Misunderestimated

The NY Senate Race...

2005-10-24T12:06:00.001-04:00

might just become more interesting:

NEW YORK - Prominent anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan said last week she could not bring herself to vote for the re-election next year of US Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) unless HRC first publicly admits her vote for the Iraq war was a mistake. That subsequently prompted NY Libertarian Party State Chair John Clifton to issue a statement inviting Sheehan to seek the party's US Senate nomination next year as a peace candidate. The Libertarian Party has already called for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Clifton was the LP's US Senate nominee against Clinton in 2000.

I wonder what the libertarians think about having Sheehan represent them in a Sheehan-Clinton-Pirro contest--a contest which at the very least would not have a paucity of outspoken female voices.

Hissssssssssssss

2005-10-19T18:03:00.000-04:00

Guess what we good ol' repubs are in Senator Boxer's new book?

Those darn purple fingers are back.

2005-10-15T10:51:00.000-04:00

Iraqi's have finished voting on the constitution:

The purple fingers are conspicuously visible again--reports are that a larger number of Sunni's also voted.

The election day was made into a 4 day holiday in Iraq.

The constitution in question provides a more progressive treatment of equality.

The Iraqi Security Forces have taken the lead in protection, and did an excellent job, as there were few incidents of violence around the country.

President Jalal Talabani, who spoke at Columbia only a little while ago, casts his vote.

Perhaps more remarkable is the fact that a new generation of Iraqi's will now grow up in a country where the only thing they will have known is democracy.

Earthquake in South Asia

2005-10-10T17:51:00.000-04:00

An article from the BBC about the devestating earthquake in South Asia. Links where you can donate are on the bottom.

The dems blog also has a helpful post on where to donate.

College Democrat Leader Can't Quote Things Honestly

2005-10-06T14:15:00.000-04:00

What I find particularly amazing with the new College Democrat President, Seth Flaxman, is his inability to actually quote documents or statements accurately. I already have noted this in the past on this blog (see "Funny College Democrat Mistake") a way down. In a letter to the editor in the Spect today, though, Flaxman asserts that:

According to the College Republican’s Constitution (Article III Section II) they require that “Formal votes, pertaining to internal College Republicans policies and procedures, go to a vote at the next general meeting, with the majority of members present being sufficient to pass the proposal.”

What Flaxman ignores, however, is a small section in the middle of that line that he conveniently removed without even adding a "..." to indicate anything was cut. In reality, the section reads:

"Formal votes, pertaining to internal College Republicans policies and procedures, shall be initiated by any member of the general body. The proposal shall then go to a vote at the next general meeting, with the majority of members present being sufficient to pass the proposal."

It pertains to votes that originate from the general membership on ideas they might want to raise. It is intended to get a vote on any issue and to encourage new ideas, not to make every decision the result of a vote of the general board. Indeed, directly after that section, the constitution establishes the authority of the Executive Board to take decisions in its own name to recognize policies or groups, provided that it is established as a vote of the board:

"If such policy positions are initiated by the Executive Board and are not brought up for a vote, these positions must be stated as the position of the Executive Board of the Columbia University College Republicans, not as of the group as a whole."

And then he asserts how Democrats let anyone hear their speeches and question them, which, of course, is crap. When Hillary Clinton was running for NY Senate, she came to my High School and I could hear her alright, but when it came time for questions her staff insisted on filtering them first and allowing the ones they liked. Some openness.

And notice how Flaxman never refutes my point that the College Democrats stifle anyone who is not in their majority? Instead, he confirms it.

Rather than take aim at Columbia College Republicans for stifling its members, he cites a claim about the RNC. I won't argue that, even though I could. I will point out to Flaxman if I ever meet him, though, that the College Republicans are not the RNC, and that the College Democrats are not the "Big Tent." That we can prove beyond doubt.

Maybe Bush isn't as pro-life as we thought.

2005-09-26T21:01:00.000-04:00

Abortion is obviously a heated topic, as both Victor and Chris' posts have shown, so considering that there isn't even a concensus on this blog about the issue, it may be interesting to see what messages President Bush is sending out on abortion with his supreme court nominees.

One of Bush's campaign promises was to nominate judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas--meaning strict constructionists/originalists. With regards to actually legislatively fighting to overturn Roe vs. Wade, which would be a divisive, controversial and probably a politically unpopular move, Bush has indicated that he feels the country simply isn't ready. While this may obviously just be political posturing, it is certainly an indication that Bush is not in the Santorum/Brownback camp on abortion. Consequently, the other less confrontational avenue of placing limitations on abortion would be to place justices on the supreme court whose philosophy would cause them to be critical of Roe vs. Wade. While some originalists/constructionists may not even believe in a right to privacy, it is also quite possible that judicial conservatives who do believe in a such a right still feel Roe is wrong on its merits (even some minimalists and liberals feel the ruling is on tenuous ground).

Thus, Bush's job if he were looking to overturn Roe vs. Wade would be clear, appoint judges who he could count on with regards to overturning the decision. So far, looking at Bush's first pick and the speculation over the next one along with possible future picks, it appears Bush may not be dwelling solely on overturning Roe vs. Wade. While Roberts has called abortion a 'tragedy' (though many who are pro-choice such as Senator Kerry have made similiar remarks) he does still recognize a right to privacy and even believes it can be applied to uphold Griswold. Roe is of course different than Griswold, and the argument can be easily made that the right to privacy does not extend to Roe while it does to Griswold. Even if Roberts would overturn Roe however, he would still only keep the most recent count on the court, which was 6-3 in favor of Roe.

O'Connor's replacement would then be the next step, and if it was a justice who would overturn Roe, there would still be a 5-4 majority in favor of Roe (unless Roberts manages to persuade Justice Kennedy--which is unlikely but still possible). However, with the names that seem to be floating around currently--Owen, Gonzales, Thompson, Estrada--there is no solid paper trail which would indicate that any of those possible nominees would definitely overrule Roe. Even Owen's most controversial ruling on the issue has been one where she did not allow a bypass of a parental notification law which had already been passed by Texas, and which has widespread support around the country. While this may indicate that Owen is a conservative on abortion, it certainly doesn't even definitively place her to the right of Kennedy. All the other 3 names, along with a whole host of other less well-known names, have even skimpier records on which to base such a characterization. The other possible nominees who may have a sufficient paper trail showing they would overrule Roe--Luttig, McConnell, Janice Rogers Brown, Alito, Garza--would all face bruising nomination fights especially because it is known they would probably overrule Roe. While Bush was particularily clever with regards to deceiving the press and public over who the first nominee was until the last minute when he named Roberts, it does appear that he wants another Roberts-like easy confirmation, and thus the latter groups' chances may be slim. However, even if any of them is nominated, confirmed, and then does vote in a way to overrule Roe (three big ifs), the court would still be one vote away from overturning Roe.

Assuming a hypothetical 3rd vacancy, in the event it was one of the court's more liberal justices (Ginsberg and Steven's names have been floated) the pressure from both sides of the spectrum would be overwhelming. While social conservatives would be drooling over the possiblity of finally overturning Roe, many liberals, moderates and likely much of the media and academia would press for a moderate. If you've already heard cries that Bush should try to maintain balance on the current court, the departure of a liberal would only amplify those. This pressure would be further complicated by the fact that Bush obviously would not have to run for another term and both he and Rove seem to be big proponents of Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales has been a lightning rod for controversy amongst conservatives who fear he's neither an originalist or anti-roe. Even if the President does not nominate Gonzales for a hypothetical 3rd seat, a nomination like Edith Joy Clement or Larry Thompson could likely not result in the 5 vote majority to overrule Roe. Thus, while much of this is based on rumors, looking at Bush's actions so far and the nominees who've also been listed as possiblities, its possible that republicans could see 3 new justices appointed without any change in the standing of Roe as precedent(If Bush had 4 vacancies to deal with--an outside possibility-- much of these predictions would probably change).

While constitutional law is certainly much, much more than just abortion, the President has already proved in the past that he is a very shrewd political thinker. His choice of nominees, past, present and future, may be indicative of the fact that he is purposely overseeing a major rightward shift on the court without necessarily overturning Roe.

For those who are enamored with Billary

2005-09-22T16:21:00.000-04:00

all you need to do to see the type of United States we would be living in is to look at the struggles of Germany today. Weighted down by a social system that not only oppresses any drive to succeed, but has bogged down the entire economy to a point where the international community is saying fix the incredibly burdensome social system or have your credit rating trashed.

This is a preview of the US we would live in under Hilary. nationalized health care, increased social services paid for by taxing the middle class and discouraging entrpeneurship and success. All for the benefit of staying in office by bribing those who may benefit with social programs.

do not be fooled by her "move to the center", an Hilary presidency would result in massive government intrusion, unless of course you are an unborn child or trying to put lecivious (sic) act on television during the dinner hour when children were watching because of course these are both intrusionary acts that inhibit ones freedom, and we cant have that. Of course one wonders what forcing someone on to nationalized health care is, or taxing someone to death in order to ensure that chronically unmotivated people do not feel slighted.

So take a look at Germany and see if this is the America you desire.

Elections galore!

2005-09-18T13:59:00.000-04:00

The Afghan elections appear to have gone off very well:

"I am so happy, so happy," says Khatereh Mushafiq, 18, her black veil decorated with white flowers pulled back from her beaming face.

"Because, you know, we (women) are also now taking part in the government and in society. People must take part, people must have a say."

"Before, there was no democracy, now there is democracy," says 36-year-old Mohammed Twahir, who sells cold drinks from a roadside stall, after voting. "Democracy means freedom."

Reuters
AP

In Germany, it looks like the CDU (the center right party) won a slimmer victory than they had hoped, and that both the CDU and SPD will have trouble forming a ruling coalition without involving the other. Merkel is likely the new chancellor, though Schroeder may still be able to retain the position if he can form a coalition with the New Left Party (this is pretty unlikely and even then its possible the SPD, Green, New Left coalition may not have enough). There is also the outside chance the FDP, generally a CDU ally, may join a coalition with the SDP and keep Schroeder as chancellor.

Either way, it looks like an increase of the VAT tax, as Merkel openly advocates this and Schroeder and some SDP folks have flirted with the idea of a two percent hike. The FDP, the only liberal economic party and a CDU ally, is the only party that has serious criticism of the idea. The reasoning behind the increase would be that it would be offset by cutting wage costs, supposedly stimulating growth. Unless Merkel gets an SPD-less coalition however, it appears unlikely that she would be able to do much else.

Reuters
AP

One thing that is notable is the recent strength of center-right parties in elections worldwide with regards to countries where that distinction is most clear. Labour lost power in the most recent election, with the Tories gaining much of what was lost. In the US, Bush was re-elected and republicans gained in both legislative bodies. Howard remains as the leader in Australia. In Japan, Koizumi and his center-right party rode comfortably to victory this month. Karamanlis led the conservatives to victory in Greece over a fragmented left. In Germany, the CDU looks to have ended the SDP's coalition rule. Villepin has just become the new PM in France in the center-right controlled government. Paul Martin's Liberal Party lost their majority in Canada and had to form a minority government. Poland looks to have an overwhelming conservative majority ahead of their elections this year.

There have been some gains for the left, particularly in the Iberian Peninsula, but the general trend has obviously generally been good for the center-right. These types of definitions are generally trickier in Africa, South America and Asia, but overall it appears as though economic liberalization (as the libertarians ears perk up) has been securing at least some type of support as a general philosophy.

Scotus Nomination Two

2005-09-17T13:29:00.000-04:00

The hearings this week revealed a number of things:

Senators, even those with law degrees, don't necessarily understand constitutional law.

Judicial nomination hearings have become little more than a spectacle so that senators recieve airtime.

Most importantly, that John Roberts, an eminently qualified judge, will probably be confirmed as chief justice.

One note though- (and this will be one of the rare times I will give suggestions to the esteemed democrats on the senate judiciary committee)
It makes much more sense to ask a nominee more open ended questions if their paper trail does not already create sufficient traps. Roberts (despite what those on the left may contend) did not have a damaging paper trail and consequently there was no advantage to asking questions intended to trap him. A nominee as intelligent as a John Roberts, Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, etc. will be intelligent enough to evade those questions (see Clarence Thomas on the nearly identical answer to the Griswold question Roberts answered) while keeping their own philosophy relatively ambiguous. Consequently, like some have suggested, it may be advisable that these senators ask general questions on overarching constitutional ideas. For example, instead of asking, do you believe in a general right to privacy, it may more fruitful to ask a nominee what their conception of the constitutional right to privacy is (or for example how they believe the commerce clause would be applied under originalist doctrine). While these questions may produce more softball, theoretical answers, they at least provide basis for tougher questioning based upon recent and direct opinions by a nominee. At the very least, senators will also sound more credible if they claim they cannot vote for a nominee with whom they disagree on overarching constitutional ideas as opposed to nakedly partisan single issues (see abortion and euthanasia).

Finally, I just wanted to address a name which has been mentioned as a possible O'Connor replacement: Priscilla Owen.

Reportedly, Harry Reid has already told Frist that she would be filibustered if she were nominated (though the question now is probably who wouldn't be filibustered and whether the nuclear option would be sustainable). Like Roberts, she will be a very intelligent and highly regarded nominee. She recieved the gold standard, a unanimously well-qualified rating from the ABA for her circuit court nomination and graduated 1st from her Baylor law class. She was voted in as a Texas State Supreme Court justice with winning margins ranging from 13% to almost 70% (she recieved almost 85% of the vote and no realistic opposition in her most recent race), indicating she probably isn't that far out of the "mainstream" if at all.

Finally, the opposition to Owen has been based on very poor grounds. The opposition to her has been at the behest of Pro-Choice interest groups over the issue of parental notification by minors on abortion and waving such a standard. Parental Notification is required by the law in Texas and consequently her tendency to be critical of bypasses are what has driven these groups wild. The main thing opposition groups seize on is an embarassingly bad reading of a case where they claim that then fellow Justice Alberto Gonzales claimed she engaged in "an unconscionable act of judicial activisim." This is very obviously wrong. Outside of that, the case against Owen has been very weak until now, and wasn't even enough to derail her nomination during the "gang of 14" compromise earlier. Consequently, the case against Judge Owen does not even come close to a plausible objection versus all her other glowing attributes.

A Question to those who are Pro-abor... I mean Choice

2005-09-16T18:54:00.000-04:00

So heres the scenario.

A doctor is attending to a woman who is 6 months pregnant in an operating room. At six months this child would be completley functional outside its mothers womb and is "viable". The child passes through the birth canal and upon exiting the woman the doctor punctures the childs skull sucks its brain out and tears off the arms and legs. Immediately this doctor is arrested, charged with murder, and in most states after being convicted is given the death penalty.

Same doctor, same women, same baby, same operating room.

Instead of waiting for the child to pass through the birth canal the doctor goes into the uterus, punctures the skull, sucks the brain out, and tears the limbs off of the child. This time though the doctor is not arrested, in fact, some in society laud him.

My question is simply this.

What is wrong with this picture?

What it clearly demonstrates is that Liberals, who consider someone that condones or accepts this practice as mainstream and rational and someone who opposes it as extremist, are really those who have no sense of compassion.

It makes one wonder what choice that viable entity had.

Haha... That Was Close

2005-09-14T02:03:00.000-04:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/nyregion/metrocampaigns/14york.html?hp&ex=1126756800&en=c642938faf70b189&ei=5094&partner=homepage

It seems that Ferrer might have only won 39.949% of the vote in the Democratic Primary, just short of the 40% he needed, and that he may now have to have a run-off competition with Anthony Weiner, who has been gaining steam.

Where was that 0.041% when he needed it, eh? Classic.

Funny College Democrat Mistake

2005-09-14T01:19:00.000-04:00

I can't believe I didn't catch this until now, but bear with me....

Last semester, I published a piece in the Spectator about the Democrats for Bloomberg issue within the College Democrats. Specifically, I was very critical of Seth Flaxman (their then Membership Director and current President) and his slogan that, as College Democrats, "We should stop ‘just talking’ about politics and focus on getting good Democrats elected. Less talk and more activism.”

In response, Seth Flaxman accused me of twisting his quote out of context. As he wrote:

I thought the quote of mine he used in his editorial was clear: “We need to do more than just talk about issues and work on getting good Democrats elected.”

Notice anything wrong?

Well, if you didn't, the quote he refers to is not the same as the quote I used in my piece. My quote I took from an earlier spec article about the Mayoral race. The quote used by Flaxman does not show up in that article, or in mine. Basically, he changed his own message in his response, perhaps hoping that nobody would realize. There is a difference between "stop 'just talking'" and "do more than just talking," and that's an awfully big typo to happen just by mistake. He ignores his latter part of the quote, "the less talk" part, entirely too.

I could, of course, discuss the myriad of other points in Flaxman's response that were lacking, and if comments ask for it perhaps I will. But I think its just another case in which Democrats twist what they actually said after they are challenged on it. Where's the accountability again? Certainly, not with the College Democrats.

Although I would certainly like to meet Mr. Flaxman. Too bad I didn't see his response until now.

Chief Justice passes away.

