The United States of Jamerica

I've switched!

2007-10-19T02:35:00.000-04:00

Hey everyone, I got a little tired of Blogger and switched to a different platform. Which means that my blog address has changed:

The United States of Jamerica at a new home

Sexual assault at Mr. Jefferson's University

2007-10-19T01:35:00.001-04:00

Via U.Va's most recent journalistic endeavor, the Virginia Sentinel:

The number of sexual assaults is much lower than the top two crimes on UVa’s campus, only 12 in 2006, but police and assault counselors said such assaults are underreported.
Police reports show that sexual assaults decreased from 34 in 2005.
“One [sexual assault] is too many to have happen, but that’s not the reality,” UVa Lt. Melissa Fielding said.
Claire Kaplan, director of Sexual and Domestic Violence Services at the UVa Women’s Center, noted the decrease in last year’s number was random and that it varies each year.
Her office records of assaults totaled 58 in 2005. The number differs from police records because the Women’s Center includes emotional abuse and stalking.
“I wish there was a pattern,” she said, “but there isn’t one.”
The number of reports depends on whether sexual assault is the “issue du jour,” Kaplan added.
...............

UVa’s number of sexual assaults in 2006 was higher than VCU, JMU and the University of Richmond. VCU had five reported assaults last year and JMU and the University of Richmond had six each, as reported on the universities’ Web sites. ODU had 16 assaults in 2006. Since 2004, ODU reported more than 19 assaults each year.

Even with greater public awareness and support of the victims of sexual assault and rape, it remains one of the most unreported crimes in the United States. I'm certain that the statistics on sexual assault are far from complete on college campuses; shame, confusion, social pressure and feelings of personal blame all serve to press women into not reporting sexual assaults.

It also doesn't help that there are still plenty of people who are more than willing to blame the victim. The Cavalier Daily's own exercised her woman-blaming muscles earlier this spring:

And yet, women, at least in part, go to parties and wear revealing clothing for male attention. Whether they'll admit it or not, partying with male friends, having a man buy you a drink, and even occasionally going home with a cute pursuer sums up the after-hour goals of many collegiate females. Even the creepy guys add some flavor to the evening and make for a good laugh in the morning. Granted, girls will not go out without their girlfriends, but if partying consisted of "girls' night" every single night, there would be far less incentive for it. By the same token, when men party they are in search of female attention, and, probably to a greater extent, in search of sex. An all-male party is derided in colloquial language as a "sausage fest," referring to the overabundance of male genitalia. This is basically the dating scene and it is not always so innocent.
If women plan to do something about sexual violence, it cannot solely be through an emotionally healing confession hour. There must be collective, concerted action to tone down our sexualized culture by behaving more moderately and dressing more modestly.

As Amanda Marcotte notes though, women are targeted because they are women; no more, no less:

The myth I struggle against is that women can do something definitive to protect themselves, that there’s some sort of “good girl” ideal—feminist or patriarchal—that can prevent rape or domestic violence or other assaults upon your dignity. The abuse aimed at women comes because they are women and it is womanhood that’s hated, not specific manifestations of it, whether they are the good girl manifestation or the good feminist one.

The only real way to reduce sexual assault and rape on Grounds is through awareness, education and empowerment. U.Va's Office of Residence Life has done a fair job of making students - particularly first-years - aware of sexual assault and what constitutes sexual assault. Every member of Residence Staff at the University receives limited training in dealing with sexual assault and has the option of taking a seminar on working with victims of sexual assault.

Feminist organizations (and their allies) on Grounds have also done a good job of educating and spreading awareness. FIFE or "Feminism is For Everyone" co-sponsors Take Back the Night, a vigil dedicated to the victims of sexual assault. While 1 in 4 - a fraternity-based group - gives anti-sexual assault presentations to first-year students, as well as fraternities and other organizations*.

Regardless, the recent statistics ought to further motivate students to make the University a place where sexual assault is rare, and victims of sexual assault are accepted and affirmed.

*I arrange a 1 in 4 presentation for my residents and especially encourage them to attend TBTN, it's an event that more people should experience.

Song (and video) of the Day

2007-10-18T22:34:00.001-04:00

Joe Cocker - "With a Little Help From My Friends" performed at Woodstock '69

Incredible.

It's us against the world

2007-10-18T18:51:00.001-04:00

Kevin Drum writes:

Despite the fact that (a) presidential candidates are chosen via primary and (b) opinion polls all show wide rank-and-file GOP support for Giuliani, Land is convinced that it's "the establishment" that's screwing with evangelicals. These guys just can't escape a mindset in which they're a besieged minority constantly battling powerful elites who are determined to shut them down.

Evangelicals can't escape that mindset because it is an integral part of their identity, and more importantly, a crucial method of maintaining cohesiveness among evangelicals. From American Evangelicalism:

Evangelicalism appears, indeed, to construct and maintain its collective identity largely by its members drawing symbolic boundaries that create distinction between themselves and relevant outgroups.

............

Evangelicals, in other words, have fashioned themselves a very effective "sacred umbrella" under which to live. It is apparent that modern pluralism facilitates for evangelicalism conditions that promote the formation of a strong religious subculture, which sustains a self-perceived semi-"deviant" identity. Likewise, tension and conflict between evangelicals and relevant outgroups appear positively to strengthen evangelical identity, solidarity, resources mobilization, and membership retention.

Conservative evangelicals put serious stock in the Biblical message that "Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. (James 4:4)" Which leads to a default stance against the "secular world." A world which - because of the Fall - is in a permanent state of sin and is intrinsically oriented against Christians.

It's really not a very positive theology.

That WSJ piece on the religious left

2007-10-18T00:38:00.001-04:00

I've been commenting on Ms. Schmitz's thoughts on the religious left, but haven't actually gotten around to reading the Wall Street Journal piece which prompted them. There's one passage in particular that I want to comment on:

In any event, the religious left’s sympathies do not seem to be those of churchgoers. While the NCC and its member churches pursue a variety of left-wing causes — even partnering with the activist organization MoveOn.org and featuring speakers like Michael Moore at events — a Pew poll found that 54% of white, mainline Protestants and 50% of Catholics voted Republican in the 2004 presidential elections. Those who attended church regularly voted Republican even more heavily — at nearly the same rate as evangelical Christians, in fact.
For four decades, as the leadership of America’s mainline churches has moved steadily leftward, those churches’ memberships declined as a percentage of the U.S. population while the number of Christian evangelicals exploded. Left-wing clerics may be buying greater political influence with their alliance through organized labor, but the price may be further alienating their shrinking flock.

You know, I'm not actually sure if political beliefs have anything to do with the decline in mainline congregations and the increase in conservative ones. Christian Smith writes in American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving:

In a pluralistic society, those religious groups will be relatively stronger which better possess and employ the cultural tools needed to create both clear distinction from and significant engagement and tension with other relevant outgroups, short of becoming genuinely countercultural.

In other words, evangelicalism thrives because it offers its adherents an attractive and compelling worldview that in some measure, sets itself apart from mainstream society. It is possible that people are leaving mainline churches because they lack this engagement with and limited separation from mainstream culture. Evangelicalism - through its emphasis on community and spreading the Gospel - is simply more compelling than mainline Protestantism, and the latter is suffering as a result.

Niebuhr on the Religious Left with some context

2007-10-18T00:17:00.001-04:00

Elizabeth quotes a passage from Moral Man and Immoral Society:

Sentimentality is the peculiar vice of liberal Protestantism. By adjusting its faith to the spirit of modern culture it imbibed the evolutionary optimism and the romantic overestimates of human virtue, which characterized the though of the Enlightenment and of the Romantic Movement…
In spite of the disillusionment of the World War, the average liberal Protestant Christian is still convinced that the kingdom of God is gradually approaching, that the League of Nations is its partial fulfillment and the Kellogg Pact its covenant, that the wealthy will be persuaded by the church to dedicate their power and privilege to the common good and that they are doing so in increasing numbers, that the conversion of individuals is the only safe method of solving the social problem, and that such ethical weaknesses as religion still betrays are due to its theological obscurantism which will be sloughed off by the progress of the enlightenment.

The "liberal Protestantism" that Niebuhr is referring to isn't the same as the liberal evangelicalism that animates a large chunk of contemporary progressive Christianity and is only somewhat related to the theology of mainline Protestantism. What Niebuhr is referring to is the Social Gospel of the early 20th century as articulated by Walter Rauschenbusch. And Niebuhr's criticism is quite apt, Rauschenbusch was very much an idealist who believed in the inevitability of the Kingdom of God:

As long as organized sin is in the world, the Kingdom of God is characterized by conflict with evil. But if there were no evil, or after evil has been overcome, the Kingdom of God will still be the end to which God is lifting the race. It is realized not only by redemption, but also by the education of mankind and the revelation of his life within it.

Niebuhr's chief criticism (found in Children of Light and Children of Darkness) was that this idealism ignores the very concrete reality of original sin and the simple fact that humans are irrevocably flawed.

Considering that evangelicals of all stripes have largely the same position on original sin (it exists and can be forgiven but not overcome), I think it's likely that the liberal evangelicals who are growing in prominence don't believe in an ideal state that can be achieved by human striving. But instead hew closely to the belief that only Jesus can inaugurate the Kingdom of God.

Niebuhr's criticism is well-taken, but in this case, I don't think it applies.

New blog!

2007-10-17T23:25:00.001-04:00

You should check out flying.farther; it's the blog of a student at Union Theological Seminary and it's chock full of goodness.

Song (and video) of the Day

2007-10-17T20:32:00.001-04:00

Curtis Mayfield - "Superfly"

Let's push things forward

2007-10-17T18:56:00.001-04:00

This comment from Megan McArdle's post on Hillary Clinton is a good illustration of the problem I see with this country's current political culture:

Nah, we don't really like Hillary, in the way some other candidates have their groupies. We think, however, that she is the least likely to mess things up--in the campaign, or in the country for four or eight years thereafter. Do a little thought-experiment. Can you imagine Obama or Edwards seriously lousing-up a debate, or failing to deliver an effective counter-punch to the inevitable Republican attack? Yeah, I thought you could, and you don't need a novelist's flair, either. Now imagine Hillary doing any of that, even though she will be attacked more harshly and relentlessly. Can't do it, can you? Me either. This speaks to something creepy about her, of course, but I want a winner and she is it.

Part of me wants payback. The Bush years have been an unmitigated disaster for this country. 9/11 should have united this country. Instead, President Bush used that tragedy to divide the nation, and worst, used it to justify torture and lawlessness.

President Bush sacrificed the values of this nation to the false god of "security." And all Americans will be paying the price for the remainder of our lifetimes.

The desire for payback is understandable, but in these circumstances it's not healthy. The trivial partisanship this country has indulged in for almost thirty years has done little to help us move forward as a nation. Hillary Clinton is just another chapter in this long and tired chapter. This country doesn't need a "winner," it needs someone who takes politics seriously; someone who realizes that though there are substantive political differences, those shouldn't overtake the real problems and challenges this nation faces.

I think that for those who are serious about repudiating the legacy of the Bush-era, Obama is probably the best choice. Jumping on the Hillary bandwagon is only likely to give us Bush-era politics with a happy face.

Just say the magic word

2007-10-17T14:59:00.001-04:00

The "Word of God" isn't an incantation that makes everything happy:

In post-game interviews, Rams receiver Isaac Bruce—who claims that uttering the word "Jesus" saved him from injury in a car crash and healed a pulled groin—described catching the winning pass: "That wasn't me. That was all God. … I had to make an adjustment on the ball, and God did the rest."

For Christians like these, God is no better than a magic spell.

Yeah

2007-10-17T14:35:00.001-04:00

This is pretty hilarious.

Religion will always mix with politics

2007-10-17T13:07:00.001-04:00

I completely disagree with Elizabeth in her discussion of religion and politics:

The rise of the religious left should not be a welcome development for those who’d prefer to keep religion out of politics and vice versa. One could argue it challenges the religious right. But can’t we do that from a secular standpoint? I don’t like the idea of politics devolving into a match between the religious right and the religious left over who represents ‘true Christianity’. Additionally, the demographics show people are more and more turning away from liberal/mainline religions to more conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist religion, so there’s questions over the real political pull this movement might have.
Further, even if one is sympathetic to the causes supported by the religious left, this development should be troubling. Surely religion does add fervor to any cause. But it also interjects the cloudiness of idealism into a discussion that should be about the concrete realities of what actually works in helping people in need.

Trying to prevent the intersection of religion and politics is a fools errand. Theological beliefs have concrete and compelling political implications. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the entire history of evangelical religions in general and Christianity in particular.

