The Definitive Post on Marriage

After reading Digby's post on marriage, one can see that the crew at Daily Dish are out of their league. She (Digby) makes good use of this story, which I was going to write on earlier:

Patrick’s brother testified that Brett’s mere presence in the hospital was “hurting” Jeanne and offending her religions beliefs. Jeanne told Brett that if Patrick was going to return to his life with Brett after recovering from the stroke, she would prefer that he not recover at all.

Now that's some family values there.

These two people lived together for twenty-five years and the court ruled in favor of that psycho mother against the wishes of this grown man.

There's major coverage of that story at Bilerico in a post by Karen Celestino-Horseman (this is the one Digby links to).

The story is appalling, and all too common. Digby, like most other commentators on this story I've seen, uses it to point up the necessity for legalizing same-sex marriage. However, there's one factor here, I think, that everyone has missed, which I'm going to point out in bald terms because I'm not nearly as nice as they are: we can have thousands of stories like this one and it won't matter, because those who oppose us don't care. Like this horrible woman and her attitude toward her son, they don't see us as human, and our relationships, our families, and our children mean nothing to them in human terms. They're incapable of feeling any empathy, so don't expect James Dobson or Tony Perkins or the Wildmons or the Pope to give a damn about the pain they are causing gays. If they cared about people, if they had any love or compassion in their make-ups, they wouldn't have declared the culture war to begin with.

New Cousins

Or maybe aunts and uncles, or even grandparents, as reported in Nature:

Two fossils unearthed in Kenya have added a new dimension to our view of life at the birth of our Homo genus. They show that two ancestral human species seem to have lived cheek-by-jowl in the same area, much as gorillas and chimpanzees do today. . . .

Anthropologists have tended to see the evolution of Homo species as a linear progression, beginning with H. habilis and passing through H. erectus before ending up with modern humans. But it seems the path through time was broad enough for more than one species to walk abreast, with H. erectus and H. habilis living in the same place at the same time for as much as half a million years. Spoor and his colleagues argue that this makes it less likely that H. erectus was a direct descendant of H. habilis, instead suggesting that there is a common ancestor yet to find.

The creationists, of course, have decided this proves once and for all that . . . well, it proves something. (Mmm, no -- this is creationism -- it has to disprove something, but it doesn't do that, either.) Actually, as PZ Myers points out, it doesn't prove much of anything.

Myers (and I think any evolutionary biologist who knows what he/she is talking about will concur) points out that there is absolutely nothing to prevent parent and offspring species from overlapping for a greater or lesser amount of time. In that regard, even the Nature news summary is little over the top. There may be a common ancestor, or the current view may be correct. That's one of the joys of evolution for biology geeks like me -- we get to poke around some more and find out.

Myers' summation of the authors' conclusions is helpful:

The two species are anatomically distinct, and they don't see signs of a blending between the two.

The two species were sympatric, or living in the same territory at the same time. This suggests that they probably had different lifestyles, or conflict would have driven out one or the other.

They did not have an anagenetic relationship, that is, one species did not gradually and imperceptibly change into the other. The Homo lineage had branched at some earlier date.

That branch occurred elsewhere and earlier, and the H. habilis→H. erectus→H. sapiens line of descent is still tenable; it's just that KNM-ER 42703 would then be a member of a dead-end branch that did not leave descendents in modern times (of course, KNM-ER 42700 is probably also not a direct ancestor — it's representative of a population that may have led to us.)

Experience tells me that this concept, that individual fossils can't be arranged in a simple, linear, lineal relationship, is going to be very hard for many people to grasp, and is going to fuel quite a few creationist shouts of triumph in the near future, and the media aren't helping. It's misplaced. Evolution predicts a great many branches, with only a few twigs here and there preserved in the fossil record, exactly as we see in this discovery.

This is not a new concept at all -- nothing revolutionary. In fact, it's a staple of evolutionary thought. Repeat after me: evolution does not have a plan.

See Myers' smackdowns of Casey Luskin and Vox Day, who seems to be a real, certifiable cretin. Get this quote:

It doesn't matter what the evidence is, evolutionary biologists are happy to change their story to suit.

As Myers points out, that's the way real science works -- you draw your conclusions after you look at the evidence. New evidence may mean that you have to change your conclusions.

Duh.

Defending Bush

Stephen Bainbridge, while claiming to be no fan of George W. Bush (and who is at this point?), points out that he's being unfairly bashed. I might credit this if it were the first year of Bush's administration and he had no track record at all. Yes, the quotes Bainbridge uses sound very good, make solid points. What reason does anyone have to believe that these are anything more than a smokescreen?

Can you say "naive"?

More on Hillcrest

Reader PietB provides this follow-up to Wednesday's post on the "sexual harassment" suit being sought by four San Diego firefighters:

This has sounded peculiar to me all along, especially considering it's the Thomas More Law Center sponsoring the planned suit. The documentation for the requests for right-to-sue is available online but I'm attaching a pdf of it for you; I had some free time today and went searching and voila, as they say.

