Innermost Parts

William F. Buckley, 1926-2008.

Buckley was an icon of the conservative movement. An architect, even.

As a writer and architect of the modern conservative movement he truly made his mark. He founded National Review in 1955 at age 30, when the world considered conservative intellectuals a genetic impossibility. Just nine years later, NR would prove instrumental in Barry Goldwater’s rise to the GOP nomination for president. In 1980, Goldwater protege Ronald Reagan won the White House, and made National Review mandatory reading for his entire staff.

Rick Perlstein wrote a moving obit:

He was a good and decent man. He knew exactly what my politics were about—he knew I was an implacable ideological adversary—yet he offered his friendship to me nonetheless. He did the honor of respecting his ideological adversaries, without covering up the adversarial nature of the relationship in false bonhommie. A remarkable quality, all too rare in an era of the false fetishization of “post-partisanship” and Broderism and go-along-to-get-along. He was friends with those he fought. He fought with friends. These are the highest civic ideals to which an American patriot can aspire.

Anyone trying to understand the history, power, and current form of the conservative counter-establishment must study Buckley.
Read the rest…

In the latest version of The Hoot, we get treated to this kind of thinking:

It’s a legitimate concern to consider how the United States is perceived by the rest of the world and it’s a legitimate desire to have the leader of our country be someone who is PR-friendly. After all, regardless of whom we elect president, he/she will have his/her share of mistakes and it is the media that will reign over how colossal or mild their transgressions are. But, this isn’t to say that a presidential candidate can’t overcome their lack of PR luster. After all, we did elect Nixon—twice.

I disagree with the premise of this editorial. It’s not a sophisticated PR shop that allows St. McCain to be the darling of the D.C. Press: it’s his relationship with the reporters who cover him. In 2000, the reporters covering Al Gore infamously hated him. This led to the establishment of some journalistic frames of thinking about Al - (He’s too wooden, a serial
exxaggerator, etc) that, regardless of their inherit truthfulness, served to perpetually shape how he was covered.

And remember, the Giuliani myth was predicated on him having a good PR team on 9/11. Truth is, he made corrupt and horrible choices that got men killed that day. He got away with it for 6 years before people started taking notice.

Marianna Faynshteyn may not be conscious of it, but what she advocates is letting the beltway press choose our president for us. I don’t think that’s a good idea.

Read the rest…

Alex Norris is tired and upset with all the organic pro-Obama content on the web.

Even if I were a diehard Clinton supporter, I would totally oppose this line of thinking.

We should be happy that our candidates are so compelling that people willingly take time off of their busy schedules to spontaneously create candidate-related content. It reflects well on how invested people are in their candidate, certainly, but more importantly, it’s a shift in culture from the TV-centric, big-media driven campaigns of the past. People are taking ownership of the campaign and participating more in the election process. As progressives, as decent human beings, we want more citizen participation in government, and Obama Is Your New Bicycle is part of that.

Alex, if you find Amigos de Obama so annoying, no one is forcing you to click that link.

edit: Turns out I misunderstood Alex after all. Whoops. Amigos de Obama is still really fun though.

I’m reading an interesting article in the Nation, taking a critical and nuanced look at Hugo Chavez. Is he a Democrat or Dictator? The article never really decides on one or the other, but instead chooses to discuss the contradictions, motivations, and context for Chavez’s Bolivarian Project.

The failed referendum did not end the polemics. But for the many, more sober observers caught in the middle, it did help to clarify the actual state of Venezuelan democracy. Chávez’s defeat was proof that Venezuela today is not a dictatorship. Still, the authoritarian tendencies of Chávez’s government, while exaggerated by some of his critics, are very real. His supporters may excuse them as responses to the problem of political exclusion that is, undoubtedly, a more fundamental threat to democracy throughout the region. But unless those authoritarian tendencies are curbed, the Bolivarian dream of overcoming this exclusion will almost certainly remain unfulfilled.

Interestingly enough, this article claims that Venezuela was a model of democracy throughout the 70s: it had a vibrant two-party system, the parties compromised when they needed to, etc. Yet this was bad thing, because, in the end, Venezuelan society was very unequal and fraught with class division. While both major parties contained members of all economic classes, both were also ruled by the economic and political elite. Chavez lead the disenfranchised to power, and tried to right some of those wrongs and oust these elites from power. By all accounts, he succeeded.

Read the rest…

Notice how nearly all these presidential debates are co-sponsored by the Coal Industry?

