News 4

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Bob Woodward's writing a book about Obama.

Since the inauguration, the Washington Post legend has been quietly reporting a new book on the Obama White House. "I'm in the preliminary stages of working on it," Woodward confirmed to me by phone recently. "I'm working on it and making progress."...Woodward has some extra motivation to fill his next book with big scoops. His fourth and final Bush book, The War Within, sold just 159,000 copies, according to Nielsen BookScan, far below his third Bush installment, State of Denial, which sold more than half a million. "The last time I talked to him about books, earlier this year, he had been lamenting the fact his last Bush book didn't sell as well," one of Woodward's friends told me.

What should we expect from this?

Geithner told China yesterday that the Obama Administration was committed to bringing down the US deficit.
Really?

Barack Obama will quadruple the deficit this year.

Geithner also told China that Team Obama wants to bring down the deficit next year from 12.9% of GDP this year to 3% of GDP next year (a near impossibility)...
Or, in other words, back into Bush territory.

In response, China told Geithner to show them some numbers!
Bloomberg reported, via Bizblogger:

In an interview with Bloomberg Television May 21, Geithner said the administration?"s goal is to cut the budget shortfall to 3 percent of gross domestic product or smaller. That would be down from a projected 12.9 percent this year.

Seventeen of 23 Chinese economists polled in connection with Geithner?"s visit said holdings of Treasuries are a ?Sgreat risk? for the nation?"s economy, according to a Chinese state media report yesterday. Still, the majority argued against quickly cutting them, the Beijing-based Global Times reported.

Geithner, 47, needs to show how the U.S. can prevent the value of China?"s investment from being eroded by a weaker dollar or by the inflation that might be stoked by the stimulus money being pumped into the U.S. economy, according to Yu.

?SIt will be helpful if Geithner can show us some arithmetic,? he said.

...The Treasury released a transcript May 30 of a briefing Geithner gave last week at the Foreign Press Center in Washington. In it, he said he will stress with Chinese officials that he?"s intent on maintaining the dollar?"s strength.

?SI will, of course, make it clear that we are committed to a strong dollar, that we are committed to bringing our fiscal deficits down over the medium term to a sustainable place, to a sustainable level,? Geithner said in the briefing May 27. ?SWe believe in a strong dollar. A strong dollar is in the U.S. interest.?

This doesn't sound good at all.
No wonder China is concerned.

The US has lost 16,000 jobs each day since Obama signed the Spendulus Bill and sunk the US economy further into debt.

McClatchy's story helps explain the fuller context:

In the rear window of the 1993 blue Ford Taurus that he was driving was

a red rose, a symbol often used by abortion opponents. On the rear of

his car was a Christian fish symbol with the word "Jesus" inside...

Dinwiddie said she met Roeder while picketing outside the Kansas

City Planned Parenthood clinic in 1996. Roeder walked into the clinic

and asked to see the doctor, Robert Crist, she said.

"Robert

Crist came out and he stared at him for approximately 45 seconds," she

said. "Then he (Roeder) said, 'I've seen you now.' Then he turned his

back and walked away, and they were scared to death. On the way out, he

gave me a great big hug and he said, 'I've seen you in the newspaper. I

just love what you're doing.'"

And this:

In April 1996, Roeder was arrested in Topeka after Shawnee County

sheriff's deputies stopped him for not having a proper license plate.

In his car, officers said they found ammunition, a blasting cap, a fuse

cord, a one-pound can of gunpowder and two 9-volt batteries, with one

connected to a switch that could have been used to trigger a bomb.

Jim Jimerson, supervisor of the Kansas City ATF's bomb and arson unit, worked on the case.

"There

wasn't enough there to blow up a building,'' Jimerson said at the time,

``but it could make several powerful pipe bombs...There was definitely

enough there to kill somebody.''

The fusion of religion with politics is a dangerous, dangerous thing.

by Pam Spaulding

A reader of my blog named Kevin wrote me the other day to say that he is interested in building bridges with people of color (POC) about race and equality but doesn’t know how to engage when the conversation turns tense. I asked if I could post his letter to generate discussion because I know he’s not the only one out there who had this reaction to my recent blog posts about the topic.

