What's Christmas About?

Ok, I can't help putting in a few words about the "War on Christmas."

Regardless of any such wars, every year there is a debate about the "true meaning" of Christmas. On the one hand, there are sincere Christians who want us to remember the birth of Jesus. And on the other hand is Santa Claus, who tells us that the season is really about giving sutff (and thus keeping American retailers alive.)

I must admit that I'm not a particularly religious person and I didn't grow up in a religious household. (And I still haven't murdered anyone.)

So, to me, Christmas is not really about the birth of Jesus. There I said it. But I also think that it is often too commercialized. So, there has to be a third way of understanding what Christmas is about--or rather what it has come to mean in American society.

It certainly has some content independent of both the spiritual and commercial messages.

With that in mind, I will pass you off to the Washington Post which has this interesting column about Irving Berlin.

Nutjob Watch: Redstate Edition

With the revelations of Bush's warrantless searches on Americans within the United States, I went to read redstate.org again to simply see what the people on that site thought about it.

There was the popular line that the president was doing what's necessary to stop terrorist attacks. Fine. Not a great argument, but rationalize as you please.

The post that got me going today was a longwinded attempt to show that Bush's actions were legal. I didn't read the whole thing--not really possible when you reach this level of stupidity.

Nonetheless, the Constitutional arguments got me going. Here's what the Author, "Leon H" had to say:

The first charge that is being bandied about by our Constitutionally challenged leftist friends is that the President's authorization somehow violated the Constitution. If you press a leftist to explain to you how this is so, the details get kind of hazy, and will become obvious, as it usually does, that the particular leftist you are talking to has never actually read the Constitution. However, on the off chance that you are discussing this issue with a leftist who has read the Constitution, you'll likely get a mumbled response about either the fourth amendment or a "right to privacy."

Without getting into a long-winded argument about what the fourth amendment does or does not cover, or even whether there is a "right to privacy" protected in the Constitution, it's important to understand that the Constitution explicitly states (Article 1, section 9) that the President has the right, in cases of "Rebellion or Ivasion" or "when the public safety may require it" to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. In other words, the President is Constitutionally authorized, under certain circumstances, to allow the federal Government to throw you in jail without even explaining to you why you are there. To assume that the President constitutionally has the power to suspend the Writ of habeas corpus, but not to intercept international phone calls from suspected terrorists is the kind of absurdity that only the modern left could embrace.

All bolding is mine. I love it when morons try to argue their way out of unconstitutionality. Here's the thing: First, Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it." Second, Article 1 of the Constitution describes the legislative power, and most explicitly not the executive power. This section of the Constitution cannot reasonably interpreted to provide the power to the President to suspend habeas corpus. All it does it set limits on when Congress can suspend habeas corpus.

Furthermore, it does not authorize the suspension of the writ in circumstances of rebellion, invasion, or when the public safety requires it. It authorizes suspension only when there is a rebellion and the public safety requires it OR when there is an invasion and the public safety requires it.

Finally, his analogical reasoning is not just ridiculous but also contrary to the entire scheme of our government. The U.S Constitution established a government of limited powers. The government cannot exercise powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution. It's entirely irrelevant whether it would be irrational to allow the suspension of habeas without allowing domestic wiretaps without warrants. The Constitution authorizes one and not the other, and the government does not have powers that were not delegated to it.

Morons.

This explains a lot, actually

Forbes Magazine says that Lex Luthor was elected President in 2000.

Forbes decided to put together a list of the richest people in the world, including such luminaries as Santa Claus, Auric Goldfinger, Jay Gatsby, and Scrooge McDuck.

Lex Luthor comes in at number 8 with $4.7 billion. Forbes biography of him, however, says that he was "[f]orced to place holdings in LexCorp in blind trust after being elected president of the United States in 2000."

I have to admit the similarity is striking:



I can hardly tell a difference.

And all this time I thought Forbes was a conservative magazine.

This is on my mind

I am sick of the Left whining about Corporations in general and Wal-Mart in specific.
In regards to the Corporation whining, I am thinking specifically of nader voters who, much like Southern politicians in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, would drop "nigger" or "commie" at ever occasion, drop "corporate" everytime they feel the need to slander someone or something. This is ineffective for several reasons.

1) They actually don't hate corporations. Why? Because Corporations are more than just the big ones that are blamed for global oppression. Corporations have an essential function in our economic system, specifically, shielding investors, big or small, from financial liability in the operation of a business enterprise. Whether those investors are wealthy persons who own lots of stock in a multi national, or it is a mom-and-pop grocery store, the corporate form of organizing their enterprise is beneficial. I guess my complaint here is that moron lefties, or righties for that matter, don't fundamentally understand what a corporation is, how it functions, and what good it has done for many many people, and because of that ignorance, they use a term to be derogatory that is inherently overbroad. Assholes.

2) Who are corporations? Well, this is a complicated question as some legal scholars see a corporation as a "nexus of contractual obligations" or some such crap. I mean more broadly than beyond the legal personhood granted corporations. Alright, lemme cut to the chase, corporations are Shareholders (real people!), Boards of directors (Real people!), Officers (Real people!), and employees (real people!). By real people I mean natural persons as opposed to legal persons. So why is that important? Because by slandering corporations or attempting to make corporations a derogatory term, in essence, one is slandering large numbers of people in a very oblique way, which ultimately hurts one's political position in two ways. First, the slander is oblique, and others might not know what you are talking about. Speaking in such a manner, where one is using one's own "code words" to talk about something makes one look out of the mainstream, because of the failure to use commonly known or talked about ideas, and further makes one look snobbish, or elitist for the same reason. Secondly, if people DO catch on to what one is saying, they might be angry or feel slighted. Imagine a low level employee at a large corporation that receives corporate stock as part of a retirement package. So here one has someone who in addition to being an employee is also a shareholder, and one is telling them that they are evil because of their role in the corporation? Way piss off voters douchebag.

3) Lambasting corporations is also ineffective because it doesn't get at the root of the problem people have with the influence of money and economic power in our government. Why do wealthy people and, as an aggregation of capital, corporations have too much influence in the current system? Because they can buy it. So is one really pissed off at corporations or at the structure that allows wealth to upset legal equality in terms of voice in the national government? Frankly, a whole host of reforms could be implemented to address the destabilizing effects of wealth in the political process, none of which would affect the corporate form. So just whining about corporations doesn't address the root of the issue, and makes those whiners look detached and foolish. The only reason I care about them looking detached and foolish is they claim to be leftists, and frankly I don't want their type of garbage ruining my image. One can be a fucking moron all they want, just don't reach out to me like I would associate with such a jackass.

Lastly, I want to say something about folks who whine about Wal-Mart. THIS ISSUE DOES NOT RESONATE WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! LET IT GO!

It seems to me that mostly coastal lefty types who have never really been to a wal-mart on a regular basis are the most vocal about it. Oh we cannot unionize wal-mart, oh wal-mart screws its employees, oh wal-mart destroys small town america. First of all, Lefties, Small town america needs to be destroyed. Small town america is a den of vice and corruption, meth and teen pregnancies, ignorance and hatred. And, they all vote republican anyways. Really, small town america isn't some moral good ol' fashioned family values type place. It really sucks. I challenge anyone who thinks small town america is awesome to move out here to the great middle and live for awhile. I would love to see David Brooks take a sabbatical, take 100 bucks in his pocket, or hell give him 500, and have him move to any small town, defined as under 10,000 people, in the great state of Missouri, just to see how "great" it is. Hell, I will pick one for him. How about, Monett, Mansfield, Buffalo, West Plains, or more centrally located, Waynesville or Eldon. Don't like MO, try Coffeyville, KS or Emporia, KS, or Pierre, SD, oh oh, how about Myamuh (miami) OK, or Harrison AR. I would also recommend Weatherford, Clinton, Hydro, or Elk City OK. I know Kansas has some really shithole towns, but I can never remember their names, seriously, who would want to, it is fucking Kansas. I purposefully left off the former confederacy, mostly because that is too dang easy.

