networks

It's Our Air.

From the Times:

[A]re the television networks shirking the civic responsibility that was implicit when the government gave them the airwaves and let them rake in billions off a public trust?
...
What was missing last week, however, was the unassailable authority that a network anchor brings to convention coverage. Mr. Brokaw and Mr. Rather complained that they could not argue to their corporate bosses for more time when so few scoops were to be had. But particularly when there is no real news, viewers benefit from following a trusted observer who can weave together disparate strands - a rogue faction in the Colorado delegation, a candidate's use of imagery and props, the leitmotifs of even the duller speeches - and bring to life an important political moment. Instead, Tom Brokaw and Mr. Rather took this convention pass/fail, interviewing a few headliners in the sky boxes, kibitzing with their colleagues and house experts, but never engaging fully in the drama beneath them.
...
That is one reason why the comedian Jon Stewart was so popular a compass to convention coverage. "The Daily Show," his program on Comedy Central, did not just mock the politicians - easy targets well flayed by Jay Leno, David Letterman, Jimmy Kimmel, et al. Mr. Stewart also zeroed in on the television journalists who chose to snub the convention as they covered it. Mr. Stewart lampooned those who deplored the slick, synthetic packaging of events, then grew indignant when Al Sharpton diverged from the script. ("I think it is an insult to African-American voters that they are giving this guy as much time as they have," groused Howard Fineman, a Newsweek columnist who as a panelist on MSNBC, alongside Chris Matthews, was on the air more than most speakers.)

polygamy

Someone was asking me recently about polygamy as relates to the gay marriage discussion.
The Mormon polygamy cases are a famous set of disputes wherein the government outlawed polygamy, a religious practice of a few (maybe 7%) Mormon higher-ups. In 1878, the Mormons reached the Supreme Court, with the argument that the polygamy ban restricts their free exercise of religion.
Reynolds v United States is an interesting look at free exercise jurisprudence, actually, in its swing towards the 20th century. A little less than a century later, during the mid 20th, our free exercise cases were in an excepting mood; the key question you see in the cases was: is this activity religion? If so, and if a criminal code outlawed the action- then it was allowed as an exception. You see this in the draft cases- US v. Seeger and Welsh v. US. There, you have men seeking to avoid the draft because of religious objection. In Seeger, the court even goes into Paul Tillich's ground of being ideas in order to find whether the young man's objections to war are "religion."
Now, though, the Court has retreated from the broad reading of the free exercise clause: under current precedent (Employment Division v. Smith) the government makes no constituional violation if the law is generally applicable. More important, there are no more exceptions.
The old polygamy cases were closer to Smith; we've come not quite full circle- but a loop back of some kind indeed. In Reynolds (1878 or so) the Court writes that the "religion" protected under the free exercise clause is opinion rather than overt action stemming from belief.

To permit [polygamy] would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, an din effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

So. What does all this have to do with gay marriage? Here's Marci Hamilton from FindLaw. I'll comment a bit more- but must run for now.

Of course, we are currently in the midst of a heated public debate over marriage - and in particular, over same-sex marriage. Will the ramifications of constitutional holdings relating to same-sex marriage affect the anti-polygamy laws?

Justice Antonin Scalia certainly thinks so. Recently, and famously, the Supreme Court held in Lawrence v. Texas that adults have a privacy right that extends to private, consensual sex acts - including sodomy, whether homosexual or heterosexual - that ensures that such acts cannot be criminally prosecuted. The Court explicitly stated that its privacy decision did not implicate marriage.

Justice Scalia's dissent, however, warned that the Court, in so holding, was undermining the ability of the state to regulate morals--and marriage. Indeed, he predicted that anti-bigamy laws would soon face constitutional challenges, too. But the extension of Lawrence to anti-polygamy laws is highly unlikely - as Joanna Grossman explained in a previous column on Scalia's "parade of horribles" in his dissent.

Shortly after Lawrence was decided, and also famously, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - in Goodridge v. Dep't of Public Health -- held that it was a violation of the state constitution's equal protection guarantees to prohibit same-sex marriages. Federal and state equal protection guarantees, however, will not aid the polygamists. Anti-polygamy statutes draw the line at the number of spouses, not their characteristics or status. There is long-settled precedent that limiting the number of spouses does not violate any constitutional guarantee, nor should it.

close to enough

a sip and a cd.
Unexpected kindness might be the most fun of all. After my test this week, I planned on joining friends for some pleasant and happy drinking. This, of course, we did.
But along with the company to sip and rinse away the number two pencil marks, I quite undeservedly received a fine bottle of single malt and the sole cd I've been wanting since about winter.

A quick note on gifts. Sometimes you know they're coming, Christmas, birthdays. Those gifts make you feel nice- they reveal, often, some thought. There are, though, those gifts that catch you totally unawares. Last nights' gifts revealed pure thoughtfulness. I'm 26. But I can still be shocked at the capacity of human friendship. Why in the world would you take the time to grab a bottle of scotch, or travel to borders for a cd? No social conventions of gift giving to hold to. Simply kindness to a friend. Weird and wonderful.

And it goes on- an old friend handed me the book I'd been eying to read in August. Several college friends called over the past two days. My parents checked in like new new parents to a baby-sitter.

I doubt they know how much it affects me. I can only make an analogy to Jimmy Stewart, of course. I believe the end of It's a Wonderful Life captures the joy of realizing your friends.

Armstong

Here here for Lance.

what he says and what he does

Veracity Gap?
What GWB says: According to news reports, George W. Bush yesterday said that he was not "gonna spend most of my time attacking my opponent - I've got too much good to talk about."

What GWB does: The exact same number of attacks on Kerry as reported below appear on President Bush's campaign site. This morning, I watched 2 Bush approved ads- both talked about Kerry...leaving my search for the "too much good to talk about" rather unsuccessful.
The National Review speaks to the negative campaigning from their man:

The negative side of the Bush campaign seems to be shaping up reasonably well. Republicans seem to be reaching the conclusion that they should attack Kerry less as a flip-flopper than as a liberal: Nobody is scared of flip-floppers' winning high office. They seem also to see that they can call Kerry's values into question by attacking his policies rather than his character. ...
Where, meanwhile, is the positive, substantive side of the campaign? People are noticing that the president has not presented an agenda for his second term should he be re-elected. He is being advised to unveil such an agenda on the theory that it could be attractive to voters. That is true. But it is also true that the president owes voters an explanation of what he wants to do in his second term before he asks us to support him. How does he intend to advance conservative goals during the next four years? Presumably he does not want his administration to drift the way second terms often do. But if he does not campaign on a conservative agenda now, what chance does he have of successfully acting on it later?

