On real liberal values

Okay, so there's been a lot of talk lately about ways the Democrats can start their comebacks in 2006 and, more importantly, 2008. One of the biggest issues has been simply framing, which is the subject of George Lakoff's book Don't Think of an Elephant. Lakoff writes about how Repubs have become the party of values simply by talking about them, by endorsing life and family and freedom and safety and rainbows and puppies (well, maybe not rainbows), while Democrats tend to focus on issues like education, the environment, the war in Iraq, and the economy. It sounds good, but like the advertising axiom that people don't want to buy a shovel, they want to buy a hole, Americans don't buy issues. They buy the values that those issues represent.

Enter Paul Begala:

Such is the hatred of the far right at the dawn of the 21st Century. And my how the optical worm has turned. Today it is the left invoking faith, flag and family, while the right destroys crosses. Today it is the left that honors the war dead, raises up a Gold Star Mother and publicly prays for our troops, while the right viciously attacks a woman who gave her country everything. Today it is the left that patiently and peacefully respects the Office of the Presidency, while the right diminishes the office by claiming it's more important for the President to go bike-riding with a sports hero than comfort the mother of a war hero.

For the last two presidential elections it has been the Democratic Party whose nominee was a Vietnam War veteran, while the Republicans have sputtered out spurious defenses of their candidate's deceitful draft-dodging.

On Thursday, Dick Cheney, who said he had "other priorities" in the Vietnam era, and so helped himself to five draft deferments, will address the 73rd Convention of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. I do not think he will express remorse for the callousness with which he explained his cowardice. Nor do I expect him to apologize for the shocking, mocking Republicans who, at their New York Convention a year ago, sported Band-Aids with tiny purple hearts to mock the blood shed by John Kerry and so many other heroes in that misbegotten war.

No, Mr. Cheney, surrounded by body guards who would gladly give their life for him, will no doubt wrap himself in the flag. A flag Larry Chad Northern wrapped around his axle on Prairie Chapel Road.

This is an opportunity for the Democratic party. This is our opening. But we have to do it right. It's not enough to point out the hypocrisy in the right's pro-troop stance; we have to take back Patriotism. And it's not enough to point out the despicable ways that conservative columnists and bloggers have been trashing a grieving mother; we have to take back Family. Conservatives have been complaining for a while that we on the left never do anything but trash Republicans, and there's actually some truth to that. It's not enough to point out how they're wrong. We have to point out how we're right, and how we've been right for quite some time, if everyone had just paid attention.

Thanks to Atrios for the link.

On advertising to real real women

Okay, so here's an open letter to all advertisers looking to advertise to "real women:"

Dear advertisers,

A lot of you have been making an effort to abandon the traditional skeletal, airbrushed models and start using "real" women in your ads. Let me say: way to go. As a woman who is neither skeletal nor, for the most part, airbrushed, I enjoy seeing women on billboards who don't make me feel guilty about the butt that, let's face it, ain't going anywhere, no matter how hard I work out. Dove, in particular, has gotten a lot of attention for its ad campaign showing women of all sizes, shapes, and ages who are braver than I would be to pose on billboards in their undies. Y'all have been doing so well that I'm reluctant to criticize, because I don't want to put you off the idea. At the same time, though, I feel it's necessary to point out one very well-intentioned mistake, to keep you from wandering down that same path.

Nike, you know I'm talking about you.

Nike's new ad campaign celebrates "big butts" and "thunder thighs," which sounds like a great idea, right? In theory, sure. But allow me to give you a little perspective straight from your target audience - not the standard for beauty and athleticism, surely, but at least a standard for, well, standard. I'm a woman between the ages of 18 and 35. My BMI is 24. I'm three inches taller and ten pounds lighter than the "average woman." I get in my weights and my cardio five times a week, and I also, on occasion, play some (fairly decent) tennis and do some (deeply righteous) backpacking. My thighs look like this one:



Nike, that is not a thunderous thigh. That thigh isn't even the sound an old Chevy makes when you try to crank it on a cold morning. That's a normal thigh. That's not Kirstie Alley's thigh; that's the thigh of a normal, healthy, almost-athletic young woman. And while your attempt to glamorize the "normal" body is admirable, you're not going to make anyone feel better by telling them that their "normal" body is, for the record, enormous.

So, advertisers, here's the secret to using "normal" women in your ads: treat them like normal women. They're not beautiful despite their normalcy, they're beautiful period. Imagine that you're using your ad copy as a pickup line in a bar. Telling a woman that she's finer than a summer day might just get you a date; telling a woman that she's got big ol' flabby thighs, but you think they sexy, will probably get you smacked with a handbag.

Oh, and Jamie, putting your hand on a woman's leg and exclaiming, "Whoa, there, quadzilla"? Not a compliment.

Much love,
ACG

On evolution - this one goes out to Steve

Okay, so proponents of Intelligent Design claim that not only is it a viable scientific theory (to which I must reply, um, nuh-uh) but that they have a list with over 300 names of doctors who "Dissent From Darwin" and insist that evolution is a joke, all evidence to the contrary.

Enter Project Steve.

Project Steve is an effort by the National Center for Science Education to promote the teaching of actual science in science classes. Their statement reads as follows:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

and is endorsed by, as of July of this year, 577 biologists (which make up about two-thirds of the list), science educators, medical researchers, etc. All of whom are named Steve.

Well, all of them could be named Steve. The list has been generously left open to Stephens, Stevens, Stefans, and yes, of course, Stephanies. The NCSE figures that Steves make up about 1 percent of the US population, and thus their sample of Steves, assuming that there isn't some bizarre concentration of evolution-loving Steves in the scientific community, represents about 57,700 scientists who support the modern take on evolutionary biology.

So the next time you're confronted by an ID nutjob chanting, "I didn't come from a monkey," just remind him that 577 Steves agree: Intelligent Design is a crock.

On Friday Random Ten

Okay, so... I got nothin'. Here it is:

1. Madonna, "Frozen"
2. Annie Sellick, "Give Me The Simple Life"
3. Les Nubians, "Bebela"
4. Astrud Gilberto, "Here's That Rainy Day"
5. Chad & Jeremy, "A Summer Song"
6. Kula Shaker, "Tattva"
7. Guster, "So Long"
8. Patti LaBelle, "Lady Marmalade"
9. Garbage, "I Think I'm Paranoid"
10. Kristen Barry, "Ordinary Life"

And now, a quest for my reader(s): I'm trying to put together, as a gift for a friend, a compilation CD about bitches. The problem is that she's a country music fan, and to my knowledge, most country singers are far too polite to ever sing about a bitch unless a) she just got squished under the porch of his trailer, along with his other three hounds, or b) it's preceded by "sonofa."

Do country singers ever sing about bitches?

On quick Wednesday funnies

Okay, so a friend of mine was just about to leave to get her much-anticipated boob job when the phone rang. It was her husband, calling to let her know that the truck they'd been bidding for on e-bay was theirs.

Said my friend, "Wow, honey, you've got to be the luckiest man in the world. You got a truck and your wife's getting a lift kit in the same day."

I just about wet myself laughing.

On borrowed youth

Okay, so since I no longer have Bill Hemmer and those hot little Clark Kent glasses to brighten my day every morning, I've been forced to look to other sources for my weather, traffic, and occasional entertainment drivel. And like a dog who gets smacked every time but keeps chewing on the azaleas, dammit, I turn on the Today Show.

This morning, Katie was handing out advice for not-young people on how to stay young by embracing technology, dressing young, and hanging out with young people. This segment could have been titled "How To Embarrass Your Children In Five Easy Steps." Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with older people feeling youthful and vibrant. I think it's a great thing, and I like to think that I'll still be youthful when I hit middle age. But there's a difference between "youthful" and "childish," and if you've seen Amy Poehler's character in Mean Girls, you know what I mean.

