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!
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Monday, July 11, 2005
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:
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.
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.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
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:
His response:
His response:
My response:
Well, that's it. What can you do with these people?
I posted a comment or three. Here's how the exchange went:
His original post:
My first comment: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.
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.”"
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.htmlYou 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"
From Yahoo News: "Bush's Judges Already Making Their Mark"
Saturday, July 09, 2005
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.
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.
Friday, July 08, 2005
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.
It's just honest. I don't know what else to say about it.
Why
What about that post makes it interesting? I read the article, and I see the persons point for the most part, but what about it struck you?
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Secret Al Qaida Organization . . .
Reminds me of Monty Python's Life of Brian. The Judean People's Front, and the People's Front of Judea.
Morning thoughts
Regarding your defeatism: Did you see the story awhile back about Edison Schools in Pennsylvania and what happened to the first major public school run by a private company? I personally don't have the link, but the gist of it: Total disaster. I wouldn't expect anything less from a Bush. But we need to hype the things that prove them wrong.
Regarding London: Cnn's first headline, and no I don't know how to capture it, is "Terror Hits London". Which actually isn't true. Terrorists attacked, or "hit" if you will, London. This is the problem with the "war on terror", just as all the other dumb "wars" we have had like on poverty and drugs. You can't have a war on a tactic. You cannot personify a tactic. Terror just doesn't float around in an ephemeral world waiting for somewhere to "hit" Such a conception, inherent in the words "war on terror" denies the required human agency for terrorist attacks to occur. In fact, the words "terrorist attacks" is a much better word because the "terrorist" part puts the blame squarely where it belongs, namely on a human being known as a terrorist.
The name of the group sounds made up, but probably is real. By made up I mean they sound like a bunch of amatuers. The Secret Al Qaeda Jihad Organization in Europe. That sounds like being put on "double secret probation." I don't doubt that the attacks were likely carried out by islamic extremists, I am attempting to make fun of those guys. I guess I should express some relief that it is someone other than Catholics bombing London these days. That might have been in poor taste.
Regarding London: Cnn's first headline, and no I don't know how to capture it, is "Terror Hits London". Which actually isn't true. Terrorists attacked, or "hit" if you will, London. This is the problem with the "war on terror", just as all the other dumb "wars" we have had like on poverty and drugs. You can't have a war on a tactic. You cannot personify a tactic. Terror just doesn't float around in an ephemeral world waiting for somewhere to "hit" Such a conception, inherent in the words "war on terror" denies the required human agency for terrorist attacks to occur. In fact, the words "terrorist attacks" is a much better word because the "terrorist" part puts the blame squarely where it belongs, namely on a human being known as a terrorist.
The name of the group sounds made up, but probably is real. By made up I mean they sound like a bunch of amatuers. The Secret Al Qaeda Jihad Organization in Europe. That sounds like being put on "double secret probation." I don't doubt that the attacks were likely carried out by islamic extremists, I am attempting to make fun of those guys. I guess I should express some relief that it is someone other than Catholics bombing London these days. That might have been in poor taste.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Suffering from an Extended Bout of Defeatism.
And I know I am.
I just don't know how to defeat people who are convinced they hold the absolute truth. Nothing can disabuse them of that notion. How do we fight it?
Huffington Post had a link to an article out of Florida:
I just don't know how to defeat people who are convinced they hold the absolute truth. Nothing can disabuse them of that notion. How do we fight it?
Huffington Post had a link to an article out of Florida:
Gov. Bush touts Christian-based program for schools
ugh. What do we do with this?Future Justice Crazy Pants
I took Saletan's point to be that we won't see a court willing to overturn Roe. He's saying that Bush should appoint someone now that will appear anti-Roe, and this will satisfy the pro-lifers, but then later he can appoint someone who won't vote to overturn Roe. Doing so, Bush will be able to maintain a pro-Roe majority.
Why would Bush want to do that? Because as Roe goes, so goes the Republican coalition.
The point is that the wingers won't be demoralized by a justice who later upholds Roe; they will be energized.
Why would Bush want to do that? Because as Roe goes, so goes the Republican coalition.
The point is that the wingers won't be demoralized by a justice who later upholds Roe; they will be energized.
Dude. sorry but you get a "dude."
While I agree with you that your B.A. in philosophy with cum laude honors from University of Missouri is worth no less than Matt Yglesias' B.A. in philosophy with magna cum laude honors from Harvard, and in fact might be worth more in some respects, but your whole post comes off as sour grapes. What I mean is that nothing about having a degree from Harvard makes one a great critical thinker. It doesn't automatically confer greatness on someone, but frankly you shouldn't be pissy towards someone who you would probably be friends with if you met at a bar.
You are right, there is nothing about Matt Yglesias' that makes him more or less qualified to comment on politics than you or I, but have you been submitting essays and commentary to national magazines? What about regional magazines? What about city papers or magazines? To some extent, the reason people fawn over Yglesias is because he has a readership because of his work. That isn't saying you can't achieve that readership, but just that to some extent you need to pay your dues to get it.
Maybe this post is a little too personal to have up, but I am keeping it up for awhile.
You can pull it after you read it, if you want.
You are right, there is nothing about Matt Yglesias' that makes him more or less qualified to comment on politics than you or I, but have you been submitting essays and commentary to national magazines? What about regional magazines? What about city papers or magazines? To some extent, the reason people fawn over Yglesias is because he has a readership because of his work. That isn't saying you can't achieve that readership, but just that to some extent you need to pay your dues to get it.
Maybe this post is a little too personal to have up, but I am keeping it up for awhile.
You can pull it after you read it, if you want.
Great Article at Slate today
http://www.slate.com/id/2122012/
William Saletan makes a good point here about what more than likely will be how Bush will approach the coming Supreme Court nomination fight.
What I take away from this article as relevant for Democrats is that we should appear to fight like hell against whoever Bush nominates, but at the same time ultimately stand united against the nominee but appear gracious by allowing the vote to take place.
With what Saletan says is on the table for the next term, I think it would greatly help the Democrats going into 06 if we ramp up the anti-right wing vote in this country by fighting against a right wing jurist, but ultimately allowing them to take the seat because then in June/July of 06, when Future Justice Crazy Pants either 1) reveals themself to be the right wing loon they are, our base is energized going into the midterms or 2) the Justice turns out to be a moderate, at which point the Right flips out and is demoralized.
Saletan also points out that the polling data on Roe v. Wade shows that 2/3rds of the nation doesn't want Roe overturned, and I almost guarantee that an even greater percentage never want to see abortion criminalized. In such a situation, how could we not benefit from any anti-right wing backlash over the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade? Let the Republicans have their Court! The political backlash against their cherished judicial goals will be more than enough to beat their party back down into the minority.
I dunno, just a thought.
One thing that is a bit confusing about Saletan's position is that he apparently believes that the Right has "won" the abortion debate. Leaving aside the silliness of "winning" a debate in an ongoing democratic process, I fail to see how the right has won the debate when in his own article he mentions that 2/3rds of the nation doesn't want Roe overturned. How can the right "win" when their goal is overturning of Roe, and 2/3rds of the country disagree with that goal?
Curious.
William Saletan makes a good point here about what more than likely will be how Bush will approach the coming Supreme Court nomination fight.
What I take away from this article as relevant for Democrats is that we should appear to fight like hell against whoever Bush nominates, but at the same time ultimately stand united against the nominee but appear gracious by allowing the vote to take place.
With what Saletan says is on the table for the next term, I think it would greatly help the Democrats going into 06 if we ramp up the anti-right wing vote in this country by fighting against a right wing jurist, but ultimately allowing them to take the seat because then in June/July of 06, when Future Justice Crazy Pants either 1) reveals themself to be the right wing loon they are, our base is energized going into the midterms or 2) the Justice turns out to be a moderate, at which point the Right flips out and is demoralized.
Saletan also points out that the polling data on Roe v. Wade shows that 2/3rds of the nation doesn't want Roe overturned, and I almost guarantee that an even greater percentage never want to see abortion criminalized. In such a situation, how could we not benefit from any anti-right wing backlash over the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade? Let the Republicans have their Court! The political backlash against their cherished judicial goals will be more than enough to beat their party back down into the minority.
I dunno, just a thought.
One thing that is a bit confusing about Saletan's position is that he apparently believes that the Right has "won" the abortion debate. Leaving aside the silliness of "winning" a debate in an ongoing democratic process, I fail to see how the right has won the debate when in his own article he mentions that 2/3rds of the nation doesn't want Roe overturned. How can the right "win" when their goal is overturning of Roe, and 2/3rds of the country disagree with that goal?
Curious.
More Fevered Rantings
One thing that tends to drive me nuts are deeply held admirations for the past.
I just don't get it. It doesn't make sense to me.
This post was generated from the last one. I decided to go read Yglesias's blog at tpmcafe. One of his posts links to a blog by Mark Kleinman. Kleinman's blog links to his "common-place book."
The problem is that he is trying act as a 18th Century property owner.
Our future will be informed by our past, but our future will be composed of its own forms. We will not emulate the past. It is our world, let's act like it.
I just don't get it. It doesn't make sense to me.
This post was generated from the last one. I decided to go read Yglesias's blog at tpmcafe. One of his posts links to a blog by Mark Kleinman. Kleinman's blog links to his "common-place book."
The problem is that he is trying act as a 18th Century property owner.
Our future will be informed by our past, but our future will be composed of its own forms. We will not emulate the past. It is our world, let's act like it.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Beyond the Blog: Manufactured Authority
I keep going back to tpmcafe.com to see what they have up. That's not a behavior I can explain. Maybe it's pathological.
I really do think that tpmcafe is representative of a post-blog media form that is beginning to emerge on the internet. Another example is Arianna Huffington's Huffington Post, which combines blog-style commentary and reader discussion with Drudge-style headlines.
If blogs were supposed to be the decentralization of political commentary, what do these new sites represent? I keep coming to the conclusion that they are a real problem.
These sites manufacture authority. The official contributors to tpmcafe likely could not pull down a significant readership on their own, but put them on a site endorsed by Josh Marshall, and they have instand credibility, despite their background.
