Blogs for Bush Update

This comment page is all my fault. Forty responses of people arguing with me and me arguing back. Probably about as long as they've had.

When I started doing this yesterday, they're webpage initially didn't allow me to post by just putting my name and email address. If you do that, after you post, the site tells you that your comments will have to be approved by the site administrators before it will show up. I posted like that a few times.

The site also allows you to get a 'typekey' identity. Apparently typekey is just a site that verifies identities so that bloggers can get to know the person who is commenting. So, I signed up for that, and was able to start posting comments without the comments being approved by administrators.

Now, however, my last two comments have been intercepted and are being approved by the administrators even though I was signed in under my typekey account. I guess we'll see what this amounts to.

Counterblogging

Slate has a regular media review for blogs entitled, simply enough, Todays Blogs. The article that is up now is about political bloggers talking to people of different political persuasions.

The quick summary: Cass Sunstein argued that the internet would decrease dialogue between people of different views because they could simply go to whatever site (or blog) they wanted to get news and opinion that confirmed their already held beliefs. Apparently, there is a new study out that tends to disconfirm that hypothesis, and does so by measuring the number of times that a political blogger links to a blog of a different ideology.

What I found interesting was the critique of the study. According to Slate's article, a professor of political science thinks the study does not accurately reflect the quality of the interactions that people have when they read a political blog.

And the article suggests that it would be more impressive to study how often liberals post comments on conservative blogs.

I find that an interesting challenge. I often just read 'liberal' sources like TPM, New Donkey, the NY Times, etc. And I often don't spend time on conservative sources like Foxnews, etc.

So, I picked a conservative blog off the list of blogs in the study cited by Slate and decided to see what would come of it if I started posting there. I chose Blogs for Bush I have already commented several times on the top few posts they have. The first comment I have is on the post entitled "Conservative Ideas." So no need to look below that.

Following up on High School Students

Maybe this moves me from the left wing camp, but I am sorry if I am not concerned about high school kids rights. More specifically, they are KIDS. There is an all too disturbing cultural idea best incapsulated as "out of the mouths of babes". And we aren't talking about attractive women. Just because children, even high school age CHILDREN, say or do something doesn't make it worthwhile. As satire of the Bush administration goes, making Bush look like Groucho Marx isn't very good. In fact, one might go so far as to say it is juvenile. I kill myself, of course it is juvenile, they are high school kids.
Recently, in a great decision on a case out of Missouri the Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty for minors. Crucial to this decision was the determination by the Court that children, even those in high school, cannot make fully reasoned decisions. This determination by the Court was backed up by a number of scientific studies. Which brings me to my point: WHY should ANYTHING regurgitated out of the mouth of someone who cannot make a fully reasoned decision be given any creedence as some how more revealing of the "truth" or worthwhile as political discourse? I am going to make a judgment call here and come down against the "rights", inasmuch as they are political "rights", of high school kids.

Dear Readers

To our two readers: Wyatt is disconnected from the internet right now as he moves. That's why he hasn't been posting.

So, as long as he's away, here's another thing that pisses me off:

Some high school students in LA had to take down posters advertising their school play because the posters had an image of George Bush that made him look like Groucho Marx.

Apparently one, single student was offended by the association between the President and one of the great comedians of the early part of last century. And the Principal of the school thus thought it necessary to remove the posters.

The students replaced the Groucho W. Marx posters with posters saying, "Free Expression for All (unless you are in high school)" and "What First Amendment?"

The Principal's reaction to these posters? "'They're good,' Lee said. 'I like the follow-ups.'"

No, no, no. That's so evil.

He takes down the posters that are genuine political expression but when the kids put up posters implicitly criticizing his taking down of the original posters and harmlessly asserting their rights, he says that those posters are acceptable thereby implicitly asserting his ability to censor the messages they put up.

It's circular and hurts my mind.

The Bible as Literature

The LA Times has an Guest Column today suggesting that "the great secularist tide that swept the Bible out of public schools is about to turn."

It's a bit of a weird editorial. The author, David Gelernter (I've never heard of him either), first tells us that Bible Literacy classes are legal, and then tells us that the Bible is about to be swept back into public schools, and this is a good thing.

