Times v. Sullivan redux

In the Blog House today, Tim O'Brien recognizes the efforts of blogger Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo for developing the fired-U.S. Attorneys story to a point where even the MSM couldn't ignore it. Well, he didn't say that—exactly—but that's what happened. Josh deserves a lot of credit for one of the major stories in what will be looked back on as Blood in the Water Week for the Bush administration.

O'Brien included this little item at the end at the end of today's Blog House:

A defamation lawsuit filed against Michael Brodkorb of Minnesota Democrats Exposed by Blois Olson of New School Communications was dismissed last week by a Dakota County judge. Olson, in the eyes of the court, was a public figure, thus he would have to prove actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth.

Congrats, bloggers, you're covered by Sullivan vs. the New York Times (so is the Weekly World News). But don't crack the champagne just yet. With blogs with "Exposed" or "Dumped" in their names, actual malice might not be hard to prove.

Sigh. The meaning of "actual malice" has caused sooooooooo much confusion.

First, let it be said first that whether bloggers were covered by the ruling in Times v. Sullivan was not in doubt. Of course they are. Everyone has the protection of the "actual malice" standard when speaking or writing about public figures. Sullivan was not just press case; it was a speech case.

Here's one summary of the holding in Times v. Sullivan:

The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity). Under this new standard, Sullivan's case collapsed.

Notice, boys and girls, this standard does not include anything about harboring ill will toward the person you're talking or writing about.

Let's put the standard into action!

Assume there is a blogger [call him "Spotty," Spotty!], all right we'll call him "Spotty," who really, really dislikes George Bush. Spotty writes that George Bush and his claque of sycophants lied the United States into a war with Iraq. George Bush hires the Texas law firm of Gonzales and Miers to sue Spotty, alleging, among other things, that Spotty possessed the requisite "actual malice" because he really, really dislikes George Bush.

Spotty replies, hey wait a minute, among the things Spot relied on in making that statement was the speech of a 24-year CIA veteran who spoke recently in the Twin Cities about the politicization of the intelligence services. The fact that Spot dislikes the prez is irrelevant; Spot's statement was not reckless.

Sheesh! It is not as though Spot accused Bush of doing blow or avoiding the draft. Sorry. Bad examples. It is not as though Spot accused Bush of being a pedophile, or that he has a "loathsome social disease." (Spot is not making those accusations.)

Having "Exposed" or "Dumped" in a blog name is really not relevant to an inquiry about actual malice. By itself, it is not proof of recklessness. A successful defamation plaintiff still has to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false (whether or not the defendant disliked the plaintiff) or that the defendant made the statements without any foundation for making them.

Tags: Times v. Sullivan, loathsome social disease

Imams sue Mr. and Mrs. Bigot!

Scene: A US Airways jet full of people, including a half-dozen Muslim clerics fresh from a large meeting of the same in Minneapolis, and Mr. and Mrs. Bigot. As the plane sits on the tarmac, the imams begin to pray, as is their wont to do several times a day. Mr. and Mrs. Bigot, a liver-spotted couple, are sitting right in front of at least some of the imams. Alarmed, the Bigots turn around and stare with sour expressions. The Bigots, of course, are church-going Christians and they contribute regularly to the Minnesota Family Council. They are xenophobic about anybody who isn't who isn't white—or Lutheran.

Imams: God is great. There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger. Alu Akbar!

Mr. Bigot: [turning around] Dear God, Mavis! Did you hear that?

Mrs. B: [also turning around] Yes, Fred! The nerve of these people! Disturbing the Muzak!

Mr. B: Mavis! They're kinda darkies with beards!

Mrs. B: Oh no! They must be terrorists! Do something Fred!

[the imams continue praying, ignoring the slack-jawed Bigots staring at and shouting over them]

Mr. B: All right! I'll call 911. You keep an eye on 'em, Mavis! [Fred dials the phone, then moves away, giving the hairy eyeball to the imams to make sure they don't ravage Mavis, then speaking into the phone] We have an emergency! There are terrorists on our airplane!

911: Keep calm sir! Where is your plane enroute to, and do you know the airline and flight number?

Mr. B: We're still on the ground in Minneapolis.

911: Have the terrorists entered the cockpit?

Mr. B: Well no.

911: Have they taken any flight attendants or passengers as hostages?

Mr. B: Not yet.

911: Not yet? Well what have they done?

Mr. B: They're praying.

911: [hysterical laughter] They're praying?

Mr. B: Yes. What's so funny? What's your name, young man?

911: Ahmed.

Mr. B: Oh no! Another damn heathen!

911: Look mister, Muslims pray a lot. It's what we do. It's kind of a habit. If you really have a concern, talk to a member of the crew or the pilot. The pilot makes the final decision whether to take off.

Mr. B: Thanks for nothing! [click] Oh Miss! We have a serious problem here!

Attendant: What's the matter, sir?

Mr. B: Those swarthy fellows behind my Mavis there were talking about a plot to hijack this airplane!

Attendant: Follow me sir! We'll talk to the pilot right away! [they hurry into the cockpit] Captain! My Captain! The plane is about to be hijacked!

Mr. B: She's right! I heard these Middle Eastern guys talk about how they were gonna take over the airplane and fly it nose first into a corn field! Really threatening, I tell you!

Pilot: Are you sure they said that?

Mr. B: Absolutely! Or words to that effect!

Pilot: I'm going to check this out. [making his way down the aisles to the imams] Afternoon, gentlemen. This fella here says you were talking about hijacking this airplane and crashing it.

1^st imam: What? I have a wife and three children who are expecting me home for a late dinner.

2^nd imam: What did this fellow [indicating Mr. B] tell you?

Pilot: Never mind what he told me. Are you planning to hijack this plane?

1^st imam: This question is too absurd to answer. I will not dignify it with an answer.

2^nd imam: I'll answer it: NO. We are two Muslim clergy headed home after a conference here in Minneapolis. We are each the leader of a congregation of Muslims and have been for many years. I agree with my friend that your question is insulting. We are both, in fact, US citizens. Now leave us in peace.

[a small crowd has gathered around now, and some of the group have trays or plastic cutlery that they have gotten from the galley]

A crowd member brandishing a plastic fork: Get those damn Ay-rabs off this plane! I ain't flying if they do! [there is a chorus of "yeah, right!" and "get 'em off the plane!"]

Pilot: Fellas, I am sorry to ask, but will you please catch another flight? It's pretty clear we aren't gonna get out of here with you on the plane.

1^st imam: Are you crazy? We're not the ones who went berserk. Let them get off.

The same crowd member: I ain't getting' off! I have a non-refundable ticket! Who do you think I am? John goddam D. Rockefeller?

