Category: Political

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Two excellent posts from Sheila to pass on:

The latest covers the Lieberman defeat and the ludicrous accusations that the Joe Lieberman site was hacked. As was discovered and discussed in numerous publications, the Lieberman campaign hosted the site on a cheap server, and then paid the price when it received too much attention.

Lieberman stood for something once upon a time. Whatever it was he stood for, though, was lost in the 9/11 attacks. He lost his perspective, and now he’s lost the race. Running as an independent, as he has threatened, just shows that he’s about to lose the one thing left: his dignity.

On the other hand, the ‘people’ weren’t entirely the winners, as has been proclaimed. The Lieberman challenger, Lamont, may have made effective use of the grassroots to run his compaign, but he also made a great deal of use of his personal wealth. He wasn’t exactly one of the little people.

Still, hopefully this will shake up the Dems enough to force the party into something other than Republican Light.

Personally, I preferred Sheila’s other story, on juke boxes and a new documentary associated with juke boxes. I loved the boxes from the 40’s and remember fondly the cafe we used to go to at the junction of this highway and that; with its juke boxes at the table, which always left me wondering: how did the system know which song to play next?

The first story is about more important doings, but I’m finding that everything there is to be said about politics and the world at large has been said already: we’re just each taking turns shuffling the words around, some better than others.

The juke box story, now that topic was fresh.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I read an opinion piece yesterday that reflects much of what I feel about the publication of the cartoons depicting Muhammad. In the piece, Simon Jenkins wrote:

A newspaper is not a monastery, its mind blind to the world and deaf to reaction. Every inch of published print reflects the views of its writers and the judgment of its editors. Every day newspapers decide on the balance of boldness, offence, taste, discretion and recklessness. They must decide who is to be allowed a voice and who not. They are curbed by libel laws, common decency and their own sense of what is acceptable to readers. Speech is free only on a mountain top; all else is editing.

Despite Britons’ robust attitude to religion, no newspaper would let a cartoonist depict Jesus Christ dropping cluster bombs, or lampoon the Holocaust. Pictures of bodies are not carried if they are likely to be seen by family members. Privacy and dignity are respected, even if such restraint is usually unknown to readers. Over every page hovers a censor, even if he is graced with the title of editor.

We seem to believe that any form of censorship is inevitably evil. Yet we censor our speech every day. I don’t tell the overweight woman in the checkout line that the twinkies she’s buying are harmful; I don’t get into a battle at work with the co-worker who wants to hang a cross in his or her cubicle, not because I don’t have beliefs of my own, but because I pick my battles and I make them work. I practice some self-control.

Sometimes the truest freedom of speech is knowing when to speak, and when to shut up.

I am a huge believer of freedom of speech, but this really isn’t the issue in regards to the recent protests and the continuing publication of these same cartoons in different newspapers. If the issue was freedom of speech, then the same people who support the publication of these cartoons would also support the burning of crosses in Jewish townships; the publication of white supremacist slogans in black neighborhoods; the rising number of Nazi symbols in European countries where once this symbol meant death to those who are different.

These cartoons are nothing more than anti-Muslim sentiment, thinly veneered with the respectability of freedom of speech; in the normal course of events, we would condemn them. Consider the irony that in the UK, while the BBC proudly proclaims its freedom of speech rights and re-publishes the cartoons, Nick Griffin walks free from a court room where he had been charged with inciting racial hatred. This is the same Nick Griffin who accused Asians of wanting to drug and rape white women; blacks of being pedophiles; asylum seekers as cockroaches.

For those clamoring for freedom of speech, how would you feel seeing blacks portrayed as monkeys in your local newspaper? How would you feel seeing Chinese portrayed as ‘evil yellow men’ in your favorite magazine? I would imagine that most of you would be disgusted and would condemn the actions, at a minimum demand that those responsible be fired. Yet you’ll smile and point with superiority at the Islamic people’s reactions to seeing their faith, themselves really, portrayed as a religion based on terrorism.

