Cogitations

New York pisses on two of my favorite things

2009-12-09T17:06:00.006-05:00

I couldn't resist responding to this article in the New York Post [note: some of the comments are less than civil]. Apparently NYC has removed bicycle lanes from a Hasidic neighborhood because "[s]cantily clad hipster cyclists attracted to the Brooklyn neighborhood made it difficult, the Hasids said, to obey religious laws forbidding them from staring at members of the opposite sex in various states of undress. These riders also were disobeying the traffic laws, they complained." [Photo credit: New York Post]

Pardon me. I was under the impression that there was some sort of prohibition against enacting laws or using public resources for the express purpose of helping specific religious sects. Wait . . . there is. The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ." WTF?

To make it worse, the city decided to shit on bicyclists' rights as well. It's dangerous enough to ride in the streets as it is. Bicycle lanes are a necessary response to enable bicycles to share the roads that they, as taxpayers, are fully entitled to use. It's galling that the city would pander to a religious group that apparently can't look the other way when a girl in shorts rides by on a bike. (Also - it's December in New York. Are there really that many girls riding by in shorts?) It's simply enraging that it would remove important safety equipment WHILE catering to "an establishment of religion."

Apparently there are some "hipsters," according to the Post, who took it upon themselves to fix the damage that the city wrought. This YouTube video [again with the comments - sheesh] shows the operation. Now, as a soon-to-be-lawyer, I can't condone taking the law into one's hands. But as a citizen and a cyclist, this is just beautiful. Unfortunately, the painters have been arrested. We'll see what happens next.

Stupak has no concept of how insurance works

2009-12-09T15:45:00.000-05:00

Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak had an op-ed in yesterday's Times defending his amendment to the House health reform bill (which passed a couple of weeks ago -- a similar amendment was voted down in the Senate, setting up a collision for the conference committee to work out). Stupak's (I keep trying to type Stupid, and I swear it's nothing more than a Freudian slip) defense of his amendment demonstrates that one of two things is true: a) he has no idea how insurance works, and doesn't recognize that his plan will torpedo abortion coverage; or b) he knows full well how insurance works, and intends to torpedo abortion coverage. Since I saw the problem after a one-semester course on insurance law, and since I'm nothing if not really cynical, I'm betting on the latter.

In his words:

Under our amendment, women who receive federal subsidies will be prohibited from using them to pay for insurance policies that cover abortion. The amendment does not prevent private plans from offering abortion services and it does not prohibit women from purchasing abortion coverage with their own money. The amendment specifically states that even those who receive federal subsidies can purchase a supplemental policy with private money to cover abortions.

Some opponents of the amendment have tried to argue that it would effectively end health insurance coverage of abortion in both the private and public sectors. This argument is nothing more than a scare tactic.

These comments reflect a complete lack of understanding of the basic functioning of insurance markets. Insurance works because a large group of people who might incur some significant financial liability offload the risk that they bear onto an insurance company. What they're effectively doing is trading a small chance of incurring a large loss for a 100% chance of incurring a small loss (i.e., the premium). Insurance companies use complex statistical and actuarial methods to calculate a) the number of their policyholders who will probably suffer a loss; and b) how big that loss will be.

The statistical and actuarial models the insurance companies use only work because the average policyholder doesn't know whether he or she will incur a loss. In a pool of policyholders, you'll probably have people who know some information that the insurance company doesn't about the likelihood they'll suffer a loss. This is called information asymmetry. If all of the people in the insurance pool had this kind of information asymmetry, the models would be wrong. An insurance company would charge too little for the actual risk of loss that they carry, and once those losses started to happen, the insurance company would very quickly find itself underwater, because it won't have enough capital to meet its obligations. (Incidentally, insurance companies' capital reserves are so heavily regulated [page 2] to guard against this and other systemic risk problems.) Insurance only works because the average policyholder doesn't know for sure that he will have a loss.

The problem just described is called adverse selection. It's pretty easy to understand -- if you know you're going to take a big hit, and you can pay someone a tiny fraction of that amount in order to have them take care of it, you'd be irrational not to do so. Insurance companies are obviously aware of this natural tendency, so they guard quite carefully against adverse selection. That's why they're so obsessive about the forms that you fill out, especially with respect to pre-existing conditions. They're making sure that you don't insure against a known loss. Of course, they go way overboard with the pre-existing conditions thing, but that's a problem with the profit incentive of publicly-held insurance companies, and that's a post for another day.

Anyway, back to abortion. Stupak says that insurance companies can offer supplemental policies to provide insurance coverage for women who receive federal subsidies and thus couldn't (under his language) buy a policy with insurance coverage. Leaving aside the question how one would determine whether a woman has spent federal money on an insurance policy (since money is fungible, any money you get could arguably be described as allowing you to purchase something else by freeing up your resources), why in the world would an insurance company want to create a pool of policyholders who are all essentially adverse selectors?

Sure, there would be some women who would buy the coverage because they want to be covered just in case (just as there are policyholders now who have no idea that they're going to take a hit, but they want to be covered "just in case"). But this is a policy offering coverage of one very discrete product. It's like offering a separate policy for men who want coverage for their Viagra prescriptions. Sure, there might be some men who say "well, who knows whether I'll ever have ED, but I better buy this coverage just in case." But obviously the vast majority of those who buy such coverage know that they're going to make a claim on it. The same would hold true of abortion.

Coverage of specific health procedures only works in insurance policies that are able to spread the risk over everyone. Otherwise, adverse selection will very quickly act to torpedo an insurance market. I suspect that this is EXACTLY what Stupak wants.

Op-Ed Contributor - What My Amendment Won’t Do - NYTimes.com

And, we're back.

2009-05-09T17:14:00.001-04:00

Since it's summer, I'm going to make an attempt to get this blog up and running again.

Cal. Supreme Ct. will hear Prop 8 Challenge

2008-11-19T21:00:00.001-05:00

The California Supreme Court granted (cert? discretionary review? not sure how the state's system works) review of three lawsuits challenging the gay marriage ban.

I know nothing more about California law than what I've read in conjunction with this issue, but it seems like the lawsuits have a decent legal argument. Essentially, they're arguing that this is not just an amendment to the constitution, but a change in a legal right that the constitution guaranteed. That's a subtle distinction, but an important one: ballot initiatives can accomplish the former, but not the latter.

The problem is this: even if it's a valid and sound legal argument, it will still be looked at as an attempt to thwart the "will of the people." Of course, that's pure crap -- Prop 8 was passed with 51% of the vote, and maybe 50% of the eligible voters voted in the election. So it's the will of a quarter of the people.

That attack is also crap in another way: the courts are supposed to protect vulnerable minorities from majoritarian excesses. If the 25% of the California population that's still bigoted can use a loophole to change the legal status of citizens, that's a problem. And the courts are supposed to prevent that from happening.

Imagine if this were the 1960s, and Prop 8 forbade interracial marriage. Some of the same people who are against gay marriage now were against (and probably still are, though under the radar) interracial marriage.

Of course, it took a court case to put an end to the de jure prohibition against interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia). It will probably take another court case to end the modern version of that hatred.

The current SCOTUS isn't likely to look favorably on such a case, but luckily for the Prop 8 challenge, it won't get the chance to rule: the Prop 8 lawsuits are purely a matter of state law, and SCOTUS has no jurisdiction there (unless the challenge is that state law violates the federal constitution, but that argument isn't being made).

California's Supreme Court to Take Up Gay-Marriage Ban - WSJ.com

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

2008-11-19T09:34:00.001-05:00

This is a really, really good op-ed by Mitt Romney. Hopefully Detroit doesn't get its requested bailout.

Imagine the better debate on this issue we could have had if McCain had tapped Romney to be No. 2 instead of tapping the Alaskan Ice Moron.

Update -- WSJ has this article about the gains foreign manufacturers stand to make if Detroit does go bankrupt. In theory, how many of the jobs lost in Detroit could shift to the South?

Op-Ed Contributor - Let Detroit Go Bankrupt - NYTimes.com

The idiocy of popular elections for judges

2008-11-16T20:23:00.005-05:00

Judicial elections are stupid. There, I said it. Though it may be undemocratic (small 'd') to say this, the general public has no idea what makes a qualified judge. A judicial candidate shouldn't be selected on the same criteria as are regular political candidates -- i.e., I'm for family values, I'm against gun control, etc. In fact, not so long ago, it used to be against several canons of judicial ethics for a candidate to announce publicly his position on an issue. This makes sense -- a judge shouldn't be seen by litigants or the public as having staked out a position before considering the facts and law in a given case.

Additionally, retired SCOTUS Justice O'Connor has weighed in. "There is too much special interest money and influence in state court elections," O'Connor said recently. "It endangers the public's faith in the justice system. If courts are going to stay impartial, leaders in every state need to get moving on reforms." (Thanks to AP article cited below for these quotations)

The better way to select state judges is via merit selection: a committee reviews a slate of candidates and recommends one to the governor, who appoints the judge. After a given period, say two years, the judge is up for retention (not re-election: the only effect of the vote is a decision whether the judge stays or gets the boot). If the public is sufficiently incensed about the judge's performance, he's sent packing, whereupon the governor appoints a replacement and the process continues.

