Says he: she "cries herself to sleep every night, knowing all the pain and suffering I have caused."
Say I: she cries herself to sleep every night, trying to figure out how she POSSIBLY manage on the 2.5 million the judge left her.
And what's up with that? Some dude is suspected of dealing drugs and the Feds sweep in and take everything and never ever have to give it back even if it turns out that the suspicions were groundless.
Oh, yes, I am feeling testy today.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Carve These Words in Stone
"It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered."
Barak Hussein Obama
Barak Hussein Obama
Terrorists in Kansas
I’ve been thinking about all morning about Megan McArdel's long and very provocative post called A Really Long Post About Abortion and Reasoning By Historical Analogy That is Going to Make Virtually All of My Readers Very Angry At Me.
She actually makes two analogies. The explicit analogy, the one referred to in her title, compares abortion to slavery "for two reasons. First of all, it was the last time we had an extended, society-wide debate about personhood. And second of all, as now, there were structural political reasons that it was much harder--nearly impossible--to change slavery through the existing political process."
While I am intrigued by the analogy, particularly for its ability to make sense of the fervor of the anti-abortion stance, there are a couple of problems which render it useless.
First, the idea that we haven’t had a debate about the nature of personhood since the nineteenth-century strikes me as untrue. The entire women’s movement has been about the personhood of women, and it isn’t resolved. I think that much anti-abortion energy stems from the belief that women are not full persons because they (we) cannot be trusted to make moral decisions. If there’s an analogy to be made with slavery, it might be better to compare women to slaves because anti-abortionists seem to think that women’s bodies belong to someone or something in a way that men’s bodies never do. It would be even more apt to compare children to slaves because we widely agree that they are somehow the property of their parents. But this is only to underscore one of the hypocrisies of the anti-abortionists: most them don’t seem to give a damn about what happens to children after they are born. If they did, they would devote at least some of their considerable energy on child welfare.
The slavery analogy also strikes me as insufficient because if fetuses are like slaves then pro-choicers are comparable to slaveholders and anti-abortionists are comparable to abolitionists. But as far as I can tell, the abolitionists operated mostly within the law. When they broke the law, say for example the Fugitive Slave Act, they did so without killing anyone. Further, with the lone exception of John Brown, abolitionists did not stage violent attacks against slaveholders, murdering them and bombing their plantations in an effort to force them to free their slaves. As a point of fact, it was the slaveholders who used violence and the threat of violence as a means to terrorize the slaves and maintain their ownership. Pro-slavers even staged a series of murderous attacks in Kansas in their efforts to ensure that Kansas was admitted to the Union as a slave state.
Again, I think it's useful to re-consider the analogy: women are more like slaves than fetuses are. The anti-abortionists are determined to hold women in a kind of bondage. They don't just want to ban late-term abortions, they want to ban all abortion. The more radical among them, the ones who are most prone to violence, want also to ban all forms of contraception. And they won't be satisfied until they get their way.
This brings me to the second analogy, which McArdel makes implicit in her claim that the anti-abortionists have no political recourse and must therefore resort to violence in order to secure their idea of justice. This is exactly in a nutshell the rationale for terrorism everywhere. And I agree: to the extent that the anti-abortionists are are willing to use violence to achieve their will, they are terrorists. Which means that the real question is, how do we deal with terrorists at home and abroad? Do we let them set the parameters of the debate? Can there even be a debate when the opposition is being forced to the table under the threat of violence?
Of course, even that analogy breaks down under scrutiny, if for no other reason than that unlike Blacks under apartheid or Palestineans under Zionism, the anti-abortionists do have political recourse, and they know it. The problem is that political recourse requires compromise, and they have made it very very clear that there can be no compromise.
She actually makes two analogies. The explicit analogy, the one referred to in her title, compares abortion to slavery "for two reasons. First of all, it was the last time we had an extended, society-wide debate about personhood. And second of all, as now, there were structural political reasons that it was much harder--nearly impossible--to change slavery through the existing political process."
