perfidy

Henry Brighous of Crooked Timber comments on (well... sort of Fisks) an Iain Murray post about a speech by British MP Roger Helmer (isn't the internet grand???).

Helmer claims that federalism in the European Union doesn't have much in common with its American equivalent; it isn't democratic, and it isn't really federalism either. He's trying to square a rather inconvenient circle for the righties - by and large, right-wingers in the UK and US approve of federalism in the US (more rights for the states), but disapprove of it in Europe. Helmer's basic argument is that federalism is only legitimate if it applies within a single nation-state, where people share a common national identity and common sympathies. Thus, EU federalism is Bad - there's no such thing as a European national identity. However, US federalism is Good - after all America is "One Nation under God."

There's one small problem with this argument. Any half-way intelligent reading of American history will tell you that it's utter nonsense. 150 years ago, the US bore a remarkable resemblance to the EU today; a scattering of loosely affiliated states without all that much of a shared national identity. Then, from the Civil War on, it began to centralize. If Helmer and Murray are right, then, the modern American political system is at best a massive mistake, and at worst, a democratically illegitimate usurpation of powers by a centralizing federal government.

I hadn't though of it this way. Very interesting. My main concern about the EU federalizing is the way they are going about it-- the proposed Constitution could have been written by the IRS's pointy-heads for all the clarity it offers. But I must admit that the notion of many disaggregate nations coming together under one roof seemed, well, alien to me (and I call myself a historian....). Moreover the main objection the American Right has had to the EU's proposed constitution and further consolidation has in fact been the decrease in individual national sovereignty (and they call themselves Conservatives....). I'm going to have to think deeply about Iain Murray's assertion that "Europe cannot be democratic without destroying old nation-states," and whether that is true and desirable. The USA needed a massive internal war to unify totally... Lord knows that Europe has had a few of those. The Spaniard in the works in Europe's case, however, is that the EU formed in part to specifically prevent such a war from happening again. I wonder if greater consolidation could happen anyway, if Europe continues down the internally pacifist, carefully modulated collectivist road it's on. Of course, a war isn't out of the question either.

In short, this is a lot of food for thought for historians, political scientists, and the chattering classes. This blog has all three, so we'll be busy.
 

Over at the Spoons Experience, Spoons discusses some interesting news about GOP priorities. The Manchester Union Leader had a talk with Ed Gillespie, RNC Chairman, and described the result:

No longer does the Republican Party stand for shrinking the federal government, for scaling back its encroachment into the lives of Americans, or for carrying the banner of federalism into the political battles of the day.

No, today the Republican Party stands for giving the American people whatever the latest polls say they want.

The party's unofficial but clear message to conservatives is: Where else are you going to go? To the Democrats? To the Libertarians? They don’t think so.

This relates to another thing I read over at the National Review, by Jay Nordlinger, one of the few remaining good things at that online magazine:

I was saying to a friend the other day, "Look, I'm a partisan Republican — a terrible partisan. More partisan than I would like to be, really, or feel comfortable being. But I don't like it when an entire party, in our two-party system, goes wacko. It can't be good for the country... The Democratic party is in the grip of something sick."

And my wise friend responded, "Yes, and another problem is that, when the other party goes nuts, you have no leverage over your own party, or your own president. You certainly have no place else to go. You're stuck."

True.

That is true, indeed. With the Mudville Nine generally either off in lalaland, or unelectable, or both; the Republicans at the moment are on bedrock because they are doing something about the war on terror. No Democrat except Lieberman has any credibility on this issue, and he'll never make it through the primaries. Given this situation, conservatives have no leverage on the party.

We have seen spending skyrocket, and most of it is not for defense, where we most need it. The size and scope of government is increasing under Bush - from unfunded mandates in education, to prescription drug handouts for the old, to the Patriot and Victo acts, to damn near anything except more troops - the only government expansion I could conscience. The deficits are rising, which is not as bad as some claim, but not good either.

If the administration and the lickspittle Republicans in Congress think this will win them votes, well, okay it probably will. But, Jeebus, what do you think Republicans are here for, to be Democrats with the urge to kill foriegners? Conservatism, as I have tried to demonstrate here on this webthingy, is more than polldriven political tacking before the wind, and is more than rhetorical posturing on conservative issues.

