A footnote a post I wrote way back in February regarding the constitutional challenge to an Alabama law forbidding the sale of sex toys: The U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the case yesterday.
So the law stands. Which means you cannot sell sex toys in Alabama. (You can use them, though).
A quote from it:
“I am the illegal alien of commentary. I will do the jokes that no one else will do.”
Setting aside her atrocious politics, there is a reason why "no one else will do" her "jokes".
They’re. Not. Funny.
Take the title of the books itself: If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans.
Now ask yourself: is that funny?
I mean, take out the politics and try it. "If X Had Any Brains, They’d Be Not-X".
No, still not funny.
She’s basically saying that Democrats have no brains. Oooooh. That’s biting political satire, Ann. The kind of humor you might find on a playground. What’s your next book: "Liberals Are Poopypants"???
Here’s some more "humor: from Ann’s book:
“God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’”
Why, that’s comedy gold right there!
What’s strikes me about Ann’s fans is how they claim she is speaking the "truth". The "truth" about liberals, the "truth" about this, the "truth" about that….
This is what passes, apparently, for "truth":
“As far as I’m concerned, I’m a middle-of-the-road moderate and the rest of you are crazy.”
Really? Is that, strictly speaking, true? Even if you buy the fact that Ann is a "moderate", is everybody else crazy? Literally?
How about these?
“Bill Clinton’s library is the first one to ever feature an Adults Only section.”
“Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”
It’s not truth. It’s exaggeration. You can make a point through exaggeration, but it should not be confused with the truth.
It’s almost trite nowadays to say it, but Ann Coulter’s success depends not on being correct or being insiteful, but by being incindiary and ugly (e.g., making light of the death of John and Elizabeth Edward’s son). The success of her book — already number 6 on Amazon — shows that the ugliness she spews is quite popular among conservatives.
And I’m afraid we’re going to see much more of Coulter than we care to these next few weeks, as she pimps her book.
UPDATE: From A.L.:
Right Wing News conducts a yearly survey of right-leaning blogs and asks them to rank their "Favorite People on the Right." Today the site announced the winner of this year’s survey; by an overwhelming margin, right-wing bloggers chose Rush Limbaugh. Second place went to Ann Coulter. That says just about everything you need to know about the state of modern conservatism.
***
Sometimes there are just no words. It’s truly not an exaggeration to say that the modern conservative movement in this country is dominated by propagandists and charlatans, people with no intellectual integrity at all. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, the right-wing blogosphere’s two most "favorite people," aren’t even ideologues. They’re nihilists. They don’t believe in anything. They are Pied Pipers who have been entrusted to lead the Republican flock, and they’ve already led much of it far away from anything that resembles reality. And yet the Elders of the Republican village still fail to see the danger. When Limbaugh’s offensive comments and rank dishonesty are exposed, they offer Congressional resolutions commending him for being such a fine American.
Though the Limbaughs and Coulters of the world have caused untold damage to our political discourse over the years, there is reason for hope. I suspect that eventually these Pied Pipers will lead the Republican base so far astray that there will be a massive gulf separating the Republican base from the rest of the American peope. In fact I think we’re already nearing that point. It’s a long and ugly road, but it leads only toward permanent minority status.
Lol:
Injuries include three scratched cornea, two punctured eardrums and fourteen badly bruised psyches.
NEW YORK, NY (Sportsman’s Daily Wire Service) —
No one knew precisely what triggered it, but suddenly the morgue-like locker room transformed into a furious martial arts flick, as fingers came flying from all directions. They came fast and they came hard and when it was all over, nineteen Mets — including two coaches and PR Director Jay Horowitz — were taken to a local hospital for an assortment of minor injuries.
Following on the heels of their "Evolution" public service ad, Dove presents "Onslaught". Not as good as "Evolution", but it still gets the message across in a very interesting way.
More from T Rex at FDL:
I can’t imagine what it must be like to raise a daughter in this media climate. I just can’t.
I like J. K. Rowling’s take on it, by the way.
Waif-like models were condemned by JK Rowling yesterday as “empty-headed, self-obsessed, emaciated clones”.
