Some of Dubya's potential Supreme Court replacements

Posted on July 1, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

Here are a few justices that could be raised to the Supreme Court, should Dubya choose….

Samuel Alito: Sitting on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, he is nicknamed “Scalito”? because of his ultra-conservative, anti-choice views.[1] Alito has concluded that “time delay, higher cost, reduced availability, and forcing [a woman] to receive information she has not sought,”? did not qualify as undue burdens on women’s reproductive rights, and he supported the spousal notification provision in Casey.[2]

Janice Rogers Brown: A “loose cannon”? who writes with a “poison pen,”?[3] Brown is currently a justice on the California Supreme Court. She is anti-choice, and widely known as the most conservative member of the court, dissenting in cases to oppose privacy and reproductive rights.[4] Brown twice failed to receive a “qualified”? rating from a state bar commission due to her lack of impartiality and clear bias.[5]

Emilio Garza: Judge Garza of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is also anti-choice, often concurring in cases to state that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional.[6] He wrote that “Roe and its progeny, including Bellotti II, have always stood on precarious constitutional footing… after Casey, these cases may not even be constitutional law.”?[7]

Edith Jones: A judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals whose opinions “bespeak a withering contempt for the rights of the riffraff,”?[8] Jones has consistently voted against reproductive rights. She wrote an extremely anti-choice concurring opinion in the case by the original Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, which attempted to reopen that landmark case.[9]

Michael Luttig: As a judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, he has written two very anti-choice decisions, one of which upheld a Virginia abortion ban nearly identical to the one the Supreme Court subsequently struck down in Stenberg v. Carhart.[10] He also authored the original decision striking down part of the Violence Against Women Act.[11]

Michael McConnell: He is currently a judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, to which he was appointed by George W. Bush. Before his appointment McConnell denounced Roe v. Wade and endorsed a constitutional amendment reversing the doctrines of Roe and Casey and banning abortion nationwide.[12]

John Roberts: Robers was appointed by President Bush to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. As Deputy Solicitor General in George H.W. Bush’s administration, Roberts asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.[13]

J. Harvey Wilkinson: Currently a judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Wilkinson is a staunch conservative on the most conservative court in the nation. Wilkinson voted anti-choice in a divided decision upholding the Virginia parental notification law.[14]

To sum all of this up…

The Bush Judges: Rolling Back Rights

A revolution is indeed underway in the federal courts. Rights and laws that generations of Americans had come to take for granted have been wiped off the books, and more are at risk. Already courts have struck down anti-discrimination laws, part of the Violence Against Women Act, affirmative action programs, and other guarantees of equal opportunity. Federal courts have limited workers’ rights and weakened environmental protections. And the courts are allowing more and more restrictions on a woman’s right to choose.

None of Bush’s 52 courts of appeals nominees has endorsed the legal foundation of Roe v. Wade, and at least 16 have clear anti-choice records. Furthermore, research has shown that appellate court judges appointed by anti-choice presidents (Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush) are four times more likely to issue anti-choice rulings than judges appointed by other presidents. Taken together, these facts cast serious doubt on the ability of the Bush nominees to provide fair and impartial adjudication of issues involving the right to privacy and a woman’s right to choose.

Whew. Scary days are comin’.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Supreme Court Issues | 9 Comments

Spain Legalizes Same Sex Marriage

Posted on July 1, 2005 by Ampersand

Edward at Obsidian Wings quotes Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero:

“We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality.”

I’d really like to see anti-SSM folks put their money where their mouth is by saying, for the record, what measurable empirical harms they expect will happen in Spain, Canada and Massachusetts, that would not have been expected from already existing trends. If they’re not willing to do that, then I don’t see any reason to think they have any intellectual integrity at all.

From the AP story:

[Spain’s] 350-seat Congress of Deputies, by a vote of 187-147 with four abstentions, approved the measure to give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual ones, including the right to adopt children.

After the tally was announced, activists watching from the spectator section of the ornate chamber cried, cheered, hugged each other, waved to lawmakers and blew them kisses. […]

The bill, which became law immediately, says: “Matrimony shall have the same requirements and effects regardless of whether the persons involved are of the same or different sex.”