Small government is good because it preserves liberty. If the government is not involved, then it is not infringing on your rights, or your freedom. It is not restricting your choices through hidden regulatory obstacles, tax incentives, or coercion. Small government does not consist of a balanced budget and ten percent less government employees. It is a state of mind, a principle that leads toward eliminating unnecessary government interference in our lives, while attending instead to the duties that are proper to a government - national defense, etc.

The Republicans don't have to listen to the conservatives, because the Democrats aren't even in the game.

The Onion interviews P.J. O'Rourke this week:

If there are three words that need to be used more in American journalism, commentary, politics, personal life... it's the magic words "I don't know."

I've been thinking about the prospects of the mudville nine, and wondering a bit about typical primary politics.

How often does the early frontrunner end up getting the nomination? Dean has taken a solid lead over his opponents - where is the juice coming from? He has raised a solid amount of cash, and his poll numbers are good in New Hampshire. (Compared to Dennis the Menace Kucinich, who is polling at 0%. Zero! Department of Peace, my ass. Sorry.)

I see Dean as benefitting from a sort of McCain effect. He is an outsider, of sorts. He seems plainspoken, a trait that most Americans admire. He talks tough, in a Democratic sort of way. But I think what's happening is that he has become the acceptable candidate for those who can't stand Bush. Large numbers in the Democratic Party want to oppose Bush, often from visceral dislike. It's not so much that Dean has a lot of inherent pull, but that the other candidates are in some way unacceptable as a focus point for their feelings.

• Kerry's credentials are soured because he voted for the war - and his later protestation that Bush lied to him hasn't garnered him a lot of credibility.
• Gephardt is a dry, colorless pol, and only name recognition is keeping him in the game. And, he's a loser in past presidential runs.
• Lieberman is still saying that the war was a good thing. At least he's consistent.
• Edwards is a slick trial lawyer. He does not come across as a man of the people, which you need in this race. And, he's so far behind in the polls that people don't want to back a loser.
• Brown, Kucinich and Sharpton are obvious wackos.

What I've read of Dean shows typical populist democratic nostrums for our ills. I don't agree with them when they come out of his mouth any more than I do when they come out of McCain, Buchanan or William Jennings Bryan.

It is typical for a party to tack to its base during the primaries, and toward the center in the general election. The trick is to go far enough out to lock in your support, but not so far that you become unelectable. Dean hasn't skirted the line yet, but his campaign has yet to face its first crisis. He may have peaked too soon. And despite what Democrats may believe, no one will beat Bush unless they are to the right of him on the war on terror, and there certainly is plenty of room over there.

Loyal reader "Atomzooey" emails with this excerpt from an interview with Britney Spears (remember her?) by CNN hack Tucker Carlson:

CARLSON: A lot of entertainers have come out against the war in Iraq. Have you? 

SPEARS: Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens. 

CARLSON: Do you trust this president? 

SPEARS: Yes, I do. 

CARLSON: Excellent. Do you think he's going to win again? 

SPEARS: I don't know. I don't know that.

Thoughts that leap to mind like a thousand eager Freshman to a freshly tapped kegga Bud:

• Hear that sound? That's CNN, gasping for air like an unwanted dogfish on the deck of a Gloucester swordboat.
• This President can't lose, now that Britney Spears has delivered the all-important pre-teen vote!
• I'm impressed-- unlike Sean Penn, who appears smarter, Britney Spears know when she should shut up.
• I think that from this day forward, anyone who wishes to publicly discuss the President and his policies should first tongue-kiss Madonna. And enjoy it.

[update] Or Christina Aguilera. And enjoy it. Where do I sign up?

[moreover] Britney thinks we should "trust our President in every decision that he makes." Remember what I said yesterday about Rich Lowry? Well, I might have been wrong about him being craven. He might just be ignorant instead.

Again, the boys and girls at Reason have hit one out of the park. Julian Sanchez has a long piece which asks the right questions of those who defend the USA-PATRIOT Act against all criticism.

Read the entire article, but I extract this nugget of wisdom for you:

The broadest thing wrong with this standard, [namely, Rich Lowry's assertion that "The challenge to critics should be this: Name one civil liberty that has been violated under the Patriot Act"] though, is where it places the burden of proof. Civil libertarians want the answer to questions that as yet have barely been asked and never been answered: How will these new powers make us safer? Would they have prevented the September 11 attacks? Do they add anything to the existing powers the government failed to deploy effectively before then? Are they broader than necessary to aid in the fight against terror?

