Red State/Blue State malaise

Read this excellent post from the Rude Pundit and this brilliant post from Publius, and tell me they're not talking about the same thing.

Crazy Shit

Click here.

Billmon notices it too

Last post I briefly noted the repeated differentiation between "terrorists and insurgents" in the President's speech last night. Seems that Billmon at Whiskey Bar noted the same, and has sizeable post discussing the phenomenon. Well worth a read if you have the time.

A Message of Hope

I pulled the following from the text of President Bush's speech last night. I totally copied this from Publius, but culled the speech myself for what I thought was important. Notice repeated references to "terrorists and insurgents". I wonder whether this has any connection to this story.

fighting a global war on terror
war reached our shores
September the 11th, 2001
terrorists who attacked us
terrorists we face
murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology
hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent
grim image of tyranny and oppression
exporting terror.
they have continued to kill
September the 11th
terrorists
kill innocent men, women, and children
murderous ideology
took the lives of our citizens
a source of violence and instability
images of violence and bloodshed
every picture is horrifying
suffering is real
ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq
criminal elements
hateful ideology
Iraq is a central front in the war on terror
Terrorists
Osama Bin Laden
terrorists
campaign of murder and destruction
no limit
terrorists
car bombs
terrorists
suicide bomber
terrorists
behead civilian
atrocities
savage acts of violence
terrorists
terrorists
kill the innocent
September the 11th
Zarqawi
Bin Laden
terrorists and insurgents
terrorists and insurgents
al Qaeda
foreign terrorists
terrorists
enemy
terrorists and insurgents
terrorists and insurgents
terror
tyranny and oppression
Saddam Hussein
brutally oppressed
denied their basic rights
unchecked power
radicalism
ideologies of murder
blind hatred
lethal weapons
capable of any atrocity
take innocent lives
create chaos
September the 11th, 2001
terrorists
car bombers and assassins
radicalism and terror
terrorists
attack our country
kill our citizens
Iraq
September the 11th, 2001
enemies are brutal

Surprise, surprise

I know you all will be completely astonished by this survey. Guess what. Republicans and "Republican" states approve of the President at a higher rate than Democrats and "Democratic" states. Bungling incompetence is okay in red states, it would seem, as long as you're willing to thump the Bible and subjugate brown people. Garance Franke-Ruta, writing in Tapped, makes the excellent point that this also means the President won't likely be changing his political strategy any time soon.

Jack Balkin on Mccreary County

A couple of days ago, I posted a blurb on the Mccreary opinion, regarding the posting of the Ten Commandments. In particular, I focused on Scalia's dissent. Jack Balkin has a a great post on this same issue, and it's way better than anything I have to say. I highly recommend checking it out. He fails to make one point, though. Scalia and other right-wingers readily invoke the "history" of mono-theism in this country in order to provide a basis for discriminating between mono-theists and other religious believers. The mere fact, however, that they actively support such discrimination, suggests to me that their distinction between mono-theistic Judeo-Islamic-Christian religions and non-mono-theistic religions is strategic at best.

Clearly, Scalia and his ilk believe religious discrimination is okay, and there seems to be no principled basis to their choice of religious division. Why mono-theistic vs. multi-theistic? Why not Christian vs. Judeo-Islamic? Why not pre-Enlightenment Christian sects vs. post-Enlightenment Christian sects? As Balkin points out, Scalia's historical reasoning for the distinction he makes is pretty slim, and basically acts as a justification for an opinion based primarily on his conservative religious values. What with the weakness of his justification and the strength of his religious values, I don't at all doubt that the religious distinction Scalia discusses would be mutable in future decisions. Given the opportunity, I have little doubt that America's right-wing theocrats would willingly expand the distinction to support not just a monotheistic state, but an explicitly Christian state.

Minivans, not just for soccer moms anymore

Iraq is, as we all know, a giant burbling clusterfuck of a war. President Bush and friends didn't plan for the war, they ignore the facts on the ground, and they continue to place thousands upon thousands of American soldiers in the way of danger every day. This is not suprising. By now, most of us are pretty much anesthetized to the malignant incompetence and mendacity of this Administration. Yet, as it turns out, there's still a nerve or two left untouched for the clowns and thieves who run this country to jam their greedy, ignorant fingers into. And so, at lunch today, I had to wince when reading these two stories ( Safer Vehicles for Soldiers and Chrysler Minivans to Iraq?) that illustrate just how fucked our soldiers are with Pres. Bush as their Commander in Chief.

More on monotheism

The Supreme Court published its opinion in Mccreary County v. ACLU today, holding 5-4 that a government entity's purpose in posting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is the deciding factor as to whether the Establishment Clause has been violated. That, at least, is what my 25 second review of the first page of the case suggests. When I read the entire opinion, I may have to alter that summary.

