It seems that the Constitution provides a somewhat lower standard for allowing federal judges to continue in office than the standard established for Presidents. Whereas Article II, Section 4 only allows impeachment of Presidents for "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," federal judges, including of course the Justices of the Supreme Court, are allowed to continue in office so long as they exhibit "good Behaviour" (Article III, Section 1).
Hmm. Good Behaviour. Wonder what conservatives think about that British spelling in the founding document of American exceptionalism? Oh, well, never mind. My point is that, in exchange for a lifetime opportunity to rule upon legal issues that not only affect Americans but everyone else in the world, "good Behaviour" doesn't seem like an awful lot to expect in return. And, of course, one person's good Behaviour is another person's unconscionable treason. It's something of an eye-of-the-beholder thing, isn't it?
Except, perhaps for the case of Antonin "Nino" Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
Now, Nino has, over the years, distinguished himself in a number of ways. There has been his refusal to recuse himself in a number of cases in which he possesses an interest, a friendship, or some other connection that might, well, influence his decision about the outcome. There was his decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which he decided that half of the language of the Second Amendment (the half that conservatives don't like) simply doesn't exist (or doesn't matter; read the decision and you be the judge, pun intended). And, of course, there are those rhetorical flourishes that right-wing voiceboxes like George Will like to view as possessing "scathing wisdom." Take, for example, Scalia's recent dissent in the most recent failed attempt to get the Supreme Court to gut Obamacare, in which he dismissed the majority opinion as "pure applesauce." Applesauce? Wow. Feel the pain from an insult like that.
All of these episodes arguably can be seen as examples of something less than truly "good Behaviour," meaning that a case could be made with one or more of them that good ol' Nino should appear in the well of the U.S. Senate at the center of an impeachment trial. But, just in case the above-listed indiscretions don't do it for you, I invite you to consider this.
Now, I believe that eveyone is entitled to their opinion. But not every opinion is entitled to belong on the nation's court of last resort. And if there is one thing that all of us should expect from every judge behind every bench, it is not that they should be perfectly experienced, or perfectly wise. But they can and must be as perfectly fair as possible. And it is impossible to treat people fairly if you are someone who is astonishingly upfront about your view that all African-Americans are slow learners. Just because that description might apply to Clarence Thomas, Scalia's fellow Associate Justice and second vote on the Court, that doesn't mean it applies to black students at the University of Texas. Or anywhere else, for that matter.
So I respectfully submit to you that Scalia's demonstrated, almost prideful lack of fairness is the exact opposite of "good Behaviour." And that everyone in this county who still gives a right royal damn about fairness ought to contact their Members of Congress and demand Scalia's impeachment. Right now. Before he can take even one more step to turn the Constitution into pure applesauce.
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Monday, December 28, 2015
Sorry, Frank Bruni, But Larry Hogan Isn't A "Moderate" Republican--But, Then Again, Who Is, And Who Cares?
Periodically, some misguided member of the mainstream media will breathlessly announce to a world that no longer cares (if it ever did) that he or she has FINALLY found what all of us, in the collective eyes of the mainstream media, definitely want and need in political office--a "moderate" Republican. Most recently, this quest was declared at a successful end by Frank Bruni of the New York Times, who authored this unbelievable puff-piece on my state's current accidental GOP Governor, Larry Hogan. Hogan, who stumbled into office thanks to a spectacularly inept campaign by his Democratic opponent, then-incumbent Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown, has also benefited politically from a tough blow dealt him by fate: a cancer diagnosis that he has, thankfully, fought successfully.
Bruni's tribute to Hogan understandably shows respect for that fight. But it then attempts to use that fight as a jumping-off point to paying tribute to Hogan's allegedly "moderate" style of politics. It emphasizes statistics (poll numbers) and an avoidance of hot-button issues that have helped push the national Republican Party somewhere to the right of Ivan the Terrible. It overlooks the fact that neither Hogan nor his health struggles have fundamentally changed the basically blue disposition of Maryland's politics. He was not elected to impose Tea-Party policies on a state too sane to embrace them. He was elected along with a state legislature that added Democrats to its ranks. It isn't "moderate" to avoid hot-button issues under those circumstances. It's Politics 101: the art of survival in a world where you know you don't really belong.
