The Right Wing Head Explosion

Greenwald has an interesting piece up about how the recent riots involving Uighurs in western China confuse the crap out of right-wingers. On the one hand, conservatives are (rightly) concerned with the spread of democracy and ending tyranny, and the Chinese government has not been kind to the Uighurs. On the other hand, the Uighurs are Muslim, and if the right wing just spent the last couple of months cowering in fear of 13 harmless Uighurs, how would they react to a city full of pissed-off Uighurs? As of now, at least one wingnut has chosen fear and loathing.

Here's what happened, best as I can tell: about a week ago, some Han Chinese people spread a rumor on the Internet that a Uighur had raped and killed two Han women. Two Uighurs were killed at a southern China factory because of the rumor. That, combined with the lack of equal rights for Uighurs in China, touched off protests - and later, riots - in Urumqi, the capital of China's Uighur region. The Han Chinese in the city began rioting themselves, and a lot of people were killed. Police began arresting Uighurs who participated in the protests, which touched off more protests, which started more riots. This Post article is pretty good.

This is a bit of a sticky wicket, but it's clear that the Uighurs aren't solely at fault here. They appear to have been provoked by the oppressive Chinese government and some Han race-baiters. Yes, they shouldn't have rioted, but that's hardly terrorism, as Mr. McCarthy (linked above) would have you believe. Greenwald says this is indicative of the Right's fear of Muslims. Mr. McCarthy is hardly representative of the entire Right - he's a somewhat minor contributor to the National Review. But if McCarthy's views are echoed by the more establishment figures on the Right, it says a lot about conservatism in general.

By listening to right-wing talking heads, one might conclude that conservatives are afraid of a lot - gay marriage, health care reform, terrorists, you name it. There are perhaps rational conservative arguments to be made on all these issues, but conservatives rarely make them. Instead, it's "protect marriage" (as if it's under attack); or "protect us from socialism" (as if health care reform will turn us into Soviet Russia). And when it comes to terrorism, the right-wing fear appeal gets ugly - they're willing to talk people into believing that anything less than giving the harshest treatment to people who may or may not be terrorists will be signing our own death warrant. And when conservatives see violence involving Muslims and non-Muslims, that only feeds their fear.

Funny thing about fear, though - people tend to get over it after a while. Conservatism needs to jettison that fear and go back to rational arguments if they want to win elections again.

Old El Paso

I know, three posts in a day is a bit excessive, but I wanted to point out this Balko article from Reason that describes why poverty-riddled, immigrant-heavy El Paso is one of the safest cities in America. Hint: it's because of the immigrants.

This Revolution, Apparently, Will Not Be Televised

Poor Honduras. While Iran was fortunate enough to start its electoral crisis and mass protests in mid-June, the Hondurans had their impeachment-cum-coup d'etat kerfuffle right as Mark Sanford revealed his transcontinental affair and Michael Jackson died. Both of which are, of course, far more important than a Central American country basically imploding. This means that no one knows much about what's going on down there - hell, I didn't know that much until this morning when I started looking it up. Best as I can tell, here's what's happening:

It starts with the election, in 2005 (inaugurated in '06), of a leftist-ish President named Manuel "Mel" Zelaya. He began forming alliances with Venezuela's wacko Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Raul Castro, while apparently not really doing a whole hell of a lot that could be described as economically leftist. The scary part, though, is that he's been getting more and more authoritarian as time goes by. He has required television stations to air two-hour government-sponsored broadcasts, while simultaneously harassing reporters he didn't like. He has tried to monitor all cell-phone communication in Honduras. He has also been accused of trying to drain money from the electoral commission, and of trying to institute censorship. I'm not sure about the veracity of all these claims - they're varyingly well-sourced on the Wikipedia article on Zelaya - but the upshot of all this is that Zelaya's approval rating is in the 20s, and he's not happy with the way government works in Honduras.

Now, Zelaya has ordered that a constitutional referendum be held in November 2009 alongside the Congressional, local, and presidential election. What's bizarre, of course, is that for the most part Zelaya doesn't need to ask the people to amend the Constitution - he can go to Congress. And his party (the Liberal Party) has a majority in Congress, so amending the Constitution shouldn't be hard for him (it requires a simple majority in Congress, unlike here). The catch is this - there are some articles Congress can't amend. One of them is an article term-limiting the President. So it's a bit of a transparent move by Zelaya to consolidate power. In March, Zelaya ordered the referendum to be moved up to June 28.

Naturally, no one else who currently has power in Honduras likes that very much. The Supreme Court ruled that the referendum was illegal. Congress - which is controlled by Zelaya's Liberal Party - followed suit and started impeachment proceedings. Zelaya called for protestors to march in opposition to the Court's ruling. Protestors marched on June 27... but against Zelaya. Remember, this is a guy who has a 25% approval rating here.

Anyway, it seems that earlier, Zelaya had ordered the Honduran army to participate in the referendum. They refused, so Zelaya sacked their commander. The Supreme Court didn't like this much either, and ordered the commander reinstated. Oh yeah, and the Court also ordered the army to arrest Zelaya on charges of treason. Which they did, on June 28, the day the referendum was supposed to happen. Zelaya was soon shipped out of the country, to Costa Rica - a move of questionable constitutionality in and of itself, because Honduras' constitution forbids anyone from being punished by exile. The army didn't take power like in a traditional coup, though - the head of Congress, Roberto Micheletti, has assumed the role.

So the spectacle is this - a democratically elected but unpopular president who had been staring impeachment in the face was instead forcibly removed from office by an army acting at the behest of a pissed-off Supreme Court. Internationally, this has created bizarre alliances - President Obama, Chavez, and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe have all called for Zelaya to be reinstated. Though presumably, if he's reinstated he'll still face impeachment and trial, and will probably be out of a job within the month if Congress' unanimous vote to accept his forged resignation letter is any indication.

Anyway, right now Micheletti and Zelaya are trying to negotiate. Micheletti wants Zelaya to be prosecuted for his alleged crimes; Zelaya obviously wants to come back and be president again. Zelaya tried to come back over the weekend; Micheletti closed the airports, forcing Zelaya to land in El Salvador. Zelaya's supporters have materialized and are protesting the whole thing - they're being met with an overly heavy hand by Micheletti, who has established a 10-to-5 curfew and has told the army to control the situation, with occasionally violent results. People who support Micheletti are marching too. Meanwhile, the UN and the OAS along with everyone else on the planet are calling for Zelaya to be reinstated and are calling Micheletti's government illegal - Micheletti has managed only two irrelevant allies in Israel and Taiwan.

None of this should have happened, of course. The military should never have listened to the court and deposed Zelaya - instead, they should have let Congress' impeachment proceedings run their course, after which Zelaya would likely have been ousted legally and Micheletti would have taken over until the election in November. Instead, they managed to bungle the situation thoroughly and get the entire world behind Zelaya despite the fact that Zelaya's got all the markings of being a quasi-authoritarian scumbag. This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

So that's that. You may now continue your reading about Sarah Palin's resignation, already in progress.

The Real World: Heaven

There is no planet on which this is not awesome (via Brayton):

A new show set to grace Turkish television screens will see a Muslim imam, a Christian priest, a Jewish rabbi and a Buddhist monk competing to turn 10 unbelievers into devotees of their own faith each week.

The show, "Tövbekarlar Yarışıyor," which can be roughly translated as "Penitents Compete," will appear on Kanal T starting in early September. The imam, priest, rabbi and monk will try to convert at least one person in every show.

My first question, of course, is this: what's the over/under on how long it takes American TV execs to steal this idea, add washed-up celebrities to the mix, and throw it out there? A year? I'm expecting this on my TV by 2011, assuming I break down and get cable by then. Would there be anyone who works for Fox not salivating over the prospect of having a rabbi, a priest, an imam, and a monk try to convert Marilyn Manson and Paris Hilton? With Morgan Freeman as the host? I can hear them drawing up the ads now.

Second, I'm still trying to figure out whether religious people should be up in arms or embracing the idea. And secular people, for that matter. It's kind of a Rohrshach for your ideas on religion, actually. I can picture secularists enjoying the show because they think it turns religion into meaningless competition, and I can see religious people enjoying it because it's a way for secular people to learn more about their religion. And secularists could hate it because it's flogging religion as better than atheism/agnosticism, and religious people could hate it because it makes a mockery of the idea of religion as a personal, spiritual experience. So there's all kinds of reactions to be had here. I'm more of the opinion that such a show is a great way to introduce people to the complexities of religious belief, and would help spark theological discussions (and I'm a sucker for a good theological discussion). There's the added bonus that a real, honest-to-God rabbi will be broadcast to the people of a majority-Muslim (at least culturally) nation that probably holds some bizarre stereotypes about Jews, so there'll be a little bit of mythbusting there, which is good.