The larger issue though is whether or not religiously motivated politics are healthy in an ostensibly secular democracy. I think that they are. People are motivated to civic engagement for any number of reasons, including religion. The fact that some individuals and communities have theological beliefs as a foundation for their political beliefs doesn't mean that they are trying to establish a theocratic state or have some other nefarious intention in mind. Religiously-motivated political action and secular democracy isn't incompatible; you can be driven by religious beliefs but still operate within a secular framework.

I also kind of take issue with Elizabeth's conflation of conservative and evangelical forms of Christianity with fundamentalism. There is overlap between the groups, but they certainly aren't analogous. Conservatives are found in all Christian traditions, Protestant and otherwise; evangelical is a huge umbrella, and there is an astounding amount of variety in terms of belief and practice under it. Jim Wallis' progressive Sojourner's organization is just as evangelical as James Dobson's Focus on the Family; the difference lies in perspective and emphasis. Fundamentalists - though they have become more prominent in recent years - are still a very small minority of Christians and to some degree, are still skeptical of heavy political involvement.

Religion doesn't necessarily "inject the cloudiness of idealism" into the discussion. There are plenty of modern political theologians who urge a constraint and cautiousness towards engagement with politics. Reinhold Niebuhr was an avowed "Christian Realist"; his belief in the necessity of political engagement was tempered with a recognition that utopia was impossible and blind idealism is dangerous.

It's unfortunate that the Christian Right's shadow has overtaken the large and often positive role religion has played in our political consciousness. My hope is that the trend in a less divisive and more constructive Christian politics (conservative evangelical environmentalists for example) continues to grow and eventually overtakes the old and tired paradigm of the Christian Right, which substituted prejudice and militancy for revelation and theological insight.

You do realize

2007-10-17T01:18:00.001-04:00

That the reason for expanding S-CHIP to traditionally "middle-class" families is that said families are unable to afford health care at market rates.

And you know, the crazy idea that children should be insured regardless of the income of their parents.

Song (and video) of the Day

2007-10-16T22:25:00.001-04:00

The Go! Team - "Ladyflash"

This is horrible

2007-10-16T22:07:00.001-04:00

From Essential Presence:

About 10 p.m. June 18, there was a knock on the door at the victim's home that now has boards over its windows. According to the police report, the "male" at the door told her the tires on her car were flat. When she went outside to check, masked gunmen rushed her and forced their way inside.
She was raped by about 10 men, according to the report. She was forced to have sex with her son. He was beaten and had cleaning liquid poured into his eyes. The suspects fled after about 20 minutes, according to the report.

Thoughts on selling out

2007-10-16T22:04:00.001-04:00

The field negro asks "why do black folks sell out" without actually defining "selling out." If I had to offer a definition of "selling out," it would be this:

Those black people who knowingly integrate themselves within racist institutions and - as opposed to challenging said institutions - defend them in order to protect narrow interests.

I think it's a flexible and comprehensive definition. Why?

It ignores ideology or political beliefs. A black liberal who refuses to acknowledge and confront the "soft" racism of his peers for fear of disapproval is just as bad as a conservative who gleefully advocates against the interests of blacks.
It explains the motivation of sellouts. It's not necessarily a malevolence, it's just simply a desire to get ahead.
It's broad enough to include all manners of behavior, but specific enough to exclude those who for example, work within the racist structure but refuse to condone or actively defend/bolster it.

The powerful Christian Right

2007-10-16T13:19:00.001-04:00

I don't think that the Christian Right would splinter off if Giuliani won the nomination.

Why?

Because they can still make or break a candidate.

If they stay a part of the Republican coalition, they'll still wield a fairly large amount of power. Leaving the Republicans would be condemning the movement to powerlessness and obscurity.

Women's bodies are public property

2007-10-16T13:13:00.001-04:00

Seriously?

The times they are-a changin'

2007-10-16T13:07:00.001-04:00

Ruminating on the influence of money in politics, 'Fox' writes:

Interests with large amounts of cash have disproportionate political clout. This is usually bad, but the answer is not to try to get the money out of politics; the answer is try to get politics out of our lives. Drastically reduce the scope and power of the federal government to dole out favors (in other words, legitimately apply the Constitution to the current establishment) and I guarantee that a lot less money will be wasted on rent-seeking. By the same argument, leave the current powers in place, and it won’t matter how many hurdles you throw in the way of lobbyists–they will leap over, scramble under, dodge around, or just plain break though every last one. When your life is on the line, people become remarkably resourceful.

"I’m a staunch defender of individual freedom, and I truly believe that a limited government dedicated to the protection and preservation of the rights to life, liberty, and property is both the only morally justifiable government and the one most likely to effectively promote peace and prosperity."

A limited government simply isn't possible in the 21st century. And I don't mean on a practical level, I mean on a conceptual level. If the U.S. were an agrarian or even early industrial society, you could make a legit case for a small and relatively uninvolved government. But we're not. The United States is a large, diverse and complex nation that exists in an even larger, more diverse and more complex world. Individuals and civic associations aren't powerful enough to stand up to the force of market powers and market-based forces. The services and functions the government provides aren't there for their own sake: they exist to provide some degree of protection from market forces and "fill-in" the areas where the market fails. More importantly though, government exists to provide some degree of justice, to ensure that the outcomes of our economic system are - at the very least - fair.

Identity crisis, pt. 2!

2007-10-16T12:31:00.001-04:00

Answer!

Who I date has no bearing on the validity of my identity. Regardless of who I date, I will always believe that to exist as a black person, is to be the inheritor of a rich and wonderful intellectual, social and cultural tradition. On the most fundamental level, black is beautiful.

My belief in the necessity of black solidarity stems from an honest conviction that black people should be proud of their blackness. And being proud of one's blackness is not incompatible with interracial dating. Interracial dating is only a problem when it is rooted in self-loathing; when the individual in question doesn't value their own identity as a member of a particular group.

I have many white friends, some of them very close to me, but I recognize that I am a black person; my experiences and perceptions will be vastly different then theirs. But I am proud of that, and I wouldn't wish for anything else.

Brown paper bag = tool of oppression

2007-10-16T00:28:00.001-04:00

I can't seriously believe that this still fucking happens:

DETROIT -- A local DJ and party promoter retreated Thursday from a plan to sponsor a bash that would let "light-skinned" black women into a downtown club for free.
But the "Light Skin Libra Birthday Bash" at Club APT on Woodward Avenue turned out to be a bashing -- of promoter Ulysses "DJ Lish" Barnes after word of the unusual party spread on the Internet.
................
The issue of skin color is an often painful and emotional among African-Americans. The history of slavery and the resulting legacy of intra-racial segregation have sometimes pitted darker-skinned and lighter-skinned blacks against one another.

Congratulations on reinforcing the pervasive racist belief that the more "African" you look the less human you are.

Asshole.

Identity crisis!

2007-10-16T00:02:00.001-04:00

Does being involved with a white girl invalidate my blackness?

Am I a "sell-out?"

Am I an "Uncle Tom?"

I recognize the all-pervasive reality of institutional racism and the racist power structure; does the fact of my relationship "cancel out" that opinion still?

Can I claim a belief in the necessity of black solidarity when I'm dating a white girl?

I've been looking for an answer but I keep on coming short.

Because that would be lame

2007-10-15T22:04:00.001-04:00

I hope that Klein isn't aiming to marginalize or ridicule "the Left" in this post. As one commenter pointed out, the hard-left has had preposterously little influence in this country, as opposed to the hard-right, which controls one of the two major parties.

If anything - for all their inanity and occasional wrongness - we should be encouraging and promoting voices from the "far-left." Especially if we're aiming to arrest the rightward drift of this country's discourse, and put it on course towards a more sensible spectrum of opinions, where universal healthcare isn't considered Stalinism with a happy face.

A theology of the religious right?

2007-10-15T21:40:00.001-04:00

Sojourners founder Jim Wallis writes about his experience at a recent conference hosted by the National Association of Evangelicals:

The speaker for the evening was none other than Ban-Ki Moon, the new secretary general of the United Nations, which is driving the MDG initiative. Growing up in the evangelical world, I remember the great debate about who was the real "Antichrist" as described in biblical prophecy--it was either the pope or the United Nations.

............

Last night, the supposed Antichrist was listening to gospel music, speaking of his own faith, quoting scripture, celebrating a new alliance with "the evangelical church" on the critical issues of poverty and global warming, and bringing the conservative Christian crowd to its feet in smiling agreement with the secretary's agenda.
Indeed, leader after leader insisted this was a biblical agenda. A prominent leader from the Religious Right came up to sit right next to me, and then engaged me in an amazing conversation about finding common ground. This dramatic shift in the public agenda of the evangelical community is affecting American politics in very significant ways and promises to change them, especially if the political labels of left and right slowly slip away and are replaced by a common commitment to focus on the key moral issues of our time. Those issues are now defined more broadly and deeply than before and include the plight of God's poorest children and the fragile state of God's creation.

I suspect that the thirty years of political activity by the religious right may have had an effect on the actual theological views of politically active conservative evangelicals. I've been tossing this around in my head for awhile, and I still am no where close to an answer, but it's something that I think is worth investigating (and it's a possible thesis idea).

You should know

2007-10-15T21:30:00.001-04:00

That the Democrats will probably do the latter.

The awesomeness of unlimited executive power

2007-10-15T21:18:00.001-04:00

AltHippo writes:

What Pelosi calls “bringing the people together” is a favorable Democratic outcome in 2008, at whatever price that entails. She doesn’t understand that people have a fundamental need to live in a just and equitable society. To betray that need is just the opposite of a “return to an America that honors the vision of our founders.” The effect of her inaction is that the Chief Executive can do whatever he wants without consequence.
That is not what our founding fathers had in mind.

This is becoming a common refrain, but it's a mistake to assume that the Democratic leadership is actually opposed to unlimited executive power.

Comment Response - Global Warming and the Rapture

2007-10-15T21:09:00.001-04:00

Commenter scott writes:

The liberal canard that Chritians want global warming so they get to the rapture soner is garbage. I'm not a church goer but I know enough about the bible and Christians to know that's a scam conceived by libs. Global warming is occurring, we all agree on that. The question that's not been answered is how much does man play into it? I own an environmental consulting firm and know the topic well, Al Gore played way loose and way fast with the facts. I can make environmental studies say anything you want. Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for crying out loud, he won while a woman who rescued 2,500 kids during the Holocaust didn't. Ahh whatever, libs will never get it.

Let's start from the top.

First, I didn't make the broad and unreasonable generalization that Christians want global warming so the Rapture will occur sooner. Here is what I did say:

War and disaster are - for pre-millennial dispensationalists - also signs of the Rapture and the Great Tribulation. PMDs (a fair number of conservative evangelicals and almost all fundamentalists) believe that humanity has been on a downward spiral* since the glory days of the Garden, and that once the nadir of human existence comes, Christ will return and his enemies will be crushed by the force of divine retribution!

Granted it was a little glib, but I think the point is a sound one. It's not that pre-millennial dispensationalists (a subset of Christians) believe that they can hasten the Rapture by encouraging global warming and such, it's that such calamities and conflicts are signs of the Rapture.

Second. This theology was not created by liberals. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If you want proof, go by a bookstore and pick up a couple copies of the Left Behind series of novels. They are an excellent primer on the belief system of PMDs and (even better) they come from within the tradition.

And I'm going to ignore the rest, because it's rambling and superfluous.

Thanks for commenting though.

Which Constitution are you reading?

2007-10-15T00:06:00.001-04:00

Someone should take a class in reading comprehension:

Let’s step back and ask a simple question: Did the Founding Fathers envision letting the Legislative Branch attach strings that hindered the Executive Branch’s ability to protect us from attacks? I’m not a constitutional scholar but, after reading the Constitution, it’s apparent that they intended for the Executive Branch to be in charge of national security and that the Legislative Branch only had oversight responsibilities.

Really, because when I glanced over at the Constitution, this is what I read:

Section 8: The Congress shall have power

to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

........

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Now let's look at the executive's powers:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Did you get the two mixed up? Since it looks like the executive only has an oversight rule, while the legislature pretty much controls the operation of the armed forces.

This was another edition of "Actually reading the texts you cite."

More death & destruction = more Jesus!

2007-10-14T21:07:00.001-04:00

Speculating on conservative dislike of global warming advocates (read: Al Gore), Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon writes:

What if part of the conservative hostility towards the reality of global warming comes from a whisper of a hope for that worldwide trauma? War and disaster is good for business, after all. Just a thought.

War and disaster are - for pre-millennial dispensationalists - also signs of the Rapture and the Great Tribulation. PMDs (a fair number of conservative evangelicals and almost all fundamentalists) believe that humanity has been on a downward spiral* since the glory days of the Garden, and that once the nadir of human existence comes, Christ will return and his enemies will be crushed by the force of divine retribution!

