AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

The last few, or is it many, pages were mildly amusing at first and then became just plain aggravating, as posters sniped at each other about who said or did not say what.
We now are down to studying what the dictionary says about the word "virtual."
It happens to be on my top ten list of the most misused words of the decade, but that is neither here nor there.
Can we move on, now? A2K has a pm function that would probably be appropriate to resolve any issues without involving the rest of us.

I spent a bunch of time reading about Wisconsin today. Just when I thought I understood it all, I stumbled onto something else. I am so virtually confused.

With the exception of you.

You imply that the words un-American and traitor are synonyms. Context makes the difference.

The most famous use of the term un-American was in the title of the infamous House un-American Activities Committee which almost tore the country apart.

However, this is from wiki and it demonstrates that those two words are not as alike as you think:


"The use and meaning of the term is by no means uniform in the US. Due in part to these historical associations with political abuses and jingoism, the attitudes of Americans toward the pejorative use of "Un-American" are often critical or suspicious. Moreover, Americans may vary widely in what they believe to be un-American.

Recent years have seen the term applied liberally regardless of political persuasion. It is most often used by a person commenting on the beliefs or actions of others that they believe is contrary to "American values."[citation needed] This highlights the wide variance in personal definitions of the phrase.
Additionally, some have described as un-American recent federal legislation in the U.S. that they view as an attack on civil liberties.

The term (or similar sentiments) has been used by political supporters in the media to describe actions or beliefs that are critical of their candidate's policies.

The term "un-American" may be used in ad hominem attacks, meant to quash the arguments of American opponents by depicting them as subversive, unpatriotic or deviant. As a result, it is often[citation needed] used in a satirical or sarcastic manner; similarly, its frequent appearance in situations that do not merit its use has further diluted its original, pre-McCarthyism meaning."

Finally, okie, parados did not use gutter language. He did not call you any of the famous seven words that can not be printed in a family newspaper.

WHile we are on the subject of quotes and misquotes, both CI and CYCLO have pointed out incidences of you misquoting yourself.

I think he can't remember what he says because he has more than one identity on these boards.

Stephen Colbert to Bill O'Reilly: You are like Thomas Aquinas: from the 13th Century.

By Rebecca Traistor, of Salon:


As part of their stated mission to focus on jobs (specifically, the job of preventing women from getting healthcare), House Republicans this afternoon voted 240-185 to bar federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

This is a big win for Rep. Mike Pence, the Indiana Republican whose deficit-minded crusade against Planned Parenthood hinges not on the argument that taxpayer money shouldn't pay for abortions (the Hyde Amendment put a stop to that in the mid 1970s), but on the conviction that taxpayer money should not go to organizations that provide abortion services, regardless of what else they might do.

Pence's plan, which will likely stall in the Senate, would mean the end of federal support for an organization that each year provides more than 800,000 women with breast exams, more than 4 million Americans with testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, and 2.5 million people with contraception, which, not for nothing, is the stuff that prevents unintended pregnancy, and thus abortion, to begin with.

In Friday’s Washington Post, former Catholics for a Free Choice president Frances Kissling suggested that the current, harrowing onslaught against reproductive rights should force the pro-choice movement to alter its path and redirect what has indeed become a slightly stale message.

Though I'm not sure I see eye-to-eye with Kissling on which particular path to take, I agree that now is the time for women and men who believe in women’s rights, health and liberty to reclaim the language of morality and life, long coopted by abortion foes, as our own. Because what the Republicans have made clear in the weeks since they took over the House is that there is most certainly morality at play here, there are most certainly lives at stake: the lives and the moral value not of the unborn, but of the living, breathing women of this nation.

Pence and his fellow Republicans are not simply taking aim at a particular medical procedure -- one that, I would nonetheless submit is an integral component in women being able to control their bodies, their health, their careers and thus their economic, social and political freedom. But this isn't simply about the question of abortion itself. What Pence and the House of Representatives did today was devalue women's lives, women's rights and women's ability to participate fully in the democracy. The excuse used by Republicans is that we are saving taxpayer money. Saving money in exchange for breast exams, cervical cancer screenings, STD testing and care: Welcome to the movement that has long billed itself as "pro-life."

In the midst of the House battle, two congresswomen underscored precisely these points, and in doing so, offered vivid evidence of why, exactly, it makes a difference to have a governing body that includes members of differing genders, races, classes, perspectives and experiences.

