Month: August 2009

Why are guns at political protests bad? It’s not because they may pose a threat to political figures like President Obama (though they do), it’s because guns at such events can serve only two purposes. One of those is to silence legitimate free speech and peaceful asssembly through the use of intimidation. The other one? They can be used to shoot people. Any people who just happen to be in and around the area. For example:

ROSEANN CANFORA: The shooting itself took thirteen seconds. The photograph that you’ve probably seen and many of the historic photographs of that day, where Alan was carrying the black flag, he was the student activist who walked closest to the Guard when they were on the field. So there’s a photograph of us in the Davies book where he walks close to them with the black flag, and I could see they were aiming at him. So I said, “This is—you know, they’re aiming their guns. Let’s, you know, get out of here.” And he said, “I want to see where they’re going,” because that’s when they started their ascent.

I went back to the parking lot. Alan stayed, you know, down in that area. And like I said, when the shooting started, thirteen seconds of gunfire. If you look at a watch and you watch a secondhand tick by, you realize what a hideously long time that is for men with gas masks and steel helmets to look through the scopes of their weapons, aim into the crowd in the distance, of unarmed college students, and then to fire for thirteen long seconds. […]

Three feet behind me was the body of Bill Schroeder. He was an ROTC student who was against the war. And I could tell that he was dead. He had blood splattered all over his neck, and he had been shot in the back. And I saw someone attending to a young woman in the Prentice parking lot. That dorm you see over there, I mean, like as far away as the last car that you see there, is where Sandy Scheuer was. I saw Bill Schroeder there. I ran over to Sandy. Sandy was a friend of mine. She was so grey, because she’d been shot through the jugular vein over 300 feet away. And it’s that moment when I had seen two students prone, and both of them dead, that I remembered that the last place I saw Alan would have put him directly in the line of fire.

So I started running across the parking lot and toward the body of Jeff Miller, just praying that it wasn’t Alan. And it was just when I came upon Jeff’s body that one of Alan’s friends came up behind me and said Alan and Tom both got hit.

It was—I was nineteen. It was surreal at that moment to see people lying dead. But what was most shocking was not just watching these soldiers, American soldiers, making that ascent and then turning and shooting at us, but once they did that horrific deed, as people lay dying, they turned and walked away, went down that hill and left them there. These armed soldiers that were sent to this campus to protect life and property just took life and walked away.

That was state sponsored violence used to intimidate and kill antiwar protesters and innocent bystanders because some bank building windows had been broken earlier in the week of protests. Completely different situation, you might say. But what mechanism exists to prevent “private” gun owners from gathering at rallies and deciding that they have the right to defend themselves from unarmed people who disagree with them? Maybe people shouting at them, arguing with them. Do you really think that the security and law enforcement personnel at these events, whose focus is primarily on the protection of the politicians, would be able to stop a determined group of individuals with guns exercising their “second amendment” right to bear arms if a massacre broke out, whether through mistake or as part of a design by said group to instigate such violence and create martyrs for their cause when law enforcement eventually responded with return fire?

We’ve already seen incidences of politically motivated murders against innocent people by gun toting right wing terrorists in the the case of FOX News junkie, Jim Adkisson, the murder of Dr. George Tiller by Scott Roeder and Holocaust Museum shooter and white supremacist James Von Brunn. In the face of the frequent hatred expressed and veiled threats made against President Obama and his supporters in the media, is it wise to dismiss such fears as ludicrous, as Megan McArdle, a libertarian blogger at The Atlantic has done? Frankly, you have to question the sanity of people brandishing firearms at political events, but even moreso, the intelligence of conservatives who assert this is no big deal. Would they have said the same thing if armed antiwar protesters had appeared outside events staged by former President Bush or Vice President Cheney? I highly doubt it.

Reasonable people can disagree, we are told. However, there is no good reason to bring armed weapons to a political event. None at all. And laughing off the concerns of Obama’s supporters and others who want to see health care reform passed regarding the attendance of armed private citizens at political gatherings is a priori unreasonable.

