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."

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

And the winner is... John Roberts

Bush will announce in about 50 minutes thathe is nominating John G. Roberts, a super-conservative Republican from the D.C. Circuit. to the Supreme Court. His wife is an ardent anti-abortion activist, i.e., one who wants to criminalize abortion. He is a Harvard Law graduate and a partner at the prestigious firm of Hogan & Hartson. So he is probably not an idiot (probably).

The good news is that he is not a total wacko, like Priscilla Owens or Edith Jones. So he will probably get confirmed. The bad news is that laws criminalizing abortion and flag-burning, even banning birth control, will likely be upheld when they meet a court with Roberts on it. He will no doubt uphold any anti-gay legislation. It is a very dark day for the court and the country. And the loser is.... all the rest of us.

Oh boy

Well, maybe we were just being hopeful thinking it was Clement? And that's pretty scary, because she ain't exactly that moderate.

The new thinking is that it is not Clement. Alberto Gonzales recently cancelled some meetings to head back to Washington, but frankly, he makes no sense as a pick. What if it's the other Edith, Edith Jones? RbR especially will enjoy reading this story, given his crusade to convince everyone that the founding fathers were not as religious as the Dobson right would have us believe.

We find out for sure in three hours and a half, anyway.

Rumors

Rumors are flying that the White House will announce the Supreme Court nominee today, or at least during the week. The timing would be perfect for the White House to defray attention from Karl Rove. Look for the nominee to be Edith Clement. She is conservative, of course, but would she be filibustered? I doubt it. Anyone know anything about her?

Monday, July 18, 2005

London and Atlanta

Eric Rudolph, who bombed abortion clinics and conducted the 1996 Olympics bombing in Atlanta, was sentenced to death today. London won its Olympics bid on 7/6, and the next day suffered bombings with home-made explosives by native Britons. The parallels are striking: the difference appears to be that the London bombers were filled with a fundamentalist Muslim ideology, while Eric Rudolph professes to be a devout Catholic. Where is the denunciation of terrorist activity? The White House is eerily silent. Rudolph is a problem for them: they do not want anti-terrorist laws being turned on right-wing extremists in America who vote Republican.

This is relevant for another reason: Today, the 4th Circuit accepted the appeal in the Jose Padilla case. Jose Padilla, some of you will recall, is an American citizen arrested by agents at O'Hare aiport after he arrived in this country. He has been rotting in a military jail for three years, while the military tries to extract a confession from him. He has been charged with no crime. Echoing King George III, this George says he needs this power. And conservative judges (Scalia excepted) are not that good at reading the plain text of the constitution in its historical context. You need to know very little about the details to know that the power of unlimited indefinite administrative detention was a major target of the Revolution of 1776.

If Democrats win, should they start throwing right wing radicals in the military brig indefinitely? What is to stop them?

Saturday, July 16, 2005

First Nuclear Explosion

I almost missed noticing this important date in history. Today is the anniversary of the test of the first atomic bomb. World War II ended about one month later - about as soon as the bomb could be deployed after the successful test at Los Alamos, NM. For a first hand account of the test, go to NPR where they have a recent recording of Don Honig, the youngest physicists at Los Alamos.

There are a lot of dimensions on which we could discuss this event...scientific, political, military, moral etc. But no matter how you slice it, the first successful test of an atomic bomb is the among the most important human actions since the invention of agriculture.

Comments? Observations?

More on Rove

Hi Gang,

It turns out that Karl Rove was sending emails around to other White House officials telling them he talked to reporters about Plame even before the story was printed. And yet the official White House position was that any suggestion that anyone in the White House was the source of the leak was "ridiculous."

Rove's version is that he was doing the reporters a favor by telling them that Former Ambassador Wilson's accusations about faulty intelligence in Iraq were unfounded (accusations that have since been shown to be 100% correct). Rove also claims that he did not learn about Plame's CIA position from another government official but rather from a journalist (who has not been identified yet).

To me it seems like there are three stories here. First, Rove defends himself by saying he was only trying to discredit Wilson (a whistle blower we now know to have been correct in his accusations). Second, regardless of whether Rove was the original source of the leak or not, he was certainly the source for the articles that first publicized Plame's identity. Third, even if Rove is not criminally liable for his role in the leak, this latest email revelation shows that the White House, as an institution, knew Rove's role in great detail right from the start but continued to lie about it to the press and - as Republicans liked to say during the Lewinski scandal - lie to the American people.