Gay couples can get married as soon as the law is published in the official government registry … as early as Friday or within two weeks at the latest, parliament’s press office said.

The Netherlands and Belgium are the only other two countries that recognize gay marriage nationwide. The Netherlands lets gays adopt children. Belgium is considering the adoption issue.

Canada’s House of Commons passed legislation Tuesday that would legalize gay marriage by the end of July as long as the Senate also passes the bill, which it is expected to do.

In the United States, Massachusetts is the only state to recognize gay marriage.

Posted in Same-Sex Marriage | 27 Comments

Supreme Court Justice O'Connor Hands In Resignation

Posted on July 1, 2005 by Ampersand

And then there were five…

After last week’s buzz about Rehnquist’s possible retirement, today has brought an interesting new development. While it has been widely known that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has made it clear she intended to retire prior to 2008, and likely prior to December of this year, she has apparently handed in her resignation to the White House this morning:

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the high court and the key swing vote in some of the nation’s highest-profile cases, announced her resignation Friday.
In a letter to the White House, the moderate conservative, said she will step down when her successor is confirmed.

Appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, she is now retiring at age 75. O’Connor was the first woman US Supreme Court Justice and while a staunch Republican supporter, has been considered among the moderate’s of the Republican camp. As one of the 6-3 majority in most pro-choice issues, the news comes as a shattering blow to women’s rights, the likelihood of a nominee that is absolutely anti-choice extremely likely, if not an absolute. In a related post, the potential nominee’s were discussed last week when the speculation over Rehnquist’s retirement was occurring.

Perhaps the most ominous words that loom on the horizon are the words of President Bush, himself who said this with regards to his nomination considerations:

On Friday, Bush said he is looking for candidates “who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity, and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.” [emphasis mine]

At any rate, there goes the neighborhood folks. Welcome to the Big Top, circa 2005.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Elections and politics, Supreme Court Issues, Whatever | 35 Comments

O'Connor Announces Her Retirement From The Supreme Court

Posted on July 1, 2005 by Ampersand

First woman to serve as US supreme court justice retires

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman appointed to the United States’ supreme court, today announced her retirement, paving the way for an ideological battle over her successor.

In the divided supreme court, Ms Justice O’Connor was a crucial figure who often cast the deciding vote on contentious issues such as abortion. Her appointment in 1981, by the then president Ronald Reagan, ended 191 years of male exclusivity in the high court.

I’m going to use this post to post interesting quotes from around the Blogosphere, so I’ll be updating it as I browse.

From Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy (and via Dispatches from the Culture Wars):

9. O’Connor’s retirement may shift the Court a lot less than people think. In the big ideological cases of the last Term, Justice Kennedy was the swing vote as often as (or maybe even more often than) Justice O’Connor. Let’s assume for now that O’Connor is replaced by a consistently more conservative Justice; even if that’s true, the left-of-center Justices presumably still have 4 very reliable votes and a good shot at picking up a 5th vote with Kennedy. Plus, new Justices are hard to predict, and it’s often hard to tell whether a new Justice will vote consistently one way or another.

10. We’re likely to hear a lot about the future of Roe v. Wade in coming weeks and months. The common wisdom, assuming no shifts in votes from past cases, is that the 8 remaining Justices include 5 votes for Roe (RBG, SGB, DHS, JPS, AMK) and 3 against (AS, CT, WHR). On the constitutionality of partial-birth abortion bans, the common wisdom is that the 8 remaining Justices split 4 to 4, with Justice Kennedy switching as seen by his vote in Stenberg v. Carhart.

* * *

Marty Lederman at SCOTUSblog is putting together a list of important decisions in which O’Connor was the swing vote.

* * *

Bitch, PhD writes:

I predict the death of Roe V. Wade.

Sandra Day O’Connor just announced her retirement. And Rehnquist is dying.

There goes our 5-4 lead.

Actually, Roe has a 6-3 lead. So Roe is safe for now, unless at least one more of the six anti-Roe votes retires. Rehnquist is firmly anti-Roe, so replacing him with another Justice can’t hurt Roe.

However, O’Connor was the swing vote on “Partial Birth” abortion, so there’s a good chance that pro-lifers are finally going to be able to get through a PBA ban that has no provision to protect the woman’s health.

