De Tocqueville Boulevard

It's time to impeach

2005-12-22T10:27:00.000-05:00

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

I am no fan of the current president. He is a dimwit of the worst sort, refusing to acknowledge that there is reasoned disagreement over most of his policies. He has reduced the entire world to the dramatic complexity of an old movie Western- there are good guys, and they wear white; and the good guys do whatever it takes to stop the bad guys.

This dichotomy is simple enough to understand. Do whatever it takes- the ends justify the means. This is why the President could order- without apparent remorse or apprehension- the NSA to spy on American citizens, and intercept their presumably private communications. All without judicial or legislative oversight.

Of course, the ends do not justify the means. Some things are simply wrong, no matter how "necessary" they may appear. That is the essence of American constitutionalism- the Constitution doesn't grant rights to the people as much as it demarcates the outer limits where the government cannot go.

What separated us from our enemies throughout history- from the Revolution, through the Nazis and the Soviets, to al-Qaeda- is that we are free. Free to choose for ourselves a life, free to pursue wealth and opportunity, free from intrusion by the government itself. The enemies of freedom- past and present- all believe that people cannot be trusted.

That is not the American way. Our system of government, with its separation of powers, and checks and balances, guaranteed that no one figure would ever be able to turn the might of the government against the people themselves.

Until today.

The President unleashed a secret police on American citizens with the stroke of a pen. In so doing, he committed a crime. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, by its very terms, only permits this sort of thing against foreign powers and persons- not Americans. Even when used against foreigners the administration must get a warrant, and history shows that the warrants have been liberally granted. The President's lame justification barely holds water. Domestic spying violates everything that Americans hold dear- that we a free people, able to choose our own destinies, and that ours is a nation of laws- not men.

The President's disregard for the rule of law and his utter hubris in office demonstrate that he is not fit to serve. It's time to remove him from office. I know that Cheney will be no better, but that is not the point. Bush cannot be trusted, and if given half the chance would install himself into the White House permanently, like a tinhorn dictator Generalissimo-for-life. He is not a royal sovereign, but simply a citizen, elected to serve at our pleasure- and we are displeased.

The infrequent blogger returns... for now.

2005-12-21T10:40:00.000-05:00

As you will notice, I have only been writing sporadically for a number of months. I regret to say that have been experiencing a number of health problems of late, as well as a death in the family- all of which knocked the wind out of me. I miss writing about politics and society regularly, and I will try to keep this up, but I make no promises.

Manufacturing Dissent Leo Durocher's sagest advice to his Brooklyn nine was "Hit 'em where they ain't." Misdirection is a basic tactic in many adverserial settings- warfare, the courtroom, and politics, to name a few. So with pressure mounting against the administration (and its minions in Congress) over such trifles as the war and domestic spying, the Republicans have fired back with the War Against Christmas.

This is a manufactured controversy, nothing more than a blatant attempt to distract public attention from the real issues facing this nation, and from the Administration's dunderheaded efforts to confront them. It's appalling and offensive, really, to create a diversion like this. It also demonstrates how completely out of touch the GOP is with the new realities of life in America.

I grew up in a East Windsor, New Jersey- a town of about 25,000 people, about 40% of whom are not Christian- we had many, many Jews, as well as numerous Asian faiths represented. We didn't say "Merry Christmas" to one another because there was a better than average chance that the person you were saying it to didn't celebrate Christmas.

America is becoming more and more like my hometown. Religious diversity is an unqualified good. Currently being mired in what is basically a religious war, understanding and respect for others is the first step to peace on Earth and goodwill toward men.

Intelligent Design Intelligently Repudiated If you haven't heard by now, a federal judge in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania ruled (NOTE: link is a 139 page PDF) that teaching so-called "Intelligent Design" theory violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. To which I say, Amen.

What really irks me about the resurgence of creationism (of which I.D. is, no doubt, just a gussied up version of), is the way that a small minority of Christians have coopted the term "christian" itself. These Christians, in the proper noun sense, limit the definition only to people who witness to biblical inerrancy and have a "personal relationship" (whatever that means) with Jesus- thus excluding most christians, in the common noun, small-c sense, like Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc.

Christendom as a whole is hardly in universal agreement over anything. Within several major denominations- even within individual churches- there is constant discourse over gay rights, abortion, the death penalty, and creationism. Among big-C Christians, there is no discourse- nor can there be discourse- because the answers are already given to you, and who are you, mere mortal, to question the giver of those answers?

Fundamentalism is a childlike mythos. Its pretension of certitude is a comfort to people who are unwilling or unable to admit that this is a world of uncertainty. To these people, the answers are always simple, and it boggles their minds that anyone could even question them. Abortion? Murder. Gays? Abominations. Evolution? A lie. Hurricanes? God's vengeance against a sinful city.
But to the rest of us, we see a world in which nothing is certain. The answers are never easy, and the questions are enormous. Progress means that we try to answer those questions, even if the answer is as troublesome as the question itself.

And that is what terrifies big-C Christians (or the fundamentalists of any stripe, really)- they want their sentences to end with periods, not question marks.

It's been a rough few weeks...

2005-11-01T10:46:00.000-05:00

I was on vacation in Palm Springs, I was coping with a death in the family (my dad), and I was dealing with some personal medical issues (as I write this, I am in bed with my good cat by my feet and an ice pack on my man parts- you don't want to know). I wonder if I've missed anything....

So Harriet Miers got shaq-fu'd by the far right. The Administration really miscalculated here- in their strong desire to avoid a major showdown, they sent up an unknown quantity with immense personal loyalty to the President. The activists in the party, however, wanted the very showdown the WH sought to avoid. The far right wants someone who will not mince words, who will take firm positions, who will state what he believes and force the other side to make a move (i.e. filibuster).

I think they got their man. Samuel Alito, AKA "Scalito," is an avowed conservative with impeccable credentials. Yale Law School, Third Circuit, US Attorney, Solicitor General's office- no question that he has the background. I worry about his judicial philosophy, however. He wrote an opinion upholding Pennsylvania's repressive and bizaare abortion law- which opinion was overturned by the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The President introduced him as someone who would not "legislate from the bench," and would "strictly interpret" the Constitution.

However, I have read a number of his opinions this morning. He has overturned murder convictions, upheld free speech and free press rights, and generally seems to get things right. Is this an instance in which a mid-level appellate judge is simply following precedent with which I agree, or is it a sign that terms like "conservative" and "liberal" are too imprecise to be meaningful when it comes to the judiciary?

The bottom line is that I don't know. I remember that I thought Justice Souter was going to be a yes-man for G.H.W. Bush- I could not have been more wrong. Souter was described as a judicial conservative during his tenure on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and indeed he was. Remember, however, what judicial conservatism means- respect for precedent, and respect for the legislature. New Hampshire is known to be a somewhat right leaning state (by New England standards at least). Respect for a right leaning legislature, and respect for precedent equals a general distaste for broad policy making from the bench.

Once elevated to SCOTUS, however, Justice Souter remained a judicial conservative, but with considerably more lefty precedent before him. Certainly, Justice Souter is not afraid to overturn legislation or to overrule precedent- he is just reluctant to do so. I cannot recall him writing a major, world turning opinion. That is not his style; and that is the essence of judicial conservatism.

"Strict constructionism" is a buzzword, an imprecise description for a number of judicial theories that do not mean the same thing, and that do not always coem to the same conclusions Scalia's originalism, Thomas' naturalism, and Black's literalism both fall under the rubric of strict contructionism, but sometimes arrive at differing results.

What will Judge Alito do on the big bench? I don't know. Will he rewrite the rules to suit his whim, or will he do so only when it is necessary? Whatever he is, I doubt that he will simply be a yes man. He has too many years on the bench behind him, and too much respect for the Court to do that. I know that he will be confirmed, and I am slowly beginning to think that he should be confirmed- despite my reservations.

TOLD YA SO- So it's official: 2005 is now the worst Atlantic hurricane season on record. We have run out of names-resorting to the use of Greek letters- and we have a month to go before it ends. As I wrote after Katrina, it is more than a coincidence that hurricane activity has been on the rise in the past ten to fifteen years. Global warning is real and it is dangerous. Cities have been destroyed and lives are in real danger. It has crossed the threshold from environmental concern to national security concern. The administration constantly sides with business over people, with profits over security. And the profits are immense.

Leadership is the ability to foresee circumstances and adapt, it is the ability to get your people on board before there is even a board to jump on, and it is the ability to do what is right- even if it is unpopular.

By those standards, we have no leadership.

I guess American style democracy has taken root in Iraq...

2005-10-18T09:01:00.000-04:00

Lookls like they might have cheated. It's too soon to tell, but I recall that Hussein won by a similar landslide.

Let freedom reign...

A book you must read-

2005-10-10T17:27:00.000-04:00

First, let me welcome readers of Samantha Burns. For those who don't know, she's a Canadian libertarian who supprts the war and hates PETA, only one of which I agree with her on. If nothing else, it might help my pitiful Technorati numbers.

So I'm reading a book about the election of 1800, and it is called, fittingly enough, Adams vs. Jefferson. One of the things that strikes me is the way in which America keeps revisiting the basic issue that has never been fully resolved- are we an elitist society, or an egalitarian society?

In the 1790s, the issue played out as one of democracy vs. republicanism- what level of direct involvement for the people? To a Federalist, the commoners were uneducated and passionate. To a Republican (i.e. Jeffersonian), the Federalists were bent on installing themselves in a quasi-monarchy to rule over their (perceived) inferiors.

It's come up time and again in different forms- industrialists vs. labor, "eggheads" vs. practical thinkers. Underlying all this is a tone of "they think they know what's best for us/themselves." What never changes is that there will always be some form of populism, and some form of elitism. We are in the midst of one such phase right now- what Pat Buchanan called the culture wars. In New York and Los Angeles, rich, educated elites are trying to alter radically the way we live! Or conversely, those people in Kansas and Oklahoma are fighting the future, trying to impose a backward, mythological worldview on us!

It's a false dichotomy, of course, because both sides are right. Each side does want to impose its worldview on the other, because each side thinks it's right. That's why we stand for election, that's why seek to govern- because each candidate, in his/her heart of hearts, thinks that his/her way is the correct way.

What gets really interesting in this particularly bizarre political climate, is that Bush stands with the populists, despite his status as scion of a major political family. Even though Jefferson would have denounced him as an undeserving, aristocratic, puppet of the wealthy and connected, the American people generally associate him as one of their own. In the 2004 election, a pollster asked people to name the consumer brands they associated with the candidates. Kerry was associated by both his supporters and detractors with Starbucks, Heineken, and BMW- upscale, hip brands (or snobby, self-important brands if you didn't like him). Bush, on the other hand, was assoicated with Dunkin' Donuts, Bud Light, and Ford- brands with solid, Average Joe qualities.

Which gets me back to the central question- do we want an Average Joe, or the best and brighest? We go back and forth between the two, and the goalposts are always moving. When Thomas Frank asked What's The Matter With Kansas? he really missed the point- Kansas has always been a populist state. What constitutes populism changes- once it was free land and labor movements, now it's being pro-gun and anti-abortion.

It will be something else fifty years from now, but it will still be with us.

Pot... Kettle... Hey! You're both black!

2005-10-07T22:02:00.000-04:00

Mr. DeLay, the former House Republican majority leader who is a friend of Mr. Abramoff, relinquished his post last week after he was indicted in Texas in connection with political fund-raising. He has described the charges as the fruit of an investigation unleashed by an unscrupulous, publicity-happy prosecutor.

Unsrupulous? Publicity happy? Sounds like Tom DeLay to me. The only real difference between DeLay and a common criminal is that most common criminals aren't taken seriously when they deny the charges against them.

More on Miers

2005-10-07T14:25:00.000-04:00

Let me begin with an apology- it was unfair for me to diss SMU law like that. Not fair, and I do regret it. It was written out of frustration and bewilderment at a nomination that is very undeserved, though not for her alma mater. Moving on...

Salon ran a big piece today, pointing out that Harriet Miers comes to the Court with significant experience representing corporate interests. Although she has had vitually no exposure to the issues that social conservatives care about most deeply, she has an established track record representing big business, particularly defending against consumer class actions. Her specialty- defeating class certification. Since the Republicans have generally sided with big business and and against consumers this could explain everything.

Salon notes "Bush's Miers pick... points to an intriguing tension within the Republican Party, between its ideology-driven right-wing base and its constituency of conservative business leaders, who are eager to develop stem-cell technology, and hire and promote talented employees, whether they be gay, lesbian or straight. Some observers say the Miers nomination follows a pattern Bush established back when he was governor of Texas, picking judges that reward corporate-friendly supporters and special interests."

This is not too different from what I said in my first post here. "Fiscal Conservatives- socially liberal, anti-wasteful spending, and well-educated- are on the way out. The Republicans are increasingly the party of hand-wringing moralists and evangelical Christians. The [White Working Class] fits very well into the newRepublican paradigm. Fiscal Conservatives do not, and they are ripe for the picking."

The gnawing right-wing dissatisfaction with Harriet Miers' ascension shows that what the nutball wing of the GOP wants more than anything else is to get their way on their terms. It is not enough that Miers belongs to a right-of-Falwell church, or that she will predicatbly vote their way- they wanted someone who was openly and avowedly a religious conservative, someone who cut their teeth defending Operation Rescue for all their trespassing citations, someone who will not only allow prayer in school, but will also allow it to be involuntary.

What they wanted was a showdown on judicial philosophy. What they got was a yes-person. It's the Steve Spurrier school of thought- don't just win, when you can win by 50 and embarass the other side.

This is another example of the GOP managing to frame the debate in such a way that the left gets put on the defensive. It is now a given to most people that Republican judges "strictly construe" the Constitution, while Democratic judges "legislate from the bench." What most conservatives don't realize is that many of the rights they take for granted- like the right to raise one's children as they see fit, or to marry the person of your choice- were judicially recognized. Legislatures are often wrong, no matter how popular their decisions might be.

Of course, conservatives just as frequently "legislate from the bench," just on different issues- how else can one explain 10th or 11th Amendment jurisprudence. The difference, of course, is that those amendments deal with things in a more or less procedural way- it's not that you aren't entitled to relief, Mr. Plaintiff, it's just that you can't come by it this way. The Court has expanded those Amendments far beyond their textual or logical limits. But since babies don't die as a result, no one cares.

Harriet Who?

2005-10-05T07:30:00.000-04:00

I couldn't really object to John Roberts. He's an experienced intellectual, comfortable with complex Constitutional issues, and qualified out the wazoo. At the end of the day, Roberts was an accomplished lawyer and a knowledgeable judge, if a little scant on published opinions.

Harriet Miers is none of those. She is a political hack and a longtime friend of George's. A product not of Harvard or Yale (which in itself is not a problem- I have thought for some time that the Court was a little too Ivy League centric), but of Southern Methodist- apparently the second best law school in Texas (actually- both SMU and Baylor are tied for number 52 nationally). SMU is considered a little left of center by Texas standards- which makes it predictably right of common sense for the rest of the country.

Like they say in Texas, dance with the one what brung ya. So he gave us a nominee with no published scholarship, no judicial experience, and apparently no exposure to Constitutional, criminal, or civil rights law. We can expect, however, that she will toe the line- like everyone else who was promoted from within. This was one of my reasons for not opposing Roberts- he wasn't a Bush man.

The President passed over many more qualified people to promote from within, which his is usual modus operandi. Not even conservatives are pleased by this nomination- many conservatives wanted a credentialed conservative intellectual (as if!). What we got is someone who will be predictably, reliably radical.

From Harold Meyerson-

But the conservative intellectuals have misread their president and misread their country. Four and a half years into the presidency of George W. Bush, how could they still entertain the idea that the president takes merit, much less intellectual seriousness, seriously? The one in-house White House intellectual, John DiIulio, ran screaming from the premises after a few months on the job. Bush has long since banished all those, such as Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, who accurately predicted the price of taking over Iraq. Yet Donald Rumsfeld -- with Bush, the author of the Iraqi disaster -- remains, as do scores of lesser lights whose sole virtue has been a dogged loyalty to Bush and his blunders. Loyalty and familiarity count for more with this president than brilliance (or even competence) and conviction.

The need for an intellectual nominee is apparent when one considers that the real goal of the right is to restrict many of our basic rights. Most Americans now consider reproductive freedom and privacy to be fundamental rights. Simply overturning Roe with the same shoddy reasoning that Justice Blackmun employed to write the opinion leaves the newly right leaning Court open the same attacks that the right has used- it's a political opinion, placing personal views above the law. As Justice Scalia terms it, it would be "results oriented jurisprudence."

Of course, the President has said over and over that he wants results. Fear not, Mr. Presaident, your actions have had results.

Values and Priorities

2005-09-13T11:17:00.000-04:00

Grand oratory and eloquent paeans to the American character notwithstanding, if you want to know what a government stands for, follow the money. Governments cost money- lots and lots of money. Even under the most Grover Norquist-esque, small enough to drown in a bathtub, that which governs best governs least scenario, the federal government will raise and spend trillions of dollars every year.

If the pool of money were absolutely limitless, no politician would ever say no to any program of even arguable merit. Feed the poor? Absolutely. Missile defense? Of course. Healthcare? Yup. Bigger prisons? Check.

We simply can't do that, however. Trillions of dollars is still limited- enormous, but finite. We have to pick and choose what we fund and how much we fund it. The fight over the relative amount is the stuff of politics- while no Republican wants children to starve and no Democrat want to dismantle the military, they might disagree as to how much a program deserves. A government's funding priorities reflect its values.

The current administration made a conscious choice to fund Iraq and defund levee repair and construction. Now we have no choice but to spend billions more to rebuild a city older by far than the country itself. We could have. But we didn't.

Those are Bush priorities- Bush values.

While Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, the President was in Arizona, giving a speech to a pre-screened group of seniors (i.e. Republicans) or strumming a guitar. While the Mississippi surged over its earthen walls, ill suited to the task, Condoleeza was in New York, paying more for a pair of Ferragamos than I've paid for of the cars I've owned. While the Mayor and Governor made the best of their situations, the former head of the agency ultimately responsible for the relief effort drafted a memo calling it a "near catastrophe." And if Newsweek is to be believed, the President hadn't even watched a news story on the disaster until after it was already done.

The reality, say several aides who did not wish to be quoted because it might displease the president, did not really sink in until Thursday night. Some White House staffers were watching the evening news and thought the president needed to see the horrific reports coming out of New Orleans. Counselor Bartlett made up a DVD of the newscasts so Bush could see them in their entirety as he flew down to the Gulf Coast the next morning on Air Force One.

How this could be—how the president of the United States could have even less "situational awareness," as they say in the military, than the average American about the worst natural disaster in a century—is one of the more perplexing and troubling chapters in a story that, despite moments of heroism and acts of great generosity, ranks as a national disgrace.

A national disgrace, indeed.

"It's not like this was a surprise."

2005-09-09T10:42:00.000-04:00

My contempt for this administration is complete. If they were merely incompetent, I could overlook it if I thought that they were above reproach. If they were merely corrupt, I could stand it so long as things got done right. Unfortunately, the Bush White House is both the most incompetent and corrupt gang of thugs to rule this, the greatest nation in history, since Teapot Dome.

FACT: The President declared a Federal disaster two full days before Katrina made landfall. This officially put the Feds in charge, and authorized FEMA to move "resources and equipment" (meaning anything from food and water, to manpower, to helicopters) to New Orleans. It also officially put state and local people in a subordinate position.

So when the shit hit the fan, where were the Feds? Not there. Nor would they be there for several more days. As the city descended into chaos, as the waters swelled over the earthen berms which even CNN knew couldn't last, as a once great and unique city became little more than an open air morgue, a fetid, stinking cesspool, they did nothing.

It's not like they didn't have fair warning. "We were briefing them way before landfall," [National Hurricane Center Director Dr. Max] Mayfield said. "It’s not like this was a surprise. We had in the advisories that the levee could be topped."

"It's not like this was a surprise."

Of course, they really couldn't do anything. Heading up the Federal response was a man with a trumped up, if not altogether fabricated resume, who has never held a position of greater responsibility than director of judges for the International Arabian Horse Association. "Brownie" got this job the old fashioned way- cronyism. He was good buddies with his predecessor, Joe Allbaugh, who was himself Bush's campaign manager for Governor of Texas.

Brown did nothing until after the storm had already hit.

Mr. President- don't appoint your buddies (or your buddies' buddies) to an office which requires experienced and professional leadership. The dead and the homeless deserved better.

UPDATE- Turns out I might have been right. Not being a scientist, my earlier post linking Katrina to global warming was little more than one (comparatively well informed) man's analysis of climatological trends. Turns out that a climatologist from MIT has come to the same conclusion and will publish a paper in the journal Nature making that argument.

Nature is a peer reviewed, widely respected scientific journal. Watch it get dismissed as junk science.

In a related story, journalists have started asking tough questions

2005-09-07T05:47:00.000-04:00

Poor Scott McClellan. He's got to be the guy standing up on the podium, shoveling the shit we have taken to calling "information." For far too long, the press has taken what he has had to offer, without much analysis or thought. Softball after softball- and then a wiffle ball or two from the gay prostitute in the back of the room.

The press have gotten their testes back.

Q Well, let's talk about it. Are you saying the President is -- are you saying that the President is confident that his administration is prepared to adequately, confidently secure the American people in the event of a terrorist attack of a level that we have not seen? And based on what does he have that confidence?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and that's what he made clear earlier today, that obviously we want to look and learn lessons from a major catastrophe of this nature.

Q Yes, but you're telling us today there will be time for that somewhere down the road. Well, what if it happens tomorrow?

MR. McCLELLAN: We can engage in this blame-gaming going on and I think that's what you're getting --

Q No, no. That's a talking point, Scott, and I think most people who are watching this --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's a fact. I mean, some are wanting to engage in that, and we're going to remain focused --

Q I'm asking a direct question. Is he confident --

MR. McCLELLAN: We're going to remain focused on the people.

Q -- that he can secure the American people in the event of a major terrorist attack?

MR. McCLELLAN: We are securing the American people by staying on the offensive abroad and working to spread freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

Q That's a talking point. That's a talking point.

Republicans are in trouble for 2006. It seems that the best we can hope from them in incompetence. At worst, they give us cronyism and corruption. Kick 'em out in 2006. All of them, en masse.

And a quick follow-up on my essay about Katrina. It was cited in Blogcritics, and I got dissed.

CThomasEsq of DeToqueville Blvd muses about "Root Causes" for the disaster on the Gulf, laying the blame squarely on ordinary drivers (you and me) for contributing to global warming. Oh, yeah, and President Bush for not signing the Kyoto Accords.

Okay, that does it! It must be true, -I- caused Hurricane Katrina. I mean, what is it, a giant moving mass of hot air? I rest my case.

He chides me and others for trying to find the reasons for the disaster at a time when there is still so much to do in terms of immediate relief. Fair enough- but you can support the people on the ground while still piecing the puzzle together. Things do not happen without a reason. Hurricanes do not form over Greenland (yet)- the Earth is getting warmer, and hurricanes requires warm water to form. If there is a better explantion, please call me on it.

And as if to prove my point, Tropical Storm Ophelia is floating off the Florida coast. Ophelia is the fifteenth named storm of this season, not counting the unnamed tropical depressions. 2005 is now the seventh most active hurricane season since records began being kept.

Statistical peak of the season will be Saturday.

Root Causes

2005-09-01T10:15:00.000-04:00

What happened in New Orleans this week is a sad and terrible reminder that we- humanity, all of us- are a fragile lot, capable of great things and yet also powerless to stand down the force of nature. It really was only a matter of time- a city built on a muddy delta below sea level, protected by earthen berms and levees cannot survive forever. New Orleanians will rebuild, no doubt, but their city will never be the same.

Destruction of this magnitude baffles the mind. Philosophers and theologians have struggled with the question of bad things happening to good people, and we have few good answers. The more religious among us will simply shrug their shoulders and say it was God's will- and who are we to question Him? Some so-called Christians have begun to attribute the disaster to an Old Testament style God, smiting the sinful. Blame the victims, for they have brought it on themselves.

The victim never deserves the blame. Never.

Which is not to say that we are totally blameless. Hurricanes require a specific set of conditions to form, the most important of which is warm water. A simple rainstorm, occurring over the warm seas, draws up the warmth. The heat energy is released through condensation (which also transforms the vapor into liquid water). From Wikipedia-

Structurally, a tropical cyclone is a large, rotating system of clouds, wind and thunderstorm activity. The primary energy source of a tropical cyclone is the release of the heat of condensation from water vapor condensing at high altitudes. Because of this, a tropical cyclone can be thought of as a giant vertical heat engine.

The requisite heat usually takes some time to develop, which is why peak hurricane season in the northern hemisphere Atlantic, is late August to early September. To generate the necessary ocean temperatures, it takes nearly the entire summer to warm the ocean. Imagine trying to heat a bowl of water using only a 100-watt light bulb placed overhead. It will happen, of course, though not very soon. Now repeat that experiment with the ocean and the sun. This is why the ocean is warmer in October than in July, despite the (usually) much cooler air temperatures- a lot of water to heat, a lot of water to cool.

Which brings me to my point. The earth is getting progressively warmer- that is beyond dispute- and while some scientists have expressed skepticism as to the cause, the vast majority of climatologists attribute the warming to human causes, most notably the greenhouse effect.

As the mean temperatures have risen, so too have the frequency and intensity of hurricanes. In the simple terms of storms per season, six of the ten most active North Atlantic hurricane season have occurred within the last ten years (1995, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2004). So far, the 2005 season is up to twelve named storms (Tropical Storm Lee floundering in the ocean) and a new tropical depression forming as I write this. The season will continue until November 30. Two more named storms and 2005 will tie for tenth.

Moreover, consider this. Hurricane Andrew made landfall in Florida on August 24, 1992. Katrina made landfall on August 25, 2005. These storms are statistically similar in almost every way- strength, duration, damage. This is not unexpected, given that they formed in roughly the same region at roughly the same time. There is one crucial difference- Andrew was the first storm of the season, Katrina is the eleventh (and the third major hurricane) of this season.

As to intensity, consider that a particularly devastating storm usually has its name retired, so that its historical significance can be noted. These storms killed the most people and caused the most damage. In the 1950's, only ten storms had their names retired. In the 60's, eleven hurricanes were retired. In the 70's, the number was eight and in the 80's it was only seven. In the 1990's, fifteen hurricanes had their names retired, as many as in the previous two full decades.

So far in the 2000's, the number is thirteen, and that doesn't count the hurricanes from the current storm season, of which Katrina will definitely be retired, and Dennis and Emily are also likely contenders for retirement.

I am no treehugger. I do not weep for spotted owls. I do not drive a Prius. I am, however, someone who prides himself on his intellect and rationality. I follow the evidence where it leads me, and the evidence is clear. The Earth is getting warmer and it is exacting a terrible toll.

Our "leaders," however, doubt the evidence. The Kyoto Protocol is "not based on science," says one American negotiator. The President dismissed a report released by his own EPA on the subject, and routinely ignores the scientists who shout to their countrymen, chained to the walls of Plato's cave, that it is real and that we can do something about it.

The President alone is not at fault, though. We share a fair bit of the blame. I count myself, with my 50 mile drive to work each day. I could be driving a Prius or I could take the train, and although my Honda CR-V could be much worse in the fuel consumption department, I know it could be much better.

Instead, we merrily drive bigger and bigger cars that burn more gas. We move farther and farther away from the places where we work. We supersize it, we medicate it, and complain about it- but we don't change it. Because that would meaning changing ourselves.

And that, we are simply not willing to do.

Courting John Roberts

2005-07-27T20:46:00.000-04:00

I have hitherto been silent on the matter of John Roberts, mostly a function of having been STUPID busy, but also because I wanted to be fully informed before taking a position. I have read several of his opinions. Read countless articles about him, and read the opinions of several attorneys who have practiced in front of him.

The more I learn about John Roberts, the less worried I become.

While much has been made of the positions he advocated while in practice, I tend not to consider that too much. When you're an attorney, you advocate the client's position, not your own. It just happened that his client was the President of the United States, and his client took some neanderthal positions. I should hope that if I am ever deemed fit to take the robe, the Senate doesn't run all my transcripts ("Well, you see, Judge... he didn't know that the crack was in his pocket... ummm, no I haven't figured that part out yet...").

I've read a few of his opinions, and yes, they tend to fall on the conservative side of the line. He doesn't appear to be a flaming ideolouge, and for what it's worth, I agreed with a good bit of his reasoning. I don't see him finding new rights, but I don't see him undoing much of the last 50 year's worth of civil liberties either. I think privacy is safe, although he might not expand it much. Roe will probably also survive, if limited somewhat (I don't think that these partial birth laws will get overturned, but then again that may not be so bad- politically, the costs of defending partial birth abortion might outweigh the benefits).

Roberts is such an enigma and so apparently blandly affable that he will be confirmed by a very wide margin. The White House screwed this up, though- they should have named a flaming wingnut to force a filibuster. This would have made Frist exercise the nuclear option, and the WH would have had substantial cover ("See- they wouldn't even give one nominee a fair up or down vote!"). Instead, the Dems will cast confirm Roberts, giving them the cover to filibuster the next guy ("See- when you named a reasonable Judge, we approved him quickly!")

Oh- I have to go. My dig just piddled on the carpet. More on this tomorrow.

Calling bullshit on Karl Rove

2005-07-14T11:27:00.000-04:00

Despite the WH's reluctance to comment on an ongoing investigation, Karl Rove's attorney (beholden to noone but Turdblossom himself), has been going full bore. The latest meme- Matt Cooper "burned" Karl Rove. Bob Luskin told the National Review, "If you read what Karl said to him and read how Cooper characterizes it in the article, he really spins it in a pretty ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to reporters to try to get them to them to report negative information about Plame."

Of course, this is BS, and today in Salon they call it out as such. "Luskin's beef: The language Cooper used in a July 17, 2003, Time.com story about Joseph Wilson was misleading. (The article appeared just days after Robert Novak outed Wilson's wife in his column, which sparked the federal grand jury whodunit.) Luskin, citing the narrow scope of the conversation Rove and Cooper had, denies the White House ever declared a "war on Wilson," as Cooper's article suggested."

Salon actually compares what Cooper wrote in the smoking gun email to what appeared in print, and finds that Luskin is speaking out of his ass. Which, to be fair, is what we attorneys do sometimes- I just don't do it to a national magazine. In any event, what Matt Cooper wrote in print is consistent with what was described in the email- without attribution beyond merely describing "government officials," Cooper wrote that the Niger trip was not authorized by the VP, but by the CIA. True, no? Yes. Moreover, he in no way described a WH plot to destroy Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame.

I have a feeling that what we know is merely the tip of the iceberg. This things goes deep. Stay tuned.

The best defense, apparently, is a good offense

2005-07-13T14:03:00.000-04:00

The RNC has come up with a plan to defend Karl Rove- blame the Dems for playing dirty politics, and wait for the Supreme Court nomination to bury the story. The RNC has distributed some talking points on The Plame Affair that basically follow three memes- 1) Joe Wilson's a liar; 2) Joe Wilson's incompetent; and 3) the WH is the epitome of all that is righteous and holy. The right wing press has obligingly toed the line, with the WSJ going so far as to call for Rove to get a medal.

They must be terrified.

At this point, they have shut down all official comment on the matter. The one email we know of doesn't reveal anything that amounts to a crime, and as I pointed out yesterday, if the entire scandal amounted to this one missive then the WH would have proudly answered everything to show that there is no there there. That they didn't leads me to believe that they couldn't.

So, what does any protege of Turdblossom do? Exactly what the master taught- smear, smear, smear. Attack the critic and the criticism won't matter. The talking points amount to little more than a pathetic attempt to discredit a loyal and honorable public servant who called "bullshit" on the Administration's fraud with a body count. And they don't really do anything to clear up the real issue- did Rove intentionally blow a covert op's cover?

Of course, the legitimate press will have to pull a Bill O'Reilly with the GOP hacks- if they won't answer the question asked, but instead stick to their talking points, you have to kick them off the show. O'Reilly has done that numerous times to Dems. Gander, this is goose.

This administration is a criminal enterprise- they lie, they cheat, they steal (elections). They have sent American youth off to war on a fraud, where their above the law attitude trickled down into the barracks at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Electrodes to the scrotum, hoods over their heads- look good for the camera, Lynndie.

Some Spanish judge should hand down an indictment for war crimes. Hey, Karl- I hear Slobodan Milosovich is looking for a new celly...

So, Scott McLellan was in a bad spot...

2005-07-12T11:16:00.000-04:00

The papers are all over it today- when asked (repeatedly) about Karl Rove's involvement in the Plame Affair, the White House refused to answer. (Quaint, huh, how I still call them "papers.") Even though there were two years worth of previous denials. Even though the President had promised to fire the leaker, whomever it was. Even though...

The single email that we know of is not enough to constitute a crime. It's too vague- Valerie Plame is not named for one thing. If this was all there was to it, the White House would have come clean yesterday. "See, there's no there there." They didn't, which leads me to believe that they couldn't- not without either 1) admitting that Rove had, in fact, committed a crime; or 2) lying. The Adminstration can't really do either, for obvious reasons.

So, they fell back on that old chestnut, "No Comment."

The calls for Rove's resignation/termination are starting to come in. Dubya will not fire him, nor will Rove resign. Their egos are too big for that. More than anything, Dubya rewards loyalty. Alberto and Condi got promotions, Rummy kept his job, Paul O'Neill got the shaft. Rove has stuck with the President through hell and highwater. Dubya will stick by him.

2006 can't come soon enough.

Judy Miller goes to jail...

2005-07-07T09:42:00.000-04:00

As has been covered to death, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was sent to jail after refusing (again) to name her source in the Plame affair. On the other hand, Time reporter Matthew Cooper avoided the same fate after his source released him from his promise of anonymity. I have always fancied myself a First Amendment activist- it was the reason I went to law school in the first place. But I have to wonder if their fealty to the freedom of the press is misguided in this case.

Their source(s)- it's not entirely clear if they have the same source- work inside the White House. The only obvious benefit in outing a deep cover operative was to embarass a high ranking American diplomat who criticized the Bush Administration. The source is a deep insider who apparently used the press to advance the faulty (fraudulent?) justification for war in Iraq. In fact, Lawrence O'Donnell announced last week that the source is Karl Rove (how he knows that is an open question). Rove, of course, is Dubya's brain- a Machivellian political strategist who would smear his own mother to gain a couple of percentage points- if it is Rove, it might as well have been the President himself.

Obviously, the press relies on whistleblowers and anonymous sources. The people in power have the power, after all. When the upper echelons of government cut corners (or worse), it is dangerous for some insiders to go on record and tattle. Recent events should bear this out. This case is different from Watergate, however, and maintaining anonymity only protects the wrongdoer.

Mark Felt, perhaps selfishly, used his promise of anonymity to bring down a crooked President. He pointed Woodward and Bernstein in the right direction, and they connected the dots. In this case, the promise of anonymity advances the cause of prevarication and deception. Someone criticized the President by name, so someone in White House hides behind the journalistic shield to bring down the critic. I don't know if it is Rove, but it is his style- after Bob Novak ran the column outing Valerie Plame, Rove called Chris Matthews and told him that she was "fair game." Attack the critic, and the criticism doesn't matter.

