I wanted to share an interesting and thought provoking eye-opener about how the world might look if we represented it as 100 people. This idea was inspired by the writings of Donella Meadows, a woman who dedicated her activism to creating models of sustainability, and adapted into a web based mini-film by Allyson Lucca. Here’s a teaser excerpt:

If we could turn the population of the earth into a small community of 100 people, keeping the same proportions we have today, it would be something like this:

61 Asians
12 Europeans
14 Americans (from North and South America)
13 Africans
01 Australian (Oceania)

50 women
50 men

67 are not christian
33 are christian (Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox)

It’s definitely worth going to take a look at yourself.

Thanks to a friend who had been watching TV and come across a new documentary called ‘We Are Dad’, I recently became acquainted with a story of discrimination that is both heart-wrenching and inspiring. Perhaps some of you are already familiar with the case, but like myself, I’m sure some of you aren’t. At any rate, it’s worthy of shining the spotlight on it in hopes that more people will continue being vocal about the prejudices gays and their families face from the rabid right.

The story itself is about a gay couple Steven Lofton and Roger Croteau and their five HIV-positive foster children. In a recent article at Gay & Lesbian Times, the background of the story is given along with an interview of the director of ‘We are Dad’. Three of the children began their fostering in Florida, the prior residence of Lofton and Croteau before they made the cross country move to Portland, Oregon due to the need to be closer to Lofton’s elderly parents three years ago. Upon taking up residence, their family swelled to five children, though the three fostered out in Florida remained subject to the Florida laws and supervision.

Here’s where the story gets ugly. Apparently Bert, age 10, one of the three Florida children they have fostered since infancy has stopped testing positive for HIV, so Florida has deemed him adoptable. The kicker being that Florida is the only state that has a blanket ban on gay adoptive rights, which the Supreme Court has refused to consider:

On Jan. 10, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case of Lofton v. State of Florida, which challenged Florida’s ban on adoption by gay couples. The court declined by a 6-6 vote to reconsider an earlier 2-1 decision in 2004 by a three-member panel of the appeals court in Atlanta, Ga., which upheld the law. The ACLU, who filed challenge to the law in 1999, asked the Supreme Court to hear the appeal.

Florida is the only state with a blanket law prohibiting gays and lesbians from adopting children, and it stems from Anita Bryant’s 1977 “Save Our Children” campaign, which repealed the Dade County gay rights law. Bryant’s actions built an impetus against gay adoption in Florida.

Apparently to the people claiming to fight for ‘family values’, the only time it’s okay for children to be in long standing custodial supervision of gays is when the child is tainted with an ailment that makes them less normal. According to Lethimstay.com, a website dedicated to raising awareness of the struggles in the gay parenting community with regards to fostering and adoptions, it seems that since Bert is now a healthy adoptable child, the family that raised him is no longer suitable for him:

Every few weeks, a letter comes from the state, giving an update on the status of finding another family to adopt Bert. Because he no longer tests positive for HIV and is under the age of 14, Bert is deemed “adoptable.” Steve and Roger are legally prohibited from adopting him because of Florida’s ban. So the state continues its effort to find him another home, even though this is the only family he’s ever known…even though, like all five of the kids, he’s already home.

Anyways, I’d encourage people to take a look at this website and catch the documentary ‘We Are Dad’ if you can.

The BlogHer Con is taking place today! Be sure to check out the live blogging and chat!

Damn, but this is cool. I love recursive (or sort-of recursive) images. Via Crooked Timber (which also linked to the Zoomquilt, which “Alas” readers may remember from back in March, but if not you should look at that too!).

Far be it from me to proselytize for any religion, but I came across a unique and exciting movement that has entered the demand line for theory inclusion to battle it out against Evolution and Intelligent Design.

