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?
Friday, February 20, 2004


Unconstitutional

In light of this announcement

Bypassing Senate Democrats who have stalled his judicial nominations, President Bush will use a recess appointment to put Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at least temporarily, government sources said Friday.

The White House began informing senators Friday afternoon of Bush's intention, said one Senate source, speaking on condition of anonymity.

I would just like to highlight my post from a few weeks ago about how unconstitutional this maneuver actually is.

And I would also like to highlight this post on Pryor's record.

Update: Over at Southern Appeal, Plainsman offers up a lengthy and insightful post on why Pryor's recess appointment was not "constitutionally proper."


posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:36 PM




Independents Love Edwards?

Donkey Rising, Ruy Teixeira's blog associated with the Emerging Democratic Majority, takes a look at the emerging counter-conventional wisdom that Edwards has a better chance of winning over moderates and independents in November. As Teixeira says "maybe. But then again, maybe not."

If insightful electoral wonkery is your thing, go check it out.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:45 PM




Gay Marriage and the Almighty...

dollar. San Francisco has had a nice, needed economic boost from the 2,600+ marriages of same-sex couples.

This battleground over same-sex marriage is shifting to the Southeast-- New Mexico's Sandoval County has said they're going to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples because their marriage laws do not specify sex/gender. (Which could mean that any same-sex couple in New Mexico could have grounds to request a marriage license?!?) Chicago's Mayor Daley has said that it would be fine by him if it happened. Who knows if other progressive cities facing financial difficulties could end up considering this as well. How bizarre and exciting!

Update: Wow. Could the state of New York be next? Apparently it's possible that a similar legal loophole exists there too-- marriage laws that don't specify sex/gender.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 1:28 PM




A Thin-Skinned Colin Powell

Slate's Fred Kaplan has written an interesting piece, "The Tragedy of Colin Powell," in which he wonders if Colin Powell is going over the edge after three years of service in the Bush administration. Consider this excerpt from Kaplan's article:
Is Colin Powell melting down?

It's hard to come up with another explanation for his jaw-dropping behavior last week before the House International Relations Committee. There he sat, recounting for the umpety-umpth time why, back in February 2003, he believed the pessimistic estimates about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. "I went and lived at the CIA for about four days," he began, "to make sure that nothing was—"

Suddenly, he stopped and glared at a Democratic committee staffer who was smirking and shaking his head. "Are you shaking your head for something, young man back there?" Powell grumbled. "Are you part of the proceedings?"

Rep. Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, objected, "Mr. Chairman, I've never heard a witness reprimand a staff person in the middle of a question."

Powell muttered back, "I seldom come to a meeting where I am talking to a congressman and I have people aligned behind you, giving editorial comment by head shakes."

Oh, my.

Here is a man who faced hardships in the Bronx as a kid, bullets in Vietnam as a soldier, and bureaucratic bullets through four administrations in Washington, a man who rose to the ranks of Army general, national security adviser, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and secretary of state, a man who thought seriously about running for president—and he gets bent out of shape by some snarky House staffer?

Powell's outburst is a textbook sign of overwhelming stress. Maybe he was just having a bad day. Then again, he's also been having a bad three years.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 12:14 PM




White House Decides to Re-Date the Recession

For a number of years, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) has been trusted as the non-partisan, independent source for dating recessions and other business cycles in the U.S. NBER has said that the most recent recession lasted eight months beginning in March 2001 -- two months after Bush's inauguration. But the Bush administration has decided to thrust itself into the NBER's role. The new, 412-page Economic Report of the President places the "start of the recession" in the 4th quarter of 2000 (the last of the Clinton-Gore years).

This is not the first controversy associated with the report. Just last week, as the report was being released, Gregory Mankiw, who chairs the White House Council of Economic Advisers, declared that shipping U.S. jobs to low-wage countries is the "latest manifestation of the gains from trade that economists have talked about ..."

Another controversy followed when the White House refused to put its weight behind one of the report's predictions -- a forecast that tax cuts and other policies will create 2.6 million new jobs by the end of this year. Let me get this clear? It's called the Economic Report of the President, right? But the president won't back up its job-creation claims.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 11:39 AM




Lobbying, Nepotism and War Criminals

A typical day in Washington, DC - from the LA Times
Karen Weldon, an inexperienced 29-year-old lobbyist from suburban Philadelphia, seemed an unlikely choice for clients seeking global public relations services.

Yet her tiny firm was selected last year for a plum $240,000 contract to promote the good works of a wealthy Serbian family that had been linked to accused war criminal Slobodan Milosevic

Despite a lack of professional credentials, she had one notable asset — her father, U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), who is a leading voice in Washington on former Eastern Bloc affairs.

She got the contract after he championed the efforts of two family members, Dragomir and Bogoljub Karic, to win U.S. visas from the State Department, which so far has refused them entry.

Intelligence officials warned Weldon that the brothers were too close to Milosevic, who is accused of leading the "ethnic cleansing" in the former Yugoslav federation.

[edit]

Congressional ethics rules provide few barriers to the practice. They do not forbid members of Congress from helping companies or others who are paying their relatives

But Weldon has brought his daughter so deeply into his official activities that they sometimes appear to be working in tandem.

For example:

• After a Russian aerospace manufacturer hired Karen Weldon's firm for $20,000 a month plus 10% of any new business it generated, Rep. Weldon pitched the company's saucer-shaped drone to the U.S. Navy, which signed a letter of intent to invest in the technology. And Weldon, who chairs a subcommittee that oversees $60 billion in military acquisitions, has been working to get funding for the project, Navy officials say. A lawyer for Solutions said the firm did not collect the finder's fee and it was later removed from the contract. Federal law bars companies from paying commissions to lobbyists on government contracts.

• The congressman helped round up 30 congressional colleagues for a dinner at the Library of Congress to honor the chairman of a Russian natural gas company, Itera International Energy Corp., that had just agreed to pay his daughter's firm $500,000 a year to "create good public relations." Records show Solutions North America helped arrange the privately funded affair for the company, which has been trying to improve its image with U.S. officials after questions were raised about its acquisition of vast natural gas fields in post-Soviet Russia.

• Karen Weldon's firm paid for her father's chief of staff to take a "fact-finding" trip to Serbia, where he met with U.S. Embassy officials about the Karics' visa problems. The congressman approved the arrangement, travel records show. House ethics rules bar members or staff from taking official trips paid for by lobbyists or registered agents of foreign companies. The chief of staff, Michael J. Conallen Jr., said he reimbursed Solutions with his own money last week after The Times raised questions about the trip.

Conallen said the congressman's actions on behalf of Karen Weldon's clients posed no ethical concerns.

"I just don't think there's anything strange about it," he said. "If Curt wanted to he could snap his fingers and divert a lot of business to Karen, and that hasn't happened."


posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:14 AM




Special Interests

The Bush campaign plans on tarring Kerry as a "hypocrite," especially when it comes to taking on the "special interests"

Acknowledging that Bush has received major financial support from corporations, [Mark] McKinnon [chief media adviser] said: "The issue is hypocrisy in saying you're going to take on the special interests, not who took the most special interest money. You don't hear the president in the Oval Office railing against the special interests. You do hear John Kerry railing against the special interests." The campaign has previewed this theme in an online video calling Kerry "unprincipled" and "brought to you by the special interests."

Then I must be hearing things -- things like

This
We're focused on the people's business. You sent us to Washington to work on behalf of the people, not special interests, not lobbyists, but the people. And that's what we're doing.

And This
I don't need a book this thick of bureaucratic rules written by special interests in Washington

And This
The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people.

And This
They'll be more concerned about special interests and less concerned about how to adequately protect America.

And This
They want us to be hamstrung by a thick book of bureaucratic rules, because they have been more interested in special interests. The special interest I've got in mind is the American people, and I call upon the Senate to get me a good bill so I can protect the homeland of the American people.

And This
And so the Senate, the United States Senate must not focus on narrow, special interests, but must focus on the security of the American people.

And This
But because of special interests in Washington, some senators are trying to take away this power. And I'm not going to let them. I refuse to stand for a lousy bill.

And This
My plan does not puncture the tax code with loopholes. It doesn't give special treatment to special interests.

And This
And the problem is, in the United States Senate, they're more interested in Washington's special interests than they are in the interests of protecting the American people

And This
The Senate must understand that the protection of our homeland is much more important than the narrow politics of special interests

And This
We can't let the special interests of Washington prevent us from doing what is necessary to protect the biggest interest we have, which is the American people.

And all of these.

I guess I had better get my hearing checked out.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:32 AM




New Bush Haters?

