There is currently a strong suite of Discovery Institute bills running through state legislatures to allow "alternative theories" to be taught in science classes. See list here: Antievolution Legislation Scorecard. There is not a direct link back to the Discovery Institute, but it is their wording, seen before and passed in places like Texas and Louisiana and Tennessee.
From a legal standpoint, the bills look harmless, closely resembling intellectual freedom policies. But the point is clearly to sow confusion about the difference between science and just making things up, especially in regard to evolution and climate science.
Hemant Mehta suggests that it would only be fair to show this video in churches where the churches put their books into science classes.
I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there’s not much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he has left is the bully pulpit. But he isn’t even using that — or, rather, he’s using it to reinforce his enemies’ narrative.
Krugman was commenting on Obama's lack of fight during the recent budget deal. That bad deal comes on the heels of Obama's recent lack of fight on net neutrality, where Obama and his hand-picked commissioner Julius Genachowski purposely steered clear of the promising solution of declaring the Internet to be a mode of "telecommunications" pursuant to the Communications Act of 1996. That wasn't doable with AT&T looking on, spending more on lobbyists than all members of the military-industrial complex combined. Obama's recent collapse occurred after he declared that he would "Take a back seat to no one" regarding net neutrality.
Well, it's clear that Obama didn't have the guts to fight for what he apparently once believed regarding net neutrality. That's the awful trend. Consider his inept Wall Street finance alleged reform ("banks" are now bigger than they were prior to the collapse) and consider his convoluted health care reform, which dumped us into the waiting arms of virtually monopolistic private health insurers (mine raised my premium 10% last week--so much for "cost control," Obama's original justification for health care reform).
And then there is Guantanamo--yes, it's still open for business, and consider that the "Peace President" ramped up our military presence in Afghanistan, where we still waste $2B/week, killing and maiming numerous civilians in America's longest war. And consider that Obama has become quite the "Secrecy President." And consider his unwillingness to speak up to protest the torture of Bradley Manning. And why is he taking the side of tens of thousands of tax cheats while ignoring the massive injustice done to a man for whom we should be holding parades, Bradley Birkenfeld?
Barack Obama is a President who doesn't have the guts to fight for the promises he made during his campaign. It's apparently not in his bones to do so. He's the Political-Free-Market President: He apparently believes that good things will happen in Washington if only he charms everyone and stays out of the way. Because of this deep character flaw, his window of opportunity to implement the program he campaigned slammed shut. At best, he'll be playing defense, though the recent budget deal suggests that he doesn't have the grit to play tough defense. If I were a Republican, I'd probably be wondering whether I'd actually want to replace Obama with a Republican.
This is all so incredibly surreal. My thoughts are similar to those expressed by Lawrence Lessig at the 2011 National Conference for Media Reform. He boiled the problem down to this: "Private funds drive elections." He noted that members of Congress spend 30-70% of their time raising money to get re-elected. This has got to change, because "every issue we care about is blocked by this rot." The Citizens know about this problem quite well; Lessig cited a poll showing that 70% of voters "believe that money corrupts Congress." He has declared that it's often not worth our time to fight issues of the day, because good ideas don't have a chance of winning. Instead, we all need to become "rootstrikers." Here's the idea in a nutshell:
""There's no progress so long as private funds drive public elections."
And see the Rootstriker video here.
Two nights ago, in the midst of all of this frustration, I had dinner with an African American man who looked at me with shock and disbelief as I expressed my frustrations regarding Barack Obama. The man warned me that we can't "afford" to criticize Obama, or else Obama's opponents will use that against him. "We worked so hard to get him elected."
Yes, it seems unsavory to criticize the bad judgment of those who we generally respect, but it is often one's moral duty. For many months I've been losing hope for Obama, evidenced by many articles I've written at this website, but now I'm losing respect for him. I'll admit that my frustration occurs in the following context: We've been moving toward the political right for at least 10 years now (longer if you include Bill Clinton's disastrous de-regulation of Wall Street). Based on this long sad slide, it would be immoral for me to not criticize the current president, for whom I voted. There was so much hope in the air a mere two years ago. Is there still hope? The current situation brings to mind a quote regarding FDR:
FDR once met with a group of activists who sought his support for bold legislation. He listened to their arguments for some time and then said, "You've convinced me. Now go out and make me do it."
