Shouting 'Cross the Potomac

2004-06-06T12:33:00.000-04:00

President Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1911-2004

Will Vehrs

It is difficult to add to anything new to the outpouring of tributes to our 40th President. His optimism, srong beliefs, and humanity are being well-chronicled by those who knew him and those who covered his career.

My most vivid memory was that November night in 1980 when the election returns showed that the man so many had underestimated for so long would win the presidency. I felt a sense of excitement and possibility for the nation that I have not felt before or since.

He was an ordinary man who attained extraordinary greatness. He was an American original.

May President Reagan rest in peace. May we somehow recapture his sense of optimism, even as we disagree on the means of attaining "that shining city on a hill."

2003-12-24T09:38:00.000-05:00

Holiday Wishes

Staff

Warm holiday greetings go out to all our loyal QP readers. We hope you enjoy the best of the season!

2003-12-10T17:11:00.000-05:00

Gregg Easterbrook is Wrong

Will Vehrs

TNR's Gregg Easterbrook is back from a brief hiatus. He must have had a bad experience holiday shopping at the mall. How else to explain this mean-spirited item?

The "decorative turkey" in George W. Bush's hands in the Thanksgiving pictures from Baghdad should in fact make people angry. Hundreds of American dead, thousands of Iraqi dead, and the White House is staging phony photos on Iraqi soil? The occupation of Iraq may be justified, but White House use of the war as a political prop is becoming unseemly. And think: somebody had to fly a fake turkey to Iraq. Voters are not stupid; this sort of thing may backfire on Bush.

I don't know where to begin in expressing my outrage at this commentary. All across America, millions of families pull a fully-cooked turkey out of their oven on Thanksgiving and photograph it with family and friends before carving. That's a little impractical at an Army mess hall, so a decorative, "fake" if you will, turkey is put on display while the real turkey is placed in steam trays to be served to troops moving through the chow line.

If somebody like Easterbrook is willing to do some research--check out several Army mess halls (or Navy dining facilities, whatever you guys call them, Tony)--to discover if "fake" decorations are used at Thanksgiving and finds that the Bush "photo-op" was totally staged and could not have happened anywhere else, then I might have at least a smidgen of respect for his point of view. But even then, why should troops thousands of miles from home be denied this little bit of Americana on a national holiday? Bush also got photographed behind the steam trays when he was serving the "real" food--what was that? Phony?

Easterbrook is right; voters aren't stupid. They know Bush went to Iraq for Thanksgiving and most will give him credit for a nice gesture. They won't read a lot into it, unlike pundits who seek a nefarious purpose whenever it suits them.

On a more positive note, I concur with Easterbrook's tribute to the late Senator Paul Simon (D-IL):

His commitment to the pastoral world of downstate Illinois was genuine; when Simon left the Senate he went back home, to Springfield, to live out the remainder of his days there. So many prepackaged politicians rhapsodize about the soil and the good folks of home, but never return to these things; Simon did, using his final years to found a public-policy institute at Southern Illinois University.

I can't think of a better tribute to a politician than to say he (or she) was "genuine."

2003-12-09T17:11:00.000-05:00

David Brooks is Right

Will Vehrs

Tony, some big-time bloggers are taking on David Brooks' column on Howard Dean that appears in today's New York Times.

Their sensibilities were offended by this passage:

Everybody talks about how the Internet has been key to his fund-raising and organization. Nobody talks about how it has shaped his persona. On the Internet, the long term doesn't matter, as long as you are blunt and forceful at that moment. On the Internet, a new persona is just a click away. On the Internet, everyone is loosely tethered, careless and free. Dean is the Internet man, a string of exhilarating moments and daring accusations.

Jeff Jarvis offers to take Brooks on a tour of the Internet, insinuating he's getting his information from an AOL chat room; Andrew Sullivan quotes Jarvis approvingly.

Brooks is the pundit who declared on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer that he reads AndrewSullivan.com first thing every morning. Brooks knows a thing or two about blogs, about "Fisking." and about the power of links. The mistake I think Jarvis and Sullivan make is to confuse blogs and the Internet. There are probably more AOL screen names in Vermont than reasonably even-handed political blogs in the whole world. Howard Dean didn't rise to be the Democratic titan that he is by favorable reviews from the top bloggers. He rose by capturing the mood of highly partisan Democratic bloggers, Democratic web sites, angry message board posters, MeetUp emailers, and a host of other Internet applications. These are not places where "Fisking" matters, where people say, "Wow, these bloggers really deconstructed Dean's changing positions, I better re-evaluate my support."

I daresay that if you challenge a Dean position or a quote from the candidate in the comments section of a Dean-leaning blog--or if you challenge Bush in a Bush-leaning blog--you won't get a spirited defense. You'll get called names, accused of apostasy, and treated to a shrill listing of the other's guy's defective positions.

"Fact checking your ass," and "Fisking" are noble endeavors, especially when practiced with equal fervor against Republicans, Democrats, Independents, or Greens. But let's get real--only a small number of outlets practice that type of honesty. They are a tiny subset of the fierce Internet partisans who never find fault with their candidate, partisans who would sooner challenge the question and the questioner than the whatever their candidate happened to say. Crusading bloggers fight a constant battle against these ideologues. Sullivan, with his "Poseur" awards and the like, ought to see this clearly.

I reserve a special level of disagreement for Josh Marshall. Josh doesn't challenge Brooks' "diss" of the Dean Internet phenomena so much as declare Brooks a whack job for criticizing Dean. Josh Marshall, the blogger who never met an anti-Bush screed that he didn't like, shocked--Shocked! that a Democrat might be criticized. Ye Gods.

2003-12-05T11:42:00.000-05:00

James Carville's Wife on Iraq Policy

Tony Adragna

I'm watching CNN's Newsnight lastight and came across this

BROWN: I think you're probably right, so let's talk about some of the other things for a bit.

The president got a pretty good bounce, it looks like, in the polls after the Thanksgiving visit. As somebody who has dealt in political strategy, clearly, there are risks and rewards to the policy from a political point of view. What are they? What are the dangers?

MATALIN: Well, from the policy in Iraq?

BROWN: Yes.

MATALIN: The policy in Iraq is -- Iraq, it's part of the long- term strategy to bring stability to a region that, without, it's going to cause our continued insecurity, as the president said in a really ground-breaking speech, reversing, or changing, or transforming 60 years of policy that you can't buy stability at the expense of liberty.

So he's thinking long. This administration is going long-term, bring, if not democracy, some sort of representative government that offers opportunity and hope. And the political danger in that is -- whatever it may be is irrelevant, relative to the policy danger of not confronting this threat that is new to us, this asymmetrical, 21st century threat.

And people have no choice. We could do it the way we did for the last 20 years, since Khobar Towers, which resulted in terrorists that got bolder, stronger, better financed, more organized; 60,000 went through the terrorist camps and the al Qaeda camps. So he has -- this president has a bias for action. So the danger is in not taking action, not in taking action.

BROWN: But, roughly, half the country -- it depends on the poll and it depends on the week -- half the country doesn't think the administration is dealing with Iraq especially well today.

MATALIN: Well, then, that's what campaigns are about. And what I've heard from the Democratic field -- and I don't doubt that, when there is an ultimate nominee, they'll be up to the challenge to have a debate on this, but they haven't offered an alternative to the Bush proposals.

It's one thing to bash Bush all the time, as one is wont to do or the process dictates in a primary. But when we get mano-a-mano, Americans have to make a choice. And the president has out a policy that is a forward strategy for peace, as he calls it. And, look, this is how politics works. There's nine of those guys. They're all over the field. And we're not even suited up yet.

So when it's on an even playing field and people are making a choice, comparing the Bush policy of action to the policy of question mark at this point, then they'll make the choice. And I feel confident as a citizen, as a mother, that I'd rather look forward to a place, a globe that is more secure than not, where my kids can feel more secure than I feel today.

The first bit of text I highlighted is kinda confused. I don't know whether Matalin simply misspoke, or was being deliberate, but never has anybody revised so much history with so few words — the Khobar Towers bombing, at which these 12 Nomads fell, wasn't "20 years" ago.

What did happen "20 years" ago?

On 18 April, 1983 the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by a terrorist in a van loaded with 2000 ponds of explosives. 68 people, of whom 17 were Americans, died.

On October 23rd, 1983 the Marine Barracks was similarly attacked. 241 U.S. service members died.

Mr. Reagan went on to withdraw the U.S. Marines from Lebanon, and won a second term to the presidency in 1984. There grew a lucratrive industry in hostage taking, and our response is to attempt buying the support of the Iranian Ayatollah in influencing the terrorists to release the hostages. Iran-Contra blows up, but all the egg miraculously misses Mr. Reagan's face...

It's OK to beat up on Mr. Clinton's failings, but let's not fortget that he inherited from his predecessors Reagan & Bush no less than the current President Bush did from him.

The second bit of highlighted text is a bit more interesting. Let me read you something

During the past century, we have learned that if we wish to avoid war, we must be strong enough to deter aggression, but also farsighted enough to invest in peace. Now it is time to apply this lesson to the new global challenges we face - to shape a new strategy of Forward Engagement to guide our conduct around the world.

Forward Engagement means addressing problems early in their development before they become crises, addressing them as close to the source of the problem as possible, and having the forces and resources to deal with these threats as soon after their emergence as possible.

While we must always stand prepared to use our military power when all other options fail, Forward Engagement also means addressing societal and political problems before they evolve into threats to our national security and values - before armed conflict becomes the only way to achieve our goals. And Forward Engagement means drawing on all three main sources of American power - military strength, a vibrant, growing economy, and a free and democratic political system - to advance our objectives around the world.

Who said that? If your answer is President Bush, then you're wrong. That quotage comes directly from the 2000 Democratic Party Platform. OK, so Mr. Bush is saying it too, but there's nothing particularly Bushian about this — he just happens to be the president who gets to do it...

'Course, there are Democrats opposed to Mr. Bush's approach, but not all opposition is equal. Some simply oppose the way the president is going about putting the plan into action, and there's some valid criticism that even senior Foreign Relations type Republicans agree with. Others oppose the policy in total, but I'm not sure there opposition really matters politically or practrically — neither Kucinich nor Sharpton are getting anywhere near the White House, Dean's oppositionism is more political than practical, and the other candidates fall into the prior set of critics...

2003-12-04T23:57:00.000-05:00

Leave Limbaugh 'lone?

Tony Adragna

So, I'm watching Hardball and saqwe something intertesting — Brent Bozell defends Limbaugh as just having abused his own body. Nothing to investigate, Limbaugh got himself some treatment, end of story....

... Well, not so fast. See, Limbaugh didn't just abuse his own body — he broke the law!

OK, so I'm not a great fan — or any kind of fan — of drug laws [or Rush Limbaugh]. But, my friends to the right who complain of the breakdown of society as they argue the necessity for laws criminalizing all manners of immoral conduct — drug abuse is certrainly much less than virtuous...

'Course, things could be much worse for Limbaugh — somebody coulda looked to see whether those cash transactions we heard about not too long ago had anything to do with drug purchases...

The top rated radio talk show host is still but a man, and all across the country there are daily prosecutions for illegal possession & usage of drugs. Sure, Limbaugh is taking a beating in news — he's the top rated radio talk show host, not some nobody...

2003-12-03T12:54:00.000-05:00

Quasipundit's New Season Begins Tonight

Tony Adragna

Sorry for the dearth of entries these past several months. Yours truly has been dealing weith unemployment... and a bit of burn out. I am currently employed again — minimum wage at a photo processing plant during the mid-shift [2pm - 10pm], but it's better than nothing [still looking for a better job? YES!!!].

It will, of course, take me a little time to get back up to speed — hopefully not as long as it's gonna take to complete re-reading Churchill's A History of the English Speaking Peoples...

2003-11-23T01:28:00.000-05:00

Scott McClellan's Dad is a Conspiracy Theorist?

Tony Adragna

It's true... Barr McClellan — father of White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan & FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan — has "evidence of the assassination conspiracy to benefit Johnson", and he wrote a book about it

The most compelling evidence of all, says McClellan, is not posted on the website but is presented in his book, due Sept. 30th from Hannover House. Photographs, personal memos and other legal records in the book document the payments and maneuvers orchestrated by Texas power broker Ed Clark Law Firm to compensate Wallace and others for their part in the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. The book also identifies the money-laundering corporation used by Johnson. The Clark Law Firm handled most of the personal, business and political transactions for then Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who ascended to the role of President immediately following the death of Kennedy.

Barr McClellan represented President Lyndon Johnson and his interests from 1966 through 1971. He served primarily through Texas power attorney Edward Clark and Johnson business attorney Don Thomas, advising on political strategy, campaign contributions, attorney-client privilege issues, television and labor disputes. He was also personal attorney for Clark in seeking an assassination bonus from Big Oil interests in Dallas, an effort that included two major lawsuits.

McClellan’s insider knowledge of deals coordinated by the Clark Law Firm assisted in locating the evidence of the assassination conspiracy to benefit Johnson. A major breakthrough, McClellan reports, was the donation of thousands of unedited documents concerning L.B. J. from the Clark Estates to Southwestern University. The release of these documents helped lift the veil of client-attorney privilege that had blocked many researchers from understanding what happened surrounding the assassination and L.B.J.’s involvement.

Hmmm... maybe he can give us some answers about Big Oil & current Iraq policy [he asks with sarcasm]

2003-11-22T19:10:00.000-05:00

Lee Harvey Oswald's Legacy...

Tony Adragna

I wish I could say that JFK's presidency and assassination had a profound personal impact on myself. That I can't say so is an accident of history — he was murdered a month shy of two years before my birth.

I did experience Vietnam as a young child living in Saigon. I've heard contradictory arguments from both opponents & proponents of the war about what JFK would've done as staying the course on maintaining an "advisory" presence became untenable. We do know that he declared Vietnam's problems ought be solved by the Vietnamese — he was for Vietnamization before there was a need to argue for such a policy. But would he have changed his mind had he lived?

I'm tempted to say that's a good question, except that it isn't. It's rather a counterfactual — JFK was killed, and we don't know which way he would've gone. I'm inclined, though, to believe that he would've been for deepening our involvement if the only alternative was to back down. This is the JFK who stared down Kruschev — he who lost his job a year after JFK's murder — when the stakes were much higher. I can't see JFK having muffed his hand on Vietnam.

But this is just as much speculation as arguments that Gore would've muffed a response to 9/11, or that the attack wouldn't have happened, had he been president.

Oswald's legacy is that he took from us what might've been... or maybe what might not have been... we just don't know...

As for conspiracy theories, I think Mark Shields has it right

"[T]he idea that this small troubled tormented man could do something so large and change history by doing it is just somehow, offends people's sense of rationality. I think they're looking for something deeper, something to explain the magnitude of the enormity of what this little man did.

I think there's something to that vis a vis conspiracy theories about Pres. Bush's & 9/11.[ ie. How could these nobody's from Saudi Arabia do what they did without our government catching wind of it? What's with the stand down of fighter aircraft on the east coast? Why did it take so long for NORAD to respond? There just has to be something the government knew, but they purposefully let it happen.]

Certainly, some folks are putting the theories forward for purely malevolent reasons, but I think lots of people buy into them for the same reasons they buy into stories the likes that Oliver Stone tells.

*********************

Brooks on marriage

The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

************

Taxes... hmmm... You know, I'm neither an advocate for nor against taxes. What I'm for is fiscal discipline, which to me means that you've got to balance revenue & spending. But that means making some tough choices, and I suspect the reason for our governors' zigging & zagging has less to do with their ability to make those choices, and mostly to do with not wanting to take the blame for action unpopular with their supporters... Look at what happened when Ehrlich voted for the property tax hike — he was looking for ways to blame Democrats, never mind that he proposed the measure...

2003-11-22T10:18:00.000-05:00

Forty Years Ago

Will Vehrs

This is the actual anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy. It's been marked by a week of television reports, investigations, and retrospectives. I watched both Court TV's special and Peter Jennings' two hour ABC special. I thought both were extremely persuasive in demonstrating by a preponderence of the evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shots that killed the President and that the single bullet theory is correct. There remains a faint, but tantalizing possibility that a shot was fired from the grassy knoll. If it was, it missed.

No substantial evidence exists to link Oswald or his killer, Jack Ruby, to any conspiracy.

I am glad to see major media outlets, however reluctantly, discarding exotic conspiracy theories and embracing the thrust of Gerald Posner's masterful analysis, Case Closed. Jennings' take-down of Oliver Stone was particularly gratifying. Still, conspiracy theories will continue to thrive and probably continue to be believed by a majority of Americans. It's a wonderful cottage industry.

Forty years ago I was in Mrs. Orndorff's fifth grade class at Manassas Park Elementary. We had just that year gotten televisions in our classroom as an education experiment. Principal Ernest Hill came to our room, told us what had happened, and allowed us to watch as history unfolded. I cannot be absolutely sure, but I believe I was watching at home when Ruby shot Oswald. Little did I know that the events of that weekend would, in many ways, haunt and influence everything I subsequently leaned about history, government, and politics.

**********

Tony, you know David Brooks is my favorite pundit. He was my "Pundit of the Year" for 2002 and he's making a late run for 2003 honors. I know you like Mark Shields, too, but I think Shields increasingly looks petty and hidebound against Brooks on The News Hour. Brooks is on the rise and I think he will become, in time, the most influential columnist in the country. That won't be a bad thing.

Interesting about Ehrlich. Here in Virginia, Governor Warner will release a tax overhaul plan on Monday. It appears to still be in flux, but indications are that it will not be as sweeping as originally promised. Warner has zig-zagged on taxes throughout his term, sometimes promising never to raise them, other times insisting they must go up to save the Commonwealth. At the hour of reckoning, he appears to be wavering between the zigs and the zags.

2003-11-21T22:41:00.000-05:00

Dvorak is still clueless

Tony Adragna

In Feb 2002 PC Magazine's John Dvorak wrote a piece titled "The Blog Phenomenon" in which he pretty well pooh poohs blogs & bloggers. At the time I responded

This treatment of "blogging" overlooks the most recent trend - the proliferation of web logs that engage in serious critique of the media, analysis of issues, and even some original reportage.

Well, via Andrew I discover that Dvorak got worse.

I would respond, but Dvorak's colleague at PCMag's sister publication eWeek does a much better job of it

I could take Dvorak's post apart line by line, because of course it is a post in blog space. Sure, it's gone through the filter of "a stern corporate editor" but so has mine and every single blog post I've ever written. Sometimes I'm the editor too, other times I'm not. But always I'm trying the best I can to use the right words at the right time to tip the balance in favor of information, perhaps knowledge, and hopefully insight.

"It's no coincidence that the most-read blogs are created by professional writers," Dvorak warns. And this: "So much for the independent thinking and reporting that are supposed to earmark blog journalism." Here's a test you can try at home: take the word blog out of the last quote.

Hear, hear!

2003-11-21T21:40:00.000-05:00

What's Gov. Ehrlich up to?...

Tony Adragna

Continuing on from where I left on in the item below, let me put those three grafs up again

During the interview on the "Ask the Governor" radio show, Ehrlich also said the budget he will propose in January is likely to include several small tax increases, possibly including new levies on corporations and gasoline.

Ehrlich said he is also considering an increase in the vehicle registration fee to help replenish the state's road-building fund.

A commission appointed to study methods of funding new roads is considering a proposal to increase the fee, currently $81 every two years, to as much as $200.

At the end of the last legislative session Mr. Ehrlich vetoed a tax hike on corporations, and now he's coming back with one?

The governor is considering a rise in vehicle registration fees? And he supported a 60% increase in property taxes during the last session — raising them from "8.4 cents per $100 of valuation to 13.2 cents." [n.b. This increase was done not by the legislature, but administratively by the state's Public Works Board, of which the governor is one of three members. The other members are Comptroller William Donald Schaefer and Treasurer Nancy K. Kopp.]

Maybe an extra "$96 to the annual tax bill for a house assessed at $200,000" isn't a lot of money. But, that's on top of property taxes assessed at the county level — 96 cents per $100 in Prince Georges County, and rising despite a property tax cap. There's a mood in the state against further increases.

Maybe tripling the vehicle registration fee [tax] is a good idea. But look at the situation in California if you wanna see what tripling vehicle registration fees can do to public mood.

What's Gov. Ehrlich up to?...

And what's the press up to?...

I guess the culture war makes better news for both press and politicos, never mind more important issues...

2003-11-21T20:38:00.000-05:00

Can I Marry David Brooks?...

Tony Adragna

OK, beside the fact that he's already spoken for, he's straight. But, I have been gaining appreciation for David Brooks since late last year [scroll down], and tonight's political wrap [transcript not posted yet] impressed me no end.

It's not just what Brooks said about "gay marriage," his postion being perfectly agreeable to me, but his willingness to take on "conservatives" the same why I like to take on "liberals." You hear what he said about the administration's legislative & budget priorities and how they're being enacted: "Big government conservatism without the conservatism."

But, instead of dealing with real problems facing the country, we're gonna get stuck again with wedge issues. Look at today's WaPo story on Gov. Ehrlich's response to the Mass. ruling and an expected legislative battle on this issus in Maryland.

During the interview on the "Ask the Governor" radio show, Ehrlich also said the budget he will propose in January is likely to include several small tax increases, possibly including new levies on corporations and gasoline.

Ehrlich said he is also considering an increase in the vehicle registration fee to help replenish the state's road-building fund.

A commission appointed to study methods of funding new roads is considering a proposal to increase the fee, currently $81 every two years, to as much as $200.

Those three grafs come at the end of the story, and contain some news of real import...

2003-11-21T14:34:00.000-05:00

Queer Marriage for this Straight Guy

Will Vehrs

Tony, good to see your by-line again! You chose a pretty dramatic moment to return.

Let me go on record as supporting gay marriage. I can't find anything in my belief system or my "slippery slope" antenna that would cause me to oppose the marriage of same sex couples.

That said, I am not going to belittle or disavow the majority of those who continue to oppose same-sex marriage on religious or other grounds. It may not be logical, it may not be rational, and it may not be consistent. A lot of beliefs people hold can't be explained. Only time and experience will change their hearts.

It's going to take time to implement gay marriage everywhere. There will be long bitter battles in the courts and legislatures. Various factions will use the debate as a "wedge issue." Politicians will bob and weave. It won't be pretty. I can only hope that those in opposition will show compassion and those fighting for their rights show restraint. This is an issue about same sex marriage, not about sex. Take gay sex out of the discussion and I think the idea of marriage is easier for opponents to take.

Lord knows the sex has been taken out of most hetrosexual marriages.

As for Rush, Tony, I always found his political monolgues to be entertaining, but I've never held him as any kind of example or role model. If he broke the laws regarding drug use or currency violations, put him on trial. He'll get expensive lawyers and walk, just like most celebrities do.

2003-11-19T15:01:00.000-05:00

Updated

The Right to Marry...

Tony Adragna

I wanted to make a post dealing with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision on marriage my maiden post upon reentering the blogosphere, but I just had to hit the Limbaugh item [below] while that iron was hot...

