perfidy

If Howard's going down, he's going to try to take the President with him. Go check out howardstern.com, and see just how angry Stern is at Bush & Co. over his recent trouble with the FCC.

A lot of people listen to Stern and think bits like "Sphincterine" are funny, me included. If the FCC keeps on keepin' on, Stern will just keep turning his show and website into a full-on Bush bash (except without the lesbians). The more stations that drop him, the more people will be looking for someone to blame. That could be very, very bad for W come election day.

A hint of truth to this can be found in the radio-industry mag Friday Morning Quarterback, who report that WBCN in Boston " has interacted with 8,000 listeners via its "Howard Stern 1st Amendment Line." The result: 93 percent say Stern's highly publicized indecency battle will affect the upcoming Presidential election, and 72 percent indicate they will vote differently as a result of the issue."

This piece has a pretty good analysis of the situation, noting that Stern alone has been the target of fully half the fines levied by the FCC since 1990. There's also a rundown of the legislation currently pending to up those fines drastically. Again, I sincerely doubt this will play in Peoria.

Finally, as a show of solidarity with the King of All Media, here's a gratuitous link to Jenna Jameson's website.

Spoons, no lover of George W., makes an interesting observation .

Publicola has a good post up on how the 2nd Amendment is treated in the courts, and goes into some good detail on why following precedent is not necessarily conducive to the rule of law or constitutionality. Good post, but sadly no permalinks or post titles, so you might have to scroll down - the post is from 2 April at 4:13pm.

[wik] Be sure also to read this post from the Smallest Minority, which is linked in Publicola's post.

Like a speed user searching for an ever greater high, this White House just can't believe what they can do, and not get called onto the carpet by responsible members of their own party. White House withholds Rice speech.

They've declared this speech to be secret. Never mind that she was scheduled to give it in public on September 11, or that parts of the text have already been leaked to the newspapers. Somehow, now, it's in the realm of the Secret Bush World.

Somebody please explain to me how this is anything other than a naked political move. And before you trot out the very tired "the commission is a partisan political entity" crap, feel free to be specific. Which commissioners are the partisans? Bush picked them all. As far as I can tell, it's pretty balanced. Everything they do is on the official 9/11 commission site. Point out the partisan bits, please!

Bushie whining about the "partisan commission" is pretty flat, given the fact that they've produced no alternative plan and they picked the entire commission.

Now we have our own near-Clueless-length post on the matter. Observe:

Phil linked to Dawn's, uh, statement? on her self-described "moderate" views.

Let's go find the most amusing sentences. Well, maybe those that are most amusing to us crazy-ass secularists.

"This is a typical tactic of secularists, angry leftists, libertarians, and others who attempt to use their own sense of moral superiority against those who take a principled moral stand. "
Our lead-off is this remarkable example of self-parody. I am reasonably confident she has no idea what she's just said.

"He takes the most far-out, "God Hates Fags"-type counterdemonstrators, and parades them as though everyone who opposes homosexual marriage must be like them."
Yeah, and the right would NEVER do this. ;)

"In fact, a recent poll showed that 20 percent of white evangelicals support civil unions"
Holy Cow! A whole 20%? Feel the love, everyone. At least from the 20%. The other 80%, maybe not.

"I personally would not oppose civil unions for homosexuals. Morally, I object to them very strongly. However, I am willing to allow them because I believe it is impossible at this point in time to turn back the tide of homosexuals wanting certain legal rights. "
No other reason? Just that one? You're just goin' with the tide? I can't be sure of what Christ would say about that, but there's gotta be something, somewhere.

"Marriage is society's model for the highest form of a human relationship—the two-parent family. Were the government to sanction any kind of "marriage" other than that between one man and one woman, it would send the message that marriage is only about with whom or with what one has sex."
The highest form. Wow. Didn't know that. Um, so why exactly? What part of regular, plain-ole straight marriage makes it the highest form? The parenting bit? This tells us what Dawn is really thinking, see? She doesn't feel that there is anything to a homosexual relationship other than sex. She said it. Right there.

"There's a reason why murder is a crime even when the person murdered is not a productive member of society. "
Even when? But it's almost not a crime? Me for the not understanding! Me not understand!

"Two men plot a murder and, just in case they get caught, they get "married" first. "
Oh, please. It's called the Fifth Amendment; go look it up. At least until we have Patriot Act III, and we lose it, on account uh terrur.

