Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

nimh wrote:

Quote:

Well, I should have specified that I was referring to a specific strings of posts, namely those immediately following Thomas's, here ("but frankly, you don't live here"), here ("She has a point. Come live with the people and do it for a long time and then state an opinion. The value of statistics only goes so far. Since none of us can live everywhere, it would be a good idea to consider the experience of those people who do live in whichever region is being discussed") and here ("To argue from familiarity and experiential knowledge is not a logical fallacy. To deny such is. And our intuitions suggest this to us. [..] And cyclo's manner was not of an insulting sort.")

nimh,
It's interesting how one person's perceptions can be so different from another's about the same event. That's why I believe we need both logic and subjective experience to help us find our way. I didn't think I was telling Thomas off at all......it didn't feel like I was. But I have no statistics with which to prove it. Maybe you can take my word for it this time. And I'll take your's that you thought I was. And we can stop now, all of us, or at least you and I, sounding like Craven in this respect. We could be guilty of much worse behaviors, I'm sure. Laughing

Thomas wrote:

Quote:

Yes. Currently, while watching your argument with george and timber, I am assuming as a refutable conjecture that you, having spent most of your life with fanatic Christians, observed that all of them are Republicans. Meanwhile, george and Timber, having spent much of their lifes in the Republican party, observed that few Republicans are fanatic Christians. Both sets of observations are consistent -- unless you falsely conclude that because fanatic Christians are Republicans, most Republicans must be fanatic Christians. As I said, this conjecture is open to refutation, but I expect it to be refuted before I change my mind.

This is what I like about you, Thomas......when making conjectures you acknowledge when one of them may be refutable. Thanks for asking.

Yes, I agree that both sets of observations can be consistent. But I've repeatedly tried to back my observations up with not just statistics but other historical facts. I haven't been as thorough as I could be because I often don't have the time to do that much work. But I would do it, if I thought there was anyone out there ready to read the information I could collect.

This response of, "you're barking at a cave with no bear in it" always surprises me (not to mention how much it p!sses me off which makes the work seem all the more futile). After all, I'm writing to folks who normally appreciate the value of facts and stats. They recognize them, as I do, as important for the purpose of documenting any report of personal experience.

If you look back, or just see what's happened on this thread, you'll notice that no matter what I post on this subject, there is little or no reference to the substance of what I'm writing. My most recent (very small) effort is on page 49 of this thread. What I posted there was not commented on by anyone. It was totally ignored.

It's difficult to put much effort behind it when the only response I get from otherwise logical posters is what seems to me to be a logically fallacious argument. I post so and so.......and the response is, "well, yeh (no reference to what is posted) but you probably don't know what you're talking about." Is that not ad hominem? Or is it another sort of fallacy? It's been a long time since I took logic, but as I recall, I think that's what that is. I recognize, however, that it may be, and probably is, a simple refusal to debate the subject at all, for whatever reasons and therefore not a fallacy at all. If you would like, I'll try again, but on another thread. (I've tried on two other threads already and numerous times on threads like this one.)

I know you don't know me beyond your observations on these boards. I can't expect you to just take my word for it. I have no way to make you believe other than to try to make sense, be consistent and hope someone will recognize that I'm not just some paranoid broad.

If an expert.......someone with lots of training and experience in a certain field, let's say a doctor, walks up to you and says, "you know, that mole on your cheek is melanoma, it should be removed as soon as possible." Do you say, "ah......you're just over reacting?" Or would you say, "you've spent most of your life getting all worried about melanoma, and you've observed that all melanomas are moles, but that guy over there has seen a lot of moles and he's observed that most moles are not cancerous, both conclusions are consistent -- unless you falsely conclude that because melanomas are always moles, most moles must be melanoma?"

If you didn't know the guy, and didn't know if he was an expert or even a doctor and you had no way to determine if what he was saying was worthwhile, would you totally ignore him and do nothing? Or would you go visit your doctor and ask him to run some tests?

Perhaps I'm not good at observing myself........few of us are. But I think I speak logically enough most of the time to engender the idea that, at least, I may know something about what I'm talking about. Have I really impressed you as so logically impaired that you would conclude the above, refutable or not?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Lola wrote:
What I'm saying is that the stats above are not enough to conclude, as you have, that there's more racial discrimination or racism in the Southern States vs. the Northern ones.

