Silver Lining

Normally I would be pretty depressed that Canada was losing to Switzerland in the 3rd period (granting that the Swiss have already beaten a top 3 team–when the hell did they become credible?). But seeing Todd Bertuzzi take an idiotic penalty (and yet another crease violation) reminds me that my emotional commitment will be rather less than usual. I’m proud of my country, but not blindly, and between this and Gretzky’s nepotism, this is probably poetic justice. Live by the thug, die by the thug…

…wow.

…Yet another Canucks asshole mars the Olympics:

Jaromir Jagr, the NHL’s leading scorer, was assisted off the ice with a bloody cut forehead after being slammed into the boards, and the Czech Republic suffered a 4-2 loss Saturday that kept Finland as one of two unbeatens in the tournament.

Afterward, Czech coach Alois Hadamczik said Jagr did not suffer a concussion while being driven into the boards by Finland’s Jarkko Ruutu in the second period, resulting in Ruutu’s ejection. The coach was incensed with the hit and said it marred the game.

“The shadow of this game is the foul on Jaromir Jagr,” he said.

Makes A Fellow Proud To Be A Blue-Stater

Ah, that’s very good to see (and I think we’re the city’s second most conservative borough.) Aside from the parochial back-slapping, however, the article contains important information for the clueless “overturning Roe will just return the issue to the states” crowd:

The 109th Congress passed a number of abortion issues in 2005. These bills included the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which calls for parental notification in abortion cases, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, which addresses the use of pain killers for unborn children during abortion, and reductions in abortion access for women depending on the federal government for health care. The majority of Congress members in New York state have voted pro-choice on all such issues.

But I’m sure Congress will stop passing abortion regulations as soon as the Court permits them to pass more!

Friday Cat Blogging… Nelson and Starbuck

Now Appearing In Non-Sequitur Theater

Shorter K-Lo: If feminists were serious about women’s rights, they would obviously want women to be subject to a bewildering, irrational, and inequitable obstacle course studded with scientifically inaccurate nanny-state propaganda before they choose to obtain an abortion.

Obviously, to people who support women’s rights, or (to bring up a concept wholly alien to most American pro-lifers) actually believe that women are capable of being responsible moral agents, the news that chemical abortions performed at home are safe is obviously terrific news. It would wonderful if women had broader access to abortion, and could choose medical care based on their own needs rather than based on state coercion that was intended to obstruct their rights rather than to protect their health and liberty, and geographic inequities in abortion access will be greatly reduced. Should these technologies continue to develop (and approved by a Democratic administration) this will be also crucial means for women to retain their rights in light of a Throw-Roe-From-The-Caboose strategy: illogical regulations will mean less if women don’t have to obtain abortions from clinics. (This also explains the war against the perfectly safe RU-486: maintaining the state’s dominion over the uterus makes it crucial to prevent the option from becoming available.)

The Prince Of Puerility

Ezra noticed perhaps the most ludicrous part (and it’s a tough call, given that he’s doing stuff like comparing box office takes from two weeks of ride release versus F 9/11′s entire run) of Mickey Kaus’s interminable jihad against Brokeback Mountain: his claim that giving gay people equal rights will involve “actual differences in behavior”–unlike racial integration. This is so baldly stupid that to say that Kaus is just being dishonest is the charitable interpretation. Is he really arguing that Truman’s racial integration of the Armed Forces–when many soldiers were products of the Jim Crow south, and over the objections of a general who when he succeeded Truman would inform the Chief Justice of the United States that southern segregationists were good people who were understandably worried that their “sweet little girls be seated alongside some big black bucks”–didn’t require any behavioral changes? Take your pick: either a man who is scandalously ignorant of even the basic facts of American history is being paid to talk about politics, or he’s willing to make up abject nonsense in order to justify his homophobia. Not a pretty set of alternatives.

