IMHO Radio - 6/9/15

Well, it was a bit of a disappointing turnout this week, but you can't win them all!

For anyone who missed what I thought ended up being a really funny interview with Megan Gedris, it is now hosted on the Radio Page, above.

I DO hope that you will join in next week, Tuesday, 6/9 at 10:PM Eastern on www.RainbowRadio.FM for the next show, during which I'll be presenting my "opposition opinion" on Caitlyn Jenner, give my thoughts on the forthcoming Supreme Court decision regarding State bans on Same-Sex marriage, and do my take down of a recent Right-Wing article concerning "When Science Doesn't Matter to Liberals." My special guest for the evening will be Alex Heberling, creator of The Hues: Post Apocalyptic Magical Girls web-comic. It promises to be a lot of fun and I hope you will join us!

Tuesday, June 9th

7:00 - 8:00 pm est -  The Paul And Matty Show

8:00 pm - 10:00 pm est - Cutmore 

10:00 pm - 11:00 pm est - In My Humble Opinion with Niceguy Eddie

with special guest, Megan Rose Gedris!

A Test of our Principles

The worst part about being an atheist might be knowing that some people will, in fact, not have hell to look forward to.

The most despised man in America is getting his day in court.

The Right Scumbag Reverend Fred Phelps is arguing before the Supreme Court that his protesting at Military Funerals, waving signs saying “Gods Hates Fags” and so forth, is in fact Constitutionally Protected Free Speech, and that he should not legally or civilly penalized for this (at issue is a $5 Million Dollar suit against the Westboro Baptist Church) and that he cannot be other wise prevented from doing so.

You have absolutely no idea how hard it is for me to write this, so please bear that in mind as you read this and respond, but…

I hope he wins.

My hands were almost shaking and it made me feel ill to type that just now.

Because I hate Fred Phelps. I hate him and his entire band of inbred mutants at the WBO with a venomous passion that I can taste in my balls. There is almost no way in which this disgusting little boil on the ass of humanity doesn’t inspire a nigh murderous rage in me. I’m sure by now, that I don’t need to burnish my credibility in terms of gay rights issues. To put it plainly: I fully support every single aspect of the “radical gay agenda” that has ever actually been presented to me. (Most of the RW nightmarish fantasies about the homosexual community are just that: Fantasy.) To me, there is nothing at all radical about wanting to be treated just like every other human being; nor about asking that society stay the hell out of their way as you pursue happiness on their own terms, especially as nothing but tolerance is asked of anyone else as they do so. On transgender issues, I’ll admit that I have been less certain about my position in the past, but the more I’ve read and the more I’ve come to understand, the more I’ve come to realize that they don’t ask any more than the gay community or any other persecuted group of people does: They simply want to be allowed to be who they are, and live their lives without being punished for being who they are by a society that they ask nothing of but tolerance. I fully understand that now, and am shamed for ever having doubted that. And, if it were even possible, the more I’ve come to hate Fred Phelps.

It is also self-evident that his brand of Religion - aside from being no more that a near transparent veil for his raw, naked hatred of his fellow man - embodies every one of the all of the worst aspects of Religion in general. Because he doesn’t just hate homosexuals (and anyone else he feels he can brand as a “sodomite”) but has every bit as much hatred for those who don’t SHARE his hatred for them. “Sodomite enablers,” as he calls them, are every bit as bad as the Sodomites. Worse, apparently, because the Military funerals these pieces of white trash picket are no for gay soldiers! He pickets the Military simply because, as I’ve stated previously, America stands for tolerance, not bigotry; for religious freedom, not Christian theocracy; for equality, not discrimination; and for freedom and liberty, not the Government climbing into your bedroom.

And he can’t stand that!

He can’t stand any disagreement with his radical doctrine of hatred. He is not merely intolerant, but intolerant of tolerance. Intolerant of that almost uniquely, all-American value: dissent. Basically he is intolerant of anyone who is not Fred Phelps.