What I actually said was "Surprisingly, the South is less segregated, not more segregated than the North these days." And that is empirical data from two credible, independent, non-partisan sources, not a conclusion on my part.

Lola wrote:
So are you suggesting that there's less racial prejudice in the red states as opposed to the blue ones?

To be honest, I'm not quite sure what to think, and I'm not suggesting anything at this point. But when I see something that conflicts with my preconceptions, I conclude that my preconceptions are probably wrong. In this case, I saw credible data that Northerners avoid living on the same block as someone of a different race to a much higher degree than Southerners do, and I conclude that my preconceptions of Southerners as racist conservatives and Northerners as openminded liberals was probably wrong.

Your conclusion is correct; your preconceptions were wrong.

Your table of statistics is powerful evidence of the fact that, overall, race relations are are more favorable in the South than they are in the North, despite the desire and efforts of NE and West Coast Liberals to paint a picture of an oppressive hell south of the Mason Dixon line, and a Northern land of milk and honey for people of color.

The North has benefited from being on the right side of a war that was fought for more reasons than slavery, and while slavery was eventually abandoned in the North, racist bigotry certainly was not.

Witness the fact that during the Draft Riots in NYC during the very war which was supposed to free all blacks from slavery, the northern mobs directed their rage at blacks and strung them up throughout the city.

My argument is not made to cast Northerners as villains and Southerners as misunderstood heroes. It is made to point out that whatever legacy of racism exists in this country it has had nearly equal contributions from both sides of the Mason Dixon line. It is also made to point out just what your table demonstrates: The South has moved further along the right direction than the North.

To be fair, the South's start down the right road had to be forced, but also to be fair, it has embraced the direction far more than the North.

Court imposed busing in Charlotte NC led to a degree of integration and tolerance that most people who have not traveled or lived in the South could imagine. In fact, when I moved to Charlotte in 1985, the mayor of this predominately white city was an African American - Harvey Gant. Compare that to what one would have found in white dominated Northern cities.

Court imposed busing in Boston led to "white flight" and racial tensions.

Racism thrives in segregated communities, and fades, with time, in integrated neighborhoods. That the South is more integrated than the North speaks very loudly on the issue.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

and a few other possibilites not mentioned here Thomas, Is the "liberal northeast" more residentially stabile (less movement either into or out of multi-generational neighborhoods vs higher mobility in the south due to jobs seach/economic factors. Industrial/service industries (north) vs agricultural occupations (small businesses) in the south as a traditional base. (and the recent advance of non-union manufactioring into the south requiring relocation) Something you might want to look into would be integration of churches north-south rather than integration of residential areas (indicative of social vs legal inspired integration) Actually I don't know the answers to any of these questions other than personal experiences like when I drove (last spring) though what I think of as the old south and heard, repeatedly, the issue of the confederate flag being flown.

While I can appreciate an African-American's sensitivity to the flying of the Confederate Flag, it is important to realize that for many Southerners, the Confederate Flag is not a symbol of white dominance over blacks, but of regional pride and defiance of the North.

This very thread is evidence of the pervasive negative stereotyping of the South and Southerners that has long dominated American culture.

It's ironic that Liberals have such ill regard for the South. Transfer the Southern experience to another part of the world and Southerners would likely be the darlings of the Left: sort of like Palestinians.

0 Replies

Except for the whole slavery thing they didn't want to give up, and the long and difficult struggle to get minorities recognized as people afterwards, yaknow, all that good stuff.

We have a holiday here in Texas called Juneteenth that is a celebration of the day slaves found out they were free. It's called so because they can't pin down an actual day, or month; a lot of plantation managers in Texas convienently forgot to tell their slaves that the South lost the civil war...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Except for the whole slavery thing they didn't want to give up, and the long and difficult struggle to get minorities recognized as people afterwards, yaknow, all that good stuff.

We have a holiday here in Texas called Juneteenth that is a celebration of the day slaves found out they were free. It's called so because they can't pin down an actual day, or month; a lot of plantation managers in Texas convienently forgot to tell their slaves that the South lost the civil war...

Cycloptichorn

Cyclo, you continue to argue from a very narrow point of view.

Of course the South had, for many many years, institutional racism. Of course racism still rears its ugly head in the South.

Notwithstanding what many Northerners may wish to believe, the North has never been the bastion of tolerance towards blacks, that mythmakers would have us believe.