More seriously, what has done more for the destruction of small town america? Capitalistic collectivization in the form of agri-business, or the fact that a wal-mart moved into town? Considering the vast majority of people in small town america, in the past were dependent upon agriculture for income, I'm going with the agri-business.

Alright, this is too rambling, and I have wasted too much time. Just a rant I had

Some thoughts

Its been awhile, and will continue to be so for another two weeks, but in my own self interest of wasting time from infinitely more important projects, here are some thoughts.

First, re: redstate.org. Are you surprised? Good use of the word cromulent though.

Secondly, while a really good case can be made that the United States is currently an empire, why discuss what kind of empire we should be when it is always possible to retreat from our empire status? Of course, some would argue that the retreat from the global stage of the most powerful nation in the world would have more disasterous consequences than our continued global engagement*, the question then becomes how that retreat is structured. Much like Jack Murtha's proposal for "redeployment" of U.S. forces, it could be possible that the United States return to its core values, some of which you identify and others like the rule of law you don't, to maintain global peace and stability. A return to a commitment to the values like the rule of law, and respect for the diversity of the world may better suit us to maintain freedom here at home and spread democracy abroad. In this instance, I am conceptualizing a return to core american values as a way to avoid "empire" on Pat Buchanan's "empire v. republic" scale. Returning to our values to avoid being an empire would also require that we have great trust in our "soft power" like culture and some aspects of American exceptionalism that you identify to influence world events, such that we could avoid using our expensive military in ways that make us an empire.

*This is for Niall Ferguson, who argues in The Pity of War, somewhat unconvincingly, that the British refusal to declare their intentions in the First World War directly contributed to that war. Keep in mind that Britain was the single most powerful nation engaged in the world at the time, a good argument could be made that the U.S. had already surpassed Britain in terms of industrial-war making capacity. Explicitly, Ferguson argues that had Britain explicitly come out in favor of the French in any Franco-German conflict, the Germans wouldn't have gone to war. Instead, of course, Britain waited until after Belgian neutrality had been violated by the Germans to declare war on Germany. What this overlooks is that the Schlieffen Plan specified the violation of Belgian neutrality regardless of whatever the British did, and Ferguson offers no evidence that previous violations of Belgian neutrality went unpunished, such that the Germans could think that the British would allow such things to occur. Either way, Ferguson is a helluva scholar, and the Pity of War is a great read. It is also important to note that Ferguson has another book out, Colossus: the Rise and Fall of the American Empire that appears to be directly on point. However, my reading list is full full full at the moment, but when it clears up in say 4 weeks, maybe I can get to Colossus. Wow, this is longer than the original post.

Random Thought About Imperialism

Three and a half years ago, before we got involved in Iraq, The Economist or The Weekly Standard had a cover article entitled "The American Empire." This was not my magazine, and I asked my friend the subscriber what the article was all about, thinking he would reject the idea of American Imperialism. To my surprise, his response was that the article was simply a recognition of the facts: that whether we wanted it or not, America had become an empire, and that we should now act as one.

I believe, whether well founded or not, that the United States is exceptional in the history of the world. Or exceptional in the history of the Western world, at least. In very real ways, when Europeans crossed the Atlantic and established colonies on this continent, they broke with their traditions and culture. They consciously chose to not replicate the European problems on this continent. An example of this is the acceptance of Jews in the United States. Anti-Semitism was a scourge of Europe that was not tranferred to the New World in part because the people who moved here rejected the anti-Semitic tradition.

But it this change in culture was not simply a matter of choice. It was also a matter of necessity, or rather disability. Some aspects of European culture could not have been replicated on this continent simply because it is too disconnected from the European power structures. The Catholic Church would have much less influence in American life in the eastern colonies not just because the English colonists were largely Protestants, but also because the Church was not established here. Lacking that "establishment," colonists were immediately free to follow their conscience in private while maintaining an unfettered and active public life.

So, the United States is a land of hope. Hope that each person will enjoy liberty, hope that self-determination will triumph, and hope that where you are going is not determined by where you came from. In short the U.S. is a chance at a new start.

Naturally, that is not the whole story. When Europeans crossed the Atlantic, they brought slaves, racism, and colonialism in its worst forms. Many of the differences between the U.S. and Europe are very positive, but we cannot overlook our problems. Early Americans were driven to kill and expel American Indians because they believed the Indians were an inferior culture. Slavery was protected in early colonial constitutions, and rationalized by pre-emininent thinkers, such as John Locke, who we still respect today. These ideas and cultural traits, just as our hope, are part of our history. So, in the United States, this land of hope, certain rather unexceptional aspects of European culture were implanted.

Those unexceptional aspects include some political traditions, notably imperialism. The United States has been part of the empires of Spain, France, and England. Imperialism, however, seems directly at odds with what makes the United States exceptional. There is no room for self-determination in a country controlled by an empire. It is nonetheless a form that we understand and can easily replicate.

The question, then, is if we are to be an empire, what kind will we choose to be? Certainly, no two empires are the same. But there is a choice between following the European traditions we have inherited to create empires similar to those common throughout history and following the traditions that are uniquely American to create an empire of national self-determination and personal freedom. And it is still a matter of choice, because regardless of what we have done in the past three and a half years, where this country goes will be determined by our subsequent choices.

For me, the choice is clear.

The next question is what would this sort of empire look like? I do not have a full answer to that yet, and so I will leave it here for now.

BANNED!

From redstate.org. All for calling a guy's arguments cromulent.

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/11/8/132151/390/39#39

Wackiness at Redstate.org

Redstate's an interesting site. It's much more civil than other conservative sites I've been to. Which pretty much means that I've gotten in 5 or 6 posts and they haven't banned me yet.

Anyway, check it out, especially this piece they are promulgating which argues that the free market would not have led to segregation and jim crow laws in the south. Yes, it's crazy. No, that doesn't mean what I said in the last paragraph is untrue.

The basic argument? Private transportation companies in the South at the end of the 19th century did not have an economic incentive to segregate the cars, and that we should be wary of government since it was what in fact caused the harm and created segregation. So, it wasn't racism at the bottom of segregation, but government.

The support:

It was politics that segregated the races because the incentives of the political process are different from the incentives of the economic process. Both blacks and whites spent money to ride the buses but, after the disenfranchisement of black voters in the late 19th and early 20th century, only whites counted in the political process.

And no, he doesn't stop to consider why or how blacks were disenfranchised.

Anyway, read the piece. I put up a couple comments there, but you'll have to read it to see them.

Crosspostings at tpmcafe

Me from tpmcafe:

With Miers out, the broadly accepted view is that Bush will nominate an outspoken conservative who has a clear record of supporting right-wing causes. The extreme wing of the Republican party won the battle to have Miers withdrawn, and now Bush must pay up for their support in the elections.

That's fine. The question is what are we going to do about it.

Virtually every conservative I've seen on the news in the past couple days has stated that they want a fight with the Democrats in the Senate--that they want to fight about Roe, about Lawrence, about the 10 Commandments and other social issues.

This is a fight they think they can win.

I disagree, and I would like to see the Democrats show that they have the heart to pick up this fight on substance, and to win it.

The truth is that a solid 60% of this country does not want Roe v. Wade to be overturned. http://www.pollingreprt.com/abortion.htm

The confirmation fight of Bush's next nominee, if the nominee is someone who will threaten constitutional rights, will be an opportunity for Democrats to show that they have strong principles--it will be an opportunity to stand up and to rally people to the party.

So, if the right wing wants a fight, we need to provide just that. It's something we can win.

and,

No, it's not beside the point. The point is that the people in this country want the Supreme Court to maintain specific constitutional rights that are under attack by the Republicans.

We have to remember, and remind everyone, that the Senate is not a representative body. It is not designed to reflect the opinion of the majority of the country--it was designed to reflect the majority of the states.

The Senate was originally designed to ensure that states with smaller populations were respected by the national government since regional factionalism was a strong concern of the founders. Two hundred years, a couple amendments (notably the 14th and the 17th), one Civil War, and one Civil Rights movement later, the Senate is acting like a representative body and the national government is the prime protector of civil rights.

