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, March 05, 2004


Liberal Hollywood

I'm heading off for a week's vacation with Mrs. California (who, as I've previously noted, retained her name and is actually Ms. South Dakota, or Ms. Netherlands, or Ms. Bangkok (Mrs. California has a fascinating biography)) and the little Californias (who, as I've also previously noted, are actually called South Dakota, or Netherlands, or Bangkok, having been given their mother's surname; so I guess I am opposed to traditional marriage after all!).

I leave you with a humble request. I want to figure out who are the horrible Hollywood liberals are who are dominating our culture and turning our youth against George W. Bush. It apparently extends throughout the entire entertainment industry--movies, music, TV, the works. I've already got Barbra Streisand, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, Michael Moore, and Ed Asner. These are clearly the most widely watched and listened to people in entertainment, but I want to figure out who else should go on the list.

Here's who I'm been able to think of so far:
Mel Gibson
Bruce Willis
Charleton Heston
That guy who made the 9/11 cable movie
Toby Keith
Ted Nugent
Chuck Norris
Gary Busey
Gary Oldman (Dumbledore in the next Harry Potter movie! The authoritative source of wisdom! What a position from which to mold children!)
Bill Paxton
Ben Stein
Heather Locklear
Dennis Miller
Clint Eastwood
Kurt Russell
Paul Sorvino
Hank Williams, Jr.

And the special elected officials auxiliary:
Fred Thompson
Fred Grandy
Virtually every athlete to go into politics (Jim Bunning, Steve Largent, J.C. Watts, etc.)
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Ronald Reagan
I'll be back on March 15 to check out the archives and find out who the main conspirators are that I've missed.

posted by Arnold P. California at 10:44 PM




Snow Job

The Treasury Secretary spins furiously (check out the update).

posted by Arnold P. California at 6:47 PM




Something Worth Checking Out on March 24th

If you live in DC you might want to make a reservation with the US Holocaust Memorial Museum's "Committee on Conscience"

A generation after the world proclaimed it would never again tolerate state-sponsored genocide, the international community stood by while extremist politicians in Rwanda systematically hunted down and murdered 800,000 of Rwanda’s ethnic minority, the Tutsis.

Please join us for a special evening commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide with a preview screening of FRONTLINE’s film, “Ghosts of Rwanda.” Weaving together historical analysis with groundbreaking, eyewitness accounts, the film examines the social, political, and diplomatic forces that converged to enable genocide. A panel discussion follows the excerpts from this film.

Panel:

Ambassador Prudence Bushnell, former deputy assistant secretary for African Affairs, US Department of State

Gregory Alex, former UN humanitarian in Kigali

Bonaventure Niyibizi, genocide survivor

Greg Barker, producer “Ghosts of Rwanda.”

I've already made my reservation so maybe I'll see you there.

If you can't make it, Frontline will be airing "Ghosts of Rwanda" on April 1st.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 5:14 PM




Support a Starving Artist

I've previously gushed about new cartoonist on the block Mikhaela Reid. Now, as she puts it:
I think I'm going to faint. Yours truly, a published cartoonist?!!! In a book with Keith Knight, Alison Bechdel, David Rees, and Aaron McGruder (of Boondocks fame)!?

The book also includes cartoons by and interviews with Jennifer Berman, Max Cannon, Barry Deutsch, Emily S. Flake, Marian Henley, Justin Jones, Tim Kreider, Kevin Moore, Stephen Notley, Eric Orner, Greg Peters, Mikhaela Blake Reid (yeah, that's me), Neil Swaab, Brian Sendelbach, Tak Toyoshima, Shannon Wheeler and Jason Yungbluth.

Anyway, if you know me personally and/or live in the New York area, please order the book from me (I get a cut that way).
Send a little money Mikhaela's way and get what promises to be an excellent book in return. (I've also gushed about Alison Bechdel (though I can't find it in the archives), I love Aaron McGruder, and you can see how many more voices there are here). You can buy the book from the usual on-line bookstores (or even the brick-and-mortar type), but why not send Mikhaela an e-mail, ask her to send you a copy when they arrive, cut out the middle man, and presumably get an autograph that will some day be worth millions?

posted by Arnold P. California at 4:46 PM




Nuff Sed

The Daily Misleader has found another person who thinks the 9/11 images in Bush's ads transgress the bounds of decency: George Bush.
As the nation headed for war last year, President Bush "clamped down" on the media, extending and expanding a controversial policy that banned reporters from photographing flag-draped caskets of soldiers killed in combat. The White House said the policy was enforced to "spare the feelings of military families." Yet, in the very first television advertisement of his 2004 campaign, the president has blanketed the nation's airwaves with an image of "firefighters carrying a flag-draped body" from the 9/11 wreckage at Ground Zero.
And some people (you know who you are) still think that charges against this administration of hypocrisy and bad faith are motivated by nothing more than partisanship and irrational hatred.

posted by Arnold P. California at 3:21 PM




Dubya Has Inspired People: He's Inspired Them to Give Up

The liberal blogosphere is widely circulating today's jobs report, which shows yet another underwhelming month of job creation (and downward adjustments to the already poor reports from the past two months). As many have noted, in spite of White House spin about job growth, the economy hasn't been creating enough jobs even to keep up with the increase in working-age population. Yet the unemployment rate has stayed the same.

How can this be? You all know the story: the unemployment rate doesn't count people who have given up looking for work. The folks over at jobwatch.org have added them back in for us (note that they're adding in only people who have given up since the recession officially began in March 2001; the 7.4% figure doesn't include anyone who gave up before then and hasn't come back).

JobWatch notes, moreover, that an addition 3.3% of the labor force is underemployed; these are people who want full-time work but can find only part-time jobs. All told, there are 8.6 million people who are officially unemployed, 2.3 million who have given up, and 4.8 million who are underemployed. And that's not even taking into account the well-documented fact that people who are lucky enough to have jobs are in positions that on average have worse pay and worse benefits than the average job when Shrub took over.

But expect the Bush-Rove-Chao axis to keep saying that 5.6% unemployment isn't all that bad.

Update via Talking Points Memo:I forgot to add Treasury Secretary Snowjob to the axis. Here's what he had to say about today's job numbers:
This Administration is not satisfied with today’s job creation numbers. Although our economy added jobs for the sixth straight month and the unemployment rate remains at a level below the average of the past three decades, the recent pace of job growth is not as strong as we'd like to see. This is particularly true given the recent rapid rate of economic growth.

The critical issue as we move forward is what must be done to encourage job creation through continued economic growth. One thing we know for certain – raising taxes on millions of American families is not the answer. It is imperative that Congress act to make the tax cuts permanent.
At least he's admitting that all is not peaches and cream. The implication we're supposed to draw, however, is clear:
We've been creating jobs (true) and therefore reducing the number of people who can't find work (false), and since there are fewer people out of work than usual (false), we should be able to accelerate the good (false) trend by making permanent the tax cuts that have stimulated (questionable at best) the good (false), if not as good as we'd like (extremely true), results we've been seeing recently.
Note especially the spin that unemployment is below the average of the past three decades, per my (not very difficult) prediction. Not only does this ignore people who have given up and the underemployed, and not only is it apples-to-oranges, since the method of calculating unemployment has been revised several times by various administrations to make the unemployment number lower, but they've conveniently chosen a period that includes two of the worst recessions of the 20th century apart from the Great Depression but doesn't reach back to a two-decade stretch of low unemployment immediately before that.

We are in the presence of a master.

posted by Arnold P. California at 3:05 PM




Collusiongate Report Excerpts

From the Judiciary Committee - this version has been redacted, but I've filled in Miranda's name where I suspect it belongs

The clerk first became aware that he could access the files of Democratic staff some time in October or November of 2001. He made this discovery after watching the Committee’s Systems Administrator perform some work on his computer. An admittedly curious person, the clerk attempted to duplicate what the System Administrator had done. In so doing, he was able to observe all of the network’s other users’ home directories. He then clicked on different folders to see which ones he could access; he was able to access some folders, but not others. The folders that he could access, he stated, belonged to both Republican and Democratic staff.

The Nominations Unit clerk reported that he had access to the home directories of other users shortly after beginning his employment in the fall of 2001 until the spring of 2003. Initially he printed approximately 100-200 pages of documents pertaining to Judge Pickering’s nomination and gave them to one of his supervisors. Two days later that supervisor and another admonished him not to use the Democratic documents and those that he had given his supervisor were shredded.

Mr. Miranda joined the staff of the Judiciary Committee in December 2001. A short time after Mr. Miranda was hired, the clerk showed him how he could access Democratic files. The clerk who initially discovered how to access the files told investigators that he was not sure what to look for in the files, so Mr. Miranda would guide him as to what information was helpful. Mr. Miranda would often suggest which directories he should concentrate on and would sometimes tell him that there was something new in a particular folder and ask the clerk to print it for him. Mr. Miranda admitted accessing the computer files of Democratic staff himself on one or two occasions.

The Nominations Unit clerk explained that he frequently searched the folders of some Democratic staff on an almost daily basis while working on the nomination of Judge Priscilla Owen. In fact, over the course of accessing other users’ files for approximately 18 months, the clerk downloaded thousands of documents. Forensics analysis of a compressed zip folder from his workstation where he kept these documents identified 4,670 files, the majority of which appeared to be from folders belonging to Democratic staff. During the approximately 18 months the clerk accessed other users’ files, he stated that he had four or five different computers assigned to him and that regardless of the hardware he used he was able to access this information.

In January 2003, Mr. Miranda left the Judiciary Committee and took a position in the office of Majority Leader Frist. The Nominations Unit clerk and Mr. Miranda both admitted that the clerk continued to provide Democratic - and also Republican - documents to Mr. Miranda after he left the Judiciary Committee. Forensic analysis of the e-mail traffic between the two confirms this. In March or April 2003, the clerk was re-assigned to another Unit in the Judiciary Committee. About the same time (April 2003) the Committee’s server was upgraded and the clerk believed that prevented him from being able to access other users’ files on the server.

[edit]

Members of the press and the Coalitions who had possession of the document at issue declined to be interviewed. Without their cooperation, the investigation faced a significant impediment to identifying the source of the disclosure. Several individuals who were interviewed, both Republicans and Democrats, implicated Mr. Miranda. While there is no definitive evidence pointing to Mr. Miranda as the individual who gave the documents to the press, or a party outside of the Senate, there is circumstantial evidence implicating him.

When the Nomination Unit clerk, who considered Mr. Miranda a friend, was asked how the Democratic documents were disclosed to the press, he identified Mr. Miranda as the likely source. He described a conversation with Mr. Miranda shortly after the documents were excerpted in the press where he understood Mr. Miranda to acknowledge giving the documents to a third party who then gave them to the press.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:39 PM




On the Order of Steve

I've upgraded our Haloscan account. Comments can now be up to 3,000 characters in length.

So you now have 2,000 extra characters to use to tell us we are idiots.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:06 PM




Tread Carefully; You Never Know What You Might Step On at Ground Zero

As Zoe points out in comments to this post, and as I've pointed out before, the GOP is taking a big risk in holding its convention in NYC so close to September 11, 2004. The current furor over Bush's 9/11-exploiting ads will seem trivial if they make a similar misstep in September by staging events at Ground Zero that people find disrespectful or inappropriately partisan.

These ads, in retrospect, may turn out to be Rove's canary in the coal mine. If he gets the idea, 8 months before the election and in a relatively low-key context, that Bush may be able to use 9/11 in general but could rue exploiting the site and images of the carnage, he may avoid serious mistakes he would otherwise have made coming down the homestretch.

The GOP has much more to lose than to gain from the NYC convention. If they use the venue artfully, maybe it will give Bush a couple of more percentage points of a bump than he would have gotten from a convention in Denver (or wherever). But if they screw it up--or if things that are out of their control, like TV interviews of victims' families during the convention or firemen marching down Seventh Avenue in protest of Shrub's failure to follow through on his post-9/11 promises, should intervene--Bush-Cheney '04 could take a serious hit.



posted by Arnold P. California at 12:56 PM




You Must Be At Least This Stupid To Write For FrontPage

I've often wondered why I am toiling away anonymously on this blog while others are getting paid to share their idiotic views in right wing rags. While I am saying stupid things here for free, others are making money and sharing their stupid ideas with a much larger audience.

