It was touch and go, for a while, and it seemed that Obama would buckle under pressure, not wanting to rock the boat, especially given ferocious opposition from much of the national security establishment. But he did the right thing, and released the memos. You can find them here. Here’s an excerpt from Obama’s statement:
“My judgment on the content of these memos is a matter of record. In one of my very first acts as President, I prohibited the use of these interrogation techniques by the United States because they undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer. Enlisting our values in the protection of our people makes us stronger and more secure. A democracy as resilient as ours must reject the false choice between our security and our ideals, and that is why these methods of interrogation are already a thing of the past….
I believe that exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release. First, the interrogation techniques described in these memos have already been widely reported. Second, the previous Administration publicly acknowledged portions of the program – and some of the practices – associated with these memos. Third, I have already ended the techniques described in the memos through an Executive Order.
Therefore, withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time. This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States. In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.”
This was of course the right decision, but Obama’s continued attempts to shield those complicit in torture from the legal consequences of their actions is less noble. Still, how far we have come in a matter of months.
“Still, how far we have come in a matter of months.”
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — The following is a compilation of bill signings, speeches, appointments and other actions that President Barack Obama has engaged in that have promoted abortion before and during his presidency. While Obama has promised to reduce abortions and some of his supporters believe that will happen, this long list proves his only agenda is promoting more abortions.
Post-Election / Pre-Inauguration
November 5, 2008 – Obama selects pro-abortion Rep. Rahm Emanuel as his White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel has a 0% pro-life voting record according to National Right to Life.
November 19, 2008 – Obama picks pro-abortion former Sen. Tom Daschle as his Health and Human Services Secretary. Daschle has a long pro-abortion voting record according to National Right to Life.
November 20, 2008 – Obama chooses former NARAL legal director Dawn Johnsen to serve as a member of his Department of Justice Review Team. Later, he finalizes her appointment as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of the Legal Counsel in the Obama administration.
November 24, 2008 – Obama appoints Ellen Moran, the former director of the pro-abortion group Emily’s List as his White House communications director. Emily’s List only supported candidates who favored taxpayer funded abortions and opposed a partial-birth abortion ban.
November 24, 2008 – Obama puts former Emily’s List board member Melody Barnes in place as his director of the Domestic Policy Council.
November 30, 2008 – Obama named pro-abortion Sen. Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State. Clinton has an unblemished pro-abortion voting record and has supported making unlimited abortions an international right.
December 10, 2008 – Obama selects pro-abortion former Clinton administration official Jeanne Lambrew to become the deputy director of the White House Office of Health Reform. Planned Parenthood is “excited” about the selection.
December 10, 2008 – Obama transition team publishes memo from dozens of pro-abortion groups listing their laundry list of pro-abortions actions they want him to take.
Pro-Abortion Presidential Record – 2009
January 5, 2009 – Obama picks pro-abortion Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine as the chairman of the Democratic Party.
January 6, 2009 – Obama chooses Thomas Perrelli, the lawyer who represented Terri Schiavo’s husband Michael in his efforts to kill his disabled wife, as the third highest attorney in the Justice Department.
January 22, 2009 – Releases statement restating support for Roe v. Wade decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions and has resulted in at least 50 million abortions since 1973.
January 23, 2009 – Forces taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. Decison to overturn Mexico City Policy sends part of $457 million to pro-abortion organizations.
January 26, 2009 – Obama nominee for Deputy Secretary of State, James B. Steinberg, tells members of the Senate that taxpayers should be forced to fund abortions. Nominee erroneously says limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional.
January 29, 2009 – President Obama nominates pro-abortion David Ogden as Deputy Attorney General.
February 12, 2009 – Obama nominates pro-abortion Elena Kagan to serve as Solicitor General.
February 27, 2009 – Starts the process of overturning pro-life conscience protections President Bush put in place to make sure medical staff and centers are not forced to do abortions.
February 28, 2009 – Barack Obama nominates pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius to become Secretary of Health and Human Services.
March 5, 2009 – The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business, made the invitation list as did other pro-abortion groups.
March 9, 2009 – President Barack Obama signed an executive order forcing taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research.
March 10, 2009 – Obama announces the creation of a new foreign policy position to focus on women’s issues. He names Melanne Verveer, an abortion advocate, to occupy the post.
March 10, 2009 – Reverses an executive order to press for more research into ways of obtaining embryonic stem cells without harming human life. The order Obama scrapped would have promoted new forms of stem cell research.
March 11, 2009 – Obama signed an executive order establishing a new agency within his administration known as the White House Council on Women and Girls. Obama’s director of public liaison at the White House, Tina Tchen, an abortion advocate, became director of it.
March 11, 2009 – Obama administration promotes an unlimited right to abortion at a United Nations meeting.
March 11, 2009 – Obama administration officials deny negative effects of abortion at United Nation’s meeting.
March 17, 2009 – President Barack Obama makes his first judicial appointment and names pro-abortion federal Judge David Hamilton to serve on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
March 26 – President Obama announced $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that has been criticized for promoting abortion and working closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations.
April 7 – The Vatican has rejected three Obama ambassador nominees because of their positions in favor of abortions.
April 7 – Obama has named pro-abortion law professor Harold Hongju Koh as the top lawyer for the State Department.
April 7 – Put more abortion advocates on his White House advisory council for faith-based issues.
Knuckledragger, this post was not about abortion.
For people like Knuckle Dragger, everything is about abortion.
Oh, but everything’s about abortion.
I was watching Fox last night, and they were talking about “simulated drowning” and “controlled banging of a suspect’s head against a wall.” Do people just not listen to themselves? It was very disturbing.
I don’t care how good he is on torture if he can’t get the most basic issue right.
[...] And Obama did release them. [...]
Now that these have been released it will be intresting if Catholic actually engae specific practices that were mentioned and make a argument if they are torute not not.
Many of these I say they were not. More are more troublesome but at least perhaps we can get some clarity
I don’t care how good he is on torture if he can’t get the most basic issue right.
Key phrase here: “I don’t care”.
One other thing. As we care about what we do about enemy that want to destroy the USA I hope and pray people take care of what is happening our own prisions. Some of this is nothing comapred to what I have seened in my own state
Key phrase here: “I don’t care”.
Fortunately, we have a God and Savior in Jesus Christ who did care deeply about a wide-range of issues on life and human dignity. He, I think, is worth emulating.
One element often overlooked is the damage done to the people who committed acts of torture. You can’t abuse someone else’s dignity without abusing your own. I have no doubt that the people at the CIA etc. who carried out these “enhanced” interrogation tactics (gotta love the vocabulary that purrs as it obsfucates) have deep spiritual wounds that need attention. One way to address these wounds is to not shield the guilty parties from prosecution. Justice needs to be done for them to be made whole. Their souls are just as dear to Jesus as those of their victims, and it will be very hard for them to heal without facing up to what they have done.
So what techinques is Obama keeping or repudiating in these memos
Also does this mean if he finds all this horrible he shall not release people to countires that might not find all these practices so horrible
What is interesting is what he did not say
“One way to address these wounds is to not shield the guilty parties from prosecution. Justice needs to be done for them to be made whole. Their souls are just as dear to Jesus as those of their victims, and it will be very hard for them to heal without facing up to what they have done.”
If you are talking about prosecution that means like jail etc then we must get specific what here is torture and what is not. Again not everything here is the rack
JH, I hope you’re not making light of “grabbing the collar.” That’s a technique so horrible that it’s never before been known in the history of man, and thank goodness that Obama has now decreed that no American law enforcement officer will ever again grab a suspect’s collar. People who grab someone’s collar deserve the death penalty, at the very least.
Sorry, I’m just being a smart aleck . . , driven to it by the fact that once again, American prisoners undergo stuff as bad as this all the time, but no one cares because there’s no partisan gain to be had. And MM is just confirming that point once again.
SB, I don’t think MM is doing any such thing at all. JH, you bring up an OUTSTANDING point that our prison system is in serious need of reform. I hear horror stories all the time. And look at what our assumptions are? It is common knowledge the prevalent use of rape is in the prison system. Deeply disturbing!
Thank GOD we have changes happening regarding this horror!
And Magdalena, EXCELLENT point!
Obama’s attitude about unborn life: “I don’t care”.
SB – When you say, “American prisoners undergo stuff as bad as this all the time” what are you talking about?
To my knowledge, American prisoners are not tortured by the staff on a routine basis, and if they are it is certainly not at the direction of the highest levels of government. There was a prosecution a few years ago of guards at a California prison who instigated fights between inmates and then betting on the outcome. When it came to light, there were swift denunciations, a housecleaning, and prosecutions.
The CIA desire to use insects during interrogations has not previously been disclosed, according to two civil liberties experts contacted by TIME. The Bybee memorandum, which was written on August 1, 2002, described the CIA’s plans for using insects this way:
“You [the CIA] would like to place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us [the Department of Justice] that he appears to have a fear of insects.
In particular, you would like to tell Zubaydah that you intend to place a stinging insect into the box with him. You would, however, place a harmless insect in the box. You have orally informed us that you would in fact place a harmless insect such as a catapiller in the box with him.”
;) So if I the Bush ordered a bunch of crickets in the cell with a guy is that torture?
I agree with RCM, Magdalena – you raise important issues.
On the one hand, I think it is critical to treat the people at the top, the architects and enablers of torture, with some severity in the legal system – meaning lengthy prison sentences. The precedent needs to be set that those who order torture are subject to the harshest possible penalties, so that the next administration that contemplates torture will be guaranteed to blanch at the price.
On the other hand, I think those who tortured ought to be treated more leniently – they are not directly responsible for the regime of torture. To order someone to torture another is an abuse of power.
The UCMJ requires that one who is given an unlawful order is obliged to refuse to obey it; when you’re a Corporal or PFC, you are trained (and trained and trained…) to trust the judgment and reliability of those appointed over you; to defy the order of a superior requires incredible courage, shored up by clear, certain knowledge of exactly why you are doing what you’re doing. “This kinda seems wrong” is not sufficient reason to refuse obedience.
