Author's posts
Oct 25 2007
What’s Better Than Meta?
Oct 24 2007
African American Leaders on Equal Rights For Gays
There can be no doubt that Senator Barack Obama is a proponent of gay rights. There should be no question on that point. But in their zealous defense of their candidate regarding the McClurkin controversy, some Obama supporters have argued that a strong defense of gay rights alienates African American voters. This is not borne out by the positions taken by these African American leaders.
FROM TIME to time, America comes to a crossroads. With confusion and controversy, it’s hard to spot that moment. We need cool heads, warm hearts, and America’s core principles to cleanse away the distractions.
We are now at such a crossroads over same-sex couples’ freedom to marry. It is time to say forthrightly that the government’s exclusion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters from civil marriage officially degrades them and their families. It denies them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It denies them numerous legal protections for their families.
This discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry.
[S]ome high-profile black ministers continue to employ an agenda focused solely on sexually-based themes, like denying a women’s right to choose an abortion or a gay couple’s right to marry, to rally their congregations and drive a wedge through our people.
Not only are they speaking narrowly on the issues of gay marriage and abortion, but even as the Supreme Court is today taking on affirmative action, there has been silence from the black church.
Many African-Americans recognize the narrowness of scope of these beliefs. To that end, we held a conference — The National Conference and Revival for Social Justice in the Black Church — in Dallas, Texas, last week where more than 100 ministers restated and reemphasized what issues are of dire importance to the black populace as a whole.
At times ebullient, at times seemingly close to tears of joy, Mayor David N. Dinkins defied his detractors yesterday and joined a rousing dance at an outdoor celebration in Greenwich Village with the Irish lesbians and gay men he had joined in Saturday’s abuse-marred St. Patrick’s Day Parade.
“The behavior of some people yesterday was despicable,” the Mayor declared as scores of people at the party in Sheridan Square surged around him on a springlike afternoon, chanting his name over and over and singing “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow.”
“You did the right thing!” someone shouted.
“We all did the right thing,” Mr. Dinkins responded.
Yes of course, like of all our society, there is homophobia in the African-American community. But to portray this unacceptable view as dominant in the African-American political makeup is simply false.
Oct 24 2007
The Plot Thickens For Obama on McClurkin
Via Aravosis, HRC weighs in:
The nation’s biggest gay rights group is trying to force Sen. Barrack Obama (D-Ill.) to cancel presidential campaign event with a controversial preacher who claims he was homosexual but has been cured. The Human Rights Campaign has expressed its strong reservations to Obama over his campaign-sponsored tour that features gospel singer Donnie McClurkin. The influential organization, representing a powerful Democratic constituency, let Obama’s campaign know that it would issue a public demand if Obama did not immediately cancel the event, said a person who had been briefed on the exchange….
See also this:
A gay rights group has urged Barack Obama to cut ties with a gospel singer who it says spreads false information about homosexuality being a choice.Donnie McClurkin is among several gospel singers scheduled to raise money for the Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate at a concert in South Carolina this weekend. McClurkin has drawn attention from gay rights activists for his views on homosexuality.
“We strongly urge Obama to part ways with this divisive preacher who is clearly singing a different tune than the stated message of the campaign,” Wayne Besen, executive director of Truth Wins Out, said in a statement.
Oct 24 2007
What A Cult Of Personality Can Do
Geekesque is one of my better blogging friends now. Ironically so, as a spat he and I had was the the first step to the mutual decision made by Kos and I to go our separate ways re: Daily Kos. He is a smart fellow. Very astute. But like I was with Clark in 2004, he defends Obama no matter what and dreams up ways to justify his actions. Take this diary:
In other words, if a candidate appears on stage with 100 black South Carolinians, 62 of them share the basic beliefs of McClurkin towards homosexuality. (They may not have his zany ex-gay beliefs, but then most of them probably weren’t repeatedly raped by a male relative as a child).
If there are 10,000 people in the audience at a gospel concert, 6,200 hold the same basic beliefs as Donnie McClurkin.
Supposing that were true, the obvious point here is those 6,200 are not representing the Obama campaign, McClurkin is. Look, this whole thing was a monumentla STAFF fuckup. If they knew then what they know now, McClurkin would not be within a 100 miles of Obama. My own damage copntrol advice for Obama would be to ask McClurkin to “voluntarily” drop out because he is a “distraction.”
Oct 23 2007
Move On Joins The FISA Bandwagon
In a move that will up the pressure on Hillary and Barack Obama to stand firm against the Senate telecom immunity FISA bill, MoveOn and a dozen top progressive blogs will launch an all-out campaign tomorrow to pressure the two Senators into publicly declaring their support for Chris Dodd's threat to place a hold on and filibuster the bill, Election Central has learned.
