Guns Don't Kill People, Anti-Choice Crazies Kill People

It's taken me most of today to figure out what to say about the cold-blooded murder of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, gunned down in front of his family while he served as an usher in church.  The temptation is to immediately go off on a rant and blame religion for all of society's ills, but after reading Southern Beale's post I reconsidered and realized that was wrong.  Of course you can't blame Christianity for what happened, Dr. Tiller was himself a Christian and an active churchgoer.  You can't blame all Christians for Operation Rescue and the other nutjobs any more than you can blame all Muslims for al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

But I absolutely do equate the two.  What happened in Wichita today was, without any question, an act of terrorism.

What is an act of terrorism?  It's the work of cowards, those who resort to violence because they cannot achieve their aims through the democratic process.  It's designed not only kill or otherwise permanently silence the terrorists' direct enemies, but also to instill fear in the population at large.  Even if the majority of the population may support abortion rights in one form or another, acts like this are designed to ensure that the majority does not stick their necks out over this issue.  Best not to "rock the boat" or something.

It would be nice if we could think of this as just an isolated instance.  But by and large we only hear about the biggest acts of anti-choice terrorism in the news, acts such as the murder of Dr. Tillman or the Eric Rudolph bombings.  But according to the National Abortion Federation, since 1977, there have been seven murders, 17 attempted murders, 41 bombings, 175 arsons, 96 attempted bombings or arsons, 390 invasions, 1400 cases of vandalism, 1993 cases of trespassing, 100 butyric acid attacks, 659 anthrax threats, 179 cases of assault and battery, 406 death threats, four kidnappings, 151 burglaries, and 525 cases of stalking specifically directed at clinics, their workers, or their volunteers in the US and Canada--over 6,100 individual acts of terrorism.  And those are just the incidents that were reported, the actual number is probably much higher.

These are not acts happening in isolation, we just hear about it so infrequently that it gives rise to that impression.  Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, Jim Adkisson, and now Scott Roeder did not happen in isolation.  These are acts fueled by the rhetoric of groups like Operation Rescue (whose founder, Randall Terry, is today more concerned about covering his own ass than the fact that a man died, reminding everyone that he is simply a "mass murderer"), by the Bill O'Reillys and Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs, by the Republican politicians who rely on these people to get out the vote every two years.  

If you constantly refer to someone as a "mass murderer" or a "baby-killer," then why is it so illogical to think that eventually, someone will come to the conclusion that the mass-murderer must be stopped, somehow?  You don't get to ask "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" and then act surprised when someone does, in fact, rid you of the troublesome priest (but bear in mind, Henry II did take responsibility for the fact that his words had led to Thomas Becket's murder, something the people in the "party of personal responsibility" will certainly never do).

And I certainly see some symbolism in the fact that Dr. Tiller was murdered not at his clinic or at his home, but at his church.  These terrorists want to send a message not just to abortion providers or to liberals, but to the churches and clergy who don't fall in line behind the terrorists' extreme views.  Either they'll fall in line, or they'll share the same fate.

It's not surprising that they're going about it in that way.  It's another way in which these terrorists are the exact mirror images of their Muslim counterparts.  When the jihadists gained control in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, and now in parts of Pakistan, one of the first things they did is shut down and silence moderate clerics.  This was to ensure that there was only one voice dictating how Muslims should act, and that there were no dissenting voices.  That is what these terrorists aim to do with Christianity.  Jews aren't immune from it either--just because there hasn't been any more high-profile assassinations in the 14 years since the murder of Yitzhak Rabin doesn't mean that the extremists who encouraged Yigal Amir have gone away altogether.

I see that the Justice Department has already arranged the dispatch of U.S. Marshals to protect abortion providers.  It's a good first step, and the first person to get protection should be Dr. Warren Hern in Boulder, Colorado, who may very well be the last late-term abortion provider in the country, and who will almost certainly be the next target for the terrorists.  President Obama and Eric Holder are certainly doing the right thing, but this won't be solved until everyone, including the so-called "pro-lifers," can acknowledge it for what it is--terrorism.

A Thought On Guns In Restaurants

If it's true that "Guns are just tools.  Only in the hands of tools are they not," then I propose that out of fairness, we allow the waiters and waitresses in these restaurants to go armed as well.  Because a) they won't be drinking on the job anyway, and b) it could serve as a friendly reminder to everyone that waiters rely on tips, so tipping less than 15% is really not a nice thing to do. 

News Of Earth-Shattering Importance

Is it that the Korean Peninsula about to be dragged into a new, devastating war? Is it that major health-care reform legislation is about to pass? Is it that peace has been achieved in the Middle East and that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been democratically voted out of office? Is it that we've solved global warming and found a cure for AIDS? Is it that the Tennessee General Assembly has found something to work on that doesn't have anything to do with guns or fetuses?

************************

No. The earth-shattering news is that Archie is going to propose to Veronica:

So in the end, Archie went with rich, glamorous, but spoiled and whiny Veronica rather than sweet, smart, "guy's girl" Betty. Given the choice between the girl with money and the girl who ultimately makes him happy, he went with the sugar-mama. I suppose you do what you have to in this economy!

First, as someone who read Archie Comics for years and still flips through them at the grocery store checkout line every now and then, I can guarantee that this is going to be one big joke designed to drum up some hype. It's apparently going to be a six-issue storyline describing how Archie and friends grow up, go to college, get jobs, and get married, but we all know that at the end of the sixth comic, everyone will wake up and realize it was all just a dream. How could it be otherwise? The series' entire premise rests on the "eternal love triangle" and upon the characters being seventeen forever.

(Or maybe it'll involve a "Lost"-esque flash-forward, where Archie does marry Veronica but discovers at the end of the sixth comic that he has to go back to the island to rescue Jughead!)