I would add that if evidence emerges that some of the torturers seemed to “enjoy their work” – who went “above and beyond” as it were – then the proverbial “ton of bricks” needs to come down on their heads.
“On the one hand, I think it is critical to treat the people at the top, the architects and enablers of torture, with some severity in the legal system – meaning lengthy prison sentences. The precedent needs to be set that those who order torture are subject to the harshest possible penalties, so that the next administration that contemplates torture will be guaranteed to blanch at the price.”
The question is what is torture. I have friends that say waterboarding is torture. But I have two others that under went it as a part of their training that say no way is it torture
I have a hard time prosecuting people when there is still a deabte what is and what is not torture
jh – Undergoing “waterboarding” as part of training is not “torture” as that word is usually used, because the person undergoing it has some basic level of control – he can end it at any time, and thus is not subject to the trauma that someone who is being waterboarded in earnest experiences. Sure, he may fear washing out of his training, so in that sense an argument (if a dubious one) can be made that there is “coercion”; but the actual prisoner at Gitmo has every reason to believe that the Americans will actually kill him. The essence of torture is being tormented in a way over which you have no control.
“If you are talking about prosecution that means like jail etc then we must get specific what here is torture and what is not. Again not everything here is the rack”
Most everyone can identify what is or is not torture – “you know it when you see it” as they say about pornography. You have to strain pretty hard to produce any shades of gray. Needless to say true professionals in the military and other organizations do not need to resort to waterboarding or the use of… crickets. Such methods do not work as well as engagement and relationship-building.
W/ regard to the higher-ups, I agree that stiffer penalties for them would be appropriate to ward off future crimes. And that is exactly why that will never happen: the ruling elite protects itself in perpetuity. When push comes to shove Obama is not going to establish any potentially inconvenient precedents.
I have often wondered about this leader-follower dynamic in terms of conscience. Does a crime like torture hurt more for the person who orders it or the person who actually carries it out? Obviously the physical act of torturing someone produces psychological damage that can not be equaled.
And yet because they are distanced from the act itself, I think the leadership who issues the orders suffers more, at least in the abstract. Without the pure physical horror to command their attention, their minds are free to linger on their guilt… at the end of his term President Bush seemed almost chastened in his interviews, not very happy. And I have to admit worrying about him a little, because with all due respect to our separated brothers and sisters I don’t think Protestants, especially his “born again” type, have all the tools for dealing with guilt that Catholics do. One reason our suicide rate is so low compared to other religious traditions.
Prison rape. Solitary confinement (happens to tens of thousands of prisoners, not just a handful of top al Qaeda terrorists, and people who undergo it say that the psychological effects can drive you insane).
Again, though, let’s not think about that when there’s partisan hay to be made.
And that is exactly why that will never happen: the ruling elite protects itself in perpetuity.
I agree, Magdalena, which is why we ordinary citizens need to demand it, relentlessly. To refuse to prosecute needs to be a career-destroying position for a politician to take; we’re not there now, but I am actually hopeful that change can happen.
I have a hard time prosecuting people when there is still a deabte what is and what is not torture.
jh,
Just ask yourself this: If members of Al-Qaeda were holding Americans captive and subjecting them to waterboarding, would the United States consider it interrogation or torture? There’s your answer.
No David it is not as simple as that
In all this there is a whiff of poltical retribution going around which should send warning signs up
No as a former prosecutor and more important as a former defense attorney prosecuting people under various neblous concepts that there is such in fact disagreement over is a problem
There is still a debate and a quite vocal one if waterboarding is torture. Are we going to put people into jail (IMPRISON THEM) because they gave a legal opinion
You might thing waterboarding is torture and in fact I have great misgivings over it. But to put someone in jail because in their legal opinion is was proper.
I am not so sure
I am no big fan of torture. In fact if the Catholic blogsphere cared about what happens in American Prisons and County jails that I have represented as they do a handful of ememy combamendents where I would welcome it
Still no in the end we are talking about real imprisonment on people on concepts that this nation has not quite worked out
“There is still a debate and a quite vocal one if waterboarding is torture.”
My advice: don’t act on the assumption that the jury is still out on whether waterboarding is torture. Waterboard is torture. For example:
In 1901, during the Spanish-American War, an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines.
Again:
“In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan’s defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.
Evan Wallach, writing in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, said: “All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators.”
Again:
“On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced “a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk.” The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.”
Finally, here in the United States:
“In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.”
Can anyone point to one example where a person was found guilty of waterboarding and then set free for other than technical reasons?
The question is what is torture…. I have a hard time prosecuting people when there is still a deabte what is and what is not torture
How long are you going to “debate” it? I suppose prolonging the debate is just fine with you, so long as you’re not the one whose testicles are being electrocuted? Have fun debating it. The rest of us know it when we see it and will oppose it.
No David it is not as simple as that
Yeah, David, don’t you get it? What we do is morally different from what they do.
I am no big fan of torture.
That’s interesting that you’re “not a big fan” of torture. Touching, even. You know, I’m not a “big fan” of U2, but I do really like some of their records!
Catholics, if they are thinking like Catholics, unambiguously oppose torture. We do not merely say “I’m not a big fan.”
How can we worship a victim of torture and the death penalty and then think in these ways? How?
Michael
I am not trying to be cute with my comments. I have watched these debates over and over and as work through these memos I am not sure some of this is torture
Some might be some might not.
When does deprivation of sleep become torture. How many hours? I am not trying to exend the debate but trying to work through it as a faithful Catholic
As I mentioned elsewhere I am not a huge fan of water boarding but some one I know has been subjected to it three times and did ot other naval folks as a part fo their training. He tells me up and down it is not torture. Yet Hitches said hell yes it is
Is any amount of physical or mental anquish torture. I think not. Where is the line. That is what I am working through and trying to come to a honest Christian stance
So I will get back to you. Is a slap across the face torture. What amount of fear is torture
I am working though this
But as I said earlier as a person that has a aversion to this stuff naturally I am recoling at prosecution of people on this that I as a Lawyer still am working with
“As a lawyer” (are you seriously a lawyer?), you seem to take the “what can we get away with” approach to ethics. I want nothing to do with that approach.
These documents are only the tip of an iceberg. Do they mention the “frequent flyer” program?
I agree with SB that solitary confinement in US prisons is a form of torture.
I will also say this — I agree with SB, there is a LOT of torture going on, too. But I would disagree with him in saying people are not concerned about it. Amnesty International for example has a long track record on this issue (though their recent turn to abortion is vile).
MI-
I could not agree with your last comment more, and it sums up my approach to the whole torture debate. I am not interested in getting anywhere near the line of torture. My Church teaches that torture is intrinsically evil, and playing the “how close can I get to the line without crossing it” game is not something I am even remotely interested in. That’s a very dangerous game.
All of that having been said, I am interested in hearing from Gerald as to why his arguments against outlawing abortion should not equally apply to torture. I mean, the sad fact of the matter is that most Americans have absolutely no problem with torturing folks if it keeps us safe, so maybe we should just work on changing their hearts one at a time, rather than worrying about prosecuting those who engage in this evil.
I agree with SB on the state of U.S. prisons. Something needs to be done to bring decency into the system. Having personally interviewed 100 prison inmates incarcerated for capital crimes, i.e., murder, i’ve experienced some of this ugliness firsthand. Even from what little I saw, the picture numbs the imagination.
Sen. Jim Webb has begun to tackle prison reform. People who come to this site might want to keep track of his efforts.
Feddie, ask yourself why the outrage against abortion is substantially less than what we see on torture. Once you get that clear in your head, you’ll understand that at the practical level the legal route is less compelling than the alternative to reducing the incidence of abortion. No one is saying that abortion is a good to be pursued. What people like me are saying is that there are better ways to achieve the good we both seek.
If you think the legal route holds so much promise, then go out and pass the laws and get done with it. The problem is, however, you can’t. No one else can either. In reality, the burden is on you. Either you have the power to do something you seek or your are powerless. Thus far you have proven yourself to be powerless.
“As a lawyer” (are you seriously a lawyer?), you seem to take the “what can we get away with” approach to ethics. I want nothing to do with that approach.”
MI,
It appears that most of the crap that took place on Wall Street was legal. Bonuses for one firm that amount to tens of billions of dollars are legal!!!! Yes.
Is it any wonder we’ve descended so far in this country? Ethical consciousness is much higher than legal consciousness. Yet, we are swimming around at the lowest legal level possible. And you have put your finger right on it — “what we can get away with!!!”
I’m not a lawyer. I’m not sure what is wrong. But something clearly is not right.
Gerald
That also explains why many, especially those of the legal mind, look to morality only within what is possible legally. If you don’t have abortion instantly made illegal (whether or not you can do it), it says you have made abortion moral. I don’t think it is necessarily the lawyers who initially took this view, nor all who do, but rather, found this view significantly became the norm in the 80s, and from there, those raised in that environment have often taken it back to the legal profession itself. It explains why there are more issues being debated than meets the eye, and why people think “if you are not looking at the legal issue, you must be pro-X” whatever that X is.
I hate to rain on the Obama parade, but is this really a big deal? We already had a notion that torture was going on and we had heard about the worse forms. Yes, we have a more detailed picture, but how are we better off today then we were before the memos were released?
Instead, the memos seem to have served two purposes:
1) Continuing Obama’s obsession with attacking Bush at every available opportunity in an attempt to deflect attention off of his own atrocious policies (some of which are carbon copies stolen from his predecessor).
2) Preventing once and for the indictment of the people who participated in this.
I don’t see how either one of these is worthy of celebration by Catholics. If he was planning to do something with the memos, maybe, but this is just more grand-standing by an administration whose only current source of popularity is not being Bush.
Michael Denton
Would you make the same argument if it were memos of sexual abused covered up by Planned Parenthood instead of torture which happened under GW Bush’s watch? That it would be worthless to reveal this information now?
Gerald-
People are more outraged over torture than abortion? You’re kidding, right? Maybe the liberal MSM is more outraged over torture than abortion, but I think you’re dead wrong as a general proposition.
Oh, and Gerald, “we” would be a lot more powerful if you and others who claim to be prolife would start acting like you actually believe what you say you believe re: abortion.
