The Three-Fifths Compromise

Last week, Ken Blackwell went off on two Washington Post writers for saying the Constitution condoned slavery, which is precisely what it did. While he was at it, he also lodged a few complaints about the way they discussed the three-fifths compromise:

Then, there's the Post's ritual repeating of the falsehood that the Founders viewed black people as "three fifths of a person." That is a wholly tendentious misreading of the Three-Fifths Clause.
…
It is especially galling to have liberals attack Republican Members on these matters.^[1]

And he's not the only one who feels strongly about this. Neal Boortz made it the topic of his weekly Atlanta Journal-Constitution column:^[2]

Let's bury this "three-fifths of a person" nonsense. The people who spout this idiocy are either lying or grossly ignorant.

I try to be more tactful about it, but I share their distaste for historical misconceptions. So, in the hope of clearing a few things up, I prepared a short True/False quiz:

• A. Southern states argued for counting slaves as whole persons, while Northern states would've preferred to not count them at all.
• B. The three-fifths compromise was not a direct assessment of the value of certain human beings relative to others.
• C. The three-fifths compromise did not draw a legal distinction between black people and white people.
• D. Statements A, B, and C, if true, are valid reasons to insult and ridicule those who consider the three-fifths compromise a shameful chapter in American history.
• E. America was founded by a bunch of racists.

And (as if it's not already clear that I'm more interested in making a point than putting together a proper quiz)…the answers:

A. True
An unexpected gesture of humanity from the South? Of course not. They wanted to count slaves because seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned by population, so higher populations meant more influence for them and less for the North. Not that they had any intention of letting the slaves themselves have a say in who occupied those extra seats.

B. True
As mentioned above, it was mostly about representation in Congress, though it first appeared during the Articles of Confederation days as part of an attempt to resolve a tax dispute. To infer from those two non-horrifying origin stories anything deeper about the Founders' perception of a human being's worth is, according to Blackwell, a "tendentious misreading."

C. True
The distinction was between slaves and non-slaves. There were, of course, black people who were free, and there were also slaves who weren't black. I'm sure the latter took great consolation in knowing the terrible oppression they had to endure would not be in vain, for they would one day be used by blowhards as proof that slavery was slightly less racist than people make it out to be.

What kind of blowhard would do that, you ask? Neal Boortz, for one:

[A]llow me to help you out here with a little history lesson about the Three-fifths Compromise reached at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. You’ll see that there is no evidence to support oft-repeated claims by so many liberals and race pimps that the Constitution is racist.
…
There was NO mention of race and NO suggestion that anyone counted as three-fifths of a human being. There were, by the way, black slave owners who were counted and white slaves who were not. But let's not cause too much stress for delicate minds.^[3]

D. False
Obviously, conservatives don't like hearing that the three-fifths compromise—or anything else about the Constitution—was racist, and I think I've got a handle on why that is. In part, it's because the implication is usually that it was racist because slaves were counted as only three-fifths of a person, when the reality was that every seat in Congress a state obtained by virtue of its slave population was another Representative who could be counted on to vote to perpetuate slavery. For those working to end the practice, the best-case scenario was to not count slaves at all.

Makes sense so far—they want to set the record straight, and there's nothing wrong with that—but at some point setting the record straight starts to overlap with defending the Founding Fathers and the Constitution against accusations of racism, and that's when emotion takes over.

Sure, there was never an evaluation of the relative human-ness of slaves and non-slaves that led to the 3/5 number, but is that supposed to prove that a slave's humanity was 100% recognized by society? Because I can say with absolute confidence, despite having been born five score and 18 years after the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, that it was not. And my first piece of evidence is that in the part of the Constitution dealing with the incredibly straightforward matter of counting how many people there are, slaves are subject to different math than everyone else. It doesn't matter how much historical expertise you have—the fact that a fraction had to be negotiated in the first place is a sign something was terribly wrong, and the fact that it remains in the text of the Constitution serves as a vivid reminder that freedom hasn't always been for everyone.

Conservatives talk about the Founders as if they were some single-minded entity, and they use language that seems to treat the Constitution itself as a sentient being (like Boortz's "there is no evidence…the Constitution is racist"), but that's absurd. There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Some, like Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, were staunchly opposed to slavery. Others, like Charles Pinckney and Pierce Butler, were relentless advocates. James Madison was somewhere in between, providing a consistent voice for gradual, rather than immediate, emancipation, which I suppose is why he never freed his own slaves. And Thomas Jefferson (not a delegate, but influential nonetheless) was just all over the place. All had a role in shaping the Constitution.

With that in mind, I have three questions:

1. When conservatives heap praise on the Founders, is it somehow implied that they're excluding Pinckney, Butler, and the other dozen or so delegates who would've refused to sign a constitution prohibiting slavery?
2. If not, are they prepared to argue that those men weren't so bad (because, I don't know, a handful of white people and Indians were slaves too, and therefore slavery wasn't racist, or some other such nonsense)?
3. Or are they ignoring the truth—that neither the Constitution nor its creators are as infallible as conservatives make them out to be—and simply framing history however they want?

The first and third are dishonest and hypocritical, while the second seems indefensible. And yet, logic dictates that the answer to at least one of those questions has to be "yes," doesn't it?

It's great that some of the Founders were among the era's leading abolitionists, but it's also shameful that others put up such stubborn resistance. Conservatives accuse liberals of treating the Constitution like it was written entirely by the latter, but then they turn around and treat it like it was written entirely by the former. And both views are asinine, because, the fact is, most of the Founders fell somewhere in between. Hence the three-fifths compromise, which was exactly that—a compromise.

E. Not even close to the kind of question that can be answered with a simple "True" or "False"
So how about we stop acting like we don't know that?

1. As quoted above, Blackwell decries "the Post's ritual repeating of the falsehood that the Founders viewed black people as "three fifths of a person,"" calling it a galling attack on House Republicans. That's a pretty small snippet of text for such sweeping generalizations. Here's the whole sentence:

One [passage omitted during the House reading], the "three-fifths compromise," counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of divvying congressional districts.

That's a galling attack? Looks more like an accurate, objective description of the three-fifths compromise to me.

2. To Boortz's credit, he criticizes both the New York Times and Fox News for their respective comments about the three-fifths compromise, so at least he's not making a specious argument that conservatives understand the Constitution better than liberals. Instead, he's making a specious argument that conservatives are ignorant, while "the left holds our Constitution in contempt," which is…better, I guess.

3. Seriously, what am I supposed to take away from that? That 18th-century America was a diverse rainbow of abuse and subjugation? Also, if it's a distortion of history to call slavery, or the Constitution, or both, racist, then how about immoral? I assume we can call slavery immoral, but what about the pre-1865 Constitution, which—dare I say—condoned slavery? And if both slavery and the pre-1865 Constitution were immoral, then what does it matter that they weren't racist? Ugh. Now I've got a headache, so, if nothing else, Boortz was right about that.

An Argument I Cannot Condone

As if secretly trying to crush any lingering hope that we could maybe do something—anything—without descending into embarrassing partisan bickering, last week the Republicans decided to read the Constitution on the House floor. Philip Rucker and David Fahrenthold of the Washington Post described the ensuing controversy:

House Republicans, who orchestrated the symbolic exercise as an early gesture to the tea party movement, touted it as a way to bring the new Congress, and the people they represent, back to America's roots.

But they didn't want to go all the way back.

…

The version read aloud was missing at least seven passages that remain etched in faded ink on the Constitution kept at the National Archives. Most are eye-glazing: procedures for electing senators, the workings of the electoral college.

But two, in particular, reflect a painful reality: The nation's founding document condoned slavery.

