Second Presidential Debate

As an Obama supporter, I was relieved that he did better in this debate and fought back on Romney's lies and misrepresentations. 

I thought Obama did well, but not as well as the pundits seem to think. For one thing, he could have done a much better job of tying Romney to the far right positions he's taken during the primary season. He could have done a better job of pointing out Romney's flip flops over the years as evidence that Romney seems to have no core beliefs and will likely be a pawn of the far right if he's elected President. Additionally, he didn't distill down the Republican position the way Biden did: given their history, who do you trust?  I also thought Obama had a tendency to be defensive about his administration rather than telling us what he would actually do in the next four years. What's Obama going to do differently if he gets re-elected? We don't know.

Following up on that, Romney's best moments were when he pointed out that Obama has had four years and hasn't improved things, that the economy is still not doing well.  However, I thought Romney came off as a bully. He started right off the bat, with the first question! He was arguing with Candy Crowley as soon as the thing started! I mean, come on, that's ridiculous.

I was disappointed that Obama didn't mention climate change in the discussion of energy policy and gas prices. I thought the argument about exploitation of natural resources on public lands was a bit obscure. Romney seemed to think everyone agrees that this is a good thing and Obama should have been doing this more. I thought it was a bit more controversial than that. No one mentioned that gas prices are highly dependent on the vagaries of a world market.  No one answered the actual question asked, either, for that matter.

I really don't understand what point Romney thought he was making when he pointed out that Obama said Benghazi was an act of terror the day after it happened. He acted like he was making some big "gotcha" moment. It made no sense. And what is the big deal anyway? I don't understand the supposed scandal over this. Does anyone really think there was some kind of cover-up? That's what the Republicans are implying, if not stating outright.

Romney had no answer to the question about pay equity for women. None. His response was that he tried to hire women in his administration in Massachusetts. Well, that's nice, but what about policies that will help women overall? Nothing. What about actually saying you support pay equity for women? Nope. Also, this phrase: "If women are going to be in the workforce..." Bad. Yes, Romney, of course they're "going to be in the work force"! Women have been in the workforce for a long time. Contrast this with Obama talking about women being breadwinners, which is a much more accurate characterization.

Romney's response to Obama bringing up contraception was terribly misleading. He said he thinks everyone should have access to contraception. "Access to contraception" is not the same thing as getting insurance coverage for contraception. You can have "access" to it, but it's meaningless if you can't afford it and your insurance doesn't cover it. That's the same thing as saying increased regulation of abortion clinics that essentially puts them out of business has no effect on women's right to an abortion. That right is meaningless if insurmountable hurdles are placed in front of it.

(maybe more thoughts later)

Unbelievable

I can't believe this. I just came across these quotes from Justice Antonin Scalia of the US Supreme Court:

[From AP]:

Scalia calls himself a "textualist" and, as he related to a few hundred people who came to buy his new book and hear him speak in Washington the other day, that means he applies the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them.
 
So Scalia parts company with former colleagues who have come to believe capital punishment is unconstitutional. The framers of the Constitution didn't think so and neither does he.

"The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia said at the American Enterprise Institute. (emphasis mine)

In other words, he has prejudged all cases concerning these issues. Shouldn't he recuse himself from all such cases, since clearly he isn't considering them with an open mind.

His philosophy doesn't allow for changing mores. Does he think slavery should still be legal, since the framers didn't intend the Constitution to ban it? Come on. Marital rape was legal until only a couple of decades ago. Does he think that's okay too, since wives were their husband's property in the 18th century, to do with whatever they wanted?

First Presidential Debate

Lies, lies, and more lies. That's what I got out of the first presidential debate. I like Barack Obama. I voted for him in the last election. But I've been disappointed in him as a President. I thought he did okay. Not great, but okay, especially given that Romney backed away from every position he's taken in this campaign.

Take away-

1. The only Americans who exist, in political lala-land, are the middle class.

 2. Your lies can pile up a mile high and the chattering classes don't care, as long as you do it with "style." How can you be the "winner" when you lied through your teeth through the entire debate?

 3. The media love the idea of a Romney comeback because that means it's a horse race again and there's more to talk about.

 4. I'm disappointed that Obama didn't do a better job of presenting himself and refuting Romney's lies. But the media don't seem to think Romney's lies are significant enough to detract from his "win." I don't get that.

