Riba Rambles:
Musings of a Mental Magpie

Posted by Lis Riba at 3:38 PM

Just a thought. In the last five years, there's been a resurgence of interest in and respect for John Adams. There's finally talk of giving him a monument in Washington DC. How much of this renewed like for Adams do you suppose comes out of 1776, which made him the lead, showing him at his wittiest and most irascible?

I just found some quotes of his, several which seem appropriate to some of our nation's current political and constitutional battles:

"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."

-- John Adams, "Notes for an Oration at Braintree", 1772

"Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice."

-- Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law, 1765

Ian's currently writing his own post with more Adams quotes. I could go on and further tie quotes by the founders to modern politics, but I don't really feel like delving into that right now.
...Aw, heck. Just one:

"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787

"The (U.S.) Constitution just sets minimums. Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires." -- Justice Antonin Scalia, March 18 2003

Now that computer-controlled fireworks are sophisticated enough to synchronize to music, don't you think "Is Anybody There?" from 1776 (which I quote at the bottom of my previous post) would be even more awe-inspiring accompanied by actual fireworks and cannons?

Posted by Lis Riba at 12:55 PM

[Somehow, that seems more meaningful than a mere Happy July 4th.]

Ian has already provided the text of the most important readings for today. Very worthwhile. For those of a more modern (or silly) bent, you've probably seen the Gettysburg PowerPoint, but how about a PowerPoint on how to write the Declaration of Independence in APA style?

On a more serious note, I tried to write a declaration explaining "The history of the present Preident of the United States is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states." and pointing out the parallels between the abuses of George III and George W. Bush. [Two examples: 'he has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power' and 'for depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury'.] Unfortunately, time ran out before I could complete it. Maybe I can finish the litany of Bush's long train of abuses and usurpations by next July 4th, in time for the election, though hopefully by that time it will be clear enough to be unnecessary. [If anybody wants to help me complete this project, contact me and I'll share what I've gotten so far.

Anyway, right now we're listening to our soundtracks of 1776, [we have both Original Broadway Cast and The New Broadway Cast Recording starring Brent Spiner] and after discovering the special features (via Elayne), wishing I had the DVD. I love that play... and I admire John Adams. This day last year, we went to the Adams' home in Quincy.

Looking back, I notice that last July 4th was also embroiled in patriotism and civil rights debates caused by a court ruling. This year, it's gay rights; last year, it was the Pledge of Allegience.

Anyway, I've found myself flipping through Words That Make America Great and American Constitutional Law, two books I picked up somewhere in the last couple years that can't really be read straight through.

Our plans for the weekend? Some friends are holding a weekend-long gaming party which we'll probably drop in on. Tonight, I think we're going to the drive-in to see Sinbad and Charlie's Angels 2. Tomorrow, we're going swimming and grilling with my in-laws. And Sunday, we're planning to attend "a concert of Elizabethan consort musick" in which one of Ian's high school friends is performing.

I've got a potload of political links I've been meaning to share, plus personal news to share, but that's going to wait for now.

Have a fine day, everybody. And don't forget the reason for our celebration:

Posted by Lis Riba at 2:57 PM

And just as I was verifying the link on the previous post, I find this one in today's Boston Herald: Bush: Too soon for amendment banning gay marriage. Looking further, the New York Times reports "conservatives were divided over whether such an amendment was necessary." So, so far all Bush has said about gay issues since Lawrence v. Texas is that "it's a state matter", he "supported the [anti-sodomy] law in his capacity as governor of Texas", and now he's saying that gay marriage is "a question in the legal realm" and isn't taking a stand on a constitutional amendment. Boy, that'll please the hard-liners, won't it?? [via BT!]

Posted by Lis Riba at 2:53 PM

Seen over the lunch hour: Newsday.com - Mayor Bloomberg parts with GOP platform on same-sex marriages. And so it potentially begins. [via BT!]