Right-wing conservatives are not happy with their dear leader these days. Predictably, they're "outraged" over the same-sex marriages in San Francisco but they're even more outraged that Bush's "troubled" response was so tepid and that he hasn't taken any action. From the right-wing Moonie-owned Washington Times:
"They can't possibly guarantee a large turnout of evangelical Christian voters if he does not do what is morally right and take leadership on this issue as he did on the war" in Iraq, said Concerned Women for America President Sandy Rios.
...
"The strength of this president is in his convictions, but our people do not admire his indecision and lack of leadership on an issue so basic as the sanctity of marriage," Mrs. Rios said.
...
"I'm not blaming the president, but religious conservatives have been doing politics for 25 years and, on every front, are worse off on things they care about," said Gary Bauer, president of American Values. "The gay rights movement is more powerful, the culture is more decadent, the life of not one baby has been saved, porn is in the living room, and you can't watch the Super Bowl without your hand on the off switch."
...
"It's not just economic conservatives upset by runaway federal spending that he's having trouble with. I think his biggest problem will be social conservatives who are not motivated to work for the ticket and to ensure their fellow Christians get to the polling booth," said Robert H. Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute.
...
Also, Mr. Knight said, Mr. Bush "upped the budget for the National Endowment for the Arts, which has boldly promoted the homosexual agenda for schoolchildren. The White House message to social conservatives was: 'We don't share your values, folks. We would rather impress the art elite at cocktail parties.' "

and from the Boston Globe

"I would describe the mood among conservatives right now as frightened," said Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, a conservative advocacy group that supports Republican policies.
...
"For the first time," said a top staff member for a GOP senator, "some Republicans are facing the prospect that the president could lose."

It's clear that Bush is in trouble-- both fiscal and social conservatives are getting grumpier by the minute and their list of grievances keeps growing. I don't even think Bush coming out in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment will help him too much now. He's just not acting like a "true believer" which counts for a lot in their eyes. If they stop seeing him as one of them, I don't know how he'll be able to pull them back into the flock.

Bush II is looking more and more like Bush I every day...

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 10:15 AM




Honeymoon in Cambodia?

From the You Can't Make This Up Department:
After watching TV images of gay weddings in San Francisco, Cambodia's King Norodom Sihanouk said Friday that homosexual couples should be allowed to get married.

Since the Cambodian government chose in 1993 to be a "liberal democracy," it should allow "marriage between man and man ... or between woman and woman," the king said in a signed statement in French posted on his Web site.
Maybe I shouldn't be so surprised. Sihanouk is a man of almost limitless versatility and flexibility. He was king, then abdicated in favor of his father and became prince so that he could run the government, then led his country into independence from France, then adopted a stance of neutrality in the Vietnam War, then looked the other way as the Viet Cong used the Ho Chi Minh trail through Cambodia, then was deposed in a military coup by Lon Nol, then managed to coexist with Pol Pot as a figurehead under the Khmers Rouges, then managed to disassociate himself from Pol Pot while still serving as part of the anti-Hun Sen coalition in the 80s (most of whose military muscle came from Pol Pot), the was returned triumphantly to Phnom Penh after the peace accord, then resumed his place as king and retired from active politics in favor of his son, Prince Ranariddh, then . . . well, you get the idea.

According to his web site, Sihanouk is a "Film Producer, Director, Musician," and the site lists his extensive filmography (if that's what it's called) dating back to 1966, as well as music composed by the king.
My love for film dates back to the 30's when I was a student at the French Lycee of Saigon (South Vietnam).

In Saigon, there were beautiful movie theaters which projected excellent French films and American Hollywood films. I was captivated by the films starring Jean Gabin, Clark Gable, Greta Garbo…After completing my studies in Saigon, I wanted to become a film maker and even an actor, and at the same time a Professor of French, Latin and Greek in a high school in my country.

After becoming King of Cambodia in 1941, I had the means to produce films.

I love film making, just as the famous Winston Churchill loved painting.

But, as an admirer of Churchill, I always followed his noble example: my "hobby" never took up any of the time I was to devote to State affairs and to the service of my country and my people.
The guy is amazing (frankly, it's amazing he's still alive).

And he's managed to maintain the love of his people through all of this. I remember walking past the royal palace in Phnom Penh in 1991, before the civil war between the K.R. and Hun Sen was settled, a time when Sihanouk had been in exile for more than a decade and hadn't been a public figure in the capital for more than two; a passerby pointed at the palace and tried to explain to me what it was by saying simply, "Sihanouk." At the time, I thought, "Not now, not for a long time; maybe not ever again." But he was back before the year was out. Never underestimate him.

And by the way, I did spend my honeymoon in Cambodia in 1994. Seriously.



Update: Turns out I had the wrong Sihanouk web site. The one in question is (I think) here. Among his other talents, it appears that His Majesty is also, in effect, a blogger.

Second update: Here's the full statement in the King's own hand (in French). If I am translating correctly, he says (after thanking God for his own sexual tastes:
I respect gays and lesbians. It is not their fault that they are as they are, because it is the GOOD LORD who loves the diversity of tastes and colors, and of people, plants, and animals.
The message is actually quite lengthy and lighthearted (I think, though my French is rusty, that the king indulges in an old man's nostalgia for his salad days); it's listed on his website as a drolerie, i.e., as an amusing tidbit. Worth a peek if you read French.

posted by Arnold P. California at 9:50 AM




Rebels or Children?

While reading this article

Government soldiers backed by helicopter gunships attacked a group of rebels in a remote village in northern Uganda, killing 36 insurgents, an army spokesman said Thursday.

The attack occurred Wednesday in Ngora, about 242 miles north of Kampala, after the army pursued a group of rebels of the Lord's Resistance Army who had raided a nearby camp for displaced people, said Lt. Chris Magezi.

Besides killing 36 rebels, the army also rescued 22 children who had been abducted, Magezi said.

I was reminded of this passage from the Refugee Law Project's report "Behind the Violence: Causes, Consequences and the Search for Solutions to the War in Northern Uganda" (pdf format)

Thus while there is tangible horror at the activities of the LRA, the lack of distinction between the ‘rebels’ and ‘abductees’ generates intense confusion. As one informant said, “A ‘rebel’ who is killed in battle may have only just been abducted one hour ago. If you are killed you are a rebel, if you are abandoned or escaped you are an abductee.”


posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:43 AM


Thursday, February 19, 2004


The Fantasy Court

As long as we're on the subject of Supreme Court justices, here's a little law-geek game I like to play to while away the time. Imagine the current Court were, as Pat Robertson would say, persuaded by the Lord that the time had come to retire. If you could name their nine successors, who would you name? Here's my own lineup, in alphabetical order (except for the imaginary Chief Justice):

Judith Kaye, New York Court of Appeals (Chief)
Jeffrey Amestoy, Vermont Supreme Court
Drew Days, former Solicitor General
Alex Kozinski, 9th Circuit
Thomas Moyer, Ohio Supreme Court
Richard Posner, 7th Circuit
Randall Shepard, Indiana Supreme Court
David Tatel, D.C. Circuit
James Wynn, N.C. Court of Appeals

This lineup is, as you might expect, less conservative than the current one, but it's hardly a one-sided bench. I think it's very important for courts to have talented and intelligent judges with a variety of views and backgrounds who can listen to and complement each other. (One thing about Bush's appointees that troubles me is how monolithic they are as a group, with some exceptions). Posner and Kozinski are Reagan-appointed conservatives, though more of the libertarian stripe than the social conservative variety. Moyer is a Republican (Ohio judges run for office in partisan elections). Amestoy was elected Attorney General as a Republican several times, though since he was appointed to the Supreme Court by then-Gov. Dean and wrote the Vermont civil union decision, he can hardly be called a conservative.

I didn't put the group together with an eye toward demographic diversity, but it's roughly comparable to the current set. I've got only one woman, as opposed to the two there now. But I've got two African-Americans, up from one now, one disabled judge (Tatel is blind), and even a foreign-born judge (Kozinski emigrated from Romania to the U.S. when he was 12). As far as religion goes, I don't know any of these judges' faiths, but I suspect this is a much more Protestant lineup than the one we have now (the current group is four Catholics, three Protestants, and two Jews).

Another feature is that I've included a large number (a majority, in fact) of state-court judges. The recent trend in Supreme Court appointments has been to elevate judges from the federal appeals courts. Again, I think the homogeneity isn't helpful to the institution.

So: comment lines are open. Who would you put on the Court?

posted by Arnold P. California at 7:19 PM




Priceless

As fate would have it, the Senate confirmation hearings on the appointment of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court were held only a few weeks after the Court had struck down bans on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia. Marshall, of course, was the first African-American appointed to the Court, and he had enjoyed an illustrious career as a civil rights lawyer.

The antimiscegenation issue came up only once during the confirmation hearings.
Senator Thurmond: Do you know of any specific evidence relating to antimiscegenation laws that was presented to the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia which contradicted the historical evidence of the Commonwealth of Virginia that the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to affect antimiscegenation laws, and if you don't know of such evidence, how do you justify the Court saying that the historical evidence was not conclusive?

Judge Marshall: I am not familiar with the case. I am only familiar with the opinion. I did not read the record in that case.
Thurmond, not surprisingly, voted against Marshall's confirmation (after famously posing no fewer than 60 questions on arcane legal subjects to try to demonstrate Marshall's incompetence).


