Yoo Memos: Worse than I thought

This is incredible. Not only did John Yoo write memos saying that torture was perfectly acceptable, but he also wrote that First Amendment rights can be curtailed at the discretion of the President during a war, apparently forgetting the unhappy history of such action, even when undertaken by Congress (see The Alien and Sedition Acts).

But even worse is this: He advocated for the military to be used for domestic law enforcement, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. 1385.

The newly disclosed Oct. 23, 2001, memo was in response to a request from Gonzales, at the time President Bush's top lawyer, and Haynes, who was chief counsel at the Pentagon, to determine if there were any restrictions on the use of the U.S. military inside the country in targeting terror suspects. The Yoo memo essentially concluded there were none. The country, he argued, was in a "state of armed conflict." The scale of violence, he argued, was unprecedented and "legal and constitutional rules" governing law enforcement—such as the Fourth Amendment prohibition on "unreasonable" searches and seizures—did not apply.

At one point, the memo says, the U.S. military could be used for "targeting and destroying" a hijacked airline or "attacking civilian targets, such as apartment buildings, offices or ships where suspected terrorists were thought to be." At another point, the memo advices: "Military action might encompass making arrests, seizing documents or other property, searching persons or places or keeping them under surveillance, intercepting electronic or wireless communications, setting up roadblocks, interviewing witnesses or searching for suspects."

Yes, according to John Woo, the country was in an unprecedented state of armed conflict after 9/11, apparently forgetting that there was, you know, a civil war almost 150 years ago.

Ugh.

Limbaugh: Screw policy!

Wow. This is the man who is going to bring the GOP back? Good luck with that. Oh, and I'd like to hear what Newt Gingrich has to say now, since this was a completely unsubtle blast at him.



Now, I'll confess: CPAC is a big deal for me every year. Its the time of year when the right wing of the Republican Party comes out and reminds me why I could never count myself among them. Hatred for immigrants and homosexuals (not to mention anyone who dares disagree with the GOP) is trumpeted from on high, liberalism is spoken of as an -ism the likes of communism and terrorism, and Ann Coulter will inevitably say something ridiculously insensitive and ignorant.

Diatribes like Limbaugh's are getting more frequent, and I have to say, it's really entertaining watching a party self-destruct on my television.

Some day...

Republicans will stop believing that tax cuts are the solution to everything.

That day will probably be around the time the GOP takes a hard look at itself and realizes that the debt created in the last eight years is, you know, on them. I guess spending is okay when they do it, but shame on the Democrats for wanting to do the same thing and actually raise some taxes to pay for it.

Tell me, exactly how is a tax cut supposed to get us out of debt? If tax cuts alone stimulated the economy better than anything else, the Bush years would have been marked by the greatest economic expansion in history. But they weren't, so I think that argument has been conclusively found wanting. Not only that, but isn't there a diminishing returns point for tax cuts as a stimulant? I would think so, although I'm sure many in the GOP would have no problem with cutting taxes to zero anyway.

How crazy is Alan Keyes?

This crazy:



I hate to nitpick, but openly advocating that the military not obey the orders of their duly elected Commander-in-Chief is walking awfully close to the point at which speech loses any protection under the First Amendment.

H/T: Sullivan.

Earlier H/T: illusory tenant.

Irony, Defined

Tragic, but ironic:

A man shot and killed himself in front of a cross inside televangelist Robert H. Schuller's Crystal Cathedral on Wednesday as a nearby volunteer told a group of visitors about the church's suicide-prevention program, police and church officials said.

Wow. And the church actually has a history of this:

There have been two other shootings at the church in recent years.

In December 2004, Crystal Cathedral Orchestra conductor Johnnie Carl, 57, killed himself at the complex after a standoff that began when he opened fire in offices before a Christmas pageant. He had been hospitalized for severe depression.

Also that year, a man was wounded by a plainclothes police officer in the cathedral parking lot. Authorities said the man was meeting his mother, but the officer didn't know they were related and intervened in what he thought was an argument.

Personally, I always thought the "Crystal Cathedral" to be hideous, and a prime example of a church with its priorities in the wrong place (and don't try to tell me that an edifice that ornate is somehow necessary), but this is just sad.