Notice how all these presidential debates conspicuously don’t ask any questions on Global Warming, energy policy, etc?

Perhaps these two phenomena are related.

Bonus Thought: Coal is the enemy of the human race.

Over the break, Sahar regaled you with tales of intellectual property rights pioneer and would-be Congressman Larry Lessig. He is truly a great man, but like many great men, is truly no longer running for Congress. From his website:

After lots of thinking and advice, I have decided it does not make sense for the Change Congress movement for me to a run for Congress in CA12. We would have just over 30 days to introduce a district to me and to an idea. That would not be enough time to convince them to turn away from an extremely popular politician with 30 years of public service.

Well damn.

I was reading the archives of The Atlantic Monthly when I came across an article called Black Nationalism On Campus. It’s an interesting read, but this passage in particular jumped out at me:

Many whites see being black, once you’ve made it out of the ghetto, as a big advantage: they think blacks are constantly getting little breaks that whites don’t. Many blacks have exactly the opposite view: race will always be an extra burden. The cost of housing is higher for blacks. The risk of crime is higher. Nearly every social relationship with whites eventually arrives at a chilling moment of revelation of the hard inner kernel of racism. At work the assumption of inferiority is ever present; affirmative action underscores it, but is the only way even to get in the door.

I don’t claim any special insight here, but this is really poignant. I will say, however, that anyone identifying with the “white” outlook should read Peggy McIntosh’s White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsackl.

Speaking of which, never use the term “Political Correctness”. It reinforces conservative frames and thinking. Instead, use the terms “respect” or “sensitivity”. “Political Correctness” reinforces both disgust with government and disgust with embracing diversity. Instead, it is more about realizing that our words and phrases can hurt others, and being good enough people to act accordingly.

(Crossposted to Blue Mass Group)

There’s a lot that’s been going on with FISA, wiretapping, and so forth lately. Maybe you find it somewhat confusing. I sure did. So I decided to write down a timeline and explanation to clear my head. I took that paper and turned into this post. First off, this video is the best way to explain what’s going on in the most concise way that I’ve found (and it’s a video starring a cute cuddly teddy bear!

In other words. Bush bragged about illegally spying on Americans a few years ago. Everyone was outraged. Then enough Democrats in Congress (and almost all Republicans), instead of punishing him for breaking the 4th Amendment, decided to retroactively make all the illegal stuff the White House has been doing legal. Now, Bush is fearmongering again that the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) is outdated, because it covers wiretaps but not email, etc. Instead of making a small technical change, enough Democrats (and almost all Republicans) in Congress decided to give the White House sweeping new PATRIOT-act style powers when they updated the FISA law.

FISA (remember, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) was a law Congress passed in the wake of Watergate, making sure that the FBI had to check with a court up to 2 days after wiretapping someone. Remember, this law governs spying on Foreigners. Spying on American citizens without a warrant is explicitly forbidden by the 4th Amendment.

This sweeping change to FISA with Patriot-Act style powers was called the Protect America Act. Congress passed it about 7 months ago, and gave it a 6 month window before it expired. So it was due to expire. The House passed a pretty good law to replace it. The Senate split consideration of the law into two committees: Intelligence and Judiciary. The Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont came out with an ok version of the bill. The Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, came out with a version of the bill so horrible that it pardoned Telecommunication companies (such as AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint) for any and all crimes they made while aiding the White House. Remember, this spying all started *before* 9/11.

Now, Harry Reid, Senator from Nevada and Senate Majority Leader, had a choice. He could make the (comparitively good) Judiciary bill the official one, or the (horrible unconstitutional illegal) Intelligence bill the official one. Guess which one he chose? The way the Senate works, since Harry Reid chose to make the Judiciary bill the official bill that the full Senate worked on, it was much harder to amend the bad bill into the good one than keep the good one intact.

After a lot of boring parliamentary stuff that you don’t need to worry about (just know that Republicans are good at blocking stuff they don’t like in the Senate), the Senate rejected any sort of amendment to the (bad) Judiciary Bill that would make it any better at all, and then passed it as-is.

Where does this leave us? The bills that the Senate passed and the House passed are substantively different. We’re waiting to see what unified bill comes out of the conference committee (composed of elements of the House and Senate, this committee takes the two bills, comes up with a compromise bill, and sends it to the House and Senate to be voted on, with no amendments permitted).

