Civilized Invective

Aaron Brown Gesphincto At CNN

2005-11-03T23:30:00.000-08:00

I always considered Brown a cross between Frank Burns and a rodent. But Jonathan Klein opines: (With commentary goodness non-italicized)

We have made some programming decisions which will impact our prime time schedule as well as our colleague Aaron Brown. Aaron will be leaving CNN and is very much looking forward to some well-deserved time off with his family. (In much the same way Jack Torrance was...) Aaron has made enormous contributions to CNN since his groundbreaking anchoring of Sept. 11th through the war in Iraq to the Tsunami to the recent hurricanes. (And other various Bush-bashing in which we have engaged.)

Outside of the big stories, on a nightly basis, Aaron has provided our audiences with insight into the events of the United States and the world with eloquence and the highest journalist integrity. (Along the same lines as Dan Rather.) Besides his stellar work as an anchor, Aaron stands as an absolutely brilliant writer, evident by the thoughtful perspective he injects into every story he touches. (Think non-WASP Brian Williams.) Personally, I will miss Aaron and his wicked sense of humor. We cannot thank Aaron enough for the skills and professionalism he brought to CNN. Given his respect throughout the industry, there is no question that he will be missed. (But not enough to keep me from firing his ass.)

A MoDo Deconstruction

2005-11-03T16:42:00.000-08:00

Katie Roiphe, of Slate, has an amusing take on the life and loves of Maureen Dowd here.

She is, at her best, a brilliant caricaturist of the political scene, turning each presidency into vivid farce.

What a well-written phrase and a better summation of why I think her commentary has become superfluous, in these more challenging times, than I could have written. Read the whole thing.

Harry Reid, Or How I Stopped Worrying And Learned To Love A Republican Majority

2005-11-03T07:59:00.000-08:00

David Brooks has a pretty good riff on Harry Reid and his conspiracy theories that led him to invoke Rule 21 and send the Senate into a closed, secret session:

Harry Reid sits alone at his kitchen table at 4 a.m., writing important notes in crayon on the outside of envelopes. It's been four weeks since he launched his personal investigation into the Republican plot to manipulate intelligence to trick the American people into believing Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Reid had heard of the secret G.O.P. cabal bent on global empire, but he had no idea that he would find a conspiracy so immense.

Reid now knows that as far back as 1998, Karl Rove was beaming microwaves into Bill Clinton's fillings to get him to exaggerate the intelligence on Iraq. In that year, Clinton argued, ''Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.''

These comments were part of the Republican plot to manipulate intelligence on Iraq.
Reid now knows that in the late 1990's, Dick Cheney and other Republican officials used fluoridated water in the State Department and other government agencies to brainwash Clinton administration officials into exaggerating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

In 1997 Clinton's defense secretary, William Cohen, went on national television and informed the American people that if Saddam has ''as much VX in storage as the U.N. suspects'' he would ''be able to kill every human being on the face of the planet.''

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright compared Saddam to Hitler and warned that he could ''use his weapons of mass destruction'' or ''become the salesman for weapons of mass destruction.''

Harry Reid sits alone at his kitchen table at 4 a.m. Odd thoughts rush through his brain. He cannot trust the letter "r", so he must change his name to Hawwy Weed. Brian Lamb secretly rules the world by manipulating the serial numbers on milk cartons. Reid realizes there is only one solution: 'Must call a secret session of the Senate. Must expose global conspiracy to sap vital juices! Must expose Republican plot to manipulate intelligence!

The whole column can be read at Times Select, or one of the approximately 10,000 website that post Times Select material for free.

Ouch Is Right

2005-11-02T21:11:00.000-08:00

"I was part of that wild and crazy Class of '94 that shook the political landscape by taking over the House after more than 50 years of unfettered Democrat control. We came to Washington full of ideals and conviction. But sadly, what they say about absolute power is coming to reality in the 2005 GOP Washington. Republicans in just 10 years have developed the arrogance it took the Democrats 30 years to develop."

-- Former Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK), writing in the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

I remember the excitement of working for a Republican Congressman in 1994. I recall talking to newly-elected Senator Rick Santorum. To Speaker-Apparent Newt Gingrich. The possibilities seemed endless. Now J.C. Watts is right. How sad.

Sliding Headlong Into Irrelevancy

2005-11-02T10:37:00.000-08:00

The formidable Michelle Malkin has been all over the way in which the New York Times omitted part of a letter a soldier serving in Iraq had written to his girlfriend if he were to die in service to his country. He subsequently did, which is tragic. The Times, however, had a broader (and leftist) point to make in covering this story. Read Malkin's coverage for yourself.

As this chart shows,

the last couple of years haven't been pleasant ones for owners of NYT stock. The brilliant move of Times Select doesn't seem to be helping matters much either. Not only does the Old Gray Lady face increasing competition from the blogs and other alternative media, but its consistent arrogance in dealing with claims of bias has turned many readers, and subscribers, off. Good.

Only Black Liberals Need Apply

2005-11-02T07:38:00.000-08:00

The treatment of Michael Steele, a Republican African-American running for the Senate in Maryland, is a national disgrace. From the Washington Times:

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican. Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.

But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious." "There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

So what Frizzell Gray, Mfume's real name, is saying is that he really meant to be the president of the National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People. Will Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton be rushing to Steele's side to defend him from this obvious racism?

It's On.

2005-11-01T12:18:00.000-08:00

The U.S. Senate prepared to go into closed session Tuesday after Democrats enacted a rare parliamentary rule forcing the shut down of the Senate so senators could speak in a classified session about the lead-up to the war in Iraq.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid demanded the chamber be closed so they could hold a secret session that they say was prompted by "misinformation and disinformation" given by President Bush and his administration prior to entry into the war in Iraq.

What an idiotic move by Reid. What he has effectively done is open the door for unilateral actions within the Senate. Did he have the right to do so? Absolutely. Will it come back to bite him in the ass? You betcha.

If Bush has been accused of bowing to his base in nominating Alito, will Reid also be called to task for such a partisan ploy meant to serve as a sop to the far-left and a prelude to the parliamentary tactics he might use in the Alito confirmation process? Unlikely.

What Reid has done is now made it a little easier for moderate Republicans, like Snowe, Collins, and Chafee, to oppose not only the Democrats' tactics but positions as well. Also, it seems pretty clear that Harry can't count to 51, because with the G.O.P. in control of the Senate, and Vice-President Cheney there to break ties, this is a battle he can't win.

The text of Rule 21:

1. On a motion made and seconded to close the doors of the Senate, on the discussion of any business which may, in the opinion of a Senator, require secrecy, the Presiding Officer shall direct the galleries to be cleared; and during the discussion of such motion the doors shall remain closed.

2. When the Senate meets in closed session, any applicable provisions of rules XXIX and XXXI, including the confidentiality of information shall apply to any information and to the conduct of any debate transacted.

Cindy Sheehan For President

2005-11-01T11:32:00.000-08:00

No, this doesn't come from The Onion, but The Village Voice.

The "C" Word

2005-11-01T08:50:00.000-08:00

The MSM, prodded by a torrent of talking points from liberal interest groups, has seemingly come to the conclusion that Justice Alito's real name is The Conservative Alito, and not Samuel. Why am I not surprised?

Can his views be considered conservative? Yes. Those in favor of his nomination should not shy away from that appellation. But note, if you will, the number of time groups like the Alliance For Justice, People For The American Way, the ACLU, are described with the term liberal. Why would the decline to be so labeled? These groups are exceeding liberal but still have the temerity to proclaim, at least publicly, that they are only desirous of a Justice "in the mainstream", a mainstream defined, of course, in their own terms.

In politics it is always easier to attack rather than defend which is why these liberal interest groups will spend millions of dollars villifying Judge Alito. But will any ads be run stating what they really want in a Justice?

It's Alito, I'm Elated

2005-10-31T13:42:00.000-08:00

President Bush's selection of Samuel Alito for the Court is the choice he should have made the first time. Yes, the predictable howls of protest are already coming from the perpetually aggrieved Chuck Schumer and the liberal interest groups, which is a good thing.

Supreme Court nominations are one of a very small number of things that last long after a particular presidency is over, so these choices are important. (Just ask W's father about that.) Therefore, the "L" word, and in Washington it is legacy and not love, gets used when discussing whom to pick for the Court. But there is another way to create a legacy, and I hope Bush seizes this opportunity as well. Have a national debate, in the context of this nomination, over the role of the judiciary in American life.

If Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, and Harry Reid have a strong belief regarding the power a judge should have in interpreting or "discovering" laws, let's hear it. Shouting "Roe!" doesn't count. Condemning Bush's choice with "outside of the mainstream" and "radical" will not suffice either. In the confirmation hearings, through press conferences, via the Internet, they should explain and expound on the legal philosophy that makes Ginsburg a fantastic justice but Scalia evil incarnate. In other words, make a case for why not only Alito but others with his judicial philosophy should be precluded from the federal bench.

Let the surporters of Alito make their case. And let the American people decide whom they prefer.

Economic News From Ace

2005-10-28T15:47:00.000-07:00

From Ace at Ace of Spades who in addition to being a solid blogger is hilarious. (News in italics, Ace's comments in bold.)

What's An Economy Gotta Do To Get A Table Dance?

- Economic activity expanded at an energetic 3.8 percent annual rate in the third quarter, providing vivid evidence of the economy's stamina even as it coped with the destructive forces of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The latest snapshot of the country's economic performance, released by the Commerce Department on Friday, even marked an improvement from the solid 3.3 percent pace of growth registered in the second quarter.

Growth in the third quarter was broad-based, reflecting brisk spending by consumers, businesses and government.

"Holy Katrina! The economy weathered two major hurricanes and in spite of that showed accelerated growth," said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. "I think what this shows is that fundamentally the economy was and is in really good shape."

In related news, Paul Krugman just tried to hang himself, but he was too f'n' short to reach the noose.

He blames Karl Rove.

More On Scooter Libby

2005-10-28T15:27:00.000-07:00

The 22 page indictment seems reasoned and doesn't overreach and if Libby is found guilty then he should be punished. I read a transcript of Patrick Fitzgerald's press conference and he was very specific in his answers and didn't speculate as to intent or much of anything beyond the scope of his inquiry.

This is an opportunity for Republicans; although having the Chief of Staff to the Vice President indicted isn't a good thing for the White House or the G.O.P. if they accept Fitzgerald's conclusions, while allowing Libby to vindicate himself in court if he can, it will provide a contrast to the Democrats in 1998 who vociferously argued that Bill Clinton lying under oath wasn't even really a crime worthy of punishment.

Libby Indicted

2005-10-28T10:04:00.000-07:00

From the WaPo, "Scooter" Libby has been indicted.

A federal grand jury today indicted Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, after a two-year investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's identity but spared -- at least for now --President Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove.

Libby was indicted on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements. The indictment charged that he gave misleading information to the grand jury, allegedly lying about information he discussed with three news reporters. It alleged that he committed perjury before the grand jury in March 2004 and that he also lied to FBI agents investigating the case.

I have yet to read the indictment on Libby so I will reserve judgment but the way in which Fitzgerald is handling the Rove investigation seems unfair: the Sword of Damocles is left to hang over Rove allowing the pundits and Left to still speculate gleefully that he may yet be indicted.

And since all Libby did was lie to a grand jury, I am sure MoveOn.org will be advocating a censure and return to full duties as Cheney's Chief of Staff. Right? Hello?

Paul Krugman Supports Bush Fed Nominee

2005-10-28T08:32:00.000-07:00

Really. Why?

Obviously I'm pleased, too. Full disclosure: Mr. Bernanke was chairman of the Princeton economics department before moving to Washington, and he made the job offer that brought me to Princeton.

Because Bernanke is one of the few perceptive souls to notice Krugman's unalloyed brilliance, of course.

The Next Nominee

2005-10-28T07:05:00.000-07:00

Now that the unpleasantness of the Harriet Miers nomination is behind President Bush, where does he go from here? It is a lock that whomever he nominates will be excoriated by the Democrats and left-wing interest groups, so why not go for broke? Pick the fight he should have picked when he chose Miers.

And here is a question I hope, wistfully, that will be asked by one Senator during the upcoming confirmation hearings: What are your thoughts on the 18th and 21st Amendments?

If one needed any proof that the Constitution works as the Framers designed it to work one need look no further than Prohibition. Those who favored temperance (damn them) didn't go before the Court in an attempt to convince five Justices that somewhere in the Constitution alcohol was proscribed; they instead availed themselves of the amendment provision, and through the state and federal legislatures changed the law of the land. In the same way, proponents of the manufacture, importation, and sale of alcohol (bless them) had the previous law invalidated by a subsequent amendment.

Why isn't this same approach applied to abortion? Why are those who favor or oppose the procedure disinclined to have a law passed allowing it or forbidding it? Might such a law, like those relating to prohibition, be subject to the will of the electorate and changed? Of course. But isn't that the whole point of having a republic in the first place?

Are we as a nation willing to be governed by nine unelected quasi-legislators?

A Miers Post-Mortem

2005-10-27T23:31:00.000-07:00

Here.

#41 and #43 are loyal, and in Washington that is a rare trait, but it brought them to grief in Court nominations.

George H. W. Bush relied on John Sununu to arrive at appointing David Souter, and that has been an abject debacle. So when #43 asks those of us with an originalist bent to support his instincts, there are going to be problems.

I feel for Harriet Miers, a deer in headlights who never should have even been considered for the Supreme Court. She displayed a lot of grace and character, usually lacking in Washington, in withdrawing her nomination. Now it is time for President Bush to pick some one with "a fair amount of the ready", in this case meaning intellect and judicial provenance.

Karl Rove Not Indicted...

2005-10-27T19:41:00.000-07:00

But Fitzgerald wants the grand jury extended. What a shock.

If "Scooter" Libby is indicted, as appears to be the case, he needs to resign. But does anyone expect a Democrat to stand up in the well of the House or Senate and lament what is beginning to appear to be another investigation without limits?

Shortly thereafter, the Easter Bunny will appear on the Hill for a presser.

Miers Withdraws

2005-10-27T11:30:00.000-07:00

Thank God. The WaPo has the details.

This was a disaster from the start and the fact that Miers has the grace to withdraw saves the Bush Administration, and Miers herself, what would have been an embarrassing confirmation hearing and the growing likelihood of her being rejected by the Senate. (And in a spasm of immodesty, this was something I predicted on October 4th.)

It is entirely possible that this is the first executive nomination affected by the advent of blogs and if it was, good. Instapundit, Michelle Malkin, Ann Althouse, Captain's Quarters, Polipundit, along with a lot of others helped derail this train wreck. Bravo.

Charles Krauthammer was prescient:

Finally, a way out: irreconcilable differences over documents.

For a nominee who, unlike John Roberts, has practically no record on constitutional issues, such documentation is essential for the Senate to judge her thinking and legal acumen. But there is no way that any president would release this kind of information -- "policy documents" and "legal analysis" -- from such a close confidante. It would forever undermine the ability of any president to get unguarded advice.

That creates a classic conflict, not of personality, not of competence, not of ideology, but of simple constitutional prerogatives: The Senate cannot confirm her unless it has this information. And the White House cannot allow release of this information lest it jeopardize executive privilege.

Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities, and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers's putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition.

Did Krauthammer write Bush's statement too?

I understand and share her concern, however, about the current state of the Supreme Court confirmation process. It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel. Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her.

I am grateful for Harriet Miers' friendship and devotion to our country.

