SCOTUS Acrobatics: Concurrers, Dissenters and the Final Analysis

Maybe I should think about law school... I'm having a truly nerd-like level of fun reading these opinions and have been caught by surprise at the outright sarcasm and almost-but-not-quite intellectual trash talking that pops up in these opinions. I love it. It's like nine of the smartest people in the room are fighting- but with their brains. Looking at the whole scope of the decision, you begin to see how much of muddle it really is. Roberts wrote the majority opinion- but the Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer agreed with most of it but disagreed with some of it, while Kennedy, Scalia, Alito and Thomas disagreed with the whole damn thing and Thomas added his own dissent ('I really, REALLY disagree with it') as a cherry on top of the whole thing.

I'm not convinced this is necessarily the good news for President Obama that everyone is saying it is. Roberts managed to spin the entire Court out of a potentially polarizing, delegitimizing decision while making quietly (from where I'm sitting anyway) making it easier for opponents to repeal this legislation down the road. The cherry on top of the whole thing: the decision was breathtakingly responsible and undoubtedly restored (to some degree) the image of the Supreme Court as an apolitical arbiter that stands above the usual bullshit that goes on betwixt and between the other two branches of the government. It was probably the smartest political move of the decade.

But we'll start with Ginsburg's opinion: it's a weird thing that just demonstrates how complex this decision actually is. Ginsburg agreed with the Chief Justice to uphold the mandate as a tax but disagreed with the idea that it was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. She also thinks that the Medicare Expansion should stand exactly as it was written in the original legislation. Ginsburg views Roberts' take on the Commerce Clause as a 'crabbed reading' and 'retrogressive' arguing that of all the markets out there, Health Care is the one market that everyone will use at some point in their lives. The notion that the Commerce Clause argument some how gives Congress the power to regulate economic inactivity holds no water with her- after all, the problems with health care costs stem from the fact that healthy people go without- until they need health care and then you're in the middle of a free rider problem all over again.

The Medicare Expansion she has even less trouble with. The original Act itself says that revisions and changes might occur and the states have to just deal with it- but Roberts' argument is that in order for that notion to apply, states would have had to be warned of the possibility that this could happen when the original legislation was passed in 1965. (His use of Dole v South Dakota makes a lot more sense to me- withholding 5% of Federal highway funds as encouragement to raise the drinking age to 21 is more of an encouragement- paying for Medicare eats up double digit figures of state budgets. That's more of a loaded gun to the head.)

In short, Ginsburg and company feel that Roberts' is tap dancing a bit- but not enough that they won't vote with him. They just want to make their disagreements with him known.

The Conservative Dissent is even more easy to break down: Kennedy, Alito, Thomas and Scalia have no truck with any of this. The Government argued for the mandate under the Commerce Clause and they join with Roberts' in the view that the Government was basically asking for Congress to have the power to regulate economic inactivity and they're not down with that notion at all. That's waaaaaaay too much power for Congress to have in their books. So, thanks but no thanks. As for the tax argument, they pour scorn on the high wire act of the Chief Justice- who basically re-wrote parts of the statute to say that the mandate was a tax when everybody has said firmly that it wasn't- this is the really the money quote:

"The government and those who support its position on this point make the remarkable argument that [the mandate] is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, but is a tax for constitutional purposes," wrote dissenters Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. "That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists."

So the Dissenters weren't about to hand Congress an expansive new definition of what it could do under the Commerce Clause- a point that Justice Thomas felt strongly enough about to emphasize in the two page dissent of his own- and they weren't buying the idea that the mandate wasn't a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act but was a tax constitutionally speaking. Out with the whole damn thing, they said!

So where does this leave us? In the short term, it's good news for the President. I'm still not entirely clear how this reduces costs in health care though. The insurance companies have been burdened with community ratings and non-discrimination clauses that have traditionally had to be paired with a mandate (as Ginsburg notes) in order to prevent massive rate hikes (all of which happened in a few states that passed community ratings/non-discrimination clauses without a mandate. Massachusetts seems to have proven that it can work- with a mandate.) But here's the thing: this tax now, carries a penalty that will be collected by the government, not the insurance companies. So in the short term unless there's a rush of healthy people into the market, rates will go up. And if insurance for individuals is still more expensive than paying the penalty to the IRS people will vote with their pocketbooks and you're back in the free rider problem all over again.

Reading this, the whole Act seems like an awfully dicey proposition- it might work this way but there's a whole bunch of tweaking that has be made as we go. That's not good policy in my book but I think opponents have to tread carefully here. As recent events in Wisconsin show, voters seem to reward politicians that actually produce concrete results and like it or hate it, we all agree that health care costs are out of control. President Obama and the Democrats have done something about it- the Republicans will undoubtedly have fun playing this as a tax increase but that's only going to get you so far unless you get specific on what you want to replace it with. Instead of trolling for a repeal on July 11th, Republicans should push a revision.

There's also the matter that I think it just got easier to overturn this- tax bills are much less vulnerable to filibuster than other bills and while Congress has the power to levy a tax, I'm pretty sure all the agencies that are responsible for collecting the tax fall under the purview of the Executive Branch. There might be a little more complexity to this notion but in my head, it would be pretty easy for a Republican President, say, to just issue an executive order directing the IRS not to collect the tax.

