Citizen's Rent 2005

Friday Random 10: Subvert the Dominant Link Hierarchy

I've missed a couple of weeks but that doesn't mean I'm uncommitted to the subversion of the inbred linking of the left. So here, for your reading pleasure, is the latest Friday Random 10 - again in no specific order.

1. Texas Native: This is my favorite conservative blog, written by - what else - a Texas native. Boyd writes thoughtfully and personally, with a willingness to stake his own positions out regardless of whether or not they align with the latest GOP talking points. He avoids the echo chamber and welcomes discussion from the left and right.

2. Blue State Red: Originally posting at the Detroit News Political Weblog, the third-year law student who runs this blog lives in a blue state but tilts right. The blogger may take the left to task but is willing to criticize the right where warranted, avoiding the echo chamber that is so much of the right blogosphere. I was caught by the posts on whether the reaction to the activism of the religious far right was in response to their message or their method.

3. Rampaging PMS: The warning here is that the site contains adult content - it does so reader beware. The blog is a mix of the political and personal with a healthy insertion of items like "hunk voting" and the occasional sex toy. I offer it here because I enjoy reading it and to counter the sites like ISOU that intermix political postings with pictures of scantily clad women - something that compels me to not visit.

4. Sunday Morning Talk: As a wonkish sort, the Sunday morning talk fest contains a wealth of blog-worthy material but I can hardly bring myself to watch. This site saves me the time and tells me which Tivo recorded shows to spend my time on. Beyond simple recaps, the blogger identifies trends, summarizes issues across shows, links to transcripts, and even gets feedback from a host like Stephanopoulos. Worth reading throughout the week and not just on Monday.

5. Reading A1: This is a classic leftist blog, covering topics that are familiar to readers of the left blogosphere but with a refreshing originality in approach and opinion.The excellent writing doesn't hurt either.

6. Here's What's Left: It's nice to indulge in a rant now and then and this blogger does so this week in multiple posts on the alleged liberal bias in academics. Posts cover the usual topics but the voice of the blogger is audible and engaging. Check it out.

7. Bartholomew's Notes On Religion: Off the beaten path, this blog is devoted to covering religion in the news. It's pretty comprehensive, covering religions beyond the standard Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It's also not limited to the domestic front alone. Whether you're interested in the latest shenanigans of the Christian groups at UNC or the reprimand issued to Shinto teachers for refusing to sing the Japanese nation anthem, this is the place to go. My only criticism is that the page loads can be slow sometimes.

8. NewsHog: This group blog spices up its well written posts by offering a good sidebar aggregator of some of the more well-known but not a-list lefty blogs. I find items here I don't find elsewhere, like the Polish news coverage on the influence of the Christian right in American politics. Worth frequent visits, since posts are frequent.

9. Tsuredzuregusa: I wish I knew how to pronounce this blog name, but despite the fact that I can't say to my friend "Hey! Did you see that post on Tsuredzuegusa?" I still manage to talk about the content there. The writer, Shaula Evans, is active in Virginia politics and has an occasional insider's view that may inform, alarm, or encourage. Here writing is solid, informative, often regionally based but nationally relevant, and personal. This was the first women's blog I encountered as a new blogger and she led me to the Progressive Women Bloggers Ring, which she has helped populate.

10.  Dem Diatribe Project - This group blog has been around since November and combines topical coverage of news with informed and occasional snarky opinion. The blog seems to have been started by an Ohio voter who despaired after the election and decided to "add to the noise".  The posts by SlappyCat, the original blogger, are my favorite.

Okay readers - that's it for this week. If you know of a blog I should include, email me. And happy surfing.

UPDATE: I know it's only Thursday but tomorrow I'm spending the morning with my nephew and the afternoon with my sister (lucky me) so you all get the Friday Random 10 a day early, lucky ducks.

Would Lincoln Really Side with the WingNuts?

Hugh Hewitt didn't like John Danforths' op-ed piece challenging the Republicans to reclaim their party from the extreme religious right. Nope, he didn't like it at all. He saw it as a call to abandon the principles of Lincoln. Huh.

Hewitt opines that Danforth's daily concern for the deficit instead of the current concern over the threat of gay marriage means that Danforth was asleep at the wheel, that it may have been one reason a "super-majoritarian opinion on marriage got rolled".( I'll confess, I have no idea what majority opinion "got rolled".) I find it a bit alarming that a daily concern over the deficit is equated with being asleep at the wheel, though it explains a lot.