Apparently concerned Kansas citizen Bobby Harrison started out by writing a letter to the Kansas School Board and has since branched off into all out activism to vie for the inclusion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster universe creation theory. According to Bobby, the movement includes 10 million worldwide, and they are prepared to press the matter legally if need be:

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

One of the more interesting things about this particular worship group is the rather stringent dress code requirements necessary for proper respect to be shown in teaching this theory. Harrison explains that it is a necessity in order to avoid His wrath, and demonstrates through historical data how lack of compliance has affected society in the past:

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

Thus far, Harrison has received two responses from Kansas School Board member’s expressing their understanding of the gravity of the situation:

Response from Mrs. Sue Gamble - District 2 - Received 6/26/05
Date: Jun 26, 2005 6:34 PM
Subject: Reply

Dear Mr. Henderson, Thanks for your message. Thanks for the laugh. Your web site is fascinating. I will add your theory to a long list of alternative theories I intend to introduce when it is appropriate. I am practicing how to do this with a straight face which is difficult since it’s such a ridiculous subject; it is also very sad that we are even having the discussion.

I will be one of the four member minority who will be voting against the flawed science standards currently being proposed by the six member majority.

Sincerely, Sue Gamble

…

Response from Mrs. Janet Waugh - District 1 - Received 6/25/05
Date: Jun 25, 2005 6:34 AM
Subject: Response from a member of the Kansas Board of Education

Thanks for your comments about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all the supporters who have sent their support to members of the Kansas Board of Education. I am supporting the recommendations of the science committee and am currently in the minority. I think your theory is wonderful and possibly some of the majority members will be willing to support it.
Thanks again,

Janet Waugh

In closing, Shiver me timbers, matey, this could get ugly! Aarrrghh!

The more I hear men’s rights activists fulminating about the unfairness of child support, the more I wonder how typical my situation is, and whether there are any general lessons to be drawn about expectations of men and women when it comes to child-raising.

My relationship with the father of my child ran into difficulties before my pregnancy was even confirmed. Initially, we hoped to live together, but it quickly became clear that there were too many barriers, both logistical and emotional, for this to be a viable possibility, at least for a few years. I did some research into the rights and obligations of a non-custodial parent and found that although I would be entitled to a certain level of support as a custodial parent, I wasn’t legally obliged to demand it.

I had no desire to take him for every penny I could get: he was someone I cared deeply about but couldn’t live with. Since bearing and raising a child would affect my ability to work, and since I hoped he would want to see his child well cared-for, I envisaged a compromise whereby he made voluntary support payments and was in other ways an active father.

I reckoned without his stubbornness and commitment to traditional family structures. He informed me that it would be better for the child if he was in no way involved, since this would free me up to find a stepfather I could live with and build an approximation of a traditional family. That I have emotional problems that would make the search for a stepfather the worst possible fate I could inflict on myself or the child did not enter into his thinking: the child needed two parents who lived together, and since we couldn’t provide that, he didn’t want to be involved.

Later, he tried to soften that approach by saying that we lived too far apart to make visitation practical. If I lived closer to him, he suggested, it would be far easier to work something out. When I finally ended the relationship, he said that he’d hoped we would be able to find a solution, although I’m not sure what that solution should have been. I can only assume it would have involved my seeing the light and moving halfway across the country to live close to someone who had proved himself incapable of respecting anything about me that he didn’t agree with.

When I look back over the uglier arguments, I’m struck by how often he tried to put both blame and responsibility on me for the fact that he’d fathered a child without being ready for fatherhood. My explanation that I hoped to get pregnant was rendered meaningless by my statement that I’m committed to a woman’s right to choose. That I told him I wasn’t using any birth control wasn’t enough: I should also have told him the date of my last menstrual period. He believes that a child needs a father figure on the spot, therefore I had to enter another relationship despite my own understanding of myself.

I’ve also been told by family members that I’m not being fair to him and should have done more to make the relationship work. I don’t know what more I could have done without sacrificing my self-esteem and my plans for the future on the altar of his personal convenience, but I suspect that is a sacrifice I was expected to make. Not for him, of course, but for the child. It would be equally reasonable to expect him to move halfway across the country to be closer to me, but no-one is demanding that. Because I have no job to leave? Because I’m a woman? Because all my reasons for not wanting to move have been sifted through the mesh of rationality and found wanting?

