del.icio.us tags 07.02.07

Kids These Days - Mike Connery at MyDD thinks it's a problem that young progressives -- who are using social networks to organize -- are cut off from the progressive blogosphere (damn, I hate that word). It's an interesting dilemma, particularly because Mike himself is a young progressive. If he wasn't, I'd be likely to dismiss him as being yet another older progressive waxing poetic about how they did things in the good ol' days.

Vote or Buy - Mike (above) pointed out that 50 million Millennials will be eligible to vote in the next major election. Along with growing political power, young people have major economic power as well. According to the Media Daily News, the teen market is going to grow to $208 billion by the year 2011.

Democrat by Default - And, because, well, they really don't get enough attention already, here's another bit of news about the kiddies. Andrew Sullivan wrote up his thoughts on the latest poll from MTV, The New York Times and CBS about the under 30 set yesterday in the The Sunday Times. Relative to the general population, they're more supportive of the war and less supportive of abortion rights and gun control. But here's the catch, despite all that, they're more likely to vote Democratic. While there may be other justifications for their party identification, Sullivan thinks it may have something to do with this: "The Republicans have never been as incoherent, corrupt or ridiculous in my lifetime. The preference for Democrats can be explained in part by default. Ditto the candidates."

MySpace Has Yet to Achieve World Dominance - Sure, you've heard of MySpace, but do you have a profile on studiverzeichnis? Nick Denton at ValleyWag shares the "world map of social networks."

Counting Made Easy - I like things that make my life easier. VideoCounter tracks video views on multiple sites all in one place. (Thanks to TechCrunch for the link.)

del.icio.us tags 02.25.07

End the Death Penalty — Maryland's new governor, Martin O'Malley is a rock star in so many ways. His efforts to eliminate the death penalty in the state — and replace it with life without parole — make him a hero in my eyes. On Wednesday, he outlined his reasons for opposing the death penalty on the op-ed pages of The Washington Post.

Show Off Your Decorating Talent — Mashable posted on Tuesday that HGTV has launched a new social network that allows amateur interior decorators to brag and get feedback on their rooms, Rate My Room. 5,500 people are lovin' Jim's kitchen. What do you think?

Plan(ned) Parenthood — I just ended my cell plan with Verizon last weekend and now I come across this new plan from Planned Parenthood via Freakonomics (although it's frustrating that they don't provide a direct link to the plan!) Check out the comments on the post because it looks like the anti-choice folks are pretty adept at the social media as advocacy tool, getting their folks out to spread their word. The plan comes courtesy of Working Assets and they have a special offer through to the end of March. BuzzFeed considers the conversation about the plan buzzworthy.

Plug in for Cash — I'm with Cory at Boing Boing. Avoid the Dallas/Forth Worth airport if you can. Apparently they're pretty hard up for cash because they're charging you to plug in your laptop between flights. For frequent travelers, the Air Power Wiki lets you know where to find (free) outlets in airports. Check it out before your next trip. (There's a bad link to the wiki in the Boing Boing post.)

Dooce Does Her Part — In addition to the fact that she makes me laugh, I love Heather Armstrong at Dooce because she is making her own special contribution to eradicating stigma about mental illness. She'll make you wish you never laughed at a Britney Spears joke after you read her post on the topic this Thursday.

Dooce was the one that pointed me in the direction of this Craig Ferguson monologue in which he too says, "Leave her alone."
167,000 views on YouTube can't be wrong.

romney goes both ways

The Washington Post isn't letting this Mitt Romney identity crisis thing go. There's a front page article today that asks, "Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up (please stand up)?"

Despite the fact that Romney positioned himself as a moderate in his 1994 Massachusetts Senatorial campaign (in which he ran against Edward Kennedy), he has more recently "evolved" into a social conservative, changing his views on gay and lesbian rights as well as abortion rights.

