I just got back from Dobie Theatre where I saw a sneak preview of Rize - a documentary film about Clown Dancing AKA Krumping.

Clown dancing was started by Tommy the Clown. Think of the newest dance moves on the newest Missy Elliot video, and that's what it looks like.

At first the movie seemed like a brilliant satire - kids in Watts and South Central wearing face-paint and battle dancing. But as the movie moves on you realize that it's anything but a joke.

Really fascinating. Check it out if you get a chance.

Nike apologizes to Minor Threat, Dischord, and cool people everywhere.

I bet you're wondering right now, "what would be the best TV show ever?"

Well, it just got cancelled.

The six-episode show, which was to debut July 10, follows three families in Austin, Texas, who are given the chance to choose a new neighbor for a house on their street.

Each family initially wants someone similar to them — white and conservative.

Instead, they must choose from families that are black, Hispanic and Asian; two gay white men who’ve adopted a black child; a couple covered in tattoos and piercings; a couple who met at the woman’s initiation as a witch; and a poor white family.

BEST.SHOW.EVER.

Maybe they'll run it in Mexico.

SCOTUS quote of the day, this time from Grokster:

While there is doubtless some demand for free Shakespeare, the evidence shows that substantive volume is a function of free access to copyrighted work. Users seeking Top 40 songs, for example, or the latest release by Modest Mouse, are certain to be far more numerous than those seeking a free Decameron, and Grokster and StreamCast translated that demand into dollars.

While we're on the topic of religious liberty, I thought I would point anyone unfamiliar to a very interesting legal document: The Constitution of Medina.

The earliest known written constitution (622 AD), the Constitution of Medina clarified the rights of Jews and Muslims living in Medina to worship freely and without interference.

So, I'm doing my periodic reading of Supreme Court opinions and in Scalia's dissent to McCreary there are some real jewels of wisdom.

With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation's historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.

That's right. It's entirely clear from U.S. history that the Framers had no patience with Deists.

I have to say, though, this one is my favorite:

Both practices are recognized across such a broad and diverse range of the population--from Christians to Muslims--that they cannot be reasonably understood as a government endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint.

Such a broad and diverse range of the population - Christian to Muslim? Priceless. It reminds me of bit from a favorite movie:

Friedrich: Racism spans the globe, from Jones Beach to Crown Heights we witness acts of hatred.

Max: That's like saying from here to the living room we witness acts of hatred.

George Will comes to the same conclusion I do regarding Kelo and the GOP:

Conservatives should be reminded to be careful what they wish for. Their often-reflexive rhetoric praises "judicial restraint" and deference to – it sometimes seems – almost unleashable powers of the elected branches of governments.

However, in the debate about the proper role of the judiciary in American democracy, conservatives who dogmatically preach a populist creed of deference to majoritarianism will thereby abandon, or at least radically restrict, the judiciary's indispensable role in limiting government.

One thing I must take issue with, though, is this statement:

Liberalism triumphed Thursday. Government became radically unlimited in seizing the very kinds of private property that should guarantee individuals a sphere of autonomy against government.

Liberalism did not triumph. Authoritarianism triumphed. Statism triumphed. But Liberalism, most assuredly, was dealt a serious blow.

As if we needed any more evidence that Nike sucks ass.

The inconsistency of Republican jurisprudence should be easily seen after today's Supreme Court ruling in KELO v. CITY OF
NEW LONDON

The opinion of the court is based in deference to legislative opinion. Instead of applying strict judicial review, the Court chose to trust the legislature that what they were doing was necessary and proper. The impact, Republicans argue, is that the Court did not protect a citizens rights of private property.

But wait, isn't deference what we hear from Republicans ought to be the proper method of interpreting the law? After all, if the legislature wants to outlaw "flag desecration" or gay marriage, who are these judges to tell them they can't?

Take as another example Mark R. Levin's pro-flag burning amendment post at National Review Online

MORE ON THE FLAG AMENDMENT [Mark R. Levin]

In 2003, in Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court upheld by 5 to 4 a Virginia law banning cross-burning on public or private property. The Court reached this result by contending that such expression is a form of terror and intimidation. Just as cross-burning is a particularly henious form of speech, to many flag-burning is as well, but for different reasons. The flag is a uniquely American symbol, which is why it flies over government buildings, is carried into war, and drapes the coffins of those soldiers who died defending us. Sometimes these debates about priorities and so forth are too sterile. My grandfather, a Marine who fought at Iwo Jima and Guam, would have considered this amendment a priority. He saw fellow Marines lose their lives raising our flag over conquered territory. Stripping jurisdiction from the courts won't work since the Supreme Court has ruled (also by 5 to 4) that flag-burning is protected speech. So, Congress is apparently responding to popular will. If it gets through Congress, it's no small task to achieve ratification. Having said that, I believe it is likely to get the three-fourths of the states necessary to amend.