Pilot: I'm sorry gentlemen, you'll have to go. I'm the pilot, and I have to make the final decision about whether it is safe to take off. I take that responsibility very seriously. I don't want the plane hijacked, but I also don't want you fellas lynched while we're in the air. There's a bunch of them and only a few of you. Come on. Help me out here.

2^nd imam: We appreciate your position, but we cannot leave as a matter of principle.

Pilot: I'm really sorry, gentlemen. But I'll have to call the authorities to take you off of this airplane.

§§§

This is, of course, Spot's imagining of the situation the led to the removal of the imams that Katie writes about so movingly again Thursday. The imams, you see, have started a lawsuit against US Airways and the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Katie finds the suit shocking, of course, but she reserves especial outrage for the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Bigot were named as John Doe defendants:

The "flying imams' " federal lawsuit, filed this week in Minneapolis, has made headlines around the country. The imams are demanding unspecified damages from US Airways and the Metropolitan Airports Commission, both with deep pockets. But their suit includes other defendants, as yet unnamed. These people, unaffiliated with the airline industry or government, are among the imams' most vulnerable targets.

Katie continues:

But the most alarming aspect of the imams' suit is buried in paragraph 21 of their complaint. It describes "John Doe" defendants whose identity the imams' attorneys are still investigating. It reads: "Defendants 'John Does' were passengers ... who contacted U.S. Airways to report the alleged 'suspicious' behavior of Plaintiffs' performing their prayer at the airport terminal."

Paragraph 22 adds: "Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege true names, capacities, and circumstances supporting [these defendants'] liability ... at such time as Plaintiffs ascertain the same."

In plain English, the imams plan to sue the "John Does," too.

Who are these unnamed culprits? The complaint describes them as "an older couple who was sitting [near the imams] and purposely turn[ed] around to watch" as they prayed. "The gentleman ('John Doe') in the couple ... picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray," then "moved to a corner" and "kept talking into his cellular phone."

In retribution for this action, the unnamed couple probably will be dragged into court soon and face the prospect of hiring a lawyer, enduring hostile questioning and paying huge legal bills. The same fate could await other as-yet-unnamed passengers on the US Airways flight who came forward as witnesses.

Congratulation Katie, for finding this allegation, even though it was somehow "buried" in the complaint! A genuine sleuth!

Spotty doesn't know about you, boys and girls, but he doesn't feel the slightest bit sorry for the liver-spotted Mr. and Mrs. Bigot. They and the other people aboard the airplane who raised a ruckus ought to be confronted with an opportunity to reflect on their conduct. Spot hopes they get the chance.

And Katie, why don't you, and maybe Johnny Rocketseed, and Scotty Johnson provide a pro bono defense for the Bigots? That seems fair.

Tags: Katherine Kersten, flying imams, CAIR

The scoundrel is revealed, at last!

In breaking news, Jeff Fecke of Blog of the Moderate Left, reports that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has confessed to virtually all unsolved crimes in United States history.

Among the heinous crimes he has admitted to, Mohammed confessed that he was the screenwriter for the massive stinker, Ishtar, a crime that has gone unsolved for years.

The Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation techniques" are undoubtedly the reason for this stunning admission.

Please be sure and see Jeff's post for a complete list of the misdeeds that have been finally solved.

The Exorcism of Michele Bachmann

Now that the Exorcism of Michele series is complete, Spot thought he would provide a complete list of the episodes. They are listed oldest to newest to facilitate following the story line:

God: Listen up Michele!

God and Michele talk again

Oh Katie! Spot has something for you!

Catfight!

Michele's nightmare

I know you're in there, Mark!

Hi Michele

Spot thinks they were

Pillow talk

Jimbo's Exorcism

Getting a referral

Marcus talks to the Exorcist

Marcus and the Exorcist team up

Pastor Mac seeks intercession

Exorcism: the waiting

God catches Michele fibbing

Michele gets the Treatment

The Exorcism of Michele: Epilogue

Tags: Michele Bachmann, exorcism

Et tu, Sununu?

Spot has been waiting his entire blogging life to use that headline.

Senator John Sununu has also called for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales. He is apparently the first elected Republican to do so.

Update: It's the Ides of March. You can't get a bigger harmonic convergence than that.

The go-to guy

Spotty took a Gray Line bus tour of some of the Republican ghettos in the Twin Cities the other day. In one especially joyless hamlet, Spot spied this sign in front of a house that had some curious stains on the side, almost as if someone had thrown eggs at the house:

Below the sign was that little fringe you see sometimes under a sign or notice that has a phone number on several little tabs that can be pulled off and consulted later. There were only a couple of the tabs that had been detached and taken.

When he got home, Spot got to thinking: Brokdorp, Brodkorb, Birdkoop? The name seems kind of familiar. Spot decided to check his newspapers for the last month--he keeps them stacked neatly day by day and has a collection of many years' issues now; it's getting hard to walk through the dog house--and by golly, it looks like it was people from the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press that took those little tabs! The papers have made excellent use of the consulting services of Mr. Brodkorb. Spot doesn't know if Brodkorb mows D.J. Tice's lawn, though.

By Spot's count, there are sixteen articles in the last month in the Star Tribune and Pioneer Press that mention Mr. Oracle, several of them quoting him. A few of the articles are letters to the editor, but even discounting them, Brodkorb gets a lot of ink from the journalism fraternity. Here are just a few of them:

On February 28, the Pioneer Press featured an article about the Minnesota Senate committee hearing on the Restroom Access Act, an act designed to make retail establishment restrooms available to persons who need quick access to them because of a medical condition. And Michael Brodkorb, drawing on his extensive medical and retail knowledge, weighs right in:

Michael Brodkorb, a self-described Republican blogger, took his objection to the bill even further -- he renamed it the Freedom to Poop Act.

"In my heart of hearts, I just don't believe that we need legislation that dictates that level of involvement in businesses," he said. Simple human decency, he believes, would require that businesses make their restrooms available to those in need.

Spotty, you can't be heartless in your heart of hearts, can you?

It is a curious turn of a phrase, isn't it, grasshopper?

Mr. Brodkorb also opined that Mark Ritchie had forfeited his right to be the Minnesota Secretary of State by attending a People for the American Way event, as described in a Star Tribune Article of February 25:

Republicans, led by conservative blogger Michael Brodkorb, are beginning to make the case that Ritchie, a lifelong activist for environmental and other liberal causes, is too partisan and too ideological to provide fair oversight of the state's election process.

This line of attack echoes the barrage of criticism directed over the last eight years by DFLers at Kiffmeyer, who was accused of being too conservative and Republican to serve as the top election official.

Noting that Ritchie recently spoke at an event sponsored by People For the American Way, a liberal national interest group founded by Hollywood producer Norman Lear, Brodkorb said Ritchie "is really tied in to that network."

"Democrats would scream bloody murder if Kiffmeyer went to such rabidly partisan groups," Brodkorb said.