"Note also the hatred in Dennison's language, his reference to "the good Jesus People." Again, he's using the timeworn secularist tactic of painting anyone who disagrees with him as being hate-filled, while he is a kind and loving person who only has righteous anger. "
Allow me to further qualify precisely how we actually dofeel, Dawn! We do not think you are filled with evil. Rather, we recognize that you are filled with a gooey, Walmartish sort of self-righteousness, the kind that is most often found amongst those who have succeeded in surrounding themselves with large numbers of sufficiently like-minded persons, and have therefore not been challenged by intolerance, or often even had it pointed out to them. But maybe Dawn has a gay friend! Cluckity cluck -- too bad for him. She's trying to save a country here, dammit!

""Pray Until Something Happens."
Too good to pass up! Make up your own caption. ;)

"People like Phil Dennison—and I'm only singling him out because he put his views out there for all to see—subscribe to a relativist rationale, where liberty means pleasure to the exclusion of responsibility and truth. That is exactly the philosophy against which our Constitution was created to protect us."
Boy, do you ever not get America, babe. Liberty means that I get to decide, for myself, what pleasure and responsibility and truth are. We don't take Judeo-Christian (pick a denomination, any denomination) fundamentalist mores and hold them up as an ideal.

My ideal American is someone who keeps his religion to himself, carefully considers his actions when those actions impact others, takes political positions based on an honest balance of fact and opinion, and has at least a vague sense of why those who sacrificed themselves to create a country and society where individual freedom is paramount, and happiness (pleasure, if you will) is to be pursued.

Here is the great truth that Dawn just doesn't get, and why the tyranny of the majority is something responsible citizens must protected everyone against: Only 3% of the population of this country is gay. Just leave them alone. Stop your demonstrations, stop your hate, stop your attempts at "conversion", at "fixing", at all that crap. Just stop. Go away and find something else to do.

I think that a religious conservative's lack of respect for personal dignity and responsibility stems from their conviction that no such safe haven exists; that God judges all, and that judgement extends through individual actions to the judging of society.

You either believe in equality or you don't. Dawn believes in equality where it benefits her, or is convenient for her belief system, then reserves the right to draw whatever moral lines she pleases. That insidious self-righteousness is precisely one of the evils that the constitution is intended to protect us against; it becomes particularly and overtly dangerous when it seeks enforcement through law.

I can't help but feel that with a large percentage of the population out there being ready and willing to impose their morality on a small, hunted minority we must find a way to take power from the federal level and put it back in the states, where it belongs. We can't have nut cases pushing for homogenizing, hateful crap like the FMA. There has to be a safe haven, a place for people to go, where like-minded people can live in tolerance. It's a big country.

FMA people, please go live in your red states. Make all the draconian laws you want. Moralize amongst yourselves; pretend that God thinks what you think he thinks.

"Defense of Marriage"? Bullshit. It's "Attack the Fags". How about Dawn, or some other "Christian" (I use the term loosely because I know some real Christians, who live the teachings), tells us when she asks a "God Hates Fags-type counterdemonstrator" to leave the, uh, counterdemonstration. Or maybe ask them to wear a special T-shirt. Sometimes it gets hard to tell you-all apart.

That's right... it's your old buddy #4... aw, c'mon... help an old friend out? Hey... you can't just walk away like that... I used to BE somebody, you ungrateful schmendrick! Remember Miranda? Remember no-knock rules? Remember when you usedta be able to drive from San Diego to Puerta Vallarta without getting your rectum probed? You got a lot to thank me for! I used to BE somebody, dammit! Don't you walk...

Hey... come back.

Please?

[wik] In response to Buckethead's reasonable observation that this decision isn't too much out of left field, I had actually meant to tie this post to this one that weakened search-and-seizure protections in Louisiana. Two isolated decisions don't make a convincing case that the IV Amendment is in imminent danger, but this is a weblog, I'm a little hysterical, so I'm calling it like I sees it.

Via Drudge, this gem:

"I'm fascinated by Rap and Hip-Hop" said Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry during an MTV Choose or Loose forum. Offering up a heavy dose of street credibility, Kerry defended gangsta rap, freedom of speech and the realities of street life.

The Boston-born heir by marriage to the Heinz Ketchup fortune, offered his perspective on rap music as the voice of the streets.

"I'm fascinated by rap and by hip-hop. I think there's a lot of poetry in it. There's a lot of anger, a lot of social energy in it. And I think you'd better listen to it pretty carefully, 'cause it's important."

Middle aged white candidates should just not go there. Ever.