Judith Miller Is On Her Way Out

2005-10-26T09:07:00.000-07:00

From the Wall Street Journal:

New York Times reporter Judith Miller has begun discussing her future employment options with the newspaper, including the possibility of a severance package, a lawyer familiar with the matter, said yesterday.

The discussion about her future comes several days after the public rupture of the relationship between the Times and Ms. Miller, a 28-year veteran of the paper. Both the editor and the publisher of the Times have expressed regret for their unequivocal support for Ms. Miller when she spent 85 days in jail for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating the unmasking of a Central Intelligence Agency operative.

Apparently the Times has had quite enough of Saint Judy, First Amendment Martyr. The indictments to be issued this week will only be the next chapter in what will continue to be an unfolding story; there is still more to this than meets the eye.

Clearly if White House staffers are named, and the speculation is that is a virtual certainty, then they will have to resign and face prosecution. (Note to the Left: They are innocent until proven guilty.) But in the same way it came to light that many unsavory characters were involved in the various investigations of the Clintons (about which more in a future post) I have a feeling the same will be true here.

Expect this to be elevated to a "gate", Plame-Gate, by the end of the week.

Leave Cindy Alone

2005-10-25T13:32:00.000-07:00

Grieving mother/media whore/compensated speaker Cindy Sheehan is at it again. This time, in celebration of the 2,000th casualty in Operation Iraqi Freedom, she is going to chain herself to the fence outside the White House.

I'm going to go to Washington, D.C. and I'm going to give a speech at the White House, and after I do, I'm going to tie myself to the fence and refuse to leave until they agree to bring our troops home," Sheehan said in a telephone interview last week as the milestone approached. "And I'll probably get arrested, and when I get out, I'll go back and do the same thing," she said.

I have a suggestion: Leave her there. Don't arrest her, don't forcibly remove her from the fence. Let her sit there. I suspect that after about 15 minutes, once the prearranged media photos have been taken and more banality issues forth from an unstable mind, she will get tired of no longer being the center of attention and go home. Or perhaps she might run with scissors around the Ellipse.

It's Bernanke

2005-10-24T14:49:00.000-07:00

The President has named Ben Bernanke as the new head of the Federal Reserve. Although he has expressed a desire to continue Greenspan's policies Bernanke is less of an inflation hawk and Wall Street is reacting to the news by rallying the market, perhaps in hopes that the Fed will slow its tightening of the money supply.

Up next, the confirmation hearings which promise to be hilarious because most Senators know less about economics than a pig knows about Sunday. There are going to be a lot of prepared statements and questions read verbatim off a piece of paper. Kind of like Daniel Akaka does with everything.

On the other hand, Bernanke hired Paul Krugman at Princeton...

Washington Waits

2005-10-24T08:03:00.000-07:00

The indictments in the Judith Miller/Valerie Plame leak case, such as they may be, will be issued from Patrick Fitzgerald's office this week; the grand jury disbands on the 28th and Fitzgerald will wait until mid-week for maximum press coverage and a strong tie in to the Sunday morning pundits. It is the way Washington works.

Their scope will determine what Bush will be able to accomplish in the remainder of his second term. One can argue the merits of Fitzgerald's case but in the end, as always, it is perception that counts more than any notion of objective reality. Not helping matters for the White House are the concurrent investigations of the former House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, and the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

I have avoided speculation about who may be indicted because it is irresponsible and I am not privy to anything that would inform an intelligent opinion. It is safe to say however, that no indictments against key persons in the White House is a vindication, an indictment of Libby alone is a real problem, and indictments of both Rove and Libby is a disaster.

Thus far Fitzgerald has kept his cards close to his vest and has avoided the appearance of politicizing the process; after the indictments are handed down all hell will break loose. For the Democrats it will be payback time for the investigations of Bill Clinton and I anticipate Howard Dean and others to use the indictments in fundraising efforts, candidate recruitment, earned media, etc. Were the shoe on the other foot Republicans would do no less. There will be an immediate call for impeachment hearings and my bet is that John Conyers, the embarrassment from Michigan, will make this request.

Second term presidencies have almost universally been difficult, one only need note Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and the breadth of Fitzgerald's indictments may well determine the agenda of George W. Bush's next three years in office. More to come...

Maureen's Meow

2005-10-23T11:02:00.000-07:00

Maureen Dowd, who has not gone off to sea but only now resides behind the curtain of Times Select, weighs in on the Judy Miller affair.

Once when I was covering the first Bush White House, I was in The Times' seat in the crowded White House press room, listening to an administration official's background briefing. Judy had moved on from her tempestuous tenure as a Washington editor to be a reporter based in New York, but she showed up at this national security affairs briefing.

At first she leaned against the wall near where I was sitting, but I noticed that she seemed agitated about something. Midway through the briefing, she came over and whispered to me, "I think I should be sitting in the Times seat."

It was such an outrageous move, I could only laugh. I got up and stood in the back of the room, while Judy claimed what she felt was her rightful power perch.

She never knew when to quit. That was her talent and her flaw. Sorely in need of a tight editorial leash, she was kept on no leash at all, and that has hurt this paper and its trust with readers. She more than earned her sobriquet "Miss Run Amok."

So Mo is miffed that Judy took her seat? Did Maureen pass notes to her friends about this later in math class? Although Maureen goes on to raise some valid points about the lack of oversight the Times exercised over Miller's reporting, and the honesty of that reporting, to open up a column with an anecdote like this trivializes her arguments.

Perhaps Maureen can heal this breach with Judy with some shoe shopping followed by some Cosmos at the Four Seasons.

The Drumbeat Continues...

2005-10-22T09:30:00.000-07:00

George Will succintly makes the point many of us have been trying to make over the Miers nomination:

In their unseemly eagerness to assure Miers's conservative detractors that she will reach the "right" results, her advocates betray complete incomprehension of this: Thoughtful conservatives' highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution's meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result. Indeed, in an important sense, the path that the Supreme Court takes to the result often is the result.

Kaus On The NYT

2005-10-20T11:43:00.000-07:00

The essential mistake was thinking you could replace a centralized, dictatorial regime with a looser decentralized regime and not have old power centers rise up and sow mischief and chaos--resulting in something close to civil war. ... But I've written enough about the New York Times under Bill Keller...

Ouch.

Brooks And The Republican Base

2005-10-20T11:29:00.000-07:00

From behind the wall of Times Select, brought to you by The New York Times, (now with 52% less profit and exclusive web content!!), David Brooks:

Republicans are not panicked. They know that if the election were held today, their base would stay home, but they look over at the Democrats and say: Thank God for Nancy Pelosi. Thank God for Howard Dean. They see that Dean refers to his base as ‘’merlot Democrats,'’ and it confirms their suspicion that the opposition party is really run by imbeciles.

The odd thing is that the Democrats, who have the self-assurance of a beaten dog, feel this way about themselves. Most sense, in their heart of hearts, that they are the Palestinians of American politics: they’ll never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The most common word I hear from Democratic partisans to describe their own party is ‘’pathetic.'’

All true, but as I have written before, Republicans can't run against the establishment any more and the slogan "we're not as bad as the other guy" isn't too inspiring.

Dead Air America

2005-10-20T09:52:00.000-07:00

Also from the Washington Post:

Air America, the liberal talk network carried on WWRC-AM (1260), went from bad to nonexistent. After WWRC recorded a mere fraction of a rating point in the spring with syndicated shows from the likes of lefty talkers Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo and Stephanie Miller, Arbitron couldn't detect a measurable listenership for the station this time around.

Interestingly, the same is true of an EEG hooked up to Franken or Garofolo.

Heh.

More Miers

2005-10-20T09:16:00.000-07:00

Well, as if this nomination wasn't already taking on water and listing to one side, now the WaPo reports this.

It seems as though Miers doesn't even completely understand the Constitution. At this rate, any confirmation hearing is going to be deeply embarrassing for both Miers and the Bush Administration, especially when contrasted with John Roberts' performance, in which he never referred to a note, had trouble placing or expounding on a particular case, or conferred with any colleague.

Some day the behind the scenes story of how this airball of a nomination will be told but for now it is time for pull it. The only possible explanation for Bush's intransigence is that it has been a rough few months and he may be inclined to dig in his heels. This would be a mistake.

Waiting

2005-10-19T08:33:00.000-07:00

I have no idea who, if anyone, is going to be indicted over the Valerie Plame leak, but the rumors are flying in Washington. The latest has Cheney resigning and Condoleezza being appointed Vice President.

Look, if anyone of any importance in the White House is indicted it is bad news and that person needs to resign. Yes, even if those accused in this country are innocent until proven guilty; a higher standard is called for here. On the other hand, resigning is not an admission of guilt.

The problem with the "who is getting indicted" game is that if for some reason Patrick Fitzgerald doesn't name Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, or Dick Cheney, then it will appear that they "got off" because all three have already been indicted by the court of public opinion. Even without an indictment, many on the Left will still call for resignations.

As this story has been evolving I have avoided writing about it because so much press coverage was based on rumor and innuendo but we are getting to the point now where Fitzgerald is going to have to do something by October 28th, when the grand jury disbands. More to come...

Miers Is Done, Part MVCIX

2005-10-13T09:15:00.000-07:00

Now comes David Brooks

I don’t know if by mere quotation I can fully convey the relentless march of vapid abstractions that mark Miers’s prose. Nearly every idea is vague and depersonalized. Nearly every debatable point is elided. It’s not that Miers didn’t attempt to tackle interesting subjects. She wrote about unequal access to the justice system, about the underrepresentation of minorities in the law and about whether pro bono work should be mandatory. But she presents no arguments or ideas, except the repetition of the bromide that bad things can be eliminated if people of good will come together to eliminate bad things

Please, for the love of God, withdraw her.

Miers Is Toast, Part III

2005-10-13T00:50:00.000-07:00

Now this.

I'm sorry, but I would take a Zoroastrian (named Vilma, even) who has a Constructionist/Originalist background over a Christian with no verifiable constitutional philosophy. This is exactly what I was afraid of: The White House is in full pander mode and it is going to come back to haunt them.

Spare Miers the hearings and withdraw her now. Pick a qualified candidate and have the debate in the public square over the role of the Court in American life.

More Gore Bore

2005-10-13T00:30:00.000-07:00

Oh yeah, Al is running.

"I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again," Gore told reporters after giving a speech at an economic forum in Sweden.

Easy there, General Sherman, don't be too unequivocal. Is this new version of Al the "Dickens Gore", who like Pip is waiting to have his great expectations thrust upon him? Is Howard Dean Magwitch?

"We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us," he said, referring to Iraq. "We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families."

You have to give him credit; a swipe at Iraq and class warfare in the same breath. He's still got it. Of course, Gore would have put Iraq in a "lock-box" and how can you fault him for that? The Clinton-Gore foreign policy was such a resounding success, wasn't it?

"We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media. We would not be routinely torturing people," Gore said. "We would be a different country."

I can't embellish on this forehead-vein-throbbing rant. There was also the old global warming riff as well which I am sure was especially well received in balmy Sweden.

Here is the best way to tell if Gore is running: his weight. In 2001 Gore could have had his own zip code, he has slimmed down considerably since then. If he drops another 20, bet the farm he is running.

Wednesday's Non-Onion Satire

2005-10-12T09:49:00.000-07:00

All right, funny is funny. Go here for a theory on Bush's nominee for Alan Greenspan's replacement.

This Just In From Syria...

2005-10-12T08:21:00.000-07:00

Syrian Interior Minister Ghazi Kenaan has committed suicide, according to the Syrian Arab News Agency. Kenaan, one of several Syrian officials who has been investigated for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, apparently shot himself in the head six times in his office.

Bashar Assad was unavailable for comment.

Gore Is Running

2005-10-11T08:57:00.000-07:00

Just when the prospects looked less than exciting for the Republicans in 2008, rumblings have been emanating from that seemingly inexhaustible font of outrage, Al Gore. In a recent speech the former Vice-President laments the "grave danger" faced by American democracy, and no, he is not talking about George Soros' attempt to buy the 2004 election. His talk has all of the hallmarks of the beginnings of a Nixon-like comeback, which is bad news for Democrats.

Watching John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore, all of whom feel that they are somehow entitled to an eight year stay at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, fight it out in the primaries will be a sight to behold. Even more intriguing will be the political calculus used to determine each candidate's positions on the issues and this will most certainly benefit Mrs. Clinton, who is bright enough, and opportunistic enough, to triangulate between Kerry's Leftism and Gore's Lunacy. The icing on the cake will be witnessing the fourth Horseman, Governor Dean, try to deal with this Hydra of self-centeredness and political vanity. The biggest losers if this comes to pass are the second tier candidates, like Wesley Clark, because there just won't be enough oxygen in the room for him and others like him.

Kerry and Gore are each a joke in their own way and the Democrats learned from the likes of Adlai Stevenson not to re-nominate damaged goods, although with an eight year hiatus from the political scene, again reminiscent of Nixon, Gore has a much better chance. But both Gore and Kerry, like the Republicans, underestimate Hillary Clinton at their peril. She is going to be an amazingly charismatic campaigner and, more importantly, a disciplined one as well.

The Republicans do not have a very strong group of prospective candidates for the 2008 election, although Giuliani and McCain have the star power to make it a race against whomever the Democrats nominate. (I support Rudy.) Now if the far-Right will only let them get through the primaries and happily accept half a loaf rather than no bread at all.

George Will Is Pissed

2005-10-10T13:13:00.000-07:00

And he has every right to be. This article expresses what many conservative and libertarian Republicans have been feeling in the last several years, a time in which, disturbingly, the G.O.P. has held the executive branch and both houses of the legislative branch. The money quote:

(Tom) DeLay, who neither knows nor cares any more about limited government than a camel knows or cares about calculus, probably will never return to the House leadership, and might even be voted out of the House in 13 months.

The Republicans may be heading into a winter of discontent and largely one of their own making.

Why Bush Can't Win

2005-10-10T09:28:00.000-07:00

After being excoriated over the slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina, the media is distorting the attempts by the Bush Administration to develop a plan to deal with an outbreak of the Avian (H5N1) Flu.

Yes, such an outbreak would be a global pandemic, the likes of which we have not seen since 1918, but isn't it prudent to begin developing plans now to minimize the spread of the virus? This is what the Bush Administration is trying to do and such an effort should receive immediate and unqualified bipartisan support. But alas, that may not be forthcoming. Welcome to Washington.

From the NYT article:

The plan outlines a worst-case scenario in which more than 1.9 million Americans would die and 8.5 million would be hospitalized with costs exceeding $450 billion.

It also calls for a domestic vaccine production capacity of 600 million doses within six months, more than 10 times the present capacity.

On Friday, President Bush invited the leaders of the nation's top six vaccine producers to the White House to cajole them into increasing their domestic vaccine capacity, and the flu plan demonstrates just how monumental a task these companies have before them.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration's efforts to plan for a possible pandemic flu have become controversial, with many Democrats in Congress charging that the administration has not done enough. Many have pointed to the lengthy writing process of the flu plan as evidence of this.

Clearly, we need more vaccines. But what are the specific objections the Democrats have to a plan that is still being formulated? In the above-referenced "worst case scenario" the military would have to become involved and it would likely require quarantines, some of which may be in higher density and lower socio-economic areas. Will irresponsible charges of racism be invoked if that is the case? (The same will be true, to an even greater degree, in a relatively racially homogeneous and densely packed cities like Tokyo, Seoul, or Mexico City.)

