aTypical Joe: a gay New Yorker living in the rural South
Friday, December 23, 2005
Santorum’s a weasel
Intelligent design is becoming a hot issue in Pennsylvania’s Senate race. Rick Santorum, the Senate’s third-highest-ranking Republican, sits on the board of the Thomas More Law Center, which led the fight for ID in Dover, Pa. He also praised the Dover school district for trying to “teach the controversy of evolution.” Now that the case has led to a court ruling that eviscerated ID, Santorum says the center “made a huge mistake in taking this case,” and he’s going to quit its board. Santorum 2002: “Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes.” Santorum 2005: “I’m not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom.” Reaction from Santorum’s challenger: He’s an ideologue or a weasel, take your pick.
SEE ALSO: my posts Santorum on gay marriage, his take and mine; Santorum and Boston liberals and Senator Santorum and the WeatherBug.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
“Sexy is all she is…”
So says my Westchester-connected friend about DA Jeanine Pirro. “I don’t know why the Republicans are cozying up to her. Have you seen how she dresses?”
He thinks she’s got no substance. I think she’ll win:
Even as she announced she would shutter her campaign against Clinton, Pirro jumped into the state attorney general’s contest. A recent independent poll showed her trailing the two Democrats seeking that office.
In a statement released by her campaign, Pirro said her “law enforcement background better qualifies me for a race for New York State Attorney General than a race for the United States Senate.”
It was obvious she’d never lay a glove on Clinton, but she was soooo right for the fight, even before the 32-second pause in her campaign kickoff speech. Scott Shields has wrap-up of her short-lived candidacy and wonders, who’s in?
It’s the liberals!
Kevin Drum comments on conservative claims that there have been no new terrorist acts on American soil because of the Patriot Act, the NSA surveillance and the enhanced interrogation techniques:
Of course, you might just as well ask yourself why there were no terrorist attacks on American soil in the four years before 9/11. The fact is, superhawks always claim their programs are vital to American security, and they almost always turn out to be wrong. We didn’t need to intern Japanese-Americans during World War II, we didn’t need Joe McCarthy’s theatrics during the Cold War, and we didn’t need COINTELPRO during the Vietnam War. And when the Church Committee outlawed the most egregious of our intelligence abuses in the 70s, guess what happened? The Soviet Union disintegrated a decade later. Turns out we didn’t need that stuff after all. America is a lot stronger than its supposed defenders give it credit for.
In any case, [this is] a talking point you can expect to hear a lot more of when al-Qaeda eventually mounts another successful attack on American soil, an act so likely as to be almost inevitable. No matter how big or how small that attack turns out to be, the hawks will rush to announce: it’s the liberals’ fault. It’s your fault. It’s my fault.
But never their fault. Never the fault of those who have so little faith in America’s institutions in the first place. It’s never their fault.
I am always aware that it was 8 1/2 years between World Trade Center attacks; and that Bush said after 9/11 that this was a new war that called for a new way of fighting. Then he proceeded with business as usual.
But wait… I’m wrong! There is something new. This war calls for no shared sacrifice; and no shared responsibility.
Via Digby.
The only thing we have to fear is…distorted judgement
H.D.S. Greenway writing in the Boston Globe:
IN MARCH OF 1933, Franklin Roosevelt, facing the crisis of the Great Depression, said in his inaugural address that ‘’the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”
The fear people felt then was not nameless, unreasoning, nor unjustified, as Roosevelt well knew. In fact, his address went on to say that ‘’the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone . . . Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.”
What Roosevelt meant was that fear can distort judgment and cloud the mind’s ability to perceive right turns from wrong turns in the road to safety. [...]
The Bush administration’s predilection to torture was clearly a result of mind-clouding fear caused by the greatest terrorist attack in history on Sept. 11th, 2001. The same can be said of the excesses of the Patriot Act, and, too, the decision to use the National Security Agency to spy on American citizens without benefit of warrant as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The Bush administration has shamelessly used fear to get its way. Both the president and vice president have tried to picture a withdrawal from Iraq as resulting in an Al Qaeda takeover of Iraq, and an Al Qaeda-led Caliphate stretching across the Muslim world. In reality al Qaeda hasn’t the remotest chance of taking over Iraq, not with 80 percent of the population either Kurdish or Shi’ite, and a timely end to American occupation might sooner lead to an Iraqi-Sunni disenchantment with foreign terrorists.
