Life and Deatherage

Quote of the day

Matt Deatherage — Sat, 17 May 2008 09:32:31 GMT

Stephen Suh:

When I was a youth pastor I figured I could run around town making a spectacle of myself praying in public places or I could try to figure out ways to help my students stop cutting themselves with razor blades. Not a hard decision.

(Via Cogitamus.)

Deep Thoughts #3, in three parts

Matt Deatherage — Wed, 14 May 2008 09:59:13 GMT

I did not support either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama in the Oklahoma Democratic primary.

It saddens me that TalkLeft, a brilliant site about the nexus of politics and bad criminal laws, has gone off the deep end for Sen. Clinton, with Jeralyn and Armando releasing dozens of anti-Obama posts each week. I agree that Sen. Clinton has every right to continue her campaign as long as she wishes, but she's still attacking Obama and echoing Republican frames that could hurt Obama in the very real (at least 50%) chance he is the party's nominee, and TalkLeft is apparently all for this.

We kind of expect this from Armando, who has carefully cultivated a reputation at multiple blogs of being "David Brooks without the charm." For many years, you could bet money that if someone posted a reasoned critique of Armando's pontifications, complete with direct quotes from Armando and precise rebuttals, he would nonetheless respond with words to the effect of "Go read what I wrote, stupid," ignoring that obviously the commenter had read what he wrote because he quoted it and disassembled it rather precisely. He's gotten better, somewhat. But this kind of party-destruction is really disappointing from Jeralyn.

It saddens me that AMERICAblog, a great site about pursuing progressive aims of equality and justice, has gone off the deep end against Sen. Clinton, with Joe and John releasing dozens of anti-Hillary posts each week. I agree that anyone is free to call on Sen. Clinton to end her campaign, but they're resurrecting ten- and fifteen-year-old GOP attacks on both Clintons (Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky) because they're not getting their way. AMERICAblog is, apparently, now all for echoing Republican frames, and this kind of party-destruction is really disappointing from those guys.

I agree with Brad at Sadly, No! (and, like him, I mean it for people who've gone off either side of the deep end):

I can't wait for this primary to be over just so a lot of people I like can become sane again.

Unclear on the concept

Matt Deatherage — Tue, 06 May 2008 22:26:38 GMT

John Aravosis, AMERICAblog:

Now Hillary says Obama won't be the winner even if he reaches 2,029 delegates

Honestly, go ahead. At this point, I'd love nothing better than to see an all-out war in the Democratic party, instigated by Hillary and Bill Clinton. The DNC, God bless 'em, is afraid to take Hillary on. The Democrats in Congress are afraid to take her on. The superdelegates across the board are afraid to take her on. We are a party of fear. …

I am not a fan of the Clinton campaign or strategy, and I believe that Democrats anywhere should feel free to take sides, advocate for or against the candidate of their choice, and declare or not declare intentions.

But not the Democratic National Committee.

The DNC is the structure of the Democratic Party. As such, it exists solely to manage the party's business, advocate for its goals, and promote the election of its candidates. The party members must choose their candidates for every elected office, by whatever means is prescribed for that office.

For the party hierarchy to "take on a candidate" of that party is the antithesis of what the party stands for. It's ridiculous for Aravosis to have complained for the past two months about the Clinton campaign's alleged "strategy" to thwart the popular vote by "stealing" the nomination via unelected "superdelegates,"¹, and then turn around today and imply that the DNC should use its same unelected status to dismiss a candidate with about 48% of the party's delegates.

The whole battle over Florida and Michigan is because the party chose to punish states that held primaries before Feburary 5, and those two states chose to do it anyway, and unlike past election cycles, the party is sticking to the agreed-upon rules and punishing those states. You can reasonably argue that the rules didn't require stripping 100% of delegates, and you can reasonably argue that the party should not listen to its members protestations now that those rules should be changed at the end of the election cycle they were designed to govern.

But given that there is a controvery at all, because the DNC has not caved to pressure to ignore the rules, you can't reasonably argue that the DNC is "afraid" to take on those who violate the party's rules as decided by its members. Once the party's members have decided upon their presidential candidate—at the convention if need be—then the DNC will fully support that nominee and "take on" those who attack him or her.

To "take on" one candidate or another before that is exactly the opposite of a democratic national party.

I would agree with the Clinton campaign that "automatic delegates" is a better term, because a superdelegate vote isn't worth more than a pledged delegate vote—it just comes from someone who wasn't elected as a delegate by a state primary or caucus. They're not "super," but changing the term in the middle of the cycle smells like trying to redefine the debate, so I'm not going to win that argument. ↩

Don't like the people who made the rules? Tough. Decisions are made by those who show up. People cared enough about the party's direction in 2005 to fight hard to get Howard Dean elected as DNC chairman, and if they don't like the delegate system, they should have fought to get it changed. If they didn't think it would matter, they were wrong. ↩

Cheney blames Democrats for gas prices

Matt Deatherage — Sat, 03 May 2008 10:46:12 GMT

ow brain hurts ow ow ow

Deep Thoughts #2

Matt Deatherage — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:30:24 GMT

Paul Krugman: An arugula confession

Via Ezra Klein, I learn that I'm a cultural elitist.I thought I was a man of the people: I don't actually much care for lattes (I actually like black filter coffee). But Newsweek says that it's about arugula versus beer -- and although I'm fine with beer, I happen to love arugula (especially with some shaved parmesan and good olive oil).

