Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. (I am wingnut–I contain multitudes.) June 27, 2009
Posted by Evil Bender in reproductive rights, sex, wingnuts.1 comment so far
So let’s see what Sally Kern’s up to. It seems she’s blathering on about how the only cure for our horrible country is to pray and read the Bible. In the midst of this, we get:
…WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery…
So, to recap, being a good wingnut means being against both abortion and single parenthood. And while we’re at it, Kern babbles, let’s make those dirty urges harder to deal with on one’s own.
It seems Sally forgot to include the evils of enjoyable sex in her list. But, hell, it’s asking a lot for wingnuts to keep track of what they hate and the reasons they claim they hate those things. You can almost hear her brain grinding as she tries to remember what is the official reason she hates sex.
And, yes, my apologies to Walk Whitman.
So would Milbank suggest this is essentially the same as Bush’s Jeff Gannon moment? June 24, 2009
Posted by Evil Bender in News and politics.add a comment
Obama asking a reporter who was covering Iran for a question from an Iranian is, according to Milbank, “theater.” He further blathered
During the eight years of the Bush administration, liberal outlets such as the Huffington Post often accused the White House of planting questioners in news conferences to ask preplanned questions. But here was Obama fielding a preplanned question asked by a planted questioner — from the Huffington Post.
While Milbank is wrong on the substance, one also wonders if he can honestly believe that alerting a reporter that he might be called on is in any way equivalent to the administration that brought us “Jeff Gannon.”
That’s serious journalism for ya, folks.
Mike S. Adams doesn’t get the difference between teachers and students June 24, 2009
Posted by Evil Bender in bigotry, Religion, wingnuts.1 comment so far
[Update: Awesome. Adams' website currently has the same essay as Townhall, but all references to feminists have been changed to his personal derogatory term for LGBT students. h/t. He's a real deep thinker, that Adams.]
Mike S. Adams, who you may remember, is currently running around screaming about being oppressed. Exactly how a fundie professor who gets to make stupid assertions in public is being oppressed is, as always, unclear. But two things are clear:
1) Adams is yet another wingnut who falsely believes he knows how to use satire;
2) Adams doesn’t understand that a professor has different classroom obligations from his/her students.
Adams begins with a long whine about how feminists didn’t appreciate his satire about silencing feminists students in his classroom, then moves on:
Welcome to oldsville, population: Evil Bender June 22, 2009
Posted by Evil Bender in Blogging, News and politics.add a comment
I just watched a commercial for the new Punch Out game, where a father plays with his kid after talking about how much he loved the original game growing up.
Intellectually, I knew that those of us who grew up with the NES are now old enough to have kids rediscovering our childhood classics. Practically, though, it makes me feel very, very old.
Now if only we could get a new Killer Instinct game!
Deep Thought June 22, 2009
Posted by Evil Bender in Iran, News and politics, wingnuts.1 comment so far
Amazing how people whose fondest wish has been war with Iran suddenly decide to stand in solidarity with the Iranian people, as demonstrated by their hatred for ice cream.
—-
All kidding aside, we’re all rooting for democratic reforms for the Iranian people. God knows they’ve been too long in coming. But anyone who seriously thinks we’d be doing the protesters any favors if President Obama got McCain/Bush style belligerent needs lots of remedial education in international relations.
The best thing the US Government can do right now is to make measured, cautious appeals that the will of the Iranian people be honored. Any more agressive strategy will do more harm than good.
Possibly the most inane forced-birther post ever June 18, 2009
Posted by Evil Bender in Morality, reproductive rights, wingnuts.3 comments
When I started this blog, I had high hopes for seriously engaging the arguments of others. Years of dealing with wingnuts has largely disabused me of that, and now I save serious argument for people who haven’t proved themselves intellectually dishonest, lazy, irredeemably ridiculous, or a combination of the three. Arguing in good faith with those who will not themselves argue in good faith only serves to legitimize dishonest discourse. Such people can only be dealt with via mockery.
