Saturday, May 07, 2005

Calling Democrats' Bluff

David Brooks editorialized in the NYT Don't take people at their word. Don't listen to them when they tell you how to be virtuous. They're faking it. They don't care about virtue, or you or the common good. They're just taking opportunistic potshots under the guise of sermonizing. They're just a bunch of hypocrites. This little bit of moral philosophy is drawn from the political events of the past few years. Over this time, Democrats have been hectoring President Bush in the manner of an overripe Fourth of July orator. The president should be summoning us to make shared sacrifices for the common good. The president should care for the poor, and stop favoring the rich. He should make the hard choices and impose a little fiscal discipline on government. Sometimes you had to walk through Democratic precincts in a gas mask, the lofty rhetoric was so thick. But now we have definitive proof that they didn't mean it. It was all hokum.

Most of what they say is hokum
Over the past few weeks, the president has called their bluff. By embracing the progressive indexing of Social Security benefits, the president has asked us to make a shared sacrifice for the common good. He's asking middle- and upper-class folks to accept benefit cuts so there will be money for the people who are really facing poverty. He has asked us to redistribute money down the income scale. Why should programs for children and families be strangled so Donald Trump can get bigger benefit checks? He has made the hard choices. By facing up to the fact that there are going to be benefit cuts, he's offended Newt Gingrich, Jack Kemp, the supply siders and other important Republican constituencies.

So how has the St. Francis of Assisi wing of the Democratic Party responded to Bush's challenge? Does it applaud him for doing what it has spent the past years telling him he should do? Of course not. The Democratic leadership has dropped all that shared sacrifice talk and started making demagogic appeals to people's narrow self-interest. Nancy Pelosi cries out that Bush's progressive indexing idea means "cutting the benefits of middle-class seniors." Representative Sander Levin protests it "would result in the biggest benefit cut in the history of Social Security." What about the sober chin-pullers - the fiscally prudent worriers and deficit-fearing editorialists? Have they come out and applauded Bush for his courage? Are they mobilizing to take advantage of this moment? No, their silence is deafening.
There are two reasons for that
  1. They would prefer to raise taxes rather than cutting benefits
  2. They love the fact that Bush proposed reducing benefits, because they think they can use it as an issue in 2006 and 2008
And what about those moderate Democrats?
Most of them are now Republicans
For two decades they've been courageously saying we need to means-test Social Security, so we can focus our resources on those who need it. Now Bush has embraced their view. Are they saying that since Bush has moved so far in a redistributionist direction that perhaps the Democrats should budge slightly, too? Of course not. They're inventing lame reasons to explain why they shouldn't be for the policy they have been for over the past 20 years. Bush could tell them he loved their mothers and they'd invent reasons to be against him. Politics trumps policy. George Bush has been willing to address a long-term, politically thorny problem. He's pursued it doggedly while most members of his party wish he would just drop it. But his Democratic counterparts are behaving like alienated junior professors. No productive ideas. No sense of leadership. Just half-truths from the peanut gallery.
Half truths are better than what we usually get from them.
This is the difference between the party with a governing mentality and the party with the opposition mentality. The governing party leads. It takes the arrows. It casts about for productive ideas and slowly absorbs the other party's good ones. Bush has now absorbed progressive indexing of retirement benefits.

The opposition party opposes. It doesn't feel any responsibility to come up with positive alternatives. Its main psychological need is to be against its nemesis at all costs. If the governing party steals one of its ideas, it will oppose that idea. In this way the opposition party is pushed further and further to the edge. It loses control of its identity - it's simply a negative reactive force to whatever the governing party happens to be doing at the moment. It finds itself in a cycle of opposition, negativity and irrelevance. This is what's infected the Tories in Britain, and it's infected the Democrats here. When a Republican president embraces progressive indexing, something big is happening. When the Democrats oppose it, you know their party has betrayed an animating ideal.


Orrin Judd blogged The irony being that the middle class comes out ahead even after the tough choice.

Read More...

Place Your Bets

John Tierney wrote in the NYT After a recent column comparing Social Security with the Chilean system of private accounts, I was deluged with letters from readers eager to explain why I am a superficial nitwit. In this case, they're at least half right. The column was superficial because I simply looked at how much more money I'd have if I had invested my Social Security contributions in the private account of a Chilean friend and economist, Pablo Serra. The numbers were impressive - my projected pension would be triple what I'm promised by Social Security - but they're not as important as another consideration: which type of pension is riskier?

Pablo has done well because Chilean mutual funds have yielded high returns in the past two decades - probably higher than I would have gotten from an American mutual fund, although here I'd still be way ahead of Social Security. Historically, stocks have yielded returns two to three times what Social Security pays. Still, stocks could yield much lower returns in the future, as critics of private accounts have pointed out in advertisements comparing the market to a slot machine and extolling the "guarantee" of Social Security. But there's also another kind of risk to consider, one that Chilean workers kept mentioning to me. The best part of their private accounts, they said, was that they'd put "la plata donde mis ojos la vean" - the money where my eyes can see it. They knew they might lose some of it in the stock market, but they preferred that to watching it all disappear into politicians' hands.

Which is exactly what would happen.
My Social Security, far from being a guarantee, comes with a political risk that will become clear around 2017, when I'll be 64. That's when the Social Security Administration expects to start paying out more than it collects in taxes. In theory, there is a trust fund to cover this shortfall. When Congress sharply raised Social Security taxes in the 1980's, the idea was to generate surpluses during the baby boomers' working years that would finance our retirement. Instead, Congress spent our money, leaving the Social Security trust fund with a file cabinet full of i.o.u.'s in the form of Treasury bills. It's not a problem now, because for the next few years the baby boomers' taxes will provide an annual surplus for Social Security of about $100 billion, allowing Congress to dole out the extra money for its favorite causes, like farm subsidies and weapon systems and West Virginia buildings named after Robert Byrd. But in four years the surpluses start declining, and they turn into deficits around 2017, when Congress must begin repaying those i.o.u.'s.
And the only way to do that would be to borrow money (a short term solution that would leave us worse off in the future, raise taxes, or cut benefits (including eventually cutting the entire Social Security program)
By the time I'm in my 70's, the Social Security shortfall will force Congress to find new taxes or make spending cuts that are more than half the size of the Pentagon's budget. If I make it to age 88, there will no more i.o.u.'s left in the trust fund, so everyone's benefits would have to be cut by 27 percent. Faced with the grim math, President Bush offered a progressive compromise last week to Democrats: protect the poor while moderating the growth of benefits for higher-income workers. Democrats refused to bite, denouncing his "cuts" without offering a plan of their own, and members of both parties wondered why any politician would jeopardize his party's chances in 2006 by tackling an unpleasant future problem.

You can call the Democrats irresponsible obstructionists, but they're just following the first rule of politics: get re-elected. It's the same rule followed by the politicians from both parties who have spent the baby boomers' retirement money. Why set aside money for 2017 if it could be used to woo voters and campaign contributors for the next election? I can't protect my pension against political risk, but Pablo can help protect his against the risks of the stock market. As he approaches retirement, he can gradually shift his money out of stocks and into bonds, like the ones that financed the private road between Santiago and the port city of Valparaiso, which will be paid off by tolls. The Chilean pension system has billboards along the road proclaiming, "Your savings are financing this highway, and this highway is financing your retirement." Those billboards have been on my mind. My pension depends on 535 politicians who will be asked to vote for steep tax increases or budget cuts that they fear could cost them their jobs. Pablo's pension depends on people driving between Chile's two largest cities.


Orrin Judd blogged Wouldn't it be amusing if every time a politician or pundit wrote or spoke about the "risks" of privatization they were required to reveal how much money they had invested in their own 401k, IRA, mutual funds, etc.?

Read More...

Recipe for a Military Spouse

Greta blogged Recipe for a Military Spouse

1 1/2 C. Patience
2 C. Elbow Grease
1 3/4 C. Tolerance
1 lb. Courage

Marinate frequently with salty tears
Pour off excess fat
Sprinkle ever so lightly with money
Knead dough until payday
Season with international spices
Bake for 20 years or until done
Serve with pride!

Read More...

Schumer Urges Bush to Rein in Judge Fight

WaPo reported Sen. Charles Schumer, a leading Democrat in the fight over judicial nominees, urged President Bush to intervene and rein in the strongest conservative critics of Democratic opposition to some candidates.

What has he been smoking, to think Bush would do that?
Schumer, D-N.Y., delivered his party's weekly radio address Saturday, in which he decried "a whiff of extremism in the air the likes of which we haven't seen in decades."
And the odor is coming from the Democratic side of the aisle
Without naming any, Schumer criticized "small groups ... trying to undermine the age-old checks and balances that the Founding Fathers placed at the center of the Constitution."
Filibusters were not used by the Founding Fathers; they started in the 1800s
Democrats have blocked 10 of Bush's appellate court choices with the threat of filibusters, which means those nominees would need 60 votes to be confirmed. Republicans are considering using their majority to change rules to require a simple majority vote for confirmation.

In his radio appeal, Schumer sought to draw Bush more directly into the fray by urging the president to denounce some conservatives who have used harsh language to criticize the Democrats. "I am making a heartfelt plea to you, Mr. President. When you came to Washington, you said you wanted to change the climate in D.C.," Schumer said.
But he did not realize that the natiional Democrats are unlike the Democrats he knew back in Texas; who were willing to compromise to get something done.
"Those stating these abhorrent views count themselves as your political allies. One word from you will bring a halt to these un-American statements. That would be a way to strengthen democracy here at home."
No it might strengthen Democrats, but not Democracy (which says a majority rules)
The senator referred generally to some activists comparing judges to the Ku Klux Klan and terrorists.
Schumer has lost his mind
Jayson @PoliPundit: blogged Chuck Schumer wants President Bush to stop the mean old Senate Republicans from taking away his ability to block a female African-American state supreme court justice from the federal bench because she’s {gasp} a conservative, er, I mean, he wants the President to intervene so the Democrats can filibuster those evil nominees of his. Man, these tea leaves aren’t that hard to read anymore, are they? The federal courts are about to get much more conservative. The Democrats either can have it the hard way, or the radioactive way.

Read More...

See a blogger

Gateway Pundit shows a number of photos from BlogNashville and there are more photos here. I wish I had been able to travel, because I would have loved to have been able to go to BlogNashville.

In case you don't recognize her, the photo is La Shawn Barber who is leading a session at BlogNashville on Faith-Based blogging.

I don't know what has happened to LaShawn's blog. Normally it is well formatted, but something must have happened to her server, because all of the formatting is gone. I am sure she will fix it as soon as she gets home from Nashville.

Here are a couple of LaShawn's posts about BlogNashville

Read More...

Aim Blogs

Blogging about Incredible Blogs reports Ready, Set, Aim . . . Blog

That's exactly what AOL wants its AIM users to do -- maybe it should be called CB -- Chatter Blog.


I was not aware of it, but AoL now has its own blogging system, oriented around AoL's Instant Messenger AIM. I described a number of different blogging packages in my article Comparison of Blog Services, and I would say that AIM Blogs are similar to Yahoo 360 or Live Journal, and very different from the sort of blogs I prefer (however different people have different tastes, so there is clearly a niche for AIM and the others. For one thing, AIM Blogs dont have TrackBacks (I don't know whether HaloScan would work with them. They do have comments, archives, and permanent links, so they definitely are blogs.

Read More...

Link from Drudge

Cory Bergman blogged What happens when Drudge links your site
Yesterday the Drudge Report posted the item, "Down goes Frasier!" that linked to a story on WGAL-TV's site that included video of Kelsey Grammer's nasty fall. Twenty-four hours later, TheWGALChannel.com says 216,215 people visited the page and 153,435 people watched the video clip. Wow.

Read More...

Raffles now legal

NewsOK reported Raffles are legal now that a state lottery has been created. For decades, raffles have been considered a quick and certain way to raise money for schools, churches and other nonprofits. That changed in 1995, when Attorney General Drew Edmondson issued an opinion equating raffles to lotteries. Although violations were punishable under state gambling laws, no one contacted could recall a single prosecution.

State Sen. Frank Shurden, D-Henryetta, worked about eight years to make raffles legal. In 2003, he succeeded on legislation that said such events would become legal if voters ever approved a lottery. The new law sat dormant more than a year until voters passed State Question 705, the lottery law. "What that law really does is just make legal what has been going on technically, illegally, for years and years in Oklahoma," Meacham said. The new legislation has a couple of catches: Charities can't hire a contractor to conduct a raffle, and contributions must be voluntary. In other words, a grinch so inclined can obtain a ticket without having to fork over a buck for it.


Tulsa Computer Society is no longer as big as it once was, but I wish this had been the case back when we were large enough to take advantage of it.

Read More...