. . . If Hillary and Obama don't comply, Green added, “it would send an unfortunate signal to Democratic voters about whether they're willing to stand up to George Bush. The idea is to get Democrats to stand on principle and exercise the powers of their office to stop Bush from covering up how far he went in illegally spying on the private emails and phone calls of innocent Americans.”
Well done Move On.
Oct 23 2007
Stark Apologizes
The GOP censure motion of Pete Stark failed. Apparently there was a quid pro quo. He apologized
This was badly handled all around. While I thought Stark’s comments stupid and counterproductive, they did not merit all this nonsense. This is a bad business.
Oct 23 2007
What We Need: A Do Nothing Congress
Brian Beutler has a terrific run down of what went wrong tactically with the Democratic Congress last week (S-CHIP, FISA, etc.) But Beutler still is looking at the tactical picture and looking at a Congress that he wants to do something. The problem is that, and this is true, they do not have the votes to do something in contested areas like S-CHIP, Iraq funding and FISA. This mistaken focus is exemplified here:
There is no hypothetical package of enticements the Democrats can offer a Republican that outweigh the price that that Republican will pay within his own party. He'll only be treated leniently when his party bosses realize that, if they don't let him vote with the opposition, he might lose his seat. At some point the Republicans realized something crucial: That, for now anyhow, upholding the veto is politically neutral. . . .
What does this mean? It means that even on issues as politically popular as S-CHIP, Bush can stop all Democratic initiatives. The question is then what can the Democrats do? Simply this, END all the Bush travesties. Iraq, FISA, etc. By using the power of the purse and NOT funding them. More.
Oct 22 2007
Cult of Personality
I am lucky. I have paid attention to the 2008 Presidential race only insofar as it intersected with the issues I most care about now. Because of that, I get to support a candidate, Chris Dodd, because of the stands he is taking on the issues now. Frankly, Chris Dodd the politician, is not of particular interest to me. SENATOR Chris Dodd, the Democratic representative for Connecticut in the US Senate, has taken stands on the issues that most matter to me.
Some (Obama supporters especially) do not have that luxury. Because their support is so wrapped up in him, and not the issues, they have to defend actions and positions that they probably do not agree with. That is what happens when a campaign becomes a cult of personality.
Oct 22 2007
Missing From The Iraq Coverage
is the reality that Democrats can end the Debacle by not funding it. The power of doing nothing is lost on them. Instead, we see the Republican Party responding to its base (h/t Josh Marshall):
Despite months of pressure, no more than eight Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate have backed any measure that mandates a troop withdrawal. And GOP strategists predict that is unlikely to change.
“Republicans have to be cognizant of where their base is,” said pollster Bob Wickers, whose company has worked with Republican candidates in a dozen states in recent years.
Here's my question, why don't Democrats have to be cognizant of where THE COUNTRY is? Josh's post is really missing this point – that Democrats won in 2006 on Iraq. That THEIR base and the country want out of Iraq. And that they have the power to stop the war. By doing nothing. It is the central insight and is missing from much of the Iraq coverage, Media and blogs alike.
Oct 21 2007
Sully: Still Defending Racism
Whenever folks try to rehabilitate Andrew Sullivan, he is quick to remind us why he is so detestable.
As for the “science” of the Bell Curve, see this:
''The Bell Curve'' inflamed readers when it was published three years ago by arguing that economic and social success in America had become largely a matter of genes, not education, environment or other factors over which society might exert control. The chilling genes-are-destiny thesis, laced with racial overtones, was greeted with furious criticism. But much of the initial criticism was ill informed and driven by ideology.
It could hardly have been otherwise. The book's authors, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, did not release their statistical findings — the only important original contributions in the book — for formal review by scholars before publication. Their runaround obstructed response by other social scientists, who needed time to appraise hundreds of pages of statistical analysis. Now, three years later, scholars have caught up, shattering the book's core claims.
. . . [T]he book's evidence is riddled with mistakes. Two stand out.
The first error flows from biased statistics. The book tries to determine whether I.Q. or family background is a better predictor of success. I.Q. is easily measured. But family background is not. The authors' simplistic index incorporates parental income, education and job prestige, but leaves out numerous components of a child's upbringing.
That creates a statistical mirage, or bias, because statistical tests inevitably underestimate the impact of factors that are hard to measure. Mistakes in measuring family background obliterate the ability of statisticians to detect its impact on future success. Thus, as James Heckman of the University of Chicago has convincingly argued, the book's finding that family background is a weak precursor of success reflects its biased methods rather than the workings of American society.
