Just plain depressing. It's taken all day to get an agreement on Florida, which was supposed to be the easier state to resolve. Clinton supporters are reportedly chanting "Denver! Denver!" As in, they will take it all the way to the convention in Denver. There are protesters outside threatening to vote for McCain instead of Obama.
Wait, wait, TMJ just broke in with an announcement that a compromise has been reached on Michigan and Florida. Ambinder confirms in part 7 above. The catch: Clinton is reserving the right to appeal to the credentials committee. She nets a total of 24 delegates. Way to nearly destroy the whole party for two dozen delegates, Hillary. Job well done.
I desperately hope that the Clintons are remembered badly for the damage they have done this year.
UPDATE: Here's some reaction from the typically mature Clintonites:
7:16: Some Clinton supporters begin to shout: "McCain, McCain, McCain.
Wow. Just wow. If Obama supporters talked like this, they'd be accused of treason to the party. Hillary's people do it and no one has the guts to call them on it?
Where's Michelle Malkin now? Why isn't she saying that this kaffiyeh wearing must stop, before the terrorists strike again? If it's bad for a freakin' donut shop to show someone wearing this "terrorist garb," how much worse is it for the presumptive Republican nominee's daughter to be wearing one?
H/T and full post on the stupidity of Malkin's crusade against the commercial at Skippy's blog, here.
All the Republicans jumping on Obama's "gaffe" of confusing Buchenwald for Auschwitz need to check their own candidate. We've been negotiating with Iran for two decades, according to McCain. Huh? I guess Iran-Contra counts, but I'm not aware of any other negotiations.
Also, given that McCain has previously confused Iraq and Iran, and shown no awareness of the difference between Sunni and Shiite, Republicans really ought not to go ape over Obama's mistake. It wasn't nearly as patently false as Hillary's claim of landing under sniper fire, yet the right chooses this issue to whine about. Sounds like a side that's desperate to me. Considering the presumptive Republican nominee's penchant for misstatement and losing his temper (I can't wait to see him lose it in a debate with Obama), I think they doth protest too much.
Now, I'm a guitar player, but not a particularly great one. As such, I get very jealous when I see things like this:
I've seen a lot of really great guitarists, but this guy has to be one of the better ones I've seen footage of. And wouldn't I love to be able to play that fast.
It seems to be a slow day today, but I'll try and get some actual posts up later.
"Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House," press secretary Dana Perino said in a statement. "For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad — this is not the Scott we knew."
Um, Dana, you'd be disgruntled too if your boss, "unwittingly" or not, forced you into the position of having to lie over and over again at the podium about some rather serious, potentially criminal, charges.
I guess this is the part where McClellan and the White House wrestle to see who ends up under the bus. I'm still not totally sold on McClellan's objectivity, but I'd bet the farm he'll come out ahead of the president with the 27% approval rating. Meanwhile, John McCain can't possibly be pleased. Stay tuned.
I imagine a storm is about to start over Scott McClellan's new book (MSNBC story here, Politico here), accusing Bush of misleading the country on Iraq (duh), confirming that there was a cover-up in the Plame scandal (old news), and saying other unflattering things about the President. Mostly, it's the insights into the President's thought process (i.e., he doesn't ask tough questions), which others have speculated on, that will be the main attraction, one would imagine. However, I'm not sure of McClellan's ability to be an honest broker on this matter.
On the one hand, McClellan was inside for a long time, and was very loyal to President Bush. He's the closest person to the President to write a critical book, and that gives some cause for taking his claims seriously. But it's widely known that McClellan was personally hurt by Bush leaving him to twist in the wind at the podium during the Plame affair, which seriously damaged his credibility. As press secretary, his credibility was all he had to go on, and when he lost it, he was effectively done. Therefore, he has some cause to be resentful of President Bush. Sounds like an axe to grind to me. So I'm really curious as to whether this is a simple hit job or a serious critique of a flawed presidency.
That said, I'll probably read the book closely and make my decision then. I might even blog about it.
And on an unrelated note, Sullivan points out that Bill Clinton doth protest too much about never having seen a push to end a race like this. In fact, his campaign did exactly that to Jerry Brown in 1992. Not that I think Bill would enjoy that comparison.
Slate Magazine's Trailhead blog tries to track all the different stories coming from Harold Ickes on Florida, given that he voted to strip Florida of its delegates.
Money quote:
So first it was about fixing the calendar; then it was about enforcing the rules; then it was about record turnout, Obama breaking the rules (which is debatable), and winning the general election. Next it will be about the deliciousness of Tropicana orange juice.
