Monthly Archives: January 2010

Reason has a great article up titled Class War: How Public Servants Became Our Masters. If “public servant” wasn’t already an oxymoron it has become one. Next time you’re playing golf with a 38 year old “retired” public servant who parked in a handicapped spot without fear of ticket or tow think of this article.

People who are supposed to serve the public have become a privileged elite that exploits political power for financial gain and special perks. Because of its political power, this interest group has rigged the game so there are few meaningful checks on its demands. Government employees now receive far higher pay, benefits, and pensions than the vast majority of Americans working in the private sector. Even when they are incompetent or abusive, they can be fired only after a long process and only for the most grievous offenses.

It’s a two-tier system in which the rulers are making steady gains at the expense of the ruled. The predictable results: Higher taxes, eroded public services, unsustainable levels of debt, and massive roadblocks to reforming even the poorest performing agencies and school systems. If this system is left to grow unchecked, we will end up with a pale imitation of the free society envisioned by the Founders.

From Reason. Here’s the crux of it, but read the whole thing.

It is shameful that progressives are willing to throw free speech under the bus in their devotion to big government.

There is a simple way to get corporate money out of politics: get the government out of our lives and economic affairs. If government has no favors to sell, no one will spend money trying to win them.

Regarding “throwing free speech under the bus” the ACLU’s internal battle over this issue is also interesting.

“The worst thing you could do—the absolutely worst thing you could do—is transform a civil liberties organization into a liberal political organization,” Mr. Abrams, one of the most famous First Amendment lawyers in the country, told the board.

I couldn’t agree more.

Finally, a good read about Mark Twain:

Part of the difficulty of understanding Mark Twain’s political outlook is due to terminology and the tendency of politics to corrupt the meaning of everything. As often as you see him called a liberal, he is called a conservative, and sometimes both in the same breath. Critics puzzle about how one person could be champion of workers, owners, and the capitalist rich, while holding views that are antigovernment on domestic matters, antislavery, and antiwar. They often conclude that his politics are incoherent.

* * *

Twain was born as Samuel Langhorne Clemens in 1835, when the meaning of liberalism was less ambiguous. To be liberal was to favor free enterprise and property rights, oppose slavery, reject old-world caste systems, loathe war, be generally disposed toward free trade and cosmopolitanism, favor the social advance of women, favor technological progress — and to possess a grave skepticism toward government management of anything.

* * *

The mania for giving the Government power to meddle with the private affairs of cities or citizens is likely to cause endless trouble … and there is great danger that our people will lose that independence of thought and action which is the cause of much of our greatness, and sink into the helplessness of the Frenchman or German who expects his government to feed him when hungry, clothe him when naked … and, in time, to regulate every act of humanity from the cradle to the tomb, including the manner in which he may seek future admission to paradise.

Cupid being shot to death by arrows. (Found that example after visiting the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, and seeing an effigy of Cupid shot full of arrows.)

An insulin truck killing a diabetic. – Gordon Bryson.

Have at it in the comments. I appreciate good examples of irony.

Who ya got? Thanks to Tehotu for the video!

Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie show how to do it in an open letter to President Obama. Read it all.

Boing Boing has an interesting post up about an artist I wasn’t familiar with.

Arnold Bocklinwas a 19th century symbolist painter whose work influenced and inspired Salvador Dali, Sergi Rachmaninoff, Marcel Duchamp and H. R. Giger. Adolph Hitler owned eleven of his paintings and cited Bocklin as his favorite painter.

Check it out. Here’s what must be Hilter’s favorite painting. It’s title? The Isle of the Dead.

Mike threw down the gauntlet:

“The appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy” Justice Kennedy writing for the majority in the Supreme Court’s decision to allow unregulated corporate spending in Federal elections. You’ve gotta be kidding me.

And followed it up with this gem, which is quite funny:

News Flash: “Conservative Supreme Court Fellates Corporate Interests”

I responded by referring Mike to this Reason article, which essentially argues that limiting corporate / union speech for fear of ruining democracy is a classic example of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

This hyperbole betrays a belief—common among proponents of restrictions on political speech—that Americans, like lemmings, are merely dull creatures who can be easily led off a cliff. Thus, unless the government “protects” us from hearing corporations’ speech about politics, we’ll always vote in ways that benefit corporations because they will spend lots of money to convince us to do so.

