More from John Roberts

These are some of his thoughts during the Reagan era:

Roberts, working as an assistant to Attorney General William French Smith in 1982, co-wrote a memo to the attorney general advocating codifying the department's conservative policies, saying decisions not to seek busing or hiring quotas, "could be instantly reversed when a new administration took office."

"In certain areas _ busing and quotas, for example _ it makes eminent sense to pursue legislation to guarantee that our policies cannot be easily undone," said Roberts in a March 15, 1982 memo he co-wrote with fellow special assistant Carolyn Kuhl.
Roberts, who faces Senate confirmation hearings starting next week, also seemed to express some displeasure with the federal judiciary in that memo.

"Conservative distaste for the growing influence of courts in society suggests the development of alternatives to litigation which are less dependent on the fiat of unelected jurists," he and Kuhl said in their joint memo.

They noted that Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger and the American Bar Association were calling for exploration of arbitration, and some Christian fundamentalist groups had formed negotiation programs.

"Exploring some of these areas would be fully consistent with a desire to abate the influence of the courts and also to ease the burden on them," they wrote.

We are getting to know our John, better and better, even though slowly.

On This Fall's Wingnut Fashions

I've had a preview of them, and it seems that we are going to be given the old idea that blacks and women aren't as smart as white men where it counts. Charles Murray is coming out with a long article (which I will skewer later on) about how this is indeed what we should all be talking about in the next few months.

The idea, of course, is that whatever exists, the status quo, is fair, just and reasonable. Because thinking people often doubt it, the wingnuts must try to prove it, over and over again, and the proof is based on the idea of group differences in intelligence. Intelligence, that nebulous, multi-dimensional and qualitative concept, is then naturally defined by the answers one gives to a small number of questions during one single day of ones life, and the questions often have to do with things like fishing or baseball scores or whether the respondent can fix the electrical system in the respondent's house etcetera.

Group differences in the answers to such questions, if they exist, are then often interpreted by people who don't understand the concept of a statistical distribution as meaning that ALL members of a specific group (say, white men) can answer these questions better are smarter than ALL members of the other groups, and are therefore entitled to more money, bigger cars and so on. Sadly, even if such group differences exist, they do not mean that any one person is "smarter" than any other person. Specifically, for all the trolls out there, this means that whatever your color or your sex you are most likely still dumb.

Come to think of it, maybe I shouldn't give Murray's article any column space here. It's a totally crappy one, and talking about it may give it excessive meaning. I'll have to think about that one.

Robertson Still In Trouble

One of those heartwarming things! Remember how the radical cleric Pat Robertson said that he wants to see Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, assassinated? Now Chavez has said this in return:

"I announce that my government is going to take legal action in the United States ... to call for the assassination of a head of state is an act of terrorism." Chavez said in a televised speech.

The fiery left-wing critic of Bush's foreign policy who frequently charges the U.S. government is plotting to kill him, called Robertson "crazy" and a "public menace."

He said Venezuela could seek Robertson's extradition under international treaties and take its claim to the United Nations if the Bush administration did not act.

He is a little bit crazy, himself, perhaps. But he's right, too. Robertson's statement does indeed qualify as terrorism. Too bad that the U.S. won't extradite him. Then we would be free of one major wingnut and Robertson could become a martyr for all the remaining ones.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I just finished this book by Douglas Adams. For some reason I assumed that I had read it before, but it was some other book with a similar theme. This is the first time in my life that I have read the book after seeing the movie, and also the first time when I thought that the movie adaptation wasn't too bad. Though I saw the movie on the plane over the Atlantic and that may have made it look more interesting than it really is, of course.

Adams was a funny writer, especially in the way he fails to meet the reader's expectations. Like in this scene where the Earthman, Arthur, is trying to find some tea to drink on the spaceship:

He [Arthur] had found a Nutri-Matic machine which had provided him with a plastic cup filled with a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.

Very nicely done. It would be even funnier if it didn't sound a little like George Bush's ideas in his speeches.

But for an economist this was the best bit in the book: When the spaceship approaches the planet of Magrathea which used to specialize in making luxury planets Ford Prefect and Zaphod Beeblebrox get into an argument whether Magrathea is just a myth or a real planet. Ford says this:

"You're crazy, Zaphod," he was saying, "Magrathea is a myth, a fairy story, it's what parents tell their kids about at night if they want them to grow up to become economists, it's..."

I loved that one, though nobody told me fairy tales about Magrathea.

Katrina

I hope that everyone is safely away from the likely path of this hurricane.

I also hope that the damages will be minor. But should that not be the case, here is a way to help: Red Cross Donations.

And Noah's Wish helps the animals in disaster areas.

Some Good News

This is part of my new attempt to stop seeing the world through dung-colored sunglasses only, to look for the silver lining etcetera. Here is a tiny silver lining for you to enjoy with the still-threatening cloud of terrorism:

Dubai - A prominent London-based militant Islamic scholar has issued a fatwa, or religious edict, banning suicide operations of the kind carried out by followers of the al-Qaeda network.

"To my mind, these operations are closer to suicide than to martyrdom-seeking, and they are taboo and not permissible" for a number of reasons, wrote Syrian-born Abdul Menem Mustafa Halimeh, alias Abu Baseer al-Tartussi, on his website.

The Saudi-owned pan-Arab daily Asharq Al-Awsat, which reported Tartussi's fatwa on Saturday, described him as a top ideologue for Islamist militants and said his edict had provoked angry reactions on Islamist websites, with some accusing him of letting down al-Qaeda followers.

Tartussi, who adheres to the rigorous fundamentalist Salafi school and is the author of several theoretical works, said he was publishing his edict in response to repeated queries over where he stands on suicide attacks.

'These operations are closer to suicide than to maryrdom-seeking'
Among the reasons listed by Tartussi for his stance was that suicide operations "necessarily mean a person killing himself, which violates dozens of (Islamic) religious texts".

They also most often entail "wrongfully killing innocent and sacred souls, be they Muslim or otherwise", he said.

In addition, a "mujahed", or holy warrior, who is prepared to sacrifice his life is "invaluable" and "should not be condemned to death, through a bombing operation, as soon as he sets foot on the arena of jihad... as this heartens the enemies," Tartussi said.

Not how I would have phrased it but then I'm not a prominent radical Islamist thinker, and at least he condemns the killing of innocents. That his statement caused angry reactions is a good thing, too, because it means that the relevant individuals are actually reading what this man says. Every little bit helps. Or at least doesn't hurt.

Campus Alert

This is from General JC Christian, Patriot, who, by the way, scores a perfect ten on the maleness scale of heterosexuality. He is having a competition for all progressives on college campuses. As he says:

The College Republicans have had a lot of success chilling academic debate and raising big money for Republican candidates. I want to stop them. I hope this contest will help us to begin to do that by providing campus progressives with something around which they can organize.

The contest has to do with making signs and the prizes are delectable. For details, go here.

Maybe Later, Honey

The words more women should use, given that the Bush administration just went back on its word to decide on the over-the-counter availability of the so-called morning-after pill. (This is a "high dose regular birth control pill which can reduce the chances of pregnancy by up to 89% percent if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex") The Bush administration now needs another sixty days to ponder over possible health hazards for teenagers, even though it promised a decision by September.

This is what Representative Louise Slaughter has to say about the delay:

I am once again deeply disappointed that FDA has disregarded the recommendation of its expert Advisory Panel and instead has allowed politics to trump science," said Rep. Slaughter. "To further delay acceptance of this application that enjoys broad support in the medical and scientific communities, is completely and wholly unacceptable. The scientific facts irrefutably show that EC is a safe, effective way for women to prevent unintended pregnancies," she continued.

"This decision has seriously hindered the advancement of women's reproductive health. In a callous display of politics, the FDA has once again missed the opportunity to significantly reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions in America," Rep. Slaughter concluded.

NARAL says some similar things.

It is fascinating that the Alan Guttmacher Institute estimated that the morning-after pill accounts for up to 43% of the drop in abortion rates between 1994 and 2000. I thought that the wingnuts wanted abortions to disappear? But not enough to let women have the morning-after pill?

The traditional excuse is that the wingnuts have decided the pill equals abortion. But:

If a woman already is pregnant, the pills have no effect. They prevent ovulation or fertilization of an egg. They also may prevent the egg from implanting into the uterus, the medical definition of pregnancy, although recent research suggests that's not likely.

It is the last possibility, that of preventing implantation, that the wingnuts consider to be abortion. But it's not likely. Ahem. IT'S NOT LIKELY.

