Image
Demagoguery
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."

Franklin D. Roosevelt


Regular Reads
Eschaton
Tapped
Daily Kos
The Liquid List
Matthew Yglesias
Talking Points Memo
Slacktivist
James Wolcott
Michael Berube
Political Animal
How Appealing
MaxSpeak, You Listen!
Tbogg
TalkLeft
Rittenhouse Review
Neal Pollack
Suckful
Cursor
John Moltz
Southern Appeal
Nathan Newman
The Poor Man
NRO's "The Corner"
Pandagon
Wonkette
Legal Fiction
Sugar, Mr. Poon?
Carpetbagger Report
Balkinization
Happy Furry Puppy Story Time w/ Norbizness
This Is Not Over


Contact Us
Eugene Oregon
Noam Alaska
Helena Montana
Frederick Maryland
Zoe Kentucky
Arnold P. California


Mutual Admiration Society
DCCC's The Stakeholder
Abolish the Death Penalty
Busy Busy Busy
Uggabugga
New American Empire
Staunch Moderate
A La Gauche
The Moderate Voice
The Sneaky Rabbit
Bluegrassroots
Political Strategy
Cutting to the Chase
Acrentropy
The Blue Bus
American Monkey
Restless Mania
Your Right Hand Thief
Naked Furniture
Dimmy Karras
The Department of Louise
Torvus Futurus
HellaFaded
Live From the Nuke Free Zone
Proof Through the Night
No More Apples
Slapnose
PoliGeek
Irrational Bush Hatred
The Slugging Southpaw
I Voted for George
Nosey Online
Donna's Place
Schadenfreude
Resource.full
wordsimageslife
The Bully Pulpit
Lying Socialist Weasels
TJ Griffin
To The Barricades
Omni-Curious
Eat Your Vegetables
Stoutdem
Suddenly Routine
The Story So Far
Skimble
Marstonalia
The Lefty Directory
ZipSix
ReachM High Cowboy Network
John Hoke's Personal Asylum
Riba Rambles
The Bone
Fables of the Reconstruction
The Modulator
Planet Swank
Scoobie Davis Online
Single-Minded
World Phamous
The Good Life
Something's Got To Break
Upside-down Hippopotamus
Damfacrats 2004
The Fulcrum
BeatBushBlog
archy
Yankee From Mississippi
It's A Crock!
Red Wheelbarrow
Apropos of Nothing
Political Parrhesia
The Mahablog
Mousemusings
Restlessgeist
Galois
Muise in Gradland
American Leftist
Political Blog Directory
Boiled Meat
John Costello
Skydiver Salad
The Game & How We Played It
Soupie's BBQ and Daycare
Odd Hours
Nebraska Liberal
The American Street
Approximately Perfect


If you have linked to us and don't see your name, please send us an e-mail and we'll add you.


Recommendations
















Archives:


-- HOME --



This page is powered by Blogger. Why isn't yours?
Saturday, December 06, 2003


There Has to Be More to This
The Fukuoka Municipal Government urged the court Friday to reject a damages suit filed against the city and a male elementary school teacher who allegedly tormented a 9-year-old student.

The boy and his parents are seeking some 13 million yen from the city and the 46-year-old teacher. The teacher repeatedly hurled verbal abuse at the pupil between May and June, telling him his blood was "filthy" because his great-grandfather was an American, the lawsuit said.

The teacher also physically abused the boy, including pulling his ears and nose, and told him to commit suicide, it said.

During the first court session in the case, the municipal government admitted the teacher did commit some of the alleged acts. But it nevertheless called on the Fukuoka District Court to reject the case, a move that is expected to prompt the court to get to the bottom of the allegations. The teacher has been suspended for six months.

The teacher did not enter a plea Friday, saying he had not found a lawyer.
Fukuoka is major city on the southern island of Kyushu. Theories of racial purity are more prevalent among mainstream Japanese than in any other advanced democracy I can think of (by which I don't mean that most Japanese are racial supremacists, but that such thinking influences a greater percentage of the population than elsewhere), but I still can't believe that the Fukuoka government is defending this teacher's actions on the merits. I expect that the government is trying to argue that for some legal reason, it's just not liable for the actions of the teacher, not that the court shouldn't hear a case against the teacher as an individual. But the article doesn't give any further details.

posted by Arnold P. California at 2:18 PM


Friday, December 05, 2003


Sex Police!

The Family Research Council says that Scalia and Santorum were right about lifting the sodomy ban, that now gay marriage and worse are inevitable. This is hardly interesting, not worth mentioning. However, when revisiting this passage where they quote Scalia's dissent in Lawrence, something jumped out at me that I hadn't thought too much about before. After all, with masturbation on the list it doesn't really jump out. Lookie here:
"State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers validation of laws based on moral
choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision."

Um, what's with the inclusion of fornication to that list? Fornication is sex between unmarried people. Does Scalia think states should have the right and/or moral obligation to ban fornication? Do the anti-gay groups that support the Federal Marriage Amendment support bans on fornication as well? Focus on the Family says yes. So does the state of Utah. What about the others? I'd hazard a guess that the answer is yes. Well, I'd like to see them say it publicly-- say what they really think-- that to save America we need to ban all sex except among married heterosexuals.

Yeah, right. That would go over well. They know they'd quickly turn themselves into a laughingstock if they reveal themselves to be the freaky-ass prudes they truly are. Their anti-gay agenda is a lot more radical than they want anyone to really know, they envision the proper role of the state as a domineering, overcontrolling parent. The kind most people run away screaming from as soon as they can.

The anti-gay marriage fight is just the tip of the iceberg, it's really just a small piece on a comprehensive anti-sex, anti-privacy agenda. Perhaps someone should point that out.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 4:53 PM




Borrow-and-Spend Republicans!

A new report by the Heritage Foundation eviscerates Bush better than any Democrat or liberal org could.
The 2003 fiscal year mercifully concluded on September 30. Reckless spending by Congress and the President made it a year in which:

  • Government spending exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II,

  • The federal budget expanded by $353 billion over its 1998 level,

  • Defense and the attacks on September 11, 2001, accounted for less than half of all new spending since 2001,

  • Mandatory spending reached its highest level in history, and

  • Spending increased despite net interest costs plummeting by $110 billion.

    This paper examines the colossal expansion of the federal government since 1998. That year, a temporary tax revenue boom brought the first budget surplus in over a quarter-century. Abolishing the budget deficit also eliminated one of the most effective arguments for spending restraint, and the spending floodgates swung wide open. By 2001, the budget surplus was quickly evaporating because tax revenues, back to their historical levels, could no longer keep pace with runaway spending. The 9/11 terrorist attacks then necessitated new spending on national security. But by that point fiscal responsibility was a distant memory, and lawmakers steadfastly refused to balance these new high-priority security costs with savings elsewhere in the budget. As 2003 closes, the nation finds itself burdened by runaway federal spending and massive looming structural budget deficits.

  • Republican POTUS. Republican Senate. Republican House. The most government spending since WWII. Mandatory spending has reached the highest level in US history and it can't all be blamed on 9/11 or the war on terror.

    Um, tax-and-spend liberals? Try again. (sigh) It looks like some poor Democrat is going to have to come in and clean up after the huge mess the tax-and-spend Republicans left in their wake-- again.

    posted by Zoe Kentucky at 3:15 PM




    The Bush-Hater of the Day

    ...is John LeCarre.

    posted by Helena Montana at 2:46 PM




    Porking Fiscal Discipline

    The Center for American Progress has a good post on the "2,500-page legislative monstrosity" known as the appropriations bill.

    Check it out and then sign-up to receive their daily "Progress Report."

    posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:58 PM




    You Have Got To Be Kidding

    We've posted here before on conservative efforts to remove FDR's profile from the dime and replace it with Reagan's. But just what is the significance, you ask

    U.S. Rep. Mark Souder wants to put former President Ronald Reagan in everyone's pocket.

    The Indiana Republican is drumming up support in Congress for a bill to replace Franklin D. Roosevelt's profile on the dime with Reagan's.

    Souder said it's particularly fitting to honor Reagan on the dime because "Reagan was wounded . . . by a bullet that had ricocheted and flattened to the size of a dime," he wrote his colleagues.


    Update: You should read Sadly No's take on this attempt to turn this nation into a bunch of drooling Reagan worshippers.

    posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:47 PM




    Stop the War, I Wanna See My Daughter

    What?

    A peace activist accused the U.S. military on Friday of depriving her of the chance to visit her soldier daughter, telling her that the truck driver was on a mission.

    But Lieutenant Colonel William MacDonald, spokesman for the U.S. Fourth Infantry Division in Tikrit, said he was trying to organize a meeting for Saturday.