As far as the writing process of the flu response plan, this is not something one does on the back of a cocktail napkin. Every major cabinet position in the government would be involved, as well as overturning or suspending the Posse Comitatus Act. Formulating a plan is going to take longer than a Christophe haircut. The fact that our occasionally syntactically challenged President held forth on this subject in a reasoned and eloquent fashion in his press conference is a sign of how seriously he takes this threat. The action our government takes may come not a moment too soon.

Gratuitious Shot of the Day

2005-10-10T09:18:00.000-07:00

The injustice and indignity continues; Professor Paul Krugman is again passed over for the Bank of Sweden's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. He obviously wasn't critical enough of Bush. Oh, wait, that is for the Peace Prize. Sorry.

Harriet Miers Is Toast, Cont'd

2005-10-07T08:01:00.000-07:00

Charles Krauthammer makes valid points in his op-ed.

Bush has had, up until recently, a pretty good ear for the politics of his supporters. Not now. As a lawyer friend of mine said tonight: It is like Bush rolled out of bed, showered up, and headed off to the press conference naming Miers. If anyone had known what he was going to do, they wouldn't have let him near the podium.

In withdrawn nominations there is a certain set of events that seem to recur: a lack of support that turns into opposition, the nominee getting initial support from the President, the old "I have confidence" speech, and then the opposition begins to metastasize into hostility. Soon thereafter is the "with regret" speech of a withdrawn nomination.

As I have written before, Roe always gets the press but what many are concerned with, myself included, is Kelo. There is never going to be a better time to debate the merits or perils of activist judges and, if anything, such a debate may help Bush and his current low approval numbers. Less than a year ago, the President talked about his willingness to expend political capital; it is time to get out the wallet.

Louis Freeh Speaks

2005-10-06T11:37:00.000-07:00

Louis Freeh, in his upcoming interview with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes this Sunday, excoriates Bill Clinton. (Thanks Matt.) Freeh appears on the venerable C.B.S. show to support his new book which details the icy relationship between the former Director of the F.B.I. and President Clinton.

Cue the Democratic/Clintonista attack machine. Who will strike first? My money is on Sidney Blumenthal, the political eunuch who has stood by Bill and Hill with Cocker-Spanielesque loyalty, allowing the former President and Senator from New York to stay above the fray.

If Michael Scheuer's book needs to be taken seriously, so should Freeh's. More on this once I have a chance to read it.

Miers Is Done, Part II

2005-10-06T10:51:00.000-07:00

More conservative ire over this nomination.

Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, Souter. The 'trust me' argument will not, and should not, placate those who want a debate over the proper role of the judiciary in this country. Within a week Miers will withdraw her name, citing the usual reasons which never tell the whole story, and Bush will be back to looking for a new Justice.

Could this have been a Trojan horse? Is Karl Rove that brilliant? After all, he can control the weather, so why not something as trivial as this? Here comes Priscilla Owen...

Why Times Select Is Doomed.

2005-10-05T10:27:00.000-07:00

Just read Maureen Dowd's newest column; she has substituted Sex In The City references with Desperate Housewives references. She's like Aristotle, Locke and Hobbes all rolled into one!

Of course I didn't pay for the privilege of reading this meringue of political wisdom, sweet but unfulfilling; I merely Googled the blogs to find it. Google and Technorati have become the Napster of opinion columns. Didn't the Times see this coming? Could they have missed the fact that the Internet can disseminate information far easier than it can repress it? (Unless one is in China and greedy companies help to suppress free speech, of course.)

Sony's CD anti-pirating technology came to grief through a 99 cent Marks-A-Lot; subverting the wall of Times Select was even cheaper than that.

Money quote from a Dowd/Paul Krugman/Frank Rich column site:

Agree totally with your complaint about the NY Times . . . and isn't it interesting that the most liberal columnists are the ones you now have to pay to read? Unlike you, however, I don't feel a bit guilty reading them for free!

Good luck to ya, Pinch.

Miers Won't Be Confirmed.

2005-10-04T16:30:00.000-07:00

There, I wrote it.

FEMA should be managing this confirmation process.

The problem here isn't one specific issue; it is rather the combined weight of Miers lack of judicial experience, a dearth of any apparent or demonstrable legal philosophy, her close personal ties to President Bush, and the obviousness of picking her as a "diversity" candidate. Bush calling her "the most qualified" person available is embarrassing.

It is one thing for a nominee to be considered conservative and then demonstrate what is considered a "moderate" streak throughout the confirmation process; it is quite another for the White House and other Republican interest groups to have to gin up enthusiasm through extolling her conservative virtues. The usual liberal suspects, the Alliance for Justice, PFAW, NARAL, etc., will obligingly sit back and then attack Miers with statements made in her defense. So conservatives will still be unhappy while providing the club with which the liberals will beat the nominee. It is a no-win situation.

Another problem for Miers is that she follows close on the heels of one of the most accomplished and masterful confirmation hearing performances in history, that of John Roberts. I may be proven wrong but it is hard to see how Ms. Miers can even come close to the standard of the current Chief Justice.

Lastly, as has been written, Bush has backed away from a battle he should be willing to fight. Through his nominations to the high court President Bush has the "bully pulpit" through which he can act as a catalyst for a national debate on jurisprudence and the role of the judiciary in a republic. Short of that, all of the dialogue and campaign rhetoric about the dangers of activist judges is nothing more than writing in the sand.

Update: Kurtz weighs in.

Update 2: George Will also opines, and it isn't pretty.

The NYT Harriet Miers Editorial

2005-10-04T09:21:00.000-07:00

At some point the editorial writing from the Gray Lady will have to be put behind the wall of Times Select; it is just that abysmal.

It is a sign of the times that President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was greeted with so many sighs of relief. Ms. Miers's record is so thin that no one seems to have any idea of what she believes, and she was clearly chosen because of her close ties to the president, not her legal qualifications. Still, there is no evidence as yet that she is an ideological warrior who would attempt to return American jurisprudence to the 18th century, and these days, the nation seems to be setting the bar for almost everything pretty low.

No evidence as yet that she would attempt to return jurisprudence to the 18th century. Is this a bad thing? Would the editorial board want to overturn Marbury? (It was written in 1803, by the way.) Can there be anything more telling than the idea that returning to interpreting the Constitution is disturbing to the Times? And as far as the accusation that Miers is an "ideological warrior"; does this mean that William O. Douglas was a "moderate", the favorite, if entirely misplaced, encomium of the NYT for a Leftist activist? Yes, the nation is setting the bar low these days and it is particularly true of the editorials emanating from our national newspapers.

Ms. Miers's resume gives at least some reason to hope that she could be a moderate, pragmatic judge in the mold of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose seat she will fill if she is confirmed. She has spent much of her career in corporate law firms and bar associations, environments that encourage pragmatism over ideology.

My guess is that the Times will define “pragmatism” about the same time they start correcting the legion of factual errors in the columns that comprise Times Select. Currently, there are more Krugman corrections than there are columns, something I wouldn’t have even thought possible.

The far right of the Republican Party will oppose anyone who has shown signs of moderation, and Senate Democrats will try to block anyone who has not. Rather than select a strongly qualified candidate from the legal mainstream, President Bush has taken the easy way out by choosing a less accomplished nominee who will raise fewer political problems.

Well, there you have it: The Republicans are the party opposed to moderation, the Democrats are expositors of that “virtue”. Also, note that the “far Right” is mentioned but the “far Left” is not. Perhaps the Times doesn’t think there is such a thing.

Of course the NYT will oppose this nomination.

A Thousand Cuts Or The Kitchen Sink?

2005-10-03T16:08:00.000-07:00

Tom DeLay has now been indicted on money laundering charges. More here.

Although it is too early to really understand if DeLay is guilty or innocent it is beginning to imperil Bush and the G.O.P.'s effort to get back on message. Is this stuff politicized? Of course it is because Washington plays a zero-sum game and the Democrats smell blood in the water. Their biggest problem right now is finding someone who isn't ethically challenged to act as their point person. The usual hacks, like Richard "Pol Pot" Durbin and Chuck "FICO" Schumer have been largely silent. I would also imagine that Hillary will prudently avoid a discussion on fundraising. This looks like a job for... Barack Obama.

DeLay is further hampered by the fact that many conservatives are unhappy with his lack of fiscal discipline and the fact that over the last 10 years in power he has come to represent many of the things he held in contempt in 1994. At what point does DeLay become so damaged by these charges that he ceases to be effective, even if he is acquitted? Does the White House and Republican leadership want to fight for what may be a Pyrrhic victory?

Souter Redux?

2005-10-03T11:12:00.000-07:00

Harriet Miers.

Although most people might not know it, only two of the nine Justices currently serving on the Supreme Court were appointed by a Democrat. This is problematic for Republicans because two appointments, John Paul Stevens and David Souter, elevated by Presidents Ford and Bush #41 respectively, have been, to be charitable, disappointing.

Now Bush #43 has appointed Harriet Miers, a woman who has worked with him in his capacity as governor and president but who has never been a judge and has little judicial provenance. This should be disturbing to those who wish to see the court as an arbiter and not an interpreter. If recent history is a guide, and by recent history I mean David Souter, stealth nominees are a gamble and one not worth taking.

In the coming weeks we will learn more about Ms. Miers and the process by which she was selected but I can't help but think that, in light of his recent job approval ratings, Bush might have been disinclined to nominate someone that would have caused a bitter battle in the Senate. This is a mistake, because this is a fight worth having. I'll take having Schumer, Durbin, Biden, etc., as opponents every day of the week.

Instead Bush has nominated Aunt Bee, a loyal friend but undistinguished. So is my retriever.

The Roberts nomination was inspired, this one seems contrived. Bush should have done better.

Update: Hugh Hewitt thinks I and others like me are silly. I hope he is correct. But wouldn't he agree that she wasn't the best pick?

Update #2: Michelle is on to something...

What Julie Myers is to the Department of Homeland Security, Harriet Miers is to the Supreme Court. (Video of the announcement here via NYT).) It's not just that Miers has zero judicial experience. It's that she's so transparently a crony/"diversity" pick while so many other vastly more qualified and impressive candidates went to waste. If this is President Bush's bright idea to buck up his sagging popularity--among conservatives as well as the nation at large--one wonders whom he would have picked in rosier times. Shudder.

Howard Dean's Secret Memo

2005-10-01T02:30:00.000-07:00

To: DSCC, DCCC, & NYT (Except David Brooks)
Fr: Howard Dean, DNC

YEEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH! It has been a good week, hasn't it?

In light of recent events, I'd just like to make a few recommendations. First, mention Hurricane Katrina whenever possible. For example, in response to the confirmation of John Roberts, an effective answer might be: "While I am disappointed that John Roberts has been confirmed as Chief Justice, what about the justice for the victims of Katrina? Or, if asked what the Democrat exit strategy is in Iraq, since we haven't come up with one yet, you might answer with "A lot better than FEMA's exit strategy for those fleeing Katrina!". Then move on immediately to the next question. No point in getting into specifics, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Louisiana Governor Blanco are Democrats, after all.

Along these same lines, we want to work Tom DeLay as often as we can.

Q. Will the Democrats in the Senate even make an attempt to work with the White House on the nomination of (fill in the blank, it doesn't matter who Bush nominates, we're going to oppose it.) to the Supreme Court, or will they use the fillibuster to delay confirmation?

A. That is a very good question. We are very troubled by the actions of Tom DeLay...

See how easy that is!

Find a way to mix in Bill Frist and the sale of his HCA stock as well; remember the standard to which we hold the Republicans is the mere appearance of impropriety; for us, as Al Gore demonstrated, it is "controlling legal authority". (Senator Clinton, the commodities queen, might want to lay off this one.)

Lastly, don't forget Bill Bennett. Mention him whenever possible expressing maximum outrage. (Note: Exclude Senator Byrd from this.)

If we move forward with this strategy we can't help but do well in 2006. We may even take back Congress. If that happens, at some point, eventually, we will actually have to develop a plan for governing.

We can all talk our future strategy over dinner. Senator Schumer, you're buying! You still have Lt. Gov. Steele's credit card numbers, don't you?

Damn You, Scott Ott!

2005-09-30T21:18:00.000-07:00

I learned a valuable lesson tonight: do not have liquid in your mouth when going to Scrappleface. This is particularly true of brandy, which is quite painful in the nasal passages.

The headline:

NARAL Applauds Bennett's Pro-Choice Remark

Read the whole thing. If there is a better satirist working today, show me.

Someone Worth Reading

2005-09-30T16:35:00.000-07:00

I am embarrassed to say I have only now discovered Michael Totten. Go to his site and bookmark it. Roger Simon, an admirer, calls him a liberal so I am going to add him to the blog roll as such, but his writings are too damn good to classify so easily.

The guy also walks his talk. He has the stones (or whatever gender-specific adjective you prefer) to be on his way to the Middle East to write for the next six months. He arrives in Lebanon today. Safe travels, I look forward to your posts.

Michael is from Portland. The next time I am there, and if you are around Michael, the Clear Creek Brandy is on me.

Bennett's Gaffe

2005-09-30T13:30:00.000-07:00

Bill Bennett is a bright guy who said something stupid.

Bennett, on his radio show, "Morning in America," was answering a caller's question when he took issue with the hypothesis put forth in a recent book that one reason crime is down is that abortion is up.

"But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."

Steve Levitt's book Freakeconomics, the book referenced by the caller, is a tour de force largely because it does something few books do today; propounds arguments a posteriori. Levitt readily concedes his hypothesis that legalized abortion correlates to a lower crime rate may be morally offensive to some. But the manner in which he marshals his facts, and the disinterested way in which he is an explicator of them, is powerful. (This is why I have contempt for Paul Krugman, yes, Clark Medal Winner Krugman [in 1991; Levitt won it in 2003]. Krugman starts with the premise "Republicans are bad, George Bush is worse, and then, as if at a buffet, picks and chooses the facts that conveniently support this belief.) Levitt also writes about why Sumo wrestling is probably fixed, why it might not be in the best interests of a homeowner to use a Realtor, and how teachers cheat on behalf of their students on standardized tests, so his book is largely apolitical.

Mr. Bennett should apologize, if he already hasn't. It was ill-advised to pick a specific race in order to make his argument; Bennett's opposition to abortion is well-known and now instead of discussing the morality of abortion we are discussing the immorality of racism. He shouldn't attempt to explain his way out of it. Having done that, the matter should be closed, in the same fashion that Jessie Jackson's remark that New York City was "Hymietown" was dropped.

Kurtz: The Horror!

2005-09-29T12:57:00.000-07:00

Howard Kurtz knows what the hell he is talking about in the matter of Tom DeLay. Some choice excerpts:

Back in January, House Republican leaders backed off a rule change that would have allowed senior officials in the chamber--say, maybe the House majority leader--to hold onto their posts even if indicted.

Boy, that looks huge right now.

The leadership caved because of rank-and-file complaints that the party would send a lousy message by protecting one of its leaders who was charged with a crime. And with Tom DeLay's indictment yesterday, it's clear why they were so worried. DeLay stepped aside within minutes.

Yes, trying to change the rules at the beginning of the year was a disgrace and it did send a lousy message from the party that claimed, in 1994, to be the party of reform.

Some Repubs are reacting by criticizing the indictment--exactly the sort of thing they scoffed at when Clinton and his allies were ripping Ken Starr's tactics. Sean Hannity (with Colmes banished for the segment) told his first guest he couldn't figure out what the indictment was about. The guest? Tom DeLay, who called the case "ridiculous." Interestingly, DeLay complained about the "politics of personal destruction," a phrase popularized by Bill Clinton, whose ouster the Texan crusaded for ("Anybody who lies to a grand jury ought to be impeached.")

