Archive for July 3, 2008

Crossing the Aisle: The Big Stick

I hope my friend at “The Big Stick” will forgive me for neglecting his compliment for so long: I’m honored that he appreciates the middle ground that we, and probably the majority of Americans, share, and I’m grateful for his recognition (here and here).  Although we may disagree on some issues, we do so politely, and I’ve always learned from his positions: he’s not afraid to explore issues in depth (in fact, that’s his specialty), so when he talks, I listen.

The author over there, Progressive Conservative, once said in a comment about blogs here on WordPress, “we all seem to be rooting for each other… when somebody does a great job, they deserve some praise.”  He almost always does a great job, and I think America would be a lot better off if there were more people like him in government.  Especially in the spirit of the Fourth of July, let’s celebrate the values we all share.

Day-by-Day Is Funny… But Not Why You Think…

Web cartoons are great. In the genius of XKCD – for instance – an entire generation of nerds have found a (stick-figure, Firefly-quoting) voice. I’m pretty sure everyone reading this site, and everyone who’s ever posted something on the internet ever, identifies with the panel to the right.

But would you imagine that the comics of the interwebs have a dark side? Yes, they do, in the Rush Limbaugh-pantomiming “Day-by-Day.” This artist, Chris Muir, has developed a distinctive style for himself, characterized by repetition of Fox News talking points, a focus on guns, a healthy dose of paleoconservatism, and an overabundance of curviness in all female characters. In case we were ever entertaining doubts on this issue, DbD has proven once and for all that a major current in modern internet conservatism defines itself around sex, guns, and repetition of the party line (other examples come to mind which prove my point equally well – the ads on WorldNetDaily, for one, but let’s stay on topic).

Let it never be said that I don’t appreciate the McCain mocking…

…but even this is so canned, that I have to wonder if Limbaugh and Hannity just found an artist to transcribe their shows.  Maybe if the guy spent less time drawing his female characters’ breasts, there’d be time for a little originalism, but hey, we all have priorities.

Which isn’t to say I don’t enjoy the comic.  When your opposition research consists partially of reading the funnies, obviously life isn’t so bad.

Lenski Redux: Schlafly Will Sue

Dammit.  I hate it when I’m right.  Andy Schlafly of Conservapedia is planning on suing Lenski.

About a week ago, I predicted that Andy Schlafly may consider suing Lenski to get access to the data from his e. coli citrate experiment: despite Lenski’s willingness to give his data to a certified biologist, since Schlafly’s pride is now in issue, Andy wants a personal victory, and he’ll do anything he can to get it.  Well, now Schlafly has issued the first “Conservapedia challenge,” urging his crack squad of stormtroopers homeschoolers to look for a way to sue Lenski into giving his data to someone who won’t understand it.  Personally, I don’t think there’s a way: Lenski’s not a “public agency” within the meaning of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 522).  But, for the sake of those of you that care, I’ll do some research on my own time and report back.  Stay tuned.

In the meantime, look out world.  Andy Schlafly, armed with legal knowledge, a personal score to settle, and NO sense of honesty whatsoever, is a scary thing.  He has no honor and, as I’ve said, regardless of whether he has a case, he won’t hesitate to use his limited grasp of law to bludgeon you.  He may be all bark and no bite, but a lawyer’s bark has been known to cost money in and of itself.

Update: the debate rages.  It seems Schlafly’s just bluffing… again.  I’m SHOCKED!  If you’re just coming to this post, please take a look at the comments: as one of the posters there points out, Schlafly’s intense desire to stare down anyone that looks at him – evinced in this whole Lenski debacle, and his conduct at Conservapedia – can all probably be explained by his ardent desire to please mommy.  He is the last of three boys, a second-career lawyer who abandoned a good electrical engineering job… it all screams “LOOK AT ME, MOM.  AREN’T I GOOD?”

Ninth Circuit OKs Being a Jerk (Or, the Anti-Choice Activists’ Race to the Bottom)

Apparently, if you live in a Ninth Circuit state (California, et al), the dismembered-fetus-picture truck is soon to join the ice cream truck outside the schoolhouse. Ruling on the issue just yesterday, the Ninth Circuit greenlit the use of abortion images outside schools as the latest weapon in the anti-choice activists’ arsenal, reaching a conclusion that’s questionable on the law, and emblematic of the principle that the first amendment requires us to embrace the bad with the good. I’ve divided this post into two sections; if you want, please feel free to skip “the law” to get to “the rant.”

The Law

You can get a little bit of the legal background at Education Week’s School Law Blog. Doctrinally, this ruling is a little bit surprising: owing to the traditional respect for speech in the open air and on the streets, the state can’t ban controversial commecial speech items, like smoking ads, near schools, but the Supreme Court has previously outlawed disruptive speech near schools (Grayned v. Rockford).  Why Grayned doesn’t control here is beyond me.

Also, courts have shown themselves quite flexible when dealing with extremely offensive speech near sensitive locations.  It ought to be unsurprising that a majority of these “offensive speech in sensitive locales” cases come up in the context of anti-choice abortion protestors and picketers, and courts have generally balanced the rights, handing neither side a sound victory, but letting protestors have their way in a less gruesome, less intrusive manner.

For example, law limits the traditional right to protest in the streets to prevent anti-choice protestors from screaming outside a politicians house (Frisby v. Schultz), and in no less than three major Supreme Court cases, the Justices have balanced the protestors’ rights to be insane against the clinicians and patients’ rights to be free of insanity, offensive yelling, and harassment, coming up with solid compromises allowing protests while protecting patient privacy and reasonable expectations of non-harassment (Madsen, Schenck, Hill). In short, the Grayned principle, regarding disruptive speech near schools, and the Madsen/Schenck/Hill balancing tests, all had to go out the window for the Ninth Circuit to decide this case the way it did. I’m a little confused. But enough of the law. I can’t hold in the rage any longer.

The Rant

Seriously, who the hell do these people think they are? I admit that a lot of first amendment cases these days are about finding out just how many people the law will let you piss off, but just because it’s legal doesn’t mean you ought to do it. These are people who will stand outside your home if you’re a doctor at a women’s clinic, make “WANTED” posters with your name on it and circulate it to murderers, harass you on your way to Planned Parenthood – even if you’re just there to get a yearly checkup – and then turn around thank God for the chance to so harass you. While the first amendment empowers the lunatics of the world to choose that course, it does not require them to do so.

I’d be a lot more convinced about the seriousness of the pro-life anti-choice movement’s commitment to “the sanctity of life” if they showed a little more concern for decency, and the line between “debate” and “harassment,” in their day-to-day activities. When a movement becomes a race to the bottom, to shock the most, to scare the most, to disgust the most, it’s time to question the movement’s direction and its real purpose. If their end is so vaunted, holy, and sacred, then their means ought to matter. And I get called “biased,” rest assured that I’d say the same thing about any movement that stooped to these inane tactics. The first amendment lets us speak our mind; but we don’t have to be jerks about it, nor should we. The first amendment is a right and a responsibility to engage in good speech; the right without the responsibility undermines society and democracy.

Picketers, get these trucks away from our kids. I wouldn’t shove gay porn down your kids’ throats, or plaster it on trucks near schools; why would you do this, just because you can?