« More Healing from Polly | Main | Seattle: McDermott Shows Backbone »
The American Jihadist and the Supreme Court Nominee
“As I go to a prison cell for a lifetime, I know that I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.”
These are the words Eric R. Rudolph, son of a former Catholic nun, and unrepentant American jihadist, upon being given two life sentences on July 18th for the murder of Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer. Rudolph pleaded guilty in April to the bombing of a Birmingham, Alabama abortion clinic, and three bombings in Atlanta, including that of a gay club and the 1996 Olympic Centennial Park incident.
In a statement that accompanied his plea-bargain in April – a deal that allowed Rudolph to escape the death penalty – he offered the following rationale for his faith-based activism.
“Because I believe that abortion is murder, I also believe that force is justified in an attempt to stop it. Because this government is committed to maintaining the policy of abortion, and protecting it, the agents of this government are the agents of mass murder, whether knowingly or unknowingly.“
Rudolph continued later in his manifesto:
“There are those who would say to me that the system in Washington works. They say that the pro-life forces are making progress, that eventually Roe v. Wade will be overturned, that the culture of life will ultimately win over the majority of Americans and that the horror of abortion will be outlawed. Yet, in the meantime thousands die everyday. They say that the mechanism through which this will be achieved is the Republican party, and under the benevolent leadership of men like George W. Bush the wholesale slaughter of children will be a thing of the past. But with every day that passes another pile of corpses is added to the pyre. George W. will appoint the necessary justices to the Supreme Court and Roe will be finished, they say. All of this will be achieved through the lawful, legitimate democratic process. And every year a million and a half more die. I ask these peaceful, Christian, law-abiding Pro-Life citizens, is there any point at which all of the legal remedies will not suffice and you would fight to end the massacre of these children? How many decades have to pass, how many millions have to die? Is there any point when the cries of the children will not go unanswered? I think that your inaction after three decades of slaughter is a sufficient answer to all of these questions.“
Rudolph was sentenced on Monday. The very next day, President Bush introduced his pick to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court. Judge John G. Roberts is considered an eminently qualified candidate with both unmistakable conservative inclinations, and little in the way of a paper trail that might lead to problems during his confirmation hearings.
As a former clerk of Chief Justice Rehnquist, some have speculated that Roberts is likely to share key positions with his mentor. Consequently, the smart money is betting that this new justice represents a fourth vote for overturning Roe v. Wade – although in his 2003 confirmation hearing for the DC District Court, he pledged himself to upholding judicial precedent, as least from the Federal Bench.
The juxtaposition of Eric Rudolph’s sentencing and Judge Roberts' nomination have me again thinking about the America that will emerge if President Bush is successful in his plan to ideologically pack the highest Court in the land. As I ponder this possible future, I don’t much like the images that I see coalescing in the distance.
For instance, as I wrote in my column linking the President’s choice with the anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg (A House Divided), abortion will not magically disappear if Roe is overturned. Yes, the fervor of abortion opponents will likely lead to a near-total ban of the procedure in a majority of Red States – with a only narrowly drawn “life-of-the-mother” provision perhaps surviving; but pro-choice proponents in Blue States will similarly unite to guarantee that abortion remains safe and legal. We will have become that “house divided”.
There will doubtless be attempts at passing constitutional amendments either banning or protecting abortion, and even Federal statues that might propose some compromise. I note, for instance, a recent poll in which sixty-eight percent of Americans took the position that abortion should remain legal. But in light of the intense passions of partisans on both sides of this fight, these attempts at a reasonable national legislative solution will likely go nowhere.
I wonder: if having seen the overturning of Roe not lead to the hoped for abolition of abortion everywhere in the United States, will faith-based abolitionists find themselves advocating even more radical approaches? With the legislative process having proven a dead end in Blue America, and emotion-laden, incendiary rhetoric directed towards pro-choice advocates and legislators accelerating at an exponential rate, will greater numbers of them choose to follow in Eric Rudolph’s footsteps?
In the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, conservative politicians and pundits were quick to assert that their often-savage denunciations of Janet Reno, the Clinton Administration, and what they claimed was an overly invasive Federal Government (especially after Waco), played no role is pushing Timothy McVeigh over the edge. But to argue that, one must also be prepared to argue that fiery tirades by Muslim clerics against the Jewish State and the values of its western allies have no role in the conversion process that transforms borderline personalities into suicide bombers. Either incendiary rhetoric materially impacts the psychology of human beings or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways - and claim that one kind of rhetoric is somehow "righteous" and another "Satanic". An unbalanced psyche is unlikely to be capable of distinguishing one from the other - but is very likely to feed off intense rhetorical emotion in an attempt to transform mental suffering into "redemptive action".
According to Ralph Neas, of People For the American Way, the replacement of Justice O’Conner with a more ideologically conservative judge is likely to have an impact on as many as one hundred closely decided Supreme Court decisions. It would not immediately jeopardize Lawrence et al v. Texas, the 2003 decision that threw out the Texas sodomy law - and which some claim paved the way for gay marriage – since that decision had six Justices forming its majority. But this ruling is definitely on the hit list of both cultural conservatives activists like Pat Buchanan (who recently suggested on MSNBC that this decision should be overturned) and Christian jihadists like Rudolph.
In fact, Rudolph had quite a bit to say about his opposition to the “homosexual lifestyle” in his April apologia.
“Along with abortion, another assault upon the integrity of American society is the concerted effort to legitimize the practice of homosexuality. Homosexuality is an aberrant sexual behavior, and as such I have complete sympathy and understanding for those who are suffering from this condition. Practiced by consenting adults within the confines of their own private lives, homosexuality is not a threat to society. Those, consenting adults practicing this behavior in privacy should not be hassled by a society which respects the sanctity of private sexual life. But when the attempt is made to drag this practice out of the closet and into the public square in an "in your face" attempt to force society to accept and recognize this behavior as being just as legitimate and normal as the natural man/woman relationship, every effort should be made, including force if necessary, to halt this effort.
“This effort is commonly known as the homosexual agenda. Whether it is gay marriage, homosexual adoption, hate crimes laws including gays, or the attempt to introduce a homosexual normalizing curriculum into our schools, all of these efforts should be ruthlessly opposed. The existence of our culture depends upon it. It is the duty of the state to promote the public welfare and this includes holding up values and model behaviors which tend to create a healthy society capable of reproducing itself by the natural means of the family unit. This model behavior which lies at the heart of a healthy society is the marriage between a man and a woman. To place the homosexual relationship along side of the model and pronounce it to be just as legitimate a lifestyle choice is a direct assault upon the long term health and integrity of civilization and a vital threat to the very foundation of society — and this foundation is the family hearth.“
As with abortion, the views of the spiritual community are not uniform when it comes to gay rights. Only a few weeks ago, the United Church of Christ, a major liberal congregation, endorsed same sex unions. Thus, gay marriage can no longer be considered a “secular” versus “religious” controversy. People of faith and spirit are taking sides, with liberals and spiritual progressives increasingly endorsing the idea of "equal partnership rights for all" as strongly as conservatives oppose it. While allies like Spain and Canada have either endorsed gay marriage, or are on the verge of doing so, America more and more resembles that "house divided".
If we are becoming a "house divided", is there a defining line around which these armies are aligning? Returning to Mr. Rudolph’s manifesto, perhaps there is:
“The very dregs of modernity raised on a culture of selfishness and death find their ways to the abortion mills. Some are there just for money being indifferent to the moral questions involved or the politics surrounding the issue of abortion. Many of these are mediocre mercenary doctors wanting to receive as much money as possible for performing a relatively simple procedure. Then there are the ideologue abortionists. They are the lowest common denominator of extreme egalitarianism, the off scouring of liberalism. These people hate life, and they see maternity as a disability, placed upon women by nature and used by men to keep women in subjection. They see themselves as liberators breaking the chains of patriarchal slavery.
“Nothing is more demonstrative of the degenerate nature of American society than the portrayal of the abortionist Lyons as an heroic victim. Abortion is the vomitorium of modernity, and the abortionist is the attendant who helps the bloated partiers disgorge themselves so they can return to the rotten feast of materialism and self-indulgence. And here the celebrants lionize, their wounded attendant.
“But I have compassion for the environmental factors that go into the psychological makeup of these lost souls, and see them more as the products of a rotten society poisoned by bad ideals.”
