Memorial

It's Memorial Day weekend, and here in South Florida I was struck by the amount of gasoline being consumed both on and off the water, but mostly on. As I watched people scoot around atop the water while burning fuel that was appearing in the raw hundreds of miles away, I couldn't decide whether I was watching the equivalent of a last hurrah or playing with matches at a gas pump. Not really a surprise that humans aren't really wired for the long view; we'd never reproduce if we understood where we're driving the planet.

upside? or upside down

there's a post over at balloon juice about how the supposed "repeal" of the homophobic "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the US military was done away with by the Obama administration. leaving aside the argument that perhaps it was really Congress getting out in front of the WH, it does seem to moi that there are perhaps more important issues afoot with the military. but then i am a crazed loon. anyway, here's my comment from there. ignore my idiotic formatting fail, as the bold shouldn't be there (boxes are quoted text from today's NYT).

it is kinda silly to posit that a decision to hand over control of the issue to the people who oppose it (the armed forces) is somehow progress.

from the NYT

It was not clear whether the deal had secured the votes necessary to pass the House and Senate, but the agreement removed the Pentagon’s objections to having Congress vote quickly on repealing the contentious 17-year-old policy, which bars gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the armed services.

House Democratic leaders were meeting Monday night and considering taking up the measure as soon as Thursday. But even if the measure passes, the policy cannot not change until after Dec. 1, when the Pentagon completes a review of its readiness to deal with the changes. Mr. Obama, his defense secretary and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff would also be required to certify that repeal would not harm readiness.

so if you want to pretend that this is a big deal, feel free, but don’t be surprised when people like me say that most of you all seem to be as deluded as most Bush-GOP supporters were/are.

incidentally, it’s really rather telling that this is somehow a bigger deal than that the US continues to wage war against the rest of the planet. i, for one, would think that not killing people is more important but i guess in the land of permanent war that’s not the case, as long as it’s a non-discriminatory murder machine.

NYT today, again

The secret directive, signed in September by Gen. David H. Petraeus, authorizes the sending of American Special Operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces. Officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate.

While the Bush administration had approved some clandestine military activities far from designated war zones, the new order is intended to make such efforts more systematic and long term, officials said.

nice to see that everyone has their priorities in place.

history is bunk! chapter n

So apparently the latest fad is arguing for repeal of the 17th Amendment, which provided for the direct election of U.S. Senators. Normally I don't bother with this stuff but for some reason I got a bit exercised about it. My guess is it's because I know just enough history of the Progressive Era to be able to say this argument is based on a lie. I don't think the people who are pushing for it will care, as they seem to be ok with the notion that everything is fungible. Except of course when it isn't or when it is an idea--not a fact. It is odd that we have entered an era where theories require consistency but facts can be disposed of. I guess the thinking is that if you are high enough on Maslow's hierarchy you can believe whatever you wish because you will be immune to the consequences. Or it's just the angry white folks' version of relativism.

Anyway, here's my cranky post from Balloon Juice

sigh. another crap idea backed by crap scholarship.

i'd like to agree with the poster who suggested the Rs have been reading too much Foucault, but i think it's more likely they've been listening to too much Frank Luntz. or is it watching too many reruns of "Mad Men"?

perhaps the teabaggers would do something else to promote their faith in a non-existent past. maybe they could do something like build temples to their pretend ideology instead of playing pretend with history. dealing with this crap is like dealing with "the protocols of the elders of zion": no matter how many times you smush it, it pops up again, like a stubborn weed. i am not certain who coined the term, but "zombie argument" is apt here.

so, a brief rebuttal:

a. citing yourself does not constitute proof

the Dean piece quoted above cites to a Zywicki book review from the mid 1990s that claims that a public choice analysis demonstrates that major interests wanted the 17th to pass. guess who he cites in supporrt of this idea? Jay Bybee (yeah, that Jay Bybee) and himself.

b. for lawyers, history IS bunk

what you have here is the usual lawyer trick of pretending that history (that is the actual facts) don't matter when you have a more clever explanation as to what occurred. and if the facts don't fit, well you just ignore them in favor of your overarching theory. as an aside, never trust a lawyer's argument about history, especially when, as here, the intent is to prove a theory. see, it's just a notion to them, and being "different" is a good way to be noticed and get tenure.

c. out damned facts!

here are a couple of those pesky facts: the initiative was taken up in the states, not at the federal level, where it was initially opposed in the senate. next, for this argument to be correct it would require that all of the supporters for the thirty years before it was passed including such favorites of the plutocrats as the Populist Party were secretly working for Standard Oil. i could keep going, but you get the drift. i would be remiss if i didn't include this famous line from The Atlantic (yes, that one):

The Standard has done everything with the Pennsylvania legislature, except refine it.

H.D. Lloyd, Story of A Great Monopoly, The Atlantic, March 1881, n.p.

d. reality bites

incidentally, the better explanation is that the move towards an expanding federal government was being made, but not that many were paying attention. those ideas would be picked up and used in the 1930s, not the 1910s (excepting some of Wilson's more reprehensible civil liberties manouvers--like Bush, he did a lot of damage whilst mouthing off about democracy).

anyway, to repeat, this is a clever lawyer trick, nothing more. it is an effort to pretend that history is bunk, in that it can be rewritten at will. an analogy would be the recurring argument that the Civil War was not about slavery.