While I am intrigued by the analogy, particularly for its ability to make sense of the fervor of the anti-abortion stance, there are a couple of problems which render it useless.
First, the idea that we haven’t had a debate about the nature of personhood since the nineteenth-century strikes me as untrue. The entire women’s movement has been about the personhood of women, and it isn’t resolved. I think that much anti-abortion energy stems from the belief that women are not full persons because they (we) cannot be trusted to make moral decisions. If there’s an analogy to be made with slavery, it might be better to compare women to slaves because anti-abortionists seem to think that women’s bodies belong to someone or something in a way that men’s bodies never do. It would be even more apt to compare children to slaves because we widely agree that they are somehow the property of their parents. But this is only to underscore one of the hypocrisies of the anti-abortionists: most them don’t seem to give a damn about what happens to children after they are born. If they did, they would devote at least some of their considerable energy on child welfare.
The slavery analogy also strikes me as insufficient because if fetuses are like slaves then pro-choicers are comparable to slaveholders and anti-abortionists are comparable to abolitionists. But as far as I can tell, the abolitionists operated mostly within the law. When they broke the law, say for example the Fugitive Slave Act, they did so without killing anyone. Further, with the lone exception of John Brown, abolitionists did not stage violent attacks against slaveholders, murdering them and bombing their plantations in an effort to force them to free their slaves. As a point of fact, it was the slaveholders who used violence and the threat of violence as a means to terrorize the slaves and maintain their ownership. Pro-slavers even staged a series of murderous attacks in Kansas in their efforts to ensure that Kansas was admitted to the Union as a slave state.
Again, I think it's useful to re-consider the analogy: women are more like slaves than fetuses are. The anti-abortionists are determined to hold women in a kind of bondage. They don't just want to ban late-term abortions, they want to ban all abortion. The more radical among them, the ones who are most prone to violence, want also to ban all forms of contraception. And they won't be satisfied until they get their way.
This brings me to the second analogy, which McArdel makes implicit in her claim that the anti-abortionists have no political recourse and must therefore resort to violence in order to secure their idea of justice. This is exactly in a nutshell the rationale for terrorism everywhere. And I agree: to the extent that the anti-abortionists are are willing to use violence to achieve their will, they are terrorists. Which means that the real question is, how do we deal with terrorists at home and abroad? Do we let them set the parameters of the debate? Can there even be a debate when the opposition is being forced to the table under the threat of violence?
Of course, even that analogy breaks down under scrutiny, if for no other reason than that unlike Blacks under apartheid or Palestineans under Zionism, the anti-abortionists do have political recourse, and they know it. The problem is that political recourse requires compromise, and they have made it very very clear that there can be no compromise.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Good News, Bad News, Good News
1. Sonia Sotomayor
2. The California State Supreme Court (6-1).
3. We're still legally married--in the sort of way that queers in Iowa, Mass, Maine, Vermont, and Conn are married. Sigh.
2. The California State Supreme Court (6-1).
3. We're still legally married--in the sort of way that queers in Iowa, Mass, Maine, Vermont, and Conn are married. Sigh.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Republican Insight
I found some very delectable quotes in a recent Politico.com article which discusses how enthusiastic Republicans feel about taking on President Obama's soon-to-be-announced Supreme Court nominee:
“We are very excited about waging an ideological debate,” says Richard Viguerie, the well-heeled conservative fundraiser and direct-mail guru. “We never lose battles. Even if we lose the vote we win, we build the movement.”
Oh, gee, Richard. You're so right. The Republican Party has never lost a battle. An election or two. The White House. And Congress. Nonetheless, we are all very excited to see just how much momentum the Republican Party has right now. You just keep on keepin’ on, man! Do not deviate one centimeter from your current course.
“Remember,” adds Princeton law professor Robert George, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, “that the base does not expect to win this. That’s the little secret. [Republicans] don’t have the filibuster, the Democrats have the votes. For [the conservative base], this is about the future of the Republican Party, not who is going to sit on the Supreme Court. . . . . That is why conservatives are going to be interested in it, and what they are going to hold people accountable for.”