So, in the end, Rudolph’s jihad is against modernity itself, and a society that he sees as decadent and depraved. He rails against a “culture of selfishness”, and “the rotten feast of materialism and self-indulgence”. He evidently never attended a Republican fundraiser, where the values he rails against are conspicuously celebrated. Perhaps he would prefer an America where everyone forages for lunch in the forest, like he did (when not aided by misguided neighbors) during the years that he chose to evade capture rather than take responsibility for the impact of his faith-based activism.
Rudolph has bought into the notion that society was once good, and now has become evil. It’s a nostalgic, deeply mistaken formulation that has been with us since the beginning of recorded history. Any honest reading of the facts suggests that the good old days were often objectively worse in innumerable, easily documented ways. Now that Rudolph will be having his meals served to him in his cell, perhaps he'll have enough free time to do some rudimentary research.
For instance, advocates of modernity would argue that humanity has been amazingly successful in saving and extending the lives of children who, in an earlier, more faithful era, would never have survived past infancy or into adolescence.
We would argue that at a moment when conscious human intervention in the birth-death equation has been so successful that overpopulation now threatens the planet's ecosystem, and with it, the fragile thread of life itself, reproductive prudence should be seen as a twenty-first century spiritual virtue.
We would argue that with modern medicine having essentially guaranteed the continuation of the species (barring a nuclear, biological, or ecological catastrophe), human beings have earned the right to exercise a reasonable degree of autonomy when making the decision about bringing a child into the world.
Of course, to even offer such a challenge to the prevailing "wisdom" in an earlier, more faithful era, might have earned one a date with the auto de fe, gallows, or executioner's blade. History demonstrates that, like Rudolph, religious authorities were always willing to retroactively abort men and women whom they deemed a threat to their intellectual and political hegemony.
Those are the good old days that Rudolph, and perhaps the ultra-conservative minority on the Supreme Court, Justices Scalia and Thomas, long to restore – a de-facto dictatorship of a hopelessly subjectivist clergy, orchestrated through the tyranny of a carefully manipulated and emotion-driven mob. This is exactly the scenario that the Founders and Framers did everything in their power to prevent.
Will Judge Roberts, if he becomes Justice Roberts, join the Scalia-Thomas camp? Or will he become a voice of reason and moderation, of a true, and potentially healing, conservatism? These are two questions that I think must be on everyone's mind as we head into Roberts' confirmation hearing. Should he be confirmed, they are questions that I pray remain paramount in Justice Roberts' mind for as long as he serves our imperfect Union.
Great article, Matt...
That nutcase sounds remarkably like one of the wacked-out Jihadists, railing against modernity.
It's also not unlike the "Reconstructionists" we were studying last night, who wanted to return to the times prior to the Rennaissance. These people do not even have the decency to do it properly and give up technology that developed during and since the Age of Englightment. This guy and those of his ilk are not consistent in anyway in their "moral" positions and his manifesto proves it. This guy is a moral weaking compared to a Buddhist who will not kill a fly. He and his are unable to deal with the modern world. There are conflicts and challenges for all of us, but his guy's worldview and life history illustrate a failure of adaptation.
Great article, Matt!
DiAnne, I think I might need one of those "EVOLVE" bumper stickers... These people seriously need to evolve.
And these Christianity-based extremists show that extremism and the culture of death can, and does, exist based on ANY religion, not just Islam. Too many people around me give these people a free pass because they're Christians.
Ally
We get it from Christians because this is a predominantly Christian country. If we lived elsewhere, instead of being Chewed Up by Christians, we could also be Hassled by Hindhus, Insulted by Islam, Banned by Buddhists, Scorned by Sikhs or Jeered at by Jews. There are extremist wingnuts in every religion and also people who practice carefully in a personal way.
Mathew,
I see a problem with publishing Rudolph's words on our websites and blogs. This guy can apparently construct a sentence and undoubtedly will be spewing out his garbage from the pen. Let's not help him publicize this crap. Perhaps we could set up a "right wing crap site" and progressives can link to that one site if we need to reference this kind of thing....
I've seen Rudolph's treatise or parts of it posted in several progressive places already....
Posted by: Amy at July 24, 2005 11:41 AM
Amy, I actually worried that I was quoting too much of him. But I think his rhetoric is only a little more over the top than what is being said in many "mainstream" conservative venues with regard to these issues.
I cut some of his prose from an earlier version. But if I cut too much, then I can accused of doing to him what conservatives do to us all the time - that is taking a few quotes and presenting them completely out of context.
Amy
Hopefully people will be able to place it into historical context and deconstruct it (the "manifesto"). These creeps do like publicity. I think of Bundy.
What we can do is point out lapses in logic. These people are cult-like and unless you accept one or two of their biggest basic premises, and become brainwashed too, it's easy to see that they're transparently deluded.
My son tells me to stop ridiculing people and try to win them over, but when people are actually delusional I don't think it's possible. Those too far on the extreme left or extreme right hopefully remain small in numbers and influence. The scary thing is if they don't!
One of the difficult things is that I myself really do have a very different worldview from the religious right such that I can see that what they're really railing against is feminism.
Remember - Rush Limbaugh calls us "feminazis."
One of the main things the right has done since Reagan is to make people want to avoid certain labels, like "liberal" or "feminist." They were so effective that I heard people with liberal views say, "I'm not a liberal" and people with feminist views say, "I'm not a feminist."
Another one they used to use was "secular humanist." Well I think it would be perfectly fine to be a secular humanist. That's bad?! I'd rathe be a secular humanist than a religious person who sets off bombs!
And "patriarchy" - well what else do you call it when all 3 branches of government are dominated by rich white men?! Obviously, the religous right wants to keep it that way. A "feminist" believes in equal rights for women and that women are equal to men and men can be feminists.
Then we have people like Cheney who like to say that someone is "out of the mainstream." They have made that seem like an insult. To me, it can also be taken as a compliment. They are making it a virtue to conform, to rubber stamp or clone yourself.
I think it's much worse to be racist, empire builders, warmongers, homophobes, xenophobes and mysoginists!!
ABC's "This Week" with George Steph...
was actually worth the time I invested this morning..
Steph... had McCain on and played the video clip of former-CIA agent Larry Johnson, before the Congressional hearing on Friday, where he called McCain an "apologist" for the Bu$hco WH and then asked McCain for his reaction. McCain tried to joke his way past that, but insisted again that Bu$h will do the "right thing" and he (McCain) will wait until the investigation is over (he cites presumption of innocence for Rove).
former-CIA agent Johnson is correct:
McCain===APOLOGIST for Bu$hco WH
My question::: does McCain want votes that badly that he is now making himself an apologist for Rove, the very Bu$h operative who viciously slimed McCain during the 2000 SC primary???
What DOES McCain owe Rove???
RNC campaign contributions, $$$?
the stamp of approval for the evangelical voters?
John McCain, if you ever had any, where has your so-called "integrity" gone, have you sacrificed "truth & honesty" to gain Rove-clone Mark McKinnon as your campaign advisor?
Shame, shame, shame on you, John McCain, you sound like an "opportunist" as well as a Bu$h/Rove "apologist".
"This Week" panel also included ABC journalist Linda Douglas, EJ Dionne, and the Republican advisor David Gergen....I was most surprised by Gergen, who basically said that the Rove/Libby investigation is turning more & more towards focusing on GWBu$h himself...
Gergen said that Bu$h let Scott McClellan tell the press corps in 2003 that Rove & Libby were not involved means:
either Rove & Libby lied to McClellan
or Rove & Libby lied to Bu$h
or Bu$h knew all along and approved of what Rove/Libby did and let McClellan go out there anyway and lie about what they all knew....
All of us here know all this already, but it perked my ears up to hear David Gergen, Republican advisor say this on national teevee!
So we heard Gergen say it on "This Week" this morning::::
this is increasingly turning more towards what did Bu$h know and when did he know it???
And did Bu$h approve/authorize the Plame leak???
Bring it on...
I don't know where anyone got the idea McCain had integrity. People always act surprised when he is a hardcore Republican. The only reason he ever dissociates himself is when he wants more power for himself during an election year. He's totally fake as any kind of "renegade." John Kerry was able to work with him. That says alot for John Kerry, who obviously can work with all types or he wouldn't survive in that snake pit we call the Senate. McCain is a warmonger commie phobe through and through. You'd think he'd have some empathy for the detainees after having been a POW but no. Vets for Peace I know can't figure that out.
