Skip

More on Ashcroft (via Salon)
January 18, 2001 2:17 PM   Subscribe

More on Ashcroft (via Salon) Supported a law that makes it OK to kill abortion providers. This is not a "political difference of opinion." The man is dangerous.
posted by jpoulos (18 comments total)

 
Do we really need three Ashcoft posts in 24 hours? What is the point? We already have two other Ashcroft threads which are both active.

If you have a point to make why not make it there?
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:54 PM on January 18, 2001


It appears as though his wife has spent too much time reading this nutcase: And I think for a lot of women in that situation, that is probably the most important consideration: What is this man going to think of me?" she said.

Whew! I wonder if Ashcroft asked her what she was wearing when it happened, lest she have been asking for it. Good God. It also sounds like the "compassionate" part of his conservatism only applies to his women.
posted by mimi at 2:59 PM on January 18, 2001


I was wondering where all the "too many Ashcroft links" backlash was. This was up for almost an hour. You people are slacking.

He didn't grovel and beg for mercy about his Salon link either, so I expect you all to give him shit for that, too.
posted by jennyb at 3:01 PM on January 18, 2001


I'm beginning to wonder when Matt will introduce ashcroft.metafilter.com - all ashcroft, all the time.
posted by tiaka at 3:06 PM on January 18, 2001


jennyb - [sigh] I happen to agree that Ashcroft is dangerous, but I also think it's a bad thing for Metafilter to encourage simultaneous, redundant debates about Ashcroft.

With perceived signal to noise issues threatening to bring moderation to Metafilter, I think it would be a good thing to try and nudge people in the direction of less noise.

IMHO, the place for this link, and any associated argument is in the other debates which are currently taking place on this issue.

Anyone in the world can come here and post. We need to all take some responsibility for the quality of Metafilter. I enjoy hearing opposing opinions and I don't want to see them moderated out of existence.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:24 PM on January 18, 2001


Agreed, y6y6y6. Less volume, more quality.

posted by lagado at 4:59 PM on January 18, 2001


I enjoy hearing opposing opinions and I don't want to see them moderated out of existence.

Great assumption - any moderation I do would be to squash out voices I don't agree with?

Thanks a lot for assuming I have an ax to grind and can't be impartial. I would judge posts on the quality of the argument made, the link, the relevancy, not someone's political viewpoints. Well-written, controversial topics make for some of the best threads here, and that has nothing to do right- or left-ness.

I would moderate to remove non-discussion inducing clutter. The whole point would be to remove noise and keep the high signal. It would make the site better and easier to take in, not more liberal.

sheesh.
posted by mathowie at 5:02 PM on January 18, 2001


"any moderation I do would be to squash out voices I don't agree with?"

No....... That isn't what I meant at all.

If I go to Slashdot and turn off moderation I see all kinds of things (admittedly mostly trash) that most readers never see. When I mentioned moderation I was talking about the sort of thing that is done at Slashdot.

That's what I meant.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:10 PM on January 18, 2001


oh ok, that's not the moderation I have planned or have talked about recently. I've talked about moderating the index page myself, approving posts and no longer letting anything go up.
posted by mathowie at 5:12 PM on January 18, 2001


mathowie - I feel bad that I offended you. In an attempt to clear the air, let me say that I've agreed with all of the moderations you've done. While we've never met, I have a great deal of respect for you and I've been very impressed by your level of impartiality.

I frequently point people to Metafilter as an example of what's best about the Internet.

(ya, ya. MetaTalk. I know)

But I do worry about the possibility of a large number of people doing anonymous moderations, ala Slashdot. Sorry if I got worked up over nothing.