The major Kerry ads out right now are void of Bush attacks- and adding Edwards to the ticket, and hearing Edwards make direct comments to this effect is indicative that their campaign will try to capitalize on people's fatigue with negative campaigns. I, for one, hope it works.

Bush reportedly made his comments recently. Maybe they have not had a chance to change the webpage, and pull the negative ads. Let's hope the President stays true to his word.

miller no time

Miller (no) time? The nasty Democrats and their celebrity idols. Shouldn't Kerry and Edwards be ashamed of the sexual innuendos put forth from Whoopie?
Imagine if the converse were true- surely President Bush would quickly reject such humor as inappropriate. Say, for instance, a comedian at a Bush fund raiser said:

Those two cannot keep their hands off each other, can they? ... I think I have a new idea for a new campaign slogan -- use the bumper sticker 'Hey, Get A Room.'

So, did Bush make any immediate rejections of Dennis Miller's remarks (above)? I can't find anything on his website? Curious. Here's Media Matters:

Media Matters for America reviewed FOX News Channel, MSNBC, and CNN primetime coverage of the hours between 5 pm and 11 pm on July 15, and found that the three cables addressed Whoopi Goldberg's remark a total of 19 times: three times on CNN (once on Lou Dobbs Tonight and twice on Anderson Cooper 360), three times on MSNBC (once on Deborah Norville Tonight and twice on Scarborough Country), and 13 times on the FOX News Channel (five times on The Big Story With John Gibson, three times on Special Report with Brit Hume, once on FOX Report with Shepard Smith, twice on The O'Reilly Factor, and twice on Hannity & Colmes).

In contrast, Dennis Miller's comments were addressed only twice: once on MSNBC and once on CNN. FOX News Channel never reported the story.

Well...we all know the celebrities and their sexual jokes are all Democrats. Anything outside the standard storyline is too difficult for the media to explain.

arrest developments

Arrest Developments. It is time to do something meaningful in Sudan. As The New Republic noted a few weeks ago:

For more than a year now, in its western province of Darfur, Sudan's Arab government has been sending its bombers and arming a militia known as the Janjaweed to slaughter and ethnically cleanse black Africans from the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa tribes, which the government accuses of backing a rebellion. The International Crisis Group estimates the conflict has already claimed 30,000 lives and displaced 1.2 million people. And usaid Administrator Andrew S. Natsios predicts that as many as one million people could die from starvation and disease during the current rainy season if the Sudanese continue to deny relief agencies access.

Members of Congress have been acting up lately. NY Representative Charles Rangel and two others were arrested after protesting outside the Sudan Embassy today, and they're not alone. From the CNS:

Rep. Joe Hoeffel (D-Pa.), his wife Francesca Hoeffel, and comedian-turned-activist Dick Gregory were all arrested at the Sudan Embassy in Washington on Tuesday, Christian Solidarity International proudly announced in a press release.

In a campaign vaguely reminiscent of the anti-apartheid demonstrations outside the South African embassy in the 1980s, liberal activists are deliberately getting themselves arrested to draw attention to the crisis in western Sudan.

Rep. Hoeffel is among those who support a joint resolution before Congress that calls on the U.S. to declare the Sudan slaughter genocide.

"The crisis in Darfur fits every definition of genocide, and must be labeled as such by the United Nations and its member countries," Hoeffel said in a press release.
...
The Sudan Campaign describes itself as the "direct action effort of a coalition of organizations working on behalf black Africans in Sudan that have suffered violence and slavery at the hands of their government."

Groups taking part in the Sudan Campaign include The Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House, the Institute on Religion and Democracy, the American Anti-slavery group, the Wilberforce Project, and others.

Christian Solidarity International describes itself as a Christian human rights organization that helps victims of religious repression, victimized children and victims of disaster.

Ted Turner on Big Media

Ted Turner on big media, lamenting the loss of upstarts.

In the late 1960s, when Turner Communications was a business of billboards and radio stations and I was spending much of my energy ocean racing, a UHF-TV station came up for sale in Atlanta. It was losing $50,000 a month and its programs were viewed by fewer than 5 percent of the market.

I acquired it.

When I moved to buy a second station in Charlotte--this one worse than the first--my accountant quit in protest, and the company's board vetoed the deal. So I mortgaged my house and bought it myself. The Atlanta purchase turned into the Superstation; the Charlotte purchase--when I sold it 10 years later--gave me the capital to launch CNN.

Both purchases played a role in revolutionizing television. Both required a streak of independence and a taste for risk. And neither could happen today. In the current climate of consolidation, independent broadcasters simply don't survive for long. That's why we haven't seen a new generation of people like me or even Rupert Murdoch--independent television upstarts who challenge the big boys and force the whole industry to compete and change.

So begins Ted Turner's article in the latest Atlantic Monthly. A good summary of our communications environment today- where localism and fresh ideas are swallowed up by conglomerated profit machines. Sounds old, liberal hat, I know. But, really, that is merely descriptive and, I'm afraid, uncontroverted. More Turner:

Today, media companies are more concentrated than at any time over the past 40 years, thanks to a continual loosening of ownership rules by Washington. The media giants now own not only broadcast networks and local stations; they also own the cable companies that pipe in the signals of their competitors and the studios that produce most of the programming. To get a flavor of how consolidated the industry has become, consider this: In 1990, the major broadcast networks--ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox--fully or partially owned just 12.5 percent of the new series they aired. By 2000, it was 56.3 percent. Just two years later, it had surged to 77.5 percent.
...
In the media, as in any industry, big corporations play a vital role, but so do small, emerging ones. When you lose small businesses, you lose big ideas. People who own their own businesses are their own bosses. They are independent thinkers. They know they can't compete by imitating the big guys--they have to innovate, so they're less obsessed with earnings than they are with ideas. They are quicker to seize on new technologies and new product ideas. They steal market share from the big companies, spurring them to adopt new approaches. This process promotes competition, which leads to higher product and service quality, more jobs, and greater wealth. It's called capitalism.

But without the proper rules, healthy capitalist markets turn into sluggish oligopolies, and that is what's happening in media today. Large corporations are more profit-focused and risk-averse. They often kill local programming because it's expensive, and they push national programming because it's cheap--even if their decisions run counter to local interests and community values. Their managers are more averse to innovation because they're afraid of being fired for an idea that fails. They prefer to sit on the sidelines, waiting to buy the businesses of the risk-takers who succeed.

