tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44246987997589111792024-02-20T13:50:36.758-08:00LEFT HOOK! THE BLOGclassicliberal2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04943197092480960084noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-68072921035415769092012-08-24T07:17:00.001-07:002016-10-12T11:21:22.420-07:00The Daily Caller Ineffectually Finkels on the PressThere was <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/21/the-top-four-stories-the-media-has-downplayed-to-help-obama/" target="_blank">an op-ed over at the Daily Caller</a> on Tuesday in which a lawyer named Mendy Finkel tries to have his cake and eat it too regarding one of the right's favorite boogeymen, the "liberal media."<br />
<br />
The premise of the article, if it's to be taken seriously, is that the the national corporate press is liberal and in the tank for Barack Obama to such an extent that it downplays stories that would advance liberal causes in order to protect him.<br />
<br />
The first big hole in that is apparent right away: the Obama has governed from the center-right throughout
his administration. If the press is protecting him, it certainly isn't doing so out of any <i>liberal</i> impulse. Finkel lists four stories that would have damaged Obama if they'd been adequately covered; every one of them provides an example of right-wing media bias. None of them support Finkel's curious premise.<br />
<br />
The first is the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, an environmental disaster
by any definition. Finkel is quite correct in his assertion that coverage of the story was
inadequate[1] and that, as "the scale of the disaster grew, the media’s
coverage of it declined." Adequate coverage would hurt the
corporate scum that caused the disaster, which, as Finkel concedes,
would have been just fine with most liberals. It would have led to
louder calls for regulation, which liberals have wanted for years. And
we are, after all, talking about an <i>environmental </i>disaster--a liberal,
not conservative, issue.[2] The Obama could have been, should have been
but wasn't roasted for having called for further offshore drilling <a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/ongoing-tragedy-of-obama-energy-chapter.html" target="_blank">only a few weeks before</a> the disaster occurred but that would have been criticism for a right-wing policy, not a liberal one. Finkel fails to say how he he thinks adequate coverage of the spill would have damaged the Obama, other than to assert that Obama "was initially trying very hard to ignore the spill." He's so lost in his fantasy about the "liberal media" that he asserts, "under a different president, the media would have treated this story like the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Hurricane Katrina, and the Enron scandal … combined." A fantasy he apparently doesn't consider to have been rather dramatically deflated by the <i>actual</i> coverage the story received.<br />
<br />
His second example is "due-process-free executions."<br />
<br />
In setting this up, Finkel presses his fantasy further, asserting that "reporters and pundits were outraged" by the Bush administrations' illegal wiretapping operation. In reality, of course, the New York Times uncovered that story in 2004 then expressed its "outrage" by sitting on it for a year so George Bush Jr. could be reelected. When the paper <i>did</i> get around to telling the public, it faced repeated calls, from the punditocracy, that it be prosecuted for having revealed it. The initial story was covered then basically ignored and Bush and the rest of those responsible for it--a systematic criminal enterprise in violation of the constitution itself--were allowed to walk and even to continue what they were doing.<br />
<br />
Finkel then contrasts this with the treatment of the Obama administration's announcement that it had killed a U.S. citizen without due process. Finkel is careful to avoid providing <i>any</i> details of that incident and for good reason. The U.S. citizen in question was an alleged terrorist operating abroad, who was killed by a U.S. drone strike.[3] Finkel's efforts to contrast this with the illegal Bush wiretapping scheme amounts to a lie in itself, because the assassination program under which this fellow was killed was established by the <i>Bush</i> administration, which carried out such extrajudicial executions on a regular basis. Finkel, swimming through his fantasy, writes that "it's probably safe to conclude that if Obama decided to reinstate waterboarding, the national media would give him a pass on that as well" but the press was as uninterested in the murder program under Bush as it has been under the Obama. <a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/obama-backs-bush-murder-policy.html" target="_blank">Some of us</a> found it reprehensible under both--we're called liberals.<br />
<br />
Finkel's item #3 is poverty. Finkel spins a brief fantasy wherein the press just can't wait to cover poverty during Republican administrations but has ignored the matter under Obama, when the poverty rate "is higher than it has been in decades." A press only looking to slam Republicans could just as easily write tons of stories today about the present awful poverty rate and note--correctly--that it is the result of the depression that occurred under the Bush administration. It could write those same stories about how poverty has continued to be unnecessarily high because congressional Republican obstructionism prevents doing anything about it and Republican austerity policies prolong the economic mess. But it hasn't. In reality, the press, in general--unlike those darn liberals--rarely cares about poverty, regardless of who is in office.<br />
<br />
Finkel's fourth item is rather bizarre. It's Wikileaks and his case, in this instance, is based on either ignorance of basic facts relating to the subject, or, as with the drone strike business, he knows the truth and is choosing to lie about it. He outlines it like this:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Poor Julian Assange. Had he only released those classified government documents prior to Obama taking office, he would have been heralded by the media as an international hero: a man who risked his life and freedom to expose government misdeeds and speak truth to power. It would have been 'Pentagon Papers Part II.'<br />
<br />
"But because it was Obama who was running the War on Terror at the time of these leaks, the mainstream media had no use for any information that could cause problems for the president."</blockquote>
<br />
There's lawyerly weasel-wording aplenty here. Wikileaks opened for business and started receiving and publishing "those classified government documents" in <i>2006</i>, during the <i>Bush</i> administration, and to date, most of the relevant U.S. government documents it has released, even during the Obama administration, have been Bush-era. Finkel is quite correct that Assange has been vilified by much of the press and that much of the press has been entirely disinterested in the info Wikileaks has provided. What he conceals is that this was just as much the case under the Bush administration as it has been under Obama. Wikileaks info has included things that are, indeed, often scandalous but they're mostly Bush scandals and the press--unlike a liberal press--has ignored them, regardless of who was in office.[4]<br />
<br />
And that's pretty much it. Finkel starts from the premise that Obama is a liberal and that, because of this, the press is in Obama's corner; he says the press will do just about anything to support the Obama, even though, by his own account, Obama isn't governing as a liberal at all; he says that, in order to support the liberal Obama, the liberal press is ignoring stories that would, if covered, further liberal goals. If you can find the logic in any of that, I'd say you have everyone else--Finkel included--beaten. If his article is intended as satire, it's <i>brilliant</i>. If, however, it's meant to be taken at all seriously, Finkel probably shouldn't give up his day-job.<br />
<br />
Good job, Daily Caller. As usual.<br />
<br />
--classicliberal2<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
[1] That's not to say the story didn't receive saturation coverage right after it happened, just that the coverage was totally inadequate. The big story there was one of corporate malfeasance, whereas the
press coverage (outside of MNSBC's liberal hosts, who covered it more than anyone) mostly focused on the
consequences of the disaster and technical matters of containment.<br />
<br />
[2] Such issues shouldn't be liberal vs. conservative but are because conservatives insist on making them so.<br />
<br />
[3] Finkel's management of the facts is so complete that he doesn't even name the fellow who was killed--Anwar Al-Aulaqi.<br />
<br />
[4] The Obama administration's treatment of Bradley Manning,
Wikileaks' most famous leaker, has been disgraceful, but is also ignored
by the press.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-73213074584641363822012-05-23T21:02:00.002-07:002017-03-07T11:40:59.145-08:00America's Fascism Problem 2: Concentration Camps For The QueersEarlier this month, I kicked off this series of articles <a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/americas-fascism-problem-part-1.html" target="_blank">with a piece about a North Carolina "pastor"</a>
who, in the midst of that state's debate over an anti-gay ballot
initiative, urged his followers to violently abuse their young children
if said children show what his fevered brain regarded as early signs of
homosexuality. His antics--and, more importantly, the uniform approval
they received from his congregation--are a disturbing example of the
ugly fascism that has, for years, gestated, across the U.S. in, among
other places, reactionary fundamentalist churches.<br />
<br />
A
few weeks later, the same state birthed another example of it. "Pastor"
Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church of Maiden, North
Carlolina used his Mother's Day "sermon" as <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d2n7vSPwhSU" target="_blank">an opportunity to go on a rampage against homosexuals</a>.
In rhetoric that rather inescapably invokes an obvious historical
precedent, he suggests "lesbians and queers" be rounded up, dropped into
concentration camps behind electrified wire and left to die:<br />
<br />
"I figured a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers... Build a great, big, large fence--50 or 100 mile long--put all the
lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the
same thing with the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence
electrified 'til they can't get out... And you know what? In a few
years, they'll die out... They can't reproduce."<br />
<br />
Worley
was particularly upset about President Obama's recent endorsement of
same-sex marriage and left no doubt about his own political
affiliation, blatantly violating the tax-exempt status granted his
church in railing against<br />
<br />
"our president gettin' up and
sayin' it was all right for two women to marry or two men to marry. I
tell ya' right now, I was disappointed bad, and I tell ya' that right
there is as sorry as you can get. The Bible's agin' it, God's agin' it,
I'm agin' it and if you've got any sense, you're agin' it... Hey, I'll
tell ya' right now, somebody said 'who you gonna' vote for?' I ain't
gonna' vote for a baby killer and a homosexual lover!"<br />
<br />
In
the immediate aftermath of this, Worley essentially went into hiding
and his church's website was taken down. CNN, in a sudden,
uncharacteristic decision to practice journalism, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/05/23/ac-kth-charles-worley-sermon.cnn" target="_blank">uncovered an audio recording of an old Worley sermon</a> from 30 April, 1978, one that suggests his poisonous preaching on this subject is far from a recent innovation:<br />
<br />
"We're
livin' in a day when, you know what, it saddens my heart to think that
homosexuals can go around, bless God, and get the applause of a lot of
people. Lesbians and all the rest of it. Bless God, 40 years ago, they'd
a' hung 'em, bless God, from a white oak tree. Wouldn't they? Amen."<br />
<br />
Those
"strange fruits" left hanging from white oaks--and other trees--in the
South 40 years before this remark were, of course, those unfortunate
enough to be black and in the South at a time when Jim Crow was law and
backed up by racist terrorism. In 1938--exactly 40 years before Worley's
remarks--Southern Senators filibustered to death a major effort at an
anti-lynching law to put a stop to this. Worley's nostalgia is telling.<br />
<br />
His
fantasies about the murder of homosexuals are hardly unique though.
They've been a perpetual fixture on the reactionary fringe for decades.
Like so many fringe views, these have been creeping into the
"mainstream" for years.[1] North Carolina's anti-gay ballot
initiative, like similar initiatives passed in about 30 states, are a
reflection of the same impulses.<br />
<br />
--classicliberal2<br />
<br />
--- <br />
<br />
[1] Only a few days ago, Mississippi state Rep. Andy Gipson <a href="http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/19/mississippi-2/" target="_blank">called for putting homosexuals to death</a>.
Responding to an effort to get him to apologize for this, he replied
"To be clear, I want the world to know that I do not, cannot, and will
not apologize for the inspired truth of God’s Word."Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-10120742800340752692012-05-18T10:58:00.000-07:002017-03-07T11:38:38.494-08:00The "War On Women"In the debased swamp that passes for political discourse in the U.S.,
a recurring fad is to dub everything a "War On" this-or-that. Ye humble
editor isn't much of a fan of such fads but there does, at present,
exist a phenomenon on the far right that liberal commentators have
dubbed the "War On Women" and it's difficult to argue against this being
an appropriate label for it.<br />
<br />
For
the last few years, reactionaries in both the federal and state
governments (mostly Republicans) have, indeed, tried to make what could
fairly be called a "war" on women. There are an infinity of ugly but
relatively unsensational examples; Wyoming Republicans' <a href="http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/14/according-to-a-wisconsin-bill-single-moms-are-a-child-abuse-threat/" target="_blank">efforts to pass legislation</a>
that would force the state to "emphasize nonmarital parenthood"--in and
of itself--"as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect";
Wisconsin Republicans' recent <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/07/wisconsin-s-repeal-of-equal-pay-rights-adds-to-battles-for-women.html" target="_blank">repeal of a law</a>
regarding gender-based wage
discrimination, which effectively closed the doors of that state's court
to women trying to bring such cases against their employers; upon
assuming the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives last year,
Republicans <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/09/gop-spending-plan-x-ing-out-title-x-family-planning-funds/" target="_blank">passed legislation</a>
that would completely eliminate all federal funding of family planning
for low-income Americans. The bill was aimed at eliminating funds for
Planned Parenthood, one of the oldest, largest and most important U.S.
providers of health care services to poor women. Because of Planned
Parenthood's connection to abortion, the sponsors of the legislation
falsely
portrayed it as an anti-abortion measure; in reality, it's been a rule
for decades that no federal funds can be spent on abortion. Republicans
in state governments across the U.S. have launched similar anti-Planned
Parenthood efforts.<br />
<br />
It's when one gets to such sexy
bits--or, more particularly, the bits having to do with sex and women
having control over things related to it--that the particularly dark and
ugly aspect of all of this becomes apparent.<br />
<br />
<span class="commentBody" data-jsid="text">Congressional Republicans have tried to enact legislation that would <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/us/politics/senate-kills-gop-bill-opposing-contraception-policy.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank">allow employers to deny insurance coverage</a> for birth control if said employer
claimed to have a moral objection to it. In Arizona, the original state
Republicans' variation on this would have allowed such objecting
employers to demand, of their female employees who were prescribed
contraception, private medical records proving they weren't using the contraceptives
merely <i>for</i> contraception and would have allowed those who failed to comply to
be fired. For many reactionaries waging this "war," the privacy of women doesn't even register as a concern. Tennessee Republicans <a href="http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/tennessee-conservatives-wage-war-on-womens-right-to-privacy-in-medical-treatments/question-2527873/" target="_blank">have pressed for a law</a> requiring the Dept. of Health to collect and <i>publish</i>
detailed information from the private medical records of every woman
who has an abortion in the state and also to publish the names of the
doctors who performed the procedures. Georgia has contemplated similar
legislation.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="commentBody" data-jsid="text">The
premise of a lot of the misogynistic law-making is that women are
simply incapable of making decisions on their own. They need male
legislators to require them to endure onerous waiting periods before
they can obtain abortions</span><span class="commentBody" data-jsid="text">, since, being stupid children, they just rush into such things. In <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/us/23sdakota.html" target="_blank">South Dakota, Republicans passed legislation</a>
requiring that women seeking abortions first attend a "consultation" at
a "crisis pregnancy center," noxious facilities staffed by
anti-abortion zealots who aren't medical professionals of any stripe and
whose M.O. is to attempt to frighten and guilt women out of
abortions using an astonishing array of lies and
misinformation--assertions that abortions lead to, among other things,
cancer, infertility, mental illness and suicide, none of which have any
basis in reality.</span> Republicans
in 27 states have crafted (and, in most of those states, passed)
<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/transvaginal-ultrasounds-coming-soon-state-near-you" target="_blank">laws requiring medically unnecessary ultrasounds</a>
for
women seeking abortions, the idea being to show these stupid women the
"baby" they're looking to "kill." As most abortions occur in the
earliest stages
of pregnancy when no image can be obtained via a standard ultrasound
(because the developing tissue characterized as no different than a
fully developed human being is too small to be seen by the equipment),
this requires ultrasounds via vaginal probe--essentially state-ordered
rape.<br />
<br />
Some reactionaries seem to believe rape is just
something women made up anyway. In Georgia, state Rep. Bobby Franklin
(R-Marietta) decided he didn't like the word "victim" being used in
statutes regarding rape, stalking, domestic violence and other laws with
a gender
component; he introduced legislation to remove the word from said
statutes in connection with those crimes and replace it with "accuser."
