Feddie gets the vapors over Barack Obama using the common aphorism "You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig." Because he used this phrase to describe some position of John McCain's and Sarah Palin's, Feddie asserts that Obama is calling Palin a pig, and has therefore lost "the women vote."

Marc Ambinder points out the fallacy of this argument, noting that Obama has used this phrase before (with no relation to Palin), and also reminding us that McCain used the same phrase to criticize a Hillary Clinton proposal. I don't think this means McCain called Hillary a pig, either, although I'd suggest that McCain has less benefit of the doubt in this regard, given his past remarks about the women in the Clinton family. (Updated: see also Prof. Lindgren at Volokh for thoughtful comments.)

I'll also note for the record that I use this phrase myself sometimes. It tends to show up when I'm discussing the weaker sections of briefs I write. I'm more likely to use its cousin "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." Now, if Obama has said that, would people like Feddie construct the syllogism that Sarah Palin carries a purse; therefore Obama must have called her a sow?

One doesn't have to strain too hard to come up with all sorts of banyard axioms that could be misconstrued by the offense-seekers. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...get your goat...if you lie down with dogs...bull in a china shop...stubborn as a mule...deer in the headlights...you get the idea. And of course there are the verb forms of animal names like monkey and ape and horse (around) and pig (out) and dog. And let's not even go near "catfight." Has Feddie never, ever used the phrase "Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?" Was he calling the subject an actual cow?

My point here is simply these sayings are so common that it's ridiculous to take them literally every time one is uttered. That's why the English language has metaphors, so we don't have to spell out in Bidenesque detail what we mean. We can use these well-known symbolic phrases to convey our meaning, because everyone should understand that we're not talking about literal animals, but qualities we attribute to those animals. Absent some pretty strong evidence that a literal meaning is intended, people who read anything more into this are trying too hard to find something to complain about.

Finally, at the risk of goading Feddie into throwing down the glove and demanding a duel to restore Gov. Palin's honor, I'll offer that if you're not willing to run with the big dogs, stay on the porch. (Or would it be less offensive if I said about a woman that if she can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen?) "Politics is show business for ugly people," as they say. And if you go around making a big deal about how beautiful you are (see: damn near every GOP male, including McCain, re: Palin's looks; plus Palin herself competed in a beauty pageant), you should expect someone to vote you runner-up, as it were.

Taste is subjective, and some people are going to think Palin is ugly. Of course, the number of times Palin is called pretty pales in comparison to the number of times Hillary Clinton or Janet Reno have been called ugly. And it's not just women. People made/make fat jokes about Bill Clinton, or Mike Huckabee, or Ted Kennedy. John Kerry has a horse face, Tim Kaine has that eyebrow thing...all the way back to Richard Nixon's five-o'clock shadow. Appearance is important in politics. But if you want to leave appearance out of it, don't make your beauty a campaign talking point, and don't compare yourself to a lipstick-wearing dog.

I'm not saying Obama really did call Palin a pig, or that she is, or that she deserved it. And I'm certainly not suggesting it would be wise to do so. (Although I won't go as far as Feddie to discuss the impact on the apparently monolithic "women vote.") All I'm saying here is that if McCain et al. insist on pushing Palin's looks as a reason to vote for her, and thus in some bizarre way making your vote a referendum on her hotness, they have to expect some people to have a different opinion on her attractiveness.

Anyway, that aside is separate from my main point that most metaphors, and especially animal metaphors, shouldn't be taken literally. That's why they're metaphors.

Via SCOTUSBlog, news comes today that the Supreme Court has issued an order in the child rape death penalty case Kennedy v. Louisiana. The state of Louisiana has sought rehearing based on a factual error in the opinion. It argues that this error undermines the majority's reasoning. The Solicitor General has come out in favor of granting the rehearing petition. Prof. Berman at his sentencing blog and Prof. Yung at the Sex Crimes blog are covering this development as well.

I have written about Kennedy a few times -- here and here and here. I have been critical of the SG's position in the case, specifically its attempt to join the rehearing petition as an amicus despite a clear Supreme Court rule prohibiting rehearing-stage amici. Instead, I noted that 28 U.S.C. sec. 2403 would seem to allow the United States to intervene as a party to the case. In essence, I argued that the SG should go all-in or stay out, and not try this half-way dance it's doing now.

At the risk of being proven wrong, I'll guess that today's order -- which calls for briefing both on the necessity of granting rehearing and the merits of the petition -- is something of a compromise. My thinking is that some members of the Court are unwilling to substantively amend the opinion without a formal grant of rehearing, even if that doesn't lead to new briefs and argument. Others probably don't think that's necessary, and others probably want to drag the whole thing back for the full plenary treatment. This procedure allows Kennedy's lawyers to weigh in. By rule, no responses to rehearing petitions are allowed unless called for by the Court, and the Court virtually never grants rehearing without seeking a response.

I think this order lets the Court ruminate a bit more. I think it also makes a grant of rehearing much more likely, although I still don't think the final outcome will change.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper just dissolved Parliament and called for elections. On October 14. That's in five weeks. By that time, we will almost be finished with our election's debates.

I'm not saying it's advisable for us to shrink our election cycle to five weeks. But surely there is some happy medium between five weeks and two years.