Turner is exactly right to remind, as so often is needed, that capitalism requires fair markets and a level playing field. Too often, the aegis of capitalism protects just the opposite. Give the whole article a read.

gamblers for bush?

It is strange enough that Linda Ronstadt was escorted out of the Alladin casino after dedicating her performance to Michael Moore. I've never understood this 'entertainers aren't supposed to voice politics' thing. Why not?
She will, according to an Alladin spokesman, not be welcomed back again to the Alladin. For dedicating a performance to a documentary maker? Call the cops.
But, most amusing, is this:

That dedication angered some Aladdin guests who spilled drinks, tore down posters and demanded their money back, said casino spokeswoman Sara Gorgon on Tuesday.

"We had quite a scene at the box office," she said.

About a quarter of the 4500 people in the audience got up and left before the performance had finished, Gorgon said.

Spilled their drinks? I thought drink spilling was reserved for the fallen homies. I can imagine the flower-shirted and white shorts Ronstadt attendee right now, tilting the edge of his Cosmopolitan in a fooey to you, Ms Ron-sucks....i told her. Now gather your bags, Dorothy, we're going to Celine Dion...a true American.


PS. Apparently Ronstadt was prediposed to annoy Alladin into not welcoming her back:

Before her concert, Ronstadt had laughingly told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that she hoped that the casino performance would be her last.
"I keep hoping that if I'm annoying enough to them, they won't hire me back," she was quoted as telling the newspaper.

librul bashing

Stop name-calling. We've mentioned in a post below that, as of May 31,

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.

Orcinus is rightly annoyed at the endless "liberal" name-calling:

Liberal, liberal, liberal. John Kerry and John Edwards are just liberal, you know. Liberal. Liberal. Liberal. Did I happen to mention they are liberal?

That, in a nutshell, is the essence of the Republican campaign for the presidency this year. There is very little touting of Bush's record -- but then, that may be due to his having accomplished so little, other than the astonishing heaps of wreckage with which he has littered the political and civic landscape.

When that's what you're left with, all you can really resort to is a strategy that is, as the New York Times described it recently, "relentlessly negative."

So, let us begin a project. First, we know that the movement to turn the "liberal" label into a liability has more or less succeeded. This can be tested (I haven't so tested) by checking the bio pages of DC Senators and Congresspeople. How many Republicans refer to their conservative views versus the number of Democratics referring to liberal views. My guess is the word "progressive" is more widely used. Again, I haven't yet peeked.

I have, though, peeked at the Kerry and Bush campaign webpages- and the evidence is clear. Wonder which politician is defining his campaign by bashing the other guy?

Bush has Kerry's name and/or face on his homepage five times. Prominently displayed at the center right is the "Raw Deal" segment, arguing, of course, that Kerry is constantly changing his stance. Under the "latest headlines," we get two special segments, one on Kerry's long ago support of higher gas tax and another offering a state-by-state review of why Kerry is wrong for us. Finally, under these, we have two negative campaign ads: "Family Priorities," and "Priorities." I'll spare the substance- we deal here merely with what is offered for the page browser.

And how many times does Bush's name or image appear on the front of Kerry's website?

None.


I watched, once again, a Bush-team spokesman on the news speak about the relentless negativity from Kerry's campaign- that they could only define themselves by trashing Bush. Say it enough, the moral relativist might say, and it's true.

Media

On the Media. Give a peek to this conference and series of articles from The Center for American Progress. The conference, seen in video segments linked at the bottom of the page, was held before a screening of Outfoxed, and includes deliveries from Eric Alterman, Paul Star, John Nichols, Arianna Huffington, and Nicholas Lemann.
Take note of the series of articles on media consolodation, found in the box to the right of the screen. Robert McChesney is included amongst the writers, and I'll submit this clip:

Our press system is failing in the United States, and we must be clear about why it is failing. The problem is not with poorly trained or unethical journalists; in fact, I suspect this may well be as talented and ethical as any generation of journalists in memory. Nor is the problem nefarious or corrupt owners.

...

Let's begin with the obvious question: where does our media system come from? In mythology, it is the result of competition between entrepreneurs duking it out in the free market. In reality, our media system is the result of a wide range of explicit government policies, regulations, and subsidies. Each of the 20 or so giant media firms that dominate the entirety of our media system is the recipient of massive government largesse -- what could be regarded as corporate welfare. They receive (for free) one or more of: scarce monopoly licenses to radio and television channels, monopoly franchises to cable- and satellite-TV systems, or copyright protection for their content....
If policies establish the nature of the media system, and the nature of the media system determines the nature and logic of media content, the nucleus of the media atom is the policy-making process. And it is here that we get to the source of the media crisis in the United States. Media and communication policies have been made in the most corrupt manner imaginable for generations. Perhaps the best way to capture the media policy-making process in the United States is to consider a scene from the 1974 Oscar-winning film The Godfather: Part II. Roughly halfway through the movie, a bunch of American gangsters, including Michael Corleone, assemble on a Havana patio to celebrate Hyman Roth's birthday. This is 1958, pre–Fidel Castro, when Fulgencio Batista and the Mob ruled Cuba. Roth is giving a slice of his birthday cake, which has the outline of Cuba on it, to each of the gangsters. As he does so, Roth outlines how the gangsters are divvying up the island among themselves, then triumphantly states how great it is to be in a country with a government that works with private enterprise.

That is pretty much how media policies are generated in the United States. But do not think it is a conspiracy through which the corporate interests peacefully carve up the cake. In fact, as in The Godfather: Part II, where the plot revolves around the Corleone-Roth battle, the big media trade associations and corporations are all slugging it out with one another for the largest slice of the cake. That is why they have such enormous lobbying arsenals and why they flood politicians with campaign donations. But, like those gangsters in Havana, there is one crucial point on which they all agree: It is their cake. Nobody else gets a slice.
...
Imagine, for example, that there had been a modicum of public involvement when Congress lifted the national cap on how many radio stations a single company could own in 1996. That provision -- written, as far as anyone can tell, by radio-industry lobbyists -- sailed through Congress without a shred of discussion and without a trace of press coverage. It is safe to say that 99.9 percent of Americans had no clue. As a result, radio broadcasting has become the province of a small number of firms that can own as many as eight stations each in a single market. The notorious Clear Channel owns more than 1,200 stations nationally.