Take, by contrast, my parents. They are (and they'll back me up on this) not in their twenties. Or thirties, for that matter. But they've got to be some of the most youthful people I've met. My dad exercises regularly, acts in all kinds of plays, and turns into a seven-year-old when you take him to an air show (honestly, it's really cute). Mom plays tennis (and can pull off those short little skirts better than I can), delivers Meals On Wheels in her little convertible, dresses well, listens to music not written by James Taylor, and has been known to tell jokes that make me blush. Together, they've taken lessons in salsa and swing dancing. My parents are actually fun to hang out with. If I'm home for a weekend, I'm more likely to have fun than to not have fun.

Part of this is because my parents recognize that I'm an adult. The other part is because they recognize that they're adults. My dad doesn't have a Corvette. My mom doesn't wear halter tops or mini skirts (that don't come attached to tennis bloomers, anyway). Neither has attempted to use the "youthful lingo" without the necessary self-deprecating irony. They recognize something that far too few people realize these days: that once you hit fifty, you'll never be twenty again, no matter how hard you try, and that the more you do to look like you're twenty, the more you're calling attention to the fact that you're not.

So now, to counteract the evil that Katie Couric has let loose on the world, is the real fountain of youth: How To Stay Youthful Without Alienating Your Children And/Or Making A Fool Out Of Yourself.

1. If you don't know what the lyrics are saying, don't try to embrace the music. A fifty-year-old woman saying, "That's dope, G. I'm smackin' the hos and gettin' crunk, yo?" Embarrassing, not youthful.

2. Skin covered should be directly proportional to age. You don't have to dress like a nun or a piano teacher, but scoop-neck tops are for those without turkey waddles and a boat-neck is just as attractive (and far more flattering). By the time you're eighty, you really shouldn't be in anything shorter than cropped pants and three-quarter sleeves - even during the summer, in Florida. That's why God invented linen.

3. Wraparound sunglasses are not okay. Need prescription glasses? Get prescription lenses put into a pair of classic - not trendy - frames.

4. Pleated pants are not okay. On anyone. This is another case where trying to hide something only emphasizes it more. Find a pair of flat-front pants that actually fit, and you'll have knocked off ten pounds and ten years. Don't question; just do as I say. (Similarly, tapered legs are right out; find a nice straight leg or slight bootcut to balance out those hips there, Mother Ginger.)

5. Women, recognize that your complexion tends to wash out as you age. That means that the makeup and hair color that made you look like Faye Dunaway when you were 25 now make you look like Estelle Harris. Go to a salon, an actual salon, and have a professional choose colors for you that are actually found in nature.

6. Men, bald heads are dead sexy. Combovers? Not even a little bit sexy. If you find yourself maneuvering the remaining 50 percent of your hair to cover the other 50 percent of your scalp, you're fighting a losing battle and need to just go ahead and shave it off. Any hairstyle that relies purely on the support of styling products is right out (that goes for women, too).

7. Listen to your kids. If your daughter says to you, "Mom, your hair looks like a St. Louis Rams helmet circa 1965," or your son says, "Dad, you're wearing a short-sleeved Madras plaid shirt and it has to stop," don't argue. Don't. Don't.

8. If you feel the need to get a little bit of work done, go for it. Just don't expect it to literally take years off. There's nothing wrong with lifting a few sagging features or tightening up some skin or putting your boobs back where they started, but if your forehead doesn't move, or you've got that perpetually surprised look, you've gone too far. And once you've gotten the work done, you're still sixty, so don't think that you're now free to pull out that halter top. Still not okay.

9. Spending time with young people is a great way to feel youthful and energetic yourself. Bond with your kids. Listen to their music with them. See their movies with them. Take them to a football game. Take them out to dinner and talk with them. And then when they want to go hit the bars or go to a club? Don't go with them. Go home, turn on the Britcoms on PBS, and hope the kids are having a good time. If you have grandkids, put one on each knee and read The Phantom Tollbooth with them. You'll feel young, and the kids will love you for it.

10. Realize that it's okay to get older. The alternative? Far less pleasant. There's no shame in hitting middle age and keeping going. And you can stay youthful - right up to the point when you try to be young. Wear low-rise jeans and stilettos to the movies and you'll be "that old chick dressed like Britney Spears" (as soon as the gagging subsides); wear some nice flat-front pants and sleeveless polo shirt, and all eyes will be on the guy stretching a Metallica muscle shirt over his beer gut.

On pleasant trips and safe returns

Okay, so I've returned, largely unscathed, from a most enjoyable visit with friends in Nawfolk. Normal blogging will resume as soon as I've addressed this great big pile of work that somehow appeared on my formerly clean desk.

Oh, and to anyone who received a text message Sunday night reading, "Tequila. Oh, the humanity," just... That was... Yeah, sorry 'bout that.

On Friday Random Ten - 'cept, you know, Thursday

Okay, so I figure it's better a day early than four days late. I'm heading out of town this weekend early-early tomorrow morning, and if you think I'm getting up extra early-early just to get my Random Ten posted, you're crazy. Just crazy enough, in fact, to be a regular reader of Practically Harmless. Mazel.

1. Shakira, "Underneath Your Clothes"
2. Dido, "Here With Me (remix)"
3. Frederic Chopin, "Nocturne No. 20 in C sharp minor"
4. Chris Brann, "Slo Motion"
5. Sarah Brightman, "Deliver Me"
6. Evanescence, "Solitude"
7. Serge Gainsbourg, "L'eau a la Bouche"
8. Diana Krall, "I Remember You"
9. Dave Matthews Band, "Proudest Monkey"
10. Blossom Dearie, "'Deed I Do."

I don't know what that says about my upcoming weekend, but that first song sounds promising.

And finally, to tide you over until my triumphant and sunburned and probably hungover return Monday night:

"Do you know how fast you were going?" the police officer asked, incredulous.
"No," Heisenberg replied, "but I know exactly where I am!"

I am such a geek.

On intelligence and intelligent design

Okay, so President Bush has come out in support of Intelligent Design (and if anyone knows intelligence, it's George). He said that the ultimate decision should remain with the school districts, but that in his opinion, both sides should be taught "so that people can understand what the debate is about," adding that "part of education is exposing people to different schools of thought."

Believe it or not, I actually agree with the president on that last point. Exposing people to different schools of thought is a major part of education - in the right context. In literature, religion, philosophy, art, there are lots of equally valid schools of thought that should all be explored. Other areas, though, are one-school-of-thought-based. Take math class; there may be a variety of ways to solve a math problem, but if you start out disputing the fact that 5 x 5 = 25, you're going to end up with an objectively wrong answer.

And so it is with much of science. Not all of science, by any means. Science is always growing and changing, new discoveries are being made every day, and while some theories (gravity) are fairly solid, others are still being tested. If science were completely rigid, there would be no point in further experimentation, because we'd have the answers already. But there is one school of thought that science takes pretty seriously: a theory is only scientifically valid if it can be disproved.

Now, this isn't my area of expertise,* but I did take science classes and I love the Discovery channel and I remember that scientific theories must be testable. I also remember that no theory can actually be proved; it can only be tested over and over and over and over again, with the consistent result that it is not disproved. But that fact that it can be tested, that the potential for it to be disproven exists, is crucial for a theory to be scientifically valid.

Intelligent Design doesn't fit. How do you prove that a higher power didn't create or contribute to the creation of the world? How do you prove that a higher power doesn't even exist? What tests do you do? Gravity can be tested. You can throw a ball up in the air a hundred times, and as long as no other forces intervene, it'll fall right back down. If, just once, that ball doesn't fall (and no other forces have intervened), you've disproved the theory of gravity and set science on its collective nose. But you can't do that with Intelligent Design.