I only devoted 25 seconds to the majority opinion because I wanted to point out a couple of things about Scalia's dissent. Namely, Scalia seems to be moving his jurisprudence closer to the overtly theocratic sort we see coming out of the 4th Circuit. He does so with his usual wit and intelligence, but it's still kind of scary. Consider this statement:

"What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle."

On its face, this is perfectly reasonable. Nobody wants judges imposing their opinions, personal or ideological, willy-nilly. It'd be a mite bit hard to abide by law that keeps changing. On the other hand, nobody wants judges imposing consistent, principled opinions if those principles are discriminatory, undemocratic or otherwise flawed. This raises the question then, "What principle would Scalia apply in this case if he were writing for the majority?" A little further down in the opinion, Scalia answers this question. He says:

"With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits [the] disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned
deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists."

I've taken the quote out of context, but it pretty well captures Scalia's opinion. It's okay to post the Ten Commandments at any time. In fact, it's okay to discriminate against non-monotheists. Why? Because according to his reading of history, that's exactly what the Founding Fathers did and it represents the values they codified in our Constitution. Wrong? I think so. Scary? You bet. And sounding not dissimilar to Wilkinson's opinion in Simpson v. Chesterfield County. Anyway, I'll read the full opinion and share any further thoughts I might have. I just thought I'd point out the cheery fact that the religious wingnuts still can't muster the majority it would take to establish their little monotheistic (and eventually Christian) utopia.

I am appalled.

Dick Durbin has been forced to apologize for his floor statement last week in which he did the following:

1) Read this text from a memo written by an FBI agent at Guantanamo:

"On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold....On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night."

2)And made this comment:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

For this, Durbin has to apologize? For highlighting the obvious, if painful, point that the FBI description read without context could very well be a paragraph straight out of the Gulag Archipelago, Durbin has to apologize? For pointing out the harsh and painful truth that American soldiers and agents are abusing and torturing prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere Durbin has to apologize? I think not.

The fact that Durbin has to apologize for this speaks volumes about the utter moral vacuity of the modern Republican Party. Their single-minded devotion to the political destruction of Democrats has, apparently, obliterated their ability (or desire, if ever there were any) to discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil. At some point, I believe, political concerns should be secondary to concerns about the moral fibre of our nation. If this country's governing party and attendant leadership is willing to ignore, apologize for, or otherwise fail to address officially-sanctioned activities that are clearly contrary to every single value codified in our Constitution and held dear by our citizens in lieu of attacking a political rival, then are a Nation in very deep trouble.

Gas-guzzler guilt?

CNN, of all places, has a pretty interesting article on a company called TerraPass, which allows people to buy emissions reductions to offset emissions created by their vehicles. It's an interesting idea, but one that's doomed to failure. Why? Because, by definition, people who buy SUVs don't feel guilty about their various negative externalities. Whether you're talking about the risk to other vehicles, the risk to their own vehicle, the massive quantities of hydrocarbons they consume, or the overall draw on the resource chain, I strongly doubt that SUV drivers give a flying fuck.

The founder of TerraPass might be surprised that loony enviros like myself who drive small, energy-efficient cars are buying the offsets, but I'm not. As he notes towards the end of the article, we really do have conflicted relationships with our cars. On the whole, though, relying on people's guilt or good will is a terrible way to set environmental policy, and it's a terrible way to run a business. All evidence suggests that you need an array of incentives (or disincentives) for most people and businesses to begin adopting environmentally efficient technologies and practices.

ADDENDUM: I hereby exempt all owners of pre-1992 Toyota 4-Runners, especially those 4-Runners having only 2 doors and removable tops, from any of my previous over-broad generalizations about scurrilous SUV owners. You know who you are.

Default Registration

Per Seamus' suggestion, I've set up a default registration for the main news sites I link to. If you're not already registered there and I link to them, you can use the login and passwords I've provided on the right side of my blog template and access articles, editorials, etc.

For a first test for those who don't like registering with news sites, I suggest you read today's commentary from E.J. Dionne, and use my default.

Sad, strange article

I encourage all of you to take some time and read this article on the Lost Boys of Utah. It's a very strange and kind of sad piece on the boys being kicked out of fundamentalist Mormon towns in southern Utah so as not to put population pressures on the limited supply of women.

Let's put it another way, though. Let's call it like it really is: a bunch of horny fucktards want to fuck every breathing female in that town and are getting rid of the competition in the name of God and religion. Sad, yes. But more than that, unconscionable. So, where the fucking hell is the Mormon Grand Poobah? Where's the Mormon Guvnah? Where's the hordes of upright, Republican-voting, moralizing Mormon Utahans crying out against this depravity? Huh? Anybody?

