Rats' Alley/ Where the Dead Men Lost Their Bones

14-year old Jamey Rodemeyer killed himself only five months...

Thu, 22 Sep 2011 00:15:00 -0400

14-year old Jamey Rodemeyer killed himself only five months after creating this “It Gets Better Video”. My heart is broken. We aren’t doing enough.

I’m sure his family would appreciate your prayers.

officialssay: The U.S. Army, in a memo announcing that the...

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:07:00 -0400

officialssay:

The U.S. Army, in a memo announcing that the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law prohibiting openly gay and lesbian soldiers from serving in the military will formally end tomorrow.

“The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”- MLK Jr.

nrcyall: Dear lord have mercy…no words. Nobody But The Baby -...

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 21:33:14 -0400

nrcyall:

Dear lord have mercy…no words.

Nobody But The Baby - Alison Krauss, Emmylou Harris, Gillian Welch

Three divine voices.

“We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are...

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:37:00 -0400

“We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.” Article I, North Carolina State Constitution

This week, the North Carolina General Assembly passed an Anti-LGBT marriage amendment to the state constitution. The amendment will go on to the voters for final approval or disapproval in May. Hopefully the voters of NC will show a stronger sense of genuine conservatism, compassion, fairness, justice, love, and equality than their legislators.

"Deficit spending is worse than a tax increase, because you’ve got to pay for it eventually..."

Fri, 22 Jul 2011 21:02:23 -0400

“Deficit spending is worse than a tax increase, because you’ve got to pay for it eventually anyway, with interest. Meanwhile, you’ve created in the public mind the illusion that the level of government services they’re consuming is cheaper and less burdensome than is in fact the case. If you hold the line on taxes but not the deficit, you’re making big government more palatable.”

- Conor Friedersdorf is on point over at the Atlantic today, arguing that spending without paying enables the expansion of government.

Dolores Umbridge moves to Arkansas. Money quote: “You...

Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:41:00 -0400

Dolores Umbridge moves to Arkansas.

Money quote: “You couldn’t just come in here and get with four people and decide you want to start an organization. You would go through your city council, with legal documentation, the right paperwork and get it in approval.”

Words fail.

conservativebrew:

Arkansas Town Bans Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly

From NYT article:

The City Council adopted an ordinance last week making it illegal to form any kind of group without its permission.

That is a clear violation of the Constitution, legal scholars agree. But it is also a sign of just how nasty politics has gotten in Gould, a farming town of 1,100 some 70 miles southeast of Little Rock, where members of the Council have struggled with a local political group that seeks to influence how the town is governed. The mayor, Earnest Nash Jr., also happens to be a member of the political group, the Gould Citizens Advisory Council…

…Last week, the Council overrode the mayor’s veto of two other controversial measures. One required that the citizens advisory council cease to exist. The other made it illegal for the mayor to meet with “any organization in any location” either “inside or outside Gould city limits” without the Council’s permission.

The advisory council, which calls itself a nonpartisan group that educates voters and raises money for public causes, says it will continue its work. But the Council, in one ordinance, accused the group of “causing confusion and discourse among the citizens” by harshly criticizing local officials at public meetings.

As a result, the City Council said, “No new organizations shall be allowed to exist in the City of Gould without approval from a majority of the City Council.”

“If freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” - George Washingtion

commonsensepoliticks: buh-bye then!

Tue, 19 Jul 2011 23:37:09 -0400

commonsensepoliticks:

buh-bye then!

"All of these groups share the same mentality. They do not see politics as the art of the possible...."

Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:14:50 -0400

““All of these groups share the same mentality. They do not see politics as the art of the possible. They do not believe in seizing opportunities to make steady, messy progress toward conservative goals. They believe that politics is a cataclysmic struggle. They believe that if they can remain pure in their faith then someday their party will win a total and permanent victory over its foes. They believe they are Gods of the New Dawn.””

- David Brooks attempting to explain the somewhat fantastic quality of the current debt ceiling debate.

The Enforceability of Fiscal Restraints

Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:02:57 -0400

One of my former political science professors, the esteemed Dr. Michael New, has a sharp post up at the Corner highlighting the challenges that accompany statutory limits on spending. He asserts:

“Overall, one problem that has consistently hindered the effectiveness of fiscal limits is enforceability. Attempts by legislatures to circumvent spending caps typically inspire little outrage from voters or taxpayers.”

and warns:

“The Gramm Rudman Hollings Act did result in some spending cuts and may have done some short-term good. But mostly it encouraged creative bookkeeping. In order to reach the deficit targets, expenditures were frequently placed into the budgets for subsequent fiscal years.”