Never mind. This is all about punishing women for carefree sex by making it not-so-carefree. Also punishing rape victims who are too scared to go to a hospital or who go to a hospital that doesn't believe in the morning-after pill for rape victims. And this is all about politics, too. Grim, isn't it?

Eighty-Five Years Later...

And all I got was this crummy article about how men, once again, are smarter than women. Eighty-five years ago it was the skull size, today it is the answers to a carefully formed bunch of questions. In another eighty-five years it will be something else to make sure that women are seen as a subspecies of Homo Sapiens, at best.

Not a full human being. But at least women in the United States have been able to vote for eighty-five years! Three cheers and a hurrah. I think. Though the number of women in the U.S. House and Senate amounts to a whopping fifteen percent of the total, less than the much-praised quota for women in the planned Iraq constitution.

Many other countries have considerably more women in their parliaments than the United States manages to scrape together, and partly this is caused by the U.S. two-party system which doesn't reward risk-taking in the choice of candidates. But something else affects the outcome, too. I won't spell all the other reasons out in this celebratory piece, because then it wouldn't be celebratory.

Instead, go read the article I linked to. It's fairly optimistic.

Civil Rights Groups for Roberts!

Indeed, there are some civil rights groups which support the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Like the Center for Equal Opportunity (an organization dedicated to the rights of whites, Christians and men) and several organizations which define civil rights as religious rights.

Even a Bush-nominated member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is firmly backing Roberts! What a surprise. Jennifer Braceras used to be listed as an expert for the Independent Women's Forum, a Scaife-funded right-wing gals' club. She also wrote a fascinating piece about the civil rights of The Passion of the Christ in which she made this comment:

And, as many religious people have already come to realize, public professions of faith are often scoffed at by the liberal elite.

Note the "liberal elite" term. She is really well taught in the right language to use. Here is today's example:

Braceras and others referenced recent opposition to Roberts' nomination voiced by liberal activist organizations such as People for the American Way. Those groups' attacks on Roberts, Braceras said, "are as predictable as the sunrise and as preposterous as the man in the moon."

She dismissed PFAW President Ralph Neas' comment this week that Roberts would try to turn back the clock on civil rights as a boilerplate radical agenda attack that special interest groups would make on any Bush nominee.

"The truth is that, contrary to the cartoon-like portrayals of John Roberts by special interest groups, John Roberts is a fair-minded jurist who will judge each case on its own merits," Braceras said.

Note how everything is slogans? "Man in the moon", "boilerplate radical agenda", "special interest groups". Who is being cartoon-like here?

And how is one supposed to respond to these cartoonish statements? Zap, Pow, #$%%?

Total Disapprove - 58 %

That is the percentage of Americans who disapprove of the way the Bush administration has waged war in Iraq, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll. It is also of interest to note that 45% of those polled expressed strong disapproval. Poor Bush. The chickens are coming home to roost.

A slight majority of the respondents also thought that the U.S. made a mistake in going to Iraq in the first place, and 47% thought that the Iraq war has increased terrorism in the world. The majority (60%) still wants to keep the troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized. Sadly, that may be when the cows come home.

I wonder if George Bush ever hears about these poll results? Probably not. They might anger him too much.
---
Via DailyKos

Time for A Book Review

Now that it's almost too late to take a book to the beach I have finally read one that you might want to take to beach. It's Start Making Sense. Turning the Lessons of Election 2004 Into Winning Progressive Politics, edited by Don Hazen and Lakshmi Chaudhry and published by AlterNet.

The book resembles life by starting with the past, sweeping through the present and leaving you looking into the future. In this case it means beginning with the 2004 presidential elections and the analysis of the wingnuts's success story, and then going on by looking at future progressive strategies on the Iraq war, the culture war and on economic populism. It also has a section on how to get politically active, if you already haven't figured that one out.

I liked quite a few parts of the book, even the ones where I was reading and yelling back at the author, because at least these people are talking about what the progressive movement should do. It is not what the beltway Democrats are doing, clearly, though the book doesn't agree on any one alternative, either. Still, to read what people like George Lakoff, Amy Goodman, Barbara Ehrenreich and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and many others have to say about the progressive movement is useful or at least most entertaining. So many voices! (And most of them arguing with each other, which is both our strength and our weakness.)

Consider this quote from David Morris, about understanding the right wing:

Conservatives view politics as war. In war, one tries to demoralize and destroy the enemy, seize his (sic) territory and gain unconditional surrender. Liberals engage in politics as a contact sport. Rule breakers receive penalties, including being thrown out of the game. And when the game ends, people shake hands and the differences are set aside.

I'd formulate that a little differently, as indicating the idea that liberals accept conservatives as co-citizens whereas conservatives view the liberals as illegal aliens, but the point Morris makes is a good one.

Lakshmi Chaudhry makes an equally interesting and relevant point in the section about the culture wars:

The Democratic Party's strategy of moving to the right on the economy has clearly worked against its own interests. Yet it's not surprising that many of the party leaders have responded to the latest electoral debacle with calls to do the same on social issues. Within weeks of the election, the Senate Democrats had selected pro-life Harry Reid as their leader, even as California Senator Dianne Feinstein blamed San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to legalize gay marriages for the party's defeat. No policy is indispensable in a party that substitutes strategy for vision.

Indeed.

The only real reservations about the book I have are tinfoil ones: it assumes that Kerry lost the election, and that has not been proved to my satisfaction. Or to that of the goddess of statistics, either. But whatever happened happened, and all we can do right now is to plan the future battles. Start Making Sense gives you some ammunition for those.

Buttart

This blog needs more posts about art. I love art! Here is one good site, for your enjoyment.
----
Thanks to Sarah

Some Good News

This is the first post in my new series of "good news", news that strengthen our belief in the innate sanity of Homo Sapiens. Of course, there might be no such innate sanity, but I'm going to pretend the question is settled in a positive way.

These news are heartening:

BOSTON - The American Civil Liberties Union and Jenner & Block LLP applauded the federal government's decision today to suspend the flow of taxpayer dollars funding the Silver Ring Thing, a nationwide ministry that uses abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education as a means to bring "unchurched" students to Jesus Christ.

"We are pleased that the Department of Health and Human Services today recognized that the Silver Ring Thing was blatantly misusing public dollars," said Julie Sternberg, a senior staff Attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "As we have said all along, it is improper for the federal government to underwrite efforts to convert teenagers to a particular faith."

In a letter sent today to Denny Pattyn, founder of the Silver Ring Thing, the Department of Health and Human Services expressed concern that the program "may not have included adequate safeguards to clearly separate in time or location inherently religious activities from the federally-funded activities.... Based on the information received to date, we do not believe that actual use of federal funds for its program adequately complies with Federal grant requirements."

I'd like to add that the silver ring might work for abstinence, but only on the male half of the population, and only if it is not worn on the fingers.

The War of the Mothers

That's how low we have come, that Bush sends another mother to fight Cindy Sheehan:

Borrowing the words of a military mother whose husband and five sons have served in Iraq, President Bush told thousands of soldiers and airmen Wednesday that winning the war was worth the sacrifice of losing lives.

By invoking Tammy Pruett of Pocatello, Idaho, Bush's speech to Idaho National Guard members and Air Force personnel marked the latest effort by the White House to respond to growing antiwar protests being led largely by relatives of fallen troops.

"There are few things in life more difficult than seeing a loved one go off to war," Bush told an audience of more than 9,000 crammed into the Idaho Center in Nampa, a Boise suburb.

"Tammy says this — and I want you to hear this: 'I know that if something happens to one of the boys, they would leave this world doing what they believe, what they think is right for our country. And I guess you couldn't ask for a better way of life than giving it for something that you believe in.'

"America lives in freedom because of families like the Pruetts," Bush said.

Well, the wingnuts have always talked in emotions, not with logic, and so this step is fairly natural for Bush. I'm tired of the microwars that are being waged, like this one, because they give us no new information about the fundamental question: Why did Bush invade Iraq in the first place and how is he going to get us out?

His idea is to imply that getting killed in Iraq serves some high and worthy goal, but the problem is that he can't mention a single one that evidence would support is actually being served. He didn't find weapons of mass destruction, he didn't find any terrorists until he lured them in himself, and he isn't bringing a secular democracy into Iraq or freedom for the sixty percent of the citizens who happen to be women.

He says something on this last question:

Bush, who in recent days praised Iraqi government officials for their work on the constitution, seemed to acknowledge Wednesday that the process was not all positive.

Still, he expressed confidence that the Iraqi talks, like the United States' constitutional struggles two centuries ago, would have a happy ending.

