I guess the anti-choice movement finished what they started in 1993. There was a period where it seemed this movement had abandoned violence. I guess they figured they were going to stop women's rights without violence. Now that we have a strongly pro-choice President, I guess they're back to old tricks. Don't believe the claims from the anti-women's lives crowd when they say they're horrified by this crime. They express sadness on the outside while rejoicing on the inside. They tried to kill him 16 years ago, they've been trying for years to imprison him for saving women's lives. They'll be throwing parties in Kansas and Washington, DC and anywhere where anti-choice leaders gather.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
A Movement Full of Killers...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/31/kansas.doctor.killed/index.html
I guess the anti-choice movement finished what they started in 1993. There was a period where it seemed this movement had abandoned violence. I guess they figured they were going to stop women's rights without violence. Now that we have a strongly pro-choice President, I guess they're back to old tricks. Don't believe the claims from the anti-women's lives crowd when they say they're horrified by this crime. They express sadness on the outside while rejoicing on the inside. They tried to kill him 16 years ago, they've been trying for years to imprison him for saving women's lives. They'll be throwing parties in Kansas and Washington, DC and anywhere where anti-choice leaders gather.
I guess the anti-choice movement finished what they started in 1993. There was a period where it seemed this movement had abandoned violence. I guess they figured they were going to stop women's rights without violence. Now that we have a strongly pro-choice President, I guess they're back to old tricks. Don't believe the claims from the anti-women's lives crowd when they say they're horrified by this crime. They express sadness on the outside while rejoicing on the inside. They tried to kill him 16 years ago, they've been trying for years to imprison him for saving women's lives. They'll be throwing parties in Kansas and Washington, DC and anywhere where anti-choice leaders gather.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
A /= B
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.html?hp
I do not see how the columnist who wrote this story looks at these cases and determines that Sotomayor is some sort of stealth anti-choicer. First he mentions that she agreed that women, as well as men, who faced forced abortions in China should be granted asylum. Even the most rabid pro-choice zealot doesn't believe women should be forced to have abortions. That doesn't mean she's going to turn around and say that women who want abortions should be denied. That's a strawman argument (legalized abortion=forced abortion) that the right-wing has been throwing around for years. Obviously, she should have to give her opinion on this case since it is the most important issue likely to come before the court but I wouldn't worry about it. Obama isn't going to nominate someone who is hostile to women's rights.
But in his briefing to reporters on Tuesday, the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, was asked whether Mr. Obama had asked Judge Sotomayor about abortion or privacy rights. Mr. Gibbs replied that Mr. Obama “did not ask that specifically.”
Every President says that because they don't want to be accused of having an abortion litmus test for judicial nominees. Bush said the same thing and we all know how his nominees turned out. Obama may not have asked that question directly but I'm sure he's just as aware of Sotomayor's Roe bonafides as Bush was of Alito and Roberts.
In a 2004 case, she largely sided with some anti-abortion protesters who wanted to sue some police officers for allegedly violating their constitutional rights by using excessive force to break up demonstrations at an abortion clinic. Judge Sotomayor said the protesters deserved a day in court.
So because she sided with defendants against police brutality she must be anti-choice? So if Alito sides with a pro-choice CEO against his minimum wage workers does that make Alito pro-choice? Maybe she just doesn't like police brutality.
Judge Sotomayor’s decision turned on a technicality, her opinion described in detail the woman’s account of how she would be persecuted in China because she had once permitted the escape of a woman who was seven months pregnant and scheduled for a forced abortion. In China, to allow such an escape was a crime, the woman said.
Again, pro-choice /= pro-forced abortion. Chinese abortion laws have nothing to do with a woman's right to choose and everything to do with the government's desire to control every aspect of peoples' lives (sounds like a religion) and the fact that China is suffering a population crisis and they can't come up with a better solution.
Phillip Jauregui, president of the conservative Judicial Action Group, said he was not convinced by any anti-abortion overtones to such rulings because, he said, even “the most radical feminist” would object to forcing women to abort wanted pregnancies.
See, even the anti-choice whackos admit it.
Mr. Waldman of BeliefNet.com also noted that Judge Sotomayor was raised Roman Catholic, although there are many judges who do not follow the church’s dogma — like opposing abortion and the death penalty — in their jurisprudence.
