AmericanValues101.Org • Political Blog

In Saudi Arabia, a court recently heard an appeal in a rape case. The appeal was sought by the victim due to the light sentencing her convicted rapists received at the original trial. The new court granted the appeal and did, in fact, increase the sentence for the convicted rapists — but the judges also doubled a previous sentence against the rape victim. The court ordered that she be flogged 200 times and serve six months in prison. The Saudi court’s ruling was based on the rape victim’s alleged “failure to have a male guardian escort her” to the mall, where she was ultimately kidnapped and gang raped by seven men.

If in fact, it is illegal for women to travel unescorted throughout Saudi Arabia, are the courts flogging all the offenders, or just those who are improperly escorted to their own crimes? And why do some cultures continually punish women because of a lack of control and morality among their men?

At a minimum, might it not have occurred to a more sensitized, just and moral group of judges that the victim had suffered enough at the hands of her rapists? Though of course, no one deserves to be raped. In particular, this woman does not deserve to be vilified by her own legal community.

It seems to me that the last thing any modern court would want to do is put a chilling effect on the prosecution of crimes. In this case, the original sentence against the rape victim was already disgusting and outrageous. The Saudi court has now doubled the sentence against her — and it has been reported that the court did so because she went to the media and presumably because she “second guessed” the court. The court in fact also revoked her attorney’s license and ordered that he stop representing her. Obviously, there are members of the legal community in Saudi Arabia who are willing to protect women. These are the people who should be determining justice in modern court cases.

Although I’m not a fan of Hillary Clinton’s, I respect her recent condemnation of the Saudi court’s outrageous ruling on the appeal. This ruling is barbaric and intolerable. Despite that, the White House has refused to condemn the sentencing despite Senator Clinton’s call on it to do so. The White House explained that this is an internal matter and the Saudi courts have a right to preside over their own cases and reach verdicts in accordance with their laws — this from the Administration which coined the phrase activist judges. It seems the White House respects borders, the legal process and “internal matters” when it suits Mr. Bush’s interests. After all, there was a time in the not so distant past when Iraq’s struggles under Sadam Hussein were also considered an “internal matter.” Oh, how times have changed.

If we acknowledged we were human beings first, we might all agree that no government should be allowed to brutalize individuals under any circumstances. This is morally wrong. Waterboarding is wrong; flogging is certainly wrong. It shocks the senses to realize that any government still brutalizes people in these ways.

It’s a disgrace. I’m never surprised that America is criticized for its hypocrisy — in particular when our government refuses to recognize both its current immorality and those exhibited by other cultures. It really is a shock to the senses to realize that in Saudi Arabia a woman will be flogged 200 times because, in the minds of a few men, she was not properly escorted to her own rape.

Soon after White House Chief of Staff, Joshua Bolton, announced that senior staff working at the White House past Labor Day would be expected to stay on through the end of the Bush presidency, Rove announced his resignation. Some suggest Rove is leaving to insulate himself from ongoing Congressional investigations. Others may speculate Rove is gearing up to aid the next GOP presidential hopeful. Or could it be that, at this stage in the game, President Bush is a lost cause for Rove? What more can he do with a president who is too mired in his own rhetoric to do anything but stay the course? Except maybe cut and run?

Karl Rove has said he’s leaving the White House because this is the best time to devote himself to his family. That may well be true, but Rove has never struck me as a devout family man. Regardless, it would be naive to think we’ve seen the last of Karl Rove. Despite his questionable ethics, Rove is still an expert strategist and has definitely made Bush’s presidency more interesting — if not possible.

I’m constantly impressed with how well and thoroughly Republicans own the discourse. They’ve had help by linguistic’s expert, Frank I. Luntz, who writes yearly briefing books distributed to the Republican Party which tells each member how to speak (and lie). It’s a cohesive approach that reinforces their language, because they are all using it. After a time, the media picks up a phrase here and there, and then suddenly people on the streets are using terms like death tax to describe the millionaire estate tax that applies only to the richest American with estates valued at $2,000,000 or more! There’s no tax on death (unless you count all the money Americans are funneling to Iraq). Death tax is one of the many phrases coined by Frank Luntz who has spent his career helping Republicans lie to America.

We can see the effects of Mr. Luntz’s tutelage in a recent “book review” on Al Gore’s new book, “The Assault on Reason” posted by the “American” Thinker. The entire “review” is a carefully constructed text designed to redefine (”frame”) Al Gore as an irrelevant relic of the political scene who is more comparable to vapid media fodder like Paris Hilton, or better still a “European socialist,” which would make him unAmerican and undemocratic.

Following the teachings of Frank Luntz, Republicans rarely attack the message and instead attack the messenger, referred to as an ad hominem argument. This is how Republicans initially responded to scientific reports about global warming, by attacking the scientists (while at the same time paying for opposing views from disreputable members of the scientific community). When it became harder to attack the scientists and find other “experts” willing to sell opposing views, Republicans chose to either ignore scientific reports or artfully misquote them.

