|
|
|
Demagoguery |
|
|
|
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, April 02, 2004 |
|
|
|
The Pro-Nurture Bias in Gay Rights Polls
A quick addendum to my last post on gay rights...
As you know, there has long been a nature-versus-nurture debate as far as whether sexual orientation is largely determined by or soon after birth. Well, looking over the poll questions by Gallup, CNN, and others that AEI reviewed, I feel that there is a degree of pro-nurture bias in how some of the standard questions are asked. For example:
"Do you feel that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle?" (Gallup)OR "... please tell me whether you agree ... Homosexuality should be considered a socially acceptable lifestyle?" (NBC-Wall Street Journal)
People aren't born with a "lifestyle." People's lifestyles can, and frequently do, change over a span of years. For example, people who are really active become more sedentary. This word frames being gay in terms that lend a smidgen of creedence to the Religious Right's assertion that gays and lesbians are just acting out, were simply shocked by some personal trauma, or were encouraged or "recruited" into the "lifestyle."
To me, many of these questions sound slightly strange. But a way to end the pro-nurture bias might be to eliminate the term "lifestyle" and simply ask the question this way: "Do you feel that homosexuality is acceptable?"
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 3:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Big Sigh of Relief
John Kerry is finally quelling one of my biggest fears about this election. I've been really worried that the 2004 election was going to be a totally lopsided fight, that despite their best efforts, Democrats just can't compete with Bush's macdaddy fund-raising skills. We even got an early taste of how critical money will be in this campaign just past last week, that the BC04 campaign pumping $30 million advertising dollars into battleground states can have a measurable effect.
While Bush's campaign is quickly closing in on its $200 million dollar target, suddenly John Kerry is the little engine that could. In this last quarter Kerry raised a record-breaking $50 million dollars. But the finer details of his haul are even more significant. Keep in mind that Gore raised $49.2 million dollars in his entire 2000 campaign.
Here are some of the fund-raising records that Kerry broke:$38,000,000 total raised in any month $36,000,000 total raised from grassroots contributors in any quarter $26,700,000 total raised online at JohnKerry.com in any quarter $2,600,000 total raised online at JohnKerry.com in one day ( March 4, 2004 ) and... 355,000 total number of grassroots contributions in any quarter Thus far, Kerry has raised a total of $83 million dollars.
Let's see if we can help make April even better than March. Go here and give 'em some more.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 3:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dramatic Shift in Public's Views on Gay Rights
A New York Times editorial observes that a review of polling data over three decades on gay issues indicates that the American people's views have changed significantly -- even as President Bush and his conservative followers dig in their heels and fight gay marriage and gay rights in general."The numbers document a profound change in attitudes, most strikingly on employment issues but also in areas like adoption rights, legal benefits and acceptance of gay relations.
"Although Congress and the Pentagon have balked at letting gays serve openly in the military, a Gallup poll last year found that an astonishing 80 percent of the respondents thought gays should be allowed in the armed forces, up from only 51 percent in 1977. Approval for hiring gay teachers for elementary schools jumped to 61 percent from 27 percent over the same period. Most gay athletes may be afraid to identify themselves publicly, but fully 86 percent of the public thinks that they should be hired for professional sports. A majority of the public thinks gays are just fine as members of the clergy, and three-fifths say they would vote for a well-qualified gay presidential candidate.
"There are lots of theories to explain these more tolerant attitudes. Our own guess is that as more and more gays have acknowledged their sexual orientation, straight Americans have come to see that gays are not deviants to be feared, but valued friends, neighbors and colleagues who are not much different from anyone else. Sadly, the poll data shows little easing of opposition to gay marriages in recent years, with roughly three-fifths or more of the public still opposed. That opposition might melt away if some state had the courage to legalize gay marriage and everyone could see that it posed no threat whatever to heterosexual unions." The polls were reviewed by the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 3:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More Fun From the Right
Though the credit here should really go to John McCain. Newsmax reports that the testy Senator "is launching perhaps his harshest attack yet on his own party and his gushiest praise of Democrats." "I believe my party has gone astray," McCain said yesterday, singling out GOP stands on environmental issues and racial set-asides.
"I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy," he said. "But I also feel the Republican Party can be brought back to the principles I articulated before."
And he took another shot at President Bush. "You can't fly in on an aircraft carrier and declare victory and have the deaths continue. You can't do that." I guess McCain's earlier remarks defending Kerry against Bush attacks wasn't an isolated incident. What's next? Maybe Kerry and McCain could go skydiving together? Or stage seemingly random meetings at a VFW hall?
M: "Well, hello Senator. K: "Good day. Funny meeting you here at this independently organized event for war heros and veterans." M: "Yes, isn't it. You're looking mighty patriotic today."
Hey, wasn't there a general named Wes kicking around a few months ago. Wonder if he'll get invited to the party?
posted by
Helena Montana at 3:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judicial Crisis
This week, Free Congress Foundation president Marion Edwyn Harrison nearly blows a gasket in response to Tom Daschle's threat to disrupt the judicial confirmation process if Bush continues to make recess appointments. One passage from Harrison's piece caught my eye:
As of March 27, Mr. Daschle threatens to block all federal judicial nominees unless ". . . the White House gives assurances that it will no longer abuse [sic] the process . . ." of choosing federal judges by recess appointments. He's referring to a total of two - yes, just two [emphasis mine]- recess appointments and the possibility of more, all made pursuant to the President's constitutional power so to appoint, never heretofore seriously disputed. The idea here is that Daschle is getting all worked up over nothing. After all, we're only talking a couple measly recess appointments. One could just as easily say that the GOP is all hot under the collar due to seven - yes just seven - filibusters of judicial nominees, compared to the 173 - yes 173 - Bush nominees the Senate had approved by the end of last month. When it's a handful of filibustered nominees, it is "nothing less than a constitutional crisis." Meanwhile, a handful of recess appointments is a mere pittance.
You also have to laugh at Harrison's contention that the use of recess appointments by the president has "never heretofore seriously disputed." Funny, in 1999, none other than then-Free Congress director Tom Jipping called Clinton's use of recess appointments "anti-constitutional." While I never take anything Jipping says all that seriously, it's hard to deny that he was serious in his criticism of Clinton. "This move would create an illegitimate process for bypassing the Constitution's framework for governing the country," Jipping wrote.
I suppose judicial crises are in the eye of the beholder.
posted by
Noam Alaska at 2:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We'll Give You What We Decide You Need
Even though President Clinton agreed to present the 9/11 Commission with about 11,000 pages of files from his administration, roughly 75% of this material has yet to be released to the Commission. The Bush White House has confirmed that it is withholding a number of classified documents from the Clinton years.
Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, is quoted in today's New York Times explaining why these documents are being held back by the Bushies."We are providing the commission with access to all the information they need to do their job." Who decides what information "they need"? The Bush White House, of course.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 2:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stooge
Insight magazine needed someone nutty to argue that the GOP should not do more minority outreach this year. Peter Brimelow/Pat Buchanan crony Steve Sailer accepts the gig.I found that the GOP House candidates actually did worse among minorities in 2002, winning only 23 percent of their votes, down from 25 percent in 2000. Moreover, in the midterms, 92 percent of the ballots cast for Republican House candidates came from non-Hispanic whites, up from 90 percent in 2000.
Minority outreach flopped, but the Republicans romped. How could this be?
The reason is simple: The majority is, by definition, bigger than the minority. Dude, you were set up. No one in the conservative establishment really cares about your political analysis of voting blocks and winning elections the great white way. They just want you to get out there and dance, so they can ignore you, proving that they chose the path of tolerance and diversity. Then they can do some token outreach and have mollified the guilty consciences of white suburban voters who don't want to feel racist for having voted Republican.
Then again, your lack of a pragmatic filter yields gems like this:No question, the Mexican-American vote is growing, but it's far from dominant now. That's why the GOP needs to regain control of our borders now, while Republicans still hold a strong hand. If the GOP won't act soon, then immigration will become a perpetual-motion machine for making more Democrats, just as the Liberal Party in Canada uses immigration to create liberal voters. Thanks. Care to really make my day, and move to a third party?
posted by
Helena Montana at 2:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Hero You've Never Heard Of
Unless you watched last night's Frontline "Ghosts of Rwanda" - Capt. Mbaye Diagne From literally the first hours of the genocide, Capt. Mbaye simply ignored the U.N.'s standing orders not to intervene, and single-handedly began saving lives. He rescued the children of the moderate Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana, after 25 well-armed Belgian and Ghanaian U.N. peacekeepers surrendered their weapons to Rwandan troops. The Rwandan troops killed Madame Agathe (and, later, ten Belgian peacekeepers), while the unarmed Capt. Mbaye -- acting on his own initiative -- hid the Prime Minister's children in a closet.
In the days and weeks that followed, Capt. Mbaye became a legend among U.N. forces in Kigali. He continued his solo rescue missions, and had an uncanny ability to charm his way past checkpoints full of killers. On one occasion he found a group of 25 Tutsis hiding in a house in Nyamirambo, a Kigali neighborhood that was particularly dangerous. Capt. Mbaye ferried the Tutsis to the U.N. headquarters in groups of five -- on each trip passing through 23 militia checkpoints with a Jeep-load of Tutsis. Somehow, he convinced the killers to let these Tutsis live.
On May 31st [1994], Capt. Mbaye was driving alone back to U.N. headquarters in Kigali when a random mortar shell, fired by the Rwandan Patriotic Front towards an extremist checkpoint, mistakenly landed next to his Jeep. He was killed instantly.
Capt. Mbaye, a devout Muslim, was one of nine children from a poor family on the outskirts of Dakar, Senegal's capital. He was the first in his family to go to college. After graduating from the University of Dakar, he joined the army and worked his way up through the ranks. After his death, he was buried in Senegal with full military honors. He was survived by a wife and two young children.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 2:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Massive Atrocities in Darfur
So says Human Rights Watch The Sudanese government is complicit in crimes against humanity committed by government-backed militias in Darfur, Human Rights Watch said today in a new report. In a scorched-earth campaign, government forces and Arab militias are killing, raping and looting African civilians that share the same ethnicities as rebel forces in this western region of Sudan.
[edit]
Human Rights Watch found that the military is indiscriminately bombing civilians, while both government forces and militias are systematically destroying villages and conducting brutal raids against the Fur, Masaalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups.
[edit]
[The] government launched a massive bombing campaign which, combined with the raids of the marauding militias, have forced more than 800,000 people from their homes and sent an additional 110,000 people into neighboring Chad. In a scorched-earth campaign, government forces and militias have killed several thousand Fur, Zaghawa and Masaalit civilians, routinely raped women and girls, abducted children, and looted tens of thousands of head of cattle and other property. In many areas of Darfur, they have deliberately burned hundreds of villages and destroyed water sources and other infrastructure, making it much harder for the former residents to return.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 1:37 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Tax Cuts Are Working!
The scales have fallen from my eyes. My simple liberal brain didn't understand the jobs data until the nice people at JobWatch put it in graphical form for me. Lookie here at how events have borne out the administration's predictions of job growth after the 2003 round of tax cuts:
See! The good news from March is that we didn't just meet the projections, we exceeded them by 2,000 jobs. 2,000! Take that, John Kerry! The rigorous logic of hard-headed conservatism has finally broken through to my socialism-addled brain, and I now understand that one month of good data means that we can safely ignore the previously unbroken record of failure.