For our borderline heretical fellow citizens, catastrophic disasters, wars and "rumors of wars" are a good thing. So good in fact, that as opposed to trying to prevent them, we should be actively encouraging them. Hence the opposition to diplomacy, disarmament and attempts to stem global warming. Because to do otherwise would be a direct violation of God's will.

To be honest, I'd really like to meet the God that those guys worship, since he sounds like a huge jerk who hasn't even bothered to read the holy book that he inspired.

*Not so subtle Nine Inch Nails reference.

Damn the masses that got me elected

2007-10-14T20:20:00.001-04:00

Nancy Pelosi says: to hell with "the people!" Why should I have to listen to the petulant filth who support me? Do they think this is a democracy:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in a determinedly good mood when she sat down to lunch with reporters yesterday. She entered the room beaming and, over the course of an hour, smiled no fewer than 31 times and got off at least 23 laughs.
But her spirits soured instantly when somebody asked about the anger of the Democratic "base" over her failure to end the war in Iraq.
"Look," she said, the chicken breast on her plate untouched. "I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things -- Buddhas? I don't know what they were -- couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk."
Unsmilingly, she continued: "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment."
Though opposed to the war herself, Pelosi has for months been a target of an antiwar movement that believes she hasn't done enough. Cindy Sheehan has announced a symbolic challenge to Pelosi in California's 8th Congressional District. And the speaker is seething.
"We have to make responsible decisions in the Congress that are not driven by the dissatisfaction of anybody who wants the war to end tomorrow," Pelosi told the gathering at the Sofitel, arranged by the Christian Science Monitor. Though crediting activists for their "passion," Pelosi called it "a waste of time" for them to target Democrats. "They are advocates," she said. "We are leaders."

I oscillate between hoping that our system isn't permanently broken and despairing that it is; Nancy Pelosi's disdain for the process of democracy is enough to push me into the latter state. What's worse is that I'm pretty certain that the majority of Democratic "leaders" hold similar if not exact attitudes towards "the base," or those Americans who actually want this country to change.

It's fairly clear that the majority of Beltway Democrats aren't actually concerned with repudiating the values of the Bush administration and restoring some semblance of democracy: they just want some space at the trough.

(h/t to Pandagon)

Frivolous post

2007-10-13T23:11:00.001-04:00

This is funny:

Band of the Day

2007-10-12T11:55:00.001-04:00

If you're into synth-pop like I am, then you'd do well to check out the Chromatics.

That's all.

Read it

2007-10-12T10:45:00.001-04:00

This is a good op-ed.

This is really cool

2007-10-12T10:04:00.001-04:00

Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Now all he has to do is run for president.

You know you want to.

I don't know why you would want that

2007-10-12T09:59:00.001-04:00

Elizabeth Schmitz is nostalgic for an earlier GOP:

I want the return of the pre-Rove/W Republican party–even if that means a Democrat may win in 2008. I have never been fond of the Democratic party, but I believe the Christianist influence in the Republican party makes it the greater of two evils.

I'm not sure if Elizabeth realizes that Bush/Rove didn't substantively change the Republican Party. The GOP of the Bush years is essentially the same GOP of the Clinton years. The ruthlessness, authoritarianism and blind loyalty of Bush-era Republicans was present fifteen years ago when Republicans won the House in 1994. Newt Gingrich radical change in House procedure concentrated power in the hands of a few members and literally froze Democrats out of decision making. The near-hatred of opponents was on display throughout the Clinton presidency, as the Republican party lent their support to outrageous accusations towards the Clinton administration (Clinton sold drugs, was a communist, killed Vince Foster). Hell, the entire impeachment drama wasn't driven by an honest concern for the health of the nation: it was propelled by a hatred of Clinton*.

Bush/Rove are certainly worse than earlier Republicans, but they aren't much different. The Republican party** is the party of torture, corporatism, authoritarianism and raw state power. It's obvious now, and it was evident then.

*If Republicans were truly concerned about the nation, then the whole Iraq War debacle/wiretapping scandal/torture should have resulted in impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

**I'm still not sure if the Democrats don't sign up to a more moderate version of the same program.

Robert Gates is pretty much correct

2007-10-11T16:48:00.001-04:00

This should be relatively uncontroversial:

Speaking to a gathering of current and retired soldiers, Mr. Gates sketched out a vision for making the Army better at conducting wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he said would “remain the mainstay of the contemporary battlefield for some time.”
His message was in many ways a blunt challenge to the Army not to treat the current conflicts as anomalies and to retreat into the more familiar task of preparing for conventional combat, as it did after the Vietnam War. Future conflicts, he said, “will be fundamentally political in nature and require the application of all elements of national power.”
“Success will be less a matter of imposing one’s will and more a function of shaping behavior of friends, adversaries, and most importantly, the people in between,” he said.

Clinton doesn't want to give up torture

2007-10-11T12:55:00.001-04:00

I think it's likely that Clinton is opposed to torture, but I also think that Clinton has a Cheney-esque expansive view of executive power, and I'm fairly certain that Clinton will not relinquish the rights and privileges that Bush and Cheney have accrued for the presidency. Or in other words, Clinton may be personally opposed to inflicting horrible pain on her fellow human being, but she probably thinks that the president reserves the right to decide whether or not torture is appropriate.

Which isn't a good thing.

Hillary Clinton wouldn't be opposed to bombing Iran

2007-10-11T12:45:00.001-04:00

Maureen Dowd is mistaken if she thinks that Clinton's vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution was purely cynical. I'm not saying that Clinton wasn't trying to avoid accusations of being "soft on terrorism*": she obviously was. But as I've said before, I think that Clinton would - at the very least - tacitly support an attack on Iran.

There is no indication that Clinton is opposed to the aims and means of the Bush Administration. Clinton remains unapologetic about her Iraq War vote and like Bush, supports an indefinite occupation of Iraq:

Hillary, in a letter to constituents last November, expressed her belief that the war in Iraq shouldn't be "open-ended" but was clear that she would never "pull out of Iraq immediately." She wrote that she wouldn't accept any timetable for withdrawal and won't even embrace a "redeployment" of U.S. troops along the lines of Rep. John Murtha.
"I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the president and his administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence, and mismanagement of the war," Clinton wrote in her lengthy letter, which amounted to nothing short of denial for her own culpability in the mess.
Sen. Clinton soon after reiterated her position to a group of Democrats in Kentucky.
"The time has come for the administration to stop serving up platitudes and present a plan for finishing this war with success and honor," she said. "I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit, and I reject an open timetable that has no ending attached to it."

Clinton's gestures towards those who are against the war (the majority of Americans) are only gestures. If she is elected president, it is unlikely that she will take any serious steps towards reducing the U.S. presence.

With regards to Iran, it's clear that Clinton supports the stance of the Bush administration and in fact, may be a bit more aggressive than the administration:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) accused the Bush administration of playing down the threat of a nuclear Iran and called for swift action at the United Nations to impose sanctions on the Iranian government.
The senator's statements, in which she said the administration should make it clear that all options remain on the table for dealing with the Iranians, came during a speech about the Middle East on Wednesday night at Princeton University. She criticized the White House for turning the problem over to European nations and said Iran must never be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.
"I believe we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Clinton said. "I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines."

Liberals are kidding themselves if they think that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy will be substantively different than Bush's. Clinton is a hawk, and her willingness to use force - when force isn't necessary - is dangerous.

I was on the Colbert Report bitches!

2007-10-11T10:32:00.001-04:00

The night of Tuesday, October 9th was easily one of the best nights of my college career.

I saw the Colbert Report in person.

...........

It took us a little over twenty minutes to walk from Penn Station to the Colbert Report studio on 54th and 10th. Alice had never been to the city and she (along with Andrea) spent most of the walk gazing upwards and probably receiving the contempt-laden stares of natives. In all fairness, I shot a few glances at the skyline too. Even though I had been to the city before, the dense forest of buildings, billboards and advertising was still more than a little overwhelming.

The show's doors didn't open until 5:15, and so we spent a good chunk of time hanging around Times Square. Most of what happened isn't terribly important, though it's worth mentioning that we ate lunch at what is apparently the best Thai restaurant in NYC (and on that note, the food was fantastic) and hung out in the Virgin Records store.

............

We made our way back to the studio at around 3:30 and discovered that there was a line - twenty-five deep - of people waiting to get in. Realizing that it probably wouldn't be a good idea for us to leave and return, we got in line. Unfortunately, the weather that day was more than a little unpleasant and neither of us was dressed for the occasion. So we spent almost two hours outside, in the cold and in painful anticipation of seeing Stephen Colbert.

A quick tangent.

While waiting, I saw someone on the staff who looked really familiar. It turns out that she was a counselor at Virginia Beach SCA Leadership Workshop the first summer I went (summer after 9th grade), and was now an intern on the show. Cool.

Anyway. Finally after a long and terribly unpleasant wait, we were let into the studio. Well "let into" is a poor description. We (all sixty of us) were herded into a small and uncomfortable room where they held us for about forty-five minutes. Various staff members made there way in and encouraged/ordered us to be as enthusiastic as possible, which wasn't a problem, since we were all excited to see the show in person.

.............

The studio itself is pretty small and made the experience a bit more personal than it otherwise would have been. Though, that might also be due to the fact that Alice, Andrea and I had front row seats and were several feet from the interview table. Because Colbert and the writers were finalizing the script, we were entertained by a pretty decent Jerry Seinfeld-esque comedian for about twenty minutes (I think, I lost track of time). Shortly after the comedian left, Colbert came out to do the "toss-up" with Jon Stewart (that part at the end of the Daily Show when Stewart introduces Colbert). They actually do the "toss-up" by satellite, which is funny, considering that the Daily Show studio is two blocks down. To test the connection, Colbert and Stewart just kind of shoot the breeze...which was pretty freaking hilarious.

After the "toss-up" Colbert ran backstage for a few more minutes and then came back on stage, where he took audience questions out of character. Andrea asked a really good question, which prompted Stephen to talk and sing to her. It was cute, and I'm pretty sure Andrea almost passed out in amazement.

Stephen Colbert is obviously hilarious on camera, and he is even funnier off camera. I'm still amazed by how quick and witty the guy is. Every question - even the normal ones - was met with a funny and pointed response. More importantly, Colbert seems to be a genuinely friendly guy and the entire time we were there (even between filming), he was joking and interacting with the audience.

I'm not going to say much about the show itself. You can catch a rerun on Comedy Central or clips on the Comedy Central website. It is enough to say that the show was hilarious, and it had been a long time since I laughed that hard. Oh, and I almost forgot, we got a free copy of his book. It is awesome.

............

I actually don't have too much else to say about the entire experience. We spent two days in New York - Monday and Tuesday - and stayed in my friend's very nice beach house on Long Island. At the risk of sounding terribly cheesy, this Fall break ranks as one of the best experiences I've had in college.

Here is a picture of the three of us:

I lied

2007-10-10T17:30:00.001-04:00

Regular posting probably won't begin until tomorrow. I have a paper due on Friday, and I kind of need to get that taken care of.

Apologies.

Song (and video) of the Day

2007-10-08T01:55:00.001-04:00

Arcade Fire - "Neon Bible" (Live, in a freaking elevator)

These guys are so awesome.

I don't understand

2007-10-08T01:33:00.001-04:00

Why the Japanese government refuses to apologize or even take responsibility for the terrible atrocities it committed during the Second World War.

I really like Japan, but this is driving me crazy.

We owe these people something

2007-10-08T01:28:00.001-04:00

If we end up leaving Iraq in the next five years (doubtful, but bear with me), then we'll have to start thinking about how to help those Iraqis who have cooperated with and helped Americans. If we simply abandon them to their own "devices," then it's likely they'll be killed. The best solution would be to offer them a place in the United States. Unfortunately, we've been letting few Iraqis into the country:

Washington originally planned to resettle 7,000 Iraqis this year. It has since been reduced to 2,000 — with processing time of eight to 10 months.

I'm sure that American officials are aware of the danger of being a pro-American Iraqi, but are reluctant to allow Iraqi refugees into the United States, as that is tacitly admitting that things are going to hell in Mesopotamia. I hope that we allow more Iraqis to come to this country. Barring entrance to those who have risked their lives to help us is a shitty and terribly immoral thing to do.

Biggie = better than Tupac

2007-10-08T01:15:00.001-04:00

Someone's producing a Notorious B.I.G. biopic.

Interesting.