The bottom line is that we both made a choice when we engaged in unprotected sex, and that choice has consequences for both of us. I go through the discomforts and dangers of pregnancy and childbirth and have the joyful but heavy responsibility of a child at the end of it. He has to pay a percentage of his income to support the child.

And yet he’s the one who feels treated unfairly.

Too much drawing for me to post much today, but I did want to point out two threads on Family Scholars Blog.

First, check out this thread about a 22-year-old man who tried to marry his pregnant, 13-year-old girlfriend but got charged with statutory rape instead. What’s interesting is that one of the frequent anti-SSM comment-writers there is arguing that SSM is actually more despicable than this man’s statutory rape of a 13 year old. (Thanks to Josh Jasper for pointing this one out to me.)

Secondly, check out this thread, in which various anti-SSM folks argue that it’s not discrimination for doctors to refuse to administer artificial insemination to a woman because she’s a lesbian. (I couldn’t resist posting on this thread myself).

This post was removed by request of the author.

(This is a slightly edited version of a post that first appeared on The Iron-On Line)

Complete the following: “A mother is…”

a) An embodiment of what it means to be feminine.
b) Someone who gives birth.
c) A female parent.

Depending on the context, b) or c) could be the appropriate response. c) includes adoptive mothers, which I think makes it a better fit to what we usually understand by the term, but it’s not hard to think of a context where b) would be a better fit.

I’m very suspicious of a). The linking of motherhood and femininity is so intrinsic in some people’s minds that it seems insane to question it, but I’m questioning it. Motherhood as an ideal is only linked to femininity as an ideal because our culture has defined it thus. And therein lies the danger.

Some of the most painful emotional abuse I’ve suffered in relationships has come from men who see their mothers as goddesses on lofty pedastals. They respect women only to the extent that these women match the divine example set by their mothers. Any deviation from this, and the respect vanishes.

That’s the harm on an individual scale. On a cultural scale, the idea that any woman who is a fit mother will automatically be classically feminine hurts every woman who struggles to fit into the mould. Women who choose not to become mothers are seen as denying their femininity, hence the ubiquitous question, “But aren’t you worried you’ll be unfulfilled?” Women who are incapable of bearing children are objects of pity.

For those who choose motherhood but reject classical femininity, the world’s judgement can be even harsher. If a woman raises a child alone, whether through choice or acceptance of necessity, she cannot be classically feminine enough to satisfy certain groups. “Children need fathers” not just to provide them with positive male role models, so the logic goes, but also to protect their mothers from having their femininity - and therefore their motherhood - eroded by adapting to the practicalities of life.

And why is it so horrifying to consider a lesbian having a child by artificial insemination? Or even - God forbid - a trans man giving birth? It attacks the link between femininity and motherhood; it calls into question whether this link is really as intrinsic as it once seemed. And that’s an uncomfortable line of thought to go down; far easier to say that “those people” shouldn’t be allowed to have children.

When I first started to explore the question of gender identity in my fiction, I was drawn to the idea of an amazon-mother, a woman so masculine that her motherhood becomes masculine by contact with it. It has always fascinated me, and I’m sure it will continue to fascinate me as I move up into this category myself. Come November, barring miscarriage or other disaster, I will be a mother in sense b). To the extent that I’m female, I’ll also be a mother in sense c), although I probably won’t be in a hurry to pin that label on myself any more than I use any other female-specific label.

I will not be a mother in sense a). For the sake of my sanity and the sake of my baby, I’ll save my energy for the tasks that are not futile from the outset.

So I’ve been following the Roberts debate, as has the majority of the blogosphere with interest. I had to laugh when I came across an interview of Rick Santorum conducted by CNN Anchor Aaron Brown in which Santorum hotly contests the notion that Roberts should be obligated to answer any questions on Roe v. Wade. He invokes fairness as the reasoning:

BROWN: I saw a poll the other day that said 60 percent of the country wanted to know how Judge Roberts felt about Roe v Wade. It’s a settled case. Do you think the country’s entitled to know whether he believes that that case was decided correctly?