The PATRIOT apologists will have none of this. The default, as they see it, is to grant new powers unless there's proof that they'll lead overnight to tyranny. The presumption of liberty is replaced by a presumption of power. The sad reality, though, is that even a police state can't guarantee total safety: Whatever we do, the coming years will see more terror, more attacks. If we conclude, each time, that the culprit must be an excess of domestic freedom, a lack of government power, we are traveling a road with no end.

There's a fatalistic note to this conclusion that I don't love, but Sanchez' broad point hits the spot. The Federal Government exists at the convenience of the American People; indeed the Constitution focuses on delimiting exactly which areas the Feds are empowered to act in, leaving the rest to, who, again? Consequently, any Act that purports to increase the power of the Fed, especially along police-state lines, ought to be met with the strictest scrutiny.

Ultimately, Rich Lowry's approach amounts to patriotic cravenness, a blind apron-clinging trust that the Government would never(!) do anything that could harm us. Sanchez argues for a much clearer-headed, innately American way to approach the question of balancing liberty with security. Despite what you sometimes hear nowadays, a good patriot is a skeptic.

The beautiful and talented Erin O'Connor has posted an excerpt from an article she wrote for the Chronicle of Higher Education about the flapdoodle down at UNC. The freshman reading this semester is "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich, and campus conservatives are concerned that Ehrenreich's propaganda will rot the little heads of freshmen before they have a chance to grow.

A fair point, but I dunno. I agree with O'Connor's conclusion-- that "Nickel and Dimed" isn't the best reading for Freshmen-- though I think it's a decent choice-- but I partly disagree with her reasons why.

When I started college, the entire incoming class had to read Being There by Jerzy Kosinski. I think that was a good choice-- it was a fairly simple book about American media-mindedness that lent itself well to freshman-level exegesis. Even better, we got to watch the Peter Sellers movie. Yeah!!

But the discussion we had wasn't very spirited. It was fine, and a few people got into some pretty good debates over the greater meaning of the book, but I think it could have been a little more fun.

Which is why I'm not sure I agree with the O'Connor or the Conservatives at UNC....I'll give you a minute... go read.

So... O'Connor calls the idea that freshmen should be discussing partisan politics "astounding." I couldn't disagree more. Any freshman class at any college can hold a rousing, if not openly rancorous debate on politics which I guarantee will contain more substance than Hannity and Colmes. Besides, the kids are going to spend the next four years flitting from cause to cause-- why pretend otherwise?-- so why not help to guide their educational experience in a way that might be constructive?

I think Ehrenreich's book is a good choice for freshmen. It's heart-breaking, passionate, and polemical. It's thinly argued, anecdotal, and full of holes. It invites debate and discovery as freshmen brainstorm ways to defend their position. It allows students to take positions and defend them, and I don't think it hurts anything that the discussion is inherently political. Perfect, right?

Well, yeah, except for one thing. The risk the discussion sinking to the mere level of Hannity and Colmes. To me, this would be the biggest reason not to assign Ehrenreich or her ilk. O'Connor puts it well, writing about the Conservative protesters:

The committee's seemingly unimpeachable plea for "greater fairness and balance" in the reading program conceals a less savory jockeying for ideological position.

"It's intellectually dishonest to present only one side," says the group's founder, Michael McKnight. That's true. But couched in that demand for balance is the committee's conservative agenda. The group seeks more balance not because balance is inherently desirable, but because of the committee's interest, as its Web site announces, "in promoting conservative and free market ideas and perspectives on the UNC campus." It is protesting because Nickel and Dimed gives conservative politics a bad rap. As McKnight told The Herald-Sun, "as a Christian, I was offended, and as a conservative I was really offended. It's one thing to disagree with someone's point of view, and it's another thing to ridicule them." Tellingly, McKnight frames his complaint in terms borrowed wholesale from the liberal identity politics that he and his group oppose.

The tacit assumption by both liberals and conservatives that Chapel Hill's summer reading program is more about politics than about reading should give us pause. We ought to be asking what it means to read opinionated works as either a confirmation or negation of identity -- but instead we are fighting endlessly about whose identity gets top billing when readings are assigned.

