Underdog

Other than Barack Obama, homosexuals, and taxes, there's nothing Republicans hate more than "activist judges;" and there's no kind of judge more revered by them than a "strict constructionist." So you'd think there'd be outrage from the right at the decision just rendered by that most "liberal" of federal appeals courts, the Ninth Circuit, seated in San Francisco. I'm waiting.

The case was about the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Not a problem, they ruled, 2-1. Clearly, there's not a strictly-constructed, non-activist argument to be made. So what the judge said was this:

"The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded... [The Pledge] is a recognition of our founders' political philosophy that a power greater than the government gives the people their inalienable rights... Thus, the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect.

Now, it seems to me, no matter what one's opinion of the Pledge might be, it's impossible to see those words as any sort of Constitutional argument. It's pure opinion (and not a little purple prose.) It's an argument ex cathedra; it's an attempt to rationalize a preconceived conclusion. Activism, in other words, at its most undisguised. Wrote the dissenting judge: "Under no sound legal analysis adhering to binding Supreme Court precedent could this court uphold state-directed, teacher-led, daily recitation of the 'under God' version of the Pledge of Allegiance by children in public schools."

I was ten when The Pledge changed to include those two words, and my recollection is dim. I recall less about my own feelings which, I'd guess, were somewhere between neutral and puzzled, than I do about my parents' reaction. They were upset. And that was at a time when they were sending me to Sunday School.

It's a position that some people will never understand. Too subtle. Not a winnable argument (which is not to say unimportant, as they march, crosses in hand, toward my door). But anyone should be able, with only a minimum of thought, to recognize that the decision just rendered, on whatever else it might be based, had nothing to do with Constitutional law.

Non-Babbling Brooks

David Brooks frequently annoys the hell out of me; I think it's his "I've read hard books" attitude, his frequent smugness, and, of course, his bad teeth. On the other hand, among the right wing punditry, he's maybe the least ideological and the most willing to ponder interesting things. That he's unpredictable is why I keep reading him.

In today's NYT column, he says about Barack Obama what I've been saying since the primary elections for president:

"The fact is, Obama is as he always has been, a center-left pragmatic reformer. Every time he tries to articulate a grand philosophy — from his book “The Audacity of Hope” to his joint-session health care speech last September — he always describes a moderately activist government restrained by a sense of trade-offs. He always uses the same on-the-one-hand-on-the-other sentence structure. Government should address problems without interfering with the dynamism of the market."

Correctamundo. He expands:

"Take health care. He has pushed a program that expands coverage, creates exchanges and moderately tinkers with the status quo — too moderately to restrain costs. To call this an orthodox liberal plan is an absurdity. It more closely resembles the center-left deals cut by Tom Daschle and Bob Dole, or Ted Kennedy and Mitt Romney. Obama has pushed this program with a tenacity unmatched in modern political history; with more tenacity than Bill Clinton pushed his health care plan or George W. Bush pushed Social Security reform.

Take education. Obama has taken on a Democratic constituency, the teachers’ unions, with a courage not seen since George W. Bush took on the anti-immigration forces in his own party. In a remarkable speech on March 1, he went straight at the guardians of the status quo by calling for the removal of failing teachers in failing schools. Obama has been the most determined education reformer in the modern presidency."

And here's the part that makes me want to scream -- because the truth of it is so painful:

"In a sensible country, people would see Obama as a president trying to define a modern brand of moderate progressivism. In a sensible country, Obama would be able to clearly define this project without fear of offending the people he needs to get legislation passed. But we don’t live in that country. We live in a country in which many people live in information cocoons in which they only talk to members of their own party and read blogs of their own sect. They come away with perceptions fundamentally at odds with reality, fundamentally misunderstanding the man in the Oval Office."

