† Look Before You Leap: Part II (second item): Both the OK House and Senate voted to override Gov. Brad Henry’s (D) vetoes of two abortion measures, meaning that they immediately become law, reports The Associated Press:

One of the measures requires women to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before getting an abortion. The other prohibits pregnant women from seeking damages if physicians withhold information or provide inaccurate information about their pregnancy.

Supporters said the second measure was aimed at preventing women from discriminating against fetuses with disabilities. …

Henry has signed [other] laws requiring clinics to post signs stating a woman cannot be forced to have an abortion, saying an abortion will not be performed until the woman gives her voluntary consent and making abortions based on child's gender illegal.

Noting that the new law goes further than similar laws in other states requiring women to undergo ultrasounds before abortion – the women look at the image while the technician points out the locations of the heart, limbs and organs - The New York Times notes that the intent of the second law is unclear:

Opponents argue that the law will protect doctors who purposely mislead a woman to keep her from choosing an abortion. But the bill’s sponsors maintain that it merely prevents lawsuits by people who wish, in hindsight, that the doctor had counseled them to abort a disabled child.

The Times adds that these laws, taken together with two other bills expected to reach the governor’s desk “would make Oklahoma one of the most prohibitive environments in the United States for women seeking to end a pregnancy”:

One would force women to fill out a lengthy questionnaire about their reasons for seeking an abortion; statistics based on the answers would then be posted online. The other restricts insurance coverage for the procedures.

Just like you can’t unring a bell, you can’t unabort a baby, and these laws are meant to allow women to make an informed choice, rather than a choice made out of panic or ignorance. With all this data about women’s reasons for having abortions being collected those who claim to want to make abortion “rare” in addition to “safe and legal” will have the information needed to devise community-based programs to resolve the issues identified in the questionnaire. The Stiletto has long believed that all abortions are gendercide – even when girl babies are not intentionally aborted, as in China – because boy babies are more likely to be miscarried earlier in pregnancy, meaning that late-term abortions are more likely to be of healthy girl babies. But no one checks the gender of an aborted “clump of cells,” so her theory could not be put to the test. With pre-abortion ultrasounds, technicians can gather the necessary data to settle this question.

† Is Armenian Genocide Denial Good For The Jews?: Against the backdrop of Turkey cozying up to Iran and championing the Islamic republic’s the Israeli Knesset decided to hold a parliamentary committee hearing on whether to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Notably, Minister Shalom Simhon, who represented the government in the Knesset debate, did not oppose the motion, which passed by a 12-vote margin, reports Haaretz:

The Knesset House Committee will decide whether the issue will be handed over to the Knesset Education Committee, as [Meretz Chairman Haim Oron] wants, or to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, as requested by Yisrael Beiteinu MK Yosef Shagal. The latter generally holds hearings behind closed doors.

Oron wants the committee to recognize the Armenian genocide, pointing out that similar recognition has been afforded recently by the French parliament and the United States Congress. "It is appropriate that the Israeli Knesset, which represents the Jewish people, recognize the Armenian genocide," said Oron. "It is unacceptable that the Jewish people is not making itself heard."

† The Uh-Oh-prah Effect?: A study by researchers at North Carolina State University finds that when a celeb endorses a pol, voters - especially those who are young – go “meh,” The Washington Times reports:

"The positive effects of a celebrity endorsement are minimal for politicians," said Michael Cobb, an associate professor of political science who led the research.

"I began to observe this kind of sentiment among my own students - particularly my conservative students - who were continually commenting about how much they disliked celebrities wading into politics," he said. "And I knew there was some research to be done."

Using theoretical voting scenarios and invented headlines about partisan Hollywood, the research team plumbed the feelings of more than 800 college students, evaluating whether endorsements from celebrities - including Mr. Clooney and Madonna - would affect their voting behavior.

"We found that celebrity endorsements do not help political candidates. They can hurt them," Mr. Cobb said. "In one of the studies, for example, we found that by exposing young people to a celebrity endorsement, they liked the candidate less and were less likely to vote for him."

The findings also apply to voters in other age groups, he said.

Public annoyance with celebrities who leave the soundstage for the campaign trail has been detected elsewhere. A Pew Research Center survey released as the 2008 presidential campaign was well under way found that three-fourths of the respondents said the endorsements of Jay Leno, Bill Gates, Kanye West, Angelina Jolie, Jon Stewart, Donald Trump and others would make "no difference" in influencing their votes.

