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."

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Bush Backs Down

In an abrupt about-face, the Bush administration has announced that they will stop their unauthorized domestic surveillance program. They will now go back to getting warrants from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) again. (At least, that's what the Bush administration says they will do now... You never can tell with those people.)

Why the sudden change of heart? The White House gave some lame, nebulous excuse that FISA now had "better guidelines" to meet the Administration's "concerns about speed and agility"... but of course Tony Snow did not explain the what those concerns were, nor what the new guidelines were. The White House also could not explain why--if a small change in process was all that was ever needed--they could not have adopted these new guidelines five years ago. As usual, they have tried to cover their tracks with more lies.

But the truth is painfully easy to read. The Bush administration cannot explain their concerns because there were no legitimate concerns: not only did the FISA court approve over 99% of all wiretap requests anyhow, but the Attorney general always had the right to issue a warrant and get approval a few days later. The Bush administration cannot explain what the new guidelines are, because there are no new guidelines of substance. In truth, the Bush administration has pulled the plug on this manifest abuse of power because Senators Leahy and Specter were gearing up to crucify Attorney General Gonzales over it.

Of course, they are still secretly going to wiretap American citizens on American soil--so it's not exactly a triumph for civil liberties--but at last, Congress has begun to check Bush's unprecedented claims of executive power. And some measure of judicial oversight--even in the form of a compliant, secret court--is better than none at all.

Operation Iraqi Scapegoat

Call me slow, but I finally figured out Bush's new strategy in Iraq. He's trying to shift the blame to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. For the next two years, the refrain from the White House will be, "Bush did everything he could, but the Iraqis let us all down."

It's an old conservative tactic: blame the victim.

No wonder Maliki told the Wall Street Journal, "I wish I could be done with it even before the end of this term. I didn't want to take this position... and I will not accept it again."

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Single's Paradise

The New York Times has reported that for the first time, a majority of women are living without spouses. 51% of women, according to the times, are living single for various reasons. Perhaps they are divorced, separated, widowed, temporarily living part (he is working out of town, in the military, etc), or never married. The article claims that this may have ramifications of social policy, but doesn't elaborate. So I would like to.

For starters, we live in a society that is built completely around marriage. Work hours, social security benefits, taxes, school hours, etc. are all built around the idea that people are married, that one someone is staying at home to care for children. Women and men have managed to adapt by hiring nannies, paying for day care, etc. But with 51% of women living single and some 47% of men doing so, we may be at the point where we have done all the adapting that we can and now we have to rethink how we organize our society.

The time is coming when we will have to focus more on telecommuting so that everyone can have the option of working from home with flex hours. This would allow people to be home to care for family members in between preparing legal briefs, editing manuscripts,etc. To do this, we would have to resolve the net neutrality problem. Telecommuting would be facilitated by the installation of the promised fiber optic lines that could deliver internet speeds 40-60 times faster than what we now have, making teleconferencing much more efficient.

Schools may have to start thinking about extending their day. That would have the added benefit of increasing much needed instructional hours. That would also mean we'd need more teachers to help cover the day. Elementary schools may have to be organized more like high schools, where you have specialized teachers teaching single subjects with built in prep periods. Or hey, how about publicly funded pre-schools, like in Europe. (I am waiting for RBR to tell us of the Scandinavian paradise in this regard).

Our tax system would have to change so that single people without children aren't hit so hard in the wallet every April. Our social security system will have to change. Wives are entitled to a certain portion of their husband's social security if he dies. My mother took my dad's because it was larger than her own since she didn't work so many years. But with more and more women working, that type of system can be scaled back. And women shouldn't be penalized for taking time off to rear children. People over a certain income bracket should not be eligible for social security. Why should Oprah Winfrey get social security? I am sure she asks the same question,

Housing would have to change. Instead of 2000 SqFt homes, maybe we could have more condos and apartments available for purchase, or smaller houses as fairer prices for single dwellers. Maybe food processors will create smaller packaging so that I don't end up throwing out half of what I buy because I can't eat it fast enough.

Those are just a few things that I can imagine changing if indeed we were more willing to adjust to the new realities.

Monday, January 15, 2007

Why this Administration has no Respect for the Rule of Law

RBR sent me a note off-blog telling me of something unbelievable. I had to look it up. A deputy assistant secretary of Defense Charles Stimson has urged that major corporations boycott twelve major law firms whose lawyers volunteered to participate in the defense of the detainees at Guantanamo. He said that CEOs of major corporations (read: Republicans) should boycott these major law firms which "defended terrorists."

