MSNBC just announced that Thacker (see today’s earlier post) has witdrawn himself from consideration for the President’s Council on HIV/AIDS.
That is good news.
What I don’t get, however, is why right-wing pundidts like Baye Buchanan (Pat’s sister — picture an eviler [yes, it’s possible] Pat in a big blonde wig). Ms. Buchanan just asked the Leader of the Human Rights Council whether or nor the gay community had been plagued by AIDS. When the gentleman from HRC (don’t remember his name) said, “Yes, but…” Baye said that was proof that Thacker’s characterization of AIDS as the “gay plague” was not horrible.
Not one ounce of shame.
January 23rd, 2003
Posted by
Rob |
Politics |
no comments
Marc sent me this Time Europe essay by Brian Eno.
I find myself wanting to cut and paste the whole thing. Here are some samples:
Surely this isn’t the America that anyone dreamed of; it’s a last resort, nobody’s choice. It’s especially ironic since so much of the best new thinking about society, economics, politics and philosophy in the last century came from America. Unhampered by the snobbery and exclusivity of much European thought, American thinkers vaulted forward — courageous, innovative and determined to talk in a public language. But, unfortunately, over the same period, the mass media vaulted backward, thriving on increasingly simple stories and trivializing news into something indistinguishable from entertainment. As a result, a wealth of original and subtle thought — America’s real wealth — is squandered.
This narrowing of the American mind is exacerbated by the withdrawal of the left from active politics. Virtually ignored by the media, the left has further marginalized itself by a retreat into introspective cultural criticism. It seems content to do yoga and gender studies, leaving the fundamentalist Christian right and the multinationals to do the politics. The separation of church and state seems to be breaking down too. Political discourse is now dominated by moralizing, like George W. Bush’s promotion of American “family values” abroad, and dissent is unpatriotic. “You’re either with us or against us” is the kind of cant you’d expect from a zealous mullah, not an American President.
[snip]
Too often, the U.S. presents the “American way” as the only way, insisting on its kind of free-market Darwinism as the only acceptable “model of human progress.” But isn’t civilization what happens when people stop behaving as if they’re trapped in a ruthless Darwinian struggle and start thinking about communities and shared futures? America as a gated community won’t work, because not even the world’s sole superpower can build walls high enough to shield itself from the intertwined realities of the 21st century. There’s a better form of security: reconnect with the rest of the world, don’t shut it out; stop making enemies and start making friends. Perhaps it’s asking a lot to expect America to act differently from all the other empires in history, but wasn’t that the original idea?
There is a lot more and it’s well worth reading.
I thought of something else… In past bleats, Lileks has often expressed his admiration for Eno’s music, and Eno has just written a piece that Lileks might view as anti-American (a la John Le Carre). I wonder if Lileks will skewer one of his idols in the same manner he has skewered others? Or if he does post about it, will he just focus on the part about the withdrawal of the left from politics?
January 23rd, 2003
Posted by
Rob |
Politics |
no comments
From this MSNBC piece:
The Bush administration has chosen Jerry Thacker, a Pennsylvania marketing consultant who has characterized AIDS as the “gay plague,” to serve on the Presidential Advisory Commission on HIV and AIDS.
NEXT WEEK, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson is scheduled to swear in several new commission members. They include Thacker, a former Bob Jones University employee, who says he contracted the AIDS virus after his wife was infected through a blood transfusion.
[snip]
In his speeches and writings on his Web site and elsewhere, Thacker has described homosexuality as a “deathstyle” rather than a lifestyle and asserted that “Christ can rescue the homosexual.” After word of his selection spread among gays in recent days, some material disappeared from the Web site. Earlier versions located by The Washington Post that referred to the “gay plague,” for instance, were changed as of yesterday to “plague.”
[snip]
“This individual is an extremist ideologue who persecutes and demeans an entire class of people impacted by this disease,” said David Smith, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign. “That type of person has no business advising the president of the United States on how the government should address the epidemic.”
Carl Schmid, a Republican gay activist who worked on President Bush’s 2000 campaign, said he was disappointed and frustrated that HHS disregarded warnings that Thacker’s selection would overshadow the commission’s valuable work.
We need to have a scientific-based approach to the problems of HIV-AIDS and not this radical agenda he’s pushing,” Schmid said. Aside from the harshly anti-gay tone of Thacker’s rhetoric, Schmid said, his major objection to Thacker is his aggressive lobbying for abstinence-until-marriage education.
“Abstinence-until-marriage does not help anyone in the gay community, because we can’t get married,” he said. “If you are a gay youth, who is addressing your concerns?”
Thacker’s biography on the Web site of the Scepter Institute, a nonprofit organization that sells religious-based AIDS material, indicates he is a Bob Jones University graduate and was a “member of the university faculty for seven years.” Bush caused a stir in the 2000 presidential campaign when he spoke at the South Carolina university, which until recently banned interracial dating and has been accused of anti-Catholic attitudes.
In September 2001, Thacker returned to his alma mater to give two “Chapel Messages.” The speeches, summarized on the university Web site, focused on the “sin of homosexuality” and his family’s struggle with AIDS.