Yglesias on Gingrichism

I was gone for the weekend, but Matt Yglesias' piece on why Eric Cantor needs to rethink his appeal to Newt Gingrich's tactics is worth reading. Especially this:

In Washington, coverage of politics is dominated by politics rather than the policy consequences of politics. Thus, because of the outcome of the 1994 elections, Gingrich’s 93-94 tactics are held to have been a great success. But it’s important to be clear—those tactics included lockstep opposition to a Clinton economic program whose opponents set [sic] it would wreck the economy, but in fact laid the groundwork for years of prosperity. Gingrich’s success in blocking health care reform has been a small but persistent drag on the economy whose negative impact has compounded each and every year for the past fifteen years and has led to the preventable deaths of thousands and thousands of people at a minimum. Politics is politics and I understand that, but anyone who looks to that era as something to be emulated is dangerously indifferent to the real-world implications of congressional behavior.

That's a remarkably salient point, and not just in Washington. How often do we hold senators and representatives accountable for the real-world outcomes of their projects or their obstructionism? Something to ponder. But Yglesias also makes a good case that these sort of tactics are ill-suited to the current political landscape (shorter version: Clinton won with 43% of the vote in 1992, while Obama and the Democrats whooped the Republicans' asses in 2008):

Meanwhile, the political contexts of the two eras strike me as different in a number of ways. Bill Clinton’s 43 percent share of the popular vote in the 1992 election made it plausible to believe that the center of public opinion was amenable to the idea that the President’s agenda needed curtailing. What’s more, the Democrats gained zero Senate seats and actually lost nine House seats. Under the circumstances, you can see why conservative felt emboldened. And their political strategy had a clear logic to it—a large number of Democrats in congress were representing constituencies that had pretty consistently been trending to the right in presidential politics since the 1960s. With a Democrat in the White House, the chance existed for a spirit of feisty opposition to force the voters in such constituencies to align their congressional preferences with their presidential ones.

That’s simply not the case this year. Not only did Obama have a more decisive win (obviously the absence of a third-party candidate is important here) but the Democratic caucus is more compact and includes many fewer outlier members whose constituencies are dramatically more conservative than the national electorate that backed Obama in November.

Worth the read, to be sure.

Someone had to say it

I know this was posted a couple days ago, but Heather Mac Donald is absolutely right about the octuplets:

Meanwhile, the backlash against Nadya Suleman, the mother of six artificially-conceived children who gave birth to another eight two weeks ago continues. The nine-week premature octoplet’s delivery required 46 doctors, nurses, and assistants; in twelve days, their care has likely cost at least $300,000 and counting. Here’s a possible rule of thumb: If you are a radical pro-lifer and believe that every artificially-conceived embryo must be brought to term, no fertility treatments for you unless you are prepared to bankroll all the resulting medical costs yourself. Either accept your God-given condition of infertility or accept a human condition on the man-made science for overcoming that infertility: use within reason

H/T: Sullivan.

A Word About Prof. McAdams

The ultra-conservative (maybe even paleo-conservative) Poli Sci prof John McAdams has been getting a lot of attention over this post a while ago, and the debate between him and a commenter that has ensued. For some humorous jabs at McAdams' "Omigosh, anti-Christian bigotry is everywhere!!!1!one!!" schtick, see illusory tenant and Capper.

My problem is, I sense, a tad different from my colleagues in the blogosphere (besides the fact that the link to this blog on his page continues to state that I am a first-year law student, when I am, in fact, in my second year), though Keith Schmitz did hint at it in a comment on Capper's blog when he wrote this:

The guy is an avid fan of the death penalty, derides social justice or any help for the poor -- even people who try to help out in a non-government way, supports war. What a poster boy for Christianity.