In response to Rep. Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican, who had taken to the floor to read aloud a description of a second-trimester abortion procedure he'd found in a book, Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier of California described a second-trimester abortion procedure she'd had in her life. Speier told of a procedure she'd had at 17 weeks pregnant, when something went wrong with her pregnancy. "For you to stand on this floor and suggest that somehow this is a procedure that is either welcomed or done cavalierly or done without any thought, is preposterous," Speier said, directing her comments at Smith. "Planned Parenthood has a right to operate. Planned Parenthood has a right to provide services for family planning. Planned Parenthood has a right to offer abortions. The last time I checked, abortions were legal in this country ... I would suggest to you that it would serve us all very well if we moved on with this process and started focusing on creating jobs for the Americans who desperately want them."

Meanwhile, late Thursday night, Georgia Republican Rep. Paul Broun had trotted out the old canard about Planned Parenthood being a bunch of eugenically motivated abortion enthusiasts, pointing out that "there are more black babies killed through abortion proportionally than there are white babies or any other colored babies."

Responding to Broun's deep concern for the well-being of black babies (a concern that apparently ends when those black babies grow up to need breast exams or cervical screenings) Wisconsin Democrat Gwen Moore said, "I know a lot about having black babies. I’ve had three of them. And I had my first one ... at the ripe old age of 18. An unplanned pregnancy."

Moore told the story of her labor, of not having had a phone or a cab or the money for a cab to the hospital. She went on, "I just want to tell you a little bit about what it’s like to not have Planned Parenthood. You have to add water to the formula to make it stretch. You have to give your kids Ramen noodles at the end of the month to fill up their little bellies so they won’t cry ... It subjects children to low educational attainment because of the ravages of poverty. You know, one of the biggest problems that school districts have in educating some of these poor black children who are unplanned is that they are mobile; they are constantly moving because they can’t pay the rent ... [P]ublic policy has treated poor children and women who have not had the benefit of Planned Parenthood with utter contempt. These same children, it has been very difficult to get them health insurance through CHIP."

This is rhetoric that must now be blasted from the rooftops. Those of us who have been raised on and come to rely too heavily on the limp language of choice must listen and then yell it as well. Opponents of reproductive rights are working -- successfully, today -- to prevent women from receiving the healthcare that they and their families require; they are working against the well-being of women.

Morality is not the exclusive domain of the unborn, whatever we have been told for decades. Morality is on the side of women, on the side of children, on the side of a society that offers aid to its impoverished and to its young and does not discriminate against half its population. In Moore's words, "Planned Parenthood is healthy for women, it’s healthy for children, and it’s healthy for our society."

Plainoldfool, did you find those new plastic parts you were looking for?

Senator KErry spoke in my area yesterday. His subject was transportation. As I drove into work -- his speech was slated to begin an hour after my shift would -- I noticed signs outside the building where the gathering at which he was speak would be held. One read, "I'm not Fonda Kerry." Those people need a calendar.

BTW, the only protestors who received coverage were those on the left, the anti-war protestors.

It's been a rough few months for Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Ginny.

First, in October, Ginny left a bizarre, early morning phone message for Anita Hill asking her to apologize for the sexual harassment accusations she leveled at Thomas 20 years ago. Then, in January, the good government group Common Cause revealed that Thomas claimed "none" for "spousal noninvestment income" on a disclosure form during years where his wife pulled in six figures working for two conservative organizations, the Heritage Foundation and Liberty Central. Having a wife who worked for a group that opposed healthcare reform raised the question of whether Thomas should recuse himself in future cases on the law's constitutionality. (74 House Democrats think so and they sent Thomas a letter saying as much).

Now Common Cause has just revealed that Thomas took an all expenses paid trip in 2008 to Palm Springs for four days to make a speech with money that he says came from a conservative legal group but that may have actually come from the controversial company Koch Industries. In 2010 the Supreme Court overturned limitations on corporate political spending in Citizens United v. FEC. The Koches -- staunch fiscal conservatives who own an energy conglomerate -- have run wild with that new freedom, so Common Cause argues that Thomas should have disqualified himself from ruling in Citizens United. (If Thomas had recused himself the 5-4 decision would have been tied 4-4 and the lower court ruling upholding the spending limits would have stood.)

Experts on legal ethics don't all agree on whether Thomas should have recused himself in Citizens United and whether he will be honor bound to do so for healthcare reform. But they are unanimous in their condemnation of Thomas' dishonest filings on his disclosure forms. "Since it went on for six years [2003-2007 and 2009] it's especially troublesome," says Stephen Gillers, a prominent expert on legal ethics at NYU law school. "It's impossible to claim it's an oversight."

