On the precipice of something truly scary

In the last few weeks there have been a number of events that are beginning to travel down a path no one wants to be on. First Joe Miller has his “security force” arrest a journalist because he was asking questions Joe Miller didn’t like. Then we had Rand Paul supporters physically assault a liberal protester, and their excuse was that they thought she was a physical threat to Paul and they needed to restrain her for Paul’s safety. Then today we have a supporter of Dino Rossi physically assault another liberal protester; his excuse, he wanted to get her picture.

When you combine these occurrences of vigilante “security”, with the “open carry” rallies in support of conservative candidates, with the militia movement that is almost exclusively right wing and we are getting very close to people beginning to show up at conservative rallies in uniform. The militia movement people already play war in fatigues. We aren’t there yet, but we are heading down that road. I’ll just say that if things get to that ugly place, Rich Iott won’t have to go shopping.

Faux Controversy, Real Prejudice

What do you do when your real ingrained hatred, bigotry, and prejudices flare up in full view of the public? You hide, mask, and disguise it as “real” concerns about some issue and create a faux controversy based on semantics and hope no one notices. Hence the “controversy” over the mosque and community center in downtown Manhattan.

The truth of the matter is that these people, mostly Republicans, tea party types, and some Democrats in tough re-election campaigns (Harry Reid), have a real problem with Muslims. It ranges from straight up fear that every Muslim is going to blow up your house, to pure racism against any brown person, to the really disgusting “they aren’t Christians” bigotry, but the one constant is fear of the different, ignorance, and an unwillingness to understand any of it. These people don’t like Muslims, period. So when word gets out that there are plans for a mosque and community center in downtown Manhattan near ground zero (fact: every inch of downtown Manhattan is near ground zero) it’s time to freak out and attack. But there is a problem, as any good “strict constructionist” wrapped in the founding documents Republican knows, there is that little problem with the first amendment that they really don’t like but really can’t talk about. Well of course they all really know what the founding fathers meant when they wrote “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, they meant Christians. But I digress. Since they can’t attack the mosque directly, their only other option is to create a controversy on the semantics. You see, they aren’t against the mosque existing per se, they are just against its location. Yes, that’s it, it’s just too close to ground zero. Never mind the fact that 90% of the people against the mosque can’t even find Park Place on a map of Manhattan (and no, Park Place is not the same as Park Avenue). Which immediately begs the question, well how far from ground zero is far enough? For which they have no answer they can vocalize because their honest answer is that it shouldn’t exist at all.

The fact that this community has been worshiping in the same busted up building they want to replace for years with no one noticing is of no relevance to the bigots. The fact that the local community board voted 1 vote shy of unanimous approval of the project is of no relevance. The fact that it has wide support across Manhattan, among religious leaders and the political leaders is of no relevance. The only thing that matters to them is that Muslims want to build a new community center in the vicinity of the site where a group a fanatical Muslims and their hatred (there’s that word again) for America murdered thousands of people in a terrorist attack.

The point that is lost on the intolerant ignorant people is that despite what anyone or anything throws at us, America is strong enough to stand by its principles, stand up for what is right, and the greatest response we can ever have to the militant Muslim groups is that no matter what you do to us, we do not compromise our freedoms.

So to the unelected Sister Sarah, Newt, and Rush, shut up, this is none of your business, this is what is called a local issue. To Peter King and his fellow Republicans, you took an oath to protect the constitution, this is not a cafeteria, you cannot choose to protect the 2nd with your assault rifles and ignore the first based on some fanatical and bizarre theory that America is a “christian nation”. To the families of the victims, do not fall into the cycle of hatred that led to the death of your loved ones. To the general public, grow up. The differences between us are what make us unique and special. If you believe in the so called “American Exceptionalism”, America is exceptional because of our aversion to intolerance, acceptance of the different, and the celebration of our uniqueness.

Diaper Dandy

Famously moronic, prostitute loving, diaper wearing Sen. David Vitter is a birther. Shocker.