I am a twenty-one-year-old white, gay male living in California. I campaigned for ridiculous amounts of time (seriously, I had a huge void in my life when President Obama was safely elected—a sign that I was addicted! Or something.) for Obama and against Proposition 8. I was part of the effort in San Diego, California and frequently rubbed arms with POC (as you call them in your HuffPo) people while campaigning for both things.

I wanted to say I just read your post on ”Black, Gay and Reclaiming ‘Civil Rights’“ and I found it to be very inspiring. It also reignited my interest in working toward some form of outreach toward the local black community. I found that while I spoke about Obama and why he was the right choice for America, etc, I had the focus of the people I was talking to 100% (assuming they weren’t McCainites) but when I tried to segue into Proposition 8 a lot of people would slip into an interesting… defensive stance? Their demeanor completely shifted to what I liked to call ”I am not listening to anything you said while trying to think of a way to escape from this conversation“. Anyway, I noticed that certain members of the black community were quick to dismiss me as some kind of white, gay racist. I am not sure when this became such a widespread stereotype, nor am I sure why I of all people was labeled a racist for bringing up a collection of quotes from MLK and Coretta Scott King. My boyfriend is bi-racial (he doesn’t like being called ‘black or white’ and dislikes people being labeled and sorted into groups) and I had to do a lot of convincing to get him to march with me, and to go out and talk to people about Prop 8.

On two separate occasions, while trying to use him to display that I am not at all racist, he was told by the black people we were talking to that he ‘gave up’ being black when he decided to be gay. I’ve also tried explaining that my two best friends growing up were both black, though I imagine that probably worked more against me than for me. This isn’t just an issue within minorities and several of the white people outwardly called me a faggot on multiple occasions (I live in an oddly socially conservative part of California).

So I guess what I am asking is… how do I establish the dialogue? How do I get through to members of the black community that seem to think if I sneeze on them they will catch some gay disease? I am going to work my ass off again in 2010 and beyond, but I am not able to do it all by myself and you seem to be very educated on the subject.

Well, I’m not exactly well-educated about such things, so much as I have had to deal with inhabiting two worlds that frequently have problems with my very existence because it challenges assumptions they would like to remain intact.

That out of the way, I want to thank you and your boyfriend for being willing to step outside of your comfort zone and take the predictable abuse in order to challenge these black residents on their bigotry. Most people are so scared of being labeled racist by perfect strangers that they avoid the outreach. Honestly, those in the black community who are homophobic don’t get challenged enough—the charges they lob is a defense for not wanting to engage. They know they can play the dreaded race card—even at black gays, denying their blackness, something I’ve personally experienced (and it occurred yet again, in the comments of that HuffPost piece).

My suggestions are below the fold. Contribute yours in the comments.

You see, they have no sense of their own hypocrisy—that not all white gay men are racist, just as not all blacks are homophobic. Both groups tend to cling to the generalizations because there is always a factual basis for any bias or stereotype. The fact is the faces of the LGBT community are largely white gay men. There are no insurmountable reasons for this in this day and time, yet the lack of diversity (including class) in the visible leadership in our organizations continues. It should be no surprise to hear this charge.

However, one should always use a face-to-face interaction as a mutual learning opportunity by actively listening and testing assumptions. When you come up against that wall of resistance—when the “white, gay racist” retort comes up—it’s going to sting. You can’t help feeling slighted but you have to move past it and acknowledge the truth in the statement. You could have said something on the order of:

“I understand why you may feel that way; there are too many in the LGBT community who have not visibly engaged in struggles affecting the black community, but I can’t change the past. What I am offering, with my presence here today, is to work for change across the board—and why this election is important. I want to address all instances of discrimination that have gone long unaddressed. As part of that I would like you to consider voting against Prop 8 because it represents instituting government-based discrimination.”

You are: 1) acknowledging a truth; 2) representing that you are both taking personal responsibility as a white gay man to counter racism in the LGBT community; and 3) asking her for support in stopping all discrimination.