Finally, I know Chief Justice Roberts is getting jumped up and down on in Conservative circles right now and he shouldn't be. It's obvious he pissed his colleagues off but as Chief Justice he's got the responsibility of protecting the institution of the Court itself- which this decision did. He also makes it plain that it's not up to the Court to protect the people from the actions of their elected officials. Slapping the Republicans upside the head and basically saying: 'Don't come crying to me! You broke it- put on your big Legislator pants and fix it.' I like that because I happen to agree with that notion- the Supreme Court should, when possible try and hold itself above the fray. It can't always be spun that way but just because politicians pass bad laws, we shouldn't all go running to SCOTUS expecting them to settle it either way.

So good news for the President! Good news for fans of limited government as they put some limits on the Commerce Clause for once and an interesting read all around... fun times at the Supreme Court! Can't wait for the next juicy decision.

SCOTUS Acrobatics: The Majority Opinion

I start to like Chief Justice Roberts more and more... there's a lot to talk about in his majority opinion (from what I'm seeing, Roberts wrote the majority opinion, Ginsberg concurred and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito dissented with Thomas added a short dissent on to that as well. So parsing this is going to be a long process.)

But...

Right from the start, Chief Justice Roberts makes it clear, he doesn't care about the law itself or the policies behind it- he's just interested in whether the challenged provisions are constitutional. This sets up a nicely 'determined not to be ideological at all' tone that really makes his opinion read as a clear-eyed, detailed discussion of the Constitutional issues at hand. This is a no-bullshit opinion and I like that- and there were several things in there that I found to be extremely interesting.

I like his view of Federalism. He meanders a bit through a discussion of federalism before plunging into the nitty-gritty of the decision but a couple of things popped out right away. Roberts takes the position (rightly) that the Federal government's powers as restrained under the Constitution. What got my attention was this 'graph:

The same does not apply to the States, because the Constitution is not the source of their power. The Constitution may restrict state governments—as it does, for example, by forbidding them to deny any person the equal protection of the laws. But where such prohibitions do not apply, state governments do not need constitutional authorization to act. The States thus can and do perform many of the vital functions of modern government— punishing street crime, running public schools, and zoning property for development, to name but a few—even though the Constitution’s text does not authorize any government to do so. Our cases refer to this general power of governing, possessed by the States but not by the Federal Gov- ernment, as the “police power.” See, e.g., United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 618–619 (2000).

Under this definition then, unless states are constitutionally prohibited from doing something, they have a far greater latitude in policy making on their level than the Federal government does on its level. (So, if say Vermont wanted to go further than the ACA and go for a full single payer system- they probably could.)

Eventually, he moves on to tackle the two main issues at hand. First, the idea that the mandate was constitutional under Congress' power to exercise the Commerce Clause (basically they can regulate interstate commerce.) Roberts' main issue was that this would essentially give Congress the power to regulate economic inaction as well as action- and that he had no trouble knocking over.

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. In some cases they decide not to do something; in others they simply fail to do it. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him.

In other words, that's waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much power for Congress to handle. No trouble knocking that over- but here's where I'm less clear on how this is supposed to work: (There are a few legal blogs, Althouse amongst them who are busy pouring over this- and they're starting to mention this.) If the individual mandate is levied as a tax for those who don't want to buy health insurance, how does this lower costs? Originally, it was the lynch-pin of the whole act to try and cut down on cost shifting but if the penalty is going to be cheaper than buying health insurance, rational consumers are just going to pay the penalty. And the insurance companies will have these huge mandates to cover and no way to pay for it. This decision preserved the ACA and slapped down Congress for overreaching which is what the Court is supposed to do. But I'm not clear on how costs are going to go down now.

Maybe I'm crazy- maybe there's something I'm missing.

Anyway: on balance, this is a good opinion in my book. Doesn't get bogged down in the politics and the split decision I think restrains overreach by Congress and sets up some limits on how they do this while acknowledge that Congress has the impetus to do something to begin with.

SCOTUS Acrobatics and the ACA

The Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality of President Obama's Affordable Care Act today and it was an interesting and unexpected tap dance they appear to have pulled off... to whit:

In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.

(Thank you, SCOTUS Blog...) But reading from the actual opinion itself (I think I've managed to slog through the legalese a bit- I've only gotten through the summary so far) there are some interesting things worth noting.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing the 5-4 opinion for the majority wisely stays far away from the merits of the legislation itself but rather concentrates on the constitutional questions at hand- basically, are the individual mandate and the Medicaid Expansion constitutional. On the first one, he ruled that the mandate wasn't constitutional under the commerce clause:

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Con- gress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the prin- ciple that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sus- tained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27.

This is a little bit of awesomeness because it slaps Congress around a little and is clearly aimed at keeping their powers to regulate commerce carefully constrained. But, logically then:

(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penal- ties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that pay- ment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is un- lawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language— stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”— does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insur- ance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.

So in other words, it takes the mandate out from the Commerce Clause and says it's perfectly reasonable for Congress to say that if you don't buy/purchase health insurance then they can levy a tax against you for that.

