It's So On

Right now I'm watching a discussion on PBS on the realistic possibility of impeachment proceedings against either or both the president and vice president. On one side of the table is John Nichols of the Village Voice arguing in favor of impeachment. On the other side is Bruce Fein, author of the articles of impeachment against Clinton and consultant to the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation... arguing IN FAVOR of impeachment. WTF, mates?



I suppose one reaction to this is to bemoan the lack of balance on PBS. Whatever... I really don't care. At this point I tend to view anyone defending Bush as pretty unbalanced themselves. All I'm looking for are interesting arguments from interesting people. MY reaction was actually one of relief. At the admittedly young age of 24, I've come to see the Republican party as a pack of power hungry mobsters who will back each other to the end, because their solidarity is where their strength comes from. To my mind the most destructive thing to happen in politics in the last 50 years came in 1966 when Gaylord Parkinson issued the 11th commandment as part of Ronald Reagan's gubernatorial campaign: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. Man, did those guys ever internalize THAT one!



I've seen vote after vote go down party lines over the last 5 years (which is about as long as I've been paying attention to anything). Well... ALMOST along party lines. I'm thinking here of the narrow votes with Republicans amassed like a monolith on one side, and just enough Democrats to solidify the decision. You simply cannot say that Democrats vote in a block the way Republicans do. Count the votes, it's an observable phenomenon. Part of it is surely the strongarm tactics of figures like Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay, but a large part of it also just seems to be the cultural fabric of the Republican party. Republicans understand at a very deep level that each vote is not one of conscience, although I imagine the two frequently coincide. Each vote is an opportunity to stand with your allies, and if you come through for them then they'll come through for you when your time comes. There has not been an effective equivalent of Tom Delay or Newt Gingrich on the Democratic side. It's all Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can do to call a meeting to order, much less enforce party orthodoxy.



Is it simply that Democrats are too stupid or weak-willed to realize their shortest route to power? Sometimes I wonder, but I think a better answer is that they lack the groupthink that the Republican party imposed on itself so long ago and has never really made an effort to shake off. Personally, I hope the Democrats never acquire it. It will take another 40 years to shake them of it.



The most recent example of the 11th commandment came today when the House Judiciary Committee ruled (surprise!) along party lines that Harriet Miers was not entitled by executive privilege to disregard a subpoenae. To me, there could not be a more clear-cut case for contempt of congress. You get subpoenaed, you show up. That's the point. I can understand maybe one or two members of the committee having qualms with with the privileged advice between a president and his counsel, but the fact that EVERY republican in question seemed consumed with this tricky questions seems HIGHLY suspicious to me. Ask yourself: Do you really think that's what happened? Do you really think that every republican on that committee voted to disregard a woman's blatant neglect of a legal order for any reason other than that she's on their team?



Sadly this is what I, and it appears most people, have come to expect. I have literally heard people get confused about what's so wrong with Bush firing U.S. attorneys at will. "They weren't doing what he wanted them to do! Of course he fired them!" Somehow the concept of separation of powers has gotten muddied. This is why I was so refreshed to hear Bruce Fein endorse impeachment. Finally, an honest to God republican true believer sees the light. There is hope after all.



What infuriates me more than anything else about Congress over the last 6 years is its continual refusal to exercise its own power. All they need to do to hold Harriet Miers accountable is... do it. They have the power to hold someone in contempt. The primary reason put forward by John Conyers not to do it? It would be a long, drawn out process likely lasting until well after George Bush has left office. Seriously? They're thinking about not doing it because it would be a hassle?!

Part of the damage that Bush/Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Gonzales/Ashcroft/etc/etc/etc have inflicted is that that have operated on the assumption that they are accountable to no one -- and all they have to do to get away with it is just be stubborn enough and eventually they can walk away. Well so far, they've been right. Whoever the next president is needs to understand that this will not be tolerated. For all the popularity that Bush has lost, for all the conservative commentators that have deserted him, he hasn't really been touched by any of the scandals he's been caught in. That needs to change.

The reason impeachment is important is not only symbolic. As the commutation of Scooter Libby shows, Bush and Cheney still hold very real power. The neutralization of their political influence does not equate to the neutralization of their threat. Each time I thought I've seen everything they can throw at me, something new breaks. Who knows what they'll do in the next year and a half? Let's take this option seriously.