I applaud the journalists for standing tough in the face of incarceration. It takes guts and integrity to stick to your guns in those circumstances. This case is not the reason for the principle, however, and I wonder if it would have been gutsier to name names.

Bush to focus on "character" of SCOTUS possibilities- All together now, "Oh, shit."

2005-07-06T13:57:00.000-04:00

Dubya announced today that there would be no litmus test for Supreme Court nominees, which I suppose is a good thing. I don't believe it, of course, but it's nice to hear nevertheless. What really scares me, though, is that he will focus on the character of the candidates- not their legal rulings.

"I will let my legal experts deal with the ramifications of legal opinions," Bush said. "I will try to assess their character, their interests." While Bush initially considered announcing his pick next week, aides said there's talk of delaying the decision to protect the nominee from prolonged attacks from the left or right. Either way, Bush wants the new justice approved and on the bench in early October.

Bush said the criteria for the job is simple -- "I'll pick people who, one, can do the job, people who are honest, people who are bright and people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench to legislate from." Bush was mum on who meets such criteria.

So he seems to equate good character with a particular theory of constitutional construction. I'm always amazed at the ineffable stupidity of strict constructionists. It means what it says, they argue. Take the commerce clause, the source of much judicial explication since the earliest days of the Republic. "The Congress shall have power... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Seems simple enough right? Except that the words "commerce" and "regulate" are not really defined. Moreover, there are many instances in which intrastate activity affects interstate commerce.

A strict constructionist would have no problem with these issues- interstate commerce means exactly the same thing today that it did in 1789- what the Framers knew of commerce is what controls. This, of course, is hogwash. The Constitution was written in a world lit by candlelight and coal fire, where merchandise rarely left the city it was made in, let alone the State. The people made goods in their houses and sold them to their neighbors. It was a world which had neither transportation nor communication. It was a world in which almost everyone was self-employed.

This is not the world we live in today. Wal-Mart decides in its Arkansas home office to set up shop in Middle of Nowhere, Indiana to peddle goods that were made in China and India, imported at Los Angeles, and trucked through 25 states on its way to the new store. The new stores displaces the local merchants, who also sold goods made elsewhere. Wal-Mart deposits their money in a local bank, which deposits its money in another bank, which in turn deposits its money in a Federal Reserve Bank. Everything is fluid, everything is moving.

The Framers may have a vote on the issue, but a veto? C'mon! Anyone with half a brain can plainly see that this is exactly the situation in which there needs to be Federal control. Fifty states with fifty different sets of laws makes absolutely no sense.

Of course, I shouldn't worry. He'll name someone of good character.

Advice and Consent

2005-07-04T23:10:00.000-04:00

So if you thought that the fight over Janice Rogers Brown was a barnburner, you ain't seen nothin' yet. As many of you know, Sandra Day O'Connor has announced her retirement- meaning that the biggest fight over judicial nominees is about to begin. The sides are drawn- conservatives arguing for a true believer, liberals vowing to block the true believers. It's going to be a big time fight.

However, I wonder if this is the best way to choose our jurists. The Framers of the Constitution envisioned an appointment process that was closer to a dialogue between the President and the Senate- a process of advice and consent. Instead, we have a process in which the President names his choice, and the Senate approves or denies. This is not at all what they had in mind.

It's also obvious that the Framers didn't trust the people with a say in the matter. Under the original text of the Constitution, the Senate was chosen by staste legislatures- their constituency was the state as such. It was not until the 17th Amendment that the Senate was directly elected by the people. The House of Representatives didn't have a vote, because of the fear that the people would be fickle and passionate. The House, directly accountable to the people, could elevate a popular demogogue, a pop star or a ballplayer (Johnny Damon, perhaps?) to the highest court in the land (or the Cabinet, also nominated a similar way).

I live in a state where the judges are elected. Although judicial terms are 10 years, judges are nevertheless aware that unpopular, though legally correct decisions may come back to haunt them. As a result, we have an appellate judiciary that is mildly regarded in other states. New Jersey selects their judges like the Federal system, but that after seven years the Senate gets to reconfirm (or not). California appellate judges are nominated by the Governor and confirmed by a commission, but at the next election, the voters have an opportunity to vote the judge out.

Both Jersey and California are considered excellent judiciaries, and other states look to them for guidance. Elected judges are less well regarded. But the fact of the matter remains that United States judiciary is considered to be the most independent and influential in the world. Judges will sometimes make unpopular decisions. It simply goes with the turf. Life tenure empowers judges to rule without fear of reprisal. The appointment process also helps to keep unqualified single issue candidates from the High Court (Roy Moore, perhaps?). Federal judges are far more qualified to the bench than most state court judges.

I think the answer is to amend the Constitution. Create a judicial nominating commission. The commission would consist of officials from all three branches of government. The commission would have a free hand to name a candidate. Their candidate would be submitted to Congress where both houses would get a vote, and the President could veto, just like a bill. There's the carrot, here's the stick- if the political branches have taken no action on the nomination within a set time- say 180 days- then the nominee is automatically confirmed to the bench.

The benefits of this idea should be obvious- nomination by committee will discourage lightning rod nominees. The candidate will have to be very well qualified and a consensus builder to survive two houses of Congress and a Presidential veto- think O'Connor, Breyer, Lewis Powell, and Charles Evans Hughes. Don't think Scalia, Brennan, or Rehnquist.

It probably wouldn't depoliticize the process entirely, but it would make a difference- and it would fill up long term vacancies on the district courts, where there is more work to do- pleas to take, settlements to approve, etc. As it stands now, the process is broken.

The Smartest Guys in the Room

2005-06-18T09:50:00.000-04:00

As I digest the import of The Downing Street Memo, I can't help but notice the parallel between the current administration and the downfalls of Enron or MCI. They, like the President, cooked the books.

Admittedly Ken Lay didn't annihlate a sovereign nation, but the similarity is there. Enron management had a goal- keep the stock price at X per share, and do whatever you have to do keep it there. W also had a goal- war in Iraq by March, 2003- and do whatever you have to do to get us there.

Of course there were some problems with that. The world community tends to look disfavorably upon such things as unjustifiably warmaking. So what did they decide to do? According to the head of the British Secret Service, they cooked the books.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action....

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran....

"The intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy."

In other words, the policy was decided- they just needed to facts to justify it. I tend not to believe that there is such a thing as objectively verifiable truth. Truth is simply the agreed upon version of events, and such agreements change over time. This memo is different- the Administration didn't look at intelligence and spin it toward a particular interpretation. The Administration fabricated it. We gotta keep our stock price up, let's figure out how to do that.

Ahhhh, to be posting again!

2005-06-15T11:35:00.000-04:00

My blogging tailed off considerably to next to nothing. I now have an explantion- I was depressed. Clinically. I didn't care to do anything in particular.

My depression was the side-effect of a medication I was taking. Ironically enough, it was an anti-depressant, prescribed for an off label use. I'm on new meds, and since getting the medication, my head is clear as a bell. I'm back to being happy and motivated. And it feels good.

So I'm back to fighting the good fight. Bring it on!

So- who really won?

2005-05-24T21:56:00.000-04:00

Not Frist, obviously. Not really Reid, either.

McCain. The big winner. The really big winner.

While extremist right wingers deplored the deal, just about everyone else loved it. Running a country as large as the United States isn't easy- partisanship has its place in policymaking, but when it comes to the business of governance itself, there is simply too much to lose to have allowed a house of Congress to close up shop while the President and his hatchet slip a roofie into the national Red Bull and vodka.

What people love about McCain- hell, what I love about McCain- is that he is beholden to noone. Politicking is about branding, same as in cars and colas. Bush was "Decisive Leadership," while Kerry was "Careful Reflection." McCain is "Principled Maverick;" doing the thing he thinks is right, no matter who else agrees or disagrees with him. This is not unlike the Karl Rove spin on the President (a decisive man of principles), except for the fact that the President is in more pockets than a Times Square hooker when the disability checks come out. McCain is nobody's pocket.

Of course, the bulk of Republican activsts feel like McCain stabbed them in the back, making it that much harder for him to win the Republican nomination in 2008. He certainly has more name recognition than any of his possible primary opponents- and far more than any possible Democrat except for John Kerry, Al Gore, and Hilary Clinton (in none of those cases is the name recognition a plus). McCain- a man whose love of country is unquestionable- has just won the Presidency in 2008, if he can get past the primaries against people with half the qualifications and a tenth the integrity.

The Republicans have to be careful. Control of all three branches of government is a recipe for backlash- which has already begun. The social conservatives do not mask their contempt for anyone whose worldview differs from their own. Their attempts to install a theocracy of (a particular brand of millenial apocolyptic) Christitanity are naked, unbridled efforts to expand and enlarge their power base- not to serve God. McCain, who is neither overtly religious nor particularly interested in the social consertive's pet issues (abortion, gay marriage, Terry Schiavo), will not have that wing of the party's support. Between 25 and 45 percent of the primary voters- out of play.

Slightly off topic- a three way race in 2008. Frist vs. Hillary vs. McCain.... hmmmmmm. Social conservatives obviously back Frist and latte liberals get behind Hillary. The middle gets in back of McCain. A little electoral math and I could see a three way tossup. Hmmmmmmmm...

Of all Republicans, I do not fear McCain's leadership. I do not necessarily agree with him- recent comments he's made praising Bush on the the war made me wince- but I believe that he will make all his decisions with the best interests of the nation at heart, and after having listened to all the evidence (unlike the current President). An informed, cautious leader- one can only hope.

Filibuster, shmilibuster

2005-05-23T19:32:00.000-04:00

As I write this, it looks as though the Gang of 12 has worked out a deal to avoid the nuclear option. This means that the President's judicial nominees to the Courts of Appeals across the country will get their "up or down" votes.

The Gang of 12, of course, are six moderates of each party, headed informall by John McCain (R-AZ). McCain- war hero, patriot, early 2008 front runner, and scourge of Bushies everywhere. Even though McCain has been hated by the right wing of his own party since 1999, he is loved by just about everyone else. Including me, for what it's worth. He is the biggest winner in this debacle.
The big losers in this are Frist, Reid, and Bush. They wanted a showdown, and couldn't get their own people in line. Both parties are run by the fringes now- the middle just took back some ground.

On Relativism

2005-05-03T21:55:00.000-04:00

The scourge of relativism has been much in the news of late. I was thinking about it today because of an online discussion elsewhere. It would seem that every right-of-center person with an opinion and a microphone awaits the day that relativism leads us down the road to perdition.

Relativism is simply the acknowledgement that different circumstances require different treatment. There is no absolute right or wrong, only murky uncertainties. Its opposite, absolutism, sees no uncertainty- regardless of circumstance, right is right and wrong is wrong.

This of course is nonsense.

Consider the two extreme hypotheticals of abortion politics- the rape victim and the woman who just doesn't feel like having a kid. An absolutist sees no difference between the two, while a relativist recognizes that there is a world of difference between the two. The circumstances are different, therefore they should not be judged by the same standard.

Absolutism has given us the likes of Eric Robert Rudolph and Fred Phelps, the Bolsheviks and al Qaeda. We really need to do away with it- absolutely.

The Persistence of the Non-Story Story

2005-05-02T20:24:00.000-04:00

In a news week dominated by the Runaway Bride, you would think that nothing of import happened. On the contrary, the world got a shitload scarier. North Korea launched a warhead-capable missile; Iraq got bloodier (again); DeLay remains dirty; and the President continues to push Social Security deform.

Yet, every network continues to run the puff pieces. Jennifer Wilbanks was found alive- huzzah. Why we ever cared at all escapes me, but why we continue to care is simply baffling. And we do care- according to CNN this past weekend, the Wilbanks story was the most read piece online. So naturally, they pushed it on the air. The 24 hour news cycle needs content like a junkie needs junk (thank you, William S. Burroughs). The viewers latch on to non-stories, like Terry Schiavo, the Pope, Jennifer Wilbanks, and now Laura Bush's stand-up routine.

The truth is that everything in this country depends on laziness. Politicians are lazy- "raise the flag and lower the taxes" is easier to sell than fixing the problems. The media are lazy- finding it easier to trump one family's embarrassment into a national circus. Viewers are lazy- the whale in the Delaware and the Michael Jackson trial are easier to follow than the intricacies of foreign relations, or the looming energy crisis.

Democracy depends on an informed electorate, and the role of informer-in-chief has traditionally fallen to the press. However, in an age when the world is absolutely awash in information, we are increasingly ill informed. I am beginning to think that it is by design.

DeLay v. Judicial Independence

2005-04-20T10:45:00.000-04:00

I've got to hand it to ol' Tommy- when other politicians would try to fly under the radar until the feces comes away from the fan, he just keeps on keepin' on. His attack on the courts continues- now with an extraordinarily unusual attack on a single sitting Supreme Court Justice.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay intensified his criticism of the federal courts on Tuesday, singling out Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s work from the bench as “incredibly outrageous” because he has relied on international law and done research on the Internet.

I agree- it is outrageous that a Supreme Court Justice would do his own research. What really irks me about this comment is the arrogance about how international law has no place in American jurisprudence. That may be the case in Texas, but in the Constitution of these United States, international law is federal law. (See Article I, Section 8, "Congress shall have power to define and punish... Offences against the Law of Nations." See also Article VI, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." See also The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900) ("International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination.")

Essentially, DeLay believes that any reference to anything other than the simple letter of the law is treasonous. He goes on to note that there are a “lot of Republican-appointed judges that are judicial activists.”

Like Mr. Justice Scalia, perhaps?

What? Scalia? The bulwark of "strict constructionism?" Surely he, of all judges, sets aside his personal opinions and decides cases on the plainest reading of the Constitution itself!

Not hardly, numbnuts. The Times today ran an editorial citing the times has Scalia has used his robe to undo and undermine the explicit instruction of Congress, voting to overturn the Gun Free School Zones Act, the Violence Against Women Act, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Moreover, "strict constructionism" is a fallacy. The concept that the Constitution should be narrowly construed to limit its application to the "plain meaning" is a red herring. There are, indeed, times when the Constitution means precisely what it says- in a Federal civil trial, if you're suing for more than $20, you have the right to a jury.

Or do you? A strict constructionist would say, simply, twenty bucks is twenty bucks. However, there is a perfectly valid and rational argument that the Seventh Amendment means "twenty bucks in 1789 dollars," about five grand today.

Most of the questions are rarely that specific. What does the "equal prtection of the laws" mean? What constitutes due process? What is "liberty," as that term is meant by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? What is interstate commerce? These are terms that require explication, and to do that we have judges.

What it really boils down to is the tension between the branches of government that has been ongoing, more or less continuously, since the founding. What scares me about its current incarnation, is that DeLay has the people who could do something about it (i.e., Congress), in the palm of his corrupt, clammy hands. He has raised the possibility that Congress could obliterate all Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court, an unrealistic possibility, but one that I think would in fact be constitutional.

Courts must be independent. Life tenure exists to shield the courts from the passions that inflame the political branches. Sometimes, judges must make unpopular decisions. Brown v. Board of Education was vehemently despised in the South- it still is in many parts. It was also the right decision. The thought that a judge should be impeached for applying the law is a terrifying thought- they had "judges" in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, too. None were particularly noted for their independence.

Then again, I think Tom "That Petulant Worm" DeLay has modeled his leadership style after those two nations.

Tom DeLay, Part II

2005-04-19T21:04:00.000-04:00

Tom DeLay, whom I have taken to calling "that petulant worm," sent an email to his constituents (read: the people who asked to receive email from him) that basically denied doing anything wrong. However, he didn't deny doing what has been alleged, just that it was wrong.

In recent weeks, The Post and other news organizations have reported new details about DeLay's foreign travel and the involvement of lobbyist Jack Abramoff and other groups in arranging it.

Most of the disclosed cost of a trip to England and Scotland in 2000 was indirectly financed by an Indian tribe and a gambling services company, said people who helped organize it. A Moscow trip in 1997 was indirectly underwritten by Russian business interests, said people with firsthand knowledge of the arrangements. A trip to South Korea on 2001 was paid for by a tax-exempt group created by a lobbyist on behalf of a Korean businessman.

DeLay has said he did not know about the indirect funding. He said in the e-mail that trips to Russia and Britain "were proper" and that "if the sponsor of a trip ultimately obtains funding for a trip, a Member is not and should not be responsible for that information."

Oh, really... I might be inclined to let him slide and then throw those words back in face when he makes the same charge against a Democrat- except that tactic never works. The unmitigated gall this man displays is the stuff of Shakespearean tragedy. Well, it would be if he were the Prince of Denmark, but he is little more than Guildenstern (or Rosencrantz), running around Elsinore wondering why he (or the other one) is there.

He also saw fit to point out that he has never been "found" to be in violation of law. That's a classically legalistic word, suggesting that people should not question his methods until he has been convicted. I should remind you that DeLay was one of the leading figures pushing for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and he was never "found" to have done anything when DeLay was calling for his head.

It's about time that the Democrats fought back. What's more, we need to use DeLay to our advantage next year, running attack ads depicting Republicans as little more than DeLay hatchet men- much like they did when Newt Gingrich was speaker. To the extent that people know about Tom DeLay, they generally loathe him.

With good reason, I'd say.

I think I'm back...

2005-04-18T20:49:00.000-04:00

I've been enervated of late. I've been dealing with some things in my personal life, and the news has just been so depressing, I just didn't see the point of shouting in the darkness for the benefit of my few readers. While Terri Schiavo and the Pope led the news every night, while Michael Jackson collected broadcast minutes, while pharmacists decided to make policy from the cosmetics counter, while the Religious Right tries to abolish judicial independence (if not the courts themselves), this whole country just fell ever more slowly into disrepair. I couldn't fathom blogging about it. I could barely fathom reading about.

