July 31, 2004
If this isn't political, what is?
A national conservative publication reported Friday that Bishop Robert Carlson of the Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls will publish a column Monday indicating Catholics commit a mortal sin if they vote for supposedly pro-choice candidates. What purports to be an "Exclusive Advance Copy" is reprinted in full in the magazine. If it is accurate, Bishop Carlson says the column and having clergy speak on the subject from the pulpit "is not political activity," merely pastors "fulfilling their duty." (If it isn't political, why did a Washington, DC-based publication that bills itself as "The National Conservative Weekly" get the "Exclusive Advance Copy" that it ties directly to Tom Daschle's re-election bid and why was it evidently first reported in South Dakota on a rabidly anti-Daschle blog?)
The bishop writes:
The bishop also quotes the Gospel of Life but skips a paragraph that again is in the same section he cites. That paragraph says cases calling for imposition of the death penalty "are very rare, if not practically non-existent." In a similar vein, another document cited in the column -- a statement of the US Catholic Bishops entitled "Living the Gospel of Life" -- states it is "increasingly clear in modern society that capital punishment is unnecessary to protect people's safety and the public order" and that "[a]ny politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment."
I know, abortion is in the "thou shalt not" category and evidently these other issues have "you probably shouldn't" status. Yet isn't it hypocritical to tell Catholics it is wrong to vote for candidates perceived as pro-choice but refuse to apply standards from the same sources to candidates who launched a self-described preemptive war (for reasons now conclusively wrong) and are among the most vociferous advocates of the death penalty. For the Catholic Church to politicize one part of its "pro-life commitment" and overlook the rest does it (and the American people) a disservice.
0 comments
The bishop writes:
Opposition to abortion binds every Catholic under pain of mortal sin and admits of no exceptions.There are interesting omissions of other parts of church teaching. Even though Bishop Carlson cites a statement by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops called Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility (PDF document), his missive speaks only of abortion. He never mentions the same section of this document (HTML) states:
It was for this reason that I stated in October of 2000 that you cannot vote for a politician who is pro-abortion when you have a choice and remain a Catholic in good standing. For some Catholics this is a hard teaching, but I am simply repeating church teaching[.]
While military force as a last resort can sometimes be justified to defend against aggression and similar threats to the common good, we have raised serious moral concerns and questions about preemptive or preventive use of force.(Emphasis in original). That same section also says:
[O]ur nation's increasing reliance on the death penalty cannot be justified. We do not teach that killing is wrong by killing those who kill others. Pope John Paul II has said the penalty of death is "both cruel and unnecessary". The antidote to violence is not more violence. In light of the Holy Father's insistence that this is part of our pro-life commitment, we encourage solutions to violent crime that reflect the dignity of the human person, urging our nation to abandon the use of capital punishment.(Bold in original; italics added).
The bishop also quotes the Gospel of Life but skips a paragraph that again is in the same section he cites. That paragraph says cases calling for imposition of the death penalty "are very rare, if not practically non-existent." In a similar vein, another document cited in the column -- a statement of the US Catholic Bishops entitled "Living the Gospel of Life" -- states it is "increasingly clear in modern society that capital punishment is unnecessary to protect people's safety and the public order" and that "[a]ny politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment."
I know, abortion is in the "thou shalt not" category and evidently these other issues have "you probably shouldn't" status. Yet isn't it hypocritical to tell Catholics it is wrong to vote for candidates perceived as pro-choice but refuse to apply standards from the same sources to candidates who launched a self-described preemptive war (for reasons now conclusively wrong) and are among the most vociferous advocates of the death penalty. For the Catholic Church to politicize one part of its "pro-life commitment" and overlook the rest does it (and the American people) a disservice.
0 comments
The Argus-Leader's self-inflicted wounds
You don't need to look to guess the right and pro-Thune people are crying "bias" over this morning's Argus-Leader article headlined "Debates may not sway election." The headline is one more example of the Argus setting itself up for this type of criticism.
Quoting an SDSU poli sci professor, the thrust of the story was most people have already made up their mind in the Daschle-Thune race and the undecided are unlikely to attend joint appearances. The reporter, Terry Woster, was careful to say Thune proposed "joint appearances" and even the prof distinguished them from a "debate." The headline, though, plays right into the hands of Thune spinmeisters.