SANTORUM: You know my feeling is, you have to look at the standard of what’s been applied in the past. And what judges in the past have been forced to answer is, you know, how they felt about, you know, sort of the black letter law, if you will. Not really looking at, how would you rule in cases…

BROWN: I’m not asking how you’d rule. This is a settled case. Roe v Wade is a settled case, it is settled. Is this a fair question, do you agree that that case was settled correctly? Is that a fair question to ask him?

SANTORUM: Well, let me put it this way. That question was asked of Judge Ginsberg, it was asked of Judge Breyer and neither of them answered the question.

BROWN: So the answer is no you don’t think the country is entitled…

SANTORUM: Well I think, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I mean, it’s remarkable that we have an ACLU lawyer, not just someone who — I mean, an ACLU lawyer who gets a pass on their ideology for the United States Senate and we have a lawyer who is really a lawyer’s lawyer, he’s been all over the place, is clearly not someone with an agenda and all of a sudden they have to answer litmus test kinds of questions. Is that fair? I would say it’s not fair.

BROWN: All I want to know is if — it’s really a simple question.

SANTORUM: I’m giving you the answer. The answer is no. If it wasn’t answered in the past, it shouldn’t be answered in the future.

Well, to an extent this seemed reasonable - why after all should we hold SCOTUS nominee’s to different standards with regards to questioning when it comes to divisive issues. But then I came across several posts of outrage, that indicated Ginsburg and Breyer had both answered the question in a way that allowed for some transparency (especially in the case of Ginsburg). I had to do some digging, but I found two interesting things - first of all, it seems that the Federalist Society is championing their amnesiac brother, Roberts. They have published an attack based breakdown of the Ginsburg hearing, coupling it with talking/arguing points that the conservatives might be able to use in order to shield Roberts from answering any questions put to him, as well as omitting the answers she gave that might prove detrimental should he answer them with the same candor she did .

Thankfully I was able to find the testimony that the Federalist Society omitted on her responses during her senate hearings to the issue of abortion at Issues2000.org:

Senator Hank Brown asked Ginsburg about equal rights for men and women on the question of abortion.

Ginsburg: I will rest my answer on the Casey decision, which says in the end it’s her body, her life, and men - to that extent - are not similarly situated. They don’t bear the child.

Brown then asked her to explain further about whether the rights of men and women are not equal in this case.

Ginsburg: I said on the equality side of it, that it is essential to a woman’s equality with man that she be the decision-maker, that her choice be controlling. If you impose restraints, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.. The state controlling a woman would mean denying her full autonomy and full equality.

Breyer was vague and called it ’settled law’, which implied at least that he personally had no desire for it to be revisited. Quite honestly, I’d have liked more transparency, but then again Breyer didn’t have the same questionable background issues regarding this particular issue of ’settled law’ that Roberts does.

Ultimately it showed me that this in fact was considered not only a valid line of questioning, but also worthy of weight with regards to the Senatorial hearings, and their conclusions of particular nominee’s. With regards to the other answers Ginsburg refused to entertain or answered in a general manner, the responses also included detailed explanations of why her answers were thus.

In some questions regarding Antitrust issues, she indicated non-expertise having only 12 of such cases under her belt, but then offered further explanation on a particular case to give an example of her beliefs. This hardly constitutes an example of her attempting to stymie the process of fact finding.

Consistently she attempted to be specific to give ideas of her general ideology without addressing cases that as she stated were slated on the current or potential dockets.

While conservatives are attempting to paint a similar picture, what seems stunningly evident to me is that her answers were not so much evasions, like Roberts, but instead attempts to answer with transparency while respecting the integrity of the system. That’s my interpretation, at any rate.

This post was removed by request of the author.