Because the national government has taken on a role that wasn't initially assigned it--protecting civil rights--the Senate, with it's reflection of regional opinions rather than national opinions, is poorly situated to judge what the majority of Americans think is best in areas regarding civil rights.

In the 2004 election, in Senate races, Republicans won a total of 39.9 million votes while Democrats won a total of 44 million votes--but the Republicans gained 4 seats at the expense of the Democrats.

The Republican majority in the Senate does not reflect the beliefs of most Americans.

We have to remind everyone of that--having a majority in a governmental body does not make you right.

A little later, and in response to other commenters, I said:

We have to be prepared to lose this confirmation fight.

In the end, despite the whatever fight Democrats may put up, the Republicans may have the votes in the Senate to push Bush's next nominee onto the Court. But we have to make it a referendum on the policies of that nominee in preparation for the 2006 elections.

I personally believe that Roe was correctly decided. And Lawrence and Griswold and Pierce and Skinner and Meyer. Nonetheless, if this nominee gets on the Court, in time, all that may be gone.

Democrats have to be prepared to start winning elections--both nationally and locally--to ensure that even if we lose the Court, we can protect those rights we believe in though legislation.

That's also why the statistic I quoted is not irrelevant. This is a crucial moment for Democrats to stand up, not just because we can protect the Court, but because we can prepare to win the legislatures.

Rep v. Dem

It's not that I don't think the distinction is important. It's that I think the distinction isn't real.

I don't recall exactly what Woodruff laid out in that book, and so I can't address that. Maybe you could do a quick write up since you have the book now?

I think your description of Gym's comment was important though. I obviously didn't understand what he was getting at, but yes, it can be important that our elected government actually makes the decisions we elect them to make. It's cheating the system to continually force it down to the people in referendums.

One more thing on democracy

Spoon, after reading that First Democracy book, why do think the distinction between democracy and republic isn't important?

From a philosophical standpoint, as articulated by Woodruff in First Democracy, it seems the two are very different concepts.

Re: Republic v. Democracy

I think part of what drives the false distinction made in the popular political dialogue between republic and democracy is an attempt by those on the right to denigrate the term "democracy" and hence "Democrats". Consequently, if they can convince people that the United States is a Republic, then people should vote for Republicans.

While I believe that this occurs, I doubt there was ever a Vast right wing memo about talking about things in this way. However, viewing things from the lowest common denominator, I am sure that some folks in the grass roots of the Republican party actually believe this.

Lemme put that differently, uneducated country Republicans here in the fair state of our birth have explicitly told me that. It is important to note that I said "uneducated" not "dumb".

Remember when

we, maybe it was me, maybe you, wrote a post a long while back about how Senate confirmation hearings are one of the major checks an elected branch has on the judiciary, and that judges should be asked specific questions about their legal views and philosophy? Did that happen or was it a phone call? I cannot remember.

Either way, it now appears Michael Kinsley thinks the same thing.

WaPo Op-Ed

I don't want to go with some "outta the mouths of heartland babes, true wisdom spouts forth" type meme, but I do have to say DUH!

News from the Flyovers, making democracy work better, one coastal pundit at a time.

Republic or Democracy?

I saw this over on tpmcafe today:

After all, our own founding fathers fought fiercely against democracy, preferring a liberal republic to avoid the dangers of mob rule.

I always wonder what distance people think they are getting out of statements like this. How often to you hear people saying, "The US isn't a democracy--it's a republic!" What can they possibly mean and what difference can it make?

Both conservatives and liberals perpetuate the concept, but I think they use it for different purposes.

Liberals seem to use it to condemn the founders for not being progressive enough.

Conservatives use it to deny the value of popular self-government, i.e. that we shouldn't trust common people because the were excluded at the founding.

I am not a political theorist, but I challenge anyone to describe a relevant difference between republics and democracies.

Let me take a quick survey of the problem:

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law:

re·pub·lic:
1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
2 : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government


de·moc·ra·cy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government

These are fair enough definitions. So, what's the difference?

If we take the first definition of republic as providing the most important distinction, then virtually every nation in the world is a republic--including all those European democracies we admire so much. France, Germany, Canada, South Africa--none of these countries have monarchs.

So, what's the distinction between the second definition of a republic and the second part of the first definition of a democracy?

Supreme power residing in citizens and not "the people"?

This can't be that dispositive. Again, it would apply to every "democratic" nation in the world: I know of no nation that allows non-citizens to vote in elections. There are flexible conceptions of citizenship, however. It is true that citizens of Australia can vote in UK elections when they reside in the UK, but that right to vote is granted in the broader concept of Commonwealth citizenship which Australians hold.

Elected representatives and officers?

The definiton of democracy allows for elected representatives. Elected officers may be a sufficient distinction, but again, most modern "democracies" have elected officers: In France, the president has the ability to select the Prime Minister, and the executive departments can make laws independent of the legislature. Why wouldn't France then be considered a republic?

It is clear to me that there is no substance to the distinction between a republic and a democracy. We should stop trying to force something between the ideas.

Reece

Two Months

It has been almost two months.

Probably should get back to blogging.

I know we have had some good conversations since then, but didn't blog them.

As I get more and more less busy (that is a great lawyer like sentence), I will try to throw more stuff up.

Bork Quote

The Bork quote got me thinking.

Specifically, it seems the quote belies the radical agenda of the religious right because if there is nothing "the people" can do about a supreme court ruling, beyond amendment of the constitution, then it seems as if Bork is admitting that his beliefs don't have the political support for amendment. In a 50 percent plus 1 democracy, where ideas must be widely held to gain the necessary support, failing to get such support means the idea isn't widely held.

The only conclusion? That Bork and his friends are all in a minority of people who want such interferences with liberty like criminalizing homosexuality.

Food for thought.

Also, where is that cross blogged items we discussed.

Here comes the Idiot Train! Woot, Woot!

Justice Sunday the Second took place this past weekend. Choice quotes from the Washington Post's coverage:

Rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork warned that the high court has defined homosexuality as "a constitutional right . . . and once homosexuality is defined as a constitutional right, there is nothing the states can do about it, nothing the people can do about it."

Good thing this guy didn't get on the Supreme Court. He apparently has forgotten about the amendment process.

Speakers compared the civil rights movement of the 1960s to demands now by Christian groups for restoration of traditional morality. "It's time we move to the front of the bus and that we take command of the wheel," said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League

I'm sure Rosa Parks would appreciate this allusion.

Harry R. Jackson Jr., senior pastor at Hope Christian Church in College Park, Md., said the "Christian community is experiencing a new unity around the moral values that we share because of common faith." Jackson, who is black, said that appointing judges who will strictly interpret the Constitution is advantageous to blacks. "If justice matters to anybody in America, it matters to minorities and to people who have historically been at the bottom of the barrel" who will not have "to deal with a maverick judge changing the law at the last minute."

He has apparently never heard of Dred Scott. Dred Scott is one of the most beautiful pieces of strict constructionism ever written. In that decision, the Court went out of its way to determine the original meaning of the term "citizen" as it is used in the Constitution and found that the framers never intended "citizen" to ever mean "black person," even if that person was not a slave. Whoops!

--Reece

(Sorry for the pseudonym below, but I am now writing for a second blog here at blogspot and wanted to keep this one on the down low.)

The long plateau

Part of the problem is that the idea that the United States would explicitly use military force for natural resource gain goes against the grain of American history (outside of the conquering and colonization of the american west) and the international legal regime that we put into place at the end of the Second World War. The influence of the United States in ending colonialism cannot be ignored. Our actions in the Suez Crisis in 1956 forcing the British to withdraw from trying to forcibly protect the Suez Canal is an example (i recognize the lack of subject/verb agreemen in this sentence, plural subject to singular verb) of the type of actions we took against our own allies to prevent continued colonialism. Fighting a war for oil would require overcoming such a tradition.

Secondly, the free-market ideology that pervades this country would have to be overcome. Talk about a major governmental intervention in economic life, nothing really could be bigger than conquering a country for the sake of forcing its oil sales to the United States. That type of mercantilist monopoly would have to be sold over the prevailing free market ideology. The simple rhetorical response to arguments for such a policy is we should let the market decide, and find ways to work within the marketplace.

