DraftHoward site, which is dedicated to generating support for Howard Dean as DNC chair, I received an email from the site’s proprietor, Kevin Thurman, which included some thoughts about the future of the party. One passage in particular struck me:

This is a contest about who we are. Are we a party that says, "We're for everything the president says, except for the truly horrible things"?

What a great question. It’s one our party is really struggling to answer at the moment.

On the one hand, we have Harry Reid, our new Democratic leader, wheeling and dealing with the administration to secure a position for his personal nuclear advisor on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in exchange for letting 175 of Bush’s appointees take office without contestation. As part of the deal, Reid’s choice, Gregory Jaczko, will be granted a 2-year term.

A Reid spokeswoman, Tessa Hafen, said that the agreement "in no way prohibits (Jaczko) from being renominated."

However:

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who opposed Jaczko's nomination, said he was comfortable with the arrangement after, he said, the White House assured him Jaczko would not be renominated by the president after his two years.

Huh. And although Reid was keen to secure Jaczko’s appointment because of their shared opposition to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas,

[u]nder the compromise reached on the NRC nominations, Jaczko agreed not to participate in any Yucca Mountain related matters for the first year of his two-year term.

So, somebody explain to me how this was a good deal.

On the other hand, we have House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi still fighting the good fight against the outrageous IRS provision in the omnibus spending bill that still has yet to be official axed.

"The assault on taxpayer privacy was not a simple mistake, and Democrats will not let Republicans sweep it under the rug," Pelosi said.

Pelosi seems to be answering Thurman’s question in a manner befitting a Democratic leader. Reid, however, seems to be exemplifying more of the capitulation tactics that have plagued our party for the last four years. So which is it, Dems? Are we really going to oppose this administration’s incompetent and dangerous policies with everything we’ve got, or are we only going to take exception to the truly horrible things?

Open Wide...

Post Waste

AMERICAblog has a follow-up to the WaPo’s anti-gay advertising insert here. (If you still haven’t seen it, RawStory.com is now hosting the zipped file—click here to download.) I honestly don’t have the time to dedicate to writing the rant and rave the Post’s response truly deserves. Check out John’s post to see some of the other disgusting myths about gay men perpetrated by one of the insert’s authors. Briefly, however:

"We will not allow something hateful to go in the paper," Post Publisher Boisfeuillet Jones Jr. said, indicating he did not believe this incident involved a hateful message. "Gay marriage is a public issue and matter of public debate, and we believed its point of view has a right to be expressed."

First of all, nice name.

Secondly, this statement is entirely different than the suggestion (made pitifully by Marc Rosenberg, manager of corporate and public policy advertising for the Post) that it's simply an advertisement. Saying that the content of that insert was a point of view that has a right to be expressed arguably falls just short of an explicit endorsement of the expressed opinion. There's no debate, however, that the statement breathes legitimacy into the claims of the insert. Sure, I believe someone has the right to express the opinion that Mars is populated by giant green apes, but if I publish a periodical that has any integrity, I don't give that person space (paid or otherwise) to advance such ludicrous claims.

Post Ombudsman Mike Getler: "They might have insisted more that this be in a format that was clearly not a magazine. You could argue that the disclosure could have been larger. But the Post did not commit a sin by accepting it."

Interesting wording, 'commit a sin.' I sincerely doubt that anyone wrote to the Post accusing them of sinning; rather, it was likely that, like myself, people wrote demanding an explanation for the printing and distribution of what amounted to glorified propaganda. I’m curious whether the Post would have considered it a sin to reject the incoherent ramblings of this "Christian" group and their obvious agenda. Doesn't this strike anyone else as a particularly odd word choice to invoke in their defense of this piece? I find it highly disturbing that the ombudsman would use the language of the group advancing this anti-gay message in his response to complaints against it. It seems very strange and inappropriate to me, and somehow unprofessional, to include any reference to "sin" in this exchange. That's giving a wink and a nod to the authors of the piece, in my opinion.

John Aravosis suggests the following action, which I recommend, in addition to canceling your Post subscription, if you have one:

Contact the Post's ombudsman, Mike Getler. Try to explain to him why you consider this flyer (below) hateful, and be sure to ask him how the Post would feel about a similar ad about Jews or blacks and their physical inferiority to other races and peoples, and how that relates to those minorities not deserving civil rights:

- ombudsman@washpost.com
- (202) 334-7582

Open Wide...

Stupid is as stupid does...

For those of you unfamiliar with the comings and goings of Britain’s Royal Buffoons, you should know that a former Royal employee, who is claiming that she was passed over for promotion due to sexual discrimination, is suing our dear Prince of Wales. In the media fracas that inevitably followed, a memo was leaked from the Prince’s office, which made his feelings on the matter quite clear:

What is wrong with people now? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities? This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of a child-centered system which admits no failure. People seem to think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history.

It’s not very often that I agree with Prince Charles - after all, this is a man who talks to his houseplants, but in general I think his clumsily expressed sentiment to be a good one. The Prince has, of course, been guillotined in the mainstream press for what seemed to many an elitist put-down, but more serious commentators have adopted a less hysterical interpretation. Andrew Sullivan, writing in The New Republic (subscription required) had this to say:

And this, of course, cuts to the chase of the meritocratic project. The inequalities of ability are far more crushing than the inequalities of a rigid class system. And the great mixed blessing of a democracy in which everyone has a chance at success is that inequality of results seems crueler and starker. It cannot be blamed away.