Uh oh, Bobby, secret’s out. The Republican Party doesn’t care about anything except the Republican Party—which is after all widely recognized as a far more important institution than the Supreme Court.
Republicans, he [Sen. Jon Kyle, R AZ] added, “will distinguish between a liberal judge on one side and one who doesn’t decide cases on the merits and one rather who does on the basis of his or her preconceived ideas."
That makes sense. Everyone knows that Republicans never react to anything or anyone except with the highest degree of intellectual discernment. Indeed, impartial discernment is the first thing I think of when I hear the word “Republican.” And they are remarkable for their refusal to ever decide anything on the basis of preconceived ideas. I myself have never heard of a Republican who even considered waging an ideological battle. Except maybe Richard Viguerie. But what does he know?
“We are very excited about waging an ideological debate,” says Richard Viguerie, the well-heeled conservative fundraiser and direct-mail guru. “We never lose battles. Even if we lose the vote we win, we build the movement.”
Oh, gee, Richard. You're so right. The Republican Party has never lost a battle. An election or two. The White House. And Congress. Nonetheless, we are all very excited to see just how much momentum the Republican Party has right now. You just keep on keepin’ on, man! Do not deviate one centimeter from your current course.
“Remember,” adds Princeton law professor Robert George, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, “that the base does not expect to win this. That’s the little secret. [Republicans] don’t have the filibuster, the Democrats have the votes. For [the conservative base], this is about the future of the Republican Party, not who is going to sit on the Supreme Court. . . . . That is why conservatives are going to be interested in it, and what they are going to hold people accountable for.”
Uh oh, Bobby, secret’s out. The Republican Party doesn’t care about anything except the Republican Party—which is after all widely recognized as a far more important institution than the Supreme Court.
Republicans, he [Sen. Jon Kyle, R AZ] added, “will distinguish between a liberal judge on one side and one who doesn’t decide cases on the merits and one rather who does on the basis of his or her preconceived ideas."
That makes sense. Everyone knows that Republicans never react to anything or anyone except with the highest degree of intellectual discernment. Indeed, impartial discernment is the first thing I think of when I hear the word “Republican.” And they are remarkable for their refusal to ever decide anything on the basis of preconceived ideas. I myself have never heard of a Republican who even considered waging an ideological battle. Except maybe Richard Viguerie. But what does he know?
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Confusion
“When you become speaker of the House, you no longer have the luxury of being dishonest, demagogic and destructive,” Mr. Gingrich said in an interview.
I really really really really don’t get it. Is it the “fact” that she knew about the torture and didn’t report it to Congress that makes the Republicans go ape-shit and demand her ouster? Or is it the “fact” that she’s now claiming not to have known about it?
But if the Republicans are against torture and mad that Pelosi didn’t do anything to stop it, why aren’t they calling for criminal charges against the masterminds?
Or, if they’re simply sick and tired of politicians lying lying lying, why aren’t they denouncing GW, Cheney and the rest of those goons?
I really really really really don’t get it. Is it the “fact” that she knew about the torture and didn’t report it to Congress that makes the Republicans go ape-shit and demand her ouster? Or is it the “fact” that she’s now claiming not to have known about it?
But if the Republicans are against torture and mad that Pelosi didn’t do anything to stop it, why aren’t they calling for criminal charges against the masterminds?
Or, if they’re simply sick and tired of politicians lying lying lying, why aren’t they denouncing GW, Cheney and the rest of those goons?
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Compulsion
I was reading an article at Politico.com that analyzes the factuality of President Obama’s and ex-Vice President Cheney’s dueling speeches on national security. It doesn’t surprise me at all to learn that Cheney played fast and loose with the facts. But I did feel a little disappointed by Obama’s own verbal shape-shifting.
However, that’s not the point of today’s entry. I read the first twenty comments on the story and was extremely taken aback to find the following remarks made by someone calling himself “elbonian”
"The liberals / lefties must be confused by this article. It is riddled with logical thought, clear suppositions and an honest effort to base comments on fact. Worse, this article is void of name calling and demonizing public figures which is the foundation of liberal / lefty thought. Chances are that liberals / lefties will lose interest in this article by the time they get to the second paragraph and begin posting comments that will be based on name calling, demonizing and making up stuff as they go along."