I personally don't have a problem with ID. I happen to believe it. As a Catholic, I certainly believe in the existence of a higher power, and I think it's more than likely that he had a hand in the changes over time demonstrated by evolution. But I realize that ID is a theory that requires faith, the belief in a higher power, in conjunction with disprovable science, and I just can't justify that being taught in schools. There's no reason that parents can't teach their kids whatever they want regarding the origins of life, and there's no reason that teachers can't say, "Now, your parents might have different and perfectly valid feelings on the subject, but for our purposes, this is how life began." But science class is for science, and ID just plain doesn't qualify.

*That one's for you, Daddy. You're the scientist here; feel free to correct me on this, or to tell me how shocked you are that I actually got it right.

On Friday Random Ten

Okay, so am I the only person who's noticed that KFC has been using "Sweet Home Alabama" in their ad campaign? Um, wouldn't that make them AFC?

1. Johnny Cash, "The One On The Right Is On The Left"
2. Dido, "Aria (Trance 2000 remix)"
3. The Surfaris, "Wipe Out"
4. Dave Matthews Band, "Lie In Our Graves"
5. Garbage, "Temptation Waits"
6. Vertical Horizon, "All Of You"
7. U2, "Desire"
8. Kay Starr, "Sentimental Journey"
9. Alicia Bridges, "I Love The Nightlife (Disco Round)"
10. Dave Brubeck, "Take Five"

Looks like the weekend might start out a little rough, but by the end, it's going to rock. Remind me to hand-wash some of my cute little going-out tops, 'cause the fact is, I really do love the nightlife. I got to boogie.

On your rights - yes, Virginia, there is a right to privacy.

Okay, so I promised y'all a look at privacy rights, so here we go. As a non-lawyer, I invite any and all of my ConLaw friends and trolls to call shenanigans on mistakes I might make in my interpretation of the law.

This was all spurred on by an appearance by Senator Rick Santorum on NewsNight with Aaron Brown, specifically the following exchange:

BROWN: Do you think there's a right to privacy in the Constitution? . . . For example, if you'd been a Supreme Court judge in Griswold versus Connecticut, the famous birth control case came up, which centered around whether there was a right to privacy. Do you believe that was correctly decided?

SANTORUM: No, I don't. I write about it in the book. I don't.

. . . BROWN: Why would a conservative argue that government should interfere with that most personal decision?

SANTORUM: I didn't. I said it was a bad law. And... They had the right to make it. Look, legislatures have the right to make mistakes and do really stupid things...but we don't have to create constitutional rights because we have a stupid legislature. And that's the problem here, is the court feels like they have a responsibility to right every wrong. When they do that, unlike a Congress, that if we make a really stupid mistake and we do something wrong, we go back next year or next month and change it, and we've done that. Courts don't do that. They only get cases that come before them and they have to make broad, sweeping decisions that have huge impact down the road.

That's what happened in Griswold. It was a bad law. The court felt, we can't let this bad law stand in place. It's wrong. It was. But they made a -- they created out of whole cloth a right that now has gone far, far from Griswold versus Connecticut.

To begin with, I do have to point out that Santorum makes one mistake (well, plenty, to be sure, but this one jumps out at me): one job of the Supreme Court is to correct things when the legislature is stupid, specifically, when the legislature passes stupidly unconstitutional legislation. In such a case, the SC has to say, "Hey, stupid that law vioaltes a constitutional right." Does the court get to create constitutional rights, pull them out of thin air? Of course not. But if there's a right in there, and it's being violated, the court has to overturn the law.  That's what it's there for. And sure, it's really the responsibility of the legislature to go back and correct its mistakes when it makes them. But how long do we give the lege to realize it's made a mistake, and then correct it? How long would Jim Crow have been on the books before the legislature went back to get rid of it, without the federal judiciary pushing at it?

That having been said, does the Constitution really outline a right to privacy? Well, to begin with, we know that it doesn't not allow it. The Ninth Amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So it's certainly left open that we could have one. And if you want to argue original intent, you can look back as far as the Federalist Papers, where Andrew Hamilton argues against a Bill of Rights on the grounds that listing the rights that the people do have almost makes it easier for the government to start listing the rights that they don't have. But some politicans won't take "step off my Ninth Amendment rights" for an answer, so we look to caselaw.

The case in question, Griswold v. Connecticut, actually centered around a Connecticut law banning contraceptives for married people. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, citing a right to privacy found in the "penumbra" of the Bill of Rights and supported by the Ninth Amendment (two judges filed a concurrent opinion that overturned the law via the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment). Basically, the ruling boils down to the fact that while the Bill of Rights doesn't explicitly outline a right to privacy, that right is implicit in the Amendment I freedom of belief, expression, and association; Amendment IV right to security in your person, home, and property; Amendment V freedom from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process; and Amendment IX, which says only that such a right can exist because the Constitution doesn't say it can't. The first ten amendments outline the various ways that people have control over their own lives. The "right to privacy" doesn't need to be expressed in so many words because it's implied in everything the Bill of Rights stands for.

Griswold isn't the only case where privacy becomes an issue. Later, in the 1967 case Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court further upheld a right to privacy by saying that the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure applies to the person, not the personal property, and that what a person "seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public may be Constitutionally protected."

But hey, don't take my word for it; ask Justice Louis Brandeis. In his Harvard Law Review article, The Right to Privacy," published in 1890 - 75 years prior to Griswold, Brandeis says that basic human rights naturally extend beyond life, property, and person safety to issues of human emotions and relationships and even intellectual property. Said Brandeis, "Thoughts, emotions, and sensations demanded legal recognition, and the beautiful capacity for growth which characterizes the common law enabled the judges to afford the requisite protection, without the interposition of the legislature." While his article starts by looking at the effect of unwanted media attention on privacy, it extends that right to all areas of private life, saying that

the protection of society must come mainly through a recognition of the rights of the individual.  Each man is responsible for his own acts and omissions only.  If he condones what he reprobates, with a weapon at hand equal to his defence, he is responsible for the results.  If he resists, public opinion will rally to his support.  Has he then such a weapon? It is believed that the common law provides him with one, forged in the slow fire of the centuries, and to-day fitly tempered to his hand.

In my eyes, though, the biggest defense of the right to privacy is the entire damn Constitution. In case you're unfamiliar with it, it's the document in which the people of America outline the rights that they'll allow the government to have. I'll repeat: it's where the people tell the government how far it can go and how much authority it has over our lives. Somehow, we've started to move away from the real original intent of the framers of the Constitution, that the government should serve at the will of the people, that the government's rights arise from the willingness of the people to give them authority. In cases like this, cases where our personal and private activities and decisions become fodder for a controlling legislature, we have a responsibility to tell the government so far, but no further.

On almost agreeing with Rick Santorum, revisited

Okay, so it appears, on closer examination, that I don't agree with Rick Santorum after all. Not even a little bit. But it's okay, see, because it turns out that he doesn't agree with himself, either:

Did little Ricky just say on Aaron Brown what I thought he said? That Griswold was wrongly decided, and that therefore the state has the right to regulate the use of birth control by married couples?

Aw, man, for serious? This is what I get for turning off CNN when CSI comes on. Did anyone actually get to see it? What did Aaron have to say?

Wow, Santorum must be all ticked off about this new book that just came out. It talks about how great Griswold was for supporting marriage and establishing a zone of privacy around it:

With respect to sexual conduct, not abortion, the Court had recognized a zone of privacy around marriage. In other words, married people were treated differently under the law with respect to their sexual activity with one another than unmarried people. In its left-handed way, the Court in Griswold gave deference to marriage between one man and one woman as the building block for society and the legitimate purpose for sexual activity and thereby protected it from state regulation.

Rick, you'll want to check that book out, like, right away. I think it's called It Takes a Family. You're going to want to talk with that guy about family values.

