Why I can't support Melancon for Senate

Charlie Melancon was on the wrong side of the healthcare reform vote. It's time to deconstruct his recent comments on the subject, because he pissed me off. He's not my congressman, but he is the Democratic face of Louisiana and the prohibitive favorite to challenge David Vitter for the US Senate seat in 2010. This fact totally explains why he's running to the right, but it still sickens me. This is clearly another case of a politician putting the next election ahead of the the next generation.

''I’ll work with anyone, or stand up to anyone, when it comes to what's best for Louisiana. And the healthcare bill I voted against today in the House doesn't work for Louisiana.''

No, you apparently, won't. A majority of Americans favor this bill, and it is, in the long run better for our state. While a majority of our state may be against it that doesn't mean much. When was the last time you really heard from someone who was against it for good rational reasons. Say for instance that the state supported a law that said that to appease the reptilian shadow government, all public schools should be converted to sanctuaries of the flying spaghetti monster. Even if a hundred percent of the state supported such a bill, it would be the congressman's duty to vote against it because it actually is worse for the state.

"In these tough economic times, we've got to be smarter about getting government spending and the deficit under control, and the House's health care bill simply costs too much."

I'd like to know what doesn't cost too much! According to this congressman, two wars, repealing the estate tax, and tax cuts for the rich were perfectly economical at the time. The congressman is again parroting the nonsense about government spending being out of control, failing to point out that the cost of the current healthcare bill will be spread out over the next decade.

“And I can’t support a government-run insurance option that the people of Louisiana don't want."

Again, we have this meme of what the state wants. I say screw what the state wants if the state is uninformed! Do what's right!

“And I’ll keep working for smarter, more fiscally-responsible, market-based healthcare reforms...

I've already had lengthy discussions about why the free-market is wrong for healthcare. Here's a sample:

The free market only really works when a certain set of conditions are met, and two of those conditions are the public having enough information about the product to make an informed choice, and then having the power to cause a negative effect on the companies that are doing wrong. Our system fails to meet either of these conditions. Alex Smith knew that the free market would accomplish all the goals we have as a society, but only when it was well regulated, and people were able to make informed decisions. Remember, when the Wealth of Nations was written, "the market" consisted of landed, informed, noblemen. Ask any Dickens character how the free market works for the poor. The government has to intervene because it is the only way the poor will get enough economic muscle to influence the market towards addressing the needs of people who don't have the economic capital to matter to the insurance industry. Covering the poor is simply unprofitable, and thus contrary to the goals of the free market. This is one of those cases where the free market system, while working perfectly (accomplishing it's goal of maximizing profit without regard to those without the means to participate) is a bad thing. At what point have we reached the "last resort"? I think we can agree that the problems with the insurance industry, and the free market itself aren't going to get better on their own. Why should they? There is no incentive to advance company policy that will undoubtedly lose lots of money. In the interest of providing for the general welfare, the government must "encroach" a little on private insurance industry.

And again, if you think turning a profit is the goal of government corporations, you haven't been listening.

...that protect the sanctity of life.

Here's hoping the congressman realizes that money from private insurance companies already goes to fund abortions. Idiot.

This why I can't get behind the congressman as a candidate for the senate.

Proto-citizenship in the premodern Ottoman Empire

If you're at all interested in Ottoman history (which has nothing to do with this blog) you can take a look at my recent paper on the rise of the proto-citizen in the Ottoman Empire:

“Be careful about the religious issues before all other duties. The religious precepts build a strong the state… Depend on God's help in the esteem of justice and fairness, to remove the cruelty, attempts in every duty.” - Sultan Osman I