I'm better now, and I'm back on the saddle. You can thank Tom DeLay for that. This petulant worm with the weatherman hair has been ruling the House of Representatives like a petty feifdom. When he doesn't get his way, he pouts. Consider his remarks on the future of the judges who dared to called the Terri Schiavo False Hope Act for what it was- a unconstitutional encroachment on the power of the judiciary, a co-equal branch of government. DeLay threatened the courts with their comeuppance.

Yet the only comeuppance delivered thus far has been DeLay's. He has been exposed for what he is- merely corrupt, more interested in his own power than in the good of his country. Democrats need to keep the attack up and get this cancerous buffoon out of the Capitol.

Everytime I post something lately, it seems to start with an apology for disappearing...

2005-03-22T20:59:00.000-05:00

What can I say- I do have actual life responsibilities, and they have been unreal of late.

This Terri Schiavo thing infuriates me. I have nothing but sympathy for both sides- I cannot imagine how difficult this must have been for husband, and I also understand the parents' position. No one wants to bury their child. However, about 19 judges have heard this case- each one has consistently found that Terri's express wishes were not to be kept alive artificially. That really should have ended it.

Congress, however, saw an opportunity to appease the religious right, to energize the base. Cynically, the party that for years has fancied itself the party of small government and states' rights tried to take the matter out of the state's hands. These people cut short their vacations, worked into the wee hours on a weekend, and passed a bill that applies to exactly one person. The President, predictable as ever, signed it into law.

We are a nation in the midst of a war that is going badly. Our dollar is now about equal to the yen. Jobs are disappearing overseas. And Congress cuts short its break to intervene in the tragic yet completely personal dispute over someone who is the functional equivalent of a doorstop. The only part of her brain that works is the medulla oblongata, which regulates the involuntary functions- in her case, heartbeat and lungs. She is gone, and she's never coming back. Is this what the President means when he talks about the Culture of Life? She's alive, in the sense that plants are alive, but she is not living.

I absolutely understand why her parents do not want to let go. I also understand why her husband has to. Congress? That I do not understand.

Back from vacation....

2005-03-02T18:30:00.000-05:00

I was in New Orleans for the better part of a week, hence the radio silence. To be honest, I haven't much motivation of late. I've been busy in every aspect of my life and haven't had much time for blogging. Also, I've been thinking about shifting the focus of the blog away from day-to-day politics and more towards political philosophy and analysis, which was my initial goal anyway. As my acute anger at the President subsides, I don't feel the need to debunk everything he does- even if it is bunk. It's not easy to be in the reality-based community.

A must read piece...

2005-02-23T12:43:00.000-05:00

In the days following the election I wondered how we could lose. I mean, after all, we were right! We had the facts and the evidence on our side. Jonathan Chait explains in an excellent piece in The New Republic that being right doesn't really matter to conservatives- what matters is ideology.

Conservatives believe that big government impinges upon freedom. They may also believe that big government imposes large costs on the economy. But, for a true conservative, whatever ends they think smaller government may bring about--greater prosperity, economic mobility for the non-rich--are almost beside the point. As Milton Friedman wrote, "[F]reedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself...."

We're accustomed to thinking of liberalism and conservatism as parallel ideologies, with conservatives preferring less government and liberals preferring more. The equivalency breaks down, though, when you consider that liberals never claim that increasing the size of government is an end in itself. Liberals only support larger government if they have some reason to believe that it will lead to material improvement in people's lives. Conservatives also want material improvement in people's lives, of course, but proving that their policies can produce such an outcome is a luxury, not a necessity.

In other words- just because privatizing Social Security will not actually save the system or make anymore richer doesn't mean that they won't do it; because it was never about those things in the first place. It was always about attacking the size of government.

I haven't been updating lately...

2005-02-22T22:17:00.000-05:00

Life has been intruding, requiring me to attend to things that acctually make me money. Also, the news has just been so depressing lately. Iraq has elected a pro-Iranian, fundamentalist premier, now Syria and Iran have become best buddies- just about the only stability in that entire region came from the fact that Iraq, Iran, and Syria were all basically equal in strength, and all basically hated each other. Looks like we have transformed the Middle East, after all- former enemies have united. Against us, but at least it's something.

Oh, and North Korea. They're not just a third world nation lorded over by a grown up Cartman with a bizarre fondness for Members Only jackets in beige. They're a third world nation lorded by a grown up Cartman with a bizarre fondness for Members Only jackets in beige with nukes.

On top of that, several conservative commentators have opined lately that the USA is headed toward full-on fascism. Not even a right wing pseudo-journalist gay prostitute in the press room can cure that kind of existential angst. What have we wrought, oh Lord? What have we done to displease You?

Things used to be easy for me- every time things went awry, every time the shit hit the fan, I could always count on a few simple things to get me through- donuts, The Daily Show, porn- but now, nothing. I don't even count the days until 2008- I just slump in my chair idly waiting for something to happen. It could be a small thing. It could be the second coming. All I know is that we're stuck with GWB and there's not a goddamn thing we can do about it.

Please bear with me- I'm in a funk.

It's been a long week...

2005-02-11T21:21:00.000-05:00

I've been rather busy, hence the long absence. So what am I doing on Friday night? In bed, laptop at the ready, blogging. Yeah- some fun. Most of the best stories have blogged elsewhere, so I'm really just getting caught up. Nothing too brainy tonight.

Clearly my favorite story of the week is Gannonpot Dome. So it would seem that the Bushies have found a way to keep the liberal media in check. They gave daily press passes to a right wing fake reporter with a fake name who worked for a fake news organization. He was uncovered when he asked a obviously partisan question on Social Security that described Democrats as "divorced from reality." He allegedly worked for Talon News, an agency that fronts for GOPUSA and only employs Republican activists, not professional journalists. I guess that's one way to get your message out.

North Korea has nukes. Super. We will no doubt be invading Manitoba to divert the world's attention.

Howard Dean is back, heading up the DNC. This is a good move- he's from outside the beltway, he has a kind of goofy charisma that John Kerry lacked, he's not afraid to stick his neck out. Exactly what the Dems have been missing lately.

That's really all for now- I will probably do some real blogging Sunday.

The Morning Roundup

2005-02-04T10:30:00.000-05:00

File Under "The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" Two countries that hated each other for years will now finally be able to make peace. Good, right? Ummmm- maybe not. Despite the heartfelt embrace between a dead soldier's mother and an Iraqi human rights activist who cast a vote in her nation's first "free" election in half a century, things in Iraq remain messy. The lead story in the Times today reveals that the early returns show a Shiite party with strong links to Iran in the lead.

Should this party retain its lead and ascend to power, these two historically warring nations can resolve their differences and unite in their hatred of the United States. Just in time for the invasion of Iran, which Condi says is "not on the agenda at this point"(emphasis added). Meaning that it will be as soon as we've cleaned up our present quagmire.

George Dubya's Rolling Misinformation Tour 2005 The Pres hit the road yesterday, to hype up his Social Insecurity Fiasco. Oddly, he only seemed to visit Red States with Democratic Senators who have vowed to stop him. Coincidence? I think not. And despite the oft stated assertion that young people generally support the plan, the Times found many who did not (note- they conducted man on the street styles interviews in the bluest of Blue States, Boston, Mass).

More media outlets are analyzing the plan in detail, and are finding what the Post found yesterday- it's just a loan to government, immediately paid for with massive new Federal borrowing, followed by benefit cuts on the back end. This plan will not save Social Security as much as cripple it for good, and Progressives need to keep the pressure on the President and the Congress to dump it.

All parties agree- doing nothing is not an option, but the system can be saved with good ideas in more or less its present form with a minimum of difficulty. Despite the President's assertion in teh SOTU that he will listen to all ideas, he immediately stated that he would not consider raising the payroll tax. That's too bad, because Salon notes in the above piece that raising a two percent increase would keep the system afloat.

What would two percent mean? The payroll tax is split 50/50 between employer and employee, so two percent would actually be borne by the worker as a one percent raise. For a worker making $50K (simply to keep the math easy), 1% equals an extra $500 per year. Assuming that the worker receives 26 paychecks per year, he would pay an extra $19.24 per check.

And that's without benefit cuts. How much more could be saved if we also raised the retirement age? If we means tested benefits? If we invested the Trust Fund in something other than Treasury bonds? Fix the system- don't dismantle it.

How Hard Could It Be? That is the slogan for Kinky Friedman's campaign to become the Governor of Texas. Kinky, one of my favorite people in the universe, is the writer/humorist/musician who rose to marginal obscurity in the 1970s with his country band The Texas Jewboys, and went on to write a series of hysterical mystery novels in 1990s. Kinky draws his inspiration from former pro wrestler and Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, who the Kinkster notes, " didn't realize that wrestling is real and politics is fixed."

The Times writes, To get on the ballot he needs 45,000 signatures, none from anyone voting in a Republican or Democratic primary. But he voiced confidence, saying, "There's so much apathy; that leaves me a lot of people."

Two Passings Of Note Max Schmeling passed away at 99, prompting me to ask, was Max Schmeling still alive? Seriously, Max Schmeling was a true giant- even though the Nazis touted him as the pinnacle of Aryan supremacy, he fought them every step of the way. He refused to join the party, he saved some Jews from the camps, and when the Nazis ordered him to divorce his Czech wife, he refused that as well.

And Ossie Davis, the actor and activist, has passed away at 87- he will be missed.

State of the Union wrapup

2005-02-03T13:10:00.000-05:00

The reports are in, and the results are mostly good for the President. Obviously, the headlines are dominated by the Social Security proposal, and virutally every story notes the chorus of Democratic boos, drawing comparison to the House of Commons. The Post also carries a story on how moderate Republicans reacted to some of the more conservative measures. All major media agree- expect a nasty fight.

It would seem that few commentators have noted the frequent appeals to young Americans. That's too bad, because for all his talk about the troubles of partisan politics, his speech was a blatant play for young voters. It's no secret that a majority of young Americans support fiddling with Social Security, while older voters are more skeptical and those facing imminent retirement adamantly opposed. But since older voters only have so many elections in front of them, the future, it seems, is with the future.

Hence, the President wants to toy with Social Security sooner rather than later, or at least make the effort. Young voters would be well advised to get off this bandwagon- the proposal is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The plan is not the 401(k) style nest egg builder that it sounds like. According to the Post, here's how it works.

A worker elects to divert 4% of his FICA total wages into the personal account, up to $1,000 per year.
The taxpayer may not choose how to invest the money- it must go into a conservative mixture of mostly government bonds.
Upon retirement all the money that accrues in the account is his, but his Social Security benefit would also be reduced by the amount of the worker contributed into his account as opposed to traditional Social Security.

A "senior administration official" quoted in the Post explains, "The person comes out ahead if their personal account exceeds a 3 percent real rate of return, which is the rate of return that the trust fund bonds receive.... So, basically, the net effect on an individual's benefits would be zero if his personal account earned a 3 percent real rate of return. To the extent that his personal account gets a higher rate of return, his net benefit would increase."

If the rate of return in the account mirrors the rate of return of the Social Security Trust Fund, then there is no gain and no loss. For what it's worth, the Congressional Budget Office projects a rate of return of 3.3%- a fraction higher than the Trust Fund's growth.

In the meantime, the federal government has control over your money, and since it has limited the investment to government bond funds it amounts to little more than a loan to the Feds at the interest rate they have chosen. One other thing- if the account does worse than the rate of return of Trust Fund, then the taxpayers loses that money.

It's a gamble with the system. True, something needs to be done to ensure Social Security's long term viability, but the President's plan is little more than a roulette table where you only allowed to bet on black or red. You'll never get rich that way, and green zero will still come up once in a while.

He must be proud

2005-02-02T22:03:00.000-05:00

On the whole, I was impressed. He was polished and passionate. He stayed on theme and drove home his points. Good job.

From a political perspective, he was transparent about his motives. The generational appeal suggests that he is interested in adding mew Republicans to the party. He directly referenced young Americans at least three times, made several other references to "future generations," and even tied the war to his responsibility to future generations. He is trying to brand the Republican party as the party of youth.

The GOP political operation has always been better at marketing than Democrats. They fine tune their message with polls and focus groups. They test not only various language choices but also the various contexts within which to place the language. Tonight's context- maintaining a strong union for future generations- served as the backdrop for everything else.

The President did a great job tonight, much as it pains me to say, and his speechwriters must be ecstatic. His performance tonight was equal to his speech after 9/11, and was on par with Clinton. The loyal opposition has its work cut out for it.

More generational appeals

2005-02-02T21:40:00.000-05:00

I am amazed at how much of this speech tries to attribute his policies as a legacy to future generations. Economic policy, social policy, military policy- he sees all of his major policies as building a world for the future. He has really tapped into his idealist rhetoric for this speech, not the realist language of past years. I am also quite impressed at how much he has grown as a speaker over the past four years. He has always been better in front of a friendly room, but he is holding his own against some unfriendly quarters.

Social Security

2005-02-02T21:22:00.000-05:00

Makes requisite pitch to AARP members- if you're 55 and up, it will not change. Good.

Who was the lonely clapper for the scheduled rise in benefits?

I find it curious politically smart that he set up his pitch by quoting all Democratic politicians on the need to reform Social Security. It's an attempt to show that this is not a Republican attack on Social Security. But then he calls his plan "a better deal," subtly referring the New Deal.

Much of the speech so far has overtly appealed to generational interests. He has made direct appeals to "young Americans" on economic issues- this goes directly back to the post I wrote over the weekend about what Bush sees as his legacy- the long term disabling of the Democratic party. Making this direct plea to young people is a conspicuous and obvious pitch to recruit long term Republicans.

First time he's pissed me off

2005-02-02T21:15:00.000-05:00

"Junk lawsuits" "irresponsible class actions" "frivilous asbestos claims"

What-friggin-ever. Tort reform benefits no one except insurance companies, who jacked up the premiums to protect against liability and now want to weasel out of their responsibility to pay up.

"Comprehensive energy strategy?" What planet is he on? He did make the required pitch to ethanol (anyone watch last week's West Wing?) I'm all for reducing the reliance on foreign energy, but making the OPEC nations the 51st through 67th states is probably not the best idea.

Economic puffery

2005-02-02T21:12:00.000-05:00

Cut the deficit in half by 2009. Half the room gave him a standing ovation. Could it be that has raised the deficit?

Here we go....

2005-02-02T21:08:00.000-05:00

He didn't start with the state of the union is strong. Free and sovereign Iraq. Nice touch. False, more or less.

Hmmm, the state of our union is "confident and strong." Nice touch- he has better writers working for him lately.

Is it just me...

2005-02-02T21:07:00.000-05:00

Or is Breyer the only Supreme Court Justice present?

Huh?

2005-02-02T21:05:00.000-05:00

Why is Bill Frist trailing behind the President on his way down the aisle? Makes him look like a lapdog.

State of the Union 2005- Live Blogging

2005-02-02T21:03:00.000-05:00

It's State of the Union nightm and I will be live blogging tonight. I've picked the CBS feed as my source, principally because Dan Rather could possibly go apeshit and run around in his underpants. 10 to 1 the State of the Union is strong.

Site News

2005-02-01T07:05:00.000-05:00

I have done some feature addition- scroll down to the bottom of the page and you can now add my XML feed to your My Yahoo and My MSN pages. You can also subscribe to my content with your XML reader, or with Bloglines.

Also in the works- a likely migration to a dedicated domain name, and perhaps a swimsuit edition.

Okay, maybe the swimsuit edition is a bad idea.

Responding to a commenter

2005-01-31T22:31:00.000-05:00

In response to one of my recent articles on Social Security, reader Andrew writes;

If I may, I'd like to dispute your characterization of the motivations of "young voters." I've been getting my yearly statement from the Social Security Administration for a couple of years now, and they've been saying quite clearly that the system is going to run out of money before I retire. That's my motivation, and when the President addressed it, I said "About time."

I'm 28 and remember market crashes very well. We just had one, as you recall, but the economy didn't collapse as a result of it. Market crashes are only a worry of those who don't invest properly.

But, to your argument that Social Security is stable and solvent: please argue the point. I am given to understand that the number of workers to retirees is shrinking.

Okay, here goes. First, when you say that the Social Security system will run out of money before you retire, it all depends on what you mean by "run out of money." According to the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan, non-policy making arm of the Congress, Social Security outlays will exceed revenues- meaning more money going out than coming in- in 2019, which is decidedly within sight.

However, that alone doesn't mean the system will imediately fall apart. For many years, revenues exceeded outlays- more money in than out. That surplus was placed in the Social Security Trust Fund. When the outlays exceed the revenues, the difference comes out of the trust, which the CBO projects will only be depleted in 2052. Once the trust fund reaches depletion, all the money is due to come from the revenues collected. So while the system will run at a deficit in the foreseeable future, it will not go "bankrupt" any time soon. This is what I mean I say that Social Security is "solvent and stable."

As to the President's privatization scheme, the CBO has analyzed that as well. As I understand their analysis (and I am no economist) it doesn't appear to offer any susbtantial benefit. First, personal accounts would have no effect on the trust fund- according to CBO, it would still reach depletion in 2052 under the President's plan. Moreover, a retiree's benefits would be reduced at an amount equal to the annuity paid from the personal account. In other words, the retiree gets the same amount of money.

Which wouldn't be that bad if the retiree will be able to get more return than Social Security would be able to provide- put enough into the investment account, and you can opt out of Social Security altogether. Except you can't do that. Each taxpayer may invest no more than $1,000 per year, which is considerably less than the amount paid in Social Security taxes. In other words, it could supplement Social Security, but not replace it.

So if privatizing Social Security won't save it, why do it? Politics- the point of my posts from the last couple days. Individual accounts would be a boon to the banking and financial sectors- traditionally Republican contributors, and would undermine the strong association that Democrats have with Social Security. This White House is explicitly political, and so is this proposal.