Well, there's a few trying to do the right thing by saving the Lost Boys. There's a few, trying to arrest these perverted goat-men on tax or sexual abuse charges. That's it. Nobody wants to touch the polygamy issue with a ten-foot pole because 52 fucking years ago the asshats of Utah voted out a governor who tried to regulate it. Jesus H. Christ.

Now, don't get me wrong. Most Mormons I've met have been nice, friendly, people with good hearts and strong beliefs. Most Mormons, generally, have very little to do with the freaks and gimps that comprise the fundamentalist wing of their religion. Most Mormons, I think, probably find this sort of thing repulsive. If that's true, though, why doesn't the church, it's political leaders and the State of Utah do something about the problems identified in this article? I'll tell you why. The Mormon Church and the Mormon hierarchy that runs Utah is a dysfunctional morass of pseudoreligious fruitcakes and snake-oil salesmen and they are a boil on the ass of this country. Plain old Mormon folk don't have any say in the matter and, much like the Catholic laity with regards to priestly molestations, have no means to influence the church hierachy outside of refusing to attend church and refusing to tithe. We are stuck, once again it seems, with a situation in which an authoritarian hierarchy refuses to confront the evil within its ranks, ignores the wishes of its members, and, whether out of ignorance, apathy, or malevolence, allows depravity to persist.

Blueberry Flummery

It's been a while since I posted a recipe on here. Given that it's New Jersey blueberry season, and their selling for $.98 a quart, it's a good time to post this recipe. A flummery is kind of like a pudding, but without the dairy. It's easy to make and delicious. Seamus suggested that it's also good prepared and then placed in a tart shell. Perhaps he'll post a follow-up recipe for a tart shell.

Blueberry Flummery

2 c. blueberries
1 c. water + some
1/4 c. cornstarch
1/2-3/4 c. sugar
1/8 tsp. salt
juice of 1/2 lemon

Wash blueberries and place them in a pot with 1 c. water. Bring to a boil and simmer for 5 minutes. After five minutes take mixture off the heat and push berries through a ricer or a sieve (using a spoon). Add enough water to blueberry mixture to make 2 1/2 cups. Mix cornstarch, sugar and salt together and add to blueberry mixture. Place back onto heat and simmer. The mixture will become clear (or atleast not whitish) and begin to thicken. Cook for about 5-10 minutes or until it is thick as you think is good. Stir in lemon juice. Cool. Eat.

Notes:

I ate some of this with a little sour cream this morning and it was fantastic. Seamus, as noted above, likes to eat this as a tart. You might consider eating it with ice cream. Also, this recipe works with most or all (?) berries. The recipe is fairly low-fat, but obviously has a fairly high sugar content so may not necessarily be low-calorie.

Giving the finger to Paul Begala.

Yesterday, I was riding home after a fairly long and arduous day at work. I was nearing the end of my 20 mile route. This entails riding around the Jefferson Memorial and getting onto Maine Avenue headed southeast past the fish market. After passing under the highway, there are two intersections, the second of which (7th Street), I turn left onto. I have found that if I wait until getting close to 7th Street, the traffic flows in such a way that I am usually confronted with a surge of speeding cars. To alleviate the risk of maneuvering across this stream of traffic, I have taken to cutting into the left hand lane at the first intersection (9th Street), waiting for the light, and then riding with traffic up to the second intersection. In the past, this has caused no problems, as I am pretty much as fast as most traffic for the 500 feet it takes to get to the next intersection.

Yesterday, though... Yesterday, I was behind a Mustang GT covered with many right-wing stickers. I pulled up behind this dude and got into my track stand. I can see him eyeing me in the mirror, so I wink and blow him a kiss. Clearly this sets him off, because as the light turns green he pops the clutch, spins his back wheels and roars off. Point made: he don't like any goddam bicycling faggots.

Having received this message loud and clear, I take off and proceed pedaling the 500 feet or so to 7th Street. Almost immediately, someone behind me starts honking. I turn around and the person is pointing to the right hand lane and yelling, clearly pissed that I am impeding his way down the left hand lane of an empty 3-lane boulevard. Doing my best impression of St. Pius of the Peaceful Bicyclist, I proceed to salute him with my single-digit traffic calming implement, turn back around, and continue to pedal along. The black Chrysler Magnum roars up beside me and the guy yells something about "Get in the goddam right hand lane!" I lean back, smile, and attempt to calm him down further with a virtuous application of both of my traffic calming implements. As I'm doing this, I realize that the person I am giving the fingers to is none other than Paul Begala or someone with an uncanny resemblance to Paul Begala. My efforts at calming him down, however, clearly failed, as he jammed the gas, got in front of me, and sped off down 7th and then I Street. My brush with infamy complete, I proceeded to ride on home giggling to myself.

All the wingnuts in the world can't piss the inimitable Mr. Begala off, but put a progressive on a bicycle in the left-hand lane and he turns into just another irate driver: a prototypical event in the day of a bicycle commuter.

