A Real Lawsuit and ... No

Since Congress prefers not to do its own job -- which consists of passing legislation designed to help govern the country -- it has decided to pursue a silly and frivolous lawsuit against President Obama for attempting to do his. This act is nothing more than inconsequential political theater, contrived because the Republican House already tried impeachment twenty years ago and it did not go well. Attacking Obamacare like this is dumb.

Another suit actually conforms to the rules for "cases in law and equity" designed by the Constitution. I don't agree with the plaintiffs, because I can't see why Obamacare is the abhorrent infringement on liberty they do. At least it's not stupid.

The Affordable Care Act is not Big Government, it's not an intrusion into anyone's life, but it is a big deal, and the courts may be one necessary venue for working it out. I do grow a little tired of the steady drum beat, though.

Clueless and "Conservative"

Before you fling epithets around, at least know what they mean.

Most of the disgusted comments following Kevin E. Lake's flimsy, ill-informed "expose" of the Wounded Warrior Project suggest that somehow "liberals" are to blame for the problem Lake purports to reveal. Why? No one seems to know, including the people doing the lamenting.

http://tipofthespearventures.com/wounded-warrior-project/

Lake's complaint is that the WWP is corrupt --as all charities are, in his view -- largely because they do not spend enough of their money on the wounded soldiers themselves but also because of some vague problem with non-disclosure agreements that I can't follow. He provides no numbers and no names for the anecdotes he uses for evidence. Nor does he offer a standard for what makes for legitimate charity work, perhaps because, in his view, we should all emulate him and just walk around handing money to veterans we know on an individual basis.

By most independent assessments, the WWP is pretty good, if not great, in its use of the money it receives. Every charity has to use some of its money for administrative costs and fundraising, and this one seems to balance these interests reasonably.

My issue, though, is with the bizarre discourse around Lake's weird little piece. 

Conservatives' biggest complaint is with excessive expenditure and empowerment in the federal government. They claim not to be heartless or greedy or self-centered, but to believe that freedom and self-sacrifice and community are best served in the private sector. These are not unreasonable positions to hold, and they are almost certainly correct in many instances.

Conservatives also tend to holler that liberals don't respect soldiers or the military.

OK, so the Wounded Warriors Project ought to be a conservative fan fave. And that's even if the CEO is paid millions of dollars to do his job. If the conservative point of view is correct, then the CEO deserves to be paid a lot of money for the service he provides in aggregating the donations of millions of people and distributing them to soldiers wounded or impaired by war. Government is nowhere to be found here, in part because the organization is not taxed, as a non-profit.

If the WWP is poorly run -- and there is no evidence in Lake's rant that it is -- then that has nothing to do with liberalism or conservativism. Nothing. 

Those who want to attack liberals, Democrats and Obama may have good reason, but they make themselves look like idiots when they fling around words without paying attention to what they mean, and thereby undermine the legitimate, serious dialogue we ought to be having.

NBC Should Dump Dungy -- He's a Distraction

Tony Dungy earned his fame as a football coach first, but since he retired from that job he has been treated as some kind of ethical guru by the meatheads at ESPN and the NFL Network. Dungy stood up for Michael Vick after Vick was convicted of running a dog fighting ring in which animals were brutally, viciously killed, and represented the early wave of black head coaches who had been denied equal treatment because of baseless assumptions about the connection between their ability and their color.

Now Dungy says that he would not have drafted Michael Sam, the SEC Defensive Player of the Year, because Sam came as gay before the draft and therefore would be "a distraction." To clear things up, Dungy said it was not Sam's homosexuality itself that would be a problem, but the "media attention" it would get.

Michael Sam 

(Francis Page Jr./Creative Commons) at http://www.neontommy.com/news/2014/02/why-do-you-care-if-michael-sam-gay

Media attention? 

The only reason the NFL exists is to get media attention. Tony Dungy's sole remaining employment relating to football is as a commentator on NBC. The NFL is, itself, nothing but a giant, expensive distraction. Every day is a "media circus" because the NFL makes all its money from television coverage.

If Dungy wants to avoid distractions, tell him to quit his job.