2005-09-04T07:11:00.000-04:00

The nation lost one of the most influential judges of our time yesterday with the passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Rehnquist was a firm believer in judicial restraint who forced people to realize that the constitution actually enumerates states rights' as opposed to just paying lip service to them. He will be missed by many across the country and I'm sure everyone would like to send condolences to his family.

Here are some of Rehnquist's recent decisions and highlights from a conference earlier this year on Rehnquist's legacy.

Speculation will of course now be rampant regarding possible replacements and how this affects the Roberts nomination and hearing, but as of now it seems more fitting to commemorate the life of one of the most influential jurists in recent memory.

Katrina victims and the housing situation.

2005-09-01T23:00:00.000-04:00

Aside from monetary donations, those displaced by the hurricane will need much more to start their life anew. Considering that in many cases, they have lost everything, one fundamental necessity will be housing. Some good samaritans have organized housing registry to offer places. While these efforts may become subsumed by a larger government offering, it would be very helpful to offer housing now (if you have any room to spare).

Here are the sites to register:

http://www.katrinahome.com/

http://www.nola.com/forums/homesavailable/

How you can help.

2005-08-30T23:14:00.000-04:00

First, we'd like to send out our prayers to those in the hurricane affected areas in the southeast. However, here are also aid organizations that need help with the work they are doing in the areas that have been hardest hit:

The Red Cross

Southern Baptist Disaster Relief

Menonite Disaster Services

The Salvation Army

Catholic Charities

Here is also the FEMA link to register for aid or review your claim:

http://www.fema.gov/register.shtm

FEMA has also posted links on

How to help.

and

How to get help.

Off the Deep

2005-08-08T14:30:00.000-04:00

The Democrats never cease to amaze me with the claims that they make, but this weekend Judge Greg Mathis, the star of the syndicated television program "The Judge Mathis Show." and his cronies at a Civil Rights conference this weekend, made the boldest and most inane comments to date, supported of course by the leadership of the Dems in the House.

Mathis, Jesse Jackson, Harry Belafonte (when will celebrities realize they know absolultely nothing about politics and stay out of it) all claiimed that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen from the Democrats. They of course have revisionist historical recollections. It seems the fact that Bush is the first President since 1988 to be elected with more than 50% of the popular vote does not validate the electoral process. The claim for 2004 is that there were more than 186,000 african americans who couldnt vote in Ohio, dubious claim at best. Of course it doesn not take into account that there were five states that Kerry won where the margin was closer and that there was obvious voter intimidation on the part of the Democratic party to keep Reps from the polls.

What is more appalling than these claims, which will always be made by this group whenever a Republican wins any election because they can not conceive that anyone would vote for a party that preaches personal responsibility for your life and consequences for your actions, is that Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee (all from California!!!) echoed these sentiments.

The three all made the claim or insunuated that the election was stolen. So much for responsible representation in government. What about at least having EDUCATED representation in government. These three live in some liberal fantasy world where they can not comprehend that people think with their brain when voting, that they look at FACTS and do not rely on emotional rhetoric when deciding who best to run the country.

It would behouve the leaders above. Mr. Jackson, Mathis and our old friend Charlie Rangel, to stop thinking in such a single issue way when they advocate politics to their followers and stop following the Democrats only line. Its time that they stood up and look at the bigger picture and inform their constituents better.

The Liberal Supreme Court Rhetoric vs. The Reality

2005-07-20T07:16:00.000-04:00

Shortly after President Bush selected Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., for nomination to the Supreme Court, liberal groups began to attack the choice as “out of the mainstream.” As the Chicago Tribune notes, “Some liberal advocates called for an all-out war to stop the nomination,” with people like NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan declaring that “President Bush has consciously chosen the path of confrontation, and he should know that we, and the 65 percent of Americans who support Roe, are ready for the battle ahead.”* ( http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0507200185jul20,1,147122.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed )

So, how does the rhetoric match up to the reality? Let’s look at the most established (and reliable) liberal news sources in the country: the New York Times and the Washington Post. As the New York Times reported,
“Now the question is whether Judge Roberts, if confirmed, will, like those two justices, commit himself to recapturing a distant constitutional paradise in which the court was faithful to the original intent of the framers or whether, like the justice he would succeed, he finds himself comfortably in the middle rather than at the margin.
His résumé suggests the latter, as does his almost complete lack of a paper trail. There are no flame-throwing articles or speeches, no judicial opinions that threaten established precedent, no visible hard edges.
To the extent that as a judge he has expressed a limited view of federal power, that is consistent with the views of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom he is being named to succeed, and would not change the balance on the court.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/national/20legal.html?ei=5094&en=8f7eadf2245decd8&hp=&ex=1121918400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print)
As the Washington Post adds, “the president passed over a number of highly conservative judges whose nominations would have been seen as far more ideological and polarizing than that of Roberts. Given that this was the first but probably not the last Supreme Court vacancy he will be asked to fill, Bush signaled a less confrontational approach toward the Senate than he has adopted with his lower-court nominations.” So much for Keenan’s declaration that Bush has “Bush has consciously chosen the path of confrontation.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901946.html)

Of course, these liberal groups would prefer a liberal Democrat on the Court to a Republican “comfortably in the middle rather than at the margin” in the words of the New York Times. Yet maybe they should focus on trying to win elections and communicating better with the American public rather than attacking what John A. Rogovin, a Washington lawyer who served in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration and as general counsel of the independent Federal Communications Commission, recently called “one of the most measured, thoughtful judges out there."

Then again, character assassination of good federal judges is nothing new to these groups.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* As a side note, let's putaside for the moment that 6 out of the 9 Justices on the Court today support a Constitutional right to abortion, so that the shrill liberal scream of "save Roe! save Roe!" -- implying that Roe is at stake in this confirmation -- is a deliberate tactic to mislead Americans. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/07/dorf.scotus.elections/) This confirmation will not change the balance on Roe v. Wade, no matter how conservative a justice Bush could pick. With the most recent case in 2000 (Stenberg v. Carhart), 6 justices supported Roe and 3 opposed it in their opinions. In fact, according to Keenan's own numbers, those who support Roe are actually OVERrepresented on the Supreme Court at the moment -- albeit not by much -- assuming that 65% of American support Roe. Let's set aside for the moment whether I support Roe too -- which I believe I do. The fact is, the sreams of "save Roe" are mere tactics in a political war, and representative of these groups' heated rhetoric that twists facts to pursue their own transparent agendas.

Hell... frozen over... already?

2005-07-19T11:49:00.000-04:00

"[Chirac] has become a commentator of political and international life ... without offering any solutions."

Sound like it was written by a Republican?

Well, it was from Francois Hollande, first secretary of the French Socialist Party. At least the American left still loves the man, because "[p]olls show that French President Jacques Chirac has lost the confidence of more than 60 percent of his [own] countrymen."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20050718-101343-2579r.htm

Combine that with Schroeder's recent drops in the polls (with those polled indicating that his government has moved too far away from the U.S.), and you have justice. :-P

State Run Healthcare

2005-07-18T13:18:00.000-04:00

For those who want state provided universal healthcare, this article is a must. It details the corruption following a program "created 40 years ago to provide health care for the poorest New Yorkers" which, as the NY Times claims, was "once a beacon of the Great Society era." (I didn't know the terms "beacon" and "Great Society Era" could possibly be put together in the same sentence. Leave it to the NY Times...) Yet even when the corruption is clear, as The New York Times notes is the case with Medicaid in New York, "State health officials [have] denied in interviews that Medicaid was easily cheated, saying that they were doing an excellent job of overseeing the program." Now, some would argue that the state should be providing healthcare for everyone as a given right. Can you even imagine how costly and ineffective that would be?

Affordable and adequate healthcare should be available for every American. But, as New York's Medicaid fiasco shows, it would be irresponsible to trust state bureaucracies to accomplish it. Surely there is a more effective, and less overbearing, alternative. The Great Society, in the end, would seem anything but Great. I'll choose economically-sensible efficiency over Johnson-esque "Greatness" anyday.

Great timing...

2005-07-17T18:34:00.000-04:00

Recently, a few British papers came out with a story about a "Muslim scholar denied entry to U.S." after Customs officials found that "his answers to basic questions were not 'in alignment' with his background check or documentation."

Outraged about his case and two similar high profile cases that had made the press earlier, "A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, Inayat Bunglawala, said: 'This is extremely worrying following on from the refusal of the US to admit Yusuf Islam and Tariq Ramadan. It seems the US has very little knowledge about British Muslims. These are all mainstream people who have no record of involvement in unlawful activities. They are stigmatising ordinary Muslims.'"

The timing of this statement is priceless: only eight days after what happened in the city of London? Hmmmm...

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,9959,1529297,00.html

For All Those Who Attack No Child Left Behind....

2005-07-14T19:52:00.000-04:00

Take this: Younger Students Show Gains in Math and Reading .

"Nine year old students born in the mid-1990's, on average, earned the highest scores in three decades, in both subjects." -- These are students who've been through the system largely after No Child Left Behind was passed (assuming school entrance at 5 or 6).

There is still a way to go, nobody will argue that. But for all the Democrats that claim No Child Left Behind failed, please explain the record levels of improvement nationally (for instance, the test results cited in the link) and in NY State.

I'm sure people will have their own ways to brush the results off. But the fact is that NCLB is getting results, and was a piece of legislation passed by BOTH Democrats and Republicans under President Bush's leadership. Democrats would have been able to take some of the credit for it (Ted Kennedy was a sponsor for crying out loud), but instead even its Democratic backers have flipped sides and attacked it as empty. These results are not empty. Democratic rhetoric, however, is.

Big City Union Shifts Support to Bloomberg

2005-07-14T13:40:00.000-04:00

Big City Union Shifts Support to Bloomberg

I think the title says enough.

It is sad when journalists can't read...

2005-07-14T08:25:00.000-04:00

Below is a letter to the editor I just sent off to the Washington Post (and to ever editor's e-mail I could get my hands on...). It's not intended to be published (way too long and I don't have time to be concise today), but it is because this column contains the same old Democratic arguments about Ambassador Wilson's supposed report debunking the Niger-Iraq connection (albeit, he recognizes Rove didn't break the law, but instead focuses on Cheney). My intent in sending the letter was more to point out his incompetence to his colleagues rather than make a public point. This site is my public point. ;) Well, here's the letter:

To the editor,

Having read Richard Cohen's recent column "Rove Isn't the RealOutrage," I was astonished to see such a poorly researched piece could ever make it into the Washington Post. It is an embarassment to your paper and, while merely an opinion piece, substantially lowered my regard for your paper. It seems the days of Woodward's investigative reporting are clearly gone. Mr. Cohen seems incompetent of even reading a simple, albeit long, Congressional report!

As Cohen wrote, "It was Plame ... who chose her husband to go to Africa to see if Saddam Hussein's Iraq had tried to buy uraniumin Niger. He went and later said that he found nothing, but George W. Bush said otherwise in his 2003 State of the Union address. It was supposed to be additional evidence that Iraq had, in the memorable word uttered by Vice President Cheney, 'reconstituted' its nuclear weapons program. That, of course, is the real smoking gun in this matter...The inspired exaggeration of the case againstIraq, the hype about weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda's links to Hussein, makes everything else pale in comparison...Wilson was both armed and dangerous. He claimed the truth."" Clearly, Cohen did not read or take into account the U.S. Senate's bipartisan "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" before writing his piece, even though that is the authoritative report of theCongressional investigation into Iraqi WMD estimates before the war. (available here)

As the report notes about Wilson's trip to Niger and his subsequent statements to Congress and the press, "The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article (“CIA DidNot Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid,” June12,2003) which said, 'among the Envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.’' Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have 'misspoken' to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were 'forged.'"

The report continues to cite repeated inconsistencies in Ambassador Wilson's Congressional testimony and other statements. As it notes, for instance, "First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraqand, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Nigercould have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report ... noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Nigeruranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki... DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerien denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales."

Rather than debunk the reports of Iraq-Niger uranium sales, then, Wilson's reporting only confirmed to DIA and CIA analysts that, according to the former Nigerian PM, an Iraqi delegation had likely visited Niger to discuss those sales. And even so, "Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA’s briefer did not brief theVice President on the report, despite the Vice President’s previousquestions about the issue." Rather than serve as additional evidence of the Vice President's statements as Cohen claims, then, the report confirms that Wilson's report was never briefed to the Vice President or used for further analysis for the Administration at all.

What the Senate's bipartisan "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" demonstrates, if anything, is that Ambassador Wilson either is armed with a terribly poor memory or a politically-motivated streak of dishonesty. Hardly, however, "the truth" as Cohen claims.

Neither is Cohen, and he does a disservice to your paper and its readers with his recent column. I prefer to think that Cohen was either too lazy to actually read the Senate's report or did not know it existed. Then the inaccuracies in his column would be gross negligence above all else. I suspect, however, that he did read the report and chose to ignore it, casting aside the most comprehensivegovernment report on the issue to suit his ownpolitically-motivated goals. How ironic that, in accusing Vice President Cheney of ignoring government reports, exaggerating his claims, and lying to make political gains, Richard Cohen would be guilty of all three.

Chris is too conservative once again

2005-07-13T07:59:00.000-04:00

With his estimates I mean. According to NY Times reporting this morning, "an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion." So much for possibly as high as 90 billion. As the article notes further,

"Most of the increase in individual tax receipts appears to have come from higher stock market gains and the business income of relatively wealthy taxpayers. The biggest jump was not from taxes withheld from salaries but from quarterly payments on investment gains and business earnings, which were up 20 percent this year. That was similar, though much smaller than a sharp rise in tax revenue during the stock market boom of the late 1990's, which was followed by plunges in revenue when the market bubble burst." (The full article is available here)

Now, for all the Democrats that cite President Clinton for balancing the budget, take note. According to Dick Morris, Clinton's chief political advisor at the time (eg Clinton's Rove -- "The Architect" -- for his 1996 success), the budget was balanced not because Clinton reduced spending (in most areas he did the opposite), but because of the huge increases in tax revenue from the stock market's boom. With more tax revenue, the government could afford to spend what it had been all along. Add to that a Republican-controlled House at the time which refused to approve the drastic increases in spending that Clinton wanted (which would have unbalanced the budget), and a balanced budget took form.

Then, when the stock bubble burst, the increased tax revenue that the bubble brought suddenly disappeared, returning the government to an unbalanced state -- beginning with the recession started just before Bush took office.

There are a few things that should be noted there. First, the Clinton administration's "balanced budget" was not the result of "Clintonomics." Clinton wanted to spend more, but, when Republicans retook the House in 1994, they would not let him. Their constraints, tied to a stock market boom and the tax revenues from it, were what led the budget to be balanced at all. As Wikipedia even notes, "The Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 led to a push for a balanced budget, forcing President Clinton to agree to reducing the deficit. Major economic growth and GOP led spending controls such as Welfare Reform allowed for a balanced budget (when Social Security surplus was counted as revenue) by early in Clinton's second term in 1997 - considerably earlier than what Clinton's own projections for this had indicated."

Second, the surplus only came in Clinton's SECOND term, even though the economy began heating up late into George H.W. Bush's term (too late to help him in the election), and booming early into Clinton's first term. Even with a booming economy, Clinton did not balance the budget until the beginning of his second term in office -- when Republicans in the House rejected 4 budgets in which Clinton proposed huge spending increases and only affirmed the fifth budget that Clinton sent to Congress which eliminated much of the increased spending the Clinton proposed.

Third, unlike the very end of George H.W. Bush's Presidency when the economy began to really heat up, at the very end of Clinton's Presidency the economy began to really sour. When George W. Bush came to office, it was the beginning stage of a recession. Despite this, in the past election, Democrats hammered Bush for not balancing the budget in his first term -- which Clinton could not manage to do in his first term even as the economy began to boom by the time he took office in 1993!

Fourth, the increase in tax revenues under the Clinton administration were based on a bubble. When stock prices were inflated, more money came in from capital gains tax. But those revenues could not be sustained. In essence, they were based off a huge structural gap that inevitably had to burst. Not only were they unstable, then, but they were unnatural and not based on actual economic performance. The fact was that investors though stocks were worth more than they really were worth and that they thought the economy was in better shape than it really was -- the definition of a bubble, after all, is when the price of stock diverges significantly from its actual value. Clinton's increased tax revenues were ultimately based, then, more on the faulty judgments of economic agents rather than sound economic theory.

Fifth, part of the bubble was caused by CEO's like those at Enron and Worldcom cooking their books to make it look like their companies (and therefore their stocks) were worth more than they really were. The fact that such CEO's were not as regulated as they should have been during Clinton's economic boom, and held more accountable, may have caused tax revenues to increase in the short term under Clinton, but, when the bubble burst, it also made the damage all the worse. While most liberals I've seen have blamed Bush for the actions of the CEO's (and draw all sorts of connections), the fact is that most, if not all, of the crimes they committed were during the stock market boom UNDER CLINTON.

