Gail Collins Says

Posted on by

Gail Collins, whose columns I love, wrote the following in the Times a few days ago:

Here’s my thought for the day. The Tea Party people say they’re angry about socialism, but maybe they’re really angry about capitalism. If there’s a sense of being looked down upon, it’s that sense of failure that’s built into a system that assures everyone they can make it to the top, but then reserves the top for only a tiny fraction of the strivers. Capitalism is also a system that lives off of change. When people say this isn’t the America they grew up in, they’re right. Nobody gets to grow old in the America they grew up in.

This is nothing new, of course. There is no logical reason for religious conservatives, the lower middle class, and rich businesspeople to belong to the same political party. It’s a pretty neat trick that people like Dick Armey and Glenn Beck have pulled.

Oval Office Makeover

Posted on by

Oval Office makeover! Oval Office makeover!

The Oval Office was redecorated while Obama was on vacation — not at taxpayer expense, mind you.

When he moved in last year, he made some minor tweaks, changing some of the artwork, but now it’s a full-blown redesign.

The walls are striped. Hmm… it’s certainly different. The walls have been solid-colored ever since the current Oval Office was built under FDR. Now it looks less regal, more soothing. I wonder if it was redesigned by Michael Smith?

Here’s video.

Debt-Free

Posted on by

For the first time since I started law school, I am 100% debt-free.

I was fortunate not to have to take out student loans to pay for college, but for law school I did. So I began accumulating debt when I started law school in the fall of 1996. I graduated in 1999 and my first student loan payment was due in December 1999. On Thursday I finally paid off the loan. It took me 10 years and 8 months.

Back in 1999, paying off the loan looked daunting. I graduated law school without a job lined up, and I didn’t make a whole lot over the next year. Making the payment each month was basically putting one foot in front of the other, knowing that the finish line lay far in the unimaginable future but just trudging forward step by step in the meantime.

In addition to the student loan debt, I graduated law school about $4,000 in debt to a therapist I’d seen twice a week during school (stupid idea). And during my first year after graduating, I accumulated about $3,500 in credit card debt. It took me a couple of years to pay off the latter two debts, but the student loan has hung around my neck for the last decade. Now, student loan debt is considered “good” debt because it has a relatively low interest rate and it’s supposedly an investment in yourself, but I have never liked the idea of being in debt; I guess I’m old-fashioned that way. But I do hope to own property someday, so a mortgage is something I can live with, I guess.

For now, however, I am free and clear of any debt to anyone at all. I say this not to toot my own horn; I’m just really happy about it, and where else to write about it but here. It feels good to be debt-free.

Now I can start catching up on retirement savings, in which I’m woefully behind.

August 24

Posted on by

I’m a geek about dates sometimes. I remember the exact dates of many events in my life. I don’t know why.

For example, I’ve always remembered that I moved into my first-year dorm at UVa on August 24, 1991. (Oddly, I started law school on the exact same date, five years later — though maybe it’s not so odd; each date moves ahead one day further in the week each year, so five years plus two leap days (in 1992 and 1996) equals seven days, and therefore August 24, 1996 fell on the same day of the week as August 24, 1991, and UVa always does its move-in on a Saturday in late August. Geekitude!)

So this afternoon I realized that it was 19 years ago today that I moved into my college dorm. And then I realized, wow — 19 years ago, most of today’s entering college students weren’t even born.

God, I feel old.

The First Amendment, Again

Posted on by

Yesterday I wrote about the First Amendment. It’s come up again in the last couple of days — this time, the free speech clause.

Laura Schlessinger quit her radio show yesterday (which she was apparently going to do soon anyway), and in an interview with Larry King, she said, “I want my First Amendment rights back, which I can’t have on radio without the threat of attack on my advertisers and stations.”

Linda Holmes at NPR has pointed out how ridiculous this statement is. Schlessinger’s First Amendment rights were never infringed.

But the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee that speaking your mind will have no economic consequences. Proclaiming that those without thick skins probably shouldn’t marry outside their race is always going to be, let us say, commercially risky if you’re aiming for a broad audience — or if your sponsors are. General Motors and Motel 6 both reportedly pulled their sponsorship over the flap, prior to Schlessinger’s decision to leave her show. But whether that’s the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do, it doesn’t implicate the government; it implicates the profit motive.

