The Arizona anti-immigrant law (pdf) has a provision that ought to be making lawyers’ mouths water:

G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES.

2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.

If I’m reading that correctly, a unit of Arizona government that gives the benefit of the doubt to a citizen who the unit of government could plausibly suspect as illegal is subjecting itself to significant legal exposure. That’s an attorney’s full employment act right there: $5,000 per day, the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, and the government’s attorney’s fees. I’m sure that money couldn’t be better spent elsewhere.

That title goes far beyond anything I’m prepared to deliver for this blog post. But, the Indy Star has an article entitled GOP blocks debate on financial reform. That’s a tough vote for a party vying to capture populist anger about the economy. And this isn’t even just a vote against regulation – this was a vote against debating financial reform.

Senate Republicans united Monday to block debate on legislation that would make the most far-reaching changes in financial industry regulation since the Great Depression — slowing but probably not stopping a bill that has been propelled by angry voters who want to crack down on Wall Street.

The 57-41 vote marked the first Senate showdown over the issue. No Republicans voted for the motion to begin debate on the bill; 60 votes were needed to end GOP delaying tactics and move the issue to the Senate floor. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a Democrat, joined in the opposition.

True or not, Republicans are battling against a reputation of doing the bidding of the wealthy in America — kind of like the whole Democratic “weak on defense thing”. Anything that plays into that narrative will get amplified. Anything that goes against that narrative tends to get ignored. This won’t help in a tough economic climate featuring a Wall Street casino, bail out of too big to financial institutions, and huge compensation packages for those in the financial industry who rolled the dice even though they lost.

In a nice Orwellian turn of phrase, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said this party-line vote to filibuster even debating the bill was a “vote for bipartisanship.”

The push for overhauling the financial regulatory system — like the health-care battle before it — represents a landmark domestic policy initiative by the president and his Democratic allies in Congress. And it may be their last chance for a major victory before this fall’s contentious midterm elections. In taking on Wall Street, Democrats are emboldened by polls showing that two-thirds of Americans favor their legislation.

The official line is that they are filibustering to prevent debate on the financial reform bill in order to improve it. (Which, itself, has kind of a “burning down the village to save it” feel). But that’s a tough sell following the health care debate where these filibusters were being used to try to “kill the bill.”

Update Matt Taibbi elaborates on this theme in the context of the Goldman Sachs Senate hearings.

I’m a sucker for a good history project. And the oddity of seeing history on The History Channel stopped me in my tracks – much like the odd music video on MTV. It is apparently a 6 episode mini-series. After episode 1 of America: the Story of Us, the jury is still out for me. Maybe it’s inevitable for a broad survey of history for the last 224 years, but there were a lot of trite cliches in there. Seems like there were two or three moments in the first episode “that would change the course of history forever.” And there were vast amounts of stuff they glossed over or skipped entirely.

But, again, I like history. Near as I can figure from episode 1 of the mini-series, a bunch of incompetent boobs landed in Jamestown and would have died off completely but for the self-reliant determination of John Rolfe and his tobacco seeds. Meanwhile, up north, a band of religious activists came in on the Mayflower and were starving and would have died off completely if the local, smallpox decimated natives hadn’t shown them how to bury fish in the sand to grow crops. Then nothing happened for the next 150 years. Then the British seized some of John Hancock’s smuggled contraband. That made the folks in Boston restless, so the British shot a couple, including Crispus Attucks. Paul Revere sketched the scene and the rest of the colonies rose up in rebellion despite the fact that the British repealed most of the taxes except the one on tea.

The British came in to put down the rebellion and captured New York in the biggest attack on New York “until 9/11” (wtf? 9/11 was awful, but it was a pinprick compared to armed invasion by a British armada). George Washington and his ragtag band of scrappy soldiers equipped with little more than frontier rifles, a “can do” attitude, and a belly full of freedom put down the world’s greatest military power. (Now what will really interest me is to see how they treat Shay’s Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion and explain why their love of freedom and hatred of taxes weren’t enough to withstand Washington and his troops after they had become The Establishment.)

After assassinating a few British officers, withstanding the privations of Valley Forge, and training under a gay Prussian military officer, the Americans took the last two redoubts at Yorktown and the British surrendered. Oh yeah, and the French helped some too.

At the end of the day, I guess my mixed feelings have to do with my ambivalence about American history generally. On the one hand, I value the American mythology – where our Founders were nothing but good and noble and the righteous Americans were fighting the evil British. Myths bind us together as a nation and help us see ourselves as Americans. I think this sense of being part of a common group is essential to a peaceful society. Members of a common group tend to work out their differences without violence.

On the other hand, I appreciate that history is messy and full of details that generally prevent sweeping generalizations about good and evil. At best, if you’re lucky, you can often come up with reasonably coherent narratives about “us” and “them.” And with the American Revolution, the “us” and “them,” is a whole lot messier than the mini-series lets on. Prior to the Revolution, after all, the colonists were British. Many were reluctant to take up arms against what they regarded as countrymen and remained loyal to the British crown.

Regardless, however, if this mini-series gives more people a nodding acquaintance with the basic facts of American history, I suppose I should put it in the “win” column.

Apparently one of the issues in the Union County commissioner’s race is whether to construct a new jail and, if so, what kind. Jails, like so many other things in local government, are one of those things you’ll end up paying for one way or another. For local government, there are just too many other units of government that can issue mandates on your dime.

