Pandagon Blog

Today I read the past few days of posts on Pandagon, an obviously liberal blog which features outrageous political stories. A few of the posts from the past few days stuck out to me. The first was about an abstinence educator named Keith Deltano. It remarks on how abstinence only education does not work, but money is still being given from the government to fund these programs. The post includes a video of a Keith Deltano conducting his abstinence only routine for a group of students. The post is clearly mocking the routine and implies that Keith Deltano is having a negative impact on students, reinforcing gender stereotypes and insulting the intelligence of females. The author, Pam Spaulding, uses a very informal tone in the post, which appears to be aimed at getting a rise out of people by explaining that, as outrageous as this program is, it is funded by United States taxpayers. I know I am offended that any of my money would support the programs of this "cinder block wielding lunatic."

The next post that caught my attention was by Amanda Marcotte and is about the controversy over President Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame. This post is also informal in tone. Ms. Marcotte states that there really is no controversy, and that only a small number of right-wing "wankers" are objecting. The post says that those who are creating the problem say it is a relgious issue because President Obama is Pro-Choice, which goes against Catholic teaching. However, Ms. Marcotte cites the inconsistency that Notre Dame had no problem with President Bush who initiated the Iraq War, but war is also against Catholic teaching. The post insinuates that is really a race issue, but then does not address that for the rest of the post stating that discussing it would result in "bunch of pearl-clutching faux outrage of the sort we’ve seen from Donna Barstow or Byron York." The author seems to dismiss this as a non-issue, implying that the right wing minority at Notre Dame will not have any impact whatsoever.

Another post that really stood out to me was written by Pam Spaulding and described a school in Kentucky's new policy of banning homosexual students from the restrooms. Allegedly, an Assistant Principal of Franklin County High School in Kentucky sent an e-mail to teachers directing them to not allow homosexual students out of the class to use the restroom. This e-mail came as a result of two female students being caught kissing in the restroom. Ms. Spaulding states the obvious health issue, and also points out the laughable irony that the word of the month at Franklin County High School is tolerance. I agree that there is no need for students to be making public displays of affection in High School entirely, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, but this Assistant Principal went way too far in her attempt to prevent this specific type of incident. I can only wonder what her policy is on the heterosexual students (who, if my high school is indicative of what other schools across the nation are like, do the same thing). In this instance, I really hope that this report is mistaken, because I would like to believe someone who could be an Assistant Principal would not be that ignorant.

I was very entertained by reading Pandagon. The authors of the blog use the shock factor to their advantage, taking any outlandish story and addressing it as you would if speaking to a friend. The informal tone of the blog tied with the type of posts they write makes it a fun read. However, I am not sure how informative the posts really are, because they seem to be more aimed at getting a reaction than explaining both sides of the story. I heard about things I had not heard about elsewhere, so I suppose it is informative, and I was annoyed that people could be so ridiculous when I read them, but I can not help but suspect that in some instances there is probably more to the story.

First Supreme Court Justice Appointment for Obama

Today the New York Times announced that Supreme Court Justice Souter will be retiring at the end of the term in June. The Times article notes that this will be the first Supreme Court appointee for President Obama and the first appointee under a Democratic President in fifteen years. The two most recent appointments, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, were both under President George W. Bush. The confirmation process for these two slots on the Court were long and drawn out, and as the Times states, "intensely partisan and divisive moments in Washington". However, since the Democrats have such a large majority in the Senate, it does not seem as if President Obama will have as much trouble getting his nominee confirmed.

