Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Statistical Spinning
According to published Pentagon and military reports, of the 150,000 soldiers in Iraq, the vast majority in the age group of 18-25, about 300 have been murdered over a period of about a year.
That's a death rate of about 1 in 500.
According to the U.S. census and the Bureau of Justice, of the 250,000 18-25 year old residents in Chicago, about 450 have been murdered over a period of an average year.
That's a death rate of about 1 in 550.
Considering the first is a war in which militants, Ba'athists, and terrorists are actively trying to kill us (sometimes with bounties and rewards for success), and the latter reflects the life of an average guy living in one of the nation's most popular cities, I'd say Bush kinda has a point that the media overhypes the number of military killed in action. Especially egregious are those, such as certain Democratic presidential contenders, who compare Iraq with Vietnam -- an insult to Vietnam vets, who were being lost sometimes more than 100 per day (58,000 killed in total).
Don't misunderstand me here: any death of a young man or woman, especially one who devotes their life to our country, is a horrible, unacceptable event. But considering the chances of being murdered while serving in Iraq is statistically comparable per year to being murdered while residing in a large American city, a little sense of proportion in the news coverage would be nice. (Personally, I'd like to see both numbers a hell of a lot lower.)
According to published Pentagon and military reports, of the 150,000 soldiers in Iraq, the vast majority in the age group of 18-25, about 300 have been murdered over a period of about a year.
That's a death rate of about 1 in 500.
According to the U.S. census and the Bureau of Justice, of the 250,000 18-25 year old residents in Chicago, about 450 have been murdered over a period of an average year.
That's a death rate of about 1 in 550.
Considering the first is a war in which militants, Ba'athists, and terrorists are actively trying to kill us (sometimes with bounties and rewards for success), and the latter reflects the life of an average guy living in one of the nation's most popular cities, I'd say Bush kinda has a point that the media overhypes the number of military killed in action. Especially egregious are those, such as certain Democratic presidential contenders, who compare Iraq with Vietnam -- an insult to Vietnam vets, who were being lost sometimes more than 100 per day (58,000 killed in total).
Don't misunderstand me here: any death of a young man or woman, especially one who devotes their life to our country, is a horrible, unacceptable event. But considering the chances of being murdered while serving in Iraq is statistically comparable per year to being murdered while residing in a large American city, a little sense of proportion in the news coverage would be nice. (Personally, I'd like to see both numbers a hell of a lot lower.)
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
The Slope
The argument of the "slippery slope" is common in American politics, generally used as a scare tactic by individuals or groups which oppose the criminalization or decriminalization of a certain activity or item. The National Rifle Association uses the "slippery slope" argument to suggest that even the smallest restrictions on handgun sales might lead to the illegality of private gun ownership. Christian Conservatives argue that recognition of gay marriage is a "slippery slope" which will result in legalized bestiality, bigamy, incest, and child sex. A quick internet search for the phrase "slippery slope" will find impassioned arguments on such topics as medicinal marijuana, welfare reform, internet censorship, public smoking bans, and just about any other debate you can imagine. Sometimes, the "slippery slope" expounders have a point. Usually, as in the cases above, it's a bit of a reach. (Equal rights for women did not, as early "slopers" predicted, lead to unisex bathrooms and the banning of gender-specific clothing, after all.)
Most recently, the "slippery slope" argument is being used by abortion rights proponents to decry the recent "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003." (S.3 of the 108th congress; available here.) Democratic Representative Louis Slaughter, among many others, argue that the bill is "an attempt to whittle away at a woman's constitutional right to her privacy and control of her body." The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) is running ads about how this is the "first step" toward a ban on all "reproductive freedoms," and the National Abortion Federation is filing lawsuits, claiming the bill's language is "so vague" that it would ban all late-term abortions. Other talking heads are going even further, claiming the bill will put women "in jail," or that women will be denied a medical procedure that could "save their life."
One wonders if any of these panicked opponents to the legislation have actually taken the time to read the bill. S.3 is nineteen pages in length, and goes into such explicit detail as to the specifics of what is being addressed, that if anything it's reminiscent of the recent HB 35-E bill in Florida, which was written with such dazzling specificity as to assure it will only be used in one case, at one time: authorizing the feeding tube reattachment to Terri Schiavo, all but referencing her by name. (Opponents of HB 35-E, who claimed this was the "slippery slope" to denying anyone from being taken off of life support, have also apparently never read that actual legislation, either.)
Partial-birth abortion (known medically as "intact dilation and extraction") is the process of inducing delivery of a living late-term fetus, then pausing the delivery while a portion of the child's body is still inside the birth canal. Before 100% of the body is outside of the mother, legally signifying "personhood," the skull of the child is punctured and its brains removed using a suction device. Once the heartbeat stops, the remainder of the newly deceased child is delivered, as in a still-birth. The reason even so many pro-choice individuals and legislators wished to ban the procedure is in the recognition that it's not so much an "abortion," but rather a form of infanticide, which uses a technicality in the law to protect its disputed legality. (I know some may object to my use of the term "child" in the above description, but the word "fetus" only applies to an unborn child, not one in-between being "unborn" and "born," as is the case in this discussion. Since nearly all dictionaries include "an unborn infant; a fetus" as part of the definition of "child," that term seems more linguistically accurate. )
To make certain that the law would not be used to criminalize any other forms of abortion, legislators were even more specific than my description above. "Partial-Birth Abortion" is therefore unambiguously defined in the bill as "deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus." To argue that this could be interpreted as a ban on "all late term abortions" seems more than a bit of a stretch.
Predictably, presidential candidate Howard Dean expressed outrage that "the Senate has decided it is qualified to practice medicine," claiming the bill "will endanger the lives of countless women." But both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association oppose the procedure, with the AMA testifying before congress that intact D&E is "not an accepted medical practice" and has "never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development." No articles in peer-reviewed journals have ever been published claiming its benefits, and perhaps more tellingly, not a single medical school in the country has ever taught the procedure. Given the vast amount of testimony on the subject during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses, I'd say it's quite clear that the legislators went out of their way to become medically knowledgeable on the issue. As to the Dean's "endangering" prediction, even the creator of the procedure testified that intact D&E "is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman," and not one expert could identify "a single circumstance" in which it helped or theoretically would help a pregnant individual. Indeed, there was extensive medical testimony which detailed the increased risk to a woman as opposed to traditional abortion, including "making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term," "an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus," "a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging . . . which could ultimately result in maternal death," and others.
As for the final paranoid concerns of women being "imprisoned" for seeking out this procedure, or "losing their lives" as a result of its ban, the bill makes two very clear and critical distinctions: 1) that a woman "upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted," and 2) that this ban does not apply if a physician deems the action "necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."
The bottom line here is that this legislation doesn't so much "restrict" abortion, but rather closes a loophole in the dividing line between abortion and infanticide. Opponents of the ban are quick to point out that partial-birth abortions "are rare", only a couple thousand a year, but that's hardly a persuasive argument, especially since the reason they're "rare" is because even the vast majority of abortion providers find the practice unethical. And why would it matter if it's 100 or 1000 or 10,000? We are talking about the partial birth of, and then destruction of, a living and viable or near-viable child. Consider this: there have been numerous documented cases on which, during this type of procedure, the rest of the child accidentally "slipped out," and was born live. In these cases, the child legally became a "person" and was therefore protected by law, and the mother who went in for an abortion had to be told that, oops, she has a crying son or daughter now instead. Now, regardless of one's impassioned level of support for legal abortion, can it honestly be intellectually argued that a child in this situation was not worthy of legal protection in any way when only 80-90% born, but all of a sudden became a person deserving of such protection when the remaining 10% was intentionally or unintentionally delivered? By not closing these barbaric loopholes, if anything, we'd be on a "slippery slope" toward full-out legal infanticide, which already some pro-choice organizations support, in situations where the mother didn't realize she was pregnant, or when the child is physically handicapped (or, as in China, merely a tool of population control). This issue isn't so much about abortion as it is about common sense and medical/legal consistency in human rights law. I say kudos to Congress, especially the majority of pro-choice legislators, who recognized that sometimes the extremists are wrong, and had the courage to stand up to ethically and logically indefensible positions.
The argument of the "slippery slope" is common in American politics, generally used as a scare tactic by individuals or groups which oppose the criminalization or decriminalization of a certain activity or item. The National Rifle Association uses the "slippery slope" argument to suggest that even the smallest restrictions on handgun sales might lead to the illegality of private gun ownership. Christian Conservatives argue that recognition of gay marriage is a "slippery slope" which will result in legalized bestiality, bigamy, incest, and child sex. A quick internet search for the phrase "slippery slope" will find impassioned arguments on such topics as medicinal marijuana, welfare reform, internet censorship, public smoking bans, and just about any other debate you can imagine. Sometimes, the "slippery slope" expounders have a point. Usually, as in the cases above, it's a bit of a reach. (Equal rights for women did not, as early "slopers" predicted, lead to unisex bathrooms and the banning of gender-specific clothing, after all.)
