Neener, neener, neener

Forgive me the childish joy I am taking in reading that Roger Clemens has been handed a perjury indictment for lying his ass off to a Congressional committee about his use of steroids.

Asshat of the Day

Bud Selig, who apparently believes that it is better to be stubbornly wrong (and to screw one of his umpires for life) than to actually correct an obvious (and easily-correctable) error. Selig's done more wrong than right throughout his life, but this should seal his Lifetime Achievement Award for Asshattery.

GOP Grandstanding Redux

Every now and again, the issue of the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship makes its way into some frazzled GOP operative's head. I wrote about a California ballot initiative that was crafted to end birthright citizenship here last summer; now Congressional Republicans are mounting a bill to "amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify the interpretation of the 14th amendment". Of course, this bill wouldn't come close to passing Constitutional muster-- the very idea that an act of Congress could change a long-held interpretation of the Constitution should smack anyone with an 8th grade education as ludicrous.

But my guess is that the GOP is making a really slick tactical move here. Smart GOP leaders know that this has no chance of passing, and even if it did, no chance of passing a Supreme Court hearing. They also know that many (if not most) people lack a fundamental understanding of how our government works. By introducing a bill like this, the wingnuts can force Democrats to vote against it and pillory them with the usual complaints of being soft on illegal immigration. In fact, I'm sure the higher-ups in the GOP would be terrified if something like this actually passed, since they would lose this sure-fire way to rouse the base. This kind of bill is a lot like the flag burning amendment that makes its way into Congress every once in a while. While the strategy is probably effective on some level, it really irks me.

I could go into the disgust many of us share at the nefarious scapegoating and blatant racism that underlies the whole thing, but really, right now I'm as angry at the fact that this is a complete and utter waste of time from a public policy perspective. Once again, the Republicans have proven that they are more interested in the political games and power plays than being a constructive partner in governance.

Prop 8, Film at 11... or, at least, on-line (woot!) ?

It was just announced that there is a strong possibility that the court battle over California's Prop 8 will be broadcast on a delay on YouTube. This is being reviewed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The broadcast is opposed by the Pro-Prop 8 people (you know, the bad guys). I love the reasoning, too. Prop 8 attorney is quoted as below in an article by Variety reporter Tim Johnson last week:

In a letter sent to Walker on Monday, their attorney, Charles Cooper, referred to the aftermath of the 2008 election, a time marked by protest rallies, marches and, in some cases, boycotts of those who contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign, including one website that identified donors and their addresses with a Google map overlay.

Indeed, some potential witnesses have indicated that they will not be willing to testify at all if the trial is broadcast or webcast beyond the courthouse," Cooper wrote. He also cited a history of the court prohibiting cameras from trial proceedings.

Good God! We could have a bunch of people non-violently exercising their freedoms of speech, assembly, and press? Witnesses not testifying? Look, if you are going to be a self-righteous asshat and use your vote, money, and time to meddle in other peoples' lives, at least have the stones to own up to it. Cowardice is the province of those on the wrong side of history.

Cooper does have a better argument, based on precedent. Federal appeals hearings are not broadcast, with the exception of opening arguments. This is, well, at best kind of dumb, and at worst, undemocratic. Trials are part of the public record, and barring some kind of national security issue or other extenuating circumstance, the citizens ought to be able to access that public record. In the past, this meant transcripts, but in the 21st century media environment, the standard ought to be actual audio and video record-- when we have the means to provide a much better quality record, we deserve to get it. To take a page from the Teabaggers-- who is paying the bill for this trial, anyway?

The judge in the case is soliciting public comment; since it is a federal case, those of you outside of California should comment as well. California's Courage Campaign has launched an on-line petition, which can be accessed here.

I am a little torn on this court case, however. I'd rather just wait a few years until the demographics shift, then we can overturn Prop 8 via California's idiotic public democracy experiment. Winning this battle by court decision just adds more fuel to the other side's fire, and would likely spike donations for anti-marriage equality forces in other states. To have the voters come back and reject discriminatory legislation and atone for the lunacy of Prop 8 would be a nice, swift kick in the teeth to hatemongers everywhere. Of course, I am torn because this would be a clear case of justice delayed, which is not fair to my LGBT compatriots in my state. That this is the situation we are in is ludicrous.

