Log and Line

Pfizer sticks it to New London

2009-11-11T08:03:00.003-05:00

More than four years ago, I wrote on this blog about the Kelo vs City of New London Supreme Court case, a landmark victory for towns and cities looking to use eminent-domain powers to achieve economic-development ends--a debate in which the idea of "public benefit" was used as the definition of the Fifth Amendment's phrase "public use."

At the time, New London, CT was trying to clear out the residents of its Fort Trumbull neighborhood in order to make room for a hotel, health club, and office complex, all facilities designed to enhance the area, which was dominated by a large R&D facility owned by Pfizer.

Well, as it happens there are no spandex-clad people exercising in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood--the buildings still stand condemned, and the redevelopment was never completed. Nor, it seems will it be: in what must be a monumental tragedy for the city of New London, Pfizer has announced it will pull out of this facility and move its R&D operations over the river to its center in Groton.

An editorial in today's Wall Street Journal puts it best:

[Pfizer's move is] especially galling because the five Supreme Court Justices cited the development plan as a major factor in rationalizing their Kelo decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy called the plan "comprehensive," while Justice John Paul Stevens insisted that "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." So much for that.

A train-station project in my home town took a strip of land from a warehouse owner under eminent domain. At the time, the owner objected, saying (and here he's backed up by no less an authority than the United States Constitution) that he was due compensation for the land he lost. The town, in order to forestall a lawsuit, groused about his outrageous claims but eventually compensated him with $1. Their position was that the economic development spurred by the new train station would increase the value of his land, and that should be enough. Well, years later, the train station is not built and the development company hired to do the work is bankrupt.

Let's not think the issue of eminent-domain abuse is dead.

Technorati Tags: Kelo, New London, Pfizer, Eminent Domain, Fifth Amendment

Justice Dept. Asked For News Site's Visitor Lists - Taking Liberties - CBS News

2009-11-10T08:10:00.000-05:00

In a disturbing echo of the White House's war on Fox News, the Justice Department has demanded the personal information of everyone visiting an online news site during one particular day. Moreover, they appended a gag order to the subpoena asking the news site (!) not to report on the request.

It's possible that this was just a local US attorney "going rogue," according to the director of a press-freedom organization:

Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of The Press, said a gag order to a news organization wouldn't stand up in court: "If you get a subpoena and you're a journalist, they can't gag you."

Dalglish said that a subpoena being issued and withdrawn is not unprecedented. "I have seen any number of these things withdrawn when counsel for someone who is claiming a reporter's privilege says, 'Can you tell me the date you got approval from the attorney general's office'... I'm willing to chalk this up to bad lawyering on the part of the DOJ, or just not thinking."

I don't know that I'm so sure, since in the same article it's stated that the DOJ can't subpoena a member of the press without the "express authorization of the attorney general." Moreover, the administrator of the site in question, indymedia.us, says she was threatened with prosecution for obstruction if she went public with news of the subpoena.

Technorati Tags: Department of Justice, gag order, freedom of the press

Finland makes 1Mb broadband access a legal right | Webware - CNET

2009-10-15T10:36:00.000-04:00

"Declaration of the Rights of Man" this certainly is not. Indeed, I wonder what civilizations living just a few decades from now will make of such a statement.

Imagine that it's 1843 and the US Congress is considering amending the Declaration of Independence to read, "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and an annual allotment of 25 gallons of whale oil." Or perhaps that it's 1933, and FDR's first order of business is to allow everyone to send telegrams free of charge.

In the end, Finland, it's very nice, and good job; but wouldn't it have been less ridiculous to simply allow citizens free access at libraries or post offices?

President Barack Obama Wins Nobel Prize

2009-10-09T07:59:00.003-04:00

When I saw this headline in the news this morning, I had to stop and ask myself whether today was some sort of autumn version of April Fool's Day. I just can't make any sense of it.

The Nobel Foundation's press release on the award makes interesting reading. Apparently there is a "new climate in international politics" that's due entirely to him; we also read that "[h]is diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population." Whatever the hell that means.

Looking at the fact that we are still heavily engaged in two wars, one of which may well see a troop surge in coming months; looking at the fact that Obama's soft-touch approach to Iran seems to have emboldened the mullahs; looking at the fact that the "reset" (or was it "overload"?) with Russia appears to be an uncompensated rollover to their government's demands...I just don't understand how Obama's lofty rhetoric trumps his dubious record of accomplishment.

A fun quote about tort reform for healthcare

2009-09-29T07:26:00.003-04:00

From DNC chairman Howard Dean, speaking at a town-hall event in late August:

Asked by an audience member why the legislation does nothing to cap medical malpractice class-action lawsuits against doctors and medical institutions (aka "Tort reform"), Dean responded by saying: “The reason tort reform is not in the [health care] bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on. And that’s the plain and simple truth.”

Choosing not to fight the "War of Necessity"

2009-09-28T15:47:00.003-04:00

Obama said it hundreds of times on the campaign trail: Iraq was Bush's "war of choice" that distracted him from the "war of necessity" in Afghanistan. There was the promise that the United States would focus on this neglected but essential front in the war on terror, or whatever the Obama administration is calling it these days. And on this point, I have agreed wholeheartedly with the public pronouncements of the President--the war in Afghanistan is too important to risk losing.

Well, there's some sense now that Obama has not paid a terrible amount of attention to the job of defeating the Taliban. In a televised interview, General Stanley McChrystal has admitted that he's only spoken to the President once since taking command of the theater more than two months back.

“I’ve talked to the president, since I’ve been here, once on a VTC [video teleconferece],” General Stanley McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired Sunday.
“You’ve talked to him once in 70 days?” Mr. Martin followed up.
“That is correct,” the general replied.

Sure, you can argue that the President has had a lot on his plate. But ask yourself: how important can Afghanistan be to Obama if he's putting a higher priority on personally petitioning the IOC to award the Olympics to Chicago?

As far as I'm concerned, Roman Polanski can rot in hell.

2009-09-28T13:33:00.003-04:00

Not normally the stuff I'd blog about, but a passage from this CNN report has me agape:

"He's a brilliant guy, and he made a little mistake 32 years ago. What a shame for Switzerland," said photographer Otto Weisser, a friend of Polanski.

A little mistake...the same article has the following description of what happened:

Polanski was accused of plying the [13-year old] girl, Samantha Geimer, with champagne and a sliver of a Quaalude tablet and performing various sex acts, including intercourse, with her during a photo shoot at actor Jack Nicholson's house. He was 43 at the time.

These facts are not in dispute, nor is the fact that Polanski fled the country when it became clear he might have to serve real jail time for his "little mistake."

Brilliance, whatever that might mean, is no defense against child rape. Isn't that something we can all agree on?

Friday Melange

2009-09-25T16:19:00.002-04:00

So it's Friday afternoon, and I'm sitting outside being caressed by a cool, early autumn breeze. I've also got a lot of other work to get through, and a variety of tabs are clogging up my Firefox window. But for the sake of the archive, let's run through them fairly quickly.

There's a video making the rounds that shows a bunch of elementary-school students practicing a song praising "Barack Hussein Obama." The lyrics are pretty...well, they're just not right. I find it interesting that the superintendent of the school district excuses it by saying, "The recording and distribution of the class activity were unauthorized." OK, all better now.
Yesterday there was a hubbub about the various world leaders attending the UN conference. Apparently, Britain's Gordon Brown repeatedly sought a few minutes with Obama, but was snubbed no fewer than five times. My reaction at the time was, sure, I bet Gordon wants a photo-op with Obama to help his sagging poll numbers, but at the absolute minimum his country has 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, where we're struggling. In short, cut the guy some slack and give him his face-time.
Then of course we learn that Iran has been secretly building a hitherto unknown uranium-enrichment facility, and all of the sudden the US, UK, and France are putting up a united front at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh. Maybe those five minutes the day before would have been a good investment.

A little extra confirmation is always a good thing.

2009-09-23T16:40:00.000-04:00

Seems like CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf has struck again:

Congress' chief budget officer is contradicting President Barack Obama's oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn't see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul.
The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators Tuesday that seniors in Medicare's managed care plans would see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee.
The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by more than $100 billion over 10 years.
Elmendorf said the changes would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries.

Baucus, Humana, Maddow

2009-09-22T14:52:00.000-04:00

The story so far:

1) Earlier this year, President Obama proposed eliminating Medicare Advantage, a program by which seniors can receive their healthcare through private plans, rather than directly through Medicare. Current stats show that approximately nine million are enrolled. On the 12 January 2009 edition of This Week with George Stephanopolous, he said

"We’ve got to eliminate programs that don’t work, and I’ll give you an example in the health care area. We are spending a lot of money subsidizing the insurance companies around something called Medicare Advantage, a program that gives them subsidies to accept Medicare recipients but doesn’t necessarily make people on Medicare healthier. And if we eliminate that and other programs, we can potentially save $200 billion out of the health care system that we’re currently spending, and take that money and use it in ways that are actually going to make people healthier and improve quality."

Please remember what the President told the AMA on 15 June: "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan."

2) Humana, a large insurer, sent out a letter to its Medicare Advantage participants stating, in part, that "millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable."

3) Senator Max Baucus referred the matter to Health and Human Services, which then penned a cease-and-desist letter to Humana. In the wake of this, the Humana story has been all over the news.

I tend to agree with the Wall Street Journal on this one when they represent Baucus's actions as bullying.

[Baucus stated that] "The health-care reform bill we released last week strengthens Medicare and does not cut benefits covered under the Medicare program—and seniors need to know that."
In fact, the Baucus draft legislation slashes $123 billion over the next decade from Medicare Advantage, which Democrats hate despite the fact that almost one-fourth of beneficiaries have chosen it over traditional fee-for-service Medicare. One reason seniors like it is because private insurers focus on quality and preventive care and try to manage benefits, as opposed to simply paying bills.

A new study from America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group, finds that seniors on Advantage in California spent 30% fewer days in hospitals over fee-for-service patients, based on federal data. Democrats say that insurers are "overpaid," but the cuts—as Humana correctly noted—mean that seniors may lose this coverage.

In short, both Obama and Baucus have proposed either eliminating or slashing Medicare Advantage...and they're complaining when the insurance industry rightly warns their customers that their current plan may be on the chopping block?

A quick note on the "Maddow" point: I first heard of this kerfuffle while flipping past the Rachel Maddow show. It is my recollection that she introduced the topic by quoting from the Humana letter, but in a choppy way that disguised the fact that they were talking specifically about Medicare Advantage. While I have not been able to confirm this (I haven't been able to find a transcript of the program), it would not surprise me.

You can bash greedy insurers all you want; but it seems to me that you shouldn't give them too much grief for telling the truth.

Technorati Tags: Baucus, Humana, Healthcare, Obama, Maddow

Something that's been bothering me...

2009-09-18T07:40:00.001-04:00

The more I consider Obama's healthcare proposals, the more I keep coming back to the aspect of constitutionality--which, I realize, is a perilous thing for a non-lawyer to do. Nevertheless, there appears to be a fundamental disconnect between a) asserting that the interstate commerce clause gives the federal government the ability to mess with the health-insurance marketplace, and b) the fact that health insurance companies can't currently operate across state lines.

An editorial in today's WSJ, however, raises another interesting point: whether sticking the uninsured with a penalty "excise tax" is a form of punitive taxation:

Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a "tax" that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress's authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by "taxing" anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables...a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress's constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress's power to regulate individual Americans.

One further question: if the Obama reforms aren't scheduled to go into effect until 2013, how will the inevitable legal challenges impact their rollout? Politically, I wonder whether it would be better for Obama to get a reform bill passed sooner, so that lawsuits can be characterized as obstructionism for the 2012 campaign

Technorati Tags: Healthcare, Obama, Constitution

False Flag

2009-08-27T17:49:00.000-04:00

I came across this article today, which suggests that the suspect behind the vandalism of a Democratic legislator's Denver office is...a Democrat.

Now, this did not surprise me in the least. Indeed, I often wonder why we don't hear more about this sort of "false flag" operation by political partisans. I'm sure it happens a great deal, on the right and the left. Yard signs are probably a big item, for example: how easy would it have been for Democratic operatives in 2008 to go around, steal Obama signs, then have a local Dem organization talk to the press about the fear and intolerance of the right? (And, before you start, I bet similar operations were carried out by the right.)

Whenever some information or story is too good to be true, my mind tends to consider a false flag cause. The Bush National Guard/Dan Rather dustup is one case in particular: the documents were such poor forgeries, and their appearance and debunking did so much to undercut the tale of Bush's service, that I have to wonder...was this cooked up by a right-wing operative? If so, I say kudos. 'Cuz you have to salute excellence, wherever you find it.

Technorati Tags:
Democrats, Democrat, False Flag, Partisan, Denver

Processing Teddy's Death

2009-08-26T10:35:00.000-04:00

So Ted Kennedy is dead, felled by cancer at age 77.

Let me say up front that I am not pleased in any way by his death. I considered him the poorest form of statesman, and he seemed a man of few admirable personal qualities. But he was, in the end, a man; and I can mourn his death on this basis.

We hear from Shakespeare's Mark Antony that "the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones." If recent events are any indication (and I'm looking in your direction, Michael Jackson), it appears that this antique approach is long dead. The advantage here, if there is one, is that most media outlets are rolling out prefab encomia, composed during the course of Ted's long and terminal illness.

I know firsthand how popular he was with many of the people of Massachusetts; I know that he will be hailed as a champion of the poor and downtrodden. But what I hope people also remember was that he was a drunken womanizer whose reckless action resulted in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.

So let's not get too crazy here. His soul is in God's hands, but his record here on earth shouldn't be scrubbed clean.

One of my periodic epiphanies

2009-08-24T16:41:00.000-04:00

Five minutes on the right side. Roll onto back. Five minutes. Roll onto right side. Five minutes. Return to start and repeat again and again and again.

It kept me up for about two hours last night. It wasn't the usual wakeful worrying about money or health or any of the big life issues. No, instead it occurred to me that I wasn't writing enough.

This is a ridiculous thing. I am, after all, a writer. When someone asks me what I do for a living, I say, "freelance writer." I say this despite the fact that, since late in 1999, caring for the children has taken up the vast majority of my nonsleeping/noneating time.

The last time I abandoned Log & Line was about a year and a half ago, in early 2008. Maybe this return will be the same--a flurry of posts for a month or so, then a disappearance. But is the possibility of failure enough of a reason not to try? And at least, for a while, it may exercise my long-dormant fingers.

2009-10 Budget Announced

2009-02-04T07:48:00.000-05:00

Ken Flatto has announced his town budget for the 2009-10 fiscal year. There are few surprises: once again there is a sharp tax increase and Flatto tells us how small it is; Flatto has reined in the BoE budget request, but only by $400,000. This is the same town that just a few weeks ago voted $165,000 to make a bridge look pretty.

The Post's article makes some startling points:

'"I could not see how we could go any higher than that," Flatto said. "This [3.07% tax increase is] below the rate of inflation and the lowest tax increase in a decade."' The first thing that jumps out here is that, based on the most recent statistics, 3.07% is certainly far above the rate of inflation. The CPI-U (seasonally adjusted) actually contracted for the 12 months through 12/1/08. The second is that, if 3.07% is the lowest figure in a decade, a decade where the town grew fat off insane Grand List growth, then something is definitely wrong.
'The town contribution is needed because late last year the town suffered a $42 million loss in the collapse of the alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Madoff.' The town made $17 million in contributions. That is the most they can ever lose. It irks me that people consistently get this wrong.
'The first selectman said there are 13 fewer town positions included in the 2009-10 budget, compared to 2008. For 2009, there are 483 budgeted positions, just three more than the town had in 1988, even though at that time, the town was smaller.' It's not like we've grown from a village of farmers over the past 20 years--according to state demographic numbers, Fairfield's gained only about 4,000 people. And note that we're not talking about teachers here, but town staff.
'And department heads who were supposed to get about a 3 percent increase are only getting about half of that, Flatto said, adding that he put in a 1 percent reduction in the raise he is supposed to receive.' Bravo. The town's in crisis and inflation is practically nonexistent at the moment, but the people at the top still deserve more money. We're supposed to be grateful for the fact that the "more" is somewhat less than otherwise?

Lucky for any Grand List growth

2009-02-03T08:03:00.000-05:00

Fairfield's 2008 Grand List growth suggests that the next few years might be grim: article

Reflecting the nation's economic problems, the town's grand list of taxable property for 2008 recorded only a slight increase -- 0.5 percent -- over the previous year.

The $11.93 billion list represents a $63.4 million increase over the 2007 figure of $11.87 billion.

The town's grand list had grown 1 percent in each of the two preceding years.

Real estate increased by $74 million, attributable primarily to new construction and new subdivisions in place as of last Oct. 1 [emphasis mine], according to Browne. Residential property makes up 85 percent of the town's total grand list.

"What I'm finding is that what a lot of builders are doing is not finishing off projects," Browne said. "When they get to a certain point, they stop until they get a contract for a sale and then they finish it off."

"Fairfield School Spending Plan Adjusted"

2009-02-03T07:56:00.000-05:00

On a 6-3 vote, the Fairfield BoE votes $201,393 in additional funding into its 2009-10 budget. In order to pay for this, the same body agreed to reduce its budget for travel and conferences by $1,000.