Take as an example Matthew Yglesias. Who is Matthew Yglesias? He's a 24 year old yahoo. There is no reason this man's views on anything carry any more validity than yours or mine. But give him a place at tpmcafe and suddenly people think he is some genius.
And that's what I really find disgusting about that site. I am disenchanted with the contributors, and no amount of graduate degrees from whatever university you like will make up for useless commentary. People listen though, because the site itself generates legitimacy without any effort.
I know my position on this is self-defeating because any complaint I have can easily be levelled against our fevered rantings here, but it really bothers me that we have removed all barriers from punditry, especially on sites that have the ability to be influential.
What barriers should there be? I'm sure how to completely answer that question. I seriously doubt that my life will be academic, but there need to be sound bases for propositions and that may include academic research, or, at a minimum, clear thought.
I really do think that tpmcafe is representative of a post-blog media form that is beginning to emerge on the internet. Another example is Arianna Huffington's Huffington Post, which combines blog-style commentary and reader discussion with Drudge-style headlines.
If blogs were supposed to be the decentralization of political commentary, what do these new sites represent? I keep coming to the conclusion that they are a real problem.
These sites manufacture authority. The official contributors to tpmcafe likely could not pull down a significant readership on their own, but put them on a site endorsed by Josh Marshall, and they have instand credibility, despite their background.
Take as an example Matthew Yglesias. Who is Matthew Yglesias? He's a 24 year old yahoo. There is no reason this man's views on anything carry any more validity than yours or mine. But give him a place at tpmcafe and suddenly people think he is some genius.
And that's what I really find disgusting about that site. I am disenchanted with the contributors, and no amount of graduate degrees from whatever university you like will make up for useless commentary. People listen though, because the site itself generates legitimacy without any effort.
I know my position on this is self-defeating because any complaint I have can easily be levelled against our fevered rantings here, but it really bothers me that we have removed all barriers from punditry, especially on sites that have the ability to be influential.
What barriers should there be? I'm sure how to completely answer that question. I seriously doubt that my life will be academic, but there need to be sound bases for propositions and that may include academic research, or, at a minimum, clear thought.
Alright, so
I got up at 10:00 this morning, had a late night celebrating the birth of our nation, Read Reece's post, and by 10:11 I had my post out in response. I start checking the daily news. Went to Salon, read the "Daou report" their list of blogs, and here a scant 25 minutes after waking up to another beautiful God-given day, my blood is up, and I am pissed.
Can these people be more stupid?
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4824
Lets have a face off!
In corner 1! Weighing in at a scant few ounces. Hailing all the way from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the senior man on the circuit, the U.S. Constitution!!!! (crowd going wild noises here).
In Corner 2, Currently hailing from Las Vegas, Nevada, weighing God knows how much (as I have never met the man, although I could imagine how that statement could be taken as a personal attack), the up and coming kid, Mark Noonan! (booo-hiss!)
Given its historical strength, the Constitution bravely decides to let Mr. Noonan go first!
Mr. Noonan: "the President gets to pick whomever he wants,"
Oooh-a nice first jab, a little fascistic, but not bad (i know another personal attack) I mean we all should just let the President do what he wants right? He is our fearless leader. He knows what is right and what is wrong, that is why we picked him right? How will the constitution reply to such an opening?
U.S. Constitution: The president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,"
OOOOOH Smack! That has to sting Mr. Noonan, he should be dazed and confused right now. Wow. I can't see anyone coming back from that!
Mr. Noonan: "and the American Constitution and our political traditions require an up or down vote on the nominee."
What? that doesn't make any sense. what a strange way to attack the Constitution. That isn't a response to the Constitution. That is just gibberish. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. How will the constitution reply to such a statement? This is getting interesting folks.
Mr. Constitution, what is your response?
U.S. Constitution: . . . . . . .
The U.S. Constitution doesn't have a response?!?!?! This truly is a tragic day. it is almost as if Mr. Noonan never read the Constitution. He doesn't even know what is in the document! The constitution cannot win this fight when put up against someone with such a strange attack. By convienently ignoring the Constitution, and walking out of the ring... Wait! Wait, what is going on down there? It appears that Mr. Noonan is proclaiming victory! This is crazy, I have never seen a fighter leave the ring and then proclaim victory. Apparently Matt Drudge is now reporting Mr. Noonan's victory on his webpage. What?!? hang on folks, a new report is coming in from CNN, they are saying that Matt Drudge is reporting Mr. Noonan's Victory of Rhetoric over the U.S. Constitution. This is getting stranger by the minute folks, but now Drudge is reporting that the mainstream media, specifically CNN is confirming his story, specifically confirming that he is reporting that Noonan won. At times like these, all I can say is OOOOOOHHHHHH THE HUMANITY!
Can these people be more stupid?
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4824
Lets have a face off!
In corner 1! Weighing in at a scant few ounces. Hailing all the way from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the senior man on the circuit, the U.S. Constitution!!!! (crowd going wild noises here).
In Corner 2, Currently hailing from Las Vegas, Nevada, weighing God knows how much (as I have never met the man, although I could imagine how that statement could be taken as a personal attack), the up and coming kid, Mark Noonan! (booo-hiss!)
Given its historical strength, the Constitution bravely decides to let Mr. Noonan go first!
Mr. Noonan: "the President gets to pick whomever he wants,"
Oooh-a nice first jab, a little fascistic, but not bad (i know another personal attack) I mean we all should just let the President do what he wants right? He is our fearless leader. He knows what is right and what is wrong, that is why we picked him right? How will the constitution reply to such an opening?
U.S. Constitution: The president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,"
OOOOOH Smack! That has to sting Mr. Noonan, he should be dazed and confused right now. Wow. I can't see anyone coming back from that!
Mr. Noonan: "and the American Constitution and our political traditions require an up or down vote on the nominee."
What? that doesn't make any sense. what a strange way to attack the Constitution. That isn't a response to the Constitution. That is just gibberish. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. How will the constitution reply to such a statement? This is getting interesting folks.
Mr. Constitution, what is your response?
U.S. Constitution: . . . . . . .
The U.S. Constitution doesn't have a response?!?!?! This truly is a tragic day. it is almost as if Mr. Noonan never read the Constitution. He doesn't even know what is in the document! The constitution cannot win this fight when put up against someone with such a strange attack. By convienently ignoring the Constitution, and walking out of the ring... Wait! Wait, what is going on down there? It appears that Mr. Noonan is proclaiming victory! This is crazy, I have never seen a fighter leave the ring and then proclaim victory. Apparently Matt Drudge is now reporting Mr. Noonan's victory on his webpage. What?!? hang on folks, a new report is coming in from CNN, they are saying that Matt Drudge is reporting Mr. Noonan's Victory of Rhetoric over the U.S. Constitution. This is getting stranger by the minute folks, but now Drudge is reporting that the mainstream media, specifically CNN is confirming his story, specifically confirming that he is reporting that Noonan won. At times like these, all I can say is OOOOOOHHHHHH THE HUMANITY!
Thank you
I really like your reasoning, although you get a bit murky at the end when you are talking about higher scrutiny. Whose scrutiny? the public's or the Court's? Really though, don't worry about it because you can easily mean both.
The reasoning you outline is why, I believe, the anti-abortion types are fighting so hard against the "morning-after" pill. It is as if they know that the closer to conception the state intervention into the life of the fetus begins, the greater the deprivation of the liberty interest for the woman. It is almost like they recognize the inherent lack of human-ness of a fertilized egg, and so they want to prevent the left from trying to win, and what an easy victory it would be, on this point. An ideal world, at least in my mind, would be a world without abortions but with plentiful "morning-after" pills. Although, just given the irresponsibility of people, and the lack of good sex education for Christiany high school girls, it is likely there would still be SOME abortions.
That reads convoluted to me, but I just got up.
The reasoning you outline is why, I believe, the anti-abortion types are fighting so hard against the "morning-after" pill. It is as if they know that the closer to conception the state intervention into the life of the fetus begins, the greater the deprivation of the liberty interest for the woman. It is almost like they recognize the inherent lack of human-ness of a fertilized egg, and so they want to prevent the left from trying to win, and what an easy victory it would be, on this point. An ideal world, at least in my mind, would be a world without abortions but with plentiful "morning-after" pills. Although, just given the irresponsibility of people, and the lack of good sex education for Christiany high school girls, it is likely there would still be SOME abortions.
That reads convoluted to me, but I just got up.
Rethinking Abortion
With the upcoming fight for the next member of the Supreme Court, it is worth rethinking our position on abortion. Often Dems appear to just be in favor of abortion without having thought it through while Republicans have clear positions that are easily understandable and communicable.
I came across another blog here at blogspot in which the author asked individuals to provide justifications for their positions on abortion. I took him up on that challenge. Below is an edited version of what I wrote. I'll have some more comments after the quote. You can find the originals here.
The only thing I have to add is that my position is almost exclusively derived from arguments made by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade. It is worth a read, and everyone should really think through it to decide where, if at all, it was wrongly decided. That is why this post is entitled "Rethinking Abortion." It's rethinking it, but only in order to bring to the fore the arguments that already exist.
I personally believe Roe does strike the right balance. Under Roe some abortions are permissible, even for any reason such as emergency contraception. It takes seriously a woman's decision to become pregnant or not--and in doing so takes seriously the scope of what is at stake in a pregnancy. A woman cannot simply have a child. Pregnancy takes time and effort and money and support. If a woman thinks she cannot support a child, or cannot bear the costs and sacrifices of a pregnancy, then it may be the best decision for her not to have the child.
Let me finish by noting the conflict between that concern and parental notification statutes. Here in Texas, a minor must either notify her parents of her intent to have an abortion or, under very strict circumstances, can ask the courts to grant permission without parental notification. The judicial by-pass can only be trigger if the girl demonstrates that she is sufficiently mature and has considered all her choices.
On the face of it, that sounds like it might be acceptable. Unfortunately, a lot of these girls are 13 or 14 years old. There is no way that they can possibly be mature enough, especially in Texas. In one case here, a dissenting judge argued that the minor should not be granted a judicial by-pass to the parental notification requirement on the grounds that she was not mature enough to have an abortion. He reasoned that her immaturity was evidenced by her decision not to tell her parents.
