Watch what you say

I'll say this for them: Right-wing commentators have a talent for taking obscure quotations of the people they seek to criticise, untethering them from the context in which they were made, and then building huge arguments on the foundation of these thin little straws. Any alternative, reasonable explanation to what was said is, of course, ignored.

This happened with Barack Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" comment on the election trail and also his "spread the wealth around" remark to Joe the Fake Plumber. Both were open to innocuous and harmless interpretations if the listener were so inclined. But conservative listeners would have none of it - to them, these remarks were proof that Obama was a Marxist bed wetter who probably stole library books and kicked dogs when no one was looking.

Something similar has happened to Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court.

In 2001 - eight years ago! - Judge Sotomayor made a speech in Berkeley about Latinas and the judiciary, in the course of which she uttered these shocking (to right-wing gottcha artists) words:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

You will note that she only hoped this were the case - and what she was really doing was talking up and taking pride in her heritage before a sympathetic crowd. No matter. She now stands convicted by the right-wing idiotocracy of the terrible crime of "identity politics," which is apparently as bad as having empathy.

Just this week, columnist George F. Will was going on about this as he does regularly. (I looked up our electronic library and he has used the "identity politics" phrase 15 times in columns since 1995. I would have thought it more often - the guy seems like a talking Tory parrot when it comes to squawking about "identity politics," but sometimes he takes a break to chew on a cracker, as he did between 2003 and 1999, when he was silent on the subject. Now Judge Sonia has his feathers ruffled again).

Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

World leaders are coming! World leaders are coming!

When I was in my '20s, I co-produced a small 8 mm film, entirely acted in mime with a rock 'n roll sound track, titled "The Monster That Threatened the Earth and Got Killed in the End," the title being a fair synopsis of the plot.

One of the scenes featured a Meeting of World Scientists to deal with the monstrous threat, which here was depicted as being held in an outhouse with a plentiful supply of cold beer.

Ever since, meetings of world officials of any sort have brought a smile to my face. I should be positively delirious with laughter by the time world figures descend on Pittsburgh in September. As announced this afternoon on the PG Web site, the visitors won't be scientists but actual heads of state here to attend the G20 summit on Sept. 24 and Sept. 25. This is a very bid deal and a huge feather in the cap 'n at for Pittsburgh.

All I can think of is what a huge pain in the butt it will be for the rest of us. How will I get to work amid the security? (Sept. 24 is a Thursday and Sept. 25 is a Friday). Where will I park with the world's media descended on the place? How will a man be able to get a sandwich at Primanti's with world leaders thronging the joint? What about the ratbags in the street protesting this, that and the other thing? The average person won't be able to enter an outhouse without finding it full of chin-stroking beer drinkers.

Perhaps I can take a furlough then.

If I were making a film today, I would set it in Pittsburgh in September and call it "The Meeting to Save the World Economy That Threatened the Burgh and Was a Monstrous Pain in the End."

I know, I know, this is entirely the wrong civic attitude.

Note to the merry band of Reg-ulators who posts comments: Way to go, Mermaid, in your reply to Little Minx. The whole point of my posting about John Roberts was to attack the myth that only liberal judges are activists. What to call right-wing judges who make law? Activist judges, plain and simple.

When nice judges turn bad

Back in August 2005, I wrote a column warning about John Roberts' nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that his penchant for being nice likely hid a sly conservative nature. "As any gal will tell you," I wrote, "it's the nice ones who break your heart."

That column led me to being denounced nationally by the great bloviator himself, Rush Limbaugh. That was one of my proudest moments. I was a hero to my son and my friends, even some of the conservative ones.

Ever since those heady days, I have tried to bring back the excitement by goading the large sack of sandwiches into another anti-Reg outburst on air. Unfortunately, he is cottoned on to the fact that I was highly amused by the incident, and, not wishing to amuse me further, he has not risen to the bait.

Of course, it turned out that I was right, which is a bit unusual and lays more claim to being news than Rush being wrong - after all, he's always wrong.

As the nation discusses President Obama's choice for the court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, she of the reputed empathy which drives conservatives crazy, it is worth looking back at the Roberts' nomination as we hear conservatives say once more that judges should just follow the Constitution.

As a timely article by Jeffrey Toobin in the May 25 New Yorker magazine makes clear (The Annals of Law: "No More Mr. Nice Guy"), Chief Justice Roberts has his own reading of the Constitution - and it's hardly impartial. He is, in Toobin's view, not a humble moderate but a "doctrinaire conservative."

"In every major case since he became the nation's seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff."

Did the Constitution make him do it? Of course not. It's just as I predicted: It's the nice ones who break your heart.

A nomination and an opportunity

All day, my email has been an artillery range where right-wing gunners have bombarded President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. Clearly, this artillery has been primed and in place for quite a while, just waiting to begin the barrage. The political shells are packed with the usual loaded words - liberal, activist judge, makes law from the bench etc.

At this stage, none of her critics really knows Judge Sotomayor, just as they would not know any other nominee. They make much of little, including the judge's past public statements and a few opinions they did not like. What they do know is that she was nominated by Obama and that is good enough (or bad enough) for them.