Article here

The author notes that, "There was, however, no further discussion of freezing school administrators' pay raises. According to the spending proposal, the raises for 12 top school system administrators, managers or directors total over $62,000. The increases for 2009-10 include $7,438 for the superintendent, $10,381 for the director of operations and $10,054 for the finance director."

Pre-Election Thoughts...For Posterity's Sake

2008-11-03T07:39:00.002-05:00

As much as it pains me to say it, America stands ready to elect Barack Obama to the Presidency tomorrow. For the past few weeks I've been trying to get my brain around that idea so the shock doesn't do permanent damage.

The world, and my neighborhood, hates Bush and loves Obama. There is a great deal of glee percolating through the Democratic base; and I'm frankly OK with that. If history has taught me anything, it's that mankind runs in cycles, and we're at the end (or beginning) of one right now. Barack Obama isn't the messiah; but I also have to admit that he's not Satan either. But what is he?

The campaign has told us a great deal about him, for those who have ears to hear. Here we have a man who has been classed as an outsider, a fresh voice; despite all evidence saying that his political record is one of expert play within the political machinery of Chicago. We have a man who is considered a moderate despite the evidence showing a very left-wing voting record. We have a man with no executive experience being given a pass for this by the media (even, I shudder to say, The Economist) because "he's run a good campaign."

He has no record of accomplishment. The record he does have gives me the willies. We are about to elect the most pro-infanticide President in our history, and no one seems to care. How the hell did this come about?

Obama gives people hope. He speaks, and crowds melt. Chris Matthews gets a "thrill up his leg" when Obama works his magic. But let me put this to you Democrats a different way and see what you think.

A Candidate emerges to challenge for the highest office in the land. Some are surprised that he would choose to run, since his political record is fairly thin; but on the other hand, many have been watching him for years waiting for the moment when he could stand up and proclaim his vision to the people. He puts together a campaign staff of stunning effectiveness, and in the primaries manages to beat back a strong challenge from a candidate the media seems to back wholeheartedly. The Candidate's approach is simple: Washington is broken, and requires healing from an outsider. In his campaign, the Candidate relies more on rhetoric than concrete policy platforms--the message is that there should be first and foremost an emphasis on the common man. As questions about experience swirl about his campaign, he makes a brilliant VP selection--an old and respected Washington hand. The election is tight, but in the end our Candidate prevails.

This Candidate is George W. Bush.

I hear so many times about how Obama is "different" and "transformational" and "inspiring." Is this enough?

I hope like hell that it is. But I have my doubts.

Jeremiah Wright: A Quick Observation

2008-04-28T09:58:00.003-04:00

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama's "Spiritual Mentor," is doing a question-and-answer session at the National Press Club right now. The moderator asked him a question regarding a passage from the Gospel of John: "...I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). In the light of this well-known passage, she asked him, what did he think about Islam and Judaism?

Wright's response was brief and illuminating. He said, "Jesus also said, I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold." This generated cheers and applause from the audience, and seemed to suggest that Wright feels there are other paths to salvation. Now while this is a valid topic for theological debate, I find Wright's use of this passage very disingenuous--because he only quotes the first half of the verse. Here is John 10:16 in full (emphasis mine):

I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.

You can read it yourself; it's part of the famous parable of the "Good Shepherd".

So here's the thing: Wright is a pastor, and he knows exactly what John 10:16 says...yet he rips a piece of it out of context in order to give a "politic" answer to a question (or perhaps more accurately, he gives a politic response to avoid answering the actual question). He insists that he is a servant of the truth. What does his response to this query tell us?

There's something appealing about this photo.

2008-02-29T07:54:00.002-05:00

Manufactured Drama, Part II

2008-02-13T12:46:00.000-05:00

Looking for an example of the media's obsession with creating the story? Look no further than this piece, detailing Chris Matthews's excited gurglings.

I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously. It's a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment.

What kind of journalism school did you go to, Chris? "And that is an objective assessment." I don't often mind commentators expressing opinions because, hey, they're commentators; but are you kidding?

Manufactured Drama and the "Potomac Primaries"

2008-02-13T08:45:00.004-05:00

No one doubted that yesterday's "Potomac Primaries" (Virginia, Maryland, and DC) would be important. Heck, given the wafter-thin delegate margin between Hillary and Obama, every state is taking on immense significance. But what was most interesting, to an enthusiast of the political theater that's playing itself out, is the degree to which the various media outlets are trying to manufacture drama to fill the gaps between actual news items.

McCain's win in Virginia (50-41% over Huckabee) is a prime example. The early returns, with just 10-15% of districts reporting, had Huckabee with a 4-point lead. Since the results were slow to come in during that first hour or so, the commentators had a lot of time to fill. They constantly gushed about what a blow it would be to McCain if Huckabee upset him here, how this was a sign that "conservatives" were rebelling against him, and how this was going to prevent McCain from launching into the national campaign he'd been looking forward to. Then, with about 20% of the vote in, the gap started to narrow. When it stood at 47-45 Huckabee, I caught Karl Rove on Fox News. He--and only he, at this point--spoke out against reading too much into these early results. He spoke a bit about McCain's campaign in Virginia and predicted that, by the end of the night, the senator would capture Virginia with 50 to 52% of the vote. And he was right.

This became clear at about 40% of the precincts reporting, but the narrative didn't change much: Huckabee still put up a stern resistance, a sign of McCain's weakness in the conservative base. Apparently, a 9% margin isn't big enough. If this had been a Presidential result, it would have been called a landslide.

The Obama/Clinton narrative was similarly flogged to death. There's been a good amount of fretting, in the public and in the media, about whether the news organizations are setting the story, rather than letting the facts speak for themselves. Well, duh. There's a need for drama, and the media fill every empty second with whatever drama they can scrape up. We hear about Obama's momentum (probably real enough), but less about the fact that the delegate count has what's effectively a microscopic edge for Obama. A Hillary sweep in big-ticket states like West Virginia and Wyoming would bring her back. Obama's not running the table...yet. The media just needs to polish its scripts so they can be ready when he is.

Hillary's Disconnect From Reality

2008-02-12T07:53:00.000-05:00

Came across an interesting quote in this piece as I skimmed the news this morning.

The senator was asked a question from a Politico.com reader in Santa Monica, Calif., who was seeking assurance that "no new business or personal scandal involving Bill Clinton" could erupt if she were in the White House and give fodder to Republicans.

"You know, I can assure this reader that that is not going to happen," she said. "You know, none of us can predict the future, no matter who we are and what we are running for, but I am very confident that that will not happen."

Is there really anyone out there, Democrat or Republican, who thinks that Bill is capable of remaining scandal free?

"We are in crisis. There is panic and fear"

2008-02-10T20:32:00.000-05:00

According tothis article from the UK's Times Online, al-Qaeda is finally beginning to feel the pinch.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq faces an “extraordinary crisis”. Last year's mass defection of ordinary Sunnis from al-Qaeda to the US military “created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight”. The terrorist group's security structure suffered “total collapse”.

These are the words not of al-Qaeda's enemies but of one of its own leaders in Anbar province — once the group's stronghold. They were set down last summer in a 39-page letter seized during a US raid on an al-Qaeda base near Samarra in November.

If these are authentic, it's a stunning testimony about the effectiveness of the ground-up strategy the US has been pursuing in recent months. But I have to admit some degree of skepticism about the documents: they are almost too good to be true. If, for example, you wanted your enemies to think you'd given up the fight, what better way than to "allow" such documents to fall into their hands? But this may be too paranoid of me.

Skirting the Chelsea Issue

2008-02-09T09:24:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, an interesting story started percolating through the media.

On Thursday, Shuster guest-hosted Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show, "Tucker," and in referring to Chelsea Clinton's role in calling superdelegates on behalf of the Clinton presidential campaign, he asked if she was "sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"

Later that night, he heard from an outraged Reines [a Clinton campaign aide], who called the remarks "absurdly offensive."

Shuster was unrepentant. He told Reines his commentary was justified because of the contrast between Chelsea Clinton's overt political role and the aggressive way campaign aides "jump down the throat" of reporters who seek to question her about it.

There are two, well maybe three, issues here. First, it was clearly in bad taste for Shuster to suggest that the candidate's daughter is being "pimped out," especially since it was clearly in the sense of "being prostituted." He could have dismissed this in two minutes if only he had said that it was a slip of the tongue and that he certainly didn't mean that Hillary was offering superdelegates sexual favors from her daughter.

The second issue appears to be why Shuster failed in his basic task: the Clinton campaign has shown great reluctance to talk about Chelsea, despite the fact that she is front and center on the campaign stage. She is calling superdelegates and sounding them out, and she therefore is a valid target of journalists' inquiries. The media's frustration with this disconnect is natural. But of course, as is always the case in these matters, Shuster and Reines are talking about completely different things. But in the end, this will blow over as the public realizes there is no meat here.

The third issue: another "uncharitable" bit from me, but I have to say it--I don't find Chelsea attractive. The picture I posted above is her at her best, and she's certainly not ugly (the straightened but somewhat wavy hair suits her), but she is certainly not attractive in the classical sense. I suspect the fact that I keep hearing the media spout about how hot she is is a reaction to seeing the change from a gawky teenager to a put-together 27-year-old. Just don't make her out to be something she's not.

Turning Over Scientology's Rocks: Tax Deductions for Members?!

2008-02-08T08:06:00.000-05:00

First, the outrage: Scientologists can claim tax deductions for religious expenses. What's more, the IRS has agreed that it will only offer this benefit to Scientology.

But before I get into the nuts and bolts, some personal background. Scroll down if you want to get right to the meat.

I have never had much respect for the Church of Scientology, not since I wandered into their Boston office in September 1988, during my freshman year of college. I was told by the guy on the street that they were conducting "personality tests" and needed college-aged subjects. Since I was more or less just wandering around at the time, getting myself familiar with the city, and since I'd never heard of "Scientology," I said sure. They got me in the door, through the lobby, and sitting down at a table in front of a bubble test that looked like it was going to ask a lot of personal questions. At 17, I was naive but not stupid, and I got the hell out of there.

So much for my foundation story, but I wanted to be sure to come clean with my biases. I haven't lost friends or family, I haven't been scarred personally...but I have come to the conclusion that they are dangerous. So when I heard about the web-based "insurgency" being waged against them by Anonymous (based at Project Chanology), I was intrigued. I watched their video heralding their attacks; and after reading an article about them in The Economist, checked out the Chanology website. That's when I came across this entry, under "News and Announcements":

New York Sun - Feb. 8, 2008 - Judges Press IRS on Church Tax Break. This needs some major publicity, stat! This is an ongoing legal battle that may result in some serious damage for CoS.

Here's the meat.

The New York Sun article covers the case of a Jewish couple who wanted to deduct the costs of sending their child to religious education classes. Their deductions were disallowed by the IRS; but the couple sued, claiming that Scientologists were allowed to deduct their religious training expenses, and it is patently unfair to allow this for only one religion.

The case stems from an agreement the IRS reached with the Church of Scientology in 1993 to end more than a decade of lawsuits, audits, and other enforcement actions involving the tax agency, Scientology entities, and church leaders. The church paid $12.5 million, while the IRS agreed to drop arguments that Scientology, which was founded by L. Ron Hubbard, was not a bona fide religion.

At about the time of that deal, the IRS agreed to allow Scientologists to deduct at least 80% of the fees paid for "religious training and services."

Honestly, I couldn't believe that this was the case, so I did some digging. Apparently, this is well documented. According to section IV.A.3.ix.b of the "Closing Argument," which deals with the details of the 1993 agreement between Scientology and the IRS regarding tax-exempt status:

...the following actions will be considered to be a material breach by the Service...the issuance of a Regulation, Revenue Ruling or other pronouncement of general applicability providing that fixed donations to a religious organization other than a church of Scientology are fully deductible unless the Service has issued previously or issues contemporaneously a similar pronouncement that provides for consistent and uniform principles for determining the deductibility of fixed donations for all churches including the Church of Scientology"

Experts appear to hold that this clause contractually requires the IRS to discriminate in favor of Scientology.

The good news is that, as seen in the Sun article, judges are starting to sit up and take notice.

"The view of the IRS is it can unconstitutionally violate the Constitution by establishing religion, by treating one religion more favorably than other religions in terms of what is allowed as deductions, and there can never be any judicial review of that?" Judge Kim Wardlaw asked at the court session Monday in Pasadena, Calif.

"That is not at all what I said," a Justice Department lawyer representing the IRS, Ellen Delsole, said.

"That's the bottom line," Judge Wardlaw and a colleague on the panel, Harry Pregerson, both replied. "This does intrude into the Establishment Clause," Judge Wardlaw added.

An important disclaimer here: the case in question is being heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, famous for its judicial activism and for being the most-reversed court in the nation. But here's the point: is it fair to give a financial advantage to one religion while denying it to all others? I'm not sure there are a lot of people that would answer "yes" to that question.

Update: Some documentation of Scientology's tax-privileged status is not difficult to find. In short, the IRS's Revenue Ruling 93-73 makes obsolete the earlier Revenue Ruling 78-189, which makes a detailed case against payments for "auditing" sessions counting as charitable contributions.

Romney's End

2008-02-07T14:03:00.000-05:00

It's done. As of an hour or so ago, Willard "Mitt" Romney is out of the 2008 Presidential race.

I'll come out and say it: I've never liked Romney. Not in the same way I've never liked cabbage or Hillary Clinton, but there was a dislike there all the same. My first reaction at hearing that he was going to make a serious run for the White House was alarm. If there's a politician who's more ready to change his stance to suit his immediate needs, I haven't met him. Some amount of flip-flopping is to be expected in any candidate who's not a complete dogmatist; but in Romney's case, it all seemed so calculated.

That's the uncharitable welling up from inside me. But to give him some credit, I will say that I found his withdrawal comments to be heartfelt and gracious. Take for example:

“If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Sen. Clinton or Obama would win,” he said.

“And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”

Very true. It's good that the GOP has a candidate who can come to grips with his own political mortality. What the Democrats are only beginning to be concerned about is the fact that neither of their top two has any reason yet to back down. Clinton trails in fundraising and (for the moment) delegates, but she's got a fuller resume and a big, loyal following. If Obama withdraws at this point, I suspect it will be taken as a betrayal by the movement that's behind him, and it may end his Presidential chances permanently. There's a tragic aspect to all this: not long ago, it seemed that all the Dems needed to do was run a candidate, and the top office would be theirs. It may well still happen, but someone has to be knocked to the mat first.

The big question on the GOP side is whether this will quell some of the discontended rumblings coming from the far right of the party. Romney could, in theory, have still been their man. Will they acquiesce, or abstain?

Technorati Tags:
Romney, McCain, Clinton, Obama, President, Election, Democrat, Republican, GOP

It's not shady if we tell you we're going to do it.

2008-02-07T08:06:00.000-05:00

It seems that DNC chairman Howard Dean is waking up to the idea that a steel-cage death match between Obama and Hillary is not going to do their party much good. So what's his solution?

"The idea that we can afford to have a big fight at the convention and then win the race in the next eight weeks, I think, is not a good scenario," Dean said according to excerpts of an interview with NY1 television...

"I think we will have a nominee sometime in the middle of March or April. But if we don't, then we're going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement," said Dean, who failed in his bid for the party's nomination in 2004.

The AFP article then goes on to state, "A brokered convention has not been seen in decades, and harkens back to an era of shady political deal-making when powerbrokers and cash kings -- instead of regular voters -- chose one candidate over another at a raucous, smoke-filled convention hall."

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't Dean suggesting that they might have to engage in the same kind of backroom dealmaking the article clearly disdains? I guess as long as it doesn't happen at the convention, and as long as we tell you the decision will be made in a smoke-filled room, that makes it OK.

Technorati Tags:
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Howard Dean, DNC, convention

Delivering Connecticut for McCain

2008-02-06T10:57:00.000-05:00

So I have to take partial credit for McCain's strong win in yesterday's Connecticut primary. As you can see, my handshake with the Senator (at Sunday's rally at Sacred Heart University) was so firm that it counted as an endorsement. Moreover, Monday's front page of the Stamford Advocate shows me in a similar shot, discussing politics with Joe Lieberman (in the photo, I'm saying the word "out"), so Southwestern Connecticut clearly thought I was worth listening to.

Another Return

2008-02-06T10:55:00.000-05:00

Circumstances have caused me to reevaluate my relationship with this blog. More than ever, I feel that its purpose--to give me a place to hone my thinking on current events--is a meaningful one for me; but I think I've decided to be significantly more casual about it. After all, I can spend a lot of time writing big essays on things; but if I wait until I have the leisure to do that for every issue, nothing will be posted. So we'll go smaller. Let's give that a shot and see how it goes.

On the moral equivalency front, I found this blog post particularly interesting. So far, I've heard no condemnations of Hillary from the talking heads in the press. But perhaps its effect will not be felt until the general election, where Hillary's campaign will not be able to bludgeon McCain with the "bitch" episode.

It Keeps Rolling In...

2007-01-12T11:16:00.000-05:00

Nancy Pelosi has once again raised eyebrows with the Democrats' new minimum-wage legislation (H.R. 2), which will increase the federal wage floor from $5.15/hr to $7.25/hr over two years. In addition, the minimum wage will now--for the first time--be applied to all US territories.

