Jurisimprudence Part I: Scalia Sets the Record Straight

"I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them." --Judge Smails

Although I am ambivilant about Capitol Punishment, I have always been opposed to subjecting minors to the death penalty. Its not an issue I'm passionate about; the plight of Lee Malvo doesn't move me to tears nearly as much as the plight of the innocent 10 year-old boy he nearly killed. I just feel that most minors are not able to reason as well as adults, and thus should not be treated as such. Yet the Supreme Court's recent decision in Roper v. Simmons, declaring this practice unconstitutional is egregious. By citing world opinion and international treaties that have yet to be ratified, the Court revealed just how lost they have become.

In the Federalist Paper No. 78, the Framers clearly enumerated upon the power granted to the Judiciary:
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning"
Simply put, the Federal Judiciary was given the task of interpreting the COnstitution. Period. We don't call it Constituional Law for nothing.

Ironically when a Court decides to look outside the Constitution, they are willfully acting outside the Constitution. The Framers warned us that, "The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body."

As far as I have read, the Constitution says nothing about prohibting minors from recieving the death penalty. By interpreting international treaties in lue of the one document in which they are empowered to do so, the Court increasingly renders our "limited Constitution" limitless, not to mention meaningless. The Roper decision was the right one, but it should be made by the people, not the Court.

Recently Justice Scalia gave a speech in Washington DC in which he makes this case much better then I could ever hope to do....


The following is a transcript of Justice Antonin Scalia's speech on "Constitutional Interpretation" delivered at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars on March 14, 2005:

Justice Scalia:

Thank you very much Mr. Hamilton. It’s a pizzazzy topic: Constitutional Interpretation. It is however an important one. I was vividly reminded how important it was last week when The Court came out with a controversial decision in the Roper Case. And I watched one television commentary on the case in which the host had one person defending the opinion on the ground that people should not be subjected to capital punishment for crimes they commit when they are younger than eighteen. And the other person attacked the opinion on the ground that a jury should be able to decide that a person, despite the fact he was under eighteen, given the crime, given the person involved, should be subjected to capital punishment. And it struck me how irrelevant it was, how much the point had been missed. The question wasn’t whether the call was right or wrong. The important question was who should make the call. And that is essentially what I am addressing today.

I am one of a small number of judges, small number of anybody: judges, professors, lawyers; who are known as originalists. Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people. I’m not a strict constructionist, despite the introduction. I don’t like the term “strict construction”. I do not think the Constitution, or any text should be interpreted either strictly or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably. Many of my interpretations do not deserve the description “strict”. I do believe however, that you give the text the meaning it had when it was adopted.

This is such a minority position in modern academia and in modern legal circles that on occasion I’m asked when I’ve given a talk like this, question from the back of the room: “Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalists?” As though it is some kind of weird affliction that seizes some people. “When did you first start eating human flesh?”

Although it is a minority view now, the reality is that not very long ago, originalism was orthodoxy. Everybody, at least purported to be an originalists. If you go back and read the commentaries on the Constitution by Joseph Story, he didn’t think the Constitution evolved or changed. He said it means and will always mean what it meant when it was adopted.

Or consider the opinions of John Marshall in the Federal Bank Case, where he says, we must not, we must always remember it is a constitution we are expounding. And since it’s a constitution, he says, you have to give its provisions expansive meaning so that they will accommodate events that you do not know of which will happen in the future.

Well, if it is a constitution that changes, you wouldn’t have to give it an expansive meaning. You can give it whatever meaning you want and when future necessity arises, you simply change the meaning. But anyway, that is no longer the orthodoxy.

Oh, one other example about how not just the judges and scholars believed in originalism, but even the American people. Consider the Nineteenth Amendment, which is the amendment that gave women the vote. It was adopted by the American people in 1920. Why did we adopt a constitutional amendment for that purpose? The Equal Protection Clause existed in 1920; it was adopted right after the Civil War. And you know that if that issue of the franchise for women came up today, we would not have to have a constitutional amendment. Someone would come to the Supreme Court and say, “Your Honors, in a democracy, what could be a greater denial of equal protection than denial of the franchise?” And the Court would say, “Yes! Even though it never meant it before, the Equal Protection Clause means that women have to have the vote.” But that’s not how the American people thought in 1920. In 1920, they looked at the Equal Protection Clause and said, “What does it mean?” Well, it clearly doesn’t mean that you can’t discriminate in the franchise. Not only on the basis of sex, but on the basis of property ownership, on the basis of literacy. None of that is unconstitutional. And therefore, since it wasn’t unconstitutional, and we wanted it to be, we did things the good-old-fashioned way and adopted an amendment.

Now, in asserting that originalism used to be orthodoxy, I do not mean to imply that judges did not distort the Constitution now and then, of course they did. We had willful judges then, and we will have willful judges until the end of time. But the difference is that prior to the last fifty years or so, prior to the advent of the “Living Constitution”, judges did their distortions the good-old-fashioned way, the honest way, they lied about it. They said the Constitution means such and such, when it never meant such and such.

It’s a big difference that you now no longer have to lie about it, because we are in the era of the evolving Constitution. And the judge can simply say, “Oh yes, the Constitution didn’t used to mean that, but it does now.” We are in the age in which not only judges, not only lawyers, but even school children have come to learn the Constitution changes. I have grammar school students come into the court now and then, and they recite very proudly what they have been taught: “The Constitution is a living document.” You know, it morphs.

Well, let me first tell you how we got to the “Living Constitution.” You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand it. The road is not that complicated. Initially, the Court began giving terms in the text of the Constitution a meaning they didn’t have when they were adopted. For example, the First Amendment, which forbids Congress to abridge the freedom of speech. What does the freedom of speech mean? Well, it clearly did not mean that Congress, or government could not impose any restrictions upon speech. Libel laws for example, were clearly Constitutional. Nobody thought the First Amendment was carte-blanche to libel someone. But in the famous case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court said, “But the First Amendment does prevent you from suing for libel if you are a public figure and if the libel was not malicious.” That is, the person, a member of the press or otherwise, thought that what the person said was true. Well, that had never been the law. I mean, it might be a good law. And some States could amend their libel law.

Could we stop the cameras? I thought I announced a couple of shots at the beginning was fine, but click, click, click. Thank you.

It’s one thing for States to amend it’s libel law and say, “We think that public figures shouldn’t be able to sue.” That’s fine. But the courts have said that the First Amendment, which never meant this before, now means that if you are a public figure, that you can’t sue for libel unless it’s intentional, malicious. So that’s one way to do it.

Another example is: the Constitution guarantees the right to be represented by counsel; that never meant the State had to pay for your counsel. But you can reinterpret it to mean that.

That was step one. Step two, I mean, that will only get you so far. There is no text in the Constitution that you could reinterpret to create a right to abortion, for example. So you need something else. The something else is called the doctrine of “Substantive Due Process”. Only lawyers can walk around talking about substantive process, in as much as it’s a contradiction in terms. If you referred to substantive process or procedural substance at a cocktail party, people would look at you funny. But, lawyers talk this way all the time.

What substantive due process is, is quite simple, the Constitution has a Due Process Clause, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Now, what does this guarantee? Does it guarantee life, liberty or property? No indeed! All three can be taken away. You can be fined, you can be incarcerated, you can even be executed, but not without due process of law. It’s a procedural guarantee. But the Court said, and this goes way back, in the 1920s at least, in fact the first case to do it was Dred Scott. But it became more popular in the 1920s. The Court said: there are some liberties that are so important, that no process will suffice to take them away. Hence, substantive due process.

Now, what liberties are they? The Court will tell you. Be patient. When the doctrine of substantive due process was initially announced, it was limited in this way: the Court said it embraces only those liberties that are fundamental to a democratic society and rooted in the traditions of the American people.

Then we come to step three. Step three: that limitation is eliminated. Within the last twenty years, we have found to be covered by Due Process the right to abortion, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for two hundred years; the right to homosexual sodomy, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for two hundred years.

So it is literally true, and I don’t think this is an exaggeration, that the Court has essentially liberated itself from the text of the Constitution, from the text, and even from the traditions of the American people. It is up to the Court to say what is covered by substantive due process. What are the arguments usually made in favor of the Living Constitution? As the name of it suggests, it is a very attractive philosophy, and it’s hard to talk people out of it: the notion that the Constitution grows. The major argument is the Constitution is a living organism, it has to grow with the society that it governs or it will become brittle and snap.

This is the equivalent of, an anthropomorphism equivalent to what you hear from your stock broker, when he tells you that the stock market is resting for an assault on the eleven-hundred level. The stock market panting at some base camp. The stock market is not a mountain climber and the Constitution is not a living organism for Pete’s sake, it’s a legal document, and like all legal documents, it says some things, and it doesn’t say other things.