The fact is that the South has made greater strides toward positive race relations than the North. Where they came from or what led them to the current situation is immaterial.

The original premise of this thread related to what Democrats need to do to win next time around. One of those things is to update their understanding of the South and Southerners, and to come down from their shaky perch atop the high horse of Northern condescension.

0 Replies

I, atop my even higher northern horse, suspect there would be a range of statistical data that might shed more light on the question (percentage of blacks/white in jail, mortgage data, etc) but think that the discussion has value really only as thomas and finn suggest...re-evaluation of cliche.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

This is what I like about you, Thomas......when making conjectures you acknowledge when one of them may be refutable. Thanks for asking.

"One of them"? "May be"? I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here, and maybe this is just my vanity aching. But I do believe that admitting I'm wrong when somebody confronts me with good evidence is one of my stronger sides. I think I have proven willing and able to be refuted on any point -- not just the ones where I explicitly acknowledge it.

Lola wrote:

If you look back, or just see what's happened on this thread, you'll notice that no matter what I post on this subject, there is little or no reference to the substance of what I'm writing. My most recent (very small) effort is on page 49 of this thread. What I posted there was not commented on by anyone. It was totally ignored.

I don't know if you correctly describe what happend in other threads, and I can't speak for any of the others. But here is the reason why I personally didn't react to the article you linked to on page 49, though I did respond to your point about the founding fathers. The reason is that it is an opinion piece in which all factual statements are alleged, without offering the reader any means of checking them. Yet you treated it as if it was evidence supporting your opinion, which it wasn't. The only thing this article was evidence for is that Sydney Schanberg and you have the same political opinions. In Germany, we have a saying: "The worm has to be tasty for the fish, not the fisher". By the same logic, factual evidence has to be persuasive to the doubter, not to the already convinced. The article you posted is in the latter category.

Lola wrote:

I post so and so.......and the response is, "well, yeh (no reference to what is posted) but you probably don't know what you're talking about."

Again, I can't speak for anybody else. Speaking for myself, I would be suprised if I had ever said anything beyond "your evidence doesn't persuade me".

Lola wrote:

If an expert.......someone with lots of training and experience in a certain field, let's say a doctor, walks up to you and says, "you know, that mole on your cheek is melanoma, it should be removed as soon as possible." Do you say, "ah......you're just over reacting?"

If I had serious doubts about the guy claiming to be a doctor, I'd probably ask: "Hypothetically, if you were wrong and it was really just a mole, what would the evidence be? How would the mole be different?" You can usually tell by the reaction to this kind of question whether someone is for real. In our example, if George and Timber were right, and if the fundamentalists really were just another minority within the Republicans, what would the evidence be? How would our observations of the Republican party be different?

Lola wrote:

Perhaps I'm not good at observing myself........few of us are. But I think I speak logically enough most of the time to engender the idea that, at least, I may know something about what I'm talking about. Have I really impressed you as so logically impaired that you would conclude the above, refutable or not?

You have not struck me as logically impaired. My subjective impression, from watching you argue, is that the weakest link in your logical chain is usually the first -- the data, observations and experiences that you start with. Compared with nimh, Sozobe, and Timber, you very often start by quoting opinion pieces as opposed to news reports or other primary sources, and that weakens your argument for everyone who does not already share the opinion of that piece's author -- which usually happens to be precisely the people you set out to convince. As for the "knowing what you're talking about" part, you appear to know a lot about fundamentalist Christians. When you talk about them, I'm quite willing to take your word for it. On the other hand, I am not sure -- one way or another -- if you know a lot about Republicans who happen not to be fundamentalist Christians. This is why I am skeptical of your account of what they are up to -- or fail to be up to.

I hope this post wasn't too ad hominem, but you appeared to be asking for feedback about the way you make arguments, so I thought I'd give you some.

0 Replies

Quote:

"One of them"? "May be"? I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here, and maybe this is just my vanity aching. But I do believe that admitting I'm wrong when somebody confronts me with good evidence is one of my stronger sides. I think I have proven willing and able to be refuted on any point -- not just the ones where I explicitly acknowledge it.

No, Thomas I was not being sarcastic at all. I thought I was making it clear that I value this strength in you. Sorry if my language threw you off. I was thankful (very) for someone who would actually ask rather than pronounce opinion as fact, as we all do from time to time. But you don't always ask, as I don't. You just do it a lot more than some of the rest of us. Some never ask. So, you're a fine example of, in my opinion, a very good discussant.