On a related note, the older I get, the more I realize that the entire "love triangle" storyline was a big crock anyway. It was always claimed that Archie loved both Betty and Veronica and simply couldn't choose. But really, why should he choose? He's got a great situation for himself--two girls who love him, who each have pros and cons but who ultimately complement each other, who may complain about the situation but don't do anything about it, and who are, by all accounts, best friends in spite of everything. Of course Archie isn't going to choose between the two, he gets to be a player without even really trying! And as annoyed as Jughead and Reggie may both be about it, they're ultimately not going to stop "their boy" from doing what he does. Bros before hos and all.

Really, if neither Betty nor Veronica have figured out after 65 years that they're both being played like idiots, then maybe it's a match made in Heaven after all. It's like a less compelling version of "Big Love."

I will probably read these comics when they come out. I am curious what caused Archie to ultimately pick Veronica over Betty, when it was always clear that he and Betty were more compatible. My theory has always been that Veronica seemed like she'd be more "adventurous" in ways that innocent Betty wasn't, if you know what I mean.

Feel Good Friday--TGIF Edition

I'm not a country music fan, but this song expresses a sentiment I believe is universal:

Concern-Trolling On Sotomayor And Abortion

The headline in today's New York Times:

Abortion rights backers uneasy on Sotomayor

And they came to that conclusion because NARAL sent out an email saying:

“Discussion about Roe v. Wade will — and must — be part of this nomination process,” Ms. Keenan wrote. “As you know, choice hangs in the balance on the Supreme Court as the last two major choice-related cases were decided by a 5-to-4 margin.”

Yes, because NARAL wanting to ensure that hearing Justice Sotomayor's views on privacy as part of the nomination process rather than just assuming that she must be pro-choice simply because she was nominated by a pro-choice must OBVIOUSLY mean that NARAL believes that she's a stealth abortion-clinic protester who parades around with pictures of bloody fetuses. They are just so "uneasy" about her, because otherwise they wouldn't insist on even bringing the subject up in the first place!

So, just for kicks, let's take a look at the cases Sotomayor has ruled on that might be making pro-choice advocates "uneasy":

In a 2002 case, she wrote an opinion upholding the Bush administration policy of withholding aid from international groups that provide or promote abortion services overseas.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position,” she wrote, “and can do so with public funds.”

Please note that the next sentence is not "And that is the correct decision." If that's how the Supreme Court ruled, then as a justice on the Court of Appeals, she was bound to uphold the mandatory precedent, whether she agrees or not.

In a 2004 case, she largely sided with some anti-abortion protesters who wanted to sue some police officers for allegedly violating their constitutional rights by using excessive force to break up demonstrations at an abortion clinic. Judge Sotomayor said the protesters deserved a day in court.

First, READ THE DAMN CASE!! Nowhere does Sotomayor say that she doesn't believe the protesters violated the law or that the police were acting excessively. The Court only concludes that there is a genuine issue of fact regarding the brutality and for that, the plaintiffs deserved to have it heard in the District Court. There's nothing at all controversial about a holding like that.

Just as a broader point, I absolutely believe that anti-abortion protesters do not have the right to block clinics or block patients' access to them. Certainly, if the protesters were breaking the law (and it appears they were so here), they should be punished accordingly. It's undisputed in this case that some force on the part of the police was necessary to bring them out. HOWEVER, it is critical to the First Amendment that nonviolent protesters be protected from excessive police force. That applies to any protest, whether anti-abortion or anti-war.

In a 2007 case, she strongly criticized colleagues on the court who said that only women, and not their husbands, could seek asylum based on China’s abortion policy. “The termination of a wanted pregnancy under a coercive population control program can only be devastating to any couple, akin, no doubt, to the killing of a child,” she wrote, also taking note of “the unique biological nature of pregnancy and special reverence every civilization has accorded to child-rearing and parenthood in marriage.”

And in a 2008 case, she wrote an opinion vacating a deportation order for a woman who had worked in an abortion clinic in China. Although Judge Sotomayor’s decision turned on a technicality, her opinion described in detail the woman’s account of how she would be persecuted in China because she had once permitted the escape of a
woman who was seven months pregnant and scheduled for a forced abortion. In China, to allow such an escape was a crime, the woman said.

I'm sorry, just how is this controversial? Does anyone support forced abortions or believe that it's not a reason to grant asylum to immigrants (note that I'm not asking you, Lou Dobbs)? BUELLER?

Is it really so hard to read the cases before coming to the conclusion that because Sotomayor held "x", she must obviously believe "y"?

Did Newt Gingrich Twitter From Auschwitz?

There's no words except--What.  A.  Jackass.  Look at the two tweets at the bottom first, then at the top.

(H/t)

So the bottom tweet indicates that he actually Twittered while going through Auschwitz.  He walked through a place where at least a million people were brutally murdered, and whipped out the friggin' Blackberry?  Instead of taking it all in and reflecting on what you've seen, you just Twitter it?

To get an idea of how this goes beyond the realm of offensive to outright inhuman, just imagine how you might react upon seeing a foreign leader whipping out the Blackberry while paying a visit to Arlington National Cemetery, and you might come close to the magnitude of what this was.

But what's impressive is how he's apparently able to so compartmentalize what he "felt" about the experience that he could immediately turn around and scream "racism!" and play politics barely a day after seeing the end result of real racism.  You see, when I visited Auschwitz when I was 16, I couldn't even think about anything else for at least a few more days.  But not so with Newt, he got over it and went straight on his merry way. 

I heard that at the AIPAC conference earlier this month that Newt got a standing ovation.  I hope some of those in attendance would be at least willing to consider the idea that it's all politics and pandering to Newt and his cohorts, and that any real concern for Jews or Israel takes a backseat to their agenda.