Why isn't anyone else reporting on this blatant hypocrisy, or at least the lack of any coherent logic over the course of Clinton's campaign? I would try to list here all the different messages and raisons d'etre for their campaign, but that would take all kinds of time that I don't have. Suffice it to say I have long since tired of the Clinton campaign's incessant whining about why the rules shouldn't apply to them.
Of course, the McCain campaign should appreciate seeing all those young names on the screen given McCain's age. Only one problem: Ticket balance. Suppose McCain picks someone for the bottom part of the ticket who generates more excitement with conservatives than he does. Conventional wisdom says that's a bad thing. It makes people willing to wait four years for the guy (or woman) that they like better. But is it a bad thing in this instance? I'm curious to hear arguments on this, so if any readers want to weigh in, be my guest.
The Journal Sentinel runs this editorial today on the ability of words to override the mental capacities of a whole lot of people. I don't know if I agree with all of it, but it's certainly a good read. And I appreciate the author's decency in accusing both sides of doing this, not just one or the other.
Money quote:
Consider the language about abortion. People who oppose abortion don't want to call themselves "anti-abortion" because "anti" is too negative. They want to keep it positive. They want to be for something. So they call themselves "pro-life." For life. Simple, right?
Except that "pro-life" implies lots of things beyond abortion. Many abortion opponents support the death penalty. "Life" in that context means life in prison, the opposite of what they favor. That would make them "pro-death." Or just pro-some life, I guess.
Likewise for the other side. "Pro-abortion" sounds too harsh. "Pro-choice" suggests that one favors the right of people to choose. Who can be against choice? Sounds so American.
But "choice" can mean many things. School choice, for instance. Many people who support abortion rights oppose school choice. The term is too broad. But it sure sounds good.
First of all, when you get Olbermann this upset, that's usually a bad sign:
Also, MSNBC runs this article (from the New York Times) about how her return to the Senate could be difficult, given her lack of seniority.
And finally, Andrew Sullivan links to a piece in the LA Times indicating Hillary might have some 'splaining to do to black Democrats in New York City. Here's a hint: Things are bad when people want to demonstrate outside Bill's office in Harlem.
And on a personal note, I desperately hope the reports of Obama rebuffing the Clintons' demand to be offered the second spot on the ticket are true. Bringing her on board does nothing to further his "new kind of politics" message, and would greatly damage his appeal among independents and Republicans.
Finally, on another personal note, I would like to take a moment to explain my continued insistence that Hillary's impending defeat is in no way due to sexism. Just because she has gotten negative coverage doesn't mean there is rampant sexism. It is possible to dislike Hillary personally or as a candidate and not dislike all women. Just ask my wife. The conflation of the two does a great disservice, in my opinion, to the cause of feminism.
He-Whose-Tie-is-Too-Long on Sunday Insight moments ago: "The one thing I want is not to be lectured by Senator Herb Kohl on what's fair until he can find a way to reduce ticket prices and have the Bucks not suck."
Asked on Meet the Press about the Clinton's claims of gender bais, she says it's "poppycock." Better yet, she accuses Clinton's feminism of being "opportunistic." This is coming from Maureen Dowd, mind you.
Another female guest, Ruth Marcus, on Russert's panel today wrote this piece in the Washington Post this week. Money quote:
From a feminist perspective, Clinton's was not a perfect candidacy. Part of this stems from a fact outside Clinton's control: that her route to power was derivative, the Adam's rib outgrowth of her husband's career. Hillary Clinton has been elected senator, twice, in her own right, but the fact that her road to the White House involved standing by her man, no matter how badly he behaved, made her a flawed vessel for the feminist cause.
And Clinton's least attractive campaign moments came when she took up the gender card and chose to play it as victim instead of trailblazer. The notion that the male candidates were ganging up on her because she is a woman instead of -- remember back when? -- the front-runner was silly. The complaint that asking her the first question in debates was evidence of a double standard was even sillier.
I'm sorry to say it, but the comment section of the most recent post on Prof. Rick Esenberg's blog has descended into all-out hilarity. This shouldn't come as much of a surprise, since the topic is gay marriage.
