Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Wednesday, January 7, 2015 7:51 pm

Je suis Charlie

GunIsNotReligion

So this morning, three men entered the offices of the satirical Paris magazine “Charlie Hebdo” and opened fire, killing the editor and other staffers (including four cartoonists) and also at least one police officer — 12 in all. Police believe they have identified the three suspects, but at this writing — unsubstantiated Twitter posts to the contrary — the suspects have not been captured. God willing, the shooters will be caught and punished severely.

The suspected motivation of the shooters was the fact that the magazine had published satirical, even crude cartoons of the prophet Mohammed and that the shooters were seeking to punish people they saw as blasphemers against Islam. Naturally, William Donohue, the sociopath who runs the far-right Catholic League, had no problem with this. More on that in a bit.

(I’m expecting all kinds of anti-Muslim hysteria over this, but I’m not going to deal with that here. I’ll just remind those inclined toward such that someone tried to bomb the Colorado Springs office of the NAACP this week, and only by the grace of God was no one injured. And we can be pretty sure that whoever did that wasn’t Muslim.)

A couple of people have suggested I republish some of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. I was tempted to. But I decided I’m not going to, not because I’m afraid of being attacked (N.C.’s gun laws are considerably laxer than France’s), but because I have some points to make that I don’t want complicated by cartoons that aren’t on point — that is to say, on MY point.

First, and I shouldn’t have to say this but I will anyway, this is a horrible tragedy for the victims and their families, and my heart and prayers go out to them. And it also is a tragedy for France, our ally since the Revolution and a bastion of freedom in its own right.

Second, and I also shouldn’t have to say this but will anyway, this is inexcusable, full stop. If you seek to attack — to physically harm — anyone because of their point of view, you have forfeited the right to have any contact with civilized society. I’ve believed this since I was a kid. And I have believed since I was a kid that it applies across all political and religious lines, without exception, whether you are an Austrian painter with a bent for authoritarian government and world conquest, a satirical French cartoonist, or a Communist Workers Party member trying to unionize a textile mill, full stop. If you don’t, too, then maybe you need to re-examine your principles.

And this is where Donohue and his disgusting response come in. In a column titled, “Muslims Are Right to Be Angry,” Donohue tries to have it both ways, writing:

Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated. But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.

Those who work at this newspaper have a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures, and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures. For example, they have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms. They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses.

While some Muslims today object to any depiction of the Prophet, others do not. Moreover, visual representations of him are not proscribed by the Koran. What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them.

Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive.

Shorter Donohue: Lord, how I miss the Inquisition.

Go to hell, Bill. Go straight to hell, you and the horse you rode in on. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. You want to stone blasphemers to death? You can do it there, you son of a bitch. You don’t get to blame the victim in a vicious act of terrorism and still call yourself a Christian. When you clearly wish for a world in which you can physically punish people whose beliefs you don’t agree with, you don’t even get to call yourself civilized.

While I agree that not everything that CAN be cartooned or otherwise satirized or lampooned SHOULD be, you know what? THAT’S JUST MY OPINION. And the hurt fee-fees of medievalist control freaks of any and all religions AREN’T WORTH ONE SINGLE HUMAN LIFE. Indeed, MY hurt fee-fees aren’t worth one single human life, and neither are yours.

I worked as a journalist for 25 years. My life was threatened several times, primarily when I was covering the Klan in Iredell County in the mid-1980s, so today’s tragedy hits me where I live. And it makes me feel obliged, even though I’m tired and would rather be doing other things, to stand up for the unconditional freedom from violence for those engaged in the work of sharing and expressing ideas. No idea, not even freedom and certainly not God, is worth committing murder for.

(Illustration via John D. Burns on Facebook)

Tuesday, January 6, 2015 7:34 pm

In which I invite Frederick County (Md.) Council Member Kirby Delauter to sue me

I don’t want to say that Frederick County (Md.) Council Member Kirby Delauter is dumb. But, to paraphrase the late Molly Ivins, I think he has reached the point at which we must start watering him twice a week.

See, Frederick County (Md.) Council Member Kirby Delauter is zealously protective of his public image and reputation — so much so that, in the Land of Frederick County (Md.) Council Member Kirby Delauter, it is illegal to publish Frederick County (Md.) Council Member Kirby Delauter’s name without Frederick County (Md.) Council Member Kirby Delauter’s permission.

Unfortunately for Frederick County (Md.) Council Member Kirby Delauter, the Land of Frederick County (Md.) Council Member Kirby Delauter has collided with the real world. And, well, as this blog’s motto says, you can ignore reality, but reality won’t ignore you.

Frederick County (Md.) Council Member Kirby Delauter objected to the use of his name by a local reporter in a newspaper article and said on Facebook that he can sue anyone who uses his name without authorization.

And what is happening now is a perfect example of the “Streisand effect” (Google it). I’m using Frederick County (Md.) Council Member Kirby Delauter’s name without authorization. And I dearly hope that Frederick County (Md.) Council Member Kirby Delauter sues me. Because if he does, Frederick County (Md.) Council Member Kirby Delauter will get a swift and expensive education in the First Amendment and end up looking even more stupid besides. Win-win.

And, because of the Streisand effect, I’m not the only one who finds this behavior egregious even by the standards of nutbag politicians. The “offending” newspaper has publicly ridiculed Frederick County (Md.) Council Member Kirby Delauter (note the first letter of each paragraph in the editorial), #KirbyDelauter is trending on Twitter, and there’s a parody Kirby Delauter Twitter account. (Which raises the question: Did Kirby Delauter get Kirby Delauther’s permission to use the name Kirby Delauter on the parody Kirby Delauter Twitter account?)

Bad things that politicians do can move us to sadness or fury. But you’ve go to be really out there to move people to ridicule. Frederick County (Md.) Council Member Kirby Delauter has gotten out there. He needs to either eat some humble pie or get further on out there — as in out of public life.

 

Monday, January 5, 2015 6:21 am

Today I turn 55.

Filed under: Fun — Lex @ 6:21 am

I’ll let you and life define what that means.

Friday, December 26, 2014 3:50 pm

Letters to the Editor, edited, for a change

As someone who has criticized the News & Record on multiple occasions for allowing writers of letters to the editor to spew fanciful notions as if they were fact, I feel obliged to recognize the paper’s efforts to correct such misimpressions not once but twice today.

First, in his LTE regarding the fatal police shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Mark Underwood of Eden incorrectly stated: “The police officer said he told Rice to ‘put his hands up’ three times before shooting. This hasn’t been officially disproven so far.” The accompanying editor’s note read, “According to the police video, the Rice shooting took 1.5 seconds.” Here’s the video; feel free to use your own stopwatch. And ask yourself: If you were to tell a suspect three times, “Put your hands up!” and allow even the briefest moment in between repetitions for the suspect to comply, how long wold that have taken? Five seconds? Longer? Longer, certainly, than the time it took the police to shoot Tamir Rice upon their arrival.

Then, Ramon Bell of Stokesdale states of the death of Eric Garner from a chokehold by New York City police: “This should never have been classified a homicide. It was caused by the acts of Garner and existing medical conditions only he knew about; i.e., severe asthma, something the arresting officers had no reason to know.” I’m not sure where Bell, a retired Greensboro police officer, got his medical degree — Kmart, perhaps. But, as the editor’s note points out: “The medical examiner concluded that a chokehold caused Garner’s death, but added that asthma, obesity and cardiovascular disease were contributing factors.” If the chokehold caused Garner’s death, then this was a homicide — whether justifiable or not is up to a court to decide, inasmuch as chokeholds are banned.

The N&R has been punked many times by letter writers both sincerely misguided and flatly dishonest, as well as having published a number of Internet chain emails that were never independently verified. It’s good to see the paper attempting to sort through the dross to enlighten its readers, if only for a day.