This conclusion is as ridiculous as it is patronizing. * * *

The answer, of course, is that Americans are not imbeciles who mindlessly succumb to corporate advertising campaigns. We are fully capable of evaluating corporate speech on its merits; thus, we do not need “protection” from it.

Mike, um, disagreed:

This is really a bullshit Libertarian argument Ryan: “The answer, of course, is that Americans are not imbeciles who mindlessly succumb to corporate advertising campaigns. We are fully capable of evaluating corporate speech on its merits; thus, we do not need “protection…” from it”. Money buys votes plain and simple. The framers of the constitution were well aware of the dangers corporate influence could pose to a healthy democracy and I doubt their first amendment guarantee of free speech was intended to protect corporate influence over the political process. (Emphasis added).

He wasn’t done:

“Two centuries ago, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Marshall first recognized that corporations are artificial creatures of the State, subject to government oversight to ensure they do not abuse the special privileges granted to them. Corporations cannot vote in elections, stand for election, or serve as elected officials, but the Court … today ruled they can overwhelm the political process using profits generated by the special privileges granted to corporations alone”.  http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/25541

Still wasn’t done:

Hard to argue against Stevens dissent: “corporations “are not human beings” and “corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.” He insists that “they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.”

I responded:

Well, here’s Scalia’s response to that: http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/antonin-scalia-vs-john-paul-st
“I write separately to address JUSTICE STEVENS’ discussion of “Original Understandings”… This section of [Stevens'] dissent purports to show that today’s decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form. To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored….

The [First] Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals–and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is “speech” covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.”

I haven’t read the case, and given that it’s nearly 200 pages I probably won’t have time. But this case, like so many other 5-4 decisions, likely reflects a much deeper, philosophical argument. Under the Majority’s view, as quoted above, nothing in the Constitution permits Congress to abridge the right of speech even with respect to corporate persons.

However odious the results of free corporate speech may be, the conservative wing of the court feels – as in so many other issues – that the proper vehicle to enable Congress to limit corporate speech is a constitutional amendment enumerating the power to do just that – rather than by a court decree which is arguably, or in fact, an extra-constitutional legal fiction.

Rather than directing your perhaps justified outrage at five judges, use your political speech to persuade our fellow man/woman to amend the Constitution to reflect your views. Like this law professor is doing: http://www.federalismamendment.com/.

An interesting aside is that, while ‘judicial activism’ (a term I use lightly because every judge at every level is is activist on some level – it’s like ADD, it’s on a spectrum rather than absolute ends) can accomplish desired ends far swifter than constitutional amendments (requiring, today, 38 states consent) an activist court in the 19th century doomed Indian Tribes through a number of legal and extra-constitutional fictions. For example, these fictions justified holding ‘title’ to Indian land by the ‘doctrine of discovery’ (granting Indians only a possessory interest so long as they occupied their land (in the European sense); unilaterally amending and abrogating US-Indian treaties; forcibly moving Indians West; allotting their reservations; and on and on.

Court fiats are a double edged sword with little or no remedy (except a different court) if you don’t like the Court’s result. The conservative viewpoint is a single edged knife the remedy to which is amending the Constitution. I prefer the later because it safeguards our Constitutionally enumeraged form of government and amendments effect greater, longer lasting change.

Mike disagrees with Justice Scalia:

I understand his originalist argument but for me the crux of the argument is whether extending the rights of free speech to corporations benefits or is injurious to a healthy democracy, which after all would’ve been of primary concern to the framers. It runs counter to common sense, common wisdom, and 100 years of court precedent to extend free speech rights to corporations.

Sorry I missed the rest of your reply (beyond the first paragraph). ooh wee baby. Have to tackle that one later. Thanks for your thoughtful response! Take it easy Ryan. TTYL

Just got around to reading your full post Ryan. Great stuff. Thanks for your insight.

Ryan hits it on the nose. I personally fear the Unions more than the “corporations” (that is a whole ‘nother thread), but I disagree with Mike on the crux of the decision, which I see as procedural, and not philosophical.

I see huge potential for abuse by opening up this avenue, but things need to be handled the right way.

