« May 2008 | Main | July 2008 »
June 30, 2008
Oh, Snap!!!
Oooooooh girl, now you know that's got to hurt:
While Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has vowed to make pay equity for women a top priority if elected president, an analysis of his Senate staff shows that women are outnumbered and out-paid by men.That is in contrast to Republican presidential candidate John McCain's Senate office, where women, for the most part, out-rank and are paid more than men.
....On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That's according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman.
The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)
McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.
The Obama campaign did not respond to written questions submitted on the matter Thursday by Cybercast News Service.
You know, this must be like that whole charity thing. Senator Obama wants tough laws that will force powerful people like him to do the 'right' thing.
Uh-huh. You know what I'm talkin' about.
Posted by Cassandra at 04:28 PM | Comments (33) | TrackBack
Relevant Service
Based on what I'm seeing here:
It's not "nice" to ask the question, but it's actually a pretty good question. Yes, we all know that John McCain was captured and tortured in Vietnam (McCain won't let you forget). A lot of people don't know, however, that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity. Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain's military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief? It's not like McCain rose to the level of general or something. He's a vet. We get it. But simply being a vet, as laudable as it is, doesn't really tell you much about someone's qualifications for being commander in chief. If McCain is going to play the "I was tortured" card every five minutes as a justification for electing him president, then he shouldn't throw a hissy fit any time any one asks to know more about his military experience. Getting shot down, tortured, and then doing propaganda for the enemy is not command experience. Again, it's not nice to say say, but we're not running for class president here. We deserve real answers, not emotional outbursts designed to quell the questions.
... and here:
West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller in April cut a bit closer, suggesting that McCain's days as a fighter pilot were themselves a critique of his character."What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground?" he asked. "He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."
Rockefeller promptly, abjectly apologized, praising McCain's "honorable and noble service to our country" and deploring his own "inaccurate and wrong analogy." His apology reflected a conventional political wisdom that McCain's heroism is too well established, and a climate of respect for soldiers too strong, for attacks on his service to do anything but backfire.
...and here:
Of all the "ex-generals" floating around out there, perhaps the most odious is Wesley Clark. Today he decided it was his place to demean John McCain's military service on Face the Nation:
Gen. Wesley Clark, acting as a surrogate for Barack Obama’s campaign, invoked John McCain’s military service against him in one of the more personal attacks on the Republican presidential nominee this election cycle.Clark said that McCain lacked the executive experience necessary to be president, calling him “untested and untried” on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” And in saying so, he took a few swipes at McCain’s military service.
“He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron,” Clark said.
That's just foolishness. A squadron command doesn't become "executive experience" only if the squadron is in a combat situation. It is either an executive experience or it's not executive experience whether at war or during peace.
Does commanding NATO not count as executive experience if NATO isn't at war? And btw, does getting fired from his NATO command negate Clark's claim to executive experience?
I'm beginning to believe that the only way to rack up "relevant military service" is to deploy to a combat zone for a year, miraculously rack up 3 Purple Hearts without ever getting an injury more serious than a paper cut, invoke a little-used regulation to get yourself sent back to a Washington, DC aide's job, and then testify before the Senate that your comrades in arms committed war crimes on a daily basis with your full knowledge (since you were, in fact, a commander and it was your testimony that these war crimes occurred "on a day-to-day basis with full knowledge of officers at all levels of command").
...the only qualified candidate for the presidency is...
[drum roll]
John Kerry, 2008.
It's not too late to bring The Strong Strength of Strongness back to America.
Posted by Cassandra at 07:27 AM | Comments (31) | TrackBack
Freedom of Speech
I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams.- Hamlet, scene II
For every drawback that comes with long deployments there is a corresponding silver lining. Sometimes one has to be willing to turn over a rock or two to see it, though. One unintended side effect of packing the spousal unit off for an all expense-paid vacation at Camp Sandy Trau in Iraq was that it prompted me to begin taking road trips on weekends.
I enjoy traveling. As a child I loved to go exploring; to take off through woods and fields, going as far as my little legs or my bicycle would take me. When my boys were small I thought nothing of piling into the car and driving 12 or even 24 hours to visit my parents and in-laws. I drove halfway across the country to meet my husband once. But until last year I never did much traveling all by myself, never went anywhere just because I felt like it. The idea was intoxicating.
Freedom, or perhaps more accurately the perception of freedom, is a strange thing. When I left college, married, and became a mother in fairly short order my freedom of action narrowed suddenly and dramatically. At first I found the limitations hard to bear gracefully at times, though of course I said nothing. Each Spring the world grew green and vibrant again, and each Spring I grew distracted and restless as I went about my daily routine.
Once or twice I even dreamed of abandoning the life I had chosen: the life I loved with all my heart. I was reminded of this last October when I attended my first high school reunion in thirty years. That's a long time to go without seeing anyone who knew you "way back when", who hasn't seen you since you were young and didn't have a care in the world. It was an interesting and I suppose characteristic experience. As I prepared to leave I thought of all the times I'd read about women preparing for months on end for their high school reunions: cutting and coloring their hair, going on diets, getting their makeup and nails done, planning their outfits carefully.
Well, that wasn't me. I never prepare ahead. I don't even pack in any organized fashion - it ruins the sense of adventure. I like to throw my things into a suitcase on the spur of the moment and go. That's exactly what I did; crammed a pair of blue jeans, my favorite high heeled boots, a camisole, cropped blazer and a few t-shirts into a small bag, called the dog sitter, and bombed down 95 with the CD player blaring. Once there, I checked into a posh hotel, drove from one waterfront to another and stepped from my car straight into my past.
I don't know what I expected. I wasn't prepared to see myself through other people's eyes:
"Oh my God, you look exactly the same as you did in high school!" (Is this the Official Greeting of high school reunions?)
But there was also this:
"I can't believe you married a Marine. I just can't picture you staying home with your kids all those years. You were always so WILD."
I'm not sure when I began to contemplate turning this into a drinking game: every time someone says the word "wild" in reference to your checkered past, chug one brewski.
Can you say 'confirmation bias', boys and girls? I knew that you could. I thought it was funny the first time I heard it. By the end of the evening I found myself thinking: "You never knew me." Isn't it funny how people only see what's on the outside? I may have been a little wild a long time ago when nothing I did mattered, when I wasn't responsible for anyone else.
And it may have taken me a long time to reconcile myself to being a stay at home wife and mother. But it's also true that even as young as I was then, I never once doubted I was on the right path. As young as I was then, I never failed to understand there is a price to be paid for everything that truly matters in life. That is just the nature of the world we live in. Choices imply trade-offs.
I always understood that no matter which path I took in life I would have to give up something of value. Perhaps that's why I don't understand statements like this:
Bottom line - I am sorry that the Field level O is a jerk, and sorrier that LT G is in trouble for airing dirty laundry on his blog. Reality is that those serving don't really have freedom of speech, and here's the proof.
I understand the good impulses that prompted it, just as I understand John's protective instincts. They both come from a good place. But what bothers me about so much of the outrage over DoD regulation of Milblogging is that ironically, military bloggers enjoy far more freedom of speech when it comes to blogging than most civilian employees.
The fact of the matter is that civilians have been fired for blogging even on their own time and even when their blogs are anonymous, entirely personal in nature and don't mention their employers. Employees who believe the First Amendment gives them the legal right to voice their personal opinions without fear of termination should think again:
Cliff Palefsky, a San Francisco employment lawyer, says there's a false sense that employers can't punish their workers for voicing personal opinions -- on their blogs or anywhere else. "People mistakenly believe that the First Amendment protects them in the workplace, which is generally not the case," he said.There are a handful of exceptions. Several states, including California, specifically protect workers from retaliation for their political views. Other states have broader protections covering "off-the-job" activities, said Palefsky.
