The Citizens

Bell Curve

The Law Talking Guy

Raised by Republicans

U.S. West

Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Thursday, August 04, 2005

Snuppy the Clone

LA Times Science page reports that South Korean scientists have successfully cloned a dog. "The researchers transferred 1,095 cloned embryos into 123 surrogate dogs to produce three pregnancies, one of which resulted in a miscarriage." (The other puppy died from pneumonia 22 days after birth, which researchers think had nothing to do with the cloning.)

Now "Genetic Savings and Clone", the organization that wants to clone dogs for their owners, may have a viable market strategy. If Dolly the Sheep managed to cause a fuss, what will Snuppy do? Ah well. Let the Clone Wars (in congress) resume.

Hey there, Judge (wink)... goin' somewhere?

According to the LA Times, Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts, volunteered and worked pro bono for the gay plaintiffs in Romer v. Evans--the case that overturned Colorado's Amendment 2 that permitted discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment and housing. So John G. Roberts worked to support gay rights, and did so of his own initiative. (Apparently, he helped frame the arguments in such a way that the Supreme Court, not gay-friendly at the time, would accept them.)

The ultra-conservatives won't like that, I'm sure, but they'll fall in line with Bush. And with the moderates, I think Roberts is a shoo-in now.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Five Sheep and a Postage Stamp of Land

Sometimes, there's good news from Iraq too. I love this little story (from yesterday's AP). It's a great lesson in honor and respect flowing both ways. It might be the best $130,000 we've ever spent in Iraq--and a better ambassador for the American people we could not have found if we had tried.

Sheik Horn floats around the room in white robe and headdress, exchanging pleasantries with dozens of village leaders. But he's the only sheik with blonde streaks in his mustache -- and the only one who attended country music star Toby Keith's recent concert in Baghdad with fellow U.S. soldiers. Officially, he's Army Staff Sgt. Dale L. Horn, but to residents of the 37 villages and towns that he patrols, he's known as the American sheik.

Sgt. Horn, 25, a native of Fort Walton Beach, Fla., acknowledges he had little interest in the region before coming here. But a local sheik friendly to U.S. forces, Mohammed Ismail Ahmed, explained the inner workings of rural Iraqi society on one of Sgt. Horn's first Humvee patrols.... and [Sgt. Horn] started making a point of stopping by all the villages, all but one dominated by Sunni Arabs, to talk with people about their life and security problems. Moreover, he pressed for development projects in the area. He boasts that he helped funnel $136,000 worth of aid into the area. Part of that paid for delivery of clean water to 30 villages during the broiling summer months.

Sheik Ahmed, Sgt. Horn's mentor and known for his dry sense of humor, eventually suggested during a meeting of village leaders that Sgt. Horn be named a sheik. The sheiks approved by voice vote... Some sheiks later gave him five sheep and a postage stamp of land, fulfilling some of the requirements for sheikdom. Others encouraged him to start looking for a second wife, which Sgt. Horn's spouse back in Florida immediately vetoed.

But what may have started as a joke among crusty village elders has sprouted into something serious enough for 100 to 200 village leaders to meet with Sgt. Horn each month to discuss security issues. Sgt. Horn doesn't take his responsibilities lightly. He lately has been prodding the Iraqi Education Ministry to pay local teachers, and he closely follows a water-pipeline project that he hopes will ensure the steady flow of clean water to his villages.

...To Sgt. Horn's commanders, his success justifies his unorthodox approach: No rockets have hit their base in the past half year. "He has developed a great relationship with local leaders," said Lt. Col. Bradley Becker, who commands the 2nd Battalion, 8th Field Artillery Regiment. "They love him. They're not going to let anyone shoot at Sheik Horn."

We Are Family

The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously yesterday that businesses providing special discounts and services to spouses must extend the same to registered domestic partners. The LA Times describes the decision in greater detail. The ruling is based on the law Gov. Schwarzenegger signed that took effect Jan 1, 2005. Not only was the decision unanimous, but the only judge to partially dissent did so because he wanted to go further!