The sad and truly stupid thing is that this ass clown is going to win re-election in a landslide. Congratulations Louisiana, he's really something to be proud of.

Transcript from the Judiciary Committee

The following is the transcript of Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R) Alabama questioning of Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan before the Judiciary Committee, interpreted here, by yours truly.

Note: Adding at least 3 syllables to every word spoken by Senator Sessions makes this exponentially more fun, preferably out loud.

LEAHY: Senator Sessions?

SESSIONS: Oh Fuck that asshole liberal from Vermont is talking again

SESSIONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I value our relationship. And we’ve disagreed over documents and a few things, but I believe you’ve tried to handle this committee in a fair way, and nobody’s had more experience at it. And, fundamentally, I hope that we have, Dean Kagan, a good hearing. I hope that you can feel free to tell us precisely how you think so we can evaluate what you might be like on the bench. We can have brilliant and wonderful people, but if their approach to judging is such that I think allows them not to be faithful to the law, to not take the -- be able to honor that oath, which is to serve under the Constitution and laws of the United States, then we’ve got a problem. And I don’t think that’s judging. I think that becomes politics or law or something else. And so I would say that to you. I look forward to all of our members asking a number of questions to probe how you will approach your judgeship. Let me ask you this...

SESSIONS: Thank you, we actually agree on nothing. Dean Kagan, you may think you are a smarty pants, but I know that you are a liberal and you will be an activist judge like all you smarty pants liberals from Harvard.

LEAHY: Incidentally, thank you for those kind words.

LEAHY: Shut the fuck up and move on with your bullshit questions.

SESSIONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I meant that. One thing before I get started, I would like to ask about your discussion of constitutional change earlier. You indicated that there is an amendment process in the Constitution, there are two ways to do so in the Constitution. Is there any other way than those two ways that the Constitution approves to change the Constitution?

SESSIONS: Fucking idiot. Now before I get started, I failed civics in high school can you help me out?

KAGAN: Well, Senator Sessions, the Constitution is an enduring document. The Constitution is the Constitution. And the Constitution does not change except by the amendment process. But as I suggested to Chairman Leahy, the Constitution does over time -- we’re asked -- courts are asked to think about how it applies to new sets of circumstances, to new problems, to things that the framers never dreamed of. And in applying the Constitution case by case by case to new circumstances, to changes in the world, the constitutional law that we lives -- live under does develop over time.

KAGAN: Shit, this is going to be worse that I thought. Listen you fucking idiot, the amendment process is in Article V of the Constitution, that means five, not vee, by the way. We've done it 27 times. But of course the document has to change over time, the authors never dreamed of things like the internet or lethal injection. duh.

SESSIONS: Well, developing is one thing. And many of the provisions, as you noted, they’re not specific. But they’re pretty clear, I think, but not always specific. But you -- you’re not empowered to alter that document and change its meaning. You’re empowered to apply its meaning faithfully in new circumstances. Wouldn’t you agree?

SESSIONS: huh, five, huh. Well listen up you, those words are those words and no one said any different. Agree?

KAGAN: I do agree with that, Senator Sessions. That’s the point I was trying to make, that you take the Fourth Amendment and you say there’s unreasonable searches and seizures and that provision stays the same unless it’s amended. That’s the provision. And then the question is, what counts as an unreasonable search and seizure? And new cases come before the court and the court tries to think about, to the extent that one can glean any meaning from the text itself, from the original intent, from the precedents, from the history, from the principles embedded in the precedent, and the court sort of step by step by step, one case at a time, figures out what the Fourth -- how the Fourth Amendment applies.

KAGAN: Sigh. Take the fourth, it says unreasonable search and seizure. What does the word unreasonable mean Senator? Precedent, tells us what it means.