Spending restraints are a tool for reducing the debt and recurring deficits, but they do not absolve lawmakers from making the difficult choices as to what and how to limit spending, and they are futile if legislators are permitted to circumvent the restraints through chicanery and bookkeeping gimmicks.

The Unitary Founders

Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:33:32 -0400

Yesterday, Mike Kelsey on the Heritage Foundation’s blog asked, “Were the Founding Fathers Committed to Ending Slavery?”

His claim:

“It is commonplace to dismiss the Founders as racists who may have attacked slavery from time to time in writing but never in action. Critics of the Founders often claim that, since the Constitution did not abolish slavery, the Founders were unconcerned with actively fighting the institution in their lifetime—even if they may have wanted slavery to disappear at some vague point in the future. This argument is both misguided and naïve.”

He counters this claim by arguing that the founders expressed their desire to end slavery through the Northwest Ordinance:

“The final article of the ordinance declares unwaveringly that ‘there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory.’ By a firm majority, Congress had officially repudiated slavery.”

Kelsey’s core contention is that the founders made politically necessary sacrifices in the creation of the Constitution, despite their desire to see slavery eradicated, in order to make a unified nation.

But this is confusing. If the founders desired to see slavery ended, who were they compromising with in the Constitutional Convention? Well, other founders of course.

Some did want to see slavery ended. One could lump the founders into three rough groups; the ardent abolitionists, the wanna-be abolitionists, and the anti-abolitionists.

The ardent abolitionists include delegates to the Constitutional Convention such as William Patterson, Gouverneur Morris and Rufus King as well as other early leaders such as John Adams. These men felt that slavery was a “foul contagion in the human character” and “an evil of colossal magnitude.” (McCullough, David. John Adams. 133). These men wanted to see slavery ended, but accepted that they had to make compromises with pro-slavery founders in order to maintain national unity.

The “Wanna-Be Abolitionists” are those founders who expressed disgust and moral disapproval of the institution of slavery in general while owning slaves themselves. Two notable examples in this mold include two of our early Presidents; George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson wrote that slavery was “the most unremitting despotism on the one part and the most degrading submissions on the other,” (McCullough, 331). Yet, Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves, not even freeing them upon his death (as did George Washington).

The pro-slavery faction among the founders was largely Southern and included men such as John Rutledge and Charles Pinckney, who argued forcefully and successfully for the inclusion of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the Constitution. This clause requires that escaped slaves who flee to free states be returned to their owners:

So, how are we to look at the founders with regard to their views on slavery? We must see them as individuals with conflicting views on some different topics. A majority of the founders probably felt that slavery was a moral evil, but this was not a unanimous or dominant view. Had it been, then the founders would have been able to ban slavery outright in the Constitution. Sectional differences made the achievement of both abolition and national unity impossible, so the pro-abolition founders wisely chose to compromise in order to place the nation on secure ground, while still working to limit slavery’s power where they could; ending the slave trade and in the 3/5 Compromise for example. Kelsey and I share broad overall admiration and respect for the founders, but a one-dimensional portrayal of the founders is a disservice to their legacy and their posterity.

Pundits and historians should avoid describing the views of America’s Founding Father’s as if they spoke with one authoritative voice. There are some topics on which the founders achieved broad consensus while others were bitterly disputed. Invoking the founders draws upon deep wells of cultural memory and national pride. We have a responsibility to convey their views and philosophies accurately and in context, rather than twisting them into talking points for our respective, contemporary political motives.