Jesusland needs a bit more social in their gospel

2007-10-08T01:10:00.001-04:00

Apparently there is a revolution building in Jesusland:

First, progressives will never achieve their goals as long as they are hostile toward and ignorant about the faith of 100 million of their own people who are born again Christians.
Second (and we know how difficult this is to believe) there is an incredibly large and beautiful social movement exploding among evangelicals right now that stands for nearly all of the same causes and goals that secular progressives do. Those goals include: eliminating poverty, saving the environment, promoting justice and equality along racial, gender and class lines and for immigrants—and even separation of church and state.
By learning to work together with “progressive” evangelicals, secular progressives will stand a better chance of achieving their goals and also learn an enormous amount from these remarkable people and their organizations that will help secular progressives strengthen their own movement.
This evangelical “revolution,” as one Christian pollster has labeled it, is unquestionably the fastest growing and most surprising of American social movements today. Whichever way you measure, it probably dwarfs the secular left. From mega churches to tiny country churches, evangelical Christians are rediscovering the “gospel of the God of the oppressed.” Perhaps the most surprising among these are the suburban, white evangelicals who are stepping outside of their comfort zones to “get into relationship” with the poor, the oppressed, the homeless, prisoners—the people of whom Jesus said...

I hope that what we're seeing is the rediscovery of the Social Gospel. In the early 20th century, there was a revolution in mainline Protestant theology, with the focus shifting from one centered on personal salvation to one oriented around social salvation. Evangelicals have traditionally been suspicious of Christians who were more concerned with saving the world than saving souls, but I think the Religious Right changed all of that.

Whether this is a net positive or negative remains to be seen, but by being an explicitly political movement, the Religious Right encouraged Christians to get involved in civic life. If there is a growing sense of social awareness among evangelicals (conservative and liberal), that might be a backlash against the Religious Right. Instead of being a backlash against political involvement though, it is a backlash against the Religious Right's disregard of the Gospel.

I know that many liberals will still be uneasy with an explicitly political and evangelizing religion, but Zack is right, the only way progressives can build meaningful change in this country is by understanding and working with those religious people who share their goals.

Too bad we're living in the real world

2007-10-08T00:52:00.001-04:00

Gaius (at Blue Crab Boulevard) thinks that liberals are ignoring Iran's growing "threat" to the rest of the world:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has - again - told the world to get bent.

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Negotiations over Iran's nuclear enrichment activities would be meaningless because the country has a legal right to pursue the technology, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying on Sunday.
The West suspects Tehran is developing its nuclear program to produce atomic weapons but Iran says it is only pursuing a means to produce electricity for civilian needs.
Tehran has defied U.N. resolutions calling on it to suspend uranium enrichment, and on Sunday Ahmadinejad rejected the idea of holding talks on the issue.
"It is meaningless to hold talks over Iran's obvious and legal right to nuclear technology," the news agency ISNA quoted him as saying.

The American left continues to push for taxpayer-funded handouts for anyone who is in the country - legally or not - and ignores the real threats in the world. Politics as usual, I suppose.

Gaius, liberals aren't just looking to appease everyone, with regards to Iran, we view the situation entirely differently. When conservatives look at Iran they see a belligerent, anti-semitic dictator with a hard-on for terrorism and nuclear weapons.

A terrifying prospect.

Liberals on the other hand, see something completely different. When we look at Iran, we see an ineffectual figurehead of a president who is wildly unpopular with the people of his country. We see a ruling clique of religious leaders who are cautiously navigating the diplomatic waters, and we see conservatives within that ruling clique who are strengthened by American threats, to the detriment of moderates and reformers. We see a government that is expecting an attack or invasion, and is trying to take every precaution to prevent that.

Now, I don't think that a nuclear Iran is a good thing. The last thing anyone wants in the Middle East is the beginnings of a nuclear arms race. But I don't think a nuclear Iran is intolerable (and warrants attack). It is extremely unlikely - to the point of being ridiculous - that Iran would attack Israel or any other American ally. Why?

The Iranian leadership (aka not Ahmadinajad) want international legitimacy.

The Iranian leadership does not want to cripple their economy - one of the outcomes of an attack.

The Iranian leadership doesn't want Tehran destroyed by the immediate Israeli/American nuclear retaliation.

Granted, I could see a nuclear Iran flexing its muscles as a regional hegemon, but again, I don't see the country going to war if it had a nuclear weapon.

There's the recent complaint that Iran is directly responsible for the strength of the Iraqi insurgency and is directly responsible for American deaths. I'm fairly certain that the truth of this claim has yet to be verified. But assuming that it is accurate, I'm sure what the U.S. is expecting?

A stable, pro-American Iraq is not in Iran's interest. A chaotic, war-torn Iraq is. As long as there is an American presence in Iraq, Iran is going to try to keep the country destabilized. Will that result in American military deaths? Yes. But we created the conditions for this effective proxy war, and if we want it to end, then I don't think attacking another country is the best idea.

I'm not dead

2007-10-07T12:26:00.001-04:00

I'm just on break. Regular blogging will resume on Wednesday.

Everyone failed

2007-10-05T01:16:00.001-04:00

Andrew Sullivan quotes an email from one of his readers:

I served in the Marines as a young man. I was stationed in Japan and saw duty in Okinawa, the Philippines and throughout the Caribbean. I was willing at that time to sacrifice my life for the country if called upon (hoping, of course, that such a call would not come.) My willingness was predicated upon a belief that America was different, not only different, but better than other countries and that we offered the people of the world a vision which they could follow to a better way of doing things.
The other day I heard the president's press secretary condemning the Burmese dictators for holding people in secret jails without charges. I was saddened to think that we were no better than them. What would I think now if I were in the Marines? What do we offer the world that is different than any benighted country?
Tragically, Andrew, it is not just Bush but Congress and the federal courts that folded the tent on what was right about the country.

After Bush leaves office and we're surveying the damage of the preceding eight years, it will be important to hold everyone accountable for what happened. The entire Washington establishment will try to lay the blame solely on Bush. Democrats will say that Republicans controlled Congress. Republicans will say that Bush was too popular. The media will say that they were misled.

Everyone will have an excuse and we must not let those excuses pass into conventional wisdom.

Congress had every opportunity (and still does) to stop the abuses of the Bush Administration, but was/is too concerned with petty and narrow electoral prospects. Every bit of information needed to document the Bush Administration's disregard for the rule of law was available, but Washington pundits and opinion makers neglected to even look; they were too busy kissing up to the Administration to care.

In the run up to the Iraq War, every dissenting voice was stifled and every concern was silenced.

If we go to war with Iran, we'll be able to blame the same complicit media and spineless Congress.

The only way to prevent this from happening again is to remember who failed the American people, and use that to push for a press and Congress that is more open, honest, and dedicated to the interests of Americans.

It's still bigger than hip-hop

2007-10-05T00:49:00.001-04:00

This article about Jena 6 and the hip-hop community brings up what is a fairly constant critique of mainstream rappers. Namely, that despite claiming to represent the black community - and on some level, authentic "blackness" - a very large chunk of rappers neglect to do anything to actually help uplift the black community.

The hip-hop community is the voice of black youth. If 50 Cent were to start clamoring about sentencing disparities, or if Young Jeezy were to encourage political activism, people would listen.

I'm not exactly sure where I'm going with this (which is probably a function of me being tired), but I do know that I wish rappers would devote their money and fame towards something a bit more constructive than buying more cars.

*Note, I made a lot of broad generalizations in this post.

Song (and video) of the Day

2007-10-04T23:37:00.001-04:00

Arcade Fire & David Bowie - "Wake Up"

One of the best songs of the last few years.

The police are supposed to defend us?

2007-10-04T19:53:00.001-04:00

Every time I read posts and articles like this I'm terrified and confused. I'm terrified because I have no idea what would happen if I were stopped by the police, and I'm worried because I don't know why the police feel it is necessary to use so much force.

I'd like to think that if I were stopped by the police, simply being calm and obeying orders would be enough, but apparently it it isn't.

There should be a public outrage over the endemic abuse of power by police, that there isn't really bothers me.

Comment Response - What the hell?

2007-10-04T19:28:00.001-04:00

I said last week that I was growing tired of engaging right-wing bloggers because they can't seem to hold a civil conversation. A few days ago I found a conservative blog - Blue Crab Boulevard - that I thought was totally reasonable, and I've been leaving comments. Today I commented on this post. It's a decent post, but what's relevant here is the comment I left:

The only thing I take issue with is the phrase “depravity of socialist tyrannies.” There comes a point where it doesn’t matter what economic organizing principle an oppressive government uses. The results are usually the same.
Tyranny is tyranny is tyranny. A capitalist tyranny is just as bad as a socialist one.

Now, I think that's an entirely reasonable assertion to make. Authoritarian states can be either capitalist or socialist, it happens that a majority of authoritarian states tend to be socialist, but I don't think that socialism is inherently predisposed towards generating authoritarian outcomes. Apparently though, one of the commentators at Blue Crab Boulevard disagreed, which is fair. Here is his comment:

Wrong, Jamelle, there are NO capitalist tyrannies who have effected the genocide of their OWN PEOPLE as much as Uncle Joe [18 million in Gulags, several million in purges, 2O million-plus in stupendous miscalculations in WWII] or The Great Helmsman who killed over 50 million in his social-engineering experiments in the PRC, or Pol Pot [2.3 million out of a total population of 6]. Now we have Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez in the minor leagues, but NOT ONE capitalist tyranny, not even ADOLPH, has killed as many of HIS OWN PEOPLE as these socialist engineers like Joe, Mao & Pol.
And let’s not forget Baathist Saddam and his living Baathist counterpart Bad-boy Bashar.
Care to mention ANY CAPITALIST TYRANNIES, Jamelle?

Okay. This was a very aggressive response. Not unreasonable, but certainly unnecessarily angry and it seems to me, a little offended. It appears that the commentator - daveinboca - was just so pissed off by my (again reasonable) comment, that he visited my blog and left this wholly inappropriate comment:

Al, she's a demented student at a second-rate school [UVa] where the socialist pablum is doled out to nitwits who are taught not to question the herr-perfesser indoctrinators. I was lucky enough to go to the University of Chicago, where I am still an academic associate. They teach critical thinking at U of Chic., which is why it has generated more Nobel Laureates than Harvard, UCBerkeley, and Stanford combined.

Wow.

That's really unnecessary. I don't know what drives you to leave comments like this, if you're this though angry my advice would be to see a therapist or something. But, since I'm really bored, it can't hurt to actually point out where you're wrong.

Dave, I'm a dude. Granted, Jamelle is a vaguely feminine name, but trust me on this one: I have a penis.
U.Va = second-rate school? I mean, I don't know what your definition of second-rate is, but U.Va is the number 2 public institution in the country, and the 23rd best university in the country. U.Va's commerce school, religious studies department, english department and politics department are the best in the country, and our education school, law school and business school are some of the best in the country.
U.Va students aren't nitwits. U.Va first-years rank in the top percentile of high school graduates.
We generally speak English on Grounds.

Anything else in that comment was a jumble of useless tautologies (what the hell is "socialist pablum?").

Dave. If you have nothing constructive to say on my blog, then don't comment.

Two words

2007-10-04T11:43:00.001-04:00

Read it.

Bishop: No communion for you

2007-10-04T11:04:00.001-04:00

At least he's consistent:

Associated Press - October 3, 2007
ST. LOUIS - Roman Catholic Archbishop Raymond Burke, who made headlines last presidential season by saying he'd refuse Holy Communion to John Kerry, has his eye on Rudy Giuliani this year. Giuliani's response: "Archbishops have a right to their opinion."
Burke, the Archbishop of St. Louis, was asked by The St. Louis Post-Dispatch if he would deny Communion to Giuliani if the former New York mayor approached him for the sacrament.
"If the question is about a Catholic who is publicly espousing positions contrary to the moral law, and I know that person knows it, yes I would," the paper quoted the archbishop as responding.
Burke has said of Giuliani: "I can't imagine that as a Catholic he doesn't know that his stance on the protection of human life is wrong. If someone is publicly sinning, they should not approach to receive Holy Communion."

I'm glad that doctrinal debates are becoming a part of this presidential election. If I'm going to be subjected to two years of claims of religious piety by politicians, then at the very least, I want the media to examine whether or not said politicians actually hold to the doctrines and positions of their faith. I'm more than a little tired of politicians - mostly Republicans - making broad statements about their commitment to the Christian faith while at the same time showing a total disregard for the established doctrine of their tradition (see Tom Delay).

