"And I thought, 'Here we go.' "

I'll admit it, I have a weakness for this sort of story.

It appears that there is a controversy brewing about a painting hanging in the municipal offices of Provincetown, MA. It is a depiction (painted by the noted American impressionist Max Bohm, shown at right) dramatizing the signing of the Mayflower Compact. While I've been unable to locate a photo of the painting, reports say it shows the men of the pilgrim group holding ballots. No women are shown, and a Native American in the painting isn't holding a piece of paper.

Well duh. But you can smell what's coming, can't you?

"There's this lovely oil painting," [Cheryl Peake, chairwoman of the town's Board of Selectment] said yesterday. ''The thing is huge. It's been up there since forever. It was painted by Max Bohm, who's considered quite something in local art circles.

"And [Selectwoman] Sarah Peake turns around and faces it, and it's government. They're voting. She says, 'I'd like to talk about this painting. I find this painting disturbing.' That's a quote. She said it's disturbing to her because there are no women in the painting and the only one not holding a ballot is the Native American Indian. And I thought, 'Here we go.' "

What's more disturbing is that three of the town's four selectmen voted to remove the painting. Peake has since claimed that her motion was designed to give some of the town's other artworks a chance to hang in the prominent space, but I suspect this is simply her bending with the wind.

Can you imagine what would happen if we started censoring our own history? What a terrific idea: we can get rid of all the blemishes in American history--slavery, the Trail of Tears, Manzanar, you name it--because they're "disturbing." Maybe this political correctness thing ain't so bad after all. Sweep it under the rug and nobody will notice. Seems like just the sort of thing PC advocates have in mind.

Tags: Political Correctness, Idiocy, Massachusetts, Provincetown

Why the layman should care about the "Pioneer Anomaly"

So I've been spending the past week or so in "holiday" mode, by which I mean sitting on the couch and taking frequent naps. It's been good, but something tells me it's time to get up. The only problem is that I've found a long layoff makes the return to blogging fairly difficult. So you'll forgive me if I take it slow, and restart by dealing with a fairly esoteric topic: what exactly is the deal with gravity?

We thought we had this one licked--apples, event horizons, the inverse-square law and all that. But it turns out that gravity may be a far more subtle beast than we'd given it credit for. For it appears that, despite everything that we "know" about gravity, our deep-space probes are slowing down.

It's nothing serious: it's just that the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 probes, launched in the early 1970s and now flying off into interstellar space, are about 250,000 miles closer to the Earth than they should be, and nobody knows why. Many scientists seem eager to believe it's because of some property of the probes themselves (e.g., an unanticipated micro-leakage of gas), which is of course a natural first thing to consider. Scientists are eagerly poring over the available data (Pioneer 10 stopped broadcasting in 2000, Pioneer 11 several years earlier) for evidence that our gravitational model is not in error. For if it is...

But this is the way of science. I don't think the public appreciates it, and I think the scientific community is remarkably bad at explaining it. All we have to go on is what we can observe, or measure, or estimate. "Theories" represent scientists' attempts to make models that account, as accurately as possible, for the complexity of creation. Models come and go, even some of those that are compellingly close (the Ptolemaic model of the universe was quite well refined and worked great for most things, it's just that the Copernican one was better); and (and I have to say this) there is a certain hubris in any scientist ever saying "this is the way it is."

It's a process of creative destruction, as the economist Schumpeter might have said. You may come up with a new theoretical model for some phenomenon, but it's often not enough merely to set two theories next to one another and let people choose--you put the two in the academic arena and see which one comes out alive. That's why we're not still having a debate about phlogiston vs. oxygen. I suspect it is this fact that has so many scientists frothing at the mouth (admit it, it's true) about the Intelligent Design debate. It's not an opponent they can slay in the same way as "scientific creationism."

The ID community is attempting to destroy a scientific theory by advocating a non-scientific theory. "No fair!" cries the scientific community, and quite rightly. But there is an exchange I long to hear, though I am despairing of it:

ID-ologue: "Evolution is just a theory!"
Evolutionist: "You're right, but so is your view."

