Warner just hit a stand-up double to the gap. Were he a better speaker, it might have cleared the wall, but it's still extra bases.
His future/history theme was well prepared and delivered, and he managed to make the not terribly subtle point that there's a difference between looking to the past for guidance and dropping anchor there. This avenue of approach probably suggested itself long before the Saddleback forum, but that forum was the perfect example of McCain seeming mentally to exist almost forty years ago, speaking of almost nothing since that time. Warner did a good job of portraying McCain as the "reach back and stay there" candidate, which, granted, isn't terribly hard, but his phrasing was continually such that it was more implication than statement, and thus provided a counterpoint to McCain's backward glances with the Obama/Biden ticket's promise of forward moving into the future. His assurances are somewhat more credible than they'd otherwise be, since after having two businesses fail in a total of seven and a half months, as he put it, he hit gold -- and lots of it -- the third time around, getting in on the ground floor of the cell phone industry and turning that into better than $200 million. An extravagantly successful businessman in a then cutting-edge industry has sufficient cache to talk about the promise of the future in a global economy.
Warner also succeeded in bringing the message home, so to speak, peppering the later stages of his talk with brief but effective local anecdotes, from Danville, where manufacturing has long since died but shows some signs of returning, and Lebanon, coal country, probably a pointed reference to the need both for a new energy paradigm and the need not to leave workers behind once the new paradigm emerges and is gradually implemented.
This one hit off the top of the wall in the left-center gap, because Warner is just a somewhat stolid speaker. Were he as gifted as the man who preceded him in this role, or as capable as the woman following him, it'd have cleared the fence for sure.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
African-Americans Voting for Obama? Really?
One of the more interesting memes going around right now concerns the idea that it is somehow "unfair" to point out the naked racism in polls showing whites answering "definitely not" to the question of whether they could ever vote for a black man, while never questioning that 80-90% of the black vote will go to Obama in the fall. Stupefyingly, this assertion seems also be accompanied by a claim that these same voters "would never vote for a white man." "Guess it's only racist when whites do it" seem to be the general consensus, and you can almost feel the bewildered head-shaking and tongue-clucking that goes on behind the keyboards.
The problem is that this is a ludicrous point, a problem compounded by the many who seem to view it as legitimate. After all, black person + black vote (that's a curious idea in itself, and I somehow doubt that those throwing that idea out there have any idea what they actually mean by that, beyond "vote for a black person") = racial thinking, and that must = racism. Simple math, right?
Not so much, if only for one reason. Seems to me that the GOP was thrilled to take 11% of the African-American vote in 2004. "Finally, we broke double-digits!" That leaves -- and this is admittedly hasty math -- roughly 9 out of 10 African-American voters going for Kerry. Last I checked, Kerry is pretty white. As is Al Gore, who received even more votes from African-Americans, as is Bill Clinton, who likewise took in the overwhelming majority of African-American votes in his two elections.
It's cynical for a different reason to say that the "D" candidate will win the bulk of that vote, but that seems to be the given in this situation. What I can't figure out is why people would take that obvious conclusion -- that the "D" will garner roughly 90% of that particular bloc by itself -- and turn it into some sort of racial question.
Oh, wait, I think I just got it. Clever work.
Maybe the next time McCain calls Obama "testy" we should just mentally swap in "uppity." Let's at least understand exactly what is meant by the statement, lest we fall for the sort of verbal shenanigans that turn a predictable percentage of votes into some sort of illegitimate cache of "racist" votes.
The problem is that this is a ludicrous point, a problem compounded by the many who seem to view it as legitimate. After all, black person + black vote (that's a curious idea in itself, and I somehow doubt that those throwing that idea out there have any idea what they actually mean by that, beyond "vote for a black person") = racial thinking, and that must = racism. Simple math, right?
Not so much, if only for one reason. Seems to me that the GOP was thrilled to take 11% of the African-American vote in 2004. "Finally, we broke double-digits!" That leaves -- and this is admittedly hasty math -- roughly 9 out of 10 African-American voters going for Kerry. Last I checked, Kerry is pretty white. As is Al Gore, who received even more votes from African-Americans, as is Bill Clinton, who likewise took in the overwhelming majority of African-American votes in his two elections.
It's cynical for a different reason to say that the "D" candidate will win the bulk of that vote, but that seems to be the given in this situation. What I can't figure out is why people would take that obvious conclusion -- that the "D" will garner roughly 90% of that particular bloc by itself -- and turn it into some sort of racial question.
Oh, wait, I think I just got it. Clever work.
Maybe the next time McCain calls Obama "testy" we should just mentally swap in "uppity." Let's at least understand exactly what is meant by the statement, lest we fall for the sort of verbal shenanigans that turn a predictable percentage of votes into some sort of illegitimate cache of "racist" votes.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Obama and McCain at the Civil Forum:
This has been a fascinating couple of hours. It's too early to do any real analysis, but there are a few notable differences in style.
The two men could not have been more different. Obama spoke much more as Barack Obama, while McCain rarely let the Candidate McCain drop. The difference was different not only in terms of the timbre of their answers -- McCain spoke in soundbytes far too often, though far from exclusively, while Obama was far more comfortable speaking more genuinely and more conversationally -- and also in their mannerisms. McCain presented himself as though it were a political event, while Obama treated it as a conversation amongst a small gathering. McCain's repetitious "my friends" is a perfect example of this. Obama was casual at speaking to the crowd, to talking to Warren and to the audience at the same time, while McCain belabored the point, and laboriously tried to locate himself within and with the crowd, and presumably with the populace at large. As anyone who paid even a bit of attention in high school English should know, that level of repetition should be a huge red flag, signaling the dead opposite of what has been said. "My friends," indeed.
Obama's performance was generally exceptional, though he certainly dropped a few balls. He came across as thoughtful, as human, rather than as polished or "elitist." He spoke fluently from the Bible, noticeably from the New Testament, explicitly referencing Matthew ("Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me." Mt. 25:40) and James ("What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,' but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble." James 2:14-19). Not for nothing, but Obama was the only of the two to mention Jesus by name, a shocking omission on McCain's part, who failed even to use the word "God" in that setting. (I'm actually inclined to give McCain some credit for these omissions; he doesn't strike me as a particularly pious man, so his lack of 'name-dropping' may be just a decision not to seem pandering.) Obama was able to speak in terms of civil rights, without sounding like he was pushing the issue unduly, was able to speak in terms of humility without sounding weak, was able to "walk the walk" by speaking from multiple perspectives without sounding confused. As someone who has yet to be particularly impressed by Obama, this was a remarkable showing.
My big problem with McCain was twofold. First, his pandering. It was shameless, but, to be fair, it may have been of necessity: McCain cannot win without the evangelical vote, and that bloc has been far more indifferent to him than he would like. This need to reach out in that direction would account for some of his more shameless pandering, while Obama, who is going to lose that bloc 2-1 or worse, could afford to ignore the hostile crowd and talk to everyone else watching. My 'favorite' example of his pandering: the needless shot at France in the question about his most justified flip-flop (incidentally, a question that I appreciated Warren asking as he did, noting that sometimes flip-flops are good and necessary). It was a three-part answer: blunt support for the idiotic idea of offshore drilling, followed by a surprisingly detailed, considered expansion, which was then blown completely apart by a cheap "rofl France sux" quip. Totally unnecessary, total pandering -- at best; if it wasn't pandering, then it was just stupid.
I also disliked McCain's constant use of anecdotes. He's a fantastic story-teller, to be sure; he tells his story with impeccable delivery, he measures his voice and pacing well, and is simply engaging when he narrates like that. The problem is that almost all of his anecdotes are mired in Vietnam, as were the bulk of McCain's answers, somehow. He dated himself, frankly, and gave the impression that he somehow stopped thirty-five years ago.
My overall impression: Obama blew it out of the water, while McCain impressed me here and frustrated me there. There was never any danger of me voting for him to begin with, because I disagree with him on most issues of any substance, but whag he showed me was an inability to abstract and think in terms of any shades of gray -- or any color whatsoever, for that matter -- and a reliance on a "black and white" approach.
Obama, on the other hand, showed me three things that I wanted to see, and did so fairly convincingly. First, he demonstrated to me that his personal beliefs may lay a bit further to the left than he lets on, which is important for me. He coded his speech carefully, but effectively, and signaled some of what he'd like to say, and, hopefully, will at some point.
Second, he spoke constantly and believably in terms of humility, which emerged in his talk about empathy (a welcome thing to hear in its own right); in the need to preserve our own moral integrity before worrying about criticizing others, particularly vis-a-vis torture, civil rights, and habeas corpus; in the need to stop thinking of the present moment and start thinking about the next and second generations; and the need to be honest with ourselves and admit that we're going to have to sacrifice to solve the problems that are ahead of us. All of these require different kinds of humility, but the common thread linking them all is that theme: humility. Admission that we don't have all of the answers, that we are not in and of ourselves intrinsically superior to others, that we do not have the right to take everything for granted, and, perhaps most importantly, the kind of humility that recognizes that while we are not "better," we too are "worthy," and worthy, in this case, means deserving of hearing what needs to be said, whether we like it or not. This idea, that came through clearly in the way Obama spoke, is a refreshing thing to hear from a presidential candidate, and I very much appreciated it.