Like the U.S. Founding Fathers, Bush said, "they will come up with a system that respects the traditions of their country and guarantees the rights of all their citizens."

The U.S. Founding Fathers gave no votes to blacks or women, of course. But at least they left a constitution that allowed amending. A theocratic constitution (such as the one in Afghanistan) doesn't allow amending, ever. And really, if Bush had asked before the war how many would volunteer to die for the right of creating another Islamic theocracy, do you think that he would have had many takers?

Robertson Misinterpreted!

The radical cleric Pat Robertson was recently accused of advocating the assassination of Hugo Chavez. Now Robertson says that his comments were misinterpreted, taken out of context:

"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP [Associated Press], but that happens all the time," Robertson said on "The 700 Club" program.

He must speak a very different English from everybody else. This is exactly what he said:

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson on Monday's program. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."

Taken out of what context??? The man is a flaming liar. He is also a compulsive flaming liar. This is not the first outrageous thing that has crawled out of his mouth:

He has suggested in the past that a meteor could strike Florida because of unofficial "Gay Days" at Disney World and that feminism caused women to kill their children, practice witchcraft and become lesbians.

Indeed. Those are the very reasons I became a feminist. And the very reasons why Pat Robertson will not lose his television show for advocating the killing of foreign presidents (which appears to me to a terrorist act, by the way) have a lot to do with his outrageousness and money.

So the politically successful response to Robertson's oral offerings would be a gentle shaking of the head, a quiet aside about "inappropriateness" and a return to politics as usual. Except that the rest of the word is learning all about Robertson, too, and about the fact that he will receive at most a gentle chiding from our powers-that-be. This will hurt the country. Isn't that what anti-American treasonous people do? The ones that Robertson is always attacking?

Weeding Thoughts

I was weeding the front brick path today. It has grasses growing from the interstices between the bricks, and weeding it takes a long time which gives rise to Thoughts.

For example, tiny ants live under the bricks, and when I pull out the weeds that control their entryways they all rush out agitated and run hither and thither and try to bite the humongous sandal-clad foot that stands there. I tried not to step on any of them, and while doing that a Thought came to me like a lightning: this is what a God might be like. Like me trying not to kill the ants that live under my brick path.

Because on other days I have tried to kill them. I was once path-proud and wanted not to have ants running all over it. I considered pouring boiling water over the whole path but stopped because of laziness. Also the cruelty, of course.

A God could feel the same about us. We might have been created, like the tiny ants, for some specific job, but now we have gone wild and have decided to take over the whole path. The God is too busy with other stuff and so we are allowed to be, for the most part, except for the occasional natural catastrophy caused by the God weeding. Then we get all upset and run around in circles and make sacrifices to the God who never notices the sacrifices because they are too tiny and in any case Gods and ants eat different types of foods.

This is not a new thought, but mostly people write about either the loving God that watches us like a hawk or the semi-sadistic God that also watches us like a hawk but for different reasons or the kind of God who is absent-minded and has left us all alone. But perhaps the God is just busy and doing other stuff while half-aware of us under the path.

I don't believe any of this, naturally, and if I did I'd believe in a Goddess. But still. It's interesting in a weird sort of way.

The Goddess of Doom and Gloom

That's me, mostly, and this is not good. I will try to mend my ways in the future by finding and posting more good news. They do happen, but given my morose temperament I just accept them as what's due. They must be celebrated, or at least written down in some detail. My promise and divine vow is to pay more attention to the sunny side of life from now on. Starting with the next post, assuming that nothing truly horrible happens in the meantime.

See the difficulty? I truly was born gloomy, during a winter thunder storm which turned off all the lights in the hospital, and I have been that way ever since. But I will try to be more smiley. Even if it hurts my teeth.

Partly this is because I have added a donate-button to the blog. It doesn't work yet, or at least I think that it doesn't work, so any billionaire readers should wait a few days before sending me diamond-crusted keyboards and stuff. But it's there, staring back at me like some horrible finger with capitalistic boils. As you see I feel very ambivalent about it, but I really want to have broadband for my blog. I'm on dial-up right now.

The other reason for adding the donate-button is that my brother doesn't think my blogging is worth anything because it doesn't make any money, and I want to prove him wrong. What is it about brothers and sisters, anyway?

So that's the news right now.

Tally-Tally-Taliban

It's the new black, the new fashion choice for politicians everywhere. Never mind that we got rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan, they are growing back there, too. And something rather similar is planned for Iraq. Even for the United States, at least by some of our future politicians.

The Los Angeles Times has the story, via Kos, and it is a frightening one for all us pagan liberals:

Nearly every Monday for six months, as many as a dozen congressional aides — many of them aspiring politicians — have gathered over takeout dinners to mine the Bible for ancient wisdom on modern policy debates about tax rates, foreign aid, education, cloning and the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Through seminars taught by conservative college professors and devout members of Congress, the students learn that serving country means first and always serving Christ.

They learn to view every vote as a religious duty, and to consider compromise a sin.

That puts them at the vanguard of a bold effort by evangelical conservatives to mold a new generation of leaders who will answer not to voters, but to God.

"We help them understand God's purpose for society," said Bouma, who coordinates the program, known as the Statesmanship Institute, for the Rev. D. James Kennedy.

Neat. And very much like the urgings in Iraq to base the constitution there on the Islamic Sharia law. But somehow we give the American Talibanites a free pass, somehow we judge their religiousness as harmless, whereas the religiousness of other fanatics is seen as potentially problematic. Yet in this very country there are young politicians like this:

Greene, the deputy press secretary for a Republican congressman from Florida, signed up for the Statesmanship Institute in part because he felt his Christian ethics were under constant assault — from lobbyists offering him free steak dinners, from friends urging him to network over beers.

The seminars proved a revelation. In one, Greene learned that ministers ran many of America's earliest schools. He hadn't thought much about education policy before that class. Now he plans to fight for history lessons on the Founding Fathers' faith, science lessons drawn from the Book of Genesis and public school prayer.
...
Growing up in rural West Virginia, Echard believed passionately in her church's teachings against abortion, but thought little about such issues as economic policy or foreign trade.

The institute gave her a framework for evaluating those topics.

Now the director of the Eagle Forum, a conservative lobbying group founded by Phyllis Schlafly, Echard says Jesus would approve of a call for lower taxes: "God calls on us to be stewards of our [own] money."

She dips into the Bible to explain her opposition to most global treaties, reasoning that Americans have a holy obligation to protect their God-given freedom by avoiding foreign entanglements.

"The Scripture talks of taking every thought and making it captive to Christ, and that's what the Statesmanship Institute helps us do," Echard said.

Echard's beliefs about what the Bible says about taxes are interesting, as there is much in the Bible that could be interpreted as meaning the exact opposite of what she has come up with. Yet only one type of biblical writings gets credit here, and this is the type that supports the Republican agenda.

Fundamentalism is a difficult approach to follow, especially as all the holy books are full of contradictory messages. It wraps a person into a pretzel to try to accommodate them all simultaneously, so why bother trying? It's so much easier to pick just those bits that support one specific view, and that is exactly what all fundamentalists do. Which is insincere and dishonest and slimy, if you are to be a real fundamentalist. Real fundamentalists obey ALL the rules, not just the ones that seem nice.

It is important to reveal the shallowness of America's fundamentalists. It is also important to say aloud that they are really, truly, honestly trying to take over this country, and if we remain politely distant of their campaigns they will succeed. And I, for one, have no desire to live in Gilead.

The Fatwah of Pat Robertson

He has recently advocated assassinating Hugo Chavez:

ROBERTSON: There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

Atrios points out how it is odd for a man of God to advocate assassination, not because the object of the fatwah would be guilty of torture or the violation of human rights or anything of that sort but for the simple crime of sitting on a whole lot of oil that the U.S. wants.

I'd like to point out that now Robertson is mainstream in this country. Now people who we laughed at only a decade ago hold the steering wheels in the media, and what they say is taken seriously and discussed all over the blogosphere. Gah. I'm going out to watch the guy who preaches about the end of the world at the nearby street corner. He'll be the next president of the U.S., probably, and if I can get in at this early stage my career will be made.

Some Innocent Fun?