Apologies for the rant. Tomorrow I promise more tasty meat about the follies of the left or something unflattering about the French.

Tags: Pioneer Anomaly, Gravity, Physics, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Phlogiston

Iraq's "Irritant"?

I haven't spent a lot of time on this blog commenting on the war in Iraq--my position as a nonmilitary person whose greatest worry is what to cook for dinner leaves me precious little moral authority. But on this point, anyway, I'll take a stand.

Much of the media chatter of the past few days has centered around the statements of Democratic Representative John Murtha calling for an immediate pullout of US troops from Iraq.

"It's time to bring them home," said Rep. John Murtha, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, choking back tears during remarks to reporters. "Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty."

This has been a real shot in the arm for the anti-war community, and has resulted in a renewed call in many corners for the "cut-and-run" approach. Some have even had the audacity to imply that the insurgency will vanish once the United States withdraws:

The United States is the irritant right now in Iraq. The United States is uniting people of all political persuasions in Iraq against the occupation. I think it's time for the troops to come home.

Is there anyone out there who seriously believes this? Do they believe that al-Zarqawi will simply lay down arms once the troops go home, and thereafter respect the authority of the Iraqi government? Perhaps there are such voices, and it is these people that trouble me the most.

Tags: Iraq Withdrawal Cut and Run Murtha

Forestalling Future Kelos

The backlash against June's Supreme Court ruling on the case of Kelo vs. City of New London (a decision which legitimized municipalities taking private property and reselling it to private developers), is finally beginning to bear some fruit at the federal level.

Back on November 4, the House passed HR 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, by a strong vote of 376-38 (with 19 Representatives not voting). Not only does this bill prohibit states and municipalities that receive federal funds from using "eminent domain" powers to take private property for economic development, but it provides legal recourse for owners affected by such takings.
The act would, in effect, overturn Kelo. But given the Supreme Court's willingness to broadly construe the meaning of the Fifth Amendment's "takings clause," and the fact that the five-judge concurring side remains intact (Rehnquist and O'Connor having both dissented), I'm not certain how stoutly the act would stand against a legal challenge.

Nevertheless, eminent domain proponents are worried that the bill would tie their hands:

...Marilyn Mohrman-Gillis, director of policy and federal relations at the National League of Cities, said eminent domain as a general practice has been sparingly used by elected officials and accompanied by due process and just compensation for the seized property.

She added that the practice has been around for over 20 years without any indication of widespread abuse.

"There is no one-size-fits-all type of definition for economic development" she said. "This is a states' rights issue and the states, not the federal government, should be allowed to develop a working definition that takes into consideration the projects that are going on."

It's nice that there may be "abuses," but there's no need to deal with them until they're "widespread." And I don't know how this can possibly be a states' rights issue, given that the underlying takings power is granted by the US Constitution.

Of course, the most laughable component of her objection is the part about "due process and just compensation." I offer this Kelo follow-up article for your review.

In the adding insult to injury category, the city officials that triumphed over a group of Connecticut homeowners in a landmark Supreme Court property-rights case are expecting those residents to pay the local government rent dating back to the year 2000...

Not only is the city demanding rent, but the buyout offers on the table are based on the market rate as it was in 2000, before most of the growth in the current real-estate bubble...

"I'd leave here broke," Kelo told the weekly. "I wouldn't have a home or any money to get one. I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge."

Tags: Eminent Domain Kelo Supreme Court SCOTUS Fifth Amendment House Property Rights Congress

When Moons Collide?

The Cassini spacecraft orbiting Saturn continues to dazzle us with high-detail images. The latest of these can ben seen at right: two of the planet's larger moons, Dione and Tethys, appear near collision as Cassini gazes across the plane of Saturn's rings.