Lastly, I thoroughly enjoyed hearing Obama criticize Thomas, Scalia and Roberts for their opinions distorting the Constitution and expanding the powers of the executive branch beyond what was permitted in the Constitution. If he follows through with that idea and actually accepts the idea of a commensurately strong legislature and judiciary, if he follows through and accepts the idea of an executive branch that is on par with the other two branches, but does not lord over them -- if he, in short, is willing to accept the limitations on his own power and authority in the name of the preservation of the Constitution and the separation of powers, then he should go down in history as one of our greatest presidents, if only for that reason. After the last eight years, restoration of the basic balance of power in Washington would be reason enough to number him among the greats, particularly if he actually possesses sufficient humility to harm his ability to act in the process.
Sadly, the immediate post-forum coverage was criticizing Obama for being too "intellectual." Only in America could someone be faulted for sounding too smart. I guess that's why the media right now is all over the "stunning showing" by McCain and his canned soundbyte rhetoric.
The two men could not have been more different. Obama spoke much more as Barack Obama, while McCain rarely let the Candidate McCain drop. The difference was different not only in terms of the timbre of their answers -- McCain spoke in soundbytes far too often, though far from exclusively, while Obama was far more comfortable speaking more genuinely and more conversationally -- and also in their mannerisms. McCain presented himself as though it were a political event, while Obama treated it as a conversation amongst a small gathering. McCain's repetitious "my friends" is a perfect example of this. Obama was casual at speaking to the crowd, to talking to Warren and to the audience at the same time, while McCain belabored the point, and laboriously tried to locate himself within and with the crowd, and presumably with the populace at large. As anyone who paid even a bit of attention in high school English should know, that level of repetition should be a huge red flag, signaling the dead opposite of what has been said. "My friends," indeed.
Obama's performance was generally exceptional, though he certainly dropped a few balls. He came across as thoughtful, as human, rather than as polished or "elitist." He spoke fluently from the Bible, noticeably from the New Testament, explicitly referencing Matthew ("Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me." Mt. 25:40) and James ("What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,' but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble." James 2:14-19). Not for nothing, but Obama was the only of the two to mention Jesus by name, a shocking omission on McCain's part, who failed even to use the word "God" in that setting. (I'm actually inclined to give McCain some credit for these omissions; he doesn't strike me as a particularly pious man, so his lack of 'name-dropping' may be just a decision not to seem pandering.) Obama was able to speak in terms of civil rights, without sounding like he was pushing the issue unduly, was able to speak in terms of humility without sounding weak, was able to "walk the walk" by speaking from multiple perspectives without sounding confused. As someone who has yet to be particularly impressed by Obama, this was a remarkable showing.
My big problem with McCain was twofold. First, his pandering. It was shameless, but, to be fair, it may have been of necessity: McCain cannot win without the evangelical vote, and that bloc has been far more indifferent to him than he would like. This need to reach out in that direction would account for some of his more shameless pandering, while Obama, who is going to lose that bloc 2-1 or worse, could afford to ignore the hostile crowd and talk to everyone else watching. My 'favorite' example of his pandering: the needless shot at France in the question about his most justified flip-flop (incidentally, a question that I appreciated Warren asking as he did, noting that sometimes flip-flops are good and necessary). It was a three-part answer: blunt support for the idiotic idea of offshore drilling, followed by a surprisingly detailed, considered expansion, which was then blown completely apart by a cheap "rofl France sux" quip. Totally unnecessary, total pandering -- at best; if it wasn't pandering, then it was just stupid.
I also disliked McCain's constant use of anecdotes. He's a fantastic story-teller, to be sure; he tells his story with impeccable delivery, he measures his voice and pacing well, and is simply engaging when he narrates like that. The problem is that almost all of his anecdotes are mired in Vietnam, as were the bulk of McCain's answers, somehow. He dated himself, frankly, and gave the impression that he somehow stopped thirty-five years ago.
My overall impression: Obama blew it out of the water, while McCain impressed me here and frustrated me there. There was never any danger of me voting for him to begin with, because I disagree with him on most issues of any substance, but whag he showed me was an inability to abstract and think in terms of any shades of gray -- or any color whatsoever, for that matter -- and a reliance on a "black and white" approach.
Obama, on the other hand, showed me three things that I wanted to see, and did so fairly convincingly. First, he demonstrated to me that his personal beliefs may lay a bit further to the left than he lets on, which is important for me. He coded his speech carefully, but effectively, and signaled some of what he'd like to say, and, hopefully, will at some point.
Second, he spoke constantly and believably in terms of humility, which emerged in his talk about empathy (a welcome thing to hear in its own right); in the need to preserve our own moral integrity before worrying about criticizing others, particularly vis-a-vis torture, civil rights, and habeas corpus; in the need to stop thinking of the present moment and start thinking about the next and second generations; and the need to be honest with ourselves and admit that we're going to have to sacrifice to solve the problems that are ahead of us. All of these require different kinds of humility, but the common thread linking them all is that theme: humility. Admission that we don't have all of the answers, that we are not in and of ourselves intrinsically superior to others, that we do not have the right to take everything for granted, and, perhaps most importantly, the kind of humility that recognizes that while we are not "better," we too are "worthy," and worthy, in this case, means deserving of hearing what needs to be said, whether we like it or not. This idea, that came through clearly in the way Obama spoke, is a refreshing thing to hear from a presidential candidate, and I very much appreciated it.
Lastly, I thoroughly enjoyed hearing Obama criticize Thomas, Scalia and Roberts for their opinions distorting the Constitution and expanding the powers of the executive branch beyond what was permitted in the Constitution. If he follows through with that idea and actually accepts the idea of a commensurately strong legislature and judiciary, if he follows through and accepts the idea of an executive branch that is on par with the other two branches, but does not lord over them -- if he, in short, is willing to accept the limitations on his own power and authority in the name of the preservation of the Constitution and the separation of powers, then he should go down in history as one of our greatest presidents, if only for that reason. After the last eight years, restoration of the basic balance of power in Washington would be reason enough to number him among the greats, particularly if he actually possesses sufficient humility to harm his ability to act in the process.
Sadly, the immediate post-forum coverage was criticizing Obama for being too "intellectual." Only in America could someone be faulted for sounding too smart. I guess that's why the media right now is all over the "stunning showing" by McCain and his canned soundbyte rhetoric.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Senators, Governors, and Baby Wahoos, Oh My!
Quick hit #1: future VA junior Senator Mark Warner is going to deliver the keynote address at the Democratic National convention. Should be a gratuitous boost to Warner's campaign, should give Obama a bit better bump in the Old Dominion, possibly elsewhere (though I wouldn't stake much on that), and brings into question whether VA Gov. Tim Kaine will be Obama's VP pick. Interesting.
Quick hit #2: While I was off at a meeting, Iris took Lilja over to the UVA Grounds. Seems she was utterly delighted, which, of course, utterly delights me.
Quick hit #3: I'd be worried were it possible to OD on baby Hoo gear:
Quick hit #2: While I was off at a meeting, Iris took Lilja over to the UVA Grounds. Seems she was utterly delighted, which, of course, utterly delights me.
Quick hit #3: I'd be worried were it possible to OD on baby Hoo gear:
Thursday, August 07, 2008
On the idea of "Legacy," II:
For a recent writing project, I had to put together a few hundred words about former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas's impact and legacy -- how he's viewed by historians and legal historians, what his impact on the Court was beyond the end of his term, what his impact on the country was, that sort of thing.
Truth be told, that's what has had the idea on my mind lately, much more so than the Favre situation. (Incidentally, the Jets? HA! Sorry to hear that, Brett.) I had a dilemma that I think that I managed to resolve, on paper, at least, while dealing with the idea of Douglas's legacy. I had a couple of people read the piece to see whether I was maintaining as detached and neutral a voice as possible, and they assured me that I was, but still, I can go back and read it and think "man, whoever wrote this really likes Justice Douglas but really dislikes Bill Douglas." I hope it's because I wrote it and I know what was in mind at the time, and that it doesn't hit anyone else who reads it that way, but that's how it keeps coming back to me.
Now I'm working on a different project involving George Kennan, which is much easier, because I find a lot less in Kennan to dislike or not respect. It will be easier, I think, to write shortly about the legacy of a man that I genuinely and generally admire, rather than someone that I admire in his professional life (for the most part) that is simultaneously someone that I "dislike" on a personal level, as much sense as it makes to dislike someone who died when I was 2 and who, obviously, I never knew.
