If Only They Had More Time to Get into the Substance!

Expect this decision from a Federal judge striking down the healthcare mandate to be all the rage in the next 24-hour news cycle.

I look forward to an informative discussion from our press corps about Federalism, the Commerce Clause and the limits placed on the Congress by Article I.

But I won't hold my breath. I have a funny feeling they will mostly talk about how this decision affects Obama's 2012 chances, and his negotiations with the Republicans over other issues, and, of course how this will "play" with the "base/far left/Tea Party/Middle America" .. mostly.

Probably A Lot of Each

What drives someone to get to the point that they are pushing through a NATIONAL policy controlling what kids eat in school? What is wrong with someone's brain that when asked whether this policy should also touch on bake sales, she responds: "The most important rebuttal to all of these arguments is that schools can make money other ways — you don't have to harm kids health?"

Is this just momentum? As in, you once saw some fat kid and it made you sad, and you thought you'd encourage others not be or have fat kids and they were happy and so you though you had to make this difference in the life of every child in your town, until one day you were being asked to talk at other schools, and started joining some message boards on the web, and then you just figured 'why stop anywhere?' and nothing gets people to change their behavior like a law, until you were totally comfortable dictating eating habits to every child in America?

Is it arrogance? As in, you honestly hold the belief that you know whats best for these children more so than their parents, teachers or communities, and that even though, sure, something close to at least half of all children can eat and have eaten tons of pizza, ice cream, hot dogs etc. and wind up in a completely healthy (not that BMI bullshit) weight-range with absolutely no health problems means just that those natually healthy kids with kid-like metabolism can go screw because you and Michelle Obama have got this?

Is it about being intergalactically stupid? As in, you will allow thoughts like the following to not only form in your brain, but to fall out of your mouth: "This is really about supporting parental choice. Most parents don't want their kids to use their lunch money to buy junk food. They expect they'll use their lunch money to buy a balanced school meal."

Hear that, parents? Your choices are being supported. Your problems are solved! Sleep well. And, you're welcome!

One More Kick to the Fly-Infested Decaying Horse Carcass that was the Rule of Law

In continuation of the embarrassing, politically dominated tenure of Eric Holder's time as Attorney General, Eric is now contemplating prosecuting Wikileaks for total non-crimes, and is apparently of the view that First Amendment protections of Free Speech and the Free Press are dependent on how "responsible" you are with what you print or say.

The contrast with his response to obvious and irrefutable evidence of War Crimes by high level political officials is glaring, pathetic and disheartening. It's difficult to imagine an Attorney General more influenced by politics. What did Alberto Gonzalez do that was so bad again?

.. Then They Grabbed My Junk and by That Time No One Was Left to Speak Up.

So, I guess we finally know how far is too far for American citizens to take...

I often find myself lamenting the willingness of American society and Americans specifically (sometimes, sadly on an individual basis) to accept the erosion of their rights. Freedom (to quote Andrew Shepard in the clip I put up last post) “isn’t easy… you gotta want it bad.” And most people don’t really want something they already feel they have. (Though, let's not forget, if you've got it, you don't need less of it!) That is, most people in America generally feel free and un-intruded upon so they don’t want more freedom, and don’t worry about intrusions into their freedoms if they can’t feel it or see it. Maybe this is why so many people talk about freedom but really just mean “lower taxes” (I’m looking at you Tea Party people - although to be fair). I mean, you feel your taxes when you pay them, but you don’t really feel the government spying on your email unless some G-man rolls up to your door or tries to put you in handcuffs...

.. Or tries to touch your balls!

Then we get seriously pissed. But what better metaphor for Americans’ tolerance of civil liberties erosions than the fact that there was so little outrage about warrantless spying, the Patriot Act, the plan to make the whole internet wiretap ready, torture, assassinating American citizens, rampant secrecy (the list goes on), that only when government agents started literally placing their hands on Americans’ genitals do we pipe up a little bit.

It’s really pretty pathetic, and anyone who fails to see the causal chain between tolerating all of that other – and quite probably worse – bullshit and the government even thinking about implementing this crap in the first place is a fucking dumbass. A lack of vigilance has a cost, civil libertarians like to say. That cost? The government will grab your junk. As if the case needed anymore evidence, the TSA flap proves we have not been very vigilant with our rights and our privacy.

This lesson will be missed though, of course. As is often the case, folks tend not see the inter-connectedness of all these issues. That’s the flip side to the same coin of not caring until it affects you personally. But I would like to at least state my hope that people getting groped will have an epiphany on this relationship (the one between different laws and policies, not the fleeting but intense one they are enjoying with a TSA agent – hey-yo!).

We see this short-sightedness all the time: most people understand that a trip to your favorite burger joint is delicious for about 15 minutes but will contribute to you feeling and looking slightly worse in the longer term. It’s a trade off. Not that we ever seem to notice, but policies work exactly the same way.

This is a very informative article laying out the clear connection between all the different issues that involve a large and intrusive federal government. It points out how progressives and conservatives love big government when it does what they want, but then hide behind Constitutional principles in areas where they don't quite want it to be so big:

A principled stand on the limits of federal power does not begin and end with health care. The Commerce Clause is a double-edged sword: Conservatives cannot wield it in the drug war without making it a useful tool for advancing progressive visions of federal power.

And vice versa. The article effectively points out the tension, and possibly hypocricy, of the views themselves, but I actually don't think the people who hold those views - even the most craven politicians in the group - are themselves hypocrites. They're not compromising a principle for convenience, they never started with the principle to begin with. They don't see the connection.

For example, much has been made of these comments by Senator Jay Rockefeller, where he says that perhaps FOX News and MSNBC should be taken off the air by the FCC. Most of the attention has been critical which is actually in contrast with most people's views on the Citizens United ruling that "gave corporations free speech rights!" In response to that opinion, many people have said that sure, they concede the importance of free speech but don't think it applies as strongly to corporations and think it can be bent to "improve public discourse," or some such justification. But in the case of the Senator's proposal, FOX and MSNBC are corporations (for profit!) and Rockefeller's justifications for his idea are pretty familiar - wrong though they may be. In other words, if you hate the Citizens United opinion and disagree with Senator Rockefeller, then you're pretty mixed up when it comes to free speech.

There's also this incredibly bizarre editorial from the Philly Inquirer about WIkiLeaks, by William C. Kashatus. It starts by luading the importance of transparency in government and the role that the free press plays in that:

As a self-governing society, we rightfully condemn any government - including our own - that attempts to shield its misjudgments, incompetence, or misconduct from public scrutiny. Such "government secrets" must be exposed because they threaten to destroy the individual liberties and collective freedom democracy depends on.

All too often, government officials attempt to maintain secrecy by invoking the claim of national security, as President Obama and his predecessor have been accused of doing. We rely on the integrity and wisdom of the free press to determine which national secrets are legitimate and which are illegitimate.

But then the editorial highlights the fact that some of what Wikileaks leaked was sensitive information that might endanger lives, and concludes:

WikiLeaks has acted recklessly, creating a clear and imminent danger to both U.S. and international security. The Obama administration should not only join other NATO countries in demanding the removal of classified documents from the WikiLeaks website, but also bring criminal charges against Assange and stop his travels across international borders. That would help restore the right balance between freedom of the press and international security.

So, according to Kashatus, WikiLeaks should be wiped from the earth essentially because they perhaps leaked too much information. No "do better next time," just jail. Moreover, even if that view is appropriate on this particular issue, does anyone really think that the government will only go after those who leak security-compromising info? Or will they also pursue those who leak its "misjudgments, incompetence, or misconduct" and just say it compromises security? (I emailed the author to ask him this, and to see if he could specify what criminal charges should be brought, twice. He replied once, only to suggest I might feel differently if I had a family member serving in combat.)

In many ways, that editorial is emblematic of the American view on these freedoms: we can write flowery words about how great they are, and we teach them to our kids, and we talk them up on Independence day, or when we talk about the troops. But, when we see them in action, in the lives of others, they make us pretty uncomfortable. And, when we see them slowly dissipate in our own lives, we just sit by silently.

At every turn the government is more emboldened and takes a little more, until they are literally grabbing you by the dick.

(I Posted This to Get a Piece of that "Obama + Impeach" Google-Search Traffic)

The only way in which Obama appears to resemble Andrew Shepard, Michael Douglas's fictitious President from The American President.

To be fair to Barry, seeing the famous speech at the end of that movie, as a cynical adult, compels me to conclude that it marks the end of President Shepard's political career, and that he was probably forced to resign or impeached within the month. I mean, Dennis Kucinich finds this speech a little too liberal.



A "Card-Carrying Member of the ACLU!?!" That's just not Obama - unless you get a free membership card the 25th time they sue your ass...?

In Which Eric Holder Reveals Himself as Too Stupid to Live or Too Unprincipled to not Resign Immediately

This is the most infuriatingly ridiculous series of statements I can imagine.

Perhaps, I knew this was true the whole time (I may, at one time or another, have questioned Eric Holder's reading comprehension) but to confirm it so clearly and explicitly is just too much. Could Eric Holder look more pathetic and out of his depth than he's portrayed in that article?