“When he and his wife discovered in 1986 that they had contracted HIV, the most horrible thought was that it was a disease connected with the sin of homosexuality,” according to the summary. “They didn’t want anyone to think they were homosexual because they knew what the Bible said about homosexuality.”
Thacker’s beliefs on homosexuality are known as “reparative therapy,” a philosophy that considers homosexuality aberrant behavior that can be modified through religious faith. Professional organizations such as the American Psychological Association say that approach has no medical or scientific basis.
The Bob Jones summary of Thacker’s speeches said: “Homosexuality is not inborn biologically, just as incest and bestiality are not inborn. Studies have show that thousands of homosexuals have been set free from this sin.”
un-f|<'|\|-believable!
Granted, it is tragic that Thacker and his wife contracted AIDS, but should a zealous and seemingly vengeful man who has an axe to grind with the gay community really be helping craft the Administration’s policy on HIV and AIDS? Yes, there are other people from other backgrounds on the 35-member panel, but I have found no information that any of the other members are on a religious crusade against gays. It only takes one person to highjack and handcuff a panel such as this one. Furthermore, in nominating him, the White House gives tacit support of Thacker’s bigoted and ill-founded views. On top of that there is the whole Bob Jones thing. Why is this Administration so beholden to that “institution”? Is Thacker really the best that the Administration could do, or is it that they just don't give a damn about fighting the “gay plague”?
UPDATE: Atrios has more. This Thacker guy is really quite disgusting.
January 23rd, 2003
Posted by
Rob |
Politics |
one comment
Rove also took issue with criticism that the president has sided with wealthy interests and rolled back environmental reforms.
“This president is a populist,” he said. “Given a choice between Wall Street and Main Street, he will chose Main Street any time.” [emph. mine]
Let’s see how well Mr. Populist President’s GOP controlled Senate chose Main Street yesterday, shall we:
By 50-46, the GOP-controlled chamber killed an effort by Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., to delay Environmental Protection Agency regulations that will let factories, refineries and processing plants modernize without upgrading their air pollution systems.
The vote was a victory for President Bush in the first major environmental showdown of the new Congress and briefly shined the spotlight on Edwards, a 2004 presidential hopeful. It was hailed by industry groups as a boon to business and criticized by environmentalists who said it would result in dirtier air.
[snip]
Later, the Senate by 56-39 turned aside an amendment by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., that would have roughly doubled the $3.1 billion the overall measure has for farmers. Instead, senators voted 59-35 for an alternative by Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., focusing more of the money already in the bill for growers and ranchers hurt by natural disasters.
[snip]
Democrats said they had scored enough political points by spending days trying — mostly unsuccessfully — to add funds for schools, farmers, domestic security and other programs.
[snip]
Democrats contrasted the GOP’s stance against spending with Bush’s proposed $674 billion, 10-year economic package, all but $4 billion of which is for tax cuts.
“At the very time the administration says we can’t afford $6 billion in disaster assistance, they come forth with a $670 billion tax cut, a tax cut that helps those at the very top with very, very little support for anyone else,” Daschle said.
In another vote, the Senate by a 49-45 vote killed an effort by Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., to provide extra benefits to 1 million jobless people who have used up their long-term unemployment benefits. By 48-46, it also rejected $600 million in famine aid for Africa introduced by Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.
So if what Rove claims about President Bush is true, I guess we can expect the President to reverse his tax cut plan and fund some of the programs the GOP Sentate is gutting?
And what about the President’s Populist Stance on the Main Streets of US cities? Lets see what the nation’s mayors have to say:
Mayors rip Bush, offer alternative stimulus package
Saying the big-spending federal government is short-changing cities, the nation’s mayors on Wednesday criticized President Bush’s stimulus plan and called for targeted investment to create jobs.
A new report by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that metropolitan areas lost 646,000 jobs last year, including 500 in Houston.
To bring back jobs and keep cities thriving, an alternative stimulus plan endorsed by the mayors calls for more federal funding for transportation, housing, redevelopment and job training initiatives.
“Our new report predicts weak job growth, and that is simply not acceptable,” said Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, president of the mayors’ conference.
Adding to financial pressure on cities and states, Menino said, are the added costs of homeland security passed down from the federal government to local entities.
In the meantime, job losses from a lackluster economy are also putting the pinch on cities, according to the mayors’ report.
In all, two-thirds of the nation’s 319 metropolitan areas lost jobs in 2002. Six cities — New York, Chicago, Atlanta, San Jose, Boston and Seattle — lost more than 40,000 jobs each.
[snip]
Richard L. Trumka, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO, said that when cities are forced to cut costs, workers such as police and firefighters often lose their jobs.
“I think we can all agree that our economy is no longer fundamentally sound,” Trumka said. “And there is little hope the Bush administration will do anything to create jobs.”
and of course there are the people themselves whose voice is heard through polls:
…a new Washington Post-ABC News poll found that a majority of Americans for the first time in his presidency disapprove of Bush’s handling of the economy.
