A Quick Update

We haven't posted anything in a month and a half, but we're still here.

Here's a quick thought that's been running through my head:

I have a little saying that I've been using recently. I'm not sure where I got it, but I doubt I'm this creative. It goes like this: Democracy means sometimes you lose.

My point in using it is to suggest that we have to separate out our lower level politics from our high level politics. If we are truly democrats, as I think most Americans are, we have to accept that good democratic process will sometimes produce political outcomes that we disagree with--and that our personal political ends are not always realized is not a fault of democracy, but rather one of its strengths.

But if we take the statement a bit more seriously for a moment, what does it tell us about, say, institutional design? Does it imply that we ought to design institutions such that the losers in normal politics find their loss acceptable? Would it require some form of supermajoritarianism for all issues?

hmmm.

Holy Crap! Bill Frist Reads the News-Leader!

The News-Leader published this "reader letter" a week ago:

On March 2, the Senate approved legislation placing tight restrictions on the purchase of cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine, the ingredients used to manufacture methamphetamine. As News-Leader reporters have found, methamphetamine has done tremendous damage throughout the Ozarks.

While some states, including Missouri, already have laws that restrict the sales of medicines that contain meth ingredients, many don't, allowing drug users to cross state lines and purchase unlimited supplies. The federal legislation will close this loophole.

Under the new law, which Missouri's Sen. Jim Talent introduced and advocated for in the Senate, cold medicines containing meth ingredients will be placed behind the counter or in a locked cabinet. People seeking to purchase these products will have to show identification and sign a log book. While law-abiding citizens will still be able to purchase up to 300 typical 30mg cold medicine tablets a month, drug users seeking to use the medication to cook meth will see their plots foiled.

This law should have a particularly significant impact on Springfield: last year, Missouri led the nation in methamphetamine lab seizures while my home state of Tennessee had the dubious honor of coming in second. By helping the Senate pass a tight, tough national methamphetamine law, Jim Talent has made a real difference for Springfield residents and for our country.

Bill Frist, M.D., Majority Leader, United States Senate

Thanks, Bill! You do your best to get Jimmy Boy re-elected. I like how he's still so proud of that M.D. that he puts it before "Majority Leader, United States Senate."

The good news is that with the Republican party image tarnished nationally due to the incompetent leadership of the Prez, and the party's incompetent management in Missouri, it seems likely to me that Talent could be thrown out on his ass with the rest of them.

Here's hoping at least.

To clarify

I really only have two policy concerns.

First, is affirmative action programs. Lots of people think these are unjustifiable in any case, but I can't agree. My hope for this country--for the world really--is that we realize Dr. King's dream: that one day, men will be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. The problem is that we're not there yet. And there's good reason to think that if we don't act to make a difference now, then we may never reach that point. Affirmative action programs are designed to get us there by ensuring that a person's achievement is not limited by societal prejudice. And we accomplish that by distributing goods based on race.

Even my description there is muddied and unclear. But can affirmative action be justified in this way? Is it acceptable to distribute goods based on race?

Second, what about proportional representation? PR is supposed to ensure minority representation. It is my understanding that PR originated as a way of ensuring different economic classes would be guaranteed representation in various European parliaments. Of course, minority does not have to mean economic class, or ethnic or racial minority--it can also mean political minority, i.e. people who maintain political views that are on the margains--the Greens and the Libertarians, for example. So, PR can be repurposed from its oringal goals for and justified for reasons unconnected to group rights.

But I would worry that it's vulnerable to attack.

That's about all I can come up with off the top of my head.

I think you're mostly correct, but it is a very troublesome area since conceptions of group rights have been accepted in a lot of different ways. To give examples, again, of what we talked about, group rights conceptions range from believing that ethnic groups have a right to an independent country to the belief that proportional representation is a better electoral system because it allows lower classes or women to gain seats in parliament to believing that racial or ethnic minorities deserve preferential treatment in admission to college.