As a result of this single change in policy, competition has declined, local radio news and programming have been decimated (too expensive and much less competitive pressure to produce local content), musical playlists have less nutrition and variety than the menu at McDonald's, and the amount of advertising has skyrocketed. This is all due to a change in policy -- not to the inexorable workings of the free market. "There is too much concentration in radio," John McCain said on the Senate floor in 2003. "I know of no credible person who disagrees with that."

And McChesney has much more valuable writing in the article. Give his and the other articles a read.

Drum's Question

Kevin Drum asks to lay down our cards. Excellent point in a recent post:

In Iran we have a country that (a) has clear connections with al-Qaeda and apparently even with 9/11, (b) has a genuine and well advanced WMD program, (c) supports terrorist groups like Hezbollah far more than Iraq ever did, (d) has fought wars against its neighbors, (e) is a medieval theocracy, and (f) is determinedly hostile toward the United States.

Question: that's a much more convincing case than we had against Iraq, so should we invade Iran and attempt to install a democratic government in Tehran? If not, why not? After all, those student protests don't seem to be making much progress.

I vote no. How about getting everyone else on the record?

I'll go no, I think...several caveats upcoming. The no, though, is a present tense no- right now, a large scale invasion against a country actually possessing WMD would likely take a pretty hefty toll. Sort of like wrestling the Rock after taking on your little brother.
But what if we could go back in time, say summer of 2002; should we invade Iran and pursue further inspections in Iraq, backed by the Security Council? Here, you have a strong argument. Iran poses a greater threat- but that is less important to American rationale. Rather, Iran could more legitimately be joined to the war on terror. Further, the use of force would show both Hussein and terror sponsoring states that we're serious. Lastly, the legitimacy of the Security Council might have well stayed in-greater-tact, and we might still have NATO joined powerfully in the efforts.
Alas, though, I'm not positive I can support this hypothetical situation. Largely, my hesitancy is one with the war on terror, more than disagreement with the above. If it had to be Iran or Iraq, I'd have picked Iran. (Due Notice: I am far from being in a knowledge position to so choose.)
Rather than military action so quickly after Afghanistan, I would have liked to see major involvement in that country- with the protection against warlords that has been lacking, from everything I can tell, and with the massive search for everything al quaeda to be uprooted.
Put a thumb on Iran and Iraq. Put huge Security Council scrutiny on their weapons programs and terror sponsorship. We now know how Iran and Iraq would have shaked out- Iran being quite the worse character. Assuming this info could have panned out without the Iraq invasion- perhaps now, in 2004, I would support an invasion on Iran. Perhaps.

are we allowing allawi?

Is this Good?
While executions in Iraq can't be too suprising, is this good press? Technically, assuredly not, as it is one more battle of who do you trust.
From the Sydney Morning Herald

Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station, just days before Washington handed control of the country to his interim government, according to two people who allege they witnessed the killings.

They say the prisoners - handcuffed and blindfolded - were lined up against a wall in a courtyard adjacent to the maximum-security cell block in which they were held at the Al-Amariyah security centre, in the city's south-western suburbs.

They say Dr Allawi told onlookers the victims had each killed as many as 50 Iraqis and they "deserved worse than death".

The Prime Minister's office has denied the entirety of the witness accounts in a written statement to the Herald, saying Dr Allawi had never visited the centre and he did not carry a gun.

But the informants told the Herald that Dr Allawi shot each young man in the head as about a dozen Iraqi policemen and four Americans from the Prime Minister's personal security team watched in stunned silence.
...
Dr Allawi's statement dismissed the allegations as rumours instigated by enemies of his interim government.

But in a sharp reminder of the Iraqi hunger for security above all else, the witnesses did not perceive themselves as whistle-blowers. In interviews with the Herald they were enthusiastic about such killings, with one of them arguing: "These criminals were terrorists. They are the ones who plant the bombs."

Giving up promiscuity

From Andrew Sullivan, without comment:

Gay men--not because they're gay but because they are men in an all-male subculture--are almost certainly more sexually active with more partners than most straight men. (Straight men would be far more promiscuous, I think, if they could get away with it the way gay guys can.) Many gay men value this sexual freedom more than the stresses and strains of monogamous marriage (and I don't blame them). But this is not true of all gay men. Many actually yearn for social stability, for anchors for their relationships, for the family support and financial security that come with marriage. To deny this is surely to engage in the "soft bigotry of low expectations." They may be a minority at the moment. But with legal marriage, their numbers would surely grow. And they would function as emblems in gay culture of a sexual life linked to stability and love.

So what's the catch? I guess the catch would be if those gay male couples interpret marriage as something in which monogamy is optional. But given the enormous step in gay culture that marriage represents, and given that marriage is entirely voluntary, I see no reason why gay male marriages shouldn't be at least as monogamous as straight ones. Perhaps those of us in the marriage movement need to stress the link between gay marriage and monogamy more clearly. We need to show how renunciation of sexual freedom in an all-male world can be an even greater statement of commitment than among straights. I don't think this is as big a stretch as it sounds. In Denmark, where de facto gay marriage has existed for some time, the rate of marriage among gays is far lower than among straights, but, perhaps as a result, the gay divorce rate is just over one-fifth that of heterosexuals. And, during the first six years in which gay marriage was legal, scholar Darren Spedale has found, the rate of straight marriages rose 10 percent, and the rate of straight divorces decreased by 12 percent. In the only country where we have real data on the impact of gay marriage, the net result has clearly been a conservative one.

When you think about it, this makes sense. Within gay subculture, marriage would not be taken for granted. It's likely to attract older, more mainstream gay couples, its stabilizing ripples spreading through both the subculture and the wider society. Because such marriages would integrate a long-isolated group of people into the world of love and family, they would also help heal the psychic wounds that scar so many gay people and their families. Far from weakening heterosexual marriage, gay marriage would, I bet, help strengthen it, as the culture of marriage finally embraces all citizens. How sad that some conservatives still cannot see that. How encouraging that, in such a short time, so many others have begun to understand.

More interviews with Elizabeth

Elizabeth Edwards
Gregg Easterbrook rightly shines some spotlight on Elizabeth Edwards. She is a great asset to the ticket in both the aesthetic-political-as-figurehead way, as well as her pure smarts.

