Love Won Out

Psychology is under assault from all sorts of crazies lately, isn't it? First Tom Cruise's bizarre diatribe about its history on The Today Show, and now the religious right is getting into the act. Well, "getting into the act" implies that this is a new thing, which it's not. But they're certainly always stepping up their assertion that homosexuality is a psychological disorder to be cured. How do they know this? Were they gay, and cured of it? Of course not! Never speak of it!

God told them that it's a sin, and as such, it must be a choice. As a choice it must be something that can be reversed. Voila. On the foundation of the Bible, Dobson and his cronies are able to dismiss years of mental health science as irrelevant simply because they don't agree with it.

Disgusting.

Fargus...

An Odd Experience

I'm a bit lazy. I haven't yet taken the John Kerry '04 bumper sticker off of my mid-sized foreign sedan yet. Well, somebody noticed that yesterday while I was on my way home from work (and, as you might guess, he was in a ridiculously big SUV, maybe a Yukon or a Suburban). He was behind me for a while, and then he made a big show of passing me. Except he didn't pass. He pulled up even with me on the left until I looked over at him.

When I did, he held up a Bush/Cheney '04 pin with one hand, pointed at it with the other (I guess the steering wheel was taking care of itself, and looking at me was more important than looking at the road at 70 miles per hour), and started screaming. I couldn't tell what he was screaming, because both of our windows were closed, but it didn't seem to me to be a sentiment where the specifics were too important.

This wasn't an impetuous youth. This wasn't a crazy hippie. This was a guy who looked to be in his early 50s, with gray hair, probably with grown kids of his own, around my age. He was probably coming home from work, where he does some respectable job in some respectable manner. But seeing that bumper sticker set him off, I guess, and boy did he ever show me!

This is the kind of thing, once again, that's so wrong with our public discourse. It's usually not this literal, but usually it consists of pointing to your candidate and screaming, whether or not anybody's listening.

Fargus...

Slightly New Look

So you may notice that I changed the background image on the sides, I took away all the too-busy profile and poll stuff up top, and most importantly, I got a banner instead of the plain text title. Thanks to Will from thedarktower.net for the banner.

Maybe I'll make some more changes in the near future, if I'm feeling ambitious. I was always thinking I'd like to have sidebars on both sides.....

Fargus...

The Impending Supreme Court Vacancies

What do they mean? Well, for most people, who couldn't care less about the ins and outs of politics, they simply mean that we'll be barraged with ad after ad from conservative and liberal groups alike. Liberals will claim that the right to an abortion is at stake, and conservatives will claim that their religious rights are at stake. In other words, everybody will be playing their emotional cards from the get-go.

As always, Mark Coffey at Decision '08 is a good source of information on this (and many other things). Read through some of his more recent posts to catch up on some of the Supreme Court speculation.

As for who will be nominated, there's plenty of speculation there as well. Many think that Alberto Gonzalez will be nominated as the court's first Latino Justice. Many on the right think that Owen, Brown or Pryor should be nominated, since they already have been passed through the "extraordinary circumstances" test posed by the Senate's notorious "Gang of 14." There are a lot of other people that you and I have never heard of who are under consideration as well, and I'm about to direct you to a bunch of people who know a lot more about all this than I do.

I'd like to see justices passed through who would agree with what I would want. Who wouldn't? I'd like to see justices passed through who would view bans on gay marriage as unconstitutional. I'd like to see justices passed through who wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade. I'd like to see justices passed through who understand and respect the wall of separation between church and state. But all that is too much to hope for.

At this point, I'll just be happy if someone nominated to the Supreme Court pisses off James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, etc.

Whatever's the case, though, the politics and strategy and nastiness will likely surpass anything we've seen recently, even with how nasty it's already gotten.

Fargus...

LINKS: 43rd State Blues on Harry Reid's pre-emptive bipartisan strategy.
KarensKorner has a Gary Bauer article beseeching the President to fill vacancies with Scalia-like nominees.
The Narrow thinks Alberto Gonzalez is too soft on abortion.
Civil Commotion liked the Ten Commandments decision as well, but is scared that the likes of Dobson are trying to ratchet up believers for the coming vacancy.
Election Law warns about the imposition of special interest groups on judicial nominations and elections.
Jeff Gannon (yes, that Jeff Gannon) thinks that Democrats won't be in a place to strongly oppose Supreme Court nominees after the brouhaha over Bolton.