* * *

From Project Nothing:

IF YOU’RE NOT WATCHING CABLE NEWS – It’s basically playing out like you’d expect. Republicans are already painting Democrats as obstructionists by saying “not letting the president have his nominees”? confirmed is a “fundamental misunderstanding of democracy”? and the Democrats are screaming for a moderate which is, like I said, someone who will not overturn Roe v. Wade.

* * *

From Jesse at Pandagon:

Some are saying that we should draft Prado, however, I just support replacing the entire court with Galactus, who is not only truly impartial, but also reserves the right to eat all of us should the mood strike.

* * *

From Nathan Newman:

The trap for progressives on the nominations fight for O’Connor’s successor is just to talk about abortion and other social issues. We need to split social conservatives away from their corporate allies and highlight the rightwing ECONOMIC views of potential nominees.

The Supreme Court is the interpreter of legislative statutes and they can either enforce them strongly on behalf of the rights of middle class families or they can give corporations a free pass to loot pensions, poison the environment and violate their employees rights at work.

We need to wedge the opposition base and, even if some Bush supporters cheer an anti-choice nominee, we should raise questions with them about why that nominee also screws workers in all their legal decisions and never really punish corporations for their wrongdoing.

* * *

From Mark Graber on Balkinization:

Justice O’Connor’s resignation today raises interesting questions about her political identification. If one reads many far-right wing sites, O’Connor was a liberal, barely distinguishable from Justice Ginsburg, if not Jesse Jackson. Yet, if the rumors of her comments when Gore was thought the victor of the 2000 election are correct, and there is some truth to claims that Justices try to time resignations, Justice O’Connor clearly preferred that Bush appoint her successor than Gore. Apparently, her efforts to push the court to the right on such matters as federalism and takings were far more important to her than the occasional vote to overturn a particularly eggregious death sentence and the privacy cases.

The most interesting question now is whether the Bush administration will try to defend its version of judicial activism or, more typically, deny that the administration has any agenda other than vague strict construction. At least Democrats openly admit the forms of judicial activism they favor.

* * *

LiberalOasis has a good post on fighting Bush’s nomination (assuming that nomination is unacceptable from a lefty point of view – which seems like a safe assumption).

Bush V. Choice has a collection of “What you can do” links.

* * *

From Ezra Klien:

So here’s a question: can we actually block anyone that Bush wants? The last heroic victory was the rejection of Robert Bork, and that was pulled off by a 55-45 Democratic majority. I guess we can filibuster, at least assuming the nuclear option can be blocked, but what, realistically speaking, is the plan here? Make a judgment call, shut down the Senate over Luttig, and hope we win the aftermath? With party loyalty as strong as it is in this era — even Janice Rogers Brown got confirmed, contrary to Graham’s predictions that she wouldn’t — do Democrats have any possible chance of winning this without a filibuster?

And from “Jim” in Ezra’s comments:

The best the Dems can do is to conduct a spirited information campaign. We should fight a bad candidate, but any Bush choice is unlikely to be centrist like O’Conner. Only if the nominee is as bad as Janice Rodgers Brown should the Dems conduct a filibuster, since we will be labelled as obstructionists by the media – with a unified GOP attack and distortion machine behind them.

This does not mean rolling over for Bush, or voting for a bad nominee. United Dem party opposition is even more important if you are going to lose since making the electoral choices for the future depends on CHOICE – we must be an alternative.

Many soft Dems will vote with Bush once they know the Dems can’t prevail. That is one of the principal reasons the party is weak.

* * *

Scott at Lawyers Guns and Money concurs that O’Connor’s retirement doesn’t mean that Roe is doomed – but it’s certainly cause for concern.

Having said that, this is not to say that O’Connor’s replacement doesn’t matter for abortion right–far from it. First of all, it means that the “partial birth abortion” ban passed by Congress will almost certainly be upheld, something that has all kinds of potential for mischief. It also means that the chances of abortion regulation meeting the “undue burden” test has become greater. And, of course, even if the effect of replacing O’Connor is to make the vote for upholding Casey 5-4 rather than 6-3, that’s obviously not trivial. John Paul Stevens is 85. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 72 and has had cancer. As today’s announcement reminds us, Supreme Court resignations are unpredictable; we could easily see a dam burst, as happened in the 30s, and we don’t know who will be in the White House in 2008. So, no matter what Kennedy’s current views are, O’Connor’s resignation and replacement matter a great deal for reproductive freedom.