Tuesday, December 23, 2014 12:41 pm

Anti-police? Or pro-police, pro-public?

One would like to think that a guy who worked his way up from Drug Enforcement Administration agent to assistant director of that agency, a guy who served as both head of witness protection and associate director for operations of the U.S. Marshals’ Service, a guy who served as both fire commissioner and police commissioner for the City of New York, a guy who now gets paid very high dollars to do security consulting, would be able to face a little criticism without soiling his drawers.

One would like to think that.

But one would be wrong.

Howard Safir, the guy who has held all those positions, is crying hysterically that the criticism police now are facing in the U.S. is unmatched in the past 45 years.

He is wrong. Factually, objectively wrong.

He writes, “We have seen nothing but police bashing from some of the highest offices in the land.” In fact, nothing that President Obama or New York Mayor Bill diBlasio has said can rationally be construed as “police bashing.”

He writes that Eric Garner and Michael Brown died resisting arrest. Garner was doing nothing of the sort when he was slain with an illegal choke hold. And even if one accepts that Michael Brown tried to reach into Officer Darren Wilson’s car and was justifiably shot and wounded for doing so, there is no credible evidence that Brown posed an immediate threat to Wilson or other civilians when Wilson fired the final, fatal shots.

He writes that current levels of “anti-police rhetoric” are unparalled in the past 45 years.  However, anyone who was around in the late 1960s and early 1970s recalls that violent clashes between police and protesters were commonplace. And the protesters were raising hell about that, often in very intemperate language.

Today? There have been some clashes between police and protesters in Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere in which the language has been intemperate, but on nowhere near the scale of decades ago.

No, what’s going on today is something different — something pro-public and, I would argue, pro-police. I don’t mean “pro-police” in the mindlessly jingoistic sense, but pro-police in the very practical sense of making law enforcement officers’ jobs safer and easier.

People are asking for the police to be open about and accountable for their actions. They are asking for law enforcement to stop discriminating against African Americans, which research shows it indubitably does. And they are insisting that the police be bound to obey the same laws the rest of us must.

Now unlike some people, I don’t think police are any worse-behaved today than they’ve ever been. In fact, they’re arguably much better behaved in most jurisdictions. But when everybody with a phone has a camera, police malfeasance is much more likely to be publicized than it used to be. And the larger number of reported incidents, with greater detail, reaching more people on social media, with accompanying demands that police be held accountable, looks, to the casual observer, like it might be anti-police.

It isn’t. People are insisting, rather, that cops restore “to protect and serve” to a phrase of some intellectual and moral value by behaving themselves, by treating everyone fairly including minorities who long have been treated disproportionately more harshly by law enforcement, and by being subject to the same administrative discipline or criminal punishment as anyone else would be who had misbehaved similarly.

There are some good reasons why law enforcement should want to do those things — and not only because they comports with the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment and with the Golden Rule.

Comporting with those standards is important for its own sake. But when cops behave openly and appropriately and transparently, and are publicly disciplined when they don’t, the public’s trust in and respect for law enforcement grows. And that growth has two major practical benefits for law enforcement.

First, it makes the public more likely to confide in and cooperate with police, in both day-to-day interactions and in assisting with difficult investigations. That makes a cop’s job easier.

Second, that increased trust and respect make it less likely that a minor, routine incident will escalate into the kind of situation that could end up with a cop dead, or with a civilian unjustifiably dead and a cop’s career and perhaps life ruined. That makes a cop’s job safer.

I would think that every cop, and everyone who supports cops, would want that the job to be easier and safer.

So why would Howard Safir so blatantly mischaracterize what’s being said and done in American communities around the issue of unchecked, unaccountable law enforcement? I can only speculate.

Some possible answers: He’s genuinely uninformed in general and uninformed about how social media works in particular. He’s genuinely uninformed about the statistics showing hugely disproportionate differences between how police treat middle-class Caucasians and how they treat African Americans of pretty much any class. He is informed, but he’s locked into an outdated mindset in which rule of the police is absolute, rather than a role of community servant leadership. Maybe he just listens to too much Fox News, whose incendiary, race-baiting rhetoric is deliberately clouding the issue.

I don’t know the answer. But I do know that Safir needs to put on some clean undies and start asking himself about the best, fairest way to serve the community — the whole community.

That’s all most Americans are asking for.

Friday, December 19, 2014 8:35 pm

Get a clue: Your tender fee-fees do not trump HUMAN LIFE

This is a point I’ve made many times in the past, usually in the context of privileged conservatives trying to cast themselves as victims.

Athenae at First Draft:

Your vague resentment of a public worker’s pension doesn’t mean he shouldn’t eat.

Your unnerved-ness about gay people doesn’t mean someone else should be prevented from receiving full equality under the l aw.

Your discomfort with abortion doesn’t mean a woman should die from a medical procedure.

Your belief in God doesn’t mean an atheist owes you something.

And once and for all time, mah fellow white peoples, your itch when you see a black dude you do not know is not something black people are required to indulge by dying.

People keep trotting out “sincere beliefs” as the reason their idiocies should be tolerated, as the reason minority groups or anyone they consider “other” should continue to be beaten down. As if the foibles of the fearful are equivalent to the beat of a human heart.

You’re entitled to your opinion. You’re even entitled to your “sincere belief,” as misguided, or, indeed, wackaloon, as it be. But you’re not entitled to have your feelings, your opinions, your sincere beliefs indulged at every turn, and you’re sure as hell not entitled to that indulgence if your tender fee-fees have a body count. Indeed, all you’re entitled to then is ridicule, or worse.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014 9:52 pm

(Pop) art, life, and American journalism

So Athenae at First Draft watched all the episodes of Aaron Sorkin’s now-defunct show “The Newsroom” so that I didn’t have to. And in reflecting on the last episode, she crosses some of the show’s content and character with a recent tweet by NYU journalism prof Jay Rosen [not linked, at least for now, because Jay’s account has been suspended for some reason] to come up with this:

Nobody’s coming to save American journalism. Nobody’s coming to save anybody who gives a s—. Nobody, not Charlie Skinner and not Will McAvoy and not even Maggie Jordan — Maggie whose transformation is one of my favorite things about this show, Maggie who just wanted to work — is gonna fix this now. Nobody’s the future and nobody’s the savior and nobody is going to rescue Atlantis Cable News. Lucas Pruitt is a [bleep] and will always be. That fight is always going to be a fight.

Hear that, hear what it actually means. That condemnation is its own redemption. No one is coming to save you. Repeat after me. Nobody is coming to save you. So save your own [bleep] [bleep] glorious selves. Think about the freedom of that. Think about the way it unties you, shoves you off the cliff, and trusts you to fly.

It’s up to you. I talk about this all the time in my offline and online lives, in my life: If you give a [bleep] about something you are the one who is morally obligated to act, so spare me your peroration on how you’d show up at the protest if only the other people there were dressed the way you wanted them dressed. Spare me the opinion columns about the wars you think other people’s children should fight, the wars you yourself have such a good reason for not fighting.

And once and for all time spare me the [bleep] St. Crispin’s Day speech you’ll deliver ten minutes before saying you have to go home to pay your bills and put your kids to bed so once more unto the breach, all you other [bleep] people. If just one more person Baby-Boomer-splains to me how they used to be idealistic and then they joined the real world I will lose it, I swear to God.

Stop WAITING. For God’s sake, stop being disappointed when no one comes. Stop hating everybody else for being stupid and trivial and obsessed, stop hating the technology at your disposal, stop hating the world you live in for not being the world you want to live in, and stop being so [bleep] willing to let yourself off the hook.

Work HARDER. Get better. Get up.