One, the "three-fifths compromise," counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of divvying congressional districts. The second dealt with runaway slaves—if they escaped to a free state, the Constitution required that they not be freed but rather "delivered up" to their owners.

Both were negated by the 13th Amendment but necessary to ratifying the original document, according to historians.

Any problems with that account? Maybe they sound a bit critical of Republicans, but not in an inaccurate way, or in a way that strikes me as unfair.^[1] I don't see much worth complaining about. Prominent Republican and Townhall.com columnist Ken Blackwell, on the other hand, is incensed. In an article titled "The Constitution Did Not Condone Slavery," he writes:^[2]

The Rucker-Farenthold article was nowhere labeled analysis, but who expects anything but front-page editorials these days, anyway? They waded right in to a two-hundred twenty-two year old controversy when they flatly stated that the original Constitution "condoned" slavery.

Abraham Lincoln did not agree. He revered the Constitution and said that the fact that it nowhere mentioned the words slavery, slave, African, or Negro was a silent but powerful admission that the Founders were ashamed of the existence of slavery among them. They hid it away, Lincoln said, as "an afflicted man hides a wen or tumor."

Abolitionist editor and orator Frederick Douglass also did not agree. He emphasized eloquently that not one word would have to be changed in the Constitution if only the states would follow George Washington's example and voluntarily give up slavery.

Lincoln and Douglass were right. James Madison explained why there was no mention of slavery in the Constitution. The framers were unwilling to admit in the federal charter there could be property in men.

The idea that our Constitution "condoned" slavery and was therefore an immoral document unworthy of being viewed with reverence is a stock liberal claim. It is false.

I'm sure he has more at his disposal somewhere, but Blackwell's reaction represents the combined effort of approximately two neurons—the one that loves the Constitution, and the one that's convinced liberals don't. The neuron that knows what "condone" means, though, was apparently not consulted. Here are a few definitions:

• To give tacit approval to. By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.
• To accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
• To approve or sanction (something), esp. with reluctance.

So, to reiterate, the same person who wrote this…

[Lincoln] revered the Constitution and said that the fact that it nowhere mentioned the words slavery, slave, African, or Negro was a silent but powerful admission that the Founders were ashamed of the existence of slavery among them.

…also wrote this, three paragraphs later:

The idea that our Constitution "condoned" slavery and was therefore an immoral document unworthy of being viewed with reverence is a stock liberal claim. It is false.

What else is there to say? That the Constitution contained "a silent but powerful admission that the Founders were ashamed of the existence of slavery" is exactly what "condoned" means, right? If not, what should've been used in its place? Ignored, excused, and allowed all seem worse than condoned. Condemned, denounced, and decried all seem inaccurate, as the Constitution did none of those things.

In other words (so to speak), "condoned" strikes me as a perfectly cromulent word for the Post writers to use to make their point. And, by the way, the point itself—that despite whatever misgivings the Founders may have had about slavery, it was not prohibited under the Constitution—is indisputable. If there's anything historically- or semantically-flawed about saying the Constitution condoned slavery, I haven't figured out what it is. So, what triggered Ken Blackwell's column-length rant about liberals seeing the Constitution as "an immoral document unworthy of being viewed with reverence"?^[3]

I wouldn't accuse Blackwell of not knowing what "condone" means (after all, in the same column he uses words like "phalanx" and "tendentious," and rather artfully at that). I'd say what's happening here is that he's so committed to the conservative mantra that they are the proud defenders of the Constitution—the last line of defense protecting American values and the rule of law from those who (in their minds) would do away with both in a second, given the chance—that he just didn't bother to think about what "condone" really means, or what the Post writers meant when they used it. He read an article written, presumably, by liberals, in which the Constitution was discussed in not-entirely-positive terms,^[4] and that's all the fuel he needed.

This is where I'd normally write some sort of conclusion—something concise and witty that also reinforces the point I'm trying to make—but there's no need. While I was working on this post I came across a conclusion to another article that serves those purposes beautifully. I hope Ken Blackwell doesn't mind if I borrow it:

Let's rejoice that we have come this far. Let's not use the reading of the Constitution as an occasion for scoring cheap—and false—political points. Let's proceed as Lincoln proceeded: With malice toward none.

1. Personally, I say leave the archaic sections out. Not because they're objectionable, but because I thought the point of the reading was that people—members of Congress and private citizens alike—might benefit from being reminded that the Constitution has a lot of important stuff in it and, by the way, is still legally binding. I don't see how it serves that purpose to read the parts that are no longer in effect.
    Still, would it have been too much to ask for somebody (John Lewis, perhaps) to kick things off with a short speech about the history of the controversial provisions? Alternatively, would it have been too much to ask for the Democrats to just stop complaining for an hour and a half?

2. Blackwell also has some thoughts about the Post's take on the Three-Fifths Compromise. I, in turn, have some thoughts about Blackwell's thoughts about the Post's take on the Three-Fifths Compromise. All these thoughts eventually grew too large to reasonably cram into this footnote (and even began sprouting footnotes of their own), so they'll show up as a separate article within a few days.

3. Oh, almost forgot the requisite disclaimer: Just because I disagree with some parts of Blackwell's article, doesn't mean I see the Constitution as immoral or unworthy or reverence or…I'm already tired of writing this sentence. It's a powerful, ground-breaking document, but it also has its flaws, because so did the world that created it. Can we all agree on that?

4. Interestingly, Blackwell doesn't comment on this line in the Post article, which is the only part that jumps out to me as containing legitimate inaccuracies:

To some African Americans, skipping those passages was a stinging omission that overlooked the fact that under the original Constitution they would not have had a right to vote, let alone serve in Congress.

The original Constitution didn't restrict voting rights. It didn't say much about voting at all, really, other than the constitutional requirement that members of the House of Representatives be, in some non-specific way, chosen by the people. Determining who could vote and what they could vote on was, and still is (although Amendments XV, XVII, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI established a few more ground rules), left up to the states. In a lot of states—you can probably guess what general part of the country we're talking about—free black men have been voting since the 1700s, and I'm pretty sure they were allowed to run for federal office, too.

Survey Says: Fox News Viewers Bad at Reading Comprehension

Hey, a study! A new study! Gather 'round everyone, there's a new study out!

It comes from the University of Maryland's Program on International Something-or-Other, where researchers have used biased methodology to reach a pre-conceived result made a number of fascinating discoveries. One finding, in particular, is ideally suited to the sort of vapid, substanceless news reporting people tolerate for some reason very interesting: Apparently, regular viewers of Fox News are more likely than those who get their news elsewhere to be "misinformed" misinformed. Of course, research like this frequently raises serious questions about the integrity and/or competence of everyone involved is rarely met with universal acceptance. This study would, if printed out, actually devalue the paper it's printed on is no exception.

Alright, enough with the strikethroughs—I think I've made it clear how little respect I have for this kind of counterproductive bullshit flawed research.

Why is it flawed? A bunch of reasons, but this article from Right Wing News nicely summarizes the one I want to talk about:

[S]ome of the questions asked by the World Public Opinion Dot Org are framed around "what the experts think." So there is another obvious point to be made about the flaw in their research: It is inclined to bestow the title of "well informed" upon people who place great weight on what "experts" think, and then just slavishly mimic them. I suppose there is a certain fairness to that, along with a worthy fidelity to the intent of the study—you need to track down some information in order to find out what the so-called experts are thinking, so you can copy it—but it occurs to me. When we seek to establish and maintain an "informed" democratic republic of participating voters, this seems somewhat far-flung and distant from what we should be trying to build.

What good is information if you aren't thinking independently about it means?

