Rachel Goodman's Blog

Civil Unions, Civil Discourse

RachelGoodman — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:20:01 EDT

Yesterday, Connecticut became the third state to grant same-sex relationships the same rights as heterosexual relationships. Excitingly, we were the first state to do so without a directive from the courts. The bill passed without much rancor through both chambers in Hartford, and Republican Gov. Jodi Rell signed it into law. There's still work to be done: the final version contained language added by the House that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Nonetheless, today I am proud of my adopted home state, for once leading the nation in something other than poorest cities or highest per capita wealth.

Starting today, same-sex couples in Connecticut will enjoy the same rights to make medical decisions for each other, file taxes jointly, and raise their children together that straight couples have long enjoyed. But the outcome isn't the only part of this story that's important. The fact that the policy came out of the political branches and not the judiciary is a crucial part of the story. Already, it's clear that the arguments of opponents seem a lot weaker when positioned against a decision made by the people's representatives. They can't whine about "judicial activism," so they must instead react in a way that's far healthier for our democracy-- by promising to hold politicians accountable for their votes at the next election.

Amidst all the recent controversy about "moral" issues and judicial independence at the federal level, it's great to see the political branches of my state government pre-empting that whole, nasty debate here. I believe that our constitutional tradition of gender equality jurisprudence demands the recognition of marriage between any two consenting adults. But I also understand that judicial decisions aren't made in a vacuum, and that sometimes (remember Roe?) the articulation of a valid constitutional right can do more damage than good for a progressive cause. That's why I hope other states follow Hartford's lead and legislate civil union rights, so that the courts don't have to.

(And yes, I'm back, having handed in my senior essay just an hour ago. It may or may not have been about highly similar issues to those discussed in this post.)

Pie: it's not just a ratio anymore.

RachelGoodman — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:47:19 EDT

The disrespect continues: students at Butler University hit David Horowitz straight to the face with a pie. From the picture, it looks to have been strawberry-rhubarb or perhaps cherry. Feel free to hypothesize in the comments.

I imagine Horowitz feels deeply vindicated by the incident. As someone who's constantly accusing campus leftists of lowering the level of discourse and exercising fascist control over expression, he must have spun it to himself as more proof of the urgency of his mission. However, while he was thinking all that, he was still standing there with filling dripping off his balding head. And that part of it is just so slightly delightful, even to this progressive who values nonviolence and debate.

Academics Search for Truth; Conservatives Alienated

RachelGoodman — Tue, 05 Apr 2005 14:00:35 EDT

Today, Paul Krugmanwrites about an often overlooked explanation for the dearth of conservative academics today: in recent years, the right has positioned itself in opposition to the very mission of truth-seeking to which academics commit their lives. Krugman notes that conservatives are rare not only in the humanities and social sciences, where the potential for political bias does exist, but also in the hard sciences, where it is far more difficult to maintain that subjective leftist standards are being used to weed out legitimate scientists. Unless, of course, dedication to the scientific method that proves evolution is considered subjective and illegitimate.

The problem that Krugman points to is that old tension between science and religion. Although there's no reason that progressivism and (economic) conservativism would intuitively match up with the two sides of this debate, the post-Reagan right aligns more and more comfortably with religion. Meanwhile, oh-so-retro American research universities are still living in the Englightenment era, holding scientific rationality as the standard for scholarship. For now, let's skip over the challenges that postmodernism poses to that standard; in any case, scientists don't tend to be Derridians.

Then, to a certain extent, David Horowitz is right: campuses are inherently inhospitable to conservative students, if those conservative students are themselves hostile to the notions of hypothesis, inquiry, and conclusion that academia propounds. For the last couple of centuries, academic truth-seeking has separated itself from religious belief. If conservatives want to forge a new key, they ought to admit that they're throwing out the old Locke.

Coverage on Coverage

RachelGoodman — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:59:29 EST

Health insurance is a perennial issue in elections, but it tends to fall out of public discussion in general. In case you've forgotten the staggering stats, there are more than 45 million uninsured Americans. But, in this week's New Yorker, Atul Gawande presents the economics of health care from the physician's perspective, and reveals something perhaps even more grim: without serious reform, the insurance system as a whole is unsustainable in the long term.

