Liz Cheney appeared on Fox this past Sunday outraged that Rahm Emanuel brought in Bill Clinton as a "cut-out" (oooh, love that 'spy' talk) to try to convince Joe Sestak not to run against Specter in Pennsylvania. She of course sees this as a major crime, never mind that President Reagan did the same thing with Senator Hayakawa, and as Juan Williams pointed out later, it is a normal part of politics - ambassadorships for example. But to Liz, if the Obama Administration does it, it's bad. if Daddy did it, it's good. So, if President Obama does something that the Bush Administration did not do or that contradicts what they did, then nothing for it but for Liz to make the rounds being outraged, which is really all she knows how to do. Seriously. Why does she get the air?
Juan Williams who is usually a total Fox apologist actually scored a few points with me by taking on not just Liz but Bill Kristol.
@Fred Thompson tweeted "Re: Clinton & Sestak: the point man on this credibility issue is only President in history to have been impeached for perjury." which is such a lovely thing for a Republican to say, considering the sexual peccadilloes of members of that party that we have been exposed to in the past year. Somehow, the most investigated couple in the history of this country, including every action taken prior to their political life, was concluded with the finding that the President lied about a question that we had not right to ask in the first place. Now, how many of those House managers had their own sexual scandals? Not wise to focus attention on sex when attacking, even Clinton.
And Liz, let's talk about perjury. Al Qaeda, Iraq, yellowcake, Niger, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, torture, enhanced interrogation, rendition, Guantanamo, Jay Bybee, John Yoo, Scooter Libby, I can't recall, defying Congress because I'm VP and therefore the 4th co-equal branch of government, sending you out to shill for him. Your Daddy is a piece of work and if you look up perjury in the dictionary, his picture is there. Right next to his boss. If anyone needs to have a special prosecutor appointed, it's your Dad.
So, how about you pack it in and go away and when your Dad and his boss are ready to talk about things, under oath, to Democrats, then maybe you can criticize President Obama. Until then, you need to go home and practice your presentation and learn how to participate in discussions with other people (it's considered appropriate to wait until someone has finished their comment before talking) and how to research your 'facts' before spouting off on the national tv machine. It's been real nice not having you around for awhile and I think I speak for many others when I say that it would be nice not having you around for awhile more.
The GOP and others on the right, ever seeking to find something to use to attack President Obama, have been calling the Gulf oil spill "Obama's Katrina." In The New Republic, Yuval Levin in The Corner wrote:
"I think it’s actually right to say that the BP oil spill is something like Obama’s Katrina, but not in the sense in which most critics seem to mean it.
It’s like Katrina in that many people's attitudes regarding the response to it reveal completely unreasonable expectations of government. The fact is, accidents (not to mention storms) happen. We can work to prepare for them, we can have various preventive rules and measures in place. We can build the capacity for response and recovery in advance. But these things happen, and sometimes they happen on a scale that is just too great to be easily addressed. It is totally unreasonable to expect the government to be able to easily address them—and the kind of government that would be capable of that is not the kind of government that we should want.
Let’s say a major hurricane hits a large and densely populated American city with five hundred thousand inhabitants. Much of the city is below sea level, and the flood-waters that follow in the wake of the storm quickly overrun it, filling nearly every street with water, in many places fifteen feet in depth. The magnitude of human suffering and destruction of property is mind-boggling. But within six days, everyone is out of the city and in total approximately one thousand people—one in five hundred residents—lost their lives in the calamity. Hour by hour, the government response was messy and ugly—it could hardly be otherwise given the magnitude of the disaster. But looked at with a little perspective, is that really a story of a failure of government response, or is it an example of how to contend with an immense natural disaster in a densely populated urban center? Is it a model of incompetence, or the most effective mass evacuation in human history?"
It sounds almost reasonable, and if someone had no understanding of the actual role of the federal government, particularly in regard to hurricane preparedness and disaster relief, the above makes some sense. Kind of.
Kevin Drum in his column in Mother Jones, responds. What he says, in part: [emphasis added]
"This conflates two very different things. Katrina was an example of the type of disaster that the federal government is specifically tasked with handling. And for most of the 90s, it was very good at handling them. But when George Bush became president and Joe Allbaugh became director of FEMA, everything changed. Allbaugh neither knew nor cared about disaster preparedness. For ideological reasons, FEMA was downsized and much of its work outsourced. When Allbaugh left after less than two years on the job, he was replaced by the hapless Michael Brown and the agency was downgraded and broken up yet again. By the time Katrina hit, the upper levels of FEMA were populated largely with political appointees with no disaster preparedness experience and the agency was simply not up to the job of dealing with a huge storm anymore.
The Deepwater Horizon explosion is almost the exact opposite. There is no federal expertise in capping oil blowouts. There is no federal agency tasked specifically with repairing broken well pipes. There is no expectation that the federal government should be able to respond instantly to a disaster like this. There never has been. For better or worse, it's simply not something that's ever been considered the responsibility of the federal government."
I respect President Obama claiming that "the buck stops with me" and that he is ultimately responsible for the disaster in the Gulf. I know that he is remembering the response to President Bush after his mishandling of Katrina and, especially in an election year which historically should bring the loss of Democratic seats, is trying to show that he is the anti-Bush, but I'm not sure that he is making the right move.
Yes, the federal government must be involved and hold BP, Deepwater, and Haliburton responsible. I think the government should have taken control over BP sooner, however, it is not his responsibility. It is his responsibility to ensure that BP is held accountable in a way that Exxon was able to avoid, and it is his responsibility to ensure that the MMS is either dissolved, or restructured, but this is in no way the fault of his administration except in the sense that his Secretary of the Interior Salazar did not move fast enough to clean up the mess that he inherited.
It won't be much longer before the public gets tired of this story--we can only take so much disaster before we need to turn away--and the media directs its attention elsewhere. As citizens, it is up to us to continue to put pressure on our representatives to keep this on top of the news and to support the legislation that will remove the limits on BP's liability, and ensure that BP does not get to have all future court hearings before the judge of their choice. Ask your representatives to make sure that all hearings related to this disaster are heard in the Gulf states, not in Houston before BP's handpicked judge. Make sure that those most harmed can participate in the process and will not be limited in the damages that they can seek.
"And you know what they say about "fences make for good neighbors"? Well, we'll get started on that tall fence tomorrow, and I'll try to keep Trig's squeals down to a quiet giggle so we don't disturb your peaceful summer. Enjoy!"
The poet Robert Frost actually began the poem she references with this line:
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall"
The whole point of the poem is a man wondering why he and his neighbor must rebuild their wall each spring.
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'. Frost asks: 'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.'
Once again, Sarah Googles a quote and misses the point. Hugely.
Continuing with today's theme.
Peggy Noonan wrote of President Bush after Hurricane Katrina and the projected impact on his presidency:
"Is the Bush Era over? No, no, no. It has three more years. That’s a long time. History turns on a dime. There is much ahead, and potential for progress."