After spending the first half explainign Holder's views and his history, his devotion to lofty legal principles and blah blah blah, the article quotes Holder defending his decision not to pursue Bush for his crimes:

"You only want to look back at a previous administration if you feel you really have to," Holder said. "Because it has a potential chilling effect. If people who work in this administration today think that four years from now, or eight years from now, the decisions they make are going to be examined by a successor administration, you don't want that to happen. So that's a political consideration."

This "rationale" is such odious bullshit it doesn't even make any sense on its face. It is an argument explicilty and unapologetically antithetical to the rule of law. It's exactly like saying that prosecuting scumbags who prey on children over the internet will have a "chilling effect" on normal people who like to play checkers on Facebook against some 15 year old kid. "Chilling effect?" On fucking what? General behavior? Fucking hell, Eric, you're a lawyer, there are things all around that have a "chilling effect" on general behavior, they're called fucking LAWS. (Case in point, right now those nagging little laws are chilling me from randomly throwing heavy objects out of my window while blindfolded - if only I knew no one would come along and examine my decisions!)

Someone with a "deep love" for this country, who is a lawyer who dedicated his career to working at the DOJ should probably, ya know, have enough faith in the American Judicial System to be at least partially confident that simply "examining" past decisions won't lead to prosecutions unless there's actual evidence of criminal behavior.

Fucking "Chilling Effect!?" That's a notion to be applied to things we value and cherish like free speech. Not to government officials who might one day choose to murder people locked in cages, not even if the Presidential himself makes that choice. But he's right: if people who work in this administration feel like one day someone will look back at their activities, they might just... try to conform their behavior to the law! Holy christ, that would be a terrible thing. Average fuck-ups like me and this guy can go to jail (or get sued) for all kinds of shit, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. But we should adopt an explicit policy that the powerful, all-law-knowledgeable officials can just own slaves, marinate cats and compliment a White House intern on her tits and face no consequences because otherwise there will be a "chilling effect?"

This line of bullshit is so crushingly pathetic when you consider this same man once said the American people were owed a "reckoning." So Eric here wanted a reckoning, but, looking back on previous administrations is now something we "don't want." What a colossal pussy.

And, if any doubt remained, there is this exchange:

"But before the inauguration," I said, "both you and the president said that habeas should apply to enemy combatants."

"I'm not sure I ever opined on that," Holder said.

"I could read you a quote."

Holder laughed uncomfortably.

"Here's the quote: 'Our government authorized the use of torture, approved secret electronic surveillance without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants,' and a few other things."

Holder was silent. "But I was talking about Guantánamo," he said. "I'm pretty sure I was talking about Guantánamo."

I don't know how it got to this point, Eric, and I'm sure at each turn you thought you could give a little here or there but stick around to fight the good fight. Well, you got knocked the fuck out! You're a political hack and a blatant hypocrite. "Resign in protest" or something and we'll just forget this whole thing ever happened.

Poor Poor People

There's a big difference between illegality and immorality. Many - perhaps even most - things that are immoral shouldn't be illegal. I think most people would agree that things like making fun of people in horrible ways or cheating in a high school football game are seriously reprehensible acts... that the government should not spend any time policing.

But many people often lose sight of this principle when it comes to a few topics, one of which is pay-day lending. In short, pay-day lending is the practice of loaning money to someone over a short period of time (like 2 weeks) and charging them something like 20-40 cents on the dollar for that loan. Obviously people who use this service are pretty desperate for the cash at the time, and they usually have to produce a pay-stub (so they likely have a job) as proof that they will get paid in the future and are good for it.

You're probably not human if this doesn't strike you as "taking advantage of people who are down on their luck," which clearly implicates the question of morality, but should this be illegal?

This is an interesting article about efforts by politicians to ban or heavily regulate this practice, and it explains why those policies actually end up leaving many people worse off.

But regardless of how it ends up benefiting or harming people's lives, the argument for heavily regulating or banning this practice is rooted in morality alone, at best, and bald-faced paternalism at worst.

Of course the argument is displayed with a handy catchphrase - "Predatory Lending" - which lends itself to the morality issue, these people are taking advantage of the poor! And, maybe they are and that seems wrong. The more nauseating, insulting and anti-freedom form of the argument is rooted in the idea that these poor people don't know any better. That they can't do a decent job of evaluating the price for having the money now versus waiting another week or two, that they will pay any price to get an extra 200 bucks so they can run out and buy spinning rims or a flat screen TV. Really, the paternalism argument is inseparable from the morality argument: in order for people to be "taken advantage of" they have to be signing up for something they don't understand, or have little to no choice.

But that's just not the case. At least according to the article, the terms of these loans are clear ("in large type, outlined in a gray box, was the amount of money I would have to pay the company when my loan came due") and there are a host of other options simply through a robust lending market ("there are more than 20,000 payday lending outlets, more than all the Starbucks and McDonald’s stores in the country combined") or borrowing money from friends, using credit cards or even just accepting bounced check or overdraft fees.

The government heavily regulates the credit card industry and that seems to make a good amount of sense because those services are based largely on - and the regulations seem to target - screwing you over with fine print and changing terms. In other words, when you innocently trigger section 38, subpart b(43) of your credit card agreement and they jack your interest rate up to 50%, you've effectively been had because you didn't really know that was part of the deal. But if a credit card offered you a one paragraph contract that said "You get our card, everything you charge on it will be paid back at 50% interest. Enjoy!" and you, in your ignorant but well-informed and fully-comprehending glory, thought this made sense, the government should step in an tell you that's just no good? That they know better than you? (Well, maybe they do, I mean 50%!? what is wrong with you?) If you're bad with money, or just delayed gratification in general, does taking away one of your options help you make better decisions overall? Maybe you're totally hopeless and the government really is hooking you up here, but even if they do know better in the case of your hopeless ass, how is it their decision to make for everyone everywhere?

That's really the question here, if two separate private parties agree to exchange money and services on completely clear terms (in a market with reasonable competition) how is it at all appropriate for the government to regulate the terms themselves?

Don't Do Anything of Substance Differently or Better, Just Sell That Shit Like Billy Mayes

This is just the whiniest, most substance free, cliche-riddled rant I can imagine.

I could be convinced that this was some sort of meta-satire of the liberals who complain against Obama and what he's done. Really, the opening and closing paragraphs, juxtaposed, tell you exactly how senseless and silly this letter is. It opens with this:

First off, I want to tell you that despite the enormous landmines set in place by George W. Bush and the Republicans, you have accomplished amazing things in your first two years in office. You have saved the country from another depression, pushed through landmark health care legislation; you have slowed the downward spiral of job losses, ended the war in Iraq and cut taxes on most of the nation.

and the last paragraph begins like this:

So this is why I didn't go all out this year. I voted, but I'm dispirited.

I don't mean to get all 7th-grade English teacher on this clown (first and final paragraphs should be similar and express the overall thesis), but this is pretty emblematic of the incoherence of this entire piece. The gist of it is that the author, Stu Kreisman, seems to be really disappointed with the Obama administration:

your progressive base was asked not just to sacrifice time and time again, we were held up to ridicule and blamed by your administration for your shortcomings, of which there were plenty.

And so what are those shortcomings according to Mr. Kreisman? Well, here are his complaints listed in the order they appear:

you didn't know when to stop [reaching across the aisle]. You continued to pander to the right desperately searching for common ground.

you consulted with [Republicans] and watered [the stimulus bill] down

we on the left were disappointed by the number of Clinton re-treads you choose for positions in your administration

[Even though Republicans hate you] you continued to let them off the hook and pander to them at the expense of your base, the progressives.

you didn't fire (as was your right as President) all the Bush-appointed federal prosecutors

People needed to know what destruction Bush and the Republicans did in plain English rather than in polite, veiled references. Instead, you handed the right wing a stronger stranglehold of the judiciary as a peace offering.

By trying to let all sides be heard [on healthcare] (even after Sen. DeMint announced that Healthcare will be your Waterloo), you lost control of the narrative.

where was your FCC when it was discovered that Fox had contributed a million dollars to the Republican Governor's Association?

Your administration's communication skills are, to be honest, horrible. Would it have been so hard to put up a commercial with the jobs created/lost graph showing that just after you took office you stopped the hemorrhaging?

"No Drama Obama" didn't work.

You're mistake was being idealistic and naïve

Tacking to the center-right was a disastrous move on your administration's part.... By playing tough against the "lefties" you played right into the narrative of the conservatives.

Annnd that's it. Those really are all the complaints I find in the article directed at Obama. The rest of it is a borderline screed against the ignorance, dishonesty, hatred and blatant partisan games of the Republicans. There is not one complaint about substance, or policy other than incredibly vague notions of "compromise" and "watered down" and even things like that only appear a few times. (I suppose not firing all Bush DOJ appointees is kinda policy? But not really.)