And if you think that the aficionados of the Living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You think the death penalty is a good idea: persuade your fellow citizens and adopt it. You think it’s a bad idea: persuade them the other way and eliminate it. You want a right to abortion: create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea, and enact it. You want the opposite, persuade them the other way. That’s flexibility. But to read either result into the Constitution is not to produce flexibility, it is to produce what a constitution is designed to produce: rigidity.

Abortion, for example, is offstage, it is off the democratic stage, it is no use debating it, it is unconstitutional. I mean prohibiting it is unconstitutional. I mean it’s no use debating it anymore. Now and forever, coast to coast, I guess until we amend the constitution, which is a difficult thing. So, for whatever reason you might like the Living Constitution, don’t like it because it provides flexibility. That’s not the name of the game.

Some people also seem to like it because they think it’s a good liberal thing. That somehow this is a conservative/liberal battle. And conservatives like the old-fashioned originalist Constitution and liberals ought to like the Living Constitution. That’s not true either. The dividing line between those who believe in the Living Constitution and those who don’t is not the dividing line between conservatives and liberals.

Conservatives are willing to grow the Constitution to cover their favorite causes just as liberals are. And the best example of that is two cases we announced some years ago on the same day, the same morning. One case was Romer v. Colorado, in which the people of Colorado had enacted an amendment to the State Constitution by plebiscite, which said that neither the State, nor any subdivision of the State would add to the protected status’s against which private individuals cannot discriminate. The usual ones are: race, religion, age, sex, disability and so forth. Would not add sexual preference. Somebody thought that was a terrible idea, and since it was a terrible idea, it must be unconstitutional. Brought a lawsuit, it came to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court said, “Yes, it is unconstitutional.” On the basis of… I don’t know. The Sexual Preference Clause of the Bill of Rights, presumably. And the liberals loved it; and the conservatives gnashed their teeth.

The very next case we announced is a case called BMW v. Bush. Not the Bush you think; this is another Bush. Mr. Bush had bought a BMW, which is a car supposedly, advertised at least as having a superb finish, baked seven times in ovens deep in the Alps, by dwarfs. And his BMW apparently had gotten scratched on the way over. They did not send it back to the Alps, they took a can of spray-paint and fixed it. And he found out about this and was furious, and he brought a lawsuit. He got his compensatory damages, a couple of hundred dollars, the difference between a car with a better paint job and a worse paint job. Plus, two million dollars against BMW for punitive damages for being a bad actor, which is absurd of course, so it must be unconstitutional. BMW appealed to my court, and my court said, “Yes, it’s unconstitutional.” In violation of, I assume, the Excessive Damages Clause of the Bill of Rights. And if excessive punitive damages are unconstitutional, why aren’t excessive compensatory damages unconstitutional? So you have a federal question when ever you get a judgment in a civil case. Well, that one the conservatives liked, because conservatives don’t like punitive damages, and the liberals gnashed their teeth.

I dissented in both cases. Because, I say, “A pox on both their houses.” It has nothing to do with what your policy preferences are; it has to do with what you think the Constitution is.

Some people are in favor of the Living Constitution, because they think it always leads to greater freedom. There’s just nothing to loose. The evolving Constitution will always provide greater and greater freedom, more and more rights. Why would you think that? It’s a two way street. And indeed, under the aegis of the Living Constitution, some freedoms have been taken away.

Recently, last term, we reversed a fifteen year-old decision of the Court, which had held that the Confrontation Clause, which couldn’t be clearer, it says, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witness against him. But, a Living Constitution Court held that all that was necessary to comply with the Confrontation Clause was that the hearsay evidence which is introduced, hearsay evidence means you can’t cross examine the person who said it because he’s not in the court, the hearsay evidence has to bear indicium of reliability. I’m happy to say that we reversed it last term, with the votes of the two originalists on the court. And the opinion said that the only indicium of reliability that the Confrontation Clause acknowledges is confrontation. You bring the witness in to testify and to be cross examined. That’s just one example, there are others, of eliminating liberties.

So, I think another example is the right to jury trial. In a series of cases, the Court had seemingly acknowledged that you didn’t have to have trial by jury of the facts that increase your sentence. You can make the increased sentence a sentencing factor. You get thirty years for burglary, but if the burglary is committed with a gun, as a sentencing factor, the judge can give you another ten years, and the judge will decide whether you used a gun. And he will decide it, not beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether it’s more likely than not. Well, we held recently, I’m happy to say, that this violates the right to a trial by jury.

The Living Constitution would not have produced that result; The Living Constitution, like the legislatures that enacted these laws would have allowed sentencing factors to be determined by the judge. Because all the Living Constitution assures you is that what will happen is what the majority want to happen. And that’s not the purpose of Constitutional guarantees.

Well, I’ve talked about some of the false virtues of the Living Constitution, let me tell you what I consider its principle vices are. Surely the greatest, you should always begin with principle, its greatest vice is its illegitimacy. The only reason federal courts sit in judgment of the constitutionality of federal legislation is not because they are explicitly authorized to do so in the Constitution, some modern constitutions give the constitutional court explicit authority to review German legislation or French legislation for its constitutionality. Our Constitution doesn’t say anything like that. But John Marshall says in Marbury v. Madison: look, this is lawyers work. What you have here is an apparent conflict between the Constitution and the statute. And all the time, lawyers and judges have to reconcile these conflicts; they try to read the two to comport with each other. If they can’t, it’s judges work to decide which ones prevail. When there are two statutes, the more recent one prevails. It implicitly repeals the older one. But when the Constitution is at issue, the Constitution prevails because it is a superstatute. I mean, that’s what Marshall says, its judges work.

If you believe however, that the Constitution is not a legal text, like the texts involved when judges reconcile or decide which of two statutes prevail, if you think the Constitution is some exhortation to give effect to the most fundamental values of the society as those values change from year to year. If you think that it is meant to reflect, as some of the Supreme Court cases say, particularly those involving the Eighth Amendment, if you think it is simply meant to reflect the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society, if that is what you think it is, then why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers? What do I know about the evolving standards of decency of American society? I’m afraid to ask.

If that is what you think the Constitution is, the Marbury v. Madison is wrong. It shouldn’t be up to the judges, it should be up to the legislature. We should have a system like the English. Whatever the legislature thinks is constitutional is constitutional. They know the evolving standards of American society, I don’t. So in principle, it’s incompatible with the legal regime that America has established.

Secondly, and this is the killer argument, I mean, it’s the best debaters argument. They say in politics, you can’t beat somebody with nobody, it’s the same thing with principles of legal interpretation. If you don’t believe in originalism, then you need some other principle of interpretation. Being a non-originalist is not enough. You see, I have my rules that confine me. I know what I’m looking for. When I find it, the original meaning of the Constitution, I am handcuffed. If I believe that the First Amendment meant when it was adopted that you are entitled to burn the American flag, I have to come out that way, even though I don’t like to come out that way. When I find that the original meaning of the jury trial guarantee is that any additional time you spend in prison which depends upon a fact, must depend upon a fact found by a jury, once I find that’s what the jury trial guarantee means, I am handcuffed. Though I’m a law and order type, I can not do all the mean conservative things I would like to do to this society. You got me.

Now, if you’re not going to control your judges that way, what other criterion are you going to place before them? What is the criterion that governs the living constitutional judge? What can you possibly use, besides original meaning? Think about that. Natural law? We all agree on that, don’t we? The philosophy of John Rawls? That’s easy. There really is nothing else. You either tell your judges, “Look, this is a law, like all laws, give it the meaning it had when it was adopted.” Or, you tell your judges, “Govern us. You tell us whether people under eighteen, who committed their crimes when they were under eighteen, should be executed. You tell us whether there ought to be an unlimited right to abortion or a partial right to abortion. You make these decisions for us.”

I have put this question, you know I speak at law schools with some frequency just to make trouble, and I put this question to the faculty all the time, or incite the students to ask their living constitutional professors. “OK professor, you are not an originalist, what is your criterion?” There is none other.

And finally, this is what I will conclude with, although it is not on a happy note, the worse thing about the Living Constitution is that it will destroy the Constitution. You heard in the introduction that I was confirmed, close to nineteen years ago now, by a vote of ninety-eight to nothing. The two missing were Barry Goldwater and Jake Garn, so make it a hundred. I was known at that time to be, in my political and social views, fairly conservative. But still, I was known to be a good lawyer, an honest man, somebody who could read a text and give it its fair meaning, had judicial impartiality and so forth. And so I was unanimously confirmed.

Today, barely twenty years later, it is difficult to get someone confirmed to the Court of Appeals. What has happened? The American people have figured out what is going on. If we are selecting lawyers, if we are selecting people to read a text and give it the fair meaning it had when it was adopted, yes, the most important thing to do is to get a good lawyer. If on the other hand, we’re picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience, a new constitution, with all sorts of new values to govern our society, then we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look principally for people who agree with us, the majority, as to whether there ought to be this right, that right, and the other right. We want to pick people that would write the new constitution that we would want.

