The First Amendment

I’ve mentioned this before, but once again an idiotic ignoramus does not know what the First Amendment actually says.  According to Towleroad, the rapper T.I. has a lot to say about gay people and the First Amendment.  Specifically:

While T.I. makes clear that he supports anyone’s sexual preference, he then connects, in his opinion, a current oversensitivity among gay people with a consequential and ironic offense of the First Amendment. “They’re like,‘If you have an opinion against us, we’re gonna shut you down.’ … That’s not American. If you’re gay you should have the right to be gay in peace, and if you’re against it you should have the right to be against it in peace.’

In other words, gay people should just accept homophobic rhetoric because it’s protected speech.  One wonders what he thinks about the noxious racist speech emitted by such groups as the Neo-Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan.  I am also tempted to ask why gay people should not criticize offensive speech?  Isn’t that also protected under his conception of the First Amendment?

Debating the stupidity of T.I.’s homophobia is shooting ducks in a barrel, and I will let others deal with it.  (A homophobic rapper.  What a shock!)  However, his political ignorance should not be allowed to pass unnoticed.  Deliberately misinterpreting the First Amendment is a very serious flaw, especially when you use it as a defense.

Here is the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment guarantees five freedoms: (1) freedom of speech; (2) freedom of and from religion; (3) freedom of the press: (4) freedom to peaceably assemble; and (5) freedom to complain to the government when you have a problem.

Yet the First Amendment is also very clear that the all these freedoms are limitations on the power of the government.  Congress shall make no law.  Although this was expanded by the Supreme Court to include all government at the federal, state, and local level, the First Amendment does not apply to private citizens.  This is quite deliberate.  Ergo, as private citizens, we say or do whatever we want (so long as it is legal) in response to the malicious comments of others.  Ergo, boycotts, rallies, newspaper editorials, public shamings, and loud, vociferous, criticism–none of this is prevented by the First Amendment.  Conversely, the First Amendment was written so that all of these methods would be used because ideally, the antidote to hate speech is more speech.  (One can debate whether that is true or not.)

The First Amendment is the last refuge of the hypocrite.  The real problem is that the haters, the homophobes, and the bullies know they are losing the larger cultural war.  Like many bullies, they are actually very weak and they cower when their victims fight back.  (NOM and Maggie Gallagher are the biggest offenders.)  What are they are actually saying when they garb themselves in this “we are the real oppressed” deception is that in the market of ideas they going out of business.

So, T.I.  stop infringing on my right to criticize.  It is every bit as protected as Tracy Morgan’s right (or yours) to say hateful, idiotic things.  The First Amendment protects me too when I say that you are a homophobic ignoramus with no conception of what America actually is.

[Update:  Tracy Morgan is very unhappy about TI's comments, and who can blame him?  Morgan has done much public penance because of his routine, and now he is being dragged back into the spotlight when he clearly wants to just let the controversy die away.]

An Appreciation

Tonight the Republican leadership was unable to pass its own debt-ceiling bill.  This was a bill that was hated by every Democrat in Washington, and still the Republican leadership could not convince the lunatics in their asylum.  The United States economy (and therefore the world economy) is perilously close to collapse come August 2.  This is acknowledged by sane people across the political spectrum even if the Congressional Republicans and the Tea Party refuse to see it.  But the Republican leadership could not pass the bill.  Speaker of the House John Boehner looks very weak right now as he failed to pass a bill that was too conservative even for a weak-willed Democratic Senate and President Barack Obama.

But that’s not what I want to focus on.  The Republican spectrum in the current House runs the gamut from very conservative to Know-Nothing conservative.  In other words, there is very little in the way of ideological difference, just degree.  When the Democrats had control of Congress from 2007-2010, the ideological spectrum of the Democratic Representatives was much more vast, ranging from extremely conservative to extremely liberal.  Yet, among the bills the House leadership got passed (even if the Senate did not follow) were the stimulus bill, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, a Child Nutrition Act, a law that lets the FDA regulate tobacco, a major reform of health care (with a public option), a major reform of Wall Street, a jobs bill, stronger hate crimes legislation, a health and compensation bill for Ground Zero workers, the DREAM Act, a restructuring of student loans, the Waxman-Markey energy/emissions bill, and SCHIP.

This is not a comprehensive list by any stretch.  Every one of those bill came about between the beginning of 2009 and the end of 2010.