Of President Obama and the BP oil disaster in the Gulf?
"I don’t see how the president’s position and popularity can survive the oil spill."
She continues:
"I wonder if the president knows what a disaster this is not only for him but for his political assumptions. His philosophy is that it is appropriate for the federal government to occupy a more burly, significant and powerful place in America—confronting its problems of need, injustice, inequality. But in a way, and inevitably, this is always boiled down to a promise: "Trust us here in Washington, we will prove worthy of your trust." Then the oil spill came and government could not do the job, could not meet need, in fact seemed faraway and incapable: "We pay so much for the government and it can't cap an undersea oil well!"
She does have a point. After all, Bush never promised a government that would hold a powerful place in America--confronting its problems of needs, injustice, inequality...He just demanded that we trust him.
The problem with Noonan's piece is that:
Bush knew ahead of time what would happen and how to prevent it
He avoided New Orleans afterward
He claimed that everything that could be done was being done (heck of a job, Brownie)
Bush to this day accepts no responsibility, none, for any mistakes that were made
President Obama was in the Gulf on May 2
He has already acknowledged the mistakes made
Rather than trying to evade responsibility in an off-year election year, he is trying to ensure that the American people know what is happening and that ultimately, it is his responsibility for the failures of the MMS even though it was the Bush Administration that made the decisions resulting in this disaster
Another GOPher apologist spouting the party line. Get in line. That woman is an idiot.
This morning, I received the following from Ellie Smeal of the Feminist Majority Foundation. Once again, a minority of Americans have decided that they get to decide how the rest of us live. Regardless of how you or I personally feel about abortion, the majority of American's still believe that it is a decision best left up to a woman and her doctor. Extremists would have you believe that wanting to allow women that choice automatically means you support that choice, conflating an extremely complex issue into a black and white, either/or question that is typical of the ignorance of the radical fringe of the extremist right.
The lives of doctors and clinic employees at Jackson Women's Health Organization in Jackson, Mississippi, are being threatened. This is the only abortion provider in the entire state of Mississippi. Extremists are trying to shut down this vital women's clinic. This clinic and its doctors need our help now.
One year ago Dr. George Tiller was brutally murdered. His killer, Scott Roeder, has been sentenced to life in prison, but the extremists have not been deterred.
The leading anti-abortion extremist in Jackson is an advocate of Justifiable Homicide - or the belief that justifies the murder of doctors who perform abortions. The clinic and its doctors have been repeatedly threatened.
The clinic needs immediate help to pursue legal strategies and to enhance its security system.
Our National Clinic Access Project legal coordinator has just traveled to Jackson to assist the clinic. She met with clinic staff and community pro-choice supporters to discuss ways to improve security, to assess legal needs and to devise new ways for the local community to support this critically needed health facility. We are determined to do everything we can to keep Jackson Women's Health Organization open and its patients, doctors and staff safe.
Help the doctors, health care workers, and patients of Jackson Women's Health Organization today by making an emergency, tax-deductible contribution. Half your contribution will go directly to the clinic to help pay for enhanced security measures.
The other half of your emergency contribution will help support our National Clinic Access Project's work to keep this clinic and other besieged clinics across the country safe and open. The demand for our work is dramatically increasing.
As I write this, we are working with Dr. Carhart and his clinic in Nebraska. Dr. Carhart, who had worked with Dr. Tiller, and his clinic were immediately targeted by Wichita-based Operation Rescue after the murder of Dr. Tiller. This group had harrassed Dr. Tiller for seven years.
And we are also working very closely with Family Reproductive Health in Charlotte, NC under siege by Operation Save America/Operation Rescue. Recently, anti-abortion extremists published the photographs of and information about the clinic's doctors in a WANTED poster. Similar posters appeared before the brutal murders of two doctors in Pensacola, Florida.
Without doctors and clinic to provide safe, legal abortions and access to birth control, there can be no choice for women. Please make an emergency contribution today to help Jackson Women's Health Organization and our National Clinic Access Project.
Just as a belief that war is wrong or that our presence in Iraq or Afghanistan means you are against the troops--that for almost all of us could not be more wrong--the GOPhers and others on the right continue to narrow the issues into sound bites and buzz words that trigger an emotional response. Once that emotional response is triggered, room for rational thought is lessened and the individual is easily manipulated in the direction that is desired. Politicians, marketing firms, and "commentators" are very aware of how easily this is done. The attack on our freedoms is well-coordinated and well-orchestrated. Witness the immediate response to Rand Paul's interview with Rachel Maddow and the immediate attacks on Rachel, not on the incoherent response to her questions. Issues are not addressed, rather the individual raising the issue becomes the issue in Tea Party land.
As an aside, during the 2008 campaign, many individuals contributed to the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund which at that time, included a stuffed wolf as a free gift with a donation. Many people had their free stuffed animal delivered to Sarah Palin. Unfortunately, they no longer offer incentive gifts, but there is always the acknowledgment card... Personally, I donated to Planned Parenthood at that time, in her name, and asked that the thank you card be sent to her and I know of a number of others who followed suit. After all, she had told Katie Couric that she was a feminist, so I know that Sarah Palin would, of course, appreciate the donation in her name...
Climbing onto his high horse yet again, Rush Limbaugh is having a hissy fit over the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court claiming, among other reasons, that statements made by the late Justice Thurgood Marshall about the Constitution, whom Limbaugh states that she idolizes, (idolizes? do we all 'idolize' our mentors?) disqualify her.
Limbaugh quotes Marshall as saying that;
"The Constitution as originally drafted and conceived was defective..."
Limbaugh continues by relating Marshall's comments about how it was only over the course of the next 200 years after the signing of the original Constitution that the people on the Supreme Court had made it worth anything. To Limbaugh, of course, this meant that Marshall was referring only to himself, because that is what he would do as everything is apparently all about him.He is outraged that anyone, particularly a Supreme Court Justice would question the Constitution. Hello? Does anyone want to tell him what the Court is for? Because it is not a perfect document, it needs people to interpret it and apply it to everyday life - thus the Supreme Court.
Has Rush ever actual read the Constitution? Does he understand that in the original, the Founders were referring only to white men, and landowning white men at that? That when they said that, "All men are created equal," they meant exactly that? Women in this country, with the exception of some individual states, were not granted full suffrage by Constitutional right until 1920 with passage of the 19th Amendment.
How about the Bill of Rights, Rush? Not included in the original Constitution. Those 1st through 10th Constitutional rights all the teabaggers get excited about are actually amendments. Including that pesky 2nd Amendment about the right to keep and bear arms, and the 10th that you Republicans love so much about states rights.
I know all you Republicans wish some of the more recent Supreme Court decisions like Brown v Board of Education (the one Marshall is most famous for, actually), and Roe v Wade had never happened, but you have to admit, if we still had just the original Constitution (which, by the way is amended because the Founders knew they were imperfect human beings and thus allowed in its creation for the amendment process to occur) our country would look very, very different. A lot like an elitist-run, no opportunity country they claim to love. Imagine that.