And that is why you hear in the discourse on this subject, people talking about moderate, we want moderate judges. What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Half way between what it really means and what you’d like it to mean? There is no such thing as a moderate interpretation of the text. Would you ask a lawyer, “Draw me a moderate contract?” The only way the word has any meaning is if you are looking for someone to write a law, to write a constitution, rather than to interpret one. The moderate judge is the one who will devise the new constitution that most people would approve of. So for example, we had a suicide case some terms ago, and the Court refused to hold that there is a constitutional right to assisted suicide. We said, “We’re not yet ready to say that. Stay tuned, in a few years, the time may come, but we’re not yet ready.” And that was a moderate decision, because I think most people would not want a… If we had gone, looked into that and created a national right to assisted suicide that would have been an immoderate and extremist decision.

I think the very terminology suggests where we have arrived: at the point of selecting people to write a constitution, rather than people to give us the fair meaning of one that has been democratically adopted. And when that happens, when the Senate interrogates nominees to the Supreme Court, or to the lower courts, you know, “Judge so and so, do you think there is a right to this in the Constitution? You don’t?! Well my constituents’ think there ought to be, and I’m not going to appoint to the court someone who is not going to find that.” When we are in that mode, you realize, we have rendered the Constitution useless, because the Constitution will mean what the majority wants it to mean. The senators are representing the majority. And they will be selecting justices who will devise a constitution that the majority wants.

And that of course, deprives the Constitution of its principle utility. The Bill of Rights is devised to protect you and me against, who do you think? The majority. My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk. And the notion that the justices ought to be selected because of the positions that they will take that are favored by the majority is a recipe for destruction of what we have had for two-hundred years.

To come back to the beginning, this is new. Fifty years old or so, the Living Constitution stuff. We have not yet seen what the end of the road is. I think we are beginning to see. And what it is should really be troublesome to Americans who care about a Constitution that can provide protections against majoritarian rule. Thank you.

Know Thyself Part II: Defining the Right

“Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.” --Walter


Given the divisive nature of our current political landscape, perhaps it is necessary to define the various groups that make up the right. Although “neoconservative” has become a pejorative term, most Americans probably couldn’t tell you what they really believe. Anyone who votes Republican today is categorized by the media as the “right”, with no attempt to distinguish various ideologies. What the media misses is that the Pat Buchanan’s of the right have almost nothing in common with the Bill Kristol’s…other then their agreement that John Kerry was a joke.

Classical Conservative (“PaleoCons”) These guys are the “old school” Republicans. They are the modern version of the “Know-Nothings.” Somewhat provincial in nature, these guys are not fans of George W. Bush. They hate deficits, government programs, Jews, and idealistic foreign policies. In that order. It took Pearl Harbor to get these guys on board for WW2. This group has been shrinking steadily since then. Pat Buchanan is the most prominent Paleocon. The only nice thing I can say about these guys is that still value common sense. The editor of Pat Buchanan’s American Conservative describes their views here: http://www.amconmag.com/aboutus.html

Christian Conservatives- This classifies a lot of folks in the South today. Yes, a lot of them still believe in Creationism, and although this does weaken their credibility a bit, you can’t argue with faith. As such these guys are mostly concerned with social issues like abortion and gay marriage. And most support an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East. The fact that many of them view this as a chance to finally convert those damn heathens is somewhat scary. The only way the Democrats will win in the South again is if they suddenly vanish to heaven in “the Rapture.”

Libertarians- All these people really want is to be left alone. Protect me from hijacked jets, but don’t tell me how to live my life. They actually make a lot of sense. That Jesse Ventura is their front man may help their street cred, but it hurts everywhere else. As much as I respect the right to bear arms, until the red coats return, the Montana militia folks need to get a grip. Liberty is a good thing. Anarchy…not so much.

Neoconservative- If you read the Washington Post or the New York Times you would think “neocon”s eat babies in their free time. To be called a “neocon” today is akin to being called a “neonazi.”

What most of the public doesn’t get is the liberal nature of their beliefs.
The original "neoconservatives" like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, were anti-Communist socialists strongly supportive of the civil rights movement, integration, and Martin Luther King. Neoconservatives were the ideological offspring of JFK. It wasn’t until the rise of "anti-Americanism" in the counterculture of the 1960s that this group began to associate themselves with conservatives.

According to Irving Kristol a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality." The primary tenet of this idealistic ideology is to spread American ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad.

These ideas are rooted in liberal tradition. True conservatives act like dead-beat dads when it comes to nation building. They will change their names to avoid getting involved.

The coalition that currently comprises the Republican party is as diverse a group as one could imagine. Unlike the Democratic Party of late, it is truly a “big tent.” Were Bill Clinton in office today, I highly doubt that his foreign policy would differ greatly from George W. Bush. Yet, because the public faces of “neoconservatism” are so divisive in nature, the ideology has been branded as “right wing.” The continued defection of former Democrats like myself proves otherwise

For another perspective, NRO Editor Jonah Goldberg has recently published two essays regarding the evolution of conservatism at:

http://www.opinionduel.com/
and
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200503300801.asp

Or read Christopher Hitchens at:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2115170/

In Memoriam: Johnnie Lee Cochran Jr.

The man was good. So good that God is dumbfounded he just agreed to let Johnnie into heaven. St. Peter never had a chance. It doesn't matter that Johnnie was mostly full of shit. And it doesn't matter that OJ was not the only murderer that walked because of his brilliance. It only mattered that he was one likeable SOB. Whatever his politics or his effect on our legal system, he never forgot who he was, or where he came from. And those who struggled to make it out of South Central LA because of his help are testament to that fact. Johnnie represented much of what is wrong with our legal system, but his success represented much of what is right about the American dream. Johnnie was a success because he was smart, ambitious, and because he loved people. Despite his flaws, we loved him back. Rest in peace Johnnie.

In other news, Johnnie has just been hired to represent a group of Egyptian first-born males in a class-action wrongful death suit naming God as the principle defendent. Good luck God.

Know Thyself: Part I- Defining the Dems

Bart: Are we awake?
Jim: We’re not sure…are we black?
Bart: Yes we are
Jim: Then we’re awake…but we’re very confused
----Blazing Saddles

Seeing as how Howard Dean is accusing “evil” republicans of engaging in name calling, and Sen. Robert KKK Byrd is comparing Republicans to Nazis, it would seem helpful to actually define some common and not so common terms for Democrats; especially seeing as how I describe myself as a former “Blue Dog Democrat.”

Yellow Dog Democrat- This is the nickname that started it all for the Dems. As with most colorful nicknames it evolved in the South. The term came about during the 1928 elections, when Al Smith ran for President against Herbert Hoover. During that campaign, Senator Tom Heflin, of Alabama, declined to back his fellow Democrat, Al Smith the Governor of NY. Even then southerners were distrustful of Northeastern liberals. But Reconstruction was still a bitter memory…it still is in some parts.

To make matters worse for Heflin, he decided to back Republican Herbert Hoover, who would then go on to become President. Heflin's controversial actions were considered heresy. In Alabama circa 1928, Republicans were about as attractive to voters as a chubby chick with herpes. As you can imagine, quite a large number of Alabamans vehemently disagreed with Senator Heflin's decision to cross his "Party Lines". Hence, the popular saying, "I'd vote for a yellow dog if he ran on the Democratic ticket" was born. It was adopted as the proud slogan of the staunch party loyalist. It’s modern day translation is “anybody but Bush.”

Blue Dog Democrat, is a nickname derived from "Yellow Dog Democrat". It was Former Democrat Rep. Pete Geren, of Texas, who said that the members have been "choked blue" by those extreme Democrats, from the left. The Blue Dogs were descendants of a 1950s defunct Southern Democratic group once known as the 'Boll Weevils', who played a critical role, in the early 1980s, by supporting President Ronald Reagan's tax cut plan. Later this group formed a coalition of about thirty conservative-leaning House Democrats in 1995.

The greatest Blue Dog was Charlie Wilson from East Texas. Although he played a key role in funding the Mujahideen’s resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he is probably better known for snorting coke with models in Vegas hot tubs, as well bringing belly dancers with him an official visits to Pakistan. For this alone he qualifies as one of my personal heroes. This guy got so loaded one night he hit a car on Key Bridge and did what most smart politicians would do…he fled…to Pakistan. Like “good times Charlie” most of the Blue Dogs have either retired, or been forced to resign for various reasons (like railing your intern and lying about it when she goes missing).

Green Dog Democrat- Apparently a green-dog Democrat is a cross between a yellow-dog Democrat and a blue-dog Democrat. Supposedly moderates, most Green Dogs I’ve met think Ted Kennedy is moderate. Moderately drunk perhaps.

Dixiecrat- These guys are the Roger Clintons of the Democratic Party. Officially known as the States' Rights Democratic Party; they were a short-lived splinter group of Southern Democrats who opposed racial integration. Their embarrasing stance on Civil Rights makes them like the gay uncle no one talks about at family reunions. These guys are so discredited that Republican Trent Lott tried to wish the father of the Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond, a happy birthday and he was forced to resign as Majority leader.