I am pro-choice, but I don’t like the decision in Roe v. Wade (state’s rights, ninth amendment privacy, blah blah, etc.). Same sort of thing here…

On a more positive note, I would like to give a shout out to discourse. While emotions run high, I think that we (at least Mike, Ryan and I) might start to notice that our opinions are not so far apart as we may have thought before we started arguing about them.

Well put, and quite true Pila. I have a tendency towards rigidity of thought on some ideological sacred cows. Discourse grants flexibility and reveals common ground.

We all have our sacred cows. And yes they taste delicious. There’s strong policy arguments for and against restricting corporate / union speech. But note that Nevada, Utah, and Virginia have no restrictions on corporate speech in State elections; it hasn’t prevented Nevada from electing Harry Reid, Utah from electing a moderate governor (now serving in Obama administration), and Virginia from becoming (gasp) purple.

Best. MMA. Vid. Ever. EVER!

Newly Resurrected GOP,

In the wake of Scott Brown’s stunning win in Massachussets, I congratulate Brown’s grassroot initiative for saving you from the political wilderness for a generation and generating a bullet trains’ momentum for a center-right political resurgence.

Now, what are you going to do with that momentum?

I’m sure you’re aware of some of the factors contributing to Brown’s win. For instance, you’ve gloated crowed about noticed the widespread opposition to Democrat-proposed healthcare legislation.

But have you noticed the fact that the following issues – your signature issues – played no significant role in Sen. Brown’s win.

• Abortion
• Same-Sex Marriage (DOMA)
• Increasing Military Spending
• War on Drugs Marijuana
• War on Terror
• Immigration
• Afghanistan
• Iran
• UN
• Loving Sarah Palin

Next question: have you noticed that Sen. Brown, described by some as the “new face“of the GOP, is relatively liberal?

What I’m trying to tell you is that Brown’s win was, unsurprisingly, about the economy. Let me be clear, Brown’s win was not a referendum on your social policies. But Brown’s win does open an opportunity for you to change your social policies.

Regarding same-sex marriage, why not go way out on a Constitutional – federalist – limb and get State and Federal government entirely out of the marriage business. After all, people of every faith (and the lack thereof) formed satisfactory unions and reared children long before governments handed out licenses and tax incentives for doing so.

What you say? Too Libertarian? Even though we’re in a Libertarian moment? How about just getting rid of the Defense of Marriage Act? Doing so would give significant credence to your argument that “abortion is a states’ rights issue.” After all, you thought the Supreme Court was dead wrong to find within the “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution a right to abortion. As a reminder, the Constitution doesn’t speak of federal authority to legislate on marriage either. (To be fair, some within the your ranks aren’t thrilled with the States’ rights argument, preferring instead a Lincolnian stance on abortion.)

Perhaps getting the State and Federal government out of the marriage business would be, in the short term, impractical, given the tax and legal issues such a fundamental change would spawn. And yes, Huckabee would be pissed.

But is it too much to ask that in every manner government affects citizens you sponsor State and Federal measures supporting “equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability”? Marriage included? (If that bit sounds familiar, GOP, that’s number three on your list of core values . . . from November, 2008. Yeah, I know you took it down, or at least I can’t find it online anymore, but some dude I never heard of archived it so there it is.) Take a deep breath. Utter equality is actually quite logical.

I digress. After all, it’s about the economy. Fortunately, Sen. Brown’s win indicates that a majority of Republican, Independent, and center-left Democrats consider you, GOP, the better alternative on the economy – notwithstanding the previous eight years of massive government expansion, fiscal irresponsibility, support of disastrous home-lending policies, stimulus packages, and bailouts.

I kid you not.  Yes, I know. It’s incredible that you remain a viable political alternative, especially considering numbers four and five on your 2008 “I am a republican list.” (Respectively: (4) “I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn”); (5)(“I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations, and that the best government is that which governs least.”)

You’re lucky. Voters have a short memory, and they’ve apparently found this graph persuasive:

And voters sincerely desire small government.

Me? What do I desire? Nice of you to ask. I sincerely desire that you start taking a hard look at what Reason and Cato have to say, and amend your policies accordingly.

By the way, do you know Gary Johnson? Former two term governor of New Mexico?  Take a look at what he did when was Governor (in no particular order):

• He didn’t raise taxes as Governor once.
• He vetoed over 1,000 spending items.
• He cut taxes 14 times.
• In a state dominated 2 to 1 by Democrats he served two terms.
• He left New Mexico with a balanced budget.

