Bryan Joiner

Why then I

Football and Torture

There have been two relatively high-profile rule changes in the NFL this year. The first rule is that there are no more “incidental” facemask grapping penalties, which used to be 5 yards; all facemask penalites are now 15-yard personal fouls. The second rule is that a player can no longer be judged to have been “forced out” of bounds when trying to get his feet in the playing field while making a catch. The refs could previously judge whether or not the player “would have” gotten his feet down if he is knocked out of bounds while in air, but the NFL removed that rule this year. The rules changes have one thing in common: it takes a subjective judgment out of the refs’ hands. The goal of the rules is to reduce the number of qualitative judgments that are necessary on the field in favor of the number of quantitative judgments. It is a good system.

I have been thinking about the NFL and its constant rules-tinkering as I’ve been reading about America’s torture laws, and how John Yoo and others won’t be face penalties for writing briefs that permitted the U.S. to torture people while George W. Bush was in office. While a panel found that Yoo used “poor judgment” in creating his briefs, it found that he did not act outside of the purview of the law; he had not, then, extended executive power beyond its actual borders. This is a load of horseshit, the equivalent of ignoring what was once a five-yard facemask penalty on Yoo and excusing the harsher penalty because the intent was not believed to be bad enough. There is no room for question of intent here. It is illegal to torture. A law was broken, and the penalty must be paid, the same way NFL coaches do not get to unilaterally decree that certain rules do not apply to them. When rules are broken, people must be held accountable, otherwise the rules were not really broken.

I am flabbergasted that a judgment of “poor judgment” itself can even be rendered here. While our President strives to overturn the binary nature of our politics, this is a situation where it actually exists for our own good. What has happened here is an epic failure of our legal system, and should shake our nation to its core.

Chasing Lost’s Wild Geese

I don’t think any other show taps the potential of the Internet as well as Lost does, by intentionally sending its viewers on these wild goose chases to learn ancient and modern theories and philosophy in the service of trying to figure out what’s happening on a television show. Shoot, Lost is the only reason I read Flannery O’Connor, which means Lost is the only reason I’ve argued with Mik about Flannery O’Connor, and thus is the only reason I’ve read emails Mary Gaitskill sent to Mik about Flannery O’Connor, and is thus the only reason I’ve then re-read Flannery O’Connor to see how my interpretations match with Mik’s and Mary Gaitskill’s interpretations of Flannery O’Connor. Pushing it further, Lost is the only reason I mentioned Flannery O’Connor to my former roommate James, who said she was his favorite author. And all that is based on three seconds of screentime last spring. I’m not a nut to figure out what everything “means” on Lost, because I know full well that if you’re trying to “solve” it through hidden clues UR DOIN IT RONG, but I was without a book to read at the time, saw Jacob reading a F O’C joint, and bought it. Now I know enough to hold my own in a conversation with serious English Literature hedz. Thanks for jumping out that window, John Locke. Keep plucking that chicken.

If you want to read some good recaps—and Lost is the one show where the recap is, if not crucial, certainly helpful for you to get to whatever level of understanding you desire (even if it intentionally slows your roll)—go here or here or here.

What’s Not In The Budget: $6.3 Trillion in Debt

If I’m reading this correctly, more than $6 trillion worth of national debt is excluded from the budget because it’s from Frannie and Freddie, which aren’t 100 percent government entities but are enough such that Peter Orszag, before he was actually making the budget, said:

We are saying that the degree of control exercised by the federal government over these entities is so strong that the best treatment is to incorporate them into the federal budget.

So I guess my claim that the budget was boring was a lie. It’s the budget that’s a lie.

For all the talk about obstructionist politicians acting like children, it sure seems like us regular old citizens are often treated like kids. Rover’s on a farm upstate, playing with other dogs.

I’m sorry if that sounds cynical, because I’m not cynical about it. I’m not sure it matters much if the debt is $6 trillion or $12 trillion as long as there’s an underlying process for fixing the whole thing. It just seems that either the process is so big it’s hard to explain, even in a State of the Union address, or that there’s a fear that suddenly $12 trillion is politically radioactive because of this country’s fear of two-digit numbers (or 14, as it were). I’m not as afraid of a little or a lot of debt, or even a little more of it, as I am of being systematically shut out of the process. I don’t think it’s too much to ask to be included. In fact, I’m sure it’s not. I appreciate the difficulty of governing, but the inches we give to government seem to turn into miles so quickly that it’s clearly not us who are being irresponsible. Anyone who says that this sort of deception is part of the job of governing clearly isn’t really trying to change things.