Nobody’s coming to save American journalism. Some observers have finally figured that out. And we’ve seen that right here in Greensboro, where billionaire Warren Buffett, the News & Record’s new(-ish) owner who has repeatedly professed his love for newspapers, has made it abundantly clear that he has no use for newspaper people. When the Batten family decided to get their money out of the news bidness and put the N&R and the Landmark chain’s other papers up for sale, Buffett was seen as a savior. Not so much, it has turned out.

At the front lines of journalism, reporters have to report. What’s  your best story? Give THAT to your editor, then, and forget the craven or just plain silly assignments that come down from the publisher and the executive editor and the managing editor. Your bosses might have a nose for real news, but my observation of American journalism leads me to think the odds are very much against it anymore. So, you with the laptop, you with the camera, you with the microphone, you with the blog: You’re it. You are all there is. Go get better, go do better. Because it’s you or nobody.

 

Tuesday, December 9, 2014 5:59 pm

The Senate torture report

I haven’t had a chance to read it yet. (You can download it here.) Here are five things you need to know as you read it.

1) “We should never, as a policy, maltreat people under our control, detainees. We tortured people unmercifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during the course of that, both the armed forces and the C.I.A.” — Gen. Barry McCaffrey, U.S. Army (ret.), April 20, 2009

2) “There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.” — Gen. Antonio Taguba, U.S. Army (ret.), June 18, 2008

3) The “report” being released today is merely a heavily redacted, 600-page executive summary. The full report runs to about 6,000 pages.

4) In the words of The Intercept’s Dan Froomkin, “Many of the same news organizations you are trusting today to accurately inform you about the torture report were either naive or knowing dupes in a CIA misinformation campaign orchestrated by top CIA officials, that included leaks of information that was amazingly enough both classified and inaccurate at the same time.” So you’ll want to be very, very cautious about accepting any news report that seeks to minimize or defend the torture program.

 5) Some additional background from Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept:

One of the worst myths official Washington and its establishment media have told itself about the torture debate is that the controversy is limited to three cases of waterboarding at Guantánamo and a handful of bad Republican actors. In fact, a wide array of torture techniques were approved at the highest levels of the U.S. Government and then systematically employed in lawless US prisons around the world – at Bagram (includingduring the Obama presidency), CIA black sites, even to US citizens on US soil. So systematic was the torture regime that a 2008 Senate reportconcluded that the criminal abuses at Abu Ghraib were the direct result of the torture mentality imposed by official Washington.

American torture was not confined to a handful of aberrational cases or techniques, nor was it the work of rogue CIA agents. It was an officially sanctioned, worldwide regime of torture that had the acquiescence, if not explicit approval, of the top members of both political parties in Congress. It was motivated by far more than interrogation. The evidence for all of this is conclusive and overwhelming. And the American media bears much of the blame, as they refused for years even to use the word “torture” to describe any of this (even as they called these same techniques “torture” when used by American adversaries), a shameful and cowardly abdication that continues literally to this day in many of the most influential outlets.

I expect that even the edited, redacted document we now have will confirm a lot of ugly things we already knew and tell us about even more ugly things we hadn’t known. But the truth needs to be made public so that we at least will know what the U.S. government has done in our name, whether or not the individuals responsible are ever brought to justice.

I understand that many Americans had, and have today, no problem with our torturing people. That doesn’t make it any more effective. And it doesn’t make it any more right.

I’ve been raising questions and raising hell about this issue for more than a decade, ever since the possibility that we were torturing first reared its ugly head months before the news broke about Abu Ghraib. And while there are a lot of issues with many shades of gray, this one, to me, is black and white. Despite quite a bit of criticism here and elsewhere online, I’ve not lost a minute’s sleep on this position, because whatever else happens, I don’t ever have to worry about my kids or grandkids asking me, “Why are people calling you a good German?”

 

Saturday, November 29, 2014 1:59 pm

Quote of the Day, John McCain edition

From one of Charlie Pierce’s commenters, Deborah Weiss:

This corrupt, wizened brat is the sum and personification of outraged white privilege. He’s a man who inherited his luck and married his fortune. It doesn’t get much whiter than that.

He has never reconciled his loss to someone he sees (deep within in his primordial Republican brain) as wearing a little red jacket and offering him a martini from a silver salver. The loss to a worthy black opponent has unmanned him. It has overwhelmed him at a level so primitive it is obscene to observe–it turns the rest of us into shameless voyeurs. This is the right-wing Id in action.

Thursday, November 27, 2014 9:39 am

Today I am thankful for …

Filed under: Uncategorized — Lex @ 9:39 am
Tags:

… health, family, friends, prosperity, and a country so great that not even 35 years’ worth of the best efforts of waterheads, mouthbreathers, knuckle-draggers, and straight-up sociopaths has managed to totally screw it up. Yet.

Be well and be safe.

Sunday, November 23, 2014 10:38 am

“You have the right to remain silent … and wouldn’t that be a nice change.”

Grandmother Attempts Citizen Arrest of Ted Cruz for Being an Arrogant [Expletive]

WASHINGTON — Tiny 83-year-old Ida Stanley was taken into police custody early today after she attempted to handcuff and haul away Senator Ted Cruz for “crimes against sanity.”

“Rafael Edward Cruz, I hereby arrest you for being an egotistical [expletive],” Mrs. Stanley shouted in front of media cameras as she approached the Junior Senator from Texas outside one of his D.C. homes.

It’s a satire site, in case that wasn’t obvious. But don’t you wish it were real?

Thursday, November 20, 2014 7:45 pm

Here’s where a good part of the middle class went — and what Obama could do to fix it

Welp, in today’s blind-pig category, self-described “wealthy capitalist” Nick Hanauer identifies one reason why the middle class is weaker than it used to be.

And he does it in the pages of Politico, which will never be mistaken for a publication interested in the concerns of the middle class (or, to be more forthright, will never be mistaken for a publication interested in interrupting the greatest theft from the middle class in history).

If you’re in the American middle class—or what’s left of it—here’s how you probably feel. You feel like you’re struggling harder than your parents did, working longer hours than ever before, and yet falling further and further behind. The reason you feel this way is because most of you are—falling further behind, that is. Adjusted for inflation, average salaries have actually dropped since the early 1970s, while hours for full-time workers have steadily climbed.

Meanwhile, a handful of wealthy capitalists like me are growing wealthy beyond our parents’ wildest dreams, in large part because we’re able to take advantage of your misfortune.

So what’s changed since the 1960s and ’70s? Overtime pay, in part. Your parents got a lot of it, and you don’t. And it turns out that fair overtime standards are to the middle class what the minimum wage is to low-income workers: not everything, but an indispensable labor protection that is absolutely essential to creating a broad and thriving middle class. In 1975, more than 65 percent of salaried American workers earned time-and-a-half pay for every hour worked over 40 hours a week. Not because capitalists back then were more generous, but because it was the law. It still is the law, except that the value of the threshold for overtime pay—the salary level at which employers are required to pay overtime—has been allowed to erode to less than the poverty line for a family of four today. Only workers earning an annual income of under $23,660 qualify for mandatory overtime. You know many people like that? Probably not. By 2013, just 11 percent of salaried workers qualified for overtime pay, according to a report published by the Economic Policy Institute. And so business owners like me have been able to make the other 89 percent of you work unlimited overtime hours for no additional pay at all.

And he points out a way that the problem can be fixed, singlehandedly, by the president.

The president could, on his own, restore federal overtime standards to where they were at their 1975 peak, covering the same 65 percent of salaried workers who were covered 40 years ago. If he did that, about 10.4 million Americans would suddenly be earning a lot more than they are now. Last March, Obama asked the Labor Department to update “outdated” regulations that mean, as the president put it in his memo, “millions of Americans lack the protections of overtime and even the right to the minimum wage.” But Obama was not specific about the changes he wanted to see.