I think part of my problem is that I realize I am none too bright and work hard to keep that fact hidden from our readers, oftentimes unsuccessfully. Certain winger columnists, on the other hand, don't seem at all reluctant about revealing themselves to be complete and utter dolts - and thus end up producing things like this

NBC and its offspring networks out-hustled their rival giants in interviewing selected 9-11 victim family members who called the President's ad "exploitation" of a tragedy. Those carefully chosen by NBC stressed that Democratic candidate Senator John Kerry was not likewise exploitative in his campaign use of 9-11, but that Republican President Bush was.

My impression of these interviews is that NBC and a few Democratic family members were exploiting the tragedy of 9-11 to make partisan attacks against the President.

Let's pull back the camera to see a bigger picture. Those who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center have suffered enormous pain and grief.

Some, doubtless, unconsciously blame themselves for sending loved ones off to work on 9-11 to bring home the bacon for them. Some have tried to bury their pain and guilt by forgetting....or by displacing their guilt and anger onto a President who, they prefer to believe, somehow might have prevented the terrorist attacks.

I can be stupid sometimes. But I could never be this stupid and so I'll never get a job writing for David Horowitz.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:51 PM




"That's confidence!"

From the Washington Post

President Bush rhapsodized Thursday about the possibility that a stock-car firm in this hot, dry community will add two jobs this year, as he refined his campaign message of economic optimism.

[edit]

Prompted by the president, chassis-maker Les DenHerder said the tax cuts Bush backed might allow him to hire two or three more people.

"When he says he's going to hire two more, that's really good news," Bush said. "A lot of people are feeling confident and optimistic about our future so they can say, 'I'm going to hire two more.' They can sit here and tell the president in front of all the cameras, 'I'm going to hire two more people.' That's confidence!"

Now, if Bush can manage to find just 160,000 more stock-car chassis-makers every month who are willing to hire 2 new people, his pledge that 320,000 new jobs will be created every month this year will no longer be a lie.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:32 PM




At Least They'll Have Something to Talk About

I'm sure they'll both lament the problems that homosexuals are causing in their respective countries and the need for drastic measures to combat them.

From the AP

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will visit President Bush next month at his Texas ranch, a setting reserved for occasions where the president wants to emphasize close relations.

Bush and his wife, Laura, will welcome Mubarak to Crawford, Texas, on April 12.

From Human Rights Watch
The Egyptian government continues to arrest and routinely torture men suspected of consensual homosexual conduct, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The detention and torture of hundreds of men reveals the fragility of legal protections for individual privacy and due process for all Egyptians.

“The prohibition against torture is absolute and universal, regardless of the victim,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “Accepting torture of unpopular victims—whether for their political opinions or their sexual conduct—makes it easier for the government to use this despicable practice on many others.”

The 144-page report, "In a Time of Torture: The Assault on Justice in Egypt’s Crackdown on Homosexual Conduct," documents the government’s increasing repression of men who have sex with men. The trial of 52 men in 2001 for the “habitual practice of debauchery”—the legal charge used to criminalize homosexual conduct in Egyptian law—was only the most visible point in the ongoing and expanding crackdown.

Today, Egyptian police use wiretaps and a growing web of informers to conduct raids on private homes or seize suspects on the street. Undercover police agents arrange meetings with men through chat rooms and personal advertisements on the Internet—and then arrest them.

Police routinely torture men suspected of homosexual conduct. The report cites testimonies of victims telling how they were bound, suspended in painful positions, burned with cigarettes or submerged in ice-cold water, and subjected to electroshock on their limbs and genitals. Numerous testimonies in the report accuse Taha Embaby, head of Cairo's Vice Squad, of direct participation in torture.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:15 PM




With All Due Respect...

...to all of the President's flacks out there, but attacking 9/11 family members for their critiques of the new Bush campaign ads is a losing strategy.

Yesterday, Eugene addressed Karen Hughes' statement on the subject, where she said in part: "With all due respect, I just completely disagree [with criticism by 9/11 families], and I believe the vast majority of the American people will as well."

With all due respect to Karen and anybody else who begins a sentence with "with all due respect," hoping to slip in a mean-spirited criticism while appearing respectful, this rhetorical trick never works. Everyone know that "with all due respect" is invariably followed by a statement demonstrating just how little respect they actually have for the people they're attacking.

Confused? Here's another example....

With all due respect to FrontPage Magazine demagogue Lowell Ponte, today's column psychoanalyzing critical 9/11 family members makes you look like a jackass:
Let’s pull back the camera to see a bigger picture. Those who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center have suffered enormous pain and grief.

Some, doubtless, unconsciously blame themselves for sending loved ones off to work on 9-11 to bring home the bacon for them. Some have tried to bury their pain and guilt by forgetting….or by displacing their guilt and anger onto a President who, they prefer to believe, somehow might have prevented the terrorist attacks.

But their loved ones were not the only Americans attacked on 9-11. We ALL were attacked. Nobody should have a monopoly controlling whether and how this shattering event in our history, this rip in the fabric of our society, can be discussed. It belongs to all of us. And each of us needs to address this unresolved tragedy in our own ways.

See what I mean?


posted by Noam Alaska at 10:39 AM




Collusiongate

From the Salt Lake Tribune

A Utah clerk on Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch's Judiciary Committee staff secretly combed the confidential computer files of Democrats "on an almost daily basis," a Senate investigation has concluded.

In a report released Thursday, the Senate Sergeant At Arms (SAA) found that Nominations Unit clerk Jason Lundell covertly gathered 4,670 files from the committee's shared computer server, after getting networkwide access by watching a technical administrator work on his computer and copying his moves. Lundell then relayed information on Democratic strategies for blocking judicial nominees to his superiors, the report said.

The investigation also found "significant security vulnerabilities" existed in the computer network, caused by the administrator's "inexperience, lack of training and oversight."

Although the committee voted to release only a version of the report with names of interviewees deleted, committee staff inadvertently gave all reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference copies of the full report, identifying Lundell as the primary perpetrator.

Manuel Miranda, another former Hatch staffer who resigned as an aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist last month, acknowledged he accessed and read "two or three" Democratic files. The SAA report says there is "circumstantial evidence" implicating Miranda as the Senate employee who gave the confidential documents to an activist, who allegedly leaked them to the news media.

Although Miranda denied to investigators that he solicited Lundell for poached documents while he worked for Frist, the report includes March 2003 e-mails in which Miranda asked Lundell to "undertake a discreet mission" to send copies of the Democrats' files to the Committee for Justice so the conservative activist group could "build relationships with the press."

"Of course I would be happy to assist in this covert action," Lundell replied. "The question is: exactly how much should I provide? You know we have loads on[sic] information."

This just keeps getting better and better.



posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:12 AM


Thursday, March 04, 2004


Can Someone Please Check and See if it's Really the 21st Century?

The number of disturbing and bizarre aspects of this case, decided today by the Fourth Circuit, is astonishing. If you thought that interracial couples' problems were all solved by Loving v. Virginia, think again.
In April 1999, Anthony Sanders, an African-American man, moved into the home of Jacquelette Paige Williams, a Caucasian woman, in Gastonia, North Carolina. Relations between Sanders and his neighbors were poor from the start. On April 11, 1999, Charles Danny Carpenter, who lived next door to the interracial couple, and defendant May, who lived about a half mile away, added the words "ESPECIALLY NIGGERS" to a "NO TRESPASSING" sign located on Carpenter’s property and facing Sanders and Williams’s home.

On May 11, 1999, while Sanders was washing his car in his driveway, May walked to the property line, pointed a handgun at Sanders, and said, "Hey, nigger, I got something for you." In response, Sanders said that he also had something for May.

Later that day, May and Carpenter constructed a wooden cross and erected it at the edge of Carpenter’s property, approximately twenty feet from Sanders and Williams’s home. That evening, May and Carpenter set the cross afire and sat near it in lounge chairs, drinking beer and holding firearms, watching the cross burn. At some point that evening, Williams called the police to report shots being fired from behind Carpenter’s house. When officers arrived and saw the burning cross, May and Carpenter told them that they were burning the cross to "let the nigger know he wasn’t welcomed here."
The learned trial judge managed to summon up a sentence of one month, in part by granting May a downward departure because of the victim's wrongful conduct. And what did Sanders do to ask for it?
In the circumstances of this case, some of May’s allegations against Sanders fail to rise to the level of wrongful conduct. First, the fact that a neighbor had a generator stolen and assumed Sanders was the thief is not conduct that can, without some proof, be attributed to Sanders. Similarly, the neighbors’ perception that the neighborhood had changed in some unspecified way since Sanders moved in not only smacks of a racist "there goes the neighborhood" mentality but also defines no wrongful conduct.

[snip]

In our view, the victim’s conduct in this case was not sufficient to provoke a response of this magnitude. First, Sanders’s "gigging" [raising his middle finger] of his neighbors, though crass, hardly constitutes provocation for a cross burning. A crime of intimidation loaded with a history of racial terror is not a proportional response to a gesture — admittedly tasteless — made daily on the highways at rush hour. Sanders’s isolated trespass onto May’s cousin’s property is also insufficient to justify the downward departure....Similarly, even if May had a reasonable basis to believe that Sanders had a questionable past and was a felon in possession of a firearm, such wrongful conduct was not directed at May; law enforcement officials are equipped to handle such matters and do not require self-deputized citizens to act on their own.

Finally — and importantly — we recognize that Sanders was not the only victim of May’s crimes. Ms. Williams, too, was a victim, and May does not allege that she provoked him in any way. Harming innocent victims certainly weighs against a defendant in our proportionality analysis. In light of this discussion, the alleged wrongful conduct on the part of the victim was insufficient provocation for burning a cross.
Remember, the trial judge thought that all of this was good reason to give the cross-burner a lighter sentence. I'd ask, "What was he thinking," except I'm not sure I want to know the answer.

And what is it with the oral sex defense these days? Are law school criminal law classes going to have to start having lectures on the fellatio doctrine?
On February 21, 2002, May tested positive for cocaine. When confronted, he again denied drug use, claiming that he had tested positive because he had "recently been with a female who had cocaine on her tongue and that they had been kissing and that she had performed oral sex on him."
Cocaine is a topical anesthetic, numbing the nerves it touches (it's chemically similar to novocaine); if that's right, getting a blow job from someone with cocaine on her tongue would kind of defeat the purpose.

posted by Arnold P. California at 8:51 PM




Compare and Contrast

Let's see if we can spot any interesting comparisons between this:
Simple Thoughts and Reflections: Marriage as a male-female union was and is the will of God

By Bishop Thomas L. Dupre, Bishop of Springfield


Springfield Observer, June 9, 2000, at 9

Accompanied by the joint statement of the Bishops of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont on Vermont’s "Civil Unions" Law.

The question of gay marriage has recently become a civil rights issue for some in our society. It seems that there is an assumption that if you can have a sexual relationship with someone, of either gender, you are entitled to all the benefits of marriage. Sometimes these relationships are not called marriage but domestic partnerships and apply equally to homosexual and heterosexual partnerships.

The distinguishing feature appears to be a sexual relationship, for such benefits are not available to those who share a home because of ties flowing from blood or ties of friendship. Thus the state is put in the position of not only sanctioning but also promoting what were always formerly considered to be illicit sexual relationships outside of marriage.

This concept contravenes what has been the common witness of humanity, with few exceptions, to the nature of marriage and family found in all societies from primitive to civilized, for thousands of years.

[snip]

Statement of the Bishops of the Boston Province:

The Legislature of the State of Vermont, by passing the Civil Unions Bill, has attacked centuries of cultural and religious esteem for marriage between a man and a woman and has prepared the way for an attack on the well-being of society itself. As the Most Reverend Kenneth A. Angell, Bishop of Burlington, pointed out in his opposition to the Vermont legislation, '(The Civil Unions Bill) is just a stepping stone for same-sex marriage.'

