Wednesday, March 30, 2005
In the Name of Politics
By JOHN C. DANFORTH
March 30, 2005
NY Times
By a series of recent initiatives, Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.
Standing alone, each of these initiatives has its advocates, within the Republican Party and beyond. But the distinct elements do not stand alone. Rather they are parts of a larger package, an agenda of positions common to conservative Christians and the dominant wing of the Republican Party.
Christian activists, eager to take credit for recent electoral successes, would not be likely to concede that Republican adoption of their political agenda is merely the natural convergence of conservative religious and political values. Correctly, they would see a causal relationship between the activism of the churches and the responsiveness of Republican politicians. In turn, pragmatic Republicans would agree that motivating Christian conservatives has contributed to their successes.
High-profile Republican efforts to prolong the life of Ms. Schiavo, including departures from Republican principles like approving Congressional involvement in private decisions and empowering a federal court to overrule a state court, can rightfully be interpreted as yielding to the pressure of religious power blocs.
In my state, Missouri, Republicans in the General Assembly have advanced legislation to criminalize even stem cell research in which the cells are artificially produced in petri dishes and will never be transplanted into the human uterus. They argue that such cells are human life that must be protected, by threat of criminal prosecution, from promising research on diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and juvenile diabetes.
It is not evident to many of us that cells in a petri dish are equivalent to identifiable people suffering from terrible diseases. I am and have always been pro-life. But the only explanation for legislators comparing cells in a petri dish to babies in the womb is the extension of religious doctrine into statutory law.
I do not fault religious people for political action. Since Moses confronted the pharaoh, faithful people have heard God’s call to political involvement. Nor has political action been unique to conservative Christians. Religious liberals have been politically active in support of gay rights and against nuclear weapons and the death penalty. In America, everyone has the right to try to influence political issues, regardless of his religious motivations.
The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.
When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another.
Take stem cell research. Criminalizing the work of scientists doing such research would give strong support to one religious doctrine, and it would punish people who believe it is their religious duty to use science to heal the sick.
During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all Republicans.
But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.
The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots.
John C. Danforth, a former United States senator from Missouri, resigned in January as United States ambassador to the United Nations. He is an Episcopal minister.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
The Pledge
I pledge rejection
To the flag
Of the Religious Right of America
And against the Republican
For whom they stand
Half a Nation
Under George
Inarticulate
Who takes Liberty
And Justice from ALL
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Wake Up, Sheeple!
It amazes me that people do not realize the seriousness of what is going on around them.
When the government has a aggressive reactionary social agenda to further advantage the wealthy at the expense of the middle and working class and when there is an alignment between the government and the mass media and large corporations, such as corporate suborning of so called democratically elected officials, and reciprocal crony capitalism and administration sanctioned graft extending into the billions of dollars is the rule, that in sum is fascism.
Elections are stolen, the media covers up and ignores the theft, and political parties are organs of corporate political influence. Day after day we get new examples of the same lack of democracy and lack of a balance of interests in government.
This is an administration that distributed fake news releases to promote its Medicare legislation, which were cited by the GAO as illegal propaganda;
The same administration that distributed fake news reports to promote its drug policy, which were cited by the GAO as illegal propaganda;
The same administration that paid a public relations firm to promote its education law with fake news reports, and to rank newspapers on their coverage of said education law;
The same administration that paid Armstrong Williams to promote its education law (a payment he never disclosed);
The same administration that paid a National Review columnist to promote its marriage legislation (a payment she never disclosed);
The same administration that paid another columnist to promote that same marriage legislation (again, a payment he never disclosed);
The same administration that is forcing the Social Security administration to promote its own destruction;
The same administration that allowed a male prostitute with no journalistic experience to get White House press credentials using a fake name, from a fake news source, so he could ask fake ideological slanted questions; (link)
The same administration then gave said reporter access to the classified documents that led to the outing of a CIA operative who was married to a critic of the administration (link);
The same administration that engaged in all of these acts of propaganda and intimidation of critics is now threatening stations if they run a MoveOn ad that opposes their plan to destroy Social Security.
And they are creating do-not-admit lists for public (and publicly-funded) events based on perceived political views.
And their allies are calling us traitorous for suggesting troop withdrawal.