All, that is, with the notable exception of American Samoa :

One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.

"There's something fishy going on here," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican.

During the House debate yesterday on stem-cell research, Mr. McHenry raised a parliamentary inquiry as to whether an amendment could be offered that would exempt American Samoa from stem-cell research, "just as it was for the minimum-wage bill."

A clearly perturbed Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was presiding, cut off Mr. McHenry and shouted, "No, it would not be."

"So, the chair is saying I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa?" Mr. McHenry pressed.

"The gentleman is making a speech and will sustain," Mr. Frank shouted as he slammed his large wooden gavel against the rostrum.

I hear a lot on Law & Order about avoiding "even the appearance of impropriety," but apparently the concept doesn't resonate with the new Congressional Majority.

Now to be fair, the issue is not really that simple, as this article demonstrates. Having been long exempted from minimum-wage requirements, territories such as American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) have seen an influx of employers looking to take advantage of the opportunity to lower costs. In the wake of the new legislation, American Samoa may continue to negotiate minimum levels with the federal government through a wage board, while the CNMI is left to swing in the wind. Not surprisingly, they are extremely anxious about what will happen under the Democrats' recently enacted plan:

The bill would increase the islands’ minimum wage to $7.25 over the next four years, compared to the two years and two months it gives other U.S. employers to phase in the increase...

“What business could handle the doubling of their minimum wage in just a few years’ time?” [CNMI spokesperson Melinda Matson] asked. ...

“We’re really concerned that we’re going to have businesses fail and the only safety net that we have is food stamps,” Matson said.

Excellent points, Ms. Matson. Too bad your islands don't have business interests headquartered in Nancy Pelosi's district.

Technorati Tags:
Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi, American Samoa, Samoa, Minimum Wage, CNMI, StarKist, DelMonte, Congress, Democrats, Reform

In the Democrats' World, 100 <> 100

2007-01-12T09:18:00.000-05:00

I've been following the start of the 110th Congress like a hawk and...OK, that's not remotely correct. I suppose (and so does the media) there are those out there--on both sides of the aisle--with stopwatches and checklists. I am not one of them, but this AP piece got at least a bit of my attention.

During the 2006 campaign, you may have heard the Democrats talking about all the good they were going to do in the first 100 hours of a Democratically controlled Congress. Indeed, the front page of Nancy Pelosi's site currently says:

In the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, we will pass the elements of our “Six for ‘06” agenda to meet the everyday needs of all Americans.

There is even a cute little javascript-type clock which ticks off the seconds labeled "Time elapsed in the first 100 legislative hours." Apparently, in the eyes of the Speaker, this is an important distinction--for while the House has been in session (at this point) for close to 50 hours, Pelosi's clock has only ticked off about 18 1/2 hours. The Democrats are keeping track of not what actually goes on in 100 hours' time, but of how long it takes to get their six pet bills passed.

Now, this sort of public-relations-by-careful-definition is nothing new to the political arena. But it's only been a couple of weeks, and the Democrats have already shown how hollow some of their principles and pronouncements are:

A super-ethical Congress? How about if we appoint John "Abscam" Murtha and convicted perjurer Alcee Hastings to positions of power?
Noses to the grindstone? Let's announce a five-day workweek, then postpone the start of the session so we can attend a college football game.
Undoing the "culture of corruption"? Let's campaign on earmark reform, but vote to block it in the event a robust reform plan emerges.

Pelosi calls this "A New Direction for America." Sounds like more of the same to me.

Technorati Tags:
Congress, 100 hours, Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi, Earmark, Murtha, Hastings, BCS, Corruption, 110th Congress, Democrats, Speaker of the House

"It's absurd," say some experts, except for the fact that it might be true.

2007-01-10T07:47:00.000-05:00

The Bush Administration has made the claim that, should we establish a "date certain" for withdrawing US troops from Iraq, the militias will simply move underground and wait until we're gone to reassert themselves. I've read essays, in more than a few places, saying what an absurd idea this is.

So imagine my surprise when I heard this story on NPR's All Things Considered yesterday afternoon. At about 3:35 into the piece, a resident of Sadr City, discussing the probable tactics of the Mahdi Army should the US launch a campaign against them, says this:

Yesterday, the Mahdi Army decided that, when the Americans enter, we will not shoot at them; because if we do, the Americans will shoot the houses and carry out raids. The Mahdi Army will hide its weapons until the Americans are gone. [emphasis and transcription are mine]

A very interesting feature of this story is that the speaker is identified more or less as a "man on the street"; this despite the fact that he appears to be speaking on the militia's behalf.

Technorati Tags:Muqtada al-Sadr, Sadr, Sadr City, Surge, Troop Surge, Baghdad, Iraq, Militia, Withdrawal

A Revaluation of All Values

2007-01-01T09:43:00.000-05:00

With the holidays behind us, it's time for some serious reflection. No, not upon the wonders or pains of last year, but on the things that annoyed us most and why we tolerate them.

Don't get me wrong: I had a terrific Christmas. But it's the season that brings certain well-entrenched social responsibilities, and these things always get me asking the question, "Why?"

Friedrich Nietzsche began his work Beyond Good and Evil with a question: "Suppose we want truth: why not rather untruth? and uncertainty? even ignorance?" The prejudice in favor of "truth" is so strong that we never even bother to ask why. And so, inspired by this and adopting a title reminiscent of Nietzsche's own all-questioning, I propose to undertake a reappraisal of all manners. This can hardly hope be exhaustive, or even terribly critical, but I feel that it must be done.

I shall endeavor, in this post and hopefully others, to describe some common features of polite society, undermine them, and reconstruct what I consider to be the correct behavior. Your comments, as always, are very welcome. Let's begin.

BEHAVIOR #1: SENDING CHRISTMAS CARDS
This is a time-honored and, let's face it, nice thing to do. It takes time, energy, and money to send out cards, and helps you stay in touch with friends and family. But if this is so, why do I receive so many effectively blank cards, the ones that only say something pre-printed like, "Merry Christmas! Love, The Smith Family"? These serve no function other than to say, "I am alive, and here is my current address." Even the ones with handwritten addresses and salutations are of little use--I appreciate the (modestly) personal touch, but how does this help me keep in contact with you? Better, and cheaper, to just send an email if all you want to do is say "Merry Christmas" and include no more information.

My family does send out cards with pre-printed labels. But we also enclose a current photo of the kids and a letter of how our year has gone. In this way we hope to add value to the communication. This, I feel, is a much better way to "keep in touch" with loved ones. Therefore,

Revised Behavior #1: When sending out Christmas/holiday cards, be sure to add value with a personal message, photo, or something similar. Otherwise, don't bother.

BEHAVIOR #2: DON'T START EATING UNTIL EVERYONE IS SERVED
This one has been bothering me for years. Clearly, you don't want to kill a pleasant conversation by being the only one to dive into your food, and you don't want to gloat about how you have food while others don't. Nevertheless, speaking as an entirely amateur cook, I think this one is misguided, for a couple of reasons:

If a cook wanted you to begin at the same time, he would serve you at the same time. Sometimes this is not logistically possible; but I have had situations where people have let their meat get cold and tough rather than eating when I give them the prefectly cooked food. It's an affront to your host.
Most importantly, it imposes an obligation on the foodless without their consent. It says, "Look at me, I'm sacrificing my food enjoyment so you won't feel bad." I don't know about you, but I don't want to incur debts this way, minor though they may be.

Revised Behavior #2: Use your judgment, but the default behavior should be "Eat when served." Consider suspending this guideline in locations where grace is said before eating.

BEHAVIOR #3: BRINGING FOOD OR WINE TO DINNERS OR PARTIES
This is widely regarded as the "Nice thing to do," since you're trying to relieve the stress of the host's duties. However, unless I'm throwing a potluck, I've planned what I want to serve and when I want to serve it. The insertion of foreign matter only complicates things. Not long ago we threw a hamburgers-and-hot-dogs barbecue to which one well-intentioned guest brought an entire chicken to roast. Even if it's just a matter of someone bringing over a plate of cookies, it's entirely possible that this will throw a carefully planned serving area out of whack.

Wine is the worst. I have some appreciation of wine; therefore, when I serve a meal I try to match the wine to the dish--almost as if it were its own course. So what should I do if, as a host, I'm serving a rib roast and someone brings a watery Sauvignon Blanc? The pressure to open and serve the proffered wine is strong.

Revised Behavior #3: Call your host well before the event and ASK if you can bring something. Do NOT bring food or beverage unless you are asked. If you absolutely must bring wine, be prepared for your host to consider it a present to be consumed at another time.

Many, many more such examples are possible...one day, we will be able to cast off the chains that have bound us and live again as free men and women in a society that will be thoughtfully polite.

Technorati Tags:
Politeness, Manners, Rude, Behavior, Entertaining, Nietzsche, Values

2006 Election Wrapup

2006-11-10T09:18:00.000-05:00

It's the Friday after Election Day 2006; and since I've finally caught up on my sleep, it seemed the right time to bid adieu to one of the more contentious campaign seasons in recent memory.

As the most casual reader of these pages will quickly discover, I'm a committed Republican, and therefore I've been fielding many questions from family and friends in the past couple of days, queries which more or less can be lumped together as "So, how are you holding up?" My answer, my honest answer, is "fine." It's not like the results were a shock (though you always seem to see some weeping old matron at one of those televised concession-speech parties who just can't believe everyone failed to change their minds at the last minute), and it's not like the current Congress ranks up there in my all-time favorites.

Anyway, a few thoughts before I go completely off-track:

Ned Lamont I had a bit of respect for the guy insofar as I deeply understand the appeal of stirring things up, of being the hornet's nest that scares off the guy with the stick. But at the end of the day, he simply had nothing to offer the people of Connecticut save platitudes. And those of you outside the Nutmeg State, take note of this point: perhaps you were really, really rooting for him, but you probably don't know a damn thing about our state and what it needs. The abandoned GOP candidate in this race, Alan Schlesinger, scored some points (too few!) with the electorate by noting that Lamont was courting the approval of a lot of out-of-staters (Al Sharpton, to name just one) instead of focusing on the people here in CT.

I pity Lamont. He tried to tap into a political current that appeared frothing on the surface, but which simply failed to propel his ship once he sunk his keel into it. There are some interesting statistics at OpenSecrets.com: Lieberman got 86% of his contributions from individuals, while Lamont only managed to get 22% of his funding from the rank-and-file. Instead, he spent $10 million of his own money in a race that was lost to him three months ago. Apparently it's not enough to be angry and rich, and there's something comforting about that.

I saw you in an early-morning interview with local TV--you were tired, but more than that you were broken. I think your pain will diminish if you spend some time considering why you lost.

Alan Schlesinger Man, clean out the skeletons in your closet and stay on the straight and narrow. You impressed me in the debates, especially with the conviction that came from your caution-to-the-wind approach. I hope we'll see you again, but stay out of the casinos, OK?

Joe Lieberman In the waning days of the campaign, I yelled at one of your telephone pollsters who told me she was "impartial." Lots of those in the GOP voted for you, and I hope to God you don't let us down now that the Democrats are set to Murthify Iraq.

Chris Shays You're not inspiring, but you've proven yourself to be the kind of Republican people from both parties can get behind. Your district was described in the national media as a "Republican stronghold" (probably largely because of your continued presence in office), but let's remember that this is an area that went heavily for Kerry in 2004. A neighbor of mine, a lifelong Democrat, put it best when he said (and I paraphrase, just a bit) "I like Diane Farrell a lot, but her problem is that Chris Shays isn't a dick."

Diane Farrell You share a name with my aunt, but this is not enough to hold my attention any longer. You're now a two-time loser, and do you think that you're going to get a better shot than you had in '06? I mean, massive national backlash against the GOP (and especially against those, such as Shays, who are chummy with Bush), a negative ad campaign financed by your own campaign as nasty as anything I've seen, and...you score with only 48% of the voters--the same percentage you polled in your 2004 run. It's time for you to fade away.

It's clearly too early to tell where the policies of the federal government may be headed, but I'm not entirely pessimistic. The Democrats have a lot to shoulder--having been returned to power, a lot of their base will demand a quick end to the war, higher taxes on the rich, the abolition of No Child Left Behind, etc. They will clearly not be able to achieve these goals in any kind of speedy or complete way, but they'll have to convince the public they're trying. It's a tough row to hoe, given that the Dem's victories are not on the scale of the "Contract With America" class's historic 1994 romp. But it should make for interesting politics.

Technorati Tags:2006 election, election, Connecticut, Chris Shays, Diane Farrell, Ned Lamont, Joe Lieberman, Alan Schlesinger, Nutmeg, Democrat, Republican, GOP, Bush, Negative Campaign

Carl Levin says, "Summer is for holding"

2006-09-11T16:44:00.000-04:00

About a year ago, I noted that Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) had placed a "hold" on the nomination of Peter Flory to a position in the Defense Department. For those of you unfamiliar with the term (or too lazy to click the link), a hold is an informal power of Senators to delay indefinitely a vote on, well, pretty much any subject. It also, when it's used to derail confirmation procedures, leaves key positions unfilled and people's careers in limbo.

Levin had no bone to pick with Flory--instead, he used the hold as leverage against Flory's then-boss in an attempt to get some documents. President Bush ultimately gave Flory a recess appointment, but it seems that Levin has developed a taste for these underhanded holds.

The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reports that Levin has holds out on two more security-related appointments, those of Ken Wainstein (for the position of Assistant Attorney General for National Security) and Alice Fisher (Fisher whose recess appointment as Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division has run its course). Levin has nothing personal against these two appointees, but it seems that both of their names have been mentioned in connection with the Pentagon's Guantanamo policies, and Levin knows an opportunity when he sees it.

Of course, neither Wainstein nor Fisher is accused of supporting the interrogation tactics which so concern Sen. Levin. The problems are 1) that Wainstein's name appears in some emails which show that the FBI disapproved of the Pentagon's approach at Gitmo, and 2) that Fisher may have been at a meeting where the situation at Gitmo was discussed. So how much sense does it make for Levin to skewer the appointments of two people who, the information seems to suggest, agree with his position? Plenty, once you realize that he's only using them as pawns to get after more information--though the information he's already been given as a prize for his actions has failed to satisfy him.

And two key national security positions sit vacant.

Technorati Tags:
Carl Levin, Senate, Hold, Flory, Wainstein, Fisher, FBI, Guantanamo, Gitmo, National Security

Political Polls: A Cautionary Tale

2006-09-07T09:47:00.000-04:00

The next time you hear a reporter ask an elected official about some poll showing "the mood of the nation," or the next time you think that an election result might be fraudulent because it's contrary to an exit poll (which, we're repeatedly told, are hyper-accurate), consider this story:

The owner of DataUSA Inc., a company that conducted political polls for the campaigns of President Bush, Sen. Joe Lieberman and other candidates, pleaded guilty to fraud for making up survey and poll results...

According to a federal indictment, Costin told employees to alter poll data, and managers at the company told employees to "talk to cats and dogs" when instructing them to fabricate the surveys...

Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward Chang said on several occasions when the company was running up against a deadline to complete a job, results were falsified. Sometimes, the respondent's gender or political affiliation were changed to meet a quota, other times all survey answers were fabricated.

A note here, to forestall some potentially frothing comments: I'm not going to say that 95% of the country loves George Bush or that most Americans think the Iraq war is going swimmingly. But I'm one of those that has learned to take whatever the press tells me with a grain of salt, especially if it's presented to me in easy-to-digest numerical form.

Technorati Tags:
Polling, Polls, Pollsters, Politics, Fraud, Salt

Movie Review: A Perfect Fit

2006-09-05T09:28:00.000-04:00

[Trying to return to blogging after a significant layoff. I've discovered, though, that such a goal requires a serious effort to overcome the inertia that builds up. So I'm going to begin with something light.]

My sister-in-law rented two movies last night; and based on a coin flip, we watched A Perfect Fit, a self-described psychological drama which (it was represented to me) garnered some critical acclaim in the independent-film world. I had never heard of the film, nor was I a devotee of the lead actor (a guy by the name of Adrian Grenier who apparently has his own HBO series), but I'll watch anything once.

Let me be extremely clear on this point: this is a terrible film.

The story concerns a shy guy who's having difficulty overcoming the trauma of his childhood. He wants a nice, happy relationship, but just doesn't have the guts to go out and pursue one. He's also, we're told right at the beginning, seriously unstable--prone to convincing visions of betrayal and murder, for example. So when he does finally hook up with the girl of his dreams (after having cyber-stalked her), we know this is going nowhere but bad.

OK, first off, raise your hand if this plot sounds familiar. Everyone got their hands up? Good. Now, I'm not saying every plot has to be unique, but some variety in the theme would be nice. But while the plot is hackneyed and full of holes, this is not where the film falls down. Its shortcomings are instead focused in the areas of writing, directing, acting, and cinematography.

I would have shut this movie off after about 20 minutes were it not for two things. First, there were some strange plot/visual elements that I wanted to see tied together (they were not). Second, the girl-of-dreams was played (not entirely unconvincingly) by Leila Arcieri, who is extremely hot. But in the end, I didn't buy the plot, I never started caring about the characters--not even a little--and the writing displayed high-school level sophistication.

