Monday, March 28, 2005

questions from a c(an)ard carrying liberal

Here's a question to which I've never gotten a satisfactory answer...

Let's say we accept the canard about the liberal bias in the media, judiciary and academe (and the piss poor definition of liberalism put forth by conservatives). Why is it that the people who make up the three institutions most pilloried by the conservative movement -- the press, the judiciary, and college professors -- are the ones who've spent their lives in careers dedicated to the production, interpretation and dissemination of knowledge and information? Why is it that these people, who have spent their lives going to (generally) the best schools, tend to lean liberal? What does that say about the salience and validity of the liberal viewpoint even as defined (poorly) by Conservatives that very well educated people, the best minds in the country, lean towards liberal viewpoints?

Also? On Meet the Press, Richard Land of the Baptist Convention, started blathering on about how decisions like the Schiavo case shouldn't be settled by "unelected judges", yet if he'd done his homework instead of parroting GOP talking points he'd see that a fair number of judges in America are in fact selected or retained by popular election. Many in partisan elections, and in both red and blue states. In fact, some of the FLA judges who presided over this case were elected.,277

The other dumbass thing about his point is that when judges are selected they are put there by elected officials. So ultimately the elected officals are accountable to the people for the selections made to fill the judicial benches. Which, by the way, makes ridiculous the whole threat by Bill Frist and the Senate GOP to make illegal the filibustering on judicial nominees -- putting aside the fact that the 107th and 108th Congresses approved a greater share of Bush's judicial nominees than did the 103rd-106th Congresses under Clinton, the Senate's role is to advise and consent, not to "roll over and consent".

Land's point was also undone by the fact that Scalia didn't take up the case for the US Supreme Court. So the moral and ethic dimensions of the Schiavo case aside, it was pretty clear there was no legal standing for the Schindler family. That's a shame, but is something that needs to be fixed in legislature.

Another funny thing about the whole judicial activist thing is the blatant hypocrisy...rule for a conservative and with strict adherence to statutory or constitutional law and you're praised as being a "strict constructionist". Rule against a conservative and with strict adherence to statutory or constitutional law, and you're vilified for being an activist.

So crazy.

I feel horribly for the Schindlers, but I find it sad that they lit into Jeb Bush when he, a very conservative governor, decided to stay within the boundaries of the FLA constitution and statues. It may very well be that the law itself needs changing -- IMO, if there's this big a dispute between family members over the wishes of someone like Schiavo (in her condition, no advanced medical directive) then it may be that you err on the side of keeping the person alive. How to work that out legally I don't know, but it's hard not to have misgivings about her being starved to death.

But the law's the law, and once you declare a body of government null and void and usurp powers, well, it's a slippery slope to fascism and dictatorial, unaccountable rule.

All that said, I'm getting a living will done soon.

Saturday, March 26, 2005


twice i had a very long entry wiped out thanks to some oddity of trying to copy and paste or whatnot. i'm debating whether or not to recreate a third time. maybe i'll have a beer and watch the ncaa game while rewriting it. or maybe not. i should be outside, it's gorgeous...but too much work.

Sunday, March 06, 2005

ok, who's with me?

the situation...july 2, big social event in seattle. july 16 big social event in denver. barring change in circumstance i'll be still living on the east coast. do i want to fly back and forth and back and forth? if this doesn't scream out for a 2 week road trip/sojourn/kerouacian adventure thru the great american west, i don't know what does.

so i ask...who's in? who wants to play neal cassady to my jack (or maybe i'll play neal to your jack)? all or part of the trip? do you know people who've got space where i can crash? grand canyon, bryce, arches, rockies, vancouver, redwoods, vegas (baby), tahoe...all there for the taking.

so again i ask...who's with me?


scuba, salsa, key west, x, fairchild, the screenplays, day tripping, judo, any of 2 dozen books, every great idea i've ever had.

history never retreats

another year on the market, another year left on the shelf. or maybe not? switch of focus, from faculty to admin jobs, albeit admin jobs with a research angle. maybe a stretch but hey, my first face-to-interview in a while. and omens? four years ago i go to an interview on my birthday and in that cycle get a job. this year i'm flying on my birthday to an interview the next day. maybe something from this cycle? and for this interview i have homework! (and fuck me, why am i blogging when i should be working on that assignment?) but man, a cross-country flight for a one-hour interview. and while there are worse places to spend a day than ********, on my b-day? whatev. would be better if m could come up from mountainview, but she had to pick that day to fly to hawai'i with her parents. why is it i went 0-for every faculty job i went for? why did i go 0-for dc? why am i worried about it? next week? fuck it, it's go time, it's game on. westward, ho. i mean, westward ho!.

the list at the moment? lost; split enz; ****** (even mentioning the name would cause me to worry about fucking it up); spring training; getting outta *****; realizing i'm not as good at the **-******* thing as i used to be (not because i'm growing attached more like because i'm not i'm finding i'm not into it).