Quote:

I don't know if you correctly describe what happend in other threads, and I can't speak for any of the others. But here is the reason why I personally didn't react to the article you linked to on page 49, though I did respond to your point about the founding fathers. The reason is that it is an opinion piece in which all factual statements are alleged, without offering the reader any means of checking them. Yet you treated it as if it was evidence supporting your opinion, which it wasn't. The only thing this article was evidence for is that Sydney Schanberg and you have the same political opinions. In Germany, we have a saying: "The worm has to be tasty for the fish, not the fisher". By the same logic, factual evidence has to be persuasive to the doubter, not to the already convinced. The article you posted is in the latter category.

The problem with your answer is that you're referring to the wrong post. That one is on page 50. The one I meant is on page 49. It was in direct response to Foxfire. Foxfire has yet to respond. Since it's not easy to just turn back to page 49, I'll re-post the relevant part of it here:

Quote:

[Foxfire wrote:]

Quote:

A couple or three decades ago, the Christian Coalition headed up by folks like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson et al were strongly activist and experienced such an overwhelming negative backlash that they stay pretty quiet these days. We saw nothing comparable in the last several campaigns.

After all the "overwhelming negative backlash" of the 80s, Ralph Reed and Karl Rove all but shut down the Christian Coalition since the CC was the primary force that helped Clinton get elected. The political action of the CC is now conducted by the Family Research Council. The FRC is much more careful about the way it involves itself in political action.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=ABOUT_FRC

There is no mention on their site, that I can find, of the present board of directors or of the founding BOD. So I've sent an email to FRC requesting this information. However, when I check for other information, I find this:

From PAW's Right Wing Watch:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4211#3

Quote:

My post on page 50 was of an opinion piece. I posted it in response to the theme of the thread. First I posted excerpts from the piece, with a link to it, which you picked up, and then I wrote some of my own thoughts (opinions) about them. If I have the time, I like to do that since simply posting an opinion piece without comment is usually not interesting to very many people.

In response to this post from Dys:

Quote:

I think it's probably good politics, the Republicans have been most successful when they can mobilize the Christian right in ways that aren't visible to the general public.

on page 57, I posted, on page 58, an copy of an email sent to me from the FRC. I won't re-post it here because it's easier to go back to page 58 from this page than it is to go back to page 49. This is also an opinion piece, however this time I posted it in order to demonstrate the sort of political activity in which the FRC is engaging, the level of sophistication they've developed and the nature of the organization and it's present director. This is fact, rather than opinion (the fact being that this is what they send out to their contributors.)

I was addressing Dys and failed to include the quotation, which was my mistake, since it's easy to misinterpret to whom I was responding. I also was speaking to Foxfire from the previous interchange in my final sentence of that post:

Quote:

Does anyone want to claim now that there's less religious right political action now than there was in the 1980s?

Again there was no response, but that one I can understand since I didn't make it clear to whom I was responding.

Thomas wrote:

Quote:

If I had serious doubts about the guy claiming to be a doctor, I'd probably ask: "Hypothetically, if you were wrong and it was really just a mole, what would the evidence be? How would the mole be different?" You can usually tell by the reaction to this kind of question whether someone is for real. In our example, if George and Timber were right, and if the fundamentalists really were just another minority within the Republicans, what would the evidence be? How would our observations of the Republican party be different?

These are excellent questions. They are the very ones I am offering to answer. But I'm not going to do it anymore unless I think there's someone out there interested enough to pay attention. If you like, I will supply you with links to the two threads I've started for you to read, if you want to evaluate my competence further. But I'll have to do this later. Right now, I want to go to the movies.

Quote:

I'm quite willing to take your word for it. On the other hand, I am not sure -- one way or another -- if you know a lot about Republicans who happen not to be fundamentalist Christians.

Yes, I know lots of Republicans who are not fundamentalist Christians. The only problem I have with them is that they are standing by, a letting the fundamentalists take over. They've made a bargain with the devil but most of them either don't understand what's happened or they don't want to admit it because, with the strength of this minority of Fundamentalists, they're getting what they want and they don't think it's all that dangerous.

Quote:

I hope this post wasn't too ad hominem, but you appeared to be asking for feedback about the way you make arguments, so I thought I'd give you some.