Quite frankly, I can think of no more despicable American than this man. There are arguably more dangerous Americans in the public forum: Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck come to mind, not to mention Rupert Murdoch and the entire brand of merry GOP Propagandists on his payroll. But there is no more despicable American that Phelps. None. Jack Chick is so distant a second that Phelps appears to occupy the entire “bottom ten” (or twenty) all on his own. To find another HUMAN BEING more despicable, you have to leave the country, and find some member of the Taliban, or Al-Shabaab, or Al-Qaeda... IOW: the Middle-Eastern, Muslim version of Fred Phelps and the WBC. And those guys are only “worse” because, as far as I am aware, no one from the WBC has ever actually killed someone.

So… why the fuck am I ROOTING for this ass-pit?

Well, I’m not really… I’m rooting for freedom.

It may seem trite, but how many times have you said, or heard a free speech advocate say, something like, “I believe in free speech. I’ll even defend the rights of the Ku Klux Klan to march, protest, etc...” (Or some such thing.) The POINT being that we are willing to defend the right to speak, even for those with whom we disagree. Or, as Voltaire put it:

“I disagree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it."

And we use groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazi’s, etc… as examples because:

1) They’re groups that pretty much EVERYONE disagrees with. So we reveal very little about our own personal politics and thus risk very little in using them.

2) They’re groups that don’t have much of a presence anymore, politically, and don’t pose much of a threat to our sense of well being. They’re kind of a cartoony caricature; a phantom example that we can use without any fear that our statement will ever REALLY be put to the test. They’re insignificant CLICHES that no one really takes all that seriously.

So we risk even less (nothing really) in using them as examples. And one could also argue that since most of us (in America, and in its media) are white and are likely having these discussions with other whites and these are groups that mainly hate minorities, there is a racial element as well that even further reduces our risk of using these examples. Two white people talking about the Klan? That’s hardly a test of their 1st Amendment principles, since neither is likely to ever be targeted by the Klan, even where it not basically a joke. They will never have to experience the Klan in their lives.

But Fred Phelps has managed to go beyond that safe, cartoon villain mold and become not only a significant public figure, but one that’s venomously despised by, everyone: Liberals, for his general message of hate; Conservatives for his Unpatriotic, Anti-Military rhetoric and tactics. (That… and there’s little that pisses of a Christian Conservative more than a serious allegation of being either a “fag” or a “fag enabler.”) So he hates - and pisses off - Gays and Straits, regardless of race, religion, political orientation, etc… There is no one in this country who is not a relevant target of his venom because this man, quite literally, hates America.

You may recall that George W. Bush – no great defender of free speech, IMHO – actually passed a law banning protests within a certain distance of military funerals. He may as well have called it the “Fred Phelps is an Asshole Law.” Most of my liberal and moderate friends applauded it at the time, concluding it would never effect more than the activities of Fred Phelps himself. Then I asked them: What it, many years from now, what if George W. Bush if granted a State Funeral by some future Republican President? This law could be used to prevent them from quietly standing along the route, holding a perfectly respectful sign expressing your personal regret that our nation went to war in Iraq, for example. Because that could also, very reasonably, be interpreted as “protesting at a funeral.” One can argue that it’s not a “Military Funeral,” but why exactly would an official State Funeral for the former Commander in Chief of the U.S Military, be excluded? I certainly don’t think it would. This DID get them to see the law in a different light, but I am afraid that with most of them, their hatred of Phelps continued to cloud their judgment on this most basic of freedoms.

If the protesters were protesting against the war - as opposed to against our national status as 'fag-enablers?' While many of them would still agree that this kind of protest takes things way too far, the ISSUE at hand would have been more relevant to them, and I’m pretty sure this might have changed some of their judgments about the law. But you’ll be hard pressed to find many people willing to defend Phelps that aren’t being paid to do so and in a purely legal capacity. So Phelps gave Bush an apparently reasonable way to close off a potential venue of Anti-War protests. So no one batted an eye, mainly because most Liberals are generally more decent than that by nature and wouldn’t consider picketing a funeral, as a family buries their child, anyway. But it was still a curtailing of our freedoms. A curtailing of dissent, even as that message came in the most offensive, possible form.

Certainly no man has ever wanted to express a more hateful message. Certainly no man has ever found a more despicable way of expressing that inherently hateful message. In short, no man has even gone farther to TEST THE LIMITS of his freedom of speech.

But that is exactly what makes this the perfect, if not the only really valid test of our principles. If we say that we support freedom, but not freedom for those who would abuse it, or use it irresponsibly? Then we don’t support freedom.

Pure and simple.