Jim Wallis: "Bush has lost sight of the children"

2007-10-04T10:37:00.001-04:00

Jim Wallis (founder of progressive Evangelical organization Sojourners) writes an unbelievably naive editorial on the "death" of compassionate conservatism:

Bush talked more about poverty in that inaugural address than any President had for a long time. When I said so in a newspaper column soon after, my Democratic friends were not pleased. Nor did they like the fact that I started attending meetings at the White House with the President and members of his staff about how to best construct a "faith-based initiative." Other friends of mine, however, were appointed to lead and staff the new Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, the first the White House had ever seen. We brought many delegations of religious leaders — conservative, liberal, and everything in-between — to meet with the men and women who ran that office. Many of us dared hope that something new might be in the air.
But that was a long time ago. We don't hear much about that office or initiative anymore. Most of my friends have long left. I don't hear about meetings now. The phrase "compassionate conservatism" rarely passes the lips of anyone at the White House these days.
And now, the President has vetoed a bipartisan measure to expand health insurance for low-income children. Most of his expressed objections to the bill have been vigorously refuted by Republican Senators who helped craft the legislation. Members of his own party have vowed to lobby their colleagues in an effort to override the veto. During his first presidential campaign, Bush chided conservative House Republicans for spending cuts accomplished on the backs of the poor. Now congressional Republicans are chiding him.
What happened to this president? The money needed for expanding health care to poor children in America is far less than the money that has been lost and wasted on corruption in Iraq. How have the priorities strayed so far from those children, whom he once agreed were so central to the soul of the nation? What do they need to do to get the President's attention again?

Jim Wallis was frozen in carbonate shortly before 9/11, and has just recently been defrosted(?).

Ridiculous?

Yes. But it's the only way to explain Wallis' staggeringly naive, Sally Struthers-esque admonition for President Bush to "remember the children." Wallis can't possibly expect a pro-torture and pro-war president to seriously adhere to any sort of "compassionate conservatism." Bush's entire record as president speaks to his casual disregard for the suffering of others. If Bush were a "compassionate conservative" then he wouldn't have reinstated the global gag rule, and we wouldn't be subjecting millions of poor women to forced pregnancy, disease and further desperation.

I hate to break it to you Mr. Wallis (no I really do, I'm a big admirer), but "compassionate conservatism" was nothing more than a clever election ploy designed to obscure the differences between Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore.

Compassionate conservatism is a fraud. "Compassion" is wholly incompatible with the authoritarian statism that we call "conservatism" or "Republicanism." Asking for any meaningful "compassionate" policies from Bush is like asking Dane Cook to not suck.

It's simply not going to happen.

It's all fun and games until someone need therapy

2007-10-03T22:39:00.001-04:00

In addition to what Melissa McEwan said, I don't understand why everyone is so eager to pile on Britney Spears. Calling out Britney Spears isn't funny anymore, it's cruel, and I hope that she finds some sort of serious help.

Another little piece

2007-10-03T21:36:00.001-04:00

Of the Religious Right's anti-science agenda. It's actually pretty freaking hilarious. The money quote is right here:

And as for evolutionists' contention that earth is billions of years old, Lisle had other interesting examples that seem to contradict that. "Ya know, salt in the ocean? The oceans are actually getting a little bit saltier every year. And if they were really millions of years old, you'd be able to practically walk across them by now."

Golden.

Yeah we know it's not flowers and puppies

2007-10-03T12:14:00.001-04:00

No one is saying that Iran is a wonderland. Most people realize that the Mullah-controlled Iranian regime is a cornucopia of repression and human rights abuses.

In fact, most liberals hope that eventually pro-democracy activists in Iran are successful, and that Iranians can develop an open, democratic state on their own terms.

The issue though, is whether the reprehensible nature of the Iranian regime provides justification for aggressive action, and it doesn't. There are plenty of awful countries around the world - we count a few of them as our allies - but we recognize that we shouldn't interfere, because it isn't in the interest of our nation to do so.

Regardless of whether or not Iran is sponsoring attacks against American soldiers in Iraq (which I think is likely, since the Iranians have an interest in maintaining a strong presence in Iraq), the question we need to ask ourselves is whether or not an attack on Iranian installations will do anything to benefit the United States. Foreign policy doesn't occur in a vacuum, and an attack on Iran would likely result in outcomes that are in no way beneficial to the United States, the Middle East or the global economy.

Not taking aggressive action may cost the lives of American soldiers, but looking at the big picture, I think we risk a hell of a lot more than that by attacking Iran.

America isn't driven by good intentions

2007-10-03T11:16:00.001-04:00

This post over at Blue Star Chronicles is a perfect example of what I find maddening about pro-war conservatives. For the most part, they have this adolescent propensity towards asserting that the American military is an inherently moral institution, and that the United States always uses military force for "moral" purposes. And since the moral is good, then it stands to reason that all use of force by the U.S. is good.

Pro-war conservatives cannot conceptualize a United States that is primarily driven by self-interest, not some nebulous conception of "morality." George W. Bush didn't go to war in Iraq to "liberate" the Iraqis or "spread democracy," President Bush went to war in Iraq to secure a highly volatile but strategically significant region of the world. Our war in Iraq has nothing to do with principles and morals; we speak about it in those terms, but all things considered, it was purely self-interested action.

Most conservatives don't evaluate the morality of U.S. military action because for them, the goodness of any action by the U.S. military is self-evident. More importantly, actions that have nothing to do with principle are always seen by conservatives as still being moral actions, since again, they cannot conceive of the United States taking aggressive action for self-interested reasons.

Those of us in the "reality-based community" though, recognize that like any other nation U.S. actions are driven primarily by self-interest, which is a largely morally neutral metric. That frees us to evaluate the morality U.S. military action on a case by case basis, since the morality of a self-interested action can vary. So for example, U.S. entry into the Second World War - though driven by self-interest - was a moral action. Whereas U.S. involvement in Vietnam - for a variety of reasons - was not a moral action.

But for conservatives, even criticizing the effectiveness of an action by the U.S. military constitutes an "anti-military" stance, since the categorical goodness of the military is above reproach.

It's almost as if their moral development was stunted at 16. It makes any meaningful discussion near impossible.

Because I have nothing better to do with my time

2007-10-03T10:25:00.001-04:00

Here is another hilarious post from What Would Tyler Durden Do:

It's charming to see the way Britney just blatantly flaunts the law. In my mind, I picture Britney standing before a dignified judge in a stately, conservative courtroom, and the judge stares directly at her, and she stares directly at him, and he painstakingly explains his demands, one by one, in clear everyday language, and he looks right at her, and she looks right at him and nods. But then we see the scene from Britney's point of view, and it's just a bunch of insane bright colors and rainbows and cartoon bluebirds hanging a banner that says "we love you". And there's crazy circus music and a bear on a unicycle and an 18th century strong man lifting weights and acrobats and a seal with a ball on his nose, and the judge is a knight on a horse and the horse has sparklers in his mouth the knight tells Britney that she's doing great and "we believe in you!!!" And then a guy dressed like Abraham Lincoln except he's on stilts and his suit is bright yellow comes in and hands Britney a cupcake.

Holy crap!

2007-10-03T01:33:00.001-04:00

I completely forgot.

The Legend of Zelda: The Phantom Hourglass came out this week! It's the first Zelda game for the Nintendo DS and a direct sequel to The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker for the Nintendo Gamecube.

I'm actually a pretty big fan of Wind Waker - though the gamer consensus is that it wasn't as good as previous games - and I meant to pre-order Phantom Hourglass. Now though, I doubt that I'll be able to get it for at least another few weeks.

I'm pretty excited though, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time ranks as one of the best gaming experiences I've ever had, and even now (when I don't play video games as often) I still make it a point to play a new Zelda game.

Here are some screen shots from The Phantom Hourglass to marvel over:

This game looks fantastic.

Useless celebrity gossip

2007-10-03T01:20:00.001-04:00

Apparently the Backstreet Boys, N'Sync and some no name boy band were founded by a raging pedophile.

Interesting, I guess.

Obama is going to clown you

2007-10-02T21:03:00.001-04:00

I'm still hesitant about who I'm going to support in the primaries, but if Obama keeps clowning fools like this, well, he might end up with another volunteer.

With Iraq, we must ask the question: how did we go so wrong?
There are those who offer up easy answers. They will assert that Iraq is George Bush's war, it's all his fault. Or that Iraq was botched by the arrogance and incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Or that we would have gotten Iraq right if we went in with more troops, or if we had a different proconsul instead of Paul Bremer, or if only there were a stronger Iraqi Prime Minister.
These are the easy answers. And like most easy answers, they are partially true. But they don't tell the whole truth, because they overlook a harder and more fundamental truth. The hard truth is that the war in Iraq is not about a catalog of many mistakes - it is about one big mistake. The war in Iraq should never have been fought.
..........

With all that we know about what's gone wrong in Iraq, even today's debate is divorced from reality. We've got a surge that is somehow declared a success even though it has failed to enable the political reconciliation that was its stated purpose. The fact that violence today is only as horrific as in 2006 is held up as progress. Washington politicians and pundits trip over each other to debate a newspaper advertisement while our troops fight and die in Iraq.
And the conventional thinking today is just as entrenched as it was in 2002. This is the conventional thinking that measures experience only by the years you've been in Washington, not by your time spent serving in the wider world. This is the conventional thinking that has turned against the war, but not against the habits that got us into the war in the first place " the outdated assumptions and the refusal to talk openly to the American people.
Well I'm not running for President to conform to Washington's conventional thinking - I'm running to challenge it. I'm not running to join the kind of Washington groupthink that led us to war in Iraq - I'm running to change our politics and our policy so we can leave the world a better place than our generation has found it.

Yeessssss.

(Via Andrew Sullivan)

Not funny

2007-10-02T20:50:00.001-04:00

I feel the same way about Dane Cook.

I'm sorry, but the man isn't funny.

At all.

Comment Response - Idiocy

2007-10-02T20:47:00.001-04:00

Al in St. Lou writes:

Are you a complete idiot? If not, what kind of idiot are you?

Close but no cigar.

To be honest, I'm more of a partial idiot.

I'm surprised the guard didn't sprinkle some crack on her

2007-10-02T13:32:00.001-04:00

(Via Feministing)

A sixteen year old girl was beaten and arrested for dropping a piece of cake:

This is going to ruin your day. A young woman of color in Los Angeles had her wrist broken by a school security officer after not cleaning up a piece of dropped birthday cake to his satisfaction. During the attack he said, "hold still nappy head."
The girl, 16 year-old Pleajhai Mervin, was subsequently expelled and arrested for littering and battery. Because as you can clearly see from the video still above, this teenage girl was battering the shit out a full grown, beefy security guard. Uh huh.
But it gets worse. When the girl's mother went to the school to complain and rightfully demand that this guard be arrested--she was arrested and suspended from her job with the school district.
Students at the scene captured the assault on their cell phones; one such student was also beaten.

Here is the video:

The student in question is - as is usually the case in these incidents - black, so the school administrators felt totally free to blame her for the incident and expel her as punishment.

Because you must remember, those black people are animals, and if we don't keep them in line, all hell could break loose.

I hope that this gets mainstream attention, incidents like this one are further evidence of the pervasiveness of racism in this country.

In the meantime, let the school know that their racism is not tolerated. You can find the school's contact information here.

Give it to me baby

2007-10-01T21:52:00.001-04:00

Taylor Marsh reports that Sen. Clinton has joined Sen. Webb in sponsoring a bill that "requires that the President seek congressional authorization prior to commencing any broad military action in Iran."

Clinton took a lot of heat, including from yours truly, for voting for the Lieberman-Kyl legislation. But Clinton understands what happened with the Iraq authorization bill, at the same time she believes Iran's Revolutionary Guards is a terrorist organization. She obviously also wants to send a message to Bush as well. Joining Webb in co-sponsoring this legislation is critically important and a progressive move.

To be honest I think that progressives are deluding themselves if they think that this means anything. Bush will come to Congress asking to authorize a strike against Iran, and Congress will dutifully move along and give him the authority to do so.

Why?

Because they'll think that it is necessary.

Think I'm wrong?

There is little to no evidence to suggest that the Democratic establishment is opposed to (among other things) aggressive war. The leading Democratic presidential candidate refuses to apologize for her vote in favor of the war, a significant number of Democratic foreign policy wonks are unabashedly hawkish, and Congress has refused to take concrete steps towards ending the current war.

I hope that this resolution is the beginning of a Congressional push against an attack on Iran, but I highly doubt it.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

2007-10-01T17:47:00.001-04:00

Gaius laments the brutal repression of pro-democracy protests in Burma:

The Daily Mail has a really horrible report about the situation in Burma. (I stress here that this is uncorroborated.) They say that a high-ranking defector from the military junta is charging that thousands of people - including many monks - have been murdered by the government and the bodies are being dumped in the jungles.

..........

The west is talking, the junta is acting. People are dying as a result.

In the abstract, it might make sense for Western powers to intervene; they can stop the violence, depose the military junta and help the Burmese make their way towards democracy and the rule of law.

Unfortunately, we don't live in the "abstract" and the law of unintended consequences is in full effect.

Why is intervening a bad idea?

Because we have no idea what would happen afterwards. Yes, it could result in the flowering of democracy, but there is an equal chance of another brutal dictatorship emerging out of the violence.