And that's the problem. As I said above, discussing an easy target like Ehrenreich's book does foment discussion and mixing. But it's not very deep. Popular political debate these days is all surface, surface, surface (and hell, when has it been any different?), and maybe colleges could do a little more to encourage deeper thought. Even popular political writers like P.J. O'Rourke might be an improvement. Even better, actual literature, such as Elie Weisel, the aforementioned Kosinski, Milan Kundera, Zora Neale Hurston, or Toni Morrison might do the trick. Except maybe for Morrison, these authors aren't very hard going, and their work inspires thoughtful discussion from many sides. Moreover, these authors are more, what the hell, collegiate than Ehrenreich and "Nickel and Dimed," and for some student's it's the last elevated thing they'll do for four years. So, I agree with O'Connor's argument (as usual), but I do not share her conviction that a little political heat is a bad thing.

... as for the ostensibly adult people arguing about whether a book can rot the brain, for shame!

[note] Edited to remove gibberish and non sequiturs 9/4/03

Jeez... this is the week of light posting and crappy headlines. Sorry about that. It's the first week of school, and the particular Perfidous Indoctrination Center I work for is in full swing, as the Evil Geniuses of the future pursue their degrees in Evil Medicine, Mendacious Lawyering, Interrogative Dentistry, and Advanced Theoreticial Malingering.

But whatever. I see that the 9th Circuit Court, in a rare high-profile decision that doesn't make me grit my teeth as they skate back and forth over the line between reason and excess, have overturned 111 death penalty sentences imposed by judges (not juries) in three states.

Great. The facts of the main case that this decision hinged on are outrageous enough, without getting into the utterly nondemocratic, old-school-Whiggish phenomenon of one magistrate deciding the ultimate fate of a defendant. From the article:

The case that led to the appeals court ruling was described in the decision as "the raw material from which legal fiction is forged."

According to the ruling, that "raw material" included:

• A police tip from the defendant's mother-in-law based on her daughter's "extra-sensory perception"

• An alleged romantic encounter between one of the defense attorneys with the first prosecutor in the case during negotiations on a possible plea agreement

• The judge imposing the death sentence while allegedly under the influence of marijuana. The judge was later disbarred.

Jeebus. The best case for jury sentencing I have ever read.

This is a good point for me to discuss why, in my political-science naivete, I am a self-described "centrist" (Buckethead would write that, "handwringing anklebiter," and he wouldn't be wrong). My personal ethical and moral systems make me ambivalent about the death penalty. While I am in favor of the death penalty when applied by jury to the most horrible of capital crimes, I feel it is meted out too liberally and for too many offenses. Regardless of any cost/benefit analyses which show that keeping a multiple-murderer locked up for life costs a fortune whereas killing them is cheap, I don't like to measure life by that metric.

The point at which my support of the death penalty breaks down is where my faith in humanity breaks down. Lassiez-faire is a great idea in theory, but at some point, somebody is going to do something completely shit-headed that ruins the party for other people. Circumstances like the aforementioned capital case, which apparently hinged on psychic evidence, for example, make me gibber and howl in fury. If a person's life is in the balance, I feel that a standard of evidence beyond "no reasonable doubt" should apply-- there should be ironclad proof. Obviously psychic evidence doesn't make this cut. Yet, here it apparently did. Exhibit A in shit-headed party ruining.

There's a line, let's call it the "shithead line," beyond which my nanny-state instincts step in and I want to buy the world a helmet. A similar argument applies to, say, capital markets, since we're talking about capital things today. An unregulated market is theoretically "fair," as long as all players are assumed to be rational and optimally situated to take advantage of opportunities. But neither circumstance really applies. The "shithead line" has been crossed many, many times in the last few years by companies I'm sure I don't need to mention. On the near side of that line, I prefer a lightly regulated market. On the far side of it, I prefer the swift hammer of armed response.

However, my rational mind understands that buying the world a helmet would cost a bundle and break the bank, thereby doing more harm than the high-minded good that was originally intended. A balance must be struck between swift-hammer justice and other regulation, and just letting people do what they think is in their best interest. The constant question for me is to clarify just where that line falls.

But I digress. Regarding the death penalty, I have been heartened over the last few years to see a serious inquiry into how death sentences are given out-- first in Illinois, and now at the Federal level. Perhaps it will lead to a clarification of the shithead line as pertains to capital punishment. Life is precious, and even though I'm no Christian (and I'll see YOU in hell), I feel that even the worst among us deserve small mercies, especially if a little more attention to process keeps innocent (that is, less guilty) people from being put to death.

