Whenever I talk about the growing power of the evangelical right with friends, they always ask the same question: What can we do? Usually I reply with a joke: Keep a bag packed and your passport current. I don’t really mean it, but my anxiety is genuine. It’s one thing to have a government that shows contempt for civil liberties;… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (54)Page 1 of 1 pagesIn this article it is mentioned that combined a few red states have 7 more electoral votes than Massachusetts and New York. It goes on to state that these red states have an “unfair” advantage because Mass & NY have a bigger combined population. Do these population counts include non-citizens, i.e. immigrants? The last time I checked, the electoral college must represent citizens, not just gross number of people in some area.
I don’t see how the electoral college can really be argued against, it is a pretty simple formula. If you have more citizens, you get more votes. Where is the harm in that. Oh, NOW I remember! The Democrats are also the party that adamantly oppose voter IDs for registration, thus making it harder for non-citizens (dare I say illegal immigrants) to vote. This is the “victim” class Dem policies mostly appeal to, hence your “base.” I understand it would be nice for Dems for them to have disproportionate weight in our electorate, but keep dreaming.
As for the Senate, it was debated EXTENSIVELY at our founding as to the makeup of the legislature (New Jersey & Virginia Plans). The only plan that guarenteed that the smaller states would not be consistently roled by the larger ones and their interests and simultaneously guarentee that larger states would have their say was the construction of the bicameral legislature. This is something that should never be screwed with, it is undoubtedly a wise and fair system.
In conclusion, just because you “better than everyone else” urbanites haven’t gotten your way in the last 15 or so years doesn’t mean its time to knock all the pieces off the board and go home. Here on the other side, we were patient with the absolute failed welfare state for 50+ years before we finally had our chance to change policy. We didn’t want to remake representation. Now it is your turn. I did not say I agree with the nuttiest of the right, as they are pretty nuts. But I think our democratic apparatus is sufficient to buffer against truly extreme views from becoming completely dominant.
Recently Newt Gingrich proposed an interesting concept, open “townhall” style debates throughout the country, venues large and small where both parties would come together for open (unmoderated) debate. No media asking questions, no 30 second sound bites just a true test point-for-point on ideas. Just like they did before the days of television, and during the foundation of this nation. I hope this happens.
Posted by Hyjinx22 on May 16, 2006 at 9:46 AM Excellent piece. Another avenue that absolutely needs to be advocated and pursued by those of us who profess to be “main-stream” traditional Christians is to challenge the beginnings of extreme fundamentalism in our own churches when it rears its ugly head. Don’t let your own church be hijacked by the fanatics. If you believe in true Christian values, respect the beliefs of others,and advocate the necessity of separation of church and state in a healthy democracy, volunteer to serve on your church’s boards, and help to steer policies away from the fanatics. Challenge those who would advocate bigoted, narrow views of false Christianity. Those people are no more Christian than Osama is a Muslim. Unfortunately, all too many people are more than willing to take on the role of “sheep” while those who profess to be shepards of the faith are instead the wolves.
Posted by bootsrey on May 16, 2006 at 10:10 AM The bottom line is that the US is one crisis away from foundering.
Posted by electriclady281 on May 16, 2006 at 10:16 AM Hijinx22
First let me thank you for including your IQ in your name. It helps me tailor my response to ensure you understand. LOL
It is absolutely idiotic that Wyoming’s electoral vote reflect only 166,000 voters, and each of California’s electorial votes represent 616,000. We know the reasons why the electoral college was created, but not every original idea our founding fathers had was a good one. Several have been modified or completely replaced. The electoral college is one such idea that has outlived its usefulness. Either it should be modified to ensure it is more balanced by making sure each electoral vote at least represents the same amount of people OR just plain eliminated. The electoral college is not democratic, and the fears of small states have long since proven groundless, thanks to our federal system. Which gives our “states” so many rights that in other countries, such an entity would be considered an “autonomous region” just below being outright independent.
You need to get your hearing checked.. “Last I heard” the electoral college originally counted NON-citizen black slaves as 3/5 a person to give the southern states a greater say. Citizenship is still not an actual requirement to figure a state’s population. And the the bigot states otherwise known as the red states should feel lucky. Since they are garnering a far larger share of illegal immigration than ever before. So every illegal immigrant pads their already unfair representation.
I am so tired of hearing the idiocy defining phrase “ -failed welfare state-!
Um thanks to that failed program, infant mortality dropped dramatically. Seniors got medicare. Laws and regulations were passed forcing businesses to adhere to standards and safe practices Etc. The only way it failed was explaining to everyone just how dramatically successful it was.Yes, it is time urban/large states demand their rights. It’s time the smalltown/rural parasites understand that their high-living courtesy of outrageous subsidies from larger states must come to an end. Only then will those red state leaches realize that their selfish, self-centered ways are possible ONLY because the blue staters have been picking up the tab for their upkeep. States like Alaska, which produces oil, but gets cash from the Feds. like the proverbial welfare mom with a dozen babies all conceived to increase her pay. States like Texas which has highway developments totalling 4 lanes each way in the middle of absolutely nowhere serving a population base of 100,000s paid for by Californians who struggle on 2 lane roads serving communities of millions. States like Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Montana where the parasite ranchers demand the right to destroy and ruin vast stretches of wilderness and park areas that belong to ALL Americans, because then all of America subsidizes their dismal animal husbandry techniques that use huge amounts of resources to produce relatively small amounts of usable product. But what do they care, it’s not their dime. So they spend like the welfare queens they are.
The real irony is the liberals and urbanites were too confident that everyone knew the truth, and didn’t call them what they were corporate profiteers sucking the life out of this nation in a hundred different ways by demanding and using their representation in our legislature to get all sorts of “set asides” directed to their state to benefit a few businesses and individuals by giving them free or pay them to exploit the natural riches of this nation that belong to ALL of us, and NOT to the state such properties happen to be located.
Posted by johnnyincentx on May 16, 2006 at 11:01 AM Not living in USA, it would be disrespectful of me to mingle in your internal affairs, but nevertheless I can’t help feeling astonished at the spreading of wrongly called Christianity and their fanatical views. You find sheperds all over Latin America taking advantage of ignorant people, even selling them contracts for 100 Dls. between them and God in which they are promised prosperity, healing, and all kinds of blessings. They are supposed to pay 10% of their earnings to the sheperd who, in turn, has the ability to talk to God and decipher for them different parts of the bible, which, as every other religious book was written by men in different times of history. There are several TV channels, with base in different parts of the USA where “miracles” are proclaimed, menaces are proferred and it’s all lilke a nightmare, a return to the Middle Ages. What’s going on? We used to look up onto our Northern Brother for enlightment, free-thinking , workers rights, freedom in all senses, and all we get now are these type of messages plus eternal excuses to start wars and deprive other countries of their riches. At the end of 19 century, an Argentine president, by the name of Sarmiento hired a group of American teachers to give shape to argentine school system, and they proved to be so helpful that we had, until around 1970, free education for all with humanistic contents and freedom of thinking. Then the neo-con nightmare settled down and we have now this monstrosity growing, dividing people, and preaching absolutely false values.
to johnnyincentx: If you feel America’s riches belong to all of you, you should also consider that LatinAmerica, Irak, Iran, Syria and many other countries have the right to their own undersoil riches, n’est ce pas?
I have also read that much of the money collected by so-calkled churches is directed to Israel, where supposedly the big battle will take place and where only the chosen people and so-called christians will be saved and will inherit the earth. Seen from the outside, it looks like holy madness.