This allows the benefits of judicial elections -- a democratic (again, small 'd') check on the power of the judiciary -- without the costs associated with potentially unqualified by well-funded candidates displacing experienced judges.

Institutional memory is an important asset. It takes a few years for a judge to find his groove and to get familiar with the lay of the land. A judge who has a few years under his belt is far more valuable to the bar and to the public than a newbie.

Update: SCOTUS will hear a case dealing with judicial ethics and tangentially involving judicial campaign financing. It seems that a certain West Virginia Supreme Court justice declined to recuse himself from a case in which a $50m verdict against his largest campaign donor was overturned. Really, though, what's $50 million among friends? Read more about the case, Caperton v. Massey, here and here.

When SCOTUS does hear the case, it will be interesting to hear what Justice Scalia has to say about it; you'll recall that in 2004, he faced quite a bit of criticism when he failed to recuse himself from a case in which VPOTUS Cheney's energy policy was the issue. A few weeks before argument (might have the timing wrong; it might have been months), he went duck hunting and fishing with Cheney at a private hunting camp. Sure, he didn't share the same duck blind with Cheney, but what about the fishing boat?

Oh, by the way, speaking of Scalia, this just in: it seems he spent this past weekend hunting with the author of an amicus brief in the huge Pharma case, Wyeth v. Levine (summary here), which was argued today. Um, wow. That's about all that can be said.

And another update: NYT has this article about some of the late Chief Justice Rehnquist's papers. Interesting stuff; the reason I include it in this post is because of the discussion on judicial ethics and recusal. Rehnquist faced stiff criticism for failing to recuse from a case early in his tenure as Associate Justice, then seemingly reversed course and recused himself from the consideration of US v. Nixon (yes, that one).

The attack on merit selection for judges. - By Bert Brandenburg - Slate Magazine

Kitchy monuments and mummified pets: SCOTUS takes on Summum

2008-11-14T23:32:00.005-05:00

An interesting case from Utah. Pleasant Grove City has a park it says is dedicated to its "pioneer heritage." To celebrate that heritage, it has a number of privately-donated monuments. There's a log cabin, a Mormon religious artifact, a monument to firefighters who died on Sept. 11 (an Eagle Scout's public service project -- not sure how that's related to pioneer heritage, but whatever), and a monument to the Ten Commandments.

A weird (no really, it's weird) religious group called Summum wanted to put its own monument up in the park, right next to the 10 Commandments monument. Summum believes that before Moses came down the mountain with the Commandments, he received Seven Aphorisms from God. Apparently the Israelites weren't ready, so he hid the Aphorisms away and went to get the Commandments. But the Aphorisms have been passed down through history, and now they've appeared in Utah.

Anyway, the city, predictably, said "thanks, but no thanks" to that monument. Summum sued, and eventually won at the Court of Appeals. The city petitioned the Court for certiorari, and got it.

Oral arguments were a couple of days ago. You can read about them here and here.

The case boils down to this: if the Eagles monument and the Summum monument are private speech, then the city is engaging in viewpoint discrimination. If the city has “adopted” the monuments in the park, then the monuments are government speech — and government can say nearly whatever it wants. The problem with that is that what it’s saying here is “we think the 10 commandments are better than the seven aphorisms.” That constitutes an official statement of preference for one religion over another. That’s an establishment clause violation. There wasn’t an establishment question before the Court, but there was an establishment issue in earlier proceedings (it just wasn’t appealed). Procedurally it’s complicated, but I think the case will (should) get remanded for additional factfinding on the question whether the government speech (if that’s what it is) is itself a violation of the establishment clause.

Law Blog - WSJ.com : Seven Aphorisms and the First Amendment: A Look at Oral Arguments

Read more in this WSJ summary and this NYT editorial.

Dallas DA re-examines questionable convictions

2008-11-14T22:41:00.001-05:00

I get the knee-jerk reaction, but why are prosecutors really mad at this guy? If you go from the premise that those who he clears with DNA evidence are actually innocent, then why in the world would prosecutors want to keep them in jail? Won't the public have more confidence in those that the DA convicts? What is wrong with this picture?

The Exonerator - WSJ.com

Which School Will Pass the Obamas' Test? - washingtonpost.com

2008-11-14T09:05:00.002-05:00

I think Michelle Rhee's daughters go to a DC public school. Surely the Obamas cannot be expected to throw their daughters into a poor academic environment (or, infinitely worse, a dangerous environment), but if there's a school good enough for the Chancellor's daughters, might that school also be worth considering? Imagine the message of support it would send to teachers, parents, and students in the DC public schools!

Sadly, this probably isn't an option. Real life isn't the West Wing, and there are too many risks and variables associated with gambling on a public school.

What a commentary on the sorry state of American education.

PS -- thanks to Amy for the correction re: number of Rhee's daughters.

Which School Will Pass the Obamas' Test? - washingtonpost.com

Rhee's DC tenure fight

2008-11-13T13:12:00.001-05:00

Today's NYT has a good article about Michelle Rhee's efforts to revive DC's flagging school system. It focuses largely on her plan to phase out the tenure system. The quotation below sums up the intellectually honest reasons for tenure (in my view, the real reasons are far less noble):

Teachers first won tenure rights across much of the United States early in the 20th century as a safeguard against patronage firings in big cities and interference by narrow-minded school boards in small towns, said Jeffrey Mirel, a professor of history and education at the University of Michigan.

“And the historical rationale remains good,” Dr. Mirel said, pointing to the case of a renowned high school biology teacher in Kansas who was forced to retire nine years ago because he refused to teach creationism.

“Without tenure,” Dr. Mirel said, “teachers can still face arbitrary firing because of religious views, or simply because of the highly politicized nature of American society.”

These are important considerations. But they're not arguments for tenure. They're really arguments for greater first amendment protections for teachers and other public employees.

The SCOTUS has not been kind to public employees in this regard. Most recently, in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) (free summary here), the Court held that an employee could be fired for disparaging comments he made, largely because the subject matter of those comments was in the scope of his job description.

Public employees should be protected from arbitrary dismissal when they speak out on issues relating to their jobs. This is because the public has a right to know insiders' views with respect to the operations of the system (and the physical plants, and the cafeteria food, etc.).

Address the legitimate union concerns by granting greater first amendment protections against aribtrary firings. Create causes of action that will allow for damage awards when a teacher is fired, e.g., for refusing to teach Creationism in Kansas. But don't just make it automatic that a teacher can't get fired.

Rhee is right: schools need to be able to get rid of crappy teachers (and, much more importantly, to reward those who are good at their jobs). Merit pay is the only way to do this.

Obama's Educ. Sec.?

2008-11-10T20:45:00.005-05:00

Please, oh please, don't pick Linda Darling-Hamilton. That rabid anti-TFA Stanford education prof is precisely the type of person we DON'T need as Sec. Educ.

Of course, since Obama said education is his fifth priority, a new Sec. Educ. might not be able to do much. But regardless, someone else needs to be in that important role.

See also this entry from the Huffington Post. Highlights:

Yes, Darling-Hammond is an ed school professor who talks in nuanced, academic terms--not scripted talking points (see her debate here). Yes, she was among the first and most prominent critics of Teach For America--and still favors a more intensive, residency-based approach to training new teachers.

But she also has authored a recent study that acknowledged T.F.A. teachers were in some ways better than traditional teachers. And she has helped start several charter schools in California. Darling-Hammond says there's no real daylight between her positions and Obama's policy proposals, and I haven't seen any convincing evidence to contradict that claim.

So what's going on then? Part of it is just a knee-jerk response against someone who dared criticize T.F.A., the reformistas' most cherished accomplishment to date. Another part of it may be the desire for a younger, fresher name picked from their own ranks--D.C. superintendent Michelle Rhee, or New Leaders founder Jon Schnur.

Who Will Obama Pick as Secretary of Education? - TIME

New Slate cartoon

2008-11-10T19:43:00.002-05:00

A "CA" change

2008-11-10T09:23:00.001-05:00

Wahoo! In addition to the changes he'll likely get to make on SCOTUS (see also here), Obama will have a number of appointments to make on the various circuit courts of appeals. Of note for North Carolinians and Virginians:

The most striking change could come soon after Obama takes office, with the selection of nominees to fill four existing vacancies on the staunchly conservative, 15-judge 4th Circuit.

Also, check out the mention of Judge Wynn (NC Ct. App.) for 4th Cir.!

Of course, Obama will still have to deal with GOP opposition.

Election reshapes legal landscape

Climate "change" we can believe in

2008-11-10T09:10:00.000-05:00

Leading off the agenda: dealing with climate change. Obama can start by reversing the regulations the Bush administration is working on as we speak to allow drilling in Utah near Arches and Canyonlands (and Moab, I might add!). He can also reverse the block of California's emissions experimentation. But these are largely symbolic. Doing something about climate change is going to take massive, organized, cooperative global efforts. Obama knows this: the recent Newsweek wrap-up of his campaign, in a vignette designed to highlight his frustrations with the facile nature of the campaign process, illustrated his views on climate change quite well:

So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f–––ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."