We, the Catholic Bishops of Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire express our solidarity with Bishop Angell and all people of good will who recognize the sacredness of marriage and the family as ordered by God. We are of one mind with Bishop Angell that such legislation will undermine cultural and religious respect for marriage and will inflict a wound upon society itself. Furthermore, we support Bishop Angell as he encourages the people of Vermont, through their legislators, to rectify the situation brought about by passage of 'The Civil Unions Bill,' if necessary, through committed efforts to pass an Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Vermont.

The obligation of society and the state to support and strengthen marriage as the intimate union of a man and a woman does not infringe upon the civil rights of others. Rather, those seeking to redefine marriage for their own purposes are the ones who are trying to impose their values on the rest of the population.
and this:
Gay-marriage opponents rally across state
By Jenn Abelson and Jack Hagel, Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent, 1/26/2004

[snip]

In the Springfield diocese, which covers the four counties in Western Massachusetts, Bishop Thomas Dupre has been traveling to large parishes to reach as many parishioners as possible with the church's message on gay marriage, said Mark E. Dupont, spokesman for the diocese.

Yesterday, Dupre took his message to St. Thomas Parish in Palmer. The diocese has also sent to its 130 parishes announcements to be inserted in weekly bulletins and suggestions that pastors address the issue during Mass, Dupont said.
with this:
Former Mass. Bishop Faces Abuse Charges
Mass. County Prosecutor to Present to Grand Jury Sex-Abuse Case Against Retired Bishop


The Associated Press

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. March 4 — A prosecutor said Thursday he will pursue sex-abuse charges against retired Springfield Bishop Thomas Dupre, who is accused of plying two altar boys with alcohol and molesting them while he was a parish priest in the 1970s.

[snip]

Dupre, 70, stepped down Feb. 11, citing health reasons. His retirement came a day after The Republican newspaper of Springfield confronted Dupre with the abuse allegations.

[snip]

One of the bishop's accusers was 12 and a recent immigrant to America when his family was befriended by Dupre, who offered to teach the child English. MacLeish said they had oral and anal sex and bought pornography together. The abuse lasted until the boy began dating a girl in high school, MacLeish said.

That boy introduced Dupre to a friend who also was abused, MacLeish said. He said Dupre plied the two boys with wine and cognac before raping them.

One of the accusers, who is gay, came forward with his claims after hearing Dupre speak out against the legalization of same-sex marriage, MacLeish said.
There is absolutely nothing good about this story. Dupre is of course presumed innocent even if the grand jury finds probable cause for an indictment, and even that initial step hasn't happened yet. And if the charges are true, the one thing we know almost for sure is that at least three people's lives have been marred by events that must have been (and continue to be) horrible to live with for both perpetrator and victim, not to mention families and loved ones. Nor does Dupre's own misconduct, if he did commit the crimes, mean that his argument against marriage equality was wrong; plenty of people speak moral truths but fail to live up to them.

But the more episodes like this that we see, the more it seems to me that folks should focus less on getting the government to force other folks to live a certain way, and focus more on living up to what they believe in themselves. Lord knows that's hard enough without trying to run (and ruin) other people's lives on top of it.

posted by Arnold P. California at 8:16 PM




That's Funny; I Thought it Was Called Democracy
(and federalism)

Anent the increasing number of local officials issuing license to people who love each other and want to take up the legal obligations of civil marriage:
"It's anarchy," said Rick Forcier of the Washington state chapter of the Christian Coalition. "We seem to have lost the rule of law. It's very frightening when every community decides what laws they will obey."
Quick, pass the FMA before the people decide what the law should be! (And go Ducks!)

posted by Arnold P. California at 5:35 PM




President Gollum W. Bush



I heart Rob Rogers. (I actually mean that. I took a cartooning workshop with him when I was eleven.)

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 5:09 PM




Levity from Multnomah

I was hoping that someone would post something else so I wouldn't look too terribly tacky for posting this right after Eugene's North Korea food crisis item. But I got tired of waiting.

Via Bohemian Mama. Thanky kindly ma'am.

And another thanks to my cousin, who responded with www.godhatesshrimp.com. Someone threw a zeitgeist and I showed up late.

posted by Helena Montana at 4:17 PM




The Shrinking North Korean Threat

My apologies for that bad joke about something that is not really a laughing matter

The World Food Program and UNICEF reported last year that chronic malnutrition had left 42 percent of North Korean children stunted — meaning their growth was seriously impaired, most likely permanently. An earlier report by the U.N. agencies warned that there was strong evidence that physical stunting could be accompanied by intellectual impairment.

South Korean anthropologists who measured North Korean refugees here in Yanji, a city 15 miles from the North Korean border, found that most of the teenage boys stood less than 5 feet tall and weighed less than 100 pounds. In contrast, the average 17-year-old South Korean boy is 5-feet-8, slightly shorter than an American boy of the same age.

[edit]

The North Koreans appear to be sensitive about their stature. In dealings with the outside world, the country likes to present a tall image by sending statuesque (by North Korean standards) athletes to joint sporting events in South Korea and elsewhere and assigning the tallest soldiers to patrol at the demilitarized zone that divides the two countries.

Starting in the mid-1990s, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il (who reportedly wears elevator shoes to enhance his 5-foot-3 height) ordered people to do special exercises designed to make them taller. As a result, it is not uncommon to see students hanging from rings or parallel bars for as long as 30 minutes. Basketball is also promoted as a national sport to instill the yearning for height.

"Grow taller!" instruct banners hung in some schoolyards, defectors and aid workers say.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:27 PM




Are Bush's 9/11 TV Ads Backfiring?

Although the sister of a 9/11 victim has called the new Bush-Cheney TV ads "tastefully done," most of the comments in this New York Daily News article blast the decision by the president's re-election campaign to procure images of the 2001 tragedies to seek votes. For example:
"It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin tower attacks. "It is unconscionable."

Gabrielle and several other family members said the injury was compounded by Bush's refusal to testify in open session before the 9/11 commission.

"I would be less offended if he showed a picture of himself in front of the Statue of Liberty," said Tom Roger, whose daughter was a flight attendant on doomed American Airlines Flight 11. "But to show the horror of 9/11 in the background, that's just some advertising agency's attempt to grab people by the throat."

Mindy Kleinberg said she was offended because the White House has not cooperated fully with the commission and because of the sight of remains being lifted out of Ground Zero in one of the spots.

"How heinous is that?" Kleinberg asked. "That's somebody's [loved one]."

Firefighter Tommy Fee in Rescue Squad 270 in Queens was appalled.

"It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place. The image of firefighters at Ground Zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics," Fee said.
The ads are replete with images of police, firefighters and others who were at or near ground zero. You can watch the 9/11-themed ads here.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 2:26 PM




Cue Tammy Wynette

As President Bush's flaks try to tamp down the criticism of his exploitation use of 9/11 images in campaign ads, it occurs to me that this may become an early test of the McCain-Feingold law's "stand by your ad" provision. This is the new rule requiring the candidate to state in any TV ad he runs that he's the one running it--followers of the Democratic primaries will recall formulations like "I'm Howard Dean, and I authorized this ad because I think it's time America's seniors stopped getting the shaft."

One of the reasons people supported this rule was the idea that it might cut down on some of the most irresponsible negative ads. The theory was that the candidate running a particularly obnoxious ad would risk a backlash by having his face and voice announcing that he thought the ad was peachy keen.

Using 9/11 isn't inherently negative in the sense envisioned by adherents to this theory, but if the theory is valid, it would probably apply to ads that are objectionable to many voters for reasons other than negativity, such as poor taste. I haven't seen the Bush 9/11 ads, but I assume he's in them saying he authorized them. Perhaps that makes running the ads a greater risk and raises the stakes in the current damage-control operation.

Then again, perhaps not.

posted by Arnold P. California at 2:02 PM




Right-Wing Pop Quiz

The Traditional Values Coalition are:

a) right-wing loonies who make mountains out of molehills for a living
b) "unprincipled corporate whores"

Well, if your name is Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review you answered b.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 2:01 PM




War on Terrorism v. War on Drugs

Here's a novel way to say "Thank You For Serving Your Country."

Apparently 21 soldiers from the Iowa National Guard may be dishonorably discharged when they come home from Iraq.

Did they do anything wrong while they were over there? Did they go AWOL? Nope. Apparently these soldiers failed drug tests. But the critical question is when did they take the drug tests? BEFORE they were shipped off to Iraq. Apparently they were deployed before the military got the results of the tests.

You'd think they would be pardoned or something. But instead they fought, risked their lives, served their country and will be thanked with a "dishonorably discharged" on their permanent records. Is it just me, or does that make no sense whatsoever?

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 1:52 PM




No College Athlete Left Behind

Most of us would probably not be all that surprised to know that college athletes at the University of Georgia are actually taking a for-credit course called "Coaching Principles and Strategies of Basketball." Could a course like this have a final exam? The answer is yes.

But the question I just answered is far tougher than any of the final exam questions that former assistant basketball coach Jim Harrick, Jr., asked his students—many of whom have played and watched basketball for years, and happen to be on the university’s basketball squad.

Harrick's questions—printed in the sports section of today’s Washington Post (but not available online) included such gems as this question:
What basic color are the uniforms the Georgia Bulldogs wear in home games?

a) White
b) Black
c) Red
d) Silver
Another way to word this question might have been: "What basic color was the uniform you were wearing last Friday night?" (For those of you who aren't basketball fans, it's virtually a given that a college basketball team—unless its school colors include yellow or gold—will wear a home uniform that has a white background.)

This Harrick question wins the "Who's buried in Grant's tomb?" award:
How many points does a 3-point field goal account for in a basketball game?

a) 1
b) 2
c) 3
d) 4
Finally, there was this brain-teaser:
What is the name of the exam which all high school seniors in the State of Georgia must pass?

a) Eye Exam
b) How Do the Grits Taste Exam
c) Bug Control Exam
d) Georgia Exit Exam
Both Harrick and his father were fired by the University of Georgia in 2003 after various NCAA violations were uncovered in the school's basketball program. Ironically, one of the alleged violations was that that the younger Harrick gave every student in a class he taught an "A" grade even though none of them actually bothered to show up for the class. If that class was anything like his "Strategies of Basketball Course," how could they have possibly not gotten an "A"?

posted by Frederick Maryland at 1:52 PM




The Pathetic Nobility of Manuel Miranda

The Senate Sergeant at Arms appears to have finished his investigation into the pilfered and leaked Judiciary Committee memos and privately briefed Hatch and Leahy.

But the man at the center of the investigation - Manuel Miranda - continues to defend himself, growing ever more desperate by the day

Operating out of his Capitol Hill home, Mr. Miranda dispatches press releases and sends e-mails of newspaper stories, editorials and occasional musings about the Democratic memos he helped discover.

[edit]

Asked if he had violated the rule sometimes taught to children about not reading other people's mail, Mr. Miranda replied: "My parents never taught me not to read other people's mail. They always read my mail."

His poor upbringing and penchant of postal voyeurism aside, it appears as if Miranda managed to acquire some sense of ethics somewhere along the way - along with a gift for melodrama

The content of other memos is so incendiary, he said, "I may go to my grave with it because it would so damage the trust of the American people in their judicial system. I wouldn't reveal it, no matter what the partisan advantage."

And though he is noble and proud, the slings and arrows have taken their toll

He has one other expectation, this one of the senators who have criticized his actions so fiercely.

"At the end of the day," Miranda said, "I suspect that I will be asking certain senators for a public apology to both me and my wife."

I will offer a public apology to his wife: I'm sorry you are married to such an ass.

But Miranda had better not be expecting any other apologies, especially from any of the senators he recently insulted as a groups of idiots and cowards

Today's news will regrettably leave some Senators with egg on their face but it is not for lack of better counsel than that which they took. Democrat spinmeisters are proven today to be nothing more than rank liars for spinning tales of hacking to mask the gross negligence of their own technology staff. And the two or three news writers that soaked up the lies come out as fools and should be taken to task.

[edit]

If this matter comes down to the golden rule or gentlemen's etiquette, then the American people will consider Republicans lacking in both schmartz and cojones, if they allow Democrats who have abused the Constitution and peoples good names in disgusting ways to get the high ground.