I find this idea -- that it will be easier for me to be detached and forthright about someone whom I like rather than someone about whom I am ambivalent -- curious.
What of Douglas? Bill Douglas was a man pathologically incapable of being happy where he was. When he was working for the SEC, he was gunning for the Chairmanship. When he was appointed to the Supreme Court, he kept his presidential ambitions alive for more than 20 years, despite turning down Truman's offer to be his running mate in 1948. When Johnson lost out to Kennedy in 1960, Douglas took it personally, because he believed that he'd be a shoo-in as LBJ's VP; he took it so personally, in fact, that he went on a week-long bender, at one point screaming, "This always happens to me!" in front of many witnesses. Not exactly behavior befitting a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Douglas was also the consummate user, incapable of maintaining a healthy adult relationship. He used his first wife for as long as he could before finally discarding her for a woman more than twenty years her junior. The estrangement with his first wife and children was so complete that his children didn't bother to let him know when their mother had died. The second wife fared no better than the first, tossed over for an even younger woman, who was in her turn cast aside for a younger woman, who was the fourth and final wife only, in all likelihood, because Douglas suffered a debilitating stroke, which limited his final years. No one who was around Douglas for very long seems to have had anything nice to say about him; respectful, yes, but nary a kind word to be found. He was also, by all accounts, a royal pain in the ass on the bench; there have been more divisive, caustic and difficult to work with Justices, but, by all accounts, not too many.
Justice Douglas, on the other hand, is a different story. Although siding with the government in several ignoble decisions concerning wartime restrictions of civil liberties during the Second World War, Douglas, by the late 1940s, had become the court's staunchest pro-civil rights voice. Indeed, his stance on civil rights for all segments of society was one of the most consistent aspects of his judicial personality for the next nearly thirty years. Douglas, from the bench, and most often in dissent (he retired as the all-time leader in most dissents filed [531], which record has not yet been eclipsed), spoke up in favor of the communists, when their right to free speech was imperiled; in favor of women, seeking greater equality in society; and in favor of minorities, particularly African-Americans, in their quest for equal rights. Furman v. Georgia, the case that temporarily shut down all death rows in the United States, is a good case in point. While other justices were concerned with the arbitrariness of application (Potter Stewart's "lightning strike" analogy is probably the most famous line from the decision), or determined that the penalty was either flatly constitutional or unconstitutional, only Douglas was willing to look at the disparities in application, and to opine that one of the reasons the death penalty as applied was unconstitutional was because it was disproportionately -- and, for Douglas, unconscionably -- applied to the poor and to minorities. Not only was Douglas ahead of his time, he remains ahead of our time -- thirty-six years ago, he held the death penalty unconstitutional because it was applied in a patently racially discriminatory fashion; twenty-one years ago, the Supreme Court agreed that this seemed to be the case, but refused to find that sufficient grounds to strike the penalty down.
So where should his legacy come from? Given his career, it seems obvious that he, and his legacy, should be considered with regard to his public career -- as Justice Douglas, in other words, rather than Bill Douglas.
But how much of a pass should Bill Douglas be given when considering Justice Douglas? Or, were it reversed, and Justice Douglas the reprehensible human being and Bill Douglas the greatest guy in the world, would Bill mitigate the Justice?
Probably not, and that's probably the right way to look at it. Legacy, when thinking of public individuals, should probably be based on the magnitude of impact; as terrible as it was for Bill Douglas's kids to grow up with a terrible father, Justice Douglas had a far greater impact on more people than did Bill; hence, his legacy will be derived from that impact, not his personal impact.
It's a curious statement about the division between public and private -- and I say this knowing that not everyone out there agrees that the two are so separable.
Truth be told, that's what has had the idea on my mind lately, much more so than the Favre situation. (Incidentally, the Jets? HA! Sorry to hear that, Brett.) I had a dilemma that I think that I managed to resolve, on paper, at least, while dealing with the idea of Douglas's legacy. I had a couple of people read the piece to see whether I was maintaining as detached and neutral a voice as possible, and they assured me that I was, but still, I can go back and read it and think "man, whoever wrote this really likes Justice Douglas but really dislikes Bill Douglas." I hope it's because I wrote it and I know what was in mind at the time, and that it doesn't hit anyone else who reads it that way, but that's how it keeps coming back to me.
Now I'm working on a different project involving George Kennan, which is much easier, because I find a lot less in Kennan to dislike or not respect. It will be easier, I think, to write shortly about the legacy of a man that I genuinely and generally admire, rather than someone that I admire in his professional life (for the most part) that is simultaneously someone that I "dislike" on a personal level, as much sense as it makes to dislike someone who died when I was 2 and who, obviously, I never knew.
I find this idea -- that it will be easier for me to be detached and forthright about someone whom I like rather than someone about whom I am ambivalent -- curious.
What of Douglas? Bill Douglas was a man pathologically incapable of being happy where he was. When he was working for the SEC, he was gunning for the Chairmanship. When he was appointed to the Supreme Court, he kept his presidential ambitions alive for more than 20 years, despite turning down Truman's offer to be his running mate in 1948. When Johnson lost out to Kennedy in 1960, Douglas took it personally, because he believed that he'd be a shoo-in as LBJ's VP; he took it so personally, in fact, that he went on a week-long bender, at one point screaming, "This always happens to me!" in front of many witnesses. Not exactly behavior befitting a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Douglas was also the consummate user, incapable of maintaining a healthy adult relationship. He used his first wife for as long as he could before finally discarding her for a woman more than twenty years her junior. The estrangement with his first wife and children was so complete that his children didn't bother to let him know when their mother had died. The second wife fared no better than the first, tossed over for an even younger woman, who was in her turn cast aside for a younger woman, who was the fourth and final wife only, in all likelihood, because Douglas suffered a debilitating stroke, which limited his final years. No one who was around Douglas for very long seems to have had anything nice to say about him; respectful, yes, but nary a kind word to be found. He was also, by all accounts, a royal pain in the ass on the bench; there have been more divisive, caustic and difficult to work with Justices, but, by all accounts, not too many.
Justice Douglas, on the other hand, is a different story. Although siding with the government in several ignoble decisions concerning wartime restrictions of civil liberties during the Second World War, Douglas, by the late 1940s, had become the court's staunchest pro-civil rights voice. Indeed, his stance on civil rights for all segments of society was one of the most consistent aspects of his judicial personality for the next nearly thirty years. Douglas, from the bench, and most often in dissent (he retired as the all-time leader in most dissents filed [531], which record has not yet been eclipsed), spoke up in favor of the communists, when their right to free speech was imperiled; in favor of women, seeking greater equality in society; and in favor of minorities, particularly African-Americans, in their quest for equal rights. Furman v. Georgia, the case that temporarily shut down all death rows in the United States, is a good case in point. While other justices were concerned with the arbitrariness of application (Potter Stewart's "lightning strike" analogy is probably the most famous line from the decision), or determined that the penalty was either flatly constitutional or unconstitutional, only Douglas was willing to look at the disparities in application, and to opine that one of the reasons the death penalty as applied was unconstitutional was because it was disproportionately -- and, for Douglas, unconscionably -- applied to the poor and to minorities. Not only was Douglas ahead of his time, he remains ahead of our time -- thirty-six years ago, he held the death penalty unconstitutional because it was applied in a patently racially discriminatory fashion; twenty-one years ago, the Supreme Court agreed that this seemed to be the case, but refused to find that sufficient grounds to strike the penalty down.
So where should his legacy come from? Given his career, it seems obvious that he, and his legacy, should be considered with regard to his public career -- as Justice Douglas, in other words, rather than Bill Douglas.
But how much of a pass should Bill Douglas be given when considering Justice Douglas? Or, were it reversed, and Justice Douglas the reprehensible human being and Bill Douglas the greatest guy in the world, would Bill mitigate the Justice?
Probably not, and that's probably the right way to look at it. Legacy, when thinking of public individuals, should probably be based on the magnitude of impact; as terrible as it was for Bill Douglas's kids to grow up with a terrible father, Justice Douglas had a far greater impact on more people than did Bill; hence, his legacy will be derived from that impact, not his personal impact.
It's a curious statement about the division between public and private -- and I say this knowing that not everyone out there agrees that the two are so separable.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Playing Fast and Loose with Colors:
BEHOLD!
This is the headline that greeted me on the front page of the local section of today's paper.
One would have to be forgiven for reading the headline and concluding that while more green buildings are being built, they obviously cost more, and so aren't economically feasible in a downturn/recession/depression/whatever, blah blah blah.
Thing is, it's not the cost of the buildings that's going up, which becomes clear when you actually read the article. In fact, as the article states a couple of times, the building costs range between competitive with and equal to traditional construction. What's going up is the rent that property owners can charge, based on the cache that "green buildings" now carry.