    Anabel Valencia said she had informed U.S. military officials that she would be at the gates of the base at noon to see 24-year-old Giselle. She arrived only to discover that her daughter had been sent on a mission to Baghdad.

    "I have not seen her in three years, I don't know why they are doing this," said Valencia, standing outside a sprawling U.S. military base in Saddam Hussein's hometown.

    Hey Valencia, Iraq is not like an elementary school where you can just show up whenever you want and pull your kid out of class so you can give her a hug and a snack.

    Grow up, idiot.

    posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:37 PM




    Bad Mannered Bush?

    Whenever Bush talks about how proud he is of his Medicare reform package, someone should bring up this story...

    According to Newsmax, when Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) complained to Bush about Medicare reform, he pissed him off so badly that the president hung up on him! In an alleged phone call with Bush, Feeney complained about the recently passed Medicare reform bill and reportedly told Bush, "I came here to cut entitlements, not grow them." Allegedly Bush snapped at him, said ""Me too, pal," before banging down the phone."

    Hmmm. Does that mean Bush was lying when he called the Medicare reform bill progress?


    posted by Zoe Kentucky at 11:31 AM




    Spinning Steel

    Bush has finally removed the steel tariff he put in place about 20 months ago because, as US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick explained

    Now, this safeguard definitely provided the industry and workers with needed breathing space. And to its credit, much of the industry has used this time well. The bulk of the reconstructing that was necessary to make the industry more competitive has now taken place.

    [edit]

    [T]he President has concluded that the safeguard has done its job and can now be lifted.

    Interesting, I wonder if the WTO ruling and the threatened $2.2 billion retaliation had anything to do with it

    The world's trade court Monday dealt a blow to President Bush's efforts to help ailing steelmakers, forcing him to choose between them and other sensitive industries, including food and textiles.

    A World Trade Organization appeals panel upheld an earlier ruling that Bush violated trade rules in March 2002 with three-year tariffs on imported steel.

    The ruling sets the clock ticking on retaliation by the 15-nation European Union. Unless Bush lifts the steel tariffs, the EU says it will impose its own penalties on $2.2 billion in U.S. goods, likely in December.

    Tokyo says it is ready to retaliate by the end of the month unless Washington backs down, and China says it will consider sanctions.

    Well, why not ask

    Q: Ambassador, the retaliatory tariffs that the European crafted were meant to inflict maximum political pain on the President's reelection. How did that factor into your decision?

    AMBASSADOR ZOELLICK: This decision was independent of that, in that what we did and what we did from the start of this process was to ask for this ITC review, and we were always going to measure the benefits and costs, to try to get a sense of whether the industry was coming back [blah, blah, blah]

    I read through the rest of the transcript to see if any of the reporters said "Stop lying Zoellick, you are not fooling anyone." For some reason, none of them did.

    posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:05 AM




    Compare and Contrast

    In 1962, John F. Kennedy urged America to set its sites on the moon:
    We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

    Today, the Washington Post reports that the Bush administration is pondering a return to the moon:
    This official said Bush's closest aides are promoting big initiatives on the theory that they contribute to Bush's image as a decisive leader even if people disagree with some of the specifics. "Iraq was big. AIDS is big," the official said. "Big works. Big grabs attention."

    So let me get this straight. JFK urged a voyage to the moon to bring out the best in the American spirit. Meanwhile, Bush is considering a return to the moon, and sends U.S. soldiers to their deaths on a daily basis because "big grabs attention" and makes him look decisive.

    How pathetic.

    posted by Noam Alaska at 9:44 AM




    What Happened in Samarra?

    The Christian Science Monitor is trying to figure it out

    At first glance, it looked like a significant victory for US troops in Iraq. Insurgents launched a surprise attack Sunday against a heavily armed US convoy delivering new Iraqi currency to banks in Samarra, north of Baghdad. After a wild firefight, the largest since US President George Bush declared "major combat" over last May, the US said its soldiers had killed 54 Iraqis, most of them insurgents, and had dealt a major blow to those trying to undermine the occupation coalition.

    But in the days that have followed these initial reports, the US military's version of events in Samarra has been heavily challenged. Local civilians, and even some US soldiers, now say that only eight people were killed, and most of them were civilians, including an elderly Iranian woman and a child who were on a pilgrimage.


    posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:29 AM


    Thursday, December 04, 2003


    The Real Reagan

    Over in The Corner, Peter Robinson, Tim Graham and Steve Hayward are discussing the work of former Washington Post reporter Lou Cannon as it relates to Reagan's legacy as the greatest human being to have ever walked this earth.

    The consensus seems to be that, although Cannon works hard to be unbiased and accurate, he just "hasn't quite got the measure of Reagan or of his enormous place in history."

    Considering that Cannon has written four books on Reagan and covered his political career since he was governor of California, I think I'd be more inclined to trust him than any of the "Cult of Reagan" members who inhabit the Corner.

    posted by Eugene Oregon at 4:23 PM




    Is Anything About This Guy Real?

    Yesterday, I posted a Mikhaela Reid cartoon based on the ubiquitous photograph of Dubya serving up the turkey to the troops. Turns out the original wasn't exactly what it seemed; the Commander in Chief alertly sensed a great photo-op and picked up a centerpiece that wasn't being served.

    It would be easy to make too much of this--it was an actual turkey, after all, even if the natural inference that Bush was literally feeding the troops was false. Still, this administration's penchant for burnishing and arranging everything to improve on reality has gotten so pervasive that I'm really not sure whether I can believe anything I see or hear about our Dear Leader.

    Witness the phantom conversation between British Airways pilots and either Air Force One (first White House version) or the control tower (second White House version), which apparently never happened. It reminds me of the nonsense the Wurlitzer used to trash Gore: he's such a pathological liar that he lies even when it doesn't help him (a line peddled most impressively by the Guardian of Virtue Himself, Bill Bennett). What was the point of making up a fake story about a commercial pilot's seeing the President's plane? It's not as if we don't all appreciate the considerable security precautions that are rightly taken when the President is traveling abroad, particularly into hostile territory where he might be wounded by a stray flower that the liberated citizens are pelting us with (OK, that last bit was a little sarcastic).

    Oddly, this didn't reassure me:
    "This was effective, because it captured something about the president that people know is true, that he really cares about the soldiers and gets emotional when he sees them," Mary Matalin, a former administration official, said about the trip to Baghdad. "You have to figure out how to capture the Bush we know, even if it doesn't come through in a speech situation or a press conference. He regularly rejects anything that is not him."
    I don't really care so much about speech situations and press conferences, but it would be nice if the fact that Bush "really cares about the soldiers" occasionally materialized in policies, such as not cutting veterans' health benefits and not nickle-and-diming the families left behind by the men and women in Iraq. But I guess W. "gets emotional" only "when he sees them." Out of sight, out of mind; once the 150-minute photo-op in Baghdad is over, Bush can fly back home and continue screwing the troops and veterans.

    posted by Arnold P. California at 4:14 PM




    That Was All In The Past

    As Frederick's post makes clear, in the past the US had few reservations about supporting brutal regimes so long as they served American interests.

    But we have learned from our mistakes, thank god. That is why Colin Powell was in North Africa yesterday, visiting Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia.

    As Human Rights Watch explain to Powell in a letter, these countries have pretty sorry human rights records that include things like "disappearances," "systematic harassment and repression of all those who criticize the government," and "suspicious deaths in detention and persons who remain unaccounted for months after their arrest."

    But we won't let that stop us from praising them for their assistance in the "war on terror"

    Even as he chided the leaders of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia for their human-rights records during his quick trek through Northern Africa, Secretary of State Colin Powell found much to praise

    [edit]

    He declined to dwell on Algeria's bloody history of political repression and civil war, saying he preferred to look to the future. Relations between the U.S. and Algeria, which will join the UN Security Council for a 2-year term next year and is in line to become a member of the World Trade Organization, have never been stronger, he said.

    There are also economic considerations in Washington's dealings with Algeria. It is a major supplier of oil to the U.S. and also has been a major recipient of U.S. investment.

    [edit]

    He blended the positive with the negative, but there was not much negative in his public remarks. His approach was to encourage democratic governance and stay away from past sins, such as torture and repression of political opposition.

    And rewarding them too

    Mr. Powell announced a fourfold increase in economic aid to Morocco, a close partner among Muslim nations, which has received $42.1 million since 2000. He invited the Tunisian president, Zine el-Abidine ben Ali, to visit President Bush at the White House in February, and he expressed support for free trade agreements.


    posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:16 PM




    Kissinger: A Brutal Defender of Repression or Just "Old Fashioned"?

    Last year, more than 4,000 U.S. documents were declassified by the State Department, and The Miami Herald reports that some of these documents reveal that then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger voiced support for the campaign of terror waged by the Argentine military junta during the 1970s.