For-profit insurance companies wrangle with the best-paid doctors in the world for revenue, while insurance premiums rise by close to 10% a year. But we can't afford to pay doctors less --they are already earning a lower return on their educational investments than lawyers or businesspeople -- and our piecemeal combination of private and pubic insurance leaves 1 in 7 Americans without coverage.

I dare any laissez faire conservative who reads this site dismissively to propose a solution that doesn't involve expansion of Medicare and Medicaid. Simultaneously, I dare any pro-business coservative to suggest one that doesn't involve removing special privileges for pharmeceutical companies. We all know that the answer, if there is one, involves using the power of the government to more effectively and fairly direct the power of the market. Let's hope we find it soon. Preferably before I graduate, lose my parents' insurance, and find out that my little blogging gig at Campus Progress doesn't come with benefits.

Say it ain't so, Jesse.

RachelGoodman — Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:27:37 EST

The Rev. Jesse Jackson has joined Terri Schiavo's parents in Pinellas Park, Florida, to urge the Florida Legislature to intervene in the case. Sure, Rev. Jackson is a man of faith, and if this were really a battle about faith, his involvement might make sense. But Jackson has stood against manipulation of Christianity as a political wedge before: although he is opposed to gay marriage, he nonetheless urged black voters not to vote for Bush on that basis.

So what gives? How can Jackson justify climbing on board the media circus that the right has incited to score points over one family's tragedy? If sixty-seven percent of Americans can see the naked politicking here, it seems difficult to believe that Jackson cannot. Jackson, however, told the crowd "This is a moral issue and it transcends politics and family disputes."

I'm totally perplexed. Thoughts?

Now that's what I call a stem cell.

RachelGoodman — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 01:26:42 EST

Paleontologists have discovered un-fossilized soft tissues inside the thigh bone of a Montana T-Rex. The discovery raises the possibility of DNA extraction and even -- cue epic soundtrack -- cloning. More realistically, the sample will allow scientists to better understand the place of dinosaurs in the evolutionary scheme. But I choose to think about the cloning part instead.

Dinosaurs could be just what the progressive movement need to get the ball rolling. Let us not allow the advocates of creationism to prevent us from making a whole herd of really, really big lizards. Thunder lizards even. Or even a couple of herds. We'll make them all female, so nothing gets out of hand. There'll be no denying evolution once these babies are roaming our streets. If a bronto doesn't like a one-ton carving of the Ten Commandments, well guess what, the bronto just whacks it with her tail and bam, it's over. She doesn't even feel the impact for a couple of seconds because her brain is so far away from her tail.

And come to think of it, there won't be any drilling in ANWR either, not if the dinos don't want it. And somehow, I doubt they will -- one species' fossil fuel is another species' deceased ancestry. To a dino, the blood in "No blood for oil" hits even closer to home, so our Mesozoic friends are likely to get us out of Iraq. Of course, they'll probably get the Iraqis out of Iraq, too.

Finally, dinosaurs will put to rest criticisms that the left is weak on national securiity. Dinosaurs, for the aforementioned reasons, are sure to be leftists, and dinosaurs are not weak on anything. They can literally stamp out terrorism. To them, bin Laden, Zarqawi, and the entire al-Qaeda network are so many tasty snacks.

So, my fellow progressive Americans, sleep a little easier tonight. I have seen the future, and it’s going to be dino-mite.

On Terri, Maybe Daddy Knows Best

RachelGoodman — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:10:42 EST

As we await the first (unconstitutional) federal hearing in the Schiavo case, my father raised the broader issue in an email:

As far as I am concerned, the fact that the Democrats were unable to vote as a party against the federal legislation removing jurisdiction of this case to the federal courts demonstrates the complete capitulation of the party as the so-called "opposition". This vote continues the right's rejection of science, logic and reason, and the ascension of mob rule in the name of "morality" and "religion". The Democrats are now so afraid of this issue that they are completely unable to vote to restrain the exercise of federal power as long as the Republicans can frame that exercise as promoting the "culture of life".