Seriously, this is good news, and I hope we're finally seeing the beginning of the end of the "jobless recovery." But (a) it's hardly a sure thing, and (b) considering that the decline in jobs and earned income is much worse now than at a similar point in any prior business cycle since the 1930s, there's not much objective basis to laud the performance of this administration's "jobs and growth" policies.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 1:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does National Review Even Know Where PA Is?
Conservative groups are furiously trying to trash Congressional efforts to pass "pay-as-you-go" legislation so that the Bush tax cuts could not be extended unless either spending cuts or other revenues filled this gap. I always thought conservatives used to care about rising budget deficits, but apparently not anymore. The National Review has written this article excoriating U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp of Tennessee -- one of 11 GOP congressmen who voted recently to support the "pay-as-you-go" proposal.
One of those 11 GOP House members was U.S. Rep. Jim Greenwood, who represents PA's 8th Congressional District -- a mostly suburban area outside of Philadelphia. In the article, National Review contends:"Some of the defectors in the House were understandable and predictable, such as Rep. Jim Greenwood who represents a liberal district in Pennsylvania." Liberal? Yeah, right. Greenwood's 8th District includes Bucks County and a small portion of Montgomery County -- suburban counties in the Philadelphia metro area. A recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer noted: "In Pennsylvania, the ultra-swing voters are clustered in the suburban 'collar' counties around Philadelphia ..."Earth to National Review: Ultra-swing voters means voters whose ideological and party loyalties are usually up for grabs.
A more focused analysis also shatters the NR's notion that PA-8 is a "liberal district." Greenwood's 8th District consists of all of Bucks County, but only two townships in neighboring Montgomery County. So, for all practical purposes, Bucks County is Greenwood's district. In the 2000 election, Al Gore won the county by collecting 132,914 votes out of the 263,422 cast in Bucks. That's 50.4% of the vote, which is slightly below his statewide percentage in PA: 50.6%.
Therefore, the only way that Greenwood's district would accurately be deemed "liberal" is if the entire state of PA is also liberal. Of course, it's quite possible that National Review's staff writers are so deluded as to believe this. But do liberal states:* receive 26 visits from a conservative president over the last three years? (Gee, how many times has Bush visited New York state or Massachusetts?)
* have two Republicans as their U.S. senators?
* twice elect Rick Santorum (the man who contends that homosexuality = polygamy or incest) as one of those U.S. senators? (In fact, Santorum carried Bucks County in his last race by 30,000+ votes. That doesn't sound like a liberal county to me.) One last footnote for the boneheads at National Review: According to the American Conservative Union, Congressman Greenwood -- whom we're told represents a liberal district -- has a lifetime conservative rating of 61%.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 12:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's Just Start Making Up Stuff
Bush has run a series of totally misleading negative ads against Kerry, so it looks like Kerry has decided to strike back with his own misleading ads Kerry's ad, his first negative commercial of the general election, quotes the president's advisers as saying "moving American jobs to low-cost countries" is good for the economy and adds: "While jobs are leaving our country in record numbers, George Bush says sending jobs overseas `makes sense' for America."
[edit]
While Bush never directly said that outsourcing jobs "makes sense," that phrase is included in the 2004 economic report of the president, which was released in February and which Bush signed. In a section about offshore outsourcing, it says:
"When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than make or provide it domestically."
Of the hundred of things they could honestly attack Bush on, why would the Kerry campaign choose to start off with an intentionally misleading ad such as this?
I know that Bush has been running his own misleading ads, but he is a liar and I expect him to lie. And Kerry should be pointing out that Bush is a liar, not simply lying in retaliation.
Update: Well, I actually watched the ad and it does not seem as bad as I suspected. It doesn't try to fake quote Bush saying it "makes sense" and the ads mentions that Bush's advisors are the ones who think it is a good idea. So now I am less upset with Kerry and more upset with Liz Sidoti of the Associated Press for putting "makes sense" in single quotes, thus making it appear that the Kerry ad was misleadingly quoting Bush.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 11:05 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The News About Job Growth
Although the unemployment rate in March inched upward to 5.7%, the other news this morning in a new report by the Labor Department is good news for the economy and, therefore, for President Bush's re-election hopes. The 308,000 new jobs that were added to the U.S. economy in March are driving the stock market higher and getting plenty of play in the news media. No doubt, the White House has to be jubilant over these numbers.
In addition, the Labor Department revised its new-job numbers for January and February upward by a combined 87,000. While I'm pleased that more people seem to be finding work (even if long-term unemployment remains very high), I am concerned that if public anxiety about the U.S. economy dissipates, Bush will be virtually impossible to defeat.
Of course, this is only one month, and there are many more months ahead before Election Day. And even good news can prompt actions that create bad news. Indications that the jobs picture is improving may lead the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates from its 45-year low of 1% -- a move that might eventually dampen new home construction and other economic activity.
In other words, stay tuned.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 10:53 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who is to blame for 9/11?
Feminism.
According to the enlightened ladies at Concerned Women for America it's American feminists in particular. The following is from a speech the group recently delivered before the World Congress of Families III in Mexico City, Mexico.Feminists seek to destroy the boundaries of morality because they believe that the traditional nuclear family is oppressive and restrictive of their freedom.
What they don't understand is that the traditional family is where children first learn - not just the bonds of affection, but the demands of duties and obligations to one another. Feminists also fail to understand the central role that the traditional family plays in nurturing children - why it is the safest and best place for children to be born and reared.
In the wake of the unlimited freedom that feminists demanded flows a culture of death and destruction.
We will rebuild the towers; we must rebuild the family. Now I get it! The liberation of women led to the destruction of the family which led to...9/11! In this post-9/11 age we need to rise up against the evils of tyranny and terrorism and destroy the root of all evil-- FEMINISM!
By the way, the woman who made this speech is Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, a very active anti-feminist crusader. Crouse is a former Bush Presidential Speechwriter (she never says which Bush, though) and an official delegate to UN conferences on women and children. Crouse has very high praise for the international "pro-family" agenda of the Bush Administration. The fact that this woman thinks so highly of Bush's "pro-family" agenda is yet another reminder of just how badly Bush needs to go.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 10:48 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summing Up The Genocide
Within days of the beginning of the genocide, France, Belgium and the US had thousands of soldiers on the ground in Rwanda - not to protect those being killed, but to evacuate their own citizens.
Major Brent Beardsley explains the international community's priorities in very simple language What that meant was anybody that was white-skinned got to get on an airplane and fly to safety, and anybody that was black-skinned got to stay in Rwanda and get killed. That's as simple as it came down to. It still to this day leaves a very, very bad taste in my mouth that the United States of America could have 350 Marines sitting at [Bujumbura, Burundi] airport, that the French were able to get in 500 or so paratroopers, that the Belgians had over 1,000 paratroopers.
You know, we basically had our intervention force already on the ground. What they later told us, it was impossible to get on the ground. We had it on the ground on April 10, within three days of this thing starting. But it wasn't there to intervene. It wasn't there to save Rwanda; it was there to save white people, and that's what it came down to. White people were saved and black people were not.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:35 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just Because Ken's Gay Doesn't Mean Barbie Is...
...does it?NEW YORK April 1 — An openly gay teenager received a $30,000 settlement from the city over her suspension for wearing a "Barbie is a Lesbian" T-shirt to school, her attorney announced Thursday. This is the biggest gay-children's-character-T-shirt story in New York since the "Tinky Winky made me do it" T-shirts showed up at the Pride Day Parade five years ago after Jerry Falwell's organization shot off its collective mouth about the purple Teletubby (by the way: Tinky Winky is soooo gay).
posted by
Arnold P. California at 10:07 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, April 01, 2004 |
|
|
|
Orginalism When It's Convenient
Conservatives, like liberals, come in many stripes; libertarians and Christian conservatives, for instance, diverge on many issues. This is true even when one narrows the universe from conservative politics to conservative jurisprudence. Nonetheless, one fairly common claim by conservative lawyers is that they enforce the "original understanding" of the Constitution, i.e., the meaning of the text as it was understood at the time of ratification. This is the legitimate method of interepretation, it is claimed, because the meaning of the Constitution can't change over time unless the people amend it. It also supposedly means that conservative judges don't substitute their policy preferences for law (or, as I once heard Justice Scalia put it, there's a right answer to the question "what did this mean in 1789," but there isn't a single right answer to the question "does this law impose an undue burden on the right to privacy").
Originalism, however, is often abandoned when it doesn't serve a conservative policy agenda. The easiest example is affirmative action, which conservative judges have eviscerated by applying (supposedly) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, even though the very Congress that passed the Fourteenth Amendment was busy adopting all sorts of race-conscious legislation. Here, just as they accuse liberals of doing, conservatives substitute a policy that they believe in--color-blindness--for the original understanding of the constitutional provision, which was not intended or understood to constrain race-conscious legislation (at least federal legislation) designed to enable an oppressed minority to have equal opportunities for economic success. Maybe color-blindness is a better policy, or maybe one might believe that although affirmative action might have been a good idea at first, its time has passed. But those should be policy judgments for the political process, not for judges to impose.
Another good, but less well-known, example, of conservatives' abandoning originalism is the Taking Clause. This provision of the Fifth Amendment says that the government can't take private property for a public purpose without paying compensation. So when the state exercises eminent domain and knocks down your house to put a freeway through, it has to pay you for the value of the house. Conservative legal scholars and judges, particularly those associated with the "Law and Economics" school, have advanced the theory of "regulatory takings," where the government should be required to pay property owners for the diminished value of their property resulting from regulation. For instance, if the state makes it illegal to dump cyanide into rivers, and that means that a particular factory has to buy more expensive equipment (thus making the factory less attractive to a buyer), the state has to pay the factory owner.
There are some interesting theoretical reasons why this might be thought a good idea. But there's no way the folks back in 1789-91 (when the Bill of Rights was proposed and ratified) thought the Taking Clause was enacting a theory like this. (Of course, they also didn't imagine the sheer volume and complexity of regulation that we have today; but the question for an originalist is whether they would have understood the Taking Clause to prohibit such regulation. Since they clearly wouldn't, the question of how wise today's approach is should be answered by the political branches of government, not the courts).
There was a case in point today from the Ninth Circuit (pdf file). It involves a rent-control law for gas stations in Hawaii. The law says an oil company that owns a gas station can't charge the operator more than 15% of profits on gas sales, plus 15% of gross revenue on all other products. So far as I can tell, this is a really stupid law, but the legislature thought it was a good idea. And usually, the courts won't interfere in policy choices unless the legislature was completely irrational, a standard that is almost never satisfied (even when it ostensibly is, as in the Massachusetts same-sex marriage case, one suspects that the court isn't really applying the "rational-basis" test but something a bit more stringent). But the majority decided that Hawaii had to prove that the law "substantially advanced" the state's objective. And not just any objective, but one that the legislature announced at the time; usually, so long as a law is rationally related to any legitimate objective, the courts leave it alone and don't require the legislature to set forth in advance an exhaustive statement of what it's trying to accomplish.
The founding generation had so many "anti-free market" laws it would make your head spin. Government-mandated monopolies, stringent restrictions on the free movement of labor, you name it. A century later, courts decided that the Constitution mandated a libertarian approach to economics and started striking down child labor laws, minimum wages, and such things. That was the so-called Lochner era, which until recently was almost universally reviled. The lesson, we used to think, was that the courts should leave economic regulation up to legislatures for the most part. But now, with the "regulatory takings" doctrine, we're headed back toward Lochnerism.