At the same time, I still think Obama is doing a great job. I think that this, like health care, represents a negative the GOP is already going to hold against him, so he might as well just come out and give us the damage. I think he’s trying to forestall a tipping point that passed a long time ago. If the Republicans don’t believe in truths, half-truths aren’t going to help you any. If you really want to change the conversation, change it. You might be able to win without doing so, and we’ll be better for it, but not as good as we could be.

h/t to Wolves on the link

Don’t Forget: The House Actually Works

Watching my Google Reader queue fill up today is the universe’s way of saying, “You know, Brian, you can spend all weekend buying video games, drinking and playing football, thus leaving you tired and cranky as of Monday, but nobody else cares.” That’s how bad it is: the universe spelled my name wrong.

There’s a lot of talk about the Obama budget today, but I submit you have to be a wonk of the highest order to enjoy parsing it, line-by-line. In fact, I’d submit that you’d almost certainly have to be from the minority party and be looking for easy targets, of which there would be too many to count. I’m sure Sean Hannity will talk about them on his show tonight.

The big news, if you can call it that, is that White House Robert Gibbs has called for a Question Time session with Senate Republicans. It won’t happen, so I’m not sure how important it actually is. I do kind of agree with Matt Yglesias (with whom I seem to agree pretty often; political blogging is fun!) when he says that John Boehner has a good point when he effectively rejects bipartisanship vis-a-vis the House. The House works just fine as a legislative institution that is representative of the wishes of the country at the ballot box; with no filibuster in play, the wishes of the people, as represented by the body of the House, are always going to be met in an important way. It’s the Senate that’s broken beyond any easy repair (save nuking the filibuster), and where bipartisanship is the only way to get things done. You can dislike members of the House, but at least it works.

Early Monday Morning Thoughts

Don’t have much to say right now. Drank green tea at 10:30 so God knows when I’ll get to sleep.

• If you didn’t see Barack Obama’s Q&A on Friday, watch it or just read about it. It won’t change how awesome it is.

Kobe. There’s not much more to say anymore. Look, I hate the guy. Have hated the guy. But he’s done too much at this point, and I’ve read too much (specifically here and here) to ignore it. Let’s just move on.

• Football. As I said, I’m on a flag football team. We won yesterday. That was not expected. Been thinking philosophically about football and other sports tonight, as I am wont to do. Specifically thinking about how the contents of the ball (or puck) represent the games themselves, the jumping-off point being the inflated football and the tightly-wound baseball, but the real gem being my association of all the materials of hockey with the output of places in which it is traditionally popular and which, like the game itself, have fallen on tough times. I’ll spare you any further details. Actually got to thinking about this when my friend Sam came over with his six-month-old son, Henry, who was squirmy until we handed him the football, where he got really happy and started to eat the end of it. Sam joked that maybe he’d grow up to be 6’4″ and a star quarterback until he realized Henry probably liked the end of the ball because it looked like a nipple.

Greenwald Is Wrong On Alito

I can’t help but think that Glenn Greenwald has Alitogate totally backward. He writes, referring first to the “You Lie” outburst:

Wilson and Obama are both political actors, it occurred in the middle of a political speech about a highly political dispute, and while the outburst was indecorous and impolite, Obama is not entitled to be treated as royalty.  That was all much ado about nothing.  By contrast, the behavior of Justice Alito at last night’s State of the Union address — visibly shaking his head and mouthing the words “not true” when Obama warned of the dangers of the Court’s Citizens United ruling — was a serious and substantive breach of protocol that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the credibility of the Court.

Somehow this gets me thinking both to the end of the Sopranos*—where there was rampant talk of how fiction “makes its own rules”—and of the end-the-filibuster movement, which stresses that the filibuster is a creation of the same group it undermines. Wilson’s outburst was worse than Alito’s non-outburst because for the exact reason Greenwald cites: Obama and Wilson are both political actors, and Wilson effectively broke character. He signed up to play by those rules and he deliberately and unmistakably broke protocol.

Alito, on the other hand, didn’t say anything. Greenwald writes:

Justice Alito’s flamboyantly insinuating himself into a pure political event, in a highly politicized manner, will only hasten that decline.  […] Alito is now a political (rather than judicial) hero to Republicans and a political enemy of Democrats, which is exactly the role a Supreme Court Justice should not occupy.

First, to say that Alito acted “flamboyantly” is so disingenuous that it’s absurd: He mouthed some words. Unlike Joe Wilson, whose job it is, at least partially, to maintain composure in this hyper-public setting, more than 99 percent of Alito’s job has nothing to do with maintaining some sort of stony composure in public. His job is to be the best Supreme Court Justice he can be. Is he partisan? Probably, but this doesn’t make him any more or less of a Republican hero than he was before. Republicans love the decision, and Obama didn’t like it. It’s not like Alito told us anything we didn’t know about where he stands on the issue, nor was he technically wrong. Nor should he have mouthed those words. It was, if not a startling breach of protocol, certainly bad form.

