Hello World

This post in Larry Lessig's blog, a response to a response to another one of Lessig's blog posts, is sooooooooooooo good. There is nothing I enjoy more than seeing a rhetorical blowhard hang on his own rope. In my mind, the jerk's face reddens with anger; he tears his battered hat off of his head and throws it to the ground; he stomps on it, cursing incoherently. That's right, I envision losers of online debates as an exasperated Yosemite Sam^*.

^* On a related note: I did an image search for "Yosemite Sam" and this page popped up. It's really good!

My internet friend Tim directed me to this column from the Penn State Antiquarian. It states, basically, that women enjoy being dragged around by their hair toward cavemen's domiciles. Some might argue that this junior meteorology major (and, I assume, virgin) doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about. For example, I am about to argue that.

Imagine if the world were a perfect place. Wouldn't it be great?

I think you'd have trouble arguing with the assertion that a perfect world wouldn't be great. But apparently Mr. Dimmich has magical powers, such that a perfect world... wouldn't be.

But let's get to his argument, which amounts to "gold-digging whores aren't willing to give up free drinks to be treated like human beings."

I've dated women who expected me to pay for everything on dates. I've dated women who expected to pay their share on dates. I've even dated women who paid for me on dates. Believe it or not, Mr. Dimmich, the girls who paid their share (or more) seemed pretty happy with their lives. Not only that, the dates weren't boring. Or at least, no more boring than any date with me ever is.

In a fair world, both men and women would have rifles in hand, ready challenge the enemy on the battlefield. Yet few feminists are yearning to fight wars or work blue collar jobs with long hours.

Somehow, Dimmich apparently managed to write this column from the front in Iraq and/or from the contruction site he clearly yearned to work at. No, wait, this strawman argument is completely idiotic, since plenty of women would be happy to serve in the military, and work jobs of all kinds. They just meet obstacles at every turn because of assholes like Dimmich.

A purely feminist society would dramatically change the family structure. In nature, females develop an inherent relationship with their young by bearing, nursing, and protecting them at a young age. This is why some of our earliest childhood memories involve, not our father, but our mother.

But I guess if some of our earliest childhood memories involve, not our father, but our mother, other of our earliest childhood memories probably involve, not our mother, but our father. I don't know, I'm not an expert in METEOROLOGY.

Dimmich finishes with a backpedalling weenieness appropriate for someone who has, in all likelihood, never touched a woman:

I'm not here to say what is right or wrong, but those who are fighting for equality need to keep in mind the changes that may occur if society adopted a true feminist perspective.

For those who think a feminist society would be utopia, the perfect society is anything but perfect. If women choose to fight for equality, they should be careful what they wish for.

So, basically, he's not telling anyone what to do. He's just saying that women should probably seriously consider it before they give up the chance to have him hold a door open for them, just so they can be treated as equals. Also, I think his understanding of modern feminism is pretty simplistic/archaic/wrong.

The real moral of this story is: women, please--don't nurse your children beyond grade school. And if you do, for god's sake, don't let them put their email addresses on their editorials.

This review of the live West Wing debate last night is hilariously biased (MSNBC and NBC are not entirely unconnected). Anyway, if you read the review and didn't see the actual show you might think that it was entertaining, insightful, and went extremely smoothly. In truth, it was dorky, awkward, and filled with minorly-flubbed lines that indicate why live TV drama is the ratings-gimmick exception rather than the rule. I'm much more in line with this review from the Washington Post, which declares the episode "a failure, yet not a complete waste of time."

Other thoughts: Where the hell was Josh--is it even slightly plausible that the campaign manager wouldn't be at his candidate's only debate? Alan Alda is a better live actor than Jimmy Smits, but for some reason Smits got the best dialogue. Oh wait, I know why--because the writers of the West Wing have given up on the idea of portraying a GOP candidate as other than a big jerk. How the hell is Alda supposed to sell his baby-killing anti-health care platform? Especially when they inexplicably stacked the audience with raucous democrats?

