Apr 27 2008

Frankie and Jeremiah: The "Wright stuff" nobody needs

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 11:07 pm


I had a lengthy discussion with a friend on the Frankie Shaeffer assertions comparing his father to J. Wright. As a result, I did a little research into it. If you’re interested, read on… Otherwise, just hit the delete key! I wrote all this to put up on a blog I’m working on.

Transcripts and audio here, providing all the context we need to judge the good reverend’s loopy elocutions… And the context is worse, if anything, than the original quotes.

Is there really anything this incendiary from Francis Shaeffer?

Some quotes made by son Frankie from Francis Shaeffer’s A Christian Manifesto:

If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]… then at a certain point force is justifiable.

Would like to see more context… Maybe I’ll get a copy of the book, I’m curious. But, on it’s face, it’s true, is it not? Though I suspect the context when the brackets enclose the US government reference….

In the United States the materialistic, humanistic world view is being taught exclusively in most state schools… There is an obvious parallel between this and the situation in Russia [the USSR]. And we really must not be blind to the fact that indeed in the public schools in the United States all religious influence is as forcibly forbidden as in the Soviet Union….

This is essentially true, is it not?

There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate… A true Christian in Hitler’s Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion… It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God’s law it abrogates it’s authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation…

Again, I harbor some suspicion at the elipsis … Used to associate phrases that may not be so clearly associated in the text.

On the other hand, what would Reinhold Neibuhr have to say about abortion? I wonder.

I’ve often thought that the church’s rhetoric on abortion doesn’t match its action, as far as that goes. If there was a place in Victorville where I knew that people could take their four year olds in to be murdered, and it was legal, and people were actually doing it, I would be a good deal more active than I am in fighting abortion (in which I am somewhat active… We can talk about that sometime). I don’t see the people who say “abortion is murder” doing the same things they’d be doing if the murder of 4 yr olds was legal and common and advertised in the yellow pages.

The question for me: is this failure to act because of lack of courage, or because we don’t really believe what we say?

One of Frankie’s own statements in his Huffington article, including my inserted responses in CAPS

Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father’s footsteps) rail against America’s sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the “murder of the unborn,” [IT SURE IS] has become “Sodom” by coddling gays [IT’S MOVING QUICKLY IN THAT DIRECTION, SOME WOULD SAY QUITE FAR ALREADY], and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists [UH… THEY ARE] and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children [WELL… NOW THAT YOU MENTION, THEY ARE]. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, “under the judgment of God.” [I’M AFRAID THAT MIGHT BE SO…. I HOPE FOR REDEMPTION, BUT WE HAVE SURELY SQUANDERED MANY OF OUR BLESSINGS]

I guess, from my point of view, the paragraph above, even though stated in the most incendiary way possible, is arguably true. I didn’t say that it is absolutely demonstrably true, but a reasonable person could make the argument that it is, and have quite a bit of evidence to make the claim.

Here is the transcript link again for Wright:

In contrast: Jeremiah Wright tells vile lies mixed in with some truth, and those few truths give the lies the sheen of believability. Yes, America has been racist, but it is less so all the time. Yes, some awful things have been done. On the other hand, America has done a great deal of good, which he doesn’t mention. But: absolutely no credible person can try to make (apparently gullible) people believe that the US government invented AIDS to kill blacks. (Although the love of abortion by Margaret Sanger and her ilk has certainly helped keep the black population down.) His anti-military rhetoric is inexplicable… Without the Civil War, he would have been a couple of generations closer to being a slave (assuming the South would have been shamed into ending it sooner or later). Pacifist blacks in general always stun me on this point…. His comparison of Al Queda to the USA as morally equivalent is simply repugnant, an assertion that could only be made by a moral idiot, or worse. He tells the big lie that the war is “about oil”, but we haven’t had a drop from Iraq yet… We surely could have, if we chose. He makes the most vile assertions imaginable about all kinds of people and institutions, and because about 10% of them might be true, his audience laps it up. I won’t go through all the lies here… Read it yourself, if you wish, it’s at the link above. The thing is, he’s consistent, at least, since this is all the straight liberation theology rhetoric, slanted for American blacks of a certain ideological stripe.