Now, I'm not going to go out on a limb and start talking about how Christians can't ever be pro-war or pro-death penalty, even though Christ was pretty adamant about peace and put a stop to a public execution. But making this point automatically reboots the fair retort that "Liberals are pro-abortion, so who's not a good Christian now?" Nor am I going to disclose my own relgious beliefs, because they're still my own, and they're not at all relevant. What I will say is that, for a self-proclaimed Christian, Prof. McAdams sure spends a lot of time complaining and accusing other groups of persecuting his religion, and well, not a lot of time discussing Christ's redeeming power, God's love, the need for charity (something I'm pretty sure Jesus was quite explicit about), or any number of other things one would expect from one who is so adamant about their faith.

Jesus and his earliest followers were truly persecuted, yet they did not spend their time complaining - they kept spreading their message. Professor McAdams complains when people say bad things about Christianity in public, though I'll grant he does keep spreading his message.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to McAdams' claims that Christians have it tougher in the area of political correctness than, say, gays. But if McAdams thinks for one second that that means Christians have it tougher in America (and American speech) than blacks, gays, or Muslims (to mention his favorite minorities), then the dear professor really needs to get out more. Don't believe me? Take African-Americans. How many prejudicial jokes have you heard about them? Far too many, I'd imagine. Can you say the same about Christians? Aside from jokes about Catholic priests, I seriously doubt it. I mean, I know lots of God-and-Jesus-on-the-golf-course jokes, but those aren't anti-Christian, so I digress. Ditto gays. Do Christians have to "come out of the closet" to their closest friends and family, risking shame and disgrace? Not in any place I've ever heard of. And finally, Muslims. If you're a white Christian, does your color and religion make you a likely candidate to be "randomly selected" for the special attentions of airport security? I highly doubt it. I don't deny that there are ignorant people who do say truly anti-Christian things, but that leads into my next point.

I see in Prof. McAdams' blog this problem: In the entry I link to above, Prof. McAdams quotes in full an article listing instances of "anti-Christian bigotry," but seems to be giving some of the people involved the attention they seek. For instance, the article mentions a professor from the University of Minnesota driving a rusty nail through a communion wafer, which Catholics believe to be the body of Christ. No doubt such actions are stupid, in remarkably poor taste, and even offensive to some, but consider this: Isn't such action just dumb attention-grabbing, and doesn't McAdams do the work of this misguided professor by drawing attention to it? Its like the rhetorical question, "If a tree falls in a forest, and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?" The answer to that is metaphysically, yes, it makes a sound, but it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to human experience. If this joker in Minnesota committed sacrilege and no one paid attention, what difference would that make? Isn't McAdams just playing into the hands of the offender?

But most puzzling in the article McAdams quotes in full is this:

Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, came under sharp attack by some in the mainstream media because she self-identifies as a Christian. The Washington Post published a cartoon by Pat Oliphant mocking Palin because she has a background as a Pentecostal/Charismatic Christian. A suspicious arson fire at Sarah Palin’s home church recently caused over $1,000,000 in damage.

Okay, these things need to be separated, because there is no link between the two. Yes, arson is a felony, and the arsonist should absolutely be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But the cartoons and jabs were not directed at Palin just because she was a Christian. It was because she was, and is, a fringe Christian whose minister begged God to "make a way" for her to be in power and to protect her from "every form of witchcraft." Attacking someone for being a Christian and attacking them for being extreme qua Christian are explicitly not the same thing. Besides, if Prof. McAdams was so upset by that, shouldn't Bobby Jindal's statements that Protestants are "heretics" be equally bad in his eyes? I think we know the answer to that.

No doubt that there is anti-Christianism out there. But by constantly drawing attention to the slightest hints of even suggested anti-Christianism (Jack Black in the Prop 8 video is anti-Christian? Anti-homophobic, Old Testament obsessed Christian, maybe, but anti-Christian I think not), and claiming that somehow African-Americans, gays, and Muslims have it better in American discourse, Professor McAdams undermines his own enterprise. Perhaps his efforts would be better directed at promoting the message of Christ, rather than constantly crying foul when stupid pranks and remarks meant to draw the ire of believers hit the mark.

"A counter negative effect"

Former Speaker Denny Hastert shows why its for the best that he's retired:

Q. President Obama has talked about his desire to be bipartisan. But the vote on the economic stimulus package went straight down party lines. Is it just the state of politics in America right now?

