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.

Let's Talk About Miley Cyrus' Parents

I'm maybe the only realist here. I refuse to be the one whining and complaining because the world is mean and people do inappropriate things and Disney is breeding a generation of untalented hack tweens but oh no Vanity Fair "sexualized" one of them and now we're going to light our torches and storm the publishing headquarters and turn Annie Liebowitz into a villain because how could she do something like that.

Welcome to the real world. The real world is full of competing interests. Vanity Fair wants to sell magazine. Annie Liebowitz wants to take photographs and create art. Miley Cyrus wants exposure/money/name recognition for something other than being the latest in a long line of Disney protégés.

Miley Cyrus has parents. She is fifteen years old. Her parents are still largely a part of her life. Are we seriously believing that neither Miley Cyrus nor her parents saw any of the pictures before Vanity Fair went to print? Really? When Annie Liebowitz photographs you, she does it with a digital camera. You get to see the pictures after she takes them.

Additionally, when Vanity Fair dressed Miley Cyrus in a sheet and tousled her hair, none of her caretakers thought maybe the photographs were going to be suggestive? Are you kidding me? Miley Cyrus is fifteen. She's not four. She knows what it means to be sexual. I'm assuming we all remember the pictures on her Myspace where she's pulling up/down her shirt. I make very valiant attempts to not know things about Disney stars, and even I've seen pictures of Miley Cyrus in her lime green bra.

Come. On.

When I was a "tween," I tried to leave the house in slutty clothing. I failed. Because of my parents. Teenagers know what sex is. They're insecure. They want to fit in. They try every way possible to be "cool." Now, granted, the situation is different when Vanity Fair is the party sexualizing you, but the role of the parents doesn't change.

Don't blame Vanity Fair or Annie Liebowitz. They're doing their jobs. Blame Miley Cyrus' parents for failing to keep their daughter from jumping on the bandwagon of Disney superstar turned slutty Disney superstar twat.

Let's talk about Miley Cyrus

I have little but disdain for Miley Cyrus and every other manufactured child star that has the Disney logo branded into her ass.

But as 15 year old girl whose entire existence is manufactured into pop culture commodification, she can't be anything but a product of our pop culture, accepting everything it tells her. And the number 1 thing it tells you is to be sexy, and if possible, to embody sex. Especially if you're a sign of wholesome American girls, and especially if Disney made you. (Don't forget: Disney also brought you Britney Spears).

And for fuck's sake, she's 15! 15-year-old girls are unstable, searching for an identity, and, literally, dying to fit in. This means blow jobs, sex, drinking, hard drugs, starvation, and self-inflicted wounds. And this means looking like a babyprostitute.

How dare the media condemn Miley Cyrus for being who they tell her and every other female from prepubescent girls onwards to be?

I know its patriarchy and I know its pop culture and I know its the pornification of all things remotely recognizably female, but I still can't contain my fury. It's just so unfair.

Oh, and Annie Liebowitz, for seeing a 15 year old as someone who it is appropriate to lead into being photographed with I've-been-having-sex-for-3-hours hair and a satin sheet, there's something wrong with how you look at young girls.

The World Needs Power-Sharing

MentalJumpstart (whoever you are, thanks!) sent us this powerfully infuriating article.

Infuriating because on face value, it's convincing, and within another paradigm, it makes sense.

Let's start off with this: the article is called "Why the World Still Needs Mr. Big: Rumors of its demise have been exaggerated. Just one country has the will and the wherewithal to take care of business." The will to take care of business. That's where this whole article goes wrong. In the subtitle. That might be a record. (Also, Joffe needs to go back and re-watch Sex and the City, because Mr. Big is an asshole but he definitely isn't a global hegemonist)

What exactly does that mean, "take care of business?" Let's speculate. The only things that superpowers are actually better at than normal-powers for are a)domination and b)war, which is a subset of domination. Not that superpowers have the monopoly on wars. The wars that we embark upon as an international community, at least, have come much closer to being ''just'' wars (Rwanda, former Yugoslavia) than anything America has lately embarked upon.

The point is, no one should be "taking care of business." No country should have a monopoly on domination of every lesser power, no country should be able to get away with the wars of "preemptive" aggression that we've flipped the world off with.

So I agree with Jaffe. Russia, China, Europe even should not be allowed to take power over the world in our stead. We shouldn't have been allowed to take power over the world in the first place. We should behave more like Europe--having the "means" but not the "will" to be a superpower, because in a perfect world, no one would have the will. In this one, however, we'll have to share power.

He got it right in the very beginning, "Washington faces two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that it is not winning. Russia, China, Europe and perhaps even India are stepping forward to claim a piece of the leadership action; the "unipolar moment" is waning in favor of multipolarity. There goes the American century." And thank God.