Posted by Lis Riba at 11:58 PM

SMALL CHILDREN MAY BE TRAUMATIZED BY ANN COULTER, PSYCHOLOGIST SAYS Won't you help poor Kaylee sleep at night? Do your part to help small children by keeping this terrifying pundit off the air. Don't buy her books; don't read her column or blog; don't pay her any mind. She's already blamed a vast left-wing conspiracy for keeping her off the bestseller lists, so no fault will accrue to you. Thanks for your support. The world will be a kinder place for it. [via BT!]

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:39 PM

Since I insisted so strongly that Ian blog his comments about W's latest statement, I strongly recommend everybody here read them.

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:54 PM

So we're still working on buying a new car. We were looking at some automotive reviews by the guys from Car Talk, and they're funny even in writing. A few excerpts:

Enjoy, and I hope these make you laugh as much as they did me.

Posted by Lis Riba at 5:13 PM

Yay! Librarian Avengers is back up. The site was down for a while, she lost her domain name, but she's back at a new address (.org instead of .com) with all the fun material we've missed for so long. Just wanted to spread the news.[via BT!]

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:13 PM

Robert McCloskey, author of Blueberries for Sal and Make way for ducklings (the official children's book of Massachusetts) died this weekend. He was 88.

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:42 PM

I suppose I ought to preface this by saying I'm looking more for support and sympathy than for suggestions. I mostly just need to unload to somebody other than my husband...

And that's been my day.

Posted by Lis Riba at 3:10 PM

Today's New York Times suggests the president has already shored up his support among the conservative base, but the Christian Science Monitor thinks Lawrence v. Texas could throw a monkey wrench into the gears:

The issue is especially tricky for the Republican Party. As President Bush tries to broaden his support heading into an election year, he now faces the fury of his social conservative base for not speaking in defense of "family values" over the Texas sodomy case.

"Their silence in the case was deafening," says Gary Bauer, president of the group American Values, who complains that the White House didn't file a legal brief on the case. "The administration has been AWOL on issues related to this dispute, and I don't think they can maintain their studious silence as the battle over the definition of marriage heats up."

The Bush White House is likely surmising that these voters have nowhere to go, and so the president - himself a born-again Christian - can afford their pique, say social conservative activists. After all, Bush has been a strong advocate for their position on abortion, judicial nominees, tax cuts, and the Middle East. Still, they resent feeling taken for granted on an issue that, to them, cuts to the heart of the nation's moral identity - the sanctity of marriage as a male-female institution.

"Bush has a great reservoir of goodwill with the Christian right," says John Green, a political analyst at the University of Akron. "This issue, if mishandled, could reduce that reservoir substantially, but wouldn't eliminate it."

Professor Green suggests ways Bush could finesse the issue. The White House can reassure social conservative leaders quietly behind the scenes. The president can also, at some point, deliver a speech on marriage and make clear he means men and women. But some social conservative activists see no room for nuance. "You can't finesse issues that are this divisive and this morally based," says Peter LaBarbera, a senior policy analyst at the Culture and Family Institute in Washington.

Even if social conservatives were upset by the Supreme Court's ruling extending constitutional liberty to adult homosexuals in their private behavior, many Republicans adhere to the libertarian view that private sexual behavior is not the government's business. And so in remaining silent on the case, Bush has protected his position with another important element of the Republican coalition. Bush has also demonstrated quiet tolerance toward gays by appointing a gay man as his AIDS czar and an openly gay ambassador.

Bush can also allow other Republicans to carry some of the water for the social conservative view. Sen. Trent Lott (R) of Mississippi called the gay sex ruling "a very negative development" that has "just opened up almost anything in the name of so-called privacy." On Sunday, Senate majority leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said he supports a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages in the US.

Alienate the libertarians or alienate the social conservatives? Are we going to let Bush weasel out of taking a stand? This is a national issue involving Bush's home state and policies he supported as governor! Bush clearly thinks that he can be hurt by speaking up on this issue, so it's up to us to press him.
Where is George?