The only people who can change Burma are the Burmese. The Western world can help - we can bring attention and lend support to their struggles. But a forceful intervention on part of the West will only create more problems than it solves.

And I think it's worth quoting Kathy at Liberty Street:

Peace is not a physical state of being in which one is not at war. Peace is a process. It's a way of resolving conflict; it's a way of thinking; it's a way of acting.

Song (and video) of the Day

2007-10-01T17:30:00.001-04:00

Beastie Boys - "Something's Got to Give"

It's pretty simple really

2007-10-01T14:37:00.001-04:00

Susie Madrak doesn't get it:

I’m feeling more than a little fried lately, what between sprained ankles, flat tires, the state of the world and the baffling cooperation of the Democratic party with this madness, this domestic coup. I mean, there’s Burma, a general complaining about immoral gays, the incredible unreality of an impending war with Iran, people trying to justify the loss of their loved ones with the losses of other people’s loved ones.

Why are Democrats cooperating with the lawless, immoral authoritarians that control our government?

Because they agree.

That's all.

Yeah, this isn't heartening either

2007-10-01T14:24:00.001-04:00

Glenn Greenwald does not like the fact that the U.S. military is providing the only meaningful opposition to an attack on Iran:

For obvious reasons, it is not a positive development to have the U.S. military serve as the primary check on the crazed warmongers who have control of our government. In a country that lives under civilian rule, that really is not and should not be the role of the military. Priest's claim that "the military would revolt" if it was ordered to bomb Iran is, at least in one sense, disturbing.

I'm not sure which would be worst:

An undemocratic (a large majority of Americans are opposed) attack on Iran.
An outcome that would effectively end civilian control of the military.

The fallout from an attack on Iran is unimaginable. Here are a few of the possible consequences of a conventional attack (much less nuclear) on Iran -

Former U.S. Generals predict that an attack on Iran "would have disastrous consequences for security in the region, coalition forces in Iraq and would further exacerbate regional and global tensions."

Oxfam predicts that an attack on Iran would:

Further jeopardise the prospects of peace taking root in the Middle East - long standing Iranian links to Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shia groups in Iraq, along with the presence of significant minority Shia populations in Saudi Arabia, could lead to severe destabilisation throughout the Middle East.

Severely undermine hopes for stability in Iraq - Iran has several thousand intelligence agents operating in the Shia region of Iraq and has been accused of arming Shia insurgents. A decision to activate insurgent units could lead to a massive escalation in violence.

Bolster the position of hard-liners and set back chances of reform within Iran - Recent municipal elections suggest that the bellicose rhetoric of Ahmadinejad is beginning to lose appeal. Over the winter there have been fuel shortages and inflation continues to rise. Ahmadinejad's popularity is waning. Military strikes would unify Iranians, ignite greater nationalist feeling and undermine the growing prospects of an internal shift in power.

Push developing countries into greater poverty - If military action led to an increase in oil prices. For example, a $10 increase in oil price could drop the GDPs of Sub-Saharan African states by an average of 3% with serious implications for those already living in poverty.

Damage UK, US and European economies - if oil prices rose to $100 per barrel this could increase the risk of recession.

Threaten serious environmental contamination - Bombing could result in radioactive contamination, oil slicks and oil well fires that could take years to deal with.

And Antiwar.com has a list of twelve possible consequences of an attack on Iran. The list includes such wonderful outcomes as:

War quickly gets out of hand. U.S. plans to destroy Iran's anti-aircraft and military infrastructure could easily escalate to destroying Iran's oil-loading and shipment facilities. This would take even more millions of barrels off the market for a prolonged period. If Bush/Cheney hadn't shown themselves to be so incompetent, one might imagine it was a plan of their Texas oil friends to raise oil prices to the stratosphere. Jim Cramer warned on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on Jan. 30 that war would quickly drive U.S. gas prices to $5 per gallon.

.............

The whole world's prosperity would be at risk if oil didn't flow again quickly. Any such severe shock to the world economy would cause foreigners to cut back on financing U.S. deficits, with a consequent sharp rise in U.S. interest rates. This would cause very severe repercussions to the whole U.S. economy and government spending. Any real constriction of the Chinese economy would cause a collapse in worldwide commodity prices, with consequent effects on Third World buying power.

..............

American citizens and businesses in many nations would be under threat of attack by militant Iranians and other Muslims. War would multiply our terrorist enemies tremendously. Administration officials keep arguing that by fighting in the Middle East we are avoiding terrorist attacks in America. This is the usual American "body count" way of fighting wars. The reasoning assumes that the number of terrorists is somehow finite. But if we keep creating more enemies, we then increase the risk of reprisals inside the U.S.

I'm not entirely sure if this would be worst than the precedent sent if the U.S. military refuses to follow civilian orders. The stability of this country depends in part on the subordination of the military to civilian leadership. Once military leaders know that they can refuse to obey political leadership without any real repercussions that could set the stage for any number of (all not good) outcomes:

Military leaders decide that they could run the country better than politicians and attempt a coup.
Military leaders begin making foreign policy, and pursue action that are not in the best interests of the United States.
Political policy becomes subordinate to military policy, as the former need the support of the latter to get anything done.

Shit.

The past six years of institutional deterioration are beginning to show, and something has to give, and will probably happen soon. I don't know what it would take to reverse all of this. I know far too many people who are relying on politicians to reverse the damage Bush, the Republicans and (too many) Democrats have done to the country. Perhaps a mass citizen movement would do the trick, but I'm afraid that Americans have gotten too accustomed to being engaged as consumers and not as citizens for anything like that to happen.

So, we'll see I guess.

Giuliani hates our freedom

2007-10-01T09:35:00.001-04:00

David Boaz writes at the CATO Institute:

And it should distress many conservatives that Giuliani took umbrage at affronts to his dignity, perhaps most notoriously when he tried to stop city buses from carrying a New York magazine ad saying the publication was "possibly the only good thing in New York Rudy hasn't taken credit for." The First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams notes in his book, "Speaking Freely," that "over 35 separate successful lawsuits were brought against the city under Giuliani's stewardship arising out of his insistence on doing the one thing that the First Amendment most clearly forbids: using the power of government to restrict or punish speech critical of government itself."
As a presidential hopeful, Giuliani's authoritarian streak is as strong as ever. He defends the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program. He endorses the President's power to arrest American citizens, declare them enemy combatants and hold them without access to a lawyer or a judge. He thinks the President has "the inherent authority to support the troops" even if Congress were to cut off war funding, a claim of presidential authority so sweeping that even Bush and his supporters have not tried to make it.

The most troubling thing about Giuliani is his dangerous lack of curiosity and astounding ignorance. Anyone with a modicum of Constitutional knowledge would never make these sweeping claims. At least, I'm assuming that it's ignorance; it is entirely possible that Giuliani just doesn't believe that Congress has the right to restrict the president. Which is - you know - a little terrifying.

I don't think liberals/progressives have said enough about how dangerous a Giuliani Administration would be, and too many liberals (those who don't spend their lives on the internet) see the pro-choice, socially liberal Giuliani as an okay choice.

I thought I would lay off of Giuliani for awhile, but the more I read about the man, the more I'm opposed to him; so expect that this blog will have a bit of an anti-Giuliani focus for awhile.

Why?

'Cause screw him.

That's why.

Rudy Giuliani is a trick-ass mark, mark-ass trick, scip scap and scallywag

2007-09-30T23:26:00.001-04:00

I've been hating on Giuliani all day today, but I don't think I can stress enough how much I really dislike the man, and how dangerous a President Giuliani would be.

For those wondering why I'm vehemently opposed to Giuliani, it largely has to do with his attempt to change New York City mayoral term limits following 9/11:

Term limits may have prevented New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani from running for a third term prior to the scheduled September 11th primary, but circumstances since that day, when the primary was postponed because of terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, have created a groundswell of support for Giuliani and possibly set the stage for him to challenge the state's term limits law.
In the days ahead, the current candidates for mayor are expected to agree to postpone taking office for three months to allow Giuliani to stay long enough to manage the crisis caused by the terror attacks. If that plan fails, however, Giuliani may accept the offer of the State Conservative Party Chairman and run on the Conservative ticket, despite the term limits law.
.............

Before Ferrer issued his statement, aides to Giuliani said the mayor made clear to "each and every one" of the candidates that if all of them didn't agree to the deal, he would attempt to thwart term limits and find a way to serve another four years.

.............

If Giuliani does run on the Conservative ticket and wins the election, he still would not be able to assume the mayor's office for a third term under current law. The election would end up in court due to the violation of the state's term limit laws.

This incident should have soured everyone on Giuliani. Anyone willing to change or violate laws in order to maintain their grip on power shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the presidency, especially considering the smorgasbord of authoritarian powers Bush has accrued for the presidency.

Even if Giuliani didn't have a nasty streak of authoritarianism (during a speech in New York, he said that "Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.") this would be a deal breaker.

Hell, Rudy Giuliani could be possessed with the spirit of Eugene freaking Debs and I'd still vote against the man.

I've always hated the phrase "we can't change a horse midstream." Usually when people say it, they are providing a reason for why we shouldn't vote an executive out of office during a time of crisis.

There is no good reason for disregarding elections. If it means anything to live in a democracy, it means that we must be willing to risk the (minor) insignificant instability of a change in power even when there is a major crisis. That Giuliani doesn't realize this is very, very worrisome.

We are the Wal-Mart of arms sales

2007-09-30T23:02:00.001-04:00

I wonder if anyone gets upset about this:

he United States maintained its role as the leading supplier of weapons to the developing world in 2006, followed by Russia and Britain, according to a Congressional study to be released Monday. Pakistan, India and Saudi Arabia were the top buyers.

............

When combining totals for arms sales to developed and developing nations, the ranking of world arms dealers remained the same. The United States led with $16.9 billion, followed by Russia with $8.7 billion and Britain with $3.1 billion. The 2006 sales figures for all three nations were higher than their totals in 2005.

Anyone?

Joe Klein is hilariously self-unaware

2007-09-30T22:33:00.001-04:00

Commenting on the possibility of Hillary Clinton in the White House, Joe Klein writes:

In Clinton's case, though, her caution is more noticeable because of the cool, bionic quality of her public persona. That is a real problem for her: Whether we like it or not--and as I've written umpteen times before--the Presidency is different from any other office. It is far more personal. The President lives in our homes for four years and the public makes its decision, at least in part, on which politician it wants hanging around the kitchen table. In that regard, I think Clinton's seriousness and practicality--the sense that she knows what she's doing--will work to her advantage in the months to come....and may even be enough to overcome the perennial TV-age desire for a warm or charming candidate.
What works against her--and Dowd is astute on this--is the sense that she comes not only with Bill attached, but also with a permanent carnival: All the screeching and screaming from the right and from those in the media obsessed with the Clinton family follies. After the past eight years, the public may be tired of a perpetually embattled Presidency. No, check that: It's really the past 16 years that this food fight has been going on.

Joe Klein is - along with Maureen Dowd - an active member of the "elite" press corps that was responsible for pushing the Clinton scandals throughout the 90s and has continued to savage Democrats for the crime of not being Republicans.

The fact that Klein can write the above while remaining unaware of his complicity is fantastic.

Fantastic.

Song (and video) of the Day

2007-09-30T22:22:00.001-04:00

I haven't done this in awhile.

Fiona Apple - "Fast as You Can"

Power is the position

2007-09-30T16:22:00.001-04:00

This is interesting:

Sept. 30, 2007 | WASHINGTON -- A powerful group of conservative Christian leaders decided Saturday at a private meeting in Salt Lake City to consider supporting a third-party candidate for president if a pro-choice nominee like Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination.
The meeting of about 50 leaders, including Focus on the Family's James Dobson, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, who called in by phone, took place at the Grand America Hotel during a gathering of the Council for National Policy, a powerful shadow group of mostly religious conservatives. James Clymer, the chairman of the U.S. Constitution Party, was also present at the meeting, according to a person familiar with the proceedings.

Color me skeptical. Giuliani has consistently said that if elected, he would appoint "strict constructionist" judges to the court. Which is another way of saying that he will appoint judges that are hostile to the notion of abortion rights.

All things considered, they would lose far more if a Democrat were elected, and it's in their best interests to support the Republican candidate. Rudy may not look great on social issues, but he has that nasty streak of authoritarianism which is sure to appeal to Christian conservatives.

Besides, to the Christian Right has consistently demonstrated its fealty to the lordship of political power, and I doubt that they will abandon the party that has been a reliable vehicle for conservative evangelical Christianity.