Heaven only knows if this will last. I hope it does, and I hope it can be pulled off in a respectful, intellectually interesting manner... or failing that, I hope it's at least funny as shit.

Fun With Culture War Controversies

I don't post on abortion much (read: at all) on this blog, mainly because it's an issue that is impossible to debate rationally. I think I avoided talking about it in the wake of the Dr. Tiller killing by posting on it and then posting a funny video. I'm not sure, I don't check my archives much.

Anyway, I guess this post isn't about abortion per se, but about the debate around it, and it's inspired by this U.S. News article about the latest abortion reduction plan from the Obama White House:

Many abortion rights advocates and some Democrats who want to dial down the culture wars want the White House to package the two parts of the plan together, as a single piece of legislation. The plan would seek to reduce unwanted pregnancies by funding comprehensive sex education and contraception and to reduce the need for abortion by bolstering federal support for pregnant women. Supporters of the approach say it would force senators and members of Congress on both sides of the abortion battle to compromise their traditional positions, creating true common ground that mirrors what President Obama has called for.

But more conservative religious groups working with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships say they would be forced to oppose such a plan—even though they support the abortion reduction part—because they oppose federal dollars for contraception and comprehensive sex education. This camp, which includes such formidable organizations as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention, is pressuring the White House to decouple the two parts of the plan into separate bills. One bill would focus entirely on preventing unwanted pregnancy, while the other would focus on supporting pregnant women.

OK, I'm going to have to call bullshit on the bishops and the SBC here. You can't be pro-life and anti-contraception at the same time. You just can't. Restricting access to contraception will increase the number of abortions, whether said abortions are legal or not. That's just common sense.

Look, I'm not going to say people who oppose contraception and comprehensive sex ed don't have good reasons for doing so. The thought of young people getting it on makes a lot of folks nervous, so I understand the impulse to remove from our society things that might remind young people of sex. But such people shouldn't call themselves pro-life, because they're supporting a policy measure that will increase the number of dead fetuses.

That said (and despite my apparent anger in the preceding paragraph), I don't buy the cynical argument advanced by Amanda Marcotte that equates opposition to abortion with the desire to control female sexuality. From the religious organizations' perspective, it's the classic case of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. The Catholic bishops and the SBC want a world where no one has sex outside of marriage and no one kills a fetus. Great. But let's be clear - that first one ain't gonna happen anytime soon. The CDC reports that 85% of women have had sex outside of marriage. Guess what? Government actions can't change that.

The same report shows that 82% of women have been on the pill - roughly the same number, and if you add patch users, implants, etc. in there you probably get to 85. Now imagine that none of these women were using birth control at the time of intercourse. Can you imagine the spike in unwanted pregnancies? And the corresponding spike in the abortion rate? That's what anti-contraception legislation would lead to, and that's what legislation encouraging contraception would combat.

So it's nice to be utopian and all, but it kind of undermines the pro-life agenda. I think it's time for pro-lifers to make a choice - push utopian ideas of morality, or reduce the number of abortions? Because you can't have it both ways.

Arnold, Hiss, Rossi

From the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Does being an American citizen and scoring two goals for Italy in a 3-1 win over the U.S. count?

So Don't Look Back

Election day in Iran today. Good luck, Mr. Mousavi.

Update 6/13/09: Big Orange writer/Young Turk Cenk Uygur explains why A-Train's "victory" doesn't pass the smell test. Clifflyon, also at Kos, posts some digests from Farsi websites, essentially telling us that Mousavi's supporters are out burninating, Mousavi may or may not be under house arrest, and some ayatollahs are calling for a new election because this one got so effed up. It's a mess over there. Honestly, Big Orange is doing as good a job as anyone covering this.

Update 6/15/09: More from Big Orange. This guy's reporting all the rumors flying around about what's going on over there, but there isn't a whole lot of corroboration because there isn't a whole lot of information coming out of Iran right at the moment. Twitterati can follow the rumor mill as it develops by searching for #IranElection. There are significant reports that Khameini has called for an investigation, an about-face which seems to lend credence to the idea that Rafsanjani was making noise about removing him...

Update 6/16/09: Mike comments with a Post article that links to this poll that showed a hefty A-Train lead going into the poll. Problem is, though, the poll also predicted that no one was going to reach 50% and that a runoff was imminent. So a narrow A-Train victory would have been credible, but 63% still strains credulity. Also, the poll said 77% favor increased democracy (such as directly electing the Supreme Leader) and the same proportion favor increased relations with the US. So it's unlikely A-Train gets a landslide despite that, even if he is an economic populist. It's possible, but not probable, and I still think the most probable outcome is that the vote tally was fudged a bit.

The Others

The Holocaust Museum shooting has inspired The Washington Post's Michael Gerson, who freakily had a column about international Holocaust denial run on the day of the shooting, to write a piece trying to deal with anti-Semitism. It's a tough subject for anyone to tackle in a single column. Hell, it took James Carroll 700-plus pages to deal with just the Catholic Church's role in anti-Semitism. And it's fair to say that Carroll's book, which is an excellent read, just scratches the surface of the phenomenon as a whole.

Gerson quotes Museum director Sara Bloomfield, who hints at anti-Semitism's reach:

Anti-Semitism has existed with and without Christianity. With and without the right wing. With and without the left wing. With and without democracy. With and without economic problems. With and without globalization. With and without a Jewish homeland.

Gerson, predictably, concludes that anti-Semitism exists at odds with liberty. This is not a poor assessment - clearly, if you want to control someone's religious beliefs, you're not a friend of liberty. But this is interesting because it implies something more fundamental to human nature at work.

I think it's natural for people in a society to want other members of the society to conform. We like order in our societies, and look down upon those that would disrupt that order. Those that don't adhere to some extent to the line set by their society become the pariahs, the "others." And Jews? For the last 2000 years (with the exception of Khazaria in the 9th century and modern-day Israel) we have been the ultimate non-conformists. In societies built around Christianity and Islam we have stubbornly held to our beliefs and traditions. We're the world's others.

But what about in America? Certainly, if there's any non-Jewish society that has accepted Jews as part of its own, it's America, right? This is true to a great extent, and yet, Jews here are still an "other." Our holidays are weird, our customs strange, and our beliefs are poorly understood. Your average American probably couldn't tell you what Yom Kippur was, and probably still believes that the Old Testament God is vengeful and angry. These misconceptions and misunderstandings exist becaues even in America, we don't conform completely.

Which leads me back to the question of liberty. Gerson is not the first to claim this, but I'll quote him anyway:

But we do know that anti-Semitism has always been a kind of test -- a reliable measure of a nation's moral and social health. When the rights of Jews are violated, all human rights are insecure. When Jews and Jewish institutions are targeted, all minorities have reason for fear. And by this standard, America has cause for introspection.

To me, this isn't just because Jews are some sort of special canary-in-a-coal mine, but because a society's level of liberty can be judged by the rights it affords its "others," and Jews are the most common "others" in Western and Islamic societies over the past couple thousand years. America has dealt well with us as "others," and through its guarantees of religious liberty, has let us participate fully in American society. What's more, American society has accepted us to some extent, not fully understanding us but at least dealing well with us.

So in modern America there are groups that are far more otherized than the Jews. Atheists and gays come to mind immediately. It's nice to say that we should resist otherizing groups altogether, and that's certainly true, but good luck with that. We'll eventually accept atheists and gays into the fabric of American society in the way America brought the Jews in, but someone else will take their place in the role of pariahs. And what's more, people with narrow perceptions of American society will continue to rail against "others," be they Jews or what have you. Resisting this is noble. But it should be our goal, first and foremost, to ensure that even the groups most marginalized by our mainstream society are treated equally by our government and our laws.

Shooting in Downtown DC

Some asshat shoots up the Holocaust Museum. Three people shot - no word from the Post yet on their condition. Scary stuff.

Update: Just two shot - the guard and the gunman, who shot each other. Freaky coincidence: this Gerson op-ed ran today.

Update 2: The above Post article has been updated with the perp's name: James W. von Brunn. Aravosis thinks he found the guy: some cranky old white supremacist dude.

Hey, Free Money!

Congratulations to the North Pacific nation of Palau, who just used Americans' irrational fear of 17 Chinese Uighur separatists to bilk us out of 200 million smackeroos. Of course, it would have cost us a fraction of that to grant them asylum (they would have been killed if they went back to China) and resettled them in, say, Raleigh.