We say all speech, even hate speech, should be free–but there is no responsibility tagged on to this freedom, and as such, then it is a cheap, toss-away of what freedom of speech truly means. Speech such as this inevitably leads to actions and it is only a tarnished tinsel thin step from words to actions in our societies. Haven’t we learned from our own past that ’saying’ blacks aren’t really human is almost always a precursor to action? To a rope being wrapped tight around a black man while he is dragged behind a vehicle until his body is torn to pieces? Or that if all gays are perverts, taking hatchets to their faces is just and Godly?

There is no responsibility for the actions that result from these expressions of ‘free speech’. Those who support the free expression of speech either benefit directly from them, or divorce themselves completely from the consequences.

(As for those who condemn all religions, I am beginning to find that those of you who eschew religion are just as blind to the faults of your belief as those who follow some God. Yes, your belief. There is a new religion; it is called atheism and is just as intolerant as any other faith built around being a ‘true believer’. )

I have seen many of the cartoons in question, and they are incredibly offensive. Yet I still, because I must, support freedom of speech–yes even hate-filled speech such as those exhibited by these cartoons. It makes me angry. It makes me angry that I have to defend these cartoons, or give up my belief in this freedom. I will defend the rights of those who publish such works, but I am not going to applaud the actions of the cartoonists, or the newspapers, in publishing these cartoons. They have not struck a blow for freedom of speech; they’ve only cheapened it, and themselves.

More importantly, the irresponsible use of one of our more important rights could ultimately lead to the loss of this right. As Jenkins wrote:

The question is not whether Muslims should or should not “grow up” or respect freedom of speech. It is whether we truly want to share a world in peace with those who have values and religious beliefs different from our own. The demand by foreign journalists that British newspapers compound their offence shows that moral arrogance is as alive in the editing rooms of northern Europe as in the streets of Falluja. That causing religious offence should be regarded a sign of western machismo is obscene.

The traditional balance between free speech and respect for the feelings of others is evidently becoming harder to sustain. The resulting turbulence can only feed the propaganda of the right to attack or expel immigrants and those of alien culture. And it can only feed the appetite of government to restrain free speech where it really matters, as in criticising itself.

As for the violence in certain countries, to extrapolate from this to a condemnation of followers of the religion as a whole only serves to justify the hate–on both sides of this particular fence. Those who gleefully point out the burning of the Danish embassies as some form of justification for their support of hate speech, neglect to point out the peaceful protests in this country and many others; or the fact that many (most) religious leaders in the Islamic community strongly encourage only peaceful protest, and condemn any form of violence.

The second Times article I linked wrote on speech that is deliberate provocation:

The bottom line, say some critics, is that provocation is counter-productive. It feeds the paranoia and influence of small extremist groups who can do disproportionate damage to British society in the name of the wider Muslim population, most of whom do not share their views.

Years ago when we protested the Vietnam war, there were those in the protests who deliberately sought to inflame the others who marched peacefully. They exercised their freedom of speech in order to flame the anger that always exists, deep in the heart of any protest; exists, but is contained for the most part. Then when the inevitable confrontation would occur, they would melt away into the crowd, their goal of creating chaos and disruption having been met for the day.

Did such actions lead to the Vietnam war ending earlier? Not a bit of it. Speech that is deliberately done, in order to provoke a violent response, never leads to anything constructive in the end. Martin Luther King did not cry out, “I have a hate”, he called out “I have a dream”. What we remember from Tiananmen Square is one man standing, silent, in front of the tanks–not with brick in hand, to the side. If we want to remember what’s truly at stake in regards to freedom of speech, this latter image is the one I would rather celebrate, than that mockery of ‘freedom’ that came out of Denmark.

There’s a link going round to a story by a couple of emergency medical workers who survived Katrina, but only after suffering deception and unimaginable hardship. (Another related story.) It’s a horrid story of thousands of people trapped in New Orleans because outlying townships would not let them cross over the bridges into their communities. I’ve heard people use the term racist, condemn the town, the police, and all the people in it.