    This was the Argentine military junta's infamous ''dirty war'' against students, union leaders and others whom they considered disloyal or leftists. The "dirty war" campaign led to the deaths or disappearance' of about 30,000 people from 1975 to 1983.

    Kissinger and several other Ford administration officials have previously denied condoning the widespread human-rights abuses that occurred in Argentina during that era.

    The Herald has obtained a copy of a 7-page transcript of an October 1976 meeting between Kissinger and Argentine Navy Admiral César Augusto Guzzetti in New York. This was at the very height of the "dirty war." In the transcript, marked "SECRET," Kissinger tells Augusto Guzzetti:
    ''Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed. I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported. What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war. We read about human rights problems but not the context. The quicker you succeed, the better.''
    There you have it. Henry's not a bad guy; he's just old-fashioned.

    But there's more. In 1974, Congress passed the Harkin Amendment, which amended the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to prohibit various forms of U.S. assistance to any government "which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights." In other words, countries like Argentina. But in the October 1976 transcript, Kissinger rather bluntly informs the Argentine military leader that the Ford administration would try to ignore or circumvent the Harkin Amendment vis-a-vis Argentina. Kissinger stated:
    "If you can finish (your campaign) before Congress gets back, the better. Whatever freedoms you could restore would help.

    "On economics, we have Harkin. We will do our utmost not to apply it to Argentina unless the situation gets out of control."
    There he goes .... being old-fashioned again.

    In fairness, this dishonorable policy of "winking" at human rights abuses in Latin America began long before the Ford administration. An article in the Michigan Journal of Political Science quotes President Lyndon Johnson's defense secretary, Robert MacNamara, as explaining in 1965 the U.S.'s policy:
    "Our primary objective in Latin America is to aid, wherever necessary, the continual growth of the military and paramilitary forces, so that together with the police and other security forces, they may provide the necessary internal security."


    posted by Frederick Maryland at 11:29 AM




    "Nigger"

    Frederick's post reminded me of the book I read about a year ago on just this topic: Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word by Randall Kennedy

    Or you can just read this review of Kennedy's book from Salon.

    posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:05 AM




    The N-Word Controversy at U. of Virginia

    The uproar that has followed a University of Virginia employee's use of the N-word seems quite overblown -- Zoe's post yesterday and the university's newspaper explain the controversy. The employee made the following statement to four co-workers:
    "I can't believe in this day and age that there's a sports team in our nation's capital named the Redskins. That is as derogatory to Indians as having a team called Niggers would be to blacks."
    It's clear from the context that the employee was not elevating the term "nigger," but was actually recognizing just how denigrating it is and using this to illustrate how denigrating he felt the word "Redskins" is.

    The university's staff union had organized a protest over the employee's statement, and the staff union president had this ridiculous comment:
    "It doesn't really matter in what context this word was used."
    What nonsense. Context matters greatly, and it plays a strong role in the word choices each of us makes every day.

    In addition to the fact that the N-word was used to draw a powerful comparison, there is another aspect of context that also matters: audience. People who know us well are in a better position to distinguish candor from sarcasm, take full measure of our words, and decipher what we mean based on a history of intimate conversations and experiences.

    I'm a little disappointed in civil rights leader Julian Bond, who called on the employee to make a public apology and take "sensitivity training." Even if Bond and others felt the employee was a virulent racist, is there any empirical evidence that demonstrates that "sensitivity training" works?

    More to the point, based on the university's report on the incident, there would seem to be no value to making this employee sit through this kind of training. The report stated that none of the four work colleagues with whom the employee used the N-word was personally offended -- largely because these employees "reported no previous indication that the individual's language or behavior ... suggest[ed] racial insensitivity..."

    Bond redeemed himself somewhat with these words: "My first impulse is that this should be a dismissible infraction -- but free speech protections I hold dear tell me that shouldn't be so."


    posted by Frederick Maryland at 10:46 AM




    Rewarding His Friends

    From the Wall Street Journal

    Robert L. Bartley, who oversaw The Wall Street Journal's editorial page for 30 years, was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, the White House said.

    [edit]

    White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said President Bush called Mr. Bartley on Tuesday to tell him of the honor. "I am grateful and humbled to receive this recognition from the president," Mr. Bartley said.


    posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:42 AM


    Wednesday, December 03, 2003


    Mikhaela Reid is Brutal

    But brillliant. She's one of my favorite cartoonists; here's her latest.



    She explains: "Those are tiny flag-draped coffins, in case you can't see them... there are supposed to be 440 but I think there might be 22 extra (to go with the 'and counting' bit)... sigh."

    If you like this, there's more, plus an e-mail list, a blog, and other stuff.

    posted by Arnold P. California at 7:29 PM




    Play It Again, Miwako

    A few days ago, I posted an item about Miwako Sato, a teacher in a Japanese public school who refused to play the national anthem, "Kimigayo," at a school assembly. The anthem was unofficial until four years ago (as was the flag) because of its association with the militarist regime of the 30s and 40s. Sato also objected because the "kimi" in "kimigayo" is the emperor, and she believes the song is a throwback to the days when the emperor was officially deified; the song thus violates her Christian faith.

    Predictably, she lost her court fight.
    In rejecting the teacher's request, presiding Judge Yukio Yamaguchi said, "Public servants' freedom of thought and conscience are subject to restraint when working" due to their official status and related responsibilities.

    "Even if there are various opinions about the school principal's official order to play the piano, the order should be accepted," Yamaguchi said, rejecting a claim that the teacher was mistreated.
    Sato can appeal, though the Japanese appellate court system is notoriously slow, so this decision will be the last word for a while.

    posted by Arnold P. California at 7:08 PM




    (sigh)

    I wish this story were nothing more than a lame attempt at satire by a liberal-loathing conservative. Sadly, it isn't. It's true.

    An employee at the University of Virginia has been the catalyst for an uproar because he allegedly said the following in a casual conversation, "I can't believe in this day and age that there's a sports team in our nation's capital named the Redskins. That is as derogatory to Indians as having a team called Niggers would be to blacks."

    Where's the scandal? The said the word nigger out loud. Which we all know is a very ugly, hateful word. But for pete's sake, context counts, doesn't it?

    Apparently not.

    It's being called a "racial incident" and there has been at least one protest and many nervous administrators trying to explain how something like this could have happened. Oh the horror.

    In response to the alleged remark, the Staff Union at U.Va. is sponsoring a Protest Against Racism at U.Va. and the U.Va. Medical Center After a Recent Racial Incident" today at noon.

    "It doesn't really matter in what context this word was used," Staff Union President Jan Cornell said in a statement, adding that employees have reported other similar incidents.

    "I will continue to inform the U.Va. administration about racism, discrimination, mistreatment of employees by managers and retaliation issues until U.Va. is a safe place to work for everyone of every race," she said.
    ...
    "We felt it was important to let the University community know what had transpired," [University spokesperson Carol] Wood said. "We were trying to reaffirm that something like this is serious and deserves attention."
    ...
    In an e-mail sent to a black faculty e-mail list, History Prof. Julian Bond, national chair of the NAACP, called for the employee to make a public apology and take sensitivity training.

    "My first impulse is that this should be a dismissible infraction -- but free speech protections I hold dear tell me that shouldn't be so," Bond wrote, adding that the administration "ought to disavow such language."

    This is so absurd and so sad. C'mon, Julian. You should have called this what it is-- nothing.

    Thanks to Calpundit for pointing it out.



    posted by Zoe Kentucky at 5:38 PM




    Medicare Bill Creates Bad Blood in the GOP

    There appears to be some bad blood among Republicans in the aftermath of the passage of the Medicare reform bill. While most GOP members of the U.S. House and Senate easily succumbed to White House pressure, others did not. If nothing else, I credit these conservative opponents for being consistent in their fiscal conservatism.

    My point is simply this -- if these House and Senate GOPers truly oppose increasing the long-term costs of entitlement programs, they shouldn't abandon this position for the sake of delivering a short-term political plum to the president and his Rasputin (Karl Rove).

    These Republicans saw the Medicare bill as imposing new costs on taxpayers at a time when the federal deficit is already skyrocketing. The Bush administration lobbied these GOP members to no avail. During a phone call with first-term Florida Congressman Tom Feeney, the president himself revealed that he isn't used to taking "no" for an answer. The Hill, a weekly newspaper covering events on Capitol Hill, reports that a petulant Bush -- frustrated at Feeney's position -- abruptly hung up the phone on the Florida congressman:
    "Well-placed sources said Bush hung up on freshman Rep. Tom Feeney after Feeney said he couldn’t support the Medicare bill. The House passed it by only two votes after Hastert kept the roll-call vote open for an unprecedented stretch of nearly three hours in the middle of the night.