Three of them were unhappy about overtime pay, just from the start. The reservations they express about "suspension" clearly indicate that the suspension would have been one day of duty, not a permanent or long-term career-threatening disciplinary action. The statements the three firefighters (besides the station chief, that is) gave are so close to identical that it would appear they were told what to write. If you know lawyers or legal secretaries locally you might run these past them to see whether they agree with that assessment. All of the guys would like us to believe they were completely demoralized by the sight of men dancing in shorts, flirting in the open sunshine, actually trying to flirt with (gasp) the firemen [who were doing their level best (a) to see what was going on and (b) look as though they weren't looking]. It completely destroyed their morale and their professionalism. Jeez. And the mean remarks, as in "fuck the fire department", were apparently a direct result of the firemen's refusing to interact with the previously supportive crowd.

Aside from the fact that this is the fifteenth year the Department has participated in the Pride Parade, one of the guys has an uncle who is gay, is partnered, and has been an important part of his life, and he actually saw the partner and a friend in the crowd, and walked over and greeted them with hugs. So gay life isn't exactly a mystery to these boys.

The more you read, the more distasteful the attempt to sue becomes. A little bit of teasing from other firefighters (three instances, actually) becomes "harassment and intimidation" to the point where they need a crisis intervention team to come in and counsel them? Please.

And for those who came in late, the lesbian fire chief was NOT the one who "ordered" them to participate -- the chain of responsibility in this instance stops at Assistant Chief Jeff Carle, as can be seen four pages from the end, near the top. This is a classic example of how a situation can be blown completely out of proportion by being discussed and discussed and discussed and discussed by people who have nothing but speculation and love of drama to fuel the discussion.

I'm not going to defend Carle and say it was the right thing to give a direct order to these men to drive an off-duty engine in the parade, but I certainly don't think they should object to participating in the parade because of "sexual harassment" unless they themselves have never made a lewd or suggestive remark in the presence of another person of either gender.

This is probably way too much information and opinion, but as I said above I had a little free time today, was able to research the situation, and thought you might find some of it useful.

Piet also provided a link to "news" coverage from CNS News. Here is another article from the same source, from the same writer, who seems to be milking it for all it's worth. I did some surfing on the CNS site. Included among the current op-ed writers are Ann Coulter, Robert Novak, Michelle Malkin. Brent Bozell is a featured columnist. Tell you anything? And even with that bias, the reporting on the Hillcrest firefighters makes the suit sound like a put-up job. Sometimes, you just can't make merda smell nice, no matter what you do.

Keep in mind that the Thomas More Law Center specializes in nuisance suits to protect the rights of "persecuted" Christianists.

Based on my own experiences at Pride parades, and observations of police, firefighters, and other public employees who participate, the behavior described in the statements is so atypical that I begin to doubt its accuracy. Remember that the statements carry one-half the story. Comments from the other side of this indicate that the firefighters were hostile to the crowd.

I don't dispute that, given what seems to be the general policy in the department, these four should not have been required to participate in the parade, but it really sounds to me like a much different beef dressed up in anti-gay clothing, probably thanks to the Thomas More people, who exist purely to clog the courts. Under a plain reading of the law, there's no basis for a case -- there was no reason for the department to suppose that the firefighters would be subject to "harassment" at all.

This fish smell many day dead.

Thanks to Piet for his research and observations.

(Footnote: Bozell's column is a scream. You may remember him as the guy who has an army of robots who fire off complaints to the FCC on command -- about TV shows they haven't seen. Now he's talking about "public outrage" over media content. This is the public that's so outraged that the trashiest shows get the highest ratings. Do keep in mind that the most successful outlets for pornography are in the most conservative areas of the country.)

Onward, Christian Soldiers

First, this story from Max Blumenthal.

{Actor Stephen] Baldwin became a right-wing, born-again Christian after the 9/11 attacks, and now is the star of Operation Straight Up (OSU), an evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes among active-duty members of the US military. As an official arm of the Defense Department's America Supports You program, OSU plans to mail copies of the controversial apocalyptic video game, Left Behind: Eternal Forces to soldiers serving in Iraq. OSU is also scheduled to embark on a "Military Crusade in Iraq" in the near future.

"We feel the forces of heaven have encouraged us to perform multiple crusades that will sweep through this war torn region," OSU declares on its website about its planned trip to Iraq. "We'll hold the only religious crusade of its size in the dangerous land of Iraq."

Digby cites this article by Rick Perlstein, and goes on to note:

I predict that we are going to see a remarkable resurgence of rightwing violence if the Democrats take full control of the government. These people are always surprisingly cooperative when the government is run by Republicans and then rediscover their "anti-government" beliefs when Democrats share or dominate the government. I can't imagine why that would be.

