You know, I’m a big fan of blogging. I dabble in it myself. But, this absurd notion on the part of some bloggers that they are taking down the big time media brick by brick is just absurd. And by “some bloggers” I’m referring to those schmucks over at Powerline. Jesus, has there ever been a bigger bunch of vainglorious nobodies in the history of the world?
Being a blogger means never having to hold your self to the standards you demand of the big media, or so it seems for some. I noted last year how several bloggers were boasting about their various takedowns of the dreaded MSM, especially over this photo from the Associated Press which “proved” that that organiziation was guilty of working with terrorists because, I think it was Hindpocket at Power Line who said, “the photographer was obviously within a few yards of the scene of the murder, which raises obvious questions, such as 1) what was the photographer doing there; did he have advance knowledge of the crime, or was he even accompanying the terrorists? and 2) why did the photographer apparently have no fear of the terrorists, or conversely, why were the terrorists evidently unconcerned about being photographed in the commission of a murder?” Also, an anonymous source told Salon that the photographer might have been tipped that something was going to happen on that street. High Pockets treats that as an admission of guilt by the Associated Press
[…]
Now Hindpocket’s partner, Elephant Guy has his snout in a snit because the picture won a Pulitzer Prize for breaking news photography. He calls it a pulitzer for “felony murder.”
Apparently they have never heard of a telephoto lens. For all the technical reason why these guys are morons, click here to Dead Parrot’s Society’s embarrassing debunking.
The thing to remember about the Powerline boyz is that they aren’t just some louts who started a blog and say a bunch of dumb stuff. These guys are Claremont Fellows who have been writing for National Review and Weakly Standard for years. They are among those guys who David Brooks was patting on the back yesterday for their deep philosophical understanding of the underpinnings of our democracy.
Gosh, was it Hobbes or Locke who said no free man shall ever admit to error? I can’t remember.
The left has come up with a target, and his name is Tom DeLay. He isn’t their first and won’t be their last, but for now he’s the Republican they hope to take down.
They’ve tried in the past to do the same thing to others. Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and White House adviser Karl Rove have all been portrayed as ethically challenged and sleazy by the same folks who are now going after the House Republican leader from Texas. Trumped-up charges of illegality, paid ads and reports from ethics groups that are little more than fronts for partisan and ideological assaults on their opponents are all part of the now familiar pattern.
If the attacks on those who have come before are any guide, this will go on for some time and then subside as they find new targets on whom to vent their bile.
DeLay is far from perfect, but he’s no criminal and one doubts if any of his colleagues really believes he’s motivated by anything other than his strongly held principles and a desire to win. In fact, the argument that he’s essentially a venal inside-the-Beltway operator is probably the weakest part of the left wing’s case against him because, while one can picture him crossing the line to achieve his ideological objectives, it is impossible to visualize him doing so to make a buck.
A six-day trip to Moscow in 1997 by then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was underwritten by business interests lobbying in support of the Russian government, according to four people with firsthand knowledge of the trip arrangements.
DeLay reported that the trip was sponsored by a Washington-based nonprofit organization. But interviews with those involved in planning DeLay’s trip say the expenses were covered by a mysterious company registered in the Bahamas that also paid for an intensive $440,000 lobbying campaign.
[…]
The 1997 Moscow trip is the third foreign trip by DeLay to be scrutinized in recent weeks because of new statements by those involved that his travel was directly or indirectly financed by registered lobbyists or a foreign agent.
Media attention focused on DeLay’s travel last month after The Washington Post reported on DeLay’s participation in a $70,000 expense-paid trip to London and Scotland in 2000 that sources said was indirectly financed in part by an Indian tribe and a gambling services company. A few days earlier, media attention had focused on a $106,921 trip DeLay took to South Korea in 2001 that was financed by a tax-exempt group created by a lobbyist on behalf of a Korean businessman.