In fact, the organization of a boycott is itself the exercise of First Amendment rights — GLAAD, or the American Family Association, or Sarah Palin, or Laura Schlessinger, anyone can publicly advocate for an end to the economic support of someone else’s speech. If you want, you can boycott them back — “Okay, if GLAAD is boycotting Laura Schlessinger, then I’m boycotting anybody who donates to GLAAD.” It becomes reductive and unhelpful at some point, and it may or may not be justified, and one side or the other may be substantively right or wrong — but all of it, from every angle and every political position, is consistent with the idea of free expression.

Because the “free” in that concept means “free from government interference,” not “free from consequences.”

Awesomely put.

The First Amendment

Posted on by

Not that I want to discuss the Islamic community center in lower Manhattan again, but I’ve been bothered by the idea that Obama somehow contradicted himself the other day when he clarified his comments regarding it.

Here’s what he said in his first remarks:

As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.

Here’s what he said the next day:

My intention was simply to let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion. I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.

A bit wishy-washy? Maybe. Contradictory? No.

The First Amendment is about the powers of the government. It begins:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

The First Amendment restricts the power of Congress (and, through incorporation, the power of state governments). It says nothing at all about the actions or opinions of citizens. I think the creators of Park51 are completely justified in building the cultural center on the site they’ve chosen, and at this point I think they would be caving in to disgusting bigotry to build it elsewhere. On the basis of stubborn principle, they should build it wherever the hell they want.

But I also think it’s possible to disagree with this while still supporting the First Amendment.

Simply put, it’s impossible for a citizen to violate the First Amendment. The First Amendment is about the power of government. Just because you think there should be no law preventing the cultural center from being built in lower Manhattan doesn’t mean you can’t oppose it personally. Now, don’t get me wrong: I think those who oppose it are completely misguided, or uninformed, or opportunistic. But are they contradicting or violating the First Amendment? No.

In fact, on Rachel Maddow’s show the other night, Chris Hayes was the guest host, and he made hay out of some Republicans’ apparently contradictory statements that “yes, yes, we support the First Amendment but come on, it’s a really bad idea to build this cultural center in lower Manhattan.” How is this a contradiction?

I can see how it could be perceived as such. Yes, the First Amendment’s religion clauses are about the power of government, but read more broadly, they are a national declaration of principle, a declaration of an American ideal; they proclaim our obligation to collectively tolerate the rights of religious minorities to freely practice their religion wherever they wish.

So I understand where this is coming from. Some people are disappointed in Obama because they wanted a ringing, unambiguous declaration of religious freedom. Hell, Democrats want a ringing, unambiguous declaration from Obama about something. Meanwhile, the yahoos in the media love harping on any misstatement or apparent contradiction they can find, because it makes for a story.

So yes. Once again, our ploddingly professorial president has overestimated the intelligence of the American people and muddled his message. But did he contradict himself?

… sort of.

The “Ground Zero” “Mosque”

Posted on by

I’m so tired of hearing about this “mosque” (in reality: Islamic community center that contains a mosque, among other things) two blocks from Ground Zero. It’s a building that nobody who visits Ground Zero will even see, since it’s not at Ground Zero. It’s two blocks away.

And it’s great and all that Obama spent some political capital supporting religious freedom. I completely agree with him that an Islamic group has every right to build a community center wherever the hell it wants. But it would be nice if he spent some political capital on things that most Americans care about: jobs and the economy. When was the last time he gave a major White House speech on the economy and job creation? It’s not like there’s nothing he can do about it. If he grew some balls and proposed a job creation program, at least we’d have something constructive to talk about. Because the country will talk about whatever the president wants to talk about, as we can see.

And apparently what the president wants to talk about are these wonderful intellectual ideals instead of the meat-and-potatoes issues that are important to most people.

Bob Herbert is right:

President Obama missed his opportunity early last year to rally the public behind a call for shared sacrifice and a great national mission to rebuild the United States in a way that would create employment for millions and establish a gleaming new industrial platform for the great advances of the 21st century.

It would have taken fire and imagination, but the public was poised to respond to bold leadership. If the Republicans had balked, and they would have, the president had the option of taking his case to the people, as Truman did in his great underdog campaign of 1948.

Obama sucks as a leader. I am so tired of his inaction and timidity.

Be a fucking leader, god dammit.

Maybe we would have been better off with Hillary Clinton after all.