We will also, sadly, see veterans involved in this. Aside from the PTSD they will come home to a world that isn't very understanding. How could we be? They've been in hell. I suspect that some of them will be attracted to the rightwing militia (or worse) unless the government makes some very aggressive moves to help these people out and provide every kind of counselling and support they can think of. The last thing we need are hardened Iraq veterans finding solace with the rightwing terrorists.

If you don't see the connection yet, think about this story

Benjamin Matthew Williams, the 31-year-old white supremacist accused of murdering a gay couple outside this Northern California town in July, is now admitting that he slipped into the men's home while they were sleeping and shot them to death in their bed.

He did it, he said, because they were gay and God told him to.

When asked if he had killed the pair, Williams answered, "Absolutely."

Dave Neiwert adds in the increasing numbers of neo-Nazis, white supremacists and gang members enlisting and connects the dots:

Thios problem is amplified by the presence of increasing numbers of neo-Nazis and skinheads signing up for service and shipping out to Iraq:

This isn't a problem affecting just the Nazis, gang-bangers, and other violent personalities worming their way into the military. It also affects the many more formerly normal, non-racist recruits who have been dragged into multiple tours of duty in Iraq, regardless of the profound psychological effects of such treatment. This includes many people whose evaluations have recommended they not be returned for duty. There's a reason to call Iraq the Timothy McVeigh Finishing School.

This will, I fear, become a significant component of the predictable surge in far-right activity that is almost certain to manifest itself in the USA over the next couple of years, especially as Democrats and liberals expand and entrench their hold on power. We're essentially re-creating the conditions that arose in Germany and Italy after World War I: scores of angry, disaffected and psychologically damaged war veterans, poised to organize into a political force aimed at "rebirthing" the nation and its heritage.

What's even more disturbing, though, is that the top brass at the military seem all too willing to create those conditions.

Knowing that these soldiers are being preconditioned for a "kill or convert" mentality through video gaming, that concern just became a bona fide state of alarm.

Coming after stories of religious bigotry at the Air Force Academy, Gen. Keith Boykin's anti-Muslim comments delivered while in uniform, and the participation of upper brass in a Christianist video filmed in the Pentagon (with no disciplinary measures for violations of regs), I think Neiwert is right to worry.

We have a serious problem here.

More on Marriage at The Dish

This is what happens when people who haven't been following the SSM debate decide to jump in. Liz Mair takes Stephen Bainbridge to task over the introduction of the "full faith and credit" clause. Unfortunntely, she does so for all the wrong reasons.

Full faith and credit in relation to same-sex marriage was recognized long ago as no more than a Dobson Gang talking point simply because the courts have historically allowed the states great leeway in that area, particularly under laws governing social institutions. Anyone would be a fool to try to make a federal case for same-sex marriage under full faith and credit. Automatic go-down-in-flames.

Mair's counter-example, which, as it turns out is inaccurate, is also a bit far-fetched. There is no chance that the federal courts would force Utah to recognize legal prostitution under a contract entered into in Nevada: it might seem logical, but her position is completely devoid of any grounding in history or law. (And I find it interesting that the Nevada law, which allows counties to license brothels, still holds in a red state in a red region. I haven't heard of any big push for repeal on that one, have you? Oh, I forgot -- it's only my sex life that's an issue.)

Bainbridge, in the post linked above, also goes on to agree with Bruce Bartlett's assertion that marriage is "purely a religious" issue. This is purely opinion, and really has no basis in history or in law, aside from the fact that clergymen are automatically granted the authority to act for the state in performing marriages. That in itself should point up the fallacy of Bartlett's statement.

Maybe that deserves some reinforcement: Bartlett has it backwards, and Bainbridge is agreeing with him.

Previous posts:

Marriage and the Courts, Bainbridge Style
More on Bainbridge on Marriage

Beauchamp Follow-Up

From my streaming headlines:

Bob Steele, the Nelson Poynter Scholar for Journalism Values at The Poynter Institute school for journalists in St. Petersburg, Fla., said granting a writer anonymity "raises questions about authenticity and legitimacy."

"Anonymity allows an individual to make accusations against others with impunity," Steele said. "In this case, the anonymous diarist was accusing other soldiers of various levels of wrongdoing that were, at the least, moral failures, if not violations of military conduct. The anonymity further allows the writer to sidestep essential accountability that would exist, were he identified."

Steele said he was troubled by the fact that the magazine did not catch the scene-shifting from Kuwait to Iraq of the incident Beauchamp described involving the disfigured woman.

"If they were doing any kind of fact-checking, with multiple sources, that error - or potential deception - would have emerged," Steele said.

He added that he was also troubled by the relationship between Beauchamp and Reeve, his wife, who works at The New Republic. "It raises the possible specter of competing loyalties, which could undermine the credibility of the journalism," he said.