BTW, it’s doubly difficult sometimes if you bring up MLK or other black civil rights leaders since the people you’re meeting with may object out of the box to the “appropriation” of that movement’s figures. In fact, some try to explain away or ignore black leaders still with us who support LGBT civil rights, such as John Lewis, Ben Jealous of NAACP national and Julian Bond.

That’s my two cents; I’m sure others will be glad to contribute in the comments.

My suggested answer, of course, doesn’t even address religious objections to homosexuality; if it hasn’t been brought up as a defense shield yet, would likely come up next. One way to respectfully approach scripture being tossed out or that religious freedom is under attack is to discuss the church state separation issue, but the conflation of state/civil marriage with anti-gay people makes this a tough nut to crack. A better approach is to say that this kind of discrimination:

1) Opens the door for government to allow religious discrimination—ask them about why they would vote for a measure that discriminates against other faiths, including other Christian ones, that DO want to marry gay and lesbian couples.

2) That placing civil rights at the whim of a majority vote at the ballot box endangers all civil rights.

I’m sure other readers have other ideas for you. There is no answer that can cover every encounter you may have when engaging on this challenging topic, but just know that by doing something, rather than sitting back and doing nothing out of fear and the desire to avoid discomfort, that you are making a difference.

Over at my pad, someone suggested that the writer’s partnering with his boyfriend on these outreach efforts was in itself racist. My reply:

I don’t see partnering with his boyfriend on these outreach efforts as racist; it’s a reality that the people they are encountering often refuse to acknowledge that there are POC LGBTs and start right into the attack mode. Obviously his BF went willingly (if apprehensively, knowing what was coming), and the fact is his presence allows the conversation to turn away from invisibility to their ownership of the fact they consider he’s turned in his black card. That’s their public admission of bigotry.

That’s why I have advocated that when canvassing POC neighborhoods that may be hostile to LGBT rights, whites should pair up with someone of color to take that “weapon” out of the hands of those you talk to. These are people who are rarely challenged about their own prejudices. The major problem with this is we have to tackle the racism in the LGBT community that makes it difficult for POC to feel they will be accepted if the come out. So that leaves a movement with precious few POC to rise to the challenge of taking the almost-certain abuse by members of their own communities of color for the goal of full civil equality. A tall order.

If you read through the HuffPost column, POC who were anti-gay tried repeatedly to turn the argument around to “what about racism in the white LGBT community?”. That’s not an answer to the question being asked (and I’ve covered that before anyway), nor does it explain away the problem at hand. No one is denying the racism exists in that sphere, it’s about pointing out that it’s not one way either. You can’t address the problem if it’s not acknowledged or if it is deflected by tossing out a different question. The bottom line is a good number homophobic POC want to change the subject rather than own up to the problem that is costing those community lives—exploding HIV/AIDS rates—because of their silence and promotion of homophobia in the pews.

***

NOTE: These discussions are essential and The Dallas Principles are something to keep in mind when you are facing this uphill battle, particularly 3-6 in this context. Kevin and his boyfriend are participating in the kind of activism that does change hearts and minds. Even for those who disagree, they have been in engaged in a way that forces them to confront their biases.

1. Full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals must be enacted now.  Delay and excuses are no longer acceptable.

2. We will not leave any part of our community behind.

3. Separate is never equal.

4. Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to affirm or deny civil rights.

5. The establishment and guardianship of full civil rights is a non-partisan issue.

6. Individual involvement and grassroots action are paramount to success and must be encouraged.

7. Success is measured by the civil rights we all achieve, not by words, access or money raised.

8. Those who seek our support are expected to commit to these principles.

Related: Black, Gay and Reclaiming ‘Civil Rights’

Leader: The Bankruptcy of General Motors

- General Motors filed for bankruptcy this morning, beginning a process that will leave the US government with a 60% stake in the company, and an unprecedented role as a business owner. President Obama is effectively pushing GM into bankruptcy, in the hopes that, after a brief period of nationalization, a smaller, sturdier GM will emerge, capable of competing in the international car market. The US will invest an additional $30 billion in GM, on top of the $20 billion previously committed. 

