Pat's blog

So in France, a woman has just admitted murdering 8 of her children, immediately after they were born. The Telegraph newspaper in England says that this is "France's worst ever case of infanticide." According to reports, the woman hid her pregnancies from her husband and everybody else, killed each infant as it was born, wrapped them in plastic bags, and buried them in the back yard, without anybody else's knowledge.

So here's my question... why is this such a horrible crime? According to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, Dr. LeRoy Carhart,and 4 members of the Supreme Court of the United States, if she had seen a doctor 30 minutes before the children were born, and he had used medical tools to puncture their skulls, crush their bodies, and suction their remains out of her uterus, she would have been merely exercising her constitutionally-protected right to control her own body, and to terminate the parasite in her body (so long as the doctor decreed that the woman's "health" required such a measure). Heck, according to all the lectures I heard during the health care debate, apparently if the woman were poor, we as taxpayers would have some sort of moral obligation to help pay for her to see the doctor and have her infants killed... as long as this was done moments before, rather than after, they passed through her vagina and into the world. How is it that condemning this woman's act is morally righteous, rather than simply conservatives in a tizzy because somebody, somewhere had sex?

So how about it, pro-choicers? Anybody able to say why THIS woman, who killed her children within moments of their birth, without anybody else in the world ever knowing they existed, is a horrible criminal, guilty of infanticide, while if she had gone to see a doctor to kill the infants a day or two before, as long as the doctor would say that her "health" required it, then she would be guilty of nothing, would deserve not even moral shame, because she would merely be exercising her human and constitutional rights over her own body?

To foreshadow what I presume is a forthcoming post from Simon, let me wish him a particularly happy Fourth of July! To all the rest of you as well, of course, but especially to him.

Hey, gang! Sorry for the long posting hiatus, but life has just been busy, you know? But I wanted to share the very exciting news with all of you... my new iPhone 4 arrived just an hour ago! I've got to wait 15 more minutes for the AT&T activation process, and then I will make my first call.

It's really cool looking, I must say. I'm very excited.

Consider this an open thread to express your envy or to discuss your favorite smart phones or other electronic gadgets. ;-)

Sen. Arlen Specter, the former Republican-lite, fled the Republican Party a year ago and became a Democrat. His motivation was his impending certain loss of the Republican primary in his reelection bid this year. While his perfidy did keep him from losing the Republican Primary, it failed to stop him from losing the Democratic primary.

We had a lively discussion of Sen. Specter's blatant political opportunism last year. I am glad that it did not pay off for him. This fall should show us a revealing and spirited campaign between Democrat Sestak (who who has alleged that national Democrats broke the law by offering him jobs to drop out of the primary) and Republican Toomey.

One less career politician, willing to do anything to cling to power, is gone. So long, Sen. Specter. Enjoy your forced retirement. I hope your replacement learns the right lesson from your loss.

It is my strong and long-standing policy to stand in solidarity with those who are censored as a result of fear or threats of violence or prosecution. I did so when the subject was threats by radical Islamists against Dutch cartoonists who posted offensive drawings of Mohammed, and I did so when the subject was threats of "human rights" prosecutions against a Muslim group who published offensive drawings of Jews.

Last week, as most know by now, Comedy Central "bleeped" several words as a result of a "prediction" of violence posted on a video blog by a young idiot New Yorker who converted to Islam. The details are available through Powerline. Comedy Central should be ashamed of itself. South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone promise to have something really good next week on South Park. They're not ones to take b.s. like this lying down, so I imagine they'll have something really special to see. I urge everyone to tune in.

Meanwhile, you should be aware that one of the original Danish cartoonists has now been fired... er, put on "indefinite leave". While the paper won't say why he's being let go, the cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, says he believes the paper is concerned over their security, particularly after the recent arrest of two men in Chicago charged with planning to attack the paper, Jyllands-Posten.

On May 20, 2010, we will be participating in the First Annual Everybody Draw Mohammed day (idea originated here. I invite all of our bloggers, guest bloggers, and commenters to draw a depiction of Mohammed, and we will post them all.

As with all publications at Stubborn Facts of offensive cartoons or other artwork, the intent is not to offend the peaceful followers of any religion, but to fight back against those who seek to prohibit or deter, through violence, threats of violence, or legal proceedings, the exercise of our fundamental freedom of speech. If we do not stand united in defense of the freedom of speech, even "offensive" speech, then we will soon lose both that freedom and many others. To anyone who is offended by the images I have posted or linked here, I ask that you direct your anger to those truly responsible, the members of your religion who, in its name, threaten violence or legal action in an attempt to censor us. When those threats cease, I will join you in ASKING cartoonists and comedians to be more polite and respectful towards ALL religions. We will not be intimidated by threats. More threats will be met with more insults and more derision, until you must either kill us all or adapt your worldview to understand that you don't have a right to control what others do, and that violence is not an appropriate response to speech and cartoons.