Like far too many reactionaries, Franklin showed a contempt for women
that seemed to border on mental illness. For 9 years, he <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/02/miscarriage-death-penalty-georgia" target="_blank">repeatedly introduced legislation</a>
that would completely ban abortion in Georgia and would require a
criminal investigation of every known miscarriage, with those who have
suffered them having to prove they had no part in it or face life in
prison or even the death penalty. Mercifully, Franklin, last summer,
suffered a massive heart-attack and died, leaving the world no poorer by
his absence from it.<br />
<br />
If Franklin's miscarriage rule
sounds particularly extreme, it is, in fact, a view endorsed by every
contender in this year's Republican presidential race, all of whom have expressed support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution itself
that would define a human egg, from the moment a sperm hits it, as a
human being with full rights. Among other things, this would completely
ban abortion; it would ban embryonic stem-cell research; it would, in
effect, ban in vetro procedures for the infertile; given the fantasy
reading its authors insist upon, it would ban hormonal birth control
(which is to say, most birth control); and it would require a federal
murder investigation of every known miscarriage, all as <i>constitutional </i>requirements. As I said, every Republican campaign, including the eventual candidate Mitt Romney, endorsed this insane proposal.<br />
<br />
When it comes to legal assaults on women,
it seems no proposal is considered too extreme to be tried. Last year, Rep. Joe
Pitts (R-PA) introduced the Orwellian monikered "Protect Life Act" <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/new-gop-law-would-allow-hospitals-to-let-women-die-instead-of-having-an-abortion.php" target="_blank">which would have legally allowed</a>
hospitals, when faced with a woman whose pregnancy has suddenly gone
crisis, to simply let her die rather than performing an abortion to save
her life or facilitating her transfer to a facility that <i>would</i> perform the procedure. Republicans in the U.S. House <a href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/05/15/adams-bill-is-racist-elitist-homophobic-and-anti-victim" target="_blank">just launched a full-bore assault</a> on the previously uncontroversial Violence Against Women Act. In South Dakota, Republicans <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers" target="_blank">tried to pass legislation</a>
that would legalize the murder of doctors who perform abortions. The
measure was eventually shelved but within days, Republicans in Nebraska <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/nebraska-justifiable-homicide-abortion-bill" target="_blank">tried to enact it</a> in that state.<br />
<br />
Earlier this month, New York state Sen. Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx) unleashed <a href="http://politicker.com/2012/05/01/senator-ruben-diaz-hitler-was-pro-choice/" target="_blank">a brainless anti-abortion tirade</a> in an email to his supporters, in which he essentially asserted that black is white and up is down:<br />
<br />
"Hitler was pro-choice. He chose to send the Jews to Auschwitz. That was
not their choice that was Hitler’s choice. Murderers,
assassins and criminals are pro-choice. They choose to put a gun to your
head and take your life. That is not your choice. That is their
choice."<br />
<br />
These sorts of comparisons, of abortion to the
Holocaust and of the pro-choice faction to Nazism, are
omnipresent in U.S. anti-abortion rhetoric. History, of course, tells a
very different story. In Nazi Germany, all
family planning clinics were closed with guns in the immediate aftermath
of the Enabling Act, advertising or even displaying contraceptives was
banned and abortion was made, in the words of historian Richard
Grunberger, "one of the most heinous crimes in the Nazi statute book."
Doctors who performed the procedure were initially sentenced to
6-to-15-years in prison; later, this was upped to the death penalty. Hitler preferred his enemies practice abortion and when in a position to dictate, often gave them
as little choice in the matter as would the the anti-choice crowd in the U.S..
This reflects the legal state of affairs under every other major fascist
movement as well. In fascist Italy, contraception was banned and existing laws against abortion, which had been treated as essentially dead letters before il Duce, were reinforced and penalties significantly stiffened. In Spain, the liberalized abortion approach of the Republican era was stamped out; women who had abortions were subject to up to six years in prison and their medical records and sexual histories--real or fabricated--would be publicized by the state. Fascists have ever been advocates of the misogynistic activities I've been
describing throughout this article. When it
comes to these issues, life under such regimes was exactly as it would
be under the rule of the U.S. reactionaries waging the present "War On
Women."<br />
<br />
An
ugly protofascism is seeping into our politics everywhere, to the point
that "mainstream" presidential candidates are now entirely comfortable
and even enthusiastic about embracing measures so extreme that, only a
few years ago, they would have marked these candidates as marginal clowns unworthy of
serious national consideration (as, indeed, should be the case today and would if the corporate press didn't act as an enabler of this poison). This really is a "War On Women." And it needs to stop.<br />
<br />
--classicliberal2classicliberal2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04943197092480960084noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-35695451900666362912012-05-04T18:02:00.001-07:002012-05-04T18:02:59.556-07:00America's Fascism Problem, part 1A most damnable habit of the national corporate press is to obsessively follow real-life soap operas. The Media Monopoly will randomly pick up on some sensational local story--guys who kill their wives or girlfriends and missing children are particularly popular--and launch a saturation-coverage feeding frenzy. Suddenly, it's all the national press can talk about. For weeks and sometimes months, news of great national importance is left on the cutting-room floor in favor of hours upon hours devoted to these stories, which, regardless of their outcome, are of absolutely no consequence to the lives of anyone, other than those directly involved.<br />
<br />
One story that made a few national headlines this week structurally falls into this category, but it actually does have a larger national significance, which probably accounts for the relatively sparse coverage it has received--certainly no feeding frenzy, here. On the surface, it's about an evil preacher in North Carolina who raved at his congregation about how, if they had young children who were displaying any characteristic that may be interpreted as homosexual, they should violently abuse said children. The greater significance of the story is that it gives a little glimpse into the reeking sewer of blackest fascism that has, for years,
gestated in right-wing fundamentalist churches across the U.S. <span class="commentBody" data-jsid="text"> America has a serious fascism
problem. These sorts of churches, like a lot of religious radio and television, are one of its
incubators.</span><br />
<br />
North Carolina is on the verge of voting on one of those anti-gay-marriage ballot initiatives that have become so painfully common in recent years, and it stirred the soul of Sean Harris, the putrid pastor of the Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville, North Carolina. His inadvertent public service is that, in his Sunday sermon, he elected to give us all a look at the abyss of hatred that lurks behind such initiatives. Have a 4-year-old that acts "a little girlish"? The good pastor Harris says you should be "squashing
that like a cockroach." If the boy has a limp wrist, "Dads,... walk
over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch, o.k.?"
And so on. A mere transcript doesn't do his performance justice. Listen to it <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfOr8rnc6Yk&feature=share" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
What you're hearing, there, isn't just some mouthy, mentally deranged asswipe in North Carolina. What you're hearing is the voice that puts human
beings in ovens. It's a voice that, in various degrees of extremity, is so often
reflected in the larger body of Republican party politics today. Sometimes, it's helpful to hear it in its unvarnished,
not-cleaned-up-for-public-consumption form. When the story became news, Harris offered up <a href="http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/52121214356.pdf" target="_blank">an "apology"</a> in which he revealed even more of his character:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I did not say that children should be squashed. I have never suggested children or those in the LGBT lifestyle should be beaten, punched, abused (physically or psychologically) in any form or fashion. The gospel is the only source of power sufficient to deliver anyone from the power, penalty, and presence of all forms of sin, including but not limited to, all forms of sexual immorality, including homosexuality."</blockquote>
But apparently not extended to either advocating the violent abuse of children or lying about having done so. Having absolved himself of these, he goes on to say he may have "unintentionally offended" some, and chosen his words poorly. And he can't resist claiming this became a story because "various blogs" have engaged in "the intentional framing of my words without the context of the entire sermon." He's the victim, you see? He doesn't explicitly say "the liberal media" or "homosexual activists" were behind misrepresenting him, but that's the <i>only</i> part of the standard litany he leaves out.<br />
<br />
Earlier this week, Lawrence O'Donnell, on MSNBC, offered <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/lawrence-odonnell-sean-harris-sermon_n_1473705.html" target="_blank">a razor-sharp takedown</a> of this cretin and his "apology."<br />
<br />
Where he fell short is the same place most of the rest of the coverage fell short: O'Donnell focused
on Harris himself.<br />
<br />
Harris's behavior brought this to public attention, but he's not the real story, here. The real story, which is far more horrible, is the reaction of the assembled churchgoers while Harris raves on. He's saying things any human being with even a trace of decency in them would find utterly appalling, infuriating, and absolutely unacceptable, yet no one--not a one of them--offers even a single word in objection to it. No one gets up and leaves. Instead, it's all "amens" and "hallelujahs" and "yeahs" and
laughter and applause. In his non-apology, Harris writes "I have received nothing but notes of appreciation and support from the people within the church." If there's one thing Harris has said throughout all of this that can be believed, that's it.<br />
<br />
That's the real story.<br />
<br />
And that's the real horror.<br />
<br />
North Carolina votes on that anti-gay amendment Tuesday.<br />
<br />
--classicliberal2Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-8704727316102134902011-12-15T04:44:00.000-08:002021-04-01T08:19:18.873-07:00The Filibuster Revisited, part 2Another round with Nice Guy Eddie over the filibuster. Eddie got things rolling <a href="http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-filibusters.html">here</a>, I <a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/filibuster-revisited-part-1.html">replied</a>, then he came back to it in <a href="http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-filibusters.html#comment-form">his "comments" section</a>. Here's my next installment:<br /><br />Many
years ago, I used to argue for doing away with the Senate entirely. I
haven't given that matter much thought in more recent years but I'd
probably still lean in that direction. It seems a lot bigger subject
than the one on the table though and, honestly, not really relevant to
the more narrow question of the filibuster. Feels like a bit of a
dodge, Eddie. But it's out there, so I'll offer up a few words on the
matter of the Senate's existence. Not to argue for its abolition--not
just now, anyway--but to make the case for why it's kept around.<br /><br />The
Senate was created in imitation of the House of Lords, to allow
societies' overdogs to act as a check on the more democratic House.
Senators were appointed by the state legislatures. That scheme failed miserably, democracy
eventually moved forward and we started directly electing them. An element of the
original rationale for the Senate does, however, remain: it was a place
where states would have equal representation, so the bigger, more
populous ones wouldn't be able to dictate everything that happens in
government. It isn't, in itself, democratic--it's a compromise that
allows democracy to go forward and it's one you can understand because
you've already made the argument about the alleged danger of allowing a
state of affairs wherein 6-10% of the population could theoretically
elect sufficient senators to "enact whatever they want to." Checks and
balances.<br /><br />One of the first and most basic rules of pragmatism is
"never let the perfect become the enemy of the good." In refusing to
accept the argument that eliminating the filibuster would make things
"better" solely on the grounds that it leaves the non-democratic Senate
in place, you're violating that rule. Things like getting rid of the
Senate and adopting these micro-districts about which you write may be
great ideas but they involve massive, radical, controversial change in
the basic structure of government. I'm a big one for radical change[1]
but if we're going to be pragmatists, those sorts of changes would
require multiple constitutional amendments and major, comprehensive
changes in the laws of every state in the U.S., while getting rid of the
filibuster is a simple matter of changing an internal Senate rule
that's arguably unconstitutional anyway. It's true that, in the Senate,
"when you’re talking 5-10% either way, you’re about half an order of
magnitude LESS than the 50% that a liberal democracy calls for to pass
legislation" but what you seemed to forget for a moment there is a)
that the Senate can't pass legislation on its own--it requires the much
more democratic House. And b) that with the filibuster in place, that
democratic body can't pass <span style="font-style: italic;">anything</span>.
And I'll go ahead and throw in c) the fact that the math has never
worked out that way. 6-10% of the population may theoretically be able
to combine and "enact whatever they want" but in practice, they never
have. In practice, the senators of 48.7% of the population (in the first
2 years of Obama) were able to block everything the senators
representing 74.9% of the population tried to do. No pragmatism-based <span style="font-style: italic;">or</span> democracy-based way to defend <span style="font-style: italic;">that</span>.<br /><br />"[S]aying,
'To defend the filibuster is to defend its abuse,' is no more profound
that me saying 'to do away with the filibuster is to defend the abuse of
those who can now act unopposed.'"<br /><br />...except they don't get to
act "unopposed" if the filibuster is removed. They still have to deal
with the more democratic House and with the president. This is the
democratic process; the filibuster is the negation of that process. If
you have any respect for that process, the two are <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span>
equal. They're not even close to it. I have no doubt at all that you
understand this (and that you do respect the process), but that
understanding left you when you wrote things like "if the Senate IS
undemocratic ON THE WHOLE, BY DESIGN, then one more or one less
undemocratic practice within that structure is, IMHO, immaterial." The
fact that the existence of the practice completely neutralizes the
democratic process[2] pretty much removes <span style="font-style: italic;">any</span>
pragmatic grounds for dismissing it as "immaterial." You say the
filibuster should be kept around to "protect the rights of the
minority" but it neither protects a valid right of the minority nor has
it <span style="font-style: italic;">ever</span> done so. It's just a backdoor way for the losers of an election to continue to rule, and in a democracy, that's not a "right."<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Does</span>
a defense of the filibuster equal, as I asserted earlier, a defense of
its abuse? It absolutely does unless one's idea for reform can prevent
the sort of abuse we've seen and here, I'm a bit disappointed you
didn't go into your idea of filibuster reform. It's true that I probably
<span style="font-style: italic;">would</span> be unmoved by it, but I'm certainly willing to listen.<br /><br />Perhaps we'll continue.<br /><br />--classicliberal2<br /><br />---<br /><br />[1]
I suspect your proposed micro-districts would prove quite unworkable
but I've been an advocate of proportional representation for years.
There are several ways to do it. Most are preferable to the way things
are currently done.<br /><br />[2] And when, as we've seen in recent years,
literally everything the senators representing 74.9% of the population
try to do is blocked by the senators of 48.7% of the population, the
points about the Senate end of the process being theoretically
undemocratic don't really hold a lot of water. Obviously, that relates
to the recent <span style="font-style: italic;">actual</span> situation
in the Senate and doesn't negate the criticisms arising from different
theoretical situations but it's another point a pragmatist probably
shouldn't overlook.