I realize that is somewhat incomplete of answers, but I am busy with something else at the moment and will return to the topic later.

Also,

Dionne's piece was basically a rundown of what the Administration is doing wrong, and why Bush's poll numbers might remain low regardless of whatever he does to try to boost them.
It was interesting, but didn't contribute much overall.

Quick review

The article about torture is right on:

On the floor of the Senate, before everyone left on vacation, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., sounded the administration line: There is no need for this legislation because we are not dealing with prisoners of war but "terrorists."

John McCain stood up and responded that the debate was not "about who they are. It's about who we are." We are Americans, the senator said, and we hold ourselves to a higher standard than those who slaughter the innocent in Iraq or Afghanistan, or in London or on 9/11 here at home.

I think you got the oil article for the most part. I would ask you to respond to one issue: He is in part talking about a long plateau and slow decline in the availability of oil. It is possible that under those conditions, the cost of military action to secure more oil would not have the same costs you envision. Any response to that?

Religious Right ruining the country. I think she does a good job of describing the problem, but doesn't suggest any method of making it better. We still have to beat them to get them out of office.

I didn't read the Dionne piece either. So, I'll wait for your reaction to that.

Several problems with the Oil article

First, i generally like the article, but here is one glaring problem (I am sure I will have others):

The author contends that we will see more violent conflict for oil as supplies dwindle, and that WW2 and the Gulf War were both significantly about the "pursuit of foreign oil."

I will deal with these points in succession, first the likelihood of future conflict, then the point about WW2, and finally the Gulf War.

The first point is most important, because it underlies other points the author makes about potential future conflicts in the Middle East regarding oil, or more explicitly predictions of conflicts between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. It needs to be stated very loudly and very clearly for all the anti-petroleum types who are given to wild fantasy about the evilness of oil companies.

NOTHING about the end of a natural resource INHERENTLY leads to conflict.

As I do all too often, I look to history. What great wars for forests did England fight when most of the forests were cut down early in English industrialization? Oh, wait, they didn't, they just started using coal.
What about the great wars that the United States fought as the Whaling industry went under? Oh wait, we were in the Civil War at the time, and we just started using petroleum. Dang.

The supposition that military conflict inherently will result from the end of the oil based economies is faulty because the supposition fails to account for the costliness of military action in light of alternatives. The entire post World War 2 international legal regime is designed to reduce cross border conflict, especially amongst the great powers of the world, by providing a set of norms to which countries can aspire and by providing legitimating language and standards for those instances in which war is necessary. This international legal regime is supported by too many stakeholders in the international system for the regime to be flaunted because of a decline in natural resources. The point: there is one cost not accounted for by "end of oil conflict" types.
Another cost is the simple opportunity costs of spending money on military action versus investing that money in renewable and nuclear sources of energy. Policy makers are smart enough, or at least we must trust them to be smart enough, and help them to be smart enough by organizing and lobbying, to realize that a 100 billion for a military adventure in the Mid-East to secure oil supplies (I don't believe this to be occurring right now, I am using this as an example) forgoes spending that 100 billion on development of bio-diesel hybrid automobiles, and the return on investment of a bio-diesel hybrid automobiles is much higher than another war.
So far we have costs of conflict for oil as 1) damage to an international legal regime we basically founded after the First world war, and actively supported since the end of the second; 2) the lost opportunity, and associated costs thereof, of investing in war instead of other sources of power; 3) The lack of return on investment posed by investing in war instead of renewables.

These costs greatly outweigh the benefits of simply securing more oil, especially in light of the fact that it is possible to transition to a post-oil economy instead of simply trying to prolong the oil economy at greater and greater costs. So the argument right now should be that we begin preparing ourselves for the transition to the post oil economy, which will be cheaper than attempting to prolong the oil economy. Its economics, its capitalism, it works (mostly).

Authors second point: WW2 was primarily driven by the pursuit of foreign oil.
Well, this point is just asinine. If you are after foreign oil, you don't invade Poland, then Denmark, Norway, and France. Now you might be saying to yourself, but WMD Norway has oil, hah! you are wrong!. Yes Norway has some oil, but that oil in Norway wasn't the main goal of the Nazi invasion there. (I could be wrong about that sweet sweet Norwegian crude, I just figured they had some off the North Sea) Furthermore, the Russian invasion didn't turn into an oil grab until after the rest of the offensives failed to knock the Russians out of the war. Basically, Hitler wasn't after the oil of the world.

Finally the Gulf War point:
I should have done this throughout the whole post, but whatever. Occam's Razor folks. "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything" Was the Gulf war about pursuit of foreign oil or about protecting the legal regime I already discussed? It is possible for the answer to be both, but the langauge of the policy makers at the time indicate that the legal regime point had a little more weight. The response that "Of course they wouldn't say we were fighting for oil" is silly. At some point, for politics to function, you have to take seriously what people are saying. It is untenable to claim that politicians always lie because we as the people and ultimate holders of power in this country would be unable to decide how to allocate political power if there was a complete dearth of truth in the policy making process. Was protecting Saudi Oil Fields a significant component of the deployment of the Rapid Deployment Force to Saudi Arabia in August 1990? Yes, but that does not require that therefore the whole operation was about oil. Other factors played a role at least as significant as the oil factor, and the oil factor alone would not have been enough to push this country to war.

That is all I got on that.

Here are a bunch of interesting articles and op-eds

One on anti-torture legislation: LINK

The Twilight of Petroleum or the next 30 to 40 years of our lives

One about how the Religious right is ruining this country: LINK

Finally, some tripe from E.J. Dionne: LINK

I haven't read the last one by Dionne, so it might be good, but my general East-coast/washington bias prevents me from praising it outright.

So, what's going on?

Man, slow news summer.

What did we talk about on the phone?

Was that our discussion regarding a constitutional amendment outlawing the property tax?

I thought I put that up here, but I couldn't find it.

Either way, we should propose such an amendment.

Don't got much else on that, but we should find away to discuss other elements of liberal proposals for taxes, and what they might be.

Nothing wrong with tax reform

We've talked about this on the phone a bit, but in principle, there is nothing wrong with tax reform . . . if it is done right. I don't have any grand ideas on how to do it right, but tax laws could use some simplification or other improvement.

Of course, any change has to be revenue neutral or revenue positive--closing loopholes, getting rid of unnecessary deductions, etc.

I actually think this is a liberal idea, and not one the conservatives should control. Once again, however, the Democrats have to think of something other than oppose-Bush-at-all-costs. That's their challenge. We'll see if they can do it.

Whether there is an appetite for it in the general public is another matter. On one hand I want to say that all the Repubs need to do is to convince people that their taxes are too high and they'll get their tax cuts. On the other hand, I kind of think that tax reform won't get any traction unless there is an obvious need like restructuring around (new) govermental programs.

Back Door Defeat of Roberts?

It is stories like this one here: LINK
(Pulled from Huffington Post, I wonder if Arianna needs a man, 'cause I ain't busy.....)

that make me think that some parts of the Democrats and the Left are hoping to defeat Roberts by making conservatives think that Roberts is another Souter. While the prospect of the president having to fight off a Conservative challenge to his Authoritah would be hilarious, especially in light of the damage it would do to his reputation in the sense that internal GOP fights are always nasty and not good for their party, do WE as leftists really want the president to withdraw this guy and nominate someone more like what the far right really wants?

I don't think we do, so I don't know if this is a good strategy, inasmuch as it is a strategy at all. It is possible that Conservatives are so worried about this nominee, that they are 1) more worried that the Left and Democrats, and 2) they are already gearing up to fight the president on this one.

If that is true, we may be in for a more interesting fall than I expected. While I am convinced that Tax Reform is going to be the next big White House push, it is possible that its roll out will be delayed until after the nomination fight. The reasoning behind such a delay is that I am almost positive that the Tax Reform push is going to be timed for the elections next year. It is also possible that the rumored troop withdrawls from Iraq could be used in both election capacity and to sell tax reform, in the sense that the GOP might claim, "the war is over so we don't need as many taxes anymore", as if we somehow collectively sacrificed for this war. Push come to shove though I don't think there is any appetite for tax reform in this country, and despite Bush's best efforts, I don't see any major bill getting passed. Of course, it all depends on whether or not the national Democrats stand up to Bush on the Tax reform bill when it comes up.

