Of two minds

Listening to the radio a couple of days ago, I heard a report from the BBC about a recent decision by the British Home Secretary (whose job, if I understand correctly, is something akin to a combination of the duties of our Secretaries of the Interior and Homeland Security... readers are free to correct me if I am wrong) Jacqui Smith to ban Michael Savage from visiting the country.

Who is Michael Savage? This guy:

The popular radio talk show host who did a weekend TV show for the cable channel referred to an unidentified caller to his show Saturday as a "sodomite" and said he should "get AIDS and die."

Also this:

On the June 7 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage called gay parenting, "child abuse," echoing remarks he made during the February 26 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation.

And this:

On his radio show, Savage told listeners that "intelligent people, wealthy people ... are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, 'Oh, there's a billion of them.' " Savage continued: "I said, 'So, kill 100 million of them, then there'd be 900 million of them.' I mean ... would you rather us die than them?" Savage added: "Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you're going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later."

With all of this in mind, it is perhaps unsurprising that Ms. Smith would including Mr. Savage on her list of undesirables.

The 16 names were people who "fomented hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way" as to cause violence if they were allowed into the country, she told the BBC.

[snip]

Savage, whom detractors say has long been driven by a desire for fame, attention and money, has been invoking the First Amendment and portraying himself as the victim of censorship, even if he admits he had no plans to visit Britain. Suddenly, free speech advocates who would normally recoil at his show have rallied behind him.

Oh, good. Larry Flynt all over again.

I celebrated a relatively recent decision of a similar nature when it applied to the sub-human Fred Phelps. And I am inclined to do the same in this case. On the one hand, I support Mr. Savage's right to say all manner of utterly horrid things. We live in a country where the right to do so is given to all of us, no matter how odious.

However, there is no reason the British should feel compelled to let this pustule of a man into their country. I am entitled to do all manner of disturbing things in the privacy of my own home, but my neighbors are equally entitled to bar me from their homes if they suspect I will behave similarly there. American law allows Savage to say what he wants, but the British are hardly obligated to invite him to engage in the same behaviors on their shores.

The downside, of course, is that now this ugly little person gets to play the martyr.

A US radio talk show host says he will sue the British government for defamation after being placed on a list of people banned from entering the UK.

[snip]

He told his radio audience that he was intending to sue British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who he described as the "lunatic ... Home Secretary of England".

That last quote makes me think of pots and kettles, and seems an ineffective way of getting back on England's invitation list.

Get on with it!

From Politico:

For Democrats pushing an investigation into potential criminal wrongdoing in the war on terrorism, the GOP now has a two-word response: Nancy Pelosi.

[snip]

According to records released last week by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Pelosi and other congressional officials were told in 2002 that enhanced interrogation techniques had been used on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah. The report appeared to contradict Pelosi’s claims — made earlier and again after the report was released — that she had been told only that such techniques might be used in the future, not that they had already been used.

Some things bear saying over and over and over. (On that note, I take back all the things I've ever said about Andrew Sullivan being repetitious.) So, I will return to a point I have already made, which appears to be yet more relevant.

I don't care if Nancy Pelosi goes down with Dick Cheney and Jay Bybee. I don't care if she takes Harry Reid down with her. I don't care how embarrassing an investigation into American torture policies during the Bush administration proves for both parties. Investigate anyway! I realize that the GOP thinks they've got the Democrats by the short hairs with the new revelations about Pelosi, and maybe they do. But justice transcends party politics, and justice demands an investigation.

Telling us how they really feel

The Better Half and I spent the past weekend driving around the south of Maine, spending time with friends and family. While driving, on two separate occasions I saw cars with what used to be "McCain/Palin" bumper stickers with the "McCain" removed. Considering how many cars I see with "Bush/Cheney" (or "Kerry/Edwards" or even "Gore/Lieberman") stickers unmolested on their bumpers, I figure this is a pretty profound statement of discontent with John McCain, support of Sarah Palin, or both. (Well... as profound a statement as can be expected from the medium of bumper sticker.)

I don't know how wide-spread a phenomenon this is, and it's probably unwise to posit the existence of a movement from two data points. (Did I mention that I saw this on two separate occasions?) Still, it brought to mind how unhappy the base really seemed with John McCain during the last election. When he offered his concession speech, I got the feeling that he was talking to a bunch of ticked off people who would just as soon have supported someone else in the first place. I find the prospect of Sarah Palin heading a national ticket singularly ludicrous and terrifying, but she at least enjoyed the support of her party's base.

Is anyone else seeing similarly redacted bumper stickers? Is this just a Maine thing? (Heck, it could just be one disaffected family that does a lot of driving.) Anyone else seen this?

Bless my socks, redux

I've already mentioned how tickled I was to have a guest post at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen's blog.  It is with unabashed, nerdish glee that I discover Andrew Sullivan has linked to it.

Your one-stop gay marriage opinion clearinghouse!