And, if moderation is to be found in policies or personal tendencies, Hogan is anything but a "moderate." Bruni's article glosses over his dispute with Democrats on education spending, as if it was merely a tussle over numbers. It is, in fact, a tussle over Hogan's willingness to use money that the General Assembly has formally appropriated for that purpose, as well as his attempts to steer that money toward favored constituencies, whether needed or not.
There is nothing "moderate" about taking one of government's most fundamental responsibilities, education, and turning it into a patronage program. It's old-fashioned, brass-knuckled, machine-style politics. The fact that it's being done with a smile, as well as a Korean wife and an African-American governor, doesn't change its basic nature. Hogan isn't a "moderate" Republican; he's a mentee of Chris Christie, another Republican governor touted as a "moderate" because he governs a blue state, but one whose style of governing. Perhaps Hogan has not blocked any bridges, but that doesn't diminish the bullying treatment he has given an issue that should be as above politics as any other.
Oh, wait. He has in fact blocked a bridge. This brings up something even worse than Hogan's abuse of education: his treatment of the city of Baltimore, in the wake of last spring's riots. Rather than offering a middle-of-the-road approach that attempted to bridge the political, economic and social gaps between an African-American metropolis and its lily-white suburbs, Hogan took an axe to a project that would quite literally have built such a bridge: the Red Line transit project that would have connected some of Baltimore's most troubled neighborhoods with suburbs to the west and east. Make no mistake: this was not only a calculated punishment of city government, but also a response to white fear of black "criminals," in counties that supported Hogan in a major way. The NAACP and the ACLU aren't fooled, and neither should the rest of us be.
So, as it turns out, the media search for a "moderate" Republican must go on. But why does it need to exist in the first place? What is "moderate" politics, really? Is moderation just a question of giving each side 50% of what it wants? Or, in a true marketplace of ideas, does it mean that both sides agree that one side might have some good ideas about some things, while the other side has better ideas about other things? I'd like to believe it's the latter; after all, 50% of a bad idea is still bad--period.
And why must the "moderate" be a Republican? Why not a moderate Democrat? Regardless of how you define the concept of moderation in politics, it seems to me that there are more "moderates" in the Democratic Party than there are in the GOP, the latter now being focused not on running for office, but running off a right-wing cliff. Is this just an artifact of the mainstream media's desire to not fit the "liberal press" stereotype? I would hope not; it's never a good idea to be defined by your fears.
In any case, don't look for moderation from Larry Hogan. He doesn't mind being seen that way, as long as it allows him to govern in a very different way. Trust me, Mr. Bruni: if you look a bit beyond the poll numbers, you'll start to see a lot of buyer's remorse. Come 2018, I guarantee that you and everyone else will see a lot more.
Bruni's tribute to Hogan understandably shows respect for that fight. But it then attempts to use that fight as a jumping-off point to paying tribute to Hogan's allegedly "moderate" style of politics. It emphasizes statistics (poll numbers) and an avoidance of hot-button issues that have helped push the national Republican Party somewhere to the right of Ivan the Terrible. It overlooks the fact that neither Hogan nor his health struggles have fundamentally changed the basically blue disposition of Maryland's politics. He was not elected to impose Tea-Party policies on a state too sane to embrace them. He was elected along with a state legislature that added Democrats to its ranks. It isn't "moderate" to avoid hot-button issues under those circumstances. It's Politics 101: the art of survival in a world where you know you don't really belong.
And, if moderation is to be found in policies or personal tendencies, Hogan is anything but a "moderate." Bruni's article glosses over his dispute with Democrats on education spending, as if it was merely a tussle over numbers. It is, in fact, a tussle over Hogan's willingness to use money that the General Assembly has formally appropriated for that purpose, as well as his attempts to steer that money toward favored constituencies, whether needed or not.