But that would have been logical, and I don't think most people are thinking with the logical bits of their brain when it comes to Gitmo detainees. So congratulations, you just got us scammed by Palau because you're scared shitless for no good reason. Good job, you just more than doubled Palau's GDP.

Two final notes. We had already released a few of the Uighurs to Albania before they decided to stop under pressure from Beijing. How pissed off are those guys now? I mean, they end up in a depressing post-communist Balkan country and their friends are in a country that's basically a giant resort? Talk about a raw deal. Second, Palau is dependent on the U.S. for pretty much everything, to the point where Palauan citizens don't need a visa to come here for work or to live. So if Palau gives them citizenship, they can come and live here whenever they want.

More on Sotomayor

The ACLU has written an insanely extensive report on Sotomayor's judicial history. I didn't read the whole thing - it's 88 pages, ferchrissakes - but I'm sure it's interesting if you have the time. From the bits I skimmed, it looks like a mixed bag. During the national security section, they talk a lot about her deference to the federal government, which is disturbing - but they also point out that she joined an opinion which struck down the National Security Letter gag rule, which is good.

RIP Exclusionary Rule (1961-2009)

In legal circles, the exclusionary rule is the rule that forbids prosecutors from bringing evidence to trial that is acquired via an illegal search or seizure. The Supreme Court has been chipping away at it in recent years, but with a tenuous five-justice majority opposed to it, it's managed to hold on for a while, kinda like a terminally ill patient who just keeps rallying.

But if this LA Times article is any indication, Obama just pulled the plug with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor:

In two major rulings after she joined the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in 1998, she held that evidence could be used to convict a defendant even though police had violated his rights in seizing it. Sotomayor said that because the police and prosecutors acted "in good faith," the evidence need not be thrown out.

In 1999, Sotomayor upheld the crack cocaine conviction of a New York man despite what she called a "mistaken arrest." Last year, Sotomayor spoke for a 2-1 majority that upheld a man's child pornography conviction, even though she agreed an FBI agent did not have probable cause to search his computer.

This is unwelcome news for more than one reason. First, of course, it dooms the exclusionary rule - now there's a six-justice majority in favor of repeal, which means that Kennedy can wander off the reservation and Mapp could still be overturned. This means that cops can break the Fourth Amendment all they damn well please and it won't matter a bit, which basically renders the "illegal search and seizure" clause null and void, at least with respect to state prosecutions.

Second, it hints at Sotomayor's deference to executive and police power that is dangerous in terms of war on terror issues. Souter was a pretty solid vote in favor of maintaining due process in terrorism cases, and Kennedy - the swing vote - tended to side with the liberals. Now, there'll be a solid five-justice majority (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Sotomayor) who are not willing to exercise judicial power to maintain the rule of law. And that's dangerous.

(Via Brayton.)

OK, SCOTUS Nerds, Your Help Please

Not entirely sure what this means:

The Supreme Court ruled moments ago that Chrysler cannot yet sell most of its assets to Fiat, a move that has been opposed by three Indiana state pension and construction funds.

The ruling grants a stay in the sale as the court gathers more data and schedules a hearing on the matter.

It temporarily blocks the way for Chrysler to complete its merger with the Italian automaker and begin its new, post-bankruptcy life.

Ginsburg issued the stay, and didn't give a reason for doing so.

What does this mean? Is the Supreme Court about to consider ruling this government participation in private enterprise unconstitutional, and send us back to the Lochner era? Is this a takings case that the pension funds are filing, arguing that the government is forcing them to give up their Chrysler stock to the UAW and Fiat, and if so, why the hell would you file that suit if your other option is losing all of your stock in bankruptcy proceedings? I don't ask for much, SCOTUS watchers. Just tell me what all this is about.

Dooles (ptui)

I don't know why, but this made me laugh way too much.

What's In A Name?

Bizarre polling results are nothing new - just ask the Kerry pollster that thought he won Arkansas in 2004. Usually there are easy explanations, like a screwed-up sample, poor weighting, bad questioning, etc. That said, I have no idea what to make of this poll. A few notes:

- Only 40% of Americans think gay people should be allowed to marry. 59% of 18-29s do, however.

- 73% of people think gay couples should have inheritance rights. 67% of people think gay couples should have health insurance and employee benefits. 54% of people think gay people should be allowed to adopt (a majority, but still a shockingly low number).

- 40% of people still think gay sex should be illegal. (And what's up with that graph? Did America take a collective stupid pill in the late-'80s?)

- 69% of people think gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military. The same percentage thinks they should be allowed to teach children. (I would be shocked by that last number, except that I just saw Milk the other night and I realize that only 30 years ago it took damn near a miracle to convince Californians to prevent an anti-gay witch hunt in the schools. So quite the improvement, there.)

These numbers are all fun to quote by themselves, but put together, they make absolutely no sense. A majority of Americans support the constituent parts of gay marriage, but only 40% support gay marriage? Huh? Does that mean that at least 14% of Americans support gay marriage and just don't know it yet?

I think it's more likely that Americans don't know what gay marriage is. I have a feeling that most Americans still think of civil marriage as more than just a legal agreement between consenting adults. As such, we still are unable to have an honest debate on this issue, since because of this failure to understand the limitations of civil marriage, religious babble gets drawn into an argument where is has no place.

What's even more confusing is the idea that support for gay civil rights appears to be hanging around in the high 60s, but support for gay people being allowed to do the thing that makes them gay is in the high 50s. Shouldn't support for the freedom of gay people to do whatever they want behind closed doors be higher than support for gay civil rights? I really don't understand how this works. My suspicion is that something about the question is loaded or unclear. If not, though, my fear is that people support civil rights in the abstract, but their support wanes when confronted with the fact that full civil rights means that activities they personally find icky would have to be legal.

In fact, is there really anything else beyond the "icky" factor driving this debate? I have yet to see an argument opposing gay rights that doesn't boil down to "ewww, that's icky." And far too many people think that ickiness ought to be a factor in our legislative process. (See: smoking bans, trans-fat bans, prohibition laws, yadda yadda yadda.)

Good Thing Lucy Wasn't Involved

I could post today on the murder of George Tiller and what that means, but a blog post about abortion is a Godwin waiting to happen. I'll just say my condolences to the Tiller family and leave it at that.

Instead, here's a hilarious video of Charlie Brown throwing out a first pitch at a Pirates game. Enjoy.

More Funny

...this time, it's baseball related.

Yes, I know the Internet facts meme has been overplayed like "Smells Like Teen Spirit" during the early '90s, but here's what makes this so funny: Wieters hasn't played a game in the major leagues yet. His first game with the O's is tonight. And yet he's the Orioles fans' Jesus. Not sure whether this says more about Wieters or the desperation of Orioles fans. (Of course, on the off chance Wieters doesn't suck, wouldn't a lineup of Roberts, Jones, Markakis, Huff, and Wieters scare the crap out of most AL pitchers?)

Either this is a desperate cry of hope or a hilarious parody of the massive hype around a 22-year-old prospect, and I'm banking on the latter. That said, the crying Chuck Norris pic (scroll down a little, it's in the background of a box on the right) really makes the site.

Quack?

OK, this video is just hilarious.

Hey Now, That Music Is Pretty Creepy

I'm really starting to like Rachel Maddow. She's basically a coherent, less manic, far more likable version of Olbermann. Here's her hilarious bit on the Senate vote to keep Gitmo open.

I Win

It's Sotomayor.

I totally called it. You may now stand in awe before my prognostication abilities.

Also, fuck you, Jeffrey Rosen.

Wait, Defense Contract Reform?

So somehow this little piece of legislation got lost in the shuffle and signed into law without anyone really noticing. It seeks to provide the President and Secretary of Defense greater oversight of weapons contracting, especially with respect to cost control, and ensures that competitive bidding exists at all stages of the weapons procurement process. It also starts to fight conflicts of interest in the contracting process, something that runs rampant in the cozy world of defense contracts. It's not the major overhaul the system needs, but it's something, and it'll probably save us a few billion - probably more than the cost cuts Obama asked for from discretionary spending.

So why did no one pick up on this that I saw?

U.S. Constitution (1791-2009)

Shorter Obama: Bush spent eight years ripping the Constitution and the rule of law to shreds. I will now light the remaining shreds on fire, bury their ashes, and stomp on their grave. That is all.

Cue Greenwald's predictably awesome rant here. He makes the excellent point that Obama's system of dealing with detainees basically rigs the outcome in the government's favor. If we can get a conviction, use the courts. If we can't get a conviction in the courts, use a military kangaroo court. If we can't even get a conviction there, don't bother with the courts and just throw them in jail anyway. That's some catch, that Catch-22.