    "Feeney, a former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives whom many see as a rising star in the party, reportedly told Bush: 'I came here to cut entitlements, not grow them.'

    "Sources said Bush shot back, 'Me too, pal,' and hung up the phone."
    The article managed to convey two other points -- House Speaker Denny Hastert is equally thin-skinned, and former Cong. Dick Armey opened himself to the charge of "hypocrite":
    "At the same time, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) castigated former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) after he wrote an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal opposing the bill. Armey wrote that he opposed the bill even though he had voted for two similar bills as a member of Congress."


    posted by Frederick Maryland at 3:39 PM




    Meanwhile, In Africa

    UN peacekeepers rescued dozens of sex slaves in the Congo

    U.N. troops freed dozens of young girls and women used as sex slaves during raids on camps run by ethnic militiamen in northeastern Congo, officials said on Wednesday.

    United Nations troops, deployed to bring peace to a region where rival ethnic militias regularly kill civilians, also seized munitions including antipersonnel mines and electronic detonators in the raids on Tuesday.

    [edit]

    ''Three prisoners were freed from underground prison cells. Thirty-four women used as sexual slaves in the camp were freed as well,'' Salmeron said.

    According to Salmeron, who is based in Bunia, local witnesses said the women and girls were aged between 12 and 23 and had been held for four months.

    And the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda found three Rwandan news media executives guilty of inciting the 1994 genocide

    Two of the defendants, Ferdinand Nahimana and Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, were founders of RTLM radio station, which prosecutors said had a huge influence in a country where people primarily rely on the radio for news. The case against the two turned on the question of whether they intended to create a frenzy of violence, or simply failed to control the station.

    The judges found that both men, as well as Ngeze, the newspaper editor, had to know that the broadcasts and articles would unleash violence given the political climate in Rwanda at the time. They cited the words of one witness who testified: "What RTLM did was almost to pour petrol, to spread petrol throughout the country little by little, so that one day it would be able to set fire to the whole country."

    Which reminds me of this chronicle of US discussions regarding the possibility of jamming this radio station during the genocide

    Dallaire pleaded with New York, and Bushnell and her team recommended in Washington, that something be done to "neutralize" Radio Mille Collines.

    The country best equipped to prevent the genocide planners from broadcasting murderous instructions directly to the population was the United States. Marley offered three possibilities. The United States could destroy the antenna. It could transmit "counter-broadcasts" urging perpetrators to stop the genocide. Or it could jam the hate radio station's broadcasts. This could have been done from an airborne platform such as the Air Force's Commando Solo airplane. Anthony Lake raised the matter with Secretary of Defense William Perry at the end of April. Pentagon officials considered all the proposals non-starters. On May 5 Frank Wisner, the undersecretary of defense for policy, prepared a memo for Sandy Berger, then the deputy national-security adviser. Wisner's memo testifies to the unwillingness of the U.S. government to make even financial sacrifices to diminish the killing.

    We have looked at options to stop the broadcasts within the Pentagon, discussed them interagency and concluded jamming is an ineffective and expensive mechanism that will not accomplish the objective the NSC Advisor seeks.

    International legal conventions complicate airborne or ground based jamming and the mountainous terrain reduces the effectiveness of either option. Commando Solo, an Air National Guard asset, is the only suitable DOD jamming platform. It costs approximately $8500 per flight hour and requires a semi-secure area of operations due to its vulnerability and limited self-protection.

    I believe it would be wiser to use air to assist in Rwanda in the [food] relief effort ...

    The plane would have needed to remain in Rwandan airspace while it waited for radio transmissions to begin. "First we would have had to figure out whether it made sense to use Commando Solo," Wisner recalls. "Then we had to get it from where it was already and be sure it could be moved. Then we would have needed flight clearance from all the countries nearby. And then we would need the political go-ahead. By the time we got all this, weeks would have passed. And it was not going to solve the fundamental problem, which was one that needed to be addressed militarily." Pentagon planners understood that stopping the genocide required a military solution. Neither they nor the White House wanted any part in a military solution. Yet instead of undertaking other forms of intervention that might have at least saved some lives, they justified inaction by arguing that a military solution was required.

    Whatever the limitations of radio jamming, which clearly would have been no panacea, most of the delays Wisner cites could have been avoided if senior Administration officials had followed through. But Rwanda was not their problem. Instead justifications for standing by abounded. In early May the State Department Legal Advisor's Office issued a finding against radio jamming, citing international broadcasting agreements and the American commitment to free speech. When Bushnell raised radio jamming yet again at a meeting, one Pentagon official chided her for naiveté: "Pru, radios don't kill people. People kill people!"

    Apparently the ICTR disagrees.

    posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:59 PM




    Political Incest

    Here we have John Ashcroft talking about judicial nominations at the Federalist Society's 2003 National Lawyers Convention (pdf format)

    You may think that some of the President's best nominees are being treated unfairly. I can understand that. In that case, you may want to exercise your right to dissent. The future of freedom and the rule of law depend on citizens informed by fact and directed toward truth. To be sure, the law depends on the integrity of those who make it, of those who enforce it, and those who apply it. It also depends on the moral courage of citizens, and of lawyers like you, to insist on being heard, whether in town hall meetings, in county council meetings, or in the United States Senate.

    Federalist Society members need to insist on being heard? They have already infiltrated the White House, they control the judicial nominations process and several of their members have been nominated by Bush to seats on the federal bench. What more do they want?

    Oh yeah, total control of the judiciary.

    posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:06 PM




    Framing the Issue on Gay Marriage

    Zoe's recent post on Sean Hannity's remarks supporting an anti-gay marriage amendment remind me how critical it is for opponents to frame this issue strategically.

    Let me cut to the chase: Opponents may lose this fight unless they define this proposed amendment in very different terms than I just did.

    It's not simply an "anti-gay marriage"amendment; rather, it's an amendment that has the potential to ban any domestic-partner benefits (for unmarried gay or "straight" couples) that are specifically designed to award benefits that would normally be reserved for heterosexual married couples.

    After all, keep in mind how the proposed federal amendment (sponsored by Colorado Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave) is worded. The amendment would prevent states from granting "marital status or the legal incidence thereof" to non-heterosexual couples who have not actually secured the legal contract of marriage.

    In an earlier post, I observed the rhetorical dance that Cong. Musgrave did when confronted with the language in her amendment.

    From what my reading of the proposed amendment, opponents can reasonably argue that the amendment could potentially eliminate the domestic-partner benefits that thousands of unmarried, heterosexual couples now receive from their public-sector employers. In other words, this amendment isn't just about gay people.

    posted by Frederick Maryland at 11:43 AM




    It's the Mobility, Stupid

    The stellar 3rd Quarter growth in the nation's GDP provides hope that the U.S. economy is making a turnaround, but the new edition of Business Week reminds Americans that even robust economic growth has not been able to ensure upward mobility -- the ability of low-end workers to slowly move their way up the economic ladder.

    The article (registration required) by Aaron Bernstein notes:
    "More than a quarter of of the labor force, about 34 million workers, is trapped in low-wage, often dead-end jobs ...

    "In fact, according to a study by two Federal Reserve Bank of Boston economists that analyzed families' incomes over three decades, the number of people who stayed stuck in the same income bracket ... actually increased in the 1990s. So, though the boom lifted pay rates for janitors and clerks by as much as 5% to 10% in the late 1990s, more of them remained janitors or clerks; fewer worked their way into better-paying positions."
    In other words, even the impressive economic expansion of the Clinton years did nothing to improve the upward mobility of workers. Of course, something tells me that this issue was actually discussed once or twice within the halls of the Clinton White House; one is hard-pressed to imagine Bush's economic advisers losing sleep over the plight of low-wage workers.

    posted by Frederick Maryland at 11:17 AM




    Without Comment

    From the AP

    The hearing for a Muslim Army chaplain charged with mishandling classified materials was delayed because others in the military accidentally mishandled classified materials in his case, defense officials said Wednesday.



    posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:36 AM




    Fighting the Last War

    Oliver North continues to criticize Natalie Maines for continuing to criticize President Bush

    There's a time and a place for political criticism and spirited debate and Natalie Maines, the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, seems not to understand either where nor when to voice such thoughts. Miss Maines and her cohorts ran afoul of the American public last spring when, just before the war in Iraq, she said she was "ashamed" President Bush was from Texas. The comment was bad enough, but it really upset people that she made it on the eve of war and in a foreign land.

    Last week Miss Maines was at it again. Heading into the holiday season, when it is especially difficult for young Americans in uniform to be so far from the ones they love, Miss Maines protested on the "Today" show, "I think people were misled and I think people are fighting a war that they didn't know they were going to be fighting."

    The young Americans fighting this war here in Iraq don't believe they were misled. Their morale is high, their spirits are strong. They are doing a magnificent job and would like to know they have the support of their fellow Americans for what they're doing.

