She's Back Too

First Sarah Palin called out David Letterman on questionable pretenses and now Michelle Bachmann is calling out ACORN on an even more questionable pretense. According to Rep. Bachmann, she has made the decision to only provide one piece of information on her census form, specifically the question about the number of people in her household. Why did Bachmann decide to do so? It's because she suspects that ACORN, one of the groups responsible for gathering data, is unreliable, accusing them of being engaged in efforts to submit extra, fraudulent census forms. At first glance, this seems reasonable, until one realizes that the data collection for the census doesn't begin until next year. In other words, Bachmann is accusing ACORN of being involved in a scandal in the future. I guess this proves that Bachmann is either psychic or psychotic. Read More......

She's Back

When Obama was elected president, I assumed that it would be another 3 or 4 years before Palin would be back in the spotlight and up to her crazy antics. Fortunately, people like her just have a way of getting attention, and this week, she proved that to be the case by being involved in a controversy involving David Letterman. The controversy is based on several jokes told by Letterman on his T.V. show. One joke was made during one of Letterman's Top 10 lists, in which he said that while in New York, Palin bought makeup to "update her 'slutty flight attendant' look." As you'll see in a video clip later in this post, Palin took the joke with good humor and didn't make a big deal about it. However, Letterman offended her with another joke about the Palins' visit to New York. This time, he said that "The toughest part of her visit was keeping Eliot Spitzer away from her daughter." Personally, I don't see why this would be offensive to Palin since the butt of the joke is clearly Spitzer. Furthermore, the joke does not at any point suggest that in the hypothetical scenario, Palin's daughter was actually engaged in sexual activities, nor did it suggest that she invited such behavior. In other words, it's calling the former governor, and not Palin's daughter, a pervert. The last joke , which got the most attention was about Palin's daughter getting "knocked up" by Alex Rodriguez during a Yankees game.

Letterman responded by pseudo-apologizing, claiming that joking about statutory rape is inappropriate, but that he did not do so:


Several groups, including NOW and the Palins themselves, have condemned the joke on the grounds that it targeted someone who is "off-limits," and that it made light of rape. So, did the joke cross the line? In my opinion, the answer is that the joke did neither of those things, so, while it's not exactly tame, it's not overly disrespectful. The reasons for this view were best expressed by another blogger by the name of Jason Zengerle, who said:

"...is it really so hard to believe that the joke Letterman was making about a Palin daughter getting 'knocked up' was about the Palin daughter who, you know, got knocked up? And when you consider that said daughter has decided to make herself a poster- (and cover-) girl for teen abstinence, then, by stepping into the media spotlight, she's exposed herself to the jokes (funny or not) of late night comics."

There's really no way to say it any clearer. The joke about a Palin daughter getting "knocked up" by a baseball player (who has been involved in his own sex scandals) was funny because it inferred "mechanical inelasticity" on the part of Bristol Palin. ("Mechanical inelasticity" is a term that refers to a humorous scenario in which someone repeats his or her normal behavior even though that behavior isn't well-suited to the current situation.) The joke would not make any sense in reference to any of Palin's other children since none of them have ever been "knocked up." Therefore, the joke had to have been a reference to Bristol. (Some people have contended that the fact that Willow was the daughter who actually attended the baseball game suggests that she was the unnamed daughter referred to in the joke. However, this is a weak argument since the whole joke is based on hypotheticals. The idea that Bristol was at the ballpark is just as accurate as the idea that either daughter had sex with A-Rod.)

As for the complaints that the joke made light of rape, that does not appear to be the case. The term "knocked up" refers purely to an unintended pregancy. It does not have a connotation suggesting that the pregnancy is from non-consensual sex. Therefore, considering my previous argument that 18-year-old Bristol was the target of the joke, there is nothing implying rape.

But despite what I think, plenty of people were took offence, including Palin herself:


As you can see, Palin articulated her concerns pretty clearly, showing genuine concern for her daughter and disgust for those who joke about statutory rape... until about 3:30 into the clip, at which point she nearly laughed at a joke she made about Letterman raping Willow.

Stay classy, Governor Palin. Read More......