If we start getting into the business of deciding where people can speak, and what messages might be “too harmful…”

Then we don’t believe in free speech.

The fact that this diseased little toad have made every effort to break every single boundary of human decency makes him the perfect test case; maybe the ONLY real test case. Because if we say that “decency” can used as a limit on our speech? Then we don’t have free speech. If speech must “respect the feelings of others?” The we don’t have free speech. If certain kind of speech can be limited in certain places by our Government, or if Civil Penalties can be levied because to the (perfectly legitimate) mental duress that someone’s speech has caused?

Then we don’t have free speech.

Because concepts like “Offensive” “Decency” and “Respect” have been used, without a scrap of extremism or logical reaching whatsoever, to limit all manner of freedoms since the dawn of mankind. And American history, especially within the last Century, is replete with examples of this. As soon as you want to authorize judgment of the message, or it’s method of delivery, you allow the government to limit speech. Period. There’s simply no way around (or off) that slippery slope.

We needn’t be tolerant of intolerance in our personal lives, but we MUST stop short of allowing – and in some case encouraging – the Government to take away our freedom. Because right of someone to live their lives as a homosexual or a transgendered person is the same right that Phelps has to live his life as an asshole. And the way to protect freedom is to do just that: PROTECT FREEDOM.

I really am sick over this. I really am.  And win or lose, I will likely shed a tear about it either way. Either for there being one more nail in the coffin of our personal liberty, or for the necessary victory of such a vile, hateful, thoroughly despicable little man in order to protect that liberty. But that’s what it means to have principles. You must hold true to them, even when it pains you to do so. And my support of free speech absolutely goes that far, even as it makes my sick to say it.

And for putting me in the position of have to defend something so vile that it almost makes me nauseous to do so; and for possibly having to do so to against my friends; people with whom I am otherwise allied with, socially, politically, and philosophically and for whom I hold is such high regard and with the utmost respect? In the words of John Hammond, “I really hate that man.”

All the same…

I hope he wins.

And I sincerely ask for your forgiveness for this.



(I'm going to go wash my hands now and try not to vomit.)

One of those rare times that I side with conservatives...

Time for another article where I may break with the "liberal orthodoxy" as it were. (Contradiction in terms intentional, BTW.) Regarding the recent supreme court decision to lift city, state and local bans on hand guns, I found myself nodding my head (though admittedly not pumping my fist) in approval. Gun Ownership Rights is one of the few issues that I lean conservative on; probably due to my non-corporatist Libertarian philosophy, I suppose. It’s not really a VOTING issue for me – I despise guns, I don’t own a gun, and I don’t ever intend to own a gun... but I do appreciate that the CHOICE of whether or not I own a gun is my own to make, and nobody else’s.

The thing is… I’ve just never bought into the Liberal’s argument that more gun control laws mean less crime. First of all, as Liberals rightly argue all the time: CRIME stems from MAN Y factors, but primarily socio-economic ones. It’s about POVERTY, not GUNS. If you’re broke? You’re more likely to commit a crime. And your ability to LEGALLY obtain a handgun, for the purpose of committing a crime, is completely irrelevant. And the very idea that if you outlaw handguns, that only outlaws will have them, seems to be proven by the comments of the people interviewed for the NPR segment most of whom were trying to make an argument against the supreme court’s decision and in favor of upholding the ban. One of the comments, from a Chicago resident (and I’m PP’ing because I can’t find a full transcript) was pretty exemplary of the argument:

“We have shootings every other day; people getting killed in gang violence; we need less guns not more!”

Now… that’s sounds all well a good, but think about it: If there’s a gang shooting ‘every other day’ in the city, how effective IS that gun ban? Not very, I’d say. In fact, it seems to me that – just as the conservatives usually argue – all that law has done is kept guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens! It was a later comment in the program that, IMHO, spoke more to the heart of the matter. This was from the neighbor of a burglary victim, (again, PP’d)

“We’re not going to go out and shoot anybody, but the criminals had better think twice about coming into our homes and thinking they can do as they please, because some of us will be armed.”

(OK – THAT got a fist-pump from me!)

Now… If you’re a liberal and you can’t see why THIS LIBERAL feels this way, and you need a different perspective on this to better understand my point of view, I see a lot of parallels between gun control and immigration reform.