But by the time Clarence Thomas--who was himself married to a white woman--was appointed, Ol' Strom was one of his leading champions in the Senate.



Wonder what Strom's daughter thought of all this?


[The source for the quotation from the confirmation hearing colloquy is Robert J. Sickles, Race, Marriage, and the Law (1972)]


posted by Arnold P. California at 5:32 PM




The Coulter Brigade

In her latest column, Ann Coulter tries to justify her previous column in which she savaged Max Cleland and portrayed him as some sort of reckless buffoon who blew himself up and therefore shouldn't be considered a hero since he didn't lose both legs and an arm on "the battlefield" in Vietnam. Or, as she put it, "There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight."

In her honor, I offer up this short list of similarly "non-brave" coalition casualties from Iraq:

Spc. Ronald D. Allen Jr. - Died of injuries sustained in a vehicle accident that occurred while he was conducting convoy operations near Balad, Iraq on August 25, 2003

Sgt. Glenn R. Allison - Died during physical training in Baghdad, Iraq, on December 18, 2003

Lance Cpl. Brian E. Anderson - Killed in a vehicle accident west of Nasiriya, Iraq, on April 2, 2003

Chief Warrant Officer Andrew Todd Arnold - Killed during a firing range accident April 22, 2003 near Kut, Iraq

Pfc. Chad E. Bales - Killed on April 3 in a non-hostile vehicle accident during convoy operations east of Ash Shahin, Iraq

Spc. Todd M. Bates - Bates was on a patrol on the Tigris River south of Baghdad, Iraq, on December 10, 2003, when his squad leader fell overboard. Bates dived into the water and did not surface. He was listed as missing until his body was recovered on December 23, 2003.

Pfc. Wilfred D. Bellard - Killed when his vehicle fell into a ravine in Iraq on April 4, 2003

Chief Warrant Officer Michael T. Blaise - Killed when his OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter crashed while returning from a combat mission near Mosul in northern Iraq on January 23, 2004

Spc. Joseph M. Blickenstaff - Killed when an embankment collapsed, causing his Stryker infantry carrier vehicle to roll over into a canal in Ad Duluiyah, Iraq, on December 8, 2003

Staff Sgt. Kenneth R. Bradley - Died on May 28, 2003, in Baqubah, Iraq in a non-combat incident that is under investigation

These soldiers may have made the ultimate sacrifice but, to Coulter, they just weren't very brave.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 4:09 PM




Florida Columnist Resting Well After Lobotomy

There are many foolish and fallacious arguments in support of withholding marriage rights from same-sex couples. But only a select few are deserving of special attention for meeting the highest standards of idiocy. I just stumbled upon this Orlando Sentinel column from last November 23. The Sentinel's Kathleen Parker manages to violate almost every basic principle of sound argumentation and deductive logic. Parker explains why she opposes same-sex marriage:
Leaving God out of the equation, it is irrefutable that Nature had a well-ordered design. Male + female = offspring. It is a certainty that male/male and female/female unions don't meet Nature's standard. They may occur 'naturally' in that one does not consciously elect to Be Gay, but such unions fall short of any design that matches Nature's intentions.
First, Parker writes that gay people "occur 'naturally' " but are not part of "Nature's intentions." Either she was napping through high school English class or she simply overlooked the fact that "nature" is the root of "naturally." If same-sex couples "occur 'naturally'," then how can they be at odds with "Nature's intentions"?

Second, if Parker is "[l]eaving God out of the equation," then it makes no sense to speak of "Nature's intentions." In the absence of a higher being, whose intentions are we talking about? (But, wait, we're just getting started.)

Third, after arguing that the state should "protect" heterosexual marriage because it's the union that is natural or intended by Nature, Parker suddenly contradicts herself. She writes:
If the state goes out of its way to make marriage attractive, it is because marriage is so difficult and, in many ways, unnatural. It is far more natural for humans, animals that we are, to enjoy gratification whenever and wherever than it is to settle for decades into a system of monogamy."
So now Parker is arguing that all forms of marriage are largely "unnatural."

(FYI: That covers the really stupid stuff.)

Fourth, Parker sets up a "straw man" argument by twisting the debate over same-sex marriage as a comparison over who makes better marriages or better parents -- heterosexuals or homosexuals. She writes:
To extend marriage rights to gays [because some of them have children] presupposes that raising children in homosexual households is just as good as raising children in heterosexual homes with two parents.
It does!? Says who? She continues:
Making homosexual unions equal to heterosexual unions -- the superior natural order of which cannot be disputed -- is not just a small step for equality. It is a gargantuan leap ...
Why must opponents of gay marriage view same-sex unions through this prism of competition? Get a clue, Parker: There are meaningful rights and benefits that accrue from marriage; gay couples want access to those rights and benefits. It's really that simple. Put your insecurities at ease. I haven't overheard even one gay couple scheming that they're "dying to prove that our marriage is superior to those damn breeders."

If Parker's contorted logic had prevailed in previous centuries, our nation would have withheld voting rights from non-property holders, women, minorities and 18-year-olds for fear that those voters would assume they were "just as good" as existing voters. Indeed, it's credible to argue that 18-year-olds are, on average, less informed than older voters and less likely to exercise their right to vote. (Like voting, marriage is a voluntary franchise.) Does Parker believe that voting rights should be granted on the basis of which people will exercise this right better? If not, then why is this her stance vis-a-vis gay marriage? By the way, who gets to decide what is "better"?

Most annoying of all is Parker's use of the "some of my best friends are black people" disclaimer -- "I love all my gay friends and relatives, not to mention my hairdresser; I love what gays do to urban neighborhoods ..." In other words, you gay people are great for landscaping tips and property values, but don't get uppity by thinking your relationships are "equal" to mine.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 12:46 PM




How Can We Waste Both Money and Fuel?

By extending the rule that allows auto makers to meet federal fuel-economy targets by giving them credit for building vehicles that can run on ethanol and ignoring the fact that there are only 182 gas stations nationwide that sell ethanol - a whopping 0.1% of the 176,000 gas stations in the country.

And, as an added bonus, this move actually harms fuel efficiency standards because automakers get a 0.9 miles per gallon credit toward meeting their average fuel economy requirements for producing vehicles that can theoretically run on ethanol but never do.

On top of all that, since the government subsidizes ethanol production, we get to pay for the production of that too.

This is just a winning proposition all around.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:56 AM




San Francisco = Baghdad-by-the-Bay

Can anyone come up with a Religious Right leader using more insulting language than this in reaction to SF's marriage-a-go-go?
If you’ve ever driven south on Highway 101 into San Francisco, you never forget it. As you round the last curve, the view takes your breath away. The awesome Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco Bay on your left, the blue Pacific on your right and the city with all of its white buildings come into view. And you hear Tony and start singing.

But then the depravity that’s tolerated and, in many instances, sanctioned by government officials brings to mind “whited sepulchers full of dead men’s bones.” The idyllic scene is shattered by the reality of a city with a corrupt heart.
Sadly, this is only in print. But, in the dramatic reading in my head, I imagine a whole Linda Blair/Exorcist routine going on. Can't you?


posted by Helena Montana at 11:49 AM




Gourevitch Examines Dean and the Other Dems

Philip Gourevitch, who wrote a superb book on the Rwandan genocide, contributed this excellent article to last week's issue of The New Yorker, examining how significantly the candidates' fortunes have changed since the start of the year. (The article was written before Dean suspended his campaign.) And he assesses the factors that, in the end, sent Howard Dean's candidacy plummeting.
... The speed and extremity of Dean's reversal of fortune is attributable chiefly to self-inflicted wounds. At the peak of his popularity, in December and early January, Dean made a series of missteps and intemperate or impolitic statements that required retraction or clarification and repelled voters seeking the sort of plain-spoken, steady, and reliable man he professed to be. The relentless press scrutiny that comes with front-runner status also proved withering.

... Ultimately, it was not the tone so much as the substance of Dean's message that turned off his erstwhile supporters .... Dean's desire to reinstate all the taxes Bush has cut, including those on the middle class, might make sense, but as a campaign plank it is probably suicidal. .... Dean's vaunted antiwar message also failed to mobilize voters. Though he harangued Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt for supporting the congressional resolution in October, 2002, that authorized Bush to go to war against Saddam Hussein, his claim that they "voted for the war" was effectively neutralized by their powerful critiques of the Administration's unilateral invasion of Iraq.
But I think tone did play a noteworthy role too, and Gourevitch seems to suggest as much:
Dean likes to call his grass-roots support base a movement to change American politics, and he clearly considers it to be something bigger and grander than a mere Presidential campaign .... I saw him address a gathering sponsored by Women for Dean where, instead of concluding his remarks as he normally does, by saying, "We want our country back," he said, "The most important thing is the human soul and we want that back." .... (Dean) presented himself on the stump in distinctly messianic tones.
I agree with Gourevitch's assessment. People like me may want to be part of a "movement," but I might as well be a martian compared to the typical American. The average voter, whether she lives in Sacramento or Toledo, doesn't vote for 'movements'; she votes for candidates who reassure her that they can do something to keep their daughter's college tuition bill from rising, prevent the factory in her town from bleeding even more jobs, and hold down the price of gasoline at the pump. These are the concrete barometers of contemporary life. I'm not disparaging Dean nor am I discounting the need for a movement (we definitely need one). I simply think that his "movement" lingo on the stump was too abstract for most voters to relate to or understand.