This, of course, is no excuse to do nothing. The long-term viability of Social Security does need to be addressed, and sooner rather than later. The retirement age needs to be raised- people are living and working longer, and the law needs to reflect this. This could be phased in over a number of years- the retirement age stays 65 for people whose retirement is imminent- 55 and up, perhaps. For people between 50 and 54, raise it to 66- this will give those people enough time to adjust. Keep inching it upward until you get to people in their 20s, who have probably not even begun retirement planning and who will likely live into their 80s (if we do in fact keep living longer). Raising the retirement age both keeps people paying revenue into the system and defers benefit distribution. It's a simple solution, but there is enough time to try simple things before we try something radical.

This Sounds Familiar...

2005-01-30T15:57:00.000-05:00

I wrote yesterday (stealing- erm, quoting liberally from Slate) that the real reason for Social Security reform was to undermine FDR's legacy, making it possible to undo much of the regulatory structure that grew up in his wake. Today's Post suggests that I may have underestimated what their goals are.

When President Bush stands before Congress on Wednesday night to deliver his State of the Union address, it is a safe bet that he will not announce that one of his goals is the long-term enfeeblement of the Democratic Party.

But a recurring theme of many items on Bush's second-term domestic agenda is that if enacted, they would weaken political and financial pillars that have propped up Democrats for years, political strategists from both parties say.

There is a reason why the strongest support for Social Security privatization comes from young people- they have no memory of market failure, and their political identities are not yet fully formed. If a young person has any awareness of Social Security at all, they tend to see it as an ill advised giveaway to the old and infirm (no Republican has yet explained how someone receiving Social Security Disability is supposed to open personal accounts). The long term goal is to undo Social Security's strong association with Democrats, and essentially create a new generation of voters who associate Republicans as the party that represents their interests.

The Post continues, If the Bush agenda is enacted, "there will be a continued growth in the percentage of Americans who consider themselves Republican, both in terms of self-identified party ID and in terms of their [economic] interests," said Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform and an operative who speaks regularly with White House senior adviser Karl Rove. In other words, the real goal of Bush's domestic agenda is a continuing Republican majority for the foreseeable future.

This worries me, because the opposition party has proven itself ineffectual at delivering its message. Progressive policies are the right policies- we have done a piss poor job at framing the issues, however. Case in point- John Kerry kicked Dubya's ass in all three debates, but what were we talking about? Swift Boats and whether Kerry was out of line for acknowledging in public that Mary Cheney, a lesbian, is in fact a lesbian.

The other side pursues policies that are reckless and irresponsible- risking the retirement funds of an entire nation to the vicissitudes of the market sounds reckless to me- but because of the way they present the issue, we have to take the defensive. Remember, Social Security as it exists has a 70 year history of success. Before FDR, a majority of the country lived in poverty. Now, most Americans are safely in the middle class- that change is solely the result of activist and aggressive government intervention; but because they have framed the issue, whenever I suggest that Social Security is solvent and stable, people look at me like I have three heads.

If Dubya gets his way, it will be because they control the language.

From the Sunday Papers

2005-01-30T10:11:00.000-05:00

It's Election Day in Iraq and by all accounts turnout was high, and the violence was lower than I thought it would be. Dubya will no doubt claim a great victory. Don't buy it- this is only the first step in a long, slow transition from dictatorship to occupation to self-government. Also, the system chosen for the first Iraqi parliament, proprtional representation, will likely continue to inflame the insurgency. Let me explain- in proportional representation, voters cast ballots for the party of their choice. Party A gets 40%, Party B gets 30%, Party C gets 20%, and Party D gets 10%- therefore, Party A gets 40% of the seats in the parliament, B gets 30%, etc etc.

In Iraq, the majority of the electorate is Shiite. Under Saddam, Shiites were repressed, sometimes brutally. Sunnis are numerically in the minority, but they were the rank and file of Saddam's Baath Party. Times have changed. The Shiites will likely retain a number of seats proportional to their numbers, although not necessarily in one party. The flipside, of course, is that the Sunni will also have power proprtional to their numbers. The people formerly in power soon to be on the outs. Is it any wonder why the Sunnis have been the most vicious of the insurgents?

Now, here's where it gets really tricky. On the whole, Sunnis are most likely to be friendly to the West. Shiite Muslims, on the other hand, adhere to Islamic law more stricly and are more likely to pursue anti-Western policies. What happens if the new Iraqi government is dominated by explicitly anti-Western Shiites? If this country is to regain a scintilla of the credibility we have lost over Iraq, we can't just shout "do over!" This ain't kickball, folks.

If I could think this through while watching Meet The Press over a couple cups of coffee in bed, surely the Departments of State and Defense, the CIA, the NSC, and the White House could have figured this out over the last three years.

The op-ed page of the Times sharply criticizes the corporate welfare hidden in the American Jobs Creation Act. It was a known accounting trick for years- attribute the profits to an overseas subsidiary. The Feds can't tax it here, and the host country taxes it at their prevailing tax-haven rates. The problem is that eventually the money has to come back to the States, where it would be taxed at the corporate rate of 35%. The Act reduces that rate for repatriated money to five and a quarter percent!

But it wasn't enough for many companies that have piled up excess cash abroad. The Homeland Investment Coalition, a roster of dozens of America's largest corporations, lobbied vigorously - and successfully - for a tax holiday before deigning to repatriate their overseas profits.

Congress's ostensible purpose for allowing the holiday is to unleash a flood of money for job creation, hence the name of the law that includes the holiday - the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. But few of the approved uses for the repatriated funds - such as debt redemption, advertising and a catchall category of "financial stabilization" - will lead directly, if at all, to more jobs. One approved use - the ability to spend the money to buy other companies - would be more likely to create layoffs, as corporate acquisitions usually do.

Companies can also use the money to help pay legal liabilities, which could prove to be a big boon for companies like the drug maker Merck, which is sitting on some $15 billion in untaxed foreign profits and faces an estimated $18 billion in potential claims arising from the Vioxx debacle. Multinationals cannot use the repatriated profits to pay dividends to shareholders, buy back their own stock or pay executives. But because companies have a lot of flexibility in financing their activities, they will generally be able to use the money as they see fit while still meeting the letter of the law.

The Times correctly concludes that giveaways like this encourage tax avoidance. I can't blame the companies- they are taking advantage of the system in a lawful way to the benefit of their shareholders. Rather, I blame the Congress, who exempted overseas profits in the first place.

That Highbrow Hussy Maureen Dowd has found yet another way to get me angry. She writes this morning about a book recently written by a former Gitmo interpreter. It seems that our proud nation has sunk to appalling lows, making me once again contemplate a move to Canada. It's too bad that this book wasn't out last years for all those people who voted for Bush because of his "moral convictions." Like Pat Benatar once sang, "stop using sex as a weapon."

A female military interrogator who wanted to turn up the heat on a 21-year-old Saudi detainee who allegedly had taken flying lessons in Arizona before 9/11 removed her uniform top to expose a snug T-shirt. She began belittling the prisoner - who was praying with his eyes closed - as she touched her breasts, rubbed them against the Saudi's back and commented on his apparent erection.

After the prisoner spat in her face, she left the room to ask a Muslim linguist how she could break the prisoner's reliance on God. The linguist suggested she tell the prisoner that she was menstruating, touch him, and then shut off the water in his cell so he couldn't wash.

"The concept was to make the detainee feel that after talking to her he was unclean and was unable to go before his God in prayer and gain strength," Mr. Saar recounted, adding: "She then started to place her hands in her pants as she walked behind the detainee. As she circled around him he could see that she was taking her hand out of her pants. When it became visible the detainee saw what appeared to be red blood on her hand. She said, 'Who sent you to Arizona?' He then glared at her with a piercing look of hatred. She then wiped the red ink on his face. He shouted at the top of his lungs, spat at her and lunged forward," breaking out of an ankle shackle.

"He began to cry like a baby," the author wrote, adding that the interrogator's parting shot was: "Have a fun night in your cell without any water to clean yourself."

No doubt these incidents will be minimized. It was just a few bad apples, someone will say. These are different times, someone else will say. This is a different war, another person will say. Let's turn the tables for a second. What would the Bushies say if an insurgent did this to an American soldier? You can bet your bottom dollar that there would be hell to pay, as well as an angry Bill O'Reilly and a furious piece on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal. What if one of our soldiers were captured and sexually denigrated? What would the reaction be in Peoria? Conflict is no excuse for stripping a person of his essential human dignity. The ends do not ever justify the means. I am so angry.

Technorati tags Politics Iraq Maureen Dowd Anti-Bush

The Real Reason For Social Security "Reform"

2005-01-29T11:25:00.000-05:00

Republicans, if nothing else, are consistent. When the economy is down, they can be sure to argue that the only way to build it back up is to cut taxes and regulation. When the economy is up, they argue that the way to keep it going is to cut taxes and regulation. If Bill Frist's wife is constipated, I'm fairly certain that he would prescribe tax cuts and regulation (and perhaps some fiber).

Of course, history does suggest otherwise. There was thing called The Great Depression. You may remember reading about it, or perhaps you watched The Waltons. Anyway, times were tough. People were starving. Amber waves of grain turned to vast bowls of dust. Unemployment was the norm. Life, generally, sucked. America got this way under the "leadership" (note intentional use of irony quotes) of Herbert Hoover, a laissez faire Republican champion of low taxes and free markets.

Enter Franklin Delano Roosevelt. A scion of wealth who became a man of the people, he saved American capitalism from itself with policies of taxation and regulation. FDR's economics (actually John Maynard Keynes' economics) adopted activist polices- putting people to work on public projects to increase the demand for goods and services- that flew in the face of Republican economic thought- cutting taxes to increase the supply of money in the economy. Republicans, who sometimes called FDR a traitor to his class, were incensed.

FDR deftly charted a course between extremists on the left- who were calling for government control of all private property, AKA communism- and extremists on the right- who were calling for crackdowns on personal liberties the unemployed in line, AKA fascism. By giving the unemployed immediate relief, while keeping American business in business, even if on a shorter leash, FDR became beloved like few other Presidents before him.

And that, argues Daniel Gross in Slate, is why Dubya is making a full court press to "reform" (note intentional use of irony quotes) Social Security.

Dead going on 60 years, FDR still makes self-styled champions of American-style capitalism fulminate, much the same way their counterparts in the 1930s raged against "That Man." Why? The New Deal era reminds national greatness Republicans... of their party's futility in a time of true national greatness. I also suspect that many Republicans are simply unable to forgive Roosevelt for what may have been his greatest and longest-lasting achievement: saving American capitalism through regulation. And since they can't tear down the Triborough Bridge or the Hoover Dam, these guys act out by going after Social Security.

The fight over Social Security, therefore, is a proxy war- it is a fight over FDR's legacy. No Republican since Lincoln is as holy in public memory as FDR. Changing Social Security is a way to remove the halo from over his head- making him no longer the People's Champion who saved America from the excesses of American business, but rather the meddlesome class traitor who left us all the alphabet soup agencies. Again, Daniel Gross-

It's difficult to discern the short-term political gain for Republicans to try to dismantle Social Security now. So the payoff must be more psychological or intellectual. Now that they indisputably control all three branches of government, Republicans finally have the opportunity to slay some of the liberal demons that have been bedeviling them for so long.

Those liberal demons are taxation and regulation. What amazes me about Republican trust in business is their utter distrust of individuals to regulate their own behavior. The right wing response to crime, sexuality and religion issues is almost always in favor of more regulation. Smoke pot? You're not fit to walk among us. Are you gay? Then you shouldn't enjoy the privileges of family life. You a Jew? Buddhist? Atheist? I suppose you can believe what you want to, but never forget that this is a Christian nation, boy, and if we post the Ten Commandments on our courthouse walls, you ought to just shut up. These are the same people who believe that business will always regulate itself for the betterment of humanity. Recent history suggests otherwise.

I fear that Social Security will only be the first step, and that much of the public regulatory system will be dismantled in some way, because while I trust most people will do the right thing, I absolutely do not trust corporate America to do anything.

Technorati tags-Politics Social Security Slate

Bird Brains

2005-01-28T23:14:00.000-05:00

Sorry about the headline- I know it's obvious, but sometimes the obvious joke is just the one that works.

Now that Oklahoma's citizenry has forced the state to ban cockfighting, a diehard state senator has the gall to try to revive the lurid pastime by equipping roosters with - picture this - tiny boxing gloves and chest protectors.

It's hard for me to fathom how we haven't all just reverted back to drooling lemurs.

Payola, Shmayola

2005-01-27T21:04:00.000-05:00

The big story of the day is clearly the emerging evidence that the administration is paying off commentators for favorable press. This is an issue that gets politicians and journalists fired up- some people are taking money on the down low! GASP! Hands will be wrung and ink will be spilled as the cognoscenti try to determine what should be done about this.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of people will shrug and wonder what the fuss is about.

Democrats would be well counseled not to push this too much- the wrong is too petty, the injury too remote to get all worked up about. Besides- people in glass houses should not throw stones. It was known as early as October, 2003 that Howard Dean had been paying bloggers to build up hype, and the Clinton Administration did much the same thing.

Also Wednesday, Democratic members of the House Government Reform Committee released a report on federal spending on public relations, reporting that Bush agencies spent more than $88 million on contracts with outside firms in 2004. That outpaces the $64 million spent on public relations firms in 2003, which was roughly equivalent to the amount Clinton administration agencies spent on such firms in 1999.

Is it wrong? Yeah- but not "invade a country for no good reason" wrong. The Democrats really need to stay on the ball and hit the President where he is vulnerable- the war, the Social Security fraud, and the ridiculous deficit. Hit those issues hard for the 2006 midterms (Jeebus Christ- am I already blogging next year's elections?), because voters will have forgotten Armstrong Williams by then. But they will remember that their neighbor's son lost a leg in Iraq; they will remember that the country is deeper and deeper in debt.

Technorati Tag Politics

Speaking of rubberstamping Alberto Gonzales...

2005-01-26T22:13:00.000-05:00

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-8 to approve Gonzales' nomination. Democrats decried his evasion and arrogance. Republicans played up his self-made, humble beginnings.

Yeah, whatever, the guy should be in prison. When asked how to justify torture, he came up with the answer that his boss wanted- nevermind that the rest of the world disagrees with his analysis. Since torture is an international crime, the rest of the world gets a vote.

It is a crime against humanity, and as we learned from Nuremburg everyone from the brains of the operation all the way to the person wiring up some poor Iraqi slob's dick, they're all guilty. If Lynndie England is going away for years, so should Alberto Gonzales.

And Dubya, Dick, Condi, Tom Ridge.

And maybe reality show contestants.

If you took "nay" and 71 votes- YOU LOST!

2005-01-26T20:52:00.000-05:00

You may recall that I predicted Condi's confirmation would be overwhelming. What would you say to 85 yeas against only 13 nays. Next up for rubberstamping is Alberto Gonzales.

If only the opposition could muster up the testicles to oppose something. It took us nine hours of "debate" to keep the worst war criminal since Kissinger down to a 72 vote cushion.

I'm moving to someplace where people give a shit. Like Iceland.

Tag Politics

Deficit Update

2005-01-25T20:49:00.000-05:00

Earlier I wrote about the CBO's deficit projection of $368 billion. Well, the White House says that the deficit is going to be a little closer to $427 billion.

That's 427 billion. With a "b." As in 427,000 millions.

I would say that it's your tax dollars at work, but it's actually our kids' tax dollars at work.

Noteworthy Events

2005-01-25T13:29:00.000-05:00

First, you may notice the Google ads down the sidebar. Do not think that I'm going commercial on ya- really it's more of an experiment. In any event, Google ads are relatively unobtrusive and relevant to the content of the site itself. Also, it helps your Google rating, which is really the key for me. Don't be alarmed- I'm still the same ol' cranky SOB I always was!

Now- on to the news of the day! Senate Dems are holding a nine hour bitch session on Condi's confirmation to the State Department. Not that it will come to anything- she will be confirmed rather handily. I think it's poor strategy on our part- it looks petty and vindictive to harangue her, and then rubber stamp the vote. We cannot continue this way- either she is qualified, or she is not qulaified. I think she's a liar, and if I were in the Senate, I would vote no. Hell, if my seat were absolutely safe (like, say... John Kerry), I might filibuster her nomination.

The Congressional Budget Office announced they project the federal deficit this year to be $368 billion. Ummmm, not counting the additional $80 billion the administration is requesting for Iraq. Also not counting whatever the hell happens to Social Security.

To get an idea of just how screwed we are, the CBO projects that the government debt will increase $855 billion between 2006 and 2015. That projection assumes the following:

No Iraq spending (God only knows how much this will cost us)
The Bush tax plan expires in 2010 (if it is renewed, a projected $71B surplus becomes a $189B deficit)
Social Security stays as is (W's planned dismantling of Social Security could add $1 to $2 trillion dollars to the figures- that's right, trillion).

All in all, this President inherited a surplus when he came to office, and he will leave office (not soon enough, I'm sorry to say) with a deficit that is seriously out of control. Dubya offered himself in 2000 as an alternative to the Washington insider, just a simple (Harvard educated, scion of wealth, well connected, friendly to Saudi Arabia) bidnessman. Considering that every bidness he ever started went belly up, it looks like he's succeeded.

Social conservatives have written Karl Rove a nasty letter suggesting that they will fight the President on Social Security unless he pushes more forcefully for stripping gays and lesbians of their civil rights. From the letter:

We couldn't help but notice the contrast between how the president is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization where the public is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side. Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatization but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage? If so it would create outrage with countless voters who stood with him just a few weeks ago, including an unprecedented number of African-Americans, Latinos and Catholics who broke with tradition and supported the president solely because of this issue.

This just shows how different it is on the other side of the fence. It is easy to eb the party in opposition, but governing is hard. You have lots of constitutents to appease, each of whom subjugated their own particular interests in the name of party unity. Now that they're in power, it's payday, and everybody wants to cash their checks.