Nice deceptive headline, though. This is a deeply conservative part of the state, as redundant as that generally is, so it's understood, but is it too much to ask that the local paper be at least a little more honest in how it presents stories?
Then again, it may not matter anyway. Virginia Beach, lo and behold, is now officially a "green destination," despite offering, well, nothing in the way of green changes, developments, plans, etc.
How, you may wonder, did VB become a green destination?
"A few months back, the Virginia Green program told the city it would approve the moniker if 20 restaurants, 12 hotels, one attraction and the Virginia Beach Convention Center could be certified as places working toward environmentally conscious habits."
Let me get this straight: 20 restaurants, 12 hotels, one "attraction," whatever the hell that means, and the VBCC start working toward environmentally conscious habits, and this city of nearly half a million -- so clearly represented by the overwhelming preponderance of edifices and organizations -- oh, and an "attraction" -- working toward environmentally conscious habits becomes a green destination.
Scaling downward, Richmond would need about half of that -- so, say, 10 restaurants, 6 hotels, a half of an "attraction," and, say, the Coliseum or something, start working toward environmentally conscious habits, and boom! Richmond is also a green city.
Working toward.
Why does it feel like people are cutting out the lights when they leave the room? Nothing necessarily meaningful, just, you know working toward a solution.
This is the headline that greeted me on the front page of the local section of today's paper.
One would have to be forgiven for reading the headline and concluding that while more green buildings are being built, they obviously cost more, and so aren't economically feasible in a downturn/recession/depression/whatever, blah blah blah.
Thing is, it's not the cost of the buildings that's going up, which becomes clear when you actually read the article. In fact, as the article states a couple of times, the building costs range between competitive with and equal to traditional construction. What's going up is the rent that property owners can charge, based on the cache that "green buildings" now carry.
Nice deceptive headline, though. This is a deeply conservative part of the state, as redundant as that generally is, so it's understood, but is it too much to ask that the local paper be at least a little more honest in how it presents stories?
Then again, it may not matter anyway. Virginia Beach, lo and behold, is now officially a "green destination," despite offering, well, nothing in the way of green changes, developments, plans, etc.
How, you may wonder, did VB become a green destination?
"A few months back, the Virginia Green program told the city it would approve the moniker if 20 restaurants, 12 hotels, one attraction and the Virginia Beach Convention Center could be certified as places working toward environmentally conscious habits."
Let me get this straight: 20 restaurants, 12 hotels, one "attraction," whatever the hell that means, and the VBCC start working toward environmentally conscious habits, and this city of nearly half a million -- so clearly represented by the overwhelming preponderance of edifices and organizations -- oh, and an "attraction" -- working toward environmentally conscious habits becomes a green destination.
Scaling downward, Richmond would need about half of that -- so, say, 10 restaurants, 6 hotels, a half of an "attraction," and, say, the Coliseum or something, start working toward environmentally conscious habits, and boom! Richmond is also a green city.
Working toward.
Why does it feel like people are cutting out the lights when they leave the room? Nothing necessarily meaningful, just, you know working toward a solution.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Al Gore's "Man on the Moon" Energy Challenge:
Good for him.
My favorite quote:
"It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil 10 years from now," Gore said.
Take that, Themla Drake!
My favorite quote:
"It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil 10 years from now," Gore said.
Take that, Themla Drake!
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Why to Vote Against Thelma Drake in VA-2 In November:
Sometimes I love my Congressional district. It is in my home district, after all, that Ed Schrock, the #2 most-conservative congressman and #1 anti-gay congressman, is outed for . . . soliciting sex from men. Needless to say, many of us had a great laugh at that hypocritical bastard's expense and moved on with our lives, even after he was forced to drop his reelection bid.
Enter Thelma Drake. If ever there was a "rubber stamp" for W, she's it. Totally useless, and barely survived a disorganized and poorly coordinated, if spirited, challenge from Phil Kellam in '06.
This year, she's opposed by Glenn Nye, one of two candidates I'm already committed to voting for (the second being former governor Mark Warner in his senatorial bid).
Even if I weren't going to vote for Nye, I'd vote against Drake. Why?
Let's check the list of reasons -- taken from the email her office sent out today (her email in italics):
July 2008 eNewsletter
Hello!
I hope you had a wonderful Fourth of July. There have been a lot of developments in Washington over the last month and I want to take a moment to bring you up to speed on them.
Energy
Although Second District families are struggling under the burden of outrageous gas and energy prices, Congress has again left for the week without an up-or-down vote on a comprehensive strategy to address our current energy crisis. Families are hurting and bills the House has considered like punishing speculators or raising taxes on energy producers are simply not serious solutions to the predicament our country is in. Last week, the House voted on the establishment of a National Historic Trail and a measure on the preservation of White House emails. The American people are tired of Congress voting on half measures and meaningless bills.
Let's start here, shall we? First of all, if you're going to change the subject, I'd suggest not changing it to things that make you look even worse for the position you're taking. When there are as many as FIVE MILLION emails missing from White House servers, emails that -- surprise of surprises! -- pertained to thoroughly corrupt activities originating from and on behalf of that White House, it's a legitimate issue. What Drake is saying is that she opposes open government, and supports the right of the executive to rule, rather than to govern. Thelma Drake, in her own words, would do away with checks and balances entirely and revert to some sort of rotating emperorship (assuming she's still ok with change at the top; for all she indicates, she could be in favor of life terms for executives). Thanks for the clarification, Thelma, not that anyone needed it.
Second, only in America could the idea of legislation creating a National Historic Trail deemed meaningless. Again, though, Drake just outright steps in it. The trail in question? The Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail (trust me, it's in there), commemorating the Chesapeake theater of the War of 1812. This includes the siege of Fort McHenry in Baltimore Harbor -- you know, the siege that produced our national anthem. How delightfully patriotic a statement from a woman who wouldn't be caught dead without a flag stapled to her ass.
Now, the idea that she opposes windfall taxes and trying to find some regulatory measure to somehow hinder speculation isn't terribly surprising, since this woman is more thoroughly in the grasp of Big Oil than virtually anyone in Congress, so we can leave that more or less to the side, except for observing that speculation is an obvious part of what's driving the surge in crude prices, and for someone who purports to be concerned about the "pain" being inflicted on VA-2 families to support this speculation (which is what she tacitly does) is a glorious display of dishonesty.
I am strongly in favor of a comprehensive solution to the energy crisis that will:
1. Increase our domestic supply by expanding the development of American energy from the Outer Continental Shelf and ANWR; oil shale and oil sands; and liquefied coal technology for gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel;
Stop right there. None of these make a short-term difference. If she were phrasing her plans in long-term language, then I'd have different objections -- such as the observation that ANWR will contribute less than 1% of projected U.S. oil needs even at full capacity, or that the amount of oil in ANWR could be saved in a year if every vehicle on American roads were simply ONE mile per gallon more efficient. Does Thelma support raising CAFE standards? Hell no.
What she does support is lying through her teeth by talking about two different things, relying on people not to notice.
Oh, and I'd love to hear her 1a: she wants to open U.S. "reserves," ok, but here's the catch: what's the mechanism for ensuring that the oil stays in the U.S. market and isn't exported? No one has yet answered this question, that I'm aware of, but if you wanted more proof that Drake is working for Big Oil and against the rest of us, there it is: she wants to exploit what's left so that it can hit the market. The global market. How, exactly, will this help U.S. and VA-2 families?
It won't. But gosh, it sure sounds nice, don't it?
2. Invest in alternative forms of energy like biodiesel, solar, geothermal, and nuclear; and
With the exception of nuclear, I love this idea. Curiously, though, she left "wind" off the list. My hunch is that this is most likely because the proposed offshore wind platforms happen to coincide with the desired drilling locations off the Virginia coast; I just looked around for a couple of maps, to try and superimpose the two, but didn't net what I was looking for (so if anyone can help, I'd be curious, and appreciative).
3. Encourage conservation measures.
Then stand up and call for CAFE standards to go up by 10, fleet-wide, within two years. And then by another ten five years after that. And by another ten five after that.
How about stumping for more tax incentives to homeowners and property managers to help? Put solar cells on your buildings, get a meaningful tax break. Oh, and how about reaching out to Richmond to pressure Dominion to rebate customers for the kilowattage their home-based units contribute to the grid? We're going to have to entirely rebuild the electric grid at some point, and are in the process of very slowly doing so, so how about putting your money where your mouth is and encouraging the hastening of that process?
Oh, and lastly, can we get ALL of the above-ground power lines in VA-2 underground already? How many times can they be knocked over by a storm and put back up before it's just throwing good money after bad? I suspect we've long since reached that point, but what the hey, it's hurricane season, so I'm sure they'll drop a couple of times over the next couple of months somewhere in Thelma's district . . .
I call this the “All of the Above” approach to the energy crisis.
No comment.
