Archive for

Glenn Beck’s Defenders Miss the Point

Last week, I typed up a review of Glenn Beck’s Common Sense, after I read it, but yes, before the book was released to the general public. For whatever reason, the Barnes & Noble at Union Square had about ten copies, tucked away on the fourth floor, two days before the official release. Good for them!

In the intervening days, the review has proved to be a wingnut magnet, pulling hundreds of people to the site by the day, to leave comments impugning not my review, but me, personally. One response on the Amazon version of the review is pretty representative of the whole:

WoW!! I’ll tell you what, NBC must have payed you handsomely for this. It must sting, when you are reading a book and you realize that it is about YOU!! Props though, you put a lot of vigorous work into this before the book was even released. If you could take that pipe out of your huge, ivy league, bottom mouth for 10 seconds you could see that almost all these reply’s to your New York Times wanna-be review are real americans (and might I add some very candid, smart *ss, true red white and blue blooded remarks). While you are busy looking down your huge nose at us, remember this, your “alternate reality” is at the beginning of the end… we are the cure to the disease that is you, not Beck’s book, not FOX, not “middle class married men with children”, but instead you are getting a small taste of the peaceful right thinking Americans that smell “cockroaches” when they are near. I hope you open your eyes past whatever is steering you, because even without Beck’s book we will still be here. Common Sense is very much alive, unfortunately, your progressive agenda doesn’t allow you to see it. And by the way, the book was excellent!

A “real American” railing against the injustices of classism and elitism, by focus entirely on my identity as an “elite” and not the merits of my argument: one has to wonder how this version of “class warfare” is better than the version of which I’m falsely accused. Prejudice is prejudice, and of that, my hands are clean. Interesting to note, though, that a vitriolic and nonsenscial version of anti-elitism is the only thing Beck’s audience is getting out of the book. Thomas Paine would be so proud.

Full Fourth Circuit Upholds Virginia Late-Term Abortion Ban

Two years ago, the Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, relying on pure emotion and hopelessly flawed science to conclude that late-term abortions were never necessary to preserve the health of the mother. Today, in Richmond Med. Ctr. v. Herring, the Fourth Circuit compounds this mistake by upholding a mirror Virginia act that tacks on criminal penalties for doctors who may, without knowledge, accidentally perform the forbidden procedure.

Recall – as the dissent points out – that the Supreme Court in Gonzales punted on the scientific issue, resolving a 2% doubt as to the necessity of the procedure against the majority and against the affected women:

[T]he [Supreme] Court considered whether the Federal Act imposed a substantial obstacle to late-term, pre-viability abortions by failing to include an exception to preserve the health of the woman. Id. at 161-67. The Federal Act contains a life exception, 18 U.S.C. § 1531(a), but not a health exception. The Court noted that “whether the Act creates significant health risks for women [was] a contested factual question.” Id. at 161. As a result, the Court held, “[t]he [Federal] Act is not invalid on its face” for lack of a health exception because “there is uncertainty over whether the barred procedure is ever necessary to preserve a woman’s health, given the availability of other abortion procedures,” such as the standard D&E, “that are considered to be safe alternatives.” Id. at 167. In the face of this medical uncertainty, only as-applied challenges to the Federal Act’s lack of a health exception may be pursued. Id. at 167-68. (Michaels, J., dissenting – see p. 44 of slip PDF.)

My argument to this effect is fairly extensive and currently unlinkable: I’ll link when my article on it is published (soon).

Obviously, the failure to correct this error can’t be blamed on the Fourth Circuit. It’s not their job to overturn bad Supreme Court decisions, and the issue wasn’t squarely presented in this case in the first place. But the Fourth Circuit was not obligated to expand upon shaky precedent by allowing criminal liability at a lower standard. Decisions such as this make it all the more essential that the U.S. Congress quickly amend the Partial Birth Abortion Act to add a necessary exception for the “health of the mother,” even if this won’t help Virginia doctors. Some day.

Quite apart from its outcome, the current Fourth Circuit panel is (or should be) well known for wrapping important decisions in genial, philosophical discourses on the nature of law and fundamental liberties (read their Al Marri opinion for an example), and this case is no exception. Even if you disagree with the outcome, as I do, the full set of opinions is well-worth a read.

