Threats Don't Happen Just From the Right (Another Right to Choose segment)

The Right to Choose is a semi-regular feature of GPWOW designed to highlight the lies, hypocrisy, and logical fallacies associated with most pro-abortion arguments and the people who make them.

The latest meme spreading through the leftosphere is that only rightwingers threaten their opponents (see here, here, and here for starters).

Conveniently, these same people, so outraged at this behavior from fringe righties, aren't so offended when lefties say such things to women on the right.

Today, Chris Bowers is wringing his hands in a post that compares abortion clinic violence with numbnuts who send vile e-mails. He cites some statistics:

According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidences of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.(...)

According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidences of trespassing, 1264 incidences of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid.

What those stats really mean is that in 30 years, there have been far fewer attacks on abortion providers than on your average woman walking down the street. Of course, when you look at that stat that way, it's not quite so forceful. I'm not condoning abortion clinic violence, but Chris lumps all abortion proponents, both those acting within the legal system and those renegade actors, as being murderers. This kind of rancid hyperbole from the left needs to stop. But Chris doesn't.

Over the past fifteen years, conservatives have had every possible democratic, legislative, and judicial tool at their disposal to outlaw abortion, at least somewhere. However, all of their attempts on these fronts have failed miserably. The only thing hat has worked for them has been violence committed against abortion providers. When I write "violence," I am being as nice as humanly possible. Take another look at the list of acts I quoted above, described, and tell me that it doesn't smack of a coordinated, terrorist campaign against abortion providers. Sadly, it has largely been successful. The reason there are only one, two or three abortion providers in two dozen states is because of the terrorist campaign conducted against abortion providers. As all democratic means have failed them, the only tool conservatives have successfully used to slow down abortion has been a campaign of terrorist violence against abortion providers.

The lies in this paragraph are numerous. First of all, conservatives have placed many restrictions on abortions over the last 15 years, from waiting periods to informed consent to parental notification to facilities regulations. Pro-choicers have fought every single restriction, no matter how sensible, as being an attack on "the right to choose.

Secondly, once Roe v. Wade was established, states could no longer ban abortion, and those states with abortion bans on the books had to nullify those laws. In other words, states couldn't outlaw abortion. Not that most states want to completely banish the procedure anyway. What the South Dakota case actually means is that people don't want abortion abolished without any exceptions. People usually want to make exceptions for life, rape, or incest. The South Dakota law had none of these exceptions and that's why it failed.

Finally, it has only been in the last year or so that enough conservative justices have been on the Supreme Court to possibly make any difference to Roe v. Wade, anyway. And conservative judges don't typically make law from the bench like liberal ones do. That's because they believe in stare decisis, the idea that precedent matters. That means that even laws they disagree with--like Roe--have to be applied. Chief Justice Roberts made this point during his confirmation hearings:

"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land… There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey."[

Chris's scurilous analogy between legal activities to limit abortion with violence and terrorism is as disgusting as the e-mails of which Amanda complained. And I'm still waiting for a lefty or two to admit that the right doesn't have a lock on such hate mail. But I'm not holding my breath waiting.

UPDATE: Dan Collins at Protein Wisdom has a good post on this situation.

To say that (William) Donohue doesn’t have the right to characterize these comments is as absurd as the claims of these womyn that they’ve been smeared by the practice of having their own writings reported. So, must people who feel compelled not speak out against abortion because some lunatic might grab a rifle and shoot an abortion provider? The speech is protected; there is no right, on the other hand, to protection from the fall-out that such speech might provoke. You are free to criticize someone’s beliefs or behavior, but you are not protected from having your own criticized in return. And as Jeff points out, these womyn seem to have learned nothing through this episode that may cause them to rethink their own behavior. They simply believe that others who hew to religious belief ought therefore to evince more forebearance than they themselves do, or they’re hypocrites, just as those whose religious precepts may sometimes appear to condone violence are therefore exempt from such proscriptions.

UPDATE x2: Darleen Click has an excellent post on this subject.

Something Women on the Left and Right Can Agree On

As I posted previously, Amanda at Pandagon has posted some of the disgusting e-mails she has received.

Echidne of the Snakes has a post on Amanda's e-mail, as well. The part of her post that interested me was this:

I get told fairly often that my problem is inadequate sex and that this inadequacy is caused by my ugliness/fatness/hairiness. The real reason is of course the snake tail. Would you like to f*** someone who has cold scales for a butt? But I digress.

What I wanted to say that a very common cure for feminism seems to be to get f*****...

But perhaps I shouldn't say "f*****". Such an unladylike word to say! Women can't say it but they can get "f*****". A lot.

Amanda points out that these nasty e-mails she gets are attacking her as a woman, as an uppity woman, a woman who isn't totally calmed down by a little vigorous sexual activity.

I find this analysis interesting because--gasp!--I've been told that, too! In fact, Amanda said similar things to me.

Seriously, sharon, if you don’t like sex, just be out with it. That’s great. You don’t have to be angry with the rest of us who do like it. I know you doubt it, the way you carry on, but women do have sex because we want to.

Perhaps this is part of the reason that Amanda's outrage is so hypocritical. She's now complaining about receiving e-mails that attack her as a woman, and yet she constantly attacked women the same way.

I do agree, by the way, that it is demeaning and misogynistic to attack a person's sexuality because they point out disagreeable facts...like people who really don't want children should avoid sex.

UPDATE: I sent an e-mail to Echidne pointing out that it seems that women on the right as well as the left get hit with this same rhetoric. Her response was that she "knows" it isn't just a rightwing problem but that "the extreme fringe of the Republican party does offer more legitimization to misogyny." I guess love is never having to say you're sorry?

I guess Echidne isn't concerned about the hate mail Michelle Malkin receives.

Now the Other One Resigns

Via Patterico's Pontifications, Melissa "Christofascist" McEwan has resigned from the John Edwards campaign.

I regret to say that I have also resigned from the Edwards campaign. In spite of what was widely reported, I was not hired as a blogger, but a part-time technical advisor, which is the role I am vacating.

I would like to make very clear that the campaign did not push me out, nor was my resignation the back-end of some arrangement made last week. This was a decision I made, with the campaign’s reluctant support, because my remaining the focus of sustained ideological attacks was inevitably making me a liability to the campaign, and making me increasingly uncomfortable with my and my family’s level of exposure.

There will be some who clamor to claim victory for my resignation, but I caution them that in doing so, they are tacitly accepting responsibility for those who have deluged my blog and my inbox with vitriol and veiled threats. It is not right-wing bloggers, nor people like Bill Donohue or Bill O’Reilly, who prompted nor deserve credit for my resignation, no matter how much they want it, but individuals who used public criticisms of me as an excuse to unleash frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation.

I've only visited McEwen's site once or twice. It's more of the usual liberal blather. I do find it interesting that someone who talks about "Christofascists" would complain about abuse. I'm not advocating that people be obnoxious, rude, and scary when they post at moonbat sites, but I'm still trying to figure out why these people think they are immune from criticism when they put themselves out in public positions.

According to Patterico, Firedoglake has examples of the hate mail Amanda received. It's disgusting and has no place in reasonable discourse. Unfortuntely, Firedoglake (and other lefties, including Amanda) try to paint this as only a right-wing phenomenon. This, of course, is nonsense. Patterico concludes:

Ask Michelle Malkin, who has been the target of plenty of ugly hate herself. But it is just outrageous that anyone should have to put up with this kind of ugliness, and people of conscience on both sides of the aisle should easily be able to agree on this.

One would hope, but I doubt our friends on the left would be as quick to condemn such e-mails to Michelle Malkin.

Death-Defying Christianity

ChristianityToday.com has an interesting story about a Colombian minister who practices social justice even though such activities could cost him his life.

Jesús Goez is hiding in plain sight.

He preaches every Sunday.

Runs a feeding program for 600 kids.

Supervises a job-training program.

Operates a recycling program and a bakery.

He does all this to keep his tiny church with its big vision moving forward—while living miles away from right-wing paramilitary squads that have tried to assassinate him.

Goez is not unlike countless pastors, union leaders, and journalists. Each group has become mired in Colombia's fierce ideological war. Leftist guerrillas, private armies, and right-wing paramilitaries—backed by factions within the Colombian army—have torn the country asunder since the 1960s.

The church in Colombia has paid a staggering price in this conflict. In 2004, armed groups murdered 40 Protestant leaders, according to the Council of Evangelical Churches of Colombia. More than 50 congregations closed due to violence. (Nearly 10 percent of Colombia's 47 million people are Protestant.)