All true. But who watches Hannity and/or Colmes for discourse, or Crossfire, for that matter? Want a reasoned discussion, try the NewsHour or Charlie Rose, both on P.B.S.

"As ye sow, so shall ye reap." This is a lesson the G.O.P. is learning now. Was President Clinton, in the words of Nebraska Democrat Senator Bob Kerrey an "unusually good liar"? Of course. Did he embarrass and perjure himself over Monica? Yes. Was that muted by Republicans hounding him for six years previously with TravelGate, TrooperGate, WhiteWater, and on and on? You betcha. Did the G.O.P.'s impeachment of the president hurt them? Ask former Congressman Jim Rogan about that...

If DeLay is convicted, throw him in jail and out of Congress. Make sure he is stripped of his federal pension, while you are at it. But beware those who already profess his guilt; these are some of the same people who believed in Lynne Stewart's innocence even after her conviction and Martha Stewart's guilt before her indictment. (And for the love of God, don't take this as an endorsement of Martha.)

The Hammer Gets Nailed

2005-09-29T12:30:00.000-07:00

Tom DeLay's indictment, and the response it has evoked, has unfolded in a manner that is entirely predictable. Republicans have reviled the prosecutor as a Democrat partisan with an obsession of bringing the House Majority Leader down. Democrats have spun the indictment as the work of a thoughtful and meticulous prosecutor who has complied unassailable evidence of DeLay's guilt. Both may be true.

I haven't been a fan of DeLay's tenure as Majority Leader; some of aspects of his personality that made him a very effective Majority Whip have rendered him unpalatable for the higher profile of Leader. To be sure, he is no more offensive than Senator Schumer of New York, that is an unreachable standard, but considering the way in which the Republicans spoke about governing in 1994, and what has happened since then, most of the G.O.P. management of the legislative branch has been disappointing. His recent comments on pork and governmental spending, noted in a previous post, are particularly appalling.

DeLay's behavior, and his reaction to criticism of it, is reminiscent of Dan Rostenkowski's arrogance: l'etat cest moi. (For future reference, allow me to point out that Rostenkowski, who pled guilty to mail fraud, was pardoned by President Clinton in 2000.) Controversy has swirled about DeLay for years and much of it he has brought upon himself though his words and deeds. The "liberal media" argument doesn't hold water here. He has stepped down as Majority Leader, as he should have; let the judicial system do its job.

Deb Saunders, an acute observer of the political scene and a conservative who writes for, are you sitting down?, the San Francisco Pravda, oops, Chronicle, has an essay today on the real troubles with DeLay of which his latest legal entanglements are just icing on the cake.

A political party is in big trouble when a criminal indictment may be the best thing that could happen to it. Yet it may well be that the indictment by a Texas grand jury of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay finally prods GOP biggies to stumble before a mirror and take a long look at what they have become. Only a mother could love the bleary, bloated faces staring back.

DeLay most certainly is guilty of losing touch with the American public. You could see it in his recent statement that the GOP-controlled Congress had cut all the fat in federal spending. Even before Katrina, domestic spending -- not including homeland security and defense -- rose $303 billion since 2001, according to the American Conservative Union. Yet DeLay, who says he wants less government, declared "victory" on overspending.

Defiant in his own defense, DeLay faulted "the politics of personal destruction" Wednesday. No, like the GOP giant Newt Gingrich before him, DeLay should recognize the politics of self-destruction. It's an old story. A scrappy young man goes to Washington to change the political culture, only to become the very things he once resented -- a defender of bloated government and a party hack who put power before principle. But he doesn't change the system, it changes him.

A Glimmer Of Hope

2005-09-29T08:04:00.000-07:00

Go here to read about the actions of Nevada Senator John Ensign who is one of the few members of Congress who seem to want to do something about pork. (Thanks, Professor Reynolds.)

Making substantive headway against federal spending run amok has to start somewhere and it sounds like this group is on to something. I am hopeful that they can attract a few Democrats as well.

International "Freedom" Center Nixed

2005-09-29T08:00:00.000-07:00

In a story first reported by NY1, Governor George Pataki has cancelled plans to build the controversial International Freedom Center at the World Trade Center site - and representatives of the center say the location change has forced the entire project to be scrapped.

The center had drawn criticism from some 9/11 victims' family members because it would not focus exclusively on the terror attacks. Family members also said the IFC could potentially contain exhibits that were anti-American. Pataki said Wednesday that he's given the center a chance to clarify its intentions, but there's just too much opposition. In a statement, Pataki said: “The creation of an institution that would show the world our unity and our resolve to preserve freedom in the wake of the horrific attacks is a noble pursuit. But freedom should unify us. This center has not.” The governor asked the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to work with the IFC to explore other locations for the center, but representatives of the center have decided to scrap the idea completely.

Good. And, according to the Maureen Dowd theory of grieving mother/media whore/compensated speaker Cindy Sheehan, anyone who lost a loved one at the World Trade Center speaks with "absolute moral authority", right?

Family members from support groups gathered Monday at the site to launch a campaign to "take back the memorial" weeks after a model for the first cultural building was unveiled.

"If the memorial fails to convey how we as Americans value the loss of life, if it fails to tell the story to those who visit 100 years from now, then we as a nation have failed," said Mary Fetchet, founder of Voices of September 11th, whose son, Brad, 24, died in the twin towers.

The site of the 9/11 attacks is not the forum to discuss anything other than the barbarity of the attacks, the heroism of those who died in trying to save others, and the resilience of a great nation. Imagine the outrage had interest groups insisted on a display of the "root causes" for the actions of Timothy McVeigh. Christ, even Hillary triangulated against the I.F.C.

Econ 102, Continued

2005-09-28T20:51:00.000-07:00

Well, I had to shoot my mouth off, something that isn't an uncommon occurrence, unfortunately.
Jayanta Sen, a Ph. D in finance from the University of Chicago and professor at Ohio University has posted a link in the "comments" section that should be investigated regarding oil prices, taxes, and government regulation.

http://econstimulusgastax.blogspot.com

Good luck and bring your math with you. My only hope is that Ketel One makes me smarter...

Thanks for visiting, Jayanta.

Econ 102

2005-09-28T08:12:00.000-07:00

If Paul Krugman wasn't proof enough that most journalists don't know the first thing about economics, the Post's editorial this morning should lay any doubts to rest. After making the inevitable Jimmy Carter/cardigan sweater comparison to Bush's call to conserve energy, comes this:

If Mr. Bush really wants to promote more careful energy consumption, he ought to tax it.

Of course! Because taxes are the answer to everything!

Precisely because consumers are already outraged by fuel prices, a further, tax-induced price increase would force demand down more sharply than it would in normal market circumstances.

I am sure the airline and trucking industries will be delighted with this proposal. Does the Post further consider the degree to which an added surcharge on fuel would be inflationary? Put another way: Look around you. How much of what you see got to you through transportation? Who absorbs the cost of higher fuel taxes? Every American consumer not living in a fortified compound somewhere in Idaho. (Which is starting to sound like an attractive alternative.) Homeowners, many of whom are leveraged due to current high housing prices, must also be enamored with the idea of higher inflation and, as a result, higher interest rates.

But the sharp reduction in demand would cause the pretax fuel price to fall sharply, too, offsetting the after-tax increase.

So as I understand it, the Post is saying that their genius plan to reduce oil consumption, and therefore the price of oil, will successfully keep prices right where they are, but with more taxation. Brilliant!

What about more oil exploration? Tax incentives for companies (especially start-ups) to develop alternatives to the internal combustion engine? A national plan for more refineries? Clean-burning coal? Shale oil? Nuclear power? The WaPo is strangely silent.

Such jejune writing reminds me of what Reagan once said about those with a similar philosophy:

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it."

Oh Dear God

2005-09-27T07:46:00.000-07:00

The Reliable Source has this gem:

Senator Ben Affleck.

If you liked him as Bennifer . . . you'll love him as Benator!

That's the hot new idea being tossed around by Virginia Democrats, who are desperately searching for a big name to challenge the reelection bid of rising GOP star Sen. George Allen next year, now that outgoing Gov. Mark Warner has ducked out.

How low can the Democrats go? Affleck, the Art Garfunkel to Matt Damon's Paul Simon, doesn't even have the talent to act the part of a Senator. I have furniture smarter than him.

On the other hand, Caligula made his horse a Roman Senator.

"Hey Ben, what's two and two?" (Stomp. Stomp. Stomp. Stomp.)

Yawn.

2005-09-26T13:49:00.000-07:00

Grieving mother/media whore is at it again, and as you can see, she is positively disconsolate over the loss of her son and arrest.

Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who became a leader of the anti- war movement following her son's death in Iraq, was arrested Monday along with dozens of others protesting outside the White House.

Sheehan, carrying a photo of her son in his Army uniform, was among hundreds of protesters who marched around the White House and then down the two-block pedestrian walkway on Pennsylvania Avenue. When they reached the front of the White House, dozens sat down _ knowing they would be arrested _ and began singing and chanting "Stop the war now!"

Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests. One man climbed over the White House fence and was quickly subdued by Secret Service agents.

Sheehan, 48, was the first taken into custody. She smiled as she was carried to the curb, then stood up and walked to a police vehicle while protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching."

The Post Bats .500

2005-09-26T08:22:00.000-07:00

An editorial in the Post this morning is, in light of its previous support of John Roberts, confusing.

Yes, the argument for diversity on the Court is laudable, but how would the MSM feel if Bush picked an African-American woman like Janice Rogers Brown? They would be apoplectic. Because that is not the kind of diversity they mean; they are talking about what they consider ideological diversity, by which they mean "moderate" which is another way of saying "liberal".

Their accusation of Justice Thomas being the most "radical" member of the Court is laughable. What about Justices that look to the opinion and laws of foreign countries to help guide their interpretation of the United States Constitution? Isn't eviscerating the takings clause and allowing the indiscriminate use of eminent domain radical?

The Post, like many on the Left, have a reverence for stare decisis that is... convenient. Yes, such a philosophy should guide all nine Justices but if it required absolute fealty, would we ever have had Brown? Would the Post care to defend such respect for precedent in such a case?

The disheartening fact is that for many stare decisis means "upholding Roe" and little else. Certain residents of Connecticut may beg to differ.

Times Select Update

2005-09-23T13:27:00.000-07:00

Mickey Kaus is on top of the Times Select story and does a better job writing about it than I have.

When Words Fail

2005-09-23T10:41:00.000-07:00

This doesn't seem to be a hoax.

POCATELLO - To the rest of the country, Scott Stevens is the Idaho weatherman who blames the Japanese Mafia for Hurricane Katrina. To folks in Pocatello, he's the face of the weather at KPVI News Channel 6.The Pocatello native made his final Channel 6 forecast Thursday night, leaving a job he's held for nine years in order to pursue his weather theories on a full-time basis.

"I'm going to miss that broadcast, but I'm not going to miss not getting home until 11 p.m.," Stevens said. "I just don't have the hours of the day to take care of my research and getting those (broadcasts) out and devoting the necessary research to the station."It was Stevens' decision to leave the TV station, said KPVI general manager Bill Fouch.

"When Scott signed his current contract, he told Brenda and me at the time that it would be his last contract," Fouch said Thursday. "We knew, but the timetable moved up because of all the attention (he's been getting.)"

Since Katrina, Stevens has been in newspapers across the country where he was quoted in an Associated Press story as saying the Yakuza Mafia used a Russian-made electromagnetic generator to cause Hurricane Katrina in a bid to avenge the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima. He was a guest on Coast to Coast, a late night radio show that conducts call-in discussions on everything from bizarre weather patterns to alien abductions. On Wednesday, Stevens was interviewed by Fox News firebrand Bill O'Reilly.
Stevens said he received 30 requests to do radio interviews on Thursday alone.Fouch said Stevens wanted to leave as quickly as possible because his "plate is full," and he needs to take advantage of the opportunities that exist now.

Stevens said he's received offers that he's not at liberty to discuss.Stevens, 39, who was born in Twin Falls, plans to remain in Pocatello, where his family remains. He said his family wishes him the best in his future endeavors.

It costs him hundreds of dollars each month to run his Web site, weatherwars.info, but he said that's a price he's willing to pay."There's a chess game going on in the sky," Stevens said. "It affects each and every one of us. It is the one common thread that binds us all together."
Although the theories espoused by Stevens - scalar weapons, global dimming - are definitely on the scientific fringe today, there are thousands of Web sites that mention such phenomena."The Soviets boasted of their geoengineering capabilities; these impressive accomplishments must be taken at face value simply because we are observing weather events that simply have never occurred before, never!" Stevens wrote on his Web site. "The evidence of these weapons at work found within the clouds overhead is simply unmistakable. These patterns and odd geometric shapes seen in our skies, each and every day, are clear and present evidence that our weather has been stolen from us, only to be used by those whose designs for humanity are rarely in alignment with that of the common man."

However, Stevens never discussed his weather theories on the air during his time at Channel 6 - an agreement he had with the station management. What the meteorologist chose to do in his off time was his business, said his manager of eight years.Fouch said he would miss Stevens, whom he described as energetic, easy-going and enthusiastic about the weather, but he is supportive of his decision to pursue his passion.

"His theories are his theories," Fouch said. "But, if you think about it - of all the TV weather people, he continues to be the most accurate. It isn't his theories getting involved with his professional job."For Stevens, however, the recent attention to his theories has been somewhat of a distraction from work."When there has been so much attention, it gets in the way of them doing their jobs and me doing my job," Stevens said.

Why can I not get the image out of my mind of Stevens being chased by two men in white outfits with gigantic butterfly nets?

Ginsburg For Congress

2005-09-23T00:14:00.000-07:00

After this performance, she should resign and become a legislator. An embarrassing display...

Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an audience Wednesday that she doesn't like the idea of being the only female justice on the Supreme Court. But in choosing to fill one of the two open positions on the court, ''any woman will not do,'' she said. There are ''some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights,'' Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association.

Ruth, sweetheart, if you want to advance human and women's (aren't women, you know, human?) rights the go work for the U.N., run for office, or start a special interest group. But, and here is the "take away" part of this post: Get the fuck off the Supreme Court. Your job is not advocacy; it is jurisprudence. This is true for your eight colleagues as well, most of whom are a lot more discreet when it comes to discussing usurping their positions to subvert the Constitution to their own ends.

Ginsburg stressed that the president should appoint a ''fine jurist,'' adding that there are many women who fit that description. ''I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me,'' she added during a brief interview Wednesday night.

Surprising, since I am sure your opinion would carry such weight with the White House. I recall during Bill Clinton's presidency when Bill and Antonin, or "Nino" as his close friend the President would call him, sat around and talked about who Clinton should appoint. Where in Article 3 is advise and consent? Ginsburg is becoming the (female!) Lionel Hutz of the high court.

During the session, which was attended by hundreds, Ginsburg defended some of the justices' references to laws in other countries when making decisions, a practice strongly opposed by some U.S. legislators. The justice said using foreign sources does not mean giving them superior status in deciding cases. ''I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it,'' she said. ''I don't want to stop at a national boundary.''

There is a Latin term used in the law: res ipsa loquitur, which translates into "the thing speaks for itself" So does Ginsburg's idiocy. And she was confirmed 96-3.

The Canard Of Racism

2005-09-22T14:01:00.000-07:00

David Broder has a piece in WaPo on Bush, race, and New Orleans. As usual it is thoughful and thought provoking, unlike a lot of the recent dialogue from others, like, say, Jesse Jackson.