Fist of all, you’ve got to ask yourself: What is the PURPOSE? If the purpose is to know exactly WHO owns a gun (or WHO is coming into the country) then you need people to voluntarily comply with the registration process (or the immigration process.) If your purpose is to LIMIT gun ownership (or immigration) then complying with the system will NOT give many people what they want. So they simply won’t comply.

If registration and licensing was CHEAP, EASY and generally allowed ANYONE (other than, say, convicts and the mentally ill) to legally own a gun, 99% of the population (far more than do now) would gladly register their guns, comply with the system and you’d know exactly who’s armed and who’s not. And you can now MONITOR THE SITUATION, and police can go in prepared, informed and plan according to the situation they’re facing. Likewise, if our immigration system was quick, easy, cheap and generally let anyone (except, say, terror suspects and drug smugglers) into the country, 99% of the incoming immigrants would be happy to comply, and you could successfully MONITOR THE SITUATION. And in BOTH cases, concerns about security are better served by creating a system that, if people complied with it, GAVE THEM WHAT THEY WANTED: Either a legally owned gun, or legal entrance to this country.

But arguments about security – in both cases – are either woefully misguided, or outright bullshit:

Misguided: You can’t physically stop people from coming into the country. And any thoughts that you CAN are absurd. What’s more – the very idea that we even SHOULD is, as I’ve said, counterproductive. Also, you can’t use the LAW to stop people who are already predisposed from BREAKING IT from obtaining a gun. Again: We’ve tried and yet we still have a “gang killing every other day [in Chicago.]

Outright Bullshit: Let’s face it: “security” is just a more pleasant sounding term substituted for what the respective agendas REALLY ARE. Liberals want FEWER GUNS, period. Conservatives want FEWER MEXICANS, period. And THAT’S why neither group is buying into my argument that you need to GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT in order to get them to comply with the law. Because they DON’T WANT TO GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT. In both cases, each group has agenda designed to take something away from the very people that they expect to comply with their laws! The incentives are completely backwards, and yet we are so quick to comdemn those who do EXACTLY AS WE SHOULD EXPECT THEM TO!

And in every case, we need to stop trying to force our personal agendas on everyone else and focus on the tangible, security issue. And the only way to have true security is to KNOW what the hell is going on! And the only way to do that is to have a legal system that 99% of the population is HAPPY TO COMPLY WITH. And the only way you’ll have that is if you only ever say, “No,” to the smallest, most narrowly defined group as possible. Because then, those groups that DON’T COMPLY will stand out as the exception instead on mixing into the crowd...

...Well, maybe not ‘mixing into the crowd’ so much as BEING the crowd.

It’s very rare indeed that I’ll side with the Wing-Nuts, but this is once instance in which I truly believe the Right got it RIGHT.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah, and ClassicLiberal? Again we see a 5-4 decision with Sotomayor siding with the dissenting Liberal block. I totally get (and share) your beef with Kagan, by why are you so down on Sotomayor?

Why should Corporations NOT have free speech?

There are TWO items from my last post that I felt needed some 'splainin.

First of all... that crack about applying the second amendment "six times" on those who keep forgetting about the first amendment? That was really beneath me. I'm not MUCH better than that, but I AM better than that. Now, don't get me wrong: If Anotin Scalia walked out of the courthouse and was struck by lightning I'd laugh my fucking ass off and pop open a bottle of champagne. But I would not see even a Government and Supreme Court overrun with Tea-Bagging Klansman "fixed" by violence and revolution. If someone WERE to kill a Supreme Court Justice, or any other public official, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I refuse to be the "Ann Coulter" of the left. Hopefully no one took that LITERALLY.

The OTHER was a clarification on why I do not apply my vehement and unconditional support of free speech to Corporations. Why would someone as zealous as I am about free speech want to put a limit on Corporate Speech?

First of all, let's be clear what we're really talking about. I don't care if a corporation wants to advertise, nor do I think it's the Government's job to make them prove their claims, etc... Outside of pharmaceuticals, which are regulated for obvious reasons, I don't care WHAT businesses say within the course of DOING BUSINESS. Nor do I really even care if they want to run ISSUE ads - if ExxonMobil wants to try and make the case that Oil and Gas are preferable to Solar? Go right ahead. That's really not much different than advertising anyway.

