Skip to content

Founding Fondlers

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Lately our historically challenged right-wing brethren have, against all the evidence, taken to ascribing their own beliefs (or beliefs they pretend to hold) to our sainted Founding Fathers. If we are to believe them, our forefathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in religion, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, but some are created more equal than others. Today at Kos we get the latest example:

Oh, conservative crackpots, is there no conspiracy theory you can't duct-tape to the unwilling corpses of The Founding Fathers? Jerome Corsi, who is one of the battiest bats ever to fly from a cave, says that same-sex marriage is a plot to allow government to crack down on Christians. He knows this because America's founding fathers knew that sex is not supposed to be fun, or something.

“Our founding fathers knew that if we went this direction, there was no more moral compass and you won’t be able to explain to your children — you’ll have to face the fact that we lost holding the line on one of the most principle issues in the Bible, and that is sex is not about fun,” he remarked. “If you want to have fun, read a book, go to a movie. Sex is about the procreation of children. It’s a sacred responsibility that is meant by God to have men and women commit their lifetime to children.”

Well, one Founding Father that didn't get the message was one of my personal favorites, Ben Franklin. Ben is one of those guys high on the list of folks to whom I'd like to go back in time to meet. No one can deny him Founding Fatherhood, for in the case of the constitution, as opposed to his firstborn son, his fatherhood was entirely legitimate. Does this piece of poetry, authored by Ben at the mature age of 39, sound like the product of someone who thought sex was not about having fun?

“Fair Venus calls; her voice obey;
In Beauty’s arms spend night and day
The joys of love all joys excell
And loving’s certainly doing well.”

I won't vouch for the deathless quality of the poetry, but the meaning seems perfectly clear. And if he didn't have sex with half the women in France that he met, he certainly wanted people to think that he did, and if he thought sex was about having children why would he tout the advantages of an older mistress. After making the obligatory pitch for marriage he says (I've only reproduced the most salient parts):

But if you will not take this Counsel, and persist in thinking a Commerce with the Sex inevitable, then I repeat my former Advice, that in all your Amours you should prefer old Women to young ones. You call this a Paradox, and demand my Reasons. They are these:

..

Because there is no hazard of Children, which irregularly produc'd may be attended with much Inconvenience.

…
Because thro' more Experience, they are more prudent and discreet in conducting an Intrigue to prevent Suspicion. The Commerce with them is therefore safer with regard to your Reputation. And with regard to theirs, if the Affair should happen to be known, considerate People might be rather inclin'd to excuse an old Woman who would kindly take care of a young Man, form his Manners by her good Counsels, and prevent his ruining his Health and Fortune among mercenary Prostitutes.

Because in every Animal that walks upright, the Deficiency of the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest Part: The Face first grows lank and wrinkled; then the Neck; then the Breast and Arms; the lower Parts continuing to the last as plump as ever: So that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old from a young one. And as in the dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every Knack being by Practice capable of Improvement. (Emphases added)

A good and healthy debate could be had about whether his advice was tongue in cheek or not (and whether we can forgive the sexism), but it's really hard to make the case that he thought sex was all about having kids.

And let's not even talk about Tom and Sally.

Filed in Crazies, History | | Comments (0)

Who cares what John McCain thinks?

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Depending on how you look at it, I am either blessed or cursed by the fact that I get three physical newspapers a day. This morning, two of them, the Day (too lazy to get a link) and the Times headlined the surprising fact that John McCain is backing Obama’s big mistake. This raises a question that has been asked by reasonable people across the nation ever since McCain burst onto the national scene in 2000, when he accomplished the amazing feet of looking good compared to George Bush, causing every Beltway pundit to fall in love with him and cursing the television watchers among us to seeing him blather virtually every Sunday morning. The question is this:

Who cares what John McCain thinks?

Can anyone think of anything McCain has ever been right about? When he comes close to being right (think McCain-Feingold) he quickly finds a way to disassociate himself from reason. Does he have a claim to being an expert on anything, other, perhaps, than self-promotion. When it comes to war…well, he’s never heard of a war he couldn’t support, and there’s never been a moment, at least since September of 2011, when he hasn’t been in favor of either endlessly fighting unnecessary wars he helped start, or starting unnecessary wars that will never end.