The author of the Harry Potter novels said she did not want her daughters, Mackenzie, one, and Jessica, 12, to emulate women whose only function was to support the trade in “over-priced handbags and rat-sized dogs”.
Oh! Ouch!
****
But back to Rowling:
She recounted a conversation with a young actor on the set of the latest Potter film, who was talking about a girl who was called “fat” by classmates, although she was anything but. The author added: “… is ‘fat’ really the worst thing a human being can be? Is ‘fat’ worse than ‘vindictive’, ‘jealous’, ’shallow’, ‘vain’, ‘boring’ or ‘cruel’.”
In other words, is being “fat” worse than being Ann Coulter?
Not to me; but then, you might retort, what do I know about the pressure to be skinny?
Or the pressure to write incredibly shitty books that no one actually reads, which will apparently not just give you the body of a stick insect, but makes you mean as hell. And kind of a psycho.
But that’s another story altogether. You were saying, Ms. Rowling?
“Maybe all this seems funny, or trivial, but it’s really not,” Miss Rowling wrote on her website, jkrowling.com.
“It’s about what girls want to be, what they’re told they should be, and how they feel about who they are.
“I’ve got two daughters who will have to make their way in this skinny-obsessed world, and it worries me, because I don’t want them to be empty-headed, self-obsessed, emaciated clones; I’d rather they were independent, interesting, idealistic, kind, opinionated, original, funny a thousand things, before ‘thin’.”
Yay!!
Since it’s "breaking news" in CNN, MSNBC, and (I suspect) everywhere else, there is no actual story to link to (yet). But the CNN banner reads this:
A court has ordered pop singer Britney Spears to give up custody of her children effective Wednesday at noon, according to court papers.
Without a doubt, this will get more coverage than Wall Street, the iraq War, and just about everything else combined.
Last week, right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh declared that soldiers who support American withdrawal from Iraq are "phony soldiers".
Today, Majority Leader Harry Reid gave a seven-minute speech on the floor of the Senate condemning Limbaugh and calling on his colleagues — both Democratic and Republican — to sign a letter of disapproval to the CEO of Clear Channel. He said that Limbaugh, whose show is broadcast on Armed Forces Radio, "owes the men and women of our Armed Forces an apology” for his comments that “went way over the line."
Reid also hit the hypocrisy of his conservative colleagues. Last week, 72 senators voted for the highly politicized, "bait and switch" resolution that condemned a newspaper ad by MoveOn.org. Yet most of those lawmakers have been silent on Limbaugh’s comments.
Reid’s statement below the fold.
Personally, I think Congress should have better things to do than pass resolutions condemning political commentary. But since the precedent last week for just that thing, then one wonders why Congress should be reluctant to do it now.
By the way, when Rush attempted to defend himself, he selectively edited the audio recording of his show and the transcript.
This blog actually was originally an outgrowth of legal writings I did on the Supreme Court and the Constitution. I used to prepare Continuing Legal Education materials on constitutional issues, and that whetted my appetite to express my views on the Supremes and upcoming highlights in the law. Hence, this blog.
Sadly, I don’t do that kind of work and analysis anymore, and happily(?), I write about lots of things now. And, I have to admit, the Supreme Court has been, frankly, quite boring these past couple of years.
But looking over the docket for the upcoming term, I see we have some interesting stuff.
Detainees
Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States
Issue: Can Congress pass a law suspending the writ of habeus corpus?
Background: The "writ of habeus corpus" allows a prisoner to petition the court on the theory that his detainment is illegal. It is known as an "extradinary" writ — "extraordinary" in the sense that is often the "last chance" that a prisoner can get into the courts outside of the normal trial and appeal process. Because our system has a complicated structure of appeals, habeus corpus was never a particularly heavily litigated topic; it was almost deemed archaic.
But with the Iraq War, and the Bush policy of detaining alleged "enemy combatents" indefinitely without trial (indeed, without bring a criminal charge, in some cases), the issue of habeus corpus is front page news. The Supremes visited the habeus corpus issue two years ago, and ruled in favor of a Gitmo detainee who sought access to U.S. courts by invoking the writ. The then-Republican controlled Congress responded to the Supreme Court decision by passing the Military Commissions Act, whic said that “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction” to consider a detainee’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
But the Constitution authorizes Congress to suspend the “privilege” of habeas corpus only at times of “rebellion or invasion". Under the Supreme Court’s precedents, a suspension at other times may nonetheless be permissible as long as adequate alternate procedures exist for challenging a conviction or sentence. So the question here is if the suspension of the writ is permissible.