Saturday, May 7

This Day In History

  • 1789   The first inaugural ball was held in New York in honor of President and Mrs. George Washington.
  • 1812   Poet Robert Browning was born in London.
  • 1825   Italian composer Antonio Salieri died in Vienna, Austria
  • 1833   Composer Johannes Brahms was born in Hamburg, Germany.
  • 1840   Composer Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky was born in the Ural region of Russia.
  • 1847   The American Medical Association was founded in Philadelphia.
  • 1915   Nearly 1,200 people died when a German torpedo sank the British liner Lusitania off the Irish coast.
  • 1939   Germany and Italy announced a military and political alliance known as the Rome-Berlin Axis.
  • 1954   The Battle of Dien Bien Phu in Vietnam ended after 55 days with Vietnamese insurgents overrunning French forces.
  • 1960   Leonid Brezhnev replaced Marshal Kliment Voroshilov as president of the Supreme Soviet.
  • 1984   A $180 million out-of-court settlement was announced in the Agent Orange class-action suit brought by Vietnam veterans who charged they had suffered injury from exposure to the defoliant.
  • 1992   A 203-year-old proposed constitutional amendment barring Congress from giving itself a midterm pay raise was ratified when Michigan became the 38th state to approve it.
  • 1998   The parent company of Mercedes-Benz agreed to buy Chrysler Corp. for more than $37 billion.
  • 1999   NATO jets struck the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing three people and injuring 20; President Clinton called the attack a ''tragic mistake.''
  • 1999   A jury in Pontiac, Mich., ordered ''The Jenny Jones Show'' to pay $25 million to the family of a gay man who was shot to death after revealing a crush on a male guest on the talk show. (The award was overturned on appeal.)
  • 2000   President Vladimir Putin took the oath of office in Russia's first democratic transfer of power.
  • 2001   Ronnie Biggs, the ''Great Train Robber,'' who had eluded capture for decades following his prison escape in 1965, returned to Britain, where he was arrested and jailed to complete the 28 remaining years of his sentence.
  • 2002   Authorities arrested college student Luke J. Helder in a series of rural mailbox bombings that left six people wounded in Illinois and Iowa.
Happy Birthday To
  • 1812   Robert Browning (poet)
  • 1833   Johannes Brahms (composer)
  • 1901   Gary (Frank James) Cooper
  • 1919   Eva (Evita) Peron
  • 1933   Johnny Unitas (Pro Football Hall of Famer)

Read More...

Friday, May 06, 2005

Reid Says He Doesn't Intend to Filibuster

Yahoo! News reported Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid has privately told individual Republicans he doesn't intend to block votes on any Supreme Court nominees except in extreme cases, according to officials familiar with the conversations.

Of course the Dems claim the 10 judges they are blocking are all extreme cases, even with the highest rating from the ABA.
At the same time, Reid has declined in private — as well as in public — to offer the type of firm no-filibuster assurance that might help him prevail over Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. in a struggle over President Bush's conservative court appointments and rules covering future confirmations. The disclosures illustrate the challenge facing the Nevada Democrat, who is struggling against a GOP attempt to change Senate procedures so court candidates can no longer be subjected to the 60-vote requirement of a filibuster.

As leader of a minority, Reid needs the support of wavering GOP senators if he is to force a compromise or win a showdown on the Senate floor. Yet he also must take into account members of his own rank and file as well as activist groups that are adamant about preserving their right to block votes on Bush's current and future nominees. "I can never say there will never be a filibuster because I cannot say that," he said recently on the Senate floor. "But I don't think this Senate is in the mood for a number of filibusters."
at least not more than 10, plus any Supreme Court nominees.
Captain Ed blogged So far the GOP hasn't bitten on Reid's assurances, and for good reason. Reid wants Republicans to trust his judgment on what he thinks "extreme" means, and he refuses to rule out filibusters or even to give any parameters under which he would endorse one. Given that the Democrats still plan to filibuster the seven nominees that Bush has named to appellate courts, this effort by Reid is as weak as it sounds. It's not a compromise at all, but a "trust me" offer that's laughable on its face.

The fact that Reid feels it necessary to make this effort shows how worried the Democrats have become over the upcoming Byrd Option by Bill Frist. The Senate returns from recess next week and Frist may immediately take up the confirmations of Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, probably in that order.
I would prefer him take up Janice Rogers Brown first. Either will be filibustered, but it will hurt the Dems more to be filibustering a Black Woman
When the Democrats attempt to filibuster, as they have promised to do, Frist will appeal to the president of the Senate, VP Dick Cheney, for an interpretation of the Senate filibuster rule as to whether it applies to the Constitutionally mandated duty to provide advice and consent to the Executive. When Cheney rules the filibuster out of order, all it will take to overcome that interpretation will be 50 Senators and Cheney as a tiebreaker -- and both Mitch McConnell and Norm Coleman have assured the GOP that they have the votes to get there.

Reid cannot afford the loss of prestige that such a change will cost him. Nor can he afford to follow through on his threat to shut down the Senate with parliamentary obstructionism without incurring the ghosts of Newt Gingrich and 1995. In fact, such a manuever will only confirm the Democrats as knee-jerk obstructionists, an image which cost them dearly in the 2004 Senate campaign already. He needs to convince enough Republicans to pull away from Frist, but without giving up the option to block judicial nominees at whim. Those two requirements have proved mutually exclusive, which puts us back to where we were when the session began in January.

Now that Frist appears to have toughened up, Reid finds himself with few options except for noncommittal PR manuevers such as this. He may get even more flexible next week, but unless he's willing to come up with something that eliminates the filibuster, he's not saying anything at all worth repeating.


Kevin P commented Reid is telling the truth. He wouldn't use the fillibuster on supreme court nominees except for extreme circumstances. You just have to realize that every Bush nominee will be considered "out of the mainsteam" and thus be fillibustered because of the extreme circumstances. I don't know whether Frist has the votes or not but he has to pull the trigger. It is not a matter of trusting Reid. It's a matter of knowing that Reid will do everything to keep Bush's choices off the bench.

ERNurse commented Okay. Now is the time to increase the pressure on the Republicans to stand up for the people who elected them, and to flush the toilet on the era of minority- enjoyed hegemony that has been enjoyed by the liberal traitors at the nation's peril. We have to hammer home to the Republicans that we are watching every move they make, and the decisions they make with regard to the issues at hand will decide whether they stay on in Dee Cee or end up on their lazy butts come 2006. Our strategy at this time should follow the words of Fleet Admiral "Bill" Halsey: "Attack. Repeat: ATTACK!"

jwbrown1969 commented Reid is having an internal fit over the prospect of ending Judicial filibuster. He is so afraid that that he won't be able to stop W from appointing a Supreme in the near future that he will do almost anything.

Jayson @PoliPundit blogged After reading between the lines of this liberal-media polemic, I think it’s pretty safe to say the following: a) Harry Reid is real close to not having enough votes even to maintain filibusters in the first instance. b) Bill ("Limp") Frist either definitely has the votes necessary to “go nuclear,” or Reid and the media are very, very nervous about finding that out the hard way.

Marc commented I see that part of Reid’s strategy to woo on the fence Republicans is to call the President a “loser” as he travels overseas (at least according to Drudge). After all, what Senator wouldn’t love to have the leader of their party called a loser by the person they are trying to cut a deal with? Reid’s has a less than enviable political mind. And this is the best the Democrats can come up with, they are in more trouble than I thought.

Kenneth commented The GOP needs to change the Senate rule now, before any Supreme Court seats open. The Dems will surely filibuster whoever Bush nominates to the Supreme Court, and the rule will have to change then anyway. Might at well do it now and get the political backlash over with (might not be much anyway).

Armando @DailyKos: blogged Hmmm. I don't know how Reid has gotten AP to run this story, but I tip my hat to him. Update [2005-5-6 16:52:40 by Armando]: Or, the AP did its job for once. That could explain it too.

Read More...

How Real ID will affect you

CNet reported Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service.

It is probably too much to ask, but will this include voting?
Practically speaking, your driver's license likely will have to be reissued to meet federal standards. You'll still get one through your state motor vehicle agency, and it will likely take the place of your drivers' license. But the identification process will be more rigorous. For instance, you'll need to bring a "photo identity document," document your birth date and address, and show that your Social Security number is what you had claimed it to be. U.S. citizens will have to prove that status, and foreigners will have to show a valid visa.
I hope the ID will diferentiate between citizen and foreigners, and that for foreigners it will allow tracking if they exceed their visa period.
State DMVs will have to verify that these identity documents are legitimate, digitize them and store them permanently. In addition, Social Security numbers must be verified with the Social Security Administration.

What's going to be stored on this ID card?
At a minimum: name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph,address, and a "common machine-readable technology" that Homeland Security will decide on. The card must also sport "physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes."
That is really good news.
Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements--such as a fingerprint or retinal scan--on top of those. We won't know for a while what these additional requirements will be.

The Real ID Act says federally accepted ID cards must be "machine readable," and lets Homeland Security determine the details. That could end up being a magnetic strip, enhanced bar code, or radio frequency identification (RFID) chips.

In the past, Homeland Security has indicated it likes the concept of RFID chips. The State Department is already going to be embedding RFID devices in passports, and Homeland Security wants to issue,/a> RFID-outfitted IDs to foreign visitors who enter the country at the Mexican and Canadian borders. The agency plans to start a yearlong test of the technology in July at checkpoints in Arizona, New York and Washington state.

Read More...

Mother's Call

LedgerEnquirer reported Kevin Francois gave up his lunch break to talk to his mother, but it ended up costing him the rest of the school year. Francois, a junior at Spencer High School in Columbus, was suspended for disorderly conduct Wednesday after he was told to give up his cell phone at lunch while talking to his mother who is deployed in Iraq, he said. His mother, Sgt. 1st Class Monique Bates, left in January for a one-year tour and serves with the 203rd Forward Support Battalion, 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division. "This is our first time separated like this," said Francois, 17, on Thursday.

Bates came to Fort Benning with her son from Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, Ga. She enrolled him at Spencer in August. Since her deployment overseas, Francois, whose father was killed when he was 5 years old, lives with a guardian who has five children in Columbus. The incident happened when Francois received a call from his mother at 12:30 p.m., which he said was his lunch break. Francois said he went outside the school building to get a better reception when his mother called. A teacher who saw Francois on his phone told him to get off the phone. But he didn't. According to the Muscogee County School District Board of Education's policy, students are allowed to have cell phones in school, but cannot use them during school hours.

"They are really allowed to have those cell phones so that after band or after chorus or after the debate and practices are over they have to coordinate with the parents," said Alfred Parham, assistant principal at Spencer. "They're not supposed to use them for conversating back and forth during school because if they were allowed to do that, they could be text messaging each other for test questions."

If he was at lunch, I doubt that he was taking a test.
Francois said he told the teacher, "This is my mom in Iraq. I'm not about to hang up on my mom." Francois said the teacher tried to take the phone, causing it to hang up.
Kevin should immediately be reinstated, and the teacher who tried to take the phone, knowing he was talking to his mother, should be fired.
The student said he then went with the teacher to the school's office where he surrendered his phone. His mother called again at 12:37 p.m. and left a message scolding her son about hanging up and telling him to answer the phone when she calls.

Steve Verdon commented Granted Francois probably wasn't behaving at his best (he reportedly used profanity when brought into the office), but sheesh is this stupid or what? Why couldn't the teacher have waited until Francois was done talking to his mother, she is in Iraq afterall, then tell him the policy and take him to the office to work out some sort of arrangement where Francois could take calls from his mother. No profanity, polite, and problem solved in an adult manner. Instead some idiot teacher had to over-react. The teacher is the adult and based on the facts so far sounds like he behaved in a childish manner. I'd say, at the very least suspend the teacher for 10 days too. Of course, that won't happen.

Joe Gandelman commented Here's a story that pits common sense against unfeeling educational bureaucratic thinking: a high school student has been suspended for 10 days for refusing to end a mobile phone call with his mother who is serving in Iraq. Even when you read the bare-bones facts of this story from the AP it makes your blood boil. But what about that teacher? Perhaps officials should have a quiet talk with the teacher who would not give him a few minutes to talk with his Mom — his Mom who could wind up one day in the headlines as another war casualty. That teacher, it seems, could have cared less about the distance separating mother and son or the danger facing the mother.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002361.htm commented Contact info for Spencer High School is here.

JCB commented It's time to flood this school with outrage if you have any support for our troops.

Spencer High School   4340 Victory Drive   Columbus, GA 31903
Phone: 706-685-7652   Fax: 706-685-7708
Principal: Olivia Rutledge - orutledge@mcsdga.net
Assitant Principals: Alfred Parham - aparham@mcsdga.net
Wendell Turner - wturner@mcsdga.net


I just sent a message to orutledge@mcsdga.net; aparham@mcsdga.net; wturner@mcsdga.net saying "Kevin Francois should be immediately returned to class, and the teacher that grabbed his phone and caused him to lose contact with his mother in Iraq should be immediately fired

I realise you are concerned about students text messaging other students during a test, but I doubt very seriously Kevin was taking a test outdoors while on his lunch hour" and I urge everyone to do the same

Read More...