He’s a pretty tough dude too, which resonates with the American spirit. For instance:

• He competed in the Bataan Death March, a 25 mile desert run in combat boots wearing a 35-pound backpack.
• He climbed to the top of Mount Everest, despite a broken leg.

Far more compelling, however, than Gov. Johnson’s mountaineering, low-tax, lower-spending, and balanced budget bonafides are his views on the socio-economic issues that really matter to non-evangelical Republicans.  PLEASE. Have a look at Gov. Johnson’s forum.

It appears he’s a “States’ rights” guy on abortion. And presumably every other issue not enumerated in the federal Constitution.

On civil liberty, Gov. Johnson has this to say:

“The government should not intervene in the private lives of individual citizens unnecessarily. Personal liberty and freedom from unwarranted governmental control or regulation should allow law abiding individuals to pursue their own desires as long as they are not causing harm to other people.”

In other words, Gov. Johnson generally favors punishing, where necessary, the consequences of one’s actions rather than proscribing one’s conduct.

Although Gov. Johnson, does not advocate drug use, he would end the war on drugs, especially marijuana because continuing the war on drugs is “simply a waste of money and human resources and fails to deal with the real problems of abuse.” Makes sense, no?

Go ahead, check out out Gov. Johnson’s views on national defense, terrorism, the federal reserve, health care reform, and immigration. Huckabee may not like them, but Scott Brown voters in blue, purple, and red states will like them.

Remember how Bill Clinton’s welfare reform message resonated with voters of every stripe? Many of Gov. Johnson’s messages will too.

Look, GOP, Sen. Brown’s big win in Massachusetts last night has given you a very short lifeline. Use it wisely.

One last thing. You know how in your eyes Hollywood’s smug, ignorant “elite” symbolizes the Democrat party? And you find Democrats generally repugnant for it? Well, a good portion of the people in Massachusetts who voted for Sen. Brown are emblematic of the voters you absolutely need to win a majority in Congress and elect a Republican president. And – listen – a lot of those voters (I’ll call them “Scott Brown conservatives”) consider Pat Buchannan or Mike Huckabee emblematic of the GOP.

Now, I’m a Gary Johnson conservative. But no one knows what that is, yet. So, for the purposes of this letter, consider me a Scott Brown conservative. And when people lump Huckabee, Buchannan, and me into the same category, I hate that. It’s not cool. As in “shooting guys in the dick is not cool” not cool. And that’s what it feels like, GOP. Serially.

I apologize for my long note, I lacked the time to write a shorter letter.

Home Boy Cab.

A catchy name to some, not particularly enticing to others. What exactly is a ‘home boy,’ anyway? The formal version of “homie?” Consider:

Homie (or homey) is a contraction of the American slang words “homeboy” or “homebuddies” which became prevalent among some of the youth in Latino and African American communities starting in the late 1960s and continuing up to the present, particularly in the hip hop subculture.

Does this mean the Home Boy cab misspelled his name? Even wiki has it spelled as “homeboy.”  Moreover, Home Boy lacks the useless, theft inducing accessories I would expect of a taxi cab playing upon hip hop / urban slang. Yes, Home Boy Cab must be . . . something else.

An exhaustive .28 second search of the internet for use of the term “Home Boy” in recent literature reveals a 2009 novel, Home Boy, by H. M. Naqvi. According to Lee Siegal, author, Love in a Dead Language, Home Boy is

“[a] marvelous literary achievement shaped by a refreshingly humane, irresistibly cool, and distinctly curried sensibility. From the word go, Home Boy is populated by larger-than-life characters and big ideas. It will make you think, laugh out loud, possibly cry, and at times, dance with joy.  You won’t even notice that H. M. Naqvi has redefined South Asian literature.”

“[a] genre busting, page-turning debut, HOME BOYfuses street slang and literary discourse, pop culture and politics, history and comedy, East and West. Ultimately, though, HOME BOY is a thoughtful story about a boy who becomes a man in these fraught and frightening times.”

In a sea of famous stars‘ hand and footprints one actor’s mark is particularly emblematic.  John Wayne, who left his bootprints, and the mark of his fist. Indeed, Mr. Wayne, indeed. There are not enough words.