Some serious considerations, but this is somewhat of a dodge. Scott Beauchamp is not a journalist, he is, in important respects, a whistle-blower, and is subject to reprisals, which seem to be happening right now: his cell phone and computer have been confiscated, and, having signed a recantation, he is now incommunicado. The Army is keeping mum, citing "personnel matters." I have to say I'm not completely convinced: this is something beyond a personnel matter, and involves another potential PR black eye for the military, which has never been notorious for confronting these kinds of reports openly and honestly. Its history is rather one of cover-ups and whitewashes. I remember the Navy's first reaction to the beating death of Allen Schindler: they simply claimed that it didn't happen.

I find it interesting that when New Republic did their own checking, they found corroboration, with one error in location; when the Army started asking questions, everyone disputed the stories. Why is it that I don't trust the Army to conduct its own investigation? Can you say "Pat Tillman"?

As far as I can see, Beauchamp's relationship with his then-fiance and now wife is largely irrelevant. It may have provided access, but competing loyalties? How? The implication seems to be that NR was looking for dirt and used that relationship to find it. That's thin, at best, and verges strongly on conspiracy thinking at worst.

AP seems to be after NR a bit, citing one previous instance of "fabrications" by a writer who was fired when they were discovered, but trying to make it sound like a pattern. Sadly, no.

Update:

Remember this post from Josh Marshall? I'd forgotten it, even though I linked to it (don't ask me where my brain has been -- mostly trying to make sense out of a book that doesn't make sense, I guess). At least we're both asking the right questions.

Dialing 911?

I am so glad I don't live in San Diego. Or at least in Hillcrest -- San Diego's a lovely city. But the idea that I couldn't rely on the fire department to respond in an emergency, which is the message I get from this story, would be kind of scary. Is this what the Dobson Gang has brought us to? The idea that you pay taxes and then city employees' religious beliefs determine whether you're entitled to services?

There are a lot of questions the news articles don't answer, or even raise, and that Kincaid's post does try to answer: Did any of these guys register their objections prior to the parade? Did they offer any alteraivives, or attempt to get substitutes? Did it occur to them that bystanders were rude to them because they were unfriendly?

This looks like another put-up job from the Thomas More Law Center, which has a history of anti-gay nuisance suits. My guess is that it will be thrown out of court. And frankly, if I were a resident of Hillcrest, I'd file a complaint against these guys with the department asking that at the very least they be transferred, citing their statements as evidence that they cannot be relied on to do their jobs.

The fire and police departments in Chicago, on the other hand, participate in the parade every year with no problem. Granted, this is a 180 from a decade or so ago, but the mayor saw the light (and counted the votes) and the city followed suit. (I'd sometimes prefer that the mayor had less influence, but you take what you can get.) The Town Hall police station at the north end of Boys's Town, which is the one that serves the neighborhood, has a community liaison, and the department as a whole has a GL liaison, as well as actively (even aggressively) recruiting gay men and lesbians for both the police and firefighters. They even have booths at Northalsted Marketdays, THE neighborhood street fair, and the biggest in a city remarkable for its street fairs. And the fire station at Halsted and Diversey, at the south end of Boys' Town, has a lovely garden.

I am so glad I live in Chicago. Now if we had a climate. . . .

Yeah, Right.

A rather dubious "resolution" to the Scott Thomas Beauchamp affair.

I mean, really -- The Weekly Standard?

Remember High School?

This is something worth supporting.

It's so nice to run across something to take the taste of the Dobson Gang out of your mouth. And now that I've written that, what an image! Ewww! Especially in light of this story.

Vile

Bush finally signs a bill, one that never should have been passed. From NYT:

President Bush signed into law on Sunday legislation that broadly expanded the government’s authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants.

Congressional aides and others familiar with the details of the law said that its impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists. They said seemingly subtle changes in legislative language would sharply alter the legal limits on the government’s ability to monitor millions of phone calls and e-mail messages going in and out of the United States.

They also said that the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.

“This more or less legalizes the N.S.A. program,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, who has studied the new legislation.

I don't think I have anything to add to the comments gathered at Shakesville.

This, from Jack Balkin:

The passage of the new FISA bill by the Senate and now the House demonstrates that the Democrats stand neither for defending civil liberties nor for checking executive power.

They stand for nothing at all.

Interesting in the comments at Balkin's post (and do follow his links, please) are those by Brian De Palma, who stubbornly seems to adhere to the idea that the president is an honorable man and would never allow any abuse of power by any government agency, and we haven't really given up any rights at all, and ignores anyone who points out that the new bill gives sole discretion to the executive to determine what consitutes "intelligence," "national security interests," or anything else involved.

Among others, I credit Rahm Emanuel, who was the one who moved the Democrats' congressional make-up to the right in the last election by slating non-Democrat Democrats. I sincerely regret that he's no longer my congressman (I moved out of his disrict), because I would love to walk into his office and tell his staff exactly what this constituent thinks of his efforts. As it is, my current representative, Jan Schakowsky, is going to get an earful, simply for being a Democrat.

And it's not going to stop here. Did anyone really think it would? Get this -- the pinnacle of something, I'm just not sure what. From the horse's . . . uh, mouth:

"When Congress returns in September the Intelligence committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director McConnell, including the important issue of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001," he said.