What I'm talking about here, is PARTISAN and ELECTORAL issues. If ExxonMobil wants to say "Vote for Palin" or pay for some Anti-Abortion ads (or any issue that DOESN'T have anything to do with their course of business) I have a problem with that. In fact, I'd go even beyond Austin. Forget regulating it, and treating it a political contribution, I'd be in favor of outright BANNING it. There are two reasons why.

The most commonly used reason is that corporations, with all their vast resources, can (and do) drown out the voice of the individual. So allow their free speech allows them to prohibit ours. I agree with that. I think it's reasonable, and it's why I support both the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality.

But there's another way in which corporations act even more insidiously when they "speak." First of all, you have to realize that corporations don't really SPEAK. They SPEND MONEY to get a certain message put out there. And that money is, of course, the property of the shareholders. So who decides what the Corporation wants to "say?" Well, that's the board of directors, who are elected by the shareholders. Typically this includes several of the BIGGEST shareholders. Now, if assume for the moment that since most boards, consisting of very rich, very white, men and their proxies, the "shareholders" are "electing" people to put out Conservative, Corporatist, Republican message. And if they were polled according to their shares of the company, you might find rations reaching 90-some percent in favor. BUT, when you consider how many people own stock - usually though a 401-K - and that most of that stock is owned through MUTUAL FUNDS, and most Blue Chips are carried by pretty much every Mutual fund, you'll conclude that something like 90+% of the electorate owns SOME miniscule percentage of... ExxonMobil, for example. And if you were to poll that group BY PERSON, I submit that you would find their political demographic matches the general public pretty closely - IOW: It would cover a broad spectrum, with almost equal representation of Liberals and Conservatives, Republicans and Democrats.

Now... Why is that important?

Simple: Because corporate speech results in the ULTIMATE "winner takes all" approach to political speech! A dozen or so men decide what the Corporation will say, and end up speaking for literally Tens of Millions of Shareholders, not to mention Hundreds of Thousands of EMPLOYEES, many of which may not feel that the Corporations POLITICAL message matches what THEY want to say. So now, not only is the moneyed interest drowning them out... WORSE: They actually using assets partially OWED by that person to put out a message contrary to their beliefs! And I mention employees, because I do believe that they are stakeholders in a Corporation every bit as much as the shareholders are. One might also consider the CUSTOMERS to be stakeholders as well. After all, I give MY MONEY to that corporation. What right do they have to use it to put out a message that I don't agree with? OK, of course I can't just take my business elsewhere, but I think you're getting the idea.

When a corporation "speaks" it does on behalf of shareholders, employees, customers, and arguably other stake-holders as well. And it does so WITHOUT REGARD to those people's wishes. And THAT to me is why it's not the same thing. They don't just drown me out, the SPEAK for me, using assets that I own a piece of, to say something that I wouldn't say.

One more thing, regarding corporate boards. Those members that didn’t just BUY their way on were elected by the shareholders to RUN THE BUSINESS. If I'm a voting shareholder, then I want to vote for the guy who's going to make me the most money, all else being equal. I shouldn't feel as though I need to vote for someone I believe to be the less competent person because of political considerations. If you restrict corporate "speech" to those areas that are directly relevant to their business, then I don't HAVE this conflict.

ANYWAY, that's why I don't consider Corporate Speech to even fall under first amendment protection.

OK, Kagan SUCKS. We are betrayed

Folks, I tried to keep an open mind.  I really did.  And most of you should know by now that while Liberal, I'm no moonbat.  My numerous dustups over the past couple of months with ClassicLiberal (who I'd say is DEFINITELY a moonbat! LOL) should be evidence of that.  I cast my vote for Obama knowing that he was a Left-Center moderate, and NOT any kind of the socialist, etc... that the Right have tried to paint him as, using crude stereotypes barely applicable to the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and seemingly 180 degrees off the mark when applied to Obama.  But if there is one area where I hold hard core liberal (socially libertarian views, actually) and that is the Supreme Court.  And while there STILL isn't much to go on with Kagan, what little there is showns here to be on the WRONG side of free speech, the WRONG side or Corporate influence andf the WRONG side of Executive Power.  And these three things pretty much top my list of Constitutional issues.  OK - if she came out as a hard-core anti-theist / seperation-of-church-and-state type, I could probably come around to her.  But she's said and written so little on any topic that I don't see how I could believe that at this point.