Along the same lines, here's Townhall.com's Brent Bozell:

Fox viewers were more likely to believe "Among economists who have estimated the effect of the health reform law on the federal budget deficit over the next ten years, more think it will increase the deficit."

That is misinformation? This question is not about facts at all. It's about the opinions of economists looking into a crystal ball, and PIPA's "economists" estimate that herding 35 million uninsured Americans into a new federal entitlement program is going to reduce the deficit. This assertion by liberals that ObamaCare would cut deficits isn't technically a "lie"—yet. It is merely a patently ridiculous claim that doesn't acknowledge the real world. But somehow, Fox News viewers are tagged as the "misinformed" dummies, because their opinions are grounded in logic.

Those devious pollsters! It seems people weren't asked if, for example, healthcare reform will increase the deficit, they were asked if economists believe healthcare reform will increase the deficit. Several other questions were similarly phrased.

That the researchers used biased methodology is so obvious it's not worth talking about up here in the main text,^[1] so I'm setting that aside for now. At the same time, let's not treat these Fox News-viewing respondents as paragons of enlightenment. Bozell, like most conservatives who've weighed in on the study, acts like they were tricked into giving "wrong" answers, because God forbid Fox News viewers be expected to know what the so-called experts think about anything.^[2]

Conservatives have gotten into the habit of dismissing "experts" as out-of-touch elitists who care more about promoting an ideology than objective truth-seeking. (Note: Does not apply to experts who endorse conservative views.) As usual, they're kind of right and kind of wrong, but Bozell is taking it a step further. Later in the same article, he asks:

Is it fair—whether the pollsters are liberals or conservatives—to expect the American people to identify correctly the estimates made by a panel of economists organized by news editors of The Wall Street Journal?

Is it fair to ask a difficult question? I'd like to think so, especially if your goal is to determine whether the answers to such questions have reached the public, which, nominally (if not actually), is what the study was about. Nobody's trying to deprive anyone of their fundamental right to disagree with the experts as obstinately and as unjustifiably as they see fit. Besides, I'm not sure it's even logically possible to disagree with the experts if you aren't, you know, informed about what the experts think.

So let's criticize the hell out of this study for all sorts of reasons, but not that one. I guess Bozell would be happier if this were just another opinion poll, but if you're not informed enough to answer at least a few questions about what the experts think, I'd rather not hear your opinions anyway.

1. Basically, if you went in with the attitude that everything liberals do is right and everything conservatives do is wrong, you would've given the "informed" answer to almost every question.
    The content of a lot of the questions was suspect too. This video probably isn't flawless, but it's a pretty good overview of some of the problems. (That's twice in just over a month I've praised something on one of the Breitbart sites, so…haha, [snarky comment about the frigid conditions in Hell, maybe a Michael Bloomberg reference and something about snow plows, etc., etc.])

2. Or, on the chance some thought they were being asked for their opinions, God forbid they be expected to read an entire sentence and evaluate the semantic contribution made by every single word.
    All that said, this isn't really about Fox News, because I have no doubt that, given an ideologically-neutral set of questions, those who get their news from other sources wouldn't fare much better. A follow-up article elaborating on that is in the works, but, for now, I'll just point out that the researchers threw in a token question for conservatives (about whether there was proof the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had been raising foreign money for Republican candidates), and, shockingly enough, on that one MSNBC and NPR viewers/listeners were the most "misinformed." That completely undermines the reported findings, doesn't it? How they could just shrug it off and proceed with their "Fox News viewers are misinformed!" publicity grab is beyond me, but I guess that's why I'll never climb to the top of academia.

Rush Limbaugh Knows Liberals (So You Don't Have To)

Say you're a budding conservative (having somehow resisted the influence of public schools, unions, the media, and New England), and you're also open-minded. You'll want to challenge your beliefs to make sure you're on the right track. You'll want to talk to some people who are decidedly not conservative. Get to know them, find out where they're coming from, learn about the circumstances that led them to reject conservatism. Because that's what open-minded people do.

Or, you could just let Rush Limbaugh be open-minded for you.

I know the kind of person he is because of what he believes. I know liberals. I know socialists. I know Marxists. I know exactly how they do things.

—————

They were and are intended to be destructive. I knew this was his intention, because I know liberals, and I know his kind of radical.

—————

See, for me, this is very simple, because I know liberals. I know how they go about achieving their aims. I know what the purpose of their aims are, and I know that climate science, global warming, whatever, is just a cover for liberalism in action.

—————

I got a note: "Do you really believe this about [John] Edwards?" I believe this and more…See, I know liberals. None of this is a shock to me.

—————

See, I know liberals—I know these cockroaches—and I'm telling you, this just has them boiling today.

You get the point. This could go on for a surprisingly long time, but I'll jump to the best one. And there's a lot going on here, so I'll break it up.

I know liberals. I know the premise of liberalism. It's a tough thing to accept it, but once you do, everything after that is easy. Liberalism is a lie. I know many of you know liberals and you think they're nice people, maybe just wrong. You don't want to think of them as liars. You prefer to think of them as just "misguided" or "wrong."

That's certainly how I prefer to think of them. It's also how I think of conservatives. And a fair number of libertarians. Who isn't misguided or wrong, really? We all are—none more so than those who say they aren't.

But I guess I'm misguided. So how am I supposed to think of them?

They're liars!

Liars!

Many of the rank-and-file liberals are dupes. They're well-intentioned and have no idea what they're actually supporting. They fall into this, "I feel good about myself. I see a homeless person and I say, 'Oh, why don't we do something?' I'm a good person." You haven't done anything! You just thought something and made you feel like you're a good person.

Ok, first, I'm pretty sure the concept of a lying dupe is an oxymoron. Second, even the liberaliest liberal doesn't believe a positive thought alone counts as "doing something." And third, what has Limbaugh ever done to make the world a better place?^[1]

Conservatism solves problems. Liberalism blows 'em up and amplifies 'em in the name of fixing them.

Ha ha, those liberals and their obsession with well-intentioned-but-fundamentally-flawed government intervention. When will they learn? Oh, by the way, I don't know why I just thought of this, but here's what Rush says about legalizing pot:

I listen to all these people say, "I don't know. Legalizing pot? Ehhhhh, I don't know. I don't know the American people are ready." If the American people are ready for the destruction of capitalism, if the American people are ready for the destruction of the opportunity for the American dream, if the American people are ready to vote for an end to their chance to be prosperous…where is the logical conclusion that they would oppose the legalization of marijuana?

Anyway, where were we? Oh yeah, liberals—and only liberals—destroy everything they mess with.

So once you accept that every liberal politician in Washington or your state capital or on your city town council is a liberal and therefore is a liar, then the rest is easy. You simply don't believe anything they say and you will be right.

Holy crap, really? Don't believe anything they say? That sounds like a miserable existence. What if you don't want to go through life that way?

"But, Rush, I don't want to go through life that way." Well, okay. If you don't want to, I'll handle it for you.

There you go. Rush has it all taken care of.

1. According to Wikipedia, he's given millions of dollars to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (and helped raise millions more), and he's raised another few million for the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, which is a lot more than I've done. You win this round, Limbaugh.

Country Music Round-Up: Aughts in Review

It's time for another country music round-up. Of course, it doesn't make mathematical sense for an end-of-the-decade article written in December 2010 to go all the way back to 2000, but I don't care—this one goes to eleven:

Alan Jackson: "Where I Come From" (2000)

Where I come from, it's cornbread and chicken
Where I come from, a lotta front porch sittin'
Where I come from, tryin' to make a livin'
Workin' hard to get to heaven
Where I come from

Fair enough. Alan Jackson clearly does not come from a place with, say, a vibrant local arts scene. And, as reiterated by practically every country song since Little Jimmy Dickens' "Country Boy" (1949),^[1] there ain't nothin' wrong with that. But what happens when Jackson finds himself out of his element? Things get uncomfortable, that's what.