I'm not going to pour on the acres of legalese for the Medicaid Expansion thing- basically, the law said that the government could pull ALL Medicaid funding from states that refused to comply with the ACA regulations. The Court ruled that was a no-no but the government could tie compliance to NEW funding only. So if states don't comply then can lose new funding only. (I like this because it means the Federal government can't just steamroll the states into doing this necessarily but as we saw with the drinking age blackmail, money can be a powerful narcotic.)

The WDO (whole damn opinion) can be found here. I suggest a bottle of Excedrin and a dictionary- it's kind of complicated.

Overall, I think it's a surprisingly acrobatic decision on the part of the Supreme Court. Conservative, apolitical and although it will undoubtedly have right-wingers foaming at the mouth, I haven't come across anything wildly out of balance with sanity just yet. Expect to see Romney kick 'Obama wants to tax the middle class to death' meme into high gear and I'm betting the House Republicans will be ballsy and embark on a completely meaningless repeal effort. I still think this is an unripened turd of a law. Things like health care cooperatives and being able to buy insurance across state lines and health care portability are all things I'd like to see. Now that the Supreme Court has left this genie out of the bottle, I'm hoping our politicians can polish this turd up to the point where it can provide a menu of sensible options for everybody and avoid turning into the kind of health care insanity that Europe is discovering they can't afford anymore.

I'll (probably) keep reading this and might have some more thoughts later on.

'The Newsroom' --A Review

As everyone else on the interwebs has spent their week reviewing Aaron Sorkin's new HBO series The Newsroom I was itching to add my two cents worth to the pile of newsprint that's been written/posted online but alas, I lack access to HBO. Until I was gratified to find that they had generously posted the entire first episode to YouTube.

Part of me feels like we've seen this before from Sorkin. Seems like whenever Sorkin jumps into the wide world of television, he's good at creating television shows about workplaces and the people that inhabit those places. From Sports Night to The West Wing to the lamentable Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip, it's all about the workplace and the people that inhabit them.

The Newsroom tackles cable news. Unfortunately, Sorkin's trademark dollops of idealism and preachiness seem to fall flat here. There's a starry eyed quality to these characters that makes me wonder what universe they're living in. Of course, it's classic Sorkin- television shows about the way sports journalism/politics/entertainment and now cable news ought to be in his eyes. It's indulgent and it feels like an elitist Liberal argument that yes they really believe in truth, justice and the American way and hey, they love America too.

The Newsroom launches with affable newsman Will McAvoy (Jeff Daniels) attending a college symposium of some kind- McAvoy's popularity centers around the fact that he makes an effort to avoid taking controversial position that 'bother anyone.' He is 'the Jay Leno of News Anchors' so when he's asked what makes America so great by a college student and launches into a 'Network' style rant about how it's not, his rant goes viral. Of course, he follows up the rant by pointing out that America did great things because 'we were informed by great men, men who were revered.'

That's when I rolled my eyes.

It gets worse from there. McAvoy is sent on a three week vacation, comes back and finds that his bow-tie wearing, boozy boss (Sam Waterston) has hired his ex-girlfriend Mackenzie Hale (Emily Mortimor) to be his new executive producer. She turns out to have an even more Quixotic view about the way things ought to be than he does- wanting to 'tell truth to stupid' and 'do news the way it should be done.' There's a cast of subsidiary characters that float in and around these two shining beacons of starry-eyed idealism but none of them were all that interesting.

Things go further downhill when it's revealed that this show is set 2 years ago- starting in April 2010 with the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon. So not only is this show's premise that 'America would be better if we were all just edumacated in the right way' but we get to watch as Sorkin demonstrates the way the events of the past two years should have been reported on, according to him.

Oh brother.

Listen, I thought the first fifteen minutes were interesting. There's something about Paddy Chayefsky style rants that makes for compelling television. Everything else got boring in a hurry but around the 50 minute mark, when the news breaks in on the ceaseless debate about what's wrong with America and how our heroes can reclaim the 4th Estate as 'an honorable profession' things pick up nicely as titular newsroom explodes into a breathless, frenetic pace of activity as they attempt to track down the breaking news about the Deepwater Horizon spill. It's entertaining- but not entertaining enough to forgive the fact it's drenched in nauseating amounts of 60s idealism. Sorkin's done this before- but been better about it.

Overall: There's some dim hope for this show. But I'm not rushing to subscribe to HBO just so I can see it on a regular basis.

(Interesting aside: at the beginning, McAvoy lays into his super-liberal counterpart at the symposium by calling Liberals losers. This show demonstrates an interesting truth about liberals though- they're not necessarily losers. They're just hopelessly bogged down in the past.)

(Another interesting aside: Sports Night was better.)

Euro 2012: Slouching Towards The Inevitable

I never played sports as a kid. I was more interested in books and maps than anything else and sports escaped me. My Dad got season tickets to Hawkeye Football games for awhile but after a few shivering late October, early November games neither my siblings nor I maintained much of an interest. When the Hawkeye Women's Basketball team made their run to the Final Four in 1993, we hosted a couple of NCAA tournament games- and I remember going to those. I remember on the weekend when my Dad wanted some peace and quiet, he'd either watch golf (always guaranteed to drive us out of the basement) or grudgingly allow me to sit quietly and watch NFL games with him. Hockey? Not really. NBA basketball? Only in the sense that in the late 80s and early 90s, NBA stars like Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Michael Jordan occupied a place in the cultural zeitgeist (see: Space Jam) that made it impossible for me to be unaware of them and what they were doing.