Via Digby.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Hillary’s not Bill
I just came from a table full of people who instantly said they’d vote Hillary for president. Most thought she would not win (and none of us thinks she’s a liberal). Slate points to this week’s New York Magazine:
According to an article, Hillary Clinton’s sponsorship of the Flag Protection Act illustrates precisely why she is unelectable. Not blessed with husband Bill’s “uncanny knack for finessing left and right,” Hillary may support the war and flirt with mom-and-apple-pie issues, but that will only alienate Democrats while failing to win over Republicans. “American voters have been habitually choosing a certain kind of distinctly American person as president, and Hillary Clinton is not that kind of person,” the author says.
I said the way for her to win is to, right after re-election as senator, start an exploratory committee and launch a listening tour that is the exact national replica of the one that won her first senate election.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Declaring war on O’Reilly’s War
Look, I put up a “Christmas tree,” rather than a “holiday tree,” and I’m sure Mr. O’Reilly is right that political correctness leads to absurd contortions this time of year. But when you’ve seen what real war does, you don’t lightly use the word to describe disagreements about Christmas greetings. And does it really make sense to offer 58 segments on political correctness and zero on genocide?
Perhaps I’m particularly sensitive to religious hypocrites because I’ve spent a chunk of time abroad watching Muslim versions of Mr. O’Reilly - demagogic table-thumpers who exploit public religiosity as a cynical ploy to gain attention and money. And I always tell moderate Muslims that they need to stand up to blustery blowhards - so today, I’m taking my own advice.
Like the fundamentalist Islamic preachers, Mr. O’Reilly is a talented showman, and my sense is that his ranting is a calculated performance. The couple of times I’ve been on his show, he was mild mannered and amiable until the camera light went on - and then he burst into aggrieved indignation, because he knew it made good theater.
Your TimesSelect money’s worth in just one day!
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Bush dissembling
Michael Stickings sent me a note confirming my gut reaction to yesterday’s speech:
Essentially, Bush neglected to mention the political filter that connected the “wrong” intelligence to his “decision” to go to war. It was that filter that selectively picked out the intelligence that turned out to be wrong, ignoring warnings from the intelligence community. Plus, Bush blamed other intelligence communities for making the same mistakes and deflected ultimate responsibility by declaring that the war was Saddam’s choice, not his own—how’s that for leadership?
His excellent post breaks it down in detail.
RELATED: The NYTimes looks at all four of his recent speeches and finds that the path forward has many ifs.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Strict Constructionist I
If there’s one thing we know about the president’s philosophy about the Constitution, it’s that he loves strict constructionists. None of that “the law evolves” stuff for Bush; the president, like all good conservatives, claim that “originalism” - the Constitution should be interpreted as the Founding Fathers intended - is the only way to go.
The opposite of this belief, of course, is the notion of a “living Constitution” that develops and changes with society over time. Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick recently joked that conservatives view this approach as “judges swinging like monkeys from the constitutional chandeliers, making up whatever they want, whenever they want.” Indeed, Jonah Goldberg wrote earlier this year, “A ‘living Constitution’ denies us our voice in this regard because it basically holds that whatever decisions we make - including the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments - can be thrown out by any five dyspeptic justices on the Supreme Court.”
So he was surprised to find the presidsent share these thoughts with Brian Williams on NBC:
Williams: Have you ever entertained the thought, Mr. President, that Iraq’s natural state may be three separate pieces, three separate nations?
President Bush: No, I haven’t. I think - I know it will be united based upon, you know, kind of universal principles, the ones I outlined in the speech, freedom to worship, rule of law, private property, marketplace, all bound by a constitution which the Iraqis approved, and which the Iraqis will improve upon. And, you know, we improved on our own Constitution. In other words, it’s a living document. (emphasis added)
Diebold
I’ve been reading the rumbles without comment. But it sure does look like where there’s smoke…
The chief executive officer of electronic voting company Diebold who once famously declared that he would “deliver” Ohio for President Bush has resigned effective immediately, RAW STORY has learned.
“The board of directors and Wally [O’Dell] mutually agreed that his decision to resign at this time for personal reasons was in the best interest of all parties,” the company’s new chairman said in a statement.
