« DR CAFTA as Counterterrorism | Main | Khartoum Gaming the ICC »

June 15, 2005

Comments

Torridjoe

so much for passing that article along to you in email!

I noted that story with interest, but I also found the cynic's argument that it's mostly posturing to be fairly persuasive, since a) they're not actually working together, and b) there is little in terms of policy agreement that can be assessed from their attempts at "opening dialogue." It's great that Schenck wants to shock his flock (!) with the idea that being gay is a predisposition--but he maintains a solid firewall on any gay-related issues that would quite logically require some rethinking, given his position on genetic indication. If he thinks it's not a choice, everything except "but the Bible says its wrong" falls away as a rationale for denying them the same rights as anyone else.

Saperstein's attempts are, I think, much more practical. There's a definite vagueness about how exactly you begin to cut abortions (especially since it would appear the one of the best ways is to provide a healthier economy). Despite the relative lack of concrete solutions or step, the goal is a highly pragmatic one that could bring voters like married women back to the Dem party. (Which is why I tend to agree that this is more political than philosophical).

I'm trying to parse the ultimate message from each...

from Schenck: "they can't help being gay, but that doesn't make them any less sinful, and it doesn't change any of our policy goals." As I say above, calling gayness predisposed is a significant concession of ideology, but is backed with no subsequent review of policy.

from Saperstein: "We're not going to let you ban abortions, but we can think about ways to have fewer of them." He takes the opposite vantage point: he doesn't give an inch on the ideology (the sanctity of choice), but he does open himself to policy change.

Perhaps my bias filter has distorted things, but only one of these men seems engaged in anything but a rhetorical re-dressing.

Ronald Rutherford

I don't think I have anything to say after... CAFTA, but someday we should have a large plate of loroco pupusas and of course some revueltas.

Zap

"Perhaps my bias filter has distorted things, but only one of these men seems engaged in anything but a rhetorical re-dressing."

I think you read it right, but this, like other things that frustrate you will require baby steps. The true legalistic fundies will always be there, but their high pressure co-opt of evangies is starting to disassemble.

Zap

Revueltas was a staple breakfast con huevos, but I have to confess I looked up the funky flower dish.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2006

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

AlsoThinkTank

Blog powered by Typepad