I can't imagine how the battle over judicial nominees became so bitter with a man like Miranda, of such high moral character and humility, leading the Republican fight in the Senate.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:37 PM




I Thought Hughes Was Supposed To Be The Semi-Reasonable One

Apparently not

President Bush's re-election campaign on Thursday defended commercials using images from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, including wreckage of the World Trade Center, as appropriate for an election about public policy and the war on terror.

Some families of the victims of the attacks are angry with Bush for airing the spots, which they called in poor taste and for the president's political gain.

"With all due respect, I just completely disagree, and I believe the vast majority of the American people will as well," Karen Hughes, a Bush campaign adviser, told "The Early Show" on CBS...

[edit]

"I can understand why some Democrats might not want the American people to remember the great leadership and strength the president and first lady Laura Bush brought to our country in the aftermath of that," she said.

You are right. It is not that families of the victims are angry that Bush is exploiting their loved one's deaths as part of his re-election campaign, it is just that Democrats don't want people to remember what a great leader and president he is.

Welcome back, Karen. We missed you.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:46 AM




The Majesty of the Law, Part LVIII

I love my profession; we lawyers have a window on the human condition at its best, worst, and (best of all) silliest.
Heather Specyalski, 33, was charged with second-degree manslaughter in the crash that killed businessman Neil Esposito. Prosecutors allege that she was driving Esposito's Mercedes-Benz convertible when it veered off the road and hit several trees.

But Specyalski claims that Esposito was driving, and she was performing oral sex on him at the time, said her attorney, Jeremiah Donovan. He noted that Esposito's pants were down when he was thrown from the car.
As a typically sex-obsessed heterosexual male, I have to say: what a way to go.
"His pants could have been down because he was mooning a car he was drag racing," [the prosecutor] said. "His pants could have been down because he was urinating out of a window. His pants could have been down because he wasn't feeling well."
But will jurors buy these alternative explanations?
Also Tuesday, [Judge] Holzberg denied Donovan's motion to use gender as grounds to eliminate jurors. Donovan had argued that women would be biased and more likely to convict.
I can see two reasons for this theory. First, Esposito might have been married to someone other than Donovan, so the defense might think married women wouldn't look kindly on her. Second, considering the alternative pants-down scenarios offered by the prosecution, I think male jurors might be more likely to believe the oral-sex theory simply because they want it to be true.

What I'm really hoping is that the lawyers will attempt to reenact the crime in open court, as happened recently in the Texas trial of Susan Wright for the murder of her husband.
A district attorney was tied up to a bed in a Houston courtroom Wednesday as prosecutors demonstrated how they said a wife stabbed her husband to death.

The couple's bed was brought into the courtroom for a re-enactment of the crime. Prosecutors said Susan Wright seduced her husband and tied him to the bed before she stabbed him nearly 200 times in January 2003.

A male prosecutor was tied to the bed to represent Jeffrey Wright while a female prosecutor posed as Susan during the re-enactment.
"Seduced her husband?" Anyway, if you want to watch a female prosecutor straddling and stabbing a male prosecutor who is tied to a bed, the video is here.

If they do the same in Connecticut, it could become the hottest thing on the Internet since the Paris Hilton video. I wonder if Steve Martin and Mary Steenburgen are available for the reenactment.

posted by Arnold P. California at 10:45 AM




Save the Date

Suckful declares Tuesday, March 9th to be "Make Fun of Dr. Paul Cameron Day!"

Cameron is the man responsible for this

"If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one's own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get- and that is what homosexuality seems to be-then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm."

Let the mocking begin.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:35 AM




Is Dick Morris the Biggest Whore on the Planet?

Undoubtedly, the answer is yes. From his column in The Hill on how Bush can beat Kerry

Bush must use his profile as president to make Americans understand how crucial staying the course in the war on terror is to our safety. Bush has lost a lot of support among women with the war in Iraq. But he can restore that support by stressing the need to make America safe from terror attacks and to stress how important it is to stick to this task.

Finally, Bush must begin to pull American troops out of Iraq after the handover in June. He should leave a sufficient number there, in safe, secluded bases, to intervene if the bad guys try to come back in power. But the daily drip of casualties must end.

Bush must show that he takes the US role in the "war on terror" seriously and that he is willing to stick it out - and to demonstrate just how willing and serious Bush is, he ought to pull US troops out of Iraq in order to win re-election.

Seeing as the war in Iraq was supposed to be Bush's way of making the US safer, pulling troops out when the country is dangerously unstable may not be the best way of demonstrating his commitment to that endeavor.

But that is just me. I try to have principles. Morris, on the other hand, clearly does not bother with such trifles.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:22 AM




The prize for today's weirdest argument....

Robert Knight of Concerned Women for America for his bizarre argument against civil unions. It's just so bloody weird that I can't get my head around it.
When You Hear the Term ''Civil Unions,'' Think of Czechoslovakia

Well-meaning people who oppose “gay marriage” often float the compromise of “civil unions” as a way to keep everybody happy and to demonstrate their goodwill.

But it won’t work any better than British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s attempt to appease Adolf Hitler by handing over Czechoslovakia in 1938. Shortly after Chamberlain proclaimed that he had negotiated “peace in our time,” Hitler cut a deal with the Soviets and they jointly invaded Poland in 1939. Historians record that Hitler was utterly amazed at Chamberlain’s naiveté.

Before we go further, please understand that I am not comparing homosexual activists to Nazis. I am demonstrating why appeasement doesn’t work...Yesterday, it was Czechoslovakia. Today it is San Francisco, on its way to becoming London, or Stockholm by the Bay. People who believe that all will be well if we appease homosexual activists with “civil unions” had better wake up and smell the smorgasbord.

We must defend the marriage-based moral order in more than name while we still have the freedom to do so.

Apples and oranges anyone?


posted by Zoe Kentucky at 10:18 AM




It's Only Money

Given our dire deficits, it is good to see that Congress is finally starting to get serious

The Senate Budget Committee unveiled a 2005 tax-and-spending blueprint yesterday that shaves $7 billion from President Bush's defense spending request, pares back domestic spending by $16 billion and orders billions of dollars of reductions in entitlement programs in moves designed to cut the federal deficit in half by 2007.

The blueprint, which is expected to pass the committee today, would also make room for more than $141 billion in additional tax cuts over the next five years.

So on the bright side, since we're saving $23 billion we'll only be losing $118 billion.

Nice work, guys! We appreciate your fiscal discipline.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:53 AM




Justice Blackmun's Papers Released

When he retired as a Supreme Court justice in 1994, Harry A. Blackmun -- the man who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade -- donated his personal papers, legal notes and related high court materials to the Library of Congress, but only with the understanding that these papers would not be made public for at least 5 years after his death. That 5-year restriction ends today when the Library releases his papers. The New York Times got an advance look at the documents, and reporter Linda Greenhouse writes:
Among the papers -- contained in more than 1,500 boxes -- are memos Justice Blackmun dictated to himself while preparing to hear arguments, revealing his responses to the cases. He also took notes at the justices' closed-door conferences after arguments and kept an "opinion log" as cases moved through the decision-making process, showing the court at work in real time.
Greenhouse reports this "revelation" from Blackmun's papers:
... Justice (Anthony) Kennedy changed his mind midway through another major case in 1992. That case, Lee v. Weisman, challenged the constitutionality of clergy-led prayers at public school graduations.

Assigned by Chief Justice Rehnquist to write the opinion for a 5-to-4 majority upholding the prayers, Justice Kennedy informed Justice Blackmun, who was one of the four dissenters, that after several months "my draft looked quite wrong." His new draft, declaring the prayers unconstitutional, became the opinion for the new 5-to-4 majority.
Greenhouse notes that some of the papers in this collection reveal a very human, rather plebeian side to the justices:
[Blackmun] even kept notes the justices passed along the bench during arguments -- "V.P. Agnew Just Resigned!! Mets 2 Reds 0."



posted by Frederick Maryland at 9:51 AM




We Aim To Please

For some reason, we are getting all sorts of hits from people searching Yahoo for

What county in Oregon most recently started issuing same gender marriage licenses yesterday?

Just so you don't go away confused and disappointed, the answer is: Multnomah County

You are welcome.

But can someone tell me why everyone is searching for this same phrase?

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:06 AM


Wednesday, March 03, 2004


For The Last Time - Buy The Book

Frederick and I went to see David Cay Johnston speak today at the AFL-CIO. He spoke about his book and shared lots of interesting information, most of which is contained in the book itself.

But there was one anecdote that is not in his book that is worth telling.

While he was preparing this article

The 400 wealthiest taxpayers accounted for more than 1 percent of all the income in the United States in the year 2000, more than double their share just eight years earlier, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service. But their tax burden plummeted over the period.

He called the White House to give them a chance rebut and/or put their spin on the issue. He spoke with Claire Buchan, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Press Secretary, and she began disputing his figures. He told her that all the figures came from the government's own data and then asked her what she thought the median income was in America.

She estimated that it was around $250,000.

It is $28,000.

I think that gives you a bit of insight into what George means when he talks about tax cuts for "average Americans."

posted by Eugene Oregon at 4:49 PM




Save Us from Gay Ducks!

And Beavers. Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon) is the latest jurisdiction to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Which, when added to other jurisdictions from California to New Mexico to New York, explains Bill Frist's hysteria.
"Same sex marriage is likely to spread through all 50 states in the coming years," Frist said. "It is becoming increasingly clear that Congress must act."
So maybe what I should have said was: "Save Us from Ourselves." Or: "Save Us from Democracy." Because the more time goes on, the clearer it is that social conservatives don't give a damn about democracy on the marriage question. They don't want judges telling us to respect same-sex couples, sure; but they also don't want any other branch of government doing it, either. Let's amend the Constitution now, before the people decide that they don't particularly want to maintain a discriminatory legal system. And if the majority favors equality 10 or 15 years from now? Screw 'em.

By the way, the OSU site has a category of merchandise headed "Beaver Balls." Hee-hee. (I'm so juvenile sometimes).

posted by Arnold P. California at 4:20 PM




The Good Soldier

A friend pointed out the interesting phrasing of Dick Cheney's answer when asked in a recent interview about the FMA:
MR. HOLT: Mr. Vice President, on a social issue, you’ve made statements in the past suggesting the issue of same-sex marriage as one that should be left up to the states. The President has, of course, called for a Federal Constitutional Amendment that would essentially ban same-sex marriage. Where are you today?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Well, the President’s taken the clear position that he supports a constitutional amendment. His concern has been based primarily on developments in San Francisco and Boston, where in fact legal cases have arisen, and challenges have arisen to existing laws with respect to this issue.

He’s made clear what the administration position is, and I support him.
Not: I support the FMA. Rather: I support the President.

In other words, Cheney's the V.P., and his job, whatever his personal beliefs, are to carry out and support the policy of the administration. This is understandable, and proper, but it's really a lukewarm way of putting it. My friend recalled that when the previously pro-choice George H.W. Bush became Reagan's V.P. nominee, he immediately (and conveniently) discovered that the scales had fallen from his eyes and that he was fervently pro-life.

We lawyers understand that the positions we espouse are those of our clients, not necessarily those we would personally adopt. But we also know that we're doing a lousy job if we don't appear to believe in the arguments we're making (even though the judge, and the lawyer on the other side, and the jury know full well that we're being paid to advocate for the client). Cheney's not bothered enough by the Hate Amendment to resign as a matter of principle, but he seems to be having a little trouble acting as if he thinks it's the keenest idea since habeas corpus (not that he believes in that either, come to think of it).

posted by Arnold P. California at 3:55 PM




More Fun With Textualism

Southern Appeal and The Carpetbagger Report are weighing in on this op-ed by Stephen Gillers on whether or not Bill Clinton could serve as John Kerry's running mate. It seems constitutionally prohibited, but here is the money paragraph

The Constitution does not prevent Mr. Clinton from running for vice president. The 22nd Amendment, which became effective in 1951, begins: "No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice."

No problem. Bill Clinton would be running for vice president, not president. Scholars and judges can debate how loosely constitutional language should be interpreted, but one need not be a strict constructionist to find this language clear beyond dispute. Bill Clinton cannot be elected president, but nothing stops him from being elected vice president.