Justice Souter has expressed his disdain for Washington quite clearly and has apparently been telling friends since before the election that if President Obama won, he would be leaving the court. He was appointed by President George Bush, Sr. in 1990. Obviously, he was expected to be a conservative, but surprised many by becoming one of the most reliable members of the liberal side of the court. The Times article points out that replacing him with a liberal will not make any big impression on the overall ideology of the court. I have to disagree with that idea. Right now, there are five conservatives and four liberals on the court. Justice Kennedy, a moderate conservative, tends to be the swing vote in most circumstances. If Souter, who the Martin-Quinn Supreme Court Ideology Project scores as having about the same level of liberal leaning as Breyer and Ginsberg (which is less than the most extreme liberal on the Court: Stevens), is replaced by someone who does not have near that same level of liberal leaning, there can be many different outcomes. I am not saying to appoint an extreme liberal because I do not think that would have any type of positive effect on the court, in fact, I think it would make it more divisive. However, if President Obama appoints a Justice that is more moderate than Breyer and Ginsberg, the new Justice may be apt to side with the conservatives on more issues than the others would. This would definitely give the conservatives on the Court a clear advantage. Ideology is something that President Obama should carefully consider in the appointment of the new Justice, especaially when there are so many more extreme conservatives on the Court than there are extreme liberals.

Additionally, Mary L. Dudziak of the blog, Balkinization, wrote a post entitled: "What should Obama look for in a Supreme Court Justice?" defining what she thinks the most important issues the President should take into consideration are. Beyond mere ideology, I agree with Ms. Dudziak that the life experience of the appointee are invaluable in helping them to form their legal opinions. Justice Ginsberg has been an outspoken advocate for the rights of women, not only because she is a woman, but because she experienced the discrimination women all over America have faced (and some are still facing). Her ideas of possible experience that would bring the necessary kind of diversity to the court are stated by her as follows:

"The next justice must understand that legal principles are not simply abstractions but have immediate and long-term consequences in the lives of individuals and communities. Perhaps Obama's nominee will have represented clients in deportation hearings, served low-income families in a legal aid office, or advised gay and lesbian members of the armed services. At this moment in American history, a nominee who has represented detainees at Guantanamo could bring important insights into the court's deliberations and further signal a change in the nation's posture toward human rights."

She also states that the appointee should be someone who can bring the opposite ends of the Court together, a mediator of sorts. I could not agree with Ms. Dudziak more. I want a Justice who has seen the real problems of the country and actually experienced them, and I can not think of another President who I would legitimately expect to use that as criteria. However, I have faith that President Obama will pick someone who will bring real world experience to the bench as well build some bridges between the conservatives and liberals of the Court.

Mr. America

In two Op-Eds Larger Than Life in London and Liberty, Equality, Envy from today's New York Times, A.A. Gill and Amélie Nothomb remarked on President Obama's visit to London. I found these articles particularly intriguing, as they presented the views of citizens in other countries toward our new President, Barack Obama.

The view of A.A. Gill, of London, is clearly expressed in the title of his article where he describes the President as "Larger Than Life". He seems to take President Obama and First Lady Michele Obama as a breath of fresh air among stale and disconnected world leaders. After reading this article, one would envision the Obamas as vibrant, young, and most importantly extremely humble and gracious people. He focuses on the character of President and First Lady Obama as the most important factor in their future success. However, he also notes something that I think is extremely important, people around the entire world love the Obamas. He describes President Obama as the "only popular politician left in the world." This has immeasurable importance now that every issue has become globalized. In contrast to the isolationist personality of President Bush, President Obama has gone around the world impressing both world leaders and world citizens. The fact that world leaders want to be associated with him will prove very useful foreign relations in the future. It is also quite comforting to know that our President is held in such high regard globally.

Amélie Nothomb, of France, wrote a similarly praising article. Her position is that not only do people around the world love our President, but that they are jealous of us for having such an amazing leader. She also states that the leaders are even more envious, "wondering why they are not loved as well as Barack Obama is loved." The general tone of Ms. Nothomb's article is that people worldwide worship President Obama, she even states that "Mr. Obama's anger is portrayed here as something holy." While I wonder if that statement takes things a bit far, the important fact is people everywhere appear to be very supportive of our new President.

With such high expectations globally, I sincerely hope that President Obama will be able to live up to all of them. I agree with both columnists in the respect that I am proud to have Barack Obama as the President of the United States. However, we do still have to wait and see how he handles the many national and international crises he has inherited. Hopefully, for all of us worldwide, President Obama will show over and over again that he deserves the popularity.