Change is inevitable

No shit Sherlock.

Reading all about Hackett and taking back the House in 2006 has me real fired up. There's something bigger afoot, though. The movement that Reagan brought to the fore in 1980 is in its decline, and something new will replace it. This is a historical inevitability; every dominant movement in the United States since the Civil War has had about 20-30 years in the sun before declining. Time's up for the Reagan Revolution.

Dominant political movements since 1865:

Reconstruction (1865-1877)

What it meant: Occupation of the South by the North after the Civil War. Essentially, the South became politically irrelevant and the Northerner dominated Republican Party dominated the Federal Government.

Achievements: Passed the Civil War Amendments banning slavery and granting equal rights to African-Americans (the 14th Amendment would be extended to women by th 19th Amendment and activist judges). Created equality for blacks that would not be equalled again until after the Civil Rights movement.

Downfall: Federal troops were pulled out of the South as part of the Compromise of 1877 resulting in the Nadir of American Race Relations as states assumed more power to discriminate. Many of the era's achievements were struck down by the United States Supreme Court through various cases, most notably Plessy v. Ferguson which established separate but equal as constitutional.

Progressive Era (1890-1920)

What it meant: A period of reform in American politics where reformers sought to change government starting at the local level. These changes eventually moved through the state and federal levels of government.

Achievements: The 18th Amendment banned alcohol (is that an achievemen?) while the 19th Amendment extended the suffrage to women. The progressive era also initiated the income tax, the popular election of US Senators along with popularizing the ballot initiative/referendum process. Many populist mechanisms (such as the recall) are relics of the Progressive Era. More notable Progressive Era laws can be found here.

Downfall: At the end of World War I, the United States was a different country economically and politically. In a new period of [debt financed] prosperity, Americans were less concerned with reform and more concerned with drinking at speakeasies. This resulted in a new rise of conservative ideologies.

The New Deal/World War II (1932-1950)

What it meant: Seeking to soothe the wounds of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt implemented extensive government regulations during the 1930s.

Achievements: The New Deal brought about such staples as the FDIC and Social Security to help restore faith in the government. Supreme Court decisions in 1937 also spelled the end of Lochner era jurisprudence, allowing the government much more leeway to regulate under the Commerce Clause.

Downfall: New Deal liberalism didn't really fall down in the 1950s. It was replaced by its successor: the age of unions.

Union Dominance (1950-1970)

What it meant: Due to the strength of the economy and shortage of labor after World War II, organized labor had unprecedented abilities to dictate its agenda.

Achievements: Incredible economic growth and a thriving middle class were the hallmarks. This period also saw the Civil Rights movement and tremendous gains in race relations.

Downfall: With a decline in manufacturing jobs, unions faced declining membership and clout. Also, the stagnant economy of the 1970s had Americans looking elsewhere for leadership.

Reagan Revolution (1980-present)

What it meant: Ronald Reagan invited social cons into the big tent of the Republican Party creating a coalition that still dominates politics.

Achievements: I'm too bitter to talk about it.

Downfall: Fissures between the social cons and economic cons along with the rise of a new liberalism.

You see, we're not just going to take back Congress. The decline of the current Conservative movement is imminent. We have to fight for it, but it's going to happen. The new liberalism that's going to dominate can't be the 1960s liberalism that a lot of people would like to see. The world is too different. I'd like suggestions, but here's how I think we'll look back on early 21st Century liberalism:

New New Deal Liberalism (2010-2030)

Achievements: We'll expand civil and substantive rights. Civil rights means sanctity of privacy, free speech, separation of Church and state and gay marriage. We'll also bring American high schools to the place near the top where they belong and have universal health care, like any first world country deserves.

Movies...

I still refuse to see "War of the Worlds" because I'm not going to give a red cent to Tom Cruise and his insane cult that abducted Katie Holmes. However, I did finally get out of the house this past week to see "The Interpreter" and "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."

"The Interpreter": I've never seen a movie that was so boring and so full of holes at the same time. Normally moviemakers have you suspend your disbelief for a good reason. With this movie, it was about nothing. And the whole thing was obviously foreshadowed through a multicultural lens. Terrible discontinuity, anticlimactic, obviously foreshadowed and obsessively multicultural? Four strikes and you're out. Frankly, this movie sucked. The only saving grace was the bizarre sexual tension between Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn. Oh, and Sean Penn is amazing.

"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy": It's a hard book to turn into a movie, because the narration is so overbearing. They did a good job with the plot, though. The actor that played Arthur was excellent... I've never seen someone more ackward in a movie. It was perfect. Plus, anything with Mos' Def is worth seeing. My only gripe was that Trillian kept slipping in and out of an obviously fake English accent. Couldn't they find a nice English actress? Overall, though, it was quite entertaining.

Ouch

New lows for The Hill. Hat tip: Wonkette.

Armando is Extraordinary

An extraordinary asshole.

(This is a rant for people who read DailyKos. Otherwise, skip it.)

The annoying thing about blogs is that they segment the audience by ideology, and give righteous but out of touch guys like Armando a bully pulpit. Basically, during the Roberts nomination, DailyKos has become a massive forum for righteous but meaningless posturing. "Explain your views on Roe or we filibuster." "Disclose the memos Roberts wrote in the Solicitor General's office or we have to filibuster." "Explain your views on stare decisis or filibuster." These are all common refrains on the frontpage and inside the comments.

These refrains are flawed twofold. First, they are hypocritical. The right-wing spinpoint is called the Ginsburg precedent, and there's no intellectually honest way to refute this. Some idiots say that "we heard Ginsburg's opinion on Roe." This is woefully inadequate, since Ginsburg only gave talked about abortion as related to a speech she had given on the topic. Roberts, squeaky-clean as he is, has no flags to grab him on. Furthermore, Ginsburg refused to answer questions on dozens of other important legal questions including: establishment vs. free exercise in the first amendment, anti-trust law, the Constitution as related to Native Americans and numerous others. However, this demonstration of idiocy is meaningless because Kossacks and those like them don't get to decide.