I was chasin' sun on 101
Somewhere around Ventura
I lost a universal joint and I had to use my finger
This tall lady stopped and asked
If I had plans for dinner
Said no thanks ma'am, back home
We like the girls that sing soprano

This is a transsexual woman we're talking about, I assume, and for all we know, she's spent her whole life in the decidedly non-country sprawl of Southern California. But, on the other hand, maybe her background is just like Jackson's. I mean, she's willing to pick up hitchhikers—it doesn't get much more country than that. Maybe she also has a strong work ethic, an appreciation for homemade cornbread, an inexplicable love of dirt, and everything else a country upbringing entails.

Maybe she'd love to get out of the big city and go back home, but, for some reason, just doesn't feel like she'd be accepted. Ever think about that, Alan Jackson?

Brooks & Dunn: "God Must Be Busy" (2007)

I know He’s heard my prayers
‘Cause He hears everything
He just ain’t answered back or He’d bring you back to me
God must be busy

The basic message here is hard to argue with—there are a lot of awful things going on in the world, and odds are your problems are pretty insignificant by comparison, so you should probably calm down. It's a fine song, until this part:

There’s a single mom, just got laid off
Went and lost her job to foreign hands
In some far away land

An American lost her job to a foreigner!? And God allowed this to happen!? It's like we're not His favorite country anymore!

Brad Paisley: "American Saturday Night" (2009)

There's a big toga party tonight down at Delta Chi
They've got Canadian bacon on there pizza pie
They've got a cooler for cold Coronas and Amstel lights
It's like were all livin' in a big ol' cup
Just fire up the blender, mix it all up

It's a French kiss, Italian ice
Margaritas in the moonlight
Just another American Saturday night

I like it—a celebration of America's long tradition of incorporating elements of other cultures into our own. Or a celebration of our long tradition of naming stuff after other nationalities to make it seem exotic. A little of both, I suppose. Anyway:

You know everywhere there's something they're known for
Although usually it washes up on our shores

Which is great, as long as it's tasty, alcoholic, and/or legally documented!

Dixie Chicks: "Not Ready to Make Nice" (2006)

I’m through with doubt
There’s nothing left for me to figure out
I’ve paid a price
And I’ll keep paying

I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down

I know what you're thinking: This song doesn't belong here—it was written in response to the criticism the Dixie Chicks drew when Natalie Maines went and declared her opposition to the Iraq War and her disappointment with her fellow Texan in the White House.

The backlash was severe. Boycotts were organized. Country stations stopped playing Dixie Chicks songs. Maines even received a death threat. The whole mess was as sad as it was ironic, really, because what could be more conservative than speaking your mind and refusing to back down when people get offended?^[2]

Johnny Cash: "Hurt" (2003)

I hurt myself today
To see if I still feel
I focus on the pain
The only thing that's real

…

And you could have it all
My empire of dirt
I will let you down
I will make you hurt

If I could start again
A million miles away
I would keep myself
I would find a way

I have nothing to add, except that this is my all-time favorite audio recording of any kind (and the video's good enough to link to twice).

1. In fact, the two songs—recorded some 50 years apart—bear striking similarities, and that really speaks to the essence of conservatism, doesn't it? Compare the lyrics: Dickens and Jackson appear to hold identical views on the value of remaining true to one's modest background, the joys of a simple country life, and the importance of being wary of city folks who—it's probably safe to assume—just don't get it.
    But, in other ways, the songs illustrate how much things can change over the course of a half-century. Namely, cornbread is no longer spelled with a hyphen.

2. Answer: Blindly supporting a Republican president through two shaky administrations, then letting loose with relentless criticism as soon as a Democrat takes office.^[3]

3. Ha ha, just kidding.^[4]

4. No, actually, that sounds about right (pun not intended, but neither was it removed upon discovery, so make of that what you will).

Opponents of the DREAM Act: Evil or Stupid?

As I've discussed before, I'm a big fan of the DREAM Act, which would provide a path to legal status for certain unauthorized aliens who were brought into the country as minors and intend to go to college or join the military.

I'm also a big fan of the principle of reciprocity:

[I]n the context of opinions and debate, the principle of reciprocity states that we should respect the reasonableness and the goodwill of those with whom we disagree, and to treat them with civility, even if we judge their opinions to be unreasonable and/or their views to be unjust or immoral.
…
If you assume the worst of someone only because of an opinion different than yours, then you’re being an intellectually dishonest asshole.

So, while I disagree with the (mostly conservative) opposition to the DREAM Act, I'd like to believe opponents are motivated by a sincere evaluation of the bill's merits, which isn't entirely implausible. The DREAM Act's benefits are clear, but—in a departure from the impeccable legislation we've come to expect from the legislative branch—it also has its share of problems.^[1] Any member of Congress who votes against it, then, should have little trouble explaining why the bill is flawed, and why he or she feels the negatives outweigh the positives. Let's start with Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX):

I am sympathetic to the young, illegal immigrant children who were brought here by their parents. Because their parents disregarded America's immigration laws, they are in a difficult position. However, this bill actually rewards the very illegal immigrant parents who knowingly violated our laws. Once the DREAM Act's amnesty recipients become citizens and turn 21, if they haven't already they can sponsor their illegal immigrant parents, spouse, or children for legalization, who can then sponsor others, resulting in chain migration that will further hurt American workers and American taxpayers.

I hear this one a lot, and it's nonsense. To say that DREAM Act beneficiaries will be able to "sponsor their illegal immigrant parents" is an inherent contradiction. They will, of course, be able to sponsor their legal immigrant parents, via the legal process of which conservatives are so fond (with its 15- to 18-year waiting lists for most Mexican applicants). But if the parents are already here illegally, nothing can be done for them until they leave. On top of that, if they leave after having been here illegally for a year or more, there's a ten-year prohibition on even applying for a visa. By the time those hurdles have been cleared, I'd say it's a little unfair—that is, even more unfair than usual—to call the parents "illegal."

Lamar Smith's apparent belief that family-sponsored visas are a low-hassle way for unauthorized aliens to obtain legal status is, I think it's safe to say, incompatible with reality. That raises the question, is he trying to be misleading on purpose, or does he simply not know the basics of U.S. immigration policy? I don't have an answer to that, but, in Smith's defense, a lot can be forgotten in 14 years, which is how long it's been since he wrote the damn law.^[2]

Moving on, Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA):

The DREAM Act specifically focuses on promising young foreigners a bright future if their parents choose to break the law. This will unquestionably encourage desperate parents to bring their children, perhaps millions of them, across our borders illegally.

Also a popular criticism, and not quite as non-sensical, but definitely misleading. Presumably, Rohrabacher's point is that in the future aliens will cross the border in the hope that similar legislation will be passed while they're here (because it's going so smoothly this time around!). In other words, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he's being more vague than dumb, because the DREAM Act unambiguously excludes anyone who wasn't already in the country at least five years before its enactment. Desparate as those future parents may be to get their kids across the border, they're going to have a tough time doing it in 2005 or earlier (and if they can pull that off, we should probably just let them stay).

Again, Rohrabacher surely knows about the five-year provision, but I bet a lot of casual observers—especially those inclined to take his side on this—do not, and I'm just cynical enough to wonder if maybe his vagueness is intentional—calculated to make the Act sound much scarier than it really is. Regardless, it's a counter-productive omission. Instead of making me think about the dangerous-precedent argument (which, presented appropriately, could be somewhat compelling—not that there isn't a counter-argument), it makes me wonder why Rohrabacher doesn't appear to know what he's talking about.

