-
This is the comencement address he gave to the graduates of Kenyon College in 2005. It captures his electric mind, and also his humility–the way he elevated and made meaningful, beautiful, many of the lonely thoughts that rattle around in our heads.
Archive for May, 2009
31
May
09
links for 2009-05-31
This is hardly an original point, but this isn’t the first time an abortion provider has been killed by right-wing domestic terrorists. Wikipedia has the details:
According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.
In the United States, anti-abortion violence has claimed seven lives (including that of Dr. Tiller) since 1993. As you can probably imagine, most instances of anti-abortion terrorism involve arsons and bombings. Between 1976 and 2009, the NAF recorded well over 300 cases of bombing and arson against abortion providers, costing clinics millions of dollars of property damage, and causing dozens of injuries and a few lost lives. In fact, this only touches the tip of the iceberg – there have been over 6000 incidents of violence or intimidation against abortion clinics. Here is the NAF’s list:
- 7 cases of murder
- 17 attempted murders
- 390 invasions
- 1400 cases of vandalism
- 1993 cases of trespassing
- 100 butryic acid attacks
- 659 anthrax threats
- 179 cases of assault and battery
- 406 death threats
- 4 cases of kidnapping
- 151 cases of burglary
- 525 cases of stalking
It’s worth noting that this is an incredibly effective form of terrorism. As Matt Yglesias explains:
Every time you murder a doctor, you create a disincentive for other medical professionals to provide these services. What’s more, you create a need for additional security at facilities around the country. In addition, the anti-abortion protestors who frequently gather near clinics are made to seem much more intimidating by the fact that the occurrence of these sorts of acts of violence.
In a sane political environment, this is the kind of thing would demand the attention of liberals and conservatives; political violence has no place in a democratic society, and we’re all obligated to speak out against it when it occurs. Unfortunately, conservatives don’t seem particularly interested in clamping down on anti-abortion terrorism. During the Bush administration, domestic terrorism expert Dave Neiwert devoted a considerable amount of time to investigating the administration’s unwillingness to devote considerable resources to monitoring right-wing extremists. More recently is the Republican freak out over revelations that the Department of Homeland Security was monitoring said extremists, leading department head Janet Napolitano to withdraw the bulletin in order to avoid further criticism.
In short, while we can expect Republicans to offer condolences to the Tiller family and condemn pro-life extremists, I doubt that we will see any real cooperation on efforts to actually monitor and preempt domestic terrorists, judging from past behavior. The simple fact is that hard-right extremists are a non-negligible part of the Republican base, which – unfortunately – makes a fair number of Republicans unwilling to take substantive, affirmative measures towards stopping this violence.
31
May
09
The Return of Pro-Life Terrorism
George Tiller, a doctor who provided late-term therapeutic abortions to women facing severe pregnancy-related complications, was shot to death as he entered his church this morning. Considering the amount of vitriol and violence directed towards Tiller over the past twenty years – he was shot in 1993, and since then, has been vilified by the national “pro-life” movement as the “doctor of death” – it’s a pretty safe bet that Tiller was murdered by a pro-life “Christian” extremist. By any definition of the word, this is a tragedy; Tiller dedicated his life, in the face of constant threats and violence, to providing a necessary and life-saving medical service to thousands of women. Amanda Marcotte writes at Pandagon:
He didn’t have to do this. He didn’t have to put his life and his family’s life on the line every day to tend to women going through a little-understood trauma. He didn’t have to go through a sea of protesters who hate women so much they actually think that women are lying about their problems so they “get” to have later term abortions. He didn’t have to suffer through relentless legal abuse at the hands of fundamentalist misogynists who obtain political power by exploiting voter ignorance about abortion. He didn’t have to make himself the target for this murder to help women, but for whatever reason, he rose to this challenge, and that makes him a real hero.
