Submitted to a Candid World
Archive for March 2009
Um, He Wasn’t Kidding: Obama Talks Cars
Welfare Cadillac (Seriously, click to learn the words!)
Over the past year, our auto industry has shed over 400,000 jobs …. More than one in 10 Michigan residents is out of work.
….
Year after year, decade after decade, we’ve seen problems papered over and tough choices kicked down the road …. Well, we’ve reached the end of that road.
….
[W]hat we’re asking for is difficult. It will require hard choices by companies. It will require unions and workers who have already made extraordinarily painful concessions to do more. It’ll require creditors to recognize that they can’t hold out for the prospect of endless government bailouts. … Only then can we ask American taxpayers who have already put up so much of their hard-earned money to once more invest in a revitalized auto industry.
….
While the steps I’m taking will have an impact on all Americans, some of our fellow citizens will be affected more than others. … Many of you have been going through tough times for longer than you care to remember. And I won’t pretend that the tough times are over. I can’t promise you there isn’t more difficulty to come.
….
There are jobs that won’t be saved. There are plants that may not reopen. There’s little I can say that can subdue the anger or ease the frustration of all whose livelihoods hang in the balance because of failures that weren’t theirs.
Bankruptcy, David Brooks, and Left-wing-nuts after the jump.
The Quintessential Actress: Ann Coulter’s Student Note
One of the first things that struck me about the world of law, oh those long three years ago, was how small it truly is. Everybody knows everybody. Everybody summered at everyone’s else firm, spent three weeks in discovery with everyone, interviewed everyone else for a lateral hire, heard everyone argue a really great motion just to get slapped down by the judge everyone else clerked for, etc., etc. etc.
So when someone in the legal community “makes it big” – i.e., makes it to the front page of the “New York Times” – there’s always someone who knew them when. And sometimes, that person has a story to share. Most of the times it’s with minor, niche celebrities. Professor So-and-So knew Jack Goldsmith at law school; nice guy, it turns out. But you’ll also hear it when professors speak of Professor Obama, some glowingly, some quietly begrudging his use of the coveted “law professor” title (Obama was a lecturer, and a good one too, but “professor” implies tenure, which he never had). Imagine my surprise, though, two and a half years ago, when I heard someone talk about back when he knew Ann Coulter.
No, I won’t give names, affiliations, dates, context, or his/her opinion of Coulter. That’s not how this works. While it’s not attorney/client privilege, by my own code, personal stories aren’t for sharing.
But my conversation with this individual reminded me – Coulter was once a law student too. She would’ve jumped through the same hurdles I have. And, like President Obama, likely left a paper trail in the form of a “student Note,” a piece of legal analysis written by all graduates and, for the ambitious few, published in an academic journal. Did Coulter, like Obama (and me!) ((I’ll link to the one pending publication when it’s online, and to the other I’m considering publishing when it’s on SSRN.)) publish a student Note, giving we latter-day reviewers precious insight into her early political views?
Yes. And you’re not going to believe this:
Ann H. Coulter, “NOTE: Restricting Adult Access to Material Obscene as to Juveniles,” 85 Mich. L. Rev. 1681 (1987) ((Read it on JSTOR here, or download it from our servers here.))
Twenty years ago, Ann Coulter, the woman who today demonizes liberals for their imagined affinity with pornography, clumsily balanced the state’s interest in banning sales of pornography to minors against the adult’s legitimate interest in viewing pornography!
This Note considers whether state regulations that restrict juvenile access to material that is obscene as to minors unconstitutionally encroach upon the first amendment rights of adults. Part I briefly describes the Court’s opinion in Ginsberg. Part II introduces the “O’Brien analysis” and discusses the aspects of juvenile access restrictions that tend to make O’Brien scrutiny applicable. In this context the frequently relaxed judicial review of governmental restrictions on sexually related material will be discussed. Having concluded that the O’Brien analysis is applicable to access restrictions, Part III applies the test and ultimately concludes that juvenile access restrictions survive O’Brien scrutiny.
In my mind, this little discovery solves a big mystery. Ann Coulter is a smart woman. You don’t graduate from Michigan Law as Order of the Coif & clerk for a federal appellate judge without having at least two brain cells to rub together. But you sure wouldn’t know that from her public appearances, where she evinces a frankly shocking disregard for both the law and the values it’s built to defend. Either Ann underwent a 180° conversion after law school, or her public persona is just a very, very good act – a Stephanie Colbert, if you will, who somewhere along the way forgot to laugh at herself. Out of respect for her frankly impressive resumé, I’m going with the latter.
The Party of “NO”? Not With Pictures and Diagrams This Pretty: The Republican Budget
Obama’s getting in their heads … They are totally obsessed with not being called the Party of No – and it’s forcing them to make mistakes.
Politico’s Glenn Thrush and Patrick O’Connor quoted a “senior House Democratic aide” in their article on Friday about Republican house leadership’s release on Thursday of The Republican Road to Recovery, a magical 19-page document (including front and back covers) promising fiscal responsibility, economic recovery, and future prosperity without the aid of a single number.