    Ignoring the fact that North himself is an admitted felon who should be sitting in federal prison instead of writing columns for the Washington Times, one has to wonder just when is the "time and place for political criticism and spirited debate" regarding the war in Iraq? It certainly wasn't before the war when critics were called terrorist sympathizers. And it certainly isn't during the war when they are called traitors. So it must be after the war, when it doesn't matter any more.

    posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:30 AM


    Tuesday, December 02, 2003


    Right-Wing (Wet) Dream Candidates

    Right-wing conservatives gotta be pinching themselves, asking themselves, 'is this guy for real!' A black southern man who has proclaimed himself to be the next Jesse Helms! Here's a colorful excerpt from a direct mail letter from North Carolina congressional candidate Vernon Robinson:
    "Jesse Helms is back! And this time, he's black." That's what The Winston-Salem Journal (the largest and most liberal newspaper in the 5th Congressional District of North Carolina) had to say about my campaign for Congress. The radical homosexuals printed the same thing in their publication, which they call "Queer Notes". They scornfully called me, "Helms redux."

    Of course, they meant the comparison to Helms to be taken as an insult, but I wear it as a badge of honor.

    For 30 years, Jesse Helms was the number one flag carrier for the conservative movement in Washington, and with him gone, someone needs to step in and fill that void.
    ...
    Some of you may remember all those lonely years, particularly before Ronald Reagan was elected President, when Jesse Helms would be the only vote against some outrageous piece of liberal legislation, only because nobody else in Congress had the courage to stand with him against the Left.

    Sometimes it was Teddy Kennedy and the welfare lobby coming after Jesse, or the gun grabbers, or the Jesse Jackson crowd, or the environmental extremists, or the lesbian feminists, or the union bosses, or the pro-abortion zealots, or the tax and spend junkies.

    And sometimes it was just good, old-fashioned communist sympathizers who were mad because Jesse wanted to get us out of the United Nations.

    But you knew ol' Jesse wasn't going to run from them. He didn't run when the homosexual terrorists erected a giant, 40-foot, inflated, condom-shaped balloon on the roof of his home.

    And Jesse didn't run when National Public Radio's Nina Totenberg wished death upon him and his grandkids by telling millions of Americans, "If there is retributive justice, Jesse Helms will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it . . .." This from the woman who says it is Jesse who is intolerant.
    ...
    At one time or another I have been endorsed by Jesse Helms, Jeb Bush, Alan Keyes, Elizabeth Dole, Dick Armey, Gary Bauer, the NRA, Right-to-Life, the Immigration Reform PAC, the Republican Liberty Caucus, Jack Kemp, Bill Bennett, Pat Buchanan, Pete du Pont, Richard Petty, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Gary Aldrich, Morton Blackwell, Tom Tancredo, and Bob Barr.

    If my name sounds familiar, it may be because The Fox News Channel recently called me "a rising star", "the next J.C. Watts", and "the new face of the Republican Party."

    The Wall Street Journal wrote, "He's the next black GOP Congressman." and "When elected, Vernon Robinson will be the first black GOP Congressman elected from a Confederate state since Reconstruction."


    Commies! Gun grabbers! Homosexual terrorists! Feminists! Oh My! The evil of all evils, NPR's Nina Totenberg!

    I sure do hope he gets elected and they parade him around to show everyone what it means to be black and Republican in America! Heck, Bush should kick Cheney to the curb next year and select this guy to be his Vice President!

    (P.S. If you want a copy of the direct mail piece I'll be glad to send it your way. Just e-mail me.)

    posted by Zoe Kentucky at 5:47 PM




    Think about the children!

    Sweet talkin' Sean Hannity at a $1000-per-plate breakfast fund-raiser on why we need a Federal Marriage Amendment, "There is no ambiguity for me. Kids need a mother and a father. That's what children need. Traditionally, throughout civilization, marriage has been defined as one man and one woman."

    Really? If children need a mother and a father, then why do we permit poor, defenseless children live in homes without both? Then where's the amendment to the constitution banning single parents? Also, since divorces actually ruin and destroy families, why don't we ban them too?

    Lemme see. What else is bad for children? Actually, poverty is really bad for children, since it often goes hand-in-hand with hunger, malnutrition, inadequate health care, homelessness, and so on. Why not a constitutional ban on poverty? Why not demand that all children in the US should have their basic needs met-- food, shelter, clothing, education, health care? Let's declare a war on childhood poverty!

    Oh, wait, we already did that, didn't we?. Wow. I gotta say, that war is going really well.

    Sean, come back and talk to me about what children in this country really need when every single one of them has their basic needs met-- food, shelter, clothing, health care and a loving and supportive home free of abuse and neglect. Otherwise, leave the children with gay parents alone.

    Hey, I'd hazard a guess that he doesn't actually know any families with 2 moms or 2 dads. Perhaps some Log Cabin parents should invite Mr. Hannity over for dinner? That could be a great campaign, actually. Gay couples should publicly invite anti-gay marriage supporters over to break bread and see for themselves how wild and crazy their lives are...

    posted by Zoe Kentucky at 5:18 PM




    "the right to take a shit in dignity is pretty much a bottomline issue"

    I don't know if Nathan Newman intended this phrase to be a pun, but his righteous indignation is properly aimed at a recent court decision overruling the Labor Department's requirement that agribusiness provide toilet facilities within a quarter of a mile of where farmworkers are laboring.

    posted by Arnold P. California at 4:20 PM




    "Complete Unpreparedness for War and Complete Unpreparedness for Peace"

    That is what the Republican Party Platform in 1920 accused Democratic President Woodrow Wilson of regarding his handling of World War I.

    That is just one of the interesting things I have learned from reading Lewis Gould's "Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans."

    I also came across this interesting tidbit regarding the 1918 mid-term elections in which Wilson made support of his leadership akin to support of the war

    On October 25, 1918, Wilson's statement went out to the nation. Republicans had "unquestionably been pro-war, but they have been anti-administration." To elect Republicans, Wilson said, would be seen "on the other side of the war as a repudiation of my leadership." The statement, with its implication that the GOP had been less then helpful in the war effort, evoked Republican outrage.

    [edit]

    When Republicans attacked Wilson and his party, they did so as part of what they conceived to be their patriotic duty in a nation at war because they disagreed with the way the president was conducting the war. But for the Democratic president to defend his party and seek its electoral success while the fighting took place seemed to many Republicans an assault on their patriotism.

    That sounds familiar.

    posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:07 PM




    Is Gay Marriage Worse Than Murder?
    Or Was Novak (Again) Overreaching?


    Reading Robert Novak's syndicated column is rarely a literary delight, even for those who share his conservative ideology. His writing style is every bit as stodgy as his tightly buttoned, suit-and-vest uniform. And Novak's supposedly "inside" scoops usually reveal far more about who he lunched with two days before than they do about the behind-the-scenes workings of Washington.

    However, the Novak column on same-sex marriage that appeared in Monday's Washington Post was noteworthy. This particular Novak column discussed the disappointment of Religious Right leaders that President Bush has yet to endorse their push for an anti-gay marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    On the one hand, Novak's column followed the usual pattern. Example: Instead of simply arguing that Bush should endorse such an amendment, Novak presents himself as a strange kind of intermediary, relaying crucial messages to an uninformed political leader. "Bush must decide, therefore, whether [the issue of gay marriage] is truly important," wrote Novak. "Christian conservatives who support him say that it is ..."

    Now for the noteworthy part. Just how important is "truly important"? Well, it turns out that the answer is rather stunning, that is, if Novak has accurately conveyed the views of Religious Right groups. In the Post, Novak wrote:
    Charlie Cook, a respected campaign handicapper, has called this issue "frivolous and insignificant" when compared with casualties in Iraq and unemployment in America. Not in the opinion of Bush's social conservatives, who over the past two weeks have made clear to the White House that this -- even more than abortion -- is their great concern about the nation's social fabric.
    Whoa. Wait a minute. But these so-called, pro-family groups consider abortion to be legalized murder, don't they? On his personal website, televangelist Pat Robertson declares, "In my opinion, abortion is murder."

    So are Religious Right leaders now trying to tell Americans or their fervent supporters that same-sex marriage is a greater threat to the country's "social fabric" than murder?

