Feb
8
The Snowpocalypse
February 8, 2010 | 2 Comments
I am the first to mock the proclivity of DC area residents to go bananas at the mere hint of snow. Local residents flock to the stores and gather up as much tp and bottled water as they can find. Judging by the amount of tp that is ripped off the shelves, snowstorms evidently cause people to get diarrhea. Well, for once the chicken littles had cause for concern.
30 inches, or thereabouts was what we wound up getting. That’s a lot of shoveling, specially when your driveway is approximately five miles long (I may be off by about 4.99 miles, but it sure felt like it, even with my neighbors sharing the shoveling duty).
Luckily we had enough provisions. Sure we’d be trapped inside for a while, but as long as we had heat and electricity . . .
And the power went out at about 2 in the afternoon on Saturday, right around the time Two Towers finished and were set to start Return of the King. Well, maybe it would be a short outage.
Flash forward to 8 pm, and the candles are burning, and the house is starting to get chilly. Did I mention we didn’t bother to get firewood? We figured we’d wait a winter before messing with the fireplace. Not that it mattered, since our chimney was completely covered in snow.
Our first concern was Bernadette. So she wore a tee underneath her pajamas, and she had a woolen jumper on over that, and then 3 layers of sheets over all that once we put her to bed. Yeah, maybe it was overkill, especially considering that she was drenched in sweat the next morning. But at least she was warm.
On Sunday morning the house was starting to get really cold, and I had to go out for round two of shoveling. By now my lower back and left elbow were killing me, but we needed to re-clear the driveway, and then after that clear a path to the street. Just in case.
The hour was getting late, and I was panicked. Would I actually miss the Super Bowl for the first time since I started watching football? Would I have to listen to the game on the radio or, even worse, on standard def at a friend’s house?
Then almost exactly 24 hours after the power went out, it was back on. Game on, salsa verde on, oh happy day.
It’s now almost 48 hours since the snow stopped, and our street still has not been plowed. I had to walk to the grocery store this morning to get some more stuff – that’s 35 minutes in each direction. No big whoop, except that the main road’s sidewalks are not cleared. There is a walkway over the Beltway on the way across George Avenue – that’s all cleared, except that at the bottom no one has shoveled. Are people expected to levitate onto the walkway somehow?
All things considered, it’s not so bad. We’re warm, and the electricity is still powered, which means we can satiate the baby with mindless cartoons (the subject of a future post. Here’s a taste: what drugs are the people that created these things on?). Soon the plow guy will be here, and everything should be back to normal just in time for the next snowstorm, which is scheduled for tomorrow night, bringing with it another foot.
Ufta.
Feb
7
Well worth it
February 7, 2010 | Leave a Comment
Cost of a Super Bowl advertisement: $2.5 million.
Running a relatively harmless commercial where the main message is “Mother loves her son, considers him a miracle” that drives pro-aborts insane with rage, thus showing them for the anti-life monsters that they truly are: Priceless.
Feb
7
Another reason to abolish the Super Bowl Halftime Show
February 7, 2010 | 2 Comments
Is on full display as I type. Ugh, at least the Stones could still jam. This is just sad.
Feb
7
School’s Out
February 7, 2010 | 1 Comment
People always talk about how the day after the Super Bowl should be a holiday. Well, since the Federal Government is closed tomorrow, I guess that wish has come true for some of us.
Which gives me a whole day to describe the ordeal of the past 48 hours.
Feb
5
Q&A Time – Another Bad Idea
February 5, 2010 | 10 Comments
President Obama’s appearance and public Q&A time at a Republican conference last week sparked renewed calls for some kind of regular question and answer session a la the British Parliament. It sure sounds like a nifty idea, and if nothing else it could be endlessly entertaining. Alas, it is a very bad idea.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is an actual member of Parliament. The President of the United States, on the other hand, is not a member of Congress. We have the separation of powers among the different branches, and the Executive is firmly distinct from the Legislative branch. As I explained in a post last week, Woodrow Wilson wanted to create a parliamentary system here in the United States, and that was his primary motivation for choosing to deliver the State of the Union address in person. We have subsequently weakened the division between the two branches, and instituting a Q&A session would only make matters worse. We need to be retreating from the parliamentary model, not doing more to cements its place. We are a constitutional republic, not a parliamentary democracy, and we would do well to keep in mind when considering these matters.
Besides, does anyone think that the practice here in the US would be anywhere near as cool and entertaining as it is done in the UK?
Feb
4
Reason # Infinity not to send kids to public schools
February 4, 2010 | 21 Comments
Because of brainless decisions like this one in North Carolina:
He may be the president who governed during the Civil War, freeing the slaves, but under a new curriculum proposal for North Carolina high schools, U.S. history would begin years after President Lincoln, with the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1877.