Not one number.
Except those taken from Obama’s budget. Oh, and this promise:
Republicans propose a simple and fair tax code with a marginal tax rate for income up to $100,000 of 10 percent and 25 percent for any income thereafter, with a generous standard deduction and personal exemption.Republicans would allow any individual or family satisfied with their current tax structure to continue to pay those rates, while dropping the two lowest rates by 5 percent to provide every taxpayer with a tax cut.
This prelude to a dream budget is a quite simple read. Numbers are so gosh-darn confusing. Republicans know this, which is why Party leaders put in lots of pictures to show their proposed plans in action.
Ooohhh! The overall budget:
The GOP’s plan for health-care reform:
and the result:
The GOP’s jobs plan:
The Republican energy plan in part:
and in toto:
Click to enlarge and see the oil derrick at the end
A random magical formula:
Finally, the GOP protects real America:
For comparison’s sake, Obama’s general budget outline is 144 pages in length, with over 20 tables tracking indicators like revenue and outlays and GDP. To be fair, Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) is planning to roll out a much more detailed budget proposal later this week. Too bad his compatriots in Party leadership spent effort on such an empty, sophomoric exercise.
Needless to say, the DNC pounced all over the GOP’s report:
Tell Mike Doogan He’s an Embarassment
Talk about right place right time. When John McCain made the fatal mistake of pulling Sarah Palin into the national spotlight, Alaskan politics blogger “AKMuckraker” was ideally positioned to profit off of Palin’s rise to infamy. In the grand tradition of anonymous American political writers (“Publius,” “Silence Dogood,” etc.), AKMuckraker and her “Mudflats” blog brought Palin’s Alaska to the lower 48, and contributed in no small part to the media narrative that felled the Republican machine.
Like every good journalist, though, she’s gathered some enemies – some more mature than others. Imagine AKMuckraker’s surprise when one of her “enemies,” Alaskan state rep Mike Doogan (D), took it upon himself to expose her identity. It’s the responsible thing to do, he said.
No. It’s the petty, small, vindictive thing to do. If we value a free press, we can’t allow government officials to misuse their offices to intimidate journalists who, for one reason or another, are afraid to write under their own names. Please join me – and “Daily Kos” – in writing Rep. Doogan (to:doogans@gci.net, cc:Rep.Mike.Doogan@legis.state.ak.us) and calling on him to apologize. Doogan can’t give AKMuckraker her anonymity back, but I’m sure she wouldn’t say no to a public apology, and a nice sum of cash to make sure there’s no hard feelings.
Representative Doogan,
American democracy depends upon a vibrant press, free from both government intrusion and intimidation. Apart from enjoying constitutional protection, see McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), anonymous political advocacy has a particularly venerable history. When our Founding Fathers defended the nascent Constitution in “The Federalist Papers,” they did so under a pseudonym, to ensure the integrity of the drafting process. While we should honor those who wager their sacred honor on their beliefs, we should not short-change those who, for whatever reason, cannot or will not write under their own names. Democracy works best when everyone has an uninhibited say in the process.
When you used your state office to “expose” the anonymous blogger AKMuckraker, you went against this foundational principle, and jeopardized the safety and liberty of all who take their time and energy to contribute to the national dialogue, expecting nothing in return. This conduct would be reprehensible enough for a private citizen; for a government official, with the power of the state behind him, it is nothing short of unethical. I write today to ask you to make amends for this outrage.
Unfortunately, you cannot give AKMuckraker back her anonymity. Whatever jeopardy you have exposed her and her family to is irrevocable. But it remains incumbent on you to do the best you can to make her whole again.
Resignation is a good start. By pursuing a private vendetta against a private citizen, you have certainly lost the trust of the governed. Making a sizable donation to support “Mudflats” – by using Paypal to send money to “contact@themudflats.net” – is another option. I hope you will consider both.
The lives of private citizens are not to be intruded upon lightly, least of all by angry, monarchial politicians.
Sincerely,
_____________
Too harsh?
Notable Disappearances in Alaska: Coastline, Political Careers
There’s little better than watching the suspicion and distrust that together power the far right turn inwards, and reduce their last political bastion (the GOP) to a fratricidal mess. That’s why I couldn’t help laughing myself silly over “Politico’s” Sunday morning header, which details a hate triangle between Sarah Palin, ex-McCain staffers, and one of “Fox & Friends’” favorite falisifers, Greta van Susteren. Please, do go on.
But their governor’s tragic inability to get along with anyone outside of Alaska should be the last thing on the Alaska voter’s mind. Record erosion (45 feet per year) should probably come first. With dire news like that, any other governor might start to worry about that whole “climate change thing.” Not Sarah Palin. No sir; that’s not her style. It takes a leader to keep cool during a crisis. But it takes a real leader to pretend there is no crisis. Now that’s cool. Or warm, as it were.
Naming a Building – Arguably, an Important One
When the Port Authority disclosed its plans to style the rebuilt World Trade Tower – you know, the one with the the symbolic height, etc. – as “One World Trade Center” instead of “Freedom Tower,” the New York Post reacted with its trademark maturity, lambasting the change as “unpatriotic.” In fact, it’s just the opposite.
