by Todd Hatton
In order to fully consider an issue today, one needs to consider the issue’s provenance. It’s like waking up one morning and finding an elephant in your flower bed. Once you’ve realized that a five-and-a-half ton pachyderm is nosing around your begonias, and you’ve given animal control a call, you probably need to start thinking about how it got there.
In that light, I’d like to revisit something you may have heard on The Front Page last week, a piece disparaging “judicial activism.”
The piece objects to this “judicial activism” in three cases: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, and Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. In Perry, Judge Vaughn Walker is said to have trampled the rights of 7 million Californians who voted in favor of Proposition 8, the measure defining marriage as between one man and one woman that once passed, became Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights and part of California’s constitution.
In Gill and Massachusetts, Federal District Judge Joe Tauro struck down 1997’s Defense of Marriage Act, overriding the affirmative votes of 427 congressmen and Bill Clinton’s signature. This is the evidence that “judicial activism” is subverting the democratic process.
Leaving aside that Judge Tauro is President Nixon’s remaining appointee, and the judge in Perry, Vaughn Walker, was appointed to the bench by the first President, and setting aside that the seven million voters who approved Prop 8 outvoted the opposition by about six-hundred thousand votes, and are a minority of the 15.2 million registered and 23.4 million eligible California voters, we still have the charge that these two judges acted without restraint. They exceeded their mandate, in effect legislating from the bench. Or so it would seem.
I once heard that judicial activism is what you call judicial review when you don’t like the verdict. “And what,” you ask, “is ‘judicial review’?” Read the rest of this entry »
by Todd Hatton
The vote has been taken and Mayfield, Kentucky will have no mosque, at least not yet, and certainly not in any location with so little parking. What should have been decided in a formality was rejected on a technicality, but I can’t say that the lack of transparency with which Mayfield’s zoning board first decided to approve the mosque’s conditional use permit is ever a good thing. On the other hand, it’s difficult to see how anyone can vote their dissenting conscience under the reproving glare of a roomful of one’s neighbors.
Whether or not the results of the zoning board’s vote surprised anyone, or whether or not we approve of the result, it is of a piece with our history of dealing with religious minorities. I’m a big fan of the notion that we can’t understand our present without understanding our past, and when the controversy over a mosque in Mayfield began to appear, I went back to a book I’d read over a year ago after hearing an interview with the author on Krista Tippett’s Speaking of Faith program.
Steven Waldman is the author of Founding Faith: How Our Founding Fathers Forged a Radical New Approach to Religious Liberty and the CEO of Beliefnet.com, the largest faith and spirituality website. The book, in the main, is about the development of the First Amendment, religious freedom, and today’s contention over the separation of church and state. Waldman, however, begins his book by painting a picture of religion in early America. It is at once alien to our modern sensibilities and a little too familiar.
For instance, government officials in one state blocked the building of place of worship for one religious minority. They were responding to what was perceived as an existential threat by a sect that had, in the past, committed atrocities, fought them in wars, and, it was believed, behind the actions of foreign governments against them.
This wasn’t New York or Mayfield in 2010, it was Maryland in 1700. Read the rest of this entry »
by Todd Hatton
Yesterday morning, I began writing a blog post on a particular topic and ended up writing about something totally unrelated. When I went back to figure out what happened, a massive yawn almost split my head in half. Instead of my finding the problem, the problem had found me. I hadn’t slept very well or long enough the night before, and now I was paying for it.
I love sleep. I’d smile saying the word even if the act of doing so didn’t force me to. The very thought of curling up for a prolonged snooze under cozy blankets makes me drool. Yet, I’m not doing it enough.
So what, exactly, is my problem?
First, it’s not just my problem. The National Sleep Foundation says one in three Americans is overtired because they’re not sleeping enough. So how much is enough?
A survey of several sleep-related websites shows no one number for everyone, but The Better Sleep Council reports the average amount for adults is around seven to eight hours a night, although some people may need more. Their rule of thumb for determining the proper amount is simple enough: if you sleep more on the weekend than you do during the week, you’re not getting enough Monday through Friday. Of this, I am horribly, horribly guilty.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, a lack of sleep accrues like interest, creating what’s termed a “sleep debt.” This deficit depresses our immune systems, raises blood pressure and insulin resistance, impairs cognitive functions, and reduces levels of leptin, a molecule secreted by fat cells the brain uses to inhibit appetite.
