A Political Bird

Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?

2008-12-03T01:58:12Z

If you accept -- and I do -- that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don't say or like or want said.

The rest. (Via kirabug.)

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.

2008-11-28T23:20:33Z

From Roger Cohen, hat-tip to Andrew Sullivan:

Of the 770 detainees grabbed here and there and flown to Guantánamo, only 23 have ever been charged with a crime. Of the more than 500 so far released, many traumatized by those “enhanced” techniques, not one has received an apology or compensation for their season in hell.

What they got on release was a single piece of paper from the American government. A U.S. official met one of the dozens of Afghans now released from Guantánamo and was so appalled by this document that he forwarded me a copy.

Dated Oct. 7, 2006, it reads as follows:

“An Administrative Review Board has reviewed the information about you that was talked about at the meeting on 02 December 2005 and the deciding official in the United States has made a decision about what will happen to you. You will be sent to the country of Afghanistan. Your departure will occur as soon as possible.”

That’s it, the one and only record on paper of protracted U.S. incarceration: three sentences for four years of a young Afghan’s life, written in language Orwell would have recognized.

Via Mount Holyoke College, Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", 1946. Past time to be reading this one again.

D-mn, sixty years, and we didn't learn anything.

Sweet!

2008-11-14T02:11:24Z

I just got my copy of the Washington Monthly "The Stakes" issue! This will be totally influential as to my vote in the November 4th U.S. Presidential elections!

Marriage in California

2008-10-26T00:46:57Z

California bumper sticker by *peganthyrus on deviant ART

I'm going to go ahead and stick my neck out for a moment here, and talk about marriage.

I want to warn you in advance: I'm not really eloquent, and I'm not terribly meticulous. I have no illusions about the strength of my voice or the originality of my phrasing. If it is a rigorous case you want, Jesurgislac has a better analysis - I'm here to speak my mind.

Let me start with questions: What is "marriage"? What is "civil marriage"? And why do we recognize it?

I will try to answer these questions, but I will do so through this last, through the word "recognize" - recognition is the key to the whole business. Civil marriage is no more than the recognition of an earlier marriage, an alliance above and beyond the reach of law. There's a reason marriage sometimes happens in churches - the bond whose existence is affirmed and celebrated in these ceremonies is ... special, for lack of a better word. (I said I wasn't eloquent.)

What, then, is this earlier marriage?

In a word, it is love. It is dedication. The willingness to swear an oath, equal to equal, which in the common phrasing of these things often resembles this: "To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part." (Till death do us part? It is of no consequence, the meaning is clear.) It is a brash and daring refutation of the mundane cussedness of existence, the seemly invincible force of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the cynicism of the worldly - it declares, to amend a phrase attributed to Martin Luther: "Here we stand. We can do no other. God help us. Amen."

We choose as a people to recognize these bonds, as I have said. Today, then, we must recognize one more thing: what we recognize in these bonds is not the perpetuation of traditional gender roles, is not the perpetuation of the species, is not a perpetuation of anything preceding themselves. It is the bond itself.

No on California Prop 8.

For those of you not following the issues closely: present polling has this going either way. If you agree with me - and I know better than to hold it against you if you don't - noonprop8.com seems to be the headquarters for the opposition. Please: throw a couple bucks in the jar, if you can spare them, and pass the word.

Reposted from my deviantArt journal.

peri_renna @ 2008-10-18T01:32:00

2008-10-18T05:55:47Z

As you know, I am an Obama supporter. But I am also a Republican, and I am a Republican because I don't believe that good governance comes from single-party rule.

As a Republican, then, I am disappointed - no, repulsed - no, horrified by the McCain campaign of recent months.

I am not going to discuss policy. Many policy positions of the Republican Party are unsustainable, but that is not what needs addressing.

What needs addressing is "Who is Obama". What needs addressing is "William Ayers". What needs addressing is the robocalls, the angry rallies, the cresendoing drumbeat of hate, hate, hate that is engulfing what was once a political party, not a conspiracy to seize power.

McCain, Palin, you are contributing to the destruction of your party, to the cost of everyone for whom that party means more that a new bumper sticker every four years. If for no-one else but them, do not do this. Fight with honor. Make us proud.

Link

2008-10-06T12:33:29Z

Former 1960s radical Bill Ayers appeared (as himself) in the 2002 documentary The Weather Underground, which was narrated by Lili Taylor.