Just try parsing that one. I dare you.

If I weren't nearly mute from outrage, I'd probably be almost as complimentary to the Democrats as Cenk Uygur.

Jane Hamsher has a telling post on just how incompetent the Democratic leadership is.

More on Bainbridge on Marriage

Seems to be quite a discussion going on over at Andrew Sullivan after Stephen Bainbridge's post on same-sex marriage.

First, Liz Mair responds, and supports some of my contentions:

For as much as we may all agree that issues like whether or not to make gay marriage (or civil unions, or even legally-recognized and enforceable partnership agreements) available to gay couples would be best handled by the elected representatives of the people, the fact is that unlike the position before Roe, we have not seen much movement towards allowing gay partnerships in some form in the states, without judges leading (or "leading," depending on your view). Where states have wording in their constitution in, say, an equal protection clause to the effect that "All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness," like Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, and a state via legislative inaction has maintained a ban on the constituent members of a formalized (gay) partnership having access to certain benefits that would automatically be accorded to those in a (heterosexual) marriage, it is fairly clear to me that the court remains the principal vehicle for resolving what on the face of it looks like a set-up that is probably unconstitutional (this is assuming, of course, that the electorate is not so outraged about inaction on the issue that they will vote on that single issue in the next election, to deliver a legislature that will resolve it).

Eric Kleeman has some thoughts on an appropriate federal stance. I'm not sure they're quite on point, simply because of the Fourteenth Amendment and its effects on states' ability to ignore rights granted under the federal constitution, which arguably does permit same-sex marriage under any number of clauses.

Bruce Bartlett is stuck on terminology, willing to grant the churches' appropriation of the term "marriage" (which I am not). He seems to be blind to the social and cultural implications of the word, which are a key factor, as far as I'm concerned, in the desirability of being married over being "civil unioned" (or whatever you want to call it).

It seems on the whole that the arguments keep circling around the issue, although Mair's post is very good.

Marriage and the Courts, Bainbridge Style

A rather poorly thought-out post by Stephen Bainbridge on SSM, informative more for what Bainbridge doesn't mention than for what he does. Just to give you an idea of the approach:

One would hope that as gay marriage comes to be accepted, for example, that civil rights and anti-discrimination laws could not be used to sue priests who refuse to perform religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

This is pure Dobson Gang talking points. There is nothing under the law, or any proposed laws that I have heard of, that makes that scenario a possibility. I think the term is "obfuscation."

This seems to be Bainbridge's core idea:

Unfortunately, perhaps because they could not envision the extent to which modern judges would assert control over virtually all aspects of society and culture, the Founders failed to provide adequate accountability mechanisms. If you don’t like what the Supreme Court does, tough. All you can hope is that you can elect leaders who will eventually replace enough of those nine unelected old men and women with individuals whose views are more to your liking.

The Founders quite deliberately made the federal judiciary immune to the electoral process (at least in any direct way) because they felt, quite rightly, that since the judges were, among other things, charged with weighing laws against the Constitution, they should have the freedom from that kind of political pressure that would give the best chance of a fair and impartial decision. Unlike the legislature and executive, the judiciary is not subject to the whim of the people. I doubt very much it was lack of vision; I suspect it was much more a deep appreciation of the mob mentality.

As for judges taking control of virtually all aspects of modern life, it's because Americans will sue over every little thing. Let's face it -- if no one sues, nothing's going to the courts. It strikes me that blame is misdirected here. Just the least little bit.

He quotes Abner Mikva, in reference to the social/political results of Roe vs Wade"

The people who are angry at that court are angry beyond measure. As far as they are concerned the whole system is rotten because they’ve lost their opportunity to slug it out.”

I think that's a misreading of forced-birth advocates as well as of the anti-marriage contingent. They're not angry because they've lost their chance to slug it out. They're angry because the decision was not in their favor. After all, they've been slugging it out ever since Roe was handed down. From this vantage, we know that the social conservatives as typified by Dobson, Wildmon and their ilk simply won't take no for an answer; compromise is not in their vocabulary. Look at their reaction to the failure in Massachusetts of a constitutional amendment, which happened within the process set out for the adoption of constitutional amendments: they're going to try again, if they can find the money to support the effort. Ironically, and typically for this faction, Peter LaBarbera in Illinois, when his petition for a referendum was denied because of the lack of legitimate signatures, went to those same courts to have the election laws of the state overturned. If that doesn't give you an idea of the mindset here, I don't know how to make it clearer.

Bainbridge also cites the opinion in the New York marriage case in support of his contention that important social questions should be removed from the purview of the courts. I've read that opinion, and it's a pretty weak one. (As in the federal Constitution, I strongly doubt that the New York constitution compels recognition of anyone's right to marriage.)