A major drawback to becoming a knee-jerk political ideologue is that once your reputation has been established all subsequent statements and actions are viewed with suspicion or dismissed outright. Does anyone take Jesse Jackson seriously any more and if so, why? Here is a public figure who purports to want to end racism and does so by judging every action and utterance of others through the prism of race. A compendium of inflammatory and irresponsible statements by Jackson would make War and Peace look like a pamphlet so there is little need to list them here.

The real question is this: to what degree have many of Jackson's insidious and often opportunistic allegations led a great many people to dismiss real racial injustice out of hand? When the Reverend shouts "racism" regarding the response to Hurricane Katrina is his voice heard outside of his amen corner?

It is inarguable that all forms of racism still exist in this country, including the kind practiced by Jackson, so we as a society still have a lot of work to do. Are there causes deeper than merely skin color that come into play? A few come to mind.

There is a strong correlation between race and economic stratification in America as well; this is evidenced in the fact that although it is true that Katrina affected black more than whites there are several factors implicated in that outcome. First, New Orleans is 67.25% black, (according to the 2000 census) so no matter what, African-Americans will feel a greater impact than say, Asians (2.26%) or whites (28.05%). What we do not yet know, and may never fully understand, is if more than 67% (a proportional effect) of the people affected by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans were black. For the sake of argument, let's assume they were. Why?

Aside from racial demography, economic factors must be considered as well. In 1999, the per capita income for whites in New Orleans was $31,971. For blacks it was $11,332. This is not a typo; the per capita income for whites was nearly three times what it was for blacks. (It should also be noted that in Louisiana the rate of white income to black is double, $20,488 versus $10,166.) So is this inherently racist? Not necessarily, and although it is nearly impossible to discern the true economic impact of racism it has to be conceded that race alone cannot solely responsible for this type of per capita income disparity.

Let's look at education, which strongly correlates to income, particularly true in a school district with a student population that is 93.5% black. In the Orleans Parish, the average expenditure per student is $7,296, not an inconsequential sum. And what does this buy? A school system in which, by its own standards, 46% of the schools are deemed academically unacceptable. (The state average is a little over 5%, by way of comparison.) An additional 26% of the schools are on academic warning. A mind-numbing 72% of the educational system there is effectively broken. Where is the accountability? Where are the claims of racism? A school district that is 93% black has nearly $7,300 spent per student and all it buys is failure? It couldn't have to do with the fact that the teacher's unions are, after the trial lawyers, the single largest contributors to the Democratic Party, could it? And what possible defense could there be in this case for not implementing vouchers? Wouldn't one want to empower the overwhelmingly black parents of school children with a credit of over $7,000 to find the best education that money could buy?

Furthermore, in the same Orleans Parish School District, nearly one in five (18.8%) of students do not graduate from high school. (Source: La. Department of Education) Again, this in a district that spends over $7,000 per student.

Another factor in success in life, and therefore a method of avoiding poverty, is becoming educated before having children and having a family under the auspices of marriage. This metric, from the federal government, is therefore interesting: Illegitimacy rates differ dramatically by state, from 17 percent in Utah to 56 percent in the mostly black District of Columbia. The next highest states are Louisiana, Mississippi, and New Mexico (all 47 percent). Half of all children in Louisiana are born out of wedlock. (I have been unable to find numbers specific to New Orleans.)

The good news is that the illegitimacy rate has been dropping; the bad news is that at the rate of decline it will take 115 years to return to the 22 percent level of the early 1960's that was a prime cause for Lyndon Johnson's War On Poverty.

Think about these numbers for a moment.

No public figure, or political party, has all the answers. It is beginning to look like those sources may not have any of the answers. But two things seem abundantly clear: that $6 trillion dollars and 40 years later conditions for the impoverished, of all races, haven't improved and that there is an inescapable, if broad, connection between personal repsonsibility and the manner in which one's life unfolds. Our government has done enough regarding the former and has little, if any, control over the latter.

The proper method of riding a dead horse is to dismount. In our quest to help the poor in this country, what do we do now?

The DSCC & Dirty Tricks

2005-09-22T07:33:00.000-07:00

Two opposition researchers working for Sen. Charles Schumer at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee obtained copies of a confidential credit report on Maryland's Republican lieutenant governor, prompting calls for their prosecution.

In July, committee research director Katie Barge and Lauren Weiner, a junior staffer, used Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele's Social Security number to get his credit report, according to a Democratic official familiar with the case.

The committee, which works to elect Democrats to the Senate, has been compiling research on Steele, Maryland's highest-ranking African-American official, a GOP contender for the U.S. Senate seat to be vacated by Democrat Paul Sarbanes in 2006.

Where is Jesse? If this isn't a case of racism, after all Lt. Gov. Steele is African-American, what is? Are Barge and Weiner white? Shouldn't we know this? When will Bob Herbert weigh in from the Times? Where is the outrage? Can Al Sharpton tear himself away from grieving mother/media whore Cindy Sheehan?

"The DSCC immediately ensured that Mr. Steele's credit report was not used or disseminated to anyone," added Singer, who called the matter an "isolated incident."

Singer offered an apology to Steele and said the committee has put in safeguards to ensure that incident isn't repeated.

Well is that a relief!

Will Schumer fire these two staffers that have committed a crime? Will he personally apologize to Mr. Steele? Will the media cover this at all?

At The Public Trough

2005-09-21T13:15:00.000-07:00

Glenn Reynolds of InstaPundit must have been exactly the kind of guy Al Gore was thinking of when he invented the Internet. The latest on PorkBusters.

I will note than Don Young,mentioned in Glenn's post, is a Republican. With Members like this, I am so glad that the G.O.P. took back the House in 1994! Imagine where we would be without the type of fiscal restraint practiced by Chairman Young.

It seems to me that the only way something like PorkBusters is going to work is if Americans outside of individual districts get involved nationally. Rep. Young doesn't want to reconsider a boondoggle bridge? Fine, then I'll cancel my trip salmon fishing to Alaska and let my guide know why, along with Alaska Airways and the Anchorage Hilton. Sure it is trivial and insignificant in the big picture, but if enough people starting putting economic pressure to put an end to this sort of crap then there is an outside chance something might change. Otherwise, what disincentive does a voter in Alaska have to make Young change his porcine mind?

By the way, Young is an "at large" Member, which means he represents the entire state. His number in Washington is (202) 225-5765. You can email your thoughts on his bill here.

With Friends Like This

2005-09-21T08:39:00.000-07:00

Via The WaPo:

The senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee announced Wednesday he will vote to confirm John Roberts for chief justice of the United States after leading senators met with President Bush to discuss candidates for a second high court vacancy.

The announcement by veteran Sen. Patrick Leahy came amid virtually unprecedented executive-legislative branch jockeying over not one, but two high court openings, the seats left vacant by the death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and the retirement of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Wow. I have to admit some new-found respect for Sen. Leahy. This may be a ploy to vote for Roberts, who put on a clinic at his confirmation hearing, and then vehemently oppose whomever Bush picks to succeed Justice O'Connor. Still, it would have been easier to vote with the party and vote against Roberts. On the other hand...

Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, said "I refuse to vote for a Supreme Court nominee who came before the Senate intent on demonstrating his ability to deftly deflect legitimate questions about his views, opinions and philosophy.

No surprise here. Amazingly, Kerry's ability to deftly deflect legitimate questions about his service in Vietnam was the reason Swift Boat Veterans For Truth began. Has the botox addled Kerry's brain? Then again...

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said he urged President George W. Bush today to delay nominating a replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said he talked to Justice O'Connor about staying on the high court. ``She's prepared to do that'' through the court's term ending in June, Specter said. The president ``was noncommittal,'' Specter said. ``The body language was not very positive,'' Specter said.

I am confused here. Senator Specter purports to be an authority on the Constitution but apparently has confused Article 1 with Article 2. Perhaps he should take a leisurely drive down Pennsylvania Avenue and take note of the large white house located in the 1600 block. From that location emanates the power to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court. The round building from which he traveled has the responsibility to advise and consent.

Any questions?

P.S. This is the same White House, I might add, that supported Specter in a challenge from his right, admittedly a large flank, by a Republican in the primary election in 2004.

The Peril Of Subsidies

2005-09-21T02:46:00.000-07:00

Anne Applebaum raises some good, and uncomfortable, points in her op-ed in today's Washington Post. Putting aside the fact she uses a convenient target, the "notorious" Senator Trent Lott, the question arises: Is Ms. Applebaum willing to pursue her logic to its intellectual headwaters?

She laments, and not without reason, the fact that massive governmental involvement in the recovery of the Gulf Coast is little more than another subsidy program. I agree with her completely, particularly when the professed aim of such a program is to rebuild the same type of structures in the exact same spot where they were so recently destroyed. This area lies in the heart of hurricane country and will suffer the same cruel and capricious fate again sometime in the future. Hurricane Camille, which struck much of the same region in 1969 and cost $1.42 billion dollars, would have cost, in constant dollars and not factoring the growth in the area, $75 billion dollars today. In 35 years from now if yet another hurricane strikes the same area, and the inflation and growth factor from 1969 to the present are roughly the equivalent, that hurricane would cost $3.45 trillion. That is almost a trillion dollars more than the entire federal budget for 2006.

These numbers do not, and cannot, take into account the human toll of the disaster. Our hearts go out to all of those who have lost everything, but must we be forced to proffer our wallets as well? If the answer is yes, how many more times?

Hurricane Katrina has thrust upon us disquieting questions that deserve open and honest debate. Concurrent with this discussion should be the efficacy and fairness of other subsidy programs as well, many of which are legacies from Roosevelt's New Deal and Johnson's Great Society. Will Ms. Applebaum and others like her welcome that colloquy?

Honore In 2008.

2005-09-20T18:14:00.000-07:00

Lt. General Honore, in a press conference regarding Rita and New Orleans, kicks ass and takes names. RadioBlogger is there.

Black Tuesday At The Gray Lady

2005-09-20T16:58:00.000-07:00

Via Editor and Publisher

The New York Times Co. announced a staggering staff reduction plan Tuesday that will likely mean some 500 job losses at the company's many properties, including an expected 45 newsroom positions at The New York Times newspaper and 35 at The Boston Globe.

There is no chance one of these 45 will be Paul Krugman, will it? But wait, with the infusion of cash anticipated from Times Select, you'd think they would be rolling in the dough. I am sure if management took a 25% pay cut, along with all of the columnists, then no one would have to lose their job. But wait, it is much easier, not to say remunerative, to sack the "little people" and blame Bush.

In a memo to staffers, company chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. and CEO Janet Robinson wrote: "We regret that we will see many of our colleagues leave the Company; it is a painful process for all of us. We have been tested many times in our 154-year history as we are being tested now."

Arthur Sulzberger Jr. is fast becoming the Joseph Hazelwood of the newspaper business. He is "running" a newspaper in which circulation is dropping, the ombudsman is openly complaining about one of its op-ed columnists (Krugman strikes again), alternative media is exploding, while the Times is trying to charge for something that is overpriced when it is free.

They promised this would not impact the quality of the paper's journalism.

Oh, THANK GOD! The whole of America was really worried about this.

The Theological Stylings of Cindy Sheehan

2005-09-20T14:15:00.000-07:00

Daniel, who is a better man than I am, actually reads Michael Moore's website. Go here to read Cindy's latest silliness at his blog Life, Liberty, and Property.

Hurricane Arnold Ziffel

2005-09-20T10:00:00.000-07:00

N.B. A Green Acres reference.

Howard Kurtz has a run down of opinion on how much unnecessary spending will be attached, appended, affixed, added, (and I am still just on "A") to the Hurricane Katrina relief legislation. Some highlights:

Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress briefly achieved a balanced budget in the late '90s, but that was in part because a booming economy helped stave off more difficult choices. In the post-9/11 world, Bush's budgets have grown so much-- without a single veto-- that even some conservatives now label him a big spender. The pork-encrusted highway bill, with such "earmarked" goodies as an Alaskan bridge to a nearly deserted island, shows that the Hill isn't serious about spending restraint.

If by "booming economy" one means "Internet bubble" then yes, the budget was balanced briefly, until irrational exuberance collided with earnings per share. Investors learned in a hurry that a singing sock puppet is not the same thing as a business plan. It is also true that Bill Clinton was President at the time, we all remember that, but he was about as happy to cut spending, and work with Republicans, as the guest of honor is at a briss. Lastly, considering how adulatory the mainstream media has been to Bush #43, imagine the reaction if Bush made an effort (and he hasn't, unfortunately) to cut spending? In the aftermath of Katrina much has been made about the poverty of many in New Orleans; how much has been made of the fact that the federal government has spent $6 trillion dollars in the last 40 years in its "War On Poverty"?

Andrew Sullivan suggests the following:

Here's my basic list: postpone or repeal or radically scale back the Medicare drug benefit so it only affects the truly needy; restore the estate tax in full; phase in the means-testing of social security; end agricultural subsidies; kill off all corporate tax relief and the mortgage deduction and move toward a flat tax. That's a start. How many fiscal conservatives will bite these bullets?"

Bzzzzz! Sorry Andrew, wrong answer. Thanks for playing. As much as I hate to admit it, we'll have a flat tax about the same time the Stanley Cup Finals are played in Hell. The worst idea in that litany, and there is a surfeit of them, is ending the mortgage deduction which is the single most important factor in home affordability in the U.S. Most chilling is the idea of moving toward a flat tax, which sounds to me like eliminating beneficial tax breaks like the mortgage deduction, beginning means testing of social security, et al., and commissioning a blue ribbon panel to study the effects of a flat tax, guaranteeing it will never happen. Thank you, no, I remember 1986.

Steve Moore opines:

"When President Bush announced last Thursday that the feds would take a lead role in the reconstruction of New Orleans, he in effect established a new $200 billion federal line of credit. To put that $200 billion in perspective, we could give every one of the 500,000 families displaced by Katrina a check for $400,000, and they could each build a beach front home virtually anywhere in America.

"This flood of money comes on the heels of a massive domestic spending build-up in progress well before Katrina traveled its ruinous path. Federal spending, not counting the war in Iraq, was growing by 7% this year, which came atop the 30% hike over Mr. Bush's first term. Republicans were already being ridiculed as the Grand Old Spending Party by taxpayer groups. Their check-writing binge in response to the hurricane only confirmed, as conservative leader Paul Weyrich put it, that 'the GOP, once the party of small government, has lost its bearings and the Republican establishment doesn't seem to get the message that the grass roots of the party is enraged.' . . .

Mr. Moore is, disappointingly, absolutely right. Excluding the attacks of 9/11 and subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, fiscal restraint in the last five years has been non-existent. True, the deficit has remained pretty consistent as a percentage of G.D.P., but that metric depends upon a robust economy, something that can't continue unabated forever.

Porkbusters is now also tracking Congress and the cuts each member has agreed to make. Check it out and see where your representatives sit on the issue. If not, some day you will be able to travel the Edward Kennedy Expressway, take the Tom DeLay exit, cross the William Jefferson Clinton Bridge, to the Robert Byrd Hurricane Center.

In Fairbanks, Alaska.

Update: Ace has a stomach-turning list of pork from the transportation bill.

Thank you, Mr. Taranto

2005-09-19T14:59:00.000-07:00

The redoubtable James Taranto, of the Opinion Journal, obliges an earlier post (though I wasn't the catalyst) and juxtaposes the NYT's editorial positions on John Roberts and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Click here for the hypocrisy.