As Armando says, the SCOTUS is Extraordinary. This language is lifted from the filibuster compromise made by the Gang of 14 moderates. As Armando would have it, failure to give a straightforward answer on Roe is extraordinary; ergo it is grounds for a filibuster. This is not only frustrating in its confrontational petulance, it also demonstrates an inability to get beyond his own sphere of power and determine who actually gets to decide the cloture vote. You have to get 14 people on board:

• Republicans
  
• John McCain
  
• Lindsey Graham
• John Warner
  
• Olympia Snowe
  
• Susan Collins
  
• Mike DeWine
  
• Lincoln Chafee

• Democrats
  
• Joe Lieberman
• Robert Byrd
• Ben Nelson
• Mary Landrieu
• Daniel Inouye
• Mark Pryor
• Ken Salazar

That's it. Did I miss Sen. Armando (D-Mars)? KOSSACKS: YOU HAVE NO SAY IN WHETHER OR NOT TO FILIBUSTER! Stop blustering and blowing and hemming and hawing. Do you think that these guys believe a non-answer in the Ginsburg mold is Extraordinary? Well, I'm a flaming lefty and I think the leftist arguments are absolutely dishonest. Where does that mean Landrieu or Nelson stand? Or for that matter DeWine and McCain? I'm pretty sure the Repubs would nuke it in a second. Then we dare say that Dems don't have a spine anymore. Stop acting like you're in the majority. We can't pick and choose who we have; we need more seats not less.

Stop telling the so called DINOs to leave. You want only "tough" Senators who stand for real lefty values? I'd like to see Ted Kennedy win Landrieu's seat, Barbara Boxer win Mark Pryor's seat, Nancy Pelosi win Salazar's seat, Howard Dean win Ben Nelson's seat, Pat Leahy win Max Baucus's and Chuck Schumer win Byron Dorgan's. Yep, without those DINOs that save our asses in the red states, the Republicans would have a filibuster proof majority. Then you could quit your blustering about when we should or shouldn't filibuster. They're saving the filibuster for us, we can't just tell them when we want to filibuster. They're representing their constituents, many of whom are very in favor of the other party.

And on a further DINO note, you're not a DINO if abortion isn't your number one issue. People on Kos keep coming up with this ridiculous shit about how the Dems have to put their foot down, because abortion is basically the only issue that matters. That's bullshit. We stand for a lot of things. One of the biggest Dem problems is its inability to formulate a palatable stance on abortion because NARAL et. al. insist that the Democrats absolutely legalize it, with not restrictions and piss and moan if a Democrat so much as finds abortion morally objectionable (see Clinton, H.R.). If the Democrats continue to offer this extreme position and leave the mushy middle with nothing to cling to, Republicans will keep winning elections and appointing judges. And before anyone tells me that electing a mushy dem is just as bad as electing a repug, remind me again which party has overturning Roe as A GOAL IN ITS NATIONAL PLATFORM. Hmm, well that sure leaves me conflicted on which party is going to do more to preserve legalized abortion.

That felt good.

Anybody who read this and reads Kos, please comment, because it has no cross posting value. It'll just get flamed to shits on any lefty site.

Well

Smearing distinguished veterans is a much older practice in this country than we originally thought.

John G. Roberts

We finally have something substantive on our nominee:

According to two people who attended the meeting, Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral.

[snip]

Renowned for his unflappable style in oral argument, Roberts appeared nonplused and, according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself.

It was the first unscripted answer in the most carefully scripted nomination in history. It was also the wrong answer. In taking office, a justice takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. A judge's personal religious views should have no role in the interpretation of the laws.

So it looks like an eight member Court this term.

Maddox

His humor is back after a six month hiatus.

A little on Roe

A popular bit of amateur wonkish thinking in the context of Supreme Court vacancies holds that creating a Supreme Court that would overturn Roe would be very good for the Democratic party. The theory is that if Roe were overturned and the states allowed to regulate abortion, the silent pro-choice majority who consider Roe settled law would mobilize and essentially destroy the Republican Party, which would continue to be beholden to its virulently anti-abortion base. Although I don't believe Roberts will vote to completely overturn Roe, I want to address why overturning Roe would be bad for the Democrats.

Most simply, it represents a defeat
The Democratic Party is an organization whose purpose is to implement the policies it wants, and prevent policies that it opposes. Ensuring the right to choice is one of these policy goals.

It would take a while
The Supreme Court won't be able to just immediately strike down Roe. It could take five or ten years to put the precedents in place for the landmark decision. The Democrats want to take back the government before that, right? And if we do take power in ten years, the country may be so fucked up we don't want to govern it.

Overturning Roe would take a court decision of a particular sort
This decision would have broader implications than simply eliminating the right to an abortion. There are two options. Striking down Roe could recognize compelling state interest to protect all unborn life, which is unpalatable because it would free states to ban birth control. It could also go even further and strike down Griswold and the right to privacy, which is a risk I'm not willing to take for any sort of political gain in other areas.

Making this decision would require a Supreme Court of a particular sort
One that would likely set back liberal causes a long ways by doing things like destroying the Federal Government's power to regulate. It might also blur the bounds between church and state, and be likely to side against many civil liberties claims. It's hard to say exactly what a Court like this would do, but whatever Court would overturn Roe wouldn't just go away after the decision. This Court might cause irreparable damage to the United States.