When we contemplate the idea of citizenship in the modern world, we tend to think of it in the context of how we personally experience the concept. Our citizenship is inextricably tied to our place of birth, our ethnic background, and our language. In other words, our citizenship is bound to our ideas about our nationality. In pre-modern times however, this was not the case. Classical civilizations viewed citizenship as a privilege bestowed upon those who had either earned or paid for their rights as a member of the state. This trend continued for centuries mostly unchanged until the rise of the Ottoman Empire and the implementation of the millet system. What we began to see under the Ottomans however, is not what we would think of today when we refer to the idea of citizenship. To think of citizenship in the Ottoman Empire using the criteria by which we determine citizenship today, namely one’s nationality, would cause us to commit the anachronistic mistake of projecting the idea of nationalism into a time when such an idea would have been entirely foreign to those who lived in the Ottoman Empire. In order to fix this problem we must first have a clear understanding of what we mean when we talk about citizenship in the Ottoman Empire. Only then can we attempt to answer the central question of what exactly is responsible for the rise of proto-citizens in the Ottoman Empire.

Given that the idea of nationalism was far removed from the time of the Ottomans, what can we say about the way people interacted and identified themselves with regards to the state? In the early part of the history of the Ottoman Empire, people saw themselves as being more directly connected to their specific community than they were to the state as a whole. People lived in segregated confessional communities called millets. It was often the case that millets would also be further subdivided by profession or trade. These communities were, for the most part, allowed to carry out the administration of their neighborhoods according to their own customs and systems of organization. More specifically, the term describes the separate legal courts that existed in each community and went about the business of directing community policy with relatively little interference from those who were in charge of the Ottoman state as a whole. In fact, the only real influence the Ottoman sultan exerted on each individual millet was channeled through the head of each individual millet, who was usually the leader of the religious hierarchy in each community. One could argue that the real focal point of power in the early empire revolved around the millet, as each was allowed to legislate their own laws and levy their own taxes.

The question of whether or not the millet system eventually led to the rise of the proto-citizen is one that may not have a definitive answer, but we can make predictions about what a society of proto-citizens would look like if it were indeed promoted by the millet system. Firstly, we would begin to see the breaking down, at least in the daily administration of the state, of the barriers that separated subjects of the Ottoman Empire. Such a phenomenon would surely be an indication of progress towards a less local, more centralized state identity. This is exactly what we see in the Ottoman Empire, notably in the city of Aintab. In 1540, Süleyman the Magnificent set out to codify a set of laws for the Ottoman Empire. This new set of legal reforms served to centralize authority over the empire with the sultan at the expense of community leaders, and these reforms became representative of the sultan’s presence in each community (Peirce 286). In the past, cities were granted a greater level of autonomy in conducting the business of it’s people, but Süleyman’s reforms created a system of give-and-take that dictated the way in which state authority would be legitimized. The legal organs and processes of Aintab were being absorbed into those of the empire as a whole which lead to local custom being circumscribed by the new centralized power. As Leslie Peirce writes “There was no clear line separating state and society in Aintab (289).”

Peirce also describes in detail “the trickle-down effect of the benefits of state generated offices through the granting of ever smaller units of tax-farming.” Local people were being appointed to offices in government administration, and therefore suddenly owed allegiance to the state over their local neighborhood. In turn, these new bureaucrats would employ more men in the enforcement of the duties of their office. These men would have no title per se, but would in fact be bearers of state authority. These tax farms eventually became one of the main issues for dispute over whether the state or local authorities would have ultimate control, and the new imperial courts would be the venue in which these issues were debated. (292)

Although local custom was beginning to lose ground against a new imperial state law, it was not completely eliminated as a tool used by local government. Customary law continued to have legal standing in areas where it was convenient, and when it was not in contradiction with the Qur’an. Local custom was also only applicable in the region in which it originated and was not retro-active. But why was this the case? Certainly the Ottomans appreciated the extent to which total and complete reform would be disruptive on a large scale, and besides, their interest was not in eliminating local custom, but simply to show that state rule, and state legislation would have the right-of-way in Ottoman cities. By supplanting the Qur’an as the supreme law of the land the Ottomans created new ties between the individual and the state. These new ties would eventually evolve into the bonds that acted as the new framework on which the modern idea of citizenship would be constructed.