Haven't updated in awhile, got a lot on the plate

But, I still wanted to drop a post regarding some ideas bouncing around in my head.

In no particular order, and remember now, these are mostly one line ideas that more than likely lack any validity at all.

- Is "school bashing", and by that I mean the consevative jeremiad regarding the continual decline of our public schools, just an attempt by conservatives to shift the blame for the stagnation in social mobility in this country since the rapid expansion of the gap between the wealthiest americans and the rest of us?

-this space reserved

-what was that thing we had a long conversation about the other day? Do you remember it? It was something about conservatives and what is wrong with this country.

-There is another review of Noah Feldman's book, this time up at Slate.com, but the reviewer really tiptoes around the points made therein.

-I really would like to get started researching more about the history of the United States Congress and the effects on representativeness and deliberative democracy by the artificial limitations on the number of representatives. I am not sure how though for the next two months. Sometime after Oct. 1, hopefully I will be able to hit that and hit it hard.

-Just as I predicted awhile back, Tax reform is going to be the next big thing. Neal Boortz already has a book out about it that is on amazon's best seller list, and I guarantee the republicans will push it when they get back. I realize congress is on recess, but what ever happened to Social Security Reform?


I am sure I have other thoughts, but that is what is going on right now.

Slow news summer.

To clarify

Start with a couple quotes from Casey:

It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe's essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman's life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.

[W]hen this Court reexamines a prior holding, its judgment is customarily informed by a series of prudential and pragmatic considerations designed to test the consistency of overruling a prior decision with the ideal of the rule of law, and to gauge the respective costs of reaffirming and overruling a prior case. Thus, for example, we may ask whether the rule has proven to be intolerable simply in defying practical workability, whether the rule is subject to a kind of reliance that would lend a special hardship to the consequences of overruling and add inequity to the cost of repudiation, whether related principles of law have so far developed as to have left the old rule no more than a remnant of abandoned doctrine, or whether facts have so changed, or come to be seen so differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant application or justification.

This second one is O'Connor's statement of stare decisis. This is the 'precedent bias' I meant in my last post: there is a bias in favor of established precedent. If the composition of the court changes, this will be a large conceptual hurdle that will have to be overcome if a majority intends to overturn Roe and Casey.

So, I think they would have to find problems and rewrite the issue a few different times in order to show that the holding in Roe lacks practical workability, etc.

Maybe you're right though. Maybe it is more binary than that.

How?

How can a right wing court undermine the "precedent bias" (You learn that at your Top 20 law school?) that underpins Roe? I was under the impression that Roe followed out of Griswold and the cases regarding sending your kids to whatever school you wanted. Without overruling that line of cases, how can Roe be undermined (By the way, I love that over/under construction of that sentence.)?

Walk me through the manner in which cases could be decided that would undermine abortion as a fundamental right. I realize you think you have already done this, but how is simply changing the circumstances in which the central holding of Roe could be undermined. You seem to say pin prick after pin prick will eventually mean the holding won't hold up, but my question is how and why is that to be the case? What about the holding of Roe could be weakened over time? I don't understand how saying that women's liberty is a more compelling state interest than protection of the fetus up to the point of viability could be undermined because liberty is very explicit within the Constitution, and it is a generally held supposition that women have equal rights in this country, especially in light of the fact that the 5th and 14th amendments say "person" not "men".

I just don't see how that holding can be washed out, unless of course one attempts to define "fundamental right" into a point in which the words mean nothing.

a little bit

Casey changed the calculus in Roe a little bit. There still is a fundamental right to an abortion. That's the 'central holding.'

But casey rejected the trimester system set up in Roe. Roe said that you could have all the abortions you wanted up until the 2nd trimester, at which point the state could put more restrictions.

Casey says viability instead of 2nd trimester. So, it's a little more flexible, but it's also under attack. That's why you see billboards with things like, "I got my GENES at conception," or "A baby's heart start's beating at 8 weeks." (or whatever). The entire point of those billboards is to push forward the idea of when a fetus becomes viable.

The second thing Casey did was say that the state couldn't 'unduly burden' the right to an abortion before viability. So, in Casey, the spousal notification requirement was thrown out because it effectively gave a veto to the husband/father of the child that would have been impermissible if the state had exercised that same power.

I think Roe/Casey could be refined, but that's not what I'm talking about. My point is that a right wing Court will create the conditions necessary to undermine the precedent bias that sustains Roe and Casey.

Isn't that the situation we are in anyway?

I mean didn't Casey change the calculus of Roe anyway? I don't know for sure, but that was my understanding. It also begs the question of what would be wrong with Roe being refined by a series of future court decisions.

The only problem I have with such a situation is the inherent undemocratic nature of the process, that being the creation of laws from the bench. However, unlike my conservative bretheren, I recognize that our common law system almost explicitly allows for such "legislating from the bench". I would just rather we as a nation argue this point rather than somehow arriving at it from judicial decision because of the potentiality for reading Spencer's SocialStatics into the the Constitution.

On a side note, you mentioned a while back how we need to fetishizing the Constitution. I think that is definitely correct especially in regards to using the amendment process to overturn Supreme Court decisions that are patently unpopular, or wrongly decided. For an unpopular one, I don't have an example, but for a wrongly decided example, look at Buckley v. Valeo, at least from a lefty point of view.

yah

Simply, I was just agreeing with your last post and suggesting the form of the question that I would use to get at the same point.

Yes, it would tell us something about his judicial philosophy. It would let us know if he is an originalist or some variation thereof, or if he thought the Constitution was alive.

Originalism is silly for a lot of reasons. Interestingly, Justice Thomas has suggested that he would kill substantive due process but revive the Privileges and Immunities Clause in its place. I'm sure, of course, he would inform it with different content though. I just mean to say that the original intent of the 14th Amendment has been lost through early misinterpretations, but it's still not something the right wing wants to revive for the most part.

My predictions:

1. Everyone will wring their hands about Roe.
2. The Court won't overturn Roe--at least not in the first few years.

Here's what will happen to Roe: There will be increasing limitations on the liberty interest at stake. That liberty will be slowly eroded over several years. Parential Notification? You bet. Spousal Notification? Absolutely. Spousal Consent? Just a little extension here and there. No exception for the health of the mother? Life beats health. And so on. Then, several years from now, in a case that doesn't directly implicate the central issue in Roe, the court will find that Roe has not held up over time, that it's central holding is too complex to administer well, that it is too controversial and much disputed, and that for those reasons, stare decisis aside, the court is justified in washing its hands of subject. The decision will be that the Court is not the proper governmental institution to make the decision about abortion. End of Roe.

I know what you're thinking: That's too far in the future. But I'm sticking with it. John Paul Stevens is 85 years old. He's not going to make it through Bush's term. Bush will be able to appoint another judge to break the pro-liberty coalition on the Court.

But you're right, this guy will be confirmed, and there won't be a filibuster.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala-fucking-bama)

I shouldn't be shocked, and I shouldn't have cursed in the title, but this is just ridiculous.

I was a listenin' to the NPR there. To this bit: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4763112

If you listen along, you will find that Jeff Sessions must have failed 3rd grade.
Why 3rd grade? I don't know but it seems just about right.

Why do I think he failed? at one point in this discussion, the dear Senator Sessions says that asking certain types of questions of judicial nominees interfers with the independence of the judiciary. What does this have to do with the 3rd grade? Well, I am pretty sure that is about the time we all learned, (except Jeff Sessions) that our government has CHECKS AND BALANCES.

What is a check and a balance on the Judiciary? The fact that the Senate must confirm the judges of the judiciary! But not in modern Republican land, that is interferance with the judiciary.

What a moron.

What's the response going to be?

Is it going to be something about originalism? or textualism? or one of the other main approaches to constitutional interpretation?

What is that answer going to say about Roberts as a candidate for the Court?

