Politics As Usual

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Why does the Times insist on giving space to people like Sontag?

Good lord, Sebby, she IS the Times. How could they NOT?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
Good lord, Sebby, she IS the Times. How could they NOT?

No, she's not. She's an angry loon, like Krugman's become. Its a damn shame as to Krugman. He was once interesting as hell and had great insights. Now, he's a raving partisan who's more politics than economics.

I think Sontag should have ink space, just not center stage alone. She's so completely out of touch and impossibly naive that reading her without an a counterpoint leaves you frustrated. Its like listening to Limbaugh, but I hold the Times to a slightly higher standard than the company which carries Limbaugh. Its technically the "paper of record" in the country, like it or not. Its hould not be handing out five pages of prime space for a clueless professor to prattle on.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
He did not act in Afganistan (at least overtly), while millions were slaughtered.

I would have expected him to have acted more than Carter did when the invasion occured. He would have had trouble attacking the USSR for something it had done well before he became President, wouldn't he? Instead, he armed the Mujahhadin and turned Afghanistan into a Vietnam that led to massive unrest. In turn, this was a big part of killing the USSR. So this one is a little odd.

And I suppose it would be rude to bring up pandering to the apartheid government of South Africa in the name of regional stability. Or was that morally correct?

When did SA turn? I know it was during RR or bush I. See Balt, there are ways to get things done, actually done, that don't rely on boycotting grapes and carrying signs across the Quad.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Its technically the "paper of record" in the country, like it or not. Its hould not be handing out five pages of prime space for a clueless professor to prattle on.

If you could get the Editors to buy into this, it would be about 28% smaller overnight.
What you're missing is that 30% of the country is bitter and horribly unhappy left wing nut-jobs. (there is a matching 30% right) Like my neighbors. I have 2 neighbors with signs in their yard that say "Regime Change Begins at Home." Somehow this strikes me as incredibly out of line, Sadaam=W? Huh?

For a paper like the Times 30% equals an enormous target. Shoot the Times has a Patent section, and i don't think we're 1/2%.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So you voted for Bob Dole in '96? Or did you just hold your nose when you pulled the lever?

You believe Clinton was guided by the law? The decision on the superBowl pool is starting to make more sense to me now.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I would have expected him to have acted more than Carter did when the invasion occured. He would have had trouble attacking the USSR for something it had done well before he became President, wouldn't he? Instead, he armed the Mujahhadin and turned Afghanistan into a Vietnam that led to massive unrest. In turn, this was a big part of killing the USSR. So this one is a little odd.

Perhaps. But if you're being moral, you're being moral. Is it moral to use millions of Afganis as pawns?

As for SA, Apartheid fell apart despite Reagan and Bush, not because of them. It was the protests in the quad (yes, the protests in the quad) that brought public attention to the situation, not the Administration.

Okay, okay, I'm even willing to accept for the sake of argument there may have been behind the scenes pressure on SA from Reagan and Bush that contributed to the fall. But the fact that Reagan didn't invade within weeks, or at the most, months of taking office somewhat belies a moral absolutism that oppressive regimes should be dealt with extreme prejudice, and immediately.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Nonetheless, he is not someone to hold up as an example of action in the face of moral reprehension (as no one in the position of President can).

He did not act in Tibet, while millions were slaughtered.
He did not act in Angola, while millions were slaughtered.
He did not act in Afganistan (at least overtly), while millions were slaughtered.
He did not act in North Korea, while millions were slaughtered.

Tibet? NK? I was speaking of the possible - that we could go into Iraq, or Rwanda, and beat their little pissant armies easily and save millions of lives. These two examples of yours would have us starting WWIII with China. Slightly different calculus.

Afghanistan? He sent tons of arms there to fight off the Soviets. The moral decision in that case was the evil of the "to each according to his pull" system of death.

And, Angola? Basically, same thing, with less intervention. Ask the Portugese what they thought of getting wiped out of there by the incoming Cubans/Russians. UNITA was Angola's last best hope of staying free. (Yes, I define "free" as meaning that the regular people get to help chose their own fate, through democratic participation - not much hope of that under the MPLA.

[Replaced_Texan]

So the Republicans met in their state convention last week, and on Friday, they approved the platform. Some highlights:

• Support for "the traditional definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman."
  
• Support for state legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple.
  
• Support for protection of all "innocent human life" from fertilization until natural death; urging the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.
  
• Opposition to government action to restrict, prohibit or remove from public display the Ten Commandments or other religious symbols.
  
• Denouncement of "any unconstitutional act of judicial tyranny that would demand removal of the words 'One Nation Under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."
  
• Support for adoption of "American English" as the official language of Texas and the United States.
  
• Restoration of plaques honoring the Confederate Widow's Pension Fund contribution that were removed from the Texas Supreme Court and other state buildings.
  
• Support for legislation to allow forcible rape to be punished by the death penalty.
  
• Opposition to the legalization of sodomy. The platform states that sodomy "tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases."
  
• Support for a state school choice policy that allows "maximum freedom of choice in public, private or parochial education for all children."