He teaches hate and encourages class warfare and jealously and anger, pure and simple.

I don’t think you can say that about Francis Shaeffer.

And I think the fact that Obama calls this man his mentor and “spiritual leader” (even as he backpedals recently) tells me all I need to know about what animates Obama… And really helps to explain why Obama’s wife is proud of America for the first time THIS YEAR… Because Barack is doing well in the primaries. Her statement makes perfect sense in the light of the ideology she apparently bathes in.

I’m willing to make a bet: that in all of Francis Shaeffer’s recorded speeches, sermons and books, you won’t find anything even close to this stuff from J. Wright.

It is a bit sad that Frankie Schaeffer can’t tell the difference between assertions backed by evidence and plain lies. The Orthodox are big believers in rationality, along with their mysticism, having imbibed a good deal of the Greek philosophical tradition… It seems not to have sunk in. Frankie Shaeffer can’t tell the difference between a criticism of the USA and a simple lie about it. Francis criticized, accurately, from an ideological perspective that one may disagree with, but can’t totally discount as non-factual. Wright simply tells lies… BIG ones, evil ones, guaranteed to make his parishioners angry (if they believe him) and to distort their attitudes towards white people and the USA in general.

Wright knows it isn’t true, of course….. I’m sure he’s a smart guy. The mere fact that he’s still around running his mouth is proof of the benign intentions of the government he so calumnies.

Tags: ,


Jun 25 2006

Nepal faces uncertain future with rebels – Yahoo! News

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 9:23 pm

There seems to be an agreement between the rebels and the government of Nepal, which has had a violent revolution recently.

Those Maoist rebel “democrats” have what they wish. Are they ready for it?: “All that ended June 16 with an agreement to establish an interim government to replace the current national parliament as well as the ‘people’s government’ that rules territory under rebel control. 

The Maoists say they will abide by the decisions of a yet-to-be-formed constituent assembly, which will decide what type of government Nepal will have.

But after so many years of living as guerrillas, fighting the government and demanding goals steeped in a Marxist ideology much of the world has long forgotten, the big question is what their leader, known to all as Prachanda, wants for the nation.

The schoolteacher-turned-militant has few democratic credentials, tolerating no dissent as the leader of the guerrillas who call their overriding philosophy ‘Prachandapath’, ‘Prachanda’s Way.’

In interviews since he emerged from hiding, his pronouncements about Nepal’s new government have been vague and sometimes contradictory.

‘There shouldn’t be parliamentary republicanism’ in Nepal, he recently told the weekly magazine Nepal. He ruled out an autocracy, but said that ‘we need a republicanism of our own kind.’ He didn’t elaborate.

His plans for the struggling economy are equally hazy.

Despite the basics of the creed named after Mao Zedong, the Chinese communist leader, Prachanda says the rebels will encourage industry, job creation and the quest for profits.

I’ll believe it when I see it.

Tags: , ,


Jun 14 2006

Left to Right: the American way

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 6:02 pm

Conversion from life in the real world of the CEO of Whole Foods Market: “Excerpt Of The Day: Business Is Not A Zero-Sum Game”

‘At the time I started my business, the Left had taught me that business and capitalism were based on exploitation: exploitation of consumers, workers, society, and the environment. I believed that ‘profit’ was a necessary evil at best, and certainly not a desirable goal for society as a whole. However, becoming an entrepreneur completely changed my life. Everything I believed about business was proven to be wrong.