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-61732268044274532392011-12-14T17:57:00.000-08:002011-12-15T03:55:24.256-08:00The Kidnapper-In-ChiefIn what's getting to be a <span style="font-style: italic;">very</span> old story, the Obama, today, offered up yet another <span style="font-style: italic;">huge</span> example of why he deserves to be absolutely destroyed at the polls in 2012.<br /><br />During the previous administration, the "president" claimed the power to arbitrarily kidnap anyone--even U.S. citizens on U.S. soil--and throw them in a deep, dark hole forever. No courts, no lawyers, no appeal, no due process of any kind. Just label them a "terrorist" and they disappear. That such "powers" were, in reality, utterly illegal, totally unconstitutional, and, in fact, anti-constitutional didn't deter him for a moment. That "president" was a fascist son-of-a-bitch, though, and when it came to expectations, it was probably unreasonable to think one would get anything from a pig but a grunt.<br /><br />One expected a bit more, however, from a Democratic president who came into office as part of a huge Democratic electoral tsunami that drew its power from public repudiation of everything for which that prior administration stood. But, as it turned out, the Obama started letting people down before he'd even taken the oath, and that's been the story of his administration ever since.<br /><br />As my regulars will have no doubt noted, the legacy of the Bush administration is one of the matters that has persistently vexed ye humble editor. Bush waged steady, relentless war on the constitution, the rule of law, and open, accountable, democratic government, and, in the process, sewed the seeds of a <span style="font-style: italic;">monstrous</span> dictatorship. Those seeds need to be rooted out, without mercy, because if they're allowed to pass into precedent, they <span style="font-style: italic;">will</span> yield a monstrous crop in the future. The Obama stood against these abuses before the 2008 election, but since his ascension to the presidency, he has, time and time again, gone out to the field to tend, defend, and even nurture the poisonous fruits of that prior "president's" labors.<br /><br />Today, he was at it again. The Senate has attached, to the National Defense Authorization Act, a totally unrelated rider that codifies, into U.S. law, the Bush administration's asserted kidnapping powers.[*] The Obama initially threatened to veto the larger bill if this was included, but after some Senate tinkering with the wording of the rider that did absolutely nothing to change its substance, the White House announced, today, that the Obama gang would no longer advise the president to do so. The Senate passed it, then House immediately followed suit, and there's every indication the Obama will soon sign it.<br /><br />Through his actions, the Obama has forcefully marked himself as unworthy of holding the office of President of the United States.<br /><br />But then, what else is new?<br /><br />--classicliberal2<br /><br />---<br /><br />[*] As soon as this "power" is used, it would face court challenge, and, in a functioning federal judiciary, it couldn't withstand constitutional challenge. Unfortunately, America is burdened with a federal court system (and a U.S. Supreme Court, in particular) swamped with right-wing ideologues<span style="font-style: italic;"></span>. Some are mavericks on such issues, and may very well strike it down, but they're certainly no reliable check. And, in any event, the court process takes time, and the victims of the policy could be made miserable for a lot of years before the courts get around to ruling one way or the other.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-50823822065680975172011-12-13T22:40:00.000-08:002021-04-01T08:11:59.775-07:00The Filibuster Revisited, part 1Early last year, I went a few rounds with Nice Guy Eddie from "<a href="http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/">In My Humble Opinion</a>" on the subject of the Senate filibuster, him fer it and me agin' it. It started <a href="http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2010/03/filibuster-reform.html">here</a>, then continued <a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/democracy-filibuster-part-1.html">here</a> and <a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/democracy-filibuster-part-2.html">here</a>,
with remarks from both of us spread through the "comments" section of
both blogs in the great, totally disorganized manner that would come to
mark all of my more involved exchanges with Eddie.<br /><br />Eddie thought on the subject for a long time. Nearly two years! Yesterday, a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201112120009">ridiculous item on Fox News, reported via Media Matters</a>, inspired him <a href="http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-filibusters.html">to return to the subject</a>.
I've decided to post my reply here, as well as in his comments section.
I fear it's rather cursory but I don't think for a moment it will be
the last word in the discussion, so I've dubbed it "The Filibuster
Revisited, part 1":<br /><br />(A note: In order to have <span style="font-style: italic;">any</span> idea what's going on, I recommend reading our entire exchange.)<br /><br />In <a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/democracy-filibuster-part-2.html">my second piece on this subject from last year</a>,
I ran the same numbers you did but my results were that, "at present
population dispersal, just over 5.6% of the U.S. population, residing
in the smallest states (which contain 11% of the total U.S.
population), can theoretically elect a sufficient number of Senators
(41) to filibuster anything everyone else wants to do." You came up
with 2.3%. It's been so long I don't remember exactly how I did my own
calculation but it doesn't really matter--either result supports my
larger point.<br /><br />I also ran the then-current numbers about <i>actual</i>
Senate representation:<br /><br /> "...at present, Democratic Senators represent
74.9% of the population, while Republican Senators represent 48.7% of
the population (there being overlap between states that have mixed
Senate delegations). The minority is still running everything."<br /><br />I
pretty much addressed everything you wrote here back then. The
notion that we will get bad results without a filibuster is a)
absolutely true, and b) of absolutely no relevance. One either believes
in liberal democracy or one doesn't. If you do, you have to take the
good with the bad.<br /><br />Defending the filibuster necessarily entails
defending the abuse of it we've seen since Republicans lost control of
congress in 2006 and particularly since 2008. That abuse has literally
changed the constitutional order and is arguably unconstitutional.
More to the point though, it completely nullifies our elections,
rendering them meaningless exercises. This, too, is something one must
defend in order to defend the filibuster. In evaluating its potential
merits, one has to weigh this--a complete frustration of the democratic
process, every day of every week of every year, forever--against the
benefit of keeping it around, and in my view (and I think history
clearly supports me in this), any alleged benefit is mostly illusory.
No counter at all.<br /><br />I don't see any argument in its favor.<br /><br />--classicliberal2
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-89460349020832231592011-07-20T13:00:00.000-07:002011-07-21T15:58:22.969-07:00The Tragedy of the Obama: Debt-Ceiling EditionNiceguy Eddie, over at "<a href="http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/">In My Humble Opinion</a>," has <a href="http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2011/07/republicans-to-supermajority-of-america.html">offered up some thoughts</a> on the unpopularity of the current Republican position with regard to raising the debt ceiling. I thought I'd throw in a few of my own.<br /><br />Popular sentiment does, indeed, cut strongly against Republicans on this issue. It cuts against them in this same really big way on <a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/conservative-america.html">pretty much <span style="font-style: italic;">every</span> major issue</a>, and Eddie is right about there being absolutely no reason for Democrats to compromise with them about anything when it comes to this. Republicans are a minority party with a minority in government and no real public support behind what they're trying to do, here. The Democrats could put their collective foot down, offer nothing at all, and dare the Republicans to do anything except either fold like an accordion in the face of this, or stand firm and reap the disastrous consequences. There really is only one choice. Demos would be literally insane to allow Repubs to hold the U.S. hostage over a debt-ceiling increase.<br /><br />The reason offering nothing would work is the dirty little secret behind the entire debt-ceiling fight: Republicans, in the end, <span style="font-style: italic;">will</span> vote to raise it. The, broadly speaking, Big Money community understands the ruinous effects of a potential default, and won't allow their puppets, in either party, to bring one about. Voting against a debt ceiling increase is political theater, staged by members of both parties from time to time, but the ceiling is always raised, and, at the end of the current made-up "crisis," it will be, as well, and Republicans--a sufficient number of them--will be on board when the votes are counted. That will happen, regardless of what else may. Democrats don't have to offer any deal at all, much less make one. Anything they "negotiate" away is by choice, not anything dictated by necessity.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the Obama--as usual--is choosing to try to negotiate away anything and everything. From practically the moment he left the gate, he offered Republicans massive cuts to "entitlements" in exchange for their going along with some relatively minor revenue increases. That offer is still on the table. It shouldn't be. Republicans will probably hold out for more until nearly the last minute, but if there's even a chance enough Democrats will be willing to charge over the same cliff as Obama (and, as, practically speaking, it takes so few votes, there's a good chance of this), Republicans will eventually take Obama's deal.<br /><br />If this happens, Obama will go down in history as having accomplished what no Republican has ever managed--to begin the dismantling of Social Security and Medicare. Defending these things has traditionally been a signature issue with Democrats. Indeed, Republicans, politically speaking, committed mass suicide via their votes, last year and this, on the Ryan plan. Democrats could have used that to absolutely eviscerate the Republican congressional caucus from coast to coast. Unless, that is, Democrats can be made to agree to the same sort of ruinous cuts that makes that plan so unpopular. That would rather spectacularly neutralize it as an issue, but, more to the point, it would remove one of <span style="font-style: italic;">the</span> major reasons the public supports Democrats. Obama is working at chucking an easy win-win for his party and, much more importantly, undermining critically important programs, and isn't just pursuing a course that would begin their destruction; he's also working toward helping elect those who would finish the task.<br /><br />--classicliberal2Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-32527493810852284882011-03-12T11:17:00.000-08:002011-07-05T01:17:59.296-07:00Walker's War on Wisconsin (UPDATES below)What can one say about Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker? He's shown himself to be a preening, self-important peddler of poppycock, a wannabe Mussolini of the Midwest whose efforts to centralize an extraordinary amount of government power in his own hands have made him a rock star on the Republican right. That last only sounds paradoxical to those who don't pay attention.<br /><br />Walker came to power alongside a rubber-stamp Republican majority in the state legislature, and he opened his administration in January by pressing through the body a series of fiscally ruinous policies, including huge tax cuts for the wealthy and for big business. Having added hundreds of millions of dollars worth of red ink to the state's finances, he then asserted that looming red ink meant the state faced a financial "crisis," and insisted it called for drastic and immediate measures to combat.<br /><br />As it turned out, of course, the major aspects of his "Budget Repair Bill" didn't have much to do with the state's finances. It was mostly just about centralizing a great deal of power in Walker's hands. Among other things, it would have empowered him to sell off state-owned energy facilities to his Big Money cronies at will, without even any competitive bidding, and would have exempted such decisions from laws regarding public interest considerations. It would have removed from the legislature control over Medicaid, granting Walker's administration the dictatorial authority to raise premiums, limit program eligibility, and change reimbursement rates at will (Dennis Smith, Walker's appointee to head the agency charged with administering Medicaid, is an advocate for states leaving the program entirely). Most notoriously, it would break the state's contracts with public employee unions, cut their benefits, and strip from most of them their collective bargaining rights.<br /><br />This last item caused quite a furor. Walker badly underestimated how unpopular it would prove to be, but he definitely knew he had a stinker on his hands, and he and the Republicans initially tried to jam it through with minimal debate before anyone noticed. He unveiled the bill, there was a single public hearing regarding it, a single committee meeting, and the Republican majority would have passed the bill the next day in a matter of minutes, except 14 Democratic legislators literally left the state in order to prevent them from having the Senate quorum necessary to do so.<br /><br />The result was a stand-off that went on for weeks.<br /><br />Walker was unyielding. Every time the absent senators would try to negotiate any sort of deal with him, his response was to call a press conference and insult them, while launching petty vindictive attacks on them through the legislature--trying to take away their parking, their pay, and their office expenses. More seriously, he and the Repubs tried to have them arrested for "contempt," in direct violation of the state constitution.<br /><br />Walker insisted that the anti-union elements of his bill were absolutely necessary to deal with the state's fiscal "crisis." It became a mantra. It was a matter of public record that Wisconsin's future projected budget shortfalls--the portions not attributable to Walker's own policies--had nothing to do with the unions' benefits. They were a consequence of several items, primarily projected Medicaid expenses. Still, Walker repeated his mantra, and apparently hoped people would pay little attention to details. The unions had immediately agreed to the actual fiscal elements of Walker's proposal--the cuts in their benefits. Still, Walker repeated his mantra. Those concessions were always on the table, and at any point in this protracted drama, Walker could have simply taken them and declared victory. He refused to take "yes" for an answer because his purpose, contrary to his mantra, was to bust the unions, and he had no intention of accepting a negotiated settlement that left them their rights. Republicans in over a dozen states, in fact, suddenly simultaneously decided they also needed to go after their state's unions in the same way. Still, Walker repeated his mantra, apparently expecting us to accept this as merely an incredible coincidence.<br /><br />The public didn't bite.<br /><br />Instead, waves of protesters filled the state capitol. The demonstrations were scrupulously peaceful, but Walker ordered the capitol locked down anyway. A court ordered his administration to reopen it; Walker simply ignored the order, and circulated false stories in the press about the protesters causing millions of dollars in damage (in reality, there had been no real damage).<br /><br />In order to finally pass the portion of the bill stripping the unions of their collective bargaining rights, the Repubs--after all that mantra repetition--finally had to admit it wasn't a fiscal measure at all, which had the benefit of removing the need for a senate quorum. They held a brief meeting with only two hours notice--an apparent violation of Wisconsin law--and passed the measure a few minutes later, inadvertently offering up the perfect footnote to the whole sordid affair by immediately arranging to attend a high-dollar fundraising dinner being thrown in their honor by lobbyists in Washington D.C..<br /><br />To bask in the presence of their purchased puppets, these corrupt lobbyists will offer up a minimum $1,000 donation just to get in the door; lots of love, with lots of zeroes attached. The reaction of the larger public, however, has been quite different. After only two months in office, Walker's approval rating is in free-fall--down around 40%. Big majorities are now telling pollsters that, if the 2010 election was held again today, they'd vote against him, and by this time next year, he will--courtesy of Wisconsin's recall laws--most likely be reduced to a very-highly-paid Fox News special commentator, touring the brain-dead hemisphere of the talking-head circuit as a right-wing martyr to mean ol' labor unions, while a lot of the Repubs who backed him in the legislature will be unemployed. That may be the happiest ending Wisconsin can manage.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the national Republican party has embraced the Mussolini of the Midwest as a hero, and seem to have decided they want what he's done to Wisconsin to be both their model and the public face of their party. Repubs, in legislatures across the country, continue their efforts to centralize power and destroy democratic--and Democratic--institutions.<br /><br />Stay tuned.<br /><br />--classicliberal2<br /><br />---<br /><br />UPDATE (12 March, 2011) -- I've always found, in the various theories of liberal democracy, much merit in the notion that, when a government is elected, it earns the right to enact its program. In spite of what the Scott Walkers of the world believe, we don't elect dictatorships in the U.S., and the minority should get some concessions along the way, roughly equivalent to its size, but democracy has no meaning if a majority is prevented from governing at all. We've seen this at the federal level. Democrats won the White House and huge majorities in congress in 2008, but were effectively prevented from governing by a Republican minority that systematically abused the process and, in essence, completely nullified that entire election.<br /><br />The Wisconsin situation isn't even close to being analogous to this, because Democrats, there, were objecting to items in a single bill, rather than to everything the Republicans had proposed, and Walker was refusing a reasonable compromise that fully addressed the concerns he feigned in public regarding state finances while pushing for a measure to which the public was overwhelmingly opposed<br /><br />Still, the Democratic legislators' exit from the state in order to prevent that bill from going forward is a use of process to foil an elected majority, and merits some scrutiny.