So Obama knows that simply putting some compact flourescents in your sockets, while personally virtuous (and while you're there, check out the rather scary Cheney picture), won't cut it on a large scale. So what will?

"To be effective, this is only possible at the level of international cooperation -- far more difficult to achieve than any technological breakthrough. There is a rendezvous next year in Copenhagen in late November which the entire world of climate expertise is preparing itself for and which is considered by many in the field to be our best and possibly last hope of addressing the problem before it runs away from us. It is the truly global successor to Kyoto, known in the trade as COP (Conference of Parties) 15. There is a case to be made that it will be one of the most important international meetings ever convened. If it does not result in practical, radical measures, the fight to control our future could well be lost. Every nation on the planet will be represented. The general feeling is that the conference cannot be allowed to fail. And it cannot succeed without the leadership of the United States. There are fears that Mr. Obama will move too cautiously on climate change for political reasons, and that would be a tragic error. As Mr. Schellnhuber says, 'If he were prepared to come in person to Copenhagen and make a speech, a bold commitment, similar to what Reagan did in Reykjavik, he would become a hero of the planet, for good.'"

A New Dawn - WSJ.com

Major Problems with Public Defenders

2008-11-09T19:50:00.000-05:00

Kudos to the Times for covering this travesty. Check out the idiot quote from the FL State Sen. Victor Crist: Defenders' offices could increase efficiency by, for example, carefully choosing which cases require depositions and other time-consuming actions."

Basically, this guy is saying that a lawyer should not focus zealous advocacy for an individual client, but rather should spread his resources so that each client gets less. That goes against the spirit of Gideon, and it also goes against the canons of professional responsibility. States have a duty to provide competent, adequate representation to every indigent defendant they choose to prosecute.

This Times artile is actually quite timely: SCOTUS will be soon hear a case on certiorari to the Supreme Court of Vermont dealing with a related issue. The Vermont court vacated a conviction of a defendant who sat in jail for three years between arrest and trial, largely because his court-appointed lawyers were so overworked they couldn't address his case.

All law school types can check out the opinion here; all non-law school types can read this blog about the case. More to follow when they actually take argument.

Citing Workload, More Public Defenders Are Refusing New Cases - NYTimes.com

Insights into President Obama's first actions?

2008-11-09T19:32:00.001-05:00

John Podesta (former COS to Clinton) indicated that Obama might consider "using his executive authority to change stem cell and oil-drilling policies without waiting for congressional action." This means that we could start to reverse the Bush administration's ostrich-like posture toward knowledge in general and science in particular. Doing this in the first few days (hell, he could have the EO drafted tomorrow, ready to sign on Day 1) would send a clear signal to the country that we're really going to shift gears.

See also this WSJ piece, which notes that "[r]olling back executive orders issued by the Bush administration could give Mr. Obama a fast way to put his mark on policy making after he takes office, as past presidents have. Other Bush-era executive orders that Mr. Obama could reverse include a ban on federal aid to family-planning organizations that counsel women on abortion, and a decision in December that restricts California in regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from cars."

In addition to being a powerful signal of "change," addressing Bush's boneheaded obstruction of California's efforts to clean up the environment could actually bring material change to the country. If "conservatives" really believed in letting individual states act as "laboratories for democracy," they would not have stood in the way of efforts like California's. Perhaps Cali will begin to show some progress, which could stir up some popular support for Obama's plan to create 5m new "green jobs." The Center for American Progress thinks this is very doable.

Emanuel Urges Aid for Auto Industry - NYTimes.com

The global Obama effect

2008-11-09T07:22:00.001-05:00

Thomas Friedman has a new op-ed in the Times dealing with how to leverage the astounding good will toward Obama harbored by much of the rest of the world. I especially like the part about how difficult it will be for radical Islamic leaders to get their throngs to chant "Death to Barack Hussein Obama." There's definitely an element of cognitive dissonance there. I love it.

Friedman - Show Me the Money - NYTimes.com

New choice for House Minority Leader?

2008-11-08T14:01:00.001-05:00

The WSJ has an interesting article about Congressman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., endorsing him for House Minority Leader (he would replace John Boehner, R-Ohio). Ryan, the Journal points out, has won re-election four times in a heavily Democratic part of Wisconsin (it went for Obama 53%-46%). Ryan is something of a principled free-market Conservative of the old school (i.e., Burke, not Bush). I think it would be a nice change to have an opposition voice that isn't wedded to partisan bromides (like Boehner is). Imagine the change in political discourse and the positive contributions to government that could be made by having someone intelligent and thoughtful contribute to the debate.

Of course, I've said that the Republicans shouldn't get a say in who Obama picks as his Chief of Staff; it follows that the Democrats shouldn't have a say in the GOP pick for Minority Leader. And the Majority Leader doesn't exactly follow this prescription for thoughtful debate.

It's also one of the jobs of the party leaders in the House and Senate to rally the troops behind the party. But the Majority / Minority Leaders are distinct from the Whip positions, and America has declared reather emphatically that it's ready for a different kind of politics. Maybe Ryan fits that bill.

Ryan for the Republicans - WSJ.com

ACLU's recommendations for Obama's first day, first 100 days, and first year

2008-11-08T12:48:00.000-05:00

The ACLU has published a list of recommendations for immediate executive attention following Obama's oath on Jan. 20. Some of this stuff seems pretty sensible. For example, the group recommends an executive order forbidding torture. Some seems potentially problematic: the group calls for a moratorium on executions of death sentences until racial disparities in the system are addressed. It's not clear what this would do. Yes, there are glaring problems in the system. Yes, African Americans are far more likely to be sentenced to death than are Caucasians. But those who are currently scheduled for federal execution were duly tried and convicted of crimes Congress has chosen to punish with sentences of death. It's not equitable to stop all pending executions. Furthermore, it would be political suicide. Can you imagine what John Boehner or Rush Limbaugh would say if Obama did this? Of course, those mouthpieces don't have a veto over Obama's policies. But Obama still must consider the political realities. Luckily, he's a saavy Chicago pol, and he's got another saavy Chicago pol as Chief of Staff. I'm betting Obama won't be making any rash judgments.

That said, there are lots of very reasonable recommendations in the ACLU's list. Check it out.

ACLU Recommendations for Obama

Rahm Emanuel: 'Do What You Got Elected to Do' - WSJ.com

2008-11-08T10:47:00.001-05:00

More on the new COS. Rahmbo looks to be just the sort of pragmatic streetfighter the POTUS will need to get things done. Emanuel's advice: "Do what you got elected to do." I.e., don't get led down the rabbit hole of orthodox liberal policies.

Barney Frank wants to slash Defense spending by 25%. Charles Rangel wants to bring back the draft. John Conyers, who has called for slavery reparations, is also sympathetic to Europeans who want to indict Bush administration officials for war crimes. And Henry Waxman is angling for steep energy taxes to combat global warming.

Most of this stuff is poison. Sure, defense spending is way too bloated. But it's the democratic third rail -- touch it, you die. Bringing back the draft? Ideologically, it's a great idea. But unless you want to leave office in 2012, don't even think about it. Indicting Bush for war crimes? Bloodlust is fun and all, but don't get stuck in this orgy of recriminations. You were elected to change things. We've got bigger fish to fry. The Waxman thing, though -- that's worth some consideration. Global warming is going to take bold, decisive leadership.

The point is this: Emanuel knows the dangers here. He knows what can be done, and what will be political suicide. Having seen the mistakes of the Clinton WH in the early 90s, he's in a great position to steer the Obama WH away from similar screwups.

Rahm Emanuel: 'Do What You Got Elected to Do' - WSJ.com

Obama Pick for Chief of Staff Criticized as Partisan Voice - WSJ.com

2008-11-07T08:35:00.002-05:00

Mr. Emanuel, an Obama friend from Chicago's insular political world, brings to the post a hard-charging, sometimes profane voice that contrasts sharply with Mr. Obama's unflappable demeanor. He spent much of the Clinton administration inside the White House political office, shaping message and policy with a keen eye on its electoral impact.

I think this will prove to be a really good pick. Obama needs someone who is not afraid to get bloodied and draw a little blood. The 133m people who voted in this election ( ~ 67m for Obama ) are expecting big things. Obama has been right to tamp down expectations, but he's also got to make some quick progress when he gets there. Obama will also need to navigate an inflated Democratic majority in both chambers, as well as deal with GOP opposition on major policy priorities like health care reform and environmental protection. Emanuel's experience in the House leadership should prove rather valuable in that regard.

Some are saying that Emanuel is an ironic pick for a president-elect who ran on a message of post-partisanship. They have a point. But while Emanuel has a reputation for no-holds-barred politics, his boss does not. And Emanuel will be taking direction from Obama, not the other way around. The two will balance each other quite nicely. Emanuel will be perfect for the demands of this job: serving as muscle for his boss's agenda.

Plus, it doesn't hurt that this only strengthens the West Wing analogy: Rahm = Josh Lyman.