On Judge’s Walker’s Stay (or Whatever)

Posted on by

As I said, despite my caution, Judge Walker’s decision on the stay is a nice read.

My favorite part is how he takes apart the anti-equality folks’ disingenuous plea not to harm those poor gay couples by letting them getting married under a cloud of uncertainty (how nice of them to show concern for gay couples when they’ve spent years demonstrating they don’t care about us at all):

Proponents also point to harm resulting from “a cloud of uncertainty” surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents’ appeal is resolved…. Proponents have not, however, alleged that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse. Proponents admit that the harms they identify would be inflicted on “affected couples and * * * the State.” … [T]he court considers only whether the party seeking a stay faces harm, yet proponents do not identify a harm to them that would result from denial of their motion to stay.

. . .

If proponents had identified a harm they would face if the stay were not granted, the court would be able to consider how much weight to give [this] factor. Because proponents make no argument that they — as opposed to the state defendants or plaintiffs — will be irreparably injured absent a stay, proponents have not given the court any basis to exercise its discretion to grant a stay.

Boom.

Since the state government of California has decided to sit this thing out, there’s basically nobody defending Prop 8 except the anti-equality people. This also shows how crucial it is that the state government is choosing not to defend Prop 8. If only the Obama administration would do the same thing on the federal level.

Prop 8 and the Dangers of Twitter

Posted on by

Like many people this afternoon, I was madly refreshing a Twitter search for “prop8” and reloading the California district court’s website, over and over. Finally, at about 3:15, unsubstantiated rumors began to show up on Twitter that Judge Walker was denying the motion for a stay, meaning that same-sex couples in California would be able to get married immediately. Other twitterers then retweeted those tweets, and a live online feed of local San Francisco TV outside city hall showed a crowd of pro-equality people cheering at the apparent denial.

But I was feeling cautious. There was no decision posted online, and no official word — just rumors, with no explanation of where the rumors came from or who was supplying them.

Finally, at about 3:40, the official decision appeared online. Yes, it grants a stay.

But not right now.

Judge Walker writes:

Because proponents fail to satisfy any of the factors necessary to warrant a stay, the court denies a stay except for a limited time solely in order to permit the court of appeals to consider the issue in an orderly manner.

(Emphasis mine.)

On the last page, Judge Walker states that his decision to deny a stay is itself stayed, until August 18 at 5 p.m. PDT. That gives the Ninth Circuit six days to hear and decide an appeal of Walker’s decision to let gay couples immediately marry. Six days is a long time. It’s perfectly conceivable that the Ninth Circuit will overrule Judge Walker and issue a stay. Now, Judge Walker lays out a very strong case for why there should not be a stay, and at 11 pages it makes a great, short read. But who knows what the Ninth Circuit will do?

Yet there are still people all over Twitter expressing happiness and congratulations. I don’t get it. I don’t want to be a party pooper, but look, this thing is not over. The Ninth Circuit could slam it down before any gay couples can get married again.

This is exactly why you should take unsubstantiated tweets with a grain of salt until you actually see proof of something. It’s silly and irresponsible to tweet to all your followers that the motion has been denied, on an issue of this emotional magnitude, just to try and be the first person to break the news, unless you’ve actually read the decision yourself.

Maybe the Ninth Circuit will do the right thing. I hope so. But six days is ages. The Ninth Circuit could overturn Judge Walker tomorrow. Or even tonight.

Tweet responsibly.

Crossword Squares Record

Posted on by

Occasionally I go into crossword puzzle geekery here in my blog. Here’s some more.

Today’s New York Times crossword had unusually few black squares, and I wondered if it might be a record. So I checked. It turns out that it doesn’t break, but it does tie, the record for fewest black squares used in a typical daily 15×15 grid: 18 black squares. The record was set about two years ago.

Here’s the grid:

On the New York Times crossword blog, puzzle creator Joe Krozel discusses how he created the grid.

1984 Guided Tour of Mac

Posted on by

I was looking for stuff online about the original 1984 Macintosh, and I learned that the original Mac came with something called “A Guided Tour of Macintosh,” consisting of a 3.5-inch floppy disk and an audio tape. Because, of course, there was no way to play audio files on the computer.

I was curious about this, so I hunted around and found an online version of the Guided Tour of Macintosh, including screenshots and an mp3 file of the cassette. It begins with totally New Age-y piano music. The tour includes a lesson on how to click with the mouse, how to open and close and change the size of windows, etc.