Dan Balz and Shailagh Murray at the Post suggest that Romney's change of heart has a great deal to do with the fact that neither Rudy Giuliani or John McCain -- who are topping polls for the 2008 Republican nomination -- have friends in the social and cultural conservative movement, who have been key to George W. Bush's success over the past two elections.

But, if this is true, this may not be a smart tactic. Paul M. Weyrich, head of the conservative Free Congress Foundation, points out in the article that someone who can flip in one direction, can flop back the other way once he's in office.

not outloud

I am astounded by their bravery.

life sucks

Daily Kos commemorates the 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade by republishing an article from Michelman, former president of NARAL, calling on Senators to reject Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.

President Bush, on the other hand, commemorated the day by proclaiming today National Sanctity of Life Day 2006.

Self. Righteous. Bastard.

succinct and intelligent

I'm in another one of my-head's-up-my-ass-because-I-have-so-much-work-to-do stages, so I am up early trying to catch up on a few things. (Did you see that great Onion article last week about the guy who took a week off from work to straighten out his entire life? Excellent.)

One glaring omission has been my monitoring of the Alito hearings. Not for your benefit, of course, but for my own. Yes, folks, I once gave a toss about things like the selection of the people who had the power to restrict our rights and make things really suck. Ah, the good old days of my youth.

Going back to Tuesday's Post, it appears I am not the only one. Dan Balz points out, "There has been a clear disconnect between the zeal of activists and the detachment of the general public."

Alas, despite my best intentions, I am the "general public".

Charles Lane's analysis on Wednesday was helpful, but inevitably I am going to tell you to read (also from Wednesday) Dana Milbank's take on the proceedings, if only because I adore the man and his tendency to portray Congress as a nursing home and his own obvious love for the English language.

A contagious wave of yawns spread across the dais, from Specter to Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) to Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), and crested in a brief catnap for Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.).

During his 30-minute round of questioning, Biden spoke about his own Irish-American roots, his "Grandfather Finnegan," his son's application to Princeton (he attended the University of Pennsylvania instead, Biden said), a speech the senator gave on the Princeton campus, the fact that Biden is "not a Princeton fan," and his views on the eyeglasses of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Nobody could match Sen. Orrin G. Hatch in slow pitching. The Utah Republican called ROTC programs, "an excellent opportunity" and then asked: "You were a member of the ROTC - is that true?

Alito was caught, "I was Senator."

"You were a proud member of the ROTC," Hatch charged.

"I was," the nominee admitted.

Hatch persisted: "Did you enjoy your time in the ROTC and in the Army afterward?"

Alito confessed, "I was proud to be a member."

A recess was called and Hatch rushed to the microphones outside. "As you can see, this is one whale of a judge," he said. "I think these are some of the most succinct and intelligent statements ever made about the philosophy of judging in any Supreme Court nomination hearing."

Today's Post says that yesterday was apparently the day to have tuned in, if only to hear the surprising news that Ted Kennedy hasn't been to the gym in a while. But, on a more serious note, Alito apparently moved closer to saying that he would be willing to consider reversing Roe v.Wade, turning back the clocks for women's rights more than thirty years.

I'm paying attention now.

do the right thing

Tune into MTV today for their World AIDS Day programming: honest information for young people about how to keep themselves healthy and alive. G-d bless the little f*ckers.

I really do love Dana Milbank. Once again he does not disappoint with his piece about the Supreme Court. Yesterday, the Court heard Ayotte vs. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and the crazies came out to argue their case to the media. But that's an old story. Milbank's tales about the justices themselves (the Three Stooges times three) are what keep me engaged. Should we laugh or cry?