Valerie Plame

Well, Miller and Cooper have been denied their appeal to the Supreme Court, and they face jail time and fines for not revealing their sources in the now-infamous outing of Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador Joe Wilson, as a CIA agent.

Now I might just be a little confused here or something, but why is Bob Novak not also being prosecuted for failing to reveal his sources?

Fargus...

LINKS: Wind 'n Sea agrees, and Bread and Circuses thinks Novak should be facing jail time. The Peoria Pundit is stumped, as is WashingtonRox. The Lion and the Donkey waxes philosophic about the larger implications of the case, and Live Free or Blog can be forgiven cynicism in this case. The Talent Show wonders why Miller and Cooper were covering up for the source.

Ten Commandments

In case you hadn't heard, the Supreme Court issued two decisions yesterday on two similar cases involving public displays of the Ten Commandments. They gave what appeared to be mixed messages, ruling one display constitutional and one display unconstitutional, but when you view the two decisions together, what they're really saying is that these things have got to be decided on a case-by-case basis. In other words, the Supreme Court isn't going to get into the business of having a rigid policy specific to the Ten Commandments. I think that's a smart idea.

As I've thought about it, I agree with the decisions, at least constitutionally. I'd prefer for there not to be any Ten Commandments displays on public property, as it fuels the arguments of those who would assert that this is a Christian nation founded on Christian ideals, but the two decisions issued yesterday seem to me to be a nice compromise. The display in Texas was seen as constitutional since it was there with other monuments, placing it in a historical context. As I said, I wouldn't agree on a personal level, but I can see where they're coming from and I'm fine with it.

The display in Kentucky, on the other hand, was viewed as specifically endorsing religion (in fact, the county in question passed a resolution lauding America as a Christian nation while this was all going on, not helping their case). As such, the Kentucky display was ruled unconstitutional.

I don't think that America is, as the religious right has been saying over and over again, a "Christian nation." There's nothing in our Constitution talking about Christianity, and since they're such strict "originalists," as it were, you'd think that would be enough. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to establish your own religion. It means freedom of religion for all men.

My personal take on the Ten Commandments on public display is that they send a message. They send the message (unless, like in the Supreme Court's frieze, they're in the context of thousands of years of examples of laws) that the Judeo-Christian worldview is going to be the preferred one. I think that a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or a Muslim, or an atheist would have reasonable cause to think that, if he professed his faith (or lack thereof), the opinions of a court with such a display would automatically be biased against him.

Judges are elected and appointed to uphold the laws of the United States of America. Displays of the Ten Commandments (especially like in the case of Alabama's Roy Moore) assert that there is a law higher than that of the United States. Judges are free to believe that, but to place "higher laws" in the context of their positions as adjudicators of the laws of the United States is directly contrary to what they're in office to do.

Fargus...

LINKS: Dean Stephens sees the split rulings as totalitarian.
Half Sigma thinks this is an invitation for Christian groups to put up Commandments displays willy-nilly, and Julien's List agrees.
The Hedgehog Report is dismayed by Breyer's swing between the two cases.
HoyStory gives us the requisite conservative talking points.

Shout-outs

A quick post to let you all know that I'm in the process of updating my blogroll, on the sidebar on the right side. I'm adding a number of conservative bloggers who stumbled upon my blog a few posts ago, when I linked to their posts about obstructionism. Some have commented, some have responded in kind on their blogs, and I thank them all for coming by and making their voices heard. We may not agree on terribly much, but we can talk civilly, and that's the most important thing, I think.

The Opinionator
GM's Corner
The American Patriots
Bill Karl
Speak Easy
Mark in Mexico

Thanks, y'all, for stopping by, and I hope to see you some more!

Fargus...

What's wrong with America?

There are so many things right with our country. What is it that makes both sides of the political process feel so under assault? I got into a comment exchange this weekend that I think helps to illustrate one of the things that I feel is so deeply wrong with our process, and with our collective mindset.

I said:

I think one thing that everybody (myself included) needs to keep in mind is that everybody wants the best for the country. Nobody (despite what Karl Rove might have you believe) wants for harm to come to the country. We just have different ideologies about what exactly is best for the country.

