A More Democratic and Considered Move on the Flag

Unlike last week's mad rush, the South Carolina legislature has been considering the issue with regard to the feelings of the people. And people, even those who see the flag as essentially about history and heritage, have been moved by the events and grace at Charleston.

Among whites, 39 percent said the incident made them less likely to support the flag flying at the State House while 18 percent said the incident made them more likely to support it.... The Free Times/Crantford Research poll also found that South Carolina voters are optimistic about the prospects for the shooting to bring residents closer together: 41 percent believe the incident will ultimately improve race relations, compared to 16 percent who believe it will make matters worse. Black voters were somewhat less optimistic than whites; 38 percent of African-Americans and 43 percent of whites thought the incident would lead to better race relations.

This, I think, is the best result we can get from such a tragedy. Not that everyone should come to agree that the flag is a symbol of (and only of) hatred and oppression, but that those who disagree can come to consider and respect the views of those for whom it cannot be otherwise.

The Legislature is reconvened for the debate, though early indicators suggest the votes are there.

College of Charleston political science professor Gibbs Knotts said he was a bit surprised at the strong support in the conservative Legislature to remove the flag. But he said it likely reflects a “big public shift” that has taken place recently in South Carolina...

[T]he bills are expected to be channeled through committees, potentially delaying a final vote for several weeks.

One hopes that, to some degree, the shift works in both directions. "Heritage, not hate" is a great concept as long as it's real. This offers some evidence that it is real, that where it cannot be perceived except as hate, supporters of the flag as heritage are prepared to compromise without surrendering their view. America could learn a lot from that.

UPDATE: On the other hand, there's always the vocal (and young) minority.

Iran Deal Predictions

From Havok Journal:

5) The next US President will support the deal: H + however many days until January 2017L Despite early misgivings, courtesy of freshman senator Tom Cotton (R – Arkansas), Congress has signaled that it ultimately wants the deal to go through, as long as it gets its say. This Congress is clearly looking towards the next election and what the presumptive frontrunners will want. Instead of running interference, they’ve chosen a strategy (albeit a begrudging one) of demanding transparency in exchange for support.

Even the strong conservative holdouts who famously co-signed a letter to the Majles have backed away from the opposition camp. Interestingly, the only Senator not to affirm the transparency resolution, Tom Cotton, was one of the strongest opponents of the initial deal. The resolution also gives new Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R – Kentucky) an opportunity to reign in some of the rhetoric by Tea Party upstarts like Cotton. Perhaps McConnell sees a need to tone down some of the language of his fellow party members leading into 2016.

Advice for Young Men

This is not a bad piece.

I was not aware of the fedora phenomenon until I encountered the famous SlateStarCodex piece worrying over the way in which this kind of young man is being punished. Since then, I've seen a few examples of the intense mockery from young women that these young men endure. I can understand the point the author at SSC was trying to make.

That it is unkind to the young men is true, as they are as he says just trying to emulate the most courtly behaviors they have ever encountered in literature or film. Whether it is unfair to them is another question.

In any case, if you are one or know one, and don't understand the mockery, read the article. It might help you out.

Taste Test: Surströmming

A traditional Swedish dish whose name means soured herring. "As long ago as the 16th century, surströmming was supplied as army rations in the 30 years war. Swedish soldiers who did not come from the area where this was staple food, as well as foreign conscripts, refused to eat it."

If it smells so bad that people were refusing to eat it during the Thirty Years' War, it smells pretty bad.

Defiance

Sen. Cruz says that states should simply defy the Supreme Court on gay marriage. I don't see how that could possibly work out well, as it didn't even work in cases (such as segregation) in which there was intense and unified opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling among the polities of many states. The American population has responded to years of all their favorite Hollywood entertainers endorsing this, combined with years of Federal court rulings all pointing in the same direction, by shifting its opinion to support for the practice. There are probably no states that can put together the unity against gay marriage that characterized the Southern Democrats' rejection of anti-segregation rulings.

On the other hand, segregation was immoral. If this set of arguments is even close to plausible, public opinion may well shift again in the coming years. In that case, the defiant will be remembered kindly by history rather than as the bigots they are portrayed as being in the contemporary press.

Much depends on what comes next. For the moment, Sen. Cruz is taking the lead boldly down a dark road. Whether that road ends in darkness, or whether joy comes with the morning, is far from clear.