Post-script: I very, very much resent Joffe's assertion that only Russia and China shelter corrupt, brutal, even evil governments. We installed, funded, supported, and armed, countless regimes, from Iraq to Indonesia to countless Latin American fascist dictatorships and much, much more, many informally through government-sanctioned, officially illegal arms dealers. I know I'm going to sound like Hugo Chavez here, but seriously, go read Hegemony or Survival.

Peggy Noonan is Confused, Racist, and Angry

While my brilliant commentary on this op-ed may lead to you believe that it's all you could possibly need or want to know to fulfill all yearning for knowledge about why Peggy "Batshit" Noonan is Confused, Racist, and Angry, this piece is just so ridic that you should check it out for yourselves. After reading my divinely inspired rant.

First, it instantly becomes clear that Peggy Noonan believes that she is Queen of America, and in a uniquely colonial twist, replaces the use of the royal "we" with the royal "referring to one's self in the name of one's nation." I.e., Peggy Noonan refers to herself as America, and believes she alone really represents it.

B, Peggy Noonan is a neurotic bitch who wishes death on those who are doing their job to make sure that passengers don't meet their deaths via airplane bomb (which is not to say that TSA people aren't heinous bitches themselves, but still).

Roman Numeral III, Peggy Noonan is a racist, class-ist, age-ist bigot. She tells us that it is impossible that anyone who is not phenotypically Arabic Muslim could not possibly be any kind of threat to the safety of other passengers. She believes that "equality" means letting the "middle aged woman" bypass security. This of course also means the middle-class, white woman, by virtue of her soccer mom potential. Though the "vulgar girl on the cell phone" and the "loud ruffian" (ruffian? didn't that word go out of style after the Renaissance?) are also white and therefore non-threats, Noonan doesn't suggest that they should get to skip security--probably their punishment for being not as wealthy as she is.

Additionally, she talks about how no one's watching Wolf Blitzer mumble through his beard about PA, probably because they can hear him talking and who'd want to look at him, anyway? Also, the probably get all of their news from the internet, like everyone else.

Then she goes on for a while about how it's inherently ok to call Obama's patriotism into question, unlike John McCain, because he's black and a liberal and probably for some reason having to do with the fact that his father wasn't born here. And then there's something about how liberals and moderates should listen to her despite her racist, class-ist invective because she doesn't like Bush, either.

I'm filled with hate for the media.

Don't Use The R-Word.

As I sit here eating my mid-recession lunch of kidney beans (surprisingly sweet today!) and baked organic chicken breast (moist and delicious!) I seriously can't help but laugh at how batshit everyone is going over the fact that their "economic stimulus" checks are effectively in the mail. [CQ, sub. req'd.]

Ok. Let's be real about this. This is not a good economic stimulus package. I mean, if you're middle class and generally able to pay your bills and feed yourself, it's pretty ok. You're probably just excited that the government is giving you a pocket-full of cash and encouraging you to spend it on stuff. Because everyone knows that what I need in my life right now are more foreign-made conveniences. And I'm serious about that. But let's look at the big picture, shall we? Gather round for story time, kiddles. I will regale you with tales of bipartisanship (read: Republicans hacking the teeth out of what at one point was actually a decent economic stimulus package.)

A good economic stimulus package not only focuses on those who are most likely to spend the money (ie: me), but also on those who actually, you know need the money (ie: the unemployed, people on food stamps, etc.). If it's really good, it will also maybe try to create jobs, but getting all three of those things while there are still "fiscal conservatives" on planet Earth is so ridiculously unlikely that, really, I won't even bother hypothesizing.

Now that the first round of checks are mailed, House Democratic leaders want to start considering a second economic stimulus package. One that would include all the things Republican leadership managed to complain out of the first bill. Hooray! Extension of unemployment benefits! Expansion of food stamp benefits! Infrastructure spending to create jobs!

Wait.

Republicans don't think we need a second bill.
Oh well. Better luck next time, poor and lower-middle class America.

Nora Ephron Is Bad Writer, Complete Moron; Pennsylvania Voters Are Powerless To Demographic Trends

Nora Ephron has taken a moment out of her busy, busy day to give voters in Pennsylvania a thorough, yet amateur psychoanalyzing. Totally free of charge! Except, I guess, for however much the thousand or so brains cells I lost reading her idiotic drivel were worth. She also comes to the stunningly brilliant conclusion that it was slightly less obvious that the nominee was going to be either a woman or a black man when Woman and Black Man weren't the only options. [HuffPo]

Since, you know, if you're a woman or black, you don't get a choice when it comes to who you vote for, Nora Ephron has concluded that the only people who mattered in the Pennsylvania primary are white men. And they're all either racist, misogynistic, or both (read: Republican, if your English-Ephron dictionary is turned off).

That's right. Look around you. If there's a white male within eyesight, he definitely either hates black people or women. If you're either one of those, I guess you should just hope that he hates the other one. Although, if you're voting for Barack Obama, Nora Ephron would probably also conclude that you don't have to worry in this situation because voting for Barack Obama also means you run fast and can probably jump really high.

Snark!

From someone who is definitely not me.