Taylor was in High Fidelity with Tim Robbins who was in The Hudsucker Proxy with Steve Buscemi.

And Steve Buscemi was in Tanner on Tanner with, yes, Barack Obama.

That's only four degrees of separation -- a closer connection than either The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times was able to establish in their exhaustive attempts to find any links between the former '60s radical and the current Democratic nominee for president.

Fred 'slacktivist' Clark on connections and what they really imply.

Rich Trumka of the AFL-CIO, on racism and the vote.

2008-10-02T20:42:13Z

Like Bitch, Ph.D. said: "This speech might make you tear up; it did me. It's certainly timely as hell."

Commentary at Washington Monthly and The G Spot.

Supreme Court: Lemon v. Kurtzman

2008-10-02T13:03:25Z

Via demiurgent, a little meme in honor of our dear Alaskan governor:

The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic, to your lj. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade. Preferably your own country, but SCOTUS acceptable.) For those who see this on your f-list, take the meme to your OWN lj to spread the fun.

(Full disclosure: I looked up the decision on Wikipedia. It's mostly my own wording, though.)

One of the most important decisions in the battle over the wall of separation between church and state is Lemon v. Kurtzman. This decision is famous for being the source of the well-known Lemon test, requiring that any measure involving the government in religious matters meet three simple criteria:

1. There must be a ~~compelling state interest~~ secular purpose,
2. It must not have as its primary effect the advancement or inhibition of a particular religion, and
3. It must not result in excessive entanglement between state and religion.

Reposted from packbat

Writer's Block: Church & State

2008-09-29T01:09:28Z

Should church and state always be separate? Why or why not? What should the nature of their relationship be?

View 500 Answers

An ... odd wording, and odd that anyone would still ask. Yes, they should be separate, in fact, must be separate. Your church is a tribe, a "race" in a sense almost as real as the skin-color sense, and to allow the reasons of the church to define the state establishes a privileged caste.

In general, the church and state should be almost entirely unrelated. The chief exception is anti-discrimination, but the two may become loosely entangled due to other causes (e.g. state benefits for charitable non-profits).

"That's not true."

2008-09-27T02:57:42Z

Just finished watching the debate. Initial impressions: McCain performed above my expectations, but that pretty much adds up to "it was close". What it comes down to, though, is the facts.

Just to look up the first thing that comes to mind: according to transcripts, and ABC's blog agrees, McCain is simply wrong about Kissinger - he does support high-level talks without preconditions. Now, I don't care about errors like "Kennedy was out of the hospital before the debate started" or the Eisenhower letters thing, but if there are other significant points like Kissinger's stance on which McCain was simply and directly wrong, it matters.

Bottom suddenly falls out of netherworld sweater market.

2008-09-26T11:35:37Z

I spoke too soon.

According to one GOP lawmaker, some House Republicans are saying privately that they’d rather “let the markets crash” than sign on to a massive bailout.

The suspicion is that Sen. McCain is one of the driving forces behind this outbreak of stupidity. Only thing that could make it worse is if he did it to make sure that he didn't have to debate tonight.

Oh, and the plan sounds pretty stupid, too, once you actually read it.

In other news, sweater sales in Hades have skyrocketed.

2008-09-26T02:54:49Z

The House Republicans maybe actually did the right thing.

One group of House GOP lawmakers circulated an alternative that would put much less focus on a government takeover of failing institutions' sour assets. This proposal would have the government provide insurance to companies that agree to hold frozen assets, rather than have the U.S. purchase the assets.

Rep Eric Cantor, R-Va., said the idea would be to remove the burden of the bailout from taxpayers and place it, over time, on Wall Street instead. The price tag of the administration's plan to bail out tottering financial institutions — and the federal intrusion into private business matters — have been major sticking points for many Republican lawmakers.

Seriously, this greatly reduces the immediate cost to the government (an immediate cost which, I remind you, would be coming straight out of the budget deficit) while having a similar probability of putting a dam on the runs on these banks which cause the problems. (After all, if the government will pay back your investment if it collapses, rushing in to withdraw the funds while they still exist is no longer necessary.) Given that the only reason we're considering throwing $700 000 000 000 at this in the first place is because Paulson's staff wanted to name a really large number, why should we stick to any variation of this plan-to-have-a-plan?

What I've been sending my representatives.