Changing Sides in the Supreme Court

In the term just ending, is it true that the liberal justices voted as a bloc, while the conservatives often voted according to their judicial philosophy instead of their party interests? Yes, according to SCOTUSblog, but only if you're talking about the most important cases:

In the 26, a Justice on the left voted with the right a total of 3 times. In 2 cases, those votes determined the outcome and produced a more conservative result, because Justice Kennedy or one of the conservatives voted for the more liberal result.

In the 26, a Justice on the right voted with the left 14 times. In 6 cases, those votes determined the outcome and produced a more liberal result, because Justice Kennedy voted for the more conservative result.

I also considered the 10 cases I consider most significant. Of those, the left prevailed in 8. Those included the first 7 of the Term. (I mention the early cases to give a sense of how the results must have appeared inside the Court as the Term went along.) The right prevailed in 2, both in the final sitting of the Term.

In the 10, no Justice on the left voted with the right; the four Justices on the left voted together in every one of those cases. A Justice on the right voted with the left 4 times. Those votes determined the outcome in 2 cases, because Justice Kennedy voted for the more conservative result.

This Is Going To Be A Problem For My Hoped-For Jim Webb Candidacy

Bernie Sanders overtaking Hillary in the Democratic primary's momentum. It's true that all my left-leaning friends are huge fans of Bernie. I've yet to find anyone else willing to consider voting for Webb: Democrats want someone farther to the left of Hillary, and Republicans want a full-time Republican.

Well, I've never picked a winner yet: why break the streak?

This Guy Really Is A Priest

It's a trivial matter, sort of, except that the event at which this dishonorable action occurred was supposed to be all about equality of human dignity. He certainly showed some dignity, though not an equality of it.

The $100 million lesson

Noah Kagan was one of the earliest employees at Facebook, but was fired before it went public.  He describes what he learned from the experience.

EPA must consider costs

Today's third opinion reverses a D.C. Circuit decision, and rules that the EPA interpreted its authorizing statute unreasonably when it concluded it need not consider costs in implementing environmental regulations concerning power plant pollutants, especially mercury. The usual suspects dissented, making it a 5-4 split. The case is captioned Michigan v. EPA but normally is referred to as "Utility Air."  The EPA will still have discretion in how to consider costs; the Court ruled, for instance, that it need not conduct a formal cost/benefit analysis, whatever that means.  We'll find out on remand, I guess.

Gerrymandering: voters rule

The Court's second decision today upheld the power of a state's voters over their legislature in a dispute over how gerrymandering concerns should be resolved. Per SCOTUSblog, "In 2000, Arizona voters amended the state’s constitution to give control over redistricting of federal congressional districts to an independent commission. This case is a challenge by the state legislature to that transfer, on the ground that it violated the Elections Clause" of the U.S. Constitution. Justice Kennedy joined the four liberal Justices in a 5-4 decisionhttp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1314_kjfl.pdf, which upheld the voters' right to override the legislature's redistricting process. SCOTUSblog further noted that the Supreme Court has several times already declined to address the constitutionality of gerrymandering per se. This decision also does not address the constitutionality of gerrymandering, but only whether the voters (via state constitutional amendment) or the legislature shall have the ultimate say over the drawing of federal congressional district lines. Scalia's dissent suggested that he didn't disagree with the voters' right to control redistricting--he would have dismissed the challenge for lack of jurisdiction--but he joined the dissent out of displeasure with the reasoning of the majority. The four dissenting justices (led by Roberts) objected that the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives the redistricting power to state legislatures, not the state populace. The majority, in contrast, acknowledged the state voters' right to rein in their legislature's approach by amending their state constitution to require delegation of the redistricting process to an independent commission. The SCOTUSblog interpretation was that the opinion favors new legislators over incumbents, and therefore has little effect unless the state is undergoing a political shift.

Cruel and unusual death penalties

SCOTUS has issued its final opinions for the year, as well as a list of the new cases it will hear next year.  The first decision upholds Oklahoma's use of an anti-anxiety drug that a lower court found was virtually certain to induce unconsciousness before the state administered a paralytic drug and a heart-stopping drug.  The case arose after anti-death-penalty advocates successfully pressured drug companies to stop making barbiturates available for the death-penalty process, in response to which Oklahoma switched to an alternative method of inducing unconsciousness.  The argument then shifted to whether the alternative drug was adequate; the Court ruled today that the lower court had not committed clear error in accept expert testimony to the drug's effectiveness, and that Oklahoma was not required to prove that the new drug was as effective as the ones that no longer were available.