The most important thing I learned about business in my first year was that business wasn’t based on exploitation or coercion at all. Instead I realized that business is based on voluntary cooperation. No one is forced to trade with a business; customers have competitive alternatives in the market place; employees have competitive alternatives for their labor; investors have different alternatives and places to invest their capital. Investors, labor, management, suppliers, they all need to cooperate to create value for their customers. If they do, then any realized profit can be divided amongst the creators of the value through competitive market dynamics.

In other words, business is not a zero-sum game with a winner and loser. It is a win, win, win, win game, and I really like that. However, I discovered despite my idealism that our customers thought our prices were too high, our employees thought they were underpaid, the vendors would not give us large discounts, the community was forever clamoring for donations, and the government was slapping us with endless fees, licenses, fines, and taxes.

Were we profitable? Not at first. Safer Way managed to lose half of its capital in the first year, $23,000. Despite the loss, we were still accused of exploiting our customers with high prices and our employees with low wages. The investors weren’t making a profit and we had no money to donate. Plus, with our losses, we paid no taxes. I had somehow joined the ‘dark side’, I was now one of the bad guys. According to the perspective of the Left, I had become a greedy and selfish businessman. At this point, I rationally chose to abandon the leftist philosophy of my youth, because it no longer adequately explained how the world really worked.’ — John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market”

Tags: , ,


May 28 2006

The Left and the Right

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 6:19 pm

Here are some quotes from the online presence of the Communist Party and the NAZI Party in the USA:

Communist Party USA Online –: “A Call to Action: Defend Democracy, Change Congress in the 2006 Elections!
by CPUSA National Committee, 03/10/2006 15:11
The Bush-Cheney Administration has plunged our nation into the worst Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. The abuses of power they have committed are legion: an illegal pre-emptive war, lying to Congress and the people, warrant-less spying, mass incarceration of innocent people here and around the world, torture, corrupt no-bid contracts with crony corporations like Halliburton, criminal negligence in abandoning the victims of Hurricane Katrina…”

The American Nazi Party: “The year is 2025, White people HAVE become a MINORITY in America. On our streets hang Aryan men who refused to accept the ‘New Way,’ or perhaps they just looked too White. Perhaps they never thought MUD RULE would really come.
White girls who refuse the advances of Negroids, are publicly gang-raped so as to serve as examples to other shuddering Aryan females. Children are now taken from their houses, by force, to be brought up in a ‘Multi-Cultural’ home of Negroids, Arabs, Muslims and Gooks, all in the name of ‘brotherhood and love’…

And yet, some fight back! Alone or in small cells, Aryans…men and boys…but most of all women who stand the most to lose, since the decline of real men among the White Folk, strike back…at night and with any weapon near at hand.”

Aryan Attack (a publication of the National Socialist Movement, a NAZI organization):
“A nation’s economy dramatically influences the daily lives of all of its citizens. Today we suffer under a greed based Jewish economy. From the Jew Alan Greenspan, who heads the nation’s financial decision making body, the Federal Reserve, to the average sheeple who’ve bought into the Jew lie of Wall Street swindler and Jew Ivan Boesky that “greed is healthy,” altruism and the good of the whole is a dead thought. What’s important in today’s society is greed and its accompanying individualism. “It’s all about me” is the prevailing attitude.

In sharp contrast to this self-centered destructive worldview is National Socialism. National Socialism offers the only long term workable economic system. And it’s proven. When the world was suffering through a terrible economic depression, National Socialist Germany was not! What made the Nazi economy work, while the Jew based economies of the rest of the world failed?”

It’s pretty common to talk about the Democratic Party in the USA as “the left” and the Republican Party as “the right”.

From where I sit, it looks like the Democratic Party is attuned to the very, very far left, the Republican Party sits in the center, and their is no mainstream party on the “right” at all.

Click the links above. Read the sites. Notice how much Democratic rhetoric closely follows the Communist Party, and how distinct Republican rhetoric is from the NAZI Party.