Even those safety nets have limits when it comes to bad-mouthing the boss. "If you're going to be talking about your employer, it's hard to call that 'off-the-job' conduct," said Palefsky.
Military bloggers know this. What rational basis do they have, then, for expecting to be treated differently from their civilian counterparts, especially when one adds OPSEC and public policy concerns to the existing concerns of civilian employers?
What basis do they have?
It's an interesting argument. In fact, it's an argument we've heard before. You can't stop us from publishing, no matter what the rules say. What? You say that ordinary citizens are required to comply with this set of rules? Well, we are special. We should not have to comply with that set of rules because America depends upon us to supply them with critically needed information. You can't shut us down.
The end justifies the means. Where, oh where have we heard this argument before? Oh yes. Bill Keller. The New York Times.
"Just trust us".
And then there's the issue of the act which generated the post. I'm more than willing to concede that if everything is exactly as it was presented, it is a bit disturbing, though even there I have questions. But perhaps this entirely hypothetical scenario will illustrate my disquiet with some of the conclusions which have been drawn from Lt. G's post:
You are the regimental commander.
It has come to your ears - never mind how - that one of your field grade officers has threatened retaliation against a young Lieutenant.T The only "evidence" is a blog post. In the post, the Lieutenant accuses - in a roundabout way - his senior of threatening him with some unspecified and petty harassment as a consequence of the Lt.'s having refused a lateral transfer. The post is disdainful, contemptuous, and openly defiant of the officer.
You note, a few posts later, that the Lt. has been ordered to cease posting. Apparently he went on leave and posted the account of his falling out with his senior officer without clearing the offending post, something he knows well he is required to do. Given the tone, you are not surprised.
His photo is on the site, so there is no mistaking who he is. Anyone in the command would be able to trace it back, and therefore likely also identify the senior officer.
QUESTION: Based on nothing more than the contents of the post, do you call in the senior officer and tear him a new one?
Your call.
It's too dark
to put the keys
in my ignition,
And the mornin' sun is yet
to climb my hood ornament.
But before too long I might
see those flashing red lights
Look out, mama,
'cause I'm comin' home tonight.Think I'll
roll another number
for the road,
I feel able to get under any load.
Though my feet
aren't on the ground,
I been standin' on the sound
Of some open-hearted people
goin' down.- Neil Young
Posted by Cassandra at 03:34 AM | Comments (34) | TrackBack
June 27, 2008
Elucidating the Obvious
One of the things I have tried to do, over the many years I've been writing, is not to post in anger.
There are times when that is not easy, especially when I feel as strongly as I do about what I have to say today. Pent up emotions tend to increase rather than decrease in intensity, and each time an opportunity to respond is declined only makes the next time more difficult. Over the years there have been quite a few times when I have reluctantly decided not to weigh in at all on stories that interested me. I have done so primarily when I didn't think I could distance myself sufficiently from the subject to give it what (according to my own standards, if not in always in the judgment of others) amounted to fair treatment.
Let me begin by noting that in an era where so many time-honored traditions have fallen by the wayside, the military has consistently remained the most respected institution in American life. But why is this so? What is the military doing differently from other civilian institutions? Why do the American people still respect and trust the military when they have lost confidence in Congress, the Courts, and the media?
I would argue that the answer is really quite simple: the military, unlike these other institutions, has a clear-cut set of rules, they follow these rules, and when someone breaks the rules it is seen that they are held accountable for having done so. The fact that this is so, and that most members of the military cooperate to actively uphold and support this system, is what instills public trust and confidence in the military as an institution.
Another thing which instills trust and confidence is attitude: when the military is asked to do a job, they do not undertake the task with the mindset of "let us determine the minimum we can get away with doing and do that". On the contrary: they exceed expectations. They aim, not to get by, but to excel. And when it is a matter of integrity their attitude is not, "You're going to have to force me to obey the rules and show me subsection 5(c)(1) paragraph 2(b) or I'll sue you for intentional infliction of emotional distress", but "I'll get right on it."
Even when, sometimes, they are privately not that thrilled about rules and regulations.
Except, somehow, when it comes to military blogging. Then, mysteriously, all bets seem to be off and even military officers are suddenly insulting other military officers for enforcing existing regulations (which last time I checked was THEIR JOB, not a discretionary activity) and fomenting hate and discontent.
After much thought, I am not going to mince words here. I have watched this go on for far too long and it needs to stop. I cannot understand why no one is speaking up, but if no one else will say anything, I will.
It does not matter, really, whether you agree with the DoD regulations on blogging. Your personal opinion on military regulations is undoubtedly interesting to your mother, but essentially irrelevant to the performance of your job.
Discuss it, if you wish, on your own time. But the fact of the matter is that as long as the regulation is in force, it must be obeyed and if you do otherwise than to urge any military person to comply with a military regulation, you are behaving in a highly unprofessional manner. If you are doing this on your blog, especially using distainful and/or profane language, and you cannot understand why DoD is less than thrilled about Milbloggers, you are encouraging insubordination.
Is this really the kind of behavior military people should be proud of?
Is this the kind of behavior you want the civilian community to see us engaging in?
And most importantly, if you happen to be an officer or a staff NCO, is this the kind of behavior you want junior enlisted personnel (who are far from stupid, but ARE young and hopefully look to you for leadership and guidance) to emulate? My God, I hope not. Because I find it disappointing as hell.
I have no wish to pile onto Lt. G, but even he admits his initial post was rash.
He admits that he broke the rules.
The guy is an officer, for Christ's sake. He is paid to provide a leadership example.
And yet, many of you are defending an example of an officer who knowingly broke the rules, openly displayed contempt for his senior officers, and then, when the rule he broke was enforced, didn't have the good grace to take his lumps silently but rubbed their noses in it PUBLICLY.
If I had been the field grade in question, the easiest and least embarrassing course of action for me personally would have been to counsel the young man quietly and deal with the post LATER. However, allowing an officer to deliberately defy regulations and deliberately do what he did is not really an option a responsible senior ought to contemplate. I could not, in good conscience, ignore his actions no matter how irritating and public the repercussions.
Even if they caused someone to call me a "weak leader" for simply doing the job Uncle Sam paid me to do.
I suppose my question is, when are Milbloggers going to stop going off like a Roman Candle every single time a military blogging REGULATION is enforced? This was not the end of the world.
All I see here is a junior officer who broke the rules and (surprise, surprise!) was dealt with accordingly. I won't even address the issue of people not always getting to stay in their present job or the remote possibility that there were reasons the Lieutenant was not aware of for the proposed transfer. At any rate, he wasn't thrown in the brig. All that happened is that he was asked not to post for a while.
Be still, my beating heart. Somehow, I suspect the world will continue to spin on its axis.
What disturbs me more than anything else is to see military people putting out the kind of arguments they mock mercilessly when they come from the Leftosphere. I don't like hearing people suggest we pressure DoD into backing down on regulations, that we set up ghost sites so Milbloggers can post when they've been ordered not to (nice going - -what other orders would you like them to flout while you're at it?), or disparaging other military personnel on slight or no evidence.