There is a wealth of evidence that supports the idea that modern citizenship was first conceived in the Ottoman Empire. Süleyman’s reforms initiated a process that would continue throughout the rest of the Ottoman Empire’s reign over the Balkans and the Middle East. The results of this process were indeed a new breed of citizenship where citizens were directly tied to state government in such a way that their state identity overrode that of their regional or even religious identity. While it is obvious that proto-citizens existed in the Ottoman Empire, it is not so obvious that this was a direct result of the millet system. A great deal of the evidence points to this being the case, but there is possibly a lack of any real definitive, all-or-nothing piece of evidence linking proto-citizenship to the millet system. In other words, we have a case of having a lot of necessary information, but not much information sufficient to make a final judgment one way or the other.

Ann Coulter on the Man Who Murdered Milk

On Thursday, the evil Ann Coulter appeared on Geraldo. This should not surprise anyone. Coulter and Rivera have both been conservative shills for quite some time and their comments rarely merit discussion. But on Thursday, Coulter made a remark that send my head into lockdown mode. Discussion had drifted to the recent anniversary of the assassination of Harvey Milk and how the shockwaves of that event can still be felt years after his death. Then, in a fashion typical of herself, Ms. Coulter said "Harvey Milk was killed by a Democrat."

Harvey Milk was killed by a Democrat.

It was stated as if it were an indictment of all Democrats, which is in and of itself fallacious. Abraham Lincoln was killed by a conservative, but that doesn't mean you can categorically paint all conservatives as murderers. Mao was an atheist, but it surely does not follow that that would mean anything about atheists in general. John Wilkes Booth doesn't speak for conservatives, Mao doesn't speak for atheists, and Dan White doesn't speak for Democrats. It was stated as if Ms. Coulter didn't fully grasp the magnitude of failure contained in those seven words. The statement on it's face is certainly factually true, but Dan White's identity as a Democrat contributed nothing to his motives for murder. This fact is gleefully overlooked by Coulter and Geraldo as it becomes painfully obvious that Coulter has lost all communication with the reality-based world.

Harvey Milk was not killed because of political ideology. Dan White murdered Milk because White was an insane, homophobic, bigoted, sore loser, and in that sense he has much more in common with today's GOP than he does anyone on the left side of the aisle.

Except the weapons of those opposed to progress are much more subtle and much more deadly today. They distort, withhold, and outright lie about the evidence, and in the process kill millions more Americans than anyone with a six shooter and a twinkie defense ever could.

Why I Haven't Written Lately

I doubt that many people have noticed my extended absence on LL, but for those who have, I think I owe an explanation. While congress is in recess we've all become very familiar with the prevailing stories in the news this summer. Healthcare town halls and the screamers and other manner of wackos that attend them with hopes of derailing healthcare reform are dominating all political conversation. It's the same old tired tactics that attempted to stop desegregation in the south, and it's the same tactics that we'll see for years to come whenever there is hope for progressive reform, and it should be reported as such. So, I'm not going to give extra time and attention to groups that don't deserve it. They're old news, and they're enemies of progress. It would be pointless for me to keep beating a dead horse. Thus, until at least congress is back in session, or something worth reporting happens, or regular season New Orleans Saints football begins, I refuse to be boring.

My Weekend Plans!

Sorry for missing Turds Day, Glen Beck would have won the golden turd, for those who care to know. I'll be away most of this weekend, catching the Pennington Balloon Championships and the New Orleans Saints Black and Gold Scrimmage. I'm highly excited about both of these, I'll post pictures when I get back.

Are You Kidding Me, Mr. President?!

President Obama is going out of his way this week derail his own plan for real health care reform. The president told reporters this week that "he didn't like to see 'left wing' groups attacking fellow Democrats.'"

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?