Hewitt goes on to defend the current obsession with preventing gays from marrying, suggesting that the reason the current party's agenda seems too "religious" is because three state courts have " unilaterally decreed a massive rewrite of the country's shared tradition on marriage, obliging those who want to defend marriage as it has existed for all of the country's history to advocate for a Constitutional amendment." I would argue that these state courts did their job - they interpreted their state's constitutions. And all you have to do is actually look at the argument against gay marriage used in the courts in Massachusetts to understand why they lost. The arguments were specious and the Ethics Scoreboard summed it up quite nicely: "In the absence of any concrete documentation of factors justifying the withholding of equal treatment under the law for gay citizens, the court in Goodrich has clarified a hierarchy of values, starting with the Massachusetts Constitution."

Hewitt moves on to the right's obsession with Schiavo case, saying that the concern isn't for Terri after all but is instead a fight against the slippery slope towards euthanasia. He cites Vermonts consideration of legal suicide in support, unfortunately suggesting that assisted suicide for terminally ill patients requesting help and confirmed by more than one doctor to be in command of their faculties with euthanasia - with killing people who become "inconvenient" to society. The slippery slope argument is a convenient one and presumes that the public, the courts, the Congress, can't distinguish between issues that have some common thread, in this instance death, but live on opposite ends of the spectrum. I prefer to have more faith in our country and our government. Too bad Hewitt doesn't. 

The part of Hewitt's post that really drove me to respond was his contention that the courts and the left are setting the agenda. Really? If the left were setting the agenda, we would be talking about universal health care, veteran's benefits, fair distribution of homeland security dollars, eliminating poverty, repealing tax cuts to the wealty, figuring out how to solve the impending medicare funding crisis. It certainly wouldn't be all about Terri Schiavo, gay marriage, and privatizing social security. As for the courts, they hardly set the agenda. They can't initiate any action. They can only respond to the cases brought to court. Sure, on appeal they can refuse to rehear a case. But that's a case that's already been through the courts. It's a far cry from setting an agenda.

Hewitt says that the "center-right coalition, which includes many people for whom faith informs a world view, has decided that the demands of the radicals are not going to be agreed to without a political fight." I say that's great. It's not the pollitical fight we object to. It's the religious one or rather the infusion of religion into a political fight. I must note, however, that anyone who deems the agenda of the Dobsons and Falwells and Reeds of the world "center-right" has a very skewed view of the political landscape. No wonder he thinks anyone on the left is a nut case.

Hewitt continues by reprimanding Danforth, accusing him of aiding in the effort to deligitimize the agenda of the "center-right" coalition. He'd rather Danforth and other retired politicians simply share their views on the issues. The problem here is that the real issue is the one Danforth addressed - the abandonment of traditional conservative principles in favor of a far-right religiously driven agenda. Traditional conservatives should share their opinions - on gay marriage, Terri Schiave, and the hijacking of the Republican party.

Hewitt ends by claiming that influential conservative Christians continue to support traditional Republican principles identified by Danforth - limited government, low taxes, limited regulation, free markets, judges that interpret law and don't legislate, national defense, free trade, an engaged foreign policy. Huh. Is there really a hugh and cry on the religious right to reduce the deficit (isn't that being asleep at the wheel)? To fix the trade imbalance? To limit government from meddling in state issues like education and Terri8 Schiavo's case? To support judges that interpret the law even when the law doesn't support the conservatives' social policies? I don't think so.

Hewitt does though. And he adds four new "principles" to the conservative list:

• reduce the number of abortions,
• empower parents in the lives of their children,
• preserve marriage as it has always been, and
• assure that schools are not the preserves of left-wing ideology

He posits that these goals are consistent with the ".historic traditions of the party of Lincoln", that it's arrogant to say they aren't. What qualifies them as such? The moral certainty with which they are made. He claims that Danforth's  plea for the party to return its roots is really a demand that they abandon their roots, that he's demanding that "morality not play a part in  the party's council." I think that's a stretch. Lincoln's moral certainty regarding the evils of slavery should not be equated to the religious right's certainty that schools are bastions of left-wing demagogues, that parents need to be empowered. It demeans the fight to end slavery and elevates a political principle to the level of moral absolute. And just what does empowering parents entail? What would Hewitt say should be done to keep the liberal demagogues from running rampant in colleges? We already know what they'd do on abortion (ban it to the back alleys) and marriage (straight and narrow only). What's next?

