I guess after teaching about lynching nearly every semester for the past 6 years I shouldn’t be surprised to know how ill informed people are about the practice of lynching. Ever since Clarence Thomas and his defenders claimed he was the victim of a “high tech lynching,” the term lynching has been misappropriated by politicians and other public figures. Thomas’s misappropriation of the term was a tremendous insult to the real victims of lynchings, who were tortured, beaten, castrated, burned, hung, and terrorized by huge mobs of whites. These mobs included white men, women, and children. Lynching was murder and torture as a public spectacle.

So when are people like Bill O’Reilly going to get this through their thick heads? On his radio show O’Reilly responded to a caller who alleged that Michelle Obama was a very angry and militant woman. Here’s the extended quote from Media Matters:

O’REILLY: You know, I have a lot of sympathy for Michelle Obama, for Bill Clinton, for all of these people. Bill Clinton, I have sympathy for him, because they’re thrown into a hopper where everybody is waiting for them to make a mistake, so that they can just go and bludgeon them. And, you know, Bill Clinton and I don’t agree on a lot of things, and I think I’ve made that clear over the years, but he’s trying to stick up for his wife, and every time the guy turns around, there’s another demagogue or another ideologue in his face trying to humiliate him because they’re rooting for Obama.

That’s wrong. And I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that’s how she really feels — that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever — then that’s legit. We’ll track it down.

In the beginning it sounds like O’Reilly is defending both Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama, but why did he have to add the lynching comment at the end? Either O’Reilly is a sick disgusting murderous bigot or he doesn’t have a clue what lynching is. I’d like to believe the latter. I’d like to believe that he hasn’t seen the pictures in the Without Sanctuary exhibit, and like most of my students he’s ill informed about what lynching is. Because if he isn’t ill informed, it would mean that he would want to be part of a group that tortures, kills, and mutilates, Michelle Obama, assuming he found “evidence” or “hard facts” that she was angry or militant.

It’s time to have a moratorium on people using the term lynching for anything short of killing and torturing people, whether or not it’s Clarence Thomas, Bill O’Reilly, or Golf Channel anchors. The misuse of the term lynching, whether intentional or unintentional, is a gross distortion of American history. Furthermore, the misuse and abuse of the term is an insult to the victims of lynching, as it understates how brutal, inhumane, depraved, and offensive this act is/was. Next time O’Reilly (and others) should educate himself (themselves), so he can find a less brutal and less racially loaded term.

Has anyone else found that the story of the mutilating gynecologist terrifies them beyond all proportion to the story? I am shocked by the vividness and durability of my reaction to it, given how inured I am to other news stories.

People in other threads commented that the article reads like a horror movie, and I think there’s good reason for that. This is the stuff of horror stories. And like horror stories, it functions by tapping into shared anxieties — in this case anxieties to which I think I am particularly vulnerable, as someone who has always been easily upset by things relating to health and medicine.

Still. I’m trying to remember the last time I felt haunted by a news story, to the extent that I felt nauseous and lines from it echoed in my head all day. I was pretty terrified by the anthrax scare right after 9/11 related to the reports of the “plume of white dust,” illogical as it was (I was close to the towers, and also 19 and stupid). It must have happened since then, but I can’t remember when.

I hate that my terror would no doubt satisfy the sociopathic gynecologist, but I’m not going to waste time berating myself for my visceral response.

Oh my fucking god. There are no words.

His name is Graeme Reeves. He was an OB-GYN. One of his patients wanted to have a small pre-cancerous lesion on her labia removed. As she slipped into unconsciousness from the anesthesia, he leaned in and whispered:

“I’m going to take your clitoris too.”Huh? I know it’s pointless to ask, but why???? Well, Graeme Reeves was not your garden variety Law & Order psychopath; he is a murderer who left dozens of women permanently injured. He removed their organs for no reason, he ignored the cancer growing inside a woman’s cervix for no reason, and way back before any of this, in 1996 he withheld antibiotics from a dying mother against the pleas of nurses so that she eventually died for NO. REASON. How the fuck did this happen? Was none of this considered to be a crime?

Well, uh, no. Graeme Reeves does not appear to be in jail. And although he is clearly a sick sick sick sick sick sicko, hundreds of colleagues managed not to see or notice anything about this behavior or reputation or files or employment history that warranted a second look. What is that about?

Via ginmar who should consider herself welcome to post in my threads.

From Lawyers, Guns and Money:

Prediction 1: If Obama wins the nomination and loses to McCain, Clinton supporters will angrily claim vindication, saying that it was obvious all along that Obama couldn’t win.

Prediction 2: If Clinton wins the nomination and loses to McCain, Obama supporters will angrily claim vindication, saying that it was obvious all along that Clinton couldn’t win.