    Perhaps the "worse than murder" message existed only inside Novak's head? The version of Novak's column appearing in his home newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times, makes no comparison to abortion in the paragraph in question. The Sun-Times version printed this paragraph as follows:
    Charlie Cook, a respected campaign handicapper, has called this issue ''frivolous and insignificant'' when compared with casualties in Iraq and unemployment in America. Not in the opinion of Bush's social conservatives, who over the last two weeks have made clear to the White House that this is their great concern.
    So is this just another example of Novak's tendency to state his (or someone else's) case in the shrillest terms? We may never know. The Sun-Times could have been looking to trim the length of Novak's column slightly, but, speaking as a former copy editor, it would be a little strange to edit these 4 words out of the column unless a senior editor (or Novak himself) gave this instruction.

    posted by Frederick Maryland at 1:43 PM




    Today's WBA Update

    Tom DeLay (R - WBA) plans to use a cruise ship as a hotel during the Republican National Convention in New York next summer and, in doing so, has pissed off a wide array of labor unions.

    From the NYT

    Mr. DeLay, of Texas, has proposed chartering the 2,240-passenger luxury cruise liner for the convention, docking it in the Hudson River, so that Republican members of Congress and their guests can all stay at one place. The deal has not been sealed, but Mr. DeLay has given no indication that he plans to back down.

    [edit]

    The Republicans may be able to shake off the partisan sniping, but they risk running into trouble with city labor unions, a prospect that could undermine the operation of the convention. Labor leaders said yesterday that to help bring the convention to New York, they had agreed to guarantee they would not strike during the convention, which is scheduled for Aug. 30 to Sept 2. They would still be bound by their negotiated labor contracts, a union official said.

    But leaders of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, representing about 100,000 workers, and the Hotel Trades Council, representing 25,000 members, said that if the cruise liner is used, it will mean that the Republicans negotiated in bad faith.

    [edit]

    Peter Ward, president of the New York Hotel Trades Council, representing virtually all hotel workers, said he was furious about the DeLay plan.

    "Everything that every union leader did, every civic leader did, every government leader did to bring the convention here was done for one reason: to bring business into the city to stimulate jobs and raise the tax base," Mr. Ward said. "And for these guys to rent a boat to stay out in the river, and not pay hotel occupancy tax, is just an outrage."


    posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:48 PM




    If It Sounds Too Good to Be True, It Probably Is

    Apparently part of the Bush administration global warming agenda involves a plan to capture carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and inject it into the deep sea. [Political cartoonists take note, this is a natural for you.] I must admit that I don't follow this area closely enough to have known this little policy detail ahead of time. But I did come across a marine biologist who says it's a pretty dumb idea.
    "CO2 injection would be detrimental to a great many organisms," said the URI biologist. "It would kill everything that can't swim fast enough to get out of the way, because in concentrated form it's highly toxic, even to humans. But the Department of Energy seems willing to sacrifice the animals of the deep sea if it will stop global warming. That's not entirely unreasonable considering that if we keep stalling on taking serious measures to reduce global warming, we won't be able to do anything about it. But I'd still like to see that we're doing everything else possible to reduce emissions before we begin polluting the deep-sea."
    I'd be more than happy to stop pointing out the obvious: that things that sound stupid probably are. But I'll keep going as long as the White House keeps inspiring me.

    posted by Helena Montana at 11:47 AM




    Sign the DCCC Petition

    The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is charged with recruiting, assisting, funding, and electing Democrats to the U. S. House of Representatives.

    Sign their redistricting petition

    We request that the recently submitted Texas redistricting plan be reviewed by professionals from the staff of the Justice Department’s Voting Rights section free from political interference or influence.

    Any impartial review would deny Texas’ map pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act because it clearly dilutes the strength of African American and Hispanic voters. The proposed Texas plan illegally shifts nearly one-million African Americans and Hispanics from competitive districts where their votes have determined the outcome of elections, into noncompetitive districts where their votes are essentially meaningless.

    If allowed to take effect, the Texas redistricting plan would be the greatest weakening of minority voters’ political power since the Voting Rights Act was enacted.

    The Justice Department is entrusted to preserve the voting rights of every American – not protect the parochial interests of any political party.

    We urge you to ensure that the review of Texas’ redistricting map is conducted without political influence from your appointees at the Justice Department or other Bush Administration officials.


    posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:56 AM




    177,260 to 13,000 to 143 to 0

    That is the ratio of male immigrants forced to register with the federal government to the number who now face deportation to the number of suspected criminals caught to the number of terrorist leads this entire process produced.

    So now they are ending it

    The United States has ended its requirement men from 25 mostly Muslim countries register with the authorities every year they are in the country.

    The program has yielded no terror leads, U.S. Undersecretary for Border and Transportation Security Asa Hutchinson announced Monday.

    The Department for Homeland Security first required registration for male visitors over age 16 from five countries identified as state sponsors of terrorism -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria -- in November last year. Later the program was expanded to include male nationals of 19 other Muslim nations and North Korea. Registering visitors were interviewed, photographed and fingerprinted.

    The 177,260 foreign men who have registered under the program were required to re-register 30 days later and again one year after their initial registration.


    posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:23 AM




    GOP Money Matters

    It was only a matter of time.
    The GOP wants to put Ronald Reagan on the dime.

    Without peeking, do you know who is on the dime currently?

    Grover Norquist, head of the I Love Ronald Reagan fan club, said he'd like it if Reagan replaced the lousy, unloved president currently on the dime, but it would also be OK with him if Reagan shared the dime.

    (Fellas, if you all love Reagan so much why don't you marry him? Perhaps that's a special provision they should add to the FMA!)

    posted by Zoe Kentucky at 10:21 AM




    Big Win for Free Speech

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation reports today that "Diebold Backs Down, Won't Sue on Publication of Electronic Voting Machine Flaws." Kudos to the EFF for fighting the good fight, and to the college students and others who didn't back down when threatened with legal action.

    Diebold's attempt to keep potentially important information from being disseminated is but the latest in a string of recent corporate attempts to abuse intellectual property law to stifle free speech. (The one that got the most attention was the laughable Fox v. Franken suit, though in many ways that was one of the least worrisome given the resources at Franken's disposal, the sheer frivolousness of the suit, and the bad publicity Fox got out of it). Professor Jack Balkin of Yale Law School has written on this, and I also recommend Stanford Professor Lawrence Lessig's blog for those interested in the intersection of law, technology, and free speech.


    posted by Arnold P. California at 9:51 AM




    The Real Joe McCarthy

    As something of an antidote to those seeking to restore McCarthy's reputation, the Washington Post offers up this book review of Ted Morgan's Reds

    The past few years have seen a bold if flawed attempt to resurrect the reputation of Sen. Joe McCarthy, whose Senate investigations into communism in the 1950s produced the opprobrium "McCarthyism" -- to refer to those who smeared opponents falsely, ruined their careers and practiced guilt by association. Writing in the pages of this paper in 1996, liberal columnist Nicholas von Hoffman began the revision, claiming that "point by point Joe McCarthy got it all wrong and yet was still closer to the truth than those who ridiculed him." In 2000, historian Arthur Herman offered a biography of the senator from Wisconsin that attempted to vindicate him. Most recently, the writer Ann Coulter has made McCarthy the hero of her screed Treason, in which she asserts that the portrayal of the senator "as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism." Indeed, Coulter argues that "what the country needed was Joe McCarthy," whom she calls a "brave man" from whom "the American people heard the truth."

    Those believing such balderdash will do themselves a great service by reading Ted Morgan's Reds.

    [edit]

    Scrutinizing McCarthy's work with a careful lens, Morgan shows how from the start the senator was a rank opportunist, a man who defended Nazi SS murderers and attacked the U.S. Army in his first Senate investigation, showing himself at his "posturing, blustering, wrongheaded worst." A latecomer to the anticommunist cause, McCarthy used a lag in perception about communists in government to engage in the kind of scattershot and irresponsible charges that made him headline news. He sometimes had a valid case about people who presented serious security risks still holding places in government, but he ruined it by overstating and by changing the numbers of those who supposedly still were implanted. His facts were wrong, but his timing -- coming after the exposure of Alger Hiss's treachery and the fall of Nationalist China -- was perfect. Rather than really being concerned with improving security, McCarthy was more interested in discrediting the Truman administration and using his investigations to gain political influence and power. There were no spies left in the State Department by February of 1950, although security could have been tightened. But McCarthy did not study carefully what files he had obtained, nor did he cull his list. Instead, as Morgan writes, he concealed sources and sought to overwhelm the Senate "with the bogus momentousness of his findings."


    posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:40 AM


    Monday, December 01, 2003


    1914 and 2003: Misusing a Terrorist Act to Justify War

    History offers some fascinating parallels to the current landscape of world affairs, and one of these parallels was revealed from the book, "Serbs and Croats: The Struggle in Yugoslavia." Alex Dragnich's book recounts the turbulent events in the Balkans that preceded World War I and eventually put the Austro-Hungarian empire on a collision course with Serbia.

    As with every parallel, there are certain distinctions, but the similarities remain striking.

