Indignant Desert Birds

It seems that Mitch McConnell hates the fact that Democrats won’t go along with his ideas. The fact that his ideas are terrible is sort of besides the point. Remember that gridlock comes, not from congressional obstinance, but from legitimate disagreement about the best course of action for America. That disagreement is good and healthy, but in order to properly weigh and measure which side has the better plan, they must be allowed to implement that plan.

So McConnall has a… call it a vestige of a point. The American political system really is broken. In 2008, Americans elected Obama and a huge Democratic majority. They promised to pass a huge stimulus, pass healthcare reform, and end the war in Iraq.

We ended up with… a continued involvement in Iraq, a barely adequate healthcare reform, and a Federal economic stimulus that almost (but didn’t quite) do enough to cover the anti-stimulus being done by the various states.

The reasons for this had little to do with the leadership of Obama or Pelosi (or Reid!), and everything to do with the mechanics of Congress. It is shockingly easy for a small group of elected officials to gum up all of Congress and keep it from doing anything. Blaming Obama for this is a bit like blaming an engine installer for auto body damage.

If we tried the Democratic plan and it failed, I’d agree that McConnell should be allowed his turn to fix things. Instead, he was able to block the Democrats from implementing their plans, and is furious that Democrats are able to block his.

Tags: conservative, pestilence, politics by Punning Pundit
1 Comment »

The full text of the first section of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That seems fairly straightforward, right? It defines American citizenship, and says that any right granted to citizens are granted to all citizens. In fact, given the language used (“persons”), I’m not sure that the US could refuse citizenship to sentient robots, vampires, or extra-terrestrial aliens.

Section 2 contradicts Section 1 a small bit, in that it specifically sets aside voting rights to males over the age of 21 and who haven’t “participat[ed] in rebellion, or other crime”

Sections 3 and 4 also stick it to the confederate veterans of the Civil War.

The 19th Amendment gives women the right to vote.

Both the 14th and 19th amendments have the following words as their final section “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

A plain reading of the basic text of the US Constitution would thus mandate that any law that demands employers treat employees a certain way applies to men and women. And straight people and gay people. And people of any color or ethnic background humanity cares to invent. If the Federal, or a State, government wants to allow a pair of people to form a union and become a single legal entity (marriage), then a plain reading of the Constitution demands that such a right is granted to all citizens.

Antonin Scalia doesn’t like this. He doesn’t like this at all. I won’t read his mind to state his motivations for not liking this, but Scalia reads the minds of voters 1868 and decides that “if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that.”

None of them, eh Scalia? That’s a big statement. It’s also irrelevant. Their minds are now dust, but their words are eternal. If they wanted to codify gender or orientation discrimination into the Constitution, they should have done so. They specifically outlawed religious*, ethnic, and racial discrimination. Our ancestors have had 235 years in which to do so. They didn’t, and now we’re finally realizing that they didn’t.

I’ll even perhaps agree with Scalia that this was an oversight on the part of centuries of voters. Their blindness left a huge breach in the firewall of bigotry. Americans of the 21st century have the choice now about how much to exploit that breach, and how quickly we may be able to burn the edifice of hate. Scalia has decided to throw himself against the oncoming surge of human happiness. Oddly, he seems to give his own fears more weight than the text of the Constitution.

*Good thing for Scalia that they did so. Many people feared that by not insisting on a religious test, we might end up with a Catholic (like Scalia) as a holder of high office.

Tags: conservative, politics by Punning Pundit
3 Comments »

By Ara Rubyan
Cross posted at E Pluribus Unum

“Even if you never met him, you know this guy. He’s the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by.”

— Karl Rove, describing Barack Obama

When I first read about this comment, my immediate reaction was that I couldn’t think of a single country club that would admit a black man named Barack Hussein Obama. Then I thought Rove was doing his usual shtick, i.e., take his greatest weakness and ascribe it to his opponent. In other words, I felt that he was describing George W. Bush at the club, not Obama. Makes much more sense that way, given Bush’s history with alcohol — and his smart mouth. It was much the same technique Rove used to destroy John Kerry’s Vietnam war record in 2004, all but accusing the nominee of being a liar and a coward. All this while Bush was hiding his “war record” in plain sight.

But a commenter at Talking Points Memo unpacked Rove’s comments differently than me and I think he nails it:

The key to the statement is that (in the image) he is with “a beautiful date.” Not Michelle Obama or, in the abstract, his wife, i.e. a wife like Michelle Obama. When you think of a “beautiful date” specifically at a country club, do you picture an African-American woman? Would Rove’s target audience?