While this is a striking photograph, it should be remembered that while it is cool to see two moons apparently so near one another (and I believe that several hundred thousand kilometers separate them in the image), these guys aren't nearly the most interesting pair. I give that award to Epimetheus and Janus, whose orbits are so close together that they actually swap places every four years or so.

I'm no scientist, but I have to think that Cassini is more than delivering on its potential. I mean, do you want to hear what it sounds like on the surface of Titan? How cool is that?

It's interesting to reflect that the controversy surrounding Cassini's launch (regarding concerns over the probe's radioisotope thermoelectric generators) have been long forgotten. At least until the next probe is launched.

Tags: Saturn Cassini Photo Photography Astronomy Moon Moons Plutonium Nasa

Is the "Bridge to Nowhere" headed to oblivion?

One of the most egregious (and catchily named) examples of recent pork-barrel spending may be eliminated by the conference committee charged with reconciling the US House and Senate versions of the recent transportation bill.

The so-called "Bridge to Nowhere" would link Ketchikan, Alaska (population 8,900) to its airport on Gravina island (population 50) at a cost to federal taxpayers of $223 million. This would save all the travelers in Ketchikan the inconvenience of a 15-30 minute, $6 ferry ride. As you can imagine from its projected cost, this would be no ordinary bridge.

Rising 200 feet above water, almost twice as high as the 119-foot-high Brooklyn Bridge, the Gravina Island bridge will span 6,300 feet in two sections, crossing the Tongass Narrows to Ketchikan, a popular stop for cruise ships. It replaces a ferry that local residents and tourists now use to reach the airport on Gravina Island, which had also been home to a pulp mill that closed in 1997.

Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS), a non-partisan group advocating fiscal responsibility, reports that the Gravina bridge project will cost $23,649 per resident of Ketchikan's county to build; furthermore, projected annual operating costs are $43.15 per trip. And just to reiterate, the island is already accessible via a ferry which charges $6 per car or $4 per pedestrian.

The driving force behind the bridge's funding was Representative Don Young, the Republican Chairman of the House Transportation Committee. He was reported by the Anchorage Daily News as saying "I'd be silly if I didn't take advantage of my chairmanship...I think I did a pretty good job."

Unfortunately, reports suggest that, instead of simply withdrawing or reallocating the funding, the compromise bill will remove the "earmarks" that would compel Alaska to spend the money on the Gravina project. (The earmark for another bridge, a two-mile span in Anchorage to be called--and I swear this is true--"Don Young's Way," may also be removed.)

Not a complete victory for the forces of common sense, perhaps, but at least it's a reminder that grassroots outrage, voiced with sufficient volume, can still have some resonance in the corridors of power.

Tags: Alaska Transportation Bill Bridge to Nowhere Don Young Ted Stevens Fiscal Responsibility Government Spending Taxes Policy

France smolders. I guess that's progress.

Although the burnings continue and police are still at risk for having birdshot fired at their heads, France's emergency police powers (which the government is trying to extend for three months) seem to be quelling the worst of the unrest.

French President Jacques Chirac, in his first national address since the outbreak of violence, had much to say about the conditions that created the tinderbox atmosphere in the immigrant-dominated banlieues . In between calls for a restoration of order, Chirac said:

These events bear witness to a profound malaise...This is a crisis of direction, a crisis in which people have lost their way, it is a crisis of identity....

We know well that discrimination saps the very foundations of our Republic... But let us not deceive ourselves: this fight can only be won if we each take a real and personal stand.

Companies and union organizations must also work actively on the essential question of diversity and of the employment of young people from problem districts.

The interesting thing is that Chirac is very good at saying these things, but apparently powerless (or without the political will) to do much about it. The Economist leads its current issue with a very stinging criticism of Chirac:

“In the deprived suburbs, a kind of soft terror rules. When too many young people see nothing ahead but unemployment after they leave school, they end up rebelling. For a time the state can struggle to impose order, and rely on welfare benefits to avoid worse. But how long can this last?”