The point is that despite the large and often contentious ideological spectrum that the Democratic leadership had to contend with, they still managed to pass monumental, potentially nation-changing legislation.  This is why, despite only being in office for four years, many of us consider Nancy Pelosi to be one of the most effective Speakers of the House ever, up there with Sam Rayburn.  Unfortunately, while Rayburn had Lyndon Johnson as the Senate Majority Leader, Pelosi had Harry Reid.

Nevertheless, as evidenced by Boehner, being Speaker does not guarantee that you can keep your party in line.  That Pelosi was able to it over and over again for such major bill deserves major appreciation (and also credit to Steny Hoyer, her once bitter rival, turned effective partner.)  Here’s to Nancy Pelosi, the once and hopefully future Speaker of the House.

Weekend Roundup

Marriage Equality Train: Next stops–Maryland and Rhode Island?

That both states are very close is not much of a surprise.  Maryland has been a blue state for quite some time, and its proximity to DC–where same-sex marriage is already a reality–had put added pressure on the state to legalize same-sex marriage.  All the more so after the Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler released an opinion recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages (and after Governor Martin O’Malley won his reelection bid last November and pledged to sign the bill.)  If the bill passes, there could be a referendum.  The good news is that getting a referendum to overturn an LGBT rights law in Maryland has not been successful in the past.  The bad news is that equal rights supporters have a very poor track record in state-wide referenda.

Rhode Island is, quite frankly, just a matter of time.  If not now, then soon.  Before this week, Rhode Island had a very homophobic governor in office.  Now Lincoln Chafee is governor.  Governor Chafee is undoubtedly a (to quote a now-infamous remark) “fierce advocate” of LGBT rights.  He was when he was in the Senate, the lone Republican one could say that about.  Lincoln Chafee’s ouster in 2006 was a tragedy.  Had he turned independent, Rhode Island would still have a great Senator rather than a future great Governor.  However, he was loyal to the GOP in a year when the country was sick of Republicans.  Despite an approval rating of over 60%, he lost his seat.  When I heard he was running for Governor, I told anyone who would listen that I hoped he would win.  After his election he refused to meet with the anti-gay bigots from NOM, and then he called for a marriage equality bill in his inauguration address.  That, my friends, is fierce advocacy.

Perhaps if marriage equality is successful in Maryland and Rhode Island, the LGBT rights movement can recapture the momentum that it lost after the failures in New York, New Jersey, Maine, and California.

Future Heartbreak? This Sunday Showtime will air the episode of its new series Shameless, which is an American version of a British series of the same name.  One of the characters is a gay teen named Ian Gallagher.  I have not seen the British show, and I had never heard about either the original or the American version  until today (I don’t have Showtime, but I will watch Shameless the next time I visit my parents.)  Having said that, I am excited and terrified at the thought of this show.  I am excited because British shows are usually very good at creating gay characters (Beautiful People, the British Queer as Folk).  It seems like people really enjoyed the British version, which is now on my Netflix queue.  I am terrified because American shows by and large make gay characters horribly one-dimesnional.  While I have not watched Showtime lately, their track record with gay shows has been appalling (The L Word, the American Queer as Folk).  On the other hand, this is not a gay show, it is a show where one of the central characters is gay.  That’s an important difference, and every once in a while, in that paradigm American television does do a gay character well.  Maybe Ian Gallagher will be among the lucky few.  (Although can we talk about this Ian Gallagher as the anti-Kurt Hummel thing that Vanity Fair and Towleroad are pushing?  Gay people come in all shapes, sizes, and colors; to define a gay character as an antithesis of another gay character is to denigrate the entire community, because there is an implied superiority.  Kurt and all effeminate/fey gay men around the world are just fine the way they are; the same is true of not-effeminate/fey gay men.)

I’m a little hesitant to watch this show because I am afraid of what would happen if I like it and then Showtime cancels the show?  My heart was broken by Beautiful People, and I’m still a little gun shy about new relationships with television characters.

edit:  I have been watching the British version on YouTube.  It’s funny, but this whole Ian Gallagher as the anti-Kurt Hummel is complete bollocks (as the British say.)

Turkish Orders Another LGBT To Close: Dear Turkey, do you really expect to join the EU?  And given that you pull this kind of thing all the time, do you really want to join?

