The PFC overrode the Exec’s Veto of the ODE’s budget last night, but that doesn’t mean this is over. The Exec will probably be at the Senate meeting regarding the entire PFC budget next week. They’ll be lobbying against the ODE while giving all sorts of crap a free pass…the MCC, OSPIRG, USSA, OSA, you name it. Oh, but here’s the killer:

“The Executive also feels that the PFC-allocated money that does not physically or culturally enhance the University campus, because student fees will be paying for the publication of papers that are distributed in areas where students are not the target audience,” the Executive stated in the memo.

STUPID! YOU’RE SO STUPID!

At the risk of (or more aptly, the intention of) setting you guys off on Scott Austin again, here’s what he said about you over at the ODE site:

Hmmm, though I am from time to time entertained by the Commentator, its pre-candescent approach to journalism is, to say the least, childish and somewhat problematic. To claim that the staff and writers — who, by the way, seem to suffer great lack of consistency and reliability according to Mr. Dreier — are somehow “smarter” than I am is entertaining in a pre-pubescent sort of way.

Discuss amongst yourselves. Also, if one is pre-candescent, does that assume you will, in fact, become glowingly hot in the near future? On your mark, get set, rip ‘im a new one!

From NFL.com, the final indignity:

More names to know: Jason File, Oregon

Ouch. Poor old J-Fife. He was in Addams Family Values once, you know.

A paroxysm of guilt:

From time to time, I am ashamed to be an American. My shame has many sources — sometimes it’s our pride, sometimes it’s our astounding levels of greed and consumption, and other times, it is our seemingly boundless ability to justify the absurd, the invidious and the hateful.

The rest of the column is actually pretty good – it’s a compilation of wince-inducing Supreme Court opinions. That paragraph rubs me the wrong way, though, and since I’m feeling obtuse, I’m going to assume that she is speaking for herself as proud, greedy, and at home with the invidious, rather than some nebulous mass of her fellow citizens. Unfortunately, she left out “our faux-humble, insufferably pious self-flagellation.” Consider it appended as a footnote.

This front-page story from the ODE this morning isn’t all that interesting, but it does help shed some light on just how goddamn crazy the protesters on this campus have become. The Vagina Monologues are, usually, touted greatly by the loon-left (and, to be fair, a pretty big group of your average theatre folks) as empowering for women and all of that whatever-it-is. Money quote:

At the demonstration Friday, Barrett said she chose not to take part when she was originally asked to be in the show.

Let me see if I’ve got this straight: you didn’t want to be in the show, even though its producers asked you specifically, and now you feel that they didn’t do enough to include lesbians and “women-of-color”? Riiiight. Whatever. The other best thing, the jump caption: Turn to VAGINA, page 6.

Quotes like this one from the story liked above remind me exactly why I hated highschool so damn much:

But it’s just not as much fun at the front door, says 16-year-old Priscilla Clousell.

“The exciting part about getting flowers and balloons is having someone there to see it,” said Clousell. “It’s a competition.”

Yes, a competition to see whose dumbass little puppy-love did the best job of conning his parents into shelling out for dead plants and sea-turtle bait. Charming, just charming.

If anyone sees this professional God-botherer around town this week, kindly give him a hard slap.

Question: How does Neale Walsch answer that question [war in Iraq blah]?

Answer: I don’t answer political questions like that for the very reason that people will assume that that’s God’s answer.

Gah. Red… mist… descending… hate… this… guy… so… much…

So I get the feeling that he rubs you guys the wrong way.

Anyway, I’m not alone in my contention that Lost in Translation sucked. Big time.

In fact, I’d wager that The Perfect Score is a more entertaining movie. It’s certainly more patriotic…

If you showed The Perfect Score to a theater packed with sullen young Muslim extremist males in Karachi, I’d wager that a good 20 percent or more would be less inclined to carry out their nefarious deeds, while about five percent would be galvanized to move up the schedule of their martyrdom, if only out of anger for the sinful thoughts that Scarlett Johansson’s bubble ass might inspire.

There you have it.