"All those funerals. So much death. In this war, the violence, the threats, the death, it penetrates your soul," says Mennonite pastor Ricardo Esquivia, one of Colombia's leading Protestants and peace activists. "So you pray, asking God for strength so that your soul does not become as sad as all the things happening around you."

The violence and conflict in Colombia, a combination of drug wars, militias, and corruption, has cost more than 200,000 lives and displaced another 3.4 million people. And the poverty rate is very high.

A long time ago, Goez and other church leaders realized that charity alone would not provide a comprehensive solution for the 49 percent of Colombians living in chronic poverty.

Many complex factors contribute to poverty. Private armies have terrorized poor farmers off their land. The oil industry and agribusiness take possession of strategic land to explore for oil or to grow coffee, bananas, or flowers for the florist industry. As a result, millions more Colombians today live in urban areas, working in low-wage textile or food-processing jobs.

Many churches care for the poor through traditional outreach and human-rights advocacy. But there has been a backlash. According to reliable reports from displaced farmers and others, the government's military intelligence has kept the Presbyterian Church of Colombia under surveillance for documenting human-rights abuses.

Like most international stories, the affairs in Colombia are complicated and there's no easy way to divide the good guys from the bad guys. President Alvaro Uribe has a mixed human rights' record, but under his administration, "murders, kidnappings, and massacres have decreased significantly."

Stories like Goetz's remind us that doing Christ's work can be personally risky and we are fortunate that in the U.S. we don't have to face these sorts of dangers.

It's Country Music the Way a Runover Armadillo Is a Chicken-Fried Steak

The Dixie Chicks, that is.

They've even said, "We don't feel a part of the country scene any longer, it can't be our home anymore."

Which makes it all the more peculiar that they won Grammys in the country music category. Make no mistake, there are those more interested in the political noise than the noise the Chicks make. Like this post from Cliff Schecter:

They sweep the Grammies. The Dunce of Kennebunkport goes down in history as easily one of the worst three presidents, making his dad look the second coming of FDR in comparison.

Now let' see how he feels when Al Gore wins a Nobel Peace Prize and Academy Award in the same year and The Decision-Making Decider scores a free trip to the Hague.

UPDATE: Wow, it turns out former President Carter also won a Grammy in the "spoken-word category." So now he has a Nobel and a Grammy. I think it's safe to say that George W. Bush will never win an award that has the word "peace" or phrase "spoken word" contained in it.

As I pointed out to Mr. Schecter, all it shows is that the Grammys are political, the Oscars are political, and the Nobel Peace Prize (given to Yasser Arafat) is a joke.

But it is interesting that liberals are suddenly so interested in country music. If it bashes President Bush, they must be a good band, right?

Well, not really. In fact, what the Chicks tried to complain was censorship was really just fans deciding they had better things to spend their money on.

Via GetReligion, I found Liberal Country Fan, which had the most interesting series of maps I've seen lately.



The maps tell an interesting story about the Chicks. They don't play in Red State America anymore. Not surprising if you insult your fan base. But don't expect to see that statement on Hullabaloo.

Amanda Resigns

It was bound to happen. When I saw Amanda posts showing up Pandagon (which has been taken down, oddly enough), I knew her demise was soon to follow. You just can't keep the self-appointed know-it-alls of the world in check for long.

I tried to link directly to Amanda's announcement, but, given they decided to be childish, I've resorted to other sources. (H/T Ace of Spades).

She's pretty sure that William Donahue went after her so hard because she has a vagina.

If it's really her own decision, why is she so angry about it? Couldn't such anger have been avoided by, you know, not resigning?

Well, no, not if you've read Amanda's rants before (or been the subject of them).

I've been out of pocket today, so I never even saw the story or had an opportunity to read the post before Pandagon stuck its head in the sand (like its accused so many of its subjects). I found the text at Michelle Malkin's site, and except for lacking in vulgarity, it's pure Amanda gold.

I was hired by the Edwards campaign for the skills and talents I bring to the table, and my willingness to work hard for what’s right. Unfortunately, Bill Donohue and his calvacade of right wing shills don’t respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics (I’m anti-theocracy, for those who were keeping track). Bill Donohue—anti-Semite, right wing lackey whose entire job is to create non-controversies in order to derail liberal politics—has been running a scorched earth campaign to get me fired for my personal beliefs and my writings on this blog.
In fact, he’s made no bones about the fact that his intent is to “silence” me, as if he—a perfect stranger—should have a right to curtail my freedom of speech. Why? Because I’m a woman? Because I’m pro-choice? Because I’m not religious? All of the above, it seems.

Regardless, it was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign. No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can’t do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn’t have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won’t do it. I resigned my position today and they accepted.

Notice how Amanda doesn't blame the vitriolic rhetoric she spewed daily for years. It's got to be the fault of people who pointed out where her spit landed. It's not the fact that she insulted--repeatedly--Christians in general and Catholics in particular. It's not that she lashed out at groups that weren't as wacked out as she is. No, it's not because she said derogatory and insulting things about Catholics that caused William Donohue to challenge her hiring. It's all because she's a woman.

In other words, Amanda didn't learn a thing from this situation.

I thought, perhaps, with the new bit in her mouth, that Edwards could have trained her up to act like an adult, the kind of person who can disagree without necessarily spitting on the opponent each and every time. But no. It took Amanda only five days before she was back to blaming "the patriarchy" for everything. Some things don't change.

And I guess the fake apology didn't take, either. According to Danny Glover, Amanda said:

Unencumbered by her work for Edwards, she vowed to strike back. "The main good news," Marcotte wrote, "is that I don’t have a conflict of interest issue anymore that was preventing me from defending myself against these baseless accusations. So it’s on."

You mean--gasp--she didn't mean that heartfelt apology she issued only days ago???

In other news: sky still blue, fish still swim.

Patterico expresses regret that Amanda resigned.

I share this attitude in general. The feeling, which Allah and I share, is that blogging has gotten too dangerous. This is one reason that I have said repeatedly that I hope Edwards keeps Marcotte...

Marcotte alienated constituencies...Just to take one example, she bagged on every anti-abortion Christian in the country, branding them all as misogynists. If Edwards didn’t know about this, she should have been savvy enough to tell him. It’s not all about the f-word, it’s about how it’s employed.

Jeff Goldstein says...

Ms Marcotte blames the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue for her troubles, but in truth, her anti-religious screeds (she calls them “anti-theocracy”—though the distinction seems rather disingenuous, given that her attacks tend to target religious people who actually believe the tenets of their faith), once exposed, offended more than just the perpetually aggrieved and controversial religious politico. In fact, as Kirsten Powers noted on tonight’s “O’Reilly Factor,” Marcotte and McEwan’s pronouncements on religion were going to make it difficult for Edwards in particular (and Democrats more generally) to convince people of faith that the Democratic party isn’t hostile to their beliefs.

Bryan at HotAir has video from The O'Reilly Factor on Amandagate. Bryan says:

It’s a shame that the AP singles out “conservative critics” to credit/blame for all of this, when the critics who probably had more of an impact were the progressive Christians who also saw bigotry in Marcotte’s inflamatory writings. Put another way, which seems more likely: That Edwards worried about what Bill Donohue thinks, or that he worries about what his fellow Democrats who also happen to be Catholics think? With Hillary! and Obama waiting to crush him in about a year, he can’t afford to leave out any potential voters.

And all of the above masks the truth at the center of all of this, which is that on their face Marcotte’s writings on Christians and Catholics in particular smack of rank bigotry, from the 114 times she mimicked the name of Christ as “Jeebus” to the ways she graphically described carnal intercourse with the Holy Spirit. That’s what earned her the criticism from Donohue and from us and other conservatives from the progressive Christians as well. It’s not a smear to accurately quote someone’s own words when criticizing them.

I discussed the concerns of the Religious Left with Amandagate in this post.

Howard Kurtz also has a story about Amanda's temper tantrum and subsequent resignation.