All we're doing Mr. President, is fighting for the real reform that you campaigned on! You asked me to vote for you because a vote for you would be a vote for healthcare, and now that we're calling out Blue Dogs for dragging their feet, you stand up for them? If real meaningful healthcare reform fails this year, it will not be because of liberal progressives asking The President and Congress to keep to their word when it comes to the most important issues facing our country. Forget blaming birthers, screamers, and the GOP, It will be because conservative democrats in name only either aren't sticking to their guns or weren't serious about reform in the first place. All we're asking for is for you to keep your promises. ~46,000,000 Americans cannot wait for diplomacy on this issue. We need real reform now. I don't understand why the President is asking all the people who voted for real reform to calm down and sit the bench at this crucial stage in the debate. The radical right is sending the dogs on every front, and our leader is telling us to hold steady. Mr. President, I hope you haven't forgotten that you found success in the primaries on the backs of liberals who didn't just wait for the issue to come to them, they attacked and won. You owe us.

It's Turds-day! Volume #1, Of Perkins, Principals, and (former) Policemen.

This post will be the inaugural post of what I hope will be a weekly feature on Liberal Louisiana. This feature will attempt to showcase the heights of the lows in humanity for the week leading up to each Thursday. This feature is not meant to insult, but merely to draw attention to those special cases where the subject has caused great injury to society as a whole and has detracted from the progress that we strive so hard to make. It is fitting then that such people be held accountable in public for their crimes against the common good, and ridiculed as the silly faces that they are. And so it is with great pleasure that I offer my services in service of that goal. Now, without further ado, here are the top turds of the week for July 23-30, 2009.

The bronze medal this week goes to Perkins Rowe. Who could have foreseen that no one would in the Baton Rouge area would be interested in dropping 250k for a condo with terrible parking and no view? Well, everyone is who. The lack of foresight in the Perkins Rowe planning is probably the root cause of the development going under, and for that, the developers deserve the first ever bronze turd award.

The silver medal for this week is awarded to Kevin Lemoine, former principal of Zachary High School. Mr. Lemoine showed his brilliant understanding of the law earlier in the week when he filed suit against the Zachary Community School Board for wrongful termination. Only he wasn't terminated. In a sworn statement, Lemoine asserted that he voluntarily stepped down from his post as principal because of pressure to pressure Zachary's head football coach to lobby for the Superintendent's son's selection to the all-district team. What really happened though was that Lemoine was being pressured to fire a football coach who was breaking school board rules. Lemoine refused and was therefore informed that his contract would not be renewed at the end of term. Perhaps taking a page from the Sarah Palin playbook, Lemoine is claiming that other people are responsible for things that he's done wrong. Now you may want to check this out on your own as you could make the argument that I'm biased, Lemoine, after all served as my principal while I was at ZHS. I didn't like him that much, but that was only because he violated my Fifth Amendment rights by performing an illegal search of my school bag. But I promise, he deserves the silver turd independently of my dislike of him.

And finally, the first ever Great Golden Turd goes to (former) Officer Justin Barrett (formerly) of the Boston Police. In a recent e-mail, Barrett described Harvard Professor Louis Gates as a "banana eating jungle-monkey". The e-mail continues:

"I am not a racist, but I am prejudiced towards stupid people... He [Gates] has indeed transcended back to a bumbling jungle monkey."

According to sources this disgusting diatribe was laced with numerous grammatical and spelling errors.

It is one thing, one very stupid thing, to suggest that a tenured professor at one of America's most prestigious colleges is stupid. It is quite another to demonstrate that you are not only a racist, but an idiot racist, and then pretend not to be. Just because one prefaces a statement with claims not to be a racist doesn't mean anything. One does not get to redefine racism simply to paint themselves as something other than the monster that they actually are. The fact that one would feel the need to preface a statement in such a way speaks volumes about that person's image of themselves in relation to what society views as acceptable. In this case, if it looks like a duck and quacks like an ass hole, it probably is. Barrett absolutely looks and sounds like an ass hole, and that is a perception that appears to be well-deserved. This is all without mentioning the objections I have as an amateur philosopher to the use of the word transcend. This idiot doesn't realize that people don't transcend. Transcendent things transcend, people are finite and thus are inherently non-transcendent. I would also point out that Gates has never ever been a "jungle monkey" so for him to "transcend back" to being one is nonsensical. If anyone in this whole ridiculous story has proven to be an animal it is Barrett, as this e-mail shows him for what he truly is, an ape.