A Kansas man, Scott Roeder, has been arrested for the murder of Dr. George Tiller (left), 67, who was shot while serving as an usher at his Wichita church Sunday morning. Tiller was one of the few U.S. doctors performing late-term abortions in the country and had previously survived a 1993 shooting outside of his clinic when he was shot in both arms. I discussed this case on this segment of Rachel Maddow Show.
Tiller died Sunday morning in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church, where he served as an usher. Witnesses were able to identify the gunman’s car and give police its license plate.
Tiller practiced for 40 years and was the target of fierce criticism and anger. This anger was fueled by commentators like Bill O’Reilly who repeatedly attacked Tiller by name as guilty of “Nazi stuff” and described him as “Tiller the Baby Killer.” For a description of the Fox statements about Tiller, click here.
He is only the latest victim of such an attack. In 1998, Dr. Barnett Slepian was killed by a sniper in his Amherst, New York, home.
In 1994, Dr. John Bayard Britton and a volunteer escort were shot and killed outside an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Florida.
In 1993, Dr. David Gunn, was shot to death outside his Pensacola clinic.
Eric Rudolph also attacked clinics, maimed a nurse, and killed an off-duty police in a spasm of violence in 1998. ,
For the full story, click here.
Slartibartfast, the controversial DHS report recently in the news had it right. If the government would treat these activities as domestic terrorism, they could be pursued criminally in the same manner that we have pursued various hate groups and survivalist militia movements.
Secondly, the successful efforts of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center in civil actions against the United Klans of America and the White Aryan Resistance provide a solid blueprint for asserting liability against anti-abortion groups whose harangues induce their members to engage in violent acts. Emptying the war chests of such groups could be extremely effective in reducing their rhetorical tone and their recruitment ability. I am certain that liability concerns are the explanation for the statements from a number of these groups dissaciating themselves from Roeder.
Slartibartfast,
Thanks. J. Byrne had the opportunity to state his case and instead he sure backed out leaving many unanswered questions.
Mike A. et al. Not one of the longer posts was ‘wasted’ because some of us read them all.
Mike A (and DOMINO and lottakatz and GWMom …),
I certainly don’t feel like JB has achieved any sort of victory (moral or otherwise) over us. When face with the option of defending his statements and earning the respect (if not agreement) of everyone here, he decided to run away. I guess that his creator didn’t endow him with much conviction in his beliefs.
JB (if you’re still listening),
You can easily vindicate yourself by returning to the field and proving us all wrong about you…
FFLEO,
I was waiting to see if Jim B posted before replying to you, but felt like I should weigh in after lottakatz’s last post. I admit that I, too, may have been hasty in calling JB a troll and will apologize to him should he show up again. Like I said in my last post, I am upset that the faux-christian anti-abortion jihadist’s terrorist tactics are having success in restricting women’s access to abortion and sometimes my passion and frustration get the better of me. I still believe that JB is close-minded and has no desire to engage in debate, but I would welcome his proving me wrong on that point. Also, I agree with lottakatz’s analysis in his last post that JB is at best a sexist.
Having just seen JB’s (allegedly) final post, it seems that this is a moot point, but I decided to post it anyway since FFLEO deserves an answer to his comment.
In an effort to get back on topic (if that’s possible): What are appropriate and effective measures to preserve a women’s right to choose from anti-abortion terrorists?
Hey, no fair. JB left without ever responding to my lengthy earlier post. You can’t declare moral victory by just making an assertion and walking away.
Bye Jim. Someday I hope you’ll be able to pull your head out of your rectitude.
In full Nixonian fashion, that states just about everything…
The presumptions people have made about me so far are pretty hilarious — and very revealing — of themselves more than me.
One day I’m a man. The next I’m a shrew. Then I’m a delicate flower. A moment later I have penis envy.
And I am pretty sure that if I had waited long enough, someone would have eventually called me ugly or accused me of not getting enough proper sex too.
That’s typically how it goes.
And what do you imagine might have happened if I’d said I was just a poor single mother? I can certainly guess. I’d likely be patted paternally on the head and shoo’ed away to the sidelines — so that people with superior strength, power, and social status could get on with discussing their choices about whether I deserve to have any choices at all. Haha!
This is pretty much the definition of patriarchy.
to all:
I am leaving, you wont have Jim Byrne to kick around anymore (with hands above head, arms outstretched and the V for victory sign made with the index and second fingers of both the left and right hand).
I declare moral victory and leave in the certitude of my knowledge and the rectitude of my cause.
Excuse me: “I think Jim’s closed minded, intellectually dishonest, and possesses an unearned feeling of superiority, but not a troll.”
I meant to edit that out in it’s entirety, but was interrupted in my proof reading. I apologize Jim.
A side note: if it helps clarify, I believe that the orginal internet use of “Troll” doesn’t from the mythical creature, but from trolling (the fishing term) as in: trolling for responses. The lure is a deliberately inflammatory statement.
I think Jim’s closed minded, intellectually dishonest, and possesses an unearned feeling of superiority.