Sixth, Clinton's success with reducing deficits, along with the shrinking deficit now under Bush, reflect victories of conservative economic theory that the budget can be balanced through increased economic activity rather than through tax hikes that reduce that hamper that activity. There's a reason why the U.S. is outperforming the E.U. these days (bringing the Euro back down and making many investors clammer back for dollars): the Europeans have the huge handicap of excessive, excessive taxes that make the competition for economic performance a no brainer. The E.U. is working with one hand tied behind its back, and the best part is that it is E.U. nations themselves, and not any outside force, that tied it. The way to reduce deficits is in large part to promote economic growth, which will naturally bring in more revenues with the tax rate remaining constant, rather than increase taxes and decrease economic activity. Yes, it sounds supply side. But there's a reason Columbia's Professor Mundell received a Nobel Prize for his theory, even if it -- like all economic theories -- has its fair share of problems.

Seventh, in probably the only point that staunch Democrats will agree on, Congressional restraint is necessary to balancing the budget too. Republicans in Congress must push the administration to reduce what has been at times reckless spending. If Congress defeated 4 of 5 budgets Clinton proposed in one year alone because of reckless spending, Congress certainly can be stricter with Bush about his own reckless spending in his budgets. That's its job, regardless of the party that controls it. And, in the end, Bush himself will look a lot better after his second term if part of his legacy is restoring a balanced budget along with economic growth after the recession, much like Clinton's legacy looks more rosy to people who lionize him for balancing the budget -- even though he fought all he could for budgets that would, had they have passed Congress, results in further deficits rather than fiscal sanity.

Finally, Republicans should recognize that, despite Democratic rhetoric, Democrats are not really interested in balancing the budget at all. If they ever retake both the White House and Congress together (G-d forbid!), you can be sure they will spend the same amount which they've always wanted to spend. After all, at the same time as Democrats blast Bush for deficits, they have attacked him for not spending enough on education (even though he increased the budget of the Department of Education by 58% in his first four years), healthcare (universal health care, right?), et al. If the Republican Party is really the party of fiscal responsibility, it must act the part now while it has the reigns and prove that, when a Party has power, it does not have to just spend more and more pork. Republicans in Congress should make Bush's budget a bit more Kosher and eliminate the pork. That, combined with the robust but more stable economic performance that has taken root over the past two years, would be a great financial legacy for this Pax Romana of Republican dominance and will set the legacy of the Republican Party for years to come.

The Slime Continues

2005-07-12T16:07:00.000-04:00

It never ceases to amaze me. What is that you ask? The depths that the democrats will sink to, the slime that they exude. How hypocritical of the Democrats to demand that Karl Rove, who has been charged with nothing, and to date appears to have done nothing wrong, be fired for involvement in the Plame case. Honestly, with the Democrats its guilty until proven innocent, unless you are a rapist or murderer or terrorist, then its be kind, protect his rights.

The hypocrisy continues. Wasnt it the infamous Democrat, Bill Clinton, who committed multiple PROVEN, yes my friends PROVEN criminal acts, yet still continued to serve as President after defiling the office.

It honestly makes me ill to see John Kerry sit there and demand for Rove to be fired. Could it be sour grapes because Rove was the architect behind Kerry's crushing defeat last November, one which he has not gotten over. Even more contemptable was seeing Hilary Clinton there, nodding, and saying, "yes Im nodding." She then should have been saying that when her husband committed perjury (same crime that Lil Kim got one year for) and obstruction of Justice (same crime that got Martha Stewart her time)

It seems only if youre a democrat, or vote for them (i.e. their constituency) can you commit a crime and then be protected, but if you are not, then as soon as you are accused, by the Democrats, then you should resign or be fired.

Honestly...

The Marketing of Forgiveness

2005-07-03T15:02:00.000-04:00

I was treated today to a commercial featuring Nelson Mandela. In this spot Mandela urges the leaders of world who are gathered together at the G-8 conference to do something about world poverty. The commercial implies that without action by these eight men that poverty will continue, but if they are to act, they can eradicate it completely. It makes one wonder what is it that the commercial would like these leaders to do in order to accomplish this task. One can only speculate that it includes the following:

A. Forgiving debt that third world and developing nations have incurred
B. Increasing foreign aid in sheer monetary terms
C. relaxing intellectual property rules in order to allow these countries to duplicate things medicine and technology with no payments to the creators.

The problem with the above is that it places the responsibility for the actions that created the problem on the citizens of those eight nations, and relieves the nations that created the problem from any culpability. Forget the fact that there are insance birth rates, that corruption permeates their systems and the citizens do not rise up to change the situation, and that there is no assurance whatsover that if these nations forgive debt and pump in more money that there will be any change of attitude in these countries.

The members of the G-8 have recently forgiven debt for 28 nations that they feel may not repeat their mistakes of the past, and this is a huge gesture by these countries. This relief totals $55 Billion dollars. Of course liberals will scoff at this figure, always wanting more (they always want more). The fact of the matter is that this is a magnanamous gesture by the people of these countries.

At what point do the citizens of one country say we have reached into our pockets deep enough , and its time to address our internal problems with our tax dollars.

What assurances do we have that these nations will not turn around and in two years run up simliar external debts? Will this money even reach the people?

Why should companies and inventors who have pumped millions and billions into research and development give away their inventions and creations without compensation. What would stop the unfettered reproduction of items for sale to other counties and places. Liberals love to talk about how companies should make their inventions and creations more accessible, what motivation do people have to create if it ends up costing them time and money with no hope of recompensation, at least to a break even level.

While the commercial is moving, and yes, poverty is a problem in parts of the world, we must not act hastily without any assurances that these nations that would be the recipients of the G-8's forgiveness of debt and increased aid will do things like control the population explosions (the second biggest threat to world security and stabilty behind islamic fundamentalism), to eradicate corruption, and to create stable, RESPONSIBLE governments.

If those things could be guaranteed then the G-8 should give serious consideration to their requests, until then, they should proceed with EXTREME caution.

Coming Home to Roost

2005-07-01T01:10:00.000-04:00

In the late seventies President Jimmy Carter allowed sniveling cowards to bring America to her knees, when the weaknesses created during his presidency allowed those who can only be called less than human to take Americans hostage in Iran. Rather than respond with strength and strike fear in the heart of our enemies Carter took the passive approach (similar to that which would most likely have been followed by John Kerry should he ever had been elevated to the highest office in the land - see: ask France for permission) and what resulted was a national humiliation that would not end until America sent him home to Georgia in favor of Ronald W. Reagan. It should be noted that within minutes of Reagan’s ascension to the Presidency the groveling spineless terrorists released the hostages, fearing the reprisal of the strong-handed Reagan.

One thing that Carter's weakness did bring was the Reagan era of prosperity, pride and power.

Fast Forward 25 years to this past week when hard line militant Muslim Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "elected" President. This "election" was anything but legitimate, and sent a signal to people around the globe that the extremists clerics that run the country, headed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would no longer tolerate reformers and moderates. It’s a shocking sign at a time when Iran is determined to acquire nuclear weapons.

To fully understand the gravity of the election of Ahmadinejad to the post of President, even Europeans were taken aback, and remain worried about what this person’s election means to relations, to negotiations to stop Iranian intentions to create WMD, and to the future.

As if this was not bad enough, it was revealed yesterday that many of those brave people who were taken hostages actually remember Ahmadinejad to be one of their captors, if true this is not only shocking but should send a signal to America if not the world. That the leaders of Iran (because I sincerely doubt that the people of Iran chose this candidate to be their president) would choose this creature (i choose the word creature because if he truly was one of those who perpetrated this dastardly deed then he is less than a man, he is vermin) is a sign that they are intent on moving forward with their weapons grade nuclear program. Make no mistake, Iran, for all its deception and back door progress on their nuclear program, has decided to be clear that they intend on becoming a nuclear power.

To fully understand how disturbing the selection of Ahmadinejad is one needs to look at the words he spoke about Americans and their people. One hostage recalls this, "In one incident he just called (Army attache Col. Charles Scott) pigs and dogs and we deserved to be locked up forever,” If true, Iran now has at its helm, a madman.

The question is now what will the world do. This is someone who will in all likelihood have no problem pointing and employing a nuclear weapon against Israel, or against the US. It is someone who, given his history, is intent on the destruction of anyone who does not conform to his twisted idea of Islam, to be certain which is not the idea of Islam that most who practice the religion have.

We can only assume what Europe will do; especially the French and Germans, and that is acquiescing. Therefore it is beholden upon President G.W. Bush to be strong in his resolve and to stand up to Ahmadinejad. We cannot afford another Carter, who ironically is now giving advice on how to deal with the poor terrorists kept in Gitmo and trying to instruct us on the war on terror. Maybe if he had been stronger in his resolve 25 years ago, this may never have happened. He should stick to building houses and not lecture on foreign affairs, especially those that dictate strength.

Bush needs to stand tall in the face of this man and his cleric puppet masters and not back down one inch in negotiations over nuclear weapons, and the entire Iranian nuclear program. They have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted, and have shown us the direction they intend to take.

The war on terror is about keeping America and Americans safe, and the election of Ahmadinejad is a direct threat to US national security. Make no mistake, Iran has now become the most dangerous enemy of the United States and needs to be dealt with as such, not with the kid gloves of France and Germany whose only interests are to bargain with Iran in order to reap economic benefits of the consumer market there.

I say to President Bush, this is your test, the test to see if you are the strong leader who we all believe you are, and to never back down, for if this man truly was one of the captors of our brave Americans in 1979, then he is a terrorist, and should be treated as one, approached as one, and dealt with as one.

And there was much rejoicing.

2005-06-29T22:15:00.000-04:00

Equal Rights for Nudists.

Authoritarian vs. Libertarian

2005-06-27T22:15:00.000-04:00

There's been a little confusion by some whether the Kelo and Raich decisions were authored and favored by Liberal or Conservatives.

Here's the breakdown in both cases:

Kelo:
In favor:
John Paul Stevens - Ford/republican - generally considered liberal
Anthony Kennedy - Reagan/republican - generally considered moderate/right leaning
David H. Souter - Bush/republican - generally considered liberal
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Clinton/democrat - generally considered liberal
Stephen G. Breyer - Clinton/democrat - generally considered liberal although less so than the previous 3

Against:
Sandra Day O'Connor - Reagan/republican - generally considered moderate/right leaning
William H. Rehnquist - Nixon-Reagan/ republican - generally considered conservative
Antonin Scalia - Reagan/republican - generally considered conservative
Clarence Thomas - Bush/republican - generally considered conservative

Raich:
In favor:
John Paul Stevens - Ford/republican L
Anthony Kennedy - Reagan/republican M
David H. Souter - Bush/republican L
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Clinton/democrat L
Stephen G. Breyer - Clinton/democrat L
Antonin Scalia - Reagan/republican C

Against:
Sandra Day O'Connor - Reagan/republican M
William H. Rehnquist - Nixon-Reagan/ republican C
Clarence Thomas - Bush/republican C

Another interesting side note is that in two respective polls at cnn and msnbc (completely unscientific), majorities of over 97% essentially opposed the Kelo decision. The Raich decision was somewhat more divided but did also create divisions even within liberal and conservative factions (as evidenced by who ruled in favor of Gonzales).

There are a couple obvious observations from these decisions. The divide in these rulings isn't necessarily a completely conservative vs. liberal one (many conservatives only think about keeping any marijuana banned and don't even care about the commerce clause questions in cases like Raich and many liberals were as up in arms over the kelo decision) but rather an authoritarian vs libertarian one. This explains to some extent the unusual crossover in Raich. However, in Kelo I think the split is more indicative of a split amongst the left between the elite 'intelligentsia' and the majority of those on the left. There's probably a similiar split amongst those on the right (one only needs to gaze at the arguments going on at the corner), but the more pronounced one is on the left. This split appears to be one where the more corporatist, legalistic, statist and the very far left support the Kelo decision because it allows for what they believe are proper government improvements and decisions while the rest of those on the left, an overwhelming majority compared to the supporters, are livid over the decision. A similiar situation occurs on the right. Its true that in general the authors of both decisions were liberals, and the opponents conservative. However, these terms aren't really fair ones in the world of constitutional law. Interpretations of law have a much more important influence, as in general originalist/strict constructionists have formed one coalition against these decisions and for more protections on individual property rights. On the other hand, those who believe in evolving standards and perhaps even some minimalists (Sunstein for example) appear to support a larger scope of government prerogative over property rights.

What's interesting is that in the Janice Rogers Brown nomination fight, this was the one area where her views were faulted as being out of the mainstream. In the San Remo case, she was cited as being out of the mainstream in her defense of individual property rights and in other cases had been described as someone who would threaten new deal programs and who recklessly threw around terms like 'socialism' when talking about property rights. What's notable is that if Brown was on the supreme court instead of any of the 5 who ruled in favor of New London, its almost guaranteed the outcome would have been different. This should indicate that the burden of intellectual argument should fall on those who have been decrying any move to secure individual property rights in any way as a 'constitution in exile' movement. The argument that there was precedent [and there was] for the Kelo decision has not been a comforting one to the vast majority of the American public. The history of constitutional law and mechanisms such as selective incorporation have already proved that precedent doesn't always imply justice. Thus those who've been harping on the issue [Rosen, Sunstein amongst others] have a question to answer. When majorities of over 90 percent feel that the public use of property has overreached at the individual's expense, then isn't it a signal that the dogma of the legal elite may be out of touch with the voice of the people?

There are several ways to remedy decisions that appear as out of touch as these. One would be the nomination of more judges with philosophies [probably originalists/strict constructionists] that generally agree with the views of the people on these cases. It's important to read the fine print on nominees to courts because as one can see by how Judge Brown was characterized before she was confirmed, interest groups and those most vocal about how a candidate is out of the mainstream are often far out of the mainstream themselves. Another possible way to influence cases similiar to these would be pass federal legislation regarding the issues [such as de-criminalization of medical marijuana] or approving a bill limiting the scope of eminent domain [the corner is reporting that Senator Cornyn has introduced a bill seeking to do so- though I question whether it would constitutional after Kelo---update---Eugene Volokh clarifies this]. Finally, Kelo's decision did appear to allow states to regulate the scope of eminent domain, so its possible to affect change through state legislatures or state referendums. Either way, its important to have the government take notice when it issues an opinion which appears to have been as out of touch with public opinion as Kelo has been.

New NAACP President.

2005-06-26T11:42:00.000-04:00

Bruce Gordon, a former Verizon exec who lives in NY was approved as the new NAACP president. His concentration on economic issues is encouraging but what may be more surprising is what may be his open-mind in politics as well. For fun, I typed in his name into fundrace.org and found the following:

Mr. Bruce Gordon

executive
Verizon

George W. Bush
$2,000

166 Duane St (map)
New York, NY 10013

Unless, there's another Verizon exec named Bruce Gordon, this is quite a departure from ex-president Mfume, who is currently running as a democrat for the senate seat in Maryland.

Kelo

2005-06-24T12:53:00.000-04:00

I admittedly have a pretty deep interest in the recent Kelo decision and takings clause decisions.

However, analysis of the opinion has already been put out ad nauseum everywhere else. Either way, I'd just like to encapsulate the fears of those who really disagree with this decision (its rare to see the members of the Democratic Underground agree with Free Republic folks) with this little exchange [you can take it with a grain of salt because its the respondent, the counsel for Kelo, who gives the answer] from the oral arguments:

JUSTICE SCALIA: No. I just want to take property from people who are paying less taxes and
give it to people who are paying more taxes. That would be a public use, wouldn't it?
JUSTICE O'CONNOR: For example, Motel 6 and the city thinks, well, if we had a Ritz-Carlton,
we would have higher taxes. Now, is that okay?
MR. HORTON: Yes, Your Honor. That would be okay.

Of course there are protections against this, as Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsberg mention, but the lines are almost blurred to nothing considering the ambiguity of terms such as 'blighted.'

This does however address the larger problem of the treatment of property in constitutional law. Folks like Cass Sunstein and Jeffrey Rosen have been ranting about the fears of those who support a purported 'constitution in exile.' Partisans who don't apparently care much for the exact decisions (e.g. the lochner case- where there is almost a unanimous concensus that Justice Peckham's decision wasn't incorrect because of Holmes' interpretation of substantive due process but rather the attempt to impose a nowhere delineated pro-business laissez faire interpretaton of the constitution- which Hadley Arkes has called into question itself) echo their claims without any intellectual inquisitiveness as to the merits of some of the arguments of those such as Richard Epstein or those who do support greater protection of property rights. Epstein is admittedly a maverick [albeit a brilliant one], but it says something when 99 percent of those who responded in one cnn poll probably agree with him on the Kelo case. This may be the signal that while a 'constitution in exile' is something Americans should be wary of, there should be immediate attention paid to the fact that the exact opposite, the move to a disregard of fundamental property rights, has already overstepped its bounds.

Restate posts a debate between Epstein and J Peter Byrne that appears to formalize and echo the real danger of what the Kelo decision may mean especially when I think of the possible moves that the University may make in Manhattanville:

From Peter Byrne, who filed an Amicus Curiae brie in favor of New London:

There is a painful irony here. Admittedly, in economic redevelopment projects, the poor are more likely to be displaced than the rich, because they often live in those areas with the lowest economic value. But the urban poor also benefit from new jobs and increased municipal revenues that support school and other services. Cities are the most plausible governmental champions of the poor in our current political configuration, because their voices can be heard there. Barring depressed cities from using eminent domain for redevelopment would harm the poor more than any other segment of society.