Let's see: First we have an anonymous commenter citing to the story of Sodom in the book of Genesis as a "historical account" of why gay marriage will ultimately destroy our civilization. I dare say, that's a very loose definition of "history." Here we go again (leaving my beliefs out of it) with the literal acceptance of absolutely everything in the Bible as historical fact. No possibility that Sodom and Gomorrah were moralistic tales meant to warn the Hebrews about the dangers of straying from the path. I suppose this anonymous blogger also accepts the biblical account that Abraham lived to the age of 175 as well. Perhaps he or she also believes that the entire planet was covered by water in a Great Flood, even though that is not physically possible. After all, who needs a brain when you can read a book written (and selectively edited) thousands of years ago, when the people were obviously much more intelligent and informed?
This argument is followed up by my foil, the riotously funny Dad29, who writes: "Nature is clear, as is the Gospel." Besides another reference to the Bible as some sort of empirical authority (now it's being utilized as a physiological and metaphysical account of the purpose of the human body, mind you, as well as a historical tract), this blogger tires of the Natural Law argument. For one thing, homosexuality occurs in other species, rendering the claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" rather a shaky one at best. I could fall back here, and accuse Dad29 of the naturalistic fallacy, but I will rather suggest that Dad29 check out chapter 3 of Andrew Sullivan's excellent book, The Conservative Soul, which is entirely devoted to debunking the natural law account. Moreover, I would inquire unto Dad29 whether or not he thinks the Gospel would be the proper citation for a court decision reversing the California Supremes. Because if he (and anonymous) want to go down the path of "The Bible says it's bad, ergo it must be bad," then I would rebut such claims thusly:
Yes, I know that pointing out the gross hypocrisy of those who share Dad29's opinions is not, in itself, a rebuttal of his claims. It simply illustrates the useful point that some of those who most ardently sought to suppress homosexuals in our country have actually been engaging in the same behavior. Pastor Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, and Larry Craig all make wonderful examples. One wonders how any of them got through the day without thinking, "Wow, I really am a bright, shining example of hypocrisy in action." Maybe they thought Dad29's natural law didn't apply to them, or that God wasn't watching. But I digress.
The argument is that, if you expand marriage to relationships that have different characteristics and, consequently different needs for rules or mores about monogamy, dependence, etc., you risk changing marriage itself.
If you set about to create families that raise children without a mother and a father, you change perceptions about the necessity for mothers and fathers.
Yes, because our society is already setting a great example with the 50% divorce rate and ungodly (pun most certainly intended) numbers of single parents. I seriously question whether homosexual marriage and parenthood could do anything but improve those numbers. Dick Cheney's daughter provides a great example of this.
In addition to people referring to the Bible as a text on every subject matter, this blogger also tires of conservatives who rail against single parenthood, and then turn right around and oppose homosexual parenthood. Excuse me, but please pick one or the other, as there are lots of gay and lesbian couples who want to provide loving homes for children (complete with two parents), but can't because conservatives would rather demonize both groups rather than do anything about the problem. Does the good professor really believe that gay marriage would "change perceptions about the necessity for mothers and fathers" more than the massive rates of single parenthood and divorce already have? Or are divorce and single parenthood okay as long as they involve straight people? Please.
Next up, Dad29 returns by resurrecting the same tired argument that, "SCOCA's ruling (and those of Lawrence and Casey) could also "constitutionalize" polyandry, polygamy, and marrying one's cat." Um, nice try, but no. The case for gay marriage is about giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals - the right to marry a person. But thank you, Dad29, for ascending to the Rick Santorum throne of those who compare homosexuality to polyandry, polygamy, and bestiality. By the way, a recent post on Dad29's blog revels in the fact that the Texas court ruled that Texas CPS overreached when it took the kids away from the polygamist sect, so I wonder who really is defending polygamy here. I suppose Dad29's argument would be that at least the FLDS are straight.
A bit later, an anonymous poster really lets one fly with this: "Marriage is a covenant (not a contract); an institution created by Almighty God to mirror the relationship between Christ (the role played by the husband) and His Church (the role played by the wife)."
Oh, boy. First, would this poster like to explain why marriage predates the covenant to which he is referring, since people got married before the time of the New Testament? Also, since I happen to be married, I will say that in no way do I look upon my relationship between my wife and I as a metaphor for Christ and the church, or anything else for that matter. We were married in a religious service (there, I admitted something else), but there is nothing metaphorical whatsoever in our relationship. Rather, I consider it a very real, and very binding, pact between us to share the remainder of our lives, whatever may come. As a person who keeps his word (regardless of my religious feelings), I take my obligations in that respect deadly serious. But this anonymous poster may feel free to keep his metaphor to himself, please.