Thoughts: I suspect the so-called "liberal" view will prevail, and the Supreme Court will overturn the Military Commissions Act. My guess is 6-3, although it should be unanimous for such a clear cut case. The Gitmo detainees seem to have no possibility of due process without the writ.
Death Penalty
Baze v. Rees
Issue: Is the three-drug lethal injection “cocktail” given to death row inmates at their execution, "cruel and unusual" punishment?
Background: There was a time when death-by-injection was considered humane, at least compared with the other options of the time (electrocution, hanging, etc.). But the ingredients of "cocktail" have not changed in half a century, and many argue there are more humane executions (including other cocktails) available. The ASPCA had used the same cocktail to enthenize animals, but even they abandoned that formula years ago. In the Kentucky Supreme Court (from where this case came), the use of the cocktail concluding that the risk of pain to executed prisoners was not "substantial" enough to forbid its use.
Thoughts: This is going to be one of those 5-4 cases, and I expect the lower court decision to be upheld.
Sentencing
Gall v. United States and Kimbrough v. United States
Issue: When sentencing convicts, how much discretion do judges have to stray from the mandatory guidelines?
Background: In Gall, the specific question is what kind of justification (if any) a judge must give if he does stray from the mandatory sentencing guidelines.
In Kimbrough, the issue is whether a judge’s discretion can mitigate the harsh sentences required for offenses involving crack cocaine. It is well-known that sentences for crack cocaine are ridiculously out of proportion when compared to sentences for "regular" powder cocaine. In other words, 6 ounces of crack cocaine could get you in jail for the rest of your life; 6 ounces of powder coke will get you a couple of years. Many have thought this disparity to be racist (since crack is the drug of choice for blacks; while powder coke has a whiter, more-upscale clientele).
Thoughts: Don’t look for any sentencing reform here. This mostly-conservative court tends to crack down on judicial discretion (which some incorrectly view as "judicial activism").
Voting Rights
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita
Issue: Can states require photo I.D. requirements at the polls?
Background: Voting is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Still, people are becoming increasingly concerned about voter fraud. On the chopping block is an Indiana law (although other states have adopted similar laws) which require some from of government photo identification (typically, a driver’s license) before a person can vote. Some argue this discriminates against the elderly and the poor, who don’t always have, or need, those I.D.s
Thoughts: Tough one. Could go either way.
Child Porn
United States v. Williams
Issue: Is the recent PROTECT Act passed by Congress too broad and vague as to be unconstitutional?
Background: The PROTECT Act makes the pandering of "any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe" that the material is illegal child pornography. In other words, if the "models" in the porno are of legal age (above 18), but it is presented to make someone think they are NOT of legal age, it is a crime. Opponents of the law argue that such a law is vague and arbitrary (How can you decide if a model "looks" underage? Who decides?)
Thoughts: This will be a close one, too, but I think the Supreme Court will strike down the law in a 5-4 decision.
International Law/Treaties
Medellin, Jose v. Texas
Issue: Do state courts have to honor treaties made between the United States and other nations?
Background: The case involves the murder and rape of Mexican children. The State of Texas found the defendant guilt, but the International Court of Justice ruled that the execution of the defendant would violate the Vienna Convention of 1963, to which the United States is a party. At first, the Bush Administration sided with the State of Texas, but then it did a 180, and now is on the side of the defendant (the federal government now wisely argues that if states can violate international treaties, then the federal government becomes essentially without power to enter into future treaties).
Thoughts: This to me is a no-brainer: Medellin should win. But this mostly-conservative court loves to talk about "states rights" and it could very easily go the other way. It is an important case not in the realm of criminal law, but in the realm of international treaties. I suspect a lot of the outside world will be watching this one, even if Americans aren’t.
