lobbying

...do you think the nutroots would stop plugging their ears and shouting "nah nah nah nah nah nah nah"?

Oh, probably not. It's that godless science that's the problem, right?

Is it any wonder that they don't get it? In case you missed it, Washington Week had a special edition tonight where they ostensibly took on the question, "Is our political system broken?" The only problem was that they kept looking at it through their narrow prism of "left" and "right".

For about 20 minutes (with the rest of the time devoted to corporate sponsors), we had the pleasure of listening to James Bennet, the new editor of The Atlantic, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News, and Priscilla Painton, executive editor of Time Magazine while they mused over the Big Ideas of Democracy. (Yes, de Tocqueville was mentioned not once but twice. One cannot accuse these mighty journalists of not being learned.)

We learned that the blogosphere is responsible for the trivializing of American politics. We learned that politicians are simply too hateful. We learned that the American people are just too apathetic. We learned just how bad talk radio is.

There was casual mention of cable news programs, let's be fair. But that was 20 years ago -- nothing that is relevant today. And certainly not at all relevant to High Minded shows like Washington Week.

And yet, and yet....

...Everything came down to the "right" and the "left." Apparently the politicians and the Fourth Estate are all centrists, but the blogosphere is forcing acrimony from -- yes, you guessed it -- the "right" and the "left."

That left me wondering: Am I on the right or on the left? After all, right and left seem to define politics, at least according to these "experts." And as a blogger, well, I must be the worst of the worst -- an extremist!

I'm against the war on Iraq. That puts me on the left. But I was for the war on Afghanistan. Does that put me on the right? However, I'm for rebuilding Afghanistan and building its economy so that the Taliban has little to stand on.

I'm for the reduction of some taxes, so that puts me on the right. But I believe the poor should be given the greatest tax breaks, which puts me on the left. I believe in encouraging small businesses, which puts me on the right, but I believe small business is helped by things like national healthcare (because healthy workers are in business' self-interest), which puts me on the left, and a balanced budget, which puts me on the right (except for those "rightists" who think pork is a holy mission from God).

I'm for improved education by means of giving more independence to schools, which puts me on the right. But I don't think you can starve schools into improvement, which puts me on the left.

I strongly believe in the Constitution, which makes me an American. I believe the Constitution includes the entire Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment (left) and Second Amendment (right). I believe a woman is not a breeder slave of the State, which puts me way way on the left, apparently, if I'm to listen to the pundits. And I believe it's nobody's business -- especially not the Government's -- what happens in a private home (right), including the bedroom (left).

I'm against liberal activist judges (right), but I'm also against conservative activist judges (left).

I believe George W. Bush is probably the worst president this country has ever had (left), and I believe that many, if not most, of the Congressional Democrats aren't worth a bucket of spit (right). (Sorry for the vividness there, but the way they blather, it's the image I get.)

I despise the arrogant blindness of the mainstream media (left and right) -- perhaps that's why I'm labeled by them as being the primary cause of the demise of American politics.

So what is it, Gwen? Am I on the "right" or on the "left" when I believe the conservatives aren't conservative enough and the liberals aren't liberal enough, while believing that there is indeed way too much conflict and strife in Washington?

Maybe the problem is that we keep trying to define our politics along a binary axis -- as if everyone can be plotted along a yardstick, all in line, all in a row, easy to parse, easy to define. Maybe the problem, Gwen, is that even the television news programs with the most promise fall on such easy paradigms.

Needless to say, this week's show -- set as it was at the Aspen Ideas Festival -- was ironically placed, as the ideas were few.

And just like with the prefabricated political "debates" we see every election season, the best questions came not from the reporters but from the audience (who all were presumably just a bunch of radicals to be pegged somewhere along that political yardstick).

The big thing not mentioned in all this brief spectacle? Corporate influence on politics. That's right, the 800 pound gorilla was not mentioned at all. Nary a mention of K Street lobbying dominating legislative efforts (including actually writing the bills our representatives "vote" on). Not a word about how big money distorts political campaigns. Of course, being a blogger, I suppose I'm the cause of the "trivializing of politics" (or some such absurd claim), so let the "experts" from Washington pass judgment.

I've been a big fan of Gwen and Washington Week, but this week they proved just how out of touch they really are. It was all rather disappointing.

Yes, Gwen, our political system is broken. Maybe if you guys listened instead of talked, you might have learned something. Of course, being from television, the idea of listening to the opinions of the citizens whom Politics ostensibly serves is too much of a radical idea. Politics was just so much better when We the People could only bitch over the newspaper or shout at the television. This blogging business has gotta go.

I love you, Gwen, but sometimes you really really just don't get it.

The Money Changers

from Talk to Action

Last week, Mainstream Baptist wondered, What's the Matter with Texas?, and referenced the Texas Freedom Network's incisive new report: "The Anatomy of Power: Texas and the Religious Right in 2006."

No one should be surprised to hear that there's a whole lot the matter with Texas, or that -- as is the case even in religion-driven politics – the root of our state's particular evil can be traced to the love of money. Here in Texas, rich men who hand money out by the bucketload are using their wealth to buy a state government that looks like their vision of the promised land.

from Talk to Action

In last Sunday's New York Times Magazine, Russell Shorto sounded a long-delayed alarm in Contra-Contraception, a comprehensive overview of the religious right's war on birth control. It was past time for a publication of influence to "discover" what many of us have known for years.

The wheels of history have a tendency to roll back over the same ground. For the past 33 years — since, as they see it, the wanton era of the 1960's culminated in the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 — American social conservatives have been on an unyielding campaign against abortion. But recently, as the conservative tide has continued to swell, this campaign has taken on a broader scope. Its true beginning point may not be Roe but Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that had the effect of legalizing contraception. "We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that has battled abortion for 27 years but that, like others, now has a larger mission. "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set," she told me. "So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception."

Well, yes and no. While Judie Brown and her allies in the Protestant ranks are waging a full frontal assault against contraception, they declared war on birth control some time ago. The only thing new is that these days -- flushed with victory over the Roberts and Alito confirmations, and in giddy anticipation of the arrival of the South Dakota abortion ban's arrival before a more conservative Supreme Court – they've gotten a little braver about admitting it.
.

Update: Blogroll added below.

This is rather distressing. Watch this video:

I'm sorry. You're trying to access your GMail, but we offer a better service, so get ours instead. Bye!

Too bad! You're trying to reach a site with "inappropriate content." We have content that is appropriate for you here, instead.

Hey bub! Don't you know there's a "liberal media conspiracy"? We're protecting you from all that, and providing you access to the version of the news we approve of.

On TPM, Art Brodsky writes:

There is some recognition that the grass roots efforts that started relatively late in the game, combined with some lobbying by e-commerce companies, is starting to have an effect. We've probably got a couple of weeks before the full telecom bill goes to the House floor. (As I write this, the final vote hasn't happened yet, but there's no doubt the Committee will approve the bill.)

This turned, unfortunately, into a partisan fight. Only one courageous Republican, Heather Wilson of New Mexico, voted in favor of the amendment. These Democrats left the reservation: Ed Towns of New York, Bobby Rush of Illinois, Al Wynn of Maryland, Gene Green of Texas and Charlie Gonzales of Texas.

There are other developments. The House Judiciary Committee's special Telecom Task Force had a hearing on the issue the other day, and was deeply concerned about the issue. And there is legislation in the Senate that could also get serious consideration.

There's hope. Take action. The GOP is trying to push this through before they're pushed out of controlling the House.

This is free speech at stake. If this isn't stopped, we'll be joining China in having a censored internet.

More on MyDD.