I'm curious about the legal ramifications of all this. What is the bare bones legal assessment of Rove's version of events?

Friday, July 15, 2005

Tom Vilsack To Head DLC

Hi Everyone,

Tom Vilsack, the governor of my new home state (where I have a job in small college town) has taken over as the head of the Democratic Leadership Council. This is not the same thing as the leadership of the entire party - that's Howard Dean's job. The DLC is the organization of "New Democrats." These people are right on the median position of Americans. This is where Clinton came from. There is a link to this group in the section "Sell Outs" to the right. There are a number of liberal Democrats, like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, who try to hang out with the DLC to appear more centrist but it is fairly easy to tell who the true believers are. These are pro-trade (pro NAFTA/CAFTA/WTO) Democrats who advocate the politics of the "Third Way." They look to achieve progressive goals with market based methods. They tend to be socially progressive and fiscally responsible (pro-balanced budgets).

For Vilsack, this new job means a national profile for a small state governor. It is in effect a declaration of his intention to run for President in 2008. So we should all start looking at this guy more closely.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Just a thought

How many people who were so openly critical of Mark Felt for leaking information to reporters (that led to people being put in jail for crimes they committed) are now going to be just as critical of Karl Rove for leaking information to reporters (which potentially endangered the life of a CIA operative)?

Prices Rise But Inflation Doesn't?

So, here's for the economists among you. You exciting and excitable lot. The news today is that once again we are being told there is no inflation. Let's review:

Gas prices have more than doubled in the past three years. Seriously, gas in CA sold for close to $1/gallon in 2002. It's now above $2.50. It's $3.09 for premium near my house.
College tuition has increased almost 10% per year for the past several years (various sources).
Housing prices are going up by 20% per year.
Health insurance premiums go up by 10-20% year or more.

It seems that food (subsidized), and clothes and electronics (imported and cheap) appear to be the basis for the claim that there is no inflation.

I believe we are living in highly inflationary times except for small consumer goods, and there needs to be more said about this. Put another way, my salary buys a lot less now than it would have 5 years ago. Anybody else see the same thing?

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Don't Forget the Real Traitor...

Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 column, Mission to Niger, in which he revealed Ambassador Wilson's wife was a CIA operative working on WMD, started this scandal. Then on October 1, 2003, after the official investigation began, Novak tried to explain his actions in a second column, The CIA Leak. His own explanation shows he is a liar. I ask you to consider the following full quotations, all taken from Novak's own writings.

1. In his October "explanation," Novak admits that he was asked by the CIA not to mention Wilson's wife, but explains that he did so because he needed to find the "missing" explanation for CIA's "otherwise incredible" choice of Joseph Wilson.

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

2. However, in the original July column, we see that Novak already knew several obvious reasons why the CIA might select Joseph Wilson to investigate whether Saddam Hussein tried to buy nuclear materials in Niger.
(a) Wilson had served as a U.S. Foreign Service Officer in both Iraq and Niger.
(b) Wilson had risked his life to save Americans from Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War.
(c) Wilson had served admirably under both Republican and Democratic Presidents for more than 20 years.
(D) Wilson had been in charge of African Affairs at the National Security Council until his retirement in 1998.

His first public notice had come in 1991 after 15 years as a Foreign Service officer when, as U.S. charge in Baghdad, he risked his life to shelter in the embassy some 800 Americans from Saddam Hussein's wrath. My partner Rowland Evans reported from the Iraqi capital in our column that Wilson showed "the stuff of heroism." President George H.W. Bush the next year named him ambassador to Gabon, and President Bill Clinton put him in charge of African affairs at the National Security Council until his retirement in 1998.

After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances. The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified.

Either Novak is lying or he is an idiot. Picking a retired senior national security official with personal experience in both Iraq and Niger isn't "incredible"--it's inspired. The simplest explanation as to why Novak knowingly risked causing "difficulties" for Wilson's wife is because he wanted to cause "difficulties" for Wilson's wife. What a bastard.

