Radio

Debate Sunday with David Horowitz

September 18, 2005

(broadcast stream) (.mp3 download Right-click,”Save Target as”,”Save”)
Today, Mark debates former Radical Leftist and now Radical Right-Wing writer and political commentator, David Horowitz.
In addition to arguing strongly against what he believes to be liberal indoctrination in political universities, Horowitz is a fierce opponent of affirmative action. One of Horowitz’s many controversial quotes (as to why he is opposed to slavery reparations) is as follows:
“What about the debt blacks owe to Americaâ€”to white Americaâ€”for liberating them from slavery?”
Liberal activist Chip Berlet wrote an article for the Southern Poverty Law Center entitled “Into the Mainstream”, which named Horowitz’s Center for the Study of Popular Culture as one of an “array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable.”
In an open letter to SPLC president Morris Dees, Horowitz urged Dees to remove the article from the SPLC website, alleging that it was “so tendentious, so filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears that if you continue to post the report you will create for your Southern Poverty Law Center a well-earned reputation as a hate group itself.”
I expect a contentious debate today.
MORE ON NEW ORLEANS:
Pictures of what Bush was Doing as New Orleans was Flooding
Timeline of what Bush was Doing as New Orleans was Flooding

Confirmation Hearings, Part II

September 15, 2005

25 Comments

(broadcast stream) (.mp3 download Right-click,”Save Target as”,”Save”)
Miss the hearings on CNN? Catch the synopsis and Mark’s commentary…
INSIDE SCOOP: Was Roberts involved in the Iran-contra affair?

Confirmation Hearings for Judge Roberts, Part I

September 14, 2005

15 Comments

(broadcast stream) (.mp3 download Right-click,”Save Target as”,”Save”)
Miss the hearings on CNN? Catch the synopsis and Mark’s commentary…
Today, the opening statements of Roberts and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and the use and misuse of the “Ginsburg principle.”
Republicans claim that Roberts need not discuss his views on any Supreme Court cases because Democratic Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused to do in her nomination process.
That claim is a misleading attempt to trick the public: it is true that Ginsburg did not say how she would rule on future cases. But she did give extensive commentary as to her views on past cases — which gave Senators an indication on how she would rule in the future.
Roberts is keeping a tight lip and refusing to do this, except on the obvious cases that we all — except racists like Rehnquist — now agree on, such as Brown v. Board of Education.

Debate Tuesday: California Governor Vows to Veto Law Allowing Gay People the Same Right to Marry as Straights

September 13, 2005

56 Comments

(broadcast stream) (.mp3 download Right-click,”Save Target as”,”Save”)
The California Legislature has passed a law giving gay couples the same right to marry that straight couples enjoy. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has threatened to veto the bill on the (ironic) grounds that the courts should decide this instead of the people’s elected representatives. (It’s ironic as conservatives opposed Massachusetts giving all its citizens the right to marry, because it was the courts and not the legislature which determined that all Massachusetts couples enjoyed the same right to marry under the Massachusetts Constitution.)
Today, I will debate Brad Dacus, President of the Pacific Justice Institute, who supports the current official government discrimination against gay people who want to marry each other.
According to Dacus, “As president of Pacific Justice Institute, I am proud to lead an organization whose purpose is to assist those in the battle for our religious freedoms, sanctity of life, parental rights and other civil liberties. PJI has the necessary, broad-based network in place to support attorneys, individuals, churches and organizations in this fight.”
There are many questions to ask Dacus. Does he get a thrill from making gay couples miserable? Does he want their children are mistreated by the State? Does he favor hospitals keeping people from visiting a dying partner/spouse of 50 years? Does he support a heavy unequal tax burden against gay people that does not apply to straights? (Is this a “sin tax”?)
Does Dacus believe straight people are morally superior to gay people? That there should be classes of citizenship? How does he feel about adulterers (violators of the Seventh Commandment of the Ten Commandments) being allowed to marry? Is there any principled reason to allow adulterers to (re)marry but deny marriage rights to a monogamous couple of 50 years?
In sum, when is it proper for the Government be able to dictate its adult citizens’ private sex lives? And if the Seventh Commandment is not public policy, why should any part of the Bible that discriminates against law-abiding Americans be enforced?