This is a victory for all Californian families. And that's not just being a little snide--that's how the court saw it too. The country club in question tried to argue that (a) they were trying to limit access to the club because they couldn't let all of their "members' friends" play, and (b) they were trying to create a "family friendly" environment.

As to the first claim, the court noted drily that, since the club already permitted spouses, children, and grandchildren of members to golf for free, extending equal benefits to a handful of registered domestic partners would not create a "stampede on the fairway." (They also noted that the person requesting a spousal benefit was not merely a "friend" but a "registered domestic partner" in a "loving, caring, committed relationship.") And as to the second claim, the court replied with what I feel was its most important holding: the unambiguous recognition that same-sex couples are families too.

BHCC [Bernardo Heights Country Club] also argues that denying French the spousal benefit contributes to the creation of a “family-friendly environment.” While creating a family-friendly environment may be a legitimate business interest, that policy is not served when a business discriminates against the domestic partner of one of its members. Rather, by so doing, the business violates the policy favoring domestic partnerships which, like the policy favoring marriage, seeks to promote and protect families as well as reduce discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. Accordingly, we conclude that, while promoting a “family-friendly environment” may be a legitimate business interest, that interest is not furthered by excluding families formed through domestic partnership. [Emphasis Added]

The court was not fooled by BHCC's attempt to hide behind the claim that they were just pursuing a neutral "marital status" policy. The court said that, "there was evidence that unmarried, heterosexual members of BHCC were granted membership privileges to which they were not entitled, while plaintiffs were denied such privileges purportedly pursuant to BHCC’s spousal benefit policy. There was, moreover, significant evidence that BHCC’s directors were motivated by animus toward plaintiffs because of their sexual orientation..." In other words, the court knew what this case was really about.

The partial dissent was even more keen on this point. The judge said that the evidence showed, "BHCC maintained its spousal benefit limitation as a 'subterfuge' or 'device' to accomplish prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." And when dealing with the "family-friendly" claim, the judge reasoned rather sarcastically:

"By “family-friendly environment,” BHCC, which denies having intentionally discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, cannot mean a club devoid of gay and lesbian members... By a “family-friendly” club environment, then, I take BHCC to mean not an environment excluding gay and lesbian couples, but, rather, an environment that welcomes members’ immediate families and includes them in club activities, promoting fuller social relationships within the club membership... but this goal would be disserved, not served, by the club’s policy of denying club privileges to registered domestic partners of members."

You know, it's nice that Janice Rogers Brown is off the California court so great decisions like these can now be unanimous. Thanks, W!

Monday, August 01, 2005

Nom de Plame

Once again, it appears that Robert Novak is trying to wriggle out of his culpability for disclosing that Valerie Plame was Mr. Wilson's husband and also a covert CIA operative. He says Valerie Plame was listed as Mr. Wilson's wife in Who's Who in America.

The aforementioned tome, however, did not mention Ms. Plame was a spy. And it is highly unlikely that anyone Ms. Plame dealt with on her foreign assignments would have randomly perused Ambassador Wilson's entry in Who's Who on the off chance that she might be his third wife. No doubt her maiden name was also inscribed somewhere in local marriage records. But that was never the point. Novak's crime was not doing detective work; it was shouting out what he had uncovered to the world.

You should read this profile of the Wilsons taken from Vanity Faire. Valerie's friends did not know she worked for the CIA. She had been trained in multiple languages and had demonstrated "considerable prowess" wielding an AK-47. It is a travesty that her anonymity has been shattered, and real damage has been done to her career. It is to her credit, I think, that she has thusfar chosen to retain as much of her privacy as she can.