Johnny Weir Comes Out: No, really.  I know you’re shocked.  And (what incredible timing!) he’s just about to start selling his autobiography/memoirs.  But it really was because gay kids are killing themselves.  I don’t want to hate on Johnny Weir; I liked his personality, and I liked his skating.  But his desire to play the victim now (Big Bad Gay Media made me stay in the closet!) rings hollow given his constant need for the spotlight–including television shows and a movie about his “outrageous” personality.  Additionally, after all of his complaining about the constant probing into his sexuality he outed his rival/enemy Evan Lysacek on Chelsea’s Hendler’s show.  Dear Johnny, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, even you really do hate Evan Lysacek.

Politics: President Obama selected William Daley as his new Chief of Staff, and progressives are up in arms.  I share their disappointment that the President appointed someone who believes the Democrats went too far to the left, but we need to be rational about this for a second.  No progressive legislation is going to be passed in the next two years, Daley or no.  As of this past Wednesday, the Administration is unofficially at war with Congress.  In the face of inevitable investigations, government shut-downs, and the 2012 election cycle, nothing progressive was going to get done anyway.  The White House needs a general right now and one who is not afraid to fight.  (But it would be nice if the Obama White House branched out and employed someone from outside of Chicago.  The rest of us are not incompetent.)

League Football: Tomorrow Barcelona plays Deportivo La Coruña in A Coruña.  Depor has not had a great season thus far, but they are still dangerous, especially at the Riazor.  Barcelona barely got past Athletic Bilbao at the Copa del Rey this week, and squeaked by Levante last week, so there is clearly some rust.  That needs to be fixed ASAP given that Real Madrid is always lurking.

For weeks I have been hearing non-stop bashing of La Liga.  The whiner complain that it is boring because only one of two teams is going to win, and that’s only because the rest of the league is so weak.  It denigrates an entire league, whose overall quality is just as good as any other (and team-by-team there is better technical quality in La Liga than anywhere else in the world.)  The bashing is usually from the English (of course), and all they talk about is how only two teams exist in La Liga.  Let’s examine why the detractors are hypocrites.  Every major league in the world has its big two, three, or four.  Spain has Barcelona and Read Madrid; Italy has Juventus, AC Milan, and Inter; England has Manchester United, Arsenal, and Chelsea (and previously Liverpool–sometimes); and Germany has Bayern Munich and occasionally a team that is not Bayern (this year it is Borussia Dortmund.)  Ligue 1 has been more competitive of late, but almost no one pays attention to Ligue 1 because the quality is just not there.  And we won’t even go into the problems with the leagues in Portugal, Scotland, Holland, and the rest of Europe.

Here are some facts.  Since the 1992-93 season, the beginning of the English Premier League, there have been 5 different winners in Spain.  There have been 5 different winners in Serie A.  There have been 6 different winners in the Bundesliga.  There have been only 4 winners in the Premier League.

From the 2000-2001 season to the 2009-2010 season there have been 3 different winners in La Liga, 4 in Serie A, 5 in the Bundesliga, and 3 in the Premier League.

From the 2005-2006 season to the 2009-2010 season there have been 2 different winners in La Liga, 1 winner in Serie A, 3 different winners in the Bundesliga, and 2 different winners in the Premier League.

In the 18 completed seasons since the formation of the Premier League, the top winner of La Liga (Barcelona) has won 8 titles; Serie A has a three tie for the spot as Juventus, Milan, and Inter each have 5 titles (but a lot of suspicion because of the Calciopoli scandal); the top winner of the Bundesliga (Bayern) has won 10 titles; the top winner of the Premier League (Manchester United) has won 11 titles.

This season as it stands, Barcelona leads La Liga by 2 points;  AC Milan leads Serie A by 5 points; Borussia Dortmund leads the Bundesliga by 10 points; and the most thoroughly mediocre Manchester United in recent history leads the Premier League by 4 points with two games in hand.

Meanwhile there actually a race in La Liga with two stellar teams (one possibly among the greatest of all time.)  In the other three major leagues, there is a lot of mediocrity at the top, which is why the league leaders lose and draw so many matches.

Can we please give lie to this canard that La Liga is boring?