Maybe Mr. Byrne should explain this to the folks in Manhatttanville and the surrounding areas or even to the folks in New London. Because they have to remember, in the end, the government knows best.

Teddy Kennedy says out of J. Michael Luttig, John Roberts or Michael McConnell - "one would be acceptable"

2005-06-20T22:11:00.000-04:00

The surprising statement comes in this article which touches on Teddy's views of the upcoming SCOTUS battle. The senator from Massachusetts declines to name which one because he believes it would be a "kiss of death" for the nominee (he's probably right...i'm sure ralph neas would zero in on whoever he says, though i suspect they're probably seeing eye to eye on this anyway).

hat tip to ann althouse

As for the actual judges, none of these possible cases will be one where the judges aren't qualified.

John G. Roberts Jr., aside from being one of "the hot" in the judiciary (according to UTR), is also considered to be incredibly brilliant from the testimony of most who know him (Orin Kerr and Jeffrey Rosen [yes...the same one who cries wolf about the purported constitution-in-exile movement] do a great job explaining this from both sides of the aisle). Roberts was also confirmed relatively quickly to the DC circuit and recieved full confirmation through a voice vote, which generally signified how little of a controversy there was (outside the normal interest groups) over his nomination.

Michael McConnell is a former U Chicago and Utah law professor who has served on the 10th circuit. As a testament to his brilliance, he had over 300 law professors sign a petition requesting his confirmation to the 10th circuit. The names on the list included those of Cass Sunstein, the Amar brothers, Charles Fried, and Jack Balkin amongst others. McConnell is particularily brilliant on interpretations of the establishment and free exercise clauses, which are of particular interest to me. McConnell was also confirmed on a voice vote and is considered quite independent as even conservatives have a healthy anxiety about his refusal to toe a political line.

J Michael Luttig, a 4th circuit court of appeals judge, was nominated by the first President Bush and was confirmed by unanimous consent. Luttig's intellectual ability has earned praise from his peers on both sides of the aisle, as even Laurence Tribe has gushed that "I think his intellectual acumen and his literary gifts are of a very high order." Luttig is considered to be one of the more conservative judges on the conservative 4th circuit, but has displayed a consistency and fairness in his rulings that may squelch claims that Luttig is some type of activist. This has even come at the expense of fellow conservatives as Luttig has repeatedly attacked the opinions of fellow conservatives [even Wilkinson] on the court on cases he disagreed with them on and as Luttig even struck down a partial birth abortion ban in order to follow the precedent of Carhart.

The truth is Kennedy really doesn't have any grounds to really use the filibuster on any of these three well qualified candidates (though, as in any case, senators can reflect on the judicial philosophy of nominees and act accordingly during the full vote), but the fact that he actually recognizes the ability of even one of these judges is surprising and a good sign.

Poker Night...

2005-06-16T20:17:00.000-04:00

so just a quick post...here are some satire sites that have caught my eye. They're over the top sometimes and are occasionally frustratingly shallow, but they also contain some gems...and i have one from each side (though I'm looking for a satire site on libertarians):

http://cfav.blogspot.com/

skewers the christian right

http://pro-liberal.blogspot.com/

skewers the far left

if you don't have a sense of humor, don't bother clicking.

Two particularily hilarious (and completely not PC) posts to start with from the sites:

From the liberal satire site

From the conservative satire site

Mississippi Burning and Retribution in the Criminal Justice System

2005-06-14T22:55:00.000-04:00

Murder charges have been brought against Edgar Ray Killen in the infamous Mississippi Burning case and today, in the first day of the trial, Killen plead not guilty. There's little doubt that Killen conspired to set up the murders of Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner. The three young men were participating in the voting awareness program for african americans called "Freedom Summer" in 1964.

Regarding the trial, Killen is the only one out of a number of others who are still alive who will stand trial for murder (as he and the others wer never tried in the 60's). He deserves to be treated as innocent before proven guilty, but in his original trial for violation of the three's civil rights, the lone juror who created the deadlock claimed she could never convict a preacher. Otherwise, many of the witnesses and evidence are lost because it's been so long since the case has been reopened and it'll be somewhat more difficult with Killen because the gunman had already confessed to killing two of the three young men earlier. Regardless, it appears all the evidence points to the fact that Killen organized this gruesome set of murders as head of the local klan chapter.

What is interesting with this case and others which are being reopened is what they say about our justice system. I had an exchange a little while back with some of the bloggers at The Little Green Blog (A left leaning Dartmouth blog) regarding the virtues and use of the death penalty. What struck me was the belief of some of the bloggers and of many others that I know (one only needs to look at the torture debate Eugene Volokh had earlier this year for examples) that retribution should not really be a major factor in our modern day criminal justice system. I'm not too sympathetic to the argument, but the argument appears to be that crime today does still have retributive factors, but in the most heinous crimes it takes away from the justice system to punish someone in what appears to be an unnecessarily excessive manner when retribution can be handed in a different form while still securing other goals of criminal justice through the cosmetically lighter punishment. Thus there should be more of an emphasis on deterrance, prevention and evaluation in major punishments according to those who believe retribution should not pay as great a part in order to focus on the real goal of the justice system, to address fundamental societal origins of crime.

While I'm certainly sympathetic to the latter goals, its strikes me that in these particular cases the entire focus is that of retribution. Killen doesn't pose much of a threat to murder again, and without the press coverage of the trial probably would never have a chance to incite violence (though in the current state, if he choses to do so, he could probably reach more people). Furthermore, for many of the bigots and racists with violent intentions in the case, it appears that Killen would serve as a martyr if he managed to get a life sentence and die in prison. Thus its hard to argue that the case, and similiar ones which have already yielded convictions or which are being opened, would have a significant deterrent effect. Civil Rights activist Lawrence Guyot has commented on the case that "Justice delayed should not be justice denied." This is a statement many would agree with, and is a whole hearted endorsement of the fact that any type of societal benefit the american or african american community would recieve from the trial would be based on the sense of a retributive impulse being fulfilled and satisfied. It is precisely the belief that the country is finally punishing and giving just desserts to those who committed these heinous acts that would serve to reassure those who have waited so long.

Overall then, the case and other similiar ones bring up a number of interesting questions for those who hold that particular view on retribution's role in the justice system. It's quite obvious that Killen is probably guilty here and there's no statute of limitations on murder or any question of double jeopardy in the case. Is it worth it then, for those who don't believe that retribution should play a major role in high profile possible punishments and cases like this (as retribution is one of the major arguments in favor of the death penalty) to perhaps sentence a man who is about 80 years old and whose conviction would be done solely for purposes of retribution to life in prison? If it is, does that mean that retribution should play a major factor at all levels of punishment or are there other factors which differentiate between how it should be considered in these cases and say the application of the death penalty?

Here are some links describing the case:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/13/miss.killings/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56513-2005Jan7.html
http://www.truthnews.net/daily/2006060108.htm
http://www.wjtv.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WJTV/MGArticle/JTV_BasicArticle&amp;c=MGArticle&cid=1031783088741&path=

Just a disclaimer: I don't mean to suggest that even if retribution should play a major factor in all punishments that it allows for the sanction of the death penalty. I oppose the death penalty in most cases and do so for other reasons, as I indicate in the discussion on the little green blog.

Debt Relief

2005-06-11T21:44:00.000-04:00

Today the world's largest governments took the unprecedented step of relieving up to $55 billion dollars of debt to some of the world's poorest countries (The countries are Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia). These countries will immediately have all of their foreign debt cancelled and instead of using the money that they would have used for debt servicing instead for domestic programs.

This comes on the heels of Bush's pledge of nearly $700 million dollars in aid for Africa.

These two acts show that the worlds larger powers are willing to work with nations to create a better economy and better living conditions for those who are living in poverty.

Let us hope that these nations use this unprecedented act of kindness in a way that truly helps their countries. Let us hope that the nations do not revert to the policies that provoked the original borrowing and that they institute safe and sane economic policies that will lead to a better standard of living, and that they do not revert to the policies that led them to be in the predicament that they found themselves in.

For all those who have a negative view of the worlds leading countries this should show you that they are committed to help those who are willing to adopt policies that produce viable economies and a better country. For those who accept corruption and deceit of foreign investors this should be a sign that they too could be in line to have their debt relieved, but only if they abandon the paths they have taken previously.

When words are meant to mislead

2005-06-09T17:54:00.001-04:00

Words. They are fire no bullets, carry no knife, secret no toxin, yet are can be the most dangerous weapon known to man. Inuendos, half-truths, ficticious rumors and general here-say. All of these have brought down many a powerful person over time, and one would expect people with a level of intellect to realize this, and avoid falling into the trap of using them to damage the reputation of others.

Word of mouth is a vicious disease that is rampant. Did you hear what he said? DId you know that he is this, or that? Well, I can tell you that Ive heard he has done this! All used to portray a person, group or even nation in a negative light, creating false impression, false images, false reputations.

Alas, Columbia is not devoid of this disease. There are those on campus who would spread the disease throughout the campus in order to create a false impression of someone, something. The problem with this disease si that there is scant little one can do to combat it.There is very little that one can do after the foundation is laid.

Hater!
Bigot!
Racist!
Why do you have the Poor?
Why do you hate Children?

Nary a conservative or Republican on campus has not had these epithats shouted at him/her, or been accused of the bottom two claims. People whom we have never met before levy charges that can never be defended because they are muttered underneath ones breath, or in whispers from one "friend" to another.Yet, the person who is defaced can never have the chance to clear their name. Thats what so bad about inuendo. you are guilty until proven innocent, yet you never have your day in court.

If we had our day people would see that:

Just because you do not agree with Gay marraige by no means signifies that you hate gay people. Most of us would support Civil unions that give gay couples who chose to lead their lives a certain way all the rights and benefits afforded to every other american.

They will see that just because you dont support affirmative action because you see the harm it does on the other side of the equation, does not make you a bigot. It means exactly what is said above. That there are two sides to the story.

That just because you dont support abortion doenst mean that you dont defend womens rights. A position on abortion takes into account many many issues, many factors, and most people spend a lot of time formulating their opinion based on the facts.

Unforutnately many people dont take the time to see that, and guess what...People make this kind of judgement about others here at Columbia!! NEWSFLASH!! or is it really a newsflash.

The College Democrats used a carefully crafted plan filled with inuendo and insinuation to smear Republicans this past Spring. It was one which went completely unnoticed by the Spectator, the adminstation or any other governing body, but honestly, could we have expected anything else.

Posters littered halls of the campus with barely veiled accusations of bigotry, racism and other hateful claims, which ironically, if made by a Conservative or Republican on campus would have been met with swift action by the adminstration, the Spectator, and various groups on campus. Its very simliar to the situation with the Quran that we see in the media. A couple of isolated instances of some random acts perprated against the book and the left becomes up in arms. Should it have happened to a Bible the world would have looked the other way and the left would have applauded.

Its fortunate that many people other than the "intellectual elite" visit Columbia's hallways during the school year. For if they had they would have gathered that the College Republicans and conservatives on campus were nothing more than a bunch of bigots, racists and poor hating, child beating religious zealots, kind of like the ones that cowardly crashed planes into the Twin Towers killing innocent people because of a difference of opinion on religion.

The question is can we really blame the College Democrats for choosing this tactic. Lets take a look at their leader. Howard Dean has admited that he hates, yes HATES Republicans. Has made the racist comment that the Republican Party is a White Christian party...(obviously he has failed to look at the hiring record of this adminstration, which is the best in the history of this illustrious nation). Calls the President names that would be grounds for offense to anyone, yet goes about unfettered and unchecked.

I think that before the College Democrats launch into a simliar campaign this fall they should take the time to get to know us first before embarking on such a program. I think that they would be surprised to see that we offer concrete reasoning for positions that we take, and while they may differ with what they believe, that is neither a crime, nor a reason to label someone with names which are unfounded and hurtful.

I, for one, dont think that it was fully the College Democrats intention to do this, whereas with Dean I do, I think that they just need to get to know us a bit better and they will see that our differences are in opinions,not in the way we care for people.

When words are meant to mislead

2005-06-09T17:54:00.000-04:00

I think that everyone should go read this article about a German TV show which claims that the Bush adminstration actually planned the cowardly 9/11 attacks perpetrated by spineless, sniveling cowardly fanatics. It goes without saying that little wonder why educated people are concerned about our relations with Europe. To date the German government has not come out to condemn this show which aired on GERMAN PUBLIC TV, paid for by tax dollars there. In fact the only one in the government to denounce it is a Green Party member, which in itself shows how horrible this show and the claims that it made are.

Americans should be very wary about the trust we give our European brethren at this point. They seem to think it is American who must earn back a level of faith, when in fact it is the other way around.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050608-095942-4588r.htm

The Myth that the Tax Burden Favors the Rich

2005-06-08T13:16:00.000-04:00

Virginia at the Dems blog explains how she believes Bush's tax cuts and the progressive tax system in the US actually favor the rich.

Marco and I explain why that's wrong on the Libertarian blog.

I·RO·NY Pronunciation Key (r-n, r-)

2005-06-07T09:49:00.000-04:00

Bush's one D in college was in astronomy, slightly dissapointing to me, but at least he left his history and political science classes unscathed. In fact he did best in history, philosophy! and anthropology!

For Senator Kerry the picture turns out to a be a little more gloomy: College Grades
The Grades are reminiscent, though probably a little worse than, Al Gore's Grades

Perhaps the best thing that this can tell us, considering that three of the more brilliant/successful
current American politicians weren't necessarily stars in the classroom, is that the intellectually elitist practice of looking down and characterizing those who didn't go to college, or maybe don't have the highest grades, or maybe don't have the same mannerisms or use the standard 'intellectual' rhetoric and presentation as "stupid" is a practice best reserved for those bourgeois snobs who really don't have a connect to the real world.

Then again, maybe it doesn't take much to become a successful politician.

update:
Some folks are having real fun with this.

The most important thing you've seen today.

2005-06-06T19:27:00.000-04:00

The Raich decision came down and I'm too tired from work to post about it, in the meanwhile here's some brilliance:

Brilliance

Friends at a cocktail party...

2005-06-04T17:13:00.000-04:00

The recent case of Schapelle Corby and her sentence of 20 years in prison from an Indonesian court for possession and transit of almost 10 lbs of marijuana has sparked quite a bit of outrage from the Australian community and those generally interested in drug reform. Corby could have received life in prison (possibly even the death penalty) for the transit charge and up to 10 years for possession, a far cry from the say 15 and 7 year penalties max she would have been up for in New York. In fact, the prosecution in the case has made it clear that they will seek a life sentence in an appeal. This probably seems ridiculous to many Americans, and it seems most Americans probably think that the penalty is excessive in the same way that the Michael Fay caning in Singapore was viewed.

However, that isn't the full extent of punishments or laws in other countries which Americans may view with some skepticism or in some cases repulsion. Just a few examples of law which would seem unusual to us which are used in foreign countries include:

Floggings and prison sentences for those convicted of 'gay conduct' in Saudi Arabia.

Death by stoning as punishment for adultery in Pakistan.

Giving doctors the authority to end a child's life (for children upto the age of 12) if they think a child is suffering unbearably or if the child suffers from a terminal condition under the experimental implementation of the Groningen Protocol in the Netherlands.

A South Korea conscription law which rules men with large tattoos unfit for the military because they cause "abomination among fellow soldiers."

Laws allowing euthanasia of those suffering from schizophrenia or other 'mental illnesses' such as depression in Switzerland and Belgium.

In a roundabout manner, these laws and these cases have a very significant possible impact on US Law and interpretation of law or at least the discourse relating to it. Earlier this year, Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Breyer held an enlightening debate at American University on the "CONSTITUTIONAL RELEVANCE OF FOREIGN COURT DECISIONS." Besides undisputedly confirming the fact that both are brilliant jurists, the points brought up regarding citing foreign law (not necessarily just perusing the jurisprudence and using it for ideas) have significant possible effects in future decisions. As shown by the previous citations, foreign laws will seem to have very little relevance to American society and American law in some cases if the standard of measure is simply trying to identify world opinion versus American opinion.

Consequently, regardless of one's jurisprudence there should be a general agreement that foreign law should only play a major role when interpreting treaties or somewhat directly dealing with foreign law, and should be quietly put to the side when concerning questions which involved solely American society. The general assumption is that when judges do look to cite foreign law, they will have to take into account the context of what they're citing and ensure that they are truly portraying an accurate sample of the world. Otherwise, selectively choosing decisions and countries you agree with is disingenuous and stinks of elitism. Why for instance is Europe any better of a gauge than Asia or South America? It's unlikely that Justice Souter or Ginsberg will be citing some type of legal perspective from the Iatmul people as opposed to say the French, but its disingenuous to say then that one should have more credibility because we are 'closer' to the people than others who may be from Papua New Guinea. If that was the case, then we should be content to look to ourselves and not foreign law.

