Monthly Archives: June 2008

This Is Not “Swiftboating”

Posted on by

The wingnuts are screaming because of something Gen. Wesley Clark said:

The dust-up began with Clark’s appearance Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” where moderator Bob Schieffer asked him about his interview with the Huffington Post earlier this month.

In the interview, Clark said McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, was “untested and untried.”

When Schieffer asked to explain the comment, Clark said he was referring to McCain’s experience, or lack thereof, in setting national security policies and understanding the risk involved in such matters.

“I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility,” said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.

“He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not,” Clark said.

Schieffer noted that Obama did not have any of those experiences, nor had he “ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.”

“Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,” Clark said.

So a televised wingnut hollered that McCain was being swift-boated by Gen. Clark. Hello? Clark didn’t make unsupportable claims that McCain is lying about his war record or that he had behaved dishonorably in the service, as the swifties did to Kerry. He’s saying that being a fighter pilot and then a POW doesn’t qualify someone to be President.

Dear wingnuts: This is a simple statement of fact.

All manner of people have been POWs who would not have been good presidents. I sometimes write about my uncle, a POW in Japan during World War II, who was a great guy with many admirable qualities. But he would not have been a good president, either.

Look, wingnuts, if your atrophied brains have any firing neurons left, think about what skills a POW needs to survive. Then think about what skills a President needs to carry out the duties of office. I’m not talking about character here; I’m talking about professional skills. What does he know how to do?

I’m not saying that a former POW would necessarily be a bad president. I’m just saying the POW experience is irrelevant. John Kennedy’s PT 109 experience was irrelevant, also. That doesn’t mean he was a bad president. I’m just saying that bravery in war and being an effective POTUS are two unrelated things. I believe that’s what Gen. Clark was saying.

BTW, here’s a lovely bit of projection from a rightie blogger:

The “Ugly Liberal” is coming out in the Democrat Party. A close cousin to the Ugly American – who would go to Europe and other places and display such arrogance and snobbery that it gave all America a bad reputation – this is the election for the Ugly Liberal. It is their hate of Americans, conservatives, life, etc that drives them. They are a constant insult machine, tearing down others to prop up their insecurity. They run their little fantasies about how only they can save humanity from itself.

Cross out “liberal” and write in “wingnut,” and it would be more than accurate until the last sentence. Righties don’t fantasize about saving humanity from itself. They don’t give a bleep about humanity.

Update: Real Swift boaters don’t Swift boat.

Update: See also Josh Marshall:

It’s not surprising. But it is an example of the fatuous McCain worship that is the bread and butter of the Washington press corps that Wes Clark’s comments this weekend on Face the Nation are being called ‘swift-boating’. It’s almost comical, but not much less than Bob Schieffer’s incredulous responses to the fact that Clark had the temerity to argue that McCain’s experience as a Navy pilot and a POW don’t necessarily mean he’d be a good president. …

… The McCain campaign is now launching an attack with its ‘truth squad’ about the Clark ‘controversy’ and pushing Obama to “denounce” Clark, etc. It’ll be interesting to watch what happens here. The McCain campaign’s angle here is to not to prevent attacks on the integrity of McCain’s war record (which Clark explicitly did not do) but to make it off limits for anyone to question that his war-time experience means he has the temperament and experience which make him the better qualified candidate to be president.

Stuff

Posted on by

I urge you to read this op ed by Dick Cavett on depression. This is a man who’s been there.

John McCain jokes about beating his wife.

This one is actually amusing. A researcher with two Ph.D.s working for a super-elite think tank tried to track down the origins of the “Obama is a Muslim” email. After months of painstaking work, the trail eventually led to … Free Republic. She could have just asked us.

The oldest Soto Zen monastery in the U.S. is threatened by wildfires.

More on the Heller Decision

Posted on by

I wrote last night that, whether I like it or not, the 2nd Amendment really was intended to protect an individual right rather than a collective right to own firearms, so yesterday’s SCOTUS decision wasn’t all that shocking to me. My opinion is not based on case law but on the history of the state militias in the early years of the republic and also on some primary sources from those early years that seem to assume an individual right. I have not read the Heller decision and have no idea how the justices came to their conclusions. I’m just explaining how I came to mine.