The Most Succinct Descripton of the Scooter Libby Trial

Via the Patriot Post,

"We are in the midst of a criminal trial concerning the leaking of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame’s name to the press. The man on trial did not do the leaking. The man who did the leaking is not on trial. The woman who is the subject of the fictional leak was probably not covert. The person who leaked her name did so in the course of gossip and almost certainly did not, as the law requires, ‘know that the government had taken affirmative measures to conceal’ her identity (because if she wasn’t covert, the government would have taken no such steps). Accordingly, there was no crime. And yet, a prosecutor presents evidence, a jury lobs questions and ‘Scooter’ Libby may go to jail for 30 years... Libby’s crime, according to [Independent Counsel, Patrick] Fitzgerald, is perjury and obstruction of justice. The grounds? People’s memories of who said what to whom more than three years ago differ. Good Lord, may I never be subject to a grand jury inquest, as I forget appointments, names, faces, passwords, jokes, what I told my husband yesterday and whether or not I paid the phone bill last month. Where, I wonder, are all the folks who worry about attracting good people to government service? Libby gave up a lucrative private practice to serve his country and now may lose everything, including his liberty, for the trouble. This trial is a farce and an outrage." —Mona Charen

But Why Didn't They Get the Other Message?

Headlines about last night's Grammy awards are almost universal:

Dixie Chicks to country: nah-nah--San Jose Mercury News

Chicks' night at the Grammys--Dallas Morning News

5 Grammys Mark Dixie Chicks Comeback--Associated Press

And from the Mercury News story:

It was more than a love of their music that was behind the Dixie Chicks' victory lap at the Grammy Awards Sunday.

The Texans won the three biggest awards - song, record and album of the year - for a disc in which they fought back against a country-music establishment that turned its back on them following 2003 remarks critical of President Bush. They won everything they were nominated for.

"I think people are using their freedom of speech here tonight with all of these awards. We get the message," singer Natalie Maines said after winning the fifth Grammy, album of the year for "Taking the Long Way Home."

I have no problem with the Dixie Chicks winning these awards, and, in fact, congratulate them. But I won't be spending any money on them. Ever.

Of course, the rich irony is that I probably wouldn't have spent any money on them before they decided to go political back in 2003, then whine because Americans were exercising their freedom of speech. It's funny that they didn't tout freedom of speech then. No, they just whined and whined. Went to Canada to find people to fill their concerts, made a movie stealing the title from Laura Ingraham's book, then complained that Americans didn't want to hear them whine any more.

Maines said at various times that "We don't feel a part of the country music scene anymore." And, indeed, they aren't. I would say winning a Grammy, rather than a CMA award is more proof of that.

UPDATE: Betsy points out the political nature of entertainment and why the left, who make most of the entertainment, won't stop bashing real Americans any time soon.

Betsy also points out this stupid quote from numb nut Mickey Hart of the Grateful Dead:

"I think people are paranoid," former Grateful Dead member Mickey Hart told Reuters. "I think that if they speak out, they think they're gonna get whacked by the government. It's pretty oppressive now. Look at the Dixie Chicks. They got whacked."

Betsy, as usual, points out what is (or should be) obvious.

The government didn't "whack" the Dixie Chicks. Their fans did. Is the position of the cognoscenti now that fans can't express their opinions of musical artists by deciding not to buy their music? And, as Lorie (Byrd) points out, it wasn't the fans who voted for these Grammys. It wasn't even country music artists who voted for their Best Country Music award.

Which was my point, as well. They didn't win awards for best country music. They won awards for "best shooting the bird at one's supposed audience".

UPDATE x2: Blue Crab Boulevard points out that it isn't about music, just as the upcoming Oscars won't be about film.

Well, frankly, anyone who didn't see this coming isn't paying attention. The Dixie Chicks won several Grammy awards last night. Yawn. Algore will win an Oscar, too. Likewise, yawn. Neither award has anything to do with the merits of the music or of the movie and everything to do with Hollywood politics.

UPDATE x3: Even the left recognizes that the awards aren't about their music.

"No amount of carping, complaining or yelling and screaming is going to change that."

Says Texas Governor Rick Perry's spokesman, Robert Black, regarding the governor's order that all 12-year-old girls receive a vaccine for a sexually-transmitted virus.

Emphasizing the slight authority given Texas governors by history, two Austin lawyers say Gov. Rick Perry lacked the power to issue last week's order requiring girls to be vaccinated against a virus that causes cervical cancer.

Perry's office counters that as the state's chief official, he can guide executive branch agencies.

"No amount of carping, complaining or yelling and screaming is going to change that," Perry spokesman Robert Black said. "If they want to challenge it, my guess is, they both know a trial lawyer or two to do their bidding. We'd be happy to take the governor's constitutional authority to court."

That sounds to me like Black was throwing down the gauntlet. He should be careful or some enterprising trial lawyer(s) will pick it up. Well, maybe they have:

Buck Wood, a lawyer whose career included work in Gov. John Connally's office in the 1960s, criticized the order. "This isn't even arguable. The governor doesn't have any power to dictate to any agency about what rules it makes."

Scott McCown, who served 14 years as a Democratic state district judge in Travis County, voiced similar concerns. Although state law permits governors to issue orders in emergencies, he said, Perry's move to protect young women doesn't clear that hurdle.

"It's a judgment call," said McCown, who initially commented in a column in Wednesday's American-Statesman. "But there is no way this is even close. There is no way this even qualifies" as an emergency.

The executive powers of Texas governors are notoriously restricted. The main power of governor is in being able to call the legislature into special session for 30 days. But executive orders? Let's see, Perry hasn't issued too many controversial executive orders. In fact, he hasn't done it at all (unless you consider creation of a Texas Task Force on Appraisal Reform to be cutting edge stuff).

The problem for Perry is that his bull-headedness on this issue has drawn way more attention to his heavy-handed approach instead of focusing it on why this vaccine should be mandatory. By not involving the legislature, he has virtually cut off debate among the electorate, and Texans are famously ornery.

"This is nuclear," said Rep. Dianne White Delisi, R-Temple. She spoke Wednesday as Rep. Carl Isett, R-Lubbock, circulated a letter to House colleagues to be sent to Perry, asking him to rescind the order.

"Regardless of whether it is a wise idea to vaccinate a child to prevent a sexually transmitted virus," Isett's letter says, "the legislative process is robust enough to give voice to every side of this issue."

Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, asked Attorney General Greg Abbott for an expedited opinion on whether governors can issue executive orders.

"If so, does the law provide broad powers to grant executive orders, or are those powers limited to specific circumstances?" her letter asks.

It's Beginning to Look a Lot like Cuba

According to this story in the Telegraph, middle class Venezuelans are trying to esape Hugo Chavez's "20th century socialism."

At the US Embassy, visa enquiries have almost doubled in recent weeks, from 400 to about 800 a day. "There are normal spikes toward Christmas or another major holiday, but this increase doesn't fall into that category," said embassy spokesman Brian Penn.

The British embassy has seen a similar rise in numbers. "It has been increasing for some time, but what's different now is the tone of desperation," said a British spokesman.

A website for would-be emigrants - mequieroir.com (I want to leave.com) - reports that since Mr Chavez's December 3 election victory, and his announcement last month that he would nationalise the telecommunications and electricity industries, the number of daily visits it receives has soared from 20,000 to 60,000.

advertisement"You're getting more families, who are worried about their children's futures," said Esther Bermudez, who runs the site.

That's because it's deja vu all over again. Here's the way it works:

1. Guy gets elected with some line about being for the people, one of the people, etc.

2. Starts lots of programs for poor and middle class at the expense of wealthier people (who don't count anyway).

3. Nationalizes some industries (such as the oil industry, the telephone service and electricity industries).

4. Refuses to allow dissent through opposition television or radio stations.

5. Granted "enabling law" which allows the dictator to rule without consulting the National Assembly

Yep, we've been down this road before. It won't be long before we start hearing about the persecution of various sects, seizure of private property, and suppression of rights. The smart (and lucky) people are getting out now.

Iran Sends Arms to Insurgents in Iraq

I heard this story as I was driving over to my dad's today. It is stunning.

Senior U.S. military officials in Iraq on Sunday sought to link Iran to deadly armor-piercing explosives and other weapons that they said are being used to kill U.S. and Iraqi troops with increasing regularity.

During a long-awaited presentation, held in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, the officials displayed mortar shells, rocket-propelled grenades and a powerful cylindrical bomb capable of blasting through an armored Humvee that they said were manufactured in Iran and supplied to Shiite militias in Iraq for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops.

I'm still waiting for the usual lefty blogpost that this is just a lie by our military so we can attack Iran.

UPDATE: That didn't take too long to find. Eason "We didn't report on what was really going on in Iraq" Jordan is complaining about the anonymous sourcing of the story. Was he upset about anonymous sources in the SWIFT debacle? Or Valerie Plame? Or Jamil-Jamailgate? Or any of the other leaked stories by those so-called patriots working as anonymous sources?