The kind that John Roberts would find funny, given that he is an erudite guy who talks glibly in legalese. This is from Heretik:






It's not in good taste, of course, but then neither are most of the things Roberts has quipped about women's rights. This is more to the point than any of them, I believe.
---
Props to Jane

Women And the Iraq Constitution

A recent post by Digby on the possible consequences of theocracy in Iraq contains this:

I got an e-mail from someone I respect asking me why I made such a big deal out of women's rights being denied when there are so many other freedoms at stake. It's a legitimate question I suppose, but I think the question answers itself. The fact is that under Saddam, in their everyday lives, one half of the population had more real, tangible freedom than they have now and that they will have under some form of Shar'ia. The sheer numbers of people whose freedom are affected make it the most glaring and tragic symbol of our failed "noble cause."

Iraqi women have enjoyed secular, western-style equality for more than 40 years. Most females have no memory of living any other way. In order to meet an arbitrary deadline for domestic political reasons, we have capitulated to theocrats on the single most important constitutional issue facing the average Iraqi woman --- which means that we have now officially failed more than half of the Iraqis we supposedly came to help. We have "liberated" millions of people from rights they have had all their lives.

That Digby felt a need to justify focusing on the rights of women that would be lost if the Shariah law became constitutionally mandated in Iraq is noteworthy in a sad and murky way. Women's social rights indeed appear unnecessary for the evolution of democracy for many. Including such rights as the right to take a job without a permission from a husband or a father, the right to seek and possibly gain custody of your children in the case of a divorce, the right to seek a divorce in the first place, and the right to be an equal heir with your brothers. Including such rights as the right to travel out of the country without a father's or a husband's permission, the right to become a judge if one is otherwise qualified, the right to study anything your brother may legally study. Including such rights as the right to choose whom you marry and whether you marry at all. Including such rights as having your testimony count equally with that of your brother in a court of law rather than as being worth only one half of his testimony. And so on. Depending on the specific form of Shariah, all or some of these rights for women could be deleted in Iraq, and it is hard to see how women could see such deletions as democratic progress.

The usually unspoken argument of those who find women's social rights unimportant for democracy is that democracy in places like Iraq can take a different form: one limited to men only, because democracy elsewhere, including in the United States, once assigned equal rights to only some people, such as white men. Yet over time these rights were extended to others, including women. In other words, Iraq and other countries such as Afghanistan are viewed as outdated forms of our own country. Medieval, perhaps. But with the passage of time surely these countries will emulate what took place in the West? And if not, well, the men who are making the U.S. decisions right now are unlikely to suffer. And maybe the people "over there" are really different. Maybe they don't want democracy, after all. At least for the women. After all, we let the women vote, too, and look how they voted! Mostly they voted for their religion so they must want to be oppressed.

There it is, all neatly typed up in one paragraph, the true nasty subtext of what is going on with respect to some Americans' thinking about women and the Iraqi constitution. It's pragmatism at its most disgusting, because women and their rights were used as a smokescreen when it suited the Bushboys. But only as long as it suited them. Deep under the skin the Bush administration has a certain type of brotherhood with the Talibanites, and deep under the same skin, I strongly suspect, most of the Bushites are not too upset over the possible creation of another fundamentalist theocracy.

Though they may have some public relations problems with selling the outcome to the American public, especially given the many Americans who have died to bring this outcome about. But I am sure that some suitable scheme will be invented, probably along the lines that democracy has happened, even if it created a nondemocratic state. You know, the majority has spoken in Iraq. Never mind that democracy is a little bit more complicated than unbridled majority rule without any constitutional protection of the weak or without a good judicial system or any of the institutions that democracies rely on.

The second possible story line, that of a gradual progress towards a more equal society, doesn't play terribly well, either. For one thing, why invade a country and kill so many of its inhabitants if we are now willing to wait for a gradual process to take place? We could have left Saddam in power and waited for his death instead. For another thing, how is gradual progress going to change a constitution which denies women equal rights if the constitution will be declared as unmendable? This is what is included in the much lauded Afghanistan constitution. More generally, how can a theocracy ever change any of its basic principles?

It is indeed true that the Iraqis are not, on average, eager feminists. But surely the Bush administration was aware of this and of the dangers of unleashing a fundamentalist government on the women of Iraq before the invasion? Surely someone, somewhere in the administration knew that invading Iraq wouldn't exactly warm the Iraqis towards the values of equality and modernity; values associated with the corrupt West? And didn't this someone, somewhere in the administration also mention, perhaps even aloud, that democracy cannot be forced upon a country from the outside?

What the United States has created in Iraq is a mess of historical proportions. It is also a mess that could easily have been predicted by anyone even superficially informed about the area and its history. That this mess was not prevented tells us more than I really want to learn.

What the Europeans Don't Have

1. The guy who made the quote in the next post below,
and
2. Wonderbread.

I truly missed Wonderbread. I use it to clean lampshades and to make interesting buttons for my coats. I didn't miss the guy in the next post as I didn't know he existed. Too bad, as I could have done with a three-week break from him.

This post is instead of the long and learned one I wrote about why the guy in the next post is truly out of his little mind and probably eats Wonderbread. I figured out that my smart readers already know all the reasons, but that they might not know about the many uses of Wonderbread, other than eating it. But if I was mistaken and you really want a long and learned treatise on women and the Iraq constitution, let me know and I shall oblige.

Now You Know

On Meet the Press, August 21, Reuel Marc Gehrect of the Weekly Standard said this:

In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy.

Knackered

A British term for being so tired that ones eyes hang off the end of long ropes. That's how many progressives and liberals feel these days, I bet. I do, anyway, because so much of my time goes into refuting inane claims that have been refuted many times in the previous decades and centuries. In other words, ladies and gentlemen, we are pedalling backwards, furiously.

Just think of the fact that we are arguing evolution again, that we are seriously demolishing all social welfare nets and that we are slipping and sliding back into a time before the Enlightenment. Now, the Enlightenment wasn't quite as wonderful as it may have been written up as but it sure was an improvement over the Dark Ages. Yet it seems that the wingnuts pine for the darkness of those ages. Not only that, but they wish all of us back there with them. In a Santorum-land, most likely.

What makes me say all this doomsday stuff? Mostly what I read on the net. For example, David Ignatius tells us that the Democrats don't have any consistent alternative to the Republicans' plan of apocalypse now rather than later, and that it is the Democrats who have the problem. Then the New York Times gives us a long article about Intelligent Design and how its proponents are a politically active group of scientists. Rather than scientifically active group of politicians, which would be closer to the truth. You see what I mean? It is us, the sane and the rational, who must defend our positions by digging up all those defenses that have been used successfully in the past. Somehow the fact that we won on the issues has been forgotten. Now all must be fought again, and this makes a goddess tired. Also the jet lag, of course, but that ruins my rant.

The terms, "reality-based", and its opposite, "Wingnuttia", are relevant here. In a reality-based world one tests theories against evidence, and one keeps science separate from religion, because religious concepts can't be tested using the scientific method. In a reality-based world one studies history to learn from it, and one tries not to make the same mistakes over and over again. In Wingnuttia the rules are different, it seems. And now we all live by the Wingnuttia rules, which means eternal vigilance in a more concrete sense than ever before. For example, any minute now gravity will be declared as heresy. And then chocolate will be declared an illegal drug. NO!

Only the Kurds Stand for Secular Democracy Now

Read this lovely quote on what Bush and his boots of freedom marching in Iraq think:

U.S. concessions to Islamists on the role of religion in Iraqi law marked a turn in talks on a constitution, negotiators said on Saturday as they raced to meet a 48-hour deadline under intense U.S. pressure to clinch a deal.

U.S. diplomats, who have insisted the constitution must enshrine ideals of equal rights and democracy, declined comment.

Well, that's the whitewashing done, then. We are going to build another theocracy, to grow more little terrorists with, and it has been worth all the human sacrifices. Don't you agree? If you don't, you are a treasonous anti-American terrorist.

The Kurds are still fighting back on the issue of Islam becoming the main source of legislation in the country. But they are unlikely to win.

Too sad for the women of Iraq who used to have very good legal protections before the invasion. I guess that's why we liberated them and all that.

John Roberts, A Friend Of Women?

Probably not exactly. Roberts's early career shows a distinct tendency towards doubting the wisdom of equal rights for women. For example

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. consistently opposed legal and legislative attempts to strengthen women's rights during his years as a legal adviser in the Reagan White House, disparaging what he called "the purported gender gap" and, at one point, questioning "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."

In internal memos, Roberts urged President Ronald Reagan to refrain from embracing any form of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment pending in Congress; he concluded that some state initiatives to curb workplace discrimination against women relied on legal tools that were "highly objectionable"; and he said that a controversial legal theory then in vogue -- of directing employers to pay women the same as men for jobs of "comparable worth" -- was "staggeringly pernicious" and "anti-capitalist."