<br /><br />---<br /><br />UPDATE (8 April, 2011) -- The potential violation of Wisconsin's Open Meetings Law in passing the union-busting bill resulted in a court injunction against publishing or enforcing the law. Wisconsin law requires that the Secretary of State publish any law in the official newspaper before it can be enforced. Walker and Republican Senate leader Scott Fitzgerald decided they could just ignore this law and the injunction, as well; they had the law published by the Legislative Reference Bureau, then publicly declared it had been legally published, was in effect, and that it would now be enforced. Rather than simply holding these clowns in contempt, the judge in the case issued a second order tersely reemphasizing that publication and enforcement of the law has been enjoined. Walker finally backed down, but the entire incident is emblematic of his behavior throughout this ordeal.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-54668095088796749792011-03-10T18:19:00.000-08:002011-03-12T08:50:02.089-08:00Setting the Record Straight on "Jack-Booted Thugs"I'm still not really up to writing much, or well, but an item over at <a href="http://mediamatters.org/">Media Matters</a> caught my eye tonight, and I felt compelled to offer some thoughts on it.<br /><br />Adam Shah of Media Matters For America <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103100027">offers this as his set-up</a>:<br /><blockquote>National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre is the last person a responsible media outlet should have on its airwaves to comment on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). That's because LaPierre once referred to ATF agents as "jack-booted government thugs" and reportedly called for "lifting the assault weapons ban to even the odds in the struggle between ordinary citizens and 'jack-booted government thugs.'"</blockquote>Shah's framing can be read in such a way as to suggest that anyone who would call government agents "jack-booted government thugs" is inherently nuts. The gripe I have with this is that government agents frequently <span style="font-style: italic;">are</span> jack-booted thugs. That LaPierre said so isn't why his comments were problematic.<br /><br />LaPierre is a reactionary who deals in the nuttiest sort of black-helicopter conspiracism. His rhetoric, offered in the 1990s, is indistinguishable from that of the militia movement that grew like a cancer in that same period, and it's this context that elevated his "jack-booted government thugs" comment from a truism to an eye-raiser.<br /><br />But it takes some space to explain why.<br /><br />The right is not, in fact, "anti-government." As much as the press and some liberal commentators love to use that phrase as shorthand, it's difficult to imagine a characterization that could more grossly misrepresent the politics of contemporary conservatism. There are many "schools" of conservatism in the U.S., of course, but the core of the conservative base, at present, is made up of what may fairly be described as self-obsessed authoritarians. They're very opposed to government that taxes them. They're very opposed to the small "d" democratic elements of government, those responsive to the public. When it comes to pursuing their own cherished goals, though--which usually involve maintaining the aristocratic prerogatives of The Powers That Be, aggressive militarism, and enforcing social homogeneity--no amount of government ever proves to be enough.<br /><br />This conservative core isn't opposed to jack-booted thuggery on the part of government. Those on the right have, in fact, always supported such thuggery, nurtured it, enabled it, even demanded it, for the simple reason that government thuggery has, historically, almost always been aimed at the left or at other groups despised by the right (immigrants, racial minorities, etc.), and the conservatives have been (and are) its enthusiastic advocates as long as that's the case.<br /><br />When LaPierre made his comments, on the other hand, the right was out of power, and the narrative had shifted. Suddenly, the story peddled to the nuts was that a democratic--and, more importantly, Democratic--government was out to get white, right-wing rednecks. This was a handy way of inflaming the bumpkins against the other party, but reflected no genuine concern about government abuses.[*] During the just-concluded Bush administration, <a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/republicans-are-nazis.html">when a <span style="font-style: italic;">real</span> thug was running the government and asserting the power to ignore the law and the constitution at will, kidnap, torture, and even murder American citizens with no pretense of due process</a>, and so on, the conservatives virtually worshiped government power and their Maximal Leader, and the militia culture and movement, which had made such a pretense of being centrally concerned about government abuses in the '90s (when abuses were relatively minor), all but disappeared. When Democrats rolled over Republicans in the 2008 elections, though, the right went back to criticizing government again, and the militia culture was suddenly back again with a vengeance.<br /><br />Back in the 1990s, the federal action against the Koresh cult in Texas became the central organizing cause for militant reactionaries. The broad narrative of the event that evolved on the nut right was that the cult was merely an unthreatening church that was attacked and besieged by the government for no real reason, then, at the end, was maliciously burned alive for refusing to submit. None of this had much of a relationship to the truth, but it made for a nifty organizing tool for years.<br /><br />LaPierre was opportunistically playing to this sentiment when he made his "jack-booted government thugs" comment. In the same letter in which he wrote those words, he even made explicit reference to the action against the Koresh cult, and, further, added<br /><br />"Not too long ago, it was unthinkable for federal agents wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens. Not today."<br /><br />Of course, such a thing hadn't been "unthinkable" to left-wing political parties, the civil rights movement, radical groups, labor unions, anti-war groups, and more other non-conservative and anti-conservative groups than can be named--they'd been on the receiving end of government violence for over a century, by that point. It was only "unthinkable" to white Christian conservative good ol' boys who had never been subjected to it. LaPierre was part of a cadre of reactionaries who, for purposes of political expediency, was trying to make it thinkable to them. The world learned how thinkable some of them found it when a fertilizer bomb went off in front of a federal building in Oklahoma City, killing hundreds.<br /><br />I realize that's more of a mouthful, as explanations go, but the implication that condemning government thuggery is what makes LaPierre's comments reprehensible shouldn't be allowed to stand. They're reprehensible for entirely different reasons. <span style="font-style: italic;">Real</span> government thuggery should always be condemned by every American worthy of the name.<br /><br />--classicliberal2<br /><br />---<br /><br />[*] Back in the 1990s when LaPierre made his comment, the NRA was, in fact, trying to reinvent itself as a crime-fighting organization, circulating false "statistics" about how "soft on crime" America was, and advocating a "get tough" approach. In a word, thuggery.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-40313659556329003042011-01-19T12:48:00.000-08:002011-04-15T21:28:10.654-07:00Re-Thoughts on "Civil Discourse" (UPDATE BELOW)I'm currently in the midst of a devastating personal crisis, and I'm probably crazy to even attempt to comment on any serious subject. It's a diversion from what's really on my mind, and, while that can be welcomed when thoughts are as bleak as mine, it's never a good state of mind for creating thoughtful discourse. I'm going to give it a try, anyway. If it doesn't turn out to be one of my best, it's something of a little miracle if I finish it at all.<br /><br />The attack, by a deranged gunman, on a crowd at a public political gathering in Arizona has led, in the last few days, to some criticism of the political climate created by the right, which, in turn, led to a massive pushback by the right (far larger than the almost-non-existent original criticism). The cretinous Sarah Palin emerged from her Alaskan bunker to climb up onto her cross and deny rhetoric can play any role in such violent atrocities, while simultaneously asserting that the rhetoric suggesting that it may cause it <span style="font-style: italic;">can</span> inspire violent atrocities, pretty much mirroring the tone of the entire conservative reaction. Writing over at "<a href="http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/">In My Humble Opinion</a>," the overworked Niceguy Eddie has offered up <a href="http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2011/01/times-flies-and-civil-discourse.html">some thoughts on the matter of civil discourse</a>, but I take issue with what he says, to a degree, and decided I'd try to write about it.<br /><br />First, Eddie:<br /><blockquote>"I’m not saying that we SHOULDN’T be more civil in our discourse, but using tragedy to highlight even THAT (which to some people STILL constitutes an “agenda”) is still politicizing it."</blockquote>I think you miss a much more important point. One of the most serious problems we face in the U.S. flows, at base, from the efforts of those on the right to intentionally demonize, delegitimize, and dehumanize their enemies. What passes for public discourse from the American conservative elite (and is accepted without any significant skepticism by a lot of their followers) is little more than a string of personal attacks with that kind of total destruction as a goal. The right shows absolutely no regard for the truth when they're about this. They don't try to personally destroy someone based on the actual views and actions of that someone; they just, to put it bluntly, make shit up. Obama isn't opposed because of anything he actually does or is; he's opposed because he's a Kenyan Bolshevik who wants to set up government death panels to kill the elderly and infirm, manage a government takeover of industry, and destroy capitalism. The narrative, offered by the American conservative elite, of what happens in the U.S. rarely even touches reality. By it, there isn't even any room for honest disagreement. Those who disagree are enemies, and those enemies are the enemies of mankind itself.<br /><br />The elite of the right has a gargantuan, omnipresent, multi-media machine to spread this narrative. It's like nothing that has ever existed in human history, and for a huge portion of the population (a distinct minority, but still huge), that narrative is holy writ.<br /><br />This isn't just a problem in the ridiculous political food-fights we have every day, most of which don't amount to a hill of beans. It has, among other things, the potential to cause <span style="font-style: italic;">incredible</span> amounts of violence. If you spend 24-hours/day, every day, telling your credulous followers that their enemies--those with whom they politically disagree--are out to destroy them, it's only a matter of time before a lot of them are going to get it in their heads that they'd better pick up a gun or a bomb and "save" the country. But violence isn't even the biggest problem we face as a consequence of this narrative. It's much bigger. It is, in fact, a literally existentialist matter. Forget about "civil discourse." Public discourse itself has been all but destroyed in the U.S. by this, and that's the death of a democratic society. Increasingly, people can't talk to one another in any meaningful way, they certainly can't disagree with one another, and for those who have seriously bought into the narrative as it is seriously offered, allowing any influence at all over public affairs by someone who disagrees--an enemy--begins to seem absolutely intolerable. Maybe even just living next to them will starts to seem intolerable.<br /><br />Political rhetoric appears to have played no role in what happened in Arizona, but if the incident draws some attention to this wretched state of affairs, that's something positive that can come from the horror. I understand your concern for the feelings of the victims, Eddie, but I don't think dealing with this is any offense to them (though the ranting and bumper-sticker fix-alls offered by some of those clowns you mentioned are certainly thoughtless and inappropriate). The dead are gone. The rest of us still have to live, and part of that is addressing this problem.<br /><br />It isn't addressed by noxious censorship, or anything like that. It can only be addressed by something we've fallen out of the habit of doing: having a real national conversation.<br /><br />That said, I really don't think it <span style="font-style: italic;">will</span> be addressed. Not as a result of what happened in Arizona, in any event. What little critical commentary that has emerged in recent days has focused, almost entirely, on things like Sarah Palin's use of phrases like "don't retreat; reload," and on defeated senatorial candidate Sharron Angle's suggestion that "Second Amendment remedies" could be a response if the right person--read: her--didn't win an election, and on Republicans' use of a map that put crosshairs on the districts of congressmen they're "targeting." This is totally misguided criticism. The problem isn't with things like this (most of which are of little consequence, and are relatively innocuous). It's with the context in which things like this are offered. It isn't with scattered comments involving allusions to violence. It's with the right's overall narrative. Focusing on the scattered comments will prevent it from being addressed.<br /><br />It should also be most forcefully noted that this is a problem with the right, not with the rest of us. If, in the phony games of "balance" traditionally played by the press and in conservative efforts to deflect the issue by presenting a few scattered examples of inappropriate rhetoric by liberals, this is lost, then so will be any effort to address the problem.<br /><br />The biggest reason it won't be addressed, though, is because of its sheer size. It isn't about those stray remarks. It's about what a huge portion of the population has been told to believe, and has accepted as reality. That's not something that can be turned on a dime. It may not be something that can be turned at all. A turn, in this case, requires people to begin questioning nonsense they've accepted as gospel for years. More importantly, it would require those who peddle it to them to stop peddling it, and that would entail that big right-wing machine going entirely out of business, because that's all it has to offer. Fat chance. And how do you have a conversation with people who, as a matter of fundamental ideology, regard you as an enemy whose every word is a lie, and refuse to indulge in any real conversation?<br /><br />We have to try, though.<br /><br />What else is there?<br /><br />--classicliberal2<br /><br />---<br /><br />UPDATE (20 Jan., 2011) -- NiceGuy Eddie replies in comments, and my response ran a little long, so I'll put it here. Eddie:<br /><br /> "...you can't simultaneously accept the truth that having 'civil discourse' will affect the Right's behavior 90% and the Left's just 10% and NOT call that 'an agenda.' That I happen to SHARE that agenda with you doesn't change the fact that it's AN AGENDA. And while you and I will rightly call it an AMERICAN agenda or a MORAL agenda or a PRINCIPLED agenda, given the affect it will have, and on who, the Right can reasonably call it a LEFTIST Agenda. That's bullshit of course, and it's their fault for moving to the Right of SANITY, but from their POV, it's still TRUE."<br /><br />That's a symptom of the very malady I outlined in what I wrote before, though, and you can't cater to that. If you try, you lose before you even begin, because that's the outcome their narrative is designed to produce, the only one. If, as a precondition to having that conversation, you have to wait until the right <i>doesn't</i> act that way, that conversation will never happen.<br /><br />As for angry ranting, it is often not only appropriate; the lack of it would be inappropriate. There's a big difference between angry ranting based on something that <i>should</i> provoke angry ranting and the sort of manufactured outrage that flows from (and sustains) the right on a daily basis. That's why the narrow focus on mere "civil discourse" is so misguided. There's no reason at all to be civil about things that legitimately provoke incivility. The reason the right's incivility is a problem is because it's based on nonsense. One lie on top of another on top of another.<br /><br />When those on the right were fighting the health-care bill because it set up death panels to kill old people, they weren't disagreeing with the health-care bill; they're just making up shit to try to dehumanize their enemies. The same is true when they opposed it because it provided government health-care to illegal immigrants. No permutation of it ever did, and this was thrown out merely to fan the flames of racism and rip at the fabric of society (that clown Wilson, who, at Obama's address to congress, shouted "YOU LIE!" became a hero on the right for doing that). The same is true when they oppose it because they're against "socialized medicine." The bill that was passed doesn't "socialize" any aspect of health care. (and, further, the idea behind that--that any government involvement in business is properly characterized as "socialism"--is also a part of what I'm talking about, as is the fact that, in the right's usage, "socialism" is both a synonym for "liberalism" and an invocation of Bolshevism).<br /><br />Now, the health care bill was, it's true, a monstrous piece of legislation. There were more painfully real reasons to genuinely oppose it than could be easily listed. I wrote article after article denouncing it at the time. The right wasn't opposed to it because of any of those real reasons. As I pointed out repeatedly, it was, in fact, a Republican bill that was passed. It was modeled on Romneycare in Massachusetts, and almost exactly the same legislation had been proposed, in recent years, by Republican Sen. Judd Gregg, and by former Republican Sen. Bob Dole. The first iteration on it was created by congressional Republicans back in the '90s when Clinton was working on health care--it was their proposed alternative (that's where Romney apparently got it). When Obama adopted it as his own, Republicans dropped it like a hot rock, and attacked it with the sort of rhetoric I just outlined.<br /><br />There's a <i>huge</i> difference between outrage based on something actually outrage-worthy and this kind of bullshit. If I offer up an angry rant on an angry-rant-worthy subject and I'm tagged, by the right, as a hypocrite for doing it because I denounce their angry ranting (which is based on bullshit), that's symptomatic of their own problem, not an indication that I'm "rightly" branded a hypocrite.<br /><br />As much as I've gone on, I don't think I've even started to do this subject justice. I'm just having an incredibly hard time right now. As bad as everything else is, a "friend" chose this, of all times, to manufacture an absolutely absurd drama and use it to drop another atom-bomb on me a few days ago (a few of them, actually). I try not to hold it against her, and I know I'm not even in any shape to judge what happened or anything else. I thought I'd already hit rock-bottom these last two months; she made a great stride in proving me wrong. A lot of what I've "written" here, was cut-and-pasted, with modifications, from some earlier things I'd written, because I'm just not up to writing right now.