The Worst President In History

I'm not all that impressed with Barack Obama, either.  But has he really earned Ben Quayle's attack as "the worst President in history"?  My choice for that label is number fifteen:

As bad as Obama is -- the worst deficit spender in history, a statist with no demonstrable commitment to protecting the Constitution, and at the end of the day, an empty suit (albeit a good-looking and intelligent one) -- I can at least say for Obama that he hasn't allowed things to get so bad that people are talking about seceding from the Union if they can't get their way at the Federal level.

Oh, wait.  Well, not many people are talking about secession.  Outside of the same parts of the country that tried to secede before.  Splitters.

Still, I'd probably be more down with comparing Obama to this fella:

Or, as I've done in the past, suggesting that Obama is this generation's...

And while that's hardly intended as a compliment, it's also not the same thing as "the worst President in history."

A Gay Bar. Really?

First off, there's money to be made selling overpriced alcoholic drinks to gay men looking to socialize in Manhattan.  And in fact I've no doubt there are a lot of gay Muslim men in Manhattan.  So Greg Gutfeld's proposal to set up a gay bar catering to Muslims in close proximity to the proposed "Park51" mosque may actually be a not-out-of-this-world business proposition -- although I don't take him seriously when he insists that the idea is anything other than sour joke made in questionable taste.

And the principle is sound -- assuming that the bar would meet pre-existing zoning restrictions, which I assume it does.  Granted, there are restrictions on these sorts of establishments being located near houses of worship but given that there is already a gentleman's club called Babeland within a few blocks of this location (how do I know that?  The internet told me!) and the mosque isn't established yet, there would be time to get in the plans for the club now.  More importantly, living in a free society means having to tolerate people near you who say and do things that you find distasteful as long as they aren't harming you directly.  If Gutfeld is upset by a mosque on Park Place but has to tolerate it anyway, then the Imam may well also have to tolerate the gay bar.

In any event, even though I find Gutfeld's proposal to be a joke made in questionable taste, hey, I'm not always opposed to jokes made in questionable taste.  I've got a lot of good mileage recently out of recycling the "rattlesnake" joke and the "Seamus the bridge-builder" joke and both of those are in questionable taste too.  I put a poll up on the front page of the blog, using the names picked by readers of Andrew Sullivan's blog -- if anyone would know the name of a good gay bar in Manhattan, it would be Sully -- because I think that Readers here could make a better choice from the list of options given to them.

More On The Mosque Two Blocks From Ground Zero

I've heard and read a lot of arguments about why it's in bad taste for a mosque to be built right on top of two blocks away from Ground Zero, and about how it would be hurtful to the survivors of the people killed on that day if the mosque is built -- even if we distinguish between the Sufis who want to build the mosque and the Sunnis who made the attack happen, because the Sufis and the Sunnis have common religious beliefs.

I've heard and read some arguments to the effect that if a mosque is built right on top of two blocks away from Ground Zero, the Muslims will have "won," it would be a "statement" that Sharia law is coming to America, or it demonstrates "weakness" by America.

I've heard and read a lot of arguments about why it's going to set interfaith relationships back for years if a mosque is built right on top of two blocks away from Ground Zero.  I've heard and read claims that mosques can be built elsewhere than right on top of two blocks away from Ground Zero, although I notice that people are trying to stop mosques from being built in places like Murfreesboro, Tennessee; Temecula, California; and Sheboygan, Wisconsin, too -- and these are not places well-known to have been the sites of conflict between Islam and the United States.

I've heard and read some discussion about why the imam who would preside at the mosque to be built right on top of two blocks away from Ground Zero has said some questionable things about Islam and America, and about 9/11 (he's also said some rather commendable things that seems worthy of support).  I've also heard and read a lot of speculation and fear about where the money to build a mosque right on top of two blocks away from Ground Zero is going to come from.