I’m sorry I haven’t been posting lately. I am attending to some private family matters and should be back with you sometime soon. I haven’t looked at the intertubes in over 24 hours, but I got some quality hate mail nonetheless. It’s always refreshing to be told that I suck.

Carrie Prejean, former Miss California and NOM poster woman is back in the news and to be clear it has nothing to do about hating gay people. Allegedly. Actually, there’s no evidence she hates gays, she just doesn’t want any of them to have the same rights as “opposite marriage” people (the ones formerly known as heterosexuals) because God doesn’t want gay people to tie the knot that binds. And she believes that she was denied her God Given rights and discriminated against for her religious views by the Miss California USA officials who fired her as Miss California for “failure to meet her contractual obligations” earlier this year when she made a habit of attending hate fests religious services sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) rather than events she was (allegedly) required to attend on behalf of the Miss California USA organization.

“We will make the case that her title was taken from her solely because of her support of traditional marriage,” her attorney, Charles LiMandri, said in a news release.

The complaint will be filed in Superior Court of California against Miss California USA officials Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler, as well as publicist Roger Neal.

It alleges that Prejean suffered because of “libel, public disclosure of private facts, religious discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.” […]

When Prejean, 22, was dethroned in June, [Miss California USA official Keith] Lewis said it was for “contract violations,” including missed public appearances.

He said then it wasn’t one thing Prejean did, but “many, many, many things.”

Lest you forgot who in the heck NOM is and what they represent, here’s the scary commercial they ran a while back about the gathering storm of gay married people who were coming to huff and puff and blow up their sacred institution of opposite/traditional marriage to kingdom come (and make baby Jesus cry, to boot):

If this seems like a stupid publicity stunt to you, well, you’re not the only one. I hope Prejean’s attorneys (are they paid for by NOM too?) get their law licenses handed to them.

Update [2009-8-31 17:51:27 by Steven D]: Prejean’s attorney (and NOM’s General Counsel) in his own words on the “societal suicide” which gay marriage represents:

Can we stop this societal suicide – possibly, but not if we can’t stop same-sex “marriage” in California in November 2008, and not without supernatural help. Without the foundation of Religion and Morality that George Washington and the other founding fathers provided for us, there is simply no real hope for the future of this country.

Finally, since it is only in our maleness and femaleness that we are made in the image and likeness of God, the destruction of the concept of gender is perhaps Satan’s greatest accomplishment. Moreover, since the sacramental marriage of a husband and wife is used to image the relationship of Christ and His Church, even the idea of same-sex “marriage” is a sacrilege. Therefore, separate and apart from the seemingly accurate prognastications of Professor Unwin, I just don’t see how a God of Justice can tolerate such a diabolical mockery of His divinely ordained institution of marriage for very long. Indeed, the same man to whom our Lord entrusted the Keys to the Kingdom warned us that: “…in the last days there shall come deceitful scoffers, walking after their own lusts… ” (2 Peter 3:3).

That said, use this as a place to post your news links of the day in the comments!

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Like millions of my fellow citizens, I am reflecting after the death of Ted Kennedy. Death is an egocentric experience for the survivors. Indeed, rituals such as funerals, wakes or in the Jewish religion “sitting Shiva,” is really about nurturing the souls of those left behind. That is also true when it is a public figure or celebrity that has died. We may never have met them or knew them yet they touched us nonetheless. The Kennedy family understands this better than anyone and is well practiced in rituals that not only honor the dead but comfort the living.
President John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy were assassinated before I was born. They touched my parents, but to me they were legendary martyrs and almost mythical. In 1980 however, their very real brother delivered the first political speech that ever captured my attention at the Democratic convention. I was only a kid but inspired by Kennedy’s defiant idealism following defeat. As I grew older, I appreciated Kennedy’s quest to stand up for the voiceless as predatory conservatism systematically destroyed the hopes and dreams of society’s most vulnerable. Remarkably, Kennedy always managed to fight the good fight with a smile even as he remained true to his principles.

