tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-458282170673111892024-03-06T03:48:03.025-05:00How Conservatives Drove Me Away…from conservatism, as examined by a liberal-leaning libertarian who believes in tolerance, diversity, and compassion, and is offended way too easily.James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-76367224595330599982012-09-10T09:55:00.000-04:002012-09-12T14:23:56.539-04:00Don't Waste Your VoteWith the conventions over, there are now just under two months left to decide which <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-17/one-thing-romney-and-obama-agree-on-big-government" target="_blank">big government</a>, <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/15/romney-and-obama-agree-power-is-good" target="_blank">corporatist</a>, <a href="http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2012/08/21/colorado-where-obama-romney-and-pot-collide/" target="_blank">anti-freedom</a> <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/09/obama-gets-ahead-of-himself-on-afghanistan-pullout-134120.html" target="_blank">warmonger</a> is less objectionable.<br />
<br />
Of course, there are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2012" target="_blank">more than just the two candidates</a>, but voting for someone with no realistic chance to win is tantamount to "wasting your vote", as the conventional thinking goes. But that ignores the reality of the Electoral College (among many, many other things), which renders all but the most competitive states basically meaningless. And a vote can only be "wasted" if it had value to begin with, so to help you determine if casting your vote for The Lesser of Two Evils might make a difference, I put together this handy map:<a href="#fn88"><sup>[1]</sup></a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2vlxWNotLmt4s4iVBsHY1CMmHY9g40bhREs9EymzttAzuDlm47zMIprs4R_KHTXqY9WqKURhncZ-wMVkET6lNWSfcKd1um2sPNre-Ol1qGtYDo5ejEuqUhTE6bAT8MyJm4zhfGWGAqO0/s1600/willmyvotematter.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em"><img border="0" height="310" width="440" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2vlxWNotLmt4s4iVBsHY1CMmHY9g40bhREs9EymzttAzuDlm47zMIprs4R_KHTXqY9WqKURhncZ-wMVkET6lNWSfcKd1um2sPNre-Ol1qGtYDo5ejEuqUhTE6bAT8MyJm4zhfGWGAqO0/s400/willmyvotematter.jpg" /></a></div><br />
The thing about voting for someone else, though, is that it isn't about winning; it's about making the major parties afraid. It's about forcing them to truly compete on their merits in an open marketplace, and not just against each other. Would the Democrats so coldly dismiss the notion of reforming drug policy if they were worried about losing votes to the Greens or the Libertarians? Would the Republicans so thoughtlessly call for harsher laws against pornography and gambling and whatever else their authoritarian wing deems morally unacceptable? Would either of them be so indifferent to the massive costs—in every sense of the word—of fighting an endless war?<br />
<br />
Every single vote for a third party or independent candidate—regardless of what state it comes from—says to the Republicans and Democrats, "you've lost me, and if you want me back you'd better start listening to what I want." Is that not a message worth sending? I say it is, and I hope I'm not alone, because the strength with which it resonates will depend entirely on the number of voters who choose to send it. I'm aware that this number may be rather low, but <a href="http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/" target="_blank">my vote</a> will make it one higher, and for that reason my vote will not be wasted.<br />
<br />
Will yours?<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b><a name="fn88"></a> The lightly-shaded states are those that, as of September 9, are not <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/" target="_blank">forecast</a> by Nate Silver (who's very good at this stuff) as "safe" for Obama or Romney. Many of those states are still projected to lean one way or another by a margin of several percentage points. And even if a state is ridiculously close, it won't matter who wins its electoral votes unless those are the votes needed to secure a majority (or to create a tie), and given that in 2000 a 500-vote margin in Florida was narrow enough for the outcome to be determined by the Supreme Court, the likelihood of Obama v. Romney coming down to a single vote is essentially zero.<br />
And I'm not even addressing (for now) the question of whether Obama and Romney differ in any meaningful way.</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-12384074069328632532012-06-18T15:59:00.002-04:002012-06-18T17:17:08.119-04:00Mark Judge, Dadaist HeroHere's the opening to "<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/bryce-harper-conservative-hero/" target="_blank">Bryce Harper, Conservative Hero</a>", Mark Judge's recent column for The Daily Caller:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">Bryce Harper is a conservative hero. The star rookie for the Washington Nationals has woken up Major League Baseball, and watching it unfold has reminded me of nothing so much as the collapse of the old political paradigms and the inevitable and upcoming rebirth of conservatism in November.</blockquote>And on it goes. A thousand words in all, each paragraph more stupefyingly asinine than the last. Let it be emphasized that I say this without even a trace of hyperbole: Judge's column is very possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read that somebody was paid to write.<a href="#fn87"><sup>[1]</sup></a><br />
<br />
It's so dumb, I think it might be brilliant. But I'll get back to that. Here's Judge describing why Harper is worthy of being singled out:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">The Nationals were playing Atlanta, and in the fifth inning Harper, with his team leading by two, singled to right. The ball was hit to Braves right fielder Jason Heyward. Heyward strolled up to the ball as if he were walking to the corner for a paper.<br />
<br />
Harper promptly headed for second base. Heyward suddenly woke up and fired to second base, but too late.</blockquote>Judge goes on to explain that, in addition to hustling, Harper also tries to learn from his mistakes. And he wants to be in the lineup even when he's injured. If any of this sounds familiar, it's because it describes every rookie in the history of sports.<br />
<br />
Having chosen his subject—and his counterpoint, Jason Heyward—basically at random, Judge adds some unhinged political opinions and throws the whole mess into a blender:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">Heyward’s bungle showed a complacency, if not indolence, that Harper threatens to destroy, but it also could be a metaphor for the collapse of the old liberal order. Heyward was like one of those public school teachers who, because they are a union member, can’t be fired and so are relegated to the “rubber room” to sit and read the paper and gather a check for the rest of their lives. Or even Obama, who went from Hawaii to Harvard to the White House and never seems to have had to slide head-first into a base his entire life.</blockquote>Is there even a way to engage with this? Normally I would peel away the false presumptions and the unfounded conclusions until I reach the fragment of logic at the core, but when I try to do that here I wind up just staring blankly into a void.<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">Watching Bryce Harper play is like listening to an economic speech by Paul Ryan: It’s long on reality and short on excuses. Harper has slapped baseball awake, and every time he steps up to the plate, years of crusty baseball routine no longer apply. He swings the bat with a blinding snap of force, and in the outfield dives for balls that bored veterans would let go. When he hits a double he usually tries to stretch it into a triple. Manager Davey Johnson tries to bench him for being hurt, and Harper confronts him and says, like a person with enough dignity to refuse welfare: Let me work. Then he wins the game with a crucial hit.</blockquote>Some of these points are patently untrue (Harper does not, in fact, "usually" try to stretch a double into a triple), some are patently misguided (if it's at all true that Harper dives for balls other players would let go, it's because he can run kind of fast, not because he's uniquely able to ward off boredom), and some, like the bit at the end about refusing welfare, can be properly addressed only by gritting one's teeth and muttering vaguely-Nordic nonsense words. <i>Grrgllefrunng</i>.<br />
<br />
Judge closes with a personal note:<a href="#fn87"><sup>[2]</sup></a><br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">Harper reminds me of my own grandfather, Joe Judge, who played first base for the Senators from 1915 to 1932. Like Harper, Judge was left-handed and was a scrappy and aggressive player. His career spanned two eras, the dead ball era (1900 to 1919) and the live ball era, from 1920 on, when home runs became much more prevalent. When Babe Ruth arrived in New York in 1919 and baseball changed some rules — including using new balls in every game so you could actually see what you were swinging at — Joe Judge could have insisted that this wasn’t fair, that Major League Baseball was stealing his livelihood, and that Ruth’s ungodly salary represented the one percent. He could have occupied Griffith Stadium.<br />
<br />
Instead, he accepted that the old way of doing things was gone, and it wasn’t coming back. And he helped the Senators win the World Series in 1924.</blockquote>I have a way of associating events with one another, whether or not they're related, merely because they happened around the same time, and Judge's closing digression—along with whatever strange effects his column had on my brain—brought to mind something that coincided with the end of the dead ball era. A group of European artists—Dadaists, as they would come to be known—had begun to rebel against the cultural status quo. They valued nonsense over reason. Chaos over order. Destruction over creation. In the aftermath of the war that had consumed and annihilated their continent, they had no interest in searching for meaning, because the likeliest conclusion was that there was none.<br />
<br />
Here's the great Dadaist Tristan Tzara, attempting the impossible task of <a href="http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jenglish/English104/tzara.html" target="_blank">putting Dada into words</a>:<br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">We are often told that we are incoherent, but into this word people try to put an insult that it is rather hard for me to fathom. Everything is incoherent. The gentleman who decides to take a bath but goes to the movies instead. The one who wants to be quiet but says things that haven't even entered his head. Another who has a precise idea on some subject but succeeds only in expressing the opposite in words which for him are a poor translation. There is no logic. Only relative necessities discovered <i>a posteriori</i>, valid not in any exact sense but only as explanations.</blockquote>And just as the Dadaists used their art to call attention to this broader incoherence, Mark Judge has called attention to the incoherence that permeates political commentary by creating something too incoherent to simply dismiss and ignore. Something that demands to be questioned. Is it commentary, or is it trash? If, by virtue of being trash, it makes us question the limits of what can be considered commentary, does that not make it commentary as well? It means nothing, and thus, it means everything.<a href="#fn87"><sup>[3]</sup></a><br />
<br />
In 1917, one year after Hugo Ball published the first Dada Manifesto (and one year after Joe Judge's first full season in the majors), Marcel Duchamp scribbled some nonsense on a urinal, named it <i>Fountain</i>, and submitted it to be displayed at a New York exhibition. It was rejected, presumably because it was a urinal with some nonsense scribbled on it. Eighty-seven years later, 500 art experts voted <i>Fountain</i> the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4059997.stm" target="_blank">most influential</a> work of art of the 20th century.<br />
<br />
I have no doubt that "Bryce Harper, Conservative Hero" will go similarly unappreciated in its own time. But one day, years, if not decades into the future, we may very well look back at Judge's column and recognize it for what it is. A urinal with some nonsense scribbled on it:<br />
<br />
<div align="center"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg/200px-Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="274" width="200" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg/200px-Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b><a name="fn87"></a> Let it also be emphasized that I was about 50-50 on whether I even needed to include the "that somebody was paid to write" qualifier.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> Again, just layer upon layer of <i>skrunglfrng</i>. <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/judgejo01.shtml" target="_blank">Joe Judge</a>, whose career actually started after Ruth's, was a very good hitter, and seems to have benefited as much as anyone from the rule changes that marked the end of the dead ball era (through 1919 his career batting average was .270; from 1920 on he batted .306).</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b> <i>"It means nothing, and thus, it means everything"? What the fuck does THAT mean?</i> Who knows. Who cares. There is no logic. (I love Dadaism.)</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-13427822307483350992012-06-04T08:35:00.000-04:002012-06-04T23:38:51.114-04:00Country Music Round-Up: Obscenity Finds a WayIf wholesomeness had a smell, I'm sure it would be delightful, and I'm equally sure the fragrance would emanate from every square inch of the contemporary pop-country genre. Wholesomeness (or if you prefer, prudishness) is its defining quality. But I'd argue a not-too-distant second is its reliance on clever, but accessible, songwriting. Those two elements, separately and in concert,<a href="#fn86-1"><sup>[1]</sup></a> go a long way toward explaining why country music appeals not only to the Real Americans™ <a href="#fn86-2"><sup>[2]</sup></a> who inhabit the small towns and rural fields and muddy creeks of the flyover states, but also to countless city folks, foreigners, smart-ass bloggers, and other not-as-real Americans.<br />
<br />
But there's also a fundamental, unresolvable conflict between them. Songwriting is a realm of limitless possibilities. "Wholesome" is a polite way to describe a realm where possibilities are limited to pre-approved social norms. And artistic expression being what it is, those limits are relentlessly challenged—at times because they hinder the artist's ability to make a more important statement, and at times simply because they exist. Because sometimes <i>that</i> is the more important statement—that the cost of drawing a line is that it gives people something to congregate around, to push and pull and chip away at, to perhaps even move a little when no one else is looking.<br />
<br />
But this is getting way too analytical and pretentious for an article about obscenity, so fuck it, here are some lyrics:<br />
<br />
<b>Blake Shelton, "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTT2LEyjdC4" target="_blank">Some Beach</a>" (2004)</b><br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">Driving down the interstate<br />
Running thirty minutes late<br />
Singing "Margaritaville" and minding my own<br />
Some foreign car driving dude with the road rage attitude<br />
Pulled up beside me talking on his cell phone<br />
He started yelling at me like I did something wrong<br />
He flipped me the bird and then he was gone…<br />
<br />
Some beach…somewhere<br />
There's a big umbrella casting shade over an empty chair<br />
Palm trees are growing and a warm breeze is blowing<br />
I picture myself right there<br />
On some beach, somewhere</blockquote><br />
<b>Kenny Chesney, "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfiJEfBNRqg" target="_blank">Shiftwork</a>" (2007)</b><br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">Shift work, tough work for the busy convenience store clerk<br />
Two feet that hurt, going insane<br />
She's mad at some lad<br />
Drove off and didn't pay for his gas<br />
And he won't be the last 'round the clock pain<br />
Working seven to three<br />
Three to eleven<br />
Eleven to seven<br />
<br />
I'm talking about a bunch of shiiii…ft work<br />
A big ol' pile of shiiii…ft work</blockquote><br />
<b>Sugarland, "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph49YlxCqi8" target="_blank">It Happens</a>" (2008)</b><br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">Ain't no rhyme or reason<br />
No complicated meaning<br />
Ain't no need to over think it<br />
Let go laughing<br />
Life don't go, quite like you plan it<br />
We try so, hard to understand it<br />
The irrefutable, indisputable, fact is<br />
Shhh…<br />
It happens</blockquote>Not an inappropriate word to be found, right? Just three perfectly innocent songs about, respectively, coping with the everyday stress of the modern world, coping with the everyday stress of the modern world, and coping with the everyday stress of the modern world. If Blake Shelton's abrupt and unexpected change in both latitude and attitude,<a href="#fn86-3"><sup>[3]</sup></a> or Kenny Chesney's elongation of the vowel sound in "shift", or Sugarland's rather awkward insertion of sort of a shushing sound (or maybe it's more of a dismissive "pshh"?) into their chorus brought to mind any words you'd never expect to hear in a mainstream country song, then so be it.<br />
<br />
I'll concede that these songs are all a little cheesy—this is country music,<a href="#fn86-4"><sup>[4]</sup></a> after all—but there is a definite art to being obscene without actually being obscene. Causing the listener to hear something that isn't there—something that isn't <i>allowed</i> to be there.<a href="#fn86-5"><sup>[5]</sup></a> It's easy to think of the wholesome/prudish culture surrounding country music as a force that stifles creativity, but in many ways it does just the opposite. Obscenity finds a way.<a href="#fn86-6"><sup>[6]</sup></a><br />
<br />
Anyway, I saved the best for last:<br />
<br />
<b>Craig Campbell, "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_Am8bSYIms" target="_blank">Fish</a>" (2011)</b><br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">The first time we did it I was scared to death<br />
She snuck out in that cotton dress<br />
Jumped on in and we drove to the lake<br />
Put her hand on my knee and said I can’t wait<br />
I had everything we needed in the bed of my truck<br />
Turns out my baby loves to…</blockquote>[wait for it]<br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">Fish…she wants to do it all the time<br />
Early in the morning, in the middle of the night<br />
She’s hooked and now she can’t get enough<br />
Man, that girl sure loves to fish</blockquote>In terms of "saying" something that, if actually said, would be thoroughly unwelcome in the pop-country world, I'm pretty sure this is the leader in the clubhouse.<a href="#fn86-7"><sup>[7]</sup></a><br />
<br />
So, what's next? "Fish", which peaked at #23 on the Billboard Hot Country chart, won't be easy to top, but I have no doubt it can be done.<br />
<br />
CONFIDENTIAL TO NASHVILLE SONGWRITERS: I'm sure you're aware that country audiences are used to, and tend to enjoy, songs about country music itself. And you've probably also noticed that one of the most offensive terms in the English language is <i>right there</i>. I'm not saying it would be easy, but if this can make it past the FCC…<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="253" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kLnmuW3xVT8" width="450"></iframe><br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b><a name="fn86-1"></a> Is that a pun? If so, pun intended. If not, please disregard this footnote.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b><a name="fn86-2"></a> Your check is in the mail, Sean Hannity.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b><a name="fn86-3"></a> I'm not a fan of Blake Shelton. This has nothing to do with his music, which is enjoyable enough, and everything to do with the fact that he's married to Miranda Lambert, and I'm jealous. It's not rational, but it is what it is.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>4.</b><a name="fn86-4"></a> "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw5kOzGToec" target="_blank">This Is Country Music</a>", of course, is also the title of a Brad Paisley song, which is, naturally, one of the cheesiest country songs of the last decade:<br />
<blockquote>You're not supposed to say the word "cancer" in a song<br />
And tellin' folks Jesus is the answer can rub 'em wrong<br />
It ain't hip to sing about tractors, trucks, and little towns, and Mama<br />
Yeah, that might be true<br />
But this is country music, and we do</blockquote></span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>5.</b><a name="fn86-5"></a> If it doesn't go without saying, this isn't a new concept, nor is it unique to country. Who knows when it was first executed, but "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8ffkDf0ol4" target="_blank">Shaving Cream</a>", written by Benny Bell in 1946, is a solid candidate:<br />
<blockquote>I have a sad story to tell you<br />
It may hurt your feelings a bit<br />
Last night when I walked into my bathroom<br />
I stepped in a big pile of shhhh…aving cream</blockquote></span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>6.</b><a name="fn86-6"></a> While we're on the subject of obscenity in mainstream country, Toby Keith's "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNDcAWNscg8" target="_blank">American Ride</a>" contains the line, "If the shoe don't fit, the fit's gonna hit the shan", which I guess is a form of disguised profanity, but mostly it's just baffling. (I could write a series of articles about "American Ride", there's so much going on. I love this line from the chorus: "Both ends of the ozone burning / Funny how the world keeps turning." Yes, funny indeed. It's as if the ozone layer has nothing at all to do with conservation of angular momentum <i>or</i> the gravitational interaction between the Earth and the Sun.)<br />
And then there's Keith's "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKZqGJONH68" target="_blank">Red Solo Cup</a>", the greatest country song since "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-LYH2Gg8yM" target="_blank">Rock Flag and Eagle</a>", and also the only country song I know of (note: I'm not an expert—I assume there have been others) that had to be edited for the radio. In the original, it's a pair of testicles that you surely lack if you prefer drinking from glass; on the radio, it's a pair of vegetables, which is both terrible and hilarious, and is thus precisely the radio edit the song demands. Also, the listener is forced to make an educated guess as to what, exactly, Freddie Mac can kiss. (SPOILER: It's Toby Keith's ass.)<br />
Finally, I've brought this up <a href="http://howconservativesdrovemeaway.blogspot.com/2010/08/country-music-round-up.html" target="_blank">before</a>, but I remain convinced that "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B077Dw_zDe0" target="_blank">Little White Church</a>", by Little Big Town, is about cunnilingus. "No more calling me baby / No more loving like crazy / Till you take me down" … "Charming devil, silver tongue / Had your fun, now you're done." Right? *nudge nudge* <i>Right</i>?<br />
Ok, maybe I'm reaching. My interpretation relies on the little white church being a metaphor for the singer's clitoris (or orgasms or whatever), which in turn relies on the time-honored principle that pretty much anything can be a metaphor for genitals (or orgasms or whatever) if you want it to be. But I'm just saying, if I set out to write a country song from the perspective of a girl who's upset about her boyfriend's failure to reciprocate in bed, and for creative and/or commercial reasons I wanted to conceal the sexual themes behind a radio-friendly layer of wholesomeness, and I was substantially better at songwriting than I am, <i>this</i> would be that song.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>7.</b><a name="fn86-7"></a> "Fish" ends with Campbell whispering, "psst, you awake? Let’s fish", because subtlety. Meanwhile, Trace Adkins' "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IheODRwalEw" target="_blank">Just Fishin'</a>"—which is also not about fishing, but in the most different way possible—ends with Adkins saying, "this ain't about fishing." If it helps going forward, I'm willing to stipulate right here and now that no country song is ever actually about fishing.<br />
(That said, what if "Fish" really is about fishing? As in, the narrator found a girl who shares his passion for fishing, which is nice, but sooner or later he's going to have to confront the reality that she may have a serious problem. She wants to fish "all the time", she "can't get enough", she "don't give up" even if she isn't getting any bites. These are all symptoms of a crippling disorder. And nevermind sleep and exercise and personal hygiene—does she even stop fishing long enough to fuck?)</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-31298171434433249482012-05-16T12:29:00.000-04:002012-05-17T13:39:04.142-04:00Taking Sex out of Marriage<blockquote><i>You believe in the ballot,<br />
You believe in reform.<br />
You have faith in the elephant and jackass,<br />
And to you, solidarity's a four-letter word.<br />
…<br />
No, I won't take your hand,<br />
And marry the State,<br />
'Cause baby, I'm an anarchist,<br />
And you're a spineless liberal.</i></blockquote>I'm not one of those people who won't shut up about how they were a fan of whatever band back before they were famous—those people are terrible; I couldn't agree more—but I was totally a fan of Against Me! back before they were famous.<br />
<br />
And I've remained a fan, though it's not easy to explain why. (I've learned from Pandora that bands "similar to" Against Me! are, by and large, bands that produce music suitable only for blasting into the compounds of holed-up dictators and cult leaders.) A lot of it, undoubtedly, is their lyrics, which tend to kind of speed up or slow down or just abruptly stop, according to the rhythm of the song, because otherwise they wouldn't quite fit. It doesn't seem like it should work, but somehow it does, and it adds a thick layer of honesty to everything they record, because why would the words be so forced if they weren't chosen for a reason?<br />
<br />
But none of this is to say that I wasn't just as surprised as everyone else by the <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/tom-gabel-of-against-me-comes-out-as-transgender-20120508" target="_blank">recent announcement</a> that Against Me! has a new frontwoman, Laura Jane Grace.<a href="#fn85"><sup>[1]</sup></a><br />
<br />
It's fascinating for a number of reasons. Here's one of them:<br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">Gabel will eventually take the name Laura Jane Grace, and will remain married to her wife Heather. "For me, the most terrifying thing about this was how she would accept the news," says Gabel. "But she's been super-amazing and understanding."</blockquote>I'm not especially interested in delving into their personal lives (aside from, you know, the one immensely personal thing at the center of all this), but Grace and her wife live in Florida, which first banned same-sex marriage in 1977, then banned it some more with the Florida Defense of Marriage Act in 1997, and then found a way to ban it even more in 2008, when the voters added this to the state constitution:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.</blockquote>Does that mean Heather and Laura (when/if all the physical and legal hurdles are cleared) will find themselves in an illegal same-sex marriage? <a href="http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1684798/against-me-tom-gabel-transgender.jhtml" target="_blank">Apparently not</a>:<a href="#fn85"><sup>[2]</sup></a><br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">Though Florida is not one of the six states in the nation that recognize marriages between same-sex partners, Gabel's declaration won't change her marital status either way, according to Lisa Mottet, Director of the Transgender Civil Rights Project at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.<br />
<br />
"Under established law, marriages are evaluated for their validity at the time of marriage, i.e., the date of the wedding/when the marriage license was signed," she said. "Only divorces, death, and annulments end marriages — gender transition does not end a marriage, nor convert it to a same-sex marriage. If two people were considered different sex at the time of their wedding, they will continue to be considered married until death, divorce, or annulment."</blockquote>It's funny, in a sort of horrible way. Florida has tried <i>so hard</i> to do away with same-sex marriage, and they still can't quite do it. In fact, it turns out it doesn't matter if the couple gets married before the transition or after—as the law stands today, a transwoman (i.e. male-to-female) can always marry a woman in Florida, but never a man. And a transman can always marry a man, but never a woman.<br />
<br />
That precedent comes from <i>Kantaras v. Kantaras</i>, a <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/16/ctv.transsexual.custody/index.html" target="_blank">bitter custody battle</a> that was litigated at various levels of the court system for seven years until finally—<i>finally</i>—Dr. Phil stepped in and settled the whole thing. But not before the Florida Second District Court of Appeal ruled that the marriage was void ab initio—legally, it had never existed—because legally, <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/24/images/medium/A_1_1Amichael_FLPET_0724.jpg" target="_blank">this guy</a> was a woman.<br />