Empathy

One drumbeat we've heard non-stop from the Right since the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the SCOTUS is that looking for "empathy" in a judicial nominee is a bad thing.

Definition of "empathy," from Merriam-Webster:

the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also the capacity for this

It'd be best not to understand the situation from all points of view.  It's too touchy-feely for the highest court in the nation.  It's better to have conservative judges who aren't so mushy like, for example, Samuel Alito.

Oh, wait...

And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

And that's why I went into that in my opening statement.Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.

That was Alito's opening statement in his nomination hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I'm sorry, but if Alito didn't express the very definition of empathy, then what in the hell was he saying?

A Pyrrhic Victory On Prop 8?

The other big story today besides the Sotomayor nomination is that the California Supreme Court voted to uphold Proposition 8 defining marriage as between one man and one woman, while upholding as valid the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in California last year before the passage of Prop 8.

Naturally, the opponents of marriage equality are claiming victory. But a closer reading of the opinion indicates that it may in fact be a Pyrrhic victory.

From pages 36-37 of the opinion:

Applying similar reasoning in the present context, we properly must view the adoption of Proposition 8 as carving out an exception to the preexisting scope of the privacy and due process clauses of the California Constitution as interpreted by the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757. The scope of the exception created by Proposition 8, however, necessarily is determined and limited by the specific language and scope of the new constitutional provision added by the ballot measure. Here the new constitutional provision (art. I, § 7.5) provides in full: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." By ts terms, the new provision refers only to "marriage" and does not address the right to establish an officially recognized family relationship, which may bear a name or designation other than "marriage." Accordingly, although the wording of the new constitutional provision reasonably is understood as limiting use of the designation of "marriage" under California *37 law to opposite-sex couples, and thereby modifying the decision in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, insofar as the majority opinion in that case holds that limiting the designation of "marriage" to the relationship entered into by opposite-sex couples constitutes an impermissible impingement upon the state constitutional rights of privacy and due process, the language of article I, section 7.5, on its face, does not purport to alter or affect the more general holding in the Marriage Cases that same-sex couples, as well as opposite-sex couples, enjoy the constitutional right, under the privacy and due process clauses of the California Constitution, to establish an officially recognized family relationship. Because, as a general matter, the repeal of constitutional provisions by implication is disfavored (see, e.g., In re Thiery S. (1979) 19 Cal.3d 727, 744; Warne v. Harkness (1963) 60 Cal.2d 579, 587-588), Proposition 8 reasonably must be interpreted in a limited fashion as eliminating only the right of same-sex couples to equal access to the designation of marriage, and as not otherwise affecting the constitutional right of those couples to establish an officially recognized family relationship.

So not only did the court uphold the 18,000 marriages, they also held that Proposition 8 does not affect the right of same-sex couples to enter into an officially recognized family relationship, thus reaffirming the Marriage Cases from last year. California had a domestic-partnership law up until last year, which was ruled unconstitutional by the Marriage Cases referenced in the opinion. The legal status of that rule is obviously in limbo now, but since the Court upheld their decision I'm guessing the law as is will still be overturned. Therefore, if I'm reading this right, Prop 8 was upheld with one hell of a loophole--the legislature could still pass a civil union or domestic partnership law, with all the same benefits and regulations as apply to marriage, but just not call it "marriage."

Personally, I believe the most fair solution would be to have the government get out of "marriage" completely--perform civil unions for all couples, gay or straight, and leave "marriage" as a religious institution. But even if the California legislature just passed a new civil unions regulation, it appears that would be valid under this decision.

I know it's a cold comfort to those in California who resent that people who don't even know them can dictate how they should live their lives. Believe me, I understand that coming from Tennessee. And I do hope that they will be able to repeal Prop 8 at the ballot in 2010. But in the meantime, it is a small comfort to know that those who oppose equality may have won this battle (barely) but are ultimately on the wrong side of this war.

Will Lamar! Alexander Stand By His Own Words?

Upon the news that President Obama will nominate Second Circuit Court of Appeals Justice Sonia Sotomayor (who is known for, among other things, saving baseball), Senator Lamar! Alexander released the following statement:

“It is the Senate’s responsibility to give the president’s Supreme Court nominee both respectful and rigorous scrutiny. The nominee should neither be pre-confirmed nor pre-judged.”

Not an outright promise to try and kill the nomination, but by no means a call to allow a fair vote on it either.

But in 2005, with a different President in office, Lamar! was a much stronger proponent of the idea that once the nominee has been heard from and thoroughly vetted, he or she should receive an up-or-down-vote (TM).

In remarks on the Senate floor from March 9, 2005, Lamar! decried the use of the filibuster:

During the last session of Congress, Democratic senators blocked an up or down vote 20 times on 10 of President Bush’s nominees for the federal appellate courts. Filibusters were threatened against five more judicial nominees. With one possible exception, this had never happened before. The Senate has a 200-year tradition of majority rule when it comes to confirming judges.

In fact, until the last session of Congress, the idea of not voting on a president’s judicial nominee once it reached the floor was unthinkable. It would be difficult to imagine a case in which passions ran higher than during the confirmation proceedings for Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991. Yet, the first President Bush nominated him in July of 1991, and three months later the Senate voted to confirm him, 52 to 48. There was never any discussion of blocking his nomination by blocking an up or down vote.

In another speech to the Senate floor on April 12, 2005, he strongly opposed the idea that the minority should be allowed to "shut down the Senate," and claimed that the nuclear option was simply a way in which the Senate could continue to operate under the same rules as it had for 200 years:

"I am beginning to think it is a train and that there is not much way to avoid a train wreck. The train wreck I am talking about is a threat by the minority to 'shut the Senate down in every way' if the majority adopts rules that will do what the Senate has done for 200 years, which is to vote up or down the President's appellate judicial nominees."