The death of the Deomcratic Party in the South has also meant the death of colorful nicknames for Democrats…which is unfortunate. Even relativley new terms for Republicans (ie. “NeoConservative”) have already begotten nicknames (ie. “Vulcans.”). I hope that in the near future Jeanine Garafolo, Al Franken, and Bill Maher can get together and come up with something humorous. Although he’s no Charlie Wilson, a man as colorful as Howard Dean deserves nothing less.

(Background Information Courtesy of William Safire's Safire's New Political Dictionary.
© 1993 by the Cobbett Corporation.)

Next: Part II-Defining Conservatives

Another Bullshit Alert

You gotta love Howie Dean. In a speech yesterday down at Vandy he continued his effort to win back "the solid south" for the Democratic Party. How you might ask?

According to Howie, "We [Liberals from New Hamshire] need to talk about values and not be afraid of them." Yet during his run for the Democratic nomination Howie famously lectured that "the South has to stop basing its vote on
race, God, guns and gays." Translation: Your values suck. You need to vote for Democrats cause you don't know any better.

This is the type of thinking that caused him to say,"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." Sadly Howie still thinks of the South like Hollywood tends to portray it; as a bunch of dumb backward rednecks.

Notice to Howie: you want to win the South, don't talk down to us. I don't know what ivory tower you climbed down from, but as long as you talk about to Southerners like you would talk to a child, you won't win.

Complaining yesterday that a local commercial had called him "a northeastern liberal" (which is fairly accurate), "I've been called worse things than a liberal. The reason the Republicans call names is because they have nothing to say about balancing the budget, creating jobs or doing anything about health care or education." Of course this is coming from the guy who just called all Republicans "evil". But I guess being called "a northeastern liberal" is worse then "evil".

Another Notice to Howie: you want to win the South, don't be such a whiner.


Courtesy of the Drudge Report

A Major League Pain in the Ass

Rick Vaughn: What's that shit on your chest?
Harris: Crisco, Bardol, Vagisil. Any one of them will give you another two to three inches drop on your curve ball. Of course if the umps are watching me real close I'll rub a little jalapeno up my nose, get it runnin', and if I need to load the ball up just wipe my nose. I haven't got an arm like you, kid. I have to put anything on it I can find. Someday you will too. --Major League


For at least the last decade anyone who has paid attention probably suspected that Major League Baseball had a steroid problem. Records that had not been in danger for 40 years were suddenly being eclipsed almost every year, and the players who broke them tended to be in their late 30’s, with about 30 pounds more muscle on their frame then they did in their “prime.” It hasn’t been until recently, however, that the problem has attracted attention from our leaders in D.C.

Perhaps the return of baseball inside the beltway has aroused in Congress a long dormant interest in our national pastime, or perhaps they were sick of dealing with Iraq and Social Security. This is the type of issue that politicians love to talk about. After all, what is more American then professing on national television your love of baseball? Notwithstanding those Communist bastards in Havana, baseball is truly a democratic game. Although I don’t begrudge Eli Cummings the chance to state his love of baseball on TV, I can’t help but think Congress should have a better way to spend their time. That our leaders in the House would rather look patriotic talking baseball then working to improve education or secure our borders shows that like Deion Sanders; they would rather look good and lose, then look bad and win.

At first, those who were subpoenaed were hesitant to appear. Who can blame them; the only people more vicious then Major League Baseball owners are politicians. Why? For one reason they appear to share a frightening number of characteristics with sharks: They always dress in blue or gray, they never sleep (although this is slightly germane I have personally turned on C-Span late at night and seen, congresspersons still up talking even though no one else is in the chamber.), and they both roll their eyes just before devouring their prey. Just as sharks are attracted to the smallest drop of blood; turn on a news camera and in minutes you will be surrounded by a swarm of voracious Senators. This last reason seems to be the overriding purpose for holding these hearings.

In the end, all the sluggers decided to show up (being charged with contempt can motivate even the laziest superstar), but all had different strategies for answering to the Committee. Raphael Palmiero got angry, Mark McGuire started crying and pled the 5th , and Sammy Sosa just pretended he didn’t speak English. Which as dumb as it sounds, actually worked. Congress referred all questions to his interpreter. Don’t pay attention to the fact that he gives interviews all the time, just admire the brass set of balls he must have for actually taking that route.

Although the end of this sad parade brought us no closer to revealing the truth behind the validity of the many records set over the past 8 years, it did reaffirm that Major League Baseball players are just as flawed as the average American and our politicians even more so.

What Liberal Bias?

"Remember, Sully, when I promised to kill you last...I lied." --Matrix

Just another example of how "the paper of record" is really just a wire service for the Democratic Party. Hypocrisy is so much fun to expose!

Courtesy of The Weekly Standard

A January 1, 1995, Times editorial on proposals to restrict the use of Senate filibusters:

In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him. . . . Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which senators held passionate views, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, . . . an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.

A March 6, 2005, Times editorial on the same subject:

The Republicans are claiming that 51 votes should be enough to win confirmation of the White House's judicial nominees. This flies in the face of Senate history. . . . To block the nominees, the Democrats' weapon of choice has been the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod. . . . The Bush administration likes to call itself "conservative," but there is nothing conservative about endangering one of the great institutions of American democracy, the United States Senate, for the sake of an ideological crusade.

Stop Hitting Yourself! Stop Hitting Yourself!

“What we've got here is...a failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.”--- “Boss”

I used to be a democrat. Moreover, I used to be proud of the fact that I was a Democrat. But as I watch Howard Dean assume leadership of the party I used to call my home, I look back at this admission with the same revulsion and regret as if I had slept with a fat chick. What the hell was I thinking?
Although the Democratic Party pushed me away in the aftermath of 9/11, I am embarrassed it took so long for me to leave. I was like a battered woman that wouldn’t leave her abusive husband. Like battered women, all I could remember were the good times, like when JFK pledged:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
When some Democrats opposed the invasion of Afghanistan I told myself, “they don’t really mean it.” When Nancy Pelosi became the House Whip in 2002, I thought to myself, “Maybe I’m to blame.” My conservative older brother would plead with me to leave, but I told him, “It’s really our fault. We centrists just haven’t done enough for the left. We deserve this.”
Yet, the more I watched Democrats criticize the War on Terror, and the manner in which Bush was handling it, I realized that for many in the Democratic Party, winning votes was more important then winning wars. With a heavy heart I packed my bags and left for the GOP.
As the 2002 election returns came in, I realized I wasn’t alone. The Democrats were beaten like a redheaded stepchild. I thought they would learn their lesson.
The nomination of John Kerry proved they didn’t. Especially when you realize he was nominated on the basis that he was “electable.” I guess the DNC forgot that he compared our military to the hordes of Genghis Khan, or maybe it was that his competition was Al Sharpton.
While watching Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore schmooze at the convention, it hit me; the Democratic Party is led by masochists. It’s not that they haven’t learned from their previous defeats; it’s that like Marv Albert in bed, they enjoy being tied up and whipped. How else could you explain the Presidential hopes of Dennis Kucinich? What has become of the Democratic Party is a sad sight, but it has been entirely self-inflicted. Relegated to inner cities, New England, and California; Democrats no longer have national appeal. And until they take the ball gag out of their mouths and adopt a centrist platform, the Republicans will continue to crack the whip. YESSS!!

The Truth about Cats and Dogs

“I want to tell you something and listen up because I really mean this. There is nothing on this earth sexier than a woman you have to salute in the morning. Promote'em all I say, because if you haven't received a blowjob from a superior officer, well, you're just letting the best in life pass you by. Of course, my problem is I'm a colonel. So I'll have to keep taking cold showers till they elect some gal president.” – Col. Jessup

This may not be the most politically correct thing to say, but what the hell, men and women are different. We are very different. In fact we don’t have all that much in common. Anatomy notwithstanding, we think differently. We have different hormones running through our blood. We even mature at different speeds; that is to say, woman mature and men pretend to mature because they think it will help them get laid.

In light of the Atlanta courthouse shooting, and the furor over comments made by Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers, I think we should attempt to apply some common sense to the discussion of what exactly our differences are. Of course, when making sweeping statements regarding the qualities of an entire gender, there are numerous exceptions. Not all men are taller then women (if you consider WNBA stars women), but I think we can all agree that men (as a gender) are taller then women.

This past Friday, an accused rapist was able to overpower a female officer on the 8th floor of the Fulton County Courthouse. That man went on to murder 7 people. My question is who thought it would be a good idea to guard this man with a female officer? Despite what Martha Burke says, women aren’t physically capable of performing this duty as well as men. This is biology. So the ACLU says lets issue them a gun and give them the responsibility of protecting us against the Brian Nichols of the world. This isn’t fair to anybody. I’m not saying women can’t be good cops. Any man that has been interrogated by his girlfriend will tell you, they’re naturals. A suspicious woman will get you to admit to killing Jimmy Hoffa if she has enough time. I just question their ability to disarm criminals in the line of fire. Statistics show that female officers draw their gun much more frequently then men. The answer why is obvious. Women aren’t as physically strong as men.