Yes, the court decisions in major social issues such as abortion rights and same-sex marriage result in controversy, mostly because those opposing those rights don't want to play by the rules. Bainbrige avoids the issue of limited sovereignty of the people, and also the fact that the legal processes brought into play here are part of the debate. Congress can override the Supreme Court, and has done so on numerous occasions. That's all part of the game. I think it's indicative of the opposition that their push is for a Constitutional amendment in an attempt to circumvent the debate entirely. That's where you see the political process being short-circuited, not by the courts doing their job.

(Footnote: I've seen this position -- the whim of the people school of political rhetoric -- taken to extremes in reaction to the failure of the Massachusetts amendment. The argument is that "it would have been better" to allow the people to vote. I'm unmoved. The only "better" I can see is a propaganda coup if the amendment had failed at the ballot box. And, given that it's a question that is high on the radar of gay activists and anti-gay activists, and no one else, the chances of failure were higher than I like. And, in that sense, there was an election in between readings of the proposed amendment in which that question was on the table. Opponents lost. Explain to me "better" in this context, unless you mean that social conservatives need to be beaten over the head again and again. I doubt that would work.)

Conservative Principles

An interesting post from Stephen Bainbridge at Andrew Sullivan (yes, Sullivan's blog actually does have a name -- "The Daily Dish" -- but I don't think anyone ever uses it but Sullivan). He's posted ten "Principles of Conservatism" from an essay by Russell Kirk, which I have taken the liberty of reposting here, with my comments:

1. The conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent. ... A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

Well. I'm reminded of nothing so much as William F. Buckley's howler that "morality is absolute." No. Sorry. This sort of idea is a function of the kind of thinking engendered by a top-down worldview, one that relies on Authority as the first and final arbiter of moral questions. It's demonstrably not the case, as a quick perusal of history will show. I realize that this includes an out: "The conservative believes." Fine. Believe what you want. That doesn't make it true.

2. The conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. ... Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know.

I have a great fondness for custom and continuity. Convention, not so much. Conventions, after all, are a social compromise, in the sense that they make all participants equally unhappy. Granted, they make society possible, but they are also equally prone to stultification. This is a fairly pessimistic statement, all things considered: what if they devil you don't know turns out to be an angel?

3. Conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. ... The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.

Again, top-down thinking. I don't agree that we are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants. Yes, we are standing on the shoulders of giants, but I think there are just as many giants running around now. We're just not always paying attention to them, when we even recognize them. The comment about "immemorial usage" is somewhat bizarre, particularly when you start to relate it to specifics. I'd love to see some everyday applications of this --are we talking about the "5,000 year-old tradition of marriage"? Which one? Ultimately, I don't think there is such a thing as "immemorial usage." There's just what we grew up with.

4. Conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. ... Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away.

I'm divided on this one. Yes, I am all for prudence -- there's always something lurking in the woodwork that's going to jump out and bite you in the butt if you don't think things through. Sometimes even if you do. I don't see rash action as the province of liberals and radicals alone. Conservatives have come a cropper now and then. Like everything they've done for the last two generations.

5. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation.

OK -- this one's way out in left field (or actually, considering the context, I suppose I should say "right field"). Let's just dump the Last Judgment part, since I don't believe in it. Equality before the law, yes. What this statement doesn't seem to take into account in the bounds of the law. There is, arguably, a tendency on the part of the left to interpret that too broadly. Equally, there is a tendency on the right to interpret it too narrowly. See "Prudence" above.

6. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. ... All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. ... The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.

I'm not sure I believe in human nature. Certainly not in the sense of this statement, I think. Another example of top-down thinking; it presupposed that "absolute" morality I dismissed above. I do agree that a tolerably ordered, ,just and free society is about the best we can do, but the dismissiveness of the idea that suffering will continue to lurk bothers me. I think, as moral, compassionate creatures, we are bound to remedy that whenever we see it, but the liberal solutions of the twentieth century haven't worked very well. Again, see "Prudence" above. I don't think terrestrial hell, however, can be laid at the feet of liberals any more than conservatives.

7. Conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all.

This is demonstrably not true, at least in the sense I think is propounded here. One thing that's lacking in this whole list so far is the idea of "community" as an operative factor. There have been many societies in which personal possessions were certainly part and parcel of the game plan, but certain resources were "owned" by the community, if the term even applies. Look at the early European commons, and at the Native North American sense of the land as unownable. One made us of it, with proper gratitude, and treated it carefully. The conservative idea of "ownership" of private property is at the root of most of the environmental ills we're facing today. I also think that the more proper term here would be "liberty." Ownership is itself a constraint on freedom, while it can contribute (and does, actually) to liberty in the sense of independence from outside control.

8. Conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. ... In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. ... If, then, in the name of an abstract Democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction—why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity.

Ah -- community. But in a very limited sense, merely as a political structure. The problem we face today is that political structure is removed from social structure in any real sense, and historically (and perhaps even biologically), politics is a function of sociality. The principle here offers no solution.

9. The conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. ... It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. ... A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.