The pro-choice majority is a lot more tenuous than many assume
When NARAL cites statistics saying 60% of Americans are pro-choice, they are doing a disservice to everyone and fooling themselves. According to this compilation of abortion polling data, people agree that Roe should be upheld. However, many also ageree that abortion is murder. And when you remove abortions in cases of rape, incest and the health of the woman support for legal abortions falls below 50%. So while there are wacko fundamentalists on the one side who fall outside the mainstream, the NARAL ideal that abortion should not only be legal, but destigmatized is also well outside mainstream American thought. Republicans and Democrats would each probably gravitate toward the center of keeping abortions legal but heavily regulated. This would alienate the radicals on both sides: those who want legal abortion on demand and those who want to ban all abortion (and maybe birth control). This would create a better representation on public opinion in abortion policy and also a less vitriolic political atmosphere surrounding the issue, but it would also represent a significant policy loss as a woman's right to choose would be significantly threatened. Furthermore, the splintering that some predict for the GOP is just as likely to happen to the Democrats as they advocate regulations and alienate NARAL et. al.

My bet is that the Court will chip away at Roe but not strike it down, but it's worth looking at the political fallout regardless.

Ugh

Would now be an appropriate time to burn a flag?

Do I smell a Souter Surprise?

Undergraduate Degree:
David H. Souter: Harvard
John G. Roberts: Harvard

Law Degree:
David H. Souter: Harvard
John G. Roberts: Harvard

Birthplace:
Souter: Northeastern liberal bastion (Mass.)
Roberts: Northeastern liberal bastion (NY)

Experience on Federal Bench
Souter: Short (less than a year)
Roberts: Short (two years)

Age at nomination:
Souter: 51
Roberts: 50

What the press called him:
Souter: "stealth justice"
Roberts: "stealth conservative"

Personality:
Souter: Affable (he gets along with Scalia)
Roberts: Charming (have you seen the coverage?)

Life update

Well, it's been a while since I've taken a break from political commentary nobody cares about to write some stuff about me that nobody cares about. To be honest, there's not much to update. I've been brushing and flossing daily and eating three meals a day plus snacks (which is almost always an inordinate amount of Zours... mmm... Zours).

In all seriousness, this work thing is getting old. Fortunately, I only have two weeks left. That's only ten working days! Only eighty hours! I can hardly contain myself.

Man, I have a boring life. The one interesting thing is that we have some German kid coming to stay at our house for the month of August. He gets here tomorrow. More on that later.

More federal funds for profiteers in higher ed?

This isn't about Rove or Roberts, who have already been hacked to death. However, it did strike me as quite important. For-profit private colleges want a single definition for institutions of higher education that would allow them funds currently only available to non-profits. And because of their lobbying clout, they look likely to get it:

Creating a single definition has been one of the highest priorities of for-profit institutions, which have increasing clout on Capitol Hill because of their growing enrollments (and because their political action committee contributes to lawmakers in ways that nonprofit institutions generally do not). "As a matter of equity and to create a modern Higher Education Act and higher education system, we ought to be recognized as equal participants through sharing a single definition," said Mark Pelesh, a senior vice president at Corinthian Colleges, Inc., a publicly traded higher education provider.

Non-profits are vehemently opposed:

But the traditional higher education establishment and faculty unions have opposed the for-profits' inclusion in the single definition, which they say would give the commercial institutions access to funds that are already in short supply. They have also opposed other provisions in the committee's legislation that they say would weaken protections against potential financial aid fraud and abuse at for-profit colleges.

And in another terrific example of government by lobbyist, it appears as though the for-profits essentially got what they wanted (at least in committee):

The overall result left the single definition provision largely intact, with only the restriction on funds from Titles III and V.

The worst part is that the reason this provision has so much force might just be Democratic stupidity.

[A compromise proposed by Rep. Castle (R-Del)] would prevent for-profit institutions from competing for research grants from the Agriculture Department or the National Institutes of Health unless the laws that govern those grant agencies were specifically amended to allow them to.

Lobbyists for nonprofit colleges were heartened as five of the panel's Republicans (who always vote first because they are the majority party) cast ballots for Castle's amendment. But it came time for the Democrats to vote, a majority of them opposed it, and it failed, 21 to 11.

The Democrats may have voted against this proposal because they advocated Betty McCollum's (D-MN) amendment that would have restored the old distinction between non-profit and for-profit colleges. However, this was little consolation to the non-profit groups:

Lobbyists for nonprofit colleges were furious at the Democrats for not supporting Castle's amendment more uniformly; some were believed to have opposed it because they preferred McCollum's amendment, and others because they did not want to support a compromise crafted by a member of the opposition. Baime of the community college association said they'd made a huge mistake. "To not take three-quarters of a loaf because you prefer the whole loaf that you may not get" is idiotic, he said after the vote.

Why is this a big deal? For one, allegations of fraud at some for-profits. One example is Brooks College, in Long Beach, Calif:

To recruit students, the show said, the college grossly misrepresented graduation and job placement rates, and graduates' starting salaries.

One admissions representative told "60 Minutes" that people in her position would tell prospective students that they would, "have a 95 percent chance that you are gonna have a job paying $35,000 to $40,000 a year by the time they are done," when the actual starting salary was under $11 an hour, according to the Western Association of Schools and Colleges.

The problem is not anecdotal, however, it's a systemic conflict of interest. In fact, there is a current congressional investigation into the private accreditation agency, which appears to have much too close a relationship with the Career College Association (an association of for-profit colleges).

The other part of the problem involves research funds. Should the federal government really be granting research funds to institutions which are more interested in turning a profit than generating important research? Our universities are the most important bastion of scientific and technological development, which is critical to the health of our economy and national security. Furthermore, these funds are limited. The Star Tribune has more:

But research grants from federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are another matter. They should be reserved for scholars who have committed themselves to peer-reviewed research, not the pursuit of profit, and should produce results that advance a public research agenda -- whether it's medicine or engineering or food safety -- not some private shareholder priority.

My thoughts exactly.

