The “good man” George Bush just drove a knife into the back of a women who trusted him and who he used for his own political benefit:
The White House propaganda maestros used an Iraqi women’s rights activist as a living prop at Shrub’s state of the union address earlier this year, whipping wing nut war hawks and media dingdongs alike into a frenzy of teary-eyed patriotism. They also arranged for her to stand immediately in front of the mother of a Marine killed in action in Iraq — setting the scene for a “spontaneous” hug that reduced a national television audience to quivering lumps of sentimental jello and left Joe Klein spitting phlegm-coated bile at the Democratic Party.
Now, that very same activist is telling the world the Americans just sold her, and her Iraqi sisters, down the river to a bunch of medieval mullahs with Made-in-Tehran labels on the insides of their turbins.
Such a good, Christian man is our boy George. I am sure he just felt terrible that he had to destroy this women’s dreams and her country. He probably sighed with regret as he told our ambassador in Iraq to back the theocrats if thats what it took to get the constitution by the deadline. He might have even teared up a little, before telling the press to “watch this drive.” No one could expect less from such a decent man as our boy George.
August 25th, 2005
|
Politics, Iraq |
4 comments
Tom Cruise thinks he was Shakespeare — among others — in past lives:
“I was much happier in previous existences when I wrote plays, composed music, conquered nations, discovered continents, and developed cures for diseases,” said Tom Cruise.
Cruise said he became aware that he “had been here before,” when he read the complete works of Shakespeare in a month, despite being dyslexic, not long after dropping out of high school.
“Shakespeare was deja vu for me,” said Tom Cruise. “It was so cool. I felt as if I had seen his words already, knew them all by heart. Then, after I began studying Scientology, I realized the words had come from my heart in a previous life. That’s why I say that as glorious and enviable as my present life is, making “War of the Worlds” and all those other great movies can’t compare to writing “Romeo and Juliet” or the sonnets.
Two things. First, Cruise is a Scientologist, so he believes that the souls of billions of dead thetans killed by nuclear weapons 75 million years ago cling to our bodies. Past lives might be a step up on the sanity ladder.
Second, why is it that people who “remember” past lives always remember being a princess or famous artist or genius? Didn’t anyone ever shovel sh*t in the past?
August 25th, 2005
|
Culture |
3 comments
Oh, goody, more people who think speaking out and challenging policy is treason:
“The American Legion will stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples,” Thomas Cadmus, national commander, told delegates at the group’s national convention in Honolulu” . . . “We had hoped that the lessons learned from the Vietnam War would be clear to our fellow citizens. Public protests against the war here at home while our young men and women are in harm’s way on the other side of the globe only provide aid and comfort to our enemies.”
Editor & Publisher
American Legion Declares War on Protestors
August 24, 2005
And the really, really disgusting thing about this? As Billmon points out, they are accusing others of treason for doing the same thing they themselves have done:
Dear Mr. President:
The American Legion, a wartime veterans organization of nearly three-million members, urges the immediate withdrawal of American troops participating in “Operation Allied Force.'’
The National Executive Committee of The American Legion, meeting in Indianapolis today, adopted Resolution 44, titled “The American Legion’s Statement on Yugoslavia.'’ This resolution was debated and adopted unanimously.
Mr. President, the United States Armed Forces should never be committed to wartime operations unless the following conditions are fulfilled:
* That there be a clear statement by the President of why it is in our vital national interests to be engaged in hostilities;
* Guidelines be established for the mission, including a clear exit strategy;
* That there be support of the mission by the U.S. Congress and the American people; and
* That it be made clear that U.S. Forces will be commanded only by U.S. officers whom we acknowledge are superior military leaders.
It is the opinion of The American Legion, which I am sure is shared by the majority of Americans, that three of the above listed conditions have not been met in the current joint operation with NATO (”Operation Allied Force'’).
In no case should America commit its Armed Forces in the absence of clearly defined objectives agreed upon by the U.S. Congress in accordance with Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States.
Sincerely,
Harold L. “Butch'’ Miller,
National Commander
American Legion
Letter to President Clinton
May 5, 1999
They are not defending principle — they are simply using accusations of treason to advance a political agenda. That is disgusting and detrimental to democracy. They should be ashamed of themselves.
And it should tell them that if they are reduced to spurious accusations of treason that perhaps their position is not defensible. The problem is not the protestors - -the problem is the inabality to explain the failure of the policy.
August 25th, 2005
|
Politics, Iraq |
2 comments
Amanda, rfiffing off this Majikthise post, says something important about ID:
Again, I think it depends on the circumstances, but Lindsay’s characterization of how the people who rail against elites are usually yearning the hardest to be considered elite is one of the most important themes to grasp in the fakey red/blue divide. Sometimes I am downright astonished when reading the drivel about “liberal elites” at places like Townhall because it’s usually written by people who are compulsive in collecting important-sounding (and often empty) titles for themselves to demonstrate how educated and sophisticated they are. Isn’t every single conservative pundit now a “fellow” at the bare minimum of three separate think tanks? And yet they often make ludicrously simplistic arguments about elite liberals that sell surprisingly well.
And that’s because they are exploiting one of the most powerful narratives in American culture, the narrative that we use to make sense of these two competing urges–it’s the narrative of striving. Or, in other words, “I used to be a poor nobody but I worked hard and got educated and my natural talents shined through and I became wealthy/famous/successful, but I never forgot my humble beginnings.” Go to Townhall and start counting the people that tell this story about themselves.