Posted by Maria on May 16, 2006 at 12:19 PM Didn’t anyone ever wonder why the exurbs are the growth of this religious fundamentalism? Usually isn’t it the poor and oppressed that turn to the security offered by religious fantasy and the promise of an eternal reward? I offer that the most interesting aspect of all this is that it is the people who have lived the dream, who did what they were told and now live the life they were promised, who are now desperately seeking the consolation offered by fundamentalism. They seek the one thing that capitalism and wage-slavery denies them, even at its best, meaning. They exist in a foggy shroud of reality that constantly reinforces the accepted notion that it is somehow o.k, admirable even, to spend vast sums of money on worthless junk while half a world away there live men, women, and children who are born to suffer the most miserable conditions imaginable. This is cognitive dissonance on a scale so vast it must invite fanaticism, and especially in the shallow pool that calls itself evangelical Christian thought. I argue that it is impossible to understand the rise of “Christian nationalism” in the upper-middle class, without understanding the soul-crushing juggernaut of 20th century neo-conservative capitalism. The form this religiosity has taken is exactly the one it would need to take if it were a reaction, a class wide self-preservation technique if you will, to the chasm that exists between the reality of the world they exist in and the reality of the world for most of humankind. Therefore the solution would be to show these good people of faith the dissonance in their cog, and allow them to come to their own conclusion that the faith they profess, in its mature form, is utterly inconsistent with the politics of the people who promulgate Christian nationalist thought. You don’t argue with these people. You do what Descartes did. You write religious books, aimed for this audience, that while arguing for a matter of faith they agree in, completely change that meaning to be more consistent with the core of that belief. If you do this well, you change the world.
Posted by Phaedrus on May 16, 2006 at 1:48 PM I think this was an all around well written article, no complaints that you wouldn’t normally see in any other article written, no one can be perfectly objective, but she did a fine job. While the author may believe that some (by no means even a near majority) of Christians are fairly insane in some of the teachings and policies they wish to push forward, she does not wish to silence them, merely make people aware of what they are spreading, educating them fully, and letting people have a better idea of what is going on.
And in response to the first comment, the Electoral College can be argued very simply… if this is a Democracy, why is there still a separate Institution appointing a President, rather than having us do the electing directly? Also, let’s say a state votes for a President particular party, and he gets elected, in most of the south and west it doesn’t make so much of a difference, since the number of people possibly voting for the other guy isn’t that great. But in the northeast, especially, if a state goes red but 4 million people are blue, there’s a huge disparity there, and you many, many more unhappy people than you would in a less-populated state.
Also, there’s nothing wrong with a bicameral legislature, no one is arguing to tear down that foundation, what is being argued is how it is set up. Take for instance Wyoming and Ohio, where I live. Right now it is such that Ohio, whose population is more than 20x that of Wyoming, should be represented by exactly the same amount of people in our upper-level legislature. With the views of rural and urban areas usually always being drastically different, and with that ratio being much greater in Ohio than in Wyoming, it would be unfair to Ohio, if, let’s say, both Senators happen to come from smaller, rural or suburban areas of Ohio, and therefore be more likely to side on a nation-wide issue with a state like Wyoming, whose share of urban views would be next to nothing. With the northeast being the most populated area of the US, housing a majority of the country’s most populus states, you can see why someone would be upset with the current set-up and just happens to side with change or with a Democrat has to say.
Posted by Josh Volchko on May 16, 2006 at 3:12 PM Articles like this prove that ‘liberals’ are in a panic mode. Over the past 30 years mainstream America was not paying attention to what ‘liberals’ were doing in America. Now, thanks to talk radio programs like Rush Limbaugh, Lars Larson, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Larry Elder and Michael Reagan, ‘liberals’ have been exposed. Mainstream America now sees that Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.
Oh ya ... we can’t forget about the Fox News Channel. If Fox News wasn’t around in 2004, then Kerry would have won. Fox News is why Bush won in 04’. Fox News was a counter-balance to the left-wing liberal media news of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS.
PS - Hey Libs ... What do you think about Justice Roberts and Justice Alito?
lol....
BOOYA !!!!
Posted by tina1 on May 16, 2006 at 8:53 PM Tina1,
I’d say that responses such as yours only prove that you, and others of your ilk, suffer from a condition known as premature cognitive commitment. That is, no matter how many facts are presented to the contrary that dispel the validity of your idol worship of all things Bush and the extreme far right wing hate-mongers, you refuse to see that your emperor simply has no clothes. Thank God much of the rest of the country is finally beginning to emerge from their stupor, as reflected in the recent polls and the almost daily revelations of illegal, fascist, dirty tricks being played on the American people in the name of security. So, why don’t you just go troll some neocon site to spew your bile and contempt for all things “liberal.”
Posted by bootsrey on May 17, 2006 at 6:26 AM Thanks for this! I need to go back and give another reading, but on the first pass through I felt compelled to register here and voice a comment in regard to one point.
You write, in regard to the “Iraq War” : “The real victims of failure there will be Iraqi, but many Americans will feel embittered, humiliated and sympathetic to the stab-in-the-back rhetoric peddled by the right to explain how Bush’s venture has gone so horribly wrong.”
This statement collapses together a number of truths, while at the same time obscuring others. It begs to be ‘unpacked.’
A first, perhaps quibbling point is this: There is every reason to believe that our “success” in Iraq would victimize Iraqis as much as our “failure”—what, after all, are the real goals of this criminal attack? I leave this alone, as I suspect you are with me, but there is no doubt that your phrasing is unfortunate.
More importantly, you are putting your finger here on perhaps the single most potent weapon in the arsenal of those who would drive us toward fascism: the stab-in-the-back. Where you’ve gone awry is in your simple assertion that this is “rhetoric peddled by the right.”
The ugly truth is that the mainstream of the Democratic party not only doesn’t oppose this rhetoric, but actually provides direct support for it. The tarring of Rumsfeld is a key component of the current stab-in-the-back talk, because Rummy is blamed for our ‘failure’ to attack Iraq more ruthlessly, with greater firepower, less concern (did Rummy evidence *any* concern? - no matter) for casualties, and more, many more, invading troops. Of course, these concerns echo those of the technocrat Democratic ‘opposition’—already back in 2004, we heard John Kerry saying we needed more troops in Iraq.
The very powerful idea of the stab-in-the-back depends on a perception that we were betrayed by a failure to prosecute the war as strongly as possible. Democrats have embraced that theory. In many cases that is the full extent of their criticism of “Bush’s war.”
Posted by Too Kind by Half on May 17, 2006 at 7:34 AM Ms. Goldberg says, “Our democracy is eroding and some of our rights are disappearing, but for most people, including those most opposed to the Christian nationalist agenda, life will most likely go on pretty much as normal for the foreseeable future.”
So then, it stands to reason that our democracy and rights aren’t real anyway.
Ms. Goldberg says, “Historically, totalitarian movements have been able to seize state power only when existing authorities prove unable to deal with catastrophic challenges—economic meltdown, security failures, military defeat—and people lose their faith in the legitimacy of the system.”
She must mean “another totalitarian movement” because the current corporate agent called the bush Administration can’t be considered anything but one. Therefore, a christian nationalist totalitarian movement or some other “un-democratic” movement has to be waiting in the wings to take over since this country meets the criteria of vulnerability to catastrophy, economic failure and massive indebtedness, inability to defend itself, military ineptness and a well earned lack of faith in the system.
Posted by theloneous on May 17, 2006 at 11:51 AM Regarding the photo that was used on the website for this article…
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RUN!
Posted by chuckville on May 17, 2006 at 12:23 PM Bootsrey
Your response to Tina1our resident posting republikkkunt is perfect.
Nothing we could say, no point we could make, no matter how many points of clear reason, no matter how many facts we presented backing our position would sway them in their faithlike “beliefs” supported by “proofs of assertion” ad nauseum.
