December 5th, 2005
An interesting debate has been sparked over at the Sickening: KU Religion Prof beaten up comments section on whether we, Liberals and Progressives, should resort to arming ourselves. It all started with:
Liberals best get armed. (3.89/49)
I’ve been saying it for a while.
Me, I fancy my katana.
Anything’s possible with Commander Cuckoo Bananas in charge. -Homer J. Simpson
As you may have heard, and as the diary above tells us, a university professor that had recently stirred controversy for intending to teach a course on so-called “intelligent design” as mythology has been beaten up by two cowards for, presumably, his position on the subject. It was the action of these two ignorant cowards which prompted Cheez Whiz’s comment…
And, apparently, he’s not the only one thinking it:
the 2nd Amendment (3.8 /48)
It’s for liberals, too.
by chumley on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:39:29 PM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This | none 1: Unproductive 2: Marginal 3: Good 4: Excellent ]
The Second Amendment… ( 3.85 / 41 )
…is especially for liberals.
Republicans oppose abortion — it happens eighteen years too early.
by Buzzer on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 04:42:24 PM PST
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again… ( 4.00 / 20 )
Time for all of us to consider exercising our 2nd Amendment rights to ensure our 1st Amendment rights…
…in fact, we should know all our rights guaranteed by the the Constitution .
He who gives up liberty in exchange for security is deserving of neither
by joby on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 05:46:08 PM PST
Gun Control ( 4.00 / 3 )
… is being able to stay on target for a full magazine and keep a tight group. ;-)
Yes, I carry. I actually needed it once when my friend’s ex tried coming after me because I told her to have him arrested–abuse and rape aren’t “loving” acts towards your girlfriend
You many now return to your regularly scheduled chaos.
http://godsdead.blogspot.com
by becca00 on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 06:12:38 PM PST
I’m generally…. ( none / 0 )
…in favor of gun control, but Bush is making me reconsider my views. And also, if a government ever actually comes around that tries to take away guns, I’ll bet it will be a right-wing government and not a left-wing one.
by metal prophet on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:25:17 PM PST
yep ( none / 0 )
if a government ever actually comes around that tries to take away guns, I’ll bet it will be a right-wing government and not a left-wing one.
Easy bet.
One of the first things Hitler did was enact very strict gun-control Laws.
We have no desire to offend you — unless you are a twit!
by ScrewySquirrel on Mon Dec 05, 2005 at 08:32:45 PM PST
If you were at all involved with other Democratic grassroots supporters during the 2004 elections, as I was, you probably heard similar comments as the ones listed above while canvassing, phone banking or while riding a bus to so-called swing states. The above attest to the incredible frustration and alienation that many of our fellow Liberals, Progressives and Democrats feel at the moment — many of us simply feel that our political values are not reflected in our MSM and, too, that too few brave souls exist that are willing to stand up in defense of all that we believe in and respect. Moreover, the above statements are a clear testament of the polarization that the Bush administration and that the corrupt Republican party have fomented since the stolen elections of 2000 — and all that’s transpired since then.
Because I’ve heard similar statements before, and because I understand and share the frustration, I’m not at all surprised to read the above comments at DailyKos.com. Now, no one is calling for violence; however, clearly we’re in the mood to avail ourselves of our 2nd Amendment rights, as the amendment is popularly interpreted. Well, perhaps there’s an opportunity here for Liberal and Progressive arm aficionados… why should we concede any part of our constitution to right-wing lunatics like the NRA et al? Why not start Progressive gun clubs which can eventually morph into a competing national organization against the NRA… imagine that… a Liberal Rifle Association in the South and in rural America in support of sensible gun legislature where it makes sense.
I don’t own a gun… I never have owned a gun, but as a former Marine I know how to operate and handle one. I’ve looked at purchasing an arm and at joining some sort of shooting club, but I’ve been reluctant to join any arms organization because of the NRA and their association with Republicans. Additionally, I support gun control legislation and strict waiting periods, so on that count alone I could not support the NRA given its position on those issues. Now, if there were some gun organization that also supported responsible gun legislature and, as a bonus, supported Democrats, I would defiantly join it.