Most recently, the "slippery slope" argument is being used by abortion rights proponents to decry the recent "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003." (S.3 of the 108th congress; available here.) Democratic Representative Louis Slaughter, among many others, argue that the bill is "an attempt to whittle away at a woman's constitutional right to her privacy and control of her body." The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) is running ads about how this is the "first step" toward a ban on all "reproductive freedoms," and the National Abortion Federation is filing lawsuits, claiming the bill's language is "so vague" that it would ban all late-term abortions. Other talking heads are going even further, claiming the bill will put women "in jail," or that women will be denied a medical procedure that could "save their life."
One wonders if any of these panicked opponents to the legislation have actually taken the time to read the bill. S.3 is nineteen pages in length, and goes into such explicit detail as to the specifics of what is being addressed, that if anything it's reminiscent of the recent HB 35-E bill in Florida, which was written with such dazzling specificity as to assure it will only be used in one case, at one time: authorizing the feeding tube reattachment to Terri Schiavo, all but referencing her by name. (Opponents of HB 35-E, who claimed this was the "slippery slope" to denying anyone from being taken off of life support, have also apparently never read that actual legislation, either.)
Partial-birth abortion (known medically as "intact dilation and extraction") is the process of inducing delivery of a living late-term fetus, then pausing the delivery while a portion of the child's body is still inside the birth canal. Before 100% of the body is outside of the mother, legally signifying "personhood," the skull of the child is punctured and its brains removed using a suction device. Once the heartbeat stops, the remainder of the newly deceased child is delivered, as in a still-birth. The reason even so many pro-choice individuals and legislators wished to ban the procedure is in the recognition that it's not so much an "abortion," but rather a form of infanticide, which uses a technicality in the law to protect its disputed legality. (I know some may object to my use of the term "child" in the above description, but the word "fetus" only applies to an unborn child, not one in-between being "unborn" and "born," as is the case in this discussion. Since nearly all dictionaries include "an unborn infant; a fetus" as part of the definition of "child," that term seems more linguistically accurate. )
To make certain that the law would not be used to criminalize any other forms of abortion, legislators were even more specific than my description above. "Partial-Birth Abortion" is therefore unambiguously defined in the bill as "deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus." To argue that this could be interpreted as a ban on "all late term abortions" seems more than a bit of a stretch.
Predictably, presidential candidate Howard Dean expressed outrage that "the Senate has decided it is qualified to practice medicine," claiming the bill "will endanger the lives of countless women." But both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association oppose the procedure, with the AMA testifying before congress that intact D&E is "not an accepted medical practice" and has "never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development." No articles in peer-reviewed journals have ever been published claiming its benefits, and perhaps more tellingly, not a single medical school in the country has ever taught the procedure. Given the vast amount of testimony on the subject during the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses, I'd say it's quite clear that the legislators went out of their way to become medically knowledgeable on the issue. As to the Dean's "endangering" prediction, even the creator of the procedure testified that intact D&E "is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman," and not one expert could identify "a single circumstance" in which it helped or theoretically would help a pregnant individual. Indeed, there was extensive medical testimony which detailed the increased risk to a woman as opposed to traditional abortion, including "making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term," "an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus," "a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging . . . which could ultimately result in maternal death," and others.
As for the final paranoid concerns of women being "imprisoned" for seeking out this procedure, or "losing their lives" as a result of its ban, the bill makes two very clear and critical distinctions: 1) that a woman "upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted," and 2) that this ban does not apply if a physician deems the action "necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."
The bottom line here is that this legislation doesn't so much "restrict" abortion, but rather closes a loophole in the dividing line between abortion and infanticide. Opponents of the ban are quick to point out that partial-birth abortions "are rare", only a couple thousand a year, but that's hardly a persuasive argument, especially since the reason they're "rare" is because even the vast majority of abortion providers find the practice unethical. And why would it matter if it's 100 or 1000 or 10,000? We are talking about the partial birth of, and then destruction of, a living and viable or near-viable child. Consider this: there have been numerous documented cases on which, during this type of procedure, the rest of the child accidentally "slipped out," and was born live. In these cases, the child legally became a "person" and was therefore protected by law, and the mother who went in for an abortion had to be told that, oops, she has a crying son or daughter now instead. Now, regardless of one's impassioned level of support for legal abortion, can it honestly be intellectually argued that a child in this situation was not worthy of legal protection in any way when only 80-90% born, but all of a sudden became a person deserving of such protection when the remaining 10% was intentionally or unintentionally delivered? By not closing these barbaric loopholes, if anything, we'd be on a "slippery slope" toward full-out legal infanticide, which already some pro-choice organizations support, in situations where the mother didn't realize she was pregnant, or when the child is physically handicapped (or, as in China, merely a tool of population control). This issue isn't so much about abortion as it is about common sense and medical/legal consistency in human rights law. I say kudos to Congress, especially the majority of pro-choice legislators, who recognized that sometimes the extremists are wrong, and had the courage to stand up to ethically and logically indefensible positions.
Monday, October 20, 2003
Under God?
Saturday, my friend Carol and I went to "the Max." It's the old Music Hall, and home of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra (DSO). An engraving on the wall conveyed what had been reported in the news -- that Max M. Fisher made an unbelievably generous donation of more than ten million dollars to restore the building, add revenue-producing real estate, and create a school for performing arts. He restored to the world class DSO the home they deserve. Thus, the Music Hall is now "the Max." To celebrate this fully restored cultural center, Marshall Field's department store hosted two free days of music that advertised "everything from Mozart to Motown," including folk, gospel, classical, rap, techno, Celtic and Asian music, jazz, bluegrass, and lots, lots more! All great, and all free.
The names of other generous donors were inscribed on the wall. Five million dollars or more, one million dollars or more, five hundred thousand dollars or more, etc. But only one other benefactor hit the ten million mark -- the State of Michigan.
Personally, I think that is what the State should be doing with our money. I think they should give us a reason for working, a place to go where we can be uplifted and exalted, where we go to be inspired to be better. There are a lot of things that separate us from the plants, but the ability to create is supreme.
However.
In thinking about the current dispute over "one nation under God" in our pledge, something struck me as odd. There we were, sitting on the floor -- no room left in the stands -- listening to excellent and jubilant gospel music from the Perfecting Choir of Detroit. They were exciting, upbeat, and really knew how to make a joyful noise unto the Lord. The harmonious and rising crescendos and rolling waves of hands and bodies all flowing over the stage and audience. . . truly no music can surpass the excitement of a good gospel choir. Suddenly, Carol noticed there was a row of older white-haired white-skinned people that were just, well, sitting there. They stood out because they were the only people in the room that did not respond to the music. Not a hand was clapped, not a head nodded, nor a body bounced, nor a foot tapped. Not even a finger tapped. Not a twitch. Not one visible sign of awareness. I made a joke about them being Catholics. But I think it more likely they were just not religious. And they were sitting in this room where the spirit bounced off the walls. After a few songs, they left. But I have been thinking about those people.
How does the State of Michigan dare contribute money to a place where Gospel Music is performed?
For that matter, how dare the State of Michigan contribute money to a place where Handel's Messiah is performed?
And the state-funded Detroit Institute of Arts, or any other art museum, is even worse! The vast majority of great classical paintings have a religious figure or theme as its subject. How can a building devoted to such paintings accept taxpayer funds?
Later, while discussing the State's contributions and the current Pledge of Allegiance debate, Carol said she was not even taught to say "under God" in grade school. She is only three years older than I, but she had escaped the whole phrase. I had forgotten that "under God" was an addendum while I was still young.
Do you know when "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance? About the same time that the "In God We Trust" was added to our money: the McCarthy era of the mid-1950's. Another of the knee-jerk responses our society had to the growing fear of Communism. We had propaganda mongers swarming through our schools, telling us that Chinese Communists ate babies and Russian Communists sent people to Siberia where no one lived past 30 years of age. Really! They really did! We were also told fluoride in the water was a Communist plot. And, we were asked if we attended Sunday School over the weekend. Indeed, we all prayed together at our desks before eating our sack lunches.
We had two hair cuts and three television stations to choose from. Those were the first days of the Ugly Americans. Everyone had to be just like everyone else -- ugly and narrow minded. But at the same time we expected everyone to be alike, we ridiculed the Communist nations where men and women worked and even dressed alike.
McCarthyism was a very scary part of our history. No freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedoms at all for people that had their own ideas. So, why are we back in the same place today? Trying to make everyone alike, only this time, to make everyone soulless.