A. When you really analyze it, if you want to stimulate economic growth, you have to have people investing, creating capital and creating jobs. Basically, a big part of that (stimulus package) went for extending unemployment. It's a nice thing to do, but when you extend unemployment, you take the incentive away from people to go out and get a job. So it almost has a counter negative effect.

Well, let's start with the obvious double-negative. This man was a school teacher, for crying out loud, and he uses phrases like "counter negative?"

But more important, exactly how big of an idiot do you have to be to think that extending unemployment makes people somehow want to be unemployed? Does Hastert think there are people out there wishing and praying every night that they get laid off so they can collect the super sweet extended unemployment to provide for their families, put food on the table, and pay the mortgage, etc., etc.?

H/T: Sullivan.

Best Super Bowl Commercial - Mav's Pick

It has to be Alec Baldwin as the brain-gobbling alien hawking Hulu.com.

Friday Music Break - Brit Pop Edition

Just two this week. First, Oasis performing "Hello" at Glastonbury in 1995.



And, of course, the ubiquitous "Song 2" by Blur.

A Redundant Amendment

A lot of the blogosphere seems enthralled by the prospect of Sen. Russ Feingold's proposed amendment to the Constitution requiring that special elections be held to fill any vacancies in that body. To put it mildly, I think such an amendment is entirely unnecessary.

The 17th Amendment of the United States Constitution reads, in relevant part:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies. Provided, That the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

In other words, if the states want, they can write their own state laws in such a way that a special election is required to fill any vacancy. If you recall, there were calls from all quarters for such a special election in Illinois, but they were quickly silenced when it was revealed that the cost of such a special election would be prohibitively high, especially in light of the fact that the eventual appointee would be up for election in two years. That's the prerogative of each state under the 17A. If other states see it differently, they are already free to change their laws, trading taxpayer dollars for confidence in the system.

Let me be clear: I have absolutely no problem with vacancies being filled by special election. If the people, in their wisdom, feel that their dollars are well spent holding such elections, and avoiding Blago/Burris-style shenanigans, then they should lobby their respective state legislatures to make the necessary changes in state law. I have the greatest of sympathy for the argument that the people should always determine who their Senators are. But considering that even Illinois was ultimately put off by the cost of a special election, I don't like the idea of amending the Constitution to force states to do something they have the option to do already (at least insofar as this isn't an issue like slavery or segregation, where I have no problem with more regressive states getting rolled). So for once, let me recite the credo of many conservatives: Let the states settle it.

"Republican for a Reason?"

That's the theme of the Republican Winter Ho-Down going on this weekend.

"Republican for a reason?" says Stephen Scheffler, a committeeman from Iowa, pausing before a banner carrying the slogan. "I don't know what that means."

But Rush Limbaugh, as usual, can be counted on to say something really stupid. How stupid? This stupid:

"The Republican Party is making a big, big — the conservative movement, too — making a big, big mistake in planning for the future," he told Fox's Sean Hannity. "You hear things like 'Well, the Republican Party needs to identify the middle class, the Wal-Mart voters, and come up with policies for them. And then we've got to come up with policies for the Hispanics because they hate us due to illegal immigration.' "

And the ultimate insult from Limbaugh: that's the way Democrats do things.

Who knew Rush was allergic to winning? After all, the Democrats did cream the GOP by 10.5% in the total Congressional vote this year. I guess Rush doesn't want any of that. Identifying with the middle class? Surely not. And if the whole "Wal-Mart voters" thing is so bad, what the hell was with Rush's love affair with the Queen of the Wal-Mart voters, Sarah Palin?

As for hispanic voters, the Republicans were making a lot of in-roads with them in 2000, threatening to make them a solid part of the GOP tent. Then the members of the whacko caucus decided to make illegal immigration the wedge issue of the day, and look what happened - Obama crushed McCain among hispanics. Surprise, surprise! Rush apparently envisions the GOP as the ultimate all-white country club from this description of the party, which will be even more entertaining when whites are not the majority 20 years from now.

So, I think I can sum up Rush's vision for the GOP: A losing party.