And they think reporters should not be allowed to use anything except administration talking points.
And their allies want to censor a children’s cartoon for supposedly being too pro-gay.
And they want to regulate what can be taught in colleges and universities on ideological grounds.
And they support torture policies.
And they support internment of minorities.
And they support pre-emptive war.
I am sure I left out a bunch of stuff.
There is a crisis in this country, but it is not Social Security.
A new storm is rising.
These are dangerous times for our country.
- Bob Woods
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Clear As Mud
WOMAN IN AUDIENCE: I don’t really understand. How is it the new [Social Security] plan is going to fix that problem?
DUBYA: Because the—all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There’s a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those—changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be—or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It’s kind of muddled. Look, there’s a series of things that cause the—like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate—the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those—if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.
-- Dubya explains the virtues of his Social Security plan, Tampa, Florida, Feb. 4, 2005
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Bush to Poor: Drop Dead
By Will Durst, AlterNet.
Posted February 22, 2005.
You know what surprises me most about Bush’s new budget proposal? I’ll tell you what surprises me most about Bush’s new budget proposal. What surprises me most about Bush’s new Budget Proposal is that the front gates of the White House aren’t being knocked down by legions of outraged clergy armed with spiked bats and pitchforks and acetylene torches screaming for the head of any of the leering corporate lackeys possessing even the remotest of roles in submitting this moral crime against humanity to Congress. And that the ruling class lets Bush get away with this potentially revolutionary, inciting crap. That’s what surprises me most about Bush’s new budget proposal.
And I don’t use the term “ruling class” lightly. His tax cuts for the rich: not only do they remain in defiance of the largest deficit EVER, but King Leerer intends to fight to make them permanent. HOWEVER, for any program involving anybody who isn’t rich: oh yes, cuts do exist. Severe cuts. Cuts o’plenty. Cuts to the bone, unless those bones happen to be located in the vicinity of the cholesterol laden limb of a fat cat.
Apparently the plan is to balance the budget on the nutritionally-deprived, uninsured backs of the inadequately-medicated poor. That’s the deal: budget cuts if you’re not rich, tax cuts if you are. Less money for those who don’t have any and more to those who do. That’s how President Fredo says we’re going to get out of the giant deficit hole he’s dug. You can’t put it any more simply. Rich people richer. Poor people poorer.
Here’s just a sample of what he plans for our future with a handy reminder of why. Because you can’t hear it too much. For those of you with a strong stomach and a low threshold of infuriation, feel free to read on. For the rest of you, this might be a good time to check out your horoscope or some of the cheerier comic strips like Family Circus.
*Tighter restrictions on Food Stamp eligibility so rich people can have more money.
*Federal Drug Administration inspection teams sacked so rich people can have more money.
*Highway and infrastructure improvement budgets slashed so rich people can have more money.
*An 11 percent reduction in Homeland Security funds available to state and local coordination efforts so rich people can have more money.
*$250 million cut from programs to train child care doctors and other health care professionals so rich people can have more money.
*Small Business Administration cut from $3.3 billion to $.6 billion so rich people can have more money.
*Increase on charges for Veterans’ health care so rich people can have more money.
*Cutting Federal Foster Care Programs so rich people can have more money.
*Cutting Medicaid and Medicare benefits so rich people can have more money.
*Ending community services block grants, a $637 million program that helps pay for community action agencies founded more than 35 years ago as part of the fight against poverty so rich people can have more money.
*Proposed cuts in aid to farmers, seniors, children, students, cops, veterans, the homeless, the hungry, the environment, Amtrak, AND the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention so rich people can have more money.
*Gutting the low-income home energy assistance program which is mostly used by the elderly. That’s right friends, he’s cutting winter heating subsidies to the elderly so rich people can have more money. What are we now: The Gorgar People? Let’s just cut to the chase. You hit 65, we ship you to the Aleutian Islands and place you on an ice floe with matches and a pointy stick. If you’re a Republican, we take away the stick, because it’s considered an entitlement. Did the political comic Will Durst mention most of these cuts are necessary to insure that rich people can have more money? Because he meant to mention most of these cuts are necessary to insure that rich people can have more money. And the poor less.