The California Supreme Court has refused to put a stop to the execution of former Crips leader Tookie Williams. He still has two chances to be spared, prior to his scheduled murder by the state on December 13. Either a federal court or Governor Schwarzenegger could do the right thing.

this morning's paper

Read the A2 article in The Washington Post about the abortion case that will come before the Supreme Court next week. Ayotte vs. Planned Parenthood looks at the issue of parental notification, with Planned Parenthood arguing that the New Hampshire state law that requires parental notification, even in situations where giving birth would threaten the health (but not the life) of the minor is unconstitutional. Supporters of the legislation argue that "emergency health abortions" are too rare "to warrant invalidating the whole statute". This line of argument, if successful, could be far-reaching because it would make it difficult for abortion rights activists to focus on specific regulations to defeat legislation.

While you're at it, check out the article about the scheduled execution of Tookie Williams, co-founder of the Crips. (Check out the bit about how the name of the gang came about. Mildly amusing in a pathetic sort of way.) I have no tolerance for the death penalty no matter what the situation is, but the arguments against the execution are just too good to be ignored -- even if you are a sadistic bastard living in the Dark Ages. Tookie says he's innocent, but even if the state of California doesn't want to give him a new trial, they need to keep him alive and let him do his work: educating young people with anti-gang writings. Schwarzenegger (who was Christmas shopping in Georgetown yesterday) has a meeting with Tookie's lawyers on December 8 to talk about the possibility of commuting his sentence to life in prison. Do the right thing, Arnold. If you want to learn more, check out the Save Tookie web site.

Sammy Satan

It seems fairly clear that Samuel Alito is the spawn of Satan, but in case you're wondering why, Slate spells it out for you. This sh*t about requiring a woman to inform her husband before she has an abortion is absolutely prehistoric. Yes, in an ideal world a man and a woman would have a relationship in which they existed as equals and had open communication and could, therefore, make joint decisions in which their self interests were balanced and considered.

But, in case you hadn't noticed, Sammy, this isn't an ideal world.

creepy dolls done good

I took a trip to Chicago a few years back and remember being a bit disturbed by the somewhat obsessive behavior of some of the families and little girls who were in town to go to the American Girl shop. It all seemed a little cultlike to me.

But now I'm a fan, if only because the company isn't backing down from criticism they are getting for their philanthropic support of Girls, Inc., formerly Girls Clubs of America. The criticism stems from Girls, Inc.'s advocacy on issues of relevance to women and girls. The group is pro-choice, pro-comprehensive sex education, pro Title IX funding, pro contraception -- and they have programs supporting girls who are dealing with questions about their sexual orientation.

So, grab your daughter (or son) and head to their web site and lay down some cash for a new plastic friend. Don't let the f*ckers get 'em down.

Much better than getting that other doll I told you about.

i think jake just schooled me

Jake sent me an email about my Bill Bennett post. I wish he had posted his comments to the blog, but he didn't. This means, of course, that I get to try to paraphrase what he said and misrepresent him. But he might run me over with his bike, so I won't.

1) Jake pointed me in the direction of Freakonomics and this post in response to Bennett's comments. Quick summary: a) the comments were off the cuff; b) when you control for income, the likelihood of growing up in a female-headed household, having a teenage mother, and how urban the environment is, race is not a factor in the likelihood of commiting a crime; c) what does matter is that abortions are used (in general) on unwanted pregnancies among single and teenage moms; d) having an abortion does not change the number of children a woman has, it generally just changes the timing of when she has them; e) there is an important distinction between women controlling their fertility and government limiting a woman's fertility (I don't entirely get this point); and, f) the statement that Bill made is factual, but also applicable to aborting all Asians, all white people, etc.

2) Jake thinks that there are a number of issues that impact Social Security contributions and distribution: for example, cigarette taxes, gender and immigration.

3) Jake said this (which made me go, "Damn, Jake just made fun of me in a passive aggressive kinda way."), "Funny how virtually everyone who ever criticizes an empirical argument fails to even read it," after pointing me in the direction of this paper, which I have to buy to read, so I just read the abstract. The conclusion of the paper is that legalized abortion accounts for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime (the paper was written in 2000).

4) Jake also said that he thought it was "refreshing" for someone to base an argument on evidence rather than ideology.

