a second open letter to President Barack Obama

Dear Mr. President,

I have yet to receive a reply to my letter of 1 May, applying for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. I am writing today to re-affirm my interest in the position, amid ongoing public and media speculation about potential candidates. Let me be quite candid: I am the best qualified candidate available.

And when I say available, I mean that I may be imminently available, for this or any other position, I mean, like maybe in a week or so. (Many of my colleagues will definitely be looking for work as well, but, you know, screw them. This is a nation built on the principle of competition.)

As a reminder, my qualifications include:
* I am not an attorney.
* Thus, I am not inclined toward legalistic obscurantism.
* Which means, I don't buy their mumbo-jumbo.
* Thus, I am not going to be tricked by some fancy-pants who argues in Court.
* My legal opinions, such as they are, shall therefore remain unaffected by sleazy legal come-ons, gifts, favors, offers of free hookers and booze, etc., unlike some Supreme Court Justices I could mention.
* In fact, because I am immovable, I will be able to spend hours in Court doing valuable service for the nation, like polishing the furnishings of the Court and/or Justices Breyer's and Scalia's foreheads.
* In addition, because I am not an attorney, whatever my own foibles, they simply can't compare, right? You've never seen me in one of Rehnquist's private clubs!

Rest assured, I have mastered the essential legal concepts guiding this country, and would be ready, willing, and able to begin applying them to every case that comes before the Court, continuing our nation's history of justice. I am totally familiar with "don't ask, don't tell," "three-fifths compromise," "administrative immunity," "sanctity of marriage," and "separate but equal."

Most of all, I am willing, as I said before, to take the position at a discount. I am now willing to accept $85,000 as a starting salary. You can't beat that with a stick.

The media report that you'll be likely to want to appoint a woman, preferably Latina. I understand that. I can work with that. My partner thinks I look good in a skirt, and I have got long hair, if that helps. I can speak a little Spanish, too.

Yours sincerely,
Chris Nagel

is Bleak House Norm Coleman's favorite book?

The saga continues. Norm Coleman, who narrowly lost the Minnesota senate race to former comedian Al Franken, has proposed yet another bizarre legal challenge to Franken's election. After challenging absentee ballots (which resulted in an increase in Franken's margin), and after challenging the state's standard for legality of votes (double-cast ballots, ballots cast because someone miscast a first ballot, etc., etc., ad nauseam), Coleman now wants the court to throw the whole election out and start over.

In some circles, this would draw comparisons to George W. Bush's having been declared President by the Supreme Court in 2000. But I see something far more creative going on. Coleman obviously plans to continue challenge after challenge, effectively preventing Franken from being certified by Minnesota and taking his seat in the US Senate. He'll file any kind of lawsuit he can dream up, then challenge Franken's residency, then his citizenship, then his sanity (ironically enough), then his non-feloniousness - and then he'll take the gloves off. He'll just keep that up, for 6 years, and then run in 2014 on the platform that Franken never showed up for work in the Senate. It's totally insane, but it's also genius!

and now, incivility

With any luck, Emerson was actually right about something when he wrote that "foolish inconsistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." After having written about civility (to be precise, calls for civility, that is, demands for certain critical ideas to remain unspoken, as though criticism was always uncivil), today I have a question sparked by two recent news stories about radio asswipe Michael Savage.

(Obviously, I'm not interested in being civil toward him.)

The stories both concern protestors calling for Savage to be fired or his show pulled off the air because of some hateful, badly misinformed, deliberately and idiotically outrageous statement of his. Most recently, he claimed autism is over-diagnosed and the real problem many of these kids have is the lack of an abusive father. (Really, I am not making it up. Savage's concept of fatherly guidance is to tell his kids to not be morons.)

The punchline is, the program is losing individual advertisers, but not losing revenue. He's very popular. The market, in short, has spoken, and what it is saying is: There's a whole hell of a lot of people in the US who really love being lied to, very loudly, by abusive shitheads.

Therein lies my question. Is this what people want in radio entertainment? Where is the fun in it? I'm tempted, but resist, imputing that the pleasure is in having someone express one's hateful, asinine urges, a sort of Two Minutes' Hate by proxy.

My other question is how I can get in on this kind of action, because for Savage and Limbaugh and Imus and O'Reilly (and a bunch o' others) it's quite lucrative. I'm qualified, too: I can yell, I have irrational hatreds (mostly of the Philadelphia Flyers, but we can build on that), I could even write my own material. I think I have the vocabulary down, too: "moron," "destroying America," "nutcases," "whiners."

I'll work cheap, too, to start. I'll take $100,000 a year, and be happy with it! That's a big savings over a lot of the professional screamers out there.

strike vote resuits!

CFA announced today that 94% of members voted to approve job action in our ongoing fight for a fair contract.

It can't be easy being one of those CSU administrators or trustees who continues to assert that only a small faction of faculty are upset about the CSU's contract offer, or that students won't be adversely affected by yet another fee increase, or that the CSU is on firm footing, but is underfunded, but has an excellent bond rating because of reserve funds equalling more than one third of the $2.5 billion annual budget, yet doesn't have enough money to spend $100 million over four years to fund faculty salary increases. At some point, the sheer number of contradictions you assert and try to think are true must get overwhelming. This is beyond a question of guilty conscience now. I am seriously concerned about the continued mental health of these administrators and trustees. Something's gotta give somewhere, don't it?

Proceed with caution in Long Beach, folks. Psychotic breaks are not pretty.