State education leaders say this may help students learn about more recent history in greater depth.
“We are certainly not trying to go away from American history,” Rebecca Garland, the chief academic officer for North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, told Fox News. “What we are trying to do is figure out a way to teach it where students are connected to it, where they see the big idea, where they are able to make connections and draw relationships between parts of our history and the present day.”
My wife informed me just yesterday that this is pretty much what the Maryland history curriculum looks like. It’s all about “concepts” and other bs tripe.
Yeah, who needs to know about early American history and all that useless junk. Kids might actually learn about the principles this country was founded upon, and we certainly can’t have that.
Feb
4
Joe Klein’s alternate reality
February 4, 2010 | 2 Comments
Remember when Joe Klein was a respected journalist whose temperate viewpoint earned him admirers on both sides of the aisle? Okay, me neither. Klein’s always been a bit of a hack, but this takes the cake.
“I am not an ideologue,” the President said to the House Republicans, cocooned in their annual policy caucus in Baltimore — and the ideologues among them laughed. The President was explaining, in the midst of an unprecedented, televised “Question Time” session, that he was open to any good ideas they might have. “It doesn’t make sense,” he continued, that if they told him,” ‘You could do this cheaper and get increased results,’ that I wouldn’t say, ‘Great.’” But the logic of this seemed to slip past the assembled legislators — and the “I am not an ideologue” bite became a derisive staple on Fox News. And therein lies the crisis of democracy that our country faces: a moderate-liberal President, willing to make judicious compromises, confronted by a Republican Party paralyzed by cynicism and hypocrisy, undergirded by inchoate ideological fervor.
Obama’s not an ideologue, and anyone who thinks he is must be an ideologue themselves. Ahh, great logic. However, could it not be theorized that Joe Klein is so much of an ideologue that he mistakenly brands as ideologues individuals who believe President Obama is an ideologue? Then again, perhaps I am an ideologue for declaring Joe Klein to be an ideologue for calling Republicans ideologues for branding President Obama an ideologue.
I think my head just exploded.
The long and short of this piece is that poor old misunderstood centrist President Obama is being marginalized at every turn by mean old Republicans who offer nothing but scorn and criticism and do not have any policy ideas of their own. Except for the ones that do, but that doesn’t count because their ideas are stupid.
In Baltimore, the House Republicans seemed hurt that the President wasn’t listening to their “new” ideas. Unfortunately, most of these have the sophistication of policy seminars run by high school Libertarian clubs. One of their leading intellectual lights, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, has offered a Medicare reform proposal that should kill any chance he has of winning higher office: he would privatize Medicare and deliver unto the elderly vouchers that would gradually lose much of their value. This would save a boatload of money, of course … but one wonders whether the party that gave the world “death panels” would stand behind such an all-out assault on the financial security of the nation’s most devout voters.
This paragraph ought to kill any chance Joe Klein has of ever being considered a serious policy pundit again. Klein has just spent the better part of his op-ed bemoaning the lack of Republican ideas, but then casually dismisses the well thought out and detailed budget of a man who runs rings around Obama on economic issues. But Republicans are ideologues. Right.
This is quite sad. I’ve been a fan of a great many Republican policy initiatives in the past. I supported the Republican universal health care plan in 1993 (which Obama’s current proposal resembles). I’ve supported lots of Republican urban-policy ideas, especially when it comes to education. I think the realism deployed overseas by Presidents like Eisenhower, Nixon (except for Vietnam) and Bush the Elder is the wisest foreign policy on offer. But the current Republican Party is about none of these. It is about tactical political gain to the exclusion of all else.
In other words Joe Klein likes Republican ideas when they’re not really Republican ideas, but rather are a miniature version of warmed over leftism. I see.
But it’s the Republican Party that is the home of dangerous ideologues.
At the end of the Baltimore session, Congressman Jeb Hensarling of Texas launched a diatribe on the budget, including the fabulous claim that the Obama Administration was now running monthly deficits the size of annual Republican deficits in the past. For once, the President flashed anger in response — he interrupted Hensarling and said, “I’m sure there’s a question in there somewhere.” And then, calmly, he proceeded to take apart Hensarling’s nonsense.