Same old saw

Charles Krauthammer editorialized in WaPo Having lured the president out onto a far limb on Social Security, the Democrats have begun sawing. Democratic leaders immediately rejected the president's plan and stood up for all that is good and true and saintedly Rooseveltian -- without, of course, offering any alternative. To be sure, the president started all this on his own, first proposing personal accounts. Democrats objected that this did nothing about the really important issue, namely solvency. So Bush offered five solvency alternatives in his State of the Union address (four first proposed by Democrats) and welcomed any other ideas. The Democrats answered: "You go first." On April 28 the president did go first, proposing a remarkably progressive reduction in the rate of growth of benefits.

A very reasonable solution.
The Democratic leadership, supported by misleading headlines around the country, denounced these "cuts" as the work of a party that never did believe in Social Security and now wants to kill it.
Democrats always complain something is a cut, even if it is an increase that is not as great as they would have preferred.
Yes, these are cuts, but only in the growth of promised benefits in the future -- based on formulas written in the pre-baby boomer retirement era that so inflate benefits that they are entirely unsustainable. They cannot possibly be paid by the taxes of the fewer workers in the future who will be supporting the many retirees.
They don't plan for the future. They just look to the next election.

To simplify somewhat, the amount of your first check upon retirement is based on your average wages during your lifetime. Then a formula adjusts that number to wage inflation -- which generally amounts to price inflation plus about 1 percent annually. The Bush proposal is to preserve this ever-increasing, ever-compounding benefit formula for poorer Americans, while gradually phasing out the extra 1 percent as you move to wealthy wage earners. No one gets cut -- either in nominal or real dollars. Everyone gets at least as much or more than any retiree today, with the poor getting progressively more every year. This is about as fair and progressive a plan as you can find. Even the inveterately, reflexively, often apoplectically anti-Bush Michael Kinsley expressed admiration -- and indeed puzzlement that the president would offer it without any prospect of short-term political advantage.

Leave the quest for short-term political advantage to the Democrats. They have finally gotten a Republican president to openly propose "cuts" in Social Security and they intend to win seats in 2006 running all-out against them. The White House seems to think that this obstructionism will not work. The Democrats will be blamed for doing nothing. But if A accuses B of doing nothing, and B accuses A of destroying the one social program that everyone supports, who do you think wins?
Good point. But the younger voters are beginning to understand, and they are the ones that Dems count on.

And Democrats have a wonderful smoke screen. These "cuts" are not only destructive but unnecessary, they claim, because the insolvency does not kick in until sometime in mid-century -- the Democrats' latest comically precise number is 2052 -- when the "trust fund" runs out. (So much for their month-ago concern about solvency.)

As I have been writing for years with stupefying redundancy -- and obvious lack of success -- this idea is a hoax. There is no trust fund. The past Social Security surpluses were spent the year they were created. The idea that in 2017, when the surpluses disappear, we will be able to go to a box in West Virginia to retrieve the money we need to make up the shortfall (between what Social Security takes in and what it pays out that year) is a deception. There is no money there. It will have to be borrowed or garnered from new taxes.
Precisely. The lock box had a hole in the back.
But things are worse than that. The fiscal problem starts to kick in not in 2017 but in 2009. The Social Security surplus, which Congress happily spends every year, peaks in 2008. Which means that starting in four years (and for every year thereafter) a budgetary squeeze begins, requiring new taxation or new borrowing. If in 2010 tax revenue and spending remain exactly the same as in 2009, the Treasury will not end up with the same size deficit. It will end up with a larger deficit, because the amount of money it was receiving free and "borrowed" from the Social Security surplus will have shrunk. That surplus shrinks from its peak in 2008 to zero in 2017 and goes negative after that. That is a very serious fiscal problem that starts not in 50 years, not even in 12 years, but in four.

Time for action, you might think. Ah. But before all those years comes 2006. And a chance for power. A chance for Democratic politicians to once again hear that most mellifluous phrase: "Mr. Chairman." Hence, that sawing noise.


Matthew Yglesias commented Why it is that conservatives keep writing that there will be "fewer workers in the future" I couldn't quite say. Are they lying? Just totally innumerate? Neither the overall workforce nor the population is shrinking, nor is either projected to do so at any point in the future. This is just some kind of made-up "fact" that rightwingers have convinced themselves of.
Actually what they said is there will be fewer workers to support each retired person.

And why is it that the benefits "cannot possibly be paid by the taxes" of future workers? For the sake of argumet, one can concede Krauthammer's dislike of trust fund accounting
He knows there is no money in the trust fund
and discuss this on a cash flow basis. Benefits, viewed this way, are projected to rise by two percentage points of GDP over the next 75 years. If that were to happen, overall public sector expenditure in the United States (and therefore the long-run tax burden) would need to go up from 35.6 percent of GDP to around 37.6 percent of GDP.
The Dems are just saying there is all of that Gross Domestic Product, let us have more of it to spend
Betsy Newmark commented Charles Krauthammer is his usual precise and devastatingly intelligent self in looking at the dishonest campaign that Democrats are running against any change in the Social Security system. As Krauthammer explains, the Democrats refused at first to even acknowledge that there is any problem with Social Security. Then, when polls showed that people realized that there is a problem with Social Security, they started demanding that the President do something about solvency. When he took the bait and proposed a progressive change in how benefits are calculated, Democratic politicians started crowing that he was destroying the program and harming the middle class. This is not true. I don't like the idea that my benefits might not be as large as they could be. But, hey, I'd rather that than huge taxes and no Social Security benefits for my children.

Read More...

Democratic Suicide

Victor Davis Hanson wrote in National Review We are in unsure times amid a controversial war. Yet the American people are not swayed by the universities, the major networks, the New York Times, Hollywood, the major foundations, and NPR. All these bastions of doctrinaire liberal thinking have done their best to convince America that George W. Bush, captive to right-wing nuts and Christian fanatics, is leading the country into an abyss. In fact, a close look at a map of red/blue counties nationwide suggests that the Democrats are in deepening trouble. Why? In a word, Democratic ideology and rhetoric have not evolved from the 1960s, although the vast majority of Americans has — and an astute Republican leadership knows it.

Actually it has evolved, in that now the Democratic ideology is based on two words HATE and NO. In other words Hate Bush, and Block anything the Republicans want to do. But you are right, if you remove those two things, they fall back to 60s ideology and rhetoric.
The old class warfare was effective for two reasons: Americans did not have unemployment insurance, disability protection, minimum wages, social security, or health coverage. Much less were they awash in cheap material goods from China that offer the less well off the semblance of consumer parity with those far wealthier. Second, the advocates of such rights looked authentic, like they came off the docks, the union hall, the farm, or the shop, primed to battle those in pin-stripes and coiffed hair. Today entitlement is far more complicated. Poverty is not so much absolute as relative: "I have a nice Kia, but he has a Mercedes," or "I have a student loan to go to Stanislaus State, but her parents sent her to Yale." Unfortunately for the Democrats, Kias and going to Stanislaus State aren't too bad, especially compared to the alternatives in the 1950s....

When will Democrats return to power? Three of the most influential legislators in the Democrat party — Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Nancy Pelosi — reside in and came out of the San Francisco Bay area, which for all its undeniable beauty has created a culture still at odds with most of America. John and Teresa Kerry would have been the nation's first billionaire presidential couple. The head of the Democratic party is a New England condescending liberal, with a vicious tongue, who ran and lost on a platform far to the left of an unsuccessful liberal.

In contrast the only two men elected president from the Democratic party in 30 years were southerners, hammed up their rural and common-man roots — the son of a single mother in Arkansas and a peanut farmer in Plains, Georgia — and were narrowly elected largely due to national scandals like Watergate or third-party conservative populists like Ross Perot. The aristocratic media — CSB News, the New York Times, NPR — is often liberal and yet talks of its degrees and pedigree; the firebrand populist bloggers, cable news pros, and talk-radio pundits are mostly conservative and survive on proven merit rather than image.

When we see Democrats speaking and living like normal folks — expressing worry that the United States must return to basic education and values to ensure its shaky preeminence in a cutthroat world, talking of one multiracial society united by a rare exceptional culture of the West rather than a salad bowl of competing races and tribes, and apprising the world that we are principled abroad in our support of democratic nations and quite dangerous when attacked — they will be competitive again.

Since they will not do that, they will keep losing — no matter how much the economy worries, the war frightens, and the elite media scares the American people.


Hugh Hewitt commented Victor Davis Hanson writes this morning that the Democrats seem intent on continuing their electoral suicide, which would be a comforting thought but for the presence of Bill and Hillary who know a few things about winning elections through shrewd repositioning of rhetoric.

TheAnchoress commented Victor Davis Hanson talks here about the inability of the Democrats to evolve and grow up. Only he says it much, much better than I. I plead sickness for today, but in truth, he always says everything better than I!

Read More...

Clinton veers left

NYP reported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is putting the brakes on her move to the political middle by opposing legislation that would bar helping underage girls cross state lines for an abortion without their parents' consent.

Clinton — despite preaching moderation in recent speeches — will toe the Democratic line in the Senate in an effort to block a GOP-backed bill that just passed the House and makes it illegal for anyone to help a girl get a secret out-of-state abortion. "I don't believe that any young woman should have to make this decision alone. But, tragically, there are sometimes instances in which a young woman simply cannot involve her parents, including rape, violence or incest," Clinton told The Post.

Rape (violence) is one time when a child definitely should involve her parents, because she needs their support, and in the case of incest, she should involve the police, and then involve family that are not under arrest.
"I oppose the House-passed bill, which glosses over these complicated situations, making criminals out of grandparents, clergy and other adults who try to act in good faith."
Violation of the law is not "good faith"
The bill punishes adults with up to one year in jail and a $100,000 fine for helping minors bypass restrictive laws in their home states for abortions elsewhere without their parents consent. It also imposes a 24-hour waiting period for out-of-state abortions, even with a parent's consent.

The House approved the measure last week with a 270 to 157 vote. Fifty-four Democrats crossed over in support.
Good for them.
None of New York state's Democratic members of Congress voted for it. As Clinton pursues a potential 2008 White House bid, her opposition could have long-term ramifications because the overwhelming majority of Americans support parental notification for underage abortions.

TheAnchoress commented “She is seeking “common ground” with the pro-lifers!” the msm sighed in starry-eyed-sycophantasia. “Hillary is going to bring something real to the debate.”

Um. No. She isn’t going to bring something real to the debate, and she never was going to. Hillary’s “common ground” gesture was simply that - a gesture. A Hillarian escape of warm air from her lungs, meaning absolutely nothing beyond the sound bite, the quote for the record and the wink-wink “you-guys-all-know-this-doesn’t-change-anything” to her base. Hillary never actually says anything that means anything. She just gasses away, droning from the script and the press does the actual thumping for her.... Clinton never preached moderation. Her “common ground” comments amounted to: “I’m not moving one step closer to the middle, but I think we should talk nicer to each other about this until we finally get these pro-lifers to give it up.”... While Hillary and her cohorts plead “compassion” here what they are doing is making it easy for your 14 year-old daughter’s 24 year-old exploiter to take her across the state lines and have the evidence of his statutory rape vacuumed out of her body before he leaves her, crushed and alone, to deal forever with what has happened to her. While her family knows nothing about any of it and wonders why she is suddenly depressed, morose, dressing in black and cutting herself. That’s compassion for you.


K. J. Lopez commented She can talk all she wants, but here is where she is at: opposing a bill that would prohibit children from being taken out of state for abortions without a parent's knowledge.

Read More...

Court yanks down FCC's broadcast flag

CNet reports In a stunning victory for hardware makers and television buffs, a federal appeals court has tossed out government rules that would have outlawed many digital TV receivers and tuner cards starting July 1.

This is a fantastic decision, and preserves the fair use of material broadcast on TV
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Friday that the Federal Communications Commission did not have the authority to prohibit the manufacture of computer and video hardware that doesn't have copy protection technology known as the "broadcast flag." The regulations, which the FCC created in November 2003, had been intended to limit unauthorized Internet redistribution of over-the-air TV broadcasts.

"The broadcast flag regulations exceed the agency's delegated authority under the statute," a three-judge panel unanimously concluded. "The FCC has no authority to regulate consumer electronic devices that can be used for receipt of wire or radio communication when those devices are not engaged in the process of radio or wire transmission." (Click here for a PDF of the decision.)