Draw your own conclusions…

Tags: , ,


Apr 18 2006

Democracy Loving MAOist rebels for democracy… sure, I believe that

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 11:12 pm

According to the AP, in today’s article Rights groups urge sanctions against Nepal leaders“, the King of Nepal is a really bad guy. May well be… but does the AP expect us to take seriously the notion of MAOist rebels for democratic rule in Nepal?

Here’s a map showing Nepal’s proximity to China.

According to the AP:

King Gyanendra sacked the government and assumed full power in February 2005, vowing to crush a decade-old Maoist revolt in which more than 13,000 people have died.

At least five people have been killed and hundreds wounded in police action against pro-democracy protesters, who are into the 13th day of a general strike that has brought the impoverished nation to a standstill.

And:

King Gyanendra has offered to hold elections by April next year, but activists say he cannot be trusted and should immediately hand over power to an all-party government.

….

The United States and India, Nepal’s giant neighbour, have both called repeatedly for the restoration of democracy.

This is typical MSM reporting, casting MAOist (likely Chinese backed) rebels as pro-democracy insurgents, and providing no background that really helps anyone to understand the players. Does the USA really back Maoist “freedom fighters”? Doubtful.

Would it help our understanding of the context if the AP bothered to report on which nearby government is supporting the Maoist fighters?

Are there any good guys here? Possibly not… but the wide eyed innocent face value acceptance of Maoist insurgency as “pro-democratic” is laughable.

Tags: , ,


Jul 04 2005

Air America: Air Ball?

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 12:27 am

 

I listened to Air America all day today. I know, I know… but sometimes I just need to know what the chattering class on the lefty side is saying.

Here is what I learned:

There’s no point in impeaching Bush (still laughing at that one), since then Cheney would be president… and if he was impeached, it would be that creepy Speaker of the House, Haffert (no kidding, that’s what the hosts said, and no one called in to correct them). So congratulating themselves on their hardheaded realism, both pundits and callers bravely moved on to more practical affairs… after discussing it for two hours. Good decision.

Cowboys were probably often gay in the old west, since women were in short supply. Further, those cowboys had a gal inside, just trying to get out. Some guy who styles himself a scholar (scholars rarely claim it for themselves….) even sang a song about it, while complaining that the FCC wouldn’t let him air the true lyrical triumph in the song, the F-word. Too bad… it would have been the highlight of the song.

Now that Bush will appoint at least one new supreme court justice, personal liberty in America is under great threat, and the rights of minority groups and poor people will be trampled, with a probable reversal of the all the gains of the last 40 years… what paltry few have been made, of course.

Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, …. well, you get the idea.

Black people who choose not to carry “Black Power” signs (or Al Sharpton for president signs) in lefty protests outside black churches are “house negroes”… according to the two black hosts, of course. Clarence Thomas would be the worst possible Chief Justice.

The is no source of compassion, love, justice, etc., in the universe, except in so far as people “act” that way. Todays Unitarian Universalist clergy member/talk show host informed us that good only exists when people do it.

Bush gave his recent foreign policy speech about the Iraq war to the Fort Bragg special forces troops because they would applaud out of fear of reprisal. What can you expect from the worst president in history?

Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, ….

War is evil….. all war is evil…. of course, evil can’t actually be defined, just as good can’t be defined….. but all war is evil. Why DO those wascally tewwowists hate us so much? Well, mainly because Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, ….

The United States is an imperialist power with a history of doing evil around the world and to its own people, and most especially to all minorities. The United States is bent on seeking world domination, through a conspiracy of evil corporate giants, the military, and political insiders.

The newly refurbished, kinder, gentler left no longer hates the troops… just those nasty higher ups who manipulate them into serving on foreign shores.

40,000 troops (!!!!) have come back from Iraq with disabling physical injuries, mental illness and emotional distress.

Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar,

Well, some commentary on all of this:

It was truly thrilling to hear the left put up its best, if indeed that’s what I heard today. These talk hosts make no attempt at all to educate their audiences with specifics. (I think some of them might excel at re-education… but that’s another topic.) I must have heard the Bush-is-a-liar mantra hundreds of times in a few hours… with no specifics except that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (making liars of the entire world, of course).