But what I haven't read or heard, anywhere, is an argument about how, consistent with the United States Constitution, any of the above matters one tiny little bit.  The legal issue is: "Can the City, County, or State of New York, or the United States of America, prohibit the building of a mosque at this site?"  The closest thing I can get to an anti-mosque advocate addressing this issue is something like this comment:

I also find myself getting annoyed with pundits on the Libertarian right who are sanctimoniously hiding behind an absolute freedom of religion argument and refusing to acknowledge any other concerns or factors, sometimes to the point of accusing those of us opposed to the mosque of being bigots or knee-jerk Islamophobes. They also ignore the nature of Islam and what the mosque symbolizes: not just a place of worship, but also the dominance and superiority of Islam and sharia law. In a place where thousands were murdered in Islam’s name, that is unacceptable, and it is not protected by the 1st amendment.

Maybe this commenter isn't a bigot or a knee-jerk Islamophobe. Now, there are plenty of bigots and knee-jerk Islamophobes out there objecting to the building of mosques (whether they be in Manhattan or Murfreesboro or Sheboygan or Temecula) but let's apply the principle of charity here and look only at the argument made, not make unfounded presumptions about the motivation of the person making the argument.  (My doing so requires that the arguer cease using words like "sanctimonious" to describe those who, like me, claim the contrary result, by the way.) 

The substantive claim is that Islam is subversive to American values and law ("the nature of Islam," "what the mosque symbolizes: .... the dominance and superiority of Islam and sharia law").  This is a viewpoint-specific restriction on a First Amendment freedom -- either of free speech or free exercise.  So the rule is, and can only be, "Would you also restrict Christianity in this way?"  Obviously not.  Now, one might ask, what Christians have engaged in acts of unprovoked mass terrorism, and are there any churches of the same religion as the terrorists located near the site of their terrible attack?  After all, we wouldn't let, for instance, the LDS church build a site commemorating a brutal attack by Mormons on Native Americans, coincidentally also occurring on September 11, would we? 

America is full of sites of people motivated by religion who have done terrible things, and we don't blame their coreligionists for the bad things people have done while claiming to act in the name of God, and if they God they were acting in the name of happens to be the Christian God, well, the religion itself seems to get a pass, where Islam does not.  And lest we claim that "Islam is a violent, cruel religion," and back that up with citations from the Koran, let us not forget that the Christian Bible, too, has many cruel, violent passages -- maybe more, depending on how you count them.

The question is not whether we as a people like Christianity or Islam more.  The question is, can the City, County, or State of New York, or the United States of America, prohibit the building of a mosque at this particular site?  The answer is "no."  The Constitutional case is simple, open-and-shut, with the inevitable and predictable conclusion being that we have no choice but to allow and tolerate the mosque at this location.

Nothing I have said here would prohibit someone who thinks a mosque at this location would be a bad idea from engaging in peace protest outside the mosque once it is built, or its construction site while it is being built.  Nothing I have said here would prohibit someone who thinks a mosque at this location would be a bad idea from boycotting businesses owned by people who patronize the mosque, from refusing to work on the construction of the building, or encouraging people to refuse to work on the construction of the building.  Nothing I have said here would prohibit someone who thinks a mosque at this location would be a bad idea from trying to raise money of their own to buy the site (if the owners are willing to sell) or a site near it so as to build something they think would be more appropriate. 

Finally, nothing I have said here would prohibit someone who thinks a mosque at this location would be a bad idea from trying to persuade the owners of the site to go about pursuing their goals in a different way or at a different location.  Because nothing I have heard or read anywhere seems to be addressed to the owners of the property.  It has all been addressed to the general public or to some level of the government.  What we're talking about here is the First Amendment.  The First Amendment gives everyone the power to try and persuade each other of the correctness of their point of view, and the government has to keep its hands off that sort of persuasion.  What bugs me most is the appeal -- either explicit or implicit -- to use the power of the government to stop American citizens from peacefully using their own property as they see fit.

Who's The Real Flimflam Man?

I've grudgingly accepted that taxes are going to need to stay where they are for the foreseeable future, we can't afford a tax cut until we have become more solvent and reduced out debt.  So Paul Krugman's accusation that Paul Ryan's "road map" selectively ignores the effects of revenue reduction is one to consider seriously.