All of this also hinges on the belief that there is some type of temporal connection as well. This use of foreign law also assumes that there is some type of progression and a concurrent progression in the development of the jurisprudence of foreign nations. Try to sell that point about those Pakistani and Saudi Arabian laws to women and gays. I think in general, that selective use of international opinions (where judges ignore ones such as those listed above) and inability to contextualize or talk about why these decisions are important or even relevant then begs the question, why may citations of international law ever be useful? Justice Breyer did an excellent job in reply to the question when he said:

Well, it's relevant in the sense that you have a person who's a judge, who has similar training, who's trying to, let's say, apply a similar document, something like cruel and unusual or -- there are different words, but they come to roughly the same thing -- who has a society that's somewhat structured like ours. And really, it isn't true that England is the moon, nor is India. I mean, there are human beings there just as there are here and there are differences and similarities. And so one is not trying to figure out the meaning, really, of the words "cruel and unusual punishment," one is trying to deal with their application.

The criticism is you'll look over the party, the cocktail party -- remember Judge Leventhal said this about legislative history: Those who use legislative history, well it's like looking at a cocktail party, you look over the cocktail party to identify your friends.

Now Justice Scalia touches upon the response to this logic, and I think it's important to recognize that this fits almost precisely into the current narrative of Americans who have a distrust of the courts and who believe they are making law or are taking away their power to be decision makers. The problem here, and Breyer partially even mentions it, is the elitist echo chamber which this then would create. Taking Justice Breyer's argument, it makes sense in some ways that he would want to gain the perspective of like minded people in order to consider some of the applications of certain clauses. When Breyer tries to differentiate meaning and application however, the problem becomes obvious. If you're basing some of how a particular clause should be applied upon the views of people from outside of your country, aren't you in a sense convoluting the meaning itself because it is not completely derived from the American populace? Subsequently, are you looking for the American application or the world application, and if the latter, don't you run into the same problems mentioned in the prior paragraph? What use is the understanding of the foreign perspective if it leads you back to the problems at square one?

This in itself also ignores the obvious belief which Scalia asks judges, law professors, lawyers and
law students about:

Do you think you're representative of American society? Do you not realize you are a small cream at the top, and that your views on innumerable things are not the views of America at large? And doesn't it seem somewhat arrogant for you to say, I can make up what the moral values of America should be on all sorts of issues, such as penology, the death penalty, abortion, whatever?

This elitist view of a small cabal of 'intellectuals' who then purport to be the final answers on issues which should be democratic ones and who cite each other continuously and happily understandably then will meet resistance from some citizens, as we've seen here in the US. Looking at how one of your own kind in another country, who has gone through nearly the same regimented manner of thinking as oneself, isn't really a search for a valid new perspective on application of a law in that case, but is rather a process of compunding what is already a self-laudatory means of actually influencing meaning under the guise of application.

It's understandable then, if one wants to reaffirm certain convictions on the application of certain law, to look and even consider foreign law. The problem with citing foreign law in cases which are not uniquely disposed towards such involvement however, is that there are a number of characteristics which not only bring into question its relevance, accuracy and conclusiveness, but which actually also go to the heart of the role of the judiciary. Is the judiciary to interpret the contitution for what its says, or is it supposed to look at its wants in the mosaic of 'world opinon' and dictate how the constitution, its application and the country change with them?

Good Luck Mark!

2005-06-04T14:22:00.000-04:00

Good luck to Mark who'll be head off for OCS soon.

He has quite a summer ahead of him, but it's good to know that people like Mark are the future of the marines.

We'll be holding a spot for him here at the blog until then.

I'll also get my level of posting back up, as I've had quite a load of stuff to do at work lately.

What goes around comes around...

2005-06-04T14:15:00.000-04:00

So, while Democrats attack Tom DeLay for accepting campaign funds from Indian tribes, below is a great article showing how Democrats benefited from the same operation. In fact, "Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November."

In response to these connections, the best line the article shows is Reid's spokesman's defense of these connections: "'There's nothing sinister here,' Manley said. Reid is a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee with strong relations with Indian tribes, he explained." But, since Reid was in charge of legislation affecting these groups, shouldn't it have been MORE important that he refrain from accepting political favors from them? Apparently, having good relations means accepting kickbacks for legislative favors.

Democrats started this fight, and I hope they pursue it to their own finances as well. Clearly, they won't. But at least the Washington Post, that bastian of Conservative thought, will help them pursue those leads in public.

-----------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158_pf.html

Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations
Abramoff Issue's Fallout May Extend Beyond the GOP

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Derek Willis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 3, 2005; A01

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate famously collected $82 million in lobbying and public relations fees from six Indian tribes and devoted a lot of their time to trying to persuade Republican lawmakers to act on their clients' behalf.

But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.

Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November.

Democrats are hoping to gain political advantage from federal and Senate investigations of Abramoff's activities and from the embattled lobbyist's former ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). Yet, many Democratic lawmakers also benefited from Abramoff's political operation, a fact that could hinder the Democrats' efforts to turn the lobbyist's troubles into a winning partisan issue.

"It wouldn't surprise me to see the Abramoff controversy impact both parties," said Tony Raymond, co-founder of PoliticalMoneyLine.com, which gathers lobbying and campaign finance information.

Democratic lawmakers who responded to inquiries for this article said that any money they received from the tribes had nothing to do with Abramoff. They were quick to say they did not know the man.

Federal investigators are examining the millions of dollars in lobbying and public relations fees that Abramoff received from the tribes. They are also looking into his dealings with members of Congress and their staffs, lawyers involved in the inquiry said.

Most lobbying firms here are bipartisan, to give their clients access to key lawmakers of both major parties. Abramoff's group was no exception. Although he was recognized as a Republican lobbyist who was close to DeLay and other party leaders, Abramoff was careful to add at least two Democratic lobbyists to his group during his five years at Greenberg Traurig. By the end, seven of his lobbyists were Democrats.

"Lobbying shops typically direct contributions to both parties because they want contacts on both sides of the aisle," said David M. Hart, a professor of public policy at George Mason University. "Lawmakers in the minority can also have a lot of clout."

According to documents and tribal officials familiar with the Abramoff team's methods, the lobbyists devised lengthy lists of lawmakers to whom the tribes should donate and then delivered the lists to the tribes. The tribes, in turn, wrote checks to the recommended campaign committees and in the amounts the lobbyists prescribed. The money went to incumbents or selected candidates in open seats.

Because of the makeup of his team and the composition of Congress, the Abramoff lobbyists channeled most of their clients' giving to GOP legislators, according to a review of public records. Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), chairman of an Appropriations subcommittee that frequently deals with Indian matters, received the largest amount from the tribes as well as from the Greenberg Traurig lobbyists who helped direct those donations: $141,590 from 1999 to 2004, the study showed.

But Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) ran second, with $128,000 in the same period. From 1999 to 2001, Kennedy chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which solicited campaign donations for House candidates.

The Indians' largess flowed to higher-ranking Democrats as well. Senate Democratic leaders Reid and Daschle each received more than $40,000 from the tribes and from lobbyists on Abramoff's team during the period. Gephardt got $32,500.

Of the 18 largest recipients of tribe contributions directed by Abramoff's group, six, or one-third, were Democrats. These included Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), who chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 2001 to 2002, and Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.), a leader in Indian affairs legislation.

Over that period, while Abramoff and his lobbyists directed nearly $4 million in funds from the tribes to lawmakers, they also gave from their own pockets. Two-thirds of the total went to Republicans and one-third was handed out to Democrats, according to The Post's calculations.
The six wealthiest tribes that had hired Abramoff's group were the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana and the Tigua Indian Reservation.

Greenberg Traurig declined to comment. An Abramoff spokesman said: "Each tribe has its own protocol for approving political contributions made by the tribe. Mr. Abramoff and his team provided recommendations on where a tribe should spend its political dollars, but ultimately the tribal council made the final decision on what political contributions to make."

Democratic lawmakers sought to distance themselves from Abramoff.

A spokesman for Kennedy said the congressman's donations from the tribes "have nothing to do with Abramoff." Kennedy traces the money's genesis to his family's long-standing commitment to Indian causes, to the fact that he co-founded the Congressional Native American Caucus in 1997, and to his personal relationship with Mississippi Choctaw Chief Philip Martin, whom Kennedy met in 1999 on a fundraising trip for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "They just became close friends," said Kennedy spokesman Sean Richardson.
James Patrick Manley, Reid's spokesman, also asserted that Reid's connection to tribes was remote from Abramoff. He said that Reid does not know Abramoff. But Abramoff did hire as one of his lobbyists Edward P. Ayoob, a veteran Reid legislative aide. Manley acknowledged that Ayoob helped raise campaign money for his former boss. Lawyers close to the Abramoff operation said that Ayoob held a fundraising reception for Reid at Greenberg Traurig's offices here.

"There's nothing sinister here," Manley said. Reid is a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee with strong relations with Indian tribes, he explained.

Daschle was familiar with another of Abramoff's Democratic lobbyists, Michael Smith. According to Steve Hildebrand, who was Daschle's campaign manager last year, Smith "helped with a lot of Democratic campaigns." In addition, Daschle was a favorite of Indian tribes and received donations from 64, including five Abramoff clients. "We took about $150,000 in this last election cycle from Indian tribes around the country," Hildebrand said. "Tom is viewed as a champion of Indian issues. We have nine tribes in South Dakota, and they worked hard for him."
Murray also was said to have never laid eyes on Abramoff. "Our office has not had any contact with Jack Abramoff," said the senator's spokeswoman, Alex Glass. "She's been active in Indian health care and in supporting their sovereign governments; that is why they decided to contribute to her. They see her as an advocate."

During the time Murray chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Abramoff's major tribes were significant contributors. Election reports show that the grand total from the tribes to that committee in 2001-2002 reached $175,500.

In March 2001, Dorgan held a fundraising event during a hockey game in a skybox leased by an Abramoff company at MCI Center. But the senator said he believed that the box was controlled by Greenberg Traurig. The event was organized by Smith, the Democratic fundraiser, he added.

"I was unaware that Abramoff was involved," Dorgan said.

Lt. Ilario Pantano Resigns His commission

2005-06-03T20:54:00.000-04:00

http://euphoria.jarkolicious.com/journal/2005/06/03/448/
The Lt.'s comments to his supporters:

The support of your network has been tremendous and I hope you can help me express how much I still love the Corps to your vast readership. Leading Marines in battle has been the pinnacle of my professional life. There are so many things about being a Marine that I will miss now that I have submitted my resignation, but my priority must be taking care of my family after what can only be described as ‘one hell of a year’.

Molon Labe
Ilario Pantano

And to Congressman Jones, his staunchest supporter in the House:

Congressman Jones, You once shared a verse with me:

Greater love hath no man - than to lay down his life for his friends.

That spirit of sacrifice defines the soldier and Marine. And it defines you sir. You know in your heart and your soul what is right and you are willing to fight for it. Even if it is at great risk to you and your career.

As my family and I faced our darkest hours you fought for us, and in doing so…You fought for every man and woman in the uniform, past present and future - not because of the opportunity to challenge the military, but for the opportunity to protect it from itself.

Day and night you appealed to any that would listen. You were tireless in your defense of me, and for that I will be eternally grateful.

My family and I want to thank you for your courage and your leadership.

First, I present to you my innocence, known to you and many many others from the outset, but proven finally by our justice system after a yearlong investigation and prosecution.

Congressman Jones, You weren’t just brave to defend me. You were RIGHT.

And finally, from one warrior to another, I present to you my most cherished possession: my sword. My love of corps and country will never be broken or diminished, but now it is my love of family that I must honor most with my decision to resign.

I have taken up arms for my country and my corps in two wars and it has been my privilege to serve beside real heroes- some of whom are here today.

Even as I step aside it is my greatest hope that young men and women continue to follow in the footsteps of those who have gone before… To push themselves…To rise to the challenge of becoming Marines. Our country needs you and we will always be grateful to you.

The Marine Officer’s sword represents the highest ideals of military excellence and professionally, one of my greatest achievements.

Honor, courage and commitment are principles by which we Marines LIVE AND DIE.

You, Congressman Jones, through your actions, have demonstrated that you live by those principles as well.

And I, for one am grateful that you do.
Thank you Sir, may god bless you and your family and may God Bless America.

The Lieutenant is a hero of mine, for having cast aside his posh yuppie life to serve his country. He was a credit to the Corps and the country, and was a fine officer by all accounts. His presence will be missed in the Corps.

My Brain is Hanging Upside Down

2005-05-31T19:50:00.000-04:00

A couple reminders that the Ivy League is only a Sports Conference and should have no assumptions made about its academic rigor (that's not to say lack of logic isn't a problem which plagues other campuses around the country):

Post #1

The premise: A local legislator took money from lobbyists that he failed to declare. Therefore he should have his election victory voided. This also proves republicans are corrupt (see: Tom Delay) and evil and Howard Dean is vindicated regarding statements he made about them.

Just several problems my friend, something about glass houses and stones and whatnot. Perhaps the democrats are as big hypocrites and as evil as the republicans. As for Howard Dean's credibility, lets put it to a questionnaire of all the dem national congressman who took more from lobbyists than rep. Chandler:

Raymond Green, Joseph Biden, Shelley Berkley, Mike Thompson
Robert Wexler, Howard Berman, Stephanie Tubbs, Barbara Lee
former Sen. John Breaux, Donald Payne, Danny Davis, Earl Blumenauer
Evan Bayh, Edward Pastor, Sander Levin, David Obey
James Clyburn, Lloyd Daggett, Melvin Watt, Norm Dicks
Calvin Dooley, Henry Waxman, Tom Lantos, Bob Graham
Maxine Waters, David Price, Jesse Jackson Jr., Tom Udall
Greg Meeks, Paul Sarbanes, Sharrod Brown, Barbara Boxer
Maurice Hinchey, Soloman Ortiz, Thomas Allen, Barney Frank
James McDermott, Joseph Crowley, Eni Faleomavaega, Nick Rahall
George Miller, Rush Holt, Eliot Engel

Post #2
The Premise: Recently, a NAVY SEAL was acquitted by a military tribunal of charges of beating an Iraqi prisoner to death. The trial was held before a group of his military peers and because he's an American soldier at least somewhat related to a case of prisoner abuse, he must be guilty. The fact that he was found not guilty is indicative of larger problems with the military judicial systems, not as a result of his actual innocence, because the Boston Globe and other groups which would love to see Americans as evil have already proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The author claims this post reminds him of every military tribunal which he has heard of in the last 4 years.

This one is ridiculous. First, I would like to know what military tribunals he's referring to from May 31st of 2001 to the end of that year. More seriously though, he must not have heard of many military tribunals as they sure do punish those who commit these injustices. Then again, I wonder, if Howard Dean can accept that Osama Bin Laden may be innocent, why does this poster have such a disdain for American soldiers that every time one of them is found not to have committed an injustice they are accused of, the trial must have been bogus? Heck, what's the point of innocent before proven guilty then? This is the reason why some people question the patriotism of a small minority of those (not the vast majority of good, country loving [who generally seek to improve by criticism] democrats and leftists) who seem to take glee in possible instances of American injustice.

Finally, Post #3 and Post #4

What is up w/these folks and memorial's day? The country, including a heck of a lot of patriotic democrats, give veterans and soldiers who performed great sacrifices for this nation a day where they can honor their valor, bravery and true definition of American spirit. Why can't posters relegate one post, heck even one word in a post (preferably "Thanks") to these people who are protecting your right to chatter incessantly? Is it really that impossible to make a memorial's day reference without trying to attack political opponents? It's brilliant when a post accusing the opposition of capitalising on memorial's day BEGINS with an attack on the President, who is thanking the soldiers and then ends by scolding the nation over a war which the poster obviously is the best arbiter of. Similiarly, posts which talk about Memorial's day and fail to even MENTION or THANK those who have sacrified so much for us in a manner which isn't making a mockery of a political opponent are abominable. Then again, the poster in Post #4 did get to make fun of Tom Delay. Hahahaha, he's corrupt (see post 1), he was ripped on Law and Order and he screws the American Soldier. Note to these folks, don't ever expect me or others to defend you (like I would do for so many other democrats, including some honest and noble ones on your own blog) when somebody attacks your patriotism or love of your country.

Yet another reason to be a Republican

2005-05-31T18:57:00.000-04:00

Forgive me. The ladies can post that pic of Cheney. You know which one I'm talking about.

Micheal Carlson Part 2

2005-05-30T19:53:00.000-04:00

Here's a full copy of "Mike's Credo," one of the most inspiring things I've read in a while. This embodies what those who are being on honored on Memorial's Day served for.

Reprinted from the Minn. Star Tribune...I had to post the entire thing because it has a subscription:

“Mike’s Credo”

Michael Carlson

I was born in Wisconsin. We lived in a town called Webster, on a road called Lavern Lane. Since then many things have changed, but many more remain the same.

We no longer live in the country; we only go to church once or twice a year, and we no longer struggle to make ends meet. Today we live in the city, but we still have a junkyard, and my dad still works 16 hours a day, every day. Today I am a man, not a 7-year-old child. There are still cars everywhere; we own over 90. About 20 of them still run and 12 of those we store in the city. No, we don't have a parking lot. What we do is borrow our neighbors' unused stalls for fixing their cars and doing other little things for them.

I admire my father more than any other person on this planet, not for being a mechanic or a tough guy but for his ambition. For 30 years, he has gone to work every day, come home, gone to the garage and worked more hours. I don't know how he does it but I do know why. He does it for us. He wants my brother and me to have everything we need and most of what we want. Lots of people say that the best way to learn is by the example of others. Well, then I have one of the best teachers on how to be a man [and] how to treat others. I mean, he is not perfect by any means, but is anyone really perfect? I think that he is pretty close.