So let me be specific. To get the country back to the same equitable standards we had in 1975, the Department of Labor would simply have to raise the overtime threshold to $69,000. In other words, if you earn $69,000 or less, the law would require that you be paid overtime when you worked more than 40 hours a week. That’s 10.4 million middle-class Americans with more money in their pockets or more time to spend with friends and family. And if corporate America didn’t want to pay you time and a half, it would need to hire hundreds of thousands of additional workers to pick up the slack—slashing the unemployment rate and forcing up wages.

But … but … wouldn’t this be bad for business?

But here’s a little secret from the corner office: The arguments that the corporate lobbyists are making—about how badly business will be hurt—just don’t add up. What is adding up instead is the trillions of dollars in corporate profits and stock gains that corporations have made over the same decades that your hours climbed and your wages fell. From 1950 to 1980, during the good old days of U.S. economic might—the era in which the Great American Middle Class was created—corporate profits averaged a healthy 6 percent of GDP. But since then, corporate profits have doubled to more than 12 percent of GDP. That’s about a trillion dollars more a year in profit. And since then, wages as a percentage of GDP have fallen, you guessed it, by about the same 6 percent or 7 percent of GDP. Coincidence? Probably not. What very few Americans seem to understand is that that extra trillion dollars isn’t profit because it had to be, or needs to be or should be. That extra trillion dollars is profit because powerful people like me prefer it to be. It could have been spent on your wages. Or it could have gone into discounts to you, the consumer. We capitalists will tell you that our increasing profits are the result of some complex economic force with the immutability and righteousness of divine law. But the truth is, it is simply a result of a difference in negotiating power. As in, we have it. And you don’t. …

Of course, capitalists like me will tell you that when we cut into profits, the entire economy is damaged. And think of all the investment that corporate profits make possible. What do executives like me do with all that extra money? Why, invest in creating good-paying jobs for middle-class Americans like you, of course.

Unfortunately, that’s not exactly true either. Mostly, we use profits to manipulate our stock price for personal gain.

Here’s a little history that will explain how: Back in the 1970s, when the share of total U.S. income that the top 0.1 percent of households got was at a 100-year low, corporate executives received most of their compensation in the form of a salary, just like you. But since the late 1980s, the largest component of income for the top 0.1 percent has been stock-based pay. This shift toward compensation via stock options and grants means that CEOs are directly incentivized to increase the share price of their company’s stock.

Building better products that lead to higher sales and fatter margins are the traditional way for a CEO to push up the price of his stock. But that’s so old-fashioned. So yesterday. Instead, ever since a former Wall Street CEO in charge of the Securities and Exchange Commission back in 1982 loosened the rules that define stock manipulation (beginning to see a historical pattern here?), U.S. corporations have increasingly resorted to stock buybacks to prop up share prices.

(Aside on this point: There is an economic climate in which taking this action would have the effect that the corporate critics say — a climate of wage inflation and full or near-full employment. But we’re nowhere near either and haven’t been in decades.)

The president is going to announce his new, unilateral immigration policy in a few minutes, and that’s good. It’s so good, in fact, that Congressional Republicans have threatened to impeach him over it (although Reagan and Bush 41 did basically the same thing) is gravy.

That’s no reason not to change immigration policy. But if the president really wants to pick a hill to die on, this is the one. It benefits pretty much every wage earner making less than $70,000 a year (and the median total household income in this country is only about $53,000). It would pump up the economy significantly, directly benefiting the Americans who most need the help. It would be a strong substantive AND symbolic response to the complaints of voters in the 2014 elections that Democrats weren’t hearing their concerns about the economy. And it’s just the right thing to do on the merits.

Unfortunately, as Hanauer points out, there’s little indication that Obama understands why this is the right thing to do. Perhaps you can help him out on that one.

Hanauer agrees that that’s the right thing to do — for purely selfish reasons:

Contact the White House. Do it for yourself. Or, at the very least, have the courtesy to do it for me. Because honestly, I’m beginning to run out of customers.

Electric Light Orchestra: Roll Over, Beethoven

Filed under: Fun — Lex @ 6:58 am
Tags: , ,

Because it’s Throwback Thursday (#tbt), y’all:

Tuesday, November 18, 2014 11:34 am

“This is the world I want to live in.”

*sniff* Dusty in here.

Monday, November 17, 2014 8:38 am

UNC System tuition: “A failure of liberal thought” … and much more than that

Mike Konczal at the Roosevelt Institute writes:

“There was a quiet revolution in the University of North Carolina higher education system in August, one that shows an important limit of current liberal thought. … The UNC System Board of Governors voted unanimously to cap the amount of tuition that may be used for financial aid for need-based students at no more than 15 percent. With tuition going up rapidly at public universities as the result of public disinvestment, administrators have recently begun using general tuition to supplement their ability to provide aid. This cross-subsidization has been heralded as a solution to the problem of high college costs. Sticker price is high, but the net price for poorer students will be low.

“This system works as long as there is sufficient middle-class buy-in, but it’s now capped at UNC. As a board member told the local press, the burden of providing need-based aid “has become unfairly apportioned to working North Carolinians,” and this new policy helps prevent that. …

“The problem for liberals isn’t just that there’s no way for them to win this argument with middle-class wages stagnating, though that is a problem. The far bigger issue for liberals is that this is a false choice, a real class antagonism that has been created entirely by the process of state disinvestment, privatization, cost-shifting of tuitions away from general revenues to individual, and the subsequent explosion in student debt. As long as liberals continue to play this game, they’ll be undermining their chances.”

I get that it’s Konczal’s job to write about the strengths and limits of liberal thought, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But if we focus only on the thought, we overlook the real-world consequences, which are: In a state in which the constitution requires UNC System tuition to be as nearly free as is practicable, we’re making it harder and harder for the state’s citizens to get a university education just so that we can keep the tax burden on the wealthy low.

That’s both immoral and, from a purely practical standpoint, very shortsighted. For 220 years, UNC has been the greatest economic driver North Carolina has. The education the system has provided has immeasurably enriched every sector of the state’s economy — agriculture, industry, medicine, tourism, you name it. The shortest way out of the problem of stagnating wages that Konczal describes is to invest in human capital. When we make it harder for the state’s citizens to get a university education, we are, economically speaking, cutting our own throats. That’s not just wrong, it’s asinine.

Unfortunately for the state, however, the GOP controls state government and the UNC System board, meaning that asininity, shortsightedness and greed are just the currency of the culture.

Saturday, November 15, 2014 1:56 pm

All kinds of awesome: “Pieholes should be quiet.”

Filed under: Cool!,Religion — Lex @ 1:56 pm
Tags:

I don’t know which is better about this, that a little girl is trying to shout down an amplified street preacher or that the street preacher is very politely ignoring her, thereby, in at least a small way, living Christ’s teachings. Me, I found myself pulling for both of them.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014 6:04 am

“If I ever figure out an answer, I’ll write it down.”

Filed under: Say a prayer — Lex @ 6:04 am
Tags: , , ,

Don Marsh on his experiences in “Operation Cobra,” the Allies’ Normandy breakout operation, July 1944:

Sooner or later you get to wash your clothes, but how do you cleanse your mind of such horrible memories? You don’t, you bring it home with you, among your souvenirs you can keep in a special place in a far corner of your mind. The door is never locked so you can visit the memory, if you are so inclined. Some do, some don’t. Years go bye and you have never given it any thought, then out of the blue something clicks in your brain and the whole scene appears again in Technicolor. To me the burning question is always “why?” If I ever figure out an answer, I’ll write it down so that others don’t forget.

