Update from Kiwi Country

Down here "biscuit" means cookie, not "psychiatric team tasked with helping devise better ways to torture people". I find this quite relaxing, and have been only lackadaisically keeping up with the news from the States. I know that for the health of the blog I should be posting more frequently; "post often, or you'll lose readers," say the "How to Become Atrios in 10 Easy Steps" guides. But it's so nice not to constantly focus on the torture, and the propaganda, and the secrecy, and the abuse of power -- I can see why so many Americans find it more convenient to ignore it all, and pretend that everything's okay, and then look shocked and confused when we say we're thinking of leaving the country.

Kiwis have a certain way of contorting their faces while choosing words to describe what they think of America right now. It's their concession to politeness. They go through their facial contortions to show that they feel pained to have to say what they're planning to say about our home country, and then they say things like "maybe revulsion is perhaps too strong a word" (to which we reply "no, it's really not") and "I don't want to criticize, because it's your country after all..." (to which we reply, "no, go ahead, criticize away!"). I appreciate the politeness; no matter how much you criticize your own country it wears on you to be always immediately attacked for its policies, as happens in many places in Europe. Of course, I am, in part, responsible for my country's policies, and general insanity, and torture, and all of it, but I like a little bit of compassion and sympathy cutting the disgust. We are, after all, down here because we are considering abandoning our country of birth and citizenship. Does this make us anti-American? Do we give aid and comfort to the enemy? Are we cowards, to think of ceding America to the crazy people? "Stay and fight," people tell us. Truth be told, I see very little fighting going on. God, Amy, people say, can't you talk about anything but the torture? While Alberto Gonzales is our Attorney General, no, I cannot. We have promoted the promoters of a policy of inhumanity. We live in a bubble, we Americans, and inside it the most awful things seem acceptable, and the most basic truths seem outlandish fantasies. Outside the country, things look quite different. it's hard to look at America from here. Forgive me, I can't help but make a reference to the movies that made New Zealand famous (even the ordinary atlases here are dotted with little ring icons, marking where particular scenes were shot). We passed through Mordor on the train last week. Without all the orcs, it's beautiful. From here, it's our own country with a pall over it, and Nazgul roaming the skies, and mountains belching smoke. Too bad life is not a fairy tale, and that there's no talisman for us to find, and carry home, and destroy, and save our nation and the world. And would we do it if we could? History shows most people won't. Most of us are weaker than that.

The problem with preventive medicine...

Bill Gardner over at Maternal & Child Health has a post up about why our medical system is not more focused on prevention. He asks a startling question:

Do you, as a patient, really want preventive health care? Then you must engage in a lot of time consuming and difficult behavior change (start with daily exercise). You will undergo diagnostic procedures, even when they are embarassing or painful. You must be honest with your doctor about some things you may not even be telling yourself the truth about. Finally, you must spend time going to the doctor even when you feel well. Still interested in health? I thought not. We'll see you again the next time you are  sick.

Who likes going to the doctor? I avoid it whenever possible (not least to avoid having to deal with the inevitable insurance hassles that will follow, but also for all kinds of other reasons...) When I was preggers, however, I loved going to my midwife. Her office was in a big rambling house, the waiting room was more like a lounge and always full of interesting people, the staff were friendly, there were always kids running around, and my midwife was respectful, kind, smart, and paid attention to me. Oh, and I never had to put on a gown, even for a pap smear. And there was a pretty mobile on the ceiling.

You may protest that of course I didn't mind going to the midwife, since I wasn't sick. (Though I sure as hell felt sick when I was pregnant -- but that's another post...) But isn't that the point? Maybe we'd do better with preventive care if it took place somewhere entirely different from sick-person care.

My Country, Land of Assholes...

Reuters, via the New Zealand Herald:

Virtually no one disagrees human activity is fueling global warming, and a global treaty signed in Kyoto, Japan, aims to reduce polluting emissions. However, the world's biggest polluter, the United States, has withdrawn from the 1997 treaty, saying its provisions would hurt the US economy.

I look forward to owning a beachfront apartment without all the hassle of moving. Ain't we got fun!

Rain, Kiwis, and What We Missed

Dear Readers! We are still alive. We have been traveling in New Zealand, which is not quite as wired as we'd thought. Or rather, we keep finding wireless networks that, you know, are actually secured and won't let us in. We've stopped briefly at internet cafes, but it's a bit difficult to manage them with a toddler, so we never get much time at it.

Today, though, we're staying in a fabulous "boutique hotel" in Tauranga (Hotel on Devonport, one with high-speed internet access. So we've got hours and hours of internet. The hotel is gorgeous. Last night we stayed in a cheap little hostel in Rotorua, which was great. We met some people from Hawaii traveling with their four-year-old, also in NZ to scope the place out for possible emigration.

It's weird to be so oblivious of the news. We are such internet news addicts, and yet, here we are, over a week into our NZ trip, and this is the first time we've had a chance to really take a look at anything more than the most obvious headlines ("Lebanon shows Bush Doctrine of Spreading Freedom is Success. Liberals Must Now Engage in an Orgy of Humiliated Wrongness.")

So what did we miss?

U.S. military admits more inmate deaths than previously acknowledged. Duh.
Paul Wolfowitz to head World Bank.
Drilling in ANWR
Summers gets "vote of no confidence".
"Mideast Events lifting world's view of Bush"
Karen Hughes now U.S. PR go-to chick.
Also, federal government propaganda spreads further: hundreds of segments released by federal agencies and played by local news stations as-is, without revealing the source of the video clips. Administration insists this is "not propaganda". Oh dear.
Congress has decided that its big concerns are Terry Schiavo and Major League Baseball Steroid Use. Because these are the really important things in the world today.
Pope dying.
CIA insists doesn't torture people; defends interrogation tactics
Fallujah: no city left. Also, we used Napalm. Nice.
Maternal and Child Health has some posts regarding our client, Avian Influenza, Ltd. Be sure to check them out. Bird Flu: it's the new Black Death.