The Bible was never taken out of public schools when taught as literature, though. So, it's a bit weird to say that it's about to retake schools. Unless, of course, Bible Literacy courses are code for religious indoctrination.

I don't think they are, or at least that they don't have to be. And I generally agree with his point in the editorial. Mr. Gelernter is arguing that a full understanding of American culture requires understanding the Bible. I think that's true, but I think he also overstates the case.

It is simply not true that "you can't begin to understand English literature or American history" without having some knowledge of the Bible.

The question I have is whether Bible as literature courses are necessary. Surely a high school teacher can't teach you to understand the bible in the way your pastor, preach or priest would. The fact is that most people in the US grow up in Protestant Christian households and probably will have some general knowledge of Biblical stories. My point is simply that extracurricular sources of knowledge about the Bible exist and most Americans are exposed to them. They're a little thing called church.

He cites a study, however, that shows that students don't understand the Bible. The study was commissioned by the Bible Literacy Project. And if you can't tell by the name, they aren't a disinterested party. According to their website, they are an "endeavor to encourage and facilitate the academic study of the Bible in public schools." They may not be pushing religion in public schools, but they could certainly be suffering from confirmation bias.

Furthermore, the study was funded by the John Templeton Foundation. This foundation seems to support cross-disciplinary studies of issues like "Science and Religion," "Spirituality and Health" and "Free Enterprise." In short, probably not a disinterested party either.

So, what is really going on here? If it's not necessary, why create a bible as literature class? How much do you need to know about St. Paul and the Road to Damascus in order to understand English Literature and American History?

Play-By-Play on Hillary Clinton

CNN.com has a new poll showing that support for Mrs. Bill Clinton has apparently increased recently, and and accompanying 11 minute interview with her by Judy Woodruff. To see the video, go to CNN's video page and select the video entitled "Hillary Clinton interview."

I'm not a big Hillary fan, and I think Dems should avoid this dynastic tendency to run someone with a recognizable name. But it's becoming more and more difficult to deny that she's trying to position herself to run for President in 2008.

That interview seems to prove the point. Woodruff presents her with a quote from Zell Miller, yes that Zell Miller, in which he says that she may win the Presidency in '08 because she will position herself towards the middle better than other candidates. Does Sen. Clinton say she isn't running? Does she deny a desire to be President?

Nope. She "appreciates" the compliment. Then she goes ahead and tells us how she's been a centrist and non-partisan while in the Senate. True as that may be, isn't she just taking the opportunity to position herself towards the middle? It is very difficult, given her answer to that question, to say with a straight face that she is not running for President. Skip Ahead to 4:40 in the interview to see this.

Next up in the interview: Abortion. . . and absolute lunacy.

Sen. Clinton made headlines a few months back when she said that abortion should be rare. What to you and me may sound like political positioning with an eye to a distant election is apparently a deeply held belief not just by Clinton, but by all Democrats. Woodruff states that in discussing abortion most Democrats are primarily concerned with maintaining legal abortion.
Clinton responds that she doesn't know which Democrats are talking about abortion rights, because she's not talking about it. Gee, when did Hillary Clinton become the entire Democratic Party? The conceit is harder to pass than a gall stone.

Does anyone really believe that Sen. Clinton is so disconnected from the rest of her party that she doesn't know the Democrats generally support legalized abortion? No, certainly not this wife of A FORMER PRESIDENT and ELECTED SENATOR FROM A LIBERAL STATE. People, this is the reason we keep getting screwed: Dems are trying to 'position' themselves 'in the middle' and find stances that are appealing to lots of people.

NEWSFLASH: People who disagree with Bush's stances and positions vote for him anyway because they think he genuinely believes what he says. Let's state our principles and stand behind them. Voters see Democrats as wishy-washy precisely because Democrats appear to lack strong principles. And even if you are the most competent person, a lot of people will prefer someone who has firm beliefs over a candidate who has similar beliefs because they think they can trust the person with strong principles.

Anyway, here's a moment for Clinton to talk about the important balance between the state's interest, individual freedom, etc, etc. And she seizes the opportunity to attack . . . judicial activists! Let me speak just to Sen. Clinton for a moment: Hillary, WTF.

Apparently, judicial activism "isn't talked about enough." Clinton then goes on to tell us that this Court has invalidated more democratically enacted legislation than any other court. Her position here is so disingenuous as to be sickening. It's perfectly crafted.