This is presumably the same Mary Kiffmeyer who wants to destroy the wall of separation between church and state as Norm [Jesus Spot, what were you thinking] Nick Coleman noted in a column some time ago. The Strib article failed to note that Brodkorb was Kiffmeyer's goon in her meeting with Ritchie after the election, or that Brodkorb posted a number of times about the meeting and making snide remarks about Ritchie.

Most recently, Brodkorb got consulted for a March 13 article in the Strib on whether it was constitutional to let permanent resident aliens vote in local elections for school board or city council:

"While I certainly am sensitive to the taxation-without-representation argument, I just don't believe that noncitizens of this state should be allowed to
vote," said Michael Brodkorb, a conservative Minnesota blogger.

"I think it's bad precedent to allow noncitizens of the United States to vote in elections," Brodkorb said.

What would it be a bad precedent for Mr. Brodkorb? Recognizing that immigrants are human beings with families? Or perhaps it would reverse the trend of limiting voting to the landed gentry? Mr. Brodkorb doesn't say.

Where Brodkorb has gotten the most ink recently is his dodging of a defamation lawsuit bullet by Blois Olson. Brodkorb has told several reporters--anybody who will listen, really--that the outcome of the case means that he is a real journalist. And some people who should know better, including D.J. Tice, have swallowed it.

In the Pioneer Press on March 10, Brodkorb is quoted as saying:

Michael Brodkorb, a political operativebehind the site minnesotademocratsexposed .com, expressed relief at the dismissal.

"I think this goes back to what I said from the beginning, that this was afrivolous lawsuit, and the court agreed with me," he said. "I'm glad that it's over."

[. . .]

Brodkorb, though, said the acts of the case would have ultimately vindicated him, regardless of Olson's status as a public figure.

"I stand by what I wrote," he said. "What I wrote is true."

Well, maybe. But Tim Nelson didn't press Brodkorb on the fact that the court had merely found that Blois Olson could not prove actual malice, not that what Brodkorb said was true.

And just round out Spot's coverage of the coverage, we have the faithful factotum Katie, who dutifully reports--if that the right word in the case of Katie-- on February 19 about Brodkorb's hysterical list of proposed bills in the Minnesota Legislature, including the aforesaid "Freedom to Poop":

I could go on. [Katie generally does] Actually, bloggers King Banaian, an economics professor at St. Cloud State University, Drew Emmer and Michael Brodkorb have done just that. They've slogged through reams of leaden legalese to compile lists of our legislators' most exotic conjurings and tallied votes for the most egregious at Banaian's blog, SCSU Scholars.

It is so nice that the local papers have found such a reliable quote and opinion machine. At this rate, Michael won't have to mow lawns much longer!

Update: Thanks to Charlie, Spot fixed the Coleman reference.

Jorgenson wins Spotty™!

The Cucking Stool received a new supply of handsome Spotty™ medallions from Tild just in time to award a Spotty™ to Eric Jorgenson of Minneapolis for this letter in today's Star Tribune:

Joined by philosophy

So many reasons for Mitch Pearlstein to be pleased with himself (Commentary, March 9)! He disapproves of Ann Coulter! He's adopted a biracial daughter! He knows the meanings of hard words like "alliterative" and "larboard"! On a subsequent descent from Olympus perhaps Pearlstein will explain how he decides where to draw his lines of disapproval.

He's "not too thrilled" with Coulter, but she's gotten rich selling her shtick to dolts who mark their ballots as he marks his. He boasts of never having invited Coulter to address his think tank, but he's invited others who fawn on her.

Lacking the powers of discrimination possessed by these demigods, I find it convenient to revile them all uniformly.

Yes, that Mitch is a sanctimonious, pompous, hypocritical old fart, isn't he! Thanks for reminding us in such a concise and entertaining way, Eric. And let us not forget that Mitch's principal complaint was that Coulter was making it more difficult for well-meaning conservatives! If the difficulty comes from being unmasked, Mitch, Spot supposes you are right.

Remember, boys and girls, a Spotty™ is awarded to the author of a letter to the editor, an op-ed piece, or a blog post or comment that Spot wishes that he has written.

Did too – Did not!

This one's for Dave. Dave and Spot and some of Spot's commenters have gone around and around about whether or not the Bush administration lied the US into war in Iraq. Dave says no, no; the Bushies were just innocent bystanders in the terribly-flawed intelligence that persuaded us to strike Iraq. Spot heard the rebroadcast of a speech on MPR's Midday today that addresses that issue directly. Here's MPR's description of the speech:

Melvin Goodman, who spent 24 years at the CIA, says the agency has lost its way. In a recent speech at the University of St. Thomas, Goodman argued that intelligence analysts should be telling "truth to power," but instead he said the CIA has become politicized.

After the speech, Goodman is asked why the U.S. thinks it can be so meddlesome in the affairs of other nations, including in their elections. His response was one of Howard Zinn's favorite themes: the myth of American exceptionalism.

I don't know what kind of bandwidth you've got there in George Bush's refurbished Iraq, Dave, but Spot encourages you—and the rest of you too, boys and girls—to spend an hour and give Melvin Goodman a listen. Spot promises that it will be worth you while.

Update: This post is back up. The MPR link was incorrect and it has now been fixed.

Tags: CIA, politicized intelligence, Iraq war

The Exorcism of Michele: Epilogue

"I think I can make it now," says Michele, "and thank you Father for seeing that I wasn't really possessed." Michele walks into the restroom.

Marcus and Father Seamus loiter in the hall, lost in their own thoughts, waiting for Michele to come out. Finally, Marcus says, "Boy do I feel silly."

"You?" snorts Father Seamus. "I was dancin' around like a fecking flamenco dancer! Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, I'll never live this one down."

"You aren't going to tell anybody, are you?" asks Marcus.

"Have to confess it to some blabbermouth back in St. Paul. Don't believe everything you hear about the confidentiality of the confessional Marcus. It's the best part of being a priest. People come and tell you funny stories, and it's hard not to pass 'em around."

"Oh dear! Will I have to confess it, too?"

"You don't need to pretend any more, Marcus. I know you won't become a Catholic. That's okay."

"I'm sorry that I got you caught up in this, Father."

"I have nobody to blame but myself. I was so eager to take on Beelzebub again, one last time, that I forgot to scrutinize the case. It was a good lesson for the old priest."

Michele emerges from the restroom looking small on her heel-less shoes. Her dress is stained and it is still damp, as is her hair. She walks over to the two men unsteadily. "I've had an epiphany," she says. "If two, er, Godly men like you could be so wrong and think that I—Michele Bachmann—was possessed by Satan, well maybe I've been wrong about some things, too."

"Like what?" asks Marcus.