While all this drama was going on in Congress, the (Patriot-Act style) Protect America Act expired. Democrats offered to extend it for a few weeks until the new bill could be voted on. Bush demanded that they extend the (Orwellianly-named) Protect America Act into a permanent law, or he’d veto it. House Democrats showed some spine* and basically didn’t buy his B.S.

So, on one hand we have the Republican White House and Republicans in Congress swearing up and down and frantically running to the press and creating other sorts of theatrics, urging that the Protect America Act (that is only 6 months old) is absolutely indispensable to the safety of the Country, terrorists will attack as soon as it expires, etc. On the other hand you have Bush vetoing (or threatened to veto such that no one even bothered trying, it’s a bit unclear) an extension of the Protect America Act.

This is a prime example of the Republican *Politics of Fear*.

For instance, look at the video ad that Republicans are running now on the issue. It’s a work of art, almost, how their ads look more and more like promos for 24.

And here’s a kickass response:

See Louise Slaughter in the video? If my house was 500 feet over to the side of where it is now, she’d be my congresswoman. I’m proud of her today.

Innermost Parts is still on break. Since you were cool enough to check up on us even though school is out, we thought we’d return the favor by posting this “easter egg” before we really return from our one week hiatus\

Want to learn more about Professor Lessig?

There are three places that I’d encourage you to look and are the standard web articles people point to:

1. This feature in Wired Magazine. “Lawrence Lessig helped mount the case against Microsoft. He wrote the book on creative rights in the digital age. Now the cyberlaw star is about to tell the Supreme Court to smash apart the copyright machine.”
2. This feature in New York Magazine. It deals with his life today, but the main focus of the story -his experiences of sexual abuse as a child- really helps show what a decent man Prof. Lessig is. I cried after reading this.
3. Wikipedia. ’nuff said.

More recently, there exists a good interview in Ars Technica regarding his run for congress.

Perhaps most importantly, he’s released a 10-min movie in his deliberate, powerpoint style detailing the launching of what he calls the “Change Congress Movement” as well as his possible plans to run for Congress himself. The
“Change Congress” idea boils down to this:

The influence that money now has in Washington skews public policy in important areas. Good people working in a bad system. Change that system, change that ethic. It is the first problem that has to be solved. How? A bipartisan coalition of members of Congress who pledge to support three things:

1. No money from lobbyists or political action groups
2. Ban earmarks in the Congressional appropriations process
3. Public financing of campaigns

Read the rest…

Innermost Parts is still on break. Consider this posting snippet an “easter egg” in thanks for you still checking up on us, break nonwithstanding.

Lawrence Lessig is one my heroes.
Lawrence Lessig is, in fact, an academic and a lawyer.

I know what you’re thinking. “One of his heroes and not even a politician. This Lessig guy must really be special, huh.”

In a word: Yes.

From a time way before I got into the political scene, I’ve been interested in the Open Source / Technology scene. And the slashdot scene had a healthy respect for Internet Freedom, consumer freedom. Information, they say, wants to be free.

Well, Professor Lessig pioneered all this. He’s like the MackDaddy of all legal theorists when it comes to the internet. His wikipedia profile begins like this:

Lawrence Lessig (born June 3, 1961) is an American academic. He is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. He is founder and CEO of the Creative Commons and a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the Software Freedom Law Center, launched in February 2005. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications.

Pretty cool, huh? Prof. Lessig has spearheaded, founded, and/or aided some pretty important movements, like Free Culture (Culture, (i.e. media) should be free for society to remix reinterpret, and redistribute), Creative Commons (A type of license that encourages derived works) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (ACLU for the Internet).

Right now, he’s moved his focus from patent reform to a broader fight against corruption, and specifically on the corrupting influence of money on politics.

Long story short, he’s probably running for Congress in CA-12. Thing is, the election is 6 weeks away (it’s a primary for the special election in a heavily blue district) and he’s facing a well-funded and strong competitor.

Prof. Lessig running is super cool. Like, he’s a totally legit possible Supreme Court pick. Imagine if Louis Brandeis ran for Congress. That’s how awesome this could be. Like Brandeis, Professor Lessig is of high integrity and has dedicated his life working on obscure points of law that impact real people. Louis Brandeis was known as “the people’s attorney”. Professor Lessig is also a people’s attorney, working to change the restrictive copyright and patent laws that stifle innovation and hinder our rights.

More on this later.

I’m the interim/initial chair of the Draft Lessig National Organizing Committee. I’d like to invite you to join me in my quest to put this singularly brilliant, intellectual, upright, honest, visionary man into Congress.