Your post wasn't ad hominem at all. The way I have always understood it, "ad hominem" is not an insult but rather a logical fallacy in which the content of the argument is not addressed but rather the character of the person presenting the argument is attacked. You have addressed the content of my post. Thank you very much.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Yes, I know lots of Republicans who are not fundamentalist Christians. The only problem I have with them is that they are standing by, a letting the fundamentalists take over. They've made a bargain with the devil but most of them either don't understand what's happened or they don't want to admit it because, with the strength of this minority of Fundamentalists, they're getting what they want and they don't think it's all that dangerous. .

Lola, we have discussed this before. I have no doubt that there are Fundamentalist Christians who are both in the grip of extreme fantasies and politically mobilized and even organized - just as you say. There are loonies of every stripe out there. The point on which we don't agree is their relative strength in the Republican Party and among the electorate generally. I see no evidence to suggest they are a major force. I don't know any such people, and I don't come in contact with the organizations they frequent.

I do believe you fail to make a needed distinction between people who are practicing Christians, or who just have sympathy for the Christian values and traditions of their youths, and the rather virulent types you seem to have in mind. There are lots of tolerant, fair-minded people out there who oppose or just regret what they see as the excesses of an increasingly coarse and intrusive secularism, which to many seems intent on driving out all of the symbols, traditions, and even some of the institutions of religion from public (as opposed to just government) life. I think you wrongfully lump these people into your vision of an assumed Fundamentalist political movement. Not every one who opposes you politically is a fanatic. Could there be an element of projection on your part in this matter?

0 Replies

Lola, What I said:

Quote:

you base your disagreement largely on personal experiential reference in addition to academic study. My own reasoning is quite similar in structure, but of different perspective and conclusion. I'm just not able to get there with you. I figure you're barkin' at a cave that ain't got no bear in it.

pretty much indicates I fault neither your foundation nor your methodology, but rather that by my foundation and methodology, I do not arrive at a similar conclusion.

I don't deny there is AN influence of The Christian Right; what I do not accept is the notion it is anywhere near so significant, or sinister, an influence as you perceive it to be. A Taliban, even a Bible-thumpin' one, just ain't gonna sell in these parts.

0 Replies

Yes, george, we have "discussed" this before. My problem with our "discussions" on this matter is that they consist of you either saying, (I'm paraphrasing), "there, there, dear........I know you get worried easily." Or, when you do give it a little more attention, as you have above, you simply repeat what you've said before. I think I've responded to what we've said before, but you don't seem to have been convinced, not because I'm not making sense, but because you don't address it.

Quote:

I do believe you fail to make a needed distinction between people who are practicing Christians, or who just have sympathy for the Christian values and traditions of their youths, and the rather virulent types you seem to have in mind. There are lots of tolerant, fair-minded people out there who oppose or just regret what they see as the excesses of an increasingly coarse and intrusive secularism, which to many seems intent on driving odut all of the symbols, traditions, and even some of the institutions of religion from public (as opposed to just government) life.

Yes, I know you believe this but I don't know why you still believe it. I have said, many times that I know there are lots of practicing Christians who have sympathy for the Christian values of their youths, etc. I have no complaint against those Christians except for the fact that they are blindly going along with a faction of fanatical Christians and they don't know it. Either that or they're so happy to feel secure that their values are being "protected" they don't want to look further to see who they're in bed with.

My specific complaint with you (and Timber as well) is that you don't respond to the facts as I present them. You just keep saying that you think I'm confused about all the different types of Christians.

I am saying that this group of fanatics who are a clear minority of the population of Christians, as well as of the electorate, have deliberately planned to take control of the Republican party and by so doing to have a strong influence over the laws, White House policies and the courts. And they are succeeding, thanks to good Christians like you with good intentions. It's not a conspiracy. It's a plan of action, political action, that has been carried out while at the same time, largely hidden from the electorate. Obviously the information about the planned action is there to be found, but one has to go to some trouble to find it. More trouble than most people want to take. And especially those people who are happy with the outcome, regardless of how it was accomplished.

If you don't want to get into it, fine. Just say so. But please don't keep telling me that you think I'm confused, in spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary.

The reason we got into this again is that I was offering an opinion about what went wrong and how we can fix it. This is the title of this thread. Foxfire came along and said she didn't think there was any fanatical Christian political action anymore since the apparent weakening of the Christian Coalition. I responded with some information about what happened to the CC and why it seems to many that there is no longer any Fundamentalist political activity. I didn't give it as much effort as I used to because I'm tired of talking and being treated as if I'm some simple minded worry wart.