Joe Klein thinks of himself as a serious political pundit. He’s spent an entire article haranguing Republicans for being bereft of ideas – except for the ones who do have ideas but their ideas are stupid – and his “analysis” of the exchange between Hensarling and Obama is to describe the former’s ideas as “nonsense.” Well Joe, you’re the big-time analyst – do you care to explain how Hensarling’s description is nonsense? Was Hensarling incorrect in his declaration that Obama has significantly multiplied the deficits he inherited? Funny, I didn’t see anything in that sneering paragraph of yours that contradicted the Congressman’s claims, so I’m just going to assume that he was right and you lack the ability to do anything but offer an ad hominem attack.
But remember – Republicans are the ideologues.
The sophistication of Obama’s politics has finally caught up to the opposition: he will offer them compromise and lacerate them when they refuse to play. I suspect he’ll be successful at this.
It took me a few minutes to stop laughing at this. Oh, poor Joe. Like so many other left-wingers they had utopia at their fingertips. Barack was going to usher in a new era of hopey changey goodness. But barely a year has passed and everything is crashing around them. The Democrats are on the precipice of being obliterated at the polls, and all they can do is wail and gnash their teeth. Reading that last sentence is like watching Homer running after the pig, yelling “It’s still good! It’s still good!”
It’s gone, Joe.
But what do I know? I’m probably just an ideologue for disagreeing with you.
Feb
3
Andrew Sullivan hits new low
February 3, 2010 | 1 Comment
No, you read that right. Just when you think the psychopath couldn’t get any more deranged, he manages to reach new levels of sheer insanity (the link goes to Ace’s fisk of the nutter). Long story short, Sullivan accuses Palin of mocking her own child, and his source is the incredibly reliable Levi Johnston. Then he adds this:
The medical term for Down Syndrome is Trisomy-21 or Trisomy-g. It is often shortened in medical slang to Tri-g.
Is it not perfectly possible that the very name given to this poor child, being reared by Bristol, is another form of mockery of his condition, along with the “retarded baby” tag?
So Palin’s reliance on Norse mythology as the inspiration for the name is not credible because Palin is just so dumb, and yet she is somehow quick enough to pick up on an obscure medical term in an effort to make fun of her own child. Oh, that’s right, he’s not really her child, but never mind that for now.
Kudos to the Atlantic. This guy is your star blogger. That about says it all for that rag.
Anyway, I’ll leave it to Dan Collins to express my feelings on the matter.
Feb
3
Buh-bye Twitter
February 3, 2010 | 4 Comments
I finally deleted my Twitter account after more than eight months of inactivity. At first it seemed like a moderately intriguing way to communicate with the world, but after a couple of months of semi-regular usage, it was pretty obvious that it was nothing more than annoying babble. Yes, it is truly a medium that is changing the way we communicate.
That’s not a good thing.
Feb
3
SNOW!!!!
February 3, 2010 | 6 Comments
What the heck is going on? We’re only supposed to get one substantial (more than a dusting) snowfall per year. Today was our fourth storm of the winter – we may have had snow on a couple of other occasions, but I’m only counting the ones that make me have to go out and actually shovel – and we’ve got another one coming this weekend that looks like it will dump another foot of snow on us. That would mark three snowstorms inside of a week, and I get the sneaking suspicion we are not done and that I’ll be shoveling my driveway sometime in the middle of March.
Feb
2
24
February 2, 2010 | Leave a Comment
This and this about sums up how I am feeling. I have little doubt that I will watch the remainder to the season to see how it plays out, but for the first time since I began watching (season three) I found myself hoping that this would be the last season.
At the very least they could have followed my wife’s suggestion and had Jack speak and dance around like Dieter. At least that would have been entertaining.
Feb
2
I can’t believe I’m reading this
February 2, 2010 | Leave a Comment
Not because it is hard to believe that someone is stating this, but because it was written by Sally Jenkins and printed in the Washington Post. Most of this could have been written by, well, me.
I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.
Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.
Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikini selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t.
Jenkins continues:
Here’s what we do need a lot more of: Tebows. Collegians who are selfless enough to choose not to spend summers poolside, but travel to impoverished countries to dispense medical care to children, as Tebow has every summer of his career. Athletes who believe in something other than themselves, and are willing to put their backbone where their mouth is. Celebrities who are self-possessed and self-controlled enough to use their wattage to advertise commitment over decadence.
You know what we really need more of? Famous guys who aren’t embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it out loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions. See, the best way to deal with unwanted pregnancy is to not get the sperm in the egg and the egg implanted to begin with, and that is an issue for men, too — and they should step up to that.
Wow.
One would think that Feminists would celebrate the kind of popular athlete who respects women and doesn’t show off his masculinity by treating women as nothing more than sexual objects. But I guess we’re only to laud respectful men so long as they don’t have that pesky Christian baggage.
Kudos to Jenkins.