That reminds me of a huge Daily Show pet peeve--why don't they tell the audience to shut up already? It's pitiful to hear these sycophants mindlessly applaud John Stewart's pedestrian statements and jeer even intelligent points made by right wing idealogues. I know it's supposed to be a joke, but I think political humor works a lot better when it's not fueled by unthinking partisan dogma.

I'm having trouble deciding whether I want West Wing to die peacefully or take another shot at relevance. This debate didn't exactly encourage me of the show's chances of the latter.

Apparently this Alito guy leans to the right (politically). I suppose the President's thought process was, "I nominated my personal lawyer and they didn't go for it, saying she wasn't Serious enough. And my hardcore conservative friends even said mean things about my commitment to my party. I know, I'll nominate a guy who doesn't believe a woman should have the decideding vote on what is done to her body. Let's see those assholes at Fox News criticize Scalito!"

I, for one, am shocked--shocked--that the President would act in such an aggressive and reactionary way to a political setback. I'd expect him to take his time, consult people outside of his partisan inner circle, think about not just what was best for him and the GOP but what was best for the country as a whole, and finally behave in a mature, reasonable, conciliatory manner.

Also, I'd like a unicorn for my commute.

Hopefully you don't get your news from me, but just in case, here's the news: Harriet Miers has withdrawn. Despite the fact that almost all of the pressure on her to do so was coming from the GOP, I'm pretty happy about it and think it was definitely the right result. Miers would have been the most incompetent justice on the court by a wide margin (and yes, I'm including Clarence Thomas).

Miers Defended Social Activism
In speeches more than a decade ago, nominee declares "self-determination" should guide decisions about abortion and school prayer.

While judicial activism is derided by many conservatives, Miers said that sometimes "officials would rather abandon to the courts the hard questions so they can respond to constituents: I did not want to do that -- the court is making me."

[later in the article]

"This is going to be very disturbing to conservatives because I think it shows that she is a judicial activist," said Mathew D. Staver, president and general counsel for the Liberty Counsel, which frequently argues constitutional cases from the conservative perspective. "This concept of self-determination could clearly be read in support for things like abortion or same-sex marriage, and it's a philosophy that cuts a judge loose from the Constitution."

Well, I think it's safe to say that Miers is going to be withdrawing sometime soon. If there's one thing this administration should know, it's that they can screw around with liberals as much as they want without any likely recriminations, but they better take care of their conservative supporters along the way.

Harriet Miers Backed Abortion Ban in 1989
In documents disclosed to Senate today, Miers's 1989 stance on issue is revealed.

Cheney Office Is Focus in Probe
Prosecutor has assembled evidence that shows vice president's feud with the CIA contributed to the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame.

Security Threat Closes Baltimore Tunnel
Maryland Transportation Authority shuts down the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel due to threat.

Sept. Wholesale Prices Soar
Inflation at the wholesale level jumped by 1.9 percent last month, the largest surge in 15 years.


Oh, shit.

Cheney's Office Is Focus In Leak Investigation

As the investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's name hurtles to an apparent conclusion, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has zeroed in on the role of Vice President Cheney's office, according to lawyers familiar with the case and government officials. The prosecutor has assembled evidence that suggests Cheney's long-standing tensions with the CIA contributed to the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame.

Well that's interesting. The West Wing is starting to seriously remind me of The West Wing.

At any rate, it's been hard to keep the Valerie Plame fiasco at the forefront of my attention over the last 2+ years--there's been a lot going on. But let's take a moment to remember that somebody outed a CIA agent over what appears to have been a personal vendetta. That's felonious and extremely dickish. I hope that the grand jury manages to come out of the endless investigation with some answers, and that whoever is found to be responsible is actually held responsible.

