Blog of the Moderate Left

2006-04-23T23:59:00.000-05:00

Goodbye, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Good Night

Well, this will officially be the last post I put up on the old site. In a way, it's bittersweet; moderateleft.blogspot.com has been my web home for almost as long as my daughter's been alive. It's been my web home through four jobs, two homes, and the end of a marriage. I'm going to miss it.

Still, all good things and all that. I'm excited about what WordPress is going to allow me to do with the new site, and I've barely begun to scratch the surface of that. Hopefully I won't lose too much traffic in the switchover--not that I had an overwhelming amount to begin with.

At any rate, if you're reading this on the old site, you should now go to http://moderateleft.com, where I will be posting from here on out.

2006-04-23T22:01:00.000-05:00

Please, Make It Stop

I don’t know how many times I can link to yet more proof that the Bushies gamed Iraq intelligence before I scream. It’s despicable:

First, Drumheller says that most folks in the intelligence community didn’t think there was anything to the Niger-uranium story. We knew that in general terms; but we hadn’t heard it yet from someone so closely involved in the case itself. Remember, the CIA Station Chief in Rome, the guy who first saw the documents when they were dropped off at the US Embassy in October 2002, worked for Drumheller.

Second, Drumheller told us a lot more about the case of Naji Sabri, Iraq’s Foreign Minister, who the CIA managed to turn not long before the war broke out. Drumheller was in charge of that operation. The White House, as Drumheller relates it, was really excited to hear what Sabri would reveal about the inner-workings of Saddam’s regime, and particularly about any WMD programs. That is, before Sabri admitted that Saddam didn’t have any active programs. Then they lost interest.

Of course, what would Tyler Drumheller know? He was just the head of covert operations in Europe. And evidently, a liberal traitorous Chimpy McHitlerburton-hating evil Judas. Not someone brave like Hugh Hewitt or Glenn Reynolds or John Hinderaker. No, sir.

Once again, this is the context in which we must place any hypothetical action against Iran. Maybe Iran is a threat and maybe they aren’t–but either way, we cannot trust one word the administration has to say about it. They’ve proven to be lying too many times.

2006-04-23T19:46:00.000-05:00

Oh, For God's Sake

Really, please, this is just beyond insanity:

The United States doesn’t have enough good intelligence to know whether or not Iran will be capable of producing nuclear weapons in the near future, top congressional intelligence committee members said on Sunday.

Iran said earlier on Sunday it would not abandon its work on nuclear enrichment, which the United Nations has demanded it halt, and was prepared to face sanctions from abroad.

Asked on Fox News Sunday when Iran might be capable of producing nuclear weapons, House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican, said: “I’d say we really don’t know.

“We’re getting lots of mixed messages,” Hoekstra said.

“We’ve got a long way to go in rebuilding our intelligence community. …. We don’t have all of the information we would like to have.

Of course, here’s a thought–we could improve intelligence capabilities if we weren’t attempting to purge all liberals from the CIA. But that might keep us from invading Iran or Iraq or Iceland–whichever one we want to at the moment.

2006-04-23T19:33:00.000-05:00

Klein pwns Klein

Ezra Klein’s post on Joe Klein’s, er, effusive appearance on Hugh Hewitt’s show is a must-read. If Joe Klein ever was a liberal (something that was debatable even before he penned Primary Colors), he certainly isn’t anymore.

2006-04-23T18:51:00.000-05:00

The Cause of--and Solution to--All Our Problems

So when people hear a story about a rape where the male assailant was drunk, they think the female was more at fault, and when they hear a story about a rape where the female victim was drunk, they think the female was more at fault.

Excuse me, I’m going to go bash my head in with a ball peen hammer.

2006-04-21T22:10:00.000-05:00

Friday Random Ten
Tonto! Jump on it! Jump on it! Jump on it!

1. "Jambo," Claude McLin with the Sugarhill Gang
2. "Get Along," Mike Doughty
3. "A Light of Some Kind (Live)," Ani DiFranco
4. "The Idiot Kings," Soul Coughing
5. "Ramblin' Gamblin' Man," Bob Seger
6. "To Be Young (is to be Sad, is to be High)," Ryan Adams
7. "You'll Miss Me," They Might Be Giants
8. "Cash Cow," Mike Doughty
9. "Don't Need a Reason," Beth Orton
10. "Land of 1000 Dances," Wilson Pickett

2006-04-21T08:44:00.000-05:00

Not Undefinable: "Moron"

So South Dakota Rep. Joel Dykstra (R-Lincoln County) explains why there was no rape or incest exception to the anti-choice law: because who knows what rape or incest are, anyhow?

“I think ‘rape and incest’ is a buzzword,” said Rep. Joel Dykstra about not including those conditions in the abortion bill. “It’s a bit of a throwaway line and not everybody who says that really understands what that means. How are you going to define that?”

Well, let me try Webster's:

³rape

Function: noun

1 : an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent -- compare SEXUAL ASSAULT, STATUTORY RAPE
3 : an outrageous violation

Seems clear enough. How 'bout incest?

in·cest
Pronunciation: 'in-"sest
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin incestus sexual impurity, from incestus impure, from in- + castus pure -- more at CASTE
: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry; also : the statutory crime of such a relationship

So there you go, Rep. Dykstra. In a thirty-second search, I have managed to define "rape and incest." I'm sure any minute you'll be back at work, crafting these exceptions to your well-thought-out, totally-not-anti-woman piece of legislation.

2006-04-20T09:04:00.000-05:00

Everything's Coming Up Bolten!

Can you feel it?

Can you?

I can feel it. It feels like change. Super-duper change.

Now that Karl Rove has given up his title as Deputy Chief of Staff and Scott McClellan has resigned, how can anything ever go wrong again?

After all, when Hurricane Katrina was bearing down on New Orleans and Gulfport, I remember thinking, “The problem here is really that the White House press briefing tomorrow will lack a certain je ne sais qua.”

And when mosques were getting blown up in Iraq, I remember musing, “Well, the reason this is happening is that Karl Rove is too busy acting as Bush’s domestic policy advisor to simultaneously focus on electoral strategy.”

And who didn’t think, as things generally fell apart in America, that this was all the fault of White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, and if only we could get a totally different Bush flunky in that position–like, say Josh Bolten–then things would be scrumtrelescent?

Indeed, things are already looking up. In Pakistan, Osama bin Laden has surrendered. “I just can’t face a Bush administration that could possibly have Tony Snow as its press secretary,” he said. “My God, the power of his spin at Fox News was legendary, how can we fight against it should it enter the very seat of power?”

And over in Iraq, a unity government has now formed, backing Ahmed Chalabi as its Prime Minister. “The example of America was wonderful,” said outgoing Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. “That they could slightly demote Karl Rove from one powerful position in the White House to another, essentially similar position in the White House was a lesson to us all.”

Yes, it’s a beautiful day in America. Surely everything will go right from now on. And if Tresury Secretary John Snow gets the axe–well, things might get too good. But it’s a chance we’ll have to take.

2006-04-18T14:29:00.000-05:00

So That’s Why There’s No Incest Exception....

Dang it, PZ, why’d you have to point me to this unbelievably disturbing thing? In South Dakota, where abortion will soon be illegal, daughters are pledging their troth to their fathers. Or something:

HINOJOSA:
THE YOUNG WOMEN HERE ALL MAKE A PROMISE TO THEIR FATHERS THAT THEY WONT’ HAVE SEX UNTIL THE DAY THEY GET MARRIED.

GIRLS RECITING PLEDGE:…to remain sexually pure…until the day I give myself as a wedding gift to my husband. … I know that God requires this of me.. that he loves me. and that he will reward me for my faithfulness.

Oh. My. God.

I want to state this as explicitly as possible: if my daughter ever, at any point in her life, attempted to even say words like the above ones to me I would flee, screaming, from the room. She is free to save herself for marriage or behave with wanton abandon, because that is her decision. I don’t have one scintilla of right to interfere in her future sex life, nor to demand that she pledge to be faithfully abstinent until marriage for me.

Will I have suggestions to her? Advice? Rules during the time she’s a minor? Of course. I’m her dad. But I’m not so far gone as to believe that will accomplish much–if she’s determined to lose her virginity before I think she’s ready, she will. All I can do is point out things and make sure her mom and I have told her where Planned Parenthood is.

Am I sangine about this? No. I hope and pray my daughter never has to experience an unplanned pregnancy–it’s an awful experience no matter the decision at the end of it, and I want my daughter to have as few awful experiences in her life as she can. And I hope and pray my daughter is careful about who she chooses to be with, because sex is a powerful thing, and when used carelessly it can cause more pain than joy.

But I won’t make her promise me anything about it–because it’s not about me. I don’t own my daughter. I care for her, and I hope to parent her well, and I owe her everything I can give her–but I don’t own her. She owns herself, and if she wishes to make decisions about her sexuality, well, I can’t think of anything that is more personal than that.

2006-04-18T10:38:00.000-05:00

Update: One Duke Suspect Convicted Gay Basher

And when I say gay-basher, I don’t mean he said mean things:

Mr. Finnerty had been arrested with two teammates from his high school lacrosse team in the Georgetown section of Washington on Nov. 5, after a man told police at 2:30 a.m. that they "had punched him in the face and body, because he told them to stop calling him gay and other derogatory names," according to court records. Mr. Finnerty’s lawyer in that case, Steven J. McCool, said that the student had entered the District of Columbia’s diversionary program, and that the assault charge would be dismissed after the completion of 25 hours of community service.

Charming. Who doesn’t go out looking for gay men to beat up in order to prove their manliness? I don’t know if either suspect is guilty. (I have my suspicions.) But it does appear that these weren’t poor, innocent naifs who got set up by a scheming, drunk, black stripper. Whether guilty or not, there does appear to be some karmic retribution at play.

2006-04-18T08:58:00.000-05:00

Two Arrests in Duke Lacrosse Case

Well, I guess the case isn’t wholly without merit after all:

Two 20-year-old Duke University lacrosse players were arrested early Tuesday on charges of raping and kidnapping a stripper hired to dance at an off-campus party.