Feb
2
Race and Politics
February 2, 2010 | 1 Comment
The local morning talk show guy played a soundbite from a Democratic strategist who argued that Maryland is not likely to go the way of Massachusetts because of the higher proportion of black people in the state. Indeed the percentage of the Maryland population that is black is roughly five times that of the Bay State. There is now some debate about whether the statement is racist because it just presumes that black voters are beholden to the Democratic party. I don’t know if the comment is racist, but I wonder if the observation is even an accurate assessment of the political scene. Certainly we know that Democrats regularly receive at least 90 percent of the black vote, but are states with high black populations generally one that vote Democrat? Actually, it’s quite the opposite.
The following link breaks down the black population by state. The numbers are a bit different depending on the site you visit, but this one seems to be about as accurate as any. The following is a list of states where the black population exceeds the national average (roughly 12 percent). I have them listed in descending order, followed by the percentage of the black population, and then a designation of the state’s political makeup. R = Republican, D = Democrat, P = Purple, P-R = Purple, but leans Republican, and P-D = Purple, but leans Democrat.
1. Mississippi – 37% (R)
2. Louisiana – 31.5% (P-R)
3. Georgia – 29.3% (R)
4. Maryland – 29% (D)
5. South Carolina – 28.2% (R)
6. Alabama – 26.1% (R)
7. North Carolina – 21.2% (P-R)
8. Delaware – 20% (D)
9. Virginia – 19% (P-R)
10. Tennessee – 16.6% (R)
11. Arkansas – 15.4 % (R)
12. Illinois – 15.0% (D)
13. Florida – 14.7% (P-R)
14. New York – 14.6% (D)
15. Michigan – 14.1% (D)
16. New Jersey – 13.3% (D)
Of the 11 states with the highest percentage of black residents, nine would be considered solidly Republican or Republican-leaning (and I think Louisiana is trending more in the Solid-R direction.)
Conversely, if you look at states with very small black populations, there is a pretty even mix of D and R. Among states with the lowest proportion of black residents that are Democratic leaning there are: Vermont, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire (perhaps more of a purple state), and Oregon. As for Republican-leaners in this category we see North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and Utah.
So what do we make of all this? What sticks out is the simple fact that the states that have the highest black populations – proportionally speaking – tend to be deep South states with a checkered history (to say the least) regarding race relations. You have to go all the way down the list to Illinois before you see a non-slave state, and southern Illinois had deep Confederate sympathies.
Other than that, though, it suggests that we ought to dig deeper to understand the political makeup of a state. Why does Maryland buck the trend of other states with large black populations? It is notable that both it and Delaware are former slave states that did not join the confederacy. The other two non-Confederate slave states – Missouri (11%) and Kentucky (7%) – have average black populations. But is there any significance to this other than mere historical curiosity? In a way, yes. As a Maryland resident, is sure doesn’t feel like a southern state. The cultural milieu here is decidedly northeastern effete liberal. Its proximity to DC certainly explains much of this. But most of the state resides outside of the DC metro area, and is still heavily leftist.
Undoubtedly Maryland is a heavily blue state. We threw out a perfectly acceptable and popular governor four years ago simply because he had an R next to his name – and he was only elected in the first place because he ran against Kathleen Kennedy Townshend – in other words, because he ran against a blithering idiot. But are Republican chances dimmed simply because of the high black population, or are there other causes of Democratic dominance? Based on a look at other states, clearly race is not quite the factor that some think it is. Republicans will have to overcome a lot more than demographics in order to become relevant in this state. Just as soon as I figure out to how to accomplish that, I’ll let you know as Senator Zummo.
Feb
2
Things that make me wish I was still in college
February 2, 2010 | Leave a Comment
I just about never have any pangs of wistful longings for my alma mater, and certainly not for the city in which my alma mater is located, but this sounds awesome. Richard Brookhiser writes:
I will be speaking at Emory University this Wednesday at 8:00 p.m. in White Hall, Room 208.
Topic: “What Would the Founders Do? Our Questions, Their Answers.”
Well, for those of you still trapped living in Atlanta, there are worse uses for your time.
Feb
1
But we need to factor in electability
February 1, 2010 | Leave a Comment
That’s the argument made for nominating moderate squishes. You see, if we nominate a more conservative guy, he’s gonna get killed in the general election. That argument may make sense in certain cases, but is usually just a smokescreen employed to justify nominating inferior candidates. Case in point: Florida.
The numbers I suspect most of us are most curious about – Crist vs. Rubio – will be coming later today, but Rasmussen’s latest robo poll shows Marco Rubio leading Kendrick Meek by 17 points (49 percent to 32 percent) and Charlie Crist leading Meek by 15 (48 percent to 33 percent).