"And I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms."

This is a major assault on the independent judiciary, the rule of law, and all civil liberties. It is fundamental to the rule of law that each person has the right to a defense, no matter how much the government wants to get rid of him or her. Trying to deprive us of the right to hire big law firms in our defense is a huge assault on freedom. Every lawyer represents unsavory people from time to time. This is the same crap that public defenders always deal with from ignorant Republicans who don't see why you should represent "criminals" - then hire their own attorneys with glee when they are accused of tax fraud. This is also an attempt to stop lawyers at big firms from doing pro bono work for any organization that might oppose Republicans. No doubt Fox News, the Washington Times, and the National Review will help to make this happen. I can assure you that if I were to suggest to my higher-ups at my big national law firm that I do pro bono work for civil liberties, it will be strongly discouraged in a way it never would have been beforehand. I should add that there is a very long tradition of permitting lawyers to do pro bono work as they see fit. The only issues are real business issues. Law firms tend to be divided into labor or management firms, for example, and their attorneys are not expected to advocate against the interests of the major clients. But nobody has tried to launch a campaign to prevent major law firms from selling their services to bidders of politically unpopular (read: anything but far right) persuasions.

According to another website, these are the firms he named:

Pillsbury Winthrop, Jenner & Block, Hunton & Williams, Alston & Bird, Cutler Pickering, Weil Gotshal, Paul Weiss Rifkin, Covington & Burling, Mayer Brown, Pepper Hamilton, Perkins Cole, Fulbright Jaworski, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, and Venable . For those of you who don't know, these are all major law firms, some even known as "Republican" firms (firms with DC offices have to choose, generally, between representing Dems or Republicans for conflict-of-interest reasons, but they usually try to downplay these associations). I work for a firm whose name would normally be in this list.

The DoD is "distancing" itself from these comments, but won't fire the bastard. Why? Because they largely agree with him. Fundamentally, these Republicans and neocons think that democracy is too weak deal with "the real world," and that things like civil rights and the judiciary are left-wing tools that weaken us. This is what fascism really is. The belief that our safety lies in Strong Men Willing to Make Hard Choices (e.g., the TV show 24) rather than the Rule of Law, Democracy, and Liberty.

Christian Conservatives Abort McCain's Candidacy

One of the most important figures in the Christian Conservative movement, Dr. James Dobson, has announced that he will not support John McCain (R-AZ) as a candidate for President under any circumstances. The CNN.com story is here.

This development is interesting for a number of reasons.

First, we've talked about McCain's prospects before. When he's come up in our conversations several of us have suggested that he might be able to win a national general election but seems unlikely to win the Republican nomination.

Second, this is an example of a party activist sacrificing electability in the general election for the sake of maintaining control of the party for his faction. This came up in our conversations about electoral reform etc.

Third, if Dobson thinks McCain is unacceptable, what must he think of the pro-life former mayor of New York City, Rudy Guiliani? This statement is a declaration that the GOP nomiation is wide open.

Finally, polls show that Giuliani and McCain are the most widely popular Republican candidates. Democrats should be very pleased at Dobson's comments. If the Christian Right uses the 2008 election to consolidate their internal control of the Republican Party, the Democrats may have a chance to put their chosen candidate up against a Republican candidate with limited appeal, easily portrayed as an extremist.

2008 Senate Picture

Hi Everyone,

CNN is reporting that two term Colorado Republican, Wayne Allard, has decided to make good on his pledge only to serve two terms. He won his past two elections by narrow margins and his seat was already high on the Democrats' list of pick up targets. The seat will be open in 2008. And the way Bush is behaving, the war in Iraq will still be an issue. Colorado is also a swing state.

Of the Senate seats that are subject to election in 2008, 21 are currently held by Republicans and 12 are held by Democrats.

The Decider Strikes Again and Again...

President Bush claimed in an interview with 60 Minutes that Congress could not stop him from carrying out his "new plan" in Iraq. He had two arguments. First, he made the political argument that if Congress tried to cut funding for the deployment he would spin it as "not supporting the troops." Second, when asked if he thought he had the authority as Commander in Chief to execute this plan despite Congressional opposition, he said, "Yeah, in this situation I do."

In other news, Vice President Dick Cheney is defending a Defense Department program to monitor the financial records of hundreds of American citizens without warrants. His defense (which I heard on the radio yesterday) was that this program was something that had been going on for "some time" and he implied that therefore we should not be worried.