But don't take my word for it! If you've heard good things about this film and want to rent it, here's my advice: watch the "Behind the Scenes" material first. It will give away plot elements, though nothing that isn't immediately obvious. The reason I suggest this course is that Ron Brown, the writer/director, has difficulty describing what his own movie is about. Ditto Grenier and Arcieri. As my wife aptly noted, they sound as though they're giving a sixth-grade book report. "The movie is about relationships. The main characters are..." and so forth.

Now you may ask why I even bothered to watch the DVD extras after such a disappointing film (I even watched the "NOW AVILABLE" [sic] bit from the production company). The answer is that I wondered whether I'd missed something. It doesn't generally happen, but I thought maybe, just maybe, there was some large theme I'd ignored. Nope--I got it all on the first pass.

There was one thing that got me thinking about the film: Arcieri says, very offhandedly, that Brown had been working on the project for a long time. This made me think back to a signal experience I had about six years ago.

I'd been working, tinkering really, with a novel for about two years at that point. I knew what I wanted it to be, I knew where I wanted it to go, and I was (slowly) getting it there. It had, however, become something of an effort to sit and work on it. But it had become massive enough that to simply cast it aside felt like failure. So I persevered.

Then one day I saw The Tao of Steve starring Donal Logue. It was enjoyable, it had its moments...but it was, in the end, thoroughly mediocre. While I was sitting in the theater, I had the clearest sense that someone had been working on that project, pushing it ever forward, for quite some time. And then I knew, I knew deeply, that some projects that are (to borrow a financial term) too big to fail would really be better off if they never saw the light of day.

A Perfect Fit isn't nearly as good as The Tao of Steve. It's almost as if Ron Brown bet someone $50 that he could get a movie made, and he was really eager to collect. This is a stinker to skip at all costs.

Technorati Tags:
A Perfect Fit, Leila Arcieri, Movie Reviews

Stay awake!

2006-07-07T10:01:00.000-04:00

What? A great man? I always see only the actor of his own ideal.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil 97

The Gospel of Judas. Here we go again.

2006-04-07T06:16:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, the National Geographic Society released a completed translation of a document called the "Gospel of Judas." In this work, Jesus tells Judas that, through giving up his master to the authorities, he will "exceed" the other apostles.

Dear God, here it comes.

Right on cue, the story was all over the news last night, packaged in a "A New Look at Judas" format. Suddenly we have ABC's Primetime (among many others) telling us that maybe Judas wasn't so bad after all. Well, if a major American network thinks so, it must be true.

The problem is that only the discovery of the Codex Tchacos, as the original manuscript is called, is news. We've known about the existence of the Gospel of Judas for 1,800 years, and even had a fair idea about what it contained. A "Gospel of Judas" was mentioned by Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202 AD) in his famous work Adversus Haereses (i,31,1):

Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.

Of course, it's always nice to have an original document rather than simply a reference to one, but let's not assume that the Gnostic worldview represented in this new translation comes as a surprise.

The media are always remarkably eager to jump on any story that tends to break down the canonical picture of Jesus, but it would be nice if they didn't claim that such discoveries must change history. We're talking here about a document that was composed--at a minimum--about 150 years after Jesus's death; and indeed, this copy of the Gospel of Judas was probably committed to papyrus 200 years after that. The provenance of the canonical gospels is considerably better.

Let me put this in context. In 1945, a massive cache of Gnostic documents was discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt. Codex VI of this contains an excerpt from Plato's Republic (588a-589b) which differs significantly from what we consider the "correct" text. Indeed, the Coptic version from Nag Hammadi is so different that it was not even recognized as forming part of the Republic until decades after its discovery. This raises the possibility that our text is wrong, but it is far more likely that the Coptic scribe altered the text to suit his own needs, or was working from a faulty copy himself. It is NOT, in any way, an argument for chucking the text we have in the garbage.

Let me say right here that I'm not unsympathetic to the Gnostic interpretation of Jesus. I also believe that the Gnostic scriptures--considered critically--can offer us tremendous insights into ancient Christianity. But you can't simply select a shocking selection and present it as historical fact merely because it exists in an ancient document. You know, the Gnostic scriptures also tell us really useful stuff, such as that the mother of demons possesses the interesting name of Aesthesis-Ouch-Epi-Ptoe (really), but you don't see this getting any press coverage. Yet this "fact" has the same claim to truth as the reinterpretation of Judas.

Go on out, read up on the Gnostics and their works, go back and compare them to the traditions of mainstream Christianity, and draw your own conclusions. Just please take a critical approach. I know that's too much to ask of the mainstream media...

Technorati Tags:
Gospel of Judas, Gnostic, Gnosticism, Gnostic Gospels, Nag Hammadi, Judas, Jesus, Christianity, Mainstream Media, Credulous, Really really credulous

A year. Yay for me.

2006-04-01T11:18:00.000-05:00

Didn't think I should let the first anniversary of this blog pass entirely uncelebrated. Oh sure, nobody reads it, and my posting rate (perhaps an average of two per week, of varying quality) is best described as "plodding," but the ol' Log and Line has been there whenever I need to complain about something, and there's value in that.

I'm not going to break any blogging records (especially not since my free time is down to nearly zero, thanks to the growing cuddliness of our third child, Nicholas), but I figure if I can keep the thing sauntering along for another year, I'll be happy.

IEDs and Crazy Cats: The Connection

2006-03-31T11:14:00.000-05:00

The other day I discovered, to my amazement, that my hometown of Fairfield, Connecticut was (albeit briefly) at the very center of the Biggest News Story Ever. The story in question (in its AP incarnation) is entitled "Crazy Cat Terrorizes Connecticut Town." They get bonus points for consonance over at the AP. The essence of the story is that one neighborhood has a very vicious cat in residence, and the town's Animal Control officers have ordered its owner to keep it indoors.

Within 24 hours of its release, the story was everywhere. I saw a segment about it not only on all the local news broadcasts, but every prime-time cable news show as well. And I've recently noticed it popping up internationally, for God's sake, in such bastions of journalistic excellence as The Guardian.

You may stop and say, "Hey, this is standard stuff. Every news show needs its fluff, and people like stories about crazy cats just as much as the regularly scheduled Who Was Jesus? and College Students Drinking More stories." Perhaps. You may also remind me that I promised a connection with IEDs, and here it is.

There's been an ongoing debate about whether the mainstream media is skewing the news from Iraq in a negative direction--why is there coverage of IEDs and not hospital or school openings. I'm going to skirt this debate for the moment, except to say that I hear more about the hospitals and schools Hamas operates than the ones the U.S. is helping with in Iraq.

I recently came across this interesting exchange between CNN's Howard Kurtz and Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe:

In the next segment, [Howard] Kurtz brought aboard Pam Hess of UPI and Richard Wolffe of Newsweek. Kurtz inquired: "Richard Wolffe, the people who complain that the coverage of Iraq is bias -- and there are a lot of them out there, do they want objective reporting?"

Wolffe maintained: "No, they don't. They want to replace one piece of bias with another. And that's what we should know about the sort of bias witch hunt that has been going on, not just about Iraq, but about politics and political reporting in general over the last 18 months or so. If they were defending objective reporting, they would say, let's uphold journalistic standards that many journalists, by and large, want to support and perform and execute every day. In fact, what they're saying is, no, set aside the violence and just deal with the positive things. It's not a reporter's job-"

Kurtz: "I don't think they're saying just deal with the positive aspects."

Wolffe: "They are saying that the balance is wrong and they want to see us doing things that advance a cause. Our job is not to advance a cause. Our job is to report on what's newsworthy. Why do cable shows talk about the murder of pretty young women and not about positive things in life like childbirth or cooking? Why? Because what grabs people's attention is violence and murder. It's a fact of life."

OK, so here's the thesis: journalists should report on what's newsworthy...wait! no! Journalists must report on what grabs people's attention. To not report on the "grippy" stories would be to give in to those who "advance a cause."

So here, it seems, lies the answer: there is room, and room aplenty, for stories of crazed, six-toed cats and their impact on suburbia; but to even acknowledge that there may be some positive side of the Iraq war is entirely out of the question.

Wacky cats.

Technorati Tags:
Mainstream Media, Media Bias, Iraq, Cat, Connecticut

Olympic Memories

2006-02-23T09:17:00.000-05:00

OK, I know that the Torino games are not yet over, but I'm in a stage of life where I must post when I have the time.

I am something of an Olympics junkie, which is unfortunate because 1) US televised coverage of them is terrible, focusing almost entirely on the fluffy "backstory", and 2) because I like the events that they broadcast at 6 am, if at all. The biathlon comes to mind. So for the sake of posterity, I commit some impressions of the current games to the record.

The fact that the men's ice hockey team contained three players with Boston University on their resumes was a certain sign they were going to suck--and I say this as a proud (from a hockey standpoint) BU alumnus. I place most of the blame on Keith Tkachuk. I have a warm place in my heart for this big man thanks to the goal he scored in the waning seconds of the 1991 collegiate national championships that sent BU and UNM into (eventually) triple overtime (BU lost, but...). But as time passes, this glow is beginning to fade.
Lindsey Jacobellis: OK, I can get over the strange name, and the "snowcross" event is certainly worth watching. But blowing the sure gold medal so you can gloat before you finish...then trying to gloss it over in the media!
Bode Miller: What is there to say about this freak? I bet the executive over at Nike who authorized the multimillion-dollar endorsement deal is committing ritual suicide by now. OK, Bode, sure you want to go your own way. Fine. Keep to yourself. Just remember that America likes a nonconformist as long as he is a winner.
Chad Hedrick and Shani Davis: I love speed skating, but could not care less about the "rivalry" the media has concocted. Davis wants to do his own thing. Let him. I did find it a piece of poetic justice that they both lost (to an Italian!) in the 1500m event the media made out to be the heavyweight bout between Davis and Hedrick.
Ice Dancing: Everybody fell, and I missed it. Wasn't watching.
Cassie Johnson: The "skip" of the US women's curling team couldn't engineer many wins for the squad, but I'll remember her for the day an NBC commentator presented her with a loaf of bread supposedly in the shape of a curling stone, but on which the "handle" was very clearly shaped like a penis.

The First Amendment doesn't cover that. Idiot.

2006-02-01T14:46:00.000-05:00

OK, so I haven't posted very much in the past couple of months. I have excellent excuses, including the fact that my wife and I are getting ready for our third baby. In fact, I didn't think I'd be posting again quite so soon. But then Cindy Sheehan comes along, and I can't keep my mouth shut.

I was interested to hear that "peace activist" (as she is always identified by the media) Cindy Sheehan had managed to get a ticket to Bush's State of the Union address last night. She pledged to be respectful, but I had my doubts.

It turns out that Sheehan was removed and arrested for wearing a T-shirt that said "2,245 dead." Incidentally, the wife of a US representative was ejected for wearing a "Support the Troops" T-shirt.

Sheehan, of course, sees this as just another example of the lengths to which Bush will go to further his fascist aims and strip Americans of their liberties. In a blog entry about the incident, she says

I am speechless with fury at what happened and with grief over what we have lost in our country...I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. [ed. note: Sure. Uh huh.] ...

After I had my personal items inventoried and my fingers printed, a nice Sgt. came in and looked at my shirt and said, "2,245, huh? I just got back from there."

I told him that my son died there. That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? I started crying in pain.

It doesn't occur to her, of course, that she IS saying whatever she wants and is NOT being censored in any way on this blog. For, as we all know, you can say whatever you want...just not wherever you feel like it. By this yardstick, we started to lose our liberties a long time ago, when certain "elitist" restaurants started being exclusionary and requiring jacket and tie. What about freedom of expression? Why shouldn't I be allowed to wear nothing but my smelly underwear in a snooty French bistro? I'm just expressing myself!

OK, you may retort, it's not the same. The restaurant is a private establishment and can set its own standards. Fine, I say: do you think a woman should be allowed to go to, say, an elementary school classroom (public property!!) and perform a striptease? Freedom of expression! Why not sit down and eat carrots in the middle of a superhighway? Freedom of expression!

The answer is, of course, that even in public places, the public has a right to set standards, to make it so that the actions of a few do not deny the rest the free and appropriate use of the property in question. If the Capitol has a ban on signs within its walls, that seems reasonable. How is a shirt with a big slogan different than a sign? I personally thought they should have ejected the representative in the fuschia dress, but I let that slide.

I know the woman lost a son. That doesn't mean she's not a lunatic and an idiot. I have no respect for her--I'll save it for the memory of her son.

State of the Union Cindy Sheehan Protest Bush Capitol First Amendment

Death at Sago

2006-01-04T07:47:00.000-05:00

[Returning after a long layoff for the holidays--and starting slow, as usual.]

As I went to bed last night, there was still no word on the fate of 12 coal miners trapped in the Sago mine in West Virginia. So when I turned on the television this morning, I was stunned to see that not only were the miners dead, as many had feared, but that the media was in a frenzy about how the news was broken.

It appears that there was a "miscommunication" which resulted in family being informed that 12 miners were alive, after which there was very understandable rejoicing. When it became clear, three hours later, that the miners were dead after all, the families found their sorrow tainted, very understandably, with anger. I do not envy them this.

But, and I think this should be said, the real tragedy is not the "miscommunication," but the actual deaths of the miners. And yet none of the cable news outlets seemed to grasp this, rolling (over and over) video of the families' premature rejoicing. It took me several minutes to figure out what exactly had happened. This just seems wrong to me--that several tragic deaths and a valiant if futile rescue attempt should be overshadowed by what was very likely one slip of a tongue.

Tags: Sago Coal Miners Trapped Rescue

We're unbiased. Really.

2005-12-21T07:58:00.000-05:00

I know it's a topic I hit over and over again, but it's always nice when you find out professional researchers agree with you.

Yet another study has concluded that America's major media outlets tend to exhibit a political lean to the left. And this is not some tiny survey run by a right-wing website, but instead a major study led by UCLA professors.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

I'm interested to read the full study, since I find this second statement to be very compelling: we constantly hear left-wing politicians tell us that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Samuel Alito, etc., are "out of the mainstream"; and if the media inform their view of what constitutes mainstream values, I can see where they might be lost.

Another bias report was released from a far less scrupulous source, Brent Bozell's Media Research Center. This is his annual
Notables and Quoteables project, in which the most egregious and ridiculous examples of bias are recognized. It makes good reading, especially since this year's installment has copious links to actual video clips. It's good to have Mary Mapes' absurd "It's not my job to authenticate sources" comment about Rathergate on the record:

Mapes: "I’m perfectly willing to believe those documents are forgeries if there’s proof that I haven’t seen."
Ross: "But isn’t it the other way around? Don’t you have to prove they’re authentic?"
Mapes: "Well, I think that’s what critics of the story would say. I know more now than I did then and I think, I think they have not been proved to be false, yet."
Ross: "Have they proved to be authentic though? Isn’t that really what journalists do?"
Mapes: "No, I don’t think that’s the standard."

My personal favorite comes from Today Show host Matt Lauer (partial .wmv clip here) who comes this close to telling US soldiers on the ground that they're lying about Iraq (emphasis mine):

Matt Lauer in Baghdad: "Talk to me...about morale here. We’ve heard so much about the insurgent attacks, so much about the uncertainty as to when you folks are going to get to go home. How would you describe morale?"
Chief Warrant Officer Randy Kirgiss: "In my unit morale is pretty good. Every day we go out and do our missions and people are ready to execute their missions. They’re excited to be here."
Lauer: "How much does that uncertainty of [not] knowing how long you’re going to be here impact morale?"
Specialist Steven Chitterer: "Morale is always high. Soldiers know they have a mission. They like taking on new objectives and taking on the new challenges...."
Lauer: "Don’t get me wrong here, I think you are probably telling me the truth, but a lot of people at home are wondering how that could be possible with the conditions you’re facing and with the attacks you’re facing. What would you say to those people who are doubtful that morale can be that high?"
Captain Sherman Powell: "Sir, if I got my news from the newspapers also, I’d be pretty depressed as well."

I think that Capt. Powell deserves some kind of reward for that comment.

Tags: Mainstream Media, Media Bias, Media, Bias, Video,

It's civil war! Head for the hills!

2005-12-16T11:03:00.000-05:00

I’ve found the coverage of the recent Iraqi national election somewhat lacking here in the US, but there was one theme I found prominently displayed in almost all reports: the idea that, should this election “fail,” Iraq would certainly descend into civil war.

This statement is ridiculous on its face, of course, since the vast, vast majority of Iraqis have clearly NOT taken up arms, but have chosen instead to participate in the political process. But a recent BBC survey also belies this “civil war” theory, and belies it in a big way.

Fully 88% of Iraqis surveyed stated a preference either for “One unified Iraq with central government in Baghdad” or “A group of regional states with their own regional governments and a federal government in Baghdad.” Only 9% favored separate states for the country’s regions.

And while there is some will for a single, strong leader (or group of leaders) to step up to the plate, there is an even stronger will for “An Iraqi democracy” (Q20). More than 57% of Iraqis think democracy is what the country needs now, and even more feel that it’s what Iraq will need in five years’ time (Q21). More than 76% expect the December 2005 elections to produce a government in which they’ll have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence (Q22).

What about the idea that the continued presence of US forces is an “irritant”? Question 35 asks about “which…things make you insecure.” Terrorism leads by a wide margin, being mentioned by almost 54% of respondents. “US/Coalition presence” was mentioned by only about 10% of people. There is no love lost for Coalition forces, of course; but it seems that the man on the street has no trouble identifying the real enemy.