[…]
Untangling the origin of the Moscow trip’s financing is complicated by questions about the ownership and origins of Chelsea, the obscure Bahamian-registered company that financed the lobbying effort in favor of the Russian government that targeted Republicans in Washington in 1997 and 1998. Those involved in this effort also prepared and coordinated the DeLay visit, individuals with direct knowledge about it said.
In that period, prominent Russian businessmen, as well as the Russian government, depended heavily on a flow of billions of dollars in annual Western aid and so had good reason to build bridges to Congress. House Republicans were becoming increasingly critical of U.S. and international lending institutions, such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the International Monetary Fund, which were then investing heavily in Russia’s fragile economy.
Unlike some House conservatives who scorn such support as “corporate welfare,” DeLay proved to be a “yes” vote for institutions bolstering Russia in this period. For example, DeLay voted for a bill that included the replenishment of billions of dollars in IMF funds used to bail out the Russian economy in 1998.
The wife and daughter of Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, have been paid more than $500,000 since 2001 by Mr. DeLay’s political action and campaign committees, according to a detailed review of disclosure statements filed with the Federal Election Commission and separate fund-raising records in Mr. DeLay’s home state, Texas.
Most of the payments to his wife, Christine A. DeLay, and his only child, Dani DeLay Ferro, were described in the disclosure forms as “fund-raising fees,” “campaign management” or “payroll,” with no additional details about how they earned the money. The payments appear to reflect what Mr. DeLay’s aides say is the central role played by the majority leader’s wife and daughter in his political career.
Mr. DeLay’s national political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, or Armpac, said in a statement on Tuesday that the two women had provided valuable services to the committee in exchange for the payments: “Mrs. DeLay provides big picture, long-term strategic guidance and helps with personnel decisions. Ms. Ferro is a skilled and experienced professional event planner who assists Armpac in arranging and organizing individual events.”
As with Terry Schiavo, it seems the ruthless liberals are determined to deny Monsieur Tom DeLay the nourishment he needs to survive — the mother’s milk of politics. And all because he loves Jesus.
Why next thing you know they’ll be clamoring for an investigation or a special prosecutor or something. That’s how low they are willing to sink. Is there no end to this religious persecution?
Update: Just as a point of contrast, read this story about the Mike Espy case in which Special Prosecutor Donald Smaltz spent over 17 million dollars to nail Espy for accepting some tickets to a football game and failed to get a conviction when it was shown that not only was there no quid pro quo, but Espy actually tightened the regulations on the people who gave him the tickets and assorted trinkets. Back in those days there was a lot of hugh minded Republican talk about the rule of law and the appearance of impropriety. We don’t hear much about that anymore.
So, one of John Cornyn’s schoolmates had wondered if his old acquaintance might have a little problem with the race issue when he ran for Senator against Ron Kirk. Unbenownst to most people, Cornyn had been an avid supporter of George Wallace:
I read a couple of weeks ago that John Cornyn had pledged to keep the issue of race out of his upcoming U.S. Senate campaign against African-American Democratic nominee Ron Kirk. That was a relief, because the John Cornyn I knew in high school was a big supporter of George Wallace and seemed oblivious to the dangers of Wallace’s racial demagoguery.
Cornyn a Wallace supporter? Why hasn’t Texas heard about that before? Cornyn and I graduated in 1969 from the American School in Japan, and I guess word of his early dabbling in right-wing politics never reached these shores. Besides, statements like this are not something I’d want to broadcast if I was trying to step into Phil Gramm’s shoes and join George Bush’s team in Washington.
“With the continuing concentration of power in the hands of the inept Democratic and Republican parties, it is time for a change,” Cornyn wrote in our student newspaper just before the 1968 presidential election. “Cast your vote for a strong America. Vote for George C. Wallace on November 5.”