So apparently the Bush administration's strategy for disrupting the Democratic agenda in Congress is to provoke a constitutional crisis or two. I sincerely hope the Democrats are ready to stand up for this fight. I can think of few more important things they could do than use the power of Congress to finally enforce some limits (any limits) on this out of control Bush administration!

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Penny for your thoughts

The Department of Defense warned U.S. contractors today about a new espionage threat: Canadian coins that contain tiny radio frequency transmitters. Apparently, three U.S. contractors were found to have such coins planted on them as they passed through Canada between October 2005 and January 2006.

Interestingly, the CIA acknowledges it has used American coins in the past to transmit data and film. Makes you wonder why all this is coming out now. It has also been noted that the transmission range could not be more than a few feet, which raises some questions. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canada's spy agency says it had nothing to do with it (did you know they had spies? Yeah, sure, they look all friendly...)

The lesson is clear: carrying coins is a security risk. Next time you are in Starbucks and your pockets are jingling, fill up the tip jar and don't look back. It's your patriotic duty.

And then, maybe he can run for Governor.

David Beckham is coming to the U.S. in July, 2007. He has signed a complex package worth an estimated quarter of a billion dollars with the Los Angeles Galaxy team. That's billion with a "b". Beckham is an international celebrity of the highest order and, at age 31, he still has plenty of playing time left. (And even if he does nothing but strut around the field, no doubt West Hollywood at least still will be enthralled.)

Will Beckham do for Los Angeles soccer what Wayne Gretzky did for Los Angeles hockey? Has globalization finally begun to penetrate even that most conservative of institutions, American sports? Only time will tell. But I, for one, have a feeling I'll be heading out to see my first live professional soccer game sometime this coming Fall.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Demand a Better Plan

According to the latest figures, Bush's "new" plan would boost the number of U.S. troops in Iraq from 132,000 to 153,500. This mere 16% increase would result in a smaller force than we had at the time of the Iraqi elections (160,000). That's right: the so-called "surge" is just a ripple, the same as all previous minor adjustments.

Bush has no plans to increase economic assistance to the Iraqis themselves, only to American contractors. Bush's plan ignores the Iraqi Study Group's recommendations, including the key call for him to engage in diplomacy with Iraq and Syria. And don't even try to find any timetables or benchmarks--it's still the same open-ended commitment.

Bush had his chance to change course with at least some dignity when the Iraqi Study Group issued their recommendations in November... but he could not swallow his pride. After all this time, this is what he comes up with? The same old plan again?! Great gods above, are there no limits to this man's incompetence?!! In the most recent Gallup poll, 72% of Americans disapprove Bush's handling of Iraq--is it any wonder why? And now, once again, Bush has let us all down, especially those who have tried to stand by him. This so-called "new" way forward is a sham. For the sake of our troops, Democrats and Republicans in Congress must come together to stand up to this arrogant President and demand a better plan.

Score Another One for Pelosi

The House has now voted 315-116 to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over the next two years. The bill passed with a veto-proof majority, including 82 Republicans, despite insistence by Republican leaders that they would not approve it unless it also included corporate tax giveaways (the House passed a clean bill instead).

The Republicans grumble, as always, that it will "cost jobs" in face of all the evidence from all previous increases. (There has never been a problem. Republicans are just greedy.) After 10 years without an increase, this bill is long overdue. If Reid can shepherd this bill safely through the Senate, with a similar margin, then in 60 days ordinary Americans may feel the first tangible fruits of their mini-revolt in the 2006 midterm elections.

"Elections Have Consequences"

Last year, Democrats managed to block the confirmation of three ultra-conservative judges--William J. Haynes, William Myers and Terrence Boyle. After the 2006 midterm elections, Democrats hoped Bush would let sleeping dogs lie, but in a move that infuriated Democrats, Bush re-introduced the nominations in December. Now, at last, Bush has changed his tune: Bush quietly withdrew those three names yesterday. Ah yes... as McCain famously explained his support for Bush's very conservative Supreme Court nominees in 2005, "Elections have consequences."

Bush's retreat is, of course, belated concession to political reality... but might it also signal the start of the final stage of the Bush presidency? As he enters the home stretch, maybe Bush realizes he no longer must pander to the religious right. Could it be that he finally has begun to contemplate his legacy? And if he indeed has decided to pick his battles more wisely, what will those battles be?

Undecided Voter Alert!