Last month, Larry Summers was almost forced to resign because he said there may be some innate differences in the way men and women think. Again you would think that everyone who has ever been in a relationship would nod their heads in agreement. Nope. MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins, told reporters that she "I just couldn't breathe, because this kind of bias makes me physically ill," and that she "felt I was going to be sick," that "my heart was pounding and my breath was shallow." In an effort to dispel the belief that women are too emotional to be rational she fled the room because, "I would've either blacked out or thrown up." At least she didn’t start crying.

It’s not that I think men are smarter then women, in fact it’s quite the opposite. I think women are much more “intelligent” then men. Of the people who will receive bachelor’s degrees in America this year, 57% will be female. Of those who will receive their MA, 59% will be female. Doctorates? Same story. 61%. Women are just plain smarter, especially when it comes to “emotional intelligence.”

Personal experience confirms this fact. Although I have scored well above average on standard “IQ” tests; I was not so lucky with the “Emotional Intelligence Quotient” test (or “EIQ” test). The professor who administered it deemed me “emotionally stunted”, and “functionally retarded.” She reported that I scored in the 20th percentile among all test takers, but only in the 40th percentile among men. The fact that she was ugly and had a fat ass could not erase the reality that women are much more intelligent when it comes to understanding and processing emotions.

Feminists argue that all of these differences are due to socialization. Basically, that if we didn’t live in a male-dominated society that encouraged women to remain bare-foot and pregnant, all of these difference would disappear. Although socialization no doubt affects gender roles, 40 years of feminist thought cannot erase 40,000 years of evolution.

Back in the good ole’ days when men were appreciated for their role in society, and a large cave was considered plush living, humanity was still subject to the maxim, “survival of the fittest.” Mind you, this was before soup kitchens and social security and the many other advances we take for granted today. If a man wanted to remain in the gene pool he had to be big and strong, and most importantly, he had to be aggressive. Although metrosexuals cut a dashing figure in bear skins, they were not as successful as the alpha male in “bringing home the wooly mammoth.” These were the traits that were passed on to each succeeding generation.

The ability to philosophize about the nature of existence, and the talent to scribble a good buffalo on a cave wall were not as advantageous. The types of intelligence that aided these men were more concrete, like the ability to design and construct a good tent, or in modern day equivalent; engineering. To be a successful caveman, it helped to be proficient in the so called “hard sciences.”

This was not so for women. Their primary duty was to take care of children. Hence, understanding emotions were useful. And should a woman of this era be caught in a life or death situation, it is likely that her only hope was to use her wits (or show her tits). Thus, knowledge of “hard sciences” for these women took a back seat to “social sciences.” The ability to express ones-self was a feminine trait. And if you have ever asked a woman about her day, you will realize that it still is.

All of this is not to say that women should not be cops, or soldiers for that matter. They should be. All that I would ask is those who are given these responsibilities, be subject to the same physical requirements as men. If I found myself injured in a foxhole with a female soldier, she had better be able to carry my ass back to safety. And I am not saying that women cannot be good at math. There is no doubt that there are thousands of women who are. But the fact that women have not dominated this field in the same manner they have in other fields of study is not proof of discrimination.

Today, the notion that women are of inferior intellect then men is laughable. But there is no doubt that we differ physically, emotionally, and intellectually. Let’s be honest about those innate differences, and iron my shirt while you’re at it.

The Madrid Bombing Anniversary

My thoughts from a year ago:

The recent Socialist victory in Spain has been called everything from appeasment of al-Qaeda, to "the liberation of the Spanish people." But what does it really mean? Why did the Spanish vote against the not-so popular Popular Party? What does this election mean to the war on Terror at large?

There are numerous reasons José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is now the Spanish Prime Minister, but the most important among them, are the attacks of 3/11. In the aftermath of "Europe's 9/11" the Spanish people took to the streets against terrorism, and then quickly voted in the manner and fashion that al-Qaeda forced them too. The Spanish people on the whole were very unsupportive of their government’s role in the War on Iraq, however, a booming economy boued what looked to be a significant Popular Party lead in polls leading up to the election. 3/11 changed all that. The quickness with which the Popular Party blamed ETA, even in the mounting evidence that Islamic extremists were to blame, angered the Spanish people. Their blame was not directed at those who had committed the acts of violence, but those who had fought them in an unpopular fashion. First let’s look at what a few Spanish voters had to say about their motivations.

CNN quoted a participant in a rally at the Atocha train station, where two of the four trains exploded, as saying: "The government put us into that war in Iraq, and this is what happens. [President] Aznar didn't plant the bombs, but he's guilty for what happened."

MSNBC quotes another voter with the same sentiment. "I wasn't planning to vote, but I am here today because the Popular Party is responsible for murders here and in Iraq," said Ernesto Sanchez-Gey, who voted in Barcelona.

The Washington Times describes how mourning mixed with political messages at a gathering at a Bilbao railway station. According to the paper, one sign read: "Action: Iraq, 4,000 civilians dead. Reaction: Madrid, 200 civilians dead. To Blame: Aznar."

The Spanish daily El Mundo reports that, "The growing likelihood of Al Qaeda involvement renewed the mistrust over Aznar's grave error in placing himself under the banner of Bush."
In a sense this would be akin to Americans blaming FDR for Pearl Harbor. He didn’t plant the bombs, but his policy asked for it. It’s like blaming a provocatively dressed woman for getting raped, “Well, she shouldn’t have dressed provocatively.” This type of irrational thought will not deter the violence of international terrorism.

The Spanish people may not have seen themselves as appeasing al-Qaeda, but it is exactly what they did. In electoral politics, it doesn’t matter so much why something happens, it only matters why people think it happens. In a sense, it doesn’t matter that the downfall of the Popular Party was a complicated event. It matters only that the rest of the world, and Islamic extremists in particular, view the change in Spanish mood, and their retreat from the Middle East.

What does this election mean to the War on Terror? Can appeasement work? A quick look at history should answer that question. But one might say that Al-Qaeda is not Nazi Germany, and that a look into their pathology is in order.

Well, the first thing that westerners should realize is that Osama Bin Laden and his compatriots did not grow up in a nice suburban neighborhood. They grew up in an entirely different society; an Arab society, where the rules of survival, and to be more specific, politics are extremely different. As Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist and expert on Middle Eastern affairs, has often pointed out; when you live in a desert, there is never enough food and water to sustain everyone. And in the desert there are no outside forces to arbitrate who gets what.

Therefore, if someone tries to feed his camels at your oasis, you have to be ready to defend it. If you are not, you will quickly see that your water will be gone. You have to show you are strong, even when you are not. This type of thought can be seen in the actions of the authoritative governments that currently rule the Middle East. In essence, when you are weak, you cannot afford to compromise; and when you are strong, there is no reason to compromise. Bin Laden looks at the Spanish response to 3/11 and he sees a country that is not willing to defend its “oasis.” Even more disconcerting, is that Bin Laden will look at Spanish weakness as European weakness. As European Commission President Romano Prodi said this week, "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," The more European authorities who take that view, the more likely it will be that bombs may soon follow in London, Italy, and in the mass of Eastern European countries that currently support the War on Terror. This election was simply a referendum on that war. It is a referendum that may soon be passed to other countries in the west. It is the same referendum that Americans will vote on next November.

How will we prosecute the War on Terror? As Friedman wrote this week: "The notion that Spain can separate itself from Al Qaeda's onslaught on Western civilization by pulling its troops from Iraq is a fantasy. Bin Laden has said that Spain was once Muslim and he wants it restored that way. As a friend in Cairo e-mailed me, a Spanish pullout from Iraq would only bring to mind Churchill's remark after Chamberlain returned from signing the Munich pact with Hitler: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."