My own opinion is that the worst possible result here would be for the state to respond with a "Civil Unions" law the likes of Vermont's. The state can't respond with a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage before the ruling goes into effect — it won't be 'til 2006 before such an amendment can be put to the people.

Why do I dislike the Vermont solution? Simple: It's fundamenatally dishonest. As I wrote on Sept. 10, "Vermont's Civil Unions Law [...] recogniz[es] something exactly like a marriage" in every way except calling it "marriage."

Update: Just a bit more on this... I've just read the opinion again, and the following passage stuck out

The larger question is whether, as the department claims, government action that bars same-sex couples from civil marriage constitutes a legitimate exercise of the State's authority to regulate conduct, or whether, as the plaintiffs claim, this categorical marriage exclusion violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We have recognized the long-standing statutory understanding, derived from the common law, that "marriage" means the lawful union of a woman and a man. But that history cannot and does not foreclose the constitutional question.

The "constitutional question" being asked here isn't whether there's a "right to same-sex marriage", but whether the use of the state's police powers — its regulatory authority exercised in the case of marriage by either issuing or denying marriage licenses — is properly exercised in the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The Court says that this exercise doesn't even meet the test of rational basis review...

2003-11-19T14:04:00.000-05:00

Updated

So, Now Rush is a Money Launderer?

Tony Adragna

Did I just hear correctly? I can't find linkage, but this is interesting... FOX just ran a clip of Rush Limbaugh defending himself against charged of money laundering. Seems that Mr. Limbaugh made some large cash withdrawls from his bank, said transactions having been structured so as to avoid compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act requirement that transactions over $10,000 be reported to the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforment Center.

Rush said that the funds were used mostly on remodeling his NY apartment, and the transactions totaled [if I heard correctly] $300,000.

Did Mr. Limbaugh break a law? The answer is, yes.

See, Rush says that the transactions were structured at the suggestion of the bank, so that they wouldn't need to report the transactions. If this is what happened, then the bank is in violation — the bank willfully violated the prohibition against structuring transactions so as to avoid the reporting requirement, and Rush agreed to structure the transaction.

Does it matter whether there was an underlying criminal activity? Yes, it does, but only so far as some underlying criminal activity is an aggravating factor. But if you fail to report reportable transactions, or structure transactions so as to avoid the reporting requirement, then you are in violation of the law.

Update: Here's a link to Rush's transcript. I did hear the dollar amount correctly.

Now, what gets Limbaugh off the hook is that he didn't know that what was happening was illegal, and I'll hafta take him at his word on that — most people wouldn't know that it was illegal, and my own knowledge comes from having been someone who used to fill those damnable forms out on a daily basis.

But, didn't he even once wonder whether there was something not quite right going on? I mean, that reporting requirement exists for a reason...

2003-10-22T12:27:00.000-04:00

Paper Lawyer

Will Vehrs

Perhaps John Allen Muhammad was just honoring the spirit of the late George Plimpton by serving briefly as his own lawyer. I was more than willing to let him have his last fantasy fulfilled before he is either locked away for life or strapped to the gurney at the Greensville, VA prison.

2003-10-13T10:03:00.000-04:00

It's Tony's Birthday!

Will Vehrs

If I'm not mistaken, our pot-stirrin' QP founder is, oh, about 29 today. Have a great day, Tony, and good luck with the job search.

2003-10-08T17:03:00.000-04:00

It's Pronounced Caleeforneea!

Tony Adragna

What's amazing is how far off the mark lots of predictions were. Yourself, Will, twice wrote that Cruz would win by a slight margin. Whoda thunk it that AS would pull out a 16 point win.

And it coulda been worse — McClintock's 13 points woulda given AS a 29 point victory, making it 64 to 32!

Hell, even the recall itself won by a 10 point margin.

What now? Well, let's see how AS does.

What does the California governorship being in GOP hands augur for the '04 presidential election? Pundits, Pols and Analysts are making too much of this question. Bush pere lost the state to Clinton even after having elected Wilson...

p.s. Sorry for being away so long, but I've got something a bit more important going on right now — looking for a new job.

2003-10-08T10:26:00.000-04:00

"What Do We Do Now?"--Arnold

Will Vehrs

A few weeks ago I predicted to a QP reader that I thought Davis would be recalled but that Bustamante would edge Schwarzenegger. I failed to update that prognostication as it became increasingly obvious that nothing--not groping allegations, not Nazi allegations, not vague generalities posing as a platform--could stop the Terminator tide.

I'm not crazy about "Arnold" as an actor, a human being, or a thinker. He has charisma, though, and he's definitely an outsider. He could conceiveably use those traits to good effect. I wish him and California well.

The allegations of groping were somewhat troubling, but I had to discount them for their timing and for the environment where they occurred. Hollywood, where sex sells, is hardly the place I would expect to find scrupulous attention to the evils of sexual hijinks morphing into sexual harassment.

We've always been disappointed by high-profile "outsiders" that entered the political arena, the most notable being Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura. Maybe Arnold can break the mold. One grope and he's gone.

2003-09-26T14:01:00.000-04:00

Questioning Sabato and Weintraub

Will Vehrs

It was slow today, so for the first time in ages I was able to carpet-bomb the Washington Post Online guests with questions.

University of Virginia pundit/professor Larry Sabato took questions about the Democratic debate. I didn't ask the question about General Clark that elicited this assessment, but I wish I had:

Larry J. Sabato: Wesley Clark is an enigma to all of us. I am very suspicious of candidates who seek their first elected office in the presidency. That takes even more ego than usual at this level of politics. Moreover, it is clear that Clark has many, many enemies among those who have worked closely with him in the military. Yes, some of this may be pure jealousy, but when one hears General Hugh Shelton, a mild-mannered individual who served Democratic Presidnt Clinton well, question Clark's basic character and integrity, it makes any thoughtful person sit up and take notice.

Then there is Clark's voting record for Nixon, Reagan, and other Republicans. He now presents himself as a liberal Democrat. This is an extraordinary transformation of personal and party ideology that requires far more explanation that Clark has given. Finally, Clark's bungling of the Iraq issue as he announced--the one issue with which he had closely identified himself with--suggests that Wes is no Ike, that Clark is not ready for prime time and needs to serve in a lower-level elective office before he even thinks about running for president.

His performance in Thursday's Democratic debate underlined this conclusion for me. He was vague, amateurish, and filled to the gills with clever sound bites supplied by his Clinton alumni handlers.

Here were my questions and the Professor's answers:

Bristow, Va: How do we reconcile Gov. Gray Davis claiming that California's economy is coming back with the Democratic presidential candidates telling us the whole national economy is a disaster and getting worse?

Larry J. Sabato: Hypocrisy is the lifeblood of politics!

Nokesville, Va.: Maybe I'm just forgetting, but did GOP presidential candidates in 1999 get this much coverage this early in the process? Isn't part of Bush poll free fall due to relentless pounding from the Democratic campaign machine, while Bush forces don't have a competing political operation attacking the Deans and Kerrys full-time?

Larry J. Sabato: If memory serves, the GOP field did get wide coverage in 1999, although whether it was the exact equivalent of 2003, I cannot know without doing an extensive study. Your point about Bush's falling ratings is more accurate when applied to a state such as Iowa. Just last weekend I was told by a senior Republican elected official in the Hawkeye State that the 10 Democrats' battering of Bush is having a major effect on the president's popularity rating in that state. This individual, who has had considerable experience in presidential campaigns believes that Bush will be hard pressed to carry Iowa in November, because of the intense, persistent criticism he is receiving day after day in the press at this time.

Little Silver, N.J.: Sen. Edwards says his campaign is ahead in South Carolina. Do you believe him? Do you think it is possible that we will have different winners in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina?

Larry J. Sabato: Edwards may well have a slight edge in the Palmetto State Democratic primary at the moment. However, if Edwards does poorly in DC, IA, and NH, then it will be difficult for him to maintain that edge. Is it impossible? Of course not. Psychologically, every state's electorate may well want to make its own special, individual mark on the presidential selection process. (In my advancing age, I am beginning to believe more and more that one cannot understand politics without understanding group or mob psychology.) Let me add one other point: momentum matters even more than usual in a compressed, frontloaded system such as the one the Democrats have created for 2004.

Daniel Weintraub of the Sacramento Bee (and blog fame) discussed the California gubernatorial recall race. Here were my questions and the responses:

Brandermill, Va.: Can you comment on the controversy surrounding your Weblog, supposedly put under an editor because of complaints from the Bustamante camp?

Daniel Weintraub: I'm not really going to get into detail here about that issue. But I think it's less about political correctness than it is about the ongoing tensions between new and old media. Like a lot of newspapers, the Bee is trying to extend its reach into the electronic world, and when you do that, you are going to have growing pains. Since they started pre-clearing my blog posts, the editors have not changed a thing. I assume that will continue.

Just a comment from a Political Junkie: I thought the moderator of the debate was a disaster, but your format was worth trying and I thought worked reasonably well--it was much more interesting than the stale Democratic presidential debate last night!; What would you now recommend for a debate format, knowing what you know now?

Daniel Weintraub: One topic for each of a series of debates: fiscal, health care, immigration, education, transportation. Bring everything you've got. Loose format, strong moderator. Allow the candidates to challenge each other but do not allow them to speak over one another's answers or cut them off before they can make a point.

Skinquarter, Va.: What is up with Arianna Huffington? She was the most insufferable debate participant I have ever seen. How does she get a pass on negative campaigning? Will she possibly have some significant impact on the voting?

Daniel Weintraub: I agree that she was awful. I think her goal was simply to bait Schwarzenegger into clashes with her, and he fell for it. She may have won some support on the far left, her current niche, and she could pull votes away from the Green Party candidate and possibly Bustamante, the Democrat. It's possible she could take some independents who are angry at the status quo and were thinking of voting for Arnold, but I doubt that will amount to much.

Virginia: Thanks for getting up early to do this chat for us East Coasters! I may be wrong, but I didn't hear Lt. Gov. Bustamante mention "No" on recall during the debate. Did I miss it? If I didn't, isn't that pretty significant?

Daniel Weintraub: He did say no on recall in answer to the very first question, but not again. Bustamante has pretty much abandoned that aspect of his campaign and really is running for governor. This is his one, best chance to get the office and he's not going to undermine that by campaigning for Davis. They have never been close.

Midlothian, Va.: I thought the Green Party candidate was reasonably reasonable and gained some credibility for both the party and himself by his participation in the debate. Do you agree? Any sense that he made some converts?

Daniel Weintraub: Camejo was articulate and passionate about his beliefs. I thought his participation enlivened the debate and raised good points that otherwise would have been ignored. He got 5 percent last year. I think it will be difficult for him to match that this year, especially with Huffington on the ballot.

Nokesville, Va.: Do you think Clinton, et. al. will need to return to California to cement the apparent anti-recall gains made recently?

Daniel Weintraub: Not sure. I think they have nailed down about as much of the Democratic base as they are going to get. They need to reach out to more moderate Dems and independents now. And it's not clear Clinton and the presidential candidates help on that score.

When writer's block sets in, QP turns it over to the experts!

2003-09-25T07:30:00.000-04:00

California Debatin'

Will Vehrs

Tony, I watched the "Big Five" go at it last night in the California gubernatorial recall debate. It was alternately entertaining, illuminating, and infuriating.

I largely agree with Mickey Kaus' take on how the candidates performed, except that I was totally unimpressed with Arnold's performance.

Here's how I scored the debate on style:

1. Bustamante Smooth, unruffled, dignified
2. McClintock Serious, on point
3. Camejo Passionate without being overbearing
4. Schwarzenegger Overbearing
5. Huffington Absolutely insufferable

Here's how I scored it on substance:

1. McClintock
2. (Tie) Huffington, Bustamante, Camejo
3. Schwarzenegger

If I were a Californian, my choice would be between McClintock or Camejo. If you're going to recall a Governor because you think the "system" is "broken," you might as well swing to a serious candidate of the left or right, instead of turning to a total gadfly (Huffington), an egomaniacal blank slate (Schwarzenegger), or a mushy-middle political wind gauge (Bustamante). Of course, I'm not a Californian and most voters probably aren't thinking that way. I do believe the overall debate performance probably helped the recall effort.

In real political terms, I think Arnold probably solidified his support but didn't make a lot of converts. I think Bustamante's lack of passion and "high road" approach probably didn't arouse Democrats who thrive on anger, but maybe it helped him with moderates. Huffington appealed to the angry Democrats, but I can't see even the most enraged voter turning to a pampered whack job scold. McClintock probably made a few converts, as did Camejo, but probably not enough to propel them into real contention. It was good to see a Green Party candidate come off as reasonably within the mainstream and actually be competitive in a debate with "major party" candidates.

I predict Davis will be recalled and Bustamante will top Schwarzenegger by a few points.

One other thing--the moderator of the debate was dreadful and should never be allowed on a debate stage again.

2003-09-21T13:02:00.000-04:00

Quasipundit Storm Center

Tony Adragna

'Twas a good blow, but that's 'bout it. Glad to hear you're OK, Will.

We lost power around 4:00 PM Thursday here at the Hyattsville Hanngout — guess who was home all by his lonesome... Power came back on 'round 6:00 [yesterday] morning, and I just got cable back 'bout half an hour ago, otherwise I woulda posted earlier.

I was trying to keep up with the news by listening to the radio, but the only channel I could get was WMAL, and all they've been doing is call-in letting folks vent 'bout PEPCO's response to the power outages. The consensus, with which I agree, seems to be that PEPCO couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag with a box cutter. That opinion isn't just informed by the response to Isabel — all you hafta do is think about rain and the power goes out around here.

Some good questions have been raised vis a vis the large number of lines downed by trees — we've either got to bury those lines, or clear hazards away from those lines i.e. cut down the flippin' trees... 'Course, nobody wansta lose their trees or deal with the inconvenience of lane closures while the road gets dug up...

So, I dealt with a 38 hour power outage and loss of my broadband cable access to the net — coulda been lots worse. I remember spending some 13 hours chasing December '86's Typhoon Marge at sea on our way back to Guam from Hong Kong in a round bottomed hull that was left over from WWII — now that was a close one...

And thank God we have around the house an old phone that doesn't need to be plugged into a power outlet — we housemates were able to keep in touch with each other that way.

Oh well, gota catch up with the news now...

2003-09-21T11:45:00.000-04:00

What Did I Miss?

Will Vehrs

I lost power at 6:30PM Thursday and it didn't come back until just a few minutes ago. Now I can watch ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous.

My immediate neighborhood was very fortunate--no downed trees caused damage to homes or cars. An adjacent neighborhood was not so lucky--I saw at least four homes and one car that took direct hits from giant oak trees pulled right out of the ground.

We're under a "boil water" alert and there's no school tomorrow, but feel very lucky that this storm spared us much worse.

2003-09-18T13:23:00.000-04:00

Rider on the Storm

Will Vehrs

Tony, thanks to Isabel and the judgement of Virginia Governor Mark Warner, I didn't have to go to work today. I slept in this morning until an unheard of 8AM, awakening to intermittent rain and mild wind gusts.

Now the rain has been falling hard for several hours and the wind gusts are increasing in intensity by the minute. The crack Richmond, VA weather forecasters say we're in for a rough next 12-24 hours.

I've spent the day reading Gregg Easterbrook, who tells me Hurricane Isabel is over-hyped, watching a huge Bradford Pear tree that I doubt will survive this overrated storm, and playing Scrabble with daughter Catie. I have to say that I am becoming a big fan of Easterbrook's new blog. He seems to have something original and provocative every day. Of course, like everyone else, he does a bit of recycling from blog to other paid work and vice versa.

I'm also following the Wesley Clark entry into the Democratic presidential race. In my estimation, Clark joins Howard Dean as a "boutique" candidate, appealing to a relatively narrow, but passionate group of the overall narrow group of passionate Democrats who live for primary season. Dean's "boutique" is the "hip" one right now and it'll be hard to pry customers away. Clark probably needs to get substantive fast, lest he fall prey to what seems to be killing Arnold in California--lack of specificity in addressing the major issues of the day. The press, major arbiter of the contest so far, looks askance at mere homilies.

Where are you on the resume-laden General Clark, Tony? And are you riding the storm, too?

2003-09-16T08:28:00.000-04:00

ACLU Punchcard Complaints...

Tony Adragna

See updates below

Since the ACLU's original complaint against California's voting system — on Equal Protection & Voting Rights Act claims — was filed in April 2001, and the Secretary of State decertified the Votomatic-type machines & agreed to a consent decree to replace them by the March 2004 primary, I must object to the intimation that the current complaint is disingenuous.

And because the Oct 7 date would mean not just reliance on the unreliable system, but also access problems vis a vis lots of regular polling places not being available, I'm havving to agree with the ACLU here.

I want the recal to go forward, but I want it done properly..

Will Replies ....Good catch, as usual, Tony, but it still seems a stretch to me that a November 2002 election was okay to proceed under the terms of the consent decree but an October 2003 election is not. I think there's a lot of value in the Volokh observation that we don't know how reliable the new system will be versus the alleged known unreliability of punch cards.

It would be better to try out the new, untested voting system in a March Democratic primary than in a combination March recall/primary election, IMHO. New-fangled machinery doesn't always work out the way it's supposed to, especially the first time around.

Tony's rebuttal: The short answer, Will, is that the ACLU won't cede that '02 results were OK, but there was practically no remedy availabe at that time — a general election isn't so easily postponed 'til machines are replaced if it's gonna take a year or more to replace the machines. The best that could be got was the state's enforcable agreement to correct the defective voting system in a reasonable amount of time...

The 9th Circuit's opinion actually addresses the question of why injunctive relief places less burden on the state in the case of a special election, and that has some bearing on why the panel came down where it did.

It's much worth noting at this point that the panel didn't decide that the vote can't take place 'til March '04. All they did was enjoin the state from holding the election on Oct. 7, but if the District Court can find a way to make it happen between those two dates, then it can still go forward...

2003-09-15T14:31:00.000-04:00

Huh?

Will Vehrs

I'm having a hard time understanding how the voting method used to elect California Governor Gray Davis--punch card--is suddenly unconstitutional for recall voting. Did the ACLU have a problem with Davis' election or re-election?

2003-09-10T20:00:00.000-04:00

Democrats on Discrimination in the Marriage Laws...

Tony Adragna

I've said before that I'm just as bothered by the anti-same-sex-marriage arguments of supposed liberals — even the "unreconstructed" progressive type liberal — but now I've to admit that I'm even more bothered by stuff I hear from Democrats

GRAHAM: I support nondiscrimination for all Americans. I have introduced legislation that would eliminate the current discrimination for domestic partners in relationship to spouses for federal tax policy and health care. That is one of hundreds of examples of discrimination which is in the current law.

I think that march towards the establishment of the concept of equality for all is the route that we should take.

GRAHAM: I do not support marriages of homosexuals because I believe that marriage is an institution established by religion, culture and law for a man and a woman with a principle being the nurturing of children.

(APPLAUSE)

As sure as God made little green apples, Sen. Graham makes absolutely no sense here — and the (APPLAUSE) just clues in how clueless the audience be.

At least my rightward leaning friends make a logically consistent argument against extending the benefits of marriage to people who aren't married. Set aside for a moment that we queer folk aren't allowed to marry, the discrimination against unmarried folk in recieving benefits meant for married folk still stands as reasonable.

But the argument Graham makes can mean only one of two things

a) We're going to grant domestic partners the same benefits as married folk, but without making them jump through the same hoops as married folk — i.e. getting married: This seems to me to discriminate against married folk in a way that's impermissible, and just plain wrong,

b) We're going to grant the same benefits to those who jump through the hoops of domestic partnership laws as to those who jump through the hoops of marriage laws: These two groups ought be treated the same, he basically says, only in separate "institutions". Why? Because, he maintains, marriage is something different. Well, if it is different, then doesn't that argue for disparate treatment in favor of marriage?

I think marriage is different, but I don't think it's exclusive of people who can't have children. By the "nurturing of children" logic Graham employs, the exclusion of benefits ought be applied to folk who don't have children, whether or not married.

Our society recognizes the loving, committed, long term relationships between straight folk as "marriages" irrespective of whether they do, or even can, have children. So, the purported "principle" reason for marriage isn't necessary to marriage. Why can't we call same-sex unions "marriage"?

Sen. Graham puts a half-baked lasagna on the table and tells me I oughta eat up & be happy... I think I'm gonna go make sick...

p.s. Read Vermont's Civil Unions Law — the state is recognizing something exactly like a marriage insofar as rights (benefits and protections) & responsibilites, includes parties to a civil union in the definitions of "spouse," "family," "immediate family," "dependent," "next of kin" anywhere they are used in Vermont law, puts jursidiction in the family courts. 'Cept refusing to call it so simply because it's not a "union between a man and a woman" makes it not exactly like a marriage...

2003-09-10T08:07:00.000-04:00

Tapped on Trade Unionists...

Tony Adragna

So, it's not just myself and WaPo's editorial board whats got problems with Labor's agenda — the Tapper had this to say

Pandering to unions and the manufacturing sector on the economy won't cut it, either. The fact is that those jobs are gone and they are not coming back. And besides, 91 percent of us out in the private sector are non-union and doubt we'll ever benefit from anything to do with organized labor, other than its electoral interventions and the workplace changes won by unions more than half a century ago.

What is the new sector that will arise and reinvigorate the American economy again? What are the candidates going to do for those of us who are non-union workers? Anybody have any ideas?

Good questions...

2003-09-09T13:07:00.000-04:00

A Still Overdue Speech

Tony Adragna

OK, Will, Brooks has grown on me — finally gotten over my Gergen preference, now I'm gonna miss Brooks[must admit to not missing Gigot].

The Dean of the DC Pundit Corps writes of the speech as something "A Long Time Coming". Broder offers up Biden, Lugar, Hagel and McCain as examples of "leading foreign policy spokesmen in both parties" who have been urging that Mr. Bush take the most recently made tack.

While we're talking 'bout speeches-in-waiting & mistakes-not-candidly-admitted, I'll take the opportunity to iterate again that certain presidential candidates — especially the junior senator from Massachusetts — need to add some candid admissions to their perorations. Those knuckleheads didn't hafta vote for the resolution, and many of their collegues — including one of those hopefuls among them — didn't.

Sen. Kerry needs to admit either that he regrets wrongly voting for the resolution, or he's wrong to charge that the president misled...

2003-09-09T07:17:00.000-04:00

Brooks Debuts

Will Vehrs

Tony, my favorite pundit, David Brooks, made his debut this morning as a New York Times columnist. The "Grey Lady" needs him.

Brooks, who always enlivened The News Hour while tangling with Mark Shields, is taking a hiatus from the show to concentrate on his new job. Asked on Friday's show if he had written the column that appeared today, Brooks deadpanned, "Six times."

The first Brooks effort demonstrated why I like him. He is willing to offer criticism and analysis free of a personal, partisan agenda. He discussed the President's change of policy on Iraq, with these being his key points:

The leading Bushies almost never admit serious mistakes.