Obama Pick for Chief of Staff Criticized as Partisan Voice - WSJ.com

In Mayor’s Plan, the Plastic Bag Will Carry a Fee - NYTimes.com

2008-11-07T08:25:00.000-05:00

This is the kind of low-hanging fruit that should be a no-brainer. If we don't do relatively easy things like this, how in the world can we expect to accomplish the really big tasks in the environmental realm? Good for Bloomberg for changing the incentives. Just like he did with the taxis.

In Mayor’s Plan, the Plastic Bag Will Carry a Fee - NYTimes

GOP Viewpoint: We Got The Thumping We Deserve : NPR

2008-11-05T12:31:00.000-05:00

Interesting views. Will the GOP follow the Tory track?

GOP Viewpoint: We Got The Thumping We Deserve : NPR

Who’s the Question Mark? NYTimes.com

2008-11-02T22:03:00.000-05:00

The rare Maureen Dowd column that I not only agree with but am also not annoyed by.

Who’s the Question Mark? NYTimes.com

Palin: Media Criticism of My Criticism = First Amendment Violation

2008-11-01T14:27:00.000-04:00

The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog has picked up on the latest Palin Constitutional "interpretation." Palin asserts that: “If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”

There are more problems with this statement than warrant discussion in a non-academic context. Suffice it to say this:

The First Amendment is in no way implicated here. The First Amendment protects private citizens (which describes, and will continue after Nov. 4 to describe, Sarah Palin) from government suppression of speech. Note -- *government* suppression of speech. If Palin wants to temper her idiotic comments because the media pick up on them, she's entitled to do so, and from McCain's perspective, she's probably wise to do so. (In fact, one is reminded of the Twain quotation: Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.). But the media are not infringing on her First Amendment rights. That claim makes absolutely no sense. A statement like this is an appeal to the misinformed.

Palin said that when the media call her incessant comments about Ayers and Wright "going negative," they are chilling her speech. She made no comment about being libeled or slandered. She only whined that the "mainstream media" and "Washington elitism" have "attacked" her by referring to her statements as "going negative." Palin has an incredibly warped view of that the First Amendment is all about.

The First Amendment does not protect Palin -- a would-be government official -- from this sort of legitimate media statement. See, e.g., New York Times v. Sullivan. If she can't handle criticism of her public statements, how can she possibly have the strength of character to be VPOTUS? This isn't Alabama in the 60s. The media are supposed to perform a "watchdog" function and keep us informed of what our leaders and putitive leaders are doing and saying.

What the media are doing here is, quite simply, their job.

Palin: Media Criticism of My Criticism = First Amendment Violation

Official Google Blog: New steps to protect free expression and privacy around the world

2008-11-01T14:13:00.000-04:00

This is probably a good step, but take it with a grain of salt: when Google entered China, it agreed to let the Chinese government control all sorts of user access. That, I submit, is not consistent with the company's motto: Don't be evil. That said, it's good that they're doing this.

Official Google Blog: New steps to protect free expression and privacy around the world

'Godless' ad sets off war of words between Hagan, Dole | CharlotteObserver.com

2008-10-30T11:15:00.000-04:00

Have you left no sense of decency, Ms. Dole?

'Godless' ad sets off war of words between Hagan, Dole | CharlotteObserver.com

What's wrong with a "fat tax?"

2008-10-29T08:53:00.000-04:00

The Root has an article about a new Alabama initiative to deal with the growing obesity problem (pun intended). It's an interesting idea, and I think it has the potential to do a lot of good. Essentially, it offers state employees free medical screening for routine health problems. The employees are not obligated to get the screening, but if they don't, they have to pay a $25 fee.

Critics are calling this a "fat tax." I disagree. If the government is being asked to deal with the health problems of its employees (and it should), then it ought also to have input into how serious those problems become. I'm not in favor of direct government commands - think "thou shall not eat that Big Mac" - but I'm all in favor of the right set of economic incentives. This is a good incentive.

The Fat Tax: TheRoot.com

The GOP ticket's appalling contempt for science and learning. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

2008-10-28T08:51:00.000-04:00

"This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just 'people of faith' but theocratic bullies. On Nov. 4, anyone who cares for the Constitution has a clear duty to repudiate this wickedness and stupidity."

This is a pretty good op-ed about the GOP's antipathy toward science, research, learning, and understanding. We face such enormous challenges these days (I'm thinking of the need to shift from a coal-based "dumb" electricity patchwork to a diversified, "smart" energy grid utilizing solar, wind, etc., dealing with disease, getting potable drinking water to people to prevent civil war, etc.) that it's absolutely astounding that the GOP would nominate someone like Sarah Palin (whose views are apparently shared, or at least not mediated, by the purported top of the ticket). It's offensive that they have such little respect for us that they'd nominate someone like this. It's also offensive that Palin is so deeply popular among such a wide swath of the country. What in the world are they thinking?

The GOP ticket's appalling contempt for science and learning. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine:

Lambocop Stalks Italian Speeders

2008-10-27T20:11:00.000-04:00

I would almost - almost - not be upset if I were pulled over by a cop in this car.

Lambocop Stalks Italian Speeders

Alaska Senator Is Convicted of Ethics Breach in Gift Scheme

2008-10-27T17:54:00.000-04:00

Ha!

Alaska Senator Is Convicted of Ethics Breach in Gift Scheme - NYTimes.com

Undecided voters

2008-10-27T07:58:00.000-04:00

David Sedaris discusses those who are "undecided" with respect to the presidential election. He compares them to an airline passenger being offered a choice between chicken and a plate full of shit and broken glass for dinner, then asking how the chicken is cooked. I've been thinking similar thoughts about "undecided" voters. Seriously - why the hell haven't you made a choice? It can't possibly be that you don't have enough information. Perhaps you'd prefer to hear more attack ads? Jesus, pull the trigger already!
Undecided: The New Yorker

Getting this Started Again

2008-10-07T09:08:00.001-04:00

I have some ideas that no longer fit in away messages on GChat, so I invite you all to look back soon to see them . . . .

The Smear This Time - New York Times

2007-10-02T19:30:00.000-04:00

The Smear This Time - New York Times

Clarence Thomas, in what surprisingly was a string of complete sentences, referred to his confirmation hearing as a lynch mob, specifically because of the Anita Hill scandal. Read her take thereon.

Edwards' "City upon a Hill" terrorism speech

2007-09-08T10:18:00.001-04:00

John Edwards recently spoke at Pace University in New York, laying out his strategy for combating global terrorism.

Among the wonkish (but smart) plans of establishing CITO (Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization) and a "Marshall Corps" of 10,000 civilian volunteers who would work to alleviate poverty conditions, a Edwards struck a broader theme that reminded me of a speech given almost 400 years ago.

John Winthrop, a New England Puritan leader of the would-be Massachusetts Bay Colony, warned his congregants that the eyes of the world would be upon them:

For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken...we shall be made a story and a by-word throughout the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God.We shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us til we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going.

Then president-elect Kennedy spoke with similar language in an address to a joint session of the Massachusetts "General Court:"

But I have been guided by the standard John Winthrop set before his shipmates on the flagship Arbella three hundred and thirty-one years ago, as they, too, faced the task of building a new government on a perilous frontier.

"We must always consider," he said, "that we shall be as a city upon a hill--the eyes of all people are upon us."

Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us--and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill--constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities

For we are setting out upon a voyage in 1961 no less hazardous than that undertaken by the Arabella in 1630. We are committing ourselves to tasks of statecraft no less awesome than that of governing the Massachusetts Bay Colony, beset as it was then by terror without and disorder within.

Kennedy quoted Pericles' address to the Athenians, reminding them that they were a model for others, and to conduct themselves accordingly. America has forgotten this historic and sacred duty in the past seven years. We have conducted ourselves poorly, as reactionary thugs, not as visionary leaders. It's ironic that Reagan, the supposed hero of the Republican party, spoke of a "shining city upon a hill," yet his heirs have abandoned the responsibility that city entailed.

Edwards noted that the ideological war with Al Qaeda would be won only by convincing those in the middle of the ideological spectrum - and most at risk of supporting terrorism - that America offers a better, more hopeful vision.

Yet we also should have a broader, deeper goal—to prevent terrorism from taking root in the first place. Millions of people around the world are sitting on the fence. On the one side are bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and on the other side is America. The question is which way they will go. If they perceive America as a bully, it will drive them in the other direction. If, on the other hand, they see us as the light, the country they want to be like, the country that's creating hope and opportunity, it will pull them to us like a magnet.

We have to be that light again. We need to do everything we can to prevent this generation of potential friends from becoming a generation of enemies.

This speech was a big step for Edwards. His focus on poverty and his "two Americas" theme are undeniably important, but until now he hadn't made the case that that effort was important to middle class Americans, and not just on moral grounds.

In the years after the second World War, America was a visionary leader, extending a hand to the very societies we had vanquished, pulling them up and helping them to rejoin the community of nations. The Marshall Plan has had lasting impact, and it's no coincidence that Edwards named his civilian corps the "Marshall Corps." This is what America needs.

At the end of his speech, Edwards called on the students in his audience to dedicate themselves -- and make the necessary sacrifices -- to this broad, noble fight. Let's hope his words don't go unheard.