There was not a single disagreeing caller, or maybe an actual conservative, on any of the shows I heard today. Not one. Does that mean we fascist types just don’t listen? Or just can’t get through? I don’t know… but the contrast with center-right talk radio, which positively courts disagreeing callers, is huge. There is an enormous sense of preaching to the choir, and not working at making a case for the unconverted.

It seems to be enough to call names at the other side, repeat a few talking points, face no actual disagreement (reasoned or otherwise), take a few cheerleading calls, and call it a day.

No wonder Air America is going under, subsidized as it is. Perhaps center-right successful talk hosts should consider some discrete anonymous donations to keep it on the air…. since the comparison to the pros on the right is so much in their favor that Air America boils down to free adversting for the right.

Tags: ,


Feb 21 2005

W and the evil Wead

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 3:33 pm

President Bush is heard on an audio tape acknowledging in a private conversation with (advisor to former President Bush) Doug Wead that he used marijuana but wouldn’t admit it publicly for fear that a child would imitate his errors. Preliminary quotes are at Political Gateway. According to that site, Bush said:

“I woudn’t answer the marijuana questions. You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” 

I see nothing in context here that is particularly troublesome for Bush, given the certainty of the drunk driving arrest, and the possibility of cocaine use… neither of which have proven especially problematic for Bush, politically, although the timing of the release of the drunk driving charge (by a Dem operative) surely helped make the 2000 election dangerously close.

A point frequently missed by the left (when charges like these are surfaced by hopeful Bush-bashers) is that the religous right believes in forgiveness, in the presence of obvious repentance. That doesn’t mean that private sins must be publicly confessed in detail… thank God.

No one will be surprised that Bush smoked weed sometime, or that he chooses not to answer direct questions about it now. Is this a big revelation?

The tape transcripts I’ve seen so far reveal what we knew already…. that Bush is a man with ideals, who has practical perspectives on how to pursue them. Bush is tough and means what he says. He gets to the point. In other words, his current *public image* seems to fit the *private image* shown on the tapes.

In the meantime… I wonder if Doug Wead did weed? Sorry… couldn’t resist.

Tags: ,


Jan 26 2005

Rauch’s Arithmetic

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 6:22 pm

Hugh Hewitt has now posted the full text of Jonathon Rauch’s article in Atlantic Monthly on the divisions in American political and social life. He’s also posted Mr. Rauch’s confession that some of his language in associating religious conservatism with violent behavior was, uh, intemporate. Kudo’s to Mr. Rauch for admitting that, and doing so quickly.

I don’t think his sorta mea culpa is adequate to explain his presentation, however, and in the quote below, I think he digs his hole a little deeper.

Mr. Rauch’s article attempts to make the point that America is less divided than it seems, and that the two main political parties are more centrist than they seem at times, while remaining capable of absorbing those with more extreme views at election time.

Mr. Rauch makes some interesting points. Much of his position seems to be based on simply using different polls than are used by those who assert the deep division hypothesis, and by interpreting some of the same polls from a different perspective. Some of his points come from “focus group” studies that he thinks are superior to polls, at least some of the time. As always, what passes for the peculiar art of “qualitative research” is up for grabs… but Mr. Rauch seems to me to be cherry picking the data that fits his notion.

Everyone knows that polls are virtually never done in an ideological vacuum. With any polling question, it is possible to make some good guesses about assumptions that underly the question that the pollster is ostensibly asking. The biggest weaknesses of polls are that they have poor mechanisms for measuring how *strongly* a participant feels about an issue, and polls usually make little attempt to measure what a participant actually knows about the issue before eliciting an opinion.

Similarly, who ran the focus groups? What was their orientation politically/socially? Were two sets of focus groups run in parallel on the same topics, by people of oppositie perspectives? Were contrasting results tossed out? As a university professor who is exposed to all sorts of things that are called “research”, I remain skeptical about all of the above.

