Bring on the Crazy

Again, I'm sorry we've been sucking at blogging lately. There's been a lot going on, and we've been whiffing. I did receive a request from our good friend Natty to blog on Rick Santorum, the crazy former senator from Pennsylvania. Batting leadoff and playing right field for the Crazies, Santorum had this to say on abortion: "The reason Social Security is in such big trouble is we don't have enough workers to support the retirees. Well, a third of all the young people in America aren't in America because of abortion, because one in three pregnancies end in abortion."

I'm not even sure where to begin. First, I guess Santorum believes that children only exist to sustain the elderly? Second, I'm pretty sure his numbers are wrong, that sounds like a lot of abortions. And we all know that of all the services Planned Parenthood performs, 90% or so are abortions. I'm sorry, that was not intended to be a factual statement. The real number is 3%. Finally, Social Security isn't in "big trouble." It's fully funded through 2037. And if we really wanted to ensure its solvency beyond then, we could raise the arbitrary cap on a person's income that a person pays Social Security taxes on. It's currently $106,800. We should raise that number and exempt a portion of the first dollars you earn, similar to income tax. Furthermore, we shouldn't have passed a Social Security payroll tax holiday, which brought the rate from 6.2% to 4.2% for a year. I'm afraid we won't ever get that 2% back. Those are two measures that would ensure Social Security's solvency well past 2037.

Or I guess I could just let Jon Stewart do what he does best:

The Daily Show - Indecision 2012 - Base Race - Santorum, Barbour & Trump
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Krugman on Mellon

I know, it's been a while, but I hope to get back to regular blogging this week. I just read a Krugman column on American economic policy. It makes me wonder why we can't ever have good ideas. Here's the crux of it:

So that’s the state of policy debate in the world’s greatest nation: one party has embraced 80-year-old economic fallacies, while the other has lost the will to fight. And American families will pay the price.

And we wonder why we're still in a recession

Balanced Budget

I just read this on Political Wire:

"They literally think you can just balance it, you know, by cutting waste, fraud and abuse, foreign aid and NPR, and it doesn't work like that."

-- House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), quoted by the Washington Post, on lawmakers and Tea Party activists who believe the deficit can be reduced without substantial cuts to Medicare and Social Security benefits.

At least Representative Ryan is right that we can't balance the budget by ending fraud and waste while cutting discretionary spending. However, I love that the chairman of the House Budget Committee doesn't know that Social Security doesn't add to the deficit. And I'll add one more thing. Representative Ryan literally thinks you can balance the budget by cutting taxes. It doesn't work like that.

Jon Stewart

According to Comedy Central:

The Associated Press is reporting today that Jon Stewart is being named to the 9/11 Memorial Foundation Board this afternoon. This of course comes in the wake of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and many others recognizing the instrumental role Jon and The Daily Show played in pushing Congress to pass the 9/11 First Responders health care bill.

Well earned.

Gas Tax

Thomas Friedman recently wrote that we should institute an additional $1 per gallon gas tax, phased in at 5 cents a month. To me, this is the most sensible of the new taxes - except for 3% on all income earned over a certain amount (Obama says $250,000, I would be fine just over $500,000. It's only income earned over that amount, not all income earned. But I digress). One dollar is a lot, but smaller increments are a perfect way to raise revenue without the average person really feeling it. Starting at 5 cents gallon, that's probably up to $1 every time you fill your tank. However, the benefits to the country would be huge. We could pump money into infrastructure, public transportation, clean air, and green technology all while reducing our dependence on middle eastern oil. Friedman compares our politics in the middle east as building a house at the bottom of a volcano that is about to blow. In his words:

Legislating a higher energy price today that takes effect in the future, notes the Princeton economist Alan Blinder, would trigger a shift in buying and investment well before the tax kicks in. With one little gasoline tax, we can make ourselves more economically and strategically secure, help sell more Chevy Volts and free ourselves to openly push for democratic values in the Middle East without worrying anymore that it will harm our oil interests. Yes, it will mean higher gas prices, but prices are going up anyway, folks. Let’s capture some it for ourselves.

Even if these goals are not that important and you think that the tax might really affect some people, it means fewer cars on the road, less traffic and congestion, and less productive time lost commuting. To me, that's a win-win situation.

On Wisconsin

I wanted to post quickly about some bullshit arguments that conservatives are whining about regarding the Wisconsin public unions protesting to retain their right to collective bargaining, which costs the state nothing and does not help reduce any deficits.

1. "Greedy" unions are whining about pensions and health care.

They're not actually protesting paying more for these. They're just asking to retain their right to bargain collectively. That's a big difference.

2. Public unions shouldn't be able to protest because it's a conflict of interest.

This is one of the dumbest, most self-service statements I've ever heard. It's along the lines of Pat Sajak's "public employees shouldn't be allowed to vote" argument. Apparently some Republicans think that if you work for the government you don't pay taxes yourself and you shouldn't be allowed to vote. I'm glad that some people want to strip the right to vote from hard working Americans or that they think their tax dollars are meaningless. Really, this flies in the face of all American values, and I'm sure the same people making these arguments are also turning around and yelling about how everything else violates the Constitution - like the Census! Brilliant.

3. It's a problem when public unions make political contributions to a politician if he "agrees to the terms of the contract."

Sure, but it's perfectly fine when huge corporations do it for tax giveaways.

4. And finally, we get back to the "Governor Walker had to do it because of the dire financial straight."

This is where I hear arguments again that the unions caused the deficit. Again, simply not true. And what they're protesting isn't adding to the deficit. Wisconsin's problem right now is that their Governor entered office and instantly gave tax handouts to large corporations, who mostly don't pay taxes in Wisconsin anymore at the expense of its citizens - which includes (wait for it . . .) its public employees. I'll just point out that the billionaire Koch brothers practically own all the energy infrastructure in the state just got huge tax cuts. While they rake in billions of dollars, they are laying off employees in the state. That's good fiscal policy. Let the rich get richer while the middle class goes unemployed and then, because its the only terms conservatives understand, soak up state resources on unemployment. Then, the Koch brothers will fund more "grassroots" tea parties to make sure they never have to pay taxes and that the states can never balance their budgets, and more hardworking public employees and middle class workers suffer at their expense. THAT, is a "vicious cycle" if I've ever seen one.