This is why conservative educational policies and ideas are such a weak spot, because their educational policies are being sold to “common” people as a way to stick it to the elites. And that’s effective for now, but I don’t think it would be very effective in the face of the much more compelling American story of striving. Conservative educational policies are obviously geared towards keeping the little guy down, smashing social mobility and dashing people’s hopes of better things for their children. The three big controversies being fought out in education right now are perfect examples of how conservatives are trying to keep your kids from bettering themselves.
I am not sure that this exact approach would work — it sounds too much like class warfare and conspiracy mongering, things Americans do not in general trust — but I think Lindsay and Amanda have a good explanation of the way that ID uses elitism against science. One of the reasons ID proponents use “teach the controversy” as a talking point is because it plays to American’s sense of fair play and their belief in their own ability to see the truth. The trick, I think, is to turn those emotions around.
I wrote about this earlier, but ID’s position is really one of unearned privilege:
So we have two camps — ID and evolution. The ID camp cannot claim to be science, cannot claim to have any scientific evidence, and cannot claim a serious body of work that supports it. Evolution’s merit has been proven by the constant application of the scientific method. ID advocates claims it should have entry to the same places evolution has entry — science classrooms — based on nothing more than their sense of entitlement based upon their position in society. ID advocates feel entitled to what they have not earned, rewards they have not worked for, and respect they do not deserve — and evolution is elitist?
I think this is one way to attack ID. They simply don’t want to do the hard work required to gain scientific credibility and to earn their way into the classrooms. Science isn’t elitist — it is defending the sanctity of earning your way through hard work. ID is the rich kid who thinks he deserves As because his daddy owns the factory in town. Point out to Americans that ID is the scientific equivalent of grade inflation, or welfare cheating, or Enron cooking the books to boost its stock price — all things that represent the triumph of entitlement over hard work — and think they will understand just how worthless ID is.
August 25th, 2005
|
Politics, Legal Issues, Church & State, Culture, Education |
2 comments
Kevin Drum points out that Dahlia Lithwick is looking for defenses of the liberal view of the Constitution:
And yet, despite the fact that originalism is little more than a transparent and flimsy attempt to justify a fondness for 18th century social values, it has become the centerpiece of a vast and increasingly popular intellectual enterprise. As Dahlia Lithwick puts it today, “the majority of the nation seems now to be of the firm belief that there is only one way to view the U.S. Constitution: in the way the framers first intended.”
Kevin goes on to dissect both why that is and why no one is making the counter argument. Original Intent is a terrible method of judicial review. It is nothing more than a historical treasure hunt that allows judges to make the Constitution say whatever they want it to say, unfettered by the text, by logic, by anything other than their ability to make history say what they want it to say. Quoting myself from an earlier post discussing the fact that Scalia and Black used the same history on the same question and came to radically different answers:
There is no objectivity in originalism. The historical record is so broad, and so conflicted, that any judge can find support for any position he or she chooses. originalism simply replaces analysis based on a guiding understanding of the meaning of the Constitution with a historical scavenger hunt that allows judges to pick up any old piece of Constitution related history they find lying around, dust it off, polish it up, and proclaim it to be the truth.
Original intent is the least objective method and the one most open to abuse and simple incompetence. The Founders were numerous and ran the gamut from conservative to reactionary. And, as Nathan Newman points out, they cannot be limited to the 1780’s. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments radically redid the meaning of the Constitution, and thus the opinions of the people involved in that process must also be considered — something that few if any OI supports admit.
So what would I replace it with? A system of interpretation that takes the Constitution as a whole and reads it within its complete context and informed by the last two hundred years of human history. Again, quoting myself:
Original Intent has very much the same effect. Scalia believes that the death penalty is Constitution because, in part, the writers of the Constitution did not believe that the death penalty was “cruel and unusual punishment”. Because the experiences of the first generation of Americans taught them one thing, we as a people are never allowed to take what we have learned as a people and apply it to the words of the Constitution. there is no room for growth, no room for greater understanding, no room for anything but the past.
I am not the same man I was when I was eighteen. I have lived more, experienced more, and I like to think I have gained some wisdom in the process. The same can and does happen to societies as a whole. We should welcome that wisdom, but Original Intent does not. It runs from it, and tries to hide behind the revealed wisdom of the Founding Fathers, much as Biblical literalists depend upon the revealed wisdom of Scripture. Both modes of thought are a recipe for stagnation and, eventually, repression. Whether or not their proponents admit it, societies do grow. The people of those societies will not turn their back upon the wisdom they have earned, even if their lawmakers do. At some point, there will be a conflict between the hard earned wisdom of a people, and the revealed wisdom of the past. No society remains unchanged, and Original Intent limits the ability of our society to apply those changed wisdoms to our understanding of the Constitution. I believe the word for that process is “stagnation”.
The Constitution was deliberately left vague in places, and that vagueness is its strength. It allows for the structure of our government to adapt to the changing times and to deal with the future through the hard earned wisdom of the past. We should embrace that aspect of the Constitution and not listen to those who say we are too stupid a society to have earned from the mistakes of our forbearers. The founders where smart enough to know that they did not know everything, that they could not foresee all problems, that society would change in ways that where unimaginable to them. They built a Constitution understanding their own limitations and trusting in their children and their children’s children to deal with the responsibility of governing themselves. Liberals embrace that responsibility; conservatives run from it.
August 25th, 2005
|
Politics, Legal Issues |
16 comments