If you've read this far, you're obviously interested in the topic. If you haven't watched the video I linked to at the beginning that started me on this rant, take 45 minutes and do so. It's worth it. It's important.

Gender Roles

God Bless C-SPAN. I've come across a couple of surprisingly coherent discussions of the male and female roles in our culture, and I give them my full endorsement as worthy of your time. Each is about an hour.

The first is a discussion with Leslie Bennetts on her book, The Feminine Mistake. She talks about the recent shift among women towards being homemakers instead of pursuing careers. Some really interesting questions from the audience at the end.

The second is an interview (audio only) with Harvey Mansfield on his book, Manliness. He is, for lack of a better term, an enlightened chauvenist. He fully recognizes that women are valuable in society, but he sees them contributing value through their traditional roles as supporters of their husbands. This is more of a side discussion, though, and I bring it up only to serve as a contrast with the first link. His main point is that there are some qualities that can be defined as distinctly "manly" and that men should strive to embrace them. Oh, and he's also interviewed by feminist author Naomi Wolf, who clearly takes umbrage at the notion that the qualities he lists aren't considered "womanly" as well. I've never heard two such well-spoken and educated people want to tear each others' eyes out quite so badly.

Finally, a summation of the male-female dichotomy by the sociologists of Good Charlotte. When you get right down to it, their analysis of the resource-driven behavior of both sexes is the most accurate description of the three:

New Strategy

Ok, I really do want to keep a regular sequence of posts going. One of the things stopping me seems to be that I have a running parade of thoughts in my head that never seem to arrive at a conclusion, so I never feel ready to write about it. I'm going to adopt a new M.O. I tend to read Andrew Sullivan's blog with some frequency and almost every time it links to something interesting, or is just interesting in its own right. Therefore I will make it a practice to link to and comment on something I've read at least once per week. Hopefully I can use this crutch to get in the habit of writing, and segue that into writing original posts of my own. Today's topic:

Does the New Testament's direction to care for others imply that we, as Christians, should promote government programs like socialized medicine to help care for the disadvantaged?

The letter in the above link says no:

I agree with your position about the Gospels not mandating a welfare state.
Jesus seemed most concerned about what we were like on the inside, which is why
the widow's tiny donation to the poor of a mite - all that she had - was worth
so much more than the very large donation of another. A welfare state attempts
to care for the poor, but does so through compulsion. From the perspective of
the teachings of Jesus, those who are compelled to "be good" aren't really any
better off than those who choose not to do good. In fact, some of his
harshest attacks were for those who kept "the letter of the law" while not
attending to those things which we have a difficult time measuring: kindness,
generosity, forgiveness, love. Giving grudgingly is not following the Gospel
message. Those who contend that the Gospel message teaches us to have a welfare
state have uncoupled Christ's teachings, choosing to obey - or, rather, force -
one, and neglect the other.

This libertarian defense begs the question on a more fundamental issue: should we premise our political positions on our religious interpretations? Practically everyone around me would say "Of course! My faith is the very core of my being, how could I not base everything I think and do on it?" It's a fair enough argument, but if we're going to even ATTEMPT to adhere to some separation of church and state, then we have to find some other way to convince each other. I certainly don't want my senators thumping Bibles (or any other book) while they're defending their bill to fund a statue in their hometown square. At its base, though, that's exactly what this argument is doing. Granted it's taking a more moderate read of Jesus' teachings than the traditional Bible-thumpers, but whether or not Jesus would endorse universal healthcare REALLY shouldn't enter into this debate.

Stepping back, I'm inclined to see this person's e-mail as a moderate response to a fundamentalist tactic. The fundamentalists have long argued that religious moderates don't adhere closely enough to scripture, or that we don't take faith seriously. The natural reaction for so many is, to paraphrase, "Yeah huh! We take it even more seriously than YOU GUYS! You just have to read it more closely!" To my eyes, the discussion started as a secular one, the fundamentalists claimed that God was on their side, and the moderates struck back by reclaiming God for THEIR side. In doing so, they have granted the premise that God has chosen a side at all, and now we have a religious discussion. And no, "They started it" is not an adequate response.

Do you have the time to read this post?

I say you don't have the time NOT to.

For those of you not glued to the MTV, let me catch you up on the latest cry of urban angst. In the proud tradition of "The Message" and "Gangsta's Paradise", here is the sheer emotional outburst of the modern American rapper:




And here is a scholarly unpacking of this masterpiece's multi-layered symbolism.