True, if Mr. Clinton were vice president he would be in line for the presidency. But Mr. Clinton would succeed Mr. Kerry not by election, which the amendment forbids, but through Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that if a president dies, resigns or is removed from office, his powers "shall devolve on the vice president." The 22nd Amendment would not prevent this succession. So much for the constitutional obstacles.

As the Carpetbagger, and some of the commenters at SA, point out, this view seems to contradict the section of the 12th Amendment which states

"[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

It is clear that Clinton is prohibited from being elected president again, but does that make him ineligible to be president?

In the comments to SA's post, GDB makes the point that

The 12th Am. mention of eligibility refers to the Article 2 requirements of age, natural born citizenship, and residency. It shouldn't be construed to apply to a term-limiting amendment added 144 years later.

That seems like a key distinction to me, but I don't know. Since the 22nd Amendment created new limits on eligibility, they probably ought to be incorporated into the Article II restrictions and thereby make Clinton ineligible to serve as Vice President.

I am guessing that this debate will be just as relevant and exciting as the one over what the word "happen" meant 200 years ago.

Update: Gillers defends his argument over at The Volokh Conspiracy

posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:24 PM




Watch Oliver Lose His Mind

Oliver from the Liquid List is embarking on a rather dangerous journey into the land of complete intellectual deprivation

As of March 4, I will spend one month reading, listening, and watching only right-wing media. No NY Times, no NPR, no network news, no CNN, no Atrios or other lefty blogs, no novels, no NOTHING. Nothing liberal, nothing mainstream. Nothing that makes up the world I currently inhabit.

Instead, I will subject myself ONLY to FoxNews, TownHall, WorldNetDaily, the Virgin Ben and Paul Gigot, InstaPundit, The Washington Times and the New York Post, Rush Limbaugh, books by Coulter, Goldberg, and O'Reilly. All of them, and all the others. A complete and total conversion to ultra-conservative culture and messaging.

Personally, I'd rather be shot in the face. But we wish him luck.

I give him one week before he begins soiling himself and weeping uncontrollably.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:53 PM




Fluffy, Fluffy Fun

What evil are you?

Take this silly test to find out.

Me? I am

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 1:21 PM




Who Said This?
SO AT last it is official: George Bush is in favour of unequal rights, big-government intrusiveness and federal power rather than devolution to the states. That is the implication of his announcement this week that he will support efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in America banning gay marriage. Some have sought to explain this action away simply as cynical politics, an effort to motivate his core conservative supporters to turn out to vote for him in November or to put his likely ?Massachusetts liberal? opponent, John Kerry, in an awkward spot. Yet to call for a constitutional amendment is such a difficult, drastic and draconian move that cynicism is too weak an explanation. No, it must be worse than that: Mr Bush must actually believe in what he is doing.
That stoutly-worded lede is courtesy of The Economist. They go on to argue clearly and directly why marriage is the issue and why civil unions aren't enough. Worth a read if this is a big issue for you...

posted by Helena Montana at 11:46 AM




Cruel and Unusual

A man-bites-dog story from Canada (sit down, Senator Santorum!).
A 73-year-old man has convinced a Winnipeg judge to increase his jail sentence to allow him to smoke.

Angelo Foti's request came just moments after he was sentenced to 20 months in jail for shooting an intruder in the backyard of his Winnipeg home in May 2000.

Foti was agitated after learning he would be serving his time in a provincial jail where smoking was recently banned under Manitoba legislation.

His defence lawyer requested the sentenced to be changed to 24 months, so Foti can smoke in a Federal prison.
As Ross Perot used to say (or was it just Dana Carvey playing Ross Perot?), that's just sad.

posted by Arnold P. California at 11:09 AM




Destroying Our Credibility for the Next Generation

Not content with saddling us with trillion dollar deficits while destroying our environment and public education during his short time in office, Bush also appears intent on destroying our nation's credibility for years to come by refusing to admit that Iraq possesses no WMDs. Or so says David Kay

David Kay, the man who led the CIA's postwar effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, has called on the Bush administration to "come clean with the American people" and admit it was wrong about the existence of the weapons.

In an interview with the Guardian, Mr Kay said the administration's reluctance to make that admission was delaying essential reforms of US intelligence agencies, and further undermining its credibility at home and abroad.

[edit]

A White House official said it was too early to draw conclusions: "The ISG is still working, and the commission on this has not even started."

However, Mr Kay said that continued evasion would create public cynicism about the administration's motives, which he believes reflected a genuine fear of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists. He also said that if the administration did not confront the Iraq intelligence fiasco head-on it would undermine its credibility with its allies in future crises "for a generation".


posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:31 AM




Almost Philosophy

If ethical violations occur and nobody investigates them, do they matter? Apparently not, and that is why the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, Judicial Watch, Common Cause, the Center for Responsive Politics, Public Citizen, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Public Campaign are demanding that the House stop protecting its members via the seven-year old ethics investigations ceasefire

The House ethics system has almost stopped functioning because public interest groups no longer can file complaints and party leaders have an informal agreement not to trigger new investigations, several organizations said yesterday. Judicial Watch, a conservative organization joined mostly by liberal groups at a news conference, urged reversal of the prohibition against nongovernment organizations and an end to what the groups called a sweetheart pact to avoid investigations.

In citing examples of stonewalling, the eight organizations said the House ethics committee has not taken action on allegations that majority leader Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, is using a children's charity for political purposes; or on a reported offer from unnamed Republicans to Representative Nick Smith, Republican of Michigan, to aid the congressional campaign of his son if he voted for the Medicare overhaul last year.

As would be expected, the World's Biggest Asshole, corrupt as he is, points the finger elsewhere

Jonathan Grella, DeLay's spokesman, said: "These Democrat front groups are engaged in dirty campaign politics. Their entire complaint rests on the contention that raising money for abused foster children doesn't reflect credibly on the House. Majority leader DeLay strenuously disagrees."


posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:24 AM




Wedge Politics Didn't Work in Georgia

From the NYT:
Georgia's headlong rush to block gay marriages through a constitutional amendment has been stalled, for the moment, by an unlikely group of legislators: black members of the House of Representatives, many of them church deacons and ministers who already support the state's laws banning same-sex marriage.

Last week, they provided 39 of 50 no votes and abstentions that helped the measure fall 3 votes short of the 120 needed for passage.

The bill, which requires a two-thirds majority to appear on the ballot this November, may be reintroduced in the Democratic-controlled House as early as Thursday. The measure has already passed the Senate, which is dominated by Republicans, despite no votes from all 10 black members.

[edit]

"I'm a pastor and I don't support gay marriage, but I resent people playing political football with our religious beliefs," said Representative Ron Sailor Jr., a Democrat whose suburban Atlanta district contains some of the state's largest and most conservative black churches.


posted by Helena Montana at 10:09 AM




GOP Wants Wisconsin Candidates to Play Nice

From Roll Call (subscription required)

Republicans want Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-Wis.) seat so badly that the state party made all three major GOP candidates sign a pledge promising to play nice with one another.

"It's to everyone's benefit to keep it positive," says Chris Lato, Wisconsin Republican Party spokesman. "No Republican wants to see something ugly, expensive and drawn out. It's good not to have a knock-down, drag-out fight," he said.

[edit]

According to a state party announcement, they have agreed "to run issue-oriented campaigns that outline their agendas for the future of Wisconsin, while highlighting the many actions that put liberal Democrat Senator Russ Feingold so far out of step with the views and principles of the vast majority of Wisconsin citizens."

"At the end of the day, all three candidates agree Russ Feingold is poorly serving our great state, and it's time for him to go," GOP Chairman Rick Graber said.

[edit]

[The GOP nominees won't be chosen until the Sept. 14 primary].

That gives the three candidates lots of time to hammer away at Feingold and bring his numbers down while the media lavish attention on the primary, he said.

Dan Allen, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the nominee will come out mostly unscathed and with momentum, because the focus will be on Feingold thanks to the pledge.

"It bodes well for us," he said.

Not surprisingly, I now ask you to contribute to Feingold's campaign.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:42 AM


Tuesday, March 02, 2004


Craven Apologies

One of my pet peeves is what has become the standard form of apology by public figures: "I apologize if anyone was offended." Look: either you said or did something you shouldn't have, in which case you should apologize; or you didn't, in which case you shouldn't.

Secretary of Education Rod Paige disimproved on this craven formula yesterday, when he failed once again to apologize gracefully for calling the NEA a "terrorist organization." In a meeting with 44 of the 50 state Teachers of the Year (at least one of the other six boycotted the event), Paige said: "If you took offense at anything I said, please accept my apology." In other words, the problem isn't what I said, it's the fact that you people took offense for some reason.

I'm not really trying to single out Paige or say this is an administration trait. This kind of public apology is standard in politics, sports, entertainment, and just about every other public field. It really is appalling; I certainly wouldn't accept the "if anyone was offended" formulation from my kids when they do something wrong.

But these paragraphs can't be helping Paige's survival prospects:
Participants in the meeting said that one teacher, Elspeth Corrigan Moore, a librarian at Memorial High School in West New York, N.J., wept as she discussed Dr. Paige's comparison of the teachers union to terrorists. Ms. Moore said after the meeting that because her school had a direct line of sight to downtown Manhattan, she and many students could see the destruction of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

"I watched it burn, and I smelled it burn, so I take the word terrorist personally," she said.
Oops. I think Paige should have taken the opportunity to say "I'm sorry" to Corrigan, rather than leaving her with the "if you took offense" version; under the circumstances, it's really not on to imply that Corrigan was being hypersensitive about it.

posted by Arnold P. California at 7:58 PM




Gay Marriage in the Ring: May the True Conservative Win

OK, enough with the rhetoric and mumbo jumbo. Let's try to tackle what I'm sure has been a burning question for you all. What do scientists have to say about gay marriage?

On one side... we have Paul Cameron, gamely trying to wear the tiara of scientific integrity. Sorry Paul, we can all see it teetering dangerously on the paper hat you made out of Leviticus. Ooooh, too bad, there it goes. Perhaps it dropped into the same hole as your membership in the American Psychological Association.

Well, while you go search for that, we'll enter your statement for the record:
"If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one's own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get- and that is what homosexuality seems to be-then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm."
On the other side... First up, we have the mighty anthropologists, who seem to have had enough of President Bush & Co. making claims about marriage and civilization. They declare a turf war:
"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.
Next up we have the American Academy of Pediatrics:
The AAP recommends that pediatricians become familiar with professional literature regarding gay and lesbian parents and their children; support the right of every child and family to the financial, psychological and legal security that results from having both parents legally recognized; and advocate for initiatives that establish permanency through coparent or second-parent adoption for children of same-sex partners.
Finally, we have a mathematician and clinical psychologist who studied factors that predict the demise of a marriage. Apparently it's as simple as this:
Ignoring snide comments and stopping yourself from rolling your eyes at the stupidity of your partner are, mathematically speaking, the best way to stay solid in your relationship.

[edit]

He also has bad news for the defenders of traditional family values: gay and lesbian couples, as well as heterosexual couples that do not marry, hold on to the positive value of courtship better than straight partners who get hitched, he says.
So on one side we have the orgasm argument, on the other we have families, children and courtship. Hmmm, I think we all know who the conservatives are now.

posted by Helena Montana at 2:26 PM




Before I Get Too Outraged, I Have a Question

Everybody seems to be linking to this story and voicing their outrage

President Bush is making an unprecedented request to use up to $1 million budgeted for a possible presidential transition to train top officials who would join his administration if he should win a second term.

Now that sounds bad, but later in the article this appears

Congress routinely provides money every four years for office expenses, briefings and other potential costs incurred by a president-elect and his or her aides waiting to move into the White House and other federal offices.

Bush has proposed $7.7 million for a possible transition. He also asked Congress to amend the Presidential Transition Act to allow using up to $1 million from that amount "for training and briefings for incoming appointees associated with the second term of an incumbent president."

Now my question is: when does Bush plan on carrying out this "transition training"? Before he even get reelected? If so, then I am as outraged as everyone else.