Fairness or the lack thereof

Mitt Romney's 13.5% tax rate: an illustration of many things that are wrong with the way our country is run.

Quote of the day

Newt Gingrich on his extramarital affairs: "partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country." Bwahaha.

Oh hello

Oh hello Blogger, long time no see. I see it's been 2 years since I made a post here. La di dah, la di dah. I'm not sure what the point of this is, as no one will read it. Anyway, everything on here is two years old. I might actually start posting things here again.

iPhone Orchestra

Very cool. Creating music with iPhones.

Stanford's iPhone Orchestra

Excellent Rachel Maddow piece on John McCain and torture

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

The Shackling of Prisoners in Childbirth Should End

One of the things I periodically get worked up about is the over-medicalization of childbirth in the US. Disclosure: I had a home birth to avoid unnecessary medical procedures, so you can see where I'm coming from on this.

A few days ago, I read an editorial in the New York Times about pregnant prisoners being shackled during labor. Apparently this is fairly common in the US and only four states ban it. I had never heard about this before, and it appalls me. If you've ever given birth, you can appreciate the utter insanity of this practice. If there was ever a time when you need freedom of movement, it's during labor. Labor is unique to each woman, to each pregnancy, even. It affects everyone differently and unpredictably. Unless you're going to be completely sedated (as my mother was when she gave birth to me), you need to be able to move your body freely in order to reduce the pain of childbirth. (Although I have no doubt that any prisoner giving birth is automatically given painkillers and doesn't really have the option of natural childbirth.)

It strikes me that this practice is probably unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution, which bars "cruel and unusual punishment" and probably international law as well. Apparently Amnesty International agrees with me. Amnesty International's fact sheet on the shackling of pregnant prisoners says that "[t]he UN standard for the Treatment of all Prisoners, Rule 33, states that shackles should not be used on inmates unless they are a danger to themselves, others or property or have a history of absconding. AI considers the routine use of shackles and other restraints on pregnant prisoners is a cruel, inhuman and degrading form of treatment in violation of both the UN Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which the USA has ratified."

Amnesty International Fact Sheet on Shackling of Pregnant Prisoners

Again, if you've ever given birth, you can guess that during childbirth, prisoners probably are 100% focused on getting that baby out of their body as soon as possible. That's what the mental and physical process of labor is designed for. Your entire being (if you're not drugged) is focused on that goal. They're not thinking about escaping or doing danger to themselves or any one else. The idea is ludicrous.

I don't know how much of a movement there is to ban this practice in the remaining 46 states, but I certainly hope there is one. Frankly, this is something Congress should take up. I don't see why a federal law couldn't be passed to ban the practice as unconstitutional. That would stop the practice in all states.

Here's a round-up of articles on the issue. New York State has banned the practice since some of this articles were published.

Giving Life, Wearing Shackles and Chains, NYTimes, 7/12/09

NY Times editorial encouraging Gov. Paterson to sign antishackling bill in NY

Good article on practice of shackling pregnant women in prison

ACLU on shackling, applauding Fed. Bureau of Prisons revision of policy

Practice of Shackling Prisoners in Labor is common in US

NY one of only 4 states to prohibit shackling of prisoners in labor

Christian Gene Isolated!

This is too funny.

Defendants Have No Constitutional Right to DNA Testing

The U.S. Supreme Court has held in a 5-4 decision that criminal defendants have no federal constitutional right to DNA testing after their conviction. District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne. This sounds crazy to me. Defendants should always have the right to prove their innocence under the due process clause of the Constitution. State laws vary widely on DNA testing. To leave the availability of DNA testing up to the vagaries of legislatures seems fundamentally wrong. See this article in The Hill for Congressional criticism of the ruling. This quote from Rep. Jerrold Nadler is particularly apt:

Today’s Supreme Court decision violates our fundamental notion of fairness and due process of the law. To me, it is common sense that a defendant should have the constitutional right to conduct a test that would establish conclusively whether he is guilty or innocent of an alleged crime."

This is yet another example of Justice Roberts carrying deference to the legislature to an extreme.

Sacha Baron Cohen's crotch meets Eminem's face

Not sure if Eminem was in on this or not. It looks genuine, but who knows. It's pretty funny.

MTV Shows