Or do you picture him there, a black man, smoking a cigarette indoors at a country club, with a white woman on his arm?

When I thought of this, I got a chill. When you think of Obama’s vulnerability, I think the primaries showed that race remains a real and very serious obstacle, particularly with white Americans over 50. When you think of where we are with racism in this country, I think its a pretty safe bet that the final freak-out factor to overcome may be black men dating white women, in particular, one’s daughter.

If I were a completely amoral Republican operative, I’d try to find some white women that Obama dated before Michelle and get them into the public’s stream of consciousness anyway I could. Its a tactic so vile I don’t even like speculating about it, but if you want to be ready for the worst, I think Rove just tipped his hand at where they plan to go.

In all fairness, I have to ask if there is (or isn’t) the analogous scenario that an “amoral Democratic operative” could spring on McCain? Remember, in order for it to work, it has to resonate at the emotional level and be absolutely radioactive in the extreme. It has to address a fundamental fear that the electorate has about McCain.

Tags: conservative, Election 08, Games, human rights, politics by arubyan
4 Comments »

McCain’s campaign is encouraging trolls. They’re literally giving trolls “points” for leaving pro-McCain talking points in the comments section of various blogs. Their view of the blogworld is fairly skewed, they list Glen Reynolds (Instapundit) as neither right, nor left, nor moderate, but “other” (he’s a fairly doctrinaire conservative).

This isn’t the worst idea in the world– many large companies employ trolls to get their own word out. Its just so transparent and icky that I can’t think it will do much good. Yes, this blog is a bit annoyed not to be included on the hit list.

Tags: conservative, Election 08 by Punning Pundit
3 Comments »

As I understand it, conservatives think that it is silly to talk with Iran until Iran A) stops supporting Hammas B) gives up it’s nuclear ambition C) stops repressing its own people. Doing anything about point C) would violate the priciples of the treaty of Westphalia, so I assume this is mere saber rattling.

As for the rest: my understanding is that these are the points to be negotiated. Which means setting them as preconditions indicates that certain parts of our governing class really do not wish to meet at all– outside the field of honor. This, of course, makes them wildly out of touch with most Americans:

.

Seems like talking with people we don’t like in an attempt to settle our differences is a political winner. Who knew?

Tags: conservative, liberal, politics by Punning Pundit
6 Comments »

California is holding a primary election tomorrow (Tuesday, June 3). Among the initiatives on the ballot are two amendments to the state constitution which would provide protection against Kelo-style takings (where Eminent Domain is used to force the sale of property to another private entity, nominally to foster economic development). If you’re registered to vote in California, I urge you to vote for Prop 98 and against Prop 99. If both propositions get a majority, only the one with the larger majority will go into effect, and Prop 98 offers much better protections than Prop 99.

The key differences are:

• Prop 98 protects all private property against Kelo-style takings, including farms, small businesses, and rental property. Prop 99 protects only owner-occupied primary residences.

• Prop 98 guarantees strong procedural protections for people whose property is taken for public use (a jury trial to settle contested claims as to the proper level of compensation, and prompt payment of compensation). Prop 99 does not.

• Prop 98 would abolish rent control, which is a textbook example of a government program which just plain doesn’t work. Rent control was intended to guarantee affordable housing, and instead it causes the supply of rental housing to dry up, and it degrades the quality of what rental property remains. It says a lot when Paul Krugman and Milton Friedman agree that a program is a terrible economic idea.

Anti-Prop 98 groups have been spreading FUD that Prop 98 includes language which would require compensation for regulatory takings (i.e. require the state to compensate people who are unable to fully use their property due to environmental or land-use regulations). I’ve read the full text of the proposition and see nothing of the sort there. Neither did the judge who heard the case when Prop 98 opponents argued that the ballot summary was misleading. If Prop 98 restricts regulatory takings, then so does the Fifth Amendment.

More on the need for Prop 98′s protections in this LA Times editorial by Ilya Somin.

Conflict-of-interests disclosure: I will be moving back to California later this month, albeit too late to vote on these initiatives. I plan on renting.

[Cross-posted at the Office of Naval Contemplation]

[Cross-posted at Dean's World]

Tags: conservative, liberal, Libertarian, politics by Maniakes
1 Comment »