But even leaving aside the ahistorical nature of the argument, it proves far too much. We’re all familiar with this kind of complacent reactionary: “I’m all for the social change I support in the abstract–unless it causes anybody any discomfort, requires people to change, or adversely affects entrenched interests in any way.” These kinds have arguments have been routinely used against all struggles for social justice, and the difference between Kausian “liberals” who make them and outright reactionaries is nothing, except that the greasy coating of bad faith makes the former much less palatable–obviously, no social change meets this test, so there’s no difference between the two positions in practice. Moreover, of course, if the claim is that introducing the possibility of sexual tension into the workplace is intolerable, this is also an argument against heterosexual men and women working together.

But wait–at least Mickey is consistent. Here he is (in the course of, natch, defending the virulently homophobic Robert Knight):

Doesn’t Mr. Knight have a point? I was thinking some of the same things myself–in particular that the public tolerance for porn contributed to the Abu Ghraib scandal (certainly to the willingness of soldiers to preserve the images on CDs). And the story of Private Lynndie England is not exactly a triumph for the new sex-integrated military (or for the broader argument that you can introduce new sexual dynamics into a long-standing institutional environment without any ill effects).

Um, excuse me? What the hell does Lynndie England say about “the sex-integrated military?” If you look at the very first photo in Salon’s horrifying Abu Ghraib collection, you’ll note that a male soldier is engaged in the sexual humiliation of a prisoner. Can we infer from this that Abu Ghraib is a severe setback for the idea of men serving in the military? Is Kaus arguing that sadism and torture were absent from taking prisoners in wartime until women started serving in the armed forces? Is he saying that women should only be permitted to join the military if they don’t break rules that men are also breaking in dismayingly large numbers? It’s not clear, but there’s certainly no interpretation of these remarks that renders them anything but utter idiocy unless you just have an a priori opposition to women serving in the military. And, again, we see his bizarre obsession with the strawman that “you can introduce new sexual dynamics into a long-standing institutional environment without any ill effects,” implying that this should be a robust argument against changing the arrangements (which, again, is also an argument against heterosexual women being allowed to work with heterosexual men in virtually any context.) Obviously, that modest changes in behavior are required is no reason to oppose social justice, or to limit important social positions to heterosexual males. Yes, sure, human sexuality can present problems in ordinary human relations, no way around it. Still, I think there are two principles that people with some maturity realize, and which allow them to overcome the idea of mixed-gender (or mixed sexual orientation) work environments: 1)people will, in the course of day-to-day life, sometimes be attracted to people they encounter–and sometimes this will not be welcomed by the attractee, and 2)you cannot have a sexual relationship with everybody you find attractive. There are a few Mickey Kauses who can never stop tittering about it; everybody else learns to grow up. And how badly would you want to share a foxhole with someone who isn’t mature enough to learn how to deal with it?

It’s an Honor just to be Nominated

Will and David Weman point out that LGM has been nominated for best non-European weblog at Fistful of Euros. I’m not sure how that happened, and we currently seem to be trailing in voting 54-2, but we are honored nonetheless.

Thank you also for the several Koufax nominations we have received; LGM promises to make a good faith effort to engage in minimal negative campaigning before voting begins.

Civil War Scenarios

Dan at Duck has posed a question in response to this awful series idea:

Thus, I ask readers to suggest better scenarios for a “Second Civil War.” I’ll suggest my own “formal” criteria, but feel free to take issue with me:

1. The issue–or constellation of issues–should be sufficiently polarizing as to (a) appear impossible to resolve through routine political processes or lesser forms of contentious politics and (b) draw a significant part of the US population into the pool of secessionists;
2. The polarization created by the issue should map onto other, long-standing disputes such that resolving the core issue (or issues) threatens other entrenched interests;
3. The balance-of-power has to have shifted against Federal power such that a great many secessionists–and potential secessionists–believe they have a chance of winning the conflict. This could result from exogenous shocks that weaken Federal power, structural changes in the American polity (a robust “New Federalism,” for example), fragmentation of the US military and its chain-of-command, or concerted outside support for the rebellion of a kind that the Feds cannot preclude or nip in the bud.