Man-Crushing Dubya

"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."---Blondie

If there is one thing Republicans and Democrats can all agree on, it’s that George W. Bush evokes strong feelings. For the Deaniacs this is usually rage. The kind of rage that erupts in a loud and awkward scream, that causes your voice to crack, and your Presidential ambitions to sink. But for 59 million Americans, the opposite is true. I for one, have a giant man-crush on our President.
Before you argue that President Bush opposes man-crushes, it’s not what you think. A man-crush is a completely “heteronormative” crush that straight men develop on other straight men. Although we don’t always acknowledge it, a man-crush is that thought we all have when we come across a complete bad ass. It’s that urge to go drinking with Sinatra, or to go whoring with Clinton. With Dubya, I want 8 hours on the Ranch with a chainsaw and some brush to clear. I am “man-smitten.”
First of all the guy got the most out of his liver for 30 years. He knows how to have a good time. What’s extraordinary, however, isn’t the fact that he used to get hammered at Camp David; it’s that one-day he finally got a hangover and quit…for good. It takes a stud to walk away from booze and nicotine and…booze and not come back. That takes will power. The type of will power a President needs in order to topple dictators, democratize continents, and not challenge Jacques Chirac to a duel.
Secondly, unlike most other great politicians, he isn’t completely full of shit. We now this because he doesn’t snowboard, play the guitar, ride a Harley, and listen to rap music like Kerry. He likes clearing brush, and he doesn’t care what America thinks about it
Furthermore, he says what he thinks, even if its’ not always comprehensible to some. Bush speaks in words that baffle some people, like vegans, socialists, feminists, yankees, and other “word-nazis” that govern our of political discourse. But real men understand him perfectly. On Bin Laden’s whereabouts, “He ain’t leading any parades I can tell you that.” On Iraqi insurgents, “Bring it on.” On his lumber business, “need any wood?” Even when he stumbles into incoherent babbling men understand him because of the confident smirk. It reads:
We’re America. We’re the best country in the world, and you know it. We have the best economy, the best government, the most generous people, and an over-active conscience. And we have no patience for dictators, terrorists, thugs, insurgents, or any other politically correct term for “bad-guy.” And after we kick their ass, we’ll spend even more time and effort to get them back on their feet so they can be just as free as we are.
Some people complain that he sounds and acts like a cowboy as if that were a bad thing. In their logic “the Man with no Name” and Rooster Cogburn would not have been good Presidents. But I want a leader who isn’t afraid to say, “Fill your hands, you son of a bitch!” when challenged by a thug. Although effete Frenchmen like Bernard-Henry Lévy oppose this type of behavior, he represents folks who are so removed from reality that they call themselves “philosophers” and never learn how to drive a car.
With Bush, it really is, “you love him or you hate him.” And although I know a good number of rational well-adjusted people that dislike Bush for good reasons (isolationism doesn’t count), most of them are driven by pure emotion; the type of emotion that drives them to pee in my car because it has a Bush/Cheney 04 bumper sticker on the back. And before I claim that my support for the president is based on a calm and objective analysis of the merits of Social Security reform, I need to throw on some Lee Greenwood and plan our future “man-date.”

Next—Man-Crushing my favorite Atheist European, Christopher Hitchens

The Greatness of George W. Brush

(Old Essay)
Being relatively new to D.C., I was surprised to learn the standard opening line in D.C. is not, your party preference. Like New York City, the first question asked is always, “What do you do?” Though this question does a good job of revealing your party affiliation, as well as your socio-economic status, it could be vastly improved. One could gain deeper insight into the character and temperament of stranger by asking, "What do you like to do?" And let it be noted that, having tried this, the question elicits some odd looks and heel-turning, as if some type of classified information were being sought. Although socially awkward, this question should also be asked of our leaders. With this in mind, I couldn’t help but think of President Bush, whose favorite leisure activity seems to be clearing brush at his Crawford, Texas, ranch. What does this tell us about the man derided as "Shrub" by political opponents? A great deal, perhaps. For one thing, clearing brush is not the sort of thing Dubya’s father was fond of. The elder Bush was devoted to tennis and golf, and most other physical activities that require a cardigan; which is what one would expect of a New England patrician. He also seemed to enjoy fishing and horseshoe-tossing, perhaps to convince us he was a regular guy. But make no mistake; any brush-clearing at his estate in Kennebunkport was left to the help. This disconnect from common tasks was another manifestation of the first Bush's isolation from common folk and common concerns. Connecticut Bush's demise was sealed on the pruning fields of Kennebunkport. The current president, by contrast, is a different man. Unlike his father, he is a Texan, and in Texas men clear brush, along with riding the fence lines in search of broken wire and shooting the lurking coyotes that lust after spring calves. The swinging of the ax and the singing of the chainsaw delight this type of soul, and this is exactly the kind of disposition I would hope for in a wartime president. First and foremost, clearing brush is an aggressive act. "Do I dare disturb the universe?" asked Zarathustra. "Let me get my saw and show you how," is the brush-clearer's response. This is no small matter. It should be remembered that in some quarters chopping down a tree or torching a briar patch is considered an act of sin. To give the tree-huggers their due, this is not an entirely unreasonable perspective. Trees are not merely big plants. Trees are great creatures that send their searching branches toward the sun, offer us their shade and beauty, produce oxygen for us to breathe, and also serve as a home to a wide variety of creatures. One should not take their presence lightly. Taking a different view was William Faulkner, who once said that trees are our enemy, presumably because they offer refuge for fowl, and constrain Mississippians from growing more cotton. Faulkner was probably drunk the day of that interview, but he, too, makes a reasonable point. As a student of man and nature, Dubya. is no doubt aware of all these arguments. He knows how long it takes a tree to rise from the rough Texas soil. He knows its struggle to survive against fierce winds and deadly droughts, and how it has resisted the insect hordes and perhaps a fire or two. He also knows that trees serve as perches for hawks and owls, and also as vantage points from which adventuresome children first come to understand the vastness of the world around them. He also knows that without his intervention a targeted tree might stand long after he has signed in with Saint Peter. Nonetheless, It seems Dubya sizes up the situation and says, "Bring it on!” Not only that, he will probably saw up the trunk and feed the pieces into a fire, cackling as the flames dance before him. This is the sort of fellow you want in your corner in wartime. Whereas Connecticut Bush stated, "Read my lips", as if he were instructing his gardener where to prune; Texas Bush declares "over my dead body." The latter is brush-clearer's language, and is no doubt widely respected in the Arab street as well as in Washington's corridors of power. The fact that this president is a “brush” comes as no surprise to some observers. Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal observed that the 9/11 attacks brought tough guys back to center stage: "A certain style of manliness is once again being honored and celebrated in our country since Sept. 11....I am speaking of masculine men, men who push things and pull things and haul things and build things, men who charge up the stairs in a hundred pounds of gear and tell everyone else where to go to be safe. Men who are welders, who do construction, men who are cops and firemen." Some may take this passage as an attack on men who make their living punching keyboards or debating policy…and their right. One would have a hard time imagining John Kerry clearing brush, and not just because he is a New England patrician in the same mold as Connecticut Bush. Kerry seems to be the type of person who does what’s popular. He plays the guitar, he snowboards, he rides Harleys, but he has probably never mowed a lawn or raked a leaf, much less razed a briar patch. Though it is clear Bush enjoys clearing-brush, some of Kerry’s pastimes are less known. Case-in-point, at the annual MTV Choose or Loose forum on Tuesday when he declared, “I'm fascinated by rap and by hip-hop. I think there's a lot of poetry in it.” It was a complete coincidence that most of his audience was also “fascinated by rap.” Though more popular than clearing-brush, there are 3 ways to look at Kerry’s new-found interest in hip-hop: (1) he’s not “fascinated by rap”, he is simply saying what his audience wants to hear, (2) he is “fascinated by rap”, but fascinated only in the way motorists are, when they slow down to gape at a horrendous car wreck, or (3) as a wealthy, Yale educated, 60 year-old, white male; he is actually, “listening because I know that it's a reflection of the street…and I understand all that.” At worst, Kerry is fibbing; and at best, he is undergoing a major mid-life crisis. By contrast, Ronald Reagan was also a brush-clearer, and one notes that he and the current president have much in common. Both have been accused of having somewhat dim intellects, especially by those whose beliefs are devoid of rational thought. Both presidents have embraced similar economic and social policies; policies that put them at odds with almost everyone inside the beltway. These Reaganesque ideas are nourished within pragmatic intellects. A philosophy that brush-clearing develops. For example; a dead tree left alone in a dry Texas summer is a threat to the forest. It may not imminently cause a forest fire, but it would be fool-hardy to ignore it. This is where snowboarders marvel at the wonder of nature, and where brush-clearers fire up a chainsaw. The leadership benefits of snowboarding vs. brush-clearing are clearly open to debate, but given the nature of our enemies in the war on terror, I have only one thing to say. Fire up the chainsaw!