Update: Kos has been kind enough to provide a transcript of the conversation in question:

BROWN: Do you think there's a right to privacy in the Constitution? . . . For example, if you'd been a Supreme Court judge in Griswold versus Connecticut, the famous birth control case came up, which centered around whether there was a right to privacy. Do you believe that was correctly decided?

SANTORUM: No, I don't. I write about it in the book. I don't.

. . . BROWN: Why would a conservative argue that government should interfere with that most personal decision?

SANTORUM: I didn't. I said it was a bad law. And... They had the right to make it. Look, legislatures have the right to make mistakes and do really stupid things...but we don't have to create constitutional rights because we have a stupid legislature. And that's the problem here, is the court feels like they have a responsibility to right every wrong. When they do that, unlike a Congress, that if we make a really stupid mistake and we do something wrong, we go back next year or next month and change it, and we've done that. Courts don't do that. They only get cases that come before them and they have to make broad, sweeping decisions that have huge impact down the road.

That's what happened in Griswold. It was a bad law. The court felt, we can't let this bad law stand in place. It's wrong. It was. But they made a -- they created out of whole cloth a right that now has gone far, far from Griswold versus Connecticut.

So Griswold is good, good for protecting marriage. But it was bad, bad for raising the issue of privacy. Because only marriages are private. Except for gay marriages. And the Supreme Court was bad for making sweeping decisions that lay judicial precendence for privacy rights, except for the part that protected marriage, which was good.

I hope we're clear on that.

I think I'll use this opportunity to take a look at the Constitution and our right to privacy. Except I smell banana bread in the kitchen, so privacy rights will have to wait until tomorrow.

On the ideal family

Okay, so few things in life scare me more than almost agreeing with Rick Santorum.

The kindly junior senator from Pennsylvania was sporting enough to appear on the Daily Show last night (and yes, at this point I do get the vast majority of my news from Comedy Central, 'cause the real news makes me sad), and he made some good points with regard to the American family in general (vis a vis his new book, It Takes a Family, which is not getting an Amazon link from me, sorry Rick).

Senator Santorum said that society is based around the idea of a family with one man and one woman married for the purpose of having kids. I do kind of disagree with that; anthropologically speaking, the "traditional" nuclear family is kind of a new development, what with plenty of less-advanced and/or aboriginal societies living in all different kinds of arrangements and being just fine with it. Regardless, I will stipulate that the ideal family involves a kid having two parents (although I won't insist that they have one parent of each gender; see this post for my feelings on same-gender parenting). Once again, for the record, it is my person, unscientific opinion that any two-parent family, regardless of gender combo, is the ideal, and any discussion of the effect of gay parents on kids is just going to happen on another blog.

Here's where Rick and I significantly part ways, though: he feels that the government's job is to support that ideal situation. Well, okay, yeah, I actually do agree with that, too (isn't this scary?). But I don't agree that we need to support the ideal at the expense of reality. 'Cause reality isn't ideal. Reality is single mothers, sometimes single fathers, divorces, remarriages, stepfamilies, blended families. And while government certainly does need to support and even promote the ideal of two parents with a whole passel of kids, where at least one parent is available for those kids at all times, it's counterproductive to do anything that would prevent the other types of less-ideal families from thriving. Why would the sanctity of the traditional man-woman marriage be threatened by similarly loving marriages of same-gender individuals? While there's certainly nothing wrong with encouraging families to work through their difficulties, if a woman is in an abusive relationship, shouldn't the government also support her in her single motherhood when she makes the difficult decision to take the kids and get out? It's fine to place a special value on traditional families, but why does doing that mean that you also can't take a child out of an orphanage and place it with two men who love each other deeply and would make great fathers?

The problem isn't even that the Republicans are so far off in their thinking. When it all comes down to it, we want the same things. Democrats and Republicans both think that abortion is a bad and tragic thing. We both want every child to grown up in a supportive and loving family. We both want world peace (and tougher penalties for parole violators, Stan). But while so many (not even all) on the conservative side, particularly the Evangelical Christians, are unwilling to support anything outside of the Biblical ideal for society, those of us on the other side recognize that you have to work toward the ideal, but you also have to recognize that in the meantime, you have to abide in the society that you have, not the society that you want or would like to have.

On another odd search

Okay, so today's Weird Yahoo! Search of the Day has to go to "'josh massey' apocalypse."

Um, Josh? Something you'd like to tell the class?

Update: The Strange Google Du Jour is "threat ACG." Now, come on, y'all. Is that really necessary? Is that nice?

Or maybe they're implying that I'm a threat. That my hands are lethal weapons. That my mind is as a sharpened stiletto...

On winning the hearts and minds of people whose hearts and minds you already have

Okay, so today, President Bush makes his first visit in two years to Atlanta to sell us deep-southerners on his plans for Social Security. Except that the event is invitation-only, meaning that, as usual, his audience will be limited to those people who already agree with him anyway.

Not that I would ever dare criticize our president or second-guess his political strategery, but if he's going to take the time to come down here with so much else going on in the world, wouldn't it make more sense for him to try and sell his SS plan to the people who actually need convincing? Just thinking about efficient use of time, is all.

On my Friday Random Ten

Okay, so it is Friday, right? Day after Thursday? Tomorrow, then, would be Saturday?

Just checking.

1.Norah Jones, "One Flight Down"
2. Guster, "California Dreamin'"
3. Lauryn Hill, "Ex-Factor"
4. J.S. Bach, "Ich ruf' Zu Dir, Herr Jesus Christ"
5. The Beatles, "Yellow Submarine"
6. Serge Gainsbough, "Generique"
7. The Beatles, "I Feel Fine"
8. Joss Stone, "Chokin' Kind"
9. Elvis, "Love Me Tender"
10. John Coltrane, "Central Park West"

Yours go below.

On resiliency

Okay, so I recently got an e-mail from a close friend of mine in England; he wasn't in London the day of the bombing, but he was there the day after, and he made a lot of really insightful points about the whole thing. I won't post the entire thing, 'cause it's personal, y'all, but I don't think he'd mind me sharing this part, which made me smile:

"Today Britain is burning in fear" says an Islamist website.

"Today Britain is cheesed off and slightly late for work" would be closer to the mark.

Always good to hear from a friend.

On flip-flop fashion

Okay, so I was going to just leave this alone, but having been branded a "fashion commentator" by several individuals, I thought I'd at least use my power for some kind of good.

The biggest fashion-related to-do came when Northwestern University's national-champion women's lacrosse team were rewarded with a visit to the White House to meet the president. The girls got themselves all pretty, behaved appropriately, posed for pictures with the pres and went on their merry ways.

It was when Kate Darmody got home that she read the e-mail from her brother: "YOU WORE FLIP-FLOPS TO THE WHITE HOUSE???!!!" Aly Josephs's mother was "mortified" that, in fact, four of the nine girls in the front row of the picture were wearing flip-flops.

Whoop de fricking doo.

The news is all over it. Mothers have been interviewed to tell how embarrassed they were at their daughters' choice of shoes. Shoe experts, and apparently there are some, people who write books on shoes have been called in for heated debates over whether or not the footwear was appropriate.

Well, let me say first that the first thing to catch my eye was the length of their skirts. The fact that none of the girls had their butt-cheeks hanging out below their hemlines was impressive, as was the fact that none of them were wearing casual denim, tiered, or broomstick skirts.

The shoes should be a non-issue. It's not like they were wearing jelly sandals or rubber flip-flops with three-toned soles. The fact is, flats are in this summer, which comes as a great relief to those of us whose arches need a break from high-heeling it around town every day. I wouldn't even say that these girls were wearing flip-flops. I'd probably call them flat-heeled thong sandals.