More on this issue from me, Thursday and Friday, and from Tom Spenser, Thomas Oliphant, Jacob Levy and Kevin Drum

Posted by Lis Riba at 1:15 PM

In a similar vein to Atrios' Torture Wolf Blitzer feature (exposing and overloading statistically meaningless polls), add your vote to the MSNBC TV Question of the Day [via BT! with thanks to Griff]

Posted by Lis Riba at 1:00 PM

I'm having a bad morning at work. So I thought I'd read more about the current political situation to divert my growling towards things worth getting upset about.

As usual, Zizka makes excellent sense. No sense me paraphrasing his entire essay, but two points worth repeating:

• As I've been saying for a while, "The Bush administration's current economic and fiscal plan makes the most sense if its goal is to bankrupt the U.S. gvernment by handing out tons of money to the people who donated to George W. Bush's political campaigns. Its economic-stimulation effects are imaginary. Sorry, but to me this seems like sabotage." If you're interested in more on economic issues, I've found Wampum and It's Still The Economy, Stupid to be high quality sources of information.
• And regarding the war on terrorism, "Bush's whole program is being sold on a basis of trust. ... This reliance on trust is the antithesis of the system of checks and balances we learned about in civics class, and strongly resembles the devotion to the Maximum Leader found in totalitarian societies.

I got Zizka's essay from this post by Cowboy Kahlil, also worth reading. who makes the amazingly perceptive observation (emphasis mine):

The viciousness of the current Republican extremism cannot be repulsed by squishy centrism that abandons the lower middle classes and those marginalized by race, gender, sexual preference, neglect of political commitment to fair educational opportunities, and exported corporatism promoting the cause of underpaid labor. Centrist positions are the end results of negotiation and compromise. If you begin at the center with the Republicans at the extreme Right, the end result will be much further right than can be healthy for all but the privileged few.

Avedon Carol found a lovely Catch-22 caused by an ill-conceived law. "The law in question is a 'safety zone' requirement that prevents any sex offender who has returned to society from living within 1,000 feet of a school or day-care center. In Iowa, that leaves them almost no place to live." You may not like ex-cons, but they have to live somewhere.

And, as long as I've just ticked off the Greens, I may as well piss off the Libertarians as well. Privatizing essential services was already tried in the colonial era. Benjamin Franklin explained why volunteer and private firefighters were insufficient and dangerous.

Over on Volokh, Jacob Levy points out how the Lawrence decision could help the GOP if they let the issue rest and don't persist in "trying to argue in favor of sodomy laws themselves, trying to keep this fight alive instead of letting it die." Looks like that won't come to pass...

In other positive news, Hesiod sees some signs that Bush may have finally pushed the media so far that they've stopped rolling over...

PS: Now that it's been aggregated, I think it's too late to change the title of my previous entry without it double-posting, but regarding Nader I just want to start singing "Ralph, you're a bore. We've heard this before. So for Gd's sake, Ralph, sit down!"

There. That got some of the vitriol out of my system. I think I'm going to go off and grab lunch now.

Posted by Lis Riba at 11:34 AM

TalkLeft quotes USA Today: "Nader says he has moved closer to a repeat run as the Green Party nominee after concluding that Democrats have no one who can defeat President Bush" so he's decided to guarantee nobody can by splitting the opposition. As the USA Today article says, "he is doing what he did in 2000" That just makes me want to cry if he does. [via BT!]

Posted by Lis Riba at 11:28 AM

Well, BBC NEWS is reporting New rights for gay couples in the UK. Called Civil Partnership, it sounds similar to what Vermont has done with civil unions. Cool. [via BT!]

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:45 AM

In talking about Lawrence v. Texas on Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist began with "I have this fear..." Doesn't that just say everything you need to know about his objection to the decision? [Kudos to South Knox Bubba for noticing this wording.]

Although I'm not a constitutional law expert (yet) others have commented that Prohibition was the only amendment that did nothing but take rights away from citizens. And nowadays the Right is pushing this and the flag burning amendment, both of which remove constitutionally protected freedoms... Which party stands for what these days?

FWIW, TalkLeft does a nice job of outing the cosponsors of this legislation.