Listen to what she's saying: to the right she's saying, "Yes, judicial activism is a problem. All those concerns you have about social issues--I share them. Yes, we should be able to criminalize abortion and gay sex if that's what the legislature actually votes for."

To the left she's saying, "This court made of Republicans and has been turning back the advances of the Great Society and the New Deal."

The Right--the base of the right--doesn't know that the Supreme Court is 7/9 Republican appointees. The Right doesn't care. It just doesn't. This is an issue the right wingers control. They've won the public debate on judicial activism. So, Clinton's statement against judicial activism won't sound to the Right like she is in favor of progessive or liberal politics. It'll sound like she's in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade.

Ugh. Just what I needed. A nice gut punch.

Woodruff tries to bring it back around to reality in a short cut away. So, what's Clinton's program for dealing with abortion?

1. To reduce unwanted pregnancies. Sounds good. To the social conservatives it means Abstinence Only Sex Ed in public schools. To the left it means real sex ed and condoms.
2. To make sure that adoption is available for women who carry to term. Hey, Hillary, um, is adoption going somewhere? Or am I to take this as code for ensuring that homosexuals get to adopt? Everything else she says in this interview is code for something. I just want to know what the code is here.
   
3. To "talk sensibly" about providing emergency contraception when a woman is raped. Safe position? Looks like she's trying. To the Left this sounds like emergency contraception pills for everyone. For the Right this sounds like emergency contraception only when a woman has been the victim of what the Right thinks should be a hanging offense. "Talk sensibly"? What the hell does that mean?

Then she comes out against criminalizing abortion. Wow. Bold. Thanks.

Oh, by the way, during her husband's presidency fewer abortions than under this Bush administration. Whoopee! I'm sure the Southern Baptists will endorse you, Hillary Clinton.

What other conservative positions do you hold, Sen. Clinton? Did someone say gay marriage? Oh you don't support same-sex marriage, but you're ok with same-sex civil unions?

Alright, time out. I have to say that I think the Senator has it right on this one. In my dream world the government wouldn't have anything to do with marriage, but civil unions would create property rights between people. The state in one area, namely property and other secular concerns, and non-governmental institutions like religion in the other aspects, namely morality and the association of hearts and minds. But forget all that. By this time in the interview, Clinton has so frustrated me by not genuinely believing in anything that I can't trust that she actually believes this. It falls off her tongue. Just another attempt to position herself in the center.

This is what I was talking about above. I agree with her stated position, but I can't vote for her because I don't think she has a sound reason for believing it. I don't trust her.

Now, Woodruff lobs one at Clinton and asks her in very clear terms to tell us what principles Democrats stand for. What 'narrative' do the Democrats have?

And she muffs it. It's an answer, but it's not particularly good. Essentially, everything good in the 20th Century was done by Democrats, and Republicans really want to get rid of all that. Ok, but you haven't told us what Democrats stand for today. In fact, she's stated precisely the problem: Democrats are in favor of the status quo. They want to protect everything they did in the last century. It's her use of the past tense in this section that really turns me off.

"It is the Democratic Party that fought and stood for democracy and freedom. It is the Democratic Party that created the ladders of opportunity that enabled millions of people to lift themselves into the middle class and fulfill their god-given potential. And it is the Democratic Party that battered-down the obstacles that stood in the way of women and minorities and others having the opportunity to fully participate in American life."

uggh. Don't we stand for those things now? Won't we fight for democracy now? Don't we now want to create opportunities for people to raise themselves out of poverty? Don't we now want to batter down barriers of exclusion?

And finally the last two questions of the interview:

1. In running for reelection to the Senate in 2006, if she were asked to pledge to serve out that six-year term (i.e. pledge not to run for President in 2008 in case you didn't catch that subtext), what would she say?

Well, she would say that she is focussed on winning re-election, and that she has worked hard for New York. And for no reason she mentions 9/11. Wait, did she say she would definitely serve the entire six year term? Hint: No.

2. Is she considering running in 2008?

Not even remotely, says Senator Lying Face. Apparently, her life has never been 'planned.' She just goes with the flow. And that's that.

Watch the video yourself. Feel the pain.