I believe this same anonymous commenter is the one who proceeds to get into a back-and-forth with Paul Noonan on the topic, and then comes out of nowhere with this: "I can tell you that I don't believe there are five races of people as evolution teaches, I believe there is only one." My friend Illusory Tenant aptly responds to this by saying, "What in the world are you talking about?" I'd like to know as well, as someone who actually has received some education on the matter. In fact, geneticists haven't been able to find a genetic basis for race at all, and evolution teaches no such nonsense about there being five races of people. So what a very helpful non sequitur that was for informing us just how uninformed this commenter is that he is now making it up as he goes.
My thanks to all involved, as I haven't laughed that hard in quite a while.
UPDATE: Anonymous returns with an appeal to the ex-gay movement. Maybe he hasn't gotten the memo about how ex-gay groups use techniques of shaming and public humiliation. Specifically, anonymous refers to Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX). The name, by the way, is a transparent rip-off of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). I only provide that link because, you know, it makes no difference whatsoever that respectable doctors and scientists say that "treatment" for sexual orientation is ineffective and potentially harmful. So anonymous has gone from "It's unnatural!" to "It's a disease!" You know, diseases occur in nature, anonymous, so make up your mind. Not that you'd be any less wrong in my eyes, but it would at least cure your own inconsistencies.
Geraldine Ferraro is on the Today Show at the moment. I would have thought her tone-deaf remarks earlier in the campaign would have convinced her to, frankly, shut the hell up. Apparently, there's no such luck to be had, as she's busy spouting off about how Obama is winning because the electorate is sexist, and even flat out saying that Obama himself is sexist.
For the last time, just because people aren't voting for your candidate does not mean sexism is at work. I'm truly tired of Hillary supporters constantly saying that she's losing because of sexism. Do they not realize that Hillary went into this race as the favorite? Who's fault is it that she blew her advantages in name recognition, money, staffing, and superdelegates? Maybe people realized that there just wasn't any "there" there. But rather than admit that their candidate has a massive credibility gap, her supporters continue to scream bloody murder about how Obama's being a man counts for more than any of her comparable advantages.
Finally, I'd have had a lot more sympathy for Hillary's claim of being a victim of sexism if she hadn't so readily used her gender itself as a weapon. Remember her crying in New Hampshire? Remember the debate where she said the boys club was ganging up on her? If she thinks she ought to be treated no differently because of her gender, she ought to act like it. If a male candidate started crying like she did, babbling incoherently about his love of country while running for the highest office in the land, people would have legitimate concerns about how he would behave in a crisis. After all, if you can't withstand attacks on the campaign trail without breaking into tears, how would you react when some foreign leader is calling you every name in the book and threatening to go to war? Hillary has claimed to be the victim of sexism after running a campaign where she herself played the gender card at every opportunity. It's a classic case of the tail wagging the dog, and should send a clear signal to future women who might run for the nation's highest office: You cannot have it both ways.
The right-wing blogosphere is in an uproar over the California decision. I'm too busy right now to give a full post on the matter, and I wonder if I even want to go there, since there's an awful lot of illogic floating about on the topic. Personally, I think Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, and Larry Craig would be better suited to stand in opposition to gay marriage, since they obviously have so much more credibility with the gay community. (SARCASM!)
So instead, I give you this song, "Defenders of Marriage" by Roy Zimmerman. It's a bit dated, as the Dick Armey reference establishes, but still timely. Here's hoping it isn't timeless.
Megan and I had a very pleasant weekend in Madison, and even had time for a stop at Johnson Creek on the way back. I've got work to catch up on, so blogging should resume sometime this evening, or tomorrow morning at the latest.
Megan and I will be in Madison visiting friends this weekend, so before I go, I'd like to add Scotch & Politics to the blogroll. I just discovered it, and those are two things that I love very much, so of course I'll link to it.
Chris Matthews absolutely mopped the floor with Kevin James last night. That's all there is to say. I mean, if you're going to talk about appeasement, at least know what it was Chamberlain did. Watch and understand:
Michael Hirsh has an excellent piece in the forthcoming Newsweek, courtesy of MSNBC. Money quote:
Most of what has happened over the last seven years is the result of strategic misconceptions, awful policy decisions, and botched opportunities for leadership by the major players in Washington. What happened to America wasn't natural, it was almost entirely self-inflicted.