Judge Fletcher in dissent seems to have been echoing Oliver Wendell Holmes's famous dissent in Lochner, which argued essentially that even though a free-market approach was best, if the legislature wanted to be a bunch of idiots and regulate working hours, that was up to them ("The Constitution does not enact the social statics of Mr. Herbert Spencer"). Here's Judge Fletcher:Under the panel’s holding, “virtually all rent control laws in the Ninth Circuit are now subject to the ‘substantially advances a legitimate state interest’ test[,]” 224 F.3d at 1048 (W. Fletcher, J., concurring in the judgment), and many of those laws may well be held unconstitutional under that test. Rent control is often inefficient and sometimes unfair. See id. But we should not confuse inefficiency and unfairness with unconstitutionality. Contrary to their claims of purity, most conservative jurisprudes (there are exceptions) are just as result-driven and ideologically influenced in their readings of the Constitution as most liberals (there are exceptions on the left as well). And there's nothing original, or even "originalist," about that.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 9:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take This Low-Carb Wrap and Shove It*
Food has got to be the second biggest cultural indicator of how f**ked up out country is. The constant blur of diet banner ads is grating enough, but then today I read this: "Laxative Makers Run After Low-Carb Dieters: Atkins, South Beach Dieters May Suffer From Irregularity." First off: Relax, it's been thoroughly googled and was published yesterday so it's no April Fools joke. Besides, is it really suprising that a diet full of meat has led to a rise in constipation? Secondly: Ew!
Before any low-carb devotees come out of the woodwork, let me clarify. I'm strictly non-partisan. I'm not trying to push you back to the joys of pasta (though there's nothing quite like a nice linguini.) And I'm happy if it works for you. But there's something a wee bit disturbing about the way food choices and diet talk permeates every level of daily activity. Can't we all just go back to the first biggest cultural indicator? Because I'd really rather hear those people next to me in line talk about porn than carbs.
It also reminded me that Nature magazine put out a nice short overview of the current lack of scientific literature about diets. Also, I really need to find a way to see the movie that got McDonalds to stop supersizing. (OK, not singlehandedly. Bad PR and lawsuits helped.) It's called Supersize Me!, and the website features all kinds of amusing diversions.
* Apologies to Johnny Paycheck
posted by
Helena Montana at 5:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More of Coulter's Idiocy
In her April 1 column, entitled "How 9-11 Happened," Ann Coulter writes that "[w]e don't need a "commission" to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline ..." She then takes readers on a trip down a rather skewed and one-sided memory lane -- beginning with the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by Iranian militants in 1979. What does this have to do with 9-11? A good question, but Coulter never bothers to offer a link.
Here is the ridiculous "timeline" that Coulter expects us to buy:PRESIDENT CARTER, DEMOCRAT "In 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage. Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert."
PRESIDENT REAGAN, REPUBLICAN "The day of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released ..." Uh, yo ... Ann ... those hostages were released after many weeks and months of negotiations by the Carter administration -- negotiations that continued up to virtually the last hour that Carter was in office. So don't insult us by trying to hand over credit for the hostages' release to a man who took the oath after the essential deal was cut.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 5:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bush News
Bush has finally signed a controversial ban that may make it legal for fetuses in utero to marry. (Opposite-sex fetuses only need apply.) Bush is also reportedly expressed interested in extending rights of personhood to "pre-life" cells. In response, pro-choice groups are organizing masturbation rallies all over the country. (Get your "Lick Bush, Beat Dick" paraphanelia here.)
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 4:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"H" Is For Hypocrisy
I believe that Eugene or Arnold recently posted on this issue, but permit me to second that emotion -- the International Court of Justice yesterday ordered U.S. courts to review death sentences that were issued for 51 Mexicans who were tried in the United States. The ICJ found that the Mexicans' rights under international law had been violated because they were not permitted to meet with embassy or consular officials from their home country.
Will the ICJ's ruling change how the U.S. behaves? Don't hold your breath. The New York Times reports:It is unclear whether American courts will heed the ruling, and federal officials reacted cautiously, saying they needed time to study the list of decisions. "It's a very complex ruling," said Adam Ereli, a State Department spokesman. "We'll decide, based on studying it, how we can go about implementing it." Perhaps the Bush administration's wishy-washy statement reflects the fact that the U.S. has never recognized the ICJ's jurisdiction, right? Wrong.The United States acknowledges the jurisdiction of the court to resolve disputes between nations arising under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which allows people arrested abroad to meet with representatives of their governments and says detainees must be advised of this right. In fact, as The Times explains:The United States regularly invokes the convention to visit Americans in foreign jails. But never mind that. The former governor of Texas and the current governor of Texas seem to have something in common: a fundamental disregard for consistent, internationally-recognized standards of justice.Although the laws of an international treaty should prevail over national law, the Bush administration has often criticized the application of international law. Even if it bows to the ruling, federal officials may not be able to compel states to heed the court. Gov. Rick Perry, who succeeded President Bush in Texas, has said that "the International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction in Texas." And we wonder why so many people in foreign countries loathe our arrogance?
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 4:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Commission Without Credibility
I don't know if I've ever found anything written by a Heritage Foundation research fellow worth recommending, but there's a first time for everything. Heritage's Joseph Laconte offers one reason in today's New York Times why the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has so little credibility:"Each year delegates from the 53 member states (on the Commission) meet for six weeks to name the worst offending countries and adopt resolutions condemning their abuses. For years, however, the commission instead has been a haven for rogue governments -- who get elected to the body in order to shield themselves from international scrutiny and criticism.
"... Indeed, the Commission on Human Rights no longer can be counted on to 'name and shame' even the most egregious violators. North Korea, for example, knows how to bully its Asian neighbors in the United Nations, so that not even overwhelming evidence of its misdeeds will guarantee a tough resolution against the regime. Sudan quietly uses the promise of oil to buy off potential critics.
"... The prospect of democracy in states like Afghanistan is bound up with their willingness to endorse religious freedom. Saudi Arabia, home of most of the 9/11 hijackers, allows virtually no freedom of religion. Nigeria, increasingly devoted to Sharia, or Islamic law, supports extrajudicial killings. As long as states like these are allowed on the commission -- at least 18 members are themselves considered repressive -- its proceedings will remain a politicized sham.
"The best hope of breaking their grip may be the creation of a democracy caucus now being pushed by Chile, Poland, South Korea and the United States." The U.S.'s involvement in this caucus is admirable; what is not admirable, however, is America's hypocrisy in refusing to abide by international law. (See my later post.)
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 3:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic Literacy
Princeton University researchers Alan Krueger and Alan Blinder just completed a study on public perceptions of economic issues. They surveyed a random sample of 1,002 Americans, and Krueger wrote a column about it in today's New York Times. There was good news and bad.The good news is that three-quarters of people say it is either extremely important or very important to stay informed.
The bad news is that there is a great deal of confusion about basic facts relevant to policy. Almost half the public, and a quarter of those over age 55, thought Medicare already provided drug benefits for outpatients before legislation providing such coverage was enacted. More than half could not hazard a guess about the size of the budget deficit. The average person thinks 37 percent of Americans lack health insurance, more than twice the actual percentage. What explains the public's misunderstandings about economic issues? Kruger offers this explanation:From where do Americans learn about the economy? By far the most common source is television. Those who rely on television the most, however, tend to be among the least informed.
... Liberals, moderates and conservatives all did about equally well on the test of economic facts. But those who said they hadn't thought much about their ideological leanings -- one in three people -- were appreciably less knowledgeable. Interesting. Ideologues may be ideologues, but they are more likely to have their facts straight. Finally, there was this interesting tidbit from the Princeton study:Those who were more knowledgeable about economic policy facts were less likely to support the last Bush tax cut. Among those who scored in the bottom quarter on the factual knowledge quiz, the ratio of favorable to unfavorable opinions was 2.6 to 1; for those in the top quarter it was 1.1 to 1.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 3:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Passion Prequel
Since I missed the South Park last night where Kyle goes to see the Passion, I had to satisfy myself with this advance look at Gibson's next flick. Credit Beliefnet with the scoop.Another Jew jumps up on the tables and runs toward Jesus from behind. He dives at the Christ, who ducks just in time. The Jew sails headfirst into a stone pillar, cracking open his skull and splattering blood and bone fragments everywhere.
Jesus flays every merchant in reach, lacerating faces and exposed arms. The disciples kick ass: John smashes a jug of olives over a temple scribe's head; Philip holds a sheep salesman's arms from behind while Bartholomew pummels him in the stomach; Peter chases an ox trader around one of the beasts of the field, circling the ox one way, then the other. Finally, Peter leaps over the animal, tackling the man to the ground.
Jesus: Now let us get the moneychangers! Be sure to take their poll on whether you're going to Hell or not while you're there. So far the totals are a little optimistic.
posted by
Helena Montana at 2:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iraq is Not Somalia
Responding to the atrocities committed yesterday in Falluja, conservative pundits like Joe Scarborough are insinuating that, unlike Clinton with Somalia, Bush and the Americans are here to stay Memo to Iraq: Iraq is not Somalia, and we are not going anywhere until Iraq is free.
Ann Coulter makes a similar point in her column today In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.
Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."
The point seems to be that Clinton was a coward who cut and ran at the first sign of trouble.
As such, I am just going to link to this post I made several months ago highlighting the fact that Republicans at the time were demanding that he do exactly that.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 12:55 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Smile ... When Your Heart Is Aching ..."
In an article today, the New York Times' John Burns writes:Hours after the deaths of the four American civilians who were dragged from their vehicle and mutilated in Falluja on Wednesday, an American general went before reporters in Baghdad with the air of measured assurance that has characterized every daily briefing on the military situation across Iraq.
"Despite an uptick in local engagements, the overall area of operations remains relatively stable with negligible impact on the coalition's ability to continue progress in governance, economic development, and restoration of essential services," said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, 51, the former paratrooper who is chief spokesman for the United States military command. Can you imagine the mayor of a large U.S. city -- only hours after two people in his city are shot to death in their cars, their bodies burned and then hanged on a bridge scaffold -- saying that he perceives continued "progress in governance"?
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 12:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning Looks Like an Asshole
From the Cincinnati Post
One Republican who attended the March 20 dinner told The Post Bunning told the crowd he had met his Democratic opponent.
"I have to tell you he looks like one of Saddam Hussein's sons," the Republican, who asked not to be identified, quoted Bunning as saying.
When some people in the audience laughed and others gasped, Bunning added, "No, I mean before they were dead, of course," according to the Republican's account.
Bunning then added, "I really mean that he looks like one of Saddam's sons, and he even dresses like them, too."
After lying about it, Bunning went on to offer a typical nonapology apology Bunning's campaign denied last week that he had made the remarks. But on Wednesday, campaign manager David Young issued a one-sentence apology. "We're sorry if this joke, which got a lot of laughs, offended anyone."
Bunning looks like he molests children. I mean he really does.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 11:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roy Moore's Political Army Sets Sight on the GOP Convention
We've speculated here about Moore's personal plans before. Arnold pointed out the likelihood of Moore's running for governor of Alabama. Slate's Tim Noah seems fascinated with the idea that Moore might run for President. Meanwhile, the League of Christian Voters, recently formed by Moore supporters in Alabama, is working on the rank and file aspect.An organization formed by supporters of ousted Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore is hoping candidates it is endorsing will win a majority of the 48 Alabama delegate seats to the Republican National Convention.