Clark

I, like a lot of Democrats, did not support Wesley Clark in the 2004 election. I was worried that he really wasn't a Democrat! He seemed to be a Johnny-come-lately to the party, hoping to capitalize on his notoriety for a Presidential bid. So I immediately threw my support behind Kerry. Well, I picked the wrong horse. Clark has a new article in USA Today, and it's really good. The man is articulate and definitely a Democrat (now). Is he the front-runner for 2008? Discuss.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Karl Rove, the Republican Majority and Oversight

I have made a number of postings about oversight with regard to the Bush administration. With the developing Karl Rove/Plame/CIA leak scandal, it is worth bring up again. Karl Rove has been identified as the source that "outed" an undercover CIA operative in a crude attempt to punish her husband for criticizing Bush administration "intelligence" about Iraqi WMDs (intelligence since proven to be a combination of lies and idle speculation). Rove and Bush administration lawyers initially called accusations that Rove was the source "ridiculous." Well, unless you have been living under a rock you know that this is nonsense. Check this latest LA Times story on it.

Now, Democrats are demanding hearings on the matter but since the Republicans have the majority in both houses, no hearings will take place. In the past, contributors on this blog have accused Democrats of not doing enough to keep Bush in check. It is almost cliche in this country to say that Democrats are wimps. However, given the commitment of the Republican party to protect its own even when they are shown to be both criminal and incompetent, there is little the Democrats can do until and unless those who criticize them vote them the power they need to prove themselves.

I guess I have two points here: First, the problem is not Karl Rove or George W. Bush. The problem is the entire Republican party apparatus. Second, self described "independents" who say they don't support Democrats because they are "wimps," have little understanding of the institutional constraints imposed on the minority party - particularly with regard to oversight (as the Karl Rove case is demonstrating). At the same time, they blame a minority party for being weak when it was they (and their ilk) that made that party weak in the first place with their apathy.

OK, I feel better now. I certainly hope I'm wrong about the Rove case. I hope the Republicans stop protecting him. But...

Thursday, July 07, 2005

What Do Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists Want?

Hi Gang,

US West alluded to a frustrated call from a British friend that perhaps it is time to negotiate with Al Qaida et al. US West brought up the question of what Al Qaida wants. That question was one of the early subjects of debate among the Citizens that led to the creation of this blog.

I think given the tragic events in London today, it is worth revisiting the subject.

I'll get the ball rolling with my own opinion: I think there are several problems with the idea of negotiating with Al Qaida.

First, it is far from clear that there is anything we could give them - either in terms of material goods or policy changes - that would make them stop. Al Qaida's own statements refer to an existential conflict. They object to the existence of modern Western society itself, not just the policies of particular governments. It is not enough to simply depart the Middle East, they want us to stop being modern at home as well. They see our very example as corrupting their culture.
Second, who is charge? Just from a practical standpoint, who would we actually sit down with? Despite the attempts of the Bush administration to personalize the "war on terror," it is not clear that there is a hierarchy with which we could make deals.

Third, if there is no single hierarchy, perhaps there are multiple demands. For example, the group that attacked Madrid mentioned their desire to restore Muslim rule on the Iberian Peninsula. That does not seem to be a major concern for Pakistani decent terrorists operating in London or the Saudi terrorists who pulled off the attacks on 9/11/01.

Fourth, what about Israel? Do these groups just want Israel to modify its behavior? Or do they want Israel (and its Jewish citizens) to be exterminated? A casual examination of the fundamentalist rhetoric suggests that some groups at least (again, there is no single monolithic demand here) want the latter. If that is the case, is there any change in policy the U.S.A. could make that would satisfy them? That is, would any U.S. administration be likely to stand by while an Islamic fundamentalist movement attempted genocide in Israel?

So to sum up: I think the negotiation option is not workable. We don't have anyone to talk to. We don't know what they would demand if we could find someone. And there is a good chance that if we did find someone with a credible claim to represent the terrorist movement, we would be uniformly unwilling to concede to their basic demands.

This is not to say I think Bush's approach is correct either. My own preference is more in line with the policy approach commonly used in Europe (at least their international policy). That is, I favor a primary reliance on police work and diplomacy with resort to war in clear cut cases such as Afghanistan (but not Iraq).