In a statement released today by the Thurgood Marshall Fund regarding Limbaugh's attacks, they said that;
"The story of Brown vs. The Board of Education is one of hope and courage. May 17, 1954 was a truly historic day for our nation as the United States Supreme Court handed down a landmark unanimous decision striking down Plessy v. Ferguson, a holding that, since 1896, made “Separate But Equal” the law of the land and kept our nation’s schools segregated. The Brown decision not only integrated our public schools, but it ultimately opened up so many doors of opportunity wrongfully closed to people just because of the color of their skin. Thurgood Marshall, the lead attorney in the Brown case, became our nation’s first African-American Solicitor General and later the first African-American Supreme Court Justice."
"The Late Justice Marshall challenged America to continue to “Knock down the fences that divide, tear apart the walls that imprison, and reach out, for freedom lies just on the other side...”
Slavery and gender inequality were embedded in our Constitution. The Founders could not have known the changes that would occur in our world in the time since this nation was created, however, they had the vision to understand that without change, this nation would die, and thus produced a living document. A document that has embedded in its foundation that process for change.
I have discussed the increasing use of tasers in our society here, here, and here. As a sociologist, I am concerned about the increasing violence and the consequences, and as a counselor, I am concerned about the effects of that violence. This past weekend, Sarah Palin spoke at the Women of Joy Conference and referenced the Prayer Warriors, admitting again her connection to that group whose admitted aim is the destruction of the demons that are destroying our society. Warriors. Violence. I guess anything goes if you achieve your goals.
Digby writes frequently about tasers as well and discusses here the recent tasering of a baseball fan at a Phillies Cardinals game for the heinous crime of running onto the field. Her point? We have truly sunk as low as we can get. The included comments posted to the YouTube video attached.
Randalrister thanks for postin the video, only thing us cards fans got to see was closeup video of molina laughing at him. 53 minutes ago rustytrombone1027 Tazed his ass! Nice. 20 minutes ago r1rav3n me and my boy were in sec 145 left field front row seats to the action. this was the greatest thing we ever seen 27 minutes ago SavageJon123 Only a Btown kid. lol go Steve 35 minutes ago DallasWillAlwaysSuck phuckin' hilarious, CBP rules!!!!! 45 minutes ago StLouisKing05 this was the funniest thing i have ever seen! i sat in section 307 so i saw him hop over the wall and start running!! 49 minutes ago CheetoSantana The smile on Molina's face was awesome 54 minutes ago MatthewMitchell3434 I go to school with the kid hes 17 As she goes on to say;
She goes on to comment on the attitudes displayed by those making these comments;
"Real Americans don little tri-corner hats and carry on about "freedom" and "the constitution"
In my opinion, they listen to Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and other looney toons right-wing extremists and as Digby says;
"They are paranoid about a non-existent invasion of killer immigrants and are freaking out about a non-existent plan to send gun owners to Fema camps. They threaten to kill census workers who ask them how many times they flush their toilets."
I watch the news and see them at their Tea Parties and their marches as their tens of hundreds march in Washington as they strap on their guns, wave their "Don't Tread On Me" flags, threaten to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants (of course, never their own) when they clearly have no understanding of what they are talking about. Digby continues;
"But torture? Not a problem. Whether it's administered by the CIA or some minimum wage security guard, they seem to think electric shock, waterboarding or any other sick form of coercion worthy of the worst low rent dictator in the world is just ducky..."
This past weekend, Sarah Palin spoke at a Women of Joy Conference and referenced Prayer Warriors, something she has done in the past, including thanking their (fortunately failed) intercession during her vice-presidential campaign. The Christian religion, particularly the evangelical branch, has always had violent tendencies, rooted as it is in the Old Testament, regardless of its constant calls to praise Jesus. Evangelicals love to cite the passages that support their strong law and order tendencies (an eye for an eye as an example) and the patriarchal family structure, ignoring those passages that do not suit their modern lifestyle (only prostitutes wear red [Sarah?] and eating pork is bad...wonder what they would have said about moose meat? and the laws of usury in the Old Testament...).
Anyway, I bring this up to make the link between the increasing use of tasers, the acceptance by our culture of same, and the rise of the law and order movement alongside the Christianisation of our political system. People turn to religion in troubled times as a way to cede responsibility to someone/something else. Let God take care of you and you do not have to take care of yourself. If it is all determined by God, then you have no responsibility for your own life. Lose your job? Your home? It is God's will. (Lose an election? It is a conspiracy led by the Devil, however).
The Old Testament is full of violence and a retributive god--as opposed to the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus who taught us to love our neighbor as ourself and to turn the other cheek. It was Jesus who said that if someone steals your coat, offer them your shirt. I wonder what he would think of tasering someone for bad attitude? Just saying.
At her conference the other day, Sarah Palin said;
"I beg you, Women of Joy, to bring light and be involved, loving America and praying for her. Really, it is our solemn duty. Praying for true spiritual awakening to overcome deterioration. That is where God wants us to be. Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our Founding Fathers, they were believers. [unfortunately, Sarah, they just were not believers in what you want them to be believers in] And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life." [h/t Crooks and Liars]
Who are the Prayer Warriors? Just their name evokes images of violence, warriors, a group fighting for their cause - which is to take control of nations through an apostolic reformation. This is a group which has maps delineating where the demons are that cause all the ills of society. Through a global network of prayer chains, the warriors hope to overturn healthcare reform, maintain Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and were significant players in overturning California's Proposition 8. This group includes members of Congress, leaders in business, and where even 10 years ago might have been laughed off the front pages by media, is referenced in speeches by Sarah Palin without anyone questioning it.
Has Sarah Palin advocated the use of tasers? I do not know. Has she advocated the use of violence? Yes, indirectly. Anyone who thinks that her comment to not retreat, but reload was used metaphorically should contact me about purchasing some fairy dust. Our culture is morally bankrupt when on the one hand our citizens protest against taxes and the loss of freedom over a bill to provide healthcare to those in need, and believe that spilling blood in freedom's cause is totally acceptable, then turn around and actually ignore the Constitution (torture, denial of the 1st Amendment, 14th Amendment, suggestions to deport children of undocumented workers [remember that little part of the Constitution about anyone born in the United States...?]) and it is totally okay.
Sarah Palin and her ilk haven't got a clue. George Washington and the other Founding Fathers were deists, a fact that is well-known. No matter how many times someone says something, it is still not going to make it true. This is not, and never was, a Christian nation. The Founding Fathers were very specifically opposed to making it one. The part of the Constitution about separation of church and state was not an accident. It was included for a reason (anyone with even a basic understanding of United States history knows why this country was formed - religious freedom anyone?).