Reade Seligmann posted a $400,000 bond and Collin Finnerty was in the process of doing so for the same amount, said Col. George Naylor of the Durham County jail. By posting bond, the players avoided making an initial court appearance later in the day.

Now, of course, we enter the twilight phase where there’ll be plenty of ad hominem attacks launched against the victim, because that’s how you defend an accused rapist–by turning the tables and smearing the accuser. I wonder why rape is underreported?

2006-04-18T02:54:00.000-05:00

Treason's Just Another Word for Nothin' Left to Lose

God Bless the Blogger Formerly Known as Big Trunk. He’ll never be as big as his co-blogger, the Blogger Formerly Known as Hindrocket. His old nom de guerre wasn’t as homoerotic. His writing, while insane, is not quite as insane as Hinderaker’s. He’ll always be the number two of the Power Tools.

But what do they say about number two? That’s right–he tries harder. And Scott Johnson is certainty trying with this little ditty, where he awards the Pulitzer Prize for Treason:

Following in the footsteps of the AP last year, New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau won the Pulitzer Prize today for their treasonous contribution to the undermining of the highly classified National Security Agency surveillance program of al Qaeda-related terrorists. As I wrote in a column for the Standard, the Risen/Lichtblau reportage clearly violated relevant provisions of the Espionage Act — a particularly serious crime insofar as it lends assistance to the enemy in a time of war.

[…]

What about the Pulitzer Prize committee? When Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for the Times in connection with his mendacious coverage of Stalin’s Soviet Union, he performed valuable public relations work for a mass murderer. He nevertheless did no direct harm to the United States. Today’s Pulitzer Prize award to the Times brings a new shame to the Pulitzer Prize committee that builds on its disgrace last year via the award to the AP.

Yes, folks, that’s right: when the New York Times reported on the Bush administration’s violation of federal law, it was not just being the mean nasty MSM poopyhead soft-on-Islamofascism paper it usually is. No, it was committing treason. And not just any old treason–worse treason than backing Josef Stalin!

Now, leave aside that treason–providing aid and comfort to an enemy during time of war–is a charge that should be leveled with the utmost care and precision. And leave aside the obvious fact that no matter the context, the federal government cannot expect to be able to classify evidence that the government has violated the law. And leave aside the fact that if I told you there were two writers named Hindrocket and Big Trunk, you’d naturally assume that Hindrocket was the receiver in that relationship.

Leave all that aside and just marvel that here, at the dawn of a new millennium, Scott Johnson has declared that outing an illegal Presidential wiretapping scheme is worse than printing Soviet propaganda, and as bad as actually taking up arms for the Taliban.

That’s some serious, weapons-grade wingnuttery, Scott. You’ll never be Hindrocket, but God bless you for trying.

2006-04-17T10:04:00.000-05:00

Walz Outraises Gutknecht

PatMN is right--this is an enormous story. For a non-incumbent Democrat to out-fundraise an incumbent Republican--well, it's almost impossible.

The First could be in play. It's a tilt-right district, but it used to be represented by conservative Democrat (and BotML favorite) Tim Penny, and a moderate like Walz should be able to be competitive. In a tilt-left year, it might even be winnable. Walz is a long way from Washington, of course. But this is a great sign that he's running a credible campaign--and that he's got a bit of momentum on his side.

2006-04-17T09:45:00.000-05:00

Great Moments in Projection

Man, the Blogger Formerly Known as Hindrocket never fails to disappoint:

Here is why I think so many liberals are anxious for President Bush to replace Rumsfeld: they have staked a great deal on the proposition that the Iraq war has not gone well, and, in fact, has been a disaster. But they are troubled because they are not at all sure that is true. By any reasonable standard, casualties have been low and Iraq's progress toward democracy has been impressive. This doesn't mean the project couldn't still go off the rails; it clearly could. But it is also possible--likely, I think--that the Iraqis will succeed in forming a government, violence will continue to decline, our troops levels will be substantially reduced, and, in a year or two, the consensus will be that the war was pretty successful after all. This, I think, is what liberals fear most. They want President Bush to stipulate, in effect, that the war has been poorly conducted and has been a failure. That's the way in which firing Rumsfeld would rightly be interpreted. This would largely insulate liberals against the consequences if the war does, in fact, turn out to be successful. The same logic, I think, explains why liberals are always hectoring President Bush to "admit his mistakes." What they fear, deep down, is that the President's policies haven't been mistakes at all.

Wow. I mean, I don't really even know how to respond to that. Usually, in an argument, you try to point out how your opponent is wrong. But Hinderaker isn't wrong here--he's simply not describing reality.

Violence is declining in Iraq? Really? Democracy is on the march? Really?

This isn't misinterpereting facts; this is completely ignoring them and making up a happy place in your mind where we were greeted with flowers and candy, and "Democracy, Whisky, Sexy" is Iraq's national motto, and Power Line really has credibility, damn it. And that little voice in the back of your mind that whispers that 1435 civilian deaths in Iraq in the past two months--not to mention 82 coalition deaths--might indicate that things there are not a glorious victory for America...well, one can tell that voice to shut up, because we're winning, damn it, and only those liberal traitors to America think differently.

2006-04-16T21:42:00.000-05:00

Real Men Don’t Fight for “Men’s Rights”

I have some sympathy for the Men’s Rights crowd.

For the most part, what the MRM claims to be for is good, even laudable. They support the idea that fathers should be given equal consideration in custody proceedings, and the idea that fathers are as important as mothers in the lives of children. They talk about how we need to recognize men’s contribution to children, how we should encourage society to accept that women and men both have a responsibility to parent–and to let the other parent parent, too.

All good. And all things I believe. I do think that men are undervalued as parents, and subtly discouraged from viewing themselves as a primary caregiver to their children. One need only look at how few men are stay-at-home dads to see that as far as society has come, we still view men as the second-most-important parent.

So we need to find a way to move to equality in relationships. All well and good, and it seems to me that there are two strategies one could adopt.

The first is for Men’s Rights advocates to recognize that they have common cause with feminists. Women are pressured to stay in the home as much as men are pressured to be good providers. For every man who secretly would like to stay home with the kids, there’s a mom who would love to get back into the workforce. By stating that we oppose the ideal of declaring one sex the “nurturing” one and the other the “providing” one, we could work toward a future where men and women were truly able to make decisions based on what was important to them.The second would be to bitch incessantly about how women get too much child support.

Guess which tactic the Men’s Rights crowd has chosen?

Much as is the case with abortion, the Men’s Rights movement isn’t really about gaining equality in the home. MRMers don’t want equality, they want fealty. They complain about how “their” money goes to support “her.” They complain that feminisim destroys marriages by making women too critical of their mates–never questioning whether any of that criticism is valid.

Perhaps if Men’s Rights activists really seemed to have the best interests of their children at heart, I could forgive that. But they just don’t. Complaining that too much of your money is going to your children, scheming to ensure that their mother is left in penury if you can pull it off, launching custody fights designed to bankrupt your ex–these are the actions of petty little men more stung by rejection than animated by a love of their children.

And that is why I have no time for them. Not that their stated goals are not worthy, nor that the current child support system is flawless, nor that women are “better” than men. No, my problem with the MRAers is that they don’t give a damn about their kids, not really. Real men–the men who do care about their kids, who fight for custody not to save a buck but because they think it’s in their children’s best interests–these men I can find common cause with. But those men are too busy helping their children grow into adults to complain about women–and if those men are honest, they know that whatever the faults of the woman they were not able to build a life with, their children benefit from having her.

2006-04-16T21:11:00.000-05:00

Things I Believe

When I started this blog, I was much more conservative than I am now.

I’m still a moderate overall, but the past four years have pushed me further to the left than I once was. In part this is a natural reaction, I think–above all else, I’m a pragmatist, and if the Bush administration hasn’t proven the moral bankruptcy and intellectual vacuity of the right, I don’t know what else could.

This is not to say that I’ve abandoned everything I once believed. I remain a believer in fiscal responsibility–keeping the budget balanced, being very sure about programs before funding them, striving to continually improve governmental efficiency, and looking for the most cost-effective solutions to the problems that bedevil our society. I continue to be a free-speech absolutist; I may not support the war in Iraq, but I am not averse to using force to defend American interests abroad.

But there is no doubt in my mind that my views on a number of subjects have changed; thus, I’ve decided to examine my views on a variety of topics. Narcissistic? I’m a blogger. We’re all about the narcissism. But hopefully, I’ll write in the entertaining manner which has attracted literally some people to this blog.

2006-04-16T20:57:00.000-05:00

Shorter Jeff Goldstein

It truly is a shame that our military is so anti-military.

2006-04-14T13:06:00.000-05:00

Iran So Far Away....

Like brown is the new black, like “Family Guy” is the new “Simpsons,” like Tom DeLay is the new Dan Rostenkowski, so Iran is the new Iraq.

Contentious history with America? Yes! Thuggish leader everyone loves to hate? Yes! Neocons claiming that Ragnarok could be just days away–unless we act? Yes!

There is, however, one big difference between Iraq and Iran, and it’s not just a closing consonant. Is George W. Bush trusted by anyone other than frothing wingnuts?

Not at all.

Therein lies a thin reed of hope, if we can grasp it. Look, I’m not absolutely opposed to military action against Iran. Were it Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan or–well, any President of the last seventy years save George W. Bush or Lyndon B. Johnson–then I’d be happy to listen to arguments for and against, and I would trust that no matter what decision was made, it would have been the result of careful consideration. If we went in, I’d believe that we knew what we were trying to do, and had a plan for getting out.
I don’t trust the current administration to order lunch.

2006-04-13T14:00:00.000-05:00

Great Moments in the Battle for Pharmacists' Rights

So now pharmacists have started denying prescription for post-abortion antibiotics. Because antibiotics stop a beating heart. Well, they don’t, but it’s not really about abortion anyhow, is it?