What baffles me is that the Obama administration isn't even considering the possibility that Bush made a mistake by putting some of these people in Gitmo in the first place, and that there might - gasp - be innocent people there. So Obama's saying that Bush screwed up in every conceivable way except that he was perfect in choosing who to detain? I find that hard to believe. So do these people.

Greenwald has an embedded video of Rachel Maddow's take, where she makes the obvious Minority Report reference that, for some reason, everyone else has missed. Charlie Savage explains how this could tie into the SCOTUS appointment, and why the nomination of Elena Kagan would be at least a partial disaster while the nomination of Diane Wood would be a good thing.

In Which My Head Explodes

This afternoon when I came home, I thought I felt a draft coming from below. "Weird," I thought. "It must be kinda cold down there." Then I opened up an e-mail that Jacob sent me, and I understood why:

Admitting that it may be “political suicide” former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo said its time to consider legalizing drugs.

Yep. Tancredo and I agree on something controversial. Hell is freezing over, kids.

Greenwald FTW

In response to idiot Democratic senators caving to the Republican talking points that Gitmo terror suspects shouldn't be kept in the American jails that are good enough to hold Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Ted Kaczynski, and Omar Abdel-Rahman, Greenwald says:

There's no more mewling, craven, subservient entity in the United States than the Senate Democratic caucus.

Harsh... and yet so true.

Think Before You Regulate

Jacob posts this interesting article about the unintended consequences of do-gooder legislation, in this case the toy safety act passed in 2008. Seems it's threatening small makers of hand-crafted toys who can't possibly afford to test all their toys before selling them.

I probably disagree with the author and with Jacob when I say that it's not an argument against regulation per se. Rather, it's an argument against hurriedly passing regulations without fully understanding the effect it will have on everyone under the law's jurisdiction. In general, it seems that the quality of legislation is inversely proportional to the speed with which it gets through Congress...

Hate Crimes Legislation

Lot of hate blogging all of a sudden. Weird.

Anyway, the Senate will soon be taking up S. 909, which adds gender identity and sexual orientation to the list of groups protected by existing hate crimes legislation. Which, like every other piece of legislation related to gay rights, brings out the crazies. Most of the opposition to this bill is somewhat disingenuous - since the bill only adds to the list of protected classes in current hate crimes legislation, the concept of "hate crimes" is not really at issue here, and it seems only logical that if we're going to have "hate crimes" be a class of crime, crimes committed out of hatred towards gay people ought to fall under that category. And the bizarre argument I hear the most against S. 909 (also called the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act after the gay Laramie, Wyo. resident beaten to death because of his sexuality in 1998) is that the legislation will somehow make hatred of gay people, or denunciation of homosexuality by churches, a prosecutable offense. This is a patently absurd argument - for something to be a hate crime, it must first be a crime, and usually a violent one. Unless preaching is outlawed, anti-gay preachers have nothing to worry about.

(To be fair, I've heard some weird arguments from the left as well, mostly along the lines of accusing detractors of being in favor of beating up gay people. Last time I checked, beating anyone up is illegal, and would remain that way even if S. 909 fails.)

Wackos notwithstanding, though, there are some good arguments from both supporters and detractors of hate crime legislation in general. It is these arguments I want to look at.

The main argument against hate crime legislation is that it punishes a perpetrator for the thoughts in their head as opposed to their actions. Bigotry is distasteful, of course, but it's hardly illegal, nor should it be. Moreover, punishing someone more for committing a crime out of hate is tantamount to adding prison time for "thoughtcrime," which is not the American way. This is a reasonable argument - we should avoid punishing people for their thoughts.

It is, however, a spurious argument - we already, in many cases, make sentencing decisions based on the perpetrator's thoughts. Is the perp remorseful? If so, he'll probably get a shorter sentence. Ditto if the motive behind the crime was noble (say he robbed a bank in order to pay for Mom's medical bills). These are ad hoc jury/judge decisions of course, but they are frequently codified. If you kill someone, for example, the thoughts in your head are extremely important in determining the crime you committed and the sentence you receive. Did you do it on accident (involuntary manslaughter)? Did you try to hurt someone but not kill them (manslaughter)? Did you want to kill them but do so as a "crime of passion" (second-degree murder)? Did you plan out the whole thing (first-degree murder)? It's not a huge leap to go from here to "did you kill him out of race/sexuality/religion/gender hatred?"

The question, then, is why should we make that distinction? What is it about hate crimes that makes them worth differentiating? The argument is that a hate crime isn't just a crime against another person but a crime aimed at an entire group of people. It's an act of terrorism, so to speak - the goal of the perpetrator is not just to beat up some gay dude but to force all gay people to accept their supposed subordinate status in the social order. Therefore, the crime is more pernicious than just a simple beating, and ought to be punished as such.

The fact is that we punish crimes based on their effect on society already. We punish manslaughter less than murder because the latter has a far more deleterious effect on society than the former. In a case like a hate crime where the negative effect on society is multiplied by the perp's motive, it just makes sense to punish the crime more.

The other argument against federal hate crimes legislation is that it gives to the federal government powers that ought to remain in state hands. Why should a hate crime be a federal issue but a regular crime be a state issue? That's a good point, but there is a role for the federal government here since (as I mentioned earlier) an attack on a gay man anywhere is in essence a crime against gay people around the country. But a federal prosecution seems uncouth, since the crime itself probably did not take place across state lines (like kidnapping or trafficking, say). I would restrict the federal government's role in hate crimes prosecutions to a strictly advisory and assisting role. This lets states take the lead in their own law enforcement, while allowing the feds to step in to help if necessary.

Astute observers will note that I've "flip-flopped" on this issue in the past few years. So I'll reiterate that I reserve the right to change my position on any issue at any time, for any logical reason, so there.

Yep, Hate Still Exists

I saw a swastika painted on a road sign.

Not a big thing, mind you. More of a scrawl than a painting, tucked in a corner of a road sign on southbound Reedy Creek Road in Cary. It's still there, as of this writing. It's been there for about three days now. I didn't take a picture - no point in holding up traffic.

You don't see those much, around here. We in the Triangle are blessed with a rather tolerant community. The three places I've lived for significant periods of time - Northern Virginia, Nashville, and Raleigh - are so welcoming in general that I can honestly say I've never actually experienced any real anti-Semitism. Quite a difference from my mom's family, who weren't allowed to join Pine Bluff (Ark.) Country Club because of their religion. In the past forty years or so, hatred towards Jews and non-whites has faded into social unacceptability...

But, as that road sign chicken-scratch reminded me, it still exists. It's out there in the rantings of people like Pittsburgh shooter Andrew Poplawski. It's out there among the crazy bastards in North Idaho and on Stormfront. And it's out there in some punk with a can of spray-paint on Reedy Creek.

On April 21, Jews commemorated Yom HaShoah, the day of remembrance of the crimes symbolized by that swastika. We swear to never forget... but let's face it, folks, we have forgotten, at least until some halfwit scribbles something on a road sign and we're forced to think about what that symbol really means.

Because we've seen the symbol, we've heard the word "Nazi," entirely too much over the past few years. You go to a protest and you see signs like this. Or this. We throw around slogans comparing Bush to Hitler or calling Obama a fascist, as if we could imagine either of those men slaughtering eleven million innocent people in cold blood simply because he didn't like who they were. The swastika and the word "Nazi" aren't symbols of the ultimate evil of hatred and murder and genocide anymore - they're rhetorical shorthands for policies with which we disagree. And that means we have forgotten.

But it's worse. Not only have we forgotten, it means there's no point in remembering anymore. If we're referencing Nazism and the Holocaust to talk about differences in domestic and foreign policy, how the hell could we invoke the memories of the victims of genocide where it really matters, in cases like Darfur, or the budding anti-gay massacres in Iraq?

Maybe it's just the intellectually lazy fringe who have lost all perspective on the Holocaust, and that most people understand what it means to invoke Hitler and the Nazis. But those fringe idiots make us so afraid to do it when it's warranted, so cynical when it comes to such references that when murderous hate and political power converge and genocide threatens, our first reaction when the Holocaust is referenced is dismissal and derision.

So why does it behoove all of us to condemn, in no uncertain terms, the wanton use of references to fascism and Nazism in our everyday political discourse? Because hate still exists. Because we need to preserve the memory of Hitler's victims for cases when that memory might be useful in stopping actual genocide. And because I don't know what that punk on Reedy Creek Road was thinking about when he scrawled that swastika, but I doubt it was the income tax.

A Question

Isn't it funny how those who yell the loudest for the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" strategy of law enforcement are suddenly perfectly okay with lawbreaking if it's done by the executive branch?