NMP,
I agree with you on McCain..
but all the Republicans I have to live around (not the fundies) sound like they are ready to dump Bu$h *finally* because of Iraq, but they think McCain walks on water...so I've more de-bunking to do, trying to get them to listen to the truth on their McCain...
Posted by: Amy at July 24, 2005 11:41 AM
I'm with Amy on this one. The surest way to get Rudolph's message out there is to repeat it endlessly (as MSM has endlessly repeated the administration's messages endlessly). He fosters a culture of death, not life.
A lesson from history: Women were written out of the patriarchal history books by simply being ignored, not mentioned, by name or by accomplishments. As an example, try to find mention of the Boudiccan Rebellion in Bede. Not only did he not mention her name, he ignored the fact that the whole thing was led by a woman!!! I read it at one time; if memory serves, Bede dismisses the Boudiccan Rebellion with one or two sentences. Women were not even allowed into doctorate programs until something like the 1970s, after which many women did research on women in history and started writing books about the women who had never been mentioned by male historians and authors, as though those women never existed....
We need to ignore Rudolph and his ilk so hate is not the message carried forward to the future. Let them quote us and try to refute genuinely good ethical and moral standards....
With Rudolph, as with Bundy (and I was living in a different section of WA state when Bundy was murdering women and when he was captured later in FL), and with Manson and their ilk, I favor the death penalty in a select few cases. They did their crimes, they bragged about them, the crimes were proved with forensic evidence... there is no need to feed and clothe murderers like them behind bars for the rest of their lives (Bundy is the only one who got the death penalty of those three mentioned)... It amounts to incarcerated welfare because our tax dollars pay for their upkeep. The mentality that Bundy and Rudolph and Manson exhibit is classically psychopathic and thrives on all the attention; they just love it, eat it up, and know they have power over other people who actually listen to them! Amazing. But, like that ugly little Charles Manson, there will always be mentally unbalanced groupies who come out of the woodwork and follow them and give them cult status.... (I do not know why....)
Highly irritating - our media is best avoided.
How can we ever win an election with this sort of behavior & the AFL/CIO possibly splitting into 2 (in the '50s, 1 of 3 Americans was Union) - oh & the voting machines ..
http://www.eyewitnessnewstv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3631529
BOSTON Sinclair Broadcasting didn't violate federal election law when it ran parts of a documentary critical of John Kerry's anti-war activities during Vietnam.
That was the ruling from the Federal Elections Commission yesterday.
The Democratic National Committee claimed Sinclair planned to order its 62 stations to run "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" in the weeks before the presidential election.
The D-N-C said that amounted to a contribution to Bush campaign. It demanded that each station that ran the show give equal time to Kerry supporters.
But Sinclair said the complaint was moot because it aired only parts of the show in another documentary.
The F-E-C said its media exemption applied in this case.
Strip away the rhetoric of Eric Rudolph and we have a murderer. He goes to jail for killing an Off Duty Police Officer.
There are great speeches written and spoken by mass murderers. Adolf Hitler seduced an entire nation with his flowering words. Putting together a sentence bears witness to an education, not ethics or righteousness.
The Evangelical movement today does the same, choosing words to strike fear and terror into the hearts of their flocks, painting those that disagree as lost souls and enemies of their religion. This is why it will soon collapse, it is not supported by their own beliefs.
If Eric Rudolph truly believed the words he spoke he would adopt a child. He would lobby to support planned parenthood. He would lobby to support WIC and Wellbaby programs. He would advocate sex education and the distribution of condoms. He would fight heart and soul for parenthood programs in high schools.
Instead he killed a peace officer, bombed clinics, the Olympics and a gay nightclub. He murdered the very children of God he professes to protect.
He has nothing but sarcasm and rhetoric to excuse the actions of a murderous soul. Let him speak, it can only educates others to weigh the words of a human being against their actions.
I am usually grateful for a Gergen opinion. Just a couple weeks ago, he said the case didn't look that badly for Rove, but facts weren't as compromising as now. He will call it when he sees it.
Bring it on...
Posted by: on.to.victory4Dems at July 24, 2005 12:05 PM
Amazing! Stephanopolous actually let an honest dialogue about all of that go through?!?
:-) Gads, I hope someone else was watching and heard Gergen. I didn't hear it, sorry to say....
i don't favor the death penalty in any condition.
White House Won't Release All Papers on Roberts:
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court
I'm shocked...
Did Bush Lie About Rove's Role in CIA Leak
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072405Y.shtml
from New York Times
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/09/sunday/main13562.shtml
Link to what was on the show I (mostly) saw this morning (I hate ads, always channel surf during ads...)... I saw/heard the entire Ben Stein segment, had a mental meltdown, and this is what I wrote in an email to CBS' Sunday Morning:
Re: Ben Stein's essay/letter to Bush to keep Rove
SHAME ON YOU!!!!! A political commentary in the middle of what is sometimes a culturally informative show is the height of totally tasteless and tacky!!! The John Currin, Carole King, Peter Sellers remembrance, and sweet cupcake segments were particularly nice....
But Ben Stein's personal political ad?!?!? Fire the producer who okayed that spot!!! Stein is woefully uninformed if he did not watch the Friday hearing (or the rerun) on C-SPAN featuring the ex-CIA agents Johnson, Marcinkowski, and Lang that was chaired by Waxman and Dorgan. (I saw it both times and hope it is repeated again and again. I have transcripts of the statements and the meeting if you want me to send them to you....) Valerie Plame Wilson was most definitely an undercover agent, not mererly a desk jockey at the CIA - before she was outed, at least (she can never be an undercover agent again). If she had not been a NOC, the CIA would not have asked for an investigation into the breach of security.... Stein has not kept pace with current information and events in this case... or else he is part of the steady stream of myopic micreants misinforming the public through political propaganda issued from the White House using mainstream media who have participated in betraying the American public about Bush's War in Iraq and his reasons for going to war.
Please correct Stein's error at the top of next Sunday's show. If Stein wasn't simply ignorant about the facts, he was lying to protect his buddies in the White House, and that's unforgivable! The American people have been lied to enough by people in mainstream media who parrot propaganda from the White House and the Pentagon, thank you. I do not believe there are any good investigative journalists working today who know how to check facts before airing them. Dan Rather was criticized about the forged TANG documents, but I have not forgotten the secretary's information either after the fact: the information in those documents was true, although she had not typed those particular documents!!! Rather tried... and the secretary's words were ignored. Truth is a rare commodity in the Bu$hCo administration, heard once, and covered by dither and blather and lies and more lies from the White House and the Pentagon.
Actually, like Ben Stein, I want Karl Rove to stay with Bush, too.... but for a vastly different reason. I want to see both Rove and Bush - along with Cheney and all the other staff members in on the web of lies leading up to the declaration of a war of choice in Iraq which was unjustified, illegal, immoral, and unethical (as well as for all the other illegal things they have done, like steal two elections and condone torture and funnel money straight into Halliburton's pockets.... et cetera, et cetera, et cetera) - frog marched in handcuffs out of the White House when they're charged with treason for outing a CIA agent.....
Now.... go correct that idiotic statement of Ben Stein's that Plame-Wilson was only a desk jockey - she was a NOC whose cover was blown by someone at the highest level in the White House in revenge for her husband telling the truth to the American people..... I'll take the word of ex-CIA agents who used to work with Valerie Plame Wilson, as well as that of her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, over the ignorance of Ben Stein any day.....
Thank you.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/07/21/florida/index.html
Roberts nominee – 2000 election – assisted the Bush coup d'é·tat
"My son tells me to stop ridiculing people and try to win them over, but when people are actually delusional I don't think it's possible. Those too far on the extreme left or extreme right hopefully remain small in numbers and influence. The scary thing is if they don't!"
Posted by: DiAnne at July 24, 2005 11:56 AM
Once again, I agree wholeheartedly with your son. (I hope he'll run for DNC chair some day....)
I think the ridiculous extremists on both sides are fair game, but if we keep bashing the heroes of moderate Repulicans - Reagan, Bush Sr., etc - we will only drive them further from our cause - and we need some of their votes. It would help us all to do what I think our hosts here have been doing - find ways in which these conservative heroes would take issue with the present administration.