******
Another case to watch for is Parker v. District of Columbia. The Supreme Court has not decided whether to take the case, but it is on the docket for certioriari (a request for the Supremes to hear it). The Parker case, whatever its outcome (and assuming the Supreme Court takes it) will be landmark. At issue is the centuries-debated question: Is ownership of firearms an "individual" right, or a "collective" right? The Second Amendment of the Constitution, depending on how you interpret it, suggests that the "right to bear arms" is an individual right — or — on the other hand a "collective" right that exists only as part of being in a Militia. Obviously, since there are no "militia" in existence today (for all practical purposes), a ruling that the Second Amendment applies only to a "collective" right would essentially make that right non-existent.
******
I should note that today, the first day of the Court’s 2007-2008 term, the Court refused to hear a case over birth-control health insurance benefits. Many states (including North Carolina) have a law which requires employers to provide health insurance which gives (among the normal stuff) birth control benefits. A good idea, but some employers are religious organization which oppose birth control:
[New York] enacted the Women’s Health and Wellness Act in 2002 to require health plans to cover contraception and other services aimed at women, including mammography, cervical cancer screenings and bone density exams.Catholic Charities and other religious groups argued New York’s law violates their First Amendment right to practice their religion because it forces them to violate religious teachings that regard contraception as sinful.
***
The New York law contains an exemption for churches, seminaries and other institutions with a mainly religious mission that primarily serve followers of that religion. Catholic Charities and the other groups sought the exemption, but they hire and serve people of different faiths…
…and the exemption would not apply to them.
Since the Supreme Court refused to take the case, that means that the decision of the lower court stands. The 6-0 decision by the state Court of Appeals hinged on the determination that the groups like Catholic Charities are essentially social service agencies, not churches.
Makes sense to me.
*******
This will be a particularly interesting yeara for the Supreme Court not only because of the actual cases they will be hearing (they have selected 45 cases to hear, and will probably pick another 20 or so), but because this is the first full year with the "new" court. Justice Alito has replaced moderate O’Connor, and many wonder just how conservative Alito really is. Kennedy’s role as the "swing" justice makes him the most important on the bench. There will be an unusual amount of 5-4 cases this year, and very few unanimous ones. Last year set a record for those "close 5-4 cases" and many expect this year will result in even more of those. Basically, it’s almost a one-man court: win over Kennedy, and you win your case.
And with that, we can officially write off the religious right as a viable political movement in this country.
Finally.
Steven Thomma lays out the current landscape:
Today, their nearly three-decade-long ascendance in the Republican Party is over. Their loyalties and priorities are in flux, the organizations that gave them political muscle are in disarray, the high-profile preachers who led them to influence through the 1980s and 1990s are being replaced by a new generation that’s less interested in their agenda and their hold on politics and the 2008 Republican presidential nomination is in doubt.
"Less than four years after declarations that the Religious Right had taken over the Republican Party, these social conservatives seem almost powerless to influence its nomination process," said W. James Antle III, an editor at the American Spectator magazine who’s written extensively about religious conservatives.
"They have the numbers. They have the capability. What they don’t have is unity or any institutional leverage."
The Religious Right never had absolute power in the Republican Party. It never got the Republican president and Republican Congress to pursue a constitutional amendment banning abortion, for example.
But it did have enormous clout in party politics and a big voice in policy, and it’s lost much of both heading into 2008.
There is ample evidence for this. The highly-secretive Council for National Policy, made up of many heavy-hitters from the religious right and conservative movement in general, met over the weekend in Utah. While participants at these gatherings are usually tight-lipped, yesterday attendees were dishing quite a bit about the CNP’s thoughts on the 2008 presidential election.
The message wasn’t subtle: the religious right won’t support the Republican ticket if Rudy Giuliani is the nominee, even if that means backing a third-party candidate.
The threat emerged from a group that broke away for separate discussions at a meeting Saturday in Salt Lake City of the Council for National Policy, a secretive conservative networking group. Participants said the smaller group included James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, who is perhaps its most influential member; Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council; Richard A. Viguerie, the direct-mail pioneer; and dozens of other politically oriented conservative Christians.
Almost everyone present at the smaller group’s meeting expressed support for a written resolution stating that “if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third-party candidate,” participants said.
