The Journal of Left of Center Thinking :: July 31, 2005 - August 06, 2005

Novak Notes

The spin seems to be that Novak’s bolted the CNN Interview, not because of Carville, but Ed Henry.

I’m not sure. There didn’t seem to me to be much tension prior to Carville’s dig, and Ed didn’t seem to be needling Novak at that point. And, watching the video, he was clearly responding to Carville’s comment, though there is a weird look on his face when he actually departs.

On the other hand, no matter how you slice it, if it was Carville he was responding too, it was clearly not a reasonable response to Carville's comments, which was pretty benign.

Did Novak use Carville’s comments as an excuse to evade questions he knew was coming? A possibility, though CNN said they they told Novak ahead of time they would be discussing Plame.

Certainly, someone must be able to get a hold of the Who’s Who book (which apparently was what was on the desk) and see if Plame is listed?

Santorum speaks the truth

Santorum, in a recent radio interview, sets forth the belief of the religious right, and explains why there is no compromise with these people.

Take a minute to digest that. Rick is saying that only his moral viewpoint is valid, and any recognition of a moral viewpoint he doesn’t agree with is the foisting of morality onto him. In other words, any recognition of a morality which differs from his is, in effect, an assault on his religious freedoms.

This is a line which is being used more and more in our country, which has the religious right firmly in control of our government, and yet claiming they are being assailed and are having their religious freedoms curtailed.

It’s an ominous argument, because it effectively removes any disagreement by claiming it is religious intolerance.

My views on Roberts

Let me be clear about something. Well, several somethings.

I think Roberts will get confirmed (barring any sudden surprise rulings involving the kicking of puppies), and that if there is some torpedoing of his nomination, it will come from the wingnut right. Why? Because they are the ones in power and there isn’t enough worrisome aspects to Roberts for Dems to win the public relations aspect of a filibuster.

Lets be clear, though. Roberts was picked primarily because he is a shadow candidate. If you think this was by accident, you’re fooling yourself. Bush picked him precisely because he knew that there would be little available on Roberts (and what is available would be carefully doled out).

So, really, there are two possibilities. Roberts is a centrist, and Bush is hoping to slip him past the right wing (which is why the ‘gay’ work was not mentioned) or Roberts is a Scalia clone and Bush is trying to slip him passed the moderates and left (which is why the gay case was brought out).

We don’t know, at this point, which reality is true. I’m guessing, however, it’s the latter. Why?

1. Bush nominated him, and has been clear as to the type of justice he wants.
2. The right wing groups in power, save a few, haven’t been riled by the Gay announcement – and they surely would if they thought he would support Lawrence.
3. Roberts has publicly (and more recently, I believe) stated he doesn’t think there is a protected right to privacy.

So, if you want to support Roberts because you believe that justices should be more like Scalia than Souter, than that’s fine. Call your Senator, write Bush, take part in the process. If, however, you’re hoping for a Justice who recognizes a right to privacy and would be good for Gay rights, then don’t point to a single flower in a field of manure and try telling me it’s a garden.

I know what it smells like.

(This is my stance today, based off of all that has been reported. Certainly, as the process evolves, so can my opinion)

Interesting

People are abuzz this morning about a book that showed up during the Novak meltdown. People are claiming (rightly) that it resembles the Who’s Who in America book, which Novak has claimed was the source of Valerie Plame’s name.

So, has anyone looked to see if Plame’s name is in it, or was this some sort of mental game Carville was playing on Novak? Or is it just a similar looking book?

Roberts and the Gays

The fact that Roberts worked on a gay rights case is both reassuring and irrelevant.

It’s reassuring, because it shows he’s not so conservative as to refuse to work on a case he didn’t personally agree with and he did a good job at working on the argument, and he did it for free.

It is irrelevant because there’s a difference between helping someone argue a law, and interpreting a law (as he would as a Justice). This does not, in any way, show that Roberts is a moderate nor that he has a pro-gay slant.

It also doesn’t help us understand his view of the constitution.

Update

The rightwingers at FRC are downplaying Robert’s involvement in the case saying his help didn’t amount to much, and he did it for all the pro bono cases.

As does Ramesh Ponnuru at the corner.

Mike said (at August 4, 2005 12:12 PM):

Henry said (at August 4, 2005 04:08 PM):

RightRainbow makes an Argument

After citing a study which says 53% of the population supports some recognition of gay relationships he says this:

His argument is solid, here. We should be careful of an all or nothing attitude. I, personally, would be happy even if they called it the ‘Not quite as good as marriage’ union. I have, however, heard some good arguments on why calling it ‘marriage’is important, but I still think one step at a time makes sense.

The question I have for Paul is, accepting the survey, why is the GOP actively working against the majority will of the population, by banning not only marriage, but any civil arrangements for GLBT people?

If it’s true

Drudge is reporting that the NY Times is looking into the adoption of Robert’s kids. I can’t possibly imagine what use this would be, and agree that it’s out of the bounds of common decency, unless the times has information about serious irregularities in the adoption.