Paradoxically while Oprah’s endorsement may have netted more than a million votes for Barack Hussein Obama, her own popularity and ratings declined. It will be interesting to see whether she sits out the 2012 election.

† So This Is What Passes For “Art” Nowadays (last item): Administrative Law Judge Catherine M. Bennett ruled that a "dramatic arts" exception exempted Nite Moves from paying $129,000 in state sales taxes on cover charges and fees generated by exotic dancers, based on testimony from expert witness Judith Lynne Hanna of the University of Maryland that “pole maneuvers in particular are no small feat to accomplish, and attempting such a performance without the skill and a planned routine of steps could prove dangerous." But NY state’s Tax Appeals Tribunal overturned her finding that pole dancing is an art, reports New York Law Journal:

The two-member Tax Appeals Tribunal held that the routines performed nude or nearly nude by dancers at the Nite Moves club near Albany were largely learned from other dancers or on YouTube and the Internet, and are not the kind of carefully arranged and practiced patterns of movement normally equated with the art of dance.

"We question how much planning goes into attempting a dance seen on YouTube … The record also shows that some of the moves on the pole are very difficult, and one had best plan how to approach turning upside down on the pole to avoid injury. However, the degree of difficulty is as relevant to a ranking in gymnastics as it is dance." …

"To accept Dr. Hanna's stunningly sweeping interpretation of what constitutes choreographed performance, all one needs to do is move in an aesthetically pleasing way to music, using unity, variety, repetition, contrast, transition," the panel concluded.

The tax appeals tribunal similarly found that Nite Moves is also a "place of entertainment" where the imposition of the cover charge and fees for private dances was essentially no different than the peep show stalls in the 1605 Book Center case for sales tax purposes.

"We reject the argument that petitioner's place of business constituted a 'theatre, opera house, concert hall or other hall or place of assembly for a live dramatic, choreographic or musical performance' for purposes of the tax statute (Tax Law §1101[d][5])," the panel said.

No doubt the case will be a hot topic at the first International Pole and Exotic Dance Fitness Convention and Expo next month.

† Updates To Previous Posts (third item, What Freedom Of Speech Means To Muslims (The U.S. Edition):  New York Times columnist asks a question that is no doubt on the minds of many right-thinking Americans regarding the threatening online message directed to “South Park” creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone by NYC-based Revolution Muslim, which it’s author claimed was more akin to a history lesson than a fatal fatwa:

It sounded like a threat to Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly. That’s what he called it. So did a spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New York.

Then why have there been no arrests?

The F.B.I. man cited First Amendment issues. Mr. Kelly said the threat had not risen to the level of a crime. But it did not mean that police investigators “weren’t taking it seriously,” said Paul J. Browne, a spokesman for Mr. Kelly. The department was already monitoring Revolution Muslim and had stepped up its presence at the Manhattan office of Comedy Central, Mr. Browne said.

Arthur Eisenberg, legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said “true threats” enjoyed no First Amendment protection. However, he said, “this rule is easily stated but hard to apply.” …

In assessing the threat, Mr. Eisenberg said, much depends on the probability of follow-through, on how afraid the target should realistically be, on whether “there’s any imminent likelihood” of some nut’s being incited to murder by the Web posting.

“I thought Kelly’s statement was telling,” Mr. Eisenberg said. “Presumably, he has facts that we don’t have” to conclude that the threshold of “true threat” had not been crossed.

But Ayaan Ali, the Somalia-born former member of the Dutch parliament, is not buying it. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed Ali - who collaborated with filmmaker Theo van Gogh on the Muslim women’s rights film “Submission” for which he was murdered by an outraged Muslim – argues that Parker and Stone should be “very” worried about the threat:

In essence, Mr. Amrikee's posting is an informal fatwa. Here's how it works: There is a basic principle in Islamic scripture - unknown to most not-so-observant Muslims and most non-Muslims - called "commanding right and forbidding wrong." It obligates Muslim males to police behavior seen to be wrong and personally deal out the appropriate punishment as stated in scripture. In its mildest form, devout people give friendly advice to abstain from wrongdoing. Less mild is the practice whereby Afghan men feel empowered to beat women who are not veiled.

By publicizing the supposed sins of Messrs. Stone and Parker, Mr. Amrikee undoubtedly believes he is fulfilling his duty to command right and forbid wrong. His message is not just an opinion. It will appeal to like-minded individuals who, even though they are a minority, are a large and random enough group to carry out the divine punishment. The best illustration of this was demonstrated by the Somali man who broke into Mr. Westergaard's home in January carrying an axe and a knife.