Cass Sunstein, a professor at Harvard Law School, has an opposite opinion on Heller. He writes in today’s Boston Globe that yesterday’s decision was “a dramatic departure from how the Constitution has long been understood.” Sunstein knows law a lot better than I do, so I’m not going to argue with him.

On the other hand, Eugene Robinson’s thinking on the matter is pretty close to mine.

I’ve never been able to understand why the Founders would stick a collective right into the middle of the greatest charter of individual rights and freedoms ever written — and give it such pride of place — the No. 2 position, right behind such bedrock freedoms as speech and religion. Even Barack Obama, a longtime advocate of gun control — but also a one-time professor of constitutional law — has said he believes the amendment confers an individual right to gun ownership.

And even if the Second Amendment was meant to refer to state militias, where did the Founders intend for the militias’ weapons to be stored? In the homes of the volunteers is my guess.

I can’t say what the Founders intended, but the 1st Congress declared that it was up to individuals to not just store their muskets in their homes but to acquire the muskets on their own. In the Militia Act of 1792, Congress stipulated which citizens were required to enroll in the militia, then said —

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

This is the biggest reason why I think the 2nd Amendment intended an individual right, not a collective right.

Robinson continues,

I believe the Constitution is a living document that has to be seen in light of the times. I believe the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, was right to infer an implicit right to privacy, even though no such thing is spelled out. I think the idea that the Founders’ “original intent” should govern every interpretation of the Constitution is loony — as if men who wrote with quill pens could somehow devise a blueprint for regulating the Internet.

But I also believe that if the Constitution says yes, you can’t just blithely pretend it says no. Yesterday’s decision appears to leave room for laws that place some restrictions on gun ownership but still observe the Second Amendment’s guarantee. If not, then the way to fix the Constitution is to amend it — not ignore it.

I agree again. We are not being consistent if we read one amendment in the Bill of Rights in a less liberal light than we read the rest of it. And if it becomes acceptable for one amendment to be ignored, then any of them can be ignored.

That said, at the very least I want state and local governments to have some ability to regulate, register, and control firearms in their jurisdictions. Adam Liptak writes in today’s New York Times that the Heller decision allows room for this. Liptak also writes,

As the list of affected localities demonstrates, gun control laws of the sort most likely to be affected by Thursday’s decision are almost exclusively urban. Indeed, some 40 states pre-empt local gun regulations, indicating significant tensions between state lawmakers and municipal officials.

The NRA and other gun-rights groups already have mounted a campaign to force urban areas to adopt the same minimal firearm restrictions as one might find on the open range in Montana. In other words, they want one national standard, and the hell with the right of state and local governments to judge what regulations or restrictions — short of a ban — are best for their citizens.

I’ve lived or worked in rural areas, in suburbs, and in Manhattan. The realities of population density have a huge impact on peoples’ attitudes toward firearms. I wrote back in 2004:

… years ago I lived in a suburb of Cincinnati, and I remember that usually whenever a squirrel set off somebody’s home security alarm the menfolk of the neighborhood would come running out of their homes waving handguns, ready to shoot some fleeing perpetrator.

I remember this vividly because my infant daughter’s room was in a corner of the house nearest the street and also nearest the home of one of the more rabid gun-waving neighbors. A few times I scooped her out of her crib and brought her into the middle of the house to keep her safer from stray bullets. Fortunately the posse never actually shot at anybody.

In NYC neighborhoods with high drug traffic it sometimes happens that a gunfight breaks out, and stray bullets kill an innocent child. This does not inspire most New Yorkers to go out and buy their own guns to protect themselves. On the contrary, New Yorkers generally don’t approve of people carrying guns for protection.

After living here awhile, I came to understand why. New Yorkers habitually seek safety in numbers. If you keep to areas where there are lots of other people, you are generally safer than if you are somewhere isolated. New Yorkers prefer subway cars and elevators with at least a couple of other people inside, even if the other people are strangers. They stay in well-lit, high-traffic areas.

In short, they insulate themselves from harm with lots of nearby human flesh. Thick crowds of strangers that an Ohioan would find suffocating are comforting to a New Yorker. The thought that somebody in the flesh shield might whip out a gun and start shooting that flesh is more frightening to New Yorkers than the burglaries that worried my neighbors in Ohio.