One More Amandagate Story

I know this is the dead horse that's been flogged until it is nothing but an indistinguishable mass of blood and bones, but there is one angle that hasn't been discussed much: reactions from the Religious Left. (Via GetReligion).

The story is at The Politico.com by Ben Smith, and discusses the reactions of religious people who actually might vote for Edwards (or might not).

As the flap over alleged anti-Catholic writings by two John Edwards campaign bloggers devolves into a shouting match between conservative religious voices and liberal bloggers, some members of the "religious left" say they feel – again – shoved to the margins of the Democratic Party.

"We're completely invisible to this debate," said Eduardo Penalver, a Cornell University law professor who writes for the liberal Catholic journal Commonweal. He said he was dissatisfied with the Edwards campaign's response. "As a constituency, the Christian left isn't taken all that seriously," Penalver said.

Democrats -- and Edwards in particular -- have embraced the language of faith and the imperative of competing with Republicans for the support of religious voters. His wife, Elizabeth Edwards, even sits on the board of the leading organization of the religious left, Call to Renewal. But in private conversations and careful public statements today, religious Democrats said they felt sidelined by Edwards' decision to stand by his aides.

"We have gone so far to rebuild that coalition [between Democrats and religious Christians] and something like this sets it back," said Brian O'Dwyer, a New York lawyer and Irish-American leader who chairs the National Democratic Ethnic Leadership Council, a Democratic Party group. O'Dwyer said Edwards should have fired the bloggers. "It's not only wrong morally – it's stupid politically."

These guys make the point I tried to make the other day: there are moderates (and, in this case, religious people) who take Edwards' defense of the trash-talk twins as an insult to them and their beliefs. That's just not what you want in any political campaign.

And so religious liberals find themselves in a quandary. They have no interest in associating with the likes of William Donohue, the Catholic League president who is closely aligned with the GOP and led the charge against Edwards' aides. Donohue said Thursday he would take out newspaper advertisements attacking Edwards as anti-Catholic. But religious liberals also think Edwards' aides merit more than a slap on the wrist.

"I thought his explanation was not satisfying," said Cornell's Penalver. "It's obvious that they did mean to give offense."

"You imagine a similar kind of comment directed at the Jewish community or at the gay community – something at this level of intentional offensiveness -- and I have a hard time believing it gets resolved in the same way," he said.

It certainly puts religious voters in a quandary. With his folksy, populist, preacheresque style, Edwards was probably more appealing to religious lefties than, say, Hillary Clinton.

Al Qaida Backs Obama, Australian PM Says

Australian PM John Howard said (basically) that Al Qaida would want Barak Obama to win.

Australia's conservative prime minister slammed Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) on Sunday over his opposition to the Iraq war, a day after the first-term U.S. senator announced his intention to run for the White House in 2008.

Obama said Saturday at his campaign kickoff in Springfield, Ill., that one of the country's first priorities should be ending the war in Iraq. He has also introduced a bill in the Senate to prevent President Bush from increasing American troop levels in Iraq and to remove U.S. combat forces from the country by March 31, 2008.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a staunch Bush ally who has sent troops to Iraq and faces his own re-election bid later this year, said Obama's proposals would spell disaster for the Middle East.

"I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory," Howard said on Nine Network television.

"If I were running al-Qaida in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."

Captain Ed points out how unhelpful it is when our allies butt into our electoral processes this way.

Howard certainly had a point regarding Obama's policy stands on Iraq and the war on terror. Had he limited his criticisms to just the policies, Howard would have made a great argument for tenacity and will. However, he stepped over a line when he claimed that al-Qaeda should pray for an Obama victory.

We have a long tradition of demanding outside governments stay out of our elections, even rhetorically, and that they should allow the American electorate to make our own decisions about leadership. Granted, we have not always been good neighbors about doing that ourselves, and Australian elections in particular came in for some heavy-handed CIA interference in the 1970s. (It was this interference that initially created the impulse of Christopher Boyce to start selling secrets from TRW to the Soviets when he inadvertently stumbled onto coded intercepts from CIA stations overseas.) This kind of rhetoric, though, would be beyond the pale for mainstream domestic politics, let alone from the leader of another nation.

I agree.

Washing Away One's Credibility

This "advertisement" from Darleen says it all.

I'm Gonna Miss the Real Pandagon

Via a comment to this post by Dana at CSPT, Pandagon has changed its disclaimer to reflect its emasculated (ha!) status:

Goodbye comical disclaimer. Now here’s the serious one. While this blog has many participants, the blog manager and one of the writers, Amanda Marcotte, works for John Edwards ‘08 campaign. You can read her in a professional capacity here. This blog is a side project and a hobby for all the bloggers. Everything written on here is the personal thoughts, jokes, and opinions of the bloggers and has no association with the Edwards campaign.

I wouldn't be surprised if Pandagon's readership dropped because of this obeisance to the phallus (a.k.a., John Edwards). Lefties don't really see what Amanda said as satire, anymore than the rightwingers (like me) who have quoted her ad nauseam do. It's just not as funny, interesting, truthful, or deceitful (depending on one's point of view) once there's this whimpering disclaimer designed to gain favor with the patriarchy (a.k.a, John Edwards).

Oh, well. It was fun while it lasted.

The Media Vultures and How to Change Public Opinion

Little Green Footballs has a picture from Qana that you surely didn't see in newspapers or on television. It's a different angle shot of the dead baby display. This one shows the many, many photographers honing in on the baby as emblematic of the bombing of Qana by the Israelis.

This angle’s a revealing one, an angle that for some reason, we haven’t seen before: the view from behind the “paramedics” who paraded with bodies for hours, staging and arranging them for an obviously very eager world media.

Then the obvious question is asked:

Why was this picture left in the editor’s kill file until now?

Because it really wrecks the suspension of disbelief that actors need to convince the audience.

It’s like seeing the scaffolds and lights and fake landscapes behind the scenes at a theater, in the middle of a performance.

The Qana photographs are some of the most gut-wrenching, heart-breaking images you could ever imagine. And that’s why it’s important to recognize that there are people with souls so dead and intentions so evil that they will cynically use these photographs to manipulate your feelings.

We all knew that many of the photographs were staged to try to sway Western opinion against the Israelis. But having the photographic evidence seems to disgust me even more.

"(A)s a black man... Barack can get shot going to the gas station."

That's what Barak Obama's wife, Michelle says in an interview the couple did with 60 Minutes. (Via The Drudge Report).

Excuse me?!

I hate to inform Mrs. Obama of this, but anybody can get shot at the gas station. Just ask all the people involved in the Washington D.C. Beltway sniper attacks. Those people were of all different races but they were still targeted by John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo.

Perhaps a better statement would have been "As with any American, Barak can get shot going to the gas station." But I guess that wouldn't send quite the same message.

Reporter Steve Kroft asks Obama whether he thinks being black will hold him back from winning the presidency?

"No.... If I don't win this race it will be because of other factors --[that] I have not shown to the American people a vision for where the country needs to go that they can embrace," he said.

I think, quite honestly, that we are beyond the point where a black person or a woman or any other minority couldn't be elected President. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most Americans would probably like to vote for a black candidate, but only if that candidate espoused ideas and opinions with which they agreed. That's the same standard I think we use for any candidate.

More on the HPV Vaccine

I originally posted about Texas governor Rick Perry issuing an executive order mandating that 11- and 12-year-old girls be vaccinated with the new genital human papillomavirus vaccine. My main focus at that point was whether this should be a government function (and if so, should it be done by executive order, as opposed to going through the legislative process)?

Now, I'm more concerned with the process by which the vaccine was approved and the effects such a vaccine might have.

According to this column by Barbara Simpson, the vaccine was originally approved by the FDA back in June 2006, and pharmaceutical giant Merck has been lobbying states heavily since. At $360 a pop for the three-shot series, that's a lot of money for Merck.

The vaccine treats viruses that cause roughly 70% of all cervical cancers and genital warts. That leaves another 30% not covered by this vaccine. Hopefully, girls, their parents, and young women will be smart enough (and be informed by their doctors) that they still need yearly Pap smears even with this vaccine.

But more than just the fact that the vaccine only works on 70% of the viruses, I'm concerned about potential side effects. Because the dirt is always in the side effects that the pharmaceuticals never want to talk about.