John Roberts

Every single issue regarding Mr. Roberts has doubtless been beaten to death. So I'll refer to Wonkette, who has the most pertinent analysis as always.

Laffer Curve* refresher course

Last week, Republicans reacted with glee as the budget deficit came in lower than expected. Leading the parade was of course the Wall Street Journal, which found this to be the ultimate vindication of its economic policy. The left side of the spectrum met this news with deafening silence. Who could blame us? We've got bigger fish to fry, between Rove, the SCOTUS nominee and the seemingly ever-worse situation in Iraq.

Maybe it's because I'm cruel and want to rain on the one bit of good news the Repubs got last week. Maybe I just enjoy taking apart Wall Street Journal editorials. Whatever the reason, I thought this would be a good time for a refresher on the idiocy of supply side economics. The column starts simply enough: Why are those rotten Democrats so angry when there was finally good news about the economy?

At least that seems to be the way a sizable chunk of Washington is reacting to this week's report from the White House budget office that the federal deficit is down by nearly $100 billion this fiscal year, that the deficit as a share of GDP is down to 2.7% (very near its historical average), and that this is all happening because tax receipts are surging by more than 14%. Uncle Sam is having a better year so far than even Paris Hilton, but half of the Beltway is depressed.

OK, that's cool, but only if finally getting back to average can be considered good. To average out the egregious deficits Bush has run up during the past 4 years, we need a lot better than "almost average." I'm nice, though, so I'm going to chalk it up to the dubious conclusion that the cause of these deficits was Clinton and his irresponsible handling of the 1990s economy leading to a recession in Bush's first term. So on to those pouting Democrats, who just can't see success when it smacks them in the face:

John Spratt, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, seems especially upset that this revenue surge isn't coming from wage income, but rather from investment income--that is, the so-called non-withholding income tax collections, which have skyrocketed by some 30% this year. "These are typically taxes paid on one-time capital gains, bonuses, stock-options income that may not recur," he laments.

Well, sure, Congressman, the 2003 reductions in the tax rates on dividends and capital gains seem to be resulting in much higher tax revenues on . . . dividends and capital gains. This is called the Laffer Curve effect, and we thank Mr. Spratt for validating it. If he wants those revenues to "recur," maybe he'll even vote to make those tax cuts permanent.

Besides the fact that the Wall Street Journal actually has the ability to be snarky, what we find here is an egregious misinterpretation of what Mr. Spratt means. Consider this scenario: I own 20 shares of company X stock. I was planning on selling them at the rate of two per year over the next ten years, but Congress made these capital gains tax cuts that allow me to sell the stock and pay less taxes on the appreciation. I don't know if this tax cut will be made permanent, so I run and sell all 20 shares. This would result in an increase in capital gains tax revenue, but it would certainly not recur, regardless of whether or not the capital gains tax cut were made permanent. I can't sell stock I don't have (I could short, but that doesn't really count). Capital gains tax might result in more investment, and some of the gains might be the result of the Laffer Curve. However, Spratt's assertion is certainly plausible, and there is reason to consider it. Plus, as we'll find out later, the Wall Street Journal itself seems to be a little confused about the utility of the Laffer Curve, so they shouldn't be snarky like its effect is self evident.

Of course, our boys at the Wall Street Journal know that the one thing that can screw up the government in the face of the wonder of the Laffer Curve are those big spenders in Washington:

There is a looming budget problem, but it has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts or insufficient tax revenue. It is a government spending crisis, especially the liabilities that politicians have promised to retirees in Social Security and Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that spending as a share of our national output based solely on current promises will surge from about 20% today, to 25% in 2025 and to 34% by 2040.

And who knows what services the government should be in the business of providing? Ah, yes, of course. Why don't we just let the Wall Street Journal decide which popular entitlement programs are worth keeping? There's a big democratic deficit when it comes to the Supreme Court, which won't let the people ban abortion and sodomy. But when those dumbasses want programs, screw them. Of course, if we have to raise more revenue, the government ought to cut taxes, right? I mean, with the Laffer curve and all? If we just cut taxes a little bit more, that should cover it all? No:

In order to balance the budget at those spending totals, we would have to double the highest income tax rate to 70%, raise payroll taxes to 30%, and the corporate income tax rate would rise to twice the average of U.S. trading partners.

But wait, if we raise taxes all the way up there, revenue will go in the toilet! Are you crazy? The Laffer Curve was responsible for all that capital gains tax revenue! It should work here, as well. And here's the real lesson: the Laffer Curve isn't real. Of course there's a point at which raising the tax rate will decrease the amount of revenue for the government. We're almost certainly not past the point of diminishing returns. Some economists have put that at 80% taxation. And it's complicated; every change in the economy, taxation, government spending, individual investment and so forth causes shifts in the Laffer Curve. As David Stockman, an architect of supply side economics, wrote:

[T]he whole California gang had taken [the Laffer curve] literally (and primitively). The way they talked, they seemed to expect that once the supply-side tax cut was in effect, additional revenue would start to fall, manna-like, from the heavens. Since January, I had been explaining that there is no literal Laffer curve.

Here's another question: even if we could determine the optimum rate of taxation, would we really want that? Should the government really get as much of our money as possible? Obviously, this is a theoretical question, because it's already difficult enough to fund the popular programs that the Wall Street Journal wants to eliminate. However, it seems that if all the needs of the public are being met, the government should go ahead and allow revenue to slide.

There's one more suggestion that this article makes as a way to cover all those unnecessary but popular programs if they don't get cut:

Or if we tried to borrow to finance all this spending, our debt ratings would slip to junk bond status, according to an analysis by Standard and Poor's.

Of course, those wily fiscal conservatives don't really like this option very much. But why wait until 2040 for the budget to be all screwed up? Why don't we try borrowing trillions of dollars to privatize Social Security right now, when we're already in a ton of debt? If we want to go for junk bonk status, that might be a good way to go (in all fairness, I think the Wall Street Journal has opposed Social Security privatization).