Representative Phil Gingrey (R-GA):

According to the Migration Policy Institute, an estimated 2 million immigrants will be eligible for amnesty under this bill. That number is not too difficult to imagine given that H.R. 5281 would allow these individuals, once they are naturalized and become 21 years of age, to exploit our broken system by sponsoring their immediate relatives with no numerical cap. We call that chain migration. In fact, they could each bring in something like 179 other individuals.

Really? A newly-legalized alien could bring in 179 relatives? That's such an oddly-specific number. Do you have 179 parents, spouses, children, and siblings, Phil Gingrey? Because I have four.

Surprisingly, that's not the most ridiculous part of Gingrey's speech (well, it might turn out to be, if I ever figure out where that number came from). Even worse is that he sees sponsorship of immediate relatives as "exploit[ing] our broken system." Because that's what's wrong with the system—all those nefarious foreigners applying for visas with 15- to 18-year back-ups and patiently waiting for the paperwork to go through.

Representative Timothy Johnson (R-IL):

It is an affront and a sobering reality to the American taxpayers and their children and grandchildren who are going to pay this bill to the tune of billions of dollars over the future. It is also a reality to the 10 percent of Americans who are unemployed who realize that the effect on the infrastructure of America in this bill is going to be absolutely negative with respect to Social Security benefits, jobs, loans, health care, education and otherwise.

I don't have the energy to try to sort out the competing financial guesswork coming from both sides; I just want to point out that Republican Representative Timothy Johnson is one of many conservatives arguing that if we allow roughly one million unauthorized aliens to legally work (which leads to paying taxes), and legally get a college education (which theoretically leads to paying even more taxes, and sometimes to creating new jobs), it would cause billions of dollars of damage to the economy. If that's true, then our economy is fundamentally backward (which it very well may be, for all I know), and we might as well just give up.

Still, maybe I'm being unfair. (See? Always trying to avoid assuming the worst!) Maybe this is just a bunch of meaningless grandstanding for the C-SPAN cameras, which is about as meaningless as grandstanding gets. At least these elected officials aren't actively spreading misinformation for the clear purpose of riling up the public, right?

Here's Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), actively spreading misinformation for the clear purpose of riling up the public:

If the alien is unable to complete 2 years of college but can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent (the ones who brought them here illegally), the education requirement can be waived altogether. The bill actually allows illegal aliens to get legal status indefinitely without any college or military service.

When he says "hardship," he's abbreviating a bit. The actual standard is "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship," a phrase—Senator Sessions may be surprised to learn—that was not chosen simply because some legislative aide likes the way it sounds. Under current law, one of very few ways an unauthorized alien can obtain legal status is by showing that deportation would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to a spouse, parent, or child—provided that person is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident (among other requirements). As the language implies, this exceptionally high standard is met only in extremely unusual circumstances. Sessions is upset about a provision that's essentially the same—in that it carries the same high standard—but would also allow DREAM Act-eligible aliens to attempt to show that deportation would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to themselves. Hardly a sweeping reform.

The shot Sessions takes at the parents "who brought them here illegally" is another one for the Evil-or-Stupid file. Granted, the proposed law is poorly written, so he may just be confused, but the existing hardship waiver is poorly written in almost exactly the same way.^[3] Assuming the two are meant to be similarly interpreted, the status of the parents is irrelevant to the DREAM Act debate. If they aren't U.S. citizens or legal residents, they can't be the basis for a hardship waiver under either law. If they've somehow obtained legal status, they can already be the basis for a hardship waiver, regardless of whether the DREAM Act passes.

That's just a small part of the latest version of Sessions' "Ten Things You Need to Know About the DREAM Act." The memos—packed with false and misleading claims—have been picked up by countless conservative news sites (Michelle Malkin, in particular, has been all over them), and appear to have provided the souce material for the speeches made by Sessions' colleagues in the House. Naturally, those already inclined to oppose the Act haven't bothered to question the memos' content (or, even worse, if they have they've been quiet about it).

I'm sure it's clear that I think it's wrong to oppose the DREAM Act, but I hope I've also made it clear that I don't think it's insane to oppose it. Why, then, are conservatives so unwilling to fight it on its merits? In the name of reciprocity, I want to believe they think they are fighting it on its merits—they just have two or three (dozen) facts wrong.^[4] But everything I've seen and heard points, rather overwhelmingly, toward another explanation:

Conservative ideologues love to get worked up about immigration because it's an issue that (a) people know little about, (b) tends to arouse strong emotions, and (c) can be relatively plausibly blamed for any number of unrelated problems.^[5] They know they'll be called out when they go too far, but only by the likes of Media Matters and the American Immigration Council—nobody their followers would actually listen to—so they can pretty much say whatever they want. They make the DREAM Act sound as sinister as possible and in the process portray themselves as patriotic freedom-fighters, protecting America from the terrible menace of foreign-born high-achievers.

Their obvious lack of respect for potential DREAM Act beneficiaries is nothing short of appalling, and their obvious indifference toward honest debate and accurately informing the people they represent is almost as bad—and this just happens to be an issue I know a few things about. Reciprocity be damned—when I hear the same blowhards talking about something less familiar, why should I trust anything they say?

1. An incomplete list:
— Fraud (also an acceptable argument against…anything, really).
— Dangerous precedent.
— Economic impact (projections are all over the map).
— Insufficient time for debate/amendments.
    I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any of those (or that, even if valid, they outweigh the positives of the bill), just that they aren't total nonsense.

2. From the biography on Lamar Smith's website:

He introduced and successfully advanced the passage of a 1996 immigration reform bill. This legislation was the most far-reaching reform of America’s immigration laws since the 1960s.

Prominently displayed on the main page of the same website, as of this article's writing, is the video of Smith's misinformation-fueled speech on the House floor. His audacity would be impressive if it wasn't so infuriating.

3. Immigration and Nationality Act, §240A(b):

(1) The Attorney General may cancel removal in the case of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien—
…
(D) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

Sort of looks like the citizen/LPR requirement only applies to children, and not spouses or parents, doesn't it? It could go either way, I suppose, but the settled interpretation is that, to qualify as the basis for a hardship waiver, a spouse or parent must have legal status too. Any chance Sessions has been politely set straight by the ambiguous clause's author, Representative Lamar Smith? Yeah, I doubt it.

4. Another possibility, as always, is that I have it wrong. After all, immigration is complicated, and I certainly don't claim to be an expert, so I'll concede that I may have made a mistake or two. And while I generally endorse the Media Matters and AIC articles I referred to above, I remain wary of anything coming from such a one-sided source (whatever that side may be).
    But for the anti-DREAM Act arguments quoted here—and many, many others I left out—to make sense, there are a lot of things I'd have to be wrong about.

5. Obviously, that goes both ways. Replace "conservative ideologues" with "liberal ideologues" and "immigration" with "tax cuts for the rich," for example.

Great Moments in Breaking From the Herd

Big Government, along with the rest of Andrew Breitbart's online mini-empire, has an unmistakable conservative slant. That is, you pretty much know ahead of time what kind of commentary you're going to get. For example—to choose a topic entirely at random—the controversial Arizona immigration law:

Unlike the reason based protests by tea partiers, the Arizona protesters are acting solely on emotions stirred by a constant barrage of leftist demagoguery. No civil rights have been violated, no racial profiling has taken place, and the motivation for this law was not racism. The motivation is completely founded in reason which is backed by facts and by a definitive understanding of the word 'illegal'.