Regarding the Rudolph writings... I don't fear that some who read them on progressive sites will be influenced. I just don't want to help him pulicize his trash. We are becoming the media.... However, I do understand Matthew's point as well.
"Then we have people like Cheney who like to say that someone is "out of the mainstream." They have made that seem like an insult. To me, it can also be taken as a compliment. They are making it a virtue to conform, to rubber stamp or clone yourself."
Posted by: DiAnne at July 24, 2005 12:04 PM
If you haven't already, you might like to pick up some bell hooks, particularly YEARNING: race, gender, and cultural politics.
I love her stuff. She's absolutely brilliant on the politics of living life outside the mainstream.
"She values postmodernism's insights while warning that the fashionable infatuation with "discourse" about "difference" is dangerously detachable from the struggle we must all wage against racism, sexism, and cultural iimperialism." from notes on back of YEARNING.
Nonny, I LOVE your letter re the Ben Stein segment.
Especially this:
"The American people have been lied to enough by people in mainstream media who parrot propaganda from the White House..."
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CORPORATE MEDIA - THEY LIED, THEY COVERED UP THE TRUTH - LET THEM PAY FOR THIS WAR!!!
White House Won't Release All Papers on Roberts:
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court
I'm shocked...
Posted by: KerryOn62 at July 24, 2005 12:38 PM
Quote from the article:
"We hope we don't get into a situation where documents are asked for that folks know will not be forthcoming and we get all hung up on that," Thompson told NBC's "Meet the Press."
Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., said other nominees, including Chief Justice William Rehnquist, have provided material they wrote in confidence while working in the Justice Department.
"There's so much precedence for that," said Leahy, the senior Democrat on the committee.
"It's a total red herring to say, 'Oh, we can't show this.' And of course there is no lawyer-client privilege. Those working in the solicitor general's office are not working for the president. They're working for you and me and all the American people," he told ABC's "This Week."
The Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said documents could be an important part of the confirmation process when little is known about a nominee.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{{{ How about this for a bumper sticker? : NO PAPERS, NO CONFIRMATION..... Papers regarding Bolton have yet to be released, and now the WH doesn't want to release papers on the most important of nominations?!? Yet "someone" at the highest level in the WH released top secret classified info with the name of a NOC to get revenge on her husband for telling the truth?!? What's wrong with that picture???}}}}}
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CORPORATE MEDIA - THEY LIED, THEY COVERED UP THE TRUTH - LET THEM PAY FOR THIS WAR!!!
Posted by: Amy at July 24, 2005 01:02 PM
Thank you, Amy! :-) I also particularly LOVE your idea of letting the media whores pay for this war!!! They got a huge tax break from this administration, after all, so they should be able to afford it..., right?!? :-) I mean, really... they sent "embedded" reporters with the troops at the first part of the (public) part of the attack (never mind the attacks began before shrubbie's declaration of war)... and what government in its right mind sends reporters to war with the troops unless it's a big publicity stunt... right?!?
Oh, and Amy... isn't Ben Stein the one who was trying to give away all his money? If he's so rich, he can pay for some of Bush's war, too.... And volunteer any of his family members to go to Iraq to fight his buddy's war.....
"Dan Rather was criticized about the forged TANG documents, but I have not forgotten the secretary's information either after the fact: the information in those documents was true, although she had not typed those particular documents!!! Rather tried... and the secretary's words were ignored."
Nonny, this is another reason to indite the media. Why has no one questioned where those documents went??? Is it legal to destroy military property? Who stole the original memos and who then destroyed them?
The problem is this: America was sold a bill of goods by the media. We were told we had a moderate uniter in Bush Jr, when in fact what we had was a careless, immature, lazy, irresponsible and belligerent frat boy, who was unable to finish out his TANG duties due to cocaine use, attendance problems and a poor attitude. Everyone who reads online or between the lines knows this, but the corporate media was complicit in keeping it from the majority of Americans.
What harm done, you might ask? For starters, while our frat boy was golfing and partying it up in Texas, urgent memos AND OTHER WARNINGS went unheeded, and extremist terrorists from inside our own borders killed 3000 Americans.
Then our frat boy started to scramble - thinking that this negligence resulting in so many American deaths might get him in some trouble, just like his behavior at TANG did - and he made a series of reactionary decisions that will ensure his place in history as the worst American president ever. An administration responsible for over a hundred thousand needless deaths, many of them American, most of them innocent women and children.
The responsibility for this horrific mess rests not only on this administration and the Republican wimps in congress who knowingly let it happen, but also on the shoulders of the corporate media, who assisted in creating and maintaining this web of lies that got America into a war on false pretenses.
I await the day when Judith Miller is convicted of treason. I think she knew the truth, and hid it. Ditto for Fox, CNN and the other so-called news organizations. It's time to sue. Let them pay for this war, for the reconstruction of Iraq, for the medical needs of the Iraq veterans. Let them pay. Make them pay.
Posted by: NonnyO at July 24, 2005 01:16 PM
Nonny, it was a well-heeled Republican gentleman at our DSM meeting yesterday who suggested the lawsuit. I'm just a mouthpiece - I thought it was a great idea.
We like to think that people who voted Republican in 04 are deliberately ignorant. But when you aren't IT savvy, when you get a few snippits of news each night from TV and that's it, when all you have time to read between chapters of Harry Potter is the front page of the local paper.... then all you get is Republican talking points. That's the fault of the media.
We've gone way beyond the time for holding the media accountable. This is not a case of an insignificant story not being told - this is a case of deliberate dissemination of false information.
We know this: "The corporate media was complicit in the cover-up of the web of lies that got America into a war on false pretenses."
Posted by: Amy at July 24, 2005 01:25 PM
We know this: "The corporate media was complicit in the cover-up of the web of lies that got America into a war on false pretenses."
Posted by: Amy at July 24, 2005 01:35 PM
~~~~~~~
Yes, and I agree with everything you've said. The media is just as culpable as the administration for their part in the build-up to a war of choice based solely on lies, lies, and more lies......
The other culprits in all of this mess are the neoCon and the hawkish Dems who also voted to give the cretin pResiNitwit too much power. They knew what he was when he went into office after the Selection of 2000. Did they "magically" think that he would change with 9/11?!? It doesn't work that way, people... our legislators who voted to give pResiNitwit that much power need to be held accountable, too. Their spines turned to melted jell-o, and they've not stood up to the Nitwit since. Shame on them!!!
To politicians soliciting my vote:
Fool me once, shame on you.... fool me twice... I won't vote for you, you political moron....
Did Rove and Libby Obstruct Justice?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072405Z.shtml
Excerpt:
Fitzgerald's term as special prosecutor expires in October, but it could be renewed if the investigation is not finished.
Did Bush Lie about Rove's Role in CIA Leak?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072405Y.shtml
Excerpt:
The special prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has kept a tight curtain of secrecy around his investigation. But he spent more than an hour in the Oval Office on June 24, 2004, interviewing Mr. Bush about the case. Mr. Bush was not under oath, but he had his personal lawyer for the case, James E. Sharp, with him.
{{{ So... WHY was the pResident NOT under oath?!?!? If he is not above the law, then he must swear to tell the truth just like any other citizen, yes?!? He is NOT above the law, no matter what Gonzilla said....}}}
Priest and His Son Are Bound by Poverty
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-oregon24jul24,0,3464178.story
PORTLAND, Ore. - A Whittier pastor fends off a woman's legal bid for more money to raise their sick child.
I think it's much worse to be racist, empire builders, warmongers, homophobes, xenophobes and mysoginists!!
Posted by: DiAnne at July 24, 2005 12:04 PM
You said it very well, DiAnne. Every time I travel overseas, or chat with non-American on the Net, I am pleasantly surprised (but then, I shouldn't be) that the "dirty" words in American politics - liberal, feminist, etc. - are not dirty at all to them.
(Geez, thanks, Reagan and neocons.)
Pukes' use of data mining in 2004 election & our gaping hole of vulnerability-- ie, the hole they use to pour the koolaid in...
____________________________________
Parties Are Tracking Your Habits
Though both Democrats and Republicans collect personal information, the GOP's mastery of data is changing the very nature of campaigning.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rncdnc24jul24,1,1012169,full.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
At first glance, Felicia Hill seems to fit the profile of a loyal Democrat: She is African American, married to a General Motors union worker and voted for Dukakis, Clinton and Gore in past presidential elections.