Source: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/2610020

Related story: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/2610350

The religious right took over the party in 1994 (the year W was entered politics), and they've had a firm grip ever since. I hope moderate Republicans throughout the state really look at this and think about whether this is where they want their party to head.

I can stand behind that final point. I'm horrified that there wasn't a tax bullet point, though given that we have no state income tax (and we're not getting one any time soon), and they're doing all they can to lower our property taxes, the tax issue isn't a huge rallying cry for Republicans in Texas. If we could get our act together on death penalty stuff, I'd be willing to listen on the forcible rape thing, though I think we need to get that program working properly before we expand its scope.

This is Tom Delay's platform, so don't think it only affects the wackos in Texas. This is where they want to take the Republican party.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you could get the Editors to buy into this, it would be about 28% smaller overnight.
What you're missing is that 30% of the country is bitter and horribly unhappy left wing nut-jobs. (there is a matching 30% right) Like my neighbors. I have 2 neighbors with signs in their yard that say "Regime Change Begins at Home." Somehow this strikes me as incredibly out of line, Sadaam=W? Huh?

For a paper like the Times 30% equals an enormous target. Shoot the Times has a Patent section, and i don't think we're 1/2%.

Historically, the Times has always been "the "paper, beleive it or not. If you remove its oped page, you still get the best coverage of any paper in the country. The Wash Post is close, but not quite as good as the Times. Hell, nodding to the mainstream, the Times has even beefed up its Sports and Business pages in the past decade. I don't think it would do so if its target audience were bohemians, academics, left wing freaks and the generally disenfranchised. In fact, at $1.00 a day, a healthy chunk of those people probably can't even afford the Times. I think the Times' target audience is the people who want a better quality of national and intl news and have lousy local papers, which is 90% of the country.

The Philly Inquirer is simply atrocious. If it wasn't for the Times, I don't know what I'd read. The Journal is good, but its focused on business, so you don't get all the interesting shit you get in the TImes.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
So the Republicans met in their state convention last week, and on Friday, they approved the platform. Some highlights:

The Republican Party of Texas approved its 2004 state platform at its convention today. Among the provisions in the platform are:

[stuff]

Source: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/2610020

Related story: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/2610350

It's only 9:30 on a Monday, and you have induced a headache that will likely last the rest of the week. Thanks.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I think the Times' target audience is the people who want a better quality of national and intl news and have lousy local papers, which is 90% of the country.

when the Times first caught me was a Saturday edition I found in an airport. Beyond the "news" is a page long article about a peasant's market in rural China. The story focused on a herbal medicine man there. It was completely pointless, yet utterly fascinating. All i could think was there was no way it would have appeared in the Detroit News or FreePress. I think they rely on wire service for DC news.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The religious right took over the party in 1994 (the year W was entered politics), and they've had a firm grip ever since. I hope moderate Republicans throughout the state really look at this and think about whether this is where they want their party to head.

Some of us are trying. The religious loons have a hold, and they need to be gone, or we need to deaden their influence, but, for some of us, the Kerry/Dean/Gore option still ain't an option.

Rock - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - us - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hard place

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by bilmore
Tibet? NK? I was speaking of the possible - that we could go into Iraq, or Rwanda, and beat their little pissant armies easily and save millions of lives. These two examples of yours would have us starting WWIII with China. Slightly different calculus.

Afghanistan? He sent tons of arms there to fight off the Soviets. The moral decision in that case was the evil of the "to each according to his pull" system of death.

And, Angola? Basically, same thing, with less intervention. Ask the Portugese what they thought of getting wiped out of there by the incoming Cubans/Russians. UNITA was Angola's last best hope of staying free. (Yes, I define "free" as meaning that the regular people get to help chose their own fate, through democratic participation - not much hope of that under the MPLA.

So it's only moral if it's (relatively) easy?

All I'm saying, and Atticus's original point was, I think, is that one of Reagan's problems (and also one of his strengths) was that he felt a great conviction for the absolute moral authority with which he governed. This is problematic for two reasons.

First, it leads to problems when he's sited as an example to be followed when there are failures to intervene in areas where an absolute morality seems to dictate that we should have. If you don't have the resources to fix everything, you have to make choices, and this is difficult to reconcile with absolute morality. Bush I left Saddam in power, and shouldn't have (but did at least weaken him considerably, and returned Kuwait to the Kuwaitis). Clinton allowed attrocities in Rwanda, and shouldn't have (but did intervene in other areas [Yugoslavia, Somolia]).

The second problem (and Atticus's point, if I may speak for him) is that it leads one to believe one is above the law. I have no doubt that those responsible for selling arms to Iran and then diverting the proceeds to support the Contras believe that they acted with absolute moral authority. This disturbs me, because by doing so that acted in direct contravention not just to general laws, but specific laws drawn to specifically prohibit such actions. It apparently disturbs many Republicans less.

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
[*]Support for adoption of "American English" as the official language of Texas and the United States.

Smart. All those chimney sweeps with cockney accents flooding into Texas will surely fray the social fabric unless they're forced to talk like the rest of us. The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain indeed.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Republicans in Texas

Nothing about returning to the gold standard? When did they become so liberal?