Digby says:

Here's the problem. The other side is waging a battle for total political dominance. They are willing to do anything to achieve it from cheating at elections to government propaganda to spending billions on a travelling political spectacle to entertain the folks. We will not defeat them with pocket protector arguments about the information age (although if anyone were qualified to make such an argument it would be Paul Krugman, the quintessential economist geek.) I suspect the fact that Krugman sees the big picture while Klein is still floating on a cloud of Seinfeldian nostalgia speaks more to the fact that Krugman famously does not hob knob with the in crowd while Klein famously lives for it.

Okay, there's my random roundup of what's happened since we left the States. This hotel provided a complimentary glass of wine, and I am now a bit tipsy, and I still have to figure out what hostel we'll stay in tomorrow night.

-- posted by Max for Amy

Ross Douthat, the Core Curriculum, and other tidbits from The Atlantic

Well, I finally got around to reading Douthat's Atlantic piece about Harvard. And, like the character in Green Eggs and Ham -- I have a two-year-old, what do you expect? -- having finally bothered to taste it, I find I agree with much of what he wrote, especially about the Core, which truly sucked ass as a means of getting a general education. The whole thing should be replaced with a Great Books curriculum coupled with real science and math courses. But this should come as no revelation; people have been complaining about the Core forever, so when Mr. Douthat claims to be revealing "The Truth About Harvard" I do think he's a bit, um, full of himself. And I saw he has a whole book out now about it, which I think is ridiculous and obscene. I am sick and tired of Harvard graduates undermining my self-esteem by getting book contracts at younger and younger ages. There oughta be a law, I swear.

But Douthat also trots out the old "the humanities are irrelevant and have an inferiority complex" canard:

Attempting to explain the left-wing biases of his Harvard colleagues, the libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick once hypothesized that most professors oppose capitalism because they consider themselves far smarter than boorish businessmen, and therefore resent the economic system that rewards practical intelligence over their own gifts. I'm inclined to think that such resentment -- at least in money-drunk America -- increasingly coexists with a deep inferiority complex regarding modern capitalism, and a need, however unconscious, to justify academic life in the face of the fantastic accumulation of wealth that takes place outside the ivory tower.

It does not seem to have occurred to Douthat that professors may oppose, not capitalism per se, but the idolatry of the believers in the absolute truth of the free market. Money-drunk America may consider it heresy that a democratic society might successfully implement something other than untrammeled capitalism and yet be a wonderful place to live; but such places exist -- not without their troubles, of course, but they are different troubles than those we have here, and some of us might prefer those troubles to our own. It is a question of values. Do people whose intelligence and efforts are directed to something other than business or science secretly believe they are smarter than businessmen? Some of them do, I'm sure, just as many businessmen believe, and not especially secretly, that humanities professors are parasitic elitist snobs who waste their lives thinking about useless crap that doesn't make any sense.

But perhaps, just perhaps, many academics do what they do because they believe that, especially in a society where the accumulation of wealth seems to have trumped all other concerns, it's important for some people to think about other things. Is it possible that some people might genuinely not believe that the fantastic accumulation of wealth is really that valuable in life? Douthat might reply that such statements are sour grapes: academics don't make much money, so of course they insist that money is not that important. Douthat cheerfully deploys a favorite tool of humanities professors when he psychoanalyzes them and pronounces their behavior to be the product of a "need, however unconscious, to justify academic life." (What behavior, exactly, is never quite clear. Grade inflation? Postmodernism? The teaching of courses on obscure subjects? Hatred of capitalism?)

Those of us who choose paths in life that are not primarily concerned with the accumulation of wealth are not immune to envy and resentment and feelings of inferiority and all the other nasty emotions Douthat says are 'really' behind whatever behavior he's complaining about in humanities professors. That we feel such emotions, however, does not mean that our behavior is dictated by them. Humans, happily, are able to make choices that are quite at odds with their urges, emotions, desires, and instincts. All the research that's been done on the accumulation of wealth, for example, shows that above a certain level of comfort, wealth has no particular effect on human happiness. Even though at times I think, "oh, if we just had more money, I could get that plasma TV, and then I'd truly be happy," and I truly feel it, I know, intellectually, that it's not true. Even though at times I wonder if I'm "not doing anything important with my life," or "not contributing enough", or "not successful enough," those values are not the ones guiding my life. So I let these thoughts and feelings pass, as they do, and I get on with the things that I think are actually important in life.

Of course colleges should provide a liberal education to future bankers, diplomats, doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. And I agree with Douthat that they are failing to do so. But in a country as anti-intellectual as ours, where academia is constantly attacked, it may be difficult for the children of capitalist privilege, on their brief sojourn in a world where capital is not king, to even get a liberal education. Perhaps students like Douthat, groomed since childhood for success in the world, simply are unable to hear what their professors have to say. Is this the fault of their professors?

Christian Nation

Ed Kilgore thinks the new National Association of Evangelicals political manifesto is, if not exactly 'good stuff', promising. :

There's some interesting ferment going on in evangelical Christian circles at the moment which may spell trouble for the God-Mammon Alliance the Republican Party has so painstakingly put together. As Rob Garver explains in an American Prospect online piece, the National Association of Evangelicals, with 50,000 church affiliates representing 30 million or so people, is meeting next week in Washington, where it will consider a manifesto on "civic responsibility" that might cause Karl Rove some heartburn.