I think it’s clear that Tiller’s murder flowed directly out of the “by any means necessary” rhetoric of the pro-life movement. Pro-choicers are regularly derided as “baby-killers” and “murderers,” and abortion providers are routinely subject to protests and threats. And while the mainstream pro-life movement isn’t directly responsible for Dr. Tiller’s death, it must account for its considerable role in contributing to a climate where someone is driven to violence – to kill a man in front of his wife – over a political disagreement.
29
May
09
links for 2009-05-29
-
I don't know what to say about this other than I'm – sadly – not surprised at all.
Right-wing columnist Paul Greenberg wants us to destabilize North Korea and attack Iran:
All the idle talk in the world, and there’s a surfeit of it, did not prevent the North Koreans from exporting their nuclear know-how to a terrorist regime like Syria’s not long ago. It was Israeli action — for the Israelis said not a word — which put an end to that secretive deal. Not till the rest of the world is willing to take action, not just repeat empty phrases, is North Korea likely to cease and desist from its nuclear ambitions. [...]
Israel is not likely to pay Washington overmuch attention in the face of this fast developing threat to its existence, for Iran’s fuehrer has made no secret of his wanting to wipe the Jewish state off the map. For the Israelis, self-preservation may take priority over even good relations with its powerful and maybe only ally. Especially if they suspect many Americans might be relieved to have someone else thwart Iran’s nuclear designs, since successive American administration haven’t been able to.
It’s not worth actually addressing the substance (or lack thereof) of Greenberg’s measured hysteria; the fact that he doesn’t even mention the possibly catastrophic consequences of “action” against North Korea or Iran shows that this is a mostly reflexive retreat to militaristic bluster and not something well reasoned or worth engaging. I wanted to highlight this column less because I care about what Greenberg things, and more because I think it further illustrates the extent to which there is a sizeable degree of affirmative action in the world of conservative punditry. Websites like TownHall and Jewish World Review exist for the almost sole purpose of giving a “legitimate” platform to conservative white guys who would otherwise have to rely on FreeRepublic to air their views.
It’s not even necessary to crawl in the muck of the right-wing fever swamp; judging from the quality of Ross Douthat’s columns for the New York Times, I’m almost 100 percent convinced that he is some form of an affirmative action hire. He’s talented, yes, but compared to his fellow columnists, he’s not nearly experienced enough to have such a high perch. If he weren’t a “provocative” socially conservative white guy, I doubt he’d have the kind of stature he does now.
This will probably be an exercise in futility (via the Washington Wire):
The House Republican campaign operation is using House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to attack 17 Democrats in its latest radio and robocall campaign, dubbed the “Accountability Offensive.”
The campaign highlights the recent controversy over statement’s Pelosi made about when and how she was informed by the Central Intelligence Agency over the use of certain interrogation tactics, including waterboarding. Pelosi also accused the CIA of misleading Congress on the issue—a claim the agency denied.
The flap has given Republicans fodder for targeting some potentially vulnerable Democrats on national security. The radio ads, a modest buy, are running in six districts: Reps. Suzanne Kosmas of Florida, Glenn Nye and Tom Perriello of Virginia, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota, Vic Snyder of Arizona, and Harry Teague of New Mexico.
As Neil Sinhababu is fond of saying, Nancy Pelosi is “Russia in winter.” The GOP raised the specter of a Pelosi-led House last year to no effect, and there isn’t any reason to expect that they’ll be successful this time around. The simple fact is that most Americans have no idea who Nancy Pelosi is and certainly don’t associate her with any particular policies. Bleating about Pelosi might encourage the GOP’s base to rally, but it will do little to sway the independents the GOP lost during the last election cycle.
This strikes me as a very good idea:
Mr. Obama, officials said, will announce the creation of a White House office — reporting to both the National Security Council and the National Economic Council — that will coordinate a multibillion-dollar effort to restrict access to government computers and protect systems that run the stock exchanges, clear global banking transactions and manage the air traffic control system.