The legislature passes laws requiring incarceration of more people. Federal and state courts interpret state and local constitutions to require certain minimum conditions of confinement. If it gets too bad, a court can mandate the construction of additional jail space. Inmates can file lawsuits (and sometimes even win!) and be awarded damages by juries or judges if the conditions are inadequate. So, whether or not to spend money is definitely not entirely within local government control. Your pocket can get picked in a variety of ways, and the worse your jail is, the more likely that is going to be a significant involuntary expense.

The decision came down a few days ago, but the Associated Press has an article reacting to a federal district court in Wisconsin’s decision that that federal government conducting a National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. This, like injecting ‘under God’ into the Pledge of Allegiance is another one of those Cold War era gestures against godless Communism. Congress established it in 1952.

Personally, I wouldn’t have bothered with the lawsuit since I pay as much attention to the National Day of Prayer as to other National Days or weeks of this or that. But, once the suit was brought, the federal judge had to rule on it. And the fact is that there is no rational secular purpose for this government action.

Apparently abandoning his small government, fiscal conservative pose, Mike Pence had this to say:

“The American people believe in prayer. The American people believe that prayer changes things,” said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., as he urged the Obama administration use “all means at its disposal” to challenge the decision.

So, what exactly? The belief is so feeble that it needs a government prop? And, not only does the federal government need to engage in this non-essential activity, it needs to spend lots of money to defend it’s right to engage in this non-essential activity?

Nobody is stopping anybody from praying. This decision merely says that it’s not the federal government’s business to encourage or discourage you from doing so. The federal government has other things to do, and not enough time or resources with which to do it. And God, at least as I’ve heard him described, doesn’t require the assistance of the U.S. Government. As I’ve suggested before, these symbolic but mostly inconsequential mixes of government and religion strike me as the work of a vocal subset of religious people in the country trying to mark their territory.

Indiana’s Fifth Congressional District has just the substance free kind of political debate that everyone can enjoy. Wonkish debates about policy are for egghead elitists and are, therefore, best avoided.

Luke Messer, challenger to Dan Burton – a 28 year incumbent – revealed, one presumes with great sadness, that the actors pretending to support Burton in his campaign ads were not Hoosiers. They were Buckeyes. The horror!

The defense to this brouhaha seems to be, essentially: a) Burton doesn’t know what’s going on with his commercial; and b) it’s a common practice to pay actors to pretend they support you because your real supporters aren’t pretty enough; or are otherwise unpresentable on television; or something.

Aishah Hasnie, writing for WANE, has an article about incumbent U.S. Representative Mark Souder ducking debate requests from his third District Republican challenger, Bob Thomas.

“I do not believe that Bob is a credible candidate,” said Souder. “I believe when somebody is nominated by someobody, rather than self declared, that you have an obligation to debate.”

This, of course, is a more politically advantageous way of ducking a debate than saying something hewing closer to what some might call “reality”:

I do not believe I would win a debate. My long time incumbency comes primarily from a lack of serious primary challengers over the years and the heavily Republican district I represent. Nobody supports me with any real vigor, and, like an unwanted party guest, I have stayed long, long after I promised I’d leave. My record is not very good, and in a debate, I would probably stick my foot in my mouth. If I avoid debating, I can probably use the power of incumbency and paid media to weather this primary storm and then rely on party affiliation to beat Dr. Hayhurst in the general election.

(Full disclosure: I know not a thing about his challenger, Bob Thomas.)

It’s been 15 years since Timothy McVeigh, motivated by anti-government zealotry, murdered 168 people in Oklahoma City. His actions weren’t different in principle from those of Osama bin Laden. Both had their reasons. In a creative writing class, my teacher told the class that every bad guy pretty much has reasons for thinking that they aren’t bad. We’re all the protagonists in our own heads, and every protagonist has an internal story in which they are the good guy. I’m sure the same is true of guys like bin Laden and McVeigh

At the end of the day, the rest of us need to condemn the use of violence as a tool of policy, particularly by individuals or non-government entities. (We can argue about the legitimate uses of war by governments who hold or try to hold a monopoly on violence in their societies.)

So, I don’t have a lot of patience for people trying to minimize McVeigh and bin Laden. They’re both murderous bastards who deserve to die. (Mission Accomplished with McVeigh.) We can talk about the issues that concerned them in other contexts and try to understand them in an effort to minimize future problems. But McVeigh and bin Laden should be pariahs and those who sympathize with them should be marginalized.

Update: I just thought of another lesson from English class that seemed appropriate. At some point in college, we were reading >Catcher in the Rye (side note: I think Holden is a whiny little s.o.b.). My teacher highlighted a passage for us:

The mark of an immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one.

I remember that passage really made me mad for some reason. I guess I felt like it robbed someone devoted to a cause of the potential for nobly going out in a blaze of glory or somesuch. Must be an adolescent thing. Because now I very much respect that statement. Dying for a cause, in a voluntary, violent way seems essentially lazy and ostentatious.

I don’t usually just throw up links, but that’s what I’m doing this morning because I read a couple of good pieces that other folks might find of particular interest.

The Urbanophile on immigrant revitalization of inner-ring suburbs. The discussion uses Pike Township and Greenwood in Indianapolis.

J. Bradford Delong on the nature of the SEC’s case against Goldman Sachs for civil fraud with a primer on the generally beneficial effects of economic transactions. (h/t Tipsy Teetotaler)