2006-04-13T12:02:00.000-05:00

We Don't Care, We Don't Have to--We're the Phone Company

So the other day, the Attorney General of the United States mentioned that he thought the President could listen in on purely domestic phone calls. Why would Alberto “Abu” Gonzales say such a thing?

Because the President was listening in on purely domestic phone calls:

In papers filed late Monday, AT&T argued that confidential technical documents provided by an ex-AT&T technician to the Electronic Frontier Foundation shouldn’t be used as evidence in the case and should be returned. The documents, which the EFF filed under a temporary seal last Wednesday, purportedly detail how AT&T diverts internet traffic to the National Security Agency via a secret room in San Francisco and allege that such rooms exist in other AT&T switching centers.

AT&T built a secret room in its San Francisco switching station that funnels internet traffic data from AT&T Worldnet dialup customers and traffic from AT&T’s massive internet backbone to the NSA, according to a statement from Klein.

The company asked for a hearing Thursday to determine whether the documents could be used in the class-action lawsuit, whether they would be unsealed or whether the EFF would have to return them. The EFF filed a rebuttal, calling that time frame unworkable and accusing AT&T of not following normal court rules.

Of course, I don’t mind the government installing a videocamera in everone’s home to track their every move. It’s critical to the fight against ~~Eurasia East Asia~~ Islamofascism.

Is this illegal? Outlook hazy–AT & T is a private company; they might sort of, kind of have the right to let people listen in on your conversations, maybe. But one suspects that it’s not totally legal, given that there are rules about federal wiretapping.

At any rate, I look forward to the spin from the right. Let’s try. Ahem. “This is further proof that Democrats don’t care about American security. The fact that they would oppose the impantation of RFID chips into all of us and the new barcode tatoos proves they Hate Freedom.”

2006-04-13T08:49:00.000-05:00

Oh Please, Oh Please....

The Blogger Formerly Known as Hindrocket says that The Hammer is on the short list for White House Budget Director. Quoth John, “No one knows more about the budget. And I’d like to see the administration show some support for DeLay.” Me too, Hindrocket. Me too.

2006-04-13T08:06:00.000-05:00

Why We're In Iraq

I'm glad Atrios caught this, because I think this exchange on Hardball is 100% right:

[Newsweek Writer Evan] Thomas: I don't think the Wmd... I've never thought the WMD was the reason we went to war. They went to war for othe reasons. It was an excuse to go to war, it was a convenient excuse - they sorta believed it - but it really wasn't the reason they did it.

[drunk hitchens and tweety babbling]

Thomas: After 9/11 they felt they had to teach "The Arabs" a lesson. It was a demonstration of American force. We wanted to show the world - particularly the Arabs - how tough we were. I think that's why we went to war.

Tweety: It had to be a big bang in response to 9/11.

Thomas: Afghanistan was not a big enough bang.

And that, in a nutshell, is why we're in Iraq--because we wanted to teach "them" a lesson, and Iraq had a lot of "them."

Aside from the inanity of this argument, this makes our failure there all the more damaging--because we have taught them a lesson, and the lesson is this: for all our strength, there are some things Americans can't do.

Doing something just because you can is tremendously stupid, and unbelievably arrogant. We thought we could waltz into Baghdad and all would be duckies and bunnies. It wasn't. And far from strengthening America and creating fear throughout the Middle East, we've weakened America and strengthened Iran's hand. Hooray for us. We couldn't have screwed this up any worse had we wanted to.

2006-04-12T08:05:00.000-05:00

What a Shock!

Remember the trailers?

Of course you do! The trailers were what the President pulled out of his wazoo in 2003 when it was suddenly starting to look like maybe there weren't WMDs in Iraq after all. "We have found the weapons of mass destruction," the president said of these trailers, before, of course, it turned out we hadn't.

Now it turns out that even as he uttered those words, the President and his staff knew he was lying. The trailers were only used to make hydrogen for weather balloons.

I know, I know--it's hard to believe that President Bush could lie, especially about WMDs in Iraq. It's almost as if I told you that up was up and white was white.

2006-04-11T14:49:00.000-05:00

This May Be My Favorite Pool Report Ever

Via Wonkette:

Gorgeous day, 70 degrees with happy, red-capped turnout est at 25k. VPOTUS stepped out onto field dressed in khakis and a Nats bomber jacket to the sound of thunderous boos and catcalls, making Kerry’s welcome at the Dem convention seem downright warm (spotted in the crowd: a t-shirt upon which someone had scrawled, ‘don’t shoot me dick.’) Jeering may or may not have disrupted the veep’s concentraton, but the pitch — from about a yard in front of the mound — was short, bouncing once before being reined in.

Hehdeed.

2006-04-11T08:52:00.000-05:00

The Absence of Evidence

Our system of justice is biased toward defendants. That is as it should be. The state has a massive amount of power arrayed behind it, and because of that, we set our system up not to require defendants to demonstrate their innocence, but simply to demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt as to their guilt.

Undoubtedly, this leads to people who have committed crimes escaping conviction; Orenthal James Simpson is almost certainly guilty of having killed two people, but a jury of his peers felt differently, and thus he walks free today, hunting for the “real killer” on golf courses throughout America.

Keep this in mind as people try to tell you that the absence of DNA evidence in the Duke Lacrosse rape case is proof that the men are innocent, and the woman is lying

First of all, let’s not forget that there’s certainly evidence that something happened–and loads of evidence that at least some of these guys are irredeemably creepy. Second, it’s hard to determine a motive for this woman to lie. Yes, she’s “a stripper,” but that doesn’t mean she’s just given to lying all the time. At least part of her story seems to check out.

But what about the fact that no DNA was found? Doesn’t that prove innocence?

Of course not. DNA evidence can prove guilt. An absence of it can go to reasonable doubt, especially if the other evidence is weak. But it cannot by itself demonstrate reasonable doubt; the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

If this was a civil case, what’s been released so far seems to point toward some level of guilt; that said, this is not a civil case. It will be up to the prosecuting attorney to determine whether there remains sufficient evidence to charge and win conviction in this case. But whether or not he chooses to–and whether or not he earns a conviction–nobody has been proven innocent. At most, the accused will be not guilty–which is not the same thing.

2006-04-10T14:40:00.001-05:00

Plan B From Outer Space

If you haven’t read PZ Myers’ truly excellent explanation of why Plan B is not an abortifacient, you should go do so now.

I said now, damn it!

2006-04-10T10:56:00.000-05:00

A Few Minutes With Barack Obama

Flash has his interview up. Obama sounds pleasant and bright, as per usual.

2006-04-10T09:50:00.000-05:00

It Could Be Called a Design Failure

Who’s ultimately to blame for the drowning of New Orleans? The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. That’s not me talking–that’s the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:

Lt. Gen. Carl Strock told a Senate committee that the corps neglected to consider the possibility that floodwalls atop the 17th Street Canal levee would lurch away from their footings under significant water pressure and eat away at the earthen barriers below.

“We did not account for that occurring,” Strock said after the Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing. “It could be called a design failure.”

It could be. Or it could be called “gross negligence.” Regardless, if ever there was indication that the federal government has responsibility to help rebuild the city, this is it–since it was a failure of the federal government that caused the disaster in the first place.

It’s almost criminal that this is only being reported by the Times-Picayune. But it’s hard to keep track of stories regarding the destruction of one of America’s great cities. Especially ones that point the finger at us.

2006-04-10T09:04:00.000-05:00

Stop Making Sense

Smartie has 101 issues more important to discuss than Michele Bachmann's now-failed anti-marriage amendment.

2006-04-10T00:17:00.000-05:00

Shorter David Strom

Math is hard.

2006-04-10T00:04:00.000-05:00

Religion and Politics

I have some thoughts on both over at Minvolved.

2006-04-08T22:31:00.000-05:00

Big Washington Celebrity

It seems a little silly for Kennedy v Everyone to be complaining about Barack Obama’s visit–given that so far Mark Kennedy’s had Cheney and Bush out stumping for him. I’m looking forward to Flash’s interview–heck, he’s already got his picture taken with a future President.

2006-04-08T10:41:00.000-05:00

If the President Does it, It's Ethical

One of the hazards of putting your time into switching blog templates is that it makes it hard to carve out the time to write. After all, when one only has a finite amount of time to work on a blog, and one has a job and a three-and-a-half-year-old daughter...well, one can write, or one can futz with code, but one can't do both.

Which is why I've thus far failed to comment on the revelation that George W. Bush leaked classified information during wartime for clearly partisan purposes.

Now, first off, let's lay aside the question of whether the President's directive to Libby was legal. For one thing, it may have been: the President was not violating a law, but an executive order--which is in the same logical area as asking whether God could make a stone so heavy he couldn't lift it. Even if you argue that Bush, Cheney, and Libby leaked information in a manner inconsistent with the law and were thus doing so illegally, it's a muddle, and it's not going anywhere.

But there's no question that leaking classified information for purely partisan purposes is unethical. Indeed, it's beyond unethical--it's despicable. Whether Bush or Cheney intended to out Plame (and we're veering closer to "they did" with every revelation), it's clear the climate that they created--one where favored and friendly reporters were given preferential access to secret information--led inexorably to the destruction of her cover.

It goes without saying, but the reacton of the Bush administration in the aftermath of the Plame outing--their feigned shock, Bush's vow to fire any leakers on his staff--was just one more whopper. If Bush wanted to fire the leaker--well, all he had to do was look in the mirror, or walk across the street and visit Dick Cheney.

So how do they reconcile this? Well, semantics help, as they always do. Bush was very careful never to say "I will fire anyone who selectively declassified information for certain reporters in order to damage political opponents." Some will buy it, I suppose, but most won't. It makes "It depends on what the definition of is is" look like "The buck stops here."

Will the GOP do anything about this? Of course not. Heck, the Attorney General of the United States said that there's nothing preventing the government from listening in on purely domestic calls without a warrant. Really? Nothing at all?