What the fuck kind of political complaint is this!? Mr. Kreisman, at the start, gushes - to put it mildly - about how great Obama has been in terms of, ya know, doing things that help the country. And then spend the rest of the piece complaining about not "fighting" hard enough, and not showing graphs on television, and not playing smart political theater, and not pointing out how bad Bush was, and being too idealistic. This piece is total fucking bullshit.

A true liberal would have one substantive issue to complain about with Obama. How about no public option? How about continuing one too many (ALL) of Bush's War on Terror Policies like indefinite detention, how about not making the stimulus big enough or failing to include limits on executive bonuses? Christ on a Bronco, SOMETHING that is a complaint about a actual decision Obama made incorrectly according to you on matters of actual policy?

Mr. Kreisman seems to want to inject his letter with passion and emotion - which I will grant him, he does - but a cursory read reveals that all that anger is mainly directed at Republicans. He's oozing with disgust for these people (not that I can blame him) in a letter written to... someone totally different. Plus Obama didn't just cave to Republicans, he caved to corporate interests and lobbyists, but Mr. Kreisman conspicuously leaves that unmentioned, perhaps because that would be entirely Obama's fault.

It's exactly one of those awkward situations where you call out a close friend but you slather that point in tons of other praise or easy-to-agree-to points about a somewhat related topic. Mr. Kreisman can't bring himself to come down too harsh on the President, and he's got very little to complain about (he's the President's base, after all)so he's just going to say "Hey Obama! Republicans are total douche-scooters, Amuhright!?!?"

Not pointing to any substantive issue means Mr. Kreisman isn't trying at all. He reveals himself as someone who wants to be mad because his party lost, and his leader is beaten down, but not express his anger as actual criticism. This letter isn't an expression of dissatisfaction, it's a fucking pep talk appropriately delivered at half time with the home team trailing.

He also, sadly, reveals himself as someone who is an absurd product of our absurd media culture where everything is "messaging" and "strategy" and polls. Seriously consider it: What type of politically depraved individual would consider not voting for a politician whom they believed had accomplished "amazing things" and whose removal from leadership would be a "tragedy" to the country? What the fucking fuck, dude?

Stu Kreisman, ladies and gentlemen! A man who will not be satisfied with politicians who do things that he really loves IF they don't fight for them hard enough and sell them effectively!

Somewhere Obama is receiving this letter, reading it, and thinking, "geez my critics 'from the left' are hopelessly stupid... and they will totally vote for me no matter what. Yessss!"

Another Thing I Just Don't Get...

..is this view from former pot smokers, who have not swallowed any of the fear-based propaganda about the “harms” of the drug, that it shouldn’t quite be totally legalized because, well… that would just be sorta weird. That view seems best epitomized here, and while I credit Marshall with his honesty and recognition (seemingly) of himself as a (possible) hypocrite, I find this view not just intellectually vapid, but morally repugnant.

If you have ever smoked pot, never had any harmful effects or saw any consequences (i.e. didn’t get caught) and now have just moved on without regret, then aren’t you essentially compelled to support its legalization? Or rather, aren’t you at least compelled to oppose the consequences that might befall someone who wasn’t as - really - lucky as you were? So it was fine for you (successful, educated white guy/girl) to have pot at a party or before you watched Zardoz with your friends 15 years ago and not get caught and have an arrest on your record, or get kicked out of college or not make it into a prestigious grad school, or not land that first job, but you’re fine with a legal system that arrests hundreds of thousands of people per year for the same thing, or for taking the initiative to provide people like you with the pot you wanted to smoke? Or is that had you been caught, your education, parents, skin color, dialect etc. would have allowed you to escape those consequences, and now anyone unfortunate enough to be lacking any of those things can go screw? How does one come to grips with this? Moreso than just an irrational or hypocritical position, how to you reconcile this view with your own humanity?

Taken in the abstract: You have done something. You find it to have been pretty harmless and do not regret it. You are okay with others going to jail for it. What the Fuck!?

Maybe Marshall has a point about “legalization” versus “decriminalization” and exactly the terminology or extent of the prohibition can be debated. And, don't get me wrong, getting out and voting in favor of Prop 19 was not a requirement either. But whatever you want to call it, and whatever you do about it, in your former, non-regretful pot-smoker mind, you should be reflexively opposed to criminal penalties for getting high or you should take up less morally questionable activities like torturing woodland creatures.

A WHOLE 10%!!!???

This is some remarkably weak sauce in defense of a President who is/was supposed to be a tremendously bright and gifted leader, changing the ways of Washington and restoring normality after a "radical" (I used quotes, but I agree with that characterization) Presidency.

You really know they're digging when you get to the Gitmo one. Anyway Let's go through these guys:

“Signed a financial reform law allowing shareholders of publicly traded companies to vote on executive pay”
First, private companies can pay employees whatever they want. Now maybe if these companies received bailout money then executive pay would be our business and then he could put conditions on receipt of said moneys and tie it to executive pay. But Obama had a chance to do this and actually ensured there were no limits on those bonuses... and then blamed in on Chris Dodd.

“Cut prescription drug cost for medicare recipients by 50%”
GWB cut the hell out of prescription drug costs for old, decrepit seniors. Most people I know though that bill stunk and was a corporate giveaway, but somewhere there's a website called whatthefuckdidGWBdo.com that has that listed.

“Extended Benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees”
Well, that's nice and all, but Obama could end DADT (for a time) with a swipe of his pen, and he’s had his DOJ defend DOMA to the hilt which actively harms people’s lives, makes no sense (not a single coherent justification) and is almost certainly unconstitutional. Gay rights activist and apparently gays in general are downright furious with this administration, and should see this half-hearted and objectively weak measure has the insulting bone-throw that it is.

“The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009: a $789 billion economic stimulus plan”
Umm, ok yes that was a thing and it passed. I guess just doing something or anything gets you credit nowadays. Since there is no argument here, I won’t respond in pointing out how bald-faced a corporate giveaway that was.

“Launched recovery.gov to track spending from the Recovery Act, providing transparency and allowing the public to report fraud, waste, or abuse.”
Anyone can launch a website like one where you sugar-coat (non) accomplishments of a politician of whom you're a fanboy. In terms of things with meaning, the Inspector General in charge of monitoring this chunk of change has been undercut and ridiculed by the Administration. But hey, that website is awesome, I’m sure.

“Signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending in the defense procurement and contracting system”
All bills have an ostensible purpose, it doesn't mean they work or change anything. Case in point, Obama actually developed and signed a *larger* budget for the military than previous years. I.e. military spending has gone up, though perhaps it is more efficient now.

“Issued executive order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay”
So then apparently an executive order and $3.89 gets you a Green Tea Latte from Starbucks (yumm). Obama has a real issue with saying things and then not doing them. Most people see that as a major problem with politicians. This website is apparently bragging about it.

“Ended Bush administration's CIA program of 'enhanced interrogation methods' by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terrorism interrogations”
This is factually false. Bush had already ended these techniques in ’06 (so add another thing to whatthefuckdidGWBdo.com). What is telling is that Obama brags about ending “torture” which is obviously a concession that torture took place, and therefore under the law is required to be investigated and prosecuted by the DOJ, the independent law enforcement body of the country. Yet Obama has decreed that this will not happen, for no reason, and then talked about the rule of law (without a hint of irony).

“Health Care Reform Bill, preventing insurance companies from denying insurance because of a pre-existing condition”
This is, I suppose, a nice thing, but this fact is inseparable from the other fact that the bill requires everyone to buy insurance from those same insurance companies. Something insurance companies like even more than arbitrarily denying people coverage. This will obviously raise all rates, and improve insurance companies bottom lines and, therefore, their ability to fight the next round of healthcare reform. Another way to look at this is that insurance companies are/were the problem, and this bill - despite some good things - just made them stronger and more pervasive.

“Require health insurance plans to disclose how much of the premium actually goes to patient care.”
This is so misleading it’s basically false. “Patient care” is I think a slightly different term in the law that is already being defined to include things like lobbying and executive bonuses. This part of the bill epitomizes how bills are written to sound awesome, but in practice keep the powerful very happy by redefining words into total non-existence.

The Cuba thing is pretty great. Gotta give him that.

“Increased funding for national parks and forests by 10%”
Whoop-dee-friggin-doo. whatthefuckdidGWBdo.com says Bush increased spending on education by like 50% or something.

“Expanded hate crime law in the US to include sexual orientation through the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act”
Classic form and symbolism over substance.

“Provided stimulus funding to boost private sector spaceflight programs”
Hot to death.

“Appointed nation's first Chief Technology Officer”
Uhhhhhh

“Signed financial reform law establishing a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to look out for the interests of everyday Americans”
Again, agencies, like laws, have ostensible purposes, but it's another thing to see what they do in practice. Their leaders have a big effect on this. A sign that this agency would be serious would mean appointing Elizabeth Warren to head it. But instead, Obama took weeks and appointed her to head the effort to “set up” this agency. So we still have to wait and see who gets the control. As one example, Obama appointed Ken Salazar to head the agency that regulates off-shore drilling. Enviro0nmentalists were not happy, industry folks were tickled pink. How did that work out?