In the past, I have made fun of undecided voters, calling them all sorts of names. But now, I am one. I will be voting in the French presidential election this year and I do not know who to vote for. I think right now there are three semi-reasonable choices: socialist Segolene Royal, centrist Francois Bayrou, and right-wing Nicolas Sarkozy. Over the next few months I will be researching the candidates and posting my thoughts on this blog. Please feel free to use this post if you have anything to tell me at the outset of my research.

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

US Bombs Somali Islamists

Hi Everyone,

The US press isn't reporting this but its a top story on BBC's website. The USAF has bombed the besieged Islamic Courts Militia units in southern Somlia in conjuction with Ethiopian and Somali government attacks. US officials are claiming that several Al Qaeda leaders are with the Islamist Somalis.

I don't know what it says about our country's mind set right now that direct military intevention in Somalia for the first time since the "blackhawk down" debacle isn't newsworthy.

Monday, January 08, 2007

Universal Health Coverage in CA?

So, Governor Schwarzenegger proposed today a form of universal health coverage in California. He is being supported by the Democrats and at least tentatively opposed by the Republican minority (for now). The key points of the plan are: (1) all businesses with 10 or more employees must buy health care for them or pay 4% payroll to the state for its aid in providing health insurance; (2) 2% tax on doctors' gross revenue; (3) 4% tax on hospitals; (4) invidual mandate (all must have insurance); (5) state aid for lower income people; (6) no ability to deny coverage (cherry-picking) by insurance companies. Currently, 20% of CA residents are without health insurance, up to 1/3 in areas like Los Angeles.

This is a daring program that I hope California will support. I am amazed that Schwarzenegger is proposing new taxes and an employer mandate.

Benchmarks, This Time

All signs indicate Bush is going to escalate America's involvement in Iraq. He has changed commanders, will add 20,000 or so more soldiers, will alter counterinsurgency tactics to be somewhat more aggressive, and will attempt to increase economic assistance. In other words, he is going against everything the Iraqi Study Group said and he's going to follow the same course as before, only more so.

Will it work this time? It is hard for an armchair warrior like me to know for sure, sitting back here in a comfortable office in the U.S. But I am skeptical. Our soldiers are already working hard and I am not sure how different or how much more magically effective new tactics can be. I am also skeptical that a 20% increase in soldiers will make much of an operational difference. But still, many will argue that we should give the President one more chance to see if he can meet some of his original goals.

Not so fast, I say. If we are going to give Bush another chance, then this time we must demand real benchmarks, goals, and timetables. Bush has so far refused to set any specific goals or accept any clear metrics because he knows damned well what those would show. If Bush tries once again to avoid any meaningful criteria by which we can judge his "new" course, Congress should fight him with everything in their power until he sets real benchmarks. Neither the American public nor our men and women in uniform can afford any more lies and deceptions; we cannot afford to write this Commander-in-Chief yet another blank check.

Friday, January 05, 2007

Dear Nancy and Harry

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid,

The Democrats have now run Congress for 2 days. We, on this Blog are pleased! I am excited about the 100 hour agenda. I like the new ethics rules and I hope you will keep them in place for longer than the previous Congress. I like that you want to tackle student loan interest rates, bankruptcy reforms, the minimum wage, earmark reforms, etc.

But I have a personal request. I have been glancing at C-Span on and off and I am a bit dismayed at the number of people in the party who are using words like "revolution" and "mandate". Please make your people stop using words like that. There hasn't been a revolution. The majorities you now hold are too slim to be called either a mandate or a revolution, and you all know it. Furthermore, you are lowering yourselves to the level of the Republicans. That is what Bush tried to claim after winning by a slim and questionable majority. Members who talk about some mythical "revolution" or "mandate" sound like gloating Republicans. I ask that if they are going to insist on using such terms, they do it somewhere other than the people's floor, perhaps behind closed doors over brandy or a double scotch, away from the media.

As for the "non-partisan" promise . . . don't make it. Don't make promises you can't keep. Don't make promises that you won't keep! By saying things like that, you will do little to ease the public's unease over the quality of Congress. You'll just look like and be another group of liars. Be better. Be Democrats! Let's bring civility back, but let's remember that you are Democrats and they aren't. Work with them, by all means. But then win. Bring home the victories that we in the hard working middle class so desperately need.

Finally, quit calling the pay-as-you-go system "Paygo". It just sounds dumb and you gusy aren't so clever as the Republicans when it comes to creating buzz words. So stop. Pay-as-you-go is a nice, if impossible idea. But hey, I like that you aim high So say it as it should be said. Speak English for heaven's sake, and call it pay-as-you-go.