But then Thomas asked if I was really so frightened about this group why I didn't support the Republican grown ups and I told him that I would support any effort by the grown up Republicans to take back their party, however I haven't seen any effort in that direction. I would love it if there were. I'd begin to have more respect for Republicans again if it happened.

My original point was not addressed to you or Foxfire. My comments were directed to the Democrats on this thread who were trying to seriously consider what went wrong. I believe what went wrong is that we (the Dems) have underestimated the accumulated force of this small group of fanatics. Karl Rove and Ralph Reed are two of the most influential men in American politics today. I think the Dems' mistake has been to not take heed. But in order to take it seriously, we will have to look to see what they have done. We need to do exactly what Karl Rove and company have been doing since 1980. And if we don't start doing it fast, we'll continue to lose.

It's not you I have to convince. The people who have to be convinced are those who want to further the good ole liberal values.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't deny there is AN influence of The Christian Right; what I do not accept is the notion it is anywhere near so significant, or sinister, an influence as you perceive it to be. A Taliban, even a Bible-thumpin' one, just ain't gonna sell in these parts.

I didn't say a Taliban would be the result. Where did you get that? Perhaps it's true that what I think are dangerous results, you simply think of as what you want. Maybe you're not disturbed by the threat to our civil rights.

I do think that you and george are conscientious enough to take issue with how your party has managed to accomplish it's goal. I have assumed that you tolerate it because you don't want to see it. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you think it's fine to lie to the American people about your true intentions. Maybe you think John Ashcroft has been a fine AG or that Tom DeLay is honorable. Maybe you and george think it's fine to deny poor women a right to a safe abortion. But maybe, if you think these things are fine, you haven't taken the next step and asked yourselves what could be the unintended consequences of allowing fanatics to have so much influence over the WH, the Congress and the Courts. I expect they'll get cocky and go way too far. (But of course not as far as the Taliban, that's silly.) So far, even you and george won't like it. And when they do, I expect the American people won't tolerate it. But by then a lot of damage will have been done and it will take a long time to recover. We'll see.

If it's your idea, you're welcome to it. If it's so, as I see it may be, I'm not addressing my comments to you. I was addressing those on this thread who think it is not. When I do this, one of you, Foxfire or someone else pop up and start acting like I'm paranoid. This interrupts the discussion and causes me to have to go back and start all over again.

If no one here is interested, I can tolerate that. I can spend my valuable a2k time playing hostess at the cafe. That's fun and I enjoy it. But if no one is interested, I would first like to know it. It would be nice if we had some discussion about it. However if it doesn't happen, then it doesn't.

0 Replies

I don't now (and never did) have a problem with Ashcroft. I think history will compare his record rather favorably to that of, say, Janet Reno.

Who, besides Jose Padilla, has been illegally incarcerated? And even that isn't without controversy.

No tanks have rolled up to my house and none of my neighbors' children have been seized and burned at the stake.

The Patriot Act isn't the most thrilling reading...but how many have actually read it? It's only about 150 pages. Not scary at all Smile

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

I don't now (and never did) have a problem with Ashcroft. I think history will compare his record rather favorably to that of, say, Janet Reno.

Who, besides Jose Padilla, has been illegally incarcerated? And even that isn't without controversy.

No tanks have rolled up to my house and none of my neighbors' children have been seized and burned at the stake.

The Patriot Act isn't the most thrilling reading...but how many have actually read it? It's only about 150 pages. Not scary at all

<Let the clobbering begin>

From what I hear it is impossible to discern the meaning of those 150 pages without also reading a tonn of other legislation. This because the patriot act only changes sentences and paragraphs in existing legislation.

I know you need a special permit to enter the US if you are a reporter though. That pesky press also need such a permit to enter North Korea, Iran, and other such regimes.

0 Replies

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/

0 Replies

Oops...I just realized this thread is probably meant for those on the same side to discuss "what went wrong". LOL...pardon the intrusion Embarrassed

0 Replies

link

Here's an interesting article. Tony Campolo has my respect. He's one of those fundmentalists who can see that trying to force others into believing anything other than what they believe is futile. More power to him. If only the others could be so brave.