Judge Wilkinson, a brilliant and very conservative jurist, couches his concurrence in explicitly moral and emotional terms. Because of his eloquence, I’ll forgive him the obvious inconsistency of an originalist looking to emotions (“empathy”?) for guidance: Continue reading »

Obama’s Primetime Defense of Healthcare, and the Curious Case of the “Socialist” Market of Ideas

While reports (and liveblogs) continue to roll in on the DNC’s primetime defense of its healthcare plan, it’s worth confronting the only substantial conservative criticism yet to appear: that, by failing to prominently include a prominent rebuttal, the DNC (and Obama) somehow cheated Americans out of a fair discussion of the proposed plan.

I have said previously that a free and fair debate on the subject would be preferable to either side co-opting the debate. I stand by that. But absent any proof that the White House rather than the DNC bankrolled Tuesday’s primetime program, it’s hard to state any credible case for impropriety. The DNC is free to purchase airtime to use for whatever it wants – and so is the RNC.

Just so, it’s strange to hear the GOP, alleged defenders of the free market, asking the Democratic Party “Democrat Socialists Party” for what is, essentially, a handout: a chance to score political points, on their opponent’s dime. Doesn’t that fall within the ridiculously broad definition of socialism currently used by Republican politicians?

To fully grasp the inanity, imagine the converse: it’s early March, 2003. President Bush is about to start the invasion of Iraq. Although the public is sold on the idea, the RNC purchases airtime on Fox, where Bush, key generals, and Wolfowitz will explain the case for invading Iraq. The DNC is understandably concerned that the special will contain all the glaring misrepresentations of the case for war that we’ve since come to learn and, thusly motivated, asks the RNC if they’ll give Wesley Clark a 30-minute rebuttal at the tail end of the program.

Ask yourself: is there any situation in which the subsequent news cycle is not dominated by headlines like “Democrats ask for handout to fight President”?

Apparently, the GOP is okay with “socialism,” broadly defined, if it benefits their states, or their ideas. Consistency is the hallmark of statesmanship, and this is just not it. I agree, America would benefit more from a full debate, including not just citizens and doctors but prominent, intelligent opposition politicians (Kay Bailey Hutchinson?). I hope for such magnanimity and openness, even when (as here) it cuts against my political inerests, but I cannot contemplate a party that expects it.

RedState Apoplectic and Completely Nonsensical With Rage Over Sanford

Read their hyper-mature reaction to Sanford’s adultery. You know it’s good because words are enlarged and in different colors. We’ve removed such features, for readability’s sake:

You [Democrats -Ed.] don’t get to judge.

[. . .] You show no honor, no equity, no fairness, and no scruples yourselves. You, to put it mildly, do not police your own.

We do. We’ll deal with Sanford. We have standards (you don’t), and we have a long history of punishing and purging our leaders who prove unworthy of trust. For your part, serial adulterer Bill Clinton remains a rock star as far as you are concerned, and that about sums up the standards to which Democrats hold themselves..

So, spare us your mock outrage, your tut-tutting, your finger-wagging, your eyebrows furrowed in anger. If you are well and truly outraged by Mark Sanford’s adultery, but could not trouble yourself to muster even a little mild disapproval against the cretin who wiped his feet with the honor of the office of President of the United States, then you are a hypocrite yourself of the lowest stripe. You are unworthy to judge.

Two words: Newt. Gingrich. How’s your Clinton-era adulterer doing these days? Oh: one of the most prominent voices of the party, you say? Interesting.

It’s fair to have a somewhat nuanced perspective of Bill Clinton. He was an exceptionally talented President, who brought the federal budget back into the black and led with competence. On the other hand, he did debase the office (although I’d argue Bush did far, far worse), and probably cost Gore Florida, and thus the 2000 election. So, credit and blame where they’re due. I don’t think there’s any Democrat who won’t fairly note Clinton’s failures alongside his successes, thus speaking with at least a modicum of consistency on the Sanford affair. Crazy RedState “writer” notwithstanding, you can’t say the same for the GOP.

Sensible Sanford Article on Government Responsibility Sounds Pretty Hilarious Now

Or: Breaking — “family values” governor totally hit that.

Affairs are sad. They destroy families. Especially when the e-mails come out. But when they shed light on the hypocrisy of a man who opposes gay marriage for the sake of “family values,” there’s a certain value to them.

Just so with this op-ed by Sanford, written before life became… complicated.

We would be wise to start with the biblical notion of first taking the log out of your own eye before worrying about the splinter in someone else’s. [. . .]

Americans didn’t turn away from conservatism, they instead turned away from many who faked it. [. . .]

Second, our loyalties need to be to ideas, not to individuals. Ted Stevens in many ways personified the opposite of what the GOP is supposed to be about, reveling in his ability to secure pork and turning a blind eye to ethical lapses.