There is nothing "moderate" about taking one of government's most fundamental responsibilities, education, and turning it into a patronage program. It's old-fashioned, brass-knuckled, machine-style politics. The fact that it's being done with a smile, as well as a Korean wife and an African-American governor, doesn't change its basic nature. Hogan isn't a "moderate" Republican; he's a mentee of Chris Christie, another Republican governor touted as a "moderate" because he governs a blue state, but one whose style of governing. Perhaps Hogan has not blocked any bridges, but that doesn't diminish the bullying treatment he has given an issue that should be as above politics as any other.
Oh, wait. He has in fact blocked a bridge. This brings up something even worse than Hogan's abuse of education: his treatment of the city of Baltimore, in the wake of last spring's riots. Rather than offering a middle-of-the-road approach that attempted to bridge the political, economic and social gaps between an African-American metropolis and its lily-white suburbs, Hogan took an axe to a project that would quite literally have built such a bridge: the Red Line transit project that would have connected some of Baltimore's most troubled neighborhoods with suburbs to the west and east. Make no mistake: this was not only a calculated punishment of city government, but also a response to white fear of black "criminals," in counties that supported Hogan in a major way. The NAACP and the ACLU aren't fooled, and neither should the rest of us be.
So, as it turns out, the media search for a "moderate" Republican must go on. But why does it need to exist in the first place? What is "moderate" politics, really? Is moderation just a question of giving each side 50% of what it wants? Or, in a true marketplace of ideas, does it mean that both sides agree that one side might have some good ideas about some things, while the other side has better ideas about other things? I'd like to believe it's the latter; after all, 50% of a bad idea is still bad--period.
And why must the "moderate" be a Republican? Why not a moderate Democrat? Regardless of how you define the concept of moderation in politics, it seems to me that there are more "moderates" in the Democratic Party than there are in the GOP, the latter now being focused not on running for office, but running off a right-wing cliff. Is this just an artifact of the mainstream media's desire to not fit the "liberal press" stereotype? I would hope not; it's never a good idea to be defined by your fears.
In any case, don't look for moderation from Larry Hogan. He doesn't mind being seen that way, as long as it allows him to govern in a very different way. Trust me, Mr. Bruni: if you look a bit beyond the poll numbers, you'll start to see a lot of buyer's remorse. Come 2018, I guarantee that you and everyone else will see a lot more.
Saturday, December 26, 2015
The Real Lesson Of San Bernardino
Like the swallows returning to Capistrano, the reaction of conservatives to the San Bernardino tragedy was as predictable as it was utterly wrong: "thoughts and prayers" for the victims, and massive, utterly reflexive denunciations of immigrants otherwise, based solely on the fact that the female half of the husband-and-wife shooting team came to the United States on a K-1, or so-called "fiancee," visa from Saudi Arabia (although she was originally from Pakistan).
Never mind the fact that this is yet another tragedy that speaks to our willingness to make weapons so available that any jihadist can obtain them with little or no trouble.
Never mind the fact that, like the 9/11 attackers, the shooters in this case are not among the undocumented (or, if you will, "illegal") human beings currently present in the U.S., thanks to our unbelievably broken immigration system and our unbelievable unwillingness to take even the simplest, most practical steps to fix it.
And never mind the fact that the victims, as well as their families and friends, don't give a right royal damn about the thoughts and prayers of politicians with no interest in their suffering other than figuring out self-serving ways by which to exploit it. (Incidentally, that's why calling out the aforesaid politicians in question is not "prayer-shaming," whatever the hell that is. It is, in the words of the late, great Howard Cosell, telling it like it is. A holy hypocrite is still a hypocrite; there's no shame in pointing that out, and there's certainly no disrespect to G-d in doing so. In fact, I suspect that G-d would absolutely insist on our doing it.)
No, this is yet another golden electoral opportunity to focus on the one and only thing that holds the Grand Old Party together: hatred of non-white people.
