Tiller's Clinic Closed

Linking to this AP piece, Charles at Little Green Footballs asks:

Does anti-abortion terrorism actually work in America?

A chilling question, yes?

From the AP piece:

Dr. Warren Hern, one of the few remaining doctors in the country who performs late-term abortions, said the closure of the clinic was an "outrage" and he feels the loss for Dr. Tiller's family and the patients he served.

"How tragic, how tragic," Hern said when contacted by phone at his Boulder, Colo., clinic. "This is what they want, they've been wanting this for 35 years."

Asked whether he felt efforts should be made to keep the clinic open, he said: "This was Dr. Tiller's clinic. How much can you resist this kind of violence? What doctor, what reasonable doctor would work there? Where does it stop?"

A bit further down:

Hern blamed comments from anti-abortion groups for Tiller's death.

"The anti-abortion fanatics have to shut up and go home. They have to back off and they have to respect other people's point of view. This is an outrage, this is a national outrage

Meanwhile, back in crazy-fucktard-town:

Randall Terry, the founder of the original Operation Rescue group, responded to news that Tiller's clinic would remain closed with, "Good riddance." He said history would remember Tiller's clinic as it remembers Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps.

"What set him apart is that he killed late-term babies," Terry said. "If his replacement was going to continue to kill late-term children, the protests would continue, the investigations would continue, the indictments would continue."

And so here we are.

"Don't Blame O'Reilly": A Pro-Choice Advocate Reminds Us That Media Do Not Yell "Fire!" in Movie Theaters

Yesterday, Helen Searls had a compelling rhetorical treatment of the Tiller murder, as well as of the nature of how America handles the abortion debate more generally. Making her own pro-choice proclivities very clear, Searls takes shots at Andrew Sullivan Daily Kos, pundits on MSNBC, and many of us in the unwashed blogosphere for over-reaching in laying blame for acts of anti-abortion violence at the mantle of its most vitriolic talkers.

But, Searls' take is also very different from those who throw in totally with the free will position, or the idea that this was the action of a lone loon.

Bloggers like Jill Filipovic are quite wrong to make an analogy between O’Reilly’s rhetoric and the shouting of ‘Fire!’ in a croweded theatre. The point about the overused ‘Fire!’ example is that in a crowded theatre there is no time to think: if someone shouts, everyone runs, as there’s no time for debate or reasoned inquiry into the nature of the fire or the truth of the claim. The link between words and actions becomes blurred in this one, exceptionally rare instance.

In contrast, when O’Reilly says stuff on his show, there is every opportunity to question and challenge his claims. TV is not a panicked atmosphere but a media outlet, where the audience hears things, weighs them up, and decides whether to agree or disagree. Far from calling for anti-abortion activists to ‘mind their language’, their often crass remarks should be seen as an opportunity to meet fire with fire, to counter their claims with more compelling arguments and opinions. Far from needing less talk about abortion, we need more. Things might have turned out differently if O’Reilly’s arguments had provoked a robust public debate about why women need people like Dr Tiller and access to late-term abortions

Much to chew on here. It is certainly true that Pro Choice advocacy in the United States has grown increasingly timid, and in some ways has altogether disappeared (occasional soundbites in favor of the principles of privacy and choice notwithstanding) from the rhetoric of leaders within the Democratic Party. This unwillingness to meet the anti-abortion arguments directly, on the rhetorical battlefield in the public square, very much extends to President Obama, as Searls notes:

But sadly, for too long the question of late-term abortion has been treated as a highly sensitive, even embarrassing issue by many pro-choice activists. And pro-choice politicians do not consider late-term abortion a good subject for public discussion. As President Barack Obama’s speech at Notre Dame University demonstrated, pro-choice politicians are keen to avoid the substantive issues in the abortion debate whenever possible.

But if the pro-choice lobby stays quiet on this issue, it will effectively vacate the public arena and allow people like O’Reilly to barge in and take the alleged moral highground; shamefacedness about late-term abortion allows anti-abortion campaigners to see it and treat it as, well, something shameful. In such a climate, it is little wonder that individuals like Dr Tiller were so effectively demonised. Late-term abortion should not be a dirty little secret never raised in polite society. It should be openly discussed and rationally understood. There are many very sound reasons why women need to have access to late-term abortion services, and there should be no shame in defending them.


It is a tragedy that it has taken the brutal murder of a decent and compassionate man to remind us why so many women turn to people like Dr Tiller for help. O’Reilly has been banging on about Tiller for years, but it is only now that we are beginning to hear the other side of Tiller’s story - a story about a brave doctor who believed passionately in defending women’s reproductive rights. This was the real Dr Tiller, who was seen by many of his patients as something like a knight in shining armour.

In the wake of the Bush Administration, many of us have been gladdened and relieved at Obama's central strategy of seeking to "tone down" the culture wars. We do not want things to escalate to violence, after all, and there are pressing matters such as health care and North Korea and Harrogate's student loan debt to worry about. But at the same time, if one side refuses to tone down the culture war, then does the other essentially cede all the important Rhetorical Ground, by confining engagement to asking everyone to get along?


Questions of responsibility for Tiller's murder aside, In Harrogate's view, Searls is dead-on right in her premise that our wish to avoid vociferously defending abortion rights in the public square has been exposed as a totally ineffective approach.

How do you fight inflammatory speech? Not by shutting it down, not by asking the speakers to chill, and also not by ignoring it. Fight it with reasonable, but vociferous and bold speech of your own. We all need to realize that the Culture Wars have not gone away, have not been toned down in the United States---nor will they anytime soon.