Did Justice Thomas Cross the Line

I can go for quite a while about whether Justice Clarence Thomas's recent actions have crossed the line. To be brief though, I think his extra-judicial activities (and those of his wife) have raised at the very least, the appearance of impropriety. I also think that failing to disclose his wife's income on a simple federal disclosures form is unacceptable. Unfortunately, there is no oversight of Supreme Court Justices outside impeachment, and I don't think impeachment is really appropriate here. At least not based on what we currently know. Representative Chris Murphy is introducing legislation to increase oversight of the Supreme Court:

Murphy's bill will:

• apply the Judicial Conference's Code of Conduct, which applies to all other federal judges, to Supreme Court justices. This would allow the public to access more timely and detailed information when an outside group wants to have a justice participate in a conference, such as the funders of the conference;
• require the justices to simply publicly disclose their reasoning behind a recusal when they withdraw from a case;
• require the Court to develop a process for parties to a case before the Court to request a decision from the Court, or a panel of the Court, regarding the potential conflict of interest of a particular Justice.

I know the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government, but shouldn't the ethical rules that apply to all other federal judges also apply to the Supreme Court? The judicial branch was designed to be insulated so that political forces wouldn't sway their decisions. Isn't it troubling that Supreme Court justices are entering into political disputes and then failing to disclose payments they've received for doing so?

Hat tip to the Constitutional Law Prof Blog

Obama Screws Over Young People?

That is Andrew Sullivan's take on The Daily Dish where he has come back from his sick leave spoiling for a fight with the President he so often supports:

The logic behind president Obama's budget has one extremely sensible feature: it distinguishes between spending that simply adds to consumption, and spending that really does mean investment. His analogy over the weekend - that a family cutting a budget would rather not cut money for the kids' education - is a sound one. We do need more infrastructure, roads and broadband, non-carbon energy and basic science research, and some of that is something only government can do. In that sense, discretionary spending could be among the most important things government could do to help Americans create wealth themselves. And yet this is the only spending Obama wants to cut. . . .

To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you're fools. Either the US will go into default because of Obama's cowardice, or you will be paying far far more for far far less because this president has no courage when it counts. He let you down. On the critical issue of America's fiscal crisis, he represents no hope and no change. Just the same old Washington politics he once promised to end.

I agree with a fair bit of what Mr. Sullivan says, in general. And in this case, I similarly agree with a fair bit of what he is saying in his analysis. However, I fail to see any line of clear thought that can fairly lay this all, or even mostly at the feet of this President. Sure, he's supposed to lead and he was elected to make the tough decisions, but at this point with the economy, he is coaching someone else's team, if you will allow the metaphor. Of course, it's two years in and that is a difficult argument to win with people who don't pay careful attention to these sorts of things. But to anyone who thinks seriously about the economy, it is rather obvious that the President is still dealing with someone else's mess. But he's judged on wins and losses and so he's trying to rack up as many wins as he can now, so he can secure a long-term contract extension. Once that extension is achieved, then he can go about putting in a new system and improve the overall quality of the team.

I don't think Sullivan's critique is unfair, I just think it is a bit too reactionary without being cognizant of political realities. What are your thoughts?

Supremely Political

(if it's not already, someone should make this post's title, the name of a blog!)

Yesterday, Noah Feldman published a phenomenally interesting op-ed in the NYTimes. I encourage anyone who cares anything about law, history, politics, and the places where they all meet, to check out this rather quick read. You will find it well worth your time. Personally, I also find myself in complete agreement. Some highlights:

Today, even the justices’ minimal extrajudicial activities come in for public condemnation — some of it suspiciously partisan. Does anyone seriously think Justice Thomas would become more constitutionally conservative (if that were somehow logically possible) as a result of his wife’s political activism? It is true that Justice Thomas voted to protect the anonymity of some corporate contributions in the Citizens United case. But this vote reflected his long-established principles in favor of corporate speech. The personal connection was nowhere near close enough to demand recusal, any more than a justice who values her privacy should be expected to recuse herself from a Fourth Amendment decision.

After all, Martin Ginsburg, a model of ethical rectitude until his death last year, was for many years a partner in an important corporate law firm. But surely no one believes that his career made his wife, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, more positively inclined toward corporate interests on the court than she would already be as a member in good standing of America’s class of legal elites.

Justice Antonin Scalia, for his part, naturally spends time with like-minded conservatives including Representative Michele Bachmann and Charles Koch. But when the brilliant, garrulous Justice Scalia hobnobs with fellow archconservatives, he is not being influenced any more than is the brilliant, garrulous Justice Stephen Breyer when he consorts with his numerous friends and former colleagues in the liberal bastion of Cambridge, Mass.

A FEW years ago, many insisted that Justice Scalia should not sit in judgment of Vice President Dick Cheney’s claims to enjoy executive privilege, noting that the two had been on the same duck-hunting trip. Justice Scalia memorably explained that the two men had never shared the same blind. He could as easily have pointed out that before President Harry Truman nationalized the steel mills, he asked Chief Justice Fred Vinson, a poker buddy and close friend, if the court would find the action constitutional. (Vinson incorrectly said yes.)

Just a point of personal privilege...

Perhaps this is not really a topic worthy of the blog and is a bit more regional in nature, however, I just saw this article referring to the death of former Chief of the Virginia Supreme Court Leroy Hassell. Chief Hassell swore both me and my wife into the Virginia Bar. Yesterday, he was laid in state in the Capitol in Richmond:

Hassell is the first African American to lie in state in the Capitol in the former capital of the Confederacy. Other notable men to lie in state there include former president John Tyler in 1862; Confederate general Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson 1863; and Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

Sen. Henry L. Marsh (D-Richmond), a hero of Virginia's civil rights movement, said he was struck by the symbolism of the tribute to Hassell in a space that was long used to remember Confederates.

"It's a tribute to a man who did so much to help us enter the modern age," Marsh said. "It shows the regard with which people held his service."

I will always remember when my wife was sworn into the Bar in a fairly small ceremony (smaller than the mass ceremony where I was sworn in ) and the way Chief Justice Hassell was insistent on the good that attorneys can do in our society and the good they must do. Even though I wasn't being sworn in, it made a great impact on me and has stuck with me to this day. Hassell will surely be missed but his legacy will continue to resonate.

A Budget Cut I Can Believe in

This is one of the best plans I've seen lately to reduce spending at the federal level: "Today, U.S. Congressman Jim Moran (D-Va), joined Representatives Earl Blumenauer, Ed Markey, John Conyers, Lois Capps, Peter Welch and David Price to introduce legislation to cut the budget by ending roughly $40 billion over five years in wasteful subsidies to the oil industry." The bill is called the Ending Big Oil Subsidies Act.

The sponsor of the bill, Representative Blumenauer reminds us how well the oil industry actually does for itself. He said:

The oil industry is one of the most profitable industries in the world and does not need help from the government. With Congress already discussing painful budget cuts that will require American families to make sacrifices, it is only fair that we also stop the handouts to our richest oil companies. It makes no sense that we are borrowing money from China to subsidize the most profitable industry in the world and corporations like ExxonMobil that earn billions every year. It’s time for us to have a serious, rational discussion about cutting the budget.

