








Site links
OFFOFFOFF Home
About OFFOFFOFF
Contact us
Current Opinion
Interview:
Eric Foner on freedom
Interview:
George McGovern on Vietnam, Iraq and the election of 1972
Interview:
Maurice Isserman on the 1960s, Vietnam and Iraq
Interview:
Thomas Keck on judicial activism and the conservative Supreme Court
Interview:
Bard O'Neill on Insurgency and Terrorism and the Iraq War
Off Off Topic
Front page
Latest entries: Picture of the week #6: Portland
Techs' appeal
Tempus Puget
Blogger's block
Cheney in Iraq
Bush in Mongolia
Submission accomplished
Prince and repeat
Things not permitted in the Port Authority
Picture a week #5: Central Park, early spring
John Paul's peace
Catch twenty-shoe
The increasingly hollow Holocaust
R.I.P.izza
Perils of passive voice
Week of:
December 18, 2005
November 20, 2005
April 3, 2005
March 27, 2005
March 6, 2005
February 20, 2005
January 30, 2005
January 9, 2005
January 2, 2005
December 26, 2004
Complete archive
Series
Copy editing 101
Meet the new boss
Oh no, the IRS is after me
Picture a week 2005
| iTunes favorites |
I keep one playlist on iTunes just for my favorite songs of the moment. Here's what's on the list now:
The Allman Brothers Band
"Dreams"
Charles Mingus
"E's Flat Ah's Flat Too"
Cream
"White Room"
Creedence Clearwater Revival
"Fortunate Son"
Curtis Mayfield
"Move On Up"
Dennis Coffey
"Scorpio"
Elastica
"In The City"
Frank Morey
"Uncle Lefty's Lament"
Gogol Bordello
"Start Wearing Purple"
Grateful Dead
"Franklin's Tower"
The Isley Brothers
"Work To Do"
Jennifer Convertibles
"Speedracer"
Johnny Cash
"The Man Who Couldn't Cry"
Les Negresses Vertes
"Marcelle Ratafia"
Locket
"Dead Pet"
Mano Negra
"King Of Bongo"
Mano Negra
"Ronde De Nuit"
Randy Newman
"God's Song (That's Why I Love Mankind)"
Solomon Burke
"Baby (I Wanna Be Loved)"
Solomon Burke
"It's Been A Change"
Stevie Wonder
"Uptight (Everything's Alright)"
Stevie Wonder
"Signed, Sealed, Delivered I'm Yours"
The Temptations
"Cloud Nine"
Tom Waits
"The Piano Has Been Drinking"
Tommy James & The Shondells
"Draggin' The Line"
X
"Nausea"
(October 3, 2005)
|
|
|
|
 |
|
ADVERTISEMENT
|
 |
 |
|
OFF OFF TOPIC
|
|
Off Off Topic
Joshua Tanzer is the founder and editor of Offoffoff.com. He has been a journalist for a really long time and a blogger for a really short time. He likes romantic dinners by candlelight and long walks on the beach. His turnoffs are regressive tax policy and mean people. Being of mixed French, German and Russian ancestry makes him feel like an honorary member of the Axis of Evil.
NOTE: Offoffoff's blog section is in development and will be open to readers soon. If you're interested in starting your own blog, please write to jmt@offoffoff.com.
|
Week of October 17, 2004:
POLITICS | Dred not
SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY | Wow, I didn't know you could do that
WORK | Don't meet the new boss, part 2
PREVIOUS: October 10, 2004 | NEXT: October 31, 2004
POLITICS: BUSH AND DRED SCOTT
Dred not
One of the most interesting bits of debate trivia still bouncing around is President Bush's almost-gratuitous mention of the Dred Scott decision. Salon.com identified his statement as a coded message to the Christian right that Bush plans to nominate staunchly anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court.
Before I even get to that point, though, I'm just struck by Bush's apparent ignorance of what the decision actually was. Here's what he said (borrowed from a Slate.com article):
Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.
That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.
And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.
And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.
|
|
It's obvious especially if you listen to the actual audio of Bush speaking these words that he doesn't really know the reference. It's just a piece of cant that he's dropped into his speech because somebody told him to.
Here's what Bush got wrong:
1. Dred Scott did not decide the legality of slavery. In a nutshell, Dred Scott was the case of a slave who was brought to Illinois and argued that he became free when he was taken out of Missouri. The issue before the court was whether a free state was required to return a runaway slave to a slave state, and the court said yes. It's now seen as one of the court's worst few decisions ever. But not for the reason Bush cites.
2. The court was doing the opposite of what Bush says. It did not make a "personal decision" at all it interpreted the Constitution as literally as possible. The Constitution protected slavery and property rights explicitly, and if you're a strict constructionist, as the president claims he is, you would say it was a correct decision and anyone who doesn't like it should change the Constitution, not look to the court for help. The court's failure was a failure to see the Constitution's essential truth through its literal words.
Sure, it's very likely that Bush was sending a signal to the Christian right. But the sheer clumsiness of his reference is a story in itself. Saying that he would choose judges who oppose Dred Scott is like saying he would choose generals who would have opposed the division of Poland. The proper response to that point is, "Duh."
There's one more thing going on here, besides code-talking. It's one of the right's attempts to conceal its own nature by bandying about the symbols of the left. A conservative white good-old-boy southerner like Bush would have been on the wrong side of Dred Scott, and it's kind of an obvious joke for him to say otherwise. The same thing happens when Republicans refer to themselves as the "party of Lincoln," which is essentially said with a wink. Everybody knows that today's Democrats are Lincoln's Republicans and today's Republicans are Douglas's Democrats, the two parties having switched places (and races) in the south between the Johnson and Reagan administrations. The fact that Strom Thurmond the 1940s segregationist Strom Thurmond extolled by Trent Lott was a Democrat tells you all you need to know. But the Lincoln icon is unassailable, at least to liberals, and that's why it has value to the right.
Bush's reference to Dred Scott is a double-dare to Democrats who might criticize his dubious legal philosophy. Oh, so you're one of those Dred Scott Democrats, he is sure to say in the future.
Democrats have just begun to catch on to this game, and it offers them some opportunities as well. Do Democrats love the flag, family, military service and religion less than Republicans? I think Democrats are more capable of distinguishing symbols from reality than Republicans are, but that doesn't mean they can't pay respect to the positive virtues that those symbols represent. How about country music and the image of the southern rebel? I'll bet we love Hank Williams and Johnny Cash more than they do. How about if rappers started to wave (or worse, wear) the Dixie flag in their next four years of videos and loudly declare, "We built the South, and we own it." If the flag is a subtle symbol of slavery, it would quickly either stop being subtle or stop being a symbol. It's almost unthinkable today, but think how different things could be in four years.
October 22, 2004 | 3:17 a.m. | New York, New York
Permanent link: http://www.offoffoff.com/opinion/offofftopic/20041017.php#e54

SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY: MICROSOFT REALITY
Wow, I didn't know you could do that
I'm quitting Microsoft Word after some kind of ridiculous error, and for the second time ever, I get the following message:
Do you want to replace the existing Normal? (No) (Yes)
Which is cool because I would really like to replace the existing Normal. When I install the new Normal, I'll let you know what it is.
October 21, 2004 | 1:43 p.m. | New York, New York
Permanent link: http://www.offoffoff.com/opinion/offofftopic/20041017.php#e52

WORK: DON'T MEET THE NEW BOSS
Don't meet the new boss, part 2
Well, I thought my streak of being ignored by the new boss was going to end today at 161 days, but it didn't. Ms. Rebello (it would be premature to call her "Kathy" since we haven't actually met) apparently had a question for me, so she stopped in front of my desk, looked right at me, and rather than saying something to me, asked one of my co-workers to say it instead. Whew! The streak lives!
MEET THE NEW BOSS Wherein we see how long it takes for the new boss to figure out that I exist
- More in this series -
|
| |
|
At least she now knows my name, although she was standing right in front of the nameplate for my set of cubicles, so she may just have been reading it for the first time. She's had time to forget it by now.
In fact, she has ignored me long enough that I'm not sure whether she's technically my boss anymore. Earlier this year, I was told by the head of IT that at some point there was going to be a reorganization and I would be working for him. Last week, Rebello's assistant the only person who seems to know how things are supposed to work told me I'd better check who my supervisor was on the company intranet. That's how I discovered that I have a whole different supervisor a very good guy, which is heartening, but it's less heartening that nobody bothered to tell me, "Oh, by the way, you now work for this guy." I had to read it on the intranet. The new guy still hasn't talked to me since whenever this happened.
And maybe he's not going to, either, because I'm being moved to a different part of the office. (That's what the boss delegated my co-worker to tell me about while standing right in front of me.) The new part of the office has been vacated because of a decision to move the web site's editors to a different floor, separating them from the reporters whose copy they edit. In 20-plus years in journalism, I've never heard of such a thing. These people need to talk to each other on an hour-by-hour basis, often in person, which makes it crucial for them to be at most a 30-second walk apart. So it's just weird that the great minds at the top thought this move made any kind of sense. Communication is clearly not a priority on any level.
(Incidentally, moving the employees is a management pastime at Business Week Online. We do it once or twice a year. Some of the people who just got moved upstairs have moved from the 46th floor to Penn Plaza back to 46 then to 45 and now back to 46, and that's not counting at least two moves within floors. It would be interesting to know how many salaries we've spent playing musical cubicles.)
I understand that a number of other bad decisions have been made behind the scenes during the new boss's tenure, and I can't imagine anything good is going to follow. Maybe I should be alarmed, but, as before, I'm more amused at the overarching absurdity. It's a very novel way to run a railroad.
October 19, 2004 | 3:53 a.m. | New York, New York
Permanent link: http://www.offoffoff.com/opinion/offofftopic/20041017.php#e49
PREVIOUS: October 10, 2004 | NEXT: October 31, 2004
|
|
|
|