If we are serious about the liberty of the woman being restricted by the burdens of pregnancy and child rearing, we must recognize that those burdens are bigger for younger girls. Teenage pregnancies can be so destructive to a girl's life. I don't think we want the government forcing children to have children. Let these girls decide to terminate their pregnancies so that they have the same chances at a normal life as everyone else.
Parental notification statutes should be subject to a higher scrutiny.
I came across another blog here at blogspot in which the author asked individuals to provide justifications for their positions on abortion. I took him up on that challenge. Below is an edited version of what I wrote. I'll have some more comments after the quote. You can find the originals here.
First, it is important to understand that rights are not intrinsic in anything. It is certainly possible to have a democratic government that doesn't recognize any broad conception of rights. Take a look at ancient Athens.While we live in a democracy that recognizes rights, there are no such things as natural rights.
“Rights" are a shorthand for talking about legal positions and legal enforceability. When someone says they have a right to free speech that means the government is legally limited in the actions it may take regarding an individual’s speech. When someone says they have a right to life, that means that they cannot be deprived of their life without due process of law--and the only process sufficient is a murder (or treason) trial conducted under specific fair procedural requirements.
Those are just examples, but the point is that natural rights don't exist. Rights are dependent on the existence of a government willing to enforce them.
Second, abortion presents a conflict of rights. On one hand, we have a woman who has a constitutionally protected right to liberty in both the 5th and the 14th Amendments. On the other hand, we have a fertilized egg, an embryo, a fetus, or what may be a human life at any other stage of gestational development. Our government, through the Constitution was instituted to protect both liberty and life. In order to deprive someone of liberty it must be shown that government has a compelling interest in the goal for which it is depriving a person of liberty.
While some people may want the courts to decide when in course of human development a fetus becomes a person, that is not what is at issue in Roe and the Supreme Court’s other abortion decisions. The question is when does the state have a compelling interest in protecting the life of a fetus. Can we honestly say that government has a compelling interest at the time of conception?
I do not see any rational way to get to that point. A zygote or even a fertilized egg may be alive, though like Justice Blackmun I am unable to make that determination when so many people disagree. Even if it is 'alive,' how does that simple fact demand that it is protected in the same way a 5 year old child, or a 30 year old man, or a 70 year old woman is protected?
It is not even terribly likely that the fertilized egg will make it on its own. A lot of them just don't survive. Given the uncertainty, is it really true that the state has a compelling interest in ensuring that it remains alive?
Certainly, the life of a fetus becomes a compelling concern for the state at some point in the development of the child. I personally cannot imagine a rational distinction between a newborn infant and the same child still in the womb five minutes earlier. That is a matter of chance at most. The challenge is to determine at what point between these two extremes the government may begin to regulate abortion in order to protect the life of the fetus.
In the early stages of a pregnancy, a woman's liberty is a actual compelling interest while the life of a fetus or a zygote is only potential until it is recognizably similar to all those persons that we actually protect. This liberty interest is not small.
Consider simply that the statute at issue in Roe was designed to put the full force of the state's criminal law to work against doctors who performed abortions and women who had them. The government was not just going to tell them to stop; it was going to take them out of their houses and communities and place them in prisons. There is no clearer deprivation of liberty than this.
There is a second aspect of liberty at issue in the abortion debate—possibly a more serious problem. Banning abortion in effect uses the full power of the state to force women to undergo the strain and labor of pregnancy, of childbirth, and forces them to spend time, money, and effort until the child is fully grown and can fend for himself. This isn’t to be underestimated.
The liberty concerns here are enormous. The concern for the life of a fetus cannot immediately match the liberty concern at conception. Over time, as it develops into infant, the government’s concern for its life also develops. Thus, the point is not that a woman’s liberty in her pregnancy is unlimited—it can’t be—but neither can the state forcibly deprive her of that liberty until the concern for the child is compelling.
That is the correct balance. Early in a pregnancy, when there is nothing more than a fertilized egg, the state shouldn’t be able to regulate women from having abortions.
The only thing I have to add is that my position is almost exclusively derived from arguments made by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade. It is worth a read, and everyone should really think through it to decide where, if at all, it was wrongly decided. That is why this post is entitled "Rethinking Abortion." It's rethinking it, but only in order to bring to the fore the arguments that already exist.
I personally believe Roe does strike the right balance. Under Roe some abortions are permissible, even for any reason such as emergency contraception. It takes seriously a woman's decision to become pregnant or not--and in doing so takes seriously the scope of what is at stake in a pregnancy. A woman cannot simply have a child. Pregnancy takes time and effort and money and support. If a woman thinks she cannot support a child, or cannot bear the costs and sacrifices of a pregnancy, then it may be the best decision for her not to have the child.
Let me finish by noting the conflict between that concern and parental notification statutes. Here in Texas, a minor must either notify her parents of her intent to have an abortion or, under very strict circumstances, can ask the courts to grant permission without parental notification. The judicial by-pass can only be trigger if the girl demonstrates that she is sufficiently mature and has considered all her choices.
On the face of it, that sounds like it might be acceptable. Unfortunately, a lot of these girls are 13 or 14 years old. There is no way that they can possibly be mature enough, especially in Texas. In one case here, a dissenting judge argued that the minor should not be granted a judicial by-pass to the parental notification requirement on the grounds that she was not mature enough to have an abortion. He reasoned that her immaturity was evidenced by her decision not to tell her parents.
If we are serious about the liberty of the woman being restricted by the burdens of pregnancy and child rearing, we must recognize that those burdens are bigger for younger girls. Teenage pregnancies can be so destructive to a girl's life. I don't think we want the government forcing children to have children. Let these girls decide to terminate their pregnancies so that they have the same chances at a normal life as everyone else.
Parental notification statutes should be subject to a higher scrutiny.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Good Catch, but
When are you going to put up the rest of the stuff we talked about the other day?
Do your edits and get it up!
Do your edits and get it up!
Woot, sort of
Teddy Kennedy is on point in today's Washington Post.
He says,
and
Too bad the message had to come from Sen. Kennedy.
He says,
The genius of their plan was obvious. If both the president and the Senate must agree on an appointment, there is a strong incentive to select people who can obtain a consensus in the nation and in the Senate. They spoke of the appointment power as a "joint" power, and that's what it's been for 218 years. "Joint" means cooperation and consultation and consensus. It means picking from a list of mainstream lawyers and judges who have demonstrated that they are dedicated to the Constitution and the rights it guarantees. It means avoiding candidates who would come to the court with personal, partisan or ideological agendas. It means ignoring the advice of those who prefer that the president pick fights with the Senate instead of picking judges with the Senate. It means taking seriously the "advice" part of "advice and consent" by sharing the names of prospective nominees with the leadership of both parties in the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and other senators who will fairly reflect the balance of views in the Senate and the country.
and
The president should reject the pressure of the extreme factions of his party that want litmus tests for his nominee. This process shouldn't just be about whether the next justice would help roll back women's rights by overturning Roe v. Wade , the law of the land. It should be about something much more basic: protecting our core constitutional values for generations to come, the freedoms that we've fought for, bled for and died for. Because of Sandra Day O'Connor, the disabled are guaranteed access to our public courts. Teachers can't be fired for opposing discrimination against girls in our public schools. Patients can get a second opinion when an HMO tries to deny them care. Our water is cleaner and citizens can stop polluters who dump toxins into our waterways.I like his characterization of the goal as "protecting our core constitutional values." That's great. It means sticking to precedent. It means protecting liberty in the 14th Amendment. It means maintaining our commerce clause doctrine.
Too bad the message had to come from Sen. Kennedy.
Friday, July 01, 2005
Don't Be
Such a defeatist crybaby.
Another side benefit of this is that as you have so aptly pointed out the major parties don't represent most americans. Which means we can use this issue to point out just how much the republicans do not represent most americans. Recently republicans have overreached on just about every issue. The Supreme Court nomination process only provides another chance for them to overreach. What is the possibility they actually will overreach? Very high, because of the fundamental nature of the Republicans.
In fact, Bush's speech today belies the type of overreaching the republicans will most likely attempt because Bush said that he wants a nominee confirmed before the next Court Session begins. This desire is underpinned by the assumption that O'Conner's resignation is effective immediately, which would only be nice if it were true. O'Conner explicitly said she is resigning as soon as her successor can be confirmed. So already you see that Bush is attempting to play mendacious semantic games to attempt to control the nomination process in the hopes of rushing someone like Scalia, or worse, through.
Furthermore, the republican party has a vision for america that is well outside the mainstream. Explicitly, they appear to want some type of pre-New Deal theocracy. The vast majority of americans don't want that type of government. However, within the Republican party, the ideologues demand action taken to impose their nutty vision of america on the rest of us, and if action isn't taken, the right explodes.
In this coming nomination fight, Bush will be placed between the wacky right and normal people. As the elections come ever closer, Senate republicans don't want to be put in a position of appearing to endorse the wacky right. This will be especially the case for Ohio Senator, and Judiciary Committe member, Mike DeWine who is up for reelection in 06. Given the current state of the Ohio Republican party and the current scandals in Ohio, DeWine could be ripe for a ton of pressure to break from his party. Now, I know NOTHING about Mike DeWine, he may not be in such a position, but if he isn't, we (meaning the Democrats) should put him there. Explicitly: Support the president and lose your seat, or support a moderate nominee and keep your seat.
I am sure this calculus of being able to cram a nutjob down the Senate's throat before the elections in an effort to get both the nutjob on the Court and to help protect the Senate Republicans from political fallout of approving said nutjob is driving Bush's stated desire to get a new Court member approved before the Court returns to session in October, despite the August recess.
This nomination fight also gives the Democrats a chance to move towards arguing for the type of inclusive representative democracy you spoke about earlier because the Constitution says that the president shall have the power "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" to appoint Justices of the Supreme Court. Consequently, not only are we singularly situated to win an argument that "advice and consent" means real advice. We are also situated to argue that "the Senate" means the whole damn body, and not just the 55 person Republican majority. This was the argument we were beginning to make during the "nuculer" option crisis and that we were winning. Now, you are more familiar with political question doctrine than I am, and I mean the elements here, but I cannot see any court EVER interpreting Art. 2 Sec. 2 Clause 1. Which means that in this case, the Legislature, namely the Senate, and through their Senators, the people of this country, are going to get the opportunity to interpret what a section of the United States Constitution means.