What about the fact that originalism is pretty silly when talking about the 14th amendment and the 5th amendment as they were enacted 80 years apart?

What is mostly important to me in this instance, from a legal point of view, is that the Senators ask pertinent legal questions about this judge's judicial philosophy. At this point in the process, specifically the confirmation point, we the people (I hate that phrase) through our elected representatives in washington, get the opportunity to decide how the constitution will be interpreted in the future. Such a moment extends well beyond simply whether one case, specifically Roe will be overturned or not. The questions should not necessarily be about Roberts political philosophy as much as his legal philosophy. The reality is though, we are going to get a media circus in which no reasoned discussion about the legal philosophy of the country will occur.

That said, the reason I see this as a moment in which we can redefine the abortion debate within a legalistic framework of constitutional liberties is because 1) we need to do something to break the prochoice/prolife deadlock, and 2) when discussing constitutional liberties it is important to stay within the framework of the constitution, which above all else is a legal document.

Moving further to predictions:
1) There will be no filibuster
2) Very likely this guy will be confirmed.
3) The left will ring its hands over whether or not the court will overturn Roe.
4) If the court does overturn Roe, nothing could be better for us going into the midterm elections.(this last one is iffy)

My question

would be, "Can you describe the method by which you would interpret the term 'liberty' as it appears in the 5th and 14th amendments?"

This question isn't about abortion. It isn't about gay sex. It's about judicial philosophy. It's about how one approaches judicial problems.

So, yes, I think you are completely right.

Everyone needs to stop talking about privacy. It's only about privacy in the way that welfare benefits are property. Substance due process is about quasi-privacy to make decisions without governmental interference. It's about limited government. And it's about liberty.

Well

First, let me say congratulations on getting banned from Blogs for Bush.

Remember when you wrote this clap-trap

And the article suggests that it would be more impressive to study how often liberals post comments on conservative blogs.

I find that an interesting challenge. I often just read 'liberal' sources like TPM, New Donkey, the NY Times, etc. And I often don't spend time on conservative sources like Foxnews, etc.

All I can say is "wow"

Alright, moving on, here is what I am thinking today.
After my John Stewart "Whaaaaa?" regarding who Bush nominated. I got to thinking about what the Democrats and the left can do during the coming nomination fight.
First, we need to stop saying that we lost this fight back in November. That isn't what the constitution says regarding advice and consent. Secondly, Bush didn't run a presidential campaign on: "I am going to nominate right wing nutcases to the court, Vote for me!" Bush's campaign was: "I am better at defending this nation" (to put it positively), or "John Kerry is a lying liberal pussy who will sell your daughters into white slavery to our new Al-Qaeda overlords" (maybe not that extreme, but close). So in such a situation, we didn't lose this fight at the election because the american people weren't voting on this fight during the election. Sure sure, the argument can be made that people knew what kind of judges Bush would nominate for the court, but frankly I doubt if that entered anyone's thoughts and voting calculations (assuming rational actors voting, which I guess is exactly my point: folks aren't rational) when they voted. Point being if you believed that Bush was better at defending the nation, but you like all the great things that liberal activist judges have done for america, how would you vote? For your liberal activist judges or for not getting blown up?
A broader point here is that we can turn the whole nomination fight, because I guarantee the republicans will use the "you should have won the election" meme, into a debate about Bush and his campaign. Given the way everyone seems to love Karl Rove right now, we can refocus the debate right back on how sleazy the Bush administration is. Only problems, such a strategy takes time, discipline, and guts, all of which are in short supply in the national Democratic party.

So what else can we do about this nomination fight? We have an opportunity here to refocus the abortion debate. Your turn for a John Stewart "Whaaaaa?"
Put it this way, the Senators on the Judiciary Committee shouldn't ask question like "lets talk about abortion, for or against?" Such a question will get the standard right winger lie: "I will support the law as it stands" Instead the Senators should ask questions about how Roberts feels about a woman's right to liberty/privacy. I would choose liberty because that is the words in the document, and we have had this discussion before. If every Democratic Senator, and then the rest of the Democratic Party, gets a game plan together to talk about liberty and equality, and really discuss the bolts of the Nuts' legal and policy position regarding abortion, I think we can do more damage to any nominee than just talking about abortion. This may sound like reductio ad absurdum of their loony arguments, but that is what it takes sometimes.

Abortion isn't an issue about the right to choose. It is an issue about whether or not the liberty enshrined in the constitution is applied equally to all members of American society, including women.

More things that piss me off

Today's episode: Stupid Phrases.

With the announcement of the nomination, this is one that I keep seeing: SCOTUS. And you know that people are reading it skoe-tuss.

It bothers me because you know these people think they are in the know or something. They say skoe-tuss and suddenly they are wise polticos.

Here you go, morons, how about this abbreviation: SC

Look at that! I got Supreme Court down to 2 keystrokes while yours takes 6.

What did I drop out of my abbreviation? Well, let's see: OTUS. Of The United States. First off, 'of' and 'the' aren't normally used in abbreviations. It's the FBI, not the FBOI. So, those two should be thrown out on principle. At the least, the abbreviation should be SCUS. That's an improvement over SCOTUS.

What about that US? Is that completely necessary? I'm glad you asked that. No. It isn't necessary. When you say the Supreme Court, everyone knows what you are talking about. So, stop talking. What does that leave us with?

SC.

That'll do.

hmm

John G. Roberts.

Who is he again?

This is a Harry Truman nomination: If you can't beat 'em, confuse 'em.

I am . . .

banned from blogs for Bush.

Just tried to post a comment and I got a screen saying my comment was denied for questionable content.

Incidentally, Mark Noonan sent me two emails out of our last exchange. The contents follow:

Sorry, but you'll have to address the subject of the thread...why does NARAL insult people, and what does it mean politically?

Thanks,

What's funny about this one is that he eventually posted what I said. This email was associated with the post I started, "Mark, what are you talking about?" Why he would deny it and then post it is unclear.

The second email:

Reece,

Geesh, are you dense, man? We're not talking about the issue you'd prefer to talk about but about the issue of the thread...NARAL has a nasty, rude thing going on and we'd like to know what you think about it.

I'm actually glad I got this one, because it contains the content of my last post in which I said this:

Scar,

The straw man gets grows. I didn't see anyone catching this, but this naral group is from Washington (state). It's not the national group.

This is the national group's site:
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/index.cfm

The site that Mark pulled the ad from was www.wanaral.org. What's the 'wa' for? Well, its for Washington.

So, now Mark's post has 2 straw men.

1. He's attributing to the group a position they do not hold so that he may attack it.

2. He is saying that a position held by part of an organization is held by the whole organization.

Those are both straw man arguments:
"The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context."

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

If you are arguing against a position that is not held by your opponent, you are committing the straw man fallacy. Mark does this attributing positions to NARAL, his and your opponent, which NARAL does not hold.

As for Washington, in 2004, it elected a Democratic Governor, a Democratic Senator, 6 Democratic Representatives (out of 9 districts), and went for John Kerry over Pres. Bush by 7%. So, Mark missed again when he said Dems are getting shellacked at polls. Whoops!

Scar, are you serious that you don't agree with anything NARAL supports? Do you not agree with this:

"Finally, we must launch a national effort to require comprehensive sex education throughout our primary and secondary schools. This approach would protect teens by promoting abstinence while simultaneously providing teens with the contraceptive and STD/HIV prevention information they need to make responsible decisions if and when they become sexually active."

Mark does. He said he wanted abstinence to be "an element" of sex education. How can he be any clearer?

Incidentally, if my posts aren't worth reading, why do you continue to do so, Scar? It's your choice, dude.

Damn it's hard being right all the time.

I hadn't checked that email address in 8 days, so I didn't know I had these. Here's how I responded.

Mark,

Sorry, I check this email address about once a week. Nonetheless, you're a moron. There was no insult by NARAL. You were attributing an position to NARAL that was being advanced by NARAL of Washington. Again, Democrats are kicking ass in Washington. Insult or not, you got nothing here because Dems are winning in Washington. Whatever insult your perceive is irrelevant given that your entire premise, namely that Dems are getting pasted at the polls due to things like
the Screw Abstinence party, is false.