Prediction 3: Whichever of prediction 1 or 2 comes to pass, the analysis therein will quickly take on the appearance of settled fact, such that two years down the line everyone will remember that it was obvious all along that Clinton/Obama couldn’t win.

To which I add Prediction 4: If Obama/Clinton wins, then two years down the line everyone will remember that it was obvious all along that McCain couldn’t win, and back in February 2008 no one was even considering the possibility that McCain could win.

Check it out.

From the Texas Supreme Court’s 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision regarding a Texas law which banned owning more than six sex toys:

“To determine the constitutional standard applicable to this claim, we must address what right is at stake. Plaintiffs claim that the right at stake is the individual’s substantive due process right to engage in private intimate conduct free from government intrusion. The State proposes a different right for the Plaintiffs: “the right to stimulate one’s genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship.”

Hilzoy points out that these sort of arguments about how to frame Constitutional questions come up all the time:

The Constitution does not mention Mormon Temple Garments, for instance, and it certainly does not explicitly grant a right to wear any particular style of underwear. But it does grant the right to freedom of religion, and absent some compelling state interest in regulating underwear, this means that Mormons have the right to wear their Temple Garments, however ludicrous questions like “do you mean to say that the right to wear a particular sort of underwear is guaranteed in the Constitution?” might sound. [...]

I mention this only because I’m tired of hearing arguments of the form: The Constitution does not mention X, so how can there be a constitutional right to X? (For X equal to: abortion, medicinal marijuana, etc., etc., etc.)

The Court didn’t buy the state’s framing, by the way, so any Texas readers should feel free to buy any number of sex toys today.

I wanted to point out an excellent collection of links at AngryBrownButch’s blog. She’s collected thoughtful pieces looking at Clinton’s notable (but shrinking) advantage among Latin@ voters.

Several of the links rebut the “Latinos won’t vote for blacks” common wisdom that’s been floating around. ABB’s links point out that historically, there have been many elections where Latinas and Latinos have voted strongly for black candidates; that “black” and “Latino” are not mutually exclusive; and that Clinton’s campaign simply did a much better job of outreach to the Latino community:

She has hired an independent Latino pollster and aired significantly more Spanish language radio and television ads. This must be contrasted with the Obama campaign’s anemic and particularly ineffective outreach effort to the Latino segment of the electorate.

Anyhow, well worth checking out.

Being a very lazy blogger (with a bunch of drawing deadlines), I’m going to just quote other bloggers (but I agree with their opinions). First, from Political Punch:

Earlier this month, speaking at Tulane University, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said this about the attacks coming his way from Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY:

“You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out,” Obama said.

The CLAWS come out? Really?

Then yesterday Obama told reporters who had asked about Clinton’s latest attack ad, “I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.” [...]

“Claws”…”feeling down”…I find it hard to envision Obama using the same language if he were facing, say, former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC.

From Faux Real:

…It’s about dismissing HRC with careless sexism. If you’ve never been told you are “ruled by your emotions” in a professional capacity, you probably wouldn’t get it either.

And in conclusion, from Too Sense:

…It’s hard for me not to read the subtext of this statement as “if you elect this woman, she’s going to act crazy every time she’s on the rag. You know how chicks are.” What does “feeling down” have to do with it? The two of them are competing for votes, so she’s launching attack ads. Why the fucking psychotherapy? [...]

…Neither candidate can afford to avoid appealing to white women. Obama needs their votes, and so it strikes me as completely stupid for him to deliberately piss them off, so I can’t imagine that he would do so deliberately. Because that would be, you know, really stupid.

That said, cut the shit Barack.

Thank you, XKCD, for being so very, very right. This is exactly how ‘it’ works.

I had to post this — it so nicely overlaps my political interests with my geekish side. Plus, I think Nichelle Nichols totally rocks.

It’s also an interesting reminder of how a character who is, looked at today, a glaring token (only woman cast member, only Black cast member, in a very subservient role) was nevertheless important and groundbreaking at the time.

Curtsy to Julian.

For the past couple weeks, I’ve been in an out of federal court for jury duty.  I went in last week, and told them I could serve because of two doctor’s appointments, so they told me to come back this week.  I spent two days in court, and after sitting in the jury box for two days, I got dismissed on a pre-emptory challenge, which basically means the lawyers for the state or for the defense were able to dismiss me without giving a reason.  Below is a little background on pre-emptory challenges; they are not without controversy, especially with regard to race and gender.  I found a nice description from this website.  Here is an excerpt:

During the selection of a jury, both parties to the proceeding may challenge prospective jurors for a lack of impartiality, known as a challenge for cause. A party may challenge an unlimited number of prospective jurors for cause. Parties also may exercise a limited number of peremptory challenges. These challenges permit a party to remove a prospective juror without giving a reason for the removal.