Fortunately, while in public members of the administration emphasize their own incredible foresight, in private they are able to face unpleasant facts and pivot in response.

Presidents tend to be ruthless opportunists, no matter how ideological they appear.

The essential news is that Bush will do whatever it takes to prevail, and senior members of his administration are capable of looking honestly at their mistakes. You will just never be able to get any of them to admit publicly they've ever made any.

Brooks' column will appear on Tuesdays and Saturdays. He'll be an effective counterweight to Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd--a breath of fresh air to an increasingly tedious ideological viewpoint.

Compare Brooks's critique to Krugman's commentary today:

It's now clear that the Iraq war was the mother of all bait-and-switch operations.

Yet in the speech on Sunday he was still up to his usual tricks.

Mr. Bush created this crisis, and if he were a true patriot he would pay a political price to resolve it. Maybe it's time for him [Bush] to do a couple of things he's never done before, like admitting mistakes and standing up to the hard right.

Brooks demonstrated that Bush admitted mistakes, but in his own way. What matters is the policy, not self-flagellation. Anyone who thinks Krugman would have given Bush kudos for saying, "I screwed up" is offering punditry from another planet.

2003-09-08T19:28:00.000-04:00

Reviewing Campaign Finance Reform

Tony Adragna

So, the Justices heard argument today on BCRA. CJ Rhenquist is reported to have said, "I don't think Buckley supports the proposition that Congress can regulate willy-nilly any sort of contribution in connection with an election." I think the Chief shouldn't use early 17th century adverbs in such a willy-nilly fashion.

But, Justice Rhenquist's partial dissent in Buckley v. Valeo is something I can get behind

Congress, of course, does have an interest in not "funding hopeless candidacies with large sums of public money," ante at 96 , and may for that purpose legitimately require "some preliminary showing of a significant modicum of support," Jenness v. Fortson, [403 U.S. 431, 442 (1971),] as an eligibility requirement for public funds. Ante at 96 . But Congress, in this legislation, has done a good deal more than that. It has enshrined the Republican and Democratic Parties in a permanently preferred position, and has established requirements for funding minor party and independent candidates to which the two major parties are not subject. Congress would undoubtedly be justified in treating the Presidential candidates of the two major parties differently from minor party or independent Presidential candidates, in view of the long demonstrated public support of the former. But because of the First Amendment overtones of the appellants' Fifth Amendment equal protection claim, something more than a merely rational basis for the difference in treatment must be shown, as the Court apparently recognizes. I find it impossible to subscribe to the Court's reasoning that, because no third party has posed a credible threat to the two major parties in Presidential [p*294] elections since 1860, Congress may by law attempt to assure that this pattern will endure forever.

I would hold that, as to general election financing, Congress has not merely treated the two major parties differently from minor parties and independents, but has discriminated in favor of the former in such a way as to run afoul of the Fifth and First Amendments to the United States Constitution.

You want real reform in American politics, try breaking the two-party chokehold...

2003-09-05T20:31:00.000-04:00

Getting the Point on Liberty & the Constitution...
plus the FMA is just plain 'ol unAmerican

Tony Adragna

My all-time favourite political character — that great gentleman fromt the state of Wyoming, Sen. Alan Simpson — wrote an exceptionally good op-ed that appears in today's WaPo. He makes three solid points

1. Federalizing regulation of marriage is anti-federalist: "In our system of government, laws affecting family life are under the jurisdiction of the states, not the federal government...

As someone who is basically a conservative, I see not an argument about banning marriage or "defending" families but rather a power grab. Conservatives argue vehemently about federal usurpation of other issues best left to the states, such as abortion or gun control. Why would they elevate this one to the federal level?"

The "why" is because the FMA's proponents see no other way to stop the ban on same-sex marriages from being found unconstitutional by the federal courts, where advocates of same-sex marriage took the fight. But why did same-sex couples take this fight to the courts? Could it be because marriage, absent the political question of legislated benefits, implicates fundamental rights? If so, then is the majority's want, expressed at the ballot box or through representatives, the final answer to Liberty's call? That brings me to Sen. Simpson's second objection

2) The FMA is anti-Liberty: "[I]t is surely not the tradition in this country to try to amend the Constitution in ways that constrict liberty. All of our amendments have been designed to expand the sphere of freedom, with one notorious exception: prohibition. We all know how that absurd federal power grab turned out."

Ah, tradition — where's Topol when I need him... Now, I'm not a traditionalist, so you've got to convince me that there's a good reason to not break from tradition. Here's a good one in the instant case: Amending the Constitution "in ways that constrict liberty" is't just anti-tradition, but also contra at least one of the Constitution's purposes — to "secure the Blessings of Liberty."

But, what about "promot[ing] the general Welfare", you ask? Isn't that a purpose? The answer is yes. And government attempts to do that by granting legislated rights & benefits to married couples & families are how that purpose is properly pursued [whether it's a fruitful pursuit is another matter]. And I'll concede that as a political question on the social policy benefits of granting benefits to same-sex couples the ban passes a toothless rational basis test. However, tf the government wants to regulate a fundamental right — an individual liberty — and if marriage is just such a right, then there's got to be a compelling interest and regulation narrowly tailored to that interest. The interest articulated by the FMA's proponents is the protection of marriage and families, but

3) Arguments for the FMA don't address what ails marriages: "As our country has gained honest and steady knowledge about homosexuality, we have learned that it is not a mental illness or a disease or a threat to our families. The real threats to family values are divorce, out-of-wedlock births and infidelity. We all know someone who is gay, and like all of us, gay men and women need to have their relationships recognized in some way. How are gay men and women to be expected to build stable, loving relationships as all of us try to do, when American society refuses to recognize the relationships?"

Indeed, why should gay men & women even aspire to that institution our straight brothers & sisters already ruined... Seriously, how is banning same-sex marriage the indicated cure for a plague of "divorce, out-of-wedlock births and infidelity" in heterosexual relationships [and how effective have legislated rights & benefits been at the same task]? I've still not heard a good answer to this question I've been asking for at least two years.

Sen. Simpson's last graf

To reach the best understanding, the debate over gay men and women in America should focus not on what drives us apart but on how to make all of our children -- straight or gay -- feel welcome in this land, their own American home.

Exactly! And it's that "focus" I find most offensive in the FMA — it wants to write into our national charter, and on the basis of external differences, a justification for treating me as separate and unequal...

p.s.: My Blog Ate My Homework! The above was drafted much earlier today, and the earlier draft was probably better, but was lost somewqhere in the ether...

2003-09-03T15:48:00.000-04:00

My thoughts on Labor

Tony Adragna

So, what have I been thinking about? Certainly not 'bout the price of tea in China. Though, I'm quite sure that some folks might find their way clear to a perfectly reasonable stance that we oughtn't allow the import of Chinese tea — that, too, must hurt American workers somehow.

I understand what Labor is trying to do vis a vis opposition to NAFTA & other free trade agreements — the labor & environmental protections they want to see in those agreements are all about taking away the incentives to moving manufacturing jobs overseas. It's about job protectionism for U.S. labor.

Now, I do think we've got two good reasons for wanting to maintain a strong manufacturing sector in the U.S. — we want to be able to export goods, and we want the capacity to provide for ourselves at times when we aren't able to import. But it seems to me that throwng up barriers to foreign competition & subsidizing uncompetitive domestic operations isn't the answer to the problem.

Instead of imposing tariffs on foreign steel & propping up domestic producers who can't compete against legal trade,[pdf, pg 3 para 2 et seq] we should be finding ways to reduce overcapacity & promote efficiency.

'Course, that's not how you protect jobs...

And I won't dispute that unions may serve an interest that I think important — protecting worker's from abusive practices is what the labor movement was about at its begin, and where its focus ought still be today. So, I've no problem with Labor advocating for better working conditions & pay in China or Mexico or wherever.

But, when Labor dresses up domestic job protectionism in the guise of concern for foreign labor, my cynicdar starts beeping.

What got me thinking on this topic was this past Labor Day's Washington Journal segment that boiled down to a discussion between "rights at work" and a "right to work". Perversely, the Labor folks seem less interested in protecting the individual worker's rights, than they are in protecting "collective rights"[if any such things exist].

For instance, a union may claim the right to bargain on behalf of all workers at a shop, notwithstanding that some workers may desire to represent themselves. And union dues may be compelled as a condition of employment, even if a person elects not to join the union. I'm not sure why this isn't a First Amendment "right of association" violation.

Instead of messing around with folks who don't need or want collective protections, why doesn't Labor focus its energies on folks who really do need some advocacy — minimum wage workers. I was upset, very, to hear the Labor representative get all realistic in not arguing for better than $6.65 an hour[pdf] — $13,832/yr [2080 hrs] — when the minimum wage question was raised. He settled without a fight.

Certainly, a buck fifty is probably the best that can be got out of the current political climate. But why not at least argue the merits of starting with a raise to where minimum wage ought be — $8.27 — if it had been indexed to inflation from the begin? Despite it probably not being a winning argument, it's still a discussion worth having to bring out the point that the minimum is and will still be something less than it was 30 years ago.

'Course, these minimum wage earners don't pay union dues...

That's all I've got to say 'bout that... been thinking on other things — the value of vision, the situation in Iraq, Califronia, etc — and I'll have more to say after I've thought through some more...

2003-09-03T11:03:00.000-04:00

This break has been sponsored by the word "think"

Tony Adragna

Thinking... thinking... thinking...

2003-08-27T00:18:00.000-04:00

'Twas the Foam From the Begin — 1981 That Is...

Tony Adragna

Glenn wonders whether there's discussion in the report supporting the theory that "an EPA mandate to reduce ozone-depleting chemicals released into the atmosphere"[my emphasis] contributed to Columbia's catastrophic failure — or, did the fact that the foam was environment friendly per se doom the shuttle?

Answer: NO!

Yes, the foam strike caused a breach in Columbia's wing, but foam was shedding from the external tank and causing damage to the orbiter prior to the reformulation

6.1 A HISTORY OF FOAM ANOMALIES

The shedding of External Tank foam — the physical cause of the Columbia accident — had a long history. Damage caused by debris has occurred on every Space Shuttle flight, and most missions have had insulating foam shed during ascent. This raises an obvious question: Why did NASA continue flying the Shuttle with a known problem that violated design requirements? It would seem that the longer the Shuttle Program allowed debris to continue striking the Orbiters, the more opportunity existed to detect the serious threat it posed. But this is not what happened. Although engineers have made numerous changes in foam design and application in the 25 years that the External Tank has been in production, the problem of foam-shedding has not been solved, nor has the Orbiter's ability to tolerate impacts from foam or other debris been significantly improved. [Columbia Accident Investigation Report Chapter 6, pg 121 (pdf, first page)]

The assumption that only tiny pieces of debris would strike the Orbiter was also built into original design requirements, which specified that the Thermal Protection System (the tiles and Reinforced Carbon-Carbon, or RCC, panels) would be built to withstand impacts with a kinetic energy less than 0.006 foot-pounds. Such a small tolerance leaves the Orbiter vulnerable to strikes from birds, ice, launch pad debris, and pieces of foam.

Despite the design requirement that the External Tank shed no debris, and that the Orbiter not be subjected to any significant debris hits, Columbia sustained damage from debris strikes on its inaugural 1981 flight. More than 300 tiles had to be replaced. Engineers stated that had they known in advance that the External Tank “was going to produce the debris shower that occurred” during launch, “they would have had a difficult time clearing Columbia for launch." [id, pg 122 (second page)]

NASA was going where test pilots dare not — outside the envelope. When they discovered that the system wasn't working as designed, they decided it wasn't a problem so long as the Orbiter kept going up & coming down.

Except, it was a problem known about since Columbia's first flight in '81, and her final crew paid the price for what "[o]ver the course of 113 missions... came to be regarded more as a turn around or maintenance issue, and less as a hazard to the vehicle and crew."

The panel's "findings" in this section start on the bottom of pg 130 (pg 10)...

2003-08-26T17:28:00.000-04:00

Well, I've Got Nothin'...

Tony Adragna

An old Baltimore Sun editor, and a real mensch, once spoke, "[I]f you haven't any opinion, and if you don't want to take a line, don't print the editorial. You don't have to print it. " On the news of the past few days, I've no opinion not already expressed at one time or another, so I've taken Mr. Mencken's advice.

But, I do want to share some of Mencken's orts of wisdom

Nature abhors a moron.

Say what you will about the Ten Commandments, you must always come back to the pleasant fact that there are only ten of them.

It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.

Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses.

Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage.

It is the fundamental theory of all the more recent American law...that the average citizen is half-witted, and hence not to be trusted to either his own devices or his own thoughts.

It is inaccurate to say I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.

Demagogue: One who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.

It is impossible to imagine the universe run by a wise, just and omnipotent God, but it is quite easy to imagine it run by a board of gods. If such a board actually exists it operates precisely like the board of a corporation that is losing money.

Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule--and both commonly succeed, and are right... The United States has never developed an aristocracy really disinterested or an intelligentsia really intelligent. Its history is simply a record of vacillations between two gangs of frauds.

All those quotes are, I think, relevant to discussions we've recently had, or coulda had if we felt compelled to have something to say everyday...

2003-08-24T16:53:00.000-04:00

Updated 5:30 PM

Plebeian Punditry Purmutates Polisphere

Tony Adragna

Sorry, Will, but you know of my love for the alliteration...

That last quoted graf gets at my answer to Brian Lamb re "empowerment." We don't need rely on politicians or newspaper editors to get our viewpoints out into the public debate. Nor do we need the financial support of special interest goups or political machines to get our message out.

All we hafta do is login, type, and publish.

Some time ago, responding to a question put by another Brian, I wrote: "political blogs are 'value added' to the extent that they contribute to democratizing the debate -- that's the best future we can hope for..." Are we there yet?

I think so.

I think this also ties into our discussion on plabiscitary democracy, where Zathras writes

Anyone who has spent more than a week observing a legislature knows that it isn't just having a majority that counts; it's having the ability to decide which questions your majority answers. In a California plebiscite, the voters don't make those decisions any more than they do in states that have no initiative procedures in their constitutions. Interest groups and activists make the decisions for them. This doesn't mean that the end product will always be a bad one, but it does mean that's the way to bet.

Why is it that "voters don't make those decisions" about which questions get answered? We voters should get to make those decisions, at least indirectly through our representatives. Shouldn't we? If you respond that we do get to make such choices every two years or so at the ballot booth, I'll hafta go make sick — the partisan rhetoric, often devolving into polemics, is less about issues than about getting electetd, irrespective of whether the seat is truly contested.

OK, special interests can use the intiative process to bring their questions to the front. But so can regular citizens. And it's regular citizens who get to decide the answer, instead of leaving it to the political class.

There's still something missing from the plebiscitary democracy movement, though, and that's informed debate between regular citizens. It's great that politicians & jouranlists are reading blogs, but I'm more interested in the democratic nature of blogging. The Greeks went to the Agora to debate in public, unlike the Romans who debated within the Senate's confines — could blogging be the forum that breaks the hold that special interests, politicians, and the news media have long had on which questions get answered?

Stephen Farnsworth answers that question, correctly I think...

Update: Got a letter from Nico, who said some very gracious things [which I modestly won't post] then comments & asks

The problem with (and at the same time the power of) blogs is that they represent the single voice. If the politician/representative now wants to find out what the general opinion, say in a state (or even a big city), is, how would he do that?

Browsing blogs alone can't be the solution. (How can I browse thousands or even millions of blogs?) As a politician I probably could not even assume that the blogs represent a fair cross-section of society and a fair representation of people's opinions....

......personally I think that the only solution to this problem would be to localize government, but throwing the question back at you. What do you think would be the solution?

Well, politicians already have their ways — focus groups, town hall meetings, opinion polling. Politicians also have people working for them who shouldn't have any problem tuning into a good cross section of the blogosphere. As I said above, though, I'm mostly into how "regular citizens" can tune into each other's opinions, debate & learn from each other, and come to their own conclusions on important questions of the day.

The best blogs, in my opinion, include comments sections [I must pause here to do something I've not done in awhile — Express my profound gratitude to Kathy Kinsley]. I can always count on QP being not a "single voice," as those comments from our readers are just as much a part of the blog as are the entries by me & Will.

I think Will was right on during our C-SPAN appearance when he noted that anybody with internet access ought be able to do what those government folks in Virginia are doing. And it doesn't need the regular browsing of more than probably 10 or 20 blogs to get a good sense of what's going on, so long as your reading list isn't one-sided. And if there's a comment section, then jump right in...

2003-08-24T16:52:00.000-04:00

Front Page Blogging

Will Vehrs

Hey Tony, we got a nice mention today on the front page of the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Pam Stallsmith has an effective summary of the blogging phenomenon and its impact from a Virginia perspective. I particularly liked this series of quotes she included:

The press office of Gov. Mark R. Warner, which monitors news coverage of the administration, keeps its eye on bloggers.

"We clip bloggers who know what's going on and their writing reflects that they know what's going on," Warner spokeswoman Ellen Qualls said. "We want to know what people are saying about Virginia government or politics no matter where they're saying it."

That's "powerful evidence" of the growing influence of bloggers, said one political analyst.

"When Governor Warner's staff not only looks at the state's leading newspapers but Web sites without paid circulation, you can see how important to the discourse these people have become in very short order," said Stephen J. Farnsworth, a political scientist at Mary Washington College who's an expert on the Internet and politics.

"In the old days, politicians and reporters basically controlled the political agenda," he said. "Now the opportunity exists to get stories out in the public domain in a much more direct way by individuals who want to push these topics."

If you're visiting QP based on Pam's story, a hearty welcome. Please check out The Refuge to comment and/or join--we'd love to hear from you.

2003-08-22T12:53:00.000-04:00

California's Crazy Constitutionalism...
or, Measure Twice, Cut Once...

Tony Adragna

I think the problem in California isn't so much that tension between whose view of the Constitution is better, and therefore makes a more effective application. The debate raging 'twixt we of the plebs and you patricians of good government is, though it's not been made explicit, about constitutionalism itself.

I don't mean that there's disagreement on the proposition that constitutions are good per se. But, there is disagreement on what makes a good constitution. This debate has been present since the Framers first began drafting our Federal Constitution, and argument on what the Constitution means often refers back to that Convention. That's where we end up talking about principles like federalism, separation of powers, limited government, representative government, individual liberties, etc. that the Framers thought important enough to include in the Constitution. And folks end up disagreeing on how those princples ought be applied.

What's happening in California gets at an even more fundamental question: How ought constitutions, and amendments to the same, be formulated? Some folk think a constitution should consist of broad guidelines bounded by some limiting principles that leave room for growth in understanding, and for a great amount of discretion in application. Other folk think constitutions ought be framed so as to be strict guidelines based on immutable principles, and applied only as the framers intended. This is related to the issue of constitutional interpretation in the same way that my mother's DNA is related to mine — I had to issue forth from her before folks could opine on what a cutey I am.

That's the background, now what's so crazy 'bout California? Well, I don't think voters have "thought about the approach" to framing constitutional provisions that they carry through the initiative process. I think that there are some good provisions that have come out of that process — i.e. the recall provision. But, I also think the voters have gotten themselves into some ugly messes by taking the "strict guidelines" approach to its extreme — i.e. Prop 98.

But I still like the initiative process, I'm just not so sure that folks understand the full implications of their actions. Maybe if there was a bit more measuring up before the voters start applying their plebiscitary tools, things wouldn't look so messy...

p.s. I'm not sure that "everything gets challenged", at least not the way I meant. I think most challenges involve particular applications & whether they meet either legislative intent or are constitutionally permissible applications. In those cases, courts won't usually reach the question not raised — whether the statute itself is constitutional. That's the little trick that Justice O'Connor wanted to play on Lawrence...

2003-08-22T09:31:00.000-04:00

Tony, the People and the Professor

Will Vehrs

Interesting that you introduce us to Professor Marston, Tony. One of my daughters starts classes at SUNY Oswego in about a week. I hope she has the opportunity to study under your professor friend.

I certainly agree that we all should engage in constitutional interpretation. At the end of the day, however, any legislator or citizen's desire for a constitutional decision rests with the outcome of a legal challenge. My sense is that everything gets challenged, but most challenges die in lower courts.

Your discussion on the constitution and citizen involvement has some parallels in the California upheaval. Citizens, at least the more aroused of them, are, through initiatives and the recall, intimately involved in exercising the California constitution. One might ask if the gaggle of citizens in California are more or less effective as arbiters in their state sphere as the two old women and seven old men of the US Supreme Court are in theirs.

2003-08-21T22:06:00.000-04:00

A Peoples' Constitution

Tony Adragna

[Warning: semi-rambling, but hopefully interesting discussion to follow - ed]

The several times I've gotten together with Brett Marston, the subject of "civic legal knowledge" has come up — probably 'cause that's what his current scholarly work is on. Wrapped up in that discussion is the question of whose job it is to interpret the constitution.

One of the things we agree on is that reading and interpreting the Constitution isn't something only the courts can do. In fact, it's something that the Executive & Legislature do all the time.

For example, not too long ago Congress passed a campaign finance law. In considering the law, some lawmakers were concerned that some of the provisions would be found unconstitutional. Indeed, some of the lawmakers voted against the measure as they thought it unconstitutional. Each side had some kind of constitutional understanding that informed opinions.

Mr. Bush signed the campaign finance reform law even though himself thinks it, or parts thereof, unconstitutional — he has some kind of constitutional understanding that informed that opinion.

There would have been nothing wrong with the Executive going on his own constitutional understanding and exercising a veto. If Congress felt strongly enough about the measure, then they could override the veto, and their understanding prevails — at least 'til challenged in court. If the Executive's veto isn't overriden, then his understanding prevails — at least while he's in office and continues to veto similar measures and Congress remains unable to defeat his veto.

Now we get to the third branch. No matter how this law got enacted, there was bound to be a challenge to it in the courts. Why? Because each of us has an understanding of what the Constitution allows & disallows, and there's no agreement that this Act of Congress is constitutional. What is the role of the courts here? It is to settle the dispute between conflicting understandings of the Constitution.

Yes, the courts do interpret the Constitution. But they only do so when a justiciable dispute is properly brought to the courts. If nobody brings a challenge to court, then whatever Congress & the Executive agree is constitutional is constitutional. In this way, the courts are actually the least powerful of the three branches — while the Supreme Court's constitutional understanding is much deferred to, it undertakes not to opine on the constitutionality of every Act of Congress & every decision of the Executive. Indeed, such would be an unconstitutional undertaking.

This is where us regular citizens join the fray. It's our job, too, to understand the constitution — how else are we to hold the political branches, and the judiciary through them, accountable on their oath to "defend the Constitution"? How else are we to decide that a certain prevailing constitutional understanding not already found wanting by the courts is something that merits a challenge? Notwithstanding that a certain constitutional understanding may be constitutionally permissible, how else are we to conclude that some other understanding may be the better choice? It's not simply the three branches that have an interest in how the Constitution is interpreted & applied, so it oughtn't be just them deciding what the Constitution means.