"Like thinking Jim Ramstad was possessed. And maybe thinking that the Pope is the antichrist. And I'm no longer sure that the sinfulness of gays is as black and white as I thought."

"Maybe some good has come out of this whole business, after all," says Father Seamus.

"Amen to that!" adds Marcus.

"If I get back to the airport, I can probably catch the first flight back to St. Paul." Father Seamus looks at his watch.

"I'll go with the two of you," says Michele.

They get Father Seamus' bag from the office—Michele musing how she is going to explain this all to the staff when it returns in a few hours—and make their way downstairs. The guard spots them, jumps to his feet, and draws his revolver. "Are you okay, Congresswoman Bachmann?"

"Oh, yes. I'm fine. You may put that away. I just plugged a toilet upstairs. Since I did it, I thought it was only fair that I fixed it!"

"Next time, please call down here and I'll get the maintenance staff. You look terrible."

The trio makes it out to the car; it is still raining so they all get wet, except Michele, who just gets wetter. They climb into the car and drive toward the airport. On the way, they chat amiably, telling Catholic and Lutheran jokes, and Father Seamus confides in them that he is a homosexual—not practicing, of course.

When the car pulls up to the curb at the airport, Father Seamus gets out, says goodbye, and waves to Michele and Marcus as they drive off.

When they're gone, the priest turns toward the entrance and says, "Fecking Prods!"

Meanwhile, back in the car, Marcus asks Michele, "Did you really mean that stuff about an epiphany?"

Michele looks at him and is pensive for a moment. Then a smile creeps across her face, matched by one on Marcus' face. "NAH!" they exclaim in unison.

A little farther down the road, Michele says, "Marcus, I have to admit that getting tied up in that strait jacket kinda turned me on. Where did you get it?"

"Elvira's House of Pain."

"Oooh, you think we could stop there on the way back to the office?"

THE END

Tags: Michele Bachmann, exorcism

Vic’s gotta love it!

Spot has read a couple of the reviews of the movie "300," the new spear and sandal extravaganza about the Greek and Persian dustup at Thermopylae, including this one:

This much we know is true: 300 has more style than a P. Diddy garage sale. Brimming with nudity, fluidity, and gleefully excessive violent stupidity, 300 is all sizzle and no steak, a one page outline masquerading as a two hour movie (trust us, that's a compliment). All style with an almost boyish glee to the proceedings, Snyder & Miller's 300 is a man's movie about the culture of being men, war, pride, and all that other manly man stuff. Did I mention this movie's about war? Some of the rhetoric is so war-thirsty, it's surprising the movie wasn't followed by "I'm George W. Bush, and I approved this message." Seriously, can you tell the difference between this line and a Bush stump speech: "Freedom isn't free at all. It comes with the cost of blood." The script consists of a bunch of elevated language all saying the same things ("respect and honor," "Spartans are real men," etc.) while marking time until the next hyper-stylized battle sequence. Not that viewers came to this movie expecting Billy Shakes(peare) but a plot would've been nice.

Or this one from the New York Times:

"300" is about as violent as "Apocalypto" and twice as stupid. Adapted from a graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, it offers up a bombastic spectacle of honor and betrayal, rendered in images that might have been airbrushed onto a customized van sometime in the late 1970s. The basic story is a good deal older. It's all about the ancient Battle of Thermopylae, which unfolded at a narrow pass on the coast of Greece whose name translates as Hot Gates.

Hot Gates, indeed! Devotees of the pectoral, deltoid and other fine muscle groups will find much to savor as King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) leads 300 prime Spartan porterhouses into battle against Persian forces commanded by Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), a decadent self-proclaimed deity who wants, as all good movie villains do, to rule the world.

The Persians, pioneers in the art of facial piercing, have vastly greater numbers — including ninjas, dervishes, elephants, a charging rhino and an angry bald giant — but the Spartans clearly have superior health clubs and electrolysis facilities.

The reviews remind Spotty of the time he went with his pups to the "new" Planet of the Apes move, starring of course Charlton Heston, but this time as an ape. As we were walking out to the car after the screening, Spot asked his pups what they thought of the movie. One of the pups responded, "A giant monkey clunker." Indeed.

After reading these reviews of "300," Spot had a thought: Victor Davis Hanson has gotta love this one. And guess what, boys and girls, he does:

But most importantly, 300 preserves the spirit of the Thermopylae story. The Spartans, quoting lines known from Herodotus and themes from the lyric poets, profess unswerving loyalty to a free Greece. They will never kow-tow to the Persians, preferring to die on their feet than live on their knees.

If critics think that 300 reduces and simplifies the meaning of Thermopylae into freedom versus tyranny, they should reread carefully ancient accounts and then blame Herodotus, Plutarch, and Diodorus — who long ago boasted that Greek freedom was on trial against Persian autocracy, free men in superior fashion dying for their liberty, their enslaved enemies being whipped to enslave others.

Remember, boys and girls, "300" was "inspired" by a comic book:

So the film is indeed inspired by the comic book; and in some sense its muscular warriors, virtual reality sets, and computer-generated landscapes recall the look and feel of Robert Rodriquez's screen version of Sin City. Yet the collaboration of Director Zack Snyder and screenwriters Kurt Johnstad and Michael Gordon is much more of a hybrid, since the script, dialogue, cinematography, and acting all recall scenes of the battle right from Herodotus's account.

300, of course, makes plenty of allowance for popular tastes, changing and expanding the story to meet the protocols of the comic book genre. The film was not shot on location outdoors, but in a studio using the so-called "digital backlot" technique of sometimes placing the actors against blue screens. The resulting realism is not that of the sun-soaked cliffs above the blue Aegean — Thermopylae remains spectacularly beautiful today — but of the eerie etchings of the comic book.

Spot wonders what Johnny Rocketseed thought of the movie. He'll have to check.

Tags: Victor Davis Hanson, movie "300", Thermopylae

Sigh, journalist shield laws, Part III

Spot really has some other things he would like to write about. But the journalist's privilege, or shield law, keeps popping up. Spot has to confess it is a fascinating issue.

Last night, 60 Minutes had a story about Steven Hatfill's lawsuit against the FBI and the DOJ for their roles in ruining the reputation of Hatfill in the wake of the anthrax "attacks" in the fall of 2001, a time that was already a season of discontent and anguish in the U.S. Spot is a terrible note taker, but luckily 60 Minutes has the story on its web page. Here's the lede paragraphs:

Remember the anthrax scare? It was about four weeks after 9/11. Letters laced with powdery spores of the deadly bacteria were mailed through the U.S. postal system. In all, five people died, 17 fell ill. At first, everyone thought this was another al Qaeda terrorist attack.

But soon the FBI began keying on a so-called "person of interest" – Steven Hatfill – and launched one of the largest criminal investigations in its history.