I left out a few but those all seem to be pretty standard, run-of-the-mill, Democrats-control-the government policy shifts. Not all bad, but not exactly barn-burning stuff.

This website provides a great response to anyone who argues that Obama sat in the oval office twiddling his thumbs for the past 20 months, other than that I'm not sure it's usefulness or persuasiveness. And, at points it reeks of desperation.

Most importantly though, the list in opposition to this is really ugly, and now, likely forthcoming.

"Fool me once... I'm a Sociopath"

Words pretty much fail.

I said "pretty much" cuz.... well it seems like success in politics is based largely on knowing how you sound and come across to others. Bush, whatever else you want to say about him, was pretty decent at appearances, showmanship, stagecraft and the like. I mean he got elected President (twice ... kinda)! Of course Bush had an enormous share of gaffes mostly centered around his inability to command the English language (to be fair, who doesn't have to think a little bit before they use that 'fool me once' cliche?). But this one is of a different order altogether; it's not a technical mis-speak but a peek into a sick and demented mindset. Which maybe many of us were already onto, but to show it so nakedly?!

For someone so overtly concerned about his legacy, he has to know he's a pretty controversial and divisive figure, and as a thinking creature he has to know he presided over a pretty disastrous and needless (certainly in hindsight) war where, conservatively, a few hundred thousand people died or were maimed - not to mention the Katrina debacle which stands in immediate conceptual proximity to the issue at hand.

We're all pretty self-centered at times, and we all have regrets that nag at you, but if my regrets involved a gigantic pile of dead bodies, I'd like to think I'd develop some thicker skin, or at least shut my stupid fucking mouth when it came to insults from people I had never heard of.

Election Recap:

Some quick thoughts on an interesting election:
- Voters had a clear choice, if you wanted more gay rights, a restoration of the rule of law and America’s values, less war, and sensible immigration and drug policies, you could pick the uh.... hmmm... Well, at least if you wanted smaller government you could clearly choose.... the uhh... I'll get back to you on this.
- Feingold losing marks the symbolic and official death of Civil Liberties in this country. The leading civil libertarian in the Senate is now arguably Rand Paul. God help us all.
- Christine O'Donnel will, like Obi-wan, become more powerful in defeat than she ever could've been in victory. I put the over/under at 5.5 months before she has her own TV show or something pretty close to it.
- I can't wait to see Republicans run around frantically saying that this election is a) a repudiation of Obama b) a shift to the right AND c) a mandate requiring cooperation from the White House, and then when the TV host asks them why the same logic appeared to not apply to the '08 results - wait, no TV host would ever ask that.
- What are all the media people going to talk about now that the election is over? Oh right, polls, strategies, "messaging," etc. for the next election. That is until we re-start the debate over healthcare again... which the media people will mainly cover from the angle of how it affects the next election.

That Whole Thing about the Burning House, Yeah That: My Thoughts

So a lot of people seem to be debating that awful story of the house that burnt down in Tennessee while the fire department just sat and watched. But a lot of these debates aren't just about what that particular fire department should have done,but rather about what it says about our society and its commenters' world views. Many people have somehow taken the view that this argument is about free-markets and libertarianism and an indictment of those things. I truly do not understand this view at all. Here's why:

First, let's not forget that in many cases where there are complaints about a situation being a symptom of the free market (The BP Oil Spill comes to mind), there is no actual free market at work in the case. That is to say the market is either government monopolized (the fire example) or so heavily regulated by government to the degree of creating overwhelming and impactful incentives for behavior a free-market would likely discourage (BP). Here, this is a municipal (government!) fire department run by government employees/agents (bureaucrats) who were very clearly not motivated by profit, but rather adherence to a policy. Their lack of profit motivation was clear, ironically for the facts many free-market critics are eager to point out, which also brings me to my second point.

"When the blaze spread to the house next to Cranick's, the firefighters came to put that one out -- but refused to minister to Cranick's burning home, despite his begging and pleading and offers to pay anything they asked." Any profit-driven, greedy-ass company would have seen the Cranicks as a potential customer, a target audience (to put it mildly) and rendered them their service for a fee. In other words, free-market principles would have lead to a putting out of this fire. Its extremely easy to imagine a bevy of analogies to a consumer in desperate need of a service (let's imagine someone with a broken car late for his wedding day) and a nearby business who provides that exact service (the local gas station), and yet it's nearly impossible to imagine the business not offering that service when said consumer essentially puts cash on the table (sorry sir, we can't fix your car and charge you an extra 15% above our normal rates because brghfliksythna - that last part is the mechanic turning into an irrational beast and losing the ability to speak clearly). I mean, who would ever do that?

The main difference in these analogies, one might point out, is that a man with a broken car and the mechanic have no pay-in-advance scheme or market interaction that affects their transaction as did the Cranicks and the fire department. However, this is another factor in favor of free-market. Government services are often and typically pay-in-advance in the form of taxes, so the fire department here was ham-strung by the fact that they had little incentive or (and perhaps therefore) ability to accept "cash on delivery." It appears nearly all their money came in advance in the form of taxes from their home town and fees from the outlying neighbors. The man rushing to his wedding might have a pay-in-advance roadside service like AAA, and then he's good to go, but those of us who let our AAA membership lapse (I gotta get on that shit) know that we likely won't be required to walk 20 miles through the woods if we break down because nearby gas stations are businesses and will help you out if you give them money.

Some have Even bizarrely analogized the plight of the Cranicks to the Chilean miner miracle which I suppose is a funny pot-shot, but doesn't really make a very good point. What makes the fire story so interesting and controversial is that they house was allowed to burn down while the fire-fighters watched. This outcome is completely unimaginably impossible under a free-market fire-fighting system. We might be debating whether the fire department price-gouged the Cranicks, and acted immorally in doing so, but a good chunk of the house would still be standing, presumably. The Chilean miners would be pulled out by a for-profit mine rescue firm and they would just be sent a bill in the mail at a later date. (Or instead of a bill, for-profit firms might have other market incentives such as showcasing their technology or receiving positive and free press.) We see this all the time with our health care system - a perfect analog in that the moral questions are highly similar - people are either denied treatment for not paying the fee (buying the right insurance policy) or are billed outrageous amounts at a later date. Now, many people wish to have a debate proposing we change the whole health care system so everything is covered in advance, and that's fine, but very few people criticize doctors and hospitals when they deny services or send along a massive bill, because they understand its part of the (flawed) system. And literally no one gets all fired up and talks for weeks about some old lady who was denied hip-replacement surgery because of that system (though perhaps that's because the examples are too numerous to care).

So, again, I just don't see how this relates to free-market or libertarianism, let alone how it serves as an indictment of those concepts since they would have produced, at least in this particular case, the exact opposite, and desired outcome. Did the fire department behave immorally? Perhaps, but no more than a doctor who does not perform every needed surgery on every patient she sees. We understand and blame the system when it comes to those cases, we should do the same here. And really, if the system is so crappy, we should probably leave that to be addressed by the people in Booneyville, Tennessee.

Constitution Worship?

I just don't get crap like this:

too many Americans have begun to turn admiration for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution into a form of worship, and that this is unfortunate.

"Worship?" Seriously?

Yes, the Constituion is an incredibly flawed document. Much of what it says is bad policy, and in many cases it has cleared failed for lack of clarity. But it is the law. The Declaration of Independence is nice (I love it actually) and instructive but it doesn't mean anything in terms of making rules or laws. It's a resolution. The Constitution is a statute.

While many laws are stupid and repugnant, and tell people what can't or must do, the Constitution works to limit government, which -sadly - most people have forgotten is the flipside of the "free society" coin. That is, you can't really be free while you have an unlimited government with unlimited powers and authorities, can you? Look at the Document. Unlike most laws: it says almost nothing about how people are to act or what people are required to do. But it says a boat-load on what government can't do and what it is required to provide.
So pointing out the relevance of this document to everything the government does is simply acknowledging a fact. That's not worship. You don't need to worship gravity to recognize the fact that you shouldn't talk on your cell phone while using a urinal at a bar (cuz, ya know, the whole holding-your-phone-with-your-shoulder trick really doesn't work, and there's no way your sticking your hand in a urinal to get your phone back even if it is brand new...).

In fact, we probably could use more "worship" of the Constitution these days. Almost every single person in all of America views the Constitution as something so flexible as to be meaningless. Liberals think the "Congress shall make no law..." language of the first Amendment means Congress can make tons of laws and set up an entire regulatory regime on those exact topics, as long as the law is fucking awesome and helpful enough! Meanwhile, to those folks, the Fourteenth Amendment clearly requires allowing gays to marry. And, Conservatives think the Second Amendment is so robust as to almost mandate everyone carry a gun at all times, but that the mere mention of "9-11" negates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments which appear on the same page. (Granted this is a bit of an oversimplification, but if you've never heard a person champion the Constitution as ground to support their favorite cause, and brush it aside dismissively to negate it's questionable directives then you've never talked much politics with anyone.)