The issue goes way beyond Bush's decision to invade Iraq in the middle of the war in Afghanistan. U.S. government literally broke down during the Bush years. The interagency process was destroyed as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld set up what was effectively a "black" alternative government (the veep's shadow national security council, and Doug Feith's Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon). The White House treated its coequal branch, Congress, like an interloper (to the annoyance of Republicans as well as Democrats). Junk science infected the policy-making apparatus on key issues of importance to our allies in Europe and Asia, like global warming. Junk legal reasoning by White House and Justice Department lawyers was used to publicly justify torture, decimating our once high moral stature around the world. Junk economics—an excess of free-market fervor—infected the Federal Reserve and other regulators, who slumbered while Wall Street ran amok selling fraudulent mortgage securities to foreign markets. Congress went to sleep while the administration ran up record deficits. (The fallout from the subprime debacle and budget imbalance has cost us as much prestige in the economic sphere as Iraq has cost us in the foreign policy arena.) The Department of Homeland Security, misconceived and oversized even at its birth, grew into an unmanageable monstrosity, leading directly to the disaster of the Hurricane Katrina response.
Hirsh (correctly) lays some of the blame for this on the doorstep of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Republicans walked in lockstep, writing whatever legislation the president wanted, allowing President Bush to neglect his veto pen until well into his second term. Perhaps worse, the Democrats, afraid of President Bush and the Republicans playing the patriotism card (see Cleland, Max) for even the slightest challenge, didn't seriously question Bush's policies until his approval ratings were clearly on the decline.
Both parties allowed Bush to walk all over the legislative branch, giving rise to the overpowered executive branch that now needs to be dealt with before irrevocable harm is done to constitutional rights such as habeas corpus, the right to an attorney, the right to a fair and speedy trial before a jury of one's peers, etc., etc., etc. Violence has been done to these rights, and it will be up to the next president to repair the damage the current administration has caused. Hopefully, Congress will be more helpful than it has been the last eight years.
James Wigderson celebrates the occasion of the polar bear being added to the endangered species list by giving facts about polar bear meat and a recipe for polar bear stew. This, he says, reflects the polar bear's "proper relationship to mankind."
Oh, and the post is entitled "And they make nice rugs too."
Perhaps Wiggy missed the fact that it's not even human hunting that is threatening the bear, but the fact that their habitat is melting. Or maybe he just failed to consider the fact that if the bear were to go extinct, there would be no more of the stew the web page he links to claims is so delicious. Given that Wigderson is a conservative, I would expect him to understand the need to, you know, conserve. If you believe that God created the animals (not giving away my position), doesn't it make sense that He'd appreciate it if we didn't oversee their extinction?
Maybe Wiggy joined the Ann Coulter school of environmentalism. To wit, a quote from Ms. Coulter: "God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"
I'd like to invite Mr. Wigderson to prove the "proper relationship" between man and polar bear by jumping, unarmed, into the polar bear habitat at the Milwaukee County Zoo. I'm sure the bear would be more than happy to provide an excellent counterpoint to Mr. Wigderson's claim. Just go to Google and type in "polar bear attack" and you'll get plenty of gruesome stories (and graphic pictures - you've been warned) about other bears doing exactly that.
Andrew Sullivan posted this video a while back. It is a pretty accurate commentary on our times, where we're all, potentially, under surveillance. Take it away, Pet Shop Boys:
Lyrics:
Long live us, the persuaded we, Integral, collectively. The whole project, it's brand new, Conceived solely to protect you.
Everyone has their own number In the system that we operate under. We're moving to a situation Where your lives exist as information.
One world. One reason. Unchanging. One season.
We're concerned. You're a threat. You're not integral To the project.
Sterile. Immaculate. Rational. Perfect.
If you've done nothing wrong, You've got nothing to fear. If you've something to hide, You shouldn't even be here.
We're concerned. You're a threat. You're not integral To the project.
If you've done nothing wrong, You've got nothing to fear. If you've something to hide, You shouldn't even be here. You've had your chance, Now we've got the mandate. If you've changed your mind, I'm afraid it's too late.
We're concerned. You're a threat. You're not integral To the project.
Here's the page. The title alone, "Feminism Means Never Having to Say 'I'm Toast'" should give you a good idea. As it's short enough, here's the whole text:
Emily asked a good question yesterday about the proper feminist reading of Hillary Clinton’s weird new Bartleby phase—wherein she is all but mathematically eliminated; superdelegates are running screaming for the exits; the office furniture is being carted out onto the moving vans; and yet still she soldiers on, undaunted, because real women “don’t give up in difficult situations.”