They are not interested in debate or discussion. Their only goal is to take up space here pushing their obnoxious agenda, and occupying the time and energies of progressive and liberals and thus prevent them from using those resources to make the changes we all want to make. . :-D
Posted by johnnyincentx on May 17, 2006 at 1:49 PM johnnyincentx
I think you miss one of the major aspects of the function the electoral college actually performs. Most people cite the original fear that it wouldn’t be a good idea for people to directly elect their executive, but it has a much more pragmatic function. It maintains parity between congressional representation on legislative matters and the power of each state with regard to the executive. Since the number of electoral votes of a state is: # of house reps + 2 (1 for each senator) the number of electoral votes is exactly in sync with what has been decided upon for legislative power.
This is a very important attribute, or states such as New York, Florida and California would routinely decide the presidency and hence wield the most Federal law enforcement power. One major objective of a Republic is to make sure that viewpoints that might differ across a wide geographic union are represented as equally as possible, while still giving weight to the difference in shear numbers. As a proportion of the population of a given state, some issues will inevitably be more important to those in a particular state than in other states - the only real difference driving the opinion difference being the geographic/socio-economic demographic of said state. The electoral college smoothes these differences out while still giving due say to the peoples of a particular state exactly proportional to their legislative representation and no more.I’m sure you would ignorantly argue that “all those states in the middle are the same!” whereas I would retort “all those damn coastal states are the same!” but now you are making the arguement against the nature of a state, should it be defined ideologically or geographically? Another thing you seem to have a problem with is geographic autonomy (states rights), which is puzzling for someone so interested in “direct democracy” and direct elections for the presidency. I would think that you would be on the side of local democracy, but then again it would appear I’m wrong.
So, when your argueing against the electoral college, you are really argueing against how apportionment of House districts is determined. It would appear that immigration has driven some major shifts in the underlying makeup of these districts, mainly to blue state advantage. Very interesting congressional report:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/sactestimony120605.html#_ftn5on this very effect. They demonstrate how while the populations may be growing, hence giving more seats to certain states how the number of actual votes required to win those seats is rapidly decreasing. Translating for you: a Cali (1 in 7 non-citizen, ‘bigot’ state?) district needs fewer registered voters to make the decision vs. a Wyoming one. Same for Texas and NY as for Cali, of course. So, the reality could very well be that citizens are becoming under-represented in the presidential electoral process. This translates into something funny: There are even FEWER citizens (per capita) that agree with your viewpoints than would appear just based on electoral vote count because states like Cali and NY already have an unfair amount of electoral votes due to immigrants!
You may be wondering why I am then defending a system that is positioned to hurt the people in states that agree with me most. For that you should see the beginning of this post. The bottom line is districting will need to be based on citizenship to level the playing field again (between that and illegal immigrant (victim) voting, probably not a happy prospect for most Libs).
As for state PORK, have you ever heard of the ‘Big Dig’? Ask Uncle Ted someday! Of course, being a Conservative, I hate pork no matter where it is and agree with you about roads like that in Texas, we need more Reagans. Of course, the Rep. congress is just as bad too - so nope - just more Conservatives all around - glad you agree on pork, oink, oink!
Posted by Hyjinx22 on May 17, 2006 at 3:38 PM I enjoyed this article and wholeheartedly agreed regarding the demeanor of the lurkers like tina and hyjinx.
I think what stands out most for me in any of the comments on this site, alternet and others is that when there is a lurker who posts, they are consistent. They don’t listen to the facts, have their own view of the facts and most importantly....they are all mean and nasty in their comments. Now...why is that? Why is it that Fox News of the world and others are so rude and mean? Aren’t they the ones who claim to be so Christian??
I tell you regardless of which policies are sound and successful, I would never side with the Conservative Right. They are neither Conservative nor Right, just hateful and extremely unhappy and quick to stab you in the back.
Oh and stop using the scapegoat “liberal media...cnn and so forth”. There is no such thing and they prove it time and again. Even Bill Kristol admitted it was just a scapegoat for the neocons.
How about less nastiness and just stick to facts and which policies work, Repubs? Last time I looked, this was about our country and its people, not two football teams playing the Superbowl and we boo and holler about who wins the game. Grow up.
Posted by txjill on May 17, 2006 at 6:37 PM TXJill
More and more on our side are coming to the same conclusion finally :-D
When FRight wingers with their faux facts and obvious lies supported by their arguments resting on “proofs of assertion” come here, it’s no different than if some stranger, full of hate, and venom hellbent on causing some destruction walked into your home and demanded you listen to them while they explain why they have the right to tear down your house.
While explaining they purposely disrespect your views, insult and degrade your values and ridicule your agenda.
For too long they could count on the extremely good manners of rationale people. Who considered responding in kind just as bad.
It’s sinking in though, that in such situations, being kind and courteous is only guarantees such morons will follow through with their threats and rants.
By not responding in kind, the nuetral listeners, assume you must be right far more often than assume you are taking the high road.
In our American culture, people are expected to respond to poor, nasty treatment with visible offense.
Doing any less is evidence you are wrong.
Few people would have much sympathy for someone who let a stranger walk into their home, abuse and insult them and finally burn ther house down without even asking them to stop or voicing any objection.
Yet figuratively that is exactly what happens when good-hearted reasonable people engage in point by point and present factual rebuttals to the typical FRight Wing post which is utter nonsense.
You are so right. The FRight Wing conservatives are so unreasonable, because they act as if discussing the issues is like arguing about which team you support.
When they finally realize taking a shit in our living room risks a response in kind, they’ll move on. LOL :-)
I have to admit though, it is Sometimes fun to write a particularly sharp slam in response to a faux intellectual FRight wing post every now and then, not as a serious reply to a view I take seriously. Rather it’s my way of treating them with as little respect as possible, and make them waste their time. .
Posted by johnnyincentx on May 17, 2006 at 8:48 PM Two Arrested in Centennial Hall Incident
Ann Coulter was speaking to the Arizona College Republicans at the University of Arizona in October 2004. Ann was taking questions when two liberal hatemongers jumped on the stage and ran at Ann then threw pies at her. They were quickly grabbed and arrested. The funny thing is that during the scuffle on stage the background scrim was damaged. Now the liberal pie throwers had to pay the University for a new one ... the cost ... $3,000. lol.... lmao…
http://uanews.org/cgi-
bin/WebObjects/UANews.woa/wa/UAPDStoryDetails?ArticleID=9983http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1022042coulter1.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1022042coulter2.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1022042coulter3.html
PS - I thought you liberals were all about “FREE SPEECH” ...
Posted by tina1 on May 17, 2006 at 9:06 PM Incidents Of Voter Intimidation & Suppression
Five Democrat Operatives In Milwaukee Charged With Slashing Tires Of Republican Vans On Morning Of Election Day
On Monday, January 24, 2005, five Democrat operatives were charged with felony counts of “criminal damage to property” for slashing the tires of 25 get-out-the-vote vans rented by Republicans early on the morning of Election Day. The vans had been rented by Republicans to help transport observers and voters to the polls on Election Day. The five individuals charged in the case were all paid Democrat operatives. Two defendants in the case are the sons of prominent Milwaukee Democrats: U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore and former Acting Mayor Marvin Pratt, Chairman of the Kerry-Edwards campaign in Milwaukee.The following is a list of the individuals charged with slashing tires on the morning of November 2, 2004, and their connections to the Democrat campaign in 2004:
Michael J. Pratt — Paid $7,965.53 by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin in 2004 Pratt’s father is former Acting Mayor Marvin Pratt, who chaired the Kerry-Edwards campaign in Milwaukee
Sowande Ajumoke Omodunde (a.k.a “Supreme Solar Allah”) — Paid $6,059.83 by Gwen Moore for Congress and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin in 2004 Son of U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI)
Lewis Gibson Caldwell, III— Paid $4,639.09 by Gwen Moore for Congress and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin in 2004
Lavelle Mohammad — Paid $8,858.50 by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and America Coming Together ($966 for canvassing work in June and July) in 2004
Justin J. Howell — Paid $2,550.29 in 2004 by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin
http://www.ac4vr.com/reports/072005/democraticincidents.html
Posted by tina1 on May 17, 2006 at 9:11 PM Court Orders MoveOn.org To Cease Voter Intimidation And Harassment In Ohio
On Election Day, individuals in Franklin County, Ohio, were threatened and harassed at their polling places by agents of MoveOn.org after being asked about their voting preference and revealing their intention to vote Republican. Similar situations are alleged to have occurred elsewhere around the state and prompted a lawsuit filed in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court. Voters were intimidated by MoveOn.org in an attempt to dissuade them from voting for George W. Bush or in an attempt to harass them after they voted.