    1) BOTH THE U.S. AND AUSTRIA WERE SUPERPOWERS. Just as the U.S. is a major superpower today, the Austro-Hungarian empire is widely recognized by historians as one of the most powerful nations of the early 20th century.

    2) BOTH THE U.S. AND AUSTRIA HAD LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR SOME CONCERN. There were legitimate reasons for civilized nations to be deeply concerned about Iraq (repeated violations of UN resolutions, repression against Kurds and other minorities). Likewise, there were some legitimate reasons to be concerned about Serbia -- the Black Hand was an extreme nationalist Serbian group that was formed in 1911 and which continued to operate until just recently in Kosovo.

    3) BOTH THE U.S. AND AUSTRIA USED TERRORIST ACTS AS A RATIONALE FOR THEIR INVASIONS. The U.S. cited a terrorist act -- the 9/11 tragedies -- as a primary justification for its spring 2003 invasion of Iraq. Likewise, Austria cited a terrorist act to justify its declaration of war against Serbia in 1914:
    "Well, the point the President makes about 9/11 is that prior to 9/11 it was much easier for the American people to sit back and think that terrorism was something that affected maybe our embassies abroad or people in other countries in faraway lands. After 9/11 it became very clear that there are people who have a clear desire, and they will do it again if they can, to attack the United States ... And what we do worry about is them getting their weapons from the Iraqis, and then coming to the United States to commit more crimes."
    Ari Fleischer, White House press secretary, press briefing, Feb. 25, 2003

    "The assassination of the heir to the [Austro-Hungarian] throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in June 1914 in Sarajevo ... gave the government in Vienna the pretext to crush Serbia."
    Dragnich, "Serbs and Croats," 1992, p. 15
    4) BOTH THE U.S. AND AUSTRIA INSISTED THAT THE TARGET NATIONS HAD TERRORIST LINKS. The U.S. argued that Iraq had links to terrorists just as Austria argued that Serbia was linked to the terrorist-assassin who killed its future ruler:
    "The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq."
    President Bush, weekly radio address, Sept. 28, 2002

    "[Archduke Ferdinand's] assassin was a Serb, and to Austro-Hungarian leaders this was proof that agents from Serbia had directed the assassination with the connivance of officials in Serbia."
    Dragnich, "Serbs and Croats," 1992, p. 15
    5) BOTH THE U.S. AND AUSTRIA LACKED SOLID EVIDENCE THAT THE TARGET NATION HAD TIES TO THE TERRORISTS IN QUESTION.
    "In making the case for war against Iraq, Vice President Cheney has continued to suggest that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with a Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker five months before the attacks, even as the story was falling apart under scrutiny by the FBI, CIA and the foreign government that first made the allegation. ... American investigators determined Atta was probably in the United States at the time of the meeting ..."
    "Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked By Cheney," The Washington Post, Sept. 29, 2003

    "Neither the Austrians nor the Germans had been able to find any evidence of official Serbian complicity in the assassination of the archduke. The most that Vienna could do was demonstrate that the Serbian cabinet had tolerated the existence of anti-Austrian organizations in Serbia."
    Dragnich, "Serbs and Croats," 1992, pp. 16-17
    6) BOTH THE U.S. AND AUSTRIA DRAGGED ALONG RELUCTANT ALLIES. Germany was initially reluctant to follow Austria headlong into war, just as Britain had initial misgivings about the U.S. (Bush administration's) policy toward Iraq.
    "Tony Blair has 'tremendous concerns' about the prospect of war with Iraq, King Abdullah of Jordan has claimed. The monarch said the British Prime Minister agrees with most international leaders that America's determination to topple Saddam Hussein at all costs is a mistake. His comments were made to an American newspaper following a meeting with Mr Blair ..."
    "Blair's 'concerns' over Iraq war," BBC News online, August 1, 2002

    "... there are signs of the first cracks in that united (Anglo-American) front with senior officials in both the British government and armed forces expressing reluctance to disarm any further rogue nations such as Syria, Iran or North Korea."
    Richard Evans, writing on TheInquistor.com, May 4, 2003

    "... Germany was satisfied with the Serbian answer to the (Austrian) ultimatum. Austria-Hungary, however, was not. It declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914, acting hastily on the assumption that Berlin would approve. Although this was not what Berlin wanted, Berlin proceeded to declare war against Serbia."
    Dragnich, "Serbs and Croats," 1992, p. 17



    posted by Frederick Maryland at 4:49 PM




    Who'da Thunk?

    West Nile Virus may have felled Alexander the Great. This article contains the funniest quote by an epidemiologist I've ever read: "If he was so great, he might not have been bumped off by this disease." Well, OK then.

    posted by Helena Montana at 4:08 PM




    The "Big-Think" on Redistricting

    Let Jeffrey Toobin add to your stack of post-holiday reading with his excellent New Yorker article on redistricting. His subtitle really gets to the heart of the issue. "When does gerrymandering become a threat to democracy?"

    We get so caught up in the details of a particular case, or distracted by what an asshole Tom DeLay is, that it's easy to miss the big shift that's going on. And it was easy, at least for me, to forget that there's other legal questions to ask about voting rather than the same old racial discrimination angle. Namely, when does partisan influence in redistricting cross over the line? I'd recommend the whole thing, but there were a few quotes that leapt out.

    NYU law professor Richard Pildes:
    There are now about four hundred safe seats in Congress. The level of competitiveness has plummeted to the point where it is hard to describe the House as involving competitive elections at all these days.
    Columbia law professor Samuel Issacharoffildes:
    Voters no longer choose members of the House; the people who draw the lines do.
    But perhaps Ron Klain put it best with his quote:
    At stake in this case is control of Congress—nothing more, nothing less.


    posted by Helena Montana at 4:02 PM




    Is the Colorado Re-redistricting Headed to the U.S. Supreme Court?

    In my previous post, I said Colorado's unprecedented re-redistricting "is dead and will stay dead."

    That's a little premature. I expect the Republicans to seek federal Supreme Court review and to ask the SCOTUS for a stay of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision so that the 2004 elections can be conducted under the new, Republican-favoring map. I still think it's very unlikely that the Justices will want to take the case, but it's conceivable, even though the Colorado Supreme Court repeatedly and expressly stated that its ruling rested solely on state-law grounds.

    How is that?

    First, and more plausibly, the Republicans argued that the federal Constititution gives the power to regulate the "Times, Places, and Manner" of House elections to the "legislatures" of the states. Thus, in an argument that recalls the first time the Supremes intervened in the 2000 election in Florida, the Republicans contend that the imposition of a new set of districts by a court for the 2002 elections can't displace the power of the state's legislature to draw districts (the court had to act because the legislature repeatedly failed to redistrict, and the old districts were no longer legal now that Colorado had received an extra seat in Congress and the census data showed the old districts failed the "one person, one vote" test). If this argument were correct, it would be irrelevant that the Colorado Constitution denied to its legislature the power to re-redistrict, because the federal Constitution is supreme in cases of conflict with state law.

    This is an issue that the Republicans can unquestionably raise in a petition to the SCOTUS, and it's one over which the SCOTUS clearly has jurisdiction. The problem is that in spite of its surface plausibility, it's ridiculous on the merits. It's been held repeatedly that the Constitution's use of the word "legislature" in this provision doesn't mean, e.g., that a state's legislature can adopt a new redistricting plan even if the governor vetoes it, or that the voters can't go around the legislature by adopting a new plan via an initiative, or even that a state can't permanently take the legislature out of the process by having an independent commission do redistricting every ten years. And of course courts redistrict all the time, because they have to when the legislatures fail to do so and the old districts are illegal.

    This isn't to say that it's a good thing for courts to be in the redistricting business, or that they shouldn't bend over backwards to let the legislatures do it. In this case, for instance, after the legislature failed to act, a Colorado trial judge reviewed various proposed plans and selected one he thought was "non-partisan," but then he delayed adopting it for the precise purpose of giving the legislature another chance. When the legislature still couldn't reach a political compromise, and the deadline for the 2002 elections was looming, the judge reluctantly imposed a plan.

    The second tack the Republicans could take is to argue that in spite of its repeated statements to the contrary, the Colorado Supreme Court's analysis of state law was so intertwined with federal law that its judgment in reality rests in part on a (mistaken) interpretation of federal law. The dissent did its best to invite SCOTUS review by repeatedly making this argument, though it never gave any specifics as to what erronous reading of federal law was essential to the majority's decision (other than rejecting the "legislature" argument above). The dissent charges that "the majority states that it relies upon state law in an effort to insulate this case from federal review, when, in fact, the whole analysis is and must be permeated by a reliance upon federal, as well as state, law."