As correspondent Lesley Stahl reports, the FBI has been going after this guy for five years, and yet he has got them in court: Hatfill has sued the FBI and Department of Justice for what he claims has been a campaign of leaking lies and distortions about him to the press.

Through the lawsuit, Hatfill's lawyer has not only obtained boxfuls of internal government documents, but he has also deposed nearly every major law enforcement official involved in the case. It is the latest twist in the FBI's yet unsolved investigation of the anthrax murders.

You really should read the entire piece, boys and girls. But it is pretty clear that Hatfill was the object of a concerted leak and smear campaign, and the media were complicit.

Steven Hatfill, a medical doctor and an expert on viruses, was outed in a drumbeat of news reports that included aerial shots of the FBI seizing property from his apartment, including his trash.

And then-Attorney General John Ashcroft confirmed on television that Hatfill was a "person of interest."

But instead of the FBI nailing Hatfill, he filed his lawsuit claiming that with their leaks, the FBI and Justice Department had violated his presumption of innocence and destroyed his reputation.

There were—and are—several other "persons of interest" who have never been publically identified. Here is what Richard Lambert, head of the investigation said about that:

"There were 20 to 30 other people who were also likewise identified as 'persons of interest' in the investigation," Lambert said during the deposition [in the Hatfill litigation].

Lambert couldn't identify the other people, acknowledging that his testimony could stigmatize those individuals.

No s**t, Sherlock.

The 60 Minutes article does not describe the lawsuit in much detail, but its gravamen pretty clear rests on the reputational torts—defamation in its sundry forms. Here's Hatfill's lawyer:

"If you want a blueprint for ruining somebody, this is how you do it. You engage in a campaign of leaking investigative information to your favorite reporters who then write it, and create a caricature of you," Connolly tells Stahl.

Asked if he knows for sure that it was the FBI and Justice Department that were doing the leaking, Connolly says, "I know as a matter of existential truth it was the FBI and DOJ."

How does he know it?

"Because I have FBI agents under oath, who acknowledge under oath, that it couldn't have been coming from anywhere else because of what was being leaked," he explains.

Nine reporters also gave sworn testimony. In their stories, they often identified their sources as law enforcement officials [without specifically identifying the individuals]. . . .

The FBI and the DOJ even managed to annoy Senator Charles Grassley (R-Middle Earth) about this:

Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, has looked into the case and has concluded that there was leaking by top officials and that the purpose was not to shut Hatfill down, but to hide the lack of progress in the case.

"Do you have any evidence that they were planting information in the press that they knew was not true?" Stahl asks the senator.

"I believe the extent to which they wanted the public to believe that they were making great progress in this case, and the enormous pressure they had after a few years to show that, yes, that they was very much misleading the public," Sen. Grassley replies.

Back to shield laws. A shield law might protect an important whistleblower and encourage that person to come forward, but it can also facilitate the use of the media as conduits for egregious defamation by a vindictive source—even one in the government.

Is this the kind of protection we want to extend to Rumor-Mongering Blogs? Spot doesn't think so.

Tags: journalists' shield laws, defamation

Journalist, shield thyself!

Spot's last post, Not exactly, D.J., raised the issue of journalist shield laws or privilege against disclosing sources. It was in kind of an off-hand comment at the end, but the issue of journalists' protection of sources is an important one, unaddressed by the court in Olson v. Brodkorb. This is the issue where the rubber will meet the road when it comes to deciding whether bloggers are REAL journalists.

As MNO points out in a comment, there is no federal shield law. Boy, did Judith Miller and Scooter find that out the hard way! That's why, boys and girls, when it comes to hiring lawyers, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure! Lawyers are like the Fram oil filter man: you can pay them now or you can pay them later, usually much more.

The states are all over the map on the treatment of journalists' confidential sources. Here's a little crib sheet on state shield laws. As it happens, Minnesota does have a shield law. But if you're a journalist, it and four bucks will get your source a latte at Starbucks. Spot will take you though some sections of the Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act.

There is the public policy behind the statue, Minn. Stat. § 595.022:

In order to protect the public interest and the free flow of information, the news media should have the benefit of a substantial privilege not to reveal sources of information or to disclose unpublished information. To this end, the freedom of press requires protection of the confidential relationship between the news gatherer and the source of information. The purpose of sections 595.021 to 595.025 is to insure and perpetuate, consistent with the public interest, the confidential relationship between the news media and its sources.

And here is the section prohibiting disclosure, Minn. Stat. § 595.023:

Except as provided in section 595.024, for the purpose of transmission, dissemination or publication to the public shall be required by any court, grand jury, agency, department or branch of the state, or any of its political subdivisions or other public body, or by either house of the legislature or any committee, officer, member, or employee thereof, to disclose in any proceeding the person or means from or through which information was obtained, or to disclose any unpublished information procured by the person in the course of work or any of the person's notes, memoranda, recording tapes, film or other reportorial data whether or not it would tend to identify the person or means through which the information was obtained.

Boy, that's great Spotty! Anybody can spill their guts to a reporter—or maybe even fib to them a little—and never have to worry about it coming back to bite them!

As usual grasshopper, you forgot to read the fine print. What 23 giveth, 24 taketh away: Minn. Stat. § 595.024:

Subdivision 1. Disclosure; application. A person seeking disclosure may apply to the district court of the county where the person employed by or associated with a news media resides, has a principal place of business or where the proceeding in which the information sought is pending.

Subd. 2. Disclosure allowed; conditions. The application shall be granted only if the court determines after hearing the parties that the person making application, by clear and convincing evidence, has met all three of the following conditions:

(1) that there is probable cause to believe that the specific information sought (i) is clearly relevant to a gross misdemeanor or felony, or (ii) is clearly relevant to a misdemeanor so long as the information would not tend to identify the source of the information or the means through which it was obtained,

(2) that the information cannot be obtained by alternative means or remedies less destructive of first amendment rights, and

(3) that there is a compelling and overriding interest requiring the disclosure of the information where the disclosure is necessary to prevent injustice.

Subd. 3. Determination; appeal. The district court shall consider the nature of the proceedings, the merits of the claims and defenses, the adequacies of alternative remedies, the relevancy of the information sought, and the possibility of establishing by other means that which the source is expected or may tend to prove. The court shall make its appropriate order after making findings of fact. The order may be appealed directly to the Court of Appeals according to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The order is stayed and nondisclosure shall remain in full force and effect during the pendency of the appeal. Where the court finds that the information sought has been published or broadcast, there shall be no automatic stay unless an appeal is filed within two days after the order is issued. Either party may request expedited consideration.