Frankly, these are arguments we can win, we should win, and we must win.
Another side benefit of this is that as you have so aptly pointed out the major parties don't represent most americans. Which means we can use this issue to point out just how much the republicans do not represent most americans. Recently republicans have overreached on just about every issue. The Supreme Court nomination process only provides another chance for them to overreach. What is the possibility they actually will overreach? Very high, because of the fundamental nature of the Republicans.
In fact, Bush's speech today belies the type of overreaching the republicans will most likely attempt because Bush said that he wants a nominee confirmed before the next Court Session begins. This desire is underpinned by the assumption that O'Conner's resignation is effective immediately, which would only be nice if it were true. O'Conner explicitly said she is resigning as soon as her successor can be confirmed. So already you see that Bush is attempting to play mendacious semantic games to attempt to control the nomination process in the hopes of rushing someone like Scalia, or worse, through.
Furthermore, the republican party has a vision for america that is well outside the mainstream. Explicitly, they appear to want some type of pre-New Deal theocracy. The vast majority of americans don't want that type of government. However, within the Republican party, the ideologues demand action taken to impose their nutty vision of america on the rest of us, and if action isn't taken, the right explodes.
In this coming nomination fight, Bush will be placed between the wacky right and normal people. As the elections come ever closer, Senate republicans don't want to be put in a position of appearing to endorse the wacky right. This will be especially the case for Ohio Senator, and Judiciary Committe member, Mike DeWine who is up for reelection in 06. Given the current state of the Ohio Republican party and the current scandals in Ohio, DeWine could be ripe for a ton of pressure to break from his party. Now, I know NOTHING about Mike DeWine, he may not be in such a position, but if he isn't, we (meaning the Democrats) should put him there. Explicitly: Support the president and lose your seat, or support a moderate nominee and keep your seat.
I am sure this calculus of being able to cram a nutjob down the Senate's throat before the elections in an effort to get both the nutjob on the Court and to help protect the Senate Republicans from political fallout of approving said nutjob is driving Bush's stated desire to get a new Court member approved before the Court returns to session in October, despite the August recess.
This nomination fight also gives the Democrats a chance to move towards arguing for the type of inclusive representative democracy you spoke about earlier because the Constitution says that the president shall have the power "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" to appoint Justices of the Supreme Court. Consequently, not only are we singularly situated to win an argument that "advice and consent" means real advice. We are also situated to argue that "the Senate" means the whole damn body, and not just the 55 person Republican majority. This was the argument we were beginning to make during the "nuculer" option crisis and that we were winning. Now, you are more familiar with political question doctrine than I am, and I mean the elements here, but I cannot see any court EVER interpreting Art. 2 Sec. 2 Clause 1. Which means that in this case, the Legislature, namely the Senate, and through their Senators, the people of this country, are going to get the opportunity to interpret what a section of the United States Constitution means.
Frankly, these are arguments we can win, we should win, and we must win.
Bah
We're boned.
That's pretty much my only thought right now.
There are a couple ways that this can turn out ok, though. First, if Rehnquist also steps down, at least we'll know what's at stake when it comes time to replace him. We need to fight for both spots, but if he retires, there is a certain flexibility in Dems ability to maintain the ideological balance of the court.
Second, and here's my fatalism: If Bush gets his ideological cronies on the court, then we might just see the constitutional crisis necessary for true reform to this country. When the Supreme Court tries to roll us back to 1791, the country won't stand for it, and we'll get some amendments out of it.
That's pretty much my only thought right now.
There are a couple ways that this can turn out ok, though. First, if Rehnquist also steps down, at least we'll know what's at stake when it comes time to replace him. We need to fight for both spots, but if he retires, there is a certain flexibility in Dems ability to maintain the ideological balance of the court.
Second, and here's my fatalism: If Bush gets his ideological cronies on the court, then we might just see the constitutional crisis necessary for true reform to this country. When the Supreme Court tries to roll us back to 1791, the country won't stand for it, and we'll get some amendments out of it.
In light of recent events
I am going to hold off on responding to your posts about reforming the government. Also, I am just going to leave well enough alone in regards to your comments on TPMCafe, as I agree enough to not warrant further comment. I will briefly note that one thing I find particularly disgusting about TPMCafe is the air of haughty knowingness that pervades the discussion there. Yuck.
In your last post, you brought up Holmesian conceptions of democracy, but I instead want to focus on Holmesian conceptions of the law. I think it is imperative that the left begin to develop a legal philosophy that makes sense. I say this because I just turned off the CNN there and they were interviewing Robert Bork as to O'Conner's legacy. Bork said that she lacked a judicial philosophy and proceeded in typical right wing fascion (see it is "fashion, but looks like fascist, because that is what most of the modern right truly is, dang I am witty this morning. Really hungover, and dang witty!) to disparage Justice O'Conner's legal opinions. So in response to Bork, I thought it would be good to open up debate space on what is the a good counterweight to the right's, and specifically Bork's, "dead" constitution, originalistic philosophy. Naturally, given my predilection for good ol' OWH, I turned to his opinion in Missouri v. Holland. (just for you law nerds out there: 252 U.S. 416 (1920), although I don't have the pinpoint citation) In discussing the 10th amendment to the Constitution, Holmes states: "We must consider what this country has become in deciding what that amendment has reserved."
I think that lays a foundation for a modern left wing constitutional jurisprudence, except maybe change "amendment" to "constitution". I am also sure that many other people (read as "smarter" people) have arrived at this point and moved past it. However, I think your aforementioned "fetishization" of the constitution and the right's commitment to originalism shows that Holmes' point has not be political powerful, at least not recently. So I am proposing that we begin to discuss ways in which we can make this whole business politically viable. That said, I guess I will reluctantly put down the long desired read of the Central Asian history that I have, and dive headfirst into The Common Law. To paraphrase the Red Stripe advertisements: Hooray! Law!
Also: My predictions for the coming nomination fight(s)
First, I think it is highly likely that Renhquist will also retire soon. Which gives us 2 nominations to work with. Faced with 2 nominations, Bush is going to chortle with glee in that Roscoe P. Coltrane way, while Rove giggles on like Boss Hogg, except not cool. It needs to be stated outright to all national democratic party persons and our 2 maybe 3 readers:
YOU CANNOT TRUST THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP OR WHITE HOUSE TO DEAL IN GOOD FAITH WITH YOU DURING THE COMING NOMINATION FIGHT.
That said, how will this proceed? How should the left proceed? Well, I heartly agree with Reid's proposal of a list of Republicans that the Democrats in the Senate will support for the high court. That said, don't expect Bush to pick one. Based solely on their track record, and his speech this morning, Bush will nominate whoever he wants and will not listen to ANY "advice" from the Senate, all the while DEMANDING the Senate's "consent". So Bush is going to nominate some nutjob. So in light of a likely Rehnquist resignation, how should we proceed? Give Bush a pass on one of his nutjobs, and fight the other one like hell, all the while proposing moderate republican or conservative democrats as alternatives that would make the fight "all just disappear."
We can win this. (and by win I mean preserve the current ideological balance of the court)
In your last post, you brought up Holmesian conceptions of democracy, but I instead want to focus on Holmesian conceptions of the law. I think it is imperative that the left begin to develop a legal philosophy that makes sense. I say this because I just turned off the CNN there and they were interviewing Robert Bork as to O'Conner's legacy. Bork said that she lacked a judicial philosophy and proceeded in typical right wing fascion (see it is "fashion, but looks like fascist, because that is what most of the modern right truly is, dang I am witty this morning. Really hungover, and dang witty!) to disparage Justice O'Conner's legal opinions. So in response to Bork, I thought it would be good to open up debate space on what is the a good counterweight to the right's, and specifically Bork's, "dead" constitution, originalistic philosophy. Naturally, given my predilection for good ol' OWH, I turned to his opinion in Missouri v. Holland. (just for you law nerds out there: 252 U.S. 416 (1920), although I don't have the pinpoint citation) In discussing the 10th amendment to the Constitution, Holmes states: "We must consider what this country has become in deciding what that amendment has reserved."
I think that lays a foundation for a modern left wing constitutional jurisprudence, except maybe change "amendment" to "constitution". I am also sure that many other people (read as "smarter" people) have arrived at this point and moved past it. However, I think your aforementioned "fetishization" of the constitution and the right's commitment to originalism shows that Holmes' point has not be political powerful, at least not recently. So I am proposing that we begin to discuss ways in which we can make this whole business politically viable. That said, I guess I will reluctantly put down the long desired read of the Central Asian history that I have, and dive headfirst into The Common Law. To paraphrase the Red Stripe advertisements: Hooray! Law!
Also: My predictions for the coming nomination fight(s)
First, I think it is highly likely that Renhquist will also retire soon. Which gives us 2 nominations to work with. Faced with 2 nominations, Bush is going to chortle with glee in that Roscoe P. Coltrane way, while Rove giggles on like Boss Hogg, except not cool. It needs to be stated outright to all national democratic party persons and our 2 maybe 3 readers:
YOU CANNOT TRUST THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP OR WHITE HOUSE TO DEAL IN GOOD FAITH WITH YOU DURING THE COMING NOMINATION FIGHT.
That said, how will this proceed? How should the left proceed? Well, I heartly agree with Reid's proposal of a list of Republicans that the Democrats in the Senate will support for the high court. That said, don't expect Bush to pick one. Based solely on their track record, and his speech this morning, Bush will nominate whoever he wants and will not listen to ANY "advice" from the Senate, all the while DEMANDING the Senate's "consent". So Bush is going to nominate some nutjob. So in light of a likely Rehnquist resignation, how should we proceed? Give Bush a pass on one of his nutjobs, and fight the other one like hell, all the while proposing moderate republican or conservative democrats as alternatives that would make the fight "all just disappear."
We can win this. (and by win I mean preserve the current ideological balance of the court)
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Well . . .
1. It's good because it creates a principled vision of how America should work that is distinct from tired and broken political issues. In part, it's new. In part, it says that we realize things aren't perfect, but we want to do our best to make sure that the views of all Americans have a place in government.
In part, I think it's good because the political middle is practical. They aren't ideologues and they're looking for government to help them make their lives a little better. They're not worried about ideas, but solutions.