Simpson cites that

in just six months, 82 cases reported to the government, involving neurologic symptoms, joint pain, fever and Guillain-Barre syndrome...

Fewer than 2,000 people were involved in the testing of Gardasil – with 102 adverse reactions, including juvenile, rheumatoid and regular arthritis, and 17 deaths, which were said to be unrelated.

So, our children would be forced to be injected with three doses of a vaccine that could cause serious side effects and we don't know the long term safety or efficacy.

Before anyone objects that this article comes from World Net Daily, I also found concerns raised here. This site raised a lot of questions.

--What are the various ingredients used in this vaccine?

--What are its possible interactions with medications, e.g., psychoactive drugs, antihypertensives, HRT, cholesterol-lowering agents?

--Are there any side effects seen in subsets of patients with medical conditions such as diabetes, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), seizure disorders, allergies and sensitivities (e.g., to yeast), and above all, the immunosuppressed?

--Is it really safe for preteens? The FDA has approved use of the vaccine for females between the ages of nine and 26. In Merck’s trials, however, only 250 nine-year-old girls and boys were tested with Gardasil. Where did these kids come from? The other question we ask ourselves is, "Would I volunteer my nine-year-old daughter to test a vaccine against a sexually transmitted disease?"

--How long will protection last? Will boosters be needed? Or worse, will elimination of just four out of over 100 viral strains create a niche for other strains to fill?

--“Who really needs it?” Isn’t there a greater call for an inexpensive vaccine in developing countries than for mandating an expensive one in American school systems?

One of the things this article points out is that Pap smears and yearly exams are far less expensive and more accurate for detecting cancers. Since the vaccine isn't a substitute for these measures, is it really in the public interest for the government to mandate that people spend this money?

Some of the numbers are problematic. For example, Simpson talks about "only 2,000" people tested with the vaccine before approval. The Woman to Woman site discusses "27,000 girls and women" tested. And I also found this site, which says that "20,541 women" were tested, but of that number, "only 1,121 subjects were under 16," and they were only followed for about 18 months. I think it is generally safe to say about 20,000 subjects were used and they were followed for anywhere from one to four years. That's not a long time to predict long-term effects on a vaccine given to your nine-year-old.

The question truly becomes is the benefit worth subjecting your nine-year-old daughter to the risks? According to Amanda, only parents who would rather their daughters die from cancer than admit they'll have sex one day would be ambivalent about this vaccine. But then, we've had so much evidence of where Amanda's head is over the last two weeks that we really can discount anything she says these days.

For more arguments against the vaccine, see this post at a site I probably would never visit otherwise. ;)

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

Divorce, Saudi Style

In Saudi Arabia, the court can divorce a couple against their will if other family intervenes. (Via ifeminists.com)

A group of Saudi women activists have launched a petition to be presented to Saudi King Abdullah to put an end to forced divorces, reports said on Monday.


The petition urges the king to allow the case of Fatima, which caused a public outcry in early January when a Saudi court forcibly separated the 34-year-old woman from her husband, to be disregarded and the family be reunited.

According to the petition, Fatima’s case is not unique.

Arab News reported that the petition also calls on the king to intervene in the case of Rania Abou Al Enin, whose father filed a lawsuit to divorce her from her husband.

Human rights activist Fawzeya Al Ouyoni, one of the women behind the petition, said: “When the divorce is carried out with the couple’s approval then this is just the way it happens all over the world. But when it is forced on the couple with an order from a high court, then that is a massive disaster which threatens the safety of the Saudi family.”

Fatima has been seeking refuge in prison along with her one-year- old son Suleiman since October 2006 to escape the compulsory divorce. The couple’s other child, two-year-old Noha, is in her father’s custody.

Fatima’s brothers filed a lawsuit demanding that her three-year marriage be annulled “on the grounds that (the married couple) were tribally incompatible.”

This is not a prerequisite for legitimate marriage under Sharia (Islamic law), said her husband Mansour Al Timani. He also argued that an appeals court in Riyadh revoked the divorce ruling in a similar case in the city of Unaizah in Qasim a year ago and questioned why this case was not taken as a legal precedent.

This is truly horrifying.

Many Doctors Do Not Advise about Abortion

According to this story, there are a lot of doctors that do not refer women for abortions or inform patients when abortion is an option. (Via ifeminists.com

A new survey of doctors nationwide finds 52 percent said they oppose abortion and others wouldn't refer women considering an abortion to a place that does them. The survey also found some physicians believe it is appropriate to withhold information about abortion on moral grounds.
University of Chicago researchers conducted the study with interviews of 1,144 doctors around the country. It is believed to be the first comprehensive survey of the moral attitudes of physicians.

The study found 14 percent of those surveyed do not believe they are required to tell a patient about all treatment options when it comes to morally objectionable procedures such as abortion.

And 29 percent of physicians say they do not feel they must refer someone to another doctor for a treatment they oppose or were undecided.

Doctors who described themselves as strong Christians, whether Protestant or Catholic, were more likely to refuse a referral or more information about morally objectionable procedures like abortion.

I disagree with this policy. While I think doctors should be free to reject performing abortions, doctors have a duty to inform patients of all their options. I'm not as bothered that doctors wouldn't do referrals in this case, but it still seems like they have a duty to supply information to their patients.

Dr. Gary Smith, an obstetrician and gynecologist at the Women's Health Center at Robinwood in Hagerstown, Maryland, is one such doctor.

Smith does not do abortions or refer women to physicians that do and he won't tell a pregnant woman that abortion is an option.

"They know it's an option," he told the Baltimore Sun newspaper. "They don't need me to tell them abortion exists."

"I was always taught I have two patients: the mother and the baby," he said. "Why would I want to send somebody out to hurt their baby?"

I don't think it's fair to say women know abortion is an option. Under certain circumstances, a woman may think there are other options and not understand that abortion is the only one available.

For example, I had a doctor want to do the alphafetal protein test when I was pregnant with my second child. The nurse explained that it was to detect Downs Syndrome. I asked what the options were if the baby had Downs and she replied (matter of factly) that I could either continue the pregnancy or abort. I was a little surprised that those were the only options available, but at least I had all the options laid in front of me.

Not surprisingly, female doctors are more likely to refer patients than male doctors.

Interestingly, 42 percent of doctors opposed prescribing birth control for minors without parental consent.

Border Patrol Agents

I haven't written anything about the Texas border patrol agents who were sent to prison for shooting a drug smuggler, largely because I haven't known what to think of the case.

At first glance, I couldn't believe they were convicted for doing what I thought was the purpose of the border patrol: stop illegals (particularly really bad guys) from coming into the country.

But then I read that they hadn't filed the proper paperwork to report the incident, leading many to believe they were covering up malfeasance. At that point, I was less sympathetic to them.

Now, Patterico has a post about the situation, complete with more information about the lack of a written report. (Via Darleen).

But U.S. Border Patrol firearms policy specifically states that agents are prohibited from filing a report if a shooting incident takes place and that only an oral report to supervisors is required.

"Ensure that supervisory personnel or INS investigating officers are aware that employees involved in a shooting incident shall not be required or allowed to submit a written statement of the circumstances surrounding the incident," according to the firearms policy.

"All written statements regarding the incident shall be prepared by the local INS investigating officers and shall be based upon an interview of the INS employee."

That certainly undercuts the government's version of events and now I'm not sure what to think. I'm thinking these agents were doing what they were supposed to do.

I'm not sure what will happen in the case now, but these guys need to be segregated in prison, for sure, or they will be killed by more of the sorts of guys they were trying to prevent from entering the U.S.

"Even hate-spewing simpletons are to be defended, as long as their politics are far enough to the left."

That's according to The Malcontent, discussing Amandagate and the lack of openness on the left to anyone who isn't doctrinnaire. (Via HotAir).

Leave it to Andy Towle to put me on the same side of an issue as William Donohue. (shudder)

The ad-heavy gay blogger has rushed predictably to the side of John Edwards' recently hired hate bloggers merely because they're allegedly "pro-gay" — i.e., they're sufficiently liberal.

But Malcontent points out that Amanda has only written one post in the last six months under GLBT.

In other words, to a certain brand of blogger — and gay activist – "pro-gay" and wildly liberal are automatically synonymous, despite any evidence to the contrary.

The lesson to be learned: Even hate-spewing simpletons are to be defended, as long as their politics are far enough to the left.

I view this narrow-mindedness the same way I view Amanda's vision of feminism: if you aren't for abortion rights, you aren't a feminist. Well, there's obviously a similar standard for gay rights supporters.