Here's some from Easterbrook:

Most focus on candidates' wives falls somewhere on the spectrum between inane and condescending. But it's there nonetheless and must be taken into account: The media and voters have become obsessed with top-of-the-ticket wives, and except for Steinberg, the wives have responded by racing toward the cameras. I could be wrong about this, but I think the wife star of the 2004 campaign will be Mrs. Edwards.
...She's smart and well-spoken, well versed in the issues, poised in public. She had an impressive professional career--law school, clerk for a federal judge, then law practice--and gave it up to become a traditional mother for the couple's four children. The Ivy League crowd may belittle traditional motherhood, but millions of Americans admire this role. Elizabeth Edwards bore four kids, which is a service to humanity in and of itself, and two are little--the Edwards are the only ones in the race with young children, and cute kids have an inherent charm that will draw voters to the couple's story. Elizabeth Edwards has endured every parent's worst nightmare, the death of a child, Wade, in a car crash at age 16. Family tragedy is among the most potent forces that can enter a person's life; to lose a child is on the short list of the most horrible experiences a human being can have. Mrs. Edwards has faced family tragedy; large numbers of Americans have also faced it; those who can face family tragedy and still get up in the morning are deservedly admired. She'll get such admiration.

Next, and don't chortle, Elizabeth Edwards is overweight but still attractive. There's a huge demographic of Americans who are overweight though still striving to look good: Elizabeth Edwards could become their champion! On the serious side, many women have gone through the life experience of being slender in youth--check the Edwards's wedding-day photo, Elizabeth is a lithe beauty--then simply not being able to keep the pounds off following the double whammy of childbearing followed by child-rearing, which means, oh, 20 years or so without time to exercise. By being an overweight yet still attractive traditional mom, Elizabeth Edwards radiates "I am a real-world person" in a way that none of the other three wives can.

Now consider Elizabeth Edwards on political substance. During the Democratic couples' joint "60 Minutes" appearance on Sunday, Mrs. Edwards not only outshone Teresa Heinz by a hefty margin, she might have bested both men, too.
...
Asked the wealth question, she replied by noting that senators Kerry and Edwards both voted against the tax cut bills that would have brought each large sums of money. She then asked, "Isn't that what we want? A leader who looks at the greater good instead of what simply what benefits the person himself, or the people in his own class or their donors or whatever else you're looking at? These men did what was right for all Americans and it seems to me that's an enormous test of character--whether you're willing to step out and do something against your own self interest."

Amen, amen. Perfect answer. And if you're thinking, well, maybe a consultant coached her to say that, a consultant clearly had not coached the presidential candidate himself with a good answer. Elizabeth Edwards cut through the B.S. to what mattered about the biggest question the Democratic four have so far been asked together. Maybe she should be the one doing the coaching of the candidate.

(Owens note: I skipped over some large chunks wherein Easterbrook seemed to use the article as an excuse to diss the Kerrys.)

Conserva-what?

Some time ago, my friend Mike Hickman (a potential contributor to our site) and I began a discussion on the respective meanings of "conservative" and "liberal." It has lasted for three years now. And, listening to Sen. Inhofe. I understand why.

The Senate is holding a floor debate on the marriage amendment. All of the sudden, conservatives believe that federal action is required to guide the states to the right direction. Alas, where were these conservatives during the earliest civil rights legislation battles. Meanwhile, Democratics (for some reason, far fewer of their web page bios proudly label them liberal) are profoundly afraid of this affront to our federalist system.
Inhofe, "one of the leading conservative voices in the Senate," just argued for the necessity of proposing this amendment today (and why the Republicans are not acting in political bad faith to skip over the otherwise standard process). Several states (I think it's about 17) have law suites pending to declare that the state constitutions require marriage rights for gays. Because of this use of state judicial systems, argued Inhofe, the federal Senate must act now.
He fails to mention that several states are also in the midst of proposing for state-wide vote state constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage.

This, folks, is federalism. Some states can recognize gay marriage, and others may not. Right now, it looks like most will not. Massachusetts is working on their own constitutional amendment. Other states might allow civil unions, a sort of legal rights without the name solution. As we know, conservatives, such as Dick Cheney, have long accepted this federalism; others, like Rehnquist and Scalia, say they do.
As Senator Feingold argued, and as the mentioned Rehnquist argues in his opinion in the recent Newdow, family law has long been the province of the states. The decisions regarding what makes a family should take place as close to those familial homes as possible.

But, for the "leading conservative voice," Sen. Inhofe, this core conservative value takes a back seat. And, to be fair, it takes strange prominence on my side of the argument. But, when I argue for federal power to trump state power, it is where I feel the states cannot or will not act to solve egregious problems. Civil rights in the face of Jim Crow is an example of the latter, funding for social security, et al exemplifies the former.

Here, though, the states are proving to respond just fine to the issue of gay marriage. Inhofe seems to forget that the Massachusetts judges ruled on the Massachusetts constitution, and the people of Massachusetts are responding in kind. Indeed, the whole GOP side of the isle seems to forget state constitutions exist--rather, they impute state law decisions on the nation. Read Bush:

When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution -- the only law a court cannot overturn. A constitutional amendment should never be undertaken lightly -- yet to defend marriage, our nation has no other choice.

Exactly right. If he's talking about the Massachusetts constitution.

More on Marriage

Andrew Sullivan gives more treatment to the Bush radio address that I discuss, here.

Identify the stupid.

There are two things I do not want to hear again (and New Republic writers, that goes to you too.) And, were I disciplined enough to stick to a plan, I would document on here each occassion these pet-peeves of phrases come across my computer screen. It so happens, Gregg Easterbrook in TNR dollops up an article providing gleaming examples of both now-condemed utterances.

1) X Hates America

Unless X is a sworn enemy (Hussein and Osama come to mind), spare us this inflamatory and grade school line. Hating America is living here for a year, meeting your neighbor, eating the barbeque, and awaiting paradise as you pilot a plane into a big building. Hating America is not releasing a documentary critical of an administration. Hating America is not disagreeing with federal policy. Hating America, even, is not disliking beloved national public figures. Hating America is wanting the destruction of the country dispite any policy, current administrations or favored celebrities. Disliking America is wanting to move somewhere else because the culture or policies so aggrivate. It seems neither hate nor dislike encourage political involvement or political dissent. Spare us, Mr. Easterbrrok of the "Michael Moore deeply, deeply hates the United States" lines.

Or, perhaps, share with us the definition of "hate" that attaches to Mr. Moore.

2) Fahrenheit 9/11 does well to remind us that U.S. forces have killed the innocent in Iraq; unlike the attackers on 9/11, it was not our intent to kill the innocent, but kill them we have, and to the dead it's all the same.