Because of course all Roman Catholics, even ones who can only be described as being "raised Roman Catholic", follow everything that asshole in a dress in Rome says...except of course for when they don't...
Moreover, he said, it is significant that as a group, Hispanics include a higher percentage of abortion opponents than many other parts of the Democratic Party’s coalition. Judge Sotomayor’s parents moved from Puerto Rico.
And of course while white people, and even specific groups like Irish, are unique and hold varying opinions on a number of issues, Hispanics are monolithic (despite being made up of many very different groups and cultures) and believe exactly the same things about everything.
“At the very least, she grew up in a culture that didn’t hold the pro-life position in contempt,” Mr. Waldman said.
Last I checked the culture she grew up in was America. Her parents are from Puerto Rico, not Paraguay. Just because the anti-choice crowd views the pro-choice movement as little more than murderers and sluts doesn't mean we have the same rigid, unthinking orthodoxy when it comes to them.
I do not see how the columnist who wrote this story looks at these cases and determines that Sotomayor is some sort of stealth anti-choicer. First he mentions that she agreed that women, as well as men, who faced forced abortions in China should be granted asylum. Even the most rabid pro-choice zealot doesn't believe women should be forced to have abortions. That doesn't mean she's going to turn around and say that women who want abortions should be denied. That's a strawman argument (legalized abortion=forced abortion) that the right-wing has been throwing around for years. Obviously, she should have to give her opinion on this case since it is the most important issue likely to come before the court but I wouldn't worry about it. Obama isn't going to nominate someone who is hostile to women's rights.
But in his briefing to reporters on Tuesday, the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, was asked whether Mr. Obama had asked Judge Sotomayor about abortion or privacy rights. Mr. Gibbs replied that Mr. Obama “did not ask that specifically.”
Every President says that because they don't want to be accused of having an abortion litmus test for judicial nominees. Bush said the same thing and we all know how his nominees turned out. Obama may not have asked that question directly but I'm sure he's just as aware of Sotomayor's Roe bonafides as Bush was of Alito and Roberts.
In a 2004 case, she largely sided with some anti-abortion protesters who wanted to sue some police officers for allegedly violating their constitutional rights by using excessive force to break up demonstrations at an abortion clinic. Judge Sotomayor said the protesters deserved a day in court.
So because she sided with defendants against police brutality she must be anti-choice? So if Alito sides with a pro-choice CEO against his minimum wage workers does that make Alito pro-choice? Maybe she just doesn't like police brutality.
Judge Sotomayor’s decision turned on a technicality, her opinion described in detail the woman’s account of how she would be persecuted in China because she had once permitted the escape of a woman who was seven months pregnant and scheduled for a forced abortion. In China, to allow such an escape was a crime, the woman said.
Again, pro-choice /= pro-forced abortion. Chinese abortion laws have nothing to do with a woman's right to choose and everything to do with the government's desire to control every aspect of peoples' lives (sounds like a religion) and the fact that China is suffering a population crisis and they can't come up with a better solution.
Phillip Jauregui, president of the conservative Judicial Action Group, said he was not convinced by any anti-abortion overtones to such rulings because, he said, even “the most radical feminist” would object to forcing women to abort wanted pregnancies.
See, even the anti-choice whackos admit it.
Mr. Waldman of BeliefNet.com also noted that Judge Sotomayor was raised Roman Catholic, although there are many judges who do not follow the church’s dogma — like opposing abortion and the death penalty — in their jurisprudence.
Because of course all Roman Catholics, even ones who can only be described as being "raised Roman Catholic", follow everything that asshole in a dress in Rome says...except of course for when they don't...
Moreover, he said, it is significant that as a group, Hispanics include a higher percentage of abortion opponents than many other parts of the Democratic Party’s coalition. Judge Sotomayor’s parents moved from Puerto Rico.
And of course while white people, and even specific groups like Irish, are unique and hold varying opinions on a number of issues, Hispanics are monolithic (despite being made up of many very different groups and cultures) and believe exactly the same things about everything.
“At the very least, she grew up in a culture that didn’t hold the pro-life position in contempt,” Mr. Waldman said.