One result of Friday's ruling is that, unless it's eventually overturned by a higher court, the fight over digital TV piracy will return to Capitol Hill. The D.C. appeals court noted that the FCC "has no power to act" until "Congress confers power on it" by enacting a law explicitly authorizing the broadcast flag.
So Hollywood will have to try to bribe enough congressmen to pass a law authorizing it. Hopefully this will be difficult to do in a Republican controled congress that does not like Hollywood.
Under the FCC rules, starting in July digital TV tuner manufacturers would have had to include the broadcast flag. The flag limits a person's ability to redistribute video clips made from the recorded over-the-air broadcasts.

But in January, a coalition of librarians and public interest groups filed suit against the regulations, arguing that they would sharply curtail the ability of librarians and consumers to make "fair use" of copyrighted works and would curb interoperability between devices.
Good for them
Under the proposed rule, it would have become illegal to "sell or distribute" any product capable of receiving broadcast-flagged shows unless the product complies with the FCC's regulations. Such products could handle flagged broadcasts only in specific ways set by the government. Those essentially include delivering analog output without copy protection, digital output to a few low-end displays, or high-quality digital output to devices that also adhere to the broadcast flag specification.

In general, consumers would have been able to record broadcast-flagged shows and movies, but would only be able to play them back on the same device. The FCC rules specify that all devices must uniquely link "such recording with a single covered demodulator product, using a cryptographic protocol or other effective means, so that such recording cannot be accessed in usable form by another product."


Dan Gillmor blogged Now the entertainment cartel will have to get its wishes the old-fashioned way. It will have to attempt to verbally bludgeon or buy enough members of Congress to get an actual law passed, as opposed to the end run it pulled with its friends at the Federal Communications Commission, which enacted a rule giving the cartel what it wanted.

The broadcast flag rule was an amazingly brazen piece of work. It would force manufacturers of anything that could be used to receive or display a digital broadcast video signal to refuse to redistribute the video. In other words, you could watch the show but, if the copyright holder wished, you could not record it on your VCR or send it to another TV set.

The idea was to prevent unauthorized distribution, obviously, and it's easy to understand why the cartel worries about this. But the broadcast flag sent a message both to customers and innovative technologists: We are in a pay-per-view world of hyper-controlled media, if the copyright decrees it, and you may not do anything to save your fair use or other traditional rights unless we approve.

Now it's back to Congress, where the battles will continue -- and where this belonged in the first place.


geeknewscentral blogged geeknewscentral

OTB blogged While Dan Gilmour pronounces this, "A Win for Fair Use, Consumer Rights," it appears to be merely a very narrow, technical decision about the FCC's authority rather than about the rights of people who own software to make copies of it.

Jeff Jarvis argues that the entertainment industry ought to take this opportunity and figure out how to make a profit with it, rather than going back to Congress seeking protection.


Jeff Jarvis blogged No, no, no: The far smarter thing to do would be to turn around and ask how the entertainment industry can take advantage of this opportunity: You support free broadcast TV with advertising. You should find the way to support free distributed TV with advertising. That will be a lot easier -- and more lucrative -- than playing legal wack-a-mole. Wikipedia background here.

Ernie Miller blogged Read the 34-page decision by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals: American Library Association v. Federal Communications Commission [PDF]. He also has A LOT of links related to this subject.

Read More...

The Left Catches On

Tech Central Station reports Something remarkable is happening as a Republican Congress and president move to crackdown on 527 groups like the MoveOn.org Voter Fund and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Liberals are realizing that something's fishy.

Three years after the passage of McCain-Feingold (a.k.a. the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a.k.a. the End of Free Speech As We Know It), a smattering of Democrats and liberal activists are slowly coming to the conclusion that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to let the government decide who can and cannot engage in political speech.

After all, what would prevent incumbents in Congress from passing laws to secure their jobs by making it harder for their opponents to criticize them? And what would prevent a political party -- holding, say, power in both houses of Congress and the White House -- from using election laws to try to smother the opposition? Right: Nothing. Such keen, if belated insight, seems to be what motivated former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle to pen a guest column for the inside-the-beltway political paper Roll Call last Tuesday, warning Democrats that the current round of regulation is a trap.

If there was some way they could twist the legislation to screw Republicans and boost their chances, they would be for it, but they figure it will stop the 527s that they used much more than the Republicans in the last election (and yet it was a 527, the Swift Boat Veterans, that did Kerry the most damage)
"This past autumn, special interest groups rushed to South Dakota to attack my record and question my values. Many of their advertisements were harshly negative in substance and tone, and they reflected little respect for fact or substance,"
In other words they were like what Democrats do.
Daschle writes of last year's election season, which turned him out of office. "At times like this, in anger and frustration, candidates may wish that Congress could and would outlaw such advertisements. After a season of swift boats, in South Dakota and elsewhere, that wish is powerful, and it is understandable." Now, why Daschle thinks it's "understandable" that Congress should want to shut up people who criticize congressmen is puzzling, but that's a topic for another day. For now, let's just cue the scary music.

That wish is understandable, he writes, but it is also misplaced. "Those who, like me, have long supported campaign finance reform should keep a wary eye on how those who do not really share our commitment
To exploit it for partisian Democratic purposes
would exploit it for their own partisan purposes," Daschle writes. "Campaign finance regulation should not become the new weapon in the ongoing effort to change the rules -- many and different rules -- to favor and entrench one party's political interest."

Daschle's attempt to cut a fine line between the current assault of 527s and the broader assault on free speech in 2002 leaves his credibility in tatters. Both parties signed onto McCain-Feingold because, at the time, each secretly believed it was getting one over on the other. Democrats held to an outdated notion that their party couldn't compete with the GOP at raising soft money (large, unregulated checks that the bill theoretically eliminated), and they miscalculated. Republicans knew they could raise circles around the Dems when it came to hard money (smaller, regulated checks that the bill left in tact), and they won the lottery. So, everyone was trying to "exploit it for their own partisan purposes," in Daschle's words. The Democrats were just incompetent exploiters.

But that certainly doesn't mean Daschle's wrong about the Republicans' motives. Republicans have poured fewer resources into 527s than have Democrats, assuming that the Federal Election Commission would regulate them into oblivion or that GOP majority in Congress would eventually intervene -- as it's doing now. And Daschle's not the only one who's noticed.

"Between the Tom DeLay ethics scandals in the House to Bill Frist's 'nuclear' assault on the Senate filibuster, it's really good to be in the Majority," read the blog of Americans Coming Together, a liberal 527 that seems to have caught a whiff of the same scent Daschle caught, earlier this month. "If you don't like the rules, change them."

ACT quotes former Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign manager (now RNC chairman) Ken Mehlman as crediting ACT's turnout prowess with helping keep Kerry within 119,000 Ohio votes of winning and with the ability to keep future Democrats within striking range. "Clearly," the blog says, "they do, indeed, take us seriously."

It continues, appealing to the group's supporters: "It's easy to point to an example like the Swift Boat Veterans' attack ads as something we can all agree is unseemly. But this legislation is not really about 'cleaning up politics' as they say. There's more to it … This bill is about silencing your progressive voice. Please don't let that happen."

Of course, campaign-finance reform was never about cleaning up politics -- it was always just politics by other means. But it's nice to hear someone other than the usual right-wingers say it.

Now, if only the usual right-wingers and the newly street-smart left-wingers could make common cause and get together and take Tom Daschle's advice. It could just be the first major setback for the campaign-finance lobby in a long, long time.


Liberals are also wary of 527 reform. They even have a petition to stop S. 271 and H.R. 513 – the “527 Reform Act of 2005”

Michelle Malkin blogged Ryan Sager continues his excellent coverage of the folly of campaign finance reform. His latest Tech Central Station column reports on some on the Left finally catching on to "the conclusion that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to let the government decide who can and cannot engage in political speech." Ya think?

Glenn Reynolds blogged Ryan Sager notes that Democrats are catching on to the problems with campaign finance "reform:" Better late than never, I guess.

Read More...

Support this teacher

AccessNorthGa reports A Gwinnett County teacher was fired early Friday after refusing to raise a student athlete's grade he lowered because the student appeared to be sleeping in class. The Gwinnett County School Board voted 4-1 early Friday _ after a marathon Thursday night meeting _ to fire Dacula High School science teacher Larry Neace, said school system spokeswoman Sloan Roach.

I know that High School Football is important in many small towns, but this is stupid.
"These students lost a teacher who cared not only about their academic growth, but their growth as individuals," said Deidre M. Stephens-Johnson, who represented Neace. More than 200 students, parents and teachers packed Thursday night's hearing. Many of them carried signs or wore T-shirts and buttons supporting Neace.
Georgia can't afford to have good teachers, if it interferes with winning the football game each week.
Gwinnett school officials said Neace was barred from campus for insubordination after he repeatedly refused to comply with a district policy that prohibits using grades as discipline. Neace, who has taught at Dacula High for 23 years, was removed from class after he refused to raise the grade he had given a football player on an overnight assignment. Neace said he cut the student's perfect grade in half because he thought the student had fallen asleep at his desk the day the assignment was made. School officials said they gave Neace a chance to restore the football player's grade. When he refused, they sent him home. He has not been allowed back at school since April 14, when he was told he could resign or face being fired. Superintendent J. Alvin Wilbanks recommended to the board that Neace be fired."He cannot have a policy that supersedes board policy," Wilbanks said.
A stupid policy should be removed, along with the board members that instituted it.
"He had no right to do that." Neace said he had a practice of reducing the grades of students who waste time or sleep in class. His course syllabus warns that wasting class time can "earn a zero for a student on assignments or labs." No administrators had previously complained about the practice, which he adopted more than a decade ago, Neace said.
Maybe he never used it against the star football player.
"What we have in this case is a case of a pampered football athlete sleeping in class and being given favored treatment on an academic grade," said Michael Kramer, another of Neace's lawyers. "What we have here is the principal essentially attempting to coerce and intimidate a teacher."

Michelle Malkin blogged Students are trying to rally around Neace. 114 of them have signed a petition asking for his reinstatement. Contact info for the Gwinnett County School Board is here.

Winfield Myers blogged Larry Neace has spent 23 of the past 26 years teaching physics -- not an easy subject -- to high school students in the formerly small town of Dacula, Georgia. In the wee hours of this morning, the Gwinnett County School Board voted to fire him in spite of his stellar record and the support of scores of students, whose impassioned pleas that he be retained were ignored by the Board, and a principal aptly named Donnie Nutt.
The whole school board is NUTTs
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Neace, who's nickname among students is Doc, was fired precisely because of his stellar performance and emotional following among his students. For it seems that he crossed what amounts to a death line for too many public teachers in America: he marked down the grade of a star athlete and, in doing so, spat in the face of the enforced mediocrity too many in his profession rely on to keep their jobs.
Georgia can't afford to have really good teachers.
The story, as recorded over the past week in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, goes like this: Neace, 61, has a decade-old policy of academically penalizing students who "waste time" in class. Among the actions, or inactions, that qualify for this move is sleeping in class, which is what the football playing son of Barry Cheek did in April. Cheek slept through the class in which an assignment, to be turned in the next morning, was made. As he has done for the past ten years, and as he stated clearly to the class on the first day of the term that he would do, Neace halved the student's grade.

If you wonder what's wrong with public education in America, here's one thing: the School Board has a policy of not allowing teachers to use grades to penalize students for such behavior. That is, what I could do as a college professor (via a demand for class participation or attendance), or what will most certainly occur in any job, cannot happen in Gwinnett County classrooms.
We can't have teachers enforcing discipline in their classrooms. The students might learn something.
Remember: this is high school. High school students are kids, not adults, and (think back) no small number of them will gladly disrupt class in myriad ways. Assignments in high school come fast and furious, too -- don't let your college days throw you on this. Remember all the tests, assignments, and projects you did during those halcyon days? Without the means to gain and maintain control over a class, and to instill some discipline into young minds, teaching in public schools can become even more difficult and thankless than it already is.

When ordered to raise the student athlete's grade, Neace refused. Good for him. The students he touches -- and 114 of them have signed a petition calling for his reinstatement -- will remain grateful to him for the rest of their lives. Students have also made t-shirts lauding him (a most American response to any crisis) and plastered the walls of the school with posters calling for his firing to be rescinded.

Neace is a physics teacher, mind you, not some push-over who shares my humanities background. When was the last time you were eager to take any physics class, even one taught in high school? That he could find so much support speaks volumes of his character, integrity, and talent.


mikesofc blogged The Devil Went Down To Georgia… What’s with Georgians these days? First, we have Jennifer Wilbanks. A certifiable…something. Now, we have this story…

Lockjaw blogged Physics Teacher Fired for Insisting on Academics

Read More...

Europeans to Counter Google Print Project

Yahoo! News reported Europeans have long bemoaned the influence of Hollywood movies on their culture. Now plans by Google Inc. to create a massive digital library have triggered such strong fears in Europe about Anglo-American cultural dominance that one critic is warning of a "unilateral command of the thought of the world." For Europeans, the fear is that the continent's contribution to the pillars of recorded knowledge will be crushed by a profit-oriented California company — and may end up presenting a U.S.-centric version of the world's literary legacy.