And honeslty, the Tea Partiers are a strange group to highlight here because they are perhaps the best example of the Constitutional selectiveness I just described. It's a pathology that pervades American politics. When our own leaders recognize their lack of fidelity to the Document, then our problem is clearly NOT too much worship.

Thinking that anything the Constituion says is obviously wise and correct in all respects, or should never be questioned (ever!) is worship. Thinking that the Constition governs, and must be followed and adhered to, and that when it's crappy and inconvenient then we should talk about what the problem is and consider changing it through proper procedures but continue to follow it up until that change happens, is just freedom loving patriotism as far as I'm concerned.

"Worship" connotes the notion of faith. No one should have "faith" in the Constituion. It exists whether you believe in it or not.

2018: Where Were These Liberal Critics When Obama was President? Oh Right, They Were Cheerleading

I am increasingly, desperately frustrated by the pervasive rationale perhaps best exemplified in this piece. This sort of "sure, I can't really name many things the Obama adminsitration has done (notice how the author cites 'the stimulus package' and 'the stimulus bill' as two completely different things) and I can't deny that they've been awful in some areas (like even worse than Bush/Cheney on civil liberties) but quit your complaining!" I suppose this brand of thinking will become more popualr as we approach a mid-term election that's one part a referendum on the Obama administration so far, and the other a question of how "crazy" and "scary" the Republicans are. But it's not just commentators like that author, even normal folks seem to be reading from the same script when it comes to sticking up for Obama: “Well at least he’s not Bush;” “You have to give him more time;” “Who else are you gonna vote for, Palin?” “He’s in a tough spot.” Etc.

If people want to deploy these arguments – rationalizations really – as why they feel compelled to vote for Democrats then that’s one thing. I certainly understand, on a human level, the fear people have of candidates like Palin, or O’Donnel, or hell even John Boehner, and, though I think it’s a strategically poor decision, it’s not unreasonable to vote against your fears. But these arguments are not actual defenses of Obama or Democrats (at least not any more than references to Ike Turner or Scott Peterson are defenses of one’s alcoholic, compulsive gambling, emotionally-distant husband). I'm of the view that you can do what you have to on election day, but the rest of the time we should be holding our leaders accountable and honestly talking about their actions.

However, some might say these issues are related, that criticizing Obama up until election day drives independents away, or lowers the “enthusiasm” of the base, or encourages would-be voters to stay home, and then the crazies take power. This may in practice be true, but the alternative is even worse: you're setting yourself up to be a giant hypocrite.

Nowhere is this alternative better demonstrated than with the Tea Party. The Tea Party is already pretty suspect because the whack-jobs that lead it, but the question of where exactly was this group dedicated to smaller government and less government spending during the Bush Administration, when spending and government excess exploded in a massive mushroom cloud, is so legitimate as to be obvious. Many people (from your averag voter, to political commentators) have used this glaring issue to describe the Tea Partiers as political opportunists, giant hypocrites and even racists (because they only get mad when a black man is President).

Whatever one might say about the accusations of racism, the one of “hypocrite” is impossible to deny, and the Tea Party movement suffers because of this. People can vote out of fear, or because Obama is handsome and smooth-talking, but ultimately, most people care about actual issues. Keeping Democrats in power isn’t the goal itself, it’s a means to achieve the end of, say, gay equality or a fairer financial system. But people do those issues a disservice if they wait to care about them (at least outwardly) only when a leader or party they don’t support is in power. That is the essence of hypocrisy, and if Sarah Palin does come to power, her supporters will be quick to label the suddenly vocal defenders of gay marriage and civil liberties as … sexist. And they’ll have a point.

What Tony Hayward Should Have Said Today

Ladies Gentlemen of the Committee,

Thank you for inviting me to this important hearing regarding the Gulf Coast disaster. It's important, not because any new information will be uncovered that will help you and us avoid incidents like this disaster in the future, or because any other sort of meaningful change, justice, reconciliation or fact-finding will result, but because this is an election year and you need to get your faces on tv and demonstrate things like "empathy" and "anger" and you need to create the illusion of "accountability."

The people you'll be asking to vote for you have very short attention spans. So short they probably can't grasp the definition of the word accountability for more than 30 seconds at a time. But they know they like it, and they want it, and they're just so used to turning to idiots like you to come up with it. They are utterly incapable of defining what accountability would look like for people like me and my company, and god help them if you asked under what authority this Committee or the Congress of which it is a part has to impose real accountability, they might suffer an aneurysm on the spot and die. So, as it goes, none of you has an answer to those questions either because none of you need one. You just need to say the word "accountability" and act angry, and indeed, all of you, to a man, recognize that that is each of your sole purposes for having this hearing today.

Would that you were honest and concerned about getting at the truth, you would grant me my status as a crude and calculating CEO concerned exclusively about my company's bottom line. For that is exactly what I am, no more, no less. Instead of scolding my moral choices and failings, for not prioritizing safety enough, or not developing a back up plan to counter exactly this unprecedented scenario, you would instead recognize that I am an amoral creature, who cared exactly enough about safety as I was able to gauge and calculate the costs associated with safety risks. Obviously I was not indifferent to safety, to disaster. I was concerned about these things. But, I was admittedly not so out of concern for peoples lives, or worry about our environment. I was interested in building a well that would not explode because wells and rigs are expensive to build and replace. I was interested in building a well that would not leak because leaks are costly to clean up, and collecting oil makes my company money. Today you will paint me as a monster at worst, or as a cold and indifferent man at best, but I am nothing more than a rational actor (though perhaps influenced by the irrationality of the unprecedented risk) in a for-profit industry. You cannot accuse me of immorality without accusing your Committee and Congress of dereliction of duty. Your accusation may convey anger and the illusion of accountability, but they also tell the American people - the people you are about to pander to - that your legislative approach to this issue, your practice of looking out for their best interests and safety, your level of concern over the possibility of these disasters was hands-off, lax and low, respectively, based entirely on your faith in the morality of a man you had never met and had an enormous company to run.

The information wasn't hidden to you, Committee Members. As we all know, your Congress established an agency to monitor our safety and our engineering, to monitor environmental risks. This Committee oversees that agency. I would presume it would take no more than an hour for anyone of you to access information on this rig at any time before this disaster. My company gave your agency a whole lot of information, even information about where we were "cutting corners." But what did your agency do? They proceeded to give my company exemption after exemption. And we worked closely with this agency, they knew our company well. Indeed many of the bureaucrats employed at your agency used to work for my company, and employees and government workers spent a great deal of time together partying, exchanging gifts, having relationships etc. I call it "your agency" because that agency answered to this body. If this hearing's focus was honesty, truth and prevention then each Committee member would recount what information was available, what questions he or she asked, and what actions he or she took. But doing this would doubtless cause you embarrassment and possibly even cost you elections, so this will be avoided.

You oversaw a corrupt agency that you created and charged with the conflicting and corruption-inviting mission of collecting revenue and regulating safety of the oil industry. But, I doubt any part of today's hearing will focus on what Congress could have done better. Who among you voted for a $75mil cap on liabilities of companies like mine? What kind of message does that send to profit-conscious companies about focusing on managing risks and taking extra safety precautions? One would expect that none of you who voted for that measure will sit here today and criticize my lack of focus on safety. But one would be crediting you with possessing some modicum of shame, and in that they might err.

My point is, Ladies and gentlemen, that I am almost certainly guilty of very bad, terrible judgment; obviously I desperately wish to go back in time and spend an extra billion dollars taking every conceivable safety precaution to ensure averting this disaster; my company will take decades to recover; my reputation as a business man and human being are forever destroyed; and I do truly feel sympathy and grief for those who have been harmed or killed by this disaster. I am also guilty of greed. But we knew that. You knew that. You had to know it. Not the greed that drives a man to kill and destroy in the name of making a buck, but greed that makes a man singularly focused on profits and efficiency, and dividends and stock prices, excluding all other interests. I was a CEO living in the real world. My motivations were cost/(risk)/benefit analysis and compliance with regulations. You, this committee and the Congress it belongs to, skewed the former in favor of more reckless behavior, and you created, oversaw and tacitly condoned a horrifically broken system of the latter.

Have at me all you will if it will help you sleep at night, I imagine that's not so easy for any of you these days.

On the Count of Just Generally Being the Worst Fucking People on the Planet, What Say You?

“We have what we think is a sufficient basis for us to have begun a criminal investigation”

That's our chief law enforcement officer in the nation talking about going after British Petroleum. He sounds awfully confident and fierce doesn't he? I mean, it seems like at this particular time he seems fairly confident that the factors rise to the level of appropriately considering the possible contemplation of a pursuit of some form of legal action... potentially.

This statement, in the overall context can be read 1 of 2 ways. A) The Attorney General wanted to make the most non-committal statement imaginable, while also saying enough to produce national headlines with phrases in them like "Obama Administration!"" "Criminal Investigation!" "Against BP!" Or B) The Attorney General is saying "Fuck those assholes, I want to attach legal electrical nodes to their corporate nuts and go to fucking town! And, woo-hoo I think I can actually do this with some element of legitimacy cuz some shit or the other is 'sufficient'."