Hypocrisy Alert

I have only this observation on the Pope reversing the excommunication of a Holocaust denier:

So, if I have this right, when Barack Obama gets praised by Louis Farrakhan, a man whose words Obama has condemned repeatedly, everyone screams that Obama is an anti-Semite, but when the Pope essentially forgives a man who denies that the Holocaust ever happened, those same people yawn? Is that it?

How can those people (and reasonable people in general, for that matter) not conclude that the Pope is at least acting in an anti-Semitic fashion? I'd really like to know.

Friday Music

Before I begin this week's voyage in to my musical indulgences, I'd like to advertise a bit: It's been a while since I've been in a band, and I'm looking to join one. So if anyone needs a reasonably good rhythm guitar player, my services are available.

Now then, we'll begin with Mark Knoplfer's "Why Aye Man."



Next up, R.E.M. with "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?"



And finally, "An End has a Start" by Editors.

Someone's getting ripped off

The Chicago Cubs are being purchased for a reported $900 million. So I have a question:

Who in their right mind pays almost a billion dollars for a team that hasn't won a World Series in 100 years?

Accordingly, the White Sox fan in me can't resist posting this video:



Hilarious.

QQ More, Please

I've noticed a lot of conservative bloggers crying and whining: "Four years of Obama, oh noes! Is it over yet?" Here's an excellent example. As someone who worked for the Gore Campaign, I say unto them: You have nothing to complain about. Your candidate came nowhere close to winning the popular vote, and the election was not decided by a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court. No, I am not saying Bush was illegitimately installed into office. I'm saying your side got your tails whipped, and perhaps you ought to own it and learn how the majority of voters who cast their votes for Al Gore in 2000 have felt for the last eight years. I have no doubt that many on the right want to fast-forward to 2012, when Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal will surely take them to the promised land (riiiiiiight), but until then, in the words of my generation, keep on QQ'ing.

Solemnly, It Begins

As I write, Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America.

Yes, we did.

And now the real work begins.

Music Break - Inauguration Edition

My dad and sister have tickets to the inauguration today. Naturally, I'm beyond jealous. But at least I don't have class until two in the afternoon, so I'll be able to watch events in HD.

But it seems like now would be a good time for some music. This one is obvious:



And the next one is pretty obvious, since it was the song that opened the Obama campaign on a cold February day in Springfield, Illinois. True story: Mrs. Mav and I were driving through Springfield on that day.



And since I've blogged so much about people using ridiculous religious rhetoric like "Pray Obama Fails," I figured I owed it to Ben Folds to post his all-too-true "Jesusland."



Happy Inauguration Day.

More Wing-Nutter Hysterics

Joseph Farah: Pray Obama Fails.

That's why I do not hesitate today in calling on godly Americans to pray that Barack Hussein Obama fail in his efforts to change our country from one anchored on self-governance and constitutional republicanism to one based on the raw and unlimited power of the central state.

Praying for your president to fail. Yes, that's very Christian. Never mind that it was President George W. "22% approval rating, don't let the door hit you on your way out" Bush that increased the power of the central state, yet Farah seemed totally cool with that. But he also fails logic when trying to preempt the retort of "render unto Caesar." To wit:

Furthermore, it needs to be pointed out that in America we don't have a Caesar. Never have, never will. You see, our system of government is called a free republic, and it is based on the concept of constitutional self-government. We have no "rulers" in America – except ourselves and our God. We believe in the rule of law, not the rule of men.

We have no rulers, but we believe in the rule of law. I'm pretty sure "ruler" is a noun meaning "one who rules," so wouldn't "the law" have to be added to the list of "ourselves and our God?" Moreover, if we "ourselves" are our rulers, how can anyone go to jail, since they rule themselves? Or if "our God" is the ruler, how come "our God" seems to only apply to some people's God(s)?

I know this is sheer moon-battery, but can't I at least expect even ultra-righties to make grammatical and logical sense?

H/T: Sullivan.

UPDATE: I'm not linking to it, but the separate comments page for the post linked above is filled with people bringing up the "he's not a natural born citizen" thing again. Hilarity ensues.