Finally, if it wasn't Mr. Begala, but his evil twin brother, I apologize forthwith for assuming so.

Corporate Marxists

Personally, I find the US Chamber of Commerce a repugnant, regressive, and otherwise destructive element in our society. They symbolize (and realize) all that is bad in corporate America and are one of the most anti-democratic, anti-individual organizations I can think of. There are other lobbying type groups out there such as the NRA or FOP with whom I strongly disagree, but those groups arguably are advocating for the interests of a broad swath of individual Americans. The USCOC, however, advocates for big corporations and the wealthy individuals who own and run them. That's it. They fight regulations that will help the average American and generally embrace a social darwinist worldview of the sort that one normally associates with the late 19th Century. In other words, they are swine.

A guest poster at Balkinization discusses this phenomenon.

Best blog sentence...ever.

This comes courtesy of the Mad Biologist:

Bushtard faith just crashed into the guardrail of scientific materialism, and Bushtard faith got its ass kicked.

Read Krugman today!

It's an interesting article if only because of the parallels he draws between the feckless whores who run Ohio and the feckless whores who run Washington, DC.

And I apologize to all my readers who are prostitutes for impugning your good names by comparing you with our national "leadership".

Thanks are due

In one small sign that some members of the House retain some shred of sanity, a coalition of Democrats and Republicans voted to block renewal of a provision in the Patriot Act that allowed the FBI to search library and bookstore records. Our lovely Justice Department came up with the following argument to justify the provision:

"Bookstores and libraries should not be carved out as safe havens for terrorists and spies, who have, in fact, used public libraries to do research and communicate with their co-conspirators," wrote William E. Moschella, assistant attorney general.

Hey Bill! I heard them sneaky Ayrabs were meeting at coffee shops, laundromats, and hardware stores, too! One time, I saw this sneaky looking swarthy man TALKING ON A CELL PHONE in his car! Good-god man! If we carve out each of these places as safe havens for terrorists, we could all die! We should expand the library/bookstore provision to include every space bounded by four walls in which sneaky Ayrabs might seek Safe haven!

Jeebus. Thank goodness some folks in Congress still recognize that we retain an interest in liberty in this country.

Community gardens in DC

When my wife and I first moved to DC about five years ago, we lived in Northwest near the Cathedral. We had a 10x10 community garden plot about a block away in a garden site that was about 2 acres. Apart from the plague of deer, it was a fun place to spend my evenings weeding, drinking beer, etc. For those of you familiar with DC, you probably won't be surprised that I was surrounded by white yuppies pretty much doing the exact same thing. Though I didn't think much of it at the time, most of those yuppies were planting stuff like herbs and flowers. There were some vegetables, but clearly these were hobby gardens more than anything else.

Fast forward five years.

I now live on Capitol Hill. There's one community garden in my neighborhood as well as a second down on Independence Ave. across from the Air and Space Museum (cool location!). These, too, seem to be gardened primarily by yuppies and they, too, seem to have more than their fair share of flowers and herbs. Things change, however, when you move into lower income neighborhoods in this city. Far up on my commute, I pass through a series of primarily working-class black neighborhoods along Georgia Avenue. At around 8th and Peabody NW there are two very large (perhaps 4 acres each) community gardens which, judging from the folks working them, are used primarily by local people. I stopped by one the other day, just to see what's being planted and, let me tell you, there's not much in the line of herbs and flowers. There's lots of greens: mustard, collard and kale in particular. There's also plenty of tomatoes, lettuce, some corn, and lots of different types of melons and squash.

Why is this important? It's not really, but I do wonder whether it's cultural, class, or merely financial differences that determine what people plant in their garden plots?

Institutional vs. individual apologies

I've been slow posting of late, mostly because work and personal life are still very busy. I did, however, take some time today to write a response to comments by blowhard conservatives made about this post on Legal Fiction. In lieu of writing something substantive here, I'll just link to my comment.

Dain-bramaged NASCAR Dads

The Palm Beach Post has a funny editorial on the fact that NASCAR cars still use leaded gas and the potential effects those emissions may have on racing fans.

My question is, why are folks opposed to using unleaded gas? The editorial hints that the primary reason is that it will make cars slower. Here's a hint: switch to unleaded and re-calibrate the speedometers to make up the difference. The fans won't have a clue (except perhaps that total race time will be longer) and, as long as the racers all comply, the slowing down will be uniform. Moreover, if competition is that strong and speed that important, car companies will merely devise new technologies to speed up their unleaded cars.

Get your passports now.

Ted Koppel has a pretty good commentary in today's Times. In it, he notes something I was unaware of: the State Department plans on putting RFID technology in all new passports issued by the end of 2005. I don't know if that's true or not. This blurb from EPIC, an online privacy non-profit, suggests that the State Department has dropped such plans. However, this article from Washington Technology suggests the opposite.

