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.