<br />
More precisely, the court deferred to the legislature:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">Until the Florida legislature recognizes sex-reassignment procedures and amends the marriage statutes to clarify the marital rights of a postoperative transsexual person, we must adhere to the common meaning of the statutory terms and invalidate any marriage that is not between persons of the opposite sex determined by their biological sex at birth.</blockquote>The same legislature, by the way, that had made it possible for Michael Kantaras to change his name, change the sex on his birth certificate, obtain a male driver's license and a male passport, and become the legal adoptive father of his children. And the same legislature that, by that point, had banned same-sex marriage <i>twice</i>. Clearly, what they wanted was for Michael Kantaras to marry a man instead of a woman.<br />
<br />
What <i>is</i> the goal here, anyway? The legislatures that enacted Florida's marriage statutes in 1977 and 1997; the nearly five million Floridians who voted for Amendment 2 in 2008; the lawmakers and voters responsible for dozens of similar laws and constitutional amendments across the country—were they all engaged in a concerted effort to make transgender marriage a strange patchwork of contradiction and injustice?<br />
<br />
No, they just didn't care. It's all about gay marriage. That the transgender legal situation is such a mess is merely collateral damage.<br />
<br />
Granted, if lawmakers and voters did take on transgender marriage directly, I can't say I'd be all that optimistic about how it would go,<a href="#fn85"><sup>[3]</sup></a> but at least we'd be talking about the broader consequences of legislating. And at least we'd be confronting the reality that, by drawing the line between opposite-sex and same-sex, we're making the false presumption that sex is easy to define.<br />
<br />
So if nothing else, a change in semantics is in order. Maybe the end result would be the same regardless, but the fight shouldn't be for legalizing same-sex marriage. It should be for taking sex out of marriage altogether.<a href="#fn85"><sup>[4]</sup></a><br />
<br />
In conclusion…<br />
<br />
<iframe width="336" height="252" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0GFGjGcJs_g#t=15s" frameborder="0"></iframe><br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b><a name="fn85"></a> A note on names and pronouns: There are countless style guides and media kits and what-not out there, and I ignore pretty much all of them. My rules are, use the name and pronoun the person would prefer; if it's not clear, guess, and try not to be a jerk about it; and resolve any lingering uncertainty in favor of what will be more accurate in the future, because whatever it is I'm writing, it will be read by a lot more people in the future than in the past.<br />
(If you're at all curious about how muddled and combative these debates can get, even (or perhaps especially) among the well-intentioned, check out the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tom_Gabel" target="_blank">talk section</a> of Grace's Wikipedia page. After a while I started just staring blankly as I scrolled down. Pretty sure I caught a "cissexist" in there somewhere.)</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> This has to be the first time I've been to MTV.com in at least a decade. Naturally, it was because they were the ones who bothered to track down an answer to an interesting and tricky legal question. If you read on in the article you'll find expressions of support for Grace from Tegan and Sara, Senses Fail, Broadway Calls, Toxicbreed, I Am the Avalanche, Motel Life, Circa Survive, Gaslight Anthem, CM Punk, and Fun.. I haven't looked into how many of those are actual things. I'm guessing about half.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b> Not optimistic in the short term, that is. But eventually it'll seem ridiculous that we even had to argue about this. As a friend <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/drew_mcdowell/status/200047120575762433" target="_blank">tweeted</a> after the North Carolina vote last week:<br />
<blockquote>Voters in NC are not bigots, rednecks, or evil. They're just wrong. Love will overcome all, it always has.</blockquote></span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>4.</b> If this blog were a hacky stand-up comedian or an unimaginative sitcom, there would be a lame joke here. Good thing it isn't.</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-36611940014080147792012-04-25T09:13:00.000-04:002012-04-25T09:24:56.071-04:00The Media Research Center's War on Liberal ComedyDoes anyone else remember <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1/2_Hour_News_Hour" target="_blank">The 1/2 Hour News Hour</a></i>, Fox News' short-lived "comedy" show that was billed as the conservative answer to <i>The Daily Show</i>? There are plenty of dismal <a href="http://www.metacritic.com/tv/the-12-hour-news-hour/season-1/critic-reviews" target="_blank">reviews</a> and embarrassing <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o_3UIhK-Pw" target="_blank">clips</a> out there—more than enough to justify putting "comedy" in scare quotes—so I won't pile on. I only bring it up because <i>The 1/2 Hour News Hour</i> may be dead, but its spirit lives on.<br />
<br />
I'm referring to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/newsbusted" target="_blank">NewsBusted</a>,<a href="#fn84"><sup>[1]</sup></a> a video series produced by the Media Research Center—the same organization responsible for <a href="http://newsbusters.org/" target="_blank">NewsBusters</a> (obviously). Here's a sampling from a recent episode. Highlight the white text to reveal the punchlines, which I've hidden to avoid ruining the surprise. (Disclaimer: You will not be surprised.)<br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">This year Tax Day falls on Tuesday, April 17. Tax Day, or as the half of Americans who pay no federal income tax call it…<span style="color: white;">Obama Christmas.</span><br />
<br />
Democratic advisor Hilary Rosen is under fire for saying Ann Romney, quote, "never worked a day in her life." Hey, if she really never worked a day in her life, Ann Romney would be…<span style="color: white;">endorsing Obama.</span><br />
<br />
Miami Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen was suspended for five games after saying that he loves Fidel Castro. But not to worry, Guillen has just been offered a job in…<span style="color: white;">the Obama administration.</span></blockquote>And that's pretty much all it is, ad infinitum. Sometimes they have to take a convoluted route to get there, but invariably the punchline is little more than a lazy reference to some negative stereotype about liberals.<a href="#fn84"><sup>[2]</sup></a> The jokes are even less sophisticated than "Why did the chicken cross the road? (To get to the other side)," which at least has the decency to not deliver a punchline at all.<br />
<br />
But that's just one front in the MRC's <a href="http://howconservativesdrovemeaway.blogspot.com/2012/03/war-war.html" target="_blank">War</a> on Liberal Comedy. While NewsBusted is fighting fire with (attempted) fire, MRC president Brent Bozell is fighting fire with self-righteous anger over fire's stubborn insistence on continuing to exist. <br />
<br />
Bozell's columns and blog posts for NewsBusters serve as a handy guide to what you should be outraged about if you lack both perspective and a sense of humor. In January, it was "ABC <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2012/01/14/bozell-column-hollywoods-snotty-day-court" target="_blank">smutcom</a> 'Modern Family'". Then it was "the <a href="http://newsbusters.org./blogs/brent-bozell/2012/02/11/bozell-column-another-fleeting-failure-nbc" target="_blank">bohemian elite</a> at NBC" for failing to protect America from seeing an upraised middle finger during the Super Bowl. Then back to ABC, because somebody told Bozell what <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2012/03/10/bozell-column-gcb-or-good-christians-bashed" target="_blank"><i>GCB</i></a> stands for.<a href="#fn84"><sup>[3]</sup></a><br />
<br />
And then, last week, <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2012/04/18/reacting-jon-stewart-plastering-nativity-over-vagina-nb-publisher-boze" target="_blank">this</a>:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">Come on, Jon. We dare you to prove you are an equal opportunity bigot. Your grotesque stunt displaying a Nativity scene in a vulgar manner to take a jab at Fox News is but the latest in a long line of unacceptable behavior and hypocrisy when it comes to the media’s treatment of traditional Christianity. Doing something similar with the Koran or the Torah is equally offensive. Since you’re so brave to offend Christians, are you equally brave to offend Muslims and Jews? We dare you.<br />
<br />
Stewart thought he was being cute when he displayed a manger scene in front of a woman’s genitals to mock those allegedly ignoring the 'war on women.' If he’s such a daring political comedian, he should demonstrate his boldness by performing the same routine, but this time with a Koran and the Torah.<br />
<br />
Otherwise he is not only a bigot but also an outright coward.</blockquote>The amount of silliness on display here is almost overwhelming, so I'm just going to gloss over the question of which part of Jon Stewart's point—that everything has to be a "War" now, and it's getting out of hand, which is rather similar to <a href="http://howconservativesdrovemeaway.blogspot.com/2012/03/war-war.html" target="_blank">a point I've made recently</a>—Bozell failed to get. (I have the choices narrowed down to "every part" and "almost every part".)<br />
<br />
That still leaves the fact that this is the president of an organization that dedicates its existence to the flagrantly partisan mission of "exposing and combating liberal media bias", and he sees fit to insist on non-partisan joke-telling—all while another division of the same organization produces (attempted) comedy that's substantially more partisan than anything I've ever seen on <i>The Daily Show</i>. It's too bad Bozell doesn't have the slightest ability to appreciate irony, because this is a good one.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b><a name="fn84"></a> According to the <a href="http://www.mrc.org/static/about-us" target="_blank">MRC</a>:<br />
<blockquote>NewsBusted™ is a weekly two-minute MRCTV comedy production that conservatives love and liberals love to hate. Featuring the comedic stylings of Jodi Miller, it is loaded with her irreverent, sarcastic wit and one-liners poking fun at the loony left.</blockquote>I would take issue with virtually every part of that, up to and including the "weekly" part, as new episodes are actually posted twice a week.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> Better over-analyzers of comedy than I have attempted to explain why conservatives have so much trouble being funny, but, for what it's worth, I think it's some combination of the following:<br />
– The creators of NewsBusted (and <i>The 1/2 Hour News Hour</i>) are simply not very talented. And it's not helping things that the tendency (often fueled by conservatives themselves) is to look to <i>The Daily Show</i> and <i>The Colbert Report</i> as the standards for "liberal comedy"—I can certainly think of other shows that are a good deal hackier and a good deal more single-mindedly liberal. (Not that NewsBusted compares favorably to <i>Real Time With Bill Maher</i> either, but that's a bar that's a little easier to clear.)<br />
– The best political comedy shows, like <i>The Daily Show</i> and <i>Colbert</i>, put comedy first, and if the collective backgrounds and political leanings of the people involved cause that comedy to have a liberal slant, then so be it. <i>The 1/2 Hour News Hour</i> and NewsBusted put politics first, aiming to be the conservative counterpoint to the liberal version of themselves, which is not something that exists.<br />
– Comedy is fueled by misfortune, and conservatives, almost by definition, have little to complain about. They can make jokes at the expense of those who <i>do</i> have things to complain about, but when your ideology involves telling those same people to stop complaining and learn some responsibility and get a damn job, the jokes tend to come off as more mean-spirited than funny.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b> Of course, he either doesn't realize or doesn't care that neither the "G" nor the "C" are meant to be taken literally:<br />
<blockquote>Time TV critic James Poniewozik protested “I have a hard time believing that anyone will see themselves insulted by GCB: its target is not Christians but phonies.” Not so. There are certainly Christian hypocrites that can make for great grist in entertainment. But this show offers the viewing public no authentic Christians at all.</blockquote>What else is there to say? Bozell's rebuttal to Poniewozik's point is a restatement of the point he's rebutting. We're through the looking glass.</span></div><br />James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-1544942897980029142012-03-08T13:24:00.000-05:002012-03-08T13:24:20.276-05:00War? War.Is it just me, or have we started getting ourselves into new wars on just about a weekly basis? I'm starting to have trouble keeping it all straight, and I can't imagine I'm the only one, so I thought I'd put together this simple guide to the various wars Americans are fighting right now:<a href="#fn83"><sup>[*]</sup></a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicBGiFQ3dF2inxFpAC6LLHVpetdWxpY-OoabQt7pN2XeDkko-te2xYnbfmzhRkT0ImcT7sFTk8JjHa6A1N5VlQ1OlqvWSb8ToAc4rKbafMxDjGKqYCgJgusrDZqy4Qc5QOvutXUzb_QlE/s1600/American+Wars.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em"><img border="0" height="266" width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicBGiFQ3dF2inxFpAC6LLHVpetdWxpY-OoabQt7pN2XeDkko-te2xYnbfmzhRkT0ImcT7sFTk8JjHa6A1N5VlQ1OlqvWSb8ToAc4rKbafMxDjGKqYCgJgusrDZqy4Qc5QOvutXUzb_QlE/s400/American+Wars.jpg" /></a></div><br />
Hope that helps.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>*</b><a name="fn83"></a> In the interest of space I had to leave a few out, but let's not forget about those whose lives have been affected by the wars on <a href="http://tmdailypost.com/article/longreads/rick-perry-wages-spiritual-war-abortion" target="_blank">abortion</a>, <a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/25/the-war-on-adulthood" target="_blank">adulthood</a>, <a href="http://blogzahav.blogspot.com/2011/05/daniel-gordiss-war-on-adverbs.html" target="_blank">adverbs</a>, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2012/01/11/the-obama-administrations-war-on-alzheimers/" target="_blank">Alzheimer's</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/opinion/the-tea-partys-war-on-america.html" target="_blank">America</a>, <a href="http://www.infowars.com/fda-escalates-war-against-amish-dairy-farmers/" target="_blank">Amish dairy farmers</a>, <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/11/EDHU1KMAE3.DTL" target="_blank">anonymity</a>, <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Verbal-Energy/2011/0804/Uncle-Sam-s-war-on-apostrophes" target="_blank">apostrophes</a>, <a href="http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-06/tech/30126989_1_techcrunch-huffington-post-arianna-huffington" target="_blank">Arianna Huffington</a>, <a href="http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/7109-ninth-circuit-joins-obamas-war-on-arizona" target="_blank">Arizona</a>, <a href="http://www.thecatalystmagazine.com/?p=194" target="_blank">art</a>, <a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20110722/NEWS06/107220371/Scientists-race-win-war-carp-Pheromones-noise-guns-biobullets-tested" target="_blank">Asian carp</a>, <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/153543/the_christmas_war_on_atheism%3A_what%27s_the_religious_right_whining_about_when_it%27s_really_non-believers_who_are_under_attack/?page=entire" target="_blank">atheism</a>, <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2012/03/06/bozell-column-lefts-war-babies" target="_blank">babies</a>, <a href="http://boingboing.net/2011/10/13/ryanair-declares-war-on-bodily-fluids-vows-to-remove-toilets.html" target="_blank">bodily fluids</a>, <a href="http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/10/california_medical_marijuana_crackdown.php" target="_blank">California's medical marijuana industry</a>, <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-war-on-cameras-continues/" target="_blank">cameras</a>, <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/WayneAllynRoot/barack-obama-capitalism/2011/04/27/id/394243" target="_blank">capitalism</a>, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-newt-gingrich-cpac-20120210,0,4113865.story" target="_blank">the Catholic Church</a>, <a href="http://www.600words.com/2011/10/f-bombs-and-our-war-on-civility.html" target="_blank">civility</a>, <a href="http://peoplesworld.org/the-gop-s-war-on-climate-change/" target="_blank">climate change</a>, <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/bittorrent-declares-war-on-dropbox-sharing-services/14337" target="_blank">cloud storage systems</a>, <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2099131,00.html" target="_blank">coal</a>, <a href="http://ask.metafilter.com/195562/War-on-cockroaches" target="_blank">cockroaches</a>, <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/95890/the-gop%E2%80%99s-misguided-war-comparative-effectiveness-research" target="_blank">comparative effectiveness research</a>, <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2012/03/07/the-war-on-conservative-women/" target="_blank">conservative women</a>, <a href="http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/profiles/blogs/fox-news-secret-war-on-conservatives" target="_blank">conservatives in general</a>, <a href="http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2135047/Search-Engines-Are-Winning-the-War-on-Content-Farms-STUDY" target="_blank">content farms</a>, <a href="http://feministsforchoice.com/utah-joins-the-war-on-contraception.htm" target="_blank">contraception</a>, <a href="http://www.thewaroncookbooks.com/" target="_blank">cookbooks</a>, <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/anonymous-revives-operation-payback-targets-copywrong.ars" target="_blank">"copywrong"</a>, <a href="http://www.futurity.org/earth-environment/seaweed-wages-chemical-war-on-coral/" target="_blank">coral</a>, <a href="http://www.newser.com/story/140934/raisin-bosses-launch-15m-war-on-craisins.html" target="_blank">Craisins</a>, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204124204577150424223893182.html" target="_blank">crony capitalism</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-sanderson/catholic-war-on-democracy_b_1261954.html" target="_blank">democracy</a>, <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/09/michael-tomasky-data-show-the-gop-s-one-sided-war-on-democrats.html" target="_blank">Democrats</a>, <a href="http://dickmorris.rallycongress.com/5420/obamacare-declares-war-on-doctors/" target="_blank">doctors</a>, <a href="http://warondriving.com/" target="_blank">driving</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/09/epa-republican-war-defund_n_1000664.html" target="_blank">the EPA</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_on_Errorism" target="_blank">errorism</a>, <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/22/google-plus-opensocial-facebook/" target="_blank">Facebook</a>, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203753704577257554162590884.html" target="_blank">fertility</a>, <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949.html" target="_blank">Fox News</a>, <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/the_epas_unconscionable_war_on_fracking.html" target="_blank">fracking</a>, <a href="http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2011/09/the_feminist_war_on_fraterniti.html" target="_blank">fraternities</a>, <a href="http://www.amateurgourmet.com/2012/01/i-declare-war-on-frisee.html" target="_blank">frisée</a>, <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/17/obamas-war-on-fun" target="_blank">fun</a>, <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202" target="_blank">gay teens</a>, <a href="http://boingboing.net/2011/12/27/the-coming-war-on-general-purp.html" target="_blank">general purpose computation</a>, <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Wages-Quiet-War-on-Grandfathered-Unlimited-Users-118235" target="_blank">grandfathered unlimited users</a>, <a href="http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/10/microsofts-hotmail-declares-war-on.html" target="_blank">graymail</a>, <a href="http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/jamies-mostly-linux-stuff-10006480/windows-7-declares-war-on-grub-10022376/" target="_blank">GRUB</a>, <a href="http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2012/03/attack-on-marylands-gun-laws.html" target="_blank">guns</a>, <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/04/the-war-on-happiness-leave-happy-meals-alone/237813/" target="_blank">happiness</a>, <a href="http://waronheadaches.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">headaches</a>, <a href="http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/santorum_declares_war_on_metal.html" target="_blank">heavy metal</a>, <a href="http://www.auburn.edu/event/hunger/" target="_blank">hunger</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/War-On-Hyperbole/162669660457054" target="_blank">hyperbole</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_on_I-4_%28college_football%29" target="_blank">I-4</a>, <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/01/1069829/-John-Boehner-vows-to-continue-war-on-icky-lady-parts" target="_blank">icky lady parts</a>, <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/29/chris-weitz-republican-attacks-on-undocumented-immigrants-are-hypocritical.html" target="_blank">illegal immigrants</a>, <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/15/alabamas-war-on-immigrants" target="_blank">immigrants</a>, <a href="http://junkcharts.typepad.com/junk_charts/2012/01/the-war-on-infographics.html" target="_blank">infographics</a>, <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110809162017.htm" target="_blank">invasive plant species</a>, <a href="http://gawker.com/5866506/facebook-declares-war-on-sleazy-revenge-porn-site" target="_blank">IsAnyoneUp.com</a>, <a href="http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/06/21/the-war-against-%E2%80%98isolationism%E2%80%99/" target="_blank">isolationism</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kennedy/calling-out-obama-for-his_b_1303783.html" target="_blank">journalism</a>, <a href="http://howconservativesdrovemeaway.blogspot.com/2011/12/newt-gingrichs-crusade-against-courts.html" target="_blank">the judiciary</a>, <a href="http://articles.philly.com/2011-08-01/news/29838846_1_whistle-blowers-jesselyn-radack-obama" target="_blank">leaks</a>, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplicable-war-on-lemonade-stands/" target="_blank">lemonade stands</a>, <a href="http://www.newshounds.us/2011/05/03/fox_nations_war_on_liberals_more_important_than_us_war_on_terror.php" target="_blank">liberals</a>, <a href="http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/9618-why-the-libertarian-conservative-alliance-can-t-survive-rick-santorum" target="_blank">libertarians</a>, <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/08/new-at-reason-matt-welch-on-au" target="_blank">Libertarians</a>, <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/18/the-bipartisan-war-on-liberty" target="_blank">liberty</a>, <a href="http://hamptonroads.com/2011/07/war-light-bulbs" target="_blank">light bulbs</a>, <a href="http://howconservativesdrovemeaway.blogspot.com/2012/01/newt-gingrichs-crusade-against.html" target="_blank">linguistic diversity</a>, <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/ladies-lets-stop-declaring-war-on-men/" target="_blank">men</a>, <a href="http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-06-war-microbes.html" target="_blank">microbes</a>, <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/03/14/time-for-a-war-on-mommy/" target="_blank">"Mommy"</a>, <a href="http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/currency-controls-and-the-war-on-money/" target="_blank">money</a>, <a href="http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/09/6613695-new-weapon-for-war-on-mosquitoes" target="_blank">mosquitoes</a>, <a href="http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/10740-washington-state-lawmakers-join-war-on-ndaa-indefinite-detention" target="_blank">NDAA indefinite detention</a>, <a href="http://www.politicususa.com/gop-income-inequality/" target="_blank">the 99%</a>, <a href="http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2012/02/nlrb-union-claims-pro-union-nlrb-bosses-have-declared-war-on-nlrb-employees/" target="_blank">NLRB employees</a>, <a href="http://neighbors.denverpost.com/viewtopic.php?p=2105061" target="_blank">the Oakland Raiders</a>, <a href="http://www.thegrio.com/politics/the-war-on-obamas-faith-whos-really-holier-than-thou.php" target="_blank">Obama's faith</a>, <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/the_casualties_of_the_governments_war_on_obesity.html" target="_blank">obesity</a>, <a href="http://www.theroot.com/views/powell-doctrine-and-occupy-chapel-hill" target="_blank">Occupy Wall Street</a>, <a href="http://grist.org/wind-power/2011-07-14-koch-brothers-declare-war-on-offshore-wind/" target="_blank">offshore wind</a>, <a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/04/obamas-war-on-oil" target="_blank">oil</a>, <a href="http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/the-war-on-organized-labor/" target="_blank">organized labor</a>, <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/28/anonymous-hackers-declare-war" target="_blank">Orlando, Florida</a>, <a href="http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/01/29/the-war-on-pajamas-continues-dublin-welfare-agency-bans-pjs/" target="_blank">pajamas</a>, <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/02/17/the_obama_administration_s_war_on_particulate_emissions.html" target="_blank">particulate emissions</a>, <a href="http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/natos-war-on-peace/" target="_blank">peace</a>, <a href="http://www.good.is/post/the-war-on-photoshopping-uk-bans-misleading-makeup-ads/" target="_blank">photoshopping</a>, <a href="http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-war-on-police/" target="_blank">police</a>, <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/30/las-insane-war-on-the-porn-industry" target="_blank">the porn industry</a>, <a href="http://www.theroot.com/buzz/newts-war-poor-children" target="_blank">poor children</a>, <a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-22/news/chi-city-says-weather-helping-war-on-potholes-20120222_1_fewer-potholes-freeze-thaw-cycle-crews-target" target="_blank">potholes</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-ryan/pinkers-dirty-war-on-preh_b_1187329.html" target="_blank">prehistoric peace</a>, <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/02/flashlights-are-new-weapon-in-war-on-prostitution/1#.T1fviHnGibM" target="_blank">prostitution</a>, <a href="http://camppendleton.patch.com/articles/marine-corps-wages-war-on-ptsd" target="_blank">PTSD</a>, <a href="http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/04/war-pubic-hair.html" target="_blank">pubic hair</a>, <a href="http://www.aim.org/aim-column/panetta%E2%80%99s-war-on-reagan%E2%80%99s-defense-policies/" target="_blank">Reagan's defense policies</a>, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290464/president-s-war-religious-freedom-sen-rand-paul" target="_blank">religious freedom</a>, <a href="http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/sep/06/union-war-republicans/" target="_blank">Republicans</a>, <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/The-War-on-Blagojevich-Rod-Blagojevich-Is-Back-America" target="_blank">Rod Blagojevich</a>, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577227682039248376.html" target="_blank">Ron Wyden</a>, <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/14/obamas-war-on-the-rule-of-law" target="_blank">the rule of law</a>, <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/this-week-in-the-war-on-the-safety-net" target="_blank">the safety net</a>, <a href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/03/05/end-war-on-salt.aspx" target="_blank">salt</a>, <a href="http://the-brooks-blog.blogspot.com/2012/01/michael-goves-war-on-schools-all.html" target="_blank">schools</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/republican-science_b_1034205.html" target="_blank">science</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/WikiLeaks-Inside-Julian-Assanges-Secrecy/dp/161039061X" target="_blank">secrecy</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ruth-bettelheim/the-war-on-sex-the-contra_b_1324716.html" target="_blank">sex</a>, <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/13/gingrichs_war_on_shariah__112383.html" target="_blank">sharia law</a>, <a href="http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/07/25/the-war-on-snoring-heats-up/" target="_blank">snoring</a>, <a href="http://www.dailytech.com/Obama+Admin+Declares+War+on+SOPA+SOPA+Author+Caught+Stealing+Work/article23783.htm" target="_blank">SOPA</a>, <a href="http://www.politicususa.com/move-over-jon-stewart-fox-news-declares-war-on-spongebob/" target="_blank">SpongeBob SquarePants</a>, <a href="http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/79431" target="_blank">standardized tests</a>, <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/07/live-nation-group-declares-war-on-ticket-resellers.html" target="_blank">StubHub</a>, <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/28/the-war-on-supersized-alcopops" target="_blank">supersized "alcopops"</a>, <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/this-is-war-congressional-black-caucus-travels-us-cities-using-violent-rhetoric-declares-war-on-racist-tea-party-says-tea-party-wants-to-lynch-blacks-calls-for-bank-runs-civil-unrest-in-th/" target="_blank">the Tea Party</a>, <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/28/1011204/-The-war-on-teachers-and-the-impact-on-U-S-public-opinion" target="_blank">teachers</a>, <a href="http://jezebel.com/5808908/the-war-on-teen-sexting" target="_blank">teen sexting</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terra" target="_blank">Terra</a>, <a href="http://www.quintonreport.com/2011/12/15/the-war-on-tebow/" target="_blank">Tim Tebow</a>, <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2012/02/07/waging_war_on_the_trifecta_of_tyranny/page/full/" target="_blank">the trifecta of tyranny</a>, <a href="http://www.warontruckers.com/" target="_blank">truckers</a>, <a href="http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/271-38/7998-the-fracking-industrys-war-on-the-truth" target="_blank">the truth</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-unemployment-war-needs-more-help-from-lawmakers/2012/02/02/gIQAkQYmmQ_story.html" target="_blank">unemployment</a>, <a href="http://www.disabledveterans.org/2011/04/16/republicans-seek-to-cut-1-3-million-veterans/" target="_blank">veterans' benefits</a>, <a href="http://blog.westandfirm.org/2011/08/minton-coming-war-on-vitamins.html" target="_blank">vitamins</a>, <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/the_lefts_war_on_voter_fraud_reform.html" target="_blank">voter fraud reform</a>, <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830" target="_blank">voting</a>, <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/28/reasontv-the-war-on-walmart" target="_blank">Walmart</a>, <a href="http://www.waronwant.org/" target="_blank">want</a>, <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/erin-r-brown/2011/12/13/war-war-christmas" target="_blank">the War on Christmas</a>, <a href="http://jessemcleanwriter.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/how-to-fuck-up-christmas-through-gift-giving/" target="_blank">the war on the War on Christmas</a>, <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/cuttlefish/2011/12/14/the-war-on-the-war-on-the-war-on-the-war-on-christmas/" target="_blank">the war on the war on the War on Christmas</a>, <a href="http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2011/12/what_happened_to_christmas_--.php" target="_blank">the war on the war on the war on the War on Christmas</a>, <a href="http://waronwaste.interfaceflor.eu/en/" target="_blank">waste</a>, <a href="http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2011-10-20/news/obama-s-war-on-marijuana/" target="_blank">weed</a>, <a href="http://gmo-journal.com/index.php/2011/08/15/losing-the-war-on-weeds/" target="_blank">weeds</a>, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/09/obamas_unprecedented_war_on_whistleblowers/" target="_blank">whistleblowers</a>, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/10/25/353310/walker-war-wisconsin-wind-industry/" target="_blank">Wisconsin's wind industry</a>, <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/08/opinion/la-oe-gibson-the-war-on-wolves-20111208" target="_blank">wolves</a>, <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/04/1060161/-This-week-in-the-War-on-Workers-Workers-fight-back-at-ports-warehouses-and-more" target="_blank">workers</a>, <a href="http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/16904531/the-war-on-wrinkles" target="_blank">wrinkles</a>, and, of course, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/17/winning_war_on_war_excerpt/" target="_blank">war</a>.</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-56694261497843230322012-02-22T10:12:00.001-05:002012-03-20T23:33:09.815-04:00Really, America? Rick Santorum?Ugh, alright, let's talk about Rick Santorum.<br />