Roberts's thoughts on what he called "perceived problems" of gender bias are contained in a vast batch of documents, released yesterday, that provide the clearest, most detailed mosaic so far of his political views on dozens of social and legal issues. Senators have said they plan to mine his past views on such topics, which could come before the high court, when his confirmation hearings begin the day after Labor Day.

Given that Roberts is to take the seat of Sandra O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court, it is interesting to note that

As a lawyer in the Reagan White House, John Roberts scoffed at the notion of elevating Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to chief justice as a way to close a political gender gap, calling it a "crass political consideration."

On another topic, Roberts, who was nominated as a justice by President Bush last month, advised the White House to strike language from a description of a housing bill that referred to the "fundamental right to be free from discrimination." He said that "there of course is no such right."

The comparable worth theory of pay was one used by some states for determining wages and salaries in jobs traditionally held by one gender alone. It tried to address the kinds of problems that arose when a state would pay a nutritionist for children a lot less than someone who fed animals in a zoo, just because the former was more likely to be a woman than the latter and therefore had lower paying alternatives to the state employment. The idea was to list all the tasks that comprised a job and to price each of them independently of the market forces to arrive at final earnings scales. The nutritionist and the zoo employer might end up getting paid roughly the same salaries under such a scheme. This would create more work for the state and also possibly problems in the labor markets (lots of people wanting to be nutritionists, not that many wanting to work as animal feeders in zoos), and hence wasn't always popular even among liberals.

So attacking this particular theory doesn't necessarily mean that Roberts was opposed to women being treated better by the labor markets. Though it may mean just that. It's hard to know. What is fairly obvious from the above quotes is that Roberts was a flippant young lawyer with no understanding of women or their economic concerns. He was also obviously a full-blown conservative.

The important question is what Roberts is like today, as a middle-aged wingnut lawyer. Will he still oppose anything even faintly smelling of gender equality? Does he still think that there is no fundamental right to be free of discrimination? Does he believe that replacing O'Connor with Roberts is not based on "crass political considerations"? Is he a covert agent for the U.S. Branch of International Misogynists United? Remember that we are going to have this guy ruling over decisions for the next thirty years or so. Do we want him deciding on the rights of our granddaughters? Or the lack of such rights?

What are his views on abortion? Roberts refuses to give them. Don't we have a right to know how he would decide on a case that might overturn Roe vs. Wade? That Roe vs. Wade is currently established law is irrelevant for someone in the Supreme Court. Yet that is the answer Roberts has given: that he can't comment on established law.

And what else do we know of Roberts's views on women? Our friendly queen of the wingnuts, Phyllis Schlafly, argues that Roberts must value women more now as he married a feminist. Who is openly pro-life. And George Bush married a librarian, so whom people marry may not tell us very much about their general opinions.

I feel very dissatisfied with all I have learned about Roberts. Like after having an inadequate restaurant meal with a large check at the end. I want more food for thought. Or I want to cancel the check.

Saturday...

I have something on American Street today. More to follow, probably, as well as something here, too.

The nice thing about blogging and not getting paid for it is that I can decide not to write on something important just because I don't feel like writing about it. But it still leaves a guilty conscience. So maybe I should mention that the state of Ohio is going down the Republican drains real fast and that you should read all about it on other blogs, and that we are still killing and dying in Iraq for reasons that were inadequate for all thinking individuals even before the dratted war started, and that the flypaper theory means to lure the terrorists to London instead of New York and it most likely isn't working anyway. And Karl Rove is still a very bad person.

No doubt I will feel like writing about all of this in the near future, once my jet lag is completely dissolved. Hank and Henrietta are finally liking me again, and the garden beckons, too. It looks like a jungle in which King Kong has sat, and needs some stern scissor action and lots of rope. Plus, I have all those chocolate presents from the trip to eat. The ones I intended to give away. It's nice to be a selfish goddess.

On the Cindy Sheehan Question

This is the current big topic in the Wingnuttia, the question of how to silence a mother who lost a son in Bush's crazy wars and who now wants to talk to Bush about it.

The answer is to accuse her of everything under the sun: of selfishness, of arrogance, of dividing the country (!). This answer has worked so well in the past for the wingnuts, and there is no reason to change a recipe if it tastes good.

The nail that sticks up gets hammered down. This used to be a Japanese proverb, I think, but these days it describes the public sphere of the United States real well. So Sheehan is a nail and Michelle Malkin and the other wingnuts wield the hammer.

Friday Cat Blogging

A European


This is Mike. He bites like hell when you pet him too long. The rest of his time he spends eating raw meat, killing waterrats and making weird noises in cat language.

That Such A Thing Could Happen

Someone handed me a Christmas card in Europe, intended to be opened no earlier than the 24th of December, 2005. This so that the person could save the postage on the card.

Thrift can be taken too far, just as all other virtues, and this seems too far for me, especially as the person in question owns five buildings. Or perhaps the thrift is a reason for the five buildings. Anyway, my feelings were hurt by the whole episode. I'm not worth the price of a stamp, it seems. And what if I drop dead before Christmas? Then the whole card will be wasted, and I will feel awful.

Do you know any ordinary people? It often seems to me that I don't.

Men As Unemployable Sperm Donors

A former BBC newsreader, one Michael Buerk, thinks that the balance of power between the genders has veered too far towards women and that this has left men with very little. All men are good for now is sperm production. At least in Britain. This is what Mr. Buerk said:

Buerk cited women in the top jobs in BBC broadcasting as an example, saying "these are the people who decide what we see and hear", and said society needs to admit there is a problem.

"Life is now being lived according to women's rules", he told the Radio Times. "The traits that have traditionally been associated with men - reticence, stoicism, single-mindedness - have been marginalised.

"The result is that men are becoming more like women. Look at the men who are being held up as sporting icons - David Beckham and, God forbid, Tim Henman."

The former Nine O'Clock News presenter said some changes have been for the good, but asked: "What are the men left with?"

"Men gauge themselves in terms of their career, but many of those have disappeared. All they are is sperm donors, and most women aren't going to want an unemployable sperm donor loafing around and making the house look untidy. They are choosing not to have a male in the household."

Funny guy, this Mr. Buerk. An even funnier (and in a different sense of "funny") gal is Ros Taylor who answered Mr. Buerk very well:

Not to bring up a sensitive subject, Michael, but that's bollocks. A European Commission for Equal Opportunities survey in 2002 put the proportion of women in middle management at 30%, and that included females working in "administrative positions". The controller of BBC1 is now Peter Fincham. True, a number of women hold senior jobs in TV. Two of them even edit national dailies. But anyone who imagines that Rebekah Wade has feminised the Sun needs to take a look at Page Three, and a glance at the BBC Four schedule suggests that controller Janice Hadlow is hardly indulging the foibles of female viewers.

How about men's "reticence, stoicism and single-mindedness"? Curiously, the Adam Smith Institute recently suggested that it was just these qualities in women that made them less likely to obtain firsts at Oxford and Cambridge. "The boy sees the big picture, takes risks, and often misses important material," one (male) don explained. "The girl is systematic, does the detailed work, and sometimes misses the central thesis."

Mr Buerk is also worried about falling sperm counts. Let me explain the logic, Michael. Women take the Pill in order to oestrogenise the water supply and ensure we get promoted over testosterone-deficient men at work. That way, we can get pregnant and … oh well, never mind. Put it this way: if this is life under the stiletto, then for God's sake kick us back into the kitchen. We're doing a poor job of running the world for our own benefit.

Instead of trying to exceed the funniness quotient of these quotes I want to look at the seedy underside of Mr. Buerk's thinking. For example, he thinks that a world which is still quite strongly weighted towards favoring his sex is a world that isn't adequately unbalanced in his favor. He also generalizes from a few female bosses whom he seems to have disliked to the whole gender. Or perhaps the direction of his thinking went in the opposite direction: he dislikes women so female bosses must be bad? I don't know, but that's the impression I get.

But it's even more striking how little Mr. Buerk thinks of men. Surprising, really, considering that he is a man himself. He can't see any reason for a woman to have a man around unless he's paying her in some way. In Mr. Buerk's world men indeed would become unemployable sperm donors, because that is how he appears to view them: as either buying the sex or just giving it away for nothing. What a meager and nasty world this is.

It's a relief that my world isn't like that. Men are very fascinating just as they are, and there are many reasons for having one or two in the house, completely independently of their sperm or income levels.

Still, I feel sorry for Mr. Buerk, for the fear he feels and for the way he sees his whole world collapsing. It must be very painful, even though none of it is real. All the same, he should have limited his ideas to the ears of his therapist. That's what I do with all the really funny stuff.
----
Props to Siobhan41 and Hybrid0

I'm Ba-a-ack!