And if Allen and Nash are finally dedicated to cleaning up the Blazer line-up, they’ll bring back fan favorites Brian Grant and… Isiah “J.R.” Rider. Remember that classic Portland/ Utah playoff series from the lockout shortened ’99 season? Brian and Karl Malone nearly exchanging blows every possession? Isiah pulling back his jersey and thumping his chest after every made free-throw? The final nail in the Stockton/ Malone title hopes? Those were the glory days…

And remember when J.R. made that comment about people being lynched 40 miles outside of Portland? That’s the kind of insight we’re all going to miss in the post-Sheed era.

Upon reading Dan’s first post regarding Count Scottacula’s problems with the law, I noticed this sentence that, quite frankly, is hillarious:

And on what do you base this supposition on?

Not only does he end his sentence with a preposition, but also he manages to make the entire sentence a completely redundant redundancy. Yes, that’s our Scottilingus. Way to go, man.

Rock on, Mr. Atkinson.

While I’m being succinct, here’s an amusing note on outsourcing over at Asymmetrical Information.

Your usage of pareto efficient was right on, and I really like that little thought experiment. It’s a great example of how markets can be used to solve every day problems even when property rights are ill-defined. That reminds me of an amusing non-Austin related anecdote from my youth.

When I was but a freshman taking intro micro 201, my professor had a most difficult time getting the folks in my class to understand the simple concept of pareto efficiency. The worst part, though, the worst part, was the girl who kept asking of inane examples she gave were “pareto” in this terribly nasal little voice. I wanted to shake some sense into her while screaming, “Pareto is the name of the economist after whom this concept is named you stupid stupid freak!” It filled me with great rage. Anyway, just thought I’d share that, later I might go back to fixing Scott Austin’s grammar, but for now, adieu.

Okay, time to get theoretical on his ass. I was saving this one for FLOG™ but Mr. Austin’s given me a convenient hook and forced my hand, long block quotes and all.

I want to deal directly with this passage:

[T]his is an issue that must in the end be decided, one way or the other, and I assure you all that the first time that gay couple married in Massachusetts can compel the State of Kansas to recognize its marriage, the conflict will indeed spill into the political battlefield, and the war will be an ugly one.

(We’ll take as moot the fact that Congress, acting on Constitutional authority, empowered the State of Kansas to refuse to recognize a Massachusetts marriage if it cares to, making the battle Austin suggests a non-event. The Defense of Marriage Act* may one day be challenged on constitutional grounds, but it should prove sturdy enough to not even leave the circuits.)

The problem I have with this passage is its implicit presumption that “the political battlefield” can only mean the national political battlefield—that compelling social issues can only be resolved by Congress or by an amendment to the Constitution. Apparently, in the wake of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, Mr. Austin has resigned himself to a system of government in which the States have no traditional spheres of power, no right to innovate, experiment, or govern themselves as they see fit.

Austin is not alone. As power has aggregated to the national government over the past century, his attitude seems to have become increasingly common. Many people assume, as Austin does, that Congress and the Executive ought to solve every problem the nation faces, and that the Supreme Court ought to answer every question.

Don’t like what your neighbor’s up to? Call your congressman. He’ll find some clever way to slip in another law through the commerce power.

The 9th Circuit won’t overturn California’s ferret ban? Request certiorari! Ferret ownership deserves equal protection under the law!

If enough people come to think like Austin, federalism becomes the sham he says it is, and we find ourselves ruled entirely by the least accountable government—Todd. Fortunately, not everyone has given up on the idea. Federalism still has some friends on the Supreme Court. I believe this long block quote is well on point:

The theory that two governments accord more liberty than one requires for its realization two distinct and discernable lines of political accountability: one between the citizens and the Federal Government; the second between the citizens and the States. If, as Madison expected, the Federal and State Governments are to control each other, see The Federalist No. 51, and hold each other in check by competing for the affections of the people, see The Federalist No. 46, those citizens must have some means of knowing which of the two governments to hold accountable for the failure to perform a given function. Federalism serves to assign political responsibility, not to obscure it. Were the Federal Government to take over the regulation of entire areas of traditional state concern…the boundaries between the spheres of federal and state authority would blur and political responsibility would become illusory. The resultant inability to hold either branch of the government answerable to the citizens is more dangerous even than devolving too much authority to the remote central power.