Wilfred Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum Est” doesn’t mean quite what you think (or what *I* thought)

Filed under: Salute!,Say a prayer — Lex @ 6:00 am

Army officer Robert Bateman, a historian, dove a little deeper last year to show that the punch line of Owen’s classic poem was based in part on a historical misunderstanding:

Between the time when he was blown into the sky by mortars at the age of 22 and when he was shot dead by machine gun fire at 25, he wrote some poetry, the finest bit of which is partially stolen from the Roman orator Horace. It was repurposed by Owen. Dulce et Decorum Est, Pro Patria Mori. Owen had been taught that Patria meant “your country.” He called this sentiment, “the old lie.” You should read this poem, because it is beautiful, before you read my critique.

..But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime…
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
…the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin…

Owen shows us, up close, the inhumanity of war. Then in the final lines he mocks the notion that it is sweet or right to die for one’s country. To do this, he repurposes a bit of Latin from the Roman orator Horace:

…The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

See, early in the war, the British government had used Horace to encourage enlistment by appealing to the population’s Edwardian sense of duty. In 1917, Owen would have understood, “Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori” as something like, “It is beautiful and right that one should die for one’s country.” Nationalism and propaganda colored Owen’s interpretation of Horace, and I appreciate his resentment. But I think Horace’s words can be understood differently — not as an old lie, but as a shared truth.

Pardon, for a moment, my amateur translation of the Latin. It is tinged and informed by history. Dulce roughly means, “correct and/or peaceful/beautiful/sweet.” The word “et” is the same now as it was then, “and.”

The next word, “Decorum” carries some freight. “Right” and “Proper” is often how it is translated now, but in context it means, I think, “according with the values of your society.”

“Est” is merely “is.”

“Pro Patria Mori” is a little complex. Pro means “for,” and “Patria” is, essentially, your country. Okay, no. That is not exactly right. That is just what Owens was brought up to think that it meant. In reality it sort of means, “The folks what brung you up.” Or maybe, “Your peeps.”

See, the problem is that the word “patria,” as it is often translated, is that the idea of a “country,” or a “nation” is a more modern invention than Horace, or any Roman, would have recognized. They did not think in terms of “countries,” and so Latin did not have words that talked about what we would recognize as countries. I think Horace would approve of my deconstruction. (No, I am not a Derridean.)

So the sum can be seen, Owen’s interpretation of, Dulce et Decorum est,” labeled by a man who saw war and called this “the old lie,” came out this way: “It is beautiful and right that one should die for one’s country.” But Wilfred was wrong. That is not his fault. He was a poet, not a historian.

Dulce et Décorum Est, Pro Patria Mori, should be translated this way: “Fighting and possibly Dying for your friends and family to protect and defend them, as you have been taught, is the right thing to do.” Nationalism and Propaganda colored Owens’ interpretation, and I understand his resentment. Horace had been used by the British government early in the War to encourage enlistment out of a sense of Edwardian duty. That is not Owens’ fault, he was reacting to his own nation — not the actual history.

But even knowing this, the dead march through my dreams. They are my friends, my soldiers, my cadets-turned-officers, my enemies, dead in their many ways, but dead all the same. For the same reason, friend and foe, they are dead. Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori.

And so, today, I ask you to remember them. All of them, because in the end, they died believing.

Friday, November 7, 2014 11:03 pm

This puppy has unashamedly staked out his top priority and is pursuing it with vicious, relentless focus that we all ought to admire.

Filed under: Fun — Lex @ 11:03 pm
Tags:

In a few minutes, in fact, I’m going to emulate him:

Tuesday, November 4, 2014 6:30 am

It’s 6:30 a.m., North Carolina. Do you know where your ballot is?

Polls are now open in North Carolina, so if you haven’t already, VOTE! It annoys the bastards.™

Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:47 am

For what it’s worth, I think Ol’ Roy is lying

I haven’t written much about the academic scandal at UNC-Chapel Hill, even though I got my master’s degree there, for one simple reason: I haven’t had a chance to read the Wainstein report, let alone the 900-page supplement, in which some of the worst dirt is said to be found. But what I have gleaned from media reports is bad enough: a rogue academic program of which a rogue athletic program took full advantage. There was an utter lack of institutional control — a lack that should lead to serious repercussions, and not only from the NCAA (as if).

What went on at UNC, involving roughly 3,100 students during an 18-year period, dwarfs what happened at Southern Methodist University, whose football program actually got the NCAA’s death penalty almost 30 years ago for paying 21 football players a total of $61,000. (That remains the only case in the modern era of the penalty’s being imposed on a Division I revenue-sport program.) If this doesn’t merit the NCAA’s death penalty, what does?

But I also think that this situation calls for God’s own proctological exam from the college’s accrediting body, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. SACSCOC could, at the extreme, withdraw accreditation from UNC. Without accreditation, the university’s students no longer would be eligible for financial aid. And without that eligibility, much of the university would collapse from lack of cash. Large state universities are not as overwhelmingly dependent upon tuition revenue as are small, private colleges, but loss of accreditation would be an existential threat to UNC-Chapel Hill. And, frankly, I’m not sure it isn’t deserved.

I don’t say that lightly. I’m all too aware that the long knives already are out for the university at the hands of the state’s Republicans. And I acknowledge right up front that any such punishment would fall overwhelmingly on the heads of students, faculty, and staff who had nothing to do with the fraud and would suffer unjustly as a result. But I still think it needs to be said, needs to be talked about, because I’m not sure what else will get it through people’s heads, at Carolina and throughout college revenue sports, that if we’re going to have rules, we must abide by them. (Whether the rules we have are actually the rules we need is a separate discussion, albeit one I’m willing to enter with a very open mind.)

At UNC, although fewer than half the students involved were athletes, a disproportionate number of basketball players took advantage of sham classes in the African and Afro-American Studies department to remain academically eligible to play, including members of the 2005 national-championship team. And we’re being asked to believe that Coach Roy Williams and his predecessors — Matt Doherty, Bill Guthridge, even the sainted Dean Smith — didn’t know about it.

My friend and former colleague Ed Hardin says in today’s News & Record (column not online) that he believes Williams didn’t know, although he argues that Williams should have known. I don’t disagree with Ed lightly on matters athletic because he knows a hell of a lot more about them than I do. But I know deception as well as anyone. And what Williams says is too clever by half.

See, if he really didn’t know anything, then why would he admit that, as Ed puts it, “his only concern was that too many of his players were in the AFAM classes and that he never met with [whistleblower] Mary Willingham”? If he truly knew nothing, why even bring up those classes? If he truly were concerned with honesty, why not meet with Willingham?

No, I think Roy screwed up here in trying to make it look like he wasn’t completely an idiot. Unfortunately, complete idiocy is the only condition congruent with a claim that he knew nothing about the academic fraud. Otherwise, what he did amounts to willful ignorance, which, for a man in his position as head coach of a nationally ranked revenue-sport program, is complicity, full stop. Perhaps he might not have known all the details, but he had to know that his program was dirty and had been for years.

And as far as the bigger picture goes, we’ve basically been asked to believe that one rogue academic counselor and one rogue professor were the masterminds of a program through which 3,100 students over 18 years defrauded the university and were themselves defrauded in return. To put it politely, that hypothesis beggars belief. I think Roy knew, and Doherty, and Guthridge, and Smith. I think athletic director Bubba Cunningham knew, and John Swofford before him.

And I think the NCAA’s death penalty ought to be the least of UNC’s worries.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:04 pm

More local stupidity on same-sex marriage

Courtesy of Shi’ite Christian Joe Guarino, who, unfortunately, speaks for a nontrivial number of other Americans:

The phenomenon of the liberal mainline Protestant denomination is relatively recent in the context of history.  But entire groups are now unfortunately caught in this particular cesspool of scriptural revisionism.  Many of these have endorsed same sex marriage publicly; have allowed practicing homosexuals to serve as clergy; and/or have allowed same sex marriages to be conducted in their churches.