Sullivan’s comment is interesting to me because I think it explains how, in the middle of the Information Age, the fundamentalist right and their champion, Dubya, have been able to enjoy so much success. It had never occurred to me before how hard it must be to be stupid in a world that values information, and the ability to interpret it, above all else. It’s no wonder these people are pissed off; especially when, as Sullivan says, “It cannot be blamed away.” That these phillistines, in a desperate search for validation, have retreated into theologies that celebrate ignorance, and voted ignorant people into office should come as no surprise. They have no place in the modern world, they know it, and so they’re fighting desperately to change it.

Unfortunately for us, there seem to be an awful lot of stupid people: 59 million or so just in the United States alone.

Open Wide...

Updates

Greetings to new posting member Ben Grimm, who no doubt wants pie and a Coke, even though he doesn't need to eat.

Also, there's a new contact link at right. Email with topic suggestions, blogs that should be included in links, etc. Long, rambling missives about why I'm an idiot also seem popular. Bring it on, Righties.

Open Wide...

Sigh

Why does the Rude Pundit always make me laugh and cry at the same time?

Open Wide...

National Perks

I think these wingnuts have always existed, but now they’re being given a scarily prominent voice in the mainstream media. There’s some disagreement about whether the Bush administration is really going to cater to the conservative Christians as much as they hope, but there’s no doubt that the media is honoring their perceived mandate by publishing each new ridiculous demand, thereby giving them a legitimacy they never before enjoyed.

For roughly a decade, a film has been shown to visitors at Washington's Lincoln Memorial, depicting historic events that have taken place there -- from civil rights marches to antiwar demonstrations.

[…]

"It showed only those liberal, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marches," said [the Rev. Lou] Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition.
Sheldon's influential Christian conservative group took its complaint to the government's top levels -- "so they could reach down and work their system and cleanse in a proper manner and make it fair and balanced," he said.

Sheldon would like film of some conservative marches intercut as well, though it is unclear whether any major conservative marches have taken place at the Lincoln Memorial itself, which is the film's focus.

The National Park Service is currently reviewing the contents of the film and debating whether it should remove images that Sheldon finds inappropriate -- including, for example, one visual of a protester holding a sign reading: "The Lord is my shepherd and knows I'm gay."
Some Park Service personnel resent having to edit the film.

"They felt that there was a political effort to rewrite history, to edit out gays, feminists, war protesters," said Jeffrey Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit group.

I don’t think I’m going out on a limb here by suggesting that Park Service personnel might also be resentful that the National Park Service would even consider editing the film based on one man’s opinion of its content. Does my opinion, as blogmaven of Shakespeare’s Sister, that the aforementioned visual doesn’t bother me carry the same weight?

The fight over who controls the portrayal of history is playing out all over country, from the Lincoln Memorial to the Grand Canyon.

Park bookstores at the Grand Canyon now sell the book "Grand Canyon: A Different View," which contradicts science, saying the Grand Canyon was formed by the great flood from the Bible story of Noah.

The book was written by a "born again" river guide who writes that his view of the canyon's being millions of years old changed after he "met the Lord. Now, I have 'a different view' of the Canyon, which, according to a biblical time scale, can't possibly be more than about a few thousand years old."

Letters to the park service from leaders of the scientific community protest the inclusion of the book alongside those based on science.

"The book is not about geology but, rather, advances a narrow religious view about the Earth," wrote seven presidents of scientific organizations -- including the Paleontological Society, American Geophysical Union and Geological Society of America -- in a December 2003 letter. "We urge you to remove the book from shelves where buyers are given the impression that the book is about Earth science and its content endorsed by the National Park Service."

Despite the National Park Services’ statutory mandate to “promote the use of sound science in all its programs, including public education," the book remains on their shelves. One man writes a book that is denounced by multiple leaders of the scientific community, and the book keeps its place. This is beyond an overextension of an alleged mandate; this is total acquiescence to extremism. There may very well be an appropriate place for a book suggesting that the Grand Canyon owes its existence to the great flood, but it is not at a federally-funded park site that promotes sound science.

"During the Clinton administration, it's like we felt like we lived in outer Siberia," Sheldon said, "and [during] this past administration, it's like we died and went to heaven and got a preview of what's to come."

“What’s to come” being, of course, making those hedonistic, heretic liberals feel like they live in outer Siberia.

Open Wide...

“I’ve got a Mandate!”

More Leisure Reading

Grim

Ridge Resigns

Onward

Ed Paschke

Al Rules

Matthew Shepard News

Talk about an Evolution, well….

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

Leisure Reading

Happy Thanksgiving

Mr. Furious and Shakes

Oh Shit

Identity Crisis

Post Waste

Stupid is as stupid does...

Updates

Sigh

National Perks

Welcome to Shakesville

Search This Blog

Archives

Recent Comments

Donate

Twitter Updates

Credits and Stuff