Yet for a large part of the electorate, the dishonest and destructive force that is Fox "news" is the opinionator of record. Led by a certifiably insane person, they see evil where there is none, brook conspiracies of dire import, bathing in their own fears and -- for reasons only they could explain, were they able to marshall an iota of self-reflection -- relishing it. Begging for more. Admitting -- as one of my commenters frequently does -- they have no idea what they're talking about, they nevertheless have opinions of biblical certitude. Facing immeasurably complex problems, having a president who is neither an ideologue nor closed to thoughtful input, these people have allowed themselves to be led by the craziest -- in the case of the Fox folk -- and the most egregiously dishonest -- in the case of the Congressional Rs -- voices out there.

And so we march steadily on the path to failure. On this occasion David Brooks seems to sense it as well, and, like anyone who thinks seriously about issues, he can't quite believe it.

Keeping Us Safe

This story may or may not mean much vis a vis the individual, but to me it means a lot about the big picture. The man worked at several nuclear power plants during the Bush administration which, as we're regularly told by the RWS™, kept us safe (as long as you don't count....)

Arrested during the Obama administration, he may or may not prove to have been a dangerous guy. But there's a point: no president can keep us completely safe. In the case of Bush, after he ignored the warnings he was handed about al Queda, the "safety" of the last seven years of his term was, to an unmeasurable extent, pure luck. (By "unmeasurable," I mean just that. I don't doubt that law enforcement was effective as well.)

Much as it's true that President Obama seems to have had remarkable success -- much more than Bush -- in apprehending and killing potential terrorists, it's also true that the real safety net is wielded by those in law enforcement and intelligence gathering. I remain unconvinced that the fight in Afghanistan is worth the effort (although it it helps keep Pakistan's nukes under control, I'd be happy to change my mind), and I'm certain the invasion of Iraq made things much worse for us in nearly uncountable ways. No matter how democratic it ends up. Terrorism isn't a place.

This guy is a warning, if nothing else, and so is this lady: there's no way to prevent all attacks. But our best hope for doing so lies not in fighting wars overseas, but in the smart gathering of intelligence and in the currying of favor among those beyond our borders willing to help. And, I must add, to the extent that there seems to be increased willingness of Pakistan to fight the Taliban, I consider that a great sign.

The credit goes to the smarter policies of the current administration.

When You Fall Off A Horse...

Yeah, but this seems to be a bit of a timid start.

Ari Fleischer, once the mouthpiece for a guy who screwed 300 million people (not counting those on foreign soil), is now taking on one who only screwed nine or ten.

Gotta love it.

Exactly

I've Been Outed

"Such Other Matters As The President Considers Appropriate"

Wow. Holy Joe Lieberman and John McPOW have introduced legislation regarding terrorists, enemy combatants, and, to quote their bill, "unprivileged enemy belligerents." It's pretty amazing and, one would think, the sort of thing from which true conservatives would recoil like a .50 cal:

The provision that removes all discretionary limits to this secret determination of status is in the Criteria for Designation of Individuals as High-Value Detainees. That section creates an initial impression that such "determinations" are subject to the rule of law by laying out specific criteria, beginning with "(A) The potential threat the individual poses for an attack on civilians..." (B) the potential threat the individual poses to United States military personnel..." etc. But the final criterion (E) zooms to infinity: it is simply "Such other matters as the President considers appropriate. "

Thus any individual, whether a foreign national or a U.S. citizen, can be designated an "unprivileged enemy belligerent," forever denied access to civilian courts and subjected to indefinite detention "without criminal charge and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners" -- that is, forever -- on the basis of such other matters as the President considers appropriate.

Now, up to a point I'm okay with the idea that true terrorists might well deserve to be in a separate legal category, and that they should be subjected to smart, effective, and RELIABLE interrogations (which, as virtually all evidence shows, does NOT include torture in any form.) But it seems just a tiny bit strange, doesn't it, that two guys who have all but questioned the current president's loyalty are fine with giving him powers to arrest and detain indefinitely ANYONE he chooses, for ANY REASON AT ALL? With no legal recourse!!??