I am a little wary of Bleakonomy morphing into an "all gay marriage, all the time" site. For those of you who read Andrew Sullivan, you know that it gets kind of tedious to loyally follow a blogger who gets on a tear and seems hell-bent on talking about some pet subject over and over and over. (And over.) In Sully's case, it tends to vary over time, from Sarah Palin to pot legalization to torture, and some topics are more worthy than others. (That last one deserves all the scrutiny it can get. The first two, maybe not so much as Sully likes to devote.) Anyhow, if it gets old when a wildly successful blogger like Andrew Sullivan does it, what right do picayune little blogs like ours have?

After worrying about this for a few minutes, I decided "to hell with it." If some other member of an oppressed minority suddenly saw a massive form of discrimination dissolving right before his eyes, we wouldn't begrudge him a little monomania in celebration, would we? So, I hope you'll indulge me, but right now I've got gay marriage on the mind.

Same-sex marriage is not an issue limited to New England. The city council of Washington, DC recently voted to legalize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. It was nearly unanimous, but for one hold-out. Guesses?

From the Washington Post:

D.C. Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), the only council member to vote against the bill today to legalize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, predicted today there could be a "civil war" in the District if the Council decides to take up a broader gay marriage bill later this year.

"All hell is going to break lose," Barry said while speaking to reporters. "We may have a civil war. The black community is just adamant against this."

[snip]

"What you've got to understand is 98 percent of my constituents are black and we don't have but a handful of openly gay residents," Barry said. "Secondly, at least 70 percent of those who express themselves to me about this are opposed to anything dealing with this issue. The ministers think it is a sin, and I have to be sensitive to that."

Yes, that Marion Barry. So, along with Miss California and Joe the Plumber, the opponents to gay marriage can add a particularly storied politician to their ranks. Splendid.

I admire the political courage that Mr. Barry displays, noting that he has hardly any gay constituents (or, at least hardly any openly gay ones), so why on earth should he care about their rights?

I do not think Marion Barry speaks for black people, as Ta-Nehisi points out, as much as it seems he thinks he does. Indeed, all the other councilors for DC (a majority black city) voted for marriage equality. In fact, my point really is not about gay marriage and black ministers in DC at all. It's that the only vote opponents to gay marriage got in DC is a formerly disgraced but politically undead crazy person.

Bless my socks!

A little while ago, I wrote to one of the League of Ordinary Gentlemen and offered to pen a guest post about the Jim Carrey vaccine lunacy at the Huffington Post. To be honest, I expected to be politely rebuffed. Instead, they went for it. I was, of course, delighted.

Today they posted my piece, and I am sincerely tickled beyond all reason. I would like the thank the Gentlemen (Scott in particular) for the honor of contributing to their excellent blog.

The etiology of bias

I'm kind of ashamed to admit how my intellectually sloppy reading left me vulnerable to the affects of intellectually sloppy writing, but sometimes the truth hurts.

A few days ago I read this article about Sonia Sotomayor in The New Republic. I really like The New Republic, and have found the news analysis and commentary there to be generally reliable, insightful and reasonably consonant with mine. These factors probably contributed to my failing to pay more attention to the article's flaws.

Of particular concern was this part:

But despite the praise from some of her former clerks, and warm words from some of her Second Circuit colleagues, there are also many reservations about Sotomayor. Over the past few weeks, I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.

The author, Jeffrey Rosen, then goes on to anonymously quote various sources who question the intellectual quality of Sotomayor's writing.

Another problem was this:

I haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have a confident sense of them, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor's detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths.

The reason that I'm bothering to write about this (instead of holding forth endlessly about gay marriage, as has been my wont of late) is that I read the article without much scrutiny, and from it formed the opinion that Sotomayor was probably not that great a candidate for the Supreme Court. I saw "I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her" and barely noticed "nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges." My own (admittedly moot) opinion of a woman I had previously heard nothing of was created entirely from reading the one article.

The trouble is that Rosen's piece was promptly and thoroughly criticized for being sloppy and unfair. In particular, he got a lot of (deserved) criticism for relying on anonymous quotes from people who hadn't clerked with Sotomayor herself. This hasn't stopped the meme from Rosen's piece percolating into the conventional wisdom and popular culture. From TPM:

But the coup de grâce may have come last night when Sotomayor bashing traveled outside the beltway, and on to the Late Show, where David Letterman portrayed Sotomayor as a Spanish-speaking version of Judge Judy.

Obviously, I expect The New Republic to do better. But I also really should have done better myself. Nobody will be asking my advice about who Obama should appoint to replace Souter. (My knowledge of the law comes exclusively from re-runs of "Law and Order," and considering how I feel about the veracity of medical dramas, is almost certainly a pile of crap.) But I like to consider myself an informed follower of our government's business, and I'm bothered at how quickly I made up my mind based upon a cursory reading of a single article.

In short -- bad Dan! No biscuit.

Update: Rosen responds to critics here.