O’Dell’s resignation comes just days after reports from BradBlog.com that the company was facing imminent securities fraud litigation surrounding charges of insider trading. It also comes on the heels of a RAW STORY interview with a Diebold insider, who raised new allegations of technical woes inside the company, as well as concerns that Diebold may have mishandled elections in Georgia and Ohio.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Utterly alien principles principals (!) at DOJ
It appears John K. Tanner, chief of the Justice Department’s voting section, was a bit miffed about the recent leak of an internal document that showed most of the section’s lawyers who had reviewed a controversial Georgia voting law felt it would discriminate against black voters. The lawyers were overruled by higher-ups, Washington Post colleague Dan Eggen reported Nov. 17.
Tanner fired off a pyrotechnic e-mail to the section calling the leak “despicable” and “a clear breach of ethics, honor and professionalism.”
As would be expected, his e-mail also leaked.
The leak of the voting rights memo was “utterly alien to core principles of membership in the bar, and utterly at odds with the conduct rightly expected of employees of the Department of Justice,” Tanner said utterly. “There is no justification for individuals to put their own agendas ahead of their legal and professional obligations.”
“Extraordinarily unprofessional conduct,” he went on, is “a betrayal of colleagues on many levels.” Taking the high road, Tanner said he had “no plans for a leak investigation or other responsive action.” Of course, “the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of the Inspector General” will “take any action they deem appropriate.” Deportation to a secret jail in some Eastern European democracy?
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
On the flag burning amendment
A friend of Tapped writes Garance Franke-Ruta:
For the sake of argument, consider this: Go ahead, outlaw it. I mean, really, who gives a f*ck? So you won’t be able to burn the flag. Big whoop.
You should encourage Democrats to pass it. Here’s why:1) Get it off the table, since the only point of the amendment is to put Democrats in an awkward position over an almost purely symbolic issue.
2) Who does this effect? A couple of jackassess who think burning flags is a groovy way to protest. Screw’em. They should get a life. Draw a sign, for God’s sake.
3) Let conservatives expend money and manpower getting this thing passed all across the country. It’ll take years.
4) Watch them look stupid as years of silly litigation unfolds, with courts trying to settle the obvious questions raised by such an amendment - if you burn a teeshirt with a flag on it, are you burning the flag? How about accidental flag desecration? Etc. They’ll look stupid in the end.
And Ezra on Hillary:
It’s time for Clinton to stop choosing issues based on their potential for clever positioning and begin taking on endemic inequities because doing so is right. Otherwise, what’s the point? Clinton’s original move to the center, a clever reframe of the abortion debate, was useful. But watching the same, tired center-step on video games, television, movies, and flag burning becomes tiresome, and all the centrist points Clinton hoped to accumulate are drowning in the pattern’s evident inauthenticity. Not only isn’t it presidential behavior, it’s not even senatorial.
I’ve been very pro-Hillary. I held my nose through the videogame regulation proposal, now flag burning? How low can she go?
More on Hillary in pander mode from the Times.
Then and now
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour praised the federal government`s recovery efforts in his state.
‘The federal government has been fabulous,’ the former head of the Republican National Committee said on CBS` ‘Face the Nation.’ ‘They`ve worked and worked and worked.’
“We are at a point where our recovery and renewal efforts are stalled because of inaction in Washington, D.C., and the delay has created uncertainty that is having very negative effects on our recovery and rebuilding,” said Barbour, a strong ally of House Speaker Dennis Hastert and former Republican National Committee chairman.
“It is taking the starch out of people who’ve worked so hard to help themselves and their neighbors,” Barbour told a House panel investigating the government’s preparations and response to Katrina.
I guess he’s finally had enough.
MORE: PGL at Angry Bear on Mr and Mrs. Barbour.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Wal-Mart voters
I saw this from Ed Kilgore at TPMCafe when it was posted the other day. It’s true to my experience and it’s stuck with me:
[I]n the southern small-town, rural and exurban communities I know best, and among the low-to-moderate income “working family” voters Democrats most need to re-attract, Wal-Mart is considered pretty damn near sancrosanct. And if Democrats decide to tell these voters they can’t be good progressives and shop at Wal-Mart, we will lose these people for a long, long time.
Me and most of my friends here don’t shop there. But I think twice before telling others they shouldn’t. Instead, I agree with those who tell me they don’t.
See also Mark Schmitt on Wal-Mart and public subsidies.
Another transitory queer
Spokane Mayor Jim West said he no longer engaged in gay sex and had stopped visiting Internet chat rooms.
“I wish there was a rewind button,” West said.
“Basically, that’s what I’m asking the public for: a second chance.”