Why aren't people allowed to hold a variety of views--some similar, some contrary--and still be seen as legitimate?

The News We Should Be Paying Attention To

Michelle Malkin notes thatthis is the news we should be paying attention to, but since Anna Nicole Smith died, we'll be treated to endless tape of her instead.

Coalition forces in Iraq have delivered a series of stunning blows to al Qaeda in Iraq in the last 48 hours.

A key aide to Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the man who replaced Abu Musab al Zarqawi as the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, has been captured south of Baghdad. As A.J. Strata notes, the trail to the al Qaeda leader is fresh: the captured aide admitted to meeting with al Masri yesterday.

Since Taji is north of Baghdad, these two al Qaeda IED cell leaders captured by the U.S. in West Taji are not the same as those above. That's four al Qaeda leaders captured.

But four is such a lonely number. A facilitator of foreign fighters was captured by the Iarqi Army on the Syrian border. And foreign fighters tend to mean al Qaeda.

Not to be outdone by the IA, the U.S. struck two houses where foreign fighters had gathered---13 jihadis dead. An "individual" associated with foreign fighter facilitation was in the targeted area.

But wait, that's not all. Coalition Forces conducted an air strike Wednesday targeting an al-Qaida in Iraq-related vehicle-borne improvised explosives devices network near Arab Jabour. Intelligence reports indicated that this network is responsible for a large and devastating number of VBIED attacks in the Baghdad area. They are also responsible for IED and sniper attacks conducted against the Iraqi people and Iraqi and Coalition Forces. Building destroyed, everyone inside presumably dead.

And another terrorist was captured in Taji. In addition to leading a bombing cell, he is also believed to be involved in taking Iraqis hostage and murdering them. Which would mean that he is either al Qaeda or one of the related organizations under the umbrella of the "Islamic State of Iraq".

So, we have 6 al Qaeda leaders captured, and possibly dozens more killed. All in the last 48 hours.

Of course, we're blaming poor Anna Nicole Smith for not hearing this sort of thing on all the news channels, but I wonder what the excuse would have been had she not died?

Yay! He's Keeping Them! Pass the Popcorn, Please!

According to Dana at CSPT, John Edwards has made his decision and, boy, is it a laugher.

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

He talked to them and they assured him they had no intention of maligning anyone's faith? Is he serious? How else do you read this:

I believe this is something for which President Bush can take some much-deserved credit, as long as he’s willing to share it with his wingnut Christofascist base...

People wear their denominations as badges of honor; in many small towns, identifying as a particular denomination means you go to the nicest church, send your kids to the best private school, and probably hobnob with the mayor and most of the other community leaders at the church picnic. You’re not just announcing your beliefs regarding the number of sacraments; you’re establishing your social identity.

In other words, it's the same materialism as what car you drive or latte you drink. But that's not maligning anyone's religion? Well, how about this:

Understandably, it’s a game that Christians who don’t regard Jesus as a mascot don’t want to play, but the Christian Supremacy movement in America is a business. Millions and millions of dollars are raised every year by people professing to preach The Word in exchange for a few dollars (and a few more, and a few more) in the collection baskets, but all they’re really doing is selling a product—a way to cope with a changing world that robs bigots of their undeserved dominion, that tells them they really, at long last, must share equality with non-Christians, the LGBT community, strong women, minorities, and immigrants in the public sphere. They are losing control they were never meant to have, and Christianity 2.0 sells them the righteous anger and victimhood they need.

In these desperate people, the hate peddlers have found a ripe market for their wares. The hungry buyers come to the churches and the political rallies with money burning holes in the pockets of their sensible trousers, and they leave satiated, their bellies full of (self-)righteous indignation, with a determination to spread the word about the radical homosexual and feminist agendas, and a keen eye for the slightest proof that their suspicions about the dastardly fags and feminazis and liberals and brown people who threaten their way of life are all true. This is a booming business, and Falwell, Dobson, and Robertson have learned to roll out their product as efficiently as Ford and his Model-Ts.

Nah, that wasn't maligning anything, right?

Here's some classic Amanda, by way of Dana's post:

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

Remember, the purpose of going over this FAQ sheet point by point is that this is not fringe opinion, this is mainstream Catholic teaching. When we left off, the sheet was going over some tedious and ill-argued theological arguments against birth control. Now we’re at the part that really upset my friend—the part where the actual lies and misdirection come out. . . .

Catholics aren’t supposed to use birth control except that they are, because not using birth control is fucking stupid. This contradiction is resolved by using a form of birth control that has a high failure rate and is a source of unnecessary tension in relationships.. . .

And while we’re pulling numbers directly out of our ass, I’ll say that the divorce rate for couples who use NFP might be as high as 94.7%. Why not? Just remember, false witnessing is okay if done in the service of knocking women up against their will. Like it’s perfectly okay to say, “I had a vasectomy years ago, baby,” if you didn’t. God loves that sort of thing, since he’s a sadistic bastard. . . .

Have to stay unmarried and reap the joys of blissful fornication. I’d feel bad, except for the part where I don’t.

I can't tell you how delighted I am that Edwards has done this. It's going to be a fun campaign season!

UPDATE: Jeff Goldstein has a great take on the situation.

But lost on these Marcotte supporters—who are cheering on the power of the “netroots” to cow a politician into keeping on an ugly and hateful liability—is that Edwards just showed up Marcotte and McEwan as frauds and posturing blowhards, writers who have been pulling the wool over their audiences’ eyes by posting vicious “arguments” they never truly believed. To use the loaded language of establishment feminism—he publicly castrated them—and in so doing, he made fools out of their audiences, to boot.

Well said.

More Radical Grrrrlllls

Jessica at feministing.com has a rant about why she hates equality feminists.

I just lurve women that call themselves things like “equality feminists.” Or “conservative feminists.” These are ladies who doth protest a bit too much about how they trust and respect women—all while bashing the hell out of them.

I guess that's different from being a different sort of feminist who says she trusts and respects women--then bashes the hell out of them.

Jessica's post is about this article by Bridget Johnson from National Review Online. Johnson makes a point I've discussed previously (see here, here, and here) that I am more interested in a woman's political views, world view, and experience than I am in whether she's a woman, a wife, mother, or grandmother.

Unfortunately, Jessica gets caught up in one inconsequential paragraph of Johnson's column which stereotypes people in a feminist course as hairy-legged, ugly, and man-hating. But focusing on this lone paragraph of satire ignores the greater point of the piece.

For the final term paper, the professor asked us to state which theory of feminism we most ascribed to and why. As I thumbed through the textbook that spent less time on the Elizabeth Cady Stantons and more time celebrating the history of lesbianism, I became an anti-establishment mischief-maker.

Instead of celebrating one of her conveniently packaged theories, I wrote a “none of the above” paper that outlined the principle of conservative feminism. The conservative feminist believes in the inherent strength of women and their ability to achieve whatever they want without a crutch from the government. In fact, the conservative feminist believes that women being told they need a boost to get ahead is insulting to a woman’s intelligence and resolve. Conservative feminism regards abortion as violence to women and children, and believes in supporting women in the military, who are vital to our nation’s defense. The conservative feminist does not enjoy being discriminated against, thus would not endorse discrimination against others in the form of affirmative action.

I think this conservative feminism is far more appealling than any f-bomb laden argument that revolves around patriarchy and "a boot on the neck."

Six Myths about Amandagate

1. It's all about the cursing. There's no question that dropping f-bombs in every other sentence is an offensive and unnecessary rhetorical trick employed by Amanda and other lefties, but the problem isn't just how Amanda says things but what she actually says.

1. Pro-life supporters want to control all American vaginas.

2. Pro-life supporters just want a larger supply of white babies for adoption.

3. The Catholic church's teachings are "crazy."

4. Republicans are a misogynistic, homophobic, racist party.

5. NASCAR is a symbol for southern white supremacy.

6. Christians who support Israel hate Muslims.

7. Christ's crucifixion makes fundamentalist Christians want to kill Muslims.

8. Religion Is Bad For Society, and Charity is an Excuse To Harm the Weak.

9. People who believe in Creationism have the understanding of toddlers.

10. President Bush doesn't care if people live or die (referring to people working in the oil industry).

11. Parents who don't want their daughters to get the HPV vaccine would rather their daughters die of cervical cancer than admit their daughters will have sex one day.

(Taken from sources here and here, as well as various Pandagon posts.)