Re: Of Marriage

Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:15:00 -0400

My thoughts on guest-blogger Russell’s post “Of Marriage and Gay Men”:

Russell frames the argument over marriage in terms of religious extremists seeking to limit the constitutional rights of a minority. Anti-marriage equality activists, however, argue that they want everyone to have the same rights, that gays CAN marry (just not each other). They contend that allowing same-sex couples to wed is a “radical redefinition of marriage.”
The Puritans certainly fled England to escape the tyranny of the English monarchy, but they had no intention of setting up Plymouth Colony on the basis of Church-State separation. They just wanted their vision of the church to be the one in power. Just ask Roger Williams or Anne Hutchinson.
Russell argues that the implementation of marriage equality would not have much of an impact on straight society. I strongly dissent from this view. Marriage equality for LGBTs will have a strong egalitarian influence on the marriage institution, and will remind all minority groups that America is a nation dedicated to liberty and equality under the law. Marriage equality is a big deal for gays and straights alike.
Economic gains from marriage equality are very significant to the individuals involved, but I don’t see the argument as having tremendous moral force, and I can’t imagine the impact being more than marginal. After all, even though the gays will be buying bucketloads of flowers and glitter for their weddings, with the repeal of DOMA they would also get the federal tax benefits offered to married couples.

- I greatly enjoyed reading Russell’s first post, and I hope you did too. I would be really interested to see where this blog could go in a discussion/dialogue based format….

Of Marriage and Gay Men

Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:44:25 -0400

***This is Rats’ Alley’s first guest blog. I welcome my good friend Russell, thespian and Darth Vader impersonator extraordinaire. He writes with rather more emotion than I am generally inclined to and employs more aggressive figurative and emotional language. Hopefully his submissions will present an interesting change of pace.***

by Russell Stephens

Fifteen score and fifteen years ago, our forefathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. In their bold declaration, they stated that every person to enter this world is pre-packaged with certain God-given rights, and they did not modify this with exceptions based on race, creed, or any other modifier. They used the word “all” – not a very arguable term. It explicitly asserts totality without hint of modification; it is perhaps due to this totality that Thomas Jefferson’s immortal words have become the cornerstone of many major manifestos and declarations on the rights of mankind, as beacons of independence in war-torn states. But today, some 235 years after the Continental Congress adopted, signed, and posted Mr. Jefferson’s credo to good old King George, it seems that some Americans have forgotten the meaning behind that simple three-letter adjective, and are fighting tooth and nail to have its definition legally augmented.

The issue of civil rights has plagued the human race since (at least) the advent of written history. From the captivity of the Israelites in the days of Moses, to the African American slave trade in the early days of America, to more recent battles including women’s suffrage (a concept still unheard of in some Middle Eastern nations) and black voting rights, there has always been a group of people who insist on adding a “but” to the rights of “all.” In today’s legal system, the Egyptians and plantation foremen of old have assumed the shape of fundamentalist, right wing extremists who will stop at nothing to ensure that homosexuals are legally relegated to second-class citizenry. Politicians like Michele Bachmann go so far as to label members of the gay community as people dealing with an “issue of sexual dysfunction […] and sexual identity disorders,” and are, as such, to be pitied. She cites her having a gay family member as justification for her “compassion,” almost as if to say I know what you’re going through…my cousin is gay and it’s just AWFUL. But, she says, fighting tirelessly to achieve discriminatory laws enacted is NOT gay bashing. This may be technically true, but is going one mile-per-hour over the speed limit not technically breaking the law? She asserts that, if the federal government passes a law legalizing same-sex marriage, it would have a “profound impact” on every “man, woman, and child” in the state of Minnesota and, to carry it further, in America. I am not going to dive in to scriptural evidence decrying homosexuality; that would involve too much translation, interpretation, and differences in sociopolitical precedent for right now. Not to mention, was the primary reason that the Mayflower sailed for America in 1620 that there should be separation between church and state? I am proud to be a Christian, but I understand the need for this delineation. If the Christian Church (pick a denomination from the veritable smorgasbord at hand) were in charge of the American government, we would likely be at the hands of fundamental extremists like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, and, thus, no more just than the totalitarian Islamic states of the Middle East. By this token, then, Rep. Bachmann’s justifications for the illegalization of gay marriage completely invalid. Her bases for such action stem from irrational and erroneous notions like gay men’s being risks to public health, gay couple’s parenting skills being sub-par to their straight counterparts, and that homosexual relationships are “from Satan.” It would seem, therefore, that the bulk of her rationale is religious in nature. So, going back to the precedents set in 1620, what about this makes her point valid? Aside from the fact that she is a fundamentalist and extremist – in my humble opinion, the words and actions of extremists are not worthy of recognition – her vendetta reflects deep cultural resentment and propagandistic dismissal of facts (the same pledge she signed also condemned certain Islamic denominations and other social minorities). That this woman is exploiting her position as political representative to tout her didactic vendettas is nothing but a disgrace to Messrs. Jefferson and Lincoln and all the other champions of human rights.