From Wonkette:

…We’re shocked at how little it took for our observation about Roberts’ wrestling/drag career to morph from “heh-heh” to “HEL-LOOO, MARY!” We’re been trying to get people to buy Bush as a dog-fucker for years and Powerline has yet to write an outraged editorial.

Okay, serious now: We don’t actually think Roberts is gay. We totally wish he was, though! Someone needs to keep Souter company.

As you’ve no doubt noticed, I’m experimenting with ads on the sidebar of “Alas.” I’m trying this out with a lot of trepidation. But here’s what it comes down to:

An interesting article on Women’s E News argues that, once Justice Roberts joins the court, Justice Kennedy will become the most important abortion rights vote - the one that other justices will have to sway. Kennedy has been pro-Roe in recent years, but he was with the 4-5 minority that voted to allow states to ban vaguely-defined “partial birth” abortions, even when they were necessary to preserve a women’s health.

At the end, E News touches briefly - far too briefly - on the most important legal challenge to abortion rights facing the Supreme Court:

Also to be reviewed [by the Court later this year] is the basis upon which women’s advocates may challenge anti-choice laws, an important issue for keeping open the courthouse doors when burdensome restrictions are passed.

I wish they had spent more time discussing this. If the Court decides to apply “the Salerno standard” to abortion cases, it will become ten times harder for pro-choice organizations to fight new abortion bans and restrictions in the courts. Even an obviously unconstitutional abortion ban might remain good law for many years while court cases drag on, enabling pro-lifers to effectively ban abortion in far more cases than they currently can.

This is what Jack Balkin was referring to when he wrote “Courts now enjoin new abortion laws as soon as they are passed if they burden some women’s right to abortion. But next term the court will decide whether to change that rule. If it does, states could pass stringent restrictions on abortion; these could remain on the books for years until lawsuits knock away the most blatantly unconstitutional features. That is not the same as overturning Roe v. Wade, but its practical effect is very similar.”

It may be a mistake that so many pro-choicers, when discussing the Supreme Court and abortion, are talking about the future of Roe and Casey. Until Justice Kennedy radically changed his views, or Ginsberg or Stephens unexpectedly retires, Roe is safe - but that doesn’t mean that practical access to abortion is being upheld by the Court. The much more immediate danger is that no one has any idea how Kennedy or Roberts will vote on applying the Salerno standard to abortion cases.

Stereotypes are alive and well in the New York Times:

“Wicked” - which is a prequel and a sequel to “Oz,” both rarities in the theater despite their ubiquity in Hollywood - remains perfectly pitched to teenagers. For that, much credit goes to the book writer, Winnie Holzman, who created the cult 1990’s television series “My So-Called Life,” an unlikely predecessor for “Wicked” that also tapped into a certain kind of teenage angst that seemed refreshingly authentic at the time.

With “Wicked,” she has once again hit upon themes (makeovers, popularity, boys) that obsess girls.

Gee, if only “Wicked” had included tea parties with dolls or had colored everything pink. Or maybe had included a few songs about makeup and hair. Or had more horses - girls like horses, right? Then it would have been even bigger with teen girls!

There is indeed a makeover scene, and a boy, in “Wicked.” But it’s the grand (and yes, angsty) themes of the star-crossed friendship between two strong female characters, and a tragicly misunderstood, doomed main character, that appeals to so many teen girls. (How many modern musicals make a female friendship the center of the plot? Hell, how many even have two strong female characters? I don’t think it’s a puzzle that “Wicked” is more popular with teen girls than other musicals).

The makeover song, “Popular,” is funny and whimsical, and I don’t doubt that a lot of teen girls liked it (I did). But putting “Wicked’s” popularity down to makeovers and boys is a way of trivializing the interests of teen girls. The implication is that teen girls are too scatterbrained and silly to be attracted to themes like tragedy and friendship, even when those themes are obviously at the center of the musical; they must be going to “Wicked” for the makeover scene. Sheesh!

Via Brutal Women, I found some fascinating information about “Jane”, the Abortion Counseling Service which helped women obtain abortions in pre-Roe days.

