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.