The section of the survey dealing with local conditions is also telling. Interestingly, “The Security Situation” is not viewed as darkly by ordinary Iraqis as it seems to be by the US mainstream media. Indeed, 61% rate it “very good” or “quite good.” Approximately 21% rate it “very bad.” The local issues Iraqis seem most concerned about are the availability of jobs and electricity—both are rated marginally into the “bad” (Q13).

But here’s the thing: the poll suggests that most Iraqis feel that these things have either improved or stayed the same since the US invasion in March 2003. More than 60% of Iraqis consider the security situation the same or better than during the Saddam years, 56% say the jobs situation is the same or better, and nearly 62% feel the electricity situation is the same or better.

In other “same or better” categories we have:

Availability of clean water: 72%
Availability of medical care: 76%
Local schools: 84%
Local government: 67%
Availability of basic household needs: 72%
Your family’s protection from crime: 69%
Your family’s economic situation: 75%
Your freedom of speech: 72%

And lest anyone accuse me of cherrypicking, these eight (plus security, electricity, and jobs) represent every category surveyed by the BBC.

The Iraqis are never going to be the kind of cheerleaders we’d hoped, and that’s fine. I can’t imagine any situation where I’d be pleased to have the US occupied on an open-ended basis by foreign troops. But the average Iraqi seems to think his life is better now, or at least no worse, than before we arrived. They are beginning to show confidence in their civic institutions and displaying a healthy enthusiasm for democracy. Most importantly, they seem to believe that the insurgents are the real enemy.

Is this a country teetering on the brink of civil war? Perhaps; but I tend to think it’s a state resolutely weathering the pangs of its rebirth.

Tags: Iraq, Election, Democracy, BBC, Survey, Insurgency, Terrorist, Murtha

Stanley Williams meets lex talionis

2005-12-13T10:27:00.000-05:00

Early this morning, somewhat after midnight Pacific time, the state of California executed Stanley "Tookie" Williams, the founder of the "Crips" street gang. He was convicted in 1981 of four brutal murders, and failed to receive the last-minute pardon his partisans had lobbied for.

Williams was condemned in 1981 for gunning down convenience store clerk Albert Owens, 26, at a 7-Eleven in Whittier and killing Yen-I Yang, 76, Tsai-Shai Chen Yang, 63, and the couple's daughter Yu-Chin Yang Lin, 43, at the Los Angeles motel they owned. Williams claimed he was innocent.

Witnesses at the trial said he boasted about the killings, stating "You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him." Williams then made a growling noise and laughed for five to six minutes, according to the transcript that the governor referenced in his denial of clemency.

Much has been made of Williams' life in prison, about his "change" and public renunciation of the violent gang lifestyle. He was even nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Therefore, say his partisans, he should have been spared.

But despite what the media may say, these events do not make us reflect upon the death penalty; instead, what we should be discussing is whether our legal system retains any shred of retributive justice.

The theory of lex talionis, "law as retaliation," holds that for every crime, there should be a punishment--the state should exact retribution on behalf of the wronged. In our society, however, there is a growing emphasis on the rehabilitation of the criminal. We put him away so that he cannot harm society; but as he is likely to be released one day, it is important to turn him away from crime. This is laudable. But what about a criminal who is entirely sorry the moment after he's committed a crime? If a man makes a sincere turnaround, let's say, one that everyone believes, should we let him out right away?

I think most people would answer "no," that such a person must still pay for his crimes. Why then should we reduce Williams' punishment in any way? If his death sentence was commuted to life in prison, why stop there? Should we have released the man? Some say yes. But I have to wonder where we stand as a society if this is true--aren't there some crimes for which no punishment is sufficient? And if there are, how come four cold, brutal murders don't count?

Tags: Stanley Williams, Tookie, Crips, California Death Penalty, Execution, Murder, Retribution

Democrats Attack Free Speech

2005-12-08T11:08:00.000-05:00

As I noted previously, the Democratic National Committee is on the warpath against US Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) for her recent statement implying that the really-in-the-news Rep. John Murtha is a coward. For a couple of weeks now, they've been collecting donations and making plans to post a couple of billboards (design pictured at right) near Schmidt's office. Their idea, as a recent email from democrats.org states, is that this will show "Republican leaders [that they] need to learn they cannot get away with dishonoring the service of veterans to score political points."

OK, fine. But today's email was way over the top. It turns out that the Lamar corporation, the owner of the billboards the DNC wants, has decided against accepting the contract. The DNC's page on the matter has the details and says

By rejecting these billboards, Lamar has limited your right to be heard. They've stood up to silence millions of Democrats who believe that attacking veterans for political gain is disgusting, and they think they can get away with it because they own nearly every billboard in the district.

Tell Lamar to let us know immediately whether they intend to honor its contract -- and if not, why. Fairness and the public interest demand no less.

So reading this you'd think that Lamar is in breach of contract. Not so, says the letter the DNC wrote to Lamar, but which you have to click a link from the main page to read [emphasis mine]:

The DNC was told by your Huntington regional manager that Lamar is refusing to honor the contract because the advertisements are "too negative." In addition to refusing to honor the contract for the Portsmouth billboards, Lamar, through its Cincinnati office, refused to accept the same advertisement for placement on billboards in Cincinnati.

While Lamar's form contract reserves to the company the right to refuse to run a billboard advertisement, Lamar's conduct in this instance raises serious questions about whether the company is unlawfully or improperly using corporate resources to favor or benefit the Republican Party or Rep. Schmidt.

So here's the heart of the matter: Lamar, the legal owner of the billboards, exercised its legal and contractual right to deny the DNC's business. In return, not only are they being yelled at about censorship, but the DNC seems to be accusing them of a crime (i.e., making an illegal in-kind corporate contribution to a political candidate).

This is NOT censorship. Lamar owns the property the DNC wants to rent and has final say over what goes there. The DNC could make big banners and organize a parade or demonstration outside of Schmidt's office, hire a plane to fly such a banner all over Ohio, etc. These would all be permissible types of speech. But taking away Lamar's right to choose what goes on its property is repulsive.

Let's say I have a "Republicans Are Cool" sign on my lawn. One day, a DNC van rolls up and demands I put up a sign that says,"Shame on Rep. Christopher Shays." I should have the right to say no and not be accused of censorship for doing so. The DNC apparently believes that Lamar is not to be afforded this basic right.

Shame on them.

Tags: Democrats, Schmidt, DNC, Democratic National Committee, Murtha, Campaign Finance, Howard Dean, First Amendment, Censorship

Sony BMG, Music CDs, and Keeping Your Computer Clean

2005-12-06T08:51:00.000-05:00

I've been following this story and collecting links for a couple of months now; and today, when I don't otherwise feel like blogging, seems like a good time to spew them out in some sort of coherent form.

The story in brief: It seems that Sony BMG, in an attempt to develop an innovative way to copy-protect music CDs, has stumbled on a way to 1) infect your computer with questionable software which is almost impossible to uninstall, and 2) destroy its public image in the process.

What's all the fuss about? Sony BMG loaded the so-called XCP rootkit onto 52 album titles, or more than 2.1 million CDs sold in the U.S. The program self-installs onto a PC playing the CDs and makes it susceptible to viruses. By now, the rootkit has likely already made its way into "hundreds of thousands, to millions" of computers, figures Dan Kaminsky, a security consultant. "This is a worm-scale infection."

A patch issued by Sony BMG to rectify the problem only made it worse. And some computer security experts say the company was slow to respond to early warnings.

Sony BMG maintains that XCP and its other copyright protection software "is not intended to cause any harm to your computer and is not a monitoring technology," according to its Web site. It has suspended its use of XCP and has asked retailers to pull the affected CDs off shelves. On Nov. 15, the outfit announced an exchange program for the affected CDs. "The company shares concerns of consumers and is committed to making things right," a Sony BMG spokesperson says.

What Sony doesn't mention is that they're also being sued by the state of Texas over the whole fiasco.

The "uninstaller" Sony released has, as the article says, come in for criticism of its own. This site has a technical description of the problem, but by way of summary it says

The uninstaller requires you to install an ActiveX control to your system before you can even request for an uninstall url. Turns out, the uninstaller activex marks itself safe for scripting, and has plenty of interesting methods available for everyone to use. Although I have not analyzed them in depth, I have tested one of them to confirm it really does what I think it does. It's called "RebootMachine". If you have installed Sony's ActiveX control, follow the link to invoke the RebootMachine method. I don't even want to know what the ExecuteCode method does...

In short, it requires to you install more code on your machine, which it then leaves behind, in order to uninstall the thing you regret installing in the first place.

I first encountered the problem via a post on the always-interesting Madville.com, which tends to have the best of the weird and interesting. The post in question is from a site called Mark's Sysinternals Blog and is generally above my ability to understand, but it scared the bejezus out of me and I immediately bookmarked the site in a folder called "Scary Computer Stuff." He summarizes his experience by saying

The entire experience was frustrating and irritating. Not only had Sony put software on my system that uses techniques commonly used by malware to mask its presence, the software is poorly written and provides no means for uninstall. Worse, most users that stumble across the cloaked files with a RKR scan will cripple their computer if they attempt the obvious step of deleting the cloaked files.

If you're concerned you may have one of the destructive "rootkits" on your system, check out this list of Sony CDs with the alleged "protection."If you've bought one and run it on your computer, chances are you're infected...and you would never know it.

Time was that the biggest problem you had running your computer was that your TRS-80's cassette drive would chew up the tape with the program you just spent 30 minutes loading. I've never been paranoid of spyware, though I do routine searches on a regular basis, but this is beginning to turn me into a conspiracy theorist.

Tags: Sony BMG, Sony, Rootkit, Copy Protection, Computers and Internet, Spyware, CD, Virus, Madville, Malware

I hate to say it, but Ann Coulter is on to something.

2005-12-02T16:19:00.000-05:00

Let me just say right up front that I think the American political right needs far fewer Ann Coulters and more people of a diplomatic bent. But in a world where the mainstream media "covers" a topic by having Al Franken argue with Jesse Helms, perhaps we should look for the best in what we have.

Coulter's 1 December 2005 column caught my eye yesterday, and not because of her use of "encomium," one of my favorite words. She rips into the practice, undertaken these days largely by members of the right, of praising one's opponent while disagreeing with him/her.

During the House debate on Murtha's insane proposal to withdraw troops in the middle of the war, Rep. Henry Hyde, R-IL, said Murtha deserved an "A-plus as a truly great American," and Rep. Curt Weldon, R-PA, said "none of us should think of questioning his motives or desires for American troops."

On the House floor, both Republicans and Democrats repeatedly gave Murtha rousing standing ovations. There was so much praise for Murtha that one of his Democratic colleagues asked him if he still had to attend Murtha's funeral.

What is this? Special Olympics for the Democrats? Can't Republicans disagree with a Democrat who demands that the U.S. surrender in the middle of a war without erecting monuments to him first? What would happen if a Democrat were to propose restoring Saddam Hussein to power? Is that Medal of Freedom territory?

This has been nagging me for some time. Since 9/11, the media seems to jump all over someone who questions another's patriotism, commitment to the troops, or any other mark of good character. As a result, these introductory praises ("He's a great guy, took a piece of shrapnel from the commies at Inchon, but....") have become extremely formulaic, with any deviation punished to the highest degree.

Take the case of Rep. Jean Schmidt, who in the debate over the Murtha proposal made the very grave mistake of indirectly calling Murtha a coward. The backlash over this, in the media and by the left, has gotten out of control. I received a couple of emails over the past few days from those swell guys over at the DNC, and it seems they're collecting donations aimed at putting a billboard right outside Schmidt's office saying "Hold Jean Schmidt Accountable." While I have no problem with this, Howard Dean framed the argument in this way:

Jean Schmidt is only the latest Republican leader to cross this line of civility and respect for our veterans -- it's time to say enough is enough. Republican leaders use these tactics to distract people from the simple fact that they have lost credibility on national security and foreign policy.

Only the latest? Cheney seemed to spend more time calling Murtha "a good man, a Marine, a patriot" than actually challenging his idea. We have built up the idea that these masks mean something to the policy debate, built it up so much that it's easy to see how hollow an approach it is.

Tags: Ann Coulter, Murtha, Patriotism, Schmidt, Dean

My Christmas Pet Peeve

2005-12-01T13:30:00.000-05:00

On the occasion of my hundredth post to Log and Line (yay!), I'm going to indulge myself and dispel a little misconception that gets to me. Jesus, as far as we know, was born in a cave and not a barn, whatever little scenes we Christians may set up each year.

It's probably no accident that most representations of the Nativity (at least in Europe and the New World) show the infant Jesus lying in a manger (to be clear, this word refers to the feeding trough used as a crib and is not synonymous with "barn") take place in little models of familiar-looking wooden stables. But the most ancient traditions of the Church tell us a different story. Justin Martyr's (d. 165) is the oldest written reference to the tradition:

"But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him." --Dialog with Trypho the Jew, c. 161 AD

Some might object that the gospels were composed well before this date. To this I reply 1) the gospels do not say "barn" either and 2) the Apostolic Fathers placed a great value on orally transmitted tradition (Papias springs to mind here).

For several years, my own Nativity scene took place inside a little cave I made from pieces of shale, but I reluctantly abandoned these when it became clear that my small children would break their fingers playing with them. I await the leisure to build another, though perhaps painted styrofoam would be a better choice.

Tags: Christmas, Justin Martyr, Cave, Nativity, Pet Peeve, 100th Post

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

2005-11-30T10:45:00.000-05:00

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"

2005-11-29T14:19:00.000-05:00

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"?

2005-11-18T09:33:00.000-05:00

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

2005-11-18T07:49:00.000-05:00

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?

2005-11-17T10:33:00.000-05:00

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?

2005-11-16T10:48:00.000-05:00

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.

2005-11-15T10:40:00.000-05:00

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

2005-11-14T07:45:00.000-05:00

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

2005-11-10T08:06:00.000-05:00

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

2005-11-09T16:38:00.000-05:00

(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?

2005-11-09T16:23:00.000-05:00

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"

2005-11-09T10:25:00.000-05:00

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

2005-11-08T10:47:00.000-05:00

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

2005-11-07T07:44:00.000-05:00

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?

2005-11-03T08:06:00.000-05:00

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

2005-11-02T10:49:00.000-05:00

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!

2005-11-02T10:42:00.000-05:00

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

2005-11-02T10:37:00.000-05:00

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

The Alito Nomination: Three hours in and we're already bare-knuckles brawling.

2005-10-31T11:31:00.000-05:00

I must admit that I have not heard enough about Bush's nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, but already things are interesting. The Drudge Report, always interesting reading whether or not you agree with the slant, has a piece up about how Alito's nickname of "Scalito" (because he agrees with Scalia, get it?) is ethnically insensitive:

Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee sent out talking points this morning titled: “Judge ‘Scalito’ Has Long History Of States Rights, Anti-Civil Rights, And Anti-Immigrant Rulings.” More from the DNC’s anti-Italian American talkers: “Alito is often referred to as ‘Judge Scalito’ because of his adherence to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s right-wing judicial philosophy.”

One outraged Republican strategist claimed, “If Alito were a liberal there would be no way Democrats and Washington’s media elite would use such a ethnically insensitive nickname. Italian-Americans should not have to face these types of derogatory racial slurs in 21st century America.”

To this I have to say, come on. But the real treasure of the morning is the fact that CBS News reporter John Roberts apparently referred to Alito as "sloppy seconds":

CBSNEWS Chief White House correspondent John Roberts described the President’s selection of Judge Samuel Alito as “sloppy seconds” during today’s press gaggle with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

John Roberts: “So, Scott, you said that -- or the President said, repeatedly, that Harriet Miers was the best person for the job. So does that mean that Alito is sloppy seconds, or what?”

Scott McClellan: “Not at all, John.”

Sloppy seconds” is described in the United Kingdom’s A Dictionary of Slang as:

Noun: “A subsequent indulgence in an activity by a second person involving an exchange of bodily fluids. This may involve the sharing of drink, or more often it applies to a sexual nature. E.g. ‘I’m not having sloppy seconds, I want to shag her first.’”

I need to research this more; but if true, it would rank right up there with Howard Dean's recent accusations of Republicans playing "hide the salami" with Harriet Miers' legal record.

Tags: Funny, Alito, Politics, SCOTUS

With a name like "Scooter," he was bound to be indicted.

2005-10-29T10:24:00.000-04:00

As any casual reader of these pages can see, I am a conservative; therefore, it seems an appropriate time to comment on the recent indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff.

I am neither surprised nor demoralized. First, I tend to believe that the facts of the case will clearly show that no crime was committed in the release of Valerie Plame's intelligence identity to the press. Indeed, I think the release tends to undermine Joe Wilson's credibility on the Niger issue altogether. But more on that, perhaps, later.

Second, I have very little patience for the obsession in Washington for cover-ups. As I read through Fitzgerald's accusations against Libby, I think I see a clear pattern emerging: Libby wanted to get the Plame story out there, tried to do it in a way that was carefully crafted not to get him in trouble (this already displays some consciousness of guilt), then lied about it when he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. This, of course, is not the time to trust your ability to deceive.