What struck me most was the way women working for Jane could be emotionally and philosophically disturbed by the human appearance of the fetuses they removed, could consider abortion to be some kind of excusable homicide, and could still be so committed to letting women make the choice themselves that they were willing to break the law to make it possible.

[None of the quoted snippits in this post were written by me; they’re all from essays or posts I thought were interesting, found on other websites.]

• The Gimp Parade on John Roberts and Disability Rights: In 2001, Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick presented a clear and pithy summary of the arguments before the Court, where thanks to Roberts it was concluded that the loss of a job due to severe work-related repetitive stress injury does not qualify someone for coverage under the ADA. Despite carpal tunnel syndrome and tendonitis resulting in “lumps the size of a hen’s egg in [her] wrists, and [her] hands and fingers… curled up like animal claws,” the Court ruled that plaintiff Ella Williams was not disabled because of Robert’s legal arguments: “She can brush her teeth, wash, bathe, do laundry and cook breakfast. She can take care of personal chores around the house. [Her wrist injury] is only a problem at work.”
• Jack Balkin on Justice Roberts and abortion: …Replacing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor with Roberts is likely to mean the Supreme Court will uphold many more laws restricting abortion. The list of such laws is endless, ranging from partial birth abortion bans to limits on abortions for minors. Courts now enjoin new abortion laws as soon as they are passed if they burden some women’s right to abortion. But next term the court will decide whether to change that rule. If it does, states could pass stringent restrictions on abortion; these could remain on the books for years until lawsuits knock away the most blatantly unconstitutional features. That is not the same as overturning Roe v. Wade, but its practical effect is very similar. (Via Dispatches).
• Ed at Dispatches From The Culture Wars on the Supreme Court confirmation process: Not only do I want to know the answers to those questions, I think nominees have an obligation to answer them in front of the entire nation. They are asking to be given a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court where their decisions will have more of an impact on our lives and our liberty than virtually any other body in the world. Our liberty is in their hands and they have an obligation to tell us what they intend to do with it before we give that power to them. I don’t want to hear that the nominee is kind, decent, trustworthy, thrifty and brave. I want to hear what they would do with their almost unbridled power to interpret the Constitution because that document is the backbone of American liberty. And any Senator who does not ask such questions shouldn’t be in office. The problem is not that the Senate explores a nominee’s ideology, it’s that they generally do so dishonestly and badly and only in the service of their own political interests.
• Russel Sadler: The Northwest timber industry and its industrial foresters have never forgiven Dr. Jerry Franklin for methodically dismantling their cherished orthodoxy. Until the 1980s, industrial foresters were taught that old growth forests were “dead, dying and decadent.” Old growth forests were “biological deserts” that had to be cut down before they burned down and replaced by “healthy, vigorous young forests.”
• Sara Butler, reviewing the book Taking Sex Differences Seriously: One doesn’t have to be a believer in feminist ideology to be a little skeptical of a theory that automatically gives men a certain degree of freedom from nature that women do not have. According to this line of thought, sexual chastity does not come naturally to men, so we shouldn’t be all that surprised when they fail. Women, however, are supposed to have nature on their side; if they still insist on being sexually active, even promiscuous, they must be really awful…much more depraved then their male counterparts who behave the same way.
• The Mighty Middle on Democrats: This is where you’ve brought us. Roe is going down. The Holy Fucking Grail is going down. Get used to it. Saladin is taking Jerusalem back from you. The other side won, you lost, and you know why you lost? Because you are deeply stupid people. Your favorite perjorative for Mr. Bush: stupid. And yet, he’s the one in charge, despite everything, despite the fact that he is one of the worst presidents in American history, he’s in the driver’s seat and you are standing on the fucking curb holding a sign that says “Will Organize For Food.” You’re sitting in your war rooms writing up your talking points, passing you memos back and forth and all of it is like some Twilight Zone episode where you’re dead and don’t know it. Cue Rod Serling: Consider the Democrats.