Google's ambitions are grand — if a bit more modest than the hostile corporate takeover of the tiller of world literature that many critics seem to be imagining. The project, announced in December, involves scanning millions of books at the libraries of four universities — Oxford, Harvard, Stanford and the University of Michigan — as well as the New York Public Library and putting them online. It will take years to complete.

So great is the concern that six European leaders have jointly proposed creating a "European digital library" to counter the project by Google Print, as the new venture is known. Other countries are expected to come on board. Failing to digitalize — declared the heads of state in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland and Hungary in an appeal to the
European Union — is to risk that "this heritage could, tomorrow, not fill its just place in the future geography of knowledge."


The French are paranoid, but in this case their paranoia is good for all of us, because now there will be additional effort spent digitizing European literature, to go along with Google's effort, and soon we may have online access to all of the world's literature.

This may cause concern among librarians, but even they need not fear, because the volume of that information will be so great that we will need their help in organizing it, and helping us find what we want.

Read More...

Perfect soup

CSM reports Primordial matter has been a key target. Incredibly hot and dense, it existed for only microseconds after the "Big Bang" birth of our universe. Out of it came the first particles that formed the first atoms some 400,000 years after the bang. Today, many particles, including protons and neutrons that make up atomic nuclei, are themselves composed of entities physicists call quarks. These, in turn, are bound together in those particles by so-called gluons, which represent a very strong force. You never see quarks wandering about on their own. Things were different during those first few microseconds. Quarks and gluons were free agents. Cosmologists thought they would have formed a gas of charged particles called a plasma. Now the Brookhaven team has shown that this theory is mistaken. The team's experiments show that the quarks and gluons probably created what Brookhaven scientist Samuel Aronson calls "the most nearly perfect liquid ever observed." That means a liquid with very low viscosity and fast interaction among its particles. It's the kind of liquid that classical hydrodynamic theory was designed to handle.

What could possibly have formed the "most perfect liquid ever observed." Is this proof of the theory of Intelligent Design", and was the "most perfect liquid ever observed" created by the Creator? It is a good thing that as we reported earlier, Kansas and other states are resisting the Secular Humanists and considering teaching of Intelligent Design along with Evolution.
Brookhaven's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider created this liquid by smashing gold atoms together. Collisions produced microscopic fireballs 150,000 times hotter than the center of the Sun and 100 times denser than an atomic nucleus. Deciphering the bursts of particles and radiation streaming from these fireballs is just beginning. However, the four teams studying them with four different types of detectors agree that they probably have produced bits of the early universe. They also agree that this substance appears to conform to the classical theoretical ideal of a perfect liquid - a startling finding.
It is certainly not what you would expect from Random Chance, but certainly something that an Intelligent Designer might have Created.
Meanwhile, another nagging unknown has yielded to sophisticated astronomical research. Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that material mass, say a galaxy, will act like a lens to distort and magnify the image of a more distant object. The distorting effect has been seen many times. The magnification effect has been elusive. Several research teams have claimed to detect it. Their data aren't persuasive. Now the Sloan Digital Sky Survey - an international effort to understand the structure of our universe - claims success. Instead of peering into the heavens, the survey team looked into data on 13 million galaxies and 200,000 of the extremely bright objects called quasars. "We took cutting-edge ideas from the world of computer science and statistics and applied them to our data," explains Gordon Richards at Princeton University. Einstein's predicted magnification effect is confirmed. So too is the consistency of modern cosmological theory based on Einstein's work. We have only begun to unravel the mysteries of the universe. But research typified by Brookhaven's atom smashing sets a new gold standard for efforts to penetrate what once seemed beyond our ken.
Beyond our ken, but not beyond the ken of an Intelligent Designer

Read More...

Pharming

CSM reports For two years users have been hearing about "phishing," the sending of bogus e-mails - allegedly from a bank or other online business - by criminals who hope to hook the unwary. Those who bite by clicking on a hyperlink in the e-mail are shipped off to a phony but authentic-looking website and asked to enter sensitive information. If they type in their passwords or account numbers, thieves have that data.

Now phishers have been joined by "pharmers," who have made the ruse more sophisticated by planting a seed of malicious software in the user's own computer - or poisoning servers that direct traffic on the Internet. The result: Even if you type in the correct address of a website, the software can send you to a bogus one....

Phishing attacks "rely on some gullibility of and participation by the victims," Mr. Cottrell says, since they must be persuaded to click on a link within the e-mail. But not clicking on such links "is no protection against a pharming attack."

Here's how the scam works. The thieves rely on the fact that the word address you use, such as www.my-bank.com, is connected to a distinct numerical address, like a browser to the right website. Pharming replaces the number with a fraudulent one, sending you to a criminal site instead of the real one.

Besides keeping antivirus and antispyware programming up to date on their PC, users have few other ways to defend themselves from pharming.

But any website that is conducting financial transactions should be able to maintain a secure website, Internet security experts say. The corner of the browser should display a padlock symbol, and the address in the address bar should begin with "https," not simply "http."...

But another kind of pharming, sometimes called "domain spoofing," "domain poisoning," or "cache poisoning," attacks the servers that route traffic around the Internet. These so-called domain name system (DNS) servers also link the word address to its underlying numerical address.

To corrupt a DNS "takes significantly more expertise, more access" than attacking PCs, says Peter Cassidy, secretary-general of the Anti-Phishing Working Group, which has offices in Cambridge, Mass., and Menlo Park, Calif. That's why thieves first will try to get into individual computers.


Be careful

Read More...

Black Caucus shows constituent changes

WT reports Black Caucus shows constituent changes

About 35 years after its founding, Congressional Black Caucus members no longer vote lock step with each other and the Democratic Party, reflecting a significant change in the economic status and demographics of their constituents and their own political aspirations.

They have finally wised up. The Dems always took the black vote for granted, and it looks like the blacks are finally figuring that out.
....In the early days, members said, the caucus' mantra went hand in hand with President Johnson's vision to use federal policies to close disparities in employment, wealth, health care and civil rights between blacks and whites.
In other words buying their votes with handouts designed to keep them poor by giving them no incentive to better themselves
"When we first started out, we were dealing with a dozen members, and man, it was easy," said Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, a founding member of the caucus. But as the American social climate has changed and more blacks have moved out of poverty -- only a quarter of blacks are at the poverty level today, compared to more than half in 1965 -- the politics have changed, as well. More blacks are interested in lower taxes and pro-business policies that will lead to job growth.
I.E. Republican Policies
The changes have played out on a series of votes this year, such as passage of the Republican-led bankruptcy bill, which 10 members of the caucus voted for, and elimination of the estate tax, which drew eight votes from the 41-member caucus. Five members, all Democrats, voted for both measures: Reps. David Scott and Sanford D. Bishop Jr. of Georgia, Albert R. Wynn of Maryland, Harold E. Ford Jr. of Tennessee and William J. Jefferson of Louisiana.

Todd Zywicki blogged The article suggests that the key political dynamic at work is the growth in the black middle class and the growing recognition that many small businesses are minority-owned businesses. As a result, more members of the Congressional Black Caucus are taking the expressed views of small businesses into account in their voting pattern. As I noted earlier, when I attended the signing ceremony for the bankruptcy reform legislation, I sat next to the owners of a family-owned lumber store in rural New Jersey, who described for me the dramatic negative effects that bankruptcy losses can have on small businesses. And, of course, excessive bankruptcy losses are most likely to negatively impact higher-risk borrowers, such as young and minority borrowers, in terms of higher credit costs and reduced access to credit.

There may also be a generational change at work here, as those supporting these small-business initiatives also seem to be drawn from the younger and southern members of the Black Caucus (who joined most centrist Democrats in voting for bankruptcy reform), whereas the old rust-belt guys like Congressman Charles Rangel dismiss the votes as "just stupid" and John Conyers just chalks it up political ambition for higher office. In other words, it seems pretty clear where the new ideas in the Congressional Black Caucus lie on issues like bankruptcy reform.

The Senate roll call vote on the bankruptcy reform legislation is here; the House vote is here.


Betsy Newmark blogged Charles Rangel doesn't buy the idea that changing economics for blacks might lead to black Representatives voting differently than he himself votes. Catch this diplomatic and tolerant language.
"We have to be very, very tolerant of a person that votes stupid, because they may think they have a good reason and they are the ones who come down here, so you may think the vote is stupid but they know what they are doing," Mr. Rangel said.
Now, if you were one of the Black Caucus who just voted for the bankruptcy bill or the estate-tax bill, are you going to appreciate Rangel calling you stupid in public? Are you going to more or less inclined to follow his lead in the future? Who is the stupid one?


As more blacks enter the middle class and even the upper middle class, the more they see that Republican policies of tax cuts and encouraging opportunity for advancement are the way to go.

Read More...

Friday, May 6

This Day In History

  • 1861   Arkansas seceded from the Union.
  • 1882   Over President Chester A. Arthur's veto, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred Chinese immigrants from the United States for 10 years.
  • 1889   The Paris Exposition formally opened, featuring the just-completed Eiffel Tower.
  • 1895   Silent-screen star Rudolph Valentino was born in Castellaneta, Italy.
  • 1910   Britain's King Edward VII died.
  • 1935   The Works Progress Administration began operations.
  • 1941   Josef Stalin assumed the Soviet premiership, replacing Vyacheslav M. Molotov.
  • 1942   Some 15,000 Americans and Filipinos on Corregidor surrendered to the Japanese during World War II.
  • 1954   Roger Bannister broke the four-minute mile during a track meet in Oxford, England, finishing in 3 minutes 59.4 seconds.
  • 1960   Britain's Princess Margaret married Anthony Armstrong Jones, a commoner, at Westminster Abbey.
  • 1987   CIA Director William J. Casey died at age 74.
  • 1992   Actress Marlene Dietrich died at age 90.
  • 1994   Former Arkansas state worker Paula Jones filed suit against President Clinton, alleging he'd sexually harassed her in 1991.
  • 1994   Britain's Queen Elizabeth II and French President Francois Mitterrand formally opened the Channel Tunnel between their countries.
  • 1996   The body of former CIA director William E. Colby was found washed up on a riverbank in southern Maryland, eight days after he'd disappeared.
  • 1997   Hemophiliacs who contracted AIDS between 1978 and 1985 from tainted blood products accepted a $600 million settlement from four health-care companies.
  • 2001   John Paul II, during a trip to Syria, became the first pope to enter a mosque.
  • 2002   Right-wing Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was shot and killed in Hilversum, Netherlands.
  • 2002   Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi was freed after 19 months of house arrest.
Happy Birthday To
  • 1758   Maximilian Robespierre (French revolutionary; executed [guillotine] July 28, 1794)
  • 1856   Sigmund Freud (psychiatrist, originated psychoanalysis; died Sep 23, 1939)
  • 1856   Robert E. Peary (explorer: discoverer of the North Pole, Greenland, and the Melville meteorite; died Jan 20, 1920)
  • 1895   Rudolph Valentino (Rodolfo Pietro Filiberto Raffaello Guglielmi di Valentina) (actor: The Big Little Person, The Delicious Little Devil, Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Blood and Sand, Sheik; died Aug 23, 1926)
  • 1903   (Bernard) Toots Shor (restaurateur, barkeep; died Jan 23, 1977)
  • 1961   George (Timothy) Clooney (actor: E/R)

Read More...

Thursday, May 05, 2005

David Hackworth

Newsday reported David Hackworth, Vietnam vet and military analyst, dies at 74

Retired Army Col. David Hackworth, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran who spoke out against the war and later became a journalist and advocate for military reform, has died, his wife said Thursday. He was 74. Hackworth died Wednesday in Tijuana, Mexico, where he was receiving treatment for bladder cancer. He lived with his wife in Greenwich.

A Newsweek correspondent during the Gulf War, Hackworth worked in recent years as a syndicated columnist for King Features, often criticizing the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war. "Most combat vets pick their fights carefully. They look at their scars, remember the madness and are always mindful of the fallout," Hackworth wrote in February. "That's not the case in Washington, where the White House and the Pentagon are run by civilians who have never sweated it out on a battlefield." Hackworth ignited a national debate last year when he reported that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld used a machine to sign condolence letters sent to the families of fallen soldiers. Rumsfeld later promised to sign each letter by hand. "Hack never lost his focus," said Roger Charles, president of Soldiers for the Truth, a California-based veterans group that Hackworth chaired. "That focus was on the young kids that our country sends to bleed and die on our behalf. Everything he did in his retirement was to try to give them a better chance to win and to come home. That's one hell of a legacy."


Steve M. blogged There's more in the obituary that appears at Yahoo News and on Hackworth's Web site.

bothenook blogged Here is an archive of his latest columns for the world net daily

Jeff Quinton has a number of good links.