Dems in Washington, which is the only relevant jurisdiction here, are winning. A lot.

Beyond that, you still want to attribute to NARAL a position that they do not hold. NARAL has not insulted you. Find me a link with from NARAL's website, www.naral.org aka www.prochoiceamerica.org, that leads to a Screw Abstinence party. You know what, you can't. It doesn't exist. Why? Because they didn't have anything to do with the event that was organized in Washington.

Understand now or do I have to explain it another time?

You are specifically spreading falsehoods in order to stir up partisan fever. Weak.

Reece

Fun Times.

Vermont takes all the good ideas.

From Jon Margolis "Vermont: The Greening of Welfare" in Making Welfare Pay, Robert Kutter (ed), New Press, New York, 2002, p. 43-44.

It is relatively easy to take the kinder, gentler approach in a small homogenous state where kind and gentle are practically a tradition. Indeed, Vermont's political culture sometimes threatens to degenerate into cloying and treacly. Still, there is something to be said for civility, and state officials are serious about it, as they recently demonstated in the generally civilized debate over gay and lesbian partnerships. To take just one oddity: Representative Poirer is a Democrat, which is unsurprising for a committee chair in a legislative body with a Democratic majority. But his Senate counterpart, Health and Welfare committee chair Helen Riehle, is a Republican, though the Democrats run that house, too.

In Vermont, this is no big deal. It isn't that there's no partisanship. It's just that partisanship is restrained. This may be the only state in which the center aisles do not divide the parties in the legislative chambers: Senators sit by county, and House members draw their seats by lot. It's harder to get bitterly angry at the person sitting next to you everyday.

That's what I'm talking about, except that I think it would work even for large and diverse states and for the nation as a whole.

Nothing New Under the Sun

From Theda Skocpol's "The Missing Middle" (W.W. Norton, New York, 2000) at 46-47:

When Ronald Reagan achieved the presidency in 1980, fiscal conservatives hoped he would cut social spending on the middle class as well as programs for the very poor. But after briefly raising the possibility of such reforms, President Reagan and his budget director, David Stockman, quickly retreated from cutting middle-class programs in the face of an upsurge of public concern. Thereafter, the Reaganites concentrated rhetorical and budgetary fire on means-tested social spending for the poor. At that point, in the mid-1980s, opponents of Social Security retreated to a more indirect and long-term effort to undermine middle-class faith in the Social Security system. Following tactics laid out in a remarkable article by Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation and Peter Germanis of the Cato Institute called "Achieving a Leninist Strategy," critics stopped calling for immediate cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits, and instead began talking about a looming future "crisis" for the nation as a whole.

Miller

Salon has an article about the left's response to Judith Miller's jailing. Apparently a lot of people are thinking along the same lines as you. The article is on their front page, but with their advertisement thing, I can't really link to it.

It's too long to retain my interest through the whole thing, but it opens with the choice quote:

"New York Times reporter Judith Miller is sent to jail for contempt of court, but not for writing months of front-page fiction about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," a reader in California recently wrote to Salon. "Al Capone did time in prison for tax evasion, but not for murder. I guess you have to take what you can get."

I don't see your point

So what if the Gossipy harem that is the washington press corps, more specifically the White House Press Pool, decided to start asking tough questions of McClellan now that one of their own is in jail and they all feel threatened. Who cares? What Washington reporters care about isn't what middle america cares about.

The biggest tragedy in my personal, immediate life right now is that baseball is on hold for the all star game.

I should come clean though, there is more at work here than I have admitted. Frankly, given the state of her reporting before the Iraq War, Judith Miller SHOULD be in jail. I realize that it is an untenable position to say that a reporter should be in jail for the quality of her journalism, but that is my position anyway. Miller was a White House hack in the run up to the war, "reporting" on all sorts of factually unsubstantiated items, and some that seemed to play perfectly into the neo-cons hands. For her stenography, the brief time that she will spend in jail while this grand jury investigates is not enough. She isn't fit to hold the "Slow" signs on a highway construction crew. So I am sorry if I am not going to shed a tear for her, or give a rats ass about this story.

I realize it appears as if I am admitting a great amount of bias, and that bias is why I don't think people care about this story out here in the middle. However if you take a look at the front pages, editorial pages, and letters to the editor of Midwestern and mountain state small town newspapers (defining such as newspapers in cities 200k people or less) I guarantee you will not find this story reaching any level of prominence.

The simple fact that McClellan is dissembling about the whole business belies what is going to occur, namely NOTHING!

On Edit
Here is an example of what I am talking about:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095394

I hate linking to other bloggers but, this is good

Here is a post about the person I am supporting for President in 2008, or 2012, or whenever he decides to run.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/david-sirota/a-bluntspeaking-gunto_4011.html

This guy is my kind of Democrat. From the Flyovers of Montana, loves guns and scotch, and the quote in the post shows a great depth of knowledge. (specifically the bit about the use of the word "crusade")

Schweitzer in 08!

Bush <3 Turd Blossom

While I agree that Bush loves Turd Blossom, there might be something to this.

I get this feeling because I read a partial transcript of today's White House briefing which was linked from Huffington Post.

The reporters were brutal. Or at least if I had been asking the question, my tone would not have been civil. Just the questions:

Q: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak of the name of a CIA operative?

Q: I actually wasn’t talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position?

Q: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, 'We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation'?

Q: So could I just ask: When did you change your mind to say that it was OK to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it’s not?

Q: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?

Q: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

Q: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

Q: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.

Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

Q: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

Q: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

Q: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

Q: Well, we are going to keep asking them. When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?

Q: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...

Q: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?

Q: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?

Q: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

Q: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

Karl Rove Must Go! and other stupid fantasies

First, lets go a little meta. I just realized that by posting my reactions to what others write elsewhere may have more value as milemarkers of the type of things i read on the net than the actual value of my reactions. Dunno, but food for thought.

Moving on.

Lately, lefties seem to be salivating over the possibility that Karl Rove is going to do one of several things or have one of several things done to him. This all relates to the apparent trouble Rove is in regarding the outing of Valerie Plame. Keeping with the title of this blog, I have to say I don't care. what Rove may or may not have done. I am sorry if I see other actions this administration has done as more threatening to our national security than whether or not "turd blossom", as he is so affectionately called, leaked Valerie Plame's name.

I will go even further and say that virtually NO ONE out here in the middle gives a rat's ass over what a New York Times reporter is doing, whether it be spending time in jail standing up for freedom of the press or not, but keeping with the direction of this post I want to specifically discuss this article by Timothy Noah:

http://www.slate.com/id/2122393/
for other examples see also, tpmcafe.com, huffingtonpost.com, Salon's "War Room", either way you get the point.

Okay, what Noah seems to be saying, and what a lot of other lefties on the net seem to be hoping is that some how law and justice will triumph over Karl Rove's nefarious activities, and Rove will do, or have done to him, one or more of the following 1) Resign, 2) be fired, 3) be indicted for either 3a) leaking Plame's name or 3b) perjury before a grand jury, or 4) go to jail.

Well folks, I really only have two things to say:
1) IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!

and 2) NO ONE CARES!

Lets address these points separately.

First, Rove isn't going anywhere. I am sorry but no amount of political or legal pressure is going to push Rove out of the White House. For the love of Christ, his nickname is Turd Blossom! Bush loves this guy! Let me put that differently, the President will not let his advisor resign or go to jail. Period! end of story, ain't anything else to say. Stop wishing and hoping people, start being realistic. Rove will be with this white house till the end. But but what about the special prosecutor!, you might sputter in all your coastal fury. well, in a few months he will say he couldn't find anything, and close the grand jury. Just cause a grand jury convenes doesn't mean indictments follow. In this notoriously loyal administration, where you can screw up an invasion, putting american fighting men and women in harms way, and still keep your job, do you HONESTLY think that what someone may or may not have said to a reporter is going to lead to their downfall?