The fact is that the President has pushed executive authority beyond the limits of the Constitutional framework--and there is no sign whatsoever that Congress will act to rein him in. If there's any argument in favor of a Democratic majority in congress, it is that there will finally be someone in government playing an adversarial role to the President. And that's something that is desperately needed.

2006-04-08T01:17:00.000-05:00

One Last 2005 Hurricane Record

It’s fitting that the record-smashing 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season should have one last hurrah. Five hurricane names–Dennis, Katrina, Rita, Stan, and Wilma–have been retired. This breaks the previous record of four from 1955, 1995, and 2004.

As Jeff Masters notes, it’s not even as many as could have been retired:

There is one rather amazing and ridiculous omission from the list of retired names for 2005–Hurricane Emily. Emily was the earliest-forming Category 5 hurricane on record in the Atlantic basin and the only known hurricane of that strength to occur during the month of July. Emily became a Category 5 hurricane with 160 mph winds and a 929 mb central pressure on July 17 2005, while located 115 miles southwest of Jamaica. The storm weakened somewhat before making landfall on the Mexican coast near Cozumel Island as a Category 4 storm with 135 mph winds and a storm surge of up to 15 feet. Emily went on to cross the Gulf of Mexico and slam ashore on the Mexican coast south of Brownsville, Texas, as a Category 3 hurricane. Emily killed one person on its passage over Grenada as a Category 1 hurricane, and five in Jamaica. Amazingly, no one died in Mexico as a result of Emily’s two strikes as a major hurricane.

Essentially, Emily was a victim of a banner year for hurricanes–the moral equivalent of Bert Blyleven’s continuing failure to make the baseball Hall of Fame. Compared to the apocalyptic devastation of Katrina, or the merely awesome devastation of Rita or Wilma, Emily was just ho-hum.

In 2011–the next time these names cycle back around–the new names in use will be Don, Katia, Rena, Sean, and Whitney.

2006-04-07T01:35:00.000-05:00

So Anyhow...New Digs

You may or may not be interested, but I'm playing around with WordPress, and am in the process of moving the blog.

Calm down, everyone; somehow, we'll get through this.

At any rate, the excitement will soon be moving over to moderateleft.com. But don't worry–until the kinks are all worked out, people have updated/purged their blogrolls, and so forth, I'll be duplicating my efforts by posting on both sites--meaning you won't miss a thing if you go to the classic site at moderateleft.blogspot.com.

I'm planning to officially "go live" on Monday the 24th, but that could move back; once I do, it’s curtains for the old site (well, not really curtains--as it will remain on the web forever in fossilized form. But it won't be updated anymore). Between now and then I welcome any of the four C's--complaints, complements, concerns, or questions. As our brave leader might say, bring 'em on!

2006-04-07T01:28:00.000-05:00

Friday Random Ten
I’m Only Kidding

1. “Ice Water,” Cat Power
2. “Hour Glass (Live),” Squeeze
3. “Angels of the Silences,” Counting Crows
4. “Little Plastic Castle,” Ani DiFranco
5. “Cash Cow,” Mike Doughty
6. “The Drugs Not Working,” Ryan Adams
7. “Solisbury Hill,” Peter Gabriel
8. “Blue,” The Jayhawks
9. “Army,” Ben Folds Five
10. “I Want Everyone to Like Me,” Randy Newman

2006-04-04T14:34:00.000-05:00

Hacktackular!

Hindrocket: too bad about that wacky liberal DeLay.

2006-04-04T09:47:00.000-05:00

Cowardly Lions

Lance says it well:

As loyal and obedient propagandists for the Bush Administration, Right Wing bloggers have felt a duty to scare the beejeebers out of the rest of us. Now, a lot of them were quaking in their boots themselves and were desperate to prove that their own terror ought to be shared by all of America. And a lot of them have managed to scare themselves, like Cub Scouts telling ghost stories around a camp fire.

But I think all of them, just like the Cub Scouts, enjoy being scared.

They enjoy it because after they're done giving themselves goose bumps, they get to defy their own fear. They get to be brave....

To live in fear as if the possibility of another terrorist attack is the same as living under the hourly threat of one is a mark of cowardice.

Hehdeedly.

2006-04-04T07:21:00.000-05:00

Bye Bye Bugman

DeLay retiring.

DeLay and his wife, Christine, said they had been prepared to fight, but that he decided last Wednesday, after months of prayer and contemplation, to spare his suburban Houston district the mudfest to come. "This had become a referendum on me," he said. "So it's better for me to step aside and let it be a referendum on ideas, Republican values and what's important for this district."

Yep, I'm sure that what DeLay wanted to avoid was a dirty campaign.

I think Kevin Drum is right: there's more a'comin'. After all, this announcement comes four days after Tony Rudy pled out. I doubt strongly that's coincidental.

2006-04-03T11:09:00.000-05:00

Shorter Katherine Kersten

There is no greater sin than unthinking partisanship.

2006-04-03T00:09:00.000-05:00

The Tragedy of the Commons

My first Minvolved column is available for your perusal. Yes, I know fasolamatt just wrote on transit, but I've got a different spin. I think.

2006-03-31T10:09:00.000-06:00

Awfultastic

The new Vikings helmet would take our helmets from top-five to Ravensesque. They're an abomination.

2006-03-31T09:06:00.000-06:00

The Only Thing We Have to Fear....

Dear Wingnuts:

Get over yourselves.

I know September 11, 2001 was scary. I know a lot of people died. It was awful, and it left scars on our country that are still healing. We still live under the threat of terror. At any time, al Qaeda could strike America again.

That does not, in any way, shape, or form mean that "we're all, in a sense, we're all conscripted in this war."

Right now, there are soldiers serving in Iraq who actually know what it is to face the daily threat of death. These solders are conscripted in this war. They live under the daily threat of attack. They live with the chance that an IED could explode and take a leg. They live with the memories of having to run over children to keep convoys moving--because stopping in the wrong area makes them and their comrades sitting ducks for insurgents.

Those men and women are in a war.

You idiots are safe.

You live under the threat of terror? Fine. You also live under the daily threat of cancer, of flood, of slip-and-fall. Anything can get any one of us at any time. You are not a hero because you get up in the morning and buy a cup of coffee at a gas station when there's a small-but-nonzero-chance that a spark may ignite the gas pumps. You are not a hero because you cross the street despite the chance that a taxi could take you out. You are not a hero because you go to work despite the threat that a meteor could slam into Earth tomorrow, driving H. sapiens into extinction.

I truly believe that there are two groups of people in this country--those who are still more afraid of the terrorists than anything else, and those who have put the terror threat into the proper context: as one mortal threat among many. That doesn't make it a good thing, nor a threat we should ignore, any more than we should stop treating heart disease or stop encouraging people to wear seat belts.

But it does mean that we should go forward and live our lives, not panicking that a dirty bomb could go off at any second.

It could, of course. But by surrendering our lives to the fear, to the terror of potential mortality, we give the terrorists the greatest victory they could possibly achieve. After all, it's not accidental that the root of terrorist is terror. It's terror that is their very aim.

2006-03-31T08:20:00.000-06:00

Shorter Katherine Kersten

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!

2006-03-31T00:00:00.000-06:00

Friday Random Ten
I Should Be Allowed to Shoot My Mouth Off

1. "All Worked Out," Semisonic
2. "Dig Me Out," Sleater-Kinney
3. "I Should Be Allowed to Think," They Might Be Giants
4. "Roundabout," Yes
5. "Dragging the Line," Tommy James & the Shondells
6. "Underground," Ben Folds Five
7. "Sunday Bloody Sunday," U2
8. "A Shooting Star is Not a Star," They Might Be Giants
9. "Atmosphere," Son Volt
10. "Where Have You Gone?" Mike Doughty

2006-03-30T16:14:00.000-06:00

Please Come Forward

There is no honor in covering up rape. Ever. So long as you remain silent, three rapists remain free--and so long as you remain silent, you give your assent that this is okay.

And that makes you almost as bad as them.

So come forward. Now. And if the rapists and their coddlers cry that you've violated some sacred tenet of manhood--well, at least you won't have violated a defenseless woman.

2006-03-30T10:15:00.000-06:00

Kaloooooogian!

By now you all have undoubtedly heard of the incredibly stupid Howard Kaloogian debacle. If you aren't, Kaloogian is a candidate for Duke Cunningham's open seat, who posted this photo of The Real Baghdad That The Mainstream Media Won't Tell You About:

Of course, the unfortunate thing is that the picture was actually of Istanbul (Not Contsantinople). Well, you know, Turkey is much like Iraq, except for the fact that they speak Turkish, not Arabic, and there are no IEDs.

But hey, it was just a mistake! The Looger picked out the wrong picture from a sea of thousands of similar ones. In fact, look at the similarities between that one and the picture he replaced it with:

Impossible to tell the difference between a street-level shot in Istanbul and a shot from the twentieth floor of a hotel in the Green Zone. Anyone could make that mistake! And I must admit, there's no evidence of violence in the second picture. Nor happiness. Nor human life. Take that, Liberal Media!

Okay, it's easy to snark about how the Looger is an idiot, or how he thought a picture of Turkey would fool people into thinking it was a picture of Iraq simply because it happened to feature brown people, but what you haven't seen is the other photos from his site, the ones the MSM isn't telling you about. I'd point you to them, but his site is currently toasted. So as a public service, here are more Kaloogian Iraq Vacation Photos!

There's nothing like Baghdad on a spring day. Moments after this picture was shot, Hugh Hewitt and I went for some falafel, and the falafel guy (I called him "Abdul") said, "Iraq is paradise! Thank you, American-type people!" But do you hear about that from the media? Of course not. Because they Hate Freedom.

We often hear how far behind we are in providing little things like electricity, potable water, sewage treatment, or food to Iraq. But what those stories don't tell you is how hard your average Iraqi is working. Here an industrious chap (I nicknamed him "Abdul") works overitme to get Oil Derek #7 up and running at the Halliburton oilfields outside of Kirkuk.