I’ve talked to people in the Second District who cannot afford to put more than $10 of gas in their tank and others who have stopped driving all together and ride a bicycle to work. This is unacceptable and I am working to get a comprehensive package through Congress that will bring badly needed relief to families in Hampton Roads, on the Eastern Shore, and all over America.
Why, exactly, is this unacceptable? I ride my bike to work frequently back in Germany -- what prevents people from doing so here?
Riding your bike to work is unacceptable. There's logic for you. Thelma's clearly still working with a high-school mentality, where it's "uncool" to ride your bike.
National Security
Recently, Congress did work effectively in passing two bills which are vital to our national security. Congress passed legislation sending much needed funds to our troops in harm’s way and re-authorized a program that allows our intelligence agencies to monitor terrorist communications as they plot against our families.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorizes our intelligence professionals to monitor the phone calls and emails of terrorists who pose a threat to the security of the United States.
For more information on FISA, please click here.
The bill also provided cover to continue spying on Americans and gathering data on all of us, but we'll just ignore that -- not that anyone seems to care anyway (thanks, Dems in congress, way to CONTINUE to drop the ball on that one).
The Supplemental Appropriations Bill provided badly needed funding for our servicemembers deployed in combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also reformed the GI bill, updating the veterans’ education benefit for the 21st century.
Courtesy of Jim Webb, and it was a provision that you, your president, and your party hotly and stridently opposed -- but hey, let's all share the credit, now that we couldn't get it stopped, right? More dishonesty.
For more information on the Supplemental and the GI Bill reform, please click here.
I am proud to be your Representative in Congress and would love to hear from you.
I doubt it.
If you have any questions, suggestions, or opinions you would like to share with me, please click here to send me an email.
You know, over the years, I've had occasion to contact various elected officials about various things. I've contacted three Senators, two Representatives, and numerous state delegates and state senators.
Funny thing, Thelma Drake is the only one from I never even received so much as a form letter -- or even a form email, for that matter.
Go figure.
If you would like to get more frequent email updates from my office, please click here to subscribe.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read this update.
All my best,
Thelma
You're very welcome, Thelma. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to show some people what your message truly is, and in your own words.
With best wishes for a happy private life starting in January,
Anthony
Enter Thelma Drake. If ever there was a "rubber stamp" for W, she's it. Totally useless, and barely survived a disorganized and poorly coordinated, if spirited, challenge from Phil Kellam in '06.
This year, she's opposed by Glenn Nye, one of two candidates I'm already committed to voting for (the second being former governor Mark Warner in his senatorial bid).
Even if I weren't going to vote for Nye, I'd vote against Drake. Why?
Let's check the list of reasons -- taken from the email her office sent out today (her email in italics):
July 2008 eNewsletter
Hello!
I hope you had a wonderful Fourth of July. There have been a lot of developments in Washington over the last month and I want to take a moment to bring you up to speed on them.
Energy
Although Second District families are struggling under the burden of outrageous gas and energy prices, Congress has again left for the week without an up-or-down vote on a comprehensive strategy to address our current energy crisis. Families are hurting and bills the House has considered like punishing speculators or raising taxes on energy producers are simply not serious solutions to the predicament our country is in. Last week, the House voted on the establishment of a National Historic Trail and a measure on the preservation of White House emails. The American people are tired of Congress voting on half measures and meaningless bills.
Let's start here, shall we? First of all, if you're going to change the subject, I'd suggest not changing it to things that make you look even worse for the position you're taking. When there are as many as FIVE MILLION emails missing from White House servers, emails that -- surprise of surprises! -- pertained to thoroughly corrupt activities originating from and on behalf of that White House, it's a legitimate issue. What Drake is saying is that she opposes open government, and supports the right of the executive to rule, rather than to govern. Thelma Drake, in her own words, would do away with checks and balances entirely and revert to some sort of rotating emperorship (assuming she's still ok with change at the top; for all she indicates, she could be in favor of life terms for executives). Thanks for the clarification, Thelma, not that anyone needed it.
Second, only in America could the idea of legislation creating a National Historic Trail deemed meaningless. Again, though, Drake just outright steps in it. The trail in question? The Star-Spangled Banner National Historic Trail (trust me, it's in there), commemorating the Chesapeake theater of the War of 1812. This includes the siege of Fort McHenry in Baltimore Harbor -- you know, the siege that produced our national anthem. How delightfully patriotic a statement from a woman who wouldn't be caught dead without a flag stapled to her ass.
Now, the idea that she opposes windfall taxes and trying to find some regulatory measure to somehow hinder speculation isn't terribly surprising, since this woman is more thoroughly in the grasp of Big Oil than virtually anyone in Congress, so we can leave that more or less to the side, except for observing that speculation is an obvious part of what's driving the surge in crude prices, and for someone who purports to be concerned about the "pain" being inflicted on VA-2 families to support this speculation (which is what she tacitly does) is a glorious display of dishonesty.
I am strongly in favor of a comprehensive solution to the energy crisis that will:
1. Increase our domestic supply by expanding the development of American energy from the Outer Continental Shelf and ANWR; oil shale and oil sands; and liquefied coal technology for gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel;
Stop right there. None of these make a short-term difference. If she were phrasing her plans in long-term language, then I'd have different objections -- such as the observation that ANWR will contribute less than 1% of projected U.S. oil needs even at full capacity, or that the amount of oil in ANWR could be saved in a year if every vehicle on American roads were simply ONE mile per gallon more efficient. Does Thelma support raising CAFE standards? Hell no.
What she does support is lying through her teeth by talking about two different things, relying on people not to notice.
Oh, and I'd love to hear her 1a: she wants to open U.S. "reserves," ok, but here's the catch: what's the mechanism for ensuring that the oil stays in the U.S. market and isn't exported? No one has yet answered this question, that I'm aware of, but if you wanted more proof that Drake is working for Big Oil and against the rest of us, there it is: she wants to exploit what's left so that it can hit the market. The global market. How, exactly, will this help U.S. and VA-2 families?
It won't. But gosh, it sure sounds nice, don't it?
2. Invest in alternative forms of energy like biodiesel, solar, geothermal, and nuclear; and
With the exception of nuclear, I love this idea. Curiously, though, she left "wind" off the list. My hunch is that this is most likely because the proposed offshore wind platforms happen to coincide with the desired drilling locations off the Virginia coast; I just looked around for a couple of maps, to try and superimpose the two, but didn't net what I was looking for (so if anyone can help, I'd be curious, and appreciative).
3. Encourage conservation measures.
Then stand up and call for CAFE standards to go up by 10, fleet-wide, within two years. And then by another ten five years after that. And by another ten five after that.
How about stumping for more tax incentives to homeowners and property managers to help? Put solar cells on your buildings, get a meaningful tax break. Oh, and how about reaching out to Richmond to pressure Dominion to rebate customers for the kilowattage their home-based units contribute to the grid? We're going to have to entirely rebuild the electric grid at some point, and are in the process of very slowly doing so, so how about putting your money where your mouth is and encouraging the hastening of that process?
Oh, and lastly, can we get ALL of the above-ground power lines in VA-2 underground already? How many times can they be knocked over by a storm and put back up before it's just throwing good money after bad? I suspect we've long since reached that point, but what the hey, it's hurricane season, so I'm sure they'll drop a couple of times over the next couple of months somewhere in Thelma's district . . .
I call this the “All of the Above” approach to the energy crisis.
No comment.
I’ve talked to people in the Second District who cannot afford to put more than $10 of gas in their tank and others who have stopped driving all together and ride a bicycle to work. This is unacceptable and I am working to get a comprehensive package through Congress that will bring badly needed relief to families in Hampton Roads, on the Eastern Shore, and all over America.
Why, exactly, is this unacceptable? I ride my bike to work frequently back in Germany -- what prevents people from doing so here?
Riding your bike to work is unacceptable. There's logic for you. Thelma's clearly still working with a high-school mentality, where it's "uncool" to ride your bike.
National Security
Recently, Congress did work effectively in passing two bills which are vital to our national security. Congress passed legislation sending much needed funds to our troops in harm’s way and re-authorized a program that allows our intelligence agencies to monitor terrorist communications as they plot against our families.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorizes our intelligence professionals to monitor the phone calls and emails of terrorists who pose a threat to the security of the United States.
For more information on FISA, please click here.
The bill also provided cover to continue spying on Americans and gathering data on all of us, but we'll just ignore that -- not that anyone seems to care anyway (thanks, Dems in congress, way to CONTINUE to drop the ball on that one).
The Supplemental Appropriations Bill provided badly needed funding for our servicemembers deployed in combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also reformed the GI bill, updating the veterans’ education benefit for the 21st century.
Courtesy of Jim Webb, and it was a provision that you, your president, and your party hotly and stridently opposed -- but hey, let's all share the credit, now that we couldn't get it stopped, right? More dishonesty.