I suppose you can call all this “feminism.” But, as my husband pointed out this morning, if the inability to concede error or defeat—even in light of irrefutable, empirical evidence and in the face of spiraling support and tanking morale—is feminism, George Bush must be the feminist icon of the ages.
The Secret Service is in on the fun, too, according to e-mails handed over in a racial discrimination lawsuit. Slate's Hot Document series has them here. No, I won't repeat any excerpts here, as I don't wish to dirty my page with them, so you'll have to look yourself.
I should mention that I got a hit yesterday off the search term "half breed muslim," because I quoted an article where someone described Obama in those words. I can't help wondering what that person was searching for.
I've been added as a "featured blog" at One Wisconsin Now. Many thanks to them for the recognition.
However, I confess seeing my rather boring banner isolated on their page is making me think that maybe I need a new one. I'll try to get about rectifying that eventually.
MSNBC has a piece on the bigoted responses Obama campaign volunteers have been encountering in states like Indiana and Pennsylvania. Money quote:
Victoria Switzer, a retired social studies teacher, was on phone-bank duty one night during the Pennsylvania primary campaign. One night was all she could take: "It wasn't pretty." She made 60 calls to prospective voters in Susquehanna County, her home county, which is 98 percent white. The responses were dispiriting. One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: "Hang that darky from a tree!"
Wow. But even worse are the people who are quoted as saying, "He's a half-breed and he's a Muslim. How can you trust that?" and "I think if it was somebody other than him, I'd accept it. If Colin Powell had run, I would be willing to accept him."
Can someone explain exactly what the fundamental difference between Obama's "blackness" and Colin Powell's is that makes this voter willing to "accept" one, but not the other? I'm hoping it's more than their names, but that seems like the only possibility.
Having worked on campaigns in the past and endured the inevitable abuse that comes when you knock on the door of someone who supports the other guy, or when you call someone who just really doesn't like your candidate. (A funny anecdote: When I volunteered for the Gore campaign, I once knocked on the door of what turned out to be the home of a supporter of Pat Buchanan. I'm sure you can imagine what came of that.) But never did I have to endure the vitriol that these Obama workers are getting, and my heart goes out to them.
I'm hopeful that if Obama gets elected and the sky doesn't fall afterward, at least some of these people might have a change of heart and realize that a candidate's skin color, middle name, and father's religion have absolutely nothing to do with his or her qualifications to hold our nation's highest office. If that happened, can anyone say that our country wouldn't be better for it?
First: This is pretty bad. Apparently Obama isn't "full-blooded American." By that, I assume the person being interviewed means "white."
Second: One of the simplest, and most effective statements about why we shouldn't torture:
"The Geneva Conventions were set aside in February 2002 by decision of the president, at the insistence of Doug Feith and a small group, including some lawyers. And the memo by Donald Rumsfeld then came in December, 2002, after they had identified Muhammed al-Qahtani. But it was permitted to occupy the space that had been created by clearing away the brush work of the Geneva Conventions. And by removing Geneva, that memo became possible.
Why does it abandon American values? It abandons American values because this military in this country has a very fine tradition, as we've been discussing, of not doing cruelty. It's a proud tradition, and it's a tradition born on issues of principle, but also pragmatism. No country is more exposed internationally than the United States. I've listened, for example, to Justice Antonin Scalia saying, if the president wants to authorize torture, there's nothing in our constitution which stops it. Now, pause for a moment. That is such a foolish thing to say. If the United States president can do that, then why can't the Iranian president do that, or the British prime minister do that, or the Egyptian president do that? You open the door in that way, to all sorts of abuses, and you expose the American military to real dangers," - Philippe Sands.
Slate has a legal blog going called Convictions, where several prominent legal scholars are currently debating the ins and outs of liberal constitutionalism versus Justice Scalia's "original expected intent" philosophy. This morning's post is by Jack Balkin of Balkinization (skip straight to full text here), and is certainly worth the read. Here's the money passage:
Scalia well knows that strictly applied, his version of originalism produces results that would be unpalatable to most Americans. He accepts the New Deal not because he thinks that it is faithful to the original meaning but because he agrees that we have to keep the nonoriginalist precedents that permitted it around. They are all mistakes but we have to accept them. So he routinely accepts expansive federal power that is well beyond what the framers would have imagined. That is why he calls himself a "faint hearted originalist." But "faint hearted" is another way of saying "my principles are wildly unrealistic and I throw them out the window whenever they would be too politically embarrassing."