<br />
As someone who tries very hard to observe the <a href="http://thethinkerblog.com/?p=192" target="_blank">principle of reciprocity</a>—"we should respect the reasonableness and the goodwill of those with whom we disagree…even if we judge their opinions to be unreasonable and/or their views to be unjust or immoral"—I refuse to simply write Santorum off as a bigot. So I did some investigating, and it turns out he's not a bigot—at least, if you believe what he says when asked if he's a bigot.<br />
<br />
Consider these two quotes from Santorum's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic5EAO8RqVE" target="_blank">interview with Piers Morgan</a> last August:<a href="#fn82"><sup>[1]</sup></a><br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">There are a lot of things in society that are sins or moral wrongs, that we don't make illegal. Just because something is immoral or something is wrong, doesn't mean that it should be illegal, and that the federal government or any level of government should involve themselves in it. . . . If I was a legislator in the state of Texas dealing with the Texas sodomy law [that was overturned by the Supreme Court in <i>Lawrence v. Texas</i>], I would've voted against it, because I don't think that's something that the state should involve itself in.</blockquote><center>—————</center><blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">The Catholic church teaches that homosexuality is a sin. I'm a Catholic, and I subscribe to the Catholic church's teaching. But that's not relevant from the standpoint of how I view these issues from a public policy point of view.</blockquote>And this one, from an <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZEtyEuWATM" target="_blank">appearance on Fox News</a> around the same time:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">The bottom line is, we can have a public policy difference about what the proper marriage laws should be in this country and what's in the best interests of society, and not hate somebody or feel ill will toward anybody. As I've said many times, I have friends who are gay, I accept them as they are, but I disagree with them vehemently about what is in the best interests of society with respect to our marriage laws. . . . It's not personal, it's about policy.</blockquote>Got it? He believes homosexuality is immoral, but he doesn't consider immorality a valid reason for the government to get involved. And because he subscribes to the teachings of the Catholic church (he's careful to point that part out, as if everything that flows from it is somehow involuntary), he believes homosexuality is a sin, but he doesn't consider sinfulness a valid reason for the government to get involved either. All that matters, he says, is what's in the best interests of society—a determination that should not be tainted by the biases of one's own moral and religious beliefs. Santorum, who of course has a healthy respect for scientific objectivity, judiciously examined the evidence on all sides and reached the conclusion that, strictly as a matter of public policy, THE GOVERNMENT MUST PUT A STOP TO GAY MARRIAGE BEFORE SOCIETY IS RUINED FOREVER.<br />
<br />
Any resemblance his political views may have to his personal moral and religious beliefs is, apparently, purely coincidental.<br />
<br />
One can't help but wonder, then, what <i>is</i> the basis for his political views? The closest thing I can find to an answer came during the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/new-hampshire-debate-meet-the-press--facebook-debate-transcript/2012/01/08/gIQAqYMDjP_blog.html" target="_blank">January 8 debate</a>:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">We know there’s certain things that work in America. The Brookings Institute came out with a study just a few years ago that said, if you graduate from high school, and if you work, and if you’re a man, if you marry, if you’re a woman, if you marry before you have children, you have a 2 percent chance of being in poverty in America. And to be above the median income, if you do those three things, 77 percent chance of being above the median income.<br />
<br />
Why isn’t the president of the United States or why aren’t leaders in this country talking about that and trying to formulate, not necessarily federal government policy, but local policy and state policy and community policy, to help people do those things that we know work and we know are good for society?</blockquote>And again during the <a href="http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/01/17/transcript-fox-news-channel-wall-street-journal-debate-in-south-carolina/" target="_blank">January 16 debate</a>:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">It’s very interesting, if you look at a study that was done by the Brookings Institute back in 2009, they determined that if Americans do three things, they can avoid poverty. Three things. Work, graduate from high school, and get married before you have children. Those three things, if you do, according to Brookings, results in only 2 percent of people who do all those things ending up in poverty, and 77 percent above the national average in income.</blockquote>Clearly, that Brookings Institute study has had quite the impact. It's also a common talking point at <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/rick-santorums-poverty_n_1173307.html" target="_blank">campaign</a> <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/29/santorum-marriage-prevents-poverty-unless-youre-gay/" target="_blank">appearances</a>, and there are implicit references to it on his website.<a href="#fn82"><sup>[2]</sup></a> The upshot is always the same: It has been conclusively proven (by Science!) that there is a threefold path to moderate success—get a job, get a high school education, and get married before you have kids (or is it just that you aren't supposed to have kids if you aren't married? I can't tell, and I'm getting a headache trying to figure out if it matters). Thus, the government should do everything in its power to promote those three things—even if it means depriving gay people of same-sex marriage rights, which has something to do with the third thing, I guess.<a href="#fn82"><sup>[3]</sup></a><br />
<br />
This is the form interventionist social conservatism has taken—say all the right things about condemning bigotry and valuing individual freedom and approaching the issues with an open mind, then reach the same moralistic conclusions as your garden-variety 20th century bigot. Santorum isn't even all that good at it, but, lucky for him, he doesn't have to be. We've had, like, 500 debates, most of which have been hosted and moderated by members of the Liberal Media, and at no point has he been asked any of the following:<br />
<ul><li>How, exactly, does being married cause a person's income to increase?</li>
<li>Have you read the Economic Policy Institute's report suggesting you've <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/rick-santorums-poverty_n_1173307.html" target="_blank">confused cause with effect</a>?</li>
<li>Did that possibility honestly never occur to you?</li>
<li>By the way, even if you're right about the benefits of marriage, what part of that Brookings Institute study makes you think its findings apply only to opposite-sex couples?</li>
<li>And do we really need to explain to you, Senator, why it is that unplanned, pre-marital pregnancy isn't a huge concern in the gay community?</li>
<li>Seriously, do you want us to draw you a picture? Because we'd be happy to draw you a picture.</li>
<li>Wait a minute…that Brookings Institute study was released less than three years ago, but your political views have been fairly consistent since at least the early 90s. How did you rationalize your big-government moralism before 2009?<a href="#fn82"><sup>[4]</sup></a></li>
<li>Have you learned to travel back and forth through time, allowing you to read the report decades before it was released?</li>
<li>Still, wouldn't you expect someone who has mastered time travel to understand at least the basics of how causation works?</li>
<li>Also, you were recently <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/06/rick-santorum-does-not-know-that-drug-of" target="_blank">asked</a>, "as a champion of family values and keeping America strong, would you continue to destroy families by sending nonviolent drug offenders to prison?", to which you answered, "the federal government doesn't do that." Which country's federal government were you talking about?</li>
<li>Was it <a href="http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html" target="_blank">Portugal</a>'s?</li>
<li>Or are you actually that obtuse?</li>
</ul>Instead, he gets questions that amount to, "are you a bigot?" His answers are simplistic and logically dubious, and they go unchallenged—not because he wins over his critics, but because nothing he says changes their perception that, yeah, he probably is a bigot. But there's also nothing to change his supporters' perception that he's not a bigot—he's just trying to do what's in the best interests of society. And until he's forced to defend his views in a real, meaningful way, I can't say for sure that his supporters are wrong.<br />
<br />
In other words, if Rick Santorum wins this election, I'm going to blame the media.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b><a name="fn82"></a> Perhaps the most incredible thing Santorum said during the interview:<br />
<blockquote>From a public policy point of view there are a lot of things that I find morally wrong—or, as you would use the term, sinful—that don't necessarily rise to the level that government should be involved in regulating that activity.</blockquote>I would love to see what's on that list. I bet it makes Ned Flanders look like a libertine.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> From Santorum's "<a href="http://www.ricksantorum.com/bold-solutions-america%E2%80%99s-families
" target="_blank">Bold solutions for America’s families</a>":<br />
<blockquote>The family is the foundation of our country. We need to have an economic policy that supports families and freedom and encourages marriage.<br />
…<br />
I don’t believe that poverty is a permanent condition. How do we effectively address poverty in rural and urban America? We promote jobs, marriage, quality education and access to capital and embrace the supports of civil society.</blockquote></span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b> Not a whole lot of room for controversy on the first two. That being employed is one of the keys to having an above-median income sounds like something Tim McCarver would say, and it's only marginally less obvious that having a high school education is important, too. We may never reach a consensus on how, exactly, but I think we can all agree that employment and education are to be encouraged.<br />
Also, it should be noted that Santorum hasn't actually stated a problem here. Even if we come up with the best possible policies for promoting employment, education, and marriage, it's still going to be the case that a single parent without a high school education is more likely to have a below-median income. He's engaging in the fallacy that conservatives often (rightly) accuse liberals of—defining a problem in terms of inequality, which makes it virtually impossible to satisfactorily resolve.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>4.</b> I'm guessing the answer to that question can be found in his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Takes_a_Family" target="_blank">book</a>, which I assume is readily available at one of those warehouse stores right off the interstate, where you can find entire pallets of generic self-help guides, unfunny joke compilations, and autobiographies of middle-tier politicians for sale at a fraction of their original price.</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-436210757860890742012-02-03T09:34:00.001-05:002012-03-20T23:33:46.337-04:00A Growing Rift in the Republican PartyHere's the opening to Ben Shapiro's recent <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2012/02/01/the_republican_party_becomes_the_whig_party" target="_blank">column</a> for TownHall.com:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">In 1831, Henry Clay formed a new political party. He called it the Whig Party. His goal was to ensure Jeffersonian democracy and fight President Andrew Jackson, a Democrat. Over the course of the next 20 years, the Whig Party achieved several presidential victories. But as slavery assumed more and more national importance in the political debate, the Whig Party began to shatter.</blockquote>As Shapiro goes on to explain, the Whig Party was gone by 1860.<a href="#fn81"><sup>[1]</sup></a> The anti-slavery members in the North left to form their own party, and the pro-slavery members in the South left to form their own country. And now, seven score and twelve years later, Shapiro wonders if the unrecognizable modern-day descendant of that upstart Northern party is in the early stages of a Whig-like demise:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">The center of the Republican Party cannot hold. With Mitt Romney's victory in the Florida primary, it's clear that large swaths of the Republican establishment have rejected the Tea Party; it's similarly clear that the Tea Party has largely rejected Romney and his backers. . . . On what basis will the party unite? On fiscal responsibility? Romney and his cohorts have said nothing about serious entitlement reform; the Tea Party, meanwhile, calls for it daily. On taxation? Romney has a 59-point plan that smacks of class warfare; the Tea Party wants broad tax cuts across the board. On health care? Romney and much of the establishment aren't against the individual mandate in principle; the Tea Party despises the individual mandate as a violation of Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties. On foreign policy? Paleoconservatives want a Ron Paul-like isolationism; neoconservatives want a George W. Bush-like interventionism; realists want something in between.<br />
<br />
There is the very real potential for the Republican Party to spin apart in the near future. It could easily become a set of regional parties knit together by opposition to extreme liberalism. Chris Christie and his followers don't have all that much in common with Rick Perry and his followers. Never has that chasm been so obvious.</blockquote>To recap, we have four issues identified as signs of the growing rift within the Republican Party:<br />
<ul><li><b>Entitlement reform</b>. Tea Partiers won't shut up about it; Romney doesn't like to bring it up.<a href="#fn81"><sup>[2]</sup></a></li>
<li><b>Taxes</b>. Tea Partiers favor "broad tax cuts across the board"; Romney has a convoluted plan including a number of prongs which, considered together, bear a vague resemblance to something that might, if you squint and the lighting is just right, be described as broad tax cuts across the board.</li>
<li><b>Healthcare</b>. Tea Partiers are staunchly opposed to the individual mandate at the federal level; Romney <i>claims</i> to be staunchly opposed to the individual mandate at the federal level.</li>
<li><b>Foreign policy</b>. Nobody can agree on anything.</li>
</ul>I'm reminded of the <a href="http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=147821" target="_blank">debate</a> from <i>Futurama</i> ("I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far!" "And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!"). I mean, yeah, Romney's moderate in virtually every sense of the word, and I totally understand why so many Republicans are indifferent—if not outwardly hostile—toward his inevitable nomination. But let's not lose our minds here. Mitt Romney is not the harbinger of an ideological split in the Republican Party. He doesn't even <i>have</i> an ideology.<br />
<br />
But, much like a wildly off-target golf shot that rolls to a stop ten feet from the cup on an adjacent hole, Shapiro is at least wrong in a strangely accurate way. I doubt anything can save his central comparison—slavery demanded a level of humanitarian concern and moral outrage unmatched by any contemporary issue, with the possible exception of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Present_day" target="_blank">slavery</a>—but if we're going to insist on trying to find the closest parallel, I think we can come up with a few injustices more appalling than high taxes and mandatory health insurance. How about:<br />
<ul><li>Denial of same-sex marriage rights</li>
<li>The War on Drugs</li>
<li>Mandatory minimum sentences</li>
<li>Torture and indefinite detention</li>
<li>Capital punishment</li>
<li>Restrictions on access to abortion and contraception</li>
</ul>To name a few. Obviously, I'm talking about issues where libertarians diverge from conservatives—and the Republican Party in general. And yet, so many libertarians are nonetheless content to support a party that only sometimes aligns with their core values.<a href="#fn81"><sup>[3]</sup></a> I don't have any great insight into whether that uneasy coalition is about to fall apart, but why shouldn't it? The discord Shapiro's talking about—the manufactured panic over Romney—is little more than petty squabbling among conservatives about the ideal volume at which to be conservative. Meanwhile, they're continuing to ignore and alienate an entire bloc of voters who disagree with them in actual, substantive ways, and who probably should've left the Republican Party a long time ago.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b><a name="fn81"></a> Would it surprise you to learn that the <a href="http://www.modernwhig.org" target="_blank">Whig Party</a> has been revived? Me neither. And I more than welcome this development, if only because it carries with it the possibility—however remote—of "<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whiggery" target="_blank">Whiggery</a>" re-entering the lexicon.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> At least, that's what Shapiro says. Skeptical, I went to Romney's <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/jobs" target="_blank">website</a>, and I can see how he missed it—you have to go all the way to page 142 of "Believe in America: Mitt Romney's Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth" to find the section on entitlement reform. Shapiro must've given up somewhere around the chapter on "Human Capital Policy", which sounds a lot like a phrase a computer would produce in a valiant—but ultimately unsuccessful—attempt to pass the Turing test.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b> I'm sure this goes without saying, but, of course, all libertarians have exactly the same set of beliefs and priorities, and thus it's perfectly appropriate to broadly characterize them as one single-minded entity.</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-72336553538439786102012-01-25T14:19:00.016-05:002012-03-20T23:34:46.475-04:00Newt Gingrich's Crusade Against Linguistic DiversityNewt Gingrich has said many times that he favors making English the official language, but I've never been all that clear on why he feels this is so important. The issue came up again during Monday's <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/2012-presidential-debates/republican-primary-debate-january-23-2012/" target="_blank">debate</a>, and Newt managed to clear up precisely nothing, but at least he threw out some numbers:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">The challenge of the United States is simple. There are 86 languages in Miami Dade College, 86. There are over 200 languages spoken in Chicago. Now, how do you unify the country? What is the common bond that enables people to be both citizens and to rise commercially and have a better life and a greater opportunity?</blockquote>A school spokesman <a href="http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/jan/24/newt-gingrich/newt-gingrich-miami-dade-college-students-speak-86/" target="_blank">confirmed</a> to Politifact that there are indeed 86 languages spoken at Miami Dade College. A similar number (85) appears at the top of this <a href="http://www.mdc.edu/ir/Fact%20Book/countrylists.pdf" target="_blank">PDF</a> the school put together to show off how many international students it has. So Gingrich is right, but his point is…what, exactly? This is a college that's proud of the international diversity of its student body, putting it on par with every single other educational institution in the developed world. (Even Liberty Freakin' University, which is about to start construction on the Jerry Freakin' Falwell Library, <a href="http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=6452" target="_blank">brags</a> of enrolling "over 900 international students from over 80 foreign countries.") Besides, most of those foreign students won't be allowed to stay here after they get their degrees anyway, which is a problem Newt actually recognizes and says he wants to fix.<a href="#fn80"><sup>[1]</sup></a><br />
<br />
His other claim—that over 200 languages are spoken in Chicago—is just as baffling, and it's something he's been saying for a while, if this 1997 <a href="http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-is-america-still-a-country-370" target="_blank">column</a> by the always delightful Pat Buchanan is any indication:<br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">With 30 million immigrants since 1965, almost all now coming from Asia, Africa and Latin America, our European ethnic core — 90 percent in 1965 — is shrinking fast — to the delight of our president, who looks to the day soon when we are a nation of “minorities.” We no longer worship the same God, share the same ideas of morality, admire the same heroes or celebrate the same holidays.<br />
<br />
“Do you realize that there are 200 languages spoken in the Chicago school system? That’s an asset, not a liability,” Newt Gingrich recently burbled to Joe Klein. Oh. I thought the scattering of the peoples at the Tower of Babel, when the Lord confused their languages, was a punishment, not a blessing.</blockquote>I don't know what's more fascinating—that Newt has been citing the same dubious statistic for at least 15 years now, or that apparently at some point between then and now he reversed his position on whether linguistic diversity is a good thing or a bad thing.<a href="#fn80"><sup>[2]</sup></a> Maybe he read Buchanan's column and had a change of heart.<br />
<br />
Either way, it's unclear just what in the hell he's talking about, since I can't find a source for the claim or an instance where he's been asked to elaborate. The U.S. Census Bureau's <a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/" target="_blank">latest data</a> on language use shows that there are primary speakers of 137 different languages in the entire state of Illinois.<a href="#fn80"><sup>[3]</sup></a> That's a little south of 200, but it's still a big number, I guess. Although it should be noted that 27 of those languages have no reported speakers in the state who cannot also speak English "very well", and another 64 have at least one, but fewer than a thousand such speakers (including 30 languages with fewer than a hundred). So that leaves only 46 languages with even moderately sizable non-English-speaking populations, which would probably still sound like a lot if we weren't comparing it to the insane exaggerations Newt's been throwing around.<br />
<br />
Speaking of which, back to the debate, where moments later Gingrich shared with us his nightmarish vision of an America that sits on the precipice of succombing fully to the ravages of polylingualism:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">But as a country to unify ourselves in a future in which there may well be 300 or 400 languages spoken in the United States, I think it is essential to have a central language that we expect people to learn and to be able to communicate with each other in.</blockquote>I don't know if this is intentionally manipulative or just ignorant (though in Newt's case I'm inclined to assume the former), but it has to be one or the other. For one thing, according to Ethnologue, the number of <a href="http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=US" target="_blank">languages spoken in the U.S.</a> is probably in the 300-400 range <i>right now</i>.<a href="#fn80"><sup>[4]</sup></a> And Newt's predicting divisiveness and incomprehensibility? I haven't seen it. Unless we're counting the Republican debates. [<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0PIdWdw15U" target="_blank">Rimshot</a>]<br />
<br />
Moreover, the number of languages in the world, much like the number of extant animal species or profitable daily newspapers, is <a href="http://endangeredlanguagealliance.org/main/" target="_blank">declining at an unprecedented rate</a>. Many of the languages spoken in the U.S., as you might expect, were around long before the Europeans arrived, and it seems a little unfair to lump Native Americans in with immigrants when you're spreading misinformation about people coming here and not learning the local tongue, but, regardless, all but a handful of their languages are pretty close to extinction—so that's a hundred or so things Newt won't have to worry about much longer. Indigenous languages brought over by immigrants from Africa and Asia make up another big chunk of the 300-400, and most of them are in similarly dire straits. And even languages with stable populations elsewhere in the world, often retained initially by entire communities of newly-arriving immgrants, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2011/11/spanish-america" target="_blank">tend to disappear</a> within a few generations.<br />