I think we've learned the "lessons of history" pretty well, thanks

2007-09-30T12:14:00.001-04:00

Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard is concerned that too many of our leaders have neglected history:

That then is the difference. Democracies talk, tyrannies act. In Burma, the junta has acted ruthlessly while democracies expressed concern. In Iran, Ahmadinejad hangs homosexuals; democracies invite him to speak at Columbia. Post modern democracies have forgotten all the lessons of history. At some point talk no longer works. Woodrow Wilson tried talk right up until he saw that it would not work. Then the doughboys went to France. Franklin Roosevelt was all for talking, until the bombs shattered the quiet of a bright, sunny morning in Hawaii. Then he was all-in for the war. Truman was willing to talk right up until the North Koreans crossed the 38th parallel. Then he sent the Army. John Kennedy talked up a storm until the missiles arrived in Cuba. Then he sent the Navy to blockade.
In the post modern west, the default is talk until talking fails, then start a new round of talk. Express concern when the militias in Sudan butcher humans. Send a bit of food aid so the targeted villagers present bigger targets for the tyrants who prefer acting to talking. Express concern about those monk guys over in Burma while the junta cracks their skulls with batons or shoots a few holes in them. Howl endlessly if a western leader acts instead of talks. Screech and whine your risk-free dissent against that risk-free target and ignore the real monsters. Or invite them to talk at Columbia. Or even to attend classes at Yale.

If you are inclined towards aggressive action - which Gaius seems to be - then the reluctance on part of most democracies to use "action" (i.e. military force) is a problem. The other possibility though, is that democracies have very much taken to heart the lessons of history, and in particular, the uber-lesson of the 20th century.

War really sucks.

Every powerful country on this planet is - on some level - aware of the sheer destruction that war causes. Even in the examples that Gaius listed, war was used in very drastic situations and when there literally was no other recourse.

The people who haven't learned the lessons of history are those who continually cheerlead for war. They are almost like the picnic-ers at the first Battle of Bull Run, a group of people too naive to realize that war is a terrible, messy affair, that in most cases causes more problems than it solves.

Only Grand Moff Giuliani can answer cell phones

2007-09-30T11:00:00.001-04:00

Apparently, everyone's favorite fascist never ignores a phone call:

It’s unclear whether Republican presidential candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani, whose previous positions on gun control are likely to make his presidential candidacy a tougher sell to members of the influential National Rifle Association, scored points or lost a few today when he decided to take a cell phone call from his wife in the middle of a speech to the group.

“Hello dear. I’m talking to the members of the N.R.A. right now. Would you like to say hello?” he said, apparently speaking to his wife, Judith. “I’ll give you a call as soon as I’m finished. Have a safe trip. Bye bye.”
Though there was some scattered laughter, the audience was mostly quiet as Mr. Giuliani ended the call and added: “This is one of the great blessings of the modern age – to always be available.”

Aww. How cute. Since Mr. Giuliani feels that it's appropriate to answer a phone in the middle of an event, I wonder if he extends that courtesy to other people.

In Iowa, Giuliani was up to principle No. 2 ("Follow your hopes and dreams") when he was interrupted. From down in the audience, just beyond the stage, he heard a cell phone ring. He stopped in the middle of telling a story. "It's okay, you can answer your cell phone," he said. "You won't interrupt me." The woman whose phone had rung was mortified; he had just embarrassed her in front of 18,000 people.

Whoops! I guess not!

That crazy Giuliani, when he's rude, it's okay! But when "normal people" do the same, they just need to be silenced!

It's simple!

"Look! Come see the violence inherent in the system!"

2007-09-30T09:48:00.001-04:00

At Shakesville, Wolfrum wonders why the Democratic Party hasn't stepped up and done something yet:

"Just one look at the current Presidential campaign is enough to make one wish for a government-less society. While the public overwhelmingly wants the U.S. to stop occupying Irag and not take over any new countries, the candidates are busily paying homage to the industrial military complex and neocon dream machine by amping up their war rhetoric and talking about staying in Iraq through their terms. Even more, the Democratic party is making no effort to protect the civil liberties of the public from a Republican party that has proven itself to be little more than a front for an authoritarian regime.
It's frustrating, to say the least."

Wolfrum's mistake is that he thinks the Democrats are actually interested in protecting the public's civil liberties. The last year or so (including the period when Democrats were the minority party) has pretty clearly demonstrated that Democrats are willing accomplices in the Republican Party's ongoing battle to curtail our civil liberties and wage endless war.

Democrats have repeatedly voted to extend war funding, and have all but admitted that they also intend occupy Iraq for the next few years at least.

Democrats supported on the Military Commissions Act, retroactively legalized warrantless wiretapping, and refused to consider even impeaching Alberto Gonzalez.

Both parties are "war parties," it's just that the Democrats haven't yet told us to go "fuck ourselves*."

*Yay Dick Cheney!

Ugh

2007-09-28T12:24:00.001-04:00

My keyboard smells like beer.

Quote of the Day

2007-09-27T18:21:00.001-04:00

"It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those subject to it." - Ang San Suu Kyi

Right-Wing bloggers are tiresome

2007-09-26T14:45:00.001-04:00

I have seriously lost all desire to engage with right-wing bloggers. I spend time reading conservative blogs - mostly because I hate myself - and I'm amazed by the astounding ignorance, lack of perspective and irrationality that is almost a hallmark.

For example at this blog, the writer is seriously trying to make the argument that because Democrats were largely anti-Civil Rights until the mid sixties, they must be anti-black now.

Sure. That's exactly right. It's not as if there was a major realignment following the Civil Rights Act, where racist, southern Democrats switched party affiliation en masse.

That didn't happen at all.

Nope.

Aww

2007-09-26T14:32:00.001-04:00

Now we have to deal with the economic consequences of our racism.

Quote of the Day

2007-09-26T09:47:00.001-04:00

"A warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats." - JFK

"Betray-Us" isn't even that clever

2007-09-25T12:50:00.001-04:00

I only have a brief comment on this whole MoveOn.org "Betray-Us" fiasco. A good friend of mine is fond of saying that he doesn't respect the "office of the president," because it's just another institution, and the president is just another guy, that there exists no intrinsic goodness in the president, and that he will evaluate the person and the office based off of the good they do.

For the most part, I feel the same way about the military. Don't get me wrong, I'm not "anti-military." Both my parents were in the military, I'm kind of a "Navy brat." But, I don't think that the U.S. Military is intrinsically good, or honorable, or any other combination of positive adjectives. I'm pretty tired of the constant refrain that we can't criticize the motivations or performance of service members, since they "sacrifice so much" and they are the "best America has to offer."

I respect the fact that millions of men and women have made the decision to devote a large chunk of their lives to their country, and that they risk death in doing so. But. They are just regular people. Some are good and some are bad, and none are above criticism and contempt.

"I gave those porn mags to my son. I wanted to teach him about treating women as objects." - Peter Griffin

2007-09-25T12:15:00.001-04:00

There's been a lot of activity surrounding Robert Jensen's recent book Getting Off; much of it due to Jensen's frank discussion of the uncomfortable reality of contemporary pornography, namely that it is centered on the degradation and humiliation of women. Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon has a much more informed and far more comprehensive take on it than I do; If you're interested, it's a pretty good read.

I think I can say more about a concern that AlterNet writer Riane Eisler brings up in a column posted today:

Liberals often defend images of men chaining, whipping, torturing, and even killing women in the name of sexual pleasure as harmless exercises of free speech. At the same time, they strenuously object to war propaganda.
But if war propaganda is effective in dehumanizing members of "enemy" nations to make it possible for men to hurt, kill, and degrade other human beings -- as it clearly is -- why would images of women as merely body parts for male sexual use and abuse not have similar effects? Why, like other propaganda, would stories and images that dehumanize women not blind people to the reality of women's suffering? If linking sex with violence had no effect on behavior, why would savvy media professionals link sex with whatever they are trying to sell -- from cars to Coca-Cola -- to influence peoples' behavior?
...........

Chaining, whipping and even killing people in the name of sexual pleasure is sadism. But liberal groups like the ACLU still go to court to protect violent and degrading porno on the grounds of free speech. Of course, we want free speech. But there have always been legal limits to speech.

The problem with a push for legal action against the pornography industry is that there is the very real danger that liberals will find themselves in league with forces that are working for a broader anti-sex agenda; groups that are anti-porn, anti-contraception, anti-abortion etc. It would be a huge disappointment to find that in the process of fighting an industry which promotes the suffering of women, we end up further empowering groups that are actively working towards a return to a repressive and patriarchal status quo.

The challenge for those who are - to use Eisler's language - anti-porn but pro-erotica is to make clear that the issue isn't the sex, it's the violence. I say this is a challenge because of the frequently made observation that Americans are far more concerned about sex than they are about violence. And that again, any anti-porn push is likely to attract the support of people who are committed to an anti-sex agenda.

The depressing thing about all of this is that the attitudes highlighted by contemporary pornography - women are cheap, worthless objects - are found in toned-down form throughout our culture. In Getting Off, Jensen briefly talks about the "slutbus" series of "film":

A few men who appear to be in their 20s drive around in a minivan with a video camera. They ask women if they want a ride. Once in the van, the women are asked if they would be willing to have sex on camera for money. The women do. When the sex is over, the women get out of the van and one of the men hands the women a wad of bills as payment. Just as she reaches for the money, the van drives off, leaving her on the side of the road looking foolish. There are trailers for 10 videos on the website. All appear to use the same "plot" structure.

This is just a more extreme version of what has happened to winners of the Miss America regional beauty pagaents:

When Ashley Wood was crowned Miss South Carolina in 2004, she thought her title came not only with a tiara and a shot at Miss America, but also a $20,000 state scholarship and $5,000 national pageant scholarship.

............

This fall, Ms. Wood entered the Wharton School, the business-studies arm of the University of Pennsylvania. But she has yet to receive any of that scholarship money, having been locked in a dispute with the Miss South Carolina pageant for more than two years.

............

Ms. Wood’s is among the most prominent disputes in recent years involving the pageant system, which endures — albeit diminished — since network television dropped the Miss America Pageant in 2004. But there have long been complaints that the 1,200 local and 52 state pageants run under the aegis of the national pageant often do not distribute scholarships to winners. The contestants say their difficulties collecting their money surprise them, given that the Miss America system promotes itself as a scholarship pageant rather than a beauty pageant, unlike its main rival, the Miss USA contest.

The message is as Jensen notes, pretty clear:

In the United States there are men who buy videos with that simple message: Women are for sex. Women can be bought for sex. But in the end, women are not even worth paying for sex.

I'm not sure what is to be done about this, these attitudes - that women are essentially worthless - aren't new, they are simply new manifestations of very, very old prejudices. In the fight against violent pornography, we can make sex-positive and anti-violence arguments, arguments that I think can be effective in the court of public opinion.

In the long-run though, I have no idea what has to give before things can meaningfully change.

Liberal bias on game show?

2007-09-25T10:41:00.001-04:00

Who the hell cares?

Whiny-ass titty baby Tim Graham cares:

I’ve also seen the show’s pollsters ask a contestant to guess what percentage of respondents thought they would get shot by Dick Cheney in a duel, so this isn’t the first time they’ve tweaked the Bush administration.
The Post gossips are right that Carey hasn't seemed like a liberal, but like a libertarian. Ten years ago, when asked by Reason magazine for his feelings about government, he stated, "The less the better. As far as your personal goals are and what you actually want to do with your life, it should never have to do with the government. You should never depend on the government for your retirement, your financial security, for anything. If you do, you're screwed." (And you won't believe what he says about being screwed by the Kennedys.)

No.

One.

Cares.

It's a game show, Drew Carey is a comedian, he makes fun of stuff.

Woo efficiency

2007-09-25T10:36:00.001-04:00

Just a quick comment:

I'm never ceased to be annoyed by those people who refuse to acknowledge that there are other goals besides efficiency when it comes to public policy.

Hip-Hop Blogging - Ridiculously Good Verses

2007-09-24T14:40:00.001-04:00

I'm not a fan of Eminem by any stretch of the imagination. I own the Marshall Mathers LP because it's an important piece of hip-hop, but other than that, I could easily do without the man.

But.

I can't deny that his technical skill exceeds most rappers on the scene today, and back in his prime (1999-2002), I would be hard pressed to name a better rapper.