NO ONE CARES! The people out here in the middle, you know the ones we need for a Democrat to return to the White House, they don't care about this story. This issue doesn't help national Democrats. I am sure the beltway types think it does. But haven't beltway Democrats been proven wrong enough lately? Lemme put it differently, this issue doesn't help us! Let us concentrate on other things! This issue won't help us convince the 3 percent of voters we need to win in 08. It doesn't convince voters to vote for us. It looks like sour grapes, which makes us look like whiners. Rather than looking for blood, lets treat this administration like the lame duck it is.


Furthermore, in the context of huge hurricanes, London bombings, and Supreme Court retirements, this story has no legs. The folks don't care.

Some time, I wish that a pollster would look at the dissimilar populations of the "swing states" alone, independent of what national politics are, just looking at those swing states out here in the great middle. The data would need to be aggregated, not individualized for the states, so as to avoid pandering to one state population, simply to get a conception of what these people care about, and you know what will be bottom of that list? Judith Miller and whether or not an advisor to the president broke the law. Maybe then, lefties would realize their fevered fantasies are a waste of time, and would instead direct their energies into developing new ways of organizing the party and selling our ideas.

I think this is the type of story that ultimately hurts the left. It is the type of imperial court gossip that makes those of us here in the provinces hate politics. So it is best that we let it go. Of all the things we can use to attack the Bush administration, this is probably the weakest and dumbest in terms of helping us win future elections and return to the status of majority party.

Encounters with Mark Noonan

Your post below about your visit to www.blogsforbush.com inspired me to go take another look. When I got there, a post by your beloved Mr. Noonan was on top.

I posted a comment or three. Here's how the exchange went:

His original post:

As sure as the sun rises in the east, we can count upon our leftists to be, well, ever increasingly vulgar as time goes on. The latest example of this is from NARAL:

This is an advertisement for NARAL's "screw abstinence" party - an event designed to raise funds for NARAL's programs to "secure comprehensive and medically accurate sex education" for all and sundry...and I guess "comprehensive" for NARAL doesn't include the fact that the only 100% effective means of preventing pregnancy and STD's is, well, abstinence.

When our Democratic friends wonder why they get shellacked at the polls on the issue of moral values, they've really no further to look than NARAL and similar groups. This is meant as an insult to everyone who disagrees with their views - and the insult does get noted. NARAL is not so much defending its views on the matter of sexual education, but insulting everyone who holds a different view. What, really, would be wrong with a sex education program which includes an element of abstinence? Nothing that any rational person can see...but NARAL goes into fits whenever anyone mentions the word "abstinence".

The historian Will Durant, writing of the decadance of ancient Rome, described this NARAL attitude (which is prevelant in the political left) as "a shallow sophistication which prides itself on childlessness and despair". For NARAL, sex is for gratification and nothing more - an animal action disconnected from anything higher than momentary physical pleasure. Others disagree - and as those who disagree are not into childlessness and despair, the future looks bright.

My first comment:

I guess you all would rather argue with a strawman than take a look around.

Here is NARAL's page about proper Sex Education.

http://www.wanaral.org/s09issues/200307082.shtml

Note that they support a comprehensive sex education that includes teaching both abstinence and contraception.

The key parts:

"Sex education programs discussing both abstinence and contraception have been proven to increase knowledge, delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, and increase contraceptive use."

"Research by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy in 2004 shows: “To date, six studies of abstinence-only programs have been published. None of these studies has found consistent and significant program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse, and at least one study provided strong evidence that the program did not delay the onset of intercourse.”"

His response:

Reece,

Michael said it pretty well - I'll only add, also, that you don't gain converts to your cause by using insulting terms like this.

It must be faced that the pro-abortion lobby, of which NARAL is a leading part, is contemptuous of traditional morals...they are part and parcel with that bizarre leftwing thinking which holds that while can talk kids into not smoking, we can't talk them into not having sex.

My Response:

Mark,

Where was I being insulting? If I was, it was unintended, but calling a strawman argument a strawman argument is not insulting.

And your argument was a strawman: Your claim was that NARAL is against sex education that contains abstinence. That is an easy target to attack because no one agrees with it--including NARAL.

That's the definition of a strawman argument:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

You didn't attack NARAL's position. You mistated there position as seeing something "wrong with a sex education program which includes an element of abstinence."

They don't. They want comprehensive sex education which includes both abstinence and contraceptive information. In fact, that is your implied position: "What would be wrong with a sex education program which includes an element of abstinence?" The inference is that nothing would be wrong with it. NARAL agrees.

Mark, I guess the 2/3 of Americans who think Roe v. Wade shouldn't be overturned are against traditional values too? Or the 4/5 of us who think abortion should remain legal in at least some circumstances?

His response:

Reece,

What straw man argument? What you are attempting to do here is do what liberal/left posters always attempt to do - change the subject when caught.

The subject of this thread is the insult offered by NARAL to traditional morals via their "Screw Abstinence" party...other issues may be wrapped up in this, but what you are desperately trying to do is a debator's trick of pulling away from your weakest point and trying to cloud the issue...you don't want anyone talking about the disgusting insult offered by NARAL; you'd much prefer we engage you in your pointless debate about whether or not the National Abortion Rights Action League favors or opposes abstinence education...who the f*** cares if they support it or not? Their attitude about it ("screw abstinence", eg) says more about it than platitudes offered about how abstinence can be part of a sex education program...and we know, additionally, from reading up on NARAL that, at best, they give a bit of lip service to abstinence before they go right into a demand for graphic, amoral sex education and advocacy of the really sick and disgusting platform of federally funded abortion on demand.

My response:

Mark, what are you talking about? I pointed out your strawman argument. I don't really feel like repeating myself.

"What, really, would be wrong with a sex education program which includes an element of abstinence? Nothing that any rational person can see...but NARAL goes into fits whenever anyone mentions the word "abstinence"."

You agree with NARAL. NARAL agrees with you. They haven't gone 'into fits.'

Your point was that since NARAL is against abstinence, people don't vote for Democrats in elections.

"When our Democratic friends wonder why they get shellacked at the polls on the issue of moral values, they've really no further to look than NARAL and similar groups."

But NARAL isn't against abstinence. They are against abstinence only sex ed.

What's the problem here? You created a problem by assigning to NARAL a position that the group does not hold.

So, in short, you care if they support it or not. Or at least cared enough to post that they did not support it.

Now I am changing the subject:

Disgusting insult? I didn't realize people had to be so PC around you conservatives. I'm sure someone will let the fine people at NARAL know that you have been offended.

Well, before I get banned, I'm out. See you all next month. Or not.

Well, that's it. What can you do with these people?

Dammit

"Since 1968, when Nixon was elected, Republican presidents have appointed 1,040 judges; Democrats have named 625. While many of the Bush appointees are replacing jurists named by previous Republican presidents, toward the end of his term Bush could have more opportunities to replace some of the Clinton judges, which would have even greater impact."

From Yahoo News: "Bush's Judges Already Making Their Mark"

Terminology

We've talked some about different ways to approach issues. Sometimes we need new terminology. I know you'll protest this post on the grounds that we shouldn't be afraid to state our honest positions. And I agree with that, but I think that some terms aren't fully descriptive.

The one that strikes me right now is 'environmentalist.' I don't even know what that means. It means someone who cares for the environment, but don't we all care for the environment? Some more than others, I suppose, but even pro-business Republicans don't want an ugly and polluted world. They just think that economics will somehow take care of it. So, at least we can fault them for being stupid.

So, what content does the general term environmentalist have? Certainly there are different types of environmentalists. There are conservationists, who are for judicious use and replenishment of resources, and there are preservationists, who would be for not messing with it in the first place.

But what is the ethos of an "environmentalist?" There is something to it. We know what people are talking about when they say enviromentalist, but it's specific content isn't encompassed in the term.

So, someone should get into that content, find out what it means to be an 'environmentalist' and then, perhaps, suggest a better term.

There is nothing particularly wrong with "environmentalist," but maybe there is a term that could sell better.

DU isn't really a moderate site

But the piece is honest. From an advice column called "Aunti Pinko" comes reasonable position: Believe what you want to believe. Switch parties if the Dems really represent your views. If not, stay a Republican.

It's just honest. I don't know what else to say about it.