The progressive position on this issue is a deeply centrist one - it rests on commitment to the rule of constitutional law. When George Will and CAP agree, you know the position being advanced is hardly radical. And yet the rhetorical center seems to have shifted so far right, due to pressure from conservative Christian movements, that moderates in Congress were afraid to stand for the Constitution.

Barney Frank puts it Frankly

RachelGoodman — Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:49:12 EST

For those of you not quite nerdy enough to be glued to the Schiavo debate, you should know that Barney Frank is all of our heroes. He keeps on hammering home the two crucial balance of power points: this bill would not only grant the federal government unconstitutional power over the state, but the legislature unconstitutional power over the judiciary. The issue of competency is also key -- the Congress is just not equipped to investigate the facts of the situation as the Florida courts are, especially after years of careful legal work in that state.

Is the Right for States' Rights?

RachelGoodman — Sun, 20 Mar 2005 01:34:14 EST

The most recent developments in the Terri Schiavo case reveal an unpleasant truth about conservatives' feelings on federalism: they're flip-floppers. States' rights and local control may be a crucial part of the rhetoric, but on tough issues, the principle always gives way. We saw it in Bush v. Gore, we saw it with support for an anti-marriage amendment, and now we are seeing this kind of manuevering carried to a ludicrous extreme.

Friday morning, after a Florida judge ordered Schiavo's feeding tube removed, the House Government Reform Committee went as far as issuing subpoenas to Schiavo and her family, and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee invited them to testify. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist then emphasized that it is a federal crime to interfere with an individual's Congressional testimony. The tube was removed nonetheless, according to the Florida judge's decision. Now, it seems likely that the House and Senate will pass, and President Bush will sign, legislation moving Schiavo's case into federal court, thus requiring the reinsertion of the feeding tube while the federal appeal is pending.

Go west, young lady.

RachelGoodman — Sun, 06 Mar 2005 14:55:34 EST

I dare to say that McSweeney's is one of the left's most valuable resources in the struggle to stay sane and amused during these difficult times. Lately, I'm concentrating on staying amused, as I'm spending this week touring with my improv group in LA and Chicago for spring break. I'll try to post when I have access, but for now, I leave you with just one of the delightful tidbits available at McSweeney's. Enjoy.

Good news from the Times

RachelGoodman — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:10:58 EST

This morning, my first thought on seeing this morning's NY Times headline, "New Poll Finds Bush Priorities are Out of Step with Americans," was that it could have been straight out of the Progress Report. My second thought was to recall that the truth does, frequently, have a progressive slant. You know, because our politics are based in reality.

The poll is full of uplifting news for those of us who had our faith in the American people sorely tested on November 2. Despite all the hype, respondents ranked both jobs and healthcare as more important than social security right now. Not only do citizens disapprove of Bush’s handling of the economy 54%-38%, but they find that their views on abortion and gay marriage line up better with the Democratic Party than the GOP, by margins of 10% and 5%, respectively. And, in the meta-question, 63% believe that the Bush administration has different priorities on domestic issues than most Americans.

Matt Yglesias thinks this all points back to the Dems’ problems on national security. If Americans still tend to trust Democrats on domestic policy, even so-called “moral values” issues, then international issues must be the current trump card. More specifically, the issue is terrorism. Although 58% of the public believes Bush’s foreign policy priorities are out of step with most Americans, 61% approve of the way he’s conducting the “campaign against terrorism.” This, of course, despite the fictitious centrality of the Iraq war in the campaign against al-Qaeda and the very real surge in terrorist training and activity in Iraq since the invasion.

Which brings us back, once again, to the importance of messaging. We progressives have a pretty strong grip on reality (see above). We seem, however, to be having a problem with conveying the reality of the botched war on terror to the nation. This country’s values are still capital-d Democratic—our major challenge as young progressives is to show people that, in the globalized world, those values must pervade our foreign policy as well as our domestic policy.

Thin democracy in Iraq.

RachelGoodman — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:10:40 EST

At least 106 people were killed and 133 wounded in a suicide bombing today in Hllah, Iraq. The attack is the deadliest since March 2003, and it gives the lie to those who believed the January 30 elections signalled a clean break with Iraq's violent past.