Sometimes I wonder if my dad ever thought of college. I wonder if he is happy. I sometimes even feel sorry for him. What I mean by that is that I look at him and I see a guy who has spent his entire life working. That is what he does. He works. If my mom never brought up the idea of a vacation, he would never think [about taking one]. He would work to the day he died. I love hard work, but how do you go to the same dead-end job every day knowing that you will be doing it forever?

Every now and then, someone who had my dad fix his car will stop by and need something, and every time I talk to them they always start talking about my dad's work. They compliment him on paint jobs he did 20 years ago that still look like they are brand new. That reminds me of another trait I have taken from my dad, besides my hard work ethic. "If you are going to do a job, do it right the first time, because a job not done well is a job not worth doing," so the saying goes. I take that personally. If someone has an honest complaint about my workmanship, I will bend over backwards to make it right. If people are going to pay you good money to do something, you had better do a darn good job. That is why I usually work alone. Then, if there is a problem, I know whom I can blame.

My dad hasn't taught me everything, though. A lot of it I have learned on my own. I've still got a lot to learn, but I have figured out things like how to deal with people I don't like and those who don't like me. I've also learned why, when cutting a frozen bagel, you cut away from yourself. I have the scar to prove it. My dad calls this type of learning "the school of hard knocks." Some of the knocks are harder than others.

I love sports. I love football, wrestling, weight-lifting, skiing and hockey. I love the thrill of competition, the roar of the crowds, the agony on the faces of your opponents as the final seconds tick off the clock. However, I don't want to do it as a profession. I think it would be fun for a little while, then it would get boring. I guess the point that I am trying to make is that when I am on my deathbed, what am I going to look back on? Will it be 30 years of playing a game that in reality means nothing, or will it be 30 years of fighting crime and protecting the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic?

I want my life to account for something more than just a game. In life, there are no "winners" -- everyone eventually loses his life. I only have so much time; I can't waste it with a game. I want to be good at life. I want to be known as the best of the best at my job. I want people to need me, to count on me. I am never late; I am either on time or early. I want to help people. I want to fight for something, be part of something that is greater than myself. I want to be a soldier or something of that caliber, maybe a cop or a secret service agent.

I want to live forever. But the only way that one could possibly achieve it in this day and age is to live on in those you have affected. I want to carve out a niche for myself in the history books. I want to be remembered for the things I accomplished. I sometimes dream of being a soldier in a war. In this war I am helping to liberate people from oppression. In the end, maybe there is a big parade and a monument built to immortalize us in stone. Other times I envision being a man you see out of the corner of your eye, dressed in black fatigues, entering a building full of terrorists. After everything is completed, I slip out the back only to repeat this the next time I am called. I might not be remembered in that scenario, but I will have helped people.

I guess what I want most of all is to be a part of the real world, not an entertainer. I want to have an essential role in the big picture. I want adventure, challenge, danger, and most of all I don't want to be behind a counter or desk. Maybe when I am 100 years old, I will slow down and relax. Until then, I have better things to do.

Memorial Day

2005-05-30T19:41:00.000-04:00

In Remembrance

Help support the troops at

America Supports You

Michael Carlson

2005-05-29T15:31:00.000-04:00

I was originally going to post about international law, but I came across this and though that it has to be posted.

Just a reminder of some of the incredible human beings who are serving in the military abroad.

I know that at least two of my co-bloggers will be serving in the armed forces, and I know the others including myself are contemplating doing the same, and I think this should serve as a reminder that for every Lyddie England or other folks we see in the media there are ten folks like Michael Carlson.

Thanks to Powerline

Another post about Michael Carlson

Thanks to Michelle Malkin.

Disgusting.

2005-05-28T17:47:00.000-04:00

Here's a particularily vile post which reveals how out of touch some people are with reality.

George's post belittles and makes fun of Sen. Santorum after finding out that Santorum and his wife slept next to their stillborn child and took the child home to meet the rest of the family before the baby was sent to the morgue.

Maybe George's right though. The "culture of life" that republican's seem to support so much is so disgusting to him that he and others must be repulsed by a family believing there is still a spiritual connection between another family member who passed away and by the obvious displays of love that the family still wished to give out to the passed away infant. In fact, Senator Santorum has no excuse for showing some type of moral connection, sentiment or affection for that clump of cells.

This absolute intolerance of the different types of spirituality of others and the quickness to label one as "crazy" over what was obviously a very sorrowful period certainly tells others about one's true character and tolerance. The ridicule of loving sentiments shown by parents grieving over a lost one is perfectly fine to somebody like George, as is hailing as a messiah politicians like Sen. Obama who repeatedly failed to protect the most fragile children when he repeatedly opposed Infant Protection Born Alive Acts. With that in mind, I'm reminded why I have so much trouble sometimes when folks who are left of center try to honestly tell me (and some of them are in fact in earnest) that they also support a "culture of life."

Homeland Security: Giving Schumer & Steve Israel Their Due

2005-05-28T16:08:00.000-04:00

We may be inching a step closer to having all of out commercial airliners able to defend themselves against missile attack, and its a good thing at that. As the New York Times reports today (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/national/29missiles.html?hp&ex=1117339200&en=be0104f77fcd1777&ei=5094&partner=homepage), the Department of Homeland Security will now be testing the devices on three aircraft. Both Northrop Grumman and Boeing have been developing competing models for these systems, and they seem to be making good progress. Most surprising for me, though, was that the push through Congress to get these devices installed has been led by, among others, Senator Schumer (D-NY) and Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY). Well, Congressman Israel is no surprise -- he's my local Congressman and I've voted for him twice because of his positions on National Security among other things. As far as Schumer, though, I must say I'm pleasantly surprised.

I'm often incredibly cynical of Democrats Schumer, but I think its important to point out also when they do well. Here, he has.

"The Gulag of Our Times," Or, How Amnesty International Perverts the History of Human Rights Part I

2005-05-26T04:01:00.000-04:00

Amnesty International has recently "labeled the United States detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, where more than 500 prisoners from about 40 countries are being held, as 'the gulag of our times'" as the NY Times reports below. As the NY Times continues later on, "The focus on what Dr. Schulz called "the failure of global leadership" was a shift from times when Amnesty International concentrated on issues like the death penalty, which it opposes, in countries like China, and the plight of refugees."

Its sort of ironic that the NY Times points this out, especially when combined with a recent article published by the NY Times on May 9 entitled "Issue in China: Many in Jails Without Trial." As the piece's abstract reads, "China is being pressured to abolish or change its vast system of re-education camps that operate outside court system; estimated 300,000 prostitutes, drug users, petty criminals, members of Falun Gong and other political prisoners have been stripped of any legal rights and locked inside vast penal system that is separate from judicial system; system, relic of Mao era, is major tool Communist Party uses to maintain hold on power and social order; it allows police to sweep up masses of people without time and complications of court trials" (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30811FD39540C7A8CDDAC0894DD404482&incamp=archive:search ). Now where is the Gulag of our times again?

There is nothing more damaging to international human rights standards than ignoring such abuses in China and labeling Guantanamo Bay as the Gulag of our times. Such language merely cheapens the entire meaning and history of terms like gulags, and are a slap in the face and insult to the victims of both the Soviet gulags of the past and, more importantly, the Chinese prisoners suffering in the present. Amnesty International should be ashamed of itself.

------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/26/international/europe/26amnesty.html

NY Times, May 26, 2005
U.S. 'Thumbs Its Nose' at Rights, Amnesty Says
By ALAN COWELL

LONDON, May 25 - In coordinated broadsides from London and Washington, Amnesty International accused the Bush administration on Wednesday of condoning "atrocious" human rights violations, thereby diminishing its moral authority and setting a global example encouraging abuse by other nations.

In a string of accusations introducing the organization's annual report in London, Irene Khan, Amnesty's secretary general, listed the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the so-called rendition of prisoners to countries known to practice torture as evidence that the United States "thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights."

Defending its human rights record as "leading the way," the White House dismissed the accusations as ridiculous and unfounded.

Ms. Khan labeled the United States detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, where more than 500 prisoners from about 40 countries are being held, as "the gulag of our times."
In Washington, William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, urged President Bush to press for a full investigation of what he called the "atrocious human rights violations at Abu Ghraib and other detention centers."

"When the U.S. government calls upon foreign leaders to bring to justice those who commit or authorize human rights violations in their own countries, why should those foreign leaders listen?" Dr. Schulz said. "And if the U.S. government does not abide by the same standards of justice, what shred of moral authority will we retain to pressure other governments to diminish abuses?

"It's far past time for President Bush to prove that he is not covering up the misdeeds of senior officials and political cronies who designed and authorized these nefarious interrogation policies," he said. "So Congress must appoint a truly impartial and independent commission to investigate the masterminds of the atrocious human rights violations at Abu Ghraib and other detention centers, and President Bush should use the power of his office to press Congress to do so."

In response, Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said: "I think the allegations are ridiculous, and unsupported by the facts. The United States is leading the way when it comes to protecting human rights and promoting human dignity. We have liberated 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have worked to advance freedom and democracy in the world so that people are governed under a rule of law, that there are protections in place for minority rights, that women's rights are advanced so that women can fully participate in societies where now they cannot."

"We've also - are leading the way when it comes to spreading compassion," Mr. McClellan said. "The United States leads the way when it comes to providing resources to combat the scourge of AIDS." Amnesty's language was among the strongest it has used and represented a sense in human rights groups that the treatment by the United States of prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantánamo Bay had diminished its standing.

"It's not because the United States is the worst human rights abuser in the world but because it's the most influential," said Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, via phone from New York. "United States disregard for international human rights standards is damaging those standards," he said, referring to some governments with poor human rights records "citing the U.S. record to justify their own."

In a separate telephone interview, Dr. Schulz of Amnesty International USA acknowledged his organization had used "strong language" because it felt that "the United States has betrayed a very fundamental principle that this country stands for."

The focus on what Dr. Schulz called "the failure of global leadership" was a shift from times when Amnesty International concentrated on issues like the death penalty, which it opposes, in countries like China, and the plight of refugees.

Chris' Favorite Speeches: #1

2005-05-26T00:19:00.000-04:00

Charlton Heston's
"Winning The Cultural War"
Harvard Law School Forum
February 16, 1999

I remember my son when he was five, explaining to his kindergarten class what his father did for a living. "My Daddy," he said, "pretends to be people."

There have been quite a few of them. Prophets from the Old and New Testaments, a couple of Christian saints, generals of various nationalities and different centuries, several kings, three American presidents, a French cardinal and two geniuses, including Michelangelo. If you want the ceiling re-painted I'll do my best. There always seem to be a lot of different fellows up here. I'm never sure which one of them gets to talk. Right now, I guess I'm the guy.

As I pondered our visit tonight it struck me: If my Creator gave me the gift to connect you with the hearts and minds of those great men, then I want to use that same gift now to re-connect you with your own sense of liberty ... your own freedom of thought ... your own compass for what is right.

Dedicating the memorial at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America, "We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure." Those words are true again. I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war that's about to hijack your birthright to think and say what lives in your heart. I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you ... the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is.

Let me back up a little. About a year ago I became president of the National Rifle Association, which protects the right to keep and bear arms of American citizens. I ran for office, I was elected, and now I serve ... I serve as a moving target for the media who've called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured, senile, crazy old man." I know ... I'm pretty old ... but I sure Lord ain't senile.

As I have stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I've realized that firearms are not the only issue. No…no… it's much, much bigger than that.

I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain affected thoughts and speech are mandated.

For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 – long before Hollywood found it fashionable I might say. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist.

I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life throughout my whole career. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.

I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.

Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution I am talking about, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.

From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind. You are using language not authorized for public consumption!"

But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys-subjects bound to the British crown.

In his book, "The End of Sanity," Martin Gross writes that "blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction. Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something without a name is undermining the nation, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don't like it."

Let me read you a few examples.

At Antioch college in Ohio, young men seeking intimacy with a coed must get verbal permission at each step of the process from kissing to petting to final - at last - copulation ... all clearly spelled out in a printed college directive.

In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients nationwide who had been infected by dentists who had concealed their AIDs --- the state commissioner announced that health providers who are HIV-positive need not... need not ... tell their patients that they are infected.

At William and Mary, students tried to change the name of the school team "The Tribe" because it was supposedly insulting the local Indians, only to learn that authentic Virginia chiefs really liked the name "The Tribe".

In San Francisco, city fathers passed an ordinance protecting the rights of transvestites to cross-dress on the job, and for transsexuals to have separate toilet facilities while undergoing sex change surgery.

In New York City, kids who don't speak a word of Spanish have been placed in bilingual classes to learn their three R's in Spanish solely because their own names sound Hispanic.

At the University of Pennsylvania, in a state where thousands died at Gettysburg opposing slavery, the president of that college officially set up segregated dormitory space for black students. Yeah, I know ... that's out of bounds now. Dr. King said "Negroes." Jimmy Baldwin and most of us on the March said "black." But it's a no-no now.

For me, hyphenated identities are awkward ... particularly "Native-American." I'm a Native American, for God's sake. I also happen to be a blood-initiated brother of the Miniconjou Sioux. On my wife's side, my grandson is a twelfth generation native American ... with a capital letter on "American."

Finally, just last month ... David Howard, head of the Washington D.C. Office of Public Advocate, used the word "niggardly" while talking to colleagues about budgetary matters. Of course, "niggardly" means stingy or scanty. But within days Howard was forced to publicly apologize and then resign.

As columnist Tony Snow wrote: "David Howard got fired because some people in public employ were morons who

didn't know the meaning of niggardly,
didn't know how to use a dictionary to discover the meaning, and
actually demanded that he apologize for their ignorance."

What does all of this mean? It means that telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what to say , so telling us what to do can't be far behind.

Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell me: Why did political correctness originate on America's campuses? And why do you continue to tolerate it? Why do you, who're supposed to debate ideas, surrender to their suppression?

Let's be honest. Who here thinks your professors can say what they really believe? Uh-huh…there’s a few…

Now that scares me to death, and should scare you too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason.

You are the best and the brightest. You! here in the fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River, you are the cream. But I submit that you, and your counterparts across the land, are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge. And as long as you validate that ... and abide it ... you are - by your grandfathers' standards - cowards.

Here's another example. Right now at more than one major university, Second Amendment scholars and researchers are being told to shut up about their findings or they'll lose their jobs. Why? Because their research findings would undermine big-city mayor's pending lawsuits that seek to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from firearm manufacturers.

Now I don't care what you think about guns. But if you are not shocked at that, I am shocked at you. Who will guard the raw material of unfettered ideas, if not you? Democracy is dialog! Who will defend the core value of academia, if you supposed soldiers of free thought and expression lay down your arms and plead, "Don't shoot me."

If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you sexist. If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion. If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe.

Don't let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism. That’s what it is: New McCarthyism.

But, what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation? The answer's been here all along. I learned it 36 years ago, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., standing with Dr. Martin Luther King and two hundred thousand people.

You simply ... disobey. Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely. But when told how to think or what to say or how to behave, we don't. We disobey social protocol that stifles and stigmatizes personal freedom.

I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr.King ... who learned it from Gandhi, and Thoreau, and Jesus, and every other great man who led those in the right against those with the might.

Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel innate kinship with that disobedient spirit that tossed tea into Boston Harbor, that sent Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit in the back of the bus, that protested a war in Viet Nam.

In that same spirit, I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and onerous law that weaken personal freedom. But be careful ... it hurts. Disobedience demands that you put yourself at risk. Dr. King stood on lots of balconies.

You must be willing to be humiliated ... to endure the modern-day equivalent of the police dogs at Montgomery and the water cannons at Selma. You must be willing to experience discomfort. Now I'm not complaining, but my own decades of social activism have left their mark on me.

Let me tell you a story.

A few years ago, I heard about a rapper named Ice-T who was selling a CD called "Cop Killer" celebrating ambushing and murdering police officers. It was being marketed by none other than Time/Warner, the biggest entertainment conglomerate in the counrty - in the world.

Police across the country were outraged. rightfully so - at least one had been murdered. But Time/Warner was stonewalling because the CD was a cash cow for them, and the media were tiptoeing around it because the rapper was black.

I heard Time/Warner had a stockholders meeting scheduled in Beverly Hills. I owned some shares of Time/Warner at the time, so I decided to attend. What I did there was against the advice of my family and colleagues I asked for the floor. To a hushed room of a thousand average American stockholders, I simply read the full lyrics of "Cop Killer" - every vicious, vulgar, instructional word.

"I GOT MY 12 GAUGE SAWED OFF
I GOT MY HEADLIGHTS TURNED OFF
I'M ABOUT TO BUST SOME SHOTS OFF
I'M ABOUT TO DUST SOME COPS OFF..."BR>

It got worse, a lot worse. I won't read the rest of it to you. But trust me, the room was a sea of shocked, frozen, blanched faces.

The Time/Warner executives squirmed in their chairs and stared at their shoes. They hated me for that.