Now, as Lincoln orated, we are engaged in a great civil war. Despite my obvious bias in favor of gay marriage, I can see no reason that legalizing the institution would have any effect on the rest of the American population. It would seem to me that, if a person is not gay and subsequently opposed to gay marriage, he should refrain from engaging one and leave it at that. That being said, I can only see the positive impact of gay marriage; the tax revenue brought in from Hobby Lobby’s floral and wedding sections alone would probably knock a sizeable dent in America’s trillion dollar deficit – a deficit which, I hasten to add, was largely created by straight people.

"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors..."

Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:25:37 -0400

“I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

- Thomas Jefferson (via commonsensepoliticks)

Yes he is. And $4 trillion over ten years is not enough.

Sat, 09 Jul 2011 12:12:58 -0400

Yes he is. And $4 trillion over ten years is not enough.

Bachmann 2012: Blacks Were Better Off Under Slavery and Gays Aren't Real

Sat, 09 Jul 2011 11:23:51 -0400

-Campaign Slogan drawn from the Iowa FAMiLY LEADER pledge signed by Bachmann (And Rick Santorum).

nationaljournal: PHOTO OF THE DAY Space Shuttle Atlantis lifts...

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 12:35:54 -0400

nationaljournal:

PHOTO OF THE DAY Space Shuttle Atlantis lifts off from the Kennedy Space Center on Friday. Atlantis is the 135th and final Space Shuttle launch for NASA. (PHOTO: Chris O’Meara/AP)

This is bloody brilliant. conservativebrew: Economic...

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:57:36 -0400

This is bloody brilliant.

conservativebrew:

Economic Freedom.

The Simple Sanity of Moderate Defense Cuts

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:47:00 -0400

Today at the Corner, James Jay Carafano argues that potential cuts to defense spending in a debt limit deal will weaken the nation’s security and allow the President to avoid serious entitlement reform, essential for the long-term fiscal health of the country.

“But over the long term, deep defense cuts are no more sustainable than current entitlement spending. Defense “savings” have costs. Readiness will plummet. That will embolden our enemies to take advantage of our weakness, and ultimately the people and Congress will insist that we respond. So we will have to whip-saw defense spending up again. Welcome to the future, where taxes are higher, deficits are bigger, and entitlement programs are still ballooning.”

I agree with Carafano in as much as I believe that we should not allow defense cuts to imperil our national security or keep us from balancing the long term costs of entitlement programs. I do not want to see larger deficits or tax rate increases. I do not see, however, that moderate cuts to defense would present such a clear danger to security.

As The Center for American Progress shows, the Bush (43) and Obama budgets are far higher in inflation adjusted dollars than Reagan’s Cold War defense budgets.

So, Obama could make fairly drastic cuts to defense, and still be spending about as much as Reagan was at the height of the Cold War. Unless we plan on occupying Middle Eastern states into perpetuity, it seems reasonable that we can reduce defense spending as we draw down our presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

Entitlements are the long-term drivers of our fiscal problems, but military spending is clearly one of the causes of our current deficits. Defense spending skyrocketed under GWB, as may have been appropriate given the circumstances of the War on Terror. But as those circumstances change, our spending should adapt. Defense cuts aren’t solely a liberal fantasy, they are a response to legitimate budget concerns and global conditions. Republican Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and H.W. Bush, all reduced defense spending while in office, in response to reduced American military demands in Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War respectively. Defense cuts should not replace entitlement reform, but there is a place for them in a debt ceiling deal.

"Yes, I understand that you think it is terrible and immoral to raise taxes; your opponents feel the..."

Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:29:07 -0400

““Yes, I understand that you think it is terrible and immoral to raise taxes; your opponents feel the same about cutting social spending. But it is really, really terrible to default on obligations you have voluntarily assumed, and make no mistake, this is what you will do if you refuse to raise the debt ceiling. Either we will default on our bonds, or Social Security checks and military pay deposits that people have planned on will not be issued. It is appalling to contemplate reneging on our obligations this way, and Republicans are wrong to attempt to get their way by threatening to force the United States to welsh on its promises. Imagine that the tables were turned, and Democrats were demanding enormous tax hikes in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, with not a penny in spending cuts. Would you regard this as a just and acceptable tactic? “”

- Megan McArdle, The Atlantic. July 1, 2011. Go read the whole post.