Bonus question for Republicans only: which is worse, lying about cheating on your wife or torturing?

Massive Judicial Fail

Some stupid people north of the border decided to celebrate a "Kick a Ginger Day" where high-school students would kick a red-headed fellow students. The perpetrators are, of course, brought to justice, where the presiding judge blames... South Park?

Judge Lynn Cook-Stanhope said on Friday she was satisfied the teenagers had taken responsibility for their actions, and she saved her scathing remarks for the animated television show South Park, which she called a "vulgar, socially irreverent program that contributes nothing to society."

Unfortunately, the writers and producers of the show will never be called to account for encouraging such action, the judge added.

Okay, dumbshit, the "Ginger Kids" episode that the judge clearly thinks caused this whole incident is a work of art that cannot be seen as having any influence over a bunch of idiot kids in Calgary. Which ought to be clear from the fact that the episode's message is the exact opposite of what these idiot kids did. The "writers and producers" of South Park didn't "encourag[e] such action," they ACTIVELY DISCOURAGED IT. Watch the damn show.

Maybe she's still bitter over the whole "Blame Canada" thing. Which was also sarcastic. Screw it, I'm gonna go try to find "Ginger Kids" online somewhere.

Update: Watch it here.

Mmmm, Tastes Like Greenwash

Congress, in their infinite wisdom, has decided to float a bill offering people money for turning in their old cars if they buy a new, more fuel-efficient one. If you turn in your 18 mpg or less car, you get $3,500 for going up by 4 mpg, and $4,500 for going up by 10 mpg.

Of course, it's wasteful to buy a whole new car and send your old car to the scrap heap when your old car works just fine, thank you. Steve Israel tried to save the green-ness of the bill by suggesting that people be credited for buying fuel-efficient used cars, but that was shot down.

I don't support this bill, but there are a few reasonable excuses for doing so. It could function as another economic stimulus. It would certainly help boost demand for cars from failing Detroit automakers. But for the love of God, please don't try to sell it as "green" legislation, because it ain't.

Maine Event

Maine became the fifth state to allow same-sex marriage today (sixth if you count CA's brief foray into marriage equality). ME also becomes the first state to do so entirely on their own without any, ahem, help from the courts.

Great, Now Tancredo Can Send Me To Jail

Longtime ONAF readers are probably familiar with my frequently over-the-top criticism of former Colorado congresscritter and nativist drumbeater Tom Tancredo. I'm sure my blog posts about him could be classified as "hostile," right? Well, according to this new bill, I could be tried and sent to jail for it! Hooray! Who needs that pesky First Amendment anyway - let's prosecute everyone who makes anyone else feel uncomfortable!

Look, the incident that inspired the bill - where an adult used a fake identity to harass a teenage girl until said girl killed herself - is a tragedy. But just because someone does something evil doesn't mean they should be prosecuted for it. One of the prices we pay for living in a society with guaranteed rights is that evil people frequently have the right to say and do evil things, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it except shame the evil person. We certainly can't pass a law that forbids any sort of pointed criticism if it leads to "emotional distress."

(Speaking of Tancredo and free-speech issues, I never got a chance to post on it, but this incident in Chapel Hill actually kinda made me feel sorry for the bastard. No one deserves to feel physically threatened for their political views.)

Wilson County Schools Act Like Their Students

Have you ever asked a three-year-old to leave the playground, but then the kid screams "No!" and runs off to the slide again, at which point you get angry at the kid, which doesn't make the kid come to you but instead makes him stand there pouting with arms folded, refusing to leave, until eventually you have to carry him kicking and screaming from the playground? For some reason, that's the scene that comes to mind when I think about the recent events surrounding the Wilson County, TN public schools.

First, about a year ago, the school system was hit with a lawsuit over their endorsement of a "praying parents" group that went into schools and prayed for kids. As a result, they were told to add disclaimers to posters in order to make sure that students knew that religious activities that took place on school property were not endorsed by the school. However, WCPS' powers-that-be, being three years old, threw a tantrum and decided that no religious events could be advertised on school property, even if the students and parents are doing the advertising and running the event themselves. Naturally, the courts have issued a "no, you dolts can't do that either" response.

Is neutrality with respect to religion really that difficult to figure out?

Jeffrey Rosen's Epic Fail

Regarding this hit piece on possible Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, I have no original thoughts. Rather, I'll paraphrase James Downey...

Mr. Rosen, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent article were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone at this website is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Greenwald has a far more extensive takedown that's well worth the read.

And a final note: it seems like the innuendo about Sotomayor's "temperament" is a giant dog-whistle, given that she's a working-class Puerto Rican... seriously, can you remember the last time a nominee's "temperament" was even discussed?

How The Hell Does This Guy Win Elections?

Witness Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) make a complete fool of himself trying to ask a question of Energy Secretary Steven Chu. His question, essentially, was "how come Alaska and the Arctic have all that oil?" At this point, Chu laughs and attempts to explain, in six seconds, plate tectonics and continental drift. Which completely goes over Barton's head - so far over his head, in fact, that he later brags about stumping Chu on Twitter. (Any reasonable person viewing the video, of course, will recognize that Chu was far from stumped.)

Barton got his industrial engineering degree from Texas A&M. Figures. Insert your favorite Aggie joke here.

Barton, who represents Arlington and some of the I-45 corridor south of Dallas, would later go on to claim that no one would drive a hybrid unless the Army forced them to (which is news to this voluntary Prius owner). Also he's holding hearings on the BCS and comparing it to Communism. (OK, I kinda have to give him that one.)

He's not within reach of Michele Bachmann yet (who is?), but if he keeps this up he'll be there soon enough.

Didn't See That One Coming

I think the smart money was on Stevens or Ginsburg to be the next retiree off the Supreme Court, not Souter. Weird.

Anyway, let the always interesting Court nomination games begin. Random guess: Sonia Sotomayor.

Florida: The Dead Jesus State

So I get that Jesus dying is a kinda important event for Christians, but be that as it may, isn't this kind of a reach? Imagine you're driving down the highway, minding your own business, then WHAM dead Jesus? I expect to see fish with Greek letters on cars, not that. Kinda jarring. I suppose I should expect this out of a state with a governor named Crist...

Oh well, I guess it drives the point home though. (Groan.)

Of course, this raises some fascinating Constitutional questions. Is it government endorsement of religion or government facilitation of free expression/exercise? This is a question I am completely not qualified to answer.

Second Thoughts on Specter

After thinking about this Specter switch for a little while, I'm left with one question:

Does the GOP accept returns?

I'm not the only one wondering how good for fellow progressives this move actually is. Greenwald is openly hostile, and with good reason - Specter's been a consistent anti-civil liberties vote throughout the "War on Terror," and I doubt that's going to change now. Kos is lukewarm too. Both note that having Specter run as a Democrat pretty much precludes any liberal/progressive candidate from winning the seat (barring a Lamont-style charge from the netroots, which I don't see happening).

It would have been much better for the Democrats if Specter had been defeated in the primary by far-right Republican, Pat Toomey, who would lose to pretty much anyone the Democrats nominated. Specter should beat Toomey easily in 2010 (but Toomey now has all the ammunition he needs to paint Specter as a dishonest hack, which could make the race interesting), but that means we're stuck with a Ben Nelson-style Democrat out of a state that should give us more of a Russ Feingold.

There are things Specter's switch helps with, of course. Expect nominations to go through a lot more easily, for example (hello, Dawn Johnsen). Specter's also a decent shot at a vote for health care reform. But I still would have preferred replacing him with a civil-liberties advocate and honest progressive in 2010 to being stuck with Specter through 2016.

Wait, what?

According to the Post's Chris Cillizza, Specter is the new Jeffords. Which gives the Democrats 60 votes (counting Specter, Sanders, and Lieberman), once Franken is seated.

Yeah, that changes things a little bit.

This also means that, thanks to Coleman's defeat, Eric Cantor is the lone Jewish Republican in Congress. Don't know what this means, exactly, but there you go.

"Attention Please: Flight 213 to Alpha Centauri Now Departing from Gate 6"

This has gotta be a joke, right?

Rule #1: If you're gonna build a giant UFO airport in the middle of your largest city, you've lost the right to take umbrage when Sacha Baron Cohen pokes fun at you.

Update: In the comments, Leah says it's part of the reporting paper's new satire section. So yeah, it's a joke. Color me amused.

More Webb Awesomeness

Holy shit, Jim Webb is on fire. How many political third rails is he gonna touch before this criminal justice reform thing is all over?