—————

SB 1070 goes to great length to avoid racial profiling, the specter of which has engendered nearly all of the well-orchestrated hysteria against the law.

—————

This issue is no longer one which we can sit idly by and hope for a solution. We have solutions. First, we need to secure our borders. Second, we need to remove all financial incentives for illegal immigrants. And third, we need to demonstrate the clear and responsible pathway to legal immigration.

—————

This is not an immigration law. It's also not racist. It's not racial profiling. And it's not usurping the role of the federal government (which has abysmally failed here). Instead, it's an employment law and property law.

—————

I don't begrudge illegal immigrants doing what they have to do to take care of their families but I have a family, too, and immigration laws are supposed to protect us from unrestricted access to the infrastructure that comes out of my family's pocket.

Fun fact: That last one—which, by the way, makes some pretty good points—also answers the question of "hey, I wonder what Joe the Plumber is up to these days?"^[1]

Anyway, you get the idea. Not all of it is wrong, necessarily, but it's staunchly pro-border-sealing and pro-government-mandated-paper-carrying. It's also rather insistent that of S.B. 1070 could be enforced without racial profiling, which, I'm sorry, is asinine.^[2]

Imagine my surprise, then, when I read Ronald L. Trowbridge's article about a similar proposed law in Texas:

There is something downright sick in this prejudicial treatment. Conservatives and libertarians usually champion the supremacy of the individual over the collective. We judge individuals as individuals, not as members of a group. But too many conservatives are now demanding that we prejudicially judge people as members of a group. They have become the collectivists that they supposedly reject.

It doesn't even matter (at least, I like to think it doesn't) that I agree with his viewpoint—I'd appreciate it either way. In an era when it's so easy to isolate yourself from opposing opinions, and thus so easy to fail to notice your core ideology being gradually replaced by an arbitrary list of beliefs, we need more stuff like this. Trowbridge isn't saying conservatism itself is wrong, he's saying the views held by most conservatives on immigration cannot be accurately described as conservative.

The best part is at the end:

John Stuart Mill wisely observed that "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." Open, honest debate—even on the contentious issue of immigration—is healthy because it takes us closer to truth and resolution. Let refutations—not just anger—begin in earnest.

How was this call for "open, honest debate" and understanding of where the other side is coming from recieved? Have you ever read anything on the Internet before?

What a load doc. I carry a drivers liscense and a SS card. What part of illegal can't you get through you thick head!!! Any citizen schould be more happy to show IDwhen asked. Moron

—————

Yeah. We all know a lot of you libertarians are retarded when it comes to supporting open borders and mass immigration. Nobody cares.

—————

Cry me a river, Trowbridge! It's such an inconvenience to carry your driver's license with you for identification! Oh, ...wait. We do that every day already. You whining wusses with your bleeding hearts make me want to puke.

—————

That is the single most absurd statement I have ever read regarding illegal immigration.

Those comments, by the way, are all among the dozen or so highest-rated on Big Government's thumbs up/thumbs down voting system. I wanted to see what kind of rating a comment in support of the article might have, but I couldn't find one.

1. I give it less than six months before Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher and John "Don't Touch My Junk" Tyner are co-hosting their own show on Fox News.

2. From the amended version of Arizona S.B. 1070:

A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.

See, they took out "solely." Now the police can't consider race at all…except to the extent permitted by the Constitution, which, it turns out, is kind of a lot.

The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor, but standing alone it does not justify stopping all Mexican-Americans to ask if they are aliens.

Seems to me it'd be a lot easier to argue that racial profiling is acceptable in cases like this than to argue it won't be a problem, and I mean "easier" in the sense of "not quite so transparently naïve and/or disingenuous."

Ten Million Dollars a Day

Hey, remember a few weeks ago when President Obama made that trip to India? People were justifiably upset that, in these tough economic times, a president would spend so much taxpayer money on what amounted to a high-profile vacation. The most vocal advocates for restraint and accountability? Some rather well-known conservative commentators.

Rush Limbaugh:

You have a guy and a family who thinks this nation owes him.  And while they're in a position to, they are going to live off of this country as much as they can…15 airplanes, 1,000 people, 200 rooms in one hotel. And that's just one hotel. For a ten-day trip—Ten million a day!

Sean Hannity:

Look, I want the president to be secure, but 1,000 people? Ten million dollars?…He needs half the Taj Mahal Hotel? Why? What is the point of this?

Glenn Beck:

A dozen warships, possibly. I don't know. Ten million dollars a day while in India. I don't know. The president has blocked off 250 hotel rooms. Do we even know if he's traveling with 1,000 people? Do we know if that's true? No one knows any of the details of this trip, the real cost of the trip. One thing we can say for certain is it's going to be quite expensive.

If you can look past the usual mean-spiritedness, these are sincere, thought-provoking appeals for greater public awareness of an issue the public should absolutely be more aware of.

The best part is, the facts are presented fairly, rather than exaggerated to absurd extremes. Sure, some of the numbers are estimates, and some of them—as Beck freely admits—are guesses, but they're reasonable estimates and educated guesses. The information was obtained from reliable sources, and the fact that it's more or less in line with similar (and also extravagant) presidential trips in the recent past only adds to its credibility.

Liberals in the media begrudgingly sided with their enemies on this one, because how could they not? Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck are spot-on. Obama made an excessively-costly overseas trip financed by us—the taxpayers—and conservatives rightly called him out on it. In the future, perhaps, politicians will think twice about treating our money like it's their own, lest they attract the same negative publicity.

Oh, right, none of that happened, because this is what they actually said:

You have a guy and a family who thinks this nation owes him. And while they're in a position to, they are going to live off of this country as much as they can…40 airplanes, 3,000 people, 500 rooms in one hotel. And that's just one hotel. For a 10 day trip—Two hundred million a day!

—————

Look, I want the president to be secure, but 3,000 people? Two hundred million dollars?…He needs the whole Taj Mahal Hotel? Why? What is the point of this?

—————

Thirty-four warships, possibly. I don't know. Two hundred million dollars a day while in India. I don't know. The president has blocked off 800 hotel rooms. Do we even know if he's traveling with 3,000 people? Do we know if that's true? No one knows any of the details of this trip, the real cost of the trip. One thing we can say for certain is it's going to be quite expensive.

A Google search for "cost of Obama's trip to India" brings up exactly two types of articles:

1. Obama's trip to India costs $200 million PER DAY!!!
2. How dumb do conservatives have to be to believe Obama's trip to India costs $200 million per day?

The first is stupid nonsense; the second is a sadly-necessary response to the first. Both are distracting and counter-productive. So great job, conservative media! Way to get people talking about wasteful government spending.^[1]

1. Obviously, the Crazy Numbers made the story a much bigger deal than it would've been otherwise, which raises an interesting question: Would Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck rather promote conservatism in a way that makes it sound reasonable, so as to win over as many non-conservatives as possible, or would they rather keep creating controversies like this one, which get their names in the news but win over approximately no one?
    All three would undoubtedly insist on the former, but the Two-Billion-Dollar-Trip-to-India debacle is a pretty strong argument for the latter.

Sean Hannity Doesn't Care What You Think

A few months ago, my favorite Republican, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson,^[1] was interviewed by one of my least favorite Republicans, cable news and talk radio blowhard Sean Hannity. From the transcript (though I've done some editing, because Hannity's is-it-my-turn-to-talk-again-yet interviewing style is about as fun to read as it is to watch):

Hannity: I agree with everything that you did and everything that you said. You support tax cuts, limited government, you've been critical of Obama spending. So you have a pretty strong platform in my mind. In almost every interview that I read about you, it always goes back to the issue that you want to legalize pot.