Now, I probably wouldn't wear flat-heeled thong sandals to the White House; even the nicest flats are still more casual than a cute pair of heels, and a low-heeled, open-toed mule would be almost as comfortable as a flat. But to all of the "shoe commentators" who are up in arms over these girls wearing flp-flops (gasp!) to the White House (choke!), remember that this is the home of a man who makes a distinction between casual and formal cowboy boots. I seriously doubt he took it personally.

On the Woodward and Bernstein reunion tour

Okay, so Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were on the Daily Show last night, and yes, they were shilling for their new book, but they were also commenting on the mushroom scandals that keep popping up and the media coverage thereof. If we're going to be completely honest, we'll have to recognize that it was it was a seriously heavy chunk of luck that made the guys "Woodward and Bernstein" instead of "Some Nebbish Guy and Hey, What's Up With That Other Guy's Hair," in that without Nixon's poor judgment as to which offices to break into and which conversations to tape record, there wouldn't have been a scandal to cover. On the other hand, though, they contributed to their own fame there by simply being better-than-average reporters; it could be posited that lesser reporters wouldn't have been so successful at digging deep, asking the right questions and talking to the right people. And that's why people like me, people who aspire to be Real, Grown-Up Reporters someday, look to W&B as the gold standard. At this point, they're almost more of an archetype than anything else.

Bob Woodward told a story about doing an interview at the White House and being met at the gates by an anti-Bush protest group, one protester of whom demanded to know what Woodward was doing in there and whether he was giving Bush a blow job. Twenty yards down Pennsylvania Avenue, he was accosted by a woman who asked if he was just trying to take Bush down the way he took down Nixon. And that's the way it is, really - no one trusts the press; they just distrust the press for different reasons. Jon Stewart (who sometimes seems more like a real reporter than anyone else these days) asked the pertinent question: should the public trust the press, really? And Carl Bernstein said no, but not for the reasons that people think. It's not about bias, because everyone is going to see bias where they want to; it's about journalists not doing their jobs properly.

And they totally, totally aren't. Reporters are so afraid of pissing off sources and losing access that they won't write anything more controversial than the school lunch menu, much less ask actual followup questions. The recent press corps assault on Scott "Rainman" McClellan was amazing because it was unusual to see reporters being so damned assertive at a White House gaggle, but to quote Chris Rock, "What do you want, a cookie?" That's what reporters do, you lazy punks.

The sub-story that ended up overwhelming the Jim/Jeff Guckert/Gannon scandal was that it was broken, for the most part, by the non-"real journalist" community. The serious, in-depth reporting was done by World O'Crap and Americablog, and they did it without depending on special, magical, Press Club-only insider sources; they did it with Google and a willingness to spend a little time finding out what the hell is actually going on. Bloggers got their due, which I thought was cool, but I couldn't help but wondering: Aren't you journalists ashamed?! All of you "real" journalists should be ashamed! This story was out there, the bald dude was standing right freaking next to you in the press gaggle, and the story was broken by some folks with computers and a basic recognition of when things just don't smell right.

Unequivocally, our generation's Woodward and Bernstein will be bloggers (assuming the FEC doesn't manage to shut them all down, but that's a whole other post). I don't know what scandal will be there to help them, because frankly, the White House has adopted Ronald Regan's Teflonicity; Gannon didn't touch them, the Downing Street Memos got less than "meh," and the ongoing Puppetmastergate doesn't seem to fluster the administration nearly as much as it should. If it's not the Bush White House, it might well be the next president.  But it's going to happen, and "real" journalists had better be sufficiently chastened.

The funniest comment in recent memory was Jon Stewart's whispered comment on the video of Scotty McClellan's shellacking: "The White House press corps has secretly been replaced with real reporters." Let's see if they notice. Hell, let's see if it lasts.

On new love

Okay, so I'll always love Barack Obama. A love like that never really ends. But love does change, and lovers change, and John McCain did Leno last night. So down-to-earth. So clever. So self-aware. So charmingly dimpled when he smiles...



Seriously, Barack, you'll be okay. You're a strong guy, you've got a lot of purpose to your life, and you've got Michelle and the girls to comfort you. As for me, I've got a new boyfriend. John, call me. For serious.

On Random Ten omens

Okay, so when we were at UGA (Doug went from '95-'99; I went from '99 to '03), my brother and I had this superstition about the drive from Athens to Columbus. The drive down I-85 takes you right under the flightline for the Atlanta airport, and the idea was that if a plane landed on you on your way home, it's a good omen, and the weekend is going to rock.

Josh over at Martians Attacking Indianapolis (man, I love that name) has a different theory. He looks to his Friday iPod Random Ten to see how his weekend is going to go. I'm going to be heading down to Columbus this evening for some quality time with family and friends; what does my Random Ten predict for my weekend?

1. Carmen Consoli, "Fino all'ultimo"
2. Etta James, "The Very Thought Of You"
3. Ella Fitzgerald, "Slow Boat To China"
4. Madonna, "Remember"
5. Worldscapes, "C'est Si Bon"
6. Abbey Lincoln, "A Part Of Me (There Are Such Things)"
7. Johhny Cash, "I Still Miss Someone"
8. The Rivieras, "California Sun"
9. Otis Redding, "Try A Little Tenderness"
10. Evanescence, "Lies"

Not so bad, actually. Some nice, easy jazz (Etta and Ella), liking the sound of things being bon, some sunshine, a little tenderness, and... lies? Lies.

Maybe a plane will land on me on my way down to Columbus.

On a return to better times

Okay, so I might well be the only person in the southeast to actually care about this, much less celebrate it, but it looks like pro hockey is back, baby. Don't get me wrong - the Gwinnett Gladiators aren't exactly pansies, especially as far as the ECHL is concerned. But just as arena football will never truly compete with the real deal, there's nothing like the speed, skill, and let's face it, sheer violence of national-league ice hockey. As far as I'm concerned, tank top weather can't end soon enough.

SEC football. NFL football. And now, the return of NHL hockey. This is going to be the best fall ever.

On bad language

Okay, so I promise to get back to real news and significant goings-on in a minute, but first, an open letter to Matt Lauer.

Dear Matt Lauer,

Every time you use "impact" as a verb, an angel gets a communicable disease.

Much love,
ACG

On serious reportage

Okay, so I don't hate my job. "Hate," after all, is a really strong word, and there are actually a few things out there in the world right now that are worthy of such a word. Really important things. Things more important than bitching about my job. But I'm gonna, just for a minute.

This morning, I got one of those drop-everything crash assignments where someone tosses a press kit on your desk and tells you to turn it into a story. No problem, said I, flipping it open to discover that - gasp! - Badgley Mischka is launching a new bridge eveningwear line, to preview in August at the Atlanta apparel mart.

For those of you unfamiliar with Badgley Mischka, just think red-carpetness. Think Beyonce in a lavender silk mermaid dress with lace and silver beading, or Halle Berry in a silver satin gown with ruching and crosshatching on the bodice, or Cynthia Nixon in navy blue chiffon with gold beading and her boobs down to her knees. Jenna and Not Jenna at the presidential inauguration in 2005? Both in Badgley Mischka. Think about them, and then think about selling your car, and possibly your kidney, to pay for their dresses.

The huge deal, of course, is that fans of the line must no longer mortgage their homes in order to pay for his couture! The new bridge line makes Badgley Mischka fashion accessible to the average consumer with retail price points ranging from $400 to $1,500. As the PR chick told me, "The couture line targets women ages 30-50, but the bridge line is going to bring it down to 20 because it's so much more affordable." Yeah, I totally thought Badgley Mischka was out of my reach, but I can totally drop $400 for a silk charmeuse ruched halter top with chinchilla trim. My life has meaning once again.