Michelle Malkin blogged The outspoken retired Army colonel died of cancer yesterday, WND reports. Didn't agree with much of his work, especially over the last few years, but he lived a fascinating life of service to this country.
David Hackworth - May God give you peace and rest, and thank you for what you did for your country

Read More...

Evolution

NYT reports Kansas Begins Hearings on Diluting Teaching of Evolution

In the first of three daylong hearings characterized here as the direct descendant of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a parade of Ph.D.'s testified today about the flaws they find in Darwin's theory of evolution, transforming a small auditorium into a forum on one of the most controversial questions in education and politics: How to teach about the origin of life? The hearings by the Kansas State Board of Education- one part science lesson, one part political theater - were set off by proposed changes to Kansas's science standards intended to bring a more critical approach to the teaching of Darwinism. The sessions provided perhaps the highest-profile stage yet for the emerging movement known as intelligent design, which asserts that life is so intricately complex that an architect must be behind it. Critics argue that intelligent design has no basis in science and is another iteration of creationism.

The theory of intelligent design makes sense to me.
Scientists who defend Darwinism are boycotting the hearings, called by the state school board's conservative majority. Nonetheless, a lawyer representing them peppered the other side's experts with queries both profound and personal. "Can you tell us, sir, how old you believe the Earth is?" the lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray, asked William S. Harris, a chemist, who helped write the proposed changes to the state standards. "I don't know," Dr. Harris replied. "I think it's probably really old." If the state board adopts the new standards, as expected, Kansas will join Ohio, which took a similar step in 2002, in requiring that students be taught that there is controversy about evolution. Legislators in Alabama and Georgia have introduced bills this season to allow teachers to challenge Darwin in class.
This is place for decisions like this - the state legislature.
The battle over evolution is also being fought school district to school district. Parents in Dover, Penn., filed a lawsuit last year when theirs became the first district to mandate the teaching of intelligent design. The school board in Cobb County, Ga., is appealing a January ruling by a federal judge ordering the removal of stickers placed on biology textbooks that declared evolution theory, not fact.
These decisions should be made in the legislature, not in the courts.
While the proposed new standards for Kansas do not specifically mention intelligent design, critics contend that the proposed changes will open the door not just for those teachings, but to creationism, which generally holds to the Genesis account of creation. For Kansas, the debate is déjà vu: the last time the state standards were under review, in 1999, conservatives on the school board ignored their expert panel and deleted virtually any reference to evolution. But they were ousted in the next election and their changes were undone. Antievolution forces quietly regained the seats over the next few years, attacking fellow Republicans as atheists.
Name calling does not gain anything.
Now, though the eight proponents of intelligent design were outnumbered on the 26-member committee writing the new standards, the state board's 6-to-4 conservative majority set up this week's showcase hearings to highlight their own suggestions for the way to teach science. "There is no science without criticism," said Charles Thaxton, a chemist and co-author of the 1984 book "The Mystery of Life's Origins," which questions traditional scientific explanations. "Any science that weathers the criticism and survives is a better theory for it." But the debate was as much about religion and politics as science and education, with Mr. Irigonegaray pressing witnesses to find mentions of the theories they were denouncing, like humanism and naturalism, in the state standards, and asking whether they believe all scientists are atheists.
I certainly don't.
"These people are going to obfuscate about these definitions," complained Jack Krebs, vice president of the pro-evolution Kansas Citizens for Science, whose members, wearing "I support strong science education" buttons, filled many of the 180 auditorium seats not taken by journalists from as far away as France. "They have created a straw man. They are trying to make science stand for atheism, so they can fight atheism."

Jason blogged Now, I'm digging the theory of evolution. As a theist, I regard evolution as one of the mechanisms in a greater theory of intelligent design. But I do not believe that the literalist, die-hard "new earth" creation theory stands up to the evidence available, or even close to it. Nevertheless, check out the New York Times' headline. Kansas Begins Teaching Headlines on Diluting Teaching of Evolution No, that is not what is at stake here. There is nothing in Darwinian evolution which postulates the absence of intelligent design. Evolution as Darwin describes could easily occur in a theistic or atheistic milieu - which is its strength.
Then what is the problem with treating Intelligent Design
It cannot occur in a "new earth" milieu, which is why new earth creationism is discredited (along with its moonbat adherents.)
Name calling is not a good way to back up an argument.
I think the reporter probably understands the nuances of the argument pretty well. But the knuckleheads at the NY Times copydesk either don't, or are trying to kill the baby in the crib with a distorting, misleading headline. There is nothing about ID that dilutes evolution. ID tries to EXPLAIN evolution, not change it. And students will have a better understanding of the interface between science and theism, and the limits of science, and of evolution itself, for having looked at evolution through the lens of intelligent design.
Sounds reasonable to me

Read More...

The Republican Thumb on PBS

NYT published 8 letters complaining about Republican pressure on PBS. See this earlier blog article

  • The job of the press is to scrutinize government, not praise it. The administration gives its story in the best possible light using taxpayer money. That must be countered by a vigorously critical free press.
    There is, but it is not financed with taxpayer money
  • From 1980 to 1984, I was the program officer in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Program Fund in charge of news and public affairs programs. Our idea was that to engender discussion of critical issues, we would provide a balance of viewpoints across a series of programs, not within each program. But that was not enough for the conservative ideologues being appointed to the board by President Reagan. They wanted no program expressing a point of view unless it was their own. The drumbeat against PBS has continued ever since: "balance" your programs toward the right, or else. Mindless "balance" within a program pits a saint against a horse thief and says, "Only time will tell." Journalistic fairness, not "balance," should be the goal.
    But who defines what is fair? An extreme left wing liberal?
  • As a conservative who is a sometime reader of The New York Times and a sometime listener-viewer of PBS, I must say the idea that PBS is a fair and balanced network is as ludicrous as Fox TV's explicit claim in that regard. PBS has every right to its opinions, but no right to have them subsidized by taxpayers. Taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize either liberal or conservative propaganda.
    I agree
  • Yes, PBS is biased! It is biased in favor of intelligence, honesty, a healthy curiosity about the world and an even healthier skepticism of dubious assertions and posturing. The day PBS loses its biases, it will be just another propaganda machine. We already have more than enough rant and cant. Keep your biases, PBS!
    But dont ask taxpayers to pay for them.
  • I am curious to know exactly what Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, means by "balance." What, for example, would constitute balance when reporting on the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Equal numbers of speakers asserting and denying the existence of such weapons? Assessing the quality of journalism is not always a matter of tallying voices on each side of an issue.
    Equal number on both sides sounds fair to me.
  • The unfortunate result of any successful attempt to restrict the programming autonomy of PBS will be to further dumb down TV and Americans in general. So many Republican leaders are blinded by a "political fundamentalism" that obscures their ability to determine intelligence from opinion. Bill Moyers may have a viewpoint, but he carefully separates it from his reporting, which is always packed with facts and information and which has earned him status as a great journalist. It is the lack of facts and information that is threatening an already besieged democracy.
    Both his opinion and reporting are biased to the left
  • I am horrified that the Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is exerting pressure on PBS to broadcast conservative programming and conservative points of view. The Republicans have been heedless to the fact of separation of church and state, and now they are trampling on one of our most cherished freedoms, freedom of the press. Can't something be done about their bullying tactics? They are ruining everything that is worthwhile about this country.
    He is not. He is saying that if taxpayers are to pay for it, it should show both sides.
  • The interference by the Bush administration into PBS's programming should sound a warning loud and clear to all media: you cannot stand by idly and watch this happen. It is time for the press, TV and radio networks and cable to band together in opposition to this action, lest they be next. Where is the outrage?
    The taxpayers are just paying for PBS and NPR, and that is what he says should be balanced

Read More...

Blogs vs Newspapers

Michelle Malkin blogged Michael Malone of ABC News asserts that "[m]any blogs enjoy readerships larger than some major metropolitan newspapers."

Wow! That's great news for bloggers! But is it true?

The circulation of most major metropolitan newspapers is 200,000 or more. Many average more than 400,000. By comparison, Instapundit currently averages about 130,000 visits (not unique visitors) a day. Assuming Instapundit's readers check his site, on average, twice a day, that's "only" 65,000 readers. So right there, the newspapers have at least a 3-to-1 advantage in readership.

That's only part of the picture, though, since major newspapers also have web sites that draw far more traffic than top political blogs (see, e.g., Seattle Times vs. Instapundit and Houston Chronicle vs. Daily Kos).

I wish Malone were correct, but it's clear that the combined readership of any major metropolitian newspaper's print and electroinc editions dwarfs that of even the mightiest political blog.

Related:
How many Americans read political blogs?
How many Americans read political blogs, part II


Michelle is correct (she usually is), but one thing to consider is some may buy a paper, but just read the sports section, or just the society page, or any of the other specific sections of the paper, but a blog reader is going to focus on the blogs that they like to read, and are therefore likely to read most, if not everything, on that blog.

Read More...

GoogleNews Refinement Plan Could Oust Blogs

Outside The Beltway blogged Google is applying for a patent on a revised version of its popular news aggregator that could take blogs out of the mix. Given the OTB is among the blogs currently included in Google's news aggregator, I've got a stake in the outcome.

I certainly like the idea that Google includes OTB among their news sources. I asked them to include mine, and their response was "We have reviewed http://donsingleton.blogspot.com but cannot include it in Google News at this time. We do not include sites that are written and maintained by a single individual. Similarly, we do not include sites that do not have a formal editorial review process. We appreciate your taking the time to contact us and will log your site for consideration should our requirements change." OTB certainly is written by multiple individuals, but I looked all over their Blog, and did not see their formal editorial review process.
While I was initially dubious about the inclusion of blogs, which frankly vary widely in quality, the average blog in the aggregator provides more value than all but a handful of newspapers. Most of the stories from regional newspapers are nothing more than short versions of AP, Reuters, or AFP pieces. The blogs provide links, excerpts, and commentary--often all in the same story. That's a valuable service.

Are blogs biased? Absolutely. But so are the mainstream media sources, as has been well documented, not least of which by the blogs. The difference is that blogs don't pretend to be objective.

Read More...

How Clinton Sold Our Children to Islam

Cao’s Blog has a very interesting post which says Clinton cut a deal with Islamic leaders to legalize and protect Muslim indoctrination in our public schools and based his new Presidential Guidelines on a document drafted by the American Muslim Council, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the ACLU, and many of the very groups attempting to censor Christianity today. The document is supposedly here, however I was unable to access it.

I urge anyone interested to check out Cao’s Blog Article

Hat tip JackLewis

Read More...

Democrats cry 'Foulin'!

NewsOK reports Last week, state Senate President Pro Tempore Mike Morgan, D-Stillwater, told Lt. Gov. Mary Fallin to sit down. So she did ... in his chair. Lieutenant governors should be seen and not heard, angry Democrats retorted, thus commencing the Senate's current game of political musical chairs. On Thursday morning, 26 senators went AWOL to protest Fallin's takeover of the Democratic-controlled state Senate. Miraculously, the missing senators appeared at the funeral of former House Speaker Jim Barker that same afternoon.


Lt. Gov. Mary Fallin presides over
the Senate last Thursday.

At 4:30 p.m., our gavel-wielding lieutenant governor once again called the Senate to session. Over the next 7 1/2 hours, the quorum bell echoed throughout the empty Capitol hallways -- every four seconds -- which, doing the math, equals 6,750 times. Alas, nary a Democrat heeded the incessant call to vote on a worker's compensation bill.

Meanwhile, during the late-night session, beneath the dome's soft glow of electric schism -- Republicans ordered barbecue, Fallin conversed on her cell phone, reporters frantically searched for vending machines, staffers dined on pizza -- and only one Democrat showed up, presumably for the free food. Later that evening, the enormous stress of doing NOTHING apparently was too much for one Republican lawmaker who suffered an asthma attack and went home.

Sadly, autopsies have been performed on bodies that accomplished more than our Legislative body did last week. On the bright side, no one fled to Texas. And, perhaps the leadership of both parties have learned some valuable lessons:

Democrats -- Stay in your seats at all times; Gavels may be used as a flotation device.

Republicans -- You'll attract more Democrats, I mean bees, with booze, than barbecue.

Read More...

State ranks well in computer access

NewsOK reports Oklahoma is among the nation's best states in offering computer access to students in the classroom, a national report released today shows. The state ranks ninth for its student-to-computer ratio in public schools -- about three students to every machine, editors with the trade publication Education Week report. The national ratio is 3.8 students to each computer, according to the Technology Counts 2005 survey.

Project editors also examined the use of computer-based testing in the 50 states and Washington and found 16 states -- including Oklahoma -- using computer-based assessments this school year. Oklahoma seventh-graders this year began taking their state-mandated geography tests online. State schools Superintendent Sandy Garrett expects in the near future all student tests will be administered online. Online testing allows for a much quicker turnaround of scores, Garrett said. Phil Applegate, executive director of instructional technology at the state Education Department, told the state Board of Education recently that 171 of the state's 540 school districts allow students to earn course credit from the Internet.