More Domestic Terrorism

Earlier today, there was a shooting at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C. A security guard was shot, and, according to CNN, he died a few minutes ago. The leading suspect is James Von Brunn. However, there isn't much doubt that he is the perpetrator, since security guards returned fire, eventually hospitalizing him. There really isn't much question that Von Brunn's motives were that of a terrorist given his history as a white supremacist. Von Brunn ran a racist, anti-Semitic website called holywesternempire.org, and has written an anti-Semitic book entitled Kill the Best Gentiles: A New Hard-Hitting Exposé Of The JEW CONSPIRACY To Destroy The White Gene-Pool. Additionally, Von Brunn posted many hateful articles online, such as Hitler's Worst Mistake: He Didn't Gas the Jews. It's been difficult to find other things he wrote, since his websites aren't loading right now. (I assume lots of people are also doing research on Von Brunn at this time.) Also, he spent several years in jail after attempting to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve, who he believed were involved in some sort of Jewish conspiracy.

It's been said a lot here lately, but terrorism isn't limited to fundamentalist Muslims from halfway around the world blowing stuff up (although it can be.) It can also be perpetrated by black Americans, Christian political extremists, white supremacists, or just about anyone else with an extreme political agenda. Read More......

Breaking: New Hampshire Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

A good Breaking News this time: NH becomes the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage and the third state to do so through the legislature.

Governor Lynch, an opponent of same-sex marriage who nevertheless signed the legislature's bill:

"Today we're standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear they will receive the same rights, responsibilities and respect under New Hampshire law."

The downside: religious organizations are exempt from providing insurance or benefits to married couples if the partners are of the same sex. So, not entirely the same rights, responsibilities, or respect. But it's a step in the right direction. Read More......

Public Relations For Dummies

Following the murder of Dr. George Tiller, many organizations whose causes are based on pro-choice or pro-life values have been releasing statements to express reactions to the recent tragedy, some of which can be viewed here. (Credit for finding that list of statements belongs to Rebecca.) Although it's nice to think that these statements genuinely reflect the sentiments of their respective oranizations, the simple truth is that these statements are carefully worded expressions of how each organization, be it pro-choice or pro-life, wants to be viewed by the public. In essence, a statement on this event is supposed to explain to its existing members, potential members, and opponents why that organization is still relevant at the current time. Fulfilling these purposes is very easy for pro-choice groups simply because a very influential figure was murdered, meaning that they have some sympathy to build on, and the fear of militant pro-lifers is now on the mind of the general public. These factors mean that all a pro-choice group has to do to release an effective statements is say that it is shocked that Tiller was murdered and that it will continue to fight for the cause he gave his life for. Simply put, making a statement should be effortless for any pro-choice organization.

For pro-life groups, making a statement on Tiller's death is much more difficult, simply because their opponents were victimized. Additionally, there is the issue that the whole concept of doing crazy things to "protest" abortion rights is not new to these organizations. These groups constantly organize rallies outside of health clinics and express their views in ways that blur the line between violent and non-violent protest. Although none of the large pro-life groups have directly organized anyone's assassination, it's rightfully difficult to separate the organizations that get people fired up and encourage them to release their anger upon health clinics and patients from the individual members who go a step further and bomb clinics or murder doctors. It's a very straightforward issue: You cannot encourage behavior that borders on violence and then completely distance yourself from those that are ever so slightly more extreme.

This difficulty is especially problematic for Operation Rescue, following the arrest of Scott Roeder, the main suspect in the Tiller murder, since records show that someone identified by the same name mentioned a desire to increase hostility toward the doctor through his involvement at church. Operation Rescue made a statement claiming that Roeder's relation to the organization was limited to commenting on their website. However, Operation Rescue's connection to Tiller wasn't limited to Roeder alone. In fact, Tiller was their most targeted enemy. For example, in 2006, after Tiller purchased a business called Central Women's Services, Operation Rescue purchased the building in which the business was located. There have been countless protests by members of Operation Rescue outside Tiller's clinic, and the organization led the accusations that Tiller was practicing medicine in unsanitary and unsafe conditions, a claim of which he was acquitted in court. The pro-life organization even went so far as to include a "Tiller Watch" on their website. To make a long story short, Operation Rescue has a bit of a connection to the main suspect and they have a history of harassing Tiller. This means that they can't get away with pretending to feel sad at this time and they have to be the most careful when wording their statements.

Here was Operation Rescue's statement:

We are shocked at this morning's disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down. Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning. We pray for Mr. Tiller's family that they will find comfort and healing that can only be found in Jesus Christ.