Good point about law and ethics, Henry.
Feddie,
You need to get out more. Torture is unacceptable. American’s agree on that. There is marginal agreement with the pro-life MOVEMENT.
As to your second comment: Admit it. On the abortion issue, you are powerless and of no consequence. All that is left you is to whine and scream at those who won’t sing your song. Get over it. Three decades of no progress is too long. Are you willing to take responsibility for failure?
Then there is the question of courage. I don’t see you protesting like Randall Terry. You’re not the John Brown of the anti-abortion movement. You’re merely a lawyer who takes cheap shots at those who disagree with you. That’s not courage. That’s either moral indifference or just plain cowardice!
Despite what you think, you don’t occupy the moral high-ground on this issue at all. There’s plenty of dirt to go around. Own up to your share.
Gerald,
Just as a point of order here, to help make sure frustrations (on all sides) do not get the best of us, I think I’ve seen Feddie talk about being involved not only with protests before, but also involved in some positive, pro-active help with those who are pregnant. So while I disagree with him on many things, I do think we shouldn’t reduce all he does to what is said online in debate.
Henry,
Well, I’m glad to learn Feddie acts on the basis of his convictions. Thus the suspicion of moral indifference and cowardice is mitigated.
My intention was not to malign. I was merely pointing out the logic of his remarks as presented in the content of our exchanges, here and previously.
Gerald
I understand the frustration, and it is easy to lead into discourses which we both know are not always the best way in dealing with them. I just wanted to make sure it didn’t go into an ad hominem (or people assume the worse of th other when in a debatE), and instead, to make sure it keeps on the level of principle.
I think it’s a valuable discussion, as you well know.
No intention to malign… right…
Compare the abortion rate 30 years ago and the abortion rate today and can you still say it has been three decades of failure?
And it took John Brown and Co. a little longer than 30 years to take care of the slavery issue, I believe.
If only this was a regular Western country where abortion is regulated via simple laws. The Right would be bereft of its carte blanche for murder & mayhem and would have to get off its high one-trick pony.
“Compare the abortion rate 30 years ago and the abortion rate today and can you still say it has been three decades of failure?”
Magdelena, are you attributing the decline in abortion rates to the success of the pro-life strategy?
“And it took John Brown and Co. a little longer than 30 years to take care of the slavery issue, I believe.”
Are you saying the strategy of John Brown & Co. decided the slavery issue?
Magdelena, are you attributing the decline in abortion rates to the success of the pro-life strategy?
Some of the decline is almost certainly due to the success of pro-life politicians in passing what few abortion restrictions that the Supreme Court would allow. See, for example, http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2009.01.27.001.pdart
Magdalena,
Compare the abortion rate 30 years ago and the abortion rate today and can you still say it has been three decades of failure?
Abortion rates are falling worldwide.
And it took John Brown and Co. a little longer than 30 years to take care of the slavery issue, I believe.
According to Wikipedia, “President Abraham Lincoln said he [John Brown] was a ‘misguided fanatic’.”
The fall in abortion rates can be marked up to a number of various causes, including easier access to contraception and restrictive laws. In America the rate has fallen throughout both Democratic and Republican administrations, through recessions and expansions. That suggests that it doesn’t make much difference whom we elect to office. It points to CULTURE, not the law, as the variable with the most importance.
Just take a look at the percentage of babies born out of wedlock in the USA this year. Is there any doubt that thirty years ago many (if not most) of those pregnancies would end in abortion?
The pro-life movement has two goals: 1. Change unjust laws that do not respect human life and 2. Reduce the abortion rate to 0 percent. Electoral politics has a lot to do with the first but hardly anything to do with the second. It is on the second point where we are enjoying UNDENIABLE steady success. I didn’t know that abortion rates were falling world-wide; that’s wonderful and further proof that something that’s happening is working! Too slowly, but the progress is there.
John Brown is from my home town so perhaps I am a bit biased ;) However I freely admit that he and his methods were quite mad and counter-productive. When I said “and Co.” I was making reference to the abolitionist movement as a whole. It took multiple generations of abolitionists to rid the US of slavery and further generations for Jim Crow to be sent packing. Our society did not suddenly become pro-abortion on the day Roe v Wade was decided, it was a gradual coarsening of the national consicence that made it possible, the same coarsening that made it possible to drop the bomb. It will take even LONGER to undue the damage. Massive social change takes time! Thirty years is a drop in the bucket.
“On the abortion issue, you are powerless and of no consequence. All that is left you is to whine and scream at those who won’t sing your song. Get over it.”
Well, Gerald, since we have not been successful at eliminating abortion, I guess we should just shut up.
Even if unsuccessful, I will not shut up and “get over it”. It is our duty as Catholics to continue to fight for the unborn, and to make sure people don’t forget about the killing that takes place in America every day.
You are right Knuckle Dragger. But wouldn’t you say we have the same duty to continue to fight torture?
Magdalena,
Yes, absolutely. And we need to call out our political leaders that condone either one.
“Even if unsuccessful, I will not shut up and “get over it”. It is our duty as Catholics to continue to fight for the unborn, and to make sure people don’t forget about the killing that takes place in America every day.”
Yes, it is our duty to fight for the unborn. We agree. But it is also our obligation to be prudential and do those things that actually make a difference. It is clear the legal strategies of the last 30 years have had minimal results. It’s time to move towards a new approach.
Overall, we have no argument unless you are absolutely wedded to a strategy that is not workable in a pluralist society. If you and others target your considerable energies in strategies that hold more promise, it is likely we will see a major drop in abortion rates over the next eight years.
The choice, of course, is yours to make.
Back to the issue at hand: Andrew Sullivan gets it right:
Gerald,
Why does it have to be an either/or proposition? I’m not opposed to trying other approaches while continuing to push for as many legal restrictions as possible.
If you and others target your considerable energies in strategies that hold more promise,
The problem is that there is no evidence for this “more promise” claim.
S.B.
Since there has been a decline in abortion without the laws themselves becoming more strict, there is some indication that there is more promise in cultural strategies which seem to be working than legal ones which go nowhere. Of course, one could say the legal attempts have influenced the culture, to which it is possible, but it would still show that the cultural formula is valid.
“Why does it have to be an either/or proposition? I’m not opposed to trying other approaches while continuing to push for as many legal restrictions as possible.”
I’m not trying to be either/or. Perhaps I give that impression but that is my shortcomings as a writer. I respect those who will continue to push for legal restrictions, such as yourself. I’m not arguing for you to stop. Already, you have indicated an openness to try other approaches. So we have no argument. We might have difficulty communicating at times. But that can be overcome.
Personally, I tend to favor other approaches. Part of the reason for this is because I’ve seen, especially during my days on Capital Hill, a lot of energy expended on a one trick pony that was getting no one anywhere. I’d like to see thoughtful people take another look at the practical possibilities that are available.
Just one more point. One of the weakness in the legal approach, aside from the near impossibility of banning by law the practice of abortion, is that these laws can easily be repealed by whoever is in power. Law, in these cases, is like a foundation of sand. This is an inherent weakness to the legal approach. Its important to keep in mind that we live in a pluralist society where positive law has no necessary connection to natural law.
Since there has been a decline in abortion without the laws themselves becoming more strict, there is some indication that there is more promise in cultural strategies which seem to be working than legal ones which go nowhere.
That’s both illogical and based on an untrue premise.
1. Premise untrue: The law HAS become more strict. See my link above.
2. Illogical: Even if the law had stayed exactly the same, you can’t just assume that “cultural strategies” provide ANY promise at all, let alone more promise. That’s a claim for which you actually need evidence.
Gerald,
If you have not read his post, I think Kyle Cupp does a good job making your same point here: http://www.kylecupp.com/2009/03/folly-of-legislation-without-consensus.html
“The problem is that there is no evidence for this “more promise” claim.”
You raise a very important point that goes to an inherent limitation of social science methodology. Put succinctly, correlations are not causes. Causes exist in a different order than correlations. Correlations, which is the stuff of the social sciences, reflect mere associations. They do not speak to causality. A cause is that which makes something come into being.
This inherent limitation explains why Michael New’s article is not persuasive. He cannot prove that parental notification laws cause a reduction in abortion rates. He can show correlations, but he cannot demonstrate causality.
Henry,
Thanks for the H/T. I usually read Kyle’s blog, but I’ve been very busy of late and haven’t venture there. I’m sure you will agree that he does good, thoughtful work.
Gerald
Yes, Kyle does. Sometimes he and I don’t agree on specific things, but his blog is one of the intellectual delights of the Catholic blogosphere. There are others, to be sure, but his goes into a philosophical side which I appreciate.
He can show correlations, but he cannot demonstrate causality.
Yes, without a randomized experiment, it’s hard to show causality. But don’t overstate the point: Correlation doesn’t PROVE causality, but it goes a lot further towards proving causality than the lack of correlation. And in any event, unless there are some good studies showing at least correlation between these unspecified “cultural strategies” and abortion reduction, then it’s obviously wishful thinking (at best) to say that they have “more promise.”
Magdelena,
I very much like your thoughtful comment.
One of the phenomenon I noticed as regards dysfunctional behaviors is that there seems to be a self-correcting mechanism at work in people’s lives. I lived on the streets of Washington, D.C. for five years, photographing and recording the stories of the homeless, substance abusers, and violent youth. During this time, D.C. was in the throes of a crack epidemic. Everywhere, there was evidence of cracked out individuals.
But then things started to calm down. What seemed to happen is that those coming up who were younger looked at the guys on crack and said: “That’s just stupid.” So crack came to be associated with stupidity. Of course, the younger ones went on to other things, ecstasy, but what struck me was that there seemed to be a self-correcting mechanism at work on the street.
My suspicion is that something along these lines is also at work regarding abortion. In fact, much of the progress we have witnessed thus far might well to reduced to such a dynamic. I can’t prove it. I have no evidence for it other than what I’ve said above. But I believe this is how things work in people’s lives. The stories I have heard from people on the street point in that direction.