For some reason, that’s more or less how I’d characterize most conservatives! Wondering if perhaps I had overlooked the liberal vitriol, I went back and re-read the first twenty comments.
Of the first nine (all those preceding elbonian’s and thus presumably those s/he was responding to), seven contained nothing I recognized as “name calling, demonizing, [or] making up stuff.” Two contained remarks that I thought were slightly beyond to pale of civilized discourse:
#3 Conbug calls the President “Hussein Obama" and compares him to a “naïve 12 year old boy.” This is actually a very toned down version of comments I have read all over the internet claiming that Obama is really a Muslim and hence an enemy of America. Conbug also writes that “Too [sic] even compare the two as anything of equal stature EXCEPT MAYBE FOR READING A TELEPROMPTER is demeaning to Dick Cheney and or our former President George W. Bush.” Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion! But my opinion is: he’s making up stuff as he goes along.
#9 WWJD writes “VP Cheney has the facts on his side and tells it the way it is. The only thing the obamalama teleprompter had would be just more inept and worn out liberal ramblings.” Again, it’s an opinion and s/he’s entitled to it. But this writer is responding to an article that points out Cheney’s unclear grasp on the facts, so I’m guessing that s/he “los[t] interest in this article by the time s/he got to the second paragraph and began posting comments based on name calling, demonizing and making up stuff." Worse, what WWJD writes is profoundly unfactual: Obama's speeches are never inept, nor does he ramble.
Things really heated up after that with four of the next ten comments engaging in some of the faults elbonian attributes to liberals. Problem is, two of them come from a single conservative (or at any rate, apologist for Cheney). #11 mvpeach10 wrote “you simpering, wimpy little leftists, grow up,” a pretty clear example of name-calling (unless you happen to agree and then I guess it's just stating the facts). And #15 writes that “Obama is seeking more and more adulation. Getting it from 52% of the American population and the media isn't enough for this very narcissistic neophyte. He wants worship from the world.” Where does this idea come from that Obama thinks of himself as the next Messiah? Could it possibly be a projection of how many conservatives felt about GW? Ya think? But I digress.
Two of the negative comments were written by liberals / Obama apologists. #12 edwcorey tells elbonian “You write like a retard. Cheney is a failure at everything except nepotism and cronyism. He's corrupt, a sadist and a liar.” And #16 jpromansic writes about “bush amin and his goons” and calls Cheney a criminal. Some of that is uncalled for (retard, bush amin, goons). Some of it is very strong language, but also, in my opinion, true: nepotism, cronyism, corrupt, sadist, liar, criminal. (Well, not just my opinion. I think there's plenty of evidence to support this point of view.)
The upshot here is that in this small sampling, thirteen out of nineteen respondents avoided any name-calling, demonizing, or story-telling. That's pretty good. Of the six who engaged in rhetorical temper tantrums, conservatives outnumbered liberals four to two. So I have to say that elbonian’s comment instantiates what he accuses liberals of doing (which makes the score five to two) and proves (to me at least) that conservatives / Republicans are compulsively projecting their own foibles onto the liberals.
I wasn’t even going to bother writing this up because there are far better bloggers than I keeping track of this sort of thing. But the story that just broke on Politco about the RNC’s video comparing Nancy Pelosi to “Pussy Galore” shows just how vital this issue is—and how brazenly the conservatives / Republicans engage in name-calling and demonizing.
I’ll let Ann Lewis, former advisor to Hilary Clinton, have the last word:
“It’s an attempt to demean your opponent, rather than debate them. If they’re serious that this is an issue of national security, then you’d think that one would want to debate it on the merits,” she says. “It’s almost as if they can’t help themselves.”