Which brings me to these two verses on Jay-Z's The Blueprint from the track "Renegade":

Since I'm in a position to talk to these kids and they listen
I ain't no politician but I'll kick it with 'em a minute
Cause see they call me a menace; and if the shoe fits I'll wear it
But if it don't, then y'all'll swallow the truth grin and bear it
Now who's these king of these rude ludicrous lucrative lyrics
Who could inherit the title, put the youth in hysterics
Usin his music to steer it, sharin his views and his merits
But there's a huge interference - they're sayin you shouldn't hear it
Maybe it's hatred I spew, maybe it's food for the spirit
Maybe it's beautiful music I made for you to just cherish
But I'm debated disputed hated and viewed in America
as a motherfuckin drug addict - like you didn't experiment?
Now now, that's when you start to stare at who's in the mirror
and see yourself as a kid again, and you get embarrased
And I got nothin to do but make you look stupid as parents
You fuckin do-gooders - too bad you couldn't do good at marriage!
(Ha ha!) And do you have any clue what I had to do to get here I don't
think you do so stay tuned and keep your ears glued to the stereo
Cause here we go - he's {*Jigga joint Jigga-chk-Jigga*}
And I'm the sinister, Mr. Kiss-My-Ass it's just a RENEGADE
.............
See I'm a poet to some, a regular modern day Shakespeare
Jesus Christ the King of these Latter Day Saints here
To shatter the picture in which of that as they paint me
as a monger of hate and Satan a scatter-brained atheist
But that ain't the case, see it's a matter of taste
We as a people decide if Shady's as bad as they say he is
Or is he the latter - a gateway to escape?
Media scapegoat, who they can be mad at today
See it's easy as cake, simple as whistlin Dixie
while I'm wavin the pistol at sixty Christians against me
Go to war with the Mormons, take a bath with the Catholics
in holy water - no wonder they try to hold me under longer
I'm a motherfuckin spiteful, DELIGHTFUL eyeful
The new Ice Cube - motherfuckers HATE to like you
What did I do? (huh?) I'm just a kid from the gutter
makin this butter off these bloodsuckers, cause I'm a muh'fuckin RENEGADE

Most critics will say that The Blueprint is Jay-Z's best album, but to be honest, nothing on that disk comes close to matching the intensity of skill of Eminem on "Renegade." In a little more than a minute, Eminem drops more internal rhymes, references, and puns than you can find on an entire albums these days. Say what you want about the man, but there's no denying that he's good.

Hey hey hey, smoke weed everyday

2007-09-24T14:21:00.001-04:00

In 2006, arrests for marijuana possession exceeded arrests for all violent crimes combined.

(ht to Andrew Sullivan)

College for the rich and college for the poor

2007-09-24T13:23:00.001-04:00

Josh Levy responds to the torrent of criticism he received for last week's Cavalier Daily column:

While I certainly don't claim to possess Summers' brilliance, this past week I've been accused of saying many things I haven't said -- namely, that I think students on financial aid are less motivated and don't deserve be in college. I never said that nor do I think that. This hasn't stopped angry students from filling my inbox with hate mail. I've been called a racist, a misogynist and there was a flyering campaign insinuating that I eat babies. There's even a Facebook group devoted to damning me. So much for constructive dialogue.
What I did say is that financial aid is inefficient and, therefore, bad policy. In a county with as advanced a financial sector as ours, anyone who can't afford to attend college can easily take out loans. The litmus test, then, is would you still go to college if you had to take out loans? If financial aid disappeared tomorrow, I have little doubt that most, if not all, University students currently on financial aid would do just that. Anyone committed to their education enough to take out loans certainly deserves to be here.

Taking out loans may be more efficient than financial aid, but I think that Levy is missing the point of financial aid and missing the point of attending a liberal arts university. We have financial aid for reasons of principle, namely, that college shouldn't be a financial burden for students and their families. Taking out loans - even low interest loans - ensures that in addition to the difficult job of doing well in school, a student will also have to deal with the trouble and stress of earning enough money to pay off said loans during and after school. But, as Levy says:

If she majored in a subject like math or finance then her starting salary would be much higher.

Readers are free to disagree, but I don't think the purpose of university is to major in a subject that will ensure a well paying job upon graduation. I intensely dislike the tendency to treat university as a glorified job training program, and not as an opportunity to learn and grow as an individual. I'm not sure if Levy realizes this, but by advocating a system where students must rely on loans to afford college, he is essentially restricting poor and working class students ability to study subjects that they are passionate for.

If your major concern is "how will I pay for school," then even if for example you love religious studies, it doesn't make any sense to pursue that as a major, since a B.A. in religious studies will not pay as well as a degree from the Commerce School.

Even in college, an overriding concern over costs is likely to prevent students from enjoying their time in school and instead spending their free time working, with the effect of tiering a college experience by class. For richer students - who are largely freed from financial concerns - college would end up being a fairly rewarding experience, where the concern is personal growth rather than financial stability.

For poor and working class students, the opposite would be true. College would become nothing more than a means to earning a job that would pay off loans, and the bountiful opportunities that college provides - studying abroad for example - would be lost.

I don't think that's what Levy intends, but I do think that would be the likely result.

Ahmadinejad speaking is the price of freedom

2007-09-24T12:43:00.001-04:00

Hugh Hewitt complains about Columbia University's decision to invite the Iranian president to speak:

While the dean's candor on what Ahmadinejad represents is welcome, the idea that "prestige or legitimacy" is not inherent in the invitation is just absurd. It is the "World Leaders Forum" at one of the world's great universities --of course Columbia is not merely "lending" the fanatic "prestige" and "legitimacy," it is wholesaling both to him and all he represents.
For as long as we recall that Iran has been killing American soldiers and Marines, we will also recall that when Ahmadinejad came to the United States, it was Columbia that welcomed him and gave him a stage, a microphone, a vast audience and all the "prestige" and "legitimacy" Columbia can confer.

The price of living in a country that values free speech - regardless of the views transmitted - is that you'll occasionally have to deal with the fact that leaders with reprehensible views will speak.

Ahmadinejad is not a good man, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't give him an opportunity to speak and demonstrate to the world that we welcome even those whom we consider enemies, which is a stronger advertisement for American values than war will ever be.

Share this post :

We're not leaving Iraq for a long time buddy

2007-09-24T12:29:00.001-04:00

thudfactor asks when are we leaving Iraq?

I remember before the summer started a lot of media-heads saying that the President had until September, roughly, to straighten things out in Iraq. And that Republican congressmen, conscious of the horrible presidential approval ratings, would peel off from the President come September if the surge didn’t work.
It is the end of September and the only way you can make the argument that the “surge” has “worked” is if you cherry-pick evidence by, for example, claiming that everyone who was shot in the face is a crime victim, not a victim of sectarian violence.
In any case, the “surge” was supposed to give the Iraqi government breathing room to arrive at some political solutions, and by all accounts that’s been a failure. So here it is September. And the Republicans don’t support sane rotation strategies for our troops, and they don’t support an end on the war, but we can all apparently get together to condemn an ad placed by MoveOn.

It's an exercise in futility to hope that the Democrats will do anything to bring the occupation of Iraq to an end. All of the major presidential candidates have said that they would maintain some sort of presence in Iraq, and Hillary Clinton seems to be committed to an indefinite occupation. Unless something catastrophic happens in Iraq, I honestly think that we'll be there for at least the next decade.

Fun.

Share this post :

I'm a little too optimistic sometimes

2007-09-24T11:32:00.001-04:00

Paul Krugman writes in today's New York Times:

One of the truly remarkable things about the contest for the Republican nomination is the way the contenders have snubbed not just blacks — who, given the G.O.P.’s modern history, probably won’t vote for a Republican in significant numbers no matter what — but Hispanics. In July, all the major contenders refused invitations to address the National Council of La Raza, which Mr. Bush addressed in 2000. Univision, the Spanish-language TV network, had to cancel a debate scheduled for Sept. 16 because only John McCain was willing to come.
If this sounds like a good way to ensure defeat in future elections, that’s because it is: Hispanics are a rapidly growing force in the electorate.
But to get the Republican nomination, a candidate must appeal to the base — and the base consists, in large part, of Southern whites who carry over to immigrants the same racial attitudes that brought them into the Republican fold to begin with. As a result, you have the spectacle of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, pragmatists on immigration issues when they actually had to govern in diverse states, trying to reinvent themselves as defenders of Fortress America.

Back in early 2006, when the debate about immigration began to flare up with some intensity, I sincerely thought that perhaps the GOP has the best interests of the United States at heart, and would ignore the cacophonous wailing of their racist, nativist base and embrace Hispanic immigrants, instead of demonizing them. I actually wrote a paper on this for class:

Though short-term damage will be painful, in the long run, it is to the GOP's and country's benefit for Republicans to side with Democrats and liberalize immigration laws. In doing so, Republicans may be able to both remain competitive with Latino voters and in the process, eject and in effect, disenfranchise a racist and xenophobic element in American politics.

It looks like I was a naive SOB. Turns out that the Republicans are almost categorically unwilling to stop their racist appeals and instead will go to their graves cultivating a base that is slavishly devoted to "white Southern exceptionalism."

I would make conjectures about the likely negative impact this has over the long-term, but I think the Bush years are actually a pretty good demonstration of what happens when you let these largely authoritarian members of the polity control the levers of power. We get a government that is insensitive (bordering on hostile) to the needs of the poor, and does nothing to prevent poverty stricken communities from drowning in a flood of anomie and despair. We get a government that is spends hundreds of billions of dollars on maintaining a "strong military," but that is unwilling to fund basic infrastructure, condemning thousands to die in a foreseeable hurricane.

We get a government that is willing to torture human beings for some ill defined and short-sighted "war on terrorism," and we get a government that seriously considers using the most destructive weapons known to man in an aggressive war against a state that doesn't directly threaten us.

I would hope that the experience of the Bush Administration serves as a reminder that a functioning democracy requires an engaged and tolerant citizenry, but as always, I don't hold my breath.

Share this post :

I can haz liberties?

2007-09-22T12:40:00.001-04:00

"I will fight to make sure our future is not defined by the letters 'ACLU,' but by the letters 'USA.'" - Mitt Romney

So I guess I should say bye to the 1st Amendment Mitt?

(from The Corner)

Song (and video) of the Day

2007-09-21T12:49:00.001-04:00

Kanye West - "Can't Tell Me Nothing"

I'm listening to the new Kanye album, Graduation, and it's a hell of a lot better than I expected.

Plus, this music video is teh awesome.

Comment Response - A mistake

2007-09-21T09:37:00.001-04:00

Reader Charlotte writes:

oh jamelle. don't criticize dems. that guy was tasered by cops, john kerry did not support it. he even went agead and answered the question. it's the po-pos, not the dems, who are responsible here.

Um, I wasn't criticizing Democrats. The first chunk of text in that post was taken from a right-wing blogger, I didn't write it.

Preposterous

2007-09-20T13:34:00.001-04:00

Converted to 2006 dollars and adjusted for inflation, John D. Rockefeller was worth over $300 billion.

Holy shit.

Here is the chart.

(h/t to Tyler Cowen)

The United States of Jamerica

I've switched!

Sexual assault at Mr. Jefferson's University

Song (and video) of the Day

It's us against the world

That WSJ piece on the religious left

Niebuhr on the Religious Left with some context

New blog!

Song (and video) of the Day

Let's push things forward

Just say the magic word

Yeah

Religion will always mix with politics

You do realize

Song (and video) of the Day

This is horrible

Thoughts on selling out

The powerful Christian Right

Women's bodies are public property

The times they are-a changin'

Identity crisis, pt. 2!

Brown paper bag = tool of oppression

Identity crisis!

Because that would be lame

A theology of the religious right?

You should know

The awesomeness of unlimited executive power

Comment Response - Global Warming and the Rapture

Which Constitution are you reading?

More death & destruction = more Jesus!

Damn the masses that got me elected

Frivolous post

Band of the Day

Read it

This is really cool

I don't know why you would want that

Robert Gates is pretty much correct

Clinton doesn't want to give up torture

Hillary Clinton wouldn't be opposed to bombing Iran

I was on the Colbert Report bitches!

I lied

Song (and video) of the Day

I don't understand

We owe these people something

Biggie = better than Tupac

Jesusland needs a bit more social in their gospel

Too bad we're living in the real world

I'm not dead

Everyone failed

It's still bigger than hip-hop

Song (and video) of the Day

The police are supposed to defend us?

Comment Response - What the hell?

Two words

Bishop: No communion for you

Jim Wallis: "Bush has lost sight of the children"

It's all fun and games until someone need therapy

Another little piece

Yeah we know it's not flowers and puppies

America isn't driven by good intentions

Because I have nothing better to do with my time

Holy crap!

Useless celebrity gossip

Obama is going to clown you

More totally frivolous posts

Not funny

Comment Response - Idiocy

I'm surprised the guard didn't sprinkle some crack on her

Give it to me baby

The Law of Unintended Consequences

Song (and video) of the Day

It's pretty simple really

Yeah, this isn't heartening either

Giuliani hates our freedom

Rudy Giuliani is a trick-ass mark, mark-ass trick, scip scap and scallywag

We are the Wal-Mart of arms sales

Joe Klein is hilariously self-unaware

Song (and video) of the Day

Power is the position

I think we've learned the "lessons of history" pretty well, thanks