“it goes a lot further towards proving causality than the lack of correlation”
I don’t believe that is the case. Correlations are another beast altogether than causes. For instance, lack of affordable housing is highly correlated with homelessness. But that in no way means that homelessness has its causal origins in economic factors — whether it be housing, jobs, or whatever . In fact, my work indicates homelessness to be quite different than what we have assumed since the passage of the McKinney Act in 1979. If we understood the causal dynamics of homelessness, there wouldn’t be more homeless people today than yesterday.
The shortcomings of social science policy, particularly as regards PREVENTION, is that social science research doesn’t address causation. Yet, one cannot design a public health prevention strategy unless it has an adequate understanding of causation, which it doesn’t in the case of dysfunctional behavior. Simply put, there is no equivalent to the polio virus when it comes to behavior. For this reason, any success one might have in changing behavior is long and laborious. And it is rich with mystery.
“unless there are some good studies showing at least correlation between these unspecified “cultural strategies” and abortion reduction, then it’s obviously wishful thinking (at best) to say that they have “more promise.””
I’ve always been interested in the MADD movement BEFORE it began to adopt legal strategies. It’s main premise was to build on human relationships. You are my friend, I am your friend, we are all friends … so let’s take care of each other.
I liked that a lot. I believe this campaign even tempered me to a considerable extent (when I grew up drinking and driving were linked like lungs and air). Can’t prove it scientifically, but it just seems like there is something to it.
I don’t think you’re understanding my point. Correlation may not be sufficient to prove causation, but it’s necessary. If B isn’t even correlated with A, then it makes no sense to suggest that A causes B. So while showing a correlation doesn’t get you all the way to causation, it’s an absolutely crucial first step.
SB,
Okay, but what if the stories of the homelessness — like those of gang members — traced the predicament of individuals to what can best be described as “spiritual alienation.” Spiritual alienation is an intrinsic state of one’s being having to do with the absence of intrinsic relations. Social science methodology is empirical, descriptive, and treats of what can be observed. Spiritual causation cannot be reduced to what is observable. It cannot be reduced to material correlations.
On the other hand — and after the fact — models can be designed that will help to put some meat on the bones here. Novelists even do this. But such meat will not carry the insight further than what already exists a priori. It will help to communicate but what is “seen” comes about using a different way of knowing.
There is an intrinsic limit to social science methodology that some in the public health field are beginning to understand. This is not a criticism. It does what it does well. But it doesn’t demonstrate causation.
Vox Nova should limit the number of times a commenter may use the “Sure he’s a cannibal, but he’s pro-life !” argument in a calendar year :-P
You need to get out more. Torture is unacceptable. American’s [SIC] agree on that. There is marginal agreement with the pro-life MOVEMENT.
For what it’s worth, I’ll bet you anything that upwards of 80% of Americans don’t really think that it’s “torture” to subject a 9/11 terrorist to being grabbed by the collar, shoved against a wall, or having a caterpillar placed nearby. Americans watch far worse things on reality TV shows like “Fear Factor,” just for fun and entertainment. So don’t be so confident.
Henry-
Thank you for your comment.
And Gerald, fyi:
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/04/torture.php
SB,
I’m not going to dismiss your point. I think you are drawing attention to a very significant impulse in this country. Most of it tends to be innocent, but some not. Some of it reaches into the dark underbelly of this country.
And yet, thankfully for our future …. there has been a national uproar over Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have become instant symbols of something very unseemly, of acts that have smeared our national character. They will be placed in the next edition of Websters.
I, personally, am unaware of anyone who is proud of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. When discussion centers on these topics, you can see people struggle to find the most powerful word to express their disapprobation. They are deeply saddened by what these terms represent.
Gerald-
You’re kidding yourself if you think that the vast majority of Americans give a damn about Abu Ghraib or Gitmo. They don’t.
Feddie,
My apologies for any hard feelings. And thanks for the reference.
My comments to S.B. just above addresses some of what the article you referenced has to say. I agree we really need to get to the bottom of torture so it will never happen again. The America I’ve witnessed of late — encapsulated in the terms Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo — is not the America I’ve spent my professional life defending and protecting.
We can not lay the blame solely on Bush. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has not had a coherent foreign policy. We have not articulated a national purpose. Politicians from both parties have used constituents for crass self-serving purposes just as Wall Street has cheated those who placed their trust in their wisdom. We have become a nation adrift, morally and intellectually. To make matters worse, one of our great national parties, the GOP, (Feddie, I have been a lifelong Republican) is almost totally bereft of ideas. This is not healthy. It is dangerous.
Regarding the torture memos, Obama declassified and released them to the public. He is being criticized for not doing more. Some are calling for prosecutions. Thus far he has resisted.
My prediction is this. The people and our leadership will digest these memos. From various quarters, we will see people begin to act. Some will cry out in protest to bring the guilty to justice. Others will say let’s go forward.
A debate will ensue. Congress will most likely take several steps, once the Inspector General’s reports are submitted from CIA, NSA, DOD, and so forth. The DOJ will probably follow up with further investigations against those who ordered and drafted these memos. All in all, momentum will build. In the end, I think you will see prosecutions. But they will come slowly and will be supported by a growing outrage. From this, other steps will be taken until the wound has been cleansed. This is how I see Obama responding. He always plays the long game. I don’t think the question of torture will be an exception.
“You’re kidding yourself if you think that the vast majority of Americans give a damn about Abu Ghraib or Gitmo. They don’t.”
Perhaps you are right, Feddie. The PEW polls indicate they do, or so I recall. But I’m not one who relies on polls, one way or the other.
So, let’s say you are right. In that case, we have a hell of a lot of work to do to save this nation. Perhaps it cannot be saved. Over the last two decades, I’ve seen more than I care to know. To compound matters, the state of national dialogue has sunk so low that discourse is impossible. It’s enough to make one fall depressed.
From here on, the journey falls on your shoulders. Let’s hope your generation, and the next, can do better. We can always hope.
It’s naive to think that most of the interrogation techniques at issue are anything new: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/04/history-of-coercive-interrogation.html
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has not had a coherent foreign policy. We have not articulated a national purpose.
I disagree. The National Security Strategy of the United States, for example, lays out a very coherent and deadly foreign policy. The victims of our foreign policy see things very clearly!
Gerald I understand why one could feel depressed by the state of public discourse, but it is untrue that it is worse today than in the past. In the time of the Founding Fathers one of the favorite (printed) insults was “hermaphroditic”.
Magdalena,
“it is untrue that it is worse today than in the past.”
Sure there were insults. And there were duals and deaths. But this doesn’t get to the the insight I’m trying to convey.
The discourse today is much worse than in the 40′s, 50′s, and early 60′s. In the postwar world we have had a foreign policy consensus that lasted until the collapse of the Soviet Union, a social policy consensus, and an economic consensus. Today, this is gone.
It is for this reason that Obama’s move away from ideological politics to the pragmatic center is so important.
“It’s naive to think that most of the interrogation techniques at issue are anything new”
If you want to go down that dirt road go ahead. It doesn’t lead anywhere. That’s why its a dirt road.
We’re dealing with war crimes here. I don’t think the reference you cited will provide any comfort to John Yoo, Jay Bybee, or Steve Bradbury.
Michael,
Yes, I’m aware of the Bush document on preventive war. But if you want to call that the foreign policy of a Great Power, I believe you’re mistaken. At best it represents an Israeli foreign policy, not a U.S. foreign policy.
There has been no foreign policy consensus in the United States that addresses the full range of interests and purposes of the United States — and how to marshall our national elements of power towards those ends — since the collapse of the Soviet Union. To underscore this fact, Henry Kissinger wrote a book in 2004 with the title “Does America Need A Foreign Policy” arguing just the point I made.
I think I understand the point you are making — we have a foreign policy and its a damn poor one that is reckless and dangerous, and has left a tragic footprint on all it has touched. I sympathize with you here. But my point is quite different.
Not sure what the “dirt road” comment. The long history of intensive “interrogation” techniques is just worth keeping in mind before saying things like:
The America I’ve witnessed of late — encapsulated in the terms Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo — is not the America I’ve spent my professional life defending and protecting.
Actually, yes it is. You just didn’t know it.
It is for this reason that Obama’s move away from ideological politics to the pragmatic center is so important.
That’s not true in any way whatsoever. A prime example would be the DC voucher program. Obama is full of rhetoric about how he is all in favor of education reform, how he just wants to do whatever works for the kids, etc. Sounds very pragmatic, and to someone who doesn’t look beyond mere rhetoric, it might be convincing. But if you look at his actions, Obama’s education bill didn’t do anything to further the education reforms his rhetoric praised. Even worse, Obama and the Democrats have already moved to kill the DC voucher program, after sitting on a Department of Education study showing achievement gains for the voucher students.
Pragmatic talk . . . nasty interest group politics in action.
Gerald-
Well, we agree that it will take a great deal of work to turn the United States around. Personally, I think Rome is well on its way to being burned down to the ground, but here’s hoping that I am wrong.
I want to remind you folks at Vox Nova of something I suggested HERE:
http://vox-nova.com/2009/04/06/the-torture-apologists-will-not-back-down-easily/#comments
(and then pretty much proved, at the end of the thread): the indictments and prosecutions of the war criminals in the Bush Administration will begin in Europe, not America, and Europe will watch with tremendous interest the response by the Obama Administration and America’s leadership. America’s re-intergration into the community of civilised polities will begin or end, as far as much of Europe is concerned, right there.
And, before anybody starts suggesting that the “punt” by the Spaniards (as Andrew Sullivan terms it) signifies a willingness by the Europeans to forget this issue, you should consider that the comments made to the Spaniards by President Obama at CNN were taken here to be a PROMISE that the American justice system WILL eventually yield prosecutions:
Obama walks a tightrope on an issue that may yet come to dog his first term: what to do about torture practised during a “dark and painful” period? He balances an understandable desire for bipartisanship with obligations under the torture convention to pursue criminal investigations. “This will be worked out over time,” he told Spanish CNN on Thursday, referring to possible criminal investigations by Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón of the “Bush Six”, the administration officials who played a central role in devising the policy of abuse. It seems no coincidence that this week’s developments occurred within a few hours of the move by Spain’s attorney general to head off a criminal investigation of the Bush Six, reasoning that the real targets should include those who physically carried out the torture.