. . . Both Crist and Rubio lead Meek by two-to-one among male voters but have a more modest edge among female voters. Voters not affiliated with either major party prefer either of the Republicans to Meek by roughly 20 points.
But according to the geniuses at the NRSC, we had to back Crist otherwise the seat would fall into Democrat hands.
Yeah, not so much.
Feb
1
This column deserves an award of some kind
February 1, 2010 | 3 Comments
Once upon a time E.J. Dionne was a fairly reasonable voice of the left-wing intelligentsia. He was touted as a reasonably moderate left-winger who offered generous criticisms of both parties. Over the years he has deteriorated into just another partisan hack. But his column today is one of the most breathtaking example of dishonesty and foaming at the mouth rage that I have ever witnessed.
The nation owes a substantial debt to Justice Samuel Alito for his display of unhappiness over President Obama’s criticisms of the Supreme Court’s recent legislation — excuse me, decision — opening our electoral system to a new torrent of corporate money.
And right away we establish the mood. The Supreme Court didn’t render a decision based on the constitutionality of the act before it; no, rather it “legislated” its will upon the people by opening up the torrents of corporate (Boo! Hiss!) money. So now I await Dionne’s reasoned take on why the Court’s decision was wrong.
Alito’s inability to restrain himself during the State of the Union address brought to wide attention a truth that too many have tried to ignore: The Supreme Court is now dominated by a highly politicized conservative majority intent on working its will, even if that means ignoring precedents and the wishes of the elected branches of government.
So Justice Alito’s honest reaction – one which he had no idea was being filmed – is a signal that the Court is “dominated by a highly politicized conservative majority.” Anthony Kennedy is just as surprised as the rest of us. Dionne seems offended by the notion that the Court – GASP! – ignored the wishes of the elected branch of governments. I was unaware that the Supreme Court’s primary consideration in considering the constitutional merits of a case was whether or not the other branches wished something to be so. I was under the evidently loopy notion that the Court’s primary concern was whether or not a piece of legislation was actually in accord with the written text of the Constitution. Silly me. How dare the Supreme Court overturn an act of Congress! This is outrageous. Judicial review? Fie! Fie upon the concept, even if it has been an accepted tenet of our country since the Founding. (And yes, I have myself objected to certain conceptions of judicial review, but only the idea that the Court is the sole arbiter of the Constitution. It clearly is an arbiter, just not the only one.) Anyway, I look forward to Dionne’s reasoned analysis of why the Court was wrong.
Obama called the court on this, and Alito shook his head and apparently mouthed “not true.” His was the honest reaction of a judicial activist who believes he has the obligation to impose his version of right reason on the rest of us.
This is actually just a repeat of the paragraph above. This is called “filler.” I do admire Dionne’s determination to stick the label “activist” upon Supreme Court decision-making. As we all know, Dionne has been a staunch critic of “judicial activism,” right? I’m sure if I looked through the archives, I’d see scathing attacks upon the Supreme Court’s decisions during the Bush years on affording rights to enemy combatants, as well as other decisions that struck down state anti-sodomy laws and death penalty statutes.
Still waiting for that clear-headed analysis of what the Court got wrong.
The controversy also exposed the impressive capacity of the conservative judicial revolutionaries to live by double standards without apology.
The movement’s legal theorists and politicians have spent more than four decades attacking alleged judicial abuses by liberals, cheering on the presidents who joined them in their assaults. But now, they are terribly offended that Obama has straightforwardly challenged the handiwork of their judicial comrades.
In almost all cases, conservative legal theorists have attacked Supreme Court decisions not because they overturned the majority’s will, but because these decisions were not grounded in anything approaching a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution. Personally, I don’t like the term judicial activism, precisely because it implies that the problem with Supreme Court decisions is their anti-majoritarianism, but that is not what has gone wrong with most major Supreme Court decisions of the past century.
There is ample precedent for Obama’s firm but respectful rebuke of the court. I know of no one on the right who protested when President Reagan, in a 1983 article in the Human Life Review, took on the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision of 10 years earlier.
I’d like to give Dionne some benefit of the doubt and not assume he is willfully obfuscating here, so I’ll just posit that he isn’t smart enough to pick up on the crucial difference. Ronald Reagan did not chide the Supreme Court during a State of the Union address. Sure previous presidents have criticized Court decisions, but none did so in the manner that Obama did last week.