Thus one rational analysis of the forces that lie behind the riots, car-burnings and street battles with police that have broken out, first in the banlieues of Paris and then right across France, every night for the past two weeks. It is an analysis that points to a pressing case for action to build a greater sense of identity with French society among the rioters, most of whom are second-generation Muslims of north or west African origin. It also highlights the dispiriting effects of high unemployment as something needing urgent attention.

Yet what is most depressing about the words quoted above is that they were written over ten years ago, in January 1995, by a leading centre-right politician named Jacques Chirac. Mr Chirac has been France's president since May 1995, surely long enough for him and his various governments to do more to help the “deprived suburbs”. But almost throughout his time in office, French unemployment has hovered close to or above 10%; the average rate of youth unemployment has lately been over 20%, one of the highest in Europe; and unemployment among young Muslims in the banlieues has generally been twice as high again. This week the president said little or nothing to echo the forthright views he expressed in 1995: he confined his scant public remarks on the riots to a simple call for the restoration of law and order.

First things first, of course, as I've argued from the beginning. But this is not a new problem, and there clearly has been a national debate about it for some time. The problem is that politically correct hand-wringing will do nothing to salve these wounds--I suspect that the French will need to take a very hard look at how to put their economic house in order. An overall unemployment rate of 10% is bad enough, a youth unemployment rate of 23% (roughly twice America's) is worse, but 40% in the "sensitive urban zones" is just asking for trouble.

(And just so I don't get accused of being the pot that calls the kettle black, America's minority unemployment needs quite a bit of downsizing as well. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment among African-Americans aged 16-19 is 31.1% as of October 2005; however, the overall unemployment rate for adult black men is is 8.1%. Hispanic 16-19 unemployment is 17.9%, and only 4.4% for adult men.)

Tags: France French Riot Unrest Demonstration Chirac Police Unemployment

A Strange Use of Punctuation

The headline of a BBC News piece this morning caught my eye"

'Peacekeeper dies' in Kabul blast
By now we're all familiar with the burgeoning use of "scare quotes" by the media (see how humorously self-referential?) as a way of disclaiming responsibility for any potential biases inherent in the use of a term. (They're also used, less creditably, to distance the author from terms considered too "emotive," such as "terrorist" or "evil.")

In the present case, I just can't figure it out. The article uses the term "peacekeeper" without scare quotes, and the BBC doesn't seem to doubt its sources about the fact that a peacekeeper is dead. The only area of uncertainty is whether the person was German.

So what is it? Bias? Stupidity? Bad editing?

The Catholic Church, Darwin, and Popular Misconception

With the domestic debate about intelligent design being white-hot, it's not entirely surprising that the media should throw themselves all over any pronouncements of the Catholic Church which--however tangentially--pertain to the debate.

Now we're seeing a bit of a tempest, particularly in the blogging world, about this piece from The Australian.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive...

His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

Now, of course, the respect for evolutionary theory is not a new thing for the Church; indeed, for centuries there has been a strong distaste for overly literal interpretations of scripture. If, as the famous example suggests, Jesus is the "lion of Judah," does that mean He's got fleas in His mane?

But back to the point at hand: the article implies that the Church rejects "intelligent design." This of course is preposterous, and Cardinal Poupard said no such thing. The important point, he noted, is that "the universe wasn't made by itself, but has a creator." A Creator who, according to Church teachings, has taken an active role in human history. How exactly is this contrary to a broad definition of "intelligent design"?

No, the debate on evolution's concordance with Church teachings is much more complicated and nuanced; but of course this makes for the kind of longer, analytical articles those in the mainstream media shy away from these days.

Tags: Intelligent Design Catholic Church Evolution Darwin Mainstream Media MSM

A Glimmer Does Not a Beacon Make

(Forgive the florid headline--it's getting late in the day here.)