The Principled Conservative

2007-09-04T21:41:00.000-04:00

NYT profiles former DOJ White House legal adviser

I found the principled conservative with whom Bush could replace Gonzales. The problem, according to the Times, in its profile of Jack Goldsmith, is that there is no way Bush could hire him.

Goldsmith, a law professor at Harvard, is the former head of the office of Legal Counsel, which advises the White House on, inter alia, the extent of executive powers. As Jeffrey Rosen, the author of the Times piece and friend of Goldsmith, writes:

"[T]he office has two important powers: the power to put a brake on aggressive presidential action by saying no and, conversely, the power to dispense what Goldsmith calls “free get-out-of jail cards” by saying yes. Its opinions, [Goldsmith] writes in his book, are the equivalent of “an advance pardon” for actions taken at the fuzzy edges of criminal laws."

So essentially, Goldsmith's opinions were the behind-the-scenes supports for some of the Bush gang's most nefarious and notorious policies, including the torture of detainees in the "war on terror."

Goldsmith, according to the profile, wasn't entirely all thumbs when it came to a rational analysis of a proposed exercise of executive power. Rosen describes in the article one instance in which Goldsmith didn't give his blessing to a proposed policy:

"Several hours after Goldsmith was sworn in, on Oct. 6, 2003, he recalls that he received a phone call from Gonzales: the White House needed to know as soon as possible whether the Fourth Geneva Convention, which describes protections that explicitly cover civilians in war zones like Iraq, also covered insurgents and terrorists. After several days of study, Goldsmith agreed with lawyers in several other federal agencies, who had concluded that the convention applied to all Iraqi civilians, including terrorists and insurgents. In a meeting with Ashcroft, Goldsmith explained his analysis, which Ashcroft accepted. Later, Goldsmith drove from the Justice Department to the White House for a meeting with Gonzales and Addington [then Cheney's chief legal adviser]. Goldsmith remembers his deputy Patrick Philbin turning to him in the car and saying: 'They’re going to be really mad. They’re not going to understand our decision. They’ve never been told no.'"

"They've never been told no." A more succinct indictment of the Bush administration's excesses has yet to be written. That sentence captures the arrogance with which Bush and his cronies have squandered American prestige and the good will of the immediate post-Sept. 11 environment by eschewing entirely the rule of law. The Bushies counted on Americans to trade a essential liberties for a little temporary safety. Maddeningly, that's exactly what we did, every time the issue came up. And Bush's team knew it.

“We’re one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court,” Goldsmith recalls Addington telling him in February 2004."

The "unitary executive" theory of presidential authority espoused by the Bush gang has effectively squandered America's reputation with the rest of the world. The go-it-alone approach with which they approached their Iraq boondoggle has mirrored in their approach to domestic politics:

“The Bush administration has operated on an entirely different concept of power that relies on minimal deliberation, unilateral action and legalistic defense,” Goldsmith concludes in his book.

Ironic, since for seven years, Bush had an extremely acquiescent legislative branch, ready to roll over at the very threat of being made to appear "soft on terror."

The results of Bush's attempt to solidify the power of the executive branch have in all likelihood backfired with staggering brilliance. Rosen notes that future presidents, as opposed to enjoying more expansive executive authority, will find themselves hemmed in by ever more skeptical legislative and judicial branches:

“I don’t think any president in the near future can have the same attitude toward executive power, because the other institutions of government won’t allow it,” he said softly. “The Bush administration has borrowed its power against future presidents.”

It will be interesting to see, in only a couple of short years, what a federalist government premised on separation of powers looks like. Thanks to Bush, we're virtually assured that's what's coming.

Standing for principle

2007-09-03T16:48:00.000-04:00

DOJ lawyers refusing to work on Guantanamo detainee appeals: report

Jurist reports that up to 1/4 of DOJ civil appellate attorneys are refusing to represent the government in Guantanamo detainee appellate proceedings. I'm guessing that these are not the political hires Monica Goodling bragged about.

The article notes that DOJ doesn't have a formal structure to allow lawyers to recuse themselves from cases because they disagree with the legal arguments in those cases. So in all probability, their jobs are in jeopardy. A salute to them, then, for standing for principle even when the personal cost is likely to be great.

Bye-bye, Gonzo

2007-08-28T12:38:00.000-04:00

The House Lawyer Departs - New York Times

It's one small step for man... one giant leap for the Constitution. Well, probably not giant. But certainly significant.

It's about time Alberto Gonzales resigned. The "loyal Bushie" has managed, in a rather short tenure, to do serious and lasting damage to the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. From the beginning of his time as the titular monarch of the Justice Department, his name has been associated with projects and policies representing a complete departure from American values - indeed, from the rule of law.

The torture memo (with its classic line: "the new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners...") he co-authored was despicable. Spying on Americans without authorization from the FISA courts (an incredibly low hurdle) was appalling. Arguing for the suspension of the Geneva convention and supervising the torture of detainees at Guantanamo was repugnant. The firing of US Attorneys for the most thinly veiled political reasons would have been amusing if the consequences weren't the destruction Justice's independence, not to mention the careers of the Attorneys themselves.

An NPR commentator observed last night that President Bush tends to let staff situations fester until, at the brink of their becoming gangrenous, he is forced to resolve them. Gonzales' predecessor, John Ashcroft, was the target of similar attacks. Bush defended Don Rumsfeld, his Defense Secretary, and his ludicrous and disastrous reversal of the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force, until irreparable harm had been done to the US war effort. That's not to begin to address the fool's errand of the war in the first place.

Another Bush crony, Harriet Miers, was vaulted into contention for a seat on the high court with a laughable lack of credentials. The list goes on. (Rove, anyone?)

The Times editorial, supra, suggests that Bush nominate someone of unimpeachable character and ability to begin the arduous task of rebuilding the credibility of the Justice Department. Let's hope he can do so. Current speculation that Michael Chertoff, current head of Homeland Security, might be Bush's pick. That's predictable -- he proved his loyalty, and his incompetence, following the Katrina disaster. But the country deserves better. Surely there must be some respected conservative that Bush can nominate. Surely he'll want to take this opportunity, with a year and a half left until he rides off into the sunset of history, to attempt in some small measure to improve his horrendous legacy. But the smart money is that Bush will nominate yet another incompetent, committed insider who will continue Bush's assault on the fundamental fabric of American democracy.

So long, Alberto Gonzales. Good riddance.

France: Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran

2007-08-28T12:17:00.000-04:00

French Leader Raises Possibility of Force in Iran - New York Times

When the French president took power, he promised a new era in terms of Franco-American interrelations. I hope this isn't what he meant.

The world certainly doesn't need, and may not be able comfortably to absorb, another neo-conservative excursionist into Middle Eastern affairs. Our own has mucked up the already chaotic region quite sufficiently.

I wonder, however, whether this change in the cant of French politics might portend an equivalent change in the attitude of the right in this country toward France. Might the "Freedom Fries" in the House cafeteria go back to their original name? (Note: I know. It's a joke. Relax, fact-check police.)

Holy Crap: A review of the Creation Museum

2007-08-21T13:27:00.000-04:00

I finally got a chance to see the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky. I've been struggling to decide how to respond to the experience. I didn't change my mind about the veracity of the claims the "museum" makes -- of course, they're complete bunk. The reason I've been struggling is because I was trying to decide how to view the museum: as an innocuous testament to the odd and illogical beliefs of a few, or a vicious attack on truth and reason. As I was going through some pictures I took at the museum, I came up with my answer.

The museum is laid out somewhat logically: one enters and is immediately greeted by workers wearing safari vests with "Prepare to Believe" embroidered on the back. This, presumably, is by way of mise en scene: we're about to take a journey through "history." The place has kind of a Jurassic Park feel. Look out the window to the "botanical garden" and you can see a scale model of the Loch Ness Monster in the pond out back. I'm sure the metaphor was unintentional. Rounding the corner from the ticket window ($20 per person!), the dinosaurs themselves come out.

Not just dinosaurs, though. The New York Times describes the scene this way:

Two prehistoric children play near a burbling waterfall, thoroughly at home in the natural world. Dinosaurs cavort nearby, their animatronic mechanisms turning them into alluring companions, their gaping mouths seeming not threatening, but almost welcoming, as an Apatosaurus munches on leaves a few yards away.

You read that correctly. There are human children in the same diorama as dinosaurs. Never mind that carbon dating of fossils illustrates the absurdity and impossibility of the scene. The museum's response? Fossils came from Noah's flood, and carbon dating doesn't work. But I'll get to that.

The rest of the museum was more of the same. I'm not going to go through each exhibit pointing out the logical flaws. For one reason, that post would take too long. For another, it's already been done. Instead, I'm going to address the basic premise of the museum, because as far as I'm concerned, it's the most dangerous.

Wikipedia reports an ABC poll indicating that 60% of Americans believe that "God created the world in six days." 48% believe, according to Newsweek, that "God created humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

One of the greatest strengths of America is the ability of its citizens to believe, speak openly about, and debate any view of their choosing. If adults want to believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or unicorns, or the Easter Bunny, nothing prevents them from so doing. I say "adults" as opposed to "people," because adults should, in theory, have the cognitive capacity to weigh an idea, considering the arguments for and against it, and make a reasoned choice of whether or not to support that idea. If people subject Flat Earth Creationism to that scrutiny, so be it. Let's just hope they don't organize politically and begin to influence our elections.