When I first read that President Obama had appointed Utah law professor Scott Matheson to a position on the 10th Circuit court of appeal, I was as suspicious of the timing as most Republicans, given that Matheson's brother (Jim Matheson) is one of the Democratic Congressmen who has previously voted "no" on the healthcare reform bill pushed by the President and Speaker Pelosi. Coming in the midst of a major arm-twisting movement by the House leadership to pass the Senate version of the healthcare bill, it certainly had a certain aroma of pay-off to it, particularly when considered in conjunction with Admiral Sestak's apparent admission that the Obama Administration offered him a high-level job in return for withdrawing from a primary election challenge, allegations surrounding former Gov. Blagojevich, and similar incipient scandals.

But having read Prof. (former Judge) Paul Cassell's Volkh Conspiracy post on Scott Matheson's appointment, I am convinced that there's nothing to see here. Cassell confirms, from personal knowledge, that the vetting process for Matheson has been underway for several months now. Since he is a colleague of Matheson's, Cassell was contacted by the ABA as part of their evaluation process in mid-January. As Cassell notes: "Given that the ABA was evaluating Scott in roughly January, one would expect an announcement roughly six weeks later – exactly as happened here." Cassell also notes that he considers Matheson exceedingly qualified and as moderate of a judicial temperament as one could ever expect to be nominated by a Democratic president.

Cassell is not the only person in the world who would be familiar with the normal delay between ABA evaluation (which happens after the FBI background check) and public announcement of the appointment. The mere fact that the vetting process had begun so long ago is a solid indication that the nomination is no attempt at bribing Rep. Matheson.

Moreover, failing to make the public announcement would look even worse. Imagine that the healthcare vote were to happen in 2 weeks, and THEN Matheson's brother was formally nominated. If Matheson had switched his vote to "yes" just days BEFORE his brother's appointment, then the cries of payoff would be outrageously loud. Somebody, probably the GOP staffers for the Senate committee on judicial appointments, would be aware that the nomination was held up longer than the normal process, and that would be used as evidence that the President was keeping it in his back pocket to ensure compliance by Rep. Matheson.

So, having started the vetting process in January, or perhaps before, Pres. Obama was then in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. If he waited to release the nomination until after the healthcare vote, that would have looked like a pay-off (if Rep. Matheson switched his vote to yes), and if he released it now, it would still have looked like a pay-off (the only difference in the two cases being which party to the bribe bears the risk of the other party not fulfilling his end).

Prof. Cassell's insight and analysis has convinced me there's nothing to see here, and those opposed to Obamacare passing should keep their powder dry for other, more important issues.

It's not that I think your breasts are too small, honey. I swear! They're perfect, really. I would hate to see them change. I just think you should get implants for your own safety. You know, in case you ever get shot. I recommend a D-cup. For safety, that's all.

So Google has started a new social networking site called "Google Buzz," which they tied directly with their Gmail service. Uncharacteristically for Google, they really screwed the pooch coming out of the gate on this one. They more or less automatically assumed that you would want people you contact regularly to be automatically put on a list to "follow" you, and they buried a number of privacy settings, making it hard to tell what you were or were not posting publicly. In fact, when I briefly clicked over to "Buzz" in my Gmail account, I spotted a public conversation between my brother and my sister, in which they both wondered whether others could see the conversation.

I've since discovered the link at the bottom of Gmail which lets you turn Buzz off, and did so immediately. I've got Facebook and the blog to meet my social networking needs. Google's got little to add, in my opinion.

Here's where I think they really messed up. People use e-mail for fundamentally private communication. You directly control, in each and every message, who receives it. Indeed, you have no choice but to specify, in every message, who is to receive it. It makes little sense to build a social networking on top of a medium used primarily for private communication.

Facebook is a fundamentally public place (you assume everything you're doing is going to be public to the world, unless you take some specific steps to restrict access to something). You can send a private message, but doing so is the exception, not the rule; going to send a personal private message takes extra steps, steps which allow you to see and understand that this particular communication will be private.