World Football: Chile is probably out of a national coach.  The election for head of the Chilean Football Association head was held again, and this time Sergio Jadue won.  Bielsa has said he would resign if Harold Mayne-Nicholls (who did not run in the recontested election) was voted out.  There is a new head.  According to local media, Jadue will try to convince Bielsa to stay, but that probably will not happen.

And FIFA head Sepp Blatter, to the surprise of no one, is now calling for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar to be held in the winter.  When will Sepp Blatter go already?

The Asian Cup has started in Qatar.  Qatar lost 2-0 to the powerhouse that is Uzbekistan.

Women’s Football: Kristine Lilly finally retired, and it is a sad day for American soccer, men’s or women’s.  Lilly participated in five World Cups, and was on the winning side in two of them.  She is the most capped player of all time, men or women, and the second highest scorer in women’s history.  She saved the US in the final match against China in the 1999 World Cup.  It is truly the end of an era, and the US team is all the better for her having played on it.

Music I listened to: Well none, but I did listen to a World Football Daily podcast.

And I Was Right…

With regard to this post.

This is from an article in The New York Times:

While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.

Congress is making itself irrelevant.  Eventually the Executive Branch will assume full law-making authority, and Congress will just be a rubber-stamp for legitimacy.  The American people have only themselves to blame: you cannot elect people into government when their goal is to destroy the government’s authority.

The End of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

After 17 years, the horrible, bigoted policy known as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is over.  Repealed.  Kaput.  Consigned to the trashcan of history.

I am very happy for the covertly gay and lesbian soldiers who now can be open about their private lives without fear of reprisal.  I am happy for all those brave men and women who were wrongfully discharged because of DADT and who are either morally redeemed or can (if they choose) return to serve.  I am happy that, for once, a law that benefits the LGBT community was passed by the United States Congress.

Having said all that, DADT only affects a very small subsection of the LGBT community.  Repeal of DADT is a symbolic victory, a political victory and a moral victory.  It is also however, in the grand scheme of things, a very small victory.  DADT should have been a slam dunk, but it barely squeaked by (all credit to President Obama though who kept his promise to repeal DADT on his watch.)

If it was so difficult to pass a repeal of DADT with possibly the LGBT-friendliest Congress ever, then how much harder is it going to be to get other legislation passed with a much hostile Congress?  Other legislation that will effect a greater number of people such as: The Employment Non Discrimination Act, The Student Non Discrimination Act, a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (and full marriage equality for the entire country), pension and Social Security benefits reform, health insurance benefits for partners of gay federal workers, immigration reform that treats homosexual partners like heterosexual partners, legislation preventing discrimination in adoption rights, and transgender-friendly laws in any field.  I am sure I am forgetting other important and necessary legislation.

The Arc of the Moral Universe is long indeed.

How Congress is Destroying Democracy

It is not unusual to hate Congress.  Everyone hates Congress and with good reason.  The old joke asks if Congress is the opposite of progress, and the answer is, of course, yes.  However, over the past few administrations, the situation has become dire.  I believe that Congress has set the United States on a path that will ultimately result in the end of our system of government.

Congress has had help in eroding the government.  The other branches have done much to turn a nominal democracy into an barely covert oligarchy.  The Executive Branch has been grabbing power for itself unchecked for almost 80 years.  The regulatory state is by nature far more complex and comprehensive than legislation.  However, the Executive Branch has been growing astronomically since the Great Depression culminating in the Unitary Executive Theory.

The courts have also done their part over time.  As a rule they are too deferential to the other branches.  Throughout history the Supreme Court has lacked the foresight to avoid self-inflicted wounds.  The foremost example was Dred Scott but there are many, many other examples.  Each of wound has caused the Supreme Court’s validity to be called into question.  Because validity is the only real power source the judiciary has (it controls neither the purse nor actual enforcement forces of any kind), this has led the courts to try and avoid constitutional questions unless absolutely necessary.  Last year in the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court inflicted yet another wound on itself and on the country.  Donating money is conduct not speech.  A corporation is not a person and therefore not protected by the First Amendment.  Common sense tells us the previous two statements are undeniably true.  According to the Supreme Court, both are false.  In our capitalist democracy the richest had the most influential voice; in a post-Citizens United world they will have the only voice.

