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.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Friday, September 09, 2005
"It's not like this was a surprise."
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
In a related story, journalists have started asking tough questions
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Root Causes
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Courting John Roberts
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.
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.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Calling bullshit on Karl Rove
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
The best defense, apparently, is a good offense
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...
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...
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
So, Scott McLellan was in a bad spot...
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.
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.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Judy Miller goes to jail...
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Bush to focus on "character" of SCOTUS possibilities- All together now, "Oh, shit."
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.
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.
"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.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.
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.
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.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Advice and Consent
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.
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.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
The Smartest Guys in the Room
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Ahhhh, to be posting again!
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!
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!
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
So- who really won?
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.
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.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Filibuster, shmilibuster
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
On Relativism
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.
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.
Monday, May 02, 2005
The Persistence of the Non-Story Story
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
DeLay v. Judicial Independence
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Tom DeLay, Part II
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.
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.
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.
Monday, April 18, 2005
I think I'm back...
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)