Either way, the rise of RFID technology and the carelessness with which it is being employed makes me think that we need a much more comprehensive debate over the intersection of technology and civil liberties. The Patriot Act draws most of the attention in any discussion regarding terrorism and civil liberties, but I suspect it is the less visible projects like RFID passports that will have a more pernicious effect in the long-term. It is easier to get people motivated to oppose egregious activities like warrantless searches than it is to oppose seemingly mundane issues like RFID implants in government documents.

Whatever the case, I'm getting my passport renewed before they start using these chips. Whether it's the US guvmint or foreign terrorists, the less easy it is to track me, the better.

Mending my meaty ways.

It's not going to happen soon, especially after I discovered the best barbecue place in DC this afternoon.

Generally, I'm not a huge fan of the beasties. I don't like roast beast, boiled ham, hamburgers, steak, roasted pig, etc. A few exceptions can be found, though. I like barbecue. I like sausage. I like green chile pork. Gimme a pulled pork sammich, a wurstchen hot off the grill, or a bowl of spicy green chiles and puerca and my sauce gets to simmering.

Having a vegetarian for a wife, though, I don't get much of the meaty stuff. In our 6 years together, I've cooked meat in the house a total of four times. Thus, I must either eat meat out, or eat it not at all. Given the dearth of good barbecue joints and taco houses in DC, I end up not eating too many of our four-legged brethren.

Today, though. Today. I went to a place called the Half-Moon Barbecue. Holy purple pickled hacklesnatch sauteed in all day at work sauce! I had the spiciest, tenderest, most delightful pulled pork sandwich this side of the 36th parallel. And the collard greens? Whoo-boy. Fate has conspired, it seems, to ensure that my ecological footprint continues to be somewhat larger than it ought to be. Sigh.

Mundicide

All you project management gurus out there should appreciate this handy how-to guide on destroying the Earth. I originally found the link on Axis of Evel Knievel, which, if you've never visited, has a perfectly disgusting picture of Bill O'Reilly on a cruise in the Caribbean.

1000 miles

I've been working at my current contract job for 3 months. Today, I hit a 1,000 miles on my bike computer. I actually hit more, but subtracting my non-commuting mileage from the actual mileage gives me 1,000 commuting miles. This equates to about 40 days of bicycle commuting. Considering that it costs me $5.30 for a round-trip Metro ride, and Metro is the only other means I use to get to work, I have saved $212 so far this year by bicycle commuting! Add in the accrued benefits that lack easy valuation (improved health, etc.), and I've made/saved a fair bit of moolah.

The Problem with Janice Rogers Brown

The problem with Janice Rogers Brown, who was confirmed to the DC Circuit yesterday, is a problem shared by many in the conservative movement: myopia. In particular, I think Ms. Brown and other conservatives who rail against concentrated government power and its risks give too short shrift to concentrations of power in other aspects of our society. Consider this quote from the Times article:

"We no longer find slavery abhorrent," she told the conservative Federalist Society a few years ago. "We embrace it." She explained in another speech, "If we can invoke no ultimate limits on the power of government, a democracy is inevitably transformed into a kleptocracy - a license to steal, a warrant for oppression."

Ms. Brown clearly believes that liberal governance and the administrative state that has developed since the New Deal is a form of slavery. Her concern? That the administrative state is too powerful and lends itself to kleptocracy. In my mind, this begs the question of who, exactly, will be the kleptocrats in her vision? Is it the people elected to run the country? Is it the bureaucrats who staff the government? Is it the citizens of this country?

It can't be the first or second, at least while they are in office or with the government, as there are specific laws and rules governing their behavior. Thus, for example, President Bush and Vice President Cheney, as much as they would no doubt like to be personally reaping the fruits of oil leases out West, cannot do so because they have had to put their oil company investments under independent control. Citizens - and by citizens I really mean the vast bulk of the electorate that doesn't have a financial stake or a means to influence most individual administrative decisions - won't be reaping many benefits from this kleptocracy that Ms. Brown describes. Who then, will be reaping benefits of Ms. Brown's administrative kleptocracy? Three words: corporations & wealthy individuals.

That's a no-brainer. You and I lack the financial wherewithal to game the adminstrative and political systems. Rent-seeking, as the economists, like to call it, is not an option for the average working stiff. Sure, we can join groups like the NRA, the AARP, the SEIU, or others, but while they may have some influence in shaping social policy, they have much less of a role in affecting the economic and resource policies which feed any kleptocratic system.