But in the weeks before election day 2004, the suburban mother of two was deluged with telephone calls, invitations and specially targeted mailings urging her to support President Bush.
The intense Republican courtship of Hill, 39, was no coincidence.
A deeper look at her lifestyle and politics reveals a voter who might be persuaded to switch sides. Among the clues: she is a church member uneasy about abortion; she lives in a growing suburb and she sent her children to a private school.
Hill and millions of other would-be Bush backers in closely contested states were identified by a GOP database that culled information ranging from the political basics, like party registration, to the personal, such as the cars they drive, the drinks they buy, even the features they order on their phone lines. The "micro-targeting" effort was so effective that the party credited it with helping to secure Bush's reelection.
In Ohio, which tipped the election to Bush, the Republican strategy helped boost African American support for the president by seven percentage points over his 2000 performance, securing the state for the president. It drew millions of Republican voters to the polls in every battleground state.
Nationally, Republicans said, the targeting produced a 10 percentage point increase for Bush among evangelicals, nine points among Latinos, four points in big cities, three points in labor-union households and five points among Catholics — all groups that were wooed by both parties.
Both parties have long collected information on voters. But the sophistication of the GOP effort is now so clearly superior that it has given Republicans an edge in an area that had been a Democratic strength: identifying sympathetic voters and getting them to the polls.
Democrats will be especially vulnerable in the next two national election cycles: In 2006, they will have to defend more congressional and Senate seats than they did in 2004; and several states viewed as competitive in past presidential elections are increasingly viewed as GOP turf for 2008.
& on & on...
I found out the the McDermott event was twisted by the media. I didn't even try to watch it as I figured they wouldn't cover it. I didn't know they'd completely slant it though - mention terrorism & ignore the After Downing Street Memo & purpose of the gathering!
Submitted by Joni
Ok, so I stayed up to catch the 11:00 news. Again, very disappointed to hear the spin KOMO 4 ABC put on this story. I need help bombarding them with emails before tomorrow’s news.
Basically; the 11:00 coverage said: “Jim McDermott was in Seattle today speaking about the threat of terrorism” Then it shows the clip where Jim is telling how they (Admin) threw out the terror bomb and it rippled everywhere (he is throwing his arms out). Remember that?
So, KOMO did not mention anything about Jim being at the “Downing St Memo” meeting. No mention of what over 250 people gathered for today.
Submitted by MarCat
Joni, earlier this morning, I had sent an email to KOMO News before I even knew you were giving a shout out. I was appalled that the lead story last night and this morning was Sunday liquor sales -- what the hell has happened to this news station? I was blown away that the Town Hall got maybe 20 second coverage and voiced my disappointment very loudly. I'm going to now resend the email to Molly to make sure she sees it as well.
Submitted by Joni
Jim McDermott ROCKS!!!!!!!!! He was great and called all the lies for what they truly are: LIES!!!!!!!!!!
Says the CIA’s morale is at an all time low as Bush continues to lie.
Says Judith Miller is in prison because she is covering up for someone?
KOMO 4 ABC was the only local media there and they got wild applause for showing up. However, there was no coverage on KOMO 4 ABC news tonight.
“Bush has unleashed terror throughout the world”.
The media does not tell us that majority of Iraq new Gov has voted yes for the US to leave. Au Contraire on our news. We are told we will leave when they ask us to leave.
Remember, it's time to picket the media 24/7.
Great start today.......
& here Bill Moyer of Backbone Campaign.
We have lived through five years of a kind of intellectual, spiritual, political nightmare. A nightmare, in which facts and language have been so twisted and spun that reality itself, though obvious, is never articulated. Cowed by 9-11, media and most elected officials have bent over backwards to unquestionably accept, self-sensor or be a mouthpiece for the most absurd, assemblage of policy and ideology in our history, resulting in the undermining of the very foundations of our democracy.
Now the American people are finally beginning to connect the dots and the monstrous mutated construct is revealing itself. As with any falsehood that requires ever more falsehoods to evade discovery, eventually the weight of the original lie’s progeny trigger a catastrophic failure and destroy the author and as with Dr. Frankenstein, this administrations monster, built of lies and half truths is beginning to turn on its creators.
Now is the time for our Governor to recognize that the lives of our National Guard Soldiers are not for sale to Halliburton, Bechtel, or Exxon. They belong here, near their homes and families, available to defend our state and nation, not the excesses of neocons or corporate greed.
Now is the time for our Washington State delegation to stand up. For those in Congress and the Senate still afraid to speak too forcefully, we say, ok, don’t use the word “impeachment,” just yet, because truth seeking is enough. Our Senators only need to insist that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence initiate the promised Phase II of then investigation into prewar intelligence. Phase I looked at the quality of the information and its sources. Committee Chair Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) promised that after the 2004 election Phase II would examining its use or misuse would begin. It’s time to start.
The time is now for our Congress people need to follow the lead of Rep. McDermott and co-sponsor and fight for Barbara Lee’s Resolution of Inquiry. And they all need to press for the expansion of the scope of Independent Prosecutor J. Fitzgerald’s investigation to include the misuse of intelligence.
The time is now for our media, the 4th estate to wake from their slumber and embrace their essential role in our democracy, by putting matters of war and peace, tyranny and democracy ahead of cat’s in trees, run away brides and celebrity dating.
Today is potentially, with our combined energies a tipping point of historical proportions. We will not leave the writing of history to a clutch of ideologues bent on justifying their own excesses. Their Frankenstein of fear, misinformation, intimidation, retribution, and profiteering is nearing a potential collapse. It is up to us, citizens who wish to live in a reality based democracy to write our country’s history. It is up to us to reclaim our public airwaves, to reclaim the sacredness of the lives of our citizen soldiers, and to lead our Senators and Congress members by the hand, letting them know that we not only have their backs, but we are in front of them and at their sides and carrying them on our shoulders and will settle for nothing less than the full truth, accountability and a u-turn toward and a future worthy of our children.
Thank you. Let’s begin.
The organization I direct, the Backbone Campaign, as a member of the national AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, sponsored yesterday's event.
I am extremely disappointed to hear how Congressman McDermott's comments were stripped of context on last night's news. There was no mention of the over capacity 300+ crowd; no mention of the national efforts of which this was a part; no mention of the Downing Street Minutes, the Valerie Plame outing, or the folly of the Iraq war.
Perhaps if your reporter (who we applauded for showing up, despite the fact he was late) had stayed for longer than 15 minutes of our 2 hour event he may have gotten a better picture of what went on. McDermott's speech was about Bush administration misuse of prewar intelligence, intimidation of dissent, and administration policies which have only unleashed greater dangers on our country. Your reporter also bolted before hearing two members of Military Families Speak Out present their stories about real young men serving in Iraq. I will attach the press release (which was in the press packet we gave the reporter). I will also paste my opening address which outlines the event and contextualizes the purpose.
I shouldn't have to remind you about the essential role the free press is supposed to play in our democracy, nor that context is essential to convey meaning. Pathetic coverage like this, pathetic journalism like this is going to result in new destinations for citizen marches. Mark my words.
Bill Moyer
Executive Director
Backbone Campaign
Thanks Bill. Also, looking at today's Seattle Times letters to the Editor, it would be a good time to write them and ask why no coverage?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002398862_sunlets24.html
I grouped up with Reclaim the Media at yesterday's meeting. The consenus was: It is time to picket the local news media 24/7 for their lack of coverage.
Amy,
Great points! And for those of us who came on-line we discovered the news the media was hiding.
The media is complicit and I blame them for every death which happened as a result of Bush being selected and stolen.
The scary part about article linked @ 03:52 PM:
___________________________________
Both parties have long collected information on voters. But the sophistication of the GOP effort is now so clearly superior that it has given Republicans an edge in an area that had been a Democratic strength: identifying sympathetic voters and getting them to the polls.
Democrats will be especially vulnerable in the next two national election cycles: In 2006, they will have to defend more congressional and Senate seats than they did in 2004; and several states viewed as competitive in past presidential elections are increasingly viewed as GOP turf for 2008.
Amy, I actually worried that I was quoting too much of him. But I think his rhetoric is only a little more over the top than what is being said in many "mainstream" conservative venues with regard to these issues.
Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at July 24, 2005
11:52 AM
Matt, I don't think his rhetoric is only a "little more over the top than what is being said in many mainstream conservative venues".