Part of my problem is that I'm for some policies that are based on group rights. But I simultaneously have a strong dislike of group rights based on my internal norms regarding individualism and legal equal protection. In short, that all men are created equal.

So, my next question is then how can we separate out policies based on group rights? Can we tidy up our thinking regarding groups rights?

Group Rights

I was thinking about our group rights conversation the other day.
The idea of rights vesting within groups, instead of within individuals, is dangerous for multiple reasons.
As I said in our conversation, I think one of the greatest dangers posed by the idea of group rights is that the rights cannot be universalized without extremely negative consequences. On its face, the notion that certain people should be entitled to rights simple because of their membership within a subset of the larger population seems to be extremely minority friendly. That minority groups could get advantages vis a vis the majority population could help those groups achieve parity with the majority. However, attempting to universalize this concept though would mean that a given majority group should also get the same rights as the minority. This appears to destroy the concept of special protections, in the form of rights, of minority groups, leading to a balkanization of societies.

Another reason why the concept is dangerous is because the concept of group rights begs the question as to how to define a given group. There are Catholics all over the world, but are American Catholics, Latin American Catholics, Southeast Asian Catholics, African Catholics, and European Catholics alike enough to justify special group rights vesting in "Catholics"? Or are other differences within the broad group of "Catholics" worthy of protection? How the questions of group affliation and identity are defined are extremely important and difficult, such that to attempt to vest rights within a specific "group" seems inordinately difficult to me. A simple answer would be to let groups define themselves, but doing so wouldn't account for differences within groups that could lead to propagation of discriminations based on differences within those groups. I am not sure, and I could do the research on this, but I believe the federal legal structure dealing with American Indians allows for registered Indian tribes to define the members of their tribes how the tribes choose. This could lead to, and I believe has based on a hazy memory of a news article to the same end, situations in which economically and politically enfranchised majorities within tribes could define out members of the tribe, such that for federal legal purposes those disenfranchised members of the group no longer are able to avail themselves of whatever special benefits come from being a member of the tribe. However, as I stated, I am unsure as to the legality of such a move. I am just attempting to use the hypothetical to highlight definitional problems with groups as another problem inherent within the concept of "group rights".

We can talk more about this later.

Declare Victory, Move On

Just a quick thought about the WAR ON TERROR!!!!

(capitals and exclamation points necessary to show how this is used in politics)

Here's what I'd like to see the next Democratic president do with the War on Terror: Declare Victory and Move On.

The long and the short of it is that the United States will likely always be a target for some crazies. We can't stop that through the use of our military against nation states or substantial portions of states.

We do need to support and encourage democracy and democratic transitions around the world. It's just not likely to be successful if we use our military to do it. I actually do think that the lack of democracy in the Middle East is a contributing factor in the existence of Arab and Muslim terrorist groups.

Here's the thing though: even if the entire Middle East democratized, someone somewhere would want to kill us. You and I know, however, that no one can really destroy the United States.

So, what we need to do is jettison this rhetoric of war and the policies that accomany it. But with that we have to explain that we will do everything that is right to do in order to keep people from blowing Americans up.

What's wrong with this position? Anything?

A few thoughts

These are just a few thoughts that have been running around my head for a few days.

1. Our colleges and universities are not dominated by liberals, but it is quite possible for conservatives to feel that they are under attack when they get into a classroom. This is for a very simple reason:

Conservatives believe stupid shit.

For example, there is a right wing nut job in my class on constitutional design. He was angered a couple weeks ago when the Professor was discussing whether or not it is important that a country chooses to include a mention of religion or God in a preamble to a constitution. Apparently, the dipshit thought the Professor was trying to argue that the U.S. is not a Christian nation, which besides being entirely irrelevant to the actual discussion, is a perfect example of the stupid shit that conservatives believe.

A second example comes from said winger, who, in the same discussion, became angry because I characterized the United States as a 'democracy' and not a 'republic.' Of course, I quickly reminded him that there is no difference between the two. See October of 2005 for my history with that argument.