Let’s list some of these denominations:

1. The Presbyterian Church (USA): This is the denominational home of Senator Kay Hagan and the Republican judge who helped solidify gay marriage in North Carolina– Bill Osteen.  But it is also the largest Presbyterian denomination in the United States.  The group, by the way, happens to be pro-abortion.

2. The Episcopal Church: This particular denomination even permits gay bishops.  It is the predominant Anglican denomination in the United States.

3.  United Church of Christ: This denomination came out in favor of gay marriage nearly ten years ago.  It was at the “forefront” of encouraging this change.

4. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America: Gay/lesbian clergy were first allowed during 2009.  The denomination now has a gay bishop.  This is the predominant group of Lutherans in the United States; and it is also pro-abortion.

5. The Alliance of Baptists is a group of progressive Baptists, not a denomination.  But it is quite clear where they stand.  They also are pro-abortion.  The American Baptist Churches and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship allow individual churches to make their own decisions on these issues.

African-American churches are not monolithic on gay marriage.  Some hold traditional views on marriage and sexuality; but a number began to support gay marriage when Obama and the democratic socialists overtly crossed that threshold a couple of years ago.

There is another group on the other side of the spectrum, directly opposite the liberal mainline denominations. I will collectively refer to these as orthodox Christians.  These include devout members of the following faith traditions: Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, evangelicals, other conservative Protestants and Mormons.

Unfortunately, many of the liberal mainline denominations have elected to embrace sin and immorality.  They have collectively decided to reject and revise scriptural teaching on matters related to sexuality, reproduction and the family.  They have engaged in rationalizations, and have explicitly repudiated God’s natural design for these items.  And some of these denominations have unfortunately become thoroughly permeated with evil and apostasy under the guise of extending “rights” and tolerance and “justice”.

For Christians, the issue of homosexuality requires a proper balance between extending God’s grace and upholding God’s righteousness.  That balance has unfortunately gone askew within these faith traditions.

The various liberal mainline denominations have helped enable legal changes that take away the religious liberty of orthodox Christians.   They have inevitably made themselves the enemies and de facto persecutors of orthodox Christians.  This is an utterly tragic situation.  The new institution of gay marriage is simply incompatible with religious liberty for orthodox Christians.

So much DERP in so little text.

Let’s grant for the sake of discussion that the liberalization of mainstream Protestant denominations has in fact contributed to the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage, a phenomenon that Guarino calls “relatively recent in the context of history” as if that’s something bad. Guess what? Opposition to slavery also is “relatively recent in the context of history,” in the U.S. (where it persisted for 250 years) and worldwide. And opposition to slavery, and to its toxic remnants such as Jim Crow, by mainline Protestant denominations also is relatively recent; the Southern Baptists, a denomination born in adherence to slavery, didn’t get around to apologizing for it until only about 20 years ago. That long delay was a good thing?

Guarino also goes sideways in claiming that to accept and bless same-sex marriage is to “reject and revise scriptural teaching on matters related to sexuality, reproduction and the family.” Sorry, Joe, but according to my King James, Jesus says the same thing today that he said 2,000 years ago: Your greatest obligation is to love God; your second greatest obligation, and the way you carry out your greatest obligation, is to love your neighbor as yourself; and everything else in Scripture as it was understood in the time of Jesus — all the Law and the Prophets — is to be understood in the context of those two great commandments. Nothing has changed about that in 2,000 years, despite Guarino’s sloppy attempt to recast a belated willingness to comply with these commands into the scriptural equivalent of judicial activism.

Guarino calls understanding Jesus’s great commandments in that way “rationalizations,” although Jesus made them very clear and easy to understand because he knew how difficult they would be for bigots like Guarino to obey and he wanted no confusion on the issue. He also charges that these denominations “have explicitly repudiated God’s natural design” on matters of sex and reproduction, again overlooking Jesus’s clear direction on how that design as presented in the Law and the Prophets was meant to be understood.

He claims that some Christians “have unfortunately become permeated with evil and apostasy under the guise of extending ‘rights’ and tolerance and ‘justice,'” when Jesus made it quite clear that to arrogate to oneself what one would deny to others, as Guarino advocates, violates one the two Great Commandments. Worse, he implies that he and people who think as he does not only have the right to speak for all Christians, but also that they have the right and duty to use the powers of a secular government to impose that viewpoint not only on all Christians but also on all Americans.

This is not Christianity. This is both blasphemy and theocratic totalitarianism. It is, in a word, bullshit from both a theological and a constitutional standpoint. And because a nontrivial number of Americans believe as he does, it is a danger to our freedom.

The Framers wrote the Constitution precisely to protect us from the likes of Joe Guarino and his ilk. Guarino and they that ilk are the evil ones, and they need to confess and repent.

Monday, October 27, 2014 8:39 pm

In which Lt. Gov. Dan Forest writes me. And I write back.

Sweet baby Jeebus, but Teh_Stoopid is strong with my lite gov. He writes:

Lex —

Over the last two weeks, those of us who have publically offered that the states, rather than federal circuit and district courts, have the constitutional authority to make decisions on marriage have been met with derision by liberals.

Unfair name-calling and allegations of bigotry have reached ridiculous levels aimed at those of us who are defending the constitution.

The following is a quote from the United States Supreme Court on who holds the balance of power between the federal government and the state governments when it comes to marriage. See if you can guess which Justices signed off on it.

The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders”). The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the “[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.” Ibid. “[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce . . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562, 575 (1906); see also In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-594 (1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States”).

Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations. . .. Federal courts will not hear divorce and custody cases even if they arise in diversity because of “the virtually exclusive primacy . . . of the States in the regulation of domestic relations.” Id., at 714. (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment).

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379 (1930).

This must have been Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas, right? Possibly Justice Alito or Chief Justice Roberts? Maybe a justice from the early 1900s or the late 1800s? If those were your guesses, you would be wrong.

The quote is from the majority opinion United States v. Windsor, a case from 2013. The Justice who wrote the quote? Justice Anthony Kennedy. The Justices who joined him in this quote? Four of the most liberal justices to sit on our nation’s highest court: Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

We stand for the State’s authority to legally define marriage. And we have over two-hundred years of constitutional jurisprudence on our side. It is the name-callers who seek to rewrite the constitution out of whole cloth by judicial order.

-Lt. Governor Dan Forest

http://www.danforest.com/

So, being an attentive correspondent, I wrote him back:

Dear Lt. Gov. Forest:

The current Supreme Court has undone a total of centuries’ worth of settled law with no complaint from you, so it is more than a little precious that you’re now complaining that SCOTUS has undone some settled law in a way of which you happen to disapprove.

You fail to grasp that the question at issue in the recent legal proceedings wasn’t “defining marriage,” but one of an extraordinary — and unconstitutional — infringement upon the First Amendment free-exercise rights of religious organizations that wished to perform same-sex marriages. Even if you ignore the rights of the individuals involved (which you have seemed all too willing to do), the state cannot restrict the free-exercise rights of churches absent a compelling state interest — and no state government, anywhere, has been able to convince the Supreme Court that any such interest is even close enough to existence for four justices to vote to hear a case on the subject.

Your argument has been weighed and found wanting, so shut up, go away, and stop wasting my tax money trying to carry out unconstitutional restrictions of religious freedom.

Love Your constituent only until we can get rid of you,

Lex

I realize there will always be dead-enders, but, dude: 1) You lost. Get over it. And 2) You either don’t understand the issues involved, or you understand them and are lying about them, either of which disqualifies you from holding political office in any sane world. I realize that the likeliest explanation for your behavior is that you’re positioning yourself to seek the Republican gubernatorial nomination in 2020 — or in 2016 if McCrory goes wobbly on the Koch-ALEC agenda — but fat, dumb, and pandering to the mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers is no way to go through life, son.