Kennedy’s civility and statesmanship was rightly extolled among his colleagues as ideologically diverse as Chris Dodd and Orin Hatch. And certainly there is virtue with respect to how Kennedy never looked upon his adversaries as “enemies.” Hence, Kennedy forged a record and legacy as America’s most accomplished liberal legislator. More children have health insurance because of his legislative partnership with Orin Hatch. More Americans were empowered to vote because of his crossing party lines to collaborate with Bob Dole. In 1982, Kennedy joined forces with a young conservative Senator from Indiana named Dan Quayle so more citizens would receive job training.

Kennedy’s generosity of spirit as so many conservative voices demonized him and his family is an inspiration we can all learn from. True Kennedy was a flawed man and his dishonorable and irresponsible conduct resulted in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. If I were a member of her family I likely could never forgive. Yet I find it ironic how so many conservative critics who champion Christian values could find so little virtue in Kennedy’s personal quest for redemption. Kennedy was a flawed man with his heart in the right place who tried to do well. Alas, too many politicians are intolerant of the imperfections of others and pursue policies that cause more harm than good.

Yet as members of the establishment political class honor Kennedy’s “bipartisanship” we should never forget that his political leverage stemmed from authenticity and conviction. When other Democrats preferred triangulation Kennedy unapologetically carried the liberal banner. In 2002 and 2003, while too many Democrats cowered as the Bush administration pursued a reckless war of choice with Iraq, Kennedy unequivocally and forcefully opposed it. Ultimately, Kennedy’s strength and compassion, enhanced the stature of those who entered into principled compromises with him. With all due respect to Orin Hatch, without Ted Kennedy he was just another callous conservative.

In comparison, one’s stature simply cannot be enhanced by compromising with tools of the medical industrial complex such as senators Max Baucus and Evan Bayh. How can anyone with an ounce of common sense or deductive reasoning have any faith in any compromise forged by plastic figures like those two agents of corporatism? To be sure, many Democrats, in the House especially are unwavering in their support of the public option. Sadly though, President Obama has sent mixed signals about how staunchly he supports it and key Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee such as Max Baucus are more beholden to the insurance companies than their constituents.

Kennedy’s absence from the debate has left a void that is being filled with feckless Democrats, corporate shills and homicidal right wing ideologues. It’s an enormous void that will take many figures and years to fill. Presently, I don’t see anyone on the scene, including I regret to say, President Obama, who has the political intuition and will to fill it. Kennedy understood that politics was intensely personal. As a figure who suffered great personal loss he tapped into raw emotions on behalf of the voiceless better than any Democrat since his brother Robert Kennedy.

Today, as I mourn Senator Kennedy, I am also thinking about my best friend from high school. My friend prefers to remain anonymous so I’ll refer to him as John Doe or JD. JD and I re-established contact after almost no communication for the preceding twenty plus years through online social networking. Isn’t it strange how life works that way? JD and I talked nearly every day for four years but after graduating we went our separate ways.

Anyway, I learned that three years ago, JD sustained a brain injury following a car accident and is currently disabled. Previously, JD was professionally successful and thriving. He also married and has a six year old daughter. The fates were not kind to my friend and the accident has turned his life upside down. Today, JD is desperately motivated to rehabilitate, recover and resume an active life. Sadly, the medical industrial complex is an obstacle to his getting better. Here is how JD described his most recent encounters with insurance bureaucrats:

“I should send my story to a town hall meeting to explain why health care needs to be a single payer. I went to an orthopedic for the first time today as my back is killing me. After 3 years of shots to numb the pain and non-stop pain killers I feel it is time to try and find the cause and not just numb it, which does not work.

I gave the orthopedist rep at the front desk my no fault information and expected stupidly that it would just go through without a problem. Of course that did not happen. She called No Fault and was told that my account was closed on 7/5/09 and that I was not entitled to any further payment for my injuries.

I knew this was BS as they just agreed to pay for a different doctor last week and even if this was true you would think that would have notified me.”