But my once open mind is now made up, and I feel compelled to say this, on no uncertain tearms: ClassicLiberal is RIGHT.  Kagan SUCKS.  And this nomination is nothing short of an abject BETRAYAL on the part of President Obama.  This is not "change I can believe in." This is more like "shit I can't believe."

I'm going to re-post the links to the two excellent artices that he pointed me too: Johnathan Turley's piece, and Glenn Greenwald's post on Salon.  READ THEM.  Between those two and this piece by Marvin Ammori on HuffPo, as well as some of the other articles I linked to yesterday, I am convinced that Elena Kagan (and by extension, apparently Barack Obama) has her head up her ass when it comes to the First Ammendment.  And I'll throw the Right a bone on this: The SECOND Ammendment is there in case they forget about the FIRST.  And if this nomination goes through, it would take SIX applications of the second ammendment to fix the court, when today it would take only four.  She ABSOLUTELY needs to be "Harriet Mierred."  She WON'T be... because the Democrats have NO BALLS AT ALL.  But she needs to be.  And Obama should be firmly rebuked for this BETRAYAL.  He won't be...because the Democrats have NO BALLS AT ALL.  But he needs to be.

And just to show this is a principled opposition, and not just a case of "she's not liberal enough" I want to refer to a couple of recent examples of free-speech where the speakers were punnished for saying something downright CONSERVATIVE; and which seem to be cases where Kagan would seem to vote that these punnishments were acceptable.

First, the students sent home from school for wearing American Flag T-Shirts on May 5th.  Now I'm no fool: I know exactly why they were doign this.  A do you know what?  Why I despise what they were saying - both for the inherent racism of the message and the disrespect it showed the FLAG - I'm willing to fight, kill and die to protect their right ot SAY it.  And in case you feel so inclined, don't bother citing precident to me.  We went through that on MMFA and I'll stand by my original judgement that the school GROSSLY over-reached.  Kagan seems to think, in her support of broader anti-hate speech rules, that the school would be justified because of the message the students were sending.  And that is the EXACTLY, 180 degrees WRONG way to read the first ammendment.  To think that, I wonder if she's even READ it!

The other, far more disturbing case, was the one of the United States Marine with the Anti-Obama facebook page.  Now, in the military their are well known restrictions of basic freedoms.  In the military you follow orders.  And traditionally speaking freely is something that requires specific permission.  What's more - this is an enlisted man who was openly critisizing the COMMANDER AND CHIEF - his MOST superior officer.  But do you know what? I think the ACLU has this one right.  As long as this soldier confines his remorks to his time OFF-DUTY, and carries out the orders he's given, to support the foriegn policy of the administration to the best of his ability - IOW, as long as he mainatins discipline in the field?  He should be able to say whatever he wants.  How can we honestly say we fighting to protect freedom (either theirs or ours) if we seek to silence those doing the fighting, during the times when they are not on actve duty.  And given her views on executive power, as well as free speech, (and her less than enthusiastic support for the military, not that this is a facor for me) I don't see her standing up for this soldier.  And I would - even though I think his message is treasonous!

Now you can agree or disagree with me on these cases (and I don't mind discussing them, though I'd prefer to do so in another post) but you have to concede this point to me: Most Liberals are willing to defend speech that they don't agree with, as a matter of PRINCIPLE, to protect the FREEDOM of Speech.  Conservatives have shown time and time again - most recently in Citizens United - that they are NOT willing to do this.  And, as descirbed in the HuffPo piece, Kagan argued Citizen for the Government and LOST.  Now... whether she did so deliberately (which the post seems to imply, IMHO) or merely due to incompetence (as laid out in that same piece) she is NO STRONG, PRINCIPLED DEFENDER of Free Speech.

I will stop short of saying that I won't vote for Obama in 2012 - although I won't, if there's a primary challenger!  Is she preferable to the likely McCain/Palin nominee?  Yeah, probably.  But I was NOT voting for what I though was the 'lesser of two evils.'  I though I was voting for the lesser GOOD, over the greater EVIL.  Now I see that I was not.  That I did, in fact, merely take the lesser of two evils.