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 576-77 (1995). Kennedy, J, concurring in the judgment. (Emphasis added.)

We need federalism to work in order to keep all of our governments in check. Federalism does not mean unfettered States’ rights, as Austin suggests when he insinuates that the College Republicans are closet Confederates. It allows for assertions of power by the central government (see, e.g., Articles I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution, as well as the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments). But federalism also calls for certain areas of law to be reserved to the states. And in order for federalism to work, as Justice Kennedy notes, these areas of “traditional state concern” must be clearly delineated so that the people can hold States accountable.

The Defense of Marriage Act, one more time again, was an acceptable exercise of Title IV power. A Federal Marriage Amendment, on the other hand, would:

(1) permanently aggregate more power to the central government and away from the states;

(2) intrude into an area of traditional state concern and further blur already half-erased lines between the central and state spheres of influence; and

(3) for the foregoing reasons, further decay the principles of federalism until we all become blithering ninnies like Scott Austin, governed more and more by an unaccountable and disinterested central government.

Oh, crap. It appears I’ve made my point without using the long block quote I most wanted to use. This wouldn’t have happened if I was just dealing with theory and not attacking Scott Austin. Damn him! Rather than revise, I’ll just set it off separately for your consideration, because I like it a great deal.

FEDERALISM: PARETO EFFICIENT?

I’m certain that is a sloppy use of the terms pareto superior and pareto efficient, and I’m even more certain Tim will finger me for it before the sun sets, but just read this economic argument for federalism and tell me it ain’t beautiful:

[A]ssume that there are only two states, with equal populations of 100 each. Assume further that 70 percent of State A, and only 40 percent of State B, wish to outlaw smoking in public buildings. The others are opposed. If the decision is made on a national basis by a majority rule, 110 people will be pleased, and 90 displeased. If a separate decision is made by majorities in each state, 130 will be pleased, and only 70 displeased. The level of satisfaction will be still greater if some smokers in State A decide to move to State B, and some anti-smokers in State B decide to move to State A. In the absence of economies of scale in government services, significant externalities, or compelling arguments from justice, this is a powerful reason to prefer decentralized government.

Michael W. McConnell, Federalism: Evaluating the Founders’ Design, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1484, 1494 (1987).

Apply this to our problem. If you want to be married and gay, and not run into trouble with your state government, move to a state that grants or gives faith and credit to gay marriages. If you can’t stand gays being married, move to Oklahoma. If, like me, you don’t care all that much who marries whom, stay put. No harm, no foul. It’s fair, it’s diverse, it’s politically expedient. That’s what federalism is all about.

______________________________

*“No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”

28 USC s. 1738C.

I want to put a very fine point on something I don’t think I properly hammered home in the post below. Scott Austin begins his commentary by suggesting that federalism, as the Framers knew it, died in the Reconstruction with the adoption of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Presumably, his argument goes from there, the national government (Todd) has therefore been empowered to regulate marriage since the end of the 19th century. (Perhaps on some construction of the equal protection clause? Enlighten us, Scott!)

Yet the rest of the article is given over to examples of Congressional intrusion into marriage law that were grounded on constitutional powers set forth in Article IV of the original document. In other words, powers given to Congress under federalism “as the founders of this country understood it.”

Not only that, but he condemns (I think–clarity is lacking) these uses of constitutional power.

This is all rather foolish. I was not sure I had made that irrefutably clear.

I’m sure Austin’s lack of legal perspicacity deserves a far more thorough whipping than the one I present here, but this is just what I tossed off during Contracts this morning. Enjoy.

“[F]ederalism as the founders of this country understood it disappeared rather suddenly with the adoption of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments and the subsequent limitations placed on state sovereignty.”

This is a fair point, although were I more like Scott Austin I might waste a great deal more breath quibbling with the words “rather suddenly.” No Constitutional amendment comes to pass “rather suddenly,” and the development of 14th amendment jurisprudence took a couple of decades just to get revved up; it’s far from a settled point now.