Having said all of the above, I now turn to Brett's demi-defense of DeLay, with my focus on this part of the last graf

[...]I doubt that he has thought about the approach to constitutional interpretation implied by his remarks (i.e., not textually anchored! not anchored in "original intent" explicitly!). Finally, it would be hard to sustain the argument that Democrats in the Texas legislature took an oath to uphold the Constitution as Republicans understand it and not as Democrats understand it. Still, I don't think it's a stretch to see Delay as advancing genuine constitutional arguments here. They might not hold up in court -- unless the Republicans are able to restructure the judiciary, that is![emphasis original]

I think he's correct, and the doubt & unsustainability apply to much of public debate on the Constitution & its application [I hasten to note that even when reading opinions offered from the High Bench, I'm oft hard pressed to believe that the Justices have fully considered what it might mean to rigorously apply "the approach to constitutional interpretation implied" — then I wake up...].

And I think it important that Brett defends DeLay's argument as "genuine" — too often the debate devolves into charges of insincerity of substance, focusing on the cynical. It's kinda hard not to be cynical, though, when the Legislature & Executive seem to be acting less than virtuously — standing on or acting against principle in ways that can't but lead toward quetioning sincerity.

But I think what's most important is what's wrapped up in the phrase "civic legal knowledge." I think we all should be well enough informed to engage these debates, rather than leaving it up to the political branches & judiciary — it is We the People, and if we leave it to them, then there really is reason to be cynical...

2003-08-21T19:06:00.000-04:00

Are Islamic Fundamentalist Cooperating with Secular Ba'athists?

Tony Adragna

We've got reporting on the truck bomb that says the munitions were probably from Iraqi stockpiles. Sound like Ba'athist loyalists did the deed, right?

Well, that's still a possibility, but ther're others more probable

An Iraqi friend provided an even more graphic account of Baghdad's informal privatization at work the day after I talked to Kerik. A former army officer offered to dig up a Soviet-made T-72 tank that had been buried in the desert for safekeeping. He priced it at $10,000. Mr. X could also supply a trained driver and gunner as well, but they would cost extra.

I shook my head in disbelief -- until a few days later, when U.S. troops dug up an entire squadron of MIG fighter-bombers that had been buried in the sand in exactly the fashion described by Mr. X.

Could Hoagland have made that up? I don't think he's any reason to do so.

Then we get this report

Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Pentagon news conference that elements of a small terrorist organization called Ansar al-Islam had migrated south into the Baghdad area and that foreign extremists are infiltrating Iraq from Syria to further destabilize it.

Abizaid said terrorists are now firmly established in the Iraqi capital and pose a growing danger...

Asked whether he saw links or signs of cooperation between remnants of Saddam's former Baath Party - believed to be behind much of the anti-American violence in Iraq - and terrorist groups entering Iraq, Abizaid said they are organized in similar ways but are not allies.

"I believe that there are some indications of cooperation in specific areas," he added. "Of course, ideologically they are not at all compatible. But on the other hand, you sometimes cooperate against what you consider a common enemy."

A point yours truly needs no convincing of — remember, the Mujahedin had no problem accepting Stinger missiles, etc. from the U.S...

Now, let's us do our sums: Ansar al-Islam, a group which falls under as Qaeda's umbrage, is known to be in Baghdad + Saddam's armorers are marketing their stock =... well, you get the picture.

At a minimum there's cooperation akin that between vendor & custom. But, I don't think it any more than that, 'cause I think the two camps really can't trust each other...

Maybe I'm wrong...

2003-08-21T11:24:00.000-04:00

I'm With Busey, er, Kaus

Will Vehrs

Tony, Professor Sabato has been getting knocked around a lot lately. Virginia Democratic gadfly Paul Goldman questioned state funding for Sabato's Center for Politics. Newport News Daily Press columnist Gordon Morse trashed Sabato's seminar on former Governor L. Douglas Wilder becaue it went too easy on the first and only elected African-American chief state executive. Now, Kaus is calling Sabato "hidebound!"

I didn't agree with Goldman or Morse--their criticism was part of their own petty personal agendas--but Kaus took Sabato on in terms of substance and I think he carries the day against Virginia's premier pundit. Sabato is a Broder-like "good governik" figure, very wed to conventional cycles of nomination, campaign, and election. California's initiatives and recall provisions are messy democratic interference with the standard model, so it's not a total surprise that Sabato opposes them. It is surprising, however, that Sabato doesn't see the value of them as accelerators of public participation. He's big on getting more people involved in politics. Inititatives and the recall certainly do that.

It seems to me that California ought to tweak, not eliminate the initiatives provision and recall provisions. How about if the legislature had to have a 2/3 vote to overturn or amend an initiative, for example? The "people" would have the option of "throwing the bums out" who overturned an expression of popular will. I think the recall provision is bad government, but if no one is brave enough to lead a fight to eliminate it, I'm certainly in favor of more signatures to get on the recall ballot and some sort of run-off system if a governor is recalled.

2003-08-21T10:29:00.000-04:00

Will Likes Riding With Mickey,
But Tony's On Board...

Tony Adragna

Will, apropos your Will versus Kaus comparison, I present Kaus versus Sabato

Give LAT contributor Prof. Larry Sabato points: just when most hidebound East Coast pundits were waking up to the reality that California's recall had some good features and wasn't just an exercise in mindless plebiscitism, Sabato decides to publish an even more hidebound piece, denouncing the recall as "just the latest manifestation of mob-ocracy"! The first manifestation, of course, is the evil initiative process. Sabato declares:
Californians have piled foolish initiative upon foolish initiative in modern times.
Yes, we Californians have passed some foolish initiatives, some of which (e.g., term limits) may have contributed to the current budget crisis. On the other hand, an initiative helped our state end the misguided experiment in bilingual education that persists in most of the rest of the country. And we've pioneered a democratic, legislated (not judge-decreed) end to racial preferences. Even if you disagree with these initiatives, you might recognize the utility of having California experiment with them before the entire nation does. There are now test scores, for example, with which to make the case against bilingual ed. ... It makes sense that, in a mature democracy, the problems that have gone unsolved will a) the more difficult problems and/or b) problems the solutions to which the normal political system conspires to block--because both parties are bought, or both parties are chasing after the same group of swing voters, or interest groups have otherwise clogged up the works ("demosclerosis"). In that situation, the judicious application of majority rule can sometimes work wonders. ...

Sabato's LAT contribution is an extension of his earlier comments... been there, done that... What say you...

First I'm agreeing with Krauthammer, and now Kaus... what's my world coming to...

2003-08-20T20:06:00.000-04:00

Chaos & Havoc

Tony Adragna

Just listening to The NewsHour, and I wanted to link to some comments by "[f]our experts [who] discuss the attack and its potential impact on the international community's effort in Iraq," but today's transcript isn't up yet. What Tom Friedman said yesterday is what I'm talking about

The U.N. was there in a purely humanitarian mission. You know, it's tragically ironic we're having this debate in this country - you know, should we have more U.N. troops or more American troops? And for the people out there, the people who are opposing us there, this is utterly irrelevant. They're opposed to the U.N. and they're opposed to the United States. They're opposed to any civilization there.

These are people who clearly want to wreak chaos and havoc. And they're certainly doing a good job of that.

That's what I meant when saying that it's an assault against "maganimity," not just against "hegemony." In arguendo: If we totally withdrew from Iraq today leaving a democratic, pluralistic nation of laws in place of what we found, al Qaeda still wouldn't be happy...

Our rebuilding of Iraqi civil society is more worrisome to militant Islam than would be a thuggish occupation, and UN aid agencies are targets not just because they're "soft," but because — when they work the way they're supposed to — they present the Western world in a positive light... makes for a harder sale by al Qaeda et al...

The UN mission in Baghdad wasn't a military target, but that doesn't matter — the success of that mission is just as fatal to bin Laden as is the military mission... both missions must be seen to fail...

2003-08-20T17:44:00.000-04:00

Two Minute Drill

Will Vehrs

Tony, just when I think I'll be a blogging fool again, something comes up and saps all my time. Let's see if I can get back in the swing.

Gray Area Looks like the embattled California Governor is trying to tap into that deep-seated Democratic anger in order to keep his job. I don't think there's 50.01% of Democrats who'll buy that the recall is a right wing coup. There might be enough to give Bustamante the victory, though. That could be a silver lining for Republicans. If Bustamante is the lightweight he's been depicted to be, he'd be hard-pressed to defend the governorship. Of course, he'd also likely be challenged within his own party. The GOP could hope for a divisive primary campaign ....

It's a Boy! I was hoping to announce that we were "blogfathers," Tony, but you beat me to it, linking to Mark Kilmer's blog. We're regular abstinence-practicing bloggers compared to the "seminal" impact of the original blogfather, Daddy Reynolds.

Scandal I'm surprised that there hasn't been more coverage and more outrage over revelations about former Baylor basketball coach Dave Bliss and his role in covering up a murder investigation. There are allegations of pay-offs and deals with players. If Baylor was doing this, a lot of other schools are doing it, too. If someone starts really poking around, I think it'll blow the lid off the NCAA.

Nigerian Spammers Outraged at Worm's Spread I never knew how much I appreciated a nice offer from a Nigerian dictator's cousin until my mailbox started filling up with worm-spawned emails. Poor Nigerians can't get their message through all the detritus.

Blame Game Slows It's interesting how quickly the blame game over last week's blackout seemed to end. I think both parties saw it was essentially a no-win proposition, although I think Republicans had a better hand. Whenever there isn't enough energy, I think the GOP has a natural advantage; anytime prices are too high or there's an environmental problem, Democrats can make hay.

2003-08-20T11:31:00.000-04:00

Updated 4:00 PM

Gov. Davis is "Contrite" And "Defiant"...

Tony Adragna

So says the headline on WaPo's coverage of last night's address by California's governor. And I was a bit confused, 'cause you can't really be the two at once — either you sincerely admit fault and take your lumps, or you make excuses/blame others/act the victim.

Davis is trying to sound like he's both, but it's not contrition that I hear anywhere there...

Update:Dan Weintraub — Sacramento Bee political columnist and blogger — writes that Davis is "sort of" when it comes to buck stoppage

At turns contrite and combative, Gov. Gray Davis on Tuesday began what he promised would be a concerted effort to defeat the historic attempt to recall him from office, calling on supporters to help him beat what he described as a right-wing conspiracy with parallels to the battle to impeach President Clinton.

In a speech to more than 300 union members and other invited guests in a UCLA auditorium, Davis tried to do what consultants from both parties have said he must if he is to survive: apologize for his failures. But he just couldn't bring himself to do it. Instead, he blamed the state's problems on others, or on circumstances beyond his control, and he portrayed the recall not as a popular expression of anger and frustration but as an anti-democratic political dirty trick.

Davis told his audience that he had come to the hall to "take responsibility." And his first words on the state's electricity crisis suggested that he might just do that.

"I know that many of you felt that I was slow to act on the energy crisis," Davis said. "I got the message. That's a fair criticism."

But Davis couldn't stop there...

Dan goes on to fisk Davis' attempt at record straightening

...He blamed private energy producers and federal regulators for the crisis and said he stood firm against raising electricity rates. He didn't mention that his appointees to the Public Utilities Commission did raise them, by 40 percent, or that he committed the state to 10 years of expensive electricity contracts after his appointees had stymied attempts by the utilities to secure low-cost energy with long-term deals.

Then Davis tried to contrast last week's power outage in the northeast, which has been blamed on problems in the still-regulated transmission system, with the relative calm in California since the rolling blackouts in early 2001, even though the only connection between the events is that both involved electricity

"I'm not looking for praise," Davis said. "We made our share of mistakes. And like you I wish I had known then all I know now. But if any Republicans in this recall campaign criticize the way we dealt with the energy crisis, ask them specifically what they would have done to keep the lights on."...

On the budget, Davis sounded a similar note, saying he was "not happy" with the budget he signed recently. And like a job applicant who says his biggest weakness is that he works too hard, Davis acknowledged that he "could have been tougher" in holding down spending increases when the state had a surplus. Then he turned defiant.

"Our increases on my watch went to education and health care, and I make no apology for that," he said...

It's true [...] that neither the energy crisis nor the budget mess could have been easily prevented. But it's also true that Davis' failure to act on them promptly is what turned them from problems into catastrophes. And his failure to act is exactly why so many Californians, including many Democrats, want to remove him from office.

This is the point I was trying to get across re what Davis did or didn't do vis a vis public policy on energy, education, etc. Set aside that California policy makers have their options limited by voters who at the same time are anti-tax and pro-government services, 'cause even the best formed policies on the advice of best informed experts don't meet every exigency. That's where Leadership needs to step into the breach during a "crisis", and that's where Californians are finding fault with Davis — "his failure to act"...

By the way, Gov. Davis' credit taking for education spending is akin Gov. Dean's self back slapage re civil unions — neither of these men really had a choice. Just as Dean and the Vermont legislature were forced by that state's Supreme Court to sign a law granting recognition of same-sex unions, Davis and California's legislature must comply with the state Constitutional requirement created by Proposition 98...

2003-08-19T16:03:00.000-04:00

SNAFU in Jerusalem

Tony Adragna

Makes you think somebody doesn't really want peace

JERUSALEM -- A suicide bomber blew himself up Tuesday on a packed bus on a main thoroughfare in Jerusalem, killing at least 13 people and wounding 80, authorities said.

Nobody immediately claimed responsibility.

The blast on the extra long bus, which had two passenger sections that were full, went off shortly after 9 p.m. Another bus nearby also was hit by the explosion.

The bus had started out at the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest shrine, in the walled Old City, and was headed to an ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighborhood, radio reports said.

The bus was badly damaged, with its windows blown out, and rescuers had to use blow torches to pry wounded from the wreckage.

"What is clear is that it was a very big bomb," Jerusalem fire chief Amnon Amir said...

The bombing threatened to restart the cycle of attacks and retaliation that could derail a U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan to Palestinian statehood.

Over the weekend, Israel and the Palestinians had reached agreement on the handover of four West Bank towns to Palestinian control. That deal was likely to be put on hold...

Every time there seems to be some progress, this happens... Makes me think somebody really doesn't want peace...

2003-08-19T13:39:00.000-04:00

Baghdad Bomb Blast

Tony Adragna

Folks have heard by now of the truck bomb attack at UN headquarters in Baghdad. Glenn "wonder[s] if there's a third force at work here" — I think he's being rhetorical...

It's possible that this was the work of Saddamite Ba'athist loyalists, as implied by the reporting on the temporal proximity to Taha Yassin Ramadan's taking into custody. But a couple of hours doesn't seem enough time to put this together. And a car bombing would be a change in tactic.

It's also possibly the work of Iranian supported terrorists working out of Syria, as suggested by Mr. Bremer. I think this more likely, but I still don't think it the correct answer — the targeting isn't right. Hitting the Jordanian embassy and using a car bomb à la the attack on US Marines in '83 makes sense if the actors are of the type pursuing the Palestinian cause. But hitting the UN is too much like mining your own mess hall.

Who else?

Al Qaeda is my pick — car/truck/boat bombs are the prefered choice from their bag of tricks i.e. Khobar Towers, first WTC bombing, East Africa embassies, USS Cole, etc. And going after the UN humanitarian agencies makes perfect sense — it's not just an assault on Western "hegemony," but also is meant to turn Muslims off of dependance on Western magnanimity, and cause a turning back to Islam.

That's what I'm thinking, anyway...

2003-08-18T12:56:00.000-04:00

How Big is The Blogosphere

Tony Adragna

Pretty darned big, and growing. And it seems that a couple bloggers who recently shined very brightly have contributed to the birth of another

Gentlemen...

I wanted to drop you a line and thank you both for the nudge.

I have written an e-mail political newsletter since early 1997, starting well before I had heard of a web log. After the bloggers appeared, I read around and loved the notion. (It is similar to what I have done, but more immediate and more personal. I publish thrice weekly, unless something comes up to warrant more.)

So, I loved the notion but was almost frightened to start a blog. I saw the two of you on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this (Friday) morning: I liked you, liked the idea, and visited blogspot.com.

Great job this AM. I liked your comportment, articulation, and candor. And if you ever decide to do an infomercial, feel free to use this letter as a testimonial, followed, of course, by over-eager audience applause. -g- Thanks again.

Cordially,
Mark Kilmer

I asked Mark to forward me the url once the blog got up & running, and he did[easy, wasn't it, Mark...] Mark A. Kilmer's Political Annotation has been covering the the California recall, incredulity in the Arab world, Rovian politiking, the struggle between State & Defense — I get the sense that Mark cares not much for Mr. Gingrich — and other interesting little orts since 8/15/03 12:49 PM.

He also publishes The Rightsided Newsletter thrice weekly since 1997... I'm sure I won't agree with everything he writes, but, hey, anybody who's been "writing about politics since the 3rd grade" gets a plug from me just for the effort...

2003-08-17T19:51:00.000-04:00

On Reflection: The USA PATRIOT ACT, Health Care, and Education...

Tony Adragna

You know, Will, I should've told Brian Lamb that what I decide to write on a particular day oft has nothing to do with what I've read in that day's papers. Sometimes I might address an interesting [to me, anyway] question, and sometimes I've simply nothing to say... Today is of the former type...

On the Act, I reiterate what I said then — I think it was in part unnecessary as a seeking after authority that the Executive already had in the context of National Security, and in other parts so controversial that I don't see any administration making much use of the provisions.

One thing that the Act didn't do, and which the Court has consistently held is something only the Legislature may do, is suspend habeas corpus. You'd think that the government would want authority to hold indefinitely sans judicial review alien persons suspected of terrorism. But Congress went the other way — the Act specifically allows judicial review, especially by habeas corpus, on the merits of the AG's determinations and criminal & removal proceedings of aliens.

Now I come to Jose Padilla, who isn't an alien, and the issue seems to me the same as Chief Justice Taney — he of Dred Scott infamy — sitting as Circuit Justice in Baltimore addressed in Ex parte Merryman. Judge Mukasey was correct to reject the government's assertion re designating a person "enemy combatant" and detaining indefinitely without judicial review. But Congress could've decided to use USA PATRIOT to provide for the supension of habeas corpus in dealing with folk like Padilla — why not?

There's an authority that the administration logically should've asked for in a "war", instead of the laundry list of stuff that's arguably either redundant or not very useful

Health Care: The easy answer to the emailer's friend is: You're simply wrong that our system "never works". Followed up with argument on how good our system is.

I think that answer too easy, though.

There is no question that our health care system is imperfect and can stand some improvement, My biggest concern is how to get universal access to quality care. Two extremes — a single payer nationalized system, or mandated pruchase of insurance by indivduals akin mandated auto insurance [there is another extreme, but it doesn't lead to universal coverage]. I don't particularly care for either of those two positions.

If this "foundation hospitals" idea works, though, then I'm back to my old preference for something like nationalized medicine for those who can't afford private insurance. Our current system of providing medical care to the poor & seniors is under too much stress from competing government bureaucratic forces & market pressures...

Education: Again, the "easy answer" referenced above. But, again, the system is broken. If we're worried 'bout giving students a fighting chance at college admission, the college admissions process is much too late a place to look for a fix. I've ever been an advocate of intervening at the earliest moment — my employer speaks much better to the issue than I can... Start early & start strong.

2003-08-16T15:26:00.000-04:00

Canterbury Calls,
Colbert Castigates...

Tony Adragna

Mr. King has a bit of advice for the "Primates of the Anglican Communion"

What is it about Anglicans and sex? With millions of children starving around the globe, thousands dying each day from AIDs and sections of world capitals such as Baghdad and Washington turned into free-fire zones, bishops in the Anglican Communion, including the Episcopal Church USA, have been summoned to an extraordinary meeting in England by their spiritual leader, Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury. Once gathered, they will take up the subject of fleshly union between consenting Anglican adults of the same gender, one of whom happens to be an Episcopalian bishop.

One would think that Anglican clergy had better things to do with their time...

First, the archbishop.

He isn't exactly a direct gift from God, having come to his job by way of a good word from the British prime minister and a final sign-off by the queen of England. In fact, on the Anglican table of organization, Queen Elizabeth occupies a slot somewhere between the archbishop and the Almighty, inasmuch as Her Majesty holds the title of supreme governor of the Church of England, thus making her the person who appoints the top Church of England mucketymucks including archbishops, bishops and deans of cathedrals. All of which would be rather nice to know but not essential to one's spiritual journey except that in the Anglican world, having the British royal family in the hierarchal loop poses a ticklish problem.

It is called Charles, the Prince of Wales...

[T]o my African brothers.

Bishops of the Anglican Church in Africa, with a few exceptions, seem the most ruffled by the thought of sharing their exalted positions with newly confirmed, openly gay American Bishop V. Gene Robinson. They, along with their conservative counterparts in the United States and England, would probably take a walk if the Anglican Communion ever got around to sanctioning same-sex unions.

But how far does their puritanical streak extend?

Well, it seems they are on board with the idea of marriage between a man and woman in lifelong union -- that "monogamy is God's plan," as delegates to the Anglican Communion's Lambeth Conference put it in 1988. But some of their flock on the African continent (and, it is said, one or two of the bishops themselves) are also into the practice of stretching God's plan to make marriage an arrangement between a man and several women -- or polygamy as it is otherwise known. And what sayeth the Anglican Communion to that?...

Recognizing that they couldn't stop the practice -- and not wanting to lose converts to the growing African church -- the primates of the Anglican Communion bought the argument, posited by Africa's polygamy proponents, that it would be unkind for new converts to Christianity to discard their extra wives; that putting away the extras would cause social deprivation and be regarded as rejection of African culture. I can imagine trying out that argument on Gwen, my wife of 42 years.

Ah, but the growing cultural acceptance of gays and lesbians in some Western communities and in Episcopal parishes cuts no ice with our African brothers. The concept of "pastorally sensitive compromises with culture" works just fine for them and their needs. To hell with everybody else. Of course it's all said with due regard for the redemptive power of unmerited suffering and for making the church a welcoming place for everybody.

If I were a bishop, I'd stay home . . . and begin drafting a second Declaration of Independence.

No comment... said what I had to already...

On the same op-ed page, Robert Bauer writes of "The Recall as Reform Politics" He's the same problem I do with " media commentators" for whom the recall "seems to be going over badly." I think this says it all

The recall is indeed an offense against the political order -- it is a revolt against electoral politics and not, as its advocates would claim, its purest form. It is fueled by all of the contemporary shibboleths of contemporary reform politics: the dark role of special interests and negative campaigning; the role of money; the vices of partisanship and political parties; the virtues of political amateurism and unfettered electoral competition.

Again, nothing more to add... Well, I do: You'd think those folks — like George Will — upset with trying to unconstitutionally restrict political activity — laws like the recent campaign finance reform — would welcome this type of reform...

2003-08-15T21:59:00.000-04:00

They Get C-SPAN in Jamaica?

Tony Adragna

Sorry, I know the folks in Jamaica get C-SPAN, but if I was there I'd be spending my time doing something a bit more fun than watching me on t.v....