To be sure, the manifesto reiterates familiar Christian conservative positions on abortion, gay marriage, and so forth, but also has surprisingly bold sections on economic justice, environmental stewardship, and even war and peace.

This is a development worth watching. I'm sure GOP leaders think of these folk as reliable foot soldiers in the conservative movement. But they do, ultimately, report to a Higher Authority.

As usual, I am less sanguine than Mr. Kilgore. When I start seeing evangelical activism around economic justice and environmental stewardship; when prominent evangelicals demand an accounting of the Bush administration's use of torture; when they suggest we repeal Bush's tax cuts to ensure that we can fund universal health insurance for the post-born; then maybe I'll find something to cheer about in their manifestos. It's not that I don't think they could start making trouble for the cynical men who take their votes and, for the most part, give their issues only lip service. But I don't think a country in which the evangelicals were even more organized and demanding than they are now would be superior to a country in which evangelicals reliably either don't vote, or vote Republican, and the Republicans throw them some bones and leave it at that.

What good will it do me if the Evangelicals start making more trouble for the Torture Party? Will it be good for me and mine if they start getting more of their policies enacted? No.

If Evangelicals used their voting power to complain about the torture, yes, that would do me some good. I would like that very much. Please, if you see any of the major Evangelical political groups complaining about the torture, do pop me a link, cause I see zip-all. The NAE manifesto makes all the appropriate noises about torture -- elsewhere in the world. On our own country's, to put it far too generously, lapses, nothing at all. I looked at Christianity Today for something on torture; a few articles on Abu Ghraib, and then nothing when that died down. Never mind that the most damning information about the U.S.'s policy of torture came after the Abu Ghraib revelations.

So, Evangelicals don't seem to care about the same stuff I care about. Even when they do care about the same stuff, their policy prescriptions are things like "strengthen marriage to alleviate poverty." How about: stop giving our taxes away to rich people to alleviate poverty?

Will Evangelicals get fed up with the crony capitalists running the Republican party and come running to Democrats, having realized that Democrats actually give a crap for those at the bottom? Sure, if Dems stage en-masse conversions of liberal hedonists.

The problem is, I don't want to live in a country where 25% of the voting population is Evangelical, and votes. I don't want Evangelicals having that much power. They think I am on the side of "The Evil One". Well, perhaps I am. Who doesn't like to drink the blood of Christian babies sometimes?


Let's look at some of the stuff in this manifesto. I won't annoy you with their standard calls to action on the usual issues. My problem is not just with their issues. It's with their whole damn worldview:

The presence and role of religion in public life is attacked more fiercely now than ever, making the bias of aggressive secularism the last acceptable prejudice in America.

I thought these guys liked to argue that prejudice could only refer to discrimination against someone for things they can't help, like the color of their skin. Isn't that why they claim that discriminating against gay people is okay, because they choose to be gay? So why isn't discriminating against religious people okay? Don't they choose to be religious? Also, um, aggressive secularism a myth. If secularism is so awful, how come other industrialized countries that are more secular than we are haven't dissolved into the chaos of orgiastic hedonism that should predictably follow the rise of secularism?

Since the atrocities of September 11, 2001, the spiritual and religious dimensions of global conflict have been sharpened.

What exactly do you mean by this statement, guys? It's one of those things that I suspect wouldn't sound pretty if you came right out and said it.

Jesus calls on his followers to love our neighbors as ourselves. Our goal in civic engagements is to bless our neighbors by making good laws.

Is there an opt-out for this? I'd prefer to skip that particular blessing, thanks.

And now we come to the most disturbing statement in the whole manifesto:

Religion is not just an individual matter, but also refers to rich communal traditions of ultimate belief and practice. We resist the definition of religion becoming either radically individualized or flattened out to mean anything that passes for a serious conviction. Thus, while the First Amendment protects religiously informed conscience, it does not protect all matters of sincere concern.

Er, if my First Amendment freedoms apply only so long as my speech, association, press, etc. are the product of a "religiously informed conscience", this is the first I've heard of it.

I don't hate Evangelicals. But the people who issued this manifesto think "radical secularism" is a great evil, and that only religious people are protected by the First Amendment. Far from merely responding to some sort of aggressive assault on their ability to practice their religion, they appear to want to silence those who do not practice a religion. If they're going to make such a statement, I do think they ought to define what they believe does constitute a religion. "Only belief systems that involve crucifixions"?

In conclusion -- and this is a long post, which is too bad, because we're leaving for New Zealand tomorrow and I had a bunch of other posts I was going to make before we left, but we all got the flu instead, and oh well -- I see nothing hopeful about this manifesto. When evangelical christians take positions that favor the poor, the tortured, and the marginalized, I'm very happy about that. But I prefer not to be blessed by their laws on abortion, homosexuality, pornography, marriage, etc., and I'm profoundly disturbed to hear that their idea of the First Amendment is that it does not apply to atheists, or indeed to anything anyone says or does that is not religiously motivated.

30% of New Zealanders claim no religion at all.

And we're off to the New New World, to see if, indeed, the streets are paved with Wifi Hotspots. No worries, we're taking the beloved OS X laptop, so we'll be posting on the road.

Dear Readers...

Okay. So most of you (I know you're out there, guys, I get site stats) won't tell me who you are. Fine. (Those of you who do leave comments, I loves you very much. You are all fabulous supplements to my array of crazymeds.)

But, if you read Biscuit, and you like Biscuit, do consider, you know, telling other people about Biscuit. Biscuit is not an Atrios wanna-be, but of course everyone likes to expand their readership a little, I do my part to publicize me -- i.e. I try to add insightful comments to other peoples' blog postings and just happen to link to my own blog (but not in a "great blog. buy cheap viagra here!" comment-spammish way).