From a policy perspective, it just doesn't make much sense to hand out tens of billions of dollars to wealthy corporations while we cut spending from programs that need it. While Americans struggle with unemployment, hunger, and homelessness, why should we continue to subsidize big oil corporations? It will be interesting to see if Republicans will even allow this to come to a vote. I kind of feel like they are going to choose their big business constituents over actually trying to limit spending. I predict they will show that they are actually just budget peacocks.

Another One BItes the Dust

It's hard to find compelling news stories what with all that's going on in the Middle East. We got one this week that was almost buried when Jim Webb announced he would not seek reelection. This was a little surprising, but we did all suspect it, especially after he released his fundraising numbers. Naturally, this led our conservative media to whip up their frenzy to "inform" us that it pretty much guarantees that Republicans will take the Senate in 2012. I even saw one "expert" on our local Fox affiliate saying that with Webb, Joe Lieberman, and Kent Conrad retiring, it would make it that much more difficult for the Democrats to hold the Senate.

Not so fast. I hate to let facts get in the way, but I don't think this is that terrible. First, I'll concede Kent Conrad. That was a winnable seat that the Democrats will lose. Joe Lieberman? In Connecticut? Not only will the Democrats hold that seat, but they'll get a better Senator to replace Joe Lieberman. He's caused many problems since Ned Lamont beat him in a primary, and I don't see the Republicans picking this one up. Let's look at Virginia now. Just before the announcement, my new favorite politics blog looked at the potential reelection match up between Webb and former Senator George Allen (let's just assume for now that Allen wins his primary against a tea party organizer that has already declared). According to Public Policy Polling, Webb was only leading Allen 49-45 and Webb has a 43/41 approval/disapproval rating. Not bad. But also not overwhelmingly convincing for Webb. Allen isn't any more popular though. His approval/disapproval is 40/41 overall and 38/45 with independents. Allen's numbers just don't jump out to me as a well-known candidate who has it in the bag.

Now, I'm just going to spitball here about possible replacements for Webb. Tim Kaine has already won a statewide race but has said he will not run. I'm going to guess he will jump in if polling shows he is the only candidate who can beat Allen. I've heard Gerry Connolly may jump in. I like Tom Perriello more. Sure, he lost his House election, but he stuck by his principles. It was a tough year for Democrats and he fared pretty well downstate near Charlottesville. If Terry McAuliffe decides to run, he has great name recognition, a huge ability to raise funds, and has been doing good work creating jobs in Virginia. That's a bench that is 3 deep with names that could probably fare pretty well in an election. At the very least, they would make it difficult for the Republicans to win.

Elsewhere, I have a hunch that Republicans are vulnerable in Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada. Olympia Snowe is already being challenged by a tea party group and may lose the very far right in a more liberal state. Scott Brown is also being challenged by tea partiers, but has amassed a large war chest above $7 million already. He's also the state's most popular politician, but this is still Massachusetts. Jon Ensign is not popular in Nevada since he had an affair with a married staffer and had his parents pay off her husband. Nevada also has a growing Hispanic population and an excellent blueprint to follow from Harry Reid's recent win. Finally, since Webb's announcement, Jon Kyl has announced his retirement. Kyl was going to be an easy win, and it will still be difficult for the Democrats to pick up this seat, especially since they don't have any big names down there. However, this seat is now at least more in play and will probably require some resources to defend.

Now, throw in the fact that this is a Presidential election year, the electorate appears to be changing from 2010 back towards 2008 (but not all the way), the fact that Obama's approval ratings are growing in some of these states, and my prediction that Republicans nominate a Presidential candidate that is out of the mainstream, I'm going to guess that the Democrats are not in as precarious a situation as the media would make it seem. It's not that absurd to say that Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot again by choosing "ideological purity" over electability in Massachusetts and Maine while further weakening their prospects across the country by nominating a weak presidential candidate.

Reagan Turns 100

This past weekend, communities across the country held their annual love fests for Ronald Reagan. I find this amusing. I find it even more amusing when every Republican, especially tea partiers, bow down at his figurative feet as if he was some sort of deity. Then, in the same breath, they go on some nonsensical rant about taxes. It's funny because Reagan would be a democrat today. Eugene Robinson, so eloquent at stating the obvious, makes the case today:

Some Republicans, I suppose, might be so enraptured by the Reagan legend that they are unaware of his actual record. I hate to break it to Sarah Palin, but Reagan raised taxes. Often. Sometimes by a lot.

When he took office as governor of California in 1967, the state faced a huge budget deficit. Reagan promptly raised taxes by $1 billion - at a time when the entire state budget amounted to just $6 billion. It was then the biggest state tax increase in history. During Reagan's eight years in Sacramento, the top state income tax rate increased from 7 percent to 11 percent. Business and sales taxes also soared.

When Reagan moved into the White House, he brought with him a theory that critics derided as "voodoo economics" - the idea that the way to balance the budget was to lower taxes, not raise them. Reagan quickly pushed through the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a tax cut of about $264 billion. Republicans seem to rank this event alongside Columbus's discovery of the New World as one of the great milestones in human history.

What eludes the GOP's selective memory is that Reagan subsequently raised taxes 11 times, beginning with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. All told, he took back roughly half of that hallowed 1981 tax cut. Why? Because he realized that the United States needed an effective federal government - and that to be effective, the government needed more money.

Republicans laud Reagan's unshakable commitment to smaller government. Yet federal employment rolls grew under his watch; they shrank under Bill Clinton. Reagan had promised to eliminate the departments of Energy and Education, but he didn't. Instead, he signed legislation that added to the Cabinet a new Department of Veterans Affairs.

It's no secret that I've never been a Reagan supporter, but I'll give him credit that he at least knew that to have an effective government, you sometimes have to raise taxes. Cutting every government program doesn't make government better. I think Burnsy nailed it today when he said to me, "Fuck the Gipper. I don't understand why he's so revered; I'd rather the mantle of Clinton than Reagan any day."

Friedman's Before Egypt

We continue to monitor the situation in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood just entered talks with the government. In the US, however, the issue always revolves around the question: "What does this mean for Israel?" I may never understand why every foreign policy issue in this country revolves around Israel, but Thomas Friedman had an interesting take:

If Israel does not make a concerted effort to strike a deal with the Palestinians, the next Egyptian government will “have to distance itself from Israel because it will not have the stake in maintaining the close relationship that Mubarak had,” said Khalil Shikaki, a Palestinian pollster. With the big political changes in the region, “if Israel remains paranoid and messianic and greedy it will lose all its Arab friends.”