The Carrot and the Stick

When you really break it down there are only two ways the US can influence a foreign country; by giving them a carrot, or by giving them the stick. Although many international relations scholars might disagree most of them are closet communists anyway. And how can you agree with prominent SAIS professors when they have names like Francis Fukuyama (say that 5 times as fast as you can). In my “model” a carrot denotes some type of concession or financial aid, like the $2 Billion we give to Egypt every year. The stick can best be described as any type of punitive action taken against a foreign country. It can best be exemplified in how we dealt with Baathist Iraq; we whipped 'em like a rented mule. But as the political order in the Middle East begins to collapse we have to ask ourselves, “who needs a carrot, and who needs the stick?”
At first glance it would be satisfying to find the biggest stick around and give it to every country in the Middle East. After all, $2 billion in pork (or as Israelis call it;white steak) a year isn’t even enough to keep Hosni Mubarak from screaming the, “Jews knocked down the WTC!”, which is the diplomatic equivalent of screaming, “David farted!” at a dinner party. You would at least think he could keep those thoughts to himself. But in fact, that degree of belligerance would not work in the U.S’ favor. Although we must use the stick effectively, we need to pass out some carrots as well.
The biggest example of this is with the Palestinians. Many Republican lawmakers think we could be tougher on the PLO. This is nonsense. The Israelis are tough enough. Unless we are willing to fire cruise missiles at mosques, we should leave the stick to the Israelis. If this is a game of good cop/ bad cop, we need to be the good cop. Israel already makes Dirty Harry look like that weenie from “Monk.” If the Palestinian people could see that denouncing violence helps their daily lives, they might not be so eager to blow themselves up. It shouldn’t be too expensive. How much money would you accept to not to go on a martyrdom mission?
But if we want peace in the Middle East, we need to lean on Israel as well. We currently underwrite their entire economy, with virtually no promises in return. Unless there really is “a small Jewish cabal that controls the world”, this needs to change. For every dollar that Israel continues to spend on building and supporting settlements in the West Bank, the U.S. should raise aid to Palestinians two-fold, as well as deduct that amount from what we would give Israel. I’m not to good at math, but if stereotypes are correct, the Jews are. Although it may hurt Republicans in Florida and New York, it would ultimately help the peace process in a practical manner. After all, if Mubarak is right, those Jews sure love money. Next: Iran gets the stick up their *ss

Revenge of the Nerds High

Drudge:
High School Opens for the Bullied and Harrassed in Milwaukee...

This idea reeks of incompetance. The people who thought this up should be sterilized immediately to protect our children from theirs. What's the idea here exactley? That losers won't bully each other? First of all; most bullys pick on others because they have a low self esteem themselves.
It will take about two weeks into the fall semester before "Booger" realizes he can whip the crap out of "Poindexter". But what good does this do "Booger"? Its not like the "Bill Zabcka"s of his last high school will think he's cool now. He's still "Booger". And now "Poindexter" is getting bullied at the high school for the bullied and harrassed. Great idea folks!

My "Mock-Inuagural" from 04

This was a mock Inaugural address I wrote in the Spring of 04' It is the arguement I wanted Bush to make. thankfully he did.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Vice President, Reverend Clergy, fellow citizens: Today for the 55th time, we witness one of our nation’s greatest traditions; the firm reassertion that our Government’s authority is derived only from the consent of the people; and bound strictly to the rule of law. For the past 225 years, this affirmation and all that it entails, has been the foundation upon which American prosperity and power have been built. We are not free because we are powerful, we are powerful because we are free. And for over 2000 years, the Greek orations of Athenian democrats; the classical prose of Cicero in the Roman forum; the French outcry of “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite” and the defiant words of Winston Churchill; have proven without exception, that Freedom is a universal ideal, that stands the test of time. It is with great urgency and trepidation that I speak before you today.

The success of liberty, which my predecessors have so nobly championed; has never been so near at hand, and yet so endangered. For the past century, the United States, with the vital support of fellow Democracies across the globe, have beaten back the menace of Authoritarianism.

Our common resolve, our collective sacrifice, and the strength of our ideals relegated the armies of Fascism, Nazism, and Communism to a cold and bitter grave. Never again, will a state achieve the conventional power of Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union. They cannot, because without freedom, the true power of humanity can never be harnessed. Yet a century of defeat has not vanquished the forces of tyranny, It has only made them more desperate. Operating from the shadows, with unmatched ruthlessness, and armed with weapons of apocalyptic power, those enemies challenge us today. To preserve our security, as well as our beliefs, we must defeat them.

For the United States, and for all free nations; there can be only one true goal, to spread Freedom and Liberty to every corner of the globe. As we speak, a brotherhood of free nations inherently bound-together, hold in their hands the power to finally abolish the menace of tyranny on this planet. As President Abraham Lincoln so eloquently stated almost 200 years ago, "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."

No longer will this nation fail to echo the cries of those who have no voice. My Fellow Citizens, our Freedom has endowed this nation with great privilege, prosperity, and power. But most importantly, it entrusts us with an obligation, a grand responsibility to employ our power in the spread of Democracy. Today our celebration of this gift and the responsibility it thrusts upon us; is renewed. Yet it is my deepest hope that today will mark an even greater change.
To my fellow colleagues in Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, let this morning mark the dawn of a new beginning. Let us dedicate ourselves not to the success of our party, but the success of our country. Lets us work to settle our common differences, by proclaiming our common bonds. Let us always remember our shared hopes for this nation, and let us never forget, that we are entrusted with a legacy too illustrious to poison with the venom of partisan strife. With that aspiration in mind, let us demand that our policies at home and abroad be held up to the most rigorous debate. I would encourage every American regardless of your standing or influence to hold high the importance of this country’s affairs.

Through your collective passion, will you control the quality of your government. And it is my fervent wish, that this dawn of renewal shine its’ light upon every hill and valley of this planet. To those states which rule by the consent of their people, we pledge our full and unconditional support. In the eternal struggle against tyranny, the growth and success of democratic nations has always been, and will always be in the best interest of this country.

To those allies who have struggled with us in the past, we renew our allegiance. And to those allies who would struggle with us in the future, we profess our deepest gratitude, as well as our lasting fidelity. The great pride we share in our common bond, is manifest through the righteousness of this struggle. Though we are all united by a noble cause, our responsibility as elected leaders beholdens us to the interests of our people. Where our interests diverge, we should speak frankly about our disagreement, content in the strength of our brotherhood, and ever-mindful of our mutual cause.

To those regimes that rule without the consent of their people, this dawn will be one of change. The light of this transition presents to you an opportunity; an opportunity to escape the bitter destiny that awaits all who ignore the rights of Man. Make a true commitment to those rights, and the rule of law, or history will curse upon you the same sad defeat that has been the fate of all despots before you. For those states sincerely willing to reform, the United States offers you her full support. I pledge today, to go any distance, accept any hardship, confront any challenge, carry any cross and sacrifice all but my honor, and commitment to Liberty in aiding your journey towards Democracy. In this dawn of opportunity we, the American people, extend our help, as well as our fellowship.

But for those regimes that continue to tyrannize their people and the world at-large, this dawn of opportunity will quickly turn to dusk. History dictates, that just as you have shrouded from your subjects the light of liberty, so too will the sun set on your rule. Governments that rule their own people by force, those tyrants that reject the inalienable rights of man, and those states that wish to blackmail the security of others no longer be considered by this administration to be the legal and sovereign equal of those that rule with the consent of their people. And those states that refuse to work towards this minimum standard of governance and behavior will cease to enjoy our recognition of their international rights. That is a decision for you to make. And though we will certainly do all in our power to encourage you choose wisely, the choice is yours and yours alone.

But the United States cannot expect those nations to rally around freedom unless we make clear our willingness to sacrifice with them. In every corner of every continent there exists an opportunity for us to join together in improving our world. Nowhere is this more visible then in Asia.

Our former adversary, the Soviet Union, now comprised of a federation of democratic governments, all floundering in a sea of poverty, and anchored by continuing corruption. It is vitally important to our national security, and even more so for theirs, that we not watch them drown.

In China, a nation of unparalleled potential, we are confronted with great hopes, and sobering truths. The Chinese leadership is making progress. Their help in dealing with rogue nations and their march towards a market economy do not go unnoticed. But we must make very clear, that our interest in promoting trade, is not exceeded by our interest in promoting freedom and human rights. Where we will continue to support the opening of free markets in China, so will we continue to press for the opening of their political process.

In Africa, promise and opportunity sit side by side with disease, war, and desperate poverty. Tribal conflicts continue to spread the flames of corruption, chaos, and civil war. This violence threatens our mission to promote freedom, and even more pressing and immediate, to preserve the human dignity of Man. We will work tirelessly with those nations to build an African Continent that lives in freedom, peace, and growing prosperity. Together we can strengthen Africa’s fragile state, by building an indigenous capability to provide care for the sick and wounded, by helping to secure porous borders, and by building up the law enforcement and intelligence infrastructure necessary to deny sanctuary for those enemies of peace and stability.