Nevertheless, the most culpable institution for the inevitable destruction of our democratic republic is Congress–the Senate in particular.  Arcane Senate procedures prevent legislation from passing and administrative and judicial nominees from serving without any votes ever cast.  Moreover very few Senators and Representatives are experts in their fields they oversee (unlike federal agency career staff who are.)  I would argue that in most cases Senators and Representatives are less intelligent than the average American citizen, and to compensate they wage a cultural war against “the elite.”  Yet, it is these people who set policy.  What really makes politicians different from the rest of us is that they are crueler, more ruthless, and more power-hungry.  These are not the leaders we should want.  A government cannot run the way Washington is running; something will eventually give out.

The pushback has already started.  The White House, over the past several administrations, has increased the number of Presidential advisors.  These advisors serve as a de facto Kitchen Cabinet and have better access to the President than the actual Cabinet.  Better still, they need no Senate approval.  Increasing their number is a logical next step when the Senate will not confirm appointees.  It is no surprise that in recent years the agencies have been losing turf to the White House.  White House staff is more important if less prestigious.  Former Secretary of State James Baker left the State Department to become Bush 41′s Chief 0f Staff.  This was considered a step up.  (It says volumes that no woman has ever been Chief of Staff.  An alarming reminder that women are allowed to be figureheads in government, but Executive power is still a male-dominated arena.)  This White House power grab should alarm federalist and all those who oppose centralized power.

The federal courts and not Congress have thus far been the bulwark against an Executive power grab.  However, the federal courts too are suffering from the Senate’s gridlock.  The courts need more judges to run effectively.  Instead they are getting fewer.  The Democrats will most likely not treat the next Republican President with more respect than the Republicans are treating Obama.  Doing so would highlight weakness, especially given the ideological picks that Bush 43 made (and the next Republican President is likely to also make.)  The rift between parties  can no longer be healed.  That is America.

As I noted above, the unstated truth about federal court authority is that it is a house of cards.  In order for court orders to be effective, the parties have to submit.  When an individual does not obey a court order, the court has corrective alternatives.  Should the federal government not comply, then the court has a problem.  Since Thomas Jefferson, Presidents have challenged the Supreme Court with varying degrees of success.  The Bush administration showed how impotent the Supreme Court can be, and a future President could very well ignore court orders altogether with no consequences.

What will happen to Congress?  It will not disappear entirely.  As much as Americans hates Congress, they want the facade of choice.  Congress is doomed to be like the Senate of the Roman Empire as the President evolves into an autocrat.  Karma would indicate that this is what the United States deserves.  The American government interfered with the democratic process around the world, aiding brutal dictators in demolishing elected leadership.  The United States has not been an altogether beneficent world power contrary to what middle school social studies teachers teach.

In the end, perhaps this has always been inevitable.  Tragic, but inevitable.   The world is facing economic, ecological, and martial crises.  The most powerful nation in the world cannot act because 535 children will not get along.  Governments need to be run by adults, never more so than in the face of crises.  Congress only hinders the President, and the incoming Congress will be worse.  The last Bush Administration proved that Congress is superfluous.  Russia and China are proving that the wave of the future is dictatorship not democracy.

I see no change on the horizon.  In my fantasy world, I have a suggestion for how to fix the government.  Constitutional Amendments!  Number 1: Every person in Congress, after his or her term ends (either by retirement of an election loss), must serve half the length of his or her term in prison.  Number 2: Repeal Citizens United.  Go to back to common sense rules regarding money and corporations.  Number 3: Elected officials, political appointees, and federal judges should lose all personal civil rights guaranteed by  the Constitution during the time that they serve.  They cannot vote, they do not have free speech, they cannot carry arms, they have no inherent privacy, etc.  Their salary is limited to a living stipend and nothing more.  Any other money that may come in such as royalties or investments must go into escrow until after they leave office.  All money they have or their families have must also be frozen until they leave office.  Their children get free education at public institutions through the age of 22, but are barred from attending private institutions.  The Justice Department sets up a division devoted solely to monitoring and micromanaging all expenses and expenditures.

What is the purpose of such draconian measures?  Elected and appointed officials have a lot of unchecked power, and it needs to be balanced out.  People who do serve in positions of power should serve only out of civic duty and not for material benefits or hunger for power.  The only way to ensure this is to make the consequences of serving so horrific as to weed out the faint of heart.

This is my fantasy to fix things.  In reality I believe that the system is beyond repair.  It had a good run.