If we erase the "under God" and the "In God We Trust" to appease the ACLU, must we also tape brown paper over all paintings that contain religious figures, ban Gospel music and Handel's Messiah, and ban all plays, ballets, and art forms that mention God? Maybe we could burn books. Melt films. Close museums and theaters. We have allowed secularists to take the Christ out of Christmas, so maybe they'd let us keep gospel music, as long as we take out all the silly "higher power" stuff.
There are those who believe we're one hundred percent physical beings, nothing more. They ignore our intellectual and spiritual sides. They ignore our humanity. We're in the age of a second McCarthyism, where we all must be the same, only this time, "the same" is closer to the Communist stereotype that the first age of McCarthy was trying to discredit and destroy. To require all Americans to practice a specific religion and political ideology is wrong. But a knee-jerk restriction of everything that might have the slightest religious expression or intent, is equally so.
Considering it was only added as a McCarthyism in the first place, I suppose I could learn to live without the God in the Pledge and on the money. But if the ACLU wins again, what will they take next from me?
Saturday, my friend Carol and I went to "the Max." It's the old Music Hall, and home of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra (DSO). An engraving on the wall conveyed what had been reported in the news -- that Max M. Fisher made an unbelievably generous donation of more than ten million dollars to restore the building, add revenue-producing real estate, and create a school for performing arts. He restored to the world class DSO the home they deserve. Thus, the Music Hall is now "the Max." To celebrate this fully restored cultural center, Marshall Field's department store hosted two free days of music that advertised "everything from Mozart to Motown," including folk, gospel, classical, rap, techno, Celtic and Asian music, jazz, bluegrass, and lots, lots more! All great, and all free.
The names of other generous donors were inscribed on the wall. Five million dollars or more, one million dollars or more, five hundred thousand dollars or more, etc. But only one other benefactor hit the ten million mark -- the State of Michigan.
Personally, I think that is what the State should be doing with our money. I think they should give us a reason for working, a place to go where we can be uplifted and exalted, where we go to be inspired to be better. There are a lot of things that separate us from the plants, but the ability to create is supreme.
However.
In thinking about the current dispute over "one nation under God" in our pledge, something struck me as odd. There we were, sitting on the floor -- no room left in the stands -- listening to excellent and jubilant gospel music from the Perfecting Choir of Detroit. They were exciting, upbeat, and really knew how to make a joyful noise unto the Lord. The harmonious and rising crescendos and rolling waves of hands and bodies all flowing over the stage and audience. . . truly no music can surpass the excitement of a good gospel choir. Suddenly, Carol noticed there was a row of older white-haired white-skinned people that were just, well, sitting there. They stood out because they were the only people in the room that did not respond to the music. Not a hand was clapped, not a head nodded, nor a body bounced, nor a foot tapped. Not even a finger tapped. Not a twitch. Not one visible sign of awareness. I made a joke about them being Catholics. But I think it more likely they were just not religious. And they were sitting in this room where the spirit bounced off the walls. After a few songs, they left. But I have been thinking about those people.
How does the State of Michigan dare contribute money to a place where Gospel Music is performed?
For that matter, how dare the State of Michigan contribute money to a place where Handel's Messiah is performed?
And the state-funded Detroit Institute of Arts, or any other art museum, is even worse! The vast majority of great classical paintings have a religious figure or theme as its subject. How can a building devoted to such paintings accept taxpayer funds?
Later, while discussing the State's contributions and the current Pledge of Allegiance debate, Carol said she was not even taught to say "under God" in grade school. She is only three years older than I, but she had escaped the whole phrase. I had forgotten that "under God" was an addendum while I was still young.
Do you know when "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance? About the same time that the "In God We Trust" was added to our money: the McCarthy era of the mid-1950's. Another of the knee-jerk responses our society had to the growing fear of Communism. We had propaganda mongers swarming through our schools, telling us that Chinese Communists ate babies and Russian Communists sent people to Siberia where no one lived past 30 years of age. Really! They really did! We were also told fluoride in the water was a Communist plot. And, we were asked if we attended Sunday School over the weekend. Indeed, we all prayed together at our desks before eating our sack lunches.
We had two hair cuts and three television stations to choose from. Those were the first days of the Ugly Americans. Everyone had to be just like everyone else -- ugly and narrow minded. But at the same time we expected everyone to be alike, we ridiculed the Communist nations where men and women worked and even dressed alike.
McCarthyism was a very scary part of our history. No freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedoms at all for people that had their own ideas. So, why are we back in the same place today? Trying to make everyone alike, only this time, to make everyone soulless.
If we erase the "under God" and the "In God We Trust" to appease the ACLU, must we also tape brown paper over all paintings that contain religious figures, ban Gospel music and Handel's Messiah, and ban all plays, ballets, and art forms that mention God? Maybe we could burn books. Melt films. Close museums and theaters. We have allowed secularists to take the Christ out of Christmas, so maybe they'd let us keep gospel music, as long as we take out all the silly "higher power" stuff.
There are those who believe we're one hundred percent physical beings, nothing more. They ignore our intellectual and spiritual sides. They ignore our humanity. We're in the age of a second McCarthyism, where we all must be the same, only this time, "the same" is closer to the Communist stereotype that the first age of McCarthy was trying to discredit and destroy. To require all Americans to practice a specific religion and political ideology is wrong. But a knee-jerk restriction of everything that might have the slightest religious expression or intent, is equally so.
Considering it was only added as a McCarthyism in the first place, I suppose I could learn to live without the God in the Pledge and on the money. But if the ACLU wins again, what will they take next from me?
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
Bryantiproductive
Last week, Kobe Bryant's attorney Pamela Mackey argued that Bryant's alleged rape victim may have received her "vaginal tearing" as a result of "having sex with three men in three days." This seemed perilously close to violating the rape shield law, which states that a woman's sexual history is inadmissable as evidence, for it might improperly influence a jury's opinion of the victim; legally, rape must be equally condemned whether it's against a virginal choir girl or a promiscuous troubled teen, for obvious reasons. But the defense seems to have successfully argued that such statements were only made to address the "vaginal tearing" question, using a loophole in the shield provision that does allow evidence when specific injuries may have come from someone else. And, indeed, they apparently even have proof that at least one other person's "substances" were present in the woman's underwear.
What no one seems to be talking about is the fact that by portraying this woman, essentially, as a "slut," Kobe's defense team is damaging a key argument in their case. It is true that the "tearing" of the alleged victim could very well have occurred during consensual sex, not just from rape. However, when it's from consensual activity, it's most often when a woman hasn't had sexual relations in some time, and would be much less common on someone who had just had sex "with three men in three days." If the two most common causes of this injury are non-consensual sex, or consensual sex after a long period of no sex, and the defense team eliminates this latter cause, then the former cause gains credibility. Therefore, if the woman is in fact promiscuous, the defense can not as convincingly claim the "vaginal tearing" was a result of consensual activity. Quick addendum on this -- I'm referring to the doctor's theories on this specific case, and this specific woman, not just tearing in general, which can occur from a wide variety of sexual and even non-sexual activities.
Either the defense team does not realize this little paradox, or, more likely, they feel that making the alleged victim out to be "loose" damages her reputation enough to outweigh that, medically, it'd be better for their case if she was, er, "tight." Kobe's hope here is that people will think "oh, well, that girl's a troubled slut who's been having sex with different guys all week, and he's this gorgeous popular basketball star who could have anyone he wanted, so it must have been consensual, which makes her a liar, too." But this is why we have rape shield laws, to prevent juries from being swayed by such thoughts. Why isn't a person's prior sexual promiscuity relevant? Well, imagine if a guy breaks into a woman's house to steal her stereo, and is caught. Do you think it would be relevant if the defense proved that the woman had had several invited visitors into her house in the past week? "But ladies and gentleman of the jury, she lets people into her house all the time. Why should we think this guy wasn't invited in, too? I mean, she's even had parties for God's sake. She's practically a socialite!" See what I mean?
Bottom line, this is a sleazy tactic on the part of the defense, and I hope the prosecution realizes how to use the "vaginal tearing" inconsistency to their advantage.
(Incidentally, I have to apologize for using the "vaginal tearing" phrase over and over, the way everyone else in the media has -- a google search for "kobe vaginal tearing" finds 600 documents already. All these poor kids around the country, unable to avoid the nonstop news coverage. "Daddy, what's vaginal tearing?" I suppose it's still better than during the Clinton impeachment trial. "Daddy, what's a natural humidor?" But not by much.)