2. Let me now clear up that argument about republics and democracies. First, my understanding from a political science standpoint is that there are really only two regime types: authoritarianism and democracy. Those can be the only two types of government, or possibly conceived of as opposite extremes on a continuum of possible government types.

In any case, authoritarianism is generally defined by a lack of effective popular control. Democracy, on the other hand, can be thought of as having three essential elements: a) free, fair, and regular elections; b) inclusion of all groups or individuals in the political processes and civil society; and c) legal (and effective) protections for civil rights and civil liberties, especially freedom of conscience and freedom of association.

What is noticeably missing from this definition is representation. Of course, there are subtypes of democratic regime types. So, it is possible that the free, fair, and regular elections are not for representatives but for referenda, propositions, or other forms of direct participation. Alternatively, the elections can select representatives who will later make policy. In other words, the above definition works for both direct democracy and representative democracy.

And "representative democracy" is precisely what most people mean when they say 'republic.' Thus, 'republic' is a subtype of 'democracy,' and all republics are democracies.

It is now important to note that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no direct democracy existing in the world. So, although there is a theoretical subset of "democratic regimes" that are direct democracies, no such democracies exist, and therefore, in reality all democracies are representative democracies or 'republics'.

Thus, all democracies are republics, and all republics are democracies. Hence, there is no difference between a republic and a democracy.

3. The nutjob in my class is the type of person who wants the U.S. to be a republic because he is a Republican. That is another example of stupid shit that conservatives believe.

4. Electoral systems: One argument for Proportional Representation is that it allows political parties to mirror the beliefs of the public, and therefore increases representation. One argument for a first past the post system is that it produces majoritarian governments, i.e. there is one party that is a clear winner and controls the government, and therefore FPTP systems produce more effective government. These two arguments are supposed to be opposed to each other such that PR produces better representation, but less effective government and FPTP produces the reverse--better government but worse representation.

To me, this is a fatal to FPTP. After all, it is not at all clear that our government is more effective for having a single party control a majority in the House or the Senate.

The argument for FPTP, however, often goes that it forces the contending parties to moderate their positions in order to appeal to the widest plurality possible in order to win elections. This is wrong for at least two reasons.

First, FPTP, under normal conditions has a tendency to produce two party systems. This occurs when there are no geographically concentrated interests that cannot be appealed to through general policy goals, and when parties can be relatively strong, i.e. there are high barriers to entry for new parties. Under a two party system, the voter is manipulated by the electoral system in so far as an individual voter is presented with only two options, and they have to decide which the lesser evil.

The point is that even if a particular candidate did not try to "move to the center" in order to appeal to a wide audience, many people would still vote for that candidate because the opposition would look worse.

Second, even when candidates do try to build coalitions before an election in order to establish broad support, there is no protection for those interests after the election. In FPTP systems that produce single party majorities in a congress or parliament, after the candidate has your vote and his party is in the majority, there is no effective check on the party enacting its agenda in congress. Put simply, a candidate may say one thing during the campaign but do another when sitting in Congress.

PR, on the other hand, when it produces multiple parties, ensures that no one party can control congress and unilaterally enact its agenda. Thus, there is a check on a party that would seek to lie to the public in order to get elected.

Just a thought.

New v. Old Progressive Politics, Its called vision...

Jackasses.

Over at the Tpmcafe. there is this article titled In Praise of Illinois.
The article talks about how the progressive "agenda" is "alive and well" in the States. The article also exemplifies the problem with certain members of the left. And by certain members, I mean those that are dragging us down in the "vision" front. What is the problem with the article? Well while the article details admirable policies that have been implemented in Illinois by Blagojevich, the whole thing smacks of the typical old buffet style interest group politics that have consistently failed the left over the past 40 years. Where is the overarching vision? Where is the easily repeatable meme that allows the masses, myself included, to easily explain why we are democrats. I am sorry but I am never going to say: WEll, I am a blagojevich Democrat, He "passed legislation to bring all state workers under federal anti- discrimination laws, voluntarily waiving the state's "sovereign immunity" to counteract bad Supreme Court "states rights" decisions."