If you feel you can handle the moderation duties, then my hat is off to you and you have my complete support and respect (for what it's worth).
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:28 PM on January 18, 2001


I started reading MeFi as a result of a discussion on the webzine2000 list regarding moderating discussion boards such as this one...i agreed then with mathowie and i agree now that a subtley moderated board is better brainfood than the directionless slashdot and f*ckedcompany type boards. Considering that membership here has nearly doubled since i joined [only another couple of hundred will do it] the quality hasn't suffered that much, and these recent Ashcroft threads are nothing like the election frenzy we all got so tired of...and one of them isn't even Really an Ashcroft thread. Anyways...i guess my point is that i think most of use would trust a mat-moderated environment, this site is his baby.


posted by th3ph17 at 5:50 PM on January 18, 2001


This is a pointless, redundant thread, but as long as it's here, what the hey...

This is typical Salon slanting. First of all, this is about nothing but Ashcroft's opinion on something: This was a Missouri state legislature bill, and Ashcroft was in the US Senate. As for the bill itself, it would have - arguably, since the bill was vague on a lot of points - made it legal to use force against someone who was attempting to perform a partial-birth abortion on a very-late-term fetus. And since this same bill would have made such partial birth abortions infanticide (that is, outright murder), all the bill did was say someone could use force to stop an attempted murder. Wow.

And the Missouri Legislature overrode Carnahan's veto. The only reason it's not currently law is because Planned Parenthood is still fighting it in the courts. So one can hardly say Ashcroft is a lone nutcase extremist on this issue. Well, one can say it - Lord knows everyone here is - but that doesn't make it true.

I've read more than one article in the last few days theorizing that this firestorm of slanted hyperbole about Ashcroft is the main reason he's having such a far easier time being confirmed than all the special-interest groups were hoping for. Why? Because all the moderate Senate Democrats had been led to believe that there were all sorts of dark, evil, horrible secrets about this man that they'd served with happily for years. And then when everything that came out turned out to be meaningless side-issues, they got pissed.

So hey, keep on "digging the dirt," everybody. Maybe you can "get" Norton the same way!
posted by aaron at 5:59 PM on January 18, 2001



First, let me admit that my post was a bit redundant, and I accept the criticism for that. I used poor judgement. Having said that, it's not like I was spamming everyone's mailbox or anything. God knows I've waded through volumes of jabbering in these comment forums, where some people feel free to go on for pages. My mistake was that I took liberties on the front page. But I hardly think that my little 2-line link did irreparable harm to MeFi's integrity.
posted by jpoulos at 6:11 PM on January 18, 2001


As for the bill itself, it would have ... made it legal to use force against someone who was attempting to perform a partial-birth abortion on a very-late-term fetus. And since this same bill would have made such partial birth abortions infanticide (that is, outright murder), all the bill did was say someone could use force to stop an attempted murder. Wow.

Maybe you can dismiss the practical effect of a law that defines abortion doctors as people who are OK to murder, but we live in a world where people are assassinating doctors for performing abortions. In that light, Ashcroft's participation in this bill is reckless demagoguery.

posted by rcade at 7:06 PM on January 18, 2001


So hey, keep on "digging the dirt," everybody. Maybe you can "get" Norton the same way!

From talking with friends who work at national newspapers, it's clear that all politicians are "gettable": the nature of political life is that a) you make enemies and b) the skeletons are there somewhere. It's just a matter of choosing the time and the treatment. Whether the papers feel the need to do so, regrettably, becomes the best test of a politician's popularity.
posted by holgate at 7:06 PM on January 18, 2001


I'm impressed, aaron. Now you're saying that an opinion that a nominee for attorney general of the land had on a legal issue isn't relevant. In fact, it's a "meaningless side issue". Well, wtf is, then? Pray freaking tell. Or are you just a troll?
posted by dhartung at 10:43 PM on January 18, 2001


Jenny you're such an instigator =)
posted by dangerman at 7:54 AM on January 19, 2001


Ashcroft Confirmed
posted by cell divide at 12:26 PM on February 1, 2001


« Older If anyone scores under 50 on this,   |   Mafiaboy pleads guilty Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post