Last I checked the culture she grew up in was America. Her parents are from Puerto Rico, not Paraguay. Just because the anti-choice crowd views the pro-choice movement as little more than murderers and sluts doesn't mean we have the same rigid, unthinking orthodoxy when it comes to them.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Obama's Choice for Supreme Court...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/supreme.court/index.html
I think Sotomayor is a great choice. Her judicial record is excellent, according to the White House she has more judicial experience than any Supreme Court Justice has had when they were nominated. The right-wingers will claim she's an activist judge or she was only nominated because she's Hispanic and female, and they'll simply overlook her long history on the bench, and that will be unfortunate. I hope she will win even with this absurd opposition. I guess they would have opposed anyone Obama put forward so it's good he went with someone good instead of capitulating and nominating a right-winger who they would oppose anyway just out of tradition. It's great that he is nominating a Hispanic (the first) and a woman (the third in history and one of only two on a 9 person court) but it's also good he nominated someone with actual experience who is qualified in her own right.
I think Sotomayor is a great choice. Her judicial record is excellent, according to the White House she has more judicial experience than any Supreme Court Justice has had when they were nominated. The right-wingers will claim she's an activist judge or she was only nominated because she's Hispanic and female, and they'll simply overlook her long history on the bench, and that will be unfortunate. I hope she will win even with this absurd opposition. I guess they would have opposed anyone Obama put forward so it's good he went with someone good instead of capitulating and nominating a right-winger who they would oppose anyway just out of tradition. It's great that he is nominating a Hispanic (the first) and a woman (the third in history and one of only two on a 9 person court) but it's also good he nominated someone with actual experience who is qualified in her own right.
Equal Rights...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/california.same.sex.marriage/index.html
So much for equal rights under the law. Can you imagine if people had been allowed to vote on Civil Rights for women or African Americans? I bet the Falwells and Robertsons of the world are kicking themselves for not thinking of this in the 50s. They could have gotten resolutions on the ballot in every state in the nation forbidding mixed race marriages or desegregation. We'd still be sorting out the bloody mess. People should not be allowed to vote on whether their neighbor is entitled to Civil Rights. Public opinion always lags behind progress, if this had been allowed 50 or 100 years ago, women and blacks still wouldn't have the right to vote in certain states (and quite possibly the entire nation if the racists/sexists had tried to put through a federal constitutional amendment like they're trying with gay marriage).
So much for equal rights under the law. Can you imagine if people had been allowed to vote on Civil Rights for women or African Americans? I bet the Falwells and Robertsons of the world are kicking themselves for not thinking of this in the 50s. They could have gotten resolutions on the ballot in every state in the nation forbidding mixed race marriages or desegregation. We'd still be sorting out the bloody mess. People should not be allowed to vote on whether their neighbor is entitled to Civil Rights. Public opinion always lags behind progress, if this had been allowed 50 or 100 years ago, women and blacks still wouldn't have the right to vote in certain states (and quite possibly the entire nation if the racists/sexists had tried to put through a federal constitutional amendment like they're trying with gay marriage).
Friday, May 22, 2009
Liberty University Stifles Student Speech...
http://www.newsadvance.com/lna/news/local/article/lu_pulls_plug_on_democratic_club/16172
Far more surprising than Liberty University's predictable stifling of student speech is the fact that there was a Democratic Club on the Liberty University campus in the first place. What Democrat in his/her right mind would want to get anywhere near that useless institution? Next you're going to tell me Bob Jones University has a chapter of the Black Panthers.
Far more surprising than Liberty University's predictable stifling of student speech is the fact that there was a Democratic Club on the Liberty University campus in the first place. What Democrat in his/her right mind would want to get anywhere near that useless institution? Next you're going to tell me Bob Jones University has a chapter of the Black Panthers.
Monday, May 18, 2009
AIPAC...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/will-congress-back-bibi-o_b_204328.html
So now AIPAC is not only trying to unfairly influence American policy to benefit a foreign power, and destroying the reputations of people who dare to disagree with Israel, they're also writing letters for Congressmen to sign telling Obama to stop trying to bring peace to the Middle East. I guess they figure if the US turns a blind eye, they can solve the Palestinian problem once and for all (hint: It doesn't involve giving them their own state). I'm guessing their desire for the US to "Butt out" doesn't extend to the arms that we sell to Israel so they can kill innocent civilians. I'm sure they want the US to continue those shipments. Just don't dare question what they're doing with those weapons.