Having said all of that, his fellow Dems owe a debt of gratitude to Dean for helping to fill the vacuum of leadership that was so apparent last year in the Democratic Party.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 11:44 AM




Nice Try

Last night while sitting in traffic, I was flipping through the radio stations and came across Don Feder discussing allegations that Mel Gibson's new movie will fuel anti-Semitism. Feder says these fears are baseless and makes this point

If the movie and the Gospels on which it's based are anti-Semitic, then why are those Christians most faithful to the New Testament among the strongest supporters of Israel?

Most evangelical Christians are fervent defenders of the Jewish state. A decade ago, the term Christian Zionist was an oxymoron. Today, Christian Zionists outnumber their Jewish counterparts.

In other words, "Christains support Israel so how can they be anti-Semitic?"

But what Feder didn't bother to mention is why Christains support Israel. Fortunately, Armstrong Williams explains it

"Israel is not just necessary to the return of Christ, it is essential to it." So says Reverend A.R. Bernard, pastor of the Christian Cultural Center in New York City.

His sentiments are shared by millions of Christians around the world, who steadfastly believe that a Jewish state is necessary for the Second Coming of Jesus. Their fervent support for Israel is buoyed by Old Testament passages that anoint Israel to the Jewish people, refer to the Jews as God's "chosen people" and promise that God will bless those who bless the Jewish people (Genesis 12:3).

[edit]

Both Luke and Matthew prophesize that the Jews will gather again in Israel prior to the advent of Christ's Second Coming.

Get it? Israel is a major player in the big judgment. Hence the support among the evangelicals.

While the restoration of Israel seemed inconceivable for much of Western history, it became a reality in our generation. In 1948, Israel was re-established as a nation. In 1967, the Holy Land was restored when Israel regained Jerusalem.

Thus continues the restoration, hauled along, in part, by the evangelical's unwavering faith in God's duty to fulfill His words.

So Christians want to see Israel restored, but only because it is a key event portending the return of Christ - at which point, presumably, all the Jews will be punished and cast into Hell. That's not anti-Semitic at all.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:21 AM




Analogies

Weapons of Mass Destruction IS TO Weapons of Mass Destruction-Related Program Activities

as

Jobs IS TO An Even More Robust Environment for Job Creation


posted by Noam Alaska at 11:04 AM




Passing the Buck

Richard Perle says that it is all the CIA's fault

Richard Perle, a chief proponent of last year's U.S. invasion of Iraq, yesterday called for the chiefs of the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency to step down because of their faulty conclusions that Saddam Hussein possessed mass-killing weapons.

[edit]

"I think, of course, heads should roll," he said. "When you discover that you have an organization that doesn't get it right time after time, you change the organization, including the people.

"I'd start with the head head," Perle said when asked which heads should roll at the CIA.

Somehow it is Tenet's fault that Bush, Perle and the rest ignored every piece of intelligence that didn't support their plan to start a war in Iraq

In its fall 2002 campaign to win congressional support for a war against Iraq, President Bush and his top advisers ignored many of the caveats and qualifiers included in the classified report on Saddam Hussein's weapons that CIA Director George J. Tenet defended Thursday.

[edit]

The administration's prewar comments -- and the more cautious, qualified phrasings of intelligence analysts -- are at the heart of the debate over whether the faulty prewar claims resulted from bad intelligence or exaggeration by top White House officials -- or both.

The "head head" ought to roll indeed - Bush's.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:29 AM


Wednesday, February 18, 2004


A Compassionate Conservative in the White House?

Apparently there might be one after all-- only it's not Mr. Bush.

From FauxNews:
Laura Bush says gay marriages are "a very, very shocking issue" for some people, a subject that should be debated by Americans rather than settled by a Massachusetts court or the mayor of San Francisco.

Asked how she feels about the issue personally, Mrs. Bush replies: "Let's just leave it at that."

The other day she hinted that she and her husband might not think the same thing about gay marriage, but what kind of answer is this?

Just when the GOP thought she was the perfect first lady-- the sweet, demure librarian-- it may turn out that she's a homo-lover. What is this world coming to?

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 5:34 PM




God Save Us from Judeo-Christian Religion

Just in case there wasn't enough fuel for the religious right's delusions of victimization, today brought yet another Ten Commandments decision (pdf). Each of the three judges wrote his own opinion, including one passionate dissent, which just makes it easier to characterize the majority as judicial activists. So, expect much rending of clothes over this one.

But here's my problem:
we find fatal fault in Plattsmouth’s characterization of the monument as merely an acknowledgment of God. The monument does much more than acknowledge God; it is an instruction from the Judeo-Christian God on how He requires His followers to live. To say a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments and various religious and patriotic symbols is nothing more than an “acknowledgment of God” diminishes their sanctity to believers and belies the words themselves.
So the court concludes:
The reasonable viewer would perceive this monument as an attempt by Plattsmouth to steer its citizens in the direction of mainstream Judeo-Christian religion.
As I've mentioned here before, I'm a Jew who can be found in a Presbyterian church most Sundays, since my wife and children are Christian. As you might imagine, I have great respect for Christianity. But Judaism and Christianity are not the same thing, and they don't blend seamlessly into one another. Perhaps the disjunction is less jarring from a Christian point of view, since Christians study the Hebrew scriptures (or, as they call them, the Old Testament), whereas we are acutely aware that the New Testament is not part of our faith.

The other thing that ticks me off about this phrase is that it's become a get-out-of-jail-free card for parochialism. If a politician or right-wing Christian minister wants to impose Christian doctrine on the populace through the force of government, he can say he's promoting our "Judeo-Christian" tradition. By using that term instead of "Christian," he shows that he's not requiring everyone to follow his own brand of religion--even if he is.

posted by Arnold P. California at 5:13 PM




I wondered if I'd ever see my parakeet again

Larry David is a funny man. Here's an excerpt from his harrowing years in the Army Reserve.
Then in the summer we would go away to camp for two weeks. It felt more like three. I wondered if I'd ever see my parakeet again. We slept on cots and ate in the International House of Pancakes. I learned the first night that IHOP's not the place to order fish. When the two weeks were up, I came home a changed man. I would often burst into tears for no apparent reason and suffered recurring nightmares about drowning in blueberry syrup. If I hadn't been so strapped for cash, I would've sought the aid of a psychiatrist.
Thanks for the tip, Poligeek.

posted by Helena Montana at 5:10 PM




Dean is Dead

Matt Bai, writing in the New York Times

What will be Dr. Dean's lasting contribution to party or country? Unlike LaFollette or even Senator John McCain, whose own unsuccessful presidential bid in 2000 led directly to the reform of the campaign finance system, Dr. Dean can hardly claim to have laid the rails for some powerful engine of change. His campaign, as he never tired of reminding us, was about "taking the country back," which seemed another way of saying it was basically about winning.

[edit]

In the end, the tragedy of Howard Dean's impressive grass-roots campaign is that he will be remembered not for any lasting reform agenda, but for the missed opportunity to create one.

Hmmm ... Dean's candidacy ended about 4 hours ago and Bai can already declare that he made no "lasting contribution." Is Bai pyschic or just an ass?

posted by Eugene Oregon at 4:54 PM




Is This Their Idea of a Pro-Bush Article?

The right-wing website WorldNetDaily.com has posted an article today headlined: "Ex-airmen douse rumors over Bush's Guard service." But some details in the WND article cast more doubt over the White House's insistence that Bush properly fulfilled his National Guard service during Vietnam.

The WND article sets up a straw man for attack -- referring to wild allegations from a handful of anti-Bush websites (example: one of these anti-Bush sites charges that Bush crashed a plane after drinking). But, in the process of trying to debunk these allegations, the WND article by Paul Sperry reveals critical holes in Bush's explanation and presents an image of Bush that is not entirely flattering.

Sperry interviewed ex-guardsmen Dean Broome, Dan Liles and others who served with Bush, using their recollections to challenge the fringe allegations from these anti-Bush websites. But this excerpt from Sperry's article acknowledges that Bush's defenders still have no sound response to the biggest question raised by reporters:
... most (of Bush's fellow guardsmen) were at a loss to explain gaps in Bush's pay record while in Alabama, where he transferred to a non-flying unit for about six months in 1972 to work on the political campaign of a family friend. One offered that Guardsmen who performed "equivalent duty" outside their primary base typically weren't paid for those drills, but still earned points or credits toward retirement.
The WND article tries to reframe the whole controversy over Bush's guard service by, at one point, asking this question: "Did Bush duck his duty in Texas?" Of course, aside from a few vitriolic, anti-Bush websites, Bush's National Guard service while in Texas has never been the center of this controversy -- and WND knows it. The "missing months" in Bush's service record are from during the time when he was assigned to a guard unit in Alabama.