If there was co-ordination, it seems to have gone askew. Obama is right not to target the interrogators in the sense that real responsibility lies much higher up. The senior lawyers and their patrons should derive little comfort from his intervention: they remain at risk of criminal investigation – or worse, in a legal black hole of their own making.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/apr/18/memo-2002-torture-techniques-obama
I repeat what I said earlier: if any of these people DARE to come to Europe in the foreseeable future, there will be no easy return for them to American shores. Notice the italicization of the word “we” in this cartoon, in the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/cartoon/2009/apr/18/barack-obama-george-bush-torture-memos-martin-rowson-cartoon
I think it says all that needs to be said about European seriousness regarding American non-pursuit of this issue.
“Actually, yes it is. You just didn’t know it.”
No it wasn’t. You’re just being cynical
I was reading an article by a lawyer this morning. He commented that lawyer’s are trained to be cynical. I don’t really know. But I do know that lawyers I’ve met are generally cynical.
S.B.,
There are those who view the voucher as a white knight to save education. But in Washington, how many kids can go to Gonzaga High from Roosevelt? Or any of the other schools? Not many. The Jesuits can only do so much. Duke Ellington can only take so many. Georgetown Prep, so many. What is every D.C. student had a voucher. Where would they go?
What’s your point?
My point is that there are 1,700 kids getting vouchers today in DC. Yes, it’s a drop in the bucket. But it’s at least giving some kids the chance to have a little more choice over their education.
But Obama — in 100% contradiction to all of his pragmatic rhetoric — is going along with the Democrats’ move to kill the program at the behest of the teachers’ unions. Even letting 1,700 kids have any chance to escape the DC public school system is just too much for these folks, who are desperate to retain all of the money and power that they can possibly have.
So it just seems naively out of touch to suggest that Obama is moving beyond ideological politics. He’s done exactly the opposite. Don’t let smooth words fool you. (And don’t respond with ridiculous straw men, as if I’ve suggested that vouchers are a “white knight.” Vouchers are not a panacea, but it’s still stabbing schoolchildren in the back to bury the program like this.)
digbydolben,
The prosecution issue will not go away in America. It will unfold, slowly and deliberately, and include all that is grizzly. I agree with Obama’s decision that those who acted under the guidance of the DOJ should be set aside and not prosecuted. Unless, that is, their actions went beyond the bounds set forth in the memos.
The real focus should be higher and, I believe, it will be.
No one knows how frightened John Yoo, Jay Bybee, or Steve Bradbury are except their Chinese laundryman! I believe these investigations and prosecutions will go right up the ladder and only stop where the evidence fails.
At the same time, I believe care will be taken not to turn these proceedings into a show trial. A solemn message must be culled from these them that will stand for all time. We should never let ugliness get the better of us again. Period.
It’s not cynical to point out that the CIA’s “torture” techniques are, besides waterboarding, nothing new. It’s just being aware of reality.
“My point is that there are 1,700 kids getting vouchers today in DC. Yes, it’s a drop in the bucket. But it’s at least giving some kids the chance to have a little more choice over their education.”
You’re right. 1,700 kids is a lot of kids. At the same time, the voucher program needs to be transcended. It is wedded to a bad system. Something better is needed.
As for these 1,700 kids, I’m going to wait and see how their situation is resolved. My suspicion is that they will not be affected as adversely as you seem to be saying. If they are then I agree that would be a major failing.
“It’s not cynical to point out that the CIA’s “torture” techniques are, besides waterboarding, nothing new. It’s just being aware of reality.”
None of these isolated techniques are new. Some go back to the 14th century. It’s how and the extent to which they were being used that is the issue. It is there that they violate the law. The “memos” were legal devices designed to circumvent the law.
S.B.,
On the school voucher program, I found this which confirms my suspicion.
““It wouldn’t make sense to disrupt the education of those that are in that system,” Gibbs said in discussing the president’s thinking. “And I think we’ll work with Congress to ensure that a disruption like that doesn’t take place.”
Asked if President Obama plans to restore the program’s funding in his full budget, which is currently being drafted, Gibbs said, “whether it’s in the budget or in the — the appropriations process,” the administration will work to make sure “that disruption doesn’t take place.”
It’s not about how these particular 1,700 kids will be affected; they’re going to be grandfathered in. It’s about the thousands of kids who wanted to apply for vouchers for next year (not to mention future years) who have now been told, by the Obama administration, not to apply.
At the same time, the voucher program needs to be transcended. It is wedded to a bad system. Something better is needed.
That doesn’t even make sense. The public school system in DC is notoriously bad, yes, but vouchers are precisely one means (however small) for a few poor children to go to a different school. It’s incoherent to suggest that vouchers can be “transcended” by sending kids back to the bad system.
And in all events, the Obama administration’s conduct here — blocking future funding of a good program that was loved by all its beneficiaries, as well as trying to hide an academic study showing that the program raised academic achievement — puts the lie to any claim that Obama is moving towards pragmatism and away from ideological politics. He is doing precisely the opposite.
S.B.,
I’ve always opposed to vouchers. The game is to fix the school system.
I’ve been in D.C. long enough to know that it once had good schools. I taught at a number of them as a substitute while attending Georgetown Grad School. The system is not irredeemable. I’d say let’s put the energy in the proper place. These kids will respond.
Doesn’t matter whether you are “opposed” to vouchers. Doesn’t change the fact that Obama is engaged in ideological politics rather than pragmatism . . . precisely the opposite of your claim.
Hint: Genuine pragmatism would say, “Let’s try to fix the public school system; but at the same time, vouchers do help some students, and it’s hardly fair to tell poor students who wish to leave the public school system that they are trapped; so let’s leave that option open and even give the voucher program more funding so that a few more poor children can have the same option that Obama’s children have.”
Ideological politics says, “Let’s try to fix the public school system; but just so we don’t p*** off our union allies, let’s quietly move to kill even the tiniest voucher program, regardless of how much students and parents love it, and even though we’ll be shutting down something that improves academic achievement.”
Obama is emphatically in the latter camp, regardless of how his partisans try to spin and dodge.
“Doesn’t change the fact that Obama is engaged in ideological politics rather than pragmatism . . . precisely the opposite of your claim.”
You can’t say that based on what has thus far happened. Let the story unfold and then write the obituary.
“Obama is emphatically in the latter camp, regardless of how his partisans try to spin and dodge.”
Nice courtroom strawman. All you have to do now is assemble the facts.
But to do that you have to let the story unfold. I predict the narrative to come will not look as you have described it. Obama hasn’t even begun to play his hand yet. Geeeez ….! All he has said thus far is that he is not going to support the voucher program.
I understand this is one of the darling programs of social conservatives. But remember: the idea of vouchers has its own political purposes. It’s not just about helping kids! If you think that you’re fooling yourself. It is ideology pure and simple. Competition will make better schools? Give me a break!
Liberals and conservatives alike need an ideological disrobing. I’ve never been an ideologue. How about you? LOL!
I guess we’ve come quite away from the torture memos — which are infinitely more important.
Let the story unfold, you say: Obama has signed legislation defunding the voucher program unless the funding is specifically renewed at a later date; and his administration has told students not to bother applying for this fall. What on earth could give you reason for thinking that Obama will reverse course between now and this fall?
To say that the voucher program is ideology “pure and simple” is just name-calling. The precise opposite is true: There is no non-ideological opposition to the DC voucher program. The voucher program in DC is much cheaper than the public schools, it makes parents happier, it improves academic achievement, and it gives poor people (or at least a few of them) more control and autonomy over their lives instead of subjecting them to an awful school system that they dislike. There is ZERO pragmatic reason to oppose this.
Imagine the following conversation between Obama and a top advisor:
Advisor: President, some of the teachers’ union supporters are getting really nervous about all your talk of supporting pragmatic education reform. They’re among our most important allies and supporters, and they don’t like the sound of where this pragmatic talk could be going.
Obama: Hmm, you’re right. What’s the single most convincing way I can show them that I’m a craven politician who would sell out his own mother in order to help a special interest group?
Advisor: How about going along with the plan to kill the DC voucher program? True, it improves academic achievement both in the recipients and in the public schools themselves, it makes parents happier, and it costs much less than public school per-pupil funding. By killing the program, what better way to show the unions that you will do their bidding in the face of overwhelming evidence that you’re killing a useful program?
Obama: But will I be in trouble with any opposing interest groups?
Advisor: No. The main people who care about this program are a handful of education reformers. The constituents of the program are just poor inner-city black people with an average income of $17,000 [a fact, by the way]. All of which means that there are no important political allies on the other side. Republicans certainly won’t care that you’re killing a program for inner-city blacks. So you can stab those people in the back all you want, and there will just be a tiny public outcry for a few days, and then everyone will move their attention to something else.
Obama: Perfect, then. Where do I sign?
Here are some key “social conservatives” (ha) who aren’t taking Obama’s betrayal lying down:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/13/AR2009041302027.html
“To say that the voucher program is ideology “pure and simple” is just name-calling.”
You know that is not true. The ideology of competition lies behind the voucher program. It is a false assumption. Sounds good, but everyone knows it is only a political wedge issue for conservatives. Ideological politics.
You can take any kid from DC and put him in Gonzaga High School. He will get an excellent education, might even speak a little Latin and Greek, and become a better person overall. This statement is consistent with Gonzaga’s reputation throughout the community.
But the ideology behind the voucher program goes further than giving a few kids an education. It’s major purpose was to serve as a catalyst to make other schools improve. Competition is the catalyst. Improvement is the result.
But all the voucher program ends up doing is giving assistance to a few kids in DC at everyone’s expense. The program has not been instrumental in improving the system overall and that’s what it was designed to do. Thus it has not been good public policy. It has not been a good way to fix things.
All in all, vouchers are a bad idea. The program should be put to sleep because it has been a demonstrated failure. It doesn’t force other schools to reform. It just makes people angry. Talk to kids who don’t get the vouchers, and you will understand the other side.