The state wide results are here.

  • Number of public schools:   1,806
  • Pre-K-12 enrollment:   624,548
  • Number of public school teachers:   40,638
  • Average annual E-rate funding:   $38,475,020
  • State funding allocated specifically for educational technology:   None
  • Students per Internet-connected computer:   3.5
  • Students per Internet-connected computer in classrooms:   7.5
  • Percent of instructional computers with high-speed Internet access:   90.5
The information about Oklahoma is State spending on educational technology, which has not been available for the past two years due to persistent state budget deficits, is increasing in Oklahoma.

Revenue from a new education lottery and expanded gaming revenues from Indian reservations, are expected to generate around $150 million, which will fund a variety of education initiatives in the 2005-06 school year, including spending on school technology.

Meanwhile, all 7th graders in Oklahoma are scheduled to take the state geography test online in spring 2005, making the effort the first statewide program for online testing in the Sooner State.

The 7th grade tests will serve as an indicator of the Oklahoma Department of Education’s readiness to eventually conduct all state assessments online, says J.P. “Phil” Applegate, the department’s executive director of instructional technology and telecommunications. San Antonio-based Harcourt Assessment Inc. will administer the tests.

Other online education efforts in Oklahoma are also taking off.

The state education department’s 2004-05 Survey of School Technology found that 98 online courses were offered for credit in various school districts, and that the percentage of districts allowing students to take Web-based courses for credit had nearly doubled, to 32 percent, in the past year. Of the state’s 540 school districts, 170 allow students to receive credit for Internet courses, and 77 use distance learning to provide Advanced Placement courses.

State education officials are also trying to increase computer-based learning in schools by participating in the national Personal Access = Learning Success, or PALS, pilot program.

The program, which was started in 2001 and is underwritten by the federal Fund for the Improvement of Education, provides students with individual hand-held computers for an entire school year. The devices provide access to online content, interactive activities, and e-mail collaboration through a server-based system. Since 2001, about 3,000 elementary, middle, and secondary school students participated in the program in Oklahoma, the largest state pilot nationally, according to Applegate.

The state education department is seeking more federal funds, he says, to help it collect and analyze data on the program’s effectiveness.


Here is information about Technology Counts 2004
(also this) and Technology Counts 2003

Read More...

More Raids, Arrests in Pakistan

VoA News reports Pakistani security forces have rounded up about two dozen suspected al-Qaida members using information from the network's third-in-command who was arrested this week. Officials say raids are being carried out in several cities following interrogation of Abu Faraj al-Libbi. Officials told Reuters news agency that the suspect became al-Qaida operations chief two years ago, and that he could provide leads to the whereabouts of top leader Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Go get 'em

Read More...

Tax Receipts

WaPo reports Tax Receipts Exceed Treasury Predictions

After three years of rising federal budget deficits, a surge of April tax receipts brought unexpected good news to fiscal policymakers -- the tide of government red ink appears to be receding. The Treasury Department this week reported there would be a $54 billion swing from projected deficit to surplus in the April-to-June quarter, after an unanticipated gush of tax payments poured into the Treasury before the April 15 deadline. That prompted private forecasters to lower their deficit projections for the fiscal year that ends in September.

Budget analysts inside and outside the government said the positive turn is likely to be short-lived. Indeed, after a four-year absence, the Treasury Department announced yesterday it is considering reissuing its 30-year Treasury bond to help finance long-term government debt, jolting the bond markets and pushing down the price of existing 30-year securities. But in the short term, many forecasters said the budget deficit appears to have crested. "I think it has turned the corner," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's, the credit rating agency. "My guess is 2004 will have been the worst year."


Steve Verdon blogged Usually I only get to complain about the reporting of the deficit in mainstream outlets. However, this story in the Washington Post is a pleasant surprise.

Lorie Byrd blogged Now, some might think that when they read this article saying tax receipts in April exceeded Treasury predictions and the budget deficit projections were therefore lowered, that the top story in every newspaper today would say “Democrats Wrong – Bush Tax Policy Working.” Of course anyone thinking they would ever see that headline would have to be from Mars or be utterly unfamiliar with the American MSM.

James Joyner blogged The Treasury Department reports that, in a pleasant surprise, higher-than-expected tax receipts have created a budget surpluss for the third quarter of the fiscal year.

This is good news

Read More...

Preserve Senate rules

Star Tribune reported David Durenberger and Walter F. Mondale say Preserve Senate rules, filibuster and all

The American people should know that the proposed repeal of the filibuster rule for judicial nominees by majority vote will profoundly and permanently undermine the purpose of the U.S. Senate as it has stood since Thomas Jefferson first wrote the Senate's rules.

And those rules die NOT include the filibuster
We join together, across party lines, in an urgent plea of support for the current Senate rules. Today, as it has been for 200 years, an individual senator may talk without limit on an issue; and others may join in, and they may continue to press those issues until or unless the Senate by 60 votes ends that debate and a vote occurs.
But today they don't want to talk about it. They just want to threaten to talk, and then see if there are 60 people that don't want them to talk. Frist offerred them 100 hours for debate for each nominee.
No other legislative body has such a rule. Why?
Because they see how it is being abused in the Senate
Well, the Senate, with two senators from each state, armed with six-year terms, was intended to provide broader geographical representation than was the House of Representatives. The Senate was expected to deliberate and debate, to weigh and ponder significant national issues and to advise and consent on presidential nominations.

Today's rules allow a screening of judges by the Senate. Most presidential nominees are confirmed, but there are always a few instances where the nominee is unable to obtain the Senate's approval.
If a nominee can't get a majority to vote in his (or her) favor in a straight up or down vote, then that is fine.
We think this process has been good for the judiciary and good for the country. This Senate rule has led to a stronger, less partisan, truly independent court.
What is happening now is definitely partisan.
Weaknesses in judicial nominees are usually exposed in bipartisan Judiciary Committee hearings. If presidential pressure forces a partisan vote on the floor, you can often count on a bipartisan vote on the floor not to confirm. Both of us have seen this happen and value this exercise of checks and balances.
As do I. Block them in committee if you have the votes, or block them on the floor of the Senate, if you have the votes, but give them an Up or Down Vote.
Scott @PowerLine blogged Today's Minneapolis Star Tribune hits some kind of a new bottom in the debate on the filibuster with a "bipartisan" op-ed column by former Vice President Walter Mondale and Republican former Minnesota Senator David Durenberger. (Where is Durenberger now? Durenberger is now chair of the National Institute of Health Policy at the University of St. Thomas College of Business.) When last seen in the pages of the Star Tribune this past October, Durenberger was endorsing John Kerry for president. So far as I can determine, Durenberger holds himself out as a Republican solely for the purpose of advancing the Democratic issue du jour -- bipartisanship a la Star Tribune! It's a beautful thing.

blogged

blogged


Read More...

Culture Clash

Two sides of the issue

Janes Taranto wrote
Why I'm Rooting for the Religious Right
Secular liberals show
open contempt for traditionalists.

I am not a Christian, or even a religious believer, and my opinions on social issues are decidedly middle-of-the-road. So why do I find myself rooting for the "religious right"? I suppose it is because I am put off by self-righteousness, closed-mindedness, and contempt for democracy and pluralism--all of which characterize the opposition to the religious right.
Amen
One can disagree with religious conservatives on abortion, gay rights, school prayer, creationism and any number of other issues, and still recognize that they have good reason to feel disfranchised. This isn't the same as the oft-heard complaint of "anti-Christian bigotry," which is at best imprecise, since American Christians are all over the map politically. But those who hold traditionalist views have been shut out of the democratic process by a series of court decisions that, based on constitutional reasoning ranging from plausible to ludicrous, declared the preferred policies of the secular left the law of the land.
I agree completely, and it is driving people whose faith may not be as strong as it should, to embrace those with more faith.
For the most part, the religious right has responded in good civic-minded fashion: by organizing, becoming politically active, and supporting like-minded candidates. This has required exquisite discipline and patience, since changing court-imposed policies entails first changing the courts, a process that can take decades. Even then, "conservative" judges are not about to impose conservative policies; the best the religious right can hope for is the opportunity to make its case through ordinary democratic means.
The legislature is where laws should be made. Judges should not make laws, they should follow them. As I blogged here I did not oppose the Connecticut legislature creating civil unions for gays and lesbians, or here, when the Vermont legislature moved to allow doctors to prescribe suicide drugs for terminally ill patients who request them, because those changes were being made in the legislature, not in the courts
In the past three elections, the religious right has helped to elect a conservative Republican president and a bigger, and increasingly conservative, Republican Senate majority. This should make it possible to move the courts in a conservative direction. But Senate Democrats, taking their cue from liberal interest groups, have responded by subverting the democratic process, using the filibuster to impose an unprecedented supermajority requirement on the confirmation of judges. That's what prompted Christian conservatives to organize "Justice Sunday," last month's antifilibuster rally, at a church in Kentucky. After following long-established rules for at least a quarter-century, they can hardly be faulted for objecting when their opponents answer their success by effectively changing those rules.
I agree. The Left lost both the Legislative Branch and the Executive branch, and a minority were trying to control the Judicial Branch by blocking judges deemed Well Qualified by the ABA
This procedural high-handedness is of a piece with the arrogant attitude the secular left takes toward the religious right. Last week a Boston Globe columnist wrote that what he called "right-wing crackpots--excuse me, 'people of faith' " were promoting "knuckle-dragging judges." This contempt expresses itself in more refined ways as well, such as the idea that social conservatism is a form of "working class" false consciousness. Thomas Frank advanced this argument in last year's bestseller, "What's the Matter With Kansas?"

Liberal politicians have picked up the theme. Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, in a January op-ed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, mused on a postelection visit he made to Alabama, wondering why people from that state "say 'yes' when the increasingly powerful Republican Party asks them to be concerned about homosexuality but not about the security of their own health, about abortion but not about the economic futures of their own children."

Assuming for the sake of argument that Democratic economic policies really are better (or at least more politically attractive) than Republican ones, why don't politicians like Mr. Feingold adopt conservative positions on social issues so as to win over the voters whose economic interests they claim to care so much about? The answer seems obvious: Mr. Feingold would not support, say, the Human Life Amendment or the Federal Marriage Amendment because to do so would be against his principles.
Balderdash. It is because he would lose the support of left wing special interest groups.
It's not that he sees the issues as unimportant, but that he does not respect the views of those who disagree. His views are thoughtful and enlightened; theirs are, as Mr. Frank describes them, a mindless "backlash."

This attitude is politically self-defeating, for voters know when politicians are insulting their intelligence. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, recently framed the abortion debate in this way: "What we want to debate is who gets to choose: Tom DeLay and the federal politicians? Or does a woman get to make up her own mind?" He also vowed that "we're going to use Terri Schiavo," promising to produce "an ad with a picture of Tom DeLay, saying, 'Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?' " Many voters who aren't pro-life absolutists have misgivings about abortion on demand and about the death of Terri Schiavo. By refusing to acknowledge the possibility of thoughtful disagreement or ambivalence, Mr. Dean is giving these moderates an excellent reason to vote Republican.
That is certainly true for me. I thought congress was wrong to do what it did regarding Terri Schiavo, and can accept abortion in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother, but I hate abortion on demand and particularly abortion as a means of birth control.
Curiously, while secular liberals underestimate the intellectual seriousness of the religious right, they also overestimate its uniformity and ambition. The hysterical talk about an incipient "theocracy"--as if that is what America was before 1963, when the Supreme Court banned prayer in public schools--is either utterly cynical or staggeringly naive.
No it stems from the Secular Left's fear of anything having to do with Christian Faith. They can even accept observances of other faiths, because they are in the minority, but they have a rabid fear of anything having to do with Christian Faith.
Last week an article in The Nation, a left-wing weekly, described the motley collection of religious figures who gathered for Justice Sunday. A black minister stood next to a preacher with a six-degrees-of-separation connection to the Ku Klux Klan. A Catholic shared the stage with a Baptist theologian who had described Roman Catholicism as "a false church." These folks may not be your cup of tea, but this was a highly ecumenical group, united on some issues of morality and politics but deeply divided on matters of faith. The thought that they could ever agree enough to impose a theocracy is laughable.
I agree
And the religious right includes not only Christians of various stripes but also Orthodox Jews and even conservative Muslims. Far from the sectarian movement its foes portray, it is in truth a manifestation of the religious pluralism that makes America great. Therein lies its strength.
Amen

Christopher Hitchens wrote
Why I'm Rooting Against the Religious Right
Save the Republic
from shallow, demagogic sectarians.