I don't mean to get preachy, I realize that this isn't a revolutionary thought, and I realize that the glory of capitalism is that people like Mark Badgley and James Mischka can sell thousand-dollar hand-beaded satin cocktail dresses and people who have the money will buy them, but holy backflipping crap. Children are starving in Africa, people of various nationalities are dying in the Middle East, London just got its shit blown up, and the focus of my life is an "affordable" $1,500 French lace evening gown. Sometimes, I just want to go home and cut myself.

/ self-flagellation

On a crazy little thing called love

Okay, so today I offer an open letter to my readers, apropos of nothing more than a lengthy 2:00 a.m. phone call that I've had more than once with a friend who shall remain nameless. And, until further notice, dateless.

Everything in life is fleeting, love included. People cheat, people stray, people turn out to be not the people you thought they were. And even if you are lucky enough to find a soulmate, that one true love, you've got , what, sixty or seventy years together before that big old bucket of meat breaks down and one of you is searching match.com for a new shuffleboard partner.

My point here isn't to downplay the importance of the committed relationship; on the contrary, if you're in one, you hold onto it with everything you've got, and if you're not in one, you go into it only with the appropriate respect and reverence for such an institution. Life's too short to halfass a marriage.

But if you find yourself single, dumped, divorced, or otherwise unattached, take a beat to chill out about it. Single, dating, distraught, single again, it all comes and goes, and the people who die miserable and alone are the people who push everyone else away. That dick who dumped you over Instant Messenger might have been a one, but he probably wasn't the one or he wouldn't have turned out to be such a dick.

And one final note: try not to torment your dear friends with endless tales of The One Who Got Away. We all have one, we'll surely have more in the future, and the constant retelling doesn't make you any less dumped than you were six months ago when we still had sympathy for you. Oh, and lay off the "too wounded to ever love again" crap. We know melodrama when we hear it.

Much love,
ACG

On Friday Random Ten

Okay, so...

1. Sting, "Why Should I Cry For You?"
2. Serge Gainsbourg, "Intoxicated Man"
3. Madonna, "Don't Tell Me"
4. Guster, "Rocket Ship"
5. Hector Berlioz, "Les nuits d'ete: Absence"
6. Blossom Dearie, "More Than You Know"
7. Annie Sellick, "Gravy Waltz"
8. Green Day, "Boulevard of Broken Dreams"
9. Athenaeum, "Radiance"
10. The Smiths, "What Difference Does It Make?"

Yours go below.

On a nation in mourning

We are all British.

Okay, so there's no snark for this. My sympathy and prayers go out to the families of those injured and killed. God willing, the world will finally turn its attention back to the monsters responsible for this.

On one sneaky little clause

Okay, so I've spent the past few days trying to come up with something to say about Justice O'Connor's impending resignation - something more profound than "oh, shit." I don't fault her for a minute for wanting to spend more time with her husband, whom I understand to be in poor health. That doesn't stop me from peeing myself like a kicked Pomeranian at the thought of her potential replacements. I'm sure Bush will be happy to replace "Swing Vote" O'Connor with a justice who will never waver in his determination to follow Antonin Scalia around like a devoted puppy (sidenote: offhand, I can't think of a Scalia opinion that I've agreed with outside of Kelo v. New London, and I think he's the worst kind of conservative supremacist, but I'm also very glad to have him on the Supreme Court, which is another post for another day).

Anyway, I'm a skimmer, but Matt over at Basket Full of Puppies reads the footnotes, and I'm glad he did:

By making her retirement, and hence the vacancy that an appointment would fill in the first place, contingent upon confirmation of a successor, O'Connor has single-handedly stolen Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution (recess appointments) from the Executive Branch and--it needn't be said--from Bush personally. A recess appointment isn't confirmed by anyone, and O'Connor's conditional clause means that absent confirmation, there isn't even a vacancy, meaning she never retired in the first place.

Unwilling to get caught in the Newsweek single-source thing, I checked, and yah, you betcha: "This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor," she wrote to President Bush (emphasis mine).

I'm sure there are many of you out there who are far better versed than I in constitutional law and who will be more than happy to put a rifle round through my little balloon of happiness, but until that happens, I'm going to start sleeping nights again. And I'll do so with a smile on my face, because I always thought Justice O'Connor kind of rocks, but now I'm convinced that she, in fact, rawks. Hard core. You have no idea.

On living like it's your last day

Okay, so a friend forwarded me the text of Steve Job's graduation address at, I dunno, some school. The e-mail didn't say. For all I know, the entire thing never took place and somebody has been sending around inspirational quotes attributed to Steve Jobs. But a lot of it was pretty solid good advice, so I read it, and one quote jumped out at me:

For the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And whenever the answer has been "No" for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.

Sounds like pretty good advice, right? We don't know how much time we have left here, and it's better to live a fulfilling life than to put off fulfillment for a day we aren't sure will actually come.

Alas.

I haven't discussed it with my landlord, but I'm pretty sure they won't be willing to accept fulfillment in lieu of a rent check at the first of the month. Similarly, I think that my editor would, at best, suggest therapy for me if I told her, "Yeah, the awards ceremony I was supposed to cover? Not really what I'd want to do on the last day of my life. I wrote this lovely short story instead." I can tell you for sure and for certain what I'd like to be doing on the next-to-the-last day of my life, but I can tell you with just as much certainty that doing that every day is likely to get me in more trouble than anything else.

So here 'tis: has anyone actually ever answered the above question affirmatively? Does anyone know anyone who has? And if you could say, "Yeah, I could die happy," do you actually have some profession/occupation/vocation that makes you so blissful every day, or are your standards so low that whatever you're doing is good enough for the last day of your life?

On human rights - the end, at long last

Okay, so Human Rights Month was a roaring success in the sense that no one sent me any computer viruses for wasting so much blog space on something that no one really disagrees with anyway. Thirty days hath June, and what have we learned?

- That it's best to analyze declarations with way fewer than thirty articles. Think, like, ten, maybe.

Besides that.

- That a person is a person, and it's the fact that you're a human being that grants you all of these rights and protections.
- That torture and slavery are right out, along with any other kind of degrading treatment.
- That rights can't be taken away, and if they're to be limited, those limits are subject to fair, public, and equitable due process.
- That at the very least, everyone deserves a roof over their head, food on the table, a place to call home, and the wherewithall to support their family.
- That everyone is free to speak their mind and practice their beliefs, and everyone is similarly free to shut up and not to practice beliefs that they don't support.
- That no matter who you are and what you do, some human rights are basic and necessary and can't be taken away, period.
- That human rights are guaranteed only by the benevolence of the world as a whole; that starts at home, by teaching our children tolerance and respect for others and demanding same out of the government that serves at our will.

Here's the upshot: no one disagrees with these rights. No one says, "Hey, y'know, as a rundown of basic human rights, I think the UDHR gives a lot of people way too much freedom" (or, at least, no one has yet). If that's the case, why do we have so much trouble actually honoring those rights? Why should we enjoy all of those freedoms, but object when they're extended to others? Anyone who can answer that question to my satisfaction gets guest blogging priveleges, my eternal gratitude, and a nice crisp five-dollar bill.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Part I Part II Part III Part IV Part V Part VI Part VII Part VIII Part IX Part X Part XI Part XII Part XIII

On bringing justice to the justice system

Okay, so apropos of the recent Kelo v. City of New London ruling and courtesy of Josh at Martians Attacking Indianapolis, we have the possibility that someone might just pave Justice Souter's house and put up a parking lot:

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

...

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Cafe" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

...

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Today's award for great big round brass cojones goes to Logan Darrow Clements, developer, former California gubernatorial candidate (but then, who isn't?), and my brand new hero.

On human rights, Part XIII: end run

Okay, so the end is totally nigh.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

But what does this mean for me?

This seems kind of tautological - everyone has the right to their rights. But it makes sense. Not only does everyone have certain rights, but among those rights is the right not to get sweated by the authorities when you try to exercise your rights. And Article 29 makes an especially important distinction - rights can be limited, but only in the interest of securing others' rights. My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose, my right to practice my religion ends at the beginning of yours, and now it's all on paper.