Johnson: And when I say legalize pot, it's never going to be legal to smoke pot, become impaired and get behind the wheel of a car.

Hannity: But you're ok with people smoking in the privacy of their home?

Johnson: Absolutely.

…

Hannity: You don't think it's a gateway drug?

Johnson: It's not, Sean. It's just not.

Hannity: I don't believe that.

Alright, looks like we're on the verge of a stimulating discussion! Two diametrically-opposed viewpoints, both professed in no uncertain terms. Somebody's got to be wrong, right? Let's proceed, preferably with one guy listening patiently—mentally composing a thoughtful rebuttal—as the other explains his reasoning.

Johnson: You know, I've got on my cell phone, and I'll show it to you after we're done here, the government itself admitting that it's not—

Hannity: I don't trust that.

Ugh. Nevermind.

Hannity: Would you want your kids to smoke pot?

Johnson: Well, no.

Hannity: Why don't you want your kids to smoke pot? Because you believe psychologically it would be detrimental to them, right?

Johnson: No. No.

Hannity: I do.

Johnson never really answers these questions, though he tries several times. Most of his attempts are hannitied ^[2] before they can be fully developed, but my educated guess is that he was trying to say something like this:

"Like any decent father, I don't want my kids to do things that are harmful or irresponsible, but I also know it's naïve to expect them to meet that standard 100% of the time. So, more than anything else, I want them to be reasonable. Maybe they'll decide to smoke, maybe they won't—I'm not sure there's much I can do about it either way—but reasonable people can smoke without harming themselves or others, which is what's really important."

Johnson: I find it funny, if you will, that Republicans would talk about the fact that this country stands for freedom, this country stands for liberty, this—and it's about the personal responsibility that goes along with that, but not when it comes to marijuana. And, Sean, if the government made drinking beer illegal tomorrow, would you continue to drink beer or would you stop drinking beer?

Hannity: I don't put it on the same level as drugs. I'm a little bit more afraid of drugs.

The most telling part of the interview. In Sean Hannity's reality, marijuana is a drug, but alcohol isn't. How did that happen? I can't think of a possible explanation that doesn't, at some level, stem from the fact that one is (more or less) legal and the other is (more or less) not.

I'll give Hannity the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is, in fact, aware that alcohol is a drug (as are caffeine, tobacco, aspirin, penicillin, etc.), and that he used the term colloquially to refer to illegal drugs. (And I'll also assume that, when he says a little later that he's not impaired after drinking "a beer, two beers, a glass of wine, two glasses of wine," the missing conjunction is or, not and.) But that almost makes it worse. We can't dismiss his naïveté as the expected result of an absolute lack of familiarity with the very concept of drugs. He uses drugs! He obviously knows, from personal experience, at least a few things about how they work, but he's drawn a mental line between legal and illegal, and he's unable (or unwilling) to allow any knowledge gained from experience to cross that line.

Hannity: I drink—I'm a lightweight. I don't drink a lot. But you can drink alcohol, a beer, two beers, a glass of wine, two glasses of wine, and you're not impaired. If you smoke marijuana you are impaired.

Now things are just getting silly. Does Hannity really think this way? My God, are there elected officials who think this way? "I can have a few drinks and I'm totally still good to drive, but marijuana, which I claim to have never tried? One toke and I'd be an unstoppable car-crashing, homicide-committing, society-menacing fiend, as seen in the harrowing 1938 film Reefer Madness, which is a documentary, right?"

To argue with them when they're like this is to drift dangerously close to "How can you condemn something you've never tried?" territory. That question, taken to a logical extreme (which has never not happened), leads to nonsense like, "Do you think murder is wrong? Have you ever killed anyone? By your logic, you can't say murder is wrong unless you go out and kill someone, can you?"

Alright, alright, fair enough. There's nothing inherently wrong with condemning something you've never tried. But you should, at the very least, make an effort to develop an accurate sense of what that thing is, and to understand why millions of people think you're ridiculous for condemning it.

Hannity: You admitted in your life when you smoked it, it took away your motivation. You were on the path to be a professional skier, so you were much slower, it impairs you.

I bet if you forced Hannity to re-watch this interview, then read this paragraph, then spend 10 seconds or so in quiet contemplation (and let me know how that goes!), he would agree that at this point in the interview he's not even talking about prohibition anymore. He's talking about whether, at the individual level, the sum total of marijuana's effects tend to be positive or negative. And, you know, that's a question with an interesting, complex answer—certainly a conversation worth having—but it's not a legal issue.

Soy sauce, a breathalyzer, a sword, a pre-approved credit card offer, a Mexican wrestling mask, a 13-foot escape ladder (bought for a suspiciously low price), and a television. It only took me about two minutes of looking around my apartment to identify seven things that seem more likely than not to have an overall negative effect on me. Is that a good reason to make those things illegal? Of course not.

Hannity: But if you run for president, how do you reconcile these controversial positions with social conservatives that are not in agreement with you in the Republican Party?

Johnson: Well, and let's just get back to the amount of money that we're spending. Half of what we're spending on law enforcement, the courts and the prisons is drug-related. About $70 billion a year. And to what end? We're arresting 1.8 million people a year in this country on drug-related crime. And the use of drugs has not gone down. So again, advocating the legalization of marijuana, I just suggest is going to create an environment where police will actually be able to go out and address the real crime.

Very sly, Gary Johnson. I like what he says, but his answer to Hannity's question is in what he doesn't say. Conservatives seem to want libertarians like Johnson to try to pick apart their arguments about the harmfulness of marijuana, and I'm sure he could—not that they'd listen—but he wants them to realize they're completely missing the point. His "controversial position" is not that marijuana is harmless, but that we should re-evaluate our approach to it, because what we're doing now is:

1. Wasting money.
2. Wasting police resources.
3. Doing nothing to lessen its popularity.

Conservatives are more than welcome to argue with that, but they don't. Maybe, on some level, they know they can't. Instead, they change the subject to an argument they can win, or at least play to a draw: Drugs are bad for you.

I can't say I have much confidence in Gary Johnson's ability to re-focus the debate—especially if Sean Hannity is any indication (and it kind of seems like he is)—but at least he's trying.

1. Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, Tennessee Titans running back Chris Johnson, Wisconsin Senator-elect Ron Johnson, Miami Vice star Don Johnson, overpaid Atlanta Hawks guard Joe Johnson, 17th President of the United States Andrew Johnson, The Economist's language blog: Johnson…I can barely keep it all straight. Chad Ochocinco looks more brilliant every day.
2. I don't even need to define that, do I? I hope it catches on—it could be useful in a wide variety of situations:
— "Sorry, what were you saying? I got distracted. Some jackass just hannitied me in traffic."
— "When Peterson broke into the secondary it looked like he had a clear path to the end zone, but he was hannitied just outside the 10-yard-line. What an outstanding defensive play."
— "Objection, your honor. Opposing counsel is hannitying the witness."
— "Dude, I was so close to hooking up with this chick last night, but her ex-boyfriend showed up and hannitied me!"

Four-Down Football

If you don't know the story, you can read about it here. Or if you don't know the story and you're also a fan of hysterical overreactions, here. And if you'd rather just watch the damn video, here.

Basically, one year ago two days ago, New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick found himself in a situation where the overwhelming majority of coaches wouldn't hesitate to zig. Belichick chose instead to zag, and a few minutes later the Patriots lost the game. I won't go (too far) into the pros and cons of the decision itself, because way too much has been said already, and also that's not the point. Suffice it to say, it was defensible. Maybe it was right, maybe it was wrong, but any reasonable person can recognize that neither option—punt, or go for the first down—was substantially preferable to the other.