In fact, Scalia isn't really an originalist at all. He is what I would call a "New Deal/Brown originalist." That is, he is a conservative who accepts the New Deal and very basic elements of the civil rights revolution because all Americans have come to accept them, but insists that we go no further down that road. Scalia is not defending the framers; he's actually defending a conservative version of the constitutional status quo circa 1960. There is no particular reason to defend the Constitution of 1960 from further change. It is certainly not the framers' constitution. And it is not our Constitution.
Scalia may say his originalism is respectful of majority rule, but he is perfectly happy to strike down lots of laws for which there is little basis in the original expected application: Affirmative action and commercial speech are two examples; Bush v. Gore is another. Scalia says that his philosophy leaves decisions to We the People, and only imposes limits the framers would have imposed. To quote his own opinion in Lawrence v. Texas: Do not believe it. Scalia picks and chooses when to apply his originalist rhetoric, to strike down laws he opposes and uphold laws that he likes or that he realizes would be to embarrassing to strike down. There are several things we might call this, but judicial restraint isn't one of them.
Ouch.
I'll have more thoughts on this later, but for now, I must get to work.
Dropping into Milwaukee to remind us all why she was President Ronald Reagan’s biggest mistake, former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor told her audience that electing judges is wrong, and that Arizona has a better way. Of course, the Arizona method made her a judge, and her tenure on the US Supreme Court is strong evidence that an unaccountable judiciary is not a good thing.
Okay. I can understand having objections to changing Wisconsin's judiciary to an appointed, rather than elected, one. Reasonable people certainly can disagree. But is Wigderson really saying that the framers made a huge mistake when they wrote Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which reads as follows:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, recieve for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
(Emphasis mine.) Yes, Sandra Day O'Connor is proof positive that the framers got it wrong. It's miraculous that the Republic was not undone by her wanton flip-floppery. (Sarcasm!) Of course, Wigderson is probably thanking his lucky stars that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito will be serving for life or good behavior, so I really wonder if he'd be willing to give that up in exchange for knowing that there would be no more "unaccountable" O'Connors on the loose.
I suppose I could use Scalia et al as evidence that an appointed judiciary is a bad thing. But I accept that the framers intended for Supreme Court justices to be essentially above reproach. I would argue that justices of state supreme courts serve much the same function and deserve the same protection, be they liberal or conservative. Justices of the highest courts in the land, be it the state or the country, should not, to my mind, have to worry about whether following the law will cost them in the next election. The framers, at least, understood this when they wrote Article III, Section 1.
Pruning Shears, a blog intended to "make the issue of executive power the main issue in the forthcoming 2008 presidential debates." As I'm in agreement that the power of the executive has grown by unfathomable amounts during the current administration, I would be remiss if I didn't add it to the blogroll. Check it out.
Forget Hagee. Forget Wright. Forget Farrakhan. Apparently America was founded with the destruction of Islam in mind. I kid you not. Sullivan has the scoop.
Every conservative who is bashing Obama for Wright's remarks has some 'splaining to do about why what Wright said (and Obama rejected) is bad (no argument here), but what Rod Parsley says (and McCain has not rejected) is just fine.
IT HAS BECOME popular in conservative circles these days to suggest that "you just gotta admire her tenacity," a sentiment that is advanced at her campaign rallies.
Introducing Clinton, North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley said she was "strong as train smoke." Bill Clinton, speaking outside the campaign's Raleigh headquarters in an 11 p.m. appearance (his ninth of the day), fed into this narrative, boasting, "You know, they declared her dead more times than a cat's got lives."
But what is there to admire about this so-called "tenacity"? Clinton began this campaign with a financial edge, the support of a popular former Democratic president, a built-in political apparatus, a consistent lead of more than 20 points in national polls, and more than a hundred superdelegates.
If a candidate starts off with all of those advantages and is too stubborn to drop out of the race, it's no surprise that she is still hanging on.
There is absolutely nothing admirable about a politician so narcissistic and hungry for power that she is willing to say or do whatever suits her political interests at any given moment.
If the Republican Party has declined to the point where conservatives are so worried about defeating a freshman Senator that they are rooting for Clinton to do their dirty work for them, it is simply pathetic.
Oh, and while I'm directing people to Sullivan, here's his link to this blog post about Kathryn-Jean Lopez and her torture stance, which is quite at odds with the Pope's. Wonder when she'll get the John Kerry treatment and be denied communion. I'm not holding my breath.