Last week, Kobe Bryant's attorney Pamela Mackey argued that Bryant's alleged rape victim may have received her "vaginal tearing" as a result of "having sex with three men in three days." This seemed perilously close to violating the rape shield law, which states that a woman's sexual history is inadmissable as evidence, for it might improperly influence a jury's opinion of the victim; legally, rape must be equally condemned whether it's against a virginal choir girl or a promiscuous troubled teen, for obvious reasons. But the defense seems to have successfully argued that such statements were only made to address the "vaginal tearing" question, using a loophole in the shield provision that does allow evidence when specific injuries may have come from someone else. And, indeed, they apparently even have proof that at least one other person's "substances" were present in the woman's underwear.
What no one seems to be talking about is the fact that by portraying this woman, essentially, as a "slut," Kobe's defense team is damaging a key argument in their case. It is true that the "tearing" of the alleged victim could very well have occurred during consensual sex, not just from rape. However, when it's from consensual activity, it's most often when a woman hasn't had sexual relations in some time, and would be much less common on someone who had just had sex "with three men in three days." If the two most common causes of this injury are non-consensual sex, or consensual sex after a long period of no sex, and the defense team eliminates this latter cause, then the former cause gains credibility. Therefore, if the woman is in fact promiscuous, the defense can not as convincingly claim the "vaginal tearing" was a result of consensual activity. Quick addendum on this -- I'm referring to the doctor's theories on this specific case, and this specific woman, not just tearing in general, which can occur from a wide variety of sexual and even non-sexual activities.
Either the defense team does not realize this little paradox, or, more likely, they feel that making the alleged victim out to be "loose" damages her reputation enough to outweigh that, medically, it'd be better for their case if she was, er, "tight." Kobe's hope here is that people will think "oh, well, that girl's a troubled slut who's been having sex with different guys all week, and he's this gorgeous popular basketball star who could have anyone he wanted, so it must have been consensual, which makes her a liar, too." But this is why we have rape shield laws, to prevent juries from being swayed by such thoughts. Why isn't a person's prior sexual promiscuity relevant? Well, imagine if a guy breaks into a woman's house to steal her stereo, and is caught. Do you think it would be relevant if the defense proved that the woman had had several invited visitors into her house in the past week? "But ladies and gentleman of the jury, she lets people into her house all the time. Why should we think this guy wasn't invited in, too? I mean, she's even had parties for God's sake. She's practically a socialite!" See what I mean?
Bottom line, this is a sleazy tactic on the part of the defense, and I hope the prosecution realizes how to use the "vaginal tearing" inconsistency to their advantage.
(Incidentally, I have to apologize for using the "vaginal tearing" phrase over and over, the way everyone else in the media has -- a google search for "kobe vaginal tearing" finds 600 documents already. All these poor kids around the country, unable to avoid the nonstop news coverage. "Daddy, what's vaginal tearing?" I suppose it's still better than during the Clinton impeachment trial. "Daddy, what's a natural humidor?" But not by much.)
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Impressing Who?
An Iranian lawyer, Shirin Ebadi, has received a Nobel Prize for Peace. She had been a judge until fanatical religious Muslims forced her off the bench. She said in an interview with NPR that one of her most important accomplishments occurred last year when she helped pass a law that protects children from being tortured.
What?
What did she do?
What kind of a country is that?
What kind of a people needs to be told that they should not torture children?
Iran has been populated for 10,000 years! They are a "Cradle of Civilization". And it took the residents of Iran ten thousand years to decide that maybe they should not torture children. Even the law passed was worded "with reservations" in case torture may be indicated on religious grounds. It's bad enough that the Iranians still practice amputations, public floggings, stonings, and hangings for civil infractions. But the torture of children is way past my understanding. I have always believed all people are the same.
We all eat, sleep, dream, work, play, cry, laugh, and love. And worship.
And Worship.
There's the rub.
Human sacrifice, blood drinking, cannibalism, temple whoring, inquisition, witch burning, genocide, genital mutilation, mind control, manipulation. . . all are done in the name of God. All done for the sole purpose of basking in God's glorious appreciation. All done for the power God will bestow. All done by Man, still trying to gain some semblance of control over his own destiny.
Maybe we are all the same, but to different degrees in accordance to our proximity to Eden. For surely the closer man is to God's Direct Contact, the more bizarre is man's behavior.
In the 50's and early 60's, we in the western countries philosophized about God in a matchbox, God being dead, God, for some reason, removed from his creation. Just like the children of good parents who are allowed to become independent from the womb, westerners were able to strive toward a more adult understanding of God. They began to see the purpose of religion as a praise of God. Nothing more. To worship, not envy, God's omnipotence. Give praise, freely and without reservation. And like all real gifting, seek nothing in return.
But those of the middle eastern religions still desperately try to maintain a connection to the Direct Contact. Their corrupted interpretation of that Contact has kept their worship infantile. They seek to be like God, to control God, to sway God, to impress God.
Torture children? I don't think God is impressed.
Try this as an experiment. Sit quietly. Open your heart. Think only one thought for only a moment. Think "Thank you, God." Don't ask for anything. Just thank Him. And go on with your day.
An Iranian lawyer, Shirin Ebadi, has received a Nobel Prize for Peace. She had been a judge until fanatical religious Muslims forced her off the bench. She said in an interview with NPR that one of her most important accomplishments occurred last year when she helped pass a law that protects children from being tortured.
What?
What did she do?
What kind of a country is that?
What kind of a people needs to be told that they should not torture children?
Iran has been populated for 10,000 years! They are a "Cradle of Civilization". And it took the residents of Iran ten thousand years to decide that maybe they should not torture children. Even the law passed was worded "with reservations" in case torture may be indicated on religious grounds. It's bad enough that the Iranians still practice amputations, public floggings, stonings, and hangings for civil infractions. But the torture of children is way past my understanding. I have always believed all people are the same.
We all eat, sleep, dream, work, play, cry, laugh, and love. And worship.
And Worship.
There's the rub.
Human sacrifice, blood drinking, cannibalism, temple whoring, inquisition, witch burning, genocide, genital mutilation, mind control, manipulation. . . all are done in the name of God. All done for the sole purpose of basking in God's glorious appreciation. All done for the power God will bestow. All done by Man, still trying to gain some semblance of control over his own destiny.
Maybe we are all the same, but to different degrees in accordance to our proximity to Eden. For surely the closer man is to God's Direct Contact, the more bizarre is man's behavior.
In the 50's and early 60's, we in the western countries philosophized about God in a matchbox, God being dead, God, for some reason, removed from his creation. Just like the children of good parents who are allowed to become independent from the womb, westerners were able to strive toward a more adult understanding of God. They began to see the purpose of religion as a praise of God. Nothing more. To worship, not envy, God's omnipotence. Give praise, freely and without reservation. And like all real gifting, seek nothing in return.
But those of the middle eastern religions still desperately try to maintain a connection to the Direct Contact. Their corrupted interpretation of that Contact has kept their worship infantile. They seek to be like God, to control God, to sway God, to impress God.
Torture children? I don't think God is impressed.
Try this as an experiment. Sit quietly. Open your heart. Think only one thought for only a moment. Think "Thank you, God." Don't ask for anything. Just thank Him. And go on with your day.
Friday, October 10, 2003
Yankee Doodley Doo
There is a great line in the movie "I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy." So great, even an old antiwar person like me can appreciate it. Roughly remembered, George M. Cohan was quoted by James Cagney: "If we're in it, then we're behind it. Let's get behind the kid with the gun." It's a real flag-waving, bugle-blowing wake-up call.
If you didn't live through Vietnam, it was a war that was never officially declared, never officially supported, and never officially won, so it must have been lost. The kids sent over there to fight in the swamps and jungles were not even allowed to vote (unless they somehow lived long enough to turn 21). They were given faulty weapons, little moral support from the government, and very little sympathy from the Vets who were still wallowing in their own self-glory from winning WWII. Those kids took the brunt of a lot of angry antiwar liberals who sought to end the war by convincing soldiers to put down their guns and run (to Canada) or to stand up and be counted by going to jail. There were probably 100 really great (Really Great) antiwar songs to the one (only one) decent pro-war song from the Vietnam era. And there were a lot of great lines in those antiwar songs, too.
But it was all rhetoric. Speeches, Songs, Poetry, and Films. Sometimes we forget that.
Lost in all the hype were the soldiers. For better or for worse, for Right or for Left, once those kids were sent to a foreign country to fight for whatever reason, we all needed to be behind them. And it didn't matter if the war was to help commerce or help a people, it was our duty to stand behind our American Soldiers. We should have sent the supplies and equipment and the support our soldiers needed to win that war. If we were not willing to do that, we should have brought them home. Instead, we just kept them there with the barest of necessities, year after year, replacing the soldiers with newer and younger draftees. Can we learn from our history? We are fighting another war. Again, not here, not on American soil. But "over there."
We have another chance to do what is right. Let's pay attention this time. Who cares who wins the World Series or the Stanley Cup or the Super Bowl? We have nightly reports on the news; let's follow the war stats for a change. Let's know who is winning what battles and how the kids are doing.