Alas, those with strong opinions about decisions made by professional football coaches are not, by and large, reasonable people. The backlash was immediate, and it came from all corners. Sportswriters (like Jay Mariotti and Pete Prisco):

This was the most obvious decision a coach could make on any level, NFL to Pee Wee. Punt the friggin' ball.

Each and every week we see bad coaching decisions in the NFL, but never, and I mean never, have I seen one as dumb as the decision Patriots coach Bill Belichick made Sunday night.

Players (like Rodney Harrison and Trent Dilfer):

This was the worst coaching decision I have ever seen Bill Belichick make.

This decision was ludicrous…This is the coach who's always talking about making good decisions…well he needs to be held accountable.

Coaches (like Tony Dungy):

You have to punt the ball in that situation. As much as you might respect Peyton Manning, you have to play the percentages and punt the ball.

And the football-watching public:

Bellicheat is no genius! Bottom line...he blew the call last night and cost New England the game!

There is absolutely no way to support the call he made. None.

It was the WRONG call last night. PERIOD.

So, yeah, a lot of people thought it was a bad idea, but note the subtle variations in the reasoning. There's "everybody punts in this situation," "going for it was too risky," "he must not respect his defense," and on and on. I'm resisting the urge to identify and pick apart as many as I can,^[1] because I want to focus on the one line of reasoning I find most disturbing. From Sports Illustrated's Peter King, the Indianapolis Star's Bob Kravitz, and the Boston Globe's Dan Shaughnessy:

I hated the call. It smacked of I'm-smarter-than-they-are hubris.

How did it come to pass that Belichick, a brilliant man, …eschew[ed] the obvious punt, arrogantly choosing to go for the first down?

[The] Patriots are saddled with a loss that will haunt them for the rest of the season. And Belichick gets the blame. Too smart for his own good this time. The sin of hubris.

While the "it was wrong for hazy and/or speculative tactical reasons" stuff was largely a product of the Patriots losing (because there's no faulty logic there), I'm not sure the "arrogant bastard!" crowd really cared who won—in fact, they might've been even more upset if the play had worked.

King, Kravitz, and Shaughnessy (who, by the way, are hardly alone here) sort of try to make tactics-based arguments, but you can tell their hearts aren't in it.^[2] They're writing out of anger. I don't know why they're angry—maybe because Belichick is (by many accounts) a fairly unlikeable guy, maybe (in Shaughnessy's case) because the Patriots lost—but I suspect at least part of it is that a guy widely considered to be smarter than pretty much everyone, and thus probably smarter than each of them, had just made a decision they didn't understand, and that pretty much all the early support for that decision came from other smart people.

Now, some may say, "in this era of high unemployment, out-of-control spending, and the president being a communist or something, who cares what a bunch of sportswriters said about a play in a football game?" Well to them I say perhaps it's time to work on your microcosm-spotting technique, because, pardon the oxymoron, but this whole thing is a big-ass microcosm. (Also, thanks for reading!)

The same attitude shows up everywhere, including areas where it can actually be dangerous. For example, climate change, and the ongoing debate about whether humans have caused measurable harm to the environment, and the related debate about whether we're capable of reversing or mitigating whatever damage has been (or will be) done. To be clear, I'm a lot more comfortable talking about football than climate change, in large part because I don't know where to go for scientific data that isn't biased in some way or another (is there such a thing?), but I'm a big fan of what Bjørn Lomborg says here:

Common sense was an early loser in the scorching battle over the reality of man-made global warming. For nearly 20 years, one group of activists argued—in the face of ever-mounting evidence—that global warming was a fabrication. Their opponents, meanwhile, exaggerated the phenomenon's likely impact—and, as a consequence, dogmatically fixated on drastic, short-term carbon cuts as the only solution, despite overwhelming evidence that such cuts would be cripplingly expensive and woefully ineffective.
…
Acknowledging that man-made climate change is real, but arguing that carbon cuts are not the answer, amounts to staking out a middle ground in the global warming debate—which means being attacked from both sides. For so-called "alarmists," pointing out what's wrong with drastic carbon cuts is somehow tantamount to denying the reality of climate change, while so-called "deniers" lambast anyone who accepts the scientific evidence supporting this "mythical" problem.

Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but any reasonable person can recognize this as a reasonable way of looking at things. At the very least, it's worth thinking about, right?

On the other hand, in the words—and I use that term more loosely than ever before in my life ^[3]—of everyone's favorite former Alaska governor:

Copenhgen=arrogance of man2think we can change nature's ways.MUST b good stewards of God's earth,but arrogant&naive2say man overpwers nature

Translation: "I simply cannot let the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit conclude without tweetin' my objection to what I perceive as the fundamental flaw of the event's underlying ethos. Namely, the notion that we, merely the humble children of our benevolent God, are capable of imposin' our will on forces—both natural and supernatural—beyond our full comprehension. To subscribe to this mentality is as arrogant as it is naïve, which is to say an excessive amount of both. That said, I do believe in treatin' the environment with respect, lest we do irreparable damage to this terrestrial home God has so graciously provided for us, and somehow I fail to realize that by qualifyin' the first thing I said I am, in fact, refudiatin' its logical foundation."

I don't think those sportswriters honestly believe going for the first down was indefensible, and I don't think Sarah Palin honestly believes there's nothing we can do to change the environment for the better. So, what's really going on?

It could be any number of things, I suppose, but, when a new idea challenges your worldview, it's a whole lot easier to attack the person who came up with it than the idea itself, because to attack the idea requires thought. So…that's my guess.

1. Alright, just one (this is why I love footnotes). From Bill Simmons:

Belichick did play the percentages…I am not disputing the numbers or the methods for achieving them.
…
In the biggest game of the regular season when a football coach tries something that…I cannot remember another team doing on the road in the last three minutes of a close game, that's not "gutsy." It's not a "gamble." It's not "believing we can get that two yards." It's not "revolutionary." It's not "statistically smart." It's reckless

No! Don't do things that give you a better chance of winning football games! That's reckless!
    I like Simmons, and I've obviously been subconsciously influenced by his writing style, and I really don't think he would've been one of the torch-wielding villagers in 17th-century Italy calling for Galileo's head, but that's what this makes me think of.

2. Peter King's half-hearted attempt is by far the silliest:

Let's place the odds of Brady getting two yards at 60, 65 percent. The odds of Manning going 72 yards to score a touchdown in less than two minutes…that's maybe 35 percent.

Ok, I'll play along. King says the Colts have a 35% chance of scoring after a punt, which means the chance of them not scoring is 65%—about the same as the odds he gives the Patriots of converting on fourth down. And, by the way, a failed conversion doesn't guarantee a Colts touchdown, nor does a Colts touchdown preclude the Patriots from re-taking the lead on their next possession, so New England's odds of winning would be somewhat higher than 60, 65%. Later, he adds:

[T]his would never have been a great call. Even it you think you've got a two-out-of-three chance to make two yards deep in your own territory, the cost of missing it is too great.

So going for it gives you a 66.7% chance of winning, and punting gives you a 65% chance of winning. Therefore, going for it is stupid and indefensible. Arrogant bastard!
    Peter King is trying to make an argument that only sounds reasonable if you justify it with made-up numbers, and he can't even do that right. It's mind-boggling. I blame the public schools.

3. Look, I realize Twitter's character limit creates a certain degree of difficulty, and I realize Palin likes to play up her folksiness, and I'm decidedly not a prescriptivist (I know I made some jokes above, but I'm more than willing to defend Palin on her gerunds and on the "refudiate" thing), but this is just awful. Even if I agreed with everything she said, I'm not sure I could ever vote for someone whose transcribed thoughts look like that.