Already, JD’s experience is sadly familiar for too many citizens. Yet his frustration would only get worse:

“This day was the first time I was told that I was denied going to a orthopedic doctor in 2006 as I was told then I did not need it. I told the supervisor on the phone that I found this strange considering that today was the FIRST time I had even gone to an orthopedist so how could I be refused something that I have never gone to before to see if I could even get any help from them. I then said that it makes no sense because they continue to pay for my pain management doctor, which basically just gives me shots in my back and medication for pain. In other words I said to the supervisor, you will pay for me to get drugs and be numb but you won’t pay to fix the problem?”

JD’s experience grew even more absurd:

“This idiot then said that if I want to challenge this ruling that I would have to send them further information proving that I have these problems in my back and neck that would warrant this care. I have gone thru that before and I could tell you stories about that. But I said, OK I could do that as I had all of that paper work in the orthopedics office now and I could fax it immediately.

He THEN said something beyond stupid. That because the IME was in 2006 there was a chance that the doctor would not be found to review the addendum to change his mind. Yet, the doctor that said I was fine would have to get the new information and than have to admit that he was wrong, which isn’t happening. To further piss me off, the supervisor tells me that even if I send in the information that if the doctor could not be found that even the new information would not change anything, they could not contact another doctor to review it and that their original opinion would stand. So I said to the guy, you are saying that if I show you proof that I have these problems you STILL may not pay for this? He said yes. I said that is BS. I then ranted on him how could I be denied seeing an orthopedic before I even TRIED to go to one before. The guy was an idiot so I said that I wanted to speak to HIS supervisor. The guy said that I can but he will say the same thing. I said I still want to talk to him. He took my number and said he did not know when he would get back to me.

I went to the doctor anyway as I was there for 2 hours, stressed out of my gord, and having the doctor submit it to No Fault, have them deny it and then go thru my medical.”

I felt helpless and angry as I read this closing paragraph from my friend:

“This is yet another stupid war I have had with these people over the last 3 years. They expect me to give up by giving me the run around and I refuse to until they give in. They push and push as most people would just give up. THIS is why we need a single payer Medicare for all so this shit won’t happen. I just want to get better and these idiots are making it harder for me to do so.”

Ted Kennedy who knew tragedy and loss was on the side of people like my friend. It was often a lonely fight as he went up against the institutional strength and money of the medical industrial complex. Making the fight even harder is that too many of Kennedy’s colleagues in both parties have served as enablers of the parasitic insurance industry. Indeed, the struggle for economic and social justice must have often felt to Kennedy like he was climbing a greased hill in bare feet. Even so he continued to put every scrap of prestige and talent at his disposal in pursuit of a more prosperous and just society. The “cause” endured for him far longer than his personal ambitions. Alas, too many figures today care more about being big than doing good.

There is no single figure anymore that possesses the combination of gravitas and will to stand up for people like my friend as Ted Kennedy did throughout his career. It is therefore incumbent upon all of us to fill the void Kennedy left behind. As JD confided to me recently, until his accident he didn’t have much interest in politics. Today JD understands just how high the stakes of political discourse are. On any given day, any one of us could have their lives turned upside down just like my old friend from high school.

Ted Kennedy, who had his life turned upside down numerous times understood that better than anyone.

They do everything bigger in Texas, I’ve been told. Well almost everything:

For some folks in Texas, the prospect of a universal health care scheme isn’t just cause for protest and debate — it’s reason enough to secede from the United States altogether.

Some 200 people rallied at the State Capitol in Austin on Saturday, a small but vocal crowd that set itself in opposition to pro-health care reform protesters.

Larry Kilgore, a Christian activist that the Texas Observer says has advocated execution for homosexuals, “drew some murmurs of disapproval” when he told the crowd: “I hate that flag up there. … I hate the United States government. … They’re an evil, corrupt government. They need to go. Sovereignty is not good enough. Secession is what we need!”

“We hate the United States!” he declared later in his address.

Here’s the video:

I pity the fool. And by that reference I specifically mean Larry Kilgore. If health care reform is enough to make him go secesh on the US than he and those like him really are pitiful creatures. Maybe he can go hole up in some small West Texas enclave and declare his forty acres of wasteland the Republic of Gilead. I bet it would make a great reality show for the Fall TV season. I’m sure FOX would pick it up in a heartbeat.