The truth is that using curse words is the smallest problem with Amanda's writing. She's vicious and nasty (President Bush doesn't care if people live or die?) and the rhetoric is ugly enough without the f-bombs.

2. There's a double standard at work here. This is the Media Matters, Glenn Greenwald, Carpetbagger Report meme du jour.

I realize this is a point I feel compelled to make from time to time, but it simply amazes me that there are two distinct standards for political associations. High-profile Democrats are supposed to keep their distance from anyone who dares to say anything intemperate, but Republicans have no qualms about maintaining close professional ties to some of the most vitriolic, hate-filled voices in our public discourse.

This comment was below a picture of President Bush speaking with a cadre of radio talk show hosts (Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved, Neal Boortz, Mike Gallagher). The problem with this meme is that none of the people in the picture work on political campaigns. Nor would you want them to because they would lose any credibility with their audiences to criticize other candidates.

Media Matters and Glenn "Sock Puppet Master" Greenwald have focused on a paid consultant for John McCain, Patrick Hynes. The scuttlebutt is that Hynes called Henry Waxman names (which to normal people would just be childish name calling, but to someone grasping at straws, they became racist insults), he wrote a book calling America "a Christian Nation," he wrote some anti-Mitt Romney things, and he blogged about political matters without revealing his status as a paid consultant for McCain.

I'm sorry, but none of what Hyne did compares to the daily diatribes of Amanda and Melissa. If Greenwald and Media Matters wanted to make this charge stick, they need to find some nasty, trash-talking, well-known conservative who is working for a Republican presidential campaign. What they've come up with is pathetic.

3. The MSM is biased against Marcotte and McEwan. This argument is being played out in whinier corners of the internet, but it's not true. The argument is that the New York Times has shown its rightwing bias by covering this fracas, but there's no evidence of this. Amandagate had been in full swing for nearly 10 days before the NYT wrote anything at all about it. In fact, there were rightwing bloggers arguing that the MSM was trying very hard to bury this story.

The fact is that it is an interesting story about a new area of campaigning (the internet) and its potential benefits and pitfalls. If anything, the NYT bent over backwards not to portray Marcotte and McEwan as the rabid, race-baiting moonbats they actually are. The descriptions of Amanda's posts were tepid and restrained. The NYT did as dry a story about this fiasco as was possible, not a hatchet job on people they dislike. If lefties want to discuss hatchet jobs, go read some of the stuff about the Scooter Libby trial or half the pieces done on President Bush.

4. Edwards will lose votes if he dumps Marcotte/McEwan or Edwards will lose votes if he keeps Marcotte/McEwan. I put these myths together because I see them juxtaposed on virtually any lefty blog. The truth is that keeping the trash-talk twins on staff probably is doing Edwards more harm than good because they are distracting from his message. On the other hand, they are very internet savvy and that is an asset to his campaign, which seems to be trying to lock up the internet user early in this race. Judging from remarks made in the much-touted Salon.com article, I suspect the Edwards' campaign is going to take a page from the Clinton strategy guide and hunker down, waiting for the storm to blow over, keeping the gals on staff. To be honest, I hope they do because watching the Edwards campaign implode will be oh, so much fun with those two around.

5. The only people complaining wouldn't vote for Edwards anyway. It's true that the blogs shining the light on the cesspool that is Pandagon and Shakespeare's Sister are right-leaning in nature. But the idea that no one reading those posts would vote for Edwards in any case is patently untrue. Blogs get readers, commenters, and lurkers of every political stripe imaginable. Lots of people (like me) read a lot of blogs that contain nothing with which they agree. The idea of reading those blogs is to expand one's range of information sources. There are plenty of potential Edwards supporters who read Little Green Footballs, Ann Althouse, and Daily KOS.

6. If Edwards fires Marcotte and McEwan, he'll be caving into pressure from the right and who knows where that will lead? If Edwards fires the trash-talking twins, he'll be admitting he's human and made a mistake in hiring such radioactive personalities. But if he keeps them on, they will continue to be a source of entertainment for right-leaning blogs, which won't be good for Edwards, either. There's a paranoid thought floating out there that admitting a mistake will only agitate the forces against you. I think there are instances where this is correct (for example, President Bush acknowledging mistakes in Iraq lead to a feeding frenzy demanding he "admit he was wrong" or whatever). For the most part, however, dealing with unfortunate circumstances and moving on is the best way of handling bad news. Part of the problem with the Mark Foley scandal was that Denny Hastert couldn't let the thing go and it kept damaging Republicans.

While this list is far from exhaustive, I think it covers the main myths swirling around Amandagate at this time. I'll update as more comes up.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

There's Always a Guy Trying to Make a Buck

I've been getting a lot of spam for the last few weeks, mainly because I lost my mind one day and signed up for something that turned out not to be something I wanted. Within hours, just like ants at a picnic, I was on practically every mailing list in the universe.

Usually, I just delete the things without looking at them, but this one caught my eye:

Cover your website tracks today.

I only wish I had Amanda's e-mail address and I would send it to her. :)

Trying to Compare Oranges and Apples

Liberals frequently like to try to compare two entirely different things and say they are the same. For example, there's the comparison between defense of traditional marriage with the civil rights movement. Or, as happened on a recent thread at Common Sense Political Thought, comparing radical Islam, which has at least 10 million followers, with tiny radical Christian sects which have perhaps a few thousand followers (at best).

The latest example is the leftwing blogosphere's attempt to defend potty-mouth Amanda Marcotte by accusing right leaning blogs of similar behavior. The problem is, there isn't anything close to the sorts of things Amanda has routinely said for years.

Media Matters is already doing their best at damage control by finding a blogger who said Chelsea Clinton was ugly. I kid you not.

Worse, MM quotes Sock Puppet MasterGlenn Greenwald, who laughably uses the "everybody does it" argument that your mom wouldn't buy back in seventh grade and doesn't work today.

I do not know of many bloggers, or citizens generally, who do not have some views that would be offensive to large groups of people and who periodically express those views in less than demure ways, but if that is going to be the standard, we ought to apply it universally to all bloggers who are affiliated with political campaigns.

Hilariously, Greenwald sifts through the blog of Patrick Hynes, a paid consultant for John McCain. Here's what Greenwald found:

1. Hynes called Henry Waxman names (no curse words are noted)

2. Hynes' claiming that America is a "Christian nation" (I know, it's horrifyingly similar to accusing pro-life supporters of only wanting more babies for adoption, isn't it?)

3. He wrote anti-Mitt Romney posts.

I guess in Greenwald's world, this:

One thing I vow here and now–you motherfuckers who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will fuck without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous motherfuckers. I’m not going to be “punished” with babies. Which makes all your efforts a failure. Some non-procreating women escaped. So give up now. You’ll never catch all of us. Give up now.

Equates with this:

But a dude with a mug like this guy has really needs a nickname. Something that’ll stick. Nothing too clever comes to mind right away. If you have any suggestions, please leave them in the “Comments” thread.

Then making a "big nose" joke which is, if you are a moonbat, anti-semitic.

He's kidding, right? This is the best he can come up with? I'm sure I've written more inflammatory stuff than that if the hysterical Pandagonistas are any indication.

I guess some commenters took Greenwald's tepid arguments apart because he had to come back with an update.

It is some Catholics themselves -- like evangelical Christians and religious Jews and others -- who have transformed their set of religious beliefs into politcal beliefs, even political weapons.

There is nothing per se wrong with doing that, but under those circumstances, there is also no justification for the notion that those beliefs should then be immune from the same type of criticisms, and even mockery, which is deemed acceptable when applied to any other set of political beliefs. I suppose that in an ideal world it would be nice if we all engaged in political discussions using only the most polite and respectful tone. But every set of political beliefs is subjected to the most intense insult and mockery, and those who insinuate their religious beliefs into the political arena have no right thereafter to demand that those beliefs be accorded some sort of special status.

Here's where Greenwald is wrong. Every set of political beliefs need not be subjected to intense insult and mockery, certainly not the level that Amanda Marcotte uses.

That really is the point of the whole controversy. Amanda managed, over the course of her blogger career, to insult huge constituents any rational candidate needs to get elected to higher office. I'm not simply talking about the fact that she has a hard time putting together more than three sentences without a curse word. I'm talking about the insulting, vituperative and unnecessary vitriol aimed at her political opponents. Call people "wingnuts" if you want. Call them "moonbats" if you want. But when you mock sacred tenets of a religion for a cheap joke, ridicule people who might share some of your beliefs but don't believe in abortion, or state that parents who don't want their daughters to get the HPV vaccine would rather their kids died of cancer than admit those kids might have sex one day, then you are crossing the line.