The participants said that the group chose the qualified term “consider” because it had not yet identified an alternative candidate, but that it was largely united in its plans to bolt the party if Mr. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, became the nominee.
Are they bluffing? It’s hard to say. But it seems clear that, having publicly staked their anti-Rudi position, the religious right simply can’t support him as is later down the road. Assuming Rudi takes the GOP nomination, then the religious right will either have to spend an enormous amount of money and resources trying to bring Rudi’s policies around, or back some third party candidate my guess — former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore). Either way, the Dems win.
Ed Morrissey of the conservative Captain’s Quarters agrees:
If the Christian Right did the same by organizing a third party, they may as well write themselves off as a significant force in American politics. They have plenty of candidates to support in the primaries, including Mike Huckabee, who matches up well with their platform. If they can’t get Huckabee nominated within the system, then the faction should acknowledge that the party made a different choice and support the end result of the primary process. If they cannot do that, no one in Republican politics will ever trust them, and their influence will wane substantially.
These leaders may even damage their influence within their own faction. Right now, Giuliani receives a significant amount of support from the very Evangelicals for whom James Dobson and Tony Perkins speak. If they call for the formation of a third party to oppose Giuliani’s nomination and these voters do not follow them, they will find themselves very lonely in political circles, and the Council for National Policy along with them. Republicans have already figured out that Presidents can’t do much about abortion except appoint strict-constructionist judges, which Rudy has pledged to do already, and that other issues hold more significance in this election — like war, taxes, spending, and beating Hillary Clinton.
Republicans don’t need petulance from its internal factions. Primaries exist for these groups to make their best case to the voters, and the voters decide which candidate fits their agendas. Threatening to take one’s ball and go home doesn’t build respect or confidence in any faction, and it’s getting old from this particular one, even among its own members. The Christian Right needs to find a primary candidate to endorse and make its best case — and then make a mature and intelligent decision about the general election if they lose the primaries.
Somehow, given the psychological make-up of these people, I don’t expect them to compromise. How can you compromise when you believe that God is on your side? Sorry, but the righteous (and self-righteous), "compromise" is not a word you know.
Digby has some additional thoughts.
Stay tuned.
Sy Hersh in the New Yorker about the administration’s Iran plans:
I was repeatedly cautioned, in interviews, that the President has yet to issue the “execute order” that would be required for a military operation inside Iran, and such an order may never be issued. But there has been a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning. In mid-August, senior officials told reporters that the Administration intended to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization. And two former senior officials of the C.I.A. told me that, by late summer, the agency had increased the size and the authority of the Iranian Operations Group. (A spokesman for the agency said, “The C.I.A. does not, as a rule, publicly discuss the relative size of its operational components.”)
“They’re moving everybody to the Iran desk,” one recently retired C.I.A. official said. “They’re dragging in a lot of analysts and ramping up everything. It’s just like the fall of 2002”—the months before the invasion of Iraq, when the Iraqi Operations Group became the most important in the agency. He added, “The guys now running the Iranian program have limited direct experience with Iran. In the event of an attack, how will the Iranians react? They will react, and the Administration has not thought it all the way through.”
That theme was echoed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national-security adviser, who said that he had heard discussions of the White House’s more limited bombing plans for Iran. Brzezinski said that Iran would likely react to an American attack “by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years.”
Here we go again…
Of course, Oliver Willis is right. There is no declaration of war against Iran, and any attack on Iran without one is (or, should be) an impeachable offense.
Computer translations are not new.
They’re not perfect either. This program can take an English phrase (song lyric, etc.) of your choosing and translate it from English to French, then from French to German, then from German to Italian, then from Italian to Portuguese, then from Portuguese to Spanish, and then from Spanish back into English.
In a perfect world, the final translation should be the same as the starting phrase.
Not so. Some experiments —
Original English Text:
Life is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you’re gonna get.Translated back to English:
The duration is like the structure of the chocolate; They never know that one, you stop receiving go they.
Hmmmmm. Okay. Another one —
Original English Text:
Eleanor Rigby picks up the rice in the church where a wedding has been.Translated back to English:
Eleanor Rigby makes the examination to the rice in the church, where it was a connection.