An exciting moment came when ~~Karl Rove emailed me~~ Col. Damon "Blood" McBlood came in to our meeting and announced that al Qaeda number two man Abul al-Abul Abdul (photo, left, next to bin Laden) had been captured in Umm Qasr, shouting, "Yes, that's right! Osama, Saddam, and me are homies! And I loves me some WMDs!"

Some people believe there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. yet another MSM lie. In this photo I liberated from a burning dumpster outside the joint CIA-al Jazeera complex in Sadr City, we see proof of an actual Iraqi nuclear test! Thank God we went in when we did.

So there you go. Let that be a lesson to all you doubters. God bless America, and God bless the Looger.

2006-03-30T08:25:00.000-06:00

Good News Unless You're a Freeper

Jill Carroll has been released.

2006-03-29T23:33:00.000-06:00

Rule of Law! Rule of Law!

Ann Coulter's got problems:

This time, claiming she doesn't even live here — as GOP pundit Ann Coulter has been doing on this spring's college speaking tour when she's questioned about her February election meltdown on Palm Beach — isn't going to cut it.

Palm Beach County's elections supervisor has given the right wing's unofficial mouthpiece 30 days to explain why she voted in the wrong precinct.

In a registered letter scheduled to be sent to her this week, Coulter is asked to "clarify certain information as to her legal residence," elections boss Arthur Anderson said.

But here's the rest of the story:

The letter, however, may be headed to the wrong house.

The bestselling author, whose The New Ann Coulter comes out in June, owns a homestead on Seabreeze Avenue, near Worth Ave. Yet, the missive is being sent to the Indian Road home of Realtor Suzanne Frisbie. Coulter claimed in official elections documents to be living there, which Frisbie denied last month.

"We have to send the registered letter to her address in our records," explained Charmaine Kelly, elections chief deputy. "If it comes back unsigned, we'll deal with that."

Heh deedly dingdong doofus.

2006-03-29T23:08:00.000-06:00

Throw Another Platypus on the Barbie

This newfangled intarweb thingy is pretty cool, especially when you discover your site has been linked to by a news outlet in Australia.

Meanwhile, it looks like whatever category she falls into, Glenda is going to be disastrous.

2006-03-29T23:00:00.000-06:00

MPR Sues Gatheroo

Gory details here. (Yes, it's a link to a post by me. It's totally "meta!")

2006-03-29T14:39:00.000-06:00

Glen or Glenda?

Tropical Cyclone Glenda, off the coast of Australia, has weakened to a Category 3 storm. But at her peak, she was a Category 5 storm with a low pressure of 898mb.

This makes Glenda the strongest storm ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere.

Nothing to see here, global warming skeptics. Move along.

2006-03-29T11:56:00.000-06:00

This Is Aboot Dignity

Scotty McC discusses the upcoming visit of Prime Minister Martin. Whoever he is.

2006-03-29T11:00:00.000-06:00

Col. Hewitt Reports For Duty

Leads the glorious 101st Fighting Hellmice into the front line of the War on Terror.

What? Oh--no, not Iraq. Sorry. Actually New York City. But you know, they were attacked once, four years ago, so hey, it's the same as a country where dozens of people are dying every day.

2006-03-28T22:51:00.000-06:00

Quote of the Day

Via Sully:

"Though with a very tight margin, I am very glad that the [gay civil unions] legislation eventually made it through parliament. I was most intrigued in the debate by the absurd ideology advocated by the Christian Democrats and Klaus, who argue that family should have advantages since, unlike homosexual couples, it brings children to life. This is the concept of family as a sort of calf shed in which bulls can inseminate cows so that calves are born ... This is nothing spiritual, nothing intellectual. This is a purely material concept of family. This is what made me most upset in the debate."
--Vaclav Havel, Former Czech President

Of course, what does Vaclav Havel know about civil rights?

2006-03-28T22:42:00.000-06:00

Poll Watch
The Sound You Hear is Katherine Kersten's Head Exploding

Equality Minnesota [D]/Decision Resources Inc., January 11-19, 625 RV, MOE +/- 4%:

Support Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

Yes 40%
No 54%

Agree or Disagree: "Minnesota Already Has a Law Banning Gay Marriage: We Don't Need Amendment."

Agree 61%
Disagree 29%

Gay Marriage Amendment a Distraction

Yes 77%

Gay Marriage Amendment Divisive

Yes 60%

So first of all, reality check: this poll was commissioned by a pro-gay group, and will have a bias, even if it's very well-crafted.

Still, it's doubtful that the poll is absurdly off-base, and that is very, very interesting.

What the polling suggests is what I've long suspected: that deep down, while a majority of Americans is still anti-gay marriage, they're just not that concerned about it. It really doesn't matter to most people. Oh, they may not be in favor of making it legal--doubtless a pro-gay-marriage amendment right now would fail.

But more than that, what this suggests is that the salience of gay marriage as a hot-button culture war issue is lessening. When 77% of people view an amendment as a "distraction," it suggests that people aren't going to care too terribly if the Senate, say, blocks another vote on the amendment--and the people that do are almost certainly lost to the DFL anyhow.

In short, this poll gives ammunition to the Senate majority caucus when they find a way to keep this bill from the floor. If Senate GOPers want to shut things down in protest, this poll gives every evidence that they, not the DFL, would pay the price.

And even if the Republicans somehow manage to get this on the ballot, it suggests that the first rule of initiative and referendum is in play, that being that close polls mean failure. Indeed, if it wasn't a horrible idea that shouldn't even be on the ballot, I'd almost say pass the damn thing and let us vote it down.

But I won't. Because two years from now, we'll beat it by more. Let's wait until we're going to not just defeat this thing narrowly. Let's wait until the numbers show 70% opposed. And then let's drive a stake through this bigoted proposal's heart.

2006-03-28T20:29:00.000-06:00

Shakeup: The Pointless Edition

So Andy Card has resigned as White House Chief of Staff, and will be replaced with White House budget director Josh Bolten.

Excuse me while I stifle this yawn.

If this is the big shakeup that's been hinted at of late, well, let's just say that it's not exactly going to alleviate doubts about the administration or signal a big change in direction. Nor is it going to energize those who--like Norm Coleman--have been advocating a change.

For that, Bush would have had to reach out beyond the inner circle, tapped someone not loyal to the Bushies. Of course, George W. Bush has shown no ability to do that--and this tells us flatly that anyone who thinks Joe Lieberman is going to be the next Secretary of Defense is high on something. Bush hires lackeys and cronies, and nobody else. If that wasn't clear before, you weren't paying much attention.

2006-03-28T20:17:00.000-06:00

News!

I have joined the exciting new Minvolved team, effective today. Which means that I'll have more blog duties than before. I don't know what I'm thinking.

2006-03-27T07:45:00.000-06:00

Who Can Take a Sunshine...Sprinkle It With Dew....

The Spongy Man Can! Yes, that's right, Mr. Sponge is back. And a grateful nation rejoiced.

2006-03-27T07:32:00.000-06:00

Why Won't the MSM Cover the Schools?

Oh, all right:

Their visit came as more violence was reported across Iraq, including a terrifying incident earlier in the week in the western city of Ramadi. On Wednesday, armed insurgents burst into the classroom of Khidhir al-Mihallawi, an English teacher at Sajariyah High School, accused him of being an agent for the CIA and Israeli intelligence and beheaded him in front of his students, according to students, fellow instructors and a physician at a local hospital.

One teacher, who spoke on the condition that he not be named because he feared retaliation from insurgents, said that most students ran from the classroom but that some stayed to watch. Many stopped coming to school after the incident, he said. Another teacher, who said he moved his mathematics class to his home to accommodate frightened students, said Mihallawi had earlier been threatened because he worked as a translator for U.S. forces in Ramadi, a hotbed of the Sunni Arab insurgency.

Mihallawi "looked at us just like he was telling us that we do not have to be scared. Even as we were running out of the door, his looks were still telling us that nothing will happen and we do not have to be scared," said a student, whose father asked that his name not be used. "I heard him screaming for a few seconds, then stop screaming."

Yay! Schools!

In the meantime, looks like coverage of the new water treatment plant in Kirkuk may have to wait.

2006-03-24T14:01:00.000-06:00

Et tu, RedState?

The other shoe begins its drop.

2006-03-24T13:44:00.000-06:00

Worst News of the Day

La Spugna Intelligente is quitting blogging after morons harassed his family.

I've always blogged under my real name; I figure that if someone wants to fight me, they can, and if they want to bring my family into it, I'll simply find a way to destroy them slowly. But I certainly can understand why one would want to blog privately; I wasn't particularly fond of the drive to out The Drama Queen, and I'm definitely not happy that Mr. Sponge is going silent. His stuff was consistently entertaining, always on point, and often hilarious. And he had what many of us in the blogosphere lack--common sense.

His voice will be missed. Here's hoping he'll reconsider.

2006-03-24T12:59:00.000-06:00

Bye Benny

Domenech resigns. Maybe Jenna is available to take over--or possibly Not-Jenna.

2006-03-24T11:47:00.000-06:00

Oh My God

We weren't really calling for a War on Easter. Swear.

2006-03-24T11:30:00.000-06:00

"Michelle. Hugh. Rush. Glenn. This is the moment. Where will you stand?"

The soon-to-be-over Ben Domenech affair reached its hilarious crescendo with this RedState post calling on Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Big Pharma, and the Wingnutty Perfessor to rush to the barricades and defend poor Ben.

Pack a lunch.

Malkin:

hIt is one thing to paraphrase basic facts from a wire story. But to filch the original thoughts and distinctly crafted phrases of a writer without crediting him/her--and doing so repeatedly--is unacceptable in our business. Some of the cases occurred while Ben was in college; he is blaming an editor for these transgressions. But at least one other incident involved a piece he wrote for NRO after he graduated. The side-by-side comparisons of these extensive passages is damning.