2008-09-24T12:15:57Z

As a member of your constituency, I am writing to offer my encouragement as you work on the bailout plan recently proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. I am aware that you are under intense pressure to get something done, but as I know you know, there are few worse things that can be done than blindly throwing money at a problem. Therefore, I want to tell you: do not give in, do not give up, do not give even in the smallest degree unless you can secure this plan with all the controls that it requires.

Thank you for your time and trouble,
Robin H. D. Zimmermann

The Bailout

2008-09-23T02:18:22Z

hilzoy at ObWi has a pile of links I haven't gone through yet. But looking at the leaked plan, I have to go with gilmoure on metaquotes and take pause ... well, everything, but particularly at this:

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

...

This is a blank check.

This is a $700 000 000 000 blank check. (At least!)

Is there anyone in the present administration you would trust with a $700 000 000 000 blank check? Heck, is there anyone at all you would so trust? If you had to borrow $700 000 000 000, would you want its spending completely in control of one person, in such a way that that one person could do anything with your money (your borrowed money), and no-one could stop them?

I fear that this may yet come to pass.

(Edit: More amateur analysis - this from the inimitable pecunium.)

Timing

2008-09-20T12:42:24Z

Hat tip to baxil for the link: Paul Krugman just got a link sent to him (how many layers of indirection am I up to?) of a little piece John McCain submitted to go in Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries.

As the man says, you might want to sit down for this.

I would also allow individuals to choose to purchase health insurance across state lines, when they can find more affordable and attractive products elsewhere that they prefer. Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

Ouch.

Biden kicks it up a notch.

2008-09-16T00:07:08Z

Eight years ago, a man ran for President who claimed he was different, not a typical Republican. He called himself a reformer. He admitted that his Party, the Republican Party, had been wrong about things from time to time. He promised to work with Democrats and said he’d been doing that for a long time.

That candidate was George W. Bush. Remember that? Remember the promise to reach across the aisle? To change the tone? To restore honor and dignity to the White House?

We saw how that story ends. A record number of home foreclosures. Home values, tumbling. And the disturbing news that the crisis you’ve been facing on Main Street is now hitting Wall Street, taking down Lehman Brothers and threatening other financial institutions.

We’ve seen eight straight months of job losses. Nearly 46 million Americans without health insurance. Average incomes down, while the price of everything -- from gas to groceries -- has skyrocketed. A military stretched thin from two wars and multiple deployments.

A nation more polarized than I’ve ever seen in my career. And a culture in Washington where the very few wealthy and powerful have a seat at the table and everybody else is on the menu.

Eight years later, we have another Republican nominee who’s telling us the exact same thing:
This time it will be different, it really will. This time he’s going to put country before party, to change the tone, reach across the aisle, change the Republican Party, change the way Washington works.

We’ve seen this movie before, folks. But as everyone knows, the sequel is always worse than the original.

Continued here.

Links

2008-09-03T01:51:23Z

Just two (well, and a half) quick ones before bed:

What criteria are the U.S. Attorney's using to judge what is a death threat?

What do brain surgeons have to say about the candidates? (And, on a similar note.)

Writer's Block: Sarah Palin?

2008-09-02T13:41:04Z

Is Sarah Palin a shrewd choice for the Republican Party, or is she a liability?

View 500 Answers

It is too early to say definitively, but I am inclined to say she's a liability. Certainly, she will be absolutely a liability if McCain drops her from the ticket (cf. Thomas Eagleton), but even if he holds on to her, I think it will cost him.

Granted, she has some advantages. First, she completely killed the "Obama's acceptance speech" news cycle (which even intelligent commentators did not expect) - everyone is looking at the McCain campaign now. Second, putting a woman on a ticket gives the McCain campaign a chance to smear Obama for the misogyny of his followers. Third, the small fraction of Clinton supporters whose one issue was getting a woman in the White House (admittedly, they have a point - we're way behind the curve on this one) would be likely switch tickets to vote for her. Fourth, her 'anti-corruption' stance goes with McCain's.

Also, she's attractive to the social conservatives. Energizing that base is a good thing for McCain.

However, from what I can see, these advantages are well outweighed by the problems.

First, Palin's resume is so short that being president of the PTA makes the cut. This kills McCain's "experience" attack - and worse, makes it look like nothing but an attack, since McCain apparently doesn't care about it himself (cf. this CNN interview with a staffer). Further, given her lack of experience, Palin doesn't look qualified to be President (and quotes like this don't help) - given McCain's age, that's very, very bad.