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-16868327838145953702010-11-09T15:35:00.000-08:002010-11-09T17:05:32.633-08:00The Obama Backs Bush Murder PolicyIn one of the best-kept secrets of the U.S. corporate media, the Obama administration yesterday went before a federal court and threw its full support behind yet another of the Bush administration's assertions of fascist powers. This time, the issue revolves around the question of whether the executive branch of the U.S. government has the unlimited, unchecked, unreviewed power to unilaterally designate, as a danger to the U.S., a U.S. citizen--a civilian in a non-combat situation--then murder him. This administration, like the last, says "yes," and also asserted, in a manner all too familiar to those of us who had followed Bush's efforts to drag the U.S. down the long, ugly road to fascism, that it was an executive matter the judiciary hadn't even the authority to review.<br /><br />All of this was in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, who are looking to limit the government's power to carry out these sorts of Mafia-style extrajudicial murders to cases of imminent danger to life and safety and have requested that the court force the executive branch to publicly disclose the secret process that results in a U.S. citizen being placed on a government hit-list.<br /><br />The ACLU and CCR are acting at the request of Nasser Al-Aulaqi, the father of Anwar Al-Aulaqi. Anwar is a reactionary Muslim cleric reportedly placed on a government hit-list. Because he has been so targeted, the Treasury Department asserted that the ACLU and CCR, before they could even bring the suit, had to request a special license to allow them to do so. They requested the license, the government failed to provide it, and they proceeded to file a separate suit against the licensing scheme. Seems like a no-brainer. It's bad enough the government would assert the unrestrained power to kill U.S. citizens, but we're well into Kafka territory when someone so targeted has to obtain a license from that same government to allow him to challenge its decision to destroy him.<br /><br />Linked to terrorists and, in his own right, reportedly an anti-Western Islamist reactionary of the worst sort, Aulaqi is hardly the poster-boy for an ideal plaintiff, but he <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> an American citizen, and his inflammatory views are of no real consequence to the issue at hand. Aulaqi has never been convicted or even charged with any crime by the U.S.. Jameel Jaffer, who presented arguments for the ACLU yesterday, <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/11/08-8">put the matter succinctly</a>:<br /><br />"If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state."<br /><br />The "liberal" Obama administration disagrees. Hopefully, the matter can be decided before it gets to the current Supreme Court.<br /><br />--classicliberal2Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-1517711541167212522010-11-04T12:08:00.000-07:002016-08-23T10:49:49.349-07:00Sound Election Analysis, or A Big Bunch of B.S From Bayh?In these tough economic times, Evan Bayh certainly doesn't have to worry about ever being out of work. The cretinous right-wing slug who, until his retirement in January, is Indiana's excuse for a junior Senator, decided, yesterday, to give us a preview of his likely post-Senate job as a political analyst. Unsurprisingly, it looks a lot like what he's been doing as a "Democratic" Senator; namely, trashing liberal Democrats. The American conservative elite like "Democrats" who trash Democrats. They pay them well for it.<br />
<br />
For some reason, the New York Times saw fit to waste the paper and ink necessary to mass-publish Bayh's application for this dismal work <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/opinion/03bayh.html?_r=1&hp">in the form of an op-ed offering the Senator's take on Tuesday's congressional election</a>. Bayh concludes Democrats lost because they're too liberal.<br />
<br />
What a surprise, right?<br />
<br />
"To a degree," he says, "we [Democrats] are authors of our own misfortune." How so?<br />
<blockquote>
"It is clear that Democrats over-interpreted our mandate. Talk of a 'political realignment' and a 'new progressive era' proved wishful thinking. Exit polls in 2008 showed that 22 percent of voters identified themselves as liberals, 32 percent as conservatives and 44 percent as moderates. An electorate that is 76 percent moderate to conservative was not crying out for a move to the left."</blockquote>
But then, again, the American public isn't "76 percent moderate to conservative"; that polling reflects how people--most of whom are not political junkies and don't put a great deal of thought into what simple label they apply to their politics--view themselves and is profoundly impacted by the decades-long demonization of the "liberal" label. Ask them specific questions about their views and <a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/conservative-america.html">Americans are, just as they have been for ages, liberal and, on most issues, overwhelmingly so</a>.<br />
<br />
Bayh is phoning it in from another dimension when he says "we," by which he means Democrats, "were too deferential to our most zealous supporters." In this one, the Obama, who has largely set the Democratic agenda, has remained well to the right of the general public, continuing the war in Iraq while expanding the war in Afghanistan, refusing to even consider single-payer health care then dropping the public option from the Republican health care bill he adopted as his own, watering down regulatory reform, moving the already-reactionary Supreme Court further to the right, refusing to throw any kind of weight behind Democratic congressional efforts to both prevent companies from exporting jobs and to encourage companies to import them (at a time when jobs are THE major issue), then, as a final indignity, publicly trashing his own base while whining about how he doesn't get any credit for his "accomplishments." This behavior helped turn off his base and feed the "enthusiasm gap" between Democratic and Republican voters, which <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/144152/Record-Midterm-Enthusiasm-Voters-Head-Polls.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_term=Politics">Gallup reported</a>, just before the election, was 19%--greater than they'd ever measured in the nearly-two-decades they'd tracked it.<br />
<br />
Bayh's fanciful account of the election season:<br />
<blockquote>
"During election season, Congress sought to placate those on the extreme left and motivate the base--but that meant that our final efforts before the election focused on trying to allow gays in the military, change our immigration system and repeal the George W. Bush-era tax cuts. These are legitimate issues but unlikely to resonate with moderate swing voters in a season of economic discontent."</blockquote>
Hard to know where to start.<br />
<br />
In the real world, the public overwhelmingly supports allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. A typical poll (this one from CBS News) found, only a few weeks ago, 69% support for the proposition, 51% saying they supported it "strongly" (only 21% opposed it). Trying to make this possible wouldn't have been an effort "to placate those on the extreme left"--it would have been an effort to enact a policy overwhelmingly supported by the American public. Unfortunately, the Democrats <span style="font-style: italic;">weren't</span> trying to allow gays in the military during the campaign--they were, instead, engaged in delaying tactics designed to prevent the matter from becoming an issue in the campaign. Only weeks ago, a federal court voided the current policy and if the Obama had wanted, he could have just been done with it at that point. Instead, he chose to appeal the ruling, which didn't endear him to <span style="font-style: italic;">anyone</span> on the left.<br />
<br />
There was no serious movement on immigration reform at any point during the campaign--Bayh's assertion to the contrary is fantasy.<br />
<br />
It's a misrepresentation--or, just to call it straight, a lie--to say Democrats were trying "to repeal the George W. Bush-era tax cuts." The tax cuts aren't going to be repealed--they're going to expire. That's the law. If nothing happens, they all go away. The debate is whether or not they should be continued. Democrats have argued for renewing the tax cuts that go to most people while allowing to expire the big chunk of them that go to those of higher income. Polling shows that this is also the position of a majority or plurality of the public, depending on the question's wording, so, again, this isn't aimed at trying "to placate those on the extreme left"--the Democratic view has broad support.<br />
<br />
Some numbers being well-circulated on the left blogosphere today further cripple Bayh's narrative that Democrats cut their own throats by being Democrats. While the liberal Congressional Progressive caucus lost only three of its more-than-80 members on Tuesday, the Blue Dog caucus, made up of right-wing Democrats like Bayh who shun "their" party and side with Republicans time and time again, was decimated, losing nearly 30 of their 54 members.<br />
<br />
Even after voters sent most of the "Democrats" packing, Bayh's big solution to Democratic woes is that Democrats should become even more conservative and that the already-conservative Obama should move even further to the right--"seize the center," as Bayh euphemistically puts it. It's the sort of conclusion the American conservative elite pays well to spread around, particularly when it's being offered by a faux Democrat, so while Bayh has proven himself utterly worthless as a Senator, he can leave his overpaid post in these bad economic times without a worry about future employment. He'll have work. His family will never go hungry. His future is bright. He should probably wear shades.<br />
<br />
--classicliberal2Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-37782354703239299622010-11-02T07:54:00.000-07:002011-08-30T06:22:56.545-07:00"Far to the left in American politics"? A Test CaseI sometimes poke around over at "<a href="http://www.thenextright.com/">The Next Right</a>," a theoretically "reformist" conservative site (albeit one that, in practice, mostly ends up being SOS), and, this being election day, I thought I'd step over there and see if there was anything interesting.
<br />
<br />I found <a href="http://www.thenextright.com/ironman/be-pragmatic-tomorrow-remove-a-radical-from-ct-5">a blog, there, from poster Ironman</a>, about Rep. Chris Murphy, the Democratic congressman from Connecticut's 5th district. Posted yesterday, it advises people to "be pragmatic tomorrow--remove a radical from CT 5." Campaigns produce a lot of hyperbolic rhetoric, of course, and maybe it's best to chalk IM's words up to the feverish emotions of the moment and leave it at that, but something made me want to offer a few comments on it. Probably the fact that it's so perfectly emblematic of the very wrongheaded "thinking" of a lot of the contemporary American right.
<br />
<br />IM's premise is that Murphy is some sort of wild-eyed lefty radical who is misrepresenting himself in his reelection bid:
<br /><blockquote>"Chris Murphy's closing argument in his flagging bid for re-election is that he represents the 'pragmatic center' of American politics.
<br />
<br />"I call B.S. on this. Let's count the ways Murphy is far to the Left in American politics--even beyond the usual Nancy Pelosi foot soldier."</blockquote>His first example:
<br /><blockquote>"Murphy is one of the most vocal opponents of the use of warrantless wiretaps to obtain information to thwart terrorist threats... [D]o we want to hamstring the people who keep us safe? Murphy evidently does."</blockquote>Is this evidence of Murphy's radicalism?
<br />
<br />Well, it should be said, right up front, that Bush's NSA wiretapping program was completely illegal--a blatantly criminal enterprise that was explicitly forbidden by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which had been on the books for decades, so IM's premise, that standing against government surveillance conducted with blatant criminality makes one some sort of radical, is, to put it as kindly as possible, shaky (another depressing sign of creeping fascism on the right).
<br />
<br />What did the public think about Bush's criminal enterprise? In the immediate aftermath of the story breaking, the U.S. was almost equally divided. Polling showed that slim majorities either supported or opposed it based on the wording of the poll question, the more accurate wording producing stronger opposition than support. Murphy's "radical" opposition to it was in line with that of half the public.
<br />
<br />That was just after the story broke.
<br />
<br />As time went by, public opinion shifted strongly against the Bush administration on this matter. By Oct. 2007, a Mehlman Group poll found that 61% said the government should have to get a warrant before conducting this sort of surveillance; only 35% supported the Bush position. By Jan. 2008, <a href="http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/mellmansurvey_jan2008.pdf">another Mehlman Group poll</a> asked the same question; 63% said the government should have to get a warrant (55% said they believed this "strongly"), with only 33% supporting the Bush position (24% "strongly"). By Feb. 2009, just after the beginning of Murphy's current term in office, 63% of respondents were <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/114580/No-Mandate-Criminal-Probes-Bush-Administration.aspx">telling Gallup</a> they favored an investigation into the matter, including 77% of Democrats, 64% of independents, and even 41% of Republicans. Murphy's "radical" view, which IM says puts him "far to the Left in American politics," is, in fact, that of an overwhelming majority of the public--of Democrats, of independents, and of nearly half of the Republicans.
<br />
<br />IM continues:
<br /><blockquote>"Worse still, he favored letting the telecom firms that assisted the War on Terror face ruinous lawsuits from lefty lawyers "</blockquote>The telecom firms in question "assisted the War on Terror" by illegally turning over private information on their clients to the Bush administration. They weren't ordered by a court to do so--Bush wanted it, and they just handed it over. Bush sought a bill granting these companies a blanket immunity from any legal action their enraged clients may bring against them. Murphy opposed this immunity.
<br />
<br />Evidence of Murphy radicalism? Hardly. In <a href="http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/mellmansurvey_jan2008.pdf">that same Mehlman Group poll</a> referenced above, 57% opposed granting immunity; 45% "strongly" opposed it. Only 33% supported it (22% "strongly"). The opposition to immunity cut across <span style="font-style: italic;">all</span> political lines--liberals opposed it by 64%, moderates by 58%, and even 50% of conservatives opposed it.
<br />
<br />So, again, IM is describing Murphy as a "radical" and "far to the Left in American politics" based on his holding the same views that are also broadly and overwhelmingly held by the public.
<br />
<br />It's also worth, again, noting IM's premise in using this example; that Murphy is some sort of extreme lefty based on Murphy's opposition to blatant lawbreaking by the telecoms, turning over private information on the public to the government.
<br />
<br />IM continues:
<br /><blockquote>"Murphy is also one of the firmest opponents of keeping the detention facility at Gitmo open."</blockquote>The public has been strongly divided on this question. In Jan. 2009, 53% told <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103652.html">the ABC News/Washington Post poll</a> they thought the U.S. should close the facility, with 42% supporting keeping it open. A CBS News/New York Times poll three months later showed an almost-even split--47% should continue to operate, while 44% said to close the prison. An AP/Roper poll two months later showed the public evenly split on the question--47% approved of Obama's then-goal to close the facility within a year, while 47% opposed it. Again, Murphy's view seems in line with about half of the public.
<br />
<br />Unfortunately, this matter has been subject to a great deal of right-wing fear-mongering. The far right expended a great deal of effort telling the public that closing the facility would mean al Qaida prisoners would be dropped in their back yards, and when poll questions include nods toward this, NIMBYist sentiment kicks in. A USA Today/Gallup poll from May 2009, for example, asked, "Suppose the prison at Guantanamo Bay is closed. Would you favor or oppose moving some of those prisoners to a prison in your state?" 74% were opposed, with only 23% in favor. The results are usually less dramatic (around a 60/40 split), but large majorities do oppose closing the facility if the prisoners end up in their back yards, so on this matter, Murphy <span style="font-style: italic;">can</span> be said to be out of sync with most people, if one doesn't control for NIMBYism.
<br />
<br />IM continues:
<br /><blockquote>"Chris Murphy has a problem with the health care bill. He doesn't think it went far enough. He is a strong supporter of the public option."</blockquote>As was most of the public throughout the health-care debate. In a Time magazine poll from July, 2009, 56% supported the public option, 36% opposed. In a CNN/Opinion Research poll from Aug., 2009, 55% favored the public option, 41% opposed. In a Kaiser Family Foundation poll from Sept. 2009, 57% supported a public option, only 37% opposed. In a Quinnipiac poll from Oct. 2009, 61% supported the public option, only 34% opposed. In a CBS News/New York Times poll from Dec., 2009, 59% supported the public option, with only 29% opposed. This poll broke down the results by party, and found that support included 80% of Democrats, 59% of independents, and even 33% of Republicans.
<br />
<br />So, again, Murphy is tagged as a lefty radical for being in line with most of the public.
<br />
<br />And that's the whole of IM's substantive case against Murphy. He whines about Murphy attended a gathering of internet liberals, misrepresents a comment Murphy made to MSNBC [*], and concludes that "there are none [Democrats] more deserving of defeat than Connecticut's Chris Murphy."
<br />
<br />It's clear IM doesn't like Murphy's politics, and, for whatever reason, he seems to personally despise the man, but he utterly fails to prove his premise that Murphy is some sort of "radical" who "is far to the Left in American politics." From IM's description, in fact, Murphy appears to be exactly what IM quotes him as calling himself, a representative of "the 'pragmatic center' of American politics." That IM sees this as "radical" says everything about himself, and nothing about Chris Murphy.
<br />
<br />--classicliberal2
<br />
<br />---
<br />
<br />[*] IM's version:
<br /><blockquote>"He [Murphy] told MSMBC that after he and his colleagues got past the voters in November they would return with 'steel in their spine' ready to cast more tough votes against the wishes of their constituents."