Examples of such intimidation include one plaintiff who arrived at his polling place and was called over to a table operated by MoveOn.org that promised “Free Coffee.” The plaintiff asked for a cup of coffee, was asked if he would voter for Kerry, and responded that he would not. The person at the table refused him a cup of coffee. The plaintiff then noticed that particular individual and others standing near the plaintiff’s car. When he exited the polling place, the MoveOn.org table was placed in front of his car, blocking his exit. When he asked them to move, the individuals harassed him, took his picture and recorded his license plate.
Another voter noticed a loud and boisterous gentleman at her polling place wearing a “Voting Rights Staff” badge and standing well within 100 feet of the polling place. In fact, he stood right outside one plaintiff’s voting booth and told her that she only had a few seconds left and needed to make her final vote. These plaintiffs sought, and received, a temporary restraining order against MoveOn.org. The complaint has subsequently been amended to include allegations of similar acts by agents of MoveOn.org that occurred elsewhere in the state.
http://www.ac4vr.com/reports/072005/exhibitK.pdf
Posted by tina1 on May 17, 2006 at 9:14 PM Speech Interrupted
David Horowitz was hit in the face with a pie Wednesday during a speech at Butler University. The attack was the third incident in the last 10 days in which a conservative speaker has been doused with food while trying to speak on a Midwestern campus.
William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, was hit in the face with a pie during a speech at Earlham College and Pat Buchanan, the former presidential candidate, had salad dressing thrown on him at Western Michigan University.
Horowitz was at Butler as part of his campaign to encourage state legislatures to adopt the “Academic Bill of Rights,” which Horowitz says will encourage a diversity of views in higher education, but that critics say is an attack on academic freedom. In a statement on the incident at Butler, Horowitz said, “It is ironic that these assailants tried to prevent me from delivering a lecture on the need for greater tolerance and respect for dissenting opinions in the academic community.”
After the incident, Horowitz finished his speech.
A spokeswoman for Butler said Thursday evening that officials were investigating the incident and that the pie-thrower had not been identified.
Bobby Fong, president of Butler, called Horowitz to express his concern and issued a statement Thursday criticizing the attack.
“A university is at its best a forum for the open exchange of ideas and opinions. Mr. Horowitz’s right to express his opinions was violated by those who disrupted his speech,” the statement said. “We support the constitutional rights of free speech granted to Mr. Horowitz as well as to those who disagree with his opinions. The university does not support this inappropriate behavior.”
In the attack on Pat Buchanan, the assailant was identified by authorities as a student at Kalamazoo Valley Community College.
Earlham College suspended the student who threw a pie at Kristol. Earlham issued a statement Thursday affirming the importance of letting speakers address their audiences. The statement said that “any student who shows by word or deed that he or she will act to deny such rights to speakers and their potential audiences will forfeit the privilege of continuing to be a student at the college.”
In explaining the reason for issuing the statement, the college said: “The exercise of speech is a fundamental principle upon which we organize this college and is essential to any college or university worthy of the name. That principle must be a visible and undoubted commitment of the college at all times. When it is threatened, the college must take steps to reaffirm that commitment.”
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/04/08/speech
Posted by tina1 on May 17, 2006 at 9:39 PM Voter Registration Fraud Indictments In Colorado
At least 7 Colorado residents working for voter registration drives have been indicted and/or pleaded guilty to vote fraud charges stemming from the 2004 election.
ACORN worker’s girlfriend who admitted to signing up three friends to vote 40 times and registering herself 25 times was charged with 15 counts of felony forgery;
ACORN worker plead guilty to filling out false voter registration forms for the November election, sentenced to a year probation and 150 hours of community service;
ACORN worker charged in October with falsely filling out multiple voter forms;
Man charged with five counts of perjury for filling out several phony registration forms for ACORN workers;
Two men indicted on 19 and 29 counts of forgery, respectively, related to voter-registration drives;
Posted by tina1 on May 17, 2006 at 9:42 PM Man charged with forging 48 voter-registration applications.
ACORN And Other Third-Party Groups Linked To Hundreds Of Fraudulent Voter Registrations In Colorado
In the months leading up to Election Day 2004, ACORN and other third-party voter registration groups were linked to hundreds of fraudulent registration submitted to elections officials across the state. In October, Denver’s 9 News reported “widespread voter registration fraud” committed by groups such as ACORN that “could affect thousands of Colorado votes and cause chaos at the polls on November 2nd.”
“A review of voter registration forms in five counties has revealed hundreds of potentially fraudulent forms. KUSA-TV reported Monday that it found 719 forms in Denver, Douglas, Adams, Boulder and Lake counties that had the wrong names, social security numbers and dates of births for voters. Many of the forms were turned in by voter registration drives which pay their workers based on the number of people they sign up.”
The 9 News report stated that “most of the fraud has come from registration drives,” and identified ACORN, New Voters Project and Colorado Progressive Coalition as among the groups whose employees submitted the bogus forms.
The 9 News report indicated that some of the fraudulent forms it discovered were “completely bogus” and filled in with fake “names, addresses, social security numbers or dates of birth.” Other fraudulent forms were submitted in the names of legitimate voters, with “one or two facts changed that could affect their registration when they show up at the polls November 2nd.” For example, Colorado resident Tom Stanislawski had registered six months prior to being fraudulently re-registered and having his party identification changed. “My concern would be I’d walk in November 2nd and be unable to vote,” Stanislawski said.
Other examples of voter registration fraud cited by the 9 News report included Kym Cason, who told a reporter that in order to help her boyfriend, who worked for ACORN, she “registered herself 25 times and her friends 40 times.” Cason was charged with 15 counts of felony forgery and five counts of misdemeanor procuring false registrations in November 2004. Gerald Obi told 9 News that voter registration drive workers “pressured him to keep registering to vote,” and he ultimately registered 35 times. The report found that several prisoners, including alleged child molester John Turner, registered from behind bars in Douglas and Adams counties. Meanwhile, in Boulder County, more than 2,000 people have had eight or more changes to their voter registration forms.
Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter said that the people admitting to voter registration fraud in 9 News’ report needed to be prosecuted. “People are trying to corrupt the election process. People should be prosecuted,” Ritter said.
9 News reported that there was a “record number of fraudulent registrations across” Colorado in 2004. Election officials agreed that the level of fraudulent voter registration activity was unprecedented in Colorado history. “Everyone here at the commission has never seen anything like this. In the state we’ve never seen anything like this before,” said Denver clerk and recorder Karon Hatchett.
Posted by tina1 on May 17, 2006 at 9:44 PM tina 1 why don’t you research the rebpubs scewups, bush is 2 points above nixon at 29% and falling every week. I think he can brake the all time record for the lowest approval rating in american history. You are proud to get your news from rush liboob a drug addict hypocrate, oreilly sex offender, oly north covicted felon,gordon liddy convicted felon, is this the neo-con morale fiber they brag about? Even wacked out tina 1 can see something wrong with this picture as the rest of america does, but not one way closed minded tina 1 she is scared to see. Bush just split his party again on immigration , did you see all the rebpubs pissed off at bush today lol you have to love it when the rebpubs self destruct before you eyes, even fox news can’t defend bush anymore, the belt way boys scratching their heads going what is going on with bush?lol is he trying to loose votes for the rebpubs in nov.