Also compelling is evidence about the second notable error — that the authors' measure of intelligence is by no means immutable, as their thesis requires. Prof. Derek Neal of the University of Chicago and Prof. William Johnson of the University of Virginia have shown that scores on the measurement used by Mr. Herrnstein and Mr. Murray, the Armed Forces Qualification Test, depend on how much schooling individuals have completed. Put simply, the more students study in school, the better they do on the test. So what the authors call immutable intelligence turns out to be what others call skills — indeed, teachable skills.
This mistake turns the message of the book on its head. Instead of its sighing surrender to supposed genetic destiny for poor children, there's a corrected message: Teach them.
Andrew Sullivan remains a shameful figure in our public discourse.
Oct 20 2007
Factual Challenges
The New York Times Book Review assigned Stanford history professor David Kennedy to review Paul Krugman's new book, “The Conscience of a Liberal.” It is an extremely negative review. I have not read the book so can not comment on it but I did read the review. And I found it inconsistent to say the least. For example, after chiding Krugman for being, in Kennedy's words, “factually shaky,” he then writes:
For this dismal state of affairs the Democratic Party is held to be blameless. Never mind the Democrats’ embrace of inherently divisive identity politics, or Democratic condescension toward the ungrammatical yokels who consider their spiritual and moral commitments no less important than the minimum wage or the Endangered Species Act, nor even the Democrats’ vulnerable post-Vietnam record on national security.
Ummm, that all sounds factually shaky to me. What is the basis of Kennedy's statement? A fact or 2 to support this sweeping claim, especially from someone throwing stones, might have been in order. Kennedy continues:
As Krugman sees it, the modern Republican Party has been taken over by radicals. “There hasn’t been any corresponding radicalization of the Democratic Party, so the right-wing takeover of the G.O.P. is the underlying cause of today’s bitter partisanship.” No two to tango for him. The ascendancy of modern conservatism is “an almost embarrassingly simple story,” he says, and race is the key. “Much of the whole phenomenon can be summed up in just five words: Southern whites started voting Republican. … End of story.”
A fuller and more nuanced story might at least gesture toward the role that environmental and natural-resource issues have played in making red-state country out of the interior West, not to mention the unsettling effects of the “value issues” on voters well beyond Dixie. . . .
Again, this seems factually shaky to me. A few facts to support his view on this. As far I can see, Kennedy replaces his opinions for Krugman's. Fair enough. But not fair enough when a reviewer is decrying factual shakiness.
Now this part just seems plain dumb to me:
For all that he inveighs against the evils of partisanship, Krugman astonishingly concludes by repudiating the chimera of “bipartisan compromise” and declaring that “to be a progressive, then, means being a partisan — at least for now.”
What is astonishing about that? Krugman's point is that faced with a Republican Party that will not engage in bipartisanship or even nod a progressive goals, there is little choice for anyone looking to advance a progressive agenda. Krugman has made the commonsense, almost obvious, observation that when the Republican Party has definitively eschewed “bipartisanship,” it is impossible to embrace it. Indeed, in Kennedy's words, it takes two to tango.
Kennedy's misunderstanding of this simple and obvious insight leads him to write silliness like this:
Indeed, at times he seems more intent on settling his neocon adversaries’ hash than on advancing solutions to vexed policy issues. “Yes, Virginia, there is a vast right-wing conspiracy,” he writes, a sentence that both stylistically and substantively says much about the shortcomings of this book.
But this is the whole point. You can not “advance solutions to vexed policy issues” without settling partisan hash, thanks to the takeover of the Republican Party by the most extreme movements in our country. And here's the funny thing – Kennedy AGREES:
That assorted wing nuts have pretty much managed to hijack the Republican Party in recent years is scarcely in doubt.
But Kennedy fails to address Krugman's thesis that to “advance solutions to vexed policy issues,” today's extremist Republican Party must be defeated and the Republican Party must be remade in order to allow for the much desired “bipartisnship” that Kennedy, following the High Broderism, desires against all odds.
In short, the review is pretty lousy.
Oct 20 2007
NYTimes Disses Dems
With Democrats Like These …
Every now and then, we are tempted to double-check that the Democrats actually won control of Congress last year. It was particularly hard to tell this week. Democratic leaders were cowed, once again, by propaganda from the White House and failed, once again, to modernize the law on electronic spying in a way that permits robust intelligence gathering on terrorists without undermining the Constitution.
. . . There were bright spots in the week. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon managed to attach an amendment requiring a warrant to eavesdrop on American citizens abroad. That merely requires the government to show why it believes the American is in league with terrorists, but Mr. Bush threatened to veto the bill over that issue.
Senator Christopher Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat, said he would put a personal hold on the compromise cooked up by Senator Rockefeller and the White House.
Otherwise, it was a very frustrating week in Washington. It was bad enough having a one-party government when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But the Democrats took over, and still the one-party system continues.