What Liberals Believe

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Politics

Liberalism is defined in the Chicago Tribune by Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago. (via Shakespeare’s Sister.) The article in full —

For most of the past four decades, liberals have been in retreat. Since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, Republicans have controlled the White House 70 percent of the time and Republican presidents have made 86 percent of the U.S. Supreme Court appointments. In many quarters, the word “liberal” has become a pejorative. Part of the problem is that liberals have failed to define themselves and to state clearly what they believe. As a liberal, I find that appalling.
In that light, I thought it might be interesting to try to articulate 10 propositions that seem to me to define “liberal” today. Undoubtedly, not all liberals embrace all of these propositions, and many conservatives embrace at least some of them.
Moreover, because 10 is a small number, the list is not exhaustive. And because these propositions will in some instances conflict, the “liberal” position on a specific issue may not always be predictable. My goal, however, is not to end discussion, but to invite debate.
1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that “time has upset many fighting faiths.” Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.
2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)
3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion expansion of the franchise; the elimination of obstacles to voting; “one person, one vote;” limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech. They believe, with Justice Louis Brandeis, that “the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people.”
4. Liberals believe “we the people” are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind. It is liberals who have defended and continue to defend the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge the government, the protection of individual privacy from overbearing government monitoring, and the right of individuals to reproductive freedom. (Note that libertarians, often thought of as “conservatives,” share this value with liberals.)
5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion the rights of racial, religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, persons accused of crime and the outcasts of society. It is liberals who have insisted on the right to counsel, a broad application of the right to due process of law and the principle of equal protection for all people.
6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support government programs to improve health care, education, social security, job training and welfare for the neediest members of society. It is liberals who maintain that a national community is like a family and that government exists in part to “promote the general welfare.”
7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith. It is liberals who have opposed and continue to oppose school prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools and who support government funding for stem-cell research, the rights of gays and lesbians and the freedom of choice for women.
8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties. It is principally liberal judges and justices who have preserved and continue to preserve freedom of expression, individual privacy, freedom of religion and due process of law. (Conservative judges and justices more often wield judicial authority to protect property rights and the interests of corporations, commercial advertisers and the wealthy.)
9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false. Because liberals respect competing values, such as procedural fairness and individual dignity, they weigh more carefully particular exercises of government power (such as the use of secret evidence, hearsay and torture), but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens.
10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values. It is liberals who have demanded and continue to demand legal protections to avoid the conviction of innocent people in the criminal justice system, reasonable restraints on government surveillance of American citizens, and fair procedures to ensure that alleged enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants. Liberals adhere to the view expressed by Brandeis some 80 years ago: “Those who won our independence … did not exalt order at the cost of liberty.”

Continue ReadingWhat Liberals Believe

Ben Stein is fucking batshit crazy

Former Nixon speechwriter and Ferris Bueller actor Ben Stein weighs in on the Foley scandal in the American Spectator, illustrating that he’s not only homophobic as hell, but off his damned rocker.

We have a Republican man in Congress who sent e-mails to teenage boys asking them what they were wearing, and an entire party, the Democrats, whose primary constituency, besides the teachers’ unions, is homosexual men and lesbian women. I hope it won’t come as a surprise to anyone that a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys. (Take a look at anyone renting Endless Summer next time you are at the video store.)
Don’t get me wrong. My very best friend is gay. I have many gay friends and they are great people. But how the Democrats, the party of gays, can be coming down this hard on a MC who’s gay is simply beyond belief. One of my top, favorite congressmen, Barney Frank, is openly gay. Might he say a word in defense of his fellow gay MC right about now? Hmm, I thought not.

On what fucking planet is that the case? I know hundreds of gay men. None of them are interested in young boys. I’ve been to their houses, seen their movie collections (including the porn), paged through their magazines. No young boys anywhere in them. And no Endless Summer movie, either. I had to look that movie up to even see what it was, and I don’t see anything gay or pedophile-related about it.
I hope your “very best friend” is kicking your anti-gay ass right now, Stein, because I don’t want to have to.

Continue ReadingBen Stein is fucking batshit crazy

Simply Naughty Emails

The White House referred to Republican Representative Mark Foley’s sexual contact with underage congressional pages as “simply naughty emails.”

SNOW: Yes, look, I hate to tell you, but it’s not always pretty up there on Capitol Hill. And there have been other scandals, as you know, that have been more than simply naughty e-mails.

Does this seem like “simply naughty emails” to you (of course, it’s a chat, not an email)?

Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.
Teen: ya I cant wait til dc
Maf54: 🙂
Teen: did you pick a night for dinner
Maf54: not yet…but likely Friday
Teen: ok…ill plan for Friday then
Maf54: that will be fun

And another message:

Maf54: I want to see you
Teen: Like I said not til feb…then we will go to dinner
Maf54: and then what happens
Teen: we eat…we drink…who knows…hang out…late into the night
Maf54: and
Teen: I dunno
Maf54: dunno what
Teen: hmmm I have the feeling that you are fishing here…im not sure what I would be comfortable with…well see

Looks to me like he met the kid, at least once. And the other chats he asked them to describe their masturbation techniques, measure their penises, etc.

The coverup is really entertaining — House Speaker Dennis Hastert is currently pulling press releases from his website about his efforts to “Keep Kids Safe in Cyberspace” from his website, because he knew about the scandal, possibly as early as 2001, and didn’t do anything.

Check out Think Progress’ timeline about which Republicans knew about Foley’s predatory behavior, and when they knew it. It’s like a Who’s Who of GOP Leadership — aside from Hastert, NRCC chairman Tom Reynolds, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), Chairman of the House Page Board, House Majority Leader John A. Boehner, Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA).

Other Republican spin on the Foley scandal:

1) “It’s just like Clinton!” — except that she was an adult, not a 16 year old kid.

2) “It’s a GAY thing! Let’s ban gay marriage to keep this from happening!” — No, it’s a child predator thing. It doesn’t (and shouldn’t) matter what the sex of the kids were… they were teenagers, and he was a 50 year old guy.

You know that ain’t right. And Foley has nothing to do with my loving relationship with another consenting adult.

Continue ReadingSimply Naughty Emails

Chapter Titles in Jim McGreevey’s Book

From “The Late Show With David Letterman,” Top Ten Lists:

10. “The Day I Got Caught Governing Myself”
9. “How to Pretend to Like Girls for 47 Years”
8. “From Schwarzenegger to Pataki: Governors I’d Like to Oil Up”
7. “Another Confession – I Can’t Resist Entenmann’s Pound Cake”
6. “At First I Just Thought I Was Bipartisan”
5. “The New Jersey Budget Crisis – What Would Judy Garland Do?”
4. “A Look at the Governor’s Balls”
3. “Politicians Who Left a Bad Taste in My Mouth”
2. “How to Push Through a Bill – Or a Steve or a Larry…”
1. “Why I Don’t Like Bush”

Continue ReadingChapter Titles in Jim McGreevey’s Book

How long before I get “disappeared”?

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Politics

Today, the Senate approved the president’s new Torture and Unlimited Detention bill, legalizing torture and permanent detention of “enemy combatants” as well as allowing a broad definition of who fits that description, granting the President sweeping new powers. The bill suspends habeas corpus, and allows the President to decide who is an “enemy combatant” and to detain them indefinitely without basic civil rights provided by the constitution.
Give that, and given this scary-ass passage from the end of the declassified NIE Report:

“Anti-U.S. and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint… We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train and obtain logistical and financial support.”

And given that some on the right have already labeled me a “Liberal extremist” — how long do you think it will be before I disappear to Guantanamo Bay, never to be seen again?
I better contact Amnesty International, and take some cookies to the Homeland Security Guys parked outside my house for weeks.

Continue ReadingHow long before I get “disappeared”?

Torture in the name of the USA and Jesus Christ

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Politics

Regarding all the recent back and forth regarding what the definition of “torture” is and what the Geneva Conventions mean, and whether we should be engaging in torture or “coercive interrogation” — here’s my two cents, for what they’re worth.

1. If you wouldn’t allow someone to do it to your own kids, it’s torture.
If Bush wouldn’t run the twins through it, then he shouldn’t be doing to anyone else. If you wouldn’t want it done to the people that you love, then it’s MORALLY WRONG for it to be done to anyone. What Bush is doing is immoral and unchristian. Keep in mind that they people they’re interrogating haven’t been convicted of anything. We don’t know if any of them are actually guilty of anything. Some of them are American citizens. If we allow this in the name of the “War on Terror”, what’s to stop them from using it in the next “War on ________” — a war that you might accidentally get caught up in?

2. It’s been proven that torturing people doesn’t gain you real information.
Over and over this has been proven — people will tell you what they think you want to hear if you torture them. They don’t give away secrets at all, they make shit up. There’s no evidence we’ve gained any useful information from any of they people they’ve tortured so far.