Still jet lagged and that makes me stupid, but I'm back home and quite happy that everything went well. First, my heartfelt thanks to Pseudo-Adrienne who guest blogged so expertly while I was gone. She's one my idols. You can get more of her writings on Alas, A Blog, where you can also read Ampersand and friends.

My European trip wasn't really a vacation but a family visit, which explains the lack of interesting touristy stories. But you might like to hear my most startling observation I made while over there: the large number of young dads proudly spending time with their children. The difference from here is noticeable, as is the difference from my earlier trips. I think that something is changing in Europe, and I'd call it family values.

I have to spend some time getting re-immersed in American politics to post on it in a way which my demanding readers would appreciate, but in the meantime I have some posts on cross-cultural differences and stuff in the oven. Also posts on the dogs: can you imagine that they still haven't forgiven me for my absence? I get a fishy look when I try to stroke them, and then the addressed dog turns and walks away. Probably serves me right, but I really needed some licks myself. Well, I'm the one with the thumbs and the can-opener, so the rebellion won't last too long.

Tips for A Clean Home!

These are courtesy of hmj, but I agree whole-heartedly. Life is too short to stuff a mushroom and probably also too short to peel one. If this is true, who on earth has time for all that vacuuming?

Dirt:
Layers of dirty film on windows and screens provide a helpful filter
against harmful and aging rays from the sun. Call it an SPF factor of 15
and leave it alone

Cobwebs:
Cobwebs artfully draped over lampshades reduce the glare from the bulb,
thereby creating a romantic atmosphere. If your partner points out that
the light fixtures need dusting, simply look confused and exclaim "What?
And spoil the mood?" (Or just throw glitter on them and call them
holiday decorations.)

Pet Hair:
Explain the mound of pet hair brushed up against the doorways by
claiming you are collecting it there to use for stuffing hand-sewn play
animals for underprivileged children. (Also keeps out cold drafts in
winter.)

Guests:
If unexpected company is coming, pile everything unsightly into one room
and close the door. As you show your guests through your tidy home,
rattle the door knob vigorously, fake a growl and say, "I'd love you to
see our den, but Fluffy hates to be disturbed and the shots are SO
expensive."

General Cleaning:
Mix one-quarter cup pine-scented household cleaner with four cups of
water in a spray bottle. Mist the air lightly. Leave dampened rags in
conspicuous location. Develop an exhausted look, throw yourself on the
couch and sigh, "I clean and I clean and I still don't get anywhere."
As a last resort, light the oven, throw a teaspoon of cinnamon in a pie
pan, turn off oven and explain that you have been baking cookies for a
bake sale for a favorite charity and haven't had time to clean . . .
works every time!

Travel News

I am turning my divine nose towards the U.S. and should be back on Wednesday. Until then I won't have access to the blogosphere. Sniff.

Here is a nice dog picture. I missed the Saturday dog blogging but luckily Helga's Kelly is willing and able to pose on a Monday.

Now behave even though I won't be checking on you every minute of the day!

This is Funny!

Advice in the case of terrorist attacks. Sort of. Go here.

Lest We Forget...

Or at least lest I forget, here is a reminder that the Bush administration is still a scandalous one as well as full of scandals. Think Progress reports on the large numbers of administration officials which have connections to the outing of a CIA agent.

And yes, indeed, people here in Europe don't understand why Americans elected Georgie Porgie (if he was elected), and people here in Europe also worry about how to talk to Americans now that these appear to be as fundamentalist as the Taliban rather than second cousins once removed. I'm telling them about the Left Behind -series and warning them of the possibility that the American fundies might see Europe as the domain of the devil. Sigh. There was a time when this would have been a not-so-funny joke.

So.....

Via BitchPhD again, I have discovered that NARAL Pro-Choice America has decided to pull their anti-Roberts ad. And now....are we here in the pro-choice community and movement going to keep bickering amongst ourselves about NARAL's tactics, or are we going to get our shit together, and focus our energy and protest on the threat of a Supreme Court Justice John Roberts?! Especially when it comes to protecting our civil rights and liberties such as privacy and a woman's right to choose--both of which Roberts apparently is not a fan. Priorities, people. Which is worse? NARAL doing something we don't like and us attacking each other about it, and splintering as a movement? Or forgetting all about the threat of Roberts on the bench and him even getting there with relative ease because we were too busy quibbling amongst ourselves (and with NARAL) to actually raise a protest against him? It's Roberts who we should be going after relentlessly, not NARAL. Focus. Yes, Roberts will probably make it to the bench...but that doesn't mean we have to make it easy for him.

NARAL's ad, criticisms, FactCheck.org, and irate pro-choice women bloggers

As some of you may have known and even discussed already throughout the blogosphere, NARAL Pro-Choice America recently put out a new ad exposing Roberts' past legal anti-Roe history. He willing sided with violent anti-choice extremists such as Bray who was a convicted clinic bomber--a domestic terrorist (see Bray v. Alexandria and N.O.W. v. Scheidler for more info). Roberts didn't have to represent Bray or anti-choice extremists (who define "pro-life" as bombing clinics, murdering doctors and clinic staff), and go against the attorney generals' decision at the time, but he did so anyway.

Of course, the ad was met with criticism--from the pro-choice community and movement. Many feared that the ad had "untruths" within it and suggested going to FactCheck.org to do an analysis of the ad. (here's their analysis of the ad) Well NARAL did a fact-check of their own and found this... (via BitchPhD.)

On Monday, NARAL Pro-Choice America released our ad "Speaking Out" concerning John Roberts' record of siding with radical anti-choice groups in a critical Supreme Court case. By now you've likely seen an analysis of that ad from FactCheck.org. We wanted to share with you the attached document showing conclusively that their analysis was completely wrong. The basic fact about this case is incontrovertible: In his role as a top legal strategist for the first Bush Administration, Roberts put the U.S. Government on the side of individuals and organizations that had used violent tactics against women's health clinics -- in a case that was critical to efforts to curtail that violence. [...]

Factcheck.orgs analysis of the television advertisement released by NARAL Pro-Choice America on August 8, 2005 is deeply flawed, and its conclusion that the “ad is false” is unsubstantiated and should be retracted. The analysis, written by Matthew Barge, identified as a recent college graduate(1), is riddled with legal and factual errors and in many instances virtually mirrors the White House’s talking points[...];....The ad is not “false.” John Roberts did indeed file briefs supporting violent fringe groups, with the effect of excusing their actions by helping to remove a crucial legal remedy that had been the most effective tool against them.[...]

Factcheck.org Makes Factual Misstatement About “Clinic Bomber” Statement in Ad: Factcheck.org asserts that ad is false in part because Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic “didn’t deal with bombing at all.” However, NARAL Pro-Choice America’s ad never claimed that it did. What the ad did claim – and what is in fact true – is that John Roberts “sided with violent fringe groups, including a convicted clinic bomber.” Long before Roberts involved himself in the case, Michael Bray, one of the named defendants in the Bray case, was convicted for his role in the bombings of several reproductive health facilities(2). John Roberts did, therefore, side with a convicted clinic bomber. He also sided with a violent fringe group - the violent history of Operation Rescue is well known.

Factcheck.org Falsely Suggests that Roberts Did Not Support Bray Defendants: In a puzzling statement, factcheck.org states that “the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber...” Mr. Barge further states that Roberts merely “made the same arguments as” the defendants. However, there is no question that Roberts sided with convicted bomber Michael Bray and the other defendants, and, in doing so, Roberts supported those defendants....The filing of an amicus brief is a discretionary act, and the office of the Solicitor General enjoys wide latitude in deciding whether to intervene as an amicus in any particular case. If the Solicitor General’s office did not intend to support the Bray defendants, the office could have chosen to intervene on the side of the reproductive health clinics or not to intervene in the case at all.[...]

Factcheck.org Makes Factual Misstatement About Roberts’ Legal Argument: It is worth noting that even factcheck.org’s legal description of the brief Roberts filed in the Bray case is not accurate. Mr. Barge states that Roberts argued that the act at issue in the case “applied only to conspiracies to deprive people of civil rights due to racial discrimination, not gender discrimination.” In fact, that was not Roberts’ position. Roberts actually argued that, regardless of whether gender discrimination was covered by the act at issue in the case, the clinic blockades were not gender discrimination at all. The brief states that the question of whether gender discrimination was actionable under the law was one that there was “no need to answer” in this case(4). The brief further adds that, even if the act at issue was “broad enough to reach gender-based animus, the actions taken by the petitioners are not a form of gender-based discrimination(5).”[...]