This time, for as long as there are American Soldiers in a foreign land, our politicians need to insure those kids have everything needed to win. When it comes to soldiers, the politicians need to be Americans first, and pollsters last. This is not a debate. This is not up for discussion. The soldiers are already over there. We are in the war whether they "declared" it or not, voted for it or not, wanted it or not.
George M. Cohan also said "we're coming over and we won’t come back 'till it's over over there," and "just as some tyrant starts flexing his muscles we all look up to make sure that grand ol' flag of ours is still waving o'er our heads," and, "today, we're all soldiers, we're all on the front."
Ooo-wee, I could sit and quote that movie all day.
There is a great line in the movie "I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy." So great, even an old antiwar person like me can appreciate it. Roughly remembered, George M. Cohan was quoted by James Cagney: "If we're in it, then we're behind it. Let's get behind the kid with the gun." It's a real flag-waving, bugle-blowing wake-up call.
If you didn't live through Vietnam, it was a war that was never officially declared, never officially supported, and never officially won, so it must have been lost. The kids sent over there to fight in the swamps and jungles were not even allowed to vote (unless they somehow lived long enough to turn 21). They were given faulty weapons, little moral support from the government, and very little sympathy from the Vets who were still wallowing in their own self-glory from winning WWII. Those kids took the brunt of a lot of angry antiwar liberals who sought to end the war by convincing soldiers to put down their guns and run (to Canada) or to stand up and be counted by going to jail. There were probably 100 really great (Really Great) antiwar songs to the one (only one) decent pro-war song from the Vietnam era. And there were a lot of great lines in those antiwar songs, too.
But it was all rhetoric. Speeches, Songs, Poetry, and Films. Sometimes we forget that.
Lost in all the hype were the soldiers. For better or for worse, for Right or for Left, once those kids were sent to a foreign country to fight for whatever reason, we all needed to be behind them. And it didn't matter if the war was to help commerce or help a people, it was our duty to stand behind our American Soldiers. We should have sent the supplies and equipment and the support our soldiers needed to win that war. If we were not willing to do that, we should have brought them home. Instead, we just kept them there with the barest of necessities, year after year, replacing the soldiers with newer and younger draftees. Can we learn from our history? We are fighting another war. Again, not here, not on American soil. But "over there."
We have another chance to do what is right. Let's pay attention this time. Who cares who wins the World Series or the Stanley Cup or the Super Bowl? We have nightly reports on the news; let's follow the war stats for a change. Let's know who is winning what battles and how the kids are doing.
This time, for as long as there are American Soldiers in a foreign land, our politicians need to insure those kids have everything needed to win. When it comes to soldiers, the politicians need to be Americans first, and pollsters last. This is not a debate. This is not up for discussion. The soldiers are already over there. We are in the war whether they "declared" it or not, voted for it or not, wanted it or not.
George M. Cohan also said "we're coming over and we won’t come back 'till it's over over there," and "just as some tyrant starts flexing his muscles we all look up to make sure that grand ol' flag of ours is still waving o'er our heads," and, "today, we're all soldiers, we're all on the front."
Ooo-wee, I could sit and quote that movie all day.
Thursday, October 09, 2003
You know, Spaceballs, Texas, etc? Nobody gets me.
A few of my friends have commented that California didn't elect a "Republican" as much as they elected a "Celebrity". But if you think about it, wouldn't the celebrity factor have been one of those things that resulted in big poll numbers at first, that then dwindled and wore off once people got to know his positions? Instead, his poll numbers started only mediocre, with little chance of beating Davis, and got higher and higher until a landslide election day. I think that's a good sign that the voters really DID vote for him largely for issues reasons, not just his fame.
Would Arnold have still been elected if his positions were closer to Gray Davis? I'm skeptical. But I guess we'll find out if people like him a year from now.
One thing that I've found interesting is this push to try and recall Arnie before he even has a chance to be in office. Naturally, this push is from the exact same people who have been on every talk show, in every newspaper, on every soapbox for months, screaming that voting "no on the recall" was a matter of principle, that recalls were always a bad idea, etc. Gee, if it's a bad idea when a governor has "only" been in office five years, how is it a good idea when a governor hasn't been in office five minutes? If Davis's supporters thought recalling Schwarzenegger might be a future strategy, they should have spent their time arguing against recalling Gray Davis specifically, and defended him. Instead, all the anti-recall signs and ads never even mentioned Davis -- they were each about opposing the very idea of a recall. So now, to try and organize an identical recall to that they've spent months condemning, "on principle," seems hypocritical and silly. (It also seemed silly that all the Clinton apologists who constantly said "but it was 20 years ago!" with regards to the Jones or Broaddrick cases were the same ones saying Schwarzenegger's groping reports made him ineligible for office. But I guess that's politics.)
The movie Predator is the big winner, of course, now producing not one, but TWO modern governors. I wonder who's next?
A few of my friends have commented that California didn't elect a "Republican" as much as they elected a "Celebrity". But if you think about it, wouldn't the celebrity factor have been one of those things that resulted in big poll numbers at first, that then dwindled and wore off once people got to know his positions? Instead, his poll numbers started only mediocre, with little chance of beating Davis, and got higher and higher until a landslide election day. I think that's a good sign that the voters really DID vote for him largely for issues reasons, not just his fame.
Would Arnold have still been elected if his positions were closer to Gray Davis? I'm skeptical. But I guess we'll find out if people like him a year from now.
One thing that I've found interesting is this push to try and recall Arnie before he even has a chance to be in office. Naturally, this push is from the exact same people who have been on every talk show, in every newspaper, on every soapbox for months, screaming that voting "no on the recall" was a matter of principle, that recalls were always a bad idea, etc. Gee, if it's a bad idea when a governor has "only" been in office five years, how is it a good idea when a governor hasn't been in office five minutes? If Davis's supporters thought recalling Schwarzenegger might be a future strategy, they should have spent their time arguing against recalling Gray Davis specifically, and defended him. Instead, all the anti-recall signs and ads never even mentioned Davis -- they were each about opposing the very idea of a recall. So now, to try and organize an identical recall to that they've spent months condemning, "on principle," seems hypocritical and silly. (It also seemed silly that all the Clinton apologists who constantly said "but it was 20 years ago!" with regards to the Jones or Broaddrick cases were the same ones saying Schwarzenegger's groping reports made him ineligible for office. But I guess that's politics.)
The movie Predator is the big winner, of course, now producing not one, but TWO modern governors. I wonder who's next?
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
Use the Schwarz, Lone Star
It struck me, while watching Schwarzenegger's victory speech, how terrified Democratic leaders must be tonight. Certainly things have been going well for the Democrats in recent months, considering the decreasing Bush poll numbers and the impressive fundraising efforts of Dean, Clark, and others. Even the "story" out of Iraq has been successfully spun as negative, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (Iraqi citizens supporting the ouster of Saddam by an 8 to 1 margin, and a particularly Bush-vindicating David Kay interim inspection report). The Democrats even got to take some pot shots at Rush Limbaugh recently, trying to destroy an old nemesis presumably just for the hell of it. And yet, in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, Democrats not only lost the recall election, but by a shockingly wide margin -- even wider if you consider ultraconservative Republican McClintock's 12% of the vote, which combined with Schwarzenegger means California voters supported a Republican candidate by more than a two to one margin over Bustamante. (That's of total voters, by the way, not just those who supported the recall.) Think about the ramifications of this. Schwarzenegger is a candidate who is probably the closest to my views politically of any candidate in recent memory, exactly the right combination of conservative and progressive viewpoints, and he won the people over. A very good sign should I ever seriously consider politics!
But it's actually not his viewpoints and positions that I think are scaring the Democrats tonight. No, I think it's that Jay Leno introduced his acceptance speech, that tons of respected Democrats supported his candidacy, and that Maria Shriver and many in the "Kennedy Clan" were cheering on stage for his victory. Can you imagine the rapturous, overwhelmingly positive reception Maria Shriver will get when she's undoubtedly asked to speak at the Republican National Convention next year? The Republican party has billed itself as a "big tent" for a long time and never delivered. Now, it can. The views of smaller, limited government, of genuine national security concern, of governing by reason rather than emotion, are uniting this party. There's room for the Christian conservatives and the more secular, populist heroes like Rudy Guliani and, now, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Not convinced? Consider this -- the four most populous states, California, Texas, New York, and Florida, making up a full third of this nation's citizenry, are now run by Republicans (as well are a majority of the remaining states). Schwarzenegger is a good friend of the Bush family and represents the best chance a Republican presidential candidate has of winning California since Reagan. Expect Bush and Schwarzenegger to campaign hard for the president's reelection here, and if Bush does win California, he can afford to lose a dozen other swing states and still handily win a second term. A long shot? Five years ago, maybe. But Bush's approval ratings, believe it or not, are higher in California now than they were before his first election, and with a strong, overwhelmingly elected new Republican governor, Bush's chances just got a huge boost.