I certainly understand the impulse on the Right to rally around Domenech. But I can't ignore the plain evidence. And the charges can't be dismissed as "lies" or jealousy attributed to Ben's age.

Insty:

A BEN DOMENECH PLAGIARISM SCANDAL?

I've had my differences with Domenech in the past, but I hope there's nothing to this.

Hugh and Rush:

Sound of crickets chirping.

You see, Ben, for those of us who take writing seriously, plagiarism is not minor. It's a big deal. It's an affront to everyone who's ever stared at a blank screen trying to come up with something--anything--to say. Stealing someone else's work to fill that space is as wrong as you get in this profession.

You stole. You lose. I don't think even a teary apology can help you know.

2006-03-24T10:03:00.000-06:00

Ben Caught Stealing

First off, I stole that headline from Sadly,No! It's a great headline, and I can't pass up using it--but like any writer with any self-respect, I couldn't just lift it without fully crediting my source. It's not right. It's plagiarism. And as Hilzoy notes, it is writing's mortal sin.

Ben Domenech is not a journalist. He admits as much. But he is--or at least attempts to impersonate--a writer.

And therein lies the problem. I wasn't among those who thought the Post needed to fire Domenech outright. Oh, I thought they were idiots for choosing to hire a 24-year-old college dropout/Bush crony/mediocre blogger as their conservative blogger. Mitch Berg, for example, may be wrong about everything, but he can write well, and has some actual life experience, and journalism experience to boot. Certainly Mitch is not alone; there had to be a conservative blogger out there who had some actual credentials.

But the Post hired Domenech; whatever. Even if--as evidence strongly suggested--he was a closet racist who'd called Coretta Scott King a "communist" on the event of her funeral, even if he was obviously just a home-schooled, politically-connected hack, it was the Post's right to hire him. After his truly crappy Red Dawn debut, I was just looking forward to months of really stupid posts to mock.

But as the evidence mounts that Domenech was a serial plagiarist, the Post is left with no choice whatsoever. Even if Domenech only plagiarized while in college--which has already been shown not to be the case--that Domenech ever plagiarized speaks ill of his care for the craft of writing. In short, it makes him not just a hack, but a dishonest hack.

At this point, Domenech must either come clean, or the Post must fire him. His only chance at keeping his job is to admit he made a number of bad mistakes and hope that people forgive him.

If he doesn't, then the Post must fire him. Because a writer can do anything but copy another's work. That's the most dishonorable thing a writer can do, and for the Post to continue to employ Domenech with the evidence against him would be an affront to every writer on their staff, and every honest writer in America, for that matter.

2006-03-24T08:56:00.000-06:00

War on Easter!

What I'm really looking forward to is when Bill O'Reilly starts to take this seriously. That and the pagan fertility rituals.

2006-03-24T08:34:00.000-06:00

If This Isn't a Sign of the Apocalypse, I Don't Know What Is

Words fail me:

"A nude Britney Spears on a bearskin rug while giving birth to her firstborn marks a "first" for Pro-Life. Pop-star Britney Spears is the "ideal" model for Pro-Life and the subject of a dedication at Capla Kesting Fine Art in Brooklyn's Williamsburg gallery district, in what is proclaimed the first Pro-Life monument to birth, in April.

Dedication of the life-sized statue celebrates the recent birth of Spears' baby boy, Sean, and applauds her decision of placing family before career. "A superstar at Britney’s young age having a child is rare in today’s celebrity culture. This dedication honors Britney for the rarity of her choice and bravery of her decision," said gallery co-director, Lincoln Capla. The dedication includes materials provided by Manhattan Right To Life Committee.

"Monument to Pro-Life: The Birth of Sean Preston," believed Pro-Life's first monument to the "act of giving birth," is purportedly an idealized depiction of Britney in delivery. Natural aspects of Spears’ pregnancy, like lactiferous breasts and protruding naval, compliment a posterior view that depicts widened hips for birthing and reveals the crowning of baby Sean’s head.

No, seriously. Oh, and just to have this make even less sense than it already does, Britney's child was delivered by caesarian section.

2006-03-24T00:00:00.000-06:00

Friday Random Ten
Every Time I Look in Your Eyes I See St. Peter Wave

1. "Luminol," Ryan Adams
2. "Dig My Grave," They Might Be Giants
3. "Real Love/It's Only Life," Mike Doughty
4. "Fast As I Can," Erin McKeown
5. "Anticipate," Ani DiFranco
6. "Violent Mood Swings (Thread Mix)," Stabbing Westward
7. "Turn! Turn! Turn!" The Byrds
8. "Lookin' At The World Through a Windshield," Son Volt
9. "Shock the Monkey," Peter Gabriel
10. "Cruisin' for a Bluesin'," Maynard Ferguson

2006-03-23T23:58:00.000-06:00

Nothing to See Here

Just increasing evidence that over the next few hundred years sea level could increase by thirteen feet. But John Tierney says that we'll have an open Northwest Passage, so that will make up for the loss of New York, Miami, New Orleans, Los Angeles, London, Tokyo, and the Netherlands.

2006-03-23T14:33:00.000-06:00

Poll Watch
Time is On Our Side

Why is the right fighting so hard for anti-gay-marriage amendments? It's not like gay marriage is on the march. Okay, it's on the march in New England. But there's no sign that it's about to move through the South and the heartland. And yet it's being pushed across the country.

Yes, it does drive turnout among the firebreathers, but that can't be it. After all, a number of wedge issues would drive out the fundies, from prayer in schools to abortion. Why gay marriage? Why now?

Because they know in twenty years or so, they will have lost the fight.

A new Pew poll shows declining opposition to gay marriage and rising support of other civil liberties. To wit:

Pew Research, March 8-12, 2006, 1405 adults, MOE +/- 3%

Support Gay/Lesbian Marriage?

Yes 39% (10% strongly) (+3)
No 51% (28%) (-2)

Allow Gays/Lesbians to Serve in Military?

Yes 60% (20%)
No 32% (13%)

18-29
Yes 72%
No 23%

Allow Gays/Lesbians to Adopt?

Yes 46% (+8)
No 48% (-9)

18-29
Yes 58%
No 38%

No, a majority of the country is not pro-gay. But a majority of the young is. And that has dramatic implications in coming years.

Much as few of us can now understand how it was that at one time, over 90% of whites opposed interracial marriage, I've no doubt that my grandchildren will boggle that at one time, over 60% of Americans opposed gay marriage. Certainly, as the population changes, demographics strongly suggest that a pro-gay majority is inevitable.

This is why the right is fighting so hard--because they know that the situation will never be more favorable for them than it is now. They might be able to get an anti-gay marriage amendment through now; they will not be able to even ten years from now. But they know if they can get it done now, it will make it harder for those of us who support gay marriage to undo the damage when the electorate changes.

That is why they fight so hard--and why we should begin to turn the issue around on them, to begin fighting for the affirmative right of gays and lesbians to marry. Because time is on our side, and the voters of forty years from now will reward us for taking a stand on the right side of this issue.

2006-03-23T10:30:00.000-06:00

I'm Waaaaaay Behind

You know, I had this saved for a while now, but haven't gotten a round tuit:

4 Jobs I’ve had: Gas Station Cashier, Loan Officer, Debt Collector, Freight Forwarding Customer Service

4 Movies I Can Watch Over and Over: Clerks, Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, The Shawshank Redemption, The In-Laws

4 Places I've Lived: Freeport, Illinois; Saint Paul, Minnesota; Madison, Wisconsin; Lakeville, Minnesota

4 TV Shows I Love: "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," "Aqua Teen Hunger Force," "The Daily Show," "Robot Chicken"

4 Highly Regarded and Recommended TV Shows I Haven't Seen: "The Sopranos," "Battlestar Galactica," "The Shield," "Curb Your Enthusiasm"

4 Places I've Vacationed: Scotland; Boston, Mass., and Block Island, R.I.; London; Rabat, Morocco

4 of my Favorite Dishes: El Burrito Chicken Mole Burrito, Thai Chicken with Cashews, Turkey Tacos, Khan's Mongolian Barbecue

4 Sites I Visit Every Day: Pharyngula, Pandagon, Eschaton, Power Liberal

4 Places I'd Rather Be Right Now: Low Earth Orbit, Las Vegas, Chicago, Innsbruck

4 People I'm Tagging: Smartie and/or Robin, Mitch Berg, Flash, and PatMN

2006-03-22T14:40:00.000-06:00

Just When You Think You've Hit Bottom

I now have to hope that Condoleeza Rice can somehow help moderate Bush administration foreign policy. Somewhere, Lyndon Johnson is laughing.

2006-03-22T13:40:00.000-06:00

It's All About Sex

So are pro-lifers anti-baby-killing? Or anti-women-having-sex? Amp looks at the rhetoric and comes to the only logical conclusion.

2006-03-22T11:30:00.000-06:00

Finally, a "Mallard Fillmore" I Agree With

Bruce Tinsley is right: we really should have more coverage of Tom Coburn.

I suggest we start with this:

On the death penalty, he said: "I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life."

Or perhaps this:

The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power ... That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That's a gay agenda.

Yes indeed. More coverage of Tom Coburn, please. The junior Senator from Oklahoma deserves all the coverage you can give him.

2006-03-22T09:47:00.000-06:00

From the Secret Vaults of the Star Tribune

For your reading pleasure, a 1959 column by former Minneapolis Tribune columnist Catherine Kjerstinsen (1908-1977):

If Interracial Marriage is OK'd, Definition of Bigotry Will Expand

Opinion polls in 1959 revealed that a majority of Minnesotans support the proposed marriage amendment to the state Constitution, which would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman of the same race. That's why a few Senate DFLers are working overtime to make sure that the full Senate -- and you, the voters -- don't get to vote on it.

Amendment supporters are ordinary Minnesotans: baseball moms, Millers fans, the folks next door. But some advocates of same-sex marriage apparently view them as a sinister and unsavory bunch, even comparing them to anti-Semetic bigots.