Times Select Begins

2005-09-19T08:54:00.000-07:00

From Nicholas Kristof on the Left to Paul Krugman on the Far Left, an Iron Curtain has descended across the pages of the New York Times. Times Select has begun.

Where can one go now to find a Manolo Blahnik reference in a discussion of foreign policy? Who will tell me what evil plans KKKarl Rove (You don't honestly think he spells his name with a "K" instead of a "C" on accident, do you?) has for his weather control device/Ronco Hurricane-O-Matic? How will I know what normal Americans, you know, the kind who live on the Upper West Side, dine often at Le Bernadin, and graduate from Harvard, are thinking?

Dare I summon the strength to go on?

As an aside, am I the only one to find it interesting that the Op-Ed columnists, who never fail to find fault with the idea of a corporation turning a profit while continually lamenting how the Republicans are "disenfranchising" the poor and downtrodden, and the newspaper for which they work, now slightly to the Left of Trotsky, have no problem charging $50 a head to access their propaganda?

I have a better idea: Why doesn't the Times ask Washington to start a government program to both raise revenue for Times Select and provide access? Like our tax system, it would be progressive, so George Soros would have to pay $643,000 a year to access it but someone in inner-city Minneapolis would be paid to read the columns. It would take a bureaucracy to do this, of course, so in the first year the Times would probably wind up getting about $9 per person subscribing to Times Select. In year two, a study would find that the Department of Times Select was woefully understaffed and that amount would drop to $5. In year three, the Times would be writing a check to the government.

Does the Times like this idea? If not, why not?

Update: Ann Althouse describes the process of upgrading.

Arianna

2005-09-18T18:45:00.000-07:00

If the world ended tomorrow, two things would likely survive: cockroaches and Arianna Huffington. And I mean no disrespect to cockroaches in writing this. The latest from Cindy Sheehan, who is still flogging her son's death, along with the misfortune of those affected by hurricane Katrina, to gin up publicity:

Join Cindy Sheehan & CODEPINK for the spirit of Camp Casey as we send Cindy off to the bus tour and send aid to Louisiana ... Friday, September 9 7:30-9pm Agape Spiritual Center 5700 Buckingham Parkway Culver City, CA 90230

Speakers will include: Cindy Sheehan, Arianna Huffington, Jodie Evans of CODEPINK, Jeff Key of Mehadi Foundation & Iraq Veterans Against the War, Eisha Mason of Agape International Spiritual Center & AFSC, Members of Veterans for Peace, Gold Star Families for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, as well as inspiring music from LA women!

Arianna Huffington, the former Miss Ariadne Stassinopoulos, was an author, living in Greece as her name might reflect, who moved to this country in 1980. In 1985 she was introduced to Michael Huffington through Ann Getty, who was kind enough to make a list of the ten wealthiest and available bachelors in California as prospects for her new friend. (Regrettably, Ann forgot to include "sexual orientation" on her list.) The Huffingtons were married in 1986.

After serving in the Reagan Defense Department, Michael Huffington moved to Santa Barbara and effectively bought a seat in the House of Representatives, ousting an incumbent Republican by running to the right of him. At the time, Huffington described himself as a "staunch conservative." After one term in the House, he ran for the Senate against Dianne Feinstein in what was, up until that point, the most expensive non-presidential election in America's history. He spent $28 million, most of it his own money, in losing the race. Arianna was right along side her husband, describing herself as "a political soulmate" of Newt Gingrich.

After losing the Senate race, Michael Huffington publicly announced he was gay and he and Arianna divorced. Shortly thereafter Arianna made the facile switch from conservative to liberal faster than you can say gyros.

She does profess a rather interesting type of liberalism, however. In 2003, when she was contemplating a run for governor in the recall election of Gray Davis, it emerged that:

Although she rails against tax loopholes, Huffington -- despite being wealthy -- paid very little federal income tax the past two years. Her campaign made her tax documents available for several days after she announced she was running but no longer will show them to reporters.

"We've moved on," said Parker Blackman, her press secretary. "That's an old story."

Huffington's federal tax was less than $1,000 for the two past years, despite the fact that she lives in a $7 million Brentwood mansion.

Equally incongruent is her support of the Detroit Project, a group lobbying Detroit to make more fuel efficient cars (which is, in my opinion, a great idea.) while traveling the country often by private jet. (In fairness, Ms. Huffington does drive a Toyota Prius, although it seems to have low mileage. Here is what the Sierra Club sent to shuttle her around in. Thank you, Michelle)

You can't make this stuff up. Also, it should be noted that Ms. Huffington's wealth, in no small part derived from her marriage, came from the company founded by her in-laws. The industry? Wait for it... oil and gas.

How does one say chutzpah in Greek?

Pork Busters

2005-09-18T16:42:00.000-07:00

Truth Laid Bear has put up a site for people to expose pork barrel projects in their home state. This may well be an unintended and unexpected benefit from Hurricane Katrina. Then again, I am an optimist.

I would imagine that every piece of legislation every introduced by Robert Byrd will eventually be listed on the site. (Via Instapundit)

A Broken Clock That Isn't Right Even Twice A Day

2005-09-18T10:42:00.000-07:00

Former President Bill Clinton convinced world and business leaders to commit more than $1.25 billion to address major global problems, ranging from poverty to clean energy.

The three-day event, which coincided with a world summit at the United Nations, included a series of workshops on topics including religious conflict, poverty and the environment.

At a Saturday session, former Vice President Al Gore said Hurricane Katrina should serve as a warning that the world must not ignore the consequences of global warming. "We face a global emergency, a deepening climate crisis that requires us to act," Gore said.

Scientists are split over whether a man-made change in world climate is fueling stronger storms.

At least one recent study suggested that a rise in the surface temperature of tropical seas may be responsible for an increase in the severity of hurricanes. But many say the temperature rise is a natural environmental cycle.

The price of admission was $15,000, and participants were required to commit to some sort of action to help solve a major global problem. If they don't follow through, they won't be invited back to what organizers intend to make an annual event.

One could safely assume, after being subjected to the ravings of the Inventor of The Internet, Mr. No Controlling Legal Authority Himself, The Protean: Wonk Gore, Alpha-Male Al, Maul My Wife Randy Al, The Bearded Philosopher, and, to go back to his days in the House and Senate, Pro-Life Al and N.R.A. Al, (Christ, this guy has reinvented himself more often than Madonna), that most attendees at this year's conference would happily pay $15,000 to get out of attending next year.

Although I am obviously not a fan of the Clintons, who are really the Tom and Daisy Buchanan of the Democrat party, (They were careless people, Tom and Daisy--they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made. --The Great Gatsby) I respect that Clinton is making an effort to do something to make, in his conception, the world a better place. (Sure he has an agenda. This is, after all, the most solipsistic politician in memory but his motives shouldn't negate the good he may do.)

Gore, for his part, has become a parody of himself which is quite an accomplishment. Instead of pulling a Nixon, who famously worked very hard behind the scenes for Republican candidates from 1962 to 1968, creating debts of gratitude and getting to know local representatives and county party leaders that would ultimately lead him back to the White House, Gore has just gone off the rails. He must have given up on his life-long ambition to become president and the bitterness he feels is evident in his increasingly shrill and irresponsible rhetoric.

I am surprised that Gore attended the conference; there have been rumors of a strain in the Clinton-Gore relationship dating back to the campaign of 2000. It would have been interesting, however, to see them together again, such a contrast in style. One man the most adept political figure of his generation, basking in the glow of post-presidential encomia; the other, less Cassandra than Chicken Little, still trying to escape the shadow of his more successful political sibling.

Lost: Credibility. If Found, Please Return it to the New York Times

2005-09-18T08:55:00.000-07:00

The WaPo has two articles on the Roberts nomination, both endorsing his confirmation, one an editorial and another by David Broder, not exactly a fire-breathing conservative, who writes:

The question of whether Judge John Roberts is qualified to be chief justice of the United States has been rendered moot by his performance in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. He is so obviously -- ridiculously -- well-equipped to lead government's third branch that it is hard to imagine how any Democrats can justify a vote against his confirmation.

(Well David, you apparently aren't as imaginative as Sens. Schumer, Kennedy, Durbin, etc., and that is meant as a compliment.)

But the New York Times, in what has to be the biggest surprise since the sun rose in the East this morning, opposes his confirmation.

This got me to thinking that the Old Gray Lady may have a more nefarious purpose for its new Times Select subscription service, which I predict will make NBC's Olympic TripleCast look like a brilliant business decision: By charging for their op-ed writers and archive access, it is going to make it much more difficult for bloggers to find and expose the embarrassing hypocrisy of this once venerable newspaper plunging head-long into irrelevancy.

It would have been nice to have been able to access the Times editorial on the confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and compare it to the logic employed in opposing Roberts for Chief Justice. Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that not only did the NYT support her elevation to the Supreme Court, but also found that her disinclination to answer specific questions on cases that might come before the Court entirely reasonable?

As I get to think about it, is $49.99 a year too much to ask for the opportunity to make invidious comparisons and note the far-left bias of America's "paper of record"? Maybe not.

A Refreshing Change

2005-09-17T14:47:00.000-07:00

Donna Brazile, a talented Democrat political consultant, has a wonderful piece in today's Post.

On Thursday night President Bush spoke to the nation from my city. I am not a Republican. I did not vote for George W. Bush -- in fact, I worked pretty hard against him in 2000 and 2004. But on Thursday night, after watching him speak from the heart, I could not have been prouder of the president and the plan he outlined to empower those who lost everything and to rebuild the Gulf Coast.

This is EXACTLY the type of teamwork we need now. The tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists, the Kos Kids, the trolls at the Democratic Underground, have all been shamed by what Brazile, an African-American from New Orleans, writes. Read the whole article.

I fully expect Ms. Brazile to work her ass off in 2008 to get a Democrat elected President, and Republican strategists ignore her at their peril, but right now we need to work together to get the Gulf Coast back on its feet. I hope there will be more of this spirit of cooperation, from both Democrats and Republicans alike, in this endeavor. This was a class act.

Also, who was it that suggested that in order to aid in the recovery, and help mitigate the expense on the federal budget, each member of Congress should give up on major piece of pork spending in their district? First, we should elect that person to Congress. Second, why isn't this idea getting more attention?

UPDATE: InstaPundit has found some bloggers (imagine that, bloggers breaking a story.) that have found some pork fat.

The Edsel. New Coke. Times Select.

2005-09-15T06:17:00.000-07:00

Thanks for the link, Slate.

Next week, the New York Times will start charging to read their opinion columnists.

No, really, I'm serious.

For $50 per year, you too can have the grand privilege of reading Maureen Dowd's tortured efforts to make her political opinions seem insightful through the use of Sex In The City metaphors. You can read Bob Herbert bemoan racism in this country by deconstructing every action by the government, the private sector, and individuals through the prism of race. (Bob is unaware, apparently, of irony. Hypocrisy too, for that matter.) Frank Rich is included with that $50, and worth every penny too. Where else can you find someone who will blame Bush for everything wrong in the world, up to and including someone eating the last jelly-filled doughnut in the break room? Did I mention Tom Friedman? Operators are standing by! Without this subscription you will miss the chance to read Friedman continually over-reach by wandering out of his area of expertise, foreign affairs, particularly the Middle East, and playing on the freeway of domestic politics and economics. And speaking of economics, we can't leave out Paul Krugman. Hell, he is worth the $50 alone. I mean, where else can you pay so little to witness someone make a complete jackass out of himself in public? The only thing left for this guy to do is to date Divine Brown or attempt to jump the Snake River on a motorcycle.

Krugman is walking proof that an economist is the only profession in which a person can be wrong all the time and never lose his job. He should have told the Times about the elasticity of demand and suggested they pay us to read these hacks.

And an update, via Mickey Kaus:

Calame vs. Krugman: It's taken NYT Paul Krugman only four months to alienate incoming Times ombudsman Byron Calame to such a degree that Calame is taking the argument public, having posted an item complaining that the NYT "Columnist Correction Policy Isn't Being Applied to Krugman." The previous ombudsman, Daniel Okrent, waited until the end of his tenure to do that. ... Krugman must be a joy to deal with! And he'll be in an even less prickly mood next week when he has to effectively offer a supplemental-reading Web seminar on finance to TimeSelect subscribers!

More from Mr. Kaus:

Premium Discontent at the NYT: "No one has argued that we shouldn't do this," says New York Times editorial page editor Gail Collins regarding TimesSelect, the plan under which non-subscribers will now have to pay $49.95/year to read NYT op-ed columnists. Hmmm. One wonders: Has Collins talked to Maureen Dowd? .... P.S.: I actually don't think the Times columnists--Dowd, and Krugman, anyway--will lose their audience the way LAT entertainment critics lost their audience when they were put behind a subscription wall. But that's in large part because Dowd's column, and others, will almost certainly be posted unofficially on various free websites. When the NYT's lawyers shut down one--Dowdster!--another will pop up. That may be why the NYT execs feel they have to also have the columnists do something extra for TimesSelect customers in addition to writing columns. John Tierney is going to run a book club. Thomas Friedman is going to answer his email! Nicholas Kristof will come to your house and bake a cake. ... P.P.S.: It seems to me, though, that the NYT is missing an obvious, lucrative marketing angle. It would be a variant of the idea my college friend Mark had for a Reverse Record Store--you'd go and pay them $11.99 and they'd take your money and use it (along with the $11.99 payments of others) to bribe Paul McCartney to not make an album that year. Similarly, imagine TimesDelete: for $19.95 a month, say, TimesDelete's premium subscribers could vote on one op-ed columnist to take an extended vacation. If more people picked Krugman rather than Brooks, Krugman would get his salary plus a bonus on the condition that he maintain a meaningful silence for several weeks. The race would be tight every month, I should imagine, with Republicans and Democrats trying to outvote each other. But you can't play if you don't pay! I'd say this is surefire, supplemental revenue stream would bring in way more than the puny $20 or $30 million dollars a year the Times might hope to make from TimesSelect, especially if the business model were extended to the news pages. Adam Nagourney--your ship has come in!

The Delusions of Tom DeLay

2005-09-14T08:32:00.000-07:00

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.

Mr. DeLay was defending Republicans' choice to borrow money and add to this year's expected $331 billion deficit to pay for Hurricane Katrina relief. Some Republicans have said Congress should make cuts in other areas, but Mr. DeLay said that doesn't seem possible. "

My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing. Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."

Has "The Distinguished Majority Leader" seen the recent highway bill? The Republicans have been lucky that in the last six years the Democrats have been imploding as a party; that is the only way they have remained in the majority. What happened to the Republican Party of 1994? Have they done nothing but prove Lord Acton's theory that power corrupts?

The words government and efficient are oxymorons, most people understand this, and DeLay's statement is moronic. Is this the face Republicans want of their party; an ethically-challenged controversialist who apparently finds government spending, and waste, only a problem when the opposition is in power?

Unless things change soon the Democrats will be able to run, in 2006 and 2008, as a party of fiscal restraint and sound foreign policy. Who would have thought this was ever possible?

The Questions Roberts Won't Get From The Democrats

2005-09-13T08:36:00.000-07:00

Sen. Kennedy: "Judge Roberts, let's say a young man from a well-known family is involved in an accident. This young man has a very bright future in, public service, let's say, and someone is hurt in this accident. I'm sorry? Well, killed, actually. And it takes this person a while to report it to the police. How long? Well, let me put it this way, it makes the 18 1/2 minute gap in the Nixon tape seem really short. Anyhow, if this person is really sorry for what happened, I mean, the damage to his career could be tremendous and this person was from a prominent family, but if this person feels badly over what happened, would a suspended sentence be acceptable in such a case?"

Sen. Biden: "Along those same lines, Judge Roberts, let me ask this: Another young man gets a very important job, let's say for the sake of argument 29 years old and Senator, respectively, and some day wants a sort of promotion. In the course of trying to get this promotion, he, well, he sort of borrows from a speech made by someone else in his line of work. It is entirely innocent, mind you. He hasn't broken any laws, has he?

Sen. Durbin: "Thank you for your patience in answering these questions, Justice Roberts. If I might, I would like to play a little word game. I am going to give you the names of four things, and you tell me which one doesn't belong. Pol Pot, a Soviet Gulag, Guantanamo, and Nazis. No, I'm sorry Judge, that was a trick question. They all belong together. I yield back my time."

Sen Schumer: "I'd like to ask a question about me, if I could. About what I think and about what I plan to do. Now if I, Senator Charles Schumer, wanted to do something I really wanted to do, could I? I want to say that Hurricane Katrina was invented by Karl Rove to kill black people. I am protected by the First Amendment, aren't I? I really want to know how this might affect me, personally. And since you are under oath, you have to admit that I am a handsome man. I mean, look at me! I thought you would agree with me, after all, I am right! But really, enough about me, we are here to ask you questions. Mine is this: what do you think of me? And if I might ask, could the camera remain on me while Judge Roberts answers the question?"

Mike Brown Is Out At FEMA

2005-09-12T11:56:00.000-07:00

Good. Now the Bush Administration has an opportunity to appoint someone with, um, experience in disaster relief and terrorism response.

Be Careful What You Ask For

2005-09-12T09:26:00.000-07:00

It has been said that perhaps the most important decision a President can make in domestic policy is the selection of a Supreme Court Justice. This is undoubtedly true, particularly in this time of judicial hegemony. With the passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist and his decision to nominate John Roberts as Chief, President Bush now has the opportunity to nominate another jurist to the highest court in the land. It seems clear that the "institutional Left"; People For The American Way, MoveOn, NARAL, and on and on and on, will oppose anyone selected by Bush. More troublesome for the White House is opposition from its political base.

The Washington Post has a story about the pressure being applied to Bush from the Right regarding the nomination of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, whom they fear is not conservative enough. They recall the nomination of David Souter by Bush's father and most decidedly do not want another unpleasant surprise. In the past Republicans have not had a stellar track record of choosing Supreme Court Justices who remain "conservative", and Souter is just the latest instance in a group that would include Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun and current Justice John Paul Stevens. It is not as if such fears are unfounded. On the other hand, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, is waiving of the White House on Gonzalez, claiming it is "too soon" to nominate him, whatever the hell that means.

And yet since the travesty of the Robert Bork hearings, subsequent Presidents have been effectively forced to choose a nominee with an obscure, or ideally non-existent, judicial provenance. Setting aside partisanship for a moment, as well as whether it had any basis in fact, Ted Kennedy's "Robert Bork's America" speech was powerful political theatre.

So what we have now are "stealth" nominees who, not without reason, are disinclined to engage in intellectually vigorous debate. This is a consequence of ideology overwhelming the advice and consent privileges granted the Senate by Article 2, Section 2, and this is true of the tactics by both parties. What we need is a fair hearing for all Federal court nominees that afford a potential judge or justice an opportunity to discuss their judicial philosophy without fear of being "Borked".

By "fair hearings" I mean the type of shameless self-aggrandizement that is apparently indispensable in becoming a Senator. What is the over and under on the number of questions asked to actually determine an answer a Senator wants to know? My guess is three to five. (And I hope that a couple of them relate to Kelo.) The rest will be something along these lines:

Sen. Leahy: Judge Roberts, it is good to have you here today. Now isn't it your plan, in the first week on the bench, to overturn Brown and Roe? Furthermore, have you stopped beating your wife?

Sen. Cornyn: Judge Roberts, I enjoyed our breakfast of apple pie and discussing our mothers, Now onto pressing matters, what are your thoughts on puppies?

There isn't a member of the Senate who doesn't know how they are going to vote. Everything else is just window dressing and that is too bad. But it is, after all, politics.

What Color Is The Sky In Mayor Nagin's World?

2005-09-11T22:12:00.000-07:00

Tim Russert, for my money the most fair-minded and tough interviewer on television, shows why Mayor Nagin of New Orleans still just doesn't get it.

Nagin is a little more generous to President Bush than he was in earlier rants but lays into Governor Blanco for the state response, all the while still (deftly) refusing to take any personal responsibility for the failures and shortcomings of the preparation for the hurricane and the immediate response afterwards.

Particularly galling is his assertion that he will lead the effort to re-build and that only New Orleanians will have any say in the manner in which it is rebuilt. This is a statement of almost unbelievable hubris and ignorance. If the Federal government is going to pour an estimated $100 billion into rebuilding the areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina, local officials are going to have to take a backseat to the professional grandstanders, members of Congress. Secondly, if the taxpayers are going to subsidize this effort, Mr Mayor, then you bet your ass we are going to have something to say about how the city is rebuilt. If you choose to do it unilaterally you better call Bob Vila.

My God, we all know by now that Mike Brown was unqualified to be the head of FEMA, how the hell did Mayor Nagin get elected in New Orleans?

Four Years

2005-09-11T07:07:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post has an article in today's paper about how the anniversary of the September 11th attacks may, in time, fade in our collective memory and become a "holiday" like Memorial Day. I think that won't happen.

The unfortunate reason is that the war against terrorism has no end in sight. Every previous war America has fought, even in Vietnam, has had an end of victory, armistice, or withdrawal. In the current conflict, victory, if it is even possible in the true sense of the word, will take a generation at best. The other two outcomes, armistice or withdrawal, are simply incompatible with a desire to remain a free people.

It was four years ago today that America was jarred out of its post-Cold War reverie. It took our country less time, from 1941 to 1945, to defeat the Axis powers in a global war. Our current conflict will not resolve itself quickly or as definitively. The war on terror resembles the struggles against Communism in the decades following the Second World War, with the notable exception that the Soviet Union was a monolithic power that could be deterred from attacking America. This is not the case in our fight against the murderous fanatics that have targeted innocent civilians in New York, Washington, Bali, Madrid, and London. The list could go on. The sad fact is that the only way the memory of 9/11 will fade is that if it is replaced by an attack of greater barbarity and evil and therein lies our remembrance and, equally important, the lesson, of this anniversary.

UPDATE: This via ABC:

Sept. 11, 2005 — In an apparent Sept. 11 communiqué broadcast on ABC News, an al Qaeda operative threatens new attacks against cities in the US and Australia.
"Yesterday, London and Madrid. Tomorrow, Los Angeles and Melbourne, God willing. At this time, don't count on us demonstrating restraint or compassion," the tape warns. "We are Muslims. We love peace, but peace on our terms, peace as laid down by Islam, not the so-called peace of occupiers and dictators."

Tolerance?

2005-09-10T17:49:00.000-07:00

Via the Boston Globe:

BOSTON --Two gay activists are promising to post on the Internet the names and addresses of anyone who signs a petition that could lead to a statewide ban on gay marriage.

The move by Thomas Lang and Alexander Westerhoff, one of the first gay couples married in the state, came after state Attorney General Thomas Reilly on Wednesday certified a ballot question that bans gay marriage and civil unions.

Now, the question's supporters must collect 65,825 signatures from registered voters, and approval from 25 percent of state lawmakers to get the question on the 2008 ballot.

Lang, 42, said the name, street address, hometown and ZIP code of everyone who signs the petition will be posted on the Web site KnowThyNeighbor.org.

"Everyone's scrambling to know who in their town would sign this," Lang told the Boston Herald. "And this Web site will give gay people the tools to know, to defend themselves and their families, to let them go neighbor-to-neighbor and say, 'I don't appreciate your signing this.'"

"I'm going to be aggressive personally," he said. "I want to know that the people I do business with are not against (gay marriage). This is going to be won by economics."

Let's imagine this done in similar circumstances but with a different issue. Remember the outrage (and rightfully, I might add) when those opposed to abortion listed the home addresses of doctors who performed them?

This is clearly a tactic of intimidation, not dissimilar, if not as violent, as the efforts in the South in the 1960's to keep blacks from exercising their right to vote. Why does this idiot, Lang, think that it is his right to express his political opinions but that such a right does not extend to those with whom he disagrees?

Fire Mike Brown

2005-09-09T10:10:00.000-07:00

This would be reason enough to fire the Director of FEMA notwithstanding his poor performance in handling the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Charles Krauthammer hits the nail right on the head in his column about Katrina:

[Blame] The head of FEMA. Late, slow and in way over his head. On Thursday, Sept. 2, he said on national television that he didn't even know there were people in the convention center, when anybody watching television could see them there, destitute and desperate. Maybe in his vast bureaucracy he can assign three 20-year-olds to watch cable news and give him updates every hour on what in hell is going on.

Prediction: When Bush does fire Brown, or accept, "with regret", his resignation, how many of the "Blame Bush" crowd will accuse Bush of cynically making Brown fall on his sword to protect the President? My guess is all of them.

The Tortured Logic of the Left

2005-09-09T06:30:00.000-07:00

California lawmakers voted Thursday to offer illegal immigrants special driver's licenses, a measure Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to veto.

Supporters said the licenses would make the roads safer because illegal immigrants, many of whom already are driving, would be required to pass driving tests to get them.

Can someone tell me what, exactly, the benefit is to the illegal immigrant? The provisions of the law already concede that "many", by which they mean "all who have access to a car", are already driving. They are doing so without the government knowing they are in this country illegally, nor do they have to bother with such inconveniences as obtaining insurance or waiting in line at the D.M.V. So in effect the only "benefit" of this legislation is that the geniuses in Sacramento are attempting to provide yet another incentive, however misguided they may be in their largesse, to illegal immigrants. One would think that free education and health care, among other things, are generous enough. Rumor has it pending legislation calls for illegal immgrants to have a mint placed on their pillow along with turndown service every night.

There was some good news in this story however:

California lawmakers adjourned for the year late Thursday.

The Ignominy of Charles Schumer

2005-09-08T15:33:00.000-07:00

The senior Senator from New York has managed to go from partisan hack to national disgrace.

WASHINGTON -- A new Democratic effort to whip up indignation about the Bush administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina also tried to raise money for Democratic candidates.

Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat and the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, issued an appeal Thursday urging people to sign an online petition to fire the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency over his handling of the Katrina response.

After an inquiry from the Associated Press, the DSCC quickly pulled down the page and said they would donate to charity any money raised by the anti-FEMA petition. When recipients clicked on a link to the petition, the top center of the screen---above the call to "Fire the FEMA director"--- had asked for a donation to the DSCC.

I applaud the action of the DSCC, but will they call for Schumer to step down? It is obvious the man doesn't have the class or grace to do anything of the sort.

The Buck Stops Where?

2005-09-07T18:39:00.000-07:00

The reasoning behind Governor Schwarzenegger's position on a law passed legalizing gay marriage is specious and also demonstrates the friction between forms of government:

"In Governor Schwarzenegger's personal life and work in public service, he has considered no undertaking to be more noble than the cause of civil rights. He believes that gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship. He is proud that California provides the most rigorous protections in the nation for domestic partners.

"Five years ago the matter of same-sex marriage was placed before the people of California. The people voted and the issue is now before the courts. The Governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action which would be unconstitutional but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state. We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote. Out of respect for the will of the people, the Governor will veto AB 849."

First off, can somebody please show me where the right of homosexuals to get married is part of Constitutional law? Then show me where it is proscribed. I'm waiting. This is yet another consequence of Roe v. Wade, the idea that a court is ultimately the body that makes laws in effect if not fact. The California Legislature, duly elected by their constituents, has passed a law that does not contravene any Constitutional provision with which I am aware. Therefore the Governor may choose to veto or sign the bill for whatever reasons he chooses to profess, but to say that it is up to the courts, even if a case is pending, is ducking responsibility.

Also problematic is the initiative process, which largely seems to benefit issue advocacy groups and lawyers. California voters passed, by significant majorities, Propositions 187 and 209 which were subsequently eviscerated or nullified by courts. (In yet another example of a legislating judiciary run amok.) Why didn't the voters of California force (and expect, for that matter) their elected representatives to codify similar provisions into law or decline to do so? There seems to be a form of political cognitive dissonance here in California: Either attempt to pass laws through a direct election, or have the courts do it, but, for the love of God, don't let our Legislature do it!

There is so much, too much, ephemera in politics. (The manufactured evidence and outrage over Bush's National Guard record, for example.) And a surfeit of hypocrisy too. (That means you, Tom DeLay.) So why is it on the truly substantive issues of the day we allow the courts to arrogate the power to make momentous decisions?

Predictably, both sides of this issue will respond with outrage or delight depending on their point of view. It will be really interesting to note what happens if the electorate, through another initiative, allows gay marriage. Will the Left then, as it has with 187 and 209, respect a court challenge? Will the Right view the will of the people, as they did with those propositions, as sacrosanct?

(For the record, I support gay marriage for a number of reasons, notably that homosexuals have every right to be as miserable as heterosexuals.)

The Trials Of Mayor Nagin

2005-09-06T10:55:00.000-07:00

Ray Nagin, who apparently had any vestige of shame removed surgically, now has shifted the blame over the response to Hurricane Katrina to Governor Blanco.

If his logic is to be understood, the residents of New Orleans should expect and demand accountability from their federal and state officials, but not their local representatives. To what extent is Mayor Nagin willing to admit responsibility for anything? His order for mandatory evacuations was clearly belated, at best, and the plans to use buses and other high-occupancy vehicles to help those without a form of transportation were never implemented. Upon whom can these failures be affixed? I'm sure Mayor Nagin will find someone.

Pop! So Go The Weasels?

2005-09-05T22:38:00.000-07:00

The Associated Press, in a crack piece of investigative journalism, has discovered this:

WASHINGTON - The nation's red-hot housing market may finally be nearing its peak, meaning the end of double-digit annual percentage price gains for homeowners and potential trouble for more recent purchasers who stretched to buy.

This news comes as no surprise to those of us in California, as well as residents of Florida, Arizona, Southern Nevada, Boston... Speculation, enabled by questionable financing instruments, have led to 20-40% per year appreciation in many markets in the last few years. No asset in human history has sustained those returns and this isn't a recent revelation. For reasons that surpass understanding many people have ignored the lessons of the Internet speculative bubble and forgotten George Santayana's dictum that those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it. The only difference this time will be the bubble, if it exists and deflates, will be much worse than the Internet craze due to the illiquidity of real estate versus stocks and bonds.

It will be interesting to observe the manner in which a housing contraction will be covered by the media. President Clinton was given a lion's share of the credit for the growth of the economy in the late 1990's but none of the blame for fostering the conditions that led to the implosion of the NASDAQ and technology related businesses. Both cannot be correct. Therefore, since Bush has gotten virtually no credit for either the economic expansion (Real G.D.P. grew 1.6% in 2002, 2.7% in 2003, and 4.2% in 2004. In Clinton's first three full years real G.D.P. grew 2.6% in 1993, 4.0% in 1994, and 2.5% in 1995. These numbers clearly cannot take into account the attacks of 9/11.) or the wealth effect from appreciation in the housing market, I would imagine that the media will not blame Bush if the housing prices experience a regression to the mean.

Yeah, right.

