apple, meet tree
So my mother calls me tonight from the lobby of the Luxor, cheerful on the eve of her 5th anniversary with her husband.
“I love Vegas, hon, but I love the surprise I’m planning even more!”
“Er… what surprise?”
“Well, you know your grandfather’s been cooped up in that nursing home for the past ten years and hasn’t had a lick of fun, what with all those old farts playing bridge and watching The Price is Right all the time.”
“Isn’t that a part of being ol-”
“Mark and I are blowing out of here a day early. We’re gonna be taking him to a strip club for Thanksgiving! Can you imagine the scene we’ll cause! Maybe I’ll take him up on the stage with his wheelchair and”—
“OK, Mom. I get it. No, really. Seriously.”
Dear Apple, I think, meet Tree. With a family like this, clearly I was predestined to being lewd and crude.
Besides the rather unsavory images in my head of certain relatives ogling bodacious ta tas, I’m rather swamped with work before the Thanksgiving blitz—I won’t be able to update this much with savvy commentary in the next few days, as I have a dysfunctional-family-Dia de las Gracias to organize, papers to write, presentations to finesse. Blah. The Penn homecoming stretch. Good for my GPA, bad for bloggers.
But before I say sayonara for a day or two, I’ll end this with a bit of gloom and doom—Bush’s latest “uniting” move, electing this clown as the new chief of our nation’s family planning programs. This bozo actually believes that giving contraception is “demeaning” to women. WHY IS SOMEONE WHO FINDS CONTRACEPTION MORALLY WRONG IN CHARGE OF OUR NATION’S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND FAMILY PLANNING COUNSELLING?
The fact that someone who wishes to STOP my choice and my freedom to choose when I start a family is in charge of program about making decisions to start a family… it just kills me. It really does. Don’t like the Pill? Don’t pop it. I won’t judge you—your body, your choice, your pitter-pattering little consequences to deal with. But for Popeye’s sake, don’t tell me my choice to take Ortho “demeans” me, buddy. I think your condescending attitude towards female agency to make her own decisions is far more “demeaning” than a little progesterone.
It’s so easy to get complacent, but then I remember that we have a ways to go before this administration is over. Let’s not get complacent. If I’ve anyone to thank this Thanksgiving (besides my awesome friends and family, of course) it’s the people who work to call politicians and pundits out on this shit—bloggers, journalists, writers, activists—who I’m thankful for. Quite frankly, I don’t know how I’d keep my sanity otherwise.
(Well, maybe the new Prada perfume I’m savoring helps a bit. Seriously, it just reeks “post-coital”. Who says consumerism can’t provide contentment—and a little faux afterglow—every once in a while?)
UCLA student tased for refusing to show ID -- civil rights violation, or policing as usual?
On Tuesday, November 14th, UCLA campus police arrested Iranian-American student Mostafa Tabatabainejad for refusing to leave the premises of Powell Library after he failed to show his student ID. Although the video is blurry and hard to make out, it has been established that Mostafa was tased (a stunning mechanism that can cause one to lose muscle control for up to 15 minutes) at least four times, despite the fact that he was handcuffed and on the ground. Mostafa can be heard shouting “Here’s your Patriot Act!” as other library patrons repeatedly ask the offending police officers for their badge numbers. “I’ll Taser you too!” one police officer says, refusing student requests for his badge number. Mostafa, who could very well be paralyzed, is repeatedly asked to “just stand up already!” and is then tased again each time he cannot bring himself to stand.
To be sure, it is clear that Tabatabainejad is resisting arrest in the footage, screaming at the police officers and attempting to get others to join in his conflict with the police. It is also incredibly difficult to make a snap judgment of what went on, as we cannot directly observe Tabatabainejad’s behavior before he was asked to leave the library. Yet it is also clear that Tabatabainejad was repeatedly physically injured, even after he was handcuffed and even after it was clear he could not have possibly been a threat to other Powell Library patrons. I also find it incredibly disturbing that patrons who simply wished to know the names and badge numbers of the police officers in question were threatened with arrest. How could this possibly not be a breach of the students’ civil liberties? Supporters of the police have claimed that Tabatabainejad deserved what he is getting for his obnoxious behavior and vitriolic speech, but I fail to find the connection between “obnoxious behavior” and “deserving of repeated assault.”