Terror Attack In London

Hi Everyone,

As you probably have heard by now, there has been a significant terrorist attack on the London mass transit system. Four bombs hit three subway trains and a double decker bus. You can find detailed reports just about everywhere so I won't repeat them here.

What does this mean? To me this shows that even in London, a city blanketed with security cameras in a country where there are far fewer restrictions on police powers than the US Constitution allows, terrorism can strike. To me, this attack shows that the Republican approach of trying to sacrifice liberty to gain security doesn't work. Britain has been sacrificing liberty for security for hundreds of years (that's what our Revolution was about after all). Since the IRA era in the 70s and 80s the British police have had powers in exess of those provided to the FBI in the Patriot Act. And yet...

Comments? Discussion?

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

With Six [Gallons] You Get Eggroll

The China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC) is bidding about $18.5 billion to take over Unocal--an unsolicited offer that outbids Chevron's $16 billion offer.

CNN reports that the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution 398-15 opposing the bid, and several congressmen are demanding the Bush administration review the bid under the Defense Production Act. Said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) to Treasury Secretary Snow, "If you don't review this one, that law is meaningless. I don't think being a free trader is synonymous with being a sucker and a patsy." Meanwhile, the U.S. Trade Representative met with Chinese officials but pointedly did not discuss the offer (yeah, right!)

Now China has fired back, its Foreign Ministry stating, "We demand that the U.S. Congress correct its mistaken ways of politicizing economic and trade issues and stop interfering in the normal commercial exchanges between enterprises of the two countries. CNOOC's bid to take over the U.S. Unocal company is a normal commercial activity between enterprises and should not fall victim to political interference."

Ah... but there is one crucial difference that China conveniently overlooked: CNOOC is state-owned. Essentially, Communist China is bidding to take control of more of the world's petroleum resources for itself. Is China following Lenin, who once said that, "the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them"? Or is China just taking a page out of America's own books of coca-colonialism and economic imperialism? Well if it comes to pass, perhaps the new Unocal stations will at least offer tastier fare in their food marts...

The Simpsons on Flag Burning

It's time to take this out and post it. This is a "Schoolhouse Rock"-themed song from a Simpsons episode of a few years back.

Kid: Hey, who left all this garbage on the steps of Congress?
Amendment: I'm not garbage.

(starts singing)
I'm an amendment-to-be, yes an amendment-to-be,
And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me.

There's a lot of flag-burners,
Who have got too much freedom,
I want to make it legal
For policemen to beat'em.

'Cause there's limits to our liberties,
At least I hope and pray that there are,
'Cause those liberal freaks go too far.

(spoken)
Kid: But why can't we just make a law against flag-burning?
Amendment: Because that law would be unconstitutional.
But if we changed the Constitution...
Kid: Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws!
Amendment: Now you're catching on!
Kid: What if people say you're not good enough to be in the
Constitution?

(sings)
Amendment: Then I'll crush all opposition to me,
And I'll make Ted Kennedy pay.
If he fights back, I'll say that he's gay.

(spoken)
Congressman: Good news, Amendment! They ratified ya!
You're in the US Constitution!
Amendment: Oh yeah!

Instituting a new award

This award is for "Biggest Jerk on Capitol Hill". Maybe we'll make this an annual installment. This year, it certainly goes to Rick Santorum, junior senator from Pennsylvania. Let's review the atrocities, shall we?

There's this bill, which would require that you pay for National Weather Service info that your tax dollars already pay for. Can this be seen as anything but a total sell-out to advertiser-supported weather sites?
When Senator Byrd compared the GOP's potential nuclear option to Nazi activities, Santorum admonished him, which is a good thing. But then, he went on to compare the Democrats to Hitler for trying to keep the filibuster. One wonders what Hitler's views would be.
Of course, he's a homophobe, that kind of goes without saying. Next.
In 2001, he attempted to amend the No Child Left Behind Act to allow for the teaching of Intelligent Design. Thankfully, this is only now happening in backward states like Ohio (ha! Please don't kill me.)
Let's not forget this beauty:
It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior [Catholic sex scandals], since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.
Finally, we have some truly excellent excerpts from his new book:

"Many women have told me, and surveys have shown, that they find it easier, more 'professionally' gratifying, and certainly more socially affirming, to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children. Think about that for a moment…Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism, one of the core philosophies of the village elders."