Soccer was ever-present though. Many have remarked on the oddity of soccer's position in the United States. It has such a devoted, mass youth following that fails to translate (at least back then, I think it's slowly changing now) into a professional league of note. Back then, youth soccer was everywhere in the form of Iowa City Kickers- and the excitement only grew when the World Cup came to the United States for the first time in 1994. My parents secured tickets for a group game in Chicago- Bolivia versus Spain. It was awesome- even when the drunken asshole of a Spain fan spilled beer on my Mom, it was awesome. It was exciting- watching the United States only lose by 1 to mighty Brazil on the 4th of July. Watching Baggio's penalty kick sail over the crossbar in the Rose Bowl for the Final and Brazil lifted the Jules Rimet trophy for first time since 1970. England failed to qualify- marking the first time since 1938 that neither England nor Scotland had appeared in the Finals.

I remember reading about England though. Somewhere, buried in a closet, I still have the Official Program to the 1994 World Cup- it's a little threadbare but somewhere in there was an article about the United States' greatest World Cup victory that had come 44 years before in Brazil when a hastily assembled team of amateurs had beaten England 1-0 and sent them home in disgrace. England didn't even make that World Cup but the lore and the long storied decades of 'almosts' and 'not quites' were tantalizingly hinted at. They swung into full focus for me during the 1998 World Cup.

The best game of soccer I've ever seen- in fact one of the greatest sporting events I've ever seen was the 2nd Round Game between England and Argentina in the 1998 World Cup. There's something about England and Argentina that makes it one of the greatest, most vicious rivalries in the history of sports. There was the tiny matter of a war back in the early 80s after all- though given a choice, England fans would be hard pressed to choose which the greater infamy was- The Falklands War or Maradona's Hand of God Goal in the 1986 Quarterfinals in Mexico. (Begrudgingly I will admit his second goal in that quarterfinal was brilliant.) Both my parents were on the couch watching this game- and what a game it was. For 90 minutes no quarter was given, each team had a man sent off (Beckham stupidly kicking someone, the ass) and after two periods of overtime with no 'golden goal' it came down to the inevitable penalty shoot-out. Which England, heartbreakingly lost.

(It wasn't all bad though. Argentina met the Dutch in the Quaterfinals and Denis Bergkamp scored one of the most ridiculously awesome goals I've ever seen to put the Dutch through to the semis. So at least the Argies went home.)

I don't know what it is about penalty kicks. Every time England plays, it's like the death knell of doom when PKs roll around. The inevitable 'aw, shit, they're done' comes over you and sure enough, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy as once again, England lost in penalties to Italy in the Euro2012 quarterfinals yesterday. Undoubtedly an orgy of 'what happened?' and acres of newsprint devoted to the crisis state in English football are already being produced. But at this point, I'd say the travails of the English National Team have reached almost mythic proportions. Did they get cursed at some point? Are there goats involved? Did they trade someone to Argentina? Something has gone terribly awry. The nation that's home to the best league on the planet should not constantly get hung up on penalty shoot-outs.

A lot of it is the structure of the Premier League. The best players in the world play there and there's very little room to develop domestic talent the way it should be (see: acres of newsprint that will be saying something along these lines later today or tomorrow) but I think the psychology of England needs a shake-up as well. There seems to be a mindset to play for just enough to get the result that they're looking for. They settle back. They play for draws. They get tired and play for a penalty shoot-out when they should be working to avoid that at all costs. They constantly show flashes of brilliance and yet can't summon up the blood and thunder to get after it agressively for the full 90 minutes.

England was decent yesterday. Barely.

They were sloppy as hell with posession of the ball in midfield but they were refreshingly fast on their counter attacks and getting the ball back upfield. But they just kept giving it away time after time. Just once, I'd like to see brilliance for 90 minutes. I know it's in there somewhere. And expectations should be brought back down to Earth a little bit. Shelve the dreams of tournament glory- let's just concentrate on the game at hand. Let's win a penalty shoot out for once. I'd like to see that happen at some point in my life.

So it's Italy and Germany and Spain and Portugal. The stage seems set for a rematch between Germany and Spain though I'm hoping Portugal at least, has other ideas. But the way both Germany and Spain have been playing, the rest of the tournament may be slouching towards the inevitable- and the way Spain's been playing, it looks like their dominance of the sport will become just that. Inevitable.

The Real Summer Blockbuster

August 5th, Curiosity will be landing on Mars and NASA's JPL has produced this short trailer to explain just how insanely hair-trigger terrifyingly no margin for error getting that thing on the ground is going to be.

Watch this.