Kinda fun.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Posted on by

I don’t read very much fiction, let alone bestseller fiction, but last night I finished Stieg Larsson’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Matt bought and raced through it a few weeks ago after reading an article about the author. (Stieg Larsson died in 2004, shortly after submitting his trilogy to the publisher.) Matt enjoyed it, so I decided to take it with me on my business trip to Banff. I started it on the airplane and read it on and off during my trip.

I had several meals at the hotel alone, so each time I’d bring the book with me. Not one, not two, but three servers commented on it. My waitress at lunch one day said she had just finished it the night before. My waitress at dinner that night said she was reading it. My waiter at dinner the next night said he had just finished it and that I was in for a ride. I guess the book had been going around the hotel.

So I finished it last night, and I liked it.

But it’s a curious book.

First, it’s an English translation of a Swedish thriller, and a British English translation at that, so on top of the occasional stilted sentence there are Britishisms like gaol instead of jail. It’s like looking at something through two window panes.

And people in the book are always drinking coffee and eating sandwiches. I did a word search inside the book on Amazon, and coffee is mentioned 98 times, an average of once every six pages.

And the author focuses on weird details. He goes into detail not only about the types of sandwiches characters make, but also about their computers — the brand, the hard drive storage and memory capacity, and so on. (Those details are interesting to me, I’ll admit.) He repeatedly refers to one character’s iBook. (In fact, iBook gets 19 mentions; laptop, only 10.) Details in a work of fiction are a nice touch, of course, but it’s like a fetish or something.

The book moves slowly. There are long stretches when not much seems to be happening. The story involves an extended Swedish family, and it takes a while before you start to remember who’s who — but maybe that’s supposed to echo the main character’s confusion? I don’t know. It rambles at times and could be more tightly plotted.

And yet it’s an absorbing read.

During the summer of 1992, I read John Grisham’s The Firm. Say what you will about John Grisham’s later work: The Firm was an exciting book, amazingly entertaining, well plotted, with a great payoff. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is not quite like that. It’s idiosyncratic and some editing might have helped. But I’ll probably read the next book in the trilogy anyway.

The Prop 8 Ruling

Posted on by

I’ve read the Prop 8 ruling, which was of course announced this afternoon.

And you know what? I found it boring.

This is not the first court to rule that a ban on marriage for same-sex couples violates the Constitution. Courts in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Hawaii, and, of course, California, have issued similar rulings before, and judges in New York and New Jersey have put forth the same arguments in dissenting opinions. The arguments for marriage equality have been put forth over and over again. How many different ways are there of stating the obvious?

And that is why the arguments are boring — because they’re so obvious. Of course we deserve the right to marry. How can anyone not understand this?

And yet a large but steadily shrinking portion of the country doesn’t seem to get it. Or just plain refuses to.

It’s not really about marriage. It’s about thinking that gay people are just not as good as straight people.

To quote Judge Walker:

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples.

Not everyone who opposes marriage equality is a gay-hater. Not all of them spew out lies like Maggie Gallagher, who must be a really unhappy and unloved person to spend so much time trying to prevent other people from being happy.

Many people who oppose marriage equality say they have no problem with gay people. They may even say they like gay people. They may even say they like me. They may have gay friends or gay workers and think that they’re perfectly nice people.

Hey, they have such great fashion sense and they’re so entertaining to watch! But, you know, they don’t deserve the same rights that we have. Because, I like them and all, but gay couples are still not as good as real couples. Two men or two women together just aren’t as real or good as a man and woman’s relationship.

I like gay people, but I sure hope my son or daughter doesn’t turn out to be one!

They don’t realize that this doesn’t make any sense, and that it is in fact contradictory. If you oppose marriage equality, then you oppose gay people. If you think, even in a small part of your brain, that gay people are not as good as straight people, then you oppose gay people.

Don’t patronize me. If you don’t think I deserve equal rights, then you have no respect for me, and you have no respect for gay people. Don’t pretend that you do. I don’t want to be friends with you.

So yes, this decision was boring. Nothing new here. Just the same old, crystal clear, logical, obvious arguments.

Even if this case gets to the Supreme Court and we lose — come on, Anthony Kennedy, we’re counting on you! — Judge Walker’s decision will still be right. People need to read it, so they can understand the obvious, self-evident truths.

Stating the obvious is not always interesting. But it is often necessary.