Jim Zeigler, organizer of the League of Christian Voters, said the group has endorsed candidates for most delegate positions to the convention. Some Republican delegates are elected statewide, while others are elected from congressional districts.
Zeigler said the group is endorsing candidates who it believes will support a suggested plank to the Republican platform. That plank would endorse proposed federal legislation to prohibit federal judges from hearing cases involving acknowledgements of God. When the talk of delegates begins, the races have begun. Ya'll ready for convention season?
posted by
Helena Montana at 11:53 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But Can He Do It Without Moving His Lips?
As Talking Points has noted, there are some less-awful (but still not terribly attractive) explanations for the White House's insistence that the 9/11 commission interview Bush and Cheney jointly, but the conclusion that many will leap to is not helpful to the administration.
Here's one Pulitzer Prize-winning leaper, Ann Telnaes.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 10:53 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coming Out in a Big Way
So, just as the Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee was about to start hearings to discuss four bills on civil unions and gay marriage, including a gay marriage ban, the House Majority Leader Gordon Fox came out of the closet.
Apparently Fox attended a pro-gay marriage rally right before the hearings began. Fox had not been scheduled to talk at the rally, but then and there decided he had something to say. Fox announced "It's moments like this that make one say 'I need to say what I need to say,'" and "And this may not be the most appropriate time to do it or the politically savvy way to do this, but I have been in a committed relationship with a very special man for six years." Later on at the hearings Fox revealed that he is gay to his House colleages.
Wow. Sure beats my "could you pass the mashed potatoes, oh, by the way, I'm gay."
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 10:23 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reminder
Tonight, Frontline airs "Ghosts of Rwanda," a two-hour documentary commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide.
I saw a portion of it last week and it is definitely worth watching.
The New York Times has a review.
If you live in the DC area, it is being aired by Maryland Public Television at 9pm and again next week by WETA.
If you live outside of DC, you can check your local listings here.
In other news, Dallaire's book won a major award Romeo Dallaire's book about the genocide in Rwanda has won the 2004 Writers' Trust of Canada award for political writing, it was announced Wednesday.
[edit]
The prize is awarded to a non-fiction book that exhibits outstanding literary merit and enlarges people's understanding of contemporary Canadian political and social issues.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:35 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, March 31, 2004 |
|
|
|
Whatever Happened to the Boy Genius?
Is the White House trying to make it easy for its critics? Eugene's favorite New York Times reporter filed the following yesterday:I.R.S. Request for More Terrorism Investigators Is Denied
The Bush administration has scuttled a plan to increase by 50 percent the number of criminal financial investigators working to disrupt the finances of Al Qaeda, Hamas and other terrorist organizations to save $12 million, a Congressional hearing was told on Tuesday.
The Internal Revenue Service had asked for 80 more criminal investigators beginning in October to join the 160 it has already assigned to penetrate the shadowy networks that terrorist groups use to finance plots like the Sept. 11 attacks and the recent train bombings in Madrid. But the Bush administration did not include them in the president's proposed budget for the 2005 fiscal year.
The disclosure, to a House Ways and Means subcommittee, came near the end of a routine hearing into the I.R.S. budget after most of the audience, including reporters, had left the hearing room. I assume the last sentence explains why we haven't heard more about this.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 7:26 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Ordinary People Funding Bush's Campaign
In this article from In These Times, Craig Aaron chronicles the major industries that have helped the Bush-Cheney campaign build its impressive mountain of campaign cash. One of them is the financial sector:Nearly one in five Rangers (those collecting $200-K) and Pioneers (those collecting $100-K) comes from the financial sector. This group of 85 bankers, stockbrokers and wealthy private investors -- which has bundled at least $12.5 million for the 2004 Bush campaign -- includes 20 top Wall Street executives ... Now the (financial) industry is leading the drive to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, endorsing administration plans to overhaul the retirement system and salivating over the prospect of Social Security privatization.
... The Wall Street Journal reported that hedge fund consultant Lee Hennessee sent out invitations to a March 11 Bush fundraiser with this message: "The current administration is favorable to the hedge fund industry, and we need to do all we can to keep them in office." To understand why the hedge fund industry thinks the president is its friend, one must first understand what a hedge fund is. The informational website SmartMoneyUniversity defines a hedge fund as:"A private investment partnership, owned by wealthy individuals and institutions, which is allowed to use aggressive strategies that are unavailable to mutual funds, including short selling, leverage, program trading, swaps, arbitrage and derivatives. Since they are restricted by law to less than 100 investors, the minimum hedge-fund investment is typically $1 million." Needless to say, middle-class and even upper middle-class people don't have a spare $1 million parked in a money market or savings account.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 5:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No Head in Virginia!
This really sucks. A Newport News woman charged with a felony for receiving oral sex in a car is challenging a state law that prohibits certain types of sex between consenting adults.
A police officer says he found the 21-year-old woman in a parked car receiving oral sex from a man about 3 a.m. Jan. 29. Both were charged with a felony under the statute for crimes against nature... If convicted of the felony charge, the woman could face up to five years in prison. The woman argues that Lawrence v. Texas makes this law null and void. (It's absurd that we even need the Supreme Court to tell legislators that a law as ridiculous as this one is unconstitutional.)
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 4:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Am I Missing Something?
I haven't noticed much coverage of the decision against the United States by the International Court of Justice (the ICJ, also called "the World Court") in the consular case. Over recent years, a number of foreign nationals sentenced to death for crimes in the U.S. have tried to stave off execution by noting the apparent violation of their home countries' rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Under the Convention, when one signatory arrests a national of another signatory, the arresting country is supposed to advise the consular officials of the other country "without delay." The country whose national is under arrest has the right to visit and arrange legal representation for him.
The U.S. was pretty clearly violating the Convention on a regular basis, probably through neglect rather than intentionally, until Germany drew the problem to public attention by unsuccessfully trying to stop the execution of one of its nationals. Since then, the U.S. has taken steps to ensure that procedures are in place around the country to ensure systematically that consular officials are properly notified following the arrest of foreign nationals.
The problem became what to do about the people already convicted who had not had the benefit of consular assistance. Once your conviction is final and you've appealed it unsuccessfully, you can bring a habeas corpus petition to claim that your continued detention is illegal. Over the past 15 years or so, however, the Supreme Court and Congress have cut back considerably on prisoners' access to habeas to stop the supposedly widespread abuse of the writ (by saying "supposedly," I don't mean to deny widespread abuse, but just to stay neutral on that controversy for present purposes). One of the restrictions is that, in general, you can't raise a claim in federal habeas proceedings if you didn't raise it before the state courts on direct appeal from your conviction. You can see where the problem comes in: these prisoners' whole point is that they didn't know they had a claim under the Vienna Convention precisely because of the U.S.'s violation in failing to advise them of their rights and their consulates of their existence.
But their lawyers could have figured it out, just as a lawyer can raise a Miranda claim at trial after an arrestee has been questioned without being told of his right to counsel. So the U.S. courts have not been sympathetic to Vienna Convention claims that are raised eight or 10 or 12 years after conviction and a few weeks--or less-before execution. Things got really ugly when the ICJ "indicated provisional measures" (sort of like a preliminary injunction or TRO in U.S. practice) directing the U.S. to take all steps necessary to prevent a state (Oklahoma, IIRC) from executing a prisoner before the ICJ could decide the case; even though the federal government supported the prisoner's request to the Supreme Court to stay his execution, the Court denied the request, and the man was executed.
Anyhow, the ICJ has now decided not only that Mexico's rights under the Convention were violated--a pretty easy conclusion, really--but also that the "procedural default" rule preventing Mexican prisoners from raising the issue on habeas also violates the Convention under the circumstances. However, the ICJ did not order the U.S. to wipe out the convictions or retry the defendants, as Mexico had requested. Instead, it said the U.S. should, in a manner of its own choosing, permit judicial review of the convictions with consideration given to the Convention violations. If--and I do mean if--our courts obey this order, which is legally binding on the United States, I suspect that few if any of the convictions or sentences will be vacated, because the courts will conclude that the violation was "harmless," i.e., that the defendant would have been convicted and sentenced to death anyway. That's because the defendants were of course provided counsel at state expense, just as any indigent defendant would be in our system, so it's going to be hard to say what difference it would have made if the consulate had known what was going on and had been given the chance to arrange for legal representation.
This will not stop conservatives who think that international law is steadily encroaching on U.S. sovereignty from throwing a hissy fit over this case, but it's certainly better than if the ICJ had tried to order the U.S. to retry every one of these defendants. There is a question in my mind as to how the ICJ's order will be implemented. As a matter of international law, the U.S. is obligated to follow the order, but the question is how an individual state that doesn't want to obey can be forced to. The federal courts' hostility to habeas petitions and the ascendance of so-called "federalist" judges attuned to states' rights may lead some federal courts to say that they have no power, as a matter of U.S. law, to issue writs of habeas corpus to state officials in cases of procedural default, in which case they won't even entertain the prisoners' claims.
This case presents all sorts of interesting issues about the place, if any, of international law in domestic courts; the seriousness with which we do, or should, take our obligations to international institutions like the ICJ; and the reputation the U.S. is developing for insisting that other countries follow the rules (remember Iraq and our POWs?) while feeling free to break them when it suits us. So it really should get some play in the media over the next day or two. Let's see if it does.
Update: A friend advises me that the freepers are indeed throwing a hissy fit. The level of ignorance is amazing, though someone finally did come along and explain that the reason the ICJ has jurisdiction over the U.S. in this case is because we agreed to submit to ICJ jurisdiction, and the reason the Convention applies is because we signed and ratified it, and the reason we did that is because it's important for Americans abroad to have these protections, and the reason the ICJ says we violated the Convention is because it's obvious we did, and that the only difficult point--and it is a fascinating one--is how to remedy the violations while respecting our interest in the integrity of our criminal process.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 4:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps They Were Strewing Flowers in the Corpses' PathFALLUJAH, Iraq March 31 -- Jubilant residents dragged the charred corpses of four foreigners one a woman, at least one an American through the streets Wednesday and hanged them from the bridge spanning the Euphrates River. The rest of the article is, if it can be believed, even more sickening.
Hard to believe it was less than a year ago that all Iraqis were greeting American troops with flowers and hugs and reveling in their made-in-America Iraqi Freedom.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 1:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I Hope I'm Not a Jinx
So, I write a paean to Tom Daschle (now there's a phrase I wouldn't have expected to be useful). Next thing I know, Joshua Marshall is reporting that Tim Giago is running for Daschle's seat as an independent and may siphon off enough Indian votes (Tim says "Indian," not "Native American") to put Daschle in jeopardy. Marshall reports that Giago publishes the Lakota Times, which last I knew was a regional edition of Indian Country Today, the leading national Indian newspaper. Tim used to own ICT, but the Oneida Nation purchased it in 1998. Back when he owned ICT, Tim attended my wedding.
So now I'm wondering if I've got a jinx like Sports Illustrated, which many people claim can cause athletes to lose important matches simply by putting their pictures on the cover.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 12:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm Moving to Alaska
How can I not? I just discovered the official newspaper of the Alaska Bar Association, membership of which is mandatory for Alaska lawyers.