Scenario 1: Free Cascadia Now!

The militant wing of Evergreen Revolution, also known as the People’s Front for the Liberation of Cascadia, stages a coup designed to seize the levers of the state in urban areas across the Northwest. Unfortunately for the coup plotters, efforts fail in Seattle, Portland, and both Vancouvers, leaving the movement in control only of Eugene and Bellingham. The movement calls for a wide range of revolutionary social and environmental measures, but is crippled by its unwillingness to use any of the coercive apparatus of the state. Federal reaction is swift, but not swift enough to prevent locals from tearing the coup plotters to pieces in a bloody massacre. This outcome leaves everyone more or less satisfied.

Fin.

Scenario 2:

2006: US military action against Iran successfully delays the Iranian nuclear program, but fails to dislodge Iran’s government. Occupation of parts of Iran, combined with increasingly violent Shiite sectors in Iraq, radically increases the cost of the occupation in both blood and treasure. Concern about oil security increases oil prices to over $100/barrel, severely damaging the US economy.

2008: Sam Brownback wins the Presidency in an election marred by violence and accusations of massive voter fraud.

2009: In the wake of the 2008 Olympics, a Chinese assault on Taiwan achieves complete operational surprise. Chinese forces quickly seize a beachhead and major strongpoints on Formosa. In spite of increasing isolationist sentiment at home (temporarily ameliorated by the aggressive Chinese actions), massive budget deficits, and continuing military action in Iraq, President Brownback decides to commit military force to the defense of Taiwan. The results are disastrous for the United States; US forces are unable to dislodge PLA units, and two US carriers (the Nimitz and the George Washington) are lost to Chinese submarines and surface units. After a coercive air campaign against the PRC government fails to budge the Chinese, President Brownback is forced to conclude a humiliating peace agreement with the PRC.

2010: Continuing trade sanctions against China cause severe economic dislocation in the United States and across the Pacific Rim. In the United States, the worst effects are felt on the West Coast. Chinese support for Iran and Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents results in an ever more deadly and expensive occupation. On the upside, the global economic crisis results in somewhat lower oil prices. Nevertheless, mega tycoon Hugo Chavez successfully purchases Colombia, Peru, and Panama.

2011: Under severe domestic and financial pressure, the United States withdraws from Iraq. The Iraqi government collapses in six weeks. Conservative media elements in the United States begin to pursue a “stab in the back” narrative, blaming the defeat on traitorous leftist elements and the Democratic party. Right wing death squads assassinate several important left wing media and political figures.

2012: In an election marred by brutal violence and massive fraud, President Brownback wins second term in office. In effort to create “national unity” cabinet, President Brownback nominate President Clinton as Secretary of State and President George W. Bush as Secretary of Defense. Sadly, President Clinton is assassinated by a right wing death squad before being confirmed by the Senate.

2013: The governors of Oregon, Washington, California, and Hawaii declare independence from the United States and establish the “Republic of Pacifica”. Large majorities in the Pacific states, impoverished by continuing trade disputes with China and angered by President Brownback’s administration, support the move. The Republic of Pacifica seizes control of military assets within its borders (reduced in size by the previous military and economic disasters) and begins to raise troops. The People’s Republic of China, nervous about supporting a secessionist movement but delighted by the idea of eliminating US military power in the Far East immediately recognizes Pacifica and promises economic and military support.

How’s that for plausible? Sends shivers up your spine, doesn’t it? ;)

Dept. of Cats and Dogs Living Together

I agree entirely with Eugene Volokh and Sebatsian Holsclaw about the Bok cartoon. I pretty much always avoid using the term “politically correct” pejoratively, because its invocation is a very effective way of preemptively insulating reactionary received ideas from criticism without having to actually make an argument, but this kind of thing is the flipside. To call Bok’s cartoon “hate” is the kind of counterproductive nonsense that undermines serious claims of racism, and allows people to pretend that it’s all just hysterical oversensitivity.