Psychic evidence, indeed. . . goddamn twinkie defense rassen rissen d'hoy glaven

From Reason comes this mind-bending story by Jacob Sullum: Forest Tennant has spoken out against the War On Drugs-- the war he helped start.

[W]hen the folks at the Hoover Institution who produce the PBS show Uncommon Knowledge were looking for someone to debate drug policy with me, Tennant must have seemed like a natural choice.

Imagine their surprise when he ended up agreeing that the war on drugs has been a disastrous mistake. To be sure, Tennant is not completely comfortable with the idea of treating all psychoactive substances the way we treat alcohol. Among other things, he worries about underage access and legal liability issues.

But Tennant concedes that only a small percentage of drug users become addicted, that the drug laws are not very effective at preventing abuse, and that any increase in addiction that follows the repeal of prohibition is apt to be small. Equally important, he has come to realize after decades of dealing with addiction that the war on drugs imposes tremendous costs in exchange for its dubious benefits. . . .

Sullum also notes that other old-school drug warriors are coming around to the side of cautious legalization. This is very encouraging. Maybe in a decade or two we'll begin to see actual changes in drug policy, with attendant beneficial effects for our society, economy, foreign policy, civil liberties, and ability to smoke a giant fatty while watching a Mel Brooks film festival.

Slate is reporting that the news from California's schools isn't so good. Two-thirds of the state's public schools have just been deemed deficient under California educational standards. You might say, "California, who cares!", but in reality this is bad news to the rest of us because California's school-standards criteria closely track those of No Child Left Behind, implying that some 66% of the nation's schools could potentially receive failing grades next year when the first round of grades and sanctions hit.

I'm of the opinion that No Child Left Behind is full of holes anyway, and fails to take into account the full collateral effects and implications its policies and mandates could produce. For example, see this paper by economist David Figlio. Although the conclusions and conjectures are ultimately a bit more polemical than I might wish, Figlio uses data from Florida schools to suggest that the schools at greatest risk for year-to-year Federal sanctions are the very schools whose operating budgets most depend (in dollars and in percentage terms) on Federal funding to remain open. This means that when the Federal government withholds money from such a school, as a part of NCLB sanctions, the school sinks further into a spiral of debt and failure. Where's the justice in that?

Even if 66% of the nation's schools don't "fail" next year any number even in that neighborhood is cause for concern that the standards are badly out of whack. What good is school choice if all the other schools in the area are deemed failures too? What good are waivers if transportation is not financially feasible for districts and private schools accepting transfers?

Finally, Figlio paper listed above also observes that school reputation plays a significant role in property valuation-- if more schools are deemed failures, this could have effects on the real estate markets in many communities, reducing the property taxes and hence local-level public school funding accordingly. Again, this has its greatest impact on those communities and school districts that most need help.

Look... I know that America's public schools are in the shitter. I also know that many parties are at fault. I simply remain totally unconvinced that a national initiative which is based on withholding funding from schools is the way to do it. Especially such a sweeping initiative whose mandates will come into effect in 2004, long before a sufficient amount of data is collected to make reasonable decisions about what schools have what problems and how best to address them. 

Randy Barnett of the Volokh coalition has been posting some very interesting observations about the Constitution, in particular illuminating the tension between "original intent" and "original meaning, and the debate over whether the Constitution is static until expressly changed via established process.

I'm turning into a bit of a wonk for this stuff (of course I am. I have wonk nature like a dog has dog nature), but I find Barnett's work strangely gripping.

Original post on the value of a written Constitution here.

Followup is in a den-Beste sized post here.

Professor Barnett's SSRN paper arguing that judicial review IS in the Constitution, if you look at it right, is here, and speaking as a layperson it's a bit of a mind-blower.

Another SSRN paper on originalism is here.

Various news sources have noted that we could have had power grid reform in motion TWO YEARS ago if the President and some members of Congress wouldn't insist on including Alaskan drilling priveliges in the same bill.

Alaskan drilling has been repeatedly rejected for the time being. Yet, in his effort to get a pet project through Congress, the Administration, like all the ones before it, are willing to hold up urgent and necessary changes.

Thanks, guys. Way to go.

CNN is reporting that Gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon has dropped out of the California race. Though support for the recall has diminished somewhat, this will certainly increase Arnold's chances of taking the race. It will also increase the chances that racist Cruz Bustamante will not win. Cruz was caught saying the "N" word (nigger) at a political gathering not too far back, and has connections with MEChA, the racist Mexican group.