SESSIONS: Well, I do believe that there’s some out there who think the court really has an opportunity to update the Constitution and make it say what they’d like it to say. I know we’ve seen a bit of a revival in the idea of the progressive legal movement that people in the early 20th century advocated views for changing America. They felt the Constitution often blocked them from doing that, and they were very aggressive in seeking ways to subvert or get around that Constitution. Your former colleague at University of Chicago, Richard Epstein, said any constitutional doctrine that stood in the way of the comprehensive social or economic reforms -- he’s referring to the progressives -- had to be rejected or circumvented. And he noted that the progressive influence continues to exert itself -- he’s talking about today -- long past the New Deal in modern Supreme Court decisions that address questions of federalism, economic liberties and takings for public use. I believe that’s a dangerous philosophy. I believe that’s a philosophy not justified by any judge on the court. And I’m worried about the trends. I think the American people are. Greg Craig, the former chief council to President Obama, who’s known you for some time, I understand, said of you, "She is largely a progressive in the mold of Obama himself," close quote. Do you agree with that?

SESSIONS: yeah yeah yeah who gives a shit about the 4th, the 2nd is the only one that counts ... now I'm going to quote a bunch of unrelated material cause it has some big words and then call you a liberal and a progressive, cause that's what you are and your smarty pants friends from that liberal University of Chicago said so. Are you a liberal?

KAGAN: Well, Senator Sessions, I’m not quite sure how I would characterize my politics. But one thing I do know is that my politics would be, must be, have to be completely separate from my judging ... it’s what the text of the Constitution says, it’s what the history says, the structure, the precedent. But what the law says, not what a judge’s personal views.

KAGAN: If you can't tell that I'm a Democrat you are dumber than I thought, but that doesn't matter because I'm smart enough to keep my politics out of my decisions, unlike yourself.

SESSIONS: Well, I agree. But the point I just wanted to raise with you is that this idea, this concept of legal progressivism is afoot ... great progressive era of Justice Louis Brandeis. And I think we do have this national discussion going on about a revival of progressivism ... clerked for Judge Mikva, clerked for Justice Marshall, worked in the Clinton administration, in the Obama administration. I don’t think there’s any mystery to the fact that she is. As I said, a more progressive role than not," close quote. Do you agree with that?

SESSIONS: humph, cause I didn't like your answer, I'm going to ask the same thing again because something is definitely afoot, using different quotes and mention a bunch of liberals you have been known to work with, cause I know you are a filthy liberal who associates blacks and Jews.

KAGAN: Senator Sessions, it’s absolutely the case that I have served in two Democratic administrations. And I think...

KAGAN: Yes, full disclosure I worked for Clinton and Obama. Racist jackass. And I think...

SESSIONS: No, but I’m asking, do you agree with the characterization that you’re a legal progressive?

SESSIONS: did she just make fun of me? damn I think so .... interrupt her, interrupt her!

KAGAN: Senator Sessions, I honestly don’t know what that label means. I worked in two Democratic administrations. Senator Graham suggested yesterday, and I think he’s right, that you can tell something about me and my political views from that. But as I suggested to you, that my political views are one thing...

KAGAN: Christ, this man is an asshole.

SESSIONS: Well, we agree with you, exactly, that you -- you should not be condemned for being a political believer and taking part in the process and having views. But I’m -- I’m asking about his firm statement that you are a legal progressive, which means something. I think he knew what he was talking about. He’s a skilled lawyer who’s been in the midst of the great debates of this country about law and politics, just as you have. And so I ask you again: Do you think that is a fair characterization of your views? Certainly, you don’t think he was attempting to embarrass you or hurt you in that process.

SESSIONS: I'm going to ask a 3rd time cause it's fuuunnn. ARE YOU A LIBERAL!?!?! And if you are I hope you are embarrassed by it. he he that was kinda funny. I think I just made fun of her.

KAGAN: I love my good friend, Ron Klain, but I guess I think that people should be allowed to label themselves. And that’s -- you know, I don’t know what that label means and so I guess I’m not going to characterize it one way or the other.

KAGAN: This is stupid, can we move on.