The media has given a disproportionate amount of time to reporting on the Tea Parties, Sarah Palin, and other right-wing radicals. Huge marches occur protesting immigration problems, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Proposition 8, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and receive minimal media coverage. A few thousand Tea Partiers march in Washington and the airwaves and newspapers cover it as if it were the event of the decade.
Sarah Palin claims membership in a group that believes in demons and witches, that is connected to another group supporting a bill in Uganda that would execute homosexuals, and it is barely a blip on the radar. Christian groups rant against violence on television and in the movies and try to censor what we read and see and hear, but see nothing wrong with carrying handguns into bars or national parks (what a great combination, guns and alcohol - as someone who has worked extensively with domestic violence victims and substance abuse clients, I can safely tell you that you almost never see a DV case without the involvement of alcohol).
Right-wing extremists and Christianists blame teh liberals for the moral decay of our society, yet rape the environment (drill, baby, drill anyone?), let their constituents freeze and starve (Emmonak and Nunum Iqua just to name two) then take Franklin Graham to another village entirely and deliver cookies.
So, taser a 17-year-old boy for running onto the baseball field? Go for it. He deserves it. After all, he interrupted the national pastime! I would bet that the majority of those posting those comments would call themselves Christians, most likely Republicans, carry guns, and probably include a number of proud Tea Party Sarah Palin fans. Do I say this just because I don't like Sarah Palin? No. I say this because the Republican Party, the Tea Partiers, and Sarah Palin, (and yes, I generalize here) are people who seem to be selfish and out for whatever they can get with no thought for others or the future. They see no connection between calling themselves prayer warriors, laughing about "targeting" Democrats with gun sight maps, and a total desensitization to tasering children, the disabled, the aged, and those who are ill.
We are truly not only financially bankrupt, but morally bankrupt as well. If Sarah Palin and her followers are successful in their endeavors, then we get what we deserve.
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k
UPDATE 05/04/10 2:10p.m: Speaking of Constitutional Rights, John McCain was on Imus today, and declared that Faisal Shahzad, just arrested for the attempted bombing in Times Square should not have been given the Miranda Warning and that "...there are probably about 350 charges he's guilty of - attempted acts of terror against the United States..." ignoring, of course, that Shahzad is a United States citizen and even if not, entitled to Constitutional protections while in the United States. sigh. Read about it here
You just cannot ask for a more. Regulars here will know of my love of fallacies - or rather, my love of pointing them out - and with Sarah Palin at the top of the news, I get to talk about them every day if I want to. In fact, I could start a new blog dedicated to Sarah Palin fallacies. hmmm.... [brackets enclose my comments]
PHOTO: Credit Balloon Juice
Speaking at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference this week, Palin responded to the news of Obama's proposed nuclear arms reduction treaty as a schoolyard fight, saying his agreement was like two kids getting ready to fight and one saying:
"Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me."
Going on to deride Obama's vast experience as a community organizer [compared to her vast experience as a monitor of Putin's flight path], she goes on to say that:
"No administration in America's history would, I think [she shouldn't, really, or she might remember Ronald Reagan and his life-long dream], ever have considered such a step that we just found out President Obama is supporting today."
Asked to respond to her comments, and obviously frustrated to have her remarks given that level of importance, Obama replied in as refreshingly an honest manner as we have seen. My trolls might need a review of the definitions of satire and fallacy, to appreciate the following.
Sadly No writes today of the exchange (via media of course) between President Obama and half-term Governor Palin regarding the recently proposed nuclear arms reduction treaty:
"Obama makes the common fallacious appeal to authority here, while throwing in some ad hominem and the appeal to ridicule:
“I really have no response to that. The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues,” Obama said in an interview with ABC News."
Hearing from the other side of the aisle, Confederate Yankee, whose blog banner reads "Because liberalism is a persistant vegetative state," we get the insightful comment:
"Palin’s view of nuclear weapons was shaped by her stint as the commander in chief of the Alaskan National Guard, our first line of defense against Soviet nuclear weapons. Obama has held his same views since he was a stoner college student and has showed no signs of maturing."
Sadly No continues his commentary, responding to Confederate by saying:
"Amen, Br’er Owens [Confederate Yankee]. I’ve always said that when it comes to knowing nukes, two-and-a-half years as commander in chief of the Alaskan National Guard trumps one-year-and-change as commander in chief of an actual nuclear arsenal. Because 1) it’s longer and 2) don’t bogart that joint, fella!"
UPDATE: While Bob Owens is busy composing his ode to Sarah Palin’s stalwart defense of Cochinchina in the face of Red Tonkinese aggression, not to mention her leadership role in mediating talks with the Ottomans, we pause to alert you that our uppity POTUS has ’sassed’ the esteemed former part-time Alaska governor."
I would expect that people without much education would lack a basic understanding of logic, reasoning, and fallacies, but mainstream media? I understand bloggers commenting on what Sarah Palin says. I understand Fox News and other right-wing commentators reporting on the conference and her remarks. What I don't understand, is to give important to Palin's remarks about Obama's actions and to ask him, in an on-air interview, to respond. The only purpose served by such a question is to titillate the viewers and, quite frankly, to generate the level of buzz generated by blogs such as this.
As linked on Sadly's blog, The Nizkor Project contains an in-depth review of fallacies as well as a guide to arguments and logic that is well-written and easily understood. As the authors say, "In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is." If you do not (a premise, maybe two, and a conclusion), then I suggest you follow the link and review. Our "news" is full of distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies. Everyone (including me) has an agenda. In order to wade through the overwhelming amount of information available to us, the commentary thrown at us from all sides (and yes, there are far more than two sides), we all need to hone our critical thinking skills and learn how to listen and to analyze for ourselves what we hear.
Yesterday I wrote about CNN and their hosting of Richard Cohen, the "Conversion Therapist" who claims that he can cure homosexuality and proves it by citing his own conversion and successful marriage. Today, as reported here, a District Attorney in Juneau, Wisconsin has distributed a letter to teachers and school administrators as they begin to develop a plan to implement a new state law, The Healthy Youth Act, next fall. In this letter, DA Southworth warns teachers that should they "follow a new state law requiring them to instruct students on how to use condoms and other contraceptives" they could be arrested.
Wisconsin Act 139 requires that schools provide sex education to students utilizing "...medically accurate, age-appropriate information, including how to use birth control and prevent sexually transmitted disease. It also requires the classes to include information about how to recognize the signs of abuse and how alcohol can affect decision making." Appropriately, parents will be allowed to opt-out of the program, and schools can choose not to participate as long as they notify parents of their decision to do so.
In his letter, Mr. Southworth states that because it is a crime for anyone under the age of 16 to engage in sexual activity, providing instruction on how to utilize contraception "Promotes the sexual assault of children." Typical of the Christianist agenda, Mr. Southworth states that providing this information encourages children to engage in sexual activity and that "... our school districts should never promote illegal activity."