Did Bush receive privileged, fast-track entry into the guard? Even by WND's account, the answer appears to be "yes":
The 147th (Fighter Interceptor Group that George W. was in) has been dubbed the "champagne unit" by critics because many sons of powerful Texans got assigned there during the Vietnam War .... While there's no direct evidence Bush's father pulled strings to get him in the unit, a Bush family friend -- the late oilman Sidney Adger -- allegedly asked the Texas lieutenant governor in 1968 to put in a good word with the Texas Air Guard commander for the younger Bush. And Bush's flight instructor, Col. Maurice Udell, recently admitted Bush was given a special look because his father was a fighter pilot in World War II.
Alas, as was the case with his admission to Yale Univ., George W. Bush benefited from the white-boy version of affirmative action: "legacy" status. The WND article also reports that Liles -- described later as a "rock-ribbed Republican" -- had a little extra help getting into the Texas National Guard.
... Liles, who operates a hotel near NASA, says his father, who owned a fishing camp on Lake Houston, did pull some strings to get him in the (National Guard) unit.

"I just barely got in that unit. I was really lucky because I was just about to be drafted," he said. "My daddy knew this guy, and the guy went down there and got me in."
In other words, he and George W. had a lot in common. Sperry also writes:
And there appears to have been a double standard applied to Bush.

The Air Force required (fellow guardsman Dean) Roome, for one, to get a waiver for a $25 speeding ticket when he enlisted. But Bush, who like Roome drove a sports car, had two speeding tickets, two collisions and two misdemeanors on his record when he enlisted, and yet he was not required to get any waiver at all.

"I might have had more speeding tickets," Roome offered, sheepishly.
Finally, the WND article offers Bush critics an additional reason to question whether this man is up to the task of assuming the job of president (should Karl Rove die or suddenly become incapacitated). Consider this anecdote from Sperry's article:
"I was the guy who did the safety walk around, put [Bush] up the ladder, made sure he was strapped in," Liles said in an exclusive WorldNetDaily interview. "And I'd always make sure he'd pull his ejection pin, because he'd forget that sometimes. You have to pull the pin out so you can eject. I'd say, 'Lieutenant, show me your pin.' I remember it very clearly."
He had to remind Bush that in order to eject one had to pull his ejection pin!? It's rather telling that this is one of the key things that Dan Liles -- described by WND as "a rock-ribbed Republican" -- remembers about Bush 30 years later. Many of us have long believed that Bush is not the sharpest tool in the shed, but Liles' memories seem to remove any doubt.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 4:17 PM




President Punt

According to this new AP story, Bush is equivocating his way into circular logic on gay marriage. As tense as I can get about this, people's rights are on the line after all, I can't help but enjoy watching him parse.
"I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise," Bush said. "I have consistently stated that I'll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are influencing my decision."

He didn't answer directly when asked whether he is any closer to endorsing a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, as conservative groups say the White House has assured them Bush will do.

"I strongly believe marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman," Bush said during an Oval Office session with Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. "I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage."

"People need to be involved in this decision," Bush said. "Marriage ought to be defined by the people not by the courts. And I'm watching it carefully."
Hmmm, if I'm not mistaken, this whole San Francisco festival of love and marriage is kind of about people being involved in the decision. Nice try Georgie, but this is not a case of activist judges.

Update: Bush has sent out his wife as his clean-up team, I guess to give a kinder, gentler edge to discrimination.

posted by Helena Montana at 4:16 PM




Clearing the Record

Ryan Lizza testifies that Clark never spread the Kerry intern rumor.
Just in case anybody was still wondering whether anything in the original Drudge item about John Kerry was accurate, I can confirm that Wesley Clark did not say what Drudge says he said at that off-the-record conversation with reporters in Nashville one week ago.

I was there when Clark spoke, and just to make sure I didn't miss anything, I've also checked with other reporters who were there. Since it was off the record (sort of), I can't get into what Clark actually said (let's just say it was not his finest moment on the campaign trail), but I can report that the quote Drudge attributes to him--"Kerry will implode over an intern issue"--is not accurate. He never said that.
I know that Clark is out of the race and has endorsed Kerry. But I would have continued to blame Clark for that slimy move had I not read that. Now I just blame Matt Drudge and all is right with the world.

(If you like, you can still dislike Clark for singing Madonna's "Like a Prayer" and Journey's "Don't Stop Believin," which he reportedly did, quite loudly, during the last night on his campaign bus. But that just makes me like him a little bit more.)

posted by Helena Montana at 3:48 PM




Shut Up Because You Don't Know What You Are Talking About

That seems to be the message Republican senators are sending to the conservative interest groups who have been hammering Orrin Hatch for his handling of the investigation into the stolen Judiciary Committee Memos and Manuel Miranda

Three top Senate conservatives have told GOP conservative groups to lay off Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who helped trigger a controversial investigation into leaked Democratic Judiciary Committee documents.

Senate Republican Policy Committee Chairman Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), both members of the Judiciary panel, personally delivered that message to a group of nearly 20 conservative leaders last week. Senate Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) also briefly attended the meeting on Capitol Hill.

The 90-minute session grew heated at times, as the visiting conservative leaders repeatedly interrupted the senators and questioned their handling of the memo controversy.

But the senators, who received last week a closed-door briefing on the investigation from Senate Sergeant at Arms Bill Pickle, warned conservatives they might come to regret their position when the results of the probe are fully known. Pickle is expected to finish his investigation by March 5.

The senators also asked them to suspend their strong statements in favor of Manuel Miranda, the GOP leadership aide who has admitted to reading the leaked files.

In other words, stop defending the criminal.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 3:26 PM




That Reminds Me

I posted this Washington Post article the other day on how the authors of the Federal Marriage Amendment can't seem to agree on exactly what it is supposed to do.

And now, after reading Jacob Levy's piece arguing that the amendment will do exactly what its supporters claim it won't, I am reminded of why I not a big fan of interpreting the Constitution to reflect the "original intent" of those who drafted and ratified it.

Seeing as we can't even understand the "intent" of an amendment we are currently debating, how are we supposed to determine the "original intent" of a document forged and shaped by countless individuals over 200 years ago?

posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:10 PM




Update on Faith-Based Elections

I posted late yesterday on a brouhaha at the Kentucky polls. Here's the story as of this morning.
After some voters complained that they were intimidated by gay marriage activists outside polling precincts yesterday, the Fayette Board of Elections enforced a controversial ban.

Kentucky's ban on electioneering within 500 feet of the polls was recently found illegal by a U.S. Court of Appeals; state officials recommended that it not be enforced while it is on appeal. But Fayette County Clerk Don Blevins said he was forced to uphold the ban because the activists were compromising the election.

One Lexington minister, Shannon Back, said he was so disappointed by people in the church parking lot promoting gay marriage that he wanted to shut down the precinct at his Broadway Baptist Church.

"We do not support same-sex marriage. We didn't want it promoted as if we supported it," Back said.


Blevins said he received at least 30 complaints from people, including two ministers, who objected to representatives of the Kentucky Fairness Alliance, a gay activist group, approaching voters as they left the polls.

[snip]

Back, the Lexington minister, said that, if the 500-foot ban is lifted, then he won't offer his church as a polling place again.

Before the Board of Elections enforced the ban at 11:30 a.m., Back had called Lexington police and asked them to remove the activists from the church property.

At that point, Blevins' staff told police that the group members had a right to stay as long as they were respectful.

Blevins said he asked the Board of Elections to enforce the ban only after receiving several complaints.

In the church parking lot yesterday, voter Shane Pinson, 40, said he supported the minister's position that the church was not a place to lobby voters on the gay marriage issue.

"I'm religious," said Pinson, a Kentucky Utilities employee. "I believe in a man and a woman being married."
If the activists were really intimidating or harassing people, then there's a legitimate reason for the police to intervene. People have to be able to vote without intimidation.

But it seems that what was going on wasn't really intimidation. Folks just didn't want to hear what the activists had to say. In other words, there wouldn't have been a problem if the exact same sort of conduct had been engaged in by supporters of Kentucky's anti-marriage amendment.

I'd also say that even if Rev. Back feels like volunteering his church as a polling place for the next election, the Commonwealth should politely decline the offer. His church is surely free to believe and teach what it wants about where God stands on the marriage issue, and he doesn't have to let dissenters speak on church property. But if he's going to volunteer the church for a governmental purpose, then he has to accept the constitutional restrictions on government suppression of speech. You can't have someone threaten to shut down a polling place because he disagrees with the viewpoints being expressed there.