- Today's news is awash with sentimentality, looking back at this behemoth of American industry in its 101 years of existence. "What's good for General Motors is good for the country" is a saying that entered the lexicon, and is not altogether false.  Employing as many as 1 million people at points, including suppliers and dealers,  GM was the world's biggest company just ten years ago.  GM's demise (or reeducation, if you'd prefer) will be felt deeply around the country.

- A New York Bankruptcy judge cleared the way for Chrysler to exit bankruptcy by selling most of its assets to Italian car maker Fiat.  Chrysler could come out of bankruptcy as early as this week.

Politics

- George Tiller, a high-profile Kansas doctor who performed late-term abortions was shot and killed on his way to church yesterday by an anti-abortion activist.  The assassin is in custody.

- Cuba continues to express interested in closer relations with the United States, and in a trip to Latin America, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is encouraging the thaw. Speaking at the inauguration for the new president of El Salvador, Clinton said:

Greater connections can lead to a better, freer future for the Cuban people. These talks are in the interest of the United States, and they are also in the interest of the Cuban people.

- The Las Vegas Sun reports that Nevada could be at the center of the battle over immigration reform.  Andres is quoted:

Immigration, Ramirez said, is a litmus test for Hispanic voters — if they think a candidate, or party, is hostile on the issue, they will show less interest in the candidate’s or party’s overall platform. This occurred in the 2008 election, analysts say. So the party could “risk alienating Hispanic voters more” by opposing a comprehensive bill, Ramirez said.

- Howard Fineman looks forward to President Obama's speech in Cairo, Egypt this Thursday.

Economy

- Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is in China, and exchange rates are on the top of his agenda for discussion with his counterparts.

- Oil is at $67 per barrel, the highest it's been since November.

International

- An Air France jet bound from Brazil to Paris has disappeared over the Atlantic.  A search is underway off the coast of Brazil, in the hopes of finding the aircraft, which had 228 people aboard.

- The WaPo writes that US military and intelligence officials see a possibility for continued offensives by the Pakistani military in the Swat valley, combined with continued drone strikes near the Pakistani-Afghan border to seriously disrupt al-Qaeda in the region.

New From NDN

- Jake put together a backgrounder on Friday addressing the bankrupt Republican Party and bankruptcy policy. 

- Melissa posted on the President's weekly address, in which he promoted Sonia Sotomayor, his nominee for the Supreme Court.

One More Thing

- President Obama will speak in Egypt on Thursday, and he's already being compared to King Tut.

- On a recent trip to Five Guys burger joint, Obama learned about an intelligence agency he'd never heard of before.  Thanks, Five Guys!

- Last, Jeff Sessions seems to like Sonia Sotomayor, so perhaps there won't be much of a fight over her nomination after all.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

St. Paul's Webster Magnet Elementary School changed its name last month to the Barack and Michelle Obama Service Learning Elementary. What's wrong with that? Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editor David Shribman makes an impassioned plea on behalf of the school's namesake:

Webster was the greatest orator in the age of great oratory; some of his words remain in the American memory, even in this ahistorical age. He was probably the most eminent Supreme Court lawyer in American history, having argued 249 cases before the court, including several of the landmark cases of the early 19th century that shaped constitutional law in the United States for generations. And he was one of the greatest secretaries of state ever (and the first to serve non-consecutive terms, one under William Henry Harrison and John Tyler, another under Millard Fillmore).

"He achieved great distinction," says Kenneth E. Shewmaker, editor of the "Diplomatic Papers of Daniel Webster." "Barack Obama may have greater distinction because he had the chance to be president. A senator doesn't have that kind of power, but if we understand his legacy, including his role in creating the sense of American nationalism, we wouldn't wipe Webster's name off our buildings."

After pleading Webster's case, Shribman makes the larger case for the preservation of historical memory:

Changing the name of a school from Webster to Obama is a symptom of a larger problem in American life.

"The kind of present-mindedness that wipes out historical knowledge is a cultural fault of American society," says Hyman Berman, an emeritus history professor at the University of Minnesota. Alan Berolzheimer, a Norwich, Vt., historian who as a young man worked on cataloging and publishing the "Webster Papers," adds: "You don't make light of a long-standing historical figure whom a community honored in the first place."