I suspect, of course, that Ms. Brown's concern is the "rent-seeking" accomplished by social interest groups. The article notes that she dislikes government regulation and dependency because she feels they threaten fundamental freedoms. Putting aside the question of dependency for a minute, though, what mechanism does she suggest will take the place of government regulation to prevent the formation of the kleptocracy she is concerned about? We do away with government regulation and the administrative state and what replaces it? The tort system? A unified electorate? Both of those options require far more money, time, and organization than I suspect most citizens have or can muster.

The regulatory state didn't appear out of thin air, you know. Nor did the welfare state. The regulatory state was an outgrowth of the anti-monopoly movement in the 1870s and the progressive movement in the early 20th century. It was formed to counteract the corrosive power of corporate monopolies and to mitigate the harm they caused to the American working class. (I know that's simplistic, but feel free to call me on it in the comments.) The welfare state, meanwhile, was created because the existing social and political system failed to provide sufficient wealth for most people to survive, especially after retirement. In an era of declining class mobility and only marginal increases in absolute wealth, I am quite certain that this may still be true in many instances.

So, history shows us that an un-regulated market place leads to monopoly and corporate abuse, and that non-governmental systems of social support and welfare fail to provide basic standards of living for retirees and the less fortunate. If that's true, then what will take their place? What mechanism will prevent the further concentration of power in the hands of corporations and the wealthy? What mechanisms will provide for some base level of welfare for the poor, the sick and the elderly? Do we just put up with economic abuse? Do we just let the poor and old die and fuckem if they can't feed themselves? I guess that's what Ms. Brown would like to see happen, because I haven't heard any suggestions from her as to what system she'd like to see in place. Unfortuantely, now that she's on the DC Circuit, I likely never will.

Niggers and retards

That's a shocking subject line, I know, but when I read this a appalling but unsurprising article about recent events in East Texas, I could just hear the mayor of the town in question drawling that phrase out in his deep south accent. Here's the gist of the article: four white dudes punch a black dude unconscious, truck him to a garbage dump, toss him on a fire ant mound and end up paying virtually no price at all for their act. Apalling, but pretty much par for the course in the shithole they call East Texas. If you read the whole article, though, you come across this little tidbit from one of the members of the jury which gave the accused suspended sentences:

"'They were trying to make it out to be like a felony, like they beat him up, and he [the defendant] hit him one time,' said Michael Spencer, the jury foreman in the Amox trial. 'It wasn't like they sat there and kicked him and beat him.'"

No, of course not. And, as we all know, dropping someone on a fire ant mound at the local dump is nothing but frat-boy high jinx. Anyway, they didn't beat this man up because he was black. No way, that's bad and immoral. They beat him up because he's nuthin' but a retard. And, as we all know, there isn't anything more fun than getting a retard drunk and fucking with him!

Anyway, the prosecution of these four basically innocent young men is just terrible. Don't you know they were actually doing the black man a favor? I mean, "These boys' names are ruined for life, and [Johnson] is better off today than he's ever been in his life. He roamed the streets, the family never knew where he was. Now in the nursing home he's got someone to take care of him."

Yeah, that lucky dog. A couple punches to the head and he's on the fast track to a life of leisure. All he's got to do these days is watch TV and have people change his diaper. We should be so lucky!

That last post...

was not in any way, shape, or form directed at friend who want to a) go to the beach or b) visit from far off places. More of a general complaint not at all related to plans that I have made or may make in the future. :)

It ain't all politics.

The peanut is due in just about 3 months and I'm beginning to feel panicky. I'm not a person who generally has problems falling asleep, but for the last few weeks I find myself lying in bed wondering about stuff: What if I'm a crappy father? What if I'm unemployed? What if the fumes from I-395 give the peanut asthma? What if the nursery walls are white and it's not tastefully appointed with all the nicest baby crapola? How did I get to be 32, basically jobless, with a child on the way? How can 3 months seem so short?

That's the big thing. 3 months. That's it. I've got to do everything to make this world a better place for my child in 3 short months. Goddam.

How am I supposed to do all this when I spend every day at work and my weekends are full? I've got friends who want me to visit their city, friends who want me to go canoeing, friends who want me to go bike riding, friends who want me to do whatever, and all the fuck I want to do is clean our house, arrange our furniture and make a nest.

Weird.

Weddings, happiness and human nature

My apologies for the dearth of posts this past week. Budget season is upon us and so I have little time for lunch, much less posting.

I went to a wedding in Corpus Christi, TX, this weekend. It was a Presbyterian wedding, and it was just lovely. I enjoy weddings. I've never been to a wedding where everybody wasn't smiling and happy and full of joy. I especially liked this wedding because, apart from the fact that the couple getting married are great, I thought the minister truly captured the best aspects of religion (and Christianity) in his ceremony. There was none of the dull (and archaic) pedantry in his sermon that one occasionally hears at religious services; none of the "though shalt be like a servant to your husband" bullshit. Rather, it was an inspiring, aspirational ceremony, in which the minister exhorted the couple (and the audience) to strive to be good people in all their actions, both public and private.