When you say "mainstream conservative venues", I am not sure exactly which venues you speak of. I drive much on my job, and in every single town in my territory, no matter it's size, is a Catholic church. In front of each church is a granite marker that reads "In memory of all aborted babies". I used to be a member of the Catholic Church, and so were many of my friends. We were good old go to Sunday meetin' kind of kids in our youth, and I witnessed many party behaviors on behalf of my friends for years. I am not saying this to be negative about the Catholic church, it is meant to tell a story, as the same happens in many church scenes with many people, no matter what the religion. I saw alot of drinkin' and cussin' and sleepin' around. Most never gave any thought to it until Saturday go-to-confession time. Then they went into the confessional, told of their deeds, came out and did their penance. Come Sunday they took Communion, and Monday it was back to the same behaviors as the week before. The reason I say this is this:
I don't think I know of one Catholic who would ever come near believing or espousing rhetoric that would support Eric Rudoph's ideology. You see, I consider the Catholic faith one of the mainstream Christian faiths world-wide. Abortion is taught in some Catachisms as murder. Many Catholics have probably had abortions, many have not. But one thing is for sure with each of them, they understand the act to be one of murder, in most cases.
I have also attended several different denominations of Christian "Evangelical" churches.
I have never once heard a sermon on abortion - either for or against it - in thirty years of pretty regular attendance. Not even one. Some of the churches I attended were "mainstream" - (not Pentecostal or "Fundie"), I attended Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist - pretty mainstream in my opinion. I have never heard one sermon preached about abortion/pro-choice, or pro-life. It seems, from my experience, that most of the people who claim to be more religious than a casual once a year attendee, say they are against abortion because they see it as murder. The hate rhetoric Mr. Rudoph spews is one coming from a sick mind, and mindset. It is definately not one I have ever heard ANYWHERE, and certainly not one that is taught as a doctrine in any "mainstream church" I know of. It may be taught by the Catholic Church as a doctrinal issue, to children or new converts, but I am not even sure of that. I conclude that I believe it is NOT a doctrinal issue, it is a social issue. Many people feel abortion is wrong, socially wrong, regardless of their religion. I would bet Mr. Rudolph never heard it preached as doctrine either, and I believe his hatred stems from deeper unresolved issues in his psyche. Most hatred does, and usually the target it finds to vent it's venom on is not the systemic cause of the hatred. It is merely a recipient of it.
~ ~ * * ~ ~
"We would argue that at a moment when conscious human intervention in the birth-death equation has been so successful that overpopulation now threatens the planet's ecosystem, and with it, the fragile thread of life itself, reproductive prudence should be seen as a twenty-first century spiritual virtue." -
I have nothing against reproductive prudence. I hate to see abortion used as a means of birth control when there are so many methods available.
Any woman who takes responsibility seriously enough to seek and obtain an abortion could just as easily, without the residual side and after effects of guilt and depression, if they happen, take responsibility before pregnancy ever occurs. Since when did it become acceptable in civilized society to scrape a womb free of a growing organism? I see it as a disease in our society myself, and not because any church taught me that by indoctrinating me, but because I have born children, and I will tell you: I loved my children no less when they were unborn yet moving about as a life form in my womb than I love them today.
Karen mentioned at one time that we don't all agree on all things under the sun here at the DCP. We don't need to. But as strongly as you feel abortion is not murder but "birth control", I feel strongly that it is.
There are many other issues to concern ourselves with. I wonder whether a party, ANY party, who is not willing to compromise on the abortion "rights" issue, will ask itself this one question: Is it better to be right than to gain control of a world gone mad? If you know this one issue will win the votes needed to take back our government, will you insist on the right of one issue at the peril of all else? All other issues that our country and the world are facing? Do you not realize that it is going to take compromising, and some give and take? Are you willing to give this country to the Imperialists and the Reconstructionists? Because, friends, that's how I see this issue as being a make it or break it issue. I went against my personal views on the subject, and they are strong, to do what I thought was the better thing to do: Look at the big picture.
Look at the big picture. Look at the whole picture.
I think the world of all of you, each and every one. I realize I am fervent about this issue, it is a very emotional issue, and that is why, I am sure, Rove and his ilk and crew have stirred the pot this way. They would love nothing better than to have America continually divided over this issue as it goes down the drain. Are you right? Are you willing to be dead right?
I don't know how this post will go over, but this is something I deeply believe. I realize it is a subjective view. In spite of the strong issues and feelings I have about abortion, I voted Democratic in '04. I gave up the right at that time to be "dead right" on one issue. Can the left do the same?
My conscience has left me no other avenue but to be honest about my views and feelings on this. It has been hard to fight so hard to stay in and learn at times, but I think it is worth it. I think you are all bright, intelligent, learned. It has been empowering for me to come here and learn. But I do disagree on this one issue.
Other issues concern me much more. Is Roberts pro-corporation? Civil rights? Yes, his wife was Vice President of a non-profit organization that encourages women to be responsible before conception, and to explore avenues other than abortion after. What does this man believe? Would it cross over into his judgements on the bench? What is he like as a human being? Sincere, political? Is he a bully like Bolton? A yes man like Gonzales? A wimpy waffler? There are many other things to consider. What is his character? Is he fair and above board?
I don't think people will start killing and bombing abortion clinics and doctors in number, or even that the numbers of incidences of that will rise, should Roe v. Wade be overturned. I don't think Mr. Rudolph speaks for "mainstream Christianity" even an iota. Most people are gentle, and loving, and kind. There are rotten apples in every barrel, including the religious and churched, just as there are in all other segments of society. One guy with a "Savior Complex" is just that. A guy with a "Savior Complex". I think it is doing injustice to take the ideology and words of a nutcase and imply in any way that he speaks for "mainstream Christianity." I don't buy it, and to be honest, it kind of insults my intelligence.
I am going to be out the rest of the evening. I am not avoiding answering questions or taking part in further discussion, I just have a meeting 65 miles away to attend tonight and tomorrow morning.
Amy- I'm afraid I have to disagree with you that Judith Miller should be convicted of treason. I know that we believe she refused to divulge her sources because of political reasons, but I think we have to give her the benefit of the doubt at this point. She's gone to jail, where she belongs, even though the sources are already being divulged. So I'm wondering if she might just have some journalistic integrity after all. The press being able to promise secrecy to it's sources is an important check on our government- it's often the government itself who would like to know who divulged information to the press, as it was in the Watergate investigation. There are a lot of whistleblowers out there that our government would like to silence, we need to remember that. But, when the Supreme Court of the land ordered that the sources be revealed in this particular case, Miller lost her right to be silent about the matter. What she does not have is the authority to interpret the laws of this country- that's up to the high court, and it's decision made Miller a criminal, no matter what she believes the correctness of the law to be. So, she's where she belongs. Time Magazine was right in asserting that , though they believed the court's decision to be wrong, they had no authority to refuse to divulge their sources once the decision was made. This government has to be one of laws, that's true. However, up until that ruling was made in this particular case, I really cannot fault Miller for keeping her sources secret. I think that the Supreme Court realized this was a special case, one which involved a possible treasonous action by Rove and or Libby, and that the seriousness of their acts were such that the press should be forced to testify. I'm not sure at all that this case will set a precedent in any future cases that involve behind the scenes news sources- if it does, this nation is in even more serious trouble than I thought already. The treasonous acts were committed by Rove and Libby- and Miller was only one of the reporters this info was divulged to. She could have not reported it at all, and it would have still come out. Rove was making sure of that. Her sitting in jail now is just stupidity on her part, but I really don't think it's treasonous.
Truth Shall Prevail
Good post. I am against war and against capital punishment and it's hard for me to justify under any circumstances, so it's not so hard for me to understand your position on abortion relative to the greater context. It's not black & white & having a mix of views strengthens our ability to be "nuanced" like John Kerry rather than "simplistic" like George Bush.
Video Special: Downing Street Memo Teach-In |
Part I: The Case Against Bush
http://www.truthout.org/multimedia.htm
t r u t h o u t was in Los Angeles where Congresswoman Maxine Waters led a teach-in that included actor and activist Mike Farrell, Reverend Jim Lawson and Fernando Suarez Del Solar. We will be posting video clips from the event throughout the week.