Referring to the Wisconsin criminal code dealing with contributing to the delinquency of minors, Mr. Southwork says in his letter that if a "... teacher knows a child is engaging in sexual activity or that the natural and probable consequences of the teacher's instruction is to cause that child to engage in sexual intercourse with a child..." they are again liable to be charged with a crime. He claims that depending on the child's behavior, the teacher could be charged with either a misdemeanor or a felony. He states that providing facts about contraception is legal, but providing instruction on their use, is "implicit encouragement."
Mr. Southworth's continues by claiming that if this horrendous action occurs, parental authority will be undermined. He says that effect, schools will be encouraging children to seek "other family members" to communicate their questions about sexuality and sexual behavior. He believes this will cause them to "... shop around for any family member who will provide the approval they want..."
And finally, any class in sex education will of course provide information on gender stereotypes and might even (oh the horror) give them information about transgender and transsexual individuals. Of course, every student must be treated with dignity and respect (right), but these new laws, according to Southworth, will disallow any instruction by the school on the morality of these controversial issues and inject "unnecessary politics" into the classrooms.
There's more, of course, but I'll ignore the fear of Planned Parenthood having access to the children of Juneau County, and the punishment inflicted on schools, families, and teachers who want to maintain high moral standards. Sigh.
Mr. Southworth claims to know what he is talking about because he deals with numerous sexual assaults as a District Attorney. I know what I'm talking about as well when I say that sex education does not increase sexual activity, it decreases it. Providing information about contraception (including the proper use) does not encourage young people to engage in sexual activity, in fact, it is more likely to discourage it. Knowledge is power, and the more we give to our young people, the more likely they are to make the right decisions. Statistics have shown that young people will be sexually active but if they have information about contraception and disease prevention, they are less likely to experience an unwanted pregnancy or STD. Classes that teach young people about the reality of teen parenthood also increase the use of contraception (you would not believe how many of my teen clients thought it would be fun to have a little baby to play with and cuddle).
Forcing religious views on everyone is wrong and that is what the Southworth's of the world are trying to do. Morality to some is all about sexual behavior. To others? It is about what happens after that behavior has occurred. Mr. Southworth claims to have knowledge of sexual assault of children, yet cannot understand that children may need the force of law to be able to have an alternate family member other than parents to speak to and for them (maybe it was Daddy that got her pregnant, after all). Demanding that we all adhere to his perspective of the family being one mom, one dad, and children denies the reality of this country, and I would bet, his county. If he wants sexual assaults of children to continue, unwanted teen pregnancies to continue, sexually transmitted diseases to continue, the teen suicide rate to remain the same, and young people making all the wrong choices about their own sexual behaviors, then he should continue to threaten the educators who should be receiving his support and appreciation.
I remember when CNN started. As a news junkie, it was remarkable to be able to see national and world news 24/7, in-depth. There was a lot of fluff as the network went through its growing pains and tried to develop content and most of the air time was filled with the same news events recycled over, and over again. Now? CNN is hard at work trying to emulate Fox News and this video demonstrates that. It is of an exchange between Richard Cohen and California Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, hosted by Kyra Phillips discussing an old, forgotten law that Lowenthal is trying to have repealed. The law requires medical researchers to examine the "causes and cures of homosexuality."
Many of the on-air personalities we know now started out on CNN as actual journalists--I can still hear Wolf Blitzer's panic-filled voice as he reported from Baghdad during the first Gulf War, and Greta Von Susteran reporting on the OJ trial before plastic surgery and a bleach job working as an actual legal analyst, using the skills she was trained for. Now? It seems to be all about ratings, and competing with Fox to see how much water they can carry for the right-wing extremists.
This video is appalling in so many ways that it is hard to know where to begin.
First, the lead. "Homosexuality. Is it a problem in need of a cure?" and its screen icon saying, "Finding a cure for homosexuality? California considers repealing 1950 law.
Actually, this sounds more like the National Inquirer than Fox. Of a headline we might have seen back in the 60's. The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality as a mental disorder back in the 1970's. My copy of the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Revision) has an entire chapter on paraphilias (sexual disorders) and I can assure you, homosexuality is not included (memorizing every disorder, the categories and sub-categories within each disorder and the criteria for each was part of my training). The fact that CNN would host such a show is called desperately grasping for ratings at any cost, in other situations, some might call it ... well, you get the idea.
Most of the 7:32 minute long video is taken up with conversation between Richard Cohen and Kyra Phillips. Assemblywoman Lowenthall is asked why she has put forward a bill repealing this old statute, but other than that, is given little opportunity to offer anything to the discussion. Considering that the focus of the program is not the bill or its repeal, but rather homosexuality itself, its understandable that she wouldn't have much to add.
Cohen is introduced by Phillips as a psychotherapist, and as an expert in this area because he is someone who used to be a homosexual, and thus qualified to discuss the validity of researching a "cure" for homosexuality (never mind that we did not hear about why homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder, and why the law is long-forgotten and not enforced).
Phillips either does not know or "forgot" that Cohen is no longer a psychotherapist, even though he said it quite proudly to prove the validity of his claims. [Note: remember The 10 Fallacies and the rule of inappropriate authority. Just because someone has credentials in something, doesn't mean they are an expert in other things.] The American Counseling Association Code of Ethics (and I double checked my copy prior to writing this), includes the rules that members do not seek to meet their own needs at the expense of their clients. They also must not engage in dual relationships with their clients. A dual relationship is one in which you have any kind of relationship with the client outside of that of counselor/client. For example, if you provide any kind of service to me, I can't be your counselor. If I purchase any kind of goods from you, the line becomes less clear, but again, I have to be very careful before I become your counselor. If you own or manage a business but have no personal oversight of my financial transactions (i.e., where I purchase my groceries for example), then as long as the nature of our counseling relationship remained confidential, I could continue to shop at your grocery store. I probably would not, but if it were a small town, I might not have any choice.
Another kind of dual relationship that concerns ethics committees is when counselors use their clients for their own ends or to advance their own agenda. The counselor's own opinions, worldview, political persuasion, religion, or belief system cannot enter the counseling relationship. I do not have to agree with my clients, or like what they do or how they live their life, but I do have to leave my opinion outside the door and give my client unconditional positive regard, support, and empathy. If I cannot do that, if I feel that I have to change who they are, make them into something they aren't, do something they are not comfortable doing, force them to change into something or someone else, or change faster than they are ready to change, then I have committed malpractice and could be sued, and lose (in my case) my certification and those with a license, would lose their license. I would also be kicked out of the American Counseling Association and all the other professional organizations that I belong to, each of which has a very similar code of ethics to follow, not to mention the state law that governs the rules for practice for my profession.
Why so much detail? Richard Cohen was kicked out of the American Counseling Association and is no longer a psychotherapist because he engaged in dual relationships with his clients and forced his own agenda on them (convincing them that homosexuality is "curable" and that he could convert them). Even if the clients came to him because they were unhappy with their sexual orientation, it was his responsibility to help them work through their feelings, not change their life. The counselor's job is to guide the client as they work through their feelings and make any changes that they decide need to be made, if any, in their lives. If, as counseling progresses, the client comes to realize that there are situations in their life that are not working and the counseling process has enabled them to develop the strength to make changes, then it is up to the counselor to support the client in making those changes, not force them to do what the counselor believes is the right thing to do.