Well, old George wasn’t just a one note samba. According to Rick Perlstein he had a lot of interesting things to add to the political discourse. Like this:
9/27/63 George Wallace apears on Today for twenty minute interview with Martin Agronsky and adresses 16th street Church bombing in Birmingham. Shows him surveillance photos of “known subversives…. The supreme Court, the Kennedy adminsitraiton and the civil rights agitators are more to blame for this dastardly crime than anyone else.”
Seems Cornyn was much, much more influenced by Wallace than he ever let on. As are a good many of the southern Republicans (or should we call them Dixiecans?) I’m afraid.
I’m telling you, there is nothing that the mainstream of the modern Republican party is doing today that their most virulent racist, extremist fringe wasn’t advocating forty years ago. I haven’t heard anything about flouridation in the water lately, but it’s only a matter of time.
Perhaps I’m unduly cynical, but I simply cannot take this David Brooks column seriously. Brad Plumer and Mark Schmittt seem to think that he’s really on to something, while Matt Yglesias takes issue with it. I think it’s just the usual GOP projection bullshit combined with a little CYA sleight of hand.
I don’t think it’s wrong to say that Democrats should embrace the big ideas. I think we’ve all agreed that our approach has been a bit too long on programmatic details and a bit too short on the vision thing. But the mere idea that the Republicans derive their strength from diversity just cracks me up. Yeah. And FoxNews is fair and balanced. Tipsy disagreements at cocktail parties don’t count as diversity.
Brooks says that Republicans are strong because they argue all the time amongst themselves in a congenial way and everybody is open minded and understanding that they can’t have everything they want. It’s one big philosphy seminar over there in GOPland. Liberals, on the other hand, are so obsessed with our ever expanding list of big complicated government programs that we haven’t given a moment’s thought to the kind of big thinking that evidently goes on among cosmopolitan Republican intellectuals who represent all those heartland values we are supposed to revere.
Why, he asked the unnamed head of a big liberal think tank who his favorite philospher was and he never called him back with the answer. Imagine that. (And here I thought we all knew that the only appropriate response to that question was “Christ — he changed mah heart.”)
Brooks says that we should emulate the right’s unruly but friendly fractiousness and spend more time arguing philosophy. He says that’s what they did when they were completely out of power and it’s shown to be very healthy for their big happy tentful of civilized individualists. This entire discussion about media infrastructure and message discipline is wrong because that is not where the real strength of the right’s political dominance lies.
The rule of thumb for all Republicans giving advice to Democrats on op-ed pages is to assume the opposite. This means that message discipline and the right’s media infrastructure is exactly where the strength of the right’s political dominance lies. And I would argue that regardless of the friendly philosophy seminars in the break room at NR or The Weakly Standard, their governing philosophy can quite easily be summed up as a strong belief in no taxes on wealth, laissez faire capitalism, coercive Christianity and a huge police/military infrastructure. There are only a couple of philosophers who lead you in that direction, and it’s a place that I don’t think America knows it’s going.
He further says that we have a hard time understanding the big philosophical ideas because liberal theorists are so “influenced by post-modernism, multiculturalism, relativism, value pluralism and all the other influences that dissuade one from relying heavily on dead white guys.”
This means that we are on the right track because understanding post-modernism, relativism and the rest is the single most important key to understanding how the right is operating right now. Any party that can win the presidency by saying that hand counting uncounted votes is inherently unreliable compared to the machines that failed to count the votes in the first place cannot be said to be a party that doesn’t understand relativism. Michel Fouccault is a much better guide to modern politics in the radical Republican era than John Dewey could ever be. We should be dragging all those ivory tower Derrida-ites out of the classrooms and hiring them at think tanks to deconstruct Republican rhetoric. (In fact, the most valuable person in the Democratic party may be Michael Berube.)
It’s funny, the last I heard liberals were elitists for being a bunch of pointy headed intellectuals who spent too much time watching PBS and not enough time burning rubber and eating at Red Lobster. There was no end to the lectures telling us that we libs were out of touch with everyday real Americans and we should take our heads out of our nancy-boy literchur and open up the Bible for some real inspiration. And now Brooks says we should be holding a non-stop series of undergrad rap sessions. Man, it’s so hard to know what we should do to be more like Republicans. My head is spinning.