The Club for Growth and the Family Research Council always did make for strange bedfellows. They got into bed with each oterh while wearing beergoggles- now its the morning after.

Tag- Politics

File Under "Coincidence? I Think Not."

2005-01-25T06:12:00.000-05:00

The Zen-like random news aggregator that is Google News kicked out three stories this morning that all pretty much summarize the state of things in this country, as well as in Mesopotamia, the 51st State.

Dubya will ask Congress for an additional $80 billion in war money. Shoulda seen this coming- call it the Quagmire Tax.
Iraqi police captured a major Zarqawi lieutenant, who then confessed to over 30 car bombings. I suspect that extreme methods of compulsion may have been used to obtain this confession- he would probably have admitted the Lindbergh kidnapping to free his nuts from the vise.
And holding all this together, oil prices to stay below $49 per barrel.

Isn't that what it's all about? Publicize an arrest and a confession I wouldn't believe if I were in the room watching him confess. Ask for shitloads more money. Gas up your Hummer. God bless America.

On another note, the poorly written headline award goes to..... Reuters!

Palestinians raze illegal buildings

Whoa! Those Palestinians take their building code seriously! Where it says that studs shall be placed at least 16 inches apart, they mean it!

Enough moping- back to work.

2005-01-24T21:08:00.000-05:00

Okay, my feelings of fear and loathing have subsided, and I have decided that there is nothing to be gained by pretending that I am somehow doing anyone service by waiting for the blue state expulsion. It'll never come, anyway (dammit). How can we advance the cause of (actual) liberty while out of power in all three branches of government?

Take a lesson from the South- assert states rights.

Let's be honest- states rights were nothing more than a desperate attempt by the minority to stave off the will of the majority. It was about power, and nothing more. Never mind that the cause of states rights was used in the 50s and 60s to slow the march of civil rights. Never mind that states rights was used in the 90s to thwart the Gun Free School Zone Act and the Violence Against Women Act. In the new century, let's use the doctrine to undo the PATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind, and same sex marriage.

I always thought that the Feds should have more power than, say, Minnesota. I also know that in politics, what matters is power. Right now, we don't that much power. So screw it- use the tools at our disposal to effectuate change. File suit, challenge their actions, and use the intellectually specious doctrine that conservatives used for years to prevent progress- only now, we'll be using it to stop the damage.

Johnny Carson, 1925-2005

2005-01-23T14:38:00.000-05:00

This is a little off my usual focus, and I swear to God almighty that this will be the only time I link to E!, but the great Johnny Carson has passed away. It is no hyperbole to say that he was one of the most important public figures of the 20th Century. He was not the inventor of the late night talk show, that belongs to the late Steve Allen, but he perfected the format. The comic monolouge, the skits, the celebrity guests, the overwrought band, the boozehound second banana, the interviewee's sofa- all these late night staples are the direct descendents of Carson's Tonight Show.

Dozens of careers exist solely because of Carson's benificence. David Letterman, Jay Leno, David Brenner, and (unfortunately) Joan Rivers would not be who they are today were it not for Johnny Carson.

Politics, too, felt Johnny Carson's deft influence from time to time. He ended Richard Nixon's career, and he began Bill Clinton's. Scandals, wars, mere gaffes- Johnny could dispatch them all with a light hand. Until the Daily Show emerged in the past few years as a major force, the yardstick for political impact in popular culture is the late night monolouge.

Rest well, Johnny- you are deeply missed.

Well, It's Official

2005-01-21T07:04:00.000-05:00

He's reupped. They let the eagle soar. The Marine Band played hail to somebody. Then W solemnly swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Whoops- I think the bastard has a problem with that part.

The enormous cost, the unprecedented armed presence, and that God forsaken John Ashcroft song felt to me like nothing more than than a giant "fuck you" to the blue states. On the other hand, Chief Justice rehnquist looked dashing in his beret and gold striped robe- and they said Kerry looked French. Anywho- here now is my analysis of the inaugural address.

After saying "freedom" 27 times, and "liberty" 15 times, I think that Iran, North Korea and Minnesota are on notice- you're getting inva--- errr, liberated.
He wants to create an "ownership society," (that will get its own article altogether- coming soon) in which home ownership is up, small businesses get started, and investment gets made. Oh, and Enron and Halliburton execs get 8 figure salaries and their legal bills paid by the Board. It's only, fair right?
Note to Texans- cowboy hats don't cover the ears in the cold.
After liberating a 100 square block area of Washington, DC, followed by an occupation force of armed guards and snipers on every rooftop, calm has been restored- expect free elections to follow soon (hey, at least they had an exit strategy this time.)

Also, this may have gotten buried under the other news of the day. Shadow President Dick Cheney called in to the Imus in the Morning show yesterday, and said that Israel may act first on Iran. If they are acting "first," that means someone has to act second, right?

Inauguration Day

2005-01-20T07:49:00.000-05:00

How did we get here? What did we do to offend you, dear Lord? I understand that in a democracy, one cannot win all the time. Sometimes, you are outvoted. However, I simply cannot understand how anyone could have voted for this nincompoop.

When you look at his record, you see failure after failure. You see a pattern of lies and deceit and bodies. Bodies from death row in Texas. Bodies in Iraq. Our President has a body count to rival the greatest tyrants and villians in history.

The President, as he proudly notes, governs based based on his "gut." This wouldn't bother me so much in the abstract- good instincts are occasionally helpful. However, W ignores the evidence and advice that doesn't synch up with his gut. Good instincts are no match for good advice, and good advice is only worth anything if the advisee is listens.

Maybe I'm just a little depressed, but I actually have a nervous stomach this morning. I am filled with despair.

A Snapshot of the Bush Mandate

2005-01-18T11:26:00.000-05:00

According to a Washington Post poll-

58% disapprove of his Iraq policies
52% disapprove of the way he has handled the economy
51% disapprove of the way he has handled health care
58% disapprove of the way W has handled the budget deficit
53% do not think Bush will make progress on Social Security
65% do not think Bush will make progress on the environment
62% do not think that W will make progress on the deficit
56% do not believe that GWB "understands the problems of people like you"
55% do not think that the war in Iraq was worth fighting
57% believe that companies should face the possibility of big penalties in lawsuits

Finally, 55% think that Bush will do a better job in his second term. That's a backhanded compliment- how could he possibily do worse.

In the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King, I spent the holiday shopping.

2005-01-17T22:14:00.000-05:00

Well, I really only did some grocery shopping, and buying some super deeply discounted winter clothes (fleece lined jacket- $10!!!). In any event, I was not at work today, which meant that I got to do some things I don't usually get to do.

Like listen to Rush Limbaugh.

My, God- what a dunderhead. To celebrate the spirit of MLK, he mostly denigrated contemporary civil rights activists, calling them socialists. He spouted some statistics about minority business starts, and how African-Americans are economically better off now. As if equality meant a bigger bank account.

Don't get me wrong, those things are good things- but they're not the same as equality. There is still much to be done in this country in terms of race relations, and Rush Limbaugh has no interest in doing them.

Of course, now that we've had our "accountability moment," I doubt that the White House will do anything.

Besides, they're too bust bringing democracy to Iraq. They're even going to let expat Iraqis vote. I've thought a fair bit about that, and I've come to the conclusion that the only way to get a friendly government (i.e. Sunni) elected, is to stack the deck with anti-Baathist Sunnis- who all live in Detroit, apparently. I really do not have the numbers to back up the above assertion, but I suspect it's probably correct. Anyway, about 1.2 million Iraqis live abroad, while about 20 million voting age persons live in Iraq.

Iraq is about 85% ethnic Iraqi and 15% Kurdish. No one is worried about the Kurds- they'll form a minority third party, but you can take those 3 million voters out of the power equation. Of the ethnic Iraqis, they break down 50% Shiite and 45% Sunni. 8.5 million Shiites, and about 7.7 Sunnis.

And just over 1 million expats. If my guess is correct, the final tally is 8.7 million Sunni voters. Not a terribly large margin, but just enough of one to put a (slightly less unfriendly) government in Baghdad.

I really doubt that these elections will alleviate the situation on the ground in Iraq, especially if these expat voters tip the scales toward the Sunnis. Imagine 2000, with all those disenfranchised Floridians running around, agitating about a stolen election. Only instead of "Bush Cheated" signs, they all have IEDs.

Exactly the kind of democracy we want to spread throughout the worldd- oh, and it will spread, too. The buzz on CNN this morning was that "unnamed sources" revealed that war plans are in place for Iran by July.

If this is true, it will take more than one moment of accountability to make it right.

Go away for a few days, seems like a good day to come back...

2005-01-13T17:57:00.000-05:00

Lessee, what's going on... Abu Ghraib court martial? Nah- if Rummy's not on trial, I'm not commenting on the small fish. SCOTUS ruling that the federal sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional? Ummmm, interesting to me, but too technical. More mayhem in Iraq? Old news. White House gives up on the search for WMDs?

I think I'll write about that.

The Iraq Survey Group- better known as the weapons inspectors- have given up. They've concluded that Saddam Hussein destroyed his WMDs years ago, and that his capabilities have been waning ever since. In other words, they don't have 'em, they haven't had 'em for awhile, and they weren't gonna make 'em for the foreseeable future.

Let's flash back in time shall we, to Colin Powell's presentation to the UN.

"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more, and according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes."

Rummy was bit more prosaic. There's no debate in the world as to whether they have those weapons....We all know that. A trained ape knows that.

As opposed to the untrained apes running the show.

They weren't there- they were never there. Based on what amounts to a bald faced lie, this country that I once so loved committed 1358 of its young to their graves. Not to mention thousands of Iraqis and $159.5 billion.

If it wasn't absurdly offensive it would almost be funny, but as George Costanza once noted, "It's not a lie if you believe it." They believed it. It's still a lie.

This President is little more than a war criminal, and America is a rogue state. We have lost all direction. American exceptionalism used to mean "We are the better people, therefore we do not lower ourselves to our enemies' level." Now it means "We are the better people, so if we do something it must be the right thing." Wrong. We are better only so long as we choose to be better.

In other words, because we are a good people, we will obey the rules. The President would have you believe that because we are a good people, we do not need to follow the rules.

It doesn't work that way. I am ashamed of my country.

"It's going to be ugly"

2005-01-09T11:35:00.000-05:00

Those are the words of Joe Biden on elections in Iraq, as reported by Zell Miller's least favorite "highbrow hussy." As usual, Maureen Dowd gets it right. She is a blue state Ann Coulter- sharp, good looking, controversial- except that she's neither a moron nor bigot.

The administration astounds me- the President models his leadership style after an effective CEO. Effective CEO's listen to the specialists in their company, and make the decisions based on their counsel. Dubya, however, makes his decisions and then listens only to those specialists whose counsel echoes the path already taken. The "realists" (i.e. the people with the audacity to suggest that Iraq is not going well) are pushed aside in favor of "idealists" (i.e. the people who said it was going to be a cakewalk).

So, because Brent Scowcroft believes that elections could "deepen the conflict" he gets the boot. Scowcroft is no hippie dove- he was GHWB's National Security Advisor, and one of the architects of Gulf War I. He actively advised against taking Saddam down in 1991, fearing that we could get bogged down into a protracted occupation. In fact, he co-wrote a book with GHWB in 1998 making this point exactly. For his presecience, GWB disses him as "a pain in the ass in his old age." Indeed.

Even though I probably disagreed with GHWB and Scowcroft more often than not, I can't recall feeling the fear and dread that I feel now. I can't remember thinking that my country was a rogue state, bent on imposing its worldview. I can't remember thinking (seriously) about moving to another country. In 1991, even though I disagreed with the policies, I never thought that the country was evil. Now, I'm not so sure.

Alberto Gonzales- Evil Incarnate

2005-01-08T16:46:00.000-05:00

The more I think about this man, the more disgusted I become. Mever mind that he justified torture. Never mind that he misrepresented basic facts in death penalty memos. It's what he does to the law, and to lawyers, that pisses me off.

One of a lawyer's basic jobs is to give honest, independent professional advice. Sometimes, that means looking your client in the eye and telling him that he's shit-outta-luck. Now, obviously, whether the client listens to you is up to him- as the lawyer, you advocate the client's position, not yours- and I've had clients refuse my advice before. Usually, that leads to a bad loss, and an "I told you so."

When you look at the lousy advice that Gonzales has given the President over the years, it makes you wonder how he's managed to keep his job, let alone keep getting promoted. Consider his position on torture- first, he argued that certain language is vague (specifically quoting, "outrages against personal dignity" as an example of vagueness; hey Alberto, it's not that vague- for example, stripping your prisoners naked and forcing to simulate sex is an outrage against personal dignity... and you created the climate that made it possible); second, he seized upon that perceived ambiguity, and decided that torture means only that abuse that results in serious injury. He created a new category of person, the "enemy combatant," and then quesitoned whether the Geneva Conventions applied to enemy combatants. In other words, he jiggered the system to get the answer that his client wanted, even though very few people other than his client agreed.

What a good lawyer should have done, is to look his client in the eye and tell him, "You can't do that." Alberto Gonzales didn't do that- I doubt that he ever will.

Vermont Civil Unions- Five Years Later, State Apparently NOT Going To Hell In A Handbasket

2005-01-08T16:08:00.000-05:00

It's been five years since Vermont split the baby, and opted to enforce the equal rights provision of its state constitution by splitting the baby- I mean, choosing civil unions over marriage. Despite much handwringing, and a brief (and bigoted) attempt to rewrite the state constitution, Vermonters have gotten used to it. Which is what we who are not freaked out by gay people have been saying would happen.

Don't tell Dubya- he might try to invade... erm, liberate Vermont.

More thoughts on tort "reform"

2005-01-08T08:47:00.000-05:00

Dubya went to Michigan to announce a push to change the way asbestos claims are handled. Yup- now he wants to protect makers of asbestos, a known carcinogen, and the Time notes that Halliburton is a major asbestos defendant. They report, you decide.

Industry has been critical of asbestos suits for some time, arguing that these cases have bankrupted a number of companies. To which I respond, so what? In a nation where 38 states have death penalties, where a person can lose his life for taking even one other person's, why shouldn't corporations face the same fate when their products kill thousands of people, and injures many thousands or millions more?

I'm not anti-business; on the contrary, almost every major innovation has come from business and that history of innovation should be encouraged. However, when people are injured or killed because businesses considered profit to be more important than safety, or because they intentionally suppressed information (as the evidence suggests happened in the Vioxx case), then businesses must pay the piper. In business, that means money.

Holding businesses accountable for their actions is good for consumers, because it will ultimately result in better, safer products. What many people don't understand is that it is also good for business, because the makers of good products will no longer be at a competitive disadvantage to the companies that routinely cut corners.

If you really want to change the tort system, however, here is a free market idea that the Bushies don't want to pursue: eliminate limited liability. Corporate shareholders enjoy limited liability, meaning that shoreholders are not liable for the debts of the corporation. Imagine if after every multi-million dollar lawsuit, a small investor got a bill from a lawyer for fifty bucks, or a large institutional investor (like CalPERS) got a bill in the millions. The people responsible (i.e. the execs) would be out on their asses in a blue state minute. The Boards of Directors would take their responsibilities seriously and oversee the managers instead of rubber stamping them. As a result, business would make sure their ducks are in a row before they made a move, and lawsuits would become rarer and less costly.

Everyone wants that, don't they?

Let's See If Understand You, Mr. Attorney General Designate

2005-01-05T21:51:00.000-05:00

If confirmed to the position, you promise to obey the law?

Fuck The Injured

2005-01-05T20:47:00.000-05:00

The President made a visit to Madison County, Illinois today. Why visit a blue state backwater? To remind the rest of the country how wrong it is. You see, Madison County is considered the most plaintiff friendly county in America- and that's just wrong! So, Dubya showed up to clean up the courthouse.

"What's happening all across this country is that lawyers are filing baseless suits against hospitals and doctors. That's just a plain fact," Bush said. "And they're doing it for a simple reason. They know the medical-liability system is tilted in their favor.

Let's unpack that quote a little shall we- first, he blames lawyers for filing "baseless suits." Trying to determine whether a claim has merit is always a little subjective. Unless, of course, you are George W. Bush, because in Crawford it's "just a plain fact." Nevermind that "baseless" has no legal meaning- I assume he means "frivilous," which is a legal term of art for a claim that has no basis in fact or law. A case might lack "merit", and still not be frivilous.

Let me give you an example- suppose a patient dies from complications from surgery despite the surgeon's best efforts and use of reasonable medical practices. The patient's widow files suit alleging malpractice- as is her right. I feel that it is important to remind everyone that in this country, you have the absolute right to seek redress in the courts- you might not win, but you have the right to try. Each side presents evidence, and the jury decides which way the evidence points. If the doctor wins, it's because he convinced a jury that he did nothing wrong- to use the legal standard, he provided that level of care expected of reasonable medical professionals. Is this a "baseless" suit? It might be "meritless," but it's not baseless.

But the driving impetus behind tort reform has little to do with determining liability- it's about money. Key to most med mal reform plans is capping "non-economic" damages to $250,000. "Non-economic" means pain and suffering. In other words, "I don't care if you get hurt, we can't really place a dollar value on suffering." If the proposed reforms don't actually changes the rules of liability, then whom do they benefit.

Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals that have the audacity to charge $5 to $10K per day.

Oh, and when you look at the actual facts, you see whose interests the President has closest to his heart.

Med mal is just the tip of the iceberg- class actions and products liability are on the GOP's radar. Class actions are an absolute necessity- companies can get away with collective murder if the individual loss is so low that no one will complain about it. You have to aggregate claims to keep polluters, larcenous corporate directors, and predatory lenders at bay.