Then I delivered another volley of sick lyric brimming with racist filth, where Ice-T fantasizes about sodomizing two 12-year old nieces of Al and Tipper Gore.

"SHE PUSHED HER BUTT AGAINST MY ...."No…no, I won't do to you here what I did to them. Let's just say I left the room in stunned silence. When I read the lyrics to the waiting press corps, one of them said "We can't print that." "I know," I replied, "but Time/Warner is still selling it."

Two months later, Time/Warner terminated Ice-T's contract. I'll never be offered another film by Warners, or get a good review from Time magazine. But disobedience means you have to be willing to act, not just talk.

When a mugger sues his elderly victim for defending herself ... jam the switchboard of the district attorney's office.

When your university is pressured to lower standards until 80% of the students graduate with honors ... choke the halls of the board of regents.

When an 8-year-old boy pecks a girl's cheek on the playground and gets hauled into court for sexual harassment ... march on that school and block its doorways.

When someone you elected is seduced by political power and betrays you ... petition them, oust them, banish them.

When Time magazine's cover portrays millennium nuts as deranged, crazy Christians holding a cross as it did last month ... boycott their magazine and the products it advertises.

So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built this country.

If Dr. King were here, I think he would agree. I Thank you.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rrago/hestonspeech.htm

"On taxes ya'll writin off hos as dependents"

2005-05-25T22:06:00.000-04:00

Well not quite yet...but the 7th circuit definitely has Ludacris on the mp3 player as they made clear in the first footnote to a particular decision:

1 The trial transcript quotes Ms. Hayden as saying Murphy called her a snitch bitch “hoe.” A “hoe,” of course, is a tool used for weeding and gardening. We think the court reporter, unfamiliar with rap music (perhaps thankfully so), misunderstood Hayden’s response. We have taken the liberty of changing “hoe” to “ho,” a staple of rap music vernacular as, for example, when Ludacris raps “You doin’ ho activities with ho tendencies.”

This classic paragraph is compliments of a decision authored by Judge Terrence Evans. The classic song quoted is of course, Ludicrous' "Ho."

Hat Tip to TigerHawk

On a side note, I promise my next posts will be serious topics.

More people that need to get a life

2005-05-25T07:59:00.000-04:00

No apologies for sexy Paris Hilton ad
Burger chain Carl's Jr. tells watchdog group infuriated over scantily clad soap-up to 'get a life.'
May 24, 2005: 6:24 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN) - Hamburger chain Carl's Jr. is making no apologies for its new Spicy Burger television commercial, which features Hilton hotel heiress and reality TV star Paris Hilton in a skin-tight swimsuit soaping up a Bentley and crawling all over it before taking a big bite out of the burger. ...

But what gets me is this quote:
"Caldwell[research director for the Parents Television Council] says that because the ad is airing during sports programs, and FOX's "OC", which are heavily watched by teens, it promotes sexuality to an audience that might not be ready for it. "It's difficult to gauge how children are going to react to this," Caldwell said."

The "OC"?!? She thinks viewers of the "OC" may not be ready for sexuality? What could she possibly think the primetime soap is about?

PFAW gets it wrong!

2005-05-24T16:15:00.000-04:00

Just need to clarify this oft repeated falsehood. Adam cites PFAW's selective and poorly done research to back up the claim that Attorney General Gonzales has claimed that a ruling Owen made "would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism." The quote refers to the case In re Jane Doe 1(II), 19 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. 2000). The claim by PFAW and which is blindly echoed by Adam goes that "Gonzales wrote a separate concurring opinion criticizing the dissenting opinions for advocating a "narrow construction" of the bypass provision[of the parental notification act for minors looking to have an abortion] nowhere found in the statute and "directly contradict[ed]" by its legislative history." Consequently PFAW and Adam agree that Owen must have been the person Gonzales was writing about when he talked about judicial activism because she was one of the dissenters.

No lawyer worth a lick would seriously look at the case decision and make that decision. First Owen, Hecht and Abbott each filed dissenting opinions. Hecht and Abbott both criticized the characterization of the statute by the majority and claimed that the court was misconstruing the consequent bases of decision. They claimed the statute was meant to be narrowly interpreted and that consequently the trial court's ruling and court of appeal's confirmation that Doe was not sufficiently well informed about the alternatives, particularily the fact that she had no problem with actually carrying out the pregnancy to term for an adoption, but rather had trouble with what would happen to the child or her ability to give away the child after it was born and admitted to not understanding any other benefits of adoption, was sufficient evidence that she was not in a position which would allow for a bypass. Their claim was that this correctly followed the statute. The majority and Gonzales disagreed and claimed that construing the statute in such a way and consequently crafting the language itself to Hecht and Abbott's personal views of the intended construction veered upon judicial activism. Gonzales only mentions Hecht's name in the opinion when he writes and seems to stress that he had a problem only with a possible narrow construction.

Owens does not make the same argument as Hecht and Abbott (regardless of the validity of their argument) and instead claims that as powerline has commented, that the court should not engage in de novo fact finding. Owen recognizes that the trial court had already ruled on how well informed Doe was. When the majority on the Texas Supreme Court overruled both the trial and appeals court, they took two steps. They first invalidated any type of narrow construction of the statute and then took it upon themselves to deem whether or not Doe was 'well informed.' Owen contested this part in her dissent, that the court itself had to recognize the facts that the trial court came to and while it could hypothetically overrule a particular line of interpretation of the statue, it had no place acting as a trial court and making decisions about whether Doe conformed to whatever requirements were necessary to bypass parental notification according to the statute.

The opinion of the court even stated when disregarding the trial courts decision:

Additionally, it is contrary to the expedited nature of these proceedings to require a remand when the trial court fails to issue particular findings.

The court here refers to the two prongs that need to be satisfied for bypass, and suggests that if the trial court has not presented a finding that the prong that is not being contested has not been satisfied, then the court cannot remand the decision because of Texas statutes which claim that there cannot be another attempt at finding a previously unresolved question (and that the court must rule in favor of Doe) and because of the expedited nature of the case. The problem with this however, is that this wasn't a situation of an overturning of the veracity of whether one of the prongs for bypass had met a particular threshold, but was rather a claim by the court that the earlier interpretations of the statute itself meant that the two prongs for were bypass were wrong in themself. Consequently, the earlier rule not allowing remanding did not apply as the statute and the prongs themselves would change. The Supreme Court however decided to ignore this and conducted their own finding of the facts on these apparently new thresholds. This de novo fact finding was wrong according to Owen and suggests she may have preferred the court remand the case to a trial court with the new interpretation of the statute.

This then definitively shows that anybody who believes that Gonzales' quote applies to Owen did not do a very good job researching the matter. A quick perusal of the case decision should put an end to the ridiculous claims of PFAW and those who accepted them without thinking.

A response to the Dems assault on Bush's Speech

2005-05-24T13:05:00.000-04:00

Strategery?
Happened to catch the President’s remarks during the Calvin College Commencement on the news last night:

And if any of you wonder how far a mastery of the English language can take you, just look what it did for me. (Laughter and applause.)

I’m…speechless.

MY RESPONSE:

Ah Allison and Wiener I see we are still bitter that 60 million americans voted for a man they believed to be more honeest, more humble and more in tune with American (not NYC, LA or SF values) values than Lerch. Oh yes, he was very good at articulating...ummm...what was he actually trying to say, I think we're all waiting for his plan. Oh yes, I remember now, it was how we should ask the French or Kofi Annan whether we were allowed to defend ourselves.

I think that Bush has more important things to do other than trying to improve his grammar to satisfy the need of a few. I wonder how many Harvard, Yale and Columbia grads he has had working for him during his lifetime. The bottom line is that Americans look at results, and the results are that he has successfully run for, and triumphed, in races for the Gov. of one of the largest states in the Union, and run for, and TRIUMPHED, twice for President of the United States.

Its ironic, but the liberals also said the same thing about Ronald Reagan, the greatest American president in 120 years. They constantly complained about his lapses and his "inability to address issues." Its time to look beyond what you can see on the camera, and look at what goes on when the red light goes off. Just like Reagan I can assure you that Bush commands great respect inside his cabinet meetings.

Never underestimate your opponent for the weaknesses you perceive him to have, for the weakness may ultimately lay in yourself.

Somebody just got back from "Revenge of the Sith"

2005-05-23T21:20:00.000-04:00

Sen. Byrd: "We have kept the Republic."

and I just threw up a little.

I guess the republic was worthless when the 170 year "tradition" of the filibuster of 67 votes to invoke cloture was obliterated by your partisan haggling to a 60 vote threshold in 1975. I'll give Schumer, Reid, Boxer, Frist, Brownback and Santorum this credit, even if it was just partisan support, they did take actual principled positions in this debate.

The Filibuster Deal

2005-05-23T20:01:00.000-04:00

So I get back from work and see that a deal on the potential blowup of the judicial filibuster has been made. At first, as a person who has been a die hard follower of many of these nominees since they were first nominated, I was angry. Guarantees for votes on only Brown, Owens and Pryor?

Saad would potentially be the first Arab American on a circuit court, was only initially filibustered because of Levin and Stabenow's insistence Bush nominate some of their choices and was supported by tons of democrats in his state and even by the state's UAW! What a travesty if he gets defeated by "classified" information that Senator Reid shouldn't even have access to.

Particularily ridiculous is this part of the compromise:

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

The only thing I wonder about is the sheer stupidity of leaving "extraordinary circumstances" to such subjectivity while there is an absolute declaration that there is no possibility of a rule change. This essentially leaves republicans powerless when Reid, Kennedy and others of their ilk decide that anything right of Mike DeWine is "extremist" and presents an "extraordinary" situation or when democrats immediately filibuster any conservative supreme court nominee. The reality on the ground however made me think otherwise. Nelson, Graham and others will now really be held to who they vote to filibuster when they have to run for reelection in their red states. Furthermore, regardless of the subjective term of "extraordinary," if democrats show wonton disregard in using the filibuster, there will be too much pressure for folks like DeWine and Warner to overcome and to not vote for a rule change. Frist will also have more time to change their minds, and even stronger case if they start to filibuster recklessly. Basically if you see democrats filibustering Michael McConnell for a spot on the supreme court, you know that the dems will have blown it, because the republican who compromised will realize the dems promises in this were for naught. Lastly, it says something when so many republican moderates came out to sign this. For all the fuss of the republican party being only right wing conservatives, these senators (unfortunately based on the principle in my opinion) shut them up with this compromise.

One another note though, I personally from a principle point of view wanted to see the rule change go through. I'm a purist on the advice and consent clause and believe every nominee deserves an up or down vote if they make it out of committee. This goes for Clinton, Bush or whoever else. I can accept liberal judges (I'm quite liberal on some issues) over continued obstructionism. It also strikes me that the senators who compromised never considered just reducing the filibuster/cloture number to 55, as it would make the current situation a real test of whether the nominees were extremists.

As for political impact:
Winners: Snowe, Chafee, Byrd
Losers: The Judicial Nomination Process, Reid, McCain, Warner, Schumer, PFAW (It appears the only nominees guaranteed votes are the ones interest groups opposed most fiercely)

Because my nuanced views can be summed up in a political quiz.

2005-05-21T16:31:00.000-04:00

http://www.politicalbrew.com/politest.cgi

On Non-Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Centrist (58).
On Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Centrist (52).

One of the better, if not perfect, political quizzes I've seen. I wonder how libertarian the libertarians actually are. heh.

P.S. put down your results!

Chafee Picks up Endorsement

2005-05-21T13:03:00.000-04:00

From NARAL Pro-Choice America. The Providence Journal reports:

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee has won the endorsement of the nation's leading abortion-rights group, a coup that could have been of help to his prospective Democratic challengers....

Keenan said NARAL opted to give Chafeee its first endorsement of the 2006 campaign for several reasons. One is that NARAL supports incumbents and "we stand by our friends," such as Chafee, who have amassed what NARAL considers to be good records on the issue.

NARAL gave Chafee a 100-percent rating on its review of how senators voted last year on legislation the group considers important.

Keenan also emphasized NARAL's devotion to helping Republicans who support abortion rights. "We need Lincoln Chafee's sensible, moderate, Republican voice" in the Senate, Keenan said.

Chafee is looking good against Whitehouse and Brown (leading them both by double digits in the latest polls) after Langevin was forced out the democratic race because of his Pro-Life views. Hopefully, we'll have the pleasure of having Chafee as the republican senator from RI in '06 again.

The Economist and Dating

2005-05-21T01:27:00.000-04:00

A brilliant story about one blogger's adventure with The Economist, an attractive woman and the attempt to get a date. Must read.

What say you other bloggers? Do you give out business cards?

A word about the courts

2005-05-20T17:48:00.000-04:00

From the libertarians blog:

That's why I cringed when I read Nigel's comments in the comments section on medical marijuana and federalism as to whether medical marijuana should be a matter of legislative action or of judicial action. I don't think the matter should be settled by one or the other, but rather by both, and from what I can tell, the Republicans in Congress (ahem, Tom DeLay) seem to be calling for legislative mob rule.

I mentioned on the Dems blog a while back that I got a letter from Bill Frist asking for money to help confirm judges that "faithfully interpret" the Constitution. As I mentioned there and will reiterate here, I don't want judges "interpreting" anything,"faithfully" or otherwise.

Regardless of what happens, I think the hype is a little much. It's one of the most patently ridiculous debates I've seen in a long time, and it points to a lack of intellectual consistency in both parties. In the end, I hope the Dems and the Republicans come out looking bad, and I hope it helps some libertarians (whether they're in the LP or not) pick up votes in '06.

I think that Adam misinterprets a comment I made and I think that my reply probably extends to the larger issue he addresses. What I meant by the comment was regarding the Raich case. Drug legalization and de criminalization is a relatively active topic on which there isn't closure on many issues. As a result there has to be a give and take between the two branches, because as the legislative bodies of the country make laws adressing drug issues, the courts have to ensure they're constitutionally viable and rule accordingly. Similarily, the legislatures should be allowed to do precisely what they're intended to do as long as there are no consitutionality problems, legislate. Passing legislation because you have had a majority is hardly mob rule, its the way a representative democracy works.

I understand the larger problem with this is the idea that republicans want to "gut" the judiciary. Part of this, especially the rhetoric of Frist in wanting judges who "faithfully interpret" the constitution is obviously political. These are both political parties who understand the average american probably won't spend too much time thinking about circuit court of appeals nominations. Consequently, they hit them where they think they should. If you get down to a the level where you examine judges jurisprudence however, which I feel the dems and liberatarians might not have done so much, you get to different legal philosophies. Frist simply will be nominating more of those who follow originalist/original-interpretation views of the law. He knows however that telling the public we're nominating "originalists" will be meaningless to many. Good selection of judges does usually prevail even when using this rhetoric however, as even in the Schiavo case, the judge who made the original ruling and who stood against it in face of so much pressure was actually a republican christian conservative.

I think that's probably the reason why some of the rhetoric in the judges debate sounds ridiculous. There are obviously some cases where judges who are nominated aren't consistent originalists and are more results oriented. Thus there are instances where democrats may be rightfully opposing some judges (I think for example Justice Brown and William Myers deserve more scrutiny than Justice Owen or the shabby treatment Miguel Estrada received), but on the whole their task is then to convince other members of the senate that these judges might not be qualified. For those who pay very close attention, I believe the senate has already sent back a district court judge or two because they couldn't even achieve a partially qualified rating from the ABA. Similarily, a very politically divisive judge, Michael McConnell was confirm onto the court of appeals because he had the support of many academics on both sides of the aisle who know that his jurisprudence was consistent and brilliant. However, despite the opposition opponents to some of the nominations may feel, they should follow the usual methods of trying to defeat a nominee, not ones that go beyond tradition like the extended judicial filibusters which are being used. If someone is really so outside of the mainstream, it shouldn't be that hard to convince several senators to side with you on some votes.

Overall though, there is no "gutting" of the judiciary. Folks who are angry at a particular ruling seek to alter the judicial philosophy on the bench, not destroy the branch. This has happened for the most part simply because the lag time of the judiciary has finally caught up with the legislative and executive bodies ideology. Republicans and those to the right have held those bodies for a while now and they want to exert the influence they've earned when they appoint judges. I agree that they should be watched when they do this because we have to ensure it isn't done at the expense of good jurisprudence. There is a possibility that the current republican appointments could be driven by ideology in some cases, but in most examples, these judges are excellent candidates and the republicans wish to change the judiciary in terms of philosophy is understandable and expected.

Wait for it.....

2005-05-20T11:09:00.000-04:00

It looks like Frist will invoke cloture on the Owens nomination today.

This is an issue I've been following for quite a few years now given my unhealthy interest in lower court nominations. I welcome Frist's move and hope that the change of procedure on cloture for judicial nominations will allow the body to return to what its function should be for a president's judicial nominees (be they conservative or liberal).

An opponent for Spitzer?

2005-05-19T12:51:00.000-04:00

A promising candidate who may look to challenge Spitzer as the republican in the governor's race. Sounds a lot like bloomberg ideologically, though he may be a little more conservative socially. Now if he can only get a bankroll like Mike's.

Hat Tip to Slant Point

Columbia Biz School describes America as a middle finger

2005-05-19T12:21:00.000-04:00

Man, we can't avoid controversy even at a simple thing like commencement.