The military is not, and never has been, a democracy and unless you want to see it turned into a debating society where discipline issues are debated and adjudicated via shouting matches in the blogosphere, might I suggest this is really not a path we want to go down? There is a way to handle disputes. It's called going through the chain of command. If you have a problem with someone, tackle it head on. Take it up with the actual people involved. Don't gun your frustrations out on the Internet where Dana Priest and the entire rest of the world can feast on your momentary bile.
I would have thought this was so obvious that it didn't need saying, especially during wartime when God knows we have enough problems without creating unnecessary ones, but apparently I was mistaken.
Posted by Cassandra at 03:07 PM | Comments (83) | TrackBack
Ha!
| The Recipe For Moi |
 2 parts Fearlessness 1 part Drive Splash of Friendship Finish off with a squeeze of lime juice |
These things always slay me.
Also, after reading Semper Fi Wife's post I decided to take the quick Meyer's Brigg's again just to see what I came out. I was kind of surprised that I came out the same thing I always do. Not sure why I expected anything different. Anyway, then I found this. What a hoot:
| Your Love Type: INTP |
 In love, you are honest and serious about commitment. For you, sex is something you think about and desire a lot of the time. Overall, you are pure in your affection and feelings. However, you tend to be suspicious and distrusting at times. Best matches: ENTJ and ESTJ |
On the MBriggs, my strongest attribute was Intuition. That makes a lot of sense. During recent years I've tended to trust my gut feelings less and less because I've been consciously trying to develop my more rational side. All in all, I can't say it's been a great success. Perhaps this explains why:
In experiments with laboratory animals reported this spring, Caltech neuroscientist Richard Anderson and his colleagues explored how the effort to plan a movement forces cells throughout the brain to work together, organizing a choice below the threshold of awareness. Tuning in on the electrical dialogue between working neurons, they pinpointed the cells of what they called a "free choice" brain circuit that in milliseconds synchronized scattered synapses to settle on a course of action."It suggests we are looking at this actual decision being made," Dr. Anderson said. "It is pretty fast."
And when those networks momentarily malfunction, people do make mistakes. Working independently, psychologist Tom Eichele at Norway's University of Bergen monitored brain activity in people performing routine tasks and discovered neural static -- waves of disruptive signals -- preceded an error by up to 30 seconds. "Thirty seconds is a long time," Dr. Eichele said.
Such experiments suggest that our best reasons for some choices we make are understood only by our cells. The findings lend credence to researchers who argue that many important decisions may be best made by going with our gut -- not by thinking about them too much.
Dutch researchers led by psychologist Ap Dijksterhuis at the University of Amsterdam recently found that people struggling to make relatively complicated consumer choices -- which car to buy, apartment to rent or vacation to take -- appeared to make sounder decisions when they were distracted and unable to focus consciously on the problem.
Moreover, the more factors to be considered in a decision, the more likely the unconscious brain handled it all better, they reported in the peer-reviewed journal Science in 2006. "The idea that conscious deliberation before making a decision is always good is simply one of those illusions consciousness creates for us," Dr. Dijksterhuis said.
Does this make our self-awareness just a second thought?
All this work to deconstruct the mental machinery of choice may be the best evidence of conscious free will. By measuring the brain's physical processes, the mind seeks to know itself through its reflection in the mirror of science.
"We are trying to understand who we are," said Antonio Damasio, director of the Brain and Creativity Institute at the University of Southern California, "by studying the organ that allows you to understand who you are."
Hmmm. Could there be some inherent bias in that process?
Surely there is a study out there on that, too.
Posted by Cassandra at 12:00 PM | Comments (34) | TrackBack
Those Who Can't, Teach....
Elementary-school teachers are poorly prepared by education schools to teach math, finds a study being released Thursday by the National Council on Teacher Quality.... Teacher candidates know their multiplication tables, but "they don't come to us knowing why multiplication works the way it does," said Denise Mewborn, who heads the University of Georgia department of math and science education.
The university was cited in the report for having an "exemplary program," while nine others met basic requirements. The rest offered too little math coursework or coursework that was considered weak, according to the report.
The University of Georgia requires teacher candidates to take courses to help them understand concepts underlying elementary-school math, as well as math courses not designed for teachers.
The report found significant differences in the number and kind of courses required by each education program.
Education schools also are not being selective enough, the report stated. Most require applicants to take an admissions test, usually around their sophomore year of college. But the test, which typically includes reading, writing and math sections, is far too easy, according to the report.
"Almost anyone can get in. Compared to the admissions standards found in other countries, American education schools set exceedingly low expectations for the mathematics knowledge that aspiring teachers must demonstrate," said the report.
U.S. children often fall in the middle or bottom of the pack when compared to other students on international math tests.
Jane West, vice president of government relations for the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, said her organization had not received a copy of the report Wednesday. The National Council on Teacher Quality plans to release it publicly at a news conference Thursday.
The report also criticized the tests education students take when they complete their coursework, which are generally relied on by states in granting teacher licenses. In many cases, the prospective teachers are judged on an overall score only, meaning they could do badly on the math portion but still pass if they do well in the other areas.
I know I've written about this before, but I used to tutor graduate students in the education program in California in Math. They nearly universally had trouble passing the CBEST, a fairly basic test of mathematical skills any undergrad ought to be able to pass with ease.
There is something to be said, even at the elementary level, for having a degree in the area you plan to teach in. My children attended private school for most of their school years and the best math and science teachers they had almost invariably had math or science rather than education degrees. It's not impossible to be a good teacher with an education degree: I've known some fine educators who fit this description.
But I have to wonder at the lack of formal requirements in academia, of all profession, for academic credentials in a teacher's subject area. It just seems odd; especially coupled with the reluctance to accept any empirical review of the teacher's knowledge of their subject area.
Posted by Cassandra at 08:49 AM | Comments (25) | TrackBack
Kids These Days
Yes, the princess will eventually write something serious again.
And no, it probably won't be this morning. Such are the aftereffects of too many hours spent staring at boring software data:
Officially, the incident has been filed as a common assault, but such a description doesn't begin to cover the events which led to Cambridge University student Nadia Witkowski being given a police caution.The scene of the crime was Trinity Old Field, overlooking the famous Backs, where students including Miss Witkowski, 23, gathered to celebrate the end of their final exams on what is traditionally known as "Suicide Sunday".
As befits one of the world's great crucibles of learning, the organisers of the Blazers and Bikinis party had laid on a jelly-wrestling competition in a 6ft paddling pool, with a £250 first prize up for grabs.
..."She went mad and punched a girl dressed as a butterfly standing at the edge of the crowd. Blood gushed from her nose. Then she grabbed a bottle of Lambrini and tried to escape.
"Security would not let her out of the grounds with alcohol so she punched one guard and butted another. They had to restrain her. She was still in her white bikini, all covered in jelly."
And the rest, as they say, is history.
Maybe she should have studied math.
Posted by Cassandra at 08:24 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
June 26, 2008
Thursday Afternoon Work Break
What I'm listening to right now.
Posted by Cassandra at 05:04 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Oh, Justice Kennedy....
Quote of the Day:
"I Got Yer Evolving Standard Right Here, Buddy":
Gov. Jindal made it absolutely clear that signing this bill today was about more than just sending a no-tolerance message across his state: "I want to send the message loud and clear – to the Supreme Court of the United States and beyond – make no mistake about it, if anyone wants to molest children and commit sexual assaults on kids they should not do so here in Louisiana. Here, we will do everything in our power to protect our children and we will not rest until justice is won and we have fully punished those who harm them.”
Heh.