Recessive Appointment

It's official: Bush has conceded his battle with the US Senate and has handed Mr. Bolton a recess appointment. That's a first for the U.N. ambassadorship. (I wonder if he'll ever do the same for the Supreme Court someday.) What does this mean for the US at the UN? Not much. An organization which Bush never respected anyhow will remain disrespected for a couple more years. And it's not as though our credibility at the UN could fall much lower.

Remember when Bush called Sen. Frist on the carpet and demanded that he organize another floor vote for Bolton? But Frist did not do so, and Bush capitulated. Frist has also departed from Bush on the issue of stem cell research. Is Sen. Frist declaring his independence of Bush in preparation for his 2008 run for the presidency?

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Something new

Pregnant Philadelphia mother of one missing

What's new? She's not white! But at least she's attractive, so CNN hasn't totally flipped out. Plus, it doesn't seem to be a front-page type story.

Still, this is more than CNN reported when a black Atlanta woman went missing earlier this month. (She's okay, by the way)

Consider me surprised

IRA vows to end armed campaign

If it's true, it is great news. Let's set the over/under on how long it will last at six months.

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

More Conservative Hypocrisy

This is from a Fox News commentary by David Boaz of the Cato Institute. He is urging that Public Broadcasting (NPR and PBS) be privatized (i.e., become 100% beholden to corporate interests, as is the rest of the media).

"We wouldn’t want the federal government to publish a national newspaper. Why should we have a government television network and a government radio network? If anything should be kept separate from government and politics, it’s the news and public affairs programming that Americans watch. When government brings us the news—with all the inevitable bias and spin—the government is putting its thumb on the scales of democracy. It’s time for that to stop."

These same people support:
1. The US propaganda radio in Arabic
2. The fake "news" clips by the
3. The Pentagon's brand new "military channel" - a 24-hour government run propaganda network for the Bush administration's policies.

Paul Hackett: Iraq Vet for Congress

In Cincinnati (Ohio 2d District), a man named Paul Hackett, recently returned marine from Iraq, is running as a Democrat for Congress. The district had a 20-year Republican who just retired. It doesn't hurt that he's a good looking man. The new Republican nominee, Jean Schmidt, is an extreme right-to-lifer and a shriveled marathon runner.

Here's what the Cincinnati Inquirer said in its endorsement:

"Hackett, in our view, is a gust of fresh air. If we had to put a label on him, it would be Libertarian Democrat. He says what he thinks and doesn't seem to have much use for the orthodoxy, or the partisanship, of either party. He doesn't want the government telling him what kinds of guns he can own, nor does he want it interfering in family or medical decisions or taking away civil liberties in the name of fighting terror."

Interesting.

GOP Offers Reward for Convinction of Chicago's Mayor

Hi Folks,

The GOP is at it again. In a cheezy political move, the Cook County, Illinois GOP has offered $10,000 for information leading to the convinction of Chicago's Mayor, Richard Daley.

I think the Democrats should respond by offering a reward for information leading to the convinction of any government official who participated in the leak of Plame's identity and any official who participated in the subsequent cover-up.

Comments? Suggestions? Frustrated rants?

Monday, July 25, 2005

AFL-CIO Split?

Hi Everyone,

The AFL-CIO (America's major trade union confederation) is meeting for its annual convention in Chicago, and it's getting attention in the media for the first time in years. Why? Controversy. Four unions are boycotting the confederation meeting - these represent mostly low skilled workers such as service workers, hotel workers but also include the Teamsters.

The dispute is about how much of the budgets should be spent on recruiting new members. The percentage of workers in the US that are members of unions (or the union "density") is between 10% and 20% and dropping. Compare this to desnsity rates in Scandinavia and several other European countries approaching or exceeding 90%. The boycotting unions want the AFL-CIO to dramatically increase recruitment. The AFL-CIO leadership wants to maintain the current balance between recruitment and political lobbying.