<br />
What, then, is Newt so worried about? Who can ever say for sure, but I think the big numbers are nothing but misdirection. There's only one language that stands even a remote chance of reaching the same level of importance in America as English, <i>y todo el mundo sabe exactamente cual es</i>. But Newt isn't willing to aim his rhetoric directly at Spanish speakers—at least in part because, despite all implications to the contrary, many of them speak English too—so he demonizes the whole universe of human language instead.<br />
<br />
If the problem is that a lot of people are speaking Spanish, the complainer is accused (sometimes fairly, sometimes not) of being xenophobic, and possibly racist. But if the problem is reframed—if it's that people are speaking, like, hundreds if not thousands of different languages and making everything confusing as all hell, then that almost sounds like a sensible thing to complain about. Assuming there's anyone left who can understand you.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b><a name="fn80"></a> From <a href="http://www.newt.org/solutions/immigration" target="_blank">Newt.org</a>:<br />
<blockquote>We have the best universities in the world, but many foreigners who come to study are turned away and sent back home as soon as they get their degree. It is foolish to educate someone well enough for them to start the next job-creating startup, only to force them to leave America and start their business overseas. We want the jobs here and that means we want the job creators here.<br />
</blockquote></span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> Actually, it seems more likely that Buchanan was just being haphazard with context. I'm willing to bet Gingrich's next sentence started with "but", and proceeded to make it abundantly clear that his previous sentence was merely a pre-emptive strike against charges of cultural insensitivity.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b> More or less. I counted only languages that are specifically identified, but there are also a few thousand people lumped into catch-all categories like India n.e.c. (not elsewhere classified), Pakistan n.e.c., American Indian, African, and Uncodable, so the count may be a little higher. On the other hand, languages like Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian—which exemplify the adage that a language is just a dialect with an army and a navy—are listed separately despite being mutually intelligible.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>4.</b> This includes 176 languages known to be the primary language of at least one living, U.S.-born person, and about 190 languages classified as non-indigenous ("spoken by relatively recently arrived or transient populations which do not have a well-established, multi-generational community in the country"). Unsurprisingly, the line between the two categories is rather hazy.</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-78018355842053191382012-01-09T10:30:00.001-05:002012-03-20T23:36:32.954-04:00The Top Ten Fringe Candidates in the New Hampshire PrimariesAs a long-time observer of politics and a long-time critic of the two-party system, I've developed a strong affinity for fringe and third-party candidates. We'll have to wait a few months before the third parties start to emerge, but Tuesday's New Hampshire primaries are jam-packed with fringe candidates for the major party nominations—there are 30 Republicans and 14 Democrats on the ballot—and I looked into all of them.<a href="#fn79"><sup>[1]</sup></a><br />
<br />
I'm excluding the major and semi-major candidates we're all already familiar with—though most wouldn't have made the list anyway. The rest were ranked according to a formula that combines the following two factors:<a href="#fn79"><sup>[2]</sup></a><br />
<ol><li>How interesting it would be—and not necessarily in a good way—if the candidate became just prominent enough to get some media attention and participate in the debates (but not popular enough to actually win—that part is important).<br />
</li>
<li>Intangibles.</li>
</ol>Before I get to the top ten, honorable mention goes to Democratic contender <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermin_Supreme/" target="_blank">Vermin Supreme</a>, whose top issues include dental hygiene and traveling back in time to kill Hitler. I declared Supreme ineligible for two reasons: First, he's clearly just trying to be funny, and I'm all in favor of that, but it does distinguish him from the rest of the field (though I have my suspicions about a few). And second, his website starts playing music automatically, which is inexcusable.<br />
<br />
Alright, here we go:<br />
<br />
<b>10. Timothy Brewer (Republican)</b><br />
According to the Dayton Daily News, during a recent <a href="http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/seen_and_overheard/entries/2011/12/27/dayton_area_man_running_for_pr.html" target="_blank">forum</a> for minor candidates Brewer "vowed that speaking with Jesus through 'afterlife orbs' would solve the world’s problems," which is honestly not the worst idea I've heard in the last few months. The paper also reports that "[a]ttempts to reach Brewer about his candidacy failed." Really? Was he busy?<br />
<br />
<b>9. <a href="http://www.workmorekeepless.com/" target="_blank">Bob Ely</a> (Democrat)</b><br />
Ely's website has a list of 24 reasons not to vote for him (for example, "I'll Dream Up Lots of Other Taxes"), but even better is his <a href="http://www.workmorekeepless.com/bobs-blog.html" target="_blank">blog</a>, which contains a single post that says, simply, "Nothing deemed blog-worthy". I'm not sure, but that might be brilliant.<br />
<br />
<b>8. <a href="http://www.americachangestoday.com/" target="_blank">Aldous C. Tyler</a> (Democrat)</b><br />
Heartbreaking news from the Tyler campaign: <br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">I am truly saddened to be forced to announce that my bid for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States must come to a close. Due to a lack of logistical and financial support, I can no longer responsibly ask people to send their hard-earned money or spend their precious time on a campaign that simply has no ability to continue forward.</blockquote>Yes, <i>now</i> it would be irresponsible for Aldous Tyler to ask people to contribute their time and money to his presidential campaign.<br />
<br />
<b>7. <a href="http://www.markcallahan.net/" target="_blank">Mark Callahan</a> (Republican)</b><br />
You know how the most vocal opponents of gay rights often turn out to be gay themselves? I kind of doubt a similar phenomenon exists among Birthers, but Mark Callahan decided to take preemptive action anyway:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">There has been a lot of news and national discussion about President Obama's eligibility to be President of the United States, based upon where he was born. I can say with absolutely certainty that Americans will not have to worry about this aspect of my eligibility to be President of the United States during my campaign, nor if I get elected President of the United States in 2012. In the interests of full disclosure and accountability, I will state that I am currently 34 years old. I turn 35 on May 11th, 2012, well before the inauguration of the President in January 2013, thus still making me eligible to be President of the United States, according to the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1. I have consulted with the Federal Elections Commission, and they have confirmed that I am eligible, as long as I turn 35 by the time inauguration day comes.</blockquote>There was a lot of eye-rolling at the FEC that day, I'd imagine.<br />
<br />
<b>6. <a href="http://www.johndavisforpresident.org/" target="_blank">L. John Davis, Jr.</a> (Republican)</b><br />
Davis appears to come from the "this problem will be easy to solve once we figure out how to solve the problem" school of problem-solving, and his website is a masterful exercise in using a lot of words to say nothing. Here's a highlight: <br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">What makes a United States president? Does a mold make a president? If we had a mold, we could mold a president. But which mold would we choose? Would we all agree on the same mold? . . . What color should he be? I know the answer to this one. It’s the great American color: red, white and blue.</blockquote><br />
<b>5. Randy Crow (Republican)</b><br />
Alas, www.randycrow.com is currently unavailable, but I was able to find some information at <a href="http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/biography/21101/randolph-crow" target="_blank">Project Vote Smart</a>. There's some fairly dull biographical stuff, and a questionnaire with dull revelations like favorite author (Hemingway), favorite color (blue), and favorite musician ("none jumps out"), and some dull political views, and then just as I gave up hope of finding anything interesting, there it is: <br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">Flight 93 was inteded to crash into WTC-7 cover up the fact that WTC-7 had bombs placed in it, as did the other two buildings, to bring them down.</blockquote>Well, alright then. Keep that in mind, potential Randy Crow voters.<br />
<br />
<b>4. Hugh Cort (Republican)</b><br />
Cort's website has "2008" in its URL and Google tells me it may harm my computer, so I'll let that one remain a mystery, but I'm guessing it has a lot to say about Iran and bin Laden and nuclear terrorism, because that's pretty much all he talks about. He runs an <a href="http://www.afcpr.org/" target="_blank">organization</a> called The American Foundation for Counter-Terrorism Policy and Research, and he wrote a book called <i>The American Hiroshima: Osama's Plan for a Nuclear Attack, And One Man's Attempt to Warn America</i>. The entirety of his platform, as far as I can tell, is that we need to destroy Iran before Iran destroys us. So he's like Newt Gingrich, but with a more sensible approach to judicial review.<br />
<br />
<b>3. <a href="http://www.terryforpresident.com/" target="_blank">Randall Terry</a> (Democrat)</b><br />
Most candidates convey their views by simply talking or writing about them, but Terry won't be reduced to such a simplistic method. Here's the introduction to his 11-page platform: <br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">Randall Terry addresses 30 issues facing our nation. Mr. Terry has assigned a number value for each question/issue; sometimes he assigns two differing values, depending on the interpretation of the question at hand. In addition, for each position, he provides an explanation.</blockquote>What follows is a strange hodgepodge of views that could easily have been chosen at random. He's in favor of amnesty, opposed to gay marriage, in favor of US involvement in the UN, opposed to environmental regulations, in favor of marijuana legalization, opposed to gun control, opposed to both the Patriot Act and civil rights for suspected terrorists…and on and on. I couldn't make sense of it. And at several points he expresses uncertainty over the meaning of a question, which is just…mind-boggling, because it's his own platform. And here's where I stopped trying to figure it out altogether: <br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">I think everyone who loves freedom should drive a great big, safe, SUV…and everyone who wants us to be slaves to the socialist state should drive an ittybitty Hyundai.</blockquote><br />
<b>2. <a href="http://www.theaveragejoeforpresident.com/" target="_blank">Joe Story</a> (Republican)</b><br />
He calls himself "The Average Joe", and his website is www.theaveragejoeforpresident.com, so you pretty much know what you're getting here. Probably just a bunch of conservative talking points—fiscal responsibility, family values, etc.—watered down so as to make the basic ideas virtually impossible to disagree with, and some vague platitudes about the American way of life, right? Well somebody needs to tell Joe Story what "average" means, because holy crap: <br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">"WE THE PEOPLE" must decide what our founding fathers meant by "Freedom of Religion". Could they have meant secular humanism "freedom from Religion" where anything goes or Islam the strictest cult known to man? The USA continues to remove the Judeo-Christian biblical laws that define the nations existence from the court houses and embrace Sharia law. How much longer before we look like London in flames or one of the Stone Age countries of Islam?</blockquote>Yeah, so that's who this guy is—a hyper-Christian, anti-Islamic fanatic—and once that much is established there aren't really any more surprises, but I still enjoyed the misdirection.<br />
<br />
<b>1. Andy Martin (Republican)</b><br />
Martin has a website, but I didn't link to it because there isn't much there, and also because he's a terrible, terrible person. Here are some excerpts from his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Martin" target="_blank">Wikipedia page</a>: <span style="color: #cc0000;"></span><br />
<ul><li><span style="color: #cc0000;">His 1996 run for the Florida State Senate came unraveled when it was revealed that he had named his campaign committee for his 1986 congressional run "The Anthony R. Martin-Trigona Congressional Campaign to Exterminate Jew Power in America."</span></li>
<span style="color: #cc0000;">
<li>Martin has filed numerous lawsuits, and has been labeled as a vexatious litigant by several jurisdictions. . . . In a 1983 bankruptcy case, he filed a motion calling the presiding judge "a crooked, slimy Jew who has a history of lying and thieving common to members of his race." . . . When later pressed in an interview about his remarks, Martin claimed that the anti-Semitic comments were inserted into his court papers by malicious judges.</li>
<li>On October 5, 2008, Martin was featured as a "journalist" on <i>Hannity's America</i> of the Fox News Channel. According to <i>The New York Times</i>, "The program allowed Mr. Martin to assert falsely and without challenge that Mr. Obama had once trained to overthrow the government."</li>
<li>Martin issued a press release shortly after Obama's keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that he had evidence Obama "lied to the American people" and "misrepresent[ed] his own heritage." Martin claimed that Obama was really a Muslim, was possibly hiding this fact "to endanger Israel,"</li>
<li>On October 17, 2008, Martin filed a lawsuit in a state circuit court of Hawaii against Governor Linda Lingle and health department director Dr. Chiyome Fukino seeking to verify the state's official birth certificate of Barack Obama.</li>
</span></ul>Basically, Andy Martin <i>is</i> the infamous Ron Paul newsletters, in (more or less) human form.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b><a name="fn79"></a> In case it doesn't go without saying, no, I didn't try all that hard to get a thorough sense of who these people are, because that would be as pointless as it is impossible. We're talking about nearly three dozen candidates, virtually none of whom have received any significant media attention. So if Timothy Brewer turns out to be eminently reasonable other than the "afterlife orbs" thing, good for him, but he doesn't have a website, so the afterlife orbs are all I have to go on.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> The specifics of the formula will be kept secret, so as to preserve the illusion that it exists.</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-81629641947595842542012-01-08T08:08:00.004-05:002012-05-11T01:41:20.073-04:00In Defense of a Bad Sports TownSome relatively on-topic content is in the works, but I hope you'll indulge me a little here, because I grew up in the Atlanta suburbs and I'm a fan of all the Atlanta sports teams—even the ones that are now in Midwestern Canada—so it caught my attention when ESPN's Rob Parker did the journalistic equivalent of <a href="http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/7429623/the-city-atlanta-worst-sports-town-america" target="_blank">poking the entire metro area with a sharp stick</a>:<br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">It's not fair.<br />
<br />
And, we know, it really shouldn't matter.<br />
<br />
But Atlanta -- the city, not the team -- doesn't deserve a playoff victory over the New York Giants on Sunday.<br />
<br />
It has nothing to do with football. It's deeper than that.<br />
<br />
Without question, Atlanta is the worst sports town in America.</blockquote>To be clear, this is some world-class trolling. Parker doesn't expect his article to be taken seriously in any meaningful way—his primary goal is to generate some publicity for himself, and his secondary goal is to get a lot of people riled up, just because it's fun.<br />
<br />
All that said, he's absolutely right. Atlanta <i>is</i> a bad sports town. And it's perfectly fine with me if it stays that way, because this, according to Parker, is the alternative:<br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">Giants fans -- even with a fresh Super Bowl in their memories after the 2007 season -- are living and dying with their team. Football is a part of their lifestyle, it's who they are. On Sunday, every single moment of the game will be pure agony until the clock shows all zeroes and the Giants have secured the victory.</blockquote>My God, that's one of the most miserable things I've ever read. The <i>pure agony</i> of EVERY SINGLE MOMENT. The <i>merciless gloom</i> of a poorly-executed screen pass. The <i>heartwrenching sadness</i> of an untimely holding call. The <i>unyielding woe</i> of a failed replay challenge. The <i>indescribable pain</i>—<a href="http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81d06fc3/Can-t-Miss-Play-Jackson-s-walk-off-punt-return" target="_blank">OH GOD, THE PAIN</a>—of a walk-off punt return.<a href="#fn78"><sup>[1]</sup></a><br />
<br />
Meanwhile, in a bad sports town:<br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">Your typical Atlanta fan -- who is probably from another city since so few are actually from ATL -- will be preoccupied with something else. They might not even be sure what time the game is on.<br />
<br />
In fact, at some point, they might ask a friend -- filled with sweet tea -- at a pork-saturated barbeque, "Are the Falcons playing today?"<br />
<br />
Pathetic.</blockquote>Yeah, just imagine those monsters—enjoying a sunny Atlanta day with a multicultural array of friends and neighbors, feasting on the delightful cuisine of their adopted hometown, shamefully unaware that somewhere nearby a local professional sports team is hard at work in pursuit of a trophy or cup or whatever. Unaware that the game is winding down and the exhaustion is taking over and the players are looking to the stands, desperate for the sweet performance-enhancing tonic that is tens of thousands of screaming color-coordinated lunatics. But, as always, there are no lunatics. There is only the cold, indifferent silence of the near-empty arena.<a href="#fn78"><sup>[2]</sup></a><br />
<br />
Anyway, this is where I started to wonder if Parker was secretly on my side, because he just tried to make a picnic sound sinister, and almost invariably that is the act of a person carrying out a scheme several orders of magnitude more elaborate than necessary. But everything else in his article—paragraph after paragraph of unfavorable attendance numbers,<a href="#fn78"><sup>[3]</sup></a> a recap of the Braves' late-season collapse, and a helpful reminder that the Thrashers must now be referred to in the past tense, which may still come as a surprise to a substantial number of Atlantans—points to the conclusion that yeah, he really does think that Giants fans, by virtue of being more "passionate", deserve a win this afternoon, and that Falcons fans deserve a loss.<a href="#fn78"><sup>[4]</sup></a><br />
<br />
Of course, any time a city is called out like that its sports fans lose their collective shit, so in a fit of morbid curiosity I scrolled through the comments on Parker's article for as long as I could tolerate the ESPN commenting community—almost three minutes—and found what appears to be a bona fide, hardcore Atlanta sports fan. Here's what "Skyonex" had to say:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">F the transplants in this city. I'm born and raised here AS a FALCONS/HAWKS/BRAVES Fan. I could care less for all these transplants from all over the country and the recent influx of NO Katrina refugees. You know who doesn't deserve a win? Idiots in New York who have no idea how hard it is for ATL hardcore pro sports fans.<br />
<br />
Hey Rob, take it from a TRUE FALCONS fan for over 20 years... We've had it tough and we deserve a win. More so than any Ain'ts fan or Giants fan ever will...</blockquote>Sure, this person comes off as severely unbalanced and possibly racist (really? Katrina refugees?) and by all indications should not be allowed to venture outside alone, but does he not also exhibit the characteristics of the "real fans" Parker is extolling? His devotion to his city is intense to the point of utter disregard for human dignity. He's convinced that Atlanta's sports ineptitude (and there's been a great deal of it, to be sure) is an actual difficulty he's had to deal with in his life. And he believes this combination of blind devotion and imaginary suffering makes him somehow more deserving than fans in New York and New Orleans—as if <i>they</i>'d know anything about devastation and sorrow—of watching a specific group of professional athletes win a specific football game.<br />
<br />
Point is, if that's what it would take for Atlanta to turn its reputation around—stadiums and sports bars and message boards full of despondent, entitled assholes (and I think that <i>is</i> what it would take)—then I don't want to see it happen. Rob Parker is merely the latest member of the sports media to chastise Atlanta by rehashing the narrative that being a good sports fan means supporting your team with equal ferver win or lose (instead of behaving rationally by rewarding good management and punishing bad management), and being upset that your neighbor still pulls for the team in whatever city he's from (instead of being proud that he'd rather live in your city than his), and conflating on-field misfortune with real trauma (instead of displaying the emotional maturity of an actual adult).<br />
<br />
That's what the sports media wants from you, Atlanta. Don't let them win. They don't deserve it.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b><a name="fn78"></a> That's right, Giants fans. Here, click on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML1Ixd3jiGU" target="_blank">this one</a> too. Is the <b><i>agony</i></b> overwhelming yet?</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> But still the game goes on. The in-bound pass goes to Josh Smith and he surveys the court, looking for an opening, but in that place inside him where there should be strength and hunger and aggression there is only the unshakable feeling that nobody gives a shit—that on this court, <i>in this city</i>, there is no difference between winning and losing—and so he puts up a 28-footer that misses everything.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b> To the extent that there's an actual problem with Atlanta sports fans, I suppose it would be the attendance, but even there it's hardly a crisis. Sure, there's room for improvement across the board, but the Braves and Falcons are in the top half of their leagues, and the Hawks aren't terribly far off. Only the Thrashers truly suffered from poor attendance, and they were a last-place team in a sport nobody cared about—I'm shocked they lasted as long as they did.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>4.</b> If my experience is any indication, Parker isn't being hyperbolic with the "are the Falcons playing today?" stuff. And he was wise to put the Falcons there instead of the Hawks—people are generally aware of the Falcons, whereas ill-informed curiosity would be a whole new level of prominence for the Hawks. In 2008 a friend and I went to an Atlanta bar to watch Game 6 against the Celtics—it was the Hawks' first playoff series in almost a decade, and merely by making it competitive they were wildly exceeding expectations. With about a minute left and the outcome still very much in doubt, a dozen people at a nearby table brought out a cake and launched into "Happy Birthday", completely oblivious to the game.<br />
(My other memory from that night is that after the broadcast ended a <i>Cheers</i> rerun came on, and nobody in the bar cared enough to change the channel. Imagine if this was Boston and the show was <i>The Dukes of Hazzard</i>—Waylon wouldn't make it to "never meanin' no harm" before something violent happened to the TV.)</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-8341642705594129482011-12-21T10:26:00.001-05:002012-03-20T23:37:41.350-04:00The New FavreI'm still holding on to shred of hope for another Brett Favre comeback. In fact, as long as he never throws another pass for the Falcons, I'm all in favor of Brett Favre continuing to retire and un-retire every year until he's dead. Is that an unpopular opinion? I'm guessing so, but I don't care. I like watching him play football, and, more importantly, when he's in the public spotlight there is a veritable planetary system of silliness and hyperbole in constant orbit around him, and I find every bit of it delightful. It's the same reason I like cable news and living in Florida.<br />
<br />
But it's been a full year since the last time Favre took the Favre as a professional Favre,<a href="#fn77"><sup>[1]</sup></a> and the chances of another un-retirement (which would be number five, by my count) grow slimmer each day. Someone needed to fill the void, and holy crap, did someone ever do just that, and then some.<br />
<br />
To declare so early in his career that Tim Tebow is the new Favre would be an overreaction of Favrian proportions, so I think we should go ahead and do it. The variety and sheer mass of the nonsense drawn in by Tebow's gravitational field is greater than Favre can even dream of (and clearly Favre does dream of such things). There's the small mountain of "<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/07/what-if-tim-tebow-were-muslim/" target="_blank">what if Tebow were Muslim?</a>" commentary.<a href="#fn77"><sup>[2]</sup></a> The actually-kind-of-plausible <a href="http://www.prepforce.com/home/cory-hedgepeth/tim-tebow-for-beginners-john-elway-uses-fictional-movie-business-plan-to-tank/" target="_blank">theory</a> that the Broncos made Tebow their starter as part of a <i>Major League</i>-esque scheme to lose on purpose. <a href="http://abortiongang.org/10fortebow/" target="_blank">This</a>. And on and on. But my personal favorite so far is an article by Townhall.com's Katie Kieffer, titled "<a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/katiekieffer/2011/12/19/tebow_sacks_socialism/page/full/" target="_blank">Tebow Sacks Socialism</a>":<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">Tebow has All-American character. He espouses capitalistic values that are foundational to America: Competitiveness, ownership, responsibility, hard work, optimism, faith and persistence.</blockquote>That's right. Tebow is a symbol of the virtues of capitalism. This is a person who, as far as I know, has never publicly weighed in on free market economics, or virtually any other political issue for that matter.<a href="#fn77"><sup>[3]</sup></a> So, what does Tebow have to do with capitalism?<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: #cc0000;">In a capitalist society, leaders—whether they are the President of the United States, the CEO of a corporation or the quarterback for a football team—take responsibility. They don’t blame Congress, their shareholders or their fans. They focus on improving themselves and working harder to compete for a winning result.</span><br />
…<br />
<span style="color: #cc0000;">Unlike Tebow, President Obama refuses to accept responsibility for the economic destruction he has unleashed via socialist policies like ObamaCare, bailouts, net neutrality regulations and by blocking oil production.</span></blockquote><i>Probably</i> this is just poor wording, but I did wonder for a second if there was a press conference where Tebow took responsibility for the recession and somehow I missed it. It wouldn't really surprise me if he did, simply out of politeness.<br />
<br />
Anyway, more from Kieffer:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">Football is competitive. There are winners and losers. Talent and hard work win; incompetence and laziness lose. Football rewards innovative risk-takers and analytical thinkers, not sentimental whiners. By instilling capitalistic principles, football builds leaders. In contrast, by discouraging competition, socialist principles encourage people to do the bare minimum, shirk responsibility and reject leadership.<br />
<br />
Tebow lives his life in a way that embraces capitalistic principles and he is a leader because of his strong character.</blockquote>Am I reading this wrong, or is she calling Blaine Gabbert a communist? Regardless, it's fantastically twisted logic. If the point is that successful athletes personify the basic principles of capitalism, then the quarterbacks we should be exalting include Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, and, ahem, Ben Roethlisberger. If the point is that "innovative risk-takers" are rewarded, then that ignores a fundamental tenet of capitalism, which is that sometimes they aren't (and nevermind that much of Tebow's NFL success can be attributed to being risk-<i>averse</i>).<br />
<br />