The Message

Here's the question for you: If Democrats need a new message and that message would contain some of the things we've discussed, how would you craft that message so that Repubs can't co-opt it?

We've talked a bit about responsibility, but can't republicans just come back and say that they're in favor of responsibility? Or anything else we've talked about?

We don't seem to have the strong wedge issues that they do. What are we in favor of that they aren't? If the level of abstraction is taken too far we all want the same things. Then the question is about method and not goal.

Advertising

Alright, sounds good.

You know, after 2 semesters of law school, it seems like I've lost some important part of myself.

Tip to anyone who reads this: Don't go to law school.

You know what the Democrats need? They need the guys behind the promotion of the Xbox. Watch them introduce the new Xbox here.

The hyperbole is something else.

"The Democrats are the best party in the history of politics. Not just American Politics, but all politics since the beginning of time.

"Democrats are bringing you a whole new governmental experience unlike anything you've ever seen before.

"We'll be able to run 50,000 independent governmental programs simultaneously with our three core branches of government."

You know, stuff like that.

Fight Back.

I am not arguing that the primary voters were mistaken in choosing Kerry. That is not the step in the process where Democratic candidates get into trouble. Where the last two Democratic nominees got into trouble was not recognizing what was going to happen to them and not attacking the Republican first. Trouble also arises for Democratic candidates when the don't respond to attacks.

As to where name-calling gets you? There really is a simple answer to that: The White House.

Of course, and you knew this was coming, it is extremely important to define what is name-calling. When I speak of name-calling, I am referring to the light hearted, unserious labelling of most republicans as "douchebags", but also as labelling republicans as "out-of-touch". Both statements are essentially ad hominem attacks, and while the first is not really helpful, the second won Democrats 2 elections.(See, 1992 and 1996) The other thing name-calling does, and this is seen repeatedly being done by Republicans, is then allows a bunch of people to "vote for the better man". From my own, unscientific, experience, there was a certain percentage of the electorate who did NOT vote for Gore in key swing states because they just didn't trust him. The statements from these people usually went like this: "I am an independent, and I always vote for the better man, and while I like Al Gore on the issues, I am voting for bush because he is the better man." One of the few reasons someone would say that is because of the amount of character attacks, name-calling at its heart, that republicans engaged in against Gore.

Ok, but what do we do about it?

Name calling's fun, but where does it get you?

Even if primary voters were mistaken, Dean still didn't win the primaries. I mean, the calculus that individuals voters go through in choosing a candidate didn't work out in Dean's favor.

I can't say I'm too interested in debating the value of the candidates, but why should people have voted for Dean? If John Kerry weren't a veteran, he probably would have still won the primaries.

I can't tell you what Dean had to offer, and most people who follow normal media probably can't either. The press that Dean got was about his fundraising and his presumptive lead due to the money he had. It was rarely about his views on anything.

I hate "Progressives"

A progressive is a liberal who is too chicken shit to call himself a liberal.

I on the other hand am a liberal.

Calling yourself progressive is typical left wing thinking, and emblematic of why we keep losing.
The left thinks like this:"Conservatives have made 'liberal' a bad word by smearing liberals with all sorts of bad connotations. So instead of being liberals, we will change our name, and then people will not think all those bad things about us."

Well guess what smarty pants! Conservatives will just start smearing "progressives" too, and you will look like a wimp for changing your name.

What would be better is to DEFEND yourself, and your name, and then ATTACK conservatives for being the Darwin hating, flat earth believin', outtatouch douchebags* that they are.

Don't go around changing your name. Defend yourself and your positions.

This thinking is the same that everyone saw with the nomination of John Kerry. It is almost as if the Left group think was: "Kerry is a war hero, therefore the Right wouldn't DARE attack his national security credentials, and if they do, well the charges won't stick."

I think we all know how that worked out... Swift Boat Veterans anyone?

We could nominate Christ as our candidate for President, and the Republican political message machine would still attack Him for His Character.

*namecalling rules!

Yay!

Yay! Go go Harry Reid!!

I had my doubts about this guy, but this is the type of fighter we need.

Now, if he just keeps his eyes off the White House and his ass in the Senate!