Brooks says that we should embrace disunity. Like the Republicans have. He must be talking about stuff like this:
Conservative leaders across the country are working now to make sure that any politician who hopes to have conservative support in the future had better be in the forefront as we attack those who attack Tom DeLay,” he said.”
I think that is what’s at work here. Brooks has been recently embarrassed by his GOP cronies in a number of ways and now he is trying to excuse his affiliation with them by saying that the Republican party is one big bunch of iconclastic thinkers so don’t even try to say that he’s like them. But hey, you hang around with mangy dogs you get it too. He’s one of them whether he likes it or not.
If you look at the major organs of conservative opinion, you’d start with the Standard and National Review, add in The Wall Street Journal editorial page, and probably include columnists like Brooks, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and Robert Novak. You could toss in The Washington Times editorial page and, arguably, talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Depending on your definition, you could add or subtract from this group and have a good sense of all the opinion outlets that wield any significant influence over the conservative movement and the Republican Party.
So, what major issues do these conservative intellectuals disagree on? They all supported the Iraq war, with the exception of Novak, who has tellingly muted his criticism. They all supported every one of Bush’s tax cuts and Social Security privatization. They all clucked their tongues at Bush’s Medicare drug benefit but, like the White House, have refused to recognize any connection between the deficit and Bush’s tax cuts. They all passionately supported Bush’s judicial nominees. They all basically endorse Karl Rove’s political strategy. They all see Bush as a towering Churchillian figure of compassion, wisdom, vision, homespun virtue, and basic decency.
Basically, these organs agree on everything–certainly every major political issue of the last five years. Even if you follow Brooks’s bizarre definition and include Reason and The American Conservative, you’ll get some dissent on judicial nominations and the war and a less worshipful view of Bush as a man. But you’ll still have basic agreement on all the major domestic policy questions.
[…]
Brooks insists, “Conservatives have thrived because they are split into feuding factions that squabble incessantly.” In fact, on every important debate of his presidency, Bush has enjoyed a solid phalanx of conservative pundits all repeating the same talking points on his behalf. It’s a successful arrangement. It also worked for the Comintern, for a while. I’m sure the communist intellectuals who relentlessly backed Moscow’s every move liked to flatter themselves by insisting they were a bunch of squabbling freethinkers, too.
…where’s the refusal to face up to big disagreements and ideas? For that matter, what serious factions are missing and therefore leaving converts no place to join up? Is there no DLC, no MoveOn, no place for liberals and greens and law-and-order types and moderates? Because, correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t Marc Cooper and Al From pledge allegiance to the same ticket every four years, but spend the intervening periods screaming at each other?
[…]
In recent months, various folks — notably Mike Tomasky — have called for liberals to learn or relearn their history, to understand their evolution. They’re right to do so. But they’ve been joined and, in some cases, mixed up with the David Brooks and Jonah Goldbergs of the world, conserva-scolds who wear their semi-functional knowledge of Hayek and Hobbes on their sleeves, all the better to allude to the moral and intellectual grounding they’ve got that progressives don’t. It’s ridiculous, and we shouldn’t buy into it. Knowing our history is critical to understanding the genesis and thus root causes of contemporary problems, but that imperative shouldn’t be expanded to transform politics into a game of trivial pursuit. If philosophers aid your understanding of your values, fine, great, I suggest you read them. But no Republican needs to know Burke’s views on the French Revolution in order to comprehend his movement and no liberal needs to rattle off philosophers to conservative columnists in order to have her beliefs judged legitimate.
I think Yglesias exactly nails the brutish logic of Cornyn’s “warning” earlier today. These guys are selling protection, saying that they would hate to see something happen to these judges who won’t cooperate but sadly, unless they do there’s not much they can do about it.