All right, so we all know now that a lack of sleep is a big problem. What do we do about it? The National Sleep Foundation provides a list of tips and strategies that range from the rather obvious (e.g., abstaining from caffeine early in the afternoon) to the counterintuitive (e.g., if you can’t sleep, don’t toss and turn, get up and do something relaxing). The New York Times even recommends an optimal temperature for sleep, around 60 to 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Anything outside that range makes us restless.
Those of us whose schedules preclude a normal sleep schedule have the unique challenge of trying to sleep when all the external cues say we should be awake. We’re fighting our circadian rhythms, and in many cases, we’re losing the battle.
by Todd Hatton
In August of 2008, WKMS aired a story by Carrie Pond about the H-2A program, where U.S. farmers are allowed to bring in foreign workers for jobs not filled by American workers. Considering that the Obama Administration is looking once again at immigration reform, and once again immigration opponents are rallying to the cry of “they’re taking our jobs,” the story’s worth another listen. In the piece, Murray tobacco farmer Mark Pascal points out that the Mexican workers coming here aren’t taking anyone’s job. He says, “They’re doing the jobs no American wants to do. They’re good people, wanting to do an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay.”
Two years later, “they’re taking our jobs” is still a common sentiment. But when one considers the nation’s 9.3% unemployment rate, Kentucky’s 10.2% rate, and Tennessee’s 10.3% rate, that sentiment seems, well, a little disingenuous if not downright hypocritical.
Now, the farm workers are calling us out on it.
In a Yahoo! news story from the Associated Press, the United Farm Workers of America say they’re challenging the unemployed and anti-immigrant activists to take their jobs. They’ve even set up a website, takeourjobs.org, to facilitate the process. They’ve also attracted some celebrity help.
Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert will spotlight the campaign on “The Colbert Report” July 8.
The Yahoo! story says the campaign is tongue in cheek, but the underlying issue is serious. It cites a U.S. Labor Department report that says three out of four farm workers were born abroad, with more than half of them in this country illegally. The workers, legal or not, face long days and little pay. They’re excluded from federal overtime laws and may not even get minimum wage. On top of that, the website farmworkerjustice.org says sixteen states don’t require farm laborers to be covered by worker’s compensation laws. And yes, Kentucky and Tennessee are two of those states.
by Todd Hatton
Grand Isle, Louisiana is a town right on the Gulf of Mexico, about 745 miles from Leitchfield, Kentucky. Under other circumstances, those hundreds of miles between one small Louisiana community and a slightly larger Kentucky town can be insular; what’s news on the Gulf Coast may not raise an eyebrow in Grayson County.
But when the news story is the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history involving one of the most ubiquitous brands of gasoline in the nation, it shouldn’t surprise anyone when the impact shows up 745 miles away.
An Associated Press report on NPR.org has station owners from Georgia to Illinois saying sales have declined by as much as 10 to 40 percent. This isn’t particularly shocking, in fact, it makes sense. Americans are using boycotts, both organized and informal, to register their disgust with BP. Hitting ‘em in the pocketbook, so to speak.
I was a little incredulous that a gas station tucked away at the bottom of a line of hills in a quiet community would have any trouble, especially since the station was independently-owned (it said so on a small, faded sign in one of the windows near the cash register).
But the demure young lady who sold me a bottle of water and didn’t want to give me her name told me otherwise. Protesters had been taking up positions across the street holding signs and chanting slogans. One person photographed the store while pumping gas. Local media had even stopped by, peppering the staff with questions about threats of retribution, violent and otherwise.
I asked her if anyone had indeed threatened violence.
“Yeah,” she replied. “We had the cops parking out there for a while.”
by Todd Hatton
John Keats began his poem “Endymion” with the line, “A thing of beauty is a joy forever.” The phrase has descended into cliché to be sure, but it was the first thing that popped into my head this past Tuesday afternoon when I remembered, through all of the noise and numbers of the Kentucky primary, that it was a particularly poignant anniversary. On May 18th, 1980, Ian Curtis, lead singer for the band Joy Division took his own life in the home he shared with his estranged wife in Macclesfield, in Cheshire, UK. He had been battling depression and severe epilepsy aggravated by the twin stresses of touring and a disintegrating marriage.