Still, the bulk of his critique of one of the few politicians to even attempt to address the national debt in a meaningful way is mostly just name-calling and ad hominem attacks on Newt Gingrich.  (Wait, what?)  And the rest of the substantive attack Krugman makes on Ryan is that people won't like spending cuts.  Well, duh.  But they don't like a nation thirteen trillion dollars in debt, either, or at least they shouldn't.  What people need to understand is that when you demand subsidized health care from the government, paid for by government debt, you are taking tomorrow's money from your children and grandchilden to pay for your health care today.

Because Krugman doesn't seem able to understand that, for instance, glowing reports of unexpected robustness in the Social Security system are illusory.  We need to get steered towards a path of national solvency.  If Krugman thinks Ryan's plan to that end is nothing but flimflam and hot air, so be it -- let's see him point to some alternative way to reach the same goal.

What Marriage Is About

A poignant reminder:

Oh noes, the kids have been taught this stuff for generations!  We need to ban Sesame Street and teach kids that marriage is about being better than homosexuals!  Hat tip to Jim Burroway.

Stop Making Your Bed

While you sleep, you sweat, and that leaves water in your mattress.  Unmade beds dry faster than made beds because the water has more places to escape to the air.  So if you make your bed every morning, you'll wind up with more of these nasty things living in it because making the bed leaves the bed damper for longer, instead of letting it dry out faster unmade.  Which can be a problem if you suffer from a particular kind of allergy.  If you like the feeling of straightened, flat sheets when you sleep, make the bed just before you get into it.

Justice Elena Kagan

Elena Kagan was just confirmed to the Supreme Court by a vote of 63 to 37, mostly along party lines.  No one ever seemed to get really enthusiastic about her or really enthusiastic against her.  Maybe that's a good thing for the body politic; a toning down of the hyperventilation about judges as political actors would be a welcome trend but one which I do not foresee catching on. 

Kagan herself shows signs of being a very pro-government Justice, one who will use her votes to uphold the exercise of power by the government, and especially the Federal government.  As I whined recently, there seems to be little organized or principled political resistance to the idea of the government's accretion of power over time, perhaps this is simply another milepost along that trend. 

Or perhaps Justice Kagan will surprise me.  I'm not holding my breath, though.

Hats Off For David Boies And Ted Olson

There are two meaty things to note about the opinion in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.  I've added a jump page if you want to get in to the two meaty things.  The ultra-short version -- the opinion sets out findings of fact, which according to the rules of appellate procedure must be treated with enormous deference later on, which virtually compel the result, and which are the result of an amazingly imbalanced showing at the trial.  The result is reason to be confident that this ruling is going to stick.  The balance of my lengthy post from last night reacting to Perry v. Schwarzenegger is below the jump.

More After The Jump -->

Perry Prevails

Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled today that California's Proposition 8 violates the Federal Constitution in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.  I'm pleased with the result but as yet unsure about the reasoning because I've not had a chance to read the 136-page opinion.  So far all I know is that Judge Walker found violations of the Equal Protections and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment -- which seems right to me, but again, I want to read it before I opine.

Aurora Alert

Tonight and tomorrow night, if you live in the northern hemisphere (particularly a more northerly latitude), be sure to go out and look for the aurora borealis.  A strong sunspot has ejected a jet of plasma directly towards the Earth and it's supposed to hit us soon.  It should be spectacular.

What Obama Hath Wrought

To say that the Presidency of Barack Obama has been a disaster from a governmental restraint perspective is the understatement of the century.  Granted, the century is still young.  But can anyone doubt that Terry Michael's claims that libertarians should have endorsed and got behind Obama have been, at best, demonstrated as almost exactly wrong.  Yes, there are progressives condemning Obama as too conservative and conservatives condemning him as too liberal, but both are missing the point.

President Barack Obama is a statist, whose real agenda is maximizing the power of the national government and in particular that of the executive branch.  His real agenda for the direction of American government is a continuation, if not an acceleration, of the process begun under George W. Bush, a process with its roots in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and Medicare Part D, which came to full flower in the bipartisan bank bailouts of 2008 and the government buyout of General Motors and Chrysler, and reached a triumph with the health care reform law.