On the heels of today's SCOTUS decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana barring the death penalty for sex offenders, Gov. Bobby Jindal released a statement calling the ruling an "affront to the people of Louisiana" - and what's more, vowing to do whatever possible to amend the state’s laws in order to maintain the death penalty for child rape.But that's not all he did.
Today, Gov. Jindal signed the "Sex Offender Chemical Castration Bill," authorizing the castration of convicted sex offenders. They get a choice: physical or chemical. Oh, and they don't just get castrated and leave - they still have to serve out their sentence.
I believe the term "Gates of Hell" applies. Read it all.
Posted by Cassandra at 08:45 AM | Comments (51) | TrackBack
It's Enough To Bring A Tear To Our Eyes
Because the plebiscite is the most sacred responsibility of every free society:
...voter turnout in Japan, which averaged 70% to 90% about 30 years ago, has fallen to between 10% and 30% in recent years. With voter apathy and a general aversion to politics worsening each year, the government has taken a variety of measures to encourage participation in the election process. Taking matters into their own hands, Triumph decided to focus attention on the problem by unveiling the Voter Turnout Lift-UP! Bra along with their fall/winter collection on May 9.
The Japanese: with them, it is always about duty.
Via Dave Barry
Posted by Cassandra at 08:31 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Sacre bleu!
Whilst idly munching the remains of a leftover croissant this morning, the Editorial Staff happened to glance into the bottom of our nearly empty coffee cup. Much to our surprise, there amongst the French pressed grounds swirling snarkily back up at us, we espied a new penumbral right!
But is this not the wonderful thing about a Living, Breathing Constitution? Contrary to the staid, stale prescriptions of heartless conservatives, a Living Text is free to change; free to respond to the real, human beings it is meant to serve. It protects the powerless, breathes life and compassion into the law:
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
It protects the downtrodden. This may be the defining difference between liberal and conservative views of law. A just process is not so important as ensuring equality of outcome. And of course, law should protect those who have no voice. And above all, the law must have empathy. Let's not forget that.
Except when it doesn't seem to do any of these things terribly well:
"I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes," Obama said at a news conference. "I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution."
Oh dear, Senator. The majority (whose numbers Senator Obama, if he is elected, wishes to increase) beg to disagree with you. Their logic is compelling, n'est pas? They cite, as precedent, a previous case (Coker v. Georgia) involving a serial rapist (alert readers may care to note that in the jaded judicial judgment of Court sophisticates, a 16 year old rape victim was deemed both "adult" and "unharmed" by her assailant, prompting this furious dissent by Justice Rehnquist, well-known unfeeling conservative and enemy of women everywhere:
A rapist not only violates a victim's privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological, as well as physical, harm in the process. The long-range effect upon the victim's life and health is likely to be irreparable; it is impossible to measure the harm which results. Volumes have been written by victims, physicians, and psychiatric specialists on the lasting injury suffered by rape victims. Rape is not a mere physical attack -- it is destructive of the human personality. The remainder of the victim's life may be gravely affected, and this, in turn, may have a serious detrimental effect upon her husband and any children she may have. I therefore wholly agree with MR. JUSTICE WHITE's conclusion as far as it goes -- that, "[s]hort of homicide, [rape] is the ultimate violation of self.'" Victims may recover from the physical damage of knife or bullet wounds, or a beating with fists or a club, but recovery from such a gross assault on the human personality is not healed by medicine or surgery. To speak blandly, as the plurality does, of rape victims who are "unharmed," or to classify the human outrage of rape, as does MR. JUSTICE POWELL, in terms of "excessively brutal," versus "moderately brutal," takes too little account of the profound suffering the crime imposes upon the victims and their loved ones.
But (yawn!) the suffering of rape victims is insignificant when balanced against the crushing weight of statistics:
In reaching our conclusion we find significant the number of executions that would be allowed under respondent’s approach. The crime of child rape, considering its reported incidents, occurs more often than first-degree murder. Approximately 5,702 incidents of vaginal, anal, or oral rape of a child under the age of 12 were reported nationwide in 2005; this is almost twice the total incidents of intentional murder for victims of all ages (3,405) reported during the same period.
Hmmm. Rape is a serious crime. Especially so when a 300 pound man rapes an 8 year old child. And even more so when twice the number of child rapes occur, as first degree murders. So depressing.
But be that as it may, the Court cannot bear to think of all those dreary executions. Or perhaps it's the workload. And if that isn't enough, there's the question of evolving standards.
You see, ever since the Court struck down capital punishment statutes for rape in Coker, they've noticed a funny trend: states seem strangely reluctant to impose the death penalty for rape! This, mes amis, is what's called an evolving standard of decency, and it springs up like Venus from a clam shell, fully formed and (mirabile dictu!) without the slightest interference from the Berobed Nine Five!
Never mind that in his Coker dissent, Justice Rehnquist had already noted the Court's recent 8th Amendment jurisprudence was discouraging state legislatures from passing criminal statutes imposing the death sentence in such cases:
...it is myopic to base sweeping constitutional principles upon the narrow experience of the past five years. Considerable uncertainty was introduced into this area of the law by this Court's Furman decision. A large number of States found their death penalty statutes invalidated; legislatures were left in serious doubt by the expressions vacillating between discretionary and mandatory death penalties, as to whether this Court would sustain any statute imposing death as a criminal sanction. [Footnote 3/9] Failure of more States to enact statutes imposing death for rape of an adult woman may thus reflect hasty legislative compromise occasioned by time pressures following Furman, a desire to wait on the experience of those States which did enact such statutes, or simply an accurate forecast of today's holdingIn any case, when considered in light of the experience since the turn of this century, where more than one-third of American jurisdictions have consistently provided the death penalty for rape, the plurality's focus on the experience of the immediate past must be viewed as truly disingenuous. Having in mind the swift changes in positions of some Members of this Court in the short span of five years, can it rationally be considered a relevant indicator of what our society deems "cruel and unusual" to look solely to what legislatures have refrained from doing under conditions of great uncertainty arising from our less than lucid holdings on the Eighth Amendment? Far more representative of societal mores of the 20th century is the accepted practice in a substantial number of jurisdictions preceding the Furman decision. "[The] problem . . . is the suddenness of the Court's perception of progress in the human attitude since decisions of only a short while ago." Furman v. Georgia,(BLACKMUN, J., dissenting).
... The Court has repeatedly pointed to the reserve strength of our federal system, which allows state legislatures, within broad limits, to experiment with laws, both criminal and civil, in the effort to achieve socially desirable results. Various provisions of the Constitution, including the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause, of course, place substantive limitations on the type of experimentation a State may undertake. However, as the plurality admits, the crime of rape is second perhaps only to murder in its gravity. It follows then that Georgia did not approach such substantive constraints by enacting the statute here in question.
The beauty of being Justice Kennedy is that one can find all the necessary justification for one's judicial pronouncements at the bottom of a coffee cup, in the hallowed precincts of The Hague, or perhaps in the crumbs of yesterday's croissant.
If only we could believe the 8 year old victim in this case was "unharmed". But I suspect our standards of decency will have to evolve considerably before most of us will be able to face that conclusion without feeling heartily sick to our stomachs.
Posted by Cassandra at 07:04 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
June 25, 2008
Dating Rules = "Meddling"???
Whatever would we do without "researchers"? Funded by our hard-earned federal tax dollars, these brave truth tellers labor hard in the Stygian fields of academe to bring us important breaking news of which we might otherwise be unaware.