But of course, the Creation Museum doesn't intend to be a harmless gathering grounds for, shall we say, eccentric adults. Its stated purpose is to indoctrinate children. Again according to Wikipedia (with citation to the museum's web page),

The facility's stated mission is to "exalt Jesus Christ as Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer," to "equip Christians to better evangelize the lost," and to "challenge visitors to receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord."

All well and good. OK, not good, but at least tolerable. But the museum goes much further. The emphasis on dinosaurs, and the attention to detail on the dinosaur displays, clearly identifies one of the museum's core audiences: young children. Kids love dinosaurs (I know this first hand). Kids are voracious consumers of any dino-knowledge. By focusing on dinosaurs as the vehicle for the museum's anti-Enlightenment message, it is brainwashing innocent children.

Anti-Enlightenment is not my interpretation of the museum's message. It's stated in so many words. After the "cave of sorrows," featuring a parade of horribles like stem cell research, gay marriage, pornography, and ACLU, all of which resulted from eating some fruit, the museum gets into the history of the battle against flat-earth creationism. A video describes the "atrocity" of the ACLU during the Scopes Monkey Trial, during which "ACLU lawyer Clarence Darrow" viciously attacked and mercilessly mocked William Jennings Bryan for his literal interpretation of the Bible.

I grant them that point, though of course I don't subscribe to their interpretation. Darrow did savage Bryan quite deliciously:

[Counsel] objected [to Darrow's questioning of Bryan], demanding to know the legal purpose of Darrow's questioning. Bryan, gauging the effect the session was having, snapped that its purpose was "to cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible." Darrow, with equal vehemence, retorted, "We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States."

Further, several posters detail "tragic" historic events, like when "In the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, the infidel philosopher Voltaire forecast that within a century no Bibles would be left on earth." Luckily, "... fifty years after he died, the Geneva Bible Society took over his house and printing press to produce thousands of Bibles." I guess they're still a bit miffed about Candide.

This is where the language ceases to be innocuous. One doesn't call someone "with a different starting point ... [who reaches] different conclusions" an infidel. There's a reason why Richard Dawkins refers to "the Taliban and its American equivalent."

The museum goes further. In an explanation of why Cain's marrying his sister was not wrong, a poster explained that since there weren't too many genetic mutations in the human genome, such a marriage wouldn't result in deformed children as it would today. Furthermore, the only reason marrying one's sister was wrong was because God said so. OK. No problems there. But then it says:

Since God is the One who defined marriage in the first place, God's Word is the only standard for defining proper marriage. People who do not accept the Bible as their absolute authority have no basis for condemning someone like Cain marrying his sister.

Divine command theory has plenty of adherents. It's an intellectually lazy and vacuous theory, but that's (somewhat) beside the point. To claim, however, that it is the only basis from which to derive a standard of morality is a blatant version of the same type of arrogance the Flat Earth types accuse "Evolutionists" of having. They assume the hegemony of their worldview. Thankfully for humanity, that particular worldview was well on its way out the door when Galileo muttered "Eppur si muove."

So the problem isn't the beliefs per se. The problem is what the museum attaches to those beliefs. Teaching children that what they learned in school is wrong is obviously problematic. But foisting Flat Earth creationism onto an apparently (and appallingly) vulnerable populace is downright dangerous.

The New York Times just ran a piece about the resurgence of political theology. The author, Mark Lilla, describes the fear Hobbes had of a theocracy:

And the debilitating dynamics of belief don’t end there. For once we imagine an all-powerful God to protect us, chances are we’ll begin to fear him too. What if he gets angry? How can we appease him? Hobbes reasoned that these new religious fears were what created a market for priests and prophets claiming to understand God’s obscure demands. It was a raucous market in Hobbes’s time, with stalls for Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Quakers, Ranters, Muggletonians, Fifth Monarchy Men and countless others, each with his own path to salvation and blueprint for Christian society. They disagreed with one another, and because their very souls were at stake, they fought. Which led to wars; which led to more fear; which made people more religious; which. . . .

Luckily, the Creation Museum itself is the best argument against Flat Earth creationism and its logical (no pun intended) necessities. As long as people don't check their rational minds at the door, seeing straight-faced assurances that the Grand Canyon was carved in a couple of days should pretty much absolve the view of any danger it may have had among the public at large.

The larger point, however, is this: If it becomes even more politically dangerous to label this nonsense what it is, then we may have a real problem on our hands. We laugh when George W. Bush says "the jury is still out on evolution." But when statements like that become more commonplace, and it becomes dangerous to oppose them, that's when the real nightmare scenarios come to bear.

Thomas Jefferson famously said "We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." Let's hope reason remains free. As for me, I'll err on the side of reason. I'll take "I think, therefore I am" over "I am who am" any day.

I could keep going. The "museum" is vulnerable to attack on pretty much every front. But, like the punch Ali didn't throw at Foreman, I'll abstain.

FISA court coming around?

2007-08-20T00:29:00.001-04:00

Well now. The ACLU may be making some headway in its effort to force the Bush administration to belly up to the rule of law with regard to its illegal, warrantless wiretapping program. Not much, but as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Or something like that. Check out the story on Digg.

read more | digg story

So long, Voldemort

2007-08-19T23:43:00.000-04:00

Howard Kurtz - Karl Rove, Insider With an Outsize Reputation - washingtonpost.com

So, the Dark Lord retired. I think we can all agree this is a positive thing. I'm interested in two comments Howard Kurtz, a columnist for the Washington Post, made in his article about all of the hoopla.

Or perhaps there's a cruder explanation: that some journalists believe Bush lacks the intellectual heft to achieve big things on his own, so they attribute his most consequential decisions to a powerful Svengali at his side.

Whether or not Bush is as dumb as he seems (seriously, can you blame journalists for having low opinions of a guy who can't pronounce "nuclear" and only occasionally can speak in complete sentences?), it seems perfectly clear that his advisers are rather important. The White House certainly went out of its way to create the impression that Rove was a wizard; next to Cheney, Rove was one of the favorite proxies to send to the Sunday morning shows.

I don't think you can blame journalists for having opinions, liberal or conservative. You certainly can blame them for writing those opinions into their coverage, but interestingly, that's not what Kurtz says they did. He interprets the focus and frenzy surrounding the Rove departure as proof of what he says are their unspoken beliefs. Me thinks he doth protest too much: it sounds like he's kind of worried that in fact, Bush might not have the intellectual heft required to order lunch, let alone to plan an invasion and subsequent occupation of a strategically important Middle Eastern country (apparently no one in the Bush administration did, so it's hardly fair to lump all of the blame on Bush) or to deal effectively with a major natural disaster. Granted, he probably doesn't have that intellectual capacity. But what's interesting is that Kurtz projects his fears onto journalists.

In a footnote to his column, Kurtz makes another attack on journalists:

Footnote : In an embarrassment to the industry, some staffers at a Seattle Times news meeting cheered when Rove's resignation was announced. To his credit, Editor David Boardman made the incident public and warned that staff meetings should not "evolve into a liberal latte klatch." Rove responded by sending a basket of cookies to the newsroom, with a note saying "my wife shares in your enthusiasm."

Again, is the implication that journalists aren't allowed to have opinions? No one claims that these opinions made it into the Seattle Times' coverage of the event. Journalists are by definition among the most engaged of our citizens. They form (or used to) the "fourth estate," the check on the government as a whole that the founding fathers envisioned. They should care about politics. They should have opinions about our leaders. They should not be punished for voicing those views.

I'm sure the newsroom at the Washington Post wasn't silent and sterile on the Nixon administration during the Watergate investigations. Especially when one of Nixon's goons made a veiled threat on Katherine Graham, its publisher: that' she'd "get her tit in a vice" if the Post continued with its stories. I imagine the reporters there had some choice words to say about Nixon's boys. Are we to fault them for this? Does that make their investigation of him or their stories resulting from that investigation any less valid? Of course not.

What possible reason could Boardman have for making public some private reactions of his staff? I can think of a couple: to embarrass the staffers, or to curry favor with the administration. Apparently, given the cookies Karl sent, the latter motivation was right on the money.

Implosion of the Right

2007-08-09T18:38:00.000-04:00

The Economist has an article about the decline of the Conservative movement in America. It cites a shift in American attitudes about certain bellwether issues, summed up in poll questions like "I believe government should help the needy even if it means greater debt," "I believe the best way to ensure peace is through military strength," and "I never doubt the existence of God."

The magazine notes that answers to those three questions, among others, have shifted leftward since the ascent of the Conservatives starting in the 1980s, according to the Pew Research center. It's about time.

It's probably worth looking at the implications of each of those statements.

"I believe the government should help the needy even if it means greater debt."

For years, the conservatives have managed to pervert and distort what should be an easy question for a human of average empathetic capacity. The Horatio Alger plot formula simply does not apply in every situation. With a few very notable e exceptions, there are no "welfare queens." When JFK toured Appalachia in 1960, the country was shocked to see the abject poverty in which Americans were living. RFK repeated the trip, with much the same results. The media, and, by extension, the American people, were forced to pay attention.

