The Law: 2 Assholes: 0

Good news from the court system this week. First, a military appeals court found "no reversible errors in the decision of the lower court" in the convictions of two perpetrators of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.  Then, yet another terrorist was brought to justice in civilian court.  Two points for the good guys.

The courts can handle these cases--they've been doing so for many years.  That some people can't bring themselves to trust the court system they live under doesn't mean the United States shouldn't default to civilian trials for these thugs.

A Simple Test

We're going to do a test.  Get a piece of paper and something to write with, or just open up a new Word document.  Once you're ready and without hovering to see the URL, click on the link below and write down the first five words that come to your mind.  Don't think--just react and write.

Click here when you're ready.

After you've written down your five words, start reading after the jump to find out why I asked you to do this.

And Last, but Not Least...

...A nice bedtime story that will smash your hopes for cooperative government like a six-year old with a baseball bat in a field of fireflies.  I can't say this is unexpected, but it still hurts to read.

Follow-Up of the Day

You'll find a calm tone and plenty of statistics throughout William Saletan's discussion about the odds of women and fetuses surviving the same situation Pam Tebow encountered when she was pregnant with Tim.  Like I mentioned yesterday, we can't turn away from the lurid details that make us squirm, and this article will help you get used to them.

Take-Down of the Day

Jessica Grose has a nice rebuttal to Lori Gottlieb's unabashedly ego-stroking "Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough." I haven't read the book, but I did read the article it's based on, and I was unimpressed. Authors should be smart enough to know when they're projecting and not writing solid, research-based content.

Wait, There's a Game on Next Sunday?

Based on discussions about the anti-abortion ad featuring Tim Tebow scheduled to air during the upcoming Superbowl, it's hard to believe that the New Orleans Saints and the Indianapolis Colts had such memorable seasons this year.  Nobody seems to remember.  Commentary shifted from "Which high-quality quarterback will win a ring for their team?" to "HOLY SHIT, ABORTION!" in less than a week. Jason Fagone of Slate.com posted a fantastic profile of Tebow yesterday, and it reminded me of just how bizarre "discussions" about abortion are in this country.

Like so many other things in America, the topic of abortion tends to act like a full moon shining on someone afflicted by lycanthropy: it changes sane and rational people, capable of sympathy and empathy, into rapacious creatures that lash out at whoever crosses their path. An ounce of credibility or attention given to one side over the other demands retribution by the opposing faction, and any trend towards civility is an affront to their dignity.  The issue at hand has already been blown a bit out of proportion--Facebook and Twitter feeds are piled high with angry comments about CBS's decision to run the ad, so it's important to remember that the scope of this affair is really much narrower than people would like to think.

Tim Tebow had an exceptional career in college football, and attention has been split between his stats and the bible verses he writes into his eye black.  Tebow's future in passive proselytizing may be in question, but he is unconcerned with the controversy surrounding the ad that he helped create.  And why should he be?  According to CBS, the ad will not "mention the word abortion."  But that hasn't stopped pro-choice groups from campaigning against CBS.  Jemhu Greene, president of the Women's Media Center, told EPSN that "An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year -- an event designed to bring Americans together."


Don't get me wrong.  I'm a pro-choice liberal born and raised in the suburbs outside Washington, D.C., and understand (but disagree with) the impulse to decry this ad as an all-out assault on the traditions of neutral advertising, especially since CBS has chosen to run Tebow's ad, but rejected an ad for a gay dating site.  Pro-choice supporters seem oblivious to the incredible irony of their uncontrollable urge to act like their homes have been set on fire by a 30-second commercial addressing a choice someone made about a pregnancy.  Being pro-choice does not mean that someone concerned about their pregnancy must have it terminated.  Pro-choice supporters everywhere are doing a disservice to their cause by reacting negatively to an ad that utilizes their ideas.  More seriously, pro-choice advocates risk depicting themselves as being in favor of abortion as the only viable option for a pregnancy.


CBS may have made the wrong decision about running Tebow's ad, but that's a completely different discussion than the one most people are having.  Indeed, I think it's a discussion most people don't feel like putting much effort into.  It's fair to assume that the message in the ad is fairly passive, and that's probably why the ad was allowed to run.  CBS is well aware of the consequences of letting "offensive" material get on the air, especially after the furor over the infamous 2004 Superbowl nip-slip and this Snickers ad from 2007.  The network knows it's audience, and is choosing what it shows accordingly.

The temptation to oversimplify abortion is immense, but when you're discussing the benefits and drawbacks of a process that involves cleaning out the contents of a woman's uterus, it's vital that people refuse to shy away from the gritty details that make them uncomfortable.  Abortion often ends up getting discussed in the abstract, resulting in a series of bizarre analogies that never effectively address the specific details that need to be hammered out for each side to understand where the other is coming from.  If we ever expect to be civil with each other, people on both sides of the debate need to stop showing their fangs every time someone with different ideas is opening their mouths to talk.  


The commercial being shown during the Superbowl will draw no more than a shrug from the vast majority of viewers.  If pro-choice activists want to turn this into a fight, they'll  get one, but it will be an uphill battle.  The general public doesn't want to politicize the Superbowl, and people will be irritated if pro-choice antagonists press the issue hard enough to ruin the fun for the rest of us.


I'll end with a quick tip for everyone.  Calm down, have a seat, grow up, and pass the chips.  The game is on.

Words Matter

FiveThirtyEight.com's Nate Silver posted several charts detailing the language used in State of the Union speeches going back to President Kennedy. It's a gold mine for people nerdy enough to be interested in such things, and it says a great deal about what each speaker thought was important at the time. 


I particularly enjoy the numbers shown in the "Process" chart.  Even with the gaps in data, it's safe to say the terms Democrat, Republican, and bipartisan were practically absent from State of the Union speeches until 1994, when Bill Clinton was faced with the prospect of a very hostile Congress.  Funny how the potential for conflict with another party tends to change your tone.