To put it bluntly, if Israelis tell themselves that Egypt’s unrest proves why Israel cannot make peace with the Palestinian Authority, then they will be talking themselves into becoming an apartheid state — they will be talking themselves into permanently absorbing the West Bank and thereby laying the seeds for an Arab majority ruled by a Jewish minority between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

What the turmoil in Egypt also demonstrates is how much Israel is surrounded by a huge population of young Arabs and Muslims who have been living outside of history — insulated by oil and autocracy from the great global trends. But that’s over.

“Today your legitimacy has to be based on what you deliver,” the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, explained to me in his Ramallah office. “Gone are the days when you can say, ‘Deal with me because the other guys are worse.’ ”

I had given up on Netanyahu’s cabinet and urged the U.S. to walk away. But that was B.E. — Before Egypt. Today, I believe President Obama should put his own peace plan on the table, bridging the Israeli and Palestinian positions, and demand that the two sides negotiate on it without any preconditions. It is vital for Israel’s future — at a time when there is already a global campaign to delegitimize the Jewish state — that it disentangle itself from the Arabs’ story as much as possible. There is a huge storm coming, Israel. Get out of the way.

I find faults with the positions of both the Palestinian leadership and the Israelis, but right now, Israel could take the simple steps of halting settlements to restart the peace talks. As Friedman points out, with all that's happening in the Middle East now, renewing peace talks will be essential to the future of both Israel and Palestine.

A Reader Comments

I've previously expressed my frustrations with the country's myopic media. It feels like all we've heard about this past week is Egpyt. I kind of feel badly for Jon Huntsman, who is losing all his good press time. Anyway, my friend Gabe left a comment to my last post about this subject on facebook that I wanted to share:

Uh, speaking of Tunisia, where did they go? They execute a successful peaceful revolution and get what, one day in the news? Now it's all "Egypt Egypt Egypt" all the time, and they haven't even done anything. Big deal that there's thousands of young people in the streets, there are always thousands of young Egyptians in the streets, because none of them have jobs. This is a revolution of Lebowskis. How about we spend a little more time giving kudos to Tunis, yeah?

Criminalized Farting!

You must read this:

I don’t know much about Malawi. I know they had a fuel shortage recently. So when I heard they were banning gas, I thought, “Well, that’s an elegant solution.”

But Malawi isn’t banning gas, it’s going to criminalize passing gas. Yeah, because of all the things going on in Malawi, I’m sure farting is a primary concern. I’m sure the Malawian ambassador to the U.N. is going to love hearing fart jokes in 50 different languages. (And yes, the French guy is going to be obligated under international law to say: “I fart in your general direction.”)

However funny this is, and it surely is that; this measure also leaves a stench of totalitarianism, as ATL goes on to point out:

You know, these laws seem funny, but they’re actually silent but deadly. It’s not so much that the code shows a complete lack of respect for freedom and personal liberty, it’s that these laws mean that the Malawian government can arrest you for any reason or no reason at all.

So if Malawian President Bingu wa Mutharika and his ruling party doesn’t like what you think, bang, the international press has a story about how a man was “arrested for farting.” It’s always political protesters, religious leaders, and opposition candidates who get arrested for “farting,” “trespassing in a graveyard,” or “challenging somebody to fight.” Laws about farting just mask the scent of totalitarianism.

Cairo, We Have a Problem

So this week has really been something in the Middle East - Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan. It seems like democracy is spreading across the region (are we finally seeing George Bush's vision when he decided to invade Iraq?), and I know that this is supposed to be a good thing. But please allow our domestic cynics to come out. First, David Brooks "teaches" us that these kind of uprisings are usually successful in forming democracies. However, after explaining the lessons we should have learned, he warns us:

The other thing we’ve learned is that the United States usually gets everything wrong. There have been dozens of democratic uprisings over the years, but the government always reacts like it’s the first one. There seem to be no protocols for these situations, no preset questions to be asked.

Policy makers always underestimate the power of the bottom-up quest for dignity, so they are slow to understand what is happening.

Need examples? Enter Ross Douthat:

Americans don’t like to admit this. We take refuge in foreign policy systems: liberal internationalism or realpolitik, neoconservatism or noninterventionism. We have theories, and expect the facts to fall into line behind them. Support democracy, and stability will take care of itself. Don’t meddle, and nobody will meddle with you. International institutions will keep the peace. No, balance-of-power politics will do it.

But history makes fools of us all. We make deals with dictators, and reap the whirlwind of terrorism. We promote democracy, and watch Islamists gain power from Iraq to Palestine. We leap into humanitarian interventions, and get bloodied in Somalia. We stay out, and watch genocide engulf Rwanda. We intervene in Afghanistan and then depart, and watch the Taliban take over. We intervene in Afghanistan and stay, and end up trapped there, with no end in sight.

Sooner or later, the theories always fail. The world is too complicated for them, and too tragic.

However, we should remember that these moments aren't about us. Sure, we should be concerned about the spread of radical political and religious ideologies and think about our national security, but, as David Ignatius reminds us, these protests are about the people trying to improve their lives:

Washington debate about the new Arab revolt tends to focus on the U.S. role: Has President Obama blundered by not forcing Mubarak out sooner? Should America abandon other oligarchs before it's too late? But this isn't about us. If Washington's well-chosen emissary, former ambassador to Cairo Frank Wisner, has helped broker Mubarak's departure and a stable transition to new elections, so much the better. But Egyptians don't need America to chart their course.

It's encouraging to see that the demonstrators in the streets of Cairo, Amman and Sanaa are not shouting the same tired slogans about "death to America" and "death to Israel" that for several generations have substituted for political debate. And it's reassuring, as well, that the Muslim Brotherhood and other militant groups have so far played it cool. They know that the past "decade of jihad" was ruinous for Muslims and is unpopular.

"This is not about slogans," says [Lebanese journalist Jamil] Mroueh. "The real issue is life: I want an apartment, I want a job." And it's about the dignity that comes from these essential human needs. In reaching out to the military, the protesters have chosen the right allies for a path of stability and change.

More on Egypt

Israel may think the US should be world-deciders, but the fine gentleman from New York disagrees. Representative Gary Ackerman had this to say:

President Mubarak has been a valuable partner for the United States, but he has, by his own decisions and successive phony elections, shorn his rule of any mandate or legitimacy beyond that provided by force and arms. His last act of service to Egypt should be to facilitate a fast transfer of power to a transitional government that can prepare for free and fair elections. Accordingly, I believe the United States must suspend its assistance to Egypt until this transition is underway.

The Egyptian people have made their wishes very clear: it is time for President Mubarak to step down and allow Egypt to move forward into a new era of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Well played, sir. Well played.

Holy Shit This Is Awesome!

Seriously... kudos Google! While the company has come under some fire for its policies vis-a-vis China, this stands out as quite spectacular:

Over the weekend we came up with the idea of a speak-to-tweet service—the ability for anyone to tweet using just a voice connection.