Third, I feel these are serious charges (you won't hear either the "there's no underlying crime" or the "perjury is a technicality" arguments here), and I think Fitzgerald has investigated fairly. Libby was right to resign, and Bush was right to accept said resignation.

Here are some things I don't believe:

Joe Wilson is a hero. Dear God, there are some people out there who believe this. I heard Barbara Boxer on Larry King Live last night spewing some sort of nonsense about "If only we'd listened to Ambassador Wilson, we wouldn't be in this quagmire." The Niger/uranium issue is a complicated one, and I think Wilson's own words, from his now-famous New York Times editorial, suggest how seriously his conclusions should be considered:
"I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people…It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had taken place."
This is the worst scandal since Watergate. No, this is politics as usual. The wrinkle here is that the person who put partisan hack Wilson's name forward for the Niger job was his wife, and she was a CIA employee. If she'd been, for instance, a UN employee, there would not be any scandal at all. Sure, elements in the administration wanted Wilson's conclusions subjected to serious scrutiny, and the fact that his wife thought he was qualified for this job is relevant. And don't kid yourselves: any Democratic administration would have done the same thing. Perhaps this is the problem.
Rove is next. Well, maybe. But I find it hard to believe that, after Fitzgerald's deep investigation, the "smoking gun" that will nail Rove is going to be found. Perhaps he was simply not the mover here--remember that Wilson's grudge against the administration centered around Cheney, not Bush. Is it really hard to believe that, say, a reporter who had heard a whisper of something from Libby, or floating around elsewhere, would call Rove to confirm, and that he might just say "everyone seems to be asking that question"?
This is worse than Clinton's perjury. As I recall, the Democratic talking heads were all about "there was no underlying crime" back in the Lewinsky days; now, they seem to be singing a different tune and justifying it with the old "Clinton lied, but nobody died" lyrics. This is not an issue of national security, since we can assume that Fitzgerald would have charged Rove and/or Libby under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 if he had the evidence. This assumes (and, to be fair, I'll be waiting for the final reports on the case to make a final determination) that Plame was not covert or had not been on overseas assignment for the five years prior to the "unmasking" act.

I'm content to let the investigation proceed, and for those found guilty to pay the prescribed penalties.

Tags: Libby, Rove, Plame, Karl Rove, PlameGate

Uh, excuse me, but...what???

2005-10-28T10:45:00.000-04:00

It appears that there is a backlash in Europe against the celebration of Halloween. OK, fine, but here's the thing: apparently, it's considered to be an "unnecessary, bad American custom" and worse. Note the term "American" in there--this is supposed to be our fault. Hm.

If I'm not mistaken, pretty much everything about Halloween is European in origin, and the whole trick-or-treating thing has been celebrated in English-speaking parts of the world for many years, entirely separate from America's observances. Here's a quick primer on the subject.

I guess you have to blame somebody for the stuff you don't much care for. But does it always have to be America? How about Algeria? Or Albania? Or Armenia?

Tags: Halloween

Harriet Un-Miers Her Nomination

2005-10-28T10:01:00.000-04:00

Well, chalk up another one for the people: yesterday, after weeks of withering fire from all corners of the political right, Harriet Miers withdrew herself from consideration for Sandra Day O'Connor's spot on the Supreme Court. And yet even this effort was handled in a ham-fisted way. In her withdrawal letter, she takes great pains to state that it is the process which is flawed, not herself. Consider these two tortured sentences:

Protection of the prerogatives of the Executive Branch and continued pursuit of my confirmation are in tension. I have decided that seeking my confirmation should yield.

Yes, it is those evil Senators and their snooping that has doomed the nomination to failure. Uh huh. Well, I can't really blame them for trying to find a face-saving way out of the mess they'd created. But I think it's transparent, and something short and to-the-point would have served better. I mean, look at the complete text of Nixon's resignation letter: "Dear Mr. Secretary: I hereby resign the Office of President of the United States. Sincerely, Richard Nixon."

The thing that gets me, though, is the equally transparent way the left is using the withdrawal as political ammunition against the "vast, right-wing conspiracy." On the talking-head shows yesterday I saw the likes of Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Ted Kennedy all reading from the same script, talking about how Bush caved in to pressure from a radical religious faction. But based on late poll numbers, it appears that this fringe group has taken over most of America's populace. Whatever shall we do?!

PS: Does anyone know who the right-most woman in the above photo is? She's always with Miers in those walking-down-the-hallway shots.

Tags: Miers, SCOTUS, Jamie Brown

UPDATE: The woman in question is Special Assistant to the President Jamie Brown from the Office of Legislative Affairs.

The UN Foiled by MS Word's "Track Changes" Function

2005-10-25T10:33:00.000-04:00

Who'd have thought this obnoxious function would have any real-world impact, let alone embarrass one of the world's largest political organizations?

A brief background: on Valentine's Day 2005, former Lebanese prime minister Rafik al-Hariri and 20 others were killed by a truck bomb in Beirut. The Syrians, who had directly involved themselves in Lebanese affairs for decades, were immediately suspected of assassinating Hariri. The popular furor following this forced the Syrians to withdraw from Lebanon. The United Nations began an investigation under the direction of a certain Detlev Mehlis, and Secretary-General Kofi Annan repeatedly stated, through his spokesman, that he would not interfere in the investigation in any way. Mehlis's report, documenting the involvement of the Syrian government in the plot, was released on 21 October 2005.

So far so good. But it now appears that someone at the UN made changes to the report, removing the names of suspected, high-ranking participants. Below is the publicly released Section 96 of the Mehlis report:

96. One witness of Syrian origin but resident in Lebanon, who claims to have worked for the Syrian intelligence services in Lebanon, has stated that approximately two weeks after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1559, senior Lebanese and Syrian officials decided to assassinate Rafik Hariri. He claimed that a senior Lebanese security official went several times to Syria to plan the crime, meeting once at the Meridian Hotel in Damascus and several times at the Presidential Place and the office of a senior Syrian security official. The last meeting was held in the house of the same senior Syrian security official approximately seven to 10 days before the assassination and included another senior Lebanese security official. The witness had close contact with high ranked Syrian officers posted in Lebanon.

Now contrast that to the version displayed by MS Word's "Track Changes" function (as simulated by James Taranto over at OpinionJournal):

One witness of Syrian origin but resident in Lebanon, who claims to have worked for the Syrian intelligence services in Lebanon, has stated that approximately two weeks after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1559, ~~Maher Assad, Assef Shawkat, Hassan Khalil, Bahjat Suleyman and Jamil Al-Sayyed~~ senior Lebanese and Syrian officials decided to assassinate Rafik Hariri. He claimed that ~~Sayyed~~ a senior Lebanese security official went several times to Syria to plan the crime, meeting once at the Meridian Hotel in Damascus and several times at the Presidential Place and the office of ~~Shawkat~~ a senior Syrian security official. The last meeting was held in the house of ~~Shawkat~~ the same senior Syrian security official approximately seven to 10 days before the assassination and included ~~Mustapha Hamdan~~ another senior Lebanese security official. The witness had close contact with high ranked Syrian officers posted in Lebanon.

If you wish, you can download the MS Word document in question via the Washington Post, or view a reconstructed, unexpurgated version at MidEast Web.

OK, so what's the big deal? Mehlis, for his part, seems to have argued that the edits were made to protect the presumption of innocence, saying "I established a rule that any person named in witness testimony should not be named in the report unless that person has been charged with a crime." Sure. Only problem is that Gen. Assef Shawkat, a key deputy in the Assad regime, is mentioned several times in the edited report, despite never having been charged with a crime. And at the same time, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric implied that the suspicious changes were unintentional, stating "I would urge you to look toward unfortunate clerical error rather than to conspiracy."

"That's all well and good," you may say, "but surely it's not a scandal to have a large bureaucracy confused about its public statements." True, but Dujarric also let this nugget slip: "This is Mr. Mehlis' investigation. This is his report. The secretary-general has at no time made any attempt to influence the report. But it turns out that Track Changes logged some interesting activity right around the time Mehlis was meeting with Annan. According to The Times of London

Mr Annan had pledged repeatedly through his chief spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, that he would not change a word of the report by Detlev Mehlis, a German prosecutor. But computer tracking showed that the final edit began at about 11.38am on Thursday — a minute after Herr Mehlis began a meeting with Mr Annan to present his report. The names of Maher al-Assad, General Shawkat and the others were apparently removed at 11.55am, after the meeting ended.

So what do we have here? Someone at the UN removed information that could embarrass the Syrian regime--which, as even a casual reading of the whole report will show, were caught fairly red-handed--at a time that just happened to be during Mehlis's meeting with Annan (a man who had pledged not to interfere in any way).

The UN, up to its eyeballs in corruption charges, seems to be mystified why anyone would make such a big deal out of this. Kinda shows how in touch they are with the world outside of Turtle Bay.

Tags: UN, United Nations, Syria, Lebanon, News and politics

Texas Justice in Action

2005-10-17T11:30:00.000-04:00

The case against Rep. Tom DeLay continues to disintegrate. On Friday, the prosecutors handling the money-laundering charges against DeLay and his associates admitted that they lack a piece of physical evidence to back up their primary claim:

Indictments against DeLay, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro state that Ellis gave "a document that contained the names of several candidates for the Texas House" to a Republican National Committee official in 2002 in a scheme to swap $190,000 in restricted corporate money for the same amount of money from individuals that could be legally used by Texas candidates.

But prosecutors said Friday in court that they only had a "similar" list and not the one allegedly received by then-RNC Deputy Director Terry Nelson. Late in the day, they released a list of 17 Republican candidates, but only seven are alleged to have received money in the scheme.

Of course, this does not prove DeLay's innocence in any way, and I think the invocation of Joe McCarthy by Jim Ellis's attorney was clearly a bit of bluster. But remember that there is supposed to be a presumption of innocence--to allege that a document exists, then say you don't have it, then manufacture a list that you say is "similar" does not seem like the kind of way to build a case strong enough to overcome this presumption. But indict away--clearly the mainstream media has lost its appetite for reporting the story now that it's not going "the right way," and the damage to DeLay's reputation (such as it was) is done.

Tags: DeLay, Tom DeLay, Politics, Republicans, Congress, Ethics

Congratulations FIDE Champion Veselin Topalov

2005-10-17T08:47:00.000-04:00

Congratulations to Bulgarian Grandmaster Veselin Topalov for his magnificent performance at the FIDE World Chess Championships in Argentina. Topalov represents that kind of fighting, knife's edge chess that you don't see so much of these days, and it's about time he got some real recognition for his work. I was perturbed that a bizarre tiebreak system cheated him out of sharing the top honors with retiring Garry Kasparov at the Linares tournament earlier this year; I was more upset when Kasparov, explaining how he came to lose his last game as a professional player, said "What happened today had very little to do with my opponent. I simply collapsed under the pressure of playing my last game." Toppy had you beat in that game, Kaspy--be charitable. Sorry, I've had that on my mind since the spring.

This is of course not to say that Topalov is "World Chess Champion," as anyone familiar with the state of international chess will tell you. However, with luck the Bulgarian's thumping victory will accomplish two things: first, it may finally lead to a real unification match with flagging Vladimir Kramnik, who won the genuine World Championship title fair and square from Kasparov in 2000; second, it may be the last we hear from FIDE's 2004 "champion" Rustam Kasimjanov who, to be fair, had one great tournament in him--but in the 2004 Libya tournament, he didn't have Topalov gunning for him.

Smurf-Bomb Video Link

2005-10-12T17:12:00.000-04:00

After a few days of trying, I have managed to locate a link (click here to view in .wmv format) to the recently announced UNICEF Smurf-Bombing video. It's embedded in what appears to be a Belgian news program, but you get the picture. I was, frankly, prepared for something far more graphic; indeed, this looks very much like some college student's joke. I think it entirely misses the mark, and I say this as someone who spent a fair amount of energy on the Smurfs as a kid.

Thanks to Moonage Political Webdream for posting this in the first place.

Tags: Smurf, Smurfs, UNICEF, Video

Schroeder's Parthian Shot

2005-10-12T10:11:00.000-04:00

So it finally appears that Angela Merkel will succeed Gerhard Schroeder as Chancellor of Germany, ending a saga of Floridian proportions. But as seems to be the case these days, it's impossible for a leader to step down from a post graciously; instead, we see that the level of a person's character can be inferred from the degree to which they attempt to disguise the insults they hurl. Here's a sample from a recent Schroeder news conference (emphasis mine):

Schroeder made his comments in a speech to a trade union in Hanover in which he warned of the dangers of eroding the welfare functions of the state.

"I can think of a recent disaster that shows what happens when a country neglects its duties of state towards its people," said Schroeder, who will soon cede his post to conservative rival Angela Merkel.

"My post as chancellor, which I still hold, does not allow me to name that country but you all know that I am talking about America," Schroeder said to laughter and applause.

Ha ha. Very classy. Of course, this is not the first time Schroeder has talked about Katrina; indeed, he has on various occasions favorably contrasted Germany's response to its 2002 floods with the US response to the recent hurricane. Not to belabor this point, or spend more time than necessary on the loser of an election thousands of miles away, but here's a very instructive photo comparison I found at Davids Medienkritik:

The "Intelligent Design" Debate: I Think I've Had Enough

2005-10-10T10:44:00.000-04:00

Let me confess something: I am a practicing Catholic who is very much a fan of science. I know there are some of you out there who will find this difficult to believe; but for my part, it's entirely clear that an omnipotent Creator will make something really mind-bogglingly complex which will enlighten those who unravel it.

At the same time, I don't have any interest in public schools teaching my children about where and how the hand of the Divine makes itself manifest in the world. That's my job, and my Church's. Heck, I was at a parents' open house the other night and got a little worked up about the school's "credo" encouraging kids to be respectful and good citizens. But, with the encouragement of my wife, I shut up about these things.

Then something comes along such as Dr. Robert Schwartz's "Perspectives" editorial in the October 6, 2005 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine. Entitled "Faith Healers and Physicians — Teaching Pseudoscience by Mandate," it is a fairly vicious attack on the proponents of intelligent design, which the author considers "an insidious menace" that puts its advocates on par with the godless Joseph Stalin. The author's point, apart from the assertion that intelligent-design theory is crap, is that it will keep doctors from looking for the root causes of things, instead stopping at some arbitrary point and saying "Put down your tools and stop looking--I guess God just makes it happen." This is damaging, apparently, because a knowledge of the origins of a process are necessary to medical care and research. Hogwash. While physicians hate to be compared to mechanics, I think it's appropriate here: it's very much like a mechanic saying, "I don't know where this car came from, so I can't understand how it works."

In short, we have a prominent scientist managing to be offensive and condescending without actually saying anything. Indeed, he says himself of one opponent

Philip Johnson...can accurately pinpoint many problems that the theory of evolution has not come close to solving. His criticisms have merit, and his focus on precisely those things that we do not yet know blocks any rational dialogue.

A very scientific assessment. The author cannot answer the charges of his critics; therefore, the discussion cannot be rational. Dr. Schwartz would do well to look back on the history of science. We get taught in grade school, for instance, how Copernicus and Galileo showed a heliocentric system, whereas their predecessors were totally wrong. Well, this is true; but it also needs to be stated that the Ptolemaic system was very elegant and comprehensive, save for a few kinks that could not be adequately worked out. Or a better example: Newtonian mechanics cannot adequately account for Mercury's orbit, while Einstein's theories on general relativity can. What if scientists had argued that the fact Newton's theories had holes prevented any further discussion of the problem?

All that said, I do not believe the primary argument in intelligent design theory holds any water at all. Namely, the idea that we are the product of an extremely improbable process; so improbable that it could not have come about without divine intervention. I will say here as well, hogwash. A natural assumption given human nature, but not convincing. Improbable things happen all the time, such as people winning the lottery; improbable, but not impossible. From the standpoint of the lottery winner there is a disbelief that anything so rare could possibly happen to him, but does he say "this could not have happened without divine help"? Well, maybe. But the point is that it does not require divine intervention--just a lucky roll of the dice. Getting struck by lightning may be a one-in-a-million shot, but there are people who have gotten hit multiple times. Really weird, improbable things happen...are we to say that "it could not have happened" just because we're standing on the other end of the improbability?

Tags: Intelligent design, Evolution

I've been meaning to say this very thing

2005-10-07T10:47:00.000-04:00

One of the problems with having both children and a business to look after (and it should be understood that this is my favorite euphemistic phrase for "laziness") is that, by the time I get around to putting my thoughts out there, some other schlub has invariably gotten to it first. In this case, it is Charles Krauthammer, columnist at the Washington Post, who has used far better words than I could knit together to question the wisdom of Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court:

By choosing a nominee suggested by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and well known only to himself, the president has ducked a fight on the most important domestic question dividing liberals from conservatives: the principles by which one should read and interpret the Constitution. For a presidency marked by a courageous willingness to think and do big things, this nomination is a sorry retreat into smallness.

I cannot help but agree. My take on the Roberts nomination was that Bush was putting forth a fairly plain-vanilla prospect as something of a peace offering, a move which would allow him to appoint a more conservative justice in round two. By offering us a virtual unknown (and for all the left's hemming and hawing about "what do we know about Roberts?" the answer was quite a bit), a close ally with a strange recent history of political shifts, a person who was in addition to all other things Bush's personal attorney, Bush has made what I consider both a lazy and (dare I say it?) cowardly decision. And this fact, more than the question of the credentials of the nominee, is what troubles me.