However, that’s not the point of today’s entry. I read the first twenty comments on the story and was extremely taken aback to find the following remarks made by someone calling himself “elbonian”
"The liberals / lefties must be confused by this article. It is riddled with logical thought, clear suppositions and an honest effort to base comments on fact. Worse, this article is void of name calling and demonizing public figures which is the foundation of liberal / lefty thought. Chances are that liberals / lefties will lose interest in this article by the time they get to the second paragraph and begin posting comments that will be based on name calling, demonizing and making up stuff as they go along."
For some reason, that’s more or less how I’d characterize most conservatives! Wondering if perhaps I had overlooked the liberal vitriol, I went back and re-read the first twenty comments.
Of the first nine (all those preceding elbonian’s and thus presumably those s/he was responding to), seven contained nothing I recognized as “name calling, demonizing, [or] making up stuff.” Two contained remarks that I thought were slightly beyond to pale of civilized discourse:
#3 Conbug calls the President “Hussein Obama" and compares him to a “naïve 12 year old boy.” This is actually a very toned down version of comments I have read all over the internet claiming that Obama is really a Muslim and hence an enemy of America. Conbug also writes that “Too [sic] even compare the two as anything of equal stature EXCEPT MAYBE FOR READING A TELEPROMPTER is demeaning to Dick Cheney and or our former President George W. Bush.” Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion! But my opinion is: he’s making up stuff as he goes along.
#9 WWJD writes “VP Cheney has the facts on his side and tells it the way it is. The only thing the obamalama teleprompter had would be just more inept and worn out liberal ramblings.” Again, it’s an opinion and s/he’s entitled to it. But this writer is responding to an article that points out Cheney’s unclear grasp on the facts, so I’m guessing that s/he “los[t] interest in this article by the time s/he got to the second paragraph and began posting comments based on name calling, demonizing and making up stuff." Worse, what WWJD writes is profoundly unfactual: Obama's speeches are never inept, nor does he ramble.
Things really heated up after that with four of the next ten comments engaging in some of the faults elbonian attributes to liberals. Problem is, two of them come from a single conservative (or at any rate, apologist for Cheney). #11 mvpeach10 wrote “you simpering, wimpy little leftists, grow up,” a pretty clear example of name-calling (unless you happen to agree and then I guess it's just stating the facts). And #15 writes that “Obama is seeking more and more adulation. Getting it from 52% of the American population and the media isn't enough for this very narcissistic neophyte. He wants worship from the world.” Where does this idea come from that Obama thinks of himself as the next Messiah? Could it possibly be a projection of how many conservatives felt about GW? Ya think? But I digress.
Two of the negative comments were written by liberals / Obama apologists. #12 edwcorey tells elbonian “You write like a retard. Cheney is a failure at everything except nepotism and cronyism. He's corrupt, a sadist and a liar.” And #16 jpromansic writes about “bush amin and his goons” and calls Cheney a criminal. Some of that is uncalled for (retard, bush amin, goons). Some of it is very strong language, but also, in my opinion, true: nepotism, cronyism, corrupt, sadist, liar, criminal. (Well, not just my opinion. I think there's plenty of evidence to support this point of view.)
The upshot here is that in this small sampling, thirteen out of nineteen respondents avoided any name-calling, demonizing, or story-telling. That's pretty good. Of the six who engaged in rhetorical temper tantrums, conservatives outnumbered liberals four to two. So I have to say that elbonian’s comment instantiates what he accuses liberals of doing (which makes the score five to two) and proves (to me at least) that conservatives / Republicans are compulsively projecting their own foibles onto the liberals.
I wasn’t even going to bother writing this up because there are far better bloggers than I keeping track of this sort of thing. But the story that just broke on Politco about the RNC’s video comparing Nancy Pelosi to “Pussy Galore” shows just how vital this issue is—and how brazenly the conservatives / Republicans engage in name-calling and demonizing.
I’ll let Ann Lewis, former advisor to Hilary Clinton, have the last word:
“It’s an attempt to demean your opponent, rather than debate them. If they’re serious that this is an issue of national security, then you’d think that one would want to debate it on the merits,” she says. “It’s almost as if they can’t help themselves.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)