We worked with a small team of engineers from Twitter, Google and SayNow, a company we acquired last week, to make this idea a reality. It’s already live and anyone can tweet by simply leaving a voicemail on one of these international phone numbers (+16504194196 or +390662207294 or +97316199855) and the service will instantly tweet the message using the hashtag #egypt. No Internet connection is required. People can listen to the messages by dialing the same phone numbers or going to twitter.com/speak2tweet.

Israel Could Not Be More Wrong on Egypt

This is the kind of petty, protectionist and short-sighted thinking that infuriates even the friends of Israel. As dobber so aptly put it: "so Israel's official policy stance is that the US should pick leaders of foreign sovereign nations over the will of their own people?"

The Egyptian Message Censored

Egypt and the people's protests is the biggest story in the world right now. This is especially true on the heels of Tunisia, and Iran. This story dwarfs anything happening in Washington, including assessments over Washington's reaction to what is happening (though, I was quite impressed with SOS Clinton on the morning shows yesterday). I cannot tell you what, exactly I think the importance of these events are; I just have an inchoate sense that we'll look back on these times as momentous. But it's not simply momentous for an American audience, rather, its importance is largely in the example it sets throughout the world; in the opportunity it has to reach out and grab those other peoples feeling the urge of democracy. This is why, especially following Hu Jintao's trip to Washington recently, it is so disappointing to read this story regarding Chinese efforts to suppress the pro-democracy message from Egypt:

The filtering of search result and the blocking of search term “Egypt” in social media websites is to prevent certain interpretation of the political situation in Egypt. The scenes of Tanks moving into the city center, the confrontation between the people and the soldiers are very likely to recall Chinese people's memory of the June 4 incident back in 1989 and the criticism of the authoritarian government in Egypt can easily turn into a political allegory in China. The propaganda department certainly has to issue censorship alert to web-portal and social media websites, where opinions can spread rapidly and become mainstream public discourses in a few hour time.

A Morning Gem

Thank you Political Wire for making my morning with this one:

Failed Nevada U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) was in Iowa but wouldn't tell the Des Moines Register whether she was there exploring a run for president or not.

Said Angle: "I'll just say I have lots of options for the future, and I'm investigating all my options.

And then I appreciated Chris Christie's quote from Political Wire as well. I hate to give the Governor credit, but he's saying and doing some smart things regarding his political future. If only he could figure out how to run his state:

"If you don't believe in your heart that you're ready, you have no business running. And just because you see political opportunity, that's not an excuse to run."

-- New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), in an interview on CNBC, on why he's not running for president.

Quick Thought of the Morning

Why will regulating health insurance companies destroy our republic and represent an overreaching of the federal government into states' rights but the federal government must absolutely as a high priority tell the states how they should decide verdicts in torts cases?

Pre-SOTU Economics Post

Since President Obama is likely to spend a good portion of tonight's State of the Union address discussing government spending, I figured I would take a moment to comment on Eugene Robinson's column from the Washington Post today. Robinson asserts that Republican budget proposals slash spending based simply on spite and politics, not economic policy:

Republicans who feign attacks of the vapors and fainting spells over the big, scary deficit would be more convincing if they didn't begin with the insane premise that defense spending should be sacrosanct. The House leadership in the past few days has begun to signal retreat from this indefensible position, but it's unclear how much of the hyper-conservative GOP majority will follow.

. . .

The Republican "Pledge to America" promised to cut "at least $100 billion in the first year alone," notwithstanding "exceptions for seniors, veterans and our troops." This was never a serious proposal, given that defense, plus entitlements and other mandatory spending, consume about four-fifths of the budget. But it was a nice round number that sounded good.

. . .

Do Americans really want the effectiveness of, say, food safety inspection to be eroded by 30 percent? What about air traffic control? I didn't think so.

Robinson also reminds us that the Republicans political budget play would cut "funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Legal Services Corporation, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Energy Star program, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" while continuing to waste $13 billion for a landing craft that Secretary of Defense Bob Gates wants to cut because "we are no longer fighting World War II."

I agree with Robinson. There are plenty of wasteful defense contracts that should be among the first things we cut because they don't exist to keep our troops safe. Some things, like the FDA or the FAA or (I'll say it...) USAID are just as important as building military equipment that doesn't work or fit in with how our military operates in this millennium.

It Took 4 Years?

While we wait for the State of the Union address, which Burnsy confided he hasn't missed in a whopping 17 years now, a trivial bit of news came out:

George W. Bush's White House Office of Political Affairs violated the law by giving political briefings to political employees, concludes an Office of Special Counsel report issued Monday, nearly five years after the fact.

The report, titled "Investigation of Political Activities by White House and Federal Agency Officials During the 2006 Midterm Elections," finds that the electoral success of the Republican Party and possible strategies for achieving it often were on the agenda at some of 75 political briefings at 20 federal agencies from 2001 to 2007, the Associated Press reported.

OSC found that "White House Office of Political Affairs (OPA) employees, as well as high-level agency political appointees, violated the Hatch Act through a number of practices that were prevalent during the months leading up to the 2006 midterm elections," they said in a news release.

OSC wasted 4 years investigating what we all already knew? Taxpayers footing the bill for Republican political campaigns? That's government spending Republicans can believe in!

A Push for Government Investment

Fareed Zakaria laid out his hopes for President Obama's SOTU speech in Monday's Washington Post. It's a forceful call for government investment in research and development, as well as a call for scaling back obscure and harmful regulations. It's really short and definitely worth a read:

During the Cold War, the United States spent 3 percent of its gross domestic product on research and development; the government and private sector each contributed about half. Today, the private sector spends a bit more but government spends less. Obama should propose doubling federal spending on research and innovation. Three percent might have been enough in the 1950s, when Americans could still get millions of jobs in basic manufacturing. Jobs of the future lie in knowledge industries, and that means doing better than we did in the 1950s at knowledge creation.

Rush Holt Up and Coming

I recently read a list of 10 up and coming politicians to keep an eye on. It included all the regulars like Michele Bachmann and Darrel Issa. I think it should have also included Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey's 12th district. Lately, Holt has been finding his voice and getting some national attention. First, he spoke out against the Social Security payroll tax holiday:

Much has been discussed about the effect that the proposed tax-cut compromise between President Obama and Congressional Republicans would have on long-term debt and much has been discussed about how many jobs the proposed agreement would generate and when. Overall, although it would reduce the money withheld from an average American's paycheck in 2011, it ultimately would increase the burden shifted onto that average American's back for funding our government. Probably the greatest damaging effect, though, would result from the 2 percent reduction in payroll tax, an ingredient injected late in the negotiations last week.