His hope — along, it seems, though less clearly — with Tom DeLay’s is that judges will begin to operate under a cloud of intimidation. They may not like the idea of buckling under to whatever it is Cornyn wants them to do, but Cornyn is making it clear that he’s the judges’ friends. He doesn’t want to see them killed, or maimed, or assaulted. He’s trying to save them. Trying to warn them. Warning them that unless they change their ways someone — someone who has nothing to do with John Cornyn or the Texas cabal running the country, mind you — just might decide to do something crazy. But here’s Cornyn offering a safe harbor. Confirm all of Bush’s nominees, no matter how incompetent, corrupt, or inept they are, no matter how unsound their view of the constitution. And for the others, try to conform your views to those of Bush’s new appointees. Do it and you’ll be safe. If you don’t do it, well, then, certainly John Cornyn wouldn’t advocate killing you, he’s just pointing out that it will happen.
The term “Texas mafia” is no longer metaphorical.
I was particularly intrigued to see that Cornyn’s statement very specifically mentions the Supreme Court but makes no distinction amongst the Justices. He might want to start being a little bit more specific lest some anti-judicial activism nut fails to distinguish between the good guys and the bad and blows away the wrong judge. This is just sloppy, very sloppy.
I don’t know who this group of hippie protester strawmen are in Kevin Mattson’s cautionary tale in this months Prospect, but I’ve not had the pleasure. I don’t think there exists a vast number of nostalgic baby boomers and utopian youngsters out there who are planning to launch another Summer of Love, unless he’s specifically talking about the anti-Iraq war protests, which of course, he is, but won’t admit it. That’s because those war protesters weren’t trying to hop on a nostalgic magic carpet ride back to the days of Hanoi Jane, they were participating in a worldwide protest about a very specific unjust war being launched by an illegitimate president — a war which the “fighting liberals” like he and Peter Beinert foolishly endorsed. I suppose the fact that millions of people all over the globe also marched merely means that they too were recreating the alleged glory days of People’s Park.
People will always take protests to the streets from time to time. The 60’s liberals certainly didn’t invent the tactic and the fact that liberals are associated with protesting has a lot more to do with an image propagated by the right than any real danger of a resurgent Yippie movement.
My instinctive reaction to this entire line of paranoid ramblings about the wild and crazy lefites making a big scene and ruining everything is that if this guy thinks that a bloodless, wonkish liberalism is ever going to compete with the right wing true believers he’s got another thing coming. American liberalism grew out of a passionate progressivism and a worldwide union movement, both of which featured plenty of “protest politics” in their day. And if he thinks that the modern GOP’s political might hasn’t drawn much of its power from pulpits and talk radio demagoguery, then he hasn’t been paying attention. Nobody does political theatre better than the right wing.
He very generously offers that he doesn’t agree that Move-On should be purged from the coalition because they are, after all, learning that street protests are bad form. As long as they “behave” they can stay. (And all that money they raise can stay too, presumably.) The author fails to realize, however, that just as the rabble on the right took to the airwaves, the rabble on the left is taking to cyberspace. This ain’t no hippie protest movement, dude. It’s as modern as modern can get.
People need to feel things about politics, not just think. It’s a grave mistake for political types to insult and marginalize those who have passion and wish to express that publicly. These jittery fellows who are so afraid of “the left’s” overheated energy need to remember that their golden post war age was populated by a people who had just been through a crushing economic upheavel and a cataclysmic war. They were willingly docile and conformist for good reason. Don’t expect that to be present in other circumstances in a thriving democracy. It isn’t natural nor should it be desired. It only lasted a very brief time even then.