SESSIONS: Well, I would just say, having looked at your overall record, having considered those two people who know you very well, I think you have to classify you -- I would have to classify you as someone in the theme of the legal progressive. Now, as you -- one of the things that we want to test, I guess, is your willingness to follow the law even if you might not agree with it. And Senator Leahy has asked you about the Harvard and the military. Isn’t it true, isn’t it a fact that Harvard had full and equal access to the recruiting office, the Office of Career Services when you became dean? And isn’t it true -- well, when you became dean?

SESSIONS: Well I don't care what you say, I declare you a filthy liberal and a progressive. Now. I am going to use the remainder of my time to ask you again and again about Harvard's sneaking around my law that I helped write.

KAGAN: Senator Sessions, the military had full access to our students at all times, both before I became dean and during...

KAGAN: here we go ....

(CROSSTALK)

SESSIONS: That’s not the question. I know that...

SESSIONS: Shit! She didn't say what I wanted her to say.

LEAHY: Senator, let her answer the question.

LEAHY: Shut the fuck up ass clown and let her out smart you again.

SESSIONS: All right, but -- you know, you -- you -- go ahead.

SESSIONS: All right, but -- you know, you -- you -- go ahead.

KAGAN: So the history of this is Harvard did have this antidiscrimination principle and for many, many years, my predecessor, who is Bob Clark, had set up a system to ensure military access, but also to allow Harvard to comply with its antidiscrimination policy which prohibited the Office of Career Services from providing assistance to employers that could not sign the antidiscrimination pledge. And the accommodation that Bob worked out was that the veterans’ organization would instead sponsor the military recruiters. So the only thing that was at issue was essentially the sponsoring organization, whether it was the Office of Career Services or instead the student veterans’ organizations.

KAGAN: Here it is Senator, so pay the fuck attention. Harvard has an antidiscrimination policy, if an employer doesn't want to sign the policy, they can't recruit at Career Services. The military, by act of this congress discriminates against gays and lesbians, so they can't recruit at Career Services. Because of what the military is, we worked out a special accommodation for the military so they could recruit on campus, just not a Career Services.

Now it gets really boring (you can read the whole thing here) so I'll summarize. Sessions asks the same question again and again about his law that the Third Circuit rejected. Kagan again and again answers that Harvard was always in compliance with the law. Then Sessions accuses her of being against don't ask don't tell, which she readily admits to. This goes on and on and on. Now on to the merciful end ...

KAGAN: Senator, the military at all times during my deanship had full and good access. Military recruiting did not go down. Indeed, in a couple of years, including the year that you’re particularly referring to, it went up. And it went up because we ensured that students would know that the military recruiters were coming to our campus. Because I talked about how important military service was. Because our veterans organization and the veterans on campus did an absolutely terrific job, a terrific service to their fellow students in talking to them about the honor of military service.

KAGAN: I will repeat myself for the umpteenth time ....

SESSIONS: Well -- I would just say, while my time is -- is running down, I’m just a little taken aback by the tone of your remarks, because it’s unconnected to reality. I know what happened at Harvard. I know you were an outspoken leader against the military policy. I know you acted without legal authority to reverse Harvard’s policy and deny those military equal access to campus until you were threatened by the United States government of loss of federal funds. This is what happened.

SESSIONS: Shit, I'm out of time and she hasn't said what I want her to say. Quick make another declarative and that will make it true! Ahhh that felt better.

LEAHY: The senator’s time has expired.

LEAHY: RED LIGHT!!!! A the fuck men, it's over! Did he just fart?

(CROSSTALK)

LEAHY: But you can respond to that if you want.

LEAHY: Christ, finish up, but make it quick.

SESSIONS: ... did not happen in that way. And I think if you had any complaint, it should have been made to the United States Congress, not to those men and women who we send in harm’s way to serve our nation.

SESSIONS: Shit! Shit! Shit! Quick, do something! .... well, you hate the military! HA! there, that did it, I got her!

LEAHY: Especially because of the number of people, including the dean of West Point who has praised you and said that you were absolutely not anti-military, I’ll let you respond -- take time to respond to what Senator Sessions just said.

LEAHY: Since Senator Jackass likes to make wild accusations I'll prove him wrong, then you can.