Unfortunately, the article doesn't really address this question. It could very well be that Bush just wants to use $1 million from the transition fund to train new appointees between the election (assuming that he wins) and the beginning of his second term. And while this is probably unprecedented and unnecessary, it is not quite as outrage-inducing as the first scenario.

Until I can figure this out, I am putting my outrage on hold.

Anybody know the answer to this?

posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:10 PM




The Davey Ruling and a Man Named Blaine

[NOTE: Yes, this is a long post. So, if you feel you've read enough about the Supreme Court's recent Davey decision, then check out another post. I won't be insulted.]

Gay marriage is the legal and constitutional issue that is center stage these days so most Americans could be forgiven if they know little or nothing about a very significant First Amendment case that was decided last week by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Both Arnold and I have written posts referring to the U.S. Supreme Case in Locke v. Davey. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion upholding Washington State's decision to deny a taxpayer-funded scholarship to Joshua Davey, who had sought a scholarship to pursue studies that would prepare him for a religious ministry.

Washington State permits its Promise Scholarship recipients to attend a religious college, but their course of study cannot be "devotional theology" -- which was a focus of Davey's studies.

I mentioned in a post that the high court case related to Blaine amendments. Arnold correctly reminds me that Rehnquist explicitly stated that the Washington provision at issue is not a Blaine amendment. In legal terms, I misspoke in that post. In political terms, my statement is more understandable. Before I explain, some of you may be wondering: Who is Blaine?

James G. Blaine served in the late 19th century as a Republican congressman and senator from Maine. He was the GOP's presidential nominee in 1884. In 1875, he drafted a proposed constitutional amendment stating that "no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect ..." The amendment failed to pass both houses of Congress.

At issue in the Davey case was this language from Article I of the Washington State Constitution:
"No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment ..."
Rehnquist wrote in a footnote to his decision, stating that "the provision in question is not a Blaine Amendment."

But conservative legal groups contend otherwise. One of them is the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed an amicus brief in support of Davey's position. The Becket Fund contends that the Article I language is one of three Washington State constitutional provisions that are Blaine amendments. (See the states link on the group's website.)

The problem is semantics. The fact that many anti-Catholic bigots championed Blaine's effort 129 years ago has been seized on by conservative legal groups as a hook to attack church-state provisions and try to put their opponents on the defensive. These groups use the term "Blaine amendment" very loosely and irresponsibly, referring to virtually any provision that has the effect of denying state aid to religious groups or practitioners. (And, yes, Arnold, they even got me to adopt their language. Mea culpa.)

For example, this news release last year about the Davey case quoted the Cato Institute's Robert Levy, who decried what he called "Washington's Blaine Amendment." And the Becket Fund's website offers this sweeping, unqualified definition of Blaine amendment:
"Blaine Amendments are provisions in many state constitutions that prohibit the use of state funds at 'sectarian' schools."
But the Becket Fund and its allies were only able to secure the support of two dissenting justices. One of them, Antonin Scalia, wrote:
It may be that Washington's original purpose in excluding the clergy from public benefits was benign … But those singled out for disfavor can be forgiven for suspecting more invidious forces at work. Let there be no doubt: This case is about discrimination against a religious minority.
As for Rehnquist, he is unwilling to label Washington State's Article I or any other state-level provision as a Blaine amendment unless attorneys could show a "credible connection" between a relevant state provision and Blaine’s original amendment. That strikes me as a sensible stand.

Rehnquist is also sensible when he writes that state constitutional provisions that "deal differently with religious education for the ministry than with education for other callings … (are) not evidence of hostility toward religion."

A number (but far from all) of the 19th church-state provisions that were written into state constitutions were probably fueled largely by anti-Catholic fervor. But, as decades have passed, these provisions can no longer be deemed to have an impact that is "anti-Catholic." They are applied to all religious sects and faiths. And they prevent potentially troubling entanglements between church and state.

Several of these provisions (in Georgia, Michigan and Florida, for example) were re-adopted during constitutional revisions in the 1960s, '70s and '80s. If there was a great undercurrent of anti-Catholic bigotry during those years, I suspect I would have felt it. I grew up Catholic in Arkansas. I'm sure many of the Baptists in our neighborhood were hoping my family would show up at their church's Sunday morning altar call, but we didn't experience a single cross-burning.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 12:53 PM




Historical Nonsense

From the Washington Times - yesterday

The White House branded as "nonsense" allegations U.S. personnel kidnapped Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and forced him into exile.

"That's nonsense," spokesman Scott McClellan said. "Conspiracy theories do nothing to help the Haitian people move forward to a better, more free and more prosperous future."

McClellan's denial, echoed at the Pentagon and State Department, followed reports Aristide had called a number of people in Washington and claimed he had not resigned but had been abducted by U.S. troops.

From the LA Times - October 12, 1989

The Bush Administration today denied allegations by Panama's Gen. Manuel A. Noriega that the United States paid $1 million to rebel officers to launch last week's failed coup attempt.

"That's nonsense," Pentagon spokesman Pete Williams said.

"Absurd," State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler said.

White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater told reporters in Gulfport, Miss., that he would check the report out, but added, "I don't believe anything Noriega says."

One month later, Geroge H.W. Bush launched Operation Just Cause and Noreiga was captured by the US military.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:52 PM




Parricide Pleads for Mercy Because He's an Orphan

Former Rep. Bill Janklow of South Dakota isn't quite like the paradigm of chutzpah mentioned in the title of this post, but his current gambit does take some gall.

As you may know, he was convicted of manslaughter for an accident in which his car struck and killed a motorcyclist. He has now appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court. There's a small problem: Janklow appointed four of the five justices to the court when he was governor (and he appointed the fifth to a lower-court position, from which the judge has risen to the Supreme Court).

Here's the twist: Janklow says that a special appeals court consisting of judge he didn't appoint should be established to hear his case--and he should get out of jail until that court can be set up.

I must have been absent the day they covered this scenario in Criminal Procedure.

posted by Arnold P. California at 11:44 AM




We'll Do It Ourselves

Looks like Africa is seeking to create its own UN - and it will probably be just as ineffective as the actual UN

African leaders signed a sweeping defense and security agreement Saturday that allows the fledgling African Union to send forces to intervene in civil wars, international conflicts and coup attempts across the continent.

[edit]

The defense and security agreement aims to prevent tragedies like the 1994 Rwandan genocide, in which more than 500,000 people were massacred while the African Union's predecessor, the Organization of African Unity, did nothing. The 39-year-old OAU was disbanded in 2002 because it was so ineffective.

But with funding short and the African Union already $40 million in debt, the joint force is not likely to form soon, delegates said. A Zimbabwe official said it would not be ready before 2010.

[edit]

Saturday's agreement does not obligate African states to act but provides standards for them to uphold, including protecting democratically elected governments from coups. The standby force could be deployed to enforce disarmament programs and provide humanitarian aid.

Shortly after its creation in 2002, the African Union deployed several thousand peacekeepers from South Africa, Ethiopia and Mozambique to Burundi, but that country remains mired in a civil war that has killed more than 200,000 people.

This is a noble endeavor, but these sorts of things are a lot easier to create than to actually carry out. 112 countries had ratified the Genocide Convention by the time the Rwanda genocide unfolded in 1994 and it made almost no difference.

Let's hope this will be more effective.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:29 AM




Bushies Diss Iraqi Constitutional Guarantees

Although key principles have been agreed to, the Iraqi Governing Council is writing the final language for the country's new interim constitution, which is expected to be unveiled tomorrow -- after English and Arabic drafts are reconciled and a major Shiite religious holiday is over. But when it comes to any legal document, the devil is in the details -- and that includes constitutions. The Iraqi Governing Council has agreed in principle on an interim constitution, and the text of the document will be unveiled on Wednesday. While Council members work to reconcile the English and Arabic drafts of the new constitution, observers are waiting to see precisely what the Iraqi constitution will say about dicey issues such as religious freedom and women's rights.

While a sense of caution is understandable until the full text is released, a story in today's Washington Post offers hope that the document may be a fairly good one. In at least a few respects, it may arguably be better than our own.
The interim constitution's bill of rights is "something that is unheard-of, unprecedented in this part of the world," said Adnan Pachachi, a leader of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council.

... Pachachi was asked by reporters to list some of the liberties enshrined in the bill of rights. Reading from the final draft, he said it included the freedom of expression, assembly, demonstration, privacy, thought, conscience and religious belief, among others.

He also said it contains a broad social contract that appears far more extensive than some in the Bush administration favor. The document guarantees all Iraqis health care, education and the right to strike, he said. But one right the document does not endorse, he said, is the freedom to bear arms.
As I said earlier, the devil is in the details. Having said that, it is both sad and revealing that some Bush administration officials have felt the need to disparage a country for apparently seeking to guarantee a basic level of health care and education to its people.

BTW, I guess it's also safe to assume that the National Rifle Association has yet to hire a team of lobbyists to work over the powers that be in Baghdad.



posted by Frederick Maryland at 10:13 AM




Yuck

The Second Circuit yesterday mostly upheld the sentence doled out to Steven Chin Leung by U.S. District Judge Denny Chin, including a six-level upward departure. For those not versed in the sentencing guidelines, the key to the process is a table with two axes. One axis is the "offense level," which reflects how serious the crime was. The other axis is the defendant's criminal record. So, for instance, you might be convicted of a crime that has an offense level of 12, and your record might put you in criminal history category III, so the judge will look at the table and see that the range for that combination is 16-20 months (I'm making the numbers up), meaning that the judge will choose a specific number of months within that range as your sentence.

The process is more complicated than that; for example, if you accept responsibility for your crime, the offense level can be adjusted downward by two or three levels, and if you supervised several other people in committing the crime, the offense level can be adjusted upwards.

A "departure" is when the judge decides that there is something about your case that takes it outside the "heartland" of cases, so that the guidelines don't adequately account for some aspect of the circumstances. In other words, with all of the guidelines' adjustments to offense level for things like accepting responsibility, there's some factor that the judge thinks should result in a further adjustment.

In this case, Judge Chin added six levels to Leung's offense level, resulting in significantly more jail time, and I have to say I sympathize with the judge. Leung had agreed to plead guilty to a couple of counts of passport fraud, but he was out on bail. Here's what happened next:
Shortly after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, however, Leung concocted an elaborate scheme to avoid prosecution for the frauds. Pretending to be his own fictional brother, “Jeffrey Leung,” Leung falsely reported to his attorney that Steven Leung had died in the attacks, a report that his attorney unwittingly relayed to the District Court. Shortly thereafter, Leung again posed as another fictional brother, “William Leung,” in an attempt to obtain a death certificate for Steven Leung from the New York City Law Department World Trade Center Unit (“Law Department”). In this effort, he telephoned the Law Department to report that Steven Leung had worked at the brokerage firm Cantor Fitzgerald in the World Trade Center and had died in the attacks. After his initial request for a death certificate was denied for lack of documentation, Leung followed up by faxing a letter from “William Leung” to the Law Department that included a fabricated email exchange between Steven Leung and Scott Schertzer, a deceased human resources manager at Cantor Fitzgerald whose name Leung found by searching the Internet. The phoney email exchange purported to show that Steven Leung had begun working at Cantor Fitzgerald a week before the attacks to establish the inference that hehad died on September 11.

[snip]

The U.S. Marshals Service expended a substantial amount of time and effort investigating the claim by Leung’s purported brothers that Leung had died in the attacks. At least two Deputy Marshals worked on the investigation for three to four hours each business day for over a month. Working with the New York City Police Missing Persons Unit, the Law Department, and Cantor Fitzgerald’s insurance company, the Deputy Marshals interviewed family members, former employers, Cantor Fitzgerald employees, Leung’s former landlords and neighbors, and others. They also obtained hundreds of documents from companies, including United Airlines and the Bellagio Casino in Las Vegas, concerning Leung’s travel. Various teams of Deputy Marshals additionally conducted surveillance on eight different days. After eventually determining that Leung was still alive, the Marshals finally found and arrested Leung in February 2002.
You may remember that Cantor Fitzgerald was the firm where virtually every person in the New York office was killed, but the CEO happened to be taking his child to school that morning and survived; he became one of the notable figures in the days following the attacks, repeatedly breaking down into tears in public while trying to take care of his employees' families.

