Politics

Watch in the video below as Michelle Malkin claims that conservatives have not engaged in any ad hominem or unwarranted attacks on Barack Obama’s wife Michelle, even as Fox News places a caption below her, referring to Michelle Obama as “Obama’s baby mama,” a slang term which the Urban Dictionary defines as: The mother of your child(ren), whom you did not marry and with whom you are not currently involved.” “Basically a woman you had a child or children with who you didn’t marry and are no longer involved with. Usually associated with hoodrats and trailer park b***hes.” “Like herpes, it won’t go away!!!!!” The always despicable, dishonest, sleazy, and inflammatory Michelle Malkin responded to this by trying to defend it as entirely unobjectionable, which John Scalzi vividly rebuts in his “Fox News Would Like To Take a Moment to Remind You That the Obamas Are As Black As Satan’s Festering, Baby-Eating Soul." Fox has merely admitted that the caption showed “poor judgment." (Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars.) ...

STATE OF OREGON PROCLAMATION OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR WHEREAS: Application of reason offers a hope for developing and implementing intelligent, humane, and ethical interactions among people; and WHEREAS: Philosophies of reason were emphasized when writing the Constitution of the United States of America and those of its several states; and WHEREAS: Most citizens value reason and seek to apply it in making decisions and resolving problems in their lives; and WHEREAS: Educational programs emphasize acquisition of reasoning skills in preparing for one's future. NOW, THEREFORE: I, Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor of the State of Oregon, hereby proclaim June 21, 2008 to be A Day of Reason in Oregon and encourage all Oregonians to join in this observance. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the State of Oregon to be affixed. Done at the Capitol in the City of Salem in the State of Oregon on the day, May 29, 2008. Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor Bill Bradbury, Secretary of State(Via Serene Journal.) Historical Comments Danny Boy, FCD (2008-06-14): Great, and it coincides with World Humanist Day! Cheers! ...

On yesterday’s “Daily Show,” Jon Stewart pointed out a quote from Cliff Schechter’s new book, The Real McCain, where McCain used the word “cunt.” I didn’t think he made it clear who McCain was referring to when he said it, however. The Raw Story has the quote from Schechter’s book: Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain’s intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, “You’re getting a little thin up there.” McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt.” McCain’s excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.Nice. Apparently McCain was known as “McNasty” in high school for his foul-mouthed tirades. Sounds like another LBJ, in that regard. (Previously, regarding McCain’s f-bomb habit.)

Will Wilkinson gives a long quotation from an argument by Milton Friedman, along with some explication. The basic argument is that free immigration to jobs is a good thing, free immigration to welfare is a bad thing, and in the absence of a separation between legal residency and eligibility for welfare, the best result is achieved by encouraging more illegal immigration: But the important takeaway here is this: Friedman’s view is that a certain kind of unrestricted welfare state makes illegal immigration good, because it severs residency from welfare eligibility. Friedman is unequivocal about the desirability of free migration. Anyone really committed to Friedman’s stated view about welfare and immigration should by no means try to restrict immigration, but instead should try to enable illegal immigration. A devout Friedmanite should stand stoutly against every fence, every border cop, every increase in the INS budget, any proposed database check for a new workers’ legal status, etc. I think it makes more sense to argue first for a guest worker program. But if that is in fact impossible, then Friedman has it right: more illegal immigration is the best we can do.See the fuller discussion at Will Wilkinson’s blog. UPDATE (June 13, 2008): And, of related interest, a discussion of how the benefits of remittances are really the benefits of labor migration, and how Switzerland, despite being difficult to immigrate to, has the highest percentage of foreign-born in its population of any OECD country, also both from Will Wilkinson. The latter provides further evidence for the logical separability of citizenship, residency, work rights, and welfare eligibility. ...

Tom Willis, the creationist responsible for the bogus claim that Donald Johanson found “Lucy”’s knee joint at a great distance from the rest of the skeleton (CC003 in Mark Isaak’s Index to Creationist Claims), says that evolutionists should be “violently expelled” from the United States–or at least denied the right to vote: The arrogance displayed by the evolutionist class is totally unwarrented. The facts warrent the violent expulsion of all evolutionists from civilized society. I am quite serious that their danger to society is so great that, in a sane society, they would be, at a minimum, denied a vote in the administration of the society, as well as any job where they might influence immature humans, e.g., scout, or youth, leader, teacher and, obviously, professor. Oh, by the way… What is the chance evolutionists will vote or teach in the Kingdom of God? ...

