To argue or to ignore?
Matthew Yglesias' post yesterday got me to thinking: there are some things that, in which the republican noise machine or whatever you want to call it, have invested hundreds of millions to promote as true (see below). Right wing foundations are all about idea generating, as has been noted by seemingly everyone (I would find some links if I were less lazy/busy) in the past few months: they pay for posts at universities, for media and "public education" projects, for think tanks to sponsor "studies" and books, etc. The problem is not just that these ideas are disagreeable, often so much that they're outright offensive; rather, it's that they become so pervasive that they frame the debate. Anyway, I'm not saying anything new here. What would it be like, though, to make lists of conversations that are tempting to me to have, but I am not going to indulge them, because even talking about them, even to refute their points, is acknowledging that they are valid and worthy of discussion? I already do this with the media, because even thinking or talking about Laci Peterson, Michael Jackson, or that "runaway bride" to me is conceding that these are valid issues worthy of media attention, more so than, say, uprisings in Bolivia, the war on Iraq, and pretty much anything else going on that actually has any discernible effect on peoples' lives. A few months ago, the "crisis" of SS and Terri Schiavo would have been on the list; I feel that letting the ridiculousness around Schiavo ensue was helpful in that no one thought it was worthy of an emergency session of Congress. HA ha. And Social Security was surely DOA, although that did take a lot of energy from the Dems, so that can't be added (we had to talk about that one!). Howard Dean's comments? Does Mehlman get the same press? Culture wars? Do other pressing social issues get the same airtime? It seems similar to other questions that keep me up at night (only half kidding): is it better to start off refuting abhorrent premises or ignoring them altogether; or, is it conceding to accept the basic premise and argue the points, or is it conceding to allow the right to continue making noise about issues without a rebuttal?
I don't really understand Cheney's strategy around Guantanamo. I mean, I guess it's not really different from the Bush administration's strategy around everything else: keep insisting on your version of reality until it sounds true, and do it so authoritatively that after a while, it seems to be true. (And, you know, collude with a bunch of major media conglomerates so that they keep spewing your version of truth as valid...) After reports in major newsmagazines, major investigations, and a bipartisan group of Senator's calling for it to be closed, wouldn't it make sense to say, well, "it served its purpose, but it's not yielding any new information, let's shut it down?" Or, "I had no idea that stuff was going on in there, let's do something about it". Wouldn't that make him look like he had some respect for, say, if not the Geneva Conventions than at least the US Constitution? Does he really think it's in his best interest to keep people detained indefinitely? I mean, I know you can't admit that you've done terrible things, but can't you at least admit that it's not worth continuing, or that you've made some mistakes?? All right, all right, I know that you can't say any of those things, and really, he doesn't have to. I just wish that either truth or decency (note I said either; I'm not asking a lot) was somehow involved in the discussion, that the Bush admin had to at least pretend they cared...These people scare me!
On a similar vein, meaning the "frame" issue, I feel uncomfortable with NARAL's strategy, or at least Saletan's reading of it. As much as I really want the pro-choice movement to adapt a comprehensive analysis of abortion rights, and address access to contraception as a root of the problem, I am not sure about the issue framed in terms of responsibility, because as he points out, it necessarily implies that those women that get pregnant are irresponsible, which then leads to some abstract distinction between the responsible ones and the irresonsible ones, a distinction which can only be defined and reinforced in a way that will benefit the pro-life side, because they can still use their "abortion is another form of birth control for women" argument. To me, it's similar to immigration: once you start making distinctions between illegal and legal immigrants in social issues, you're focusing entirely on finding a group to blame for their problems rather than looking at the root of the problem. Thus, while I think focusing on access to contraception, especially for low-income women, and education, is important, I don't think it's safe to use responsibility as a buzz word. I also think you can do that while acknowledging, like saletan states, that every abortion is tragic, etc. The whole point of wanting to expand access to contraception is to prevent abortions because they are tragic. I have never argued that abortion is not tragic, and I don't even believe that life begins at conception. Some of us still believe, though, that there will be times when they are necessary, and that forcing women to raise children they cannot afford, or do not want, or who are the product of rape or incest is also another tragedy. (Some of us only value life prior to conception or when it has existed in a vegetative state for a long time. Some of us, though, actually respect living people as well, and think that everyone deserves rights...oh yeah, we're the communists, i forgot. Speaking of Howard Dean, he made a great comment about that this week: “There is more to being pro-life than just debating whether a woman has the right to choose. If you want to be pro-life you ought to talk about children after they are born, not just before they are born.” stolen from cpmc.) Anyway, can't their slogan be something about preventing abortion, while keeping it safe and legal?