(This emphasizes the debate about the general utility of space exploration and the old humans versus robots thing to me. Robots and rovers are awesome ways to pave the way for human exploration of our solar system and beyond. And for me, it comes to simple environmental preservation- unless we all agree to stop having babies, we gotta find other places to put this surplus of humanity that keeps growing. And the only way to truly ensure our survival as a species is to get off the planet. It'll be better for Earth, better for us and in general, given humanity's incredible itch to go places, probably inevitable anyway.)

That Egypt Thing

So the Muslim Brotherhood won the Presidency with 51% of the vote. Good. If they hadn't or if the military had engaged in some electoral shenanigans Egypt would be going tits up right now and fast. Undoubtedly, Glenn Beck and countless other Conservatives are strapping on their black suits of doom and gloom and preparing to take to the airwaves to fulminating about Socialist-Islamist-Communist conspiracies against freedom loving Americans but I disagree. I think this is a fundamentally good thing. And here's why:

A big part of the reason why the Arab Spring went down the way it did was that the old school proto-nationalist regimes had failed to deliver on anything. These were countries that were not economically prosperous, had not driven the Jews into the sea and generally had made a mess of things. People got pissed about it- and in times of dire economic need the glue that held these societies together was Islam. So naturally, the beneficiaries of the electoral ire of these countries are going to be parties with an Islamist bent.

And that's good. Because now, the Islamists have to deliver. I couldn't believe the amount of hair-tearing and chest thumping that took place after Hamas won the Palestinian elections a few years back. Of course they did! Fatah was corrupt as hell and Hamas actually made sure the money got to the people. But now they have to govern. It's easy for all these parties to fulminate and foam about the decadence of the corrupt regimes that have come before. But when the people say 'OK' and hand over the keys to the car, then the job gets tougher. You campaign in poetry, you govern in prose. How long before people are complaining about the lack of progress under the Islamists? How long before people are wishing they had the old regime back in power because at least under the old regime, things were a little better? And then the new Islamist masters of these countries are faced with a choice: respect the democratic process or send out their thugs to bash in some heads. And then they become as discredited as the old regime was.

See, I think if the Islamists don't deliver, it will lead to them becoming as discredited as the nationalist regimes were. If Islamism fundamentally opposed to America (as some would have us believe- ignoring the fact that Turkey's been technically Islamist for years now) then I'd say we're OK. Our interests may suffer in the short term but in the long term, if they can't deliver than Islamism will be discredited across the region as a viable political movement. And if they're serious about economic prosperity, education for all and democracy with a tinge of Islamist green then I can't see how this could be seen as anything but a win-win for America.

It's democracy. It's messy. And it'll be interesting to watch.

Bridges

The Iowa State Patrol wants to name the two main interstate bridges in Johnson County after troopers that have fallen in the line of duty. Incredibly, only ten have died in the Agencies 77 year history and they think naming the I-80 Bridge after Trooper Allen Nieland and the I-380 Bridge after Trooper Harold DeGear. The ISP has asked the Johnson County Board of Supervisor to approve the move- I'm assuming that they're not going to be incredibly stupid and say no- this should be a no-brainer. These guys fell in the line of duty serving the people of this state. I think a decent sign and naming a bridge after them to honor their memory is the least we can do.

But- speaking of bridges, if we're going to do this incredibly awesome thing then we need to do something about the John M. Corse Memorial Bridge on the south side of town. What? You didn't know there was a John M. Corse Memorial Bridge? Who is John M. Corse?

Well he's an Iowan Civil War General and if you didn't know the Highway 6 Bridge across the Iowa River was named after him, I could hardly blame you. The sign memorializing the General looks like this:



Per Wikipedia (the font of all knowledge) he was:

General Corse is perhaps best known for his role in the Battle of Allatoona in October 1864. On Sherman's orders, Corse went with 2,100 men to secure Allatoona Pass to prevent Confederate Gen. John Bell Hood from severing Union communications. The small band of Union soldiers fought determinedly against the 7,000 troops under Hood's command. During the bloody battle, Corse "lost one third of his men and one third of his ear" but secured the pass on October 5, the date on which he was later appointed a brevet major general. In the midst of the fighting, General Corse received the famous message from General Sherman, "Hold on, I am coming!" Newspapers later amended the text to "Hold the fort, for I am coming."[2] Corse was badly wounded during the stubborn defense, losing a cheekbone and one ear, but recovered to resume his front-line combat duties.

Given the fact that we're in the midst of commemorating the celebrations of the 150th Anniversary of the war, I think the Good General deserves a sign upgrade, don't you?

Bookshot #47: Dune

Finally, I've conquered Dune. It took me multiple attempts over many years but I finally sat down and did the deed and finished it. And you know what? It really isn't that bad of a book. Is it, as the cover proclaims 'Science Fiction's Supreme Masterpiece'? That I don't really know.

But, to whit: Dune is the story of young Paul Atreides who, along with his family is sent to the desert planet of Arrakis (or Dune) to keep the mysterious, life-giving spice flowing to the Universe controlled by the Emperor. The Emperor, threatened by Duke Leto Atreides' (Paul's father) growing power, plots with the enemies of the Atreides, the Harkonnens to overthrow the Atreides' family and send Paul and his mother fleeing into the desert. There, they found a home amongst the mysterious desert tribes of the Fremen and plot revenge even as Paul seeks to fulfill humankind's most ancient and unattainable dream.