Many, including the circle jerk bloggers, tried to spin Thune's proposal as a version of Lincoln-Douglas debates and took Daschle to task for declining to participate in "democracy." Lincoln and Douglas actually engaged in a series of formal political debates. That is not what Thune proposed. His announcement makes clear he suggested joint appearances and so-called town meetings over the month of August. Not once does he mention or say "debate."
How did the Argus step in it? The headline creates a perfect opportunity to cry pro-Daschle bias. Ignoring Woster's accurate distinction, the right will cite the headline to claim that rather than reporting Daschle is dodging debates, the Argus is taking Daschle's side by saying "debates" are meaningless and irrelevant. Sometimes the media can't win for losing. But you can't feel much sympathy when it provides perfect openings to spin a claim of bias.
0 comments
Quoting an SDSU poli sci professor, the thrust of the story was most people have already made up their mind in the Daschle-Thune race and the undecided are unlikely to attend joint appearances. The reporter, Terry Woster, was careful to say Thune proposed "joint appearances" and even the prof distinguished them from a "debate." The headline, though, plays right into the hands of Thune spinmeisters.
Many, including the circle jerk bloggers, tried to spin Thune's proposal as a version of Lincoln-Douglas debates and took Daschle to task for declining to participate in "democracy." Lincoln and Douglas actually engaged in a series of formal political debates. That is not what Thune proposed. His announcement makes clear he suggested joint appearances and so-called town meetings over the month of August. Not once does he mention or say "debate."
How did the Argus step in it? The headline creates a perfect opportunity to cry pro-Daschle bias. Ignoring Woster's accurate distinction, the right will cite the headline to claim that rather than reporting Daschle is dodging debates, the Argus is taking Daschle's side by saying "debates" are meaningless and irrelevant. Sometimes the media can't win for losing. But you can't feel much sympathy when it provides perfect openings to spin a claim of bias.
0 comments
July 30, 2004
Worth the time
- Paul Krugman on the trivialization of political news coverage. (John Stewart also gave a perfect example on Thursday's The Daily Show as he skewered the media's treatment of Al Sharpton's speech using the media itself.)
- Juan Cole's Informed Comment is one of several blogs for which I receive RSS feeds. Every day I become more convinced this is one of THE sites for informed and insightful analysis of what's going on in the Islamic world and what it means to us. I encourage you to check it out. A link has been added to the blogroll.
- And, via an ad on Informed Comment, I came across this excellent analysis and review in the New York Review of Books of the Supreme Court's three detention decisions.
0 comments
Playing politics with terrorism
Rather than repeat what has already been said, I will just point you to The Progress Report, Josh Marshall and The War in Context.
0 comments
0 comments
July 28, 2004
Today's Warren Commission?
For some reason, while driving home today I was thinking about the fact the 9-11 Commission's report is a bestseller. I thought of an Associated Press-published version of the Warren Report my parents bought when I was a kid that is now on my bookshelves. What are the chances the 9-11 Commission will become the Warren Commission of this era? I have no reason to think so but recall how certain everyone was back then the Warren Commission had nailed down the facts of the JFK assassination.
(As an aside, the news reports I've seen say the 9-11 Commission report retails for $10. I thought a copy I saw at Barnes & Noble last night had a preprinted $14.95 price tag. A free PDF version is available here.)
0 comments
(As an aside, the news reports I've seen say the 9-11 Commission report retails for $10. I thought a copy I saw at Barnes & Noble last night had a preprinted $14.95 price tag. A free PDF version is available here.)
0 comments
Jumping the shark?
This was originally going to be a somewhat theoretical post about blogs but a comment on Liberal Oasis and a discussion about an upcoming news article led to a variation -- have political blogs jumped the shark?
For those unfamiliar with the term, jumping the shark occurs at the point where a television show/event/personality began an irreversible decline. My pondering stems in part from the fact that we're hearing almost ad nauseum about bloggers at the DNC, the role of blogging in participatory democracy, the impact of blogs on the electoral process, etc., etc., etc.
Blogs are a unique and valuable method of expression generally free from outside editing or censorship. As an advocate of the marketplace of ideas theory, I think anything that enhances expression and adds to the number of ideas in that marketplace is laudable. But overestimating the role and "power" of blogs may lead them to jump the shark. Just take a look at some of the blogging from the DNC. Quality and substance are giving way to an almost breathless "aren't blogs a big deal" and/or "look where I'm at or who I'm with" syndrome.