So clearly, the Laffer Curve has been in effect in capital gains revenue, but in order to cover all our entitlement spending, we'd have to raise taxes. Or do we? I'll let the enemy have the final word:

So thank heaven for the tax cuts that have helped to spur the economy that is now throwing off higher tax revenues. As the chart shows, those revenues are now rising back to their modern average as a share of GDP, just as supporters of the tax cuts predicted. And if the tax cuts are made permanent, and as the economy grows and incomes continue to rise, Americans will be paying even more in taxes as they move into higher tax brackets. The real windfall here isn't for the rich but for Washington. Instead of griping, Mr. Spratt ought to be doing cartwheels.

*The Laffer Curve is a registered trademark of Fallacious Republican Arguments, Inc.

Ruminations of a "provincial rube"

I've read a number of diaries that defend the South or attack it, and as a Minnesotan, I had always identified myself as a Northerner. However, upon seeing this letter, I began to rethink my position:

Don't you realize that the endless gushing over Lindsay Lohan et al. makes Minnesotans look like a bunch of provincial rubes?

You see, the arrival of various film stars in Minneapolis to film the "Prairie Home Companion" movie has created quite the stir in the community, particularly within the pages of the Star Tribune.

The identity crisis of a Midwesterner is not quite as obvious as the conflict demonstrated in the diaries about how the South isn't as bad as it's stereotyped. However, in our effort to demonstrate that we're not "provincial rubes," we pretty much always end up excacerbating the problem. My typical defense:

Hey, Thomas Friedman, the Coen Brothers and Al Franken are from my suburb. Prince, Bob Dylan, Walter Mondale and Hubert Humphrey are all from Minnesota. Plus, Minnesota is one of the best places to live, if you can deal with the winter. Great public schools, low unemployment, some of the best urban parks in the world...

Unfortunately, in our attempts to make people on the Coasts understand the wonder of the great Midwest, the problem just gets worse. Who actually knows all the famous people from their state? It's a distinctly Minnesota thing, designed to combat the inferiority complex we have toward the Coasts. The irony is that having a strong sense of place almost relegates one to being a provincial rube. Once you have to get defensive, you're already a rube.

If all Minnesotans had to do was demonstrate that they were as "fabulous" as those liberal east and West Coasters, the proposition would be easy. Unfortunately, it's a lot more complicated than that. We take pride in that reputation for provincialness we pretend to despise. Ever hear of Minnesota nice? Well, it's true, people here are pretty nice. It's like a club, with 5 million people. Yes, the 14th largest media market in America is filled with 2.5 million country bumpkins. I hear people talk all the time about how they moved to New York, but it just wasn't the same as Minneapolis. The people just weren't as open, or friendly or whatever. Minnesotans don't really want to be like the East Coast. We want to demonstrate that we could be that cool if we wanted to.

We can never be like the East Coast, though, because our sense of place will make sure we're provincial rubes forever. And I don't really mind it.

Hopefully this provides a little glimpse into those mysterious blue states between the liberal coasts.

Hi

I must say, this is pretty much brilliant.

Why Rove is toast

I'd like as much as the next guy to see Rove "frog-marched" straight to jail. But barring an indictment, the best we can hope for is a guilty verdict in the court of public opinion. And this is looking pretty likely.

To understand this, everyone has to meet my coworkers, Jim and Tom. They're pretty average white-collar workers. I would imagine they're politically slightly right of center, mainly because they probably like things the way they are and don't want to pay taxes. They are politically apathetic, meaning they don't give a shit about the latest stupid Santorum comment that we here at Kos get our panties in a knot about.

What is remarkable about Jim and Tom is that they seem to exactly mirror the apathetic public's opinion on every single water cooler issue. Most of the day to day banter consists of the weather or some big fish somebody caught in Missouri. However, they also make the exact same hackneyed cracks that everybody makes about every single news story. After the Michael Jackson trial:

Tom: Well, with OJ, Robert Blake and now Michael Jackson, we all know this: if you're going to commit a crime, do it in California.

During the latest "Missing White Girl" saga, they wondered about the safety of traveling to exotic destinations. So these guys are my bellweather for popular opinion on every issue. Imagine my surprise when the following dialogue took place:

Jim: Tom, did you see this Rove leak deal?

Tom: Yeah, they'll never nail him on anything. Those politicians always get off.

Jim: He'll get off by saying, 'I didn't say her name."

Tom: Or it'll turn out that all he did was point to a picture or something (appropriate gesticulation).

These guys are looking at the media coverage of the Rovegate, adding in their own perceptions of the credibility of the administration, and coming to the conclusion that Rove is probably guilty of wrongdoing.

I don't want to draw any grand conclusions from this. However, the administration's credibility is in such bad shape right now, there is no benefit of the doubt (only 41% give Bush high marks for being honest). So it's up to the Democrats to instill suspicion of the administration on the Rovegate issue.

This isn't a trap; the apathetic public doesn't need an indictment to think that Rove really screwed up and should be fired. Furthermore, it's at this point where people are just finding out about it that their perceptions are shaped. It is also the time when the facts are the scarecest. We need to make sure that Karl Rove remains the issue, and allow people's distrust of the administration turn into popular opinion that Rove should be fired. A Rove firing, regardless of the implications, would be a tacit admission of guilt by the Bush administration. Smear Rove

Borking

In preparing for the coming Supreme Court nomination battle, Conservatives and Liberals alike are looking back to Reagan's rejected nomination of Robert Bork. Jonathan Chait explains:

The legend of Robert Bork's martyrdom casts a shadow over the coming Supreme Court nomination, as it has over every nomination for the last 18 years. Bork, for those who somehow haven't heard, was nominated in 1987 for the court, only to be defeated at the hands of a savage liberal attack painting him as an ultraconservative menace.