There's a lot more to it than that, but I'm not going to delve into insanely complex world created by Frank Herbert- that, to me, is the most remarkable thing about this book. Arthur C. Clarke mentions on the back of the book that he finds it comparable to Lord of the Rings and that's pretty close to the mark. The mythology, the complexity of the alien society that these characters inhabit it's truly something to behold- a true literary achievement in and of itself. The best science fiction is science fiction that's not only transformative but transports the reader to truly alien worlds- Dune does just that and more.

Herbert infuses his world with shades of Islamic mysticism, ecology and environmentalism and politics but interestingly enough, he drew inspiration for the Dune saga from a trip to Oregon, (per Wikipedia, the font of all knowledge:)

After his novel The Dragon in the Sea was published in 1957, Herbert traveled to Florence, Oregon, at the north end of the Oregon Dunes. Here, the United States Department of Agriculture was attempting to use poverty grasses to stabilize the damaging sand dunes. Herbert claimed in a letter to his literary agent, Lurton Blassingame, that the moving dunes could "swallow whole cities, lakes, rivers, highways."[7] Herbert's article on the dunes, "They Stopped the Moving Sands", was never completed– and only published decades later in The Road to Dune– but its research sparked Herbert's interest in ecology.
Herbert spent the next five years researching, writing, and revising a literary work that was eventually serialized in Analog magazine from 1963 to 1965 as two shorter works, Dune World and The Prophet of Dune.[8][9] Herbert dedicated his work "to the people whose labors go beyond ideas into the realm of 'real materials'—to the dry-land ecologists, wherever they may be, in whatever time they work, this effort at prediction is dedicated in humility and admiration." The serialized version was expanded, reworked, and submitted to more than twenty publishers, each of whom rejected it. The novel, which was now titled Dune, was finally accepted and published by Chilton Books, a printing house better known for publishing auto repair manuals.

It's fascinating to me that not only did such a complex, complete vision spring from our own world- but that last part- that this novel, long considered to be a classic of science fiction, was rejected by twenty publishers only to be accepted by a printing house that was known for specializing in auto repair manuals.

Overall: I would say that it lives up to it's billing as a masterpiece. I didn't think I'd want to read more of these books- I just wanted to plow through and get it over with, but now that it's over and done with, I find myself wanting to read more. And if that's not the mark of a truly amazing book, then I don't know what is.

Food Adventures #13: Chocolate Orange Patron Cupcakes

The latest in my cupcake adventures I made for my sister's birthday, Chocolate Orange Patron cupcakes were a mixed success to say the least. The cake part of the cupcake was good- the Orange Patron married quite nicely with the chocolate creating a rich and decadent flavor that I attempted to make slightly more orange-y by throwing in some orange zest to the batter.

As always, frosting was my downfall. I wanted to go back to a cream cheese base because I thought it would work better but either I over mixed it or something just didn't gel because it was runny again. I'm really getting to the point where I might seriously take a class or two to hone my frosting skills because I'd really like to get it right one of these days.

Overall, I'd say these have potential. I might try them again and vary the recipe a little bit- I'd never used orange zest in anything before and I think I might have used a wee bit too much- and that means you get orange flavor but it was bordering on bitterness which I wasn't crazy about. But it was my first time back on the cupcake horse in awhile- so I think more are in order! And given that this is out there waiting for me to try, I have a feeling that bacon might be making an appearance in some cupcakes quite soon.

Euro 2012: So far, so 'meh'

Euro 2012 started it's second go round of group action today and to be totally honest, I've been brutally underwhelmed by what I've seen so far. That hasn't really been much since I've been catching the early games with Niece 1 and Niece 2 (trying to inculcate them into the ways of 'proper' football- Niece 1 seems to be a fan of the Greeks- or 'The Blues Ones' as she calls them.) But what I've seen hasn't been that impressive really. Italy and Spain tied. England and France tied. The Czechs ate their Wheaties today giving a solid performance against the Greeks to the tune of a 2-1 win and Poland managed to salvage a tie with Russia.

A lot of ties. Not really too enthused about that.

Maybe it's the less than stellar media coverage over here but there seems to be a distinct lack of enthusiasm about Euro 2012 that's disappointing. I was actually excited for this- but they've got some work to do. (Especially England. The chunk I caught looked like typical bloody England, kicking the ball around midfield and sitting on a lead while still sending one bloody striker forward. I mean, why do they (and I, for that matter) even bother?) It could also be the setting- no offense the Poles and the Ukrainians but they've been dogged by allegations of racism on the part of their fans and the Ukraine, I'm sorry isn't showing the promise of the Orange Revolution that much anymore (as The Economist noted.)

Color me disappointed. There's still time yet but people need to up their game. One of the reasons I love this tournament is that occasionally random countries you don't expect win. (See 1992: Denmark and 2004: Greece) England has never managed to win. (I expect this will continue, though it would be nice to be surprised for once.) Ukraine, Croatia, the Czechs, the Russians all look good at this point. Everyone else has underwhelmed. We'll see what happens next week... (when, hopefully, I'll get to see more of it.)