So . . . I appreciate that Jake can always be counted on to provide citations, which I guess stems from the fact that, as he states, he values evidence over ideology. I think the conclusion that legalized abortion has led to a drop in crime is an interesting one because it sounds horrific on the surface, but seems to speak to the factors that I imagine contribute to a person committing a crime (for example, lack of income, lack of self respect).

(Jake will certainly have something to say about this).

I also, despite being guilty of regularly spouting ideology with no basis in fact, appreciate an argument based on fact (an issue that I am contending with at work right now). Nevertheless, I have a hard time with the idea that the basis for Bill Bennett's argument was evidence and not ideology. If Bennett had said that more abortions would lead to a drop in crime, than he would be making a an argument based on evidence. In this case, he was making an incendiary comment in which he specifically chose to appeal to the racist views of his conservative listening audience, off the cuff or not.

Oh, and Jake remembers Bennett as the drug czar too. I guess that means that, I'm not only clueless, I'm am indeed old.

social security solution

I made the decision I wasn't going to write anything about the stupidity of what Bill Bennett said about aborting black babies to bring down the crime rate because, well, it was just stupid. But I just read the Post article about the comments (from yesterday -- yes, still having a hard time keeping up with my reading) and feel compelled to point out the economic brilliance of the caller who prompted Bill's comment.

The caller suggested that Social Security would not be in the economic trouble that it is now if so many babies had not been aborted, thereby preventing them from contributing more Social Security tax.

I don't listen to conservative radio very often, if only because I have a tendency to get a little excited and I'm trying not to kill myself with an early heart attack. But I admit to finding it fascinating because of this very kind of argument. I imagine groups of stupid/conservative people sitting around in a bar, maybe around a dinner table after a big meal, tossing around ideas like this and being pretty damn confident that they could solve the world's problems if only they were in charge.

I mean, I know liberals do it (they invite me to their dinner parties if I promise to bring a bottle of wine), and their ideas are often just as stupid (simplistic, generally). But I've been to a great deal of those dinner parties and so the novelty has worn off.

Anyway, in response to that guy and his Social Security argument? There would also have been a larger number of people contributing to Social Security if we had never gone to war, if there were more effective gun laws, if less people ate Big Macs and smoked cigarettes, if the government had been more timely in their responsive to HIV/AIDS, etc.

On top of that, the presumption that those who were aborted would have made a substantial contribution to Social Security presumes that, as initially unwanted children, they would, for example, have been adopted by a loving and nurturing family that raised them to be economically productive. I know that a large number of them would, but a large number would also have been raised in families without the resources to provide for them, thereby not contributing social security taxes and, instead, costing the government more money.

But did I really have to verbalize an argument against such a stupid comment? No. But I did.

By the way, had an "I'm old" moment last night when I talked to a friend about Bill Bennett and he only remembered Bennett as the "drug czar" under Bush 41 and not as the Education Secretary in the Reagan Administration.

Oh well.

it gets better

I know I shouldn't be so damn positive about these little Milk Bones that we've been getting tossed, but I can't help but salivate just a bit.

This isn't as big as putting together a case to support gay rights, but John Roberts is now apparently human enough not to think that people who bomb abortion clinics are justified in their actions.

WOW.

The story is that back in 1986 Roberts wrote a memo in response to the suggestion that President Reagan was considering the possibility of pardoning anti-abortion activists who had bombed clinics and said that it was a load of sh*t and that it just wasn't going to happen.

Okay, not that exciting.

cogitation creation

Best clue in today's Washington Post crossword: "cogitation creation" = idea.

Democratic Chair Howard Dean addressed the College Dems convention yesterday and let them know that we need to reach out to voters who oppose abortion rights and promote candidates who share that view.

I have a "cogitation creation". Why don't Democratic leaders hold off on talking about the party's need to reach out to abortion opponents while those of us who believe in the right to choose are freaking out about the very real possibility that soon to be Justice John Roberts is going to make choice a thing of the past?