Posted by brian28 on May 17, 2006 at 10:44 PM tina1
You’re an idiot, and a fool. Believe what you want to believe, but be certain of one thing.
No one here cares what you have to say about the issues. We all have heard the Republikkkunt point of view repeated ad nauseam by our FRight Wing press for 12 years now.
You are only worth replying to in order to insult. Since your comments are an insult to the intelligence of any real progressive/liberal/moderate thinker.
Taking your post seriously, and replying respectively as is the normal behavior here entails disrespecting ourselves. So I’ll treat it as it was given, with utter contempt.
Why do you hang here anyway?
What is it you say? You stay here, because there is no more space at your favorite inn - Anne Coulter’s Rectum?
Well, that does sound truthful. I mean factually speaking most all of mainline FRight Wing republikkkunt thinking originated from deep within Anne Coulter’s rectum
I guess I’m not surprised that along with those constipated ideas came the likes of you and your FRight Wing trolls.
That would also explain your fondness for bullshit sandwiches made daily by cattle on the Bush Ranch.
Posted by johnnyincentx on May 17, 2006 at 10:48 PM www.ecolivingcenter.com/board/politics/messages/73.html - 32k
www.democraticunderground.com/ articles/02/03/29_lies.html - 23k
www.democraticunderground.com/ articles/02/03/29_lies.html - 23k
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/5-6-03-recent-republican-scandals-bennett-leung-sa antorum.htm
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=26e31dac0626768886c2 2806a6f8591d9
Wilentz cites a poll conducted among more than 400 historians in early 2004. Already at that point, more than 80% of these historians regarded the Bush presidency as a failure.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_andrew_b_060517__22the_worst_president.h htm.
Posted by brian28 on May 17, 2006 at 11:28 PM “Bush just split his party again on immigration , did you see all the rebpubs pissed off at bush today lol you have to love it when the rebpubs self destruct before you eyes, even fox news can’t defend bush anymore, the belt way boys scratching their heads going what is going on with bush?lol is he trying to loose votes for the rebpubs in nov.”
Posted by brian28 on May 17, 2006
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Hey brian28,
What are you talking about? GOP split? I guess you didn’t see the bill that the Senate passed today.
Senate Votes to Build 370 Miles of Fence Along Border With Mexico
WASHINGTON — Heeding conservative demands to shore up the southern U.S. border to prevent illegal immigrants from freely crossing into the country, the Senate voted Wednesday to build 370 miles of triple-layered fence
Senators voted 83-16 to add fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southern border.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195791,00.html
NAYs ---16
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Not Voting - 1
Rockefeller (D-WV)http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?con ngress=109&session=2&vote=00126
NOTICE THAT EVERY REPUBLICAN VOTED “YA” ....
THE ONLY “NAYS” ARE DEMS .... lol…
AND WHICH PARTY IS DIVIDED?
lol…
And you said the GOP was divided .... lol.... lmao…
You are funny....
Posted by tina1 on May 18, 2006 at 12:27 AM Brian28
Well done, thanks for the links to all those insightful articles. :-D
You needn’t worry too much about the republikkkunt Tina and her coterie of cracksmoking, FRight Wing buttslugs convincing anyone with their talking points tongued directly out of the source - C. Rove’s bunghole. LOL
Oh by the way one of your links didn’t work. So I took the liberty of finding the story at a new link.
http://www.uexpress.com/richardreeves/?uc_full_date=20051202
Posted by johnnyincentx on May 18, 2006 at 6:05 AM Brian28
Here is a better more in-depth article about what you tried to link us up to.
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20060417_125323_1 125323
Of course its all just liberal claptrap. Everything that critisizes our great commander and creep is just liberal propoganda, and any former conservative who is joining, is obviously a liberal plant revealing their true colors at last.
TRUE conservatives will never abandon Bush, for they know as a God-fearing man he will not let them down. Unlike most people, they decide their politics via their religious beliefs, and they believe that Bush is one of them, and thus guided by the invisible hand of God. LOL
Their allegence to him is more faithlike as a result, and only another act of faith could make them turn away from him.
That really is the reason, no amount of fact or reason will sway them. Their allegence to Bush has is not based on fact or reason.
What’s really ironic is, Bush fits the image fundamentalists paint of the anti-christ better than any other previous president. Yet, blinded by their own righteousness, they cannot see how perfectly he fits “THEIR” descriptions. I guess no matter how clear their own explanations in regard to this matter are, they still as a group believe their anti-christ will be easy to spot for true-believers. Believing themselves exactly that, it is beyond their comprehension that the most perfect man for the job could be the one. LOL Instead it’s just God testing their faith, and they won’t fail that test. Uh huh. LOL
Posted by johnnyincentx on May 18, 2006 at 6:31 AM Let’s not underestimate Christianity’s tendency toward self-destruction as the Bush/Delay Republican ship takes water and begins to sink to our secular progressive amusement. The religion goes in cycles and booms for awhile until the crisis of faith factor begins to set in. Ironically Christianity looses its most virtuous people during times of faith crisis since eventually a smart person gets tired of the weekly brainwash designed to make them embrace blissful ignorance. Eventually such a person may even read a forbidden book just to give a starving mind something to chew on. Then there is the person who is inherently honest, which at first looks like something to make them a natural Christian until that honesty begins to conflict with belief. Such a person tires of lying to themselves constantly while their honesty, like a devil’s advocate, continues to reason with the Christian mind that desperately holds on to its fantasies. Then there is the Christian who just can’t win the fight against their flesh. Like Catholic Priests who “wages war on the flesh” only to find the flesh to be a worthy opponent who fights back with perversion, the Christian who can’t turn their desire into a balding wimp with a weak spine is fighting a loosing battle. The only solution is a) become a hypocrite and hope the alter boy doesn’t talk, or b) renounce Christianity and try to get along with this flesh you are so profoundly attached to. I guess my point regarding this article is that as long as we hold fast to our secular American values of democracy, and freedom for all then common sense reason can win the day. The Constitutional Separation of Church and State will continue to thwart the Christian nationalist who actually believes it should be taken out of the Constitution because it throws a wrench in the forefather’s intended theocracy.
Posted by dajson on May 18, 2006 at 11:35 AM While I welcome Goldberg’s drawing attention to the creeping tyranny of Christian nationalism, and share her concerns, I wonder if she is not being a bit alarmist. There are several points to ponder regarding the relative strength of the Christian nationalist movement, all of which would temper Goldberg’s argument that we are one disaster away from a Christian fascist theocracy.
First of all, Christian nationalists are not a large group, although Christian evangelicals are growing. The two should not be confused, although there is some overlap.
True Christian nationalists are a small minority, albeit an extremely vocal one. The reasons they are perceived as being a powerful constituency are multiple: conservative evangelical Christians have a monopoly on “the Christian perspective” in mainstream media; neo-conservative politicians have hijacked the conservative Christian vote and fomented culture war to advance their own ends; most people, evangelical Christians included, are not well-informed about the Constitution or about political issues, and will agree with anyone whom they trust. So when James Dobson supports Frist’s “nuclear option” in the Senate, they go along with it without really understanding what it means. Thus, we need education not only for the general public, but for conservative Christians who don’t understand that their Constitutional rights are being abrogated without their informed consent.
Finally, there is a movement afoot that is awakening the “sleeping giant” of progressive and liberal Christians, who are not only alarmed about the assaults on our Constitution, but are distressed by the distortions, misappropriations and abuses of our faith that are being perpetuated among our more conservative brethren. Jim Wallis of Sojourners is leading a charge to bring a more nuanced and multiple Christian voice, one that includes Christians from the entire political spectrum, to bear in the media and on political issues. It seems to be working, as Christians are talking about faithful responses to global warming in churches ranging from Baptist to Episcopalian.