I RULE!

As I've mentioned before, I've taken to reading Andrew Sullivan's blog pretty regularly. It's not that I agree with him, although I frequently do, it's that his method of approaching argument is fruitful. Yesterday I was reading a post and felt I had something to contribute, so I wrote him an e-mail just to help steer his intellectual ship. Well I checked the site today and he posted part of my letter! Cool! I have to say I feel a little bit proud. The lead-ups to my e-mail are this post and this letter from another reader. He cut out what I thought was a relevant section, so here's the whole thing:

I understand your sentiment, and I even felt it myself during the 2004 election. "George W. has made his bed, now let's make him lie in it. Then the world will see how bad this guy really is." At first I understood it as an impulse to see the man get the public derision he so richly deserves. I've come to realize, however, that it's not about him. It's about history. The reason we want Bush to be at the helm when his course runs aground is so everyone, even his Republican backers, will be forced to admit how drastically ill-conceived his neoconservative philosophy is. In so doing, we hope that when the history books are written, their authors will vindicate those of us who opposed him.

I hope they do, but I hope that the drastic and catastrophic failure we're headed for isn't what it takes to make the historians wise up. What we have to consider is more than just Bush's image (which, let's face it, is what he's really fighting for at this point). The continuation of the Bush policy has real consequences for real people, and while enabling that policy may provide a certain degree of moral separation from the actual implementer(s) of the policy, it does not absolve the Democrats (or anyone else) of their responsibility to the troops, to the Iraqis, or to themselves. I know you know this, because you said as much in your last post on the subject. But then you follow it with this shocker:

"On reflection, I should have been more precise: the Democrats should support funding this war as long as the critical swing-vote Republicans do."

I understand that not every ideal is politically realistic, and that the president still holds veto power over anything the Congress does. Certainly the Democrats should do everything in their realistic scope of power, and we can't hold them responsible if Bush's power still trumps theirs, but to say that they should take their lead from moderate Republicans, from anyone besides their own moral compass, makes my eyes bleed. As I understand it, your argument is that if they stop "supporting the troops," the Democrats will be giving Rove and company exactly the ammunition they dream about. This may be true, but surely by now America (the part for which we can hold out any hope) has woken up to what Rove's game really is. Surely by now we can stop cowering before the spectre of Karl Rove saying something mean about us. It's time we do everything we can to mitigate the consequences of Bush's hold over this country, and let the legacies fall where they may.

Damn hippies

Look, I'm not one to judge. But homeless people are hungry, and they need good, solid protein. To feed them vegan food is just... well, unconscionable. I'm glad this guy is off the streets. Now area businesses can get back to selling overpriced beads without the eyesore of all those bothersome starving people.

WHEEEEE!!!!

You know... I know that a post or two ago I was pretty down about my job. Those issues haven't fully resolved themselves, but there are some really cool parts about working in a plant, too.

I've been needing a certain dimension on a pipe, and I've been having trouble getting it because the pipe is about 25 ft in the air and scaffolds are in short supply. Enter the JLG:

You see, the fun involved in riding the JLG is two-fold. Part one is that you're being hoisted way up high into the air inside a basket from which Evel Knievel wouldn't look down. On the other, you're at the end of a VERY long moment arm every time those tires hit a bump in the road. The combination is something like jumping up and down on a diving board while the pool moves at about 25 mph. You have to flex your knees, almost like you're skiing. IT. WAS. AWESOME. Since I don't have the necessary paperwork to drive, I got Brian Stogdill (my foreman) to take the stick while I bounced along with a grin on my face akin to a 2 year old on a merry-go-round. Brian is a recent Army vet, very matter-of-fact type guy. I couldn't tell if he was amused or annoyed, but it didn't make much difference to me. It was one of those moments in life that's too much fun to be self-conscious.

On that note, I want to announce a new personal policy. I'm going to make a conscious effort to laugh at least 3 times a day. This usually takes care of itself, but there are those days when, as the cowboy in The Big Lebowski said: "The bar' eats you...". I'm realizing that there are lots of people who don't laugh 3 times a week, unless you count that awful nervous laughter on elevator rides. Really. I think it's important not to take life too seriously all the time, especially when everyone around you seems to be.