After reading it, it is apparent that the statement was designed not to call for peace, but instead to emphasize their hatred of Tiller. The first sentence essentially says the organization wasn't responsible for killing him. The next sentence serves to portray Tiller as a bad person, thus giving the impression that he was a criminal (despite the fact that Tiller had been found not guilty of any such charges). The next sentence just restates the whole "don't blame us" idea. And the final sentence is designed to emphasize the organization's religious beliefs, specifically emphasizing that these beliefs are (in their minds anyway) Christian and Christian alone. Additionally, referring to the victim as "Mr. Tiller," instead of "Dr. Tiller" is again a way to re-emphasize their belief that Tiller should not have mainatained his ability to practice medicine. (Again, all such accussations were disproven in court.) Although their statement has a few issues, it's OK in the sense that it got the message across that Operation Rescue denies responsibility for the attack and isn't overjoyed by the news.

But even a carefully crafted statement like that is meaningless if the founder of the same organization says what's really on his mind:

George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder. Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches.

This quote is from Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue. Without going into the details of his statement, Terry's message is terrible for the simple reason that it shows support for Tiller's murder. Obviously, there are a lot of problems with suggesting that you're proud to see your enemies dead and that you'd like to see more of the same.

After seeing statements like these, I am very disappointed. As someone who is pro-choice, I feel obligated to reach across the aisle, and give some pointers on how to make a public statement that won't damage an organization's reputation:

DO

-condemn violence; If you look at the aforementioned list of public statements, one thing that stands out is that nearly every one of them begins with a sentence along the lines of "Our organization is saddened by news of Tiller's death and is disgusted by the actions of his killer." There's a reason why they all begin this way: because it distinguishes between the murderer and the organization. Additionally, expressing disapproval of murder is a universally accepted value. If an organization does not express condemnation of the murder, it gives the impression that the organization is involved in terrorism against abortion providers.

-emphasize the need for peaceful protests; Although it had a bunch of problems that I'll address late, the best example of this was in a video by the National Director of Priests for Life. In the video, the speaker emphasizes the idea that violence is against their beliefs and is less effective than peaceful means. This is a good thing to talk about because nobody on either sides wants to be associated with a violent cause or fight against a violent cause.

-express legitimate concerns; In the video from Fr. Pavone and in Terry's statements, there are expressions of fear of retaliation. Neither of these men addressed these fears in a manner that would make anyone feel sorry for them, but there's nothing objectionable about calling for peace in and of itself.

-use neutral terminology; Using terms like "pro-abortion" and "mass-murderer" is always a cheap shot. It's even more disgusting when discussing a murder victim.

-use accurate terminology; Recall that the Operation Rescue statement included the phrase "Mr. Tiller," instead of "Dr. Tiller." You don't get sympathy from your opponents by looking like you don't fully understand what you're talking about.

-conclude with a sentence showing sympathy; If you look at the list of statements one more time, you'll also see that they tend to end with a sentence expressing condolence.

DO NOT

-praise violence or show indifference to the loss of life; It should go without saying, but any organization that emphasizes the phrase "sancitity of life" should not express joy over the loss of life someone's death, particularly if it's the result of politcally-motivated violence (a.k.a. terrorism).

-speculate; Speculation was used in Fr. Pavone's video and in Randall Terry's statement. Both complained about violence and restrictions against pro-life groups that could happen in the future. While there's nothing wrong with expressing concern about these things, it's not appropriate to act like you're the victim of persecution if nobody has had time to react to the event.

-stretch the truth; Each of the pro-life groups emphasized continuing non-violent protest. However, it's not 100% true to say that these groups have continually been non-violent. As I mentioned earlier, many of the tactics employed by these organizations are borderline criminal.

-outright lie; Distorting facts is always wrong. Accusing Tiller of crimes of which he was never found guilty is wrong. Saying that it's common for abortion providers to be attacked by previous victims or competing doctors is wrong. Giving deceptive information about abortions in general is wrong.

-use event as an excuse to demonize pro-choice people; A man just lost his life because of his support of abortion rights. Common sense suggests that a repsonse to his death should not be filled with pro-life talking points.

-use the "no true Scotsman" fallacy; According to the Kansas Coalition for Life, "Although at the time of this writing, it is not known who killed Abortionist Tiller, we do know for certain that this crime was NOT the work of any true proLife person. A true proLife person respects human life as a gift from God, and leaves all life and death decisions to God Himself." This kind of attitude is deceptive because the pro-life position is based purely on one's views toward abortion rights. While most pro-life people wouldn't support killing abortion providers, those that do support killing abortion providers support the pro-life cause.

-describe victim deceptively; Tiller was a doctor, so calling him a doctor is objectively true. Calling him "Mr. Tiller" is inaccurate, just as it's inappropriate to call him a criminal despite his history of performing abortions legally. Read More......

Breaking: Dr. Tiller Murdered

I really have nothing to say other than "oh shit." Just go and read about it now.