I got some things going on today, so light blogging. How did Team Cheney do on the morning shows?

I was watching Dr. Robert Ouellet, the President of the Canadian Medical Association, on C-Span’s Morning Edition as he took calls and questions on Canada’s single-payer system. The most important thing he did was blow holes in the myths which are being actively promoted by the Right-wing health opponents. I wish everyone could be watching or listening to this and, if as is the case on Sundays, C-Span reruns this morning’s program on C-Span 3 in the afternoon, then it would be worth catching it and listening.
In connection with this program, I would refer you to a long article I read last night on Truthout, titled “Don’t Get Sick.” by Gail Pellet, a Canadian living in the United States, who makes a detailed defense of Canada’s system and part of the history of how it came about as a result of the work of  T. C. (Tommy) Douglas, a Baptist minister turned politician in Saskatchewan (and, interestingly enough, the grandfather of Kiefer Sutherland.)

This from the article:

In 2004, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation conducted a poll to determine whom Canadians thought was the greatest Canadian of all time. It was not Pierre Trudeau, Joni Mitchell, Dan Aykroyd, Leonard Cohen, Margaret Atwood, Lorne Michaels, Oscar Peterson, Peter Jennings, Celine Dion, Neil Young, Keanu Reeves, nor Wayne Gretzky. It wasn’t even Keifer Sutherland or his dad, Donald. No, it was Keifer Sutherland’s grandfather, Tommy Douglas, who is credited with making sure that Canadians would have universal, government-funded health care. When Canadians are periodically polled and asked what they are most proud of, in addition to peacekeeping, it is their national health care system.

The Canadian system is single-payer, however YOU select your doctor (sounds a little like what Obama keeps saying and the Repiglicans keep denying). Ouellet, who is the outgoing President of the CMA, originally spent a great deal of effort to get the Canadian system privatized, until a polling of the country revealed that 85% of the population wanted to improve the public system and had no interest in privatization. He then worked to strengthen the one area that has been called up as weak and that is waiting periods for some proceedures in some parts of the country. He points out that these are not that geat and in the last couple of years since the 2004 poll have been greatly reduced. It should be noted that NONE of the complaints about waiting periods apply to emergencies or necessary needs of major diseases. As one person on the phone with Ouellet on C-Span said: “If you have cancer, Canada is the best place to be.”

It is problematic that we, as Americans, don’t like to listen to other countries and their successes. We have had the same response to systems in Great Britain and France that we have had to Canada, that is, we are unique, and special, etc.etc. etc…. meanwhile our lives are shorter in length and we are further down on the scale (37th exactly) when compared to the Health Care programs in other countries. This is our peculiar problem, and we suffer for it.

By the way, if you are interested in how Tommy Douglas got Saskatchewan and then the whole country to move toward the program they have now, then you might be interested in a speech he is famous for when he founded the New Democratic Party. It’s called “Mouseland” and this animated video is introduced by Kiefer Sutherland HERE Note… this is not about Health Care, but about political change and, glory be, it applies to us as well.

Under The LobsterScope

I don’t like to mix religion with politics. When I do so, I do it always in an entirely defensive manner. I want to prevent our government from enacting legislation which enshrines one idiosyncratic religious view as the law of the land. I majored in philosophy and I studied the ancient Greek of the Gospels. I consider myself about as well versed in scriptural matters as your average first-year divinity student. I’ve read the Dead Sea Scrolls and the heretical gospels. I think I am qualified to argue matters of religion. I am pretty confident that I have never brought out philosophical arguments to make political points. I have never said that so-and-so is wrong and here is the passage from Nietzsche that proves it.

For me, politics exist on somewhat of a non-rational plane. You don’t win elections or political disputes by besting your opponents on debating points. Nevertheless, I want to make an exception tonight. I want to quote a bit of Bertrand Russell’s 1927 essay, Why I am Not a Christian.

You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.