District schools are closed because of the heat? Damn children. I want my office to be closed! Well, we have a/c. I'm just being a tool.
The City Council is debating the smoking ban today. I hope it passes!
Um, how is Craiglist soooooooooo full of freaks?
I don't really understand Cheney's strategy around Guantanamo. I mean, I guess it's not really different from the Bush administration's strategy around everything else: keep insisting on your version of reality until it sounds true, and do it so authoritatively that after a while, it seems to be true. (And, you know, collude with a bunch of major media conglomerates so that they keep spewing your version of truth as valid...) After reports in major newsmagazines, major investigations, and a bipartisan group of Senator's calling for it to be closed, wouldn't it make sense to say, well, "it served its purpose, but it's not yielding any new information, let's shut it down?" Or, "I had no idea that stuff was going on in there, let's do something about it". Wouldn't that make him look like he had some respect for, say, if not the Geneva Conventions than at least the US Constitution? Does he really think it's in his best interest to keep people detained indefinitely? I mean, I know you can't admit that you've done terrible things, but can't you at least admit that it's not worth continuing, or that you've made some mistakes?? All right, all right, I know that you can't say any of those things, and really, he doesn't have to. I just wish that either truth or decency (note I said either; I'm not asking a lot) was somehow involved in the discussion, that the Bush admin had to at least pretend they cared...These people scare me!
On a similar vein, meaning the "frame" issue, I feel uncomfortable with NARAL's strategy, or at least Saletan's reading of it. As much as I really want the pro-choice movement to adapt a comprehensive analysis of abortion rights, and address access to contraception as a root of the problem, I am not sure about the issue framed in terms of responsibility, because as he points out, it necessarily implies that those women that get pregnant are irresponsible, which then leads to some abstract distinction between the responsible ones and the irresonsible ones, a distinction which can only be defined and reinforced in a way that will benefit the pro-life side, because they can still use their "abortion is another form of birth control for women" argument. To me, it's similar to immigration: once you start making distinctions between illegal and legal immigrants in social issues, you're focusing entirely on finding a group to blame for their problems rather than looking at the root of the problem. Thus, while I think focusing on access to contraception, especially for low-income women, and education, is important, I don't think it's safe to use responsibility as a buzz word. I also think you can do that while acknowledging, like saletan states, that every abortion is tragic, etc. The whole point of wanting to expand access to contraception is to prevent abortions because they are tragic. I have never argued that abortion is not tragic, and I don't even believe that life begins at conception. Some of us still believe, though, that there will be times when they are necessary, and that forcing women to raise children they cannot afford, or do not want, or who are the product of rape or incest is also another tragedy. (Some of us only value life prior to conception or when it has existed in a vegetative state for a long time. Some of us, though, actually respect living people as well, and think that everyone deserves rights...oh yeah, we're the communists, i forgot. Speaking of Howard Dean, he made a great comment about that this week: “There is more to being pro-life than just debating whether a woman has the right to choose. If you want to be pro-life you ought to talk about children after they are born, not just before they are born.” stolen from cpmc.) Anyway, can't their slogan be something about preventing abortion, while keeping it safe and legal?
District schools are closed because of the heat? Damn children. I want my office to be closed! Well, we have a/c. I'm just being a tool.
The City Council is debating the smoking ban today. I hope it passes!
Um, how is Craiglist soooooooooo full of freaks?
posted by Brynne at 4:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home