It gets worse, and even less coherent:

Paradoxically, while the President can set any criteria he chooses to determine the detainee's status, he can only overrule the final status determination if the Attorney General and Secretary of Defense disagree. Also paradoxically, once a captive"is captured" or "comes into custody" and "is suspected" of being or "may be" an "unprivileged enemy belligerent" -- note the passive voice and other grammatical constructions obscuring agency -- the President does not have the option of having the suspect tried in civilian court. If the AG and the SecDef are in agreement they are apparently accountable to no one.

Far be it from me to overstate something or to repeat myself. But there is, at minimum, a certain irony that all these right-wingers who claim to be the sole repositories of patriotism, the only true lovers of American (or, as Sarah has said, the only "real Americans") hold our legal system in such low esteem. Likewise, whereas terrorism is a real threat and vigilance and cooperation (of the sort that Obama has, in fact, engendered to an extent not seen in the previous administration) are needed, it strikes me as odd and not a little depressing that eighteen guys with box cutters have managed to accomplish such destruction of our formerly resilient country. To have suckered us into unnecessary war, have torn us apart internally, and have rendered us so frightened that we are willing to give up the essence of our democracy.

I'd hope the bill, as described, hasn't a chance of passing. Still, it's basically a codification of the yoobushleague view that the president can do any damn thing he wants. So, in the well rehearsed habit of abandoning the most basic of conservative principles, I'm also sure there will be signers-on aplenty. And claims of terrorist sympathy against all who object.

Follow Up

Regarding the Liz Cheney outrage (which none of my "conservative" commenters has remotely rejected, it should be noted), Glenn Greenwald asks a good question.

One of the most inane acts undertaken by the Democratic Congress was its formal and highly bipartisan condemnation of MoveOn.org's "Petraeus/Betrayus" ad. Regardless of one's views of that ad, formally opining on the views of private citizens is not the role of Congress. But since they did that, and apparently believe that repugnant political campaigns merit Congressional disapproval, shouldn't there be some form of formal sanction for the far more pernicious and genuinely McCarthyite attacks on DOJ lawyers from Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol's "Keep America Safe"?

Hard to imagine the Democrats doing something like that. Not because of ethics, or even hypocrisy. Because they couldn't sell lemonade in a heat wave. And, of course, because they don't have one-tenth the balls of Republicans.

Best Reason Yet

I'm not cool with everything in the Senate health care bill, but I've been convinced it's a worthwhile start. And now, the above clip removes any doubt. I so want it to pass. I so want to see what Rush does. (Although I imagine it'd be a lot easier for him to get his Oxycontin in Costa Rica, although he might have to go off-market because it's, you know, a socialized system there.)

It's also worth noting that the caller hasn't a clue about the bill, nor does Rush. What "Federal Program" are they referring to? It's yet another example of how the Republicans, and their RWS™, and their propaganda machine known as Fox "news" have managed to get their lies and distortions out there, and how the Democrats -- in part because of the failures of the liberal (yeah, right!) media -- have utterly failed properly to inform people.

Feasting On Word Salad

I'm reprinting below an entire post from one of the best political blogs, Washington Monthly. (Happily, it also links to another, Talking Points Memo, about which the same can be said. Both are partisan, but serious and factual journalism, with in-depth reporting on many issues.) Amusing, it is. And entirely accurate, it would seem.

UPDATING OUR POLITICAL DICTIONARIES.... Josh Marshall had a very short itemthe other day that I've been meaning to mention. He was helping readers understand the new political "lexicon."

"Jamming it through": to vote on a bill.

It got me thinking about how we should all update our understandings of political terms that had fairly straightforward definitions up until fairly recently.

"Obstructionism," for example, only refers to Democratic minorities opposing Republican proposals.

"Tyranny" is found when an elected Democratic majority passes legislation that Republicans don't like.

"Reconciliation" describes a Senate process that Republicans are allowed to use to overcome Democratic "obstructionism."

"Terrorism" refers to acts of political violence committed by people who aren't white guys.

"Bipartisanship" is found when Democrats agree to pass Republican legislation.

"Big government" describes a dangerous phenomenon to be avoided, except in cases relating reproductive rights or gays.

"Treason" refers to Democrats criticizing a Republican administration during a war.