Sure, a few benefit. But that’s how political strategies are designed. The purpose is to get a few people to shout to high heavens on behalf of the program! Then you create a public relations campaign to attack, attack, attack. In short, the beneficiaries of this program are only being used for crass political purposes. There was never any intent to fix the system.
If conservatives are so concerned about the education future of 1,700 kids, why don’t they raise the money through private sources and pass it on to these kids. After all, there should be a lot of money available from the huge tax cuts we’ve seen over the last eight years. But they are not so concerned. Indeed, the voucher program was never about the kids from its very inception.
The entire system needs to be improved, and it will be. The voucher system needs to go to sleep. It a bad idea and represents bad public policy.
Revenue sharing between school districts…like in baseball ? La Jolla High is so rich its science equipment puts many universities to shame, yet high schools to the Southeast are dirt poor. The rich get richer…and the funding of public schools guarantees that it stays that way. Inequality is inevitable but the USA has turned it into an artform.
“Here are some key “social conservatives” (ha) who aren’t taking Obama’s betrayal lying down:”
Yes I saw this article. But what does he propose to fix the system. All he is calling for is a perpetuation of the status quo.
This article goes nowhere, as did Tony Williams hands-off approach to education in D.C.
” Inequality is inevitable but the USA has turned it into an artform.”
Inequality is more than an artform. It is an outcome of an ideology that rests on the principle that the poor are undeserving. Wealth is a sign of divine favor whereas poverty is a sign of divine disfavor. Calvinism.
All in all, vouchers are a bad idea. The program should be put to sleep because it has been a demonstrated failure.
There is absolutely no conceivable basis for you to say this. It is contrary to all of the facts.
It doesn’t force other schools to reform.
You need to read up on the issue. The overwhelming number of voucher studies to date show precisely the opposite. Here is a page that provides links to all of the existing studies: http://jaypgreene.com/2008/08/25/systemic-effects-of-vouchers/
But all the voucher program ends up doing is giving assistance to a few kids in DC at everyone’s expense.
Kids in the voucher program SAVE the public money (vouchers are twice as cheap as putting the kids back in the public school system). And even if that weren’t the case, at a time when Obama is spending trillions of dollars in bailouts and economic stimulus (much of which was directed to public schools, by the way), now you’re worried about “everyone’s expense” when it comes to $14 million for a scholarship program aimed at poor kids?
The voucher system needs to go to sleep. It a bad idea and represents bad public policy.
That’s an ideological conclusion, not anything pragmatic whatsoever. The overwhelming majority of evidence shows that vouchers work — both in terms of improving students’ academic achievement, improving the public schools themselves, making parents happier, and saving the public money.
If conservatives are so concerned about the education future of 1,700 kids, why don’t they raise the money through private sources and pass it on to these kids.
So next time conservatives say, “Let’s cut funding to the FDA and SEC,” they’ll be able to follow up with, “Well, if you’re so concerned about testing for drug safety or keeping the financial markets honest, why don’t you just raise the money through private sources.” Right? That’s your argument.
Talk to kids who don’t get the vouchers, and you will understand the other side.
This is one of the dumbest arguments ever made in the voucher debate, or anywhere else for that matter. It’s the “but vouchers only help a few kids” argument. Well, if you’re sincerely worried that only a few people are being helped by a program, the answer is to expand the program, NOT to kill it.
What do Williams and Chavous propose to “fix the system”? Who cares . . . my reason for linking to that op-ed (among others I could have cited as well) was to respond to your attempt to play gutter politics by characterizing vouchers as nothing more than the “darling program of social conservatives.”
Some social conservatives support vouchers, sure, but so do some libertarians, some moderates, and some liberals and leftists. In fact, school vouchers have often been a “progressive” idea (see a Georgetown law prof’s article, The Secret History of School Choice: How Progressives Got There First).
So stop trying to appeal to prejudice. Thanks.
“There is absolutely no conceivable basis for you to say this. It is contrary to all of the facts.”
The major fact is that there are no facts to demonstrate improvement based on competition. Right-wing propaganda material won’t cut the mustard. I’ve showed too many people how to design that stuff to be fooled by it.
“Kids in the voucher program SAVE the public money”
It’s not just about money. I said ask kids: I doubt they’d talk about saving the government’s money. They have a bigger story to tell. It’s quite interesting and more penetrating than what you’d get from policy makers.
“the answer is to expand the program, NOT to kill it.”
It’s bad public policy. That’s not an ideological conclusion. That means it just doesn’t work. The answer here is is to KILL it. Do something else. And NOT “by any means necessary.”
But the argument is moot. Soon, it will be dead. RIP.
Right-wing propaganda? You keep managing to dig yourself even deeper. If you looked at the link I provided, you’d find, among other things, scholarly articles by Martin Carnoy, and by Cecilia Rouse and three other noted scholars, none of whom are right-wingers at all (quite the contrary).
It’s bad public policy. That’s not an ideological conclusion. That means it just doesn’t work.
So says the guy who can’t provide ANY evidence or reasons. Just his own say-so. There could be no clearer mark of a rank ideologue.
If you want to see a principled Democrat who really is motivated by pragmatism over ideology, look at Dianne Feinstein:
Now THERE is a politician who was acting on a principled belief, not just paying off political supporters. Would that there were more like here.
“So stop trying to appeal to prejudice. Thanks.”
The point is that Tony Williams is no authority on fixing the D.C. school system. I don’t care whether he’s conservative or liberal. Actually, I think he was a Libertarian in the Democratic Party. Sounds conservative to me!
But the point is the program hasn’t done what it was intended to do. Bad public policy.
Like HER.
“As I said in the committee, I helped a youngster go to one of these parochial schools in the District. The tuition is $3,800 a year. I have watched her blossom.”
Diane Feinstein talks like a mom.
Of course, that’s true. I already said that. But as a function of public policy, it doesn’t do what it’s suppose to do. Show me where this has worked in D.C.
No, the recent study showing improved academic achievement has been in the news. Look it up for yourself. In fact, if you want to quit embarrassing yourself by displaying a complete lack of familiarity with the issue, read all of the links I’ve provided (including the further links to academic studies).
Then come back and either put up or shut up: Show me actual evidence that refutes all of the many studies showing that: 1) vouchers are cheaper, 2) they tend to improve academic achievement, both for recipients and for the public schools themselves, 3) they make parents happier, and 4) they help further progressive values of autonomy for poor people, etc.
Also, the Feinstein speech was in 2003. She supported the program as an experiment — this happens all the time.
Let’s see if she opposes Obama. I doubt she will. The program hasn’t done what it is supposed to do, despite what she observed in the person she was assisting.
Are you some legal representative for a group trying to promote the voucher program? You better do better or you’ll lose.
“Then come back and either put up or shut up: Show me actual evidence that refutes all of the many studies showing that: 1) vouchers are cheaper, 2) they tend to improve academic achievement, both for recipients and for the public schools themselves, 3) they make parents happier, and 4) they help further progressive values of autonomy for poor people, etc.”
This doesn’t diminish the fact that the program is not good public policy. It might be something an organization would promote. But for a national program? Nope.
I’m not impressed with your evidence-free taunts. As I said, read up on voucher programs. Then try to come up with something valid to say.
I give you four reasons — actual reasons, supported by empirical evidence — that vouchers are good public policy. And the best you can do is this evidence-free and argument-free response?
This doesn’t diminish the fact that the program is not good public policy.
Pathetic.
“I’m not impressed with your evidence-free taunts. As I said, read up on voucher programs. Then try to come up with something valid to say.”
I already have. It’s not good public policy. It is loosing support and will vanish.
“It’s not good public policy.”
Once again, a pathetically inadequate response.
If there are any other readers who are intellectually curious and open-minded enough to actually read up on the evidence, here is a page listing every random assignment study ever done on vouchers: http://jaypgreene.com/2008/08/21/voucher-effects-on-participants/ As said there, “9 of the 10 analyses show significant, positive effects for at least some subgroups of students.”
The defining mark of the worst sort of ideologue is someone who, when presented with evidence, refuses to consider or even read any of it, but simply reiterates his pre-ordained conclusion.
S.B.,
The heading of your reference is “Voucher Effects on Participants.”
This is of no help whatsoever. It doesn’t even go to the issue.
I’m not saying that the voucher program is not a good program for participants. I’ve already said that if you take a kid from Anacostia and place him in Gonzaga High School he will benefit. But that’s not the issue. Come to think of it, I’m surprised that Diane Feinstein was surprised that her friend would not improve in a better school. That’s obvious. (It’s too bad you didn’t know that before you went to Harvard.) LOL.
But, aside from helping the participant, there is the central issue. The Voucher Program is not good public policy because it hasn’t served as a catalyst to improve the D.C. school system.
Thus far, you have provided no evidence that it has been good public policy for D.C.. Has Roosevelt or Anacostia High benefited from the competition provided by the program? Or not. If not, the program is not doing what it was designed to do. Yes, it improves the lives of 1,700 kids but that was not the programs purpose. It was supposed to introduce competition into the system to improve the system as a whole. There is no evidence that it has done so.
You always evade this point.
In D.C., Williams and Fenty disagree. Fenty is more focused on the school system in its entirety whereas Wiliams was content to have improvement made for individuals. He never tackled the issue.
Fenty may fail. This is possible. But Williams has already failed.
What part of failure don’t you understand? Show me the evidence that the D.C. school system has improved because of Vouchers. My suspicion is you can’t. But there are tons of obvious signs of continued failure.
I don’t have that evidence specifically for DC. However, I already provided you with a link showing several studies, almost all of which showed that vouchers forced public school systems elsewhere to improve. If that isn’t enough to give the DC voucher program a chance, then you certainly can’t claim to be thinking in terms of pragmatism over ideology.
In any event, who says that vouchers have to meet that standard in DC? Even if the DC public school system doesn’t improve specifically because of vouchers, vouchers are still a good policy for all the reasons I’ve stated (and that even you now seem to admit, i.e., that vouchers benefit recipients).
Can you point me to the place where you’ve demanded the same high standard from ANY other policy? Do you demand that food stamps benefit not just the recipients, but that non-recipients become healthier somehow? Or, Obama has proposed giving schools more money for remodeling . . . are you going to demand evidence that remodeling some schools will somehow benefit schools that do NOT receive remodeling assistance?
