Fundamentalism: Iran v. USA

Apparently Frank F did not understand what Frank S wrote. Let me summarize.

Iran is one example of what can happen when religious conservatives control the political landscape. The author was formerly part of an American Christian movement with aims very similar to those of the Iranian Muslims currently ruling that country.

Mandatory prayer in school, anti-gay laws, abortion bans, elective wars, capital punishment, rolling back civil rights, defeating the union movement - all of these are issues that the Iranian Mullahs and the American Christians would see eye-to-eye on.

Frank Schaeffer provides a unique insiders perspective into the motives and tactics of the fringe elements that promote theocracy in the USA. Oppressive religion is offensive to American values, whether Christian or any other faith.

The similarity of Christian Fundamentalists with Islamic Fundamentalists is not imaginary - it is real, and a very serious threat to the Republic. Our secular government is our greatest innovation, and the basic reason that the American system has been so successful, and so widely emulated. Continued vigilance is required to protect and defend our Constitution from being perverted in the service of religion.

Tea Party Cancellation

This is just a simple case of a business owner defending his interests. Simon apparently has a legal right to refuse access to this property, and that right trumps the protest.

The Tea Party should be held on property that belongs to the public. The irony would only be too delicious.

Marriage for Procreation, or Recreation?

Marriage vows don’t typically say anything about children. The purpose of marriage is the union of two persons in a legal bond. Regardless of the gender of the spouses, supporting long term relationships is the proper role of the government in sanctioning marriage.

There is no special reason the government should prefer that people raise their biological children rather than adoptees. The argument on grounds of procreation is quite strained, and ultimately fails because it is clearly not reflective of the current practice of hetero marriage.

Gay marriage is not a threat to anyone, and is pretty clearly being resisted for religious reasons that have no place in public policy.

Union Renaissance?

I think it’s about time that workers got their right to organize back.

When an employer can refuse to certify a union, regardless of the workers’ decision, that’s a failure of democracy.

Card check is one thing that could very much improve the lives of lower income workers, who have been losing ground for decades now. If the Democrats can make it happen, they deserve their rewards.

Hate Speech and Conservative Vigilantism

The big problem is that so much of what passes for political discourse now depends on hyperbole. “Baby Killer” would be the recent pertinent example. Talking points and language are important.

The choice to use inflammatory, violent and hateful imagery is a conscious one, with predictable outcomes. It is possible to have civil discourse without so much frothing at the mouth, or at least without the deliberate provocation.

Violence in the service of religion or politics is a very dangerous tool. When in the service of both, it is decidedly deadly. I don’t see this dynamic as a significant part of the left wing - this violence is a conservative and reactionary response to liberal society.

So long as belief in imaginary omnipotents continues, the deranged adherents of such ideologies are likely to find cause to spread the word by the sword. The only long term solution is secular government and education.

Bumpy road for card check?

I don’t see this as any big difficulty for Democrats. Passing some version of card check is a “pro worker” bona fide that is not likely to be a net loser for the Democrats. Labor has supported the left through a long stretch of GOP governance, and they will extract a reward of some kind. Whether card check and arbitration survive in the final bill is hard to say - but labor will get a bill.

There may be some temporary setbacks in isolated elections, but success on this issue is not likely to bite the left very hard. Opposition to unions is weak because of a depressed labor market and faltering economy. Job security and stable wages are starting to look a lot more attractive to the right-to-work folks that are now standing in the unemployment line.

Sonia Sotomayor is likely to be confirmed before the end of August, and big labor will probably get their bill in time for Thanksgiving. It will be a merry xmas for the Dems.

Media Bias? Oh, yes there is...

There is not a double standard, despite continued protests from the fringe such as this.

The murder of Doctor Tiller was political terror, committed by a known activist from the Pro-life movement. Doctor Tiller himself was, as you say “notorious” - in other words, a public figure. His killing was an assassination. That’s a far cry from the essentially random violence against non-specific military recruiters. Tiller was living under threat - the recruiters not so much.

One act was, as Obama stated, heinous - attacking a well known advocate for women’s rights, a peaceful physician, who had been attacked before, at his church, with the specific intent of stopping his medical care for patients. The other was senseless - attacking military recruiters without a clear reason or a cause.

I understand it is fun to claim media bias in this type of situation - but our soldiers are dying every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military deaths at home are an extension of the same conflict. Doctor Tiller’s death is significantly more newsworthy, and rightly so.

The only double standard here is the presumption that all Muslims deserve to be tarred with the broad brush of terrorism, while Christians who engage in violence are qualified as “extremist”. Some consistency on this point would be welcome. If Long’s killer is a “follower of Allah”, isn’t Roeder a “follower of Christ”? References made in this article to Roeder’s religion are qualified, but Long’s [killer's] religion is not accorded the same respect. Why the double standard?

Terrorism is no less real when it is perpetrated by the right wing at home. Make no mistake - both acts of violence are the result of fundamentalist religious extremism, perpetrated by followers of a jealous “God”. Whether they carry a cross or a crescent matters not to the victims.