But let that be. However momentous the shift in power marked by those amendments, the fact remains that Todd*, by congressional restraint and more often by judicial vigilance, has largely resisted intrusion into certain areas of law traditionally left to the states. Contract law and family law, to name a couple. The Defense of Marriage Act, as discussed below, was a slight intrusion into the state law area of marriage, but it was done in pursuit of a power granted to Todd by Article IV, not by any Reconstruction-era amendment. In Austin’s words, it was implemented according to federalism “as the framers understood it.“

“we next move Dreier’s assertion that Article IV’s “full faith and credit” application simply cannot be construed as to require States to recognize other states’ gay marriages. And on what do you base this supposition on? Relying on Supreme Court precedent is at best unavailing, as no actual case-law exists in this matter…”

Mr. Dreier: right! Mr. Austin: wrong!

First, the reason there is “no actual case law” is that most of the jurisprudence relating to marriage and the Faith and Credit clause arises from “judicial proceedings” on the validity of annulments, alimony settlements, and the like. This isn’t surprising, because those are the sorts of issues that go to court. Rarely do couples sue each other to get married. The primary purpose of the Faith and Credit clause is to act as a buttress to the principle of res judicata, which prevents needless relitigation of disputes.

The Faith and Credit clause does, of course, also mention “public acts [and] records.” Marriages fall under this category. Which brings us to the second point and probably the settlement of the question: if Mr. Austin would read the whole thing, he’d find that “the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” Well, what do you know? Congress can regulate the application of the Faith and Credit clause. Which they did a while back with the Defense of Marriage Act.

Essentially, the Faith and Credit clause is a limitation on state power and an explicit enumeration, to Todd, of power over the states (that’s why it’s in Article IV). Todd has exercised that power. We’re done.

“…lest we forget the time-honored lessons of history that you so disingenuously insist upon, some of the greatest Supreme Court decisions handed down have relied not upon the sacredness of stare decisis, as you would hope, but rather upon lone dissents and far less.”

Don’t go talking about stare decisis until you understand it. It is not sacred, particularly at the Supreme Court level. No court in the nation is, or has ever been, bound by its own previous precedents. Precedent deserves respect and a great amount of deference, but it is not inviolable. Lord help us if it was, or we’d all still be running around screaming “contract privity!” when we stub our toes, and scratching our heads over whether we are an invitee or a licensee when we stop to take a piss at Arby’s. That’s all that is worth saying on this point, as I’m sure I’ve just committed a great number of erroneous errors.

“…have you forgotten again that Utah’s admission to the Union was conditional not upon economic or governmental changes, but rather upon the dropping of polygamy as a legal practice. [sic]”

Of course, the dropping of polygamy as a legal practice was a governmental change, wasn’t it? Sorry, I’m trying not to quibble. But Mr. Austin, again, this was done through an enumerated Article IV power: “New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union.” The Constitution is silent on what conditions the Congress may or may not impose on new states as it admits them. Perhaps this silence indicates a difference in the respect the Constitution gives to prospective, as opposed to existing, states and their laws. Maybe the framers gave Congress the power over admission to avoid the nettlesome proposition of annexing states, wholly intact, whose governments were in conflict with American principles. Whatever the reason, Congress rightly exercised its constitutional power to establish a few ground rules with the wacked-out desert-rat polygamists of Utah. But this Big Lesson From History is simply irrelevant to the relations between Todd and the several States of the Union.

“I simply cannot believe that someone who asserts so forcefully as you have a self-proclaimed knowledge of history and government forms and functions could be so utterly lacking in actual knowledge.”

Right back at you, Austin.

________________________

*National government, federal government, central government, whatever. Its real name is Todd. One of the many secrets you learn in law school.

One Danimal will most likely be all over the tenuous and poorly reasoned legalistic parts of Mr. Austin’s most patronizing and foolish letter. So, because I am a twit, I will offer up a critique of his writing. In the main, my goal will be two fold: One, demonstrate Austin’s need for a goddamn dictionary; and two, make fun of him for being a ninny.