Yesterday's elections across America (no federal offices at stake--just a few gubernatorial and many local races) produced what the press considers "trouble" for Bush and the Republican party:

Democrats on Wednesday celebrated hard-fought wins in governors' races in Virginia and New Jersey that underlined the political troubles of President George W. Bush and Republicans heading into next year's congressional elections.

Democrats retained governor's offices in conservative Virginia and Democratic-leaning New Jersey on Tuesday after sometimes nasty campaigns...The loss in Virginia was a personal setback for Bush, who put his declining political capital on the line with an election-eve visit on behalf of Republican former attorney general Jerry Kilgore -- only to see him soundly defeated by Democratic Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine.

With Bush's popularity at the lowest level of his presidency, the results helped giddy Democrats claim momentum one year before elections to decide control of both chambers of the U.S. Congress and 36 governorships.

The interesting thing here is how little news there is in these results, and the degree to which they're being blown out of proportion. The victory of Michael Bloomberg in the NYC mayoral race was a foregone conclusion, Corzine defeated the same guy he defeated when he won his Senate seat (raising Forrester to the level of "proven loser"), and it seems that Schwarzenegger has been losing popularity without any help at all from the national party.

I understand the need to take hope wherever you can find it--heck, as a New York Jets fan, I find myself saying "Sure they're losing, but isn't it fun to see Vinny again?"--but I think it's obnoxious of the mainstream media to parrot this. Indeed, there are many stories out there about whether this is a "signal" (despite the fact that, for instance, neither the NJ or VA governorships switched parties).

A piece today by the right-wing Media Research Center has an interesting take:

Eight years ago, at the same point in Bill Clinton’s second term, Republicans maintained their control of the same governorships that were up for grabs yesterday. But the media refused to make those Democratic defeats a referendum on the Democratic President. Rather than branding them as “stinging defeats,” New York Times reporter Richard Berke determined the GOP victories were really a triumph for Clinton’s post-ideological approach.

Sure, the media needs to make news out of whatever it's handed, but does it always need to adopt the left's perspective?

Tags: Elections Corzine Forrester Schwarzenegger

Paris in Flames; End in Sight?

The first night in France following the declaration of a "state of emergency" by the French government saw sharply decreased violence across the country.

During late Tuesday through early Wednesday, youths torched 617 vehicles, down from 1,173 a night earlier, national police spokesman Patrick Hamon said. Incidents were reported in 116 towns, down from 226.

Police made 280 arrests, raising the total to 1,830 since the violence erupted 13 nights ago.

National Police Chief Michel Gaudin said an additional 1,000 officers were deployed overnight, bringing the total to 11,500. He attributed the drop in attacks to police sweeps and cooperation from community groups.

Good for the French--I'll be happy to be proven wrong. But not all the news is positive. Indeed, some seem to believe that the "disaffected youths" at the heart of the unrest are growing more organized:

Officials were forced to shut down the southern city of Lyon's subway system after a firebomb exploded in a station late Tuesday, a regional government spokesman said. No one was hurt. Transport officials said bus and subway service will be halted at 7 p.m. each day at least until Sunday as a precaution....

Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, detailing the measures to parliament Tuesday, said riot police faced "determined individuals, structured gangs, organized criminality." Police say rioters have been using mobile phone text messages and the Internet to organize arson attacks.

My hopes are with the French authorities at this point--an organized criminal "insurgency" causing chaos and destruction in what is otherwise a civilized, peaceful (and, in my opinion anyway, somewhat flaky and conceited) country is a disturbing prospect indeed.

Tags: Paris, France, French, Riot, Unrest

Swiping Oil's "Windfall"

Representatives from five large domestic oil companies are scheduled to testify before Congress today about the industry's recent spike in profits.

The oil industry's record third-quarter profits — at a time when motorists were reeling from unprecedentedly high gasoline costs and warned of huge heating bills this winter — has caught the attention of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Some analysts predict the 29 largest oil companies will earn $96 billion this year.

"Consumers need relief from high energy prices," Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said Tuesday, reiterating his call for a windfall profits tax on oil companies. "Talk is cheap. The price of energy is not. Congress needs to act."