KAGAN: Well, thank you, Senator Leahy. You know, I respect and indeed I revere the military. My father was a veteran. One of the great privileges of my time at Harvard Law School was dealing with all these wonderful students that we had who had served in the military and students who wanted to go to the military. And I always tried to make sure that I conveyed my honor for the military. And I always tried to make sure that the military had excellent access to our students. And in the short period of time, Senator Sessions, that the military had that access through the veterans organization, military recruiting actually went up. But I also felt a need to protect our -- to defend our school’s very long-standing anti-discrimination policy and to protect the men and women, the students, who were meant to be protected by that policy: the gay and lesbian students who wanted to serve in the military and do that most honorable kind of service. And those are the two things that I tried to do. And I think, again, the military always had good access at Harvard Law School.

KAGAN: My Dad's a veteran, I've always had the utmost respect for those who serve our country. Thank god this is over.

LEAHY: Senator Kohl?

The Deep Water Drilling Moratorium

The infuriating decision by U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman to end the moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is today’s installment of On Stupidity. In giving his reasons for ordering the injunction for the Plaintiffs the Judge continually notes the “irreparable harm” done by the government on the companies and the “arbitrary and capricious” decision by the Secretary of the Interior in ordering the moratorium, and shockingly links the public’s interest with that of the Plaintiffs. In his entire decision, Judge Feldman ignores the “irreparable harm” being done currently by the oil spill in the Gulf to the thousands of affected industries, wildlife, environment etc. across four States, which of course is the Federal Government’s responsibility to protect and is completely within the legal rights of the Secretary.

The fact is, the moratorium effects only 33 currently operating drilling platforms of the over 3600 in the Gulf. (there are several available numbers for operating platforms in the Gulf, I used the number Judge Feldman used in his ruling of the somewhat vague “over 3600”) That’s 0.92% of the platforms in the Gulf. Yes, that’s right, the moratorium effected less than one percent of the industry in the Gulf. Which can be shocking in 2 ways, one being less than one percent is hardly irreparable harm to the industry and two that there are over 3600 platforms in the Gulf and the entire seafloor from Texas to Alabama is a giant industrial site. Here’s a few more numbers to digest: More than 50,000 well heads have been drilled in the Gulf since 1947. There were 331 wells drilled in 2009 (one platform can produce oil from a number of wells at the same time). There are over 7000 active leases in the Gulf, 64% of which are in water deeper than 1000’. Nearly 4000 wells have been drilled in depths greater than 1000’ and nearly 700 in depths of over 5000’. While supporters of unabashed drilling will point to such numbers in support of their “safe” drilling practices, one only needs to point to the largest number to prove their point false, the millions of barrels spilled into the waters of the Gulf.

While the Judge was hell bent on protecting the oil industry from irreparable harm, the seafood industry in Louisiana has already suffered that and worse. 1 out of every 70 jobs in Louisiana is related to the seafood industry, with an estimated economic impact of over 2.4 billion dollars. To highlight two of the most effected sectors of the seafood industry here are the statistics for oysters and shrimp. 70% of all the oysters in the US come from the Gulf Coast. The total impact in Louisiana is over $317 million and 3565 jobs. The Shrimp industry accounts for more than $1.3 billion and 14,384 jobs. How many of those people have been destroyed by the disaster? The seafood industry garners special attention because this is not just an industry like oil that can be moved to where ever the oil is. These people, indeed their entire culture and way of life reaching back generations depends on the unique ecosystem that makes of the coast of Louisiana. This incredibly fragile and unique nursery for thousands of species has already been irreparably harmed and has untold decades of harm ahead. The spill is only the latest example of harm caused by the oil industry on the environment at the expense of the seafood industry. The oil pipeline “highways” that the industry cut through the marsh in the 60’s and 70’s have become “highways” for salt water intrusion which kills the marsh, causes erosion, and brings Louisiana’s population centers ever closer to the Gulf waters and the storm surge from hurricanes.