He's absolutely right, by the way. One of the major problems with our prison system is that we put way too many people in jail for selling or buying drugs, neither of which are crimes with actual victims.

Hat tip: Jacob.

Son of Liberty

This book looks like it'd be a fascinating read. It reminds me of a chapter from an Al Franken book where Franken visits Bob Jones University with his college-bound son and is shocked to find normal, decent people there.

Sympathetic portrayals of those on the other side politically are rare, but necessary. Now we just need a Liberty student to go to Brown for a semester...

Lines Have Been Crossed, Here...

OK, so I'm a father of a wonderful little girl. I want her to be happy and have a fulfilled life, and when she grows up I want her to know that I love her and care about her.

But, um, this is just a bit too creepy. Sorry, Selah, I'm not dating you. Ick.

A Couple Bits of Good News

First, on the piracy front, there's this article talking about the pirate who survived the Maersk Alabama incident arriving in New York for trial. It discusses some of the difficulties associated with this case, like trying someone whose real name and age aren't readily identifiable, who comes from a country with no laws, etc. But what I want to note is that he's being tried. He's not being thrown in some black-site prison as an "enemy combatant" and held without access to lawyers - he's being processed through the justice system, as he should be. This is encouraging, as is the apparent lack of support for Gitmo-style detention by the right. Now explain to me why we can't handle terrorism cases the same way?

Second, Obama seems open to investigating and prosecuting lawbreakers in the Bush administration who approved torture. Of course, as he himself mentions and as Greenwald points out (it's down a ways - incidentally, I'm thinking I should probably just turn my blog into a bunch of Greenwald and Balko links), that's not Obama's decision to make. It's Attorney General Eric Holder's, and we can only hope Holder does the right thing. There's noise that he might, at least.

Incidentally, Michael Mukasey and Michael Hayden: Epic. Fail. Seriously, how can you write a column about torture without noting that it's fucking illegal? Their column amuses me. They sound like little kids whining to Mommy about how Billy eats pizza every day but Mommy makes them eat green beans. "Mommy, mommy, they can torture, why can't we? Waaaaaa...." Can we put Mukasey and Hayden in time-out?

Update: Greenwald castigates those who think that Obama's the central figure in this prosecution/investigation drama. (Guilty as charged - see above. I really should just start linking to Greenwald and not adding my own thoughts.) He's not - it's Holder, and has always been Holder. Obama can scream until he turns blue about how we shouldn't be prosecuting Bush lawyers - Holder can do whatever he damn well pleases, and he should do whatever the law says he should do. Which, in this case, is investigate and prosecute if the evidence permits it. This isn't a political issue, or at least it shouldn't be.

We're Number 1!

NC leads the nation in percentage of people without health insurance.

Employer-based health insurance... it's FANtastic!

The Debate on Marriage Equality Is Over...

some anonymous dude on YouTube just won.

Interesting tangent: has anyone else noted how the right's rhetoric on this issue has shifted in the past couple of years? They're not scaring people about Teh Ghey anymore - rather, they're trying to say that allowing same-sex marriage will infringe on your freedom. Which is a bizarre, counterintuitive argument to make (as the YouTube vid I linked to argues), but a) anti-gay sentiment is becoming more socially unacceptable among those inhabiting the vast American middle, and b) if most voters realize that allowing gays to enter into a civil marriage will not affect them in the slightest, they'll be more likely to vote for it. What I'm saying is this - the right knows that if they just went anti-gay, they'd lose and lose badly. So they have to make this stretch (or a similar stretch) in order to convince people that same-sex marriage hurts the average voter, since it's the only way to keep marriage equality from happening.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that the HRC should find this guy and plaster him all over the country.

Sell Florida

I think this guy is only half kidding.

Quick Question...

How can you serve in the military for long enough to retire and still, when discussing the military, have no frickin' clue what you're talking about?

"Don't ask, don't tell" is cruel and should be repealed. End of story. I'll let fictional black Joint Chiefs chair Percy Fitzwallace (from The West Wing) make the argument...

"The problem with that is that's what they were saying to me 50 years ago. Blacks shouldn't serve with whites. It would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. The unit changed. I'm an admiral in the U.S. Navy and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff... Beat that with a stick."

Tweedledee, Meet Tweedledum

A while ago, Ben outlined the differences between Obama's anti-terrorism policy and that of Bush. There are some differences, of course, but as the NYT reports, they're getting smaller every day:

WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews.

Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.

I'm not sure I buy the "unintentional" thing. I don't know how you "unintentionally" spy on someone.

Now first off, it's good that we're at least finding out about this. On the other hand, it's disturbing that Obama would continue the same policy as Bush regarding surveillance until someone called him out on it. I'm hoping this is a lost-in-transition problem that won't be a permanent feature of the Obama administration... but given this administration's admittedly short history of maintaining bullshit "state secrets" arguments, I'm not holding my breath.

Intellectual Whiplash

One thing that happens when power shifts abruptly from being completely in one party's hands to being completely in another's is that outside observers start feeling like they live in the Twilight Zone. Take, for example, this Moonie Times report about a DHS document attempting to profile right-wing extremists and warning of violence. As Sharon at CSPT points out (hat tip for the links), some of the bullet points can be used to pretty much describe any arch-conservative, whether or not they're actually intent on violence or not.

The more astute among us will recognize that this is exactly the same thing Bush was doing to the left wing during his entire presidency. But as Greenwald points out, most of the righties that cheered on Bush when he launched his surveillance of left wing groups are suddenly up in arms. And while he's not as enthusiastic about it as the righties were back in the Bush years, Matt Yglesias seems a little too happy about this turn of events. Haven't seen this on Kos' front page yet, but I'll let you know what the reaction is when I do.

Ah, but there's more. Remember how right-wingers called liberals traitors and unpatriotic when we protested the invasion of Iraq? Well, they have no problem criticizing this president during a military operation. Of course, the folks over at Big Orange jump all over this, and frequent diarist David Waldman goes so far as to call the right-wing critics anti-American. Which is the same crap insult they used against us.

There are more issues like this - the filibuster issue and reconciliation tactics in the Senate, to name one - but I don't have the links or the time to write about them too.

But yeah, my neck hurts.

Update: Balko has another example:

Apparently without the slightest hint of irony, Schultz started by casting off the tea party protesters as “un-American” and “unpatriotic.” Yep. Bush has been out of office for all of three months, and the left has already adopted the “people who disagree with us hate America” crap. He then characterized tea partiers exercising their right to free speech and protest as “trying to overturn the results of an election.” Another page ripped from the right-wing playbook. Just substitute “anti-war protests” for “tea parties.”

Awesome.

The Hits Keep On Comin'

So Iowa becomes the first state outside the Northeast and West Coast to legalize gay marriage, and now Vermont has become the first to do so without a court ruling. They overrode Governor Jim Douglas' veto to pass the legislation... by a single vote in the House.

Vermont, you might recall, was the first to legalize civil unions. Pat yourselves on the back, Vermonters - you done good.

Meanwhile, Back in Fairfax...

Here's a story about Fairfax County Public School officials being idiots. I don't give a damn what your rationale is, threatening to expel someone for taking a birth control pill is insane, no matter how you look at it. As is suspending someone for two weeks because they're taking Advil. Or something prescribed by their doctor. There's no excuse for this outrage, and the many like it that occur every day. None.

This is your country on the War on Drugs. Any questions?

Gay Marriage, Donchaknow

Since the NCAA men's championship game is turning out to be as boring as last year's was exciting, I figured I'd dump a few thoughts on the recent Iowa Supreme Court ruling that gay couples must be allowed to marry in the Hawkeye State.

First, the decision was unanimous and, as Ian points out, pretty damn decisive. Meaning it's not being overturned anytime soon, and no wishy-washy civil unions are going to be instituted. It's either full marriage equality or gut the Constitution.

Aside: I wonder whether the unanimity and definitiveness of this decision means it'll be used as precedent for other state Supreme Courts that are faced with similar decisions...

Anyway, we all know an amendment battle is on the horizon - the question is how it's going to be fought. And this is where Iowa's conservatism actually works against conservatives. In contrast to states like California, where any schmuck can put together a petition and get an amendment on the ballot that year, Iowans have two options. First, the state legislature can take up the question of the amendment. If the amendment passes in two successive sessions of the legislature, it goes before the voters. Second, every ten years Iowans are asked if they want a constitutional convention - this convention can submit amendments to the people to be voted on the next year.