Here’s another story about Gretna, from a predominantly black neighborhood. Here’s another, again from survivors who did cross the bridge through Gretna, without being turned back, but not being allowed to stay. Here’s the web site for Jefferson Parish, of which Gretna is the community center. Here’s an interview with the Parish President.

One of the primary reasons we have a National Guard is for incidents of extreme emergency, when communities will feel threatened, cut off, and on their own. When this happens, most will pull in and put up barriers — not because they’re ‘bad’ people or don’t care; but because at some point the people think no one will help them, and they are all that stands between salvation and destruction.

The National Guard replaces the small town sheriff, the neighborhood cop, and others too overwhelmed to exercise good judgment, or even common decency. And, if the Guard also brings with them food, water, medical care, and a reminder that the people aren’t alone, they give hope for those who are feeling trapped. When people no longer feel trapped, they are capable of great good. When they are trapped, well, how hard would you fight to protect your home and your family?

We weren’t there in that time, behind the fences erected–on either side of the bridge. We can’t possibly comprehend the devastation, the fear, and how after day one, day two, day three, day four, day five, we might react in similar circumstances. I won’t condemn any of those forced to live, and act, under these conditions, because I’ve not been in such a devastating position; I hope to God never to be. I don’t know what I would do. I don’t know if I would end up sinner or saint, or just some tired, hungry, thirsty, scared woman desperate for something normal.

I do agree, though, with Ralph: this is not my America. But it is. It really is. This is you and me, children. This is you and me, on both sides of the bridge.

MediaGirl wrote a well thought and extensively argued essay in response to another thoughtful essay written by Liza Sabatar at Daily Kos. Both were about a recent conference call with NARAL about a controversial NARAL sponsored ad against Supreme Court candidate John Roberts. In the ad, Roberts is accused of aiding those who would bomb abortion clinics, because, as part of his job, he wrote anti-abortion briefs.

About the NARAL members, Liza had this to say:

How can I say this without sounding too harsh? Well …. hmmmmmm … The leaders sounded maternalistic. The call came down to them defending the ad because not only do they know what they are doing; but because they’ve been doing it for so long, they should lead and we should follow: This is the deal : It is us and it is them.

We were supposed to take their words as gospel and go about banging away at our laptops. We were to blog rabidly, faithfully, obediently.

The timing on reading this was a bit uncanny, as I had just finished watching the movie Iron Jawed Angels: the true story of Lucy Burns, Alice Paul, and the fight for women’s suffrage back in the beginning of the last century. Burns and Page were also at odds with the leading women’s suffrage organization of the time (the National American Women’s Suffrage Association) and split off into a separate organization (the National Women’s Party), which supported more direct methods to work for the vote for women.

But I digress. To return to Liza and MediaGirl’s discussion, both seque into a strongly philisophical discussion of the nature of feminism, arguing whether it is post-modern/deconstructionist/post-structuralist, which is beyond this poor geek’s understanding of modern philosophy. What caught my interest the most, instead, was the writing at the end of MediaGirl’s post–when discussions focused on the fight for rights are sometimes seen as a splintering apart of the “progressive” movement.

MediaGirl quotes a comment Kos made in Liza’s post:

Here’s the thing — people may think I’m dismissive (and other male bloggers), but our problem isn’t with what these groups are fighting for. I think the Constitutional Amendment to enshrine privacy is brilliant.

Rather, it’s clear that all the progressive groups, and that includes the women’s stuff, are getting killed right now. We’re losing on multiple fronts because we’re fighting multiple battles. The right is a cohesive movement. They’re united. We’re divided. And hence we’re losing.

So criticism of these groups is taken as criticism of their goals, when really, it’s criticism of their ineffectiveness. We all want the same thing.

There was some digression into Kos, the person, which tends to happen in these discussions (women write about women’s issues, liberal male comments, discussion then changes to circle around liberal male’s comments), and Kos’ disingenuous I’m just a boy with a blog remarks were rather entertaining, but MediaGirl focuses in on what I think is the essential element in the discussion: that NARAL’s ad, and working for women’s rights (and gay rights for that matter), is seen as a betrayal of the Democratic Party.