But if, you know, any of you felt like suggesting me over at Elayne Riggs' Estrogen Month, or on other blogs that are looking to give free publicity to relatively-obscure bloggers, I would not mind, not one little bit.

Oh, and also, the Biscuit blogroll is very small, we shall expand soon, so please do offer your own suggestions. I'm not adding the biggies to the blogroll, everyone knows who they are. As Ms. Riggs writes:

one of the things that draws me to women's writing in the lefty-liberal blogosphere is that it seems to have less of the "echo chamber" effect of lots of blogs saying more or less the same thing about the same news item (the "where are the women bloggers" 90-day-cycle meta-question aside). I've found more unique voices on a wider range of topics in the female end of the 'sphere, and that tends to energize rather than drain me. When you read as many blogs as I do, energy is a good thing!

Okay, that's it for blog publicity hounding, back to your regularly scheduled dose of torture!

Biscuit Variety Pack

Colbert King, in WaPo, has a convoluted op-ed about two reporters who were banned from speaking with state employees after they reported things unfavorable to Maryland's governor.

The New York Times has an editorial on the U.S.'s failed anti-abortion move at a U.N. conference on the rights of women. Glad to see they're finally saying something about it. Their editorial failed to mention the following, reported by Reuters, "Jeers and catcalls greeted the top U.S. delegate to a global women's conference on Friday as she stressed Washington's opposition to abortion and support for sexual abstinence and fidelity." Reuters further notes that such catcalls are "unusual at the world body". The world is developing more and more contempt for America, and who can blame them?

U.S. military shoots at a recently-freed-by-insurgents Italian journalist's car, wounding her and killing her escort, an Italian secret service agent. Atrios says we shouldn't draw any conclusions from this. I find it interesting that he does not state exactly what conclusions we should not draw.

ChoicePoint execs sold lots of their stock before letting the world know much of their data had been stolen. Nice.

Swift Boat Veterans Against the AARP

Remember that "AARP hates troops, loves gay marriage" ad? Turns out that USANext, the GOP front group, stole the photo of the just-married pair they used in the ad, then blamed it on leftwing bloggers. The couple are suing, and the actual owners of the copyright to the photo, the Portland Tribune, are not pleased that USANext insisted they'd obtained it lawfully. We'd never sell the rights to a photo to be used that way in an ad, says the Trib, and they didn't.

These people have no shame. The big question is: does America care?

Select Biscuit Variety Pack

One of Pandagon's guest bloggers says "Eason Jordan was right"

Via everyone, this article on the Federal Election Commission, bloggers, and the dollar value of a link to your favored political candidate

Orcinus points us to a tale of a student at Santa Rosa Junior College who pinned red stars and a copy of a California law against communist indoctrination of students onto faculty members' office doors.

"It's a big issue," said McPherson, president of the SRJC Republicans, a campus club. "The opinion of the far left is presented as fact, with no alternative."

NYT update on Kansas AG's Late-Term Abortion Fishing Expedition
From NYTimes: Declaring Victory, U.S. Drops Abortion Line at UN. VICTORY, DEFEAT, WHAT's THE DIFFERENCE?
From the AP:

The Republican-controlled Senate refused to limit consumer interest rates at 30 percent Thursday as it moved methodically toward passage of legislation making it harder to shed personal debts in bankruptcy.

Yesterday I wrote about the Nevada Congressional Rep who said nasty things about liberals at a speech. Today we learn (via various) that he plagiarized the speech from one given by someone named Beth Chapman in 2003. The plagiarism isn't the part that interests me. Go visit her site.

Amy Sullivan guest-blogging on Political Animal:

The inaccurate and/or indiscriminate use of concepts and terms like "values" and "religion" without context is fast becoming my biggest pet peeve, and if I have to become a one-woman officiating squad, then so be it. A few weeks ago, Time magazine managed to raise my blood pressure with these parting sentences in an article about Democratic efforts to reach religious voters: "But the biggest risk for the party is to come off as insincere. Religious voters might like the music, but they're unlikely to be seduced by it as long as Democrats stick to their core positions." [my emphasis]

Yes, because Lord knows "religious voters" couldn't possibly agree with any Democratic core positions. Good grief. You've heard me say it before, but apparently it needs repeating: A good many people are Democrats not despite their faith but precisely because of their faith. I don't want to read "religious" when what you mean is "right-wing." I don't want to read "evangelical" when what you mean is "conservative evangelical." And I don't want to read "moral values" when what you're really referring to are hot-button, right-wing sexual morality issues. The conflation of those terms with those specific definitions is NOT a neutral decision; it's part of a very conscious strategy. It's understandable that some news outlets have been taken in by the spin. Repeating the spin, however, is irresponsible.

"But Amy, As Long As You're Not a Terrorist, You're Safe!"

Via Pandagon, the incredibly true story of a high school student who was arrested and charged with making terrorist threats because he wrote a story involving zombies overrunning a high school. Not his high school, mind you. Just a high school:

A George Rogers Clark High School junior arrested Tuesday for making terrorist threats told LEX 18 News Thursday that the "writings" that got him arrested are being taken out of context.

Winchester police say William Poole, 18, was taken into custody Tuesday morning. Investigators say they discovered materials at Poole's home that outline possible acts of violence aimed at students, teachers, and police.

Poole told LEX 18 that the whole incident is a big misunderstanding. He claims that what his grandparents found in his journal and turned into police was a short story he wrote for English class.

"My story is based on fiction," said Poole, who faces a second-degree felony terrorist threatening charge. "It's a fake story. I made it up. I've been working on one of my short stories, (and) the short story they found was about zombies. Yes, it did say a high school. It was about a high school over ran by zombies."