Peremptory challenges provide a more impartial and better qualified jury. Peremptory challenges allow an attorney to reject a potential juror for real or imagined partiality that would be difficult to demonstrate under the challenge for cause category. These challenges, however, have become more difficult to exercise because the U.S. Supreme Court has forbidden peremptory strikes based on race or gender.

Parties do not have a federal constitutional right to exercise peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are granted by statute or by case law. The number of challenges is usually determined by statute, but some jurisdictions allow the trial court to grant additional peremptory challenges. In federal court each side is entitled to three peremptory challenges. If more than two parties are involved in the proceeding, the court may either grant additional challenges or restrict the parties to the minimum number of challenges.

Peremptory challenges came under legal attack in the 1980s. Critics claimed that white prosecutors used their peremptory challenges to remove African Americans from the jury when the criminal defendant was also African American because the prosecutors thought that the potential jurors would be sympathetic to a member of their own race. This constituted racial discrimination and a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), prohibited prosecutors from excluding prospective jurors on the basis of race. Under the Batson test, a defendant may object to a prosecutor’s peremptory challenge. The prosecutor then must “come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors.” If the prosecutor cannot offer a neutral explanation, the court will not excuse the juror.

The Court extended this holding in criminal proceedings in two later cases. In Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S. Ct. 1364, 113 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1991), the Court broadened the Batson rule by stating that a defendant need not be of the same race as the excluded juror in order to successfully challenge the juror’s exclusion. In Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 112 S. Ct. 2348, 120 L. Ed. 2d 33 (1992), the Court held that the defense’s exercise of peremptory challenges to strike African American jurors on the basis of their race was equally forbidden. Previously, the court had ruled in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 111 S. Ct. 2077, 114 L. Ed. 2d 660 (1991), that in civil trials a private party could not exclude prospective jurors on account of their race by using peremptory challenges. This series of decisions makes any racial exclusion in jury selection constitutionally suspect.

The Supreme Court has also forbidden peremptory challenges based on gender. In J. E. B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127, 114 S. Ct. 1419, 128 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1994), the Court ruled that striking jurors on the basis of gender serves to perpetuate stereotypes that are prejudicial and based on historical discrimination. No overriding State Interest justified peremptory challenges on the basis of gender. Permitting gender-based strikes could also have undermined the Batson holding, because gender might be used as an excuse for racial discrimination.

In an extension of Batson, the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that the Equal Protection Clause barred the prosecutor from striking prospective jurors based on their religious affiliation. The court, in State v. Hodge, 726 A.2d 531 (Conn.1999), distinguished religious beliefs and religious affiliations. It held that litigants could strike prospective jurors whose religious beliefs would prevent them from performing their duties as jurors.

As usual, feel free to post whatever you want on this thread. Self-linking is encouraged.

Found on the interwebs:

(Thanks, Bean!)

Over at the Weekly Standard, Dean Barnett tries to downplay Obama’s speeches:

In spite of Obama’s obvious strengths in this area, questions linger regarding Obama’s gifted speechifying. Do his speeches give us a glimpse at a very special man with a unique vision? Or are we merely witnessing a political one-trick pony? Yes, Obama can turn a phrase better and do more with a Teleprompter than any other modern era politician. But does his special skill set here actually mean anything, or is it instead the political equivalent of a dog walking on its hind legs–unusual and riveting, but not especially significant?

1) I don’t think that Barnett is racist as Republicans understand the term “racist” (as far as I can tell, Republicans consider conservatives racist only if they join the KKK, and liberals racist only if they favor any program that might help people of color); I don’t know the man and can’t speculate about what he intends. But if this “Obama is like a trained dog” smear takes off among right-wingers, it’ll be because of its covert appeal to racism.

2) Obama isn’t as good speaking off the cuff as he is with a teleprompter; but that’s not because he’s substandard off the cuff, it’s because he’s off the fucking charts with a teleprompter. Obama’s been perfectly able to hold his own in debates, in interviews, and other occasions where he’s been talking without a script.

3) Even if it were true that Obama is terrible without a teleprompter — and it isn’t — so what? As John Cole at Balloon Juice points out, President Bush is mediocre with a teleprompter and disastrous without, yet he somehow managed to get elected. (Or close to elected.)

4) This attack isn’t going to fly. A good political smear should be time-consuming to rebut; it takes quite a bit of tedious explanation to prove that Gore didn’t claim to personally invent the internet, and that Kerry in fact was pretty brave in Vietnam.

In contrast, spend twenty seconds watching Obama on TV, and the “Obama is a dog walking on its hind legs” lie dies for everyone but the most hardcore reality-deniers.

If Obama wins the nomination, they’ll have to find a better lie to tag him with. Hmmn, what other quasi-racist criticisms could they throw up? I’m betting they try “lazy.”

[Edited for typos]