I do so look forward to the day that North Carolina can bundle all this DERP back to Bat Country where it came from. A village in Mississippi has misplaced its idiot in our state capital.

Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:45 pm

Someone needs to cut the legs from under Lieutenant Dan

As if we have not been subjected to far too much of Teh_Stoopid already with regard to same-sex marriage in North Carolina, now comes Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Forest to try to make political hay off the issue:

If you’ve been paying attention to the media, you’ve been told numerous times from opponents of North Carolina’s Marriage Amendment that the fight is over, and that they have won. That is not the case. The following is a realistic scenario that could lead to a constitutional showdown between the state and federal systems as to which court, outside the Supreme Court of the United States, has the legal authority to rule on North Carolina’s marriage amendment.

Last week, the Administrative Office of the Courts directed magistrates that they could not refuse to perform a same-sex marriage, no matter what the reason, including their personal moral and religious objections. This directive informed them that failure to comply could result in removal from office and criminal penalties. In response, our state needs but one magistrate to legally challenge the edict sent down from the Administrative Office of the Courts on two grounds.

The first ground is that the memorandum directs him to violate his religious conscience, thereby violating his right to religious freedom preserved by the North Carolina and United States Constitutions. In particular, the North Carolina Constitution provides that “all persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.”

The second ground is to assert that the memo directs him to contravene the North Carolina Constitution by performing a ceremony that is not recognized by law, and is in fact, prohibited by the marriage amendment. You may wonder how that is possible after Judge Cogburn’s ruling purporting to strike down our amendment. That is one of the beauties of federalism. As succinctly stated by North Carolina’s Supreme Court in the case of State v. McDowell: “A state court should exercise and apply its own independent judgment, treating, of course, decisions of the United States Supreme Court as binding and according to decisions of lower federal courts such persuasiveness as these decisions might reasonably command.” North Carolina case law is clear. Decisions of the Fourth Circuit and federal district courts, while persuasive, are not binding on state courts.

Should this case reach the Supreme Court of North Carolina, a vote by our honorable justices exercising their own independent judgment to uphold the amendment overwhelmingly approved by the people would set up the very real possibility that the United States Supreme Court would hear arguments, having a split on the issue between a state court and the Fourth Circuit.

The constitutional showdown is a very real possibility. Supporters of marriage should not lose heart. The voice of the people will be heard.

So much legal FAIL here.

Just for starters, the mere fact that the wording of Amendment One, which banned same-sex marriage in this state, nominally remains a part of the N.C. Constitution does not mean that the prohibition has any legal force. Sodomy remains a felony under North Carolina law, even when it involves married heterosexual couples, but the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas rendered that statute unenforceable. The high court’s refusal to hear appeals of federal appeals courts’ strikedowns of same-sex marriage bans has the same effect on Amendment One, and no amount of clapping by Dan Forest changes that legal fact.

It’s entirely possible that Forest is ignorant of that fact, but the likelier scenario is that he’s playing to the mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging GOP base — to primary McCrory from the right if McCrory goes squishy on the Koch/Pope agenda between now and 2016, or to run in 2020 when McCrory is term-limited out (assuming McCrory wins re-election, which is by no means a lock at this point). The fact that this approach is about as cynical and disingenuous as a politician can get anymore without bringing up voter fraud is just icing on the cake for Forest.

Unsurprisingly, his blog isn’t accepting comments on that post. The good news, my Greensboro friends, is that we have an opportunity to speak directly to Dan Forest on this issue.

He’ll be holding a town hall at 6 p.m. Oct. 28 at the Oak Branch Conference and Events Center, 23 Oak Branch Drive (map). The purpose of the event is to drum up support for a Constitutional Convention — a gathering of the states for the purpose of wholesale rewriting of the U.S. Constitution. That way lies madness — no limit need be placed on any such convention’s agenda, so who knows what insanity might get put up to an instant vote without care or consideration — but it also is highly unlikely that anyone can rally enough votes to make such a convention happen anytime soon. Instead, this town hall offers the sane among the populace the opportunity to get up in Forest’s face, live and in concert, and ask him:

Just how goddamn stupid do you think we are?

 

Good news: Big damn hero running for Congress in 6th District. Bad news: It’s another state’s 6th District.

Filed under: Cool!,I want my country back.,Salute! — Lex @ 8:39 pm
Tags:

Walter Robinson, a reporter for the Boston Globe and a Vietnam War veteran, has made a kind of cottage industry of blowing up politicians’ overblown claims about their military records. And so it was that when he began looking into the military background of Seth Moulton, the Democratic Party’s nominee for the 6th Congresssional District seat in Massachusetts, he might have been expecting to find that Moulton had, shall we say, overstated his military accomplishments.

But if he was, he was way wrong:

The American political graveyard has more than a few monuments to politicians and public officials who embellished details of their military service, in some cases laying claim to medals for heroism or other military honors they never received.

And then, uniquely, there is Seth W. Moulton, the Democratic nominee for Congress in the Sixth Congressional District, a former Marine who saw fierce combat for months and months in Iraq. But Moulton chose not to publicly disclose that he was twice decorated for heroism until pressed by the Globe.

In 2003 and 2004, during weeks-long battles with Iraqi insurgents, then-Lieutenant Moulton “fearlessly exposed himself to enemy fire” while leading his platoon during pitched battles for control of Nasiriyah and Najaf south of Baghdad, according to citations for the medals that the Globe requested from the campaign.

The Globe learned of the awards — the Bronze Star medal for valor and the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation medal for valor — after reviewing an official summary of Moulton’s five years of service, in which they were noted in military argot.

In an interview, Moulton said he considers it unseemly to discuss his own awards for valor. “There is a healthy disrespect among veterans who served on the front lines for people who walk around telling war stories,’’ he said. What’s more, Moulton said he is uncomfortable calling attention to his own awards out of respect to “many others who did heroic things and received no awards at all.’’ …

Even his parents did not know, and were told just this week, according to Scott Ferson, a campaign spokesman. …

Moulton won the Bronze Star medal for valor, the nation’s fourth-highest award for heroism under fire, for his actions over two consecutive days during an August 2004 battle for control of the strategic city of Najaf, one of Islam’s holiest cities. According to the citation and accompanying documentation, his platoon was attacked and pinned down by intense mortar, rocket, sniper, and machine-gun fire. With four of his Marines wounded, Moulton “fearlessly exposed himself to enemy fire,’’ moving among his men while ignoring incoming mortar rounds and sniper fire, and directing supporting fire that repelled the attack. The platoon again came under heavy fire the following day when Marines expelled soldiers from the Mahdi Army from another section of Najaf.

Moulton received the other medal for valor during the battle for Nasiriyah in March, 2003, the first major battle after the US invasion. Moulton’s platoon was credited with clearing a hostile stronghold. Later, Moulton rushed to the aid of a Marine who had been wounded by friendly artillery fire even though there was a chance that additional rounds might land at the same spot.

In the interview, Moulton asked that the Globe not describe him as a hero. “Look,’’ he said, “we served our country, and we served the guys next to us. And it’s not something to brag about.’

The greatest honor, he said, his voice choked with emotion, had nothing to do with the medals. “The greatest honor of my life was to lead these men in my platoon, even though it was a war that I and they disagreed with.”

I have no idea what kind of congresscritter Moulton would make. And in fairness, his openly gay Republican opponent (only in Massachusetts!), Richard Tisei, seems not to be the kind of slash-and-burn Republican who  has done so much damage to the nation in the past five years. But Moulton’s heroism combined with his modesty — his servant-leader approach — is certainly something Congress could use more of, military background or  not.

(h/t: Charlie Pierce)

 

 

Early voting has begun in North Carolina.