Finally, in another set of remarks from May 20th, 2005--just over four years ago--Lamar! pledged in no uncertain terms that although he may vote against eventual nomination, he would never filibuster the President's judicial nominee, no matter what party or ideology.

I have said I will never filibuster a president's judicial nominees. I said it two years ago when John Kerry might have been president. For me, that meant then -- and it means today, and tomorrow -- that if a President Kerry or a President Clinton nominates some liberal I do not like, I may talk for a long time about it and I may vote against the person, but I will insist that we eventually vote up or down, as the Senate has for two centuries.

So Senator, you've said, unequivocally, that you do not believe in filibustering a judicial nominee no matter how opposed you are to the eventual nomination, that it does not matter to you who the President doing the nominating is, that the Senate has a 200-year tradition of allowing the majority rule when it comes to nominees, and that every nominee should have an up-or-down-vote (TM).

If that's what you really believe, and not just partisan bloviating, then please, come out and say that although you may eventually oppose Justice Sotomayor's nomination, you will not stand in the way of allowing an up-or-down vote on the issue.

Or are you flip-flopping on the strong statements you made four years ago for the sake of partisan gamesmanship?

Feel Good Friday--This Little Piggy Edition

Apparently, pigs reflexively flap their ears when they hear a sound, even when they're asleep.  So when you get a bunch of sleeping piglets together and make lots of sounds, head-exploding cuteness is the natural result.

International (Starbury) Shoe v. Washington

Thank you for making my day, Courtoons:

Title X For Dummies

There was a rather bizarre bill that came up in the Health and Human Resources Committee this afternoon, one that got lost in the SJR 127 hoopla.  HB 1756 "establishes a new methodology for disposition of family planning funds that disburses funds to public women's health services programs before other providers are funded."  I'll let Jeff Woods at Pith explain what that means in practical terms:

State House Republicans are desperately trying to piss on the evil Planned Parenthood's leg this session, but they're missing the mark with a bill that just passed the House Health and Human Resources Committee. Aimed only at Nashville and Memphis, where too many poor women are getting pregnant to suit the Republicans, the legislation by Rep. Joey Hensley directs the administration to give priority to the county health departments in distributing federal family planning money. Unfortunately for the wingnuts, those departments don't want the money and have never applied for it. Their staffs aren't large enough to provide the services. Therefore, it'll keep going to Planned Parenthood.

While the Republicans can't, under federal law, directly cut off federal family planning funding under Title X, which is the federal funding at issue under this bill, they can attempt to divert it by trying to send it to other sources, and kill funding for Planned Parenthood that way.

Now, before we go any further, let me make perfectly clear that THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION.  Title X explicitly prohibits federal family planning funding from being used for abortions.  The funding goes to other forms of family planning, from contraception to education to gynecological exams.  So when Republicans say that this is about using your tax dollars to "fund abortions," they're either confused or outright lying.

As Woods notes though, this bill will have no practical effect, because even if the Metro and Shelby County governments have priority over the funding, they've indicated they don't want to apply for it.  But there's something else I find incredibly curious in what the Republicans are doing.  Allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a minute.

Isn't the entire conservative movement predicated upon the idea that there should be less government rather than more?  Don't conservatives believe that the government should not be in the business of providing services that are not absolutely necessary to keep the (insert one: city/state/country) functioning?  Don't conservatives believe that the government is too inefficient to handle such services properly, that the private sector can offer better quality services more efficiently?  In the perfect conservative world, should not the government back the hell off when it's clear that a private organization is better-equipped to offer a service, especially if the government agency in question is neither willing nor able to provide the service?

So unless I'm completely misunderstanding what the conservative movement is all about, if you have a bill that tries to place the burden of providing family planning services (note:  NOT abortion) on a government agency rather than allowing a private organization that has always provided the service to continue to provide the service, how is that bill not the complete antithesis of conservatism?

Maybe there really is a disconnect between "conservative" and "Republican."  I don't know, I don't have a dog in that whole teabag fight.  I just find the whole juxtaposition curious.

The SJR 127 Post-Mortem

After I got home from the Capitol this evening after the passage of SJR 127 in the House, I told my mother about how the debate had gone and what had been said.  I mentioned in particular Rep. Sherry Jones' comment attempting to appeal to the legislators as parents--"If your 11-year-old daughter is raped or is a victim of incest, this legislation will not allow for that child to have an abortion."  My mother was incredulous that these people would not even consider the fate of their own daughters.

But to me, it's pretty easy to figure out why not.  It simply won't affect the daughters of our legislators.  I don't know if Reps. Maggart or Dunn have daughters (although I know Mike Turner does, and fears "the gangsters" who may come after his daughters but not enough to protect their rights), but if they do, SJR 127 will not have any impact upon their families whatsoever.  If a Little Dunn, Little Maggart, or Little Turner gets knocked up, whether through rape or simply through a little "oops" moment, it will be absolutely NOTHING for her parents to take her up to Chicago or New York to "visit relatives for the weekend."  Even if abortion is outlawed in Tennessee, it won't be a problem for the wealthy and well-connected to make special arrangements for their little princesses.  They'll justify it by saying that their daughters had difficult circumstances, not like those other slutty girls who just use abortion as birth control, but only wait until the third trimester to do it when they realize their jeans don't fit anymore.

And bear in mind, I'm in the same privileged situation.  I'll always be able to afford to go somewhere else if God forbid I should ever need to.  Even in Missouri, they have enough of a libertarian streak to prevent them from ever outright banning abortion anytime soon.  So this certainly doesn't affect me.