There needs to be a high standard for our franchisees. [. . .]

In this regard, the tent cannot be so big as to include political franchisees who don’t act on the core tenets of conservatism — and as a consequence harm the brand and undermine others’ work on it. [. . .]

Where change must come, though, is in once again making our party one that governs on the principles it professes.

Poor guy – or, rather, poor Sanford family. I would take no joy in this tragedy, but for Sanford’s incessant attempts to portray him, his party, and his state as paragons of “Christian morality” and “family values.”  Family values start at home, and are vindicated by individual families, not by legislating popular morality. Just so, the “sanctity of marriage” is relational, not definitional. I would hope that Sanford will, in the future, incorporate this lesson and “start with the biblical notion of first taking the log out of your own eye before worrying about the splinter in someone else’s,” but my hopes are not high.

Understanding Our Audience: Why Iran Isn’t Russia

The conservative attempt to contrast Obama’s light (but waxing) condemnation of Iran with Reagan’s (apparently) fierce criticism of the Soviet Union precisely misses the point. Assume, for the sake of argument, that Reagan’s “tear down this wall” speech somehow directly impelled popular and official moves towards freedom in Russia. This point still remains: Iran is not, nor has it ever been, the Soviet Union. For all our differences, the Russian people sought, and to an extent won, a western-style democracy. On the contrary, there is no indication whatsoever that popular support exists in Iran for anything resembling a western-style, secular, egalitarian society.

While Mousavi, and therefore his supporters, do back a liberalization of Iran’s profoundly discriminatory treatment of women, he remains a moderate, working within and for a theocratic state, and espousing many policies directly at odds with not only American wishes, but American values. As a result, official American support for Mousavi and the popular movement building would not necessarily find a sympathetic ear in the rebel ranks, while it would feed (and has fed) the establishment. At the end of the day, the Iranian people still want to be very, very different than us, even if they want to be freer while pursuing their own uniqueness. The opposite was true in Russia.

No doubt, if this were not the case, the calculus would change profoundly. But that is not the world we live in, at least for today.

Birthers Start to Look Like Tacky, Cheap Versions of Creationists

Before he was sent to federal prison for tax fraud, the infamous creationist “Dr. Dino” (Kent Hovind) had a standing offer – $250,000 to anyone who could prove the validity of the theory of evolution. Of course, the terms of the “proof” were rigged to foreclose any possibility of collecting the award, unless you had a time machine. Now Joseph Farah, a birther with a foot in both ponds, has decided to built on Hovind’s “success” — $10,000 to anyone who can prove they were present at Obama’s birth!!

A pretty handy way of exploiting the fact that both of Obama’s parents are dead (rub it in, Farah), and any doctor or nurse would be well on their way, too (aged 77 or 69 at a minimum, respectively), to say nothing of the absurd additional conditions (polygraph?!).

Of course, there is one person who can “prove he or she was present at the birth of Barack Obama”: Barack Obama. Because the contest cites no qualifiers on how this person’s knowledge was obtained, we urge President Obama to write to WND, agree to satisfy the remaining conditions in, say, 2035 (agreement is, after all, all the contest asks for), collect his $10,000, and teach WND a lesson in the careful drafting of offers.

Voting Rights Act Case Sheds Light on Profoundly “Activist,” Profoundly Positive Era of Legal History

Reauthorization.

When the Supreme Court took certiorari (discretionary appellate review) of Brown v. Board of Education, the latest case to challenge the practice of de iure segregation, its outcome was by no means clear. The case was the next step in the NAACP’s decade-long strategy to reverse the “separate but equal” doctrine of segregation. Prior cases had sought to enforce real equality in separation (Sipuel v. University of Oklahoma Board of Regents), prove that separation was never equal in graduate school (Sweatt v. Painter), and suggest a psychological dimension to “equality” (McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents). Each case established a section of the eventual argument in Brown: that segregation produces a psychological harm fatal to any notion of equality, rendering separation inherently unequal in all schools, and thus all facilities.

As we know, the NAACP prevailed, and Chief Justice Warren miraculously built a unanimous court in support of the decision. Backlash was quick and, understandably motivated by a desire to protect a vital but improbable holding, the Supreme Court over the next decades went out of its way to protect Brown. Although the Supreme Court has retreated from some of the remedial measures and doctrines that protected the result of Brown – i.e., busing, and an expanded view of standing – neither the nation nor the court have ever retreated from the undeniable proposition that racism, and its effects, are sui generis, particularly prevalent,  particularly pernicious, and requiring strong solutions. Hard won victories ought not be lightly surrendered.