Police State 101: Amy Goodman at the RNC

From Talk Left: Police Arrested Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now, at the RNC. She was charged with "conspiracy to riot."

There is video of the footage.


This is what democracy looks like.

Maverick Politics: Ending the War

And the bankrupt intellectual tradition continues.

Over at The Weekly Standard, the Neo-Cons rejoice with glee over the Palin nomination, which makes as much sense as the nomination itself. "She turned me into a Newt" Gingrich states that this pick represents the "authenticity" that Obama-Biden does not as she relates to the common people since she played basketball, hunts, and is a hockey mom; she reformed Alaska, even as Troopergate hangs over her head. Read: she is a real religious conservative.

Stephen F. Hayes writes how unconventional the pick is. And when you think about it, the selection of a white, evangelical, Pro-Life, anti same-sex marriage, hunter is a very unconventional pick for a Republican. McCain could have selected Joe Lieberman, a Pro-Choice, Jewish Democrat-- a pick that would have challenged the Religious Right and the Conservative base and still made "sense" in terms of the War on Terror, remember that? However, as you can see, McCain bucked tradition with the selection of Palin, to advance its own form of identity politics. But this time it is better because she's a woman; her family represents her faith.

Rather than select Romney, wait the base would not approve of that choice. Rather than select Pawlenty, which would fulfill the desires of the base and nomiate someone who is known nationally, he chose Palin, a person that McCain met with only once before she was vetted. I wonder...I know it is for Palin's support, no rejection, no her keeping of money even though she eventually would not support the "Bridge to Nowhere." Nope, it is solely to attract the "Hillary" voters. And the best way to attract these voters is not to offer them policies they desire or represent their interests, but to nominate a woman.

Next on the list is William "more sophist than Plato" Kristol. He writes that in opposing the Pick of Palin, "liberals" will, "appeal, sometimes explicitly, to anti-small town and anti-religious prejudice. All of this will be in the cause of trying to prevent the American people from arriving at their own judgment of Sarah Palin." Kristol may be correct on this as there is absolutely nothing else on which to criticize. Since she has very little experience and there are few examples in which we can question her judgment, though Troopergate comes to mind, we can only wonder if she speaks in tongues and why conservatives believe religious tests are necessary for office.

Strangely enough, I must have missed the part where Kristol discussed her judgment to lead the country during the War on Terror and how her qualities represent that judgment. It must have been on the third page of a two page article.

Only Charles "I want war and I want it now" Krauthammer questions the pick because it ends the "is Obama ready to lead" argument.

The more I think of this pick, the more I despise the pick, especially the way in which the Republicans have destroyed the country since March of 2003. This pick is a symbolic end to the war on terror as it admits that judgment on foreign policy is not necessary as a prerequisite for office. This pick means that the existential threat of terrorism matters only in relation to winning an election. This pick means that the religious qualification is more important that knowing something about Iraq and Islam. There is no legitimate argument for the War on Terror if your number two person expresses no judgment on how to conduct the war and, consequently would not be able to conduct the war from day one. Appease the base and G-d will provide, I guess. Non-Republicans knew this, even if independents were to scared to vote for a Non-Republican. But this selection is more banal than banal; it represents the failure of War on Terror as it argues for how unnecessary it actually is.

The Neo-Cons love the pick because they know with McCain and Palin they will have two empty vessels to fill with noble lies; two people with no knowledge on the difference between a Shia and Sunni; two people that will follow ideological pursuits regardless of empirical consequences. Like they did with the Bush administration, the NeoCons can rely on the executive to make the world safe for Democracy even if spreading Democracy occurs from the barrel of a gun. This is the consequence of religious tests, faith-based realism, and the noble lie. This is what happens when education concerns whether or not there is prayer in public school rather than understanding the world.

And they way in which McCain is using Palin to advance an argument seriously disrespects Palin and reveals an arrogance that is unmatched. For McCain, Palin represents the argument if you object to a VP because of little experience you must then object to a President. Judgment does not matter for the presidency, only experience in terms of who has been elected the most, right President Lincoln? No matter how many errors, no matter how lapses in judgment or ethics, no matter how many of John McCain's laws get struck down by the Supreme Court for violating constitutional standards, experience to some is the most important qualification. Even though it is almost impossible to vote an incumbent out of office and experience refers only to time in office, "experience" still matters to people as if it is self-evident qualification for office.

If Palin does not bring votes because she is a woman and does not energize the Religious Right because she speaks in tongues, then the inexperience that she represents may help diminish votes from Obama. This demeans Palin- you bring very little to the ticket except for conservative identity politics and the possibility you can attract "Hillary" voters. Affirmative action in the face of racial discrimination is one thing. This is a Religious Right Legacy Nomination, which is similar to a legacy admission for college, an affirmative action policy that conservatives ignore as it helps them.

This is another sign the McCain lacks the judgment to be president and, most likely, lacks the judgment necessary to be a US Senator. The election of McCain represents an existential crisis for this country. Even President Bush showed some limits; McCain has yet to show any limits. He will contradict his "honor" to win an election no matter how devastating it is for the county.

And just think, his motto is "Country First." The selection of Palin is a rejection of Country First. It is McCain first, as it always is.

In a sense, McCain is a maverick. Yet, it is not because he selected a woman; it is not because he selected an "authentic" member of the Religious Right. McCain is a maverick because he undercuts the War on Terror and the reason for his nomination in the first place. For a temporary increase in enthusiasm, he selects someone he undercuts McCain's argument for being a president in the first place.

It may just be the economy, stupid.