Any Muslim, male or female, who knows about the "offense" may decide to perform the duty of killing those who insult the prophet.

Just as the Danish government has ponied up $3.9 million to protect cartoonist Kurt Westergaard - with good reason – she thinks the Obama administration should do the same for Parker and Stone. She also thinks the freedom-loving U.S. public – in particular, those in the entertainment industry who depend upon the First Amendment to make a living – show their solidarity with the “South Park” duo by “spread[ing] the risk” with “stories of Muhammad where his image is shown as much as possible … to confront hypersensitive Muslims with more targets than they can possibly contend with [and] “to accustom Muslims to the kind of treatment that the followers of other religions have long been used to.”

To that end, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris proposed May 20^th as “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,” but after her idea went viral she got cold feet and is now trying to disassociate herself from the campaign. 

But syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker correctly points out, “[o]nce you've gone viral, there's no turning back.” Besides, the “bear” is already out of the cave, as New York Times columnist Ross Douthat reminds us: 

Two months before 9/11, Comedy Central aired an episode of “South Park” entitled “Super Best Friends,” in which the cartoon show’s foul-mouthed urchins sought assistance from an unusual team of superheroes. These particular superfriends were all religious figures: Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Mormonism’s Joseph Smith, Taoism’s Lao-tse - and the Prophet Muhammad, depicted with a turban and a 5 o’clock shadow, and introduced as “the Muslim prophet with the powers of flame.”

That was a more permissive time. You can’t portray Muhammad on American television anymore, as South Park’s creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, discovered in 2006, when they tried to parody the Danish cartoon controversy - in which unflattering caricatures of the prophet prompted worldwide riots - by scripting another animated appearance for Muhammad. The episode aired, but the cameo itself was blacked out, replaced by an announcement that Comedy Central had refused to show an image of the prophet.

For Parker and Stone, the obvious next step was to make fun of the fact that you can’t broadcast an image of Muhammad. Two weeks ago, “South Park” brought back the “super best friends,” but this time Muhammad never showed his face. He “appeared” from inside a U-Haul trailer, and then from inside a mascot’s costume.

In last week’s follow-up episode, [after the Revolution Muslim threats] the prophet’s non-appearance appearances were censored, and every single reference to Muhammad was bleeped out. The historical record was quickly scrubbed as well: The original “Super Best Friends” episode is no longer available on the Internet.

Editorial Note: As Parker points out, not all interpretations of the Koran forbid the depiction of Mohammed, which reader Lemonfemale corroborates with this link she sent The Stiletto, which curates Islamic depictions of the prophet by medieval artists – which suggests that Islam is actually regressing, if such a thing is possible for an already backward-looking belief system. For her part, she writes she “might borrow my son’s Prismacolors” to try her own hand at a Mohammad drawing, adding, “Some things are important.” Should The Stiletto attempt a drawing (her artistic skills are at the stick-figure level), she would choose only one color for her portrait: blood red.

† Updates To Previous Posts (sixth item, Multiculturalism Vs. Animal Rights): Stanley Fish connects the dots between how we got from Point A ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.") to the Supreme Court's ruling striking down a law that criminalizes "crush videos" on First Amendment grounds. Fish has this to say to First Amendment absolutists fundamentalists:

One often-heard objection to religion is that horrible acts are done in its name. It is an irony of history that the First Amendment ... has itself become an orthodoxy, a religion, a veritable deity, and one that demands an absolute fidelity. And, sure enough, in its name (and under the injunction that thou shalt have no other gods before me), any number of horrible “expressive” acts - depictions of torture, marches designed to intimidate not inform, false caricatures of someone’s mother, representations of women as the passive vessels of male needs - are performed and then declared constitutional.

One wonders where all the free speech absolutists are now. 
 

† Updates To Previous Posts (second item, Boobs And Brains Not Mutually Exclusive): Monday’s “boobquake” experiment to test an Iranian imam’s pronouncement that earthquakes occur when women don’t wear burqas was inconclusive. Thousands of Western women wore low-cut tops, and just before 11 a.m. a Pacific basin tremblor measuring 6.9 on the Richter scale occurred between six and 12 miles below the ocean’s surface roughly 80 miles off the coasts of Taiwan and the Philippines. On the one hand, women in Iran were wearing their burqas at the time.