That Wisconsin Thing

That mushy, liquid explosion you heard about an hour ago? It was the sound of leftist cheeseheads imploding in rage as Lefty Villian Governor Scott Walker survived a recall attempt to the tune of at least a double digit victory (numbers are still coming in but all the major networks have called it for him and it's running about 60-40 right now which is ridiculously bad news for the Left.) Forbes.com has already proclaimed DOOM for the public sector unions and they're probably right- though it's worth noting that two interesting ballot initiatives in deep Blue California are also up for grabs tonight.

All in all, am I fan of this? Meh. Sort of? I'm not a fan of Walker's connections to the big donors of the Right Wing and I suspect despite all the fiscal success there's a larger agenda at work here and I don't like that. No agendas. No foolishness. You fixed your state's budget and seem to be generating good economic results- don't be playing around with anything else.

This is a HUGE repudiation of public sector unions and unions in general- unions that I think won't be too enthused about voting for a President that didn't want to touch this recall election with a ten foot pole. I'm not against unions by any stretch of the imagination but they're pushing their own agendas too and I don't like that. If your membership craters as soon as they stop deducting dues from paychecks, you need to work on your pitch. If you can't even get your blue collar working types to cut a check to pay dues, you need to take a hard look at what's working and what's not.

There are plenty of Democrats (Pat Quinn of Illinois, Andrew Cuomo of New York, Mayor Emmanuel of Chicago and undoubtedly Jerry Brown of California) that are probably looking for some fiscal flexibility to solve the financial crises they're facing. Walker's victory might just give them that. While Republicans might have motives that annoy me, there's no denying we're looking at a fiscal disaster. Flexibility for Governors is a must- as a public sector worker, I'm happy to have a salary, benefits and a job I like. So, a blow against the workers? Sure- but not that big of a one in the grand scheme of things. Better news for the country? I agree.

Bad Idea

This is why I don't like Teen Mom: 'Teen Mom Amber Portwood sentenced to five years in Jail' It glamorizes teen pregnancy and I know the Missus and I get into this now and again but if you put something on MTV no matter how miserable you may make it seem, it automatically becomes cool to a large swathe of the teenage population. Especially given the amount of media time and magazine covers these girls seem to get. Look what it leads to- makes teen pregnancy seem like an easy path to reality show stardom.

Had MTV done a True Life style 'fly on the wall documentary' maybe, maybe they could have pulled a positive message out of this. But they didn't. And now whatsherface is going to jail... sure her kid's going to love hearing that story.

War On Food

Gotta tip the hat to the Great Guru Instapundit for this one but after Mayor 'Nanny' Bloomberg declared war on Ventis and Big Gulps, James Lileks chimed in with a brutal, awesome takedown of this idiocy that's worth reading for the sheer beauty and elegant construction of his argument. The money quote:

A culture that redefines food choices as moral issues will demonize the people who don’t share the tastes of the priest class. A culture that elevates eating to some holistic act of ethical self-definition - localvore, low-carbon-impact food, fair trade, artisanal cheese - will find the casual carefree choices of the less-enlightened as an affront to their belief system. Leave it to Americans to invent a Puritan strain of Epicurianism.

I respect people's choices to eat what they want- the government should too. I know the argument exists that fat people/smokers/heavy drinkers are all adding to our health care burden and therefore we should all eat macrobiotic slop for breakfast, lunch and dinner but what does that do to our society? That kind of food-based tyranny leads down the road to all kinds of fun things like fascism, communism, totalitarianism... a democratic and more importantly, free society is bound to respect the personal choices of others- provided they don't directly harm them.

Hence, the arguments against smoking in public. While I certainly don't appreciate the almost propaganda like intensity of 'cigarettes are evil Satan tubes of death' that pervades the issue, people who don't want a faceful of second hand smoke have a right to have a smoke-free workplace/public space to enjoy. (I would appreciate them being a little less shrill when they call me at work to complain. It's cigarette smoke, not VX Nerve gas. Calm down.)

Do we have an obesity crisis? Yes. Are portion sizes out of control? Yes. So we should outlaw food to solve the problem? We really want the US Government on the case? I don't. At a certain point, we have to say a society that it's time for people to take responsibility for their actions. Why not start with food?

P.S. I'd like to take this moment to apologize for ever thinking that Mike Bloomberg should even consider a Presidential run as an Independent. When I first heard these rumors, the notion appealed. Then I got to know the guy a little better- he's a consummate disgrace to Independents everywhere and would be a disaster as a Presidential candidate.

Vindication For Bobbleheads Everywhere

'White Americans' heads are getting bigger --literally, study shows' read the headline on MSNBC.com. VINDICATION! I can't help but feel a little bit of nostalgia as I realize that my position as the (usually) biggest noggin in the room comes under threat from the natural progression of head sizes, I guess. It's been a burden and a curse throughout various point of my life- until I realized that I was usually smarter than the people who wanted to make fun of the size of my head and I grew to enjoy rubbing their noses in it and cultivated an appearance of omnipotence that even I have to admit, I don't usually deserve.