Just like his predecessor -- no, even more callously and crassly than his predecessor -- Obama has suborned compliance with the law to his own political advantage.  Consider, for instance, this interview with an editor at the Associated Press concerning the Obama White House's attitude towards the Freedom of Information Act:

...shortly after President Obama took office, the department had instituted a highly unusual policy that is unprecedented at other federal agencies in which many hundreds of FOIA requests that had been submitted by members of the media, citizens, advocacy groups, members of Congress were being vetted by political staff who didn't know anything about the Freedom of Information Act.

They were allowing the political staff to govern the release of the information. Nothing could be released until the political advisers agree that it was okay to send it out the door. [¶] ... either the political staff, the senior staff in Secretary Napolitano's office were dictating which releases could be disclosed to the public and to the media and to the members of Congress, frankly, and when they could be disclosed.

[Interviewer Q:] But you're saying that they vetted the people who are making the requests. They were looking at the backgrounds of those people?

[A:] The documents that we got described in remarkable detail a process by which the FOIA staff, the career staff at the Department of Homeland Security were instructed to provide, along with a synopsis of the request for information, detailed information about where the person lived, who it was, was it a reporter, was it not, was it an advocacy organization, what was the interest of the advocacy organization. All of this is highly, highly unusual under the act.

In other words, who you were and where you stood politically affected what information the government would release, when it would release it to you, and what portions of it would be redacted. To be fair, the interview goes on to suggest that this policy has been changed and depoliticized somewhat. But the fact that it even occurred to someone to suborn the FOIA process to political considerations demonstrates that the law is viewed as an obstacle to achieving political goals.

And why shouldn't they view the law as an obstacle and not a goal? Obama and the Obamamen view the Constitution as an obstacle rather than a goal. The Fourth Amendment, for instance, is just as much an inconvenience to Obama and his security personnel as it was to Bush and the Bushmen, and their solution is the same -- get private companies, unbounded by the Fourth Amendment, to do all the government's without-good-cause spying on American citizens by proxy.  And Obama and his legislative minions have taken Bush's national security claims further than Bush ever did -- reserving the right to summarily execute an American citizen abroad who is accused* of aiding al-Qaeda, and what's more, making it a crime to offer that American citizen the assistance of counsel.  He has even left truck-sized loopholes in his own orders that continue to authorize the use of torture of prisoners in American custody.**

These things should not make you feel better that Obama is protecting our freedoms and our way of life.  These are attacks on our freedoms and our way of life.  Just like George Bush did before him.  What's worse, these attacks come from within our nation, within our government, come wrapped in the flag to make dissent and criticism of them appear unpatriotic and risky, and because they come from a Democratic President rather than a Republican one, leave the political left of the country largely silent in a damning exposure of their hypocrisy.  Not that the political right comes off much better in my analysis; they loudly condemn Obama doing today exactly the same sort of thing that they cheered Bush on for doing two years ago and the commitment of the "tea party movement" to meaningfully reducing the government's powers can be relied upon only for so long as the President of the United States is not a Republican, at which point we're back to the partisan-polarized dialogue about government power we had going in 2007.

There are meaningful and important differences between America's two political parties.  But I have come closer to thinking that the differences are not so important as the similarities.  There is no significant political organization in America devoted to individual freedom and restraining the power of government.  There is no significant political organization in America focused on the reduction of our government's spending deficit, much less elimination of its debt.  For too long we have allowed fallacious arguments about "the other guy" to distract us from the fact that the people entrusted with safeguarding our Constitution have been the ones subverting it.  "Yeah, but that other guy is really a bad dude and we should be scared of him!" is not a valid rebuttal to

Osama bin Laden masterminded the destruction of some very large buildings and the deaths of over three thousand people, which was an awful thing.  But as awful as it was, America survived that attack.  America was and is stronger than that.  As long as we are a free people, we always will be.  It is only from within, and not from without, that America can truly be defeated.  And the ones who possess the power to defeat America are the ones who ought to be leading it.  America will not be defeated on a battlefield or a chess match.  It will be defeated if and when it morphs into something new and different from what it has been.  That is why we should beware of efforts to change the definition of what an "American" really is.  That is why we should be educated and vigilant and principled with regards to how our government conducts itself.  And so far, my verdict is that we are still at risk.