It would be comforting to think that Thomas' shady behavior was an anomaly, but it's actually just the most egregious example of trends that have made Supreme Court justices seem more like hypocritical and partisan politicians than disinterested jurists. If left unchecked, the court will seriously damage its public image.

The problem has two roots: changing social norms and lax ethical rules governing the Supremes. The former is beyond the scope of our government but the latter isn't, and Congress should act.

Supreme Court justices work in a weird, gray area, with virtually none of the ethical or legal impositions that most similarly powerful people are subjected to. The Code of Judicial Conduct that governs the behavior of federal district and appeals court judges does not apply to the Supreme Court. If it did there would be a bunch of regulations on justices, such as a rule against speaking at fundraisers for advocacy groups, which they are currently free from. The Supreme Court says it follows the principles of the code, but there is currently no way to force it to.

The only binding rules for justices are the laws governing conflict of interest. And even they have no enforcement mechanism: If a justice decides not to recuse himself, the aggrieved party is out of luck because there is nowhere to appeal.

Just ask the Sierra Club, which in 2004 filed a motion asking Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from hearing their effort to make Dick Cheney reveal the members of his secret energy task force. Scalia had just been on a hunting trip with Cheney, and the case had the potential to embarrass Cheney just before the 2004 election, but Scalia refused to recuse himself. Short of impeachment, which is incredibly rare, there is no way to discipline a justice who does not follow the law on recusal, which says that a judge should recuse if his or her "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Many experts, such as Gillers, think Scalia should have recused himself in the energy task force case, but -- in violation of the principle that no one can be his own judge -- Scalia got to decide that he thinks he's perfectly impartial, thank you very much. And that was that.

With no penalty for breaking the law, it is more likely to happen. "There is no effective deterrent," says Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University's law school. "You have a significant violation by [Thomas] and virtually no accountability."

Public disapproval is one way to impose accountability, but that seems to not exert the pull it once did. Whereas justices were once wary of speaking out on controversial matters, they have become more comfortable speaking their mind, even on matters before the Court, and often in front of partisan audiences. Just the day before the first revelations about Thomas broke, Turley published an Op-Ed in the Washington Post lamenting this trend of "celebrity justices," and criticizing Scalia for recently speaking at the congressional Tea Party Caucus' Conservative Constitutional Seminars. "It allows justices to merge their role in cases with the broader political debate, robbing the Court of the appearance of neutrality," says Turley. (Case in point: Earlier this month Thomas, speaking at a Florida college, vociferously defended the Court's decision in Citizens United and attacked specific newspapers whose editorial boards disagreed with the ruling.)

Other experts caution that engaging with and educating the public on constitutional law is a good role for justices to play. But there is widespread agreement that without any rules placed on speaking engagements, questionable situations like Thomas' free trip will arise.

So, if justices were following the Code of Judicial Conduct, would Thomas have broken the rules? Some would argue that being reimbursed for travel is not the same as accepting a speaking fee, which would clearly be forbidden. Critics like Common Cause counter that four free days in an expensive resort town is a form of payment. And what about ruling on healthcare reform in light of his wife's work? That would depend on how much of Ginny's work is focused on that law and how she might benefit from him overturning it.

It's hard to figure out the answer to those questions when you don't have access to all the relevant information. That's part of the problem with our current system. "Justices aren't required to disclose as much as they should be," says Bill Yeomans, a former Department of Justice official who teaches at American University's law school.

These problems are not limited to conservative jurists. In December, the Senate removed Thomas Porteous, a district judge in Louisiana appointed by Bill Clinton, for a number of ethics violations. Some of Porteous' actions that led to his impeachment included filling out forms during his confirmation process and personal bankruptcy proceedings with false information -- an awfully similar transgression to Thomas'. Will Congress uphold the same principles where Thomas is concerned?

There's some reason to be optimistic. This past week, Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill to create an inspector general for the judiciary who would have authority over the Supreme Court. That -- combined with a law that would impose the important elements of the Code of Judicial Conduct on the Supreme Court and create a mechanism to enforce it -- could help save the Court from itself.

Ben Adler covers politics and national affairs for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He previously worked for Politico and his writing has also appeared in The Atlantic, Columbia Journalism Review, The Nation, The American Prospect and The Washington Monthly among other publications.