It's called The Alaska Bar Rag.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 11:23 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senator Frist and "Profiteering"
Last week, Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) lashed out at former White House counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke on a wide variety of fronts, including the charge that Clarke was guilty of "an appalling act of profiteering" by releasing his new book, Against All Enemies: Inside the White House's War on Terror. But this is a strange allegation coming from Senator Frist.
Just last month, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights sent a letter to Frist urging him yet again to recuse himself from the debate and eventual vote on Senate Bill 2061, a medical liability proposal. FTCR cited the conflict of interest "created by your close personal and financial ties to the nation's largest hospital chain, HCA, and its subsidiary Health Care Indemnity (HCI), the country's sixth-largest medical malpractice insurer." Frist could profit handsomely if the bill is approved. The FTCR letter observed:Senate financial disclosures reveal that you and your immediate family own at least $25 million in HCA stock and your inheritance is clearly dependent on the success of the financial fortunes of the company. HCA and its doctors will benefit from any limits on liability for malpractice ...
... in some circumstances (the Senate bill) would prevent injured patients and their families from bringing legitimate cases, limiting losses and thereby increasing profits for HCI .... Eliminating joint and several liability [would be] a boon for HCA and HCI. Joint and several liability, as it applies in most states, holds the hospital accountable if a doctor is unable to pay a damage award and the hospital was involved in the medical negligence. Dropping this rule will benefit hospitals and insurers by eliminating their liability if one of their doctors goes bankrupt and is unable to pay a victim's damages. Footnote: Two years ago, HCA was ordered to pay more than $1.7 billion in civil and criminal penalties -- the largest fines ever in a case of health care fraud.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 11:04 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your Tax Dollars at Work
The Wall Street Journal reports [subscription required] that Treasury civil servants were ordered to produce anti-Kerry tax propaganda for the GOP:
The Treasury tapped civil servants to calculate the cost of Sen. John Kerry's tax plan and then posted the analysis on the Treasury Web site. A federal law bars career government officials from working on political campaigns.
The Treasury analysis doesn't mention Mr. Kerry by name. Rather it sketches out the potential cost of a tax plan that rolls back tax reductions for taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 -- the nub of the Democratic presidential candidate's plan. The result, the Treasury said in the analysis posted March 22, would be a tax increase of as much as $477 billion over 10 years on "hardworking individuals and married couples." The same day, the Republican National Committee issued a press release in which it unveiled what it called its "John Kerry $pendometer," and cited the same $477 billion figure as the cost of "raising taxes on the top income bracket."
[snip]
John "Buck" Chapoton, who headed Treasury's tax office under Ronald Reagan, said career tax officials "are supposed to be objective. It's important that they are thought of as not being influenced or used for political purposes."
Eugene Steuerle, another Treasury tax official during the Reagan administration, said that using the analysis of the Kerry plan for political purposes "stepped over the line" that's supposed to protect career officials from political influence. "This type of release tends to reduce the reputation of the department as a fair and neutral arbiter of what constitutes good tax policy," Mr. Steuerle said. And, wouldn't ya know? This has the World's Biggest Asshole's fingerprints all over it.
House Majority Leader Tom Delay of Texas requested the estimates, said Stuart Roi, a DeLay spokesman, because several Democratic budget proposals had provisions similar to the Kerry tax plan. Mr. DeLay then distributed the analysis widely, including to the Republican National Committee. "The Democrats are all one and the same" on tax repeal, Mr. Roi said. "They don't attempt to make a distinction." You can see the actual Treasury "analysis" here.
posted by
Noam Alaska at 10:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuning In
Just a reminder, The O'Franken Factor on Air America Radio goes live today at noon. (If you don't live in one of the broadcast areas, it's supposed to be available via their website.)
Update: Their main website link is apparently overwhelmed, so go here to listen online instead.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 10:55 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My Right-Wing Hero
Chuck Muth is a really special guy. Not only did he testify against the Federal Marriage Amendment before the Senate subcommittee hearings on the FMA, but he continues to get to the heart of the GOP's major talking points for the FMA and against same-sex marriage-- and skewers it.
GOP'S (WEAK) ARGUMENTS FOR BANNING GAY MARRIAGE by Chuck Muth[note-- from the In the News section]
The folks pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage are beginning to resemble those Japanese World War II soldiers stranded on remote Pacific Islands who continued to defend their positions because they didn't know the war was over. At least, that's the impression I got from reading a recent "talking points" memo put out by the Senate Republican Conference (SRC). (snip) The Federal Marriage Amendment does absolutely nothing to protect or defend marriage against divorce or adultery, nor unwed motherhood. The ONLY thing it does is, well...ban gays from getting married. Senate Republicans and their press secretaries can try to "spin" the FMA as protecting and defending marriage 'til the cows come home, but it is what it is and people will eventually see through the smokescreen.
Another talking point the SRC urges Republican senators and staffers to use is the argument that "decades of studies show children do best with a mother and a father."
Unless, say, the father is an abusive drunk and the mother is a drug addict. In that case, it really doesn't matter whether the two are married and of the opposite sex. If they have kids, those kids would be MUCH better off being raised in a safe, loving home in the suburbs by parents who happen to be, say, a doctor and a lawyer...even if of the same sex.
You see, just because a set of parents are of the opposite sex doesn't automatically mean the kids in the home are in a good environment. The fact is, there are same-sex parents who are good...and some who aren't so good. There are also opposite-sex parents who are good...and some who aren't so good. And it could also be reasonably argued that a child raised by two parents of the same sex might be better off than a child raised by a single parent who works full-time and drops his or her kid off with strangers at day-care every day.
Now, most people would say that in ideal circumstances, kids should be raised by a married mother and father where daddy works and mommy stays home with the kids; where they live in the 'burbs with two SUVs and a puppy on an annual income of $85,000-plus; where the parents are both college-educated, alcohol-free and never eat medium-rare hamburgers. But just because that might be the "ideal," does it mean the rest of us can't and shouldn't play in their reindeer games? (snip) One need not be a gay marriage supporter to realize the arguments against it are rather weak by comparison, especially in a nation which cherishes, above all else, individual liberty and equality under law. If SRC's talking points are the core of the arguments for FMA supporters, their battle is already lost. They just don't know it yet. Sayonara. Right-on, brother. It's nice to see a conservative bothered by the Maggie Gallagher-style arguments being made about the supposed need of the government to define the "ideal" family and place it on a special pedestal. In the pro-FMA camp's attempts to demonize gays and lesbians, they're idealizing the American family in ways that leave a lot of families out of the "acceptable" norm, not just ones with gay and lesbian parents. Is this really the most pressing concern before the government? Is it really their business?
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 10:33 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bush and the Tax Hike Rhetoric
The Bush-Cheney ad charging that John Kerry will impose a 50-cent gas tax on consumers has been rightly challenged on a few obvious counts -- namely: 1) Kerry never actually voted for such a tax, and 2) the Kerry remarks are 10 years old. But a Washington Post article today gives two additional bits of info that are, to say the least, rather interesting."The Kerry campaign also pointed out that the chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, N. Gregory Mankiw, supported a 50-cent increase in the gas tax as recently as 1999." And, moreover, the Post notes:"In March 2000, top Bush aides said he wanted to roll back all or part of a 4.3-cent increase to the gas tax that was enacted in 1993. A White House spokesman confirmed that Bush has not sought any rollback in the gas tax but said Bush never formally committed to the proposal." The White House has an interesting ethical standard. It's apparently fair game to attack Kerry for a 10-year-old remark that was never part of a formal proposal, but we are told that it's not fair to attack Bush for a 4-year-old remark that was never part of a formal proposal.
As you know, the Bush-Cheney operatives have accused Kerry of voting for 350 tax increases. Many of those so-called Kerry tax increases were simply votes opposing tax cuts; in this recent column, Michael Kinsley explains other fact-challenged problems with the Bush tax allegation. Based on the flimsy standards used by the Bush-Cheney camp for defining a tax hike, it seems reasonable to argue that Bush himself imposed a tax increase on the American people (albeit, a small one) yesterday. How?"Bush's remarks, at a taxpayer-funded forum on the economy here, were coordinated with his campaign's new ad, which accuses [Kerry] of backing a gas tax increase ..." Instead of using his own campaign funds, Bush decided to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars to pay for Air Force One, the crew, and his staff entourage to fly to Wisconsin for what was clearly a political appearance to help him get re-elected. Applying the Bush standard, that's definitely a tax increase.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 9:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dead Link No More
Neal Pollack is back and begs your forgiveness.
posted by
Helena Montana at 9:19 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, March 30, 2004 |
|
|
|
Fighting Breast Cancer
A longtime friend of Demagogue's, Dania Palosky, is raising money for the Avon Walk for Breast Cancer. She needs another $600 or so to reach her fundraising goal. If you'd like to donate a few bucks, you can do it here.
posted by
Noam Alaska at 3:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The Butchery Shows No Sign of Ending"
Thanks to FOIA requests, the National Security Archive at George Washington University has gotten access to dozens of internal Clinton Administration documents pertaining to the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda.
In my view, the most interesting document is this April 26th State Department memo referring to the massacres as "Genocide." At the time, the Clinton administration preferred to refer to them as "acts of Genocide" because admitting that it was genocide would have obliged the US to act as mandated by Genocide Convention.
Check out this exchange from June 10th between a reporter and Christine Shelly, a State Department spokesperson Elsner: How would you describe the events taking place in Rwanda?
Shelly: Based on the evidence we have seen from observations on the ground, we have every reason to believe that acts of genocide have occurred in Rwanda.
Elsner: What's the difference between "acts of genocide" and "genocide"?
Shelly: Well, I think the - as you know, there's a legal definition of this ... clearly not all of the killings that have taken place in Rwanda are killings to which you might apply that label ... But as to the distinctions between the words, we're trying to call what we have seen so far as best as we can; and based, again, on the evidence, we have every reason to believe that acts of genocide have occurred.
Elsner: How many acts of genocide does it take to make genocide?
Shelly: Alan, that's just not a question that I'm in a position to answer.
It was not until later the day, under increasing pressure, that administration officials finally began admitting that it was in fact a genocide. By that point, more than half-a-million people had been killed.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 2:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. South Dakota Should Be Proud
As I've mentioned, Mrs. California kept her name when we got married and should rightly be called Ms. South Dakota. Via Atrios, here's reason to be proud of her former state's senior senator. The only thing I'd change about Daschle's speech is the grammatical error: "that's just is not right." Otherwise, this is a brilliantly composed and thorough indictment of the administration's dirty tricks, with just the right hint of righteous indignation. I won't excerpt any of it, because it's all so good.
The DNC should be distributing this text and video (I assume it exists) for free from its website; this is a call to arms for those who think the government should at least try to make us proud.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 1:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What More Could They Do?
Gregg Easterbrook weighs in on Richard Clarke and has this to say It is equally futile and silly for Democrats to assert that Al Qaeda has benefited by George W. Bush's action against Iraq. What resource, precisely, have field commanders hunting for Al Qaeda been denied? The United States has thousands of its very best soldiers in Afghanistan, has built new military facilities all over Afghanistan and its border states, has bombers standing by to hit any target that can be identified. Maybe the battle of Tora Bora was mismanaged in December 2001, but that was a full year before the Iraq buildup was a factor. Since September 11, U.S. forces have pursued Al Qaeda every place it has been physically possible to locate elements of the organization, using every weapon the United States possesses except for nuclear weapons. What is it that could be done against Al Qaeda that is not being done? Drop nuclear bombs on Afghanistan? On Spain? The Democratic side in the recriminations derby never names any specific military thing that could be done against Al Qaeda that's not already being done.