In the discussion, Cohen lists as one of his reasons a concern for children and protecting them from child molesters. Many, many people are afraid of homosexuals because of fear for their children's safety. This is not to say that no homosexuals are child predators, but statistics have shown, over and over again, that the majority of child molesters are middle-aged, married, heterosexual men. Of course, parents should be concerned about any adult who is around their children, no matter who it is. Child molesters groom their victims, and their victims include the parents. Grooming includes making the victim comfortable around the molester so that the predator has the opportunity to molest. Molestation takes place in private, so the predator has to create the opportunity to have time alone with the child, and accomplishes this by creating a relationship of trust with the parents, then with the child.
Richard Cohen claimed that the American College of Peditricians had recently sent out a Fact Sheet about homosexuality that "proves" what he is saying. In this "Fact Sheet," we are told that homosexuality is a result of a combination of familial, environmental, social, and biological influences, and that 85% of youths who experience same sex attractions eventually end up as heterosexuals. Unfortunately, this is a marvelous way of dressing up the truth to look like a lie to look like a lie.
Note how they tucked in biological at the end of the list of reasons for homosexuality? It is the last of their four reasons, and I am sure they consider familial and environmental factors key (the old blame the domineering mother most likely), but as they have no answer as to why several children can grow up in the same family with theoretically the same environmental factors, they had to throw in biological factors. What they did not understand is that no two children in the same family experience the same environment. The parents are in different places, they react to each child differently, the child has different experiences outside the home, different friends, teachers, events, and reactions to those events. Even how they experience the family will be different, which goes a long way towards explaining why children from the same family grow up to be completely different people. I digress, however. Their complete lack of understanding of sociological concepts and counseling theory is as clear as their misunderstanding of scientific research.
During the developmental process, many children feel attractions to others of the same sex, and to the other sex. Does this mean they are homosexual? Or bisexual? No. It means they are normal. If they act on these feelings, will they become one or the other? No. They will become who they are. Is someone who has sex with someone of the same sex a homosexual? No, of course not. If that were true, then 80% of our prison populations are really homosexual, and all the heterosexual men (frequently married) caught in public restrooms engaging in inappropriate behavior with other men would really be homosexual. All the middle-aged, heterosexual men who molest children of both sexes would really be homosexual if their preferred target happened to be boys (and, child predators can be broken up into two categories, those who molest by type, and those who molest by opportunity - if by opportunity, gender and age do not matter, if by type, it does). So, in a way, most children who have attractions to others of the same sex end up as heterosexual, but the way this "Fact Sheet" frames it leads the reader to believe that it is simply a matter of environment.
Additionally, this "Fact Sheet" also states that homosexuality can be dangerous to men. Of course it can if the world is filled with people like this. Until our society understands that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice but simply who someone is, it will be dangerous for anyone homosexual. It states that reorientation therapy works, and that pro-homosexual programs that validate this lifestyle (pretty loaded framing) are not appropriate. As long as we continue to use the language of "lifestyle choice," then people will continue to believe that homosexuality is something bad that should be treated.
The two biggest concerns I have with the stated facts, are;
"Regardless of an individual's sexual orientation, sexual activity is a conscious choice."
"...It is not the school's role to diagnose and treat any student's medical condition..."
First of all, homosexuality is not about activity. Homosexuality is about how you perceive yourself. It is how you interact with the world, and how you see yourself in relation to others. Imagine if you will, if you were told (assuming you are heterosexual), that you must choose a life partner of the same sex. That you must kiss them, hug them, be intimate with them, and have sex with them. What if you were told that your sexual urges were wrong, and that your desire to make yourself attractive to others was wrong. How would you feel? Could you be intimate with someone you felt no sexual desire for? Or someone you actually were repulsed by? How would you feel if all of your friends, family, and neighbors all had a significant other, someone to do couple things with, talk over problems with, have families with, be with, and you could not, because the person that you wanted to be with was not allowed? How would you feel if you were asked, regularly, when you were going to get married? Have children? Settle down? Or had your friends and family try to set you up on blind dates? Or your buddies told dirty jokes, or talked about their dates or sexual matters and you couldn't participate?
The second? This is a group of pediatricians (not psychologists or geneticists) talking about homosexuality as a familial and environmental problem on the one hand, and then saying the schools have no right to discuss medical problems on the other. Which is it? And, all of this being discuss by an expert who claims his expertise because he is a psychotherapist, somehow implying that it is thus a mental illness. So, family upbringing or environment (bring on the sociologists!), medical problem, or mental illness. Which? Do they even proofread their own materials? Dig a little deeper into their website, and you'll find that at heart, this is a narrow-minded group of Christian right ideologues trying to force their agenda on everyone else. Just because this group can put M.D. after their names gives them no greater voice in this issue than any other.
I feel badly sometimes that I am grateful that I am heterosexual and have not had to experience these difficulties. I have been married for what seems like forever and have raised my children without too much trauma. I don't know these things from first-hand experience, but I do know these things from talking to friends and family and clients. I do know these things because as a counselor, the required element to do my job is empathy, and having it, I can often relate too well to those around me. If you don't know or can't relate, then take a moment and stop and think. Just think.
I stopped watching CNN regularly a long time ago, but I do occasionally watch some programs. Wolf Blitzer sold out long ago. I completely gave up when John King had the White House beat because of his pandering to the Bush Administration, but I never thought I would see them sink as far as they have with hiring Erick Erickson, and now this.
Today, I read that Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona has been selected as the new marketing sponsor for Taser International. In case you aren't familiar with Joe, he is currently under grand jury investigation for abuse of power, and last summer was stripped of his ability to enforce federal immigration laws, an action he refused to acknowledge. Famous for his tent city for jail inmates, humiliating downtown marches for immigration detainees, and pink underwear for prisoners, he has now decided to run for governor despite an active campaign against him by many of his deputies. Joe never lets little things like the law get in his way.
But, the Sheriff Joe's of the world could not exist without us.
I've written here and here about my concerns about the increasing use of tasers by law enforcement. In addition to my concern about the over-use of tasers, I am as concerned about a culture that accepts their use and sees little wrong with tasering teenagers, elderly women, or persons with medical conditions because, at the time, the person using the taser believed its use was necessary.
Few, other than progressive bloggers and civil rights attorneys and organizations, have questioned the fact that tasers are routinely issued to police officers assigned to schools, and that tasers are frequently used not when officers are dealing with physical violence or persons resisting arrest, but rather persons who are rude, verbally abusive, or passively resistant.
We read the news stories and shake our heads, sigh with relief that no lasting harm was done (usually), and probably believe that in some way, the individual being tasered deserved it because they were not cooperative enough with the person in authority.