Even so, police say the nature of the story makes it a felony. "Anytime you make any threat or possess matter involving a school or function it's a felony in the state of Kentucky," said Winchester Police detective Steven Caudill.

Poole disputes that he was threatening anyone.

"It didn't mention nobody who lives in Clark County, didn't mention (George Rogers Clark High School), didn't mention no principal or cops, nothing," said Poole. "Half the people at high school know me. They know I'm not that stupid, that crazy."

On Thursday, a judge raised Poole's bond from one to five thousand dollars after prosecutors requested it, citing the seriousness of the charge.

"But Amy, You're Not in Any Personal Danger!"

Via Orcinus, here's an article on the latest U.S. Rep to contribute to hatemongering toward liberals. It's so disturbing, I quote the whole article below:

ELKO - Patriotic spirits soared as Elko's Grand Old Party had a grand old party Friday night at its annual Lincoln Day Dinner.

The fervor was whipped up by a fiery speech by Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., during which he passionately proclaimed his heartfelt support for troops waging the war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan and voiced blistering contempt for certain celebrities for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Gibbons said he was dedicating his remarks to the "brave young men and women who are serving on the front lines" in what he termed World War III.

"We do so tonight, I believe, with the thoughts and prayers for the soldiers who are defending freedom around the world," he said. "Let's keep ourselves aware that this is a country at war today."

The Republican faithful listened intently while Gibbons spoke about the war in Iraq.

Loud applause erupted when Gibbons said, "Tonight, I say we should support our President and the United States military in their efforts to defend freedom around the world."

Gibbons said the dinner was also a celebration of President Abraham Lincoln and that his philosophy had stood the test of history and applied in today's troubled times.

He said Lincoln understood better than most that unity and solidarity "best comes from dogged adherence to the Constitution and defense of liberty."

Gibbons segued into an attack on "liberals," who he said were trying to divide the unity of the country in a time of war.

He wondered what Lincoln's feelings would be at this juncture of American history.

"How would he feel, what would he be thinking about, all of the dissension, all of the division, that the liberals and a few others, including some our movie stars and song makers, are trying to divide this country over its efforts to establish freedom and liberty in countries around the world?" Gibbons questioned.

Gibbons answered with his own thoughts on the issue.

"We are all here tonight because men and women of the United States military have given their lives for our freedom," Gibbons continued. "We are here tonight not because of Rosie O'Donnell, Martin Sheen, George Clooney, Jane Fonda or Phil Donahue - they never sacrificed their lives for us or for liberty."

Gibbons said it was not movie stars but soldiers and sailors that defended freedom in the deserts of Iraq, the jungles of Vietnam, the sands of Iwo Jima and the beaches of Normandy.

"I say we tell those liberal, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, hippie, tie-dyed liberals to go make their movies and their music and whine somewhere else," Gibbons said to another burst of applause.

He said if they lived in Iraq or Afghanistan, "Ironically they would be put to death at the hands of Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden."

Gibbons brought the crowd to near feverish pitch when he hit the hot button issue of abortion.

"I want to know how these very people who are against war because of loss of life can possibly be the same people who are for abortion?" Gibbons said. "They are the same people who are for animal rights, but they are not for the rights of the unborn."

He said that they are the same people who wanted to go to Iraq and become human shields for the enemy.

"I say it's just too damn bad we didn't buy them a ticket," Gibbons said.

Laughter rippled through the room, mingled with more applause.

"If they want to be human shields, I say let them serve the men and women of honest integrity that epitomize courage and embody the spirit of freedom by wearing the proud uniform of the United States military," Gibbons said.

"What greater love has man than he lays down his life for his friend - or in this case, his country," Gibbons said in conclusion.

As Orcinus points out, this guy is not just some powerless freeper asshole shooting his mouth off all over the Internets. He's a U.S. Representative and he's been in office since 1997.

When asked about his remarks, he repeated his contention that liberals and 'Hollywood' were giving 'aid and comfort to the enemy':

"I see [...] actions on the part of some members of the entertainment community today, and I cannot help but put myself in the place of our brave soldiers who are fighting the war on terrorism, while the new generation of Jane Fonda's--people like Michael Moore--deride their efforts. Today, such efforts to break our resolve in Iraq are also used to inspire the insurgents to continue their assault against the elected Iraqi government, the Iraqi people, and our soldiers."

So, when people tell me that it is unimaginable that I, personally, could ever be in any danger from our government -- and that therefore it's ridiculous for me to imagine emigrating -- I wonder about whether they're a bit, um, "divorced from reality".

I do not believe that I am at this moment in personal danger of arrest and torture by our government. However. Members of our government -- people who, however they were elected, are supposed to represent all their constituents, not just those who voted for them -- continue to state that prominent liberals are engaged in "efforts to break our resolve in Iraq." They name names. They use the words "aid and comfort to the enemy". Those words have a very specific meaning

:Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within
the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

You may dismiss this as rhetorical excess: "oh well, they're not really accusing Michael Moore of treason, Amy, you're overreacting, as usual."

I'll accept the argument of "rhetorical excess," albeit reluctantly, when the excess is coming from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. But when it comes from a government official (whether elected or appointed)? At a public event, in a prepared speech? Members of our government are actively spreading hate, not just of 'terrorists', but of me: me and my birkenstocks. Me and my abortion rights. Me and my gay friends. Me and my America-hating views.

Members of my government hate me. They tell other people it's okay to hate me too. They proclaim, again and again, that I'm an enemy. Over and over they do this. You may argue that they're cynically manipulating their audiences to garner votes, and that may be true. But the result is that I am slowly but steadily becoming an enemy of the State, at least in the eyes of a growing minority of angry and armed people. Without changing my own beliefs and behavior, I now find myself, somehow, a loony, treasonous leftist. A treasonous, godless, socialist, feminist, passport-holding, France-visiting, birkenstock-wearing elitist Massachusetts liberal.