It is possible, however, to infer some things from the polls that really matter, the elections, and from some pieces of data that no one disputes on either side of the political fence.

1) African-Americans vote overwhelmingly Democratic, regardless of what individual answers they give on single topic polls. So do certain other ethnic groups, though the divide may be smaller.

2) Church goers (and those who identify strongly with religious traditions, even when their participation isn’t perfect) vote two-to-one for Republicans.

3) The reverse (two-to-one non-church goers for Democrats) is also approximately correct.

Mr. Rauch says:

“The Republican Party has acquired its distinctively tart right-wing flavor largely because it has absorbed (in fact, to a significant extent has organizationally merged with) the religious right. As Hanna Rosin reports elsewhere in this package [elsewhere in the same Atlantic Monthly issue], religious conservatives are becoming more uniformly Republican even as their faiths and backgrounds grow more diverse.”

Mr. Rauch seems to be trying to have it two ways. On the one hand, he wants to identify the “religious right” as occupying an “extremist” position in the Republican party, somewhat analogous to what he wants us to think of leftists like Michael Moore in the Democratic party. (This seems to exclude members of the religious right from consideration as “centrists”, or, as Hugh likes to say, members of the “center right”.) On the other hand, he seems to undercut his own position (fatally, I think) by acknowledging that what he calls the “religious right” has unprecedented power in the modern Republican party, and is indeed now the ideological center of that party… as Democrats keep pointing out (in their confusion, thinking it benefits them).

Where is Mr. Rauch’s observation that “the Democratic party has acquired its distinctively tart left-wing flavor largely because it has absorbed (in fact, to a significant extent has organizationally merged with) the secular left”? Well… he didn’t make it. But I just did… using his words from the quote above.

Mr. Rauch does not mention a single example from the left of a “fringe group” being welcomed into the Democratic party and becoming its new center. That’s because no such example exists. It is difficult to *name* an ideological center to the party, other than the phrase “secular left”, which is rejected by party mavens as pejorative. All that is necessary is to note the willingness of the “religious right” to accept *that* label, and the identity crisis of the left is made clear.

Underlying all of this is a significant problem for Democrats, namely that there is no true ideological center that unites its various factions. It frequently appears to be a coalition of single issue voters, each with a particular complaint against the traditional American status quo, whose single issues are not related in any obvious way. There seems very much to be an attitude of “I’ll cheer for your single issue if you’ll cheer for mine”.

What will happen in modern electoral politics if even one third to one half of *church going* African-Amercians begin to vote with their natural ideological allies, namely the modern Republican party? Or if religious Hispanics do the same?

The MSM has done a fabulous job of controlling the information received by these groups up to now… but that dominance of communication channels is fading, and as these “minority groups” come to realize that Republicans offer school choice and other education reforms, real economic opportunity, strong family policies and life affirming attitudes, some in these groups can (and I think will) change their voting patterns.

I’ll be interested to read Mr. Rauch’s response to that change… in about 10-20 years. Who will be the “moderates” then?

I’d be fascinated to see Mr. Rauch rewrite his article (if he really believes his thesis) in the way I rewrote his quote above… just reversing all the language referring to parties and left/right labels, and see if he can find examples that make it all make as much sense to him as those he used. If he can’t do that…. well, maybe the differences are as real between the “centers” of each party as it seems to some of us. The fact that he didn’t do it that way in the first place, regardless of his protestations of human frailty now, is telling.

Tags:


Jan 24 2005

Jonathon Rauch’s Innumeracy

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 11:42 pm

Atlantic Monthly’s Jonathan Rauch (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200501/rauch) appears to struggle with basic arithmetic.

“On balance it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics. The same is true of the left. The clashes over civil rights and Vietnam turned into street warfare partly because activists were locked out of their own party establishments and had to fight, literally, to be heard. When Michael Moore receives a hero’s welcome at the Democratic National Convention, we moderates grumble; but if the parties engage fierce activists while marginalizing tame centrists, that is probably better for the social peace than the other way around.”