Patriotism is not measured by the number of times you use “freedom” in a sentence. It’s not measured by the pains you go to, just to make an important building exactly 1,776 feet tall. And it’s not measured by the carat value of the flag pin on your lapel (but really, how much do you think the Alaska taxpayers paid for Palin’s little wonder?). When it comes to words, the real measure of patriotism is how much care, thought, and introspection one puts in to advocating for their country’s interests. By that measure, the Post people surely come up dead last.
Refusing to change One World Trade Center’s name makes a powerful statement about the resilience of the American people, by proving that life can – and should – return to normal after disasters, which is just what we should be focusing on now. The American way of life will not be held hostage to the crazed actions of a few madmen. Building a better, nicer tower, and still naming it “1 WTC,” is a poised, subtle move towards that goal.
And, may I say, it shows a hell of a lot more than patriotism than turning downtown Manhattan into a Toby Keith lyric.
In Defense of Texas
As we analyze the fallout from this past week’s Texas State Board of Education hearings on evolution & creationism – some good, some bad, most uncertain until the new books are ordered in ’11 – I want to keep one thing straight. Creationists may represent a large portion of Texas. Maybe even something close to the majority. But they are by no means the only intellectual voices in Texas.
Texas (specifically Houston) contains some of the best cancer researchers in the country. Rice University’s Richard Smalley practically invented the growing field of nanotechnology. By operation of a generous state law scholarship program, talented Texas children can receive a first-rate education at UT Austin, almost for free. Similarly, UT Law holds some of the nation’s best constitutional lawyers and academics, names any law student nationwide would recognize (Levinson, etc.). Renewable energy research continues to power scientific growth state-wide. This past week’s partial embrace of creationism comes in spite of a vibrant Texas academic community, making a partial backward slide into ignorance all the more tragic.
No state in the Union is entirely free of the scourge of anti-intellectualism. Drive halfway from Manhattan to Rochester if you don’t believe me. We all have our demons. The trick is not letting them define our perceptions of each other.
And to Don McLeroy, the architect of last week’s anti-science movement – don’t mess with Texas scientists.
Democracy and Salisbury Steak
Click to learn about democracy
Sitting together. Democrats and Republicans. Atheists and believers. Can this system work? I am filled with optimism. A sunny room. A pleasant meal. Convivial conversation.
You are never too young to learn about the democratic process.
Empowerment. Compromise. Defeat.
Perseverance.
Spring is making a tentative debut in the Hudson Valley. It rained lightly yesterday, but the sun is trying to shine today. If I look very closely, I can see tiny buds coming out on our dwarf Japanese maple.
There is a lot about which to worry … finances, employment, security. But there is also a great deal in which we can find reassurance … common goals, cooperation, …
Perseverance.
My son is stomping around the house, eating a piece of apple. At this moment, he is in the process of knocking every letter magnet off of the refrigerator. The kitchen will look like a toy tornado blew through it. I don’t care. He and I are going to have our own play date today … enjoy each other’s company, enjoy the budding spring.
On Monday I can start worrying about it all again.
Ambiguous Amendment on Evolution & Sciences Passes in Texas
After the Texas Board Members defeated an amendment requiring teachers to discuss the “strengths & [non-existent] weaknesses” of evolution (suck it, Discovery Institute!!), creationists rallied today to introduce an amendment requiring discussion of evidence both “supportive” and “non-supportive” of all scientific theories. If passed, this amendment would’ve been worse than the “strengths & weaknesses” amendment – by not focusing on evolution alone, it might’ve theoretically avoided legal challenge, all the while inviting teachers to undermine fields beyond evolutionary biology with scurrilous religious objections. Thankfully, it failed. In an effort to placate both sides, Republican Bob Craig, a kind of “swing vote” on the board responsible for introducing a few compromise proposals, introduced this amendment in its place:
In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.
The amendment passed 13-2. Its broad phrasing, and cross-aisle support, suggests that this language might be “everything to everyone.” It’s a mixed blessing. On the one hand, because the operational language requires “critique” to come only from objectively verifiable evidence (bolded statements), it’s a ringing refutation of religion in the classroom. On the other, creationists have never had a problem with warping, twisting, and mischaracterizing science to shoehorn Jesus into science. Remember the tired old argument that thermodynamics and the principle of entropy disprove evolution? Yeah: some people still believe that.
In short, the adopted amendment is a firm statement that naked religion won’t be allowed into the classroom (bold text). But by including the word “critique” (red text), it still gives creationists something to hang their hats on when pulling out Discovery Institute pamphlets. We may be looking down the line at as-applied legal challenges.
Is Reality Uncomfortable These Days? “Fox Nation” Wants to Help
Fox won’t just give you right-wing news. Now, they’ll help you take that news, and turn it into a little imaginary nation in your head.
Funny, though, how this right-wing idyllic “Fox Nation” remains deep Democratic blue. Even in their imaginations, they still don’t surround us! (*Updated to remove embarassing typos*)