It's the moral certainty, the righteousness, the superiority of the far right that's so offensive. The insistence on imposing their own moral views on the rest of the country, even when those views aren't shared by the majority. It's the denigration of tolerance as an amoral relativism instead of a respectful virtue. It's the wailing and gnashing of teeth in their self-declared oppression, convinced that they are the minority under attack by the God-hating liberals who have no principles, morals, values. It is this that the Republicans are harmed by and should reject. Hewitt makes it all that much clearer.

Republican Courage

If you read nothing else today, read this Op-Ed column by John Danforth, former Republican Senator from Missouri. I'm encourages, positively thrilled, to see a respected Republican step up and in the most public of ways challenge his party to reclaim itself. To whet your whistle and entice you into clicking your way over to the column, I offer you these key excerpts:

The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.
......
But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.

It is my fervent hope that Danforth's piece will give courage to others who haven't found their voices in the midst of their party's success, that he will be able to lead his party back to its roots and not become the target of character assassins who will discredit his message by discrediting him. We need him to be successful. And by we I don't mean the left, I mean us, Americans. We all need him to succeed.

UPDATE
More comments the Danforth op-ed piec can be found at Dem Diatribe, and Americans United.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

Bush's propensity to script his "town hall" meetings using hand-selected supporters to represent his views as if they represented the general population isn't a secret. Neither is the control exercised over who gets tickets to these events. But now we learn that the Secret Service is being informed of potential trouble makers at these events and that those same people are being ejected from these events. On what basis? Bumper stickers expressing political opinions that aren't aligned with the Bush administration's policies.

So just who is hard at work, scouring the bumpers of the cars the folks attending the Bush town halls? Has the secret service gone overboard? Maybe the Dept. of Homeland Security or the FBI? Local police assisting the federal government? Nope. None of the above. It's stalwart and alert members of the  Republican party.

I wonder when the RNC was given the job of bumper reading, when they were dispatched to "name names" to the Secret Service, when they were given the job of Bush bouncer at public events. Ah, I'm in error. According to the Secret Service, these town halls are private events. I'm surprised. They certainly aren't billed that way. Neither are they funded that way. Despite the fact that the Bush/Cheney campaign staff seems to have moved into the West Wing or the Treasury Department's social security war room, despite the fact that the plan to privatize social security is being promoted and funded like a candidate for office (i.e. huge corporate funding), the whole thing is still significantly funded by our tax dollars. How is it then that these town hall meetings are private events? The short answer is that they aren't, that the designation "private" is used to justify the RNC's involvement, to justify the eviction of citizen's with tickets. It's a public event funded by public dollars not open to the public. It's bullshit.

I don't know what we can do about it.  Certainly, that branch of government charged with oversight of the executive branch, the Congress, isn't about to investigate. The media can't seem to generate much attention on the rare occasion that they try. And individuals don't have much power. The only suggestion I have is that the next time someone is ejected from one of these events, they should get the name of the person(s) ejecting them and their connection to the event - government agency or political party. And if it's an RNC staffer, they should talk to the Secret Service then and there and ask on what authority a political staffer is bouncing then. Then scream it to high hell. The MSM might not pay attention, but the blog world will. And then we'll see.

You can get a first hand account of the bumper sticker owner who was bounced from a Bush event in this DailyKos diary.

UPDATE:
I need to clarify that I may have mistaken the reference "Republican staffer" as definitely RNC where it may have been an individual employed by a Republican. I don't know.

Additionally, I'm pleased to see that the Washington Post has picked up the story.

UPDATE II:
Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has more details here and here and here.

Radicals on the Right - No Respect for the Law

This is the extreme faction that scares me. Let's hope that they're a fringe minority disowned by those on the far right. I'd feel better if I heard anyone on the right criticizing them, but perhaps that's too much to hope for.

"I'm wanting the government officials in D.C. to come in, even if there's force involved," Porta said, using some of the wrap that covered the spoon as a makeshift poncho.

Fellow demonstrator Bob Hunt heard Porta's idea and seconded it. "The government should declare martial law for the whole county, arrest the judge, arrest the sheriff," said Hunt, who identified himself as a government subcontractor.

This last comment is particularly disturbing - a call for martial law from a government subcontractor?

RIP Johnny

Hard to believe that Johnny Cochran is dead. In my mind's eye  he's vibrant and alive. Agree with the man or not, he had a voice that added to the debate,  that grabbed our attention and forced us to deal with issues that often we'd rather ignore. He was celebrated and reviled, a hero to some and a base manipulator to others. In an ideal world, echoes of his voice will resonant in those who pursue justice, who challenge racism, who fight for those who need a champion. I hope that's his legacy.