The oral arguments had been reported to be unusually violent for this staid forum.

Justice Alito delivered the majority opinion, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.  Justices Scalia and Thomas issued a separate concurring opinion, not disagreeing with the reasoning, but responding to a dissent issued by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, who expressed a renewed plea for the Court to take up the constitutionality of the death penalty.  Justices Kagan and Sotomayor did not join in this plea, which led observers at SCOTUSblog to wonder whether they, like past liberal Justices, had grown less vehement in their opposition to the death penalty after spending some time on the Supreme bench.  Instead, Kagan and Sotomayor issued a separate dissent addressing only the issues concerning Oklahoma's choice of consciousness-terminating drug.

When bad things happen to good birds

Nature, red in tooth and claw, and the webcam viewers who have to deal with it.  (Don't worry, you're not going to find yourself in one of those awful TV commercials about abandoned pets.)

Truck Stop at the End of the World

A cheerful song from the end times, as they were envisioned in the Cold War.



Don't worry about the scales: they're reading megatons.

The Sorrow of Schadenfreude

I can't enjoy it, because the situation is tragic. Still, I can recognize that I ought to feel it. From progressive site anongalactic:

While America was distracted by a the Confederate flag debacle, the U.S. Congress forfeited the entire economic future of the country by quietly passing so-called “fast-track authority” which will allow President Obama to approve the TPP “free trade” agreement.

The TPP, as you may have heard, outright surrenders U.S. sovereignty to multinational corporations, handing them total global monopolies over labor practices, immigration, Big Pharma drug pricing, GMO food labeling, criminalization of garden seeds and much more. In all, the TPP hands over control of 80% of the U.S. economy to global monopolists, and the TPP is set up to enable those corporations to engage in virtually unlimited toxic chemical pollution, medical monopolization, the gutting of labor safety laws and much more.

Plus, did I mention the TPP will displace millions of American works as corporations outsource jobs to foreign workers? While corporations rake in the profits from new global powers, everyday American workers will lose their livelihoods and their jobs (not to mention their pensions)....

While Amazon.com was frantically deleting Confederate flag products from its website and everybody was going bat-crap insane over the 1970’s comedy TV series Dukes of Hazzard and its use of the so-called Confederate flag on a hot rod car, Republicans and the President were busy committing outright treason at the highest levels: surrendering American sovereignty and economically enslaving all of America’s future children.

And that’s the tragic irony of all this: While the political left falsely believed it was denouncing slavery by pressuring every online retailer and government entity to ban the Confederate flag, the U.S. Congress was busy enacting a whole new level of total economic enslavement for everyone, regardless of their skin color.

There's that "treason" word again. It could possibly be deserved, this time, depending on how bad the treaty really is. Since it's still secret, we can't be sure.

The Decline of an American Sport

Headlines from my father's favorite sport:

19 January 2014: NASCAR is turning off fans both old and new.

26 August 2014: As popularity, and seating, wane, NASCAR explores capacity to change

25 February 2015: What has happened to the once high-flying sport of NASCAR?

25 April 2015: Even as attendance and TV ratings drag, NASCAR still has lots of dedicated fans.

So, what you need is a way to get that dedicated hard-core of fans more committed to turning out and tuning in. That should be easy! Remember your roots! How'd stock car racing get started?



That's right: it's that old moonshiner, bootlegger spirit, fast cars racing through the hills on old dirt roads. The law might not like 'em, but they were fast and they were bold and mostly they were just looking out for their family and friends. This is a formula of proven success. Why, I think there was a wildly popular television show once on this subject. Maybe even a movie or two.

Shouldn't be hard to fix, right?

Beware

I'm awfully pleased Douglas is posting here now; I always look forward to his comments.  But his first post, with its aside about "a constant stream of inanity," almost discouraged me from posting this, from Ace:

Almost.