The provision puts in jeopardy the long-term survival of Social Security - a centerpiece program that has been popular, efficient, and effective for 75 years. Sixty-four percent of seniors - nearly 22 million Americans - depend on Social Security for most of their livelihood. In 1935 most seniors lived below the poverty line, a fact hard to believe since Social Security has changed that. Also 16 million others - not in their retirement years - surviving spouses and children and people with disabilities depend on Social Security.

Now, Holt is speaking out on Peter King's plan to hold extensive hearings on Muslims:

Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), the former chairman of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, said he is troubled by Rep. Peter King's (R-NY) plan to hold hearings on the radicalization of Muslim-Americans.

"I feel like my friend Peter has gone way beyond what is called for there, and I do intend to talk to him about it," Holt told TPM of King's plan.

Holt's comments to TPM came after a Brennan Center panel held Tuesday to release the center's comprehensive study of the rules that govern the FBI's authority over domestic intelligence. The rules, approved by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey in 2008, are considerably more lax than previous incarnations, vastly expand the FBI's investigatory discretion and limit oversight, the report argues.

Emily Berman, the author of the Brennan Center report, recommends that the FBI be banned from using certain investigative techniques unless there is some basis in fact to suspect wrongdoing; that agents be required to use the least intrusive investigative technique that is likely to prove effective; and that agents be banned from improperly considering race, religion, ethnicity, national origin or First-Amendment-protected activity in investigative decisions.

Holt told the audience that profiling is "lazy thinking" and mentioned that many provisions of the Patriot Act are up for renewal next month

Holt's possibilities in New Jersey are interesting. Senator Menendez appears safe for reelection but is not really the most popular politician around. I cannot see him not running for reelection, and winning, when his term is up in 2012. The other New Jersey senator, Frank Lautenberg, is a healthy 86 years old, making him the oldest member of the US Senate. When his 5th nonconsecutive term ends in 2014, I'd like to see him retire so Rush could take over. I think that election may be on his radar too.

Lieberman: Signing Off

I touched briefly on Joe Lieberman announcing that he will not seek another term in the US Senate. In my mind, it is very clear he chose retirement over losing a primary and/or general election. Many have expressed their opinions on Lieberman recently. It's funny how conservatives and liberals share his history. Here are two accounts I've read recently. First is David Brooks:

If Lieberman had not been welcomed back by the Democrats, there might not have been a 60th vote for health care reform, and it would have failed.

There certainly would have been no victory for “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal without Lieberman’s tireless work and hawkish credentials. The Kerry-Lieberman climate bill came closer to passage than any other energy bill. Lieberman also provided crucial support or a swing vote for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the stimulus bill, the banking bill, the unemployment extension and several other measures.

So while Lieberman is loathed by many liberal activists, he has always had much better relations with Democratic practitioners. Vice President Biden sent me a heartfelt e-mail on Thursday that ended: “The Senate will not be the same without Joe’s leadership and powerful intellect. But it is his civility that will be missed the most.”

And here is Emily Bazelon:

My corner of Connecticut was covered in ice today, until news broke of Sen. Joe Lieberman's impending retirement. Magically, a warm glow spread. It was a delicious feeling: the end of the reign of the politician I despise most.

Why do I loathe, loathe, loathe my 68-year-old four-term senator? My feelings are all the stronger for being fairly irrational. Lieberman's views are closer to mine than many politicians on whom I don't expend one iota of emotional energy. This, of course, is his power: He never loses his power to disappoint. Then there is the spectacle of it all: After each act of grand or petty betrayal, each time he turned on his former supporters, the Democratic Party and the Obama administration came back begging for more. Throughout the last Congress, he never let anyone forget he was the 60^th vote.

Bazelon then lists a litany of reasons why she despises Lieberman. I think Lieberman irreparably tarnished his image in my opinion during the health care debate. In an effort to soothe his ego and remind everyone how important he was, Lieberman kept threatening filibuster unless he got his way, while moving the goalposts every time Harry Reid caved to his demands. Instead of holding the Senate hostage because the bill wasn't exactly what he said he wanted (after the concessions of course), Lieberman should have voted for cloture but against the bill. Democracy rules. So I say, "Good riddance, Mr. Lieberman."

UPDATE Re: Olbermann and the Prime Time lineup

Update here:

MSNBC announced that O'Donnell, who had frequently filled in for Olbermann before starting his own 10 p.m. show, will take over Olbermann's time slot starting Monday. "The Ed Show," with Ed Schultz, would move to 10 p.m. Cenk Uygur of the Web show "The Young Turks," will fill Schultz's vacated 6 p.m. time slot.

"We may be at risk of being bored to death by our better angels."

Kathleen Parker expresses an opinion regarding political speech and reaction thereto that I largely agree with. I especially agree with her closing thought:

Every now and then a public person is going to say or do something regrettable. I am beyond certain that our most beloved leaders were imperfect and must have said something inexact, without proper forethought or prescience. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt, among other notables, would be deeply grateful that they avoided these hyper-observant times.

Clearly, leaders are held to a higher standard and should be guardians of the light. Or, as the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy recently put it with passionate precision: "We are guardians of ze words!"

But human beings are not built for perfection or for constant scrutiny. We need time alone in our caves to reflect and imagine. We also need to be able to express our thoughts without fear of instant condemnation, granted time to reshuffle and regret, time to say, hey, I was wrong about that. Perhaps most of all, we need space to think more and talk less.

BREAKING NEWS: Keith Olbermann out at MSNBC!

In breaking news this evening, Keith Olbermann has left his post hosting "Countdown" on MSNBC.

I was home tonight, drinking a glass of wine, waiting for the wife to get home from work and, as usual, my default channel is MSNBC, so I hear Keith in the background, and all of a sudden I hear him talking about how it's his last show. I wondered what the hell was going on and jumped onto the google machine to check it out. Sure enough, no one had anything about this story. It was news (albeit marginally important news) being made in real time.

I've never been a huge Keith Olbermann fan, but it was kind of nice having an over-the-top, in-your-face voice on the Left to counteract the right wing insouciance of Fox News. Again, while I'm not a big fan, it's safe to say I'll miss his voice being there.

What limited coverage I've seen, exists here.

A Mockery of Personhood

That is what the U.S. Supreme Court made in Citizens United. AT&T is now asking our dearly beloved Court to take that one step further and recognize corporations as having a personal right to privacy in FCC v. AT&T. Dahlia again has the best write up on yesterday's oral argument, as she has taken AT&T's argument seriously and personified it:

AT&T slips into the Supreme Court chamber this morning, moments before arguments are set to start. He feels slightly affronted that nobody seems to notice him. (AT&T is a very emotional guy.) AT&T is handsome in the obvious way. . . .

Thankfully, it appears that there is little support for the argument:

AT&T dies a little inside when Scalia asks: "Did some members of Congress who had passed FOIA say, 'This is outrageous; what about the personal privacy of General Motors?' I'm not aware of any objections along those lines. . . ."