Say what you want about Bush, but he has not heretofore shown himself to be a man who thinks small. In his tax-reform proposals, his response to 9/11, his dealings with Iraq--this is a man who thinks and acts in bold strokes, often informed by his moral center. (I understand that many of you on the left will think that I've hit on the crux of the problem, but that's a subject for another day.) The Miers nomination, on a personal level, is simply disillusioning. I don't know whether the vicious Katrina backlash has made Bush gun-shy, or whether he was never the man he pretended to be. He just doesn't have the stomach for a fight--a good fight, one that he should wage--and his uncontroversial nominee (already praised by Senate minority leader Harry Reid, for God's sake!) is the prime piece of evidence.

Tags: Harriet Miers, Supreme Court

How can a billion people be so consistently misunderstood?

2005-10-06T10:42:00.000-04:00

I came across this article about the Catholic Church today and was amazed--a group of bishops in Britain has released a paper which seems to state absolutely nothing new in terms of Catholic dogma, and yet it is big news:

The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

Let's be clear here: the Church has long taught that large parts of the Bible can only be understood as allegory or in other literary senses. The fetish with the Bible as inerrant history is a product of the Fundamentalists. They would probably argue strenuously that Alexander visited Jerusalem (as it is claimed in Maccabees) when the Catholic Church's position is more like "so?" Check out any of the Church's writings on the subject and you'll see. But I also have little patience for people that look to apocalyptic literature for prophecy, rather than using it in its proper context as a code sign of conditions at the time of composition.

There is also a bit of a slam on "intelligent design," linking it incorrectly and unnecessarily to Biblical passages: "Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing 'intelligent design' to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began."

But the worst of this article is its misstatement concerning Pope St. Pius X (above), whose crusade against Modernism is often referenced by modern commentators but which is almost always misunderstood. The article says

Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.

And yet this has very little to do with the truth: St. Pius was not opposed to such scholarship, but only the notion that scripture could only be understood in this way. What he abhored, as is indicated by his famous Oath Against Modernism (1910), is a scholar who "with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm."

The Oath makes for excellent reading and is, frankly, extremely relevant today, given the current fashionability of the argument that eternal truths somehow need to "evolve" with the times.

Tags: Catholic, Catholicism, Pius X, Bible

Excellence Watch: Orson Scott Card

2005-10-06T07:53:00.000-04:00

I came across this review for the film Serenity the other day, and simply had to share it. The review itself is an excellent work of prose, as befits such a well-respected author. But what struck me was the degree to which it reads like a bit of a love letter, the kind of encomium I have not seen since I stumbled across David Mamet's obituary for Patrick O'Brian ("And I will not say I cried at [supporting character Bonden's] death, but I will not say I did not").

But more than that, Card makes a startling statement regarding Serenity:

I walked into this movie reasonably aware of the advance word-of-mouth (though not obsessively so) and only as the film actually began this afternoon, the day of its premier, did it occur to me that I had not heard a whisper of a breath of the actual plot of the movie. All I heard was, "It's great, you'll love it."

Well, guess what.

It's great.

I'm not going to say it's the best science fiction movie, ever.

Oh, wait. Yes I am.

I don't know that I disagree with the man; and in any event, who am I to doubt the assessment of the author of Ender's Game? Plus, I can't stop giggling at his conclusion:

So stop reading this. Go get your tickets. See this movie.

Or don't. Play it safe. Stay home. Watch reruns of Full House. That was a really funny, heartwarming TV series and it's just a shame the kids have all grown up and now we can never have the feature film with the original cast.

Tags: Orson Scott Card, Serenity, Movie Reviews, Firefly

The DeLay Defamation Dance

2005-10-05T10:35:00.000-04:00

OK, the other day I heard that former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay had been indicted again and I stopped for a moment. The indictment was for money laundering, so the televised "news brief" said; and I said a considered "Huh. What do you know?" Of course, as we now know this "second indictment" was really DA Ronnie Earle's attempt at damage control since the crime with which Earle charged DeLay did not exist at the time of the alleged infraction.

The short version:

Dick DeGuerin, one of DeLay's attorneys, asserted on Monday that the new money laundering charge was brought this week because Earle realized that last week's conspiracy charge rested on an erroneous interpretation of the law. He said the crime of conspiracy was not covered by the state election law at the time of the alleged violation, in late 2002.

In his defense, Earle states that the new indictment was the result of "new information," despite the fact that the investigation has been ongoing for years; moreover, the media seem to have grudgingly accepted the validity Dick DeGuerin's argument, if only on this point.

But even further beyond all this, there has now emerged some news that Earle presented his evidence to one grand jury which refused to indict DeLay. I'm no lawyer, but this gives me some pause:

In a written statement Tuesday, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle acknowledged that prosecutors presented their case to three grand juries — not just the two they had discussed — and one grand jury refused to indict DeLay. When questions arose about whether the state's conspiracy statute applied to the first indictment returned last Wednesday, prosecutors presented a new money-laundering charge to second grand jury on Friday because the term of the initial grand jury had expired.

Working on its last day Friday, the second grand jury refused to indict DeLay. Normally, a "no-bill" document is available at the courthouse after such a decision. No such document was released Tuesday.

And so, unsatisfied with this result, Earle presented the case to yet another grand jury, which returned an indictment in four hours. Now of course, I accept the possibility that there is some damning new evidence, and DeLay is no hero to me. But the left's supposition that the second grand jury refused to indict simply because it was on its last day seems to carry little water given the fact that the third was convinced in only four hours. All this should be a spark for a round of head-scratching by all critical observers, but I've heard very little of it in the mainstream media.

Tags: DeLay, Politics, Bush, Texas

Movie Review: Serenity

2005-10-01T09:26:00.000-04:00

In 2002, Fox began broadcasting a new science-fiction program called Firefly. I remember there being some sort of buzz about it at the time, as it was the brainchild of Joss Whedon (the force behind the cult hit Buffy the Vampire Slayer). A week or so afterward, a friend of mine wrote and asked me, "I hear this show is supposed to be the 'next big thing'--is it?" to which I (never a Buffy fan) replied with a breathless "Oh, yeah!"

As with most things I fall for, Firefly disappeared quickly. Only 11 of its 14 completed episodes were aired; and those were shown out of order and often preempted to the point where it was impossible to follow the plot. I shrugged and moved on with my life. Indeed, I'd completely forgotten about it until about a month ago, when I stumbled across an episode on the SciFi network and discovered a) there was a rabid "Browncoat" fanbase that had never given up on the show and b) thanks to stellar DVD sales and the Whedon name, Universal Pictures had gambled $40 million in order to make a motion picture from the failed TV series. That night I went out to get the DVDs, and let me tell you, in all candor, that the combined shock and amazement (and the fact that the series was better than I'd remembered) pretty much made me explode directly in my pants.

But this is supposed to be a movie review, so let me say a few words about the Serenity setup. Five centuries hence, humanity has moved itself en masse to a new solar system, full of "terraformed" planets and moons. Some are rich and prosperous, some have been neglected by the central government and wallow in poverty. Mal Reynolds captains a not-so-legal freighter operation (on a ship named "Serenity") out here on the frontier, harboring a personal grudge against the authoritarian Alliance and trying to find paying jobs before his rickety ship breaks down for good. His crew have been denigrated by reviewers as archetypes (and they are, but the advantage is that you grow fond of them very quickly), but they're fun to watch. Serenity revolves around young River Tam, on whom the Alliance has experimented with startling results. She's now something of a walking weapon in girl form; her brother Simon manages to break her out of a lab and the Alliance wants her back--at all costs. Serenity's crew discover the danger River poses--to themselves and others--but in the end decides to hide her from the forces closing in. What ensues is a fast-paced, action-filled adventure that also has the advantages of a compelling plot and entertaining dialog and characterization.

One word of caution, though: Firefly/Serenity is different than the sci-fi you're used to seeing. A lot different. There are no aliens, no faster-than-light drives, no fancy techno-babble...it's about humans, doing things like humans. And most of the action takes place on the frontier of inhabited space, where advanced technology is so scarce that they ride horses, shoot (admittedly souped-up) six-guns, and say things like fixin' and messin'. It's weird without being jarring, and continually reminds you that this is a different sort of story. A Whedon quote about Star Wars helps to describe his overall approach: "My version is that Han Solo walked into the bar five minutes later and never found out about the Force or the rebellion and still had to make a living and still had the Hutt after him. It was the lived-in quality. This guy has the quality of 'we have no higher purpose, no Force that surrounds us and guides us, we only have each other and a crappy little ship. That's much more interesting to me..."

I was, frankly, prepared for the film to be terrible. One is most forgiving to the things one loves best, and I steeled myself for the possibility that (as was the case with The Phantom Menace) I would have to stand behind something that was a real stinker out of a sense of loyalty. But, even in the light of day, I say with all honesty that Serenity was a real achievement: gripping, thought-provoking, funny, and occasionally wrenching. Some reviewers have stated that you can't enjoy the movie without being a fanatic about the series, and this is a lie. I brought my brother to the show last night; and although he asked me "What should I know?" I kept him completely in the dark as an experiment. He came out entertained, with a clear sense of what had happened, and not asking a lot of questions like "So who was that guy supposed to be?" The movie, in short, is very accessible. Plus, it's really, really good.

Tags: Serenity, Firefly

Doing the Scampering Dance of Joy

2005-09-29T16:33:00.000-04:00

In a complete surprise to just about nobody, a Texas prosecutor indicted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for conspiracy to evade campaign-finance laws. I've stated it before, and I'll state it again: I'm no fan of DeLay, and I tend to believe his damn-the-torpedoes approach is counterproductive in the long run. But my beef here is twofold:

The mainstream media is doing a little too much exulting. I confess that I did a little happy dance that day Bill Clinton was forced to admit, quite candidly, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," so I know exultation when I see it. The news outlets are positively aswim with stories saying things such as Reuters'
The indictment of House No. 2 Tom DeLay on Wednesday added to a growing list of political woes for Republicans ahead of next year's congressional elections, providing new fuel for Democratic charges that Republicans have been corrupted by power.
This was the first paragraph of the linked story. I'm not surprised, but I am a little upset give how much I feel the MSM has bent over backwards in the past to preserve a little innocent-until-proven-guilty feeling for Democrats.
But more than that, there is the automatic dismissal of the charge that the prosecution is politically motivated. Indeed, the linked story rehashes the old "rebuttal" that DA Earle has prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans. Maybe, but his abortive prosecution of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in 1993, which was so thin he he was forced to drop it. But apart from all this, here we have a man who, in May 2005, came within a hair's breadth of referring to DeLay and his associates as "Mussolini and his fascists."

I'll let this thing sort itself out in the courts. I just wish the media would take a breath and try to do the same thing.

Truth Begins to Emerge From the Wreckage

2005-09-27T10:38:00.000-04:00

It has taken some time, but it appears that America has caught its breath following the mad dash away from Hurricane Katrina. As evidence of this I present the fact that I am finally beginning to see stories such as this one, taking the media to task for its in-the-moment reporting of stuff heard on the street.

Katrina was undoubtedly a distaster--fatal to many; painful to many, many more; and destructive beyond all expectation. But it is now clear (as it always was to those of us who watch with a critical eye) that much of what the media fed to us in the days following landfall was quite far from the truth. But it all made sense at the time, didn't it? There was looting, there were fatalities from rising water, there were nutbags playing sniper with hunting rifles. CNN and Oprah would have had you believe this was the norm, and not the exception. And it doesn't help that the finger-pointing started so early as to result in local, state, and federal officials throwing poorly founded accusations.

The media certainly has a right and, it would argue, a responsibility to report on news as it happens. This must be one of the most challenging situations any reporter can face: there is news happening, but how reliable are the facts at hand? But I'm not holding my breath in anticipation of any mea culpas on the part of the mainstream media outlets. Call me a cynic.

The Hand's on the Other Foot Now!

2005-09-19T08:02:00.000-04:00

Now, I'm not one to gloat, and I'm certainly not a fan of government gridlock, but I have to admit I'm a bit pleased with the uncertainty following the recent German elections. As you may recall, in the days following the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, there was a fair amount of (holier-than-thou) comment in the international press along the lines of "How could such a thing happen in the United States?" Well, Germany, now you know. Oh, I certainly understand that this is hardly the same sort of thing--though I like how Schroeder seems to be insisting on a PM role despite his party losing the CDU v. SPD vote--but the very idea that the formation of a government should be held up because (gasp!) the electorate is split!? How...how...democratic.

On a side note, in my search for a nice Angela Merkel image I encountered a good many seriously unflattering and/or manufactured ones. I guess the left's fetish for Photoshopping as a means of political expression is not a strictly American phenomenon.

Classy. Very Classy.

2005-09-15T07:54:00.000-04:00

Reuters has posted this picture as part of its coverage of George Bush's recent address to the UN Security Council. The attached caption reads:

"U.S. President George W. Bush writes a note to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a Security Council meeting at the 2005 World Summit and 60th General Assembly of the United Nations in New York September 14, 2005. World leaders are exploring ways to revitalize the United Nations at a summit on Wednesday but their blueprint falls short of Secretary-General Kofi Annan's vision of freedom from want, persecution and war. REUTERS/Rick Wilking"

Can someone explain to me why they thought this photograph would add in any way to the public's understanding of the event? Does it have something to do with the public's "need to know" that the President has a functioning bladder?

Nice, though, that many people still consider the media to be "objective."

UPDATE: It appears that Reuters has responded to the uproar caused by this picture. First, they tell us not to blame the photographer (duh) and that Reuters chose to zoom in on and contrast-enhance the note so that the text would be more visible. Second, they say that it did in fact add relevant context to the UN story:

The photographer and editors on this story were looking for other angles in their coverage of this event, something that went beyond the stock pictures of talking heads that these kind of forums usually offer. This picture certainly does that.

Now, let me ask you all a question: if, next time around, Reuters got hold of a picture of Bush actually visiting the bathroom while, say, the Namibian delegate was speaking, do you think they would hesitate to publish it? It certainly would go "beyond."

Time to Let This One Go

2005-08-18T11:21:00.000-04:00

I find myself very tempted to write--and write, and write--about the ongoing Cindy Sheehan story, particularly as I believe it speaks volumes about the media and their lust for any sign of a hippie peace-and-love movement. The media's credulity and its caressing of their subject, despite (as only one example) her well-publicized imputation that some neo-con agenda was behind the 9/11 attacks, is almost beyond belief. So I will say this one last time.

A search today of Google News for the terms "Sheehan" and "meet with her" turned up 1,690 print news stories (a good many, admittedly, local papers picking up AP or Reuters feeds) containing statements along the lines of "Sheehan will continue her protest until Bush agrees to meet with her."

Bush has already met with her.

He invited her and her family to speak with him. Maybe she regrets not confronting him then, I don't know. And heck, if she wants to sit out there and lead a protest, fine. But I see no reason for Bush to meet with her again. Let's say you're going door-to-door collecting for some charity or another. You stop at a house, make your pitch, and maybe get a small donation. As you walk on toward the next house, you stop and reflect, "I should have pressed him harder. I should have gotten more out of him." So you turn around, ring the bell again, and say, "More." Is it a newsworthy event if the person fails to bow to your demand? This is, frankly, a child's behavior: maybe if I ask over and over again, maybe if I ask louder, even scream, I'll get what I want. Enough.

On an unrelated note, I read a letter to the editor in the local paper this morning that quoted a John Donne poem, one of his most familiar works. However, the author chose to recast the piece (it is not a poem, but a piece of prose from his Meditations XVII) into a more modern English, thereby robbing it of much of its character. For the record, the original words are:

No man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Manor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.

Tugging at Loose Threads

2005-08-15T07:34:00.000-04:00

I didn't expect a week away from the keyboard (gratefully riding waterslides with my kids) to change very much, and I sure wasn't disappointed. There are real news stories out there, such as the impending consistutional deadline in Iraq and Israel's unilateral pullout from Gaza, but the media seems to be fixated on the kind of stories that make so many of us cry "enough already."

First, of course, is the difficult case of Cindy Sheehan, a woman who lost a son in the Iraq war and who has decided to voice her displeasure with the administration by pitching a tent outside Bush's ranch in Crawford, TX. I'm not surprised the media is on this so hard--after all, isn't it great when a story comes directly to you, a story you don't have to pound the pavement to pin down?

I don't have a problem with Sheehan sitting there and grieving in this way. Let her protest and scream until she turns blue--she's earned it. What I do mind is the way the media seems to be treating her as if she represented some kind of "tipping point" (and man, am I sick to death of this term) that will turn Americans en masse against the President. And they have done this in an uncritical way: I believe Americans would have tired of this story by now, tired of all the questions about whether or not Bush will come and speak with her, if they were at all informed that the President has already met with her and her family; and while at this meeting she certainly was not converted to a pro-war point of view, she decided not to use it as a platform to vent her anger.

Since this article was first unearthed by the Drudge Report, all sorts of left-wing outfits have attacked the disclosure as if there were some sort of distortion. RawStory accuses Drudge of "gross distortion" even though he linked back to the original article in its entirety. Arianna Huffington (whose tedious Huffington Post ravings seem now to be available via Yahoo! News, for all love) goes on and on with the same sort of spleen she accuses people like Rush Limbaugh of using...all while implying that it's a "sleazeball" thing to do to learn the truth.