Reforming legislative processes is about ensuring that people are actually represented in their government. This is who we are--we're the democratic party. It exposes Republicans who are ideologues. It exposes right wingers who only want to impose their beliefs on the whole of the nation--people who are more interested in their own power than doing what's best for the American people.
In a way, it comes back to a Holmesian conception of a democracy in which the structures of government allow robust political discourse and the people ultimately get to decide, even if we think they're wrong sometimes, and even if sometimes we lose. So, it says that we care about doing what the country wants more than we care about being in power. It's that we care about doing what the American people want, even if we can never control the entire government.
Update: I also think it is good because the polarization right now makes people feel excluded from the government. They're looking around and saying that this system doesn't represent them. It's a way to appeal to people--we're going to bring you back in, give you a say again.
That's part of the reason we started this blog: We're two guys from the Midwest and we're not seeing politicians appealing to what we believe in.
2. I'm not yet sure how to answer this one. My answer would be related to my belief that most people are in the center and are forced to split in favor of candidates who roughly approximate their beliefs at best. It is government for the people, and 'the people' aren't just 51% of the population. The people is the whole of the population. So, in order for a government to be truly democratic, it must be as inclusive as possible.
One of the problems I have had in expressing myself is that there can be an equivocation in the term 'anti-majoritarian.' I believe there exists a natural majority in the middle. That people in the center of the bell curve pretty much agree on most issues. Our system is designed to be against that majority. It's more representative of the extremes than of the actual majority. That's the polarization story, isn't it? So, inclusivity is good because it reaches across the artificial divide created by winner-take-all elections.
In part, I think it's good because the political middle is practical. They aren't ideologues and they're looking for government to help them make their lives a little better. They're not worried about ideas, but solutions.
Reforming legislative processes is about ensuring that people are actually represented in their government. This is who we are--we're the democratic party. It exposes Republicans who are ideologues. It exposes right wingers who only want to impose their beliefs on the whole of the nation--people who are more interested in their own power than doing what's best for the American people.
In a way, it comes back to a Holmesian conception of a democracy in which the structures of government allow robust political discourse and the people ultimately get to decide, even if we think they're wrong sometimes, and even if sometimes we lose. So, it says that we care about doing what the country wants more than we care about being in power. It's that we care about doing what the American people want, even if we can never control the entire government.
Update: I also think it is good because the polarization right now makes people feel excluded from the government. They're looking around and saying that this system doesn't represent them. It's a way to appeal to people--we're going to bring you back in, give you a say again.
That's part of the reason we started this blog: We're two guys from the Midwest and we're not seeing politicians appealing to what we believe in.
2. I'm not yet sure how to answer this one. My answer would be related to my belief that most people are in the center and are forced to split in favor of candidates who roughly approximate their beliefs at best. It is government for the people, and 'the people' aren't just 51% of the population. The people is the whole of the population. So, in order for a government to be truly democratic, it must be as inclusive as possible.
One of the problems I have had in expressing myself is that there can be an equivocation in the term 'anti-majoritarian.' I believe there exists a natural majority in the middle. That people in the center of the bell curve pretty much agree on most issues. Our system is designed to be against that majority. It's more representative of the extremes than of the actual majority. That's the polarization story, isn't it? So, inclusivity is good because it reaches across the artificial divide created by winner-take-all elections.
Okay
I think I understand a little bit better now, but you are begging a couple of questions:
1) Why is espousing electoral reform in this manner beneficial to the Democratic party, now and in the future?
2) Why is inclusivity an inherent good? You seem to be assuming it is, and not explaining that point. You kind of mention the whole "government for the people" business, but don't really develop it fully.
Deez Nutz!
1) Why is espousing electoral reform in this manner beneficial to the Democratic party, now and in the future?
2) Why is inclusivity an inherent good? You seem to be assuming it is, and not explaining that point. You kind of mention the whole "government for the people" business, but don't really develop it fully.
Deez Nutz!
A Quick Restatement
The Senate may have been an effective manner of countering the will of the majority at the time of ratification. The founders were rightly concerned about citizens being more loyal to their home state and prejudiced against individuals from other states.
But regional factionalism died. I can't pinpoint when, but it did. The Civil War helped, and so did New Deal and the rise of the national economy, and so did the Civil Rights movement. Today, we are a uniform nation and not a federation of sovereign states.
The Senate was designed to stop majorities that wanted to harm people from a different region. We don't have that problem anymore. The problem we have reflects the nation we have. Our nation has specific problems that affect everyone equally, but which we differ on how to address. It really is about politics and not region.
But the Senate doesn't reflect that.
Eh, this post is half-baked. I can't seem to get it out.
But regional factionalism died. I can't pinpoint when, but it did. The Civil War helped, and so did New Deal and the rise of the national economy, and so did the Civil Rights movement. Today, we are a uniform nation and not a federation of sovereign states.
The Senate was designed to stop majorities that wanted to harm people from a different region. We don't have that problem anymore. The problem we have reflects the nation we have. Our nation has specific problems that affect everyone equally, but which we differ on how to address. It really is about politics and not region.
But the Senate doesn't reflect that.
Eh, this post is half-baked. I can't seem to get it out.
Clearing some things up.
I started using shorthand below. It wasn't clear, so let me try again. In part, what I was writing was a thought process. That's why it wasn't clear--I was still thinking through it myself.
Let's start at what may be the end and work backwards.
We have a representative democracy. One could call it a republic, I suppose, but the term democracy is important. In a direct democracy, the people themselves legislate. In ancient Athens, that meant that 6000 citizens got together in one place, anyone could propose legislation, and policy was decided by vote.
Our country is still a democracy, but in place of the 6000 citizens, we have elected representatives. Our representatives stand in for us in the legislative project. Instead of us making the laws, they do it for us.
The democratic aspects of our federal government are not in the elections we hold every two years, but in the actual legislative process. Any democracy, however, can be tyrranical, i.e. if an unchecked majority exercises its legislative power to the detriment of a minority.
Democracy itself does not mean majority rule. To be simple, it is government by and for the people. The second part of that statement implies that whatever government is formed must be as inclusive as possible. This is what I was saying about the parties representing specific positions on a political spectrum. Government for the people can't rationally mean "government for the 51% of the people who voted." That is unrepresentative and undemocratic precisely because it excludes a large portion of the people.
Most people fall into the middle of the political spectrum, and they have to split in an election between two groups that don't really reflect their actual beliefs.
We can drop all the issues with the electoral structures from my analysis, except as historical artifacts. Let me explain: The writers of the basic constitution--not the Bill of Rights or other amendments--were worried about the House of Representatives running amok with democratic fever. They were afraid that the House, as a purely representative body, could become tyrranical--that a majority could control it and harm minorities. In order to counter the tyrrany of the majority, they had to institute specifically anti-majoritarian provisions. They chose to do this by creating the Senate which is not proportionally representative.
It is important to think of the Senate as existing for a reason. When we ask what that reason is, we find that it exists to check the majoritarian design of the House. The crucial point, however, is that we don't need the Senate to do that. We can build anti-majoritarian government (and thus achieve democratic inclusivity) in other ways.
Let me try to clear up what I mean by majoritarian and anti-majoritarian. A governmental structure is majoritarian insofar as it favors the interests of a majority, regardless of the size of the majority, through any means, including through assigning governmental power based on the whim of a shifting polity. A structure is anti-majoritarian if it seeks to limit the will of such a majority and provides protection for minorities who may be out of power for just a moment.
It is clear that the Senate is intended to be anti-majoritarian. Membership of the Senate is not connected to the desires of the majority. Imagine what would happen if each state had three people living in it, except Kansas, and Kansas had 300 million people. In our federal structure, the interests of Kansas would represent the majority, but Kansas would only have 2 votes in the Senate, and the other 49 states could counter Kansas's control of the House.
The House tends to be majoritarian, as should be clear from the example.
So, that's our federal scheme as we have it. What's odd, however, is that our actual legislative processes are purely majoritarian If you consider the House and Senate as direct democracies for a moment, you see that there aren't any anti-majoritarian protections. Both the House and Senate are subject to the tyrranical whims of the majority of their members.
If you take a look at direct democracies, the problem of the tyrrany of the majority arises in the legislative process. That's what we're really concerned about--how the laws are made, not how individuals are selected for office. It seems to me that our founding fathers thought that the method of selecting officers would cure the tyrrany of the majority that arises during actual legislation. This is fallacious.
And furthermore, the structure as it is designed is problematic because the majority of the anti-representative Senate has the same power as the majority of the representative House. A majority of the Senate can represent a tiny majority of the population. Consider the Kansas hypothetical above. In that situation, 147 citizens (3 per 49 states) would have more legislative clout than 300 million. If the 98 senators from the 3 person states didn't want to go along with the House, there wouldn't be anything the House could do about it.
Hm, this could almost be called 'overinclusive,' but that term already means something.
In any case, my point below was to suggest that we need to create inclusive anti-majoritarian protections in the legislature for the simple reason that that is where the action is.
Hope that helps.
Let's start at what may be the end and work backwards.
We have a representative democracy. One could call it a republic, I suppose, but the term democracy is important. In a direct democracy, the people themselves legislate. In ancient Athens, that meant that 6000 citizens got together in one place, anyone could propose legislation, and policy was decided by vote.
Our country is still a democracy, but in place of the 6000 citizens, we have elected representatives. Our representatives stand in for us in the legislative project. Instead of us making the laws, they do it for us.
The democratic aspects of our federal government are not in the elections we hold every two years, but in the actual legislative process. Any democracy, however, can be tyrranical, i.e. if an unchecked majority exercises its legislative power to the detriment of a minority.
Democracy itself does not mean majority rule. To be simple, it is government by and for the people. The second part of that statement implies that whatever government is formed must be as inclusive as possible. This is what I was saying about the parties representing specific positions on a political spectrum. Government for the people can't rationally mean "government for the 51% of the people who voted." That is unrepresentative and undemocratic precisely because it excludes a large portion of the people.
Most people fall into the middle of the political spectrum, and they have to split in an election between two groups that don't really reflect their actual beliefs.