At Slate, Dahlia Lithwick weighs in on the Establishment Clause. Interestingly, she comes to the same basic conclusions as Buckethead, though from a different line of argument and with a different conclusion.

My defense of the TC was part of my view that there is a larger animus against Christianity. Which is why I mentioned the Catholic issue with the federal judicial appointments. The left likes to think that those with religious beliefs, sincerely held, are the far right wing. They are not, not by far.

In the comments to a prior post, Bridgit said this case involved one "southern white protestant" view. That is disingenuous, because how many black southern protestants, or Korean DC area protestants, or Martian Jews for that matter would agree with the views expressed by the TC? Again, this is (a very mild version of) the contempt that is generally cast on Christianity. Christianity is not the quaint and curious folk ways of backwoods crackers.

The Judicial appointments debate involved a Roman Catholic view under the microscope, but I think that the motivations were similar. The left would not merely like to exclude religion from the public arena, they have it in for Christianity and pretty much everything traditional. Everytime some 99.44% Christian community somewhere in the midwest puts up a nativity scene, someone, of a certain political group, sues the city. Kwanzaa decorations and the whole panarama of other faith's symbols do not get the same attention.

Now, I am a conservative. Not in the European sense, which is reactionary and monarchist, etc. I love and look forward to technological change. I feel that reform is possible, and given sufficient forethought, desirable. The beliefs that I feel are worthy of conserving are the revolutionary ideals of the founding generation, as amended by the Union's position in the civil war. But there are other things worthy of conserving. We should not throw out religion because a small fraction of our population is anticlerical, and feels that Christianity is the opiate of the masses, ie, the stupid.

The founding fathers felt that religion was essential for the survival of the republic. They were right about so many things that I am wary of saying, "Oh they were just kidding about that one." Whitaker Chambers (and for that matter Solzhenitsyn) felt that religion was in opposition to modernity. They felt that Communism (which I think we can all agree was very, very bad) was not something different from the liberal west, but rather the purification of it, the assumptions of modernity taken to their logical extremes. Chambers feared that the liberal west would lose to the powerful faith of Communism, or that it would lose its soul in the process of winning.

We should not be so quick to exclude religion from the public arena. Tolerance does not require that we banish all representations of the majority faith of this nation. It should not require the cultural cover of a picture of Confucius to have a picture of Moses. The founders feared the tyranny of the majority, and guarded against it. But Toqueville was right to fear the tyranny of the minority. And that is what I see growing in this country. 

Over in the comments for this post, there's been some additional discussion of the whole Ten Commandments controversy.

My beloved comrade in blogging seems to feel strongly that the Judge is a fool, and furthermore a damned fool for insisting that the Commandments be displayed in his courthouse in defiance of a higher court order. I agree. He does undermine the rule of law by defying the ruling of the higher court. It could be grounds for impeachment.

But all of this is beside the point. The issue is that people are offended that the Ten Commandments are displayed in a court of law. That this is happening in Alabama merely gives people an extra frisson of joy, because they can safely conflate religion with backwardness. It's Alabama, right? All of the stubborness we see in this judge, and the contempt of the press is window dressing for the central image - the screaming of the offended.

Why are they offended? It cannot be because of the actual text of the Decalogue: 

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Okay, we'll let that one slide. But the "graven image" bit in the protestant translation could be a useful admonishment.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Taken generally, foul language isn't nice.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day. As long as I get Saturday off, too.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother. No problem here.
5. Thou shalt not kill. No problem here.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery. No problem here.
7. Thou shalt not steal. No problem here.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Again, no problem here, though it is curious that it doesn't prohibit lying in a more general sense.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife. Fair enough, and good advice.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods. And likewise here.

These are sensible precepts for living. No one, be they Jewish, Buddhist, Agnostic or Martian could honestly complain that these rules are offensive.

They are offensive because they are Christian. We are encouraged to believe that Islam is a religion of peace, despite much evidence that it is not. We are to tolerate all faiths, all creeds. Except one. Curiously this is the one faith that the majority of Americans embrace. Does the presence in a courthouse of the Ten Commandments amount to a tacit promotion of Christian doctrine as the fount of jurisprudence? Yes. Because they are. We live under a Christian law. This is unsurprising.