  Shyamalan on Politics: “I see dead people.” “No, those are Democrats.”

• Brutal Women on the latest Star Wars flick: In fact, every scene Padme is in, she’s sitting on a couch or standing at a window or standing on the balcony staring blankly at something, pregnant, (because everyone knows pregnant women live like invalids) waiting for the scene to start. Waiting for Anakin or some Jedi to come in and break up her staring-at-the-wall reverie. Natalie Portman checked out of this movie a long time ago. And who can blame her? It was utterly obvious from the writing that she was only there as a peice of scenery. Her hair and clothes changed drastically with every scene; she was a walking, talking set peice.
• Mark Grabor on conservative judicial activism: President Bush demonstrate his usual capacity for double-speak last night when he praised Judge John Roberts as a jurist who would “not legislate from the bench.” As note on this blog and more extensively in Keck, THE MOST ACTIVIST SUPREME COURT IN HISTORY (mandatory reading during the confirmation hearings), the Rehnquist Court does nothing but “legislate from the bench” with Justices Thomas and Scalia being the most active judicial legislators. Consider the numerous areas in which they impose or would impose limits on state and federal officials…

This post was removed by request of the author.

The Smegmaster thinks we’re a bunch of idiots. However, Just Between Strangers thinks Nick is cool (and I’m sure we all agree!). And Moosk at Elegy to Lost Youth takes a look at Sydney and decides it’s time to get knocked up.

Okay, first go and look at this New York Times profile of John Roberts, making sure to look at the accompanying slideshow of photos. Note the plaid pants.

Did you get the impression that the Times is trying to imply that Roberts is gay? I didn’t, either. But check out what right-wing alpha-blog Powerline says:

They Were Already Beneath Contempt…

…but now some Democrats have sunk lower. They are hinting that John Roberts is a homosexual because he was once photographed–more than thirty years ago–wearing plaid pants. You think I’m making this up?

Well, I kinda think they are making it up, in a groupthink/urban myth sort of way.

Ann Althouse, who is usually much more sane than this, also sees homo-baiting in the Times‘ portrait of Roberts:

I do think the NYT piece was subtly constructed to plant this idea. Just look at the series of photographs they chose: young John in plaid pants, young John with his boys’ school pals, young John in a wrestling suit with his fellow wrestlers, John with footballers, and — the final pic — John smiling in an all-male wedding photograph.

I’m sorry, but which of these things does Ann think implies gayness? Plaid pants? Having boyhood pals? Wrestling and football? Being a groomsman? Thank goodness Ann is (I think) straight, because her gaydar sucks.

As I said in the comments of Ann’s follow-up post (in which she backed away from her initial claim a bit), there’s no point in paying any attention to conservative critiques of the Times anymore. No matter how innocent the Times is, conservatives (and even some conservative-friendly moderates like Ann) will find malice in what the Times does - no matter how ludicrous they’re being, and no matter how little evidence they have. The Times could print “Bush nominee is a saint” and someone like Ann would find malice hidden in it. (”Saints? A lot of the saints were killed! I do think the Times headline was subtly constructed to suggest that Roberts should be murdered.”)

This wacky thinking appears to be widespread in the righty blogsphere; check out how many trackbacks this post on Reasoned Audacity got. (Link via Unfogged). Unbelievably, they believe this crap.

Marty Schwimmer has a good post on this - “Anatomy of a Rumour” - showing how Wonkette’s joke became serious claims that liberals think that someone who wears plaid pants is gay.

P.S. I did find one line in the Times piece odd - they noted that, in his high school yearbook, Roberts is credited with playing Peppermint Patty in the school production of “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown.” What’s even odder than the cross-gender casting, is that the character of Peppermint Patty doesn’t even appear in “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown.” Maybe this was an in-joke between the yearbook editors and Roberts? [Edited to add - then again, maybe she did appear. See Robert’s correction in the comments.]

P.P.S. (added later): It’s pretty funny to compare Powerline’s “no low too low for them” view of Democrats with how Democrats view themselves.