You may think that I am going too far when I say that that is still so. I do not think that I am. Take one fact. You will bear with me if I mention it. It is not a pleasant fact, but the churches compel one to mention facts that are not pleasant. Supposing that in this world that we live in today an inexperienced girl is married to a syphilitic man; in that case the Catholic Church says, “This is an indissoluble sacrament. You must endure celibacy or stay together. And if you stay together, you must not use birth control to prevent the birth of syphilitic children.” Nobody whose natural sympathies have not been warped by dogma, or whose moral nature was not absolutely dead to all sense of suffering, could maintain that it is right and proper that that state of things should continue.

That is only an example. There are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. “What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy.”

Now, it is no longer 1927, and the Catholic Church has moderated its policies. You need not agree with Russell’s justifications for eschewing Christianity. I make no argument against the religion or any of its varied sects. That is not my intention in quoting Russell. In 1879, Connecticut enacted a law that prohibited the use of “any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception.” It was an “uncommonly silly” law. In 1965, the Supreme Court of the United States struck it down in a 7-2 decision called Griswold v. Connecticut. They reasoned that the government could not so intrude into the privacy of married couples as to prosecute them for using contraception. In other words, they found a right to privacy in the Constitution.

And, really, without getting overly legal with you, the Constitution authorizes the government to act to benefit the general welfare and prohibits them from infringing on our liberties without due process of law. Those two principles, taken in tandem, ought to prevent the government from passing moral regulations that are impossible to enforce without prying deeply into your personal and family life. But that argument does not appear to have been too convincing to Bob McDonnell, the Republican candidate for governor of Virginia.

After, in 1965, the Supreme Court ruled that Connecticut couldn’t deny the right to contraception to married couples, it ruled in 1972 that Massachusetts could not deny the right to unmarried couples. Bob McDonnell, in a 93-page Master’s Thesis for Pat Robertson’s Regent University, objected to the 1972 ruling.

He described as “illogical” a 1972 Supreme Court decision legalizing the use of contraception by unmarried couples

This was consistent with McDonnell’s overall hostility to female autonomy.

His 1989 thesis — “The Republican Party’s Vision for the Family: The Compelling Issue of The Decade” — was on the subject he wanted to explore at Regent: the link between Christianity and U.S. law. The document was written to fulfill the requirements of the two degrees he was seeking at Regent, a master of arts in public policy and a juris doctor in law.

The thesis wasn’t so much a case against government as a blueprint to change what he saw as a liberal model into one that actively promoted conservative, faith-based principles through tax policy, the public schools, welfare reform and other avenues.

“Leaders must correct the conventional folklore about the separation of church and state,” he wrote. “Historically, the religious liberty guarantees of the First Amendment were intended to prevent government encroachment upon the free church, not eliminate the impact of religion on society.”

He argued for covenant marriage, a legally distinct type of marriage intended to make it more difficult to obtain a divorce. He advocated character education programs in public schools to teach “traditional Judeo-Christian values” and other principles that he thought many youths were not learning in their homes. He called for less government encroachment on parental authority, for example, redefining child abuse to “exclude parental spanking.” He lamented the “purging of religious influence” from public schools. And he criticized federal tax credits for child care expenditures because they encouraged women to enter the workforce.

“Further expenditures would be used to subsidize a dynamic new trend of working women and feminists that is ultimately detrimental to the family by entrenching status-quo of nonparental primary nurture of children,” he wrote.

He went on to say feminism is among the “real enemies of the traditional family.”

What I find really problematic with McDonnell’s youthful views is that they so closely resembles the views that Bertrand Russell found so objectionable in 1927. A woman that is locked into a marriage and forbidden from using birth control (and unable to legally decline sexual advances from her husband) is a total victim of circumstance. Even if a doctor tells her that she may not survive another childbirth, so has no legal way of avoiding becoming pregnant or of terminating the pregnancy. Her life may be sacrificed to the adherence of a particular dogma. Even if she is in good health, her husband may have syphilis or AIDS or some other condition that could affect the health of a baby. But she is legally powerless.

I don’t care if you want to be a Christian or not. But if you want to know why I am not a Republican, this is why.