It probably, no, definitely dates me that I even know who either Ian Curtis or Joy Division was. I ran across them while in high school in the late 80s when a friend mentioned in passing that his favorite group, New Order, had been another animal entirely before Curtis’ suicide. Another friend loaned me a tape that, among the Love and Rockets, Husker Du, and Happy Mondays cuts, contained the single “Love Will Tear Us Apart.” The song seemed at once cool and detached and still heartbreakingly intimate, all the more so considering Curtis’ fate.
So, this past Tuesday, I poked around online and found this 2008 BBC Four documentary detailing the rise and fall of Joy Division and Factory Records, the label that introduced them to the world and created “Madchester,” the Manchester music scene that dominated until the rise of grunge in the early 90s.
I can never recommend BBC documentaries enough; I’m convinced they could describe a glass of milk and make it riveting. This one is no exception; a thing of beauty indeed.
by Todd Hatton
Yesterday’s primary vote capped off months of intense international interest in Kentucky’s Republican contest between Secretary of State Trey Grayson and Bowling Green eye surgeon Rand Paul. I expect the months of intense international media interest in the general election campaign to begin any minute now.
And there’s plenty for them to consider. But, as the vote totals filter through the political and media landscape, I must respectfully disagree with the assertion floating around out there that Paul’s victory is as telling overall as it’s being portrayed. This obviously isn’t a referendum on an incumbent and it isn’t as much of a referendum on a given agenda as it is, in this one race, an expression of the Republican base. Consider: Grayson had accrued endorsements from former Vice president Dick Cheney, Conservatives of America, and the conservative-leaning U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Those are the ones he kept, anyway. Dr. James Dobson, formerly of Focus on the Family, rescinded his earlier this month and switched to Dr. Paul claiming that he had received wrong information about Paul’s platform.
Grayson did, however, score a relative rarity, a pre-primary election endorsement from U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell just a few months after he said he wouldn’t do so until after the primary.
And yet, Trey Grayson lost.
It could therefore be said that the Republican Party lost yesterday’s Republican primary, the institutional party at any rate, and if we concede McConnell’s tacit approval of the Tea Party, one has to wonder if there’s any soul-searching going on in the minority leader’s offices today.
Now, the $64,000 question is how the race between the Tea Party-backed Paul and MoveOn-endorsed Conway will play out. Paul’s win has significantly energized his base; his highly organized supporters turning out in droves this November goes without saying. And considering that Paul’s total far outstripped anyone else’s, he’ll have a strong showing.
On the other hand, Conway’s vote totals were higher than Paul’s by almost 22 thousand. And if you add Lieutenant Governor Dan Mongiardo’s numbers (224,989) to Conway’s (228,531) and factor the Grayson vote (124,710) into Paul’s column (and throw Johnson’s, Martin’s, Scribner’s, and Stephenson’s in for good measure to bring the grand total to 351,927), it could presage a Democratic victory in the fall. That is, if Conway can get those voters to the polls.
Conway also cannily reached out to Grayson voters who may be disenchanted with Paul’s particular brand of populism. If he peels enough of them off while retaining his former Democratic competitors’ votes, Conway may have a close, though substantial win on his hands.
Of course, this is all predicated on Jack Conway having an easier time appealing to more moderate Republicans than Rand Paul would drawing off conservative Democrats from Conway. And that’s further balanced by the fact that the Republicans tend to be an ideologically more disciplined group most of the time.
Either way, no matter how significant Paul’s win yesterday may be, it’s still too early to tell if any damage has been done to the establishment wing of the Republican Party. After incumbent President Lyndon Johnson’s landslide 1964 victory over Senator Barry Goldwater, the pundits got busy writing the Republicans’ obituary only to have it thrown back at them when Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey in 1968. It may be that the best gauge of where the Republicans are will come in the fall, when we’ll find out how a Tea Party candidate fares against a moderate Democrat in a rather red state.