OK, I'll admit, in the past I was somewhat ambiguous of the DLC, namely because of Al From, but I decided to actually look at the website and look at what their issues are and find out what they are about, basically.
BTW this is their website:
www.dlc.org
Feel free to peruse it and make up your own minds. OK, so I'm going to make some cites from the site(I'm a poet and I didn't even know it.;)). The format, for easy reading is that the cites will be in
italics, certain sections emphasized by
bold. The emphasis by me only, of course. Followed by a direct link to the article in question. I will follow the Copyright rules of the 3 paragraph limit for each article, so no problems there, I hope.
OK, Problem number one I have with the DLC, using Right Wing framing of issues, I'll give an example of this below, and also why it undercuts Democratic messages and also, in some cases, is extremely inaccurate factually.
The academic standards of most states make reference to religion and religious history, but in practice teachers are reluctant to take these issues on in any depth. Educators are understandably worried about attacks and lawsuits from organizations and advocacy groups at the extremes of the ideological spectrum that are too ready to pounce on perceived adversaries with even the flimsiest cause. In addition, there is insufficient training, curriculum support, and resources for teachers who wish to tackle these issues in any depth. Frequently, what does exist is milquetoast at best because it is sanitized for any hint of controversy or political correctness. This curricular problem touches many subjects, as the education historian Diane Ravitch recently documented in The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn.
Too often, moreover, the political right dominates discussions about religion. And its agenda focuses on prayer in school, displays of religious symbols and religious expression, and school vouchers, rather than ensuring that students have a solid understanding of the world's major religions, as well as a capacity to intelligently discuss the role of religion in politics and global affairs.
At their core, many of these issues are largely resolved. Under the leadership of then-U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley, during the Clinton administration, a range of religious groups and experts developed guidelines for religious expression in public schools. But it is the practical application of these guidelines by teachers, particularly when it comes to social studies curricula, that presents the greater challenge. http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252306&kaid=110&subid=181OK, my first question for the author of this article is, who are these "ideological extremists" that are suing schools left and right for the meer mention of religion? The ACLU, a TRADITIONAL civil rights organization, or Americans United For the Separation of Church and State, run by a minister, of all people, are NOT extremist organizations! He developed a straw man, and knocked it down, for no other reason that I can see, except to try to earn brownie points with the Religious Right. Now, my second emphasis is important, because it is inaccurate at best, first neither Clinton nor his Education Secretary set up the guidelines, the Supreme Court did, years ago, through, oddly enough, lawsuit resolutions. Religion is to be presented in public schools in a BALANCED way, with no restrictions on students free excercise of religion, nor are teachers to lead prayers, nor are schools to give RELIGIOUS lessons themselves as if they were sectarian. Pretty simple rules, schools still suffer from Administrators in cover your ass mode, but they are usually dealt with through the ACLU suing them for keeping religious expression out of school.
Like I said, this is one example, here's another covering basically the same thing but is more blatant in inaccuracies, etc.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252572&kaid=127&subid=170Now that just covered framing, which weakens the arguments of Democrats altogether because it muddles the issues to those swing voters we are trying to get. Best to differentiate.
I also have problems with some of their policy positions, but also their unwarranted attacks on opponents to those policies. I'll give yet another example with another hot button issue "Free" Trade. OK, first example coming up, right about now:
Second, the United States has a tangible political and moral stake in our partners' success. All six today are peaceful, democratic nations -- and bipartisan American trade policy deserves some of the credit. The Caribbean Basin Initiative, a trade preference program dating back to 1985, helped bring new urban industries to Santo Domingo, Managua, San Salvador, San Pedro Sula, and many other Central American and Dominican cities. Central American clothing factories now employ about half a million people, and often provide the first jobs for hundreds of thousands of young women moving out of impoverished villages. This source of employment has helped Central America make a crucial transition from the wars, armed insurgencies, and military repression that characterized the region in the 1980s.http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=108&subid=127&contentid=253383OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but in the United States, but isn't the minimum age requirement for young people to work in this nation the age of 16? This is excluding farm workers of course. So Basically the DLC is lauding the "success" that 13 year old girls and under work in factories for over 12 hours a day under armed guard? I'm supposed to support this for what reason again? Also, who supported those armed insurgencies and other violence in Central American during the 1980s again? Wouldn't that impoverish the villages, destroy democracy, ad nauseum? Also, why were these insurgencies supported, oh yeah, for FREE trade, smashing success there. :sarcasm: I like how they said they hope the workers right's provisions are enforced properly, its toward the end, kinda thrown in as an afterthought, at least to me.