It is the Federal Government’s job to protect industries like the seafood industry and the many others across 4 States and the Secretary was completely in his right to do so and he was hardly arbitrary in his decision as the Judge claims. The broader interest is in protecting these numerous entities over the economic impact of 33 wells. That much is clear and how the Judge found in favor of the oil industry is beyond me. Not to mention Judge Feldman’s numerous cases of conflict of interest for which he should have recused himself.

I also dismiss the Judge’s claims of blanket heavy handedness and his comparisons to plane crashes shutting down all airports and the like. He might be right if the oil industry wasn’t so completely incompetent in dealing with the current disaster, or if they weren’t so insultingly careless in the planning of spill response. One look at the industry wide identical response plans, with the same idiotic walrus protections, deceased engineer’s phone numbers, graphically appalling cover page and anyone can see their utter disregard for spill management combined with their hubris that there wasn’t a need for such things anyway. No one could have predicted the Deepwater Horizon explosion, so who’s to say another one can’t happen tomorrow? And then what happens when say Chevron opens its handy dandy spill response plan so find the same woefully inadequate mitigation methods with its Flying Circus-esque Containment Dome and Top Hat? The Federal Government has every right to be suspicious of the entire industry and would be negligent not to be. And to point out the ridiculousness of the Judge’s plane comparison, once a plane crashes, the damage is localized and complete, thousands of other planes then don’t kamikaze into the same yet ever widening spot.

This brings me to the broader political issues at play. When taking into account all of the effects of the of the oil spill on Louisiana and it’s neighboring States, how can the political leaders, Governor Jindal in particular, continually scream about lifting the moratorium? There must be some compelling reason because it’s not just the usual suspect Republicans yelling “drill baby drill” - Mary Landrieu is pushing for it as well. Surely the Statewide interests are not outweighed by the temporary loss of jobs on 33 drilling platforms? Of course it’s money and the thousands upon thousands every Louisiana politician takes from the oil industry, but if there was ever a time to be able to push against their money and lobbying surely it’s now. There is also the Republican governors from their very red States playing the hero to the Tea Party types of pushing back against the big bad Federal Government. There is also the simple GOP v. Dem at play as well. But I am really at a loss for the total disregard of the overall interests of the very people in the background of all Gov. Jindal’s television appearances. I would never expect a Republican to be concerned about the unfathomable environmental damages despite the lip service they give it, but I would expect them to be concerned with the people they claim to be for, the middle / working class. The only obvious answer is the oil industry holds so much power that they have practically every political leader in the Gulf Coast openly at war with the Obama administration over the jobs on 33 rigs while millions of barrels of oil gush from an identical rig just off their shores. It’s disgusting behavior and someone needs to start holding them accountable.

One final point that never gets enough attention in the arguments for renewable energy production and ending the addiction to oil. The Drill Baby Drill crowd loves to preach about using “America’s resources” and “reducing our reliance on foreign oil” and it’s all about “protecting America” reducing the debate into stupid patriotic drivel just like the oil industry wants. Make no mistake, every politician who yells about drilling and drilling everywhere is in the back pocket of the oil industry. The US has an estimated 22,450,000,000 barrels of oil in its domestic reserves of the 1,349,417,153,000 barrels in reserve globally, that works out to 1.66% of the global supply of oil is in American land. The US consumes 20,680,000 barrels a day. Every drop of oil that is pulled from the Earth worldwide is on the open market. Americans don’t necessarily use “American oil”, it’s completely indistinguishable once it’s on the open market, so “reducing our reliance on foreign oil” is utter nonsense. If we as American’s decided to completely destroy untold environments to suck every last drop of domestic oil, and somehow keep 100% of that oil only for Americans, we would be completely out of “American oil” in just under 3 years time. The only way to “protect America” and “reduce our reliance on foreign oil” is to completely stop using it and we need to start the transition yesterday. We should end every government subsidy the oil industry gets today, and take those millions and subsidize batteries for electric cars, subsidize car manufactures, build wind farms, and get solar panels on every roof in America. That is an energy policy for the future.