During the 1956 presidential campaign, Adalai Stevenson likened the push for interracial marriage to the fight against the Nazis. Sen. Hubert Humphrey agrees. "Discrimination isn't just about other nations anymore," he told WCCO Radio. "I still am not sure that if I had to depend on the Minnesota legislature to have my civil rights, that I would have them." Humphrey claims that the proposed amendment would put discrimination in the Minnesota Constitution.

The NAACP, a negro advocacy organization, says that "[p]ublic opinion cannot be allowed to permanently enshrine discrimination into the Constitution."

A recent Minneapolis Star editorial put it this way: "This question should not be one decided by popular vote. It's easy to whip up sentiment against an unpopular minority. The destruction of concentration camps was not put to a referendum in Germany in 1945; neither should this question be put to voters in Minnesota in 1960."

What's the upshot of this view? That, as a group, Minnesotans who support the marriage amendment are foolish, motivated by an irrational animus against interracial couples. If you believe that children need a mother and a father of the same race, you are the equivalent of a German bigot who supported the murder of Jews.

In America today, it's a serious thing to be a bigot. Some of the liberals will complain. You can even get in trouble at your job if your boss isn't understanding.

Supporters of miscegenation often insist that "extending marriage rights" to interracial couples is no big deal. It won't change life for the rest of us, they say. But if interracial marriage becomes a civil right, the belief that having two parents of the same race is best for kids becomes discriminatory, and those who hold it become bigots.

Last year, Sen. Strom Thurmond (D-SC) got a taste of what this might mean. In a speech at Harvard University in Massachusetts, where interracial marriage is legal, he told the audience, "Men, you can have it all—you can find a nice white girl, settle down, and she'll give you a family."

Harvard's NAACP chapter bristled. "Some of the content was extremely racist, and made NAACP members feel uncomfortable," a spokesman complained to the Harvard Crimson. The NAACP demanded an apology. To the credit of Sen. Thurmond, he declined.

You better not speak up for traditional marriage in the Boston public schools. In May 1958 the district superintendent sent a memo to all staff members, stressing the "profound impact on our civic life and discourse" of the court decision that imposed interracial marriage. He emphasized the district's "zero tolerance" for "discrimination" and "hateful speech" on issues of interracial marriage and racial hatred, and stated that students and staff members who breach the policy may be expelled or terminated.

All this suggests the shape of things to come, says Joseph Glendon, a professor at Harvard Law School. In the future, she writes, religious organizations that oppose interracial marriage may risk losing tax-exempt status or academic accreditation. As the law changes to allow interracial marriages or their equivalent, religious institutions, including schools, charities and ministries, "may be forced to retreat from their practices, or else face enormous legal pressure to change their views."

In this brave new world, it's the "racist" majority that's starting to feel uncomfortable.

2006-03-21T14:21:00.000-06:00

Nobody Puts Benny in a Corner

Red Dawn is many things. It's the third-best Patrick Swayze movie (behind Dirty Dancing and Road House). It's the movie I went to see over at Eric Punswick's house back in fifth grade on that one long-gone movie channel where everything was PG-13 or less. It's the genesis of a hilarious "South Park" episode.

But it is not, in any way, shape, or form, a good movie. It was hilarious in many ways, and it was a nice fantasy about nuclear war (in contrast to the reality, which primarily would have involved nuclear winter and a casualty rate among humans upward of 95%) and in retrospect, it's unbelieveably homoerotic. Sort of like Top Gun.

But a great movie? Please. Only an idiot would view Red Dawn as great. Which, I suppose, is the point.

2006-03-21T11:46:00.000-06:00

Compare and Contrast

I can't add anything to this.

2006-03-21T11:01:00.000-06:00

Craig Westover: Voice of Reason

I disagree with Craig on whether the Marriage Amendment should get a floor vote--kill it wherever it can be killed, says I. But other than that, there's not much here I can disagree with:

Although I oppose the Defense of Marriage Amendment, I agree with Minnesota for Marriage that it is an issue that ought to be debated on the Senate floor. One of the lessons of the Dean Johnson controversy is that legislators can spin issues with “embellishments,” or worse, when speaking to small groups. When they speak on the Senate floor, they can be held accountable.

Nonetheless, this release by Minnesota for Marriage unfairly exploits the Johnson controversy and makes some assumptions that I cannot agree with.

[...]

Just because the people want to vote on the amendment, that doesn’t mean that they should. This is first an foremost a legislative issue. This is a great example of why we have a republican form of government and not a true democracy. The public’s response to the issue is visceral. Legislators should vote on the amendment considering a broader view of what constitutes constitutionality, the impact on other laws, the broader social consequences -- that’s why we have a committee system. No legislator should vote for the amendment bill just because people want to vote and he or she wishes to please constituents. Each vote for the amendment should be cast because the legislator truly believes the amendment would be good for Minnesota.

Precisely.

I'm unequivocally opposed to "letting the public vote" on most issues, from gay marriage to the stadium issue. Am I a surly totalitarian? Not at all. I'm instead a fan of representative democracy--which means we elect people to make decisions, and if they make bad decisions, we vote the bums out.

That doesn't always lead to "the will of the people" being done--but "the will of the people" isn't always practical. Indeed, "the will of the people" may in fact not even be "the will of the people if they sat down and studied the issue." This is why we elect representatives--and why we should entrust them with the power to make these decisions.

If they make bad ones, by all means, vote against them; if you're one of Dean Johnson's constituents, by all means hold his statements against him. But none of that means you deserve a vote on any issue of the day. You had your vote when you elected your leaders. If you don't like them, there will be another vote in November.

2006-03-21T08:06:00.000-06:00

Whatever

Okay, Dean Johnson was wrong. He was just wrong. He lied. That's wrong. Hard to argue with that.

Of course, it doesn't matter, because liar or not, the marriage amendment will not come to the floor of the Senate this session. If the DFL has the votes to keep it from the floor now, they'll still have 'em four weeks from now. As long as 33 senators continue to block the bill from coming up, it won't--and that's true no matter what Dean Johnson says.

2006-03-20T22:29:00.000-06:00

Protecting our Senior and Our Kids

Tim Anderson, GOP candidate for MN-5, rocket scientist. (Via PatMN.)

2006-03-20T12:35:00.000-06:00

Victory

The Wingnutty Perfessor notes that casualties in Iraq are super-low. And he's so right! After all, they're not nearly what they were in Vietnam. I mean, look at the tiny number of people who have given their lives in Gulf War II: The Vengeance.

2006-03-20T12:01:00.000-06:00

Groundhog Day

Yglesias: fourth verse, same as the first.

2006-03-20T10:09:00.000-06:00

Wow

Robin doesn't even know where to start with this abomination:

President George W. Bush, who is pro-life, includes himself among some who believe that there should be exceptions for rape and incest. While not impugning the good intentions of President Bush and others, there is reason to encourage them to think past the visceral reaction we all feel about rape and incest, and consider the consequences for both victims—mother and child.

No one disputes that rape and incest are serious crimes, and those convicted should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Furthermore, victims deserve the support and assistance of the public in recovering.

The truth is that rape rarely results in pregnancy.

So hey--just because rape only occasionally results in a forced pregnancy--who are we to stop it? I'm sure in our brave new world where it's legal to impregnate a woman forcibly, not one man desperate for a child would go out and do so, knowing she would have to carry the child to term.

Of course, then he'd have to pay child support. Yep, the bitch trapped another one by using her feminine wiles to get herself raped. Ain't it always the case?

2006-03-18T09:40:00.000-06:00

Mea Maxima Culpa

Sunday will mark the third anniversary of Gulf War II: The Vengeance.

While the military sees fit to mark the anniversary with a potemkin assault, I choose to mark it with an apology.

Every so often, righty bloggers will note that I am not so much a moderate. Well, I probably am not anymore. But when I started this blog I most certainly was. I was a big believer in working across the aisle, a big supporter of working with the Republicans to get things done, and an apostate Democrat.

One of the things I was willing to weigh carefully was the war in Iraq.

In the months leading up to the invasion, I was far from skeptical of this administration. Indeed, I was all but a pro-war cheerleader. Oh, sure, I occasionally expressed misgivings, and even decided at the eleventh hour that we should delay invading. But I was never strongly anti-war, even though I had predicted the way that the Bushies were going to conduct the post-war period.

I was wrong.

Had I been paying more attention at the time, I would've recognized that we didn't really have a plan for post-war Iraq, that our plan was to remove Saddam in the hopes that something would materialize in his place to stabilize Iraq. Hope, of course, is not a plan. And we have found that out repeatedly over the past three years.

I should have been more strongly against this war. I should have listened to voices on the left who were raising really, really good points. I should have recognized the incredible level of incompetence in this administration, and questioned what we were doing more. Mostly, I should have remembered that war is a terrible thing, the last resort of all last resorts--and something that should never be engaged in without complete certainty and moral conviction.

I had my Road to Damascus moment in April, when I noticed that there weren't so much any WMDs in Iraq. From that point to now, you can watch my posts veer left as I became increasingly angry at this administration's mendacity, incompetence, and insouciance.

But my posts have not veered left because I veered left. They've veered left because the lefties were correct about this war. They were always correct about this war. Would that our nation had listened better to them in 2002 and 2003. Would that I had.

For what little it's worth, I'm sorry.

2006-03-18T09:06:00.000-06:00

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

In Boston, a number of young single women in their twenties are going out to bars, drinking with friends, hooking up with members of the opposite sex (and, presumably, the same sex), and generally behaving like they need not live their lives in perpetual fear of something bad happening.

This is evidently a very bad thing.

Do bad things happen? Yes they do. Undoubtedly they do. But bad things are always going to happen, no matter what. I could drop dead of a heart attack tomorrow, or get blown up by terrorists next week, or live to be 190. I don't know which is most likely, and I won't know until it happens, so why should I spend my life worrying about it?