The point is that there'll be no Proposition 8-like electoral battle this year. The absolute worst-case scenario is that the convention ballot question passes - should that occur, a measure would be on the ballot in November 2011. Realistically, I don't expect this to occur. Furthermore, this article makes it clear that Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal is in favor of gay marriage with the zeal of the convert (Gronstad opposed it in '98, but has since seen the light). We'll assume that Gronstal has power similar to that enjoyed by Marc Basnight here in NC, and that he can bury this bill if he doesn't want it to go anywhere.

This means that Republicans will have to take over the Senate at least, and probably both houses, in order to get a question on a ballot. Gronstad's Democrats currently enjoy a 32-18 advantage in the Senate, though, and in this political climate it's tough to imagine a Republican sweep in 2010. So realistically, we're talking 2013 before the Republicans can even get a vote through the Senate on this. Which means another vote would have to take place in the 2015-16 session. Which means the earliest I expect a measure to be on the ballot is November 2016 - more than seven years from now.

This decision is pretty big. It'll be the first foray for marriage equality outside the Northeast. Recall also that the first state to consider gay marriage, Massachusetts, has a similar means of amending their Constitution - they need two consecutive constitutional conventions to give 25% approval to the amendment. The measure passed the first time but couldn't muster the measley 50 votes (out of 200) required to pass the second time around.

What this tells me is that if gay marriage is given time to "sink in," it ceases to become much of a concern. (In fact, a Republican co-sponsor of the proposed MA gay marriage ban admitted as much in this CBS News article.) We'll see if that's the case in Iowa. I think it will be.

Quote of the day: "The politics of it are I'm not going to put discrimination in the Iowa Constitution. That's a horrible idea. The people who are pushing the amendment are saying equal protection under the law -- except. I think that's unacceptable." - Gronstal, saying "You shall not pass" to the gay-marriage ban.

Dumbass quote of the day: "He [Gronstal] is denying 2.1 million Iowans of voting age of the right to vote on an issue of great importance to 550,000 schoolchildren." - Chuck Hurley, president of the "Iowa Family Policy Center," who apparently has some bizarre ideas of what schoolchildren find important.

Glenn Beck Didn't Shoot Anyone

In the wake of the awful shooting of three police officers in Pittsburgh by a far-right crazed nutball, the left blogosphere seems to have taken a page from right-wingers and has started blaming - at least obliquely - right-wing commentators for the tragedy. I'd ignore this moonbattery if it were coming from the far-left cranks, but it's coming from bloggers I respect and agree with much of the time such as Jesse Taylor and Pam Spaulding over at Pandagon. Spaulding, especially, makes the case that:

Richard Poplawski, who spent his time surfing the internet filling his disturbed mind with notions held by many of the fans of Glenn Beck and the WingNutDaily denizens, represents what happens when tin-foil hat conservative theories are taken seriously.

Now I'm not going to question whether or not Poplawski was a fan of Beck or WorldNutDaily. But there's a distinct difference, and if you read this piece by Dave Neiwert you start to get a feel for what it is. Neiwert is probably one of the leading experts on the far-far-right out there, and he reveals that Poplawski held a few other neuroses not explored at all by the Beck crowd, even at their worst. From some of Poplawski's rantings, as uncovered by Neiwert:

In other words: Why, seeing as how the Jews seem to have the nation right where they want it, would they now turn around and destroy it?

Common perception seems to be that if there is an abrupt collapse of social order then racial awareness among the white population will rise dramatically. The Jewish media that dictates “pop culture” could no longer elevate the negro, and reality would reveal its nature. Race-mixing would come to a halt overnight. Consumerism and materialism would cease as the people scrounge for the necessities.

Notice anything there? In fact, most of what Neiwert finds deals more with anti-Semitism and racism than it does with gun-nut and anti-Marxist paranoia. I don't watch Beck's show much, but I have a feeling he'd be just as queasy as I am at the suggestion that Jews are controlling everything and engineered the financial meltdown etc. etc. Put differently, Beck might be wearing a tin-foil hat, but Poplawski decked himself out like Darth Vader in the stuff, to the point where even Beck thinks he looks like a damn fool.

And this is what Spaulding and Taylor ignore. The Freepers who are ranting ungramatically about Obama being a Marxist who wants to take our guns away are not, themselves, a threat to anything but their own sanity. The hate espoused by Poplawski comes from a completely different place. Beck, the Freepers, the WND crowd - they may be a little off-base, but their brand of paranoia is harmless. Meanwhile, it's the anti-Semitic, anti-black hard stuff that Poplawski was into that causes the real damage... and lumping Beck in with that crowd is unfair and simply untrue. We don't need to say "Glenn Beck causes violence" to prove that he's wrong. One would think our standard capability for abstract reasoning is generally good enough to prove that point.

Con Law Nerds, This One's For You

This video is perhaps the geekiest thing I've ever seen. And by "geeky," I mean "awesome."

(H/T: Balko)

Brain Dump

Yet again, a while elapses between posts. Oh well. Here are a few things on my mind...

- There's a lot of bleating out there about Obama asking GM chief executive Rick Wagoner to resign. A lot of it's coming from the traditional right-wing noise boxes, but the meme that "Obama fired the GM CEO" has even come from people whose opinion I generally respect, so I'll go ahead and address it.

The thing is, Obama didn't fire anyone. No one is forcing GM to take bailout money. If Obama's going to offer the cash it's his prerogative to attach conditions to it. In the business world this is called "negotiating." If GM doesn't like the offer, like I said, it doesn't have to take it. GM is perfectly free to turn down the bailout money and go wherever that path takes them, be it into Chapter 11 or wherever. I'm not in favor of giving GM a cent of my tax money, but if the government's going to give GM a massive handout, I feel better knowing that it's not just shoveling money into a dark pit of despair.

Look at it this way. We place conditions on recipients of personal welfare all the time. You have to be actively looking for a job, you can't be on drugs, yadda yadda yadda. Why should we put less restrictions on recipients of corporate welfare, especially since corporations are receiving far larger welfare payments?

- Jim Webb is awesome. Just read the Greenwald article I linked to - he says pretty much everything I want to say. I will add this - having watched Webb in action the past few years, it's gonna be a tough sell for Republicans to call him soft on anything, crime included. So he is really one of the few elected officials who really has the political capital to pull this off, even if he is from a purple-leaning-red state.

- Dear Dan Snyder: Stop it. Seriously, we already have Jason Campbell, and he's pretty good, and he'll be better once he stays in the same offense for more than a year. While it would be pretty awesome to have the potential for an all-Vanderbilt touchdown pass (Cutler to reserve TE Todd Yoder), I don't think it's worth it.

But if you do go through with the trade, just remember to remove all the emergency phones from the vicinity of FedEx Field, for safety purposes...

(No, making fun of that will never get old.)

Facebook Haggadah

Passover is fast approaching, so here's the Haggadah told in the form of a Facebook news feed.

(H/T: Margaret)

"Addition Exposition"

All I have to say is... wow.

Finally, Someone Said It

Someone, somewhere, needed to state the obvious - that if we're serious about closing the deficit we're going to have to STFU and raise taxes. And it's no surprise to me, at least, that that someone is E.J. Dionne:

The debate on the budget is phony, the howling on deficits a charade. Few politicians want to acknowledge that if you really are concerned about long-term deficits, you have to support tax increases.

It goes on from there. Dionne points out that politicians who voted for Clinton's 1993 tax increases were roundly punished for it in the next election - this despite the fact that the '93 tax increases helped pave the way for the only budget surplus we've had in recent memory.

Spending cuts are great, but we're not getting out of this budget mess by spending cuts alone. Even if we get rid of all of our discretionary spending, we still won't close the budget hole - and no one who's serious about policy is suggesting we take even that step. We need a tax increase, and I'll leave it to people smarter than me to determine how taxes can be increased while causing the least amount of pain.

Perhaps Obama's Sudden Love of Executive Power...

...is due to the fact that Office of Legal Counsel chief Dawn Johnsen isn't technically on the job yet?

Johnsen was supposed to be the voice of civil liberties and non-expansive executive power in this administration. Until she gets there, it's no surprise that the OLC hasn't changed things much - it's pretty much operating rudderless.

Senate: confirm her. Now.

"Good Luck Finding An Idiot"

There are few words that can be used to describe the awesomeness of this. Just read it and protect your keyboards.

Lock These Bastards Up

OK, legal eagles, how is this anything but legalized theft? The cops have no proof of criminal activity, nothing. Why should they be allowed to take these people's money? What possible justification could they have for keeping it other than "we're taking your money because we can"?

These cops, and cops like them, should be in jail. They're common thieves, pure and simple. They just hide behind a badge.