But Joe Wilson’s outburst was much worse. He flagrantly and obviously violated the terms of the arrangement for which he specifically signed up. I don’t want Sam Alito on the court any more than you do, but I don’t give a crap about this. Mouthed words or not, we know what side he’s on.

* To draw out the Sopranos analogy, many people, including myself, initially made “Tony is Dead” arguments based clues we erroneously believed were inserted into previous episodes. Something on the order of “Once it’s over, it’s just black,” or something. I don’t remember exactly what we thought was said, but it wasn’t. Without that clue, any argument other than “it’s ambiguous” fell apart completely. The only justification for truly “proving” he was dead was built upon any rules that this particular fiction had created for itself.

My stray SOTU thoughts

Here are the SOTU thoughts I’ve recovered from my cortices:

The Tone. At first, the tone threw me. When Obama super-casually asked why the Republicans weren’t applauding an applause line directed at them, it was the first time I had seen him break Super Orator character. I think the shift in tone worked: It got away from Obama as speechmaker and moved him into Obama as problem solver. This is the Chicago Obama, not the Harvard one, and this is the one better equipped to be President.

The GOP. Man, they don’t stand for much, do they? They seem so petulant. As I’ve written before, and said before, I have no problem with conservative values, but the party is a joke, especially when it acts like a bunch of spoiled kids who realize that banding together under their High School Republicans platform makes them look tough. They didn’t applaud when Obama said he would knock $1 trillion off the deficit. What on Earth were they thinking?

The Juggler. This is related the the first point. I don’t think we had gotten the image of Obama as President until last night. Those who criticized him for doing too much were making the implicit criticism that Obama couldn’t do all these things at once and successfully divide his attention. Last night he came across as the one guy who had his eye on all the balls in the air, and that Republicans challenge his competence at their own risk. He certainly knows why he’s doing what he’s doing, and I think the sense that he’s gasping for air has been extinguished completely.

• The Response. The “Mini State of the Union” was a nice set-up for the Republican response. Many are criticizing the demographic choices of the people directly behind Bob McDonnell, in that the ribben of people from different races didn’t accurately represent the GOP. That’s politics, the same way Obama’s spending freeze is designed to earn him points with swing voters, only he can’t say as much. FWIW, I think he did a terrible job of explaining that last night, as I think it’s impossible for him to honestly explain, especially in the face of near-unanimous criticism. I don’t support it as much as I think I know why he did it, but we’re going to have to wait for his memoir to know for sure. He’s just getting blistered on it now.

• The Supreme Court. Great moment with the Court, seated directly in front of the President, getting called out by him as most of the chamber stood to applaud. It was something right out of the WWE. Obama vs. Roberts at the Royal Rumble. Or something.

• The Length. Dear God, it was long. I have no problem with Obama waiting 32 minutes to get to health care. Everyone knew it was coming, and no one was tuning out before it came up. Not that he really said much that hadn’t been said, or that his words will have that much of an effect. The die has basically been cast, and now it’s time to pass the thing. Obama’s fortunes are already tied to this bill even if it’s largely out of his hands, like the quarterback who leads his team near victory and needs his defense to seal the deal: Whatever happens, it will ultimately be heaped on his shoulders. For all that we remember about Bush, it really comes down to Iraq and Katrina—while there were many, many other things for Obama to walk back, those are shorthand for his Presidency. Health care is it for Obama. It needs to pass or the narrative of him as ineffective will pick up steam and lead wherever it leads. Republicans would be wise to try to kill it altogether in the short term, but in the long term they’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t. Democrats need to make it happen to forcefully overturn the Republican majority/minority, if only once.

• Sorry again about the post. This was supposed to wrap up nicely, but I’m trying to recover it from memory. Imagine some really clever line to take you out of here. I know you can do it.

Snap Take on SOTU

Sorry, I just wrote a long post that WordPress just ate. I don’t think I have it in me to reproduce it right now. I have an issue for work due tomorrow and the thought of retyping 1,000 words just isn’t appealing. The snap-take aspect is gone.

You can see how happy I am about this.

“Pass the f*cking thing”

I don’t have a lot of time today, but I’m with Nate as cited above and Matt Yglesias indicates that it’s one step closer to happening. Of course if Evan Bayh digs his heels in and tries to convince enough centrist Senators to oppose reconciliation that would scuttle the plan, and it wouldn’t even be the first time than Indiana zapped dark-blue America this week.

On any other day