So now AIPAC is not only trying to unfairly influence American policy to benefit a foreign power, and destroying the reputations of people who dare to disagree with Israel, they're also writing letters for Congressmen to sign telling Obama to stop trying to bring peace to the Middle East. I guess they figure if the US turns a blind eye, they can solve the Palestinian problem once and for all (hint: It doesn't involve giving them their own state). I'm guessing their desire for the US to "Butt out" doesn't extend to the arms that we sell to Israel so they can kill innocent civilians. I'm sure they want the US to continue those shipments. Just don't dare question what they're doing with those weapons.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Right-wing Conservative Whackos Protest Notre Dame Commecement...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/22605
It’s not just the few dozen graduates boycotting Obama’s 20-minute commencement address to protest his support for abortion rights and embryonic stem-cell research.
Wow, a few dozen out of a graduating class that probably numbers in the thousands. What a controversy.
Or the bus loads of protestors driving in from Milwaukee, Chicago and Detroit, activists who might never have voted for Obama in the first place.
Many of whom probably aren't even Catholic and are just bitter because their guy lost.
His stance helped him win over more religious Catholics, too, who liked his policies on issues such as the economy and health care, and saw him as moderate enough on abortion that they were comfortable supporting him.
Everybody knew where Obama stood on abortion. The Republicans beat that horse to death for almost the entirety of last year.
But some of Obama’s policy decisions and appointments since take office have upset some in the anti-abortion community
Everyone knew that Obama would repeal the Mexico City Policy, if you didn't see that coming you weren't paying attention. The Catholics who voted for him knew what he would do. Most of them are probably pro-choice anyway.
The demonstrations will greet Obama almost as soon as he arrives on campus. Organizers say there will be a picket line near the entrance of Notre Dame, so anybody who gets off the interstate will see it. Already, airplanes have been carrying banners featuring aborted babies, and trucks doubling as billboards targeting Obama on abortion have been doing loops around the campus. Some protestors have been arrested.
Sure, that's a great way to make your point. Show gory pictures of dead fetuses that would make a serial killer blush and disturb the peace of an entire neighborhood. Do they realize that this is why most Americans view them as dangerous extremists and creeps?
“A commencement should not be a political arena,” explained Mary Daly, a Notre Dame graduate who is leading the student boycott. “It’s not the place for a dialogue.”
So instead you're going to hold an alternative commencement that concentrates solely on a political issue? You're the ones politicizing the commencement.
But Obama’s support has dropped among certain groups, including white Catholics who attend mass regularly, according to Greg Smith, a research fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. In February, two-thirds of white Catholics who attend mass every week approved of his job performance, and now less than half do, Smith said.
So if you ignore the huge amount of minority Catholics, and the majority of Catholics who don't attend mass every Sunday, he's hugely unpopular. And if you only poll white Southerners with hoods and Confederate flags in their pickup trucks, Obama is the least popular President since Lincoln.
Obama also comes to Notre Dame as a new Gallup poll found that for the first time, the majority of Americans are anti-abortion.
Everybody's jumping on this poll to suggest that abortion is suddenly unpopular. When you have polls going back years showing general support and then you suddenly have a result that deviates sharply from the statistical norm, you throw away the outlier. That's how statistics works. The question was rigged to get this desired result (if I went out there and asked "do you support laws that would force pregnant women to go to prison, and possibly die, if they seek an abortion" I could get a large majority of respondents to say they support abortion too). Also, considering that the number of Republicans in this country has decreased significantly in the past several years, due to the disaster they have made of this country, it's likely that Gallup oversampled Republicans in their poll since they generally try to get a certain number of Dems and a certain number of Reps for each poll.
16 years after Casey’s father, the former Pennsylvania governor, was denied a convention speech.
I'm getting sick of hearing this same old lie. They've been telling this lie for almost 20 years. He was denied a speech because he refused to endorse Bill Clinton, not because of his position on abortion. Would the Republicans have invited a speaker to their convention who didn't endorse the Republican candidate?
“There’s a lot of buyer’s remorse growing out there,” said Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center
Brent Bozell hardly represents the majority of Catholics. He's a member of a fringe conservative Catholic group. I can guarantee you he didn't vote for Obama in the first place.
“The anger is growing,” he said. “And the sense of outrage is growing because people are seeing the Obama administration picking unnecessary fights and challenging Catholics to political duels.”
It's not picking unnecessary fights, it's doing his job. No group should have a veto on Presidential decisions just so their feelings aren't hurt.