As I said yesterday, this is a point that supporters of the President's faith-based initiatives should think about carefully. There seems to be a misconception that if you require the government to remain neutral on religious matters, you're invading the freedom of religion of people who want the government to endorse their religion (think of school prayer or the Roy Moore saga). But that's not right. Kids should be able to pray when they want (as long as they're not unreasonably disrupting legitimate school activities), and preachers should be able to fulminate against sodomites to their hearts' content. But when they want to use governmental power to amplify their voices and impose their observances on others, they've crossed the line.

posted by Arnold P. California at 12:24 PM




The Final Arbiter

Following a pointer from today's Progress Report, I found this exchange in a Feb. 6 CNN interview of Labor [sic] Secretary Elaine Chao:
WOODRUFF: I want to cite the one economic analyst with Credit Suisse First Boston. He said, these are his words, quote, "very disappointing; we're not getting the jobs to replace the stimulus in the economy which will fade once the first quarter ends." Another economist said, "It's the weakest job-creation rate relative to economic growth on record."

CHAO: Well, the stock market is, after all, the final arbiter. And the stock market was very strong this morning in reaction to the news that we have just received....

WOODRUFF: But, again, you get these comments, like from Morgan Stanley, market economists saying the level of job creation certainly disappointing for, what he said, the 26th month of the alleged economic recovery.

CHAO: Well, as I mentioned, the stock market reacted, and the stock market was very positive.....
If you're wondering about the ellipses, Chao goes on to say that as peachy-keen as the stock market is, and as great as the recent [weak] job creation statistics are, the administration is not satisfied with job creation and wants Congress to pass the President's "six-point economic package." But it's pretty clear where the administration's priorities are when the Secretary of Labor--the one cabinet official who is supposed to be focused on people who work for a living--thinks the most critical economic indicator is the one that reflects how the investing class is making out.

posted by Arnold P. California at 12:02 PM




San Francisco's Marriage-quake!

Here are some really nice on-the-ground pictures and commentary from San Fransisco's historic twist in the saga of gay marriage in the US. What's truly amazing about these images is how well they represent the diversity in the lgbt community-- young couples. Older couples. Straight-looking-gays and gay-looking-gays. White couples, black couples, bi-racial couples, etc. People reciting their vows with babies in their arms or children hanging off their arms. Just all kinds of people from all walks of life.

I don't care what anybody says, I love that this is happening and think it's a good thing. It's time for real people and civil disobediance to be brought into this fight.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 11:50 AM




"I Think He's a Pipsqueak"

From the Lousville Courier-Journal's coverage of yesterday's win by Democrat Ben Chandler (grandson of legendary Kentucky governor and baseball commission A.B. "Happy" Chandler), we hear this comment about the failure of Republican Alice Kerr's strategy of linking herself to George Bush:
Dixie Grugin, 77, a retired teacher in Frankfort, said, "I'd never thought I'd vote for a Chandler," but did so yesterday because she didn't like anything about Kerr's campaign.

"She's too much `me and Bush.' I don't like him. I think he's a pipsqueak."


posted by Arnold P. California at 11:42 AM




A final thanks and farewell....

to Howard Dean. He's finally stepping down.

Best wishes to him. I hope he knows how grateful many of us are for his conviction, passion and catalytic efforts that have energized the Democratic Party. Here's to hoping that he'll also have a job waiting for him in the new administration in 2005.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 10:30 AM




The Less Things Change

Things are really turning around in Russia

It was a campaign manager's dream visual: A president weeks away from an election stands on the bridge of a nuclear submarine out at sea, watching the test launch of two intercontinental missiles capable of destroying an enemy city.

President Vladimir Putin took his position aboard the Arkhangelsk on Tuesday afternoon, television cameras dutifully recording the moment. And he waited. And waited and waited.

Finally after 25 minutes, naval officers announced what had become painfully obvious, that the launch had not taken place, and they shuffled the guests and journalists below deck , according to Russian reporters on the scene. Putin disappeared without a word. Russian news organizations promptly reported that a malfunction had scuttled the launch.

Then, a few hours later, the navy's top admiral denied that any launch had been planned. A "virtual launch" had been intended from the start, he explained, and it had been a success.

In other news, Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:22 AM




What is Two Decades of Tradition When You Have an Agenda to Push?

From the Washington Post

A newly arrived Republican appointee has pulled references to sexual orientation discrimination off an agency Internet site where government employees can learn about their rights in the workplace.

The Web pages at the Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency whose mission is to protect whistleblowers and other federal employees from retribution, has removed references to sexual orientation from a discrimination complaint form, training slides, a brochure titled "Your Rights as a Federal Employee" and other documents.

Scott J. Bloch, the agency head, said he ordered the material removed because of uncertainty over whether a provision of civil service law applies to federal workers who claim unfair treatment because they are gay, bisexual or heterosexual.

[edit]

At issue is the meaning of a few lines of a civil service law that bans discrimination against employees and job applicants "on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant."

[edit]

The provision usually has been interpreted to mean that a worker's off-duty behavior cannot be used as a justification for dismissal, demotion or discipline unless it hampers job performance or interferes with the work of others.

That has been the stance at the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the government's workplace policies, for at least two decades.

Here is Bloch's comment on the matter

"It is wrong to discriminate against any federal employee, or any employee, based on discrimination."

With insights like that, it is not hard to see why they put you in charge.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:01 AM




The Democratic Race Goes On .... Good!

Many Democrats, liberals and others anxious to make Crawford, Tex., George W. Bush's permanent home after November may be disappointed that Tuesday's surprisingly close finish in the Wisconsin presidential primary leaves the Democratic presidential race not quite over. But political writer Zachary Coile of the San Francisco Chronicle explains why this is good news -- not bad -- for Bush foes:
Republican strategists acknowledged they had been hoping for an early conclusion so President Bush's team could start hammering the eventual nominee or for a brutal primary season in which the Democratic candidate would emerge bloodied and weakened.

"The ideal for us is to have Democrats become embittered and have it become a nasty, divisive primary," said Sacramento-based Republican strategist Sal Russo. "That ends up causing some segments of the party not to want to help the nominee. That doesn't sound like that's happening here."

As a candidate, the conventional wisdom is that you want the primary race over as quickly as possible so you can prepare for the general election. But many strategists believe that analysis is wrong, especially in an age in which campaigns are waged less in coffee shops than on cable television.

"No one is interested in covering a race that is over," Russo said. "If I were Kerry, I'd want to have someone else who was running, but someone I could beat consistently. You get the press coverage, you have a reason to solicit people for money, you have a reason to solicit people to volunteer. If it's a fait accompli, everyone will say, 'Let's wait for the convention.' "

Many Democrats agree, especially in states where voters have yet to cast ballots.

"Edwards will continue, and I think that's a healthy thing," California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres said. "... It will give Kerry an opportunity to hone his skills for the general election."
Keep in mind that the upcoming "Super Tuesday" (March 2) primary states include electoral vote-rich California and New York, as well as the critical swing state of Ohio.

Over the past 100 years, no GOP presidential nominee has won the election without carrying Ohio. The fact that the race is still perceived by the media as a race means that Kerry and Edwards will receive lots of free air time through news coverage, exposing Ohio voters (and those in other Super Tuesday states) to the key arguments as to why Bush doesn't deserve a 2nd term. This will help soften up Bush's image and, hopefully, make Ohio a little more winnable than it might otherwise be. So Coile's right -- let's be happy there's still a Democratic primary race.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 9:49 AM




Presented Without Comment
A judge dropped charges Tuesday against seven women who had abortions deemed illegal in Portugal where the laws are among the strictist in Europe.

Ten "accomplices" including their husbands, boyfriends, and the doctor who performed the abortions in 1997, also were cleared.

[snip]

Women can be jailed for up to three years for having an illegal abortion.

A nurse who performed more than 100 illegal abortions in a makeshift abortion clinic in a back room of her house was sentenced in 2002 to eight-and-a-half years in jail.

[snip]

Government statistics show that about 11,000 women are treated each year at hospitals following botched illegal abortions.

[snip]

Portugal's teenage pregnancy rate is about 20 per 1,000, among the highest in the European Union.


posted by Arnold P. California at 9:26 AM


Tuesday, February 17, 2004


More Bad News for All of Us (Including Dubya)

Personally, I don't get excited by bad economic news. The fiscal catastrophe, the continued failure to create enough jobs even to match population growth, let alone recapture the couple of million jobs lost in the past three years--these things don't make me happy just because they'll make it tougher for Bush to get elected.

I'm a little less unhappy about the following data, since they're about people's perceptions, rather than the "real" economy. But don't take that reasoning too far--people's perceptions have a huge effect on the "real" economy, because expectations affect behavior. If people expect tough times ahead, for instance, they tend to save money rather than spending it, which has various effects on the economy (in our demand-driven economy, most of those effects are bad, at least in the short run).

So take this with full appreciation of the bitter as well as the sweet:
Consumer confidence plunged this week, matching its steepest drop on record in more than 18 years of weekly polls by ABCNEWS and Money magazine.

The ABC/Money Consumer Comfort Index, based on ratings of current economic conditions, lost seven points — a single-week fall that’s been matched just twice before, in January 2001 and February 1990. In each of those cases, recessions followed.

[snip]

The disappointing labor market is a likely irritant: The economy has lost jobs for three consecutive years (a first since the Labor Department started keeping track in 1939), and fewer jobs were added last month than economists expected — not enough even to keep pace with population growth.