<br /></blockquote>The <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38407169/ns/politics">actual comment, in context</a>:
<br /><blockquote>"Giving an upbeat scenario for Election Day, Murphy said, 'When we retain the House, some members are going to come back with some extra steel in their spines, having cast some tough votes and having survived what’s likely the toughest election of their career.'"</blockquote>[NOTE: The polls I cited but to which I don't link come from Pollingreport.com]Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-77837095434392175692010-10-30T18:44:00.000-07:002010-10-30T15:45:13.871-07:00Monsters, Noses, & What Comes Next: Thoughts on the 2010 Congressional ElectionsSome liberal commentators have displayed something akin to a panic at the prospect of a big Republican win in Tuesday's congressional elections. Keith Olbermann, Paul Krugman, and others have expressed their despair that fickle voters would return to power the advocates of the failed policies that, among other things, decimated the U.S. economy, sending it plunging into the deep pit in which it now remains stubbornly trapped. They've correctly outlined the extreme reactionary nature of the current Republican party, a party that has adopted its lunatic fringe as its mainstream.<br /><br />In my view, most of these liberals presently sounding the alarm see this last as too recent a development. It's actually something that's been going on for quite some time, and their failure to recognize it doesn't speak well of them. They're right about one thing, though--it really is worse than ever. The hard core of the American right has, for decades, been an ever-rightening gaggle of overly reactionary reactionaries, but, while the broader, less insane Republican party with which they largely associated has always been a relatively narrow coalition, there had always been some little room for more reasonable--or, more precisely, less unreasonable--voices. In recent decades, though, that hard core has dragged out the long knives and ran them through just about anyone who wasn't as brutish, stupid, insane, and ass-backwards as it is. This was greatly accelerated by the 2008 campaign and its immediate aftermath, which saw the Democrats absorbing larger portions of the moderate and run-of-the-mill conservative demographics, leaving the hard core right to rebuild the Republican party. They've made it into a monster more monstrous than it has been in the lifetime of most people reading these words.<br /><br />Now, that monster stands poised to take over, and progressive commentators are beside themselves at the prospect.<br /><br />Their "solution," however, is not terribly helpful. They just tell us we should hold our noses and vote for Democrats.<br /><br />The "hold our noses" part is necessary because the Democrats, in the last two years, have been abysmal failures. The Obama not only failed to roll back the horror that was the above-the-law, dictatorial chief executive built by the Bush administration, it refused to prosecute those responsible for it, and has actually defended most of its elements from every substantive challenge, allowing it to pass into precedent. The Obama and his party entirely squandered the <span style="font-style: italic;">historical</span> opportunity handed them by the public in 2008, a chance to really get some things done; instead of anything that could be mistake for progressive change, all we've gotten from them are warmed-over conservative Republican policies. Even if the Democrats pulled off some incredible upset win on Tuesday, there's absolutely no reason to believe they'd behave any differently for the next two years than they have for the last. The nose must be held if voting for most Democrats because they don't deserve our vote. Most people, I suspect, aren't going to give it to them, either.<br /><br />It's clear that the far right is just as much a horror show today as its fiercest critics insist, and there's no doubt it could do a great deal of damage if allowed unfettered power. It's just as clear, though, that, in spite of the alarmist sentiment coming from the liberals, it isn't going to get that sort of unfettered power. The reactionaries aren't winning hearts and minds. There's been no sudden upsurge in public enthusiasm for far-right policies or attitudes. Indeed, most people totally--even viscerally--reject both. The only reason the reactionaries are even being allowed anywhere near power now is because, at a time when the economy is in the toilet and the Democrats who hold the majority suck, they control the Republican party, which, in a theoretically two-party state, is considered the only viable alternative for expressing discontent. If they were to win both houses of congress on Tuesday and were to begin implementing their nuttier policies, the public would turn on them instantly. The right has managed to, broadly, rule the U.S. for decades, regardless of which party had a majority, but the far right is inherently self-destructive.<br /><br />That shouldn't be read as underplaying the damage it could more realistically do. Even without an overwhelming win, they could block any effort at reform. But then, again, practically no one, among the elected, is offering any real reform anyway. Would it really be such a loss if the Obama was prevented from implementing the same kind of Republican policies, in the second half of his term, as he did in the first half?<br /><br />This election is historically significant for a few reasons. It's the first election after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the "Citizens United" case, which guaranteed a significant degree of conservative success at the polls. In the wake of that ruling, corporate America has flexed its muscles in the ongoing congressional campaigns, with Big Money frequently outspending the parties and candidates in an effort to purchase an even more compliant congress. As long as this ruling remains uncorrected, this trend will only get worse as time goes by. This is also a census year, and to the extent that Republicans win at the state level, they'll be the ones directing redistricting efforts in the states based on that census, using the process to gerrymander as many safe Republican districts as they can manage.<br /><br />The energy of progressives, though, shouldn't be so heavily directed toward playing electoral politics and trying to maintain a temporary majority in government for those who are (or at least seem) less reactionary. That energy should, instead, have been directed toward pushing for progressive reforms from the Obama and the Democratic congressional majority for the past two years. Only days after Obama's election, Tom Englehardt <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/11/12">wrote a prescient piece</a> I <a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/political-zombie-movie.html">approvingly quoted</a> (with some caveats)[*] at the time:<br /><blockquote>"Leave Obama to them [political Washington] and he'll break your heart. If you do, then blame yourself, not him; but better than blaming anyone, pitch your own tent on the public commons and make some noise. Let him know that Washington's isn't the only consensus around, that Americans really do want our troops to come home, that we actually are looking for 'change we can believe in,' which would include a less weaponized, less imperial American world, based on a reinvigorated idea of defense, not aggression, and on the Constitution, not leftover Rumsfeld rules or a bogus Global War on Terror."</blockquote>Progressive reformers didn't bother, and now, it's too late. Regardless of what happens with this election, liberals need to finally get off their asses, roll up their sleeves, and do what Englehardt suggested years ago: raise some hell, and keep raising it.<br /><br />--classicliberal2<br /><br />---<br /><br />[*] The biggest one being that Englehardt gave Obama a pass on taking the blame. I thought--and think--he can take lots and lots of it.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-28812593422347579112010-10-27T09:57:00.000-07:002017-03-07T10:10:44.813-08:00"The Republicans are Nazis"?Drawing parallels between contemporary politics and Nazism is a dubious enterprise. It's usually a good idea to maintain a taboo against it because, as "Nazi" and "fascist" became multi-purpose curses in political discourse, such parallels were both ubiquitously drawn and in almost every case entirely inappropriate. We have to be able to learn from the past and when we cheapen the world's experience with fascism by hanging the label on everything we don't like, we're cheating ourselves of the ability to do so.<br />
<br />
That's the same reason such parallels shouldn't, as some argue, automatically be taboo. The taboo was created to combat inappropriate use of such comparisons. From that, the best of intentions, one could argue we've often erred in the opposite direction, coming to regard any comparison at all as inherently out-of-line. If overuse of the labels makes it difficult to learn anything from our past, being overly zealous in rejecting any comparison to fascism makes learning anything nearly impossible. The yardstick by which we should measure any such comparison should always be its appropriateness.<br />
<br />
With that as preface, "<a href="http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/">Down With Tyranny</a>" is <a href="http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2010/10/will-next-tuesday-be-more-like-1934.html">rather alarmed today</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
"Michael Godwin can [shove it]. The Republicans <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/rich-iotts-nazi-re-enactment-hows-it-playing-in-the-9th-district/64438/">are</a> Nazis... Or do you not see the relation between Sharron Angle's 'Second Amendment remedies,' Joe Miller's private thugs roughing up journalists, Daniel Webster's religious cult calling for the stoning of disobedient women and gays (stoning to death, I might add), Republicans' incessant demands that the Constitution be <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/26/buck-church-state/">altered in ways they prefer</a>, Boehner's <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/10/boehner-201010">'Hell, No' obstructionism</a> to economic salvation for the country, Rich Iott's glorification and emulation of SS death squads, physically violence towards women from top tier GOP candidates like David Rivera and Tom Ganley, and Monday evening's ugly 'altercation,' as Rand Paul put it in <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1010/Ugly_scene_in_Kentucky.html?showall">defending his fascist supporters</a>, 'between supporters of both sides?' If America votes in the Republicans next week, it's one giant step--perhaps an irreversible one--towards what the German's allowed to happen to them in 1933."</blockquote>
As fascist parallels go, this skirts right along the boundary of appropriate and inappropriate. DWT is obviously mixing up a lot of elements on the right here and overly generalizing. My initial impulse was simply to write it off as over-the-top but there are certain on-the-ground facts (beyond those outlined by DWT) that hinder such an easy dismissal. Not so much related to this election in particular but about various trends in what, today, passes for American conservatism, reactionary trends feeding into if not fascism proper, a strong protofascism. This has been trending for some time now.<br />
<br />
Consider what happened during the Bush administration. In George Bush Jr., the U.S. was confronted with a "president" who asserted the power to ignore U.S. law and the constitution at will; to unilaterally suspend fundamental constitutional rights like the free press; to kidnap anyone anywhere in the world, including U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, and to throw them in a deep, dark hole, with no access to courts, lawyers, any semblance of due process. From there, the victims of this government kidnapping could, the administration asserted, be tortured, shipped off to foreign soil to be tortured, tried in secret kangaroo courts with secret evidence and predetermined outcomes and even murdered in secret. Or, they could just be left down in that deep, dark hole to rot. Forever. Behind closed doors, the administration claimed the "authority" to read our emails, listen in on our phone conversations, dig through our financial records. They openly used "signing statements" to assert that they were immune from literally hundreds of laws passed by the legitimately elected government. Obsessed with secrecy, they made getting any significant information from the government almost impossible while carrying out a program of "cleansing" the key agencies of that same government of elements considered insufficiently "loyal" to Bush. They lied the U.S. into undertaking an imperial project in Iraq that has cost thousands of lives, billions in treasure and resulted in a quagmire from which the U.S. hasn't yet managed to extricate itself and had every intention of doing the same thing in Iran. And that's just for starters.<br />
<br />
Bush was certainly no fascist but it's very difficult to look at everything he did and justify too vigorously wagging one's finger at someone who says he detected in that the whif of fascism. Certainly, the historical precedents for what Bush did are to be found primarily in squalid dictatorships.<br />
<br />
And what about the larger American right? While Bush was building an embryonic tyranny of monstrous proportions, the conservatives practically worshiped him. Among conservative Republicans, he was probably both the most popular president and the most consistently popular one in the history of polling. As Bush was leaving office in Jan. 2009, his poll numbers among the general public in ruins, the ABC/Washington Post poll asked respondents to offer an overall rating of his administration: A whopping 82% of conservative Republicans rated him a success; 53% "strongly."<br />
<br />
There is a strong protofascist current among what passes for conservatives today. The extreme anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-"different" sentiment is a part of it. A recurring example that never ceases to dismay is how even mainstream conservative figures now makes it a matter of furious controversy every time the Obama administration arrests someone as a suspect in a terrorism-related crime rather than simply kidnapping and torturing the fellow without regard for U.S. law or the Constitution. This represents an even closer step toward fascism than Bush encouraged, as his administration boasted of trying hundreds of terror suspects in legitimate courts, without any objection from the larger right. The Republican leader in the Senate <a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/single-most-important-thing-we-want-to.html">describes his parties' primary goal as gaining power</a>. They have <a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-that-all-youve-got-that-liberal.html">the seemingly bottomless support of the money elite</a>. A lot of what "Down With Tyranny" cites today could, indeed, be used to fill out this train of thought.<br />
<br />
These are trends that are profoundly disturbing, particularly given the fact that the Obama administration chose to give the Bush gang a pass--no prosecutions or even investigations and, worse, much of what Bush did has either been allowed, by the Obama, to pass into precedent or has been actively defended by the current administration. This leaves in place the lawless governing monster Bush built, still there to be used by whomever may come along, while, at the same time, the Republicans, whatever they are or may become, are, in this theoretical two-party state, always the default beneficiaries of frustration with the majority party.<br />
<br />
It may be that DWT's comments today skirt the boundary of appropriate with regard to the use of Nazi parallels. Such parallels are, practically speaking, generally quite unhelpful. He clearly thinks the barbarians are at the gates. It may be that his major error in this is in failing to realize how much progress they've already made.<br />
<br />
--classicliberal2Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-18458746975687817512010-10-26T19:44:00.000-07:002017-03-07T11:45:14.677-08:00"The single most important thing we want to achieve...""They [the Democrats] make these decisions to empower themselves. They make these decisions to empower the government. They are <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> making decisions in your best interest... they don't even know what your best interest is... they operate full-time, 24/7 based on politics and power."<br />
<br />
The words are those of reactionary radio ranter Mark Levin (from 12 Oct., 2010) but it's sentiment one hears so frequently from conservatives on talk radio and on the internet that it has become a cliché. Democrats may make a public show of having other concerns but secretly, they only care about power.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, here's Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, the man who would be majority leader of the Senate should Republicans win a majority in the body, publicly outlining the Republicans' goals for National Journal only days ago:<br />
<br />
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. Our single biggest goal is to give our nominee for president the maximum opportunity to be successful."<br />
<br />
The economy is barely limping along, unemployment is high, the government is running big deficits, Democrats are taking a daily pounding from the right for all of it but this--gaining power--is the Republicans' primary focus, plainly and openly stated, right from the horse's mouth. Or from one of its orifices, anyway.<br />
<br />
The Obama has sacrificed his entire administration on the altar of getting along with these creatures and has even said he thinks a big Republican victory may spur the Repubs to "offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way."<br />
<br />