Fast forward 40 years. The Republicans have managed to propagate the "morning in America" myth. Reagan's "trickle-down" theory has had its intended (though not its stated) effect: the rich got richer, the poor got poorer. The Clinton presidency managed to do some good, though not enough. Then, of course, Bush fiddled while the world (Darfur, New Orleans, Afghanistan, Iraq) burned.

Leave aside the (hopefully) obvious moral considerations. They're more than sufficient to prove the case, but the electorate needs some more tangible arguments. When will we learn that we ignore poverty and suffering at our extreme peril? If gang members had legitimate opportunities, does anyone seriously believe they would choose a life of extreme danger and crime over the safety, security, and comfort of middle-class existence? If the majority of the Sunni extremists had jobs, homes, and full bellies, would they follow the radical imams? Of course not. Without discontent, there would be no hatred to direct against America.

Increasing the debt will be the least of our concerns if we don't "help the needy." There is no possible way to prevent another 9/11, or reduce domestic crime, if we don't address their root causes. No, it's not sexy. Yes, it's easier to blame people for their circumstances. Yes, it's hard to give up some of our wealth for the benefit of others. But that's the only way to enjoy any measure of security. Oh, and it's the right thing to do.

"I believe the best way to ensure peace is through military strength."

I started to address this in the previous section. Of course we need military strength. Of course we need the most powerful, most invincible military in the world. No one seriously questions this. But it's quite obvious that this isn't enough. We had the most fearsome military in September of 2001, and that tragically was insufficient to protect us from 19 hijackers and some evil plotters in Afghanistan.

The best way to ensure peace is through a combination of direct aid, engagement with other world powers (including those with whom we disagree), thoughtful, considered and considerate foreign policy, and yes, unstoppable military might. Relying on any one of these to the exclusion of the others is a recipe for disaster. Just look at Iraq.

"I never doubt the existence of God."

It's not clear why this should be a measure of political bent. Undoubtedly, in American politics, it is. This is a measure of the Republican party's complete subservience to James Dobson, et. al. Republicans, especially in the last 15 years or so, have made a Faustian bargain with the religious right. They were so desperate for power that they relied on the get-out-the-vote prowess of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobsen and their ilk. Evangelical leaders have an undeniable ability to brainwash their congregants, telling them whom to vote for and what to think, or rather, what to regurgitate. The Republicans grew drunk on this power, and found themselves bound to follow their instructions. Thus, right-wingers fought hard to keep Terri Shiavo alive. They positioned themselves firmly behind the movement to dismantle Roe v. Wade. They floated a federal marriage amendment.

This put them at odds with the majority of the electorate. And it's starting to catch up with them.

The Economist reported that 150 Bush administration staffers went to Regent University. Yeah - Pat Robertson's Regent University. That one. Yeah. Tangent: isn't the point of an institution of higher learning supposed to foster independent thought? Schools whose stated purpose is to inculcate one particular worldview don't deserve the name 'school.'

OK, sorry about that. Bush has 150 staffers who were "educated" in Pat Robertson's mind mold. Who can feel good about that?

So now there are more people who disagree with the statement that "I never doubt the existence of God." Good or bad, it may indicate that people are realizing what our Founding Fathers knew - that it's probably not a good idea to let religious leaders have anything to do with governing a country.

The Economist article closes with the observation that the Democrats haven't really done anything to deserve their uptick in power. The approval rating of the Democratic-controlled Congress is lower than Bush's. Most people think that the Democrats will will the White House in 2008. Hopefully so. History has shown that the Democrats, more than any other group, simply excel at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Please, please don't fuck this up. The world can't handle another right-wing presidency.

Obama: Bambi-esque?

2007-08-07T19:38:00.000-04:00

(As does pertain to Bambi)

So I'm a little worried about Obama. First there's the flap from the CNN-YouTube debate with Hillary. For the record, I think she's right regarding not making blanket statements about meeting with dictator-thugs. Point: Clinton.

Then on NPR, second-tier candidate Joe Biden (who has, by the by, some remarkably cogent insights) accused Obama of recklessness over his comment that he would, given actionable intelligence, combined with Musharraf's inaction, bomb Pakistan. Biden's argument was that Obama's comment would stem the flow of Pakistani intelligence. Sounds reasonable, Joe.

So Barack: Let's watch the extemporaneous foreign policy remarks. You're starting to worry me.

What's the baseline?

2007-08-07T12:47:00.000-04:00

The New York Times has an article about several universities in Michigan and elsewhere installing footbaths for the use of Muslim students, whose religion dictates that prior to their quince-daily prayers, they must wash their feet. It seems that some students had been washing their feet in the sinks in the bathrooms, resulting in wet floors and sinks pulling away from the walls.

The question being raised by conservative bloggers and others is whether the expenditures by the public universities (some of the units cost $25,000 each) constitutes an unconstitutional (no pun intended) establishment of religion.

On its face, the answer to this question seems to be "of course." The state, through its agents, is building fixtures specifically for the use of a single religious group (statements about lacrosse players washing their feet and janitors filling buckets notwithstanding). But as usual, this question is much more interesting.

Some Muslims have raised a valid point that the schedule of every public school makes accommodations for Christmas, by definition a Christian holiday. So any thoughts of the state's non-intervention into religious activities are illusory.

I'm not suggesting a radical re-scheduling of school calendars nationwide. I think it's pretty obvious that the schedules as they are work to the benefit of Christians, but by this point, after 200+ years of dependence on such schedules, changing them would do more harm than good. It's important though, to realize that the current status quo does support an establishment of religion. Since we can't change at this point, let's accept it as the current baseline.

If that's the baseline, then any additional accommodations for a particular religion are unconstitutional. That's not to say that government cannot make changes to get out of the way of religious practices; it must allow citizens to practice their religions unencumbered. It may not prohibit individual citizens (or groups of them) from exercising their religious views. It may not prohibit girls and women from wearing the hijab; it may not prevent students from holding prayer meetings.

But it may not go out of its way, above and beyond the established baseline, to support a particular religion. It may not erect monuments to the Ten Commandments on public property, and it may not build facilities to aid any particular religious practice. In other words, no publicly-funded footbaths.

So then. Must universities let students wash their feet in the sink? Maybe. They certainly can't prevent students from washing their feet, if that's what their religion requires. Obviously there's the potential for a slippery slope here (what if my worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster dictates that I play Four Square in a study lounge? Must a university let me practice my religion?), but let's table them for the time being. It's not clear, though, that they must allow students to wash their feet in sinks not designed for that purpose, especially if doing so creates a legitimate public danger (it's no stretch to imagine someone clipping and breaking their neck washing their feet in a sink; is the school liable?). Can the students wash their feet in any other manner? Can they, for example, use the showers without too much trouble? If so, then there's no reason the school can't forbid them from using the sink, simply for their own safety. If not, then there's an argument for building the footbaths.

But seriously: $25,000? That's the cost of several full scholarships at most state schools.

Regarding Michael Vick

2007-07-30T19:45:00.000-04:00

By now, everyone has heard the details of Michael Vick's dogfighting charges. Without rehashing them, suffice it to say that assuming they're true (and luckily, I'm not on the jury, so I have that luxury. And I intend to avail myself thereof), he's one sick fuck. Of course, I believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty. And Mike Nifong demonstrated the danger of trying a case in the media. But for a moment, let's assume this asshole is guilty and examine some of the periphery.

There's an article on CNN.com that quotes the director of the Atlanta NAACP pontificating on how unfair it is that everyone is "piling on" poor Mikey:

The president of the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP criticized the prosecution of Vick at a news conference Monday morning.

Dr. R.L. White Jr. accused the government of "piling on." "There's a penalty in football for piling on," White told reporters. "After a player has been tackled and somebody piles on, they're penalized for unnecessary roughness.

"Today, the NAACP blows the whistle and warns the powers that be that you are piling on."

OK. Time out. Poor Mikey; he's so downtrodden and oppressed. He doesn't deserve the flood of public outrage (a Google search for "michael vick dogfighting" yielded 2.34 million results) being directed toward him. It must be because he's a black man worth more than $100 million. It couldn't possibly be the fact (excuse me, allegation) that he was personally involved in the brutal execution of no fewer than eight dogs who had performed poorly in testing sessions. The government's reaction couldn't be based on the manner in which these dogs were destroyed (electrocution, gunshots, and bodyslamming at least one dog into the ground until it was dead) or the testimony and allegations of Vick's co-defendant.

Seriously, Dr. White: Do you really want to spend the NAACP's political capital on this inhuman thug? Implying that the reaction to Vick's crimes (sorry, alleged crimes) has anything to do with race saps the credibility built by Thurgood Marshall and other previous NAACP leaders.

Perhaps the NAACP is outpacing its constituency. Blackathlete.net, in an article entitled "Guilty or Not, Vick Deserves Everything Coming His Way," argued that Vick is not being victimized by the vitriol being hurled in his direction. We probably should be careful of ascertaining guilt by association (again with the Duke lacrosse debacle), regardless of how appalling the conduct alleged may have appeared. That said, the Blackathlete article does raise some good points. It's definitely worth a read.