(After a lengthy hiatus, I am refreshed and back to the AD community. I look forward to being part of the interesting conversations here again).

Asshat of the Day

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. And if he thinks Zelaya is America's "enemy," then he was clearly outraged back in 2006. It was in that article with......oh, wait, he never complained about Bush's meeting. Nevermind.

Nice World Series coverage, Fox. You want to come kick my dog, too?

I don't get any television networks, so while I've paid close attention via the internet, I haven't been able to watch any of the baseball playoffs this year. However, as an Indians fan, that may be for the better this World Series. In addition to the typical crimes against intelligence and decency that Buck and McCarver manage to wage every year, apparently, there was also this during Game One:

The pain [for Indians fans] was there, assisted by the FOX graphic showing the 2009 post-season records for both Lee and Sabathia accompanied by pictures of each still donning Chief Wahoo, with the title “You Still Have LeBron” delivering the final knockout punch to an unwitting city that once again was forced to come to grips with their second-class status.

OK, it's bad enough you had to point out that yes, we didn't get to keep either of the last two AL Cy Young winners. But rubbing it in with the "LeBron" comment? Barring the return of Arrested Development to TV, I think it's safe to say I will never, ever, ever watch another Fox program as long as I live. Perhaps I'll even add "pissing on Rupert Murdoch's grave" to my list of things to do in my lifetime.

Oh, and Fox?

Fuck. You.

Apt Analogy of the Day

Joe Lieberman is the "balloon boy dad" of the Senate.

Shocking

Joe Lieberman's desire to prove he's an absolutely awful, despicable piece of shit knows no bounds. Maybe this will finally be the move that leads to Harry Reid stripping Revoltin' Joe from all of his leadership positions and his role in the caucus, but I know better than to get my hopes up.

A battle for High Commander of the Asshat Armada

Saw this on Taegan Goddard's Politcal Wire...

"I don't have to read it, or know what's in it. I'm going to oppose it anyways."

-- Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), on heath care reform

Whaa, a Republican that thinks he doesn't have to read? Surprising.

So, my question is this: Is Inhofe more worthy of the title "Worst Senator in America"? I had always penciled in John Cornyn for this, but I'll be damned if Inhofe's stock hasn't been rising lately.

I keep coming back to that scene in Mel Brooks' History of World where the Roman Senate votes against aiding the common folk by voting "Fuck the poor!"

Well, here's one problem...

The local paper here did a sampling of people's opinions about healthcare reform. Here is one:

"I heard that if this passes, then everyone is going to eventually be forced to get government health care and I don't want that. I don't have it right now, but that's by choice. I don't want anyone telling me that I have to get it and pay for it."

Except that when this person has even a minor problem-- say, a fracture or a really nasty cut-- where is he going to go? To the ER. If he can't pay for the ER visit, the hospital eats it and has to make the money up somewhere else (like by raising the prices for services to people with insurance and inflating the skyrocketing price of insurance for those who are lucky enough to have it and responsible enough to have it if they can get it). If this person has a catastrophic illness, well, the financial consequences for the system are dire.

Of course, most people that don't have healthcare lack it because they can't afford it; I'm taking issue specifically with people like the guy quoted above, because it brings to the fore one of the more important aspects of the healthcare debate: a mandate. Even the craziest teabagging Neanderthal should be able to realize that the current healthcare system deincentivizes an individual (especially a young, healthy person) from getting insurance. After all, younger people tend to be healthier, get sick less, and treat various injuries or mildly serious illnesses at the ER. This raises costs for everyone. Having the healthiest demographic in the insurance pool is essential to driving costs down.

Socialism! Big government telling me I have to buy something that I'm willing to chance living without! Big brother! Right? Well, think of the parallel. The government forces you to buy car insurance, doesn't it? Why? So that when you do something that costs other people money (like plowing into their car), you have the financial ability (through your insurance) to pay for it. I wish people like the guy in the paper would take three seconds and make this connection; one that a particularly sharp second grader would be able to make handily.