--classicliberal2Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-42780587964034893712010-10-25T13:57:00.001-07:002010-11-01T11:55:58.335-07:00Meeting the Mad Half-Way?Today, "Dradeeus," <a href="http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2010/10/if-we-didnt-call-it-racist-we-have-to.html#comments">commenting on a blog</a> over at Niceguy Eddie's great "<a href="http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/">In My Humble Opinion</a>," wrote about the difficulty of constructive political discourse with what passes for "conservatives" these days:<br /><blockquote>"You can't debate between your position of what health care should be, budgetary issues, and foreign policy, with people who say 'death panels' and think their taxes are higher than they've ever been, and think Obama is a Kenyan usurper.<br /><br />"There's no debate there. You can't cross the fields and hope to meet in a no man's land between sane and insane"</blockquote>It's a familiar point to the three people who read this blog. A significant portion of the "conservative" base in the U.S. has, in blunt language, simply gone insane. They're <a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/attack-of-bubble-people.html">what I, in the past, have called the Bubble People,"</a>, a large portion of the American right that "has increasingly opted to seal itself in what amounts to an alternate universe, and never have any more than superficial commerce with reality."<br /><br />Today, for example, I open my email and I have yet another fundraising ad from yet another of the many right-wing outfits giving away (in exchange for a donation) a copy of the newest collection of right-wing garbage posing as a book. "The Roots of Obama's Rage," by Dinesh D'Souza.<br /><br />If one knew absolutely nothing of the book or of the author, the title alone <span style="font-style: italic;">has</span> to make any sane person who follows public affairs stop and scratch his head in complete bewilderment. "Obama's rage"? Obama is probably the most self-controlled, disciplined, <span style="font-style: italic;">least</span> angry national politician in the lifetime of anyone reading these words. What passes for contemporary American political discourse is little more than a collection of professional Perpetually Angry Ranters; the Obama is so <span style="font-style: italic;">non</span>-angry, he seems almost comatose by comparison, yet here's <span style="font-style: italic;">an entire book</span> that begins with the premise that he's filled with rage, then purports to proceed to explain from whence it all came.<br /><br />If that bewilderment by this theoretical neophyte on first encountering the book borders on incredulity, he'd be deep inside posted land when he got to D'Souza's "theory" that Obama is possessed of anti-colonialist radicalism he genetically inherited from his father. That's what passes for "theory" in what passes for "conservatism" today. Look for D'Souza's book to become a best-seller.<br /><br />The Bubble People are a serious concern, for anyone who has serious concerns. The obvious problem everyone else has in dealing with such creatures on anything resembling a constructive basis is the one "Dradeeus" outlined in psychological terms: there's simply no possible compromise to be found between sanity and insanity. The insane have absolutely no interest in finding any, and, even if they did, the sane would have to become less sane in order to meet them half-way. The problem of the "conservative" base treating reality itself as entirely optional is one about which every responsible citizen should be concerned. It will continue to plague us for the forseeable future, particularly given the party system in the U.S., which makes the party of the mad the only option for expressing frustration when the other party rules.<br /><br />--classicliberal2Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-15495375536439586972010-10-17T13:19:00.000-07:002010-10-18T19:36:17.371-07:00The Hill Spews Squid's Ink All Over Campaign Money Story"Mainstream" journalism--that which emanates from what our conservative friends insist is the "liberal media"--has many damnable practices. Its obsessed with trivialities--endless acres of trees die and barrels of ink are wasted on tales of the private lives of celebrities, countless hours of airtime are devoted to so-called "human interest" stories like the current one about the rescue of the Chilean miners (which, with a national congressional election looming, has been the top news story for weeks). Such stories, which don't affect anyone on earth other than those few directly involved, are used to replace hard news about real subjects that really matter and that affect everyone. Then, there's "he said/she said" reporting, wherein news reports only showcase conflicting claims, while making no effort to ascertain the truth behind them. This leaves the news consumer with the (usually false) impression that either claim may be true, and lets him choose what he wants to believe based on his own biases, rather than on facts. Our press also gives us regular doses of false equivalence. This is a con-game wherein Subject A lies like a rug about everything, but, in reporting his lies, the journalist feels the need to "balance" his story by including a lie or two from Subject B, his opponent. Subject B's few, usually minor, sometimes imaginary lies are thus made the equivalent of Subject A's real, massive, ongoing, comprehensive lies, leaving the impression that "they all do it," and that it's all just the same.<br /><br />Just yesterday, <a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-that-all-youve-got-that-liberal.html">I was writing/ranting about a story</a> that has gotten far too little coverage in the press. This election cycle has seen an unprecedented influx of money being funneled through outside groups, many of which don't publicly disclose the source of these funds. There have been allegations that some of this money may be coming from foreign sources. Whatever the sources, though, it's a matter of inherent (and grave) concern for everyone with any sense of responsible citizenship that there's this historically unprecedented influx of cash from utterly unknown sources aimed at manipulating the outcome of a federal congressional election. It's a documented fact that Republicans are the overwhelming beneficiaries of this secret money this year. In that sense, the story does have a partisan character, but it gets that character because that's who is benefiting from the money, not because some partisan decreed it. Republican elected officials willingly made themselves accomplices to this by standing, as a monolith, against changing the law in such a way as to force these shadowy groups to disclose the source of their funds (as everyone else must do).<br /><br />As I was writing here yesterday, it has been almost impossible to get the "mainstream" press to cover any of this, and when it has, it's handling of it has often been horrendous. Today offered up another specimen of that sort of horrendous reporting, a textbook example of That Damnable False Equivalence that seemed worthy of showcasing. It comes to us from the Hill, an article by Michael O'Brien and Hayleigh Colombo under the heading "<a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/124565-democrats-have-raised-1-million-from-foreign-affiliated-pacs">Democrats Have Raised $1 Million From Foreign-Affiliated PACs</a>." If the title doesn't give away the character of the piece, the lead paragraph settles the matter:<br /><blockquote>"Democratic leaders in the House and Senate criticizing GOP groups for allegedly funneling foreign money into campaign ads have seen their party raise more than $1 million from political action committees affiliated with foreign companies."</blockquote>They all do it, you see?<br /><br />Except that, if you read the article, the utter inappropriateness of framing the story in this way becomes immediately apparent:<br /><blockquote>"The PACS are funded entirely by contributions from U.S. employees of subsidiaries of foreign companies. All of the contributions are made public under Federal Elections Commission rules, and the PACs affiliated with the subsidiaries of foreign corporations are governed by the same rules that American firms' PACs or other PACs would face."</blockquote>Whoops! It seems these aren't "foreign contributions" at all. They come, instead, from Americans who work in Toyota plants. Unlike with the outside groups, the donors are all publicly identified; unlike with the outside groups, all of the money is openly disclosed; unlike with the outside groups, all of it is subject to finance rules.<br /><br />In other words, this has absolutely nothing to do with the story of these outside groups and their shadowy benefactors, yet O'Brien and Colombo have chosen to explicitly offer this as a counter to that story. That's how they framed their entire article. They even give a spokesman for American Crossroads--a group backed by Karl Rove that has poured millions into congressional elections without disclosing where a penny of it came from--a platform for an unrebutted rant against Democrats for their "hypocrisy."<br /><br />The only "story" O'Brien and Colombo really have is that Americans citizens legally donated to legally-constituted PACs that fully disclose those donations, and the PACs then made legal campaign contributions, also fully disclosed.[1] Not that this is unimportant--money given to campaigns in large amounts is <span style="font-style: italic;">always</span> offered as a means of buying influence, and that's <span style="font-style: italic;">never</span> unimportant, and desperately needs much more coverage--but O'Brien and Colombo don't offer it as a story concerned with money in politics. It's structured only as a counter to the story of the outside groups, and, so presented, it has no real reason for even existing, and amounts to nothing more than the journalistic equivalent of squid's ink, something squirted into the water only to muddy it so the squid that has been caught can escape.[2]<br /><br />That this kind of story isn't at all unusual doesn't render it any less disgraceful.<br /><br />--classicliberal2<br /><br />---<br />[1] And, of course, both parties draw from these PACs, with Democrats getting slightly less than twice what Republicans get.<br /><br />[2] I post, from time to time, over at the conservative site "<a href="http://www.thenextright.com/">The Next Right</a>," and the Hill story has already been thrown at me, by one of the conservative posters, as a counter to <a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-that-all-youve-got-that-liberal.html">my rant from yesterday</a>. The comments section of the original story at the Hill site is packed with dozens of similar responses. The article's target audience perfectly understood its purpose.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-23877358321999164712010-10-16T16:31:00.000-07:002010-10-17T13:16:44.928-07:00"Is That All You've Got?": That "Liberal Media" & Money, AgainMoney in American politics isn't just the most important story in American politics; it's the <span style="font-style: italic;">only</span> one. To <a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/pressing-depressing-press-for-little.html">quote myself</a> on the point, "U.S. politics are all about money. It overwhelms every other consideration. A lack of understanding of this basic fact precludes <span style="font-style: italic;">any</span> understanding of U.S. politics."<br /><br />You wouldn't know this from the coverage money gets in much of the "mainstream" corporate press. The stories <span style="font-style: italic;">do</span> get reported from time to time, it's true, but they're inevitably offered in a vacuum, without any proper foundation. It's never a subject covered in the comprehensive fashion that would be necessary to give it the proper context. Given the weight it merits, it would lead the news nearly every night. As it stands, stories of money in politics are treated as man-bites-dog tales, while we get intense, detailed, around-the-clock coverage of things like the rescue of the Chilean miners--"human interest" stories that don't affect anyone beyond those directly involved.<br /><br />The big Money story at the moment is how Big Money is purchasing the November elections. In the wake of <a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-supreme-court-legalizes-corruption.html">the grotesque Citizens United decision</a> foisted on us, earlier this year, by our Supreme Court, "independent" expenditures in many of the congressional races around the country are actually outpacing the money spent by the candidates themselves. The Center for Responsive Politics <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/10/outside-political-spending-skyrocke.html">reports</a> that<br /><blockquote>"Business associations, unions and ideological groups have more than doubled their <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/index.php">spending</a> on political advertisements and messaging when compared to the entire 2006 federal midterm, a <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/">Center for Responsive Politics</a> analysis indicates."</blockquote>CRP also notes that spending by corporate-sponsored PACs has already more than tripled over the previous mid-term elections.<br /><br />Unsurprisingly, the overwhelming beneficiaries of this are the Republicans, whose shameless pro-corporate, pro-wealthy, pro-Big-Money politics are offered without the threatening (but empty) populist rhetoric sometimes served up by the Democrats when they're trolling for votes. In the first three weeks of September, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-23/republican-leaning-groups-outspend-democratic-counterparts-7-1-this-month.html">Republican-leaning groups outspent Democratic-leaning groups 7-to-1</a>. A week ago, the CRP <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/10/conservatives-combat-foes-with-conv.html">reported</a> that<br /><blockquote>"Eight of the top 10 [outside] groups are conservative with one bi-partisan and one liberal group. Since September 1, identifiably conservative groups have spent $25.8 million, liberal groups $5.6 million, and bipartisan or nonpartisan groups $4.1 million."</blockquote>The Political Correction project of Media Matters For America <a href="http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201010130002">has documented</a> that only 10 conservative groups have, between Aug. 1st and Oct. 11th, financed an incredible 60,052 attack ads aimed at liberal candidates--almost all Democrats--on behalf of their conservative opponents.<br /><br />One of the major players in this orgy of spending is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Among other things, it has financed over 8,000 attack ads on behalf of Republican Senate candidates this year, and has promised to spend $75 million against liberal candidates around the country. Earlier this month, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/05/foreign-chamber-commerce/">a ThinkProgress investigation revealed</a> that the Chamber is financing this operation out of its general fund, a fund which solicits and accepts significant contributions from foreign sources. One would think this would set off some alarms in a press corps that always proves itself an enthusiastic conduit for any xenophobic (and generally baseless) allegation about sinister foreign influence on Democratic politicians, but, when the shoe was on the other foot (or, more to the point, on the other party), the matter actually received <span style="font-style: italic;">no</span> significant coverage until the Obama and his underlings raised this issue. It briefly cracked the news cycle at that point, but only long enough for much of the press to dismiss it as baseless and irrelevant, and to characterize it as a last-minute desperation tactic.<br /><br />That was certainly the case when CBS's Bob Schieffer asked White House adviser David Axelrod if he had any evidence that the Chamber was using foreign money to finance its campaign activity. Axelrod's reply was, "Well, do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob?" Schieffer was unimpressed. "Is that all you've got?"<br /><br />On the surface, Axelrod's reply sounds rather lame--it's always incumbent upon someone making an allegation to offer evidence of it--but it actually gets to the heart of an important part of the Chamber story, a part Schieffer was sidestepping with his withering retort: the Chamber's fat $75 million wad to attack Democrats has been collected from sources that aren't publicly disclosed. That much money is involved, and the donors are entirely secret. We know foreign sources give to the fund from which the Chamber drew that money. We don't know how much they give. More importantly, we don't know how much <span style="font-style: italic;">anyone</span> has given, or even <span style="font-style: italic;">who</span> has given.<br /><br />While it's no small matter that China, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and other foreign concerns may be using outfits like the Chamber to pour money into U.S. elections, the narrow focus, by the White House, on "foreign" contributions was unfortunate, in that it allowed that much larger point to be missed. Nearly half of all the very Big Money presently being poured, by outside groups, into the elections on behalf of Republicans come from groups that don't even publicly disclose the source of that money.[*] What we have, then, is a mind-bogglingly huge wad of cash, intended to manipulate the outcome of U.S. elections, and we, the public, don't know where a dime of it came from. Politico reports that<br /><blockquote>"Never in modern political history has there been so much secret money gushing into an American election. By Election Day, independent groups will have aired more than $200 million worth of campaign ads using cash that can't be traced back to its original source."</blockquote>That's important. No formulation of Responsible Citizenship would allow one to dismiss it.<br /><br />Responsible Citizenship doesn't guide everyone, though. This summer, before this deluge, a Democratic initiative that would have at least made these groups disclose their donors was blocked when all 41 Republicans in the Senate--who are, of course, the beneficiaries of the current state of things--voted to filibuster it. An effort to revive it last month was similarly killed.<br /><br />So there you have it. Is that all I've got? I'd say that was quite enough.<br /><br />--classicliberal2<br /><br />---<br />[*] By contrast, in the 2006 midterm elections, over 90% of outside groups publicly identified the source of their funds.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-34937968160145054182010-10-15T14:09:00.000-07:002010-10-16T15:55:06.174-07:00The Tragedy of the Obama: Clueless Barry chapter<a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/president-obama-looks-forward-and-back/">Interviewed by Peter Baker of the New York Times</a>, the Obama, in a move that should give birth to serious concerns that the President of the United States may have suffered some catastrophic form of brain death, "said that he expected Republicans to offer him more cooperation after November's elections, no matter the outcome."<br /><br />Has to be quoted to be believed:<br /><br />"'It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible, either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them,' Mr. Obama said. 'Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.'"<br /><br />Doesn't really need any further comment, does it?<br /><br />--classicliberal2Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-75689019846579523062010-10-14T22:25:00.000-07:002010-10-15T12:48:30.616-07:00The Lure of Conspiracy<div class="text"> <div id="commentbody-3547">It is said that "a lie can make it half way round the world before the truth has time to put its boots on." Mark Twain is credited with saying it. It's unlikely he ever did. It's attributed to him anyway. That attribution turns up all over the internet, which sort of makes the same point as the original quote. Now, we can forget "half way,"and truth can forget about putting on his boots; these days, lies can be instantly transmitted around the world with the click of a button, and the hope of <span style="font-style: italic;">ever</span> setting them entirely straight is fleeting, at best.<br /><br />In such an environment, it's no surprise that conspiracy theories flourish. Hillary Clinton murdered Vincent Foster, Bush blew up the World Trade Center, Obama is a Kenyan Muslim, and the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati, the Bilderbergs, the Freemasons, and all of those other satanic commie Jewish financiers secretly run the world.<br /><br />It isn't just the technology that makes this such a pasttime today, though. People are lazy. They don't like to read, certainly not to research. Education levels aren't particularly high. And in the current political climate, reality is being treated, by far too large a segment of the population--mostly, it must be said, the conservative segment--as entirely optional.<br /><br />These temporal factors exacerbate the problem, but even without them, conspiracy theories have always served some very basic human needs. They give a short, simple explanation for what are, in reality, remarkably complex problems, and they impose stability--a comforting order on a world that, in reality, doesn’t have any. Even when that "order" is something really awful, like a sinister cabal of financiers secretly running the world, people still find it comforting that it exists. People have a hunger for these things. It’s why we have everything from religion to the "9/11 Truther" movement.