I could make my case for why I think it's A) more so than B) or vice versa but really, does it even matter? Which is better? Or rather, which is dumber? Either way, our Attorney General is once again revealing himself as a tool of the political calculus of the Obama administration, not a law enforcer. If prosecuting crimes was American Idol, he'd be fucking Ryan Seacrest, the guy who just announces the results and does what he's told; he's not even Simon Cowell with an ounce of consistency and integrity and a brain of his own.

To be clear: Fuck BP. Randomly drawing names of BP employees and forcing them to fight eachother to the death on pay per view seems almost reasonably just at this point, so it's not that I oppose - at least morally - some sort of very serious punishments for those scumbags. But the Attorney General position is meant to be an honest and neutral enforcer of the law, not a political pawn wielding his enormous power based on opinion polls. Whatever anyone may think of BP, however furious some might be, does anyone in their actual, rational mind not want them to be prosecuted under clear and standing laws in a legitimate, transparent and fair way? Does anyone want to deny BP their right to defend themselves at a potential trial? Is anyone in favor of a prosecutor standing before a court and saying "Well uh, we're not sure what laws exactly were broken here, but I just fucking HATE these people, so I'm charging them with "world-rape" and "douche-noodling" and my evidence is all that shit that went down in the water, I mean come on!" Would anyone find such a process and spectacle satisfying?

Obviously, Holder is not quite heading down a path to legal anarchy, and from what I've read it appears there is ample evidence that BP has in fact violated serious and important laws, but clearly these "investigations" are, at least in no small part, about a national catharsis, a giant "Fuck You" on behalf of all Americans. And that, manifested in criminal prosecutions, is only different in degree to the fictitious scenario I drew up above.

Let's go back to Holder's quote and compare this to his failure to prosecute law-breaking in the Bush administration: Holder himself called water-boarding torture, and torture is plainly described as a crime under domestic law, and many leading Bush officials - including Dick Cheney - have admitted to supporting, endorsing or ordering waterboarding. If that's not a "sufficient basis" to "begin" and investigation then what exactly would be?

Failing to investigate, let alone prosecute, obvious and admitted-to crimes delegitimizes all other prosecutions. But contrasted against and combined with prosecuting people for generally shitty conduct and maybe, possibly some actual law-breaking is the mark of a tyrant, a Roman Emperor desperate for the love of his people punishing the disfavored while the loyal, popular or powerful can openly admit to serious crimes with impunity.

I suppose a small degree of this is expected and understandable, but when this becomes the prevailing notion, what we have is an AG (and a country) that is only nominally guided (or governed) by the law.

When I Think About How Stupid Americans Often Seem, I Have to Remember How Dumb Our Leaders Are...

And by leaders I also mean our opinion makers who can write drivel such as this. How stupid is this article really?

Setting aside for a second how disgracefully stupid this Bill is on the part of Scott Brown and Joe Liberman, the article talks about their Bill that would strip terrorists of their citizenship, and ends with this gem of a paragraph:

Meanwhile, Attorney General Eric Holder rejected the notion that reading Miranda rights to Times Square bomb suspect Faisal Shahzad, the naturalized U.S. citizen whose alleged action led the filing of the measure, hindered investigators. He told Congress that Shahzad’s cooperation is ongoing and that he has provided useful information.

No segue, no natural progression, the article just jumps to that paragraph. Now, what could possibly be the connection between a Bill that strips people of citizenship and whether the Times Square Bomber was read his Miranda rights? Uh oh, if you said "Because non-citizens don't get Miranda rights or something?" then you are hopelessly, and shamefully wrong. You're a jackass! You're a lot like the rest of America in that sense, so don't feel bad or whatever.

But maybe your defense - depending on how unsure you sounded in that ridiculous answer - is that you just relied on news people to know their shit. And, so, the reason that last paragraph appears in that article is BECUASE non-citizens don't get Miranda rights or something? I mean why the fuck else would the newspaper include that connection? Why else would a person bestowed with the privilege to write for a newspaper include that fact unless he thought it was related!!?? Ok, I hear ya. I guess it's not your fault.

And, maybe that's my point. Let's see as this proposed Bill gets debated how often people stop and point out this critical and glaring and never-to-be-disputed-by-even-the-most-modestly-informed-individuals FACT:

A person's Miranda rights are independent of, and not conditioned upon, their status as an American Citizen.

I await the media's treatment of this issue with anticipated red-hot fury.

Change.... for real this time.. no really

When did Obama's rhetoric start mirroring the pleas of a drug addict playing on the sympathies of a concerned family member? This really has all the signs:

He begins by pointing how bad everything used to be (Remember when I was lying in that ditch?), then he glosses over some non-accomplishment "accomplishments" (I've started filling out job applications, and I went to a meeting last night), and then some general platitudes (I'm really gonna do it this time) all building up to that crescendo where the help he desires will really get him to where you want him to be (And if you give me this money, then I'll be able to sign up for this program/buy a suit for this interview/ move into this new apartment). It continues from there: playing the victim, saying that outside forces are out to undo all his "hard work," and that this is a make or break moment... blah blah blah.

It doesn't matter that almost nothing he says here is connected to the truth. It doesn't matter that he's already told us he would "fix Washington" and create change, and a more fair and just America, and that's he's failed miserably on these fronts. It really doesn't matter that he's done nothing to address the crises that he talks about at the beginning (not that he was supposed to fix these things right away - or that it's even his job to). He knows, like the drug addict, that if he looks you in the eye and lays the maipulation on you, you'll have no choice but to cave and do what he wants. This is in fact the all-but-ostensible Democrat strategy for over a decade now. They might as well make signs and T-shirts that say "The Lesser of Two Evils!" "Not as Bad as that Whackjob!" "Vote for Me, I'll cast bad votes reluctantly." (Just as the drug addcit should confess "look, there's an 80% chance I use this money for drugs, but maybe this time I won't ...maybe.")

Of course, as funny and honest as it would be, they're not gonna make those signs, so instead they tell you that this time (maybe) they're really gonna try (maybe) and do all that "change and fairness" stuff (maybe) they talked about - this time. These 15 months of bullshit, corruption, Bush-light illegality, and lying was all just as typical as a relapse on the road to recovery.

*******

Most people seem to be focusing on Obama's request to get out the vote amongst African-Americans and Latinos as though this is racist. The simple answer is that this pretty much.... yeah it's racist. The less simple answer is that this is craven political manipulation based on ridiculous racial stereotypes and the perpetuation thereof.

To be clear, this is an ad by the Democratic National Committee whose one and only job is to get Democrats elected to office. This is not Obama championing the importance of getting involved in the process; he states that this was part of the answer to the question of how Democrats can win elections in November. Oddly, the answer was not something like "stop being shitty lying politicians" or " actually do stuff you said you would like following the Constitution and refraining from cupping the balls of lobbyists." No, the answer was basically "uhhh, get lots of votes?" Brilliant! And how do Democrats get more votes? By getting people who we all know have no inclination or ability to vote for anyone else: first time voters and minorities!!! They'll support Dems no matter how shitty a job they do! They're the heartbroken family members to Obama's drug addict. They really never had a choice.

April 19

Freedom is worth dying for.

That's a statement just about any American would agree with; that's one of the justifications we use every time we learn of a soldier's death overseas; that's what makes the movie Braveheart so fucking awesome! That statement is true as balls. Freedom is worth ding for, and thus, worth fighting for.

But, sometimes I wonder if people lose sight of that when the context changes. I'm specifically thinking of coverage of the wackjob "Patriot" groups, American citizens who plot violence against their own country's government, "domestic terrorists."

It goes without saying (and as implied by my use of the word "wackjobs" above) that I wholeheartedly endorse the usually caveats about how unjustified and preposterous all of their actions are, but I am, apart from that, a little concerned with how these issues are often covered. What I mean is that these "revolutionaries" are dismissed out of hand as engaging in behavior that is categorically unacceptable. But that line of reasoning - that violence in defense (even mistakenly) of freedom is unacceptable - is difficult to reconcile with the first sentence of this post, isn't it?

I mean, wouldn't we all agree that frequently, recently, and even currently, our government does things that are unlawful or unconstitutional, and people have a right to physically resist complying with such actions? Or even that, at some point, our very own government could, theoretically, become so oppressive and unjust that it would be justified for citizens to resort to violence in response? The answers to these questions have to be "yes" don't they?

Think about it, as Americans, we are awfully proud of our history, highlighted by an armed rebellion against an oppressive and unjust government. But let's not forget that the men who lead this rebellion had land, and influence and relatively nice lives; they were not rebelling because they were enslaved in prison camps. But has any American person ever - ever - raised a doubt as to whether the American Revolution was "too extreme," or that complaints about high taxes, unequal or non-existent representation, and a 2-tiered system of justice should have just been met with a letter-writing campaign?

