The Obama-nation that pauses derogation

The term derogation has two important senses in the English language: any act which belittles or disparages someone, or a legal term of art denoting that which limits the scope or impairs the utility or force of some preexisting legal authority. 

 

The Obama administration has strongly signaled an intent to put the brakes on the incessant and unproductive derogation and vilification of each major political party by the other.  He has done this in various ways, such as dining with conservative luminaries and appointing pragmatic and relatively centrist (or non-partisan) figures such as Robert Gates, Mary Schapiro and Ray LaHood, people who have built their careers on professionalism and merit without much regard for ideological litmus tests.  One begins to sense, with cautious optimism, that Obama’s many promises of building up a post-partisan dialogue (and even a bi-partisan consensus on certain crucial issues) may well be something more than mere campaign puffery, after all.  This is most encouraging as we enter an era during which our national prosperity and security may be too imperiled to be rescued by the efforts of only half of our nation’s leaders and policymakers.  Of course, such reconciliatory efforts may not work with a Congress so opposed to Progress, but surely it is heartening to see the chief executive having a go.

 

In its legal sense, derogation implies a partial impairment, as opposed to complete abrogation which wholly overturns or annuls another legal authority.  The question of whether the actions of the Bush Administration were actually in derogation of fundamental constitutional rights and other well-marked limitations on executive power remains to be fully adjudicated, although the weight of legal scholarship is certainly leaning towards an affirmative answer.  That said, it should be clear by now that the Obama administration has already made steps to shift the balance of powers between the federal branches on to a more soundly constitutional footing, by laying out clear policies on coercive interrogation and shutting down a prison system which was always intended as an end-run around the federal courts.  These actions should raise cries of applause from the hardcore constitutionalists who constitute the anti-federalist tip of the American right wing (as we have heard from Libertarians and Bob Barr) but such retrogressive extremists may not take constitutional limitations on executive power quite so seriously as the name Constitution Party would seem to imply.

 

I wish the new President the very best in his efforts to roll back derogation in both senses, but unless Congress itself determines to move forward on key issues, it is unlikely that he will be given the chance.

 

Reddest State Redux

This is a quick follow-up to an earlier post about which states are the reddest. Here it is in an easier to visualise format:

From Blogger Pictures

IQ vs. Happiness

WTF TAL?

I’ve downloaded all available episodes of my favorite radio show and podcast: This American Life.  Out of 370 episodes to date, I’m only missing two.  I am sworn by all things holy to listen through every episode before A.D. 2010.  To that end, if anyone has any hint of the whereabouts of the mysteriously missing episodes numbered five and eight, please drop me a line.  Thanks!

 

Seasons Greetings

The fine folk over at Volokh Conspiracy have authored a fascinating and insightful series of posts on the various holiday salutations we use to greet each other during this time of year, which I heartily recommend to anyone interested in the subject. 

 

Judging by the content and tone of all of those articles, I’m struck with the sense that none of the authors betrays the experience of having lived in the Bible Belt after the onset of hostilities in the annual War On Christmas.  They evidently have no sense of what it is like to live in a culture in which Christianity is so pervasive as to be taken for granted, in which people will routinely ask, by way of introduction, “What church do you attend?” and proceed to take offense if one refuses to discuss your personal religious beliefs.  The idea that “Merry Christmas” might be an attempt to subtly assert superior insider status over non-Christians doesn’t seem to cross anyone’s mind over at Volokh, which is particularly odd given that the authors are presumably familiar with Justice O’Connor’s reconceptualization of the constitutional disestablishment principle, “Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.”  Of course, she was writing about endorsement by government officials, but the underlying social principle is surely no different in interpersonal relations than it is with official decrees.  In social situations, signals of outsider/insider status are surely more prevalent and vital than in official messages sent out scattershot by bureaucrats to no one in particular.

 

No doubt social conservatives are not following me by this point, and so I’ll try to paint you guys a thought picture which may help.  You’re in D.C. for a conference next month (what horrible timing) and some revelers on the street cheerfully wish you a “Happy Inauguration Day!”  When you pause non-responsively, they stop to carefully eye your reaction.  You try not to scowl, but as you feel your facial muscles relax, you realize that you’ve already given away your displeasure with the nation’s most recent choice of chief executive.  The revelers give you a knowing, “Ah, not one of us, what a shame for you!” look as they gambol off to make more merriment, leaving you standing in the cold, wondering why they have to be so annoyingly evangelical in their glee.  Why total accost strangers with it, presumptively assuming that their own joy is shared by one and all? 

 

I’m not saying that “every idiot who goes about with ‘Merry Christmas’ on his lips should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart” as Scrooge would have it, but I would like for people to consider it a sign of respectful deference to refuse to assume that everyone one meets on the streets is a coreligionist, celebrating the unique incarnation of the One True God.  If you’d bristle at being taken for a member of another faith, then you ought perhaps think twice before encouraging total strangers to rejoice in your own.  Christians, of all people, ought do unto others as they themselves would be done by.

Reddest state?

I have grown weary of the MSM spreading around (like so much ripe manure) the meme that Oklahoma has taken over from Utah as the reddest state in the nation. My friends, this is simply not so.

By way of illustration, picture in your mind every McCain voter in a given state contributing a drop of red paint into a giant bucket, and each Obama voter contributing an equally-sized blue drop into the same bucket. On this theory, N. Carolina and Missouri come out as nearly perfectly purple, having almost equal numbers of blue and red voters. Washington D.C. is almost wholly blue, and the reddest state is…

WYOMING

That is right, Wyoming. For every Obama voter in Wyoming, there were two McCain voters. Oklahoma ran a close second, with a ratio of 1.91 McCain voters per Obama voter. Better luck next time, Okies. Now get back on your horses and ride herd to the nearest watering hole.