I'm totally rooting for Harvard this year in the Yale-Harvard football game

Here's why.

It seems the venerable Yale University Press has made an editorial decision to censor the Danish cartoon depictions of Mohamed that caused the big brouhaha in 2006 in a forthcoming book. Bad, yes. What's worse? The book, by Jytte Klausen, is about those same cartoons. The book is entitled The Cartoons that Shook the World. Except you don't actually get to see the cartoons-- taking it a step further, not only did Yale UP ban the inflammatory cartoons from 2006, but all depictions of Mohamed in the entire book. I hadn't realized that sharia law was in effect in New Haven.

Fear was the only reason, it seems. A Yale UP official is quoted in the linked article saying that "when it came between that [printing the cartoons] and blood on my hands, there was no question”. Thus, one of the world's great academic presses has been bullied by a bunch of unabashed idiots who hurt people and destroy things over mean-spirited drawings of their magical being. Giving into fears of extremist reprisal makes for really bad policy. Remember, say, most of this decade? Still, the argument went as such: the cartoons are available on the 'Tubes and can be described in words, thus including them would be an unnecessary affront (or, "gratuitous"). This seems fairly shallow to me; after all, the author of the book, an expert on the controversy, wanted them included. Putting them on the cover might have been gratuitous; omitting them completely is cowardice of the worst kind. I would wager that one would be hard pressed to find a single academic book about political cartoons that didn't reprint cartoons.

Go Harvard*! Boo Yale!

* pending my becoming aware of some objectionable act of cowardice and supplication of stupid people on the part of Harvard

Asshat of the Day

John Feehery. Because, now that the Democrats have 60 voters, of course the metric system is the first item that Democrats will impose on an unwilling populace.

He's nothing if not consistent...

That Clarence Thomas holds a seat on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States is something that makes my blood boil. He is without a doubt the worst High Court justice in my lifetime; I don't know enough of the history of the Supreme Court to make any assertion past that, but I have to think he's in the running for top five all-time worst.

Proving this once again, The Honorable "Is-that-a-pubic-hair-on-your-coke" Justice Thomas is the lone dissenting opinion in Safford Unified School District vs. Redding. If you aren't familiar with the background, here's the gist: school officials were tipped off by a student that another student was in possession of some ibuprofen and naproxen (the ibuprofen was a prescription-strength pill, the naproxen over-the-counter). These alleged drugs would have been a violation of the school's drug policy, had they existed. School officials brought the 13 year old girl to the office and searched her bag, her pockets, etc., which yielded no drugs. Then she was taken to the nurses office, where she was told to strip to her underwear. From the majority opinion (the whole can be found here): "Finally, Savana was told to pull her bra out and to the side and shake it, and to pull the elastic on her underpants, thus exposing her breasts and pelvic area to some degree. No pills were found".

The majority clearly identifies that this is an unconstitutional search-- not least in part, in my opinion, that they were operating off of an allegation from another student. The idea that school-age children can bring down invasive strip searches on their peers is idiocy-- the fact that the alleged drugs were never found makes this painfully obvious. That the alleged drugs were normal pain relievers contributed to the unreasonableness of the search. As Justice Souter wrote for the majority, "what was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suspect Savana was carrying pills in her underwear. We think the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable". Especially so, since the "adolescent vulnerability intensifies the patent intrusiveness of the exposure".