Academic research on union strategies given particular density rates (in particular by Dr. Michael Wallerstein), have shown that as density decreases the incentives to spend on lobbying as opposed to recruitment increase. Other researchers (notably Dr. Geoff Garret) have shown strong unions' effect on national economic performance is positive when the government is friendly to labor but negative when the government is generally hostile to labor. America's frequently divide government is typically hostile or at best ambivolent with regard to organized labor. These researchers' findings suggest that increasing union density in the US would not be the most effecient strategy for the union to increase its strength and even if were successful, it would have a negative impact on our over all national economic performance. Of course the economic effect would change if American government became more positively disposed towards organized labor but changing that is a matter of lobbying.

I know we have some visitors who have extensive experience with unions. I'd love to see their thoughts about the events in Chicago.

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Not the Same Old Bobbies or Are They?

British authorities have admitted that the man held down and shot in the head on a London train earlier this week was a Brazilian man who may have had no connection at all to the train bombings. Witnesses said that police tackled the man and held him down while a plain clothes man shot him five times in the head. After a couple of days of announcing that he had been on their watch list, that he was wearing a bomb, that he refused to obey police instructions, British authorities are now gradually coming to the point that their officers chased down and murdered an innocent man.

This kind of reckless abuse of police power is more commonly associated with Los Angeles than with London. But have the British police really behaved in such a way that we are justified in our surprise? Check out this Human Rights Watch report on Northern Ireland. You might say that Belfast is different but in Britain's highly centralized law enforcement apparatus (a structure envied by Republicans), the same policies and people are in charge of standards and practices in both London and Belfast.

The British have a long history of abusing police power. It was a major bone of contention for the Founding Fathers here in the United States (which is why Republican demands for increased police power are such a radical departure from American norms).

The facts aren't completely in. But given what the British authorities are already admitting to and their seldom talked about record of human rights abuses, it does not look to be a story with a happy ending.

Friday, July 22, 2005

Self-Deception

From AP: Lawmakers from the House and Senate agreed Thursday to include a provision - part of a larger energy bill - that would start daylight-saving time three weeks earlier, the second Sunday in March, and end it a week later, the first Sunday of November

As it stands, there is a week in April and October each year that is terribly inconvenient for travelers because we are on daylight savings time, but Europe and most of the rest of the northern hemisphere is not. Now this adds a whole extra month. The travel industry, and every industry that has to coordinate across continents, is extremely upset, for good reason.

I'm annoyed for another reason. I don't like daylight savings time. I advocate changing work schedules in the summer for sure, but there is no reason to do so, but pretend we're not! To quote the movie Lawrence of Arabia, "A man who tells lies, like me, merely hides the truth. But a man who tells half-lies has forgotten where he put it." Changing our clocks but pretending that we haven't is a form of self-deception that, I believe, promotes dishonesty generally. There's a connection between lying about what time it is and the little signs at Costco that say they are checking your receipt "to ensure you are not overcharged and received all the items you paid for" rather than "to see if you are stealing." Or the little voice that says your phonecall to Comcast is being recorded "to ensure quality service" rather than "to see if our agents are making personal calls." Or the doublespeak we hear all the time, from "downsizing" (taking away people's livelihood) to every "convenience fee" charged by your bank. I grew up in Arizona where we did not participate in the daylight savings silliness, and it was fine. We had enough daylight, by the way. It would be a good beginning of a return of honesty to public life to abolish the daylight savings system and just say that starting around April 1 each year, we should all get to work and leave an hour earlier. It also would increase environmental awareness. Where people suffer under daylight savings time, they become estranged from nature. Time changes suddenly and the sun arrives or disappears by fiat. I remember the days gradually getting later, 2-3 minutes longer each day, from December through June. Then back again. There was a rhythm to life. The sun was always highest at noon. You could use a sundial. Those who labor under daylight savings time don't realize how it subtly, but decisively, disconnects them from living IN the world to living, well, around or in spite of it.