I’m not personally opposed to gun ownership. If I lived in an isolated cabin in Montana I’d probably keep a loaded shotgun on the wall, too. But in densely populated areas, guns may not be the self-defense tool of choice. This is a point many “heartlanders” cannot grasp.

BTW, the guy I called “one of the more rabid gun-waving neighbors” was married to Mean Jean Schmidt’s twin sister. But that’s another story.

Wayne LaPierre of the NRA is already hollering about the defeat of elitism: “Behind every gun control law is a ruling elitist class that can’t stand your ability to take care of yourself.” So the NRA will try to override every municipality in the U.S. whose citizens, through their elected officials, have decided they prefer certain gun control laws. I swear, the word “elitist” is losing all meaning except “anyone I don’t like.”

Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution writes, “You know, this victory could eventually backfire politically on LaPierre and his buddies.” I think it could, too.

The Heller Decision

Posted on by

I hate to swim against the tide, but several years ago I took an interest in the subject of militias in the Constitution. And after a lot of reading and listening to arguments, I came to believe that the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment, however badly worded, should not be construed to mean that only active members of the state militias (now the National Guard) had a right to own firearms. Rather, I think it’s more likely the Second Amendment protected the right of individuals to own firearms so that the state militias could not be disarmed by the federal government. I know that doesn’t make much sense now, but I can see how 18th century men might have seen it that way.

The original state militias were compulsory, meaning all eligible men were required to register. They were also often self-armed, and federal regulations passed by the original Congress stipulated what sort of musket the registered militia members were supposed to maintain. In reality these regulations were not followed all that well. Some states took their militias seriously and some let them go to rot. There are all kinds of stories of men drilling with broomsticks and cornstalks instead of muskets because they didn’t own muskets. Militias tended not to be very good at actual warfare. However, in the early 19th century drilling competitions between militia units were a popular spectator sport.

Anyway, long story short, the way the original state militias were conceived, the ability of citizens to purchase and possess firearms was essential if the state militia was going to be armed.

I haven’t read the Heller decision myself, so I don’t know how the majority of the court argued it.

Elitism for Dummies

Posted on by

President Bush’s unintentionally hilarious/embarrassing/revealing/pathetic remark to Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo about the White House chef once again stirred up the “elitism” issue for me.

Were it not for the affected Texas accent, ol’ George would seem a character right out of some dry satire about a clueless and inbred European nobility. In some ways he’s the spoiled, undisciplined boy in school blazer and knickers who disrupts his mother’s crystal-and-china garden parties. Yet in other ways I sense his whole life is driven by brooding resentments and an urge to settle scores.

I’ve also long been curious about the Texas accent, since he appears to be the only member of his family who has one. One wonders if the accent and the rest of the folksy persona developed before or after Little Georgie was shipped back East to the Phillips Academy.

One definition of “elitism” is “The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.” By that definition, Little Georgie is elitist to the core. He’s so entitled he can’t see his own limitations, and so thoroughly elitist he may not see his elitism as elitism, as he’s been protected from other ways to view the world.

You probably know that one of the Right’s favorite Fantasy Narratives is of the mysterious “liberal elite” that secretly runs everything and which countless right-wing politicians have won elections running against, even though it doesn’t exist. Oh, there are certainly groups of elitist liberals, but they haven’t had enough influence to impact a bag of marshmallows for years.

Anyway, awhile back I was reading some op ed by some blue-blooded, Ivy League-educated right-wing pundit in the Wall Street Journal, and out of the blue this guy slams somebody else for being an elitist. Too rich; I’m sorry I didn’t bookmark it. But this is what I mean by unconscious elitism.

Right-wing elitists in particular just love to think of themselves as Men (or Women, as it were) of the People, particularly the People of the Homeland, because these People share their Values and are easily snookered can be flattered into voting for Republican candidates who present themselves as People Just Like Them, and who in turn can be counted on to protect the privileges and prerogatives of the right-wing elitists who don’t see themselves as elitists.

John McCain’s recent mangling of Barack Obama’s famous “bitter” remark is also illustrative:

“We’re going to go to the small towns in Pennsylvania and I’m gonna to tell them I don’t agree with Senator Obama that they cling to their religion and the Constitution because they’re bitter,” said McCain, who might have been referring to the Second Amendment right to bear arms. “I’m gonna tell them they have faith and they have trust and support the Constitution of the United States because they have optimism and hope… That’s what America’s all about.”