Edit - from commenter amandaw at Feministe:

It’s one of those moments when you realize, they’ve been attacking him for how many years now but he always survived and pushed on, and you just always thought he always would.

Read More......

Scouting Sotomayor

Since President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, the judge's philosophy has been among the top stories on every news program. Her judicial history has been of so much interest that CNN has even replaced its news crawl with a scrolling description of Sotomayor's decisions during her time as judge. All that everyone wants to know is where she stands on various issues and whether or not she will shift the political leanings of the court. So, in an effort to stay in line with everyone's interests, here are a few links to summaries of Sotomayor's rulings as an appellate judge:

Appellate Opinions in Civil Cases (The most useful link in my opinion.)
Opinions with Dissent I
Opinions with Dissent II
Opinions with Dissent III
Opinions with Dissent IV

I'd advise you to read through the links on your own and form your own opinion, but, based on my perspective, it seems that Sotomayor is not heavily predisposed to either the left or the right. After looking at some basic biographical information on another reliable website (just kidding; it was Wikipedia), it seems that Sotomayor has had an appropriate education in law for a Supreme Court Justice. The most recently appointed justice, Samuel Alito, for example, went to Princeton University (with membership in Phi Beta Kappa) and then Yale Law School. Sotomayor graduated from Princeton with not only membership in Phi Beta Kappa, but also summa cum laude distinction. Then, like Alito, she graduated from Yale Law School. However, Sotomayor became an editor for the Yale Law Journal, which is a very impressive achievement. In terms of experience, Sotomayor was a judge for a federal district for 6 years and spent nearly 11 years in an appellate court. Another recently appointed justice, John Roberts, spent only about 2 years as a federal district judge. In other words, Stomayor's educational and judicial experience are sufficient when compared to those of the judges appointed under Bush.

Since Sotomayor has the education and experience necessary to be a Supreme Court Justice, the only thing left to check is whether or not her judicial philosophy is desirable. After going through the previously listed links, only 2 things stood out to me:

1) She has never directly handled a case about the extent to which the government can restrict abortion rights. The only relevant case she dealt with was Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, which was based on whether or not the "Mexico City Policy", also known as the "Global Gag Rule," was constitutional. Sotomayor ruled that the policy would not be overturned on the grounds that the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy was acting on behalf of foreign groups, rather than itself, and that the federal government is allowed to use spend money on "the anti-abortion position" if it so chooses. This decision, though, seems to be based more on foreign policy rights than with abortion rights. Based on that case, one probably couldn't figure out whether or not she is pro-choice, but I'd have to assume that she was asked about her position prior to being officially nominated or that she will be asked directly when she is questioned by the Senate.

2) She seems to favor plaintiffs in cases where the plaintiff is suing based on what he or she perceives as discrimination. This relates to the whole issue of empathy vs. pure legal interpretation. However, there have been a fair number of instances where she has rejected allegations of discrimination against the defendant. This gives the impression that she displays this "empathy," but she isn't going to rubber stamp every claim of discrimination.

Even though this post is already starting to get a little lengthy, I still haven't covered the other issue that's been getting lots of attention: Sotomayor's race. Sotomayor is, of course, Hispanic, so this could influence whether or not she gets confirmed. Based on her race, her upbringing as the daughter of immigrants, and her time spent growing up in an area with a large Hispanic population, one would expect her to be able to perhaps understand the problems of people who aren't able to protect their rights, an attribute Obama showed interest in during a previous debate. This ability would be desirable and it could add some diversity to the court.

However, when all is said and done, Sotomayor's background is unimportant when one looks purely at which judge would be best for the court. After all, if ethnic background does, in fact, influence the way in which a judge rules, that influence should be present in her past judicial rulings. Therefore, in the ideal world, nobody would even pay attention to a nominee's race when deciding whether or not he or she is the most appropriate judge for the Supreme Court. Rather, the decision should be based on whether or not past rulings have reflected the traits that one would have wanted (or not wanted) in a nominee. With regard to Sotomayor, this means that a Hispanic woman would be expected to empathize with women and minorities, but the veracity of this expectation can only be based upon her past rulings, not just by looking at her ethnicity.