Quote:

July 2004--Evangelical leader, sociology professor, and Baptist minister Tony Campolo made headlines in the 1990s when he agreed to be a spiritual counselor to President Bill Clinton. A self-described Bible-believing Christian, he has drawn fire from his fellow evangelicals for his stance on contemporary issues like homosexuality. He talked with Beliefnet recently about his new book, Speaking My Mind.

Well, there's a difference between evangelical and being a part of the Religious Right. A significant proportion of the evangelical community is part of the Religious Right. My purpose in writing the book was to communicate loud and clear that I felt that evangelical Christianity had been hijacked.

When did it become anti-feminist? When did evangelical Christianity become anti-gay? When did it become supportive of capital punishment? Pro-war? When did it become so negative towards other religious groups?

Quote:

Are the majority of evangelicals in America leaning conservative because they see their leaders on TV that way? Or is there a contingent out there that we don't hear about in the press that is more progressive on the issues you just talked about?

The latest statistics that I have seen on evangelicals indicate that something like 83 percent of them are going to vote for George Bush and are Republicans. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that Christians need to be considering other issues beside abortion and homosexuality.

0 Replies

This letter addresses the question of what went wrong and what we can do to fix it.

I hope all progressives will take heart and get ready to defend our freedoms.

Quote:

Dear Friends of People For the American Way,

Together we came so far, and accomplished so much, that the brutal disappointments of Election Day feel all the more crushing. I'm a firm believer that action is an antidote to despair, and I want to let you know how we're building on the work we've done together and preparing for the immense struggles to come.

With your help, People For the American Way Foundation and the rest of the nonpartisan Election Protection coalition pulled off an astonishingly successful voter protection mobilization, the largest in the nation's history. More than 25,000 volunteers - many of them traveling far from their homes - helped voters overcome obstacles at the polling places, prevented some voter suppression activities by their visible presence, and, importantly, documented the many ways our election system is still failing voters.

Election Protection is continuing to document and investigate reports of voting irregularities and voter suppression efforts. People For the American Way Foundation is supporting the impounding of voting machines or obtaining backup data from them in various counties in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico, and is participating in public hearings and pursuing litigation in several states. In the months ahead we will be working on national and state-by-state plans to build the political will to fix our broken election system and hold public officials accountable.

Another fight is just ahead of us, a fight for the future of our freedom, a fight that will define the kind of country we live in for the next generation or more. This president is likely to have the opportunity to name two, three, or even four new justices. And given the well-publicized health problems of Chief Justice Rehnquist, President Bush may announce a nomination even before he is sworn in for his second term.

If the President nominates someone who shares the extremist judicial philosophy of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - as he has repeatedly said he would do - he will make a mockery of his professed desire to earn all Americans' trust and support. And if he is successful in naming far-right justices to the Supreme Court, Americans will pay the price for decades to come. You will soon be hearing more from People For the American Way about our campaign plan to defend the Constitution and the Supreme Court. We will need to mobilize every resource and every willing activist at our disposal. We will need your help - and you'll be hearing more from us in the coming days.

As you know, we are going to have challenges on many fronts. We are facing in many ways our worst nightmare - an administration emboldened for more intensive assaults on our values and liberties, a Senate and House more firmly in the grip of the far right, a Supreme Court ripe for multiple vacancies and an entire federal judiciary vulnerable to ideological domination by extremists who are eager to redefine the Constitution and reverse decades of social justice progress.

In addition, we must challenge the triumphalist rhetoric of Religious Right leaders. It is true that turnout efforts targeting millions of conservative Christians contributed to the victories of President Bush, hard-right members of Congress, and anti-gay ballot initiatives. But it is wrong to view the election outcome as a sign that a majority of Americans accept the Right's claims that "values" equates to a right-wing social and economic agenda. Polls show that most Americans do not embrace the Religious Right's agenda, and that war and terrorism concerns led many voters to support the President even though they disagree with much of his agenda.

In fact, I believe millions of Christians are offended by Jerry Falwell's assertions that "voting Christian" means supporting right-wing economic policies, anti-gay discrimination, and judges who will reverse decades of social justice progress. And people of all faiths should be offended by the newly aggressive claims of the "Christian nation" crowd.

People For the American Way and People For the American Way Foundation are especially well qualified to expose the real agenda behind that rhetoric and help mainstream and progressive Americans take back the discourse on values.