What do we think, readers? Blatant violation of the Eighth Amendment? Or perfectly reasonable response from the UCLA campus police? I’m curious to see how the rest of this case unfolds.
In any case, I am glad that this incident was videotaped by some intrepid library patron—isn’t it amazing that we have immediate access to footage of the event, thanks to the wonders of the Internet? As former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “Sunlight is the best of all disinfectants.” In the spirit of that great justice’s words, I’d consider this video a hefty dose of sunshine.
ETA: The LA Times is reporting that several bystanders in Powell Library are disputing the official police story that Mostafa resisted arrest, and instead claim that Mostafa was already leaving the library when the police began to Taser him. The plot thickens…
gonzales v carhart : RH Reality Check is there!
So I was interviewed last week by the upstart blog RH Reality Check as a part of the ‘pro-choice’ side in front of the Supreme Court last Wednesday as the opening arguments for partial birth abortion case Gonzales v Carhart were heard. I just cameo it up for a few seconds—the really interesting/telling sound bites are from Patrick Mahoney, a representative of the Christian Defense Coalition.
What amuses me the most about the interviews with pro-lifers—not only Mahoney, but the women from Operation Outcry—is that they absolutely refuse to acknowledge that Congress is pushing for its own version of judicial activism with this case, as Stenberg v. Carhart—the EXACT SAME CASE—was already decided in 2000. No one in these interviews notices the “activism” in waiting around for Sandra Day O’Connor to say sayonara to the Court, and then pushing identical legislation in front of Roberts’ and Alitos’ nose. Guess “judicial activism” is only a no-no when it comes to those godless pinko liberals, eh?
Check it out!
Yesterday I traveled with pro-choice activists from Penn for Choice to stand outside the Supreme Court, where the crucial federal “partial birth abortion” ban (a misnomer if I ever heard one) is being decided—yet again—by the Supreme Court. (If you aren’t informed about the case, _Gonzales v. Carhart, you can find out more about the case here.) According to Carol Tracy, an acquaintance of mine and the director of the Women’s Law Project, this is the nineteenth time the abortion issue is being discussed by the court—an unprecedented phenomenon. How silly, and how sad, that stare decisis somehow doesn’t apply when womens’ lives and bodies are on the line.
I know everyone is excited about the political changes afoot. And rightfully so!
I know it is very heartening to see Madam Nancy Pelosi as the first female Speaker of the House.
I know that it might be easy for the ‘Crats—and for other liberals/libertarians—to be tempted at the prospect of sitting on our duffs for the next two years, as Bush and the Keystone Kops that is his band of cronies gets whaled by the libs.
I know we are all excited that Britney Spears kicked K-Fed to the curb. (Ok, maybe that’s just me. And Rosie O’Donnell. Gawd, that was hilarious.)
Yet let us not forget that we still live in a nation where a strong undercurrent of fundamentalism has taken hold of many in our society—especially (and I hate to sound all fascist/propaganda ad about it, but it’s true) our youth. I could tell you what I witnessed in front of the Court, but let me show you first:
This is a group of “normal” college kids, save for one fact: they believe that all abortions should be illegal. ALL. Even in cases of rape or incest. They aren’t some weirdo hicks from some unfortunate backwater—these kids were moderately affluent, dressed in the best Abercrombie and Hollister that Mom and Dad could buy them. They were certainly much more passionate than the pro-choice activists whom I was with—singing songs, dancing, even featuring a “Christian rock” singer who “entertained” the crowd. (The “entertainment” in quotation marks is no accident. I think FedEx probably does a better show.)
And not only that, they outnumbered us. I counted about 10 pro-choicers, tops. The rest were these kids, as well as Operation Outcry (a group of women who “regret” their abortions, so have decided to impose that regret on other women’s decision-making) as well as some suits that represent Operation Rescue, a group connected with abortion clinic bombers.
So the pro-choice movement in front of the Supreme Court: 10 peeps. (Some very amazing people from the RH Reality Check blog were there, btw, and I had a great conversation with Tyler Pard of that danged awesome resource). The pro-lifers: a swarm—at least 50. At. Least.
Granted, it was a rainy day—a day filled with the allure of staying inside, filling up on Nestle Hot Chocolate and watching Oprah on a comfy couch. Granted, it was the day after midterm elections—I’m sure the Gonzales case isn’t on the radar of most Americans. Granted, it would have been easier to stay home. Just stay home.