Anyway, here's email from Kingston, Jamaica

I thought you and your colleague did very well. At least you weren't as glib as some I've seen. I hope your joint reasonableness will serve as a good example for some of the intemperate callers (mostly Republicans) who can hear no merit in what others think and say. I had thought, however, that either of you might have pointed out that last night's blackout demonstrated that the Homeland Security people have not really done anything to address the practical things that should happen immediately there is a dangerous occurrence. If it had been a terrorist strike, millions would have died in the subway tunnels and on the street! For one thing, all commercial buildings, particularly high rises, should have generators so that people can stay inside rather than have to contemplate sleeping on the streets! Second, I can't believe that there is no efficient plan in place for getting people up from underground swiftly, or for moving large numbers of people from the epicentre of the occurence. The focus on airport security may be an example of racial contempt, because it seems to assume that the terroists are only 'one-idea people'. If all the brainy people who are working on how to "weaponise space" would put their genius to helping their own people on earth, the future for all of us would look less grim.

Yea, we're still debating over how much money to get to first responders we count on to deal with mass casualties in the case of an actual terrorist event, and there's the question of how the money's gonna get to the line folks — through the state governments, regional entities, local governments...

Definitely, Homeland Security ought want to invest in fixing some of problems related to responding situations like the blackout, because these same issues will present in extremis in a large scale terrorist attack.

And believe it, there simply is no efficient way to move the numbers of people were talking 'bout here — New York City alone has a population of around 8 million ... that's roughly 3X Jamaica's population in roughly 1/10th the square mileage... NYC 303 square miles: Jamaica 4,244 square miles

I could go on...

2003-08-15T20:31:00.000-04:00

ROFLMAO

Tony Adragna

Just finished watching the tape, Will — you got some good quotage in there! Especially your advice to conspiracy theorists... LOL!

When Mr. Lamb said "Italian" & I said "Sicilian" and he was like "close enough," I'm surprised I didn't strenuously object — that's a sore spot in the cultural ego of we swarthy island folk who've more in common with North Africa & Greece than with those conquerers from the mainland...

I'm still cracking up over the callers....

p.s. I also didn't want to correct Mr. Lamb on air — I probably wasn't very clear with Andrea, but I was actually born in Sacramento, and I was stationed aboard a Sub tender forward deployed at Guam... just gotta keep things honest...

2003-08-15T16:28:00.000-04:00

Restructuring the Restructuring...
FERC Maybe Should Do Some Rethinking, Ya Think...

Tony Adragna

Via the source Will turns to first, we've got clues to what happened

MICHEHL GENT, PRESIDENT of the North American Electric Reliability Council, or NERC, said in a conference call with reporters that investigators had determined that a section of the power grid known as the Lake Erie loop experienced a “oscillating power phenomenon” that lasted nine or 10 seconds at the outset of Thursday’s outage.

That event — which saw a 300 megawatt eastward flow of electricity quickly reverse into a 500 megawatt flow to the west — caused other transmission lines and power plants on the grid to shut down as protection systems automatically disconnected them to prevent damaging equipment, he said.

Gent cautioned that the investigation is in the early stages and said the team of experts he is assembling may not be able to pinpoint the cause until next week.

And further on

Despite the clues pointing to Ohio, investigators cannot explain why safeguards designed to isolate such a problem had failed to prevent the power failures from hopscotching around the regional electrical grid.

“If we’ve designed a system for this not to happen, how did it happen?” Gent said during Friday’s conference call. “I can’t answer that question and I’m embarrassed that I can’t, and I’m dedicated to finding out what the answer is and taking action to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

Well, at least one "safeguard" worked — that which is designed to protect equipment from catastrophic damage when overloaded by demands not designed to meet. But, it doesn't seem that the "interconnection" puzzle that was at issue during The Great Northeast Blackout of 1965 has been solved.

Sure, "a single disturbance can be detected thousands of miles away," but are we any better prepared to respond in a way that keeps the juice flowing.

Maybe FERC ought give some more thought to reliability issues before going further...

2003-08-15T13:08:00.000-04:00

C-SPAN Was Ready For Us

Will Vehrs

Tony, I was pleased with our joint appearance. We didn't know quite what to expect (I thought we'd get booted before we even started because of blackout coverage) and it's always easy in retrospect to think of what we might have said differently.

The folks at CSPAN were fantastic, though. They calmed our nerves and explained everything well--we even got souvenir coffee mugs. Brian Lamb is a great guy--he powdered my nose before we went on camera.

One semi-quibble--I'll take our Refuge posters over the callers we had any day!

PS Just for the record, I'm posting this from work--I came in a little early, so I hope it's okay. Governor Warner, did you hear my plug?

2003-08-15T12:01:00.000-04:00

Were We Ready for C-SPAN?

Tony Adragna

Dude, I'm glad I couldn't see the monitor — that would've totally whacked me out... I had fun! And it was really cool that guy on the street told us he watched and thought we did good! I'll hafta watch it...

Didn't even bother me that I was called "wishy-washy" — better than being told that I was clueless...

Just checked the email — got some reaction already

I'm sure you're patting yourself on the back right now; my, I was so kind and sweet! Everyone loves me! You know there's a heavy leaning toward the right as compared to '92-'00 where the press would lambast anything
associated with Democrats or anyone who wasn't falling in lockstep with the persecution of Bill Clinton. For crying out loud, they've turned Liberal into a cuss word and being conservative into an attribute! It's obvious you have a brain, it's just too bad we end up having our side represented by such tiny, desperate people like yourself who, by hoping not to offend anyone, educate no one!

Hey, I'm patting myself on the back just for not passing out. "Hoping not to offend" isn't for any kind of cynical reason — it's of a virtue called charity. But I've never shied from writing something folks may find offensive. I like to be more thoughtful, rather than stirring the pot just for the sake of making a stink — so, I won't respond to the "tiny, desperate" bit.

Another correspondent writes

Congratulations on a very interesting appearance this morning!
I have a question for you gentlemen.

A European friend of mine asks me, "why is it that the most powerful nation ever has a) a health care system that doesn't work, b) a k-12 public school system that doesn't work, c) election vote counting systems that don't work and d) an energy system that doesn't work?" and all this before yesterday's event where 50 million people lost electrical power.

Can either of you suggest a response?

All good questions — no easy answers... I'm sure we'll touch on those topics in due course...

And I've been given another reading assignment

If you do not read Truthout.com, you surely should. I would direct your attention to and article by Belva Ann Prycel. The article is titled "Impeachable Offenses"/ She speaks in this article for millions of Americans.

Also if you are not checking the website Of William Rivers Pitt, you should.

You may already know about
Mark Morford's column, since you are from CA, but if you are not, you might want to read it also.

I enjoyed your visit to C-SPAN. You did real well for someone who has never been there before. You might want to consider non-glare glasses if you go on TV again.

I'll certainly read their opinions, but I'll speak for myself, thank you... and thanks for the pat on the back, too...

Also got a comment at our old discussion forum

May I assume that the Democrat who formerly was a Catholic seminarian is either no longer a Catholic or is a Catholic in name only since no Catholic who believes in the tenets of the Church can be a member of a party which espouses abortion. Otherwise, I guess this is another case of his being a cafeteria Catholic who picks and chooses among the commandments.

Well, first, there are plenty of pro-life Democrats who oppose abortion & plenty of pro-choice Republicans who don't want to make abortions illegal. Also, I'll refer the writer to the answer I gave a moment ago...

And we've a first time poster who expands on your "more reasons" line, Will — makes sense...

The only thing I regret is having said I'd never vote for a Republican — that's what happens when I've not thought through my response. 'Course, I'd never not vote for someone just because they're the Republican candidate, just as I'd never vote Democratic just for the sake of the party... I'm interested in The Candidate, and last election cycle I didn't vote for either of the two-parties' candidates... I'd vote for A.S. despite being nominally a Republican...

2003-08-14T19:28:00.000-04:00

A Mini Baby-Boom in the Future?

Tony Adragna

Hey... no t.v. or internet access, how 'ya gonna keep entertained? Hmmm....

I didn't hear 'bout this blackout 'til I got home — I thought everybody already worked out procedures for keeping these problems localized. As interconnected as transmission is, there is still supposed to be an ability to cut the connection at nodes.

I 'spose it's not quite that simple, but it does seem to me that the outage spread further than the point at which we're supposed to be prepared to isolate the problem...

Oh, well...

2003-08-14T16:56:00.000-04:00

Now, Back to Our Regularly Scheduled Programming

Tony Adragna

I found this bit of Brother Bob's commentary interesting

It is no secret that President Bush's political advisers were cool to recalling Davis. They relished the thought of the universally disliked governor twisting in the wind throughout 2004, helping Bush win in a state that surely would smother Democratic presidential hopes. But that delicious prospect has disappeared. The question is: Who will replace Davis?

Well, Davis' continued "twisting in the wind" carries with it continued problems for the good folks of California — would these same "political advisors" reslish that, too? Hey, this is Mr. Novak — he's got good source...

I remember a certain "star poster" taking to task another certain "star poster" on that same sort of political reasoning vis a vis Mr. Bush's handling of the economy...

Anywho, I think the last graf is right on

... Schwarzenegger's posture as a pro-business social liberal is similar to what former Gov. Pete Wilson advocated as the last Republican elected to high office in California (in 1994). No genuine conservative has been elected in California since Ronald Reagan in 1970. Arnold Schwarzenegger may not be much of a Republican and not conservative at all, but George W. Bush welcomes anybody invigorating a comatose California GOP.

I don't think the outcome means as much as some argue re Bush '04. Pete Wilson had just been elected in '90 when Bush the Elder was campaining against Gov. Clinton — Clinton carried the state. Wilson was reelected in '94, and so was Clinton in '98.

California is gonna look at Bush in '04 and make up their minds then...

Update: via The Ben File, here's the cast of characters[pdf] — 135 isn't as bad as expected...

2003-08-14T13:58:00.000-04:00

Is C-SPAN Ready for Us?

QP Staff

Fans of the Q-spot — we know there are some few of yous out there — may want to tune into WASHINGTON JOURNAL tomorrow morning at 8:00 [or earlier if you want — it's always a good program]... that's all we're saying for now!

2003-08-13T20:20:00.000-04:00

Obesity Suits You!

Tony Adragna

Can't think of anything to write, so I'll share some Dahlia Lithwick with you

There is something creepily paternalistic in the arguments put forth by the food nannies. They tend to say that while they are smart enough to read labels or look up fat contents on the Wendy's Web site, the poor, disadvantaged single mommies are not that sophisticated. One would hope that even the poorest single mom knows that eating McNuggets every day is unhealthy. And—since obesity doesn't happen in a day—one would hope that even the most unsophisticated parent would cut back on the KFC if her child started to split her Wranglers.

But there is something equally creepy in the efforts to stave off the Big Food suits either with ridicule or with legislative action—including the "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act" now in markup, which would limit liability for food producers from obesity lawsuits. Even frivolous lawsuits deserve their day in court. That's why we have judges: to throw them out.

The best solution doubtless lies someplace between the absurd extremes. As Ben Kelly points out in today's Washington Post, Big Food will likely survive just by moderating its behavior, posting warnings, and taking it easy on peddling their junk to the kiddies. But we may want to keep an eye on the John Banzhafs of the world, who have observed that their next target may well be "Big Milk"—full of saturated fats and cholesterol and not nearly as healthy as those moustache commercials would suggest.

Got a lawyer?

I did read Benn Kelly's op-ed this morning, and did intend to write something 'bout it, but Dahlia just has such a way with words... Gotta go eat my daily fix pork fat now...

2003-08-13T15:08:00.000-04:00

Chucklehead Nose Bloodying

Will Vehrs

Tony, you've got nine "chuckleheads" trying to bloody President Bush's nose. The only way to stand out in that crowd is to bloody one or more of the other nine noses, too. I'm actually surprised that the Democrats haven't done more bloodying of each other, but hear me now and believe me later--if Howard Dean opens up a decent lead and holds it, you'll have Terry McAuliffe calling Ferdie Paecheco, "the fight doctor," for references on good corner cut men.

Dean, Kerry, Gephardt and Lieberman will fight to the death for this nomination. Lieberman is the only one that I think would consider bowing out gracefully, although Gephardt might settle for the VP nomination. This is probably the last chance for these four. I'm not including Edwards in the fight to the death group because of his relative youth and the chance he has to run again in NC or take a high profile "candidate in waiting" job when his Senate term expires.

PS: I hope I haven't "Ueckerized" Ferdie's last name and I hope the old Ali confidante is still in the arena ....

2003-08-12T15:58:00.000-04:00

Now Back to the National Desk...
Will Rogers' Party is Still Disorganized

Tony Adragna

You can read Dan Balz's report on last night's episode of Who Wants to be the Democratic Nominee [when are the chuckleheads gonna stop bloodying each others' noses?], or you can read observations from the first[?] press credentialed blogger, Adam at Throwing Things. "Senator Palpatine" is my pick, too. What Adam wrote 'bout Sharpton is interesting

Sharpton closed by recounting how his grandmother told him that the only way to move a donkey was by slapping it around, and he intended to keep slapping around the Democratic Party across the country. The party needs his message . . . but as for the messenger himself . . . .

I also appreciate Howard Dean's "needling of Sen. Kerry on his vote in favor of the present war." Here's what Balz wrote of Kerry's defense

Kerry defended his vote for the resolution, saying he voted to give Bush the threat to use force "to hold Saddam Hussein accountable," but that Bush "didn't understand how to do that properly." He said his reservations about going to war when Bush did so have been justified by the post-conflict instability that continues in Iraq. "We're now learning they went to war without an adequate plan to win the peace," he said.[emphasis added]

Remember, I urge[d] the members to vote no back on Oct. 8, and Kerry is stuck with having voted Aye on the resolution. To argue now that he was only voting for the issuance of a"threat to use force" is as unserious as Mr. Bush's then argument that "this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable."

Kerry bloodied his own nose, there...

Revise & Extend: I'm just recalling that, as noted in commentary on the resolution's passage, "some senators stood up in the chamber and actually made the argument that this resolution moves us further from the realization of a war" — that is, they bought Mr. Bush's argument. Don't recall that Kerry was one of those, but if it was, then his then defense of the vote was just as lame as that he makes now. Joe Biden, whose decision to not run has some folks gementes et flentes in hac lacrimarum valle[not meself, as I never expected himself to run] tried to impress upon his colleagues the import of that vote, even as he was convincing himself to vote Aye...

2003-08-12T10:30:00.000-04:00

California's Clothespin Contest,
or, Agreeing with Mickey — Musta Lost My Mind,
or, Tony Prefers Peasant Food...

Tony Adragna

I'll start with Larry Sabato's opinion

[...] Gray Davis is not in as bad a position as many think. Virtually the entire "good government" elite of all parties, newspapers, and commentators are opposed to the recall--even if they detest Davis. If Davis is smart, he won't try to win this as a personal endorsement (he can't possibly) or even as a partisan witch hunt, with the claim that it's all a plot by the bad old Republican right-wing to take over. Instead, he can win by pretending he's not really at issue. It's the process, stupid. The symbol of the Davis "campaign" ought to be the clothespin and his supporters should hand them out by the hundreds of thousands on October 7 at the polls. By wearing the clothespin, a voter can say to the world, "Like most tasteful people, I dislike Gray Davis, but I dislike the recall process more."[emphasis original]

Prof. Sabato starts with the intent that "[t]his Progressive Movement innovation of the early nineteenth century was to be used only in extremis," then tells us of what an extreme circumstance consists. In Sabato's opinion, a recall in the instant case unwarranted. But, I'm of a mind that those same Progressives might just as well look at the current state of the political process and decide that the recall process is the indicated prescription.

The Progressive reformers were about putting government back into the hands of The People.

All of those things that Sabato's admits of Gov. Davis — "patently unappetizing politician ... almost consistently taken the low road in demonizing opponents and politicizing issues unnecessarily... a toll-booth for special interests in the governor's office, and [he] actually enjoy[s] the compromising fundraising that most politicians privately abhor" — made the '02 gubernatorial race a clothespin election

[Davis'] re-election campaign in 2002 didn't help his image. He raised more than $70 million in what some described as a voracious and unseemly pursuit of contributions, and then he launched one of the most negative campaigns in recent memory.

Facing a potentially formidable opponent in Richard Riordan, the former Republican mayor of Los Angeles, Davis took an unprecedented step. He spent $9 million on ads scathing Riordan in the GOP primary, clearing the way for a much weaker candidate, Bill Simon, to win the nomination.

It was a tactical masterstroke from a pit-bull campaigner. But it so soured voters that turnout in the general election hit an all-time low for a California governor's race. Davis won by a slim margin and called the whole episode "a humbling experience."

"It was your classic clothespin election, when people on both sides put a clothespin to their nose and made a choice," said John Pitney, professor of government at Claremont McKenna College.

One leading Democrat had a harsher rebuke: "It was a puke campaign," Attorney General Bill Lockyer told the Sacramento Bee recently, underscoring just how isolated Davis is even within his party.

"Humbling", huh? Davis doesn't seem to be any more humble than he was prior to the '02 election — that's why he's about to get humbled right out of office.

"[A]ll-time low" voter turnout in the political-process-as-usual campaing of '02 — why is that? Maybe, um... voters are tired of successive clothespin elections? There's gotta be something better than the choice between two versions of ugly [my belief in that assertion being why I voted for Spear Lancaster in Maryland's gubernatorial race last November — I want more than the two-party system offered on that ballot].

Notwithstanding that Issa got this ball rolling for what only a naif would deny are partisan political reasons, 'tis a badly paved road that's got more good than ill at its end.

George Will's "plebiscitary cynicism" translates into a plebeian revolution against all those "'good government' elite of both parties" that Sabato says we ought emulate if wanting to be "tasteful people." Let me tell you something about taste — I much prefer braised veal shank, instead of "osso buco."

Revolutionary, I say it is, and there are potential dangers not to be dismissed lightly. But those dangers, too, are a "feature, not a bug" — politicians have become much to comfortable in their seats...

Now, if I could just figure out how to start one of these campaigns against Gov. Ehrlich...

Addendum: George Will is right about the "multiplication of government-imposed costs [to business], such as paid family leave." I think, though, that businesses have more pressing cost containment issues, like the rising cost of unemployment insurance premiums — they've been speeding along at about the same pace the average California motorist sets on Interstate 5 between Stockton and the Grapevine...

2003-08-12T07:18:00.000-04:00

A Plague on Everyone's House, or Recall's a Beach

Will Vehrs

The two strains of thinking on California's recall are starkly contrasted by two of my favorite columnists today.

In this corner, wearing a bowtie and appearing to have swallowed a lemon, is George Will, eviscerating Arianna Huffington, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the whole recall enterprise. Will says the few conservatives in California will vote against the recall "to protest its plebiscitary cynicism." He wants California's Republican Party to come out of the recall badly. His cause, conservatism, will come out well only if there is "ruin all around."

Heading for the red corner, after having just stepped out of a flashy sports car, is Mickey Kaus, energized and engaged in the wild free-for-all that is the recall. I cannot do Mickey's breathless style justice as he examines, re-examines, and then turns conventional wisdom on its head. He loves this story and it shows.

I guess I'm in the middle . . . I largely agree with George Will, but I love riding with Mickey. Where'd he get that idea of using "American Idol" as a model to winnow the California field? Not from a guy suggesting "Last Comic Standing," I bet ....

2003-08-10T17:29:00.000-04:00

Updated 1:20 AM 8/11

California & France — Comparable?

Tony Adragna

There are similarities. Going back to that economic forecast[pdf] I looked at ealier, it's got a table on page 18 listing the world's 21 largest economies as of 2001. France & California are tied for fifth

France 1,310 billions
California 1,309 billions

France's state budget deficit is looking like 3.5% of GDP — California's $38 billion would be about 3% of GSP[Gross State Product].

The French economy certainly suffers from slow growth, but there's also been criticism of overspending on social benefits and a surrender to unions. Ditto California.

Not trying to really make something of the comparison, just thought it interesting for some reason...

Update: Just remembered why it's interesting. Here's something Darrell Issa said on Meet The Press

[T]here will be a mandate for whoever is the next candidate to be different, to be positive, to be assertive and to bring California back from what is, in fact, being a financial laughingstock of the world. You know, we’re the fifth-largest economy, but we’re not run like the fifth-largest economy.[emphasis added]

But, it appears that California is being run like the fifth largest economy — the other one.

I also read over DiFi's words, Will — she's reading off the same page as the economists. Funny that...

2003-08-10T16:18:00.000-04:00

Justice Kennedy on Mandatory Injustice

Tony Adragna

Here's Justice Kennedy speaking to the ABA about prison sentences

"Our resources are misspent, our punishments too severe, our sentences too long," Kennedy said in remarks prepared for delivery to the annual meeting of the American Bar Association.

"I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences," Kennedy said. "In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise or unjust."

...

The justice asked the ABA to lobby Congress to repeal mandatory minimum sentence laws, even though they have withstood court scrutiny.

"Courts may conclude the legislature is permitted to choose long sentences, but that does not mean long sentences are wise or just," Kennedy said...

Kennedy also urged the ABA to consider working to extend pardons for state and federal prisoners serving harsh terms.

"The pardon process, of late, seems to have been drained of its moral force. Pardons are infrequent," he said. "A people confident in its laws and institutions should not be ashamed of mercy."

Kennedy asked lawyers to think about the consequences of the current prison system, including what he called its "remarkable scale" of about 2.1 million people behind bars nationwide and the fact that about 40 percent of the prison population is black.

"It is no defense if our current system is more the product of neglect than of purpose," Kennedy said.

A good place to start on reductions in the prison population & getting rid of unjust sentencing would be doing something about drug laws...

2003-08-10T15:35:00.000-04:00

California's Recovery Does Not Save Davis

Tony Adragna

DiFi is correct — California's economy is turning around for the better. According to the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp's 2003 - 2004 Economic Forecast and Industry Outlook[pdf]

While many forces will be at work on the California economy during 2003 and into 2004, most of the local headlines will be focused on the state budget deficit and the impact of remediation efforts on cuonsumers, business and government. Further complicating the economic picture will be the slowq recovery of the Bay Area which the national media often use as a proxy for the state as a whole. California's economy will continue to struggle during the early months of 2003, but will start to show some life as the year progresses. Growth in 2004 will be more robust. [pg 12]

That comports with reporting on last December's UCLA Anderson Forecast, and the State of California Economic Forecast as of July '03 still sees improvement despite the recovery's sluggish performance so far.

What's interesting is that, at least the way I read the forecasts, it looks like the forecasters are basing their positive predictions on the stimulative impact of national fiscal policy. What does DiFi put as the reason for the turnaround in California's economy. If she can make the case that it's due to the program of Davis & California Democrats, then she can still bash the national GOP's economic program. If she accepts the turnaround is due to federal tax cuts & spending, then she has to admit that her vote for the '01 tax cut was correct.

Hmmm...