We can drop all the issues with the electoral structures from my analysis, except as historical artifacts. Let me explain: The writers of the basic constitution--not the Bill of Rights or other amendments--were worried about the House of Representatives running amok with democratic fever. They were afraid that the House, as a purely representative body, could become tyrranical--that a majority could control it and harm minorities. In order to counter the tyrrany of the majority, they had to institute specifically anti-majoritarian provisions. They chose to do this by creating the Senate which is not proportionally representative.
It is important to think of the Senate as existing for a reason. When we ask what that reason is, we find that it exists to check the majoritarian design of the House. The crucial point, however, is that we don't need the Senate to do that. We can build anti-majoritarian government (and thus achieve democratic inclusivity) in other ways.
Let me try to clear up what I mean by majoritarian and anti-majoritarian. A governmental structure is majoritarian insofar as it favors the interests of a majority, regardless of the size of the majority, through any means, including through assigning governmental power based on the whim of a shifting polity. A structure is anti-majoritarian if it seeks to limit the will of such a majority and provides protection for minorities who may be out of power for just a moment.
It is clear that the Senate is intended to be anti-majoritarian. Membership of the Senate is not connected to the desires of the majority. Imagine what would happen if each state had three people living in it, except Kansas, and Kansas had 300 million people. In our federal structure, the interests of Kansas would represent the majority, but Kansas would only have 2 votes in the Senate, and the other 49 states could counter Kansas's control of the House.
The House tends to be majoritarian, as should be clear from the example.
So, that's our federal scheme as we have it. What's odd, however, is that our actual legislative processes are purely majoritarian If you consider the House and Senate as direct democracies for a moment, you see that there aren't any anti-majoritarian protections. Both the House and Senate are subject to the tyrranical whims of the majority of their members.
If you take a look at direct democracies, the problem of the tyrrany of the majority arises in the legislative process. That's what we're really concerned about--how the laws are made, not how individuals are selected for office. It seems to me that our founding fathers thought that the method of selecting officers would cure the tyrrany of the majority that arises during actual legislation. This is fallacious.
And furthermore, the structure as it is designed is problematic because the majority of the anti-representative Senate has the same power as the majority of the representative House. A majority of the Senate can represent a tiny majority of the population. Consider the Kansas hypothetical above. In that situation, 147 citizens (3 per 49 states) would have more legislative clout than 300 million. If the 98 senators from the 3 person states didn't want to go along with the House, there wouldn't be anything the House could do about it.
Hm, this could almost be called 'overinclusive,' but that term already means something.
In any case, my point below was to suggest that we need to create inclusive anti-majoritarian protections in the legislature for the simple reason that that is where the action is.
Hope that helps.
Some Thoughts
I am still trying to collect responses to your two latest huge posts. But here is something I have been thinking about lately.
Has the politicization of the military hurt recruiting? Of course, one can take issue with whether or not the military is politicized, but given the recent scandal at the Air Force Academy regarding fundamentalist christians, and the Republican insistence in 2000 that the military vote would swing Florida for them, I think there is evidence that the military is politicized for the republican party. So the point is, what patriotic liberal would want to serve in such a military? Versus republicans, liberals are much more committed to sacrifice, remember conservatives are the ones always bitching about having to pay for the society in which we live through taxes. Many liberals are committed to the idea of service as well. So the question remains as to whether or not the politicization of the military has hurt recruiting.
Personally, I think it has, and I think it will continue to hurt recruiting.
Has the politicization of the military hurt recruiting? Of course, one can take issue with whether or not the military is politicized, but given the recent scandal at the Air Force Academy regarding fundamentalist christians, and the Republican insistence in 2000 that the military vote would swing Florida for them, I think there is evidence that the military is politicized for the republican party. So the point is, what patriotic liberal would want to serve in such a military? Versus republicans, liberals are much more committed to sacrifice, remember conservatives are the ones always bitching about having to pay for the society in which we live through taxes. Many liberals are committed to the idea of service as well. So the question remains as to whether or not the politicization of the military has hurt recruiting.
Personally, I think it has, and I think it will continue to hurt recruiting.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Democracy with a Side of Social Responsibility
What strikes me lately is how normal "social" issues aren't selling. Higher minimum wages, which would help millions of people aren't pulling in the votes. And while Bush's privatization plans aren't popular, neither is an expanded social safety net. There may be play in that idea though depending on actual programs proposed.
So, here's my suggestion: democratic reforms.
At this point, neither party represents a majority of Americans. They just don't. The parties represent specific points on a spectrum of political beliefs. The people, however, fill every other point on that spectrum
Call it polarization. Call it partisanship. Call it whatever you want.
It is only the parties who are polarized though. The people remain in the vast middle of the political spectrum, and every election the parties still fight it out for the middle. Most people in this country are swing voters.
But when they vote, they can't help but elect representatives who don't actually represent their beliefs. One problem is that electoral structures are strongly anti-majoritarian while the actual representative bodies are strongly majoritarian.
The anti-majoritarian aspects of our electoral structures should be viewed in a particularly democratic light. Specifically, both the Senate and the Electoral College are designed to ensure that minority positions are strongly considered in federal politics. Democracy, as an idea, requires inclusivity. A country that does not act in the interests of the people is not democratic. The Senate was supposed to ensure that individuals from smaller states would not be subject to the whims of representatives of larger states. It's anti-majoritarian, but it's not inherently anti-democratic.
The mistake in our constitution, however, lies in giving the Senate the same power as the House of Representatives. The design of the Senate goes too far in enforcing the inclusivity necessary for successful democracy by providing minority positions too much power within the Senate.
Similar criticism can be made for the Electoral College.
What do we do about it though?
As I stated above, the anti-majoritarian electoral structures are problematic in the face of the strongly majoritarian processes of the actual representative bodies.
It may be thought that in order to achieve the right balance, anti-majoritarian electoral structures should be set against majoritiarian political bodies. This can't be correct. In fact, anti-majoritarian electoral structures can only be balanced by anti-majoritarian political structures. Majority/majority leads to tyrrany, but so does Anti-majority/majority. Inclusivity can only be affected by anti/anti; or by majority/anti-majority.
The last of those would be parliamentary, I think.
All this sounds like a constitutional amendment. Ultimately, our constitution needs reform, but I think serious democratic reforms can happen without a constitutional amendment.
Consider reorganizing the internal rules of the Senate. The Constitution defaults to the House and Senate for their own rules of proceeding. So, much of this work could be done by starting with those--without even talking about the Constitution. I have a couple related ideas here.
First, we could make committee chairs selected by lot. Sounds strange, but it would work. Every session of congress, each senator puts his name in a hat and chairs are randomly assigned. The effect, on average, would be to put the percentage of the senate from one party in to the same percentage of leadership positions. If there were 55 senators from one party, they would have 55% of the committee chairs.
This is effectively parliamentarizing (I love making up words) the Senate. So, the same effect could be achieved by selecting Senate leadership positions in a parliamentary manner. If a party gets 55 senators, then they get 55% of the leadership positions.
Third, if selected by lot, minority leadership could be counterbalanced by specific provisions ensuring a minority party doesn't control a majority of the committees.
In any case, the point would be to ensure that a party--however polarized it is--doesn't tyrranically control a powerful part of our government. One party wouldn't be able to kill legislation, and there would be greater incentive to work together.
We've talked a little about tax reform, and I think that's also a good place to start. Government accountability should also mean that you know what you're getting for your tax dollars. I think restructuring and simplifying the tax system is a good place to start. But set that aside for a second.
It's a start at least. The Constitution does need to be amendment. It isn't perfect, and we can't fetishize it any more. The argument shouldn't be that the founders couldn't foresee our problems, it should be that the structures they designed aren't as good at achieving the intended purpose as other structures that we could design.
So, here's my suggestion: democratic reforms.
At this point, neither party represents a majority of Americans. They just don't. The parties represent specific points on a spectrum of political beliefs. The people, however, fill every other point on that spectrum
Call it polarization. Call it partisanship. Call it whatever you want.
It is only the parties who are polarized though. The people remain in the vast middle of the political spectrum, and every election the parties still fight it out for the middle. Most people in this country are swing voters.
But when they vote, they can't help but elect representatives who don't actually represent their beliefs. One problem is that electoral structures are strongly anti-majoritarian while the actual representative bodies are strongly majoritarian.
The anti-majoritarian aspects of our electoral structures should be viewed in a particularly democratic light. Specifically, both the Senate and the Electoral College are designed to ensure that minority positions are strongly considered in federal politics. Democracy, as an idea, requires inclusivity. A country that does not act in the interests of the people is not democratic. The Senate was supposed to ensure that individuals from smaller states would not be subject to the whims of representatives of larger states. It's anti-majoritarian, but it's not inherently anti-democratic.
The mistake in our constitution, however, lies in giving the Senate the same power as the House of Representatives. The design of the Senate goes too far in enforcing the inclusivity necessary for successful democracy by providing minority positions too much power within the Senate.
Similar criticism can be made for the Electoral College.
What do we do about it though?
As I stated above, the anti-majoritarian electoral structures are problematic in the face of the strongly majoritarian processes of the actual representative bodies.
It may be thought that in order to achieve the right balance, anti-majoritarian electoral structures should be set against majoritiarian political bodies. This can't be correct. In fact, anti-majoritarian electoral structures can only be balanced by anti-majoritarian political structures. Majority/majority leads to tyrrany, but so does Anti-majority/majority. Inclusivity can only be affected by anti/anti; or by majority/anti-majority.
The last of those would be parliamentary, I think.
All this sounds like a constitutional amendment. Ultimately, our constitution needs reform, but I think serious democratic reforms can happen without a constitutional amendment.
Consider reorganizing the internal rules of the Senate. The Constitution defaults to the House and Senate for their own rules of proceeding. So, much of this work could be done by starting with those--without even talking about the Constitution. I have a couple related ideas here.
First, we could make committee chairs selected by lot. Sounds strange, but it would work. Every session of congress, each senator puts his name in a hat and chairs are randomly assigned. The effect, on average, would be to put the percentage of the senate from one party in to the same percentage of leadership positions. If there were 55 senators from one party, they would have 55% of the committee chairs.
This is effectively parliamentarizing (I love making up words) the Senate. So, the same effect could be achieved by selecting Senate leadership positions in a parliamentary manner. If a party gets 55 senators, then they get 55% of the leadership positions.