Well, we could probably name all sorts of things that should not have been done - stuff like this this And new evidence keeps emerging for Mr. Clarke's main charge, that the Iraq obsession undermined the pursuit of Al Qaeda. From yesterday's USA Today: "In 2002, troops from the Fifth Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures."
But why not let the Jeffrey Record explain it Of particular concern has been the conflation of al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat.
This was a strategic error of the first order because it ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level, and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action. The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al-Qaeda. The war against Iraq was not integral to the GWOT, but rather a detour from it.
[edit]
They feared that a war of choice against Iraq would weaken a war of necessity against al-Qaeda by distracting America’s strategic attention to Iraq, by consuming money and resources much better applied to homeland defense, and, because an American war on Iraq was so profoundly unpopular around the world, especially among Muslims, by weakening the willingness of key countries to share intelligence information so vital to winning the war on al-Qaeda.
Strategically, Operation IRAQI FREEDOM was not part of the GWOT; rather, it was a war-of-choice distraction from the war of necessity against al-Qaeda.
[edit]
The war against Iraq was a detour from, not an integral component of, the war on terrorism; in fact, Operation IRAQI FREEDOM may have expanded the terrorist threat by establishing a large new American target set in an Arab heartland.
But what does he know? He's just a Visiting Research Professor at the Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 12:59 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Worst Insult, Part II
Hmm. Seems like a strong competition today. Here's an entry from Dr. Howard Gardner, a cognitive psychologist at Harvard. The subject is Dr. John H. Marburger III, physicist and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Marburger has had to defend the admnistration's consistent rejection of science that doesn't meet its policy agenda, purging from advisory panels of scientists who don't toe the party line (sometimes replacing them with non-scientist ideologues), and deleting from reports of embarrassing scientific conclusions.
Here's what Gardner has to say:I actually feel very sorry for Marburger, because I think he probably is enough of a scientist to realize that he basically has become a prostitute. But that's not the worst part. This is:Later, in an interview with The New York Times, Dr. Gardner said he had made the reference but added, "I wish I'd used it as a verb rather than as a noun." Ouch. Step aside, Dr. Marshall.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 12:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addendum to Condi's Public Testimony Offer
As Zoe has already mentioned, the "strict-constructionist" administration has decided to permit what its members have previously described as constitutionally prohibited. My favorite aspect of their offer to let Condi testify--and to have Bush and Cheney meet privately with the whole commission, rather than just the Chairman and Vice Chairman--is this:Both offers were on condition that they would not set a precedent under the constitutional separation of executive and legislative powers, an administration official said. How does this work? Will she testify with her fingers crossed behind her back? How exactly does the administration do something that it has described as fraught with constitutional separation of powers problems and preclude future Presidents and Congresses from considering these events the next time a similar issue arises?
I wonder where they could have got that idea from.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 12:04 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry's First Impression Problem
If Bush wins in November it may come down to one major thing-- the power of the almighty dollar.
New polls suggest that Bush's recent mega million-dollar ad campaign in 17 battleground states may have already had a measurable impact in Bush's favor. Bush's campaign war chest has and will enable him to negatively characterize (and lie about) Kerry early and often. Oddly, these polls were taken at a particularly weird moment for both Bush and Kerry-- in the midst of the Clarke 9/11 scandal and right after all of that fluffy tv coverage of Kerry's family ski vacation. But is this negative first impression created by Kerry's incumbent opponent going to stick?
I personally don't understand the impact of political ads. The idea that people make up their minds about who they want to vote for based on an opponent's 30 second ad makes me think of one of my favorite bumper slogans-- One Nation Under Educated.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 12:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did You Know?
That members of the Church of Scientology, and only members of the Church of Scientology, get a tax break that allows them to deduct the cost of religious education, claiming it as a charitable gift?
I certainly didn't A trial is to begin here on Wednesday morning to determine whether a Jewish couple can deduct the cost of religious education for their five children, a tax benefit they say the federal government has granted to members of just one religion, the Church of Scientology.
The potential ramifications are huge, for a ruling in favor of the couple could affect the millions of Americans who send their children to religious schools of all types. At stake is whether people of all religions can deduct the cost of religious education as a charitable gift, as Scientologists are allowed to do under an officially secret 1993 agreement with the Internal Revenue Service.
That agreement came despite a 1989 Supreme Court ruling denying tax deductions for money paid in fees set by the Church of Scientology for its "auditing" and "training" services. The Supreme Court decision said the money did not qualify for the charitable gift deduction because it involved a fixed price and was akin to a fee for a service.
[edit]
The judges in the original Sklar case said "it appears to be true" that Scientology - founded by L. Ron Hubbard, the science fiction writer, in the 1950's - received preferential tax treatment in violation of the First Amendment.
"Why is Scientology training different from all other religious training?" Judge Barry D. Silverman wrote in his opinion, adding that the question would not be answered just then because the court was not faced with the question of whether "members of the Church of Scientology have become the I.R.S.'s chosen people." Judge Silverman then recommended litigation to address whether the government is improperly favoring one religion.
"If the I.R.S. does in fact give preferential treatment to members of the Church of Scientology - allowing them a special right to claim deductions that are contrary to law and disallowed to everybody else - then the proper course of action is a lawsuit to put a stop to that policy," Judge Silverman wrote.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 11:22 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bush Hates Taxes So Much ...
That not only will he not raise them, he'll even work to make sure billions of dollars worth go uncollected President Bush's 2005 budget request for the Internal Revenue Service would seriously shortchange the agency's tax collection activities, leaving a half-million delinquent tax accounts uncollected, 15 million service calls unanswered and nearly 46,000 audits unscheduled, according to the president's own IRS oversight board.
A strongly worded special report, to be released today, says Bush's $10.7 billion budget for the IRS falls at least $230 million short of the agency's immediate needs and fails to match the administration's tough talk on tax law enforcement. The president requested a 4.6 percent boost to the IRS's budget, but the board says much of that will be swallowed by pay increases and other costs unconnected to tax collection.
The oversight board -- which includes seven presidential appointees as well as the Internal Revenue commissioner and Treasury secretary -- implores Congress to boost Bush's request by $530 million. That investment would yield $5 billion each year in taxes that otherwise would go uncollected, the board said.
So we stand to make a $4.5 billion dollar profit from $500 million investment? That sounds like a pretty good rate of return.
The article goes on to explain that, at a time when we are facing a deficit upwards of a half-trillion dollars, the IRS estimates that the gap between taxes paid and taxes owed is around $311 billion.
Shouldn't we be trying to collect some of that?
And shouldn't you be reading David Cay Johnston's "Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else"?
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 11:08 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stumping for Jon...
Stewart. Richard Clarke will be on The Daily Show tonight. Yesterday Jon said the show is in a crisis-- apparently it can no longer call itself a fake news show.
Karen Hughes is on tomorrow, pimping her new memoir on being a White House insider who left Bush's side 2 years ago to take care of her family full-time. So far her new book has been touted as a Bush puff-piece, Time says it's "all kiss and no tell." Hughes has also announced she'll be back on the campaign 24/7 from August til November, which may be much to Karl Rove's chagrin, according to the Washington Post.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 11:03 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, it's not a principled security conflict after all...
The White House has just announced that Condi can testify before the 9/11 commission under oath.
It is rather interesting to watch the Bush Administration finally buckle under political and public pressure. I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that in her 60 Minutes interview she made it crystal clear that she'd just love, love, love to testify but (Bush's) principles won't let her?"Nothing would be better from my point of view than to be able to testify, but there is an important principle involved here it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisors do not testify before the Congress." It'll be even more interesting to see what she has to say considering that she's had such trouble keeping her facts straight about this issue over the past week.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 10:44 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christians and Muslims Finally Have Something in Common
They both hate gays The Brazilian government, bowing to economic and political pressure from the Islamic world, yesterday withdrew its effort to protect the civil rights of homosexuals.
Brazil had introduced a resolution before the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Commission to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation.
But the measure was vehemently opposed by the Vatican and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), both of which lobbied the 53 members of the Human Rights Commission to oppose the resolution.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:37 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Worst Insult I Can Imagine
For editorial writers, that is. It's delivered today by Joshua Marshall:...the disconnect between the Post's editorials and the factual information being generated on their own news pages seems to be approaching Wall Street Journal-like proportions. Marshall also discovers this disturbing explanation of how the government is going to decide which snippets of Clarke's testimony to declassify:U.S. officials told NBC News that the full record of Clarke’s testimony two years ago would not be declassified. They said that at the request of the White House, however, the CIA was going through the transcript to see what could be declassified, with an eye toward pointing out contradictions. Excuse me? We're now instructing the CIA to decide what needs to be classified on the basis of whether the material can be used to score political points? I'm not sure why Bush needed to appoint a hand-picked commission on "intelligence failures" if the administration's debilitating politicization of the intelligence services is going to be this open and notorious. Maybe instead of spending their time going over transcripts to see how to crush the President's enemies, our spooks could be, you know, looking for the people who are trying to kill us?
As I pointed out recently, when they're getting this brazen about subordinating national security to political imperatives, you've got to suspect that they're really, really desperate.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 9:57 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's Not Your Father's China
Amid China's pre-Olympics building boom, a number of high-rise residential buildings have been constructed in Beijing. The developers of these complexes have attached some strangely pro-Western, enthusiastically capitalist names to these residential buildings -- names that would make Mao blush if he were still on the scene. The March issue of Harper's magazine translated some of these names from Chinese, including the following:Palm Springs
Yuppie International Garden
Park Avenue
Margarita Island
CEO
Glamour International
Top Aristocrat
SoHo
Luxuriant City
Upper East Side
Latte Town And then there's my favorite...Wonderful Digital Jungle Eat your heart out, Bill Gates.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 9:01 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, March 29, 2004 |
|
|
|
The Heart of the Matter
(but certainly not The End of the Affair).
The Massachusetts legislature approved a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples but creating civil unions with all of the state-law rights of marriage. The amendment can't go into effect until at least 2006 and has a few more hurdles to overcome, not least approval by the voters.
Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees, referring to the legislature's agreement to establish civil unions, captured the soccer-mom mentality that I think will doom the Federal Marriage Amendment:There is no single clear solution to this issue. If there was such a solution, we wouldn't be here today. But this amendment attempts to strike a balance between those citizens who want to be heard in defining marriage yet never taking away the rights and benefits of gay and lesbian couples. Of course, the amendment does "take away the rights" of gay and lesbian couples by giving their relationships second-class status. But the key here is the senator's recognition that a lot of his constituents do not want to feel like bigots. They may not be comfortable with equal marriage rights, but they don't want to align themselves with the "anti-gay" position either, and they don't want to see themselves as allies of the people they see on T.V. picketing the State House with hateful rhetoric. This compromise gives the "some of my best friends are black gay" crowd a way to maintain their enlightened self-image. But when there are only two choices on FMA ratification, the only way to avoid being in the bigots' camp will be to oppose ratification. Most middle-of-the-road folks in a lot of states will just want the issue to go away.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 7:57 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Bush Welcomes Seven New NATO Members"
Too bad he severly weakened it first. Time was when NATO was the most successful military alliance in history. Post-Iraq, it's not clear that it has any ongoing relevance at all.