Reagan had every right to say what he did. But why do conservatives deny the same right to Obama? Alternatively, why do they think it’s persuasive to argue, as Georgetown Law professor Randy Barnett did in The Wall Street Journal, that it’s fine for a president to take issue with the court, except in a State of the Union speech? Isn’t it more honorable to criticize the justices to their faces? Are these jurists so sensitive that they can’t take it? Do they expect everyone to submit quietly to whatever they do?
I actually don’t think that Obama’s critiquing the Court was the greatest crime he committed. Lying about what impact the decision will have – twice – was the much more egregious act. And certainly the Court is not above criticism. However, unlike Congress, the Court does not have the ability to respond to anything said about them during a State of the Union address. They are supposed to be non-partisan observers, unable to hint at any kind of disagreement with what is being said, and if they do -like Alito – they are chastised for it. Also, it is one thing to criticize others to their face when they have an opportunity to respond, quite another when they are a captive audience and have to just sit there. Surely Dionne can’t be this completely obtuse about the distincion.
Still waiting to hear that reasoned critique of the Court’s decision.
As for the specifics of Obama’s indictment, Alito’s defenders have said the president was wrong to say that the court’s decision on corporate political spending had reversed “a century of law” and also opened “the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations.”
But Obama was not simply referring to court precedents but also to the 1907 Tillman Act, which banned corporate money in electoral campaigns. The court’s recent ruling undermined that policy. Defenders of the decision also say it did not invalidate the existing legal ban on foreign political activity. What they don’t acknowledge is that the ruling opens a loophole for domestic corporations under foreign control to make unlimited campaign expenditures.
Three paragraphs from the end and Dionne finally manages to get to some substantive analysis. Unfortunately for E.J. Dionne, well, he’s E.J. Dionne and thus has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about. Linda Greenhouse points out:
The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.
Dionne is getting worked up about the possibility that this decision will lead to other laws and prohibitions being struck down, but that doesn’t address whether this specific decision accorded with the plain meaning of the First Amendment, nor if the regulations that still stand are in fact constitutional. Dionne rests his objection mainly on some generic objection to the idea of corporations getting involved in political fund-raising and advertising, but this is just a populist bogeyman. The mere mention of the word “corporation” is supposed to drive us all in a tizzy, motivating all good citizens to grab their pitchforks, head on over to East Capitol Steeet, and demand I say demand retribution. But at no point are we asked to consider that, you know, maybe the Court was right.
Alito did not like the president making an issue of the court’s truly radical intervention in politics. I disagree with Alito on the law and the policy, but I have no problem with his personal expression of displeasure.
On the contrary, I salute him because his candid response brought home to the country how high the stakes are in the battle over the conservative activism of Chief Justice John Roberts’ court.
A very weak ending that merely repeats the thesis. This reminds me of one of my college English papers that has to be at least five pages but I struggled to get to three, so I just repeated the same thing in different fashion to pad it out so that my paper just barely got to a fifth page, with two sentences on the top of page five – and that’s only because I padded out the first page just enough to move everything down.
This entire column could have been written in two or three sentences. “I don’t like corporations. Corporations shouldn’t have influence on politics whatsoever. I don’t like conservatives either. Samuel Alito is a conservative and he likes corporations and therefore he’s the devil.” Okay, it’s four, but it still would have been a lot more interesting (and truly indicative of what Dionne thinks) than the end product.
Jan
28
The development of the State of the Union
January 28, 2010 | Leave a Comment
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;
That’s from the US Constitution – Article II, Section 3, and the “he” (damned sexist Framers!) refers to the President of the United States. There is nothing in there about the manner in which the President must give this information, nor is there even a requirement that this be done annually. President Washington delivered the address annually before a joint session of Congress, as did President Adams. President Jefferson, a man who “ostentatiously disdained ostentation,” as Forest McDonald once wrote, and who was wary of the monarchical trappings of the presidency, discontinued the practice of delivering the address before Congress, instead wrote the document and had it read to Congress by a clerk. And such was the practice until President Woodrow Wilson re-established the older tradition by delivering the speech in person. We have – unfortunately – continued in that vein ever since, with a few exceptions (especially during the Hoover and Coolidge administrations). Here’s some more background on the history of the State of the Union address here.
Even though Wilson revived a practice started by Washington, his purpose signaled a much more radical departure from Washington than what Jefferson had done in 1801. George Washington’s first annual message was a short, compact address that was almost literally a statement about the Union. It is an assessment of the Nation and how it is faring under the new system of government. It contains a couple of mild suggestions, but is nothing like what we see today. Generally speaking, this was the model followed by future presidents, who were content to simply report on the the state of the Union and offer up a couple of legislative suggestions. This was a time when presidents were largely deferential to Congress.