Yeah, yeah, it's good political strategy to talk to abortion foes about how no one is "pro" abortion and we all want to work together to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but it might be bad political strategy to leave those of us who are already on your side feeling like you abandoned us right when we needed you most.

pickled peppers

The New York Times has an interesting article about the growing alliance between evangelical Christians and Catholics, centered on a mutual belief in the value of human life.

(As a Jew, I don't give a toss about human life. I am much more fond of squirrels. Yeah. I like squirrels. Especially the kind with really fuzzy tails. I mean, if the Jews don't, who's going to stand up for the squirrels?)

In case you are under the impression that this is something that's been going on for a while now, the article points out that, historically, Catholics and evangelicals have been at odds with each other. As recently as 1960, when John F. Kennedy was running for President, Protestant pastors took to their pulpits (to pick a pack of pickled peppers) to warn their flock about the danger of electing a Catholic President. (Despite their efforts, Kennedy went on to be the first -- and only -- Catholic elected to the White House.)

Anyway, the article points out that a big distinction between Catholics and evangelicals -- which I pointed out the other day -- is that Catholics extend their "pro-life" stance to include an opposition to the death penalty.

Definitely worth reading.

(Jake must have been busy today at work. He didn't send me the article. I had to find it all by myself.)

you ruin everything

It really is rather bizarre to read in The New York Times that Tom DeLay is commiserating with his fellow conservatives about how they are under attack by "the other side". DeLay, in a speech before the Family Research Council, was heard spreading the gospel about a "huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in."

(Where's the Easter Bunny? I want to kick him in his fuzzy tail and make a little kid cry.)

Did Hillary sound this nutty to "the other side" when she went on the Today show to lament "the vast right wing conspiracy" that was designed to bring down her husband?

I thought liberals were the ones with the victim complex? First we have working class people voting for Republicans. Then we've got Republicans wresting power away from the states to give more to the federal government. Over there, Democrats are jumping ship on the issue of abortion. Don't look now, but cats are having sex with dogs, the sky is fuschia and Lynne Cheney is Playmate of the Year.

WHAT THE HELL IS HAPPENING???!!! How come Andrew gets to get up? If he gets up, we'll all get up. IT'L BE ANARCHY!

(A big smoochie kiss to anyone who knows what the hell that little tangent was all about.)

missed the target

Okay, Jake, who might eventually kill me for making our conversations public like this, got back to me, in part to comment on my speed, but also to tell me that I didn't really get his question.

He said . . .

Anyway, I'm rethinking my question because, though correct (Jake will make both a fine manager and father someday. His affirmation skills are quite adept.), your answer didn't address a tougher question. That is, "SHOULD the religious groups package these things together?" or, more pointedly, "should those who advocate a "culture of life" face the fact that these two issues are linked? I find it odd that Death Penalty supporters who are pro-life haven't imploded and that death penalty opponents who are pro choice haven't exploded. I mean, there has got to be some cognitive dissonance there! The justifications, as I hear them, are, from the first group "criminals are alive and deserving of death while fetuses are alive and not deserving of death," while the second group says "criminals are alive and shouldn't be killed while fetuses aren't alive and therefore cannot be killed." I think both groups need to do some self examination.

Based on my experience with Roman Catholics (I went to Catholic high school and participated in a Catholic peace and justice group -- although I am Jewish), I think that they are the most consistent -- anti-death penalty and anti-abortion. So, they don't fit into either group that Jake presents. I do, however, and so I guess I should try to figure out why the hell that is.

Why am I opposed to the death penalty?

1) I think that the criminal justice system in the United States is unjust and that socioeconomic status and race play too significant a role in determining guilt and innocence and punishment to allow for something as extreme as allowing the state to claim that they know the "truth" and have the right to kill someone for their crimes.

2) There have been too many stories of innocence proven years after the fact.