Proving once again that democrats hate all BLACKS AMERICANS
that have successfully escaped the liberal progressive plantation.
Your liberal mob is ready to hang these Americans from a tree.

Wow! One of these days, you might actually write something that relates to and reflects reality. Should that event ever occur, then the software that supports this forum will crumble and the A2k apocalypse will put an end to this and other forums/fora.*

*For the sake of your understanding, waterboy, fora here -- as your fellow traveler david would love to point out -- is the plural of forum and not the usual accompaniment to fauna.

Interesting. Has Common Cause or any other liberal group yet investigated Barrack Obama's political career in Chicago and Illinois in regard to some of the special special deals they were involved with, including Michelle Obama's cushy job for the hospital in Chicago? It would be comforting if that shady behavior was an anomaly, but if instead it is an egregious example of a trend with the president and his wife, and if left unchecked, it will continue to seriously damage their public image.

Left wing liberal progressive democrats hate all BLACKS AMERICANS.

Great reading for libs, as follows:
http://www.nbra.info/

You don't have anything to actually say regarding Thomas' indiscretions? All you can do is turn it into an attack on Obama?

This is why I say that you are horrible at defense, Okie. You just ignore issues on your side of the fence rather than address them, because you know they are unsupportable.

Cycloptichorn

I am not familiar with "Thomas's supposed "indiscretions." It strikes me as obviously a case of partisan investigative work however, as no such Obama indiscretions are ever talked about by liberal groups. Don't you ever tire of the obvious double standard you and your side have, cyclops? Do you think people are so blind as to not see the double standard? If the same yardstick had been applied to Obama, he would never have been elected in the first place. Are you that intellectually dishonest?

Look, I have no objection to enforcing ethics and law when it comes to public servants. However, I want them equally applied to all politicians in all branches of government. I am not the only one fed up with the double standard that you guys employ. It seems as if the end justifies the means as far as the Democrats are concerned, and I am frankly fed up with it.

What were "Thomas' indiscretions" ? A free trip ? Federal Judges and other SC Justices do that all the time. Is he (or anyone) properly blamable if Justice Scalia declines to recuse himself in a case merely because an advocacy group (the Sierra Club) asks him to?

The whole thing looks fairly contrived. The truly interesting element in this is the penchant for liberals to persistently attack and demean blacks who have the temerity to stray off their assigned Democrat plantation.

Some of the most vicious attacks upon conservatives have been on black conservatives, george, often by liberal black groups. That is why I have particular admiration for the political courage of black conservatives, to endure the attacks in order to stand up for what they believe.

And I think your point is a good one, what is common practice by other justices on the court? How come there are no similar accusations brought against liberal judges, if some of these things are common practice? Perhaps what should be what really investigated is "why the double standard?"

You weren't aware of Thomas' failure to disclose his wife's income on over 5 years of Federal disclosure forms even though required to do so by law?

Uh, no; it's the fact that he failed to recuse himself from cases in which he had a financial interest through his wife's work. And failed to declare her income or work on his paperwork for something like 15 years now.



It's got nothing to do with race at all - I don't care what color the guy is. I do care that he makes money, directly, off of ruling a certain way.

I know you don't really give a **** about ethical considerations for gov't officials, but some of us do. And so does the law.

Cycloptichorn

I took what you posted as hint at what could be found with a quick search, and sure enough it was almost immediate. It is obvious that this is to target Thomas, but similar stuff goes on with liberal judges all the time. Is there any question about liberals double standard here? Here is a sample of what I found in a couple of minutes, and I am sure there would be tons more available with more work.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/20/AR2011022002961.html

"Take Justice Stephen G. Breyer's 2008 trip to Vienna to attend the World Justice Forum, which is sponsored by what some conservatives consider the liberal American Bar Association; Justice Breyer next traveled on the ABA's dime to attend the group's international law symposium in Japan, where critics might assume that he picked up fresh ideas about how to insert foreign judicial notions into his jurisprudence. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spent several days in Montreal in 2006 courtesy of the American Sociological Association, which billed its meeting as "an intellectual platform to explore how the constructs of race, religion, gender, sexuality, class and nation create serious inequalities, conflicts and human suffering." And in 2009, just before her Supreme Court nomination and while she was a federal appeals judge, Justice Sonia Sotomayor enjoyed a week's respite in sunny San Juan, Puerto Rico, thanks to the American Civil Liberties Union. Enough said. "