Fewer than half of those polled support Bush’s tax cut plan, unveiled with much fanfare earlier this month but facing at least some battle for passage in Congress.
The President has a response for this of course. You can almost feel the spirit of old TR coursing through President Bush’s Populist veins:
Bush, who was in Missouri promoting his economic stimulus and tax cut plans, scoffed at criticism that his package overlooks average workers.
“Oh sure, you hear the typical class-warfare rhetoric, trying to pit one group of people against another,” Bush said.
Rove deserves much of the criticism he gets from us denziens of the Left, but sometimes you just have to sit back and admire Rove for having such a set of big brass ones. The man has no shame.
January 23rd, 2003
Posted by
Rob |
Politics |
2 comments
Back in July I wrote a post about Howard Dean. It was about that time that I had first heard his name, and I wanted to post some of his stances on the issues based on a David Broder Op-Ed piece. I am still getting comments on that post today. When I look at that post, however, I am struck by both its age and its general lack of information.
So, I surfed over to CSPAN.org to see if I could find any new video of Dean and flesh out some of his stances. I found this video (Real Media) of Dean, Kerry and Gephardt giving speeches at A Linn County Iowa Democratic Fundraising Dinner on January 18th.
Dean’s speech covers the first 25 minutes of the video, and it is probably worth watching.
Here are some highlights from my notes (not in the order he gave them and mostly paraphrased):
Affirmative Action–Dean claimed it was wrong for the President to use a racially divisive term such as “quotas” when discussing the U of M points system. Dean does not believe Michigan uses a quota system and supports affirmative action.
Campaign Reform–He is for public financing of campaigns with instant runoffs (“so Nader can’t steal an election for Gore—even though we all know it was the Supreme Court”. He is also for recognition by amendment or by the courts that campaign donations are not the same as free speech.
Education–Chastised Bush for passing the “Largest unfunded mandate in the history of education”. Dean mocked Bush’s plan by calling it the “Every School Board Left Behind Act” and the “No Teacher Left Standing Act”. He claimed that if he had run and been re-elected Governor of Vermont, he would have turned down the testing -based money on principle. He said that if he were President he would make sure that Special Education was fully funded. Dean claimed that doing so would take the burden off of school boards and allow districts to lower property taxes without squeezing school budgets. He claimed that funding Special Ed. would allow real tax relief for Middle Americans.
Economy–Pointed out that he is the only candidate for the Democratic nomination that did not support Bush’s tax cut. Claimed that if he were elected he would get rid of Bush’s cuts and use the money to balance the budget and use whatever was left for Health Care reform. Kept repeating that he was a fiscal conservative. He said he was proud that under his leadership Vermont isn’t facing the budget shortfalls and Medicaid cuts that many other states are dealing with now. Said Bill Clinton balanced the budget in 1993 without a single Republican vote and in only 2 and a half years the Bush Administration found a way to return us to the largest deficit in the history of the United States.
Health Care–Said that as governor he made sure that every child under 18 had health insurance and he would do the same as president. Said neither the Democrat’s nor the Republican’s proposals for a Patient’s bill of Rights were worth anything (”Republicans don’t want you to sue your HMO and Democrats do”). He is for Universal Health Care and said it was not some “loony liberal idea” but something that Harry Truman put in the party platform back in the 40’s.
Energy–We need to become less dependent on the Saudis who he was very tough on for funding terrorism. Wants to raise mileage standards for all vehicles and does not want to take SUVs and Trucks away. Wants 10% ethanol in all fuel. Wants to develop alternative energy sources to bring us closer to the EU who have been working on this successfully for some time. Wants to promote basic conservation.
Foreign Policy–Wants to be “multilateral” (used this word a lot) and not make policy decisions in the go it alone way the current President does. Used Kyoto as an example. Said that it was flawed, but he would not have “spit” on it and walk away the way the President has. He would have worked with the other nations to make the treaty stronger (especially in regard to Third World nations). Said he is the only current Democratic candidate that did not support the Iraq resolution.
Equal Rights under the law–said he was for same-sex Civil Unions (but not marriage which is a church function) so all people can have equal rights on inheritance, insurance and hospitalization. Said he was not willing to sell out a whole group of people (gays and lesbians) just because it was politically risky to pass the Vermont Civil Unions act. Said he hopes to get to debate Bush so he can ask him to explain why he feels everyone is not entitled to equal rights under the law.
Dean closed the speech saying that if he were the nominee he would make us proud to be Democrats again. He would be willing to stand up for what Democrats believe in and not worry what people like Rush Limbaugh says about it.
It was a good speech. Sometimes he jumped around a little bit and he is not the most polished speaker in the world, He has this odd habit of raising and lowing his tone at odd places. In all, I was still impressed by what he had to say. Of course it was all very high-level stuff (he was sharing the stage with Gephardt and Kerry), but he left me wanting to hear more, which is a good thing for a candidate. I liked that he was not afraid to criticize the president and he was fairly harsh in his criticism. I am still interested in Howard Dean.
January 23rd, 2003
Posted by
Rob |
Politics |
3 comments