Now if we could only get conservative Christians to vote from a better-informed perspective on immigration, abortion, foreign policy, social spending, the expanding power of global corporations, healthcare, education, and peace issues, we might really get somewhere. Goldberg is right; the Electoral College has got to go, and so have privately-funded election campaigns. When our politicians are no longer beholden to wealthy corporations, they may again be willing to take up the issues important to real people, conservative and liberal, religious and secular alike.
Posted by BobbiD on May 18, 2006 at 12:09 PM Reading through the posts on this topic I can detect a lot of animosity between the reds and the blues, but that didn’t shed much light on the article itself until I hit the post by Phaedrus, who has a plan. God bless him! Good luck man. The reds don’t read any non-sanctioned authors. Or at least up until now they haven’t done much along those lines. How to get past that?
The other poster that made a light go on is Theloneous who wrote:
“She must mean “another totalitarian movement” because the current corporate agent called the bush Administration can’t be considered anything but one. Therefore, a christian nationalist totalitarian movement or some other “un-democratic” movement has to be waiting
in the wings to take over since this country meets the criteria of vulnerability to catastrophe, economic failure and massive indebtedness, inability to defend itself, military ineptness and a well earned lack of faith in the system.”Maybe she does Theloneous, maybe she does. Maybe she knows more than she can say.
I have heard that the military was waiting in the
wings to do just what you said if necessary. Looks like it has --in fact-- become necessary. Isn’t the military just now being given control over the CIA? It doesn’t look like the blues are going to do a damn thing about it either.Remarkable.
And the Dimocrats are going to slam dunk the endorsement, after engaging in some entertaining but meaningless rhetoric. You watch: There won’t be any opposition to this very interesting move.
Incredible.
“So then, it stands to reason that our democracy and rights aren’t real anyway.” —Theloneous
Could be Theloneus, could be. What a sobering thought. But was it ever real? I mean the united States has been covered with slaves from its inception. It was a bit of a shell game from the beginning, wasn’t it? Oh yeah, the Civil War and Reconstruction and the Civil Rights movement and so on....They did mean something no doubt,
but not enough. Evidently. I sure hope these christian nationalists fade out too....movements come and go around here all the time, but the author sure sounded worried. Maybe we should be worried too with Gaza-like walls going up on the Texas-Mexican border and the Guard being called out to patrol it. Things ain’t looking too good, for the victims of the ‘globalization’ and ‘nafta’ scams are they?You know Thomas Jefferson predicted that the united States would need a Revolution every twenty years. I have heard it said that the neo cons are revolutionaries, not conservatives. If they really are, then the red State revolutionaries have been very effective in hijacking the government and subverting the original idea of separating Church and State. That puts us right where the Islamic fundamentalists are: living in a military-based theocracy. I wonder what the Republic’s founders, who were mostly Deist, would think about this devolution in the thinking of their progeny?
Sounds like the concept of separating Church and State was a good idea in theory but impossible to implement as a practical reality. That seems to be true of a lot of the ideas and concepts embodied in the US Constitution,
Bill of Rights, and other founding documents. I guess it’s hard to maintain without an informed citizen base. Oh yeah they muzzled the Fourth Estate, Duh. And didn’t the govt. bring over the Germans after WWII to teach them how
to do it? I guess the effort to subvert the founding
fathers ideals has been on the table awhile.Strange. Yet if you actually look at what really happened in Germany, it amounts to the same series of events that happened here. A failure (failed at being a painter and architect) succeeded in becoming a leader in a fringe movement (national socialist party). He wasn’t elected initially: he came to power in a backroom deal (hint) and proceeded to invest his cronies with positions of power. And the rest is (repeatable) history.
Fascinating how this plays out, isn’t it?
Posted by sequ0yah on May 18, 2006 at 7:56 PM There must be some real Christians, in addition to the sojourners, out there. It should be possible to organize these real Christians for a battle with the 19th century English evangelical heresy which preaches everything that Christ was against. The current ‘religious right’ teaches hate, division, use of the state for religious purposes, and unconcern for the least of us. This is not only anti-Christian; it is also un-American. Where are the real American Christians to standup and drive these heretics out of public life?
Posted by oxheadone on May 18, 2006 at 11:43 PM A few opinions:
-In order to abolish the Electoral College, you’d have to erase state boundaries first. Neither will happen, short of a (fantasy) revolution that would negate the current form of government based on Constitutional structures. You’d never get a Constitutional Convention organized for such a thing, and trying to initiate the amendment process state-by-state for that agenda would be an exercise in expensive wheel-spinning; lots of energy expended without forward movement.
-One of the most pointed charges brought against Bush & Co from “progressives” or “the left” or whatever it can be called, focuses on the perception that they’ve ignored the Const (e.g. Guantanamo, excessive grasp of executive power in violation of checks-and-balances, allegedly illegal wars, etc). If that same side was to now engage in trying to pull the legs out from that same Const, to the detriment of non-populous states who will never stand still for it, it would appear to be as though casting about for SOME kind of change, ANY kind of change, without a grain of coherency. It feeds the perception of progressives being fringe crackpots, instead of being a loyal opposition with a viable alternative agenda, which is what they need to be perceived as if they are to have a prayer of changing anything.
more…
Posted by Kuya on May 19, 2006 at 1:46 AM ...more…
-If you want to get the backing of Americans in an effort to stop extremist theological influence upon the law, stop ignoring the fact that the great majority of Americans are believers. At least, they believe they’re believers, although some of the values they’re encouraged to hold are out of harmony with the teachings of Jesus and other prophets (more on that below). This means ending the sanctimonious habit of ascribing delusional thinking, nazi values, or stupidity to people who have no confidence in materialistic/atheistic (i.e. anti-spiritual) philosophies. If you’re personally atheist, that’s your own bag to carry, but to say 9/10 of Americans are full of shit and then expect to get anywhere politically is itself delusional. Most Americans have zero appetite for true theocracy, but when secularists are insulting or pretend to be (or actually believe they are) smarter than the rest, it shouldn’t be surprising when people turn their faces away from them.
-If the “left” (for want of a better term… ill-defined, almost meaningless...) wants to make progress in America, they should work to prevent the continued co-opting of moral values by the “right” (...). Instead of saying that religious people are weirdos to be escaped or emasculated, focus on reclaiming and promoting worthwhile values from religion that, frankly, sound a lot like “progressive” ideas if not for the allergy to God that so many progressives apparently have. Compassionate recognition of another’s value. Ethical restraint in business dealings. Moderation of personal appetites in favor of sharing. Refusing to judge the worthiness of another for “God’s grace” or some secular phrasing of that sentiment. Working on pulling the beam from my own eye rather than getting freaked about the dust mote in the other guy’s. Are these teachings from Jesus antithetical to the progressive agenda? Or, is the progressive agenda a re-phrasing of these values, in secular form? Silly for the branch to attack the roots of the tree from which it springs!
-If you want to go on the attack against those who would theocratize the law, find and point up the instances where they depart from the teachings of the (rabbi/savior/teacher/prophet/call him what you will) they say they worship. To the extent that gratuitous war, negation of human rights, legally sanctioned abuse, racial divisiveness, gluttonous accumulation, victimizing business practices, connivance to seize other people’s resources, adding monetary feathers to rich people’s already luxurious nests, and habitual attack-language/behavior characterize a government or its supporters (OR its detractors), they are out of tune with Jesus teachings. Point. This. Out. They say they are with him. Show how they are against him. Whether you personally or organizationally worship him or not, surely the value of a man’s teachings can be recognized even if you think he’s been mythologized.
Certainly more constructive than starting a losing process of Constitutional warping, while characterizing the constituency you want to attract as dolts.