For instance who among us, if not for scientists willing to conduct experiments under field conditions few would willingly submit to, would have guessed the mere sight of bikini-clad women makes men (who, we are constantly informed by our readership, are so much more logical and rational than women, being ruled by their higher cerebral functions, go all twitterpated?
Yes, if not for the near-irrefutable evidence of modern "science", we too would not have believed it! Yet it would appear that sometimes even men appear to behave in a manner perhaps best described as hormone driven. Who would have thought this was possible?
Certainly not the Editorial Staff. For the past few decades or so, we have been far too busy pushing our outdated morality on our unsuspecting progeny:
Researchers have known for a while that closeness to parents is linked to less risky sexual behavior by teenagers.Now, they're turning their microscopes on the dating rules parents set, with some surprising results: The limits you place on your teenager's dating may say more about your own love life than your teen's needs. Also, parents' satisfaction with their own life roles shapes the kind of rules they set.
Ah! As we suspected: parenting really is all about us, after all. It was never about our sons' welfare at all:
Parents who are involved in stable romantic relationships with spouses or partners tend more than other parents to set rules limiting teen dating behavior, such as curfews, minimum ages for dating, limits on places teens can go and explicit rules against sexual activity, says a new study of 169 parents and 102 teens by Stephanie Madsen, an associate professor of psychology at Maryland's McDaniel College. While the reason isn't clear, the author suggests these parents may hold more conservative beliefs in general; many of the rules involved sexuality.Ironically, in what other researchers have called the "Romeo and Juliet" effect, such rules may tend to drive teenage lovers closer; teens of these parents reported closer, more positive relationships.
Parents who are unhappy, dissatisfied or insecure in love, however, go beyond limits and try to dictate or control how their teens treat their dates, the study found. These parents try to influence their kids to value certain things and act in specific ways. Parents would tell teens to open doors for dates, "act like a gentleman" (or a lady), or resist letting a date "walk all over" them. The goal may be to launch their teens on a romantic path happier than their own, Dr. Madsen says. But kids often regard this advice as intrusive, and again, it tended to have the opposite effect. The teens affected weren't particularly content with their dating relationships.
The research rings true to me. As a single working parent of two, my love life is near the bottom of my list of priorities. Like the parents in the study, I find myself prescribing behaviors to my teenage son, like "be a gentleman" -- advice he listens to respectfully. But, I suspect, he keeps his own counsel.
Raising boys with a military father who is gone much of the time is an interesting exercise. A woman knows little of what it is like to be a teen-aged boy, and yet a mother must be able (if her husband is gone) to talk to her sons of dating, of how to treat a girl, even - sometimes - about sex. If you don't take on these subjects, you yield the field without so much as a whimper to a world that doesn't share the values you want to pass on to your children.
I am suspicious of "researchers" who advise parents not to "push" their values on their children. Of course children will keep their own counsel. That is an inevitable part of growing up; of the separation process which begins when your kids journey towards adulthood. Little by little, they draw apart from you. They spend more and more time in their rooms; they stop confiding in you; they resist attempts to steer them in the direction you want them to go. This is all normal, natural, and - though as parents we find it alarming and often painful - healthy.
It is just the first step towards leaving the nest, and if we love them, we must let them go:
Love takes many forms. Love is having the faith and the courage to let go when your children need to strike out on their own. Love means trusting in their judgment (and your own long stewardship); it means recognizing that they are no longer babies, but young adults. It means releasing them gently, lovingly, gracefully; though every fiber screams they aren’t ready yet – that they aren’t listening to you, that they will screw things up if you don’t keep a hand on the old tiller. It means not saying “I told you so”, when you did. Again. And again. It means biting your lip, and your tongue, a lot. It means giving them the space to grow, as you did once. Love means standing a bit apart when they come home, though you long to crowd them with questions as you did when they were small; waiting for them to come to you. Loving it when they finally do.Even though it took years. Boys are a slow crop.
And yet a wise parent does not let go all at once. It is not meddling to maintain an even tension on the rope which binds a child to home and hearth, paying it out at a rate that allows a child to make and learn from his own mistakes but hopefully avoid the life altering ones.
It's funny: I set few, if any actual "rules" in regard to dating. In fact, like my husband and I, my boys were interested in the opposite sex very early in life and I did little to discourage this: my view was that there is no specific age at which kids are "ready" to date. I did, however, spend an awful lot of time talking to my sons about dating, and I supervised their activities carefully during the early years.
Later on I took the view that, remembering my own youthful forays into the wacky world of dating, there was little likelihood I would have any actual control over their actions as most teens (rightly or not) view dating as an intensely private sphere in which parents are truly not welcome. But the fact that I had no control didn't mean that I had no influence:
A better way for parents to expend their energy, Dr. Madsen says, is to emphasize constant, warm oversight over just setting rules.
As a parent, I saw nothing wrong with giving my sons the benefit of my experiences. The difference, to me, was that I openly admitted to both of them that as teens who were converging on adulthood, the choice would always remain theirs. I stressed that they were still minors and that while they lived under my roof, certain things were expected of them. I also stressed the broad concepts of right and wrong which I thought it important for men and women to live by, and the consequences for them and their partners if they weren't careful and responsible.
The thing I find most interesting is this: my husband's and my family are somewhat unusual in that both of our parents met and began dating in high school. Their parents did the same. In fact, my kids' great-grandparents eloped when they were only 18.
My husband and I met and began dating in high school (though barely - we didn't begin dating until just before our senior prom).
And my sons married women they met and dated either in high school or the first year of college. That's a fairly unusual track record, and yet we placed absolutely no pressure on them in regard to dating.
Meddling? Or just pushing our values on them?
Or is it something else? Maybe we're just weird.
Posted by Cassandra at 08:38 AM | Comments (35) | TrackBack
Moooooving Right Along
The Marine Corps and the Iraqi government are teaming up to ensure a brighter future for the fledgling country... one cow at a time:
The purpose of the local government is to meet the needs of the people. One of the ways the local government here is doing this is by building a dairy farm.“The farm will consist of four buildings which will house about seventy cows per buildings,” said Army Lt. Col. Allen R. Gifford, 49, from Osseo, Wis., who is the embedded Provincial Reconstruction Team liaison officer with the American Embassy in Baghdad. “The facility will also be able to process other dairy products such as cheese and yogurt.”
The project idea came from the local government in Anah and so far has been funded by the government of Iraq rather than Coalition forces.
“It is a good example of the local government taking it upon themselves to provide for their citizens, said Gunnery Sgt. Gary M. Gonzalez, 39, from Alhambra, Calif., who is the assistant team leader with Detachment 1, Civil Affairs Team 5, 2nd Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 5.
The locals are so enthusiastic about the new jobs and revenue the proposed dairy farm will bring that they are already 80% done with the structures. The farm is expected to open shortly.
Posted by Cassandra at 06:19 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
June 24, 2008
What Does Cass Think???
Cass thinks this is breathtakingly stupid:
...new laws could see wolf-whistling builders placed on the sex offenders register. The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill will create a new offence of "communicating indecently", punishable by up to 10 years in jail.The legislation is intended to punish sexual harassment by text, emails and letters, but ministers also aim to include sexually explicit comments to strangers. It is expected that the law would only apply to persistent offenders.
And I'll tell you what's even more cretinous: when some idiot decides to "fix" a problem that may not even exist.
"It has come to the attention of the college that some female students have been making comments to, or whistling at, the builders both whilst on site and as they walk around the campus."Although we are sure no offence is meant, this constitutes harassment and is wholly unacceptable.