Wow, check this out:

The Senate [led by our favorite Arizona republican, John McCain--Jake] defied the White House yesterday and voted to set new limits on interrogating detainees in Iraq and elsewhere, underscoring Congress's growing concerns about reports of abuse of suspected terrorists and others in military custody.

That is really great. The best part--this was a truly bipartisan vote (46 republicans, 43 dems, one free-thinking misanthrope), expressly against the wishes of the executive branch. It's almost as if they were thinking for themselves!

Anyway, I'm pretty sure this was all spurred by my furious invective yesterday. I'm saving the world, one overwrought and oversimplified polemic at a time.

Andrew Sullivan writes in the Sunday Times about the ongoing torture going on in Iraq, and about an American soldier, Ian Fishback, who's doing his best to bring the injustice to light. After doing all he could to inform his superiors, who were unwilling to take his concerns seriously, Fishback kept moving up the line until he got to decorated veteran and POW John McCain. His letter to McCain (quoted in Sullivan's piece) paints an ugly picture of horrible and officially-sanctioned behavior, before, during, and after the events of Abu Ghraib.

This is pretty astonishing and awful in itself, but it also seems like the most recent example of a serious conservative taking issue with the policies and behavior of people near the top of the GOP (especially the White House). Most of the criticism of Miers is being launched from the Right. The war in Iraq is enjoying little-to-no support, both among voters and their representatives. The way the federal government bungled Katrina, whether due to incompetence or worse, had people all over the political spectrum up in arms. Tom DeLay, whether he ends up convicted of anything or not, seems to have been involved in some pretty shady behavior. The economy isn't exactly thriving. Oil prices have stabilized, maybe, but they're higher than ever. The environment is getting lip service. And now it seems that the malfeasance exemplified by the Abu Ghraib scandal will be coming back into the spotlight.

I'm not saying these things are the result of conservative values--if anything, I'd say that a lot of what's gone wrong in the last 6 years has been due to a renunciation of the values the GOP has traditionally trumpeted. And the rest? A renunciation of ethical, democratic (i.e. democracy, not Ted Kennedy), and compassionate values. How much worse can it get for the GOP? And what's going to be the result of it all?

Headline: Bush Says Miers Shares His Judicial Philosophy
subheader: At a Rose Garden news conference, president asserts that Miers is the most qualified Supreme Court nominee in the country.

Other statements from the president's press conference:
"Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts is the oldest justice on the Court."
"The Detroit Tigers were the best baseball team in the major leagues this season."
"Light gray is the darkest hue."
"The best way to lose weight is to eat buffalo wings and ice cream"^*
"Honey is very salty."
"Coldplay's music is edgy, powerful, and not in any way derivative."
"I'm a pretty princess!"

^* Um, wait, is that the Atkins diet?

GWB nominated Harriet Miers for the SC. She's never served as a judge and now she's been put forward to be one of the judges on the highest court in the country. That's pretty interesting, no? I wonder what kind of response she'll get from the Democrats--feigned outrage, or real outrage?

Joel Achenbach has a pretty hilarious perspective on it:

The president carefully and deliberately selected as his nominee for the vacant Supreme Court position the first person he ran into in the hallway this morning. He has been up front about this technique all along, what he called "the dartboard approach." It could have been anyone -- an usher, a steward, a dog-walker, the guy carrying the nuclear codes. Liberals will rejoice that it wasn't Rove.

So, flag burning. Bad, right? A shameful symbol showing no appreciation for the incredible sacrifice our soldiers are making abroad for the very freedom we mock with the act of blazon-immolation? Well, yes and no. You see, although burning a flag should totally be illegal by right of constitutional amendment, burning an American flag is also the only proper way to dispose of it.