If, in 10 years, I'm out protesting the return of the draft and the abolishment of income tax, and I'm arrested and charged with conspiring something-or-other, or arrested and charged with nothing at all, and for 10 years America has been told that I'm a traitor anyway, who will care how long I'm held or what they do with me while I'm in prison? Didn't I attack America? Or, if not me specifically, doesn't the government have good reason to suspect me, or to suspect that I know people attacking America, and that they're justifed -- nay, required -- to attempt to get information out of me about it by any means necessary? We have to protect the country. Sure, maybe a few zealous interrogators will go too far, maybe a few innocent people will be swept up in the tumult, but that's to be expected, because we're at war.

If I didn't want to get into trouble, I shouldn't have been out protesting. I shouldn't have associated with questionable people. Anyway, they found pornography in my house. My husband and I were probably child predators. Degenerate, America-hating pedophiles who sacrificed Christian babies and drank their blood with embargoed French cheese.

Who would care what happened to me?

"Look, Amy," you say. "Lots of people didn't vote for Bush in 2004. Lots of people who voted for him don't even like his policies. Sure, a minority of people hate your guts and think you're evil, but just a minority. People wouldn't let such a thing happen."

We are letting such a thing happen. I have talked to plenty of people, liberal people, who insist that it's unfortunate but inevitable that some people, even some American citizens, with the wrong backgrounds or the wrong last names, are being swept up, shipped out, and tortured by our government or by governments we 'render' to. "I have to believe the government has some shred of a reason for picking up the people they do." said one friend.

If we, treasonous leftists that we are, don't care enough about people who, in our minds, are the Enemy (or who might be an Enemy, or who look like the Enemy, or whose brother once knew someone who knew an Enemy) to care that we are torturing some of these people, then how on earth can we expect that after years of being told by people in the government that we are the Enemy too, the general public will care what happens to us?

Let me go over it all once again:

1) Most Americans aren't making a particularly big fuss (if any fuss at all) over the fact that our government tortures people now, as a matter of policy. Our Senate approved the appointment of a man who thinks torture is O.K. as Attorney General of the United States.

From the Washington Post:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales yesterday strongly defended the Bush administration's decision to detain alleged al Qaeda operative Jose Padilla for more than two years without criminal charges, arguing that the government has the right to hold alleged enemy combatants in the war on terrorism "for the duration of hostilities."

2) Americans clearly don't really care what happens to anyone the govenrment calls "enemy combatants." Even lots of good liberals can't seem to get it up about the torture much. Did you call your Senators to urge them to vote against Gonzales? Did you ask your friends to do so? If you answered no, then you're part of the problem. You don't really care about those people.

3) Members of the government are reapeatedly calling people like me traitors, echoing an enormous and effective propaganda machine that constantly bombards the American people with the same message. In doing so, they legitimate fear and loathing toward liberals.

Let's go now to me, 10 years down the line, sitting in jail for protesting something-or-other. If you still believe it's absolutely inconceivable that I'm at any personal risk, because 'people wouldn't let that happen,' then count yourself out of the reality-based community. You and I can disagree about the likelihood of such a turn for the worse in America (and, as I've said before, I'd love to be proven a pissy pessimist here). But if you think it can't happen here -- well, I think you're simply wrong.

If you think it could happen here, but that if I hadn't gone out to protest whatever anyway, I wouldn't have had a problem, so I shouldn't make trouble for myself, I'll refer you, once again, to Milton Mayer, and point out that your idea of freedom and mine are very, very different.

It's fun to be a judge -- update

Supremacists Suspected in Killings at Judge's Home (washingtonpost.com):

U.S. District Judge Wayne Anderson, one of Lefkow's colleagues, called for a significant increase in security for judges and their families. Reflecting the view of many other federal judges across the country, he told reporters that he worries there will be more casualties.

Yay! We lost this game of Chicken!

The New York Times: U.S. Drops Anti-Abortion Demand at Forum

Enough with the "libertarian" nutbags

OK, so there was a front-page article on Time on Wikipedia. Out of my Wikipedia crack addiction, I went to read it, and in the first paragraph, what did it say?

"Time (or TIME) is a weekly left of center American newsmagazine, similar to Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report."

Eh?

I promptly deleted the "left of center" [sic - should be hyphenated], noting that Time doesn't stake out any official positions, and went to browse what other contributions the jackass had made. He's busied himself with minor little corrections to articles on fossil fuels, economics, and Kyoto, putting in all the sorts of distortionary crap you'd expect from somebody associated with the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation. Let's see how long it is before jackass puts it back in and starts sending me nasty notes.

State Department on Human Rights Abuses in Iraq

Read the NYTimes editorial.

Or go straight to Tom Burka: "Iraqi Government As Good On Human Rights As U.S. Government, State Department Finds -- Hardly Tortured Anyone Who Did Not Deserve It, Officials Say"

If only it were farce..

NYTimes: U.S. Accuses Iran of
Deceiving U.N. Inspectors:

The United States accused Iran today of 'cynically' deceiving inspectors in its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and repeated past accusations that the international nuclear watchdog is failing to meet its obligation to refer the issue to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions.

About Fucking Time

For A Change: Good News: It's not nice to execute people for crimes they committed while unable to vote, smoke, or drink. Yay! We're no longer the only country besides Somalia to execute juveniles.

"Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented."