"We have asked the contractors' representative to pass on all instances of harassment to the college and we will take appropriate action which may include disciplinary action."
A spokeswoman for the contractors, Galliford Try, said: "We have no registered complaints on this issue. However we do not condone inappropriate behaviour from any parties on our sites."
While applying the law equally across the board has a certain blindly symmetrical appeal, applying a stupid law in the absence of both malicious intent and any genuine damage to the "victims" (even if only perceived) only doubles the stupidity. The only conceivable benefit might be that society may finally realize how utterly stupid some sexual harassment laws truly are. Frankly, in today's uber-liberated culture where just about everything seems to be kosher, I can think of only one punishment that truly fits this heinous crime.
Naughty, naughty girls. 'Twould serve them right.
Posted by Cassandra at 05:25 PM | Comments (28) | TrackBack
Sacre Bleu!!!
Via MathMom, the Editorial Staff learned (to our vast amusement) that our humble site is included in this map of the political blatherosphere.
Frankly, we are mildly shocked ... and not at all certain that there has not been a tragic mistake of some sort. However, our position on the map does make sense, given our linking policy.
At any rate, check out the map. We found the Fish Eye view interesting.
Posted by Cassandra at 08:27 AM | Comments (14) | TrackBack
Funniest Political Quotes
Extreme Mortman has this list of the top ten funniest quotes for 2008. We couldn't help noting that Obama's "heal the oceans" quote made the list. Speaking of funny Obama quotes, the other day KJ sent around this amusing quote, purportedly from the Obamessiah himself:
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." -- Barack Obama
To KJ's credit, he was skeptical of the authenticity of the quote though we all thought it was pretty funny. Turns out, Obama never said it. It was a Mark Steyn spoof:
Along with all the predictable moans and groans of disapprobation, I actually found one Obama supporter attempting to defend the statement. Trouble is, Obama said no such thing.It's a spoof, originally posted on Mark Steyn's blog on NationalReview.com. What's more, Obama wasn't even its intended target -- John McCain was.
Hopefully we never get so caught up in the idiocy that we stop caring about the truth. Let's face it: neither of the candidates needs our help in generating risible soundbytes. And during those times when they fail to entertain us, their followers can be relied upon to step up to the plate. Back in February, Sue Sarandon piped up with this gem:
"So I think he definitely has convinced people that he stands for change and for hope, and I can't wait to see what he stands for."
Neither can we, Sue. In fact, we're still waiting. Hillary got in a few digs of her own, too:
“I could stand up here and say, ‘Let’s just get everybody together, let’s get unified, the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.”
–Hillary Clinton mocking Barack Obama
Feel free to nominate your own quotes in the comments section.
Posted by Cassandra at 08:04 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Funniest Political Quotes
Extreme Mortman has this list of the top ten funniest quotes for 2008
Back in February, Sue Sarandon piped up with this gem:
"So I think he definitely has convinced people that he stands for change and for hope, and I can't wait to see what he stands for."
Neither can we, Sue. We're still waiting...
“I could stand up here and say, ‘Let’s just get everybody together, let’s get unified, the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.” –Hillary Clinton mocking Barack Obama
Speaking of funny quotes, the other day KJ sent around this quote, purportedly from Barack Obama:
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." -- Barack Obama
To his credit, he was skeptical of the authenticity of the quote though we all thought it was pretty funny. Turns out, Obama never said it. It was a spoof:
Along with all the predictable moans and groans of disapprobation, I actually found one Obama supporter attempting to defend the statement. Trouble is, Obama said no such thing.It's a spoof, originally posted on Mark Steyn's blog on NationalReview.com. What's more, Obama wasn't even its intended target -- John McCain was. To quote Mr. Steyn's January 28, 2008 posting:
Three weeks ago, after New Hampshire, when Hill and McCain and the gang were all bragging about being "agents of change," a (non-U.S.) correspondent of mine emailed me his all-purpose stump speech for this primary season:
My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.
Hopefully we never get so caught up in this madness that we stop caring about the truth. Let's face it: if we're just patient enough, both candidates will eventually say something snort-worthy all by themselves.
Feel free to nominate your own quotes in the comments section.
Posted by Cassandra at 08:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 23, 2008
*groan*
So.... this baby seal walked into a club...
Posted by Cassandra at 04:36 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack
Oh No... No We Can't
The Editorial Staff apologizes for the lame blogging, but we are hiding out in an undisclosed location, desperately trying to recover from the shock of this weekend's bombshell revelation.
Sadly, no sooner had we left than Attila tore down the drapes and made some sort of toga-like thingy out of them. Gotta keep an eye on those California girls. Always starting something.
Damned hard to demonize and oppresse the downtrodden masses when they insist on keeping this sort of thing secret, you know.
Heh... it's turned into a Coalition of the Shocked:
Zoey
Fausta
Sister Toldjah
Nice Deb
I'm sure I'm missing someone. Oh well, they'll let me know.
Posted by Cassandra at 04:22 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
June 21, 2008
No Mas, Senator
I couldn't sleep again last night.
After work I got all dolled up in this season's favorite skirt and went out for dinner. The skirt is very 1950s. It's (conceal your shock) an Audrey Hepburn-esque ballerina style affair: shell pink with exquisite pink and black ribbon embroidery gathered all around the hem.
Had a nice evening: great filet mignon, local bar, mildly quirky bottle of French wine we ordered mostly to see if we could utter the words, "Château Neuf de Pap" with a straight face. (oh, like you don't do that sort of thing all the time?)
Came home. Went to sleep, eventually. Woke up to find the post-racial candidate playing the race card like it was the world's tiniest violin:
Barack Obama told supporters that Republicans will “try to make you afraid of me” in remarks he made Friday at a Florida fundraiser."The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy.
“We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run,” said the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. “They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’"
In similar comments at a Chicago fundraiser last Thursday, Obama told supporters that Republicans would try to portray both him and his wife Michelle as "scary."
"They’re going to try to make me into a scary guy,” he said last week. “They’re even trying to make Michelle into a scary person. Right?" And so that drumbeat – 'we’re not sure if he’s patriotic or not; we’re not sure if he is too black.'
"I don’t know, before I wasn’t black enough," said Obama. "'Now he might be too black. We don’t know whether he’s going to socialize – well, who knows what.'"
I don't know. Could you work the words "fear", "afraid", "scary", and "black" in there just a few more times, Barry? Because I'm "afraid" voters might miss the point.
You know, that you're... like, totally ... black. And the bad, scary Republicans want us to be afraid of you. Because you're so ... black. Even though you're half white. Which we're not supposed to talk about, because that would be focusing on race and you were so hoping we could get beyond that, I know. Damned Republicans. If only they'd quit bringing up the fact.
That you're black. And we should fear you.
Odd tactic, for a man liberals keep saying is so likable and non-threatening he may well be our first woman president. The looming menace must express itself in a disarmingly feminine, non-threatening way.
Which is why the Republicans have to keep reminding everyone of your essential Blackitude and scariliciousness. It's subtle, man. Under the radar, sub rosa, float like a butterfly sting like a bee .... BAM!!! That's what makes you dangerous. You're a dangerous black man, with an Ivy League education. You use words like numchuks.
Boo!
For an ostensibly post-racial candidate raised by a white mother white grandparents (mind you, this is the half of the parental equation these are the only people in Barack Obama's life who actually cared enough to stick around and make sure he was fed, clothed, and received an education) Obama sure spends a lot of time talking about being black. It's almost as though he were trying to convince himself - or us - of his street creds. I don't get it.