So: Welcome to NATO, New Europe! Hope you don't mind that Old Europe is leaving to make room for you.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 6:26 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wisconsin to Audit a Baseball Team
Over the past decade, dozens of professional sports stadiums and arenas have been built across the country -- many of them with taxpayer dollars. The debate in many states has been very heated. Years ago, after the Wisconsin legislature voted to use $400 million in taxpayer funds to build a new stadium for the Milwaukee Brewers baseball team, the legislator who cast the deciding vote was tossed out of office in a special recall election.
The owners of the Brewers promised that the taxpayer-funded stadium would help them build a successful team, but the team's performance remains dismal. And the Brewers recently pissed off fans by trading the team's most popular player and cutting the team's payroll by 25 percent. Has the team been spending its money wisely? The State of Wisconsin wants to know. Incredibly, the Brewers (already on the defensive) have agreed to let state officials answer that question by letting the state conduct a public audit.
This audit seems rather strange. Wisconsin, like many other states, continues to face a state budget crisis. Instead of paying for this audit of the Brewers, there are much better things the state could do with this money.
The Brewers may have made some dumb personnel decisions, but the dumbest decision in this matter was made by the Legislature that voted to take taxpayer dollars and use them to build a new stadium where mostly wealthy people could watch even wealthier people play baseball.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 5:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It's So Difficult to Live With What We Know"
The Guardian has a good article on the genocide One of the worst atrocities took place in the town of Kibuye, where 21,000 were killed in two days.
That is 437 people killed per hour - or about one person every eight seconds.
The piece also discusses what life is like today for those who survived and regularly see those who killed their families walking freely in the streets More than 25,000 killers have been released. Tens of thousands more are expected to follow. In Kibuye, 1,740 of the murderers are back on the streets. Many of the Tutsi survivors see their expressions of remorse as little more than a cynical move to win release.
"Some write us letters saying, 'You can help us to get out of prison.' They don't want to talk about the people they killed. They say 'for what happened', never for 'killing your family'. They think that is confessing. One came to my husband and offered him a cow to forgive him. It's like a bribe," says Madalena.
"Truly if somebody comes to us and says 'Forgive me, I killed', saying the truth, there is no way not to forgive that person. But these people see us, the survivors, as the people in the wrong, as the people trying to finish them by putting them in prison ... You can meet them in a bar and a word slips out - why did I let you live?"
Finally, the most interesting aspect of the piece is the examination of the role religious leaders, especially Catholic ones, played in the genocide The Catholic church is at the forefront of pressing the guilty to confess and the survivors to forgive, but it has yet to acknowledge its own role in the transformation of so many churches to extermination centres.
A few weeks after the massacre in Kibuye, the Catholic congregation filed in to what had been Father Senyenzi's church, for Sunday mass. A few feet away the half-buried bodies gave off the sweet, nauseating stench that was by now familiar across much of Rwanda. The worshippers feigned ignorance. One woman spat that it was a lie anyone had been murdered. She declined an invitation to step a few yards to her left and cast an eye over the sloping ground spotted with bones stripped by dogs and washed by rain.
Another worshipper confessed that there had been a lot of killing but he was adamant that the dead were rebels who holed themselves up in the church. Father Senyenzi was hiding them, he said, that was why he had to die too.
Some of the faithful had tried to scrub away the blood that painted the walls and floor but the torrent had worked its way too well into the crannies and there was no escaping the smell. The worshippers prayed holding their noses or with cloths pressed against their faces.
The new priest, a Hutu, offered no prayers for his murdered predecessor. Father Jean Francois Kayiranga previously officiated at a parish in the east of the province but needed a new church, having ordered his own to be bulldozed with 2,000 Tutsis inside. He was not a lone criminal within the clergy. Many priests and nuns were courageous - about 200 of them were murdered - but others were at the forefront of the killing. In Butare, a group of nuns poured the petrol used to immolate Tutsi women. Other nuns led children by the hand to the waiting interahamwe. Father Wenceslas Munyeshyaka was to be found at his church in Kigali with a cross around his neck, a pistol on his hip and a list in his hand from which he announced those selected to die.
[edit]
After the killing, the Catholic church shielded priests and bishops implicated in the slaughter and helped some of the most notorious to flee abroad. Among them was Father Hormisdas Nsengimana, who survivors describe as a particularly cruel killer at his parish in Nyanza. The church gave him a new parish in Cameroon.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 2:50 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When Is Terrorism a "Law Enforcement Issue"?
When it allows you to avoid responsibility for 9/11 JIM LEHRER: ... As secretary of defense, do you have any sense of failure concerning what happened on 9/11?
DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, I hate to separate myself as secretary of defense. The Department of Defense, of course, is oriented to external threats. This was a domestic airplane that was operated by people who were in the United States against a United States target, which makes it a law enforcement, historically a law enforcement issue. The Department of Defense's task is one that deals with external threats coming into the United States, and that's what the department is organized, trained and equipped to do.
Don't tell that to Laurie Mylroie or Ed Gillespie ... or Scott McClellan Q And turn back would be going back to when it was treated as a law enforcement issue and --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's one that -- as we discussed yesterday, I think, that there are some that, as the President pointed out in his State of the Union, think that by serving legal papers, we can do what is needed. The President disagrees. The President believes very strongly that we must stay on the offensive, that we must take the fight to the enemy in order to win this war.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 2:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More on Bush's WMD Humor
The transcript has been released.
Disclosure: I'm not nearly as offended by the President's WMD jokes as most liberals I've spoken to.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 11:49 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Frist's Favorite Constitutional Clause
If it wasn't before, it is now. From Article I, Section 6:The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. What this means is that senators and representatives have immunity for anything they say on the floor of Congress (and for some other stuff as well). They can't be criminally charged or sued civilly--for slander, let's say--for what they've said. Why does that matter?“Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath,” Frist said in a speech from the Senate floor....Frist later retreated from directly accusing Clarke of perjury, telling reporters that he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies between Clarke’s two appearances. As you probably know, the standard for a public figure like Clarke to establish slander is dauntingly, almost impossibly, high: not only must the speech be false, but the speaker must either know that what he was saying is false or recklessly disregard whether it is true or false. I'd say that accusing someone of telling "two entirely different stories under oath" when you admittedly have "no knowledge that there were any discrepancies" comes awfully close to reckless disregard. And falsely accusing someone of committing a felony--like perjury--is slander per se, which means that the victim doesn't have to prove he was actually harmed by the accusation (usually, in a slander case, you have to show that you suffered pecuniary loss, e.g., that people stopped doing business with you because they believed the falsehood).
Now, would Clarke really sue Frist? Not likely. And, the foregoing notwithstanding, he'd have a tough time winning, because courts apply the "reckless disregard" standard very, very sparingly to avoid chilling legitimate reporting about public figures. But it's always nice to be sure, and Frist surely knew about the Speech and Debate Clause when he made the accusation.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 11:39 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News From Africa
Last night there was apparently an attempted coup in the DRC Co-ordinated attacks were launched on the presidential palace and key military installations in the Democratic Republic of Congo yesterday.
Diplomats said the assaults appeared to be a well orchestrated attempt to destabilise the government by inciting mutiny by the armed forces or even to depose it in a coup.
Sporadic gunfire echoed around the capital, Kinshasa, last night, hours after the government of President Joseph Kabila claimed to have brought the violence under control.
At least two soldiers were killed and several wounded as insurgents armed with automatic weapons, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades mounted pre-dawn attacks on two military camps, a military airport, a naval facility on the Congo river and a television station in the north of the capital.
Human Rights Watch alleges that Uganda is torturing members of the political opposition Ugandan security forces are torturing supporters of the political opposition and holding them in secret detention amid the government’s pursuit of rebels involved in the country’s armed conflict, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today.
The 76-page report, “State of Pain: Torture in Uganda,” documents cases of torture committed by military, intelligence, and security agents in the government’s pursuit of armed rebels. However, politicians challenging the de facto single-party state and the 18-year rule of Uganda’s president, Yoweri Museveni, are often detained, severely beaten and threatened with death by the uncontrolled security apparatus.
[edit]
Military intelligence and security forces reportedly have suspended victims from the ceiling for hours or days in a position called kandoya (with their hands and feet tied behind their back), beaten them severely with wooden or metal rods, cables, hammers or sticks studded with protruding nails, and subjected them to water torture in which the victim is forced to lie face up while a water spigot is opened directly into his mouth. In 2001 the government established a system of covert “safe houses”—unacknowledged and illegal places of detention—to hold persons suspected of supporting opposition politicians or rebels, groups that often merge in the minds of security officials. With no real oversight by the Ugandan judiciary and no access given to Ugandan government human rights officials, these places of detention facilitate torture and other abuses by shielding abusers from scrutiny. Individuals have been held incommunicado in such places with no contact with family members or lawyers—sometimes for months. They have been denied medical care despite severe injuries, kept blindfolded so they cannot later identify their torturers and interrogators, and threatened with retaliation if they talk about their torture. The constitutional requirement that criminal charges be brought within 48 hours of detention or the suspect released is rarely honored in these cases, so that fresh marks of torture can fade and the suspect can be coerced to sign a “confession.”
In Rwanda, the government is releasing several thousand more genocidaires Rwanda plans to release at least 30,000 suspects who have confessed to participating in the 1994 genocide, letting them be tried in community courts rather than by the country's overburdened judicial system, an official said Saturday.
The suspects will be released by the end of June — cutting by a third the 90,000 suspects being held on charges of taking part in the slaughter of at least 500,000 people, mostly minority Tutsis, said Johnston Busingye, the secretary general of the justice ministry. The genocide was orchestrated by a government of extremists from Rwanda's Hutu majority.
Finally, Rod from Proof Through the Night has a good post on US involvement in Africa.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Bush in Bush's Eye
Thanks to the Bush Administration for the following Monday morning chuckle.
John Kerry cited a Bible verse Sunday to criticize leaders who have "faith but has no deeds," prompting President Bush's spokesman to accuse Kerry of exploiting Scripture for a political attack.
Kerry never mentioned Bush by name during his speech at New North Side Baptist Church, but aimed his criticism at "our present national leadership." Kerry cited Scripture in his appeal for the worshippers, including James 2:14, "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?"
"The Scriptures say, what does it profit, my brother, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?" Kerry said. "When we look at what is happening in America today, where are the works of compassion?"
Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Kerry's comment "was beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse and a sad exploitation of Scripture for a political attack." Since Bush never quotes the Bible himself or uses it to explain or justify his positions or public policies, I would say that's a fair allegation against Kerry-- not!
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 10:27 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please-o-Please
Let this amount to something.
Ralph Nader said Sunday he will meet with John Kerry next month to discuss the effort to defeat President Bush in the November election.
While stressing that he is still a competitor in the race, the independent presidential hopeful said he views his candidacy as a "second front against Bush, however small." At this point in time, we are all too aware just how close this election is supposed to be. If Nader and Kerry could broker some kind of deal to work together it could help tremendously. I really hope something comes of this. It would also be nice because I really don't want Nader's chapter in the history books to be entirely about the man who helped the worst president in the history of America get elected-- twice. Nader may irk me now, but he's really much more than just a presidential spoiler. Hopefully he realizes that too.