Assholes always liked to ask me what my hat size was. I've been Airhead, Basketball Head, Melon and just Head for various time periods. I've got to admit, the size of my head made it hard to fit in and growing up sometimes all you want to do is fit in. It's something I struggled with for awhile and I watched while some people changed their entire lives in a vain attempt to be one of the in-crowd only to have the in-crowd shun them and treat them exactly the same way they did before. I decided to drop all pretense of 'if you can't beat them, join them' and go with 'if you can't beat 'em, fuck 'em.' And I've made friendships that have lasted to this day and I like to think I'm happier for it.

Maybe the advantage of all these heads getting bigger is that there will finally baseball hats in my size. The Missus has managed to procure me one- and you know what size it is? KING SIZE. That's right... and I enjoy wearing it and I'd like to add to my collection. So grow, heads of white America. I have seen the future- and it looks like this:

Cartoons Are Stranger Than They Used To Be

We're plus two this week Chez Cigar with Niece 1 and Niece 2 visiting for awhile so needless to say, I've been experience more than my fair share of children's television and have watched more Nickolodeon and Nick Jr. this past weekend than I have since the glory days of Doug, Rocko's Modern Life and of course, Rugrats and I've come to the conclusion that cartoons are a lot stranger than they used to be...

Case in point, Little Bear:



Little Bear wears no clothes whatsoever. Everyone else seems to- Mommy and Daddy Bear do, but not Little Bear. Other than that, he's a pretty cool dude.

Next up:



Franny's Feet... Niece 1 and Niece 2 love Franny's Feet. They're entranced by this show which given the love that Niece 2 has for shoes explains a lot. Basically, Franny has a pretty healthy obsession with her feet and her imagination, putting on the shoes that people bring in to her Grandfather's workshop to go have adventures and stuff. If your kid loves this cartoon and turns out to be a foot fetishist later in life, this would probably be why.

It's not all strange though. Sesame Street is going strong and paired up with something called Sid The Science Kid which is pretty cool. Arthur is awesome. (If it wouldn't be like, weird, I'd watch Arthur everyday.) And either the educational aspects of these shows are getting progressively better or I just didn't care about that part of it when I was a kid- because I could have used a dose of the Magic Math Power of Team Umizoomi. The Backyardigans threw me for a loop because I couldn't figure out what the pink one was and it took me a second to realize they were 'introducing kids to the dance and music of the world' (I sat there for awhile and wondered why there were all the sitars jamming out and why these animals were doing Bollywood dance moves. Then I figured it out.)

From Dora The Explorer to Go Diego Go! (Both favorites of the Nieces) there's a huge range of kids programming that just wasn't there when I was a kid. Some of it is mildly entertaining and some of it just weird... but all of it seems to work for the kids today- of any ages.

Diamonds Are Forever

Today marked the culmination of a weekend of celebrations marking Queen Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee, celebrating 60 years on the throne. I caught a good hour or so of it courtesy of BBC America and it was quite the sight to see (most of the time I had it on mute. This week, Chez Cigar we're plus 2 with Niece 1 and Niece 2 visiting- and they prefer the odd, foot fetish-y cartoon 'Franny's Feet' with their breakfast.)

Some Americans grumble over the simpering media coverage the Royal Family gets over here (come to think of it, a lot of Britons aren't that crazy about it either) and while there's an undercurrent of disapproval on this side of the pond (Americans having fought a Revolution and all to get out from under a monarchy) I have to say this:

First, there's something to be said for ceremony, spectacle and a deep respect for history. America has none of that yet the Beeb noted that the Royal Flotilla on the Thames was the largest since 1662. 1662. That's crazy... that's insane- and that's worth turning your television on for, I think. America has this tendency to see something historical, tear it down and build a strip mall. There's a lamentable disrespect for history and tradition- except when it gets politicians votes and Americans can be astonishingly ignorant of their own history. The Monarchy, however you might disapprove of it, represents a historical institution that stretches back millennia. You can't help but be kind of impressed by that.

Second, picking a head of state is not all it's cracked up to be. America gets that option every four years and we fuck it up every single time. I don't know how much the Royals contribute to the British economy but they cost less than a pound per tax payer. (At least I think that was the last stat I saw. It wasn't that much, though.) And given the tourist revenue they bring in (empty palaces ain't nothing if you can see a real live one), less than a pound per tax payer is something I'd be OK with. At least it brings in useful money and there are worse things to do with your tax dollars.

Third, Queen Elizabeth is going to be the last of the old school and that's kind of sad. Not to piss all over Charles but QEII has dedicated her entire life to serving her country. That's the kind of dedication we just don't get in leaders anymore- figureheads or real ones. Politicians should take note: this Queen knows how it's done- and people respect her for it. (Grudgingly perhaps, but they do respect her.)

Finally, it's 60 years on the Throne. I have yet to see a Triple Crown Winner or the coronation of a New British Monarch in my lifetime- and considering the fact that her mother lived to 103, we might have plenty more years yet- QEII is 86 and spent most her time waving to the crowds this morning standing up. Could she go another ten, fifteen years and get a Platinum Jubilee? I wouldn't bet against it...

The Queen is having one heckuva party this weekend- the Olympics are coming up fast and the European Championships start next weekend. If England can make a good showing and even win the thing, the Queen could be having the best year ever.