And remember, the favorite candidate of the wonkish cold war liberals was Adlai Stephenson who warmed the blood of at least 43 upper west side society matrons and a couple of college kids in Cambridge. Other than that, even in Stepford America of the 1950’s they picked the man who looked good in a uniform. All the wonky goodness in the world doesn’t necessarily translate into votes. You’ve got to resonate on a deeper level with people and while I appreciate the need for an elegant foreign policy argument, I frankly wonder if this public wonkfest isn’t just going to reinforce the Republican image of us as a bunch of weenies. In today’s political climate nothing spells defeat for Democrats more than the image of a bunch of fey, ivory tower eggheads running the military.
Furthermore, it should be remembered that until JFK’s assassination, there was plenty of theatrical and violent public rhetoric coming from the right. It may be that that violent impulse found its catharsis in the assassination, and massive social opprobrium required a severe ratcheting down of anti-communist demagoguery. Could it be that the benign institution building for which the Republicans are now being canonized as visionaries was actually a pragmatic reaction to the country’s disgust with their vocal extremism? Regardless, it’s ridiculous to completely place the Republicans as some sort of calm, reasonable suburbanites in contrast to us crazed extremists on the left then or now.
Yes, the New Left was a bunch of wankers, but you know, that wasn’t news even at the time. And it’s true that much of the peace protesting of the 60’s were pretty much a reflection of a large youth demographic and an unpopular military draft. There was a lot of babble but in the end the radical political movement of Tom Hayden et al mostly collapsed because its raison d’etre, Vietnam, collapsed as an issue. But, underneath that Chicago convention circus a bunch of really important other things were happening that are glossed over by these newly minted men in the grey flannel suits with patronizing lip service to “idealism”. He acknowledges that the world before the 60’s was unequal and starkly illiberal for many people and says that nobody wants to go back to those days. But he then scribbles a long essay about how the protest movement was terrible for liberalism.
These critics of the unwashed rabble just can’t seem to recognize that with great prosperity and political power the time had come for liberalism to act on its long overdue responsibility to fully extend the rights and responsibilities of the American experiment to women and racial minorities — to use, as Dear Leader would say, its political capital. The social changes that were ratified in the 60’s and 70’s were arguably more important to the lives of more than 50% of Americans than anything that had happened in the previous century. That’s not hyperbole. The women’s rights movement alone is one of the greatest progressive leaps forward in human history.
My 36 year old mother couldn’t get a mortgage in her own name in 1955. She had to have her father sign the papers. Birth control was illegal in many parts of the country until 1965. Women were routinely denied slots in education and were openly and without shame discriminated against in employment. African Americans, we all know, could be denied the right to enter even public buildings in many areas of the country until 1964. Their “right” to vote was a joke. I needn’t even mention the fact that they were dismissed socially as second class citizens without a moment’s thought by very large numbers of Americans until quite recently.
That is the world that the “fighting liberals” were protecting. And that is the world that was changed irrevocably during this allegedly frivolous time of liberal protest politics in 1960’s. And it was done though the means that this writer seems to find so distasteful — while he perfunctorily agrees that the ends were all in all a good thing. I’m sorry if all those changes subsequently made it difficult for policy wonks to make a good national security argument, but you know, tough shit. Sometimes you have to do hard things and there is often a price to pay for it.
You don’t make radical quantum leaps in social equality without there being a reaction. The reverberations of all of that are still being felt in the culture wars of today and it has made things difficult for Democratic party politics. However, the energetic political activism of the 60’s resulted in tangible, everyday improvement in the lives of vast numbers of Americans who fought for and won the right to be equal under the law in this country. That betterment of real people’s lives is what liberalism is supposed to be about.
The lauded “fighting foreign policy liberals” of the 50’s were the dying dinosaurs of an establishment that was rapidly losing its energy in a stable, wealthy, globally dominant America. As the writer acknowledges, it was quite easy for them to ride the back of the liberal consensus because they were the inheritors of it — a condition that does not exist today. It’s harder now. That’s the reality that we are facing.