Tiller Murder is Not Fiction

The pattern is pretty clear. Religious fanatics, whether Taliban or Born-again, appear to be losing the long-term cultural battle. Rather than try to adapt to a changing world, the response of the religious fanatic is to lash out in violence against the “other”.

Women’s rights, freedom of speech and thought, and other “liberal” values are simply not compatible with the backwards thinking of right wing zealots.

Dr. Tiller - killed in cold blood

Tiller spent his life selflessly and heroically assisting women who faced difficult circumstances. His killer, and those who pretend this murder was justified, are not citizens. They are terrorists. Tiller saved the lives of countless young women, and is a hero.

Go ahead and celebrate - it makes it easier to see who here is truly free of moral qualms. This peaceful non-violent physician was shot to death in his church. Your approval reveals that Christianity is on the same path as Islam.

We are a nation of laws, but without brave men like Dr. Tiller, the law fails us.

California Supremes Rule on Prop 8

The argument is now purely semantic. It means nothing to ban something in name only. Whether the term marriage is applied or not, gay unions are now part of the social landscape.

The argument about extending equal rights was not semantic - but that battle was won by the homosexual community. They are now and forever entitled to all of the legal protections of marriage in the state of California.

The brouhaha has to do with the terrible precedent set by the passage of Prop. 8 - denying rights to a minority group at the ballot box is not a legitimate practice in a constitutional republic. That’s why the court ruled that the amendment does not change the rights of homosexuals to the benefits of marriage - it only impacts the use of the term “marriage” in reference to these rights.

The drama was not due to the “Gay Lobby” - the drama was due to a misguided amendment enshrining discrimination in the California Constitution. The GOP hoped to exploit this drama to improve voter turnout, which worked up to a point. Blaming the drama on the Gay Lobby is just asinine.

The ruling is a minor setback for gay marriage advocates, but a major blow to conservative aspirations to define the rights of homosexuals. Gay marriage will come to pass, under that name or some other. Eventually the distinction will be seen for the fiction that it is.

Californians redefined the word marriage for the purposes of civil society, with the caveat that the rights of marriage are still available to gays whether the institution is called marriage or not. So the bigots can call homosexual unions by some other term, and will force the state to do so as well. But blind justice will still demand that this separate category be equal to the unspeakable marriage of gays. Except for those who are already married.

Economic justice is still justice

Steele can frame the issue however he likes. He will still be wrong. This is about equal treatment under the law. If gays can’t marry, nobody can.

Marriage as a religious institution is not at issue here, and even if it were, homosexuals have just as much right to marry as anyone else.

Civil marriage is the institution at issue, and equal protection will eventually overturn restrictions based on the gender of the applicants. It is simply a matter of time, as the younger generations have no qualms about extending marriage rights to all. The older generations will begin to die off in large numbers in about fifteen years, and quaint restrictions on marriage will go the way of miscegenation.

If you believe in marriage, and you don’t want to “share” with homosexuals, that’s too bad. It’s a word, and it’s an idea, and it’s free to all. You can deny them their civil rights for a time, but in the long run marriage will not survive as a civil institution unless all have equal rights to it. It’s the law of the land, at the most fundamental level, being a consequence of our Constitution.

It matters not if Steele can reframe the issue - the issue has already been practically decided, and the franchise will be open to all within the next few years. Demographics are key here.

Stopping Sotomayor?

I hope the GOP does try to stop this nomination. It would be a boon for the Democrats. There is no cogent argument to deny Sotomayor’s appointment, as she is much more moderate than the GOP’s recent appointments. An attempt to attack this appointment would demonstrate the bankruptcy of the GOP, and make 2010 much more attractive for the Democrats.

If the GOP is smart, they will let her go without too much fuss, and save their ammunition for a fight that can be won, or at least one that does not involve repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot. The next nominee will probably be much further to the left, and with a much more forceful legal personality. If the GOP objects here when there is no reason, they will be the party that cried wolf, and future filibusters will be doomed to fail.

Obama may get more SCOTUS appointments than any president in decades - it should be fun to watch.

Sotomayor's race

Sotomayor came from a single-parent household, and grew up in the projects, yet she applied herself and achieved in academia and beyond. There is little doubt that her perspective on the challenges faced by average Americans is somewhat more informed than the previous two justices appointed to the court. Sotomayor was appointed by GHW Bush, and has been a moderate and restrained judge throughout her tenure on the bench. There is no reason to suppose that her life experience makes her a sexist - and certainly not a raving one. There is good reason to believe that she is familiar with facets of the human condition that the other justices may not be.

GOP retrenching

Colin Powell represents what the Republican Party could have been if it had stuck to the rule of law and properly administered the government. That opportunity was wasted, but driving him from the party is nothing but a gift to the left. He was one of the few principled and respected Republicans left - that’s why he could not endorse McCain-Palin.

