What if Mexicans Were Crack?

Jonah Goldberg had an interesting take on illegal immigrants this morning.

I'm having a hard time getting worked up about the illegal immigration issue. I'm opposed to amnesty and the President's position he claims is not amnesty. The problem seems simpler to me than people are making it out to be. We need not round them all up, and I don't think anyone is arguing this despite the President's and others' statements to the contrary. I think we just need to have the will to prevent more illegals from coming. This simply means making it harder for them to find work and harder for them to get anything from the government. This will deter more from coming, and perhaps cause illegals already here to leave willingly. We just don't have the will to crack down on employers or deny illegals welfare. The courts even entitle illegals to some things such as in Plyler v. Doe where the court claimed the 14th Amendment required that illegals could not be excluded from public schools. The logic of this equal protection argument can't be stopped at an entitlement just to education.

This is just nonsense. But as I said, for some reason the issue doesn't seem all that pressing to me. This may be changing, though, the more I see unassimilated illegals claiming entitlements to the Southeast or a life in America in general and all the generosity of Americans that entails.

NSA

Here's what Mark Steyn had to say about the phone records. He makes some interesting points about how this is surely less obtrusive than other information we willingling supply to the government, that people whine when the dots aren't connected but whine when someone tries to find the dots to begin with, and that so many people's records are being looked over because no one has the balls to simply go over the records of, say, people of Arab or Middle Eastern descent.

I hope you have checked your rage, Slaps. Like Mark Steyn, I also yield to nobody in my antipathy to government, but I am not seeing the danger here, at least not one outweighed by the prospect of catching terrorists in the US. The phone records are annonymous and a warrant is required to act on anything they find. One can imagine, hope even, the government is looking for calls to known terrorists or their supporters from yet unknowns or missing suspects. I just don't see the danger of the government using this type of information. Perhaps you could illustrate some scenarios that justify rage.

Now lets discuss the NSA

Soooooo...the NSA is now keeping track of domestic phone habits of American citizens? I didn't care before based on what I understood. But this, this pisses me off. If I had a land line phone I'd immediately switch to Qwest (the only company who didn't bow down to government assholes). And the defenses from "conservatives" are especially embarassing, almost boot licking. Grow some Goddamn backbone you cowards. This is idiotic policy and most assuredly illegal. I'm too pissed off about it to be constructive right now.

Re: The Darkness

I bought the new album pretty soon after it came out (sometime last fall I think) and at first I was kind of disapointed. But after listening to it a couple of times, I realized that while it was less hard rocking than the first album, it still was very good. It is essentially a breakup album. Most of the songs are about relationships with some exceptions (the opener is the required drug-related song and is hilarious). My favorite is "Girl with the Hazel Eyes." Maybe the change in direction is due to the loss of the bass player, I don't know but he did bring a distinctive style to the band (both musically and otherwise). His Southern Highway will be missed.

In other music-related news, a long time ago Nick reccomended RHCP's "Californication" as a good album. And finally, I get around to seconding him on that. I just recently listened to the whole album (like 5 times in a row) and will say that despite the radio overplay of about 1/3 of the songs it is indeed a very good complete album.

And another plug for Neil Young's (less) new album "Prairie Wind" and the concert movie that goes with it. Very enjoyable. And not crazy at all.

New Darkness Videos

I don't know how far behind on this I am, but here they are with syntheszier in tow. I've heard "Is It Just Me" on the radio. Damn my dial-up. I can't really watch the videos, but I can hear the rockin'. Don't know if this measures up to the debut or my expectations...

Plus Francis as gone. According to the website, "Francis departed The Darkness in May 2005 due to irreconcilable musical differences." I wonder if he objected to the stuff on the new album.

John Kenneth Galbraith, RIP

Well, maybe he shouldn't rest completely peacefully.

I failed to mention this the other day.

Here's what George Will had to say about the man's influence. Here is the WashPost obit.

More Steyn

This is funny stuff, Slaps. And this is even funnier.

Atlas Shrugged

The height thing is not a problem. Pitt would be alright for Galt. However, who would play Hank? Russell Crowe, perhaps? There just aren't many manly actors out there to choose from.

Best Record in Baseball!?!?

This can't last...

ZOMFG

I'm still not sure what to think about this, other than its obvious awfulness:

In 1989 and 1990, the House investigated allegations that members of Congress had sex in the gym’s nap rooms and took late-night skinny dips in its pool.

That's only part of it. Congress has their own fricken gym??? That's funded by taxpayers? Whatever. Something needs to be done about those freeloading waste of space bastards. I'm all fired up about that now.

And, and now somebody wants to remake Revenge of the Nerds? Christ, what's going on?? Why would you remake one of the most perfect movies to come out of the 80s (along with Robocop and Ghostbusters, among others)? Everybody involved in this is stupid.

Bert clearly doesn't have enough schoolwork

1. First of all, how many kids these days actually listen to Neil Young? I meant his music but his crazy rants count too I guess. Anyway, Prairie Wind was a great album and Demme's movie (it might still be at an arthouse theater near you) was very well done. And it had Emmylou Harris (who has a new album out with Mark Knopfer?!?) . Anyway, the point is that Neil has always had crazy things to say but I think he's pretty well ignored by most. But I still like his music and will try to catch CSNY in C-Bus in September. Everyone (except Jarrod, who is musically challenged) should come.

2. I can't decide if Steyn is funny or just a pretentious ass. Still up in the air on him.

3. Personally, I've always thought Brad Pitt should be John Galt. Except there aren't enough tall actors for an Atlas Shrugged movie. Everyone in the book was at least 6'5" or something ridiculous.

4. Can Epstein EVER be wrong? He's so dreamy....

Vioxx nonsense

I'm pretty sure this will be the only time I ever recommend a Sebastian Mallaby editorial, but he gets the Vioxx lawsuit nonsense right.

Richard Epstein had a good op-ed in the Wall Street Journal when the first verdict was handed down in Texas. If ever there was evidence for tort reform, this is it. How many baseless $20+ million lawsuits can a company take?

Woo Hoo!!!!!!!

The Reds move into 1st place with a win over the Astros!

Atlas Shrugged on the Big Screen?

It might be in the works according to Variety. Rumor has it Rand fans Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt might star as Dagny Taggart and John Galt.

The book has been considered in the past but never made it to the screen. Apparently there was a planned remake of The Fountainhead at one point. Oliver Stone was slated to direct that. I'm glad that didn't pan out. What would that communist be doing near Ayn Rand? Pitt had expressed interest in playing Howard Roark.

I'm skeptical that anyone in Hollywood would do this movie well especially after having recently watched the Bonfire of the Vanities. Such a great book so horribly filmed and cast for that matter.

our enemies cannot do a damned thing...

...according to Iran's President Ahmadinejad.

It's been a while since I've shared some Mark Steyn. He had this to say about the West's reaction to Ahmadinejad's announcements of nuclear tech gains:

You know what's great fun to do if you're on, say, a flight from Chicago to New York and you're getting a little bored? Why not play being President Ahmadinejad? Stand up and yell in a loud voice, "I've got a bomb!" Next thing you know the air marshal will be telling people, "It's OK, folks. Nothing to worry about. He hasn't got a bomb." And then the second marshal would say, "And even if he did have a bomb it's highly unlikely he'd ever use it." And then you threaten to kill the two Jews in row 12 and the stewardess says, "Relax, everyone. That's just a harmless rhetorical flourish." And then a group of passengers in rows 4 to 7 point out, "Yes, but it's entirely reasonable of him to have a bomb given the threatening behavior of the marshals and the cabin crew."

Funny, but not. Steyn also had an important piece in City Journal about Iran.

From "Let's Roll" to...

..."wait, I didn't really mean it."

Neil Young's new album "Living with War" is getting much attention mostly for the song "Let's Impeach the President". It's not exactly original. Think Ted Kennedy put to music. A sample:

Let’s impeach the president for lying
And leading our country into war
Abusing all the power that we gave him
And shipping all our money out the door
He’s the man who hired all the criminals
The White House shadows who hide behind closed doors
And bend the facts to fit with their new stories
Of why we have to send our men to war
Let’s impeach the president for spying
On citizens inside their own homes
Breaking every law in the country
By tapping our computers and telephones
What if Al Qaeda blew up the levees
Would New Orleans have been safer that way
Sheltered by our government’s protection
Or was someone just not home that day?
Let’s impeach the president
For hijacking our religion and using it to get elected
Dividing our country into colors
And still leaving black people neglected
Thank god he’s cracking down on steroids
Since he sold his old baseball team
There’s a lot of people looking at big trouble
But of course the president is clean
Thank God

As the erudite reviewer for Fox News said, "Living with War" promises to be an "extraordinary and eye opening new recording..." and "many parents are going to be hearing their kids singing [Let's Impeach the President] in the next few days."

Well...not exactly...

Freedom isn't free?

Here's a interesting op/ed I came across today by some cool lookin' dude with the equally cool name Crispin Sartwell. The money lines:

We want the government to guarantee our health, deflect hurricanes, educate our children and license us to drive; we want to be told what to eat, what to smoke and whom to marry. We are justly proud of the fact that no enduring society has ever incarcerated more of its people. Noting that the policeman has a pistol, a club, a stun gun, a can of pepper spray and a database that includes us, we feel happy and secure.

Our submission is absolute: We want to be operated like puppets and provided for like pets.

The terrorists hate our freedom. But we should be comfortable with that. We hate our freedom, too.

OMFGWTFBBQ!!!

In case you haven't heard, the NFL owners voted to curtail endzone celebrations. As near as I can tell, players can still spike the ball or dunk it, but can't use props. And also, they have to stay on their feet. I've come across two reasons for this vote, and they are both mind-bogglingly stupid. The first arguement is that they consume too much time, making the game longer. All the commercial breaks and Joe Thiesman idiocies are OK, but not endzone celebrations. This is so flagrantly and insultingly moronic that I can't even think straight. I've tried to see the logic here, but I can't.

The other reason I've come across is that children playing football are emulating football players. So the fuck what? Is it suddenly the NFL's responsibility to raise children? You're a bunch of god damn entertainers for christ's sweet sake. No one, absolutely no one, watches NFL for child raising tips. Any parent that tells his child to watch T.O. or Chad Johnson and do what they do deserves to be put to death. While the kid watches. Cuz I think that'll teach the kid a lesson...about something.

At any rate, I don't really know where the NFL gets off pulling this crap. Especially because so many people are paying ridiculously high prices just to get into a game (note the average price of an NFL ticket in 2003 was $52). If I'm gonna fork out fifty-plus bucks to see a football game, I want to be entertained. (Also, note that that the league of fans isn't a superhero club, but something completely different and founded by Ralph Nader.) Half the reason people watch games is to see what whacky, zany celebration Johnson or Smith or T.O. will come up with next. Said Tony Dungee after the vote (which he voted FOR curtailing celebrations) "I'm looking forward to seeing what Chad will come to celebrate with now." You shithead. You absolute shithead. From now on, anyone who says what a great guy Dungee is gets kicked in the nuts. No questions asked. And that goes double for girls. Right in the nuts. That's right. And it's sad because I like Peyton. But now I have to hope the Colts lose every single game this season on account of Tony Dungee is a gigantic ass.

Worst movie ever

I'm not sure, but this might be the worst thing ever made. Not sure who allowed the wayans to make a movie after white chicks, but they should be shot. Near as I can tell, a midget steals a diamond and pretends to be a baby to get it back. Also, the wife has sex with what I am assuming she thinks is a baby. But I'll probably never know as I don't think I'll be catching this one.

commish

The point was more that the government seems to be more obviously sticking it's nose where it is neither wanted or warranted. Senators don't need to be getting involved with baseball, T.O. drama (happened), etc. I shudder to think the fiasco that would have resulted with baseball had an ex-secretary been commish. Bad enough the government forces itself into such issues without having one of their own hold the door open.

Commissioner

Condi would not have to decline. The article was quoting her spokesman saying she would decline if the position were offered.

Your complaint that her having been Secretary of State would somehow be detrimental does not stand up, I think. Commissioner is a highly political job (not in the sense of dealing with government though it can be that too as you point out with baseball), and it requires political skills. Baseball's great, and first, commissioner was a Federal Judge. Many politicians have been involved in sports.

I agree that Congress should stay out of baseball, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with Condi. I might have to object on the grounds she is Browns fan, however.

The War

I have ignored the War on Terrorism lately. No doubt many other people have as well. Perhaps we are lulled into some complacency by the war's distance from us, the lack of attacks on us at home. This could explain sagging support for the war in Iraq. Attacks continue abroad, however. Europe, even, is starting to awaken to the problem of Islamism and its own hostile Muslim population.

I have recently been reminded of the War that continues, and will continue for some time, by some articles by conservatism's heaviest hitters, Bill Buckley and George Will and by the President's seeming reinvigoration today. Buckley and Will, although never on board completely with the President, have recently been more vocal in their criticims of the administration's direction of the war, here and here. Here and here are their follow-ups containing advice to the President. The President has been failing politically and rhetorically. Hopefully today's joust is a sign of more to come from the White House, more substance and campaigning to the public. It is needed because, as Mark Steyn points out in response to criticims conservative and otherwise, no one is providing an alternative course to the present one except surrender. I agree with conservative critics who say the President is overly idealistic about the prospects of democracy in the Arab world, but we must decide what our more realistic goals are. This likely involves years of fighting, and in the meantime establishing much better world-wide intelligence to stamp out terrorists before much harm is done. Thus, the end goal is not so tangible, but rather a process that makes organized terrorism more difficult and less attractive politically.

For a positive take on the war look here. This article argues that Jihad has failed in Iraq because there is no strategy other than terror. "The lack of a viable political program crippled the insurgency. Mao’s theory of people’s war,which formed the basis of every successful revolutionary movement of the late 20th century, emphasizes a struggle’s political aspect over the military. A successful insurgency cultivates and holds on to popular support, as occurred in Algeria and Vietnam. Similar efforts were conspicuous in Iraq by their absence."

This take underscores the importance of the Media in the US. If we are winning, according to the Media we are not, we must recognize it. The mainstream media is reflexively anti-war and negative, and this has an impact on public opinion. They simply refuse to report, or at least seek out, news that might conflict with their view, which often seems like an agenda. Imagine the media's response should we need to strike in Iran.

The War will continue in Iraq and elsewhere. We must have the will to fight it. Disengagement is not an option, for the war was brought to us despite lefty accusations of war-mongering. This is why it is good that the administration has returned to the theme of the "Long War". Despite cries of about Bush's lies, a short, clean victory was not promised. What the President needs to do is summon again the American people and explain this reality. If he does not sell it to us, we will not--barring another attack at home--have the fortitude to do what is necessary when and if more is required. The President is probably right that the Middle East needs to change politically. He is just overly optimistic about how this will come about. This in turn encourages the public expectations of quick solutions.

Condi Rice is a Browns fan

You heard it here first. I heard it here. Also, she would have to decline the job of commisioner were it offered to her. Oh, Condi....

On a more serious note, I think this might be the most terrible proposition I have ever heard. Bad enough Congress is dipping its dangle in baseball. I don't want to think about what an ex-secretary of state would do to football and I don't give a good god damn what Kraft thinks.

Re: Oscars

I didn't watch much of the show, but I thought Jon Stewart was good where I saw him. It was nice to see that *someone* at the Oscars wasn't taking it too seriously.

I will mention one thing--during the montage to "the Big Screen," where the message was presumably that seeing a movie in a theater is an ennobling experience, as opposed to watching it at home on DVD, which is dirty and whorish, the actor reading the card stumbled over his line, as if he recognized the bullshit coming out of his mouth the instant he said it. It was telling. Hollywood can keep on saying to us that movies are better in a theater, but, you know as they say, folks vote with their dollars...

I didn't see Brokeback, but I wanted to. I did see Capote, and it was an excellent movie. It really grinds me to see certain writers and commentators (most of them conservative) lash out against this crop of movies in such a brazen, uninformed way (such as Coulter, but she is far from the only one). Given, Hollywood is full of itself, and the movies this year do strike me as particularly agenda-driven. But Capote, and I would venture to say all of these movies, deserve better than the already stale one-liners about gays, racism, homophobia, etc.

In specific reference to Capote: this film had no agenda, beyond the usuals of making money, and the more rare objective of telling a good story. I dare anyone to tell me Capote was a polemic on the death penalty. Truman Capote is reported to have been fervently anti-death penalty, but the movie remains ambiguous and at the same time honest. Capote wanted these men to die so he could finish his story. In "In Cold Blood," he takes pains to draw out the two killers, examine their childhoods and examine how they became they way they were. But he never lets the reader forget about the family they killed. Near the end of the book he revisits the killings in great detail. The triumph of the book is that Capote enables you to sympathize with the killers and yet keep their crime firmly in mind, recognizing that death is perhaps the only appropriate end for these men.

The movie has a somewhat different angle, as it focuses on Capote's own devotion to his nonfiction novel, and the lengths he would go to in order to finish it. Yes, Capote was gay, but that actually plays very little into the central conflict. At one point in the movie, Capote himself uses his broken childhood to get closer to one of the killers to get his story. My point remains: this movie deserves better than dismissive one-liners. I can't speak for the others, but this one deserved a spot in the top 5 movies of the year.

Oscars

I was suprised at how many of the movies I had seen and a little less suprised that I had seen almost none of the movies that were up for the main awards. None of which I had any real desire to see.

While the popularity of the films isn't always indicative of their value. I am skeptical of this year's "top" films. As I have not seen them, I will not be as harsh as Ann Coulter was.

If the questionable "top" films didn't give pause to the Academy one would think the choice of best song, "It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp", might embarrass them, but alas...

The only movie of the year I didn't see that I might is A History of Violence.

I will say that I thought Million Dollar Baby was very good despite the women boxing. So see that when you can, Kris. War of the Worlds and, more notably, The Constant Gardener were pretty bad. I would've taken Corpse Bride over Wallace and Gromit although both were pretty good despite the anti-killing animals theme of W&G.

Pride and Prejudice was tolerable but not as good as the one with Colin Firth. Kiera Knightley was pretty good and hot, but she was wrong for the part. Donald Sutherland turned in a good albeit minor-part performance, and the guy that played Darcy did well.

Other noteworthy mentions in my book were, Walk the Line, Chronicles of Narnia, Harry Potter of course, Batman Begins, and even Cinderella Man in that hokey, wholesome Hollywood-of-old way. It seems I have chosen the less "serious" films. Perhaps Hollywood should take itself less seriously.

The Oscars last night

What else needs to be said about last night? Other than BORING, of course. And totally predictable. I didn't see Crash (or Million Dollar Baby for that matter) and I'm wondering if it is at all worthwhile. John and I did see Brokeback Mountain and likely have differing opinions on it. It did have great music, so I'm glad it won for best original score. Jon Stewart was OK as host. I though Chris Rock was funnier last year; apparently the general consensus is that Rock bombed last year. Anyway, thats about it for that.

So about this wiretapping business....Is it really any different than when Clinton had FBI files in the White House? I mean, I'm having a hard time getting worked up about this at all. It just seems to be something common from administration to administration (regardless of party). I can see both sides of the argument (I think) where one (the White House and supporters) claim they have the power already under the Constitution and it is a necessary power to wage war. The other side (contrary to what the conservative pundits would have you believe) is composed of all sorts, including Richard Epstein, who is one of the smartest Constiutionalists/Federalists out there. This side is claiming that the wiretapping power is only available after securing a warrant from a FISA judge. Which is not unreasonable. Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong. But I still don't care all that much about it.

Harry Browne dead at 72

Former Libertarian Party Presidential candidate and spokesman Harry Browne has died. I voted for him twice. RIP.

Harvard, science and stuff

On the Summers' resignation and the role of gov't in science:

Summers merely pointed out at a faculty meeting that maybe, just maybe, the reason there aren't as many women as men in the sciences is because there are fundamental differences between men and women. Apparently, Harvard faculty chose to close their eyes, ignore the research and cling to the belief that women are discriminated against in science. They demanded an apology from Summers for citing some research which might indicate their deeply held personal beliefs were incorrect. What a bunch of idiots.

Second, since the majority of research money comes from the gov't, why shouldn't it dictate or regulate where and to whom that money goes? It already does with the current NIH review system, which is why some projects get funded and others don't. I don't know if this is the best system for funding public research; another option is one in which every project gets funded (regardless of rationale, success rates, etc).

Finally, why is research into genetic differences between men, women and analytical reasoning faculties not worthwhile science? It seems to me that is a fascinating area with the potential to explain how human brains work with regard to the ability to reason. Sure it's obvious that there are difference between men and women but no one knows why some are Stephen Hawkings and Einsteins while others are Britney Spears (to look at the extremes).

Re: Bad News

Pretty sure I don't need science to tell me that women's brains aren't as analytically and rationally programmed as men's (hence their lesser numbers in science fields). I'm also fairly certain that political currents have no place in science and that it's not the government's job to regulate scientific research. But whatever.

NSA Surveillance

The question of the President's Article II power aside, Sen. Feinstein's position that such a power can be bound by FISA or any other legislation seems self-evidently wrong. If the President has the Constitutional authority, Congress cannot change the fact.

The President has some recent precedent on his side. In 2002, the three judges of the FISA Court of Review addressed the issue in In re: Sealed Case. The FISA courts had been impeding the Justice Department's initiation of new policies concerning the Patriot Act, i.e. tearing down "the wall" between intelligence officials and criminal investigators erected by the Clinton Justice Department. The Court of Review ruled in favor of the administration as the FISA courts had no grounds upon which to direct internal Justice Dept. policy. Basically, the FISA courts were exceeding their constitutional bounds. They had no constitutional authority to direct the executive branch nor did Congress. The Court went on to refer to an older case, Truong, stating, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information... FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." The Supreme Court refused to take the case.

It is also interesting to note that the New York Times sat on the story for a year. Its release was conveniently timed with debate over the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and the release of a Times' reporter's anti-administration book, one topic of which was "domestic spying". Further, members of Congress had been alerted to the program multiple times and voiced no concern. Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said she had been briefed on the program since 2003 and thought it was "essential to US national security." When the Times finally ran the story and the "scandal" hubbub began, Harman changed her tune.

There was plenty of media outcry about the arguably less dangerous Valerie Plame leak. What is not getting much play in the media is the danger caused or that could be caused by leaks about the NSA program. Hmm... I wonder why...

Bad news...

...Larry Summers, former Clinton administration official, has resigned as Harvard President. The general consensus is that Harvard's feminists have succeeded in pushing him out. Here is an article pointing out the threat to academic freedom especially in scientific endeavor into the difference in male and female biology and brain function.

Here....

Sorry I couldn't just paste the link; I got this from a subscription database on campus.
----------------------------------


Knight Ridder Washington Bureau (via Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service) Jan 23, 2006 pNA
Presidential power a key issue in debate over eavesdropping. Byline: Ron Hutcheson


WASHINGTON _ The dispute over President Bush's domestic spying program hinges on the same tough question that vexed the nation's founders: How much power does a president have?
Bush and his legal advisers argue that the Constitution and federal law give him the right to authorize domestic eavesdropping without a warrant from a court or specific approval from Congress. The electronic surveillance, conducted by the super-secret National Security Agency, is aimed at communications between the United States and suspected terrorists overseas.
Bush's critics, citing the same legal sources, charge that he exceeded his legal and constitutional authority and could be impeached for breaking the law.
Here's a look at the legal underpinnings of the controversy:

THE CONSTITUTION
The foundation for Bush's view of his authority is Article II of the Constitution, which says "the president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."
No one disputes that the president has broad power to protect the nation in wartime or that he's the civilian boss of the military, but there's sharp disagreement over the extent of presidential authority. Bush says the constitutional clause empowers him to use any and all available tools _ including electronic surveillance _ to guard against terrorist attacks.

"My most important job is to protect the security of the American people," the president said Monday at Kansas State University. "What I'm telling you is we're using all assets at our disposal to protect you in a different kind of war."

The Constitution is a carefully constructed system of checks and balances, many of which are intended to limit presidential power.

For example, it gives Congress _ not the president _ the power to declare war, "to raise and support armies," to maintain a navy and to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."
The Fourth Amendment guarantees people the right to be secure from "unreasonable searches and seizures." No court shall issue a search warrant, it says, except upon a showing that there's "probable cause" to think that a law is being broken and the warrant seeker describes the specific place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.

Critics say Bush's assertion of power recognizes no limits to his authority so long as he's acting to protect America from harm.

Previous Supreme Court rulings also check presidential authority.

In 1952, the court blocked President Harry S Truman's plan to take over the steel industry during the Korean War. The court rejected Truman's assertion that his role as commander in chief gave him the power to avert a labor strike that might disrupt war supplies.

In 2004, the court directly challenged Bush's sweeping claim of wartime powers in the fight against terrorism. The justices agreed that Bush could detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, but said he couldn't deny the captives access to the courts.

"We have long since made it clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote.

FEDERAL LAW

Bush and his advisers contend that Congress "confirmed and supplemented" the president's constitutional power by authorizing the use of force against terrorists three days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Lawmakers authorized the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons" involved in the attacks.

In a recent 42-page statement on the eavesdropping issue, the Bush Justice Department contended that the congressional resolution, coupled with the president's authority as commander in chief, "places the president at the zenith of his powers" to wage war.

"Electronic surveillance is a fundamental tool of war that must be included in any natural reading of the (resolution's) authorization to use `all necessary and appropriate force,'" the Justice Department contended.
Bush's critics say employing the use-of-force resolution to justify domestic surveillance is a stretch.

"It does not authorize the president to do anything other than use force. It doesn't say he can wiretap people in the United States," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

The critics charge that Bush's approach violates the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Congress passed that act in response to abuses of power during the Nixon administration that included electronic surveillance of the president's political opponents and critics in the news media.

The law also was intended to plug a gap in the legal framework that governs federal eavesdropping. The government has wide latitude to spy overseas for national security, but domestic eavesdropping is far more sensitive.

FISA asserts that electronic surveillance within the United States requires court oversight to avoid running afoul of the prohibition against unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment.

FISA established a special court to deal with secret intelligence investigations, and requires warrants for electronic surveillance in cases that involve national security. If government agents need to move quickly, they're permitted to act first and then have up to three days to get court warrants.

FISA makes it a crime to engage in electronic surveillance outside the statute's framework, unless another law authorizes it.

Bush advisers say technological advances and the unique nature of the war on terrorism made the FISA warrant procedure unworkable. They say they considered asking Congress to update the law, but decided against it to avoid possible disclosure of the government's intelligence-gathering techniques.

They contend that the congressional use-of-force resolution and the president's constitutional power as commander in chief override FISA.

"It would be unreasonable and wholly impractical to demand that Congress specifically amend FISA in order to assist the president in defending the nation," the Justice Department said.

But the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress, concluded in a report Jan. 5 that the administration's legal justification "does not seem to be as well-grounded" as Bush's advisers claim.
The report also questioned the notion that Bush could simply ignore FISA.

"It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations ... ," it said.

"While courts have generally accepted that the president has the power to conduct domestic electronic surveillance within the United States inside the constraints of the Fourth Amendment, no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power."

Administration officials say they can bypass FISA and use a lower legal standard than the act requires and than the language in the Fourth Amendment calls for in deciding when to eavesdrop. FISA requires federal agents to demonstrate that there's "probable cause" in order to get an eavesdropping warrant, the same language used in the amendment. The National Security Agency, acting without court oversight, says it engages in electronic surveillance if it considers the eavesdropping "reasonable."

"The trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant, but the intrusion into privacy is also limited: only international calls and only those we have a reasonable basis to believe involve al-Qaida or one of its affiliates," Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, one architect of the eavesdropping, said Monday at the National Press Club.

Bush's critics charge that the administration's position is an unprecedented power grab that calls into question the president's commitment to rule of law.

"Congress established the FISA court precisely to be a check on executive power to wiretap," former Vice President Al Gore charged last week.

"FISA does not contain a provision allowing the president to waive its application," Feinstein said. "If the law needed changing, we could have done so."

Senate hearings on the issue are scheduled for next month. Civil liberties groups have sued seeking to shut down the eavesdropping program. Bush says he won't back down.

___
To learn more online:
For the Congressional Research Service report, go to www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf
For President Bush's remarks Monday and other information on his position, go to www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity
For the American Civil Liberties Union's view, go to www.aclu.org
For a white paper from the Justice Department on the NSA's eavesdropping, go to www.realcities.com/multimedia/nationalchannel/news/KRT(underline)Packages/archive/krwashington/NSA-White-paper.pdf
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is at www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articleiv
Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, on the president's role as commander in chief is at www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section2

Johnny...

...you're missing out on the gay cowboy craze. Now Willie Nelson's even in the mix.

As the great Waylon Jennings sang, "I don't think Hank done it this way".

Warning..

...The Bork review I posted yesterday is not that great. (I posted it before I finished it. All apologies. I'm a little suprised since it was in The New Criterion.)

Mark Steyn, however, remains fantastic (he also writes for the New Criterion as it turns out).

The cure...

...for the Supreme Court's jurisprudence that ails me: Bork's review of Breyer's Book and Mark Steyn's latest. A sample:

From Europe's biggest-selling newspaper, the Sun: ''Furious Muslims have blasted adult shop [i.e., sex shop] Ann Summers for selling a blowup male doll called Mustafa Shag."

Not literally "blasted" in the Danish Embassy sense, or at least not yet. Quite how Britain's Muslim Association found out about Mustafa Shag in order to be offended by him is not clear. It may be that there was some confusion: given that "blowup males" are one of Islam's leading exports, perhaps some believers went along expecting to find Ahmed and Walid modeling the new line of Semtex belts. Instead, they were confronted by just another filthy infidel sex gag. The Muslim Association's complaint, needless to say, is that the sex toy "insults the Prophet Muhammad -- who also has the title al-Mustapha.''

(ok, so this one's not about jurisprudence, but laughter, they say, is the best medicine.)

Hollywood 'resists gay US actors'...

...according to Ian McKellen. Needless to say, Sir Ian would not...

Apparently...

...the VP has been shooting at the elderly. One way to solve the Social Security problem I guess.

A light in the darkness

There is one man with some sense in our once-august legislative branch.

Sorry I haven't gotten to the Oregon case. I just can't work up the will. Reading Supreme Court cases is bad for my health as well.

Eric:

I don't know enough about what the heck is going on with the NSA-spying-4th amendment stuff to make a comment. Is there anything short and easy to read (and objective) to catch me up?

When the Superbowl is not at all super

First, let me say I had no personal investment in the Superbowl this year. I don't care about Pittsburgh or Seattle as teams. I do like individual players on each team, notably Troy Polamalu (crazy -silly hair, ridiculous second year player), "Fast Willie" Parker (first year RB, pretty good as well) and of course Shawn Alexander. He's just so happy. All the time. So I really didn't care who won. Seeing both teams sporadically throughout the season, Seattle seemed to have the stonger offense and Pittsburgh the better defense. I picked Seattle as 7 point favorites while still respecting the fact that both were pretty good teams.
First, the good. There were some funny commercials, my favorite being the Bud Light "magic fridge." You can watch them all here. I hate Bud Light. It is one of my most unfavorite beers. I will NEVER drink it unless there is nothing else to drink. That being said, they had the best commercials this year.
Next, the bad. What an awful game. And by awful game I mean officiating. First, D-Jac's TD catch as offensive pass interference? Maybe. Maybe I'll take that. But, and thats a big BUT, you need to watch both teams awfully careful if you want to call that kind of penalty. Which the refs did not do. Are you telling me Pitt receivers didn't make those same weak-ass push offs? Then you are either stupid or a liar. But I can accept that as a call, because it's hard to tell what exactly is "pass interference" (only slightly less vague than "football move").
Second, and this is totally ridiculous, is the call on Roethlisberger's "touchdown." I submit to you the worst officiating I have ever seen with that play. That clearly was not a touchdown. In no way. And Big Ben knew it, the asshole. You saw him throw his arm with the ball over the line AFTER he was down. He knew it and he was flat out cheating. But I don't blame the player, because I'm sure a Seattle player in a similar situation would have done the same thing. However, one reason there are supposed to be impartial officials is to take care of situations like this. Clearly the ref was either stupid, blind or pursuing an agenda.
Third, a relatively minor point. Hasselbeck throws an interception. Great. Sucks for him. The interceptor manages to run back to Hasselbeck where he tackled by Hasselbeck. Again, great. But wait, the ref calls a penalty! On Seattle? OK. On Hasselbeck? For a low block?? A LOW BLOCK??? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?????? There was nothing wrong with the block. There was something more sinister afoot.
What I mean to say is, from the start, Pittsburgh was going to win. And apparently if that means the refs had to cheat in order to allow that then so be it.
Further, I think it was a conspiracy (by whom I'm not sure) that was hatched even before the Superbowl itself. Think about Vanderjagt's missed FG at the end of the that playoff game. Did he really miss it? Or was is intentional. How could such an accurate kicker miss one of the most important kicks of his career? His contract with the Colts is up this year....Just something to think about.

Cross-posted at Let's disco dance, Hammurabi!

Nick

I'm sorry for ever arguing with you about the nfl. I'm pretty sure Vince McMahon scripted that superbowl last night. I was waiting for the lights to go out and the loudspeaker to blare "DO YOU SMELL WHAT THE ROCK IS COOKING?" and then HHH would pedegree the rock and maybe hit jerome bettis with a bench. Awful, awful, awful game. Those were superbowl caliber refs? Really? I'm not sure I can bring myself to watch a game next year. If I were a pitts player, I would have run off the field and hid under a hooded sweatshirt until I was safely out of Detroit. Maybe that was payback for the Polamalu call against indy? If so, it seems excessive. I think Bill Leavy should've gotten the MVP. This is one of the few times I can think of that consistently awful officiating has affected the outcome of a game. I'm just gonna go ahead and assume it was the nfl saying "here jerome, win a superbowl in your hometown. you just show up, get about 37 yards and we will do the rest."

Awful.

Constitution....

I've got something. Since this seems to be the constituional scholarship blog, It's funny nobody has a take on the King George v. Fourth Amendment case. I'm sure my seething outrage is completely sentimental and seditious and pro-terrorist...in a word...liberal, but I just wondered what Scalia and DeTocqueville would say about it.

2008!

Well that makes sense since, and I quote: "Contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a Chucktatorship." Also, Mr. T will be his running mate since we know they are friends: "Chuck Norris and Mr. T walked into a bar. The bar was instantly destroyed, as that level of awesome cannot be contained in one building." You know the source.

2008?

I may have to throw my support behind Chuck Norris for 2008. He's got a good plan, I'm sure.

unreal

So...
no one has anything...not even after that ludicrous speech GWB spat at the nation? Nothing?

Chuck Norris is Mighty

Chuck Norris sleeps with a night-light. Not because Chuck Norris is afraid of the dark, but because the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris.

What would Chuck Norris do?

Everything you ever needed to know about Chuck Norris. Ever.

Supreme Court pretty confused about.....things

So now the Supreme Court totally reverses its stance on federalism with the Oregon assisted suicide decision? Thomas' dissent is dead on, Scalia is right but where was he for Raich? Bein' a bitch, thats what. Decision and dissents can be found here (need Adobe Acrobat)

Somebody give me an explanation. Mister lawyer Bert, I'm looking in your direction.

(edited to add a title)

This may be embarassing...

...but I don't care. I can't get that damn new Madonna song "Hung Up" out of my head. I really like that song. I dropped the $.99 to download it from itunes and have been listening to it constantly. I highly recommend it if you haven't heard it already. I will listen to it twice on my way home from work. At least twice.

As for football, I want a NE-Wash SB. That would be the ultimate borefest punishment for Nick. Also Clinton Portis is the best person ever. Not just in football, but EVER.

Football

Yeah,
While I agree that Palmer's injury hurt the Bungles, I still don't think they win that game. They just don't have a playoff caliber defense. They are like the Colts of years past: offensively dynamic and defensively inferior, not a good playoff team. While it's possible to win with a very good defense and mediocre offense( a la 85 bears, 00 Ravens), the opposite just doesn't happen.
That being said, I think you are about done watching New England for the year. I'm rootin for Mike Anderson and Tatum Bell to run all over the Brusci love fest and lead Denver to its first playoff win since Elway left (providing, of course that Plummer doesn't do stupid things like throw four picks). I also think that if either Seattle or Indy is gonna lose, this will be the week. If they both win this week, that's your Super Bowl. But they are both playing the only teams I see in their respective conferences that will beat them at home (Den might be able to beat Indy if it were this week since I think Indy will be a little rusty, but next week...no way).

On another note, I think you have to throw in college football as being nearly as terrible as pro football. After watching a few bowl games, I wanted to puke on myself listening to the announcers verbal overgratification of almost every player - "Oh, he's such a great athlete and so smart. What an asset to his community. Blah blah blah. Here Mr. College football player/coach, let me put your penis in my mouth for a while." Terrible. Just terrible. You'd think that every D1 player was a heisman candidate. They are ALL definately going pro. Definately. And they are so smart - 3.3 GPA in their physical education classes. Gimme a break.

Re: Who Dey?

C'mon John, be fair. Yes, your prediction came true, but it took Palmer going down on the second play and a few other injuries on the path to fruition. And for the first half it even looked like the Kitna-led Bengals might pull it out.

In either case, it's all for naught. The Steelers aren't getting past the next game. And the Patriots still = most boring team to watch, hands down. If I have to hear anything more about Tedy Bruschi inspiring the Patriot defense, I'mma commit seppuku by eating a frisbee.

Who Dey?

The Steelers???!?!?

The Bengals

Admittedly, I'm a little disappointed in the Bengals. They had nothing to play for the last two weeks, however. I look for them to give Pittsburg a game again.

New England is the team to look out for. I wouldn't be suprised if they won it again.

If you haven't heard...

Lynn Swann is running for governor of PA.

Who Dey?

Was that Bootsy Collins playing defense for the Bungles against KC? Holy God what a streak they are on....fallin to Bills, gettin blown out of the water by KC. Bert, your the Bungles authority...were they tryin to lose on purpose in hopes of not facing Pitts in the first round (N.E. win would have seeded Cincy 4th and Jax as an opponant)? What a bunch of hosers. One and done. Bungles once more.
Also, watch out for those Redskins! Cooley-tastic!

Tman

The purpose of the divorce stastics was in refute to your post (some of which I include below for your reference). A nation with a high divorce rate hardly seems to be "an image of order and peace" nor would high divorce suggest to me that there is a significant emphasis of any sort on the concept of a family in this country. Maybe things changed since Tocqueville made his assertations (in what 1850?), but it would seem, stastically at least, that America is no better than or worse than most European countries today as far as staying together. I mean, read what you wrote in quotation of Tokie (as I will lovingly refer to him from here on out) about European countries. How is a nation with high divorce rate not "full of 'fluctuating desire', 'restlessness of heart', and 'agitated by tumultuous passions'"?
A homosexual couple can instill proper values just as well as, if not better than, a divorced heterosexual couple. Would you advocate the prohibition of divorce for sake of family stability and moral fortitude? If, as you say, "The creation of a good, upright citizenry is best done through the influence of traditional family life" it would seem that divorce should be at least as reprehensible as gay marriage (assuming you can prove that gay marriage is somehow deterimental to the moral development of an individual...which you haven't yet).
Hence the need to base laws on more than just tradition. The "Traditional American Family" is not the institution it once was. To make a law prohibiting something like homosexual marriage because it is abhorrent to the "Traditional American Family (TAF)" first requires you to define the TAF. Then, if you're being reasonable, you can't pick and choose which aspects detrimental to the TAF are acceptable and which aren't (such as allowing divorce while not allowing gay marriage - and I am still not sold that gay marriage will collapse society like you claim). So, for the sake of arguement, if you want to keep this going, define what you mean by TAF (and dno't put something stupid like a man, his wife and their kids." That doesn't explain where the proper moral development comes from or how it results in good, upright citizenry). That way, maybe we can get somewhere.


"In a free society, such as in America, the primary organizing and stabilizing factor is the family. Alexis de Tocqueville, an astute French observer of American life, notes in his book, Democracy in America, that “There is no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America. In Europe, almost all the disturbances of society arise from irregularities in domestic life.” He goes on to call the American family “an image of order and peace” as well as the device in which the American man moderates his opinions and tastes. In other words, a nation which produces strong families is likely to also produce effective governments. Tocqueville laments the lack of such family life in his home country, which he describes as full of “fluctuating desire”, “restlessness of heart”, and “agitated by tumultuous passions.” The moderation of American thinking and public service Tocqueville, at least partially, attributes to the strength and tradition of the American family.

The recognition of civil unions between two men or two women would inevitably lead to the decline of the American family as it has been understood since the inception of our nation. Without the moral and sensible regulation the family brings to life, America could drift into an era of moral disintegration, social agitation, and political extremism. The creation of a good, upright citizenry is best done through the influence of traditional family life."

Tocqueville

I have no idea why you reference divorce rates, or how that correlates to what I was trying to convey. If you were trying to say that divorce is more detrimental to soceity than homosexual unions, then I think that makes sense, but other than that, divorce rates are irrelevant. As a sidebar, since you pointed it out, divorce rates in the church run roughly the same as divorce rates in secular society. It has always been thus. But, unless you are trying to indict Christian society or make some broader point about possible church hypocrisy, I fail to see the relation to my post.

Additionally, I didn't cite Tocqueville for the fun of it. I reference him because he has an acute understanding about the nature of American society, which I was contrasting with European sentiments. I do not understand which passages you refer to in Plato or Aristotle, or what relevance they have to the discussion.

Well, of course law is based upon reason. Whoever said it wasn't? And it is exactly Reason that has created legal tradition. Now, other factors go into it as well, but your attempt to seperate legal tradition from "reason", which by what you must mean is contemporary thought, is nonsensical. Otherwise, one would have to stick his digits into the wind to chart a legal course. I am sure you would prefer thumbing through old English property law books instead.

Tocquevile...

Funny how you would reference a foreign look into American marriage and use the words he did about success and strength of marriage in America. Especially since the US is ranked something ridiculous like 12th in the world for divorce percentages. But at least we beat out such powerhouses as Moldova, the Ukraine, Latvia (the fact that I've only heard of one of those countries causes me to doubt the reliability of that page, but...). Further, The Barna Research group (whoever the hell that is) released their study on divorce which, funnily enough, reported:
The margin of error is within 2 percentage points. The survey found:
11% of the adult population is currently divorced.
25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.
Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significently higher than for other faith groups, and for Atheists and Agnostics.

Now, I know all this is statistics and that it has to be taken with a grain of salt, and I know that this is running on for a post from me, so I'm going to stop on the divorce train.

As far as laws being based on tradition...what? I was under the impression that laws should be based on REASON which does not necesarily mesh with tradition. In the spirit of quoting philosophers (if that's what tocqueville is/was?) I'd refer you to the ideas of Plato (and Socrates by default, I guess) as well as Aristotle (who, interestingly enough argued that a large amount of what is considered law is also locally variable and arbitrary). As a bonus, I've used the grandaddies of philosophy since you seem to like tradition and what better traditional philosophers than they? I think Hume has a diatribe somewhere that deals with laws being more along the lines of arduous adherence to custom, so maybe you can delve through that and pull some quotes out to support you there. Either way, law should be based on reason not tradition since tradition isn't a uniform template on which to balance the issues governed by law. This would seem especially true in a nation such as ours, which hosts such a wide variety of people that it's not even possible to argue that tradition is in some way uniform among the residents. Unless we are picking and choosing which traditions are going to be used in the law-making? If your going to be objective in the passing of a law, you have to base it on reason, not tradition.

"The big brain am winning again! I am the GREETEST! Now I am leaving Earth for no apparant raisin!"

Tocqueville, Marriage, and the State

Someone brought up the topic of homosexual marriage some post back, and said that we can't refer to the Founders because no Founding document ever mentions the subject. Well, for one, that doesn't really matter, and for two, the Founders had things to say on homosexuality in general, and generally cast it as contrary to good citizenship.

Also, I can't believe you said law should not be based on tradition. Let me count the ways that law is based on tradition. English common law, the basis of much of Western and American law relies heavily on tradition, and the English Constitution, which is unwritten is nearly 100% tradition. Law would not exist without a rich and deep tradition. And to say we can't use tradition because it would have no foresight, I say hogwash. Foresight to what? That doesn't make any sense.

Now, Several states around the country have slowly begun to challenge or question the assumption that marriage should be reserved for the union of a man and woman.

In a free society, such as in America, the primary organizing and stabilizing factor is the family. Alexis de Tocqueville, an astute French observer of American life, notes in his book, Democracy in America, that “There is no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America. In Europe, almost all the disturbances of society arise from irregularities in domestic life.” He goes on to call the American family “an image of order and peace” as well as the device in which the American man moderates his opinions and tastes. In other words, a nation which produces strong families is likely to also produce effective governments. Tocqueville laments the lack of such family life in his home country, which he describes as full of “fluctuating desire”, “restlessness of heart”, and “agitated by tumultuous passions.” The moderation of American thinking and public service Tocqueville, at least partially, attributes to the strength and tradition of the American family.

The recognition of civil unions between two men or two women would inevitably lead to the decline of the American family as it has been understood since the inception of our nation. Without the moral and sensible regulation the family brings to life, America could drift into an era of moral disintegration, social agitation, and political extremism. The creation of a good, upright citizenry is best done through the influence of traditional family life.

Tocqueville saw the disruptive nature of French life and recoiled. To embrace such contemporary radicalism, would have an extraordinary negative effect. Men and women who choose to engage in sexual activitiesw with other members of the same gender already have the right to marry(to a member of the opposite sex, of course) -no right of theirs has been taken away.

The Sporting Republic

Football is both at its peak and in decline as an American tradition. As far as popularity, fiscal viability, and star-power of its athletes, the NFL is at an all time high. The league is widely popular with both young and old, it sells massive amounts of jerseys, magazines and other paraphenlia. Its biggest stars, like Terrell Owens and Peyton Manning, are instantly recognizable to the average American. The league is intelligently structured with salary caps, free-agency (for good or ill), and other arrangements that maximize competitiveness. It generates a lot of money from ticket sales and television contracts, and can also have an enormous impact on local economies. Life has never been better for the NFL and its members.

However, this has been achieved at great cost. In the lates 1960s and early 1970s, Pete Rozelle had a vision of a dominating, profit-maximizing, modern NFL that could tantilize the public. He took steps to move the NFL to modernity by introducing many of the media-driven and drama-pushing aspects of the NFL we see today. However, it is not clear that Rozelle meant to create some of the monstrosities we see in today's football.

When football as a competitive sport began in the late 1870s, and became more professionally dominated perhaps by the 1920s-30s, it was to promote the idea of a much cliched term of a scholar-athlete. Or roughly speaking, to promote good citizenship. Teddy Roosevelt often spoke of the "vigorous life", and how such physical activity was key to the education and character development of a man, and how that promoted good citizenship (and stewardship). While Roosevelt was not one to back down from an athletic or physical challenge, the idea of a "vigorous life", while personally applied, was not ego-centric.

This idea of competition ran strongly in American athletics, especially Olympians, as Olympic competition meant so much more than mere sport, especially in an era of nationalism. (To see idea of how not to represent country, check out the USA's 2004 Mens Basketball Team. What a showcase in selfishness, lack of team, lack of national pride and outright embarrassment. Reason #1 I don't watch NBA anymore. Even the finals.) Football also benefited from this athletic mindset. When George Halas coached the Bears in the early years, he could often not afford to pay his players (who played merely for the love of sport and competition, as they also worked other jobs), so he often held on to his wife's grocery money to provide them with something. As America fell in love with football in the 50s, television became more involved, but the Manly Athlete idea persisited on. But, America began to change, and with it that change many of the ideas of the manly or vigiorous life from antiquity began to get pushed out of the mainstream. In addition to that, as the demand for professional football grew, so did the salaries of its stars. Boys began to dream of football glory for the riches, and not the football itself. This lead to an enormous transformation in the sport, to my mind.

Now, one could say that football has always had its share of jerks and Visigoths, and that may be, and now they are simply more exposed. And I understand that players in the 30s would have played for high salaries if they could. But what I loathe is that their is no pursuit of the vigorious life by football players in the highest sense anymore. Egos run high, publicity is high, the media microscope can be penetrating. I also lament the media's acquiencense in such matters. I do still enjoy the competition and some of the players, but it feels just a little more empty to me now.

Additionally, football is not life. For example, Doug Williams starting a Super Bowl as QB did not shatter NFL racisim. Give me a break. The NFL is exclusively talent-based, more so that almost anything else. How do we undo the damage caused by the Vikings sex-boat? By winning! Now Mike Tice is coach of the year! Seriously get real. Players constantly speak about redeeming their private vices by going out onto the field and "getting it done". Pllllease. Football is not life. It is rarely a reflection of one's personal virtue or integrity anymore. Nick makes some excruciating valid points. The NFL is a pre-packaged love-fest designed to sell and entertain. All that is well and good, but I fear the soul of the NFL is near death.

There are a few athletes who I still consider to be guardians of that soul. One is Peyton Manning, for his love and knowledge of the game. (Despite his ungodly contract.) Some others are Drew Bledsoe for his parenting work and advocacy, Marshall Faulk for his appreciation of the NFL's history and his own humility and Curtis Martin, for similar reasons. I think that these men may understand Roosevelt's idea, broadly speaking. And I also understand that having players like TO and Randy Moss adds to the drama and story that the NFL can produce, but I do see (as far as the images of these men reflects their true nature) them as thieves in the night. And we must not let them seize the soul of the NFL.

Football

Yeah I got that. My point in that post was that it's basically an entertainment industry now as much as a sporting one. Sort of a real life wwf or something. As such, everyone knows you know about the shadiness that goes on with players, teams, etc. I think what is going on is that there are quite a few decent players and that because they are trying to gear football towards the family entertainment genre (tagliabue released a press statement last year about this), they focus on the better aspects of the game...you know - for the kids. I mean, come on, do you really think anyone over the age of 12 credits anything Joe Theisman says as intelligent and worthy of consideration? Of course not. That's why there's no more Dennis Miller or Rush Limbaugh - too controversial (except maybe in Dennis Miller's case where it was maybe too abstract and remote with the references). So rest easy - when you have kids they can enjoy football and not be negatively influenced by the lesser quality aspects of the game. Cuz the NFL is one big happy family and it loves you.

Re: Football

John--you misunderstand me. My critique is not that football is boring. My critique is that it is getting tougher and tougher to swallow the spit-shined image of football that is sold by its commentators and the league itself.

Underneath the surface, I suspect football is savage, dirty, filled with direputable characters and uncheckable egos. But it is sold as a noble contest, each victory the consequence of hard work, drinking your milk and going to school and all that suchnot. I think part of my disgust stems from the fact that football, nowadays, seems to full of itself (which I attribute to its dominance over other American sports in popularity). Did anyone see the hall of fame ceremony this summer, the induction of Steve Young and Dan Marino? What a self-indugent stroke-fest that was. Why, it could almost inspire the cancer right out of that bed-ridden child!

I'm saying that the attempts to elevate football into the heavens of cosmic significance are somewhat obscene, and that's why it's becoming tougher for me to watch. It's not boring (except for the Patriots), but pretentious.

FOOTBALL!

Boy talk about hard to keep entertained, Nick. Sheesh. I read your post and all I could think about was your incessant boredom with last year's Superbowl (I believe it cam down to the wire with New England stopping Philly's last ditch effort to hang on to a 24-21 victory). And while I agree with you on the announcers (holy God would I love to take the ESPN sunday nite crew and bury them in wet concrete), etc. and that some of the players are more T.O. than Tillman, I ask you: so what?
Are you really not entertained by it? T.O. bores you? Chad Johnson's gold teefed proclamtions of guaranteed victory don't break through your blase atitude? What about Ron Mexico? Not funny? Really? Because I don't think it's an issue of football players (or any other athlete for that manner) needing to be upstanding citizens. We all know that a healthy number of them aren't. Would you suddenly claim Top Gun sucktastic if Tom Cruise feigned commision an infomercial (that's information in a commercial) proclaiming how intelligent he is? You wouldn't buy into it - he's an idiot, much the same as announcers and many players. But he still produces entertainment, just like a healthy number of players. Would I let my daughter date Michael Irvin? Of course not. Do I think he's a fantasticly entertaining man? Damn straight.
Now I want to make this perfectly clear: I am not advocating the intelligence, morality, etc. of these athletes. All I'm saying is that if you don't get caught up in how offensive (intelectually, morally, etc.) they are, it's actually hilarious. And it's starting to spread into other sports as well. Thos LeBrons commercials: brilliant! I'm sure baseball and hockey will come around, also. Baseball has the unfortunate downside of being so boring I get +3 boredom bonus (much like sharing a couch with Nick and his aura will grant) if i watch more than an inning. I haven't given hockey a chance since it 'came back" so I can't comment on it. But I think pro football players are great, be they Troy Brownian (Bingo! I got Bingo!) or prefer the Minnesota Love Boat scene. Either way, it's funny and I'll support it until it stops being so.

Obligatory "Your post was too long!" line

Geez, man, I'm so sick of the Moby Dicks you guys write all the time! Oh, and learn to use paragraphs! Break it up more! My eyes hurt! Waaaaaaaaaaaah!


There. Now no one else has to do it.

Football

I'm ready for some flames on this one.

More or less, football (for me at least) is becoming unwatchable. It's not so much the game itself, but rather the way it is packaged and delivered by commentators, the media, the NFL, analysts, and to a lesser extent the players and coaches themselves.

Football has held the undisputed top spot in American sports for years now (how long, I don't know). Baseball is boring and has steriod issues. Basketball is a showcase for thuggery. Hockey judged itself too boring, and reconsituted the game into something different, which I don't call Hockey any longer, but instead call IceBlitz.

But Football has a legion of ex-players and media faces shilling for it all the time. The players are all about hard work and honor. They are all Pat Tillman patriots. On weekends they do community service. Anyone catch the first Patriots-Bills game? Tedy Bruschi is a hero. In case you didn't get that from the commentator saying "Tedy Bruschi is a hero!" NBC played that Hero song over his slow motion high-five to accentuate the point.

I'm finding that these glibly superimposed story lines are ringing especially false these days. Deep down, I truly believe that there are more Terrell Owens' (but too a lesser degree than the real TO) than there are Pat Tillmans. Football has the same thuggery issues as the NBA (what does it take to erase all memories the Vikings' sex-boat fiasco? 5 straight wins!), and the same steroid issues as baseball. And it still lays claim to some higher standard of the noble contest.

Well, I'm having trouble buying that anymore. I thought the ESPN football drama a while back (forgot the name) was really refreshing, until it was axed by the NFL. It featured a running back past his prime, who was cheating on his wife, a drugged out thug upstart new RB star (Willis McGahee?!), and a linebacker who could only communicate in the language of violence. It was a stark look inside what, under all the dressing, I think is the real NFL. And the league hated it. So they took it down.

The NFL has its own spin machine, you see, one that encourages us to forget that Ray Lewis is a killer, that Michael Irvin is a sex and drug addict, that Jamal Lewis went to jail--one that, I'm predicting, in the future will attribute Ricky Williams' decline to his love of pot. It packages its drug-and-sex-smeared product as wholesome family friendly entertainment.

Those ex-players and coaches who don't perpetuate the lie and become TV commentators at least have a second option open to them: writing tell all nonfiction bestsellers. Thanks for keeping it real, LT.

So... tell me I wrong. Flame on.

Prediction?

Peyton's going all the way? Really? The 13-0 team? Are you sure? Wow, that's an audacious prediction. I mean, you're really putting yourself out there. Bold.

Errrrr

Second best team? Yeah, they sure manhandled that four win cleveland team in a stunning display of football prowess. They sure did look better than Seattle. Let's take a quick gander back at an the Cincy season: 7 games against teams that at this point have losing schedules, throw in the bears and vikings who had a combined 2-5 record when the bengals played em and you're lookin at 9 easy wins. Yeah, they beat pittsburgh, but that was right smack in the middle of a 3 game losing streak with the starters way less than 100%. And those voctories are hardly what I'd call convincing...beat browns on last second field goal, beat packers by 7 despite 5 int by favre (and 9 [I think] total turnovers by packers), texans by 6, titans by 8, for God's sake Kyle Boller led a 3TD 4th quarter rally against them. Now let's look at the losses: Indy, Jax and Pitts (when pitts was healthy). Their only three tough, playoff caliber games and they lose. Plus, Cincy gives up, what, 120 rushing yards/game (for God's sake Jamal Lewis busted over 100 on them in his most anemic year ever). Let's look at possible first game opponants for them in the playoffs: Jax, S.D., K.C., Den., Pitts - yeah, I'll bet none of them will want to run the ball. Enjoy the first round bye, cuz that's the only advancement Cincy gets in the post season.

The correct answer to Who Dey?!

is the Colts. The Bengals are the second-best team in football right now, but it doesn't matter because Peyton is going all the way.

Who dey? Chad Johnson, that's who!

No way, you heard Chad Johnson's guarantee last night. AFC Championship at least. Gold teefs can't lie.

re: Who Dey?

The team that loses its frist playoff game unless it's against New England?

Who Dey?!

38-31

Government vs NFL and other tasty tidbits

Thought this was silly...

And since it's been a while since I've posted, I'll drop a few concise opinions in the spirit of brevity that has apparantly fled in terror from this blog. Christ almighty it's like reading a mini-book (especially you, Bert).

Gay marriage: Huzzah! Now I know that I am not the learned scholar in the ways of history, government and philosophy as you, my esteemed colleagues are, but I don't recall there being any mention one way or another in the founding documents of this country even a reference to the matter. It seems to me that the "definition" of marriage has stemmed largely from either a "traditional" or christian standpoint, both of which are bunk! Bunk, I say! Tradition has no place in law making, else it would seem difficult to advance beyond the current thought process. As far as the christian point of view, I was always taught religion doesn't (shouldn't I suppose, since it clearly does) hold a place in law making. Bert's arguement along the welfare lines (if I interpreted it correctly) is ok, but I hold you have to solve the abuse of welfare in heterosexual circumstances before you can use it to prevent homosexual marriage. Undermining social fabric? Anything can be construed as such...and to prove my point, I will offically state here that Slaps undermines social fabric on a far greater and detrimental scale than any two male lovers could ever hope to do. But I digress into a textual nightmare. Huzzah! for gay marriage. Seems ok to me.

Harry Potter & TGoF: Eh...lost a bunch in the translation from book to movie. Exciting, I suppose, but I was severely disappointed with the lack of sphynx in the maze as well as the intitiation of the revival of the Order of the Phoenix. Now, admittedly I was what could technically be called "slightly intoxicated" - but only slightly! - but I think drunk me could have inserted a little more development along the way. Also, Mad Eye's magical eye is like a modified eye-patch? I always pictured it being right in his socket, like a real eye. Only magical!

Abortion: Doesn't gay marriage solve this problem????

I'm out. Hope you all take a lesson here in brevity.

I hate cats

Just dropping this "amusing" little story by: Last night I find, to my surprise, cat shit in the dishwasher. The cat shit in the dishwasher. Enjoy.

Come on, you jerks....

What's going on here? We were cooking along pretty well, but there's been nothing since election day. Umm...something thought-provoking...jurisprudential stuff seems to work...lots of Sci-fi fantasy fans here...
What do we think about the legal rights of prisoners? What do we think of _Goblet of Fire_? Would Jesus want us to use torture--I mean--"extreme rendition?" How about them Buckeyes? Yeah!

Election Day Tomorrow

Make sure to go vote against Issues 2, 3, 4, and 5 tomorrow if you are an Ohio voter.

Sex at school caused by...

You guessed it...abstinence education.

Needless to say, I got no action in high school, so my outrage over this article may be the result of a little bias.

Some kids were caught having an orgy in the school auditorium. The Washington Post somehow thought this comment was relevant:

"Some parents said the matter got them talking to their children in discussions they might not have at Osbourn, where, according to the school system's director of instructional services, Sandy Thompson, health classes focus on abstinence and sexually transmitted diseases but not condoms or contraception."

If only those darned sex ed classes would've included more contraception education we wouldn't have all this public sex.

Ms. Miller, an alumna of the high school, had the most insightful comment:

"Our parents are the ones who had the sexual revolution, so why are they surprised?"

Whose fault is it, you ask? Well it's the abstinence-teaching fundamentalists and the free-lovin' hippies of course.

Sad...

Abortion

Again, in response to E$.

I did a quick, therefore inadequate, search of the state of abortion laws at the time Roe was decided. I believe (this is in part from Blackmun's opinion) that at least 18 states allowed abortions under similar statutes to this:
Justifiable Abortion. A licensed physician is justified in terminating a pregnancy if he believes there is substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother or that the child would be born with grave physical or mental defect, or that the pregnancy resulted from rape, incest, or other felonious intercourse. All illicit intercourse with a girl below the age of 16 shall be deemed felonious for purposes of this subsection. (this was the Model Penal Code's version at the time)

Obviously abortion was more restricted prior to Roe, but it was certainly not proscribed everywhere. It was allowed before the 26th week of pregnancy in these states where it was not proscribed. The interpretation of the statute worked much like abortion statutes now, under much judicial interpretation of "physical or mental health of the mother". It was probably not as liberally condoned by courts as it is now under the Supreme Court's (lack of) guidance a la Roe and Casey, etc. especially in say, Arkansas (where it was legal), and it might have been just as liberally condoned in more liberal states. I do not know.

I think pro-abortion people have not pushed for legislation for multiple reasons. It is very unlikely the Court will overturn abortion case precedents altogether. If it does, then advocates can enact liberal abortion laws if they are able. I think many states would allow abortion if this were to happen, even more liberally than in 1973.

Secondly, abortion liberalization statutes would undermine pro-abortion court rulings. The core of Roe was that women had a 'fundamental right' (a very loose constitutional term of art) to abort. Thus, in most respects, it is beyond the powers of legislatures to touch. Such legislation would be an admission that abortion decisions rest on shaky foundations. Incidentally, due to the politicization of the issue, those shaky foundations are less freely admitted now than when Roe was written. Abortion rights advocates cling to that ruling despite its treatment in Casey and by liberal legal scholars after Roe was written.

Finally, related to the first two points, for better or (more likely) for worse, we believe the Supreme Court is the final--and in most respects--only arbiter of Constitutionality. This serves to devalue legislative and executive pronouncements. We have come to the point where Congress and the President sign and pass things they themselves might believe unconstitutional and say, "the Court will deal with it". Thus elected officials don't have to take unpopular stands in defense of the Constitution anymore. They just push it off to the courts. Can you imagine a President, a la Jackson or Lincoln, openly disobeying or even roundly criticizing the Supreme Court? It is nearly unheard of in our time.

Re: Eric's posts

I'm going to suprise you by agreeing in large part with your post on intentions or what "I really meant". I think I may have confused things by saying original intent. And you are right to point out that 'liberal' and 'conservative' are bad terms, but politically speaking they are what we have to work with. Speaking judicially we might say functionalist or formalist, but no two terms are comprehensive obviously.

To say original intentions is probably the wrong way to put it because there are people who would try to divine the spirit of the law or what the writer really meant as opposed to what he wrote. The 'liberals' (and Justice Thomas occasionally) take this approach (with adverse positions as you point out) to the Constitution, and a vast majority of judges do when it comes to legislation (which, it appears, will suprise you). I agree with you that this is a bad approach. Interpretation must start with the text that was given us.

Let me distinguish originalism from original intent, a distinction Justice Scalia makes. Scalia also eschews legislative history and intent as a bad guide to judicial interpretation for a myriad of good reasons that not enough people take seriously. The extent to which we might try to define original intent is asking "what did those words mean when they were written" or "were these laws commonly thought Constitutional when the article/amendment was adopted." These are legitimate inquiries. So, again, I would probably agree that people of all political stripes may believe they are adhering to some spirit of the law, but this leads to the disputes we have both pointed out, and, I would say, is the wrong approach. In this sense, an originalist's approach is very amoral, which is discouraging to many conservatives BTW, because it rarely allows a judge to invest any overarching intent in the form of moral preferences or authority, i.e. natural law or laissez fair economics, the authors may have held. Justice Holmes was probably the exemplar of this amoral approach.

This is why Scalia says his approach is very simple when it comes to very controversial things. The Constitution simply says nothing about abortion or assisted suicide, etc. Any attempt to force them in there begins by being extra-textual, a difficult hurdle to overcome in Constitutional interpretation. These questions are left to the people and the States, thus, self-government. We have come to the point where we expect the Court to decide every question under the sun. If we think there is a 'right' to something, it must be in there, but this is so self-evidently not the case as admitted by those who want it to be there when they say, "well...ah...ah...the Framer's never anticipated such and such a situation." So what? This seems dispositive evidence that the Constitution does not have an answer the Court, like philosopher kings, may hand down.

Bork and Roe v. Wade

I meant the second point, not necessarily the sine qua non part. Which leads me to the following question: since the biggest threat to abortion rights is the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and since the "activist" origins of the ruling are the most obvious (and justifiable) grounds to overturn it, why has the pro-choice camp never introduced actual legislation to legalize abortion, whether at the state or federal level? I mean, everybody freaked out and started wielding pitchforks and torches at the thought of h...ho...homosexuals getting married, passing state-level "defense of marriage" acts, even though there is already a federal DOMA on the books. There have been plenty of Democratic majorities, and even if such an effort failed, the Roe ruling would still be binding, like a legal safety net, right? If the legislation worked, then even if Roe were overturned, abortion would remain legal and the anti-abortion camp would be deprived of a principal objection to it. There must be a reason this wouldn't have worked (I doubt it would now with GOP majorities all over the place); otherwise, somebody would have thought of it before me.

Perhaps this...

...will lessen your skepticism, Stanya. Bork gives Judge Alito his support.

He notes that "overturning Roe v. Wade should be the sine qua non of a respectable jurisprudence." This is not because abortion is the issue. It is because that opinion represents above all others the overreaching of the federal judiciary to legislate from the bench, constitutionalize issues, and create rights not mentioned in the Constitution.

Bork also observes that the abortion issue is so contentious in the United States because of Roe. If the issue were to be handled democratically, there would be a more civil debate and compromise, recognizing the ability to learn from mistaken policy, convince fellow citizens, and make gains in the future.

On a similar note...

...George Will sums up why the Democrats will have a difficult time opposing Judge Alito.

"I didn't mean it like that...."

I dig much of what you're saying, but it is interesting that your second paragraph seems to define "liberal" as "deviating from original intentions," to the point that "conservative" scholars are being "liberal" when they twist meanings. It seems to me that if intention twisting goes both ways (and since we love to simplify everyting to just two possible sides, which I doubt we can reasonably do), it is a bit sophistical to label it "liberal" or "conservative," even if one side seems to do it more.

Speaking of one side doing it more, I also question the notion that "twisters" (which I'll use instead of either team label) believe they are twisting. Now, I'll defer somewhat to Matt's experience; maybe you personally know self-avowed "liberals" who get together and say "let's try to bend the meaning of the words from what was originally intended," but I've never met one. Whenever I hear people of any political stripe talk about the Constitution, they all think they are upholding the spirit of the document, if not the peculiar personal intentions of Rufus King or Richard Dobbs Spaight. For example, I have no problem with interpreting the Constitution to allow gay marriage. This is not because I've said, "yeah, why not try to squeeze out some really wacky interpretation to shake things up," but because I've read and read and re-read the Constitution and find nothing to preclude the possibility. Moreover, all of the "spirit of the Constitution" arguments invariably have to tap into "spirit of Marriage" appeals, which have nothing to do with the Constitution. I know James Madison probably never intended gay marriage, but he probably never thought of it at all. Many of our sacred, holy Founding Fathers could never imagine a woman voting or a Black man becoming Secretary of State, so if we worry too much about what the guys "really meant" (as opposed to what they wrote), we may not always reach a happy conclusion. Finally, I simply can't believe "the original meaning and intent of the framers is in large part settled," any more than Christ's intentions (or Paul's, for that matter) are "settled", or we wouldn't still be arguing about it. If you think it's already carved in stone, that's because you're talking people who already think the same thing you do.

Lastly, I have some questions on the nature of words, and laws, in particular. The articles and amendments are laws, written words. It seems written laws are meant to take the place of somebody's judgment to some extent. Here's what I mean. If I am the king and somebody makes a claim against somebody else, I have the power and obligation to decide what to do to make it right (though rulers' versions of "right" have frequently been anything but). To simplify things for the next time, or to make sure my intentions are carried out in my absence (when I'm dead or off killing the neighboring tribe), I write them down for other people to read (thanks, Hammurabi). The trick, though, is that the words I leave about my intentions are not the same thing as my intentions. As Socrates warns Phaedrus, words are not trustworthy memory aids; the are only impoverished shadows of what I actually meant. Now, my point here is not the same as Derrida's (though he adds yet another layer of difficulty to the problem). Once I, the king, am dead, the people cannot ask me what I "really" meant, they can only consult the words I left. (We can quibble about extratextual evidence [letters Jefferson wrote, napkins Madison doodled on, what Franklin did after he signed the thing, etc.], but those are not really part of the text under consideration and are beside the point here). So, interpreters of my words have the following job: determing the range, the limits of meaning for the words I left (since the words are slippery and indeterminate) and reach a reasoned conclusion within those limits. I don't say the because that would be really naive. Moreover, isn't this what lawyers do for a living? Neither prosecutor nor defender questions what the law says, but stretches (and I don't mean that in a negative way) the words' range of meaning just far enough so their interpretation fits safely inside. Neither lawyer would say he is "twisting" the law or the intent behind the law. Rather, they both think they are elucidating a legitimate interpretation of the semi-reliable written words. On the other hand, it is always "the other guy" who is twisting the law...I would never do something like that...I'm just upholding what the law says! Also notice that nobody calls to the stand the state senator who voted yes on the law when it was a bill, or the little old lady who collected signatures for the referendum to see what they really intended the law to mean--we have the law, and that is what we have to work with.

Dang, this got long. My point here isn't to pick on you "conservatives" or exonerate "liberals" (though it was interesting to hear a law professor on talk radio the other day praise Alito as a "good, conservative, activist jurist"). I want nothing to do with either of you. However, I see this business of "originalism" vs. "activism" as another talking point based partly on an actual problem of interpretation that affects everyone. Discuss.

P.S. I generally think Bork is a douche bag, but I agree with the argument you cite about Roe.

Original Intent

In light of the President's new nominee, I wanted to address Eric's post from the 18th of last month. I have to disagree.

In one sense, Eric is correct. Idealogues can twist the meaning of texts in their favor. This, however, does not negate the actual meaning of those texts. The debate among liberal constitutional scholars, at least honest ones, has shifted from "what did the authors mean" to "how should we interpret the Constitution in light of present moral/political circumstances". On the other side you have conservatives and libertarians who would adhere to the Constitution's intended meaning despite outcomes that may offend modern sensibilities. And sure, there are conservatives and libertarians who would depart from original meaning, but they are essentially taking a similar path to the liberals'.

In other words, the original meaning and intent of the framers is in large part settled. There is little to debate about. The argument is whether it should guide jurisprudence, which, to me, is a no-brainer. If you do not adhere to the meaning given by its authors, what meaning do you give it? As Justice Scalia argues, you give it the meaning that 5 justices want it to have. This is clearly anti-constitutional, meaning judges may change how our political order is constituted. The idea of a constitution is exactly the opposite of what liberals claim it to be. A living, ever-changing constitution is no constitution at all. The Constitution, it seems self-evident, is only changeable through the amendment process it provides.

Again as Scalia notes, 70 years ago everyone shared his jurisprudence. The problem we face now is not that of judicial Derridas (though it arises from time to time), but of those who are simply in conflict with what they see as shortcomings of our Constitution or constitutionalism in general. Thus, they have sought to invent modes of judicial amendment and are ever attempting to legitimize them to reach ends the Constitution simply does not mandate or contemplate.

Not to borrow from Scalia too much--but he has it right--what informs this informal amendment? And the skeptic's answer is, our moral and political preferences. We make the constitution mean what we want it to mean not what it actually means. Thus, the constitution is destroyed by our present moral preferences it was meant to moderate in the political process it established.

Sadly, we have come to the point where one political party believes originalism is an unacceptable jurisprudence. When the Democrats do not win in elections and legislatures, they go to the courts, and if the courts do not give them what they want, their desires are completely frustrated.