The idea of a windfall profits tax has captured the imagination of many politicians and put oil executives in a cold sweat. Such a measure would tax any oil-company profits which exceed certain limits defined by historical norms; for instance, 30% of any profits more than 10% above a five-year average.
One typical proponent suggests that such a measure would "easily" raise about $10 billion per year. This report, from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, makes for really maddening reading:

The recovery from Hurricane Katrina will be long and expensive...The need for public money for immediate relief and reconstruction will almost certainly top $100 billion, and could run as high as $150-$200 billion (6-8 percent of the federal budget). With the federal government already facing large budget deficits, these additional expenditures are not coming at a good time.

For this reason, it is appropriate to look for new revenue sources. One obvious possibility is the windfall profits being earned by many oil companies in the wake of Katrina’s damage and the recent worldwide surge in oil prices...

The basic logic behind a windfall profit tax is quite simple. The oil industry made its investment and production plans under the assumption that oil would be selling for far less than today’s prices. As recently as 1998, oil was selling for less than $15 a barrel, and it was averaging less than $25 a barrel until the United States began preparing to invade Iraq in 2002...

Since the industry was looking at much lower prices when it made most of its investment and production decisions, it can cover its costs and make a normal profit at prices that are less than half the $60-$70 a barrel price seen at present in world markets.

Here's the argument, in brief: 1) we need money, 2) they have it, 3) they didn't even really expect to make that much anyway, and 4) they won't even miss it.

The oil industry does make for an appealing target, of course. After all, they're profiting by our misery.

The oil industry's record third-quarter profits — at a time when motorists were reeling from unprecedentedly high gasoline costs and warned of huge heating bills this winter — has caught the attention of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Some analysts predict the 29 largest oil companies will earn $96 billion this year.

But there are a few things wrong with this picture of giggling fat men holding sacks of money. First, the price of oil has been all over the map for decades, and oil executives nevertheless need to make decisions about future investment and exploration based on the best projections they can make. Should we punish this because they were unable to predict a massive surge in crude-oil prices? I will say this: you have to have nerves of steel to operate in an industry where your primary product goes through price swings like these.

Second, oil-industry profits, even at recent levels are not excessive when you compare them to other sectors of the economy. As this industry report shows, there are a lot more profitable businesses out there, such as banking and software. Why are these not considered as "new revenue sources"?

Third, the government already takes a large bite out of oil company revenues. Indeed, according to a study by The Tax Foundation, the oil industry has paid far more in federal, state, and local taxes than it has recorded in profits--during every year of the two decades ending 2004.

What we have here, as usual, is a bit of a witch hunt. Politicians, coming into an election year, don't want to be seen as being soft on an industry whose high-priced products are so important to the day-to-day lives of every American. That, however, doesn't justify the government telling businesses how much they should charge or earn.

Indeed, many analysts believe that a windfall profits tax would be a detriment over the longer term, discouraging oil companies from making the investments in additional capacity that could accomodate our growing demand for fuel. It might even result in greater domestic shortages, as oil firms opt to do more of their business outside the US in order to dodge the "windfall" altogether.

There's no question that oil companies are capable of collusion, or that individual gas stations will gouge their customers in a crisis. But it's also beyond dispute that the global economy is hungrier than ever for crude, and that the political situation is such that there are abiding uncertainties about production and supply logistics. If there is collusion, the federal government is well within its rights to step in; if there are gougers, state and local officials can seek their own remedies.

But punishing oil companies merely because they are profitable? God help our economy if the government can arbitrarily change the rules for the sake of political expediency.

Tags: Oil, Gasoline, Windfall, Congress, Senate, Profits

Paris in Flames; No End in Sight

After 12 days of rioting in suburban Paris and elsewhere, the French government has finally gotten around to declaring a state of emergency. This law appears to give the government the power to establish curfews anywhere in France (indeed, it was passed in 1955 to help quell unrest in Algeria, then still a French colony), but not much else.