Naturally, high on the mockery-only list is Renew America, which ranks right up there with WingNutDaily in terms of horribleness.* So when I found, via S,N!, this amazing display of fallacies and moral corruption: Feminism the greatest evil: the repudiation of life, I knew what had to be done. Strap in for some pure, undistilled wingnut:
Loftus wrong in calling for wingnut extremist professor to be fired June 17, 2009
Posted by Evil Bender in Morality, reproductive rights, wingnuts.6 comments
I frequently agree with John W. Loftus’ arguments, and respect his defense of atheism. And I’m certainly angry as hell about forced-birthers whose violent rhetoric provides political cover for murderers. Furthermore, I’ve read few things as offensive as Edward Feser’s odious declaration that Dr. Tiller, a man who performed legal, medically necessary care to women undergoing on of the hardest experiences imaginable, is worse that Jeffry Dahmer.
That said, I can’t agree with Loftus’ views on Feser:
Feser teaches for Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California which is a community college. I call upon that college to fire him for this highly inflamed rhetoric which will probably bring on more murders of abortion doctors.
I’d be the first to call for Feser to be charged if what he’s said rises to the level of incitement, and I certainly believe he should be held accountable for the horrific implications of his argument. But he should be challenged on the poor quality of ideas, not forced out of his job for what he’s said as a private citizen. Feser is most definitely not calling for violence against abortion providers, and while his rhetoric certainly may encourage dangerous people to do horrible things, he is not calling for violence, nor does he appear to be crying crocodile tears: he seems sincere in his view that violence against doctors isn’t okay. Assuming he is sincere in that, and not simply trying to use an anti-choice dog whistle,* I think it’s incredibly dangerous to call for his firing.
Since his words were on his personal blog and not related to his job, this probably isn’t an academic freedom issue, but it is a personal freedom. Public institutions should not be in the habit of firing someone for something they say as a private citizen, and encouraging them to do otherwise is dangerous, especially in a time when academic freedom is already under assault.
When a public employee, particularly a professor, can be fired for expressing themselves in public, there is a dangerous and potentially silencing precedent, and while I hope that people of good will continue to speak out against Feser’s disgusting words, I don’t want him to be fired. Once we accept that legal speech unrelated to one’s work is sufficient cause to cost one a job, we’ve essentially given our employers veto powers over our ideas. I don’t think that’s a good idea.
Furthermore, I would argue that no one who values freedom of speech should encourage this sort of firing. History shows clearly that censoring of unpopular idea (and this would, it seems to me, be dangerously close to de facto censorship) is not a good way to defeat such ideas. The correct response to odious ideas are better ideas, not pressure to fire those whose views we find offensive. This is particularly true when a government-funded employer is doing the censoring. Private employers have greater latitude in deciding who should represent them, but the government should not be in the position of deciding which ideas are acceptable for its employees to hold.**
*And how could we be certain of the latter? It seems, given his clear statements on the matter, that we should take him at his word.
**There are obviously things one could say privately that should result in disciplinary action by one’s employer, but that circumstances should be highly limited, probably to things that affect one’s ability to do one’s job, or statements that are illegal or in violation of the institution’s mission.
As I said before, Good News, Everyone! June 10, 2009
Posted by Evil Bender in Comedy, News and politics.3 comments
Recalling the first round of Good News, there’s more! Futurama‘s back, baby!
NEW YORK, June 10, 2009 — 20th Century Fox Television, the animation powerhouse that brought “Family Guy” back from the dead five years ago, has done it again: Matt Groening and David X. Cohen’s brilliantly subversive animated sci-fi comedy “Futurama” will return to production on 26 new half-hour episodes more than six years after the series aired its last original episode. …
The new episodes will be available in mid 2010 to be shown on COMEDY CENTRAL.
Welcome (back) to the World of Tomorrow!
Look, this vigilante stuff might seem satisfying, but it’s not okay June 4, 2009
Posted by Evil Bender in Morality, News and politics.2 comments
Wow. So, Philly police were looking for a “person of interest” in the rape of an 11 year old girl, and some locals decided to take things into their own hands:
Philadelphia’s police commissioner said Thursday he will not pursue criminal charges against a group of angry neighbors who beat a man sought for questioning in the rape of an 11-year-old girl. [...]