The debate will, of course, continue to rage about whether the Arab world is "ready for democracy," and whether questioning Arab readiness is itself a racist, illiberal proposition. Theoretical implications aside, though, the bombing shows us once again that elections, be they in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Ukraine, or Russia, do not themselves bring the benefits of democracy to a nation. A nation must also reach a cultural consensus that democracy is the best means to stability and development. In Iraq, a violent minority still has enough support to prevent that consensus from taking root.

This begs the question of what the United States' proper role in fostering Iraqi democracy ought to be. But I want to suggest a different way of thinking about the problem - the U.S. obligation, at this point, is to restore stability and infrastructure in Iraq, and to leave the thornier questions of democratic development to Iraqi citizens now wrestling with them. Each time the President mentions the establishment of Iraqi democracy as a done deal, he dishonors all the Iraqis and Americans whose deaths since the election continue to prove him wrong.

Horowitzes worth our time.

RachelGoodman — Sat, 26 Feb 2005 17:41:23 EST

I am sick of reading about David Horowitz, particularly because David Horowitz' mission in life is to saturate my world with his activism such that I become sick of him.

So, lest the terrorists win, I suggest we change the Horowitz-subject. I propose a little contest of my own: submit for consideration a Horowitz who has contributed positively to the forward march of humanity.

My suggestion: Sara Horowitz, labor lawyer and founder of Working Today, a non-profit organization that advocates on behalf of independent workers – contractors, temps, part-timers, and the self-employed. This Horowitz’ life work is to update the social safety net so it better serves the needs of this growing segment of the workforce. Other Horowitzes I prefer to David include the famed pianist Vladimir and most of the kids I went to summer camp with.

They discovered the network.

RachelGoodman — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:42:05 EST

Looks like Campus Progress is a little late getting into the progressive networking game. David Horowitz’ discoverthenetwork.org has beaten us to the punch. The site exhaustively catalogues all the individuals and organizations that, in Horowitz’ paranoid-delusional worldview, make up the vast left-wing conspiracy.

And boy, he is thorough. The site provides bios for everyone from George Soros to Zacarias Moussaoui What’s that, my friend? You think not even David Horowitz would equate funding progressive politics with plotting the deaths of thousands of Americans? Well, you would be wrong. The “Religious Left” section of the site features not only progressive Revs. Jim Walis and Al Sharpton, but Ayatollah Khomeini, whose support for theocracy you would think the right would get behind.

Repeating Rwanda

RachelGoodman — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:17:42 EST

Last night, I was lucky enough to hear Paul Rusesabagina, hero of the Rwandan genocide, speak about his experiences and the current situation in Darfur. Hearing him describe a genocide firsthand, without even the half-century of distance that provides some security during accounts of the Holocaust, was itself deeply upsetting. Hearing him insist that he saw precisely the same thing unfolding in Sudan during his recent trip there was almost too much to bear. During the hundred days of horror in Rwanda, 1 million people were slaughtered. In Darfur, the number has already reached 70,000, with 1.6 million internally displaced. Those numbers, of course, do not include untold numbers of people raped or maimed.

Hotel Rwanda, the movie version of Rusesabagina’s story, has made him something of a celebrity in this country, and he is trying to use his fame to push Americans into action on Darfur. Last Thursday, Rusesabagina met with President Bush. Of the President, he said first, “He’s very much concerned and he’s committed.” But in response to a question about building an international coalition to intervene in Sudan, he gave a less politic—and more honest—answer. Yes, the Russians and the Chinese now exploit Sudanese oil, and yes, the process of building global support would be a headache. “But was it in Iraq?” asked Rusesabagina, “I think I’m clear.”

With leadership from the United States, the horrors in Darfur could be stopped, perhaps even without military intervention. Rusesabagina urged Western governments to freeze the assets of Sudanese government leaders, as well as to create a weapons and oil embargo on the nation. Without resources, the terror would necessarily end. This summer, Congress declared the situation in Darfur a genocide. We must make our opposition more than semantic, so that we can finally live up to the promise of "Never again."