Oh well. Congratulations Senator. You just joined Cynthia McKinney on my list of people whose arrogant sense of entitlement only serves to deepen the painful divisions this country is already struggling with.
Here's your card:
Obama: healing racial and partisan divides by accusing his opponents before they attack him!
Posted by Cassandra at 06:03 AM | Comments (53) | TrackBack
June 20, 2008
Heh
Via Patrick, Meyers-Briggs prayers. I admit it - they nailed me, either way.
Posted by Cassandra at 02:24 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Sharing the Hate...
What is Worst in Life? Getting tagged with a crappy meme....
Heh.
The princess has been putting off the odious task of sharing the hate with seven unfortunates as threatened promised earlier this week. But no longer.
Behold the inexorable voice of doom:
1. Homefront Six
2. Lex
3. Jimmy
4. Dave at the Thunder Run
5. Semper Fi Wife at SpouseBUZZ
6. This is a threefer! (Hey, I'm a womyn, I make my own rules!) The Armorer, BillT, and SWWBO
7. Because he's a prince of a guy, Ry already tagged himself (thanks!)
I always enjoy Ry's take on things. He is one of the most genuinely thoughtful people I've encountered over the years. He and I don't always agree, but I've always found him to be a man of integrity who is passionate in his own beliefs and intellectually engaging without being in the slightest bit hostile to, or threatened by, ideas he doesn't agree with. That's a rare quality in a man or woman, and one I prize highly.
At any rate, meme rules here. No doubt I'll get around to letting people know they've been tagged eventually since I know not everyone reads VC daily :p
Posted by Cassandra at 07:50 AM | Comments (25) | TrackBack
Coffee Snorters: Hot Monkey Love Edition
Your federal tax dollars at work: after years of intense study, scientists have finally proved that female chimps like to hoot and holler in the sack... but only if they know other females can't hear them.
Now there's a real shocker.
Man's best friend: you feed him, you give him treats, but will he be there for you in the clinch?
Bridgeport police say they arrested a city man after he ordered his pet to attack two officers. Lucky for them that 9-foot-long pythons aren't very obedient.Officers were called to Rodriguez's apartment on a report that he was threatening his girlfriend with the pet reptile.
Viadero says that when the building superintendent opened the apartment door for the officers, Rodriguez allegedly threatened them with the snake and told it to "Get them!"
Only the blindingly fast reactions of law enforcement averted certain disaster.
Posted by Cassandra at 07:01 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
June 19, 2008
Democratic Fear Mongering
Americans have been paying lower consumer prices than the rest of the world for decades. But since we've been able to trust the federal government to handle so many other things they do more efficiently than the private sector, let's hand the free market system over to Congress. After all, what's the worst that can happen?
Link: sevenload.com
One can't help but think this proposal would have sounded less grating in the original French.
h/t: bthun
Posted by Cassandra at 05:07 PM | Comments (17) | TrackBack
Since I'm Feeling Feisty Today....
...perhaps someone can explain something that has been bothering me.
In the comments to one of my Boumediene posts, Rick observed:
Since Congress exercised its Constitutional power to limit what SCOTUS considers, I would simply announce that SCOTUS overstepped its bounds and violated the Constitution by not deferring to legislative superiority on this question. Therefore, he, Bush, would continue with the present arrangement until or unless Congress sent new legislation changing the current procedures.Sure, that would be a Constitutional crisis, but SCOTUS precipitated the crisis. It would do them good to hear a "no". I didn't see where Justice Kennedy even addressed this. Souter attempted to provide a lame reference, but he was not at all persuasive. He simply claimed SCOTUS was paying attention to a different part of the Constitution.
This excessive genuflection to the Black Nine has been bothering me quite a bit, too. Just why everyone should be inclined to perform the Thousand Prostrations simply because yet another imperial edict, informed by the kind of toffee nosed legal opinion that results from strolling down the Champs Elysees at midnight with a badly rolled Gauloise and a pocketful of anomie ,has once again been handed down from on high continues to elude me.
Does Congress not understand the implications of this decision? Without even giving the DTA a chance, SCOTUS simply blew it off. Let's not forget Chief Justice Roberts' summation. Not content with failure to defer to the Executive during wartime - they overrode the Legislative branch too. And the irony is that this will bring no immediate improvement in status for the detainees:
...who has won? Not the detainees. The Court’s analysis leaves them with only the prospect of further litigation to determine the content of their new habeas right, followed by further litigation to resolve their particular cases, followed by further litigation before the D. C. Circuit—where they could have started had they invoked the DTA procedure.Not Congress, whose attempt to “determine— through democratic means—how best” to balance the security of the American people with the detainees’ liberty interests [citing Justice Breyer’s concurrence in the 2006 Hamdan case] has been unceremoniously brushed aside.
What I don't understand is, if the DTA itself could be construed as invoking Congress' Constitutionally-mandated jurisdiction stripping power over SCOTUS, (and according to at least one member of that Court, it can) what in the blue blazes is keeping Congress from simply passing a resolution saying they don't intend to be bound by the majority decision?
That would be a powerful smackdown to an increasingly imperial court. Of course, it would also provide the President with the backing he needs.... to follow the law Congress passed.
*sigh*
Posted by Cassandra at 02:56 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack
Curses! Fooled Again!
Is it just me, or do Barack Obama and John McCain sound disturbingly alike when it comes to domestic issues? During a recent meeting of the Half Vast Editorial Staff, it was generally agreed upon that we are really beginning to resent being talked down to by these two as though we were a bunch of whiny two year olds ready to throw our votes to whoever promises us the biggest lollipop.
The dynamic duo continually assure us that "Yes. Yes they can" somehow get the big money out of politics (now that's a tactic no one's ever tried before). Of course, the reality doesn't always match up to the soaring rhetoric of hopeful change:
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, announced this morning that he will not enter into the public financing system, despite a previous pledge to do so."We've made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election," Obama says in the video, blaming it on the need to combat Republicans, saying "we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations."
Obama, 2007:
"In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
Obama, 2008:
"Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you’ve fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford. And because you did, we’ve built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans. ...You’ve already changed the way campaigns are funded because you know that’s the only way we can truly change how Washington works."Obama said, "I’m asking you to try to do something that’s never been done before. Declare our independence from a broken system, and run the type of campaign that reflects the grassroots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far."
Hmmmmm. Let's see if I have this straight. Obama wants to bring about a fundamental change in the way Washington works.
By breaking campaign promises...
That doesn't sound like a terribly positive change to me. Come to think of it, it doesn't sound like much of a change at all.
Update: This post got somewhat sidetracked earlier. What bothers me about these two is the way they both keep pandering to the worst instincts of the electorate, and doing so in a way that is insulting to boot. Case one is the way they both keep spouting populist nonsense about how if they're elected, they'll stop Wicked Corporations from making Evil Profits: (that ought to fix the economy right up)
In Raleigh, N.C., last week, Sen. Obama promised, "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills."Set aside for a minute that Jimmy Carter passed a "windfall profits tax" to devastating effect, putting American oil companies at a competitive disadvantage to foreign competitors, virtually ending domestic energy exploration, and making the U.S. more dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas.
Instead ask this: Why should we stop with oil companies? They make about 8.3 cents in gross profit per dollar of sales. Why doesn't Mr. Obama slap a windfall profits tax on sectors of the economy that have fatter margins? Electronics make 14.5 cents per dollar and computer equipment makers take in 13.7 cents per dollar, according to the Census Bureau. Microsoft's margin is 27.5 cents per dollar of sales. Call out Mr. Obama's Windfall Profits Police!