But the anti-choicers didn’t care about all of that—the rain, the post-election haze, the lack of media coverage—and they vastly outnumbered my pro-choice companions. Why?
A South Dakota ban on all abortions almost became a reality for an entire state. (I say almost because the citizens thankfully overturned it, but it is still unclear if another ban with some exceptions will go through.)
Abortion providers wear bullet proof vests every day to do their jobs—providing the valuable service of choice for American women.
Women are still forced to sit through condescending, anti-choice lectures before they are allowed their own decision. The idea that pharmacists can refuse emergency contraception to their patrons is still being debated. The number of abortion providers has declined over one third since 1982, leaving many women in poor and rural areas out of the cold, denied access.
Our rights are being threatened, yet pro-choicers are not mobilized. And an entire generation is becoming increasingly pro-life, motivated by the religious right which is rendering anti-choice views trendy and “hip.”
Why are we so complacent?
I think the answer lies in the emotional fervor of the anti-choicers. As anecdotal as this is, I think many pro-choice individuals view their stance dispassionately—we are concerned, sure, but we are not emotionally engaged with the cause. We don’t have the fiery passion of God’s potential wrath motivating us to preach the cause to other young, impressionable kids.
Yet we could. I think the answer lies not in arguing with the pro-lifers or trying to convert them. I think the answer lies in placing our passion with the real victims in this debate—the women.
Instead of focusing on the question of an embryo’s personhood, we need to focus on the fact that thousands of American women will die of illegal, back alley abortions. The fact that women and doctors may be jailed for participating in a routine medical procedure. The fact that abortion rates in countries which outlaw abortion invariably skyrocket, a reality which must be harrowing for the women who are forced to face criminal penalties for their own decisions. The fact that the prohibition of access limits the choices and opportunities for women to live independent, emotionally fulfilled lives. The fact that many strong women and men fought for our right to make an informed medical decision, and we are now making a joke of their fight by sitting home and watching reality television instead of taking part in the reality around us.
How do we do this without using the manipulation tactics of religion and fearmongering? I’m not sure—I’m no libertarian Karl Rove. But we need to remember that history is not a wave of irreversible progress; rights that we fought for can just as easily be reversed. Our civil rights will not magically be granted to us, we must demand them. We cannot be complacent. We just can’t.
My name is Jessica Gold Haralson, and I am a pro-choice American.
Are you?
cheers and jeers -- self-righteous conservative hypocrisy edition
This very first cheers and jeers o’ mine is dear to my heart because of my alma mater: dear ol’ Penn. And by golly, when my president dresses up as a Tinkerbell-Cinderella-fairy-princess and takes a photo with an Arab dressed up as a suicide bomber, I’m gonna defend my fellow Quakers and their rights to be as sarcastic as they wanna be!
Cheers to:
-
Modern Demagogue, the anonymous Penn alums who have hit this issue square on the nose. I really can’t paraphrase the beauty that is their entry on Saad Saadi, so I’m just gonna quote the motherfucker:
Your statements are representative of the thoughtless, short-sighted, and solipsistic conservative right that through bold lies and subtle misdirection, clever rhetoric andoutright criminal action, hijacked our modern democracy.
The United States is at War but with a select few radicals in a far away land, not its own citizens. To you Saadi’s costume represented the manifestation of your own irrational fears; to him it illustrated a real and very-present day-to-day concern. He is clearly of Arab descent and has recently become subject to a vast array of prejudices that simply did not exist in his youth. I am sure that many in our community do not make him feel welcome even when he dresses as an affluent Ivy League student. Where then is your moral authority to denounce his expression of this concern?
Amy Gutman did not show deplorable moral character; she showed compassion, understanding, and support for a fellow human being who’s only outlet for his own fears and anguish was through a costume.
Um… is there a way to start a slow clap over the Internets? ‘Cause, like, I’d totally be doing it right now.
-
The Volokh Conspiracy has also managed not to lose their minds in a pearl clutching snit:
“You’re told to dress as someone scary. A suicide bomber is scary. It should probably be scarier than a skeleton or a ghost. Sounds like you did your Halloween duty. And I don’t think that wearing a costume for Halloween endorses the likely sentiments of the person being depicted, be he pirate, bomber, gangster, or zombie.”