Then we could also choose to participate or not, instead of mandatorily being jetlagged in April, even if you like the cooler weather after the sun has gone down. Worse, in some parts of the country, daylight savings is a positive hazard. Traffic studies show that driving in twilight is the most dangerous time. In many places, DST puts the rush hour at twilight for almost twice as long. In the north, it means driving in the dark or twilight in the morning towards the end and beginning of the period, when that would never happen.

It's also just getting loony. Under the new plan, "standard" time will exist for just over 4 months, and "daylight" time for nearly 8. Shall we just start saying "short winter time" instead? Maybe it's time just permanently advance our clocks by an hour. The Russians do that. But then advance yet another hour for 6 months of the year. That's the next step.

Next rant: the metric system and other evils...

Thursday, July 21, 2005

I don't like where this is going

Well, I guess people are getting sick of comparing others to Hitler. Because the real chic thing to do now is compare people to Jesus. Exhibit A is Terrell Owens, comparing himself to Jesus. Why? Because people are "hating on" him, just like they did to Jesus. The difference is, Owens has a multi-million dollar contract and is holding out for more money, whereas Jesus had few possessions at all (excepting an episode with expensive perfume, of course).

Exhibit B? Look no further than Orrin Hatch, comparing Judge Roberts to Jesus!

I think senators can ask any questions they want. I've said, no matter how dumb the question may be. But the, the nominee doesn't have to answer them and he should not, under the canons of judicial ethics, he should not answer questions on any issue that possibly would come before the Supreme Court. Otherwise, he would be foretelling how he would vote on those issues and then they would hold that against him. So it's a little bit like Biblical Pharisees, you know, who basically are always trying to undermine Jesus Christ, you know, it goes on the same way. If they can catch him in something, they can then criticize -- and the outside groups will go berserk. And that's that what drives the People for the American Way, the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. They're against any Republican. We knew that just no matter who it was -- it could be the greatest person in the world, and Roberts is, is that -- they would come out against him.

Beautiful.

What could Roberts say that the Republicans don't want us to learn? Now I'm extremely curious.

The "Anti-Walmart" Costco

The Ny Times has a fascinating article on Costco. It's the kind of good advertising you just can't buy. Here's an extended quote:

Some Wall Street analysts assert that Mr. Sinegal [CEO of Costco] is overly generous not only to Costco's customers but to its workers as well. Costco's average pay, for example, is $17 an hour, 42 percent higher than its fiercest rival, Sam's Club. And Costco's health plan makes those at many other retailers look Scroogish. One analyst, Bill Dreher of Deutsche Bank, complained last year that at Costco "it's better to be an employee or a customer than a shareholder."

Good wages and benefits are why Costco has extremely low rates of turnover and theft by employees, [Mr. Sinegal] said. And Costco's customers, who are more affluent than other warehouse store shoppers, stay loyal because they like that low prices do not come at the workers' expense. "This is not altruistic," he said. "This is good business."

...Eighty-five percent of Costco's workers have health insurance, compared with less than half at Wal-Mart and Target. Costco also has not shut out unions, as some of its rivals have. The Teamsters union, for example, represents 14,000 of Costco's 113,000 employees. "They gave us the best agreement of any retailer in the country," said Rome Aloise, the union's chief negotiator with Costco. The contract guarantees employees at least 25 hours of work a week, he said, and requires that at least half of a store's workers be full time.

Why is Costco playing nicer than the other kids? Is it a good strategy, or a personal choice on the part of the CEO? Of course, Costco jobs still aren't that great, and while the CEO earns "only" $350,000 per year, his stock options are currently worth upwards of $150 million. It's inspiring to know, however, that even in the world of discount retail, Walmart's race to the bottom isn't the only way to win. I'll end with my favorite quote from the article:

There is little love lost between Wal-Mart and Costco. Wal-Mart, for example, boasts that its Sam's Club division has the lowest prices of any retailer. Mr. Sinegal emphatically dismissed that assertion with a one-word barnyard epithet.