Zach wrote a great post yesterday about how the righties have been carefully avoiding the fact that John McCain has stopped wearing his lapel pin while browbeating Obama for the very same sin. I've covered the very same phenomenon in the form of Congressman Jack Kingston bashing Obama on national TV over the issue of the flag pin while neglecting to wear his own, and then forgetting to wear it again when he went to his home district.
I've got a shocking idea: How about we all agree that true patriotism is not something as banal as a lapel pin and move on. If anyone disagrees with that sentiment, I would inquire unto them thusly: Does wearing a crucifix necklace automatically make one a good Christian? How is that any different?
Then again, I don't wear a flag pin on my lapel either, as I prefer to use the limited advertising space on my suit lapels to tout my status as an alumnus of Knox College.
Two kilograms of cocaine were seized, along with 350 Ecstasy pills, marijuana, psychedelic mushrooms, hash oil, methamphetamine, illicit prescription drugs, several guns and at least $60,000 in cash, authorities said.
Two kilograms? I'm not exactly abreast of the day-to-day street value of cocaine, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that that's worth a whole lot of money. To put it simply, the text message shown in the article quotes a (reduced) price of $35 a gram. Multiply that by 2000, and you get $70,000 worth of blow. In a frat house. Absolutely unbelievable.
I'd imagine the fallout from this will include a wider investigation to determine who these people were selling to, because unless they have "customers" with massive pocketbooks (not to mention a cocaine habit that is completely out of control), I'd imagine they sell to a lot of people.
Good for the authorities to get those drugs off the campus. I hope they throw the book at these guys, or at least leverage a deal to figure out who on earth sold that much coke to a bunch of frat boys.
Russert thinks it's over. It might go on a bit longer, but I just don't see how any superdelegates who haven't decided on Hillary already are going to do so now. She barely wins Indiana, and he crushes her in North Carolina. His position improved, hers did not. Who can she tap for money that she hasn't already gotten the maximum amount from?
Guess this campaign might be ending with a bit of a dull "thud" rather than the shock-and-awe, knock-down-drag-out convention fight many were predicting.
I think IT has the right idea here. One day McAdams says the left hates speech it disagrees with (implying that conservatives are big enough not to do the same), the next he's screaming his head off about Maher's "hate speech" against Christians.
Har har. Check please.
Personally, I'm totally cool with idiot righties making as much noise as they want. The more Hagee, Robertson, (Falwell while he was alive), et al ranted and raved about this and that, the more they made their defenders look ridiculous.
Okay, so I just sort of violated my policy of not revealing my religious preference, because I guess you could infer from that statement that I'm not a fundamentalist Baptist or a Pentecostalist. Then again, I'd imagine that much was evident from the beginning of this blog. So if you feel the urge to guess my affiliation so that you may pigeonhole me and criticize my positions on religious grounds (i.e., my positions are incompatible with said affiliation and I am going to Hell, or said affiliation is wrong and I am going to Hell), go right ahead. You'll probably be sadly mistaken, but I can't help but notice that there are several bloggers who must feel compelled to remind themselves of the superiority of their faith over any other.
Take it away, Coheed and Cambria.
Another day of delving into the daily tete-a-tetes of the Wisconsin blogosphere after the chaos of finals. That song seemed appropriate.
Does anyone know anything about a fire in Humphrey Hall yesterday?
I only ask because, as I was walking back from the Law School around 9:15 AM yesterday, I walked past the building just as something like 8 fire trucks and I don't even know how many Marquette Public Safety and Milwaukee Police Department squad cars rolled up. I saw hydrants being opened and firemen heading in, and heard a bunch of officers yelling about a fire into their radios. I would have stayed to find out what was going on, but I had a take-home final to finish.
My last exam is tomorrow, so regular blogging should resume tomorrow evening or Tuesday. Thanks to all my readers for bearing with me. Until then, enjoy this classic, which I can't resist posting, partly because it was the theme song of my beloved White Sox (I split time between the Sox and Brewers, both of which lead me to despise the Cubs) during their World Series run in 2005.
I am currently a student at Marquette University Law School, having returned to my native Wisconsin after spending four years at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois. While there, I earned my B.A., with a double major in Political Science and Philosophy, and met Megan, to whom I am now happily married.
These are blogs written by friends of mine that are either not political or not Wisconsin-centric. Check them out.
Marpha - Nuclear Engineering student at the University of Wisconsin (who just happened to be best man at my wedding) shares news and opinions on nuclear issues. And his love of cooking.
Posts