So why care then?

Perhaps it's the knowing that only 22 Democrats are willing to stand up--not just for their own daughters, but for the women who don't have the luxury of going to a northern state to "take care of the problem."  And yeah, I hear you, "Some of them come from really really conservative districts so they had to vote that way."  But guess what?  The people who make their decisions based on the abortion ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR YOU AS A DEMOCRAT, no matter how you vote.  Those people are firmly tied into the Republican Party, and you're not going to sway them.  So it's really a vote out of fear, that the Republicans will attack you if you don't vote a certain way.  But it's not like they're going to attack you any less because of this vote!

So, OK, we concede on this issue and hope we can come up with some way to stop it next year when it comes back around.  But then what's the next issue we concede on?  Anyone want to take a guess?

That's what scares me the most about this whole thing--no one can tell me when we as Democrats stop conceding and start fighting back.  It might be a good idea to figure that out sometime before November 2010 though.  Just saying.

As it stands now though, I'm finding it difficult to see a reason why I shouldn't just stay registered to vote in St. Louis next year and work my butt off to get Robin Carnahan elected to the U.S. Senate, rather than waste time with those who would gamble away my rights to politics as usual.

Plagiarism FAIL

The hot questions of the day seem to be whether the print media is dying, if it can be saved, if it should be saved at all.

I don't know the answer to these questions, but it seems a bad sign when a Very Serious Journalist from the print world is too lazy to come up with her own phrasing, and has to lift text straight from a blogger.  It may not be a direct sign of the increasing irrelevancy of the print media, but it sure is emblematic of it.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo wrote last Thursday:

More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when we were looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Maureen Dowd, a Very Serious Journalist from the New York Times, wrote in her column today (since changed to reflect that these were in fact Josh Marshall's words, although the original column was cached on TPM's website):

More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when the Bush crowd was looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq.

That's it.  One phrase changed but otherwise the rest of the paragraph was copied verbatim.

Maureen Dowd has since offered a non-apology apology, claiming that she heard the line from a friend.  Which seems to imply that the friend memorized the line verbatim from TPM and that MoDo remembered that verbatim as well.  Amazing that she and her friend had such a detailed conversation on this line that even all of the commas fell into the same place!

Now, I don't want this controversy to overshadow the point they're both trying to make, that we may have tortured in order to get information to justify the war in Iraq.  That's an important point and needs to be investigated further.  But it just goes to show how irrelevant people like Maureen Dowd have become in this era, even as they try to maintain an air of Seriousness over those Cheetos-eating kids on their computers in their moms' basements who call themselves "bloggers."

The Revolution Will Be Twittered

Yesterday, I attended the Tennessee Young Democrats state convention at the Williamson County Democratic Party headquarters in Franklin.  I got there late because Jim Cooper had delivered the sermon at West End Synagogue that morning (which was supposed to be about the U.S.-Israel relationship, ended up being a very good foreign policy stump speech that said very little about Israel specifically).

The most important thing I can report from the meaning--if there is anyone reading this who is considering running for office as a Democrat in Tennessee next year, do yourself a favor and talk with state Rep. Ty Cobb.  He should not, by all accounts, have won his seat in a conservative district in a year when so many other Democrats were wiped out.  Not only did he win, however, he did so without bending over backwards to sell out as a Democrat.  Yesterday, he and his campaign staff outlined exactly what they did to win.  All Democrats would benefit from hearing from him.

There was another moment that bears mention, one that Kleinheider no doubt had a good laugh over.  As what happens often lately when you get a bunch of 20-somethings and their cell phones into a room where lots of interesting things are being said, those sayings will end up on Twitter.  So Sean Braisted, Leah Kirk, and I all tweeted during lunch when the gubernatorial candidates and/or their surrogates spoke.  First up was Ward Cammack who, as I noted, pledged not to cut the budget for higher education as governor.  Next up was Brady Banks, who gave a very eloquent speech for Roy Herron.  There was no one there from the McWherter campaign, and the person who I thought was supposed to be there for McMillan, campaign spokesman Wade Munday, wasn't able to make it.  But a Young Democrat from Knoxville asked to speak for McMillan.

We all quickly realized that the speaker was Angela Danovi, who had presented herself to the press last year as a Democratic leader and had pledged not to vote for Obama after Hillary Clinton conceded.  She was still wearing a Hillary campaign button yesterday, whether out of spite or denial I'm not sure (again, being angry over what happened is one thing, but holding yourself out as a Democratic leader while saying that is completely unacceptable).  And those of us in attendance quickly tweeted our disapproval, leading to a little dust-up on Post Politics.

I accept the campaign explanation that she was not an official spokeswoman nor had her speech been coordinated with the campaign whatsoever.  It doesn't change my opinion of McMillan at all (by which I mean I still don't know enough to really have an opinion).  And I'm willing to concede that I say more on Twitter than is probably polite.  But I stand by that conversation 110%.  I believe that people like her are toxic to Democrats in Tennessee.  If she thought Obama was so "extreme," then I sure as hell am not going to let someone like her tell me which candidate is the most "progressive."

Michelle Obama "Whitey" Tape Found

Southern Beale reports that yesterday was the anniversary of the PUMA King Larry Johnson's announcement that there was a video of Michelle Obama using the epithet "whitey" at a church conference.  But what neither SoBeale nor the Washington Independent realize is that this tape does in fact exist, and is on YouTube for the whole world to see.

I thought everyone had seen it already.  Oh well, here it is:

Feel Good Friday--The Sims Edition

The Sims 3 comes out on June 2!  I'll be spending the whole weekend after that in my pajamas playing it!