I”m glad to know that ridiculous moral posturing and fake indignation are limited to “pundits” Anne Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and Michelle Malkin. And speaking of our shrill, pro-internment friend Michelle…
Jeers to:
- Michelle Malkin, for being a big ol’ hypocrite, as usual. When her conservative Danish friends lampoon Islam, it’s all A-OK ‘n dandy, but when one of dem damn liberals like Gutmann makes a photo-op with an Islam satirizer, well… GEEZ, THAT SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED BECAUSE A LIBERAL IS DOING IT, SO I’M GONNA GET ALL PC UP IN DEY ASS, !!!11111!!!!111!!! Isn’t that right, Michelle?
Compare her post about Gutmann:
The woman on the right is the president of the university, Amy Gutmann. Sick, sick, sick.
Click on the thumbnails for more photos of the “healthy and non-violent values” on display at UPenn
to the entry in which she stops short of performing fellatio on her Muslim mockin’ friends over at Jyllands-Posten:
Last October, I blogged about a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, and its cartoonists being threatened by Muslim extremists for publishing cartoons about the prophet Muhammad deemed offensive by Islamist p.c. bulllies. See here and here.
For the past four months, The Brussels Journal has relentlessly covered the ensuing uproar from the Muslim world and the battle over the newspaper’s freedom to publish provocative speech.
So, uh, Michelle, when you publish all 12 cartoons satirizing Islam to point out the ridiculousness of Islam p.c. bullies, how is that any different than an Arab man dressing up as a suicide bomber to satirize his cultural heritage and make transgressive humor out of what scares us? Have a good answer for me, Michelle? Or could it be that you’re feigning your offense as a diversion tactic from Republicans sinking at the polls, Republican spend and spend behavior, our quagmire in Iraq, and Ted Haggard/Mark Foley/every anti gay Republican out there getting outed out to high heaven? Huh? Huh?
‘Cause honey, I’m really not sure what the difference is between this “tasteless” image is:
And this “tasteless” image:
Gotta love the anti-PC conservatives going all PC on our ass when it suits them. And the saddest part is, I’d vote Republican if it wasn’t for their ridiculous moralizing, fiscal irresponsibility (Barry Goldwater, what HAPPENED?) and absolute disregard for, y’know, the First Amendment. Remember that? Anyone? Malkin? Bueller?
And some final cheers over to the campus free speech watchdogs at FIRE for injecting some plain ol’ common sense into this debate:
Lest Halloween parties become the next frontier for the campus sensitivity police, people need to recognize that Halloween is a good time for satire, and that sometimes a costume is just a costume.
Damn straight, Fire. Damn straight.
amy gutmann gets a little jihad on us, moral outrage ensues
It seems that the very same conservatives who worshiped Danish cartoonists last year can't understand the joke when it's told on American soil, in conjunction with the "leftist" Ivy League cabal.
IvyGate and The Spin have excellent recaps of the story, but for those of you who don't get high off of Ivy League blogs, here's the deal: Saad Saadi, a Penn senior, went to Penn prez Amy Gutmann's casa for her annual Halloween party dressed as a suicide bomber. Amy (who poses for pictures with almost everyone at the party, may I add, and usually only gets a millisecond of face time with each student in her crowded-ass backyard) poses in the above picture with Saad. Moral outrage from the right ensues. Oh noes, an Ivy League president made the choice of honoring a student's right to free expression for one second in his bid for transgressive, ironic, and timely humor! Alert the Internet!
The buzz is that Bill O'Reilly will be righteously indignant about those darned liberal Ivy League colleges on his show tonight. This is the same Bill O'Reilly who decried the "Islamofascists" and saluted the Danish for their bravery when they chose to scrawl cartoons satirizing the prophet Mohammed in a transgressive, ironic, and timely manner.
So dressing up as a suicide bomber for the purposes of irony (and a photo with a known left winger) isn't kosher, yet a cartoon published by a Danish conservative newspaper mocking Islam is to be defended? Sounds to me like some conservatives are (dare I say it?) "flip-flopping" with their version of free speech rights when it is politically expedient. They are completely ignoring the true conservative principle that there should be no taboos, no sacred cows, when it comes to speech in our society. Gutmann may be a liberal, but I"ll argue that shes acting more libertarian right now than O'Reilly and the peanut gallery at the Democracy Project are at the moment.