Philadelphia’s police commissioner said Thursday he will not pursue criminal charges against a group of angry neighbors who beat a man sought for questioning in the rape of an 11-year-old girl. [...]
Surveillance video shows a man being chased by at least three people, one of whom hits him several times with what appears to be a bat or large stick. As they chase the man, a crowd gathers. The video cuts off after a police officer arrives.
It should be obvious that vigilante violence isn’t okay. Going outside the rule of law is never an optimal solution, and beating “persons of interest” as a means of detention is a dangerous precedent, to say the least. If this guy is the rapist, I hope he spends a long, long time in prison after being convicted by a jury of his peers. But we can’t have people taking the law into their own hands. I would think in the aftermath of Dr. Tiller’s murder (by a man convinced he was stopping a moral atrocity), we’d be particularly sensitive to the danger of vigilante violence-in-the-name-of-justice.
To be clear, I don’t know if these people should be charged for their detention of the suspect. I do know that three people chasing down and beating him is a chilling thought, and quite possibly a crime. Certainly we should be very, very cautious of this sort of comic-book-hero style “citizens arrest.”
That’s why I must admit to being very troubled by Samhita’s remarks:
Marc Lamont Hill makes the point that because of the erasure of the experiences of women of color and specifically black women with sexual violence in the justice system and the news media, there is an understanding within the community that no one is going to do anything about this injustice. So while we may fall on the side of never resorting to violence, many people do not have this privilege.
But of course, the authorities were actively pursuing this man, so it’s hardly safe to assume this crime was going to be erased. And while my sympathies are clear with people of color, women, poor people and other marginalized groups who are treated so unfairly within our system of law. But I don’t think it’s a matter of privilege to condemn vigilante violence. If these people used any more force than necessary detaining the suspect, they were wrong, quite clearly. You can’t be for the rule of law only some of the time.
Furthermore, marginalized communities are not, and will never be, served well by vigilante systems which, as should be obvious, are often used by those in power to terrorize marginalized groups.Vigilantism, it seems to me, far more frequently takes the form of lynchings than proper detaining of suspects.
And, as several commenters point out, if these people feel marginalized by the justice system, and there’s every reason to think they have a right to feel that way, then they certainly shouldn’t be engaging in beatings on the word of the police that this particular “person of interest” is likely guilty.
Marginalized communities are not well served by going outside the rule of law, as such lawlessness will be used against them. The only thing worse than our flawed justice system for marginalized groups is no justice system. Being for the rule of law and opposed to vigilante violence is the responsible position here. We need to work to improve our justice system, not weaken it with justifications of lawlessness.
Question of the Moment June 2, 2009
Posted by Evil Bender in News and politics, reproductive rights, Terrorism, wingnuts.1 comment so far
Given what we know of accused terrorist and murderer Scott Roeder’s acquaintances, including his connection with convicted felon Cheryl Sullenger*, shouldn’t the rabid anti-terrorists types on the right be freaking out about what has all the appearances of a terrorist group?
Or do such standards only apply to people of color?**
* Sullenger was convicted of conspiring to bomb a clinic, which makes her pretty clearly a terrorist in my view, and, I’ll charitably assume, in the views of wingnuts who were so eager to label Bill Ayers a terrorist.
** To be clear, I think Operation Rescue is a terrorist group, in that they engage in intimidation and violent rhetoric against doctors performing legal procedures, and that their denunciations of Dr Tiller’s murder were mixed with talk of “reaping what he sowed” and other language that is very, very close to incitement to violence. Readers of this blog know I’m a fierce defender of free speech, even speech as odious as calling doctors “murderers” and comparing them to Nazis. But I think its time that people like those who encourage Roeder to be accountable for their actions. If what they’ve said rises to the level of incitement to violence, they should be prosecuted, and even where it does not, we must hold them responsible for their violent rhetoric, to the full extent of the law.
Free speech means they can say what they want; it does not free them from the responsibility of answering for what they choose to say.