Maybe if I acted British, and called it rocket instead?

I really ought to call it "rocket," because I can't say "arugula" without hearing the horn on Jack Benny's Maxwell.

No, I'm not that old, but some things just stick with you. "Ahhhh-ROO-gula!"

He said what???

Matt Deatherage — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:07:59 GMT

I have seen three teevee news reports today saying that Barack Obama has "distanced" himself from "yesterday's controversial comments" by his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I've read about half a dozen online news stories saying the same thing.

I have not seen any stories that identify or quote these "controversial comments." I have seen excerpts of Rev. Wright's comments without any analysis, and I've seen plenty of analysis saying Obama has to throw Wright under the bus because of what he said yesterday.

I have not seen anyone connect the dots, and list exactly which "controversial" comments require Obama to do this.

I know the political rule that keeps Sen. Obama from repeating whatever he thinks the offending comments are, because you don't want to put the wrong words in the candidate's mouth. But why won't CNN, MSNBC, AP, Reuters, etc. say what Wright said that's so controversial?

It's as if everything he said in six hours of public speaking over three days was absolutely horrifying, and from what excerpts I've seen, that's clearly not true. If Wright said something that horrible, why won't the news media say what it is?

Update: I think dday said it better.

Update II: Digby may be explaining it, but I didn't hear the remarks as nearly the kind of slap-in-the-face as she did.

Shorter Joan Walsh

Matt Deatherage — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:46:23 GMT

Why Jeremiah Wright is so wrong:

The more I hear Rev. Wright explain his positions, the more convinced I am that I am better qualified than he to explain what he was saying.

Clusterflock Interviews With Jason Kottke

Matt Deatherage — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:48:09 GMT

As found and noted by Herr Gruber:

Astute observation from Kottke:

Other times, it’s not so fun running a visible site. Some people are determined to deliberately misunderstand much of what they encounter in life. Sometimes I have a hard time realizing that that’s their problem, not mine.

The ability to deliberately misunderstand what someone is trying to say is an extremely useful skill. I picked it up in Cupertino, probably largely from Dave, but like him, I do not use it for evil. It has two productive uses:

Humor. People can write some mighty dumb things if you read them other than the way they intended. This is an endless source of free amusement, ranging from the mildly funny:

Cataloging Photos and Storing Them on the Computer

Why would you go to all the trouble of cataloging your photos just to pile them on top of your computer?

Defiant Psystar back selling Leopard computers

And for just $100 extra, you can get one made out of rhinosceros hide!

To more evident howlers:

"Caution: this door is alarmed!"

WTF would make a door frightened?

"This door must remain closed at all times!

…then why is it a door? The normal word for "door that must never open" is wall.

Cosby daughter hooks up with "Madea" comedy (Reuters)

If one of Bill Cosby's daughters was hooking up with an entire movie, don't you think that's kind of burying the lede?

Prevention. If you can see these jokes coming in what you write, it makes you a little less likely to write such ambiguous phrases. For example, even if you're aware of the increasingly popular blog showing really really bad uses of Photoshop, and think that the exposure is good for Adobe, you would not write:

Photoshop Disasters Good for Adobe

You would more likely write

"Photoshop Disasters" Blog Good for Adobe

Or, even better:

Blog Showing Photoshop Excesses is Good for Adobe

Yes, it's longer, but it's also clearer. Trying to get people to read the article based on a misleading headline is generally a bad idea, especially if the misinterpreted version is largely the opposite of what you're trying to say.

So, yeah, deliberately misinterpreting others' remarks or writing for evil is a bad thing, but having the skill and using it to amuse yourself or to clarify your own writing is not such a bad thing.

Oklahoma legislators vote to intimidate women

Matt Deatherage — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:34:53 GMT

(Sorry for this rant, but if I don't get this off my chest, I'll be muttering to myself for days. Plus, I assure you, the KFOR link is only the most ad-free link to the short Associated Press story.)

The state legislature recently passed SB 1878, better known as the "force the murderous sluts to see they're killing a human being" bill, requiring any woman in Oklahoma who wishes to have an abortion to undergo an ultrasound procedure and be shown the resulting images, all in an attempt to make the difficult decision to end a pregnancy even more difficult. It's a bald-faced, brazen attempt to intimidate women into not having abortions, something that the country agrees by about a 2-1 margin should be only the woman's choice.

But the forced childbirth lobby is pretty powerful. Even though Gov. Henry did the right thing by vetoing the bill, it did little good:

OKLAHOMA CITY - State lawmakers today voted overwhelmingly to override Governor Brad Henry's veto of a bill requiring women to receive an ultrasound examination before receiving an abortion.

The Senate voted 37-11 to override the veto and the House followed by voting 81-15 for the override.

This is the first veto override in the popular governor's two terms of office.