Overflow Crowds Mark Anniversary of Downing Street Memo
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072405A.shtml
Hundreds of people were turned away yesterday as capacity crowds packed public forums in US cities to discuss the Downing Street Memo and related evidence that President Bush lied about the reasons for war.
Truth Shall Prevail- I completely understand what you're saying about the abortion issue- it cannot be the only issue of importance to our party, and we cannot define a Democrat as one who is "Pro-Choice." We all have a right to our beliefs in this party- that's the basic difference that I see in being a Democrat and being a Republican. No one tells me what I can think. I will not allow it. Republicans allow others to tell them what to think and follow blindly- they will defend any and every act that George W Bush does as correct, no matter what their conscience tells them. I consider myself to be a Christian, and, as I've said on here before, I was raised in a church that many on here would like to call an "evangelical, fundamentalist, nutcase congregation." I don't attend that church anymore, but I also have never, and will never, renounce their basic doctrinal beliefs. Basically, because I still believe most of them, especially the most basic ones. And I agree with you, that abortion would have NEVER been an option for me once I had felt the movement of any of my three children within my womb- I do believe that life begins at some point after conception, but I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I have a clue when that moment is. That's what bothers me the most about both the "pro-lifers" and the "pro-choice" people- it's that they're all so completely positive that they know the answer to an unanswerable question. Since I'm a Christian, and since Jesus was an Orthodox Jew, I tend to believe that the soul enters a baby when it takes it's first breath. That's what Orthodox Jews teach, and I suspect that that's the answer Jesus would have given, had he ever been asked. However, as a mother, I cannot say that I did not believe each of my three children was completely alive when I felt them move inside me, and I do not believe abortion should EVER be used as a method of birth control. But I also do not believe I truly have the right to make this decision for others, and I know there are many circumstances in which an abortion is the only logical solution. It's just not my right to determine what those circumstances are for other people- that's their decision, not mine.
But I'm still a Democrat, and I've never had anyone on this blog tell me to go away, or to shut up. Don't feel alone out there in your belief- this is a fairly liberal blog, I think most posters on here would label themselves as that. I don't consider myself a liberal, but I'm positive I'm a good Democrat. And I think you know that you are too. I think we both just want this party to succeed and not fall into some ideological pigeonhole that will keep us from ever winning in the future. Everyone needs to remember that- for the good of the future of those kids that we both could have never aborted. :-)
I see it as a disease in our society myself, and not because any church taught me that by indoctrinating me, but because I have born children, and I will tell you: I loved my children no less when they were unborn yet moving about as a life form in my womb than I love them today.
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at July 24, 2005 05:01 PM
Truth Shall Prevail,
Your views are always appreciated and accepted. The DCP has a variety of views on many subject and certainly this one is no different.
I pulled that statement out because this is the line where most of us say, "Why are so many anti-abortionist also willing to send my 19 year old to die? Why do they care more about the fetus than the child?" You are not like this and have not done that...and for that, all of us here appreciate you! You care about BOTH!
Most people are in fact anti-abortion. To even consider getting an abortion is never taken lightly. Are we willing to "die" for this one issue when it's been used to kill us for years? I just had a discussion with someone about this yesterday, in fact. We felt the BEST position would be if BOTH parties were inclusive of both views. Some democrats are anti-choice and some republicans are pro-life. THEN and only then will people start looking at the broader issues. But you're right in a way....because if the progressive agenda MUST continue to be strictly pro-choice, then the other side will pound the same drum for eternity!
It seems to me there is no way to win this argument. But should we all ignore that question and let whatever happens happens? Or should we instead pound our drums even louder for better sex-education--inclusive of abstenance and contraception--and better economic factors and health care to prevent people from chosing an abortion? How can we focus on that when the question of abortion arises.
Another friend once said to me, "I'm not for abortion but I am a progressive. Why do they keep bringing this UP?!!!"
And my response was, "Progessives don't bring it up; it's the other side who knows it's our achilles heal, and so they continue to bring it up and divide and conquer with it."
But what if our response was, "We think government should stay out of our bedroom and MYOB!!!! because the government should not be involved in consentual sex." Isn't there a line drawn somewhere? And then there is also the question about rape or incest victims...should they be forced to bear the burden of someone elses crime for 9 plus months and innumerable years?
Furthermore, I found it ironic as I drove through a "red" state earlier this year and saw a hypocritical signs. One sign we saw said, "Abortion is wrong, Abortion kills..." and the next sign less than 500 feet later said, "XXXXX strip club...tractor parking available!"
At anyrate, Truth, your views on this subject as well as any others are always appreciated and welcomed.
From Northampton DSM event, and referring to John Bonifaz, and who was so articulate in case for impeachment in the hearings: "Included, of course, in the sweeping critique that followed, were the failures of Senator Kerry in particular and most members of Congress to speak out on this responsibility when the question of going to war against Iraq arose three years ago."
With so much untrue, pro-war Kerry rhetoric, how can he ever become part of whatever righteous movement we now have. He did speak out, been vilified, and for reasons we can analyze and argue, ad infinitum, his case and trying to become president in this media made it harder and more muddled.
Truth,
Your heart felt comments are important. As fervently as you believe that abortion is murder, I do not see it as murder.
That one aspect of abortion is clearly the stumbling point in this great societal debate. To me the big picture, as you say, is the aspect of choice and repoductive rights. In a sense it is a civil rights issue. When I look at it from that perspective, I see no alternative other than choice as the truest declaration of our American freedoms.
Should one compromise their rights? That is a fundamental question to the American ideal. A compromise that I see as a viable alternative to abortion is *fully funded* child care, health care, adoption and foster parenting programs. Our country has to be presented with this option from the Democrat party. We can't expect the Republicans to present this option as it will severely undermine their political forces. Likewise fully funded is not consistent with a Libertarian political view. Perhaps the Greens could suggest this ( I don't know if they have). Therefore by default this does become the Democratic Party's responsibility to carry the banner of viable alternatives. If one chooses not to have an abortion then the child can be well cared for. I believe that if such programs existed, there would be less abortions. However, a woman who decides to have an abortion does not have to explain to me why she wants to have one. Nor, should she have to explain to anybody else the reasons for her choice.
To gain control of a "world gone mad", we first have to refute the madness that purports to support "right to life" while doing nothing to help those in greatest need.
I read Matt's piece as not condoning abortion as a means of birth control but rather that in today's day and age men and women have a multitude of means to prevent pregnancy. Therefore we have a responsibility to use whatever means we have available to prevent pregnancy. I think you must understand that I am not pro-abortion, and I don't know anybody that is. I have yet to see anybody write an opinion piece espousing the virtues of abortion.
For most individuals an abortion is a terribly difficult decision because as a race we realize the value of life. However it is the potential of that life that is being eliminated, not independent sustainable life (especially an early term abortion). That is my reason for believing that abortion is not murder.
Chuck in Houston for Marjorie G:
Yep, that's right. Bush, Cheney and Rice lied us into an unnecessary war, so let's all beat up John Kerry et al (also lied to) for giving POTUS a better negoatiating position because they're not perfect for everyone. Circular firing squad. That's what it looks like to me anyway.
Chuck in Houston
On that divisive issue -- I agree with Truth and DiAnne and Linda and Oncall.
Chuck in Houston
Which is to say, people of good conscience may disagree on this issue.
Chuck in Houston
Or I should say (and meant to say), may agree to disagree on this issue.
Chuck in Houston
Posted by: Chuck at July 24, 2005 06:17 PM
Chuck, a man with great wisdom.
I've written about abortion in near-apocalyptic terms in several recent columns because I sincerely believe this issue has the potential to damage this Union - and thrust the nation into an enormous crisis. There's really no way to sugarcoat this.
I am incredibly sympathetic to the view that men and women should work together to do everything in their power to prevent unnecessary pregancies. But from my perspective, this is an issue of spiritual self-determination.
Truth, I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence, but we now have a United States Senator from Oklahoma who I believe wants to prosecute doctors who perform abortions as murderers.
With regard to compromises, as a man, I feel completely unqualified to negotiate away any aspect of a woman's control over her body. While it is true that there are many women who are pro-life, my sense is that a majority of women remain strongly pro-choice. That is, they want women to have the choice to terminate a pregancy if they feel it represents their best choice given the circumstances.
If we could find a way to do it, I would prefer to see the ultimate resolution of this issue be decided by the women of America.