Watch him kick ass in this story in the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

The thing I love is his "apology"

"You know the president is in Europe, probably sleeping," Reid said in an interview this afternoon. "But I called (Karl) Rove and apologized for what I said."

I hope to have more on why Democratic Senators should give up being the next JFK, because they likely will be the next JFK, just not the JFK they want to be.

Two Bits of the News

1. How to be a liberal moron.
This Slate article is the type of condescending BS that hurts liberals in the out here in the middle. Some choice quotes:

But after watching The Million Dollar Recipe, Bravo's documentary about the 2004 Pillsbury Bake-Off, I have come to suspect that for much of Middle America, the great ameliorator is canned dough.

Nice job, Lady. In one sentence you managed to tell us that you watch Bravo (home of Queer Eye), that you revel in not knowing about "Middle America," and that you think "middle Americans" believe everything is better with processed food. Thanks for hurting America.

Among the finalists—each of whom had his or her recipe selected from tens of thousands of submissions—there is a truly diverse range of socially conservative white Americans.

I didn't watch this program that she is reviewing, but is it really possible that she could tell the political beliefs of people she saw in a baking documentary? Amazing powers, Deducto!

There are a couple other gems in there. The point: Condescension = bad.

2. Kansas hates their Uncle Monkey.

According to CNN, Kansas will be holding some sort of mock trial/policy debate to see if evolution should be taught in the public schools.

The interesting part about this to me is that "[m]any prominent U.S. scientific groups have denounced the debate as founded on fallacy and have promised to boycott the hearings."

What the hell people?

This ties right into luthering among the left. Look, we can't just sit back and say we're right all the time, even when we are right. Boycotting this hurts Kansans. Science needs an advocate at this 'trial' but the scientific community refuses to participate. Screw that. If they are going to attack science, fight fucking back.

So, Mr. Pedro Irigonegaray, who will be evolution's counsel at the trial deserves a lot of respect.

And so does Sue Gamble, a member of the Kansas board holding the hearings, because she tells it like it is:

"I think it is a desire by a minority... to establish a theocracy, both within Kansas and growing to a national level," Gamble said.

One final note: speaking of scary mock trials: Abraham Lincoln was in a recently found to be a war criminal at a trial at Liberty University. Liberty University is Jerry Falwell's fundamentalist* Baptist school located in Lynchburg, VA.

*They happily call themselves fundamentalists. I'm not trying to insult anyone.

The Truth Revealed

"For example, time and again, I hear left wingers talk about how if only the american people knew the truth about Bush, then they would not support him anymore. Bush's reelection has shown this not to be the case. "

I must admit that I often fall into the fallacy you describe below. The thing about the election that really killed me was that people weren't fooled. The voters weren't conned into voting for Bush. No one tricked them. They knew exactly what Bush stood for and they voted for him anyway -- because they agree.

That's a kick to throat.

The Agenda

That's kind of a scary thought because it might be true. And we love lowering our taxes--gotta get da gubment off our backs.

Part of what I find interesting about the push for SS reform is how it just demonstrated Thomas Frank's thesis. The 'story' of the '04 election was that values voters came out in force to vote for Bush, and that's what put him back in the White House.

That thesis is certainly debatable, and it probably doesn't stand up to scrutiny. But, thanks to the media, it is what everyone believes.

Going with that idea, it is telling that Bush, after being re-elected 'by' values voters, decides that his first major policy goal will be to dismantle a program that is geared to keep people out of poverty in their old age.

Promise the overturn of Roe, but give 'em social security privatization . . . and bankruptcy "reform" . . . and class action "reform". All of these serve the interests of large, wealthy companies at the expense of poor families and individuals.

It's kind of disgusting actually. What do the fundamentalists get? A law for Terri Shiavo that didn't even have the bite to make the courts do anything.

Give a dog a bone, I guess.

The Republican Agenda From Now Until Mid-Terms

If you are looking for great truth in this post, you won't find it. I figure that the obvious just sometimes needs to be stated.

Social Security Reform is proving to be a huge loser for the Republicans. It is only a matter of time till they back away from it completely. Being well in the heart of the midwest, I can only speculate as to what the Washington "buzz" is on when the status of Social Security "reform". It probably has been dead for weeks. But out here in the flyovers it appears that Bush is still pushing hard for it. Whether it goes forward or not is irrelevant, because it is such a big loser for the Republicans.