However, polls indicate that a second chance isn’t likely when voters decide Tuesday whether to recall West from office.
The mayor was caught in a newspaper’s sting operation in which he offered a city job to a person he thought was an 18-year-old man he had met in an online chat room.
Via Gay Orbit
MORE ON WEST’S ODIOUS BEHAVIOR: My posts Right Bi-Guy & Closet cases are dangerous.
UPDATE: Rejected!
Friday, December 02, 2005
Pirro’s staying in
It would be good if she were really in it to win:
Republican Jeanine Pirro said Friday she is staying in the race against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, despite pressure from some leaders of her own party to abandon her struggling campaign.
“I said from the beginning I am running for the United States Senate. I am a candidate for the United States Senate,” Pirro said after emerging from a two-hour meeting with Gov. George Pataki. She gave no details of the discussion. [...]
The Pirro campaign has struggled since it began on Aug. 8 and has had trouble raising money. The state Conservative Party has balked at her support for abortion and gay rights. No Republican running statewide in New York has won without Conservative Party backing since 1974.
“Clearly the only person who doesn’t know that the Pirro for Senate race is over is Jeanine Pirro,” said Michael Long, state Conservative Party chairman.
I appreciate her stand on gay rights, and I bet she’d win attorney general. It sure has been a great platform for Spitzer. I really don’t get how this works for her (I promise the link is worth the clickthrough). Meanwhile, the Times story earlier in the day had this tidbit on Bloomberg:
On another front involving the 2006 Republican ticket for statewide offices, Joseph L. Bruno, the State Senate’s majority leader, met with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg late yesterday to try to persuade him to run for governor next year. An aide to Mr. Bruno cited the mayor’s landslide re-election last month, but Mr. Bloomberg quickly rejected the proposal.
I used to watch NY1’s Inside City Hall every night; I’d love to see it tonight.
Corrupt intensions
Michael Kinsley today:
It used to be said that the moral arc of a Washington career could be divided into four parts: idealism, pragmatism, ambition, and corruption. You arrive with a passion for a cause, determined to challenge the system. Then you learn to work for your cause within the system. Then rising in the system becomes your cause. Then finally you exploit the system-your connections in it, and your understanding of it-for personal profit.
And it remains true, sort of, but faster. Even the appalling Jack Abramoff had ideals at one point. But he took a shortcut straight to corruption. On the other hand, you can now trace the traditional moral arc in the life of conservative-dominated Washington itself, which began with Ronald Reagan’s inauguration and marks its 25th anniversary in January. Reagan and company arrived to tear down the government and make Washington irrelevant. Now the airport and a giant warehouse of bureaucrats are named after him. Read on.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Credit freezes we want
In a post about how the credit industry is fighting even feeble measures to thwart identity theft, demonstrating just how seriously they take the issue, Kevin Drum discusses credit freezes:
Basically, a credit freeze prevents credit reporting agencies from revealing your credit history without first getting your express permission. This makes it nearly impossible for thieves to acquire phony credit cards in your name, since card issuers won’t issue new cards without first requesting your credit score from a credit reporting agency. If you’ve frozen your report, you’ll be notified when the request is made and can shut it down immediately.
The downside is that if you apply for new credit, you can’t get it until the credit reporting agency has contacted you first. In other words, no more same-day credit. It might take two or three days instead.
That’s not much of a downside, is it? In fact, for my money, all credit reports ought to be frozen by default. If you prefer to have your report unfrozen - that is, you’re willing to run the risk of ID theft in return for slightly faster approval of your credit applications - then you can unfreeze it.
There’s simply no reason for consumers not to have this choice, and the credit industry opposes it solely because the slight delay it introduces might make people think twice about applying for new credit - and that’s bad for business. Who cares about identity theft when there’s same-day credit to be extended?
MUST READ: Kevin’s Monthly article on identity theft, You Own You.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
More Osama dead rumors
Last month it was rumored he got sick and died in Kandahar. This time it’s the earthquake in Pakistan:
Nevada Senator Harry Reid thinks Osama Bin Laden was killed in last month’s earthquake in Pakistan.
Speaking Wednesday on News 4’s Nevada News Makers, Reid says he was informed today that Bin Laden may have died in the October temblor.
“I heard today that he may have died in the earthquake that they had in Pakistan, seriously.” Reid says that if that is the case, “that’s good for the world.”