CPAC Patently Absurd

RachelGoodman — Sun, 20 Feb 2005 09:53:52 EST

I know conservativism is about dismantling the regulatory regime, but this is ridiculous: Wonkette informs us that t-shirts bearing the word "Capitalism" written in the Coca-Cola script were flying off the shelves at CPAC.

The irony here is pretty hard to miss: capitalism can’t function without some guarantee for intellectual property rights, a pillar of the system which the folks over at CPAC feel they can selectively do without. One would think that at such a congress of pro-business politics, respect for trademarks would be at least as sacred as, say, the notion of intellectual honesty.

What's that? CPAC says we're finding WMD's in Iraq every day?

Right. Bring on those Ashcroftie & Feith tees.

This gender gap.

RachelGoodman — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 15:46:30 EST

Identifiably female bloggers on campusprogress.org: 1
Identifiably male bloggers on campusprogress.org: 15

VisitorFromEarth raises a good point, but it's not just their team, guys. Check out Tapped on the dearth-of-lady-pundits phenomenon.

Update: the link to the Tapped piece is now correct.

Calculating on Abortion

RachelGoodman — Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:24:17 EST

Like most pro-choice Democrats, I'm of two minds about the Democratic party's recent signaling of its willingness to compromise on reproductive rights issues. On the one hand, I understand that the right has been incredibly successful at defining the terms of the debate in such a way that forces for choice are on the defensive, and that the party has to consider that its message on the subject resonates with a declining percentage of the population. On the other, I consider reproductive freedom a crucial political value, key to such Democratic fundamentals as equality of gender and race, poor people’s rights, and perhaps even the separation of church and state.

For better or worse, the two party system has frozen the issue. The Republican Party is pro-life, though not all Republicans are, and the Democratic Party is pro-choice, though not all Democrats are. If the Dems cede the issue, or at least hush up about their true feelings, then the two sides of the debate become “abortion is murder” vs. “oh, let’s talk about something more pleasant, shall we.”

Treason: Defending Ann Coulter (sort of)

RachelGoodman — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:23:06 EST

I will be the first to say that Ann Coulter places her femaleness at the center of her public persona. Indeed, her blondeness and her odd telegenicity are crucial in ensuring that her rabidly raving lunatic self manages to get on the bestsellers list again and again.

Yet, there's always something that bothers me in the response to Coulter, even from progressives. I first noticed it this summer, when she wrote a too-hot-for USA Today column about how ugly women at the Democratic National Convention need to learn how to put on make up. Progressive friends marvelled at her ability to offend us at levels we didn't know could be reached.

But what were those levels, and why doesn't Bill O'Reilly irk us in quite the same way? Here is one woman's hypothesis, and I accuse myself along with everyone else: I think Ann makes us this insane because she's a woman, and not an unattractive one at that.

The Wisdom of Solomon?

RachelGoodman — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:42:36 EST

While we're all thinking about academic freedom:

This year, Yale Law School will once again bar the military's Judge Advocate General recruiting program from coming to campus. At issue, of course, is the military's "don't ask, don't tell policy," which allows gays in the military on the condition that their identities remain secret. Though Yale Law's non-discrimination policy forbids such treatment, the federal government's Solomon Amendment allows it to pull all of Yale's $300 million in federal funding if the pesky Law School insists on equal treatment for all its students.

Sudden enforcement of the Amendment in 2003 produced four lawsuits from universities, two of which came out of my alma mater. (Is it my mater yet if I haven't graduated? Guess that doesn't mater...) In late January, the federal District Court of Connecticut ruled in favor of the university plaintiffs, following a Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision in a parallel case that said the universities could bar recruiters.

Now, I understand that we progressives have a public relations problem in terms of the military. You know, because we're the ones sending troops into the line of fire without body armor or cutting veterans' benefits. But be that as it may, the Solomon Amendment is worthy of our fierce opposition. It effectively prevents universities from enforcing higher standards of equality than the federal government does, and in so doing, seriously curtails universities’ ability to push the civil rights debate forward. Universities cannot, and should not, prevent their students from joining the military, but they ought to be able to make their campuses into spaces that enforce equal rights.