Madison, Egypt / 2-21-11

Tunisia and Egypt threw off their Dictator-Presidents earlier this month. Hundreds of protesters perished last weekend in Libya; the carnage there continues today.

Why?

It's simple. They've been oppressed for decades. Centuries.

All they want is some freedom. Self-governance. Civil liberties. Economic freedoms. More guaranteed rights. Just like the ones a lot of other humans enjoy. Freedom engenders a righteous envy.

Most basically, they want more flavors of liberty.

It makes perfect sense: Freedom is delicious. Far from blaming Tunisians, Egyptians and now Libyans for causing trouble, we admire their efforts and wish them success.

Meanwhile, nobody has died in Wisconsin (U.S.A.) during the week of protests against Governor Scott Walker's plan to remove certain collective bargaining rights from nurses, firefighters, teachers and cops.

And Mr. Walker has only been in office eight weeks. He's not yet eligible for dictator status anyway.

Plus, he's not proposing to suspend religious freedom. Or curtail free speech. Or revoke the Second Amendment. He's just trying to break unions.

But this is where comfort might come from tonight: Human beings a continent and a half away are selflessly shedding their own blood, in pursuit of more rights. And thankfully, respecting their sacrifice, enough of us in this freest of nations continue to resist those who would nudge us (even if only a little) back toward the ugly place from which so many North Africans are trying to flee.

Carry on, Wisconsin protesters. And any lovers of liberty worldwide, you too.

Can M.J. Come Out and Play? / 2-20-11

Quick, get your pot now, while it's still cheap.

And still illegal. You know, if you like the risk factor.

Because the end of Pot Prohibition is at hand. (Optional joke: We're going to turn can'tabis into cannabis!)

Anyway, The Economist (worthless gossip tabloid) and YouGov (legitimate market research gurus and polling pros) released a poll earlier this month that shows a majority of Americans favor decriminalizing marijuana and letting the government treat it "like alcohol and tobacco."

Not just a small majority, either. 58 percent favor decriminalization if the parameters are set just right, with the feds taxing it, regulating it, and keeping it out of bounds for minors. 23 percent oppose such a plan.

Breaking down the numbers, 60 percent (!) of respondents ages 34-60 came out in favor of legalizing pot.

More breaking down: the poll's very first question shows that respondents have a mostly unfavorable view of President Obama. These aren't a bunch of hippies and twentysomethings in this sample.

Now granted, a different wording of the same question will get a different result.

"Should potheads get out of jail free?" will score less than 40 percent.

"Should marijuana be made legal?" will score, most times, 40-50 percent of the vote. It did so in a Gallup poll in October of last year with a healthy 46 percent.

"Should marijuana be regulated in the same way as alcohol?" will score the highest. As it did here.

(Bonus Fun Fact: "Should alcohol be made illegal?" scores very high among people living in the 1920's.)

But what is most striking about the numbers is the margin. 58 percent is a strong majority, for sure, but 23 percent against is a puny, sad minority. A minority which won't go mellowly into the night, let's be honest; but if there's something politicians are good at, it's reading polls. 58-23.

58-23. (58-23!)

If another reputable polling outfit can duplicate the same result (without too much cheating), then game over on a national level.

(P.S.: Cool state-by-state info available here.)

144 Or Less, Vol. IX / 2-18-11

You know who's not dominating the airwaves right now?

Sarah P., that's who. (Isn't.)

We saw her a-plenty in 2010, endorsing candidates, writing "books" (that should help with future pesky gotcha-type questions!!), feuding with her son-in-and-out-of-almost-law, railing against the Ovalest Socialist, being lampooned, doing "reality" shows, and generally being the life of the (tea) party.

This year, not so much. Which is great. I mean, she has a large, needy family and all, so good for her.

She also has been printing money. Gobs of money.

I guessed last year that the main reason she quit that inconvenient day job of hers was to cash in while she could. And looky here: various news outlets estimate she made between $12 and $14 million in 2010.

Again, good for her. But what's her next move now?

Please run, Sarah. Pretty please.

(Word count: 144)

144 Or less, Vol. VIII / 2-18-11

Something Baby Bush DID get right:

"The desire for freedom resides in every human heart. And that desire cannot be contained forever by prison walls, or martial laws, or secret police. Over time, and across the Earth, freedom will find a way.

Granted, he got himself some speechwritin' help there, as is usually the case with presidents (but only usually), yet the point remains: Freedom gonna do its thing.

Totalitarian regimes tremble today across the Middle East (Tunisia, Egypt, maybe Bahrain, then Iran?). Made me recall the run-up to III (Illegitimate Invasion: Iraq), when conservative apologists continually insisted that a free Iraq would set off a neo-domino theory in which long-awaited civil and economic liberties sweep the region.

They were probably right. Doubtful our military "assistance" was needed, but still.

To conclude, more W: "This young century will be liberty's century."

Hoping.