Moreover, and I realize I'm well past the point of taking this too seriously, but football really isn't capitalistic, for the simple reason that in football there will always be an equal number of winners and losers.<a href="#fn77"><sup>[4]</sup></a> There can be no growth—average win totals are stagnant from year to year (at least, until the league goes to an 18-game schedule). Thus, playing to win is strategically identical to playing to cause your opponent to lose. In capitalism those two things are often different, and, at least in theory, you're always better off playing to win. If your competitors manage to win too, good for them.<br />
<br />
But I'm not here to pick apart ill-conceived analogies. Well, I am, but also to say that I'm very much enjoying this, and I'm excited to see where it goes. What conservative talking point will Tebow's unconventional brand of marginally-above-average quarterbacking be shoehorned into next? Will his fearless running style be used to justify military intervention somewhere overseas? When a replay official overturns a Tebow touchdown, will Newt Gingrich cite it as further evidence of the threat judicial review poses to American values? And how long until he becomes a pawn in the ongoing War on the War on Christmas? The sky's the limit.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b><a name="fn77"></a> That was an homage to (or perhaps a ripoff of) this outstanding Deadspin headline: <a href="http://deadspin.com/5867080/tim-tebow-tebows-59+yard-tebow-to-force-tebowtime" target="_blank">Tim Tebow Tebows 59-Yard Tebow To Force Tebowtime.<br />
</a></span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> Answer: The amount of inexplicable animosity he generates by being openly Christian (and the counter-animosity his fans have for his detractors, and the counter-counter-animosity his detractors have for his fans) would look quaint by comparison.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b> Oh yeah, the abortion thing, when Tebow revealed that (a) he wasn't aborted, and (b) he's happy about that. These are both things that were already self-evident, but I guess when you say them out loud you're going to turn some heads.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>4.</b> Not to mention the flagrantly Marxist nature of the draft.</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-84901117297575292952011-12-05T09:50:00.002-05:002012-03-20T23:38:38.495-04:00Newt Gingrich's Crusade Against the CourtsAs I've pointed out before, politicians love issues that allow them to exploit fears and emotions without alienating large blocs of voters. Few such issues have given conservatives as much mileage in recent years as immigration, and Newt Gingrich should be commended for breaking from the ranks. Not only has he articulated a humane, reasonable immigration policy, he has also rejected one of the most reliable tools in the conservative arsenal for scoring cheap political points. So he <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/11/newt-gingrichs-judicial-philosophy" target="_blank">uses the courts</a> instead.<br />
<br />
Gingrich describes his attitude toward the courts in <a href="http://www.newt.org/contract/legislative-proposals#Nine" target="_blank">section nine</a> of his 21st Century Contract with America, which begins with the intriguing proposition that the Constitution serves as both the framework for the federal government and a set of power rankings:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">The Judicial Branch did not come until Article III because the Founders wanted it to be the weakest of the three branches.</blockquote>Thus, the Legislative and Executive branches get to square off for the championship, while the Judiciary will take on the Ratification Clause in the Fiesta Bowl.<br />
<br />
Anyway, back to Newt:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">The Federalist Papers explicitly recognized that the Judicial Branch would be weaker than the Legislative and Executive Branches. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote reassuringly that the Judicial Branch would lose any confrontation with the two elected branches:<br />
<br />
<i>“the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two.”</i><br />
<br />
The Founding Fathers felt strongly about limiting the power of judges because they had dealt with tyrannical and dictatorial British judges.</blockquote>A good rule of thumb: Never take a 25-word excerpt from a 223-year-old essay at face value. Short and to the point? Just one semicolon? No pointlessly elaborate double- or triple-negations? That's not the Alexander Hamilton I know. Here's the whole sentence (and here's a link to the <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_78.html" target="_blank">full text</a>):<br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks.</blockquote>Something tells me Newt didn't omit that last clause for the sake of brevity. It seems Hamilton's point wasn't that the judiciary <i>should</i> be weak, but that because it neither writes laws nor commands armies it is inherently weak, and therefore additional protections must be in place to ensure its equality with the other branches.<br />
<br />
Newt's insistence that the judiciary was intended to be the weakest branch is, at best, dubious, but even more dubious is his insistence that the judiciary is now the strongest:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">Since the New Deal of the 1930s, however, the power of the American judiciary has increased exponentially at the expense of elected representatives of the people in the other two branches. The judiciary began to act on the premise of “judicial supremacy,” where courts not only review laws, but also actively seek to modify and create new law from the bench. The result is that courts have become more politicized, intervening in areas of American life never before imaginable.</blockquote>Really? The power of the judiciary has increased at the expense of the other two branches? We <i>are</i> talking about the same legislative branch that now uses the Commerce Clause to do any damn thing it wants, right? And the same executive branch that has decided it can unilaterally go to war? If anything, the courts have struggled to keep up.<br />
<br />
But that's not how Newt sees it, obviously, and his campaign recently released an <a href="http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf" target="_blank">issue paper</a> detailing his fears. From the introduction:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">If the Supreme Court ruled that 2+2=5, would the executive and legislative branches have to agree? Would we have to pass a Constitutional amendment to overrule the Court and reassert that 2+2=4?</blockquote>Yes, we would. And while we're at it, we should also pass an amendment prohibiting toddlers from serving on the Supreme Court.<a href="#fn76"><sup>[1]</sup></a><br />
<br />
Still, Newt's right that it can be scary to think about how much power is held by just nine people. And they aren't even elected, so those seats can be held by anyone! Well, anyone who can secure the nomination of the President, who is elected by a college of 538 citizens, who are in turn elected by the voters of each state, and who can then secure the approval of the Senate Judiciary Committee and at least 51 members (60 if the filibuster's in play) of the full Senate, each of whom are elected by the voters of their states.<br />
<br />
Honestly, the more I think about it, the scariest thing about the Supreme Court isn't that the Justices are unelected; it's that they're chosen by the people who are.<a href="#fn76"><sup>[2]</sup></a><br />
<br />
But that's a discussion for another time. Much of the issue paper (which, at 54 pages, could really use a table of contents) is devoted to making the case that on issues like national security and marriage (and probably others—seriously Newt, table of contents next time) the courts have abrogated their duty to uphold the Constitution. These are, of course, among the most controversial issues of our time. Legal scholars have written thousands of pages in support of a variety of approaches to the constitutional questions they present. So when Newt says "[w]ere the federal courts to recognize such a right [to same sex marriage], it would be completely without constitutional basis," he's stating an opinion, not a universally-accepted truth. 2+2=4 is an accepted truth. That the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection doesn't extend to discrimination based on sexual orientation is not.<br />
<br />
And that's what this all comes down to. The problem he's describing—judges usurping the other branches, creating their own laws, ignoring the Constitution, etc.—is very serious. It just isn't real.<a href="#fn76"><sup>[3]</sup></a> Clearly, Newt doesn't like some of the interpretations courts have applied to the Constitution, and in many cases neither do I, but I remain unconvinced that there's an epidemic of judicial roguery going on. There is, perhaps, an epidemic of judges interpreting the Constitution in ways Newt Gingrich disagrees with, but the solution to that is not to launch a crusade against the judiciary. The solutions are to (a) become President and appoint judges you like, and (b) calm the hell down, because there will always be people in positions of power who disagree about things.<br />
<br />
But then he'd have to find something else to get people riled up about.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b><a name="fn76"></a> Of course, the Court doesn't have jurisdiction over disputes of simple arithmetic, but you wouldn't expect a toddler to know that.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> Interesting that the officials who play a role in the judicial nominating process—the President and the members of the Senate—originally weren't elected by the people. Senators, of course, were chosen by state legislatures until 1913. The President is elected via the intermediary of the Electoral College, and a state's Electoral College delegation was, and still is, selected by a method of each state's choosing. Until around the 1820s a lot of states let their legislatures make that decision as well.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b> Well, some of it is real, but the severity is vastly overstated. Aside from the preposterous 2+2 hypothetical, the most absurd judicial overreach I've seen Newt talk about is that story out of San Antonio, where Judge Fred Biery ruled that a high school valedictorian couldn't include a prayer in her speech and that the school couldn't use terms with religious connotations like "amen" or "benediction". The ruling was overturned by a higher court two days later.<br />
So now Newt wants that judge impeached, which is fine, I guess—I suspect there's more to the story that we aren't hearing, but I don't care enough to find out—but how is that a major issue? (Answer: It's not. But the more Newt talks about it, the stronger the implication that this is a widespread problem, rather than a few isolated events.)</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-12096942725553958342011-11-18T09:37:00.001-05:002012-03-20T23:39:23.351-04:00The Anti-Immigrant RepublicansIn a <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/brucebialosky/2011/11/07/the_journals_mistaken_immigration_position/page/full/" target="_blank">recent column</a> for Townhall.com, Bruce Bialosky took issue with a <i>Wall Street Journal</i> editorial on immigration:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">They finish the editorial by stating – and here is where the WSJ editors join hands with the left – “Immigrants bring vitality and skills to the U.S. economy.” This clearly implies what liberals have alleged for years: that Republicans are anti-immigrant. I have never once seen a statement by a Republican presidential candidate against immigrants, and the editorial did not (and could not) cite one.</blockquote>He makes an interesting point. We all know the default setting for a Republican candidate is extreme and uncompromising intolerance for illegal immigration, but is it really fair to call them anti-immigrant in the more general sense?<br />
<br />
Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich have expressed support for establishing English as the official language, a non-solution to a <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2011/11/spanish-america" target="_blank">non-issue</a> that would serve primarily to reinforce the misconception that many who come here don't bother to learn English. Promoting the learning of English isn't inherently anti-immigrant, I suppose, but intentionally promulgating a false stereotype probably is, so that one's kind of a wash.<br />
<br />
Herman Cain has been making what may or may not be jokes about lining the border with terrible death traps, but, you know, it's not like there'd be any visa-holders among the fatalities. Cain is also in favor of Alabama's new immigration law, which is a disaster in many, many ways. But, again, the law doesn't target legal immigrants—parts of it target undocumented workers, and parts of it target everyone with an accent or brown skin, regardless of citizenship or immigration status.<a href="#fn75"><sup>[1]</sup></a><br />
<br />
And then there are the sins of omission. The current immigration system is woefully ineffective—many who hope to immigrate legally are forced to wait in absurdly long lines, and even more are told there's no line they're eligible to wait in—and with a few exceptions (most notably Gary Johnson), the Republican candidates have shown no signs of giving a crap. For all their talk in other contexts of market forces and supply and demand, they've been inexcusably ignorant (or willfully dismissive) of the connection between economic conditions and immigration patterns.<a href="#fn75"><sup>[2]</sup></a><br />
<br />
Of course, even the candidates who use the harshest rhetoric on "illegals" are careful to avoid saying anything that can be construed as hostile toward legal immigrants—they're running for office, for Pete's sake—but they haven't said much in support of expanding the avenues for legal immigration either. Instead, they play into fears about illegal immigrants streaming across the border and having babies and taking our jobs and wallets and healthcare and whatever else isn't bolted down, offering only the occasional "first we need to get illegal immigration under control, and then we can talk about the dysfunctional visa process", as if there isn't a causal link between the two.<br />
<br />
This is all to say that I think the Republican approach to immigration is, at best, severely misguided, and at worst, a shameful case of exploiting and exacerbating a genuine humanitarian problem for political gain.<a href="#fn75"><sup>[3]</sup></a> But hey, that's just my opinion, and it still doesn't answer the doubly-subjective (in terms of both policy and semantics) question of whether it's fair to characterize the hard-liners as anti-immigrant.<br />
<br />
I found my answer when I went to the candidates' websites to see what they said on legal immigration. Not a whole lot, as it turns out, other than a few vague reaffirmations of their general support for the concept, but something else caught my attention:<br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;"><span style="color: #191919;"><b>Rick Perry:</b></span><br />
As part of a broader tax reform strategy, I will also ask Congress to eliminate direct subsidies and tax credits that distort the energy marketplace. My plan levels the playing field, ending Obama’s <a href="http://www.rickperry.org/energizing-american-jobs-html" target="_blank">anti-growth</a> policies and opening a competitive marketplace to benefit American citizens.</blockquote><blockquote style="color: blue;"><span style="color: #191919;"><b>Mitt Romney:</b></span><br />
President Obama has neglected the fundamental tasks of creating jobs and growing our economy. Instead, he’s focused his efforts on an <a href="http://www.mittromney.com/issues/job-creation" target="_blank">anti-jobs, anti-growth</a> agenda that has significantly expanded the role of the federal government.</blockquote><blockquote style="color: blue;"><span style="color: #191919;"><b>Michele Bachmann:</b></span><br />
Researchers, entrepreneurs and investors across America have been paralyzed by this president’s <a href="http://www.michelebachmann.com/2011/10/bachmann-stresses-plan-to-revive-american-competitiveness-during-speech-at-commonwealth-club/" target="_blank">anti-business</a> policies that have created severe uncertainty. As president, I will signal by way of leadership to innovators, that the time has come to once again unleash the genius of Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ working to create the wealth of the nation.</blockquote><blockquote style="color: blue;"><span style="color: #191919;"><b>Newt Gingrich:</b></span><br />
The fact is, we are not going to close the deficit and move towards a balanced budget unless we follow the policies that foster the economic growth necessary to create jobs.The first and most immediate step would be to employ the policies that encourage investment, create jobs, and reward innovation and entrepreneurship -- exactly the opposite of the Obama <a href="http://www.newt.org/news/sp-downgrade-and-upcoming-debt-ceiling-vote" target="_blank">anti-jobs</a> policies.</blockquote>As long as the Republican candidates consider Obama anti-jobs/business/growth for favoring policies likely to be ineffective, or that betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation, or that come off as thinly-veiled attempts to distract and deceive voters, I'm going to go ahead and call them anti-immigrant for exactly the same reasons.<br />
<br />
Seems fair to me.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b><a name="fn75"></a> The provision requiring law enforcement officers to check a detainee's immigration status applies only "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States", and officers aren't allowed to consider race, color, or national origin "except to the extent permitted by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of Alabama". This is in no way the same as saying officers aren't allowed to consider race, color, or national origin.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> And yet, they seem to think there <i>is</i> a connection between the ability of people to move to where economic conditions are better and the height of the physical obstacles we put in the way.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b> Politicians love issues that (a) people are ill-informed about, (b) arouse strong emotions, and (c) allow them to blame problems on groups lacking political power, and immigration is all three. If only there were some way to depict that graphically.</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-27195730711596156262011-10-29T09:14:00.005-04:002012-05-25T10:08:41.082-04:00Professional Football's Age BarrierAs of the 2011 college football season, the Big Ten Conference has 12 teams and the Big 12 Conference has ten teams. I point this out because, well, it's funny, but also to provide some perspective, because on the list of the screwiest things about college football right now, the Big Ten/12 situation doesn't even make the top ten (or 12).<a href="#fn74-1"><sup>[1]</sup></a><br />
<br />
For a look at the items at the top of that list, Taylor Branch's aptly-titled <i>Atlantic</i> piece, "<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/" target="_blank">The Shame of College Sports</a>", is required reading. This early paragraph is a nice summary of what follows:<br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">For all the outrage, the real scandal is not that students are getting illegally paid or recruited, it’s that two of the noble principles on which the NCAA justifies its existence—“amateurism” and the “student-athlete”—are cynical hoaxes, legalistic confections propagated by the universities so they can exploit the skills and fame of young athletes. The tragedy at the heart of college sports is not that some college athletes are getting paid, but that more of them are not.</blockquote>I'm also partial to <a href="http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/09/scholarships-and-compensation.html" target="_blank">this</a>, by deceased Congolese dictator Mobutu Sese Seko (not really…probably), who skillfully deflates the "but they <i>are</i> getting paid, in the form of an education" argument. And <a href="http://outkickthecoverage.com/marcus-lattimore-out-for-season-is-nfls-age-restriction-a-moral-issue.php" target="_blank">this</a>, by Clay Travis at Outkick the Coverage, which addresses the morality (or—spoiler alert!—lack thereof) of a system that not only forces people with extremely valuable skills to wait at least three years for their first paycheck, but makes sure they remain exposed to potentially career-ending injuries the entire time.<br />
<br />
So I'm not going to rehash the argument for overhauling college football to allow the players to share in some way the profits they generate, because the case has largely been made, and I'd just be running up the score. But there's still one lingering piece of the pro-NCAA argument that, as far as I can tell, hasn't been addressed. From a comment on the Outkick the Coverage article:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">I agree with most of what you say with the exception of, "The NFL's age restriction is a fundamental restraint of trade that is completely un-American." It is entirely up to the NFL to make rules regarding hiring. That is America. The right for the owner to decide when, whom and if he/she hires someone. The owner of a corporation, partnership, legal entity, etc has rights just as the college player has rights and personal liberties. The player can choose to stop playing college ball and wait for the draft status to open or he can go play in the CFL or [some other professional league]. . . . Are the universities making money off of some of the players? Hell yes, why shouldn't they be? The bottom line is capitalism in it's truest form is about profits, contracts and freedom of choice. The player chooses what he/she wants to do, no one forces them to play college ball.</blockquote>It's a tough point to argue with, because I'm not sure it's wrong. It might also be the most important point in the entire debate. If 18-to-20-year-old football players really do have a viable pro alternative, then the NCAA is, while still problematic, a fundamentally benevolent organization that does a lot of good for those who choose to keep their amateur status.<a href="#fn74-2"><sup>[2]</sup></a> But if players don't have a viable pro alternative, then they're essentially forced into an adhesion contract where they have to spend at least three years making money for others—receiving in return only the non-negotiable benefit of a college education they may not want, and probably won't be able to take full advantage of anyway—before they can start <i>trying</i> to make money for themselves. In that case, the system is every bit as indefensible as Taylor Branch and others make it out to be.<br />
<br />
So I decided to look up the players who joined a professional team rather than attend college. The NFL's rule is well-known—you can't enter the draft until three years after your high school class graduates—but there <i>are</i> other pro football leagues, so at least in theory there are options available. But what kind of money are those players making? How enticing were the scholarship opportunities they passed up, if any? Are they getting attention from NFL scouts?<br />
<br />
I went through the leagues that are currently active (NFL Europe, we hardly knew ye), looking over rosters, league rules, and whatever other information I could find.<a href="#fn74-3"><sup>[3]</sup></a> There aren't many, but, sure enough, I did find a handful of athletes who went pro at age 18 or 19. There's <a href="http://www.lflus.com/clevelandcrush/?id=9" target="_blank">Mikkayla Flores</a> of the Cleveland Crush, <a href="http://www.lflus.com/tampabreeze/?id=6" target="_blank">Ciara McMillan</a> of the Tampa Breeze, and <a href="http://www.lflus.com/latemptation/?id=17" target="_blank">Dominique Oro</a> of the Los Angeles Temptation, to name a few. But if NFL scouts are hanging around at Lingerie Football League games, it's probably for a different reason.<br />
<br />
As for the other significant (by which I mean not overwhelmingly insignificant) leagues, here's what I found:<br />
<br />
<html><head><title>Age Barrier</title><style type="text/css">
.AgeBarrier { width:450px;border-collapse:collapse;background-color:#a0cfec; }
.AgeBarrier td, .myTableText th { border:1px solid #191919;padding:5px; }
.AgeBarrier th { font:bold 18px/1.1em Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;text-shadow: 1px 1px 4px black; letter-spacing:0.2em; background-color:#191919; color:#98FB98; }
.AgeBarrier td { font:normal 10px/1.5em Goudy, verdana, sans-serif;color:#191919; }
</style></head><body><table class="AgeBarrier" border="1" bordercolor="#FFCC00" style="background-color:#a0cfec" width="450" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3"><tr align="center" bgcolor="#3366ff"> <td width="60"><b>League</b></td> <td width="210"><b>Youngest player</b><br />
(age as of Oct. 29, 2011)</td> <td width="180"><b>Previous team(s)</b></td></tr>
<tr> <td align="center">Canadian Football League</td> <td>Zack Evans, Saskatchewan Roughriders (21 years, 125 days)<br />
<br />
<i>Youngest American:<br />
Javes Lewis, Toronto Argonauts<br />
(21 years, 323 days)</i></td> <td>Evans: Regina Thunder (of the CJFL, an amateur junior league for Canadians only)<br />
<br />
<i>Lewis: University of Oregon (2008-10)</i></td></tr>
<tr> <td align="center">Arena Football League</td> <td>Will Hill, Arizona Rattlers<br />
(21 years, 237 days)</td> <td>University of Florida (2008-10)</td></tr>
<tr> <td align="center">United Football League</td> <td>Saalim Hakim, Las Vegas Locomotives<br />
(21 years, 271 days)</td> <td>Palomar CC (2008),<br />
Tarleton State (2009-10)</td></tr>
<tr> <td align="center">National Football League</td> <td>Tyron Smith, Dallas Cowboys<br />
(20 years, 322 days)</td> <td>USC (2008-10)</td></tr>
</body> </table><br />
Aside from the aforementioned LFL, I could only find one professional football league in North America with any players under 21. Oddly enough, it's the NFL.<a href="#fn74-4"><sup>[4]</sup></a><br />
<br />
The NFL is also the only league without a good deal of haziness surrounding its eligibility rules. According to the never-wrong-about-anything <i>New York Times</i>, the CFL <a href="http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/bryce-brown-to-the-cfl/" target="_blank">has no minimum age.</a><a href="#fn74-5"><sup>[5]</sup></a> I'm skeptical, especially after going through the team rosters, but I haven't seen an official source that says otherwise. It's a similar story with the AFL and UFL—a number of questionable online sources point to a minimum age of 18 or so, but I can't find anything definitive.<br />
<br />
There are, of course, a number of reasons a player with NFL aspirations might not want to join an alternative league, even if that league will have him. To begin with, it's rather pointless to forgo a full scholarship for a miniscule salary in an unstable organization, and, other than the CFL, which pays <a href="http://www.sportsagentblog.com/2011/05/19/united-football-league-canadian-football-league-or-arena-football-league/" target="_blank">decent money</a> and isn't going to fold anytime soon, it's nothing but question marks. The AFL had to cancel its entire 2009 season, and upon its return in 2010 player salaries were drastically reduced. The fledgling UFL pays its players around $40,000 a year—not NFL money, but enough to live on, and seemingly more than the league should be able to afford. In related news, the UFL just cancelled the last two weeks of its regular season, and <a href="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/16/ufl-fast-forwarding-to-title-gam/" target="_blank">may never return</a>.<br />
<br />
And then there are the differences in the game itself. Arena league games are played on a smaller field with rules designed to encourage a faster pace and lots of scoring. CFL games are played on a field the size of Luxembourg with rules that allow this to happen:<br />
<br />
<iframe width="450" height="275" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/d5BFaykcxGg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br />
<br />
But, ultimately, it’s all gridiron football, and anyone who excels at one version has the potential to succeed at another. So why is it so difficult to find even a single player who went pro out of high school? I can think of two possible explanations:<br />
<html><head><script type="text/javascript" src="http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.4.2.min.js" /></script><script type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function () {
$("ol li").each(function (index) {
$(this).wrapInner("<span />");
});
$("ol").css("font-weight", "bold");
$("ol li span").css("font-weight", "normal");
}
);
</script></head><body><ol><li><b>Every talented 18-year-old football player in the country independently made the same decision—to go to college instead of playing for money.</b> And yet, while in college many (though certainly not all) of these players will (a) neglect the academic coursework they voluntarily chose to pursue, (b) accept "improper benefits", jeopardizing their eligibility and exposing their schools to NCAA sanctions (and undermining the initial decision to play on an amateur basis), and (c) leave for the NFL as soon as the rules allow, whether they've graduated or not. Or…</li>
<li><b>No professional league is interested in signing players right out of high school.</b></li>
</ol>One of those explanations is a bit more plausible than the other.<a href="#fn74-6"><sup>[6]</sup></a><br />
<br />