Either way, Davis isn't safe. Again, I tell 'ya, Davis' problem is just plain 'ol vanilla lack of leadership ability.

Celebrities v. Pols Just heard Jerry Brown on Harball. He reminds how his own father — Gov. Pat Brown, 1959 - 1967 — made the error of underestimating actor Ronald Reagan, then lost.

2003-08-10T10:05:00.000-04:00

Democratic Disconnect

Will Vehrs

Senator Diane Feinstein (D, CA) was on Meet the Press this morning, defending Governor Gray Davis. According to her, the California economy is turning around!

Do the Democratic presidential candidates know about this?

2003-08-09T17:12:00.000-04:00

"Baseball is a public trust..."

Tony Adragna

...Players turn over, owners turn over and certain commissioners turn over. But baseball goes on.
Peter Ueberroth

You mean that Peter Ueberroth?

Hey, since you brought up baseball, I just thought I'd remind everybody counting on A.S.'s [to borrow Mickey's convention] name recognition that "[f]ame blows"

One of the problems with the word 'famous' is that people or things can achieve fame and still suck. Bob Euker is a case in point. One of the worst players to ever grace the game of baseball, as a lampoon he was offered a long-running stint as a spokesperson for Lite Beer. He went on to star in a sit-com, but never lost his connection with baseball. To this day his is one of those names you hear the broadcasters mention,as if he was some kind of big-shot. 'Bob Euker is in the stands today.'

Should we group Bob Euker and the Parthenon in the same category? I don't even want to see Bob Euker and the Parthenon in the same city. The Parthenon was a singular architectural and political achievement. Bob Euker could barely hit a baseball. The Parthenon housed an ivory and gold statue of Athena some forty feet in height, designed by Phidias, one of the great sculptors of all time. Bob Euker couldn't handle acurve-ball.

There's gonna be alota curve balls thrown at A.S. — can he hit the ball? Well, I was looking around for Pete Wilson's take on the recall & personalities — here it is

When it comes to the recall, as far as Republican ex-Gov. Pete Wilson is concerned, Democrat Gray Davis made his own mess and now has to live with it.

"Obviously, it's an extreme remedy," Wilson said this past week from Los Angeles. But Davis wound up the target largely because of the "distrust and dislike a lot of his own party felt for him," he said.

Much of that distrust, Wilson said, stems from Davis' handling of the budget, which many of the governor's legislative friends were already calling a sham last year.

Wilson isn't ready to endorse any of the potential Republican recall challengers -- yet. But he leaves little doubt that he's putting his money on the Terminator, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who Wilson said "has great gifts as a potential candidate."

Especially when it comes to "pressing the flesh," Wilson said. "He's also very good on his feet. . . . He can be quite witty."

OK, but does Schwarzenegger have the brains for the job?

"I think he does," Wilson said. "He came to this country with not much more than muscles and ambition, but he's very competitive, very focused, and if he sets a goal, I think he's likely to achieve it."

I think Davis' problem isn't the budget per se, or the state of California's economy in general. A $38 billion budget shortfall in a state with a $1.3 trillion economy — the fifth largest in the world — isn't an insurmountable problem. It takes leadership, though.

The problem is that Davis isn't a leader — he doesn't inspire voters, he doesn't inspire the party he leads in the legislature... he doesn't inspire — I don't think the man even has any confidence in hisself... Californians knew that before they elected him, but the alternative was Bill Simon, and that, too, was Davis' fault...

A.S. is defintely self-confident & charismatic — that's two down — and if he can talk policy without getting too wonkish, then he wins the day. I thought his bringing the Shriver-woman along to the county building today — whether for cynical political reasons, or a sincere expression of who A.S. is — was a great move

2003-08-09T15:57:00.000-04:00

Doom and Gloom is More Fun to Predict

Will Vehrs

You're right, of course, Tony ... despite the tumult of the recall and the nightmarish problems in California (Ann Coulter calls it "ungovernable"), the state will stay in business and life will go on more or less the same way it always has. It's just so much more fun to imagine the worst possible scenario.

I thought it would be unmanageable to have hundreds of candidates on the ballot, but as Susan Estrich pointed out on Hannity and Colmes (God, I can't believe I occasionally land there when I channel surf), Californians are comfortable with long, complex ballots because of all the propositions they confront every election day.

Early on, I think the press is heading for being very tough on Arnold, demanding that he tip his hand with substantive proposals. I wonder if that might not present an opening for former Olympic and baseball guy Peter Ueberroth. He could be the relatively non-partisan voice of quiet reason and practical policies to carry the state until a real gubernatorial election. Where's he been all these years, though?

2003-08-08T20:48:00.000-04:00

Yeh, and California's Gonna Fall Into the Ocean, too...

Tony Adragna

Honestly, Will, I've been hearing predictions of gloom & doom vis a vis California all my life — the worst of it never comes to pass...

Actually, I like California's recall process for two reasons: a) the "tumultuous" flavor is a feature, not a bug — pots need stirrin' sometimes; b) what the punk rocker said

"One thing I got a little upset at was all these people saying that the recall election is going to be a 'madhouse.' Well, oh no, God forbid!' he says in mock horror. 'I think it's just what we need. It's a chance for every citizen to get involved with what's going to happen next.' "

As for your suggested method of culling the herd — Hope woulda been the perfect choice to referee these clowns...

2003-08-08T17:57:00.000-04:00

QP's California Correspondent
Considers the Possibilities

Will Vehrs

Tony, I got a great email from Richard Heddleston of Palo Alto, California. He's concerned about the future of his state (he mistakenly thinks I'm "from there") and picks up on my amateurish examination of the possibilities of the California recall:

If Davis wins, there will definitely be a night of the long knives for
Cruz and others who dare. I think it will also be a lot harder for the
Republicans to hold up the budget while their special interests get
paid off. Davis will be the ultimate lame duck with nothing to lose.
His ego will be less restrained than ever. Color him Duce Davis.

If anyone else wins, the less they have promised the better for them.
There is only one fix here, where it sounds like you too live, cut
spending. Every special interest will scream when it's cut is proposed.
The next gov has to be able to say "Damn the special interests, this is
what is best for my boss, the people of California," for at least 2
years. The less promised before the election the easier to do after.

Either way, I think the Executive gains power at the expense of the
legislature. This is not good for California. And term limits will
assure that this remains a long term trend.

As to 2006, if Davis wins, his night of the long knives may take out
Bustamente and Garamendi, leaving only Lockyer who already has a war
chest. The Republicans defeated by Davis in 02 and 03 will lose in 04
as Bush campaigns here only to help in 1 or two swing house districts
and defensively to force the Dem Pres candidate to spend advertising $
here instead of elsewhere. There won't be enough Reps left in the state
to run as full slate. Hard to see uplift here.

If the newbie wins, by 06 the problem will either be under control, in
which case, they play "See, the conquering hero comes" at the
nominating convention of the incumbent's party, or the problem is not
under control and things are even worse. The former scenario precludes
lots of candidates or debating and the later anything uplifting. If the
newbie wins in '06, he starts running for the '08 nomination, assuming
Dean looses in '04. Otherwise, talk of splitting the state at the
Tehatchapies starts gaining credibility.

My expectation is the conquering hero, again a transfer of power to the
executive.

The only good news is the remote likelihood that there will ever be the
confluence of bad news and leadership the Golden State has endured for
the last 3 years and another recall is unlikely. But if the people get
into the habit, that will be really bad for the state.

Mr. Heddleston has really covered the waterfront and I'd like to see more discussion of possible scenarios before we launch into campaign coverage once the filing deadline has passed.

Speaking of campaigns, if ever there was a need for politics to imitate art, this is it--if you consider "Last Comic Standing" art. I say have a panel of Former Gov's Brown and Wilson plus one other worthy evaluate the 400 candidates and winnow it down to 10. Every week have a debate challenge--"I think I'm more of an outsider than Gary Coleman"--and let the viewers pick the winner until we have five candidates on the second ballot question.

2003-08-08T12:36:00.000-04:00

Labor Aims at Feinstein,
Murders Own Feet!

Tony Adragna

Mickey wites, "Labor's anti-DiFi stand is confirmed here"

A quick survey of California and national labor capos in the Drake Hotel’s lobby yielded a clamorous anti-DiFi chorus. “We hate her,” said one leading California unionist. “She’s never done anything for us,” said another. “I’m not sure that Riordan wouldn’t be better for labor than Dianne,” said a third. “She’d probably appoint a clone — like [South Bay Congress Member] Jane Harman — to succeed her in the Senate,” grumped a fourth.

OK, so who is Labor endorsing

But Feinstein, all agreed, is the only Democrat who could clear the field and defeat the Republicans. And since the very thought leaves them cold, that brings labor’s chieftains back to square one — that is, to opposing the recall and having no backup plan, no down-ticket Democrat to support, at all.

And so is formulated a losing political strategy, and they know this to be true...

Remember my dear friends in the land of my birth, the place where I now reside — Maryland — was also once thought a great bastion of the Democratic Party, not having elected a Republican governor since Spiro Agnew in 1967. We've now a Republican governor who won against the feckless Lt. Governor in the administration of a fumbling Governor. The same will happen to you, and you oughtn't be surprised — does the contest Brown v. [Wilson]* ring any bells? You wanna bet that Cruz v. Arnold won't be a repeat of KKT v. Ehrlich [Doug Duncan could've been the winning Dem in that fight, just as DiFi could be in the CA recall...]

*Correction: I originally miswrote "Brown v. Deukmejian" knowing that Brown did in fact run in and lose the race for a statewide office in 1982. However, it was not the gubernatorial campaign against Deukmejian, but the U.S. Senate campaign against Pete Wilson. The point still stands, though...

2003-08-07T22:57:00.000-04:00

The Church in Society — Tradition versus History

Tony Adragna

Not so much a quibble with the Zathras' comment as about a letter that Derbyshire blogged

Christ's church has always been a kindgom, not a democracy. As I read the Bible, it is clear that it is a top-down management style. Christ calls apostles, they call bishops, they call elders, etc. (this is the way my church functions, so perhaps this makes sense to me because it is what I am used to--I don't mean be offensive). This pattern is of course, completely contrary to today's hyper-egalitarianism...

This is a defense of "tradition" from a reading of the history of the Early Church. Now, let's have some discussion on what this really means.

I'll certinly agree that the office of Bishop has an Apostolic foundation, the essential authorities of that office having been bestowed upon Peter chosen by Christ.

But Peter and the other leaders of the Early Church would have rejected the notion that they were "Princes of the Church", at the top of a hierarchical structure — they saw themselves more akin the shepherd, which is the Latin "pastor". Their leadership wasn't about "authority" requiring "obedience" — it was about being in service to the Church, living the life of Christ & preaching the Good News.

Even the Roman Catholic Church as it's constituted today teaches that

Intrinsically linked to the sacramental nature of ecclesial ministry is its character as service. Entirely dependent on Christ who gives mission and authority, ministers are truly 'slaves of Christ, in the image of him who freely took 'the form of a slave' for us. Because the word and grace of which they are ministers are not their own, but are given to them by Christ for the sake of others, they must freely become the slaves of all.[Catechism of the Catholic Church 876, emphasis original]

The rest of the discussion on the constitution & authority of the "ecclesial ministry" frames the exercise as service. I'll concede that it's not "hyper-egalitarian" today, nor probably was it at the begin, either — at least not as regards aspects of ministerial priesthood. But neither was it a monarchical church as is implied by the reference to "kingdom."

And, not intending any disrespect to Latter Day Saints, this belief that "apostles... call bishops" gets at the heart of why Mormons also believe that the Catholic Church is apostate — the continued election & consecration of Bishops despite the absence of a council of apostles whose authority alone, Later Day Saints believe, it is to "call bishops." So, how do Catholics choose Bishops?

Well, today it's the prerogative of the Bishop of Rome [I think there sre some few exceptions], which involves a convoluted telling in answer to why that's so , but

Until the sixth century the clergy and the people elected the bishop on condition that the election should be approved by the neighbouring bishops. Undoubtedly, the Christian Roman emperors sometimes intervened in these election, but outside the imperial cities only, and generally in the case of disagreement as to the proper person.

So, there was some period of hundreds of years between the death of the Apostles & the 6th century when democracy — yes, ordinary lay folks included in the decision making — was the norm in selecting Bishops. This isn't "incredibly arrogant" — the Holy Spirit is just as capable at moving the sensus fidei as it is at working through ecclesiastical councils & supreme pontiffs.

'Course, Derbyshire, not meaning any disrespect to him, either, is admittedly "Church of England", which as recently as June 2002 was "debat[ing] whether its bishops should be elected by church members rather than appointed by the prime minister or the Queen" — that church is "an institution of the state..." That the CofE retains this relationship between Church & State — which does make it more Catholic than the Roman Communion — is thanks to Henry VIII, (King of England declared Fidei Defensor by Pope Leo X) who broke with Rome over the fact that he didn't want to obey Pope Clement VII's authoritative decision.[now, if that's not a convoluted enough demi-fisking of Derbyshire's defense of tradition & authority, I can put something better together, but the result is the same — the defense fails]

Go figure — despite the wishes of traditionalists, "tradition" pushed as the way something "has always been" doesn't stand up so clearly to a review of history...

Here's a proposition: The push for democracy in traditionally monarchical churches, and the call for a clergy that sees itself different-but-equal instead of special-and-separate, would, if successful, lead to a church closer to its foundation — real "fundamentalism".

The proposition is diametrically opposed to the arguments of folks — like "Traditional Catholics" who still rail against Vatican II [Folk music at mass? Liturgical dance? The priest facing me saying the Eucharist Prayers in a language the I can understand? Abomination! Heresy!! Anathema!!!] — who see the proponents of democracy & egalitarianism as radicals. I say we oughtn't mind the label — Christ was a radical in his day, too...

2003-08-07T19:06:00.000-04:00

Below the Belt Political Commentary

Tony Adragna

"Handicap"? Height-impairment? Gary Coleman? "Watchyoutalkin'bout, Will[]?"

2003-08-07T18:16:00.000-04:00

"Said California is the place you oughta be ...."

Will Vehrs

We could have a governor elected by 25 percent of Californians. Thirty-five percent of Californians are whackos; who knows who they could elect? That's a strong argument against the process.

--David Brooks

Count me among those who see the recall election as a nasty legacy of Progressivism, but it's in the California constitution. As I understand it, recall petitions have been circulated against every sitting Governor without success ... until now. To my knowledge, no pundit or politico ever warned us before Gray Davis that the recall provision was a ticking time bomb in the body politic. Therefore, I'm opposed to Gray Davis' legal efforts to forestall or tamper with the recall election and I think Californians, as well as all Americans, should just strap themselves in for a wild ride.

I'm not ready to handicap the recall election yet, but as much as I despise the recall provision and the bizarre spectacle it has set in motion, I think it's possible that the long-range results will be positive.

If Gray Davis survives the recall balloting, "politics as usual" goes on, big money stays supreme, and nothing much changes. Any Democrats who ran on the second ballot question will be punished by the party. Republicans who ran will probably be judged individually on their effort. Good performances might set the stage for a run in 2006, but poor showings might end some political careers.

If Davis loses and a relatively untested candidate wins with vague policy prescriptions and a small percentage of the vote, that candidate will have a tough time governing. But while the new Governor battles reactionary forces, thoughtful potential candidates for 2006 might begin really developing campaign themes and a platform that actually addresses solving state problems. Voters in 2006 will then have had the experience of a hack (Davis) and an outsider--they might finally realize they can't have it all and be receptive to a "straight talk" message.

If Davis loses and a candidate wins with a significant percentage of the vote and a platform (I'm not sure "clean up the mess in Sacramento" is enough), then it's possible that California could be governed with a strong hand. But even if it isn't, I still see the potential for an uplifting set of candidates for 2006.

Anyone want to start speculating about debates? I say Gary Coleman has some real issues with appearing on-stage with Arnold.

2003-08-07T15:54:00.000-04:00

Human's Naturally Sit In The Corner
Thinking About Liberalizing Drug Laws...

Tony Adragna

Two views of human nature vis a vis drug legalization.

John Derbyshire writes

I am, of course, deeply skeptical about this. I am a conservative, with a rather low opinion of human nature, and I think drug legalization would be a horrible disaster.

Andrew Stuttaford responds

It should be remembered that most people are not self-destructive : in late Victorian England almost all drugs were legal and society seemed, somehow, to survive and (a reactionary like me would argue) flourish.

My own opinion on how drug laws, at least pot laws, are irrational is beautifully argued in Andrew's "I suspect that the police would prefer to deal with, say, rowdy pot smokers... than a bunch of drunks." And how! The most violent thing this used-to-be-pot-smoker ever did was shoplift a bag of Doritos from the local 7-Eleven... munchies'll make a man do some pretty ugly things...

2003-08-07T13:01:00.000-04:00

Hank Stuever, Theatre Critic...
Political Theatre, That Is...

Tony Adragna

Hank on "California's Hot Ticket" — there's way so much good quotage that I don't know how to break out the highlights. Just read the whole thing.

I know lots of folks will disagree with Hank, but it's a great read, full of stuff like

A Code Pinker in a long carnation-colored skirt wears a sign that reads "Arianna for Governness."

Huffington steps through a side yard and out onto the quickly assembled stage.

She speaks and one is instantly reminded that her Greek accent makes her sound sort of like a grass-roots Zsa Zsa, darling.

"Today I am announcink that I am runnik for governor of the great state of California," she says. "Those are 16 words I never imagined I would hear myself say. And they are in no way based on the findings of British intelligence."

2003-08-06T20:14:00.000-04:00

Updated 9:50 PM

Let's Talk 'Bout Something Else...
California Sounds Good...

Tony Adragna

You know, Will, I've an aesthetic objection to the political process — it's too damned ugly. I'll get into the fray when I think there's some important matter of principle implicated, especially if it's a constitutional principle. But party politics drives me crazy, so I've not been wanting to go near the California recall story.

Except where my gut — you know 'bout my tummy — tells me that there's just something not right with the reportage-from-CW. But, I haven't had a chance to bounce this off you yet. So, here goes.

Am I seeing right when I observe a bit of CW that says a GOP candidate is going to have a hard time in CA as a function of that state being so heavily Democratic? Am I also seeing right when I observe that this bit of CW even applies to a contest between Gov. Davis & a GOP candidate? I mean, running against Davis makes the job of winning less difficult, but still an uphill battle, right?

I'm not so sure. Since WWII there have only been three Democratic governors in CA — Davis and the two Browns. The other five — Wilson, Deukmejian, Reagan, Knight and Warren — were all Republicans. Deukmejian [succeded]* the political hero of my youth — Brown the Younger — and that argues very much affirmatively for a GOP challenge to Davis if he's doing as bad as Brown was [Davis was Brown's Chief of Staff — does that 'splain anything?]

Tummy says: Davis is going down!! Some other Democrat could save the day, but it looks like they're all standing by Davis...

This California boy ain't going home anytime soon, thank God...

p.s. I resent the intimation that I need adult supervision, and I'm unanimous in that!... What the hell, it's as good a reason as any, and I'm just glad you're back, even if it's only on a "reasonably often" basis...

p.p.s. We all know what happened to Earl Warren, but where the hell did Pete Wilson disappear to? Here's a guy who was a state assmblyman, mayor for many years of San Diego, U.S. Senator, and two-term governor, and it's like he doesn't even exist anymore — sheesh, even Jerry Brown made a comeback...

Update — He's Baaack! "Arnold Schwarzenegger to Run for Calif. Governor"

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 6 -- In an announcement that reshaped California's tumultuous recall election, film star Arnold Schwarzenegger announced today that he will be a candidate in the race to succeed Gov. Gray Davis (D) if voters oust him in this fall's recall election.

The Hollywood icon's unexpected announcement on NBC's "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" followed a summer-long flirtation with a campaign that many Republicans have said would offer a sure ride to victory -- and perhaps the GOP's best chance in years to improve its bleak political standing in the nation's most populous state...

Schwarzenegger's announcement came hours after Davis got a needed boost from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said in a separate announcement that she will not be candidate...

But Schwarzenegger's decision to mount a campaign poses a huge new challenge for the beleaguered governor, whose allies worry that the actor can wage a formidable campaign because of his celebrity, wealth and moderate views on many political issues.

Feinstein said today that she did not run because she believes that Davis and the Democratic party can beat the recall. But in a conference call with reporters, she criticized the campaign Davis is waging against it, saying that he needs to show voters he is working forcefully on their behalf--and not just denounce the recall as a right-wing conspiracy.

"That's a failed strategy from the get-go,'' Feinstein said.

Plus, Arianna Huffington declaring an independent candidacy. And Dems still haven't ruled out putting somebody up against Davis — Rep. Loretta Sanchez's name cropped up — but it's gotta be somebody of Fenstein's stature.

I think Fienstein's parting shot 'cross Davis' bow says it all...

*Correction: The mind is a terrible thing — mine more so than others. Writing from flawed memory, I mistakenly wrote that Deukmejian "won against" Jerry Brown in 1982. Brown's defeat in '82 was at the hands of Pete Wilson in the U.S. Senate contest of that year.

2003-08-06T17:51:00.000-04:00

NPR, My Source for Episcopalian News

Will Vehrs

Tony, you pot-stirring man, how do you keep up with both international law disputes within the blogosphere and religious schisms around the world, all at once?

Last week Canon Robinson gave an NPR interview that I thought concentrated way too much on his sexual orientation and not enough on his prospective church leadership role. Granted, NRP was goading him to talk about it, but I was disappointed that he wasn't "turning the other cheek" enough to his critics. That's where my "leading with it" comment came from.

This afternoon, however, I thought his tone was different as NPR went to the well with him one more time. He seemed to want to put the controversy behind him and reach out to his critics.

I'm going to try to start posting reasonably often again, if only because you've been operating unsupervised for too long, Tony. I've got some things to say about the California recall, Howard Dean, and other dog days of August topics.

2003-08-06T16:24:00.000-04:00

Welcome Back, Will!

Tony Adragna

You've been sorely missed, dude!

Yes, I agree fully — Canon Robinson's sexual orientation shouldn't be an issue...

But, I don't see how he could've avoided the issue. I haven't seen anything pointing to the conclusion that Robinson "seems determined to lead with it." The best Fred Barnes could do is this

Robinson has said his aim is not to be a "gay bishop," but his connection to Outright and his public appearances with his gay partner may make that label unavoidable.

Thst's it — the "label unavoidable." How 'bout giving some thought to whether the label is deserved.

Why was this an issue at the Convention? Simple: Robinson's sexuality, as well as the relationship he's in, is at odds with the tradition that says homosexuality is a sin. The only way Robinson could've avoided the issue would've been to perputuate a lie — closet himself...

2003-08-06T15:43:00.000-04:00

The "Pot stirring Man"* Outdone Hisself This Time...
... Can More Fuel Be Put On This Fire?