It’s ridiculous to set up vouchers as the one and only policy that has to benefit not just the recipients but non-recipients as well. Again, that’s the mark of an ideologue.
S.B.
“even you now seem to admit, i.e., that vouchers benefit recipients”
LOL … I’ve said that from the outset of this discussion. No persuasion needed.
“vouchers forced public school systems elsewhere to improve”
Public opinion is already forcing the issue. Why are vouchers necessary?
” to give the DC voucher program a chance”
It’s had a chance. They are phasing it out. It was sold on the basis that competition would benefit all. That hasn’t happened.
Check out what the plans are. I’d be interested to know. I’m also interested to know the future of special needs children in D.C.. I gather parents are having a greater burden placed on them in the care of their special needs child.
LOL … I’ve said that from the outset of this discussion. No persuasion needed.
No, you never once said anything of the sort.
It’s had a chance. They are phasing it out. It was sold on the basis that competition would benefit all. That hasn’t happened.
No, it was “sold,” if you must put it that way, on numerous grounds, and it is staggering at this point that you are not willing to give the other grounds any value whatsoever (the value of autonomy and choice, the importance of aiding poor people generally and giving their children a chance at a better education, etc.).
I’ll know in the future whether to think that you’re sincere if you claim to want to help poor people. Right here, you’ve made it clear that if a program admittedly helps poor people (recipients) but hasn’t been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to help OTHER people (non-recipients), then you’re willing to give the poor recipients the shaft — and you can’t even come up with a half-hearted reason for giving them the shaft.
Here’s what the Catholic Church says that bears on the voucher issue:
It’s even a matter of Canon Law:
Notice anything in there, Gerald, saying that vouchers (i.e., financial assistance to parents) are a matter solely of putting competitive pressure on the public school system, or that this is even a factor at all? Nope . . . it’s all about supporting the rights of parents, about distributive justice, and about preventing a public school monopoly that would be destructive to the “rights of the human person.”
S.B.,
You’re a trip. I’ll forgive you.
I recall recording the story of a young black boy incarcerated for murder. He was sixteen years old and had murdered multiple times when he was between the ages of ten and thirteen. He talked about his family, his childhood, his neighborhood and friends, and his gang. He asked about me. I talked about where I was from, what I had done, and why I was interested in talking to him. Then I made the gesture that I would like to visit him sometime in his world with his friends. He smiled and seemed pleased that I would care.
We talked a bit more. Then he paused for what seemed like a long time, looked at me, and asked very, very quietly: “Would you take me into your world? Would you take me to visit with the congressmen and senators you know? Would you take me to the White House and the State Department? I said I would.
As we starred into each other’s eyes, I knew he was talking about a different world than what we have created in America. He was presenting a challenge to me that went to the foundations of our entire social system. He was asking me to act contrary to the world in which I felt comfortable, the world in which I had been nurtured, the world in which I belonged.
Would I have taken him? Yes, I would have found a way. But I also know that is easy to say. He is still in Huntsville. But I have taken others like him from the street with me on occasion. But even then, I have to admit: each time I take someone with me I know I’m placing a burden on others. I know I’m imposing on them a different vision of America than one which currently exists. And they feel uncomfortable.
The boy is right. We should all feel comfortable inviting our friends — no matter who they are — to meet our friends — no matter who they are. But we don’t. We don’t because we are not suppose to, given the ethos of our society. So, we are afraid. We let this fear penetrate our lives. Our fear reaches out and judges our friends in ways that are visible to them but way which we rarely comprehend. It says to them that they are different, that they are not really worthy to be in our presence at all times. This silent judgment shouts out to them. It fractures our relations with them, even though they may well be our closest friends.
I’ll never forget that boy. His vision of America transcended anything I’ve seen written in policy papers or written in novels. It wasn’t about ideology, or economics, or anything complicated. His vision was about authentic relations. He was speaking in the most affirmative way about the Brotherhood of Man. He was inquiring of me whether I was willing to Love him even if it was painful. He was questioning whether I was worthy to be his friend.
http://vox-nova.com/2009/04/18/education-and-schooling/
S.B.
I understand where you’re coming from with the quotes you provided. But none of them argue specifically for the voucher program. They could just as well be arguments supporting a general improvement in the D.C. pubic education system. I would hope these principles guide the decisions that lie ahead no matter the outcome.
Let’s agree to keep up on what’s going on here. I think I’ll begin to ask around starting next week.
But none of them argue specifically for the voucher program. They could just as well be arguments supporting a general improvement in the D.C. pubic [SIC] education system.
Um, no, not at all. General improvement of a monopoly system would not in any way serve Vatican II’s urging that there be “no kind of school monopoly,” or that public “subsidies” be paid so that parents are “truly free to choose according to their conscience the schools they want for their children.” There is NO quote above that is consistent with having just a public (non-Catholic) education system and then not allowing subsidies to parents.
Are you saying that the public school system in the United States is a monopoly? If anything it is a collection of discrete school districts. My high school was locally controlled. The school in the next town had its own jurisdiction. The school boards and superintendents were elected. Where is the monopoly?
I’m sure there was a monopoly in the school system of the Soviet Union. Didn’t that have some kind of relevance to Vatican II?
It’s most certainly a local monopoly. Think of it from the perspective of the family (not from the perspective of the nation . . . which is meaningless). Wherever your family lives, most of the time, you’ll have only one choice as to where the kids go to school. Except, of course, for those privileged rich folks (the Obamas, etc.) who can afford a good private school for their kids.
But don’t get hung up on the “monopoly” point. There’s no way you can look at the above quotes and contend that Church teaching is in any way consistent with having a public school system and that alone. Church teaching requires subsidies that maximize the opportunity for parents to make the best choice for their children, including Catholic schools. That translates to vouchers.
And, by the way, Catholic teaching here puts the lie to your attempt to dismiss vouchers as a “political wedge issue for conservatives.”
I see your point. But I think your twisting these quotes a bit.
Most people in my community — not here in D.C. — would not think of their school as a local monopoly. They would think of it proudly and support it in every way they could. To be honest, I can’t think of one person who is bummed out about the local school as being some kind of monopoly. I realize there are groups that are into home teaching, vouchers, etc. as a way of trying to avoid what they consider a bad system.
If anything they would like to improve the school they have.
“And, by the way, Catholic teaching here puts the lie to your attempt to dismiss vouchers as a “political wedge issue for conservatives.””
Clearly you have had little experience with Members of Congress. Political wedge issue are their meat and potatoes. The voucher program is either a piece of meat or a potatoe [Dan Quayle].
Oh, I agree that it’s a wedge issue, in the sense that it drives a wedge between rhetoric and actions, between politicians who SAY that they’re in favor of helping poor people and helping education vs. those politicians’ true priorities (paying off more important interest groups). That doesn’t make vouchers a bad public policy (as you’ve vainly claimed, albeit without any evidence whatsoever), nor does it mean that vouchers can be reduced to some sort of fake issue.
I think your [SIC] twisting these quotes a bit.
Nope, not so. The Church has said in no uncertain terms that parents should have the right to choose Catholic schools, and that this choice should be subsidized by the state. How do you understand that as anything but vouchers?
. To be honest, I can’t think of one person who is bummed out about the local school as being some kind of monopoly.
Then for all your talk about life on the street, you don’t know many of your neighbors there in DC, 25% of whom have opted to go to charter schools, and thousands of whom have tried to get into the lottery to win a voucher.
That middle italicized paragraph was from me.
S.B.,
I’m about schooled out. It’s been interesting. I appreciate your back and forth.
Here’s something for you to chew on. Maybe it’ll keep you awake all night. LOL How about taking all the teachers and administration from a good school and moving them to a bad school and take the teachers and administration from a bad school and make them contend with the student/parent pressures at a good school? I’m sure you’ll immediately dismiss this as lunacy. (Maybe it is!) But try to think what it might mean. At the very least, it would be an interesting experiment. If it was studied properly something significant might be culled from it.
As for a State voucher to go to a Catholic school, I not inclined to support such a measure. I would like to know, however, why the tuition costs are so high. One could send 20 kids to Georgetown University in 1970 for what it cost to send one kid to a private high school for one year today. I’m speaking only of tuition. What’s wrong with that picture?
On the monopoly issue, people in D.C. are bummed out not because the school system is a monopoly but because the schools are no good. There’s a difference. Make the public schools decent again and there will be no need for vouchers and the monopoly question, if it is a question, won’t come up. If that is done, all — not just a few — will be better off.
In the meantime, I think D.C. should try the experiment of a staffing exchange. The idea of a voucher may be upside down. Rather than moving individual students to better schools, move the faculty and administration to inferior schools and let the students stay where they are. This would put an end to the cherry picking.
As for a State voucher to go to a Catholic school, I not inclined to support such a measure.
You’ve made that clear enough, although you are still lacking in any evidence or reasoning to support denying some poor people a benefit that most certainly helps them. Oppose vouchers all you like, but spare the pretense that it’s the victory of pragmatism over ideology . . . quite the opposite.
Make the public schools decent again and there will be no need for vouchers and the monopoly question, if it is a question, won’t come up.
That’s not true either. Even where the public schools are “decent,” you still see parents who opt for charter schools or private schools (or who WISH they could have those options), for a wide variety of reasons. There are two charter schools where I come from, one focusing on the arts, and one focusing on the sciences. This isn’t because the local public schools are bad, but because some children and parents like having a curriculum that isn’t as top-heavy with reading and math as what the local public school monopoly offers.
Other people opt for charter schools or private schools for many reasons, including: 1) the school is specifically focused on at-risk or special ed students (Florida and Arizona have had extensive voucher programs, much bigger than DC, aimed at special ed students); 2) the parents want a different moral environment; 3) the students have friends at the charter or private school; 4) the students are being bullied at the public school; 5) the student has a better chance of being on a sports team; 6) the student may feel “lost” in a huge 2,000-student public high school, and may thrive in smaller environment. I could keep going.
Do you have children? Do you know anyone who has children? I can’t figure any other reason that you’d be so oblivious to all of the many, many reasons that parents often want to have SOME option outside of the local education monopoly.