Questions

2005-09-04T09:02:00.000-07:00

Before rational people, as opposed to the news media, for example, start assigning blame for the response to Hurricane Katrina, here are a few questions that need to be answered:

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin postponed ordering a mandatory evacuation until August 28th. Why? And why did he require this chiding from the Governor?

Nagin said he may call for the first-ever mandatory evacuation in city history after talking with the head of the National Hurricane Center who said a storm surge of 20-25 feet could be expected with major hurricane Katrina.

Nagin said he would consider ordering evacuations by Sunday morning and may employ buses and trains to help get people out of the city.

In an interview on Eyewitness News, Nagin said his Saturday night dinner was interrupted by an urgent call from Governor Kathleen Blanco who asked Nagin to call the National Hurricane Center.

From the looks of this picture, Nagin did not, in fact, deploy buses to evacuate the city. Why not?

The National Hurricane Center issued this nearly apocalyptic warning a day before Katrina made landfall. To what degree was it heeded and, based upon the warning, why was the initial response so inadequate?

Hurricane Katrina is a most powerful hurricane with unprecedented strength, rivaling the intensity of hurricane Camille in 1969. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks, perhaps longer. At least one half of well constructed homes will have roof and wall failure. All gabled roofs will fail, leaving those homes severely damaged or destroyed. The majority of industrial buildings will become non-functional. Partial to complete wall and roof failure is expected. All wood framed low rising apartment buildings will be destroyed. Concrete block low rise apartments will sustain major damage. High rise office buildings will sway dangerously, a few to the point of total collapse. Airborne debris will be widespread and may include heavy items such as household appliances and even light vehicles. Power outages will last for weeks. Water shortages will make human suffering incredible by modern standards. The vast majority of native trees will be snapped or uprooted. Livestock left exposed to the winds will be killed.

As part of on-going operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, up to a quarter of the troops currently stationed in the Southwest Asia are National Guard troops. To what degree did the Pentagon consider how this would impact deployment of Guard troops during a natural disaster?

What qualifications did Mike Brown have to be named head of FEMA? From what I have seen his resume is rather lacking in emergency response experience.

Will the Congress consider making the Director of FEMA a "non-political" appointee, like a Federal Reserve Governor? (By "non-political" I mean not subject to replacement with a new presidential administration.)

The Bush Administration has been accused of cutting funding for levee repairs in Louisiana. Is this true? Was it a executive decision or a legislative one? If it passed through Congress, was the decision part of an omnibus bill?

Louisiana has a rather unfortunate, and deserved, reputation for political corruption; did this in any way have an impact on the funding previous to the disaster and the response subsequent to it?

The devastation on the Gulf Coast was so severe and widespread was a coordinated, multi-agency response even possible?

In light of the fact that the Crescent City is built below sea level, surrounded by water, and subject to the type of storm it just experienced, what will be done to prevent such a disaster from happening again? Will there be flood control provisions tied to the billions of dollars in disaster aid provided by taxpayers through the government?

More questions will undoubtedly arise in the coming days, but this might be a good start.

UPDATE: (Thank you, Drudge)

The Times-Picayune called for every official at the Federal Emergency Management Agency to be fired. In an open letter to President Bush, the paper said: "Our people deserved rescuing. Many who could have been were not. That's to the government's shame."

But the newspaper published a story on July 24, 2005 stating: City, state and federal emergency officials are preparing to give a historically blunt message: "In the event of a major hurricane, you're on your own." Staff writer Bruce Nolan reported some 7 weeks before Katrina: "In scripted appearances being recorded now, officials such as Mayor Ray Nagin, local Red Cross Executive Director Kay Wilkins and City Council President Oliver Thomas drive home the word that the city does not have the resources to move out of harm's way an estimated 134,000 people without transportation."

It is fast approacing the time Mayor Nagin shut his yap and start accepting some responsibility.

Katie, Bar The Door

2005-09-03T21:10:00.000-07:00

After the death tonight of Chief Justice Rehnquist, the only attractions missing from Washington in the next couple of months will the bearded lady and the dog-faced boy.

With the confirmation hearings for John Roberts scheduled for this week there was already an anticipatory feeling of partisan politics in the air. Now all hell is going to break loose. The Usual Suspects on the Left will come more unhinged than usual; I expect at least one if not more Democrat Senators to seek to postpone the Roberts hearings so they force Bush's hand in picking Rehnquist's replacement before confirming Roberts. (Early odds in Vegas have Schumer, Leahy, and Kennedy leading this effort.) The Republicans controlling the Senate will have none of it and the hearing will go forward, one way or another.

UPDATE: Bush has nominated Roberts as Chief, which is a politically astute move. This will allow the Court to have all nine Justices on the bench if Roberts is confirmed by October, as O'Connor has stated she would continue to serve until her replacement is confirmed. My guess now is that Bush will nominate Edith Clement, who was on the short list to replace O'Connor originally. Clement is also from New Orleans which will not go unnoticed.

In the meantime, the specials interest groups will either reflexively support or savagely slander whomever Bush nominates. NARAL, MoveOn, etc., already have their press releases of condemnation ready to go, they merely await a name to which they can be attached. Pro-life groups will begin a steady campaign of pressuring not only the White House but particularly Senator Specter, the pro-choice Republican who is Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to nominate and confirm a Justice with what they believe is the proper judicial pedigree.

All of this posturing and pressure has been, and continues to be, misplaced. The Supreme Court is invested, through Article 3, with the power of interpreting laws, not making them. Yet for the past decades that is effectually what the nine unelected Justices have been doing and a complicit American electorate has enabled it to happen.

It should give the pro-choice movement pause to realize that the right to an abortion was given by fiat. It can be taken away in the same fashion and that is why these confirmation hearings are so contentious. It is has become increasingly clear that Roe v. Wade is a poorly written opinion that is antiquated, largely through advances in medical technology. (An interesting survey: Ask people who vigorously support Roe who wrote the majority opinion. Ask them if they know the criteria Justice Blackmun used for determining fetal viability. In short, ask them if they have actually read the opinion.) It took quite a bit of intellectual contortion to "discover" a right to an abortion in the Constitution but it was a logical progression from the Griswold decision of 1965, in which Justice Douglas invented Constitutional rights out of thin air.

Today it is almost unimaginable that people, 40 years on from Griswold, would disagree with the outcome of the decision, but the Devil is in the details. Apparently inventing Constitutional rights is like eating potato chips, it is hard to stop at one. My radical notion here is this: make the men and women that comprise our respective legislatures actually work. We are a Republic, let's start acting like one. For those who desire a woman to have access to an abortion, work in a legislative framework to write and pass laws allowing that access. Those in opposition can work to ban or restrict that access. Amend the Constitution if it becomes necessary.

Protestors of all political persuasions, in the coming days and weeks, will descend on the Supreme Court building in support of their beliefs; they should walk across the street to the Capitol instead. There are 535 Members of Congress and innumerable legislators on the state and local level whom we have elected to create and enact laws. We should all be discomforted, therefore, by the power that nine individuals, appointed for life and who deliberate in camera, have over us.

The Tower Of Siloam

2005-09-02T14:33:00.000-07:00

At 9:02 on the morning of April 19th, 1995, a Ryder truck exploded in front of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people, among them 19 children. This bombing was a reaction to the method by which the United States Government, significantly the F.B.I. and the A.T.F., along with then Attorney General Janet Reno, handled the stand-off with the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas in 1993.

Therefore, Bill Clinton's policies killed the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing.

Of course this reasoning is nonsense. Why, then, are an admittedly small but vocal and enthusiastic number of left wing pundits and "news" outlets finding a way to blame the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina on President Bush?

As the Gulf Coast deals with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina it has been predictable but nevertheless disheartening to take note of those who seek to politicize a largely natural disaster. (Clearly, building a city like New Orleans 12 feet below sea level had something to do with the extent of the devastation.) I have referenced the unbridled idiocy of Robert Kennedy Jr'.s statement on the hurricane below. I might also note that Ted Kennedy has been strangely silent on this matter, which is surprising in light of his expertise on drowning.

Ipse dixit logic diminishes the dignity of public discourse. Those who practice such sophistry, irrespective of the agenda, should be admonished. I await an editorial from the New York Times. I am not holding my breath, however.

In The Hands Of An Angry God

2005-09-01T12:01:00.000-07:00

From Robert Kennedy Jr., via the Huffington Post:

As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2.

In March of 2001, just two days after EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman’s strong statement affirming Bush’s CO2 promise former RNC Chief Barbour responded with an urgent memo to the White House.

Barbour, who had served as RNC Chair and Bush campaign strategist, was now representing the president’s major donors from the fossil fuel industry who had enlisted him to map a Bush energy policy that would be friendly to their interests. His credentials ensured the new administration’s attention.

In 1998, Republican icon Pat Robertson warned that hurricanes were likely to hit communities that offended God. Perhaps it was Barbour’s memo that caused Katrina, at the last moment, to spare New Orleans and save its worst flailings for the Mississippi coast.

Interesting theory, Bobby. Were your Dad and Uncle killed because of their adultery?

The Best Of America

2005-08-31T15:49:00.000-07:00

There is enough disagreement in the United States; our country was founded on an argument with England and that spirit has enlivened our political and social discourse for over 200 years. At the end of the day, however, it would be nice to think that those with whom we disagree only have different methods but the same intentions, making our country a better place. The genius of America is that we are, and continue to be, a work in progress.

I recall a very moving moment on September 11th, 2001. A news conference was taking place on The Hill and almost all Members were there. After the Congressional Leadership spoke, they broke into "America The Beautiful". As I sat there watching, still benumbed from the day's events, I realized Majority Leader Dick Armey was singing next to Maxine Waters. This is the political equivalent of oil and water moving in together. Seeing that, I knew whoever was responsible for the attacks was in big trouble. For almost all of us, what unites us is stronger than our differences.

There is a humanitarian crisis in the Gulf Coast right now of almost unimaginable proportion that calls us, once again, to the vocation of citizenship. In some way or another, from the responsibility of a Cabinet Secretary to the prayer of a little child, all of us can help. It will take time: time to mourn and time to rebuild; it is fitting and proper to do both. We are bloodied, but unbowed.

We will return to the at times contentious America with which we are familiar. When I was in Manhattan a couple of years ago a New Yorker said to me he knew the city was back to normal when the cabdrivers started being rude again. There will be time for disagreement and I plan to be one of its practitioners. But for now, on this issue, let's pull together.

The Truth Emerges

2005-08-30T23:41:00.000-07:00

Why doesn't this surprise me...

A woman who led an anti-war protest for nearly a month near President Bush's ranch said Tuesday that she's glad Bush never showed up to discuss her son's death in Iraq, saying the president's absence "galvanized the peace movement."

Cindy Sheehan's comments came as war protesters packed up their campsite near the ranch and prepared to leave Tuesday for a three-week bus tour.

"I look back on it, and I am very, very, very grateful he did not meet with me, because we have sparked and galvanized the peace movement," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "If he'd met with me, then I would have gone home, and it would have ended there."

Yeah, right. How did it go from "this is all about Casey" to that cause being subsumed by the "peace movement"? This is exactly why Bush, rightly, didn't waste his time to speak with "Mother". Had he met with her she would have found a pretense, real or invented, to continue the protest. Cindy Sheehan has gone from Grieving Mother to Media Whore and that, along with her irresponsible statements, has undermined the professed intent of her "vigil".

She has a right to protest whatever she wants, just as skeptical observers can note the increasing cynicism with which she has used the death of her son to promulgate an agenda decidedly not his own.

A First Step

2005-08-29T20:59:00.000-07:00

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried"

--Winston Churchill

Just finished reading the draft of the Iraqi Constitution. (Okay, so I have some free time on my hands.) The preamble begins:

We the sons of Mesopotamia, land of the (messengers), prophets, resting place of the holy imams, the leaders of civilization and the creators of the alphabet, the cradle of arithmetic: on our land, the first law put in place by mankind was written; in our nation, the most noble era of justice in the politics of nations was laid down; on our soil, the followers of the prophet and the saints prayed, the philosophers and the scientists theorized and the writers and poets created.

What really strikes me is that this is the "Cradle of Civilization", the birthplace of written law, and this is the first Constitution they have had. Is it remotely possible for everyone in this country, for or against the war, to take a moment and consider what is happening in Iraq right now? Our Founding Fathers are in some ways remote; men from 230 years ago in leg stockings and powdered wigs, part of elementary school memorization, carved from marble. (Or granite.) The success of our country subsequent to its founding seems almost inevitable even if, as recent scholars have taught us, it wasn't. The creation of a country is fraught with peril if it is in the 18th Century or the 21st.

As challenging as it will undoubtedly be, I look forward to seeing the birth of a new hope of freedom. Today, the arguments for and against the war are held in abeyance. In a cynical time let's just watch civilized men and women work to form a democratic government. They may stumble and fall, only to rise again. There will be disagreement and rhetoric. Those hostile to a representative government will assuredly shed blood in a desperate attempt to hold back the tide of history. And yet for all its challenges, for all its faults, it is still a thing of beauty to behold.

Econ 101

2005-08-29T17:35:00.000-07:00

A good friend of mine forwarded an email to me from a long, and I mean long, chain of people suggesting that Americans "show the oil companies" and don't buy gas on September 1st. What followed was a specious analysis of how much it would hurt the oil companies.

Bullshit.

Why? Because the next day people would have to make a purchase to make up for the one they didn't make the day before. There are only three ways to impact the price of gas and one of them, governmental control, would be a disaster and a non-starter. Therefore it becomes a question of supply and demand.

Demand has grown tremendously in the past decade and it isn't all due to the fact that everyone bought an S.U.V., although that has something to do with it. The increasing industrialization of China, and the incipient economic growth in India, the two most populated countries on earth, has a lot to do with it as well. The only real question here, and we are beginning to have the answer adumbrated, (sorry but I love that word) is at what price point is consumer behavior changed? Ask an R.V dealer and he will tell you. Find out how cheap used S.U.V.s are, especially lease returns. If you can find an airline executive that hasn't jumped out a window, ask one. The tipping point here seems to be about $3 a gallon.

Supply is another matter. Of course Big Oil and O.P.E.C. are making a lot of money right now, but they don't like prices this high either. Why? Because not only does it begin to change consumer behavior, but it also makes other forms of supply economically feasible. Consider this article from Macleans. Even if the speculations are 25% accurate, this is big news. Why do you suppose we haven't tapped this before? Because when the average price of oil over a period of three years is $40 a barrel, and it costs that much to process oil sand, no one makes money and there is no reason to do it. Yes, I know oil is $68 a barrel now, but how long will it stay that high? A nightmare scenario is for a company to invest billions of dollars into processing oil sand and find that consumption has declined (the tipping point mentioned above) and that supply has therefore increased. Would any of you buy a dime for 25 cents?

The last issue, and one inexorably intertwined, is the capacity to refine the oil into gas. America hasn't built a refinery for two decades; part of the reason is market driven, if it costs more money to build a refinery than it can make, it doesn't get built. The other issue has been environmental concerns and the endless litigation costs involved in even preparing an environmental impact report. But again, as oil prices rise these costs become less prohibitive.

Oil exploration and refinement are amazingly complex businesses with a tremendously high barrier to entry. There will be no quick fixes, and $2 a gallon gas, at a minimum, will be with us for the foreseeable future. However, it is these same prices, as frustrating as they may be, that will ultimately force us to solve this problem through conservation, exploration, and the development of new technologies like hybrid cars.

Adam Smith was right.