…MJD brings up another point in the comments below. I do think that overturning Roe would not, on balance, be good for the Republican Party. My guess, though, is that this doesn’t really matter to Bush. If he’s willing to make social security privitization the domestic centerpiece of his second term, he’s certainly going to be willing to appoint an anti-Roe justice to replace O’Connor. Everything about the lead-up suggests that Bush wants the most conservative justice he can get through the Senate.

* * *

Regarding O’Connor’s legacy, Scott quotes Jeffrey Rosen from The New Republic in 2000 to good effect:

And, by not even bothering to cloak their willfulness in legal arguments intelligible to people of good faith who do not share their views, these four vain men and one vain woman have not only cast a cloud over the presidency of George W. Bush. They have, far more importantly, made it impossible for citizens of the United States to sustain any kind of faith in the rule of law as something larger than the self-interested political preferences of William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Sandra Day O’Connor […]

The unsigned per curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore is a shabby piece of work. Although the justices who handed the election to Bush–O’Connor and Kennedy– were afraid to sign their names, the opinion unmasks them more nakedly than any TV camera ever could. To understand the weakness of the conservatives’ constitutional argument, you need only restate it: Its various strands collapse on themselves. And, because their argument is tailor-made for this occasion, the conservatives can point to no cases that directly support it. As Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer wrote in their joint dissent, this “can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land.”

The most important part of O’Connor’s legacy is that, when push came to shove, she was a traitor to Democracy in order to protect a Conservative candidate.

* * *

A point that came up when I was talking to my mother (hi, Mom!):

As my mom argued, I think persuasively, it’s good that O’Connor retired first. There was no chance she wasn’t going to retire, and there will be more energy in the Democrats for the first nomination fight than for subsequent nomination fights. It’s in our favor that Rehnquist wasn’t the first to go.

On the other hand, I’m still pretty pessimistic overall. Even if the Democrats are united, I don’t think they’ll be able to block a right-wing replacement for O’Connor – the “nuclear option” guarantees that the Republicans, if they stick together, will win.

Posted in \"Partial Birth\" Abortion, Abortion & reproductive rights, Supreme Court Issues | 7 Comments

"Alas" may be down until July 1st

Posted on June 29, 2005 by Ampersand

Hey, folks. As most of you know, “Alas” briefly went down a couple of days ago, when we exceeded the 35 gigabyte bandwidth limit for the month. I bought three extra GBs, which I thought would do the trick, but it took them a day to process the order, and in the meanwhile “Alas” was offline for a while.

Unfortunately, the same thing is probably about to happen again – it turns out 3 extra GBs probably wasn’t enough. Our bandwidth for June is currently 37880.14 Megabytes, and when it hits 38,000 “Alas” will presumably be shut off again. I contacted the host hours ago, asking to buy more GBs for June, but they haven’t gotten back to me yet. By the time they do bother getting back to me, “Alas” will probably have been turned off. Again.

Color me annoyed.

Most likely, Alas is about to go down, and it won’t reappear until Friday morning (the start of July). Sorry about that. I’m taking steps to make sure that this doesn’t happen again.

By the way, MAJOR THANK YOUs to everyone who has used the “give us money” link on the sidebar to contribute money to “Alas.” There has already been enough contributed to let me pay the WordPress expert who’ll be moving the huge “Alas” database. And if contributions keep coming in it’ll also pay for the site’s bandwidth for the forseeable future. You folks rock.

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 11 Comments

Zombie Dogs & Tomorrow's Technology!

Posted on June 29, 2005 by Ampersand

It’s hard to resist a good zombie story, and after some recent debate on an Alas thread regarding the ethics of cloning, I thought perhaps a few of you might have fun discussing this intriguing new development.