Let's keep in mind that Vick is an iconic figure. Children treasure his jerseys and idolize him. Vick had a responsibility to conduct himself with that fact in mind. The law shouldn't take that responsibility into account, but the NFL most certainly should. What better message to send to children across the country than that such unconscionable conduct will not tolerated? What worse message to send than that you can do whatever you want, regardless of how cruel or atrocious, so long as you can throw a football?

Delusions of Churchillian Grandeur

2007-07-15T11:42:00.000-04:00

Bush loves to compare himself, outwardly and not, to Churchill. He reputedly keeps a bust of Churchill in his office. He equates the Iraq war to a slog through hell, and knows his idol would advise him to "keep going."
But just as Bush half-assed his way through Yale and the Texas Air National Guard, he apparently neglected to read deeper than the Bartlett's Familiar Quotations version of Churchill. Hell, he didn't even read all of that. If he had, he would know that the second part of the familiar "never give up" quotation was a qualifier: "except to convictions of honor and good sense."
The Australian has some interesting analysis of comparisons between Bush and Churchill. The web news magazine notes that

The report [on progress in Iraq] will give more political cover to those calling for the US to quit Iraq or, to use a more inconvenient and ominous historical analogy, more calls for the US to stop wasting its blood and treasure in the "thankless deserts" of Iraq. That phrase was first used by Churchill in 1919 as British war secretary when he consistently advised Britain's withdrawal from Mesopotamia, as Iraq was then known.

"I hate Iraq. I wish we had never gone to the place," Churchill would say later.

Whether one day Bush will feel that way remains to be seen. For now he's in no mood to give any comfort to Republicans who want a change in strategy and to bring combat troops home.

"When we start drawing down our forces in Iraq, it will be because our military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right, not because pollsters say it'll be good politics," Bush said. Iraq, he said, can, and must be, won.

Now, it's certainly no secret that Bush is not the sharpest tool in the shed. He'll be lucky to get a "gentleman's C+" from historians when he finally bows out. But you don't have to be a genius to read the writing on the wall. When the level-headed leaders of the party are questioning your judgment, you might want to listen. You're better off with backing from Richard Lugar than you are with backing from John Boehner. It's not about polls, it's about common sense. Stop attacking those in your party who finally have the courage to call a spade a spade. Get a clue, and get us the hell out of Iraq.

McCain's impolsion

2007-07-13T23:14:00.000-04:00

John McCain's political woes have been well-documented. He's nearly broke, with just over $2m cash on hand. His top advisers have rather conspicuously jumped ship. And the race for the GOP nomination is currently being dominated by Rudy "Hey! Did I mention I was mayor of New York during 9/11?" Giuliani and Mitt "Keep it simple, stupid. Voters: This means you" Romney. Tangent: Romney is using Google AdWords, as are the other candidates I'm sure. Romney's tag line is something like "Security. Family. Inanity." When these pithy ads come up, click on them. That way, the candidate has to pay. And pay they should for such dribble. Lift up the discourse. You can't just throw out words. Have a position. It's not about your hair.
But of course, I digress. Back to McCain. He joked with reporters about the reason for his campaign's freefall:

“My position on immigration was obviously not helpful with the Republican base,” McCain conceded, laughing as if he recognized he was stating the obvious. “I think that my position on the war in Iraq is obviously at least not helpful with independents.”

Well, yeah. That's part of it. But the deeper reason is that you're a sellout, John. You made your career, you defined yourself as being a "maverick." You were going to beat Bush until Rove in South Carolina made that autodialing campaign about you having a "black baby." But instead of fighting back and calling him on it, you rolled over and then sprinted for the middle. Then, having found the middle, you continued for the far right. You sidled up to Bush. He kissed your head like he was the goddamned Pope. You spoke at Bob Jones University. Bob fucking Jones. Didn't you once attack the polemic right? You were correct back then. I respected you. Everyone respected you. But you've become the worst kind of opportunist. You've forfeited principle for access to Bush's donors and Robertson's mailing lists.
It's not about immigration. It's not about Iraq. You aren't the victim of circumstance. You aren't the victim of a fickle base. You're the victim of your own feckless politics. Shame on you, Senator.

Lighting the "Dark Continent"

2007-07-13T23:02:00.001-04:00

There's a movement afoot to outfit Africa's children with cheap, durable laptops. A fine goal, and one major corporations should certainly support. Intel, in fact, has gotten into the act. But it seems to me that there are some other considerations here, and even stronger reasons to support this and similar programs. Think about the implications of widespread, high-speed WiFi access across the continent of Africa. How much would food distribution logistics be improved? What about coordination of African Union and UN forces in Darfur and other conflict zones?
Governments, NGOs, and philanthropic organizations ought to be getting in this game.

Surgeons general silenced for political reasons? Gasp!

2007-07-13T22:48:00.000-04:00

The other day, a group of former surgeons general (including the Colonel Sanders-looking guy from the Life Alert commercials) testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about their work and reports being silenced by various current and former administrations. Of course, it's no surprise that the Bush administration has stiff-armed its chief medical scientist; right-wing ideology has always trumped scientific consensus (global warming and stem cells, anyone?). But there were surgeons general from both sides of the aisle at the hearing, so it's not an pachyderms- or asses-only problem.
It seems to me that there will always be political pressure to silence medical research. So here's a solution: make the Surgeon General an independent entity. (S)he will still be the principal adviser to the President, but will not be subject to Executive branch control and censorship. In practice, this should work out well for all parties. The American people will have access to quality information (like the fact that abstinence-only sex education is the dumbest idea this side of letting Cheney's oil pals write the energy policy), the Surgeon General will be treated as an actual scientist should be treated, and the administration would be able to answer extremist critics by saying that they will not interfere with an independent entity. It's not too hard, folks.

Decline and Fall of Dow Jones

2007-07-08T10:37:00.000-04:00

A British news magazine has reported that the deal by which the Dow Jones company, owners and publishers of the Wall Street Journal, will be purchased by Rupert Murdoch, publishing's Montgomery Burns, is about to go through. Murdoch, of course, runs Fox News. Fox is the standard-bearer for neocons, religious fundamentalists, and right-wing ideologues in general. Now, Murdoch is about to take what previously was one of the most respected and respectable newspapers and use it to shill for Bush, et. al.

I'm reminded of a speech before the U.N. a few years ago. Trying to channel Adlai Stevenson in 1963, Bush and Rumsfeld send Colin Powell, the most widely-respected member of the administration, to make the case for invading Iraq. The utterly flimsy nature of the "evidence" they gave Powell to present came to light, and what Bush/Rumsfeld had done became clear. They'd raped Powell's good name and reputation to support their foolish war of choice.

How long, do you think, will it be before the Murdoch-run Journal is used for a similarly cynical purpose?

Some serious chutzpah

2007-07-08T00:36:00.000-04:00

Congressional Democrats have directed the Bush administration to provide by tomorrow a series of documents relating to the politically-motivated firing of a raft of U.S. Attorneys, or, at the very least, a list of the documents the administration says is protected by executive privilege. "Not only are we not going to give you the documents," they seem to say, "but we're not going to tell you which ones we're claiming are protected. Go fuck yourself."

This attitude, of course, is typical of the Bush administration. But seriously, guys: at least a head fake toward the rule of law wouldn't be totally out of line. These guys have interpreted Article II, Section 1 to mean they can do whatever the hell they want to do, from letting oil and gas companies write the country's energy policy, to torturing detainees at Gitmo, to doing an end-run around what's left of the checks and balances after seven long years.

In the latest manifestation of legal prestidigitation Whack-a-Mole, it looks like the issue is headed to the courts. I don't have very high hopes for a good resolution coming from Roberts and company. At this point, it's a waiting game.

Cheney not part of the Executive Branch? Go with it.

2007-07-07T18:35:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post today has an article describing the dwindling of Cheney's power and influence in the West Wing. It's about time. The article mentions the embarrassment caused by Cheney's statement that he's not really part of the Executive Branch, on the count of he's really in charge of the Senate, where he has the power to break ties. So Cheney's power is kind of like throwing fire in Rock, Paper, Scissors: a very powerful move, but a one-and-done type thing. I think we should go with this. Let's boot the Dark Lord (and his puppet, too) from the Executive Branch. Let him break a tie in the Senate... Perhaps something on the order of whether or not to commend the Boy Scouts on their homophobic stance, or something symbolically repugnant but effectively harmless like that. Then, he can't exercise that power again. Let him hide away to his "undisclosed location" until November of 2008. Then, sweet Jesus, evict that crotchety bastard to make room for a Democrat.

Welcome.

2007-07-07T10:10:00.000-04:00

Welcome to Cogitozone. This blog, as the title implies, is a place where thought is of paramount importance and where logic rules the day. I intend to use it to comment on events both large and small, monumental and inconsequential. The one common thread will be the pointing out of inconsistencies, logical fallacies, and irony in the world today. I expect never to run short on material. Enjoy.