So vote. It annoys the bastards.

Monday, October 20, 2014 9:04 pm

They made their bed. Now let them damned well lie in it.

Driftglass on the insane Both-Siderism that keeps the American public from grasping just who’s really at fault:

The short history of modern American politics is as follows:

Conservatives poison the public well with paranoia, bigotry and plain bugfuck insanity while sabotaging the government on purpose to gain political and economic advantage.

Liberals point out that poisoning the public well and sabotaging the government are, y’know. bad things.

Centrists clutch their pearls until their palms bleed, and then blame their stigmata on both sides being equally unreasonable and mean.

All of this was on lurid display in this fascinating article in Esquire — “Help, We’re in a Living Hell and Don’t Know How to Get Out” — in which the author talks to 90 members of Congress and concludes that our the legislative branch is, well, this:

If you fastfood the article, the impression you would probably come away with is, Jebus, what a bunch of dysfunctional whinyass tittybabies.  [Bleep] ‘em all.

In other words, the GOP long-range plan to sow ruin and despair is working flawlessly.

The author of the article to which Driftglass links asks us to believe two things for which there are no facts in evidence: 1) that there are Republican congresscritters who are really disturbed about what their party has become, and 2) that the same forces of immoderation and insanity that fuel the GOP fuel, in mirror image, the more radical Democrats. He does the latter despite the fact that Democrats manifestly are NOT being primaried, with the help of enormous, shadowy money groups, because they were insufficiently fervent in their advocacy of single-payer, abortion rights, gun control, climate-change amelioration, or other items on the Left’s wish list. Far from it; it’s hard for those issues even to get a respectful hearing on the Democratic side of the aisle.

So, no, it’s not both sides. And Driftglass makes that case most eloquently even if the people in the national media who most need to see it never will.

Monday, October 13, 2014 9:11 pm

The U.S. media normalize batshit. They have done so for years. And The Washington Post finally notices. Hallelujah.

Recently, I took my local daily — the same local daily at which I toiled for 22 years — to task for, in Pat Moynihan’s deathless phrase, defining deviancy down among Republican political candidates. This is a theme I have written about numerous times, though usually with respect to national media, not local.

Now comes Paul Waldman at The Washington Post’s Plum Line blog to say that, hey, this is a thing:

… these judgments by reporters end up being self-fulfilling prophecies: if they decide that a “gaffe” is going to have serious political effects, they give it lots of attention, which creates serious political effects.

And in the last few years, there’s a baseline of crazy from the right that the press has simply come to expect and accept, so the latest conspiracy theorizing or far-out idea from a candidate no longer strikes them as exceptional. …

But during this cycle, Republican crazy just hasn’t broken through at all. It’s almost as if the national press has just come to accept as normal the degree to which the GOP has moved dramatically to the right. At this point so many prominent Republicans have said insane things that after a while they go by with barely a notice. This is an era when a prominent Republican governor who wants to be president can muse about the possibility that his state might secede from the union, when the most popular radio host in the country suggests that liberals like Barack Obama want Ebola to come to America to punish us for slavery, and when the President of the United States had to show his birth certificate to prove that he isn’t a foreigner.

So ideological extremism and insane conspiracy theories from the right have been normalized. Which means that when another Republican candidate says something deranged, as long as it doesn’t offend a key swing constituency, reporters don’t think it’s disqualifying. And so it isn’t.

It’s good to see one of America’s most influential news organizations taking note of this phenomenon. Except … well, I’ll let Driftglass spell it out:

Having written about this phenomenon literally thousands of times practically since the day I started blogging and having talked and thought and read about it since long before that, let me say that this “looking with alarm” recognition that the media routinely enables Conservative madness and depravity is so far too little and so far too late as to be darkly amusing.
Yes, I appreciate Mr. Waldeman’s work in The American Prospect.  And, yes, on one level  I get a tiny, childish surge of satisfaction at seeing this in a Major Murrica Newspaper .  But the sad upshot is this: in 2014, one person in one column has caught up to what Liberal bloggers have been writing about for over a decade and what pre-blogging Dirty Hippies have been screaming about all during the political metastasization of the Moral Majority…and death of the Fairness Doctrine…the rise of Hate Radio and Fox News…the relentless Right Wing conspiracies against the Clintons…the impeachment of Bill Clinton over trivia…and so forth.
So it is indeed a fine thing to read It’s almost as if the national press has just come to accept as normal the degree to which the GOP has moved dramatically to the right” in the Washington Post.   But to read it in 2014 feels a lot like reading a headline asking “Is American Facing An Economic  Depression?” in a major American newspaper … in 1938.
So far too little and so far too late as to be bleakly hilarious.
Although a nontrivial number of us stopped laughing a long time ago.
This phenomenon is merely one of the more toxic parts of an incredibly toxic tendency of American political journalism: the tendency to look at everything, everything, through the frame of “How will it affect a candidate’s polling?” without also, and first, examining issues and behavior on their merits or lack thereof. It’s more horse-race journalism, which is the last thing we need: It’s all speculative, and there is never any penalty for being wrong.
Examining issues on their merits would require real journalism be performed. And whether or not the reporter is correct would become far more obvious, with reportorial failure becoming far more difficult to ignore. So reporters avoid it and editors let them, if they don’t actively encourage them to do so.
And so our political discourse grows more and more meaningless, and more and more batshit people have the opportunity to create real trouble.

 

Thursday, October 9, 2014 8:40 pm

The single most important reason why we cannot elect another conservative president in my lifetime …

… is the federal bench in general and also, in particular, federal judges’ attitude toward the most precious and fundamental of our rights: the franchise. Charlie Pierce on SCOTUS’s recent stay of the 4th Circuit’s reinstating same-day voter registration and out-of-precinct voting in North Carolina:

There is a long, blue river of sadness running through the words of that dissent. It runs under the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Alabama. It pools into a lagoon of sadness behind an earthen dam in Mississippi. The survivors of the generation that fought and bled for the right to vote are getting old and dying off right now. John Lewis is 74. Soon, there won’t be any of them left. But it always was thought that the victories they won would survive them. That the real monument to their cause would be lines of the historically disenfranchised suddenly empowered, swamping the system, and realizing that elections in this country are meant to be the most powerful form of civil disobedience there is. And now, it looks very much as though powerful interests are in combination to make sure their victories die with them, here as we celebrate John Roberts’s Day of Jubilee. There is a long blue river of sadness running through those words, and a darkness spreading across its surface, and a long night is falling on the face of the water.

Conspiring to deny your fellow citizens their civil rights is a felony under federal law. But when a majority of the Supreme Court is among the co-conspirators, to whom do we turn?

No, both sides DON’T do it, Part the Infinity

Every time I or anyone else correctly points out the disproportionate influence of conservative spending on the American electoral process at both the federal and state levels, someone — either a liar or a useful idiot — usually pipes up with, “But the liberals do it, too!” In point of fact, a quick visit to OpenSecrets.org will show you that while both sides might do it, one side does it far more than the other, and that just happens to be the same side that also has been working for more private money and less transparency with respect to money in the political system. That money, in turn, leads to necrosis of our one-person, one-vote system.

In particular, every time I or anyone else points out the disproportionate influence of the Koch Bros.’ spending on the system, someone — either a liar or a useful idiot — usually pipes up with, “But … but … SOROS!” And, yes, billionaire George Soros does contribute a fair bit of money to liberal candidates and causes.

But nowhere near as much as do the Kochs. From an objective, mathematical standpoint, the comparison is just silly.

So, all you both-siders: You now know that you’re wrong. If you’re going to continue to insist on being a both-sider, I’d like to know: Which are you, liar or useful idiot?

« Previous PageNext Page »

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,954 other followers

%d bloggers like this: