Friday, June 30, 2006

Republicans and Patriotism

Here they go again.
This morning's Washington Post reports that George Allen has impugned the patriotism of his opponent for the U.S. Senate, James Webb. Now I'm not going to say that a person can't be a patriot without serving in the Armed Forces. I consider myself a patriot, and I was damned glad when my draft lottery number was over three hundred because I would have been a rotten soldier. And I'm not going to argue that having served in the military automatically makes one a patriot; surely those troops currently facing charges of murder and rape for their behavior in Iraq don't deserve to be considered patriots because they were simply thugs in uniform. But Jim Webb is a highly decorated combat veteran. Since his honorable discharge, he has served his country in a number of appointed positions when he probably could have made a lot more money doing something else. If there's a reason to claim he's unpatriotic, I don't know what it is. Oh yeah. He opposes an amendment that would allow Congress to pass laws prohibiting physical desecration of the flag.
But when Republicans are in trouble, they have a history of claiming their opponents are unpatriotic. President Chickenhawk, Mommy's Best Boy, found John McCain unpatriotic--and never mind the years as as POW. Saxby Chambliss was elected to the Senate after claiming that Max Cleland, who had done nothing much for his country except sacrifice both legs and one arm and then serve as Director of the Veterans Administration, was unpatriotic. And now George Felix Allen claims that Webb is unpatriotic.
I'll make this simple because these men are obviously speaking to people who are very simple and can't understand the serious issues that face the country. If Max Cleland or Jim Webb or John McCain wants to say someone's unpatriotic, I'll listen to that. They've earned the right, and their standard is probably pretty high. But Chickenhawk, Allen, and Chambliss never put anything on the line for their country except their cushy jobs. And it should strike all of us as odd that they only throw these charges when they're in danger of losing those jobs and need to rally support among people who have a Pavlovian response to the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the national anthem.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

A Constitutional Amendment Primer

The proposed Constitutional anti-flag-burning amendment has gone down by one vote. Like a lot of liberals, I'm glad to see that it did. Even now, when it's not strictly prohibited, flag burning is a very rare form of protest, and passing a law against it won't make it rarer. In fact, it could make it more common. But it's important for people to keep in mind how Constitutional amendments work--especially now that the conservative "plan" to pass such unpopular measures as a ban on abortions, a ban on gay marriages, and a ban on flag burning relies on passing Constitutional amendments.
Because the Constitution is a framework rather than a set of statutes, an amendment doesn't actually make anything illegal. It merely authorizes the legislative branch or the legislatures of the several states enact laws that make something illegal. As tough as it is to get an amendment passed, it's only half the battle. Here's the entire process.
First, the House and the Senate must pass identical resolutions by a 2/3 majority. That means 67 Senators and 290 Representatives have to vote in favor of it. There's no requirement for a Presidential signature and no possibility of a Presidential veto; a President who expresses support for or opposition to an amendment really can't do anything more than you or I--unless he chooses to use his political influence to get votes in Congress. Once the resolution has passed both houses with exactly the same text, it goes to the states. Three-fourths of the state legislatures--that is, 38 of them--have to ratify the amendment, and they must ratify it within a set time limit. One legislative ratification too few and the amendment is not enacted. Because state legislators are very sensitive to local priorities--and because state and local governments are dealing with issues that affect most citizens every day, like fire and police protection, transportation, sanitation, and education, proposed amendments to the Federal Constitution don't float automatically to the top of the legislative hopper. Some legislatures may postpone consideration of an amendment in hope of a more or less sympathetic legislature after an election.
If the amendment passes and the states ratify it, the Constitution authorizes passage of laws. Now, if the Congress is authorized to act, bills have to be passed in both houses. While the bar isn't as high for a bill as it is for an amendment, the Houses still have to pass identical acts. In many instances, that takes some doing. For example, just what does "physical desecration" of the flag mean? Does it include President Chickenhawk autographing a small flag offered to him by an admirer? How is the burning of a flag that needs to be disposed of differ from desertation by burning? Assuming the Houses of Congress can agree on these details and enact a law, it now has to be signed by the President--who very probably isn't the one who was in office when the amendment made its way through Congress. If he vetos it, the veto stands unless it is overriden. And, of course, there may be challenges in the Supreme Court.
Here's the bottom line: Amendments are tough. They average out to less than one every ten years because the first ten were passed together. The odds against passage of a proposed amendment are huge. Only once--Prohibition--has a really dumb idea become an amendment. Elected officials and those who advise them know this. They understand that they can piously promise an amendment and then claim that it didn't pass because of their opponents' partisanship. Good ideas, like extending equal rights to women in the workplace, couldn't get ratified by the states. So offering to get an amendment passed is most often a great way of promising nothing. That's what the conservatives really want: a promise that they'll never be able fulfill with respect to an issue that they can bring up again and again. Their hope in this is that voters will never understand the process well enough to understand that what they regard as no-brainer amendments don't have much chance, and they're being played for fools by cynical men like Karl Rove.

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Stay on Script

Just a quick post. It strikes me as kind of funny that Rick Santorum (of "Santorum is Latin for asshole" fame) comes out with news this weekend that shells designed for chemical weapons had been found in Iraq. Okay. Fine. Apparently inspectors had found them before, but a shell is sort of like a pill bottle: It's just a container, and it's the stuff inside that matters. If the stuff inside is air, there's no threat. But Santorum makes a big deal of this, as if he believes that finding these empty shells proves that President Chickenheart wasn't lying and the war was justified after all--even when Chickenheart and his minions have given up on that argument. But if the shells were found and actually indicated some danger, would this be a good time to announce that General Casey has suggested that there are going to be troop reductions by the end of 2007?
Special note to Mommy's Best Boy in the White House: The Democrats proposed two troop reduction plans in the Senate last week. I realize that you wouldn't realize this, being a Yale frat legacy puke, but for Casey to post-date one of their plans and turn it in as his own is plagiarism. And for your minions in the Senate to oppose what you now seem to accept is just partisan bullshit.