Also, prosecutorial discretion applies here as it would in all other legal cases. But if history is our guide, I don't think we have to fear clogging our court system with flag-burning prosecutions. Moreover, elected representatives will determine the statutory language and, presumably, the actual scope of the law.

Watching the debate in the House yesterday, I was surprised by Republicans' new found support for hate crimes legislation.

The truth is that Republicans have no consistent philosophy. They have strung together a long list of concessions to special interest groups in order to garner votes. They want strict scrutiny on takings and arms control, but deference on civil rights issues. The foundation of Republican legal theory isn't Lockean or Hobbesian or anything-elseian. It's simply this: you do what I say. Also known as - bullshit.

Chris Bowers has an interesting analysis of the anti-war movement at MyDD:

Even among those Americans who support he war in word, through their inaction the vast majority of them actually oppose the war in deed. They are not enlisting. They are not calling on others to enlist. They are not creating or participating in a grassroots aid program to soldiers in Iraq. They are not actually doing anything to support the Iraq war and, as such, are objectively anti-war. Resources are needed to fight this war, and withholding your personal resources is the equivalent of withdrawal.

I come from a liberal Catholic background. Growing up, I was told that there was no difference between your deeds and your actions. I still believe that. It is time for all of America to realize how anti-war we actually are. Simply put, almost no one in America wants to fight this war, and almost no one in America is fighting this war. No matter what it says, the American public is anti-war and has already withdrawn from Iraq. We demonstrate this every day, both en masse and in public.

In case you haven't heard, Rick Perry is taking language lessons from his heroes GW Bush and Dick Cheney:

Mr. Perry looked off camera and appeared to mock Mr. Oberg, saying: "Try as I may, governor, I'm just not going to wait that long. ... "

Then the governor added as a sign-off: "Adios, mo-fo."

Don't just stand there! Get the number one campaign shirt of 2006!*



* And buy me one, too.

Just want to take a second to plug the Civic Action Network. Take a second to read about it, check it out, and tell all your friends!

Matt Taibbi writing for the New York Press:

This is a mistake, and it is the same mistake people have made for centuries: underestimating the American zeal for superstition, for boobism, for living the intellectual lives of farm animals. A large statistical majority of Americans would rather live their whole lives in perpetual fear of the devil than listen to ten minutes of common sense. When you consider where these people live intellectually, the idea that the Democratic Party can somehow succeed in Middle America by making small tactical changes, by waving a few more flags, seems absurd. You either believe in the devil or you don't; and if you don't, you're never going to fool these people. The Republicans, for all their seeming "confusion," understand this now better than ever. Their seemingly open attempts in recent months to radicalize and embolden their evangelical base may have had a temporary desultory effect with regard to their poll numbers.

But this current crew of Republican strategists has always understood American thinking better than the Tom Junods of the world. They know that most political trends are fleeting. Liberalism vanished at the first sign of trouble; pacifism disappeared one generation after Vietnam; even fiscal conservatism is easily forgotten. The one thing that never disappears in this country is stupidity, and if you court it, you'll always have votes down the line. Especially when it lives on unopposed.

Continuing the abortion discussion at Sarah's site, this morning I read an interesting column by Saletan on Slate.

NARAL certainly has its back to the wall. According to the poll, only 22 percent of Americans say abortions should be "generally available." Another 26 percent say "regulation of abortion is necessary, although it should remain legal in many circumstances." That's a pro-choice total of just 48 percent, even when you phrase the second option to emphasize regulation. Thirty-nine percent say "abortion should be legal only in the most extreme cases," such as rape and incest, and 11 percent say all abortions should be illegal. That's 50 percent support for two hardcore pro-life positions. I've seen polls that offered rape/incest as the middle of three options, but I've never seen a poll that offered a fourth, moderate option ("regulation is necessary") and still showed 50 percent saying that didn't go far enough. These are grim numbers for the pro-choice folks.

That's where the new message comes in. Here's how the poll puts it: "We should promote a culture of freedom and responsibility by focusing on preventing unintended pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion through increasing access to family planning services, access to affordable birth control and by providing comprehensive age appropriate sex education in schools." The poll asks people to choose between this and "a culture of life that recognizes the importance of every human life," including the belief that "life begins at conception." The culture of freedom and responsibility beats the culture of life, 61 to 27 percent. The pro-choice minority becomes a pro-choice majority.