Even Frank Luntz has distanced himself from the relentless Republican refusal to acknowledge the scientific facts about global warming. He so thoroughly framed the issue of climate change, that even in this “American” Thinker book “review,” Alleva and Geer, the two “reviewers” call global warming Gore propaganda. Sure — Gore has single-handedly made global warming the issue of our time.

What’s also interesting is how Alleva and Geer point out that America is “not a democracy, but a republic” without defining or fully understanding what they’re saying. It’s true that Republicans are working hard to destroy the concept altogether. But it would be nice if they acknowledged that even our republic (res publica or a “public thing”) is still a form of democracy, albeit an indirect democracy, but only with respect to how the United States elects its presidents and vice-presidents. Our republic is still a public thing and we do in fact directly vote for all the representatives and senators in Congress. In the entire history of America, except possibly between 2001 and 2007, Congress was in fact the third branch of our federal government. So, to be fair, Americans have both a direct and indirect democracy and the republic is actually a community of states with their own governments, some state autonomy, and state political leaders all of whom are directly chosen by the citizens of those states. Still with me?

That Alleva and Geer choose to construct “democracy” in such narrow and incorrect terms is very telling. Republicans have been eroding democratic values for the last six years. They are doing very well in these endeavors. Maybe that’s why they so adamantly refuse to spend a second discussing any of the actual concerns in Gore’s new book. These Republicans have no trouble pursuing a “politics of fear, secrecy, cronyism, and blind faith . . . to create an environment dangerously hostile to reason.”

And because we construct reason through speech, we can generously acknowledge Frank Luntz’s contribution to the downfall of democracy, especially if we acknowledge that a government of, by and for the people requires that the people be honestly and thoroughly informed. Have we reached a point of no return in being able to see beyond Republican framing? It’s hard to say. Certainly, some of us see through Luntz’s Orwellian frames. But not enough of us, and sadly too many Republicans have gone beyond merely using Luntz’s terms — they actually believe them. So is there an assault to reason? You bet your freedom!

Frank Luntz has created a monster not even he can control. Once again, it’s up to the villagers.

I read in Sunday’s paper that Jimmy Carter blasted the Bush Administration, calling it the “worst in history” in global relations. Bush spokesman, Tony Fratto, responded by calling Carter “increasingly irrelevant.”

RNC spokesperson Amber Wilkerson, the other half of the tag team, added:

“Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man,” . . . .

She said it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also “challenged Ronald Reagan’s strategy for the Cold War.”

Well, kids, let’s be real: to the Bush Adminstration and the RNC, all Americans are irrelevant (except during elections), as are the American values espoused by the Constitution. To them, only corporations matter. Further, Wilkerson’s comments show how contrived responses from the RNC are becoming. First, Carter’s comments weren’t made on Sunday, they appeared in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in Saturday’s edition; so get off the pulpit, Wilkerson. That comment was made to appeal to Christians, the only religious group recognized by Bush and the RNC.

Also, the RNC continues to be masterful in its ability to invoke the name of Ronald Reagan in its responses. The Reagan shield has served them well, as has the sword of terrorism. With these two props, they will smite down all opposition in their fight to destroy democracy while pretending to keep it safe.

The props themselves are well contrived by the RNC. First, Republicans continue to attribute the end of the Cold War solely to the efforts of Reagan. I don’t deny President Regan’s contributions in creating an atmosphere in which the Cold War could find a final resting place. But to attribute its entire demise to Reagan is to ignore the growing socio-economic influences in the Soviet Union at the time, as well as the many domestic reforms enacted by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev whose Perestroika truly helped pave the way for change in the USSR.

As for the terrorism, that’s a handy catchall that Republicans use to mean perceived threats to our way of life from the Middle East. But Terrorism exists anytime a group of people seek to use fear to manipulate others, something Republicans have managed to do quite well since September 11. Terrorism also exists in convincing the majority of Americans to willingly give up their civil rights for the illusion of safety from terror. So that now we have a country that supports presidents who create legislation through signing statements rather than merely enforcing the laws; a country that supports torture; spying on Americans; frisking at airports; and of course imprisonment without due process, indictment, access to counsel or trial.

Such breaches of the Constitution by the Bush Administration and supported by the RNC were undertaken in the guise of protecting Americans from terrorism. And while they’re busy butchering American values, let’s not ignore that Iraqi money is now making its way to Pakistan to fund Al Qaida, and that Communism continues to flourish not only in China, Cuba and North Korea, but now also in Chavez’s Venezuela.

That’s what Jimmy Carter was talking about. Bush has changed the face of America; he’s crippled our causes globally by destroying our image through his actions here and abroad. Carter’s comments are not irrelevant and, sadly, Bush is not irrelevant either. Frankly, he’s the biggest threat to American Democracy since Communism. In fact, if Reagan were here, he’d be doing everything he can to stop George Bush from making America irrelevant.