By contrast, though, the built-in assumption is that e-mail is private. By building a public social networking site on top of it, Google is making its core e-mail users suddenly mistrust that their e-mails will stay private. Even assuming that people are clamoring for yet another general social networking service, Google should have kept it separate entirely from Gmail. Google thinks it can salvage the service with prompt changes to make options clearer, make it much more opt-in than opt-out, and likely some other forthcoming tweaks.

I think they will have to reconsider even further. They should either ditch the service or entirely sever it from Gmail, immediately. They have too much at stake. If users mistrust the confidentiality of their e-mail, they'll start using one of the MANY readily available alternatives. Moreover, the failure of the Buzz team to anticipate the vehement objections which surfaced immediately indicates that the leaders of the new Google service have some fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of the Gmail service and their customers for that service. Who knows, then, what other flaws are lurking beneath the surface, waiting to explode. Google should yank the service, put some new leadership on the team, reconfigure it fundamentally, and then relaunch it, NOT tied to Gmail.

But maybe I'm missing something? Anybody else tried it? I saw in my brief look that our long-lost guest blogger Fern had tried it out a bit. If she still reads us, perhaps she'll give us her impression.

Update: Imagine you woke up one day and found out that somebody had created a Facebook account for you, and created a list of people they thought were your friends, and made that list of friends publicly available. How pissed would you be? Well, that's exactly what Google did.

Update: Here's a graphic description of one female bloggers privacy issues caused my Google's MASSIVE screw-up. I predict that within 2 days, maybe 1, they will have done as I suggested and completely yanked the service, and it will set them back a year or more in their expansion plans. They've destroyed a LOT of trust here... and they just may have created themselves some legal liability, too.

Update: The man responsible for all this appears to be Todd Jackson, director of the Gmail service. The Gmail service is phenomenal, but this really should result in Jackson being fired. To create an entirely new social networking service and automatically enter all of your customers from an entirely un-related product into the new service is stupid beyond belief. I've spotted several victims of stalking or domestic violence who are terribly afraid right now, because Google has stupidly made public a whole bunch of information about who these people regularly correspond with, which will make it much easier to find them.

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) has passed away at the age of 77. He served his country honorably in the Vietnam War and was the first Vietnam Vet to be elected to Congress. May he rest in peace.

UPDATE: More detailed obituary of Rep. Murtha's career and service to his country available here. In commenting, please follow our policy on not speaking ill of the dead.

And the Saints are marching in! Never really believed I would one day be able to talk about the Super Bowl Champions, the New Orleans Saints.

And what a great football game.

You have no idea what this means to the people of that city. This team just may manage to transform how New Orleans thinks of itself.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

A new commandment I give to you, That you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another. (John 13:34-35)

Merry Christmas, and God bless us, everyone.

Have you seen these "CBS Cares" public service announcements? You know, the ones where some B-list celebrity tells you should show your love for your girlfriend or wife by scheduling her for a pap smear? I'm almost scared to watch TV until this PSA run is over.

I've asked several women I know how they would react if their boyfriend unilaterally scheduled them for a pap smear. Short answer, from everybody: Run for the hills, fast, to avoid Mr. Creepy Controlling Guy.

Seriously, CBS. On what planet did this seem like a good idea? One, nobody wants to hear about pap smears during prime time TV. Two, it's just inappropriate for a guy to schedule intimate medical procedures (ANY medical procedures) for a woman. Among other things, it implies that she's incapable of doing so for herself, or that she's too stupid to know that she needs to have such things.

Watch this clip from the tonight show. Compare the amount of applause that William Shatner gets with the amount that Sarah Palin gets. I don't think that Tonight Show audiences are traditionally hot-beds of conservatism. She's got something. I'm not saying it's enough to get her elected President 4 years from now, but it's something, and those who underestimate her will look foolish in the end.

I haven't had a chance to watch it or read the transcript yet, but President Obama's speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize seems to be getting fairly high marks in some unusual corners (though not universally so).

Discuss your own reactions.

Note to conservative pundits, the I/me counts of the President's addresses are getting tiresome. I agree he's more narcissistic than I would like, but the counts are meaningless without a comparative analysis to speeches by other presidents, and it distracts from more substantive criticisms.

I like Governor Palin, it's no secret. But she's certainly not always right, and I don't think she always focuses on the most important issues facing us.

I'm particularly disappointed with her answer to Politico's recent question about the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the "birther" controversy. You can see her response, a somewhat non-committal answer affirming the right of the people to be interested in whatever they choose to be interested in. Here's what she should have said:

Look, the campaign's over. Barack Obama is the President of the United States. We have serious challenges facing us today, and fighting over his failure to release his original birth certificate is a waste of time and energy. We need to oppose the President's efforts to nationalize our health care, to put bureaucrats in charge of our doctors, to raise our taxes, to destroy our economy with draconian taxes on energy. Every second wasted squabbling over his refusal to authorize Hawaii to release his original birth certificate is a distraction that weakens our efforts to stop him from socializing our entire economy. Next question.