And finally, the quote from Miss Teen South Carolina (I removed the uh’s and er’s) —
Original English Text:
I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don’t have maps. And I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and the Iraq everywhere like, such as and I believe that they should, our education over here in the US should help the US should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our children.Translated back to English:
The creed, what the Americans of united declare cannot give the form personally therefore, because here in our cards of the nation they do not have in all external one. Creed that I eat in Iraq and all the part in Africa of the south when to appreciate our formation like and the creed that they had had, our formation of and here in the S.U.A. if dae (automatic device of the information entrance) of Africa of the south of the attention of the S.U.A. and they to help to the Iraq and to the Asian of the countries we, to follow latta to us the end to accumulate our future for our children.
I’m not sure which is worse…
Which is why I display a rather embarrassing Papelbon and Youk danceoff:
The post-season fun begins tonight, with the Angels at Fenway. The Angels may pose a bigger obstacle to the Pennant than the Yankees. The Red Sox and Angels are pretty evenly matched, but our pitching bench is healed and well-rested, and the Manny-Ortiz-Lowell gauntlet is in full force.
I would, for once, like to avoid another battle with the Yankees, so let’s hope the Indians have the juice.
Having spent some time this weekend in the mountains around Boone, I thought aloud that my mother in Concord NH would probably love to live her golden years down there. As if to read my mind, I received a link to this story from her today:
Retire in Concord, mag says ‘U.S. News’ picks us as one of its top 10 Earlier this month, US News and World Report named Concord one of the 10 Best Places to Retire, citing its pleasant surroundings, chummy environment and "elegant" downtown. Health care, proximity to mountains and bigger cities, the local political scene and New Hampshire’s distinct seasons helped launch the city into the top bracket.
Folks around here were surprised that US News compiled retirement rankings (the magazine is better known for ranking universities) but few disputed Concord’s position on the list. The region’s population has been aging a tad faster than the rest of the country for years and – thanks in part to an influx of 50- and 60-somethings – Concord is expected to grow grayer still.
An older population has its benefits, especially one that includes the often-affluent baby boomers New Hampshire draws. Educated people with resources and free time are likely to volunteer and become involved in civic activities. But as they face the challenges of age, they’re likely to demand services that a community needs a young workforce to provide.
"We’re very blessed here in Concord," Donovan said. "It’s an awfully nice community. I’m not scared by the fact that we’re attracting a graying population, but I do hope it continues to be balanced with young families, too."
Can’t say I’m too surprised.
Michael Medved thinks that America’s involvement with slavery is hyped. Seriously. And he’s here to set us straight with an offensive little bit of revisionist history.
He lists "six inconvenient truths about the U.S. and slavery" in attempt to convince you, the reader, that — "Hey! Slavery was no biggie!"
In his preface, he opens with this:
Those who want to discredit the United States and to deny our role as history’s most powerful and pre-eminent force for freedom, goodness and human dignity invariably focus on America’s bloody past as a slave-holding nation. Along with the displacement and mistreatment of Native Americans, the enslavement of literally millions of Africans counts as one of our two founding crimes—and an obvious rebuttal to any claims that this Republic truly represents “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”
It is an obvious rebuttal. We enslaved literally millions of Africans. You just said so. That alone makes it a black mark on this country’s history.
But Medved is going to — uh — whitewash — the significance of slavery:
An honest and balanced understanding of the position of slavery in the American experience requires a serious attempt to place the institution in historical context and to clear-away some of the common myths and distortions.
Yes, Michael. Let’s see your "honest" understanding.
1. SLAVERY WAS AN ANCIENT AND UNIVERSAL INSTITUTION, NOT A DISTINCTIVELY AMERICAN INNOVATION. At the time of the founding of the Republic in 1776, slavery existed literally everywhere on earth and had been an accepted aspect of human history from the very beginning of organized societies…
Actually, this is Medved’s best argument. And even then, it’s a little pathetic.
Yes, America didn’t invent slavery, although that’s largely beside the point, and does nothing to further Michael’s thesis. It’s kind of like saying the Holocaust wasn’t so bad because the Nazis weren’t the first to systemically oppress or annihilate the Jews.