Third, if selected by lot, minority leadership could be counterbalanced by specific provisions ensuring a minority party doesn't control a majority of the committees.
In any case, the point would be to ensure that a party--however polarized it is--doesn't tyrranically control a powerful part of our government. One party wouldn't be able to kill legislation, and there would be greater incentive to work together.
We've talked a little about tax reform, and I think that's also a good place to start. Government accountability should also mean that you know what you're getting for your tax dollars. I think restructuring and simplifying the tax system is a good place to start. But set that aside for a second.
It's a start at least. The Constitution does need to be amendment. It isn't perfect, and we can't fetishize it any more. The argument shouldn't be that the founders couldn't foresee our problems, it should be that the structures they designed aren't as good at achieving the intended purpose as other structures that we could design.
Well...
To begin, Let's look at the history of this "traditional" view of american politics.
First, the public trusting Republicans more on foreign affairs:This view only really came about since Korea, or perhaps a little before. I say perhaps a little before the Korean war because of the right wing canard that Roosevelt somehow knew of the Pearl Harbor attack, and let it occur. I don't think the reputable evidence lends itself to that conclusion. The point of the attack is that you cannot trust Democrats to defend the country because Roosevelt let us get attacked.
In the post war period, the Republicans had two competing viewpoints within their party. 1) The traditional conservative isolationism and 2) the desire to "confront" communism in a more aggressive manner, if for no other purpose than to beat up on Democrats who were then in power and whose New Deal policies appeared "red" to the far right. The "Democrats-can't-be-trusted-because-they-let-us-get-attacked" idea was used to discredit the crusading idealism of american intervention in the world that the left in america traditionally espoused. This led to the right attacking Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson with the two apparently contradictory strains of republican thought on foreign affairs. When Korea, and later Vietnam, turned into unwinnable messes, at least unwinnable in the traditional sense, (meaning we weren't going to get unconditional surrenders of our opponents in those wars) the right attacked the Democratic party for getting us into those messes in the first place, representing the traditional isolationism view. The right also attacked the Democratic policy makers for failing to "confront" communism more aggressively. The best examples here are MacArthur's insubordination against Truman and the later lies and attacks that we did not let the generals fight Vietnam the way they wanted to. This represents the second right wing viewpoint. As stated, as Korea, but really more importantly for recent politics, Vietnam, devolved into quagmire, the Republicans attacked the Democrats for the policy failures those wars represented, and argued that they, the republicans, could handle foreign affairs better. On the republicans' "plus" column was Nixon's trip to China and his draw down of forces in Vietnam. This idea repeated itself in the Iranian revolution and later hostage crisis. While I have done an exceptionally poor job outlining the history right now, I hope at least the skeleton is there for a future outline because the point is that these events led to the "traditional" view you describe, namely, that the public trusts the republican party more on foreign affairs.
As to the second point, that the public trusts the Democrats more on domestic issues, well that has really been the case since the Depression, and nothing the republicans have offered since then, except maybe tax cuts, ever garners much public support. My domestic policy analysis is WEAK. I cannot tell you why the public doesn't support the Republican domestic agenda, but they don't. If you, or anyone else can suggest a good book, I will put it on the reading list.
So having analyzed (hahaha because I didn't do any analysis on the domestic front, and there is so much more I could write on the international side) the history of those views, I agree it should be possible to develop a third axis. I think it is incumbent upon the Democrats to do that at this point. We are also uniquely suited to attack the Republicans in the same way they attacked us during the Cold War and Vietnam because this Iraq adventure (I hate doing that by the way, writing something so flippant about a place where our soldiers are living and, more importantly, dying right now.) is turning out to be a mess. We as Democrats and liberals need to develop an alternative foreign policy and attacks that we can use against the current idea that republicans are better at international relations. Iraq presents us with a unique opportunity to accomplish both those goals.
Now, what would this third axis look like? I dunno, we can discuss that more in the future.
First, the public trusting Republicans more on foreign affairs:This view only really came about since Korea, or perhaps a little before. I say perhaps a little before the Korean war because of the right wing canard that Roosevelt somehow knew of the Pearl Harbor attack, and let it occur. I don't think the reputable evidence lends itself to that conclusion. The point of the attack is that you cannot trust Democrats to defend the country because Roosevelt let us get attacked.
In the post war period, the Republicans had two competing viewpoints within their party. 1) The traditional conservative isolationism and 2) the desire to "confront" communism in a more aggressive manner, if for no other purpose than to beat up on Democrats who were then in power and whose New Deal policies appeared "red" to the far right. The "Democrats-can't-be-trusted-because-they-let-us-get-attacked" idea was used to discredit the crusading idealism of american intervention in the world that the left in america traditionally espoused. This led to the right attacking Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson with the two apparently contradictory strains of republican thought on foreign affairs. When Korea, and later Vietnam, turned into unwinnable messes, at least unwinnable in the traditional sense, (meaning we weren't going to get unconditional surrenders of our opponents in those wars) the right attacked the Democratic party for getting us into those messes in the first place, representing the traditional isolationism view. The right also attacked the Democratic policy makers for failing to "confront" communism more aggressively. The best examples here are MacArthur's insubordination against Truman and the later lies and attacks that we did not let the generals fight Vietnam the way they wanted to. This represents the second right wing viewpoint. As stated, as Korea, but really more importantly for recent politics, Vietnam, devolved into quagmire, the Republicans attacked the Democrats for the policy failures those wars represented, and argued that they, the republicans, could handle foreign affairs better. On the republicans' "plus" column was Nixon's trip to China and his draw down of forces in Vietnam. This idea repeated itself in the Iranian revolution and later hostage crisis. While I have done an exceptionally poor job outlining the history right now, I hope at least the skeleton is there for a future outline because the point is that these events led to the "traditional" view you describe, namely, that the public trusts the republican party more on foreign affairs.
As to the second point, that the public trusts the Democrats more on domestic issues, well that has really been the case since the Depression, and nothing the republicans have offered since then, except maybe tax cuts, ever garners much public support. My domestic policy analysis is WEAK. I cannot tell you why the public doesn't support the Republican domestic agenda, but they don't. If you, or anyone else can suggest a good book, I will put it on the reading list.
So having analyzed (hahaha because I didn't do any analysis on the domestic front, and there is so much more I could write on the international side) the history of those views, I agree it should be possible to develop a third axis. I think it is incumbent upon the Democrats to do that at this point. We are also uniquely suited to attack the Republicans in the same way they attacked us during the Cold War and Vietnam because this Iraq adventure (I hate doing that by the way, writing something so flippant about a place where our soldiers are living and, more importantly, dying right now.) is turning out to be a mess. We as Democrats and liberals need to develop an alternative foreign policy and attacks that we can use against the current idea that republicans are better at international relations. Iraq presents us with a unique opportunity to accomplish both those goals.
Now, what would this third axis look like? I dunno, we can discuss that more in the future.
Third Axis of American Politics
It is traditionally believed that Americans trust Republicans in foreign affairs and Democrats in domestic affairs. What if there were a third axis of our politics that cut across these distinctions?
I'm beginning to think there is one. I've got some ideas, but they're still incubating.
What do you think, WMD?
I'm beginning to think there is one. I've got some ideas, but they're still incubating.
What do you think, WMD?
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Conservatives love that story because it is
the classic "conversion" story. Think about it in terms of the universal messianic nature of Christianity, and you will understand the meme better.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Why is it that . . .
conservatives love the story of the liberal who changed sides?
I seem to regularly come across stories in which there is a person whose criticism of Democrats is bolstered by the fact that he was once a Democrat?
Or the the-author-started-out-to-tear-down-George-Bush-but
-realized-Bush-has-been-right-all-along book.
Is this tendency as widespread on the left? It could be, but I don't seem to see it as much.
I seem to regularly come across stories in which there is a person whose criticism of Democrats is bolstered by the fact that he was once a Democrat?
Or the the-author-started-out-to-tear-down-George-Bush-but
-realized-Bush-has-been-right-all-along book.
Is this tendency as widespread on the left? It could be, but I don't seem to see it as much.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
The Banality of Political Discourse
Just over two weeks ago, Joshua Michael Marshall of Talking Points Memo fame opened a new website dedicated to liberal political discussion. The website is conveniently titled TPM Café, which serves to note the relationship between the site and his blog, and his intent that the site act as a coffee house where like-minded people come to discuss the events of the day. The site has several blogs, provides topic-specific discussion forums, and allows readers to create their own blogs. And all of that in the creams, rich earth tones, and themes of your local coffee house. In fact, the coffeehouse theme may go a few steps too far—the forums are called ‘tables,’ the main blog is ‘The Coffee House,” and the weekly guest blog is “A Table for One.”
This post has been a bit disjointed and long, and I thought about leaving it at that. But I have been using it to think through some of the problems I have with
Friday, June 17, 2005
Electoral Problems
Here's a problem I see:
What makes it worthwhile to go after Florida? We lost Florida by 400,000 or so. We lost Missouri by 200,000; Iowa by 10,000; New Mexico by 6,000; and Colorado by 100,000. The margin of loss in those 4 states combined was smaller than all of Florida. 316<400.
So, is it at all logical then to pursue those four states more than we go after Florida? Obviously, FL is a big prize and we should contest it, but how should the campaign money be allocated?
Of course, we have 3 years for lots of things to change. Everything could be completely different in 2008.
What makes it worthwhile to go after Florida? We lost Florida by 400,000 or so. We lost Missouri by 200,000; Iowa by 10,000; New Mexico by 6,000; and Colorado by 100,000. The margin of loss in those 4 states combined was smaller than all of Florida. 316<400.
So, is it at all logical then to pursue those four states more than we go after Florida? Obviously, FL is a big prize and we should contest it, but how should the campaign money be allocated?
Of course, we have 3 years for lots of things to change. Everything could be completely different in 2008.
More states
Looking at the 04 map, we could also seek to pick up Nevada, Arkansas, and maybe Virginia.
But again, Hillary doesn't have any qualities that appeal to voters in those states.
But again, Hillary doesn't have any qualities that appeal to voters in those states.
Good Question!
The reason is in 2008, the Democrats need to win a minimum of 2 and maybe up to 6 states we did not win in '04 to win the presidency. These states are: 1) Ohio, 2) Florida, 3) Iowa, 4) New Mexico, and two on the outside 5) Missouri, and 6)Colorado.