Getting Down to Business

It is my fervid hope that the continued dissolution of support on the right for privatization of social security will kill the initiative so that the government can actually address the problems at hand - a projected shortfall decades from now and the more compelling crisis in medicare funding, which we'll face ever so much sooner.

Undermining Reality: Recommended Science Commentary

I was going to excerpt this excellent science commentary by Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss but I found myself pulling so many quotes that I was excerpting virtually the entire thing. Instead of reproducing the column here, which is sticky when it comes to copyrights, I urge you to click through and read it. To tempt you to do so, I offer these brief excerpts.

The open intrusion of religious dogma into the highest levels of government is stunning. Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court speaks of "the fact that government derives its authority from God" (during oral arguments before the court about displays of the Ten Commandments) while the president of the United States has argued that evolution is a theory not a fact.

Senator Bill Frist, previously a heart surgeon who must have once known better, shunned the conclusions of these doctors and, without ever having examined Ms. Schiavo himself, stated his "belief" that she was not in a vegetative state.

Because science does not explicitly incorporate a deity in its considerations, some fundamentalists believe that it undermines our moral order, just as the Buddha statues presented a threat to the fundamentalist Islamic moral order.

Go read it. But read it soon because the New York Times isn't offering it on their RSS feed, so the link won't be available at no charge for very long,

Are Capital Sentences Moral or Legal Decisions?

I don't support the death penalty - a position that I occasionally question. I don't support the infusion of religion into government or the courts - a position I never question. So it's odd for me to find that I disagree with the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to toss out a sentence to death because jury members consulted and referenced the Bible during their deliberations.

On the face of things, it seems like an easy call. The jury used a religious text to determine a legal finding. The assumption is that in the same way that they can't use newspaper articles to influence them, they can't use the Bible. BUT, the judge instructed them specifically to make an "individual moral assessment", not a legal one. Is it so surprising that one or more jurors use the Bible to inform their moral code, that they would turn to it in making a moral assessment that involves the ending of someone's life? Honestly, the Bible could be used to justify a sentence of death or to deny it. You can take your pick between judgment and mercy. It's not like there's a consistent message running through the text that says execute kidnapping rapist murderers. The jury members referencing the Bible had to make their own moral decisions. Does the Leviticus call for an "eye for an eye" outweigh Christ's command that "he who is without sin cast the first stone"? Which wins - judgment or mercy? The answer is an individual one, a moral one. Figuring it out is exactly what the judge instructed the jurors to do.

It's interesting that if the jurors had only quoted the Bible instead of actually reading it, the sentence wouldn't have been thrown out. That seems odd to me. The problem here is that the jury was instructed to make a moral decision, not a legal one. I would think that the moral question had been answered during voir dire, when the prospective juror is asked if they are willing to impose the death penalty. If they can answer that, the only remaining question is whether there is a legal basis to do so in the specific case. I must not understand how our system works if the sentencing is based on moral assessments and not legal ones. It's a concern if it's true.

On a final note, it's ridiculously hypocritical  that the defense made repeated references to the guilty man's Bible reading with his father and called for the mercy God showed Abraham and then used the jurors use of the Bible in their "individual moral assessment" as a basis for getting their decision thrown out.

Source: Colorado Court Bars Execution Because Jurors Consulted Bible, by Kirk Johnson, New York Times, March 29, 2005

In Light of This, Why Cares if They're Gays

I don't expect people to be perfect. I don't expect leaders to be "without sin". But I do expect leaders who represent "morals-based" groups, like churches and oh, let's say the boys scouts, to maintain a certain minimum standard of conduct. 

Let's take the boy scouts. They claim to stand for all things American, to be a God-fearing group that teaches boys a moral code. That's their justication for refusing to allow gay men to serve as a scout leaders. It's all about morality. So I don't hesitate to mock the legitimacy of their great moral code, their use of it to defend discrimination, when I learn that one of their high ranking leaders is a consumer of child pornography. (AP Story)

Granted, it's not like he advertised the fact during any of the 39 years he was employed by the scouts. We really can't assume that other scout leaders should have known. And we can take comfort in the fact that this guy didn't work directly with kids in his role with the scouts. But in the scouts' praise of all things heterosexual, with their unofficial contentions that gay scout leaders create sexual risk for boys, it's certainly relevant to point out that this child porn user represents the real risk to kids.