This seems to be a peculiar sort of innumeracy. “Religious conservatives”, by Mr. Rauch’s definition, make up about half the modern Republican party…. or more. Their influence is not proportional to their willingness to do violence as a disgruntled minority (or it would be exceedingly small, since only the very crazy few are violent…. and they are by definition not really “religious conservatives,” anyway). Instead, the influence of “religious conservatives” is proportional to their numbers, i.e., a majority of the party, or something very close to it.

“Religious conservatives” did not attain their influence through marches (though some have marched, in both the civil rights and pro-life movements). Nor was power gained by intimidation, the promotion of any kind of violence, or any other sort of “acting out.” Mr. Rauch seems to assume some kind of proportionality of the number of (presumably conservative right) potential abortion clinic bombers to (presumably liberal left) street fighting war protesters of bygone years…. some of whom are back.

Hmm… if this proportionality were true, few abortion clinics would have been left standing in America even before the 1994 Republican congressional victories, after 20 years of having been mostly “ignored” by both parties.

Some leftists will paint pro-life demonstrators with the same brush as the 1960’s anti-war activists… as if there were some moral or tactical parity. The fact seems to be that main-stream media have given mostly negative coverage to pro-life “protest”, while positive media coverage of the perspectives of anti-war activists is a large part of what led to their (execrable) successes.

Mr. Rauch tries a real fast one in his commingling of civil rights protests with anti-war protests. The former had a high proportion of “religious conservatives” and were virtually non-violent on the part of the protesters (in no small part *because* of religious belief), while the latter emanated largely from the left, clearly used violence and provocation of it as a tool, and were part of the early “culture wars.”

The comparison of the influence of “religous conservatives” in the Republican party to Michael Moore’s reception at the Democratic convention is *exactly* backwards. In contrast to “moderate Democrats” grumbling about (extreme leftist) Moore, it was Republican conservatives grumbling about the lionizing of “Republican moderates” at the Republican convention.

Mr. Rauch can’t count, apparently. He also doesn’t appreciate the fundamental position of people who believe in something as quaint as right and wrong… namely that they are unwilling to do wrong in order to achieve what is right.

Tags:


Nov 03 2004

John and Ken look kinda stupid today

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 1:57 pm

David Dreier Wins Big!

And John and Ken of LA afternoon drivetime radio must be a bit, uh, disappointed.

They had targeted Dreier (Rep.) as a “political human sacrifice” because of his supposedly poor record on fighting illegal immigration, a big issue in California. John and Ken pride themselves on their “political independence”, having also fought in the battle to unseat former Governor Gray Davis.

The story was like this: since Republicans don’t do any better at stopping illegal immigration than Dems, why should we vote for them just because we hope they will? So John and Ken tried to get Republicans to vote against Dreier, just to “send a message” that poor performance on the issue would no longer be tolerated.

What John and Ken don’t get: the major media is a MUCH larger problem than the politicians in this arena. The vast majority of news coverage is sympathetic to illegals, not to those who are hurt by the illegals being here.

J&K made much of the fact that Dreier stopped coming on their show to be assaulted by them.

I’ll be really impressed when they get the editors of the LA Times and network news shows to come on for hour long to segments to be grilled on their news coverage re: illegals.

In the meantime, Dreier proved that such stunts don’t work, by winning handily with an 11% margin over his nearest opponent., 54% to 43%. Hopefully, J&K will eat some humble pie on air, and then invite the major news bottleneck guardians to come on and talk about the issue. I doubt they’ll get a lot of response from them, though….

John and Ken are right that the Republicans talk a lot more than they act on the issue. They need to use their clout (of which they do have a little, in spite of failing here) to attach the real problem.

 

Tags: ,


« Previous PageNext Page »