For more information on the Supplemental and the GI Bill reform, please click here.
I am proud to be your Representative in Congress and would love to hear from you.
I doubt it.
If you have any questions, suggestions, or opinions you would like to share with me, please click here to send me an email.
You know, over the years, I've had occasion to contact various elected officials about various things. I've contacted three Senators, two Representatives, and numerous state delegates and state senators.
Funny thing, Thelma Drake is the only one from I never even received so much as a form letter -- or even a form email, for that matter.
Go figure.
If you would like to get more frequent email updates from my office, please click here to subscribe.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read this update.
All my best,
Thelma
You're very welcome, Thelma. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to show some people what your message truly is, and in your own words.
With best wishes for a happy private life starting in January,
Anthony
Sunday, June 29, 2008
The Childish Logic of the White House (and the EPA Doesn't Come Off So Well, Either):
In a virtually unprecedented display of inexplicable childishness, the White House has decided that it's better off not opening an email from the EPA.
The reason? The EPA was ordered last year to study the question of whether greenhouse gasses are pollutants. The Agency did what it was supposed to do, and delivered the report to the White House. Via email, evidently. (This strikes me as beyond bizarre, and highly suspicious, but let's play along for now.)
The White House, in a display of bravado that's almost literally breathtaking, is claiming that it never received the report -- because no one opened the email.
I should be surprised, but the only thing that's surprising about this is the sheer creativity of it. Can you imagine being in that room, when this "course of action" was being decided? "Oh, I know! Can't we just not open it?"
Evidently, "that's the dumbest @!#@%$^ thing I've ever heard" lost out to "holy #$^%, why didn't I think of that?!"
Now the EPA, in true Washington fashion, is backing down, and is going to expunge politically unfavorable portions from the report. Chickens. All they're doing is joining the legions in our government abjectly abdicating their responsibilities because they don't have the guts to stand up and fight for what they know is right -- they're not even going to stand up and fight for themselves.
One of the soon-to-be-excised pieces (from the NYT link above):
"Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years."
So let's see. The EPA would, if left to its own devices, class greenhouse gases as pollutants -- theoretically, at any rate. The EPA's study concluded that we could actually make money by taking on the problem of greenhouse gas emissions . . .
. . . and yet, they'd rather not take a principled stand, or even take the base economic stand. They'd rather get their email read, so they can say "hey, we tried to tell them!"
Pathetic.
The reason? The EPA was ordered last year to study the question of whether greenhouse gasses are pollutants. The Agency did what it was supposed to do, and delivered the report to the White House. Via email, evidently. (This strikes me as beyond bizarre, and highly suspicious, but let's play along for now.)
The White House, in a display of bravado that's almost literally breathtaking, is claiming that it never received the report -- because no one opened the email.
I should be surprised, but the only thing that's surprising about this is the sheer creativity of it. Can you imagine being in that room, when this "course of action" was being decided? "Oh, I know! Can't we just not open it?"
Evidently, "that's the dumbest @!#@%$^ thing I've ever heard" lost out to "holy #$^%, why didn't I think of that?!"
Now the EPA, in true Washington fashion, is backing down, and is going to expunge politically unfavorable portions from the report. Chickens. All they're doing is joining the legions in our government abjectly abdicating their responsibilities because they don't have the guts to stand up and fight for what they know is right -- they're not even going to stand up and fight for themselves.
One of the soon-to-be-excised pieces (from the NYT link above):
"Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years."
So let's see. The EPA would, if left to its own devices, class greenhouse gases as pollutants -- theoretically, at any rate. The EPA's study concluded that we could actually make money by taking on the problem of greenhouse gas emissions . . .
. . . and yet, they'd rather not take a principled stand, or even take the base economic stand. They'd rather get their email read, so they can say "hey, we tried to tell them!"
Pathetic.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
James Dobson Has the Balls to Accuse Someone Else of Eisegesis:
I've got to tune into Focus on the Family today, or catch it online somewhere. I am really, REALLY interested to hear James Dobson, of all people, distorting the Bible.
I won't say much, since the basic idea I'd be going for has already been expressed more succinctly than I could, but I will quote James Megivern, author of, among others, The Death Penalty: An Historical and Theological Survey:
"There is nothing so fruitless as wrangling over the meaning of the Bible when the real object of debate should be the presuppositions brought to its interpretation."
I am, I think obviously and understandably, more sympathetic to Obama's reading of the Bible than Dobson's -- far, far more sympathetic, in fact. Still, I find myself exceedingly curious as to the content of Dobson's program today. Not least of my reasons is his unmitigated gall in accusing someone else of eisegesis.
Glass houses, Jim -- or, to be a bit more biblical about it, mote vs. beam.
Edit: Dobson's comments can be heard here.
I won't say much, since the basic idea I'd be going for has already been expressed more succinctly than I could, but I will quote James Megivern, author of, among others, The Death Penalty: An Historical and Theological Survey:
"There is nothing so fruitless as wrangling over the meaning of the Bible when the real object of debate should be the presuppositions brought to its interpretation."
I am, I think obviously and understandably, more sympathetic to Obama's reading of the Bible than Dobson's -- far, far more sympathetic, in fact. Still, I find myself exceedingly curious as to the content of Dobson's program today. Not least of my reasons is his unmitigated gall in accusing someone else of eisegesis.
Glass houses, Jim -- or, to be a bit more biblical about it, mote vs. beam.
Edit: Dobson's comments can be heard here.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Some News from Campaign '08:
First, McCain censures an aide who made the mistake of actually saying what the McCain campaign thinks (knows): a terrorist attack on America would be good for McCain's campaign. Let's be brutally honest here: it would be good for their campaign. After all, Republicans are stronger on defense -- whatever that actually means (style over substance in a big way). Oh, and don't worry about the cognitive dissonance of saying that the Republicans are stronger on defense and therefore more able to protect us despite this hypothetical second attack -- there wouldn't be any from anyone dumb enough to use that as a talking point.
How do you know they're right? Chuck Hagel is being rumored as Obama's VP. Some people, including a former Kennedy speechwriter, think this is a good idea.
Way to fight that stereotype, guys. Good going.
On Obama's side, seems they've retired the augmented presidential seal that made an appearance over the weekend.
Chickens. "It was a one-time thing." Sure was, but you'll never convince me that it was intended to be single-use. Amy calls Obama out on this, for two reasons. First, "nobody likes the guy who's cocky enough to act as if the contest is over before it's even begun." There's some truth to that, but I disagree with it somewhat: we, the voters, are supposed to like confidence and leadership and decisionificatering, or whatever, so the guy who acts like he has it in the bag probably has an advantage over the other guy who is just gunning for the job. (I'll leave aside that this jab came from an ardent Clinton supporter, who certainly was never guilty of comparable acts of presumptuousness, either in quality or quantity. ;) )
Second, "if you want to ingratiate yourself with working class white voters who think you're elitist, you don't do it by translating your campaign slogan into latin." Agreed in principle, but this isn't exactly out of character with America. E pluribus unum, and all that, not to mention my own state's motto, Sic Semper Tyrannis. As with so many things, though, it's probably the when more than the what that makes the difference, and if in this case the what is no big deal (and I don't think it really is), the when was just dumb on his part.
So yeah, it was a one-time deal, but not from advance intent. The coward caught some shit, got embarrassed, and pulled it. Good decision that was unfortunately prompted by a bad decision. This one seems to be somewhere south of breakeven for the moment, but it'll be a non-issue in fifteen or so more seconds. Ah, the moronic American voter . . . short attention spans and all.
How do you know they're right? Chuck Hagel is being rumored as Obama's VP. Some people, including a former Kennedy speechwriter, think this is a good idea.
Way to fight that stereotype, guys. Good going.
On Obama's side, seems they've retired the augmented presidential seal that made an appearance over the weekend.
Chickens. "It was a one-time thing." Sure was, but you'll never convince me that it was intended to be single-use. Amy calls Obama out on this, for two reasons. First, "nobody likes the guy who's cocky enough to act as if the contest is over before it's even begun." There's some truth to that, but I disagree with it somewhat: we, the voters, are supposed to like confidence and leadership and decisionificatering, or whatever, so the guy who acts like he has it in the bag probably has an advantage over the other guy who is just gunning for the job. (I'll leave aside that this jab came from an ardent Clinton supporter, who certainly was never guilty of comparable acts of presumptuousness, either in quality or quantity. ;) )
Second, "if you want to ingratiate yourself with working class white voters who think you're elitist, you don't do it by translating your campaign slogan into latin." Agreed in principle, but this isn't exactly out of character with America. E pluribus unum, and all that, not to mention my own state's motto, Sic Semper Tyrannis. As with so many things, though, it's probably the when more than the what that makes the difference, and if in this case the what is no big deal (and I don't think it really is), the when was just dumb on his part.