Here's the response that I got:

If you are defining “everybody” as the people that comprise our political process, I would disagree even more strongly. I think the very point people like myself and Jim are trying to make is that the democrats have been acting in the best interests of their party and not in those of the nation at large.

That's it, in a nutshell. If we can't all start out from the gate knowing that we all have the best interests of the nation in mind, then where can we be expected to go? Sure, Republicans and Democrats have different ideas of where the nation should go and different ideas of how it should get there. But those ideas come from a sincerely held belief that they're really working for the betterment of the nation. While I may not agree with them, I have no problem believing that conservatives and Republicans want what they feel in their hearts is best for the country. That gives me some perspective, some common ground, and some respect.

It'd be nice if we could all take a step back and see each other as people trying to help. It wouldn't stop the arguments and the disagreements, but maybe it'd make it more civil.

Fargus...

Missing Children

In the most dangerous city in America, Camden, NJ, three children between the ages of 5 and 11 are missing.

Let's see how much play this gets in the news in view of the Utah kid and the Aruba girl.

Fargus...

Karl Rove Has No Morals

I'm falling victim a little bit to a story that I know will be prevalent all over the blogosphere, but it's too outrageous not to at least mention (thanks to Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo for the link).

"Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

Do I even need to say anything about how despicable this is? His own quote says it himself. This is the kind of talk reserved for Ann Coulter. Not for a senior advisor to the President of the United States.

Fargus...

Flag-Burning Amendment

The House passed its flag-burning amendment, as it always does, but for the first time it looks like the Senate might actually have enough votes for a two-thirds majority to pass the amendment. At that point, as you all know, it would get thrown to the states, and 38 of the 50 state legislatures would have to approve it in order for it to become part of the Constitution.

I find the burning of the flag in protest distasteful. I would never do it. But I also find the precedent of infringing on the First Amendment frightening. I'm not a slippery slope guy, but amending the Constitution to take away rights is a dangerous precedent. Look at how well Prohibition worked, right?

Of the Mind agrees, as does The People's Republic of Seabrook. The blogosphere seems uncharacteristically united on this issue, though some evidently need some education on the subject.

Fargus...

John McCain

McCain's name has been looming large in the media for a while. He's the rock star of the Senate, with "supporters" on both sides of the aisle. See Mark Coffey's candidate profile of John McCain at Decision '08 for some excellent right-leaning coverage.

MSNBC's Howard Fineman has an interesting article about McCain's 2008 prospects, and it says what I've thought all along. Though McCain would likely be the Republican Party's strongest candidate in a wide-open race against any Democrat (there's certainly a case to be made for Giuliani in this capacity as well), there's some real doubt as to whether he could bring the Dobsonite base around to his side enough to win the nomination. If you listen to the right-wing blogs, McCain is about as likely to get the Republican nomination as Hillary Clinton is.

Johan suggested to me last night that he believed McCain had been made promises in return for his stanch support of Bush in 2004. I don't find that terribly hard to believe, but he certainly wouldn't be Rove's go-to guy. What's more likely, I think, is that McCain used the election to jockey himself into position, rather than being explicitly promised support by the current Administration. He knows how to work the media, and he's been making a name for himself among non-religious-right Republicans and moderate-to-conservative Democrats.

This one'll certainly bear watching.

Fargus...

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes...

...have nothing to do with this post about Social Security.

Normally I don't agree with almost anything that's ever said at Blogs for Bush. But Matt Margolis makes a wonderful point when he says the press has been misleading, to say the least, in telling the world that Bush is backing off of private accounts by backing the most recent bill. Folks, there are private accounts in that bill. They're not precisely the same as the ones Bush wanted to create, but it's certainly not a reversal of position.

Matt and I are upset about those headlines for different reasons, but it all comes down to the media's lying down on the job.

Fargus...

Justice in Mississippi

Good.

Finally.

Fargus...

John Bolton and the Recess Appointment

I don't have many thoughts on John Bolton. I haven't followed the case too closely. All I've seen are the charges that he's less than diplomatic, let's say, and that he didn't really do too wonderfully at his former job (thanks to Mark Coffey of Decision '08 for the info). So having said all that, I really don't have an educated opinion on whether Bolton should be confirmed. My opinion is more of a knee-jerk reaction, and there's enough of that out there. You don't need to hear it from me.