"Patriotism" refers to Republicans criticizing a Democratic administration during a war.

"Fiscal responsibility" is a national priority related to keeping our budget in check, which only applies when Republicans are in the minority.

"Parliamentarian" is a seemingly independent official on the Hill who Senate Republicans are allowed to fire when the GOP disapproves of his/her rulings.

To Infinity And Beyond

It's Sunday, so why not consider the infinite, and death.

Erasing fear of death is the main reason for religious belief. Death is a fact known universally among us sentient beings, and it's disquieting. As such, and given our environmental diversity, it's unsurprising that religion has popped up everywhere, and that it varies enormously other than in the universality of some sort of concept of life after (and, sometimes, before) death. It's what we need. That billions of people believe, equally fervently, in wildly differing mythology doesn't whatsoever deter whatever belief in whomever it is whatever they use to comfort themselves. They are, after all, only human.

So, fine.

Awareness of, and concerns about death are not absent from non-believers. Speaking, at least, for myself. I'm not particularly pleased about death; on the other hand, I find myself unable to make the leap of belief, just because it might make me feel better. To me, it feels like a copout. Like cheating. I guess it's like dancing; or playing the piano. Some things come easy and some things don't. On some level I envy the certitude of believers; on another, and mostly, I see at as a surprising (if entirely understandable, given our frailties) level of self-deception. Nevertheless, it's not as if the thought of death doesn't occur to me from time to time; so I've found it comforting to consider this: it'll be just like it was before I was born, and, as far as I can tell, that wasn't so bad. In other words, I've been dead before, for as long as I will be this time around, and I seem to have survived it. As it were.

So I was intrigued, in a very abstract way, by something I read this morning on Andrew Sullivan, who got it from somewhere else:

If time is infinite on both ends, then we have infinite rolls of the dice of probability. That means, however infinitesimally small the probabilities that brought “you” into existence, with enough rolls of dice, “you” will come into existence again, and again and again forever. And if time is infinite in reverse, “now” isn’t the only time “you” existed.

Accordingly, “you” have always existed and always will.

Sophistry? Maybe. Yet it's the sort of thing one can ponder (as did commenters on the original post) without the need to make anything up. Which, to me, is worthy. I don't find it any more comforting (less, maybe) than my own previous little "infinity" thought; and, certainly, not as comforting as -- were it possible -- giving in to the displeasure of discordance and doing that throwing in of the mental towel called religious belief.

But, as Dave and Paul might say, it's something.

Listen Up, Trolls

My recent call for outrage was met, entirely predictably, by the usual trollage from some, and silence from others, in the comments. Boilerplate stuff, really. So, for the unconvinced, I offer a couple of clips. If you think you can only force yourself to watch one, I'd say go to the second.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bringing It Down

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Tip/Wag - James O'Keefe & Sean Hannity
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Skate Expectations

Beyond Outrage, Beyond Hope

This might be too much for me. Most literally, it makes me physically ill. Trying to put into words the depth of my visceral reaction may be impossible. It's simply the most despicable, horrifying, destructive, and fundamentally threatening thing going on in the body politic of the US. It's beyond the lying of Fox "news;" it's beyond the formless and factless rage of the tea bag people. This even overshadows, as a threat to everything we are as a country, the abuse of Senate rules by the Republicans that has all but ground governance to halt. It is worse than (although it's abetted by) the dereliction of duty of most of our news media. This is, unarguably, evidence of the beginning of the end. Unless even those uselessly enraged and idea-disencumbered right wingers wake up and say, enough. Enough. We are a country of laws, that values laws, whose legal system protects us all. Us all. All of us. Laws.

ENOUGH.

I refer to the demon spawn of Dick Cheney. I refer to her horrible group of America haters. I refer to the fact that there are people out there -- marinating in putrefaction, as expected, on Fox "news" but also, evidently, in all walks of life (using the term loosely) -- who don't see the danger. The disease.