2. SLAVERY EXISTED ONLY BRIEFLY, AND IN LIMITED LOCALES, IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC – INVOLVING ONLY A TINY PERCENTAGE OF THE ANCESTORS OF TODAY’S AMERICANS. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution put a formal end to the institution of slavery 89 years after the birth of the Republic; 142 years have passed since this welcome emancipation….
Well, having argued in Point #1 that slavery was "universal", Medved now argues that it was "limited". Bit of a bait-and-switch there.
Of course, in this particular point, Medved’s "honest and balanced" understanding of slavery in America completely ignores the fact that slavery existed throughout the New World.
Furthermore. he arbitrarily sets the start date as 1776, completely ignoring the "inconvenient truths" that the first American colony to legalize slavery was Massachusetts (in 1641), the first slave revolt in English colonial territory was in 1712 in New York, and so on.
But besides all that — well, Sadly No nails this, so I defer to them:
And the ham fisted rhetorical trick of claiming that slavery only existed for 89 years in the United States is beyond horrid. I had a girlfriend once who had lived with a guy who beat her for eight years before she married him. They divorced after two years. If you claimed that “well, she was only married to someone who hit her for two years”, you would be technically correct. You’d also be a pompous, condescending asshole of the first order by minimizing the eight years she spent with him without being married.
Yup. But believe it or not, it gets worse….
3. THOUGH BRUTAL, SLAVERY WASN’T GENOCIDAL: LIVE SLAVES WERE VALUABLE BUT DEAD CAPTIVES BROUGHT NO PROFIT. Historians agree that hundreds of thousands, and probably millions of slaves perished over the course of 300 years during the rigors of the “Middle Passage” across the Atlantic Ocean.
He’s right. Slavery wasn’t a genocide technically speaking, because only millions of slaves died, rather than all of them. Make sense?
You see, in a genocide, the intent is to kill. And that wasn’t our intent. And why not? Michael explains:
[N]o slave traders wanted to see this level of deadly suffering: they benefited only from delivering (and selling) live slaves, not from tossing corpses into the ocean…
See? Since slave traders didn’t intend to kill slaves on the way over, because that would eat into their profits, how can they be held morally culpable for slavery?
And you can tell that "no slave traders wanted to see this level of suffering" from the wonderful accomodations that the slaves got on their trip to the New World..
See the great care that slave traders took to make sure their product arrived in America intact?
Medved even has praise for the slave owners: "And as with their horses and cows, slave owners took pride and care in breeding as many new slaves as possible". No, really, he actually wrote that. I am not making it up. What great guys, those slave owners!
4. IT’S NOT TRUE THAT THE U.S. BECAME A WEALTHY NATION THROUGH THE ABUSE OF SLAVE LABOR: THE MOST PROSPEROUS STATES IN THE COUNTRY WERE THOSE THAT FIRST FREED THEIR SLAVES.
Well, let’s assume that is true. Is it even relevant? Certainly some people profitted from the abuse of slave labor — otherwise they wouldn’t have done it to begin with. And of course, others profitted indirectly from slave labor, even if they didn’t live in slave-holding states (cotton goods were cheaper, etc.)
I mean, what is Medved saying here? Slavery isn’t a blot on America because not everybody in America profitted directly from it?
WTF?!?
5. WHILE AMERICA DESERVES NO UNIQUE BLAME FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY, THE UNITED STATES MERITS SPECIAL CREDIT FOR ITS RAPID ABOLITION. “In the course of scarcely more than a century following the emergence of the American Republic, men of conscience, principle and unflagging energy succeeded in abolishing slavery not just in the New World but in all nations of the West.”
Well, this is just plain bullshit. We were among the last of the major nations in the world to abolish slavery.
Year the British ended slavery throughout the Empire: 1833. Number of wars it took to do so: 0.
Year the Spanish Empire ended slavery (except in Cuba, where the ban was not enforced by local governors until 1886): 1811. Number of wars to do so: 0.
Year the U.S. ended slavery throughout the country and its territories: 1865. Number of wars it took to do it: 1, the bloodiest one in American history.