Monday, November 21, 2005
Chickenhawks & me (again)
I saw this list and found it remarkable, but didn’t post it. I’ve reflected, and here it is. Now, I didn’t serve either (details here) and I’m no social scientist - I don’t really know a correlation from a causation - but the list is well worth posting in any event:
Service in the Armed Forces
Democrats:
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V,Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam. Paraplegic from war injuries. Served in Congress.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars,and Soldier’s Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and AirMedal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.Republicans
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. “Bad knee.” (The man who attacked Max Cleland’s patriotism.)
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon! Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; failed to show up
* B-1 Bob Dornan: enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Vietnam POW, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. “Knee problem, “ although continued in NFL for 8 years as quarterback.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.Pundits & Preachers
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve
* Bill O’Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
Oh, and the marine behind Republican Rep. “Mean Jean” Schmidt’s attack on Rep. John Murtha? Colonel Danny Bubp, political hack!
UPDATE: Bupp says, â€Â�There was no discussion of him personally being a coward or about any person being a coward.”
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Follow the leader
One of Josh’s Republican readers, on the ferocity of Republican reaction to Murtha:
[A] lot of politicians tend to take cues from Presidents of their party. Reagan led a generation of GOP politicians to speak with sunny optimism; Clinton influenced Democratic politicians to project empathy in a somewhat ostentatious way. Bush, being more than a little insecure, tends to want to lash out at critics even when this is not politically necessary or productive, and this tendency has radiated downwards through his administration and outward to some Republicans, particularly in the House. Karl Rove’s influence on GOP political operatives may be even more profound, and GOP political operatives have vast influence in Republican politics.
He also says dem pols are wimps, “...there wouldn’t be many Democratic politicians I would be afraid of.”
UPDATE - It’s turned out to be a hot topic, so they’ve set up a Topic for Discussion. One commenter writes:
I’ve been researching conservative versus liberal reasoning patterns. Compared to liberals, conservatives are more likely to be demonstrate the following characteristics:
1) “externalizing"--that is they are more likely than liberals to be aggressive, name-calling, hostile, threatening.
2) prone to “magical thinking"--that is, they conjur up hopeful realities that don’t actually exist, they lack critical thinking skills and engage in what I call “soothing speech"--repeating content free platitudes to reassure themselves.
3) lack empathy--they are less able to take the perspective of another.
4) thin-skinned paranoia. They are more likely to take offense.
These differences strike me as profound. The conservatives and liberals are operating at very different levels of moral reasoning. The conservatives attack viciously when they feel threatened, ignore reality and don’t consider the consequences of their viciousness. They just go for the jugular. And they feel no shame. Shame requires empathy.
It is not being a wimp to be stunned by this viciousness. If you are used to a world in which people are reasonable, take turns, understand the others point of view, use data and critical reasoning to define and address problems, it can be quite startling to discover that the other person has zero interest in getting along or being reasonable. Democrats CAN be accused of being in denial--of failing to anticipate problems or recognize that not everyone is good-hearted.
The attacker will consider his victim a “wimp” for not fighting back. But that is not the same thing as being a wimp. A “wimp” is someone timid or ineffectual. God help us if being reasonable and civilized is the same as being a wimp. It is a matter of perspective.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Georgia’s Poll Tax exposed
Damning evidence:
The chief sponsor of Georgia’s voter identification law told the Justice Department that if black people in her district “are not paid to vote, they don’t go to the polls,” and that if fewer blacks vote as a result of the new law, it is only because it would end such voting fraud.
The newly released Justice Department memo quoting state Rep. Sue Burmeister (R-Augusta) was prepared by department lawyers as the federal government considered whether to approve the new law. [...]
Burmeister said Thursday that the memo’s record of what she said “was more accurate than not,” but added: “That sounds pretty harsh. I don’t remember saying those exact words.”
Well, Justice Department attorneys do remember her using those words, and since she’s willing to concede they’re pretty accurate, they deserve to be judged accordingly.
Needless to say, this isn’t going over well in Georgia. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a veteran of the civil rights movement, said, “It’s unbelievable that any elected official would say something like this. It doesn’t have any, any merit. This is an affront to every black voter and would-be black voter not just in my district but in the state of Georgia.”
It also raises questions anew about the priorities of Bush’s Justice Department.
This law is a naked, racist, attempt to restrict the voting rights of blacks, yet the outcry from liberals has been rather muted compared to Diebold. This isn’t subtle or reliant on machines. The Georgia Legislature used chicanery to take the voting rights away from blacks.