If you really want to see trolling in action try going to the politics section of Fark.com looking in the on-site comments, they rate trolls on a scale of 0-10 depending on obviousness, how many responses it got, etc.
Jim,
I never said you should care that I’m done with you, I just wanted you to know the reason.
Lottakatz,
That was a respectful and well reasoned reply (as is the norm for you on this blog).
Slarti, lotta & FFLEO
The yeoman’s work for certain. Good show!
Lottakatz,
Thanks for your reply and the extra effort. We should get a good idea of JB’s position if he responds to you and Slartibartfast.
He does work for a living based on his stated “billable hours” so we should not assume too much if he does not reply quickly.
FFLEO: “The people calling Mr. JB a troll are doing so simply because he does not agree with you.”
[later post] “Perhaps Jim Byrne will respond; if not, then the issue is moot.” Not quite. I would never call someone a bigot or troll without a serious examination of their writing and having it pass a couple of tests.
I will disclose that IMO anyone denied the full and absolute control of their own body is the victim of discrimination. It’s actually a black and white issue with me. That I disagree with JB or perceives that he disagrees with me is not why I called him a troll. I do have other reasons but I may be wrong. I’ll explain them. It’ll be a long post; just scroll on by if you’re not in the mood 🙂
I apologize for referring to you in the third person JB but I’m replying to FFLEO. If you like, tell me why I’m absolutely wrong in my rationale.
The one thing that JB said that causes me to believe that there is an opportunity to be proven wrong is that he said he did not support the killing of Dr. Tiller and would put the perp in jail. His saying that he could see how some one might think killing one person was valid to prevent further murders doesn’t bother me. I too see the value of terrorism as a tactic in war and recognize it’s effectiveness. I see abortions as a great tragedy and suspect JB does also; these may be the only points of agreement we have on this issue.
Actually, I was making a comment (or attack) in opposition to JB and characterizing him a troll based on what he did post, and bigot NOT based on his arguments but on a couple of other point which I find telling.
Bigot is a precise word- I’ll semi-retract it but don’t disown it. The most obviously appropriate word is ‘sexist’. Sexism can also be bigotry but the two are not mutually inclusive but JB doesn’t recognize the settled medical debate of something so basic as zygotes- living being or no? I think that falls under the definition of bigotry for the purpose of my allegation but I’ll stick with ‘sexist’.
A troll or trollish behavior is generally recognized as designed to be disruptive or divisive.
JB completely moved the debate from a discussion over the immediate violence to an abortion provider to a debate centered on when life begins.
Violence and intimidation of medical professionals that perform abortions has a long history and this current example is a treasure trove for discussion. That’s not what this thread is about though, it’s still dithering around debating when life begins and (now) tangential, speculative excursions into liability mitigation etc.
Any real debate of the magnitude of the violence, its roots, it’s current enablers, the role of the Federal and local law enforcement (a natural for this blog), and possible solutions in law has evaporated. I’ve seen this happen time after time. This is the norm on almost every blog I have ever visited that has a discussion of some aspect of abortion rights, legislation etc. I think even Gyges asked him early on what his postings had to do with the topic at hand.
I believe that this is a ploy of the wing-nuts because I do not dismiss them as all ignorant or politically naive. To deflect reasoned discussion and commentary by manipulating a discussion away from higher order aspects of the debate is useful in suppressing a reasoned consensus in a diverse group. I also notice that there is no indication from JB that contrary arguments have any merit.
It appears to me that JB is a sexist due to a couple of things: his inference that gender is destiny (in assigning work roles) and ordained by God speaks for itself. He soft-petaled it but it’s there. I’ve heard every permutation of that argument over the last 40+ years and it all boils down to the same thing, there’s women’s work and mans work. Keep in mind that when I started my career women weren’t protected by EEO laws. I’ve heard it all from a time when men didn’t have to be afraid to say what they thought. My response to his statement is an example of someone bringing the totality of their life experience to the table. I’ve observed sexism historically from the unabashed to the subtle. I know it when I see it.
The first item though that disturbed me was his use of ‘Feminist’. It struck me on two levels. He used it in a derogatory manner, which was enough, but the reason- or lack thereof- for doing so also struck me.
There were two posts by commenter’s with a female nom de plume prior to JB’s posting. Another, male poster said “The campaign of hatred conducted by Bill O’Reilly is the moral equivalent of KKK members espousing violence against civil rights workers. They both represent calls for vigilante conduct…” and other male posters agreed. Then Domino agreed.
JB then posted “Our resident feminist has weighed in with a profound and original conclusion.” passing up the opportunity to make that kind of response to other male posters that had posted single line ‘atta’ boys’.
In a later post he again made a comment personal to Domino with: “I think I was right. You appear to have some real gender issues. Do you secretly desire to be a man?”. That was old school and way out of line. Her posts were not as hard on him as were postings from males yet he made a personal and dismissive response to her that was sexist.