(Word count: 142)

Second Amendmen't / 2-10-11

Just in time for Valentine's Day, a post on guns. Because how better to express your love than with the gift of violence?

Self-inspired by my thoughts on what God isn't, (yes, I do know how self-absorbed that sounds), this is a post on what the Second Amendment does NOT state.

Oh, I know what it SAYS all right. I have it memorized; after a certain number of debates, that's advisable. (You can believe me, or you can imagine that I dialed up www.usconstitution.gov/billofrights/amendment2.htm and cut-and-pasted it, but don't do that, because I probably just made that web page up.)

Amendment No. 2 says, "A well regulated militia, being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Alternately, in the version ratified by the states, "A well regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Much brainpower has been dedicated to what meaning the commas, or absence of commas, bring to the text. I used to obsess on this topic, but have nothing new to bring to the discussion. Scholars argue that the commas either limit or enhance the amount of individual liberty regarding gun ownership. Naturally, whichever way these brilliant scholars interpret the commas reflects their own bias, or the case they are trying to advance at the time. Curiously, some propose this neat little theory: the commas are inconsequential, that the framers had commarhea, if you will. (Groan.)

No, commas are boring. (Disclaimer: I love this book, which is the second result on Google auto-complete if you enter "Eats.") Instead, I want to waste my time tonight doing some more of that negative thinking. I'm putting up a list of erroneous conclusions that can be drawn from the Bill of Rights, Chapter Two. Then at the end, I'll offer my own interpretation of the text, because I can't help myself.

The Second Amendment does NOT say:

"Return your guns to the government."

"You can have as many semi-automatic submachineguns as you want."

"A waiting period for handguns must be in place."

"Federal legislation supersede local laws."

"Militias are awesome! Go put one together! And government oversight is optional."

"Heavily regulated ownership of firearms make our country safer."

"An armed society is a polite society."

"Because the government owns stealth bombers and nuclear submarines, our collective security is assured, and we should all get rid of our hunting rifles."

"City handgun bans are unconstitutional."

"Concealed weapons in bars, that sounds like a good idea."

"It is illegal to hunt deer with an AK-47."

"Anyone can keep and bear a Glock."

That was fun.

What DOES it say, though? I'm roughly 10 percent as smart as the dumbest guy in the room at the time they were concocting the Bill of Rights. Therefore, I'm qualified to paraphrase. (The commonly accepted threshold for bloggers is 0 percent.)

The best I can come up with is:

"Threats to our collective security abound, not only on the national level, but also on the borders of our states, and from even within our own population. It is evident that a tyrannical government might still arise from our experiment in representative democracy, as we are embarking on a seldom-traveled political journey while living on a continent populated with both friends and enemies. For these reasons, it is vital to our survival that reasonably regulated armies of citizens be allowed to form. It follows, logically, that citizens may own firearms."

Discuss.

I, Republican, The Sequel / 2-5-11

Last night, I went out of my way to agree with Republican viewpoints on the current issues being spotlighted on gop.com. That post is below.

This entry is wonkier and clunkier. You should probably go do something else, something more useful, more entertaining, more unwonky and unclunky, and come back at the end for dessert.

The full 2008 platform is here.

Aaaand... go.

In the Second Amendment section, which interestingly, headlines the platform, I expected to find plenty to agree with. I can read the Constitution. (Indeed, I HAVE read it! The Second Amendment is there, in plain-ish English, saying well-regulated militias are OK, and because of that, the individual's right to own guns is to be protected.) Yet of the 197 words present in "Upholding the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms," I could only concur with "We condemn frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers," which isn't even a complete sentence. Oh well. Moving on.

In the "Equal Treatment for All" section, there is much to like. "We consider discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin to be immoral, and we will strongly enforce anti-discrimination statutes." Great.

"We ask all to join us in rejecting the forces of hatred and bigotry and in denouncing all who practice or promote racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, or religious intolerance." Good stuff. So far, so good.

As a matter of principle, Republicans oppose any attempts to create race-based governments within the United States, as well as any domestic governments not bound by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights." I'm not sure what a race-based government is, but it sounds highly inequitable, and I'm also against inequitable, so yay. This whole section is, of course, missing one key component of the nation's present struggle against discrimination, and we all know what that component is, but it's good to see a clear denunciation of hatred, even if it could use some widening.

Skipping ahead a tab, to "Freedom of Speech and of the Press," I find comfort in: "We support freedom of speech and freedom of the press and oppose attempts to violate or weaken those rights, such as reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine." Totally agree. The Fairness Doctrine is an ill-begotten attempt to balance the opinions presented on the airwaves - i.e., if Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck are given 72 hours of airtime a week, liberal viewpoints must be represented in equal proportion, and the government has a duty to make it happen. I simplify, but that brand of"fairness" is a bad idea. Let the marketplace dictate which shows thrive, and which ideas win. (The Fairness Doctrine, in case you couldn't tell or didn't care, is not currently in effect.)

And then we arrive at abortion, or as the issue if framed in the platform, "Maintaining the Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life." (As if anyone could oppose that... but I digress.)