So yeah, it was a one-time deal, but not from advance intent. The coward caught some shit, got embarrassed, and pulled it. Good decision that was unfortunately prompted by a bad decision. This one seems to be somewhere south of breakeven for the moment, but it'll be a non-issue in fifteen or so more seconds. Ah, the moronic American voter . . . short attention spans and all.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Friday, June 13, 2008
Percy Walton's Death Sentence Commuted:
Governor Tim Kaine commuted Percy Walton's death sentence to life in prison.
The immediate effect of this is that Virginia stays in double digits for post-Gregg period, if only for two weeks: Robert Yarbrough will be number 100 in less than two weeks, with two more to follow over the following four; none of these three men can reasonably expect a commutation, despite some legitimate due process claims. In Yarbrough's case, for example, the trial judge at the second trial -- the VA Supreme Court overturned the first death sentence -- refused to answer the jury's question as to whether life meant natural life; i.e., will this man die in prison if we sentence him to life? This is a common question -- it is also commonly ignored by judges terrified that their decisions might be later overturned on technicalities. Unfortunately, the refusal to answer the question leaves people with the common, if misplaced fear that life means somewhere around 12 years (flatly not the case, not that anyone has realized this just yet). Jurors left with this misperception tend to vote for death, even when their obvious inclination is to go life. Yarbrough's lawyers will put this question in their brief requesting clemency, and Kaine will probably deny them anyway.
What's particularly interesting is the way that Kaine presents his argument for clemency. First, he locates the chain of events that led to the clemency decision to the stay issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia in 2003, a few days before Walton's first scheduled execution date. Signal: the courts started this, not myself, and not former Gov. Warner.
Second, Kaine shifts to the fact that Walton may have schizophrenia, an "illness [that] can cause serious deterioration of mental competence." Signal: this Walton is not the same Walton who was originally sentenced to death. Kaine later says that he didn't act as early as he could have, or perhaps would have wished to, because there was a chance, however unlikely, that Walton's condition would improve.
Absent that improvement, Kaine made the right decision and commuted the sentence. It was the responsible thing to do, as the executive, to commute the sentence of a man who is sufficiently mentally disabled as not to understand what is to happen to him. It was also the correct decision constitutionally, since Eighth Amendment jurisprudence makes it clear that the mentally incompetent cannot be executed.
At the same time, Kaine gets a few shots at the system in there:
"The Court has ruled that the Constitution forbids executing an individual who: commits a capital crime under the age of 18 years old; was insane at the time of the capital crime; or is mentally retarded due to intellectual disabilities evidenced before the age of 18.
"In this instance, Walton committed these murders less than two months past his 18th birthday. While he was not insane at the time of his crimes, there are strong indicators that his mental illness started prior to the murders. While he scored a 6 on his most recent IQ test, which is below a standard for mental retardation (70 on an IQ test) set by the Supreme Court of Virginia, he appears to have fallen below that standard for mental retardation only after he turned 18 while the relevant legal standard in the Commonwealth requires that retardation be in evidence prior to that age."
Signal: the system is arbitrary; whether or not we're willing to live with a thoroughly arbitrary system when life and death -- in multiple ways -- are involved is for voters to think rationally about, rather than dismission emotionally.
Ultimately, Kaine's statement on commutation says nothing about his faith, nor his personal opposition -- and nor should it. It stays exactly where it should, within the legal question.
The immediate effect of this is that Virginia stays in double digits for post-Gregg period, if only for two weeks: Robert Yarbrough will be number 100 in less than two weeks, with two more to follow over the following four; none of these three men can reasonably expect a commutation, despite some legitimate due process claims. In Yarbrough's case, for example, the trial judge at the second trial -- the VA Supreme Court overturned the first death sentence -- refused to answer the jury's question as to whether life meant natural life; i.e., will this man die in prison if we sentence him to life? This is a common question -- it is also commonly ignored by judges terrified that their decisions might be later overturned on technicalities. Unfortunately, the refusal to answer the question leaves people with the common, if misplaced fear that life means somewhere around 12 years (flatly not the case, not that anyone has realized this just yet). Jurors left with this misperception tend to vote for death, even when their obvious inclination is to go life. Yarbrough's lawyers will put this question in their brief requesting clemency, and Kaine will probably deny them anyway.
What's particularly interesting is the way that Kaine presents his argument for clemency. First, he locates the chain of events that led to the clemency decision to the stay issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia in 2003, a few days before Walton's first scheduled execution date. Signal: the courts started this, not myself, and not former Gov. Warner.
Second, Kaine shifts to the fact that Walton may have schizophrenia, an "illness [that] can cause serious deterioration of mental competence." Signal: this Walton is not the same Walton who was originally sentenced to death. Kaine later says that he didn't act as early as he could have, or perhaps would have wished to, because there was a chance, however unlikely, that Walton's condition would improve.
Absent that improvement, Kaine made the right decision and commuted the sentence. It was the responsible thing to do, as the executive, to commute the sentence of a man who is sufficiently mentally disabled as not to understand what is to happen to him. It was also the correct decision constitutionally, since Eighth Amendment jurisprudence makes it clear that the mentally incompetent cannot be executed.
At the same time, Kaine gets a few shots at the system in there:
"The Court has ruled that the Constitution forbids executing an individual who: commits a capital crime under the age of 18 years old; was insane at the time of the capital crime; or is mentally retarded due to intellectual disabilities evidenced before the age of 18.
"In this instance, Walton committed these murders less than two months past his 18th birthday. While he was not insane at the time of his crimes, there are strong indicators that his mental illness started prior to the murders. While he scored a 6 on his most recent IQ test, which is below a standard for mental retardation (70 on an IQ test) set by the Supreme Court of Virginia, he appears to have fallen below that standard for mental retardation only after he turned 18 while the relevant legal standard in the Commonwealth requires that retardation be in evidence prior to that age."
Signal: the system is arbitrary; whether or not we're willing to live with a thoroughly arbitrary system when life and death -- in multiple ways -- are involved is for voters to think rationally about, rather than dismission emotionally.
Ultimately, Kaine's statement on commutation says nothing about his faith, nor his personal opposition -- and nor should it. It stays exactly where it should, within the legal question.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
For the Pro-Hillary "Spite Vote:"
Bear this in mind about John McCain: he has no compunction about calling his wife a cunt and trollop in front of others.
My wife and I have had some pretty good arguments, but I've never dropped that one. So for everyone complaining -- however correctly -- about the sexism that was directed at Clinton (how much of that from the other Democrat, again?), remember who bears the other standard.
My wife and I have had some pretty good arguments, but I've never dropped that one. So for everyone complaining -- however correctly -- about the sexism that was directed at Clinton (how much of that from the other Democrat, again?), remember who bears the other standard.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Lethal Injection Not Out of the Woods Yet?
A judge in Ohio ruled the three-drug cocktail unconstitutional, finding that it causes an unacceptable risk of unnecessary suffering during the process. This is somewhat different than the Kentucky process that was upheld in Baze, because Ohio's process differs from Kentucky's, and Ohio's law also explicitly prohibits causing pain during an execution. Still, interesting to see this pop up just a couple of months after the three-drug cocktail was sustained in a challenge.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Once Again Proving that Politicians Miss the Point:
Senate Republicans have blocked a windfall tax on the oil companies, who continue to bring in record profits while prices keep going up.
In another display of the capacity of elected officials to stand just a couple of paces to the side of any given issue:
Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has acknowledged that Americans are hurting from the high energy costs but strongly opposes the Democrats' response and has ridiculed those who "think we can tax our way out of this problem."
"Republicans by and large believe that the solution to this problem, in part, is to increase domestic production," McConnell said.
A GOP energy plan, rejected by the Senate last month, calls for opening a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development and to allow states to opt out of the national moratorium that has been in effect for a quarter century against oil and gas drilling in more than 80 percent of the country's coastal waters.
Way to miss the boat, folks. "Let's just produce our way out of this, consequences be damned!"
Here's why the alternative was better:
The windfall profits bill would have imposed a 25 percent tax on profits over what would be determined "reasonable" when compared to profits several years ago. The oil companies could have avoided the tax if they invested the money in alternative energy projects or refinery expansion. It also would have rescinded oil company tax breaks — worth $17 billion over the next 10 years — with the revenue to be used for tax incentives to producers of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources as well as for energy conservation.
It took them two full years -- i.e., right smack into the next presidential election cycle, but the Democrats are finally getting off their worthless butts and doing something.
The Republicans, on the other hand . . . :
Separately, Democrats also failed to get Republican support for a proposal to extend tax breaks for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. The tax breaks have either expired or are scheduled to end this year.
Awesome. Let's not tax the people making the money by engaging in business-as-usual, but let's not give any boost or financial assistance to companies trying to take that next step forward.
Why would we want to do a silly thing like that, anyway?