Bozell won’t be voicing his protest at Notre Dame. But for those who are, like Stanek, the more immediate goal is “to make Barack Obama radioactive on any Catholic college campus,” she said.
Despite the media's attempt to portray it otherwise, Obama is still insanely popular among Catholics. According to a poll cited in this very article, 2/3s of respondents who expressed a preference thought Notre Dame was right to invite him. Those Catholics who voted for Obama knew exactly what they were getting and those who didn't don't matter. Obama shouldn't change everything about himself to satisfy a small fringe minority that will never vote for him no matter what he does.
Wrong Decision...
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003119332
I like Menendez, I voted for him and I think he's generally a terrific Senator but he's completely wrong here. I know he's playing to a rabid demographic in this case. I know he feels he has to pander to their bitterness to win elections. At some point though you have to stop pandering and start doing what's right. We have been torturing the Cuban people for decades now and we haven't hurt Castro at all. We're not going to change the government of Cuba, that's obvious. The only thing we're doing is hurting the regular people who share none of the blame for the situation in their country. If the OAS wants to admit Cuba, they should. We shouldn't keep playing the same old games of the Bush Administration, threatening supposedly independent organizations with money in order to accomplish our selfish goals.
I like Menendez, I voted for him and I think he's generally a terrific Senator but he's completely wrong here. I know he's playing to a rabid demographic in this case. I know he feels he has to pander to their bitterness to win elections. At some point though you have to stop pandering and start doing what's right. We have been torturing the Cuban people for decades now and we haven't hurt Castro at all. We're not going to change the government of Cuba, that's obvious. The only thing we're doing is hurting the regular people who share none of the blame for the situation in their country. If the OAS wants to admit Cuba, they should. We shouldn't keep playing the same old games of the Bush Administration, threatening supposedly independent organizations with money in order to accomplish our selfish goals.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Obsession...
What is the deal with the right-wing's obsession with Obama's choice of condiments? Aren't there more important things in the world than what the President gets on his burger? For the record, Grey Poupon is made by Kraft Foods, the same company that makes the Mac and Cheese, how much more American can you get? Is there some rule I've not heard of that dictates that you must get ketchup and mild mustard or you lose your citizenship?
Monday, May 04, 2009
Ego...
http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/101490-source-favre-cant-stand-green-bay?cnn=yes
Wow, way to burn bridges. He could have been a hero for all time in Green Bay if he just knew when to quit. Instead, he kept swearing he was going to retire and then going back on his word. Every year he did this. Finally, the Packers had enough and told him he couldn't keep stringing them along. Then he went to the Jets where he spent a mediocre year not getting anywhere. If he does get onto another team he'll probably just end up embarrassing himself. Now he's going to be hated forever in Green Bay, especially if he comes back on another NFC North team, and New Jersey isn't exactly going to be lining up to worship him. He went from one of the greatest and most beloved football players to a heel that nobody likes all because he couldn't quite while he was ahead.
Wow, way to burn bridges. He could have been a hero for all time in Green Bay if he just knew when to quit. Instead, he kept swearing he was going to retire and then going back on his word. Every year he did this. Finally, the Packers had enough and told him he couldn't keep stringing them along. Then he went to the Jets where he spent a mediocre year not getting anywhere. If he does get onto another team he'll probably just end up embarrassing himself. Now he's going to be hated forever in Green Bay, especially if he comes back on another NFC North team, and New Jersey isn't exactly going to be lining up to worship him. He went from one of the greatest and most beloved football players to a heel that nobody likes all because he couldn't quite while he was ahead.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Filibuster...
It looks like David Souter is going to retire from the Supreme Court soon. I wish it could have been one of the conservatives. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Obama's eventual nominee to be confirmed. The Republicans are going to filibuster no matter who he names, they're already planning for it I'm sure. They're going to make Strom Thurmond look like an amateur. All the bullcrap they pulled out when Bush's radical nominees were being held up will go right out the window. Back then, they were insisting that the nominees should be rubber stamped with no questions. Now all of a sudden they'll decide that things need to be held up, presumably just long enough that they can get a Republican in the White House or Obama just gives up and re-nominates Bork. A few years ago, the filibuster was a horrible tool that the Democrats were using to destroy the country, anyone want to guess how quickly they'll abandon that belief?
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)