Letters to the Editor
-
The answer is simple: F-I-L-I-B-U-S-T-E-R
Alito is a weasel, and a bit of a nut case. He managed to sneak through the Judical Committee primarily because the Democrats could not resist bloviating, and spent way too much time talking, and too little time demanding responsive answers.
It is my understanding that Alito has had nearly 50% of his opinions overturned by the Supreme Court (if I'm in error on this, feel free to correct); that being said, Alito seems manifestly unfit for SCOTUS, as he "just doesn't get it."
He lied to the Senate during his last confirmation, promising he would recuse himself on Vanguard Funds issues, and then failing to do so. If he lied the last time, how likely is it he's telling the truth now.
Finally, it's time Democrats showed some spine, and called Mr. Frist's bluff with respect to the nuclear option. If there are enough Republicans willing to do away with the tradiiton of the filibuster, and its protection for the minority party, let them do so. They will regret it dearly when the Democrats retake the Senate.
-
WHEN the Democrats retake the Senate?
Good luck with that. Dems aren't retaking the Senate for at least a decade (unless they find a way to appeal to rural voters or get the Constitution changed), so I wouldn't hold my breath.
-
Not 'Anti-abortion'. Anti-choice!
Part of the problem we in the middle have is that we've been allowing the neo-imperialists and christianists of the extreme right to frame the debate. They've declared a culture war on the rest of us, (just look at their internal corespondence if you think that's just a metaphor), and we're allowing them to choose all the weapons, by allowing them to choose the language we use.
In the abortion debate, we've allowed them to characterise themselves as 'pro-life' for too long, a term deliberately chosen to imply that anyone who disagrees with them is 'anti-life' and 'pro-death'. This is nonsense of course, but few people seem have the mental tools to question received terminology.
Salon and other truly centrist media have resisited the implied lie by using 'pro-choice' and 'anti-abortion'. This is an improvement, but still falls far short of actually representing the truth. Calling the extreme christianists 'anti-abortion' still implies that their opponents are somehow 'pro-abortion'. Although I am firmly pro-choice, I wouldn't characterise myself as pro-abortion. Abortion is often the best of a set of bad options for a woman and must be readily available for all the well-explored reasons, but timely and effective contraception is still a better solution in most cases. I imagine most 'pro-choice' types are moderates or progressives with a similarly complex attitude to the issue, and can't be accurately described as in any way 'pro-abortion'.
So how about we insist on calling the extremists by a really appropriate title- 'Anti-Choice'. It represents their position far more accurately than the other terms, and follows naturaly from the use of 'Pro-Choice'. If we use it consistently and support it with sound argument, I imagine it can be taken up widely by those on our side of the war, and it will give an alternative frame to those still undecided or wavering. Changing terminology will help to show how small the extremists' numbers really are, because then only they will be using their 'dog-whistle' phrases [look it up on Wikipedia]. And maybe, just maybe, the 'vast unthinking' will start to undersatnd the true nature of the debate.
Btw- I can strongly recomend George Lakoff's book *Don't think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate*, Chelsea Green 2004 in the USA, Scribe 2005 in Australia. If I had any money I'd be sending a copy to every progressive and moderate politician both here and the US.
-
Alito and the nightmare confirmation
While overturning Roe v. Wade would be a terrible idea, I am personally much more concerned with what might come of the "unitary executive" idea that Alito espouses and which the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee did a lousey job of questioning Alito about and educating the public of its ramifications. If this idea is pushed through, then it is whatever Bush desires to "rule" about. Why has it taken until the hearings were totally over for the public to even hear about the dangers of the "unitary executive", which could, in fact, lead to a dictatorship or monarchy here in the U.S.?
-
After Roe
I'd like to see an article on what we can expect of post-Roe America. Because, let's face it, Roe is almost certainly history. In the near future, abortion will become effectively unavailable for women in "red" states, at least those who are too poor to travel to an area with more liberal laws.
(I recognize that many American women are already facing that situation due to the restrictions placed on abortion by state legislatures in conservative states, of course.)
So what does the future hold? A rise in back-alley abortions, dead girls with lacerated uteri, unwed young mothers, babies with serious birth defects, etc.? If so, will the media cover the issue, or cover it up?
Will the pro-choice movement reformulate itself as a movement to restore the right to abortion? What might such a movement look like? Was there a similar movement in pre-Roe America?
In fact, it would be very helpful to those of us who don't remember or didn't experience pre-Roe America to have a picture of what it was like. And that would probably be a pretty fascinating article. How about it, Salon?
-
After Roe
I'd like to see an article on what we can expect of post-Roe America. Because, let's face it, Roe is almost certainly history. In the near future, abortion will become effectively unavailable for women in "red" states, at least those who are too poor to travel to an area with more liberal laws.
(I recognize that many American women are already facing that situation due to the restrictions placed on abortion by state legislatures in conservative states, of course.)
So what does the future hold? A rise in back-alley abortions, dead girls with lacerated uteri, unwed young mothers, babies with serious birth defects, etc.? If so, will the media cover the issue, or cover it up?
Will the pro-choice movement reformulate itself as a movement to restore the right to abortion? What might such a movement look like? Was there a similar movement in pre-Roe America?
In fact, it would be very helpful to those of us who don't remember or didn't experience pre-Roe America to have a picture of what it was like. And that would probably be a pretty fascinating article. How about it, Salon?