And so it was until Woodrow Wilson. Wilson’s first State of the Union offers up several specific proposals and hints at a more general legislative program. This is not entirely unique, and a glance at Taft’s final Annual Message shows that he was not shy about making recommendations himself. But Wilson’s decision to address Congress in person was an important symbolic act. Wilson had adopted the belief that America would be best served by a more Parliamentary-styled system. Wilson envisioned a Congress that was subservient to the President in ways that no prior administration ever dreamed of. By appearing directly before Congress, Wilson signaled that he would be taking the lead in setting policy, not Congress.
The State of the Union has continued to progress into a mere list of policy proposals. It is dull, but that’s not the most significant aspect of the State of the Union. The very fact that Presidents continue to deliver the State of the Union in person exemplifies our shift towards a President-centric system. Consciously or unconsciously, almost all subsequent presidents have validated Wilson’s vision.
As I mentioned in a post yesterday, it is interesting that Jefferson discontinued the practice of addressing Congress in person due to Populist considerations, while Wilson brought back the practice for those same considerations. Perhaps what it shows is the development of Populism. Early 19th Century Populism celebrated the agrarian lifestyle and put much stock and confidence in the power of the individual. 20th Century Populism turned to the Government and away from this individualistic ethos. Now the Government was to be a provider satisfying popular wants. I have my issues with Jefferson (Lector: Duh), but I’ll take his brand of populism – or at least what it represented – any day.
Long story short, the current method of delivering the State of the Union is not just a mere historical curiosity. It is another sign of how our polity has been changed radically, and not for the better.
Jan
28
Is this supposed to be parody? (Updated)
January 28, 2010 | Leave a Comment
I have read Christopher Buckley’s latest bit of seeming Obama adoration several times now, and I still am not sure if this is supposed to be satire or an honest evaluation. Some of it is so over the top I’m leaning towards the former, but at the same time he seems to sincerely think that President Obama is a master orator. If he is being completely earnest, this is simply moronic:
My personal takeaway was his endorsement of nuclear power. So many of our problems—specifically, our 70 percent importation of oil from horrid desert regimes—could be eliminated if we embraced the atom. I can hardly wait to hear Senator Harry Reid’s reaction, coming as he does from a state that adamantly refuses to store nuclear waste, lest it cause gamblers in Las Vegas to glow in the dark.
Again, perhaps he’s engaging in hyperbole and I’m just missing the humor, but this is simply wrong. That doesn’t mean that I think nuclear generation is bad – quite the opposite – it’s just that nuclear generation has nothing to do with our use of oil. We use nuclear energy solely for the purposes of electricity, and all but the tiniest fraction of our oil usage is for transportation and heating energy (1.1 percent of US electricity generation is fueled by oil). So nuclear power has no ability to displace oil unless it also displaces natural gas as an electricity fuel, thereby enabling greater reliance on natural gas for transportation purposes, but that’s a bit of a stretch. Also, most of our imported oil comes from those horrid desert regimes known as Canada and Mexico. And let’s not even get into the concept of fungibility.
And this is either psychotic or just incomprehensibly bad parody.
Tonight Mr. Obama proved—once again—that he hears the American music and can play it like a maestro. As well as Ronald Reagan. Both presidents had—have—have music in their souls. The other people in the room where I watched the speech were in tears by the end—the kind that stream down the face. I managed to hold those back. But I could not hold back my admiration at the performance, in particular of Mr. Obama’s deep humanity, as evinced by his profound, almost Lincolnesque humor. Oh dear, are tears streaming down my face, one way or the other?
If it weren’t for the Reagan reference I’d be convinced it was a joke, but I honestly don’t know. If it is parody – and it probably is – it’s really, really bad parody. I mean awful.
H/t: Jeff Goldstein, who also gets mataphysical.
“President Wrong on Citizens United Case”
– Which, of course, isn’t much of a deterrent to leftist demagogues like Obama, because “wrong” only means wrong in the sense that it can be measured against something demonstrably right — and the grounds for making such epistemological value judgments have been replaced, in our postmodern worldview, by meaning-by-consensus, manufactured or otherwise.
Or, to put it another way, Obama is only wrong if enough people agree he’s wrong; if he can convince enough people he is right, he is, in fact, right. And it is within this context that the President felt comfortable weaving his assertions last evening: because under the foundational assumptions of progressive ideology, something isn’t a lie if it effectively wills into existence an “established truth.” And this is precisely what you’d expect to happen once meaning is turned over to interpretive communities, and truths are determined by who wields the most power to “affirm” them successfully, then protect them from outside assault.
That seemed rather apropos considering I have just finished reading Peter Kreeft’s A Refutation of Moral Relativism. Look like Obama’s been getting advice from Libby Rawls. After all, the truth is just unknowable, and that’s just the truth.