Actually, this really isn't about whether Sonia Sotomayor would make a good Supreme Court justice. It is about a political opportunity. I include one of the missiles, one from Richard Viguerie (someone whose absurdity was the subject of a recent post). Note the glee as the wolves fall to the task of devouring:

 Richard Viguerie: Sotomayor Nomination is a Major Opportunity for Conservatives to Define President Obama as a Radical Liberal

 MANASSAS, Virginia, May 26 /Christian Newswire/ -- The following is a statement by Richard A. Viguerie, Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, regarding President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court:

"This is an enormous opportunity for conservatives to define President Obama as a radical liberal in a way that Republicans have so far failed to do.

"This is the first opportunity in over 40 years for conservatives to have a national debate on the role of the judiciary. Conservatives always win ideological battles, either on the short run or the long run.

"The primary opposition to Sonia Sotomayor will come from conservatives at the national, state, and local levels.

"President Obama's selection of Sonia Sotomayor to replace liberal David Souter on the Supreme Court will unite all wings of the conservative movement in a major effort to educate the American people on the U.S. Constitution and the proper role of the judiciary."

Specialist Boxers in the pink

Although I am not familiar with his work, I understand that Captain Underpants is a comic book and cartoon super-hero character for kids. Move over Captain Underpants.

For adults, and just in time for the Memorial Day weekend, we have a new super hero: Specialist Boxers.

Army Specialist Zachary Boyd was pictured on the front page of the New York Times on May 12 while fighting for his country at an outpost in Kumar Province, Afghanistan. This is good. Only problem was that he was wearing pink boxers and flip flops at the time.

The Taliban had made an unscheduled call - they are most inconsiderate about dropping in like that - and Specialist Boyd tumbled out of bed to take his place at the parapet with his more conventionally attired brothers in arms. An Associated Press photographer was on hand to capture this wonderful scene.

No doubt Specialist Boyd's parents were very proud to see a picture of their son at the front but he reportedly told them he was worried that he might get into trouble. That probably wasn't a trivial concern - the military can be stuffy about things like pink underwear, at least they were in my day.

Not to worry. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made it clear to an audience in New York Thursday night that Specialist Boyd's job is safe.

"Any soldier who goes into battle against the Taliban in pink boxers and flip-flops has a special kind of courage," Mr. Gates said.

And, according to the AP, he suggested that Specialist Boyd may have hit on a new kind of psychological warfare. "I can only wonder about the impact on the Taliban. Just imagine seeing that - a guy in pink boxers and flip-flops has you in his crosshairs."

Specialist Boxers, I salute you. You are not only making the world safe for democracy but striking a blow for the wearers of pink underwear everywhere.

No drinking to that

The main story in the Post-Gazette this morning was about how the powers-that-be in Washington are considering an alcohol tax to fund health care. The story starts out "Joe Six-Pack may have to hand over nearly $2 more for a case of beer to help provide health insurance for all."

I support health insurance for all but can't another tax be found that leaves beer drinkers alone? (Joe Six-Pack won't be the only one hit; Bob Wino and Martini Mary are also going to get hit up to pay for this. The story makes clear that taxes on wine and hard liquor -- even soda pop -- would also go up under such a plan.

Granted, there is a connection between drinking and health. You drink beer, you get a big gut, you have a heart attack and die.

Still, the common people (that would be Joe-Six Pack, me, Wino Bob and Mary) should be left undisturbed in their simple pleasures. Take those pleasures away, and a new era of misery will descend upon the land.

And don't go telling me about sin taxes. Drinking beer is not a sin until such time as the drinker gets into a car loaded to the gills. In my view, sins require less clothing or more greed. Perhaps we could tax condoms or giant all-you-can-eat buffets.

I hope readers of this blog will be equally offended by the threat to suds and other suspect drinks. Or have we nothing in common? 

Poll says 91% of conservatives are barking mad

Barack Obama has been something of a surprise to some people and mostly this is because of what he hasn't done. He hasn't nationalized the banks, he hasn't stopped fighting the terrorists (he is beefing up our troops in Afghanistan), he hasn't completely abandoned some of the policies of the Bush administration (leading to an amusing cartoon by Rob Rogers last Friday, in which Bush comes back to reclaim his old teleprompter). For heaven sakes, the ACLU is mad at Obama for not releasing pictures of torture.

A sane person might say that in office he has proved himself to be cautious, pragmatic and thoughtful.

But sane people do not seem to reside in the ranks of conservatives. This afternoon I received a press release from the Web site of Richard Viguerie, who has been a leading light in the conservative movement. As best as I can figure, it suggests that 91 percent of conservatives are insane, at least judging by the tags they put on Obama.

I reproduce it below. Read it and weep - or else laugh hysterically at the antics of these clowns.

91% of Conservatives Believe Obama is a Socialist, Marxist, Communist or Fascist

MANASSAS, VA - An online poll by the ConservativeHQ.com Web site found that 91 percent of 1,848 self-identified conservatives believe President Obama is a socialist (46 percent), Marxist (24 percent), communist (11 percent), or fascist (10 percent).