Even CJ Roberts, who earlier in argument did his best to trot out some defense of the contention, however halfassedly, raises an issue with AT&T's counsel:

The chief justice isn't done, either. He takes up AT&T's claim that since "person" is defined elsewhere in FOIA to include corporations, "personal" should be applied to corporations, too. Mulls Roberts: "I tried to sit down and come up with other examples where the adjective was very different from the root noun. It turns out it is not hard at all. You have craft and crafty. Totally different. Crafty doesn't have much to do with craft. Squirrel, squirrely. Right? I mean, pastor—you have a pastor and pastoral. Same root, totally different."

As Klineberg (counsel for AT&T) suggests that AT&T doesn't adhere to the "grammatic imperative" used in the 3^rd Circuit ruling, AT&T seems to understand that somewhere along the line, he has lost the confidence of the chief justice. Maybe he isn't a real person, capable of dignity and shame and other strong emotions after all. Maybe if you prick him, he does not bleed. If you tickle him he does not laugh. If you poison him, well. AT&T rises to leave the room. But he suddenly finds that he has no legs to stand on.

At least it appears that the current Court "gets it" in the sense that it cannot yet fully personify a corporation. What is most troubling is that this is even a question that can make it to the SCOTUS. Why must corporations seek refuge in personhood and continued to make a mockery of that notion? If we want to develop a bill of rights for corporations, I think the congress could do so, or we could amend the constitution. Isn't that what the judicial conservatives always suggest?

"I've been a racist since 1921..."

The year 2010 has long since disappeared from the review mirror, but I just came across this nice, cynically whimsical essay on 2010 from George Will. Among the revelations is that in 2010, it was revealed that Mussolini was hurt by people saying he copied Hitler. This caused him to protest to his mistress that he had been a racist since 1921 and he didn't understand how anyone could think he was imitating Hitler!

Take a moment to read the whole article here. Some of my favorites:

“I still can’t believe they took our yogurt,” said a staffer at Rawesome Foods in Venice, Calif., when crime-busting L.A. County officers with drawn guns descended on the health-food store in search of … unpasteurized dairy products. Elsewhere, TSA airport personnel exemplified government’s hands-on concern for our safety. In Quincy, Ill., police twice arrested a man who, by offering free rides to intoxicated persons, committed the crime of operating a taxi service without the government’s permission.

In Ottawa, the sensitivity police in a children’s soccer league announced that any team attaining a five-goal lead would be declared to have lost, thereby sparing the feelings of those who were, if you will pardon the expression, losing.

An Exercise in Futility

Very cute. The House is trying to play government today by passing a bill to repeal the health care law that probably won't come to a vote in the Senate, stands little chance of passing the Senate if it comes to a vote (I bet the Republicans will regret the 60-vote requirement if this comes up), and will certainly be vetoed. Regardless, Speaker Boehner rammed the repeal down our throats today to use his terminology.

Since they spent so much time pretending to care about the deficit, I will remind the Speaker that his bill raises the deficit by a whopping $230 billion.

The President Says Bunghole!

God Bless America! This is an actual, taped phone call of President Johnson calling Mr. Haggar about some pants. Enjoy:

Put This On: LBJ Buys Pants from Put This On on Vimeo.

(Hat Tip: The Daily Dish)

Bush Era Warriors

As Bob Dylan said: "The times they are a changing." Remember back in the Bush era when Majority Leader Bill Frist was diagnosing Terry Schiavo via video and generally stirring up a different kind of crazy? Well, now he's out of politics and saying the strangest things for a Republican. He was quoted in the Huffington Post with this little gem:

"It is not the bill that [Republicans] would have written. It is not the bill that I would have drafted. But it is the law of the land and it is the platform, the fundamental platform, upon which all future efforts to make that system better, for that patient, for that family, will be based."

He noted the law "has many strong elements. And those elements, whatever happens, need to be preserved, need to be cuddled, need to be snuggled, need to be promoted and need to be implemented."

A little creepy, but it's nice to see some bona fide conservatives speak rationally instead of calling everything "job killing" and insisting that anything the President does will spell the end of the republic.

(H/T Taegan Goddard)

SLC Punk

I had a fascinating conversation over dinner this weekend with my new friend from Utah. We were talking generally about politics, and more specifically about Utah politics. Then, the conversation moved on to Orrin Hatch's future. As if on cue, an article from KSL.com pops onto my Google reader today on that very subject:

A new Utah Policy poll shows Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, could be fighting off Republicans and Democrats in 2012. University of Utah political scientist Tim Chambless says Hatch will fight an uphill battle because of age, health and distrust of incumbents." There is a possibility that Senator Hatch, the incumbent, would be challenged from within his own party and would be vulnerable to the same fate as Senator Bob Bennett," Chambless said. When Hatch is put up against possible Republican challengers he falls behind both former governor John Huntsman, Jr. and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah:

• 48 percent support Huntsman, who hasn't said what his plans are for the 2012 election
• 23 percent support Chaffetz, who has hinted he might run
• 21 percent support Hatch, who says he's definitely running again
• 7 percent said they favor someone else
• 1 percent said they don't know

But it's not just Republicans. According to the poll, Representative Jim Matheson is close behind Hatch, who doesn't cross that magical 50% threshold for incumbents. Hatch would win that election 48%-41%. The margin of error on these polls was 4.5%. Now, 2012 elections are still a long way away, and a lot can happen in that time. But for now, I'm very intrigued in what could become of Senator Hatch - indeed, with Kent Conrad announcing his retirement recently and Joe Lieberman set to announce his retirement tomorrow, three more long term senators could be leaving the Senate. SLC, if you're reading this, what do you think of the polls? Are they an anomaly? Is the sample size too small? Will Hatch's political acumen allow him to survive anyway?

Old School Politics in Virginia

In Virginia, the General Assembly is back in session and the sweet, sweet aroma of political payback is in the air:

Del. Albert C. Pollard Jr. (D- Northumberland) wants some constituents of Del. Jackson Miller (R-Manassas) to be penalized after Miller submitted legislation that prohibits menhaden fishing in the Rappahannock River -- something Pollard claims will impact the economy in his region.

Pollard said he plans to introduce a bill Tuesday that would require all Virginia Railway Express riders in Manassas and Manassas Park to pay an extra $1 per trip to ride the commuter rail. The proceeds, Pollard said, will go to fund economic development projects in the Northern Neck.

In the words of President Obama and Sean Connery, if they bring a knife, you bring a gun. If they ban menhaden fishing, you make his people pay an extra $1 for the same amount of service!

Growing up in Michigan, a state with a full-time, permanent legislature, I am always amazed at the alacrity with which the Virginia General Assembly operates. And it's stories like this that are less likely to happen in a place like Michigan. It's also stories like this that remind me of why I love politics and that all politics is local.