Consider this. Is it possible that someone who would taser another person because they did not move fast enough, or because they had an attitude problem might be lacking in training? Or common sense? Or intelligence? Is it possible that someone who would taser a 72-year-old woman for exercising her legal right to refuse to sign a traffic ticket and was belligerent about being arrested for it might be abusing his or her authority?
Are we to comply with all orders from those "in authority" even when we know those orders are illegal, unethical, or simply wrong? Are we to comply with orders from those in authority even if we choose to accept the consequences for our actions (i.e., passive, peaceful resistance - a long-established tradition in this country), counting on the authorities to keep us safe while doing so? (I know, I remember Birmingham, and Kent State, and the 1968 conventions...).
My point, is that by increments, our law and order society is becoming inured to violence. Not just violence by criminals, or violence committed by terrorists or gang members, but violence that filters through all aspects of our lives. Officer involved shooting is something I hear on the news once or twice a month now, when in the past, it was a very rare occurrence. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have created a tolerance to torture and we have been taught to move the gauge of what is acceptable as time goes by.
I am delighted that police officers reach for tasers instead of guns, however, I would be more delighted if they were trained in anger management, conflict resolution, and basic risk assessment and didn't reach for anything at all. It is not illegal to swear at a police officer. It is not illegal to be angry (although it is illegal if you act out on that anger in a physical or threatening manner). Having attitude is not a criminal offense. Being out in the hallway without a hall pass deserves a trip to the Principal's Office, not being thrown to the floor and tased.
Taser International decided that Sheriff Joe was an appropriate spokesman for their product. They believe that using him in their marketing campaign will encourage others to buy more of their tasers. As said in the article at Change dot org,
"At the same time as Taser International boasts endorsements from the likes of Joe Arpaio, they run stories on their blog detailing how tasers save lives. They are trying to play both sides of the field, a stance that gets them into similar problems regarding the potential health risks of the weapon ... at the same time they are trying to lure police forces and consumers by flaunting the power of their weapon. ... Taser International should dump Arpaio and stop marketing their guns as safe, easy to use, every-day, self-defense products. Tasers are serious weapons, not to be fooled around with by unqualified crackpots."
There is a significant difference between a rule and a law and it would behoove our law enforcement personnel to learn the difference and save the guns and tasers for actual threats of physical violence, not threats to their inability to deal with difficult people.
As I work on my taxes, it's good to know, courtesy of the RNC (Republican National Committee), that I can charge off alcohol purchases as office supplies and "...goodies from the girl's playground for trendsetting young women..." as meals according to this. Silly me. I was always careful to go through my receipts and separate out what are actual office supplies from other purchases, and I've never expensed alcohol (although there are occasions when it is perfectly legal to expense alcohol as a meal expense. sigh).
In an article at Huffington Post, Jason Linkins tells us about how in addition to the RNC's little problem with expensing charges at a bondage club in Los Angeles (and hey, I was just in west LA last weekend, great time, but no naked bartenders) and somehow bills from the Boyden Valley Winery in Vermont (over $700 worth) appeared on their disclosure forms under office supplies (the winery says they do not sell office supplies and I have to say, it's not the first place I would think of if I were in search of paperclips) and RNC Deputy Finance Director Debbie Lehardy decided last December that the appropriate column to list her expenses ($453 worth) at Bendels on 5th Avenue in New York was under meals. Not sure if you know what Bendel's is, but the "playground for trendsetting young women" captures it (clothes, jeweley, makeup), and no, they do not sell food any more than Boyden Valley Winery sells office supplies.
For those of you who want to say that "well, the Democrats do it, too" (as if that excuses anything), last night on Keith Olbermann's show, Karen Finney of the DNC talked about working under Howard Dean when he headed the DNC. She reported that while in New York, he was so careful of expenses that he finally let staffers use the subway rather than walk.
Chairman Steele certainly leads a charmed existence, for the Democratic Party. Clearly, after his antics of the past year without being fired, he's here through at least the 2010 election. The Democratic Party thanks him.
I have a Facebook page which I use periodically, primarily to stay in touch with extended family, out of town friends, and classmates from college. My immediate family is spread across the country and it is nice to see the occasional picture and update on my Facebook page, although none of us are active Facebook users. I am struck as I see this collection of people with a connection to me gathered together on one page and catch a glimpse into their lives and discover facets of their personalities that I might never have discovered had it not been for Facebook. Were all my "friends" to friend (and isn't it amazing that friend has now become a verb?) each other, the Tea Parties of August would be nothing compared to the excitement of my own Facebook page.
I am fascinated by those who seek to gather new friends to their Facebook pages. Some are very protective - with reason in many cases - and are very careful how they use their Facebook page and who they allow to be their "friend." Others friend indiscriminately and accept every suggested friend that comes along. If someone is a friend of someone already on your Friend List, than it makes sense - some say - to friend them yourself. If they are a friend of your friend, then of course they will be a friend of yours. Right? That is what I am finding fascinating about my Facebook page.
It is important that we not insulate ourselves from new ideas and experiences and I have often argued with those who limit themselves to one information source and call themselves informed, but at the same time, there are some places where you do not want to be exposed to ideas and comments you find offensive or just irritating. On Facebook, if you want to debate ideas, you can join a group or become a fan of an organization and engage in debate to your heart's content. There are polls (usually ridiculously worded so that there is no logical answer possible) and quizzes, but for me at least, and many of my friends and family, Facebook is where we go periodically to touch base, find out what's up, and post a picture or video clip, but keep it mellow and friendly. Sort of like family dinner: you may not all agree, but you leave the arguments for later.
But, there's always that one aunt, or cousin, or wacky friend who has a different idea. The one who whenever they post a video clip or comment, your blood pressure rises and you have to bite your tongue not to fire back, because if you did, the next actual family dinner would be civil war and the phone lines would be burning. And it's fascinating, because if they could see all the pages of all the people on my friend list, not just the list itself, their vision of me and my world - which they imagine to be the same as their world - would implode.
Some in my extended family want America to return to "the good old days" and wave the Constitution (and attend Tea Parties), not really understanding what they're talking about. They post comments and video clips and make comments about current events assuming that everyone reading their Facebook page - read their entire Friend List - will appreciate (agree with) what they have to say. Sometimes their posts will go unnoticed, sometimes someone will "Like" it by giving it a thumbs up, and sometimes someone will offer a comment, which often is the impetus for others to comment as well.
Have you ever noticed that once someone has commented on a post, others are more likely to join in the comment thread? It's just like the buffet line, nobody wants to be first.
My sister and I are becoming friends on Facebook. Not that we weren't before, just that Facebook has given us a vehicle to touch base more frequently and connect in a way that is new to us. We are finding that we frequently support the same organizations, agree on the same issues, and find common cause when we are mutually appalled by something that a much-loved aunt or favorite cousin posts on their page and we realize that these people we call family are people that we do not know at all and if we were to get to know them as people, would not like. At all.