OK, if you think that idiocy isn't enough, here is a good example, again about Free Trade:
The story continues: We now live in a global economy, created by trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement and enforced by the World Trade Organization. This global economy leaves workers jobless at home and exploited abroad, as businesses escape to poor countries where they pay lower wages and ignore environmental laws. The opening of our borders, meanwhile, has exposed families to pollution and unsafe food. America's government has failed to respond, blocked abroad by the WTO and perverted at home by business wealth. But the people know what is going on. Some day their government will have to listen.(snip)
The argument has force and emotional appeal. Since the Clinton administration departed, it has visibly gained ground. Shrinking Democratic support in Congress for trade agreements is one sign. So is the adoption of mild versions of this story by the Gore and Kerry campaigns in 2000 and 2004, presumably in the hope that trade skepticism would appeal in Ohio and the Carolinas.
But the story is wrong. Factually speaking, it is badly mistaken. Data, though duller than narrative, speak loudly against stories of decline and decay. Even with the weak economic policies of the last five years and the spectacular emergence of China and India as industrial challengers, America's economy is larger than it was 20 years ago, and more Americans are on the job. Since the NAFTA went into effect in 1994, American gross domestic product has grown by $6 trillion, businesses have added 19.2 million new private-sector jobs, manufacturing production has risen by almost $500 billion, and average unemployment rates have dropped by one point. Nor, to state the obvious, was America self-sufficient before NAFTA. http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=108&subid=206&contentid=253726OK, they throw in a lot of big numbers in here, so let's break it down, OK, so, they gave a 20 year mark, so that is what I'll use, back in 1980, we had a labor force of about 109,980,000 people, of which about 7,637,000 were unemployed, that's about a 7% unemployment rate. Fast forward to 2006 (Year to Date), labor force is now up to 149,600,667 with about 7,518,333 unemployed, that's about a 5% unemployment rate. OK, this is actually BETTER than their somewhat outdated report, but a few things, I feel, are missing, first, the total amount of workers unemployed, in raw numbers, hasn't decreased in the slightest, we just added about 50 million people and able to find them jobs. Another thing, that is totally missing from this article is the QUALITY of the jobs that are available. OK, they talk about raw earnings, the GDP growth, however, this gives you NOTHING as to how the AVERAGE worker lives, earnings by Corporations have increased over 700% in the same time period, and worker's wages have been totally stagnant, not even keeping up with cost of living. I don't give a shit about GDP growth in the slightest, someone gets diagnosed with leukemia and the GDP goes up, that, to me, means that having it grow could be a BAD thing as well. So the conclusion is that Free trade has I guess, allowed the US economy to keep up with its population growth, if just barely. Wow, what a SMASHING success! :sarcasm: Let's not talk about Unions shrinking, along with wages and benefits, that would be a BAD thing. Remember, FREE trade is good, no matter the consequences!
BTW raw data on unemployment is here:
http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htmNow, another thing that pisses me off, that you would see in the DLC article, and that is the smearing of the opponents to their version of free trade, I say their version because theirs is not the only model, and it can be argued that it is a total failure. You know what, they wouldn't have these protests from "college students" if they didn't like, oh I don't know, protect human rights in these agreements. But hell, they barely even MENTION them in their position articles, so why should I support them? The odd thing is that they have been debunked, they pulled out the canard that us "obstructionists" to this "wave of the future" that they call free trade want to return to old fashioned protectionism. Yet, what happens in Third World nations that stand up to things like FTAA or CAFTA, they form their OWN free trade agreements, with stipulations for human and worker rights being STRONGLY protected, free movement of peoples between nations, you know freeing up labor with capital, and basically are using the EU for their model, not NAFTA. Food for thought, to say the least.
OK, I'm done, its late at night, I'm going to bed, and if anyone wants to respond, I'll respond in the morning.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
) 