This also comes from Easterbrook's column. And I would consider it fair if in reference to the Afghan war or an attack on Osama's crew. It is stupid, dishonest and misleading, though, in the context used. It implies tit for tat, when there was no Iraqi tit for the 9/11 tat. Sadly, though, the same rhetoric finds its way into far too many talking points. Stop it.

Watch for who owns your mind.

Clear Channel owns (at least one) billboard in Times Square. It had agreed to lease the space to a group called Project Billboard; but when Clear Channel saw the billboard drawing, Clear Channel backed out of the agreement. The billboard wias t be a red white and blue bomb- with "Democracy is best taught by example, not by war" written beneith.

Clear Channel contends they are worried only about the bomb imagery, and would allow the sign with a red white and blue dove. Project Billboard tells a different story (fro the Times):

Last night, the president and chief executive of Clear Channel, Paul Meyer, said the company had objected to the group's use of "the bomb imagery" in the proposed billboard. Mr. Meyer said Clear Channel had accepted a billboard that would replace the bomb with a dove.
...
Told of Mr. Meyer's comments, Mr. Wolfson said that earlier, Clear Channel had rejected the ad with the dove as well as the one with the bomb, demanding that the words be changed, too. "It's news to us, and not reflected in any prior communications between Clear Channel and Project Billboard," Mr. Wolfson said last night. "This contradicts Clear Channel's demand that the copy be changed."

Who you gonna trust, I reckon.

Of course, Clear Channel did, in the latest election cycles, donate a bit over $300,000, almost entirely to Republicans.

And the fear of bomb imagery is understandable. But, does a corporation with such fears support pro-war rallies? From the Guardian last year:

They look like spontaneous expressions of pro-war sentiment, "patriotic rallies" drawing crowds of tens of thousands across the American heartland.
In a counterpoint to anti-war demonstrations, supporters of war in Iraq have descended on cities from Fort Wayne to Cleveland, and Atlanta to Philadelphia. They wave flags, messages of support for the troops - and also banners attacking liberals, excoriating the UN, and in one case, advising: "Bomb France Now."

But many of the rallies, it turns out, have been organised and paid for by Clear Channel Inc - the country's largest radio conglomerate, owning 1,200 stations - which is not only reporting on the war at the same time, but whose close links with President Bush stretch back to his earliest, much-criticised financial dealings as governor of Texas. The company has paid advertising costs and for the hire of musicians for the rallies.

Who you gonna trust? If Clear Channel is saying they have no agenda, I'll trust them about as far as I can throw a stick.

postscript. the best line from the Times story reads:

Terry and Jim Baugh, two Californians strolling north on Seventh Avenue, said the image of the bomb bordered on treason. "That looks like they're trying to blow up America," said Mrs. Baugh, 59, a retired dental hygienist.

Indeed.

Amending Homophobia

This week the Senate votes whether to add a 28th amendment to the Constitution. Such amendment would read as such:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

That we have this amendment on the table is a deep and potent mark of shame on the progressive march of our country. But I will not spend this space stomping my morality-weighted foot. Rather, we will examine the arguments in favor of this amendment.

It is helpful to always ask what is the harm from which this amendment protects? How do Males' X and Y marriage harm the heterosexual union? The answer offered is "redefinition."

Here is Bush's radio address:

The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, and the law can teach respect or disrespect for that institution. If our laws teach that marriage is the sacred commitment of a man and a woman, the basis of an orderly society, and the defining promise of a life, that strengthens the institution of marriage. If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost, and the institution is weakened. The Massachusetts court, for example, has called marriage "an evolving paradigm." That sends a message to the next generation that marriage has no enduring meaning, and that ages of moral teaching and human experience have nothing to teach us about this institution.

For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that traditional marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, traditional marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of traditional marriage will undermine the family structure.

(emph. mine) The argument is cold, but it's premise is likely mostly sound. (My hunch, anyway, is that Bush is right in saying most societies that recognize a formal marriage relate that marriage quite centrally to family. I might be wrong- and you social scientists are welcome to step in here.) But does that make the argument (that gay marriage threatens marriage) sound? No. For many reasons.

If we are going to bolster marriage by searching for and making constitutional the traditional human-societal concepts of marriage, where do we stop? Shall we deem divorce unconstitutional? Shall we deem two working parents unconstitutional? Shall we deem the decision to not have kids unconstitutional? Shall we return to arranged marriages. Simply, what is the state doing in constitutionalizing the meaning of marriage?

Let us step back, and ask how did we get into this mess. Note this line: "If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost, and the institution is weakened."

Problematically, for Bush, marriage is already, for all the state's purposes, a legal contract. Religious institutions and local communities, unconnected to the state, make marriage anything beyond this. The state, perhaps, should not be involved in any way with marriage. That is the truer path, than the amendment, of protecting these specific religious and social traditions.

With marriage joined to the government's hip, the institution must take on the protections of government. The interpreters of our individual rights allocated by the government are the courts.

Bush is right that Congress has a place in creating or curtailing individual liberties, by way of constitutional amendment. He is wrong, though, in asserting we've reached that point as the last available option for government. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter. Only then would the amendment be the legislature's last resort.

The Democratics in opposition to the amendment are right- the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is still law- and has not been overturned by the Court. If that happens- Bush's argument is on all fours. Until then, he's lying.

The proposed amendment's existence is a shame. But the conversations may be worthwhile. We should ask ourselves, rather than assume as Bush does, what does marriage mean? The answer will undoubtedly vary by community and religious belief. Those things should define marriage. Not the state. To the extent the state does so, it should never be to restrict a loving, committed union...but to embrace it.

Values

Bob Herbert get's it right his column today in the Times: Cheney and Edwards might offer us the clearest picture of the opposing values represented by the two presidential tickets.

Certainly, Herbert is biased; but I think, objectively, this his premise is quite true. After the hubub of charisma and hair and chemistry dies down, we will hear the substance of Edwards, Kerry's, Bush's and Cheney's speeches during the remaining months before early November. Herbert writes:

Domestically there are two very divergent paths looming on such issues as the economy and jobs, taxes, health care, Social Security and government support for education. It is in this area that the differences between the two major parties are starkest, and as the campaign unfolds it's likely that the clearest evidence of the divide will come not from the top of the respective tickets, but from John Edwards and Dick Cheney.
...
Dick Cheney believes, and has acknowledged (which is rare), that one of the main reasons for cutting taxes is to starve the government of resources. In an interview published in The New Yorker in May 2001, the vice president said, "If we collect those taxes, government'll spend 'em."