White House officials say Mr. Obama has not yet been formally presented with the Pentagon plan. They said he would not discuss it Friday when he announced the creation of a White House office responsible for coordinating private-sector and government defenses against the thousands of cyberattacks mounted against the United States — largely by hackers but sometimes by foreign governments — every
I’m not particularly familiar with the issues surrounding cyber-security, but judging from the frequency and scale of “cyber-attacks” over the past few years, this seems like a perfectly sensible thing to do. It’s important to note though that the “cyber-threats” we’re typically dealing with aren’t of the James Bond villain-variety. The chances of an eccentric billionaire funding a counter-productive attempt to shut down the world economy are slim to none, but internet spam (and the botnets which typically drive them) is responsible for billions of dollars in lost economic activity. In addition to stopping hackers and protecting infrastructure networks, you could imagine an internet security agency working with law enforcement around the world to shut down spammers and such.
You can find the inspiration for the post title here.
29
May
09
Sotomayor’s “temperament”
I think it goes without saying that most conservative complaints about Judge Sotomayor’s “temperament” have more to do with her gender and ethnicity than they do with her behavior on the bench. By most accounts, Sotomayor isn’t a stranger to tough and direct questioning, and is more than willing to press lawyers when she feels that their arguments are inadequate. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that this wouldn’t be taken as a negative in a male judge. Indeed, Justice Scalia is hailed among conservative legal types for his often sharp and cutting demeanor. Of course, for conservatives, this double-standard isn’t especially problematic; men are presumed to have some deeper core of Vulcan-esque logic which, as it’s usually explained, overshadows even frequent emotional outbursts. By contrast, women are inherently “emotional” and especially prone to outbursts of “irrationality.” This goes doubly for Latinas, who in their view of things, are virtually incapable of impartial reasoning.
I’m not surprised that conservatives feel this way, but I am a little shocked at the transparency of it all. Normally, you’d see conservatives try to limit the thinly-veiled racism and sexism to their base, but for whatever reason, today’s conservatives are very comfortable criticizing Sotomayor for her (in their view) intolerable impersonation of a white man.
28
May
09
links for 2009-05-28
-
Robert Reich explains why we should tax employer-provided health benefits.
-
"Right wing populism always comes down to demagoguing on race, religion or some such which always ends up serving the wealthy interests very nicely. Complaining that a Latina judge is both a racist and an "affirmative action" hire for the court is an excellent phony symbol of the change that inspires the anger and insecurity so many people feel out there — including the anger and insecurity of the villagers, who are feeling that the riff-raff are coming to town to trash the place — and it's not their place."
-
"But the conservative justices on the court — Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas are not emotionless robots able to interpret the law without bias or personal experience coloring their rulings. They don't lack empathy; they simply don't empathize with the people Obama or liberals might like them to. Conservatives want their justices to empathize with the religious, the unborn, and powerful corporate interests. Liberals want their justices to empathize with women and minorities, workers and the downtrodden."
-
"Douthat aims in his column for defensive middle ground but falls right in line with patriarchal traditionalists who yearn for the good old days in which what happens to a woman's body — be it sex, babies, marriage, abortion, and birth control — becomes the purview of society, not simply of the woman herself.
We already live in a country in which the unhappiest headlines of the day involve legislating sexuality and restricting the rights of Americans based on what they do in bed. The mere suggestion that enforced social censure of sexual behavior would in any way be a good thing for women (or the men at whom Douthat feints) is just wrong."
This has already been beaten to death, but I want to beat it some more, because there is no such thing as mocking Michael Goldfarb too much:
Does anyone dispute that Sotomayor has been the recipient of preferential treatment for most of her life?
Sonia Sotomayor graduated at or near the top of her class at Princeton and Yale Law and served on the federal bench for fifteen years. If “preferential treatment” means excellence and dedication to her craft, then yes, Sonia Sotomayor has been the recipient of “prefrential treatment for most of her life.” By contrast, a quick perusal of Goldfarb’s output shows- without question – that he is a dull, unremarkable man whose current success has less to do with any actual talent, and more to do with the regular elevation of white, conservative warmongering pundits on the right. You know, affirmative action.
Recent Comments