3. The rest of the world already hates us — why validated their hatred?
I’ve said it over and over again, but it bears repeating — Bush is making all their lies true. He’s taking all the false rhetoric of fanatical countries and making us the mirror image of it. The more he does this, the more they hate us. We aren’t “rooting out terrorists” anywhere — we’re systematically making more of them. This is a war that will never, ever end, because we’re constantly manufacturing more of our enemies through our own actions.

Continue ReadingTorture in the name of the USA and Jesus Christ

The “dangerous” gay community

From today’s Indianapolis Star:

But lawmakers and judges are a different matter. Legislators have been carrying guns into the Capitol for years, exercising what they say is their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Twenty-five of Indiana’s 150 senators and representatives had permits to carry concealed weapons in 2003, according to a study published by The Journal Gazette of Fort Wayne.
Sen. Brent Waltz is among the elected officials licensed to carry a sidearm under his coat. He supports the security measures and does not plan to bring his gun to the office after the new steps are implemented.
“I’d probably check it at the door,” Waltz said. “I think it is not a bad thing to have fewer firearms in the Capitol.”
Waltz, R-Greenwood, said he is not worried about his safety inside the Statehouse, but his trip to and from the building sometimes makes him a little nervous.
Lawmakers, Waltz said, vote on emotionally charged issues — such as proposals to ban gay marriage or abortion — and occasionally receive death threats from those who disagree with their positions.
“Certainly there’s a level of risk anyone involved in public life takes,” Waltz said. “It’s important for government to try to reduce those risks as much as possible.”

I sent this email to Senator Brent Waltz’ office:
Since you brought up gay marriage as one of the “emotionally charged issues” that must mean you’ve received a death threat from someone in the gay community, right?
I’ll be giving your office a call in the next few days to get more information on the death threat you received. I write for an online paper, and I’m going to do a story on this. I’d like to talk to Senator Waltz, and with any police that investigated the threat to find out more about where it came from and what follow up occurred.

Continue ReadingThe “dangerous” gay community

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.
The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

So according to our own intelligence agencies, we are not “safer but not safe” as President Bush says. We’re actually much less safe that we were on September 11, 2001. That is, the country in general is less safe. Here in Indiana, we’re still in Indiana. You’re in more danger from Christian terrorists than Islamic ones. Meanwhile:
From the L.A. Times:

Army Warns Rumsfeld It’s Billions Short
The Army’s top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.
The decision by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army’s chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, say current and former Pentagon officials.

And we’re over eight trillion dollars in debt. The estimated population of the United States is 299,573,166 so each citizen’s share of this debt is $28,343.67. Pay up, kids, the Army needs to blow up more people.

Continue ReadingSpy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

The Hugo Chavez Book Club

When Hugo Chavez spoke to the United Nations on Wednesday, calling George W. Bush “the devil,” he help up a copy of MIT linguistics professor Noam Chomsky’s “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance” and recommended it to the General Assembly and the American people.

“The people of the United States should read this… instead of watching Superman movies,” Chavez later told reporters. Chavez also said one of his great regrets was not meeting Chomsky before he died. Chomsky is alive and well at 77.

Chomsky’s book has since shot to the top of Amazon’s Bestsellers list from number 20,664.

Prompting the question, what other books does Hugo read?

Hugo Chavez Book Club

Continue ReadingThe Hugo Chavez Book Club

The purser wants you to stop that

New Yorker article on a gay couple who were ordered to stop kissing on an airplane:

Shortly after takeoff, Varnier nodded off, leaning his head on Tsikhiseli. A stewardess came over to their row. “The purser wants you to stop that,” she said.
“I opened my eyes and was, like, ‘Stop what?’ ” Varnier recalled the other day.
“The touching and the kissing,” the stewardess said, before walking away.
Tsikhiseli and Varnier were taken aback. “He would rest his head on my shoulder or the other way around. We’d kiss—not kiss kiss, just mwah,” Tsikhiseli recalled, making a smacking sound.
In the row behind them were Leisner and Jackson. “They were like two lovebirds,” said Leisner, who is a classical guitarist. Frobes-Cross, a Columbia grad student who was sitting across the aisle, had overheard the stewardess’s decree, too. “First thing I catch is ‘You have to stop touching each other,’ ” he said. “And I’m, like, Whoa, that’s really weird.”

After discussing the issue further with the crew, the pilot of the plane told them that they needed to shut up or he would divert the plane. The airline officials also refused to speak to the when the plane landed.
The airline tried to claim that the policy was in place for all couples, but when people called in later to ask, they admitted that straight couples are not prohibited from kissing each other on the plane.
I would so be in trouble for this, because Stephanie and I hold hands and kiss all the time.

Continue ReadingThe purser wants you to stop that