Full Story

Short version: Indra Nooyi, president of PepsiCo, in addressing CBS '05, compared America to the middle finger of the world and urged us to move in unison with the rest of the world.

My response? Good analogy. I like it. That's the way it's going to remain, if I have any say over it.

Besides, Pepsi sucks (apologies to Steve).

Medical Marijuana and Ashcroft vs. Raich

2005-05-19T11:45:00.000-04:00

Marco at the Columbia Libertarian blog makes a good point in bringing up the federalism issue involved in the production and use of medical marijuana. I'll admit to being a little bit of a fanatic with regards to following Ashcroft vs. Raich. Before I discuss the relevant points however, its important to stress that if the court doesn't rule for the respondents in the case, all state's medical marijuana laws could probably be blocked by the Controlled Substance Act. The best chance for de criminalization of medical marijuana is a federal law.

Anyway, regarding the case, one issue which should be of particular interest to those who go back and forth is the fact that there do exist drugs, such as marinol, which isolate the useful scientific component of marijuana, THC. These pills are legal and have much the same effect of marijuana without the 400 or so additional chemicals that come along with smoking marijuana. The main criticism of these drugs, which appear to offer a scientific compromise, is the time which they take to become effective, which is longer than smoking marijuana.

Otherwise, the main issue in this case, especially after looking at the oral arguments, seems to be whether legalization of medical marijuana and the consequent legal growing constitute an economic activity. This would allow the federal government to regulate the substance under the commerce clause. I think the oral arguments make it clear that if the growing of marijuana is deemed to be an economic activity, that it would fall under the earlier precedent of Wickard (where a farmer's growing of home-consumed wheat in excess of a quota was deemed to be "economic" because of its potential to effect the interstate market) and not under the more recent Morrison and Lopez cases where the court curbed the extent of the commerce clause (the Lopez and Morrison cases ruled that there must be a relatively direct causal economic effect, not one which has several inferences drawn upon each other).

The arguments regarding economic activity, at least in the oral arguments, also appear to favor the government in my opinion. While Barnett does an admirable job trying to defend the core issues of federalism at stake here, namely that California has the right to make the state law, should be held at its word in terms of enforcing growing procedures and any incidental effect to the illicit market would be trivial so as not to apply to the commerce clause, I think the justices indicate significant doubt from both sides of the ideological spectrum.

Clement, the government's advocate, stresses the fungibility of marijuana and claims that the incidental effect on the illicit market and likelyhood that California would not be able to prevent such an incidental effect in the buying of illegal marijuana or selling of the substance to those who don't need it for medical reasons is high. Considering the ultimately limited resouces the California law enforcement agencies would have regarding these issues, and the fact that the growers can be anything ranging from prescribed individuals to prescribed communes, amongst what appears to be a substantial potential set of medical marijuana users in California (possibly upto 100-170 thousand user) both Scalia and Breyer seemed to express the belief that the effect on prices in the illicit market would then be substantial enough to constitute economic activity. Furthermore, once it would be deemed an economic activity, federal supremacy of laws would also trump the state law, as marijuana could be treated as contraband simpliciter and the Controlled Substances Act would essentially invalidate the California medical marijuana law on the books.

Thus there does seem to be a relatively valid argument that the causation in this case is more similiar to Wickard than Morrison or Lopez. In fact, from a factual standpoint, the production of a commodity of economic value (the illicit marijuana trade in the US is estimated at 10.5 billion dollars) seems to mirror Wickard. Washing dishes as an economic activity or sex within a marriage seem to follow more along Morrison or Lopez lines of causation (though I think Barnett is onto something with prositution) and thus didn't really help Barnett in the oral arguments in my opinion.

Ultimately then, looking simply at the case, I'd wager a decision that comes out something like 7-2 or 8-1 in favor of the government because I think Scalia and the right side of the bench (with the notable exception of Thomas) will probably look at the case as falling on the other side of Morrison/Lopez line, especially because of the potential to invalidate medical marijuana laws. Breyer, Souter, and those on the left will probably also see the case as an economic activity to further strengthen this as a case of federal supremacy over states rights.

Personally, I'd probably have to rule against Raich in this case (though I think Barnett did a good job, and I enjoy reading him on Volokh.com) because under the prior precedents of Wickard, Perez and others growing marijuana does seem to constitute an economic activity. Personally, I probably support Justice Thomas in what Marco was alluding to, that commerce clause application has become too expansive with regards to what constitutes an economic activity. Personally, I'd hope that the court would take a look at that view more closely or that eventually the federal government would de-criminalize use of medical marijuana, and think that for republican and conservatives that should be a fundamentally important ideological question to consider. As a whole though, I think the Raich case is a weak one to argue the idea of federalism in medical marijuana cases.

On a side note, if you have the chance, check out the oral arguments in this case. They are hilarious! You get to see some brilliant and esteemed legal minds talk about classifying all marijana growers whose last name begins with z, tomato children created from simultaneously growing tomatoes, marijuana and cocaine (maybe Justice Breyer caught the tomacco episode?), and questions on whether private sexual relations constitute economic activity.

Voting Against Small Businesses.

2005-05-18T20:11:00.000-04:00

All politicians love small businesses around election time.

During the legislative period however, it's a different story.

The Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act of 2005 HR 742 is a bill which seems to be on the side of the small business owner. It looks to provide small business owners compensation for legal expenses when they are being investigated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Otherwise, many business owners settle with the government body unnecessarily because the litigation costs would be an unhealthy drain. This is all outside the actual results of the investigation, because a company is still held liable to whatever punishment it must incur for violating safety and health standards if it is found guilty.

However, according to 11 house members (led by John Conyers Jr. of Michigan) on the House Judiciary Committee who voted against the bill, small business owners like my dad don't deserve to be helped out when facing sometimes huge legal costs imposed by a government investigation. In fact, according to Congressional Quarterly, Conyers Jr. suggests that any such help would undermine the ability of OSHA to monitor workplace safety. I see. Making sure the little guy doesn't get crippled by costs proceeding from a goverment action and making sure that small businesses aren't sometimes forced unnecessarily to fork over money to the government is too much of a burden for the OSHA to bear. Way to battle for the little guy Rep. Conyers.

Wang Peng, 9 year old chinese boy, gets all the chicks.

2005-05-18T19:42:00.000-04:00

The Story

Rebuild the Towers

2005-05-18T17:09:00.000-04:00

Donald Trump offers to rebuild World Trade Center twin towers

Now Donald Trump is an egoist of the highest degree, but he's right. Libeskind's artsy freedom tower is a weak tribute to what was:

The terrorists who took down the towers aimed to change our skyline. That spindly little tower will not have the same presence those twin towers had.

Rebuild the towers and restore the skyline. Let the monument to the dead lie in the plaza below, not as a hole in the sky above.

Counter Recruiting

2005-05-18T16:38:00.001-04:00

This shit has gone too far.

Rift over recruiting at public high schools
A Seattle high school bars military solicitation, touching off debate over Iraq war and free speech.

Choice Quote:
""Planned Parenthood, as far as I know, does not advocate or perform illegal acts. The US military does," Mr. Ludwig continued. The soft-spoken carpenter said he would not object if Army representatives came to Garfield to debate their ideas on torture or aggressive war. "What I object to is their coming here to recruit students to perform those acts," he said. "It's not about free speech.""

What a dickhead.

In further news, the ACLU of Johns Hopkins is working to have their ROTC detachment tossed off campus. How......inclusive of them.

I say extend Solomon to cover high schools. If you want to disavow yourselves from the actions of our government, feel free to disavaw yourself from its money as well.

Igorance is not bliss

2005-05-18T13:08:00.000-04:00

One well intentioned individual recently sent an email out to all Columiba Dems, Reps and ACLU members asking them to support the legalization of marijuana for use in medical circumstances. He berated Pataki in the email, saying that he is the only impediment to the legalization of it. I resonded to him by simply stating I supported Pataki, but thanked him for the email. He chose to attempt to make me look like a fool on the liberteraian blog, but unfortunately by doing so, our friend Adam Scavone proves himself to be nothing other than ignorant, resorting to the Democrats time tested method of responding to those who dont agree with them, belittle them.

It should be said that Mr. Scavone should have checked his facts first. Rather than replying asking me where I received my medical degree (because obviously you need a medical degree to have an opinion on whether an illegal narcotic should be legalized). As well, he then asked me "Why do we even bother licensing doctors if we're not going to let them practice?" To which I respond, denying doctors the ability to prescribe "weed" to cancer patients is not an impediment to their abilty to practice medicine. as far as I know the ability to prescribe sticky purple punge is not the apex of medicine.

Medicinal marijuana is not a cure, it does not work to address the disease, it gets you "high"so you dont feel the pain. There are other medicines which do that. Mr. Scavone will obviously retort with "what do you know", so I will tell you how I know. I am a cancer survivor. Medical marijuana is nothing more than a mask, and does not address any problem. There is no need to legalize a drug that is becoming an epidemic.

The movement to legalize it is nothing more than a move by some groups (I am not doubting Mr. Scavone's motives, because Im sure that they are legitimate) to take us down the slippery slope to general legalization for the general public. Once this happens what is next? Coke? Acid? PCP? Dont let anyone fool you, groups like the ACLU who are proponents of this are interested in only one thing. breaking down the rule of law in this country. If you are a criminal who has ravaged someone, a terrorist in Gitmo, or someone who would like to get religion (well christian forms anyway) kicked out of the USA, then the ACLU is your organization, if you are a victim of a heinous crime, an unborn child, a helpless woman whose only crime is not being able to eat, or someone who dies at the hands of an extremist, then you are the enemy to the ACLU.

What we have here is a situation where legalizing something that will alleviate pain in a few people (who for the most part, not in every case, could take a LEGAL prescribed drug to do the same) opens up a pandora's box of other issues, and begins to take this country down a road that we should not be travelling. This country has already gone a long way towards tearing down laws that used to protect society, we dont need to venture down this one.

Under God

2005-05-17T18:42:00.000-04:00

The folks at The Corner are dismissing Michael Newdow's attempts to get back to the Supreme Court to take "under god" out of the pledge. Newdow actually had the 9th circuit court's decision reversed on the question of standing, not on the merits of the phrase itself. Regardless, the Becket fund page The Corner refers to argues against Newdow using some of the same faulty points that would have been picked apart in the original case.

Derek Gaubatz, Director of Litigation for The Becket Fund claims:

"They understand that from the Declaration of Independence on, our national ethos has always been that we have inalienable rights that the State cannot take away, because the source of those inalienable rights is an authority higher than the State. If saying this nation is 'under God' is unconstitutional, then so is reciting the Declaration of Independence, which refers to the Creator as the source of rights."

Gaubatz is right that the national ethos is that we have inalienable rights the state cannot take away, and that those rights are endowed by a power greater than the state. However, the claim that a ruling which deems "under god" in the pledge to be unconstitutional can then be extrapolated to other public uses of religion, such as the reading of the declaration of independence or the use of religious phrases on money, is faulty.

First, the ruling on the issue of whether the phrase "under god" is unconstitutional will largely be determined through a ruling based on the "coercion analysis" (“at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise to act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.” ) from Lee vs. Weisman. The coercive effect is obviously more prevalent in the case of "under god" considering young age of the elementary school children resulted in more impressionable minds which would possibly be unduly biased or manipulated. These biases would be exhibited through the teacher, who as a government official, would be leading an endorsement of religion as well as the potential alienation of children who would not participate in the pledge.

The case of the declaration or other uses of religious language or symbolism in the public discourse are not analagous to the phrase "under god." Any recitation of the declaration, even if done by a public official in a public capacity, would be done with an assenting crowd of listeners and reciters. Thus, there would not be any residual coercive effect on those who would otherwise choose not to participate in the pledge or not wish to have a government official effectively endorse in their presence the notion of a "God." Secondly, the term "Creator" in the constitution is far more ambiguous than the term "God," which Newdow would contest carries strong Judeo-Christian montheistic overtones. The prior reference in the Declaration to these truths being held "self-evident" also seems to indicate a basis on natural law, which would also effectively mitigate any concrete religious overtones that may be interpreted from "Creator."

Finally, religion in public speech is allowed and accepted as a ceremonial or historical device so long as it does not amount to coercive religious invocation or prayer. Here again, it appears that the phrase "under god" seems to breach the threshold more than other examples of public religious speech. While many types of religious speech are of "de minimis" coercive effect because of their use as a ceremonial or historical device, or because of the audience to whom they are adressed or the manner in which they are addressed, "under god" has very strong religious backgrounds which seem to indicate that it was put into the pledge in 1954 for strictly religious reasons. Prior to the 1954 anti-communist act which put in the phrase "under god," there was no reference to God in the pledge of allegiance. Eisenhower, when signing the bill that put in the phrase, even gushed "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town … the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." Thus the phrase appears to have solely been put in as a reaffirmation of religion.

If it was just a matter of demonstrating that fundamental rights were not just state endowed (which was the characterizaton of the Soviet Union in that Act), then a reference to the inalienable or natural nature of the rights could have been made as opposed to the religious one. Regardless, the argument for removing "under god" is that it is a purposely coercive religious phrase which is recited amongst a captive and impressionable audience. Furthermore, unlike the declaration and other examples of religion in public, it has no historical or ceremonial value when weighed against the effect it has as a device of religious coercion. Thus, it appears that not only is the declaration analogy faulty, but also that the case in favor of removing "under god" is much stronger than what the folks at The Corner or Becket Fund believe.

Heya Folks.

2005-05-17T15:10:00.000-04:00

The politics blogging will start in earnest in a little while (I might get in more arguments w/my fellow repubs than with anyone else), but as for right now, this game is a really spiffy procrastination tool, 20 Questions! Hat tip to Prof. Gelman's great blog on statistics.

Not a retraction... but a correction?

2005-05-17T15:04:00.000-04:00

Well, Newsweek can still spin the story in a direction that helps the U.S. in the region. Sure, the reports of the Koran being flushed down the toilet weren't verified or true. But will people really believe a half-hearted retraction?

I think Newsweek people should just come clean that the interrogators actually flushed a Torah down the toilet. It might not help us in Israel, but I suspect it would make us infinitely more popular across the Middle East.

~Testing~

2005-05-17T14:58:00.000-04:00

What do Ted Kennedy and Newsweek have in common?

Both have killed more people than Halliburton

The Third Tube Tradegy, but who to blame?

2005-02-25T08:41:00.000-05:00

I'm sure you've all heard about Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazillian man accidentally killed on the Tube a few days ago by British police who thought he was a suicide bomber. (see the BBC story of you haven't)

Clearly, it is a tragedy in which an innocent man died who shouldn't have. At the same time, the rush to fault the police for undue force seems a bit misplaced as well. After all, the full context of the story must be taken into account. The fact that just two weeks and a day before the shooting London experienced its worst attack since WWII, and that only a day before the shooting four men (who "are still free and may have access to explosives" according to the BBC) tried to pull off a similar attack, the police were right to be on the lookout.

It was not just that the police "just killed the first person they see, that's what they did," as Menezes' cousin asserted. Instead, it was a tragic mix of signals that all led to the wrong place. Menezes lived in an area under surveillance in the bombing investigations, chose to wear a "padded jacket" on a hot summer day (as the BBC notes, "often worn by suicide bombers in other parts of the world to help them disguise their bombs"), and, most tragically of all, he "was killed after fleeing armed police" who sought to stop and question him because of these signals. And where did he flee to? Onto a train in the Tube.

That's not to say he should have been shot. But, as former PM Sir John Major is quoted as saying in the BBC article, "They had to make a decision. Do we take this dreadful decision to shoot, or do we face the risk that conceivably, if our worst fears are right, a bomb could be detonated that could kill people, including them, in the next second or so?" Under the circumstances, I cannot even conceive of questioning the decision made by those police. I am sure it was a decision none of them wanted to make, and I can't imagine having to make that decision myself. Its so much easier to question their decision, of course, when those questioning will likely (and hopefully) never be in the shoes to have to make that decision themselves.

If it is true that Menezes "may have run from police because of his visa situation," as the article suggests, that explains why Menezes didn't stop when told to by the police, but it certainly does not excuse it. Menezes was in violation of the law, but that is not the reason he is somewhat responsible for his own death. His irresponsible behavior in not responding to (and fleeing from) police who sought to question him is.

Had the police have stopped a real terrorist at that moment, they would have been heros. And rarely do police even have as many signs as Menezes seemed to display. As another Menezes cousin noted, "If you are going to have a war on terror, you have got to use brains to fight it not just brute force." Those officers were using their brains. As far as Menezes, though, if he was going to live in an age of terrorism, he should have used his brains and not just his feet.

The job of identifying a terrorist in a crowded city is one that has no easy answers, no easy police solution to catch the bad guys if they just "use their brains." Individual people, then, must use their brains and cooperate with the police rather than avoid them.

The Tube shooting incident was a tragedy. Yet, if Menezes' family sues and makes it to court, I hope whatever court it is does not side with the family. While he certainly did not deserve to die, it was Menezes who was irresponsible and not the London police who were, in incredibly difficult conditions, only trying to do their job keeping the city safe from terror.