These are my modest requests.

Thank you for your time.

A Citizen

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

The Marital and the Martial

Against expectations yesterday, the Massachusetts legislature kept alive the anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution first proposed three years ago. Amendments to the MA state constitution must pass three votes in three consecutive legislative sessions before they are presented to the people (for a majority vote). The first hurdle was surmounted in 2004, and now--just hours before the end of the 2005-06 session--the amendment passed the second hurdle. The third hurdle must be overcome in 2007-08 session before the amendment is presented to the voters (earliest possible date is November 2008, but if the legislature waits until the last minute again, it could be pushed back to the next statewide ballot.)

Here is a quick timeline...
2003-11-18: MA Supreme Court recognizes a right to gay marriage in the state constitution
2004-03-29: MA legislature (joint session) by a narrow majority votes 105-92 to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage but approve civil unions.
2004-05-17: Gay marriages begin in MA.
2007-01-03: MA legislature (joint session) votes 62-134 to keep the amendment alive.

The MA legislature had postponed the vote until yesterday and attempted to adjourn before voting at all (which would have killed the amendment) but the MA Supreme Court intervened. Though they would not order the legislature to vote on the amendment, they chided the legislature for neglecting its constitutional duties... and apparently that was sufficient for the leadership to relent and bring the measure to a vote.

Still, there is plenty of good news remaining. Gay marriage is safe in MA for at least another couple of years, and the new MA legislature includes several more supporters of same-sex marriage than before. Furthermore, thee most recent poll (Nov '06) indicates that an astonishing 62% of the MA voters would NOT vote for the amendment (only 30% said they would support it).

In other interesting news, former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili--the man who implemented the "don't ask, don't tell" policy--has now come out in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military. In his NY Times Op-Ed contribution, he noted that 24 nations, including Britain and Israel, now allow gays to serve openly, and that a recent survey of veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan operations indicates that 75% would be comfortable interacting with gays.

More on Redistricting Reform

From today's "state of the State" speech by NY Governor Eliot Spitzer (D)
"Still, we must do more. We will submit legislation that reforms our
elections – specifically legislation that establishes an independent,
non-partisan redistricting commission. Until this happens, I will veto
any proposal that reflects partisan gerrymandering. More competitive
elections will lead to a more responsive government."

FYI, Republicans control a close NY Senate, Democrats control the NY house by more than 2/3.

Dr. S is expected to be excited. In CA, Schwarzenegger is also going to take another stab at this. The big question now is whether only blue states will go for "non-partisan" schemes, or whether red states will do as well.

Monday, January 01, 2007

Poor, Poor Judges

Justice Roberts decided to distinguish himself today by announcing that his big goal for 2007 wasn't about strengthing privacy rights, taking up abortion cases, or dampening presidential power. Noooooo. His goal for 2007 was get federal judges a "substantial" pay raise because $165,000 a year just isn't enough.

He beseeched his readers to bear with him as he made what is sure to be an unpopular case, especially in a time of war when we are all supposed to be "sacrificing". What is really bugging him is that the dean of his alma madder is now earning much more than he is.

He claims that since 1969, the average worker's wage has increased 18% while judges have seen a decline of 24% when adjusted for inflation. "Judges should not have to accept salaries that 'fall further and further behind the cost of living . . . The time is ripe for our nation's judges to receive a substantial salary increase,'" Roberts is quoted as saying. Well golly gee, show me an average working citizen whose wages are keeping up with the cost of living and I will write my senator on Justice Robert's behalf.

Now, there is part of me willing to believe that you don't attract the best and the brightest if they can go work for a New York Law Firm for three times the salary of a Federal Judge. But, since I don't think much of life time appointments, I have no problem having the less committed serve a few years and then leave to go earn the big bucks. Maybe the best and the brightest aren't what we need so much as the smart, committed and diligent? Public service is just that, PUBLIC SERVICE. And $165K with full benefits and a pension plan ain't bad. Just go ask the folks in New Orleans if that is a deal to turn one's nose up at.

And perhaps the good Justice might be a bit more precise when he says, "substantial raise". It's so, I don't know . . . open to interpretation. I mean, if the Justice is having a hard time paying down his American Express Gold Card, I am sure there is a firm in Boston or LA that would be glad to have him.

LTG, what is your take on this latest from the good Chief? Am I being unfair?

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)