"So to some extent," he added, "by preventing government from collecting taxes that it currently has no use for, we avoid a situation in which we collect them and spend them and put them into the baseline to become a permanent part of the government."

That's a statement of values from a man who is proud of his hard-right political credentials. According to Time magazine, "The Washington Post once referred to Cheney the congressman as a `moderate,' prompting him to order an aide to call the paper's editors and `suggest they look at my voting record.' "
...
Senator Edwards is as straightforward as the vice president about his own views and values, which can fairly be called populist. Mr. Edwards objects to what he calls the "two Americas," and believes government has an obligation to try to maximize opportunities for everyone. "We will say no," he says, "to kids going hungry, to the kids who don't have the clothes to keep them warm, and no forever to any American working full time and living in poverty."

This will not be an election between tweedledum and tweedledee. Charisma and hairstyles aside, by November it should be apparent that voters will have a clear and unambiguous choice about the direction this nation is to travel over the next several years.

So, yeah...it's clear Herbert is shining light on one and making the other look like a wack-o radical. I think, though, that the premise of vice-presidential-clarity will prove correct.

Bush and Kerry both fail to communicate effectively. Bush is too generic and broad, and thus rides on PR; Kerry is too detailed and careful. Bush probably talks and understands policy sufficiently in conversation. Kerry forgets he is not in conversation but at a podium. The two are not great communicators.

Cheney has an air of straight-talk. He and Edwards are both able to simplify issues and communicate a point of view without losing some kernel of clarity. As Herbert remarks, Cheney lays his view of less goverment out in the sunny fields. Edwards is less the gruff-talker. Rather, he has a strange ability to sound conversational while giving a powerful speech. He quite often asks to "step-back a bit" to walk the hearer through his analysis. And in doing so, he makes clear where his decision-making and the opponent's diverge.

The two will be fun to watch. My only hope is that the media will play them out without loading on their own annoying and spin-ified analysis.

Mylab

Whilst bar studying at Borders, I had a happy run in with a new cd. Wayne Horvitz and Tucker Martine collaborated with many friends to create some of the most fun and provoking tracks I've heard for a while. The sounds gelled suprisingly and beautifully...you come to realize this when you hear a banjo mixed into a trippy keyboard solo.

While Horvitz, along with his keys, likely arranged many of the several instruments involved, Martine serves as electronics specialist. Apparently, they mix turn of the century folk music with the electons and their many friends' instrumental offerings.

Along with the fun of unexpected sound color schemes, I have the hunch the album can be a lasting one. Not, of course, for every occassion...but no album is or should be. This one fits well in a Diesel store, a party, or movie soundtrack (and headphone listening and absorbing, always allowed). It lasts because it is not just a electro-beat album. Indeed, it sometimes seems in conflict with its dueling attitudes of club/loops and melodic/jam-out spells. This is what's so fun. In fact, one track (I can't remember) plays a sort-of off beat super low bass two-beat, as if the techno's on the verge of entering...but it stays at bay, while a beautiful melody insists. Really, quite a fun listen. Check it out is you can.

Dating Terrorists

Read this very important TNR article, coming out in the next issue. John Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari.

A succession of high-level American officials--from outgoing CIA Director George Tenet to Secretary of State Colin Powell to Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca to State Department counterterrorism chief Cofer Black to a top CIA South Asia official--have visited Pakistan in recent months to urge General Pervez Musharraf's government to do more in the war on terrorism. ...

This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November. The Bush administration denies it has geared the war on terrorism to the electoral calendar. "Our attitude and actions have been the same since September 11 in terms of getting high-value targets off the street, and that doesn't change because of an election," says National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack. But The New Republic has learned that Pakistani security officials have been told they must produce HVTs by the election. According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), "The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections." Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, "no timetable[s]" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt. Another official, this one from the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which is responsible for internal security, explains, "The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections." (These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.)

We Decide...so you don't have to

Watch the trailer for Out Foxed here.

And read this blog to stay tuned to fun and wacky distortions from the mass(ively propagandistic) media.

Coach K

As the great Dustin Hoffman recites in the Robin Hood adaption: What would the world be without a Captain Hook?

After serious thoughts of leaving his Devils behind for a high-payed set of other devils, Coach K decided to remain in Durham. We Tar Heels are greatly relieved. Had he left, we would have little to contrast with the Good (long ago, philosophers concluded Good is hardly noticable in the absence of Evil).

Coach K's bad-ity is not alone sufficient for revulsion. Many coaches curse the players, refs, and others; and many coaches care more about winning than creating good and honest men out of college players. The Stank of K gets its odor, rather, from the strange glow the press affords him. Rather than portrayed as Bobby Knight's protege, K is the gentleman that follows his heart and hugs his Wojos.

Thus, the scattered he's-not-God essays in mass press are a relief to the seekers of the Good.

Here, for you out there, is Jason Zengerle in the New Republic. The article is called "the Case Against Mike Krzyzewski, and the following are some excerpts:

...
Granted, Brodhead is just the latest in a long line of Duke presidents to kiss Krzyzewski's ring. Even before 1992, when Duke had just won back-to-back national titles and the school's New York alumni group pointedly told the school's then-president Keith Brodie that it wanted Coach K, not Brodie, to address its next gathering, Duke realized that Krzyzewski was its most important employee--and one to whom homage must be paid. The basketball court at Duke's Cameron Indoor Stadium is now called "Coach K Court." The area outside Cameron where Duke students camp out for tickets has been officially dubbed "Krzyzewskiville." Krzyzewski has a faculty appointment at Duke's business school. He even has an institution within the B-school--something called the "Coach K Center of Leadership & Ethics."

In addition to paying Coach K homage, Duke has paid him deference. While it's true that Krzyzewski runs a clean program--his players stay out of trouble, they go to class, they aren't paid under the table--he's hardly an angel. Although Krzyzewski is always happy to field softballs from Dick Vitale, he rarely grants less obsequious journalists an audience and when he does, he gives them clipped, testy answers. He's even harder on student journalists. In 1990, angered by a mid-season report card issued by Duke's student newspaper that gave his team a B-plus, Krzyzewski summoned the student journalists to a meeting and, in front of his players, cursed out the students for not giving the team straight As.