Thaddeus McCotter: The Red Eye Candidate

Sun, 03 Jul 2011 14:41:00 -0400

Yesterday, Michigan congressman Thaddeus McCotter told the nation that he too would be running for President (All the cool kids are doing it these days). To me, McCotter is the hilariously droll congressman who frequently appears on Fox News’ late-late night show “Red Eye”. I’m not sure, however, that there is really a niche for McCotter in the race. The six-term congressman from a Detroit area district is generally very conservative, but with pro-labor tendencies that would seem to put him at odds with the anti-union tilt of tea party/conservative opinion today. His scant national reputation creates an uphill struggle for the congressman as he attempts to win the GOP nomination. The down low:

Credentials

BA and JD from University of Detroit (1987, 1990)
Wayne County Commissioner (1992-1998)
Michigan State Senator (1998-2002)
US Representative for Michigan’s 11th District (2002-Present)
Currently serving on the House Financial Services Committee

These are pretty standard credentials. Oh, and he also plays a pretty cool looking guitar. McCotter is an attorney who entered politics at the local level and worked his way up the ranks. This trajectory is similar to that of many House members, including fellow presidential contender Michele Bachmann. McCotter will not win the nomination on the strength of his credentials.

Social Issues

McCotter is a devout Catholic who takes conservative positions on social issues.

Abortion: McCotter received a 100% rating from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and has voted to restrict federal funding for abortion and to remove federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
Climate Change: The congressman opposes cap and trade legislation, and does not seem to believe that human behavior greatly influences the global climate.
Gay Rights: McCotter has voted for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban workplace discrimination on account of gender or sexual identity. However, he supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and voted against repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Foreign Policy Issues:

McCotter is a foreign policy hawk, who was strongly supportive of Bush’s policies in the Iraq and Afghanistan, but who has been critical of the American intervention in Libya. This does distinguish him from some parts of the GOP field, but Tim Pawlenty is already staking out aggressive foreign policy positions with vigor.

Libya: McCotter argues that America’s goals must clearly defined and our role limited strictly to the enforcement of a no-fly zone. He warns against the dangers of mission creep.
Afghanistan: McCotter contends that America’s security is advanced through victory rather than surrender, and that “America’s greatest security is liberty.” McCotter argues that the consequences of failure in Afghanistan are increased terrorism and Iranian influence. I do not believe he has made any official statements regarding Obama’s troop withdrawal plan. McCotter’s Afghanistan hawkishness stands in contrast to some GOP contenders, such as Huntsman or Romney, who have taken more dovish stances on Afghanistan.

Fiscal/Domestic Policy Issues:

PPACA/Obamacare: McCotter strongly supports the complete repeal of PPACA. Obamacare repeal was one of the main planks of McCotter’s congressional re-election bid in 2010.
Debt/Deficit: McCotter argues that we should cut spending rather than raising the debt limit. He argues that any debt ceiling increase should be pairing with long term spending reform or a balanced budget amendment.
Taxation: The congressman supports low taxes, and has signed the ATR’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge.”

Conclusion:

Congressman McCotter offers an ardently conservative voice in a crowded GOP primary. He contends that Obama and Romney are closer to being running mates than rivals. This willingness to throw elbows will be an asset for the little-known congressman looking to claw his way into the limelight. McCotter seems very likable, and I hope that the sincerity, wit, and understated humor that the congressman displays on television will translate to the campaign trail. He does, however, have some serious handicaps to overcome. Although the American public is weary of overseas military adventures, McCotter is an avowed and outspoken hawk. Also, no sitting member of the House of Representatives has been elected President since James Garfield in 1880, nor has a sitting representative earned the GOP nod since Garfield. McCotter may be seeking to raise his profile in preparation for an attempt to take Democrat Debbie Stabenow’s Senate seat in 2012. He may be seeking to pull the eventual party nominee to the right, or challenge his less-interventionist rivals. Whatever his motives, Thaddeus McCotter will not be our nation’s next President.

Update: Some Michigander friends who live in-district tell me that he really isn’t that likable. So maybe that’s a scratch. But he still plays a really cool guitar.