The point of these Bork references is that the Democrats conducted an unfair smear campaign against Bork; his image was defined by Ted Kennedy's quote that:

Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters...

Obviously, this was a little bit over the top, but as Chait explains:

Bork had criticized the portion of the Civil Rights Act banning discrimination in public accommodations, argued against extending the equal protection of the 14th Amendment to women, took an extremely restrictive view of free speech, and so on. At the time of his nomination, Bork backed away from some of his most inflammatory writings, which made the accusations against him seem unfair. For instance, he reportedly told senators in his preconfirmation talks that he was willing to reconsider whether there is a constitutional right to abortion.

So, in short, Bork did have extremist views. And it was right that he was voted down. The really scary thing for this nomination is that the references to Borking in the context of Nomination '05 make sense, because many Republicans are clamoring for a nominee that acts like Bork. Here's the basic originalist contention, from Powerline:

Liberal judges tend to determine the meaning of the Constitution based on their policy preferences, and because those preferences often bear little relation to those of the Constitution's drafters, they rely on whatever they can get their hands on. It may be true that conservative judges often vote in support of their policy preferences too. But, as conservatives, their policy preferences are likely to reflect the traditional preferences and values that the authors of the Constitution believed in and set forth in the document.

But what are those mysterious preferences of the Constitution's drafters? Haven't we been battling about that since Hamilton and Jefferson fought about the National Bank in George Washington's cabinet? Of course, this is easily resolved for Originalists. All they need to know is that the Framers of the Constitution were English guys:

Though Jay's conditions have long been obsolete, until recently Americans did possess a large body of common moral assumptions rooted in our original Anglo-Protestant culture, and expressed in law. Now, however, a variety of disintegrating influences are undermining that unanimity, not least among them is the capture of constitutional law by an extreme liberationist philosophy. America is becoming a cacophony of voices proclaiming different, or no, truths.

I'll grant that our Constitution is distinctly Anglo, but it's also distinctly liberal. In fact, liberalism is distinctly Anglo. So how Bork gets the idea that the Framers would endorse an Anglo morality when in conflict with liberalism is pretty absurd. But it gets worse:

Justice Blackmun wanted to create a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy because of the asserted " 'moral fact' that a person belongs to himself and not others nor to society as a whole." Justice Kennedy, writing for six justices, did invent that right, declaring that "at the heart of [constitutional] liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

It's not really a "right to sodomy" or the "right to an abortion." The "right to an abortion" is really a right to privacy, which doesn't seem like much of a stretch, when you look at the Ninth Amendment, along with the liberal spirit of the Constitution.

The United States Constitution was written as and remains a liberal document. Imposing 200 year old Anglo morality on a plural society is a heinous violation of the Anglo liberal tradition of which the Constitution is part. Anyone who wants to do this, through Originalism or any other form of judicial extremism, deserves to be Borked.

It was a good deal of fun. 

Mom's gone for the week, so we dragged the washing machine into the driveway and smashed it. 

Bush isn't interested in making good policy

I know, it's absolutely shocking. But this from John Cole summed it up for me:

I can think of no real reason to constantly attack a beleagured minority party and her surrogates, when we should be concerned with governing. Is this really worth it?

So I thought it would be a good time to look back at Bush's agenda, and realize how utterly unconcerned he is with making good policy. In almost all cases, the administration's utterly selfish and power-mongering strategies are utterly transparent, even as they pretend to act in the interest of the American people.

CAFTA/Free Trade
Stated Purpose: Free trade agreements are good for the United States, because they increase wealth for everybody, and it will help us be more competitive with China.
Actual Purpose: Just a big favor for the drug companies and textile industry, and other companies who want to outsource.
How we know: The tremendous intellectual property rights provisions for the drug companies in CAFTA, along with the lack of labor and environmental standards. There's also discussion of continuing to allow sugar quotas. The abolition of these quotas is pretty much the only real good that might come out of CAFTA. Also, if Bush was really committed to free trade, he would be pushing hard to eliminate our wasteful agricultural subsidies, which would demonstrate our willingness to cooperate at the WTO Doha Round to help decrease farm subsidies.
Why it's bad: CAFTA will outsource jobs to Central American countries, while not helping standards of living. The increased patent protections for US drug companies will make drugs more expensive for Central American countries. In essence, it packages everything that is good for corporations about free trade into a neat little package, conveniently weeding out everything that might be good for the rest of us (cheaper sugar?).

Terri Schiavo/Culture of Life
Stated Purpose: Maintaining a culture of life in this country is paramount, and the Federal Government must do everything possible to preserve all life.
Actual Purpose: Fire up the wingnuts.
How we know: Oh, come on now. Did you see those protesters? In all seriousness, those people are maniacally obsessed with "life" issues, and expect their Repubs to do whatever necessary to come to their aid.
Why it was bad: It was a big waste of government time, primarily. It also underminded the idea of federalism and an independent judiciary that might act outside of Cogressional authority. Furthermore, the "telediagnoses" of Mrs. Schiavo's condition certainly undermined the credibility of the medical profession. Is everyone a shrink now?

Stem Cells/Culture of Life
Stated Purpose: Maintaining a culture of life in this country is paramount, and the Federal Government should not fund destruction of life.
Actual Purpose: Satisfy the wingnut base.
How we know: Vetoing the Senate's bill wouldn't actually protect life, since only superflous stem cells would be used.
Why it's bad: Slowing stem cell research could cost real, adult lives, as potentially curable diseases continue to kill. Also, putting religion over science once again sets an extremely bad precedent.