Factcheck.org Minimizes Operation Rescue’s Lawlessness: Factcheck.org paints a grossly misleading picture of the nature of Operation Rescue “protestors.” At the time of Bray, reproductive health clinics were under siege by anti-choice extremists. In many cases, state law enforcement was outnumbered, overpowered, and overwhelmed, despite their best efforts. For example, in their amicus brief in Bray, the State Attorneys General of Virginia and New York pleaded to the Supreme Court to make federal civil rights laws and remedies available to reproductive health clinics and other victims of Operation Rescue’s lawlessness. They insisted that “[n]o state, or group of states, is equipped alone to deal with and redress the deprivations of federal rights caused by the nationwide activity of Operation Rescue(7).”[...]

Factcheck.org Is Profoundly Misguided To State That Operation Rescue’s Behavior Is Akin to the Civil Rights Movement: Mr. Barge states that Operation Rescue’s actions “in some ways mirrored the non-violent tactics used earlier by civil-rights activists.” This restatement of anti-choice extremists’ talking points is clearly untrue. As Justice Stevens wrote in Bray, “the demonstrations in the 1960's were motivated by a desire to extend the equal protection of the laws to all classes – not to impose burdens on any disadvantaged class...Justice Stevens also noted that Bray “presents a striking contemporary example of the kind of zealous, politically motivated, lawless conduct that led to the enactment of the Ku Klux Act in 1871 and gave it its name(11).” [...]

(2) Bray was convicted of two counts of conspiracy and one count of possessing unregistered explosive devices. The court sentenced him to 10 years in prison and ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $43,782. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned his conviction on a technicality relating to jury selection. Before he was retried, Bray entered a plea that resulted in him serving 46 months in prison.[...]

(read the rest at BitchPhD to see the resources cited by NARAL as they refuted FC.org and also see Scott Lemieux's post about the NARAL ad)

Forty-six months for bombing clinics--a terrorist gets only forty-six months. Had he'd been a member of Al Qaeda or some other extremist from the Middle East.....well, it doesn't even need to be mentioned, we know what would have happen to him. So FactCheck.org, I will agree, needs some fact-checking of its own. And we here in the pro-choice movement need to stop quibbling over a flawed analysis of serious legal briefings in our nation's highest court. We need to focus on Roberts and his ties to violent anti-choice extremists he willing defended, though he didn't have to. By fracturing ourselves over "what this person said and this person said" gossip over a not-so-credible-after-all source on the net, we are loosing focus of our main objective which is bringing to light and into the eye of the public, Roberts' legal and ideological alliances with violent anti-choice terrorists. He did not have to defend them, but he did anyway. This is what the anti-choicers want--for us to loose our shit over what a not-all-that-credible source on the net wrote-up, so we'll forget about Roberts and what was our goal to begin with. Divide and conquer--it actually works.

Anyway, there was also criticism of NARAL's past endorsements of pro-choice Republican candidates, who vote against choice when they're in office. I will admit, that yes, these are valid criticisms, as one who values a woman's right to choose--her right to be an autonomous human being--cannot always trust nor expect the Republicans once they are in power, to keep their end of the bargain should they say at least during their campaign that they are pro-choice. When more than likely, they will cave-in to the majority vote of their party which usually leads them to be ardently anti-women's-reproductive-rights. So yes, NARAL should stop endorsing pro-choice Republicans until it is proven from the voting and legal records of these "pro-choice Republicans" that they are bona fide pro-choicers who would actually vote against the majority vote of the [anti-choice] Republicans, and are not just bullshitting us to get our vote. NARAL has made errors in their strategy and hopefully they will do all within their power to fix them. If not, then yes, we should voice our criticisms of their tactics to them.

And now what you all have been waiting for--the dismissive, obviously sexist quips from so called "A-list" male bloggers such as the DailyKos, whom I have dubbed to be Frat-Boy-Lefty-Bloggers. There, I said it. Predictably they have been dismissing pro-choicers, women, and--duh--feminist bloggers who object to their "shut-up and listen here girlies, we can't deal with your girly pet causes right now, the big men are trying to deal with important shit right now" line of rhetoric and approach to the whole Roberts issue and the Democrat Party's platform. In this post over at the DailyKos, they attack NARAL's call to "A-list" left-leaning blogs to speak up about pro-choice issues and join the fight against Roberts. Because you know, that's what we're supposed to do since we're progressive and all that (or at least we say we are). But apparently, not so, in the "A-list" male corner of the progressive, lefty-blogosphere. Standing against a man who voluntarily represented anti-choice terrorists--because his anti-choice ideological sentiments are that strong and would compel him to do so--"aren't important enough." Instead, it's all about their Machiavellian strategy to get back at the Republicans, while disparaging and shooting-down their fellow pro-choice, liberal women, and feminist bloggers in general in the process. Hence why it is Machiavellian--"the ends justify the means"....they wish. Apparently, for so called "A-list" lefty male bloggers, telling pro-choicers--especially feminist women bloggers--to shut-up and let the big boys take care of everything, will make everything "a-okay" in the end. Rolling over on Roberts' confirmation, glossing over his past legal history and his strong ideological sentiments that would voluntarily drive him to defend anti-choice terrorists, and buying into the Rightwing's b.s. that he is a "moderate" will make everything "okay" for us in the end. [raises hand] Um, bullshit?! I'm just sayin'.

Here's Feministing's response to this.....

KosÂ’ post revealed a lot more than his feelings on NARAL; it made clear how he feels about womenÂ’s rights in general.

You know, nothing says they have to endorse an anti-abortion Democrat, but clearly they don't understand that good politics -- turning the Senate Democratic is far more beneficial for their issue (women rights) than anything the Republicans can muster.
Until NARAL (and the rest of the single-issue groups) understand that building a movement is more beneficial to their causes than singular devotion to their pet causes, I can't take them seriously.

Kos goes on to say that the groups he does take seriously are those “working to build an effective progressive movement, not a single issue.”

ItÂ’s bad enough to peg choice as a mere single issue, but womenÂ’s rights as a whole? Maybe itÂ’s just me, but I donÂ’t see how a progressive movement will be effective without addressing womenÂ’s rights.

But this kind of dismissive attitude isnÂ’t exactly new. It reeks of the New LeftÂ’s sexism that in part sparked the second wave.

Susan Brownmiller in In Our Time tells of a pivotal moment in the beginning of the womenÂ’s movement that occurred in the 1968 National Convention for New Politics. Jo Freeman and Shulamith Firestone had drafted a resolution on women, which was to be met with an all-too familiar pooh-poohing:

Back at the main session, Jo ran down the aisles handing out copies of the resolution while Shulie charged to the podium. “Cool down, little girl,” the session chairman told her. “We have more important things to talk about than women’s problems.”

Brownmiller also discusses the reaction of her male counterparts after women marched in an anti-war demonstration with a float dedicated to womenÂ’s rights:

The peace activists were appalled...Stopping the Vietnam War was the priority was still the chief priority, wasnÂ’t it? [This] action, they howled, was petty, disloyal, divisive.

Sound familiar?

Yes. But then again, what's the fight for preserving women's rights without some bashing from so called "liberal" and "progressive" male bloggers? (also see this other Feministing post, dealing with the same issue with Kos's response to NARAL and pro-choice, women bloggers). This fight against Roberts and unfortunately ourselves will be nasty, vicious, yet passionate as this fight deals with our--women's--fundamental right to control our body, and demand that our leaders, the Democrats--the people we voted for who are supposed to promote and ensure our rights and liberties--do their damn job to protect us from people such as Roberts and his ilk.

And remember, stop relying and hoping that the Frat-Boy-Lefty male bloggers will take our rights seriously, gals. It's up to us, not them. Let them play their little game of getting back at the Republicans via petty and shameless means in order to do so, by screwing over and shitting all over their fellow lefty-bloggers (just like the Democrats screwing over their voting-base) in the process, and we'll take care of business. Focus on Roberts and bringing a woman's right to choose and women's rights back to the forefront of this struggle. This is about our rights. But then again, I'm just a college-sophomore and some hysterical pro-choice feminist blogger--what do I know about politics? I'm probably just as bad (or worse than) as that recent college-grad over at FactCheck.org, so I have no room to talk. But I don't work on a site called FactCheck.org either and claim that I never make mistakes--I make mistakes all the time.

Lastly from Culture Kitchen, I leave you with this....

(1) People on your side are attacking this ad. What do you say about that?

(2) Is this the battle to invest in?