In another display of the capacity of elected officials to stand just a couple of paces to the side of any given issue:
Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has acknowledged that Americans are hurting from the high energy costs but strongly opposes the Democrats' response and has ridiculed those who "think we can tax our way out of this problem."
"Republicans by and large believe that the solution to this problem, in part, is to increase domestic production," McConnell said.
A GOP energy plan, rejected by the Senate last month, calls for opening a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development and to allow states to opt out of the national moratorium that has been in effect for a quarter century against oil and gas drilling in more than 80 percent of the country's coastal waters.
Way to miss the boat, folks. "Let's just produce our way out of this, consequences be damned!"
Here's why the alternative was better:
The windfall profits bill would have imposed a 25 percent tax on profits over what would be determined "reasonable" when compared to profits several years ago. The oil companies could have avoided the tax if they invested the money in alternative energy projects or refinery expansion. It also would have rescinded oil company tax breaks — worth $17 billion over the next 10 years — with the revenue to be used for tax incentives to producers of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources as well as for energy conservation.
It took them two full years -- i.e., right smack into the next presidential election cycle, but the Democrats are finally getting off their worthless butts and doing something.
The Republicans, on the other hand . . . :
Separately, Democrats also failed to get Republican support for a proposal to extend tax breaks for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. The tax breaks have either expired or are scheduled to end this year.
Awesome. Let's not tax the people making the money by engaging in business-as-usual, but let's not give any boost or financial assistance to companies trying to take that next step forward.
Why would we want to do a silly thing like that, anyway?
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Amending My Democratic VP Prediction:
It looks as if the Veepstakes is in full swing after yesterday, and not a moment too soon, if only because I'm so darn curious as to the identity of the as-yet-unnamed ticket partner.
Obama is in full search mode, while Clinton made it clear she'd take the position (I maintain that this would be a catastrophic decision, and this has nothing to do with my general dislike of Senator Clinton).
A couple of weeks ago, I predicted Mark Warner as the Veep. I'm going to back off of that one.
I still like the idea of Bill Richardson, but here's my pick, and one that I may stay with for a little while:
Jim Webb.
Watch for it.
Obama is in full search mode, while Clinton made it clear she'd take the position (I maintain that this would be a catastrophic decision, and this has nothing to do with my general dislike of Senator Clinton).
A couple of weeks ago, I predicted Mark Warner as the Veep. I'm going to back off of that one.
I still like the idea of Bill Richardson, but here's my pick, and one that I may stay with for a little while:
Jim Webb.
Watch for it.
Justice Clinton?
Here's an idea that intrigues me, even though I'm quite late to the party: Justice Hillary Clinton. It may be a bit of a stretch to pop her up to the Supreme Court, being that she's never been a judge, but the idea is incredibly interesting. Clinton, whatever else you may say of her, is a supremely intelligent woman, and I do respect what I can see of her approach to problem-solving: although she too often comes to conclusions with which I don't agree, she gives every indication of being aware of and conversant with the range of options. Thus, while I dislike her conclusions and stated policy aims, I like what I see of her thought process. Freed from the nastiness of needing, or believing that she needs, to triangulate, we may find that she has what it takes to be a good justice. Of course, we may find that she doesn't, so it's a crapshoot. I don't know that she has the temperament or character that I would want to see in a justice, which is a concern, and maybe it would be better for her to hit the bench elsewhere, but the idea itself is remarkable.
Needless to say, if something like this is worked out, it had better be double-secret probationary information, or it'll probably cost Obama the election.
All things equal, I'd certainly take Justice Clinton over Justice Scalia, though within their own element it'd be a race to the bottom to see which is capable of being more breathtakingly intellectually dishonest. Scalia probably wins, and it may only be close into the fourth quarter, but there's an idea: Political Intellectual Deathmatch. Claymation Clinton vs. Soil-Sculpted Scalia, beating the hell out of each other in an animated ring.
I'd probably watch that.
Needless to say, if something like this is worked out, it had better be double-secret probationary information, or it'll probably cost Obama the election.
All things equal, I'd certainly take Justice Clinton over Justice Scalia, though within their own element it'd be a race to the bottom to see which is capable of being more breathtakingly intellectually dishonest. Scalia probably wins, and it may only be close into the fourth quarter, but there's an idea: Political Intellectual Deathmatch. Claymation Clinton vs. Soil-Sculpted Scalia, beating the hell out of each other in an animated ring.
I'd probably watch that.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
More Jackbooting:
Immigration officials evidently have decided that in the interest of rounding up illegal immigrants they can:
No immigration problem is bad enough, ever, anywhere, to countenance such grotesque violations of the Constitution.
"But illegals aren't citizens, and therefore not subject to Constitutional protection!"
No kidding, dipshit, but you've got the important bit wrong. The Constitution does not confer rights -- it sets out limitations on the ability of governments to limit those rights. To think otherwise is to betray a) that you actually haven't read or have failed to understand the document and b) are one of those morons who tend to get other people into trouble by being insufficiently critical of power.
And while we're on the subject of abuses of power, check out Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities Report.
Look at how much is redacted or was withheld from the FOIA request. Now look at what's left.
Two things are immediately apparent.
First, the only thing that is admitted to is waterboarding, which suggests that this is probably among the most "innocuous" of the activities mentioned in the original. What else was being done, or is being done, that we don't yet know about? That waterboarding is so prominently mentioned -- that the redacters seem to have gone out of their way to make it obvious and visible -- suggests that there are other, far less savory practices going on or having gone one.
Second, we only get waterboarding in this report because we already knew about it. Had this been sought to prove alleged waterboarding via official documentation, it would have been redacted.
Nixon, apparently, was a rank amateur.
- Break your door down and claim to be police.
- Storm homes and remove children from their parents.
- Stroll into minority neighborhoods and round up anyone who looks suspicious, regardless of whether or not they have any probable cause or reasonable suspicion that particular individuals may be illegal.
- Work from quotas.
No immigration problem is bad enough, ever, anywhere, to countenance such grotesque violations of the Constitution.
"But illegals aren't citizens, and therefore not subject to Constitutional protection!"
No kidding, dipshit, but you've got the important bit wrong. The Constitution does not confer rights -- it sets out limitations on the ability of governments to limit those rights. To think otherwise is to betray a) that you actually haven't read or have failed to understand the document and b) are one of those morons who tend to get other people into trouble by being insufficiently critical of power.
And while we're on the subject of abuses of power, check out Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities Report.
Look at how much is redacted or was withheld from the FOIA request. Now look at what's left.
Two things are immediately apparent.
First, the only thing that is admitted to is waterboarding, which suggests that this is probably among the most "innocuous" of the activities mentioned in the original. What else was being done, or is being done, that we don't yet know about? That waterboarding is so prominently mentioned -- that the redacters seem to have gone out of their way to make it obvious and visible -- suggests that there are other, far less savory practices going on or having gone one.
Second, we only get waterboarding in this report because we already knew about it. Had this been sought to prove alleged waterboarding via official documentation, it would have been redacted.
Nixon, apparently, was a rank amateur.
She Said That? Seriously?
In a staggering display of dishonesty, Senator Clinton compared her second-place standing to elections in Zimbabwe.
There is a similarity, to be sure -- but it's not the one that she points out. She claims that the voice of the people is not being heard, and claims to be the leader in the popular vote (which worked so well for Gore, when it wasn't the relevant metric, lest we forget). How she knows this I'll never be quite sure of, since her numbers include "estimates" (no doubt exquisitely friendly ones) for caucus states. So she claims to be the vote leader, but without the numbers to back it up; thus, her complaint that the nomination is being stolen from her at the expense of the majority of voters is quite a stretch, and at best dishonest.
The similarity is that Clinton, like Mugabe, is working through back channels to actually turn the legitimate results into something more favorable to her, and thus to take a win and a position by back-channel power-brokering that she could not legitimately win on her own.
Too bad she invited the comparison, because while it's unquestionably hyperbolic, it's a perfect fit, particularly because she brought it up. What a stupid way to flash your "I know what's going on in the world, so vote for me" cred.
There is a similarity, to be sure -- but it's not the one that she points out. She claims that the voice of the people is not being heard, and claims to be the leader in the popular vote (which worked so well for Gore, when it wasn't the relevant metric, lest we forget). How she knows this I'll never be quite sure of, since her numbers include "estimates" (no doubt exquisitely friendly ones) for caucus states. So she claims to be the vote leader, but without the numbers to back it up; thus, her complaint that the nomination is being stolen from her at the expense of the majority of voters is quite a stretch, and at best dishonest.
The similarity is that Clinton, like Mugabe, is working through back channels to actually turn the legitimate results into something more favorable to her, and thus to take a win and a position by back-channel power-brokering that she could not legitimately win on her own.
Too bad she invited the comparison, because while it's unquestionably hyperbolic, it's a perfect fit, particularly because she brought it up. What a stupid way to flash your "I know what's going on in the world, so vote for me" cred.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