Tony Adragna

Mark Kleiman emailed a heads up to his Glenn Reynolds fisking of yesterday — my "war crime" post figures in the fisking of an Instapundit entry — asking if I thought his treatment of me fair and for any other comments. The following is my response, reiterating the rationale in the blog entry

Professor Kleiman,

Excepting the mispelling of my last name -- one of those Greek derived Sicilian toponyms -- I think your treatment of me fair. I don't even object to the entry being characterized as "convoluted" -- discussions of international law often are exactly that. Just note that I deliberately didn't delve into addressing the moral proposition because that wasn't the question put to me. Would it help if I admit arguendo that if this was in fact a hostage taking, then it's wrong not just because it's illegal, but because it violates what I consider a moral imperative? I'm just not convinced that there was a hostage taking.

I did read Phil Carter's comments on Geneva IV and the principle of distinction. Those comments aren't dispositive. Sure we can't take hostages or deliberately disregard distinctions between combatants & non-combatants -- now prove that either of those two things happened.

Analogies to domestic law aren't particularly helpful. Certainly threatening statements may be prosecuted at domestic law. But it's also true that going undercover as a gang member to catch gangsters is OK, while dressing up as an enemy combatant loses one the conventional protections -- such conduct may be prosecuted as spying. So much for trying to clarify the issue.

I'll admit that the "doesn't deserve the attention" line shouldn't have been written. It was overreaction to all the assertions that the conduct is clearly illegal -- I think even you would admit that if there are good legal arguments rebutting the assertions, then it's not quite so clear that there was a "war crime."

I din't bother with a defense of Glenn — he's very capable of defending himself.

Seems, though, that Glenn needed more defending than did I. While I disagree with Professor Kleiman on whether the note passing is worthy of moral outrage, he communicated to me that "I think we see eye to eye; my objection was more to Glenn's characterization of your piece than to the piece itself."

But, am I not guilty of the same offense as Glenn? — after all, my "doesn't deserve the attention" line really is no less than a dismissal of the asserted charge that the incident was a "war crime." And the rationale is the same — all of the "wolf-crying and outright lying about U.S. 'war crimes'" has lead me to a place where I'm more skeptical of folks making the charge than I am of those defending against.

But, I still shouldn't have written that last line — certainly, the charge is serious enough that it deserves examination, rather than a rush to judgement.

[I'll pause here to note, as I hope I've not given the wrong impression to folks who aren't regular readers, that I'm not in a position to offer an authoritative "legal opinion" on this case, or any case, hence the "scare quotes." Notwithstanding my law librarianship & self-instruction on various topics of interest to me — one of those being international law — I'm neither credentialed, nor even degreed. I hope that doesn't change Kleiman's opinion of my argument...]

Re those folks I was admittedly "overreact[ing]" to, The Minuteman takes one to task in a decidely not "timid and ineffectual" defense of The Instapundit...

* "Pot stirring Man" is my official designation over at The Refuge... I've no clue why The Bellicose Woman so tagged me...

2003-08-06T14:27:00.000-04:00

The Prodigal Returns

Will Vehrs

Tony, it's been so long since I've posted here that I didn't recognize the screens. I'll try to muddle through ....

You've been covering the latest religous controversy quite well, but I thought I'd add my two cents.

I am an Episcopalian, having been baptized into the faith in 1973. I'm not a theologian and, truth be told, it's been some time since I sat in on an Episcopalian Mass. Were I an actively practicing Episcopalian attending Mass, though, it would not matter one whit to me if my priest or the presiding bishop were gay.

That said, it bothers me that Robinson's sexuality is such a burning issue and that he seems determined to lead with it. It also bothered me deeply that those hurtful charges were hurled against him at the last minute.

I've never considered for one minute if a priest or bishop was married or single, gay or straight. Maybe I'm naive or haven't paid attention, but I don't see other church leaders discussing their private lives so openly. The personal sexual orientation of an Episcopal priest or bishop shouldn't matter. I don't want a priest who feels he or she represents hetrosexuals in a special way, just as I don't want one who purports to represents homosexuals in a special way. I want a priest who represents all of God's children and ministers to their individual needs and needs as a congregation without imposing his or her lifestyle choices.

I hope Bishop Robinson can change the hearts and minds of those who opposed him through his good works.

2003-08-06T11:28:00.000-04:00

Epilogue: Canon Robinson's Election Confirmed,
Charges Dismissed After Investigation

Tony Adragna

The sexual harrasmment charge turns out to be about to be about what I thought — from today's WaPo

[Bishop] Griswold, as presiding bishop, assigned Bishop Gordon P. Scruton of western Massachusetts to oversee an investigation. Scruton reported today that his committee spoke by telephone with the Vermont man, who complained that Robinson "made him feel uncomfortable" by touching his arm and back during two brief conversations at a church gathering in 1999.

Scruton noted that the incident took place in public, and he said the Vermont man "acknowledged that other people could have seen the exchange as natural and normal." The man also said he did not wish to bring a formal charge, "had no desire to pursue the matter any further" and regretted using the word "harassment" in an e-mail complaint he sent to many Episcopal bishops late Sunday evening, Scruton said.

[While belly-up-to-the-bar last night, with Thomas Nephew and Brett Marston at Old Ebbit Grill, I surmised that this was what happened — I even put a hand to Thomas' shoulder in a crowded barroom where everybody could see...]

The pornography charge is even more baseless than I thought. I asked the question, "is it unbelievable that [Canon Robinson] didn't scrutinze the website, and therefore wasn't aware of the offensive materials?" But there's a question that I failed to ask: Was he even aware of the web site?

The other allegation was that Robinson was closely associated with Outright, a gay youth counseling group whose Web site had an indirect link to pornography. Scruton said his investigation found that Robinson helped found the group's New Hampshire chapter in 1995 but had not been involved with it since 1998, four years before the Web site was created.

"I see no evidence that Canon Robinson was aware of or associated with the Web site or its contents," Scruton concluded.

'Nuff said?

Nope! The Episcopal Church — the entire Anglican Communion, actually — has, at best, a bumpy road ahead toward reconciliation. This is in fact a story of radical break from tradition, and I'm not so quick as other defenders of Canon Robinson to dismiss the threat of schism. But, I've no problem with such radicalism, even when it may lead to schism, where conscience informs me that tradition is wrong.

'Course, my opinion may not matter much since I'm not Episcopalian... yet! I'm contemplating taking some radical action — like, breaking my ties with the Roman Communion...

2003-08-05T00:03:00.000-04:00

Updated 9:15 AM

Problems for Bishop-elect Robinson?...
Or, Are the Charges Sexed-Up?

Tony Adragna

Rev. Gene Robinson's cofirmation has been delayed due to allegations of, to put it mildly, sexual improprieties — I mean, charges that go beyond himself being gay & in a same sex relationship.

I can't speak to the charge that he "sexually harrassed" David Lewis — it's one man's word against another's, and it's just as likely that Mr. Lewis took things the wrong way as it is that Rev. Robinson was up to no good. I'll wait to hear more.

But the other matter is one that very likely isn't what it seems. Starting with Fred Barnes' article, I tracked down the source of the story, and it ain't pretty — these things never are

One of his much touted ministry accomplishments has been the creation of "OUTRIGHT", an Internet site with the following mission statement...

On examination, the site which he says is geared for 12 to 22-year olds, provides Internet links that will take these vulnerable young people directly to hard core pornography.

This is not the ethereal and suggestive world of PLAYBOY, it is hard core entree for young people into degeneracy. The reason every state makes sex with minors illegal is that legislators know that young people can be easily lead astray.

The message from these vivid and graphic links that include oral sex and other sexual activity have the additional momentum of the powerful approval of the church and a bishop-elect, whose ministry has spawned the "OUTRIGHT" site...

These links look like they are out of the NAMBLA playbook. NAMBLA is the North American May Boy Love Association that promotes sex between adult men with boys...

Let's start with where journalism should always start — some facts.

What is Outright and who founded the organization? While the story got the "mission statement" correct, the suggestion that it's a "ministry" that exists as an "internet site" is woefully misleading, maybe purposefully so. And it is true that Rev. Robinson was co-founder of a chapter of Outright — his official bio says, "He is one of the founders of Concord Outright" — but not true[call it "false", a "lie"] that Outright and its website are his "creation"

Here's what Portland Outright has to say in its news release

On Monday, August 4, 2003 Outright in Portland removed a link from our website to www.allthingsbi.com, a resource for bisexual people. We were not aware that www.allthingsbi.com contains a link to an erotic website. We do not believe the link in question is appropriate on our website for the population we serve. We want to thank the media for alerting us to a link that we were unaware existed.

Many autonomous and loosely affiliated gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender youth groups throughout Northern New England have adopted the organizational name of "Outright". Outright in Portland is the first Outright organization, founded in 1987. Outright in Portland provides web-hosting services and links as a courtesy to other Outrights. The website was developed in February 2002.

Bishop-elect Reverend Gene Robinson has not been involved, at any time, with our Outright organization in Portland or our website and its content. This is clearly an attempt to discredit his important nomination.

AHA! — the Portland chapter provides "web-hosting services and links"! That must be why Portland's links page looks exactly like Central Maine Outright's links page, and from the above description of Concord Outright's links, I feel very sure that it was the same template populated with the same links. In fact, if you click through Portland's links to other Outright chapters, you'll find that of the chapter websites hosted on Outright's net [Augusta, Ellsworth, Portland, & Concord] , all are identical except for chapter specific content.

Should Canon Robinson have made a point of clicking through the links on Outright's website to make sure there was no there there? You can certainly make such an argument. But, is it unbelievable that he didn't scrutinze the website, and therefore wasn't aware of the offensive materials?

As for the writer above making reference to NAMBLA — when rational arguments won't do, let's heap on the demagoguery. I previewed the porn in question [ not just the site admitted to in Outright's news release -- there're more at at least one other linked page... actually, I think I've subscribed to a few of 'em in the past] and can attest that none of them have anything to do with man-boy love. All models over 18 years old, and few of them older than early twenties — about what the average young gay guy is looking for.

I'll concede that it's not the stuff you ought be able to find at a website that seeks to provide "support, education, advocacy, and social activities" to youth. But, neither is it the stuff of NAMBLA.

So, what we've got is a charge of sexual misconduct that may not be that. A story that misrepresents — grossly exaggerates — Canon Robinson's role with Outright and its website. And, we've got a mischaracterization of the porn content as something that even myself finds offensive.

What this story seems to be, in my opinion, is a sexed up moral indictment against Canon Robinson — can't get him just for being gay, not even for living in a gay relationship, so we best come up with something that even his supporters can't defend him on...

Update: Something I should've made clear, if I didn't, about the above referenced porn is that none of it was on Outright's net, nor on the sites linked to directly from Outright. The porn sites are, literally, at least "two or three clicks" away from Outright. Today's WaPo front page story

The allegation involving pornography was brought to the attention of church lawyers Sunday night by the American Anglican Council, a Washington-based group devoted to orthodoxy that has vigorously opposed Robinson's election.

AAC's president, the Rev. David C. Anderson, said its members found an Internet link from the Web site of Outright, a secular outreach program for gay and bisexual youth, to a pornographic Web site. He said Robinson was a co-founder of the Concord, N.H., chapter of Outright and has publicly praised its efforts.

Anderson conceded that there is no evidence that Robinson had anything to do with the Web site or was aware of the alleged link to pornography. "He may be completely innocent, and he deserves a chance to defend himself," Anderson said.

One of Robinson's supporters, the Rev. Susan Russell, said it took "at least two or three clicks" to get from Outright's Web site to a pornographic one.

The sexual harrassment charge is another matter, though I still think it probably isn't what it seems — the Catholic Church's abuse of minor boys this case isn't.

2003-08-02T16:38:00.000-04:00

Episcopal Priest Calls for Truth on Gay Clergy

Tony Adragna

For those who have been following the story of Rev. Gene Robinson's nomination to Bishop Coadjutor — basically, assitant bishop — of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, today's update has a great bit of quotage as the last graf

"We all know, or should know, that Gene Robinson is not the first [gay] man in a committed relationship in the House of Bishops. He is the first to be honest about it," said the Rev. John Zamboni, a priest in New Jersey. "The time for dishonesty in the church is over."

Ah-men!

2003-08-02T07:38:00.000-04:00

Bush Brothers' Family Fued...
... It's Just Gotta Be 'Bout Cuba!

Tony Adragna

Brother Jeb says "it's just not right", the Cuban exile community feels treacherously betrayed, and I'm hoppin' mad. Read it yourself

MIAMI, Aug. 1 -- The rare occasion of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush criticizing the administration of his brother, President Bush, for negotiating the return of 12 suspected hijackers to Cuba is adding intrigue to the courtship of Cuban American voters considered crucial in next year's presidential election.

Jeb Bush told the Miami Herald in an interview published today that "despite the good intentions of the administration to negotiate the safety of these folks, that is an oppressive regime, and given the environment in Cuba, it's just not right."

The suspected hijackers, 11 men and one woman, were intercepted by U.S. patrol ships July 15 after allegedly seizing control of a Cuban boat and heading toward Florida. The capture prompted impassioned pleas from exile leaders, who hoped the suspected hijackers would be prosecuted in the United States...

During a South Florida campaign trip this week, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), a Democratic presidential candidate, called the decision to return the suspected hijackers to Cuba "a setback for America's best values."

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said the Cubans should never have been sent back and that he has requested an investigation by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee...

"This community made a substantial commitment to the president. We're not only not getting what we were promised, we're getting treated worse," Joe Garcia, executive director of the Cuban American National Foundation, said today. "When commitments aren't lived up to, then action needs to be taken."

Of course, the story notes that the Administration "favored sending the suspects to a third country," rather than back to Cuba. But that didn't happen. Instead we negotiated with the thug Castro. Why not keep the hijackers here?

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said today that the president agrees with his brother that Cuba's government is oppressive. But McClellan said the U.S. policy on Cuba is clear when it comes to "wet feet, dry feet," referring to the policy under which Cubans who reach U.S. soil are automatically allowed to stay; those caught at sea are sent home.

Besides this "wet feet, dry feet" policy being stupid, there's something else wrong with where the government went on this. If Mr. Bush didn't want to send these folks back to Cuba, yet he didn't want to make an exception to the policy, then all he had to do was try them here.

The crime, an act of piracy on the high seas, is a matter of universal jurisdiction — that's keeping them here for some other policy reason [like, maybe, something related to deterring piracy by prosecuting such acts?], not making an exception to the "wet feet..." policy.

Back to why the "wet feet..." policy is stupid. OK, I realize that there's some rationale policy reason[s] — the best I can think of is to dissuade escapees from attempting an unsafe en masse passage [some try on rafts that can hardly even be called rafts, others try on overloaded boats that are oft unseaworthy to begin with]. But I still think it's a strupid policy, and I share Sen. Lieberman's logic in making my assertion...

2003-08-01T13:32:00.000-04:00

Did the U.S. Just Commit a War Crime?...
You Be the Judge, but Hear the Case First...

Tony Adragna

Several days ago Bill Herbert asked for my "legal opinion" of the action reported in the story he quoted. Gut reaction: "The note is unseemly, but the action doesn't cross the line in my opinion"[quoting my email to Bill] — in other words, as Tacitus puts it in response to a commenter, "a purely aesthetic objection," but not a legal objection.

I thank Bill for the further email pointing me to the discussion at Tacitus'. I've examined the facts & circumstances to the extent that they are known, read the arguments, reviewed the documents cited as authority, and given a couple of days of thought to the question presented: Was this a case of "hostage taking" in violation of both international and U.S. law?

Can't say a whole lot about the facts of the case — we haven't heard but what's in those two grafs pulled from the middle of a longer story. We do know that the wife & daughter of an Iraqi general were detained by the U.S. military. We know that a note, which is reported to read "If you want your family released, turn yourself in," was left at the family's residence. And we know that the general did turn himself in within 48 hours.

A senior U.S. military officer states that the detention was for questioning on the Iraqi general's whereabouts. He further states that, notwithstanding the note, the family members "would have been released in due course", presumably after determining that they had no knowledge of where the general was keeping himself. There is nothing illegitimate about such a detention & questioning so long as there's no attempt to compel cooperation from the detainees — neither detention nor questioning are themselves considered compulsion.

If the detention was not for the stated purpose, but was for the purpose of compelling a third party — the sought after general — to turn himself in, then the action was illegal regardless of whether we left a note. It's not the note that makes the act a "hostage taking." Rather, it's the intent to detain for the illegal purpose that makes the detention an act of "hostage taking."

I don't think there's any disagreement with my "regardless of whether" verbiage, but I'm positive of dispute with the "not the note" assertion. Some folks, in their comments to Tacitus' entry, argue that even if we had legitimate reasons to detain the general's family, the note makes the detention illegal. How so, I wonder? If we had no intent to detain the family illegally, but we left the note as a ruse to make the general believe the worst, have we actually done something illegal?

The response to my question is that such a ruse is not a legitimate ruse. But, I've seen no good argument supporting the assertion of its illegitimacy. The only illegitimate ruses I'm aware of are those involving the abuse of protected status to lure an adversary into a false belief that there's no danger. There's nothing at international law that makes illegitimate a ruse luring the opposition into a false belief that some danger presents.

Protocol I does, at Article 75 ¶2(e) include a prohibition against "threats to commit [the taking of hostages]." But, there's no discussion of what constitutes a "threat" — is the statement sufficient absent any showing that there was intent to follow through, or must there be an actual threat?

And, while the U.S. is bound to Geneva IV, and to principles underlying Protocol I, we aren't bound to the protocol's regulatory scheme. To wit: where the protocol may be read to outlaw the use of a ruse that looks like a threat, such prohibition exists neither in Hague IV nor in Geneva IV[the former doesn't address hostage taking specifically, and the latter, at Art 34, prohibits "[t]he taking of hostages," but doesn't tackle whether you may employ the disputed ruse].

We are bound to the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages[pdf]. And there again is language that might support "the note" making the detention illegal. But that convention doesn't address the question of whether it's illegal to employ the disputed ruse when someone is legally detained for some legitimate purpose. Moreover, since it's an anti-terrorism convention, I'm not so sure that the way Tacitus' commenters understand the conventional definition of "hostage" & "hostage taking" is as universal an understanding as they'd like to suggest.

The adverts to UCMJ and the U.S. Army Field Manual only prove that hostage taking is illegal under U.S. law, but don't prove that the action in question here was in fact a hostage taking.

So far I'm not convinced that there was a violation of either international or U.S. law — not in spirit nor letter. The only thing I'm convinced of is that lots of people are wanting to make a big deal out of an incident that doesn't deserve the attention.

2003-07-29T15:55:00.000-04:00

What was known before 9/11?...
A lot, apparently, but nobody knew that they knew...

Tony Adragna

Just finished reading the REPORT OF THE JOINT INQUIRY INTO THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, which explains why I've been away for so long. Rather than walk through the Inquiry's Findings & Conclusions[pdf] — thoughly discussed in Part 1[pdf] of the report — I'll just offer some of my own conclusions — starting with an oft asked question — based on a reading of the entire report.

Why no head rollage? While the FBI's ball droppage has been the focus of much criticism here and in other places, the Bureau's failure's are in the context of a much bigger story of failure throughout the entire Intelligence Community (IC). Head rolling would be impractical as too many heads would be implicated.

Ball droppage starts with the IC's failure to recognize from 1998 onward that signs were pointing toward an attack inside the US & suggestions that an attack would involve the use of aircraft as weapons. Instead, the majority of counterterrorism folks focused on the "98 percent" probability of an attack on America's overseas interests. There's a boulder set at the hill's top, we're in the path, but everybody's looking at the next hill over.

Among the leadership of the IC, the only person not implicated is Director Mueller, who had just taken over the FBI on Aug 2, 2001.

What balls were dropped? From a reading of the Factual Findings, it's clear that there were some fatal failures to act. CIA passed on at least 4 opportunities to "watchlist" Mihdhar, and 3 re Hazmi. In March 2000 the CIA had information that Hazmi was in the US, but didn't inform FBI — it's this period of time during which Hazmi & Mihdhar were in contact with the Bureau's San Diego informant.

I think it a bit counterfactual to suggest that FBI would've been more aggressive in its approach to FISA [more on FISA below] had the Bureau known of these two thugs' presence, but they certainly might've taken a closer look at al Qaeda related FISA surveillance that was already in progress & maybe pushed harder for info from informants.

The CIA's failure here sets the boulder rolling downhill.

FBI's systemic problems with FISA — misconstruction of FISA's requirements & misapprehension of "the wall" — leads to failures to act in two specific instances in August 2001. The Moussaoui case I've covered in sufficient detail — I'll just note here that the FBI's General Counsel admits that himself & others were wrong at the time vis a vis what FISA required [see Part1, page 25, pdf].

At the same time that FBIHQ was making folks in Minneapolis jump through hoops, they were erecting a FISA "wall" around information that had nothing to do with FISA [ibid, page 84] — this prompts the "someday someone will die" e-mail.

FBI's FISA troubles also resulted from some "risk aversion". Remember that in the Summer of 2000 prosecutors working the East Africa bombing case brought to the FISA Court's [FISC] attention certain factual errors in applications. As several months go by, more errors are brought to the FISC's attention, leading the FISC to bar an agent from appearing before it. To ensure the accuracy of future filings, FBI & DOJ start of review of the entire FISA process. Guess what happened during the review?

If you guessed that FISA orders were allowed to expire, you're correct. It gets worse — though the review was completed in October 2000, and new procedures regarding the review of draft FISA applications & a streamlined "standard al-Qa'ida FISA application" were put out in April 2001, between March and sometime after September 11 something between every single one of 'em and two thirds of all FISA orders targeting al Qaeda were allowed to expire. This at the very moment in time when we needed as much information as hands could be gotten on.

The Phoenix Memo This guy wasn't just going with a gut instinct on activity that appeared suspicious — read the memo[page 111 et seq of the appendices]. It's full of info from cases that had already been worked, names [including a redacted list], and a reminder of something that other folks were already aware of — "significant UBL associates/operatives living in... Arizona."

This memo should've been jumped on & widely disseminated to the entire IC. Instead, it was treated in the same way it was routed — as "routine."

Could 9/11 have been prevented? Again, a bit of a counterfactual — 9/11 wasn't prevented. But, the more I think on it, the answer has to be, in my opinion: Yes, if folks were paying attention, and doing their jobs instead of being worried 'bout covering their asses, then the attacks could've been prevented. It's not as if this was the first time that the counterrorism community ever faced a foe, and winning wouldn't have been a first, either.

That's still a long way from concluding that the attacks would've been prevented. Sometimes even the best prepared defense fails. Unfortunately, and with consequences tragicaly fatal, we seem to have let the guard down prior to 9/11...

2003-07-24T17:02:00.000-04:00

Conservatives Critique Bushian Conservatism

Tony Adragna

First, Andrew Sullivan's observations

[...] Bush's conservatism is of a type that is simply more comfortable with the power of government than conservatives usually are. He certainly has little hesitation in using it for conservative ends. That makes sense for Bush, a man who was used to walking around the White House corridors long before he ever won the presidency. To more small-government types and libertarians, it's distressing. To Bush, it's merely full speed ahead. Meanwhile, the government he hands off to his successor will be bigger, more expensive and far more powerful in its anti-terror powers than anything he inherited. Whatever else that is, it's hardly a conservative achievement.