Perhaps I am biased by my former life as a print journalist but blogs aren't journalism and bloggers qua bloggers are not journalists. With extremely rare exceptions, blogs do not interview a variety of people or sources in an attempt to provide a purportedly objective perspective or analysis. They are personal communication tools. And, because they are personal, they are inherently biased and only personal restraints shape the content. In fact, I view political blogs as most comparable to the individuals (aka kooks) on street corners handing out photocopied screeds about some political, religious or alien conspiracy or wrongdoing. I'm not saying political bloggers are kooks or off the deep end. The point is that while a few curious people might look at the screed/blog entry before discarding it, a reader pays attention only if it comports with some aspect of their personal viewpoints.
Do blogs offer an alternative to mainstream media and the vast (take your pick: left-wing, right-wing) media conspiracy? They can but since they largely amount to preaching to the converted they have no greater power than any other alternative media. The ease of access and distribution is outweighed by the countless blogs out there. As a result, those having an impact are probably limited to those that are most widely-read. Any impact on media coverage most likely stems from the traditional media having easy access to those blogs so that comments made give rise to story ideas or other editorial decision-making. But to accord political blogs some sort of independent "watchdog" function or independent political force is unrealistic.
Maybe all the current attention simply reflects an infatuation flowing from an election year. Sadly, the focus on the perceived political impact of blogs ignores the fact that many excellent blogs are not political. They look at books, music, film, Seinfeld, or any of the innumerable things that interest people. In fact, I would guess politically oriented blogs are a very small minority of the blogs out there; they are just the current novelty. Still, political blogs risk jumping the shark if their own view of their self-importance leads to their ideas becoming lost in an unbounded marketplace.
0 comments
For those unfamiliar with the term, jumping the shark occurs at the point where a television show/event/personality began an irreversible decline. My pondering stems in part from the fact that we're hearing almost ad nauseum about bloggers at the DNC, the role of blogging in participatory democracy, the impact of blogs on the electoral process, etc., etc., etc.
Blogs are a unique and valuable method of expression generally free from outside editing or censorship. As an advocate of the marketplace of ideas theory, I think anything that enhances expression and adds to the number of ideas in that marketplace is laudable. But overestimating the role and "power" of blogs may lead them to jump the shark. Just take a look at some of the blogging from the DNC. Quality and substance are giving way to an almost breathless "aren't blogs a big deal" and/or "look where I'm at or who I'm with" syndrome.
Perhaps I am biased by my former life as a print journalist but blogs aren't journalism and bloggers qua bloggers are not journalists. With extremely rare exceptions, blogs do not interview a variety of people or sources in an attempt to provide a purportedly objective perspective or analysis. They are personal communication tools. And, because they are personal, they are inherently biased and only personal restraints shape the content. In fact, I view political blogs as most comparable to the individuals (aka kooks) on street corners handing out photocopied screeds about some political, religious or alien conspiracy or wrongdoing. I'm not saying political bloggers are kooks or off the deep end. The point is that while a few curious people might look at the screed/blog entry before discarding it, a reader pays attention only if it comports with some aspect of their personal viewpoints.
Do blogs offer an alternative to mainstream media and the vast (take your pick: left-wing, right-wing) media conspiracy? They can but since they largely amount to preaching to the converted they have no greater power than any other alternative media. The ease of access and distribution is outweighed by the countless blogs out there. As a result, those having an impact are probably limited to those that are most widely-read. Any impact on media coverage most likely stems from the traditional media having easy access to those blogs so that comments made give rise to story ideas or other editorial decision-making. But to accord political blogs some sort of independent "watchdog" function or independent political force is unrealistic.
Maybe all the current attention simply reflects an infatuation flowing from an election year. Sadly, the focus on the perceived political impact of blogs ignores the fact that many excellent blogs are not political. They look at books, music, film, Seinfeld, or any of the innumerable things that interest people. In fact, I would guess politically oriented blogs are a very small minority of the blogs out there; they are just the current novelty. Still, political blogs risk jumping the shark if their own view of their self-importance leads to their ideas becoming lost in an unbounded marketplace.
0 comments
July 27, 2004
Cage match on Fox
Michael Moore v. Bill O'Reilly. Sadly, this is probably a highly accurate reflection of the state of political discourse in the US today.
0 comments
0 comments
July 26, 2004
Odds and ends
- As a follow-up to the post about the various rock artists evidently uniting against Bush, Juan Cole has a fine assessment of something that may disappoint them. It appears neither Kerry-Edwards nor the Dems as a whole are going to attack Bush on the Iraq war.
- Steve Chapman at Slate takes a look at the states' rights v. federalism issue I've mentioned in prior posts about the Gay Marriage Amendment.