"The Battle of Vienna" the movie

Well this isn't a bad way to inaugurate my privileges at the Hall (Thanks, Grim!)-
Epic battle, heroic leader, Winged Hussars, it looks to have it all:
I came across this link to a new movie slated to be released in October Titled "The Battle of Vienna"- at least in Polish.  Unsurprisingly, it centers on Polish King Jan Sobieski.  It looks like the English title will be "September 11th, 1683", interestingly enough.  No idea if/when it will be released here, or through what channels.  It's nice for us though, that it's in English, with Polish subtitles.

Of course, it reminds me of past Hall favorite:

 
Maybe more 'diversions' like this movie can start to point us back to things that matter instead of a constant stream of inanity from our entertainment-industrial complex.

Doubling Down on "Treason"

Dr. Michaelson argued (see post immediately below) that Supreme Court decisions that radically overturn state laws should have a 9-0 consensus. This is to limit the sense of the People that the decision is radical, and make it easier for them to accept a limit on their sovereignty. If they are told that they may not pass laws of a given type, at least they can see that the Court is united in its belief that such laws are incompatible with the basic structure of our republic.

This would have been a great limiting principle on the Court's power. Unfortunately, the duty Dr. Michaelson wants to assert is a duty not to dissent.

Did The Four Dissenting Justices In Gay Marriage Case Just Suggest Treason?

In controversial cases, is the role of jurist to inflame controversy, or quell it?...

The four dissents in the landmark case on same-sex marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges.... [w]ith invective and hyperbole, they pour fuel on the fire of the controversy over same-sex marriage. Rather than merely state their views and disagreements, they use heated language to accuse the five-person majority of imperialism, a “putsch,” and worse.

Thus, the unprecedented calls of elected officials for open revolt against the Supreme Court—a shocking display of treason—are now accompanied by calls from within the Court itself that Obergefell is illegitimate, and the Supreme Court itself no longer worthy of full respect....

These are, as the saying goes, fighting words, and more importantly, they are words that will inspire others to fight. They are what some call “stochastic terrorism,” the broadcasting of a message so incendiary as to inspire some “lone wolf” to violence—if not actual violence, then precisely the kinds of anti-democratic, anti-American defiance we have already seen among some politicians.

Treason, treason, treason. You must feel very secure in your positions of power.

Judicial Supermajority

Dr. Jay Michaelson argues that a responsible Supreme Court overturns the will of the People as expressed in their state laws and constitutions by putting together a 9-0 decision. That way, the already-controversial decision is easier for the population to accept:

In Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case which found race-based marriage bans unconstitutional, Chief Justice Earl Warren built a 9-0 consensus—just as he’d done years earlier in Brown vs. Board of Education. He knew that a country divided by race ought to be united, if possible, by a Supreme Court mindful of fundamental values—even if the Court was, as the constitution requires, overturning the will of the majority.

It turns out that the rule he devises here isn't that the Court should take such radical action only when there is in fact a 9-0 consensus that such action is necessary. That would be a great rule, one I'd be happy to support, as it would be a limiting principle on a fairly radical power of the Court. We have similar supermajority standards for the other more radical powers of the Federal government: to amend the Constitution or to enter into a treaty that binds the United States both require legislative supermajorities.

In fact, this suggestion strikes me as much better than the one currently under discussion, i.e. to make Supreme Court Justices' tenure contingent on continuing Congressional approval of them. A supermajority requirement doesn't fiddle with the balance of power between the branches, and further, one of the good things about the current structure is that it cools democratic passion by continuing the input of previous administrations on current decisions. That represents a good power-sharing function, and often the Court is the only hope of the minority currently out of power that its views will still be considered by the party currently holding the levers. I should not wish to see that function change.

On the other hand, a supermajoirty requirement could be structured to restrain Court radicalism very easily. Any time that a Court ruling would require us to believe that the People had ratified a right without realizing it, they should require a 9-0 consensus. Any time we have to assume that laws that have continued to be in force without interruption since the ratification of an amendment were really invalidated by that amendment, there should be a 9-0 consensus. And perhaps any time multiple state constitutions have to be overturned, there should be a smaller supermajority -- 7-2, perhaps -- given that the state constitutional amendment process is already a supermajority process (and that anyone can escape a state constitution they find oppressive by simply moving to another state).

Unfortunately, that's not Dr. Michaelson's point at all. It's such a good point, though, I thought it deserved its own post.