Of course, that all depends on Schwarzenegger actually doing a kick-ass job in turning the state around over the next twelve months. But with Gray Davis's approval ratings the lowest of any major political figure in history (yes, even lower than Nixon's after Watergate), it's hard to believe Arnold won't at least be considered a step up. Only in America could one of the nation's richest celebrities be a "populist leader." But hey, at least he seems to genuinely care, and has surrounded himself with the smartest minds he could find -- Republicans, Independents, and Democrats alike.
I think the people will give him a chance. I know I would.
It struck me, while watching Schwarzenegger's victory speech, how terrified Democratic leaders must be tonight. Certainly things have been going well for the Democrats in recent months, considering the decreasing Bush poll numbers and the impressive fundraising efforts of Dean, Clark, and others. Even the "story" out of Iraq has been successfully spun as negative, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (Iraqi citizens supporting the ouster of Saddam by an 8 to 1 margin, and a particularly Bush-vindicating David Kay interim inspection report). The Democrats even got to take some pot shots at Rush Limbaugh recently, trying to destroy an old nemesis presumably just for the hell of it. And yet, in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, Democrats not only lost the recall election, but by a shockingly wide margin -- even wider if you consider ultraconservative Republican McClintock's 12% of the vote, which combined with Schwarzenegger means California voters supported a Republican candidate by more than a two to one margin over Bustamante. (That's of total voters, by the way, not just those who supported the recall.) Think about the ramifications of this. Schwarzenegger is a candidate who is probably the closest to my views politically of any candidate in recent memory, exactly the right combination of conservative and progressive viewpoints, and he won the people over. A very good sign should I ever seriously consider politics!
But it's actually not his viewpoints and positions that I think are scaring the Democrats tonight. No, I think it's that Jay Leno introduced his acceptance speech, that tons of respected Democrats supported his candidacy, and that Maria Shriver and many in the "Kennedy Clan" were cheering on stage for his victory. Can you imagine the rapturous, overwhelmingly positive reception Maria Shriver will get when she's undoubtedly asked to speak at the Republican National Convention next year? The Republican party has billed itself as a "big tent" for a long time and never delivered. Now, it can. The views of smaller, limited government, of genuine national security concern, of governing by reason rather than emotion, are uniting this party. There's room for the Christian conservatives and the more secular, populist heroes like Rudy Guliani and, now, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Not convinced? Consider this -- the four most populous states, California, Texas, New York, and Florida, making up a full third of this nation's citizenry, are now run by Republicans (as well are a majority of the remaining states). Schwarzenegger is a good friend of the Bush family and represents the best chance a Republican presidential candidate has of winning California since Reagan. Expect Bush and Schwarzenegger to campaign hard for the president's reelection here, and if Bush does win California, he can afford to lose a dozen other swing states and still handily win a second term. A long shot? Five years ago, maybe. But Bush's approval ratings, believe it or not, are higher in California now than they were before his first election, and with a strong, overwhelmingly elected new Republican governor, Bush's chances just got a huge boost.
Of course, that all depends on Schwarzenegger actually doing a kick-ass job in turning the state around over the next twelve months. But with Gray Davis's approval ratings the lowest of any major political figure in history (yes, even lower than Nixon's after Watergate), it's hard to believe Arnold won't at least be considered a step up. Only in America could one of the nation's richest celebrities be a "populist leader." But hey, at least he seems to genuinely care, and has surrounded himself with the smartest minds he could find -- Republicans, Independents, and Democrats alike.
I think the people will give him a chance. I know I would.
Thursday, October 02, 2003
Out on a Limbaugh
I consider myself a "moderate Republican," in that I agree with most of the Republican party's fiscally conservative issues (taxes, smaller government) while disagreeing with the religiously tainted ones (opposition to gay equality, abstinence-only programs). I suppose the "exception" to this is that I disagree with legalized abortion, though in my case it's for reasons of human rights, not from any religious conviction. (Unfortunately, many of the leaders of my "movement" tend to be pro-life out of fanatical Christian zealotry, not fairness and logic, but I suppose that's a topic for another column.) Either way, it's certainly okay if someone wants to believe in a particular issue for religious reasons, and express their opinions as such, because this is a nation that presumably protects the freedom of speech. After all, I just expressed mine. And, perhaps some people will express alternate points in this website's comments section. But that's also because this is a small independent non-profit opinion page. On a national level, recent events have served to underscore how today's society views certain speech as more "free" than others.
As you may know, Rush Limbaugh has been an ESPN Sunday NFL Countdown commentator for the past month. His first commentary was an impassioned plea for more black coaches in the NFL, pointing out that 71% of NFL players are black but a full 29 of the 32 head coaches are white. The recent rules that require NFL teams to interview black candidates for jobs, without any requirement of even hiring them, Rush argued, is a silly face-saving public relations stunt which only makes pawns out of African American coaches who will be interviewed solely to avoid fines, without having to be seriously considered. It was a good commentary, available here, and was well received by white and black sports fans alike.
This past Sunday, however, the NFL Countdown panel was discussing Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, who has been a media darling for a few seasons now but recently hasn't performed up to expectations. The following quote from Rush, addressing the panel, caused a firestorm that reached a frenzied peak Wednesday:
"I think the sum total of what you’re all saying is that Don McNabb is regressing; he's going backwards. And my thoughts... I'm sorry to say this, but I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. I think there is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."
Limbaugh went on to call McNabb a good investment for the Eagles, and the panel went on to debate McNabb's ability. But no one challenged Rush on the issue of race; certainly, no one thought it was a "racist" statement at the time, and if you view the entire clip yourself, you'd have to try really, really hard to be "offended" by it. In fact, it took two days for anyone to even notice the comment and accuse it of being "racist." When the allegation finally hit, head NFL Countdown analyst Chris Berman defended Rush, insisting "I don't think Rush was malicious in intent or in tone. As cut and dry as it seems in print, I didn't think so when it went by my ears." In fact, former Dallas Cowboys star Michael Irvin, agreed with Rush on the air, stating "Rush has a point. Rush has a point." (Irvin, in case you didn’t know, is black.)
Ah, but once the sensationalist media realized that the story had legs, that they could frame it in a "Rush is racist" sort of way, all of a sudden you had CNN (which still tilts much, much farther to the left than Fox News tilts to the right) devoting an entire day of coverage to the "controversy." At first it was just a complaint that Limbaugh kicked a guy when he was down. But when it became a "racial thing", Democratic presidential candidates Wesley Clark and Howard Dean both gave press conferences demanding Limbaugh be fired. Reverend Al Sharpton took things a step further, and threatened to organize a massive, sustained African American boycott of ESPN until Limbaugh was let go! ESPN initially and vigorously defended Limbaugh, but now began to buckle under the intense backlash. Limbaugh, who recently called the NFL Countdown commentator gig "the fulfillment of a dream," was finally forced to resign under the pressure Wednesday night.
ESPN hired Limbaugh to express opinions. He expressed one. Limbaugh has consistently and vocally agreed that it's unfair there haven't been more black quarterbacks. His comment about McNabb was quite clearly not a racist one, but rather an off the cuff theory as to why the media may have built up expectations for him above and beyond his recent performance level. With black quarterbacks still the exception, not the norm, there was more hope "invested" in McNabb's success. If a black ESPN commentator had made the same point, this never would have been an issue. Hell, if anyone other than a white conservative had made the same point, it never would have been an issue. And, again, no one thought it was a racist statement at the time, including the African American commentators, and this wasn't even a story until days afterwards when Limbaugh's political opponents gleefully thought it could be used as another chance to destroy him.
(Speaking of trying to destroy him, the National Enquirer and the New York Daily News are now oh-so-tastefully hawking front page stories on Limbaugh’s addiction to painkillers after his ear surgeries several years ago. No, it's not particularly "news", but hey, nothing wrong with kicking a guy when he's down, right? Er, wait.)
Naturally, many of the people who demanded Rush's firing from ESPN were the same people who made free speech heroes of the Dixie Chicks for their public anti-Bush statements, and were on television every day outraged at the "denial of free speech" travesties when a handful of Southern radio stations stopped playing the Dixie Chicks for a few weeks. I'm reminded of the issues surrounding ultraconservative Michael Savage's firing from MSNBC a few months ago, for comments far more offensive than anything Rush has ever uttered. More than a few radio stations even banned Savage's unrelated radio show. Yet there's no problem with the Tom Joyner radio show playing ultra-racist "comedy bits", as long as they're laced with "cracker" jokes and "kill whitey." (I don't agree with Savage or Joyner, but I still believe both have the right to be heard, should advertisers wish to fund them and listeners with to hear them.) But it's a bigger issue than simply an occasional television or radio personality enduring inequitable criticisms. Look at two other free speech stories that broke yesterday: a high school student in Detroit has been permitted by a federal judge to wear a Bush: International Terrorist t-shirt, and amazon.com is allowing the sales of NAMBLA books and periodicals, despite the fact that NAMBLA is a pro-child-rape organization which, of course, is defended by the ACLU (who, despite claiming to be a defender of free speech, also naturally campaigned against the free speech of the boy scouts and is unabashedly opposed to the free speech of Christians in general.)