Posted by Lis Riba at 11:10 PM

Regarding the attempt to amend the constitution to restrict marriages, the Washington Post reports: "Rep. Marilyn N. Musgrave (R-Colo.) was the main sponsor of the proposal offered May 22 to amend the Constitution. It was referred to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution on Wednesday, the day before the high court ruled."

Interesting timing. Coincidence or advance notice?

Incidentally, a long time ago, Slate had a Monday feature called Pundit Central which summed up the Sunday news shows (akin to its Today's Papers feature). More recently, there was the PunditWatch blog, which closed up shop shortly before the Iraq invasion. Can anybody recommend an equivalent service/site for those who want to stay informed on the Sunday talk shows without actually watching them all?

Thanks in advance.

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:20 PM

Farewell Katherine Hepburn, one of the greatest film librarians of all time:

"Oh, I did a little research on you.
  You were born in Columbus, Ohio on May the 22nd. That makes you a Gemini. You're a graduate of MIT with a PhD in science. You're a Phi Beta Kappa, although you don't wear your key, which means either that you're modest or you lost it. You spent World War Two in Greenland, working on something so top secret that even I couldn't find out about it. You're one of the leading exponents of the electronic brain in this country and the inventor and patent holder of an electronic brain machine called EMERAC -- the Electromagnetic Memory and Research Arithmetical Calculator.
  That's all I found out so far, but I only had half an hour."
          -- Bunny Watson (Katherine Hepburn) in Desk Set

You were also an incredibly funny lady, and in the wake of this week's Supreme Court ruling and Stonewall anniversary, I'll just point out that Bringing up Baby was the first film to use "gay" as a euphemism for homosexual.

You could be silly and ditsy, refined and regal, quite an admirably liberated lady, but whatever the role, always well worth watching.

You'll be missed.

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:05 PM

In today's Boston Globe, Thomas Oliphant confirms Bush's cowardice in refusing to answer press questions on the issue with more detail of his history with the overturned law. I only wish the press corps had... well... pressed Ari Fleischer to answer, rather than allowing him to weasel out of it. However, they won't be able to hide much longer. It looks like Frist is proposing a constitutional DOMA. Bush (and the Democratic candidates) won't have any choice but to take sides.

Speaking of GOP deception, South Knox Bubba examines the new Medicare bill in detail. "For those of you keeping score at home, there are 29,358 words in 1124 paragraphs dealing with the prescription drug benefit. There are 71,545 words in 3894 paragraphs dealing with "other" provisions." And get a load of Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, who insists that the state applies the laws fairly:

"Over the last four years, those convicted of felonies in Alabama were almost statistically evenly divided by race. Fifty-four percent were African-American, and 45 percent were white."

The Alabama population is 26 percent black and 71 percent white.

The front page of today's Globe had an effective graph visualizing the number of soldiers killed in Iraq since Bush's victory speech (66 in 60 days). Of course, the graph doesn't quite convey the loss represented by each of those little blocks, but at least the numbers are starting to get out. The Globe front page also includes an article about how the British have managed to gain Iraqi trust by trusting the Iraqis. A useful lesson. Then again, given Josh Marshall's account of how Americans double-crossed an Iraqi scientist who agreed to cooperate in exchange for protection... No wonder nobody trusts Americans any more.

And for an even sadder example of why Iraqis don't trust our soldiers, read this account. It's not just a matter of us violating their taboos by bringing dogs into their homes and disrespecting their women. Now our soldiers are stealing from them! I mean, of all the ways an occupying army can foul things up, I'd say that flouting taboos and breaking the law would be among the biggest.

Meanwhile, the US government is talking about establishing some kind of global police force. I thought that was the purpose of the UN, which the US snubbed so badly in the leadup to our attacking Iraq. Body and Soul wonders if our government might be purposely sabotaging UN peacekeeping efforts elsewhere in the world to build support for our own plan. Jeanne does a better job than I do at providing the evidence for such suspicions and evincing disgust at the implications.