I'm not arguing that the NCAA or the NFL are somehow illegally restricting competition (though I'm tempted to try), but this is another of the many, many signs that there's something wrong with the system. The term "slavery" has been thrown around, and that's unfortunate, because there's nothing approaching slavery going on, but it certainly looks like the choice isn't between playing as an amateur or as a professional—it's between playing as an amateur or not playing at all.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b><a name="fn74-1"></a> What does this have to do with conservatism? That's a good question, for which I have two answers. First, it's what I feel like writing about, so whatever. And second, what <i>doesn't</i> it have to do with conservatism? From the overly cautious on-field tactics and the attempts to eliminate victimless behavior on dubious moral grounds (e.g. banning certain touchdown celebrations), to the we-know-what's-good-for-these-kids-better-than-they-do paternalism of the college system and the anti-capitalistic shadiness of the NFL's antitrust exemption—virtually everything objectionable about modern conservatism is reflected in football.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b><a name="fn74-2"></a> Of the major American sports, baseball has by far the best system for handling the transition from amateur to professional, for the simple and obvious reason that the players have a choice. This is why nobody complains about college baseball players not getting paid. (Well, that and the relative lack of money in college baseball, which isn't unrelated to the fact that players have a choice.)</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b><a name="fn74-3"></a> I made a pretty good effort to be comprehensive, but I didn't obsess over it, and it's certainly possible that I overlooked somebody. There are also a few teams (I'm talking to you, Omaha Nighthawks) that don't have rosters online, along with countless other reasons the available information might be incomplete or wrong. Suffice it to say, I might've missed some things, but I think my overall assessment is pretty solid.<br />
Oh, and I decided not to worry too much about the various second-tier "indoor football" leagues (for legal reasons, they can't call it arena football), or the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stars_Football_League" target="_blank">Stars Football League</a>, which is totally a real thing. From the SFL's Wikipedia page: "Its inaugural season began June 30, 2011 with two teams; the league phased two more teams into the schedule over the course of the 2011 season to finish the season with four teams." It might not sound like much right now, but they're on pace to have 256 teams by this time in 2013.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>4.</b><a name="fn74-4"></a> You can probably figure this out without my help (if you don't know it already), but just to be thorough: Since the NFL defines eligibility relative to a player's high school graduation, there's really no minimum age, and every so often somebody manages to parlay an atypically early graduation into an atypically early NFL debut (most notably Amobi Okoye, who was still 19 when he was drafted in 2007).</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>5.</b><a name="fn74-5"></a> I'm tempted to write a whole 'nother post about the comments on that Bryce Brown <a href="http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/bryce-brown-to-the-cfl/" target="_blank">article</a>, because there are some great examples of the bizarre attitudes people have about college sports. Even at the <i>New York Times</i> website, of all places, the idea of an 18-year-old cashing in on a marketable skill—perfectly acceptable in every other (non-criminal) profession—brings out so much inexplicable vitriol. I especially like this one:<br />
<blockquote>Send a kid to the CFL rather than college? The average NFL running back career is just over three years. Then what? Now you have to PAY for college rather than getting it for free.</blockquote>That's right, after he spends three years in the lucrative world of professional football, making piles and piles of money, he'll have to PAY for college. How will he ever be able to afford it?</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>6.</b><a name="fn74-6"></a> This isn't a new development, by the way. In the mid-80s the USFL adopted the same eligibility rules as the NFL, which at the time disallowed the signing of players who had yet to use up their college eligibility. (A rather controversial exception was made for Herschel Walker, who was coming off his third college season and would've been able to enter the NFL draft under today's rules.)<br />
Similarly, the XFL made no attempt to undercut the NFL, though there were <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/04/sports/pro-football-xfl-may-let-teenagers-opt-to-turn-pro.html" target="_blank">reports</a> that after its first season the league considered recruiting 18- and 19-year-olds. They still wouldn't have been in direct competition with the NCAA—the plan was to talk only to players who had been unable to get into college for academic reasons—but, regardless, it never happened, because the XFL's first season turned out to be its last.</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-83142528239703496432011-10-17T09:01:00.002-04:002012-03-20T23:43:13.413-04:00Bringing America Together, One Venn Diagram at a TimeLast Monday I posted an <a href="http://howconservativesdrovemeaway.blogspot.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-vs-tea-party.html" target="_blank">article</a> expressing my view that Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party are, in many ways, “raging against different halves of the same machine,” and I threw in a crude Venn diagram to illustrate my point. By Friday, the article had brought more traffic to this blog than my entire previous output combined, and the diagram had appeared on sites as prominent and ideologically disparate as <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/tea-party-meet-occupy-wall-street-ows-tea-party/" target="_blank">The Cato Institute</a>, <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/12/the-possibility-of-a-tea-party" target="_blank">Reason</a>, <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/2011/10/12/ows-tea-party-harmonic-convergence/" target="_blank">The American Conservative</a>, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/10/11/340577/do-large-corporations-have-disproportionate-political-clout/" target="_blank">ThinkProgress</a>, <a href="http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/10/venn-diagram.html" target="_blank">JoeMyGod</a>, <a href="http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/10/chart-of-the-day-5.html" target="_blank">The Daily Beast</a>, <a href="http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/10/13/could-occupy-wall-st-and-the-tea-party-unite/" target="_blank">Time</a>, and <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/a-very-simple-venn-diagram-of-where-the-tea-party-and-occupy-wall-street-agree/246687/" target="_blank">The Atlantic</a>.<a href="#fn73"><sup>[1]</sup></a><br />
<br />
Needless to say, this was a somewhat stronger response than I expected.<a href="#fn73"><sup>[2]</sup></a> Almost as surprising is how overwhelmingly positive the reaction has been. I thought I was saying something controversial—something many would consider downright heretical—but instead I was met with near-universal agreement.<a href="#fn73"><sup>[3]</sup></a> And the criticism hasn’t even been all that critical. Many have pointed out that the diagram fails to account for some key point or another, which is perfectly fair, and I acknowledged as much in the article, but few have objected to its underlying premise.<br />
<br />
What, then, can be taken away from all this feel-goodery? Whatever you want to take away from it, I suppose (and I’m interested to hear some other opinions), but I think it’s safe to assume the diagram resonated so well because of its simplicity, not in spite of it—and with simplicity comes a certain toothlessness. In this case, the message could be expressed in simple terms because it dealt only with identifying problems, but once you start talking about solutions, ideological differences come into play and things get complicated.<br />
<br />
If that sounds cynical, it’s…well, because it <i>is</i>, but it actually represents a step up for me. I started this blog, in part, because I feel like the ubiquitous left/right, liberal/conservative dichotomy has just about destroyed our ability to even agree on problems, much less solutions. There’s this tendency to associate every viewpoint with one side or the other, which is tolerable enough if it’s something like “we should reduce taxes on high-income earners” or “the financial industry should be more heavily regulated”, but it's distracting and counter-productive when the dispute is centered around contrasting interpretations of reality.<br />
<br />
I watched this happen with the Tea Party. The Tea Party has, in many ways, become a conservative movement (and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party), but there’s no good reason for the cause of rebelling against government excess and inefficiency not to appeal to everyone—libertarian, conservative, liberal, or miscellaneous. The frustration I expressed last week arose from the seeming inevitability of OWS lapsing into a similar affiliation with liberalism and the Democratic Party, and from my sense that I couldn't declare my support for and identification with the OWS movement without being branded a socialist (which I’m not—no offense, socialists).<br />
<br />
But what I saw instead was a refudiation <a href="#fn73"><sup>[4]</sup></a> of the idea that there’s something inherently “liberal” about acknowledging the role of the private sector in our current troubles, because of course there isn’t—no more than there’s anything inherently “conservative” about acknowledging the role of the government. And now I’m at least hopeful that the OWS/liberalism/Democratic Party alignment is not as inevitable as I thought—and hey, maybe there’s still hope for the Tea Party to turn it around, too.<br />
<br />
So that’s what I’m taking away from the popularity of the Venn diagram. We’ll always have trouble agreeing on the best solution, but the crucial first step is agreeing on what the problem is, which at least gets us to the point where we can meaningfully and constructively disagree. Looks like I'm not the only one who's tired of bypassing that step.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b><a name="fn73"></a> I don’t want this to sound like an awards show speech, but seriously, thanks to <a href="http://thethinkerblog.com/" target="_blank">Jeffrey Ellis</a> and <a href="http://www.facebook.com/steve.horwitz" target="_blank">Steve Horwitz</a> for getting the ball rolling. Thanks to everyone who commented on my article, everyone who shared the link or the diagram on Facebook or Twitter or wherever else… [“wrap it up” music starts playing] …my long-time readers for all the support and encouragement, um…thanks to <a href="http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com" target="_blank">JoeMyGod</a> for showing me there's nothing wrong with having a blog with an awkward name and “blogspot” in the URL. [music getting louder] Ok, they're telling me to wrap it up. If I forgot anyone, sorry!</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> And, as the title of this post indicates, I've already let it go to my head. This is a good thing, because bitterness makes me funny, so I should be in rare form after I fall back down to Earth, which I assume will be any day now.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b> As the week went on the story sort of morphed from “OWS and the Tea Party have too many similarities to be so antagonistic” to “Could Occupy Wall St. and the Tea Party Unite?”, which is the title of <a href="http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/10/13/could-occupy-wall-st-and-the-tea-party-unite/" target="_blank">this</a> post on Time's Curious Capitalist blog. I might come up with more to say about that in the near future, but, for now, I just want to say that for all the enjoyment I've gotten out of watching the media overreact to things over the years, it makes me proud that, just this once, I was one of the causes of the overreaction.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>4.</b> What? It’s a perfectly cromulent word.<br />
</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-23825470789880689442011-10-10T07:40:00.003-04:002012-03-20T23:44:20.189-04:00Occupy Wall Street vs. The Tea PartyIf I may dig up one of my all-time favorite Onion articles:<br />
<blockquote><b><a href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/79-percent-of-americans-missing-the-point-entirely,640/" target="_blank">79 Percent Of Americans Missing The Point Entirely</a></b><br />
<span style="color: blue;">WASHINGTON, DC—According to a Georgetown University study released Tuesday, 79 percent of Americans are missing the point entirely with regard to such wide-ranging topics as politics, consumerism, taxes, entertainment, fashion, and professional wrestling. . . .</span></blockquote>I've been trying to organize my thoughts about the coverage of the Occupy Wall Street protests, not to mention the protests themselves, and I keep coming back to that Onion article,<a href="#fn72"><sup>[1]</sup></a> because any way I look at it, just about everyone is missing the point.<br />
<br />
The problem, and I suppose this was inevitable, is that Occupy Wall Street is being portrayed as some kind of anti-Tea Party. Left vs. right, blue vs. red, rock vs. country, et cetera—it's the only way we know how to draw battle lines anymore. But how are the two movements meaningfully different? I sure as hell can't figure it out. There are plenty of minor differences, mostly concerning priorities and demographics, but the similarities are much more substantial. Both are popular uprisings against powerful-but-nebulous entities believed to be responsible for America's economic struggles. Both are defined not by easily-identified leaders, but by the sum total of countless unique viewpoints, and thus are not capable of articulating their goals with any cohesiveness or specificity (nor should they be expected to). And both movements, to borrow the classification scheme created by Bill O'Reilly, are teeming with both pinheads and patriots.<br />
<br />
And yet, over the last week or so each side has generated mountains of commentary saying, essentially, this: <i>You know the one-sidedly [negative/positive] portrayal of the Tea Party we've been pushing for two and a half years now? Well Occupy Wall Street is totally the opposite!</i><br />
<ul><li><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html?_r=1&hp" target="_blank">Paul Krugman</a> describes OWS as "a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people." Meanwhile, <a href="http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-10-05.html" target="_blank">Ann Coulter</a> says the OWS protesters are angry at the <i>wrong</i> people (and also have poor hygiene, because why not?).</li>
<li><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/KeithOlbermann/status/116586974621614080" target="_blank">Keith</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/KeithOlbermann/status/122042216641331200" target="_blank">Olbermann</a> says OWS is legitimately a grassroots movement that, at least at first, was ignored by the media. <a href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/05/the_regime_ginned_up_occupy_wall_street_as_counter_to_tea_party" target="_blank">Rush Limbaugh</a> says the Tea Party is the "organic" one, while OWS was "manufactured" by the media.</li>
<li><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/03/333925/top-5-reasons-why-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-embody-values-of-the-real-boston-tea-party/" target="_blank">ThinkProgess</a> claims the OWS protests "better embody the values of the original Boston Tea Party." <a href="http://biggovernment.com/fsalvato/2011/10/07/occupywallst-when-the-greedy-feign-outrage/" target="_blank">BigGovernment</a> insists the protesters are "more aligned with Marxism; with Democratic Socialism; with Soviet Era Collectivism; with the very dangerous and elitist Progressive Movement" than with anything even remotely "American".</li>
</ul>So it goes. It's hard to be honest and fair. It's easy to cobble together some empty rhetoric and lob it in the direction of those most inclined to assume the best about their friends and the worst about their enemies.<a href="#fn72"><sup>[2]</sup></a><br />
<br />
Not that I have any special insight into who's least wrong, but I'm a big fan of the sentiments expressed in <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/07/occupy-wall-street-beyond-the" target="_blank">this Reason article</a>:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">Of course, the type of loudmouth gadflies who show up at all large outdoor political events, whether Tea Party gatherings, GOP coffee klatches, or Democratic National Conventions, can be found in Liberty Plaza. But to dismiss an entire movement—one that is gathering momentum in cities all around the country—based on the inarticulateness of a few teenagers is entirely the wrong response. It's far more useful to try and understand what is going on here, to grok the meaning of these protesters' motivations, before prematurely passing summary judgment.</blockquote>Exactly. We should pay less attention to the individual lunatics, and more attention to what a movement is really about. Occupy Wall Street, at its core, is a reaction to the increasing power and influence of large corporations. The Tea Party, at its core, is a reaction to the government's constant interference with private enterprise. But wait a minute—aren't those things connected?<br />
<br />
Bailouts, subsidies, tax breaks, special rights and privileges, regulations designed to restrict competition—to name a few of the many ways the government protects and stimulates corporate interests, and those things are every bit as anti-free market as, not to mention directly related to, the high taxes and excessive bureaucracy that gets Tea Partiers riled up.<a href="#fn72"><sup>[3]</sup></a> In other words, aren't these two groups—Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party—raging against different halves of the same machine? Do I have to draw a Venn diagram here?<br />
<br />
Oh, alright, I'll draw a Venn diagram:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOq6AwyUcQUpu8jFPbEDo_VNqwy7dN2aSSmji-YyGQMS_3LUr0HdNevscI2m9ZgJv0L-6DpU-Pyu75zejtBf1CLeMi-fzOOR5eOHRqkShs6hV4lLVJ9YCC9el_Fa_huVCpQamf8zLe4OI/s1600/OWSvsTP.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em"><img border="0" height="241" width="440" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOq6AwyUcQUpu8jFPbEDo_VNqwy7dN2aSSmji-YyGQMS_3LUr0HdNevscI2m9ZgJv0L-6DpU-Pyu75zejtBf1CLeMi-fzOOR5eOHRqkShs6hV4lLVJ9YCC9el_Fa_huVCpQamf8zLe4OI/s400/OWSvsTP.jpg" alt="Ohhhh...so that's how alt-text works"/></a></div><br />
Yeah, I'm oversimplifying, but only a little. The greatest threat to our economy is neither corporations nor the government. The greatest threat to our economy is both of them working together. There are currently <i>two</i> sizable coalitions of angry citizens that are <i>almost</i> on the same page about that, and they're too busy insulting each other to notice.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b><a name="fn72"></a> The best part is the quote at the end:<br />
<blockquote>"If I want to miss the point, that's my own business," said Ernie Schayr, a Wheeling, WV, auto mechanic. "If I want to complain about having to pay taxes while at the same time demanding extra police protection for my neighborhood, that's my right as an American. Most people in other countries don't ever get the chance to miss the point, and that's tragic. The East Timorese are so busy fleeing for their lives, they never have the chance to go to the supermarket during the busiest time of the week and complain to the cashier about how long the lines are and ask them why they don't do something about it."</blockquote></span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> Here's a refreshing case of common sense and reason transcending partisanship: <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/occupywallstreet/comments/kyjo2/an_open_letter_a" target="_blank">An open letter and warning from a former tea party movement adherent to the Occupy Wall Street movement.</a> <strike>Naturally, the author is anonymous (as far as I can tell).</strike> By <a href="http://vaslittlecrow.com/" target="_blank">Reverend Vas Littlecrow Wojtanowicz</a>.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b> By all means, leave a comment if you think I'm wrong, but it's a myth that big corporations are anti-government, right? They don't want to have to compete in a free market, they want to "compete" in an artificially restricted market.</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com221tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-77176242430998243232011-10-04T14:32:00.002-04:002012-03-20T23:45:11.620-04:00Alright, Fine, I’ll Add a Disclaimer to My EmailsFor reasons probably related to the fact that I'm now one of them, I've been involved in more and more email exchanges with lawyers lately. Their emails often include fancy disclaimers,<a href="#fn71"><sup>[1]</sup></a> while mine are just out there, naked and vulnerable, which made me self-conscious, so I decided to write a disclaimer of my own. I was rather happy with the result, so I sent it in to McSweeney's, where it was recently published:<br />
<a href="http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/alright-fine-ill-add-a-disclaimer-to-my-emails" target="_blank"><b>Alright, Fine, I’ll Add a Disclaimer to My Emails.</b></a><br />
<br />
What does this have to do with politics and political discourse? Um…I'm still working on that. In the meantime, so that this post isn't <i>entirely</i> an exercise in self-promotion, I thought I'd link to some of my all-time favorite McSweeney's pieces:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/what-your-favorite-classic-rock-band-says-about-you" target="_blank">What Your Favorite Classic Rock Band Says About You.</a><br />
And by all means, check out the <a href="http://www.mcsweeneys.net/authors/john-peck" target="_blank">follow-ups</a> too.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/an-open-letter-to-the-person-in-charge-of-new-punctuation" target="_blank">An Open Letter to the Person in Charge of New Punctuation.</a><br />
Probably the most compelling punctuation-related proposal I've ever seen (and there's more competition than you'd think).<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/straight-answers-to-some-popular-rhetorical-riddles" target="_blank">Straight Answers to Some Popular Rhetorical Riddles</a><br />
"<i>If the police arrest a mime, do they tell him he has the right to remain silent?</i> Only if the police intend to question the mime."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/thirty-nine-questions-for-charlie-daniels-upon-hearing-the-devil-went-down-to-georgia-for-the-first-time-in-25-years" target="_blank">Thirty-Nine Questions for Charlie Daniels Upon Hearing “The Devil Went Down to Georgia” for the First Time in 25 Years.</a><br />
Actually, just go to John Moe's <a href="http://www.mcsweeneys.net/authors/john-moe" target="_blank">author page</a>. It's all outstanding.<br />
<br />
And, of course, Kevin Collier's <a href="http://www.mcsweeneys.net/columns/get-to-know-an-internet-commenter" target="_blank">Get to Know an Internet Commenter</a> series, which I'm a little upset I didn't think of myself.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b><a name="fn71"></a> To be fair, some of these disclaimers, like the one about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_230" target="_blank">tax advice</a>, are legally required in certain situations. I know very little about how that particular disclaimer came to be, or whether it's an effective solution to an extant problem, but the government probably knows what it's doing, right?</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-18121916113181340772011-09-22T11:53:00.003-04:002012-03-20T23:45:46.910-04:00There's Another Debate Tonight, and This Time the Guy I Like Is In ItWhat's this, a post that's just a link to a thing, with no additional commentary? That's right. I don't normally do this,<a href="#fn70"><sup>[1]</sup></a> but I'm making an exception in order to help spread the word about Gary Johnson, who has managed to <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/20/gary-johnson-to-participate-in-first-gop-debate.html" target="_blank">claw his way into tonight's debate</a>,<a href="#fn70"><sup>[2]</sup></a> hosted and televised by Fox News:<br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">Gary Johnson, the Republican presidential candidate who has labored in obscurity, is about to get his moment in the spotlight—for one night, at least.<br />
<br />
Johnson will be included in Thursday's Fox News debate in Orlando, the first time he will share a stage with his eight rivals—over the objections of the Florida Republican Party.</blockquote>Take that, The Man!<br />
<br />
Anyway, Johnson is my favorite Republican candidate, so I figured calling attention to this debate is (slightly more than) the least I can do. And I felt the need to do <i>something</i>, since I just devoted two <a href="http://howconservativesdrovemeaway.blogspot.com/2011/09/ron-paul-media-and-dangerous-opioids.html" target="_blank">whole</a> <a href="http://howconservativesdrovemeaway.blogspot.com/2011/09/ron-paul-vs-lamestream-media.html" target="_blank">articles</a> to my second-favorite Republican candidate.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b><a name="fn70"></a> Not that I have anything against blogs that generate a lot of content in the hey-here's-a-link-to-a-thing format—some of them are among my favorites—but it's just not a style I'm comfortable with, in large part because I know I wouldn't be able to stick with it.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> Are these debates—now occurring at a rate of roughly two per month, and we're still 11 months away from the convention—becoming a chore to keep track of? Absolutely. Is there a detailed chart on Wikipedia that does most of the work for you? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_debates,_2012#Debates_and_attendance" target="_blank">Of course there is.</a></span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-15565827532251675482011-09-16T17:24:00.003-04:002012-03-20T23:46:57.682-04:00Ron Paul vs. The Lamestream MediaI've posted a number of articles here that reflect my lack of tolerance for accusations of media bias. Even setting aside the frequency with which the "Bias!" label is thrown at opinions, predictions, jokes, and other things clearly not intended to be objective, I tend to find the discussions surrounding media bias more redundant and distracting than constructive. <i>Of course</i> the media is biased—the liberal media has a liberal bias, and the conservative media has a conservative bias.<a href="#fn69-1"><sup>[1]</sup></a> The liberal media is larger and more pervasive, while the conservative media is louder and more knowingly partisan, so it seems like it roughly cancels out, and regardless they're both pretty terrible at doing the important things we (naively?) expect the media to do.<br />
<br />
Even worse, a lot of complaints of media bias are actually cases of the Sarah Palin Paradox (I just now made up the name, but it's something I wrote about <a href="http://howconservativesdrovemeaway.blogspot.com/2011/04/sarah-palin-vs-lamestream-media.html" target="_blank">back in April</a>), which goes like this: If you're capable, via the printed word or some form of electronic transmission, of making it widely known that you feel your voice is being suppressed by the media, then your voice is no longer being suppressed, for you have in fact <i>used</i> the media to amplify it. And if you're capable of making it widely known that you feel your message is being distorted, then your message is no longer being distorted, for you have used the media to clarify it.<br />
<br />
I say all this primarily to establish some credibility. Now, when I spend the rest of this article doing exactly what I can't stand—griping about media bias—it should be that much more meaningful. Or hypocritical.<br />
<br />
Anyway, <a href="http://howconservativesdrovemeaway.blogspot.com/2011/09/ron-paul-media-and-dangerous-opioids.html" target="_blank">last week</a> I wrote about a question Ron Paul was asked in whichever of the last half dozen Republican debates was moderated by Chris Wallace: "Are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty?" Paul's response—that things like that should be decided at the state level, and, by the way, maybe we should have more faith in our ability to not do things that are dangerous, regardless of legality—was reported on with all the nuance and subtlety of a Michael Bay-directed action sequence. For example, here's a quote from a <i>Time</i> <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2071121,00.html" target="_blank">article</a> about Obama's re-election chances:<br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">[F]ive of the Republican candidates for President gathered in South Carolina for their first official debate. It was a weird show, newsworthy only because Congressman Ron Paul came out in favor of legalizing heroin, cocaine and prostitution.</blockquote>And an <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-debate-no-grown-ups-edition/2011/05/06/AFGpl16F_story.html" target="_blank">editorial</a> by Dana Milbank of the <i>Washington Post</i>, which discussed the debate via the condescending premise that none of the "adults" attended, leaving the "juveniles" on their own:<br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">At Thursday night’s debate in South Carolina, Libertarian Rep. Ron Paul explained why heroin and prostitution should be legal and why the Department of Homeland Security should be eliminated.</blockquote>And a <a href="http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/05/extreme-ron-paul-president-2012" target="_blank">Mother Jones piece</a> listing "Ron Paul's 15 Most Extreme Positions":<br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;"><b>7. Let the Oldest Profession Be:</b> Paul wants to legalize prostitution at the federal level.<br />