It's not the profit margin, but the total number of dollars earned that is the problem, Mr. Obama might say. But if that were the case, why isn't he targeting other industries? Oil and gas companies made $86.5 billion in profits last year. At the same time, the financial services industry took in $498.5 billion in profits, the retail industry walked away with $137.5 billion, and information technology companies made off with $103.4 billion. What kind of special outrage does Mr. Obama have for these companies?
Sen. McCain doesn't support the windfall profits tax, but he can be as hostile to profits as Mr. Obama. "[W]e should look at any incentives that we are giving," Mr. McCain said in May, even as he talked up a gas tax "holiday" that would give drivers incentives to burn more gasoline.
This past Thursday, Mr. McCain came close to advocating a form of industrial policy, saying, "I'm very angry, frankly, at the oil companies not only because of the obscene profits they've made, but their failure to invest in alternate energy."
But oil and gas companies report that they have invested heavily in alternative energy. Out of the $46 billion spent researching alternative energy in North America from 2000 to 2005, $12 billion came from oil and gas companies, making the industry one of the nation's largest backers of wind and solar power, biofuels, lithium-ion batteries and fuel-cell technology.
Such investments, however, are not as important as money spent on technologies that help find and extract more oil. Because oil companies invested in innovation and technology, they are now tapping reserves that were formerly thought to be unrecoverable. Maybe we are all better off when oil companies invest in what they know, not what they don't.
And do we really want the government deciding how profits should be invested? If so, should Microsoft be forced to invest in Linux-based software or McDonald's in weight-loss research?
Apparently Republican John McCain isn't so far from liberal Barack Obama when the specter of American entrepreneurs figuring out how to make their businesses (you know, the ones which employ people like you and I; the ones which, if they fail to make a profit, won't pay dividends on the stocks we own?) generate a healthy return on investment rears its ugly head. Fools. Did they think this country was founded on capitalist principles?
Hoo boy.
And then there's the little matter of participatory government. We can count on both McCain and Obama to rid the nation of the scourge of interfering busybodies citizens who insist upon inserting themselves into the important business of self-government:
Kimberley Strassel addresses what has been bothering me about both candidates - their rhetoric to act as if lobbying was by its very nature a dirty and corrupt profession and thus they forswear having lobbyists involved in their campaigns. The campaigns and their supporters now trade accusations as they comb through the backgrounds of everyone working on the campaigns who might have had a job as a lobbyist.
The folly of campaign finance was thinking that it was wise or possible to outlaw free speech in the form of campaign contributions. The folly of lobbyist restrictions is thinking it is wise or possible to outlaw free association, in the form of men and women who are employed to petition government, many of whom also (unsurprisingly) take a passionate interest in politics. Start down the path of weeding out every "conflict" and you'll be weeding from now until November.There's a particularly big risk for Mr. McCain here. One of his biggest attributes is his reputation as a reformer. His record should say it all, yet he has now set a new standard on which to be judged. And the irony is that those doing the judging will be the 527s and other big-dollar funds that gained new power thanks to McCain-Feingold.
The truly delicious aspect of these pie in the sky promises is that even Obama's most ardent supporters are beginning to whisper "No. No you can't" behind his back.
Judging from today's news, their suspicions appear to be justified.
There is just something unseemly about two Presidential candidates whose basis of appeal to the electorate seems to be the premise that if they're elected, they'll stop those nasty Americans from acting so darned..... American. Because the last thing we want in this country is corporations turning a healthy profit and citizens who are able to participate in, and influence, legislation.
If someone has committed a crime, prosecute him. But I'm unclear on the purpose of this rather bizarre rhetoric, unless it is to encourage ignorance and discontent and distract attention from the fact that none of this nonsense is what we hire a President to do.
Now where is that lollipop?
Posted by Cassandra at 12:33 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack
Post of the Day
Reader Lela has started her own blog. Recently she asked her daughter to guest post. The result was this delightful entry on what it means to be a woman in the military:
“Describe your military experience, please. What does it mean to be a woman in the military?” Blah. Blah. Blah….I really hate it when people ask me things like that. “What does it mean to be a woman in the military?” What does it mean to be a man in the military? What does it mean to have brown eyes and be in the military? What does it mean to be short and in the military?
These are characteristics, not definitions. When I look back on my military service, I don’t want to think of myself as a “female warrior” or a “lady pilot”. I’m a pilot. I happen to be a woman, but I also happen to have brown eyes and a tattoo. Those aren’t germane to this discussion, why should my gender be?
And, of course, I know the answer.
The answer is that it’s germane because we as a society have made it germane. It’s almost like a type of voyeurism. We want to know about everyone’s dirty little secrets and experiences. It’s like it gives us a thrill to hear that someone has faced discrimination. For many of us, I suspect, it lets us feel vindicated. Holier than thou, perhaps, as if we’d never, ever contemplate judging someone on the basis of their gender, or race, or appearance, or whatever.
I also suspect that for most of us, that’s what we in the business call “Bullsh**”. (Feel free to edit, Mom. Just leave in my parenthetical. smile.). If those things truly didn’t matter, then we wouldn’t have to ask questions like “so what does it mean to be a woman in the military?”.
See? Catch-22, like so much else. smile. But now that I’ve talked you in circles, let me answer the question I hate.
Go read her answer. What she has to say may surprise you.
The lady takes no prisoners. I don't believe I could have said it half as well.
Posted by Cassandra at 07:07 AM | Comments (15) | TrackBack
Obama: Not Naive, Merely Clueless
Sometimes, the comedy just writes itself:
An advisor, Daniel Kurtzer, to Barack Obama says that Obama didn’t realize what he was saying to AIPAC when he used the term ”undivided” in reference to Jerusalem. According to Kurtzer, Obama had “a picture in his mind of Jerusalem before 1967 with barbed wires and minefields and demilitarized zones.” Kurtzer says that only after the speech did Obama realize it was a “code word” to use the phrase, “but it does not indicate any kind of naivete about foreign affairs.”
Merde! Let us see if this mare's nest is any less incomprehensible when deconstructed from the original Phrench. Obama, a man who seeks to command the world's largest superpower:
- took a position more radical than that of any American president in recent decades
- without making sure he had "a current picture of Jerusalem"
- or realizing 'undivided' was a code word that carried a special meaning to his audience
But all of this is OK, because it turns out he didn't know what he was saying anyway.
Oh. And he's not naive about foreign policy.
But then who expects a world leader to keep himself informed on these matters? It's not as though trivialities like situational awareness or nuance play a significant role in international diplomacy: should one put a foot wrong, there is always the time-honored excuse, "Ah! But you who fail to understand. My boss didn't know what he was talking about."
So credibility enhancing, that line. We shall have to keep it in mind for future use.
Code words. They seem to be everywhere, these days. Who knew, for example, that "arrest" was a code word?
It must be. Either that, or Obama (who, as he likes to remind us is not just a lawyer but a professor of Constitutional law) had a different picture in his mind of what the terms "arrest" and "in prison" mean when he said this:
And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.
Oh, really?
...where is the 1993 World Trade Center bomb-builder? Is he in a U.S prison, as Obama claims? Not even close.Abdul Rahman Yasin conducted the first attempted chemical weapons attack on U.S. soil by terrorists with the 1993 World Trade Center bomb. The bomb that detonated in the WTC ga