That's the conclusion to a column in which Andrew says things like, "in some critical ways, [Bush's conservatism is] far less traditionally conservative than the administration of Bill Clinton," "Bush is now proposing the biggest new entitlement since Nixon," and "[in foreign policy] the way in which Bush has chosen a strategic and systemic response... is the mark of a radical, not a conservative."

Next, George Will comments

This is the summer of conservatives' discontent. Conservatism has been disoriented by events in the past several weeks. Cumulatively, foreign and domestic developments constitute an identity crisis of conservatism, which is being recast -- and perhaps rendered incoherent.

George W. Bush may be the most conservative person to serve as president since Calvin Coolidge. Yet his presidency is coinciding with, and is in some instances initiating or ratifying, developments disconcerting to four factions within conservatism.

He then goes on to give examples of what Bush has done to give rise to disconcertment from conservatives.

Hello! Where have these two knuckleheads been for the last 2½ years!?!

The Romans had a cure for when troops fell asleep on watch...

2003-07-23T13:04:00.000-04:00

A Question of Intelligence (cont.)

Tony Adragna

I've not been wanting to take a hyper-critical line on the 16 words story, mainly because I think the war was nonetheless justified notwithstanding that the case was sloppily argued [as I suggested in Aug '02 — long before the '03 SOTU — by asking rhetorically "Could it be the salesman has a very salable product, but keeps screwing up the pitch?"]

But I keep coming back to the question asked the other day: Why not rely on our own intelligence estimates? If Mr. Hadley was relying on the Oct NIE and the Jan memo "citing the language in the Oct. 1 intelligence estimate," then why didn't the SOTU make a claim about what the U.S. knew?

The only explanation that makes sense is that at the time the SOTU was written the speechwriters knew of CIA's incredulity. If Hadley was only aware of problems with " technical specifics of the Africa charge, not its general accuracy," then he could've left the specifics out and made a general reference relying on the Oct NIE and Jan memo.

Instead, we got an advert to "the British government."

And why no head rollage?

Something smells awful funky about the way the White House is handling this matter...

Speaking of the British government, Anne Applebaum's latest op-ed column makes this observation

When George Tenet fell on his sword earlier this month over that now infamous piece of British intelligence that made it into the president's State of the Union speech, the story played [in the U.S.] as "White House Dumps on CIA." In Britain, it played as "White House Dumps on Britain."[emphasis added]

That the White House didn't intend to cause problems for Tony Blair is no solace...

Dems maybe getting a clue re Homeland Security... When Glenn Reynolds offered advice to the Democrats on how to criticize the administration's approach to Homeland Security, did he have this in mind?

just as they did last week in forcing a series of losing votes on initiatives challenging President Bush's Iraq policy, the Democrats were seeking to make a political point. They plan other, more narrowly targeted efforts to increase anti-terrorism spending. The Democrats' contention, disputed by Republicans, is that the administration and the GOP-controlled Congress are shortchanging the nation's domestic security needs.

Byrd's proposal sought to add $602 million for transit security; $729.5 million for police, firefighters and "first responders"; $238.5 million for border protections; $100 million to safeguard air cargo; and $80 million to protect chemical facilities.

Since Congress's initial $40 billion response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, "the momentum has slowed," Byrd told the Senate. "Homeland security initiatives are falling behind." He cited a recent Council of Foreign Relations task force report warning that local responders remain unprepared for a catastrophic attack. "The American people believe that we here in Washington are taking care of the problem," Byrd said. "We must not mislead them."

I'm not sure this is quite what Glenn was thinking, though it's maybe headed in the right direction. I think Glenn would like to see — I definitely would — more focus on mission creep at the Department. Sen. Lieberman and others certainly had no problem voicing concerns when DHS creeped beyond security into a political dispute...

2003-07-22T21:41:00.000-04:00

Surprise! Non-News Gets No Headline... FBI Still Doesn't Have A Clue...

Tony Adragna

Last night the AP fired off a report highlighting some info from soon to be released 900 page declassified version of the joint House and Senate intelligence committees' report on their investigation into 9-11

WASHINGTON - An FBI informant knew two of the Sept. 11 hijackers but never suspected they were terrorists, according to a congressional report that nonetheless concludes no single piece of information could have prevented the attacks.

The unidentified informant was with Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi in San Diego during the summer of 2000, although the nature of their relationship was unclear...

Mickey Kaus says it isn't news.

And, of course, it isn't!

But, help me read this passage, folks

Newsweek magazine first revealed the report's information about the informant. According to federal enforcement officials, the informant reported contact with Almihdhar and Alhazmi to his FBI handler in the summer of 2000. The report said he gave only their first names, and there was no reason for the men to have caused misgivings since at that point neither was on government watch lists of suspected terrorists.

It wasn't until after the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole at port in Yemen that the FBI learned both men had attended a January 2000 meeting in Malaysia of major al-Qaida operatives. The CIA had known the two attended the meeting, but apparently the information never was shared with the FBI.[emphasis added]

I'll hafta read congress' report to know for sure, but it looks to me, if the AP has put it correctly, like the FBI knew sometime after Oct '00 but before Aug '01, that the two men in question had links to al Qaeda.

Newsweek has more

[T]he FBI gets the toughest treatment. A few months after [suspected secret Saudi agent] al-Bayoumi took them to San Diego, Almihdhar and Alhazmi moved into the house of a local professor who was a longtime FBI “asset.” The prof also had earlier contact with another hijacker, Hani Hanjour. But even though the informant was in regular touch with his FBI handler, the bureau never pieced together that he was living with terrorists. The bureau also failed to pursue other leads, including a local imam who dealt with several key 9-11 figures. The report, one congressional investigator said, “is a scathing indictment of the FBI as an agency that doesn’t have a clue about terrorism.” Furious bureau officials say the report misstates the evidence. They say the bureau checked out al-Bayoumi—now back in Saudi Arabia—and concluded he had not given the hijackers “material support.” As for Almihdhar and Alhazmi, “there was nothing there that gave us any suspicion about these guys,” said one FBI official.

On a related note: This is what concerned me most 'bout the USA PATRIOT Act — 'twas unnecessary, the arguments for the Act were unadulterated CYA.

It's not the granting of power that might be needed [though, I'm still unnconvinced of the need], the abusive exercise of which true Patriots wouldn't stand for, that troubled me. Rather, it's the way that Congress went about passing the Act.

When something goes wrong, you ask questions, get some answers 'bout what went wrong & how it went wrong, then you take some action. That didn't happen prior to the Act passing — 'twas more like DoJ used 9-11 as an excuse to get its whole grocery order filled on credit.

It's long been clear to me that the FBI couldn't get its act together to use the tools it aready had. You don't give people more authority after they've proven themselves pooch screwers. I think the action needed wasn't Act passage, but head rollage...

2003-07-19T08:49:00.000-04:00

Saturday at Darrell's Barber Shop

Tony Adragna

Well, Colbert didn't need to go to Darrell's for today's column

Welcome to Washington, a city at its worst (or best, depending on your point of view) when in full cry over politics. Today we shall observe the posturing politicians who take to the microphones to feign alarm at issues of perceived political consequence. This annoying behavior is a hoot, especially when it's plain as day the pols are conveniently ignoring the tougher issues they can't or won't address. This craven political behavior is displayed at both the federal and local levels, thus confirming our suspicion that shamelessness is the shared property of Capitol Hill and city hall.

First to the national scene.

Congressional sharks, smelling the blood of a Republican administration snagged by a 16-word sentence in a State of the Union address, are roiling the political waters in search of more flesh to tear, preferably out of George Bush's hide. The predators were so intent on trying to rip the administration's credibility to shreds that the most serious development of the week was nearly drowned out: the rise of the dreaded "G-word."...

But shucks: Who's kidding whom? This is Washington on the eve of America's political high season. Discrediting Bush is much more fun. Plus it's cheap -- and a no-brainer if you're lucky enough to have clever speechwriters.

Locally, and just as unfortunately, a similar play at slippery politics was evident this week in the D.C. city hall.

The Post published a four-part series that laid bare the ugly truth about the city's juvenile residential treatment program. It is dysfunctional, a taxpayer rip-off, a magnet for grant and contract hustlers, and a spawning ground for teenagers who traipse out of group homes to commit murder, rape and other violent crimes.

Mayor Anthony Williams, Ward 8 council member Sandy Allen (who chairs the committee that oversees youth services) and Ward 3 council member Kathy Patterson (overseer of D.C. public safety agencies) -- to hear them tell it -- are simply shocked, shocked, shocked by The Post's series.

That, my precious ones, is 100 percent pure, unadulterated poppycock...

Really, if he had gone to Darrell's for comments on the local story, he wouldn't have got very much printable material. I had a very strong emotional reaction to the series, and what I would've written informed by those feelings is not fit for publication. If my own experience with the juvenile justice system and group homes had been in DC, I don't know that I'd be here today...

Anyway, Colbert once again shows why he, in my opinion, is the best writer on WaPo's op-ed page...

2003-07-18T17:20:00.000-04:00

Harry Potter & The War Against Terrorism

Tony Adragna

I finally got my copy of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix — 'tis a tome, but I'm loving it.

Now, I don't wanna be making too much of something that's probably nothing, but am I the only person to see a certain similarity between young Mr. Potter and the current United States president?

Evil thought dead never really was. Harry & his allies — Headmaster Albus Dumbledore, Sirius Black (Harry's godfather), the Weasleys, Mad-Eye Moody, et al — see the danger. The thug Voldemort is back & his henchmen are eboldened by his return. The Wizarding community needs to deal with the threat. But....

Harry & Dumbledore are thought to be nutters — either the Wizarding community are crazy not to believe the warnings, or the warnings are naught but the rantings of crazy folk. Guess which option lots of folk prefer.

Alternatively, Harry & Dumbledore aren't crazy — instead, they're power hungry attention cravers.

Hmmm... I wonder how many readers think Harry et al are looking for an unjustified war...

I know, it's just a book...

Update: OK, so I'm not the only person to make the connection — Glenn responded to a Suellentrop piece by making the same point. And Betsy says, with what seems to me a sarcy reference to my analytical abilities , that she "discussed these same similarities" with her daughter — good on her...[update: Betsy writes to say no sarcasm intended, "Just appreciation for someone saying what I agreed with" — jeesh, now I'm agreeable... gotta work on my pot-stirring...]

2003-07-17T12:39:00.000-04:00

A Question of Intelligence

Tony Adragna

I don't want to rehash what's already been sufficiently proven wrong with reportage & commentary on the "Niger Uranium" story. Looking back over last January's State of the Union address, I found the relevant passage

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

Unless we assume that the only learning our government got from the Brits was just more of that forged document, then there's no basis for arguing that those sixteen words represent a lie.

I've still a problem with the statement, though: The British government doesn't make U.S. foreign policy. It's the advert to what "[t]he British government has learned" that troubles me. To my knowledge, conceding that I don't know everything, no U.S. administration has ever relied solely upon intelligence from another government, even an allied government, when deciding our own policy.

The rule is, if our own intelligence services can't independently confirm the information, then our government doesn't get to rely on it.

Ironically, contra what's being sold as pooch screwage, the rule was followed, and we — the U.S. — independently learned that Saddam Hussein had been attemtpting to acquire uranium from Africa. Amb. Wilson makes the case, and his analysis supports the conclusion, that Saddam's attempts were unsuccessful. But what Wilson's own inquiry found was an admission from his contacts in Africa that, yes, Saddam had made such attempts.

That's what the African officials thought Iraq's contact with Niger was all about, anyway, and that's what they told Wilson. And it's a reasonable assumption for those officials, and our own officials to make — Niger's main export is uranium.

So, why not cite what the U.S. learned via Wilson's report, instead of leaving Tony Blair swinging? Dunno.

What I do know is that the only thing the U.S. government has got to apologize for is not handling the "Niger uranium" imbroglio with a bit more... um... what's the word I'm looking for... intelligence.

2003-07-16T20:45:00.000-04:00

Volokh Responds to the NJ Assembly...

Tony Adragna

Well, to an Assemblyman, but headline writers are alloqwed a little license[aren't they?]

The legislator's argument boils down to: Why should society extend the benefits incidental to marriage, including some "substantial financial benefits", to enduring homosexual relationships if those unions neither make any significant contribution to society, nor do the ending of those relationships present any any significant harm that society might want to prevent by incentivizing partners to remain together?

What this legislator is going on about is "kids." OK, fine...

Let me ask a question of my own: Do married people without children get to claim as an exemption, or take a child tax credit, against their "presumptive ability to breed"? Of course not — they've got to have a child. And anybody with a dependent child, whether that parent be married or not, is eligibable for that beneficial tax treatment. This benefit is already extended to homosexuals who become parents by adoption or through procreation.

And nobody says you can't take that tax treatment if you're not married. The only qualification is that you be a parent.

But you don't get the tax treatment of marriage if you're not married. And this treatment is purportedly about providing the optimal environment for children. I'll advert to Eugene's reponse here

If there's going to be homosexual child-rearing -- e.g., consider a mother who had children in a heterosexual marriage, is divorced, has custody of the children, and has a lesbian lover (and note that in many such situations, the father might not even want to claim custody instead) -- it seems to me much better that the couple be married than unmarried, for much the same reasons that it's better for heterosexual child-rearing to be done by a married couple. Even if you think that's the second-best scenario, the first-best being child-rearing by a heterosexual married couple, it may still be better than the likely alternative, which is less stability among the child-rearers.

So, a good argument can be made that society should use the tax code to promote same-sex marriages where children are involved.

Now, let me ask another question, building on the good legislator's falling out with his Aunt scenario. What if the Aunt isn't able to take care of herself, can't afford to pay for help and the Assemblyman is the only family she has? Wouldn't the falling apart of that relationship burden society with what should be a family's responsibility? Isn't the presence of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Aunts living without the familiy support structure they need harmful to society?

Not only does the falling out with his Aunt present some potential burden to the public fisc and harm to society, but the obverse of that coin is also true: Extended families benefit society. What did we have before daycare, nursing homes, meals on wheels, etc.? We had the extended family! The authentic tradition, if I may borrow that phrase, of "family" extends at least to Aunts, Uncles & Grandparents. Our "nuclear family" has only fairly recently become the predominant structure.

So, if the good Assemblyman would take this benefits of the traditional family argument to it's logical conclusion, then he couldn't so easily dismiss the breakup with his Aunt as "a matter of the utmost irrelevance to society." Instead, he might find himself agreeing with me that the worst thing that happened to families wasn't the sexual revolution, but the deemphasis of extended family.

But, back to my point. Right now, many same-sex couples are in a position of not being able to care for someone who they consider family. The hurdles are sometimes financial, but more often legal, and result in the taking on by society of a burden that it needn't take on. That is harm being done by society not recognizing the relationship. And it's a harm more inane than my scenario involving the Assemblyman's individual failing to take care of his Aunt. There is only good that can come to society by extending marriage benefits here.

As for the tax treatment of marriage itself, I don't get the argument. Absent children, heterosexual couples & homosexual couples are as similarly situated as are parents irrespective of orientation. The only good that childless heterosexuals marriages bring to society is stability — that good is also offered by same-sex couples in enduring relationships, so why can't we treat those relationships as marriages?

2003-07-16T13:31:00.000-04:00

What to do 'bout politicians we disagree with...

Tony Adragna

Rand Simberg questions what would be Sen. Santorum's advice to his children re if they were gay. As his commentors have noted, yes, "that['s] really what he's saying."

I think it useless to argue with Santorum over the correctness of the moral tradition that informs his advice. Moreover, I've no interest interfering in the relationship between himself and his children.

But, Andrea Harris's comment gets to where my interest begins

...I think that it's too late to be shocked that there are people in the world who think that there are certain sexual proclivities that should be repressed instead of indulged in. We know that these people exist, they aren't going to change their minds just to please us, some of them -- like Santorum -- are in positions of power; how are we going to deal with them?

I agree, "it's [waaay] too late to be shocked." Nevertheless, if people understood just how far some social conservatives are willing to go, I think they would be shocked. This debate isn't just about homosexuality. The whole "Traditional Values" argument inveighs against lots of things that heterosexuals ought be concerned about.

For instance, there's a movement to make divorce more difficult by doing away with, or at least severely restricting, "no fault" divorce.

In order to make divorce more difficult to obtain, several states have passed laws or considered legislation to restrict no-fault divorce, which require mutual consent, longer waiting periods, or classes for divorcing parents before a divorce can be obtained. For example, a Georgia law allows no-fault divorce only if both parties agree to the divorce (mutual consent) and if no children are involved, while 2002 bills in Kansas and New Hampshire would have prohibited no-fault divorce among couples with minor children. Eight states have laws requiring parents with minor children to attend a pre-divorce course on parenting issues or the effects of divorce on children,[86] while laws in eleven other states allow courts to mandate participation in these classes.[87] Other states, such as Oklahoma and Tennessee, require a longer waiting period before a divorce can be granted for couples with minor children. At least two states, Massachusetts and New Jersey, had 1997 bills prohibiting no fault divorce, but both bills failed. [88]

So, I can rephrase a question Rand asks in another comment: What about the people who [are unhappily married]? Are they to be condemned to unhappily [married] lives, to suit [public policy informed by] your church's notion of morality?

I'm fairly comfortable assuming that Santorum's response would be fully in line with the FRC document quoted above. That same document argues against cohabitation. But guess what — our common law tradition has long recognized enduring cohabitation relationships as a form of marriage. If FRC wants no protections accorded such relationships, and Santorum agrees with them, then it's they who are arguing against tradition.

What's specifically at stake here isn't Big Rick's right to tell Ricky Jr. that he's got to repress his homoerotic desires. Rather, it's about Sen. Santorum's want to use the law to tell me that I've got to repress my homoerotic desires. In general, the debate is about moral majoritarians telling all of us that the only options we ought have are those they find acceptable.

That's not repression — it oppression.

What to do about politicians who push agendas we disagree with? Don't vote for 'em.

p.s. Ray Eckhart's "And folks wonder why the Catholic priesthood has a preponderance of gay men?" comment may be snarky, but it also speaks to something that revisionists want to blame on the last 25 or so years of liberalism. Truth is that seminaries, rectories, and even some episcopal manses had closets long before the sexual revolution...

2003-07-14T21:48:00.000-04:00

Sex & Marriage

Tony Adragna

Eugene Volokh has been responding to arguments that marriage is about "channel[ing] adults' erotic desires into the productive pursuit of rearing children, who must be formed into adults capable of sustaining self-government."[see also here, and this post] There is discussion of the "unnaturalness" of gay sex and the impossibility of procreation, etc...

It's as if marriage is but a license to have sex & raise families, for which the government must then grant benefits else folks will stop taking up this license and all hell's gonna break loose...

Enough with the S E X already! Don't heterosexuals think about anything else? Sheesh, you guys aren't content just demeaning homosexual relationships in this fashion, now you're wanting to spit into the wind...

Look, what distinguishes marriage isn't the ability to procreate & raise children — it's the shared life and enduring union. The latter conditions I'll concede as essential to the former, but not the other way around. Though both State and Church will allow dissolution when someone unknowingly enters a relationship where procreation is impossible, that both allow marriages where procreation is known to be impossible disproves the assertion that procreation & child rearing are essential to marriage.

As for the State promoting a condition most beneficial to enduring relationships and families, the best thing legislatures could do would be to stop regulating marriage. The presumption should be on recognition of individuals' committed relationships, rather than requiring individuals to jump over regulatory hurdles leading to the State's sanction of legitimacy.

States may decide, for policy reasons, to issue a "Certificate of Marriage" formally recognizing such relationships, and grant incidental benefits to promote the same. But the licensing — that is, the State's grant of permission — of marriage, even if it be only pro forma, is one excercise of authority too far.

That's not to say that State's have no interest in refusing to recognize some marriages. But the "protecting the traditional institution" & "promoting family stability" arguments for excluding same-sex unions from "marriage" are only reasons to recognize heterosexual marriages, not reasons to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages.

Shouting 'Cross the Potomac

President Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1911-2004

Will Vehrs

Holiday Wishes

Staff

Gregg Easterbrook is Wrong

Will Vehrs

David Brooks is Right

Will Vehrs

James Carville's Wife on Iraq Policy

Tony Adragna

Leave Limbaugh 'lone?

Tony Adragna

Quasipundit's New Season Begins Tonight

Tony Adragna

Scott McClellan's Dad is a Conspiracy Theorist?

Tony Adragna

Lee Harvey Oswald's Legacy...

Tony Adragna

Forty Years Ago

Will Vehrs

Dvorak is still clueless

Tony Adragna

What's Gov. Ehrlich up to?...

Tony Adragna

Can I Marry David Brooks?...

Tony Adragna

Queer Marriage for this Straight Guy

Will Vehrs

The Right to Marry...

Tony Adragna

So, Now Rush is a Money Launderer?

Tony Adragna

Paper Lawyer

Will Vehrs

It's Tony's Birthday!

Will Vehrs

It's Pronounced Caleeforneea!

Tony Adragna

"What Do We Do Now?"--Arnold

Will Vehrs

Questioning Sabato and Weintraub

Will Vehrs

California Debatin'

Will Vehrs

Quasipundit Storm Center

Tony Adragna

What Did I Miss?

Will Vehrs

Rider on the Storm

Will Vehrs

ACLU Punchcard Complaints...

Tony Adragna

Huh?

Will Vehrs

Democrats on Discrimination in the Marriage Laws...

Tony Adragna

Tapped on Trade Unionists...

Tony Adragna

A Still Overdue Speech

Tony Adragna

Brooks Debuts

Will Vehrs

Reviewing Campaign Finance Reform

Tony Adragna

Getting the Point on Liberty & the Constitution... plus the FMA is just plain 'ol unAmerican

Tony Adragna

My thoughts on Labor

Tony Adragna

This break has been sponsored by the word "think"

Tony Adragna

'Twas the Foam From the Begin — 1981 That Is...

Tony Adragna

Well, I've Got Nothin'...

Tony Adragna

Plebeian Punditry Purmutates Polisphere

Tony Adragna

Front Page Blogging

Will Vehrs

California's Crazy Constitutionalism... or, Measure Twice, Cut Once...

Getting the Point on Liberty & the Constitution...
plus the FMA is just plain 'ol unAmerican

California's Crazy Constitutionalism...
or, Measure Twice, Cut Once...

Will Likes Riding With Mickey,
But Tony's On Board...

Canterbury Calls,
Colbert Castigates...

Restructuring the Restructuring...
FERC Maybe Should Do Some Rethinking, Ya Think...

Now Back to the National Desk...
Will Rogers' Party is Still Disorganized

California's Clothespin Contest,
or, Agreeing with Mickey — Musta Lost My Mind,
or, Tony Prefers Peasant Food...

QP's California Correspondent
Considers the Possibilities

Labor Aims at Feinstein,
Murders Own Feet!