What should we do, adopt Bushido or Sharia? Why is this an issue? Those commandments are the center of our law. Do we make murder legal because killing is forbidden in the Commandments?

The Bill of Rights forbids the establishment of a state religion. It does not forbid the government, or officials of our government from having religious beliefs or expressing them. It does not prevent us from acknowledging that the root of our law is Judeo Christian. The founders believed that religious faith was not merely compatible with liberty and the health of the republic, they thought it essential. We should not be so quick to banish it from our sight because the usual suspects are offended by it, as they are offended by so many other things that are good.

Gov. Davis is accusing the Republican Party of a "Right-Wing Power Grab." Technically, he is correct. The Republicans do want to take the governorship away from Davis. However, in any larger sense, he is wrong. Representative Issa, who sponsored the recall drive, was making use of existing California law to effect a change in the occupant of the Governor's seat. This is not a power grab in the sense that we normally mean it - like when General, later President Musharraf made a power grab in Pakistan.

In general, I do not approve of recalls. I think changing the result of an election before the next scheduled election is corrosive to republican virtues. By that I mean the virtues that sustain our republic, and the rule of law. Recalls are democratic. But undiluted democracy is not necessarily a good thing. Recalls reinforce the idea of the permanent campaign, reinforce the politics of grievance and revenge, and are generally just a bad idea. Politicians should be removed from office for two reasons only - criminal misconduct and by being voted out of office in a regular election. Ok, and if they die in office.

That being said, Gray Davis is a fecal fez, and I'll be happy to see the end of him. He is now considering apologizing for the damage he has done to our largest state, months after everyone else in the world realized that he had completely screwed the pooch. If the Republicans win the gubernatorial election that is in my view a good thing, and could help ensure other things I think are good - like continued Republican dominance in the federal government.

And the spectacle! Pornographers, celebrities big and small, punk rockers, the Terminator, Bill "I can lose to the most hated man in CA" Simon, Ariana by god Huffington. This will be the most entertaining election in years. People are already mocking the recall election. But many are mocking it for the wrong reasons. When I hear ridicule of the broad spread of candidates, I think, this is what it should be like. Every one should be involved. Politics should not be reserved to the ranks of cloned, hairsprayed, button down minds of the professional political class. This republic is for us, we should be involved in it at the highest and lowest levels. This kind of freedom is what makes us what we are, good and bad.

But far, far more good than bad. And if Arnold scares the Europeans now, wait til we amend the constitution to allow him to run for President. I would give anything to see them crap their pants when he sits down across the negotiating table.

At the risk of sounding like some damn broken record, this is ridiculous.

ABCNEWS.com has obtained a draft of the Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act of 2003, or VICTORY Act, which could be introduced to Congress this fall, and which appears to have been prepared by the office of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The measure would give law enforcement increased subpoena powers and more leeway over wire-tap evidence and on classifying some drug offenses as terrorism.

Gut reactions, in order:

• Right. So they'll merge the War on Drugs with the War on Terror. Sort of like putting a Pinto engine in an Abrams tank. Neato.
• Note to bigwigs: um, guys, "synergy" was the trendy thing like, five years ago, okay? Now it's about like moving cheese and stuff?
• Talk about your tortured acronyms... Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations.... VICTOR.... uhhh... [Yippee!]... VICTORY!

More coverage of the Victor/Victoria Act here and here.

Question: what the hell is a "narcoterrorist?" The dude who sells you a bag of oregano?

Ralph Luker at History News Network has posted a notice about the most recent data on incarceration rates in the US.

Currently, .686% of our adult population is in prison. It doesn't get higher than that in any other country in the world: not Russia, not Cuba, not Burma, not Saudi Arabia. It gets higher than that only in some states within the United States. Louisiana and Texas lead the pack with 1.013% and .966% of their adult populations in prison.

If harsh sentencing for nonviolent, drug-related offenses is a major cause of the high rates of incarceration, the rippling effects are substantial. They exaggerate father-absenteeism. They disfranchise citizens in many states. Our prisons become colleges in the culture of crime.

"Colleges for the culture of crime." Well put. In short, harsh sentencing for minor offenses leads to the creation of a permanent ostensibly criminal underclass.