McCain is a favorite of beltway pundits because he’s like them: always wrong, and always rewarded for being wrong.

If Obama had any sense he’d start having second thoughts based on the identities of the people that are supporting him on Syria. If John McCain told me he agreed that the sky was blue, I’d have second thoughts on that. If John Boehner agreed with him, then I’d know the sky was anything but blue, no matter what my lying eyes might tell me.

Filed in Foreign Affairs | | Comments (0)

Where is this going?

Monday, September 2, 2013

A few weeks ago I noted in my good news feature that Obama did not appear anxious to get himself involved in Syria. That was then, and this is now, and all I can say is that I was acting on the basis of the intelligence I had then.

The monumental hypocrisy of our insistence on punishing Assad is, of course not lost on the world. Our war criminals go unpunished; in fact, some of their enablers are in the forefront of those demanding war now. The last I looked, torture was every bit as much a violation of international law as chemical weapons. Speaking of chemical weapons, I have a hard time understanding why killing people with chemicals is any worse than killing them with bombs, drones, napalm, or any of the other “legal” weapons that we use with such abandon.

I confess to being completely confused about this misadventure, which seems fated to occur, no matter the opposition in the country and in Congress. What puzzles me most is that we are being left completely in the dark as to what, if anything, will constitute success. We are not looking for regime change, according to Obama. Apparently we are trying to “punish” Assad for using chemical weapons. So, we will bomb other people, some tangentially involved, perhaps, but many, if history can be our guide, who were not. Assad himself is unlikely to be a victim. How do we declare victory? Will it be sufficient if Assad says a sincere act of contrition? We can only hope that some in Congress will demand an answer to this fairly fundamental question, but I don't see it happening.

Filed in Empire, Foreign Affairs | | Comments (0)

This week’s good news

Saturday, August 31, 2013

Well, I was pretty worried about getting a good news post this week, but, for once, Obama came through. He is actually going to follow the United States constitution and seek congressional approval for the humanitarian bombing of Syria.

Of course, no one should fool themselves into thinking that this has anything to do with constitutional scruples. Obama and his advisors can read polls, and they realize that it might not be good to go out on a limb, very much alone, on this one. Should something go wrong, the McCains and Grahams will grow silent, and, truth to tell, no one outside the Beltway listens to them anyway.

Still, good news. The Republic survives to die another day.

Filed in Good News | | Comments (1)

A helpful suggestion

Saturday, August 31, 2013

I read this story in the New London Day, but was unable to find a link there. It was these paragraphs that caught my attention:

ATTLEBORO, Mass. (AP) _ Massachusetts prosecutors in the Aaron Hernandez murder case said Friday there’s no truth to an allegation by lawyers for the former New England Patriot that investigators misled a potential witness.

The defense claimed in court papers filed last week that investigators visiting an inmate at a Connecticut prison in August told him they were there “to help Aaron out.” Hernandez’s attorneys said Everett Garcia told them that was the only reason he answered the officers’ questions.

Now, I'm willing to believe that in this particular case the prosecutors are telling the truth. But, in order to help them with their inquiries, and to help them avoid these types of claims in the future, I would like to inform them of a marvel of modern technology (it's barely seventy years old!) that would assure such claims are never made in the future. It's called a “tape recorder”. It's a nifty little gadget. Nowadays they make them small enough to carry around, and there are even apps for that. They take down every word that's said while they are running. Had the prosecutors been aware of the existence of such a device they could have used it while talking to Mr. Garcia and then we would all know whether they had misled him or not.

Being an expert on British police methods (I'm currently watching Season 10 of Midsomer Murders) I can report that British cops are already familiar with this astonishing device, and use it regularly while grilling suspicious characters.

Now, were this country still in the hands of an enlightened judiciary, it might occur to our Supreme Court to acknowledge the existence of this wondrous instrument, and wonder why it is not employed by the American constabulary. It might even occur to them to suggest, absent compelling evidence establishing the impossibility of using one during an interrogation, that no challenged statement should be admitted into evidence unless the forces of justice can provide a tape recording of the inquisition that led to the statement.

I understand that there are some machines that not only record sounds, but moving pictures right along with the sound. But it would probably be expecting too much to ask our protectors to consider using such a complicated device in the course of their investigations.

Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

We really have to teach the British about 21st century democracy

Thursday, August 29, 2013

How quaint.

In England the legislative body still actually has a say in whether the country goes to war. Where do they get such ideas? Well, maybe it’s not surprising in a country that has palace guards that wear silly hats. They really have a lot to learn about democracy from the former colonies.

Filed in Decline, Foreign Affairs | | Comments (0)

Gaming the Education Proposal

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

A few days ago I suggested that one should ask the following question when considering Obama’s proposals to make college more affordable:

How would I subvert this system had I a mind to do so?

I suggested one way in which the proposal was bound to founder: the institutionalized revolving door that guarantees that the person rating colleges this year will be running one the next year and the near certainty that those regulators will act in the interest of the regulated rather than the consumer.

Here’s a more drawn out analysis, gaming the proposal and delivering a verdict similar to mine. Read the full article for the entire indictment, but as a person who believes that people should be taught to think in addition to being taught to make money, I want to emphasize this:

How well graduates do in the workforce

Putting this into your model is toxic, and measures a given field directly in terms of market forces. Economics, Computer Science, and Business majors will be the kings of the hill. We might as well never produce writers, thinkers, or anything else creative again.

Note this pressure already exists today: many of our college presidents are becoming more and more corporate minded and less interested in education itself, mostly as a means to feed their endowments. As an example, I don’t need to look further than across my street to Barnard, where president Debora Spar somehow decided to celebrate Ina Drew as an example of success in front of a bunch of young Barnard students. I can’t help but think that was related to a hoped-for gift.

Obama needs to think this one through. Do we really want to build the college system in this country in the image of Wall Street and Silicon Valley? Do we want to intentionally skew the balance towards those industries even further?

(via Cathy O’Neil: College Ranking Models « naked capitalism)

The thrust of the article is to the effect that it will merely give colleges additional incentive to prioritize money over education.

Patting myself on the back here: O’Neil suggests the same common sense, simple solution that I did:

If you really wanted to make costs low, then fund state universities and make them really good, and make them basically free. That would actually make private colleges try to compete on cost.

Too simple, too effective, and therefore too much out of the question.

Obama’s “solutions” always seem to benefit the people who caused the problems in the first place.

Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

Today’s media just can’t stand programs that help people

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Anytime, anywhere.

This morning I read this article in the Times about France’s “slow decline”, caused, of course, not by robber barons but by a generous welfare state. It seems the Times, like the Post, just can’t stand the thought of ordinary people not ending their lives in utter poverty.

So when I read it, I said to myself “this is bullshit, and I hope Dean Baker tells us why”. A few minutes ago I checked my RSS feeds, when what to my wondering eyes should appear, but Dean Baker telling us why the Times is full of it.

Filed in Economics, Media | | Comments (1)

Friday Night Music Returns

Friday, August 23, 2013

After a vacation sabbatical, during which I was just too lazy to search around. Today’s choice breaks a rule. One I’ve broken before, for this is the second time Kermit the Frog has made an appearance on this feature (last time singing the Talking Head’s Once in a Lifetime) and it’s a sad fact that Kermit simply has to lip sync.

The song was chosen by my son, who is serving time at our home between jobs and apartments. I figured I would put give him a chore, given that I’ve just about exhausted the supply of 60s bands. As a now former New Yorker he picked this one, in which Kermit fronts for LCD Soundsystem, singing New York I Love You, but You’re Bringing Me down.

Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

Constitutional Law 101

Friday, August 23, 2013

Some good, if basic, discussion here about the right’s abuse of the 10th Amendment. The bigger problem, which author Robert Parry notes, is the refusal of the press to provide basic information to readers, many of whom will therefore come to the natural conclusion that there must be some validity to these specious arguments. The press fails if it refuses to educate.

Repeat this stuff long enough, and it actually does become true. Consider the fact that we are now saddled with an interpretation of the Second Amendment that insults the memory of its author and ignores the introductory phrase of the Amendment. Years of groundwork were required to achieve that victory for insanity. Twenty five years from now the Tenthers may get their way. The South may win the Civil War yet. (Yet one more reason to re-open negotiations and let them leave peacably – or throw them out.

Filed in Crazies, Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)