Putin, Law, and Truth

Vladimir Putin built his brutal Russian regime on lies. Like all dictators, Putin prefers to be see as a legitimate ruler, governing in the name of his subjects. Since that story cannot withstand even the briefest scrutiny, he must fabricate some information and obscure the rest. Control of all media outlets therefore lies at the heart of his power, because Russians must only receive news he selects or they would very quickly become angry and unmanageable.

The rest of the world is not under his thumb, however, and neither is empirical reality. This fundamental truth always proves to be the death of dictatorship and totalitarianism in the end. In the case of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH 17, Putin wants to maintain the fiction that he and his minions bear no responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of civilians flying 30,000 feet over the Ukrainian war zone, that any suggestion that they are at fault comes from a worldwide conspiracy to weaken Russia, and that the cause of truth and justice depends on Russia and its supporters. By many indications, Russian citizens, consuming Putin's own version of events, buy this narrative and continue to support Putin. But European and American citizens and their governments have access to the truth, and so demand that Putin behave more like a decent human being.

As a result, Putin is in trouble. As Stratfor analyst George Friedman writes, since the airplane was shot down "Putin then moves from being an effective, sophisticated ruler who ruthlessly uses power to being a dangerous incompetent supporting a hopeless insurrection with wholly inappropriate weapons. And the West, no matter how opposed some countries might be to a split with Putin, must come to grips with how effective and rational he really is." At some point, the real world intrudes on even the most tightly controlled places, and it has come rushing into Moscow in the last few days. we can only hope that it forces serious change in Russia relatively quickly.

If Roberts' Approach is "Incremental" Maybe He is Real Judicial Conservative

Complaints outlined here, in a New York Times piece, suggest that "conservatives" on the Supreme Court want to overrule more precedents. The way the comments are accumulated overstates the trend a little, I think, but still, the remarks from Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas indicate the distinction between true judicial conservatives and social conservatives.

Social conservatives want to avoid change in gender roles (by preventing abortions), race relations (by voiding affirmative action programs), and economic policy (by striking anything smelling of redistribution of wealth). They like the way things "back in the day."

Judicial conservatives want to avoid jarring the legal and constitutional framework under which we have been operating for some time. They avoid overturning previous rulings or substituting new priorities for older ones by allowing precedents to stand, even if they are controversial -- Roe v. Wade is the classic example.

I'm not crazy about Roberts's politics, but I dod appreciate that he is alt least somewhat hesitant to do what Scalia prefers, which is just make things the way he wants them.

The "Islamic State" is Neither

At the core of Muhammad's life was the quest for an all-in-one society, in which politics, religion, art, and economics all flow from one, central authority derived from the word of God. It is not anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic to say that Muhammad did not seek freedom of religion or pluralism; he believed he had found the answer, and he wanted to apply it.

For the "hyper-violent" adherents of the group called the Islamic State to call for such a thing, then, is deeply rooted in the traditions and philosophy of Islamic culture. Muhammad did the same, and he fought more than one serious, literal battle to achieve its creation. That he succeeded in doing so is one of the things that sets Islam apart from other world religions, and it infuses the faithful with a distinct, though not unique political mindset (one not at all different from that of most Israelis.)

But what would the government of such a group look like? For one, it would erase or diminish the lines drawn more-or-less arbitrarily by the Sykes-Picot Agreement of the early years of the last century. It would be exclusively Sunni, as Iran is fully aware, and authoritarian at least. It would not be open to diversity, and it would not be an especially willing partner with the United States in maintaining Western interests.

So far, IS has spent all its time rebelling against the status quo, and so has not established anything like a state as yet. It governs nothing, eve as it expands the reach of its military domination and intimidation. Most commentators assume that it will be takfiri and brutal. Al Qaeda itself has disavowed many of its methods as too nasty, and while that group has ulterior motives for such remarks, it's still saying a lot that Zawahiri flinches at their violence.

http://www.eiilir.eu/

If these rebels act anything like takfiris elsewhere, they are not leading in the tradition of Islam. Muslim tradition allows excommunications and attacks on apostates, but Muhammad was a statesman as well as a profit, and he impose strict rules of evidence and procedure on such practices. Here is the Q'uran itself:

O you who believe! When you go (to fight) in the Cause of God, verify (the truth), and say not to anyone who greets you (by embracing Islam): "You are not a believer"; seeking the perishable goods of the worldly life. There are much more profits and booties with God. Even as he is now, so were you yourselves before till God conferred on you His Favours (i.e. guided you to Islam), therefore, be cautious in discrimination. God is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do. (4:94)

That is, one can not simply wander around the desert killing people on his own initiative, as these people have done. Until they prove themselves to be true Muslims, then, they will gain no legitimacy, and no statehood.