Henry vetoed the bill last night and criticized it for not exempting rape and incest victims. He says the state would be victimizing these women a second time by requiring them to undergo ultrasound procedures.

The bill originally passed the Senate 38-10 and the House, 80-12.

Of course, given the composition of Oklahoma's House and Senate, the override couldn't have gotten that many votes without significant support from Oklahoma Democrats. They don't make the roll call votes easy to find, but they are online on the House Web site and buried in the Senate daily journal (PDF; search for "veto").

Here are the House Democrats who voted to override the veto of their own party's governor and force women in crisis to be pressured into continuing an unwanted pregnancy:

Yes, 25 of the 44 House Democrats voted to traumatize pregnant women and make their lives harder. Five representatives were excused and didn't vote—all Democrats. Only 14 Democrats voted to uphold the veto and a woman's right to choose.

And the state party wonders why voters don't get energized over legislative races.

My own district's representative, Ryan McMullen, is on that list. He regularly sends out newsletters to his constituents bragging about how he votes against the Democratic position on a vast majority of issues.

His legislative web page says he's the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Sigh. I will vote for any primary challenger to McMullen who is to his left, which basically means "anybody." However, given that the state Republican house members are people like Sally Kern, any Democrat is better than any Republican. By not bloody much.

In this session, the Oklahoma Senate is exactly evenly divided: 24 Republicans, 24 Democrats. So when you read that the Senate voted 37-11 to override the veto, you know a boatload of Democrats voted against women. They are:

There are some familiar and disappointing names on that list. Fortunately, Andrew Rice is not among them—he voted to uphold the veto. As well he should, because this is a bad bill. Like most Oklahoma statutes, it's badly written, but it intends to let any medical person refuse to perform any abortion-related procedure for "religious" reasons, allows health care facilities to refuse to provide medical services to women seeking to terminate pregnancies (and pharmacies to not serve such women), and requires doctors and hospitals to report bad effects (but not good results) of RU-486.

And, of course, it forces any woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy to state this desire in writing, knowing it will be kept on file for up to seven years, and to undergo an ultrasound examination with "a medical description of the ultrasound images, which shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, if present and viewable, and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable".

Ah, but since our legislators don't want to look like they're doing exactly what they are doing—using the force of law to intimdate women into carrying pregancies to term—they've tried to cover their asses:

C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a pregnant woman from averting her eyes from the ultrasound images required to be provided to and reviewed with her. Neither the physician nor the pregnant woman shall be subject to any penalty if she refuses to look at the presented ultrasound images.

How generous of them. In case you're doubting that the purpose of this bill is to intimidate women into carrying pregnancies to term, no matter how awful that would be for them, consider this section:

A. It is the intent of the Legislature that the birth of a child does not constitute a legally recognizable injury and that it is contrary to public policy to award damages because of the birth of a child or for the rearing of that child.

This precedes a section about how no one can recover damages because a child has a birth defect, or because an unwilling father was made to pay expensive support for a child he didn't want, because the mother refused to end the pregnancy. But the language, standing on its own like that, is a big dog-whistle to the state courts that women shouldn't be able to recover damages for being coerced out of ending a pregnancy, either. Why? Because "the birth of a child does not constitute a legally recognizable injury," and if there's no injury, there are no damages.

What if the child has a debilitating birth defect that means it will require expensive medical care for decades and never have a normal life, maybe not even being conscious? What if the woman wanted to end that pregnancy but was intimidated out of it, and now wants help to pay those expenses? Or if a father didn't want to be a father but now is on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars of care because the legislature intimidated the woman into continuing the pregnancy? Too bad! "It is contrary to public policy to award damages because of the birth of a child or for the rearing of that child."

All the legislative links above are to the contact pages of the Democrats who voted for this abomination. Feel free to copy the HTML and use it in other places as a list of Democrats who should not get your support in any primary or for any higher office if any other Democrats are seeking the same office. I know I'm certainly not voting for any of these incredibly horrible misogynists if I have any better options.

For the record, all of the votes to sustain the veto in both houses came from Democrats with one lone exception: Representative Doug Cox (R-OKH5). It might have to do with the fact that Dr. Cox, chairman of the Public Health committee, is not just a family practitioner in Grove, and a hospital and EMS board member, but the winner of the the Oklahoma Academy of Family Physicians' 2005 Family Physician of the Year award. (Of course, being a physician didn't exactly give Tom Coburn a clue, but he really is a special case.)

I'm starting to get excited about Andrew Rice, but the state legislature just remains a hotbed of buffoons and demagogues, the people who think Sally Kern was a brave and courageous culture warrior for trying to use the force of law to impose her religious beliefs on others—just like SB 1878 did, which is why Gov. Henry vetoed it. It's questionable that five Democrats managed to avoid the override vote. It's beyond deplorable that 33 elected Democrats voted to uphold this assault on pregnant women. Vote accordingly.

"I'm not even dreaming anymore."

Matt Deatherage — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:41:20 GMT

This should not be nearly as tear-jerking as it is. Even the Martha critics lose it towards the end of this one.

(Via TRex.)