Friday, July 08, 2005
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)