In the meantime, here's a spoof of "Star Trek" made using the Sims 3:

What The Apocalypse Will Look Like

Google, GMail, and all related apps were down for about two hours late this morning due to a glitch causing traffic to be routed through the wrong server.

In an indication of how dependent we have all become on everything Google, here's a visual representation of what happened to Internet traffic across the top ten ISPs when Google went down:

So in other words, if we were to ever lose Google altogether, society would crumble and we'd have to go back to living in caves.

Miss USA And American Idol

Disclaimer--I don't intend to declare a winner of American Idol prematurely, since that doesn't always end well (see:  Daughtrey, Chris, and Hudson, Jennifer).  However, even if you've only seen five minutes of this season, you know that Adam Lambert is in a league of his own, and has been the whole time.  That is all.

I honestly haven't thought much at all about the whole Miss California flap, mainly because I still don't get how it's a story.  Obviously I disagree with her stand on gay marriage, and note that the Right always seems to complain about the "culture of victimhood" until they find it convenient to play the victim themselves.  If you dare voice the thought that you don't think they should discriminate against others, then you are in fact the bigoted one.  If she had spoken out in favor of gay marriage, she would have been branded as a crazy California liberal advancing the "gay agenda" and "politicizing" the pageant.  And yes, it was wrong of whoever did it to release the naked photos--but if you pose for such photos and sign any kind of release, then you run that risk.  And she was certainly aware of that risk when she signed her contract with the Miss USA organization.

You see conservatives, it's a little thing called "personal responsibility" and "taking responsibility for one's past actions."  I think y'all may have mentioned it from time to time.

But mainly, I still don't get why this is a story.  I have zero sympathy for her, but every aspect of this story, from her answer to the photos, has been blown way out of proportion by the sensationalist media.  If this story hadn't been blown up and broadcast all over cable news and the Internet, would anyone really care?  Beauty pageants are about as relevant to the average 2009 woman's life as 8-track players and rotary phones.  There's a reason why pageant TV ratings have declined so much in the last few years, and that's because NO ONE CARES.

In short, I could care less what Miss California thinks of gay marriage.  It's not relevant to me whatsoever.  I only bring it up as it relates to American Idol.

Love it or hate it, American Idol has been the highest-rated show on TV for several years now.  It is something that has a strong pop culture impact, for better or worse.  Tonight, Hokey Danny Gokey was (finally) eliminated, leaving the final two set for next week's finale--the cute, Jason Mraz-ish Kris Allen, and the fabulously flamboyant rocker Adam Lambert.  I've liked Kris Allen more and more each week, and I have no doubt that he will be a successful recording artist once the show finishes.  But Adam Lambert has been the superstar from Day 1, and barring an Act of God (or his fans assuming he'll win and not voting, a la Chris Daughtrey), will likely win next week.  If you're reading this after May 21 and in fact Kris Allen won, please disregard anything else I have to say.

With Adam Lambert comes the highly likely scenario of having the first openly gay American Idol.  There have been high-profile gay competitors before, but none who got as far as Adam while out of the closet.  Clay Aiken came in second place in Season 2, but continued to deny being gay until last year.  To me it's an indication of how far we've come in just six years, that while in 2003 one of the favorites lived in fear of being found out, while in 2009 the favorite can simply say "I am who I am" and not deny any of it.

But the real story in my opinion is that it really hasn't been an issue as far as the show is concerned.  On the highest-rated show on TV, one that got over eighty million votes for this week, it's a non-issue.  He's out, he's flamboyant, and he keeps getting voted back on (except for the week he ended up in the Bottom 3, which I remain convinced was just to provide a dramatic twist).  It's not some "unelected judiciary" forcing this lifestyle on the good God-fearing Americans, but rather the coveted 18-34 demographic continuing to vote for him week in and week out.

They vote because he's the best singer on the show, bar none.  The sexuality is simply a non-issue.  And the entire fight over gay rights is becoming a non-issue for my generation.  For every Carrie Prejean, there's ten more people calling in to vote for Adam Lambert.

And that's why the Right will ultimately lose their culture war.  Not for lack of trying, but for lack of interest.

I Just Can't Escape Law School Humor, Ever

From my new favorite website, Courtoons:

Genetic Lottery WIN

Former Lady Vol and current WNBA star Candace Parker has given birth to a baby girl with her husband, NBA star Shelden Williams.

And in other news, Pat Summitt has already secured her first commitment for the 2027 basketball season.

The Ward Cammack Interview

Since I'm back in town for what will be the longest stretch of time since high school, I've made it my goal for the summer to sit down and interview every Democratic candidate for Governor, to get a sense for how well we'll do next year.  I started late last week with Ward Cammack, who just today launched his new website.

He emerged as an intriguing dark-horse early this year, and quickly became the candidate with by far the biggest campaign presence, both online and out in that cold, scary place they call "the real world."  His campaign, communications director Mark Brown (otherwise known as the guy with the fedora) in particular, have responded to my questions and concerns with CIA-like efficiency.

Still...Cammack was a Republican up until very recently.  While that's not a deal-breaker on its own, you want to make sure that your Democratic candidates are in it for the right reasons.

So with that in mind, one of the very first questions I asked was what, specifically, made him become a Democrat.  And I admit, I was caught off-guard by his answer.  He discussed how his youngest daughter became critically ill a few years ago, forcing them to spend a week in the ICU at Vanderbilt, and how they didn't know what was wrong for several days.  It was that experience, that grief and uncertainty, that forced him to see the world in a different way.  He realized that while his daughter fortunately recovered, not everyone in that situation has access to the same resources.