Guns, the 14th and 9th Amendments, and Liberal Originalism

Seems like a motley crew of ideas, but Ed Brayton rolls them all together in this post. He's responding to a post by Randy Barnett on Volokh that essentially explains why the Heller case invalidating DC's gun laws could be a good thing for liberal jurisprudence in general. The idea is that the case involves an expansive reading of the 14th Amendment's "privileges and immunities" clause which forbids state governments from abridging any rights that the federal government wouldn't be allowed to abridge. When you combine this with the 9th Amendment, it creates a justification for requiring states to respect a whole host of individual rights that aren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Ben and Matt will have to explain what happens in this post beyond that little tidbit. Either way, this seems like a philosophy that could create some sort of liberal jurisprudential movement that could turn the intellectual tide away from the Scalitos of the world. I've often mused that the giant hole in Scalia's theory of originalism - oh, okay, one of the giant holes, let's face it, Scalia isn't exactly Mr. Intellectually Consistent - involves an annoying tendency to ignore the 9th Amendment. Good to see someone with actual legal knowledge is fleshing this out.

I'd like to see the 9th have its day, since it is the most frequently shit-upon amendment in the Constitution (though the 4th is quickly catching up)... this despite the fact that I think it's one of the most important amendments in there...

Adventures in Word Salad

This person is awesome.

I wonder if he sent it from a Waffle House in Hickory...

A Short Response To Ben's Post

Wow, it has been a while since I blogged, hasn't it? I haven't had a lot of time with the trip to New Orleans and all, but I'll get back into the swing of things, I promise. I was actually so far out of the loop in NO that I had no idea what had happened news-wise during the ten days I was out (8 days there, two driving days). I got online, like, twice, and watched TV exactly once (the NCAA selection show, if you're curious). There's better things to do in New Orleans. Like argue with dick FEMA contractors, for example.

Anyway, once I figure out how to download pics from my phone to my computer en masse and then post them on Blogger without it taking up way too much room on the blog, I'll share. But until then, I'll rant about terrorism. How's that sound?

Ben exhaustively analyzes the latest DoJ report outlining the Obama Administration's "war on terror" policies. The general worry is that Obama is continuing the same strategies pursued by the Bush Administration, only with a little candy-coating. Ben explains why this isn't necessarily the case. I suggest you read it.

Anyway, I guess my concern isn't so much with the way in which the "war on terror" is being conducted - it's with the concept altogether. Ben points out that the AUMF against al-Qaeda and the Taliban is tantamount to a declaration of war against them. With the Taliban, and in the context of defending the Afghan government against insurgents, I think this is reasonable. Be that as it may, however, I think that we ought to question whether we should really be treating our conflict with al-Qaeda and the Taliban in general as a "war" at all.

I guess I view terror attacks differently from most. I look at September 11th and I see a crime. A big, gruesome crime, yes, but a crime nonetheless. There's no reason why the American criminal justice system can't deal with the perpetrators of this crime in the same way we dealt with domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski. The same goes for other terrorist attacks carried out, or planned to be carried out, on American soil. Jose Padilla falls into this category; so do the Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings (remember, our embassies are technically our land).

See, declaring "war" on a criminal enterprise like al-Qaeda makes no more sense than declaring "war" on the Mafia, and the "war on terror" isn't a real war any more than are the "war on poverty" or the "war on drugs." But the parallel with the "war on drugs" is instructive. Anyone who reads Radley's blog as regularly as I do recognizes the corrosive effect that the treatment of drug enforcement policy as a "war" has on civil liberties and police accountability. In the name of the "war on drugs," we've legalized wholesale theft, for God's sake (see: asset forfeiture), not to mention untold police thuggery and Fourth Amendment-breaking. We shouldn't assume that treating our attempts to bring terrorists to justice as a "war on terror" would be any less damaging to civil liberties in the long run.

So when Ben points out that civil liberties fans ought not to be as worried about Obama's policies as, say, Glenn Greenwald, he's probably right, but the source of my worry isn't Obama's policies specifically. My worry is in the AUMF itself - when we decided to declare war against what was essentially a criminal enterprise, we turned what ought to be a primarily criminal justice matter into a primarily military one. And my worry is in the language we use to discuss this whole affair - we need to bring terrorists to justice, but we don't need a "war on terror."

Of course, there's clearly a legitimate military component in the battle against terrorists. After all, the 9/11 perpetrators were hiding out in a country - Afghanistan under the Taliban - that was never going to agree to extradite them, and this is unacceptable. A better AUMF would have stipulated that the military's role was to bring 9/11 perpetrators and their co-conspirators onto American soil where they could be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, as well as to remove regimes that refuse to turn over those suspected of terrorist activities against us. I have no problem with holding Taliban POWs captured on the battlefield until the Taliban is defeated. But terrorists themselves should be treated as common criminals, since that is essentially what they are, whether or not they're politically motivated.

Go Ahead, Go "Galt"

There's been some buzz recently on the Internets about businessmen, entrepreneurs, and other assorted monied types "going Galt." Jesse Taylor talks about it here, and McArdle (especially her comments boodle) deals with it here.

John Galt, of course, is the jackass from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged who decides to just say "fuck you" to society and its stupid rules and leave it behind, taking all those he refers to as the "productive" people - by which he means inventors, entrepreneurs, executives, etc. - with him. (I haven't read the novel, just the Wikipedia page, so I'm probably oversimplifying here. I'm sure Jacob will correct me sooner or later.)

Of course, the problem with this idea is that it assumes that the upper echelon of society is irreplaceable. That is, if someone who would sell widgets decides to leave society instead, no one will sell widgets. This is foolish - of course someone would end up selling widgets if people wanted to buy widgets. In a society of 300 million people, it's somewhat fallacious to assume that profitable market niches would go unfilled because someone decides to abandon said niche.

As for inventors - if Edison hadn't invented the light bulb, do you honestly think we wouldn't have incandescent light right now? Of course we would. Someone else would have come up with the idea. If Bell hadn't invented the telephone, Gray still would have done so. If Google didn't exist, Yahoo would be dominating the internet advertising market (possibly with a slightly different algorithm, but whatever).

Put differently: what do you suppose would happen if, say, upper management of Google were to bail en masse? Here's what would happen - middle management would start running the company. And current programmers (and a few MBAs from outside) would become middle management. And Google would hire a bunch of programmers. The pyramid would remain in place - there would just be a change of cast.

So you know what? If you top-dogs want to "go Galt," that's fine by me. Get your bitter asses outta here. You leave, and someone else will gladly take your job. And someone will take that person's job. And someone who's currently unemployed will take their job. In fact, with the labor market as slack as it is, rich people "going Galt" and taking themselves out of the labor market might be the best job creation program of them all!

Conservative Brits: Legalize It

The well-respected British conservative/libertarian magazine The Economist (in my opinion the best world news source out there) argues in favor of legalization of all drugs, calling it the "least bad" option. They note that it's not a desirable outcome - just the one that does the least harm compared with various models of prohibition.

Note that they don't just favor legalizing marijuana or the less dangerous ones. They want it all legalized, taxed, and regulated. Their argument is extremely convincing (of course, convincing me of this point is not hard to do). They've been arguing this for the past 20 years, but there's reason to believe that now that the country with the world's 13th largest economy has become a war zone, people might be willing to listen.

The world needs U.S. leadership in this endeavor, though - it's mostly our willingness to fund anti-drug efforts in producer countries that keep drugs illegal through much of the rest of the world (this is certainly true of Latin America). Obama has political capital up the wazoo right now - what better way to use it than to end the misery of the war on drugs?

It's Good To Be The King

OK, this is friggin' hilarious.

Seriously, why do Republicans feel the need to apologize to a giant bag of hot air like Limbaugh when they give him the disrespect he has worked so hard to earn? Wouldn't marginalizing idiots like him be good for the GOP?

Federalism +1

More good news from the Obama camp:

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is sending strong signals that President Obama - who as a candidate said states should be allowed to make their own rules on medical marijuana - will end raids on pot dispensaries in California.

Asked at a Washington news conference Wednesday about Drug Enforcement Administration raids in California since Obama took office last month, Holder said the administration has changed its policy.

"What the president said during the campaign, you'll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we'll be doing here in law enforcement," he said. "What he said during the campaign is now American policy."

OK, I'll file this under "I'll believe it when I see it," or when I don't see it for a while as it were, but there's reason to be cautiously optimistic here. If it does happen, great. It's not complete transfer of drug policy control to the states, which I think desperately needs to happen, but it's a pretty good start. The question now becomes: what will Obama and Holder do when the inevitable happens and some state repeals its law against marijuana altogether?

(I'm taking bets on what state will be the first. My money's on Oregon.)

Spotted on Brayton.