Widely shared values will be at stake in a wide range of public policy debates: whether or not judges will provide access to justice for individuals harmed by government or corporate actions; whether our tax policies will make it impossible to meet basic human needs; whether the White House should be able to use excessive secrecy to avoid public accountability for actions that deprive people of basic liberties; whether the coercive power of government will be harnessed to promote particular religious beliefs.

In his victory speech, President Bush said he would "reach out to the whole nation" and earn the trust and support of Americans who didn't vote for him. It would be welcome if President Bush chose to govern as a president for all the people. But it would be a surprise. It is not how he has governed for the past four years and it is not how he ran for reelection. He has governed as a fierce partisan with no tolerance for dissent and a willingness to abuse his power and undermine the Constitution to get his way. He waged a divisive campaign that relied on pitting the fears of some Americans against the rights of others.

People For the American Way will be more than willing to work with the administration if it seeks the path of genuine bipartisanship and compromise to resolve the many crucial issues facing our nation. But we are prepared for more of the divisive partisanship and brute-force policy making that has been the hallmark of this administration and its political allies.

Together we have urgent responsibilities - both immediate and long term. I know we can count on you in the days and long years ahead. Count on hearing from us soon about how you can stay involved in the struggle for the heart, soul, and future of America.

Sincerely,
Ralph G. Neas
President, People For the American Way

0 Replies

Quote:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/

Thanks for these links, Wonders. It will make research easier. Good information here.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

No, Thomas I was not being sarcastic at all. I thought I was making it clear that I value this strength in you. Sorry if my language threw you off.

Thanks for the clarification, and I wasn't really thrown off -- just confused.

Lola wrote:

The problem with your answer is that you're referring to the wrong post. That one is on page 50. The one I meant is on page 49. It was in direct response to Foxfire. Foxfire has yet to respond. Since it's not easy to just turn back to page 49, I'll re-post the relevant part of it here:

Sorry about that. I didn't have the patience to click back to page 49 page by page, so I entered what I thought was page 49 into my browser's address window, and was so proud of my cleverness that I didn't check what page I was actually on. My mistake.

That said, I think your link on page 49 suffers from a similar problem. It comes from a website with an anti-right-wing agenda. Hence, when it states opinions unfavorable to the Family Research Council, that doesn't tell me whether the Family Research Council is really evil or whether I am just observing Right Wing Watch's filter at work. It's no more persuasive to me than it would be persuasive to you if I quoted Foxfyre's account of the Religious Right as evidence that you needn't be worried about them.

I would have been easier to persuade of the FRC's intentions with a link to, say, an FRC publication where they state their agenda, brag about their success stories, discuss the next steps to take, and so forth. (Which is what you did on page 58.) Moreover, I would have been easier to persuade of the FRC's influence within the Republican party if you had quoted a Republican source testifying how their influence compares to, say, the Cato Institute.

Lola wrote:

on page 57, I posted, on page 58, an copy of an email sent to me from the FRC. I won't re-post it here because it's easier to go back to page 58 from this page than it is to go back to page 49. This is also an opinion piece, however this time I posted it in order to demonstrate the sort of political activity in which the FRC is engaging, the level of sophistication they've developed and the nature of the organization and it's present director. This is fact, rather than opinion (the fact being that this is what they send out to their contributors.)

Fair enough. That's primary data, and I respect that. This email didn't persuade me of the FRC's evilness because I tried to imagine what I would think of it if it came from a feminist organization within the Democrats and was about a Democratic judicial committee chairman who stated he might be open for the nomination of a constitutional originalist opposed to Roe vs. Wade. I figured the feminists would have written pretty much the same e-mail, and concluded this is not evidence I have to be worried.

The point about covenant marriage didn't worry me because there is a tradeoff inherent in the way you design the institution of marriage. Make it too hard to divorce, and you cause a lot of grief among unhappily married couples. Make it too easy, and marriage becomes worthless as a commitment at the time you marry. The FRC are promoting a different tradeoff than I would, but while I disagree with them on substance, this doesn't inherently worry me on points of process.

Lola wrote:

These are excellent questions. They are the very ones I am offering to answer. But I'm not going to do it anymore unless I think there's someone out there interested enough to pay attention. If you like, I will supply you with links to the two threads I've started for you to read, if you want to evaluate my competence further. But I'll have to do this later. Right now, I want to go to the movies.

That would be nice, and enjoy the movie!

0 Replies

Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know