One poster is convinced Giuiliani will still win despite the handicaps:
He could be performing abortions while providing a Spanish commentary on national television and still get the nom, as long as he talks like a fascist strongman and makes the appropriate dog-whistles down in the south.
A conservative journal uses a rather specious Weekly Standard article about Amnesty International’s decision to report state abortion policies to castigate liberalism. Here is my response (which I wrote as a comment on their website).
No one but communist dictators and liberals take anything said by Amnesty International (AI) seriously: Nothing in your piece here supports this claim.
The difference between those two, of course, is that communist dictators know it’s all propaganda but liberals actually believe it. Straw Man: please specify which liberal you are speaking of. Also, as someone who has actually lived in two communist regimes, I have heard many people mention Amnesty International reports as influential both on people and government officials.
Israel and the US are singled out for human rights violations but AI gives Iran and Cuba a pass: Wait, what about these reports on Cuba and these reports on Iran ?If your argument is simply that Amnesty posts more information about US and Israel, then you are probably right. Why? Because US and Israel are democracies with free presses, and where more public information is available. But to turn that around and say that it “gives Iran and Cuba a pass” is ludicrous and illogical.
“AI has a dirty little secret”. Wait, if it’s a dirty little secret, why did they issue a press release about it?
Something cannot be a dirty little secret if it is posted on the web.
“new policy that condemns as a human-rights violator any country that does not allow broad access to abortion or punishes abortion providers.” First, the Weekly Standard was being a tad unfair to AI here. The simple fact that it was mentioned on the website doesn’t imply endorsement. It sounds like it was being discussed by members as a potential policy before a final decision was reached. Hey, that’s what policymaking and goal-setting is about. You start with ideas, debate it a bit and make a platform. Here is a case where you have to look at the public statements of AI and not second-hand characterizations of the backroom discussions (which happen to be available on the members-only portion of the website).
Second, I don’t know about this issue in particular, but I’m guessing that the intent behind the policy is to start reporting incidents and state policies, not to start defending abortion as public policy. I personally have no problem with an organization reporting on this (when I did a search on AI’s website, I found 190 articles about the subject of “forced abortions” , so it hardly be accused of ignoring the abortion issue).
Finally, as someone raised Catholic and who has lived in two countries with significant human rights abuses, let me say: you don’t know what you’re talking about! AI has received criticism for its advocacy positions occasionally (most recently with its Gitmo paper), but its credibility on reporting is high when compared against other human rights NGO’s. (By the way, the State Department country human rights reports also have a lot of credibility internationally despite the potential for US politicians to interfere).
“AI’s official policy is that any country which does not accept the practice of killing unborn babies is a human rights violator.” You need to cite evidence here. It sounds as though you are grossly oversimplifying here. So when is REPORTING to be equated with CONDEMNATION? Let’s look at that press release again:
Defending the right of women to sexual and reproductive integrity in the face of grave human rights violations, Amnesty International recently incorporated a focus on selected aspects of abortion into its broader policy on sexual and reproductive rights. These additions do not promote abortion as a universal right (my emphasis) and Amnesty International remains silent on the rights and wrongs of abortion.
Finally, I don’t want to get too involved in abortion (because it is one of those “symbolic issues” which the Republican Party has used recently to rally people to elect war presidents). Your commentary falsely implies that it is an example of “moral relativism” to espouse any position defending abortion. The truth, of course, is never that simple. There are degrees of difference between abortion-on-demand (such as what is practiced in China), and abortion under extenuating circumstances (rape, incest, etc).
Foes of abortion frequently portray reproductive rights advocates as “relativists” or “morally bankrupt.” In fact, a large number of advocates are deeply principled (and sometimes even religious) individuals. Many philosophers and ethics professors have endorsed policies accepting of abortion. You cannot simply label positions opposite your own as “moral relativism.” That is just lazy.
The problem is that abortion frequently involves a series of competing values and moral imperatives. For example, should moral decisions be left to the individual? or should the state have the right to make moral decisions for you (no matter how intrusive and coercive)?
Mario Cuomo’s speech to the Catholic bishops illustrates the dilemmas that policymakers face in attempting to make policies. If a policy which condones abortion has the effect of reducing its overall number, you can’t automatically judge it as wrong or immoral. Conversely, some have allege that abortion has increased under the Bush Administration –partially as a result of its social policies. One can’t simply call one policy “pro-life” or “moral” if it has the effect of increasing the number of abortions.