Saletan goes on to discuss the complications with such rhetoric and how it might add new life to a stale debate.

For my part, I still wonder if anyone's actually read the opinions in Roe v. Wade

What's new in Afghanistan you ask?

Violence Linked to Taliban Swells in Afghanistan

KABUL, Afghanistan, June 8 -- Insurgents linked to the former Taliban regime have set off a wave of violence in Afghanistan, launching a string of almost daily bombings and assassinations that have killed dozens of U.S. and Afghan military personnel and civilians in recent weeks while spreading fear throughout the international aid worker community.

Man, it's almost like we rushed the job so that we could hurry up and invade Iraq. Well, at least we've got plenty of troops to handle both growing insurgencies.

US Army misses 4th monthly recruiting goal in row

WASHINGTON, June 8 (Reuters) - In fresh signs of the strain the Iraq war has put on the U.S. military, the Army missed its fourth straight monthly recruiting goal in May, while divorce rates for officers have surged, officials said on Wednesday.

The regular Army, in a previously undisclosed move, lowered its recruiting target for May, but still came up about 25 percent short of the easier goal, officials said. Had it not lowered its target from 8,050 to 6,700 recruits for May, the Army would have missed its original goal by about 37 percent.

Oh.

Worst President ever

Yeah, apparently so.

I recently mentioned Draftblank's project: to try to find a Supreme Court nominee who could be approved in the Senate by 100 votes. They've picked a nominee.

Imagine a Supreme Court nominee with a mainstream approach to the law who has earned the respect of both Republicans and Democrats. Imagine a nominee for the Supreme Court of unquestioned stature with decades of judicial experience.
Stop imagining...

Meet Judge Ed Prado.

Judge Prado would be a Supreme Court nominee who all Americans could be proud of. He is truly a uniter, not a divider.

Ed Prado, a Hispanic American from Texas, has served as a District Attorney, a Public Defender, a State District Judge, a United States Attorney, a Federal District Judge and is currently a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judge Prado was first nominated to the Federal District Court in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan. In 2003, President George W. Bush nominated him for his current position on the Fifth Circuit and the Senate confirmed him 97-0.

Nominated by Republicans and supported by Democrats, Judge Prado has earned bi-partisan support as an extremely intelligent, moderate, fair-minded jurist in his 20 years on the federal bench.

It's an interesting idea. Pardon my cynicism, though, in thinking that Bush is not concerned about bi-partisanship.

Sean makes an excellent comment on my last post:

Why should I vote anything other than a blank ballot? As far as I can tell, both of these candidates have near identical stances and both were in favor of the smoking ban.

I'll start with his last point - the smoking ban. Whether you agree with it or not (I do not), Austin voters did pass the smoking ban and we're probably going to have to live with it come Sept 1. Not voting in the City Council run-off is not going to change that, nor will it send a very clear message that you're displeased by the ban. You certainly have the right to not vote for anyone in order to send a message, but someone is going to be elected - I, personally, want a say.

He is correct that the differences between Kim and Clarke on issues are not wildly different. You can read Kim's positions here and Clarke's here.

My decision came down to the issue of experience. Clarke has a long history of progressive activism in Austin and brings to the table years of experience from Texas Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Planned Parenthood, and the Democratic party.

Jennifer Kim also has an impressive resume, and I'm certain she will continue to be active in the community and work for positive change. I hope she will, in the future, run for office again - I think she's a great candidate.

When it comes down to it, though, there's only room for one woman in the City Council seat, and I'm just a little more comfortable with Clarke. Besides, how can you say no to this:



All kidding aside, I think your vote is important - especially if I agree with you about most things. That means you, Sean.

In other news, it may get pretty quiet around here for a while. I'm now writing for a few other sites, and I haven't quite worked out a balance. I'm going to keep this site up, though, so there should be something here periodically.

Just a reminder that today is the last day of early voting in the Austin City Council run off election.

Please take a few minutes to vote.

How many times has Dick Cheney said this?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The insurgency in Iraq is "in the last throes," Vice President Dick Cheney says, and he predicts that the fighting will end before the Bush administration leaves office.

Only to be immediately followed by this:

WASHINGTON — The monthly death toll for American troops in Iraq rose in May to the highest level since January, and the U.S. military said Tuesday that insurgents had doubled their number of daily attacks since April.