Via blogcritics I see that in Virginia, oral sex is a felony; a crime against nature. Moreover, this law's being enforced.

This morning's Charlottesville Daily Progress brings news that a 21-year-old woman found receiving oral sex in her car at 3 a.m. on January 29, in the parking lot outside her apartment building in Newport News, Virginia, has been charged with a felony under the Crimes Against Nature statute.

Her boyfriend was arrested and charged as well.

Virginia's Crimes Against Nature law states that people can't have oral or anal sex, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

The law doesn't specify whether the sex is illegal in public or in private.

Under an agreement with prosecutors, the man pleaded guilty Monday to the lesser charge of indecent exposure. The woman was offered the same plea.

If she chooses to go to court and fight the original charge, she could face up to five years in prison.

Regardless of what you think about this couple's lack of discretion, this is utter looniness. I don't like a world where the paranoid dystopian fantasies of the likes of "The Handmaid's Tale" seem prescient rather than laughable.

Too often critics of the Bush administration try to conflate America's rising moral dunder with the President's administration, (of course, there's a case to be made, there), when such charges just makes them sound like rabid Bush-haters. No, regardless of who the damn President is, I have a right to make sweet love to whomever I want in whatever way I want! What the hell is going on in this country?

Yet another reason on the growing list titled "Why I Will Never Live In Virginia Again No Matter How Pretty It Is In The Spring."

Fecking Crimes Against Nature.

Everybody in the house say "Chilling Effects"!
("Chilling Effects!")
Everybody in the house say "FCC!"
("FCC!")
Everybody in the house say "[content redacted]!"
.....

So, last night CBS bleeped out Janet Jackson exclaiming "Jesus!" on David Letterman. All the kids are in bed, but the Lord is always watching. Or some such bullshit.

According to the Washington Post, Condi Rice will now testify under oath before the 9/11 commission. But check out the following:

White House aides had said they were seeking a more limited compromise, such as the public release of a transcript of a future private commission session with Rice, but officials said that commission members refused to yield.

White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales made the offer this morning in a two-page letter to Kean and Hamilton. "The Commission must agree in writing that it will not request additional public testimony from any White House official, including Dr. Rice," Gonzales wrote.

Exactly who do these people think they are? Remember, come November, that Bush and his administration think ranch time, NASCAR, and fundraising are more important than one of the most important commissions this country has ever convened. Remember this when Bush describes himself as a "war president" in the "war on terror".

This is how interested he really is, in evaluating the performance of his own administration.

... Very well... abortions for some, high-speed government-sponsored broadband access for everyone!

I get the sense that CREEP is a little scared these days of losing come November (yes... I know that CREEP refers specifically to a Nixonian cabal who worked on the 1972 election, ... the point is they were a Nixonian cabal much like another I could name). Just consider all the poorly-thought-out sweeping J. Bruckheimer blockbuster policy proposals they have floated recently: We're goin' to Mars!; Free drugs for old people!; Tax cuts for [some/none/all]!... and now government-subsidized broadband internet access for all. As if the underlying causes of poverty, poor schools, crime, urban decay, disease, hunger and bigotry will all be solved by lighting-quick access to online pornography.

Hell, sounds about right to me!

Thanks to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, police in Louisiana no longer need a warrant to search your home or business. All that's necessary is for one officer to desire the search to ensure his safety.

I sincerely hope this bus to hell runs head-on into the IV Amendment and burns spectacularly, as the implications for future law enforcement abuses are horrifying. The last thing this country needs is for police and citizenry to solidify and deepen their mutual antagonism and distrust. I'm a law abiding well educated and morally upright good taxpayer, and that doesn't stop me from feeling queasy every time I think the flashing lights are coming for me. I don't think I'm alone in that. If this precedent stands and becomes wider practice, you better bet this country will be an uglier and more authoritarian place as civil disobedience against casual searches becomes more commonplace and accepted.

Anyway, remember the IV Amendment? It was an important one. Pretty g-d d--n clear about things too, much more so than the vexed 2nd...

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[wik] Eugene Volokh links to the opinion. As with most of these instances, the case in question presents a situation in which a casual police search might be considered reasonable-- a known felon was believed to be threatening the lives of two judges-- but, of course, most situations are much more complicated. Devil, details, immanence.

The muckracking, partisan, and utterly filthy Boston Herald has a thought-provoking editorial today that raises two important points.