"But unlike abortion today, in most states even the slaveholder did not have the unlimited right to kill his slave."

"By asking the right question, we can see that when it comes to socialization, mass education is really the aberration, not homeschooling. Never before in human history have a majority of children spent at least half their waking hours in the presence of 25 to 35 unrelated children of exactly the same age (and usually the same socio-economic status), with only one adult to keep order and provide basic mentoring. Never before and never again after their years of mass education will any person live and work in such a radically narrow, age-segregated environment. It’s amazing that so many kids turn out to be fairly normal, considering the weird socialization they get in public schools."

Are there any I forgot?

A Note On Pronunciation

President Bush is Copenhagen, Denmark today. Patting the local Poodle-minister on the head for his 500 troops in Iraq. No real news there.

NPR is reporting this visit in a way that annoys me greatly. The capitol of Denmark is Koebenhavn (pronounced something like Ke ben hawn). The English name for the city is Copenhagen (pronounced Ko pen hay gen). But lately pseudo intellectuals who don't speak foreign languages but want people to THINK they do have taken to pronouncing the capital of Denmark as "Ko pen hoggen" as if they have learned the correct pronunciation. This is compounded by the similarity between this new trendy pronunciation and the GERMAN word for Denmark's capitol. Of all languages to use! Repeated German invasions of Denmark have been the worst calamities to hit the Danes in the last 150 years! Imagine if we all started calling France "Frankreich."

Here is my appeal. If you can't pronounce the Danish word (and most can't and it many wouldn't recognize it anyway), just say it in English for crying out loud!

Friday, July 01, 2005

Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers

Recenlty reprinted with permission on the Episcopal News Service, here is the statement of Senator John Danforth (former Republican senator and Episcopal priest). It appeared in the 6/17/05 NY Times under the title "Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers." It is a lucid and thoughtful statement of Christians in America who are not part of the religious right.

My particular favorite passages:

"-We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.
-Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals."

Here is the full text
http://www.ecusa.anglican.org/3577_63345_ENG_HTM.htm?menu=undefined

Justice O'Connor Retires

July 1, 2005. Justice O'Connor announced this morning she will retire from the Supreme Court as soon as a successor is nominated and confirmed. This is a position of dubious legality, because there is, technically, no vacancy on the court. And theoretically a president could nominate and confirm a dozen or more judges "in waiting," but that violates our constitution. Moreover, there is no law that would force O'Connor to step down.

I expect the Democrats to demand World War Three in the Senate. This is the time for Democrats to stand up, filibuster every right-wing activist, and explain to the country that Bush is not seeking people who will "faithfully interpret the law" rather right wing activists who will busily overturn precedents. This is the time to pull out all the stops and fight for liberty.

I urge anyone interested in stopping a right-wing nominee to write to your senator, a real letter with a stamp on it, with a terse but clear message. In particular, anyone in Pennsylvania, California, Ohio, Wisconsin (both senators), and New York should write to their senator on the judiciary committee (below).

Arlen SpecterCHAIRMAN, PENNSYLVANIA
Orrin G. HatchUTAH
Patrick J. LeahyRANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, VERMONT
Charles E. GrassleyIOWA
Edward M. KennedyMASSACHUSETTS
Jon KylARIZONA
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.DELAWARE
Mike DeWineOHIO
Herbert KohlWISCONSIN
Jeff SessionsALABAMA
Dianne FeinsteinCALIFORNIA
Lindsey GrahamSOUTH CAROLINA
Russell D. FeingoldWISCONSIN
John CornynTEXAS
Charles E. SchumerNEW YORK
Sam BrownbackKANSAS
Richard J. DurbinILLINOIS
Tom CoburnOKLAHOMA

Dear Senator:
This Supreme Court vacancy is the reason I voted for you. I have supported you in the past, but I will not do so again unless you stand up to the Republicans and stop another right-wing ideologue from getting on the Supreme Court. There is no political advantage for you in acting like a conservative or compromising with them, to try to fool some conservatives into voting for you. They know how to vote for a Republican if they want to, and so do I. It is time to suit up.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)