Just answer the question already.

It means that everyone has the right to a just world. Life isn't fair, like my mama always said, but justice is something we can all get behind.

Part I: The Preamble; Part II: Articles 1 and 2; Part III: Articles 3 and 4; Part IV: Articles 5 and 6; Part V: Articles 7 and 8; Part VI: Articles 9 and 10; Part VII: Articles 11 and 12; Part VIII: Articles 13, 14 and 15; Part IX: Articles 16, 17 and 18; Part X: Articles 19, 20 and 21; Part XI: Articles 22, 23 and 24; Part XII: Articles 25, 26 and 27

On human rights, Part XII

Okay, so like our president, I've started something that turned out to be far more unpleasant than I'd expected. Unlike our president, however, I have an exit strategy and the determination to see it through to its proper end.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

But what does this mean for me?

Despite what the 'wingers might say, we really do all have the right to some basic standard of living. It might not be the Hummer-and-Armani standard, but it's a standard. No one should have to starve, and no one should have to die of an easily curable illness, whether they're employed or unemployed or happily unemployed, whether they're solid good citizens or make poor lifestyle choices. After all, a person who gets him/herself in trouble can hardly get out of it if he/she doesn't live that long.

Also despite some 'winger arguments, everyone has the right to an education - and it's gotta be free. So the whole voucher thing? Forget it. Anything that would require a parent to pay money out-of-pocket for their child to receive any acceptable standard of education is right out. Parents do have the right to choose the kind of education, be it secular or religious or specialized, but they may end up having to do it themselves; the government can't be expected to cater to every single tiny whim with a billion slightly different educational systems.

One caveat? Education is meant to teach respect for human rights - "understanding, tolerance, and friendship." So parents have the right to choose their children's education to the point that they start teaching hatred, intolerance, and ideals contrary to the peaceable goals of the UN. So if you don't want to teach your kid that gay is okay, that's your right, but don't turn him into a bully, either. Tolerance and intolerance each breed more of same, and raising a child full of hatred and violence isn't going to result in a peaceful world.

Just answer the question already.

It means that everyone has a right to the basic necessities of life, including healthcare, food, and education. And it means that an appreciation of human rights is, in itself, a human right.

Part I: The Preamble; Part II: Articles 1 and 2; Part III: Articles 3 and 4; Part IV: Articles 5 and 6; Part V: Articles 7 and 8; Part VI: Articles 9 and 10; Part VII: Articles 11 and 12; Part VIII: Articles 13, 14 and 15; Part IX: Articles 16, 17 and 18; Part X: Articles 19, 20 and 21; Part XI: Articles 22, 23 and 24

On looking like a duck

Okay, so my first reaction to the Supreme Court's ruling on the New London case was that it smelled seriously funky, but I didn't want to comment on it until I had looked into it a little more. I discovered, to my horror, that the ruling was, in fact, constitutionally sound. And, uh, so was the dissenting opinion. Huh?

(Untwist your panties, Steve; I do have a solid position to take on this one.)

So, yeah, I sided with Scalia on this one. I. Sided. With Scalia. It actually sounds better to say that he sided with me. See, J.P. Stevens said that the taking of private property by the state for public use falls within the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, to which I say "Meh." Only kind of. It all depends on whether or not private commercial ventures would benefit the community enough that handing an 87-year-old woman a check and knocking down her house is something we think is okay. Said clause doesn't really draw a line between the benefits from a highway overpass or a public building and the benefits from a shopping mall. Plus, not every house subject to eminent domain has an 87-year-old woman in it; it could be argued that a shopping mall would definitely benefit the community more than a crack den.

That's where I started to actually agree with the ruling a little bit, because Stevens also made the point that eminent domain covers a wide variety of cases. It wouldn't make sense to rule on the basis of an 87-year-old woman if it would hinder the progress of a town looking to get rid of a crack den. He said that state legislatures and courts were in a better position to "discern local public needs" and that it was their place to make such rulings. And that makes sense.

Except it totally doesn't, because seemingly without realizing it, Stevens did make this ruling on the basis of an 87-year-old woman. The Supreme Court didn't refuse to hear the case because it was better decided in state courts; they heard it and he ruled on it, and now there's precedent. Now, a town is free to tear down a crack den to make room for profitable economic development, which is great, but there's also judicial precedent saying that a community's power of eminent domain is basically unlimited as long as they can make it sound pretty. And that just isn't right.

I had a conversation a few months ago with a law student named Harry who admired Scalia greatly and also thought that he was kind of a dick, an opinion which I greatly respected even if I didn't happen to agree. The conversation wasn't so much about Scalia, though, as it was about O'Connor, who has a tendency to ride the fence between ruling rightly on one case and ruling rightly to set precedent. Harry made the point that sometimes, a Supreme Court justice really does have to screw over one certain party, because that ruling is going to become the law of the land. It could be that that particular party in that particular situation is completely in the right, but that to say so would be to open the door to lots of other parties whose similar situations might leave them entirely in the wrong. I'd never really thought about it that way before, and it really stuck with me.

Justice Stevens, I can give you this guy's e-mail address if you want. See, you've just laid down what amounts to a law saying that a state's rights under the Takings Clause are basically unlimited. Sure, you said that state legislatures can do what they want with it, but how long will it be before a city is knocking down a well-kept low-income neighborhood to build a mini mall and saying, "Hey, Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. Suck it." O'Connor made the point that "[t]he specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory." You have given the state the power to steal from the poor to give to the rich, and that's not okay. Maybe in this particular case, your ruling made sense, but you can't rule on one case without considering the impact on the rest of the country years into the future. That's your burden as a Supreme Court justice.

And dude, you made me agree with Scalia.

On human rights, part XI

Okay, so is everyone else as bored with this as I am? Good gravy.

Only nine more to go. Onward!

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

But what does this mean for me?

I think that these articles are kind of cool because they outline rights that aren't specifically retained for American citizens by our own foundational documents. People (usually conservatives who have an issue with any kind of social program proposed by the Democrats, but it could be anyone) often say things like, "No one is guaranteed the right to work" and "It's not the government's responsibility to take care of you if you were dumb enough to trust your retirement to a company like Enron or United" and "If women want equal pay for equal work, they need to just get rid of their ovaries like the rest of the guys." Well, folks, sit down, 'cause those are all rights that you actually do have. And they're rights that are enumerated for all nations adhering to the UDHR, not just the United States. So the next time you hear someone pulling out that right-to-work crap, you can say, "Dude, French people have the right to work. German people have the right to work. Hell, Iraqi people have the right, and so do I." And then start in about vacations, 'cause you know you need one.

Just answer the question already.

It means that you have the right to work, the right to not work sometimes, and the right to not die of starvation and/or exposure during those periods that you're unable to work.

Part I: The Preamble; Part II: Articles 1 and 2; Part III: Articles 3 and 4; Part IV: Articles 5 and 6; Part V: Articles 7 and 8; Part VI: Articles 9 and 10; Part VII: Articles 11 and 12; Part VIII: Articles 13, 14 and 15; Part IX: Articles 16, 17 and 18; Part X: Articles 19, 20 and 21

On human rights, Part - good Lord, part X

Okay, so we're getting close to the end. Bear with me here.

Besides, think of what a handy reference you'll have when this is all over.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

But what does this mean for me?

God bless Lindsay Lohan when she sings, "Don't think that you can tell me what to think / I'm the one who knows what's good for me." It's not a new idea, but she's the most recent person to put it to music. And then she dieted until her boobs went away, and the rest of us women who have boobs were, like, "What, boobs aren't cool any more?"