Even though I agree with that act, it is a dumb way to go about doing things. Here is another example of what I mean about this failed type of politics. In fact, this is what belies the type of politics it is.

"To protect patient care and ease the burden on overworked nurses..."
And then later
"Limited english speakers were protected in their rights to talk in Spanish"

See, if you like nurses, vote for us! If you like Spanish, vote for us! Rather than developing a cohesive vision about how the country should operate, lets just offer a mish mash of policies that people like! and then when those people realize we support that one little policy they like, they will vote for us right! Yeah! Right! no really, yeah, right....

If the national democratic party, and jackasses like the author of that piece grew a pair, they might realize that there is no reason to wonder why poor midwesterners like those morons over in Kansas vote Troglodyte when the Democratic party supports their economic interests. The fact of the matter is economics don't mean a damn thing to Kansans, but the wholesale slaughter of fetuses does mean something. The reason the Republicans are able to succeed there, despite the obvious economic "incentives" people have to vote Dem? They have an apparently cohesive vision and message that appeals to those upset about abortion. We can either 1) change the debate on abortion by developing a cohesive alternative vision and begin selling said vision, or 2) stop worrying about what's the matter with kansas. (not the book though, good book, I am using the title here for the post modern pop culture reference and just a touch of irony.)

Grocery List Politics don't work, and we need to quit using that style. In a perfect world, morons who do use that style would be subjected to beatings and torture. But we cannot all have the power of Bush!

As one final note, I wonder who super jackass who came up with that "Limited english speakers were protected in their rights to talk in Spanish" phrase. Sure, "english only" requirements for a job might some bothersome but do you really want to call up the say, Police dispatcher and get someone who doesn't speak english. Frankly, the phrase is retarded because it is pretty well assumed that everyone has the right to talk in whatever language they want in this country. It is a right that doesn't need protecting, hell it might not even be a right as much as a practical reality. It is also a practical reality that certain jobs would be almost impossible and businesses could be hurt by not having an english speaker, native or otherwise, in that position. This last little piece encapsulates the problem with the old style of politics. Here you have a questionable at best policy coupled with idiotic counter intuitive rhetoric. We really need a good party purge. Get those morons out, get smart people in.

School Vouchers and Issue Framing

A report was recently released which tends to show that students are private schools are not getting a better education than students at public schools. This report naturally calls into question the utility of school vouchers and conservative plans for our public school system.

But that is not the real problem.

The thing that really gets me is the false dichotomy that conservatives have forced on us regarding schools. Vouchers are a beautiful example of how framing the issue produces outcomes.

The rhetoric on the issue goes something like this: Schools aren't performing very well, based on some measure. In order to improve performance, you would have to bring every school with low funding up to the level of schools with high funding, which are the ones that do better, presumably. But more public funding won't help schools that don't perform well. The only other option is to introduce market-based reforms into the school system.

I recently noted a version of this argument in the The Daily Texan, the undergraduate student newspaper at the University of Texas:

Given the strong evidence that Texas education is in dire straights, the question then becomes, "How can we fix this broken system?" Our state's children are far too important to leave many of them languishing in poorly run and ineffective public schools. Some claim the solution lies in funding: If only the Texas government pours enough money into the insatiable education bureaucracy, our children will receive the education they deserve.

As the numbers indicate, this is a pipe dream that attempts to merely cover the gaping problems in our education system with green paper. The most logical solution is not to feed the bureaucratic beast but to train it and make it more limber by introducing market forces into public education and giving our lowest income families some control over their children's educational fate.

My italics.

The problem, of course, is that this is an entirely false dichotomy. The issue is framed such that the only two choices are "pouring more funding into the system" and "introducing market forces."