As I sat and listened to the ceremony, I was reminded how easy it is to fall into the trap of believing that religious extremists in this country and their endless supplies of hate represent the mainstream of Christianity. I call it a trap because I think the extremists want people to believe what they preach, and want people to believe that it's either evangelical fundamentalism or satanism with nothing in between. They want to divide the world into us vs. them, and they want to be the ones to define that division. They understand that black and white is easy to grasp and easy to manipulate. If they can convince enough people that the world lacks any shades of gray, they can play upon their fears and biases and create political and cultural systems that incorporate such a manicheistic worldview into their very structures and which they control.

As I listened, I thought about this, but I also thought about the millions of Americans who do not share this nihilistic contempt for reality, political and religious moderation, and democratic governance. I felt hopeful that Americans (left and right) will eventually reject the destructive ethos of modern politics and move towards a system where politics is more than a zero-sum conflict. For a moment I was able to believe that many (if not most) Americans, regardless of their religion, understand that different religions and non-religions can co-exist in a pluralistic democratic society, and that the role of the religious believer is not to seek to assert dominion over those with whom s/he disagrees.

Maybe it was the scent from the flowers, maybe it was the joy of being at a wedding, maybe it was the fact that I wasn't at work; whatever it was, I sure was being uncharacteristically optimistic about the state of our nation this past Saturday.

Feeble-minded man-children

Dig this quote from today's post on Driftglass:

Once you could have called youself a Republican with genuine honor and pride: today you can either have a conscience or a GOP Party Membership, but not both.

Now they are sunken so irredeemably into blood and lies the that the everyday betrayal of the public trust is just a given among Conservatives. The party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Ike has been gutted like trout, hollowed out and packed with maggoty third-rate con men like Santorum, outright fascists like Cheney, feeble-minded man-children like Bush and grinning sociopaths like Robertson.

I like it! And if you read the whole post, you might like it to. He includes portions of an article that appears in today's New York Times. The article, which is hardly surprising in its revelations given the Administrations myopic and incestual relationship with the energy industry, also includes this amazing graphic that illustrates exactly what sort of "editing" occurs in the White House. Whenever you hear some simpering, Republican, corporate lackey talk about "sound science", I urge you to think back to this graphic and remind yourself what exactly they mean by that phrase.

Hideous Judaica

The following posting came across the DC Freecycle listserv this morning:

If any of you are Jewish and recently married and received gifts that
could be described as hideous judaica, I would love to take some of it off of your hands. By hideous judaica, I mean gifts like these:

www.judaism.com

I'm willing to pick up in DC and metro accessible locations in inner
suburbs.

Who knew that Jews liked the same sort of tacky, religious knick-knacks that I've seen in so many Catholic and Protestant houses? Here I was, thinking that only gentiles collected religious tschotschkes when, in fact, there is apparently an entire underground market for Jewish bagatelles too!

2nd Amendment Individual Rights

I've been reading Democracy and Distrust by John Hart Ely. It's one of those books that I saw cited in virtually every constitutional law-related text book during law school, but which I never had the opportunity to read. Having reached page 30, I'm already glad I'm reading it. Ely's writing is smart, concise and, remarkably enough, funny. I'm finding that it's a great refresher on some of the great constitutional arguments about issues of individual liberty and matters of interpretation. In fact, I'd go so far as to recommend it to non-lawyers, if only to get a sense of what is at stake whenever Supreme Court slots are open for nominees.

Anyway, Chapter 2 includes a discussion on the meaning and role of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment (a clause, incidentally, that the Supreme Court has interpreted to be so limited in effect as to be virtually meaningless). Ely argues that this is incorrect and that the Clause in fact delegates the power (and duty) to future decisionmakers (courts?) of protecting rights that are unenumerated in the Constitution, but which are still retained by U.S. citizens. In making his argument, Ely quotes a floor speech by Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI) from 1866 during debate over the adoption of the 14th Amendment. In the course of speech, Howard asserted the following:

Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as...the right to keep and to bear arms."

I cite this not because I think it is conclusive with regards to current 2nd Amendment debates, but because I find it interesting. It would appear that atleast some folks writing the 14th Amendment believed that the right to bear arms is an individual right. This is important because, as you may know, the 14th amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights and applies them to the states. Presumably, therefore, any constraints the 2nd Amendment places on the federal government also apply to states (assuming I remember incorporation correctly).