Americans like to name schools after political figures. In Minnesota, there is an elementary school in St. Paul and a high school in Minneapolis named for the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, who died in a plane crash while running for re-election in 2002. The University of Minnesota has the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, named for the mayor, senator and vice president who is the state's greatest historical figure. And the University of Minnesota Law School is housed in Walter F. Mondale Hall, named for the former senator and vice president. Mondale is very much alive.

"There should be room for Daniel Webster on our schools," says Mondale, who is 81. "He would want it that way, and he deserves a place. And though I know names can go up and they can go down, let's leave Mondale Hall alone for a while."

In working on the column, Shribman found the powers-that-be at Webster Magnet School present a case study in historical amnesia:

There is no trace at all of Webster in the Obama Service Learning Elementary school today, not even a picture of Webster, who may have been the subject of more formal portraits of any man of his time, if not of all American history. Indeed, in the period leading up to the vote on the name change, the principal of the school, Lori Simon, actually had to figure out for whom the school was named originally.

If Webster had been remembered at the school, I am quite certain that what was "remembered" would have been wrong. Such is certainly the case with what high school students are taught, for example, about Lincoln, whose political hero was Webster, when they are taught anything at all.

In 1927, General Electric introduced the "Monitor Top," the first commercially successful home-use refrigerator (the unit was so-named because the motor sat on top of the fridge). This marked the beginning of a near-wholesale change in the eating habits of Americans and, eventually, the entire industrialized world. It also represented a major shift in the way we define food products as "fresh." As Susanne Freidberg writes in Fresh: A Perishable History, the introduction of home refrigeration (buoyed by the proliferation of electricity in urban neighbourhoods) reflected a new idea "that freshness depend[ed] less on time or distance than on the technology that protect[ed] it."

Before the Monitor Top, most households employed ice boxes to keep food fresh. But the ice box was never a particularly useful contraption: As the ice inside melted (and was replaced, often multiple times daily, with new ice), the temperature would fluctuate dramatically -- food might initially freeze and then rapidly thaw. This created an awful mess, not to mention a toxic environment in which the natural bacteria and enzymes in various foods mixed and melded to create unnatural smells and unhealthy tastes.

An ice box would be considered a serious health concern these days. But the upshot of owning one in the late-19th century and early-20th century was that you were more likely -- specifically because of the technological limitations -- to eat food that was fresher. You had to eat local -- because there was a serious possibility that anything grown or raised outside your neighbourhood (or on another continent) would be spoiled or even poisonous by the time it reached the market.

Ironically, the refrigerator, an appliance designed to keep our food fresher for a longer period of time, has actually meant that we eat things that are not at all, in the classic sense, fresh.

The advent of cold storage (refrigeration on an industrial scale) in the mid-to late-1800s

also meant that food producers gained a stronger hand in what we eat and when we eat it. Cold storage even gave manufacturers power over how much we pay for our food. When U. S. food prices rose dramatically in 1910-11, many argued that cold storage was the culprit -- now that producers and marketers had the power to keep meat, eggs and produce "fresher" for extended periods, it was argued, they could manipulate the laws of supply and demand to drive up prices. (U. S. lawmakers would eventually step in to regulate the cold storage

industry and how much product manufacturers could stockpile at a given time.)

Then there is the matter of whether refrigeration really does maintain freshness. Answer: It depends. Milk and eggs will stay fresher for longer, but meat and fish might not (especially the latter). As for fruits and vegetables, oftentimes sticking them in cold storage will do more harm than good. According to Freidberg, "refrigeration slows wilting and rot," but "it can damage the flavour, texture and appearance" of vegetables. Same thing goes for many fruits, which are often the most tasty just before they rot.

There are good and bad sides to using a refrigerator. But in a very real sense, the rapid globalization of the food industry from the mid-1800s on has made having a refrigerator at home--not to mention those massive walls of cold storage at the supermarket --a necessity. The food we buy comes from all over the world, partially because we demand greater variety than our great-great-grandparents, but more significantly because the cheapest places to grow produce, milk cows and slaughter chickens are quite often very far away from where those products are eventually consumed. Keeping all that food edible as it crosses land and sea on the way to your dinner table necessarily involves keeping it cold.