In other words, a prosecutor can almost always compel the disclosure of the information and identification of the source unless the information is so unimportant that the prosecutor probably wouldn't bother with it anyway. But that's not all. There is an important exception to the shield in cases like the one Blois Olson brought against Michael Brodkorb. Minn. Stat. § 595.025 says this:

Subdivision 1. Disclosure prohibition; applicability. The prohibition of disclosure provided in section 595.023 shall not apply in any defamation action where the person seeking disclosure can demonstrate that the identity of the source will lead to relevant evidence on the issue of actual malice.

Subd. 2. Disclosure conditions. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision 1, the identity of the source of information shall not be ordered disclosed unless the following conditions are met:

(a) that there is probable cause to believe that the source has information clearly relevant to the issue of defamation;

(b) that the information cannot be obtained by any alternative means or remedy less destructive of first amendment rights.

Subd. 3. Determination; appeal. The court shall make its order on the issue of disclosure after making findings of fact, which order may be appealed to the Court of Appeals according to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. During the appeal the order is stayed and nondisclosure shall remain in full force and effect.

The court in Olson v. Brodkorb was silent on the issue of the applicability of the shield law. But that won't, of course, keep Spot from talking about it. You can see, boys and girls, that by the terms of 595.025, a defendant can be forced to cough up the identity of a source in any half-decent defamation dustup. Before poking a hole in the shield, however, a court must first determine if it even exists.

Here's the key language:

. . . no person who is or has been directly engaged in the gathering, procuring, compiling, editing, or publishing of information . . .

Is a rumor-mongering blogger (the "RMB"), such as M-- , well never mind that, a journalist? Spot doesn't think so, but some courts around the country have foolishly disagreed with Spot.

Why not, Spotty?

Because the RMB is not really a news source. The RMB exists in a nether world of gossip and innuendo. The principal goal of the RMB is not to inform but rather to harm political opponents. Some of the RMB's content is opinion, but most of it is trafficking in unverified natter and tattle. Go back and read the public policy section of the Minnesota shield law.

A lot of the RMB's material could never see the light of day in a legitimate news outlet. Sometimes RMB stories to make it into print, but it is only after a legitimate journalist gets verification and cross examines the source a little. Fine, says Spot, let the RMB publish its rumors, but hold it to the same standard as any other ordinary citizen.

Tags: journalists' shield laws, defamation

Not exactly, D.J.

As perhaps some of you know, boys and girls, Michael Brodkorb won a summary judgment motion in his defense of a defamation suit by Blois Olson. You can read the court's opinion here. The court did not rule that Brodkorb's statements about Olson were true; in fact, the court implied that the statements were false. The court rather found that Brodkorb's actions did not meet the actual malice test of New York Times v. Sullivan and its Minnesota companion, Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. Without proof of actual malice, Olson could not win.

Now, Spotty thinks Michael Brodkorb and MDE are walking, talking cases of actual malice, but that is neither here nor there for what Spot wants to discuss. Spot wants to discuss what D.J. Tice says the case Stands For. D.J. thinks that the court found that Michael Brodkorb was a journalist. That would be odious indeed, wouldn't it, boys and girls?

First of all, the case has no value as precedent because it is the ruling of a Minnesota trial court and will not be collected and published the way appellate court opinions are. The internet being what it is, some litigant may dust it off and quote it in the future, but it has no stare decisis value.

Moreover, the court did not explicitly hold that Michael Brodkorb is a journalist. Here is the sum total of what the court said on the subject:

The Court further notes that there is no expert opinion in this case that the scope of Defendant's verification efforts violated current journalistic standards; this type of opinion, absent here, can lead to circumstantial evidence of malice. See Workman v. Serrano, WL 771580 (Minn. Ct. App. March 28, 2006), rev. denied May 24, 2006 (unpublished).

What the court said was: if there was expert proof of deviation from a journalistic standard, that might be proof of malice. No way, no how is that the same as saying that bloggers are journalists. "The Court further notes" is hardly a conclusion of law in this case.

Journalists do love to quote Times v. Sullivan, but at its base, Sullivan is not really a journalism case. It's a public figures case. Public figures have to prove actual malice in order to prevail in a defamation case. Presumably, what constitutes actual malice will depend some on who utters the defamatory statements and the circumstances under which they were made. Spot can imagine a community where journalistic standards were so low that proof of meeting the standard might not take the speaker or writer off the hook for malice. Kind of like proving you were as competent as the other doctors in a hospital full of nincompoops.

And Blois Olson was a public figure. But don't take Spot's word for it:

By stipulation of the parties, Plaintiff Blois Olson is a limited-purpose public figure and the statements in question fell within the scope of Mr. Olson's public figure status; therefore, any defamation by Defendant must stand on clear and convincing legs of actual-malice, knowledge of its falsity.

In other words, Blois Olson agreed that he was a public figure for the purposes of what Michael Brodkorb said about him.

D.J. says the parties think—and apparently he does, too—that the ruling makes bloggers "full-fledged" journalists:

It is difficult, in reporting about public figures, to act with what the law considers "reckless disregard" for the truth — but it is not impossible. And if bloggers are going to be consistently held to that standard, some of them will need to discipline themselves.

On the other hand, for good and ill, if bloggers receive all the protections afforded traditional reporters — and especially if, as seems sensible, they receive the still greater latitude extended to commentary — they will generally remain unfettered in their ability to let the fur fly.

Do you get the feeling the prospect rather bothers D.J., boys and girls? Well, Spot hates to admit it, but he agrees with D.J. here. Public figures have to prove actual malice under Sullivan, but neither that case nor the district court's ruling in Olson v. Brodkorb say anything about, for example, the extension of the limited journalist's privilege as to confidential sources of bloggers.

So, to those of you tempted to tip Michael Brodkorb, be careful. It's probably still different than talking to Bob Woodward.

Update: Spot forgot to give a thump of the tail to MNO and da Wege for their orginal posting and spade work.

Tags: defamation, Times v. Sullivan, journalist's privilege

What were these lawyers thinking?

One of the things about the Libby trial that is puzzling to Spot is how Juror Number 9 got on the jury in the first place. Juror Number 9, or Denis Collins as he is more conventionally known, could hardly wait until the jury was dismissed to starting talking to the media about the case.

Who is Denis Collins, Spotty, and why is it puzzling to you that he got on the jury?

Well, grasshopper, this is what Maureen Dowd said about Juror Number 9 on Wednesday of this week (behind the NYT firewall, so no useless link):

But let's get back to the media decrying the media, and the incestuous Beltway relationship between journalists and sources. Listening to all the lamentations, I excitedly realized I had a potentially incestuous relationship with a source inside the Beltway.

I went to Nativity grade school in D.C. with Juror No. 9, Denis Collins. I had an unrequited crush on his brother when I was in seventh grade. His dad was my dad's lawyer, and both were Irish immigrants. My brother Kevin coached his brother Kevin in touch football. Our moms were in the Sodality together. His mom once chastised me for chatting up a little boy in church. We started in journalism together, Denis at The Washington Post as a sportswriter and Metro reporter, and me at The Washington Star as a sportswriter and Metro reporter.