But that's neither here nor there. The point is, you are welcome to your own opinion, and the government can't step on that. Let it be known that other entities aren't the government - if you're an idiot and I tell you to shut the hell up, I am in no way infringing on your right to free speech, because I'm not the government, I'm just one pissed off citizen. And in terms of profanity and "fightin' words" and lies, if you can manage to get through a sentence without cussing like a sailor, Doug, or lying about people or insulting their mama, you're good to go. Similarly, you "decide / where [you] go / what [you] need / who [you] know" because of your freedom to (peacefully) assemble with whom and where you want to, within reason. Or not assemble or associate, as you see fit.

Ohhh, Article 21, how I love your rippling abs. This is the one that says you have the right to participate in government and take advantage of all the services it provides. It also says that government serves at the will of the people. The government, at the will of the people. Does this say the majority of the people? It does not. Everyone gets the right to vote, but the majority of the people are not given the right to just step on the minority. Just because most people think a certain way doesn't make it right. A majority of Germans going along with the Holocaust didn't make it okay, a majority of Americans going along with segregation didn't make it okay, and a majority of people going along with discrimination against gay people or the wholesale Conservative Christianization of the country or the invasion of Iraq while things weren't finished in Afghanistan doesn't make any of it okay (as we're seeing now, as a majority of Americans are now saying, "Hold on, we invaded Iraq? Why? I didn't vote for that").

It also means that you don't have to agree with what your leader says just because he says it. It's okay to disagree with your government, in fact, it's expected. That's why we have a legislature, and debates, and elections - because not everyone agrees. And if you happen to think that someone, say, your current president, has made some great big, huge screwups, it's okay to say so. It doesn't make you any less patriotic or any more divisive. Your government serves at your will, so if you think they've screwed up, it's not just your right but your responsibility to tell them so.

Just answer the question already.

It means that you not only have the right to your own opinion, but also the right to express it and to seek others' opinions. And it means that you tell the government what's good for you, not the other way around.

Part I: The Preamble; Part II: Articles 1 and 2; Part III: Articles 3 and 4; Part IV: Articles 5 and 6; Part V: Articles 7 and 8; Part VI: Articles 9 and 10; Part VII: Articles 11 and 12; Part VIII: Articles 13, 14 and 15; Part IX: Articles 16, 17 and 18

On human rights, Part IX

Okay, so interestingly enough, among your basic human rights? Not the right to party. That one you've got to fight for.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

But what does this mean for me?

Basic lifestyle stuff. Marriage. Family. Property. Freedom of thought, conscience, religion. Everyone has the right to make decisions that affect their own lives, as long as all involved parties consent and no one is harmed in the process. Re: Article 16, note that it doesn't say that any man has the right to marry any woman and vice versa; it just says that men and woman of full age have the right to marry. And that family that we're trying to protect? We're not specifying a family of Mommy, Daddy, and 2.5 kiddles. Just a family. A family is a family, and it's special and worthy of protection - even if Heather really does have two mommies.

Re: the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, I say right on. Everyone gets to pick his or her own religion, and everyone gets to practice it. If you happen to live in a nation that's populated 85 percent by shrimp worshippers, they can't demand that you worship shrimp or get out of their country; they can't hold your behavior to the standards of the Church of Shrimp; they can't insist that you say a prayer to shrimp every time you enter a government building. Conversely, you can't keep them from praying to shrimp in private or gathering to worship at the Church of Shrimp. Everyone has the freedom to their own religion and no one else's.

Just answer the question already.

It means that I can't keep you from getting married, no matter how much it creeps me out, and it means that I can't keep you from worshiping whom and how you want, no matter how much it creeps me out.

Part I: The Preamble; Part II: Articles 1 and 2; Part III: Articles 3 and 4; Part IV: Articles 5 and 6; Part V: Articles 7 and 8; Part VI: Articles 9 and 10; Part VII: Articles 11 and 12; Part VIII: Articles 13, 14 and 15

On being only as mature as is absolutely necessary

Okay, so you know it would have to be one of my Navy boys to send me this one. A FOXNews story tells us of the Glory Hole, a homeless shelter in Alaska that has stopped serving bear meat:

Some of the people served by the Glory Hole said they miss meat of any kind.

Um... Okay, then. Fly Navy.

On human rights, Part VIII

Okay, so if you think that some people are subject to being shackled in the fetal position in a puddle of their own feces and some people aren't, you just don't know your Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

But what does this mean for me?

Now, of course these rights are subject to criminal prosecution; if you've been convicted of a felony, then your right to move around within the country is going to be somewhat hampered by the 7x10 cell that you call home; if that felony happens to be child molestation, your freedom of residence is going to be somewhat hampered by any elementary schools nearby. But as long as you're a decent, law-abiding person, you get to go pretty much where you need/want to go. It's kind of like a really understanding mother; if you behave yourself, she's likely to trust you and let you hang out with your friends and give you a late curfew.

But let's say your mother isn't so understanding, and despite your good behavior, she's going to ground you for a multitude of offenses. In that case, you also have the right to go next door to seek asylum from Mr. and Mrs. Canada, the really nice old couple that lives there. However, if it turns out you're grounded for an offense punishable by reasonable grounding, those kind old folks are likely to march you right back to your mom. Sometimes it happens that way.

And when you get there, your mom'll probably be plenty pissed off, but one thing she won't do (as an understanding mom) is disown you. You're her kid, and even when you misbehave, she loves you. Just like the US government loves you and won't call you unamerican just because you do something that pisses them off.

Wait, no, hold on...

Just answer the question already.

It means that home is home, and you're not going to get kicked out of home. And if home isn't treating you right, you've always got a place to go.

Part I: The Preamble; Part II: Articles 1 and 2; Part III: Articles 3 and 4; Part IV: Articles 5 and 6; Part V: Articles 7 and 8; Part VI: Articles 9 and 10; Part VII: Articles 11 and 12

On all of you damned uppity blue staters

Okay, so I'm with Amanda over at Pandagon here. I am so freaking tired of people ragging on the red states just because they happen to be red. I will grant you that the red staters in the red states can be a pain in the ass, but there happens to be a growing number of moderates, liberals, and progressives in those states fighting to drag their states kicking and screaming to the light side of the Force. And honestly, who's doing more good here - the Georgia Dems working from the inside to reform their state, or the Massachusetts Dems standing on the outside, pointing and saying, "Ooh, you like barbecue, you've got cooties" and then going to their committee meetings to pat each other on the back?

And Tennessee Guerilla Women really need to kiss my ass:

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson...

Oh, don't even...

... and the University of Georgia.

Oh. You. Bitch.

Fine, TGW. Have your blue states. You can get together and have your happy little blue state party, with all of your little self-satisfied blue state friends who can do a little blue state dance over not having to worry about mosquitos or bad weather. Just don't count on listening to any jazz music, or rock music, or, um, country music, because that's all red state. So you can hand over REM, Widespread Panic, the B-52s and Elvis whenever you're ready. Don't count on eating any barbecue, either, 'cause we came up with that.

And while you're at it, you can give back Hank Aaron and Ty Cobb and, yeah, even Peyton Manning. Oh, and Thomas Jefferson and Jimmy Carter and Martin Luther fucking King fucking Junior.

See, this is why liberals get the reputation for being so damned uppity and superior - because they act that way. They look down on anything not appropriately northern and intellectual and dismiss entire sections of the country as boondockified rubes. How exactly do you expect to gain southern votes that way, blue staters? It starts this way: by pulling your heads out of your asses and realizing that, just like with religion, just like with race, just like with sexual orientation, the fact that it's different than you doesn't make it inherently inferior. My suggestion is that you sit down on a nice front porch swing, pour yourself a glass of iced tea, listen to some Patsy Cline and get the hell over yourselves.

And while you're at it, see if you can figure out how many NCAA football national champs have come from blue states in the past fifty years (I'll give you a hint: it's between four and six).