Now let me again be clear that I am not defending or endorsing violence. I am actually of the view that violence is completely unjustified in just about every conceivable circumstance and that initiating violence in any circumstance is per se immoral, even when done in defense of freedom.

Which actually brings me to another sad point about media coverage of these violent "revolutionaries": it would be one thing if this coverage was part of an over-arching philosophy that consistently rejected violence in all forms, but considering how our media, and our national discourse, cheerleads us to war, then accepts it as standard and routine, or defends and excuses torture, or openly debates whether we should strike first against countries like Iran, it seems a little strange for them to dismiss as absurd the notion of people fighting for what they (erroneously) believe to be the very existence of their basic freedoms.

In other words, the reasons why we are occupying foreign countries at the cost of heavy bloodshed are open for political debate, and can be justified with revolving excuses from "spreading democracy" to fighting terrorism, but fighting an oppressive domestic government is nothing but a punchline? Any criticism of these "Patriot" groups needs to start with pointing out that our government, despite being corrupt, ineffective, opaque, unresponsive and criminal is still miles away from the point where an armed revolution is justified.

Situational Civil Liberties

The DOJ wants to be able to read your emails.

Now before you think you'd somewhat prefer that Feds not be allowed to read the emails you send and receive, you should realize that the DOJ only wants to read the emails you've already opened and thus probably read! See!? Once you realize that doesn't an awesome wave of relief just wash all over your body? No? Yeah me neither.

But this is not a joke. The DOJ is actually arguing that your privacy in your emails depends significantly on whether or not you have already read the emails. They've reached this conclusion based on a loophole-tastic interpretation (that would put insurance and credit card company lawyers to shame) of a statute that has already been interpreted by federal appeals courts to mean exactly not that. Moreover, even if the statute said explicitly what they want it to mean, it would merely render the statute unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment since that Amendment protects Americans' privacy based on what they reasonable expect to keep private, not loopholes created by federal statute.

As much as every DOJ lawyer, administrator, FBI agent and any other member of the executive branch who at all participated in this travesty is cordially invited to go and start their own country that doesn't care about privacy or rights (might I suggest they call it "Gofuckyourselfshire"), the real point for today is to point out and predict how pathetic the American response to this issue will be.

Sure, you might say this is just some lawyers arguing about warrant issues in a criminal investigation, why should people care? But that would be a fucking dumbass thing to say. This is pretty significant because it affects people's emails and could set a impactful precedent going forward. But also, this touches on the very same issues that caused such a stir regarding the Patriot Act and Warrantless Wiretaps. Those were really big issues to many Americans and they were discussed heavily in the media. Remember?

Now that DOJ is borrowing some of the very same parts of those issues that made them so controversial - laxed standards to access information like library records and emails; and no warrants where warrants are specifically required by a clearly written statute - there should be a similar response, as there was to those issues, in our national discourse, no?

Good luck with that. As no one seemed to care when Democrats voted to re-up on the Patriot Act without any new limits or privacy protections (because some Republicans might have objected, and we can't have that!) absolutely no one will bat an eye-lash (other than maybe Olberman) about this new over-reach, and middle-finger to the law by Obama's administration.

And why? Isn't it bigger news when a Democratic Administration transgresses citizens' privacy rights? If new is "man bites dog" then surely this type of issue should get even MORE coverage than Bush's illegalities, right? I ask this rhetorically because, consistent with my predicting, I know this will be far less of a story.

My guess is that when Democrats do conservative things, it's just assumed as no big deal, it's "pragmatic centrism" or some bullshit. No matter how many campaign promises it violates, politicians "moving to the center" (for lack of a better term) is hardly ever news. Moreover, there can't be a news item just based on reporters recognizing, all by themselves, that a politician has lied or that an act is not legal. Someone else, like a politician, usually has to make it a story by pointing out the problem. At the time, out-of-power Democrats (including Obama) were all too happy to call out Bush's law-breaking, and prance around as the protectors of our important civil liberties. At the time these were matters of principle that could not be compromised. But now? I don't really know why they have compromised so easily, but what's definitely true is that there's really no one left to call out the President on this considering he's the leader of the only party that "cares" about civil liberties.

Whatever the intricacies of cause and effect, it's clear that the media and politicians only care about privacy, civil liberties and unlawful spying when it suits them.

When Criminals Pick Judges

Brace yourselves for what’s going to be the shittiest and most disgraceful clusterfuck of a Supreme Court Justice Selection Process ever. It will end with the appointment of some “pragmatic” and “moderate” individual, which really is code for an unprincipled, spineless, results-based judicial politician.

But oh the steps leading up to that....Here's what I'm imagining:

The President will pick someone. This person will suck, at life. Reactionary Obamatons will love her - yes it will be a woman. Conservatives will freak out like someone just beat up their grandmas and complain that the nominee is totally "out of the mainstream." This will be a wildly inaccurate statement by any reasonable measure, but old things the person said will be twisted and taken out of context to support this insane statement. The media will focus entirely on these few statements and these ridiculous arguments, and then there will be the dumbest and most insane hearings ever, where politicians and not the nominee talk for most of time, then the nominee refuses to answer basically any questions on the grounds that they might be prejudging a potential case (which is so stupid) and then, the person will get confirmed.

What will be missed is that the same man picking the new potential Justice, will be a man who is either claiming or extending unprecedented Presidential powers; A man who is rather plainly breaking the law in a few ways, by, for example, ordering American citizens killed, insisting on not prosecuting torturers even though such prosecutions are required by American law, and instituting a policy whereby human being are to be detained forever based on suspect evidence at best, and merely his whim at worst, to name a few. But fuck all that, no one's really gonna mention this.

I mean, sure it would be worth debating how interesting it is that a person doing such things is then in a position to appoint a member to the entity that is most likely (which is to say at all)to rein in those activities (read: crimes). It might make for informative and important discussion to talk about where the nominee stands on those issues and whether they believe in allowing the President to do whatever he wants as long as he uses magic words like "terrorist" or "war" or whatever. Shit, it might be nice to actually have a substantive discussion, as a nation, about what the Constitution is, says and does, and what it means to have a "Constitutional Philosophy."

But none of this will happen. Because Democrats AND Republicans all agree that the President and Congress can do whatever they want when it comes to fighting things like drugs or terrorism. They all agree that (accused) criminals and (accused) terrorists don't have rights. They ALL agree that the Constitution is something to be championed when it helps you and ignored when it stops you. So why should anyone else care about those things?

Besides, laws are just stupid and annoying and for lawyers to figure out. The Supreme Court is no longer about the law, but about political consequences. That's why the discussion this next appointment creates is going to be a national disgrace. Sadly, we don't really deserve any better.

Just Say Commerce Clause!!

W...T...F!?

Let's be clear on a couple of preliminary things: 1) The guy holding the camera is clearly being a douche; 2) The comment about "Not being worried about the Constitution" is pretty bad even if it's taken out of context, and even if he meant he's not worried whether this bill violates the Constitution (2 things which I will explain are plainly not true, by the way); and 3) The "not worried" comment is really not the point here, it's a later exchange that should be causing the stir and, quite frankly, the outrage:

When Sharp pressed Hare to answer where in the Constitution government is granted the authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance, Hare said he didn't know.

Of course everyone is focused on the "don't care about the constitution" comment, including Fox News folks like Bill O'Reilly who (it would be ironic if he had a shred of intellectual integrity) once said almost exactly the same thing. That's because it's easier to say This guy doesn't care about the Constitution!! then to say This guy's unfamiliar with the appropriate Constitutional Authorities!!! I don't doubt that Phil Hare (and Bill O'Reilly for that matter) care about the Constitution, but I don't think Phil Hare cares enough, or has enough concern about what his role is within the structure it provides.

The simple and undeniable fact is that any and every Congressman who has voted for a bill should be able to immediately name the Constitutional authority that allows such a bill to be written, let alone passed in either house of Congress. And, every member of congress should, as a force of habit, have determined such authority prior to voting for the bill, and really should be constantly asking himself the question as to where the authority lies while reading the bill (three times).

Mr. Hare's answer to the question about Constitutional authority raises a legitimate new question about whether or not he truly does care about the Document. And it certainly puts the lie to his defense that this comment was out of context and intended to mean he did not worry because he was confident the bill was Constitutional. First, the context seems pretty clear, and from his tone, Mr. Hare seems to be rejecting as quaint or formal the notion that the Constitution should restrain Congress from passing helpful laws. Second, it is simply impossible to be both convinced of the Constitutionality of a bill and not know what piece of the Constitution authorizes its passage. So the second piece of his defense is an absolute and blatant lie.

But this all falls under a broader issue:the fact that our politicians, and thereby our society, seems to exist in a total state of law-optionality, or selective or situational Constitutionalism. Phil Hare was a rather vocal critic of George Bush and I know from seeing him appear on TV that he opposed at least some of Bush's policies on legal or Constitutional grounds. If there is fairness in this world, going forward, Phil Hare will be essentially precluded from ever citing the Constitution to support any of his arguments or ideas, because, he should be well aware, the journalist or conservative talking head across the table will immediately point out his stated lack of concern for that same Document. If he's lucky, Mr. Hare will get a to a point where such a retort seems like a cheap shot, but they never will be. Mr. Hare, you can not disregard the Constitution and your duties within it in your haste to pass a bill you like and think is great, only to turn around and say that the Constitution must be adhered to when it suits your needs.