Why would the guy who ran as a simple, plain spoken man of the people and a defender of Crawford values against the coastal elites side with the wealthy corporate robber barons? Well, duh? Isn't it obvious? So that the rich keep getting richer. For a man of the people, he really seems to be bad for people.

So let's edit that quote a little.

All across the country insurance companies want to help incompetent doctors and makers of defective, dangerous products avoid taking resonsibility for their actions. They're doing it for a simple reason- cabbage. Lettuce. Moolah. Scadole.

And that's just a plain fact.

Bad to Worse

2005-01-04T21:22:00.000-05:00

Alright, the Washington Times is not exactly required reading, but they seem to be only media source running with this story. According to the Iraqi intel minister, insurgents outnumber coalition forces. The situation on the ground is about as bad as possible. This morning we learned that the governor of Baghdad province was assassinated.

Bush cannot possibly postpone the elections- the lost political capital would be tremendous. On the other hand, there is no way that Iraq can possibly hold elections. The candidates completely lack legitimacy in the eyes of the voters, seeing as how Sunnis are basically disenfranchised. al Qaeda sees any Iraqi who participates in the government as an infidel, no better than Americans. Basically- you vote, you become a target for al Qaeda.

I harbor no pretense that Saddam was a good guy. I wholeheartedly believe that democracy and self-government are essential to a free society, but the basic assumption that makes self-government work is simply not there in Iraq. Self-government means more than simply choosing from a list of people- it means that you have to want to make the choice in the first place. Iraq may not have been Disneyland under Saddam, but most Iraqis were free to work where they wanted, form the relationships they wanted, and were not in danger of getting blown up randomly.

The "freedom" we are imposing on Iraq is not freedom at all. It is a forced choice, a bait and switch, like the car dealer who tells you on the phone that they have red Mustangs in stock, but when you get there he says, "Red? Oh, we have blue and yellow- which one do y'want?" Can you blame the insurgents- we are forcing a menu of choices on them, except for the ones they want.

On another note- as I write this, Southern Cal is kicking Oklahoma's ass. Utah would have been a much better opponent, evidenced by their dismantling of Pitt. Friggin' BCS- just give us a playoff already!!!

Rep. Bob Matsui Dead at 63

2005-01-02T14:08:00.000-05:00

Rep. Bob Matsui (D-CA) passed away today. He suffered from a rare disease that affected his immune system. He entered the hospital Christmas Eve with pneumonia. He was 63.

As the ranking Democrat on the Social Security Subcommittee, he was going to lead the opposition against Bush's attempt to privatize it. I don't know much about Bob Matsui, but I suspect that there will be a leadership vacuum in the House for a little while as the Dems try to figure out who their point man will be- and with a special election coming up, it will give the GOP another opportunity to expand their majority.

All of which matters little to his family, who have lost a father and husband. They have my condolences and prayers.

Have No Fear- Jeb Bush Is Here!

2005-01-02T13:04:00.000-05:00

Lame duck Colin Powell and Presidential proxy Jeb Bush are on their way to Indonesia. Powell I understand, but Jeb is completely off the wall. The official justification is that since Florida is demolished by hurricanes on a regualr basis, he has experience managing natural disasters. On the other hand, since there are substantially fewer trailer parks in Phi Phi than Orlando I suspect that his contribution may amount to little more than sending someone whose name is Bush. I wonder if George Prescott was unavailable.

The flap over the "stingy" remark, which was entirely innocuous and did not name names in its original context, had the remarkable effect of increasing U.S. aid tenfold. Nevermind that $350 million buys slightly less than two days of warmongering. It would behoove our government to remember that you get more flies with honey than vinegar; our wise leaders, however, would rather try to convince the flies that the vinegar is just as good as the honey, and we're gonna ram it down your throats anyway so just get used to it.

Memo to Dubya- move the troops out of Iraq and send them to the disaster zone. Have them help with the rebuilding effort. Let the world see that they are not conquerors and occupiers, but that they are simply people- kids, really- who want to do right by their country, their world, their God. Not much different from the Iraqi people who only want to do right by their country, their world, and their God. I don't see it happening, though; our leadership doesn't think that far ahead.

2004- The Year of the Moron

2005-01-01T15:26:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year! May 2005 be better than the year just ended. 2004 sucked for a variety of reasons- personal, political, and otherwise. In the future, when the history books are written, I believe that 2004 will mostly be remembered as the year when the shit hit the fan. We gave Dubya a "mandate," the Sox won the series, and nature wiped away thousands in people in a few seconds. More personally, 2004 was the year my father fell ill.

Let's just put 2004 behind us, and work to make things better in 2005.

File Under "This Oughta Piss Ya Off"

2004-12-31T16:58:00.000-05:00

In the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of Inspector General is charged with the job of keeping the rest of the Department honest, fiscally and operationally. Clark Kent Ervin took the task very seriously, pointing out where the Department fell short. He called the TSA to task for spending half a million of our tax dollars on an employee party, while not necessarily making airport security better. He published reports that criticized the Border Patrol for huge gaps along the Mexican border. In the past year, he has developed a reputation among both Republicans and Democrats as a diligent and decent public servant.

So, naturally, Bush fired him.

Theodicy 101

2004-12-31T09:42:00.000-05:00

The tsunami disaster is rapidly approaching a point of diminishing returns in terms of our ability to comprehend it. By the time this is said and done, the dead- whether from the wave itself, or from the plagues and famine likely to follow- will be in the hundreds of thousands. September 11th, heretofore the largest scale disaster I had ever witnessed (via TV, anyway) was miniscule in comaprison. But this is unfathomable. One second, Banda Aceh was. One second later, Banda Aceh was not.

Some people blame God (at least, when it affects other people). (Curiously, some people blame Clinton.) God does not cause earthquakes, nor tsunamis, nor drunk drivers who run school buses off the road, nor the reelection of warmongering Texans. God does not participate in the daily monotony of commuting to work, nor of the sex lives of Starbucks baristas, nor of the tectonic motion of the Pacific plate. This is probably a Deistic attitude, and (despite the assertions of Red Staters) it was the prevalent theology in my country at the Founding.

My wife, who does not believe in God, frequently asks me why I do believe. Let me explain something- I was raised in The Church, meaning the Roman Catholic Church, but I realized some time ago that I didn't really belong there. I experimented with Wicca, and found many great things there. I flirted with Bhuddism- and I definitely found much in its philosophy that inspired me. But when I need church, it has to be a catholic (note small c) church, preferably the Episcopalians (who recite the Mass without any of the other horseshit I find so distasteful about Catholicism). As a catholic, I place no greater emphasis on Jesus than I do on God- that's an Evangelical thing.

More than any other Christian worship system, catholicism permits a certain amount of theological exploration. It is, at its heart, a thinking person's church (although most of the rank and file attend more out of obligation than deep conviction). The church that gave us Augustine and Aquinas surely wants an engaged congregation.

None of which explains why I believe, but the framework is necessary. God exists in pi, in Avogadro's Number, in the Golden Ratio. God exists in the Big Bang, in evolution, in poetry, in the Japanese alphabet, in the curveball, in the Lotus 7, in the First Amendment. Where some people human works, or scientific laws- I see God. I believe in God because I sense Him/Her/It everywhere I look.

I do not, however, expect God to give a rat's ass about me, or George W. Bush, or whether the Steelers win the Superbowl, or whether Banda Aceh exists or not. For one thing- God is not a person. God has no will; God neither creates nor destroys. God is- to use computer terminology- the operating system. Without the OS running in the background, the machine can do nothing. And even with the OS running, sometimes the machine will crash.

This philosophy bears no resemblance to the Catholicism of my youth, nor even of the catholicism I profess to practice (a rare occasion, it only occurs when I need a sense of the divine). It is much closer to the Buddhism or Wicca that I toyed with over the years- neither of which fits with my sense of "worship." Then again, who says that "worship" and "belief" are necessarily synonymous. There is no one true faith, as if Mormons were saved and Lutherans bound for hell (not that I believe in heaven and hell, either).

God bears no responsibility for this tragedy. The ground shifted, causing the ocean to swell. Scientifically speaking, it's not much different from the ripple left by a stone thrown in a pond, just bigger. This is little comfort to those who've lost people, or homes, or even entire cities. Let me ask you this- if God held a press conference, and announced that, yes, He caused the waves, and He was really, really sorry about it, would that be comforting to those people? I suspect not.

I once asked my wife why she did not believe, and she said, "Because I prayed for good things, and nothing happened." I replied, "What right do you have to ask God for anything in particular?" When I pray, it's little more than a short thank you for all that I have, and all that I do not have. So do not blame God, if for no other reason than it will get nothing accomplished when so much needs to be done.

Happy Hope Day!

2004-12-30T22:13:00.000-05:00

My nephew called me tonight- well, actually his mother called me, but... whatever- to let me know about a new holiday he invented. He wished me a Happy Hope Day, and when I wished him a Happy Hope Day, I heard him scream with delight as he turned to his mother and told her, "He said it!"

I like the idea of Hope Day. Ever since Election Day, everyone I know who cares at all about the state of the world has been filled despair. We could use some hope right now, staring down the barrel of four more years of Texas oppression.

Then I subscribed to Salon. After the better part of a year of sitting through insufferable interstitial ads, $35 seemed like a bargain. (Plus they threw in full subscriptions to a number of print mags, one of which I even read!) In any event, I began to feel refreshed and emboldened- there are people out there like me, who feel like they don't have a say in the way things will be done for the foreseeable future. Who will do something about it.

Then Zach called to wish me Happy Hope Day. New years provide new opportunities for change. If I make a small one with me, I've done all I can.

So I wish you all Happy Hope Day, and a Happy New Year too.

The Morning Roundup

2004-12-28T09:59:00.000-05:00

I'm home today, nursing a cold that has left me without a voice- speech is a necessary skill for lawyers, y'know- so I have abit of an opportunity to do a full rundown of the days events again.

File Under "Maybe They Can Count The Ballots From Ohio Now" It would seem that the largest Sunni party in Iraq has decided to take a pass on the upcoming elections. No big deal, just the credibility of our hand picked puppet is at stake! Forgive me if I seem somewhat incredulous that these elections will be anything other than a PR stunt. If the White House wants the world to take the elections seriously, they'd poison somebody.

Speaking Of Which The loser in the Ukraine debacle vows to go to court. Speculation is that Antonin Scalia will storm the chamber with a flurry of sarcastic dissents.

File Under "Can I Apply?" Apparently, tonight is the deadline for refugees to seek asylum in Canada. I think if I started driving now, I could make it to Niagara Falls in time for LOTR. I could even buy a Smart!

An Excellent Piece A story I missed for the better part of a week turned out to be the most wonderful piece of true journalism I've read in some time. AlterNet reports on the UCC commercial flap. As you might recall, NBC and CBS refused to run an ad for the United Church of Christ which implied that they don't turn anyone away. Including (if you can infer from two men holding hands) gay people. Imagine the moral indignation that a church should be able to let someone know that they don't think you're perverse. The real flap is not, of course, a matter of membership policy, but rather the split between literal and metaphorical thinking- as if Christ actually turned a couple of loaves and fish into a literal feast, or whether one may find "nourishment" in His company.

I am a believer, but I am not a Believer. I don't subscribe to the One True Faith meme. In fact, my most religious experiences have always occurred on the golfcourse, and not in church. That I was raised in a joyless Catholic diocesan parish (as opposed to a parish run by an order, who usually have a different take on spirituality) readily explains why I am standoffish toward blind faith. But if the President can go on TV and make a pitch why gays and lesbians do not deserve equality, a small Blue State church should be able to make a pitch why they do, at least at their own altar.

E.J. Dionne Gracious- Didn't He Get The Memo? Finally, Post columnist E.J. Dionne replied to his hate mail from the past year with a wink and a nod; a no hard feelings pat on the back; and a bit of humour (see, I could live in Canada!!!).

File Under, "Oh Sweet Jesus"

2004-12-27T21:42:00.000-05:00

Nothing snarky tonight- just prayers for the victims of the tsunamis. The devastation is unreal- not quite as surreal as 9/11 for want of video and proximity, but perhaps harder to digest in the long run. It may come to pass that the fallen will have it easier.

Godspeed, fellow humans, rest well.

2004-12-26T19:37:00.000-05:00

This is not an actual post. I am testing new editing software. News to come tomorrow.

Peace out.

Happy Holidays!

2004-12-25T17:29:00.000-05:00

Nothing newsy to report today, just holiday wishes for you and yours! I hope everyone's Christmas was nice as mine- my wife got some bling, and I got an iBook (which is like bling for guys). I also got a rare, microdistilled whiskey from Oregon- made from imported Scottish peated barley (if it was distilled in Scotland, it would have been Scotch). Regrettably, it also burned like a yule log- only aged three years, it was decidedly not smooth. Oh well, pricey whiskey relegated to a life of sour mix.

Anyway, Merry Christmas!

Rummy in Iraq- Oddly Flashes Peace Sign

2004-12-23T22:23:00.000-05:00

Rummy made a surprise visit to Iraq, "to thank the troops and wish them a Merry Christmas."

And to make himself seem a little more human, and sensitive, and maybe even not a total sonofabitch. But then again, you go to war with the SoD you have, not the one you might wish to have.

Shouldn't The Liberal Media Be All Over This?

2004-12-22T22:48:00.000-05:00

Wonkette reports that a Republican staffer in the House was arrested recently... for trying to steal a plasma screen TV from a hearing room. Okay, maybe staffer is downplaying it a little- emails circulating the Hill say that the culprit was the Chief Economist on the Small Business Committee.

Actually, it makes me feel better to know that this guy was working for us, the American people. As an economist, he is a unique position to understand that "free" is preferable to "not free."

As an aside, take note of the story immediately preceding the TV thief. Yup that is Loretta Sanchez lookin' oddly hot. Hmmmmmm. Smokin'........

I Thought "Negotiating With Yourself" Meant Something Else?

2004-12-21T13:45:00.000-05:00

The President held a press conference yesterday, in which he managed not to confer with the press. He adroitly passed the buck to a number of underlings on a number of topics-

On Social Security: Now, the temptation is going to be, by well-meaning people such as yourself, John, and others here, as we run up to the issue to get me to negotiate with myself in public; to say, you know, what's this mean, Mr. President, what's that mean. I'm not going to do that. I don't get to write the law. I will propose a solution at the appropriate time, but the law will be written in the halls of Congress.... Don't bother to ask me. Or you can ask me. I shouldn't—I can't tell you what to ask. It's not the holiday spirit.
On Bernard Kerik: We've vetted a lot of people in this administration. We vetted people in the first, we're vetting people in the second term, and I've got great confidence in our vetting process. And so the lessons learned is [sic], continue to vet and ask good questions and get these candidates, the prospective nominees, to understand what we expect a candidate will face during a background check -- FBI background check, as well as congressional hearings.
On Rumsfeld (on personal offense at not having personally letters of condolence): Listen, I know how -- I know Secretary Rumsfeld's heart. I know how much he cares for the troops. He and his wife go out to Walter Reed in Bethesda all the time to provide comfort and solace. I have seen the anguish in his -- or heard the anguish in his voice and seen his eyes when we talk about the danger in Iraq, and the fact that youngsters are over there in harm's way. And he is -- he's a good, decent man. He's a caring fellow. Sometimes perhaps is demeanor is rough and gruff, but beneath that rough and gruff, no-nonsense demeanor is a good human being who cares deeply about the military, and deeply about the grief that war causes.

What emerges from all this, of course, is the simple truth that the President doesn't like being called to the carpet. To a man who believes that disagreement is disloyalty, however, that should be self-evident. I am at a loss for words every time I see or hear this simpleton speak. And then I think of Churchill, who said that democracies get the governments they deserve.

A Long Absence---

2004-12-19T13:10:00.000-05:00

So Sorry, there has been a lot going on in my personal life that required my attention. In my defense, there has not been much political news of late, if you don't count Kerikgate.

On another note- I am tired of attaching "-gate" to the end of any political scandal. I believe we should instead use the suffix "-pot Dome." Kerikpot Dome. Nice.

Very briefly, as I have to buy a tree today (personally, I want us to get an artificial tree, but the CFO- that's Chief Familial officer- will not hear of it).

A judge in Washington has granted a Republican request to block the counting of a number of recently discovered King County ballots. I don't know what is more disheartening- the fact that Republicans only want GOP votes to count, or the fact that a bunch of ballots could go missing until 7 weeks after Election Day.

File Under "Faith Based Nonsense"

2004-12-03T15:00:00.000-05:00

God bless, Henry Waxman. He has recently released a report critical of abstinence only sex-ed. I know, old news and hardly shocking- but then I read the report. If the Red Staters get their way, our children will be taught that:

Condoms are only 69% effective against HIV (according to a study, which they conveniently fail to mention has been completely discredited).
Condoms have a 15% failure rate in preventing pregnancy (if you don't use them properly).
Touching someone else's genitals can get you pregnant (that one is so absurd it doesn't need a snappy retort).
Sex within marriage "is the expected standard of human sexual activity" (oh, really- is that Rush Limbaugh got divorced three times?).
Blastocysts, a ball of about 200 cells, "snuggle" into the uterine wall (hey, I'm always trying to snuggle into the uterus- just ask my wife).
That a woman's most important need in a relationship is financial support, and a man's most important need is domestic help (was this stuff written in 1946?).
Chlamydia cause heart disease! (You can hump bacon?)
You can get HIV from sweat and tears (actually, I think it's highly probable that someone has gotten HIV while listening to a Blood, Sweat, and Tears album, and these people just misunderstood).
And my favorite... a 43 day old fetus is a thinking person! (As opposed to most Bush voters.)

Thanks to The Daily Outrage for the link.

Abso-friggin-lutely Right On Point!

2004-12-03T10:07:00.000-05:00

Couldn't have said this any better myself...