Gutmann's detractors are saying things like, "Well, what if someone went to the party dressed as Hitler? What about that?" My response is the same: if Halloween is a time when transgression is A-OK, than nothing can be sacred. At different times in our history, different costumes would hit a cultural nerve. Personal distaste is irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is whether or not Gutmann is dishonoring the University by associating with Saad. I would argue that she isn't.
To be sure, as much as we should honor free speech rights, honoring free speech also means allowing detractors the right to disagree. I would fully understand the conservatives right now if this picture had been snapped, say, on any day outside of October 31st, and Amy had gotten a little too chummy with Saad. However, Amy's responsibility that night was to be a respectful host to her students, and Penn's free speech code is ranked one of the best in the nation by FIRE, the free speech watchdog. If Amy is representative of the University, and the University honors student's rights to total free speech, what would it say about that standard if she had thrown Saad out of the party? I imagine the very same conservatives whom are boo-hoo'ing Amy right now for their own political gain would be siding with Saad. (I'm looking at you, Alan Kors.)
True conservatism means sticking by the First Amendment even when it means you can't make a cheap shot with morally superior invective. Unfortunately, I doubt O'Reilly and his fan club will ever get that memo.a moment in history
I may have a problem or eight with New Jersey's ex-governor, but the state of New Jersey makes good with the Supreme Court's decision, unveiled just moments ago, to grant same-sex couples the rights of heterosexual couples. If the legislature does not clarify the decision within the next 180 days, marriage will be granted to same-sex couples in the state of New Jersey. Even if they decide to withold the title of "marriage" from NJ same-sex couples, the state will still grant gay couples all of the rights and priviledges of the straights.
It is unfortunate that we exist in a society where the inalienable right to love someone regardless of their gender is only now recognized by the judiciary. It is unfortunate that there are forces in our nation so hell-bent on denying this inalienable, fundamental right, that we must take the issue to the Supreme Court to make this right apparent. It is unfortunate that American conservatives, save for groups like the Log Cabin Republicans, abstain their support for this inalienable right, when the freedom to your own bedroom should be a conservative value. It is unfortunate that conservatives and libertarians act with ethical bankruptcy in pandering to unhinged fundamentalists whom believe the only good homosexual is a dead homosexual.
Yet still, history marches on!
I cannot wait until I am old and gray, and the people who can recall when gay marriage was illegal become numbered. That will so be worth the saggy boobs, Ben-Gay, and Wheel of Fortune reruns.
Every time I think our country is becoming an insufferable nanny state, news like this surprises me. I hope these surprises keep coming.this just in: rick santorum has officially gone off the deep end
Didn't think Senator Rick "Man On Dog"Santorum was koo-koo after he carried around his wife's stillborn fetus outside the hospital? If you weren't convinced before, surely today's
tirade comparing terrorism to Tolkien will get you rallying to commit the crazy:
Santorum used the analogy from one of his favorite books, J.R.R. Tolkien's 1950s fantasy classic “Lord of the Rings,” to put an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq into terms any school kid could easily understand.
“As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else,” Santorum said, describing the tool the evil Lord Sauron used in search of the magical ring that would consolidate his power over Middle-earth.
Wait wait wait, where's the condemnation against man-on-hobbit action?
clearly, the daily pennsylvanian is on a roll
In today's Daily Pennsylvanian, op-ed columnist Gabe Oppenheim calls out the University for its shameful non-response to sexual harassment and rape on campus.
It's an amazing piece, and even cooler that such a necessary calling out has come from an XY chromosomed member of our campus. Bravo, Gabe!curt weldon outs anonymous sources!
My Penn friend and Daily Pennsylvanian reporter Stephen Morse, who brought us that infamous Dan Savage interview ("Carl Romanelli should be hit by a truck," anyone?) has done it again, this time with his stunning interview of Republican PA congressman Curt Weldon. In the course of the interview, Curt rather shockingly leaks the names of the "anonymous sources" in the current FBI investigation about him. Weldon alleges that Melanie Sloan, the executive director for CREW, is the main source that spurred the FBI's investigation.
I'm amazed at the citizen-journalism potential of avenues like Youtube. Do you think Curt Weldon would have released as much shocking information if the interviewer wasn't a college reporter with a shaky camera? Stephen got Curt off the cuff, and the results are not only fascinating, but instantly accessible to everyone with Internet access and political interest.