Luker is careful to note that this data "is not self-interpreting", which is nice, but he raises a very important point which the data nevertheless suggest. It's long been known that US prisons have a culture and social organization all their own, and said culture is even romanticized, though sometimes at arms' length (see Johnny Cash's prison recordings, the HBO series OZ, about a million films). But despite the cuteness and redemptive power of films like "Out of Sight" and "Shawshank Redemption," I'm willing to bet that most prison terms don't come with a helping of folksy wisdom or Jennifer Lopez' ass. Imprisoning people for long periods for minor drug offenses does far more harm than good to the fabric of American society by facilitating the growth of the aforementioned permanent, disenfranchised, officially/ostensibly criminal underclass. As that group's numbers swell, so do the negative effects to the "felons" themselves, their families, communities, and the nation as a whole.

Two points ensue: One-- Is it better to have a small-time pot dealer in jail for two weeks and fined $5000, or to have that small-time pot dealer in prison for five years during which time he cannot raise his kids or provide for his family, and where he makes new contacts within the world of professional and recidivist crime?

Second, how does it help that, once he gets out, he is now a "convicted felon" and less able to get a decent job, is ineligible for federal financial aid to go to college, and may not vote in many places? For all the crying about how families in America are broken (usually "inner city families," which is of course an ostensibly polite word for "black"), and about how society is going to hell in a handbasket because strong community and family leaders are absent, isn't it possible that the "breakdown of the family" is partially due to the fact that, for example, a third of "inner city" men will spend some time in prison, and therefore will find the obstacles to college, a career, and prosperity (y'know, old style American by-the-bootstraps self-improvement) that much more insurmountable?

And this certainly isn't just an "inner city" problem-- I know of small-town briar-hoppers where I'm from who periodically attend "going away" parties for friends and family because the Feds found their stash. Good people, smart people, people deeply in debt, done for good. The economic disadvantages already arrayed against them merely become more acute while they spend time in prison, resulting in the possibility of more future drug dealing, and ensuring that they remain marginal economic, social, and political players.

There's plenty of counterarguments to this. You might argue that "you do the crime, you do the time," which begs the question of fairness in sentencing. Why does possession of a recreational plant extract have sentencing parity with murder in some places? You also might argue that the War on Drugs, which puts so many in prison, is more important than individuals who may be inconvenienced in the process. Really? So keeping me from eating a pot brownie is more important than heading off the formation of a permanent poor officially-designated criminal underclass?

Which brings me to a corollary. The definition of "felony" is far too loose today. For all the carping about the misuse of the word "treason," the extension of "felony" to cover an array of nonviolent, noncapital offenses is far more troubling. Many states don't allow felons to vote ever again, such laws being passed back when a contract killing, rather than possession of a pot plant, was a felony. Disenfranchising pot dealers is not what the framers of such laws had in mind, and it certainly offends me, the final arbiter of taste and decency. (The disenfranchisement of felons was already a problem in Florida in 2000, and I expect it will be the Next Big Thing in election-year controversies.)

Not that I think this kind of thing will change any time soon, but I wish it would. Not that I know a damn thing about the law or sentencing. But some things just seem so wrenchingly paradoxical, so against common sense, that the perfidous mind just boggles.

The Democrats, boy do they have their fingers on the hot-button issues!

They're like a man who orders a steak, is served a plateful of shit, and complains that his parsley is missing.

[This in the wake of lengthy political discussions and "strategery sessions" with the Ebullient German And His Wife, The Equally Ebullient Ohioan in various brew pubs in southern Vermont and Western Massachusetts over the weekend.]

One further, less pithy, observation. Vermont is a very poor state, sort of the Arkansas of the northeast. Howard Dean seems very proud of his ability to run said state, and certainly deserves credit for balancing the budget and adroitly meeting the needs of mountain men and hippies alike. Yet prosperity is not evident, at least not in the southern part of the state. Huh. The Arkansas of the North. A left-field Democratic candidate whose persona is as big a selling point as his proposals. Huh.

[update] n.b. I am a big fan of the Green Mountain State and would happily live there if I had a reason. However, an informal survey reveals that the CB-FY Ratio (ratio of cars on blocks to front yards) is in the range of 2.3.

A CB-FY ratio less than .5 is well known to be an accurate leading indicator of the near-future prosperity of a population. A CB-FY Ratio above 1.5, likewise, suggests a lack of robust economic growth.

Moreover, the NWA-FY (Non-working appliance to front yard) Ratio in southern Vermont is a dizzyingly high 3.15-- also a leading indicator of continued economic moribundity. I'm just sayin'.