You do pose an interesting experiment — one that would never happen (too much political pressure against it), but that might shed light on how much of a student’s achievement is due to schooling factors and how much is due to family, income, neighborhoods, IQ, etc.
I have an appreciation for charter schools. I didn’t mention it because we were discussing vouchers and public schools. But now that you bring it up, I concur with your reasoning there.
There are many charter schools here in D.C. I haven’t actually looked into them in detail like you apparently have. But they come up in conversation with young people I know.
One school I’m particularly fond of in the D.C. public school system is the Duke Ellington School for the Performing Arts. I know many people who have graduated from there and their stories are inspiring. It has a considerable reputation.
http://www.ellingtonschool.org/about/facts.html
Charters and vouchers are just points on a continuum. Charters are still “public” schools in some respects (i.e., being held to at least a few state requirements, like being non-religious, and getting full state funding for all students), but they’re started and owned by private operators (which can be anyone from local parents to a national operator like KIPP). Vouchers are just a further point on the continuum, giving state money to students who go to any school, which will now include religious schools as well.
Unless you have some special hatred for religion, there’s really no reason to accept charters but not vouchers. And if you do continue to oppose vouchers, you should (for consistency’ sake) oppose giving Pell Grants to religious college students, as well as daycare subsidies to people who use religious daycares.
Both of those things currently happen, without any political opposition at all . . . it’s only for the ages of 6 to 17 that ideologues suddenly invent reasons to oppose helping kids with scholarship money. (That’s where it might hurt the teachers’ unions, after all, and you don’t want to annoy a powerful Democratic interest group.)
Mr. Campbell and “S.B.,” I am a teacher–was a teacher, too, for quite some time in America–and have left teaching in that country forever because the schools are so bad, parents are so disrespectful of teachers AND of traditional education, and the people who nowadays administer schools hold scholarship in contempt. I deeply respect both of your positions, but I actually think neither of you has any idea of how bad teaching situations in that country have become–especially for veteran teachers who actually KNOW their subjects (rather than just “knowing how to teach,” i.e., practise the latest politically correct pedagogic gimmick), and who believe that moulding character is just as important as imparting knowledge–which generally means refusing to inflate grades to please politicised administrators and influential parents attempting to “take control” of their children’s education.
And, Mr. Campbell, your story about the young black boy was absolutely awesome. I believe that was a transformative experience in your life; it would have been in mine, too. I can understand, now, why you stopped working for Republican Presidents.
digbydolben,
S.B. and I were only discussing a minor point about education. I respect nearly all of what he has to say except that I have a different strategic purpose than he. I would like to rectify the travesty that has been visited upon the public school system in America. Only in the wake of that effort would I attend to the question of vouchers and charter schools.
But apart from that, you are probably correct, at least in my case. It has been a very long time since I was a substitute teacher in the D.C. public school system. I only did that for one year. Then I taught at the university level for 10-12 years.
Much has changed since my days at Roosevelt and Dunbar high schools. MLK and RFK were both assassinated. Education has long been going downhill. We have yet to reach the bottom.
Having said that, I must admit it is beyond my capacity to grasp just how bad it is, given my distance from it. But even at an abstract level, one of the problems I saw long ago was that there is no coherent purpose for education. Thus there is no proportionality of means to ends. As I mentioned on another thread, we need to revisit the question: what is an educated man?
Finally, I appreciate your comment about my recollection of the young black boy. You are right about it being a transformative experience. But that conversation was only part of a larger exploration into the dynamics of street life that began following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ironically, this journey had its origins in a reflection on the state of U.S. national security. In particular, its focus was on America’s relations to populations (not states) around the world.
I may try to pull together some of the loose threads from that exploration in later posts. The stories from the street are unparalleled in their power. And if we have concern enough for our future, we will pay heed to them because at their core these stories are a tale of bonding in simple humanity. What could be more relevant at a time like now? More about that later.
Indeed, we should flat out crucify all those individuals that may very well have saved American lives by their actions, since what could be so horrible than saving hundreds of innocent American lives!?
Moreover, we should hail the terrorists as gods amongst men since they deserve only our praise and protection rather than our condemnation!
At any rate, 9/11 is merely a distant memory — it’s not like it would ever happen again of that, at any rate, our lives and that of our loved ones should require the kind of protection that can only be afforded by the actions of agents as these!
EXCERPT:
…since what could be so horrible than saving hundreds of innocent American lives!?
AMERICAN LIVES ARE NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LIVES OF NON-AMERICANS, INCLUDING “TERRORISTS” AND THE VICTIMS OF TORTURE.
Michael J. Iafrate stated with such imperial authority: “AMERICAN LIVES ARE NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LIVES OF NON-AMERICANS, INCLUDING ‘TERRORISTS’ AND THE VICTIMS OF TORTURE.”
I take it Michael that you would rather see the deaths of your loved ones rather than the terrorists themselves?
Bravo!
I’ve never seen somebody who loved TERRORISTS so much that HE WOULD RATHER SEE THOSE HE LOVE DIE RATHER THAN THE TERRORISTS!
Michael J. Iafrate,
Your statement also goes:
‘THE LIVES OF TERRORISTS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN INNOCENT AMERICAN LIVES, INCLUDING OUR LOVED ONES!’
[...] has been a recent flurry of comments regarding educational reform and I want to chime in with a bit of a clarification: Namely, that [...]
“Imperial”! You’re something else.
Michael,
It is indeed “imperial” that you should wholly declare the lives of terrorists even more precious than innocent Americans and, most especially, those dearest to us!
ari – Learn to read, pal. Or at least, resist the urge to lie.
Gerald —
Since Henry said this about your voucher position in another thread, you want to answer, if you can?
He has explained why he believes his position is in line with the Magisterium. Your discussion on school vouchers, for example, showed you did not grasp his point and you did not demonstrate that a specific method was the only means by which the Church expects the state to act.
Henry’s analysis here is wholly false: You haven’t explained (or even tried to explain) why your opposition to vouchers is in line with the Magisterium. All you said was that the Church’s quotes could be in favor of improving the public education system; after I completely disproved that claim, you just backed off. And in any event, you never even pretended to explain what this sort of statement means EXCEPT for vouchers (“Parents have the right to that assistance, to be furnished by civil society, which they need to secure the Catholic education of their children.”). Catholic (or private) education subsidized by civil society — that is the very definition of the term “school voucher.”
Do you have a response? It’s not sufficient to let Henry spin on your behalf . . . either come up with an argument, or else just admit that you don’t agree with the Magisterium here.
Or this from Canon law: “Parents must possess a true freedom in choosing schools; therefore, the Christian faithful must be concerned that civil society recognizes this freedom for parents and even supports it with subsidies.”
In other words, true freedom for parents to choose schools, supported in their choices by government subsidies. Subsidies = another word for vouchers. QED.
Michael,
Did you even know what it is you actually stated or do you simply suffer from occasional fits of pure outrage over Americans saving innocent American lives?
Did you even know what it is you actually stated or do you simply suffer from occasional fits of pure outrage over Americans saving innocent American lives?
I know EXACTLY what I stated. I am all for saving innocent human lives, but not if it involves damaging the well-being and the dignity that belongs to ALL human beings. Christianity knows no borders. American lives are not more special than non-American lives.
Henry:
This was many many MANY comments ago, so I’ll refresh what you said:
Would you make the same argument if it were memos of sexual abused covered up by Planned Parenthood instead of torture which happened under GW Bush’s watch? That it would be worthless to reveal this information now?
I didn’t say it was worthless. I think it was the right decision. However, I’m not going to celebrate it since he’s not going after the people responsible for it. Yes, there’s some good in knowing what happened, but we knew most of it anyway.
The larger good is going after the perpetrators, which Obama is cowardly not doing.
Ari:
Everyone has been created imago dei; every human life is equally precious. Iafrate is right.
And whenever I have to say Iafrate is right, someone is making a very poor argument. ;)
And furthermore, Iafrate is right on a matter of unchanging, eternal Catholic dogma preached by Christ himself. The assertion of the contrary is heresy.
Michael Denton
The news is that he is now looking into the possibility, actually.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_interrogation_memos
“WASHINGTON – Widening an explosive debate on torture, President Barack Obama on Tuesday opened the possibility of prosecution for Bush-era lawyers who authorized brutal interrogation of terror suspects and suggested Congress might order a full investigation.”
But I agree, if he does not, it is wrong, and a shame on him. Which I have already said on here.
Henry:
I don’t think he should go after the lawyers (giving legal advice is not a crime, even if it’s advice to do the unthinkable. The lawyers should be judged by God but not by the courts, unless there is some evidence that they knowingly gave bad legal advice, which is another matter, one I think the Disciplinary Boards have already taken up. Regardless the lawyers are the last ones who should be threatened with prosecurtion) and even if he does it’s not enough. Why is he not considering the CIA members who actually carried out the torture? As Nuremburg pointed out, they are guilty even if they followed orders.
The answer is that the lawyers are connected to the Bush administration while the others are not. Indeed, Obama does not want to impugn his own authority nor go after the politically unsavory target of soldiers.
This is grandstanding for poll points; not a defense of life.
I can’t wait to put this on CatholicAnarchy.org as an endorsement:
“Iafrate is right.”
- Michael Denton
Michael Denton
The lawyers could be culpable depending upon many factors. I say investigate them. I expect they will provide statements to implicate other officials. We shall see. But beyond that, as I’ve said before, and I will say again — if Obama doesn’t go forward and do something it is indeed a shame. But I hope you have seen how I have and continue to criticize him when he goes against his own campaign promises.
Iafrate:
Haha. I think you should use the second quote; I think it’s cooler to have me saying: “And furthermore, Iafrate is right on a matter of unchanging, eternal Catholic dogma preached by Christ himself. The assertion of the contrary is heresy.” Any quote that out of context seems to accuse opponents of ehresy has to end up on an endorsement wall (though alas, I see you do not have one yet).
If this continues, maybe one day we can be facebook friends ;)
If this continues, maybe one day we can be facebook friends ;)
Anything’s possible.