Friday, June 23, 2006

A Sorry Showing

I'm disappointed that County Executive Doug Duncan won't be able to continue his campaign for governor of Maryland because of clinical depression. He's been a terrific public servant, and I thought he would be a fine governor. For the record, I'd sooner vote for my dog than Bob Ehrlich, who has accomplished precisely nothing except pouting when the General Assembly refused to legalize slot machines. I would have been happy to vote for Duncan.
What disappoints me even more is the reaction on the Washington Post blog usually moderated by Marc Fisher. Many of those who wrote in were convinced that clinical depression was just a cover story. They were quite sure that there was some sinister reason for Duncan's withdrawal. I hate it, but I understand it: We've been through five years of President Chickenheart, constantly exposed to his La-La Land where nothing is what it seems and no statement can be taken at face value. Of course trust is at an all time low.
The other thing that's disheartening is the strong possibility that admitting that he suffers from an eminently manageable disease may end Doug Duncan's distinguished career. One of the boneheads on the Post blog wondered where he would be hospitalized, even though most depression these days is handled with outpatient therapy and medication. But the unfortunate term "mental illness" got thrown around, and that, I'm afraid, will be the kiss of death, as it was for Tom Eagleton in '72. (Of course, President Chickenheart, who doesn't admit to the paranoid schizophrenia and severe Oedipal conflicts from which he suffers, remains in office.) The blog cites a poll that indicates that most people won't vote for someone with a history of depression. Never mind that there's strong evidence that Lincoln suffered from it--undiagnosed and untreated--and led the country through the Civil War. Never mind that a lot of people who would never vote for someone with a history of depression suffer from it themselves.
I guess I think it would have been good for people to take one day off from distrust, spend a bit of time learning about this widespread condition, and trying to be kind.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Why WMDs?

There's a question that President Chickenhawk and his menions aren't even considering concerning the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It falls under the same heading as "Is it right to invade a sovereign nation without provocation in order to replace its government?" and "Is it right to show pictures of the bodies of dead combatants in newspapers and on television?" If it gets asked at all, the answer "We are America: Our hearts are pure" drowns it out. The question is just why nations like Iran and Korea--and I'll even throw in Iraq--would like to have active WMD programs. The answer is that they perceive a need to have the deterrent value that these weapons carry. And why do they want that deterrent value?
The answer has nothing to do with their neighbors. Their neighbors don't pose very serious threats. Iraq isn't going to invade Iran; Iraq isn't going to invade anybody. South Korea prefers to negotiate with North Korea having found that a far more profitable course. The answer has to do with the United States. They perceive us as a serious threat, a nation with state-of-the-art armed forces and an irrational leader who cannot be restrained by the legislative or judicial branches and lives in a world where all who are not with him are against him. They believe that the possibility that they may have or be close to having WMDs may restrain him. Yes, he did invade Iraq to destroy theWMD program there, but he made plenty of other claims on that one, and the real reason was that he wanted to kill Saddam Hussein for wanting to kill George I. But attack a nuclear Iran and the United States forces in Iraq are fighting on two fronts and facing a nuclear enemy. Attack a nuclear North Korea and there's a possibility that nuclear retaliation could reach United States territory.
What's amazing here, though, is that Republicans don't seem to understand this. They're the party that supports the National Rifle Association's argument that guns really deter crime because criminals are afraid to attack anyone who might be armed, and the logic here is the same. I don't want you to attack me, and there's no way that my conventional armed forces represent a serious deterrent. But if I have weapons of mass destruction, you'll have to think twice. A first strike would have to destroy them; otherwise, I could retaliate.
So what's the solution? As with so many other problems, the answer is not immediately available: President Chickenhawk and his minions have to go. We need an administration--or maybe several administrations--that make clear that the United States will always negotiate in good faith--no exceptions. None of this "We don't negotiate with. . . . ." crap. We negotiate. And those administrations need to make sure that the United States arsenal includes no weapons of mass destruction. Once that's done, we can hope that other nations follow our moral leadership, and we can assume that those that don't are maintaining WMDs for purposes of aggression, not defense.

Friday, June 09, 2006

Ann Coulter

I can't believe the unmitigated gall of that vile bitch, Ann Coulter. What kind of insensitivity does it take for her to suggest that the widows of the 9/11 attacks are somehow trying to benefit from their loss? I couldn't believe the bile that I heard from her during her Today show interview yesterday. Never in my life have I heard someone so filled with unjustified and unjustifiable rage.
Don't get me wrong. Freedom of speech is cool, and as much as I'd like to kick her up side of the head repeatedly, I don't deny that she's got the right to say any stupid thing she wants. On the other hand, the right to be published in print, on TV, or on radio is not guaranteed. What's demoralizing is that she can find publishers and broadcasters who will help her spread her rantings around--and don't kid yourself: They want her to bring in a huge audience and lots of book buyers so they can make a profit. Here's a message for those who sign contracts with her: You don't have to do it. You can support freedom of speech with people who actually know what their talking about and have some human characteristics. Charles Krauthammer comes to mind, as does George F. Will. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that anyone is required to spread incivility.
But at the risk of being thought uncivil, I will point out here that Ann Coulter is ugly, stupid, and mean-spirited. She is humorless and ill-informed. Other than that, she's a fine person, I'm sure.