Top 40 #5: Mah Na Mah Na by Piero Umiliani (1968)

Muppets 1969 (!)


I really had no idea that this originally aired on the Ed Sullivan Show, or indeed that the Muppets themselves were on that show. People my age probably found this song through Sesame Street instead of the Muppets.

Why this? because I just plain like silly shit. That's what is the best thing about this song. I could be in a parachute that does not open carrying the severed heads of my pets falling toward a Hello Kitty inflatable kids pool filled with waste from a cattle yard and if The Universe whispered  "Doo Doo-do-do-do" I would respond by giggling and yelling "MAH NA MAH NA". It's perfect in its simple silliness. In this day and age where everything silly is deemed important and everything important degenerates into name calling silliness, this song is simply silly.

I am writing this post on the day that DOMA was struck down by the Supreme Court, a day after the same Justices "gutted" the Voting Rights Act. Let's look at the scorecards:

Voting Rights Act Case 5-4

1. John Roberts
2. Antonin Scalia
3. Anthony Kennedy
4. Clarence Thomas
5. Samuel Alito

The 9 states in question no longer need to send in their proposed electoral law changes to the Justice Department. It does NOT remove the ability for people who have been discriminated against in voting because of race to sue the state over the discriminatory act. This is purely a state's rights issue, NOT an issue about individual rights. If, for instance, Alabama wants to change portions of its electoral code, it must seek permission from the DoJ. If Tennessee, a neighboring and former Confederate state with a Jim Crow tradition also wants to enact voting laws, it does not have to seek permission from the DoJ. In effect, the five justices in the majority concluded that this creates a second class tier of states which is antithetical to the 10th  Amendment.

Do-doo-do-do-do

Robert's opinion notes that "The purpose of section 5 is to not punish the past but to produce a better future" and that this treatment of these states does "not satisfy constitutional requirements." I absolutely agree with this. It singles out states for past digressions while overlooking others (indeed, the VRA goes down to the county level in North Carolina, California, South Dakota and in New York City).

Mnah-Mnah

DOMA 5-4

1. Anthony Kennedy
2. Ruth Bader-Ginsberg
3. Stephen Breyer
4. Sonya Sotomayor
5. Elena Kagan

The only constant on both sides is Kennedy, even if both cases involve the role of the Federal Government and its relationship to state power. Which, in effect, the ruling here is that the Federal Government cannot make laws that create a class of second class citizens which DOMA accomplished by not allowing same-sex couples to receive economic benefits that hetero couples enjoy. This is not about rights, it is about economics. In that sense, Kennedy shows remarkable consistency in looking for the creation of second class status for states or citizens which goes against any sort of constitutionality.

Do-do-do-do

This was first and foremost a TAX issue. The plaintiff in the case demanded a refund of estate taxes levied on her after her partner died. This is why they dodged on the Prop 8 case, because that was a majority vote in a state. If they struck that down, it would overturn an enacted state proposition. Civil Unions can now be recognized in California and these people will receive partner benefits, which is what the DOMA case was about. The decision explicitly states that the problem is the creation of a "subset of second class marriages." Sounds like a creation of a subset of second class states.

Mnah-Mnah

So, are Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts hypocrites? No. The look upon this as two very different issues dealing with state sovereignty. States are sovereign over their own citizens and if legislatures enact laws over their own citizens, it is up to the citizens themselves to challenge the constitutional legality of them. If the Federal Legislature passes a law, it is up to the states to challenge the constitutional legality of those laws. Emotions have no place in law; if you do not like something, use a logical argument to get it overturned. Alito and the rest are not "reactionary" or "asses" any more than Ginsberg is a "pinko down to her underpants". Those categorizations may be correct, but drop 'em.

Do-doo-do-do-do

In either case, the Supreme Court should strike down any law that creates a second class tier of anything, states or citizens. While on the outside it may look like the Conservatives on the court found one way for states and another way for states, it is more about the legal entities of citizens and states. I still think Scalia is a pompous windbag (a very bright windbag) but at least he grinds his ideological axes on the bench.  I found his dissent which focused on "homosexual sodomy" repellent. I guess heterosexual sodomy is just fine with him. If that's your thing, do what you want to do.

Mnah-Mnah