In summary, I find the commentary on this piece to be illogical and disturbing. By the way, I would recommend Non Sequitur as a site to help write political articles without falling into many of the traps I have noted.
Update: the original poster has written a response with more concrete examples. (mostly taken from David Horowitz’s conservative watchdog site). I wrote random responses on the same page. One issue came up. In this age of Internet reporting, how badly do we need an international human rights clearinghouse? Many of the accusations are embroiled in controversy and politics (i.e., Israel vs. Lebanon); the success of organizations like AI depend pretty much on their credibility in assessing harm and placing blame.
Chalmers Johnson on why the US drive to create an empire will harm us:
The cult of silence on this subject began to slip only slightly in May 2007 when a report prepared by the Army’s Mental Health Advisory Team was leaked to the San Diego Union-Tribune. Based on anonymous surveys and focus groups involving 1,320 soldiers and 447 Marines, the study revealed that only 56% of soldiers would report a unit member for injuring or killing an innocent noncombatant, while a mere 40% of Marines would do so. Some militarists will reply that such inhumanity to the defenseless is always inculcated into the properly trained soldier. If so, then the answer to this problem is to ensure that, in the future, there are many fewer imperialist wars of choice sponsored by the United States.
Also For fiscal year 2006, Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute calculated national security outlays at almost a trillion dollars – $934.9 billion to be exact – broken down as follows (in billions of dollars):
Department of Defense: $499.4
Department of Energy (atomic weapons): $16.6
Department of State (foreign military aid): $25.3
Department of Veterans Affairs (treatment of wounded soldiers): $69.8
Department of Homeland Security (actual defense): $69.1
Department of Justice (1/3rd for the FBI): $1.9
Department of the Treasury (military retirements): $38.5
NASA (satellite launches): $7.6
Interest on war debts, 1916-present: $206.7
Totaled, the sum is larger than the combined sum spent by all other nations on military security.
Also, a list of the best films about war by a noncritic. I would add: Cranes are Flying, Ran, Ballad of a Soldier, and for escapism, Starship Troopers.
From Bill Moyers video journal: Marilyn B. Young skewers the rhetoric of Condi Rice . From the same site, an interview with Carlo Bonini about why a crazy forgery about Chad yellow cake was trusted by three governments.
Nonsequitur identifies some empty words that pundits use to malign or extol a policy: to say someone has a clear plan (for friends) or to have a fashionable plan (if you don’t like it).
Personally, I disapprove of the metaphor of “winning the war.” There are very few circumstances where you “win” a war (especially in an age of asymmetrical warfare). We don’t win wars; we resolve them; we heal from them; we stop them; we make them unnecessary; we minimize its casualties. War is not a game that we play to show off how macho and serious-minded we are. War creates victims everywhere. The aim of good governance is to prevent wars and to establish a counterweight to the scabrous vengeance demons who are always braying that some evil government ought to “pay the price.” If there’s one thing George W. Bush did right when he pulled off the “Mission Accomplished” PR stunt, it’s creating the expectation that the fighting would (and should) decline very soon. When a politician talks about “winning the war” you know he is appealing to your dumbass sense of pride. Winning the war is sometimes impossible, and sometimes very expensive to do. If winning the war means running up our debt to unsustainable levels, how have we really won? Winning the war often means maintaining a permanent state of occupation as a preventative measure. Which only sets us up for further attack.
My suggestion for the war budget is to create a “war tax.” Maybe there should be a constitutional amendment mandating a $1000 war tax on taxpayers earning more than $100,000 to pay for the war. (I honestly have no idea what the numbers are). Isn’t it funny how George W. never mentions “war” and “raise your taxes” in the same sentence.
It probably isn’t astounding, but media critic Mark Crispin Miller now has a blog. Miller taught at JHU in my graduate writing program. I didn’t have class with him (although I sat through the showings of Hitchcock films in his movie class), and bumped into him at cocktail parties occasionally. I think I also taught some of his essays from his classic work of media studies, Boxed In.