Twelve nights; and while there is some evidence to suggest that the intensity of violence is waning, the toll is staggering. According to a BBC News piece, through 8 November the riots have seen:

• One man killed
  
• 5,873 cars torched
  
• 1,500 people arrested
  
• 17 people sentenced
  
• 120 police and firefighters injured

And these are just sterile numbers, which don't give the real feeling of a conflagration which has seen rioters torching hospitals, the Sleeping Beauty Nursery School, and a woman on crutches. And this is not simply in Paris, but has spread to areas throughout France.

I'm not at all qualified to comment on the horror, its causes, or its potential sequelae; but it seems to me that the French government, and much of the press for that matter, is obsessed with discussing the inequities and pent-up rage that lies at the root of the problem. And there is certainly a case to be made here: not only do immigrants find it difficult or impossible (or distasteful) to be absorbed into French society--they are also disproportionately out of work in a country where the overall unemployment rate perennially hovers around 10%. The Wall Street Journal even says that "by one estimate, unemployment is 40% among foreign-born residents of France aged 15 to 29."

France has the power to put an end to the unrest and move in a direction that may help prevent such violence in the future; but at the moment, they're consumed by the kind of hand-wringing and finger-pointing that hobbles all democratic governments at such times. The Economist, in the wake of the bungled response (at all levels) to Hurricane Katrina, carried the headline "America's Shame" on the front cover. France's position here is no better: you can only solve the long-term problems if you first put the short-term ones to rest. Hesitation--in the face of a force that has shown it can and will set fire to anything within reach--is certain to prolong your agony and put more of your citizens in harm's way.

Tags: Paris, France, French, Riot, Unrest

Defeat for the Online Freedom of Speech Act

After a good amount of debate, both in the press and on the floor of the US House of Representatives, HR 1606 (otherwise known as the Online Freedom of Speech Act) was voted down last Wednesday by a vote of 225-182. Most Democrats were opposed and most Republicans were in favor, but it was not a strict party-line vote.

I've dealt with this topic before, favoring greater freedom for bloggers when it comes to commenting on political campaigns. Nevertheless, I feel this is a victory for bloggers--if there's anything worse than a government legislating something it shouldn't, it's government doing so with a terribly written law.

The relevant text of HR 1606 is simply

Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.'.

For reference, 2 U.S.C. 431(22) currently reads

The term “public communication” means a communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising.

All these things are items a campaign can, and will, spend large quantities of money on, and the Internet fits right in here. In the coming years, we're certain to see a more involved web presence by candidates--with lots of streaming video, text RSS feeds, and podcasts--and these expenditures should (to be consistent with the spirit of current campaign-finance laws) should be regulated. But HR 1606, in its attempt to leave the Internet as some kind of virgin frontier, would give candidates for federal office an enormous loophole to push unregulated contributions through.

Indeed, I don't think the bill's sponsors have any real idea where the true problem lies: it's not in 2 U.S.C. 431(22), but in 2 U.S.C. 431(17) and other sections in which the rather hazily considered "independent expenditures" are covered. 2 U.S.C. 434(c), for example, requires any independent amounts exceeding $250 to be reported; but as previous history has shown, campaign-finance officials may consider the cost of your computer and your internet connection in this regard. What about your time? The electricity in your house?

I'm afraid this is something that is going to be sorted out in the courts, to no one's satisfaction. But the idea that I can be accused of carrying on "federal election activity" because of statements I make in my blog, and then having to bear the burden of proving that someone's idea of "expenditures" are "independent" from a candidate's campaign...goes beyond distasteful into the odious.

Tags: Campaign Finance, Blogs, Blogging, Weblog, 1606, Congress

What has it got in its pocketses?

It's the biggest journalistic scoop since 'See Karl Rove's Garage.'

In the "Politics" section of its website, CNN posts an expose about, and this is absolutely not a joke of any kind, what George Bush has in his pockets.