Judge Chin's remarks at sentencing were quite interesting and remarkably frank. Leung's lawyer, who apparently was a former prosecutor, suggested that the upward departure was perhaps unduly affected by emotional considerations. Judge Chin said:
. . . I don’t believe that emotion is unduly affecting my judgment here. There is no doubt emotion comes into play to some extent. Emotion comes into play in every sentencing decision. Every sentencing decision, to a degree, obviously. Emotion comes into play when the Court downwardly departs or the Court shows compassion and imposes a sentence that is lower than one would expect, and that happens. When you were a prosecutor in a case before me and I sentenced the defendants to what I thought was a relatively high sentence, emotion came into play. Emotion always does. Obviously, however, you can’t let emotion cloud your judgment, and I don’t believe I have done that here.

There are differences in some of those other cases. Of course it’s hard to compare them, but, I think, I would guess that less thought went into some of those others. Those others were not as premeditated as this crime here. Mr. Leung thought this through, he did research, he identified individuals who were killed. I mean, it’s a different kind of a thing, and so I understand your point. I don’t believe I am overreacting from an emotion point of view. I would not be completely frank if I said that emotion had no play, but, again, I don’t think it comes into play any more than in many of the sentences that I impose.
This is an especially interesting colloquy in light of the PROTECT Act, which Congress passed last year to stop judges from departing downward. Many judges have protested that the PROTECT Act, like the guidelines themselves, takes away the fundamental function of judging, which is not only to ensure that the law is applied equally to all, but to be sensitive to what is just in each individual case. Judge Chin's reflections on what goes into his sentencing decisions, it seems to me, show why it is fundamentally misguided to try to turn sentencing into nothing more than an exercise in arithmetic.

posted by Arnold P. California at 10:05 AM




Collusion!

Remember when Republicans were screaming that the pilfered and leaked Democratic Judiciary Committee memos were proof that "Democrats colluded with outside liberal groups in their choices of which Bush appellate nominees to block"?

Well, today the Wall Street Journal ran a lengthy profile of Ralph Neas and C. Boyden Gray and the battle over judicial nominations that included the following

[Sen. Trent] Lott told veteran Republican lobbyist Ed Rogers Republicans needed a group to go "toe to toe with Ralph Neas," according to a person familiar with the situation. The two agreed on Mr. Gray, who, as White House counsel, had bested Mr. Neas during the emotional fight over the Thomas Supreme Court nomination in 1991.

After hearing from Mr. Rogers, Mr. Gray says, in July 2003 he formed the Committee for Justice, a three-person operation that so far has concentrated on shoring up Republican support for Bush nominees. The committee sometimes coordinates with another group on which Mr. Gray serves as co-chairman, Citizens for a Sound Economy, which usually lobbies on economic issues....

Lacking Mr. Neas's troop strength, Mr. Gray works his Republican Party and Bush family connections. The first President Bush has hosted a fund-raiser; so has the current president's nephew. Mr. Gray, who says he has raised about $1 million, has discussed tactics with Karl Rove, the White House's top political strategist. He also meets monthly with Republican senators including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch.

So the Committee for Justice was created at the behest of Trent Lott and regularly meets with Rove, Hatch and Frist in order to fight for Bush's nominees. Nope, no collusion there.

Update: This is especially entertaining. The Committee for Justice has reprinted this Byron York piece in which he claims

The memos raise serious and troubling questions about the power which Senate Democrats granted to outside interest groups in the confirmation process.

and

The memos reveal the Democrats and the interest groups to be partners in the effort to defeat Bush nominees — with the Democrats serving as the junior partners.

So now we have the Committee for Justice, created by Gray at the behest of Lott for the benefit of Bush, reprinting a Republican hack's column accusing Democrats of doing the bidding of outside groups.

In all fairness, maybe there is a difference between PFAW and CFJ. PFAW actually is an "outside organization" whereas CFJ is apparently just a front for Rove and various Republican senators.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:46 AM




Feelmaa haanaa tpeelaw! Proo' lee ksef dmaa! *

You can learn that and many more useful Aramaic phrases, thanks to this heartily irreverent companion piece to the Passion. Thanks to Tbogg for the link.

* Translation: This film is terrible. I want my blood-money back.

posted by Helena Montana at 9:29 AM


Monday, March 01, 2004


Why Isn't This Man on the Supreme Court?

Justice William Bedsworth of the California Court of Appeal (yes, that's "Appeal" with no "s," for those of you who have never lived in the Golden State) writes an unfailingly hilarious monthly column that shows me that he deserves an even higher station. From the March offering:
Turns out one Thorkild Grosboel, pastor of Taarbaek, a town of 51,000 just north of Copenhagen, said in a recent interview that "there is no heavenly God, there is no eternal life, there is no resurrection." According to the Times, this "mystified" church leaders, and Grosboel’s bishop responded by suspending him.

For a week.

That’s right. A Lutheran pastor announced a personal theology that denied the existence of God, resurrection, and eternal life and the response of the church was a one-week suspension.

Wow. Talk about turning the other cheek. That’s some serious tolerance of dissent. If Pope Leo X had been this forgiving, we wouldn’t have Lutherans.

[snip]

My first thought was that Denmark’s Lutherans had been studying the American system of employment dispute resolution. We no longer fire anyone. We suspend them with pay until they die. It’s like a new system of pensions. Every week I pick up the paper and read a story which says something like this:

"County Supervisor Francis Mafuffnick has been arrested for embezzling six million dollars from government coffers. The supervisor, who admits having gambled the money away on last month’s Silver Broom Curling Championships in Winnipeg, Manitoba, also confessed to poisoning puppy dogs at the local pound and importing large quantities of cocaine from Colombia. He has been put on paid administrative leave pending a complete investigation."

PAID ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE! Every miscreant in the country who has a job gets put on paid administrative leave when he screws up.

And it lasts forever. We put them on paid administrative leave and then forget they’re out there. We had a deputy district attorney here in Orange County whose paid administrative leave lasted longer than FDR’s presidency.

I went to Presiding Justice Sills last week and asked him if he would please initiate an investigation into allegations I was sexually harassing Justice Rylaarsdam. He said he wasn’t aware of such allegations. I said there weren’t any yet, but I was awfully tired and would be happy to make such allegations myself if it would get me a few months of PAID ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.

[snip]

But I underestimated the good reverend. Turns out he only got a week’s suspension from the bishop because that’s all she could give. "In Denmark, Lutheran pastors are employed by the state and bishops cannot fire them."

So Pastor Grosboel’s case has been kicked upstairs to one Tove Fergo, Denmark’s Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs.
At which point Bedsworth drops one of his inimitable footnotes: "We don’t have a Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs in this country, which is perhaps too bad, since everything I read indicates there’ve been a lot of them going on."

I'll bet if President Bush appointed Justice Bedsworth to something, the Dems wouldn't filibuster him, just so that reading federal judicial opinions might become slightly less painful.


posted by Arnold P. California at 8:44 PM




It's Not Dubya's Guard Any More

Oh, for the days when the National Guard was a convenient place for sons of the rich and powerful to stay out of harm's way.
About 18,000 National Guard soldiers from four major units have gone on alert for likely deployment to Iraq late this year or in early 2005, the Pentagon said Monday.

The announcement underscores the deepening involvement of Guard and Reserve forces in U.S.-led efforts to quell the insurgency in Iraq and stabilize the country. So far 45 Guard and Reserve members have been killed in action in Iraq and 42 more have died of nonhostile causes.
Cue another round of administration flaks complaining that people who question whether Shrub bothered to show up for Guard duty and asking why he didn't take a mandatory medical exam and was grounded are "impugning" the service of Guard units in Iraq.

By the way, is it just me, or would anyone else consider whatever kills them to be "hostile"?

posted by Arnold P. California at 7:51 PM




Make Sure You Get the Sanitized Version First

From the AP

The White House, Pentagon and State Department on Monday denied allegations Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was kidnapped by U.S. forces eager for him to resign and be spirited into exile.

With U.S. military forces already on the ground in the Caribbean nation and more on the way, chief presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said, "It's nonsense, and conspiracy theories do nothing to help the Haitian people move forward to a better more free, more prosperous future."

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld also vehemently denied that Aristide had been forced out by the United States. And Secretary of State Colin Powell forcefully dismissed the allegation as well, saying Aristide boarded the plane willingly.

[edit]

An African-American activist, Randall Robinson, said Aristide told him on the phone Monday that he had been kidnapped at gunpoint by American soldiers and ousted in a U.S. coup d'etat. Aristide said he was being held prisoner at the Renaissance Palace in Bangui, Central African Republic, Robinson said.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., told CNN that when he spoke with Aristide Monday morning, the exiled Haitian leader told him that the international community had let him down — "that he was kidnapped, that he resigned under pressure, that he was taken to a central African country."

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., told CNN that she talked on the phone with Aristide's wife, Mildred, who said that Aristide was "forced to leave his home." Waters said an embassy official told Aristide that he "had to go now — that if he didn't go he would be killed and a lot of Haitians would be killed."

Powell said flatly, "He was not kidnapped," and criticized U.S. congressmen for saying that Aristide had been, without checking with the Bush administration first to see what the story was.

How dare people talk to Aristide or his wife when they should just be parroting the administration's "official" version of events.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 3:22 PM




Mr. Pot, Meet Mr. Kettle

There was one good laugh in the avalanche of free publicity...erm, I mean substantive news stories about that Gibson flick. Naturally, it was from our good friend Pat Robertson.
Gibson took an advance copy of his movie to the Christian Broadcasting Network for a screening in November, Robertson said.

"We all thought it was a magnificent work," he said. "There's really nothing like it. It's true to the Bible. The faith we've all had comes alive."

Robertson is less enamored with the orgy of merchandising connected with film, which includes crowns of thorns, pewter reproductions of the nails that impaled Jesus on the cross and Passion lapel pins.

"That cheapens the whole thing," Robertson said. "That sort of turns your stomach."
You're absolutely right, Pat. Gibson should throw in some age-defying protein pancakes to make it more palatable. And once he's learned that lesson, he can try something more advanced, like your humanitarian/diamond-mining synergy.

posted by Helena Montana at 2:35 PM




Haiti's Tragedy Extends to the Environment

Commenting Sunday on the situation in Haiti, the official statement from the White House quoted President Bush stating, in part, "This is the beginning of a new chapter in the country's history." But what's the next chapter? And what is the U.S. prepared to do for an island with such abject poverty and civil turmoil?

Poverty in Haiti is driven by many factors, including the deterioration of the country's natural resources. This AP article from last year quoted a Haitian park ranger: "When there are political problems in Port-au-Prince, more people come up here with chain saws." Some of the international aid that has been suspended given the internal strife had been earmarked for environmental protection.

A PBS report notes:
"Nearly 70% of Haiti is mountainous and the soil is hard to hold in place. Eighty years ago, 60% of the country was covered with trees. Today less than 2% remain. Uncontrolled logging and the conversion of forests into farmland have contributed to an environmental nightmare in Haiti."
Uh, now that I think about it, Dick Cheney, Interior Sec. Gale Norton and the others who manage the Bush administration's environmental policies might not view this deforestation with alarm. In this quiz of quotes, the Sierra Club reminds the public that a senior official in Bush's Energy Department told an oil and gas industry group: "The biggest challenge is going to be how to best utilize taxpayer dollars to the benefit of industry."

As Haiti ponders its environmental predicament, let's hope its future leaders are smart enough to consult anyone but the Bush administration for advice.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 1:57 PM




"We've already picked up two seats and we haven't even had an election."

That boast by the World's Biggest A****** tells you all you need to know about his contempt for democracy. He was crowing about the fact that in the wake of the unprecedented re-redistricting of Texas, one Democratic Congressman has decided not to run and another one switched parties.

posted by Arnold P. California at 1:49 PM




Ex-Catholics and Their "Blinders"

Conservative firebrand Joe Scarborough has focused the past three editions of his MSNBC television program on Mel Gibson's controversial movie "The Passion of the Christ." On Thursday's show, his guests included William Donohue of the ultra-traditionalist Catholic League, the conservative media critic Brent Bozell and NBC commentator Lawrence O'Donnell. Here is an excerpt of the dialogue:
DONOHUE: "My God, we finally have a movie that we can feel proud of. And we're not going to be told that we're bigots ..."