So let's set aside the ironic tone and get real here: this story is a convenient opportunity for me to say what I've been saying for months, which is that a flag-burning amendment to the constitution is completely hypocritical and stupid (not to mention an ACTUAL disregard for the heroic sacrifices of every American who's put his or her life on the line for our "way of life," whatever that is supposed to mean). I may not support the war, but that certainly doesn't mean that I don't support anyone unfortunate enough to be risking their life because of it (or because of any other policies our government may be pursuing). And I certainly am not making this argument because I want to go around setting American flags ablaze. I'm making this argument because it's right, because it's important, and because it's an opportunity to show the rest of the world that we're not really backwards nationalist xenophobes. We're not, right?

The idea that we're fighting to preserve our civil liberties (including freedom of speech) and therefore shouldn't be allowed to make a political statement is so absurd it kind of hurts my brain when I try to imagine an intelligent person sincerely believing it. Yes, burning a flag is an abhorrent statement, and an insensitive one, and a distasteful one. But those are the statements that the first amendment is meant to protect. To restrict speech to that which we agree with, or that which we can comfortably disregard, is to completely misunderstand the whole purpose of one of our fundamental constitutional rights.

Any politician who supports any legislation banning flag-burning is either an idiot or a a cynical opportunist. Either way, we'd be better off without them.

The US Army: Beat Prisoners to Death All You Want, But Don't Cheat on Your Wife! Also, Don't Even Think About Burning That Flag.

One of 11 four-star generals in the US Army was relieved of duty mere months before his planned retirement, amid allegations of an affair with a civilian.

Having an extramarital affair can be deemed adultery and a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But such cases rarely go to court-martial and usually end in administrative punishment such as a letter of reprimand, according to military lawyers. Relieving a general of his command amid such allegations is extremely unusual, especially given that he was about to retire.

The Army has been hurt over the past year by detainee-abuse cases and has been accused of not going after top officers allegedly involved in such abuse. Army officials said relieving Byrnes was meant to show the public that the service takes issues of integrity seriously.

...

"Usually there is no incentive to bring criminal charges, because they are taking his career and flushing it down the toilet," Puckett said. "There's not much more that you can do to a high-ranking officer like that. His legacy is ruined."

So Karl Rove contributed to the outing of a CIA agent and has been neither fired nor charged with any crime, knowledge of the atrocities commited in Abu Ghraib went up near the top of our government and the only people punished for it were low-ranking soldiers, and a four-star general with a sterling reputation just got fired for adultery. Well played, America. Well played.

Yes. YES.

I was waiting for a Metra train to get into downtown Chicago yesterday and heard an announcement like "Due to the recent events in London, we're asking our passengers to be aware of their surroundings, and report any suspicious people or packages they may see, blah blah blah." My first thought was: "yeah, Chicago, you're next. Keep dreaming, you deluded rubes." You'll all be happy to know that I managed to navigate the rough-and-tumble world of the Chicago commuter train system without a scratch.

Which brings me to my actual topic: they've started random bag checks in the New York subway. It seems that people are pretty much okay with this:

"I'd rather be watched and alive than dead with my privacy intact," Frank Majowicz, a businessman from Toms River, N.J., said as he hauled a shoulder bag off the Times Square shuttle.

At the multiple-tiered Atlantic Avenue station in Brooklyn, Xavier Rodney toted a small black backpack past four National Guardsmen holding M-16 rifles. He wore an oversize Los Angeles Lakers jersey and long shorts, and he spoke of supporting the searches, in part because as a black man, he does not think he fits the profile of a terrorist.

"I don't have anything to hide . . . I guess they stopped looking for gangbangers," he said. "If I was in the position of the people they are profiling, I'd feel differently."

Of course, immediately after that passage they make clear that the searches aren't based on profiling. They're random. But that's not really the point--the point is that this is yet another completely ineffective security measure aimed to reassure people that the government is conspicuously doing something. It really bothers me that people seem to crave the loss of their civil liberties--how many times in the last 4 years have you heard a quote along the lines of "I'm happy to give up a little bit of my privacy to ensure our security"? I wonder if people recognize the irony of reducing liberty to preserve freedom. I suspect not.