Let’s start with his first paragraph which, to my mind, is entirely too long. The first sentence or two are typically ad hominem, but the phrase “insatiable lack of comprehension” is just too funny to pass up. From Webster:

Main Entry: in·sa·tia·ble

Pronunciation: (“)in-‘sA-sh&-b&l

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English insaciable, from Middle French, from Latin insatiabilis, from in- + satiare to satisfy — more at SATIATE

: incapable of being satisfied : QUENCHLESS

– in·sa·tia·bil·i·ty /(“)in-“sA-sh&-‘bi-l&-tE/ noun

– in·sa·tia·ble·ness /(“)in-‘sA-sh&-b&l-n&s/ noun

– in·sa·tia·bly /-blE/ adverb

Therefore, according to El Scottorino, my “lack of comprehension” is incapable of being satisfied. I guess I can see what he’s trying to accomplish here, but that construction would certainly fail my WR 122 class. Seriously, remove the “lack of” part and you’re left with “insatiable comprehension” and that doesn’t make a damn bit of sense. Later, in the very same sentence, Mr. CityLimits uses the phrase “erroneous error.” That is what we in the business call a ‘double negative.’ As far as I can tell, if my error is erroneous, then my statment must be correct. Or, perhaps, Scottyboi was going for redundancy, who knows? But, let’s offer up some definitions of error and erroneous just to help Scotter along in future. This time from Dictionary.com:

er·ror n. 

1. An act, assertion, or belief that unintentionally deviates from what is correct, right, or true.

2. The condition of having incorrect or false knowledge.

3. The act or an instance of deviating from an accepted code of behavior.

4. A mistake.

5. Mathematics. The difference between a computed or measured value and a true or theoretically correct value.

6. Abbr. E Baseball. A defensive fielding or throwing misplay by a player when a play normally should have resulted in an out or prevented an advance by a base runner.

er·ro·ne·ous adj.

Containing or derived from error; mistaken: erroneous conclusions.

Ahh…Scottywhottydoodah, you’ve just accused my error of being wrong, meaning that my initial statment must certainly be correct. They let this man teach? He’s not even literate. Like this next thing, that Olly already quoted, but I feel the need to edit into something coherent:

However seductive and entertaining a thought that might be for Jarrett White and those of his ilk who look back on the Confederacy as some beacon of light in a smoke-filled, poorly lit room at the seedy basement of a strip club, it bears no basis in reality or fact.

First of all, it’s a run-on. Secondly, GAH and PHE! There must be some way to turn that monstrosity into two or three grammatical constructions, but I’ve neither the patience nor the inclination. I will point out that the “or” right at the end there should probably be “nor.” Perhaps that’s my own voice seeping through, but at least mine comes from a hygenic mouth.

The last thing I’m going to deal with is Mr. Capital-of-the-state-that-performs-the-most-executions-every-year’s final assertion, it reads as follows:

All in all, this is an issue that must in the end be decided, one way or the other, and I assure you all that the first time that gay couple married in Massachusetts can compel the State of Kansas to recognize its marriage, the conflict will indeed spill into the political battlefield, and the war will be an ugly one. But I suppose we can always turn to Mr. Dreier for solace when that day arrives, now can’t we?

Let’s ignore, for the moment, that it’s obvious Scott (Mary, Queen of) doesn’t like gay people. That quote above is only two sentences. It should be four, the third comma in the first sentence should be a period. Yeah, okay, he used a conjunction to join those two clauses, but the rest of the sentence really needs to be broken up into smaller chunks. So, for the edification of Mr. Mr.-Powers-International-Man-Of-Mystery and our readers at large, I’m providing a revision:

All in all, this is an issue that must in the end be decided, one way or the other. I assure you all that the first time a gay couple married in Massachusetts can compel the State of Kansas to recognize their marriage, the conflict will indeed spill into the political battlefield. The war will be an ugly one. But I suppose we can always turn to Mr. Dreier for solace when that day arrives, can’t we?

Look, four sentences…doesn’t that look better? I also made a few minor changes, for instance, the appropriate possessive pronoun for the marriage of a gay couple is “their” not “its,” Mr. Scottorum. But, in any case, now for my most substantiative and salient point: Scott, you are a douchebag. Douchebag, douchebag, douchebag.

NOTE: Sorry for the long post, here’s a link to some naked people to make it up to you.