The last year has shown an uptick in this "free speech" hypocrisy. Trent Lott was ousted from his senate leadership role after his comments regarding reformed former segregationist Strom Thurmond, but Bill Clinton, who called ex-senator William Fulbright his "mentor" (and had interned under Fulbright while he was an outspoken segregationalist) never once got challenged by the black caucus or the media. (Nor was ex-KKK grand Kleagle Democratic senator Robert Byrd asked to step down for using the "n-word" on national television because, well, he's a Democrat, and they just can't be racist, right?) Conservative points of view, despite being supported by half the nation are rarely, if ever, afforded "equal time" on the broadcast networks or CNN; Fox News, the only network to prominently give conservatives equal time (and it is equal, by network decree upon its inception, with opposing views timed to a stopwatch), is lambasted as right-wing for doing so. Conservative newspapers are banned from college campuses while even the most extremist of left-wing propaganda is tolerated and student/taxpayer funded. (Hell, even the mildly conservative comic strip "B.C." has also been banned from most college newspapers in recent years, despite no objections to Doonesbury or The Boondocks). High school teachers are forbidden from mentioning anything to do with Christianity or the bible, even in an historical context, but free speech defenders come to the aid of grade school teachers who spout off vehement opposition to president Bush or the war in Iraq, even after young students came home sobbing after being told their fathers, currently serving in the military, were "murderers."
The list goes on. We've all heard stories.
Hey, maybe it's hard to feel sorry for Limbaugh. After all, he's the highest-paid broadcaster of all time -- and no, not just radio (as Matt Drudge once pointed out, he now makes more than the annual salaries for Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw and Barbara Walters combined). And, I'm sure his radio show isn't in danger of being cancelled, for despite fears that his popularity would sag after Clinton's departure, his ratings are higher than ever. (In fact, I'm sure ESPN didn't want to lose him, either, as his contribution to NFL Countdown gave that program its highest ratings of all time). But this was something that meant a lot to Limbaugh, and to his fans, and it's sickening any time someone has to undergo the kind of character assassination we've seen in the past 24 hours. In this country, we continue to have conflicting standards of "free speech" for conservatives rather than liberals, and even with the sometimes right-leaning Fox News channel, stories like this show the big picture just isn't getting any better.
I was thinking about this while watching The West Wing yesterday, a program I immensely enjoy (despite its portrayals of Republicans as two-dimensional sneering villians). Nearly all the characters are white men, and the only prominent African American character is relegated to the job of the President's personal assistant/gopher boy. No one seems bothered by this, of course, because, well, they're Democrats, so they're uniformly good. But do you think that if the show had been about a Republican administration that they could have gotten away with such casting? I suspect every African American group and liberal "free speech" organization in the country would have demanded the show be taken off the air, or boycotted the network, or leaked character-damaging drug use stories of the show's stars, or whatever else was in their arsenal to get their way. It's becoming increasingly clear that "free speech" only applies to those predetermined as worthy, those who are already "correct." Anyone else better walk on eggshells and toe the politically appropriate line, or suffer the consequences.
Personally, I think Limbaugh should have stood up for himself, and made EPSN fire him, for resigning could be construed as an admission of wrongdoing and guilt, which just shouldn't apply here. Perhaps he was just fed up with the whole situation. So am I.
I consider myself a "moderate Republican," in that I agree with most of the Republican party's fiscally conservative issues (taxes, smaller government) while disagreeing with the religiously tainted ones (opposition to gay equality, abstinence-only programs). I suppose the "exception" to this is that I disagree with legalized abortion, though in my case it's for reasons of human rights, not from any religious conviction. (Unfortunately, many of the leaders of my "movement" tend to be pro-life out of fanatical Christian zealotry, not fairness and logic, but I suppose that's a topic for another column.) Either way, it's certainly okay if someone wants to believe in a particular issue for religious reasons, and express their opinions as such, because this is a nation that presumably protects the freedom of speech. After all, I just expressed mine. And, perhaps some people will express alternate points in this website's comments section. But that's also because this is a small independent non-profit opinion page. On a national level, recent events have served to underscore how today's society views certain speech as more "free" than others.
As you may know, Rush Limbaugh has been an ESPN Sunday NFL Countdown commentator for the past month. His first commentary was an impassioned plea for more black coaches in the NFL, pointing out that 71% of NFL players are black but a full 29 of the 32 head coaches are white. The recent rules that require NFL teams to interview black candidates for jobs, without any requirement of even hiring them, Rush argued, is a silly face-saving public relations stunt which only makes pawns out of African American coaches who will be interviewed solely to avoid fines, without having to be seriously considered. It was a good commentary, available here, and was well received by white and black sports fans alike.
This past Sunday, however, the NFL Countdown panel was discussing Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, who has been a media darling for a few seasons now but recently hasn't performed up to expectations. The following quote from Rush, addressing the panel, caused a firestorm that reached a frenzied peak Wednesday:
"I think the sum total of what you’re all saying is that Don McNabb is regressing; he's going backwards. And my thoughts... I'm sorry to say this, but I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. I think there is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."
Limbaugh went on to call McNabb a good investment for the Eagles, and the panel went on to debate McNabb's ability. But no one challenged Rush on the issue of race; certainly, no one thought it was a "racist" statement at the time, and if you view the entire clip yourself, you'd have to try really, really hard to be "offended" by it. In fact, it took two days for anyone to even notice the comment and accuse it of being "racist." When the allegation finally hit, head NFL Countdown analyst Chris Berman defended Rush, insisting "I don't think Rush was malicious in intent or in tone. As cut and dry as it seems in print, I didn't think so when it went by my ears." In fact, former Dallas Cowboys star Michael Irvin, agreed with Rush on the air, stating "Rush has a point. Rush has a point." (Irvin, in case you didn’t know, is black.)
Ah, but once the sensationalist media realized that the story had legs, that they could frame it in a "Rush is racist" sort of way, all of a sudden you had CNN (which still tilts much, much farther to the left than Fox News tilts to the right) devoting an entire day of coverage to the "controversy." At first it was just a complaint that Limbaugh kicked a guy when he was down. But when it became a "racial thing", Democratic presidential candidates Wesley Clark and Howard Dean both gave press conferences demanding Limbaugh be fired. Reverend Al Sharpton took things a step further, and threatened to organize a massive, sustained African American boycott of ESPN until Limbaugh was let go! ESPN initially and vigorously defended Limbaugh, but now began to buckle under the intense backlash. Limbaugh, who recently called the NFL Countdown commentator gig "the fulfillment of a dream," was finally forced to resign under the pressure Wednesday night.
ESPN hired Limbaugh to express opinions. He expressed one. Limbaugh has consistently and vocally agreed that it's unfair there haven't been more black quarterbacks. His comment about McNabb was quite clearly not a racist one, but rather an off the cuff theory as to why the media may have built up expectations for him above and beyond his recent performance level. With black quarterbacks still the exception, not the norm, there was more hope "invested" in McNabb's success. If a black ESPN commentator had made the same point, this never would have been an issue. Hell, if anyone other than a white conservative had made the same point, it never would have been an issue. And, again, no one thought it was a racist statement at the time, including the African American commentators, and this wasn't even a story until days afterwards when Limbaugh's political opponents gleefully thought it could be used as another chance to destroy him.
(Speaking of trying to destroy him, the National Enquirer and the New York Daily News are now oh-so-tastefully hawking front page stories on Limbaugh’s addiction to painkillers after his ear surgeries several years ago. No, it's not particularly "news", but hey, nothing wrong with kicking a guy when he's down, right? Er, wait.)