Point the first: "We'd like to know how Clarke squares his contention that he was the only one in the Bush administration truly committed to thwarting terrorism before the Sept. 11 attacks with this: It was Clarke who personally authorized the evacuation by private plane of dozens of Saudi citizens, including many members of Osama bin Laden's own family, in the days immediately following Sept. 11."

Point the second: "By all accounts, Clarke made hundreds of decisions in the days after Sept. 11, many clear-headed and right. Approving those special flights seems like a wrong one, but it was a judgment call made in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history. Perhaps it was the best decision he could make under the circumstances. It's too bad Clarke cuts no one in the Bush administration the same slack he so easily cuts himself."

Randal has a new Kerry campaign poster up:

Mr. Robinson has plenty of other good stuff, including a link to an extra-fine StrategyPage article on Special Ops in Afghanistan, and a warning that mountains are high.

Kevin's got the scoop.

So was it really a tax cut, if you just got an "advance" on this year's child tax credit?

Did our political donor/investor class get an "advance" on their dividend tax cuts? Nope. Theirs was permanent.

Yours isn't.

Joke's on you!

Ace of Spades notes that Kerry called his own eventual vote against funding for Iraq "reckless and irresponsible." He also gave Kerry the nickname "Flippy," but I think "Flipper" would be better.

In a blow to those who think slippery slopes don't exist-- and in a spine-crushing suplex to decency, common sense, and responsible government-- the city of Port Orange, FL has outlawed outdoor smoking on public property when kids are present.

That's right. If you're in the park, and even one scabby-kneed diaper-wearing drool factory is around-- even if said drool factory is thirteen and ho'ed up like Britney Spears-- you're in trouble. You get three warnings. Then you get up to 60 days of jail.

I'm of two minds about smoking bans. My libertarian side opposes them unequivocally, but my opportunistic side absolutely loves that I can go out to a bar without reeking like an ashtray for twelve hours afterwards. I mean, loves it. I love it. Love it.

Love. It.

Here's a question-- in towns that ban smoking in bars and restaurants, why can't the town government regulate smoking like they do booze? If city hall issues, say, 300 liquor licenses, why can't they draw up and issue 100 smoking licenses too? That way we would ensure that the spirit of the law-- that patrons and workers not be automatically exposed to dense clouds of toxins-- is observed, while at the same time giving those people who do enjoy cancer the opportunity to do so.

From The Times:

"I believe these actions by Bush administration officials to block Mr. Foster from providing Congress the true costs of the prescription drug bill clearly break federal law," said Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey and the lead author of the letter. Mr. Lautenberg added, "The questions that need to be answered are: how many administration officials knew about it, and who in the administration gave the order to conceal the information?" Mr. Scully has denied threatening to fire Mr. Foster, but has confirmed telling him to withhold some information from Congress. Republicans accuse Democrats of exploiting the controversy for political gain. "My view is, it's much ado about nothing," said Representative Jim McCrery, Republican of Louisiana.

How much more friggin' plain does it have to be, McCrery? Scully has confirmed that he told the actuary to withhold from Congress critical information about the costs of a program. Let it be said, here and now, that McCrery is a dishonest, partisan asshole. I feel so much better knowing guys like him are in the GOP.

I've run across two interesting comments on the US Congress, neither of which are very flattering. The first is from John Derbyshire of the National Review:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

(My italics.) So in a Case not "affecting Ambassadors" etc. — let's say, oh, a case in which some citizens have chosen to dispute the ancient and customary definition of marriage — the Supreme Court has jurisdiction only if the Congress has not declared that particular Case an Exception under the aforementioned Article, and if Congress has made explicit Regulations declaring that the Court does indeed have such jurisdiction. Hmmm. So this issue I have been reading so much about, of renegade federal judges legislating from the bench, is really not an issue at all, since Congress could just forbid them to take the relevant Cases! Does anyone in Congress know this? Why don't they act on it?

The second is from Marginal Revolution, where Tyler excerpts from this Washington Post article:

In fundamental ways that have gone largely unrecognized, Congress has become less vigilant, less proud and protective of its own prerogatives, and less important to the conduct of American government than at any time in decades. "Congress has abdicated much of its responsibility," Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel said in a recent conversation. "It could become an adjunct to the executive branch."

...Though it occasionally resists an executive-branch proposal, Congress today rarely initiates its own policies. Few members speak up for the institutional interests of Congress. "The idea that they have an independent institutional responsibility, that the institution itself is bigger than the individuals or the parties, doesn't occur to the bulk of [members] for a nanosecond," said an exasperated Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, a longtime student of Congress.