<b>8. Legalize All Drugs:</b> Including cocaine and heroin.</blockquote>As I pointed out last week, Paul didn't argue for legalization; he argued for leaving it up to the states, which is very different, but whatever. The knee-jerk reaction to the idea of legalizing heroin makes a little bit of sense to me, as far as knee-jerk reactions go (talk about setting the bar low), but the righteous indignation over prostitution couldn't be more absurd, because prostitution <i>is</i> legal at the federal level. Apparently it never occurred to these journalists to ask themselves (or, even better, a knowledgeable bystander) just what the hell is going on in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada" target="_blank">Nevada</a>.<a href="#fn69-2"><sup>[2]</sup></a><br />
<br />
So there's your media bias. A Republican presidential candidate—who, it should be noted, is doing alright in the polls—is widely ridiculed for, really, nothing. Especially in terms of the prostitution issue, where he merely offered an unemphatic defense of the legal status quo. And he wasn't even the one who brought it up.<br />
<br />
Fortunately, there's a watchdog group out there combating anti-conservative bias with so much zealotry, they've been known to confuse bias with the mere asking of a difficult question.<a href="#fn69-3"><sup>[3]</sup></a> Here's what <a href="http://newsbusters.org/" target="_blank">NewsBusters</a> had to say about the media's treatment of Ron Paul after that debate:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">[…chirp…chirp…]</blockquote>That's right, nothing.<a href="#fn69-4"><sup>[4]</sup></a> And nothing from Media Matters either. Or Politifact. Or just about anyone else. The most prominent media outlet I can find that consistently sticks up for Paul's more socially libertarian views is <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/16/progressives-vs-ron-pauls-supp" target="_blank">Reason.com</a>, which is one of my favorite sites, but it's not exactly a media juggernaut.<br />
<br />
Remember the Sarah Palin Paradox from earlier? How her portrayal of herself as the victim of an antagonistic media is undermined by her success in cultivating that image? Ron Paul <i>is</i> the person she's pretending to be. He's the one who says things the "lamestream media" doesn't want you to hear. He's the one who has to take his message straight to the people, because the media can't be bothered to simply report the facts fairly and objectively. He's the one whose voice is being suppressed.<a href="#fn69-5"><sup>[5]</sup></a> And does he spend even half as much time complaining about how he's treated?<br />
<br />
Really, I'm asking. Does he? If he does, I never hear about it.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b> <a name="fn69-1"></a>That people can't seem to agree on even that much is an endless source of frustration. As is the closely-related inability to recognize that whatever your favorite source of commentary happens to be, it's still almost definitely biased in some way or another. In fact, that's probably why you like it.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> <a name="fn69-2"></a>This is as good a place as any to rant about Harry Reid's bizarre decision earlier this year to call on the legislators in his home state to <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2286405/" target="_blank">ban prostitution</a>:<br />
<blockquote>Describing a meeting he had with a firm that would have opened a data center in the state—"a move that would have created desperately needed jobs"—Reid said the executives balked because prostitution remains legal in Nevada. <br />
<br />
"Nevada needs to be known as the first place for innovation and investment—not as the last place where prostitution is still legal," he continued. "When the nation thinks about Nevada, it should think about the world's newest ideas and newest careers—not about its oldest profession."</blockquote>So…the way to create jobs is to shut down an industry that employs thousands of people and exists (legally) only in Nevada, thereby enticing a handful of (possibly fictional) investors who want to do business in a place that's just like the other 49 states, except more desert-y. Whatever Reid's ulterior motive was (and I'm sure he had one, because there's no other reason to lazily advocate something with no chance of happening), I hope it backfired.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b> <a name="fn69-3"></a>For example, there was <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2011/01/06/baffled-vieira-bachmann-why-vote-repeal-obamacare-if-its-going-get" target="_blank">this</a> NewsBusters' article from January, which I had started to write about, but then the Tucson shooting happened and made it seem even more pointless than usual:<br />
<blockquote>NBC's Meredith Vieira seemed baffled by the concept of taking a principled stand against Obamacare, as she repeatedly pressed Michele Bachmann, on Thursday's Today show, why Republicans would bother to vote to repeal the health care bill in the House if it wasn't going to get passed in the Senate or signed by the President? Vieira's very first question to the Republican Minnesota Congresswoman set the aggressive tone for the entire interview as she demanded: <b>"Given the fact that the Democratic-led Senate will never go for that and the President has veto power, why make that the first big thing on your plate?"</b></blockquote>So…House efforts to repeal healthcare reform were virtually guaranteed to have no tangible effect, which raises the obvious question of why House Republicans felt this was a worthwhile use of their time. It's not bias that Vieira asked Bachmann to defend the repeal effort. It would've been unprofessional <i>not</i> to ask. (Bachmann's defense of the repeal, in part: "Because it's not symbolic. It's real." She keeps using that word, "real". I do not think it means what she thinks it means.)</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>4.</b> <a name="fn69-4"></a>Granted, NewsBusters is supportive of Paul from time to time, like <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/09/13/chris-matthews-falsely-accuses-ron-paul-saying-he-d-let-someone-witho" target="_blank">after the most recent debate</a>:<br />
<blockquote>On Tuesday, Chris Matthews wrongly accused Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul of saying during the previous evening's debate he would let a critically ill person die if the patient didn't have health insurance.<br />
…<br />
Exactly how does Matthews and others on his so-called "news" network continue to get away with such blatant misrepresentations?</blockquote>So…it's not like they refuse to come to Paul's defense altogether. They just don't do it unless they agree with him. Have I mentioned before that the overall level of respectability of America's various media watchdog organizations is distressingly low? (<a href="http://howconservativesdrovemeaway.blogspot.com/2011/04/who-watches-watchdog.html" target="_blank">Yes, I have.</a>)</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>5.</b> <a name="fn69-5"></a>Wow, I tried to hold it together, but it's really hard to complain about the media without sounding like a crazy person. Let me try those last three sentences again: <i>He's the one who says things that, while defensible, are out of the mainstream, and thus not conducive to the simplified reporting people have grown accostomed to. He's the one who has to rely less on traditional media and more on Internet-facilitated grassroots organizing, which, even in this increasingly digital age, probably puts him at something of a disadvantage. He's the one whose voice is being…well, not suppressed, really, but a little harder to find than it should be.</i> Is that better?</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-20777642278709600242011-09-09T11:13:00.001-04:002012-03-20T23:47:51.450-04:00Ron Paul, the Media, and Dangerous OpioidsAs a libertarian with a wide range of opinions on both stuff and things, I suppose it's a little odd that I've never talked about Ron Paul here (a site search brings up only one reference, and it was very much in passing). I don't know why that is. My best guess is that I rarely find him objectionable enough to write about, but I have too many reservations to really get on board with his campaign. Also, his supporters have a reputation for being obsessive, Internet-savvy lunatics. I'm not sure this reputation is entirely undeserved. (Prove me wrong, lunatics!)<br />
<br />
But screw it, those aren't good reasons, and so far his presidential candidacy has been way too interesting to ignore, so brace yourselves, because here comes a two-part series about Ron Paul. If it helps, part one is about drugs and part two is about sex, sort of. Both parts, in keeping with my commitment to timeliness and big picture analysis, are about a brief exchange from a <a href="http://ronpaulbloomingtonnormal.com/gop-presidential-debate-may-5-2011" target="_blank">debate</a> that happened over four months ago:<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: #cc0000;"><b>Chris Wallace:</b> Are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty?</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b>Ron Paul:</b> Well, you know, I never used those words. You probably put those words someplace, but, yes, in essence if I leave it up to the states, it’s going to be up to the states. Up until this past century, you know, for over 100 years they were legal. What you’re inferring is, “You know what, if we legalize heroin tomorrow, everybody’s going to use heroin.” How many people here would use heroin if it was legal? I bet nobody would… “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws!”</span></blockquote>Wallace threw prostitution into the mix just for fun, but it was heroin that caught a very small portion of the media's attention. Here are some of the points made over and over, all in the name of providing fair and accurate coverage of Paul's debate performance, by reporters and commentators in bizarro world:<br />
<ul><li>He didn't say heroin should be legal, he said its legality should be decided by each state rather than the federal government. Which state do people think is eager to legalize heroin? Besides California, obviously.</li>
<li>He's not campaigning on this. There's nothing about heroin on his <a href="http://www.ronpaul2012.com" target="_blank">website</a>, and, as far as I can tell, he's never mentioned it in any context other than answering a direct question.<a href="#fn68"><sup>[1]</sup></a></li>
<li>He's not necessarily wrong.<a href="#fn68"><sup>[2]</sup></a></li>
</ul><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22ron+paul%22+heroin" target="_blank">In this universe</a>, however, it was all "Ron Paul wants to legalize heroin!" and "that's enough of that, let's talk about Rick Perry now."<br />
<br />
So what should Paul have done differently? He could've lied. He could've given the answer Romney, Bachmann, or Perry would give if they were asked a question like this (which, it should be noted, has never happened). <i>Oh, no, of course heroin shouldn't be legal. It's dangerous.</i> But he won't say that because it's not what he believes. Just as importantly, everyone who understands libertarianism knows it's not what he believes.<br />
<br />
That's the thing about having an ideology—there aren't going to be any major surprises. I could come up with a question none of the Republican candidates have ever weighed in on—like, say, whether the FCC should regulate the obstacles on <i>Wipeout</i>,<a href="#fn68"><sup>[3]</sup></a> which have very gradually evolved from "looks fun, I'd go on that show" to "holy shit, they're actually <i>trying</i> to break her neck!"—and with most of them, I have no idea how they'd answer. Would one of the frontrunners defend the rights of business owners without really sounding sincere about it? Or throw around terms like "wholesome" and "values" in a muddled critique of reality TV? Or somehow turn it into a question about job creation? I have my guesses, but the point is, until the question is asked and answered, I don't know. I already know Ron Paul's answer, because I know how his ideology works. And if he said something he didn't really believe, I'd be able to tell. How is that a bad thing?<br />
<br />
And yet, as Chris Wallace made abundantly clear in that debate, it totally is. You're just asking to be confronted by the extremes of your ideology. It doesn't matter that those extremes are such a low priority as to be politically irrelevant, and it definitely doesn't matter that your views aren't indefensible, you're still forced to choose between alienating your most devoted supporters or repelling the rest of the voting public. Mitt Romney never has to make that choice, because he has no ideology.<br />
<br />
One of the criticisms I've made of Ron Paul is that he doesn't do a great job of making libertarianism sound reasonable to non-libertarians, and I still think he could do better,<a href="#fn68"><sup>[4]</sup></a> but it's becoming increasingly clear that there's a lot more going on, and not all of it is within his control.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.<a name="fn68"></a></b> As far as I can tell, the "Ron Paul wants to legalize heroin" thing first became a medium-size deal in 2007, when John Stossel interviewed Paul for <i>20/20</i>. The interview was made available online, but never aired on television. The reason for this, depending on who you ask, is either that Paul had a sizeable Internet following at the time but was <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3970423&page=1" target="_blank">relatively unknown</a> otherwise, or that The Man <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-simon/abc-exiles-ron-paul-inter_b_76206.html" target="_blank">doesn't want you to hear</a> what Ron Paul has to say. Because when The Man wants something suppressed, he puts it on the Internet where anyone can see it at any time, including <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M" target="_blank">right now</a>, almost four years later, and from probably unauthorized sources, since The Man apparently can't be bothered to enforce his rights under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> I'm getting a headache just thinking about what this footnote would turn into if I tried to be thorough, so I'm going to limit it to two over-simplified points. First, consider marijuana, which should be legal for more reasons than I can keep track of. The only arguments for legalizing pot that don't translate over to heroin are those having to do with pot being relatively harmless compared to other drugs. So, if we can agree that marijuana legalization makes sense (and we're getting close), then the heroin debate should be about how much it matters that heroin is more addictive and more dangerous. It does matter, obviously, but enough to overcome everything else?<br />
Second, I'd just like to point out that there has been approximately one (1) time in American history that the federal government claimed a broad new power, only to have that power rescinded by popular demand after everyone collectively realized they had made a huge mistake. It involved prohibition of a drug. Meanwhile, there have been approximately zero (0) times in American history that the federal government prohibited a drug, and then all the problems associated with it went away. So how about we stop acting like it's insane to suggest that drug prohibition doesn't work?</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b> I'm pretty sure the FCC doesn't have that power, but it's more than a little distressing that I can't say so with more confidence. If nothing else, it's not clear to me how the Big Balls pass the "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California" target="_blank">test</a>.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>4.</b> You know who's better than Ron Paul at making libertarianism sound reasonable? <a href="http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/" target="_blank">Gary Johnson</a>.</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-52278640016999335552011-08-31T09:25:00.002-04:002012-03-20T23:48:53.040-04:00Prosecutorial DiscretionNobody really knows how many unauthorized aliens are in the United States, but most studies put the number in the 10-12 million range.<a href="#fn67"><sup>[1]</sup></a> What we do know is that the deportation rate is currently at an all-time high—about 400,000 per year. Meanwhile, estimates suggest that, even accounting for deportations and voluntary departures, the unauthorized alien population has been increasing at a rate of about 500,000 a year.<br />
<br />
In other words, we're clearly well on our way to resolving the problem. If current trends continue, by my rough calculation, we should have immigration under control right around the time the sun becomes a red giant and destroys all life on Earth.<br />
<br />
However, if we want a solution that might take <i>less</i> than five billion years, we can, in broad terms, do one or more of the following:<br />
<ol><li>Grant some form of general or limited amnesty.<a href="#fn67"><sup>[2]</sup></a></li>
<li>Commit more resources to deportation efforts and border protection.<a href="#fn67"><sup>[3]</sup></a></li>
<li>Allow the economy to degrade to the point that the problem takes care of itself.</li>
</ol>#1 <a href="http://howconservativesdrovemeaway.blogspot.com/2010/08/amnesty.html" target="_blank">isn't going to happen</a> <a href="http://howconservativesdrovemeaway.blogspot.com/2010/12/opponents-of-dream-act-evil-or-stupid.html" target="_blank">anytime soon</a>. #2 might be theoretically possible, but lately Congress has been rather stingy about throwing money around. Honestly, #3 is most likely to work, and is probably why the rate of illegal immigration appears to have slowed in recent years, but let's assume nobody wants to go any further down that route. So we're stuck with the deadly-ball-of-hydrogen plan for now.<br />
<br />
That being the case, it would make sense for the Obama administration to put some thought into how they allocate their limited resources. If one alien is a convicted rapist, and another is a college student with above-average grades and no criminal record who was brought to the U.S. by his parents at age 10, they may be equally deportable under the law, but I think it's obvious who the taxpayers want the government to deal with first. Two weeks ago, the White House <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/18/immigration-update-maximizing-public-safety-and-better-focusing-resources" target="_blank">announced just such a policy</a>:<br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">Under the President’s direction, for the first time ever the Department of Homeland Security has prioritized the removal of people who have been convicted of crimes in the United States. And they have succeeded; in 2010 DHS removed 79,000 more people who had been convicted of a crime compared to 2008. Today, they announced that they are strengthening their ability to target criminals even further by making sure they are not focusing our resources on deporting people who are low priorities for deportation. This includes individuals such as young people who were brought to this country as small children, and who know no other home. It also includes individuals such as military veterans and the spouses of active-duty military personnel.</blockquote>While the long-term effects of the new policy remain unclear, the immediate consequence was undoubtedly a heap of torn menisci and strained ACLs, given the intensity with which knees were jerked:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">This step by the White House amounts to a <a href="http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=24343" target="_blank">complete abrogation of the President's duty</a> to enforce the laws of the land and a huge breach of the public trust. Never, in the history of federal immigration enforcement, has an administration willfully and so egregiously usurped Congress's and the people's role to decide immigration issues. In essence, the administration has declared that U.S. immigration is now virtually unlimited to anyone willing to try to enter and only those who commit violent felonies after arrival are subject to enforcement.</blockquote><center>—————</center><blockquote><span style="color: #cc0000;">What if citizens would stop paying taxes, or refuse to participate in Social Security? If the executive branch can <a href="http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/08/18/i-refuse-to-obey-the-law/" target="_blank">countermand a law of Congress</a>, why can’t the voters – those who grant Congress its authority – do the same?</span><a href="#fn67"><sup>[4]</sup></a></blockquote><center>—————</center><blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">President Obama is <a href="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/08/19/usurpation_of_congress_amnesty_granted_to_millions_of_illegal_aliens" target="_blank">once again over-extending his hand</a> to implement his political agenda previously struck down by Congress. The message to those thinking about coming to the United States illegaly is clear: come here, break the law by entering the United States, a sovereign country, without permission, use public services while burdening American taxpayers while not paying into the system, burden our schools and health care system, all without consequences to the illegal immigrant population.</blockquote><center>—————</center><blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">An increasingly desperate Barack Hussein Obama, in a <a href="http://rightwingnews.com/immigration/treason/" target="_blank">treasonous attempt to pander to foreigners</a> at the obvious expense of America’s interests and security, has imposed amnesty for illegal aliens by fiat.</blockquote>Aside from a few basic points of grammatical structure, almost all of that is wrong. It's not amnesty—no one is being legally absolved of their transgressions. It's not a usurpation of Congress—all immigration laws remain in effect, and all aliens who find themselves deportable under those laws are just as deportable today as they were two weeks ago. And it's not unconstitutional—the executive branch is perfectly within its power to decide <i>how</i> to enforce a law, especially when equal enforcement across the board is a practical impossibility. If anything, it's silly that this wasn't already the policy.<br />
<br />
What does it say about our collective understanding of immigration that Obama does something not only reasonable on its face, but also likely to address and alleviate one of the more incendiary conservative talking points (i.e. that "illegals" are a bunch of dangerous criminals), and this is the reaction he gets? I wouldn't even call it a backlash, because it's too ill-informed. It's just an excuse. People care enough about immigration to react emotionally, but not quite enough to demand analysis that at least borders on honest and fair, which gives commentators free reign to ignore reality and be as vitriolic as they want.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.<a name="fn67"></a></b> Bear Stearns conducted a study that put the number at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States#Remittances_to_Mexico" target="_blank">over 20 million</a>. This is because the researchers made their "Money Ball" shot, which makes the results count double.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> Of course, many would argue that "amnesty" would be entirely counter-productive, as it creates a precedent that will lead to increased illegal immigration in the future. I'm not going to get into that now, except to make the point that, as is so often the case, it's probably <a href="http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2009/wilson120809.html" target="_blank">not that simple</a>.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b> I suppose there's always a case to be made for doing <i>more</i>, but this recent <i>Washington Post</i> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/scare-tactics-on-the-border/2011/08/12/gIQANC68LJ_story.html" target="_blank">editorial</a> makes the case that our border is considerably more secure than Republicans make it out to be. I highly recommend reading it, because it reinforces what I already believe.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>4.</b> A little off-topic, but here's the best part of that RedState article, and by best I mean most infuriating:<br />
<blockquote>Secretary of Homeland Insecurity Janet Napolitano proclaimed in a letter to the Senate that she will suspend deportation proceedings and grant amnesty to those who ostensibly fit the criteria of the Dream Act – a bill that was defeated with overwhelming bipartisan support of Congress.</blockquote>In December 2010 the DREAM Act was passed by the House, 216-198. It was subsequently rejected by the Senate, 41-55. That's 41 voting <i>against</i> passage—or, more precisely, against cloture, because the filibuster has morphed from a rarely-seen act of desperation into a thing that we just have to deal with now.<br />
There are 535 members of Congress. Fewer than half of them (45%) voted against the DREAM Act. Of the Democrats in Congress at the time, only 14% voted no, compared to 89% of Republicans. And this is "overwhelming bipartisan support" for rejecting the bill. It must be a lot easier to write when you don't care what words mean.</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-23062411352483458582011-08-19T11:02:00.001-04:002012-03-20T23:50:43.439-04:00The "Evil Rich"I was skimming over one of Neal Boortz's recent <a href="http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/aug/11/those-evil-rich-people" target="_blank">diatribes</a> on the subject of class warfare—skimming, not reading, because I've seen it all before, but he said something a few paragraphs in that caught my attention (emphasis added):<br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">Let’s take a moment to look at these selfish, cold-hearted rich people, shall we? In November of 2010, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch released a study on philanthropy among high net worth households .. or <b>as the progs like to call them, the evil rich.</b></blockquote>My immediate impulse wasn't to wonder if he's wrong, but to wonder just <i>how wrong</i> he is. I did a Google search for "evil rich" (in quotation marks),<a href="#fn66"><sup>[1]</sup></a> and I scanned through page after page of results until finally, at hit #68, I found the first non-facetious use of the term. It's a <a href="http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/forum/index.php?id=138705" target="_blank">post</a> on a forum called Surfing the Apocalypse, arguing (sincerely, as far as I can tell) for some sort of class action suit "against the evil rich people to stop them from doing the evil deeds they do to everyone else."<br />
<br />
Pressing on, I found one more at #90: A <a href="http://vnboards.ign.com/outpost/b22180/115190362/p1" target="_blank">post</a> on a gaming forum that refers to Rupert Murdock as a "Super evil rich guy".<br />
<br />
And…that's it for the top 100.<a href="#fn66"><sup>[2]</sup></a> Two. Neither of which come from sites overflowing with influence and credibility, to put it politely. In the remaining 98 results—excepting a four-year-old <i>New York Post</i> <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/item_027ffd7EWwBKRJw5iPnwaM" target="_blank">article</a> about the arrest of an "evil rich" Syrian arms dealer (who, by all accounts, is in fact both evil and rich), a handful of cases where "evil" ends a sentence and "rich" begins the next, and one baffling LinkedIn <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/evil-rich/A/84A/240" target="_blank">profile</a>—the term is used exactly as Boortz used it. Not to denounce the wealthy for perceived immorality, but to mock and criticize those who support progressive policies.<br />
<br />
Moving on to a more inherently political setting, I found four cases of the term being used on the House or Senate floor in the last 20 years. One is off-topic for the same reason as that <i>Post</i> article.<a href="#fn66"><sup>[3]</sup></a> Here are the other three:<br />
<blockquote>Representative Jack Kingston (R-GA), Dec. 20, 1995<br />
<span style="color: #cc0000;">Here are 89 percent of the people in America who will benefit from the $500 per child tax credit, and almost 90 percent have a family income of $75,000 or less. These are the rich people. So I guess what the extreme left is telling us is that if you make $75,000 or less, as the gentleman from California said, if you got a job, they do not like you. You are one of those big, bad, <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1995-12-20/pdf/CREC-1995-12-20-pt2-PgH15313.pdf#page=2" target="_blank">evil rich</a>.</span></blockquote><blockquote>Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL), July 22, 1997<br />
<span style="color: #cc0000;">Madam Speaker, the Republican Congress has passed real tax relief for all middle-class taxpayers at every stage of their lives, from child tax credits to estate tax reform. We are doing the right thing. Meanwhile, the President is trying to change the debate with this new `imputed rental income formula.' But the truth is in the numbers; and no amount of imagined, imputed income will turn hard-working middle-class Americans into what the President calls the <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1997-07-22/pdf/CREC-1997-07-22-pt1-PgH5493-6.pdf#page=2" target="_blank">evil rich</a>.</span></blockquote><blockquote>Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), July 29, 2011<br />