* Probably correctly, I will stipulate.  That's not the point.
**  I've said it before and I'll say it again -- the rule should be "No torture.  Ever."

Taiwanese Animators Forecast 2012 Election

A working knowledge of Mandarin is absolutely unnecessary to understand everything said or depicted in the video.

The Nineteenth Retirement

ESPN ought to thank Brett Favre for providing fodder for a round-the-clock, non-stop coverage item.  You can be sure that coverage of this, Brett Favre's most recent announcement of his retirement from professional football, will be the only thing discussed in any sports media today.  When the Vikings offer to raise his salary to squeeze just one more year" out of the 40-year-old 19-year veteran, Favre's fourth unretirement will receive the same level of coverage, as will his post-unretirement re-retirement announcement.  This will all happen before the regular NFL season begins.

Come to think of it, most of Favre's previous retirement, un-retirement, re-retirement, re-un-retirement, re-re-retirement, re-re-un-retirement, re-re-re-retirment, and re-re-re-un-retirement announcements, just like today's re-re-re-re-retirement announcement, all seemed to happen during pre-season training camps or otherwise in the few weeks leading to the beginning of the formal NFL season.  Cynics might suggest that it is all to jockey for additional money, but I would not agree.  Favre makes way more in endorsements than in salary, so salary isn't the big issue for him so much as ability to play and maintain visibility and thus make his endorsements valuable. 

No, my thinking is it's good old-fashioned narcissism, which ill-suits someone whose record speaks for itself and places him indisputably and forever in the pantheon of "greatest ever" contenders -- and may there never be a clear winner.

No More Fire

Thanks to all the well-wishers during the Crown Fire.  The fire line wound up coming very close to the aqueduct near my house, but firefighters stopped its advance just shy of the structures there (including two houses where people who work at firm live; they were evacuated for a night).  My house was about two and a half miles away from that point, which is as close as the fire ever got. 

Some buildings were destroyed, including some ranches, so there are those whose dreams and savings went up in flames.  Also, two parks and a nature preserve were razed.  No human beings were seriously injured and even the wildlife casualties were low.  But no one I know was hurt and actually very few man-made structures were destroyed by the fire other than the ranch buildings.  Even some residences that, by all rights, should have been torched wound up surviving (more importantly, along with all their occupants) thanks to the diligent, difficult, and dangerous work done by emergency responders including firefighters, police, and paramedics.

So while the fire was unquestionably bad news, it could have been a lot worse than it was.  A friend of a friend took a spectacular picture of the fire at its peak, and I'm awaiting her permission to post it here.  Watch this post for updates.

Crown Fire

At our usual Thursday night dinner tonight, one of the partners in the firm got called home early by his wife.  A good thing, too, since the fire line for the north end of the Crown Fire has by now advanced to about a mile from their house and they've been ordered to evacuate.  The aqueduct is something of a barrier but a fire with forty-foot flames would clearly be able to jump over it with only a moderate breeze -- and a moderate breeze, uncharacteristically northerly, is all there is for right now.

The fire is clearly visible from my front yard.  I'd say that it's about two miles south-southeast of Soffit House.  We've still got a fair amount of territory between the fire line and our neighborhood, but when the tall flames are visible across the entire ridge line of Ritter Ridge, and people you know are being asked to move by the authorities, it's a little bit creepy.

It makes me wonder if we need to pack up some clothing and start wrangling the critters around -- which is a big pain for the one cat, who gets psychotic when we try to put her in the carrier.  For now there's no reason to panic, but I've no illusions about the effectiveness of lawn sprinklers and my garden hose to protect my house from the flames of a late-July southern California brush fire if by some chance they are allowed to approach here, so if things get worse in the night, we'll be packing up and finding somewhere to be rather than taking any chances.  But as of a little bit after 9:00 p.m. tonight, I'm only "concerned" and not yet taking action.

The house and all of its contents can be replaced; the insurance is paid.  The Wife and the critters, however, are precious and irreplaceable.  So while things appears safe right now, that can change, which means I'll stay awake for a while and make sure that they don't need to be moved somewhere safe. I'm also noticing some strange noises around the house, which makes me wonder if critters from the hills have come down in panic away from the hills to find safety in the residences.  Or if I just have the jitters.