Although his last attempt to introduce articles of impeachment (for Cheney) failed, on Monday, June 9, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) introduced 35 new articles of impeachment for President George W. Bush. There’s no support from the Democratic leadership, of course. The mainstream media seems to be almost completely ignoring this. Two days later, a news.google.com search for “Kucinich impeachment” gives only the Village Voice in results. UPDATE: Looks like the Arizona Republic covered it today, as did CNN. ...

The June 7, 2008 issue of The Economist reports that Hugo Chavez issued a decree late last month which: authorises police raids without warrant, the use of anonymous witnesses and secret evidence. Judges are obliged to collaborate with the intelligence services. Anyone caught investigating sensitive matters faces jail. The law contains no provision for any kind of oversight. It blurs the distinction between external threats and internal political dissent. It requires all citizens, foreigners and organisations to act in support of the intelligence system whenever required–or face jail terms of up to six years.Though my employer operates in Venezuela, I think that’s one South American country I’d rather not visit at the moment… I hope November’s elections reduce Chavez’s power and he steps down from power in 2013 as he’s previously said that he would. And Daniel Ortega has suspended elections in Nicaragua… another country to avoid. ...

McCain continues to demonstrate mind-boggling ignorance of the U.S. Constitution, for someone who has already sworn numerous times to uphold it. He’s clearly unfit to be president–he’s either ignorant of U.S. history or being dishonest in order to pander to the religious right. (I previously reported similar remarks by McCain last October.) The Bible and the Christian tradition do not support a limited constitutional republic–if you got your politics from the Bible or Christian tradition, you’d argue for a monarchy with virtually limitless power. That’s probably part of the reason that the Bush administration has argued against any limits on executive power. (From Atheist Media Blog by way of Pharyngula.) ...

Will Wilkinson has an interesting post about how his market liberal views are very like the views of Hayek, Friedman, and Buchanan, and that the libertarian-conservative alliance against a slippery slope to socialism isn’t justified by what’s actually occurring in the world today. In a subsequent post, he writes about how economic regulation and tax/transfer policies are logically separable, but most people think about them as if they aren’t; a comparison of levels of inequality and poverty across the EU shows that the common thought that less regulation and taxation goes hand-in-hand with higher levels of poverty and inequality (of the sort seen in the U.S. and UK) doesn’t hold. Thus you could have a regime with very low levels of regulation yielding more wealth, combined with more redistribution for a better safety net and less poverty and inequality. And in another post, he calls for greater empirical grounding for proposals in political philosophy, of the sort that has started to yield fruitful results in moral philosophy: But shouldn’t it impossible to take seriously an argument to the effect that, say this or that policy is required in order to secure the conditions for the development of some capacity, in the absence of (a) a well-empirically-grounded theory of the nature of that capacity and its development, and (b) some kind of actual evidence that this or that policy in fact has the kind of effect on it that one hypothesizes? I wouldn’t mind so much if political philosophy arguments were more often in the form of “Hey, here’s a conjecture! I suggest somebody competent to do so try to find out if it’s true.” I would be quite happy if I saw more “Hey, here’s a conjecture, and here’s a my attempt to honestly synthesize the relevant literature in a first pass at getting the answer.” That would be terrific. But usually, the argument aims to establish something substantive with an armchair, a Joe Stiglitz op-ed, and something remembered from the Tuesday Science Times.Let’s hear it for empiricism.

Tom W. Bell proposes the following update to the pledge of allegiance: I pledge allegiance to the laws of the United States of America, on condition that it respect my rights, natural, constitutional, and statutory, with liberty and justice for all.That’s a pledge I could make, despite my skepticism about the use of the term “natural rights.” I do think there are moral rights entailed by the combination of certain common human values and empirical facts. (This conversation between Will Wilkinson and Shaun Nichols about Nichols’ book, Sentimental Rules, suggests one way of getting to moral rules I find far more plausible than the natural rights/natural law tradition.)