Update: Ace rips Buckley to shreds, but this comment takes the cake.
If it’s satire, it’s in the same class as that guy Joe Queenan who seems to be the offical laugh-getter at the Wall Street Journal; too close to the real thing to actually be satire, and not even funny enough to laugh at. Buckley seems to find something he’s good at and stick to it, and that something doesn’t’ seem to be writing.
Jan
28
Presidential State of Misinformation (Update)
January 28, 2010 | 6 Comments
In deciding to skip the State of the Obama address, I missed this whopper:
The text:
“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign companies – to spend without limit in our elections,” the president said, according to early excerpts of his speech released by the White House.
“Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”
So the President embarrasses the Supreme Court in front of a joint session of Congress, and manages to spread not one, but two lies. Even the New York Times of all places acknowledges one of them.
But in his majority opinion in the case, Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically wrote that the opinion did not address the question of foreign companies. “We need not reach the question of whether the government has a compelling interesting in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process,” he wrote. The court held that the First Amendment protected the right of American corporations to spend money on independent political commercials for or against candidates. Some analysts or observers have warned that the principle could open the door to foreign corporations as well.
So much for the foreign corporations bit. As for the idea that corporations will be able to spend without limits, the prohibition on corporations from directly financing candidates still stands.
Based on his reaction, I’m guessing Samuel Alito might have other plans when next year’s State of the Union address rolls around.
Update: My friend Jay Anderson has further thoughts. Believe it or not I actually toned down this blog post considerably after editing, so Jay expressed exactly what I’m feeling.
This constitutional power play and effort at intimidation by Obama (with the full Court present at the SOTU speech) has to be about the most graceless and classless thing the man has done since taking office (although his mocking of the notion that morality might place some limits on scientific research during his speech announcing that he would fund ESCR ranks right up there).
The man has no class and absolutely no moral compass beyond his own wants and preferences. The rightness or wrongness of a thing is wholly dependant upon whether Obama wants it or not. This demogogic and patently false attack on the Court with the members of the Court front and center during the speech was nothing short of a disgusting display of arrogance and raw hubris.
President Obama’s mixture of arrogance, radicalism, and incompetence is a wonder to behold.
Jan
27
State of the . . . oh just please shoot me
January 27, 2010 | 6 Comments
Evidently there’s some sort of speech being given tonight around these parts. Oh, it’s the State of the Union address, America’s annual ritual of self-torture. You couldn’t pay me to watch this thing – okay, who am I kidding. If some mag wants to throw a few bucks my way to liveblog the thing, I’d do it in a heartbeat. I could also be persuaded to watch provided I could have some fun along the way. It is not an ideological thing as I barely watch when Republicans are in office. This is the most painfully boring, stilted, and phony staged event in our republic (and that’s saying a lot nowadays), and is just further proof of the decay of public rhetoric. Heck, even Lincoln’s annual messages were among the least inspiring of his public writings, but his were Shakespeare compared to what we get today.
Anyway, the folks at the Corner have a few good ideas about how to enjoy the evening somehow, as well as an idea for Congress to consider. Meanwhile, Kevin Williamson suggests a return to the good ole days, though with a twist.
The State of the Union address is my least favorite American political ritual. Explicitly monarchical in form and origin, it is an affront to republican manners, a vanity fair for the political class. Jefferson, I read, had the good sense to skip the ceremony and send a letter; the progressive Wilson resurrected the dog-and-pony show. (And that should tell you something about the real fundamentals of American politics.)
In its modern form, the State of the Union is an absolute embarrassment, no matter the president giving it. I liked George W. Bush, and liked to hear him talk: His SoTUs were ghastly, and the great-American-hero-in-the-gallery bits are particularly awful.
Obama’s a hip, modern guy, so here’s a thought: an SoTU Facebook update.
Fine by me. Alternatively I’m in favor of bringing back that Micro Machine guy to speed-read the thing before a joint session of Congress. Another possibility is to take all those stupid liturgical dancers – banished of course from ever setting foot in a Church again – and let them do a bit of interpretive dance while Maya Angelou or some beat poet reads the text.
It’s funny that he should mention Jefferson, because despite my err, unfavorable view of him, that’s one thing he most certainly got right. It is interesting that a Populist was the one who decided to scrap the presidential appearance before Congress while it was a Populist who resuscitated the practice. Indeed it does say something about the fundamental of American politics, and I would like to delve into that . . .
But folks we’re desperately running out of time. We gotta go!
(Thanks to Tony Schiavone for helping me get out of that one).