It seems that in Pittsburgh’s Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research, technology has been created to bring scientifically dead dogs back to life after a three hour period of suspension. The technique involves draining the blood from the dogs veins, replacing it with an icy saline solution, and then three hours later replacing the blood they took and bringing them back to life with electro-shock to regain a heartbeat. According to them, the brain survives in normal condition, and without damage, though there is some damage to blood vessels and other tissues that can be corrected with surgery.

In a related article by the Washington Post, it seems that there might be zombie mice out there as well:

Scientists have induced a state close to suspended animation in a mammal for the first time, a long-sought achievement that could lead to a host of medical advances for people.

By exposing mice to hydrogen sulfide gas, the researchers managed to place the animals into a condition equivalent to hibernation, which could be quickly reversed without apparently harming the creatures simply by letting them breathe fresh air.

One US battlefield doctor was quoted as saying:

“The results are stunning. I think in 10 years we will be able to prevent death in a certain segment of those using this technology,”

While I personally was left recalling the movie Flatliners and thinking about what this would mean for medical technology and the ability of extending life expectancy, my husband Matt feels only one real question remains:

“Upon waking do they crave human flesh and brains?”

Posted in Popular (and unpopular) culture, Whatever | 17 Comments

Canada Recognizes Gay Marriage!

Posted on June 29, 2005 by Ampersand

As the debate rages on in the United States, yesterday Canada became the third country to approve gay marriage, granting gay couples equal rights to those of traditional marriages. While it was already legal in seven provinces, the Canadian House of Commons made it official yesterday in a decision that upset religious leaders and conservatives tremendously.

The bill which was drafted by Paul Martin, the minority Liberal party government of the Canadian prime minister is considered a progressive step forward in the battle for human rights, and an end to discrimination

The Guardian quotes Martin’s statement on the subject:

“We are a nation of minorities,” Mr Martin said. “And in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don’t cherry-pick rights. A right is a right, and that is what this vote tonight is all about.”

This is more of a kudos than anything else, so without further ado, ‘Great job, Canada!’

Posted in Same-Sex Marriage, Whatever | 22 Comments

Whacky Activists Target Souter For Eminent Domain Ruling

Posted on June 29, 2005 by Ampersand

The controversial decision of the Supreme Court on June 23rd regarding the issue of eminent domain in the case The Kelo v. City of New London has sparked some interesting conversations, and now some rather humorous actions on the part of angry citizens. The 5-4 ruling went against homeowners in favor of a business wishing to construct an office complex. Supreme Court Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy and Breyer were the majority in this ruling, while Supreme Court Justices O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas were the dissenting minority.

Supreme Court Justice John Stevens wrote for the majority:

“The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue.”

The decision made last Thursday allows local governments to seize a home or business against the owner’s will for the purpose of private development. Interestingly enough, this decision seems to be one that strikes a chord among most people across party lines as dangerous, if not outright wrong. I’ve heard decent arguments on both sides of the issue, but my sympathies tend to fall on the side of the homeowners. In a humorous turn of events, Logan Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC has contacted the local government of Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s hometown in New Hampshire, attempting to get the property seized so that Clement’s organization can construct a new hotel.

According to Clement;

“Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London, clears the way for this land to be taken by the government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare.”

I laughed and laughed. Honestly, I couldn’t help it. While I’m fairly convinced that no sane government would allow an act that is pretty deliberately malicious and spiteful to pass, if nothing else, it’s a clever shenanigan worth at least a few nod’s of humorous appreciation. In an interview with World.net Daily, Clements elaborates on his position:

“This is not a prank” said Clements. “The town of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development.” […]

The activist says he is aware of the apparent conflict of someone who is strongly opposed to the Kelo decision using it to purposely oust an American from his property.

“I realize there is a contradiction, but we’re only going to use it against people who advocated” the Kelo decision, Clements told WND. “Therefore, it’s a case of retaliation, not initiation.”

Posted in Elections and politics, Supreme Court Issues, Whatever | 12 Comments

A Pessimistic Look at Apologies for Racism…

Posted on June 29, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

…Via a very unapologetic and blunt article from Salon.com. I agree with the writer that whenever politicians attempt to apologize for racism (especially when the media is conveniently in attendance for this), it can be patronizing and condescending. Some times these “apologies” are laden with quasi-pity and they’re just empty words. Then these apologies are not transformed into real actions, and those up at the podium doing the apology seem to forget the nicely staged ‘publicity-apology’ and the issue of racism in this country, right after the press conference is over. It’s back to politics as usual once the cameras are off and the African-American Community leaders have left. But anyway…

Too damn little, too damn late
Senators can take their half-assed lynching apology and shove it.