Deep breath. And... go.

"We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement." I agree. Abortion is a medical procedure. A minor teenage girl should obtain parental authorization before having such a procedure performed on her body. To be thorough, I don't actually agree with the "exploitation and statutory rape" clause of the sentence. I just believe that parents have rights that supersede the privacy rights of their children under the age of 18.

"We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy." Yes. Although we might go about that moral obligation differently. Abortion is horrifying, after all, no matter where you stand on its legality. We should be helping girls and women in any way we can in their neediest moments.

"We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers." This is what I'm talking about. Don't nudge people to abortion - offer alternatives. Yes. Do this.

So, logically, the next plank in the platform is entitled "Preserving Traditional Marriage." So, skipping ahead to... but wait! Wait wait! I found something, I found something! Two sentences even! Extra exclamation points on their way!!!! (*sarcasm off*)

"The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character." So true. Studies confirm this. Google it. (I did.) Homes with two parents do produce, statistically, better-adjusted children.

"Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems." I will second this if I'm allowed to substitute "homes without fathers" to "single-parent homes." Otherwise, I have to agree with it only as it pertains to children raised by single moms compared with children raised by two parents.

The section ends this way: "As the family is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental rights." Duh. I'm guessing that this is meant to tie back to the abortion issue. Now if this reasoning is used to rationalize or defend spanking, then we need to chat, Mr. and Mrs. Ray Publican. Otherwise, carry on.

Carrying on to "Safeguarding Religious Liberties," where this turns up: "We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault, and we call upon the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to reverse its policy of blacklisting religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples. Respectful of our nation’s diversity in faith, we urge reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs in the private workplace."

If you're going to take government money, you need to play by the government's rules. No discrimination in hiring. But if you want to form a private organization and intend on minding your own business, I'm with the R's on this: let people exclude whomever they want. the Scouts want to bar gays -- fine. Their call. Churches want to not perform gay weddings -- totally cool with them declining. But once you're on the government's dime, that all changes.

Less controversially, sort of, the "Preserving Americans' Property Rights" section ends with the sensible "We urge caution in the designation of National Historic Areas, which can set the stage for widespread governmental control of citizens’ lands." Private property is not to be trifled with. Capitalism still works better than other systems, and it only functions if the government shows restraint.

There we are. That is precisely how Republican I am. (Don't measure it.)

I, Republican / 2-4-11

If your mind is sarcasm intolerant, you're relatively safe, for a little while.

At least for the next two posts. I went to this place called gop.com, looked up some of their positions on current issues, and came away with the stuff I most agreed with. Next up, later this weekend, I'll tackle the official 2008 platform, with all its tasteful verbiage on gun control, abortion, same-sex marriage, and other vanilla-flavored topics. Fun!

But as an appetizer to that entree (am I secretly hungry? What's the deal with all the food references?), this is the stuff from the party's website that I can support. (That I can stomach! Hee hee.)

Anyway, consider it an early Valentine to modern conservatism. Well, maybe an only Valentine.

No joke is taking place in this paragraph.

Ground rules and pertinent information: I lifted all wording straight from here, which now rests in my browser history, a fact that is of no interest to you, but rather serves as a personal reminder to go purge that visit later on.

(Done with the humor. Onward and upward.)

"A full commitment to America's Armed Forces, to ensure they are modern, agile and adaptable to the unpredictable range of challenges in the years ahead." Obviously. Without some semblance of national security, it's silly to quibble about prescription drug reimbursement programs for uninsured senior citizens.

"We oppose government-run health care." So do I. I fully endorse government-run health insurance, but competition is the lifeblood of any marketplace, including the medical one. This is a good mantra.

"We support an 'all of the above' approach that includes the production of nuclear power, clean coal, natural gas, solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, as well as offshore drilling in an environmentally responsible way." For now, this strategy is wholly sensical. The only way to transition out of dependence on dirty energy sources is to start getting our fuel from everywhere we can right now until it becomes possible to get all of it cleanly. (Whenever that is.) So yeah, more nuke plants. Please. A thousand of them ASAP -- as long as they are well regulated, well maintained, and well funded.

"We believe in the importance of sensible business regulations" (love that word, "sensible," so malleable, so subjective) "that promote confidence in our economy among consumer, entrepreneurs and businesses alike." Nice to see the R-word in there. Thank you 2008. No, that doesn't count as snark.

"Republicans believe a judge's role is to interpret the law, not make law from the bench." That's good. I believe the same way, pretty much because I have no choice. The Constitution demands separation of powers. Congress makes the laws. Courts rule on those laws' legality or lack thereof. That's how it works, and when we don't like the result, we don't get to whine -- when a federal judge interprets the Constitution in a way that displeases us, that's kind of his or her job. And as long as that judge doesn't legislate, all is well with the system.

Well that didn't kill me. Maybe the next post will.

Love ya Ronnie!

xoxoxoxo