If we win just the first two, Ohio and FLorida, and we win all others Kerry and Gore won, we win the presidency.
If we were to pick up states 3 through 6, and we still lost Ohio and Florida, we would still win the presidency.
So the goal for the Democratic nominee is to appeal to voters in those 6 states, and frankly, NOTHING about Hillary Clinton provides any indication that she would appeal to those voters. In fact, the cons listed against her are part of the reason she DOES NOT appeal to those voters. I am not trying to make a "the-heartland-is-full-of genuine-americans-who-see-through-fake-politicians-BS" argument. It is just that things like looking unnatural eating barbeque matters to people out here in the middle.
You also might be saying, "but what about the other blue states?" Yeah, what about them? If the Democratic party cannot generate the votes it needs to win in the "blue" states without nominating someone from there, then we are a longer way away from majority than I thought.
If we win just the first two, Ohio and FLorida, and we win all others Kerry and Gore won, we win the presidency.
If we were to pick up states 3 through 6, and we still lost Ohio and Florida, we would still win the presidency.
So the goal for the Democratic nominee is to appeal to voters in those 6 states, and frankly, NOTHING about Hillary Clinton provides any indication that she would appeal to those voters. In fact, the cons listed against her are part of the reason she DOES NOT appeal to those voters. I am not trying to make a "the-heartland-is-full-of genuine-americans-who-see-through-fake-politicians-BS" argument. It is just that things like looking unnatural eating barbeque matters to people out here in the middle.
You also might be saying, "but what about the other blue states?" Yeah, what about them? If the Democratic party cannot generate the votes it needs to win in the "blue" states without nominating someone from there, then we are a longer way away from majority than I thought.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Pros/Cons
You got all the pros and cons of Hillary, but why do you think the analysis comes out against her?
She should work with Chris Farley and David Spade
Hillary just reminds me of the governor from Black Sheep.
Stop Hillary!
Drudge has a link to a story about how Hillary Clinton apparently won a South Carolina Straw Poll.
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/11905946.htm
In typical Drudge fashion he therefore proclaims her to be the frontrunner for '08. (Sidenote: I wonder how many small donations the RNC will get today? Way to carry water for your masters, Matt!)
While the title of this post is "Stop Hillary!", I really hope to examine the pros and cons of a Hillary for President campaign. Reece, I am looking your way to contribute more as you are signficantly smarter than I am.
Before we begin, I want to explain why I titled the post the way I did. It is not because the fix is in against a Hillary candidacy, but because while being able to objectively discuss the pros and cons of Hillary Clinton as a potential Democratic nominee, she will NEVER have my vote for one simple reason: She reminds me of someone from high school. Uncharacteristically, I am not going to name names, but I will provide a description. Back in the ol' high school, I had a friend who dated this girl who every time I look at Hillary Clinton I cannot stop thinking about. This isn't some long lost love crush. This friend's girlfriend was quite possibly the most annoying woman on the face of the earth. For one, she couldn't curse. I mean she tried to curse, but she couldn't. You know, one of those "oh (thinking space should I say "poo" or "rats", alright I will say it) shit!" type of people. It was disingenuous. It was fake. The girl wasn't true to her upbringing. Her parents were conservative christians who raised their daughter to be an upper middle class suburban housewife, and she was trying ever so hard to be anything but an upper middle class suburban housewife. Watching her though, you could tell she was straining to be something close to what she thought other people would consider "hip". No High school Hillary, be yourself, be genuine. Hillary Clinton is the same way. Look at Reece's previous post regarding her interview on CNN as evidence of this similar behavior. That is the reason Hillary will never have my vote, in a primary or general election. (who am I kidding, I will vote a straight Democratic ticket, like I have every year since 1998)
Moving on.
Let us start with the Pros about a Hillary candidacy.
1) Her negatives may already be maxed.
Folks can't hate her more. Most of those folks wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway. To some extent this makes her impervious to attacks. Of course, the Republicans will still find a way to attack her, and those of us on the left will need to be ready to deflect those attacks and respond in kind.
2) Incorporated in point 1) is that we already know most of what we need to know about Hillary Clinton. Everyone knows who she is, what she stands for, and where she is coming from. This is a pro because there is no need to waste precious campaign resources on "introducing the candidate" to the people. We just need to find a ways to get the American people to spend their political "money", or their vote, on our candidate. However, there is a pitfall here, any attempt to redefine Hillary is going to make her look disengenuous. That will open up a huge soft spot for republican attack.
3) Knowing what we do about Hillary, she comes off as tough and as a fighter. In the context of the idiotic "war on terror" (idiotic because you cannot have a war on a tactic) the Democrats need to nominate a fighter, someone the American people will trust to "defend the nation" While I personally would rather attack the entire idea of the "war on terror", I don't think it will be an easy sell, so we do what we can with what we have to work with. Hillary comes off as tough and a fighter, and that appears to make it easier to sell the idea of a woman president defending the nation to the american people.
4) this space reserved for future thoughts.
Let us now turn to the negatives
1) Hillary ain't Bill. Hillary doesn't connect with the american people like Bill, she is not from
2) She's a senator. I am sorry but I am sick of Senators getting big heads thinking they should run for president. 2004 showed us the essence of why legislators should not run for President straight from the legislature. Namely, Did she vote for it before she voted against it? or is it the other way around. The legislative process is too arcane for most americans to understand, and the process presents situations in which Legislators are forced to make votes that can be used to define who they are, and what kind of president that legislator will be. The arcane nature of the legislative process allows a candidate to get pasted as anti-defense because of a vote in which the candidate votes against a defense spending bill because of a "poison pill", but then votes for the defense spending later in another bill without such "poison pill". Sure one might argue that it is only necessary to make political arguments against such attacks, but guess what happens then! You are bogged down in the minutiae of the legislative process and open to the charge that you lack a "vision" for the country. Either way, bad idea to nominate a Senator.
3) I am sure I have another negative, but this post is huge, so I will come back to it. I need to get some lunch and get to work.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Iraq Disconnect
There seems to be a real disconnect occurring right now in the way the Left looks at where we are in Iraq. I don't really have a citation to prove my point, meaning I don't have a link that will demonstrate what I am talking about, but I am going forward with my point anyway.
If you look at Buzzflash.com, they have been linking stories that on the one hand call for us to pull out of Iraq immediately, or at least bash the Bush administration for getting us in that mess.
On the other hand Buzzflash has been linking to stories bashing the Bush administration for failure to recognize what a mess Iraq has become, given the Bush administrations continued pollyanna-ish views on the current situation in Iraq.
While I acknowledge that bashing the bush administration is a good thing, I fail to understand what Buzzflash's point is. I guess the apparent conflict is just that, apparent. I mean one can recognize that Iraq is a mess with no end in sight, and therefore we must make an end by beginning to withdraw our troops.
Personally, I think it would be disasterous for us to withdraw now. I also think it is disasterous that we are not doing more to pacify the country. I realize the shortages of manpower the U.S. military has, but I don't know how effective we can be relying on barely trained Iraqi units to pacify the country. This doubt is further encouraged by the fact that Iraqi policemen and military recruits seem to be the prime targets of the insurgency at the moment. It just makes sense to me that United States soldiers should be doing the jobs of the Iraqi police and military units we are training until the insurgency is defeated. Put more bluntly, why are we trusting native allies to help us in our colonial experiment when it would be better for the long term stability of the country if we just did things ourselves? I realize that I am essentialy calling for more U.S. troops to be put in harm's way, and that a higher U.S. body count would result from my position, but we are in this mess up to our necks and something must be done to insure we win.
If you look at Buzzflash.com, they have been linking stories that on the one hand call for us to pull out of Iraq immediately, or at least bash the Bush administration for getting us in that mess.
On the other hand Buzzflash has been linking to stories bashing the Bush administration for failure to recognize what a mess Iraq has become, given the Bush administrations continued pollyanna-ish views on the current situation in Iraq.
While I acknowledge that bashing the bush administration is a good thing, I fail to understand what Buzzflash's point is. I guess the apparent conflict is just that, apparent. I mean one can recognize that Iraq is a mess with no end in sight, and therefore we must make an end by beginning to withdraw our troops.
Personally, I think it would be disasterous for us to withdraw now. I also think it is disasterous that we are not doing more to pacify the country. I realize the shortages of manpower the U.S. military has, but I don't know how effective we can be relying on barely trained Iraqi units to pacify the country. This doubt is further encouraged by the fact that Iraqi policemen and military recruits seem to be the prime targets of the insurgency at the moment. It just makes sense to me that United States soldiers should be doing the jobs of the Iraqi police and military units we are training until the insurgency is defeated. Put more bluntly, why are we trusting native allies to help us in our colonial experiment when it would be better for the long term stability of the country if we just did things ourselves? I realize that I am essentialy calling for more U.S. troops to be put in harm's way, and that a higher U.S. body count would result from my position, but we are in this mess up to our necks and something must be done to insure we win.
Fun at nytimes.com
I love these face-the-enemy pieces they do occasionally.
The Next Generation of Conservatives (By the Dormful)
The Next Generation of Conservatives (By the Dormful)
Monday, June 13, 2005
Politics involves
the careful use of language. Failure to use language effectively results in a marginalization of oneself and one's political beliefs.
Monday, June 06, 2005
Why?
I don't understand why the left should bother attempting to engage those who are absolutist in their thought processes. More specifically, why is the burden upon liberals to seek out right wingers, read their blogs, and talk with them? Why is the burden not on the right to seek out left wingers, read our blogs, and talk with us in the hope of greater understanding?
If you read the responses to the your posts, 90 percent of the right's reaction to you is ad hominem attacks. While not quoting directly, you were called things like "brainwashed", "confused", or a liar. Sure we need to know their arguments so we can properly attack those arguments, but that presupposes that political discourse in this country is anywhere near a rational debate.
If you read the responses to the your posts, 90 percent of the right's reaction to you is ad hominem attacks. While not quoting directly, you were called things like "brainwashed", "confused", or a liar. Sure we need to know their arguments so we can properly attack those arguments, but that presupposes that political discourse in this country is anywhere near a rational debate.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)