I will do everything in my meager power to try to make Obama do what he promised, even when that seems hopeless. I will not hold back criticism. Obama has been making a ghastly string of mistakes ever since elected, even though he ran one of the most brilliant campaigns I've ever seen. But now he appears to almost fully settled as a comfy resident of Washington, D.C., which is now more visibly than ever a highly big seductive coin-operated town.
I don't care what you have to say
It makes no difference anyway;
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is
Or who commenced it
I'm against it!
Your proposition may be good
But let's have one thing understood
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
to include a couple of slurs to bring it up to date.
I fully participated in the recent campaign to prevent the move to cut funding to the the organization that prevents more abortions than any other, Planned Parenthood. Even though Republicans held to that partisan budget pittance to the point of shutting down the government, the health services for poor women provided by Planned Parenthood will continue to get that dollar per citizen for another year. Yay.
But along the way, I wrote to my Senator, Roy Blunt. Weeks later, he wrote back. Here (in part) is his response:
"Thank you for contacting me about funding for Planned Parenthood"
"I am deeply opposed to the practice of abortion and do not support federal funding for any organization that performs or promotes abortions, which includes Planned Parenthood. An unborn child is a living human being and abortion ends the life of that child. Throughout my time in the House I worked hard to protect the lives of the unborn.
"I am proud to have the highest possible pro-life voting record according to National Right to Life, and, as I begin my time in the Senate, I will continue to support efforts to make adoption more attractive for parents and prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion."
Either he is ignorant, or tacitly lying. Three percent (3%) of Planned Parenthood's activities are abortion related. Of those, none (0%) have ever been taxpayer supported.
The prohibition against tax money for abortions is still in effect from the 1976 Hyde Amendment. Only under very rare circumstances does this act allow any federal money to be involved in an abortion. Lawmakers can posture all they want to; it is already illegal for tax money aid poor women who must resort to that tragic choice.
I'm not a single-issue voter, nor do necessarily I oppose his position every issue. But his ignorant formula response to my request has cemented my opposition to his reelection.
What would you like to know about the Koch Brothers and their "astroturf" campaigns? Yesterday, I had the opportunity to hear from several panelists on the topic at the National Conference for Media Reform. The panelists included Lee Fang, who is almost a legend among progressives for his detailed investigations regarding the Koch Brothers (his blogs can be found on ThinkProgress - here's one of his more recent posts).
Why is it important to study these fake social movements? Fang responded that law makers believe "citizens groups" more than the do corporate groups. Thus, groups of citizens get some instant cred that they don't deserve. Further, news reporters love to cover rallies of "citizens." If corporate movements can be disguised as citizen movements, then they obtain an unfair advantage. It's also important to note that there are various types of astroturf groups out there, including liberal-oriented astroturf groups (former Clinton Press Secretary Mike McCurry was pointed out as being a player). It is the conservatives who have made the most extensive use of such citizen-facades, however.
The panelists pointed out that the Koch Brothers are uniquely positioned as able to spread their message through these faux-citizen groups based on their corporate connections and great wealth. If you're looking for the "blueprint" of their movement, consider Lewis Powell's memo to the Chamber of Commerce, "which has served as the blueprint for the past 40 years." Also consider the "Rancho Mirage Memo."
Doug Clopp of Common Cause also presented as part of the panel, and I videotaped most of his presentation:
Footnote: Conservatives have successfully recruited and even featured Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas to their organizational meetings. It was also noted that, amazingly, the U.S. Judicial Code of conduct does not apply to the U.S. Supreme Court. Representative Murphy has recently sponsored a proposed change in the law to address this issue.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
But along the way, I wrote to my Senator,