JB got short with a presumed female that had made relatively innocuous postings given the thread . Why would he do that? More precisely, why would he feel comfortable directing those responses in her direction? I see that as a notion that a female poster can be verbally abused with greater ease and less consequence than male posters. If he was angry by a previous posting he should have directed his debate to that posting. If he was angered by Domino’s specific postings he should have refrained from clearly sexist insults to argue his points of contention.
As you observed, JB reads and specifically responds to comments in opposition so what happened? I think his sarcasm was directed to what he is comfortable with thinking was a naturally weak segment of the thread and is indicative of his generally inferred ‘gender is destiny’ attitude.
Now, again, as you observed JB did respond ‘on the fly’ and did so cogently even if I (or others) disagree with his premise. I know that’s confusing and stressful over a long thread and hope that’s the nut of it. His postings met the tests for me to conclude he was a troll and, at least, succumbed to subconscious discriminatory impulses. I don’t see that as cliquish. If similar but race based statements were made to a poster that disclosed him/herself as African American I’d call it as racist.
Slartibartfast,
“…for calling him a troll.”
____________
Those are your words that I referenced. I simply did not expect that from you—given your debate skills—as you joined the mindset of the unreasoning ‘pack’ mentality.
GW Mom, I read that comment labeling you a troll when you first arrived. I certainly did not agree with that anymore than I agree with the same derogatory appellation for JB. Thank you for reminding us that even some now-regular posters were once considered “trolls” when they dared to posit contrary opinions during their fledgling posts within this sometimes nonsensically cliquish blawg.
Perhaps Jim Byrne will respond; if not, then the issue is moot. If he does respond, I suggest that he provides us a brief, general curriculum vitae—as others here have done—to provide a better sense of what he posits and why. Knowing commenters’ present or past professions provides additional insight into their attempts at logic and reasoning.
Slart, and gang
I have no idea who the trolls are. at one time I was called a troll.
I have to agree with Leo… is a troll someone who does not roll with the majority and/or who may seem uh, unreasonable in their vehemence on one subject or another?
I assume that a proclivity for poor spelling and punctuation is also a sign of troll behavior. Maybe picking on someone who is well-liked is another.
Usually I will engage with someone until doing so becomes ineffective and starts to feel like well, talking to furniture. I’ll never be able to convince my chair to become a table, and so there we are, chairs and tables each trying to achieve dominance in the marketplace of ideas.
Gloria Steinem also wrote and I love this one: A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.
I happen to love men. They are often attractive and companionable and make good conversation. Oftentimes they can reach things that women place on the highest shelves that we have. This is a test. How many times can we get him to get up from the sofa when the game is tied in the 4th quarter or 9th inning with 2 on and 2 out and one pitch away from the pennant to reach whatever it is on that top shelf that we have to have right now.
I have a nice man, one who has decided that I’m interesting enough to spend 28 years with. I like to say that I married him, although I do not believe in marriage as an institution or monogamy, because he is taller than me, smarter than me and nicer than me. I stay with him because he is still the most interesting guy I’ve met and he makes me laugh. Still, he is not in charge of anything I say, do or plan to do. He is along for my ride as I am along for his.
FFLEO,
What words do you mean? That I should have known that I could never change his mind? Why should that surprise you coming from a scientist? I have had some experience debating with people who hold to ideas based on their religious beliefs in the face of reason, logic, and scientific evidence and JB certainly shows signs of this. Twice I logically extended his arguments to show that they did not support his conclusions, leaving him the options of 1) disavowing his premises, 2) disputing my reasoning, 3) agreeing with me, or 4) ignoring me. He repeatedly chose option 4 (although he did respond to other elements of my posts). There is nothing wrong with his doing so, but it indicates to me that he is unwilling to debate and just wants to state his opinion over and over. I am uninterested in an argument from a Monty Python sketch. Furthermore, upon rereading JB’s posts, I decided that lottakatz had a point in calling him a bigot. Finally, given that the anti-abortion terrorists seem to be accomplishing their goal of making abortion unavailable, I have a low tolerance for their apologists right now. If JB wishes to respond to my points I will happily reengage in discussion with him (and apologize for calling him a troll), but until then I see no need to bang my head against what I see as his closed mind. A big part of the reason I respect your opinion so much is because when we disagree you tackle my arguments head on which challenges me to consider your points and either address or agree with them. Until JB demonstrates this ability, I see no reason to change my mind about him. I don’t see any of this as inconsistent with my being a scientist, but if you would care to elaborate your point I would be happy to respond.
LottaK,
Get a Battery Back up Built in surge protector
The people calling Mr. JB a troll are doing so simply because he does not agree with you. A troll is someone like jelly, long eagle, mary, gunderson, ad nauseam.
JB presented contrary positions without the usual copy/paste all caps nonsense, and he replied with answers. As a pro-choice proponent, I do not agree with all that he stated and he got some things wrong, misattributed Domino, but then we all err.
Slartib, since you are a biometrician, and therefore a mathematical scientist, I am most surprised by your last words.