On the Purpose of Rules

I am not a huge fan of instant replay in professional sports. There certainly are some instances in which it is helpful and right: the infamous case of Jim Joyce's missed call at first base to break up a perfect game comes to mind, for example.

Joyce was looking right at the play before he called the runner safe, negating the 27th out of a perfect game (nydailynews.com)

Most of the time, though, the calls that people want to check (and by "people," I mostly mean TV and radio commentators) don't really need to be checked.

Here's what I mean by "need." The point of the out/safe rule, for example, is that runners need to get to the base before the defense tags them or the base they are forced to go to.* This is the fundamental principle of the game, and so needs to be enforced as exactly as possible. But he question of ties is really interesting. The rule book says, in the case of a batter-runner going to first base, that the throw must be there before the runner, suggesting that ties go to the runner. In all other force plays, the rule reads that the runner must beat the throw, suggesting the opposite. This ambiguity is germane because it indicates that the rules-makers had a general idea in mind. Not only that, but it is a reflection of the fact that plays as close as a "tie" will be judged more-or-less arbitrarily, and such is life. The game moves on.

The same idea applies to the strike zone. The purpose of the strike zone is to make the game fair and to keep it moving along. Batters can't just stand there forever waiting for the perfect pitch to hit, and pitchers can't throw things just anywhere. This rule was put in place after the first iteration of the game had batters requesting certain locations for pitches, thereby eliminating the pitcher/batter conflict that is so central to the game's excitement.  To some extent, the strike zone is a matter of interpretation by the umpire, even at the major league level. What exactly is the "midpoint" of a batter's body as he is moving and shifting to hit the ball? There are limits beyond which a fair strike zone can't move, but to think that it is precisely measurable within an inch or so is a bit silly.

Note that the top of the strike zone is not "at the letters," though the practical effect is almost that high. Note also that the bottom is not "at the knee." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_zone)

At lower levels of the game, this type of interpretation is even more important. Baseball is not fun to play or watch when no one swings the bat and every at-bat takes five pitches resulting in a walk. For the game to work, people must swing. One job of the umpire, therefore, is balance fairness with the good of the game. Call too big a strike zone and hitters have no real chance; call too few strikes and the game comes to a halt. 

All the griping about umps and strikes, then, needs to be based o these principles, not the fantasy that there should be the perfect zone.

The Fundamental and Dangerous Problem with the Hobby Lobby Decision

A disingenuous claim, at best (www.rightspeak.net)

I have two problems with the recent ruling in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. One, as I have already tried to make clear, has to do with the intellectual inconsistency of a few justices, led by Antonin Scalia. When justices are inconsistent or dishonest about their reasoning it undermines the political discourse in this country and leads us further away from effective self-governance.

The real danger of the opinion, however, lies in its subversion of the very foundation of democratic government: the acceptance that sometimes you don't get your way. Claiming a 1st Amendment exemption from health care laws is disingenuous. Denial of health care coverage for birth control is not a religious practice, and it does not even stem from a serious religious belief. Rather, it's an expression of a political preference, and the owners of the big box hobby store are bitter that their side lost the political debate.

If representative government is going to work, everyone needs to accept the fact that he cannot always have things his way. Our Bill of Rights was not constructed to guarantee that we never lose a debate. To water down fundamental rights -- or, rather, to use the word "right" inappropriately -- is to weaken the whole scheme and threaten our ability to function as a political society.

On the Slippery Slope

The majority in the Supreme Court's decision in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius assured us that its ruling was very narrow, and would not exempt for-profit corporations from anti-discrimination laws, for example, on religious grounds.

But within days, it issued another order that called those reassurances into question, and non-profit organizations have read the decision as exempting them from a whole host of regulations.

Is this was a "conservative" court does?