It's worrisome enough that I'm not going to be concerning myself for a while with stress from work (I think I'm over the hump from this week), the Arizona immigration law being mostly enjoined, the very interesting case of the religious student who lost her suit against a public university for not being permitted to base counseling actions in part on her religion, or Obama bringing us closer to the apocalypse.  Somehow that's just not as important as whether or not I'll have to evacuate my family and household in the middle of the night.  So -- not panicking yet, but yeah, it's a little nerve-wracking.

Updated information about the status of this and other fires is available here.

Not So Sweet Emotion

I will never understand why it is that when I offer someone money to settle a lawsuit, they act as though they've been insulted. I can understand a reaction of "No, that isn't enough." But I simply can't comprehend someone saying "F--- you too!" when what I just did was try to give away my client's money.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.4.8

Tangerine Martinis

After getting home from work tonight, I took out one of the mason jars, the one with the fruit that is supposed to have the strongest flavor and therefore infuse the fastest -- the tangerines.  I strained out the excess pulp and got the vodka into a new mason jar.  The color was a pale, transparent orange, enough to hint at the flavor.

Of course, the real test is the taste, which was not so intense as I'd like.  Maybe it needed longer than a week.  The Wife thought they were a little bitter.  So next time I'll pulp and zest the tangerines and discard the rinds.  It makes me a little apprehensive about the cucumber, since the primary infusion there were peelings, and those are the bitterest part of that fruit.  (Fruit?  Vegetable?  I've always thought the meat of cucumbers was a little bit sweet, and sweetness is something you associate with fruit.)  But the berry and cucumber vodka need a while longer according to the infusion guides.

Still, the results are visually quite appealing and I like the touch of bitterness in the resulting martini.

Wallpaper Advice

I really liked the photo on today's Bing, the one of Atrani on Italy's Amalfi Coast.  So I wanted to wallpaper it and couldn't figure out how to do it.  Instead, the click went to a generic search for all wallpapers on Bing and I wound up getting some horrifying results, the bulk of which were not appropriate for work, in my opinion.  At work you should find things cool, inoffensive pictures like this satellite photo of the eastern Mediterranean Sea without all the ads (including auto-load video and audio) or this.  You shouldn't be getting all sexy with your wallpaper in the office.  Or creepy, for that matter.

Somehow, though, I bet that bizarre collages of Edward Cullen as a hot vampire superimposed on aerial photographs of Tuscan hill towns or anything Michael Jackson, however schmaltzy, or effeminate, he appears, would be tolerated in the workplace more than this perfectly chaste but gorgeous picture of, say, Indian movie star Priyanka Chopra.  (Damn double standards!)

And some were quite odd indeed, like one titled "1453 Istanbul."  I don't think that the brutal sacking of a city (which was still officially named Constantinople until 1930) is really worth commemorating in beautiful artwork even if you weren't a particular fan of the Byzantine Empire.  Then again, I'm not Turkish, either.

So I wound up having to do a search for something and wound up with this fine and completely unobjectionable shot of the Dolomites instead. 

Folks, follow my example and pick non-offensive, pleasant sorts of wallpaper for your computer at work.  Landscapes.  Abstract patterns.  Stuff like that.  Pictures of your own family if you insist on personalizing.  There's lots of options that aren't going to get you in trouble.  Save the stuff that shows your "personality" (as if someone else's picture could be a reflection of "your" personality) or pop culture interests for your computer at home.

A Libertarian Solution To A Public Problem

This is why I'm not a pure libertarian; at some point, privatizing everything becomes absurd.

Pay & Sit by Fabian Brunsing

Excluded As A Suspect

Yesterday I didn't know who Justin Bieber was -- why would I?  But Google educated me in about ten seconds, enabling me to fully understand a joke on the internet.  Today I find out that the annoyingly long-haired moppet minstrel is going to guest-star on an upcoming episode of CSI.  Which makes the internet joke I first came across that much funnier.

Also, careful readers will note the inauguration of a new topic category.