Yes to restraints on power. I think the American system addresses this issue admirably, and I might note that it is conservatives (whether claimed by the "classical conservatives" or not) who are busiliy dismantling it. Just keep in mind that conservatism has historically been a philosophy that espouses the idea of power in the hands of those best able to wield it -- conservatives all, of course.

10. Permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. ... He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise.

My, how sixteenth century, in diction if not in content. Well, yes, in content, too. Frankly, this is one of those statements that simply doesn't hold up to any sort of analysis -- sort of a semantic null. Permanence and change are reconciled in a "vigorous" society, by definition. It's when one gains too much prominence that the society either becomes chaotic or stagnant. It seems to me that most people deal with stagnation better than they do with chaos, which may be at the root of the popularity of conservatism these days. This is predicated, of course, on a bourgeois society, which America is. The very poor and the very rich don't seem to be so bothered by chaos, the poor because they're used to it, and the rich because they're insulated from it. ON the other hand, the bourgeois seem to revel in stagnation.

It's an interesting summation. As I might have predicted, I fit, here and there, but not so much that I'm going to adopt any new labels. (Unless I make one up -- how about "pragmatic empiricist"?) Bainbridge has a little quiz in his post, but the principles are so imprecisely presented that I couldn't really check off any of the boxes. To many "yes, buts."

Worst. Idea. Ever.

Privatizing the roads. Here are some comments from Larry Ribstein at Iceblog on an article in WSJ (subscription required). Unfortunately, since I don't subscribe to WSJ, I'm having to work off other people's quotes, but this strikes me as incredibly blind:

[i]f the roads become too expensive or unpleasant to drive, their owners risk losing business that they are counting on to make their investments successful.If the roads become too expensive or unpleasant to drive, their owners risk losing business that they are counting on to make their investments successful.

Just think about that statement for a minute, especially those of you who drive to work or to the grocery store or anyplace else. Say your normal route is shoddily maintained -- potholes, crumbling verges, overgrown shoulders, etc., and the tolls are really high. (Of course there are going to be tolls.) So, you'll just take the competing road -- uh, what? No competition? You mean there's not another road a block over that gets you to the same place in the same amount of time? Who knew? (This actually starts to sound like one of the conservative principles that no one ever talks about: pave America.)

Ribstein doesn't quite rewrite history, but he edits it a little:

Corporations started as state monopolies providing big things the government couldn't handle – railroads, canals and the like. Now we seem to have come full circle. In fact, to complete the story, I've argued that "uncorporations" -- i.e., partnership-type firms -- are taking over a lot of the functions that corporations now have. At one time in the US we had relatively small governments, corporations building and running the infrastructure, and partnerships handling everything else. Maybe we’re headed back in that direction.

I seem to remember that corporations -- at least the ones that built the railroads and the like -- depended very heavily on government support, not to mention coolie labor. Of course, now that's become an entitlement, but the fact remains that, particularly in the case of roads, government is and always has been a key player. I think there's a little bit of ahistorical fantasy going on here. And frankly, thinking back on my own studies in medieval and early modern Europe, we're really talking about a new universe. Yes, there are examples of bridges and roads being privately maintained (although I'd suggest that if you go back far enough, you're going to find the "privately" really means "by the local community"). I realize there's always someone pining for the "good old days," but to suggest seriously that we return to them is a little naive.

Eric Kleefeld takes this one on at Andrew Sullivan, and, while he makes my point above, I'm not sure he's operating in a completely historical universe, either:

And if competition is to be introduced, offering a similar road nearby, the barriers to entry are enormous. Competition would have to come through a rival company building a whole separate road nearby, first buying up and developing land that could have provided housing, businesses, green space, etc. It would take years to raise the business capital, then take care of all that overhead and construct the separate road, and finally open for business. That sort of situation would hardly put much competitive pressure on a current monopoly holder.

On the other hand, if we were to experiment with road privatization, I know exactly where I'd try it. New Jersey has two separate toll roads that each run the length of the state from north to south, the Garden State Parkway and the New Jersey Turnpike. They're fairly close to each other, and would be redundant if not for the fact that the state's traffic needs are so severe.

It might not be a bad idea to quasi-privatize the two highways via indefinite leases, with the condition that the two roads can never come back under the same ownership — any attempt to do so would result in the forfeiture of ownership back to the state government. That way, two companies would have to maintain their roads and offer decent tolls in order to attract drivers to come to their highway as opposed to the other. And since these two separate roads already exist as it is, the barriers to entry don't apply.

But New Jersey is more of a special case, so specific that it practically disproves the general argument for private roads by demonstrating just what the necessary conditions would be.

In other words, what Ribstein is endorsing (which is offered, also at Sullivan, by Stephen Bainbridge without comment) is that the taxpayers, who have paid for the infrastructure -- roads, bridges, etc. -- now have the opportunity to pay again for a private corporation to manage it.