Now, I realize that I haven't been in the political game as long as most of my peers in the Tennessee blogosphere.  But this will be the fifth political cycle I've been actively involved with, so by now I can distinguish honesty from BS, between which there is an admittedly fine line.  Cammack's answer, and the emotion in his eyes when he gave the answer, left no doubt in my mind ten minutes into the interview that he is 100% legitimate.

Moving onto the other issues, I asked about what sort of specific environmental policies he will pursue, seeing as that is his big issue.  He views the issue of the environment not just as an issue on its own but as a business proposition.  Companies can profit by cutting down on waste and can create new jobs in the development of sustainable resources.  That is the approach he will take towards policies such as enacting a bottle bill and expanding solar energy in Tennessee.  Through institutions like the Solar Institute in Oak Ridge, he believes that Tennessee has an opportunity to lead the country in the generation of solar power.  He reaffirmed his commitment to immediately banning mountaintop removal mining.  The profit to out-of-state coal companies doesn't stack up against the damage to our water and our tourism industry (the second-biggest industry in the state).  He also reaffirmed his opposition to nuclear power, citing the cost and its severe strain on water resources.

I asked about taxes.  Although the income tax is a dead issue, it's become clear in this economy that we can't just rely on the sales tax forever.  He acknowledged that it will take creative solutions, but again feels that the key to generating more revenue for the state is in attracting these green jobs and in increased partnerships between education and business.  He pointed to the example of the Hemlock Semiconductor plant teaming up with Austin Peay as an example of that working.

On healthcare, specifically on the question of how to make coverage more accessible

On the unavoidable issues--guns, God, and gays--I asked about the various gun bills waltzing through the legislature.  He pointed out that all the gun-owners he knows are all very responsible, so it's not as big of a concern for him.  He just wants to ensure that we have strong background checks.  On abortion, he made the point I wish more Democrats would make--NO ONE is "pro-abortion"!  The key is cutting down on unintentional pregnancies in the first place.  But before we can even address that issue, we have to acknowledge that not every family in this state is going to be a perfect nuclear unit with two parents, and 2.5 kids.  That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not a fact that you can make disappear simply by declaring yourself to be "pro-life."  On gay rights, he was even more forceful--he hadn't considered the issue much before, but the troubles he faced trying to adopt his own daughters made him sympathetic to how difficult it is for GLBT families.  He even linked that back to business as well--arbitrary restrictions on our citizens will make it more difficult to attract jobs in the future.

Final question--will he support allowing the sale of wine in the grocery store as Governor?  Easy yes.

Overall, it was a great interview, and although I'm maintaining neutrality in this race until I can speak to all of the candidates, he's certainly smart, articulate, and most importantly, a genuine progressive.

Chris Matthews Smacks Harold Ford On Torture

Don't get me wrong Harold, I would love to stop ragging on you and move on.  God knows we have plenty more rag-worthy subjects in Tennessee.

But after watching this, please--Just.  Stop.  Talking:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Transcript, starting at 4:23:

FORD: ...So in this sense I think having the conversation about what happened and about whether or not, at Guantanamo Bay, and I'm not as outraged as some are about it, because as much as I think some of those techniques were enhanced and might have risen to a level of torture, you have to remember when this was occurring.  This was 2002, 2003.  The country was in a different place and a different space.  And if you were to say to me as an American, put aside my partisanship, that we have an opportunity to gain information that would prevent the destruction of an American city, to prevent killings in American cities, and we have to use certain techniques, I'm one of those Americans who would have voted a certain way, Chris, in that poll, and said it might have been torture, but I'm not as outraged.

MATTHEWS: Wait a minute.  You are veering into Cheney country.  

FORD: No, Chris, no no no-

MATTHEWS: The destruction of an American city?  What evidence did you ever have, that the enemy had a nuclear weapon that could blow up an American city?  Where'd that, that's Cheney talk.  That's what he uses to justify torture.  We've no evidence that any enemy of ours had a nuclear weapon!

FORD: No, no, I said, if thousands of people in America- don't get me wrong, we can play the names associating me with one person or another.  I'm just saying in 2002-

MATTHEWS: No, but you're saying, blow up an American city.  What are you talking about?

FORD: In 2002, 2003, remember where America was.  You remember our mindset.  If the American people were told that there were those held at Guantanamo Bay that might have had information, after our country was attacked on 9/11, I'm certain people would have wanted those to take certain steps.  I'm not arguing at all that there was evidence that that would have happened.  Yet, Cheney has said that he hopes all the data is released and maybe at some point we'll have an opportunity to see that.  The larger issue here I think is, where do we go from here.  Ang the new director, Mr. Panetta has made it clear that finding, seeking out and finding the best intelligence has to be the goal of the CIA, and when we make a make a mistake, to admit we made a mistake.  George Bush and Dick Cheney never could admit that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and as a result we pursued a path in Iraq that has weakened us in many ways in the Middle East and made it harder for this new President.

MATTHEWS: OK.  Those guys used a nuclear threat.  They said they had a weapon, they had a vehicle to deliver it here to America, to get us to go to war with Iraq, they used that again this weekend, the Vice President, to say it was an excuse, a reason for torture.  I don't like references made to a strategic threat to the United States, a nuclear threat.  We know what happened on 9/11, everybody knows.  But the way they sold that war, the way they're still selling that war, the way they're selling torture, is that to say we faced a Holocaust in America, a city blown up.  That's why I don't like any reference to Cheney talk, because that's what it is.

I have nothing to add on to what Chris Matthews said, because the only difference between what Harold Ford said and what Dick Cheney has said is that the former used a slightly more polite tone.  Americans overwhelmingly rejected the politics of fear last November.  Democrats have shown that we can win without caving to the right out of fear.

But Harold Ford seems to think Cheney is absolutely right on the subject of torture.  I only hope that he'll stay out of campaigning until he can figure out a winning strategy, because agreeing with Dick Cheney isn't it.