There's a big difference between "big nose" and "godbags." The people who don't understand that probably won't be winning any elections any time soon, anyay.

Reality According to Hollywood

Via ChristianityToday.com:

--All grocery shopping bags contain at least one stick of French bread.

--The ventilation system of any building is the perfect hiding place.

--The Eiffel Tower can be seen from any window in Paris.

--A man will show no pain while taking the most ferocious beating but will wince when a woman tries to clean his wounds.

--Cars that crash will almost always burst into flames.

--Persons knocked unconscious by a blow to the head will never suffer a concussion or brain damage.

--It is always possible to park directly outside the building you are visiting.

--Any lock can be picked by a credit card or a paper clip in seconds—unless it's the door to a burning building with a child trapped inside.

--All bombs are fitted with electronic timing devices with large red readouts so you know exactly when they will go off.

--Medieval peasants had perfect teeth.

--It is not necessary to say hello or goodbye when beginning or ending phone conversations.

--Any person waking from a nightmare will sit bolt upright and pant.

--It does not matter if you are heavily outnumbered in a fight involving martial arts; your enemies will patiently wait to attack you one by one by dancing around in a threatening manner until you have knocked out their predecessors.

My husband said he's seen that before, but I still thought it was funny. :)

Is She Measuring the Oval Office for Curtains, Too?

Grandma Nancy Pelosi wants a jet. Not just any jet. A big jet. One that can hold lots and lots of her favorite people (presumably all those grandkids). And she wants you and I, the taxpayers, to pay for it.

The Bush administration has agreed to provide House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with regular access to an Air Force passenger jet, but the two sides are negotiating whether she will get the big aircraft she wants and who she may take as passengers, according to congressional and administration sources.

A congressional source said that Rep. John P. Murtha, chairman of House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, which controls the Pentagon's spending, has telephoned administration officials to urge them to give the speaker what she wants.

Evidently, the Pentagon is thinking about the fact that Democrats hold the purse strings for defense spending. Hell, if Grandma gets testy, she might decide to slash the budget.

Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri called it a "flying Lincoln Bedroom," and Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican, labeled the speaker's plane "Pelosi One."

"This is a bullet point to a larger value -- Pelosi's abuse of power continues," Mr. McHenry said yesterday. "It began when the speaker denied minority rights to Republicans, continued with her 'TunaGate' scandal, and now she's exploiting America's armed forces and taxpayers for her own personal convenience."

Since September 11, 2001, the Speaker of the House has used an Air Force One commuter-type jet. But Grandma wants a bigger jet. Just like the President's. Isn't that nice?

UPDATE: Our friend Aphrael pointed out that, given the distance to Pelosi's district, the request isn't unreasonable. While (like me) he thinks it is a frivolous perk, she should have the same convenience that the former Speaker, Denny Hastert, had. And I agree with him. Read his post here.

And They're Out

According to Salon.com,

The right-wing blogosphere has gotten its scalps -- John Edwards has fired the two controversial bloggers he recently hired to do liberal blogger outreach, Salon has learned.

The bloggers, Amanda Marcotte, formerly of Pandagon, and Melissa McEwan, of Shakespeare's Sister, had come under fire from right-wing bloggers for statements they had previously made on their respective blogs. A statement by the Catholic League's Bill Donohue, which called Marcotte and McEwan "anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots," and an accompanying article on the controversy in the New York Times this morning, put extra pressure on the campaign.

Speculation from sources that the two bloggers might be rehired was bolstered by Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for the Edwards campaign, who said in an e-mail that she would "caution [Salon] against reporting that they have been fired. We will have something to say later."

I wouldn't be surprised if they took them off the payroll for a day, then put them back on it, calling them something else.

Allahpundit at HotAir has some interesting thoughts on the situation.

If you think you’ve seen the worst of Marcotte, wait ’til the axe finally falls and she gets to respond to the uproar at Pandagon, using her idiom of choice instead of the diplospeak the campaign’s momentarily forced on her. The “patriarchy” will be blamed, the F-bomb ostentatiously deployed (conspicuous profanity being shockingly “unladylike” and therefore mandatory for the liberated consciousness), and the anti-Christian insults will come faster and furiouser — and filthier — than ever. Which, ironically, will only confirm the campaign’s good sense in deciding to can her. And of course, virtually to a man/woman, the nutroots will rally behind her. If that means mainstreaming someone who enjoys a little Virgin Mary/semen humor as part of her arguments about birth control, hey. The right wing is criticizing her; that’s all they need to know, just like it was all they needed to know about Jamilgate vis-a-vis the AP.

I'm sure Amanda's got her list going of people to blame (everyone but herself), sites to blast, Christians to mock, and Catholics to eviscerate. But that's really not much different than what she was doing in the first place. I frequently have posted about the more outrageous statements made on Pandagon, usually about abortion and feminism, but sometimes about other things.

One of the more interesting side issues that seems to be bothering a lot of people is the ability of bloggers to work on political campaigns (see specifically, this post from Captain Ed that I linked earlier, plus this from E.M., as quoted by Allahpundit):

Honestly, its time to let Amanda go. Let her and her "so rebellious its conformist" ideas be on her way. If we continue on the current path, we are signing away a license to skewer mercilessly any blogger ever hired by any Republican Presidential campaign. Its open season on everyone. There's no political job that any of us can take without the understanding that we will now be vivisected for our very beliefs. And thats not something we are looking forward to.

Allahpundit rightly points out that no rightwing blogger stood a snowball's chance in hell of not being eviscerated by the likes of Amanda, anyway. Heavens, she got bent out of shape the first time I quoted from her site, for crying out loud. We aren't talking about people who are in this to play fair. They'll even tell you so (see I Won’t Be Fair to Fascists I Won’t Be Nice to Nazis by olvlzl).

UPDATE: Media Matters is already trying to imply that Republican bloggers are as bad as Amanda Marcotte. Not that it will work.

Washington Initiative Requires Married Couples to Have Kids

From the "we want to keep government out of the bedroom" crowd, we have this.

An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.

Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

I guess explaining that marriage is designed to protect the interests of children has now been translated into mandatory child-bearing. Where are the pro-choicers here?

Democrats Are Already Whining about Filibusters

Remember the filibuster flap of 2003? That was the one where Democrats wouldn't allow various judicial nominees to come up for a vote because they knew the nominees would get confirmed and the Democrats couldn't have that.

Oh, there was lots of pontificating from the left side of the aisle (see here, here, and here for starters) about the importance of consultation in the selecting of judges. And Democrats used the filibuster very well on other issues, as well.

I'm not a fan of the filibuster as it is currently practiced. I've always said that if one side or the other wants to filibuster, then do it the proper way: read the phone book. But such physical display is unseemly these days, so it isn't done.

I'm not in favor of the "nuclear" or "Constitutional" option, either. That is, I don't think the filibuster should be done away with. It is the only brake the minority party has in the legislative process in either House of Congress. Without it, the minority party might as well not bother showing up for votes. Or we could look a lot like Congress looked during Reconstruction.

Well, evidently Cenk Uygur agrees with me that the filibuster should be a real filibuster.

They could read the telephone book for all I care. I just want to embarrass them. Make them get up there and physically block a vote about what we should do in Iraq. Have them in front of the cameras telling the American people why we wouldn't shouldn't vote on the most important issue in the country.

They want a filibuster? Give them one. Let them make jackasses of themselves.

Somehow, I doubt Uygur was as enthusiastic about making Senators drone on for hours on end when it would have been Democrats doing it. But maybe I'm not giving the guy enough credit.

Because People Are Too Stupid to Pay Attention

A New York state senator is proposing a ban on "using an MP3 player, cell phone, Blackberry or any other electronic device while crossing the street in either New York City or Buffalo."

NewsChannel 4 reported that Sen. Carl Kruger is proposing the ban in response to two recent pedestrian deaths in his district, including a 23-year-old man who was struck and killed last month while listening to his iPod on Avenue T and East 71st Street In Bergen Beach.

"While people are tuning into their iPods and cell phones, they're tuning out the world around them," Kruger said. The proposed law would make talking on cell phones while crossing the street a comparable offense to jaywalking.

I guess people in Albany are still smart enough to listen to music and pay attention to traffic.