…more extremely offensive cartoons! (Via Ted.)

Google Chat: Bane of My Existence

It’s, uh, just great that I can now chat with anyone who’s online and has a gmail account. That’s going to be really helpful in my efforts to do, oh, anything.

That’s a Capital Idea…

Frequent commenter Dittosfan has opened a new group blog, Capital Cadre. The focus is on defense issues, with a little Woody Allen. Check it out.

Justice Scalia: "I Am An Idiot"

Hey, I didn’t say it–I think he’s obviously a very smart guy. But according to Scalia:

“People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn’t change with society are “idiots,” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says…

In a speech Monday sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society, Scalia defended his long-held belief in sticking to the plain text of the Constitution “as it was originally written and intended.”

“Scalia does have a philosophy, it’s called originalism,” he said. “That’s what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do,” he told more than 100 politicians and lawyers from this U.S. island territory.

According to his judicial philosophy, he said, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs.”

In fact, of course, Scalia’s “originalism” has left plenty of room for the play of his “personal, political, or religious beliefs.” Iocaste brings up one of my favorite examples. This bit of hackery was the result of Scalia’s opinion in Apprendi v. NJ, in which he held (correctly, in my view)* that the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial prohibits people from being sentenced based on factors that were neither adduced in a plea nor proven in front of a jury. This led to one of Scalia’s funnier lines, when in Ring v. Arizona Breyer (the court’s most hackish liberal) joined with the majority striking down a death sentence based on Apprendi despite dissenting in the previous case–not by changing his mind, but by cooking up a farcical 8th Amendment argument instead. Scalia cracked: “There is really no way in which Justice Breyer can travel with the happy band that reaches today’s result unless he says yes to Apprendi. Concisely put, Justice Breyer is on the wrong flight; he should either get off before the doors close, or buy a ticket to Apprendi-land.” It’s funny because it’s true! And yet Scalia decided to ignore Apprendi himself in Harris v. US; as Thomas correctly argued, “The Court’s holding today therefore rests on either a misunderstanding or a rejection of the very principles that animated Apprendi just two years ago.” Now that’s a living Constitution–one whose principles can change in two years!

But, of course, that’s just the beginning. Here are some more of the Greatest Hits from Antonin Scalia’s “living textualist originalism”:

• “Sovereign Immunity”: Perhaps the greatest embarrassment to Scalia’s purported principles, granting that it’s a tough competition, is this ludicrous line of cases. The 11th Amendment prevents, in clear and specific language, a state from being sued by the citizen of another state. Given that the amendment could have just as easily prohibited suits against one’s own state (it’s a specific restriction, not a general principle like the cruel and unusual punishment clause), and such language was considered and rejected by the amendment’s framers, to a “textualist” or “originalist” it couldn’t be much more clear-cut that the Amendment did not confer any broad right of “sovereign immunity” (not surprisingly, since John Yoo notwithstanding the framers did not think for the most part that the principles of the monarchical British state should be copied.) And yet, although he declined to actually explain in originalist terms how this line of cases can be justified, he’s signed on to every major case. To Scalia, apparently ensuring that gang rape victims have no federal remedy and that state university presses can rip off your copyrights are such important outcomes they justify egregious contradictions with his stated principles.
• Speaking of federalism, another case of Scalia’s living constitutionalism can be seen with Raich, in which the text and original meaning of the commerce clause miraculously evolved in less than a decade in order to accommodate the war on (some classes of people) who use (some) drugs.
• Another nice thing about Scalia’s jurisprudence is that when you’re an “originalist” and a “textualist,” you can sort of switch between the two depending on what will produce the most reactionary result. In affirmative action, Scalia’s claim that the Constitution is simply “color-blind” is a plausible reading of the text itself, but a ludicrously implausible reading of the 14th Amendment’s original meaning; obviously, it’s just silly to think that the Reconstruction Congress felt that racial classifications attempted to remedy past injustices were the precise equivalent to those used to uphold a caste system. When it comes to discrimination based on gender discrimination or sexual orientation, conversely, Scalia argues that they’re permitted because the 14th Amendment effectively pertains only to racial discrimination, while all other forms of discrimination are constitutionally self-justifying. This reading is plausible in terms of original understanding, but not in terms of the text of the equal protection clause, which is framed in terms of a general principle (although it certainly could have referred only to race, as the 15th Amendment did.) Scalia simply shifts between different constitutional theories in order to produce his favored result; his theory can justify one or the other, but not both. It evolves enough to prevent affirmative action, but not to prevent gender discrimination. And, of course, these cases contain no hint of Scalia’s “personal, political, or religious beliefs”; consider, for example, his dispassionate, legalistic claim that “Today‚’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda.” (Really, that’s in the U.S. Reports; it’s not a transcript from an interview on Fox News.)
• And, of course, no discussion of Scalia’s living constitutionalism would be complete without Bush v. Gore. Under what theory of originalist textualism, might you ask, does the equal protection clause prevent the use of different standards to count votes in one particular case, but not in any other case, while establishing a remedy that left a vote count that according to the Court’s own theory was just as flawed as the count that was ruled unconstitutional? What originalist claimed before late 2000 that Article II sec. I allowed the federal courts to override state court interpretations of state law? Of course, there isn’t any originalist justification for the decision, and the court doesn’t even bother trying to supply one. The Constitution had to live just enough to put George W. Bush in the White House before going back to roll over in Its grave.

Idiot, judge thyself.

*Correction: looking over Apprendi again, Stevens wrote the majority opinion; Scalia wrote a good concurrence responding to Breyer’s dissent and defending the importance of the right to a jury trial.

Greek Linguine: Better Than Reading John Tierney

Going out for a nice Valentine’s Day coffee, I made the mistake of reading John Tierney, who used the occasion to spew some bullshit ev-psych tautologies that were egregious jagoffery even by his usual standards. Fortunately, Echidne and Amanda have already covered that angle. So, instead, since I cooked a tasty meal why not a recipe instead? This should feed a couple easily, and for dateless wonders heats up will in a skillet (or one of them “microwave” things apparently some of the kids have today.) It’s very good, simple, and takes no longer to make that it takes to cook pasta.

• Boil a large pot of salted water. At roughly the same time–if you have thin chicken breasts and good dried pasta, maybe wait a minute or two–heat roughly 1tsp olive oil (use more if needed, or if not using a non-stick skillet) to medium-high. Add 2-4 cloves minced or pressed garlic (4 if you ask me), cook for about a minute. Add 2 boneless, skinless chicken breasts, seasoned with salt and pepper and cut into 1-inch chunks.) Saute, turning frequently. Make sure not to burn the garlic. (For our more ethical readers, it’s good without chicken too; just add more tomatoes and artichokes.)
• After chicken is browned, add about 1/3 cup medium-dry white wine. (If you don’t have any handy or don’t feel like a glass with dinner, just skip this and reserve some pasta water and throw it in at the end.) Simmer on medium or medium-low heat. Also add some oregano. Add linguine or other pasta to the water when it boils, of course.
• About 5 minutes before the pasta will be ready add 2-3 diced plum tomatoes. (Canned are also fine.) Cook 1-2 minutes, stirring.
  
• Add one can diced artichoke hearts. Continue stirring. After about a minute, add juice of one lemon.
• Drain the pasta, and add to skillet. Crumble feta cheese to taste and (if you have it) a little parsley. Stir until cheese melts a little and serve.

Tasty!

…in comments, I’m reminded of Dave’s excellent post, which notes that microwave use may be declining among these kids today, although Dave and I are pretty much the only people I know who don’t care if they have one (and in my case don’t)…