Halle states that “gays and lesbians are the true defenders of tradition in this country.” One might ask if that’s really a role gays and lesbians want to take on, considering the institution of marriage these days. To some gay couples, the phrase “traditional marriage values” conjures up images of what one might see on the controversial former FOX network show “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?” These couples do not want to emulate the idealism that so many heterosexual couples have about the institution of marriage that so often leads to violence or divorce. However, this decision should not detract from the right for gay couples to marry, individuals always have the right not to wed.

Sorry for the absence...

2004-12-02T11:01:00.000-05:00

This blog is not a personal blog- I do not ramble on about my day, or about the state of mental health, or my foot fungus, or whatever. Let me just say this- this week has sucked to the utmost. Car accidents, money troubles, ill friends- I've had it all, he said not too sarcastically. In other words, going through the daily papers has been kinda far off my radar. Just a couple of notes today.

Great. Just friggin' great. The Times notes how the Senate will be much friendlier to anti-choice measures. Even though the Republican majority is increasing only slightly, they have traded some abortion moderates for abortion hawks. In other words, anti-choice true believerism will be on the rise.

File Under "Don't Let The Door Hit Your Ass On The Way Out" The Post reports that a senior administration official says that Treasury Secretary John W. Snow "can stay as long as he wants, provided it is not very long." Thomas Friedman had a little fun with that, as you can imagine.

Yo, Mr. Secretary, I'd say someone in the White House wants you gone! If I were you, I wouldn't renew any leases for more than a month at a time - or buy any really green bananas for the office. And those books you checked out of the Treasury library? Could you, like, maybe return them in the next few days? You know, just in case. I mean, it all depends on what the meaning of "long" is.

Of course, this is all part of the President's agenda to rid the administration of everyone who does not think in lockstep with the President himself, by which I mean Karl Rove. A President needs as many different points of view as he can get. Instead, this President gets as many yes men as he can muster, because facts that do not supports his "instincts" are promptly and readily ignored.

When the facts do not support the gut, apparently you go with the gut.

Gluttony- My Favorite Deadly Sin

2004-11-29T10:50:00.000-05:00

Hope everyone's Thanksgiving was as enjoyable as mine (which, if you knew me well, you would conclude was intended to be a curse). The holidays in general, and this holiday in particular, have always struck me as uniquely American, consumption (in all its varieties) being our true national pastime. Eating and buying. God Bless America.

I've been thinking some more about the process of persuasion. Merely being right is not enough- in fact, it's not really anything at all. Republicans understand this (and they don't even have the benefit of being right). Much of the so-called Contract With America, the ideological genesis of the Republican revolution, actually lacked popular support. Rather than alter the goals of the contract, and thus back off their policy goals, Frank Luntz (evil, weird haired genius) found the langauge necessary to sell. If people have a problem with your policies, simply change the rhetoric.

This is a fundamental left-right wedge. People on the left frequently approach problems from the language of need. Why do you need a (Barret M-82 sniper rifle/Hummer/ 5,000 square foot McMansion)? Parse out the words- "Why do you need..." First of all, it's apparent that we are talking about you and that I know better than you do. Second, we approach from the perspective of need- no one needs a Hummer, but many people want a Hummer.

People on the right approach the same problem from a different paradigm- Why can't I have a (Barret/Hummer/McMansion)? Whether we care to admit it or not, for a good number of our countrymen, these things are cool. That alone justifies the need (what microeconomists would call a preference), and any attempt to restrict our access to such things amounts to an attack on what we want itself. This is one reason why the language of need fails to resonate. (I am remided of Phil Gramm's famously asinine quote, "I have more guns than I need, but fewer than I want.")

If we are to make inroads among fiscally responsible RINO's, we need to co-opt some of this language. Why can't I have clean water? Why can't we have safe schools? Why can't we all enjoy the benefits of marriage? Of safe, legal reproductive care? It's a subtle shift away from our traditional paradigm, but one I think it is necessary to make. After all, the Wobblies wanted not only bread, but roses as well.

Sometimes It Makes Me Wonder How I Keep From Going Under...

2004-11-24T08:37:00.000-05:00

A medical marijuana case presently on appeal to the Supreme Court of these United States has the Bush Administration engaging in tortured, almost inconceivable legal logic. The government appealed from a circuit court ruling that held that entirely local, non-commercial marijuana use was beyond Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. In its brief on the merits, the government argues that local use "substantially affects interstate commerce."

Meaning that local, non-commercial (and legal) distribution and/or use has an impact on the interstate (and illegal) distribution and/or use of marijuana. So, if you want to smoke your medical marijuana, you're just going to have to buy it on the street same as everybody else.

I'm almost tempted to file an amicus brief supporting the government on behalf of "unnamed independent pharmaceutical distributors."

File Under "You've Made Your Bed, Now Lie In It"

2004-11-23T13:05:00.000-05:00

According to a New York Times poll, a majority of Americans support some form of legal recognition for same sex couples, believe it is more important to cut the deficit than to cut taxes, support a woman's right to choose, and believe that the country is headed on the wrong direction. So naturally Bush won. How does this work?

Listen up, people- if you have all these concerns, you should have voted for the other guy.

Like All Good Progressives, I've Been Quoted Out Of Context

2004-11-23T11:42:00.000-05:00

So my open letter has begun to appear on conservative blogs, and they have responded predictably. Namely, they only focused on the most salacious parts while ignoring the rest. What can I say- at least they're consistent.

File Under "I Was Busy, So Sue Me"

2004-11-23T10:16:00.000-05:00

I haven't updated in a few days, mostly because it was a weekend of unexpected surprises. I had planned to rundown the Sunday papers, but a trip to the Emergency Veterinarian made that unlikely (incidentally, it cost $230 to learn that Oscar, my sweet, laid back boy kitty, had a tummy ache). Anyway, here are the big stories.

File Under "Ron Artest Is A Punk- And That's News?" The sheer amount of ink spilled over a brawl at a basketball game is simply astounding. Google News shows about 4,050 stories written on this non-event, dissected from every angle: The problem is African-American culture, the problem is "the civility gap" (whatever that is), the problem is the drunken louts in the stands, the problem is all of us. To hell with that- the problem is that Ron Artest is a thug with no self control. Can we please turn to news that matters?

What Is The Sound Of One Hand Giving The Bird To A Divided Party? Mitch Frank writes that what the Arlen Specter debacle demonstrates is that social conservatives want their agenda pushed forward now. He notes, however, that social conservatives are not the only ones who want their agenda pushed.

And the Christian right isn’t the only uneasy constituency in the Republican party. Fiscal conservatives unhappy about the deficit, isolationists and foreign policy realists unhappy about the war and libertarians hostile to the Patriot Act all held their tongues during the fight against John Kerry, but may be ready to start talking.

David Brooks also notes the beginnings of fracture. As he succinctly puts it, many Republicans feel that the expanded majority gives them the chance to finally win on issues they are passionate about, but they have fundamentally different views on what winning means.

This is a wedge I think Democrats would be wise to exploit. With our debt ceiling recently raised to $8.18 trillion (that is, $8,180,000,000,000 in debt), many people- left, right, and center- are skeptical of Bush's call for more tax cuts. Think about it, with almost 295 million people living in this country, each and every man, woman, and child, citizen and alien alike, is on the hook to the tune of $28,000. Of course, since we don't pay for it now our unfathomable national debt is handed off to future generations- a classic economic externality. Our debt load amounts to a tax on the unborn- utterly shameful.

Just that one issue alone- properly framed- could tilt some center-to-right leaning people away from the GOP. It needs to be very carefully positioned, somewhere along the lines suggested by Sandeep Kaushik suggested last week, but the divisions can be exploited. Remember, the divisions noted are among self-described Republicans. How many Bush voters are there without partisan predelictions?

File Under "How Do You Prove A Negative?" Iran claims it has suspended its nuclear activities- Bush says, "Prove it." Oh, boy. They're not even subtle about it. Play out the scene, people.

Iran: Look, Mr. President, the reactors are shut off.
Dubya: That's not proof.
Iran: We have no uranium.
Dubya: You have no uranium here, but you could have it elsewhere. That's not proof.
Iran: We have discontinued our missile program.
Dubya: For now. You leave us no choice but to to INVADE... um, liberate. Yeah, that's the ticket.

And they say statesmanship is dead.

"Please, No Wardrobe Malfunctions This Time" Finally, from the land of the non-story (which subtly incorporates last year's biggest non-story), Paul McCartney will headline the halftime show at the Super Bowl. What, no Lindsey Lohan?

Continuing The Dialogue

2004-11-19T14:47:00.000-05:00

Democrats, for all of our failures, are excellent when it comes to one thing- sniping at each other after a big loss. I, myself, am guilty of this. The criticism is not unfounded, however. We are adrift. Which brings me to Derek Kilmer.

He is the progessive Democrat who unseated a Bible-thumping right winger, albeit for the relatively small office of Washington State Representative. He beat her in a district that is middle-to-right- and he beat her by framing his message of economic justice in simple hearth and home terms.

He avoided ideological labels, but he put forward a positive message of progressive change, in the best sense of the term. The gospel according to Kilmer was about strengthening the community and its families – through economic development, infrastructure improvements, taking care of the elderly. He broadened his base by talking about boring bread-and-butter stuff. It just so happens, though, that his voters considered boring bread-and-butter stuff to be relevant and important: job creation, transportation (residents of his district have long commutes on congested roads), education, health care.

Sandeep Kaushik on Alternet suggests that Democrats can take lessons from his election.

There is a natural, bottom-up language (or a vision, or a narrative, or whatever)..., about the Democratic Party as the party that stands for strengthening family and community by making sure that the economic playing field is not stacked against the average working stiff. And that language flows, quite naturally, into a set of progressive policy ideas.... There is the potential for a family and community agenda that idealistic Deaniacs and Clintonian realists might agree on: a living wage, restricting mandatory overtime, paid family leave, reasonable vacation time.

The frame for this, of course, is that economic justice IS a family value- that by promoting fairness for all, from the poorest up to the top, we all can have a better home life and stronger communities. Something to think about.

Just Take Out The "Q," And Write In An "N"

2004-11-19T10:50:00.000-05:00

So, hawkish neocons on the Hill and in the House have "intelligence" about a rogue Middle Eastern nation hoarding weapons and posiing a "threat." Iraq? Close. It's Iran. Told you about this one already.

In an eerie repetition of the prelude to the Iraq war, hawks in the administration and Congress are trumpeting ominous disclosures about Iran's nuclear capacities to make the case that Iran is a threat that must be confronted, either by economic sanctions, military action, or "regime change."

For what it's worth, Iran denies that it is developing a nuclear program. We all know, however, that it's not worth much. Things that only Godless types care about, such as facts or evidence, do not deter our Great and Divinely Ordained Leader from his Holy Mission to rid the world of whatever draws his ire. We will bring freedom to the world, even if we have to ram it down their heathen throats.

The Daily Disinformation

2004-11-18T11:29:00.000-05:00

Well, as I have argued before, No Child Left Capable Of Remotely Coherent Thought is "succeeding" because the tests are artifically simple. The Brookings Institution unveiled a study showing that about 40% of the eighth grade test covers material covered in the first and second grades.

The test for fourth-graders also has "false rigor...." More than 40 percent of questions gauge first and second grade skills, two levels below the students tested.

File this one under "Countdown to Armageddon" Lame duck State Secretary Colin Powell told reporters at an economic summit in Chile that Iran is trying to adapt its missles to deliver nukes. This bald assertion comes from "intelligence." Like the intelligence about the WMDs in Iraq? It is only a matter of time before we invade.

More on Tom DeLay- House Republicans have begun to defend the indefensible. Representative Henry Bonilla, who led the effort to benefit his fellow Texan, said, "This takes the power away from any partisan crackpot district attorney who may want to indict" party leaders, writes the Boston Globe.

The Times quotes Bonilla, "Attorneys tell me you can be indicted for just about anything in this country, in any county or community," said Mr. Bonilla, an ally of Mr. DeLay. "Sometimes district attorneys who might have partisan agendas or want to read their name in the paper could make a name for themselves by indicting a member of the leadership, regardless of who it may be, and therefore determine their future. And that's not right."

More from The Times- House Republicans did not dispute the idea that the change had been brought on by the events in Texas but said most of the majority's lawmakers had also concluded that the rule was simply unfair. "In my sincere opinion, it only provoked the timing" of the change, Representative Trent Franks of Arizona said of the Texas inquiry. "When you look at the rule, it is an outrageous rule."

I couldn't agree more- it's a complete outrage to expect our Nation's leaders to remove themselves from power simply because a prima facie case of corruption has been found by a grand jury.

Of course, some Republicans are in fact not complete morons. The Times story also quotes Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticutt who said simply, This is a mistake.

File Under "No, Mr. President, A Coup Is Not A Buick" Alternet columnist Robert Scheer describes the purging of reality based advisors as The Neocon Coup. Incompetence begat by ideological blindness has been rewarded. The neoconservatives who created the ongoing Iraq mess have more than survived the failure of their impossibly rosy scenarios for a peaceful and democratic Iraq under U.S. rule. 'Nuff said there.

File Under "No Pardon For This Turkey" Really, just a bizarre thing.

File Under "No Child Gets Out Alive"

2004-11-17T21:50:00.000-05:00

Shoring up the yes men in his new Cabinet, the President announced today that he is nominating Margaret Spellings to be his new Education Secretary. Is she a scholar of pedagogy? Nope. Is she the superintendent of a large, urban school district? Negatory. Is she a principal? Unh-unh. A professional teacher? Ummm, no. So what precisely qualifies her to be the Secretary of Education?

She was a lobbyist for school boards back in Texas. And she is responsible for the better part of No Child Left Behind.

Yup- she's a deal cutter. And, perhaps more important than anything else, she's very close to the President. (Perhaps, too close. Good God, they actually look like they're going to make out.) In any event, he promoted yet another from within- first Alberto Gonzales, then Condie, and now this person. As the Christian Science Monitor puts it, She also has the quality most valued in the Bush White House: unquestioned loyalty. Great.

Between the purging at the CIA, the public humiliation of Arlen Specter, and the rally around Tom Delay, it appears that Republicans really only require one thing of its members- do what you're told. Remember way back during the (I think) '88 Republican convention, when Tom Kean (a man I despised at the time, but now I only wish there were more of him) described the GOP as a "big tent," with room enough for all points of view? Either the tent has shrunk, or Frank Luntz has managed to redefine "room enough."

On another note, the President has pardoned a turkey. The turkey in question was held at Camp X-Ray without access to its attorney until it was discovered that the turkey was, in fact, a bird. No word on whether Zacarias Moussaoui will also receive a pardon.

The Morning Roundup

2004-11-17T09:29:00.000-05:00

Let's see, we've got the usual assortment of murders, corruption, nuclear proliferation, and politicized junk science. So what were the big stories on the morning talk shows?

Terrell Owens, K-Mart, and Michael Jackson. It seems that real news is so passe.

The story about Tom Delay should get absolutely EVERYONE'S blood boiling. He's the House Republican Leader- possibly facing indictment for financial chicanery- and his loyal lemmings want to change their rules so that he can remain their fuhrer. What would they have said if- GASP- Democrats had done this kind of stuff? There would be a hue and cry to wake the dead! Where is our response? Where is our righteous anger?

Also making the rounds is a story about Iran having a nuclear weapons facility, but I'd file that one under "Check The Source." It would appear that an Iranian opposition group is the only group with "proof." Were I one to speculate, I'd say that they might be fishing for a U.S. invasion...

Alternet reports that Republican moderates are on the outs. Toe the line, or get out. Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, maybe even you too, Arlen- come on over, we'd love to have ya!

Barbara Ehernreich advises Progressives to "act like Christians." Not in the sense that the DLC advises, but like Christians in Rome- stand you're ground, some of you are going to get eaten by lions, but you prevail in the end. Principles, my friends- without our principles we are nothing.

Finally, you can file this under "There's One Born Every Minute."

File Under "What An Assclown"

2004-11-16T21:31:00.000-05:00

I am sorry.

File Under "Someone Needs A Timeout"

2004-11-16T17:02:00.000-05:00

Fuck the South. Fuck 'em. We should have let them go when they wanted to leave. But no, we had to kill half a million people so they'd stay part of our special Union. Fighting for the right to keep slaves - yeah, those are states we want to keep.

Blunt, but then again so is the truth.

You and your Southern values can bite my ass because the blue states got the values over you fucking Real Americans every day of the goddamn week. Which state do you think has the lowest divorce rate you marriage-hyping dickwads? Well? Can you guess? It’s fucking Massachusetts, the fucking center of the gay marriage universe. Yes, that’s right, the state you love to tie around the neck of anyone to the left of Strom Thurmond has the lowest divorce rate in the fucking nation. Think that’s just some aberration? How about this: 9 of the 10 lowest divorce rates are fucking blue states, asshole, and most are in the Northeast, where our values suck so bad. And where are the highest divorce rates? Care to fucking guess? 10 of the top 10 are fucking red-ass we're-so-fucking-moral states. And while Nevada is the worst, the Bible Belt is doing its fucking part.

The vitriol detracts from the argument, but the facts clearly support the ranter, here. On the other hand, "facts" mean nothing anymore, this is "Faith Based America," where reality frequently interferes with "resolute and decisive leadership."

I wonder if they'll have any books in Dubya Presidential Library- 'cause, y'know, he can barely read them.

File Under "Know Your Role And Shut Your Mouth"

2004-11-16T15:21:00.000-05:00

It would appear that Dubya has ordered his new buttboy at the CIA, Porter Goss, to "purge" the Company of anyone who has been disloyal.

"The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House," said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. "Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."

A hotbed of liberals? The CIA? The same CIA that tried to bump off Castro? That may have been years ago, but, jeez, they make it sound like friggin' Berkeley! Seriously, I can understand why Dubya wants to purge the Company- after all, they told there were WMD's!