Chinese Currency Revalued

Hi Gang,

China announced today that they will allow their currency (which is grossly undervalued) to fluctuate in value relative to the dollar. In the past, China has pegged its currency, the Yuan, to a fixed value relative to the dollar that under values the Yuan. The undervalued Yuan makes Chinese products artificially cheap - especially in the USA. In effect, this lets Chinese companies (many of which are still state owned) gain an artificial advantage in world trade. The Yuan is still far below what its value would be if determined on the world currency markets. This is the economic equivalent of Barry Bonds promising to cut his steroid use in half.

So why now? The US has been pressuring China to do this for years. Why are they doing it now? I suspect this is China's attempt at offering a quid pro quo regarding a number of acquisitions of US companies by Chinese state owned enterprises (including Unocal and until recently, Maytag). The Unocal acquisition in particular has provoked significant political resistance. If this is something the Chinese are willing to give as part of the price for Unocal, I say we insist they allow their currency to float freely. Frankly, letting the Chinese have Unocal would cost far less to our security than we would gain in economic terms from a market based Chinese Yuan.

Somehow I missed this

There's been a lot of news over the past couple days, so some things tend to slip through the cracks. Like when a U.S. Congressman says we should bomb Mecca if we're attacked by Islamic terrorists. He still has not retracted his statement.

I don't need to tell you what political party he belongs to.

This is a terrible thing, but what makes it worse is that a lot of Americans feel this way. It's a matter of "killing the bad guys", and if we do that, the problems will go away. Democrats try to offer sensible, nuanced solutions and they get called weak. Republicans, on the other hand, can say this kind of thing, claim it was "taken out of context" and get re-elected.

Botched Terror Attack?

Hi Everyone,

There seems to have been something like a botched terror attack on the London mass transit system (Gee, might the Saudis be behind this after all? Why this obsession with blowing up mass transit?) . No casualties are reported and the bombs seem not to have gone off properly. There are rumors that failed suicide bomber(s) have been arrested in a London hospital. They also have recovered the fizzled bombs complete with forensic evidence such as finger prints etc. This could turn out to be a huge break in the effort to identify, locate and arrest those behind these attacks.

So now John Roberts is off the headlines and the topic is terrorism again. We'll see if next week Karl Rove doesn't pop up in the news again. My impression is that the journalists are personally ticked off by this whole CIA leak case and won't let it go for long. Obviously things like USSC appointments and terrorist attacks are too big to ignore but with no casualties and the confirmation hearings not slated until Labor Day, Rove will be the flavor of the month of most of August.

Good that there were no casualties in London!

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Abortion

Dr. Strangelove points out this quote from Judge Roberts in the comments:

Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.

I find this quote highly irrelevant to the issue. He was a lower court judge -- of course he had to uphold the law of the land! The question is, as a Supreme Court justice, would he vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? And the answer is almost certainly yes.

[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled ... The Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.

In my mind, it's very clear. If a chance to overturn Roe v. Wade comes up while he's on the bench, he will vote to overrule it. This is one thing about him that seems to be known, and it's why he's so popular with Bush's base.

I also want to make something else clear. I don't like abortions. It bugs me to think of wealthy childless married couples in their early 30's who abort because they couldn't bother to use birth control. That makes me sick. So I don't mind someone being opposed to abortion (and in Roberts' case, I tend to agree that nothing about abortion is in the Constitution).

If we're going to talk about his views on this issue, let's go deeper. Is he someone who thinks there is no right to privacy in general, or just no right to an abortion? Does he equate abortion to murder? Does he think that there should be no abortions in case of rape? Incest?

Look, there's going to be a lot of coverage about this issue. I think it serves the public better to learn more about his views on environmental issues, the Patriot Act/civil liberties, separation of Church and State, affirmative action, etc. Perhaps the members of The Citizens can do some digging and publish what they find.

Update: Let me clarify. I hope Roe v. Wade is not overturned -- I like that decision. I just don't think abortions should be handed out like candy on street corners.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)