Hope you're burning in Hell, Jerry Falwell

DADT was repealed today. An important milestone in the culture wars, which are by no means over. But a huge victory nonetheless.
My view is that the Republicans have stonewalled the repeal of this absurd law because it represents a threshold. If we are to concede that heterosexuality and national security are core issues for a conservative (as opposed to liberals, who enjoy nothing better than enabling airplanes being flown into their offices as a result of homosexual shenanigans), then it becomes difficult to square the legitimizing of a group you have historically demonized as Satan's spawn by letting them be Soldiers, who Serve, and Sacrifice, so that we may be Safe, and enjoy our God-given Freedoms by going Shopping.
Just saying.
A tells me Andrew Sullivan has already said something to the effect. Well, pish.

The GOP needs to win, and then lose- for good

Here is Andrew Sullivan:

... if the current GOP wins the House, which in many respects, I hope they will - if the GOP is to grow up, and take some responsibility for fixing the appalling mess they largely made at home and abroad.

I agree. Further, the Republicans need to win so that they can prove, conclusively, that they are unfit to govern. And there is no better time for doing so than elections 2010, because if the Democrats win, they are going to have to legislate with even thinner majorities than they have had in the past 4 years. So they are going little done, and what they get done is going to be so watered down that it will infuriate their base even more, which will lead to a presidential election disaster in 2012.

Better, I say, to lance the boil now.

This may be true... or maybe not.

My life did not begin until late 2000, when I discovered the music of the late nineties.

You must be crazy, AZ!

I have to say that nothing that has happened in the political world in the last few months has made me as bitter as the Arizona legislation that allows search and arrest of suspected illegal immigrants.

Here is the core issue as I see it: Who, after all, is going to be suspected of being an illegal immigrant?

Writing in the NY Times, Kris Kobach, a law professor and former advisor to John Ashcroft, Atty General under GWB, says that the law forbids race as the sole consideration, and lays out a scenario for “reasonable suspicion” that conjures up an image of sweaty (and swarthy) young men crammed into a minivan that is speeding along a illegal alien smuggling corridor. Well, fine. A (I hate to use this much-derided-by-Jon-Stewart phrase) perfect storm of suspicious behavior, who can quarrel with that? On top of that, a country’s wish to regulate its borders, nothing wrong with that, either. Apparently close to 70% of Arizona ’s polled public approves of the law; hey, it’s a democracy, isn’t it?

Not so fast. The question is one of fairness. How is it possible to avoid racial profiling under this law (no matter what the pious sentiments expressed by Mr Korbach are)? Is it conceivable that every carload of blonde haired and blue eyed teenagers, acting evasively because they are concealing little baggies o’ goodies in the glove compartment, is going to be put through an immigration check? Wait; you say (I’m talking to you, blonde and blue eyed Young Republican friend of Maisy's Ma); a driver’s license is proof of legality in AZ; if they can show it, they’re free to go (unless of course they get busted for the pot). But you are not required to carry a license in AZ, dear blonde lady; now what? Is your cop going to suspect your young Aryan friends of being illegally smuggled from Mexico and arrest them, or is he going to give them a ticket for speeding and move on?

Or look at it this way. Two carloads of sweaty, evasive teenagers are pulled over. One is full of blonde, blue eyed kids wearing expensive clothes, the other of brown kids in shabby clothes. The cop has a choice (for whatever reason): check only one car for immigration status. What does the law say? Reasonable suspicion points to car number two – but why? Arizona is full of poor brown people who are there legally! So is it fair that only they get “reasonably” suspected?

Really, now, be honest. Distaste of greasy haired little brown folk and the smelly food they eat is allowed, of course, but their blatant persecution is not. People who claim it is unfair to those who come here legally are dodging the argument; the controversy in the law is not about illegal vs legal. The controversy is about racial profiling. People who claim that there is nothing wrong with carrying your driver’s license around (as a surrogate marker for legality) are fudging the issue. Since it is not a requirement of the law to carry your driver’s license, the only people who are now obligated to carry their driver’s license around are brown people. So stop dodging and fudging, seventy percent of Arizonians and anyone else who supports this law. Admit you don’t like brown people. Admitting the truth will set you free; free to wear your conical white hats.

Loser, baby

So here I am, sitting at home, catching up with the things and thangs that happened while I was at work, then playing squash and chatting - nay, unburdening - with Captain America (and I name him that in the best way it is possible to be named Captain America; a big, strong, forthright, straight-up, good-humored, good-natured, good-hearted, good-everything man about whom the one adjective that qualifies his every quality is also the adjective that qualifies him: good) (one feels that a really good part of this man is that he does not read blogs), and I want to listen to some music, so what do I go for? I go for the "I don't know" buttons, viz either KCRW or Pandora.

I see how I almost never play music that lies on my hard-drive, spread-eagled, as it were, waiting for a gesture. Noooo. I must go after the unpredictable, the wtf is this, music. So why do I buy the cow when the milk is free? Because it's good?

Galloping consumption of politics

For a person who has tooted her health care horn literally from the get go, Tammy Baldwin has had nothing to say while the carefully constructed health care reform bills fall to pieces around her. Leadership, my ass. This is a class "A" non-entity, and our progressive, politically active, highly informed district deserves much better. Okay, some might say that asking for a Russ Feingold clone in the House might be wishing for too much; but why? I mean, if Feingold were a US Representative, WI District 2 would be a match made in heaven. Instead, he represents all of Wisconsin. No quarrel there, but why can District 2 not come up it's own Feingold, and have to settle for a milquetoast personality like TB? (Hah!)

Unfortunately, the record of Dave de Felice, Dane County Supervisor and putative Baldwin challenger, is unknown to me, besides this brief condemnation of the health care process in the WSJ online. This guy has something to say, and from what I can tell, he has no idea either. Okay, you say; what about his webpage? Fuggedaboudit.

All that and all that

as Gopal would say, but am I really back?
We'll see. I hope so. At the very least, the urge to write is certainly back. Still, many a slip.

The Supremes

I finally understand the rage that my pro-life friends - oh, alright, who am I kidding, I have no pro-life friends, just pro-life acquaintances, and fake-smile-and-thank Western-Civility-acquaintances at that. At any rate, I can finally empathize with pro-life lunatics.

I refer to the last Supreme Court decision to allow unfettered corporate funds in electioneering, made in defiance of all precedent and tradition. Yes, I hear you, watching a liberal defend tradition - but I have two words for you, while I sip some nice whisky: British Constitution (was anyone else brought up on Wodehouse, or do I have to explain the sobriety test ante breathalyzer): that is to say, there is none, and look at Britain. The right wing of that country, as is well-known, makes some progressives in the US look like rivers-of-blood Powell-ites.

Anyway; as I was saying, I finally feel the rage of the lunatic right. Roe v. Wade : Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.