In truth, I think that if Jesus were to teach today, many of your opponents would write him off as a liberal sand-nigger who should be neutralized if he got too influential. Wait, it’s been done…
Posted by Kuya on May 19, 2006 at 1:49 AM There seems to be a lot of eloquent rhetoric here focused on patching up the differences between the reds and the blues. Ms. Goldberg is pretty clear that this is not the focus of her ideas:
“My ideas are not about reconciliation or healing. It would be good if a leader stepped forward who could recognize the grievances of both sides, broker some sort of truce, and mend America’s ragged divides. The anxieties that underlay Christian nationalism’s appeal—fears about social breakdown, marital instability and cultural decline—are real. They should be acknowledged and, whenever possible, addressed. But as long as the movement aims at the destruction of secular society and the political enforcement of its theology, it has to be battled, not comforted and appeased.”
Ms. Goldberg is not confused. This isn’t some spat between otherwise friendly fellow-Americans, or fellow-christians, who are willing to patch up their differences. There are some fundamental differences of values involved and there are no easy solutions. I find that refreshing. Straightforward. Direct. That means we are either going to have (1) a good old fashioned conflict or (2) one side is going to roll over. If I were betting I’d actually put my *money* on the reds since they seem to be committed believers, even fanatical in a way, while the blues don’t seem to fight well. That is to say, the blues will continue to rollover and the reds will continue to grind their faces into the mud, pretty much like what’s been happening for the last six years. There doesn’t seem to be enough backbone among the blues to even *have* a decent fight. So maybe the destruction of ‘secular society’ is inevitable. Or maybe the attack from the right will be met with some resistance at some point. Not likely given their performance recently, but possible. In any case, I admire Ms. Goldberg for putting the conflict in the proper perspective. There are fundamental differences in values here and there are no easy reconciliations. Looks like the reds are serious. Doesn’t look like there is much fight left in the blues. I still like the underdog. In principle the blues are right: the Constitution is very clear about the separation of Church and State, and while everyone has their beliefs, none of them can be *legally* binding. To give up on this principle means to radically revise what the principle of ‘freedom of religion’ is about. But hey, we have seen worse things happen since the reds bitch-slapped Al Gore and took his prize and gave it George ‘mission accomplished’ Bush. And remember: Gore just rolled over. He didn’t put up a fight. Kerry just rolled over in Ohio, he didn’t put up a fight. They had both *right* and *principle* on their sides and they were unwilling to fight for them. But make no mistake, not everyone is willing to rollover or patch up these differences, and Ms. Goldberg points this out: “My ideas are not about reconciliation or healing” she says. So why is that statement is so very hard to accept or understand? Why is a militaristic-theocratic-fundamentalism not a total travesty?
Posted by sequ0yah on May 19, 2006 at 4:31 AM txjill -
I CHALLENGE you to dispute anything I have written in this thread. I’m sure you don’t have the intellectual firepower for that, but try anyway. It might be educational!
Posted by Hyjinx22 on May 19, 2006 at 8:54 AM TXJill
Did I tell you your post is a great one. It doesn’t need any defending - it’s so obviously accurate. Only the worst type of partisan, who sees politics as a team sport and supports “his side” regardless of right or wrong could disagree with you, and be so blind to how right you are and how wrong they are. :-D
Posted by johnnyincentx on May 19, 2006 at 9:08 AM johnnyincentx -
Awwww....what’s a matter Johnny, no direct response to my last post? Talk about someone who is a caricature of themselves, that would be you. I’ve been nothing but civil here and you nothing but venomous and hateful. I’m sure you are too dim to follow my arguement on the benefits of the electoral college and the design of a Republic. I’m also sure you must recognize the inherent hypocrisy in your positions, but you are a classic ranter and hater - nothing more. Grow up.
- Hyjinx22
Posted by Hyjinx22 on May 19, 2006 at 9:22 AM hygnx
You must have missed the point of my only post to you.
What you choose to believe, as a matter of faith, rather than reason is of no consiquence to me. I don’t care.
I did read your post, and decided, the errors in logic and reason make it clear you aren’t interested in discussing but only in forcing people to pay attn. to your “view/opinion” which you believe is fact.
If something agrees with you, it’s true. If it doesn’t agree with you it’s false.
Of course you go to great lengths to “back up” your “feelings” for example with the “opinion” piece that you saw as “fact.” The only thing factual about that article is the opinions of the author agreed with your views.
That for you is enough proof its accurate. For me its just proof it’s an opinion piece full of poorly thought out assumptions supporting their opinions.
If you really wanted to discuss, I would. but you don’t want to discuss.
You want to take up space on this board expousing your views, and ridiculing the left and progressives and liberals Etc. for being in your opinion wrong about everything.
Engaging you in a discussion is a pointless waste of time.
I also have no desire to help you have fun. as you give yourself a point in whatever game you decided you are playing by posting on a political board where you are not the intended audience.
This is not a “free speech” board. Rather it is more a “safe space” board where people who share similar views can come discuss.
You don’t share any of the views most people here share. You don’t fit, because you are just another republikunt troll doing his part for team Bush wasting our time.
Whilst I know there are plenty of conservatives able and willing to discuss, you are not one of them.
Because you treat politics like some kind of sports event, being wrong is not something you can be, only the “other team” can be wrong.
I’m the other team, but you know what, I’m not playing your game. It’s stupid, and intelligent people know that politics should never be treated like a game.
When confronted by such idiocy, I will indulge myself from time to time and post something 1x or 2x, but I would never engage in an actual discussion with you. Since you’re just “cheerleading” his team, as you are doing.
In the past many pro/libs centrists Etc. assumed your type was open to discussion and compromise, but it’s finally as obvious as it can be. Compromise of any kind with you is wasted effort.
Of course, I’m sure I’ll get some elaborately worded version of “I’m rubber, you’re glue” type of response from you. So go right ahead knock yourself out.
It will be the last word in any discussion you thought we were having. When you’re done, perhaps you will get some rest and retreat to the republikunt think tank otherwise known as carl rove’s anus.
Posted by johnnyincentx on May 19, 2006 at 9:58 AM Johnnyincentx, I recall a conversation we had several months ago in which you and Luminous Beauty were correcting my vehemence about a heartfelt issue of my own, and emphasized the importance of remembering tactics and strategy in regards to pushing too hard for gay marriage rights, which I uphold without reservation but which you both described as a wrong tactical approach in the context of the 2004 general election. I’ve thought about that a lot. I think there was something to it, and this article and discussion thread brought it to mind.
I still think and always will that you should be able to marry anyone you want, not that it has much to do with this particular discussion. Here and now, though, I’m thinking more about strategy and what that word means, and which approach would strengthen the likelihood of keeping the law based on secular principles exactly so that, among other priorities, religious freedom would have a ghost of a chance of enduring. It won’t, if the law gets too theocratized, won’t have a chance in hell.
I have no more or better ideas than the ones I cited above. It’s a tough nut to crack, because as I see it, the sectarian quest for dominance in America looks to be on the rise, and their supporters are feeling bold. And if “religion” is pushed into a corner (and I think the confrontation will be perceived just that simplistically en masse), most Americans will feel compelled to back it, and the main voices for maintaining secularity in law will be stereotyped, shouted down, and left high and dry.
Posted by Kuya on May 19, 2006 at 10:26 AM sequ0yah:
I’m happy to have “made a light go on” for you, my comments are usually described as cryptic and cynical.
I can see the wheels turning in your head as you ponder ideas and connect them with what you know from both study and personal experience. I think thats important because it seems people these days are inclined to “hoard” information without ever making any effort to make use of it, arresting “information” short of its potential to become “knowledge”. Possibly this is one of the “bumps in the road” on the information highway.
I also noticed your moniker, some of the oldest living creatures on Earth. You obviously take your time to understand the meanings of the post before applying your “old soul” spin. Peace
Posted by theloneous on May 19, 2006 at 10:27 AM sequ0yah:
You said, “I have heard that the military was waiting in the
wings to” take control of the American government.Don’t get “the military” confused with the U S Military. Any military take over would be executed by a “contract military”, a professional corporate militia, such as what seized control of New Orleans in the Katrina aftermath.