Electronic tracking for all aliens

This piece on NPR details a pilot Homeland Security program that tags aliens whose cases are under review with electronic ankle bracelets. The end of the piece seems hard to believe, but NPR usually is fairly well verified; anyway, they say that DHS wants to outfit every resident noncitizen with an tracking device if they deem the pilot program to be a success.

Can this really be true?

(Via TalkLeft)

Drowning Journalism in a Bathtub

Or just shooting at them on the battlefield, whatever.

Salon's got a good article today about the Bush administration's media strategy: smear them, laugh at them, subvert them, ignore them, and humiliate them, and then drown the whole damn lot of them in the bathtub. Who needs reporters?

The systematic effort to undercut journalists, to strip them of their traditional influence in national affairs, represents the Bush administration taking steps to "decertify" the professional press corps by "trying to unseat the idea that these people, professional journalists assigned to cover politics, have a legitimate role to play in our politics," according to Jay Rosen, journalism professor at New York University. He views that effort, along with James Guckert's (aka Jeff Gannon's) ascension at White House press briefings, as being closely linked: "Creating 'Jeff Gannon' as a credible White House correspondent and creating radical doubt about the intentions of mainstream journalists (in order to decertify the traditional press) are two parts of the same effort."

Oh, while you're at Salon, read this exchange between Chris Cox and Michelle Goldberg about his speech at CPAC.

Time Magazine: Why ever would anyone think we don't have a free press?

Vladimir Putin, CBS News Loyalist

George Bush knew Vladimir Putin would be defensive when Bush brought up the pace of democratic reform in Russia in their private meeting at the end of Bush's four-day, three-city tour of Europe. But when Bush talked about the Kremlin's crackdown on the media and explained that democracies require a free press, the Russian leader gave a rebuttal that left the President nonplussed. If the press was so free in the U.S., Putin asked, then why had those reporters at CBS lost their jobs? Bush was openmouthed. "Putin thought we'd fired Dan Rather," says a senior Administration official. "It was like something out of 1984."

Because it's utterly ridiculous to suggest that when people lose their jobs for reporting unflattering things about the president, it might indicate a tiny problem with freedom of the press. Completely, totally ridiculous. Also, note that the blurb does not say that Putin said he thought Bush fired Dan Rather, but that "a senior Administration official" said that's what Putin said.

It was, of course, a private meeting, so there's no transcript of what was actually said. There is a difference between the President ordering that a journalist be fired, and a journalist fired by a corporation whose CEO has said that he supports Bush because he's better for business. If you can get it done the second way, why bother with the first?

This story is now circulating widely on right-wing blogs -- as an example, I suppose, of how stupid and misinformed foreigners are.

DLC: MoveOn Evil, Full of Geeky Elitists Who Hate Freedom

Stuff the DLC says, here:

"You've got to reject Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd," DLC CEO Al From said in an interview about how the Democratic Party should rebuild after 2004.  From argued that the anti-war Moore and MoveOn have hurt the party on national security, the issue which he says the party needs to make "central to our cause."  Rank-and-file Democrats "are more like us than MoveOn," which From called a group of "elites, people who sit in their basements all the time and play on their computers."

Marshall Wittman chimes in that bloggers are having a possibly pernicious effect on political discourse and "noting that bloggers 'haven't quite won any of their battles' except helping Dean get elected DNC chair." And due to what other army of citizens, pray tell, does Mr. Wittman think that Sinclair News backed down on its Kerry smear campaign, that Democrats got balls and voted against Alberto Gonzales (after claiming they probably wouldn't), that 'Jeff Gannon' is no longer 'reporting' from the White House, and so on?

I continue to be surprised to find that MoveOn is considered super left-wing. It's not the Socialist Workers' Party, for god's sake. And while there are lots of things that annoy me about Michael Moore, he is also not the Socialist Workers' Party. After the way we all worked our asses off for Kerry, it makes me sick to see the ungrateful slobs at the DLC dismiss us 'elites' and claim to be more like the 'rank-and-file' than we are. I didn't spend the week before the election sitting on my ass at a computer in my basement -- I spent it walking door-to-door in poor neighborhoods in my Florida hometown, getting out the goddamn Democratic vote for a candidate who took positions to the right of those I'd prefer on nearly every major policy issue. If not for us elites, you fuckers, Kerry would have lost by far more than he did.

Oh, and by the way, Senator Kerry: um, not supporting you again in 2008. Why don't you take a deep breath and resolve to be the best goddamn liberal senator from Massachusetts you can be. Stop giving a shit, throw your medals over the fence, make out with Jane Fonda, and do some obstructing. What have you got to lose?

'Activist Judges' Still Ruling That Government Must Uphold the Law

U.S. must charge or release Jose Padilla, says a South Carolina District Court judge in a "strongly worded" opinion. Everyone take a moment of silence to thank our activist judges, without whom we would truly, truly be lost in the wilderness.

"Family Values" groups have nothing to say about 'Jeff Gannon'

Bill Berkowitz reports

Mommy Drive-Bys

I posted this as a comment to a Crooked Timber Post, but I liked what I said, so I'm reposting it here. If you got here from Crooked Timber, which you probably didn't, sorry to repeat myself. The subject was mommy drive-bys: unsolicited advice (often from strangers, and often nasty) on childrearing. And here's my comment:

Some of the mommy drive-by stories are probably enhanced, as some comments above allege, but I'll warrant it is fewer than you think. People really do say the damndest things to perfect strangers about the right way to raise their children. At least other mothers can justify their unwanted advice with the authority of experience; what's amazing is the number of childless people who think they know how to raise your kids.