Make voting mandatory
This article on why people vote got Ampersand to thinking:
The theory the article suggests is that in countries in which there’s a strong belief that voting is a civic obligation, people vote so that other people can see them voting. So a vote-by-mail option, by making it less necessary for people to be seen voting to get social credit for voting, actually reduces the reason for people to vote.
If that theory is correct, then what policy - short of manditory voting, which I think is a good idea that will never happen here (if we can make taxpaying and jury duty manditory duties of citizens, why not voting?) - should we use to encourage voting? Perhaps the “I voted” stickers should be made of nicer material and be more prominent.
I’m reading Freakonomics. They’d love the mail observation, probably not the legal requirement. I’m inclined to like it - civic duty invests us in our civil society.
There is no abortion debate
Michael Kinsley makes the good point that in Roe one side wants to uphold precedent while in Lawrence the other side does then notes:
Machiavellians of my acquaintance believe that it is the anti-abortion folks who are getting conned. The last thing in the world that Republican strategists want is the repeal of Roe. If abortion becomes a legislative issue again, all those pro-choice women and men who have been voting Republican because abortion was safe would have to reconsider, and many would bolt. Meanwhile, the reversal of Roe would energize the left the way Roe itself energized the right. Who needs that?
Abortion is the most important issue in American politics. It shouldn’t be. Others have as big an impact on the lives of individuals and a far bigger cumulative effect on society. No other nation obsesses about abortion the way we do. But many Americans believe that legalized abortion is government-sanctioned murder or something close to it. And many others (including me) believe that forcing a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth is the most extreme unjustified government intrusion on personal freedom short of sanctioning murder. For many in these groups, abortion is almost by definition an issue that overwhelms all others, or comes close, when they are deciding how (and whether) to vote. It is also, on both sides, a reliable issue for opening wallets.
Yet there is no abortion debate. Or at least the debate is unconnected to the reasons people on both sides feel so strongly about it. What passes for an abortion debate is a jewel of the political hack’s art: a big issue that is exploited without being discussed.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Alaskan Pork alive & well & aided & abetted by big media
Recall that the highway bill of 1982 had 10 “earmarked” projects-the code word for pork. The 2005 one had 6,371. The Bridge to Nowhere got the most attention.
Today the Times headlines, Two ‘Bridges to Nowhere’ Tumble Down in Congress. The Washington Post, Funding for Alaskan Bridges Eliminated. Problem is, as The Carpetbagger Report notes:
It’s a classic case of Congress pretending to respond to public demands. Congress passed the most bloated and expensive transportation bill in American history - complete with 6,371 pet projects, a new pork record - sparking cries of Republican excess. In response, lawmakers have “trimmed” the legislation without actually cutting a penny.
In fact, the bridge linking Ketchikan and Anchorage may still be built. Instead of a congressional earmark, Alaskan officials can just go build the bridge themselves with federal money.
But there are two stories here, and John gets the other one right. This is a media story:
Why didn’t the Washington Post report: Congress refuses to delete money for Bridge to Nowhere? Nope. They put a headline and first couple of paragraphs that make you think the bridge has been killed and Congress did the right thing. When in fact, Congress went out of its way in order to trick the American public. That should be the headline, congressional deceit.
Both the Times and the Post buried the lead, buried the real news, and reported - spotlighted - the spin. So much for the value of editors. As to playing to audiences, John also points out that the one paper to get it right was The Anchorage Daily News.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Bigger fish to fry
Washington oddsmakers are now keeping a close eye on McClellan.
[...]
A White House correspondent, who asked not to be identified, predicts McClellan, who replaced Ari Fleischer as press secretary in summer 2003, will soon be leaving his post. “I’m expecting very big changes,” the correspondent says.
Of all the people this White House needs to get rid of, he seems the most inconsequential to me. He’s taking the flack, and suffers from a “credibility gap,” while the others stay put? He’s just doing his job, as untenable as it is.
On the other hand:
[Gannett columnist Deborah] Mathis believes he does not have the aptitude to continue as the White House’s top communicator. “I’ve been through a lot of press secretaries,” she says. “There are some really good ones out there. There are some average ones out there. And there are a few who have no business there. And I would put Scott in that last category.”
Maybe he’ll sing when he’s free. I can dream can’t I?
Via Think Progress.