Wamp Co-Sponsors "Year Of The Bible" Bill

Representative Paul Broun (R-We Don't Know How To Spell In Georgia) has put forth a resolution encouraging President Obama to declare 2010 as the "Year of the Bible."  Which I think conclusively shows how Republicans are giving up on coming up with ideas to fix the economy or healthcare and are instead getting a head-start on the "pushing wedge issues to drive the base out" for the 2010 elections.

Personally, I'm looking forward to 2010 being the Year of the Tiger in Chinese tradition, but I suppose that's simply an evil pagan belief that has no place in the Year of the Bible!  Although in 2010, Chinese New Year falls on Valentine's Day, two days before Mardi Gras, so maybe this year we can combine all three into one super-holiday where the big dragon floats throw beads at drunk girls lifting up their shirts and I still end up crying into a bowl of ice cream by the end.

But I digress.  What's important about this grandstanding piece of legislation that will almost certainly not make it out of subcommittee is the list of co-sponsors.  It's the usual suspects, but one name jumps out:

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA]

Rep. John Carter [R-TX]

Rep. James Forbes [R-VA]

Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA]

Rep. Zach Wamp [R-TN]

Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO]

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI]

Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN]

Rep. Louis Gohmert [R-TX]

Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ]

Rep. Jim Jordan [R-OH]

Rep. Doug Lamborn [R-CO]

Rep. Kenny Marchant [R-TX]

It's great to know that in anticipation of his run for Governor next year, he is really using the remainder of his time in Congress to push issues of substance that really affect the lives of average Tennesseans!

But in a way, I suppose it could be something of a strategy.  Maybe he's hoping that Ron Ramsey and Bill Haslam split the relatively sane Republican vote and he can get by on just the nutjobs.

Representation FAIL

NFL super-agent Drew Rosenhaus is on The Twitter, which is what all those crazy kids are doing these days.  Earlier today, he gave us an update on contract negotiations involving a Titans player:

Starting ILB Stephen Tullock is entering the last year of his contract and I have discussed a contract extension with the Titans.

First off, who is this "Stephen Tullock"?  We have a Stephen Tulloch and a Keith Bulluck on the roster, did we combine them into a single genetic super-freak of a linebacker?  Because that would actually be pretty cool.  It's good to know that one of the most successful agents in the league is doing such a great job of keeping track of all of his clients whose names are not Terrell Owens!

But is this such a good idea?  The pros and cons of politicians using The Twitter have been discussed at length, but sports agents aren't beholden to the public at large, but rather to their clients.  To me discussing contract negotiations on Twitter seems to be a breach of client confidentiality.  I can see how agents might like to use it to put pressure on teams, but it could have the opposite effect, causing unnecessary friction between teams and negotiating players.

And now I wonder--what would have happened if Twitter had been around in 1996?

RTidwell@Jerry_Maguire SHOW ME THE MONEY!!

Jerry_Maguire@RTidwell SHOW ME THE MONEY!!

Jerry_Maguire@Dorothy-Renee You complete me.

Dorothy-Renee@Jerry_Maguire You had me at hello!

Feel Good Friday--My Name Edition

I can truly relate to this song by the Ting Tings.  Because they call me Melissa.  They call me Alicia.  They call me Lisa.  They call me Illisa.

That's not my name.  That's not my name.

"The Nuts Are Bitter And Hard To Swallow"

A Republican women's group in Virginia posted a not-so-funny joke about how Baskin-Robbins is coming out with a new flavor called "Barocky Road" (even though Penn State's dairy already came out with that flavor for the inauguration). The joke has since been removed from their website but helpfully captured on a screenshot:

In Honor of the 44th President of the United States, Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has issued a new flavor, ” Barocky Road.” Barocky Road is a blend of half Vanilla, half Chocolate, and surrounded by Nuts and Flakes. The Vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The Nuts and Flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow. The Cost is $100.00 per scoop.

When purchased, it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but then the Ice Cream is taken away and given to the person in line behind you. Thus you are left with an empty Wallet, no change, holding an empty cone, with no hope of getting any Ice Cream.

Hmm. The nuts are very bitter and hard to swallow...

I'm thinking that there's only one proper response to that. It may be cliche, but it's all I can think of.

Wait for it...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!!!!!

Remember Maine!

This afternoon, the Governor of Maine signed legislation allowing same-sex marriage in the Pine Tree State. Maine follows Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa in achieving marriage equality, and may be followed by New Hampshire as early as this evening. With pending legislation in Rhode Island and New York (both of which recognize marriages performed in other states), we could be in for a clean sweep of New England by the end of the year.

And as far as "traditional marriage" is concerned...

Gaylord Hotels Gets Shout-Out On The Daily Show

Jon Stewart proved decisively last night that, far from being a "Communist" system as Rep. Joe Barton of Texas proclaimed, the BCS bowl game system is actually the most capitalist system we have. Our very own Gaylord Hotels and Gaylord Hotels Music City Bowl (which was the best game EVER this year!) got a shout-out. Let the snickering over the name "Gaylord" commence.

The particular joke begins at 1:39:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
House DC - College Bowls & Hate Crimes
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

Lincoln Davis At The TNDP Summit

It sounds like the TNDP Summit last weekend was a helluva time, I'm sorry I had to miss it.

Here's Lincoln Davis delivering the keynote address. Check out the great "unity" moment between the Congressman and Chip Forrester at 6:35:

One Question

I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other on the "guns in bars" bill, but I would like someone to answer one question for me. How is it that allowing guns in bars will not promote irresponsible behavior, but selling wine in the grocery store will? There has to be someone out there to whom that makes any sense.