Accordingly the Republicans will move to what I am sure they think is a grand master plan. Specifically, Karl Rove probably figured, "in 05 we will push SS "reform", and if we lose, we will push in tax reform in 06 right before the elections. Yeah, that will win! The public's anger over Social Security will be placated by the public's happiness with Tax Reform, and we will triumph yet again! Mwuhahahahahahaha....." Of course George was laughing along with him, not knowing why they were laughing...

My point? No one knows how much longer the Republicans will push Social Security, but I am guessing that after the summer recess from August 1st to Sept. 2nd, the Republicans will come back pushing hard on Taxes and ignoring Social Security reform. What did Andy Card say about selling the Iraq war? Well, I don't remember either, but it was something about how you don't do product launches in August.

I am also just trying to give fair warning, so next year when it seems the media has gone nuts and won't shut up about TAXES TAXES TAXES, and you are a left wondering what happened to Social Security Reform, you can look back here and take solace in knowing that the media discussion is all part of a plan. Maybe not your plan, but a plan.

Who Luthered?

A common mistake many people make is believing that if only the "truth" were revealed, everyone in the world agree on a given topic.

This just isn't the case. For a large variety of reasons people have varying political viewpoints. It doesn't help the left, or the right, or the center for that matter, to simply expect that others will agree with them when those others are shown what the left/right/center believes to be the "truth". For example, time and again, I hear left wingers talk about how if only the american people knew the truth about Bush, then they would not support him anymore. Bush's reelection has shown this not to be the case. Bush's support only started to wane after he came out with any number of unpopular policies, not because people finally started figuring out the "truth" about this administration.

While this strain of thought in american politics probably goes back to "these truths to be self evident", I think there is a more underlying behavioral trait at work. Consequently, we need a good verb for this type of thinking. Therefore I am proposing "Luthered" as this verb, in honor of Martin Luther and his 95 theses. This way we can say, "those hippies thought everyone would agree with them when they had their protest to shed light on that thing they care about, but in reality no one agreed with them at all. Man those hippies luthered that issue pretty badly."

Sometime later, I will explain how propaganda* is good and those on the left should use it instead of Luthering issues all the time.

*I meant to say "advertising" not "propaganda", my bad.

Kristof

I'm not a huge Kristof fan because of his columns like this. Maybe I just don't read enough columns in general, but it seems like Kristof has a talent for stating the obvious.

This column just isn't that interesting to me. We all know that Boomers are selfish. We all know that retired people have more time on their hands. We all know that running up debt is not a good thing.

Kristof seems to just be asking Boomers to take some responsibility for themselves. That may be an interesting point, but its not just about Boomers.

So, here's my chance to state the obvious: We don't live separately from each other. We have competing goals, competing policy interests, and a lot of the time, the game is near zero sum.

If we want things to be better, sometimes we have to give up what we want as individuals. It's not just personal responsibility, but responsibility to the community.

And taxes are a perfect example of that: In a very real way, people who benefit from the rules and organization of society have a responsibility to the community that allowed them the opportunity to gain the benefits. To be explicit, no one has become wealthy on their own. Not only does everyone receive help at some point, but the accumulation of wealth occurs only within the context of a pre-existing society.

Given that, taxes are appropriate, and higher taxes for people of more wealth are appropriate. The more you benefit, the greater your responsibility.

Edit: As Garrison Keillor recently said, it's best to think of taxes as "user fees."

Lets play Generational Politics!

There is a good op-ed in the New York Times today by Nicholas Kristof about the baby boom generation.

This article made me think about that obnoxious adage about being a young liberal and as one ages, becoming a conservative, as if conservatism is the only mature political philosophy one could have.

I would argue quite the opposite. Namely, conservatism unabashedly claims that selfishness is a virtue. You know, the standard greed is good line. I don't know how a political philosophy rooted in selfishness can be "mature".

Is it really mature to complain about your taxes? Complaining about one's taxes and all the things one would spend one's money on if not for those pesky taxes strikes me a lot like complaining about all the cool toys one would get if only one's allowance were bigger.

I guess I would just like to say: Stop whining about taxes and grow the #%@! up!

P.S. Happy May Day! or Happy International Workers' Day!