Kagan has to go.  Show me a petition and I'll sign it.  Send letters, call your Senator- especially if he's a Democrat!  I'd love to see every one of these spineless jellyfish GO.  The only thing that stops me is the knowledge that those without BRAINS (Tes Bag Republicans) will replace those without BALLS if the Democrats lose.  (And if the Republicans gain MORE influence, there won't be any restraint of the continued corporatization of this country, and the increasing drowning out of opposition voices.)  That's the reality and the reality sucks.  But this nomination is just intolerable.

I say: Let the Right attack her.  Let them tear down with even the worst, most absurd slander.  I hope the win this one.  Then maybe Obama will get his head out of his ass and pick someone like Judge Diane Wood. 

Kagan needs to go.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

One point of clarification: Why don't I believe that corporations deserve the same Free Speech protection?  Why am I so against the decision in Citizens United?

Let me get to that in my next post.

More on Kagan...

Or not really.  I poked around some of my usual haunts looking for stuff on Elena Kagan, to try and get a bettr sense of this so-called "mystery" that Obama has nominated.  MMFA, and Politifact could do little more than defend her from the outright absurdites that the Right has thrown her way.  It's so infuriating to have an opposition that is so insane that they put you in the position of having to defend someone that you may not really even want; just because to do otherwise is simply an affront to common sense, reality, honesty, sanity, etc...  I swear I just want to punch the next person that I hear say the word "socialist" - in ANY context!  (I'm so sick of it at this point I'd even be willing to punch a socialist!)
I expected some depth from PFAM, but they had little to say other than "Congrats on the nomination, we look forward to learnign more about you."  (Yeah, you and me both!)

I came across this piece, on TAP, which I thnk summarizes both our desires and our frustration with Obama's choice, from the Left pretty well.  As a counterpoint though, this post, on Huffington, summarizes very well what I was trying to say in my own post about Judge Diane Wood.  And while it DOES praise Kagan for having some of those [pursuading Justice Kennedy] qualities, it's pretty thin, highly qualified praise.  And it doesn't really say much about her politics.  This piece, in Slate, paints a different picture. (Disclsure: I'm not really a big fan of Slate, in general.  Just sayin'.)

About the most positive piece, from a purely liberal standpoint was  this other piece from TAP.  It gives some cause for optimism, but admitedly it's pretty thin.  The one thing it has going for it is that is DOES address, head on, the concerns (assuming I understand them correctly) that ClassicLiberal raised about her cheerleading for the executive branch, and the Bush detention practices and policies.  So we've basically got two things to go one, that I've found: a letter she signed onto as Dean of Harvard law which says one things, and her work as Solicitor General which says another.  One thing to remember, and yes, I realize that I'm clinging to every last shred of optimism here, but "cheerleading for the executive branch" is basically the job desciptionof the solicitor general.  I don't dismiss the concern, far from it: it's about all teh information I HAVE about her! And I am still disappointed by this pick (Oh well, boo-hoo, no Judge Wood.)  But between the Huffpo post and the TAP post, I guess I'll hold out some hope (or at least keep an open mind) that this can work.

The Kagan Nomination

Whenever I read about an issue, person or piece of legislation, I often find it extremely instructive to then read about what the critics say about it - and sometimes jujst to find out who those criotics are - before deciding how I really feel about it.  After all, I may interpret something in one way, and it might not occur to me to see things the way a critic does.  In much the same way, finding out that "civil libertarians," or "relighious rights groups," or "the 'X' industry," or "environmentalsts" are in favor of or opposed to something can often tell me a lot more about the issue than I can learn from reading the ilterature written by its or their supporters.  And the opposition need not even be principled - this is why I like MMFA.  In showing the opposition to be based on MISINFORMATION, it shows me that there is perhaps nothing LEGITIMATE for them to point to to criticise.  In the case of THIS NOMINEE, Elena Kagan, this type of opposition is a bit distressing.

In the "defense" of this nominee, MMFA - an unapologetically liberal website - goes to great lengths to dispell the Right Wing "myth" that Kagan represents a far-left, radical position.  And they do a good job of dispelling this.  They show, very clearly, that either the conservatives are just flat-out lying, or that their fears are vastly overblown.  They show that this is a nominee that is not necessarily hostile to the institution they hold dear.