I have no idea how one would go about forming such a national organization; however, starting Liberal/Progressive gun clubs shouldn’t be that difficult… this is something that we can do with our friends, co-workers and neighbors… I know that there are many Liberal and Progressive gun enthusiast that would love an opportunity like this. How do we get started?
October 6th, 2005
As Thomas Frank demonstrates in his book, What’s the Matter with Kansas?, grassroots movement conservatives have been conditioned to hate — yes, hate — all things “Liberal,” specially the uber-caricature that conservative demagogues (like Ms Coulter) have drawn of “Ivy League Liberals” or, more broadly, of “Elites” imperiously ruling from their Liberal urban centers, far removed from the “heartland” — where real, salt-of-the-earth, Americans live. And, yet, as Mr Frank writes, while grassroots conservatives go on loathing these phantom “Elites” of their imaginations, the real elites — the corporatists, fascists and fundamentalists religious demagogues — lie, deceive and condescend to their blind flock of conservative followers, whom remain ever obedient and distracted.
And now, Ms Coulter — the product of an “Elite” education herself –, the poster girl for wingnuts everywhere, and one of the loudest mouth pieces in today’s conservative movement, strays from the script and let’s her true roots show:
Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report. Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery.
I know conservatives have been trained to hate people who went to elite universities, and generally that’s a good rule of thumb. But not when it comes to the Supreme Court. [Emphasis added.]
Of course, such a revelation about Ms Coulter’s true allegiance and character is not enough to bring her down from the pedestal that conservatives have sat her on. Because, as Ms Coulter alludes to, and as Mr Frank wrote, grassroots movement conservatives are true believers, and there’s just no way in hell that their prophets and messiahs can be shown to be infallible — Ms Coulter writes:
Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney’s many virtues � loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture …
Clearly, Ms Coulter is not a grassroots movement conservative, she’s a political opportunist, a true elite and a fascist, fully aware that her vile rhetoric against Liberals, Democrats and Progressives is merely means to power — which she’s willing to deploy in the aid of her class and her ideological peers.
Like Mr Bush, with his most recent Supreme nomination, whose shown himself to be more interested in advancing cronyism and corporatism — with some imperialism thrown in for good measure –, I wonder if Ms Coulter and Mr Bush have gone too far this time in letting everyone see what their true colors are? Here’s Ms Coulter, again, thumbing her nose at those silly salt-of-earth types, which should let the business of ruling and of deciphering the law to their betters:
One Web site defending Bush’s choice of a graduate from an undistinguished law school complains that Miers’ critics “are playing the Democrats’ game,” claiming that the “GOP is not the party which idolizes Ivy League acceptability as the criterion of intellectual and mental fitness.” (In the sort of error that results from trying to sound “Ivy League” rather than being clear, that sentence uses the grammatically incorrect “which” instead of “that.” Web sites defending the academically mediocre would be a lot more convincing without all the grammatical errors.)
[...]
To be sure, if we were looking for philosopher-kings, an SMU law grad would probably be preferable to a graduate from an elite law school. But if we’re looking for lawyers with giant brains to memorize obscure legal cases and to compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 � I think we want the nerd from an elite law school. Bush may as well appoint his chauffeur head of NASA as put Miers on the Supreme Court.
Now, grassroots conservatives are truly upset over the Miers nomination; because, as we’ve seen, movement conservatives expect their loyalty over past decades, but specially to the current occupier of the White House, to be reciprocated — and they’re simply tired of waiting. If the nomination proceeds all the way to Senate hearings, and if Ms Miers conservative bona fides are not made clear at that point, the gig may be up for the elite in Republican circles — and, yes, this is a big “MAY BE UP,” as I think that conditioning is not easily over come… besides, where would grassroots conservatives turn to… Roy Moore and a third party?
Of course, if grassroots movement conservatives are not interested in the third party route, they can do what Ms Coulter would have Ms Miers do — just go away and stop presuming that such a salt-of-the-earth type could ever hope to sit where only ivy grows:
[S]ome jobs are so dirty, you can only send in someone who has the finely honed hatred of liberals acquired at elite universities to do them. The devil is an abstraction for normal, decent Americans living in the red states. By contrast, at the top universities, you come face to face with the devil every day, and you learn all his little tropes and tricks.