[snip]

Just 36 percent now say the economy is in good shape, down eight points in the last four weeks (five this week alone). Thirty-nine percent call it a good time to buy things, down four points in the last month . . . .

[snip]

Today 37 percent say they economy’s getting worse — up 10 points since last month to the most since September. Fewer, 29 percent, think it’s getting better; 32 percent, holding steady.

TREND — After a summer slump, confidence improved to -13 in November, -9 in December and -3 in mid-January, before slipping a bit, then falling this week. The current rating is four points below its all-time average, -9, and far below its record high, +38 in January 2000. Still, it remains much better than its record low, -50 in February 1992.

GROUPS — As usual, confidence is higher among better-off Americans. The index is +22 among higher-income people while -58 among those with the lowest incomes, -2 among college graduates while -43 among high-school dropouts and -6 among whites but -42 among blacks. It’s also -1 among men, while -22 among women.

Huge partisan differences persist in this political year: The index is +39 among Republicans, -23 among independents and -39 among Democrats. But the drop from last week is about the same in each of those groups.
(emphasis, as we lawyers say, supplied). A few observations. It may have been the economy, stupid, in 1992, but folks' view of the economy isn't nearly as negative now as it was then, at least by this "confidence" measure. On the other hand, the fact that independents' views are so much more closely aligned with Democrats' than Republicans' bears out other polling data suggesting that the polarized political world isn't Republicans-vs.-Dems as much as it's Republicans-vs.-everbody. If the economy doesn't get better soon--really soon--Shrub is well on his way to replaying his Daddy's single term with almost eery verisimilitude.

posted by Arnold P. California at 8:49 PM




Energy on the Left

The most heartening thing about the Democratic primaries has been the consistently large, even record-setting, turnouts. In New Hampshire, they shattered the old record in spite of bone-breaking cold. Now, in Ben Chandler's win in Kentucky, we see a similar phenomenon:
We saw higher than normal voter turnout. That generally favors Democrats in this heavily-Democrat registered district. That was borne out this election day.
Make no mistake: the Democratic base is very, very unhappy with the way the country is being run (i.e., into the ground), and people are tremendously engaged in the political process quite early in this election year.

Yet another reason for Bush-Cheney-Rove to go very negative. One thing the academic research supposedly shows about negative ads is that they depress turnout. So the GOP may calculate that if the election turns into a mudfest, some of the potential first-time voters who have been mobilized by Dean or by general unhappiness with Bush will give up in disgust. I don't think this is likely--viciousness toward Kerry (or whomever) will probably just make these people more pissed off at Bush than they alread are--but it's just one more reason to expect a remarkably nasty campaign.

posted by Arnold P. California at 7:23 PM




Faith-Based Elections

The Sixth Circuit, in a decision that stunned much of the election-law community, last month found two flaws in a Kentucky statute designed to deter vote-buying. The statute forbids electioneering within 500 feet of a polling place. The federal court said, first, that 500 feet was too much, so Kentucky had to go back to the old 50-foot zone. Second, and perhaps more radical, was the holding that the only "electioneering" that the statute could constitutionally cover in light of its supposedly vague language was "express advocacy," i.e., communications that explicitly say "vote for" or "vote against" a particular candidate. The problem is that vote buyers, who usually have a corrupt poll workers in cahoots with them, need to be close enough to exchange signals with the poll workers so they know which voters to pay. Now, if they just carry leaflets saying, "Tell Congressman Jones to Stop Supporting Terrorists," they can get as close to the polls as they want.

Well, in today's special election for a vacant House seat, the Sixth Circuit's decision was, as they say, honored in the breach.
Earlier today, there was more than just voting going on at certain polling places in Lexington.

In fact, the actions of a few people prompted the board of elections to make some quick changes to the election process.

Volunteers from the Kentucky Fairness Alliance were at eleven voting precincts asking voters questions about same-sex marriages.

Many voters were upset and called and complained to the county clerk about being approached.

Pastors of local churches being used as voting stations threatened to shut down the polls.

Fayette County clerk Don Blevins, "We were put in a position of having to take an action to preserve the voting process, to protect voters. They have the right to go the polls unimpeded, unintimidated."

The Fayette County board of elections made a unanimous decision to reinforce a 500 foot electioneering ban for the rest of the day, which a federal court struck down just months before, but is currently under appeal.

The Kentucky Fairness Alliance volunteers were upset by the decision, but did relocate.
According to its website, the Kentucky Fairness Alliance
seeks to advance equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people through leadership development, public education, and by encouraging participation in the democratic process.
I think those pastors who threatened to shut down the polls have learned their lesson: don't volunteer your church for a governmental purpose if you don't want to deal with the constitutional liberties the government must respect--such as free speech for people you disagree with.

Now, if only the folks in charge of the Bush Administration's faith-based initiatives initiatives could grasp this principle.

posted by Arnold P. California at 7:14 PM




Another Threat to the Institution of Marriage Averted--For Now
The Diet [Japan's parliament] will probably not be able to work on a planned bill to allow married couples to have different surnames during its current session, Justice Minister Daizo Nozawa said Tuesday, citing the tight legislative schedule.

[snip]

Nozawa also expressed his personal opposition to the dual-surname system, saying he believes "a married couple should share the same surname." He added that the issues involved need to be thoroughly discussed and a public consensus needs to be reached.
We see here the same impeccable logic that Americans have become familiar with in recent weeks. Married couples should not be allowed to have different surnames because "a married couple should share the same surname."

For what it's worth, Mrs. California is actually still Ms. South Dakota, and the kids have her surname as well. Good thing we don't live in Japan, or our marriage might not be valid.

posted by Arnold P. California at 6:32 PM




Please Do

Sausage-Neck Goldberg offers up a script for a hypothetical ad he hopes the Republicans will use against Kerry

Scene: In the caves of Tora Bora, Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and their aides are watching TV. The cave is illuminated by the light from the screen.

Cut to clip from Wisconsin Democratic debate:

Questioner: Senator Kerry, President Bush … described himself as a war president. He said he's got war on his mind as he considers these policies and decisions he has to make. If you were elected, would you see yourself as a war president?

KERRY: I'd see myself first of all as a jobs president, as a health care president, as an education president and also an environmental president. ….So I would see myself as a very different kind of global leader than George Bush.

Cut to Omar and Bin Laden high-fiving each other and wearing John Kerry for President T-shirts.

Fade to black.

Graphic: Re-Elect George W. Bush. The leadership America needs now.

As Goldberg says while introducing the script, "I used to be a television producer, though I never wrote scripts for commercials."

It shows.

God I hope the Republicans run this ad.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:08 PM




Dear Mary

The "postcards" to Mary Cheney on DearMary.com are fascinating (thanks to commenter I.T. for the pointer). The site is trying to use the MoveOn.org model to gather and publish people's comments about Dick Cheney's support for the Federal Marriage Amendment in the form of messages to his out-lesbian daughter Mary.

I think it's presumptuous for people to address messages to someone they don't know as "Dear Mary." Nonetheless, the friendly, even commiserating tone of many of the messages is affecting.
Dear Mary,

This must be a very difficult time for you. Obviously, I don't know you, and won't pretend to understand how you might feel.

I live in Canada, where gay marriage is legal. It has been both disheartening and very interesting to see the uproar about the issue in your country.

I've read a lot about your father, and will tell you I don't care for his politics. But having said that, I hope you have (or will find) some peace as all of this works itself out.

You have my best wishes for the future.

Ian in Ottawa, Canada
I wonder (and this is not a rhetorical question; I really wonder) whether it causes Dick Cheney any pain to take a pro-FMA position publicly. It's hard to imagine it doesn't hurt his daughter in some way. Maybe she and Candace Gingrich and Phylis Schlafly's son can start a support group.

posted by Arnold P. California at 1:12 PM




Another Reason I'm Glad We Won the Revolutionary War

I'm quite proud, as a lawyer, of our legal system. It's far from perfect, but it's hard to find a better one in the other 200 or so sovereign nations of the world. For this, we owe a debt to our British colonial masters, from whom we inherited a sophisticated system that had evolved over the better part of a millennium.

But there are clear areas in which we improved on the British model. One of those is having a written Constitution. Another is a specific part of that Constitution: the First Amendment. The difference between having it and not having it shows up from time to time; libel law is a notable example (recall the British press's comical attempts to talk about Prince Charles's alleged sexual relationship with another man without actually talking about it). The First Amendment has also spared us anything like Britain's Official Secrets Act, a statute that one U.K. higher-up once noted made it illegal to reveal what the Minister for Agriculture had eaten for breakfast.

Molly Ivins is all over the latest disgusting use of the Official Secrets Act.
Friends of liberty, raise hell! To the barricades, or at least to the post office and the emails. A British citizen named Katharine Gun faces two years in prison for revealing that the U.S. National Security Agency tried -- and succeeded -- in getting the Brits to help us with illegal spying operations at the United Nations.