Thomas's dissent (also found in the linked document above) is based around the argument that any kind of search is reasonable (given some kind of "reasonable suspicion") if it is conducted only in places were the contraband could be hidden. His logic is that since you could hide pills in your crotch, school officials could look there (there's even a pretty weird part of the dissent where he cites several incidences of people hiding drugs in their underwear... I'll refrain from snark and you let you imagine your own). He contends that school officials, parents, and local governments are all "better suited than judges to determine the appropriate limits on searches". Wait, what? Isn't upholding and interpreting the Fourth Amendment a judicial bailiwick? Where's the logic in school administrators deciding if their actions are reasonable in cases like this? Is it only different because it is a school? Granted, the court has held that there are slightly different rules in schools, but the Constitution doesn't end at the school's door. This seems like a completely ideological decision on his part, and the opinion contains a strange line in its last paragraph-- "By doing so [finding the search unconstitutional], the majority has confirmed that a return to the doctrine of in loco parentis is required to keep the judiciary from essentially seizing control of public schools". Seriously? Are you trying to make Scalia and Alito look reasonable or something?

Oh, and by the way...

"It tells me that goose-stepping morons like yourself should try reading books instead of burning them".

Everyone has their one sort of "pet" issue-- something that riles you to your bone. Mine is unequivocally, without a doubt, book burning. Via Salon, yet another story about anti-gay bigots trying to get a library to remove a book and publicly burn it.

Very quickly: there is no justification for burning a book, ever. Even the worst hateful, racist screed has a value as a document of humanity-- records of human moral and intellectual failings are important as well. Burning a book is one of the most powerful and undeniable statements of intellectual poverty I can think of-- these people should be wholly and utterly ashamed of themselves.

Asshat Texan of the Day

State Rep. Betty Brown.

I don't know what I love more about this story: her insistence that, after saying Asian descendants' names are too hard to pronounce, she said Democrats were just trying to make it a "race issue" (cause, you know, blanket statements about people from a major part of the largest continent are not about race); or that she asked somebody who's last name is Ko if they couldn't just make their names "easier." Apparently, her intelligence level is such that a double-lettered, monosyllabic word is too difficult.

Go Texas! (Preferably, back to Mexico, though that's terribly unfair to Mexico).

h/t

Lessons (not) learned: Staying the hell of out something you don’t know anything about

A pin lies in wait for every bubble and when the two eventually meet, a new wave of investors learns some very old lessons. - Warren Buffet

One would think the several economic bubbles (and their inevitable violent bursts) experienced by the world and U.S. economy would provide some caution for investors looking for the next “big thing”. Unfortunately, this does not always seem to be the case, and even at the beginning of this recession, some investors poured a great deal of money into agricultural real estate. Last year, when commodity prices soared, farmland was seen by many people (most completely outside of the agricultural industry) as a solid investment. Farmland was purchased by investors and rented to farmers to work the land (50% of U.S. farmland is rented in this way). One of the key components of figuring out the value of the rents is the price of the commodities the land will produce. Investors bought the land and charged rents for farmers based on 2008 commodity prices, not anticipating the global financial meltdown. Of course, due to the recession, commodities prices are down. This creates an obvious problem for a lot of farmers, especially small farms.

So far, the recession hasn’t forced land prices down too far, based on the recent data from the USDA. The stronger dollar and lack of demand abroad has pushed prices for U.S. exports down, and hence, overall farm revenue. In other words, the land values are out of sync with the value of what the land produces—an obvious problem, with a number of parallels (think tech stocks and price to earnings ratios circa 1998, average home prices versus average household incomes circa 2005, etc.)

Of course, this is a problem—this kind of outside influence on the price of land hurts small farmers, especially those transitioning to sustainable and/or organic practices. At the end of the day, this kind of speculation raises food prices for everyone to the benefit of a few investors, encourages non-sustainable, short-term farming, will eventually lead to a collapse that will affect small farms disproportionately, not to mention consumers. The impact of agriculture is enormous, and touches each of us—we must, as citizens, demand that our governments do a better job at ensuring our agricultural viability.

What do we do about this? The government could financially fertilize programs like the First Time Farm Purchase Loan program (funded by the 2008 Farm Bill with a paltry $350 million), and other kinds of direct loans to farmers to purchase land. There should also be increased power for the FDA, working with the SEC, to regulate purchases of land by entities that will not be working the land. This agricultural “middle man” (the investors) only serves to raise food prices for the rest of us—taxing the hell out of renting farm land to farmers might be a way to encourage non-involved investors to stay out of the farmland business. Protecting vital and special resources like agricultural land should be a no-brainer—we’ve seen the damage bubbles can do to other, less important sectors of the economy, and we can ill afford this to happen to our food supply.