A lot of people jumped on the malapropism about the Constitution, but I say look at the next part also — he’s going to small towns in Pennsylvania and (emphasis added) “I am going to tell them that they have faith and they have trust and support the Constitution of the United States because they have optimism and hope and that is the strength of America.” These are people he’s never in his life lived among, but he’s going to tell them what they think? Does anyone beside me think that’s weird?

Shortly after Obama was slammed for the bitter remark I wrote a post called “Elitism for Elites” that most of the people in media screeching about “elitism” were, in fact, elites who had never in their lives enjoyed the true small-town white experience. Yet they stepped all over themselves rushing to a microphone to speak for small-town white folks everywhere.

And then Bill Kristol said,

He’s [Obama] disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America.

Either Kristol doesn’t know what bourgeois means, or else someone ought to take Kristol on a cultural tour of small-town white America.

Karl Rove’s recent attempt to paint Barack Obama as some kind of country club snot was just lame, IMO. But after years of being Mr. Insider does Karl not notice that he’s, um, an elite?

Right wingers assume they have a copyright on religion, whether they personally are religious or not, and on all matters military, whether they personally have served or not. They also assume they cannot be elites, no matter how powerful and privileged they are. Sort of out of touch with themselves, I would say.

Teh Stupid, It Burns

Posted on by

David Brooks has a column in the New York Times today in which the Keyboarding Cabbage waxes philosophical about President Bush’s genius in ordering the surge, which as you know has accomplished its main goal of enabling the forging of a stable and sustainable government in Baghdad.

Oh, wait …

So Brooks is stupid enough. but then I tripped over this rightie blogger who says (emphasis added) —

New York Times columnist David Brooks admits: Bush was right:

[long quote from Brooks column in which Brooks states his, and only his, opinion]

It is becoming obvious even to many on the left that the Iraq surge has worked.

I think the assumption is that because Brooks writes for the New York Times, he must be representative of “the left.” But Brooks is as much “on the left” as I’m Brad Pitt. And does that mean Bill Kristol is “on the left,” too? If it does, I’m outtahere.

For more about the success of the surge, see also:

Derrick Jackson, “Big Oil and the War in Iraq”

“Government Study Criticizes Bush Administration’s Measures of Progress in Iraq”

For more on the persistent idiocy of David Brooks, see Mustang Bobby.

Memory Lapse

Posted on by

William Kristol complains that MoveOn.org’s “Alex” ad is a slap in the face to soldiers.

The MoveOn ad is unapologetic in its selfishness, and barely disguised in its disdain for those who have chosen to serve — and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving. The ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past.

And the sole responsibility of others.

Can someone remind me when Kristol served in the military? I’m drawing a blank (she said, snarkily).

Just a few days ago, Kristol explained to Faux Nooz audiences that if Barack Obama becomes a clear favorite in the presidential race, President Bush would be forced to go ahead and bomb Iran. Otherwise, the job could wait for President McBush.

I think that if Kristol is so fired-up eager to attack Iran, we should give him a helmet and rifle and a plane ticket to Tehran. Go for it, dude. Let us know how it turns out.

Kristol conflates a reluctance to fight in Iraq with a reluctance to defend America. This is the same claim righties made during the Vietnam years — that those opposed to the war were opposed to defending America. But of course, “fighting in Vietnam” and “defending America” were two entirely different things.

As I’ve said before, we Boomers were raised to be idealistic and naive. The first wave of Boomers were children during the hyper-patriotic post World War II era, remember. We were taught to revere the flag and John Wayne. Boys in particular spent their childhood re-fighting Iwo Jima in surburban back yards. Had there been a genuine threat to America, and a genuine need to go to war, I believe my brother Boomers would have responded at least as well as our fathers did.

Instead, for many muddied and ignoble reasons, our idealism was betrayed with Vietnam, a war I’m sure Kristol supported enthusiastically as an undergraduate at Harvard even as he managed to avoid fighting in it.

So who’s being selfish and infantile, Bill?

Young people today seem a lot more grounded than we were back then. They are much less naive, at least. I can’t speak to the idealism issue; that’s hard to measure. But this may be the first generation since those of 1776 and 1860 that will be called on to re-evaluate the entire issue of nation, and why we have one. Good luck with that.

Update: See Mustang Bobby.