- Elaine Cassell, whose Civil Liberties Watch blog is linked at right, has a new book coming out. It's called The War On Civil Liberties: How Bush and Ashcroft Have Dismantled the Bill of Rights. If it is based on or similar to April 2003 cover story, The Other War, in the Twin Cities' City Pages, it will certainly be worth the time.
0 comments
Hitler as blogger follow-up
Hitler as a blogger
Anyone who reads this knows how much I disagree with the circle jerk bloggers and their fellow travelers. They are correct, though, in calling Randell Beck of the Argus Leader to task for comments he made in announcing an Argus Leader political blog in his weekly editorial column. What they found most offensive was the statement, "If Hitler were alive today, he'd have his own blog."
This is an ill-advised comment that displays, at best, a fundamental lack of education and common courtesy. The number and breadth of blogs today demonstrate they aren't just a device used by wingnuts, either on the right or left. Beck's comment reflects an opinion held by some traditional journalists that bloggers are "pretending" to be journalists. Most blog readers, though, are able to tell the difference and few of the blogs I look at hold themselves out as being "journalists." What do I know, though? To use his words, Beck would probably consider me a "true believer" with "nutty opinions [who] can now spew forth on their own blogs, thereby playing a pivotal role in creating the polarized climate that dominates debate on nearly every national issue."
By coincidence, the Hitler comment indirectly relates to a question I was pondering last week: has post-9/11 America developed fascist tendencies? There are some interesting comparisons of how many of 14 characteristics of fascism exist in today's America. I long ago disposed of textbooks from my college political ideologies classes and inertia kept me from going and finding one or two at the library or elsewhere. As a result, I can't speak to whether these 14 characteristics are traditionally accurate or skewed for political purposes (although they do seem to correlate somewhat to this Auburn University glossary). I do find it an interesting question, though, especially since even the Dem convention is showing an appalling disregard for free speech rights.
0 comments
This is an ill-advised comment that displays, at best, a fundamental lack of education and common courtesy. The number and breadth of blogs today demonstrate they aren't just a device used by wingnuts, either on the right or left. Beck's comment reflects an opinion held by some traditional journalists that bloggers are "pretending" to be journalists. Most blog readers, though, are able to tell the difference and few of the blogs I look at hold themselves out as being "journalists." What do I know, though? To use his words, Beck would probably consider me a "true believer" with "nutty opinions [who] can now spew forth on their own blogs, thereby playing a pivotal role in creating the polarized climate that dominates debate on nearly every national issue."
By coincidence, the Hitler comment indirectly relates to a question I was pondering last week: has post-9/11 America developed fascist tendencies? There are some interesting comparisons of how many of 14 characteristics of fascism exist in today's America. I long ago disposed of textbooks from my college political ideologies classes and inertia kept me from going and finding one or two at the library or elsewhere. As a result, I can't speak to whether these 14 characteristics are traditionally accurate or skewed for political purposes (although they do seem to correlate somewhat to this Auburn University glossary). I do find it an interesting question, though, especially since even the Dem convention is showing an appalling disregard for free speech rights.
0 comments
Musicians to unite against Bush?
According to the LA Times (registration required), Bruce Springsteen, Neil Young, R.E.M., Pearl Jam and others are planning a series of concerts beginning in October. The paper reports the concerts will "target campaign swing states" and an official announcment is expected Aug. 4.
Other artists mentioned include Steve Earle, the Dave Matthews Band, the Dixie Chicks, Bright Eyes, Ani DiFranco, Death Cab for Cutie and International Noise Conspiracy, along with reports Bob Dylan and James Taylor may join. Although the music is diverse, there appears to be unanimity on one thing. As one of the paper's sources put it: "There is a range of feeling about Kerry but a uniform belief that Bush must go."
0 comments
Other artists mentioned include Steve Earle, the Dave Matthews Band, the Dixie Chicks, Bright Eyes, Ani DiFranco, Death Cab for Cutie and International Noise Conspiracy, along with reports Bob Dylan and James Taylor may join. Although the music is diverse, there appears to be unanimity on one thing. As one of the paper's sources put it: "There is a range of feeling about Kerry but a uniform belief that Bush must go."
0 comments
, Timothy Egan
, Lewis Black
, Yevgeny Zamyatin
, Daniel J. Levitin
, Richard Powers
, Nick Schou
, Cormac McCarthy
, Richard Dawkins
, Sam Harris