It occurs to Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. He said that the House has given up the meaningful exercise of its powers by largely forfeiting its oversight role and abandoning all discipline on the federal budget.

These two comments take the same problem from different sides. The Post article points out, correctly, that the relative strength of the three branches of government have waxed and waned over the last two centuries. The Supreme Court was almost non-existent until Marshall became Chief Justice. Congress was far more important than the President at the beginning and end of the 19th Century. But over the last quarter century and more, Congress has been on the wane and not so much due to encroachment from the other two branches, but because Congress has willingly surrendered its constitutionally granted powers.

Both liberals and conservatives have pilloried the Supreme Court for its intrusions into politics. Judicial activism and federalism have been rallying cries for the right, and the left has advanced many of its goals through court rulings. That the courts are able to do this, though, is only because the Congress allows it. A pernicious trend over the last half-century is Congress’ increasing unwillingness to consider the constitutionality of its own legislation. Rather than think difficult thoughts like, “Does the Constitution allow us to pass this law?” the Congress passes anything that passes through its airy head, confident that the Supreme Court will sort it all out. Over a long enough stretch of time, this becomes habit – and the SC comes to believe that these sorts of rulings are its primary focus.

And as Derbyshire pointed out, the Congress has important and wide-ranging powers to regulate the courts, and to decide what matters are for political consideration by the elected legislature, and which are appropriate for judicial review. Most of the recent conflicts on the big issues have been between the executive and the judicial branch, with Congress playing dead in the middle, hoping that no one will notice that they are doing nothing to help solve the problem.

By passing whatever laws they see fit, and leaving all considerations of constitutionality to the courts (the best recent example is campaign finance reform) Congress has departed significantly from the letter and intent of the constitution. Aside from the departments of defense, state, and the treasury; how many of the activities of the executive branch are authorized by the constitution, beyond vague handwaving at the commerce clause?

Which brings us to an even greater abdication of responsibility. Congress is granted the exclusive power by the constitution to pass laws, levy taxes, declare war, and so on. However, most of the laws that affect our day-to-day lives are not actual laws passed by Congress, but rather federal regulations written by bureaucrats in the executive agencies and departments. Congress has ceded a large part of its lawmaking power to the executive branch, and it has done so consciously.

Similarly, the War Powers Act in large part cedes the constitutional responsibility to declare war to the executive. While the President has traditionally (and rightfully) had a fair degree of leeway in this regard, explicitly giving up the right to in effect declare war is troublesome.

Congress no longer performs the kind of oversight that is their primary responsibility. The President and the executive branch exist in large part to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The most notably, the Congress has failed to exert proper oversight in budgetary matters. But this laxity spreads over pretty much every area that the Constitution puts in their care. And as the Post article notes, rarely do we see any initiative arising from Congress – almost every major issue comes from the President or the courts.

If we have an imperial presidency, it is in large part because we have a weak and vacillating Congress. If we have overreaching activist courts, it is a natural result of Congressional abdication of power. And this state of affairs seems unlikely to change in the near future.

Check this out! If you're a Federal employee who just happens to like a little buggery on the side (in the time-honored prep school tradition), that's cool. In fact, if you're a Federal employee who attends Gay Pride parades, goes to the bathhouses, looks for dates at Dupont Circle, and goes out clubbing until 3AM in a mesh shirt and a banana-hammock, that's cool too. You just better not be, you know, gay.

Gay and lesbians in the entire federal workforce have had their job protections officially removed by the office of Special Counsel. The new Special Counsel, Scott Bloch, says his interpretation of a 1978 law intended to protect employees and job applicants from adverse personnel actions is that gay and lesbian workers are not covered.

Bloch said that the while a gay employee would have no recourse for being fired or demoted for being gay, that same worker could not be fired for attending a gay Pride event.

In his interpretation, Bloch is making a distinction between one's conduct as a gay or lesbian and one's status as a gay or lesbian.

"People confuse conduct and sexual orientation as the same thing, and I don't think they are," Bloch said in an interview with Federal Times, a publication for government employees.

Bloch said gays, lesbians and bisexuals cannot be covered as a protected class because they are not protected under the nation's civil rights laws. 

"When you're interpreting a statute, you have to be very careful to interpret strictly according to how it's written and not get into loose interpretations," Bloch said. "Someone may have jumped to the conclusion that conduct equals sexual orientation, but they are essentially very different. One is a class . . . and one is behavior."

My head hurts.