Sadly, in the process, two rather important points get buried in the process.
First, as was the case with the 9/11 attackers, the immigrant shooter in this case came into the country through the front door, fully vetted by the agencies and the process proscribed by law to welcome people into the country through the front door. She passed though a process designed to be as thorough and careful as it is to be rigorous, and was allowed to come into the country without reservations. She married a U.S. citizen to whom she was engaged, and therefore fulfilled the condition under which her visa was granted.
Second, despite desperate and dishonest Republican attempts to blame that process for allowing her to come to and stay in the U.S., the early analysis of the tragedy blunts any suggestion that she was any part of a terrorist organization at the time she arrived in the U.S. If anything, that analysis suggests that any jihadist intentions that may have lain behind the shootings may have been part of a process of "self-radicalization." In other words, she came to the U.S. without a jihadist mindset, and developed one while she was here.
Which should make a point to even the dullest of conservative minds.
In the so-called war on terror, we are not fighting one or more nations. We are not fighting one or more peoples. We are not even fighting an entire religion. We are fighting a specific, twisted version of that religion believed in and spread by people for no other reason than to inspire fear--and, by extension, to gain power through that fear. Putting it more simply, as Slate.com did recently, we are fighting an idea, as well as the freedom to believe in and follow that idea.
And, as we should have learned in what we like to call the American Century, you don't fight a battle of ideas with hot power. You fight it with cold power. You fight it by accepting the nature of the battle, and waging a battle of ideas with better ideas. You fight it by preaching and showing the superiority of tolerance, of understanding, of cooperation. You fight by advancing knowledge, not by retreating behind fear. To do the latter is to fight the enemy's battle on the enemy's turf. Yes, there's an espionage, and even a military, component in the battle. But their existence and purpose is to supplement the main battle: the battle of ideas.
Even a battle of ideas has casualties; all battles do. But, in both the short and long run, there will be fewer causalities than there would be in a hot war. And that will be true, in no small part, because we won't be allowing the enemy to recruit in our midst. That's the reason why San Bernardino is, if anything, an argument for comprehensive immigration reform that advances the idea of America as a place of refuge, and not a fortress for a lucky few.
And, sadly, it must be said once again, San Bernardino is also an argument to stop handing out guns and pretending that doing so produces safely. If leftists in Scotland and conservatives in Australia can come to that conclusion, why the bloody hell (literally) can't we?
Never mind the fact that this is yet another tragedy that speaks to our willingness to make weapons so available that any jihadist can obtain them with little or no trouble.
Never mind the fact that, like the 9/11 attackers, the shooters in this case are not among the undocumented (or, if you will, "illegal") human beings currently present in the U.S., thanks to our unbelievably broken immigration system and our unbelievable unwillingness to take even the simplest, most practical steps to fix it.
And never mind the fact that the victims, as well as their families and friends, don't give a right royal damn about the thoughts and prayers of politicians with no interest in their suffering other than figuring out self-serving ways by which to exploit it. (Incidentally, that's why calling out the aforesaid politicians in question is not "prayer-shaming," whatever the hell that is. It is, in the words of the late, great Howard Cosell, telling it like it is. A holy hypocrite is still a hypocrite; there's no shame in pointing that out, and there's certainly no disrespect to G-d in doing so. In fact, I suspect that G-d would absolutely insist on our doing it.)
No, this is yet another golden electoral opportunity to focus on the one and only thing that holds the Grand Old Party together: hatred of non-white people.
Sadly, in the process, two rather important points get buried in the process.
First, as was the case with the 9/11 attackers, the immigrant shooter in this case came into the country through the front door, fully vetted by the agencies and the process proscribed by law to welcome people into the country through the front door. She passed though a process designed to be as thorough and careful as it is to be rigorous, and was allowed to come into the country without reservations. She married a U.S. citizen to whom she was engaged, and therefore fulfilled the condition under which her visa was granted.