That answer would be honest, focused, politically acceptable to most of her target audience, and a call to more serious action. Responding as she did is little more than pandering to a lowest common denominator.

Dr. Seuss no doubt intended for young people of my generation to side with the Lorax, who speaks for the trees. But clearly the Once-ler was not without his fans, including the young lad who grew up to invent this machine:

This post will serve as the late-Thursday and all day Friday open thread.

H/T: SippicanCottage.

This is why I love Jon Stewart. Some conservatives find him too liberal or something, but I've generally found him to be an equal-opportunity pot-shot artist, making fun of anything and anybody that deserves to be made fun of. And he knows that he's just a comedian, and doesn't put on airs of importance and condescension. Here he is, taking on ACORN and the news organizations who are now spending far more money on hologram gimmicks than on actual news gathering.

The Dutch are once again finding themselves in hot water over cartoons. A Muslim group, the Arab European League, placed on its website the cartoon shown to the right. It's certainly an offensive cartoon, no question about that. But the AEL should not be prosecuted for publishing the cartoon any more than certain segments of the Muslim world should have reacted in violence against the publication of the now-infamous "Mohammed cartoons." It was wrong of people to try to suppress the Danish newspaper cartoonists' free speech by committing acts of violence (and wrong of the cowards to self-censor in response), and it's equally wrong for the Dutch authorities to attempt to punish the AEL for its non-violent, written expression.

My policy is to republish "offensive" images which some are trying to censor through violence or state prosecution, regardless of whether I agree with the images or not. Holocaust deniers are a despicable bunch, generally, and there is a significant amount of anti-Semitism within groups such as the AEL. I don't trust the AEL's motives in publishing this cartoon. The AEL apparently had tried to have the Dutch cartoonists prosecuted for their drawings, clearly showing that they have no more respect for freedom of speech than the average government in the Islamic world. But they are right when they say that, if freedom of speech protects the Dutch cartoonists, it also protects AEL from publishing this offensive cartoon.

The Dutch prosecutors claim that their review of the Mohammed cartoons found that they were not offensive to Muslims as a whole and did not incite hatred or violence towards Muslims, but that their review of this cartoon found that it was offensive to Jews as a whole. While I can see some distinctions between this cartoon and the Mohammed ones, I don't see any that are or should be legally significant. It's all in the eye of the beholder, which is one of many reasons why we should not prosecute, nor commit violence against, people for the content of their speech or ideas. Condemn the AEL for promoting bigotry, sure, no problem. Prosecute them? That's wrong.

Former Congressman William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson has been convicted on 11 of 16 counts brought against him.

Jefferson, like many Louisiana politicians before him, has long used his various offices to promote first and foremost the personal interests of himself and his family, rather than the public good. While I take no joy in his conviction, I am relieved that he will likely now join former governor Edwin Edwards in federal prison, and I hope that his conviction will help deter others in my state and elsewhere from acting similarly.

Let me get this straight... it's vital that we not interfere with the internal affairs of Iran, when its citizens peaceably assemble to protest their government, and their government slaughters them. But when the Supreme Court and Congress of Honduras declare that their President has acted unlawfully by seeking to unconstitutionally extend his term, which would make him a dictator-for-life, essentially, then it's appropriate for the President of the United States to take a very public position on a complex point of Honduran constitutional law, calling the actions of the Supreme Court, Congress, and Army of Honduras "not legal" and a "coup"?

Only a blind man could fail to see that Zelaya was planning to rig a plebiscite to declare himself President-for-life. The Honduran constitution specifically prohibits that, and in fact declares that any person who even attempts to remove the 2-term limitation on Presidential office-holding immediately loses the right to his office. They've seen that happen before in other Latin American countries.

How is what President Obama has said anything other than supporting a potential dictator over the actual democratic institutions of Honduras? Say it's a complicated issue. Say the U.S. wants nothing more than a peaceful outcome. Say that the U.S. is concerned both by Zelayas' refusal to abide by the rulings of the Honduran Supreme Court as well as the actions of the Supreme Court, Congress, and the military. But don't pick THE WRONG SIDE and give them aid and comfort. If Germany had deposed Hitler in 1934, would we have worried about the legalities, or been grateful that a man clearly intent on becoming a dictator had been thwarted?