Independents are the only way to win elections - if even Colin Powell cannot be accorded a conscience, then woe be to the party. It will indeed be a long road home.

GOP not entertaining enough? That's laughable...

Apparently some folks here are too close to the comedy to see that the GOP itself has become an incredibly "entertaining" organization. I don't think this is the big problem that the GOP needs to address - as many other posters noted, there is lots of entertainment being produced with a right-wing perspective.

What is lacking is any principled opposition or constructive alternative to the Democratic agenda. The GOP is not losing in virtually all demographic groups because of a lack of entertainment value. It is losing because it does not speak to the very real concerns of the citizens of the USA.

The closing paragraph of this column encapsulates the GOP confusion:

If conservatives want to win this battle, they need to put more energy into creating entertainment that strikes a responsive chord with the majority of Americans who are “sick of politics” because they don’t see how government and public policy matter to their lives. I believe that a majority of Americans, if they get a chance to see both sides of the argument presented in a way that entertains them, will come over to the conservative side in a decisive way. But conservatives have to make the effort. Right now, the left is winning the battle because they are creating entertainment — and the other side is just boring them.

Americans are "sick of politics", but not because they don't see how government and public policy matter - in fact, you have this one exactly backwards. People are sick of politics because they see precious little attention payed to governance and public policy, and far too much energy spent on divisive personal politics. A majority of Americans, when given the opportunity, have already demonstrated no desire to "come over to the conservative side in a decisive way". It is not because they are bored with the GOP. It is because the GOP has willfully and repeatedly failed to address the very real imperative to govern and manage public policy in keeping with the welfare of our nation.

Jon Stewart is not a news source for the youth of the USA solely because his show is entertaining. His show is also informative and insightful when it comes to the major policy issues of the day. The GOP has no answer to an honest debate on the issues. Focusing on the superficial has been the big problem, and will continue to be the problem, so long as the GOP fails to recognize political reality and address the very real concerns of voters.

Barking Wingnut - Jennifer Rubin

Given the complete lack of competence demonstrated by the previous administration, I am quite delighted and satisfied at the improvement that Obama represents.

Perhaps there is a competence gap between his campaign skills and his governance skills. With practice, his campaign skills proved to be stronger than anyone expected. I suspect his governance skills will likewise exceed the expectations of most observers.

Obama has taken deliberate and pragmatic action to implement his agenda, and has shown wisdom, flexibility and charm in the process. There will be compromises and setbacks, and there will be reversals and failures. This is not a surprise. Regardless, Obama will continue to advance his agenda, and will adapt and respond intelligently to the challenges he faces.

I would note that impugning Obama's competence is a pretty funny gambit coming from Jennifer Rubin. At least, if it weren't so sad, it would be funny.

Levity on Torture

Pardon the levity. True torture is, in fact, a serious issue. In the few instances where torture was committed — Abu Ghraib, for instance — the United States was correct in punishing the culprits. But that was an exercise of individual juvenility and cruelty, not official, state-sanctioned intelligence gathering of high-value targets.

This paragraph leads me to believe that you have not familiarized yourself with the nature of the activities carried out under Bush. The documents that are publicly available clearly show that torture was an exercise of official, state-sanctioned power, in direct violation and contravention of the law. Torture was used with official approval from the highest levels of the government, despite valid objections that it was illegal. True torture is a serious issue, and torture with direct approval from government agents demands punishment for the culprits.

We will never have a mature national discourse regarding proper interrogation and what does and does not constitute torture until we can differentiate between the two, embrace the “slippery slope” dilemmas as necessary points of contention, and move past the slanderous pastime of political posturing.

There is not a debate about what constitutes proper interrogation, and what constitutes torture. These are well established categories, which the Bush administration knowingly and wantonly violated. Claiming that the techniques are not torture is simply ex post facto justification for illegal activity. There may be some debate about the details, but there is clear evidence that torture was used under direct authorization from the Executive, and the government must be held accountable for this activity.

Tea Parties - Back to the Dark Ages?

The consequences are predictable and could be catastrophic: a collapse of faith in the leadership classes, a massive anti-intellectual uprising, the beginnings of which we may be already witnessing.

Now I understand the Tea Party movement. It is simply the advocacy movement for a return to the Dark Ages. Thanks for making that crystal clear!

Bureaucrats from here to eternity...

In the near future, a nameless bureaucrat may determine what kind of medical treatment you receive.

I hate to be the one to tell you this: they already do. They work at the HMO.

Why should I prefer a bureaucrat with a profit motive, rather than one with a public health motive?

That's the question I want a clear answer to.

Dramatic Licenses for Drivers

Driving for efficiency is really not difficult, but where are the “cars that people want to buy?” All I see is Jazz giving a trip report on his tour of Manhattan.

Hyper-milers have been refining the techniques of fuel efficiency for some time, starting with the very basic things you have noted, and rising to fairings and tailpipe modifications, along with computer tweaks and other more involved modifications.

Still, I don’t see much evidence here that this was an “Eco-Friendly Auto Show”…