Yes, it's possible that something bad could happen to one of the women profiled in this story, but it is even if she stays home every night, knitting, drinking warm milk, and dreaming of the man who will marry her and then take her virginity on her wedding night. Presuming she ever leaves home, there's always a chance she'll get hit by a bus or mugged or find out one day that she has breast cancer, and never really lived.

I'm increasingly realizing that there is a large segment of our society that spends its life perpetually afraid of what bad may come. There's no excuse for stupidity--and if you can take reasonable, common-sense precautions, like getting life insurance or walking with friends when you're out and about, then certainly you should.

But a life lived in fear of the bad leads inexorably to bad results anyhow. Choosing to disengage from life in order to avoid the unlikely scary event is choosing to disengage from life. That's a cure worse than the disease.

As for these women--have fun. Enjoy life. This may be all there is. It would be a shame to waste it.

2006-03-18T08:45:00.000-06:00

Better than a Sharp Stick in the Eye

For what it's worth, this little site has now gone over 100,000 page views. So I've got that goin' for me.

2006-03-17T21:31:00.000-06:00

Martin Sabo Retiring

Will not seek reelection. Five will get you ten that Julie Sabo seeks the seat. For the love of God--no.

Please, DFL, I'm begging you. The fifth is totally safe. How 'bout endorsing someone who's not the son or daughter of someone, 'k?

2006-03-17T21:24:00.000-06:00

This is the Way the World Ends, Not with a Bang, but a Whimper

V for Vendetta is good.

Very, very good.

In fact, you should get up from your computer and go see it right now.

I'm not sure I've fully digested it, but it is, indeed, phenomenal. And yes, there is some resonance with today's America.

I have a long rant on that, but not now.

2006-03-17T08:44:00.000-06:00

Poll: Plurality Supports Censure

46%-44% Per ARG. Certainly, this suggests the panic-stricken minority in the Senate could calm down. With absolutely nobody outside of Russ Feingold and a few lefty bloggers backing censure, things are basically even. What would happen if (gasp) somebody else pushed it, or even professed to be open to it?

2006-03-17T08:33:00.000-06:00

Asimov vs. Heinlein: Smackdown!

Kevin Drum muses on whether to buy For Us, The Living, and whether there's a difference between Asimov fans and Heinlein fans. I'm a fan of both, which is probably why I'm in the rightward sector of the DFL.

2006-03-17T08:10:00.000-06:00

Punditry Inaction

A nice roundup of incredibly bad Iraq predictions.

2006-03-17T00:00:00.000-06:00

Friday Random Ten
I've Got a Grip on Myself, and it Feels Nice

1. "Get a Grip," Semisonic
2. "Man on the Corner," Genesis
3. "Narcolepsy," Ben Folds Five
4. "27 Jennifers," Mike Doughty
5. "Beautiful Hysterical," The Blue Up?
6. "Deacon Blues," Steely Dan
7. "Another First Kiss," They Might Be Giants
8. "Landed," Ben Folds
9. "Jet Pilot," Son Volt
10. "Pecan Pie," Golden Smog

2006-03-16T23:58:00.000-06:00

The World Chris Matthews Walks In

Evidently not the same as everyone else.

2006-03-16T14:15:00.000-06:00

People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am totally, totally geeked about V for Vendetta. Just sayin'.

2006-03-16T11:03:00.000-06:00

Just About Had It

Okay, I'm almost to the point where I'm gonna give up on blogger. Of course, that would mean a new domain, a new program to run my blog, and everyone updating blogrolls and stuff--if people don't just see it as an excuse to finally delink me.

So should I do it? Or should I just accept that blogger's down 35% of the time?

2006-03-16T07:29:00.000-06:00

Goalpoast Moving, Ad Hominem Attacks, and a General Misunderstanding of a Modern Free-Market Economy

So anyhow, yesterday I noted that Demente got a wee bit strident in his attack on those horrible, slutty girls and their wish for contraception. Dementee reacted with class:

The idiot can’t address the core point so he babbles on about the mask slipping and showing the true desires of pro-lifers – preventing every and all abortions regardless of what the consequences might be, ignoring the fact that it takes two to conceive and giving the guy a pass....Jeff must be a complete knob to not understand my point and he obviously doesn’t understand the fine art of embellishing to make a point.

Au contraire, I'm quite a fan of hyperbole. But what Dementee was engaged in wasn't so much "hyperbole" as a "Kinsley gaffe"--accidentally saying what one actually believes. (I'm not so much a fan of attacking one's ideological opponent as "idiot[s]" and "complete knob[s]." As longtime readers of this site know, I don't believe conservatives are idiots. That epithet I reserve for the president.)

Now, in my post I was addressing Dementee's own analogy in a post about analogies--very meta, I know. Had Dementee wanted to know whether I'd ever addressed the issue he could have, say, tried google, but whatever. I have addressed this repeatedly, and didn't realize that in order to comment on Dementee's comment on someone's letter, I would have to restate my position, but Dementee did: "C’mon, Jeff, argue the point: whose rights should be trumped. Don’t make shit up because you have no leg to stand on."

So I did:

I have no right to refuse to do my job. I work in shipping. If tomorrow we start shipping weaponry, I have a choice to quit my job or work. I can't say, "I'm a pacifist, I don't want to ship weapons."

I'm contracted to do a job. I can do the job, or not. I don't have the right to do the parts of the job I like and refuse to do the parts of the job I don't like. You have no right to do your job without compromising your moral beliefs. Don't like it? Tough. Go found your own company.

Now, I can go further than that, and be ideologically consistent: I tend to believe that in an industry as highly regulated as the pharmaceutical industry, it's reasonable to require pharmacists to dispense all medications. But the issue at hand is H.F. 3032, which is pretty clear in its intent:

[151.415](b)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a pharmacist shall dispense drugs and devices, as described in section 151.01, subdivision 30, pursuant to a lawful order or prescription unless one of the following circumstances exists:

[...]

(3) the pharmacist refuses on ethical, moral, or religious grounds to dispense a drug or device pursuant to an order or prescription. A pharmacist may decline to dispense a prescription drug or device on this basis only if the employer has previously been notified by the pharmacist, in writing, of the drug or class of drugs to which the pharmacist objects, and the pharmacist's employer can, without creating undue hardship, provide a reasonable accommodation of the pharmacist's objection. The pharmacist's employer shall establish protocols that ensure that the patient has timely access to the prescribed drug or device despite the pharmacist's refusal to dispense the prescription or order.

Now that's clear to everyone, right? Essentially, the bill would allow pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription, as long as they notified their employer in writing in advance. It doesn't specifically state that an employer can't fire a pharmacist for doing so, but I'd hate to be on the employer side of that wrongful termination suit.

Dementee missed that point:

For the love of God, are you really this ignorant. Do you not understand the concept of a free market? How F&%$ing stupid are you, really?

The pharmacists in question are practicing in a free market economy (emphasis on the word free) by refusing to do something that goes against their beliefs. If their boss doesn’t like it, they’ll get fired.

Sort of the opposite, really--or else there's absolutely no point to this legislation. After all, a pharmacist has the right now to tell their boss that they don't want to do something, and their boss has the right to fire them.

So it's either a pointless bill or a bill that imposes new restrictions on employers; either way, it's a bad bill and should be shot down forthwith.

And Dementee joins a long line of conservatives who just can't admit he might be wrong. Too bad. It would almost make me say he's fucking stupid, if I was the type to resort to ad hominem attacks. But I'm not, of course.

2006-03-15T11:26:00.000-06:00

Off Message

Every so often, the mask slips.

Over at the Kool Aid Report, Dementee takes issue with a letter in the Star Tribune:

Some people are just plain clueless and Don Warner of Ham Lake is no exception. There are two letters in today’s Star & Sickle regarding pharmacists who don’t want to dispense birth control because of moral reasons, but Don’s is the most idiotic.

This moron presents three scenarios he claims are analogous to the pharmacist refusing to dispense birth control on moral/religious grounds....

I'll give Dementee this--the letter was somewhat weak. But that's not what interests me in his response.

As we all know, the "objection" to Plan B is that it's is supposedly an abortifacient. Never mind that it works exactly like any other hormonal birth control, and that even in the extremely unlikely it's "aborting" something, it's aborting a clump of cells less alive than a sponge--the reason that Plan B is supposedly controversial is that it causes pharmacists moral pain by making them accomplices in the eeevul abortion business.

Of course there's another explanation for the opposition to Plan B. And Dementee makes it in no uncertain terms:

If a doctor refuses to treat your teenage daughter Syphilis because she arrived at the office driving a Hummer, he’s way off base because the treatment and the reason for refusing it are in no way related.

If, however, a pharmacist won't dispense birth control because he refuses to support your hose-bag teenage daughter’s desire to give more than a hummer, at least there’s a correlation.

So, Dan, it appears you have two problems here: First is your inability to create a analogy that stands up to scrutiny.

Second, your daughter is a slut who needs to be reined in before she makes you a grandfather before your time.

Wow.

It's beautiful. Like a nuclear explosion or a dead bird, it's flawlessly horrible. It's the exact way these people really think, the exact reason these people really believe that Plan B must be stopped.

Note the logic--"Your daughter is a slut" who wants to "give more than a hummer." Never is there any consideration that, say, a boy could be involved in conception, nor that your daughter could be a "rape victim" who had been "raped."

No, it's her fault for wanting TEH SEX, and all the good pharmacist is doing is making sure she pays for that lapse in judgment with an unwanted pregnancy.

It would be easy to lash out at Dementee here, but I won't. Because he's done a service for us all. He's pulled back the mask, and let slip the real reason that the GOP wants to outlaw Plan B. It has nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with those awful women who are out having dirty sex, and who must be made to pay.

Just as long as men don't have to pay child support when those bitches trap them.

2006-03-15T10:37:00.000-06:00

Seasoned Republican Veteran

I guess Dick Cheney doesn't count. If Bush listens, my money's on James Baker. If Bush listens.

2006-03-15T09:29:00.000-06:00

Smartie pwns Mitch

Bloody peasants.