SCARBOROUGH: "Are you saying you're being attacked because of this movie?"

DONAHUE: "Absolutely. There's no question about it. .... there's an awful lot of hate out there and a lot is directed toward Christians."

(A few minutes later, Bozell joins the discussion)

BOZELL: "No, it's worse than hostility. Look -- and I think what Bill Donahue said before is correct -- I'm sick and tired of having to defend -- for Christians having to defend themselves from false accusations of anti-Semitism. It's about time that people started talking about the anti-Christian attitude that some people are showing ..."

O'DONNELL: "... most of the discussion in this show so far tonight has been about religion, and it has been about the greatness of Christianity and, for Bill (Donohue), the huge defensiveness he feels about some tremendous, I think imagined, assault on Christianity in the United States.

And Brent has been working that sense of persecution of American Christians for a very long time. It's one that, you know, listen, I grew up Catholic in Boston, where there's an awful lot of Catholics. I've never been in a situation in this country where I sensed the slightest bigotry against Christians. And so this defensiveness to me is unearned and imagined and exaggerated and used as a way of trying to legitimize your enthusiasm for this movie.

If you like the movie, go ahead and like the movie. Don't tell me that this is some sort of vindication of your decades of abuse in the American culture."
After a commercial break and with O'Donnell no longer there to respond, Donohue makes this hateful comment:
DONOHUE: "... You see, Larry said he was raised Catholic. I know what that means. It means he is an ex-Catholic, which means he doesn't really identify when the Catholic Church is under attack by movies and by television. So he has his own blinders on. Let me tell you something. All you need to do is go on our Web site or check out our annual report.

There is more anti-Catholicism in the United States than there is anti-Semitism. We have 37 states in the United States which have a Blaine amendment which is aimed at Roman Catholics. Christians are the ones who are dissed in Hollywood, not Jews. And so if Lawrence O'Donnell doesn't feel it, I understand why, because he has decoupled himself from Christianity."
So there you have it. Being raised a Catholic but no longer attending church regularly means that you have "blinders on" and are incapable of recognizing bigotry against the Catholic church. Thanks for clarifying, Mr. Donohue.

Oh, and for all of you Jews out there, please take notice. You heard it straight from that pillar of truth -- the "Scarborough Country" TV show: Catholics have it tougher than Jews do. It strikes me as a strange conclusion, but, then again, I am an ex-Catholic so, like O'Donnell, I couldn't possibly recognize bigotry against Christian faiths.

A footnote: Donohue neglects to mention that even if anti-Catholic bigotry in the 19th century influenced passage of the so-called Blaine amendments, it doesn't necessarily impugn the substance of these provisions that prevent state tax dollars from funding religious or sectarian activities. Indeed, one of these state constitutional amendments was just upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a decision written by none other than conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist.




posted by Frederick Maryland at 1:12 PM




Good Timing

Just over a week ago, Bush recess appointed William Pryor to the 11th Circuit - and, from the looks of it, he did it just in time too

As the interpreter of federal law and the U.S. Constitution for Georgia, Florida and Alabama, the 11th Circuit regularly hears cases about some of the hottest legal issues affecting society.

Last month a three-judge panel upheld a Florida law that bans homosexuals from adopting children. Panels are currently reviewing a race discrimination suit against Georgia Power and a free-speech challenge of an ordinance passed in the days before last year's protest against the all-male membership of Augusta National Golf Club.

While Pryor likely would have to recuse himself from cases involving the Alabama AG's office, he will take part in the court's other matters -- including the en banc request stemming from the Florida adoption case.

The panel in January wrote that the Supreme Court's recent ruling that struck down laws banning gay sex did not apply to Florida's adoption rule. Last year, Pryor submitted a brief for Alabama asking the high court to uphold states' rights to ban gay sex.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:41 PM




Kurtz' Imagined Media Bias

The Washington Post's media critic, Howard Kurtz, wonders if the media has played favorites when it comes to those defying the law. Kurtz writes:
When San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom defied state law by allowing same-sex marriage licenses, a New York Times profile reported him sporting "a wide grin," "describing his motives as pure and principled," and cited his "business acumen, money, good looks and friends in the right places."

But when Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore also defied the law -- by installing a Ten Commandments display in his public building -- a Times profile said that "civil liberties groups accused Justice Moore of turning a courthouse into a church," while allowing that he had also become "an Alabama folk hero."

On the editorial page, the Times criticized Moore, likening him to George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door, but supports Newsom's protest and gay marriage.

The paper has plenty of company. Hundreds of news accounts have provided an upbeat portrayal of Newsom as a pioneer and the San Francisco weddings as a happy occasion, even as partisan rhetoric hardened last week over President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to ban such marriages. While those opposed to gay marriage and Newsom's maneuver are certainly quoted, the media spotlight has shone most brightly on the mayor and those (including Rosie O'Donnell) tying the legally disputed knot.

"Call it 'wedded blitz' in San Francisco," reported NBC's Matt Lauer. "As if reliving its glory days as a counter-culture mecca in the 1960s, San Francisco was again the place to be," said Newsweek. A front-page Washington Post story yesterday celebrated the marriage of two elderly women.
But I think Kurtz is reaching with his insinuation. First of all, it remains to be seen whether Mayor Newsom "defied" a valid state law. Bear in mind that Newsom contends that any law preventing same-sex couples to marry is itself in violation of "equal protection" guarantees in the California Constitution. Whether or not Newsom's argument carries the day (and I doubt it will), at least Kurtz has to admit that -- unlike the circumstances surrounding Justice Roy Moore -- no court has, as of yet, explictly ordered Newsom to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

Second, Kurtz hardly presents a compelling case. He suggests that Times' news articles presented Newsom in a glowing light. His evidence is rather thin, however. Read closely. It wasn't the Times that described Newsom's motives as "pure and principled"; the Times simply wrote that Newsome described his own motives in that way. And since when did reporting that someone displayed "a wide grin" equate to praise. Either someone was smiling or not.

Thrid, Kurtz misconstrues facts as bias. He casts aspersions on a Times profile of Roy Moore because the Times reporter wrote that "civil liberties groups accused Justice Moore of turning a courthouse into a church ..." That is essentially what civil liberties groups were saying about Moore, isn't it?

Fourth, Kurtz claims that the Times has "plenty of company" in its upbeat portrayal of Newsom. But the only broadcast media reference that Kurtz offered was that lame one-line double entendre that Matt Lauer used as a teaser on NBC's "Today" show (see Kurtz's excerpt above). Give me a break. Did Kurtz bother to track the comments of Bill O'Reilly on FOX News Channel? Or the disparaging remarks by MSNBC talk-jock Joe Scarborough?

I'm not saying that there's no newspaper or media outlet that has engaged in a double-standard in how they played the Newsom story versus the Moore story. But, if such bias has occurred, Kurtz has done a poor job of demonstrating it.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 11:28 AM




The Diary of Anne Frank

"60 Minutes" ran an interesting piece on how North Korea is requiring all students to read Frank's book and using it

[N]ot to teach how Anne suffered at the hands of the German Nazis, but to warn the students how they could suffer at the hands of those they call "American Nazis."

Children that were interviewed were quoted as saying things like

"After reading this book, I had a hatred for the American imperialists,” says one student.

and

“As long as the warmonger Bush and the Nazi Americans live, who are worse than Hitler's fascists, world peace will be impossible to achieve,” says another student.

When asked if they believe that concentration camps still existed, they responded

“Yes, I think such camps still exist. As long as there are American Nazis, there will be secret places where innocent people are murdered,” says one student. “Places like that exist in America. The prisons in America are comparable to concentration camps.”

and

“For world peace, America will have to be destroyed,” adds another student. “Only then, will Anne's wonderful dream of peace come true.”

In other news, our negotiations with North Korea are moving right along.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:11 AM




Parents Get Saddled With Educ. Costs

The Bush administration's "No Child Left Behind" Act imposes new mandates in testing, student transfers and other areas. But the administration has failed to support full funding for NCLB, leaving states and localities -- already hard hit from the sluggish economic times -- to pick up the tab. But someone else has been forced to dig deeper into their pockets for even the most basic costs of schooling: parents.

In a national poll of 800 public school parents, the national PTA found that public schools are "passing the hat" even more than prior years, holding regular fundraisers that ask parents and other community residents to cover school costs that were once built into education budgets. According to the poll:
* 79% of parents are being asked to fund items and needs that have traditionally been covered by school budgets including chalk, paper towels, cleaning supplies, transportation, technology, educational curriculum, and art or music programs.

* 39% of parents are contributing more than $100 to their kids classrooms each year and one out of 10 parents (11%) say they're giving more than $300 a year. Of those parents in this $300+ donor group, the median donor contributes $473 each year.
It might surprise Education Secretary Rod Paige to know that most teachers -- many of whom belong to the group that he branded a "terrorist organization" (the National Education Association) -- spend substantial sums out of their own pockets on basic classroom supplies.

Last year, a Maine newspaper reported on a teacher who spent a whopping $2,000 of her own money on classroom supplies in 2002. After news broke in the late 1990s of how many Florida teachers were spending substantial sums on such supplies, then-Gov. Lawton Chiles signed a law providing teachers with funding to help purchase instructional supplies. Something tells me Florida's current governor, Jeb Bush, has discontinued this funding.

One final note about the PTA poll. There is some (potential) good news for Democrats: 61% of parents call education issues "very important" in deciding whom to vote for.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 11:03 AM




Your Problems Are Not Now Our Concern

Do you see the connection? - From the AP

The United States is scaling up its military presence in Africa as concern mounts over terrorist threats — both immediate and future — on the continent, the deputy head of American forces in Europe said Friday.

[edit]

Africa is a growing strategic interest to the United States because of its terror links and its oil, which is seen as a possible alternative to Middle East fuel.

When it was just massive human rights violations and genocidal wars, we couldn't get involved. But now that Africa might be harboring terrorists, we're going to be sending in the troops.

And they have oil? Well, what a pleasant surprise!

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:36 AM




I'm Almost a Winner

TBogg has announced the "winners" of his contest to come up with slogan for the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign.

And since one of my suggestions was listed, I will link to it.

And while you are there, make sure you read this post on George Orwell's ability to see the future.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:02 AM




Perfectly Irresponsible

Billmon provides the transcript of a Lou Dobbs interview with David Cay Johnston, author of "Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else"

Johnston: Well, in 1983 Alan Greenspan persuaded the Democrats who were in charge of Congress to overtax us on Social Security, that is to collect taxes in advance rather than on pay as you go system. The promise was that we would use the excess taxes to pay off the federal debt which was then about a trillion dollars. We have now paid 1.8 trillion dollars in excess Social Security taxes. This year the government will collect -- if you make $50,000, about $7,500 from you. It only needs 5,000 to pay current benefits. That other $2,500 wasn't used to pay off the federal debt, which is now 7 trillion dollars, instead it is being used to finance tax cuts for the super rich.

[edit]

And now that money has not been spent to pay off the debt. Now Mr. Greenspan says you are not going to get those benefits but we should not raise taxes on those that make millions of dollars a year. It seems to me what Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted in 1983 has come true. He said this was thievery and the middle class were going to have their pockets picked by the rich.

I know that I have said this before, but everyone ought to read Johnston's book.

Update: Johnston had a longer piece on this same topic in yesterday's New York Times.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 8:49 AM


Sunday, February 29, 2004


Making the GOP unhappy...

Wahoo!
Both Kerry and Edwards are basically tied with Bush in head-to-head matchups in a CBS News poll released this weekend. But when Kerry-Edwards are matched against Republican Bush-Cheney, the Democrats lead 50 percent to 42 percent. None of the hypothetical matchups included independent candidate Ralph Nader.



posted by Zoe Kentucky at 8:19 PM



Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com