Truth, the other point I need to reiterate here has to do with the impact of what I would describe as collective insanity.
This is perhaps the most violent industrialized society on the planet. Violence is a staple of our entertainment industry. If you don't think violence is a real possibility here if things go nuts over abortion, then in my opinion, you're simply refusing to see America as it really is.
I just visited the "Culture of Life" site which is parked prominently as a lobby group on K Street & Bush probably gained lots of Catholic votes by using the same terminology, even though John Kerry does not favor abortion and is Catholic but supports separation of church and state.
I came away feeling that these people should do as they see fit, & they can offer options to those that they can reach, but they do not have the right to legislate morality for the whole country. The primary spearheader behind this organization (a woman) is affiliated with the fortunes of the Seagrams and Bendix companies.
The reason I have a big problem with the "morality" of some of these people is because of the package of beliefs that many of them tend to support.
This is perhaps the most violent industrialized society on the planet. Violence is a staple of our entertainment industry. If you don't think violence is a real possibility here if things go nuts over abortion, then in my opinion, you're simply refusing to see America as it really is.
Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at July 24, 2005 08:30 PM
Well I am home, then up at 5:30 a.m. and into the city again.
I appreciate all the replies. I HATE that this issue is even on the table. I HATE it. But it is, and although I prefer to not discuss it, felt a responsibility to do so. I hope I am not leaving anyone with any feeling of judgement upon them or any of their previous acts regarding this topic. That is not my intention.
Indeed you are all entitled to your opinion, as am I. We have been 'round this mountain before, and at that time I decided that the best I could do is agree to disagree.
Matt, I honestly don't see the issue as one that has a probability of inciting riot and violence among people that disagree on the issue. Not on a large scale, anyway. And here is why I don't. Extremists feel strongly about this issue, and when you mix a highly emotionally charged issue like this with a nutcase, you will get violence. I agree on that. Where I disagree is that I don't see it as a widespread social problem if Roe v. Wade was overturned. In my opinion, if people were going to take guns and knock off people at abortion clinics and doctor's offices, it would have happened by now. There are alot of people who detest abortion as there are many who are pro-choice. The people who detest it, are, in my opinion, more likely to act out violent behaviors in protest while it is going on at the rate it is in America right now. If all the people who felt strongly about it were pushed into being nutcases who want to take the law into their own hands, they would be doing so right now in the highly charged political climate created over this precise issue by Mr. Rove and his unholy alliance with the far right extremists. Mr. Rove found a way to get mailing lists from churches of many denominations - fundies, evangelicals, mainstream and Catholics, and proceeded to email and bulk mail alot of them. Many were telephoned and pressured to really examine their view of whether they were indeed pro-choice, and if they said they were pro-choice, they were asked if they were SURE they felt that way. Some of them found themselves faced with having to really examine their positions on the issue at that point. I know, it happened to me. This went on during the last presidential campaign. I talked to many people when I helped out with the phone bank that said they had received calls asking them to decide whether they were pro-choice or pro-life. When they said "pro-choice" because at first thought they figured they themselves didn't favor abortion, but felt they could not make that choice for everyone, they were asked to examine if that meant they were "for" abortion. Couple that with a few top names in the church world sending material through the mail highly suggestive of not voting for anyone who is pro-choice, and you get a pretty highly charged atmosphere over the issue. The time for people to go over the edge over this issue would have been all the years since Roe v. Wade. People who detest it don't like to think of the over a million abortions that go on all around our country every year. The season has been ripe for years for nutcases to find reason and justification in their own minds for taking the law into their own hands, and it hasn't happened other than isolated incidents.
So, in your eyes, if I see it this way then I don't see America as it really is. In my eyes, I see it this way, and I think I see America as it really is. But then, it is all relative.
I really think every choice is individual. It confuses me that some of the groups who are adamant that abortion shouldn't be an option also oppose birth control or sex education other than abstinence programs, which have a poor record. I want to be more open-minded as I don't think abortion is a good option, really, but a last resort in exceptional cases - between a woman and her physician. However, until I see universal health coverage and quality public education and until little war orphans, AIDS patients and civilian casualties are valued as much as little American fetuses and until pregnant women without money stop being turned away from many physicians - I will not be impressed by the "culture of life" (euphemism). Besides, alot of what I've read is purely anti-feminist and as I said earlier, I'm an unapologetic feminist and have been for 30 years now.
Posted by: DiAnne at July 25, 2005 12:23 AM
I went to retire for the night and a few things hit me. In all honesty, I would like to share my thoughts.
I started thinking of how it might sound to anyone who chose abortion to hear the words I used earlier. I don't mean to condemn or judge anyone.
Here is what hit me: It is real easy for me to sit in my "cush" little life, my children young adults, with freedom, and what I consider to be a pretty good lifestyle. I don't really have any financial worries, and life is good. It is now very easy for me to say no one has the right to choose, it is black and white, and that is the end of discussion for me.
Things weren't always this way. When my children were younger, I was a single mom. I worked at least 10 hrs. a day 5 days a week in a stock brokerage firm. I made a decent wage, and I got child support, so we squeaked by. I was physically and emotionally drained at the end of a day. I dated, and kind of went through my rebellious stage at that time, as I hadn't gone through it earlier. I was married quite young, at 19. I think I wrote about it earlier on a post many months ago, when the topic was also abortion. My boys went to their father's every other weekend. That was party time for Mom for about 5 months. (I burnt out in 5 mos., and decided that "fun" wasn't that much fun after all.) However, I had a good scare. I thought I was pregnant. Here I was, a single lady with a good job and two kids to raise. I wondered how on earth I would be able to physically and emotionally and financially support another child. I felt stretched to the limit already. In all honesty, I mulled the question around and around in my mind. If I had been pregnant, I was prepared to get an abortion. It turned out I wasn't.
My point is: Like Matthew has said before, there is no black and white. No real absolutes. In my cushy and free and worry free lifestyle now, it is easier to sit back and say "no abortions, ever." (Except maybe rape, and endangering the mother's life, or a severely damaged fetus.) But the honest to God truth is that it looked different when faced with the dilemma. At that time, I just figured God would understand, and that was it. There are no absolutes. If there are, there are few.
I agree with all of you who say the wingnuts shouldn't say no abortion until they can say yes to social programs that make keeping a child a possibility for women. Churches are wrong to condemn someone for getting an abortion, yet they are not willing to assure that the child kept is provided for. Once the child is born, that mother is on her own, and it's wrong.
I don't have all the answers tonight. I may always feel abortion is wrong. But I see the other points of view as well, and, they are valid points.
From today's Five Minutes:
C-SPAN TAPED Saturday's town hall forum with Maxine Waters in Los Angeles, which we know was well worth recording, because we can watch it at truthout.org:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072405A.shtml
Please politely and in your own words ask C-Span to air what they recorded:
congress@c-span.org
events@c-span.org
Phone 202-737-3220
Fax 202-737-6226
More:
RADIO LEFT
Beginning with a one-hour program from 5-6 p.m. ET on July 25, Radio Left will air an After Downing Street update every weekday from 4:05 - 4:15 p.m. ET. Listen here: http://www.radioleft.com
AND:
PASS REP. LEE'S RESOLUTION
Congresswoman Barbara Lee (Dem., Calif.) last Thursday introduced - along with 26 co-sponsors - a Resolution of Inquiry in the House of Representatives which, if
passed, will require the White House and the State Department to "transmit all
information relating to communication with officials of the United Kingdom between
January 1, 2002, and October 16, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States
with respect to Iraq."
The text of the Resolution, a list of current co-sponsors, a list of the relevant
committee members, and a new flyer are here:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/902
The resolution must be voted on in committee within 14 legislative days of its introduction. It is expected to be referred to the House International Relations Committee. The Republicans who control the committee may take the matter up right away, hoping to vote it down before the August recess. If they do not, they will be required to take it up by September 16th.
The more Congress Members in the full House who co-sponsor the resolution, the more likely committee members are to vote for it.
Committee members should be asked not only to vote for it but to discuss it at length and engage in a substantive debate when the committee meets, so that members who oppose it have to give reasons.
This Resolution is important because the information in the Downing Street Documents so strongly suggests that President Bush intentionally deceived Congress about the reasons for war. If that is not the case, then releasing the documents requested here will clear that up - something the President should be eager to do.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/902