Extraordinary Rendition
The “liberal” Ninth Circuit Court found 6-5 that victims of extraordinary rendition cannot sue the government because national security concerns trump the rights of the tortured men. I don’t have time to go into this and reading the link will not give you nearly enough information. The take-home message is clear: this is about not embarrassing the government, not about protecting our security. This reminds me of the Doonesbury comic where someone is visiting Asia and says, “This is the site of the secret Cambodian bombing!” Then a local man says, “It wasn’t secret to us; I said to my wife, ‘Look at those bombs exploding!'”
Moderate Republicans
Meghan McCain was on the Rachel Maddow Show last night and it really bugged me. She’s a nice young woman and all, but she talked about remaining a Republican and fighting for moderation in the party. What was she talking about? The Democratic Party is the pragmatic party—they’re the ones who do things that work. The Republican Party is the idealistic party—they’re the ones who are supposed to do things because they are right. Setting aside the fact that the Republicans have an incoherent ideology (personal freedom for corporations, personal slavery for people), how do they moderate their platform. Is it: instead of Park51 being ten blocks from Ground Zero, it can be eight blocks? Is it: instead of the top income tax rate being 35.0% it will be 35.2%? I simply do not see how any reasonable person can be a Republican at this time. In 1970? Okay. In 1980? Okay. Even in 1990? Okay. But not now. And not for the last ten years—at least.
Richard Nixon would be a moderate Democrat today. Ronald Reagan would be a liberal Republican—maybe even a conservative Democrat. Glenn Beck would call Barry Goldwater a fucking socialist!
Ladies and Gentlemen: Your NEW Republican Party!
Trust me, you gotta watch this. Minerva, Ohio councilman Phil Davison gave an impassioned speech last night at the Stark County Republican Party’s executive committee meeting to be their nominee for county treasurer. Sadly, he will not be their nominee. See if you can tell why:
Again, I’m having trouble viewing this. I’m not sure if I agree that Republicans are the "idealistic" party. For me, ideal truly relates to "justice for all." This does not seem to apply to most Republicans’ ideologies.
I am over-stating here. The Republicans claim to be what the Libertarians _are_. Socialists are not ideological in the sense that they simply think that the state should be run in whatever way is best for the people. Marxism is more ideological because it is based upon the idea people should only make money from work–not from owning. This is why I generally consider myself a Marxist (neo-Marxist, postmodern Marxist, whatever). And my thinking is not self-serving. I have been meaning to write an article about the immorality of copyright law.
To get back on point: why do liberals think that women have a right to abortions? It is not based so much in ideology as the anti-choice crowd who claim that an fetus is a full human with all the rights that go along with this. (Contrast this with what the 14th amendment appeal people want!) Being anti-choice (I _hate_ the term "pro-life"–it is misleading) means exactly that: being against the choice to have an abortion. Being pro-choice does _not_ mean that one is in favor of abortions. I’ve known a number of women who had abortions and it was very hard on them all. Being pro-choice is about limiting harm. It is like being in favor of needle-exchange programs: we wish to minimize damage and suffering.
Ideologues want to pretend that we do or can live in a perfect world. Pragmatists live in the real world. And that’s what I was getting at.
Does that make sense?
Pro-choice=Pro-good quality of life