Only 7 percent considered him to be a liberal (5 percent), or a progressive (2 percent).

Richard Viguerie, Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, commented on the results:

"While this is not a scientific poll of conservatives, it is a meaningful indicator that most conservatives (the GOP base) see Obama as a dangerous radical.

"Rather than Americans coming together as a result of the election, it appears that America is becoming much more polarized.

"Because so many conservatives see President Obama as a radical leftist, Republican politicians will be under pressure to step up their criticism of President Obama and the Democrats who are closely cooperating with him.

"It will also make compromise more difficult for GOP officials. Any Republican who wants to be a national leader will feel obligated to view Obama as the vast majority of the GOP base sees him."

The poll, conducted from May 12 through May 19, asked, "How Would You Describe President Obama's Political Philosophy?" The complete results* from conservatives were:

Socialist 46% (842)

Marxist 24% (437)

Communist 11% (200)

Fascist 10% (193)

Liberal 5% (87)

Progressive 2% (41)

Moderate 1% (24)

Other 0% (9)

Populist 0% (8)

Conservative 0% (7)

Libertarian 0% (0)

* Percentages may not add to 100% because of rounding)

My time as a soccer genius

Today, after dutifully voting (and it was all duty as the pulse did not race in contemplation of any contest on the ballot), I came into work to write my column. But what to write about?

It is the weekly dilemma. I don't want to write about politics every week, even though I know it will attract much more reader interest than something simply whimsical. I certainly don't want to write about President Barack Obama every week, even though I admire him. I like to mix my subjects up and I want the subject to be funny.

Unfortunately, the one idea I had, while it wasn't political, was about the president - how he has become a soccer dad. According to the Associated Press, he spent a part of last Saturday on the sidelines watching his daughters play soccer. That had potential as a possible column idea

Back in the day, I was a soccer dad myself and I went on to coach my kids' teams. It was a wonderful time in my life.

My own experience as a player was limited and unsuccessful. When I worked on the sports desk of the Times of London in the 1970s, I played on the office team - the Thunderballs, so named because in its glory days The Times was called The Thunderer after its thundering editorials. It's a good thing our local papers aren't named after their editorials. The Trib might be called The Foamer. Of course, it isn't for me to say what name the PG would take from its editorials but that is the fun I leave for you. Any suggestions?

Most of our opponents had no trouble stealing our thunder. I particularly remember playing a team of soccer-savvy Irish journalists at Regent's Park, near the London Zoo. I was no gazelle on the field and further I had no real idea what I was doing. I was the left back or perhaps the right back. Mostly, I was the guy at the back looking lost and sometimes chatting with the goalie.

I had no real idea what I was doing when I first started coaching the kids' teams too but I did have one huge advantage as far as the parents in America were concerned - I had an accent, so presumptively I was a soccer genius. I did not disabuse them of this notion.

All of this would have made it into the column. Instead, in a fit of madness, I wrote about bird watching. If you like to avoid my political columns, this one is for you - it is Obama free. Whether it's laugh free will probably remain a mystery to me - sad to say, the non-political columns, never get much reaction. The things I do for the cause of whimsy.

Too sleazy to be lawyers?

 Although I have been against prosecuting members of the Bush administration in regard to their torture policies, on the grounds that tearing the country apart in what would appear a political vendetta is not worth the cost, I must say that the more Dick Cheney shoots his mouth off the more he seems to be asking for it.

I think his tongue should stay firmly in an undisclosed location and quit tempting someone to call his bluff. Still, unlike Maureen Dowd, as per her column this morning, I'm not quite there yet. I comfort myself that no-one sane has ever believed a word Cheney has said so the defense of his policies isn't likely to ring true now.

But when it comes to righteous vengeance, I have no problem with outsourcing. The Associated Press reported this morning that two outside groups - VotersForPeace.US and Velvet Revolution - are seeking to have Bush administration lawyers linked to memos on harsh interrogation techniques to lose their licenses to practice law.

"Complaints were to be filed Monday against former attorneys general John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Stephen Bradbury. The complaints were being filed in the District of Columbia and four states - New York, California, Texas and Pennsylvania," the AP reported.

I am glad someone is trying. Bill Clinton was disbarred in Arkansas for less. I couldn't think of a more suitable punishment for these cats than being told that their defense of torture made them too immoral to be lawyers.

Mt. Lebanon, abode of giants

Working for a newspaper is sometimes a depressing "Gulliver's Travels" sort of experience, with an army of critics always on hand to try to bind one down with their tiny ropes.

But not last night. I went to the Mt. Lebanon Public Library to give a talk for the Friends of the Library. No mental midgets in this crowd.

The whole experience was a tonic. At least in Mt. Lebanon, a sizable number of people love newspapers in general and the Post-Gazette in particular. They were smart, educated and civically engaged; they asked good questions and, best of all, laughed at my jokes. They actually get my column, as the legions of Lilluptians do not.

Who needs enemies when you have Friends like this?

Re. my last posting: Way to go, Little Minx. Your comments may have been catty but were right to the point.