I don’t know where this vast horde of reborn hippies worshipping at the feet of Jerry Rubin are but I do not see them. What I do see is modern political activism that is demanding change in modern ways. It seems to me that it isn’t “the left” that is nostalgic for the past, it’s these centrists who for reasons I cannot fathom have decided that their grandfather’s political methods are the ticket to political dominance in the 21st century.
Sure, policy wonks should be developing a cohesive and persuasive voice on foreign policy. Have at it. But to try to create some quasi “movement” from a very brief and quite uninspired — even at the time — political era strikes me as strangely reactionary. As the author writes in his first paragraph, “examining … history can mean recycling good ideas and tactics. But what if it means recycling bad ones?” Excellent question and one that I would suggest he ask his colleagues in the “let’s take a trip back to 1948” club.
We’re progressives. We’re supposed to progress. We don’t do nostaligia. Let’s leave that to Pat Buchanan.
Via Kevin, I see that Andrew Sullivan’s question has been answered as to what the Republican party has in mind when it comes to personal freedom. He quotes Eric Cohen’s piece in the Weekly Standard in which he claims that “people cannot be allowed to revoke life simply because it is theirs’ to revoke.”
We still possess dignity and rights even when our capacity to make free choices is gone; and we do not possess the right to demand that others treat us as less worthy of care than we really are … [T]he autonomy regime, even at its best, is deeply inadequate. It is based on a failure to recognize that the human condition involves both giving and needing care, and not always being morally free to decide our own fate.
Sullivan adds:
So let us be plain: the theoconservative vision would remove the right of individuals to decide their own fate in such cases, and would exclude the family from such a decision as well. Indeed, the law might even compel the family to provide care as long as they were capable of doing so. My “what if?” is a real one. And the theocon right has answered it. They want an end to the “autonomy regime.” They have gone from saying that a pregnant mother has no autonomy over her own body because another human being is involved to saying that a person has no ultimate autonomy over her own body at all. These are the stakes. The very foundation of modern freedom – autonomy over one’s own physical body – is now under attack. And if a theocon government won’t allow you control over your own body, what else do you have left?
I would imagine that there are more than a few women who are slapping their foreheads at that and saying …”duh!” And there are probably some distressed “pregnant mothers” who would argue that it is quite strange to suggest their six week old fetus has more autonomy over the body it lives in than she does. Certainly the principle has never stuck me as particularly compelling.
The “autonomy regime” is not absolute, but it’s pretty damned clear that the government, with its grandstanding morons running for the microphones, is hardly equipped to make the delicate decisions at the margins. It’s been very convenient for politicians and self-righteous moralists to take pot shots at those who found themselves in the unenviable position of having to make such decisions as abortion. Perhaps now that the Schiavo case has filled in some of the blanks about what the “culture of life” really means, maybe a few people will understand why it is such a tremendous insult to women to tell them that Trent Lott and Pat Robertson are the ones who will decide what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.
So I hear from Weldon Berger that the National Press club has had a change of heart:
John is welcome to attend, as are any bloggers, as long as they’re not going to disrupt the proceedings.
Well, yes, we simply can’t have anyone disrupt the gripping ass-fucking discussion.
Apparently bloggers really are considered the barbarians at the gates — unrefined, undisciplined and uncivilized. We can’t even be expected to behave like adults in public.
Isn’t that great? I always wanted to be a rock star.
The indispensible Crooks and Liars made me watch this thing and I’m pretty sure that that I’m now in a persistent vegetative state. Randall Terry singing a soulful ballad at Terry Schiavo’s memorial service. It is so strange and creepy that I just feel dirty. I think FCC complaints should follow.
Here are the lyrics to what seems to me to be an incestuous love song. I don’t remember any hymns I sang talking about God caressing me and running his hands through my hair, but maybe I’m just out of date:
When I feel the waves crash over me Father And my heart is overwhelmed with pain Help me, find me, seek me, hide me In the scars you bear Caress me in your embrace Run your fingers through my hair I believe in you