In fact, all European powers abolished slavery before the United States did. (for more info, see here).
So, no, we as a nation don’t deserve "special credit" for a bloody damn thing. We were below average, even by the standards of the day.
And even after slavery was abolished, we still lagged behind most developed nations in the area of civil rights for minorities for many many decades to come.
6. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TODAY’S AFRICAN-AMERICANS WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THEIR ANCESTORS HAD REMAINED BEHIND IN AFRICA.
Ah, yes. You just knew this racist chestnut had to come: the not-so-subtle argument that we did those African savages a favor by enslaving them. We brought them civilization, and Christianity! Without us, they would be running around with bones in their nose and eating each other. Reparations? Hell, no. If anything, they owe us!
Future articles by Michael Medved:
"Six Inconvenient Truths About Rape" [e.g., "Hey, at least women are gettin’ some!"]
"Six Inconvenient Truths About The Salem Witch Trials" [e.g., "Well, we did get rid of witches, didn’t we? You see any around you? No? Case closed."]
"Six Inconvenient Truths About Auschwitz" [e.g., "The Jews got free room and board"]
"Six Incovenient Truths About Indian Massacres" [e.g., "The Indians that survived learned how to wear clothes. Oh, and the casinos! ‘Nuff said."]
Followers of the news know that for the past couple weeks, while war raged in Iraq and U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians died, the Senate spent weeks debating a resolution to condemn an a newspaper ad — the MoveOn ad which read "General Patraeus or General Betray Us"?
And amazingly, the Senate ended up condemning a pun, some concluding that it was an attack on U.S. soldiers.
So yesterday, on his show, there was this exchange between Rush Limbaugh and a caller:
LIMBAUGH: "Save the — keep the troops safe" or whatever. I — it’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country.
That’s right. Soliders who oppose the mission, but are actually risking their live fighting it, are "hony soldiers"
I’m sure the Republicans in the Senate will call for a resolution condemning Limbaugh for his attack on the military.
Right?
Riiight?
UPDATE: Dems are coming out quickly though —
VoteVets.org’s Jon Soltz, an Iraq vet, went first: “[I]n what universe is a guy who never served even close to being qualified to judge those who have worn the uniform? Rush Limbaugh has never worn a uniform in his life — not even one at Mickey D’s — and somehow he’s got the moral standing to pass judgment on the men and women who risked their lives for this nation, and his right to blather smears on the airwaves? … Get the point here, Rush? You weren’t just flat out wrong, you offended a majority of those of us who actually had the courage to go to Iraq and serve, while you sat back in your nice studio, coming up with crap like this.”
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), a decorated war hero, soon followed: “This disgusting attack from Rush Limbaugh, cheerleader for the Chicken Hawk wing of the far right, is an insult to American troops…. He is an embarrassment to his Party, and I expect the Republicans who flock to his microphone will now condemn this indefensible statement.”
Within an hour, DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) issued a statement: “Rush Limbaugh’s personal attack on our men and women in uniform is reprehensible. It minimizes the sacrifice our troops in Iraq and their families are making and has no place in the public discourse. Rush Limbaugh owes our military and their families an apology for his hurtful comments that minimize their service to our country.”
Then the DNC, followed by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), another Iraq vet. Then Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), and Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a Vietnam vet.
Expect something from Democrat John Murtha, who lost half his body in a war, and who opposes the Iraq War. [FUN FACT: Rush never served due to a “pilonidal cyst” (litereally, a boil on his butt)].
Still no condemnation from the GOP….
UPDATE: Under some pressure, the White House issues a luke warm rebuke of sorts….
Sometimes the best news can be found from the original sources. If you have been following the terrible events In Myanmar in the mainstream media, you might want to check out these bloggers who are in the midst of it.
Many of these are not in English, but the pictures tell the story.
The junta government has cracked down on the Internet, but many of these intrepid bloggers are still posting, at risk of life and limb, and getting out the story that the Myanmar government is trying to purge. In fact, the presence of "the western media" in Myanmar is almost non-existent, so it is bloggers and other "citizen journalists" (e.g., people text messaging with cellphones) who are bringing the story to the rest of the world.