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 10:09 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Condi Rice's Inconsistency
In her attempts to impugn Richard Clarke's credibility, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has questioned the consistency of the former counter-terrorism adviser's remarks. But Rice's own statements related to her refusal to publicly testify before the 9/11 Commission leave her open to a similar charge. The Center for American Progress 's "Fact Check" e-alert explains:Rice's remarks on 60 Minutes that the principle (of not testifying) is limited to "sitting national security advisers" is also a departure from her statements earlier this week, when she said the principle applied to all presidential advisers. She was forced to change this claim for 60 Minutes after 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste "cited examples of non-Cabinet presidential advisers who have testified publicly to Congress." And the Center adds this interesting observation:Finally, the White House is reportedly moving to declassify congressional testimony then-White House adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002. By declassifying this testimony, the White House is breaking the very same "principle" of barring White House adviser's testimony from being public that Rice is using to avoid appearing publicly before the 9/11 commission.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 10:02 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Condi's Legalisms
Last night on 60 Minutes, Condi Rice got all "no controlling legal authority" on us:
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Nothing would be better, from my point of view, than to be able to testify [before the 9/11 Commission]. I would really like to do that. But there is an important principle here edit it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress.
ED BRADLEY: But there are some people who look at this and say, "But this - this was an unprecedented event. Nothing like this ever happened to this country before. And this is an occasion where you can put that executive privilege aside. It's a big enough issue to talk in public."
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: It is an unprecedented event. We've said that many, many times. But this commission is rightly not concentrating on what happened on the day of September 11.. So, this is not a matter of what happened on that day, as extraordinary as it is - as it was. This is a matter of policy. And we have yet to find an example of a national security advisor, sitting national security advisor, who has - been willing to testify on matters of policy. Josh Marshall does a good job of explaning just how tortured Rice's justification really is.
posted by
Noam Alaska at 9:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An Obligatory Post On Some Horrible Topic
Eliza Griswold wrote a series of "Dispatches" for Slate on the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo and allegations of cannibalism.
The entire series of worth reading, so long as you are comfortable reading paragraphs such as this On the road, we come across the bodies of two young men. One has been impaled through the rectum. He's missing an ear, which is just part of the deal here—whether eaten or taken as a totem of power and protection. Several weeks earlier, Renaud took photographs of a woman impaled with her baby and another of a woman whose ovaries had been removed. It seems that the scale of violence is getting worse, as if taking lives is not only about revenge, but also power. The power to desecrate and annihilate.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:55 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Karimov Must Stay
Uzbekistan's dictator president, Islam Karimov, may be a truly nasty piece of work, but we can now feel comfortable giving him aid to put down dissent. After what happened yesterday, any change in government would be Chamberlainism, appeasement on the scale of Munich that would guarantee World War III.Blast rips through Uzbek market
TASHKENT, Uzbekistan -- At least two people were killed and 20 injured after an explosion, described by authorities as a "terrorist act," ripped through a market in the Uzbek capital of Tashkent.
[snip]
One Uzbekistan's foreign ministry spokesman was quick to link the incident to global terrorism, citing this month's bombings in Madrid, and instability in neighboring Afghanistan.
That view was echoed by other Uzbek officials.
[snip]
While human rights groups have targeted the former Soviet Central Asian state for its tough treatment of dissent, it was an ally to the United States in its "war on terror" in Afghanistan.
Don't let Uzbekistan go the way of Spain!
(By the way, don't you like that euphemistic "tough treatment of dissent?" I'd say boiling people alive calls for a more imaginative word than "tough." Also, even though I happened to post on Uzbekistan yesterday, and the bomb went off today, I have a cast-iron alibi: at least a dozen three-year-olds can place me at a birthday party at the critical moment.)
posted by
Arnold P. California at 8:20 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compare and Contrast
October 23, 2003CANBERRA, Australia — Two senators who staunchly opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq heckled President Bush as he spoke to parliament on Thursday, but the president shrugged it off, saying "I love free speech." November 19, 2003LONDON — The following is the text of a speech U.S. President George W. Bush Delivered at Whitehall Palace in London on Nov. 19, 2003:
...Americans traveling to England always observe more similarities to our country than differences. I've been here only a short time, but I've noticed the tradition of free speech exercised with enthusiasm...
(LAUGHTER)
... is alive and well here in London.
We have that at home too. They now have that right in Baghdad as well.
(APPLAUSE) March 28, 2004BAGHDAD, Iraq Several thousand Iraqis protested the closure of a newspaper Sunday, chanting anti-U.S. slogans and burning American flags outside the newspaper's office in Baghdad.
The U.S.-led civil administration in Iraq closed the Baghdad newspaper Al Hawsa for 60 days, accusing its publishers of inciting violence against coalition troops.
The paper is published by followers of prominent Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
"If the Coalition forces are going to keep on presenting us with such messages... they can just dream about any sort of end to terrorism," a statement from the newspaper said. "And they can also dream that we will stay quiet and step down from what we believe."
The Coalition Provisional Authority accused the paper's editors of printing articles that incited violence against U.S. and other coalition troops -- a violation of coalition regulations.
The building was sealed, and anyone caught attempting to publish the paper could face up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. This administration just slays me.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 8:07 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunday, March 28, 2004 |
|
|
|
More Good News from Tennessee
First Rhea County gave up trying to expel all the gays. Now the state's appellate court has also reconsidered.
In January, I posted on a case in which a trial judge in a divorce case told the father not to "expose" the child "to the gay lifestyle." The father was found to be in contempt of the decree and thrown in jail. His offense? He told his son that he (the father) was gay. The appeals court overturned the contempt finding, reasoning that the injunction against exposing the child to the gay lifestyle wasn't specific enough to give the father notice that he couldn't simply say he was gay. But the court also found that the injunction was, in general, enforceable.
It has now reconsidered and decided that the injunction is not enforceable. As I read this new story, the reason (at least ostensibly) wasn't that there's anything wrong with an anti-gay injunction, but that the injunction was too vague in failing to specify the prohibited conduct. Still, it's progress.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 8:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The Bland Leading the Bland"
I think the one-page interview with Hans Blix in the Sunday New York Times magazine will end up being one of my favorite pieces of political writing in 2004. Blix turns out to be quite a wit, though he makes some important points as well. F'rinstance:I find you salty in conversation, but your book is somewhat dry.
Perhaps it could have been colorful. But my attitude is one of understatement. In Sweden, we have a strong civil service tradition. I think we are even-tempered and patient. Diplomacy needs patience. This is a particularly notable remark in the week of Richard Clarke's public emergence. Critics of the Bush administration have often suggested that many of its supposed mistakes come from allowing ideologues to overrule nonpartisan civil servants. Or, put another way, that they don't let facts get in the way of what they "know" to be true.
But it's the humor that makes the interview worth reading. Here's Blix talking about his team's meeting in the Oval Office:What was Bush like?
He made on me a boyish impression. He was agile, moving, moving in the chair, especially compared to Cheney.
Who, I suppose, seems more wooden.
Yes, the rumors that Cheney is alive are somewhat exaggerated. It's Mark Twain in reverse. We're not a little bitter about how we were treated last year, are we?
posted by
Arnold P. California at 5:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now We've Done ItHamas Leader Says God Has Declared War on U.S. By GREG MYRE
JERUSALEM, March 28 — The new Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi, called President Bush the enemy of Muslims and said today that God had declared war on the United States. I'm not sure even our smart bombs and stealth technology can defeat the Eternal. I think this could really affect the election.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 5:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operation Uzbek Freedom
Considering that Iraq was nowhere near acquiring nuclear weapons, not to mention other so-called WMD, and considering that there's still no evidence that Iraq was connected to al Qaeda, that leaves the spreading of democracy and human rights as the surviving rationale for the war. In that light, the article on Uzbekistan in the current Economist is interesting (subscription required). Uzbekistan, of course, is part of the Coalition of the Willing, and therefore symbolically important as showing that Shrub's adventure isn't unilateral. The Uzbek government's commitment to Iraqi Freedom is touching, considering how little commitment it has shown to Uzbek Freedom.Opposition parties have been denied registration, without which they will not be able to participate in the elections next December. According to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, press freedom is still non-existent, despite the lifting of official censorship in 2002. Human Rights Watch reports that human-rights activists, as well as independent Muslims, are still being persecuted, while torture remains widespread and its perpetrators largely go unpunished. None of the recommendations made over a year ago by the UN rapporteur on torture has been fully implemented. Here's what the State Department has to say about President Karimov and his regime.The judiciary lacks independence and the legislature, which meets only a few days each year, has little power to shape laws. The president selects and replaces provincial governors. Under terms of a December 1995 referendum, Karimov's first term was extended. Another national referendum was held January 27, 2002 to yet again extend Karimov's term. The referendum passed and Karimov's term was extended by act of the parliament to December 2007. Most international observers refused to participate in the process and did not recognize the results, dismissing them as not meeting basic standards. Also passed in the 2002 referendum was a plan to create a bicameral Parliament. Several political parties have been formed with government approval but have yet to show interest in advocating alternatives to government policy.
[snip]
Uzbekistan is not a democracy and does not have a free press. Many opponents of the government have fled, and others have been arrested. The government severely represses those it suspects of Islamic extremism. Some 6,000 suspected extremists are incarcerated, and some are believed to have died over the past several years from prison disease and abuse. With few options for religious instruction, some young Muslims have turn to underground extremist Islamic movements. The police force and the intelligence service use torture as a routine investigation technique. But don't worry; the administration is making major inroads in encouraging Uzbekistan to get rid of the sorts of things--like "torture chambers"--that justified invading Iraq.In February, an elderly woman who had been pushing for an investigation into the death of her son, who died in prison and whose injuries suggested he had been thrown into boiling water, was sentenced to six years behind bars. Following international pressure, she was released on the eve of a visit to Tashkent by Donald Rumsfeld, the American defence secretary, who declared that Uzbekistan was a key security partner in the region. I hope someone is saving a photo of Rummy shaking hands with Karimov so we'll have a memento when we invade Uzbekistan in a few years.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 10:17 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Showdown on the Dohyo
Appropriately, it came down to the two top-ranked rikishi, and the yokozuna won. Asashoryu beat California family favorite Chiyotaikai in the final match of the final day of the tournament to win his second successive zensho yusho (championship with a perfect 15-0 record). Chiyotaikai and fellow ozeki Kaio finished at 13-2, as did maegashira Asasekiryu. 13-2 is usually enough for the title, or at least enough to force a playoff, so all three rikishi should be pleased with their performances.
This is particularly true of upstart Asasekiryu, who is the 33rd-ranked rikishi; he will certainly be moving well up in the rankings for the May tournament. He won two of the three "special prizes" that are reserved for maegashira (roughly speaking, those outside the top ten): the Technique Prize and the Outstanding Performance Prize. He didn't have a chance to collect a kinboshi (gold star), which is awarded to a maegashira who defeats a yokozuna; since he and Asashoryu are in the same stable, they do not face each other in tournaments.
As for Chiyotaikai, I'd imagine he's in the running for promotion to yokozuna should he win the May tournament. Meanwhile, Asashoryu will be trying to extend his 30-match winning streak to 45 with another zensho yusho, which would put him in striking distance of the record 53-match streak of Chiyotaikai's stablemaster, the former Chiyonofuji.
All in all, a great tournament.
And now, back to regularly scheduled programming.
Asashoryu pulls down Chiyotakai with a hikiotoshi technique to clinch the title.
posted by
Arnold P. California at 8:32 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|