3) As a sappy liberal, I believe that society contributes to the creation of criminals and so we should not be given license to sweep our "failures" into the trash, but should do what we can to remedy our errors.

4) I do not believe in an eye for an eye or tit for tat or whatever you want to call it. I think that the best way to exist in this world is to live according to principles of love, forgiveness and generosity and to believe that those who do not share these values will live a life that is less fulfilling and rewarding than your own.

5) It is wrong. According to my G-d and to my heart (the same thing in my book). Wrong.

Okay, so how does all that jive with my pro-choice views? To begin with, I am not entirely in sync with Jake's statement that "criminals are alive and shouldn't be killed while fetuses aren't alive and therefore cannot be killed."

I'd like to say that it is as neat and clean for me as that. I do believe that fetuses are alive and, most importantly, they are an embodiment of potential. So, yes, we are killing them. (Sorry, I think that.) So, I'm fu*ked, aren't I?

Let me try to pathetically rationalize.

1) Race and socioeconomics. If abortion is made illegal, it will continue nevertheless, but safe abortions will be more readily available to those who are privileged. More poor women will be forced to have children that they do not want and are not in the position to raise or will have unsafe procedures that put their lives at risk. The chasms between the classes will deepen. For those of you who would argue that low income women can put their unwanted children up for adoption, I want to ask them a) who will cover their prenatal care so that these babies are born with the tools to flourish and b) how will they support themselves during the later period of the pregnancy? These are not women with maternity leave policies.

2) Gender. In addition to race and socioeconomics, the mere fact that only women can get pregnant makes it a problem to force women to birth babies that they do not want when men are able to walk away from the situation and take on limited moral and financial responsibility or none at all.

Society needs to address these disparities (obviously, they can't make men have babies, but they can initiate policies that hold them accountable) before I can begin to change my mind.

Weak. Weak. I think I'm going to explode, Jake.

a package deal

Jake sent me an article this morning from The New York Times about how Roman Catholic bishops are stepping up efforts to fight the death penalty in the U.S., in response to what they see is a growing public sentiment against the practice.

The article came with a question: "Do you think abortion will get packaged with the death penalty by religious groups and both will end up restricted?" asked Jake.

Here's what I said to him.

I don't know . . . I mean, this whole Terry Schiavo nightmare has been turned into a right to life/anti-abortion versus lefties who want to starve people to death and kill their babies fiasco. But the real political weight as far as those in the religious community may not be able to dismantle the strong death penalty rhetoric of the very same folks and their political leaders. I mean, Tom DeLay has been one of the more vocal members of Congress as far as the Schiavo case, but he's from Texas and they like to kill kids and 'tards down there when they commit crimes.

I can see a backroom conversation in which Catholic leaders say that they will work in concert with evangelicals on the abortion issue if they show the same support for coming out against the death penalty, but I don't a deal like that flying.

But what the hell do I know?

You realize, of course, that you can't ask me a question like this and not expect to see it on my blog two minutes later?

It has been nine minutes. I'm slacking, folks. For those of you who I know are reading this, what do you think?

prevention first

Came across this on Salon.com today. It's a petition from NARAL, calling on the organizers of the "Right-to-Life Movement" to join a new campaign to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies -- and the need for abortion. It's a put up or shut up challenge that works for me.

Specifically, the petition calls for support of the "Prevention First Act" (s.20), proposed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) last month. The bill aims to "expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce the number of abortions and imporve access to women's health care".

The bill has 22 co-sponsors, including our beloved Hillary Rodham Clinton.

salon does it again

Salon brings us another fabulous article on the abortion issue, this time a first person piece by a woman who has a second trimester abortion after discovering that her child would be born with a genetic defect.

The essay allows us to do exactly what she is calling on the movement to do, "Listen to the pregnant woman".

Read it. (It's worth getting through the Visa ad to get the free pass, if you don't have a subscription.)