Who We are Now: The United States and Counterinsurgency

In 2009, the US Army, motivated by the disastrous occupation of Iraq in 203, published its Field Manual in Tactics in Counterinsurgency. The problem, as the authors saw it, was that Army commanders did not know what do to once they had occupied a country using traditional military strategy and tactics. The manual describes how commanders should aid in the reconstruction of a society and a polity destroyed by the invasion.

The first basic assumption of the manual -- an idea ignored or abandoned by the doctrine of Rumsfeld's military in 2003 -- is that an American invasion will create animosity and opposition in at least some segment of the population of the conquered nation (referred to in the manual, somewhat euphemistically as the "Host Nation," or HN). As a result, soldiers will have to combat an insurgency for some time after the invasion is over. The second assumption of the manual is that soldiers are not automatically equipped or trained to work like that; they are trained to kill the enemy efficiently and comprehensively, not govern a chaotic situation.

The first two chapters serve as a remarkable textbook on practical human geography. They describe the physical and social manifestations of a people's values (and make careful distinctions between the values of a society and its interests -- concepts that deserve very further thoughts at all levels of government.)

I say it is "practical human geography" because this is a field manual; its purpose is to instruct soldiers on what to do, on a day-to-day basis, when they are an occupying force in a foreign place. The soldiers need to understand their Host Nation well enough not offend its inhabitants and thereby strengthen the Army's opponents.  They must provide security in its most basic form while also improving infrastructure and the faith in the rule of law.

These are enormously complicated and complex undertakings, and the book emphasizes the need for soldiers to adhere to legal and political restrictions in the conduct of open war. It teaches methods of detainment, search and seizure, interrogation, interaction with NGO's and government agencies. It urges restraint and observation while also describing the best way to establish effective kill zones for an ambush in an urban area.

In other words, the people of the United States, through its military, have become the guarantors of the rule of law in parts of the Middle East. If we did not know that already, we can see it in the rapid disintegration of Iraq once the Army left.

Now is the time to have a careful, reasoned debate about the consequences and implications of this fundamental fact. I wish we were capable of having it.

On the Assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki

In 2011, President Obama ordered the killing of an American citizen living in Iraq. His name was Anwar al-Awlaki, and he was suspected of orchestrating or inspiring at least three terrorist attacks on American soil. Using an unmanned drone, the CIA vaporized al-Awlaki without submitting his case to a court or convicting him of any crime. In other words, Obama carried out an extra-judicial execution -- the kind of thing generally frowned upon under the rule of law (unless you are John Yoo.)

The problems with this sort of thing are obvious. If the president unilaterally can order the death of a US citizen, there is very little he cannot do. Our system of checks and balances, if it was designed to do anything, was intended to prevent this kind of drastic action being taken without any sort of due process. More specifically, there seem to be direct legal prohibitions on this sort of thing, as legal scholar Kevin Jon Heller pointed out even before the killing.

Recently, the Obama Administration released the memo written to the president explaining why this targeted assassination was legal and justified. Essentially, it invokes the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and asserts that the government could "reasonably conclude" that al-Awlaki was a member of al Qaeda. The facts behind this conclusion are redacted, with the permission of a federal judge who ordered the release of the memo, so we can't know why they think he was a member of the one specific terrorist organization reached by the AUMF.

In other words, the executive gave itself permission to conduct an assassination based on information known only to the executive.

Where is Ted Cruz when you need him? Why is this OK when Obamacare is a crazy overreach?

Once Again, the "Conservatives" of the Supreme Court Go Wild

Samuel Alito likes to call himself a conservative, as does Antonin Scalia. Once again, however, both these men jumped the rails in the majority opinion in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. Essentially, they announced that Congress should have chosen a different way to accomplish their goals. The corporation of Hobby Lobby, they said, had First Amendment rights to exercise religious beliefs (a novel interpretation that no true judicial conservative would endorse, even if social conservatives love it), and Congress chose a method of regulating health care that interfered too much with those rights. They did not assert that Congress had no power to legislate as they did, but they did propose an alternative way of going about it they liked better.

I don't like the decision for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that I find the claim that birth control is tantamount to abortion to be absurd. I'm especially annoyed, however, with the hypocrisy of Alito, Scalia and Thomas and the damage it is doing to our system.