This person, this evil thing, this smirking embodiment of blind hatred and the unapologetic disseminator of desperate lies, has declared revenge on lawyers assigned to defend accused terrorists in American courts. This damned individual, who most surely hasn't the foggiest appreciation of the Constitution or the laws that have stemmed from it, who would destroy the foundations of a legal system that has been the model for most of the civilized world, who is regularly given air time when she should, in fact, be deprived of air (at least the kind that wafts outside of damp and moldy basements), would happily -- because it makes her famous, and garners laudatory grime from the scum that love her, and because she's desperately trying to keep her felonious father out of jail -- ruin the lives of people doing the bidding of that very Constitution which she ignores so thoroughly. (I can't find the will directly to link to her ad, but there's a link within the previous one.) What a horrible, fraudulent, venal excuse for a human being.

Well, I guess those were words; but really, I have no words. This is as low as it gets; were she and her bootlickers to get their way, we'd no longer be a country of laws. We'd no longer be a country at all.

It's so obvious. And yet, there she is, a darling of much of the media, mostly -- but not limited to -- Fox "news" and the radio screamers. And there are listeners who give credence to her, and who (you can read it in comments on various sources that have covered it, but I don't recommend it), in the most despicable of language, filled with the sort of glee that only springs from pure evil (and I don't even believe in such a thing), agree with her. It's not just disheartening; it's not just depressing; it's not just dismaying. It's so far beyond any of those that I can't express it. The words stick somewhere near my diaphragm; they close my throat. Because it means we are so far from reason in parts of this country that there remains no basis for hoping we can get beyond where we are. We shall not overcome. It's too potent, it's too attractive to those that prefer hatred to hope, in whom it's simply not part of their makeup to think beyond their own sad fears and selfishness, to whom the idea of democracy in all its ramifications is as foreign as breathing underwater.

Times are tough. Right wingers, evidently, aren't. They talked tough, oh yes. But they got their deferments. And now, in the heat of great need, they have melted. Called upon by the times to rise to new heights, to honor what has served us through wars and depressions, they have sunk to new lows, descended into the mongering of fear and hate and the wholesale peddling of lies. And they're the ones that claim the mantle of patriotism, even as they reject the fundament of what has -- until now -- made us great. As they destroy us from the inside, deliberately, thoroughly.

Patriots.

I'd laugh, if I could.

It's come to this. When tested, we have failed. Cowed by people in caves, and by the premeditated and self-serving terrorizing of our populus by politicians like the Cheneys and virtually all Congressional Republicans, and the RWS™, we are on the verge of complete capitulation to fear, of renunciation of the rule of law and democracy. At a time when we are most in need of reason, we get this. We fall upon ourselves. We grovel in a level of discourse so low that the founding fathers would fail to recognize what they have wrought. One of the most brilliant of whom, as we know, defended British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.

How pathetic these distorters of reality have become, how craven in the face of danger, how they recoil from the challenge of real problems that need real solutions. How quickly they shrink from the hard work of democracy. How they cheerlead and stoke anger. How far down people such as Liz Cheney have dragged us, septic, into the cesspool in which they live, when we most need to lift ourselves up; how easily such thoughts as hers take hold and, like the slime that they are, spread over us all, suffocating, eating our bones. And, it seems, we barely notice.

See? I have no words. None, at any rate, that convey convincingly and sanely the awfulness of these people. They will destroy us. And, even as we breathe our last, they'll find someone else on whom to blame it.

Is there anyone on the right willing to speak out? Anyone who calls him- or herself a true conservative willing to condemn Liz Cheney and the horseshit she rode in on?

Anyone?

And while you're at it, anyone on the right want to disagree with this soulless succubus that, even as he keeps arresting terrorists at a greater rate than her putrid progenitor, President Obama isn't serious about terrorism?

Anyone?

[Update, 3/5: Well, well, a couple of conservatives (none who troll these waters, of course) have spoken up. One even went so far as to use the word "unfortunate."]

More From The Source

As long as I'm recognizing that the only real news is on Comedy Central, this clip is worth watching, too. The health care debate, reduced to its essence:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Health Care Marriage Counseling
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Skate Expectations