War in Iraq/Staying the Course
Stated Purpose: Sending more troops might give the Iraqis the impression of a permanent occupation, but when the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down.
Actual Purpose: We can't send more troops, because there aren't any more.
How we know: The stated purpose is an inherent contradiction. If sending more troops would cause them to "stand down," wouldn't pulling the troops out cause them to "stand up?" And conversely, if our presence there isn't preventing the Iraqis from standing up, how would sending more soldiers make them stand down?
Why it's bad: The Iraq war is a debacle. We deserve a reevaluation.

Torture/Global War on Terror
Stated Purpose: The Geneva Conventions should be suspended for the GWOT because this is a different kind of war. The administration's silence on the actual torture scandal has been deafening, so we don't know why there hasn't been a thorough investigation.
Actual Purpose: This is speculation, but I suspect that an investigation would lead pretty high up on the food chain, and cause the Bush administration to stink even worse than it does.
How we know: It's speculation. We don't.
Why it's bad: Torture by Americans sets a bad example for the world, and violates our very justifications for war in Iraq. It puts American soldiers in danger, and American violation of civil liberties and human rights is a threat to all Americans

Valerie Plame
Stated Purpose: Find and fire the leaker.
Actual Prupose: Find and fire a fall guy who is sufficiently high on the food chain to satisfy the American people, but sufficiently low to save Bush and Cheney's skins.
How we know: Rove was involved. Why no firing?
Why it's bad: This is a case of national security, where there needs to be a full investigation and absolute honesty from the administration. It's no time to play politics.

Social Security Privatization
Stated Purpose: Resolve the Social Security Crisis before it goes bankrupt.
Actual Purpose: This may be the one case where Bush is actually trying to do right, but unfortunately, his timing is terrible on this one.
Why it's bad: Why take a problem that's at least 30 years away, and add to our ballooning debt to solve it right now? If you want to leave my generation with a solvent country, let alone Social Security System, get your act together and balance some budgets. As it is, privatization would just force us to borrow a bunch more money from Japan and China, to the extent where interest on the debt would be even more crippling, and the debt load would be quite harmful to the economy.

These seem to be the seven biggest political issues of the President's second term, and he has been disingenious about his intentions on six of them, and wrong on the seventh. Obviously, I'm leaving out the Supreme Court nomination(s), because it would be unfair to analyze an action that hasn't been taken yet. But with this kind of track record, does anyone think he's worried about appointing the best person for the job?

Scott McLellan

gets skewered. Worth a look.

The Olympics

What's on my mind today is for once not politics. It's the Olympics. To me, it's obvious that the Olympics have far too many sports. The cost of building venues and hosting all those events has become prohibitive, to the extent where every host city loses a ton of money. Also, the addition of sports decreases the purity of the Games by introducing inane competitions which have little popular appeal and are not contested widely at a high level. For example, a sport like skeleton, which was new at the Salt Lake games, is inaccessible to all but the few people who both give a shit about being good at it and have the money to travel to a training site. There's certainly no luge/bobsled/skeleton ramp in Minneapolis. So basically, you have to be able to get to a former Olympic site in order to train for the event. Plus, nobody cares. Talk about watered down competition. Thus, we should reevaluate all the Olympic sports.

1) All Olympic sports should be the highest level of competition in the world. The Olympic gold medal is for the best in the world. The Olympics should not accept being relegated to an afterthought in any sport. They took a good step in this direction by getting rid of baseball for 2012. However, I also believe that soccer, basketball, tennis, road biking, and hockey all have to go.

2) Any sport with subjective decision of the winners is gone. Since when does citius altius fortius means that a panel a fat Eastern Europeans decides who gets to win? The judging issues in figure skating and gymnastics have pretty much demonstrated that these sports are ridiculous. If you want to see teenage drama, watch the OC.

3) NO NEW SPORTS! They've added mountain biking to the Olympics, and they're adding BMX. It's pretty established fact that with a little training, most road bikers would kill the mountain bikers in mountain biking. So they've got to stop creating sports just so more people can participate and get medals. All these venues cost major cash, and all the new sports take away from the purity of the Olympics.

So there you have it. Get rid of a bunch of sports, and the Olympics would be a lot more compelling. As it is, it's mostly a bunch of garbage, with some track and weightlifting mixed in.

Snark

The only way to know if somebody has no credibility or shame is to see if she stays snarky in the most tragic of circumstances. See for yourself.

Supreme thoughts

As of yesterday, I said I had absolutely nothing to add to the Supreme court discussion. That hasn't changed, but having nothing to add never stopped me from commenting. So...

It looks like Bush pulled something of a bait and switch on the Religious Right. During the campaign, he said he was pro-life, but didn't have a litmus test. However, his discussion of judges and constitutional interpretation sure seemed like pandering, particularly his mention of Dredd Scott, which is supposedly wingnutspeak for Roe. Bush has never missed an opportunity to whip the Right into a frenzy, be it Terri Schaivo or gay marriage. But this week, when the rubber hits the road, the Republican leadership is telling wingnuts to cool it:

President Bush urged the Senate today not to listen "to the special interest groups, particularly those on the extremes" that are already engaged in a heated battle over the coming nomination to the Supreme Court, and he pledged that he would not screen out candidates solely on where they stand on divisive social issues.

Why is Bush suddenly trying to calm down the wingnuts? He must be thinking about appointing a good friend to the Supreme Court:

"I don't like it when a friend gets criticized," Mr. Bush said when asked about the attacks on Mr. Gonzales. "I'm loyal to my friends. And all of a sudden, this fellow, who is a good public servant and a really fine person, is under fire. And so, do I like it? No, I don't like it all."