Cheaters never prosper!

Elie at ATL hits the nail on the head with his analysis of the purported Georgetown cheating scandal and the purported perpetrator's email in response:

What a great email. Report me or STFU.

And really, this is a skill that every lawyer should have. You have your discussions, your negotiations, and your alternative dispute resolutions, but when all that breaks down you have to have the stones to say, “Screw you, sue me.” That’s what this guy is essentially saying. No more innuendo; if you have any evidence, bring it.

It’s a great lesson for the other students in his section too. If you are going to make policing other students your business, then go out and police. That’s what people expect from future lawyers. You get no points for just knowing ethical rules, you get points for being ethical. And if that means you end up looking like a tattletale douchebag, you’ve just got to stand up to that criticism.

Criminal Justices

Dahlia Lithwick does the absolute best reporting on the U.S. Supreme Court these days. Her most recent breakdown of a couple criminal cases recently before the Court is worth a read.

Beyond the style of the piece, the substance is equally attention getting. It's in the matter of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that "sliding scale" is an apt metaphor. Any analyst of the Court's work in this area always finds themselves asking where the facts put you on the metaphorical scale? In the King case discussed in Lithwick's column, it seems the Court finds itself considering allowing the police to put their heavy hand on the scale and create exigencies out of idiocies.

Crafted Self-Importance

In Slate, Matt Feeney destroys the notion held by some that there is something deeper to Jared Loughner's rage than mania and narcissism. Or, that somehow, his nihilism developed from reading Nietzsche. The destruction of these myths and the cultish following of Nietzsche by the young and disaffected make "Angry Nerds" a must read. Some quotes:

The attraction of Nietzsche to socially maladjusted young men is obvious, but it isn't exactly simple. It is built from several interlocking pieces. Nietzsche mocks convention and propriety (and mocks difficult writers you'd prefer not to bother with anyway). He's funny and (deceptively) easy to read, especially compared to his antecedents in German philosophy, who are also his flabby and lumbering targets: Schopenhauer, Hegel, and, especially, Kant. If your social world fails to appreciate your singularity and tells you that you're a loser, reading Nietzsche can steel you in your secret conviction that, no, I'm a genius, or at least very special, and everyone else is the loser. . . .

If you're a thoughtful and unhappy young man, in other words, why wouldn't you want to read someone who seems to reflect both your alienation and your uncontainable desire back to you as masculine bravery and strength? Indeed, there's something in every book you're likely to pick up—some enticement of form or content or both—that addresses your horniness/alienation and flatters you in the pretense that, though you have no formal training and are actually kind of a crappy and distracted reader, you are doing philosophy. . . .

. . . in Beyond Good and Evil, it's the aphorisms—a section entitled "Epigrams and Interludes" comprising over a hundred one- and two-sentence masterworks of moral paradox and counterintuition, calculated outrage and elegant eye-poking. Nietzsche is aphoristic even when he's being systematic, and when he's being aphoristic, his writing is simply unmatched in its beauty and mayhem, its uncanny mix of compression and infinite suggestion. And for a young guy who's intellectually hungry but doesn't much enjoy reading, finding this section of philosophy-bits in the middle of this famous book is like a homecoming. You don't even have to know what these epigrams mean to enjoy them. You just feel manly and brave in entertaining them at all, not flinching but laughing when Nietzsche says: "One is best punished for ones virtues." (You even get to work out some of your girl-troubles by lingering over Nietzsche's several jabs at women.)

It's definitely worth the few minutes it will take to read the entire article. Enjoy!

Another One on Health Care Reform

This video reminds me of the beginning of the town hall meetings last August with a more reasonable tone and no paranoid accusations of death panels.

So its great that Republicans want to add to the deficit by putting on their show in the House of repealing a bill that won't pass the Senate or a veto, but what is their plan to replace the popular parts? Like their other plans for cutting spending, there isn't one.

One Issue News Week

I really try to avoid writing about Former Half Term Governor Sarah Palin. She contributes nothing but vitriol and only is where she is because the press repeats every nonsensical, trivial thought someone on her staff posts on Facebook or Twitter ad nauseum. So, I apologize in advance, but our wonderful media (should I call it lamestream media - its so creative!) seems to be only covering one non-issue these past few days. I'm going to post The Daily Beasts's comparison and move on, hopefully to not talk about Palin for quite some time:

The prematurely retired Alaska governor had to serve up her remarks, really a litany of complaints against her critics and political adversaries, while seated in front of a non-working stone fireplace, apparently at her home in Wasilla—a claustrophobic setting framed by an outsize American flag.

The president got to deliver his affecting half-hour of heartfelt reflection and soulful inspiration—repeatedly interrupted by standing ovations—to an arena at the University of Arizona filled to the rafters with 14,000 mourners, notably members of his Cabinet and the Supreme Court, the governor of Arizona, the astronaut-husband of wounded Rep. Gabby Giffords, the heroes who risked their own lives to save others, the doctors and nurses who tended the injured and bleeding, and the friends and families of the six people, including a 9-year-old girl, who were killed by a gun-wielding maniac Saturday morning at a shopping center.

So Palin pulled her typical nonsense - playing the victim and throwing out terms she doesn't understand to incite others ("blood libel"). Obama orates eloquently and moves an entire nation. Seems about on par.

H/T Daily Kos

Virginia's ABC Stores

In some local news, Virginia's Governor, Bob McDonnell, has been trying to come up with a plan to privatize the sale of liquor in the Commonwealth. So far, his plans have yet to gain any real support. Try again, Governor:

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell will unveil a proposal Wednesday to close 332 state-owned liquor stores and replace them with 1,000 private retail outlets -- a scaled-back version of a plan he's pushed for months to end Virginia's monopoly on the sale of distilled spirits.

Under the proposal, the state is expected to reap at least $200 million upfront for the sale of new liquor licenses and $13.1 million more than it now collects each year in profits and taxes at Alcoholic Beverage Control stores, according to the governor's office.

. . .

Under McDonnell's new liquor proposal which he will unveil Wednesday, the state will continue to act as the wholesaler of liquor in Virginia, buying thousands of cases of booze directly from distilleries and selling it at a profit to private retailers, which would then set prices for consumers.

I'm really torn on this issue. I'm not really in favor of the Commonwealth banning private liquor sales. However, the Commonwealth relies on the money they make from the ABC stores, which makes it difficult to end the revenue stream without some way to offset the loss. It hurts even worse in Northern Virginia where we send lots of tax revenue to Richmond and get very little back. Therefore, I think any privatization plan needs to find raise enough revenue to replace that lost by the sale of the ABC stores, whether it be from liquor licenses or some other source. I know, real solid plan I have.