[edit]

Gun may be sentenced to prison for doing precisely what we all hope every government employee will try to do: prevent the government from committing an illegal and immoral act. Some dare call it patriotism.

Gun, 29, worked for Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) as a translator. I spoke to her father while in London recently -- Gun herself is not allowed to speak to anyone about this, and he could not say much. Gun was raised partly in the Far East and speaks fluent Chinese. During the lead-up to the Iraqi invasion, she came across an email from Frank Koza of NSA proposing an intelligence "surge" to gather "the whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals or to head off surprises." Under the Vienna conventions on diplomatic relations, espionage at the United Nations is strictly forbidden.

[edit]

As a rule, it is not a good idea to set things up so that people get punished for telling the truth -- or even re-elected for telling lies. I realize Americans are in no position to lecture other countries on freedom these days, given the Patriot Act and attendant damage to the Fourth Amendment, but given Gun's dicey situation, it's worth dropping a line to the British Embassy at 3100 Massachusetts Ave., Washington, D.C. 20008 or via a group in the United States supporting Gun, the Institute for Public Accuracy at solidarity@accuracy.org. Gun probably is guilty under the misbegotten Official Secrets Act (the email she leaked was marked "Top Secret"), but one wonderful thing about the system of justice we inherited largely from the Brits is that a jury doesn't have to follow the law -- a jury can do what it thinks is right.
Jury nullification is a controversial subject, but there is no doubt that under the double jeopardy ban (which we inherited from the Brits), once a jury acquits you for whatever reason, you can't be prosecuted again for the same offense. As I said, we owe them a debt of gratitude for most of our legal system; but we have made a few improvements.

posted by Arnold P. California at 12:52 PM




On Obligations

Former Senate Judiciary and Frist staffer Manuel Miranda defends his conduct regarding the pilfered Democratic memos

Manuel Miranda, a former Senate staffer in the middle of the investigation into how Democratic computer memos got into Republican hands, says Republicans who back the inquiry are "surprisingly defeatist."

Mr. Miranda, who resigned last week, was unapologetic yesterday about reading Democratic strategy documents found on a shared Judiciary Committee computer.

"They had an obligation to protect their documents," said Mr. Miranda, who worked at getting President Bush's judicial nominations through the Senate for Judiciary Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, and Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican. "I had an obligation to learn everything possible I could learn to defend my clients."

On a related note, that guy had an obligation to lock his car and protect his stereo. I, on the other hand, had an obligation to alert him that his stereo was vulnerable to theft, which I did - by stealing it.

Lesson learned.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:51 PM




The EU's Arms Embargo to China

French President Jacques Chirac has voiced his support for lifting the European Union's embargo on arms sales to China. Both Europe and the U.S. imposed their arms embargoes soon after the Chinese regime used its military might in 1989 to suppress the pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square. Chirac claims that China has changed, but James Mann of the Center for Strategic and International Studies challenges Chirac's view:
"Urged on by the French defense industry, Chirac contends that China today is different from 10 or 15 years ago. ...The problem is that in fundamental ways relating to human rights and political repression, China today is not much different than it was a decade ago .... To illustrate this point, let's take an example: China's unwillingness to grant the International Committee of the Red Cross access to its prisons.

China has never allowed the ICRC (which is an excellent example of the international community) to visit its prisons. One stumbling block has been that the Red Cross insists on the right to interview prisoners privately and with its own interpreters.

Over a decade ago, on the eve of President Bill Clinton's first meeting with Chinese President Jiang Zemin, Foreign Minister Qian Qichen said at a news conference that China was prepared to let the ICRC into Chinese jails ... But nothing happened. At first there were suggestions that China might give the Red Cross access to its prisons only after the Clinton administration dropped its attempt to impose human rights conditions on China's trade benefits. Clinton did that, but China didn't act on the ICRC.

... The significance of ICRC access to prisons was explained by one International Red Cross official in this way: "At a minimum, our visits give the prisoner the solace of an hour's conversation with a reasonable human being in his own language. In the most extreme cases, a visit can prevent the prisoner from disappearance and death."

Those eloquent words happen to have been spoken with a particular case in mind -- the U.S. detention camps at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Last year, the ICRC said publicly that the U.S. policies at Guantanamo were unacceptable, and its criticisms, many of them legitimate, were widely reported in Europe.

But please note that at least the United States permitted the ICRC to visit Guantanamo. That's more than China has done for its entire prison system. And yet the Europeans who are so forthright in condemning American policies at Guantanamo seem to be silent about a Chinese regime whose jails are still considered entirely off-limits to the ICRC. That is a classic double standard."


posted by Frederick Maryland at 12:45 PM




Prosecutor Hits Ashcroft, DOJ on Terror Case

According to a story from the Associated Press:
A federal prosecutor in a major terrorism case in Detroit has taken the rare step of suing Attorney General John Ashcroft, alleging the Justice Department interfered with the case, compromised a confidential informant and exaggerated results in the war on terrorism.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Convertino of Detroit accused the Justice Department of "gross mismanagement" of the war on terrorism in a whistleblower lawsuit filed late Friday in federal court in Washington.


posted by Frederick Maryland at 12:34 PM




Our Complex Tax System

David Cay Johnston had a piece in yesterday's New York Times on the need to simplify our tax code. I found this section particularly interesting

More than three decades ago, Congress passed the original version of what is now the alternative minimum tax to make sure that people with big incomes - more than $1 million a year in today's dollars - could not escape income taxes. Measured against that goal, the law has failed. Even when incomes are adjusted for inflation, the number of high-income Americans who paid no income taxes anywhere in the world has almost doubled, to 300 in 2000 from 155 in 1966.

Congress, meanwhile, has let the alternative minimum tax morph into something that strikes increasingly at the middle and upper middle class. More than 42 million taxpayers, about two-thirds of those making more than $30,000 a year, will lose some or all of their Bush tax cuts to the minimum tax by 2013, according to calculations by two tax economists, Leonard E. Burman of the Urban Institute and William G. Gale of the Brookings Institution.

Since 1987, the tax has stripped people of their exemptions for themselves, their spouses and their children, along with their deductions for state income taxes and local property taxes. It can even force people with huge medical bills to pay higher taxes.

[edit]

The problem with repealing this complex and little-understood tax is that the first round of Bush tax cuts had the effect of increasing the alternative minimum tax paid by those making $30,000 to $500,000 a year. Over the first decade after the cuts, the alternative minimum tax was projected to raise more than a half-trillion dollars, which would be used to finance a reduction in the top tax rate to 35 percent from 39.6 percent.

So there you go. The tax rate for the richest Americans gets cut and this cut is financed by subjecting middle-class earners to a tax originally designed to apply only to the richest Americans.

Read Johnston's book.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:10 PM




What Do You Get for $1,000?

A 15-minute speech from Dick Cheney. If you want your picture taken with him, it's another grand - from the Albuquerque Journal

Vice President Dick Cheney made a Presidents Day stop in New Mexico on Monday to raise more than $200,000 for the Republican presidential campaign and hammer home some of that administration's key positions.

[edit]

The Republican faithful who attended Cheney's 15-minute speech plunked down $1,000 for their lunch— and another $1,000 if they wanted a portrait of themselves with the vice president.

Cheney and his wife, Lynne, did not hang around for lunch with the crowd, and agents were dismantling bulletproof portions of the speaking platform before the dishes hit the tables.


Update: Why would anyone fork over $2,000 for a 15-minute speech and a photo with Cheney? Because, as the Center for American Progress points out, they probably stand to benefit to the tune of $41,765 if Bush's tax cuts become permanent.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:37 AM




Ninth Amendment

The folks over at Southern Appeal are having a bit of a debate about the meaning of the Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

My own understanding of the amendment is that it was written to serve as something of a bulwark to the idea that the Constitution created a federal government with limited powers. Originally, a Bill of Rights was thought unnecessary by some of the framers because a limited government had only those power granted to it. Thus, since there was no power granted to the government to limit the freedom of the press, a right protecting the freedom of the press was not needed. But since certain rights seemed to have been explicitly protected in the body of the Constitution (bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, etc...) it was feared that only these rights would be protected from government intrusion. Thus, the Bill of Rights was added but similar fears persisted that any right not explicitly listed there could likewise be assumed lost. Since the drafters could not possibly list every right retained by the people, the Ninth Amendment was added as a sort of a catch all aimed mainly at reinforcing the idea that the government they had created was one that possessed only those powers granted to it. The question is then: what rights are protected by the Ninth Amendment? You then get into natural rights theory and Lockean political philosophy, which greatly influenced the views of our Founding Fathers - but I don't want to get into this because I don't feel that I know enough about it to have anything intelligent to add.

But if you want to read Southern Appeal's debate on the topic, you can do so here, here, here and here. Tim Sandefur weighs in on the topic here.

You might also want to check out Calvin Massey's "Silent Rights: The Ninth Amendment and the Constitution's Unenumerated Rights" or Leonard Williams Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights" which contains an good chapter on the Ninth Amendment.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:28 AM



Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com