Second, McCain clearly chose Palin in a rush at the last minute (and we have verification of this) and chose her without anything like sufficient vetting. She was a big gamble for his campaign, and anything negative that can be pinned to Palin is a negative that can be pinned to McCain's judgement - one of the key things he's running on.

Third, Palin has multiple negatives that can be pinned on her - from lies (distorting scientific reports) to corruption (it seems increasingly likely that she had Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan removed because he didn't fire her sister's ex-husband) to, possibly, disastrously unfavorable political associations (~~Alaskan Independence Party~~ correction - only her husband was a registered member of the AIP). If any of the important accusations pan out, picking Palin won't merely seem hasty, it'll seem downright insane.

Oh, and if my own flist is any indication, the people who liked Clinton for substantive reasons are ticked off.

Now, I said it's too early to say definitively, but...

peri_renna @ 2008-08-02T16:21:00

2008-08-02T20:24:15Z

In June, Plouffe [Obama's campaign manager] had suggested Obama-McCain meetings more along the lines of the historic Lincoln-Douglas debates. In 1858, during Abraham Lincoln's Senate campaign against Stephen Douglas, the candidates met seven times across Illinois. One spoke for an hour, the other for an hour and a half, and the first was allowed a half-hour rebuttal.

That would be awesome. Unfortunately, it seems like it won't happen.

Is this new? I'm only twenty-three, I wouldn't know...

2008-06-21T20:46:03Z

Around the corner and down the street from my house is a "Bake Sale for Obama".

peri_renna @ 2008-06-10T21:13:00

2008-06-11T01:33:36Z

Okay, as a liberal (and therefore interested) and a Republican (and therefore nearly powerless), a suggestion to the Democrats out there: can you all stop insulting each other, please? Obama and Clinton are very similar candidates!

Seriously. Go drink some tea, play Facebook Chess, write an eleven-hundred-word breakdown of McCain's total lack of a substantive energy policy - whatever. And whenever you feel tempted to complain about any of your allies, consider this: my party gave me two warmongers and a theocrat as the only viable candidates. You guys got off frelling lucky.

That's all.

"The War Prayer"

2008-05-26T21:03:01Z

From Fred 'slacktivist' Clark, who found it through The Washington Monthly:

From thewarprayer.com - available also on YouTube.

It was written circa 1905 but unpublished for a decade thereafter - six years after Twain's death - for fear that it would be seen as sacrilegious or unpatriotic.

Serious

2008-05-20T17:25:06Z

Hat tip to Jim Macdonald @ Making Light for the news -from the AP, Chicago, Monday, May 19th:

Republican John McCain accused Democrat Barack Obama of inexperience and reckless judgment for saying Iran does not pose the same serious threat to the United States as the Soviet Union did in its day.

The likely GOP presidential nominee made the criticism Monday in Chicago, Obama's home turf.

"Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess," McCain said at the restaurant industry's annual meeting.

For those of you who would like to add numbers to just how absurd this is, hilzoy has the analysis.

Linkbit: the Pope and the President

2008-04-19T01:54:44Z

P.Z. Myers on Benedict XVI meeting George W. Bush - outraged, as you should be. Outraged, to a great extent, because in all the "coverage" of this "event", and indeed in the "event" itself, there is not shown the slightest awareness that these men we are seeing praise each other and be praised in return are complicit in horror and terrible horror.

I know I, for one, am tired of this eternal drumbeat of dreadful revelations, each of which has effected not the slightest visible good in its wake. But that exhaustion is no excuse. Each beat of this drum stands for the agony of hundreds, thousands, or millions of people. The least we can do is stand for them.

(P.S. On a much more minor point, Expelled came out today. Do not watch it. Expelled is a terrible movie, morally and cinematically.)

peri_renna @ 2008-03-24T20:55:00

2008-03-25T01:07:53Z

Thanks to the Slacktivist commenter crowd: the transcript of Obama's speech.

If you haven't watched the speech, for whatever reason, and you don't want to watch it now, for whatever reason, please: just read it. I won't even ask you to keep an open mind - just to click the link and push the down arrow when you hit the bottom of the screen, and whatever you think of him afterwards is fair game. But read it.