I know a lot of friends are already supporting Dean, but I'm still undecided among the Democratic candidates. There are a few I would rather not to see in office, but none that I prefer above all others. Given that, I'm seeing some interesting articles about Dean and Kucinich on Liberal Oasis, Will Shetterly, and the watch.

Speaking of the Dems, I like Teresa Heinz's sense of humor.

Finally, this Eschaton post about this Michael Tomasky column struck a nerve with me. I want to write an essay about this issue, but don't have the time for the necessary research and eloquence. I'd rather get the idea out there in some form rather than miss the opportunity while waiting to get it perfect.
Suffice it to say, my readings for Social Informatics pointed out that there are three kinds of equality: social, political, and economic. And Americans aren't terribly swayed by arguments about economic inequity. Quoting from my Digital divide paper, "To promote equity, Doctor recommended focusing on the social and political domains, where Americans tend to be egalitarian, rather than the economic domain, where we tend to be more accepting of differences. Courtright might suggest using metaphors of social inclusion and opportunity, which tie into traditional American values."
Tomasky points out "Democrats' historical tendency is to express it in terms of equity and fairness." While I agree that the Bush tax cut is unfairly burdensome on lower-income Americans, as Tomasky continues, "it's not enough of an argument." IME, Democrats should avoid arguments based on economic inequity, in part because Americans still believe in economic mobility and think they might one day be on top. Instead, frame our arguments in terms of other fundamental American values, such as political disenfranchisement and inclusion.

What do you think?

Posted by Lis Riba at 6:10 PM

Okay, so one disadvantage of syndicating the full content of my entries is that if I want to re-edit it after posting, the aggregators won't update with new content. So if people are reading the articles off LJ or whereever (which they're more likely to do by syndicating the full content) then either I can't update existing posts or readers will possibly miss things. While I was writing about Harry Potter in my last post, I can't believe I forgot to include this transcript of JK Rowling's recent interview.

Meanwhile, right now I'm rather annoyed with both LiveJournal and Blogger. LJ keeps hosing the feed with no explanations, unable to read for days and then suddenly pulling in a half-dozen posts in a gulp. Nothing I do on my site seems to have any affect on whether or not LJ will read my feed.

Blogger is annoying me because of all the little bugs cropping up since their upgrade last weekend. Don't get me wrong, there have been some nice improvements in the upgrade, but also a lot of annoyances -- erroneous HTML errors when validating my posts, changes to the algorithm used to generate short RSS feeds (doing a worse job of figuring out where to put the breaks), irrational problems when trying to adjust the time of a post... Death by a thousand cuts. The latest problem is that it hasn't generated the archive page for today, meaning the links from my RSS feed to my content (and comments) aren't working. Just remember that my journal home page is http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/journal/ if you want to comment on any of my posts until Blogger gets its act together.

Posted by Lis Riba at 12:28 PM

Two articles on Harry Potter to share: the New York Times points out how Harry Potter outsold the Hulk last weekend, demolishing many popular myths about kids these days. And today's Boston Globe magazine writes about the fanfic phenomenon. I'm not sure whether I actually like this piece; it seems so glib as to make me uncomfortable.

BTW, I'm trying an experiment and updating my RSS feed to provide the full content of my entries instead of the abbreviated versions. Please keep in mind that I may not see comments posted other places <cough>LiveJournal<cough>, so please post your responses in the YACCS comments feed off my actual journal. Thanks.

Posted by Lis Riba at 11:29 AM

A somewhat-popular topic among blogs that I read is about the insularity of current comic book fandom and how to attract new readers. If comic books interest you at all, take a look at this review of Outsiders #1, written by a noncomic reader. And be sure to check out the commentary that follows. Despite the fact that it's the first issue and seemingly a good starting point for new readers, Outsiders #1 still depends on decades of continuity. Some readers think she shouldn't be reviewing the comic at all, at least not without certain prerequisites. In short, this is a very good demonstration of why and how comics are so inaccessible to newcomers. And (unless you consider it tragic) it's rather funny, to boot.

Posted by Lis Riba at 1:04 AM

Read these two from Xiphias Gladius' Journal - June 29th 2003. I love that man. [via BT!]