<br /><br />A lot of conspiracism begins with a strong grain of truth. It is, for example, a fact that the War On Terrorism [tm] was minted as an ideology to act as a means of getting certain things done that couldn’t be done in its absence. It was used as a means of establishing and maintaining <span style="font-style: italic;">very</span> backwards, reactionary policies which those in power had wanted all along, without regard for the publicly-offered post-9/11 rationale for them. It was used to repress the more enlightened elements, which, of course, dissent from it. The Bush administration used it to drag the U.S. down the ugly road toward fascism, a road on which it is still frustratingly stranded. A “9/11 Truther” sees–or, at least, senses–these things, but rather than following the thread to where it really leads, he becomes lost in irrational speculation, and decides that, since the War On Terrorism [tm] was such a useful weapon for the far right, the whole thing must have been engineered by them, and suddenly you have the insistence that Bush and his thugs were behind the terrorist attacks, and actually dynamited the World Trade Center themselves, with "evidence" manufactured to support the "theory."<br /><br />Similarly, elements of the current very, very bad recession–the Great Recession?–are being prolonged by elements of, broadly speaking, Big Money. While the public is suffering, U.S. non-financial corporations are, at present, sitting on nearly $2 trillion in cash, refusing to hire or use that money in any constructive way. The financial sector is sitting on an even bigger fortune. And, as was just revealed, the recession--on paper--ended last summer. This leads to speculation that, for example, this is happening because those with all the money and power are angling for a change in government in November. This isn’t unwarranted speculation–the oil suppliers, which are heavily invested in the Republican party, <span style="font-style: italic;">have</span> done this very thing for years, and are doing it this year. The conspiracist absorbs these facts, but doesn’t really try to understand what’s actually going on, choosing, instead, to imagine backroom plots, rather than spontaneous action driven by mutual greed, and some take it even further by writing off the entire recession as some sort of manufactured thing (because it’s allowing the Big Money villains to get their way).<br /><br />The prevalence of conspiracism is quite unfortunate. A mind is like a computer: garbage in will equal garbage out, and a mind really is a terrible thing to waste. Beyond the level of personal tragedy, though, it's also a loss for society. It utterly wastes energy that could otherwise be constructively used, harnessing that which could help foment constructive change and sending it, instead, careening down blind alleys that lead nowhere. There’s enough real evil out there, and it really does need to be fought. In such a fight, every warm body helps, and the more that are lost to conspiracism, the fewer there are to do what really needs to be done.<br /><br />--classicliberal2<br /></div> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-68325892657760345332010-10-02T13:50:00.000-07:002010-10-10T11:51:49.946-07:00Buck That<a href="http://www.regressiveantidote.net/">David Michael Green</a> has written a fantastic piece over at <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/">Common Dreams</a> today; "<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/02-1">Bucking Up For Barry</a>." It's a compact, harsh little polemic that, with a few words, makes for a solid corrective to the stream of garbage that's recently been publicly pouring forth from several administration figures with regard to the alleged irrationality of liberal discontent with the Obama and the Democrats.<br /><br />Having, from the beginning, almost entirely locked out the liberals and having then run the whole of his administration in a manner that, a few short years ago, would have been uncontroversially characterized as conservative Republican, the Obama is shocked--<span style="font-style: italic;">SHOCKED</span>--to discover that, with congressional elections looming, the liberals are uninterested in turning up to vote for his party.<br /><br />Vice President Joe Biden identifies the discontented liberal base as those who "didn't get everything they wanted" out of the administration, and this characterization--that liberal critics are just whiney ideological purists who can't have everything their way--has become popular among administration apologists. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says the liberals will only "be satisfied when we have Canadian health-care and we've eliminated the Pentagon."<br /><br />To write this off as mere caricature would be to falsely suggest there was any nugget of truth in it at all (a necessary element for an effective caricature). To state the obvious, the disaffected liberals aren't made up of fanatical ideologues who refuse to get with the program because they only got 90% or 95% or some other high figure of less than 100% of what they wanted. It isn't that, with a Democratic president and Democratic supermajorities in both houses, they only got 50% of what they wanted, either. The reason liberals are becoming alienated from this administration and are increasingly uninterested in voting for the Democrats this year is because they've gotten practically <span style="font-style: italic;">nothing</span> from this administration or the huge Democratic majorities in congress.<br /><br />Well, that "nothing" isn't exactly true. It <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> true they got nothing when it came to constructing the administration, and it's true they got nothing when it came to this administrations' policies, from health care (where Obama adopted Republican Mitt Romney's corporate welfare bill as his "reform") to the stimulus (pathetically small, and a thing for which Republicans took credit), to financial reform (more of the same).<br /><br />The liberals did get something from this administration, though.<br /><br />They got its contempt.<br /><br />On every major issue, the Obama not only gives in to the Republicans without a fight; he has usually adopted their policies as his own. He won't fight with the Republicans over <span style="font-style: italic;">anything</span>, but he's more than happy to pick a fight with the Democratic die-hards who make up his base of support. The open contempt <span style="font-style: italic;">they've</span> been getting lately from the likes of Gibbs and Biden mirrors the contempt they've been getting all along.<br /><br />Those of the larger left in the U.S. are in constant disagreement with one another. They've never had the Republicans' reflex of mindlessly lockstepping the goosestep, but the potentially good news for the Democrats--and bad news for the U.S.--is that most of the liberals <span style="font-style: italic;">have</span> shown themselves to be gluttons for punishment. Usually, one need only raise the specter of how much worse it would undeniably be should the other side regain power (particularly true this year, given the current proto-fascist Repub party), and far too many of the liberals are content to shout "thank you sir, may I have another?" A willingness to stupidly tough it out for no discernible gain, however, doesn't necessarily translate into a willingness to show up at the polls in any significant number, which is what the Democrats now need. This year, even what many consider the strongest (and what is, in fact, the most shopworn) of Democratic arguments for holding one's nose and voting Democratic--imagine what the courts will look like if the Repubs win--can't hold any water after the Sotomayor and Kagan atrocities.<br /><br />The other reason the Democrats should have some hope is, of course, the Republicans, who, in an election year tailor-made for a strong showing by their party, seem far too often determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. In state after state, they've chosen to reject winning candidates and nominate, instead, a seemingly endless string of unelectable flakes, fruit-cakes, and fascist idiots whose every pronouncement alienates everyone who isn't completely insane or a complete imbecile.<br /><br />It's also a fact that Republican strength this year has, in all the Conventional Wisdom with which we're forever besieged in the era of the 24-hour cable news network, been grossly overstated. The teabaggers may make lots of noise and suck up an absurdly disproportionate amount of press coverage and commentary as a consequence of all that very Big Money behind them, but there isn't even a hint of any sort of groundswell of public support for the policies or candidates they're pimping. Even the more "mainstream" parties' "Pledge to America"--an attempt to retread the 1994 Contract on America--went public with a thud, and, only days later, already seems to have been forgotten. A rainy election day in November would benefit Republicans more than all the teabaggers and Pledges combined.<br /><br />The most basic thing that is to their benefit is the simple fact that they're the major opposition party. In a two-party state (one that usually more closely resembles a one-party state), the Repubs are, by default, considered the only credible option for expressing frustration at the polls. And people are very dissatisfied with the Democrats this year.<br /><br />The current crop of Republicans in power would be a horror-show, no doubt, but, as Green points out, the current Democrats in power have also been one. "None of the Above" seems a principled stand to take this year. The same can't be said for voting for either of the major parties.<br /><br />--classicliberal2Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-40867359588739577662010-07-15T10:50:00.000-07:002010-07-15T13:04:29.258-07:00Another Lousy Teabagger PollAlas, <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/141119/Debt-Gov-Power-Among-Tea-Party-Supporters-Top-Concerns.aspx">we have yet another poll purporting to survey the Tea Party "movement"</a> that, in reality, does no such thing.<br /><br />Gallup, its source, is a repeat offender on this matter. Its pollsters went down this same road back in March. It's a much-traveled road that leads only to a dead end, yet Gallup and every other major polling organization that has purported to survey the teabagger "movement" has insisted on this same trip to nowhere.<br /><br />The critical flaw in all of this polling is that all of it is based on samples that don't reflect the actual "movement." This time around, Gallup's pollsters determined their sample by asking respondents if they were "Tea Party supporters." Back in March, they'd asked people if they were "supporters of the Tea Party movement." Pollsters have used variations on this wording to build their samples every time they've set out to survey the teabaggers.<br /><br /><a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/boiling-shoddy-teabagger-polling-update.html">Back in April, I outlined the many reasons why this is a problem</a>, one that renders nearly all of the polling on this matter worthless. If you want to survey the opinions of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, you would build your sample by asking respondents if they, in fact, played for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. If, instead, you asked respondents if they were "supporters of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers," it's obvious that the resulting sample is going to be much larger, and the results of the questions asked of that sample will not be representative of the views of the actual Bucs. Why this logic has so doggedly escaped the allegedly professional pollsters who have made such a show of surveying the teabaggers is becoming an enduring mystery.<br /><br />When Gallup asked for "Tea Party supporters," they got yet another ludicrously high number: 30% of the population. The biggest sample yet. If those at Gallup hadn't given any thought to their methodology before, that result alone should have given them serious pause, as the teabagger "movement" has never shown itself to have anything even remotely approximating those kind of numbers. Obviously, a huge chunk of that sample is made up of people identifying themselves with the "movement" who, in fact, aren't a part of it in any meaningful way, yet they're the ones being surveyed, the data they provide that which is being presented as representative of the "movement."<br /><br />As I noted at the time, CBS News--seemingly inadvertently--identified this problem in one of the teabagger polls conducted in April, but utterly failed to understand its significance:<br /><br />"More than three in four Tea Party supporters (78 percent) have never attended a rally or donated to a group; most have also not visited a Tea Party Web site."<br /><br />In other words, they aren't a part of the Tea Party "movement" at all. Of those who identified themselves as "Tea Party supporters" in that CBS survey, only 20% said they'd actually given money to a Tea Party org and/or attended a Tea Party event. That equals 4% of the general public. That's a number that's also wildly inflated, but it's a lot closer to reality than 30%. But it's the demographics and views of that larger sample that is being persistently surveyed by pollsters and presented as representative of the "movement."<br /><br />In reality, the "movement" is exactly as I described it back in April; "an astroturf project, a tiny group of more-angry-than-thoughtful conservatives whipped into a persistent lather by a well-financed campaign of misinformation and sent into the street to provide the appearance of a mass movement." If it really commanded the allegiance of 30% of the population--or of even half that--it would be able (depending on dispersion) to dictate, at will, the outcome of the ongoing Republican primaries across the country. In reality, this year's teabagger candidates have been noteworthy primarily for their inability to unseat Republican incumbents in open elections. Even in a teabagger stronghold like Texas, incumbents managed a complete shut-out against them. In contested primaries without a party incumbent in the mix, the teabagger candidates who have succeeded--Rand Paul in Kentucky, Sharon Angle in Nevada, etc.--have quickly become national embarrassments, as the spotlight falls on their nutty, fringe views.<br /><br />One could make the argument that the teabaggers are of so little consequence that it doesn't really matter that we have so little real polling, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that reasoning, but this polling that so radically inflates their numbers plays their astroturf game of making them look like a great deal more than what they are, and to the extent that it's believed, that can only have a negative effect on our politics.<br /><br />--classicliberal2Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424698799758911179.post-81162657498404997982010-05-16T12:13:00.000-07:002016-06-19T18:16:46.917-07:00"War On Terror" [tm], justice, & a JusticeIf a tree falls in the forest, with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? Similarly, if a news story breaks and goes almost entirely unreported, is it a news story? There was news in the case of Maher Arar on Wednesday. That nearly everyone reading these words will respond with a puzzled look--"Who?"--is yet another testament to the effectiveness of the corporate press in the U.S.. Arar's is a <span style="font-style: italic;">great</span> story, mind you, but what should have been his 15 minutes of fame was a consequence of his being one of the victims of the Bush administration's "War On Terror"[tm], and stories like that don't make the news in the U.S.. As it so happens, there's a synchronicitous confluence between it and the thing that <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> presently making the news in the U.S., the Obama pimping his despicable Supreme Court nominee around the Senate.<br />
<br />
But I'll get to that in a moment.<br />
<br />
First, some background:<br />
<br />
Arar was a Canadian engineer and small businessman who, in 2002, was flying home to Montreal from a family vacation in Tunisia and made the big mistake of having a name like "Maher Arar" while switching flights in New York during the Bush administration. He was promptly kidnapped by the administration, thrown in a hole for two weeks and without any access to a lawyer or any other basic element of due process, interrogated about his being a member of al Qaida. He <span style="font-style: italic;">wasn't</span> a member of al Qaida but because--follow this--he once worked with the brother of a man who was suspected of having ties to people in al Qaida, his protestations on this point weren't accepted by his persecutors and he was packed up and spirited away to <i>Syria</i>.<br />
<br />
The Bush administration falsely claimed this wasn't an example of its "extraordinary rendition" game, whereby suspected terrorists are shipped off to foreign soil to be tortured, and that it was instead a "deportation." Arar wasn't a Syrian though. While he'd been born there, he'd fled from there as a teenager and never returned--he'd been a Canadian resident for 15 years, and a Canadian citizen for 11 yet his entreaties that he be sent to Canada--the destination of any legitimate deportation--were ignored. He was, instead, delivered, by the administration, to Syrian authorities in Jordan, who blindfolded and shackled him and hauled him across the border to a 3-feet-wide rat-infested cell without light which became his "home" for nearly a year, during which time he was repeatedly tortured. His torturers demanded answers to the same questions he'd been asked after being kidnapped by the Bush administration. He broke quickly and "confessed" to whatever they wanted in order to make the torture stop but apparently nothing he said panned out--after 10 months, the Syrians released him with the declaration that they could find no links to terrorism.<br />
<br />
Arar returned to Canada and after some recuperation, began looking into legal action against the Bush regime and the government of Canada (which had collaborated with it). In Canada--quite a contrast to the non-story it has been in the U.S.--the matter became a national scandal and eventually the subject of an official commission of inquiry. The commission unequivocally concluded that there was no evidence linking Arar to terrorism and the Prime Minister issued a formal apology to Arar on behalf of the Canadian government, accompanied by a $10.5 million settlement. Mountie Commissioner Giuliani Zaccardelli was forced to resign his post over the matter.<br />
<br />
In the U.S., Arar's suit against the Bush gang--virtually unreported at any stage of the affair--was initially thrown out after the administration invoked the damnable "states secrets privilege" (which the court should gut instead of using it as a premise for throwing out such suits). Arar appealed and the case was thrown out again. With the government he's suing now being administered by the Obama administration, Arar has taken the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. Instead of prosecuting the crimes of the Bush administration (or merely settling the case), the Obama has done what he's virtually always done when one of these matters has been raised; he's adopted the sins of that administration as his own.[1] His administration has kept Arar and his family on the U.S. terrorism "watchlist" and on Wednesday, <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gETMCkfXrgciMhYthsFYiWkb-w8QD9FLJI281">the administration filed, with the Supreme Court, papers asking them to reject Arar's appeal</a>.<br />
<br />
That's the same Supreme Court on which the Obama wants to place the horrid Elena Kagan. Should Kagan be confirmed and the court decide to allow the case to proceed, Kagan, who has endorsed the premise of Bush's "War On Terror"[tm] and has publicly supported the administration's kidnapping policies, will ultimately be one of the justices sitting beside John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence "Uncle" Thomas, and Samuel Alito hearing it.<br />
<br />
Seems a bit more substantial a matter than the Kagan sit-down photo-ops with Senators presently consuming the news, doesn't it?<br />
<br />
--classicliberal2<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
[1] As my persistent readers will recognize, this is one of the things ye humble editor most feared; that the abuses of the Bush administration would be defended, instead of rebuked, thus passing into precedent as acceptable.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2