There is much discussion among the gun-control and anti-gun control crowds about whether the 2nd Amendment defines a collective or an individual right. Right-wing gun advocates like to believe that if it defines an individual right, then any regulation of gun ownership is presumably invalid. (Such a claim ignores the fact that no individual right under the Constitution is absolute.) Left-wing anti-gun advocates like to believe that if it defines a collective right, then Congress may pass laws that ban all firearms (or, at a minimum, all semi-automatic firearms). The Department of Justice, it turns out, argues the individual right view, but takes the middle road. I haven't read the DOJ memo (which came out in 2004), but I'll be interested to see whether it considers materials like the 14th Amendment debates cited in Ely's book.

Not much point to this post, but hey, atleast it's content...

Thank you Jon Stewart.

Apparently, only he can put the Deep Throat revelation in perspective.

Mark Felt: Mass Murderer, Destroyer of Worlds, Eater of Children

Peggy Noonan lays it out for us. Though it is rarely discussed by the liberal elites that run everything in this country (i.e. liberal historians, liberal media, liberal judiciary, liberal teachers, etc.), Deep Throat's revelations to the Washington Post about the break-in at the Watergate can be blamed for pretty much everything bad that happened between 1973-1980 or so (that is, of course, unless Jimmy Carter can be blamed):

What Mr. Felt helped produce was a weakened president who was a serious president at a serious time. Nixon's ruin led to a cascade of catastrophic events--the crude and humiliating abandonment of Vietnam and the Vietnamese, the rise of a monster named Pol Pot, and millions--millions--killed in his genocide. America lost confidence; the Soviet Union gained brazenness. What a terrible time. Is it terrible when an American president lies and surrounds himself by dirty tricksters? Yes, it is. How about the butchering of children in the South China Sea. Is that worse? Yes. Infinitely, unforgettably and forever...

...Maybe the big lesson on Felt and Watergate is as simple as the law of unintended consequences. You do something and things happen and you don't mean them to, and if you could take it back you would, but it's too late. The repercussions have already repercussed. Mark Felt cannot have intended to encourage such epic destruction. He must have thought he was doing the right thing, protecting his agency and maybe getting some forgivable glee out of making Nixon look bad. But oh the implications. Literally: the horror.

Boy, it's a good thing that Ronald Reagan came along and saved us from Felt's butterfly wings. Who knows what hurricane of tragedy, death and destruction might have "repercussed" if he hadn't come along and restored America's confidence (which, of course, is the key element in a stable and peaceful world)?

The moral of this story? Even if the President is a lying, cheating festering pustule on the ass of American government and he surrounds himself with crooked yes-men, criminals and sociopaths, we shouldn't be concerned because at least he isn't killing children.

Follow-up: But is he killing kittens?

Quote of the Year

Comes courtesy of Erik Loomis at Alterdestiny on being an intellectual in America:

"I'm very satisfied with my lifestyle and I have no problem both saying that I am an intellectual and...that those who have a problem with it can fuck themselves."

Why I like modernity.

Because I can go to a meeting at work, and I can be the only white guy there. Because I can go to the bagel shop and get a Hindu bagel. Because I don't have to live in the Italian neighborhood or the Jewish neighborhood or the Black neighborhood; I can live in just "a" neighborhood. Because when people can overcome, overlook, or otherwise get rid of all their many biases, human interaction becomes a whole lot more interesting and fulfilling.

Development in Yosemite

The Post has a good article today on construction and improvements being made by the National Park Service in the Yosemite Valley. The article highlights the tension between the Park's mission requirement of providing access to all and the need to preserve the natural splendor of the Valley itself. From the somewhat brief description of the new improvements, it sounds like much of what is being built has been designed to look like classic WPA and CCC type projects that, I think, Americans regularly associate with our national park facilities. The article mentions a number of environmental groups that are seeking to halt or prohibit further such construction. Though it doesn't go into specifics, I suspect that some of this is wrong-headed obstructionism. (Reactionary on my part, no?)

As I see it, the NPS has to balance much of the public's desire to see America's natural splendor with relative ease (often from a speeding vehicle) and those of us who would prefer to see it less trammelled and with some effort (often from a perch accessible solely by hiking). So far, I think they've done a decent job of that. If you look at this map of the park, you will see that much of the park is roadless, and that most development is concentrated in the Yosemite Valley in the southwest corner of the park. I know that some will argue that this is a blight one of the most beautiful places in the park, but it seems like a decent compromise to me between the development and the wilderness interests.

There are plenty of shortsighted, greedy shitheads in this world who would like to put in putt-putt, waterslides, hotels, and all sorts of other meretricious crap throughout the park. The NPS has not yielded to this sort of crass commericalism and, instead, is working to develop in a way that lessens mans footprint and minimizes intrusion on the natural beauty of the area. Development is, I think, a virtual given (especially in our current political and social atmosphere) and environmental groups should be trying to mitigate its effects. Thus, rather than trying to block any such development and incurring the wrath of many "average" Americans, I think that enviro groups should be working with the Park to help guide these sorts of "improvements" and protect the undeveloped portions of the Park.