    In short, I just don't see much reason for the SCOTUS to get involved. Of course, I would have said the same thing before Bush v. Gore. But I think the controversy over Bush cuts against hearing this case. The wounds from Bush are barely starting to heal, and if the conservative bloc of the Supreme Court were to reach out again in another case with heavy partisan overtones to review an essentially state-law decision, the damage could be considerable.

    posted by Arnold P. California at 12:53 PM




    The Army's 3rd Infantry Begs to Differ

    An excellent article in Sunday's New York Times examined the U.S.'s post-war planning -- or lack of it -- for Iraq. A Bush administration spokesman tried to put a pleasant face on the issue:
    "The United States government did extensive, detailed contingency planning for post-Saddam Iraq," said Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the National Security Council.
    But the facts point in a different direction. While noting that the Pentagon had developed plans for some catastrophes, such as fires raging in the Iraqi oil fields, the Times article explained:
    In fact, the Army's Third Infantry Division said in an after-action report that when it arrived in Baghdad it had no instructions, no mission statement.

    "Despite the virtual certainty that the military would accomplish the regime change, there was no plan for oversight and reconstruction, even after the division arrived in Baghdad," the report said.


    posted by Frederick Maryland at 11:52 AM




    Neil Bush's Amazingly Fabulous Life

    Life is good when your brother is the president and dad was the president. Neil Bush might not be the first to say so, but the facts speak for themselves. Those facts were divulged just recently after the release of a transcript of Bush's deposition for his divorce proceeding. In the deposition, it was revealed that Neil Bush had a contract with the Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation that would pay him $2 million in stock over five years.

    In the deposition, Bush was questioned by lawyers for his wife, Sharon, as to why Grace would retain him at such a lucrative price given that he knew so little about the semiconductor business.
    Attorney: "You have absolutely no educational background in semiconductors, do you?"

    Bush: "That's correct."

    Attorney: "And you have absolutely over the last 10, 15, 20 years not a lot of demonstrable business experience that would bring about a company investing $2 million in you?"

    Bush: "I personally would object to the assumption that they're investing $2 million in me."
    Overruled, Neil.

    posted by Frederick Maryland at 10:48 AM




    Go, Studs, Go!

    A lot of us could use a book like this these days-- Hope Dies Last: Keeping the Faith in Troubled Times-- a reminder that right now, in our troubled times, dwells the greatest potential for monumental progressive change. Terkel senses that the people are primed and ready, but the good people just need to deliver, well, the goods!
    If ever there were a time for these people, who I've admired for years, this is it. There was Tom Paine, there were the abolitionists. In the '60s there were the African-Americans who fought for civil rights, the kids against the war. Who were a minority, remember; the jocks beat the shit out of them at first and then joined them later. That's what I mean by a prophetic minority.

    It's not a Pollyanna book. I am optimistic, but the word is "guardedly." Guardedly so. I mean, three of the bestselling books are Al Franken and Michael Moore and Molly Ivins, all at the same time. That's not bad. It's an indication to me that there's something underneath, that the people are way, way ahead of the political leaders and the pundits.

    You say you hope I'm right. You hope. I hope too. I hope I'm right. I'm not saying I'm right.

    I see now that this is the most personal of my books. And people are really affected by it. I'm also a ham actor, so I do this in bookstores all over the country. Like last night in Barnes & Noble [in New York]. And it was fantastic! The Bay Area cities: OK, I knew Berkeley was gonna be OK. But I didn't expect San Jose State to be the way it was. It was students, and it was astounding O -- I'm just saying that, because it was.

    They're ready for something, provided it's said directly to them. If the Democratic Party loses this one to Bush, with wars and a forthcoming depression -- Hoover just had a depression -- if he wins and the Democratic Party, to use an old Poe phrase, deliquesces like fungi, then that's it. That's enough.
    ...
    To me, history is those who shed those other tears. Those whose brains and whose brawn made the wheels go around. I hate to use the word "the people." The anonymous many. But they're it. I know that the Internet has all sorts of democratic possibilities: That's how Howard Dean came up so fast, isn't it? At the same time, there's a fear of so much in the hands of so few.

    I was also going to talk about the perversion of our language: To go more "moderate" means to go more toward the center, and to go toward the center means to go toward the right. If you could see me now, I could do a demonstration: If our physical posture followed our political posture and the perversion of our language -- I'd have to act this out -- we'd walk around leaning to the right. That's the normal way of walking. And then, the guy who's walking straight: "Look at that leftist!" Or if the guy who's walking straight leans a little bit to the left: "He's a goddamn terrorist!"

    Thanks Mr. Terkel.


    posted by Zoe Kentucky at 10:13 AM


    Sunday, November 30, 2003


    Honoring the Flag

    Consider these two stories, which appeared on the same day last week in the Japan Times. (I've edited both substantially because of the length of this post; they're each worth reading in full).

    First, we have "U.S. veteran's kin seek to return battle flag." By way of background, Japanese soldiers in World War II sometimes went into battle with the rising sun flag, known as the "Hinomaru," tied around their waists. They would have the flags signed by their comrades before donning them. Some of these flags fell into American hands when their wearers died in battle.
    A Japanese battle flag that spent two decades tucked between some jars in an American family's shed set the family on a search for the soldier who once carried it.

    Moore said she realizes some veterans might not be pleased with her decision to return the flag, but believes it will be a tribute to her father [the American soldier who brought the flag home], who died in 1975.

    "This might have been my father's at one time," she said, "but now it belongs to someone else."
    On the same day, the newspaper reported "Flag, anthem rules kill free-thought right: teachers."
    Miwako Sato, a public elementary school teacher in the western Tokyo suburb of Kunitachi, may file a lawsuit early next year over the use of the controversial national flag and anthem in schools.

    The city board of education served her and several colleagues a written warning three years ago when they wore tiny plain blue ribbons at the March 2000 school commencement to express their opposition to displaying the Hinomaru flag at the ceremony.

    "Many people in other Asian countries do not want to look at the flag, the symbol of Japanese occupation of their lands, even 60 years after World War II, and I believe its coercive display at school ceremonies is against our Constitution," she said.

    In 1999, the government enacted laws officially designating Hinomaru and "Kimigayo" -- unofficially translated as "His Majesty's Reign" -- as Japan's official national flag and anthem. But the question of granting them official status remains sensitive because of their symbolic links to Japan's Imperial system and past militarism.

    It is highly likely that Sato will face another reprimand after the next graduation ceremony in March, as the Tokyo Metropolitan Government's board of education, under nationalist Gov. Shintaro Ishihara, decided in October to punish public school teachers who refuse to show respect for the flag or sing the anthem at school ceremonies.

    Despite a fear of punishment, Sato said, "I will never play 'Kimigayo.' I hope my students remember the existence of a teacher who did not play it."
    This country is certainly no stranger to emotional debates over the treatment and status of flags--although there are many cases on the docket with the potential for far greater practical effects, few of the Supreme Court's decisions this Term will get as much attention as the one addressing whether the addition of the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause. One thing I discovered when I lived in Japan was that sometimes things look a little clearer, or at least different, when you're an outsider with no emotional investment in the politics of the country you're living in. Perhaps these coincidental stories about the Hinomaru can shed light on some of our internal disagreements on this side of the Pacific.

    I'm thinking in particular of the recurring arguments over the Confederate battle flag. To me, these two stories show how the same symbol can have very different meanings to different people and in different contexts. I completely agree with the American family that is trying to return the flag to the family of the soldier who wore it. This flag, at least potentially, represents the individual that this Japanese family lost, and it also represents his honor, selflessness, and loyalty to his country--the same things that supporters of the Confederate flag sometimes cite. But the flags that fly in the country's schools symbolize something very different to many people--aggression, violence, racism, treachery, and gross violations of human rights--and again, these are similar to the things that opponents of the Confederate flag think of when they see it displayed. (Another parallel is that there are particular minorities in Japanese society, notably those of Korean or Chinese ancestry, for whom the Hinomaru looks quite different from the way it appears to a large chunk of the ethnic Japanese majority).

    One thing we do have in common: the use of these emotive symbols by politicians. Gov. Ishihara of Tokyo made his name as the provocative nationalist who wrote "The Japan That Can Say 'No'" more than a decade ago, arguing that Japan was too obsequious and subservient to the U.S. For him, the flag and national anthem issues are easy ways to signal to his followers that he's still as jingoistic as ever (his recent remark that Korea "chose" to become a Japanese colony from 1910-45 was another). Here, IIRC the Georgia Governor lost his job last year in part because he had supported reducing the size of the Confederate battle flag on the state flag.

    My own hope is that people in both countries can come to recognize that respecting the personal qualities and commitments of individual soldiers does not mean you have to ignore the odiousness of the regimes they served, and that rejecting the symbols of those regimes doesn't mean rejecting the individuals who had to forge their own lives in the reality of the time and place in which they found themselves.

    posted by Arnold P. California at 7:52 PM



    Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com