“So then, it stands to reason that our democracy and rights aren’t real anyway.” —Theloneous
How often have you heard this concept of freedom and democracy referred to as “the American dream”? Are dreams real or are they merely figments of our imagination?
There I go being cynical again. Peace
Posted by theloneous on May 19, 2006 at 10:47 AM Theloneous:
Just because your comments are cryptic and cynical doesn’t mean they are not worthy of some serious thought. I find that a lot of the cynical and cryptic thinkers furnish the most food for thought. What with the rise of the sound bite and the abandoment of what was once considered to be rational discourse we have a lot of celebrities running around with their ‘truthiness’
and what was once a debate, or even a principled conflict, has degenerated into farce...or worse.You obviously know all this, but sometimes it is
worth pointing out anyway.Yes, the lights are going on, and they are also
going off. Or maybe they have been off for a while now. It could be that a lot of the institutions
that were once thought to serve one purpose
(the university for education) now serve a different master (corporate, militaristic, governmental/religious propaganda).
So it makes sense to examine things oneself and draw conclusions from what is evident. Suppose what you say is true:“it seems people these days are inclined to “hoard” information without ever making any effort to make use of it, arresting “information” short of its potential to become “knowledge”.”
then it is even more imperative to think for onself
and avoid the parrots because otherwise, you know, everything just might be so confusing and chaotic that the fascists will have done the trick. And even if they do pull it off, it’s important for me
personally to be aware of it so I can act accordingly. Data and Information that I can’t apply is not exactly useless, but in these times I can’t afford to waste my time with it.Not being able to synthesize the terabytes of noise on the Net (and in the media) is in fact more than a bump in the road on this information highway. There is a lot of dis-information out here too. Much of it very deliberate. I try to filter that out and grasp what is truly beneficial, that is to say, something I can verify because it fits in with my own research. Neither Cynicism nor Enthusiasm (there are a lot of enthusiastic people out here too) are objections if the remark itself is true (or could be true, or is worth validating).
Thanx for your posting. it helped me connect the
dots that are swirling around the implications
in this article by Ms. Goldberg.
Posted by sequ0yah on May 19, 2006 at 12:22 PM Theloneous:
You wrote:
“Don’t get “the military” confused with the U S Military. Any military take over would be executed by a “contract military”, a professional corporate militia, such as what seized control of New Orleans in the Katrina aftermath.”
This is a good observation because I did in fact fail to make this distinction in my own mind. And considering how some of the retired military officers are now coming out of the closet, it seems to be an important distinction. But what would the US Military be doing while the ‘contract military’ was taking over?
You ask perhaps rhetorically:
“How often have you heard this concept of freedom and democracy referred to as “the American dream”? Are dreams real or are they merely figments of our imagination?”Speaking only for myself but glancing back at history it is clear that *some* dreams are worth dying for. I mean the Civil War was not just an exercise in futility. The Counterculture of the sixties may have been full of dreamers too but those dreams inform popular culture to this day. North America is famous for the number of ‘movements’ inspired by some dreamer or crackpot. No dream can be dismissed out of hand, it only remains to be seen whether the dreamer wakes up or realizes that dream. But some dreams are better than others and some conflict with others. It is the lack of imagination and the lack of dreamers that, to me, Theloneous, is more of a problem.
Posted by sequ0yah on May 19, 2006 at 12:38 PM Bush’s party deeply split over his immigration plan.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/17/news/bush.phpvoting on a fence is only one part of a five part plan missy. 70% of Immigrants that come to the U.S. use, work visas, student visas, vacation passports, and other legal ways to enter america.
After their time runs out on their visas, they stay. America does’nt enforce the law to round these people up and deport them. All other countries do, try to go to another country and stay pass your time alloted on your visa and see what happens to you.
You can build a wall of china across the mexican border, you are only going to stop 30%.
Posted by brian28 on May 20, 2006 at 2:02 PM I HAVE TWICE POST COMMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT ONLY TO HAVE THEM NOT BE SUBMITTED ...
Posted by Redhorse on May 25, 2006 at 11:17 PM Easy there, Redhorse.
Sometimes computers and the electrons that shoot back and forth between them get confused. Lost comments are nothing new, especially around here, but they are working on it I am sure.
Please try again = )
And maybe try copying and temporarily saving your comment just prior to submitting it. Just in case.
Posted by David in Canada on May 26, 2006 at 12:35 AM Easy too you also David… I will try again later today...gotta go pay the bills right now...it’s funny my complain was posted;maybe I’ll have better luck this afternoon...later.
Posted by Redhorse on May 26, 2006 at 4:31 AM Well… it happened again my response did not go thru… if anyone is interested on my thoughts concerning this subject , I do have a blog that I am in the process of developing . Go to Google Blog Search and type in Evolutionary Esoterics there are 3 postings so far I will be posting a response to this article very soon...The religous right don,t want you to read what I have to say…
Posted by Redhorse on May 26, 2006 at 4:51 PM THANKS MICHELLE!
It is so refreshing to read an article in “In These Times” so well informed, with information AND a perspective, that isn’t such common knowledge that it is like reading one’s own diary.
You obviously work hard and think hard.
THANKS
Posted by marge on Jun 16, 2006 at 11:30 AM tina1...."BOOYA"? are you 12 years old? We’re not flaming each other here over our favorite boy bands. This is a discussion for grown-ups.
Posted by jdstone on Aug 6, 2006 at 10:08 PM I saw Michelle on C-span yesterday --talking to the Unitarians in Indianapolis about her new book.
She mentions in this excerpt from her book her fear that liberals will lose their gains in abortion and gay rights --gains of the past 3 decades or so. Why wouldn’t the other side be alarmed that practices that were considered immoral, even outrageously wicked, for most of civilized history in most cultures, would be legitimated in the 20th and 21st centuries? Are we really so much smarter than the cultural observers of the previous 19 centuries? All of a sudden gay rights and abortion have nothing to do with the social disorder Michelle acknowledges? All of a sudden, here in the U.S., “The Christians are coming!” Alas, pull up the drawbridge!
No, it is the Christians who have witnessed a cultural seachange in our lifetime. We are the ones who feel that the ACLU and liberal courts are imposing a CHANGE toward wackiness and immorality on the country.
E.G. Zion, Ilinois. Founded by religious folks who worked their faith into their town symbol/seal? Decades later, ACLU objected on the grounds of church/state separation and insisted on eradicating all vestiges of this town’s religious history --as they try to do, city after city. Why? So they, like Michelle, can refer to the religious heritage of our forefathers as a “myth.” They ARE the ones who objected to the Christmas nativity scenes on public property --but relented when they were opposed ---as long as all the religions display their holiday symbols, too. They ARE the change agents. They ARe the ones who fear that the Ten Commandments and images of Moses will corrupt the judicial system, though they’ve been on the walls for decades, at least. And now these liberals are indignant that they are outnumbered by the opposition???
Michelle speaks of Darwinism as an absolute “truth,” which makes me wonder if she read M. Behe or P. Johnson on the subject. Most of us laymen can’t be so smug about Darwinism when we read those writers. And the issue isn’t “creationism” for the public schools as much as it is Intelligent Design. There IS a difference. The schools don’t have to answer the question of WHO IS THE DESIGNER? But they should acknowledge evidences of design that cannot be explained by Darwin’s theory of organisms accidentally produced by random, undirected, processes over billions of years of natural selection. My husband is a scientist in biology and he gets it --life is too beautiful and complex to have occured by Darwin’s clumsy method. Yes, there is natural selection and evolution within species --but the bacteria are STILL bacteria --and the viruses are STILL viruses. Each organism keeps stubbornly reproducing “after its own kind.”
Posted by barb on Aug 7, 2006 at 8:11 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Michelle Goldberg
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
