Bring on the Foreign Policy Debate, Indeed.

Or, alternately, Wall Street Journal Opinion Page: You Never Fail Me for Incendiary Commentary to Rant About.

John Bolton, the Bush crony that got appointed to the UN for the usually nonsensical reasons (as he was a very outspoken critic of the UN's sheer existence before his appointment), wrote
a piece for the Journal's Monday Op-Ed. A good summary of his characterization of Obama's stance on negotiations with hostile states/organizations:

"The real debate is radically different. On one side are those who believe that negotiations should be used to resolve international disputes 99% of the time. That is where I am, and where I think Mr. McCain is. On the other side are those like Mr. Obama, who apparently want to use negotiations 100% of the time. It is the 100%-ers who suffer from an obsession that is naïve and dangerous.

Negotiation is not a policy. It is a technique. Saying that one favors negotiation with, say, Iran, has no more intellectual content than saying one favors using a spoon. For what? Under what circumstances? With what objectives? On these specifics, Mr. Obama has been consistently sketchy."

This characterization that Obama's policy on negotiations at all lacks nuance or is a topic that has been avoided is either terribly unfair or terribly uninformed (I'm guessing the former, since he wrote an op-ed on it, and I would only assume that he has the integrity to research).

Bolton made a particular point out of Obama's rejection of "preconditions." Here's a really good quote explaining how Bolton artfully (but falsely) reframed the debate. Obama said "Understand what the question was. The question was a very specific question. Would you meet without preconditions? Preconditions as it applies to a country like Iran for example was a term of art. Because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has meet preconditions that are essentially what Iran and many other observers would view as the subject of the negotiations. For example, their nuclear program. The point is that I would not refuse to meet until they agree to every position that we want. But that doesn't mean that we would not have preparation, and the preparation would involve starting with low level-lower level diplomatic contacts..." etc about standard diplomatic practice.

Just take a look here and read through the dozens of other quotes from Obama about what he considered appropriate ways of dealing with aggressive nations/groups.

Now, in one or two of those quotes, Hugo Chavez is listed among Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad (yes! spelled it right on the first try!), which, let me tell you, I take issue with. Because seriously...Venezuela is no threat to America and Chavez is as much a goofball as he is an ideologue, and most of all, he just wants to alleviate poverty and finally put an end to the Monroe Doctrine (and the Truman Doctrine, while we're at it). But that's a conversation for another day.

A Lesson in Constitutional Law: California Supreme Court and the Chicago Tribune

The Chicago Tribune's enlightened journalist, Dennis Byrne, here said that the California Supreme Court is "tyrannical" for applying the most basic tenet of Constitutional law (which is the foundation of every single law in our nation and each of our states), the Supremacy Clause.

The Supremacy Clause says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land: The United States Constitution for all of the states, and each state constitution for the laws within their borders. This means that the principles put forth in each state constitution, not the laws passed by the legislature nor the will of the people, however much populists may dislike it, trumps all other points of origination of law.


Mr. Byrne, who clearly skipped the opportunity to take a Constitutional Law class in college, or, for that matter, even a half-decent Intro to Political Science course, proclaims this misinformed outrage:

"The majority declared that people had no say in the matter. It said that, in its supreme wisdom, it could overrule a constitutionally created process for the people of California to directly exercise their will. The court proclaims its view is so fundamentally correct that it cannot be "abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process." In other words, the people of this state are not supreme."

No, they're not. The people never, ever have been. If you want them to be, try to make a constitutional amendment, I dare you. People who actually know this stuff will slap you upside the head and explain to you what a fundamental reversal of our government and protection of civil liberties it would entail.

"Let's think about that for a minute. The court is saying that some rights are so fundamental that they cannot be voted away by a majority, or even a supermajority, of the citizens or their representatives."

Yes, that's EXACTLY what they're saying. How can you take offense to that? I was taught about the ubiquitous concept that the only real danger in a democracy is the "tyranny of the majority," that a numerically powerful but nefarious group of people in some moment in history would impose their prejudice (or worse) on other human beings who are less numerous (Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Polpot's Cambodia, Sudan since the late '80s, Serbia).

The Bill of Rights, the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments, the Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, are all based on the principle that some rights are so FUNDAMENTAL (Jefferson and the writers of every other state Constitution used the word "unalienable") that they can't be abrogated just because some people don't want to share the rights they enjoy with people they don't like.

They Shoot Horses, Don't They?

I read sometime between last posting and right now about Senator Clinton's plan to suspend the gas tax for the summer months, and really just haven't been able to get over A) how ridiculous and stupid it is, and B) the fact that it was supposed to make people like her more. Let us address point A.

Let me point out that the idea of us actually suspending the gas tax for ANY length of time is entirely stupid. I am certain that Senator Clinton, as a member of the United States Congress, is fully aware that any such legislation would require a presidential signature. In case you've been passed out, George W. Bush, the creator of Arbusto Energy, notorious friend of oil companies, and whore to should-be-illegal OPEC, is the President of the United States. That legislation, providing that it, you know, successfully got through both the House and the Senate in any sort of timely fashion, which, as anyone who's ever talked to anyone about anything knows, is SO not likely to happen, is going to be vetoed so quickly that we might as well not even bother trying to get ourselves off by pretending it's possible.

Second, and you're probably going to be able to guess what I do in my free time after you read this, as a tax proposal, Senator Clinton's plan to suspend the gas tax Constitutionally has to originate in the House of Representatives, and, subsequently, would be directed to both the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. While telling you all that stuff about committee jurisdiction was mostly for purposes of showing off, the POINT is, the bill still has to originate in the House of Representatives, which A, means that Senator Clinton has to find someone to introduce a bill that she likes, and B, expects that the members of the House of Representatives, especially the members of the Democratic Caucus, are so stupid as to not realize that VOTING on such a bill is going to force them to effectively declare their affiliation with her over Senator Obama. No fucking way. House leadership isn't stupid.

Third, the actual policy implications of a suspension of the gas tax are disastrous. No gas tax = lower prices. Lower gas prices = higher demand. Higher demand w/o higher supply = higher prices. Higher prices as the result of higher demand = prices not much different than before we suspended the gas tax. Then there's the whole point of how, since the gas tax hasn't REALLY succeeded in curbing gas consumption, a suspension of a tax that, from June-August would only save the average consumer about $30 billion, isn't really going to do much to save anyone any money. And we'll just have to hear Exxon Mobile talk later about how they were so kind and heroic and generous and proved their commitment to energy and saving the world by not publicly fucking every member of Congress up the ass once this who extravaganza is over and the American people start pay tax on their gasoline again.

Also, let's just put out there the fact that the presumed increase in consumption that would result from this suspension of the gas tax is really going to do nothing except destroy the environment MORE. Because, come on, we know that giving people a tax cut isn't going to make them appreciate the fact that gas is cheaper. They're not going to save that extra 4 cents every time they fill up. Come on. People are going to consume MORE gasoline.

OH! We do remember that Congress has to follow pay-go rules, right? That's right. So that means that in order to suspend the gas tax for four months, Congress would need to find a way to offset $30 billion. Well, it's not going to come from defense spending, obviously, so it's going to need to come from somewhere else. I guess we can leave Senator Clinton with the task of deciding what gets screwed over. Furthermore, the gas tax pays for the maintenance of U.S. bridges, highways, and other infrastructure. We NEED that $30 so we can continue to pave roads, prevent bridges from collapsing into rivers, and, you know, do other important stuff like that.

Oh. And not that it matters, but Senator Clinton's idea to suspend the gas tax didn't make anyone like her more. Oh well. So much for that.