Mo also said:

From the moment he stepped out of the courthouse and into the press mob in his green Eddie Bauer jacket, Denis became the unofficial jury spokesman, bouncing from Larry King to Anderson Cooper and "Good Morning America." I thought there still might be enough jury dish for me until I heard him say "Huffington Post blog."

According to Collins, he used to work for Bob Woodward at the Washington Post, was acquainted with Walter Pincus of the Post, and used to be Tim Russert's neighbor. All witnesses. In the case of Woodward and Russert, the relationships were close.

On top of that, Collins wrote a book about the CIA in 2005. If the lawyers—and the court—didn't figure out that Collins was likely to talk and write about his experience on the jury, they were asleep!

Judges, especially in federal court, work hard to keep prospective jurors in the pool by asking them questions—often leading questions: Being run over as a pedestrian and lingering near death for a month won't affect your ability to fairly judge this defendant accused of drunken driving, will it?—to elicit answers that the juror can be fair. It cuts down on the successful challenges for cause. Still, Collins' relationship with multiple witnesses should have disqualified him from serving.

It is also puzzling that one of the lawyers didn't use a peremptory challenge on Collins. These are challenges that each side gets to strike jurors "without cause." Well, that's not entirely true, but please just accept it for now, boys and girls. He was a very risky juror for both sides: having a potentially influential juror with information outside the evidence presented at trial. A member of the journalism fraternity, maybe that would make him pro-prosecution. On the other hand, maybe Bob Woodward was a jerk as a boss and Tim Russert did not keep his trash can clean. Maybe both sides ran out of challenges, and had no choice but to keep Juror Number 9.

And Collins has been talking and writing ever since the jury came back. He has an extensive post at Huffington Post that is probably the outline of the book he will be writing. And what do you suppose is happening now, boys and girls? Ted Wells (the chief defense lawyer) and his sidekicks are scrutinizing transcripts of everything Juror Number 9 said to the media or has written looking for evidence of jury misconduct. You can be sure that at least some of Collins' comments are going to show up in the assignments of error in the motion for a retrial or on appeal.

Collins may in the end turn out to have been a good juror for Scooter. If he contributes to the defendant's case for a new trial or a reversal, he helps keep the ball in the air until George Bush's term nears an end and he has nothing to lose politically by pardoning Scooter.

Tags: Scooter Libby, Denis Collins, Juror Number 9

HOLD THE PRESSES!

Spot just got a message that the vigil for Earnell Luster--originally scheduled for this evening--has been postponed to a later date.

More tail thumping

John Cook, the assistant principal at Robbinsdale Armstrong High School, penned an op-ed piece recently that appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. In it, Principal Cook addresses the black/white achievement gap that Councilman Don Samuels so charmingly raised.

Cook said:

Why do African-American students consistently lag behind whites in test scores, graduation rates and academic achievement? What are the root causes of academic underachievement in the black community? Although the answers are complex, the first step to addressing these dilemmas is relatively simple: We have to admit that the achievement gap is not just an educational problem. Rather, it is a byproduct of America's socio-economic, cultural, family and racial crises. The educational system is but one piece of the puzzle. These issues all intertwine to produce the conditions that create the achievement gap.

If all kids could attend the school of their choice, there'd still be an achievement gap; pulling some students out of low-performing schools and placing them into so-called "good schools" never addresses the core reasons so many African-American students struggle in the first place. If all schools had unlimited financial resources, there'd still be an achievement gap due to America's unresolved issues of race and class. These factors contribute to poor academic performance, crime, generational poverty and societal prejudice that, in turn, perpetuate the achievement gap.

If all educators had access to world-class staff development and taught the most effective curricula, there'd still be an achievement gap; the breakdown of the black family has reaped economic, social and academic consequences that impede academic progress. If every black child began first grade prepared to learn, there'd still be an achievement gap because not all educators believe black students are capable of learning on par with their white counterparts. Surely, low societal and academic expectations harm student learning.

Spotty thinks that maybe Principal Cook has a little pent-up frustration about this. Who could blame him? Spot can't find a link right now, but there was an article in the Strib recently about a study that showed that students who migrated out of the Minneapolis public school system under the "It's Your Choice" program did not do measurably better than their classmates who stayed behind. Maybe one of the thousands of readers at The Cucking Stool can help Spot out with the link.

One of the effects of the It's Your Choice program is, of course, to diminish the funding available to the Minneapolis public schools because of the per-pupil funding formula. This program may increase parent satisfaction, but it certainly isn't clear that it improves education for inner-city kids.

Spot will say it again. School vouchers, as championed by Don Samuels, Captain Fishsticks, Katie, and Mitch Pearlstein are just a red herring intended to destroy public education, not improve the education of inner-city kids.

Tags: school vouchers

For Edina residents only!

The rest of you, boys and girls, may run along, at least for the moment. (How's that for injecting a little exclusivity into the blog?)

And by the way, the Edina hockey team beat Eden Prairie last week to advance to the state hockey tournament. Edina's first game is tonight at six.

Knock it off, Spotty.

All right. But Spot does want to tell Edina residents about something they should be interested in.

A community-wide Comprehensive Plan meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 21, 2007, at the Edina Community Center (Auditorium), 5701 Normandale Road from 6:30 - 8:30. pm.

There is even child care available.

To encourage attendance at the community-wide Comprehensive Plan meeting Edina Park and Recreation is offering a childcare opportunity for youth ages 6 and older. Staff will be on hand to provide fun activities including games, crafts and dance. Please check in children by 6 pm in room 123. To RSVP for childcare please contact Vera Norine, with Edina's Park and Rec Department at 952-826-0437 by Tuesday, March 20th at 4:30 pm.

The Edina Planning Department will field your questions about the meeting at 952-826-0369.

The face of the city has changed a lot in recent years, and not all for the better in Spot's opinion. This meeting is a chance for citizens to have some say in Where We Go From Here.

Vigil for Earnell

Remember the Good Samaritan that Nick Coleman wrote about today? You know, the 53-year-old man who stopped a drunken assailant from beating on two women? And got killed for his trouble? Nobody in the neighborhood seemed to know about Earnell Luster, his bravery, or his death.

Ninth Ward Councilman Gary Schiff and couple of Phillips neighborhood groups are organizing a vigil for Earnell tomorrow night, Thursday, March 8 starting at 6 PM. It will be at the corner of East 26^th and Longfellow.

It would be nice of some of you could show up for a while and acknowledge Earnell's sacrifice.

Update: The vigil has been postponed.

Energetic tail thumping

Spot is all out of the handsome medallions for Spotty™ awards, so until he gets a batch of news ones in, he'll just have to recognize good stuff with a thump of the tail.