The most obvious reforms are excluded from the debate. I am not an education policy wonk, but it seems clear to me that there are a lot of things we can do to change the way the public school systems work, and improve them, without turning it over to markets. Very broadly, we could change the way schools use public money in order to ensure that is used as effectively as possible. We could change employment rules to ensure that bad teachers are weeded out. We could change how the school year is organized so that kids spend more time in school. And we could introduce public vocational training in the place of traditional high schools after the German model.

I have to give credit to a conservative friend of mine who inadvertently brought this to my attention. We were discussing the report released last week, and I wanted to deny the premise that schools are failing on the basis that private schools were doing no better. He naturally pointed out that American students compare poorly to students from other countries. The problem--for him--is that many of the countries that do better than us (likely) have robust public school systems that succeed even without market forces.

Thus, I would suggest that every one of us first get our heads out of the grooves created by the conservative framing of the issue, and second that we take a look around for ways to improve our schools that are related to neither significantly increased spending nor introducing markets.

The Daily Meme #1

I can't promise that it will actually be daily, but I am going to try to update regularly with short rhetorical blurbs.

Today's Issue: NSA Wiretaps.

The Problem: Requiring warrants on wiretaps between American Citizens and foreigners reduces the ability of the President to keep the country safe and secure.

We are neither safe nor secure when liberty is trampelled by the executive.

Nuclear Iran

First, I don't really know what to say about whether or not a Nuclear Iran is a good or bad thing for "american interests". Mostly because I don't know what the hell all the knee jerk washington types mean by that. Do they mean that if Iran is nuclear we won't be able to invade Iran sometime later without running the risk of a nuclear strike? Do they mean that a Nuclear Iran will be a more aggressive nation in the future, less susceptible to American pressure? Either way, talk about what is in or not in our interests seems somewhat silly on this point. I can develop this more later, which means I probably won't cause I will forget about it.

What I really wanted to talk about today is the fact that Israel is apparently preparing for some type of military action against Iran's nuke program. Not being a smart man on one of the coasts, or more specifically the only one that matters for U.S. foreign policy, the East Coast, I fail to see how this type of action by Israel, if it happens or it is threatened, is not a "threat to international peace and security", falling within the definition of types or problems the U.N. Security Council is supposed to deal with. There will probably be a lot of talk about the supposed failure of the U.N. in addressing the "problem" of Iran's nuke program. However, all that talk will be wrong headed because the U.N. hasn't necessarily failed simply because it did not reach a solution to the "problem". Just because some U.N. members, namely, Russia and China, have refused to allow the Security Council to address the "problem" doesn't mean the U.N. has failed. Analoguously the U.S. Senate doesn't "fail" every time a bill gets filibustered by political parties who disagree with the bill. My point would be that "failure" of the U.N. is a political failure on the part of the participants in the Security Council, NOT a failure of the institution itself. The inability of the members of the Security Council to address the problem together means those members should find ways to work together better, not that the institution should be scrapped. Americans all too often, and by americans I mean the political leadership and cognizenti in Washington and New York, believe that anytime the U.N. doesn't do exactly what we want it has "failed". That thinking is childish and moronic. Do Mom and Dad "fail" their children every time Mom and Dad refuse to let the children sit around eating cookies and McDonalds all day while the kids watch T.V. unsupervised?

Grow up America, and again when I say "america" I mean the Coastal Foreign Policy Elite.

What's Christmas About?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nutjob Watch: Redstate Edition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morons.

This explains a lot, actually

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

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

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

I have to admit the similarity is striking:



I can hardly tell a difference.

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

This is on my mind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some thoughts

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

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

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

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

Random Thought About Imperialism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For me, the choice is clear.

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

BANNED!

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

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

Wackiness at Redstate.org

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

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

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

The support:

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

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

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

Crosspostings at tpmcafe

Me from tpmcafe:

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

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

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

This is a fight they think they can win.

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

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

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

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

and,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have to be prepared to lose this confirmation fight.

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

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

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

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