At any rate, I'm utterly sick of the daily hassles caused by these symbolic but pointless security measures, and I truly hope that my last month in DC isn't marred by anything more annoying than tourists who don't know to stand on the right and walk on the left.

An editorial in the Washington Post discusses the White House's complex relationship with the English language:

No, there's nothing sinister about Bush's fumbles, and, yes, Cheney does seem to genuinely believe the alternate reality he describes. But for an example of truly Orwellian doublespeak, consider the following:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

That is what Karl Rove, the president's top political adviser, said to a group of New York conservatives last month, and I don't know how to describe it other than as a Big Lie that could have been ghostwritten by Big Brother. Rove is making an outrageous attempt to rewrite history. There was no "liberal" or "conservative" response to the Sept. 11 attacks; there was an American response. Liberals and conservatives alike died in those world-changing attacks; liberals and conservatives alike experienced the horror of that September morning and resolved to take action.

There was support across the political spectrum for Bush's decision to go into Afghanistan, destroy al Qaeda, and capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Karl Rove knows that, but he says otherwise.

Read the whole thing.

SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR RETIRES???????????????

What the hell, I thought Rehnquist was retiring. This is crazy.

Last week, a bill condemning racist lynchings and making them a federal crime was set before the Senate. This bipartisan bill was an opportunity to do what is so obviously the right thing at no risk of pissing off pretty much anybody. It was basically saying "Race-based murder: for, or against?" So, unbelievably, 11 Senators, all Republicans, didn't sign it. There was a voice vote first, and a smattering of Senators missed it, but all but 11 of them co-signed the bill the next day.

This is such an obviously indefensible thing that it's almost fun to watch these assholes try to explain why they didn't sign it. Well, it would be, but for some reason most of them aren't talking! Those who are, though, are really making a lot of sense. You know, in Bizarro-world.

Bennett's office pointed out that although he did not sign on as a co-sponsor, he did sign an oversized copy of the resolution that will be preserved in a traveling photography exhibit about lynching.

Are you fucking kidding me? He's implicitly taking credit for a bill that he didn't even sign, and that 89 out of 100 Senators did sign, and that's supposed to be in some way a good thing? What the hell is going on here?

George Bush was asked what he thought about extending the FCC's oversight and/or standards to cable and satellite television. His response was interesting, because it betrayed a complete lack of thinking and yet accidentally included the smartest thing anyone has ever said about this issue.

First, the smart part. He said that the ultimate and most effective way of dealing with unacceptable content is to turn the TV off. This is a consumer economy--vote with your remote control dollars. On the one hand, no shit. On the other hand, I don't think I've heard a single politician say anything along these lines before.

Then, he went on to say something dumb. He said, of course it's up to parents to make sure their kids aren't seeing anything inappropriate, and the government should do what it can to help them, and if that means standards, well then there should be standards for cable and satellite television. Unfortunately, he didn't clarify what he meant, so I don't know for SURE that he just said that he was in favor of FCC oversight in these areas. It's possible he just meant something along the lines of movie ratings or whatever (which would still be stupid, but not offensively so).

I wish he had stuck with the reasonable argument that people who don't like what's on TV should just turn it off, because that is emminently sensible and in fact the only way to convince a business to change the way it is doing business is to make it more profitable to do so.

He also said a lot of other things that ranged from evasion to empty patriotism to demagoguery, and he was very charismatic and likeable. It's hard to remember that you disagree with him on so many of his policies when he is making funny jokes (until you realize that the punchline of one of the jokes is that a reporter in the press pool ought to be locked up. Ha ha ha... hmmm. Not really all that funny!).


Lunch today was ceaaesar salad, followed by decent steak with potatoes au gratin, green beans, carrots, and an adorable little crab cake on the side. Dessert was a decadent pastry shell filled with sweet cream and fruit. Not bad--I guess they go all out for POTUS.