There is only one alternative, and it's a throwback to the days before the Monitor Top: Buy local. This might be perfectly plausible for farmers and environmentalists, but for average people, exclusively eating food grown within a 20-kilometre radius of your house is inconvenient and culinarily limiting.

"Nothing is as pure or natural as we'd like," writes Freidberg at the end of Fresh. This is very true -- who wouldn't want a glass of freshly milked milk and a couple of just-hatched eggs in the morning? Alas, those items aren't on the menu.

Refrigeration doesn't mean freshness -- not by a long shot. But at least it allows us to eat the food we want, when we want it. This is, I suppose, the next best thing to slapping a juicy steak cut from a newly slaughtered cow on the grill at supper time.

ygoldstein@nationalpost.com

How Canadian can you get?

The Finance Minister understates the deficit by $16 billion. Do we get mad?

Nah. The guy's doing his best. Let's give him another chance.

Canadian Press:

OTTAWA - Canadians appear to be willing to cut Finance Minister Jim Flaherty a little slack over his deficit shocker.

A Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll shows few Canadians think the
finance minister should resign just because he made a $16-billion
mistake on his deficit projection.

The survey of 1,000 people finds only 28 per cent who want Flaherty to
step down, while 59 per cent think he should stay on the job.

Even among Liberal supporters, 54 per cent don't think he should lose
his position because the budget deficit has ballooned to more than $50
billion - not the $34 billion predicted in the budget four months ago.

I have a total backlog of links on health care, foreign policy, and Sotomayor’s nomination, but honestly, I feel right now that I have to put much of my time to this domestic terrorism issue, so that Dr. Tiller’s assassination doesn’t just disappear in a mountain of news items, leaving people to forget about the ongoing threat that puts more health care workers and their patients in danger.  With that in mind, I have to address the ass-covering that’s going on with conservatives, Republicans, and their apologists on this issue, starting with James Kirchick of WSJ.  He’s pulling the “anti-abortion groups condemned the attack” bullshit, but this, while technically true, is a misleading statement.  They offered mealy-mouthed reminders that murder is a sin and, more importantly, a crime, and then they said that Dr. Tiller had it coming.  This was, over and over again, the line.  Bill O’Reilly’s excuse-making is a perfect example---he basically said the exact same things that “marginal” figure Randall Terry did.  I won’t put that horrible video up, but here’s Keith Olbermann discussing it:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

These are not condemnations.  Condemnations involve actually condemning what happened, not saying, “Glad he’s dead, too bad it had to be an illegal action that becomes a pain in our ass.”

But the excuse-making for domestic terrorists isn’t limited to claiming that half-hearted reminders that murder is illegal is enough to erase all the targeting of specific individuals for harassment and violence.  The other trick is to try to put distance between the extremists, who we’re told are few in number, and the rest of the conservative movement.  Kirchick:

The comparison between the religious right and Islamic extremists is invariably partisan so as to smear the GOP as being held hostage to forces as dangerous as Hamas or Hezbollah. “Even as the Bush administration denounces and battles Islamic religious zealotry abroad, fundamental Christian zealotry is taking hold here at home,” wrote Stephen Pizzo on the liberal Alternet Web site in 2004. On his popular HBO program, comedian Bill Maher frequently compares murderous Islamists to censorious Christians.

The notion that the GOP isn’t beholden to extremists and terrorist supporters is a laughable assertion.  They are scared to death to denounce anti-choice terrorism, and that fear goes straight up to the top.  Remember?

If anti-choice activists, even the most extreme, really do denounce terrorism in their name, then there’s absolutely zero reason for Republicans running for national office to fear calling terrorism what it is. But if Republicans feel that their base is largely supportive of terrorists---even if they won’t say so in public, then you get reactions like the one you see above.  Let’s not be childish and pretend that conservatives don’t have the in-group and out-group face.  That was one of the most important points of my post about the Justice For All handbook.  Let’s not pretend, for instance, that Eric Rudolph was so hard to catch because he had so much support in the areas he hid in that he was able to hide in people’s homes.

The extremists are running the show, and they don’t give a shit who they hurt, as long as they escape legal culpability.  It came out today that, contrary to Operation Rescue attempts to be like “Roeder? Roeder who?”, they actually knew who he was and a senior officer helpfully provided him with Dr. Tiller’s court schedule so he could stalk him.  She herself has done time for attempts to bomb a clinic.  When Roeder was arrested, he had her info on his dashboard.

Today, major anti-choice blogger Jill Stanek has helpfully put up information about two other abortion providers who specialize in 3rd trimester abortions.  She targeted Dr. Leroy Carhart, who has been an anti-choice nut favorite since he was the one who sued to revoke the misnamed Partial Birth Abortion Act, posting pictures of his offices ominously, along with information about his electrical systems and links to prior attempts to harass Dr. Carhart by finding excuses to sic the law on him for minor permit violations.  She also writes about Dr. Warren Hern, making special note of his security detail that would presumably make it much harder to attack him. 

It’s all within the letter of the law, with no direct threats or even addresses (outside of the city) posted, though the names of the clinics and the photographs should make that easy enough to get.  But while I’m sure she’ll swear innocence up and down, there’s no way around it---Jill Stanek is egging her readers on to harass individuals that she directly links to a man who was murdered by a “pro-lifer” 3 days ago.  This is the “non-violent” anti-choice movement.

I’m sure the excuse is to claim that Stanek is a marginal, irrelevant figure, despite her magazine cover interview with the American Life League, and the fact that hers is probably the most popular anti-choice blog run by an individual.  But Stanek played a major role in the 2008 election.  See, when Barack Obama was a state senator, Stanek was the driving force behind attempts to get the Born Alive Infant Protection Act passed, and she testified under questioning from then-senator Obama that she had seen hospitals kill already-born babies as a sort of post-birth elective abortion.  (I can’t find the transcripts, but I’ve seen them before, and they’re darkly funny, because she’s clearly full of shit and he’s clearly onto her, and she clearly hates it.) Obama then played a major force in getting the bill killed, because he correctly perceived that it was an attempt to ban abortions performed to save the life or the health of the mother.  (Stanek, through her myriad of delusions that make her an incredibly unreliable witness to anything, was most likely talking about an abortion technique called labor induction, which does not produce living infants, no matter what Stanek wants to believe, and is, no matter what Stanek claims, used in the 3rd trimester for strictly therapeutic reasons.) Which means that Obama crossed a crazy wingnut, and we all know that they’re so great at letting grudges go, right?

Naturally, Stanek was a busy bee in pushing the “Obama kills already born babies” line in 2008.  Remember that smear?  That was Jill Stanek’s smear.  That’s her life’s work, really, that smear.  Well, not the smear, but trying to get laws banning late term abortions passed under false pretenses.  I’m sure you remember it, just a little, because it came up in a major presidential debate.  That’s right---this “marginal” anti-choice activist community was able to get a question about their legend about born babies being killed into a major presidential debate.  Which, if you’ll recall, ended up fucking McCain over royally. 

Stanek isn’t that marginal if she can escalate bullshit that started with her up to a major presidential debate.

Now, as the past few days have shown, the belief that women are lying about their health complications in order to obtain those oh-so-pleasurable 3rd trimester abortions is complete and utter bullshit.  This belief is one that’s perpetuated by those “marginal” extremist right wing groups that occasionally cough up doctor shooters.  This belief is also held by major presidential candidate John McCain, who also sat by meekly while his VP candidate refused to call domestic terrorists what they are, because they’re so afraid of pissing off their base, who apparently likes clinic bombers too much to call them “terrorists”.

So, I ask you: How marginal are the extremist anti-choicers?  They have presidential candidates echoing their most outrageous lies.  They have presidential candidates living in fear of pissing them off.  They have so much power that they can get a question about their fantasy of doctors killing born babies asked in a major presidential debate. 

Liberals wish we could be that “marginal”.