It turns out the leader of the free world doesn't have to worry about carrying all the essentials of the common man.

Bush revealed the contents of his pockets Tuesday to an Argentine newspaper reporter who was interviewing him in advance of a presidential trip to Latin America later this week.

When the reporter from La Nacion asked Bush to show him what he carries, the president stood up, fished in his pockets, then dramatically pulled his hands out holding nothing but a white handkerchief that he waved playfully in the air.

"Es todo," Bush told the Spanish-speaking reporter, meaning the handkerchief was all. "No dinero, no mas. No wallet."

OK, I know that a) it's not like CNN asked the question themselves and b) it costs next to nothing to print the story on its website...I just want to know, why would a hard-news organization bother? Do they think we need to know, or that we're even interested? And isn't it nice they manage to put in the little slap about "the essentials of the common man"?

People bemoan the fact that the office of President is gradually being stripped of its dignity. Recent Presidents, no doubt, bear a large personal responsibility for this; but I sometimes wonder that the mainstream media, the "Fourth Estate" as they proclaim themselves, thou Pillar of Democracy, should be so gigglingly complicit.

Reid Engineers Senate Shutdown

Yesterday, in a premeditated move, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) effectively shut down the US Senate by invoking Senate Rule XXI to close the doors and hustle cameras and spectators out.

The rule covering closed-door sessions is a good one; but in this case, it was a transparent attempt at grandstanding--the talk was about "forcing" a debate on how the Bush administration handled prewar intelligence. Consider these excerpts from Reid's statement on the action:

• "The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions." Libby was indicted for perjury and obstruction, not for any matter related to national security. Had Patrick Fitzgerald any evidence that Libby or Rove violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Act, don't you think he would have used it?
  
• "As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this Administration. This cloud is further darkened by the Administration’s mistakes in prisoner abuse scandal, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies." That's right, get it all out. You'll feel better. Nice to have focus, isn't it?
  
• "The Administration’s assertions on this [WMD] score have been totally discredited. But again, the Administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government’s top experts did not agree with these claims." I guess these must be "top" people other than CIA Director George Tenet, who famously told Bush the case was a "slam dunk."
  
• "Despite the fact that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine many of these questions more than 1 and ½ years ago, he has chosen not to keep this commitment. Despite the fact that he restated that commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing." Senator Pat Roberts, the aforementioned chairman, presented preliminary findings to the Senate Intelligence Committee on 17 May 2005, but the debate was scotched by Democrats.

If it turns out that this action hastens the release of the Committee's "Phase II" report on prewar intelligence, then that's no bad thing. But this move by Reid just did not seem like the last-ditch effort of a well-intentioned statesman to get his voice heard--it seemed like a trained politician trying to manipulate the news cycle to his benefit. It's an old game, played by officials on both sides, but isn't it coming on a little strong to close the Senate in order to get this done?

(The image above is a William Gropper lithograph entitled "Politicos." Based on his subject matter, I think Gropper would hate this site; but I admit I admire the piece.)

Tags: Harry Reid, Senate, Politics

We don't care. Finally!

I can't tell you how pleased I am at the sign that the doings of British royals no longer distract our attention. Britain's SkyNews reports that some 81% of Americans are "not remotely interested" in the current visit by the Prince of Wales and his new wife. Hell, I didn't even know they were here until I learned that most people didn't care.

But the painful thing is that I know it will only last until one of them dies, or until one of them is caught topless on some Mediterranean beach.

Tags: Royal, Media

Pluto, apparently, has three moons

Sky and Telescope reports that astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope (still producing real science despite being scheduled for decommissioning) have discovered two additional moons orbiting Pluto.

With even lowly Pluto sporting multiple moons, how can we be happy with just one? Perhaps we need, to use an annoying phrase I'm hearing a lot these days, "a new Apollo program" to get us another.

Tags: Pluto, Science, Astronomy