That being said, outside of official government business, I have been a bit shocked from the racism I've seen from both sides of the political spectrum. I've seen people from the left essentially use the race card to defend the selection, essentially calling it racist whenever someone criticizes Sotomayor. For example, one blogger wrote, "The argument that [Sotomayor's] 'stupid' is both gendered and racialized — no white man with her legal pedigree would be called 'stupid,' but you can bet that a man of color would." Essentially, this blogger's argument is that calling a political figure "stupid" is racist and that such an insult is reserved for minorities. The obvious flaw with this logic, other than the use of speculation, is that this term is constantly used for white men. For example, George W. Bush attended Yale University, Harvard Business School, and spent 6 years as governor of Texas before becoming president, and I can assure you that I'm not the only one who calls him "stupid." I'm not going to list every single example, but the general message I've gotten is that many on the left are blindly dismissing concerns from the right as racist. In reality, criticizing Sotomayor can be racist, but criticism of her is in no way inherently racist, as some have implied.

Meanwhile, on the right, there have been legitimate cases of racism. Some have called Sotomayor an affirmative action appointment. But as I explained in my earlier, Wikipedia-based description, she has an educational and judicial background that's at least equal to that of other Supreme Court justices, so such claims are clearly unfounded. The other type of complaint coming from the right deals with sound bites, specifically refusing to understand anything about Sotomayor beyond a single sound bite. Take for instance the whole idea of wanting a justice with empathy. Many conservatives, including Michael Steele, head of the GOP, have used sound bites like this to justify their belief that Obama wants someone who's empathetic without any regard for that person's knowledge of the legal system. The problem with this view is that it's just an example of either willful ignorance or intellectual laziness. The fact is that Obama does care about one's understanding of law as well, as shown by the same sound bite when shown in context.

The second way in which conservatives are using a sound bite to justify disapproval relates to Republicans' constant fear of Activist Judges^TM. According to conservatives, there's nothing worse than a judge who overturns pre-existing political philosophies. If a judge ever does his or her job by overturning unconstitutional laws, that judge is, in their minds, single-handedly controlling the legal system, removing power from the people. (These judges are not to be confused with Socially Responsible Judges^TM, who are identical to Activist Judges^TM except that they rule in favor of conservative policies.) So, what's this have to do with sound bites? As it turns out, many conservatives are complaining about a comment Sotomayor made back in 2005, as shown in this video. The problematic sound bite was, of course, "...court of appeals is where policy is made." This quote gives the appearance of judicial activism, but if you clicked on the link and saw her say the line, it's very obvious that she didn't mean that literally. After all, the context of the speech seemed to be a situation where she was explaining why her job is a fulfilling career option, a situation where any speaker would be expected to exaggerate the perks slightly. Furthermore, if you listen to what she says immediately after saying the line, it's incredibly obvious that she understands that her off-the-cuff remark wasn't well-worded. With that in mind, the argument that Sotomayor is an unfit judge because of a statement she made 4 years ago doesn't make much sense.

The final way in which conservatives are criticizing Sotomayor is based upon a comment she made while speaking at Berkeley Law School in 2001: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." There is no question in my mind that this statement, when standing alone, is unquestionably racist on the grounds that it asserts that the culture surrounding a Latina woman makes her better than a White man when it comes to judicial decision-making. Anytime one asserts that people from one culture and/or gender are inherently superior to those of another, that statement is prejudiced. Quite frankly, it's disturbing to see otherwise liberal people refuse to admit that the comment in and of itself was inapproprate. (To be fair, when taken in context, which means in response to an assertion that a man and a woman would be expected to come to identical conclusions and then going on to clarify her own statement, Sotomayor's comment is somewhat less offensive. But that does not excuse those who don't present the quote in context and still argue that there's no way it could be construed as offensive.) At the same time, it's absurd that conservatives are claiming that this quote alone is reason enough to categorize Sotomayor as a racist and discount the entirety of her legal career. (Seriously, go to any conservative blog with an entry on Sotomayor, and if there are a decent number of comments, there'll be several people expressing this sentiment.) In essence, their claim is that because Sotomayor made this single, isolated comment, it somehow proves that she is a racist. Even a somewhat respected politician, Tom Tancredo, admitted on air that he wanted to see Sotomayor get rejected without even bothering to look at her judicial history, purely because she made a single gaffe. Now, if a former congressman is too lazy to look up her credentials, and instead chooses to rely on a single line the judge said, how much research do you think the average American will do?

But all things considered, I expect Sotomayor to be confirmed. Democrats will support their own president's decision and Republicans cannot afford to reject her out of fear of a more liberal nomination or of alienating Hispanic voters. So, if my predictions are correct, race will end up benefitting Sotomayor in the Senate confirmation process. As for the sound bite issues, they won't be a huge deal. After all, if Clarence Thomas could get by with the whole pubic hair on a Coke can incident, surely Sotomayor can get by with 2 poorly worded sentences. Read More......