The issue here is that Bush really wants to appoint Gonzalez to the Supreme Court. Bush values loyalty very highly, and would like Gonzalez on the Court, preferrably as Chief Justice, to create a legacy for him. However, Bush also might want to replace a moderate with a perceived moderate by putting Gonzalez in O'Connor's place. Slate says that it would be best to wait for Stevens to croak. This would create a court that would likely uphold Roe, but allow very heavy regulation of abortion. But can Bush afford the chance that Stevens holds out until '06 or maybe even '08? The Senate hearing for Gonzalez would almost undoubtably be nasty, with the torture memos coming up all over again. In the unlikely possibility that the Democrats gain control of the Senate, Bush wouldn't be able to offer Gonzo as the best case scenario for the Dems. Better to nominate him from a position of power right now.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot more to this nomination than just abortion. But the abortion issue has the most potential political fallout. The wingnut base hasn't had this kind of opportunity since it became such a force in the Republican party. They've been driven by their frustration at never being able to get their way. Now the Republican party is going to reap the seeds it sowed in its deal with the devil. Do they appoint some wackos, or try to stay in the mainstream? Either way, the political fallout's going to be real interesting.

Finally

Finally there's an idiot who everybody knows as an idiot. And the winner is (drumroll please) Rick Santorum! I'm posting this mainly because I laughed out loud when reading the Amazon reviews of his book.

Oh, and you might want to check what Wonkette had to say.

Freedom: It's the new "people"

It's kind of a slow news day, and I don't have too much to add to the Supreme Court discussion, so I'm going to break out something I've been meaning to write about for a while.

All the jingoist sentiment that has surfaced after September 11 seems to have one thing in common: it always invokes the cause of "freedom." First it's "terrorists hate us because of our freedom," then it's "freedom fries," "freedom isn't free" and finally the "Freedom Tower." All this rhetoric strikes me as a little, how can I say... Soviet. We've also dusted off that crappy patriotic Lee Greenwood song and continue to play it during the seventh inning stretch.

The similarity with the Soviets and their use of the concept "the people" is how little discussion actually goes into what these words mean and how best to accomplish the goals of being free or serving the people. Freedom is not an abstract concept. Every time the government makes a rule, it cuts down on your personal freedoms. Is it a big deal that my freedom to grow the grass in my lawn more than 6" tall is restricted? Not really. How about that the Government has unprecedented power to snoop on me without probable cause? Bigger deal. What about freedom to political speech, manifested in a possible flag burning amendment? Huge deal.

Thus, the word "freedom" has been drained of its meaning and turned into a simple euphemism meaning something innately American. I'm totally free, so long as I don't want to disagree with a particular administration. Then I get accused of hating freedom, or not supporting the troops. Why don't we actually talk about freedom?

It clearly should be limited. The US government should have three priorities, which are often in conflict: liberty, security and equality. Obviously, there are many times when the values of security and liberty do not coincide. This is when a debate is necessary. It may be that the PATRIOT Act is an abridgement of our freedom needed to preserve security. But it's absolutely criminal to paint the ACLU or liberals more generally as freedom hating. How is it hating freedom to want to protect civil liberties?

Freedom no longer means the ability to act and think as one so chooses. It's come to be a euphemism for American exceptionalism; a cat call and not a tangible goal. It is a terrible disservice to everybody to give the 9/11 memorial a euphemistic name, and build it 1,776 feet tall. This is the triumph of symbolism over substance, right in the footprint of our national tragedy.

Me with the catch of the day. 

I'm not turtely enough for the turtle club... Turtle. Turtle. 

My little cousin Katie. 

I'll be right back.

I'm going to go have an abortion while I still can.

Prado: a moderate for the court.

Not a fan of meteorology

On Wednesday night, I was trying to enjoy Law & Order, which is perhaps the most underrated show on television. Unfortunately, my show coincided with one of those meteorologist ego-trips known to most as a "severe thunder storm." Mr. Barlow, who is the meteorologist for the NBC affiliate just couldn't help himself in interrupting the juiciest and most suspenseful bits of my show, and eventually talking over the always dramatic ending. So I missed it. My Wednesday evening was ruined. I was devastated.

Are people now too dumb to figure out that when the sirens go off, you should go to the basement? And is it really necessary to know within two miles where there's the possibility of a tornado? Does it take any real ability to be a meteorologist? I'm pretty sure not. Wednesday's line of storms was about 30 miles long, 20 miles from Minneapolis and moving toward us. And Mr. Barlow says: "This storm might be moving toward the Twin Cities area. We'll keep tabs on that as this develops." No shit Sherlock. I coulda told you that. Then they give me the exact time to the minute the storm is going to hit my suburb. Talk about useless information. Now why don't you tell me whether it's going to be nice this weekend, so I can decide whether to be inside or outside? Yep, you're real bright... I could have looked at the southwest sky and told you exactly what you just told me.

Why do the meteorologists need to be on TV at all? They're about the least eloquent people that have ever been put in front of a microphone. Barlow kept saying garbage like "just to reiterate" and then going on and saying the whole thing again. "Reiterate" means you go over the important parts. If you want to reiterate, just say "there's a storm. Look out. It might be coming your way." But instead we get the history of what appears to be at this point the storm of the century. Hell, they've been tracking it since the Iowa border. There was a tornado watch in LeSuer county? Stop the presses, the apocolypse is coming.

And you can't just have storms anymore. Everything is "the National Weather Service has issued a tornado warning..." Gee, thanks. I think I'll start my own meteorological service by licking my finger and sticking it up in the air, then looking at the western sky.

The other great thing about storm coverage is that it looks like a sportscast now. They whip out that little pen, and draw where the storm is going. And then they repeat it. Over and over again. All the while, all sorts of drama is unfolding in the courtroom, and I'm missing it. The worst part of the whole thing was that there was NO DAMAGE from the whole storm. Bullshit. So they didn't have to say anything at all. Oh, wait, it was good that they warned all those people who were WATCHING TV OUTSIDE to get inside.

I see this on my bike ride home every day. It's kinda creepy. Bring home ol' Schuh!