Second, despite desperate and dishonest Republican attempts to blame that process for allowing her to come to and stay in the U.S., the early analysis of the tragedy blunts any suggestion that she was any part of a terrorist organization at the time she arrived in the U.S. If anything, that analysis suggests that any jihadist intentions that may have lain behind the shootings may have been part of a process of "self-radicalization." In other words, she came to the U.S. without a jihadist mindset, and developed one while she was here.
Which should make a point to even the dullest of conservative minds.
In the so-called war on terror, we are not fighting one or more nations. We are not fighting one or more peoples. We are not even fighting an entire religion. We are fighting a specific, twisted version of that religion believed in and spread by people for no other reason than to inspire fear--and, by extension, to gain power through that fear. Putting it more simply, as Slate.com did recently, we are fighting an idea, as well as the freedom to believe in and follow that idea.
And, as we should have learned in what we like to call the American Century, you don't fight a battle of ideas with hot power. You fight it with cold power. You fight it by accepting the nature of the battle, and waging a battle of ideas with better ideas. You fight it by preaching and showing the superiority of tolerance, of understanding, of cooperation. You fight by advancing knowledge, not by retreating behind fear. To do the latter is to fight the enemy's battle on the enemy's turf. Yes, there's an espionage, and even a military, component in the battle. But their existence and purpose is to supplement the main battle: the battle of ideas.
Even a battle of ideas has casualties; all battles do. But, in both the short and long run, there will be fewer causalities than there would be in a hot war. And that will be true, in no small part, because we won't be allowing the enemy to recruit in our midst. That's the reason why San Bernardino is, if anything, an argument for comprehensive immigration reform that advances the idea of America as a place of refuge, and not a fortress for a lucky few.
And, sadly, it must be said once again, San Bernardino is also an argument to stop handing out guns and pretending that doing so produces safely. If leftists in Scotland and conservatives in Australia can come to that conclusion, why the bloody hell (literally) can't we?
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Landmarking Is Good For The Cost Of Living
For example, it helps New Yorkers live in rent-stabilized apartments.
It Isn't Worth Deporting The Undocumented
Literally. Try half-a-trillion dollars (plus or minus) over two decades. Where is Trump (or anyone else, for that matter) going to get that kind of money?
Anti-Immigration Sentiment Is Pro-White Sentiment
And this is shown in the history between the 1965 reform law, which tilted immigration to America away from Europe and toward the Western Hemisphere, as a consequence of the conflux of the need to fight the Cold War with idealism, and to advance domestic civil rights in the same way.
Nobody's complaining about folks coming from Canada, after all. Are they, eh?
Nobody's complaining about folks coming from Canada, after all. Are they, eh?
An Alternative For London's Underground?
Or, at least, part of it. And this might work for other cities as well, like New York, which has already recycled the old High Line as a major tourist attraction.
The True Meaning Of Christmas
Sometimes, it emerges from terrible personal tragedy. Read this, and then send her a card. I am.
It's Not A Choice Between The Environment And The Economy
It's choosing both. And choosing both can be worth as much as 17 trillion dollars.
When It Comes To Abortion, I've Said This All Along
It's not a pro-life movement. It's not even an anti-abortion movement. It's an anti-sex movement. It always has been and, for however long it stays around, it always will be. I'm grateful that other people are finally realizing this.
The Impact Of Superhero Themes
By which this author means theme music for superhero movies. If you're interested in this general subject, it's a very good read, and listen as well. My major reflection, upon reading this, is the reminder of how music operates like a time machine. Every time I hear the theme from the 1979 "Superman" film with Christopher Reeve, it slices 36 years off my life in the best possible way. Forget about "Man of Steel" and mopey Henry Cavill. If you want to see "Superman" done right, and American pop culture at its very best, go back to the original. And see if it doesn't stick with you a lot longer than MOS. It's just that good.
Jimmy Carter And Election Reform
Read this if you want to get even a small idea of what we lost when we replaced Jimmy Carter with Ronald Reagan. And be all the more grateful for the cancer-free diagnosis he has recently received.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)