Naturally, many of the people who demanded Rush's firing from ESPN were the same people who made free speech heroes of the Dixie Chicks for their public anti-Bush statements, and were on television every day outraged at the "denial of free speech" travesties when a handful of Southern radio stations stopped playing the Dixie Chicks for a few weeks. I'm reminded of the issues surrounding ultraconservative Michael Savage's firing from MSNBC a few months ago, for comments far more offensive than anything Rush has ever uttered. More than a few radio stations even banned Savage's unrelated radio show. Yet there's no problem with the Tom Joyner radio show playing ultra-racist "comedy bits", as long as they're laced with "cracker" jokes and "kill whitey." (I don't agree with Savage or Joyner, but I still believe both have the right to be heard, should advertisers wish to fund them and listeners with to hear them.) But it's a bigger issue than simply an occasional television or radio personality enduring inequitable criticisms. Look at two other free speech stories that broke yesterday: a high school student in Detroit has been permitted by a federal judge to wear a Bush: International Terrorist t-shirt, and amazon.com is allowing the sales of NAMBLA books and periodicals, despite the fact that NAMBLA is a pro-child-rape organization which, of course, is defended by the ACLU (who, despite claiming to be a defender of free speech, also naturally campaigned against the free speech of the boy scouts and is unabashedly opposed to the free speech of Christians in general.)
The last year has shown an uptick in this "free speech" hypocrisy. Trent Lott was ousted from his senate leadership role after his comments regarding reformed former segregationist Strom Thurmond, but Bill Clinton, who called ex-senator William Fulbright his "mentor" (and had interned under Fulbright while he was an outspoken segregationalist) never once got challenged by the black caucus or the media. (Nor was ex-KKK grand Kleagle Democratic senator Robert Byrd asked to step down for using the "n-word" on national television because, well, he's a Democrat, and they just can't be racist, right?) Conservative points of view, despite being supported by half the nation are rarely, if ever, afforded "equal time" on the broadcast networks or CNN; Fox News, the only network to prominently give conservatives equal time (and it is equal, by network decree upon its inception, with opposing views timed to a stopwatch), is lambasted as right-wing for doing so. Conservative newspapers are banned from college campuses while even the most extremist of left-wing propaganda is tolerated and student/taxpayer funded. (Hell, even the mildly conservative comic strip "B.C." has also been banned from most college newspapers in recent years, despite no objections to Doonesbury or The Boondocks). High school teachers are forbidden from mentioning anything to do with Christianity or the bible, even in an historical context, but free speech defenders come to the aid of grade school teachers who spout off vehement opposition to president Bush or the war in Iraq, even after young students came home sobbing after being told their fathers, currently serving in the military, were "murderers."
The list goes on. We've all heard stories.
Hey, maybe it's hard to feel sorry for Limbaugh. After all, he's the highest-paid broadcaster of all time -- and no, not just radio (as Matt Drudge once pointed out, he now makes more than the annual salaries for Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw and Barbara Walters combined). And, I'm sure his radio show isn't in danger of being cancelled, for despite fears that his popularity would sag after Clinton's departure, his ratings are higher than ever. (In fact, I'm sure ESPN didn't want to lose him, either, as his contribution to NFL Countdown gave that program its highest ratings of all time). But this was something that meant a lot to Limbaugh, and to his fans, and it's sickening any time someone has to undergo the kind of character assassination we've seen in the past 24 hours. In this country, we continue to have conflicting standards of "free speech" for conservatives rather than liberals, and even with the sometimes right-leaning Fox News channel, stories like this show the big picture just isn't getting any better.
I was thinking about this while watching The West Wing yesterday, a program I immensely enjoy (despite its portrayals of Republicans as two-dimensional sneering villians). Nearly all the characters are white men, and the only prominent African American character is relegated to the job of the President's personal assistant/gopher boy. No one seems bothered by this, of course, because, well, they're Democrats, so they're uniformly good. But do you think that if the show had been about a Republican administration that they could have gotten away with such casting? I suspect every African American group and liberal "free speech" organization in the country would have demanded the show be taken off the air, or boycotted the network, or leaked character-damaging drug use stories of the show's stars, or whatever else was in their arsenal to get their way. It's becoming increasingly clear that "free speech" only applies to those predetermined as worthy, those who are already "correct." Anyone else better walk on eggshells and toe the politically appropriate line, or suffer the consequences.
Personally, I think Limbaugh should have stood up for himself, and made EPSN fire him, for resigning could be construed as an admission of wrongdoing and guilt, which just shouldn't apply here. Perhaps he was just fed up with the whole situation. So am I.
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
I love the DNC!
The National DNC (not to be confused with D&C, or the Democratic National Committee) takes effect, at least in part, today. DNC, in this case, stands for Do Not Call. Over 50,000,000 people have already signed up.
But don’t think the $11,000 fine per violation will be coming to you. The government gets to keep that money. Every penny of it. It just wants you to do the complaining so it can collect the booty. What you get is a few less disturbances to your privacy. Well, I suppose that's still worth a lot.
Anyway, while the courts duke out the validity of the politicians making themselves exempt from the rules, there may still be a couple of things you might want to know.
List or no list, solicitors may now only call from 8am-9pm, seven days a week. Each company must follow two lists -- the National DNC list, and its own internal DNC list. Here in Michigan, companies have been required to keep their own DNC lists for years.
Example: You tell my company not to solicit you, I can’t call you. If you purchase a computer from Mom’s Computerstore and you have previously asked me to put you on my own DNC list, I may not call and tell you when the matching printer is on sale unless you consent to sales solicitations from me in writing.
Rules for the National DNC list differ substantially. If you are registered only on the national DNC and not on the Mom’s Computerstore internal list, I may call you if you have conducted business with me in the last 18 months. So if you made your last payment on that Mom’s computer 17 months ago, I may still call you and try to sell you that matching printer after all. Or, if you call Mom’s Computerstore to ask the price of monitors, I may call you for up to three months to provide you with information on my other products.
Lots of other rules are taking effect today as part of the DNC Register. Some are ridiculously obvious but I guess you have to spell things out sometimes to avoid legal loopholes. For example, companies may only charge you the amount they quoted, companies can’t charge you for loans you never receive (except processing fees), and only charities themselves can solicit you -- gone are the days of Police, Fire, and Veteran “charities” that only “donate” a portion of the proceeds.
And.
Don’t forget, your government officials that passed this law exempted themselves from the rules. So don’t think you will get out of the Repubs & Dems calling for your support this upcoming election year. I guess if I file for candidacy for office of my local library board, I could give you a new matching printer to go with your Mom’s computer for your donation of $100 to my campaign. That might work.
We capitalists will always figure out a way to survive.
By the way, you may add your phone number -- yes, even your cell phone number, or any new number you register from now to forever -- to the national DNC, at any time (though as of this writing, additions to the list are on hold in legal limbo.) Simply go to donotcall.gov. The list will be updated every three months, and telemarketers are required to stay up to date.
Now, when oh when can I register my email address?
The National DNC (not to be confused with D&C, or the Democratic National Committee) takes effect, at least in part, today. DNC, in this case, stands for Do Not Call. Over 50,000,000 people have already signed up.
But don’t think the $11,000 fine per violation will be coming to you. The government gets to keep that money. Every penny of it. It just wants you to do the complaining so it can collect the booty. What you get is a few less disturbances to your privacy. Well, I suppose that's still worth a lot.
Anyway, while the courts duke out the validity of the politicians making themselves exempt from the rules, there may still be a couple of things you might want to know.
List or no list, solicitors may now only call from 8am-9pm, seven days a week. Each company must follow two lists -- the National DNC list, and its own internal DNC list. Here in Michigan, companies have been required to keep their own DNC lists for years.
Example: You tell my company not to solicit you, I can’t call you. If you purchase a computer from Mom’s Computerstore and you have previously asked me to put you on my own DNC list, I may not call and tell you when the matching printer is on sale unless you consent to sales solicitations from me in writing.
Rules for the National DNC list differ substantially. If you are registered only on the national DNC and not on the Mom’s Computerstore internal list, I may call you if you have conducted business with me in the last 18 months. So if you made your last payment on that Mom’s computer 17 months ago, I may still call you and try to sell you that matching printer after all. Or, if you call Mom’s Computerstore to ask the price of monitors, I may call you for up to three months to provide you with information on my other products.
Lots of other rules are taking effect today as part of the DNC Register. Some are ridiculously obvious but I guess you have to spell things out sometimes to avoid legal loopholes. For example, companies may only charge you the amount they quoted, companies can’t charge you for loans you never receive (except processing fees), and only charities themselves can solicit you -- gone are the days of Police, Fire, and Veteran “charities” that only “donate” a portion of the proceeds.
And.
Don’t forget, your government officials that passed this law exempted themselves from the rules. So don’t think you will get out of the Repubs & Dems calling for your support this upcoming election year. I guess if I file for candidacy for office of my local library board, I could give you a new matching printer to go with your Mom’s computer for your donation of $100 to my campaign. That might work.
We capitalists will always figure out a way to survive.
By the way, you may add your phone number -- yes, even your cell phone number, or any new number you register from now to forever -- to the national DNC, at any time (though as of this writing, additions to the list are on hold in legal limbo.) Simply go to donotcall.gov. The list will be updated every three months, and telemarketers are required to stay up to date.
Now, when oh when can I register my email address?