But cityduck perceives the top problem with the left as being:

(1) Identity politics: This should be self-explanatory. The hispanics advocate for hispanic rights, the gays advocate for gay rights, the feminists advocate for women’s rights, etc., too often it seems that the advocacy is not for principles but for groups.

Setting aside the indictment of identity politics — that’s worthy of another long blog post, if not an entire blog — what the heck is this about “women’s rights” as being identity politics? We’re talking about equal rights here, and moves against women that have implications for everyone.

Back to the “maternalistic” rhetoric….stefanie76 had enough of it:

It’s probably just me … (1.00 / 3)

but I’m willing to bet this only got bumped up because Liza is willing to kiss ass as much as the bootlickers around here.

Choice has been a winning strategy for decades. It’s only losing because Democrats are moving away from it.

Note the 3 downratings on her comment, presumably for calling out the bootlickers. She makes an important point, though — The Democrats have abandoned their position, and then used their retreat as justification for the abandonment. It’s not a popular fact, but you see it all the time these days in the “Do you want to be right or do you want to win?” arguments.

(I’ve never understood the benefit of ‘rating’ systems for comments–they strike me as just another way to re-arrange the bodies in a major pile-on. )

This highlights a growing, and disappointing, move in the DNC to ‘compromise’ on issues like abortion and rights for gays: backing away from some of the support for abortion in the ranks of the party, as well as urging gays to be patient in regards to their rights. We are, rather frequently, reminded of how much ‘worse’ it can be if the other party wins. We are asked to think of the big picture, and the long-term: of winning now, to gain later.

Oddly enough, this isn’ t the first time that the DNC has encouraged women and other ‘political minorities’ to be patient. Back in the early 1900’s, women’s rights were tied into support for the Democratic party at the time, including support for Woodrow Wilson as President.

Burns and Page, though, refused to endorse Wilson because he had not followed through on a promise to bring about the vote for women. They so outraged the Democratic Party, which after all had counted on the women’s vote in those states where it was legal, that the Party hired counter-protestors to assure the populace that the rights of women were always on the minds of the DNC.

Not to be deterred, another method Burns and Paul devised to fight for women’s rights was based on tactics used in the suffrage movement in the UK. They started a silent protest out in front of the White House, the first of its kind practiced in the United States.

The women would take banners proclaiming their hopes, and anger, and would stand silently on the walk in front of the White House, on either side of the main entry gates. This vigil continued peacefully enough, and even earned sympathy, until the United States entered World War I. In the past women had given up their fight for suffrage during times of war, most particularly the Civil War, and the assumption was that women would do the same in these circumstances. After all, how could women distract the government at a time when good American boys were dying overseas?

This time, though, the women who continued this protest–several hundred strong–wouldn’t back down on the issue, and continued the silent protest.

The populace turned on the women protestors, accusing them of being traitors for not giving unquestioning loyalty to Wilson. The government arrested them on trumped up charges of obstructing traffic, and sentenced them to two months service in a working prison or ten dollars fine–expecting the women to pay the fine (and hopefully bankrupt the coffers of the organization). Instead, the women chose prison time, saying that to pay the fine would admit guilt and they were not guilty of anything but standing up for their rights. Over two hundred would end up serving sentences of several months duration in Occoquan, a work prison in Virginia.

By all accounts, Occoquan was a hell hole, and the women were demeaned and treated harshly, as if they were common criminals rather than political detainees. To protest the conditions in the prison, Paul went on a hunger strike and was eventually force fed. Others joined the strike and the publicity derived from their efforts and the treatment afforded them eventually forced Wilson into publicly leading the cause for an amendment granting women the right to vote–calling the move a needed “war measure”, to save face.

Wilson had no choice. To do otherwise, to ignore those so determined, would be political suicide for the Democratic Party.

By the by, I’m still voting Green.

(Pointer to discussion from Lauren: my number one source on all things feminist.)