Today, however, our most serious challenge emanates from the Middle East. Our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the continued state support for international terrorists, and the complete absence of freedom and opportunity for their people combine to make the success of Democracy in that region our most vital and important task. That the birth of Freedom in the Middle East will be constrained by cultural differences is understood. Yet history proves that a legacy of tyranny can be reformed. The bigotry of Nazi anti-Semitism failed to sabotage forever the creation of a stable democracy in Germany. We must also remember that until 1945, the Island of Japan had only been ruled by Emperors and Warlords. Their culture had never known of tolerance or pluralism. The Japanese then called Americans "Gaijin", or barbarians. Today Arabs call us "Infidel”, a word similar in more ways then one. But where the past and the present share many similarities they are greatly exceeded by their differences. The existence of free, moderate democracies in Germany and Japan are proof that we can succeed in the Middle East. Yet it is also proof of something far greater; that those liberal democratic values that so many have misnamed "Western" exist in the hearts of all Men. The Authoritarian values intertwined in Arab culture today are the same that promoted Nazism, and Japanese aggression. It was only our deep commitment to creating a free Democratic society, and our patience in awaiting the birth of that society which enabled us to overcome those cultural, and societal obstacles. But nevertheless, I hold sacred the belief that Freedom and Liberty are universal values. Radical Islam, widespread corruption, the absence of economic opportunity, and the prevalence and popularity of America as a scapegoat are all formidable opponents to that belief, and they may yet prevail.---I truly believe, however, that our ideas are better. And if we can exhibit the same commitment our forefathers did; those ideas will expose Radical Islam to be a lie so grand and a hypocrisy so monumental, that it ranks alongside Fascism, National Socialism, and Communism.

Yet our calls for Freedom, Liberty, and Equality abroad will not echo the vital importance and urgency of our mission; if we fail to acknowledge our shortcomings at home. I am a Republican, I am Southern, and I am White. Those three facts have led many of our fellow citizens to suggest that I am prejudiced in some way. Let me be very clear about this; I am not. Though I am proud of my families’ as well as my cultural heritage, I am an American first. As Americans we owe no special responsibility to our ethnic “brothers and sisters”; and as an American, I resent the distinction. We are all brothers and sisters; white and black; Christian and Atheist; Arab and Jew; Gay or Straight; Republican or Democrat. And though we may disagree on how to get there, we must all agree on where we want to go; A nation where your race, creed, class or gender neither assists or hinders the free exercise of your rights, and the pursuit of your goals. Yet this shared sense of unity and brotherhood will never set its’ roots firmly in our society until the politics of racial divisiveness are set down. Forty years ago Dr. Martin Luther King gave his life in that effort. Today he is a leader who is loved by many, and (with few exceptions) respected by all Americans. His message of peace, compassion, and most of all the “common fellowship of man” is as relevant today, as it was forty years ago. America will never become the place I believe we all want it to be, until we revive that message. So my fellow citizens, I will ask all of you now, let us pledge our best efforts to work towards that vision. Let us pledge our best efforts to convince all our “brothers and sisters”, that promoting equality is the job of all Americans. And finally, let us pledge our best efforts, to show the world, by this example; why our values are universal.

Bringing Democracy to the world will no-doubt be a long and difficult task. Our country may suffer further terrorist attacks, our government may spend trillions of dollars in this effort, our citizens may lose the lives of many more American soldiers, and finally despite our best efforts, our allies may abandon us. But so long as people prefer the rule of law to corruption, as long as people prefer liberty to tyranny, and as long people yearn in their hearts to be free; our efforts will be inspired by justice, and guided by the aid of something more shattering and powerful than any weapon, the Human Spirit.

This past spring I grew increasingly frustrated by the rhetoric American leaders used to defend the "war on terror" It seemed to me, that most Republicans (especially President Bush) were doing a terrible job of explaining to the American people exactly what makes this conflict so important. The American people wanted to know (with good reason) exactly why U.S. civilians were being burned alive in Fallujah, or beheaded in Tikrit. But our leaders either couldn’t or wouldn’t tell us. This failure to eloquently state the underlying reasons for our current policies seriously eroded the President’s support, and imperiled our effort to win this war. To me, the answer was clear. And watching the President fumble through yet another press conference without stating it, frustrated me beyond belief. We aren’t fighting just to defeat terrorism. We aren’t fighting simply to prevent the spread of WMDs. We are fighting to spread freedom and liberty in a region where it has absent for too long.
In July of 2003, British PM Tony Blair agreed, stating: “That is what this struggle against terrorist groups or states is about. We're not fighting for domination. We're not fighting for an American world, though we want a world in which America is at ease. We're not fighting for Christianity, but against religious fanaticism of all kinds. And this is not a war of civilizations, because each civilization has a unique capacity to enrich the stock of human heritage. We are fighting for the inalienable right of humankind - black or white, Christian or not, left, right or a million different - to be free, free to raise a family in love and hope, free to earn a living and be rewarded by your efforts, free not to bend your knee to any man in fear, free to be you so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others. That's what we're fighting for. And it's a battle worth fighting.”
As stirring as that argument was, it was seldom heard by Americans over the next 12 months. Increasingly frustrated, I asked myself, “What do I want to hear my President say?” As I sat down and began to write, I put myself in the President’s shoes. “What would I say if I were President?” “How would I make the argument?” The speech I came up with; although amateurishly written, is my view on where we are as a Nation, where I want us to go, and why we must fight to protect it.

Although many Americans probably do not realize it, these are historic times. The war on terror drags on, as does the reconstruction of Iraq. What has happened over the past year will shape the direction this country takes for the next 4 years. But what happens over this year, will possibly shape the direction that the Middle East takes over the next 40 years. A few topics I will write about include: How will the U.S. continue to prosecute the war on Terror?, Is preemptive military action still an effective tool for U.S. foreign policy? What role should the UN, NATO, the EU, and the politics of our allies play on our methods of combating terrorism?
As such, I truly feel that the 2004 Election was the most important election since 1932. In 1932 the American people decided it was the duty and responsibility of the Federal Government to battle the destitution, and wide-spread poverty wrought by the Great Depression. Today that idea seems obvious, but in 1932 it was revolutionary; and only a last minute "change of heart" by the Supreme Court freed FDR to implement the many social programs contained in the New Deal. By Roosevelt's death in 1945, his Presidency, combined with the effects of WW2 and the Great Depression fundamentally altered forever the power, and influence of the Federal Government. In 2004, the American people decided that it was the duty and responsibilty of the American people to promote the spread of freedom and democracy. An idea that is truly revolutionary.
Yet, politics in America today has become so fragmented and divided, that before I write what I think, I want to attempt to explain why I think the way I do.
A fundamental misunderstanding naturally occurs between those on the left, and those on the right. When a citizen holds on to a belief strongly, they naturally feel that those who disagree must not share the same goals. For example; the primary basis for affirmative action is increased opportunity for minorities that are inevitably held back by overt or covert racism. Strong supporters of affirmative action tend to look at opponents as Americans who want to perpetuate the inequities present in our society. Likewise, many conservatives question the patriotism of those who criticize the U.S. role in the Middle East. Although there are many exceptions, I believe the majority of those who oppose affirmative action do want to see Americans of all races have the same opportunities for success, and that the vast majority of liberals have the same love for this country that conservatives do.
Although I do hold some beliefs very strongly, I am increasingly turned off by the viciousness of partisan politics. I grew up under Reagan, supported Bush, loved and defended Clinton against what I saw as a vicious and counter-productive crusade (but…my feelings on Bubba can’t be explained in one sentence. It was not until the aftermath of 9/11, however, that my politics’ truly took shape. The events of that day are forever seared into my memory. America was on bended knee, and the nation-wide response strengthened my love and respect for my fellow countrymen. In the coming months I supported Bush’s leadership, acknowledged the failure of our government and its’ foreign policy to protect us from such an event, and recognized that a war had been declared not just on our country, but our very way of life. Why this happened, and what we must do to never allow it again are serious issues that I will try to write about on a daily basis. This is an issue that above all others should transcend all that divides America. Fiscal policy, gay marriage, affirmative action, the loss of manufacturing jobs, and health care coverage are all very important issues. For the mill worker who just lost his job, the mother of three that can’t pay for prescription drugs, and the gay couple that can’t accrue the same economic benefits as a married couple; these are vitally important. But the protection of our citizens from terrorism, and foreign attack is vitally important to ALL Americans. It is in fact, the principal and fundamental reason we consent to being governed. And though I feel strongly on how we should handle this challenge, our direction should be subject to the most rigorous debate. Because, despite the common perception, WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. America is a melting pot. We are all different. Although I am proud of my heritage, and my background; I am an American first. I have no doubt that many people will emphatically disagree with my ideas, and any constructive criticism of those ideas is welcomed. But recognize that I feel the way I do, because I never want to see another 9/11. The citizens who died on that day were black, white, and everything between. They were Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and Hindu. They were millionaire bankers, and struggling janitors. They were straight, gay, conservative, and liberal. In a sense they were just like me, they were Americans.

First Post

Thanks to my good buddy Hynson Marvel, I now have a place to write out my thoughts on current events. Hopefully this outlet will keep me from staining my freinds with political arguements in social settings. I don't expect to gain an audiance; afterall the white southern preppy conservative niche has already been taken by numerous other white southern preppy conservatives. Most of them probably graduated from the same all-male prep school as I did (or they went to other rival all-male prep schools). And anyways, I don't take critisicm well, and I have a low estimate of other people's intelligence. Some might call me elitist...they're right.