Shorter Pete Sessions: "Republicans ♥ Taliban"

My favorite Texas asshat, Pete Sessions, has reached a new height of asshattery.

Frustrated by a lack of bipartisan outreach from House Democratic leaders, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said today that the GOP should look to the Taliban for guidance in conveying its position on the stimulus package and, more broadly, in working to make the party's views on issues known. [...]

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," Sessions said during a meeting with Hotline editors. "And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes.

"And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Well then! He's not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. He's saying he hopes the Republican Party becomes the Taliban.

Republican leadership circa 2009 my friends! Does Sessions hope to become the American Bin Laden?

Republican War Fantasies

Mark Kirk, Republican congressional member from Illinois, continues in the tradition of wealthy Republicans thinking war is a fun diversion.

At a rally in DC last week, Illinois Republican Rep. Mark Kirk joined several other congressmen in supporting Israel’s actions in Gaza. According to JTA, Kirk said, “To misquote Shakespeare, something is rotten in Gaza and now it’s time to take out the trash.”

Republican leaders have watched too many war movies. First, "it's time to take out the trash." Really? You are seriously using that line? Second, like Bush with his flight suit and his Mission Accomplished banner, Kirk has no understanding of what war is like. He thinks its about good guys going in and kicking some bad guy ass.

It's no wonder Republicans get us into stupid poorly planned wars.

Gee, You're In an Unfortunately Ironic Position to be Using Illegal Immigrant Labor, Mr. Chertoff

It's pretty embarrassing when one of the top governmental positions in the fight against illegal immigration is caught employing illegal immigrants. (Of course, Chertoff blames the company, and the company blames the workers, while the workers have nobody to blame but get to fear for their livelihoods and families now.)

No doubt Chertoff will definitely face firing - after all, hiring illegal immigrants brings down potential cabinet members (even if the hiring wasn't illegal at the time), so it must bring down current members too, right?

The worst idea I've heard lately...

Let me lay out my biases right now: I hate for-profit colleges, almost (but not quite as much) as I hate for-profit hospitals. Now, an asshat that used to work for the University of Phoenix (you know, the for-profit, on-line college with no football team but a giant $455 million football stadium) has started a company to certify (for a fee) adjunct instructors for colleges (don't let the .org fool you, it's a for-profit company-- another way these asshats try to fool everyone).

InsideHigherEd reports that the cost for the adjunct seeking certification is $395, plus $75 a year for renewal. The program reeks of pop-psychological, self-help, pseudo-scientific bullshit-- the "Ten Core Competencies" and the like (ever notice how any given list of desiderata is always some nicely even or iconic number like 7, 10, 12 or 101? That's a big red flag right there...)

Adjunct faculty are already the most educated section of the working poor. Many adjuncts work for as little as $2,000 a course, with their course load being limited to 2 or 3 classes so the University can avoid paying health insurance benefits (yes, enlightened universities also abuse workers in the same way Wal-Mart does). Adjunct work is often hard to find, and many young academics take the jobs for the resume building, even though they could make more money working at a Starbucks. Preying on contingent faculty fears that they may not get renewed or get that first adjunct job is just sleazy, and that is exactly what this bullshit "certification" process is doing. If Universities want better adjuncts, they should pay better and provide support resources (mentoring, teaching development workshops, etc.) out of their own pocket-- not feeding their adjuncts into a for-profit clusterfuck that serves only to line the pockets of the company and make administrators think that they doing something worthwhile. We are dealing with people with Ph.D.'s and M.A.'s-- they don't need more classes from University of Phoenix ilk.

Tenured and tenure-track faculty actually have some power here. If we find out that our institutions are giving employment preference or requiring people to go through this kind of certification, we ought to be raising some serious hell. Our contingent bretheren deserve our support-- and to paraphrase John Bradford, "There, but for the grace of God, go us."