One aspect that no one seems to want to address: we know, based on too many examples from history, that privatizing government functions will lead to corruption, laxity, and an inferior product. I don't really know where this myth of corporate superiority and efficiency got started. Has anyone looked at Detroit lately? In spite of Ribstein's assertion, corporations began as a means of pooling private resources for major commercial ventures, and also as a means of spreading the risk of those ventures. They have evolved into a means of avoiding individual responsibility for corporate misdeeds, which is a large part of the basis for my mistrust of corporate involvement in roads and bridges. Think about the likely scenario in the I-35 bridge collapse, for example, if it had been privatized. Would the maintenance have been adequate. Would the bridge, which has been rated unsound for over a decade, have been replaced? Possibly -- if the state had come up with some nice subsidies for the company that controlled it. But, as it stands, the bridge has collapsed. Who's responsible? The CEO with the hundred-milliion-dollar escape clause in his/her contract? The board of directors? :You know some mid-level apparatchik is going to get the axe, and if the CEO is suddenly out of work, well, there's always that hundred million dollars.

If this is the substance of libertarian thinking, which is what the subtext seems to be, I'm glad I'm not one.

Footnote: I don't think it's by chance that in European folklore, bridges were often the abode of trolls, who charged a toll to passersby. Or ate them.

Think about that.

Another WTF? Moment

From WaPo:

The Senate bowed to White House pressure last night and passed a Republican plan for overhauling the federal government's terrorist surveillance laws, approving changes that would temporarily give U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order.

A) This just legalizes all the illegal things the bastards' have been doing, and B) what makes anyone think that BushCo is only going to be watching foreigners?

And C) when is the Senate going to take its collective head out of its ass and start doing what we elected it to do, which is put some constraints on this bozo?

Maybe Pelosi will give this whole panic rush a sharp pull on the reins.

Even Newt

agrees with me. On the conduct of the war on terror, at least. From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.

Well, duh!

In Re: Beauchamp

Anderw Sullivan seems to have a decent summation. Here's more from Josh Marshall (who notes that our old friend Matt Sanchez, gay porn star, hooker, and Ann Coulter fan supreme, was involved in smearing Beauchamp - no big surprise there). Marshall recommends the summation at Media Matters. So do I. And even more, Max Blumenthal's take down of The Weekly Standard, a publication somewhat akin to Agape Press for fair and balanced reporting.

Don't miss TBogg on the commenters.

Obama and Pakistan: Oh, the Spin I'm In

I'm really surprised, not at the spin put on Obama's recent counter-terrorism speech, but the rapidity with which the spin has become the content. From Daniel Larison:

Obama waves a sabre in Pakistan’s direction, which is hardly the first time that he has sought to portray himself as more belligerent than the warmongers, further proving that he isn’t fit to sit in on National Security Council meetings, much less be the President. I think Obama is pushing exactly the wrong line here, threatening to effectively destabilise the existing regime without having any idea of what would come next. This is a combination of soundbite foreign policy and a “pour oil on fire to see what happens” approach to international relations.

This is really astonishing. Andrew Sullivan, not the deepest pool in the creek, reports it without comment. (I find it odd that Sullivan, who claims foreign policy as one of his main territories, can be so off-base about it so often. Must be a problem with depth perception.)

Fortunately, Larison gets called on it by his commenters, who note quite rightly that Obama called for no such thing. Larison's responses, however, seem to indicate that he has trouble with what we used to call reading comprehension. Either that, or neocon Newspeak has infiltrated the ranks of "real" conservatives, such as Sullivan and Larison claim to be. Note that Larison simply ignores the points made about the actual content of Obama's speech in favor of -- well, things like this:

It would be an interesting concept, if Obama demonstrated that he had any idea how to do any of those things. His remarks on Pakistan show me that he does not deviate meaningfully from the worst aspects of the Bush years. On the contrary, he may be more dangerous to the extent that he thinks Bush has been going too *easy* on Musharraf. That is crazy and frankly irresponsible. This has nothing to do with anything other than Obama’s incompetence.

It's beyond reading a position into Obama's remarks. It's pure fantasy. Does someone have an axe to grind? I don't know. I'm not familiar with Larison's viewoints or history. He has another post on the issue, in which he takes off from a statement by Pat Buchanan, which itself starts off "But if . . . ." as justification for his reading of Obama's remarks. This is pretty much baldfaced manipulation, with just about every logical error that exists thrown in, all under the general category of "straw man." (I did read some of his other posts. Yeah, well.)

The irony is that Sullivan takes on the role of the Washington press corps in this one: stenographer. But then, he is one of the Beltway insiders.

An aside, sort of: TPM Election central reports that AP reports that Obama's remarks have caused Pakistanis to burn American flags. Now, I expect Musharraf and/or his radical opponents to milk the possible misinterpretations of Obama's remarks as much as possible. Maybe even as much as conservative commentators here.

Perfect Day

It's Friday, going to be about 85, sunny, and I don't have to work.





What could be better?

(Isn't that a cheery image? I needed something like that after reading the news. It's a Rudbeckia of some sort or other. They're in bloom right now all over the place here.)