The Argument against ID

The ID argument seems to be that the world is too complex for it to have just ‘happened’. Someone smart must have created it – and that person is God. Simple enough.

The problem is, of course, the very complexity they claim points to an intelligent design, causes one to question it. The issue is between the controlling of something and the adaptation of something.

Evolution says we (the universal we including animals, plants, ect) adapt to changes. Basic Darwin – animals best suited for a particular environment thrive, while the others die off. Birds fly to an island where there are no predators, and eventually lose the ability to fly – because it was no longer important to survive. This is not theory, but has been observed.

ID says that someone thought all this stuff up. The question then, is why? There was no need for God to respond to an environment of create something that fit some scheme. He (or she) had a blank slate. Why, then, did God not come up with a simpler set-up? Why did he create something so fragile – when he could have made it heartier? Why did he put asteroids in random places, so that they had the potential to undo all his work? Why did he make the Duck-Billed platypus a warm blooded animal that lays eggs?

There are only three real options, the first one being ‘to test us’, which is a religious cop out. Neither of two remaining bode well for god:

1. God is not all powerful. This ties into the ‘aliens created us’ theory. God didn’t create the universe, of even our part of it. Rather he had to create life which could adapt to things he can’t control. This would, though, imply he is not really a God, but rather just powerful and smart.

2. He is Crazy and/or Mean: When looked at through the eyes of evolution, the Duck-Billed platypus makes sense. It’s an offshoot – a evolution which incorporates elements of survivability from other species. When looked at through the eyes of a creator, though – you have to see it as the result of a mad scientist, who had parts left over and just plunked it together because he could. Or who liked the though of life having to figure out a way to prevent an asteroid from killing us all. Or to use energy in such a way that we don’t destroy our own planet. What sane person would create life under these circumstances? This isn’t the act of a rational god who owns a pet and makes sure he gets fed and walked and cared for. This is the act of a five-year old ‘bug collector’ who likes to see what happens when you put a bug under magnifying glass.

ID takes evolution, and assumes an intelligent hand created the complexity. The question surrounding ID is, however, if God could create a world – why would he create it so complex? Why not make us solar-powered so no one goes hungry? Why not make the earth uniformly warm and wet, so no one goes thirsty or dies from exposure. Why make hurricanes?

The response is, of course, that we can’t know. It’s God’s ‘plan’ and we can’t comprehend it. If that’s the case, though, what purpose is served by introducing ID at all?

You knew this was coming

A religious group in Utah is suing over a 10 commandment display, because the city won’t allow them to add the other 7 commandments, which apparently were handed down only to a ‘select few’.

Karl Rove

And the Onion. Two great tastes...

Trends

And you thought changing the rules in order to get what you want was restricted to the National GOP? Nope, apparently, it’s part of the state GOP handbook as well.

Bush surpasses Reagan

At vacationing, anyway. After this stint in Crawford, he will have spent more than 335 days (20%) of his time there, surpassing Reagan with still 3.5 years left to go.

That’s 30 days shy of a fully year.

Yes, I know he still does work – but so did all the other presidents, and it’s less work than he usually does (which, for Bush who doesn’t work late or weekends, really, that’s saying something.)

Michael said (at August 3, 2005 08:33 AM):

Henry said (at August 3, 2005 08:43 AM):

Michael said (at August 3, 2005 09:47 AM):

Henry said (at August 3, 2005 11:51 AM):

Note that Quote

Wonkette

‘Moral’ choices

Personally, I think giving someone the right to refuse to give medical treatment (or access to certain drugs) due to their own personal morality is a horrible idea.

Still, there are gray areas. I think Doctors at public hospitals have a higher responsibility to provide care than, say, doctors at a private fertility clinic.

Still, what gives with stringing a woman on for 11 months, then deciding at the last moment that you have a moral objection to the treatment?

These people should be punished – not for refusing to treat a lesbian (though I support that as well) , but for having her spend 11 months of emotional investment and, no doubt, taking her money for treatment, before deciding they wouldn’t do it.

Turnabout

Americablog wonders if ID can’t be used to help us out.

It’s a wonderful idea, in theory, which of course would never work. Logic and the Radical Right have long since divorced, and the right has even stopped making alimony payments.

Commercial Break

Gay Orbit links to a non-gay commercial – which is pretty funny.

My favorite commercial of all time is still this, though. And, it gives me a chance to plug the Commercial Closet, which I haven’t done in some time.

Michael said (at August 2, 2005 11:05 AM):

Bush wants *ID taught alongside evolution

And the march towards the theocracy takes another step.

*ID = Intelligent Design, if you didn’t know.

GOP tips for ruining for president

Step 1: Veto morning after pill laws to get the anti-abortion vote, even though morning after pills are not abortion (they prevent ovulation / implantation of eggs).

Catching Up

Wow – lots of activity in the world today. I spent the day at a fertility center with my Partner, so I’m still catching up.