Conservatives from elite schools have already been subjected to liberal blandishments and haven’t blinked. These are right-wingers who have fought off the best and the brightest the blue states have to offer.
[...]
However nice, helpful, prompt and tidy she is, Harriet Miers isn’t qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on “The West Wing,” let alone to be a real one.
[emphasis added]
You can find Ms Coulter’s column here.
July 29th, 2005
This post from Atrios is worth quoting in its entirety, no commentary is necessary:
Paul Hackett may not win the race on Tuesday. Let’s face it, this is an incredibly uphill battle. But, in the past week we’ve managed to alter the dynamics of the race, get national media attention for the candidate and if he wishes turned him into a rising political star, gotten the NRCC to spend a lot of money to “bury him,” and perhaps altered the momentum in the Ohio political landscape.
There will be a lot of talk about all the money raised online, as there should be. But, let’s put this in perspective. Only 6144 people have donated through Hackett’s Act Blue site. An additional 486 have donated through the Eschaton community site . That’s a relatively tiny percentage of what I imagine constitutes DFA’s email list (which sent out the Hackett site) and what I guess is in the neighborhood of 1% of my daily unique pairs of eyeballs.
I don’t write this to criticize people who haven’t donated, or to lament the fact that it’s “only” 486. I just write it to point out that in the scheme of things it really is a fairly small number of people who have made a difference. Just something to think about.
April 22nd, 2005
I came across this on Talking Points Memo, via Andrew Sullivan :
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute — where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote — where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference — and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish — where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source — where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials — and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. — John F. Kennedy
President Kennedy was right then, and he remains correct now — and always.
April 19th, 2005
The issue of race — specially as it relates to African-Americans and White-Americans — is such a curious subject, particularly for progressives; since, I belive, we’re not afraid to actually explore it. Now, race is clearly an important issue, and it will remain so for a long time — though it admittedly gets more and more complex as other so-called minority groups join the political discourse. Now… I don’t know how to go about this… I’m much more of a socioeconomic progressive, that is, I subscribe to the notion that environmental (societal and economic) factors “largely” trump even issues of race — that is, beyond race we can agree on the impact of socioeconomic factors on our communities. Here’s what I mean: whether one is a poor Latino, poor African-American, poor White or, simply, poor while living in America, lack of access to health care, lack of access to education, lack of access to capital, lack of access to any one of these things will limit how high one can rise and what one can aspire to. Now, I don’t mean to suggest that racism is no longer a factor — clearly it is; however, I am trying to explore the notion that — as I belive — “identity” politics may be limiting and — perhaps — may tie us to a retrogressive model of political/community organizing. Like a lot progressives, I too have taken part in “identity” politics — Chicanismo, Brown Pride — but found that part of my political involvement a bit constraining, because I belive that bigger gaps can be bridged by collaboratively engaging our common enemy — an enemy that often uses societal and economic forces to divide us.
As you can see, this is pretty much stream of consciousness, so my point may not be very clear and, am sure, could be expressed more fully and tactfully — but I hope that the jist of my point is somewhat apparent.
UPDATE: I’d like to add one more point:
“Identity” politics is not going away, and it shouldn’t — it plays an important role, specially early on for a lot of progressives, as we learn of the contributions that our individual communities have made to America. Accordingly, as many commentators have pointed out, we — progressives — need to adopt the organizational model that conservatives have used: whether one is a corporate conservative, a social conservative, an NRA conservative, etc., they’ve all agreed to form a wide coalition and understand that while today one’s pet cause may not get the nod from the “coalition,” perhaps tomorrow it’ll be one’s turn. So, in the meantime, while the corporate conservatives get their estate tax, tomorrow the social conservatives will get their judges — you get the point.
We need to be as pragmatic and our coalition would naturally include progressives of all stripes: environmentalists, feminists, identity politics progressives, socioeconomic progressives, etc.