Krzyzewski is similarly abusive to referees, constantly berating them--usually in florid language--for their apparent shortcomings. In March, after his team blew an 11-point lead to lose to Connecticut in the Final Four, Krzyzewski barked over and over at the refs, "You killed us, you killed us." A favorite pastime for Duke detractors is to count how many times each game Coach K is caught on camera dropping, as they call them, "F-bombs." Krzyzewski has even abused his position for partisan politics, hosting a fundraiser for North Carolina Republican Senate candidate Elizabeth Dole that--because the event was called "Blue Devils for Dole" and was held at a university-owned facility--gave the impression that Duke was endorsing Dole. In all of these cases of misbehavior, Duke has simply looked the other way.

That's bound to continue now that Brodhead has made it evident just how indebted he is to Krzyzewski. (After all, if Krzyzewski had left, no matter what else Brodhead accomplished at Duke he'd always be known as "the president who lost Coach K.") Indeed, a cynical person might be tempted to think that was exactly what Krzyzewski intended by his flirtation with the Lakers. Perhaps Krzyzewski never seriously considered leaving Duke but, faced with Brodhead's arrival, seized on the Lakers' offer as an opportunity to show his new boss who's really in charge. In the process, he showed just how imbalanced the relationship between athletics and academics has become at one of the country's flagship schools--and, by extension, in all of college sports.

At the press conference announcing that Coach K was staying, Brodhead revealed that, in his attempts to get Coach K to spurn the Lakers, he'd asked Krzyzewski to serve as a "Special Assistant to the President." Krzyzewski played along, assuming the role of humble servant. "The honor of being special assistant to President Brodhead was really one of the factors in coming back," Coach K said. But to anyone who'd been paying attention for the past few days, it was clear who's really the special assistant.

The Times on The Return of The Family Guy

(read it here)- look for the fine animated laughs to return in the spring of 2005. And as a special bonus treat,

It will be preceded on the air by "American Dad," another animated show created by Mr. MacFarlane, who now employs a staff of about 100, most in their 20's. This new series involves a conservative agent with the Central Intelligence Agency; his ultra-liberal daughter; a sarcastic, campy space alien with a voice like that of the comic actor Paul Lynde; and a lascivious, German-speaking goldfish, the result of a C.I.A. experiment gone wrong.

Mr. MacFarlane said that the idea for "American Dad," which is to make its debut after the Super Bowl next February, emerged from political discussions with his associates.

"My friends and I spent half our time complaining about President Bush, and we figured, why don't we channel our anger into something creative," he said. "The idea was to do a current-day `All in the Family' that would be more political than `Family Guy,' with some attempt to balance the two sides as much as possible, which is difficult for us."

Ms. Berman said she did not see the show's liberal slant as an issue for Fox, whose cable arm, Fox News, is known for its conservative talk shows. "It never occurred to me," she said. "Fox News and us are run completely independently."

Note to Bush (and my prediction):

Bashing Edwards is going to backfire (makes you look snippy).

Note further, your founding Republican was also a trial lawyer.

Various news from those with widely read opinions on the Edwards pick:

Ferrel Guillory, from right here at home, argues the Kerry/Edwards ticket has a fihgting chance in North Carolina.

The Times thinks it showed confidence of Kerry to choose the popularly regarded as more charismatic Edwards to share Kerry's spotlight.

William Safire, in line with the GOP talking points that flooded CNN yesterday, thinks it was a gutless move (and merely political pragmatism) to add good looks to the ticket. (This, by the way, was Safire's dumbest and most insulting opinion we've read in some time:

Kerry, in the most important political choice of his life, chose Edwards. Though youthful in appearance, he is 51, a fresh face but no spring chicken. He is demonstrably adept in persuading juries. Though with only five years in public office, he is a quick study and has learned to half-answer and slip around hard questions as well as many lifelong pols.

He is also the happy class warrior, the smoothest divisive force in politics today. Throughout the primaries, the potent Edwards message was "two Americas," haves vs. have-nots, richies vs. the rest. In yesterday's coordinated statements, "class" was the theme: both the patrician Kerry and the multimillionaire Edwards took pains to identify themselves with the "struggling" middle class. Kerry embraced this populist pitch as "the center of this campaign."

I suppose that Safire thinks, with Edwards' near six years of Senate experience and Edwards' unquestioned intelligence and know-how, that Edwards is a dupe with no ability to assert genuine policy initiatives. I also reckon Safire has no recollection of Edwards' upbringing. I lastly reckon Safire can be a dope. Interesting how quickly he casts Edwards as a rich, slippery politician without the politician's experience.

update: TNR responds to Safire here.

Bob Herbert thinks Edwards might out-good-ole-boy Bush, as well as adding some religion:

The most interesting tug of war will be over God. A Gallup poll last month found that 61 percent of Americans said that "religion can answer all or most of today's problems," and millions of white churchgoing Protestants have fled the Democratic Party. On his own, Mr. Kerry, a Catholic, didn't have a prayer with those voters. With Mr. Edwards, a Methodist, tethering him to Middle America and beaming in a front pew each Sunday, the ticket is far stronger.

A nice discussion amongst New Republic contributors here.

Happy News...

Black's Definition of Natural Law

This expression, "natural law," or jus naturale, was largely used in philosophical speculations of the Roman jurists of the Antonine age, and was intended to denote a system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, independently of enacted law or the systems peculiar to any one people, might be discovered by the rational intelligence of man, and would be found to grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that word his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution. The point of departure for this conception was the Stoic doctrine of a life ordered "according to nature," which in its turn rested upon the purely supposititious existence, in primitive times, of a "state of nature;" that is, a condition of society in which men universally were governed solely by a rational and consistent obedience to the needs, impulses, and promptings of their true nature, such nature being as yet undefaced by dishonesty, falsehood, or indulgence of the baser passions. In ethics, it consists in practical universal judgments which man himself elicits. These express necessary and obligatory rules of human conduct which have been established by the author of human nature as essential to the divine purposes in the universe and have been promulgated by God solely through human reason.

And the relevant part of Black's definiton of natural:

...and then it means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than to the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sactions.

Seems mushy, eh? That's just the thing. A commentor or Judge can rattle off that a common law doctrine derives from natural law principles without giving clear reasons why. Studying the evolution of the common law is much more accurate a practice than deciding a case on common law (read natural law)...because common law evolves. In that common law evolves, there must not be a clear source of natural law. Hence, one must recognize the inevitable postmodern (not-quite realist critique) that natural law is judge-made. If the source were clear (if a Judge could say X wins because God, the source of natural law and thus the definer or the common law at work here says so) then we would not have evolving common law. Unless our conceptions of God's will changes (if we see God as the source). More sensibly, human reason is the source...and that, we know, changes with the days.