Wednesday, December 21, 2005

My Best Christmas

In the winter of 1964, when I was 7 1/2 years old, my parents and I lived in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Every Christmas we spent there was glorious, but 1964 was my favorite. You see, that was the year I first started having doubts about the existence of Santa Claus . . . and my parents conspired to reinvigorate my belief in that Jolly Old Elf . . . and it worked.

One of our family's Christmas traditions was to drive around town after dark on Christmas Eve, looking at everyone's lights and outdoor displays. In 1964, just as we climbed into the car, my dad ran back into the house to get his wallet (or so he said). He was gone for no more than one or two minutes, I swear. (Remember, being a Type A baby, I have always had a very accurate sense of time passing.) After he came back, he drove us throughout town, and finally up into the mountains to look over the entire city. It had snowed quite a bit that year, and it was beautiful, ethereal even.

Lo and behold! When we got back home, all the presents were under the tree!

I confess to being dumbfounded. My belief in Santa was solidified, for at least another year.

I found out only years later that my mom and dad had prepared all the presents and hidden them very close to the tree (which mystifies me to this day, as there wasn't really any place in the house we lived in to do that), and Dad had just moved them under the tree in one swoop whilst allegedly getting his wallet.

It was a magical Christmas, and to this day, remains my personal favorite.

I wish you all equally wondrous holidays!

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

This May Be Why Shakespeare Said "The First Thing We Do Is, Let's Kill All The Lawyers"

Have you been following the US Supreme Court case about whether colleges and universities can keep military recruiters off their campuses because of the military's policy of excluding openly gay people from service . . . without having to give up the federal funds and research grants they receive?

I do not like the military's main argument on the subject, which comes down to "you cannot discriminate against us just because WE discriminate." I do, however, confess to having some sympathy with the notion that the universities do not have any entitlement to get federal funds if they don't let the military recruiters do their jobs on campus on an equal footing with other potential employers.

The only possible saving grace for the universities' position is Justice David Souter's key observation that governmental restrictions on giving federal monies to universities which wish to protest the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy infringe on First Amendment free speech rights.

Still, it's a post-9/11 world, and a Neocon Gilded Age to boot. Methinks the putative free speech rights of a bunch of allegedly "wild-eyed" left-wingers will be trumped by the practical reality that no institution has a RIGHT to get research grants and funds from the federal government. This is not unlike the case of unfunded federal mandates, wherein the government threatens to withhold, say, highway funds from any state not participating in some grandiose federally sanctioned goal, like "No Child Left Behind." No one is required to participate, but no one who refuses to participate gets any of the goodies tied to participating. It's the state's or university's choice. [Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.--Ed.]

Of course, as a further practical matter, no university can afford to forego the massive amount of federal funding it receives. The federal government pumps something on the order of $35 billion--with a "B"--into supporting American colleges and universitites every year.

So the federal government's position is little more than legalized extortion. The most amusing aspect of this is that the Neocons don't like unfunded federal mandates--when the mandate is for something the Neocons disagree with on a philosophical level. Despite what they claim, they are not opposed to unfunded mandates per se.

Another hard case is going to make bad law. First Amendment considerations should be paramount, but since the military is involved, and we are in a post-9/11 world, national security and the adverse effects of the universities' stands on military recruiting may tip the balance. I can see the Supremes ruling in favor of forcing the universities to shut up and accept the monies and the recruiters, or to keep protesting and take a catastrophic hit in their budgets.

What we really need to do is elect people who can force a change in the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. How many "Rs" are in "fat chance"?

Saturday, December 03, 2005

Requiescat In Pace

Last night's Omaha World-Herald reported the death, at age 89, of Dr. James A. Rawley, professor emeritus of history at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. I am deeply saddened by this news. I took a 400/800 Civil War seminar from Dr. Rawley in the second semester of my junior year at UNL; his own specialty was Civil War politics, and one of the requried books for the course was his own analysis of politics in bleeding Kansas between 1857 and 1860. He was an exceedingly kindly human being with a beautific smile, but a tough, tough instructor.

He bled red ink all over my term paper for that class, wherein I had explored whether Lincoln had maneuvered the South into firing the first shots of the Civil War, and whether it was a good or bad thing that he did so. I came to the conclusion that he didn't, but that the question was actually irrelevant anyway, and supported that notion with a great deal of deductive reasoning from the evidence I'd discovered in the source documents I'd used in my research.

Despite the red ink, Dr. Rawley gave me an A, and told me I was a born historian . . . doubtless the greatest compliment I've ever received in my life.

He was a treasure and an inspiration. He will be missed.

Friday, December 02, 2005

You Are Sixteen, Going On . . .

Stupidity. My apologies to Rogers, Hammerstein, Julie Andrews, and all the other cast and crew of The Sound of Music.

There's been a bit of a dust-up in the Letters to the Editor of the OmahaWorld-Herald lately, all about whether there exists any right to privacy in our system of government.

While the consensus seems to be "No," and while that concensus is wrong, the arguments for and against it are both totally incompetent.

This is news?

One writer claimed there should be a right to privacy because no one needed to know or care about what prostitutes do . . . and the stinging reply, from a 16-year-old girl, says that since no one wants to commit crimes except in private, "of course there is no right to privacy."

Both writers missed the point. Criminal laws, enacted by the legislature of the appropriate jurisdiction and enforced by the police apparatus of the said same jurisdiction, supercede any right to privacy that exists for those activities.

However, there are in addition many, many things that people want to keep private that are NOT statutorily defined crimes, and thus are protected by a right to privacy that I, for one, believe exists. (More on that in a moment.) I don't want anyone watching me while I am doing my business in the bathroom--no one else wants to watch, either, believe me--but that does not mean that I have no right to privacy in that space, as long as what I am doing has not been statutorily defined as being a crime.

In other words, it works very much like the 10th Amendment: whatever is not specifically defined and allowed or defined and forbidden is left to the people.

The Founding Fathers did not live in the 21st century: they did not think with a vocabulary that included "privacy" the way we use it nowadays. That does NOT mean, however, that they did not intend for us not to have any right to privacy. Consider the Bill of Rights. If one looks at govnermental behavior that is prohibited, a lot of it has to do with intrusions on an individual's home or person. If the government cannot force you to house soldiers without your consent, and if the government cannot force you to testify against yourself, that means that you can keep the government out of aspects of your life (that aren't specifically defined as being criminal, that is). What is privacy if not that?

Besides, there's always that pesky 10th Amendment to consider. And since "privacy" is nowhere in the US Constitution mentioned as being subject to governmental restriction, it therefore is left as a right to the people. How's that for using the argument of "original construction" against those who mistakenly perpetrate it today?

If the Constitution cannot live and breathe, it can no longer govern us effectively. It is not the same world it was in 1789; unless you're willing to go back there, in ALL things, you cannot restrict the document to what its words meant in 1789 . . . the Founding Fathers were not omniscient, and they, at least, were smart enough to know that. Which is precisely why they drafted the Constitution as they did, so that it could flex and grow and still be relevant as the world changed around it. Heck, if we are going to limit ourselves to original intent, we do not need a judicial system at all. Why people like Antonin Scalia cannot figure that out is beyond me.