This is the swing vote. This is what shifts the court to the right. We could lose Rowe with this vote. This one is important.

"It is factual and it is tough".

There are consequences to the decision in Bray, that's why they are attacking Robets. A rash of violence has come about after Bray.

Roberts sided with the extremists and took away the tools law enforcement had to prevent these attacks to happen.

This is Sandra Day O'Connor'sseat and that is why this court appointment is about choice.

The fact of these organizations have our issues that we have to keep on the table. My job is to argue for women and their right to choose. The criticism is because we have affiliates over the states. You have to talk to the people on the ground and you have to take your criticism to them. We deal with candidates on the national level. Not an excuse just merely a reality. This is the deal it is us and it is them.

Vicky Suporter, President of the National Abortion Federation
procho

Alice Cohen, Political Director of the feminist majority

Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL

This is coming from top male bloggers.
Do not rely on frat boys.
Markos says it is a women's issue organization.

This guy defended terrorist.
The majority of Americans support choice.
Anti-abortion is not the same as anti-choice.

This is not just about Roberts, this is about bringing choice back on the table on the political landscape.

A good strategy would be to push for state rights campaigns.

If we work from the POV that Roberts will get the nomination, what do we want?

IRONCLAD PARTY DISCIPLINE! Vote against him, make sure you express clearly how it is imperative to uphold the constitutional right to privacy as the foundation of choice, not just in relation to reproductive rights, but in relations to choose how we live, love, procreate and even die.

It was fun, gals ;-)

What Do Men Want?

I've been reading women's magazines, again. They are interesting. Like messages from another reality. This time I read a long piece on what men want from women, with interviews of ten such men. Three of them wanted women to subjugate themselves to them, the rest wanted stuff like honesty and friendliness and so on.

What struck me about the whole piece was how preposterous it is to ask a question like this: What do men want from women?, when the answers are about what a particular man wants from a particular woman; the one he is paired with. The majority of this planet's people are women, and most of them are of no particular interest to any one man. Why, then, do we frame the question in such a generalizing and even sexist manner? The same applies to the stories which ask what women want from men. Though I don't ever remember reading the answers to this one. Funny, given that this particular article about men's desires began by stating that we all know what women want from men.

I have no idea what that might be, though I know that I want my physician (who happens to be a man) to apply medicine correctly, and I want the plumber to fix the sink and so on. Adulation is always welcome, naturally, but then that is what goddesses are meant for.

In any case, stories about what men want from women must sell women's magazines, as the one I read wasn't the only one I came across. But why would such stories sell? Is it just curiosity about other people? Or are the readers looking for some miracle formula, something that would make any relationship with the other sex perfect?

If so, they will be disappointed. Reality is complex and there are no guarantees.

Well maybe the Democrats should stop screwing-over women and pro-choice activists

The Democrats have been a damn shame to us as of late--not that you haven't noticed. And so have so called "A-list" predominately [frat-boyish] male-run liberal blogs such as the DailyKos (remember the sexist pie-wrestling episode with them?). Though these liberal blogs criticize the Dems for being the cop-outs that they have been recently, these liberal blogs have been acting like the Democrats in their own way without even knowing it. Case in point; the Democrats screwing over reproductive rights advocate groups and pro-choice voters. These liberal blogs, like the Democrats, have been treating women's reproductive rights like an easily discarded non-issue--and just flat out treating the women who vote for them or run as their candidates like easily ignored and brushed-off "pests". Sure, we hear all kinds of talk of Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton being nominated in 2008, but do you think with the way the Democrats have been acting recently, trying desperately to woo ultra-conservative voters while screwing their original voting-base in the process, that they would really back her in 2008? For the Democrats it's all about mimicking the neocon-Republicans--to hell with their voting base, right? Now back to the liberal blogs who keep telling pro-choicers (female and male), feminists, or specifically women in general that abortion "gets in the way" and "women just need to compromise abortion-rights for the greater-good of the Democrats winning again," along with telling pro-choicers to "stop declaring war on left-leaning blogs,"well Feministing has this in response to them...

DailyKos has taken issue with this post on BushvChoice, which called on pro-choicers to make their presence known in the comments threads of the major liberal blogs.

As Kos seemed to read it, the post was declaring war on lefty bloggers and, by proxy, the Democratic party. Not so. It was simply calling on pro-choicers to speak up.

Why is it so hard for the heavyweights of the liberal blogosphere to understand that, for many of us, choice is not something that "gets in the way" of more important Democratic party platform issues. It is the number one issue.

Sure, the Democrats are better than the Republicans on choice. But when Howard Dean is snuggled up with Democrats for Life and the party backs an anti-choice minority leader, forgive me if I'm not swooning in adoration.

I definitely don't think that NARAL should not be endorsing pro-choice Republicans who are running against pro-choice Democrats. Their strategy should also be focused on holding pro-choice Republicans (and Democrats) to their word. If Lincoln Chafee votes the wrong way, NARAL needs to pull their support. And be vocal about it.

But the underlying problem here is not NARAL endorsing pro-choice Republicans. The problem is the Democratic party's creep toward the center on reproductive rights. If Democrats want the support of the pro-choice movement, they have to earn it.

That forming a whole new party idea is really starting to look good right about now, with all of this disillusionment with the current Democrats. And we pro-choice and feminist bloggers have our own outlets in the blogosphere should the so called heavyweight liberal blogs keep failing us. Besides, I never expected frat-boyish "lefty" bloggers to take women's reproductive rights--or women's rights, period--seriously anyway. [/rant]

Simon Baron-Cohen

has written an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times. Baron-Cohen is one of those borderline weirdos in science, the ones who use various evolutionary psychology theories to explain why men are on top and why women are subjugated. I even bought his book The Essential Difference: The Truth About the Male and Female Brain.

It is a very bad book, by the way. I have a wonderfully scathing review of it on the Amazon if they haven't taken it off yet, but sadly I can't access my notes from where I am now. But in any case the book is pure crap. It has two long chapters about Mr. Baron-Cohen's fairy tales on the prehistoric era when women were housewives and men read maps to find out where the dinosaurs were hiding. Or something not much different from that one.

Baron-Cohen's main idea is that there is an extreme male brain, all about logic and systematizing, and an extreme female brain, all about emotions. He believes that autistic children have the extreme male brain, and he is sure that we will one day find the extreme female brain, and when we do, we will also find that it is favored over the extreme male brain. So you see what Mr. Baron-Cohen aims at and how unbiased his research is.

He gets into a bit of a muddle because men refuse to have the male brain enough and women refuse to have the female brain enough, so he has to rig things a little to improve the outcomes. This is evident from the appendix to the book which contains a test you, the reader, can take, to determine how innately systematizing and male your brain is or how innately emphatizing and female it might be. Now, I scored very male on this test, because I knew what the researcher was aiming at.

To give you an idea of how the results can be rigged, consider these questions included in the test bank:
Do you know how to fix electrical problems in your house?
When you see a piece of furniture, are you interested in how it is made?
Do you like collecting rare coins or stamps?

All of these questions are intended to measure innate maleness! Too bad that the first question has an answer which changed for me a few years ago when I learned how to fix electricity. I guess I grew more male. Too bad that the second question might have quite a different answer if it was about a dress and the details of its construction, and too bad that collecting Barbie dolls or teapots was not used for the third question. In sum, all these questions are rigged to go with the societal gender expectations, and many other questions had similar problems.

Mr. Baron-Cohen is not interesting, and his science is poorly done. That he gets so much exposure for something so weak is somewhat interesting, or would be if I didn't already know the exact reason for the publicity.

Still in Europe

I'm still on vacation. Until the eighteenth, that is. And I'm still on the other side of the pond. Hence the scarcity of posts. I'm not even following politics very much right now, although politics are everywhere, of course, and can't really be avoided. But I'm pretending that I'm an apolitical Canadian goddess only interested in museums and cappuccino bars and good bargains in touristy crap.

The time is not wasted. I have found new types of chocolate (the bliss!) and new germs of ideas for this blog. Or maybe seeds would be a better word than germs; germs sound too unhygienic. Whatever they are, I'm bringing them home with me, together with the chocolate and the china and the metal shelf for my microwave and the clothing and the jewelry and...

It's All the Fault of Boston

At least according to Ricky Dick Santorum. He has decided that the pederasty scandal in the Catholic church has something to do with baked beans and cod and the Hub of the World. Well, I don't think Ricky Dick is ever right about anything, but it's certainly true that there is a pederasty scandal in the Catholic church. If you are interested in following it in more detail, check out Bobo's World.