This first thump today goes to Philip Adam of Plymouth for his letter in today's Star Tribune:

He was a progressive

It's curious that Katherine Kersten referred to William Wilberforce as a fundamentalist Christian -- a term not coined until at least 50 years later (" 'Amazing Grace' tells how Christian spirit rose to bring an end to the horror of the slave trade," March 5).

In his day, he would have been considered a progressive Christian attacking powerful economic forces, regardless of their vicious counterattacks.

Yet Kersten repeatedly sides with powerful economic forces, reciting talking points from organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute. Recently she attacked those concerned about global warming for not being based in a traditional faith, and implied Christians are naïve for getting involved in this issue.

In another column, she attacked a modern-day progressive Christian, Al Gore, not on the issue, but with vicious invective, lies and slander.

Why does Kersten insist on bearing false witness?

Da Wege also had a good post on Kersten's Monday column:

But I don't think Kersten really embraces the concept of abolition, because it was about so much more than just evangelicals and ending U.S. slavery. Unless Quakers have suddenly become evangelicals, Kersten is radically mischaracterizing the nature of the religious movement that was at the heart of abolitionism, or the fact that our founding fathers (mostly Deists), were largely opposed to slavery but subjugated this matter to the need to provide a united front to the British.

As you all know, boys and girls, religion can be profoundly anti-progressive. Or it can be used as anti-progressive force, anyway. Spot has mentioned this before, but a contemporary example of this is the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's letter from the Birmingham jail. King was jailed because of his participation in a Good Friday march to end segregation.

On Good Friday in 1963, 53 blacks, led by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., marched into downtown Birmingham to protest the existing segregation laws. All were arrested. This caused the clergymen of this Southern town to compose a letter appealing to the black population to stop their demonstrations. This letter appeared in the Birmingham Newspaper. In response, Martin Luther King drafted a document that would mark the turning point of the Civil Rights movement and provide enduring inspiration to the struggle for racial equality. Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" strives to justify the desperate need for nonviolent direct action, the absolute immorality of unjust laws together with what a just law is, as well as, the increasing probability of the "Negro" resorting to extreme disorder and bloodshed, in addition to his utter disappointment with the Church who, in his opinion, had not lived up to their responsibilities as people of God. King's justification to the eight clergymen for protesting segregation begins with a profound explanation of their actions, "Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue." [italics are Spot's]

More recently, the so-called "evangelical Christians" have focused their jihad on another minority group, the gays.

§§§

Spot also want to recognize Dr. Charles Tietz of Virginia, Minnesota for this letter in Sunday's Star Tribune:

A public health issue

It is a shame that two female legislators have withdrawn their support for mandatory, with a parental-out clause, administration of the HPV vaccine for young females of our state (Star Tribune, Feb. 28).

Mandatory accomplishes one important thing: It forces third-party payers to stop rejecting payment for the vaccine for those patients who wish to have it. It will force Medical Assistance and MinnesotaCare to pay a fair amount for the administration of the vaccine, which they don't now and many low-income candidates don't receive as a result.

A task force to study it is not needed. The vaccine has been extensively tested and is fully supported by the American Cancer Society and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

This is not a moral issue but rather a public health issue. Why is the Legislature concerned about "ticket scalping" and not cancer prevention?

Spot wrote about this issue in The Wages of Sin are Death. The good doctor discusses an important practical angle: health plan reimbursement.

It moves Spot to near-speechless rage that "moralists" like Tom Pritchard and the Minnesota Family Council can be so callous and indifferent to a genuine public health concern.

Tags: Katherine Kersten, abolition, Martin Luther King, HPV vaccine

The Stupid Question

By D.J. Tice. Here's his question at The Big Question:

How does the media punish a U.S. Senate candidate for calling a U.S. Senator a "butt boy?"

Here is the quote attributed to Al Franken that is giving D.J. the vapors:

Sen Norm Coleman is…“one of the administration’s leading butt boys.”

Tice continues:

I lead a sheltered enough life that I had to have the meaning of “butt boy” explained to me. Suffice it to say that it is neither civil nor substantive.

Who explained it to you, Doug? Katherine Kersten? Hammer at Three Way News already dug out the Urban Dictionary definition of "butt boy":

A servile underling. Especially one who is also a sycophant. A suck up or brown-noser. Synonomous with "toadie" or "stooge." A butt boy does his Master's dirty work.

The CEO is sending one of his butt boys down to straighten out the mess in accounting.

That pretty much describes Norm Coleman, doesn't it boys and girls? Colorful, but entirely apt.

What Tice is trying to do here is obviously equate the use of the term "faggot" by Ann Coulter in describing John Edwards to Franken's use of "butt boy" to describe Norm Coleman.

Why is it, D.J., that we must attribute purity of thought to you, but not to Al Franken?

You know, D.J., Spot would have preferred Ambrose Bierce's definition of sycophant:

SYCOPHANT, n. One who approaches Greatness on his belly so that he may not be commanded to turn and be kicked. He is sometimes an editor. [italics are Spot's]

As the lean leech, its victim found, is pleased

To fix itself upon a part diseased

Till, its black hide distended with bad blood,

It drops to die of surfeit in the mud,

So the base sycophant with joy descries

His neighbor's weak spot and his mouth applies,

Gorges and prospers like the leech, although,

Unlike that reptile, he will not let go.

Gelasma, if it paid you to devote

Your talent to the service of a goat,

Showing by forceful logic that its beard

Is more than Aaron's fit to be revered;

If to the task of honoring its smell

Profit had prompted you, and love as well,

The world would benefit at last by you

And wealthy malefactors weep anew—

Your favor for a moment's space denied

And to the nobler object turned aside.

Is't not enough that thrifty millionaires

Who loot in freight and spoliate in fares,

Or, cursed with consciences that bid them fly

To safer villainies of darker dye,

Forswearing robbery and fain, instead,

To steal (they call it "cornering") our bread

May see you groveling their boots to lick

And begging for the favor of a kick?

Still must you follow to the bitter end

Your sycophantic disposition's trend,

And in your eagerness to please the rich

Hunt hungry sinners to their final ditch?

In Morgan's praise you smite the sounding wire,

And sing hosannas to great Havemeyher!

What's Satan done that him you should eschew?

He too is reeking rich— deducting you.

Here's the best question of all, D.J.: how is it that you think the media, especially the news side of the media, should take it upon itself to punish at all? Put a quarter in the cuss jar every time D.J. Tice, our new arbiter of civil discourse, says so? Equip all journalists with handy individual soap packets so that they can wash out the mouths of offenders on the spot?

Spot says stick to the news, D.J., and let our Katie pump the innuendos.

Update: BTW, Spot gives the same advice to Eric Black.


Technorati Tags: Ambrose Bierce, Al Franken, butt boy