An excellent example of a mommy drive-by (sorry, it's their damn archive...) appeared this Valentine's Day on the Times op-ed page. [You can read quotes from it on my own blog where I complained about it when it appeared.] The author, Judith Warner (who apparently repeats many of her charges against other mothers in a new book, see review and ensuing discussion at Salon) blames parents who let their kids sleep in their beds with them and "extended" breastfeeding for unhappy marriages and divorce. This is the most pernicious brand of mommy drive-by: so-called expert mommy drive-bys, indicting a whole category of parents (in this case, those who practice 'attachment parenting') at once. Entirely lacking in evidence, but lecturing from the valuable Times op-ed real estate, Ms. Warner butts into the relationships and sex lives of all parents who don't do it the way she does.

I don't blame her for thinking that; I don't know any parent who doesn't think, some of the time, that the way they're raising their own kids is the only and best way to do it. We all have days we wander around in a snug little bundle of self-satisfied conviction that we are the best parents ever. If we didn't, how could we survive the other days, when we're certain we're not? I do blame her, and all other perpetrators of mommy drive-bys, for saying it. Mommies of the world, bite your tongues. No one wants your parenting advice. On days you're sure you're best, open up a diary and write, over and over "I am the best mommy in the whole wide world," until the conviction passes.

The best response I have found to a mommy drive-by is this: "Show me the double-blind study." No such study of parenting exists, and none ever could. Raising kids is not a science. Science has something to say about it, no doubt (for example, regarding the wisdom of feeding your infant homemade vegan formula), but less than some people claim. We do not know what will become of our children, and we cannot know precisely what difference we'll make in what they will become. And who, after all, would bother to have kids if they knew in advance exactly how to do it, and how it would all turn out in the end? It's terrifying, of course, not to know, which is why I suspect we are all sometimes overcome with the certainty that we are doing it the 'right way'. But darlings, we have no idea.

Uh Oh. Expect the Real Estate Crash Real Soon Now

The Times writes about "the growing number of 'ordinary people'" speculating in the real estate market. Remember those ads for online brokerages that featured truck drivers managing their multimillions from the cabs of their tractor-trailers?

Second Verse, Same as the First

The New York Times > International > Middle East > U.N. Nuclear Chief Says Iran Must Cooperate:

The chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear monitoring organization, said Monday that Iran must be more forthcoming with inspectors looking into its nuclear program, which the United States contends is a front for developing nuclear weapons.

Don't forget to mark your calendars now to reserve time to watch the new war on TV this June.

It's Fun to Be a Judge

From Reuters:"A federal judge who was the target of a death plot by a jailed white supremacist returned to her home on Monday to find two people dead inside, police said." Chicago Tribune writes that it was her mother and her husband, found lying in blood. Police won't confirm the details.

Government to announce bird flu protection plan

Too bad it's not our government bothering to do something about, you know, an actual threat.

Bird Flu. It's the New Black Death.

Controlling the Girls, Part III

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | America urges UN to renounce abortion rights:

The Bush administration was accused yesterday of trying to roll back efforts to improve the status of the world's women by demanding that the UN publicly renounce abortion rights.

America's demand overshadowed the opening yesterday of a conference intended to mark the 10th anniversary of the Beijing conference on the status of women, an event seen as a landmark in efforts to promote global cooperation on women's equality.

The US stand was also widely seen as further evidence of the sweeping policy change in Washington under the Bush presidency. The last four years have seen a steady erosion of government support for international population projects, due to the administration's opposition to abortion.

And

The chief of the US delegation, Sichan Siv, went on to tell his counterparts that Washington opposed the ratification of the international treaty on women's equality, as well as resolutions that would "place emphasis on 'rights' that not all member states accept, such as so-called 'sexual rights'."

Another perspective on giving credit...

Crooked Timber: Hey, Maybe Freedom Is On The March! :

I was always one who liked the sound of the Bush democracy-promotion speeches, but was convinced he wouldn’t back them up with any real pressure on US-friendly autocrats. I thought, “wow, he’s got a good speechwriter”, not “wow, I guess we’ll be giving that Niyazov guy any amount of trouble now.” So, count me happy to be somewhat wrong."

Me, I never liked the sound of the democracy-promoting speeches. To my ear, they're just so much Newspeak. Every time Bush opens his mouth to say something about democracy, the meaning of the word itself gets a little paler, as though he's a vampire, draining its lifeblood as he speaks.

Ed Kilgore: Credit Where It's Due, Not Where It's Demanded

Guest-Blogging on TPM, Ed Kilgore, with whom I often disagree, expresses his surprise that anyone would think we owe Bush a congratulations for recent events in Syria and Lebanon:

Now I am aware the State Department made the appropriate noises, as its predecessors would have done, after the Hariri assassination, about Syrian dominance of Lebanon, and I also know the Bush administration has been generally hostile towards the Syrian government, as has been U.S. policy for as long as I can remember. But it literally never crossed my mind that Bush's fans would credit him with for this positive event, as though his pro-democracy speeches exercise some sort of rhetorical enchantment.

This is the kind of thinking, of course, that has convinced God knows how many people that Ronald Reagan personally won the Cold War. It's the old post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy. This is a president and an administration that chronically refuse to accept responsibility for the bad things that have happened on their watch--even things like the insurgency in Iraq that are directly attributable to its policies. Barring any specific evidence (provided, say, by Lebanese pro-democracy leaders)that Bush had anything in particular to do with Syria's setbacks in Lebanon, I see no particular reason to high-five him for being in office when they happened.

Let us congratulate the Lebanese, not those in Washington who would take credit for their accomplishments.

Yes. Yes. And Yes Again. Now, if our government hadn't delivered, say, Canadian citizens into the hands of the Syrians to be tortured, then maybe I'd consider giving them a little bit of credit for, at the very least, not actually encouraging human rights violations in Syria. But credit for causing a democratic revolution in Lebanon? I don't think so.