My sister has tried to engage, with spectacular failure. Some relatives pretend the conflict does not exist, while with others she finally had to de-friend them to avoid material she found offensive appearing on her homepage. I still ponder what to do, though for the moment, I simply move on past.
My friend list includes atheists, traditional Christians, Jews, others who I'm sure have a religion but don't advertise the fact, and proselytizing evangelicals. I've got liberals, conservatives, and fans of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. The member of the "In Defense of Marriage" group might post right next to my transgendered cousin or his husband. My updates from the Equal Justice Initiative or the ACLU showed up one time next to a video clip my cousin posted about Eugenics that Glenn Beck circulated to prove that the government wants into health care so as to develop a DNA profile on every American and eventually decide who gets to reproduce (she wanted to ensure that we knew what our government was doing). Social networking indeed. A favorite cousin commented - when President Obama took to the road to campaign for health care reform - that he should go back to the Oval Office and do the job that we paid him to do, somehow equating work with sitting behind his desk. I had to sit on my hands not to remind her of the 1/3 of his presidency that Bush spent in Texas on vacation.
What do you think? Engagement at the micro level? I've wanted and tried to keep politics off my Facebook page - I am after all job hunting! - although the groups that I belong to post updates to my page - but what is the purpose of posting comments about the President, health care reform, or video clips about controversial issues knowing that at least some of the people seeing them will be upset by them? Do you engage? Take the bait? Refuse to allow them to get to you knowing that nothing you say will change their mind? Or are they even trying to get a rise out of you or simply ignorant of the reaction they cause? Are followers of Glenn Beck even likely to be willing to listen? As a sociologist, I am fascinated by the effect of social networking on the family and other friend groups (how many adult children panic when Mom sends a friend request?). What do you think?
In an essay published in The Nation magazine, Associate Professor of Politics and African American Studies at Princeton University, Melissa Harris-Lacewell has written of the actions of the Tea Party protesters this past weekend on the Capital Mall as the attacked members of Congress. During their passage between the House and the White House, members were called racial and homophobic pejoratives and even spat upon. One of the valley's members, Devin Nunez, responded by saying that people were so angry at the tyranny of the Democratic Party...a statement that I know will surely come back to haunt him. Liberal commentators have linked the actions of the protesters to the Civil Rights protesters of the 1960's, something that Harris-Lacewell cautions against, saying that:
"Crafting a metaphor that connects the civil rights movement and the bigoted language of this weekend's protesters is seductive. It seems so obvious given that Representative John Lewis plays a critical role in both." [...] "In 1965 Lewis was a disenfranchised protester fighting to be recognized as a full citizen. When he was beaten by the police, he was being attacked by the state. In 2010 Lewis is a long time, elected representative. When he is attacked by protesters, he is himself an agent of the state. This difference is critically important; not because it changes the fact that racism is present in both moments, but because it radically alters the way we should understand the meaning of power, protest and race." [...] "The state is the entity that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, force and coercion. If an individual travels to another country and kills its citizens, we call it terrorism. If the state does it, we call it war. If a man kills his neighbor it is murder; if the state does it is the death penalty. If an individual takes his neighbor's money, it is theft; if the state does it, it is taxation."
She raises the point that Congressman Lewis as an agent of the state, changes completely the dynamics of race in this issue. The Tea Party and other protesters are in effect saying that our government has no right to do what it is doing. According to Harris-Lacewell, they are saying that:
"This 1915 film [The Birth of A Nation] depicts the racist imagination currently at work in our nation as a black president first appoints a Latina Supreme Court Justice and then works with a woman Speaker of the House to pass sweeping national legislation. This bigotry assumes no such government could possibly be legitimate and therefore frames resistance against this government as a patriotic responsibility."
Again, I am always struck by the comments, and include several posted in response to her essay. The first, was breathtaking in displaying the individual's ignorance as he or she said
I'm not surprised that the reverse racist Ms Harris-Lacewell has it completely backwards.It was Obama and the Democrats that staged a coup last night against the constitution.
We are those who love our country and wish to restore the constitution that was trampled on last night.
The racism charges are a red herring designed to keep ignorant Americans unaware of what these Stalinists did last night.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/22/2010 @ 10:23pm
***
Bigotry lies at the heart of GOP politics for the past 42 years. Newt Gingrich as much as admitted this when he compared the passing of HCR to the passing of LBJ's '65 Civil Rights legislation, the seed for Nixon's southern strategy, i.e. the continuing GOP coded appeal to racism. The teabaggers are yet another good example of the corporate GOP's targets for appeals to bigotry when furthering aims inimical to the targets' real interests. Bigotry clouds judgment, that's the GOP's game, and what progressive critics are noting once again.
Posted by sloper at 03/22/2010 @ 10:45pm
***
Lacewell, "The Tea Party is a challenge to the legitimacy of the U.S. state. When Tea Party participants charge the current administration with various forms of totalitarianism, they are arguing that this government has no right to levy taxes or make policy. Many GOP elected officials offered nearly secessionist rhetoric from the floor of Congress this weekend. They joined as co-conspirators with the Tea Party protesters by arguing that this government has no monopoly on legitimacy."
The Tea Party is challenging the legitimacy of a Congress that would go against the wishes of the majority of Americans and ram an unwanted bill down their throats without the benefit of one republican vote. That says it all. There has never been a bill with such sweeping reform passed without a single opposition vote.
The Tea Party takes it's name from another rebellion against tyranny in Boston at the birth of our nation. This is no different.
The real conspirators this weekend were the union thugs who infiltrated the Tea Party ranks and shouted those slurs at the Congressmen. Even if it were actual Tea Partyers, they are to be condemned for those rants. There is no place in America for such language. The very tone of your piece seems to laud a self-aggrandized ending of the so-called struggle of blacks since the Emancipation. When will be enough for you before the entire republic collapses? Ms. Lacewell, your people will not be able to advance in this country on the scale that you would desire until they start to reject government largess and handouts in the name of phony repartions. The debt has been paid. The country is going bankrupt. The party is over. Encourage your people to develop a sense of responsibility and to stop having babies they can't pay for.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 03/23/2010 @ 12:57am
Most of the comments were supportive, but there were many like antisocial and gunslinger1 (do they realize what they say about themselves by the screen name they choose?). I included the comment by sloper as the media seem to be ignoring Newt Gingrich's equating health care reform to passage of the Civil Rights Act--both (in his mind) equally bad, no matter how much he has tried to walk it back since his initial comments.
In any case, an excellent article and one that should be read in its entirety which you can do here.
Want to add your name to the Health Care Reform Bill? Organizing for America will establish a permanent archive with all the names , so that generations to come will have a record of those who stood together in this moment and won this fight for our future. Add your name here.
I am a writer who uses my experience as a sociologist and counselor along with my lifelong passion for politics to comment on the effects of politics on our lives.
Posts