And if you have any doubt whose side the media prefers, here's a Washington Post headline for you: Mom's Protest Riles Gun-Toting Neighbor. "Gun-toting" indeed. The man discharges his shotgun on his own property and not in the direction of anyone, and he gets labeled with a term generally reserved for crackpots. Frankly, this man makes more sense to me than anyone else, because I find his reaction very understandable. Perhaps that will shock my gentle readers, but his desire for all these people to get their asses away from his land feels very authentic. I wouldn't have fired a shotgun to get their attention, but then I don't live in Texas.

While about 60 in Sheehan's group held a religious service Sunday morning, a nearby landowner, Larry Mattlage, fired his shotgun twice into the air. Sheriff's deputies and Secret Service agents rushed to his house but did not arrest him.

"I ain't threatening nobody, and I ain't pointing a gun at nobody," Mattlage said. "This is Texas."

I've also had quite enough of the garment-rending that's accompanied--last week's!-- death of Peter Jennings. I understand that it should be an item of some interest, and I certainly am not happy at the news of anyone's death, but the obsession (and that's what it is) in the media for this story is really getting to me.

It's a phenomenon we've all seen before: if a news story involves the media, suddenly they drop everything and focus all their energies on it. My God, he wasn't the Pope or a President or anything, he was a news reader. I have to believe if Gerald Ford, for instance, had died the same day, they'd receive the same level of coverage (and perhaps Ford's memory would even be slighted). Understandable media behavior, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Have you heard about the lonesome loser?

2005-08-04T07:48:00.000-04:00

How far have you fallen from a position as a party of national consequence when you resort to celebrating defeats?

So the Democrats failed to get plastered in an election for a House of Representatives seat in the electoral "flashpoint" of Ohio. (Just as an aside here, it is me or are the Dems always fighting the last war?) Forget that it was a special election with no incumbent; forget that voter turnout was about a third of what it was in the November 2004 regular election, forget that local issues may have played a major role in the result. It's the end of the Bush era! Let's celebrate!

I guess there's always the possibility that the Dems are trying to lull the GOP into a false sense of security. Yeah, that's probably it.

Excellence Watch: Prose

2005-08-03T11:34:00.000-04:00

While it's not my typical type of post, I feel I must occasionally salute excellence where I stumble upon it, whether it's fine writing, art, argument, etc. Today, I bring you a pretty little bit of copy from a tongue-in-cheek article about how to destroy the Earth:

You've seen the action movies where the bad guy threatens to destroy the Earth. You've heard people on the news claiming that the next nuclear war or cutting down rainforests or persisting in releasing hideous quantities of pollution into the atmosphere threatens to end the world.

Fools.

The Earth was built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily.

I admit it, it's the "and lo" that gets me.

Is it an abuse of power to fight the Senatorial "hold"?

2005-08-03T08:37:00.000-04:00

So who is this man, and why should we care? His name is Peter Cyril Wyche Flory, and yesterday President Bush recess appointed him (which appears to be the correct term, awkward though it is) to the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy.

Is this yet another example of a manipulative Bush thwarting the will of the Senate, of an abuse of power so heinous as to call into question the legitimacy of our democracy? Of course not: instead, it helps illustrate the partisan gridlock in the Congress, a situation which has grown so dire that Bush must make extraordinary efforts to keep things running.

The Senate did not filibuster, or explicitly threaten to filibuster, Flory's nomination to the position. Nor in fact does it appear that significant objections were raised about his fitness for the position. Instead, it seems that he was caught in the crossfire between Senator Carl Levin and Undersecretary Douglas Feith, Flory's superior at the DoD:

Flory was first nominated to the post on June 1, 2004, but the nomination was blocked by Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, in a dispute over release of intelligence-related documents that Levin sought from Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy.

You may well ask how a single Senator can hold up a nomination for more than a year without resorting to a tactic such as the filibuster. n the fancy terminology of the Senate, it's called a hold, an unofficial procedure whereby one Senator--one Senator--can simply say that they don't want a measure to go ahead. It's usually a signal that someone is willing to put up a strenuous fight over a bill or nomination; but in this case it appears that its use was a ploy for Levin to try to gain some leverage against Feith...never mind that a third party (indeed, the first party in this case) got run over, and that an important national security position remained vacant for more than a year.

When you talk about recess appointments, John Bolton, and Bush's supposed abuse of power, remember poor Peter Flory, and maybe consider sending him a fruit basket in congratulations.

Ambassador John Bolton, fait accompli

2005-08-01T12:00:00.000-04:00

I wonder whether Tom Skerritt is available to play me in the made-for-TV "John Bolton Story"?

Things tend not to qualify as news if they come as no surprise. There is no "news alert," for example, when the sun rises in the morning. But I expect there to be a great deal of journalistic hand-wringing about the recess appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN.

The article I linked above helpfully explains that

Bush gave Bolton a "recess appointment," taking advantage of a loophole that allows him to make such appointments when Congress is in recess.

Quite right. That is, if you take the word "loophole" to mean "something explicitly permitted by the United States Constitution." Really. Article II, Section 2 reads, in part,

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Never mind that the Senate is actually in recess, or that there is actually a vacancy, or that Presidents since George Washington have used recess appointments (and for far more significant offices: Ike made three recess appointments for Supreme Court justices, for God's sake!). Never mind that that hero of the Left, and indeed champion of all that is Good and Light Bill Clinton, made 140 of them. Ted Kennedy, whose own brother made a recess appointment of Thurgood Marshall (against the will of the Senate!), had this predictable thing to say:

It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent [emphasis mine]

This is the sort of thing we'll doubtless be treated to over the next few days. But all you Democrats, take heart: you'll get another swing at Bolton later on down the road; and if you're right and Bolton burns down the UN headquarters at the first opportunity, you'll have a lot to crow about.

2 August: With 24 hours of Bolton coverage behind us, I'm a little surprised at one of the media's foci: the notion that the recess appointment somehow hurts Bolton's credibility at the UN. Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, a fellow Nutmegger, is quoted in this report:

One of Bolton's harshest critics, Sen. Christopher Dodd, predicted Bolton's credibility at the world body would be damaged by the recess appointment, since Bush failed to get the nomination through the Senate.

"I think you're going to have an awfully difficult time with Mr. Bolton building the kind of support the United States needs today at the United Nations," said Dodd, D-Connecticut, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

A justified criticism? Think about it: I bet many countries' UN ambassadors serve only at the pleasure of the lcoal strongman. Do they have a tough time because they weren't chosen by bipartisan dealmaking? And keep in mind that Bolton would have been confirmed to his post, and not by a one-vote margin, if he'd simply been presented to the full Senate for a vote.

The Weekender: Baking on Your Gas Grill

2005-07-30T08:53:00.000-04:00

Note: It's been my habit to keep from posting serious stuff on the weekends; but when there's something more informal I have to get out, the weekend seems the best time to do it.

The other day it was in the range of 95 degrees in my town, and humid as hell. Since I don't have central air in my home, the best I can do is fight a kind of rearguard action against the heat, shutting blinds and keeping heat-generating activities to a minimum. Since this includes cooking, I often retreat to my backyard grill. But I wanted some bread and had none in the house; and since I had no energy to go out and buy some, I resolved to bake. On the grill.

I checked around the 'net for some tips and found none. None. Was this virgin territory? Had no one thought of this before? I couldn't believe it, but I got to baking anyway (figuring if there was a problem with my idea, there would have been a warning somewhere).

I chose to use my baking stone and an indirect approach: I fired up one of two burners, placed the stone over the unlit one, then closed the lid and waited. I'd hoped to get the stone to about 400 degrees, but my impatience made me throw the loaf on at only about 200. It took about 50% longer to bake (30 minutes vs 20 for this type of loaf), but otherwise was a complete success. Next step: making brick-oven pizza with a liquefied propane grill!

PS: As I was searching for the right image, I found this excellent article on grill-baking!

I hate them, but I can still be an objective observer.

2005-07-29T09:00:00.000-04:00

Far be it from me to call anyone an "old bat," but...well, there's no good way to end that sentence; I will therefore start another.

"Veteran" reporter Helen Thomas, once a front-row participant in Presidential press conferences, is back in the news-making business. Having previously called George W. Bush the "worst President in American history" and taken to directing lectures to (instead of asking questions of) White House press secretaries, she's now decided that death is preferable to seeing Dick Cheney run for office.

Really. Here's the relevant quote: "The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself. All we need is one more liar."

There was some outrage when the Bush administration stripped Thomas of her front-row seat and stuck her in the back of the room, and some journalists' eyebrows rose when the President decided to thank reporters for their questions, rather than letting Thomas do it. But really, can you blame them? Terry Moran is bad enough, but to have someone so violently opposed to the administration still claim to be an objective journalist...well that just takes the cake.

Update 8/3/05: The original reporter from The Hill responds to the Helen Thomas frenzy in this item. His conclusion? It's Matt Drudge's fault.

Little did I know, being a creature of the typewriter/telegraph era of journalism, that cybergossip Matt Drudge would pounce on the item and transmit it to the farthest regions of the Internet universe, along with an unflattering photograph of Ms. Thomas. That was all Drudge acolytes needed to unleash a flood of e-mails condemning her — and me, as her unwitting accomplice.

I see now! It's not that you reported something unflattering about a colleague, it's that a lot of people read it! Shame on me for reading an item you reported.

Eisele's theory seems to be that Thomas is reviled by the right because she asks the tough questions, and that "Drudgoids" are lying in wait to "pounce" upon any misstep on her part. It's interesting that the man is so caught up in his own world that he cannot see what's right in front of him: when a person can't set aside her own biases, her impartiality can be--and should be--legitimately called into question.

The Estate-Tax Shuffle

2005-07-28T17:05:00.000-04:00

In the midst of a sea of front-burner issues--the war in Iraq, the employment picture, the Roberts confirmation process--something has been smoldering away in the background and now seems ready to jump back to prominence: the issue of whether to permanently repeal the federal estate tax.

The situation is strange: Bush's 2001 tax cut bill will repeal the estate tax altogether in 2010, but it will return in 2011 because of the "sunset" provisions of the original legislation. And now, after many votes in the House favoring outright repeal, pressure is being brought on the Senate to follow through.

I am for repeal, for a number of reasons I will probably go into at another time. But I think the most interesting thing about the discussion is that the numbers the Left is throwing around are completely wacky. I was listening to NPR's Morning Edition today and heard a piece on the subject. Featured in it was Joel Friedman of an outfit called the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who threw out a number of $1 trillion as the amount that the federal government stands to lose if the estate tax is repealed. They, and other groups, allege that this can only result in massive cuts in Social Security or Medicare benefits.

I say here and for the record, this is hogwash. Estate tax receipts are a very small part of the government's revenue stream, amounting to only about $21 billion in 2003. The CPBB will have you believe a) that the CBO's and JCT's projections are accurate, which is laughable in itself, b) that this money will be squirreled away in coffee cans by the heirs, and never spent in any taxable way (somebody buying a big boat and paying sales and capital-gains taxes in the process) or used in such a way that increases the tax base (say, someone starting a business), and finally c) that because of this, the government will have to borrow enormous sums in order to cover the gap. There is also no mention of what $1 trillion is in today's dollars, but I can tell you that it will be a lot less in 2021, when their examination ends.

But all credit to them--there's no better way of galvanizing public support than by frightening them with numbers that don't make sense.

The Derailment Campaign Gathers Steam

2005-07-27T07:48:00.000-04:00

After a slow start, the fight over John Roberts' nomination for associate justice on the Supreme Court has heated up (or "hotted up," which they seem to say over in the UK). The past week or so has seen a good deal of attention focused on Roberts' wife, her participation in an anti-abortion organization, and her Catholicism. Now come the requests for documents.

Democrats seem to want the whole shooting match; Republicans want a managed release of information. These stances are entirely understandable from a political point of view, but I must confess that the Left's braying for every last shred of paper (witness John "You'll Get Them After the Campaign" Kerry's ironic demand) makes me uncomfortable. Take the issue of tax returns: I really don't see how these are relevant to Roberts' qualifications for the position. Perhaps he didn't adequately pay his nanny's Social Security taxes, perhaps he over-deducted his charitable contributions...but man, isn't this getting too personal? I imagine there's an interest to see whether Roberts made favorable rulings toward companies in which he had an investment interest, but this can be done away with through a schedule of investments, rather than determining how much he deducted for staples for his home office.

On the question of whether Roberts' records from his two stints at the White House should be released, I confess that I am of mixed mind. The argument against his Solicitor General documents being released makes a good deal of "common" sense to me: these represent what should have been, and what outside of the Executive branch would remain, protected by attorney-client privilege; and the idea that your confidential legal deliberations could be released to the public as soon as the completion of a President's term will surely chill debates. But I find the administration's invocation of the Presidential Records Act a bit confusing. There appears to be nothing in the statute to clearly exempt these documents from release, especially as more than the maximum 12 years have passed since the end of George H.W. Bush's administration. We'll have to see how this one plays out; but I have no doubt that what the opposition is after is not information, but dirt.

My "Man of the Year" for 1991

2005-07-21T07:22:00.000-04:00

The nomination of John Roberts to fill O'Connor's seat at the Supreme Court seems to be dominating the news these days, and I think I can understand the media's obsession with the topic. For my own part, I've been giving a lot of thought to how the confirmation hearings will play out, given that the Democrats seem bound and determined to give him the grilling of his life. I mean, consider Chuck Schumer's beef that, during his confirmation to the appellate bench, Roberts declined to answer a question about which Supreme Court cases he disagreed with (a question, by the way, Orrin Hatch called "dumb" on the record). Now he's determined to get an answer, and he's not going to let anyone get in his way.

But to bring myself back from a ramble, the thing that's been occupying my mind lately is not Roberts' judicial opinions or the diversity of the court or anything quite so topical; instead, I've been replaying the Clarence Thomas hearings in my brain. I fear for a repeat.

Anita Hill, interestingly enough, has become something of an icon, a woman who could stand up to the pressure of a Senate inquiry into her personal life without breaking. And, I guess, from this limited standpoint, maybe there's something to that. But it should also be remembered that she was a woman whose flimsy story, contradicted by her own coworkers and supported by nothing other than her word, almost brought the career of an otherwise respected jurist to a disgraceful end. Here was a woman who admitted being told by Senate staffers that all she had to do was make a private allegation, and Thomas's confirmation would be derailed. Once things went public, the Senate did the "noble" thing, putting her on national television so she could tell her story, for story it was.

I still don't know for sure that she was lying, but I'm not sure it matters. There was no evidence for her assertion, no credible supporting witnesses, and a vast bulk of people and exhibits telling the opposite story--and the Senate thought it wise to put her on the national stage and let her go.

And so we come, at length, to the real reason I decided to post today: to say a belated thank you to John Doggett. You may not remember him, but he was the witness who came up late in the hearings and--in addition to contradicting several of her statements on the record--alleged that Hill was a jealous woman, one who'd once pursued him and harbored a grudge when he rejected her. The transcript seems dry now, but I confess that at the time I was riveted by the man's testimony. He was so intense, so sincere, that I could not help but believe him. And if I had any doubt, it was erased when Democratic committee member Howard Metzenbaum tried to destroy Doggett's credibility in a particularly blackguardly way--by using the unsworn testimony of one Amy Grant to raise the possibility that Doggett himself had sexually harrassed women (allegations Doggett vociferously denied)...not, of course, that any of that was relevant to the Thomas matter. I quote from the transcript:

SENATOR BIDEN: Excuse me, let me interrupt for a minute.

MR. DOGGETT: I'm pissed off, sir.

SENATOR BIDEN: It is totally out of line with what the committee had agreed to--

MR. DOGGETT: I'm sorry.

SENATOR BIDEN: --for there to be entered into this record any unsworn statement by any witness who cannot be called before this committee, and I rule any such statement out of order.

Now, I apologize for being out of the room. Was there any--

SENATOR METZENBAUM: I was only reading from Mr. Doggett's own statement.

MR. DOGGETT: My statement was not under oath, sir. That was a telephone conversation and they said we staffers would like to talk with you, we have a court reporter there. I'm a lawyer, sir, it was no deposition, it was not under oath, as Ms. Graham's comments were not under oath. And since you have brought this up, I demand the right to clear my name, sir.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: I was only reading from his statement, not from--

MR. DOGGETT: I demand the right to clear my name, sir. I have been trashed for no reason by somebody who does not even have the basic facts right. This is what is going on with Clarence Thomas, and now I, another person coming up, has had a "witness" fabricated at the last moment to try to keep me from testifying.

SENATOR METZENBAUM: Well, Mr. Doggett--

MR. DOGGETT: I am here, I don't care, she is wrong, and I would like to be able to clear my name, sir.

So I wish today, belatedly, to take my hat off to Mr. John Doggett, J.D., for standing his ground before a hostile Senate committee, for having the courage to come forward in the first place (when he had nothing to gain and very much to lose), and for displaying to the world what a sham those hearings really were. I pray that, when the time comes and the inevitable old bandmate of John Roberts surfaces to air some dirty laundry, we will at least take a considered whiff before hanging it on the national line.