<span style="color: #cc0000;">To suggest that a debt crisis triggered by $14.3 trillion in debt can be fixed by taxing the luxuries of <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-07-29/pdf/CREC-2011-07-29-pt1-PgS5057.pdf#page=4" target="_blank">evil rich</a> people is so childish and lacking in seriousness that the President should have been called out on it immediately. But he wasn't. He was allowed to get away with it.</span></blockquote>All Republicans, all conservative, all mocking their ideological opponents—none of whom, as far as I can tell, actually called rich people evil. So yeah, I think Boortz is wrong. It's a little overwhelming, really, how flagrantly wrong he is. And I haven't even brought up <a href="http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2009/jul/07/global-warming-and-the-evil-rich/" target="_blank">all</a> <a href="http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2010/jun/23/tax-increases-cometh-and-not-just-for-the-evil-ric/" target="_blank">the</a> <a href="http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2010/jul/21/cant-rich-peoples-money-stimulate-the-economy/" target="_blank">times</a> <a href="http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2010/oct/08/evil-rich-hogging-the-pie/" target="_blank">the</a> <a href="http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2010/oct/18/tax-those-evil-rich-people/" target="_blank">phrase</a> <a href="http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2010/oct/28/evil-rich-versus-the-poor-students/" target="_blank">has</a> <a href="http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2010/dec/02/evil-rich/" target="_blank">been</a> <a href="http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/jan/14/just-what-your-state-needs-more-taxes/" target="_blank">used</a> by Boortz himself on his own site.<br />
<br />
Not to get all this-seemingly-minor-thing-is-a-microcosm-of-a-much-more-serious-problem here, but this seemingly minor thing is a microcosm of a much more serious problem. And it's not the shameless strawmanning—that's just a regular-size problem. The bigger problem is that I'm not sure conservatives even realize they're doing it anymore. It's like they've forgotten that these strawmen aren't real.<br />
<br />
Liberals, for their part, portray conservatives as inhabitants of a fantasy world where the free market always works and the rich are always job creators, and that's not entirely fair either, but it shouldn't be overlooked that the demons conservatives do battle with are often imaginary. Nor should it be overlooked that they created these demons in order to condemn the politics of class warfare—that is, the politics of fostering divisiveness by demonizing those who are different.<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.<a name="fn66"></a></b> Could I have reached more meaningful conclusions by opening up the searches to slight variations in the phrasing? Probably, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to go down that rabbit hole, and I doubt the results would have been substantially different.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> I thought I had another one with hit #70, a <a href="http://www.city-data.com/forum/minneapolis-st-paul/1282637-i-thought-minneapolis-progressive-city-evil.html" target="_blank">post</a> on a Minneapolis-St. Paul forum:<br />
<blockquote>This evil rich man has a mansion and his kids are long grown and out. He has an indoor pool that doesn't get used. So this past weekend my sister's kids wanted to go swimming so I drove all the way to Orono to use this man's pool. We get to the door and he sees us with our floats and says "what the F#ck?" right in front of the kids. I demanded since he is so rich that he needs to let us in to use his pool. We get into an argument and now the kids are crying. His wife called the police and they showed up like I was a bank robber.</blockquote>That's just part of an outlandish, implausible story that reeks not of progressivism, but of a narrow-minded conservative attempting to channel a progressive's thought process. Sure enough, later in the thread:<br />
<blockquote>Thank you to all that replied!<br />
<br />
This post was created as part of a study for my class. We were told to put up similar posts on random forums - in key business markets around the country to get reactions from the masses. <br />
<br />
When this was posted in business friendly areas (low taxes, right to work, etc) like major metro areas in AZ, FL, TX, TN, SC, etc, there was a far better rate of reply. More importantly those replies would immediately condemn the liberal entitlement mindset. . . . In areas like Minneapolis people are either to afraid to speak out against this persons illegal actions and entitled mindset, or sadly support it.</blockquote></span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b> According to Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ), the people who hunted down and killed bin Laden "sent a powerful message to any other <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-05-24/pdf/CREC-2011-05-24-pt1-PgH3388-2.pdf#page=7" target="_blank">evil rich</a> person that wants to target the United States of America that such targeting is an act of suicide." Like I said, not really what we're talking about here, though the reference to bin Laden's wealth does seem a bit superfluous. Would he have been treated differently if he had been poor?<br />
</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-2597498178755048672011-08-15T08:15:00.002-04:002012-06-21T00:21:40.930-04:00Country Music Round-Up: Iowa Straw Poll EditionIf there's one thing presidential candidates and pro wrestlers have in common, it's that they can't go anywhere without entrance music. Ok, there's more than one thing. There's also the hyperbolic rhetoric, the manufactured rivalries, the cultivation of a pre-determined public image, etc., but those are topics for another time, because the Iowa Straw Poll—the Royal Rumble of American politics—was held Saturday in Ames, Iowa. The candidates who were present had the chance to address the crowd—and provide an early look at their choices in entrance music.<a href="#fn65"><sup>[1]</sup></a> Let's see how they did.<br />
<br />
<b>Herman Cain: "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw" target="_blank">I Am America</a>" by Krista Branch</b><br />
In case you didn't know Herman Cain is positioning himself as the "Tea Party candidate":<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">Pay no attention to the people in the street<br />
Crying out for accountability<br />
Make a joke of what we believe<br />
Say we don’t matter ’cause you disagree<br />
Pretend you’re kings, sit on your throne<br />
Look down your nose at the peasants below<br />
I’ve got some news, we’re taking names<br />
We’re waiting now for the judgment day<br />
<br />
I am America, one voice, united we stand<br />
I am America, one hope to heal our land</blockquote>Aside from the fact that its title makes me think of Stephen Colbert's book, I don't have much of an opinion on this. As a protest song, it's not specific enough to be objectionable. If I want to hear about how those in power ignore the angry masses at their peril, I think I'll go with "For What It's Worth" or "The Times They Are a-Changin'".<br />
<br />
<b>Ron Paul: "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UodJB1tRNVE" target="_blank">America First</a>" by Merle Haggard</b><br />
Easily the boldest choice. "America First" is country legend/beloved ex-convict Merle Haggard's anti-Iraq War song (written in 2005, before a Democrat took office and it became acceptable for conservatives to criticize the war):<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">Why don't we liberate these United States<br />
We're the ones that need it worst<br />
Let the rest of the world help us for a change<br />
And let's rebuild America first<br />
<span style="color: #191919;">…</span><br />
Let's get out of Iraq and get back on the track<br />
And let's rebuild America first</blockquote>Where Herman Cain went with a vaguely-worded Tea Party-approved anthem, I'm impressed that Ron Paul's entrance music has lyrics that specifically endorse one of his more controversial views.<a href="#fn65"><sup>[2]</sup></a> There's also a line that rather beautifully articulates his overall message:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">God bless the army and God bless our liberty<br />
And dadgum the rest of it all</blockquote><br />
<b>Tim Pawlenty: Unidentified instrumental music</b><br />
Here's what I know about Tim Pawlenty: (a) he's seen as the dull candidate, and (b) he was the governor of…I'm going to say Indiana. That's it. And I don't even know if those things are true—I just know that Pawlenty <i>seems</i> so dull, I almost didn't bother to look up whether he's really from Indiana.<a href="#fn65"><sup>[3]</sup></a> (Spoiler alert: He's not.)<br />
<br />
What I'm saying is, the Ames speech was an opportunity to give people like me a reason to care. Naturally, he came to the stage accompanied by some boring instrumental piece. It seemed familiar, but I don't know what it was or where it was from, and don't especially care to find out. Just like Pawlenty.<br />
<br />
Oh, and apparently he <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/why-tim-pawlentys-campaign-never-took-off/243569/" target="_blank">withdrew</a> yesterday. Alright then.<br />
<br />
<b>Rick Santorum: No music</b><br />
Still more interesting than Pawlenty.<br />
<br />
<b>Michelle Bachmann: "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvlxRvhCB_A" target="_blank">A Little Less Conversation</a>" and "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oKR9MYYdBM" target="_blank">Promised Land</a>" by Elvis Presley</b><br />
In what I assume was an attempt to belatedly answer the "Elvis or Johnny Cash?" question she inexplicably dodged a few debates ago, Bachmann preceded her speech with Elvis's "A Little Less Conversation", which is about how much more tolerable women can be when they aren't talking:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">A little less conversation, a little more action please<br />
All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me<br />
A little more bite and a little less bark<br />
A little less fight and a little more spark<br />
Close your mouth and open up your heart and baby satisfy me</blockquote>Ignoring for now that it contains one of the more egregious non-words in songwriting history, or that "a little less fight and a little more spark" makes no sense, the biggest problem is that the song is a political cliché. According to Wikipedia, Howard Dean, John Kerry, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Sarah Palin have used it in past campaigns. And it's not even a lyrically-appropriate cliché. As a small-government conservative Bachmann should be in favor of less action, not more, and any reasonable observer of politics would contend that we need more conversation, not less.<br />
<br />
Bachmann was the only candidate to also provide her own exit music, in the form of Elvis's verson of Chuck Berry's "Promised Land", which tells the story of a mildly eventful trip from Virginia to California:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">I left my home in Norfolk, Virginia<br />
California on my mind<br />
I straddled that Greyhound<br />
And rode on into Raleigh<br />
And on across Caroline</blockquote>Other than further clearing up the aforementioned matter of <i>Presley v. Cash</i>, I'm pretty sure she picked this song for two reasons. First, because it mentions a lot of places—sometimes in folksy old-timey slang (Caroline, Alabam', Houston town, etc.)—and political campaigns involve going to a lot of places, just like in the song! Second, because "promised land" sounds religious, and also refers vaguely to some desired goal. Nevermind that the song's protagonist is traveling <i>away</i> from the White House, and that the "promised land" in question is, presumably, Hollywood. It kind of works if you shut off the part of your brain that parses phrases and sentences and makes syntactic inferences about overall meaning, and just listen to the words individually. Is that the kind of superficiality we can expect from a Bachmann presidency?<br />
<br />
Alright, fine, maybe I'm trying a little too hard to extract meaning from something entirely meaningless, but this is the Iowa Straw Poll we're dealing with, after all.<br />
<br />
<b>Grades</b><br />
Paul: B+<br />
Cain: C+<br />
Bachmann: D<br />
Pawlenty: <a href="http://the-op.com/ref/ee2.php?ep=110&pg=3#l91" target="_blank">Crocodile</a><br />
Santorum: F<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.<a name="fn65"></a></b> I've labeled this article as part of my <a href="http://howconservativesdrovemeaway.blogspot.com/search/label/country%20music%20round-up" target="_blank">Country Music Round-Up</a> series even though the candidates could theoretically have chosen music from any other genre, because <i>come on</i>, who are we kidding? Cain's is the only song that doesn't sound country, but it's definitely country in spirit.<br />
Also, since you asked, I'd probably go with…hm, it's hard to think of a non-cynical answer. But it'd be tough to talk me out of using Spinal Tap's "Gimme Some Money", or maybe Cream's "Politician" ("Hey now baby, get into my big black car/I wanna just show you what my politics are").</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> Not that Ron Paul is the only candidate in favor of reducing foreign entanglements, but he's certainly the most unequivocal about it. Regardless, by "controversial" I mean that it's something that can be argued with—and something that might actually cause him to lose a few votes—as opposed to generic platitudes about how America is great and politicians suck.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b> Pawlenty's Wikipedia page might have the least interesting "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Pawlenty#Personal_life" target="_blank">personal life</a>" section I've ever seen. It contains approximately four pieces of information:<br />
– He often goes by "T-Paw".<br />
– He didn't live in the Governor's Residence during his first term because his wife was a judge in nearby Dakota County and wasn't allowed to live outside her district.<br />
– His wife resigned as a judge to take a position with a Minneapolis-based dispute resolution company. Then, she left that job to work for <i>another</i> Minneapolis-based dispute resolution company.<br />
– He was raised Roman Catholic, but his wife is Baptist, so they now attend an interdenominational church.<br />
If you use the term extremely loosely, I suppose you could call the "T-Paw" thing interesting, but even then it's only because it's so stupid.</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45828217067311189.post-20411726227860742002011-07-21T15:53:00.001-04:002012-03-20T23:54:33.645-04:00Taking a Break From Having StandardsEverything I post to this blog comes with an implicit guarantee that I've made a sincere effort to base my thoughts, observations, and opinions on reality, rather than the other way around. I like to ridicule politicians and commentators when they say or do ridiculous things, but I want to be fair about it—a well-founded argument isn't worth much if the hundred that preceded it were entirely unfounded. Of course, the fact that so many politicians and commentators take the opposite approach is the reason I have anything to write about in the first place. The world they inhabit is a depressing wasteland of logical fallacies, non sequiturs, and ad hominen attacks, and the more we pay attention to it the dumber we get.<br />
<br />
It also looks like a lot of fun.<br />
<br />
It's not like I've never been tempted. For every idea that grows into a half-decent article, there's another that was promising at first—interesting, novel, maybe a little controversial—but ultimately had to be abandoned. Upon further investigation it becomes clear that what I thought was something is, in fact, nothing. To make it work I'd have to omit a key detail, take a quote out of context, blow something out of proportion, or simply make things up, and that's not the kind of blog I want this to be. But who says I need to have standards <i>all the time</i>? Would Sean Hannity let a fundamental flaw in his argument stop him from making it? Would Keith Olbermann? Hell no, they wouldn't.<br />
<br />
In that spirit I present, in somewhat abbreviated form, three of those discarded articles. And not the dull, respectable versions either, because starting <i>now</i>, and for the rest of this post,<a href="#fn64-1"><sup>[1]</sup></a> I will make no effort whatsoever to be fair.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">—————</div><br />
<b>Fox News Ignored the Republican Primary Debate</b><br />
These three screenshots were taken at exactly the same time (give or take 30 seconds) on June 13, 2011, about 20 minutes after the beginning of the Republican debate:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGh23wVYLF7ueJXYJhW8qtFPTQCQsu0WevU0bep9eXxA3iN2N8AgVxX1nL6qzN-cDJuhU-DOoTOn4uIYncBxz1i5SN1FW9Lds12r-KbUK7j47oKRanhRGgsHX7ZL1ITERYojcJtHXuxdU/s1600/debate+cnn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="294" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGh23wVYLF7ueJXYJhW8qtFPTQCQsu0WevU0bep9eXxA3iN2N8AgVxX1nL6qzN-cDJuhU-DOoTOn4uIYncBxz1i5SN1FW9Lds12r-KbUK7j47oKRanhRGgsHX7ZL1ITERYojcJtHXuxdU/s400/debate+cnn.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkv7TV1Xpgm8RTio-aCgovEK8JLS4-sgNHIFjJjDwucveoxpyVHzI5OftdElTs6qCAzricaskxdt6wjdhPVDRXguZpc4mI4XFOCianNCG7q8aQbmQGTEmMFRb9Rx_y2wIN7FYRK6V6qu4/s1600/debate+msnbc.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="324" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkv7TV1Xpgm8RTio-aCgovEK8JLS4-sgNHIFjJjDwucveoxpyVHzI5OftdElTs6qCAzricaskxdt6wjdhPVDRXguZpc4mI4XFOCianNCG7q8aQbmQGTEmMFRb9Rx_y2wIN7FYRK6V6qu4/s400/debate+msnbc.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZTFvlFW0Gq_MJI5qfb7C21VCzwS-I7_ymJ_xoJ_quEJUSuJbB6i1B3owOtSOpRw5Ebp-b1PqEohyZfxUa5eCl3VLN38hxofbMZdPPEkdIq7ZZx9pcwj6wO-msYStn8aljvrfitizBB4Q/s1600/debate+fox.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="319" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZTFvlFW0Gq_MJI5qfb7C21VCzwS-I7_ymJ_xoJ_quEJUSuJbB6i1B3owOtSOpRw5Ebp-b1PqEohyZfxUa5eCl3VLN38hxofbMZdPPEkdIq7ZZx9pcwj6wO-msYStn8aljvrfitizBB4Q/s400/debate+fox.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
Doesn't it seem like something's missing from that last one? And I'm not selectively cropping, by the way—there was no mention of the debate anywhere on the FoxNews.com main page. I also went to the "Politics" page, and there was hardly anything there either. Just a single <a href="http://video.foxnews.com/v/991615238001/gop-hopefuls-ready-to-battle/?playlist_id=86858" target="_blank">video</a>—kind of hidden away off to the side—in which a correspondent spends two and a half minutes previewing the debate and reporting some mathematically impossible poll results:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgf-KQXZft0zeVQq-bmVB6-eYveAb5XOQsyhQw2xVu3GCUvJw3qgxQpR9q12AILfE-GwN6-9PcjpS-dkaSEU44OExv-7tyDMU2fyQiMlpr6pZpe4-XV66g2mEcgb_rL2MzqG92jbDCs5Ss/s1600/debate+fox+video.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="298" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgf-KQXZft0zeVQq-bmVB6-eYveAb5XOQsyhQw2xVu3GCUvJw3qgxQpR9q12AILfE-GwN6-9PcjpS-dkaSEU44OExv-7tyDMU2fyQiMlpr6pZpe4-XV66g2mEcgb_rL2MzqG92jbDCs5Ss/s400/debate+fox+video.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
So why was Fox News ignoring the debate? I don't know, but my two-part guess is, first, they didn't want to promote a rival network (MSNBC, whose ratings coincidentally suck, apparently does not have that concern), and second, they were afraid the Republicans would embarrass themselves. The candidates were in hostile territory, after all—a debate hosted and televised by CNN. What if the questions didn't presuppose that Obama's economic and foreign policies are disastrous? What if they were forced to defend the non-sensical premise that every incremental increase in gay rights destroys America a little bit more? Or that building a wall on the border is a viable solution to anything?<a href="#fn64-2"><sup>[2]</sup></a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">—————</div><br />
<b>Sarah Palin Supports the Libyan Government</b><br />
It makes perfect sense that <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/James_Sinclair" target="_blank">I</a> follow <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/SarahPalinUSA" target="_blank">Sarah Palin</a> on Twitter, because I find them both oddly fascinating for reasons I can't explain without using the phrases "oddly fascinating" and "reasons I can't explain".<br />
<br />
In April, Palin posted a <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/SarahPalinUSA/status/61439204239998976" target="_blank">series</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/SarahPalinUSA/status/61439432884105217" target="_blank">of</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/SarahPalinUSA/status/61440425541636096" target="_blank">tweets</a> criticizing Obama's policy in Libya:<br />
<blockquote style="color: blue;">Libya deteriorates, Obama vacillates. Campaigner-in-Chief needs to justify why we're there or we shouldn't be there. Need to send world the</blockquote><blockquote style="color: blue;">message: we'll only intervene in anyone's business if we're dead serious:get in, hit hard, get out. Listen to McCain <a href="http://bit.ly/flJzCXUS" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/flJzCXUS</a></blockquote><blockquote style="color: blue;">At least on this 1, wish POTUS would hear McCain MT "@weeklystandard: Decries Timid Approach in Libya: B York reports: <a href="http://bit.ly/flJzCX" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/flJzCX</a>"</blockquote>Yeah, yeah, I completely agree with her points about Libya, and I was about to not give it a second thought, but then I noticed the links to the article about McCain. (Only the second link works; she broke the first one by adding "US" to the end, presumably in a misguided act of patriotism.)<br />
<br />
<i>.LY looks like a country code domain</i>, I thought to myself. But which country? Lyberia? Lychtynsteyn? Lynyrd Skyrgyzstan?<br />
<br />
Oh, right, it's Libya. Talk about sending mixed messages. Bit.ly isn't a Libyan company, but their URL means they're indirectly doing business with the Libyan government, and that means every time Palin tweets a bit.ly URL she's putting a few more dirhams in Qaddafi's pockets.<a href="#fn64-3"><sup>[3]</sup></a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">—————</div><br />
<b>Michelle Malkin is an Anchor Baby</b><br />
That's right. The person who wrote <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2003/07/04/what_makes_an_american/page/full/" target="_blank">this</a>:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #cc0000;">Clearly, the custom of granting automatic citizenship at birth to children of tourists and temporary workers such as Hamdi, tourists, and to countless "anchor babies" delivered by illegal aliens on American soil, undermines the integrity of citizenship -- not to mention national security. Originally intended to ensure the citizenship rights of newly freed slaves and their families after the Civil War, the citizenship clause has evolved into a magnet for alien lawbreakers and a shield for terrorist infiltrators and enemy combatants.<br />
<br />
If the courts refuse to close the birthright citizenship loopholes, Congress must. Citizenship is too precious to squander on accidental Americans in Name Only.</blockquote>…was born in the United States to Filipino parents who may or may not have had time to unpack between the airport and the delivery room. <a href="http://spiiderweb.blogspot.com/2006/04/michelle-malkin-anchor-baby.html" target="_blank">Really</a>.<br />
<br />
She's not a hypocrite, though, because she's not necessarily excluding herself from her own insulting rhetoric. Our <i>jus soli</i> policy "undermines the integrity of citizenship—not to mention national security", Malkin says. And given her long history of absurd fear-mongering and fact- and logic-impaired anti-immigrant screeds, I'd argue that Malkin has indeed done her part to undermine the integrity of citizenship—not to mention national security.<a href="#fn64-4"><sup>[4]</sup></a><br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>1.</b> <a name="fn64-1"></a>Not including the footnotes.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>2.</b> <a name="fn64-2"></a>I wasn't watching the debate when I took those screenshots, but I caught parts of it later, and, honestly, if Fox's position was that it wasn't newsworthy enough to make a big deal about, I can't argue. To borrow a phrase from Neal Boortz, the debate was little more than a <a href="http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/jun/14/gop-joint-news-conference" target="_blank">joint news conference</a>. Perhaps it wasn't <i>entirely</i> unnewsworthy—we learned, for example, that Rick Santorum prefers Jay Leno to Conan (of course he does), and that Michelle Bachmann can't decide between Elvis or Johnny Cash (the correct answer is Johnny Cash, the second-best answer is Elvis, the worst answer is "both")—but if the alternative to ignoring the debate is plastering it all over the main page like there was nothing else happening in the world, I vote for the former.<br />
And yeah, I'm sure Fox's coverage is a bit more expansive when <i>they</i> televise one of these debates, but they are a TV network, after all. And they hardly make it a secret that they want people to watch Fox News at all times—as you can see in the screenshot, any time you go to the FoxNews.com main page there are little boxes at the top indicating what's currently on the air, what's coming up next, and how you can watch whatever you just missed.<br />
As for the screwy poll results, there's a perfectly logical explanation for that one, too. I checked out the <a href="http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/primary2012_bg29.pdf" target="_blank">original data</a> (the relevant stuff is on p.23), and here's what seems to have happened: 13% of respondents said they haven't decided who they'll support, and 21% said they support a candidate outside the Romney/Giuliani/Paul/Palin/Bachmann top five. Fox lumped these two groups together under the label of "Undecided", because all those Cain/Gingrich/Huntsman/Johnson/Pawlenty/Roemer/Santorum/Someone Else supporters are really just kidding themselves. Then, they added 21 and 13 and got 76, because they're incompetent.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>3.</b> <a name="fn64-3"></a>I'm having trouble even pretending to get worked up about this one. The <a href="http://bit.ly" target="_blank">Bit.ly</a> people <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/21/technology/bitly_libya_service/index.htm" target="_blank">say</a> they aren't sure how much of their money has made its way to the Libyan government, but it's somewhere south of $75, which is the registration fee they paid to the non-profit corporation that runs these things.<br />
Maybe it still makes sense to take your URL-shortening business elsewhere as a matter of principle, but that slope is awfully slippery. We can all agree that Libya sucks, but what about, say, <a href="http://t.co" target="_blank">Colombia</a>? What about <a href="http://fb.me" target="_blank">Montenegro</a>? I don't even know anything about Montenegro. And before too long you'll find yourself making a qualitative comparison of <a href="http://is.gd" target="_blank">Grenada</a>, <a href="http://dot.tk" target="_blank">Tokelau</a>, and <a href="http://cli.gs" target="_blank">South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands</a>, at which point it's probably time to acknowledge that whatever principled statement you're trying to make is almost certainly not worth the trouble.</span></div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>4.</b> <a name="fn64-4"></a>Yes, Malkin was born to non-citizen parents who had just stepped off the plane, but there's no indication her parents were here illegally, or that they came to the U.S. specifically so their daughter would be a citizen.<br />
Oh, did I forget to mention above that Malkin's parents may have had permanent visas? Sorry about that. She's said before that her dad obtained a green card due to his medical training, and she was born right in the middle of the brief window in the late '60s and early '70s when the government made it substantially easier for foreign doctors to get visas. A high proportion of these doctors were from the Philippines and other Southeast Asian countries. Some came in on temporary work/study visas and later adjusted to permanent status, but most were issued green cards right off the bat.<br />
People who argue for doing away with birthright citizenship, including Malkin herself, are almost invariably talking about "illegals" and temporary visitors, not legal permanent residents (i.e. non-citizens with green cards)—they just don't always make the distinction with a whole lot of clarity. The premise that an "anchor baby" can help the parents obtain legal status, which is <a href="http://www.seattleimmigrationlawyerblog.com/2010/09/anchor-babies-and-the-14th-ame.html" target="_blank">largely bullshit</a> to begin with, isn't even relevant in the case of parents who are legal permanent residents already.</span></div>James Sinclairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10213045233649924060noreply@blogger.com1