It goes almost without saying that the conservatives making tons of hey out of Mr. Hare's stupidity don't come across much better considering how little they cared about the Constitution when adherents to their ideology were violating it.

Still Phil Hare might look worse because really, how fucking hard is it to just say "Commerce Clause?"

Rant

This post is completely dead-on... and crushingly depressing.

I read it yesterday shortly after losing a hearing where the judge all but admitted that he was choosing to do what he thought was right even if it was not the appropriate decision under the law. The combination of these events left me rather sad and frustrated. It was a strange frustration, completely devoid of anger. It was a frustration based on the realization that no one seems to care about things I think are really important - obviously important - and that I am impotent to convince them otherwise.

As a general idea, that post sums it up nicely, albeit sarcastically:

When push comes to shove, when the truth is revealed to [the American People], they will always -- always -- do the right thing.

That is sarcastically exactly right. We have, at least lately always seemed to do the wrong thing. And be ok with it. That last sentence is really important: It's not that we won't make mistakes, but rather how we respond to them that really matters.

Swimming in my depression/frustration yesterday, I thought to myself that we are a depraved, heartless, ignorant, immoral and unjust people. I felt shame, really.

Emotionally and temporaly removed from those moments, I might have been a little harsh in that most people are kind-hearted and decent, and most people have a clear sense of what is right and wrong. But collectively? Collectively I don't think I was far off: War is something to be cheered and politicized and the deaths of innocents something to be knee-jerkingly defended and never somberly contemplated. Simultaneously, laws are something to be skirted whenever political inconveniences, or practical judgments can't be reconciled therewith. Perhaps the latter notion could be viewed sympathetically - if not outright accepted - if we had consistently demonstrated our moral awareness and clarity to be so strong and righteous that we would be wise to trust it, even over our cherished laws. Of course, we only ever seem to digress from our laws - our most basic and traditional principles - in ways that are often substantively immoral and illegitimate: to cover up murder, and abuse; to gloss over corruption where profits are prioritized over lives.

We get pretty pissed, and morally indignant about steroids and philandering golfers, but as that post highlights when we learn that our troops murdered plainly innocent pregnant women (yes plural) and then all levels of government officials conspired to cover it up we don't stop and ponder the benefits of our foreign wars, we don't call for accountability, we don't seek investigations, we don't even collectively say "how tragic." We don't do single fucking thing, we don't even fucking bring it up!

It would be easy to simply blame the giant orge-cluster-fuck that is and are our national political-media-corporate establishment, who are utterly devoid of all of the qualities indicating the presence of a human soul, that as a collective society we can't be anything other than immoral. But when I think about, as non-emotionally as possible, I am compelled to feel shame.

What He Said

Matt Taibbi has a pretty great piece up here about the catholic church scandal. Yep, he knocked that one out of the park. That is all.

Oh No He Didn't

There's no way he really said this is there? I mean did he think no one would see this interview? Couldn't he have come up with language that wasn't exactly opposite to everything else he says to Americans? How hard is that, right? And in the exact same context that he always says the exact opposite thing?

Mr. President: Are you fucking with me?

He's got to be smarter than that, right? This strikes me as so strange from a what is going on inside your bean standpoint that I almost can't grasp it. Is this one of those moments like when George Bush used to say things and you just knew that he knew that what he was saying would piss off his critics - like make them want to rip their hair out - to no end, and that he kind of enjoyed doing this? Remember those times? Is this like that?

The alternative is that the President truly believes that America is exempt from its own laws when it comes to prosecuting human rights violations. Like that scene in Super Troopers where the heroes favorably compare their shenanigans to the bad guys' shenanigans: Our human rights violations are totally different, and understandable, people do crazy stuff some times....crazy. Oh well. Can't prosecute them for that. Moving on!

Actually, I'm pretty sure this is what the President really thinks. Dammit!

Yes! Someone Finally Cares About Limiting Government using the Commerce Clause!!

Oh..... ohhhh.... wait a second. It's just disingenuous Republicans advancing absurd legal arguments for purely partisan gain and political theatrics. Ahhhh. That's disappointing. But don't count out the media's ability to treat it like a serious effort with a burning legal question. Good Grief!

Let me first say, that I agree substantively that requiring individuals to buy a product from a private company is unconstitutional. But this is apart of a coherent and honest philosophy I subscribe to which would also strike down a ton of currently standing, and uncontroverisal, laws on the same grounds. It is so crushingly obvious that these Attorneys General are only advancing these legal arguments because they are on Team "Hate-Healthcare-Reform" that it should immediately disqualify all of them from the class of serious legal minds.

How the fuck can someone with a law degree write a fucking sentence like this, and put this tripe bullshit in front of a court: "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage." You can not be SERIOUS!!!

The Constitution doesn't authorize a lot of things, I mean I could literally fill-in-the-blank for the next 7 years with things advanced by Republicans, yet "nowhere" authorized by the Constitution. Let's try 5 minutes:

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to:

-Dictate specifically what should be taught in schools and what tests students should take

- Criminally punish someone for possessing an item that they manufactured and consumed themselves for medical reasons in compliance with a doctor's recommendation and applicable state law.

- Discard or exempt portions of the Bill of Rights for American citizens without a declaration of war, or even under a declaration of war.

- Force citizens to pay taxes into a system that reinvests that money into private corporations.

- Pay states for changing the blood alcohol content at which criminal culpability is defined.

The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to do about 95% of the things it does. Some of those things are totally, and unquestionably Constitutional. Some are not so clear. That's because the Document is vague, and because politicians and judges, including Republicans no less than Democrats, have expanded the role of federal government and shoe-horned powers into the Document to suit their political ends. Someone who truly believes in a very limited federal government, confined by Section 8 of Article I, regardless of political outcomes, would pretty much have to agree with the first 3 examples I provided - that those are not ok. Others might even agree with the last two examples. But Republicans have consistently disagreed with ALL OF THEM over time. It's a little late in the game to start holding up the commerce clause as a limitation, and these arguments and lawsuits surely would not be advanced if the politics were different.

As for the substance, yes the mandate is unconstitutional, in my view. Congress can regulate commerce amongst the several states, and health insurance is commerce at its essence. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can even regulate non-commercial activity (no transaction, no money, no commerce) that is somewhat related to commerce because of some fucking bullshit about how non-commercial activity can effect commerce and so regulations need to extend to even non-commercial stuff. These dumbfuck arguments can be found in cases called Gonzalez v. Raich and Wickard v. Filburn. Again, true disciples of the limited fed philosophy consider those cases utter abominations, especially - and certainly not coincidentally - the one ruthlessly prosecuted by the Bush Administration.

Those rulings notwithstanding, a legitimate argument could be made that requiring private citizens to buy a product from a private company, to enter into a contract, is just beyond anything the commerce clause can be said to authorize and runs up against many fundamental freedoms such as freedom of contract. Indeed, the argument continues, the power to force people to buy products, if bestowed onto Congress, would create an absurd slippery slope that would be ripe for corruption and abuse and turn our traditional economic freedoms on their heads. What is to stop another powerful lobby from mandating all Americans, say, have savings accounts with a $25 minimum balance?

(Thus, a well-argued lawsuit would either dispassionately outline the argument and plainly state "The Constitution does not authorize this type of Congressional behavior." OR it would present an argument that doesn't drip with the snarky wonderment of a pre-law sophomore who just read the Constitution for the first time, and say something like "This mandate goes beyond the appropriate powers of Congress to regulate commerce, by unprecedentedly requiring private parties to enter into contracts...." etc.)

Sadly, there is little doubt, and rightfully so, among legal experts that the government will prevail by emphasizing that this law is just a different type of regulation on an activity that literally epitomizes commercial activity. The Solicitor General could just robotically repeat "The Government is regulating a commercial activity" for his entire 30 minutes of argument and the Supreme Court will side with her.

The unlikelihood of success doesn't make these suits illegitimate, but the people making them probably hadn't even considered the commerce clause since their second semester of law school.

Moreover, an interesting wrinkle that no one has reported on is that these lawsuits are very likely to be dismissed immediately on grounds of mootness. That is to say there is no controversy before the court because the mandate does not kick in until 2014, and so no one has standing to sue under law that has not gone into effect. This is something the Constitution is pretty specific on, and these lawyers have to know this, which really makes these suits a publicity stunt.

My prediction: These suits get tossed for mootness, and Republicans do their normal chicken dance about "judicial activism" (which would be the most dishonest use of that term ever - which is to say a lot) and some other bullshit that the courts wouldn't even consider the merits of the case and that Americans deserve to have their courts hear the merits blah blah blah! Yes, get some goggles and a wetsuit, it's about to become a complete bullshit-fest.