It is in this context that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 must be understood, and especially its critical § 5, which prevents states and their subdivisions from changing election protocol without “preclearance” from Washington, thus preventing the kind of electoral gimmicks that, for nearly 100 years after the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment, made its suffrage provisions a nullity. This is strong medicine indeed. But it works, and even if the dangers of racism have faded since its passage, the solution is to narrow, not destroy the Act. We don’t open the city gates because we hope the barbarians have left, but we might be able to retire some of the guards.

Congratulations, then, to Chief Justice Roberts, for recognizing when it matters most the dangers of pulling back from our national commitment to securing civil rights for all our citizens:

More than 40 years ago, this Court concluded that “exceptional conditions” prevailing in certain parts of the country justified extraordinary legislation otherwise unfamiliar to our federal system. Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 334. In part due to the success of that legislation, we are now a very different Nation. Whether conditions continue to justify such legislation is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today.  We conclude instead that the Voting Rights Act permits all political subdivisions, including the district in this case, to seek relief from its preclearance requirements.

Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, 557 U.S. ___ (2009), available here.

Roberts picked an excellent case to, finally, get something right. But I’ll never understand Justice Thomas:

In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in order to guarantee that no citizen would be denied the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servi­tude. Congress passed §5 of the VRA in 1965 because that promise had remained unfulfilled for far too long.  But now—more than 40 years later––the violence, intimida­tion, and subterfuge that led Congress to pass §5 and this Court to uphold it no longer remains.  An acknowledgment of §5’s unconstitutionality represents a fulfillment of the Fifteenth Amendment’s promise of full enfranchisement and honors the success achieved by the VRA. Id.

Overturning effective laws because they’re effective: the Thomas philosophy.

Patterns of Revolutionary Change: In Iran, a Reflection of All of Us

Imperial England seals her fate as Tarquin's successor.

It is often said, in historical as well as political circles, that those who do not study the past, are doomed to repeat it. (Un?)like most aphorisms, there’s some truth to this one, in that the great events in human history tend to blend together at the periphery. This is not to say that one history is like another: each is equally poignant, more rather than less so for conforming to a pattern. Humans are motivated by the same things, producing a basic commonality, a well of shared experience between societies, in which we can, sometimes, find shared truth.

We need look no farther than the tragedy continuing to unfold in Iran. Bottom-up revolutions often begin with an expectancy of change that fails to materialize. The gravity of the expected change is almost immaterial. Thus, in early 1776, the men who would become our Founding Fathers waited months, expecting clemency or a compromise that never came; rather than halting revolution, Mikhail Gorbachev’s half-steps to freedom precipitated the death of the USSR; and the “defeat” of the quasi-reformer, Mir Hossein Mosauvi, evokes on the streets a yearning for change far beyond what the fairly moderate man ever even pretended to offer.

Similarly, revolutions often find a single martyr, an individual who, in death, encapsulates the spirit of the age. Rome had Lucretia; America, the victims of the Boston Massacre; abolitionists, the (imaginary) Uncle Tom; and Iran, Neda Agha-Soltan. Anyone with a computer, TV, or friends will recognize the traumatic footage of a peaceful protester shot, seemingly without cause. Neda was “political” only in the way that every citizen of a repressive regime has to be – she broke the rules, in an attempt to find freedom, and hoped they’d change. Her story is sad because it’s so common; the natural result of oppression, expected but still shocking.

Unfortunately, although such tragedies often impel action, successful revolution is not a natural result. Rome and Boston both benefited from an active and powerful revolutionary elite, and never had to face the technology that sustains modern tyranny. Iran is not so lucky, and Twitter is a poor substitute for a Washington or a Brutus (note that, for what it’s worth, Mousavi does not appear ready to fight). Nonetheless, Iran’s people deserve our support – popular, rather than formal – because, despite the differences that divide our countries, our shared story is so uniquely human. We Americans built our legacy on the theory that humanity can learn from its mistakes and, after fighting a prototypical war, find an atypical peace. Maybe Iran can, too.

Scientology Involved in Violence, Coercion, Illegality

Shocker! In other news, the sky is blue, and water is wet. This from the St. Petersburg Times, c/o the Daily Beast, for a two-minute summary. While you shake your head in disgust at this flagrant abuse of the gullibility of thousands, revisit a topic from last year, on Scientology and how, if at all, we can define “religion” so as to credit its successes but limit those who seek to abuse the label.