Lately I’ve noticed that Miller has spent a lot of time talking politics. He wrote a book about Republican shenanigans in the 2004 Presidential elections and apparently entered the tussle for Kennedy’s Rolling Stones article about Ohio elections. (Miller also wrote a good account of Ohio voting irregularity in 2005). That is regrettable, but understandable given the climate we currently live in. That’s one of the overlooked harms of electing a dufus for a leader: scholars can no longer turn away from the “real world” and instead have to focus on consciousness-raising. Can you really be expected to write treatises on Shakespeare if your government–acting on your behalf–is crucifying people, suppressing science, rigging elections , violating international treaties, running up massive deficits, depriving us of civil liberties, becoming allies with major human rights violators, outspending the rest of the world on defense, befriending convicted criminals, underfunding education and ignoring a crumbling infrastructure?
Truthfully, I hate writing about all this–if only because I know that the kind of people who read my blog already know most of the things I link to. When I taught at a university in Albania, I remember the distaste my colleagues (and even students) had towards anything political. Albania had been traumatized by a dictator, and classrooms were politicized to the point where everything had to be interpreted in some political way. It was oppressive. Yet, I can’t help feeling that at American universities students are feeling the same onus of political focus.
Here’s my guess what is happening on campuses these days. Almost all professors are liberal and incensed at current leaders, while students on the whole are left-leaning. Maybe only 30% are not only left-leaning, but feel passionately about politics (writing the occasional editorial for the school newspaper or participating in the occasional protest). 20% or so of them were raised Republican or came from religious backgrounds; This 20% is usually indifferent to politics (although they certainly are aware of what their peers are saying and could conceivably be swayed one way or another). Maybe 10% are ardent partisan Republicans (to the point of making it a part of their identity and going to meetings). About 5% are libertarians or independents (not particularly Republican, but sympathetic to the low taxes/limited government rhetoric). The remaining 35% avoid any discussion of politics altogether, focusing on a career or athletics or parties or getting good grades. And yet, because of academic discontent, I suspect classes are dominated by talk about politics, much to the dismay of most students. (Something similar happened when I was attending school under Reagan’s reign. Reagan was certainly polarizing and aroused a lot of anger, yet Reagan’s actions never tore at our democratic institutions or constitutional protections in the way we see now). What we are witnesing is a total devolution of our democracy.
This didn’t really have to happen. Both Democratic presidential candidates would have done an adequate (if not exemplary) job running the country. And divided government doesn’t seem to fail too miserably; Americans even seem to prefer divided government (feeling perhaps that the tension between both viewpoints is healthy). My problem is not with the Republican Party as a set of political values. Put Newt Gingrich or Colin Powell or Jack Kemp on the ticket, and I could conceivably vote for them (if I didn’t like the Democratic candidate). I may have different values, but at least I can respect these divergent values (and sometimes even prefer them). Instead, I object to style of Republican politicking, the cynical way they manipulate political opinion and try to distract people’s attention from more important issues. Political control to the current leaders is more of a matter of hiding things from John Q. Public and preventing open access to information. Voters tend to be blind to the fault of their own political party. But I have lots of trouble locating equivalent kinds of outrageous behavior on my side. Republicans are fond of caricaturing the opinions of visible liberals. Michael Moore is seen as a crazy buffoon, for example. Teddy Kennedy is viewed as a lush; Kerry is viewed as a person who can’t make up his mind. Caricaturing is an intrinsic part of politics, so I guess I can’t grow too angry. But look at these three caricatures: Moore’s partisan satire (leaving aside the histrionics and occasional overstatement for humor) is extremely careful to be factually accurate. Kennedy (despite early scandals and sometimes predictable opinions) is a man of deep integrity and an effective legislator. Kerry (despite a deliberative approach to issues) uses carefully nuanced language and yet was still able to deliver what I feel to an impassioned denunciation of a misguided foreign policy (I think his Vietnam may stand as one of the most important political speeches made during my lifetime). All three are men of substance and accomplishment. Yet mention these names to any Republican, and they’ll smirk and make some disparaging remark about them. Think of how easy it is to make a list of Republican partisan dingbats (Limbaugh, Oreilly, Coulter, Hannity, Delay) and how hard it is (by comparison) to come up with their liberal equivalents. Jon Stewart, Steve Colbert…are they liberal dingbats? No, they are comedians.
The problem with giving political issues all this attention is that when the pendulum swings back, the intellectual wonders whether the time he spent fussing over politics was really worthwhile. One surefire way to prevent your literary creations from attaining immortality is to focus on topical political concerns and underhanded advocacy. (I don’t have a problem with political art per se; see my essay: Good Art Can Have and Should have Political Values) When the political system breaks down, it prevents intellectuals from focusing on anything else.