June 28, 2005 | You were expecting, maybe, gratitude for your lynching apology? You should live so long. Here are my top 10 reactions to America’s latest patronizing attempt to repent its racism:

1. Bite me.

2. Damn right, the least you could do.

3. Mighty white of you.

4. Gee, couldn’t you have waited just a little longer — until even the trees from which the “strange fruit” swung were dead?

5. I’m not impressed, but then, I’m bell-curved. What do I know?

6. Thanks for kicking our asses so hard, and for so long, that we were forced to develop entire art forms around our oppression.

7. Try not to break your arm patting yourselves on the back.

8. Give us back the land, the businesses and the unpaid debts that were the true cause of many lynchings. You sleaze bags!

9. Gee, was there no appropriate Hallmark card? Let a sister help you out:

[…]

10. Thanks for absolutely, positively nothing. You feel better. We feel worse. Déjà bloody vu all over again.

[…]

The crux of the matter is this: Had America ever truly repented its racism, no apology would be needed now.[…]

So I’m with the lynching descendant who said: “I won’t accept their apology … What they used to do with a rope, today they do with a paper and pencil.” […]

And now that we’ve gotten our empty apology, the question isn’t how blacks feel, it’s how whites do. Shamed? Guilty? Bored? Patronizing? Victimized? Shriven? […]

‘Oh, but African-Americans should be grateful for these occasional table-scraps of faux-sympathy from politicians, and the nomination of token-Blacks to higher political offices.‘ Yes, a few nice p.r. things here and there will shut-’em-up, and keep them voting your way so you can stay in office, and keep doing almost nothing to really help African-Americans.

Yes the apology was awfully sweet of them. Now let’s see them put that pretty little choreographed apology of theirs’ into real action and deeds (no, I’m neither asking for the lynch victims to be brought back from the dead, nor changing the past–that’s impossible). But I won’t hold my breath, as I’m sure the Senators have forgotten all about the “apology” and the issue of racism in this country by now.

Posted in Elections and politics, Race, racism and related issues | 84 Comments

"Alas" news: Ads, Tipjar, etc.

Posted on June 29, 2005 by Ampersand

Sorry about “Alas” going down the other day – I hadn’t been paying enough attention to our bandwidth, and so we went over the limit.

I’ve decided to switch to a different hosting company. Hopefully, this will solve some of the problems we’ve had with “Alas” going down now and then – by moving to a company which is much more WordPress friendly, and which also offers much more bandwidth for the buck.

I’ve also decided (with Pseudo-Adrienne’s approval) to experiment with ways of making “Alas” pay for itself. If I could start over from scratch, I’d probably do a free blogspot blog; but at this point, I’m committed to keeping the “Alas” archives – including the incredibly huge archive of comments – and I don’t think I can do that if I switch to “blogspot.” Therefore, it’s necessary to pay for space for “Amptoons.com.” There are occasional other expenses as well – for example, the “Alas” comments database is so enormous that I need an expert to move it to the new server! So I want to leave a nice sum in his tip jar.

So there are two new additions to the sidebar. The first is a tip jar. If you enjoy “Alas,” consider leaving some money to help pay for it. Right now I’ve put it right near the top, since I expect the next couple of weeks to be extra-extra-expensive because of moving to a new server; in time, I hope to put the tip jar in a less obtrusive place on the sidebar.

The second is a blogads area, which is affiliated with a new feminist blogads network, “Blog Sheroes.” I’m pretty sure it’s set up in a way that will allow Alas to avoid the “offensive ad problem” we recently saw at Daily Kos. In the meanwhile, if any “Alas” readers would like a free ad (just to get it started), drop me an email.

I’m planning to experiment with the tip jar and the blogads thingy for a month or two; after that, we’ll figure out if they’re worth keeping, and what the next step is.

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 4 Comments