But the prospect of a recess appointment is indeed interesting. Before anybody gets out there with Clinton references, let me say that I've only been paying attention to politics for a year and a half. I don't know how I would have reacted to Clinton's recess appointments, because I wasn't following things at the time.

That all having been said, I don't like the idea of recess appointments. They could be important in emergencies, but they seem more like sneaky ways to get controversial nominees in the door. There are obviously problems with Bolton, no matter how much the Congressional Republicans would like to say that it's all just Democratic obstructionism (click on a few of the links two posts down), and a recess appointment would put Bolton in place as the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. until December 2007. That's two and a half years from now.

I'd have less of a problem with a recess appointment if it only lasted until the next time the Senate was in town. But it lasts until the end of the session of Congress ends, and I don't quite understand why. Well, it's probably so that there's at least some continuity, even though the appointment's temporary, but I still don't really like it.

Fargus...

Bush and Yalta

I haven't commented on Bush's comments about the Yalta Conference over a month ago, and I don't really have much to say about it. This fellow, a history professor at Rutgers, says it quite well himself:

If a right-wing Republican like George W. Bush had defeated Franklin Roosevelt in November 1944 and had come to Yalta, what would he have probably done? Sign a separate peace with the remnants of the Nazi regime and try to make the defeated European fascist forces into an army to fight World War III against the Soviets? The peoples of Europe would have generally revolted against that, and the effects of World War II merging into World War III are incalculable. Perhaps a Bush administration might have used the atom bomb against Moscow. There were right-wing “preventive war” elements in the U.S. military in 1945 who dreamed of such a policy. However, the American people in 1945 would not have supported such a war.

Right on.

Fargus...

UPDATE: It appears that I was slightly unclear with this post. The professor was basing his comments on Bush's condemnation of Roosevelt and Churchill for their participation in the Yalta conference. The comment is not an extrapolation of current policy from Iraq applied to World War II. Rather, it is a question of what the options would have been had the U.S. and U.K. not participated in the Yalta conference.

So-called Obstructionism

The mantra of the right lately has been that the Democrats are nothing but obstructionists, and that they have no ideals of their own. Democrats exist, say Republicans, only to try to make life difficult for Republicans (and on a side note, let the 24 links up there that I found in 10 minutes be my not-too-subtle comment on the disgusting homogeneity of the blogosphere).

Am I the only one who doesn't buy this nonsense? To say something like, "They can only criticize our plan when they've brought one to the table" is ignorant and dangerous in itself. It's awfully close to (and only superficially different from) saying, "Any idea is better than no idea." And that's just a nice way of saying, "A bad idea is better than no idea." In other words, "Moving backwards is better than not moving at all."

Nonsense, all of it.

If you believe an idea is bad, then there's nothing wrong with opposing it. You don't have to offer up a countering idea to show that the proposal is bad in comparison. Replacing Social Security with a less-secure system of private accounts is a bad idea no matter what. Letting up the pressure on the privatizers to cave to Republican pressure and "bring something to the table" would be stupid and counterproductive.

Republicans are running scared on a lot of their issues, because they're running up against more roadblocks than they should for a party that controls all branches of government, and which claims to have had the mandate of the American people. But when a minority party is doing all it can to temper the majority's desire to fundamentally alter a lot of our time-honored social structures, that's not obstructionism. That's defense. That's survival.

Not all change is good change, and sometimes being "progressive" means standing still when your opponents pursue negative progress.

Fargus...

Back again

I haven't written for a week, and for that I apologize. I was overwhelmed by wall-to-wall coverage of the Michael Jackson case, and the case of the missing Aruba girl. I haven't looked at too much news over the last week, since the actual news has been few and far between.

I did have a nice visit with some family out in Pennsylvania, and my face is recovering quite nicely. I'm not going to say it's definite, but I may have some sort of mutant healing power. More on that later, maybe.

Anyway, I had a few thoughts today for things to write about, and sometime this week I'd love to write about a few Harper's Magazine articles that my father gave me to read. But really, this time, look for something later today!

Fargus...

Finally, a new poll!

Y'all said you wanted a poll about me, and today's events finally gave me an idea. It's sort of about me, anyway. Check it out, up at the top of the page.

Fargus...

Lesson Learned

Well, actually I guess it was a lesson I should have learned when I was a kid. Stay away from strange rope swings. Even if you've been swinging on them already, you can never trust them.




Lesson learned.

Fargus...