And therein lies the PROBLEM.  Personally I'd like to see a nominee that's a little hostile to religion as a political force.  Who IS a bit skeptical of the Military's ability to do anything other than fight wars (IOW: blow shit up and kill people) and who sees WAR as a last resort, rather than the preffered choice in dealing with foreign policy.  When you look at Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito and recognize the absolute rubber-stampt they represent to the Right, only the starkest possible contrast should suffice to replace the retiring Stevens.  I myself found Judge Diana Wood to be an interesting choice.  But instead we get Kagan.

Now... don't get me wrong.  Personaly I think that statements such as "she'll move the court to the right" are ludicrious.  The President nominated the former Dean of Harvard Law School, for Pete's sake, not Phyllius Schlafly.  And I'll be the first to admit that I don't know NEARLY enough about Kagan, or Wood for that matter, to make a truly eductaed assessment of their potential impact.  My biggest complaint about Kagan really come from what I think I know about her views on executive power.  But then I have to realize that my understanding of her positions come from what she did in her role as SOLICITOR GENERAL - where it was her JOB to advocate for the executive branch.  Hardly a position where one's libertarian viewpoint would get center stage.  One could almost argue that fomrer solicitor generals - people who built their resume defending the government's position - should be made inelligible for a SC nomination... But then we'd never have had Thurgood Marshall!

And, going back to my previous post on Wood, I don't necessarily see Kagan VOTING very differently than Justice Stevens did.  And this statement has been made repeatedly by her critcis and supporters alike.  But to me the real question is not how she'd VOTE (which I don't think is really in question) but rather whether she would advocate for the liberal position, and how effectively she would do so.  I liked Wood's politics well enough, but I what I really liked was what I read about her ability to pursuade those who would be inclined to disagree with her.  I saw this as a sign that she could influence Justice Kennedy, and gets some WINS for the Left.  I've read the same thing about Kagan - and as a lawyer, influencing people is waht she DOES - but I just don't know enough about her to know just how OFTEN and on WHAT ISSUES she's USE those powers of pursuation.  (PFAM is not much help in this department - they have a lot to say about the Roberts Court, but little one way or the other about Kagan herself.)

Now... I do NOT, as my friend ClassicLiberal has proposed, belive that the Kagan nomination is somehow grounds for (figurative) impeachment.  But I am disappointed that Kagan got the call over more liberal cadidates.  I would have strongly preferred Wood...

...And I find myself in the rare position of wishing that the conservatives were right!

Swing the Wood

An article in today's NYT has essentially sold me on one name supposedly on President Obama's short-list of nominees to replace retiring Justice Stevens.  And that potential nominee is Judge Diane Wood.  Now, I haven't  done any extensive research into her decisions.  From what I read, she's liberal enough.  And really in my mind that goes without saying, [the reader's] opinion of Justice Sotomayor not withstanding.

(For the record, I was absolutely fine with the choice of Justice Sotomayor, and while their may have been more Liberal choices available, she has so far been on the side of freedom and liberty in the only 5-4 decision thus far, and I'm willing to bet that she'll never be to the Right of Justice Kennedy nor join the Facist wing in any 6-3 decisions.  In any case I don't see any reason to believe that Justice Wood would VOTE any farther to the Right than Justive Stevens did, and that's good enough for me.

What the 'Times article highlights is what I see as the single most important attribute for the nomonee to posses: The ability to influence those who might disagree with her.  She has a record of being able to influnce and win over the two conservatives she worked with on the appeals court, and by extension, should be able to pursuade Justice Kennedy.  That fact that she does not alienate her opponents (I'm talking on the BENCH now, not in congress or in the public!) is critical, because Justice Kennedy is, for better or worse, the most powerful man in the free world right now, and in any contentious case involving civil liberty, it will be HIS VOTE ALONE that decides the fate of those freedoms and liberties.  And we cannot allow the Right wing to take anything else away from us!  We are already well beyond the point at which I say, "THIS FAR, NO FARTHER!"

The President's choice must not be chosen as a 'consensus builder' in Congress, or even in the public's eye.  But they should absolutely be a 'consesus builder' in the COURT.  (Although admittedly by 'consensus,' I mean the four liberals, plus Kennedy.) So from that POV, at this point I'll go out on a limb and name Judge Wood as my front running pick as well.