I hope and believe that, by identifying itself with "faith" in general and the Ten Commandments in particular, a runaway element in the Republican leadership has made a career-ending mistake. In support of this, let me quote two authorities:
  • The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100%.
    And which left wing interest group is only looking for government leaders following their position 50%, or even 75%, of the time?
    If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. . . . Just who do they think they are?
    American citizens
    And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
    Probably the same place as you have for presuming to have the right to force Abortion on Demand on a state where the legislature would never think of passing such a law.
    And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some god-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

  • "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother." And he said, "All these have I kept from my youth up." Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."
The first citation is from Barry Goldwater, moral founder of the Reagan revolution, who, when I interviewed him on his retirement from the Senate, vowed to "kick Jerry Falwell in the ass."

The second citation is from Luke 18:20-22.

I am neither a Republican nor a Christian, and I don't propose that there is any congruence between Sen. Goldwater's annoyance and the alleged words (which occur in similar form in all four gospels) of the possibly mythical Nazarene.
I realize you are not a Christian, but do you realize how offensive it is for you to refer to a "possibly mythical Nazarene"
Yet two things are obvious. The first is that many conservatives appreciate the value of a secular republic, and do not make the idiotic confusion between "secular" and "atheist" that is so common nowadays.
i favor a secular republic, in that I agree with the first amendment that there should not be a single official state church. But I do not agree that means that we have to stop school children from singing Christian songs at Christmas time (Christmas time, not "Winter Holiday" time), or praying to God in schools (you can pray to your God, I will pray to mine), or having a copy of the 10 commandments displayed on government property.
The second is that no "Moral Majority" type has yet proposed that the most important commandment, the one underlined by Jesus himself, be displayed in courtrooms or schoolrooms.
Not sure which of Jesus's statements you refer to, but I have no objection to any of the things Jesus said being displayed in courtrooms or schoolrooms.
It turns out that the Eleventh Commandment is not "Thou shalt speak no ill of fellow Republicans," but is, rather, a demand for the most extreme kind of leveling and redistribution.

I have never understood why conservative entrepreneurs are so all-fired pious and Bible-thumping, let alone why so many of them claim Jesus as their best friend and personal savior. The Old Testament is bad enough: The commandments forbid us even to envy or covet our neighbor's goods, and thus condemn the very spirit of emulation and ambition that makes enterprise possible. But the New Testament is worse: It tells us to forget thrift and saving, to take no thought for the morrow, and to throw away our hard-earned wealth on the shiftless and the losers.
What do you object to in any of those thought?
At least two important conservative thinkers, Ayn Rand and Leo Strauss, were unbelievers or nonbelievers and in any case contemptuous of Christianity. I have my own differences with both of these savants, but is the Republican Party really prepared to disown such modern intellectuals as it can claim, in favor of a shallow, demagogic and above all sectarian religiosity?

Perhaps one could phrase the same question in two further ways. At the last election, the GOP succeeded in increasing its vote among American Jews by an estimated five percentage points. Does it propose to welcome these new adherents or sympathizers by yelling in the tones of that great Democrat bigmouth William Jennings Bryan?
Perhaps by supporting the state of Israel?
By insisting that evolution is "only a theory"?
The book of Genesis is a part of the Torah, as well as the Christian Bible.
By demanding biblical literalism and by proclaiming that the Messiah has already shown himself? If so, it will deserve the punishment for hubris that is already coming its way. (The punishment, in other words, that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson believed had struck America on Sept. 11, 2001. How can it be that such grotesque characters, calling down divine revenge on the workers in the World Trade Center, are allowed a respectful hearing, or a hearing at all, among patriotic Republicans?)
Should they have praised what the terrorists did?
Then again, hundreds of thousands of young Americans are now patrolling and guarding hazardous frontiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Is there a single thinking person who does not hope that secular forces arise in both countries, and who does not realize that the success of our cause depends on a wall of separation, in Islamic society, between church and state?
I certainly hope for secular governments, respecting the rights of all faiths and ethnic groups in their country, but I would be very surprised if they had a government that was as nasty to Islam as the Secular Left expects our government to be toward Christianity.
How can we maintain this cause abroad and subvert it at home? It's hardly too much to say that the servicemen and -women, of all faiths and of none, who fight so bravely against jihad, are being stabbed in the back by the sunshine soldiers of the "crusading" right. What is one to feel but rage and contempt when one reads of Arabic-language translators, and even Purple Heart-winning frontline fighters, being dismissed from the service because their homosexuality is accounted a sin?

Thus far, the clericalist bigots have been probing and finding only mush. A large tranche of the once-secular liberal left has disqualified itself by making excuses for jihad and treating Osama bin Laden as if he were advocating liberation theology. The need of the hour is for some senior members of the party of Lincoln to disown and condemn the creeping and creepy movement to impose orthodoxy on a free and pluralist and secular Republic.


Dan Levine blogged There are three good articles today staking out different positions that secular conservatives take with respect to the religious right: in the WSJ, dueling columns between James Taranto, the often offensive but occasionally witty author of the journal's Best of the Web Today blog, and Christopher Hitchens, and in the Times, David Brooks's piece.

Hitchens is the most critical, and Taranto the least--though Taranto's sympathy does not lie with the substance of the RR's movement, but with its process (as a slow but determined democratic response to a generation of anti-democratic judicial activism). Brooks is in his classic two-handed ("on the one hand, on the other hand") NYT columnist posture, which here may not be so bad.

For all of us who resist the moral and religious absolutism of the RR, each of the articles offers some sage advice:

1. From Hitchens, (for thinking conservatives or those trying to appeal to them) to remember the conservatism of Barry Goldwater and to see nutso bigotry for what it is.

2. From Taranto, to remember that positive social change only sometimes comes through the courts; and that the rest of the time is the opposite.

3. And from Brooks, to remember that much of what we now consider obviously rational and secular sprung in part from religiously-influenced moral inclinations in its origins.

And from all, to realize that secular conservatives exist, and that they are the swing voters to whom the Democrats and the Republicans should appeal.

Read More...

Stuck in Lincoln's Land

David Brooks editorialized in the NYT On Sept. 22, 1862, Abraham Lincoln gathered his cabinet to tell them he was going to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. He said he had made a solemn vow to the Almighty that if God gave him victory at Antietam, Lincoln would issue the decree. Lincoln's colleagues were stunned. They were not used to his basing policy on promises made to the Lord. They asked him to repeat what he'd just said. Lincoln conceded that "this might seem strange," but "God had decided the question in favor of the slaves."

I like to think about this episode when I hear militant secularists argue that faith should be kept out of politics. Like Martin Luther King Jr. a century later, Lincoln seemed to understand that epochal decisions are rarely made in a secular frame of mind. When great leaders make daring leaps, they often feel themselves surrendering to Divine Providence, and their strength flows from their faith that they are acting in accordance with transcendent moral truth.

I bet the secular left hates to hear that.
And I also think back on Lincoln at moments like these, when other boundaries between church and state are a matter of hot dispute. Lincoln is apt, because this emancipation moment was actually exceptional. Lincoln was neither a scoffer nor a guy who could talk directly to God. Instead, he wrestled with faith, longing to be more religious, but never getting there.

Today, a lot of us are stuck in Lincoln's land. We reject the bland relativism of the militant secularists. We reject the smug ignorance of, say, a Robert Kuttner, who recently argued that the culture war is a contest between enlightened reason and dogmatic absolutism. But neither can we share the conviction of the orthodox believers, like the new pope, who find maximum freedom in obedience to eternal truth. We're a little nervous about the perfectionism that often infects evangelical politics, the rush to crash through procedural checks and balances in order to reach the point of maximum moral correctness.
There is still a right and a wrong, whether you believe it comes from God, or from somewhere else.
Those of us stuck here in this wrestling-with-faith world find Lincoln to be our guide and navigator. Lincoln had enough firm conviction to lead a great moral crusade, but his zeal was tempered by doubt, and his governing style was dispassionate.

The key to Lincoln's approach is that he was mesmerized by religion, but could never shake his skepticism. Politically, he knew that the country needed the evangelicals' moral rigor to counteract the forces of selfishness and subjectivism, but he could never actually be an evangelical himself.
One does not have to be an evangelical to listen to them and respect what they are saying.
So, like many other Whigs, he was with the evangelicals, but not of them. This Whig-evangelical alliance was responsible for a great wave of internal improvements that transformed the country. Some of the improvements were material: the canals, the railroads. Some were spiritual: the Sunday school movement, the temperance movement. Some, like abolitionism, were both. But as Daniel Walker Howe has noted, these efforts were all seen as part of the same reform agenda: to create a country of laboring, self-disciplined, upwardly striving (spiritually and materially) individuals.
Precisely the goal of Republicans today.
Lincoln believed in this cause as fervently as anybody, but he was always trying to slow down his evangelical allies. As the great historian Allen C. Guelzo argues, Lincoln favored the classical virtue of prudence, which aims at incremental progress and, to borrow a phrase from Lincoln, at making sure that politics doesn't degenerate "into a violent and remorseless revolutionary struggle." Lincoln came to believe in a God who was active in human affairs but who concealed himself. The only truths he could rely upon were those contained in the Declaration of Independence: that human beings are endowed with unalienable rights. We Americans can be ardent in championing that creed, but beyond that, it's best to be humble and cautious.
Caution is ok, as long as you are championing that creed, and not opposing or ridiculing it.
One lesson we can learn from Lincoln is that there is no one vocabulary we can use to settle great issues. There is the secular vocabulary and the sacred vocabulary. Whether the A.C.L.U. likes it or not, both are legitimate parts of the discussion.
Amen
Another is that while the evangelical tradition is deeply consistent with the American creed, sometimes evangelical causes can overflow the banks defined by our founding documents. I believe the social conservatives' attempt to end the judicial filibuster is one of these cases.

Lincoln's core lesson is that while the faithful and the faithless go at each other in their symbiotic culture war, those of us trapped wrestling with faith are not without the means to get up and lead.


Dan Levine blogged remember that much of what we now consider obviously rational and secular sprung in part from religiously-influenced moral inclinations in its origins.

To see what the Rabid Secular Left thinks, see this.

Read More...

Thursday, May 5

This Day In History

  • 1494   During his second voyage to the Western Hemisphere, Christopher Columbus first sighted Jamaica.
  • 1818   Political philosopher Karl Marx was born in Prussia.
  • 1821   Napoleon Bonaparte died in exile on the island of St. Helena.
  • 1847   The American Medical Association was organized in Philadelphia, PA.
  • 1891   Carnegie Hall (then named Music Hall) opened in New York City.
  • 1892   Congress extended the Chinese Exclusion Act for 10 more years.
  • 1893   Panic hit the New York Stock Exchange; by year's end, the country was in the throes of a severe depression.
  • 1925   John T. Scopes was arrested in Tennessee for teaching Darwin's theory of evolution.
  • 1945   In the only fatal attack of its kind during World War II, a Japanese balloon bomb exploded on Gearhart Mountain in Oregon, killing the pregnant wife of a minister and five children.
  • 1955   West Germany became a sovereign state.
  • 1978   Pete Rose of the Cincinnati Reds smacked his 3,000th major-league hit. Not many years later, ‘Charlie Hustle’ would break Ty Cobb’s career record of 4,191 hits.
  • 1981   Irish Republican Army hunger-striker Bobby Sands died at the Maze Prison in Northern Ireland on his 66th day without food.
  • 1994   Singapore caned American teen-ager Michael Fay for vandalism.
  • 2000   Reformers swept Iran's run-off elections, winning control of the legislature from conservatives for the first time since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
  • 2002   French President Jacques Chirac was re-elected in a landslide victory over extreme-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.
Happy Birthday To
  • 1818   Karl Marx (socialist writer: Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto; founder of communism; died Mar 14, 1883)
  • 1942   Tammy Wynette (Virginia Wynette Pugh) (Grammy Award-winning country singer)

Read More...

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

A Vote in the House

WaPo reported When the House of Representatives votes on federal taxes or decides solemn questions such as when citizens must go off to war, the District's representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, has to stand and watch as her Democratic and Republican colleagues decide the fate of her constituents. Despite having served and died in 10 wars and paid billions in federal taxes, D.C. residents are still voteless in Congress. That inexcusable situation exists despite polls showing that the American public favors congressional representation for D.C. residents.

That is easy to remedy. The District was formed out of land from Virginia and from Maryland, so that the Capital would not be in any one state. Giving the District the representation of a state would violate that, but what they should do is ceed all of the land not required for public buildings (White House, Congress, and government office buildings) back to the state that ceeded it to the government, so they would be citizens of either Virginia or Maryland, and represented by their congressmen and senators.
Today Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) will launch a second effort to rectify at least half of the problem by sponsoring a bill that gives the District a vote in the House. The measure would still leave the District unrepresented in the Senate. The Davis proposal, however, is a substantial advance in D.C. voting rights and deserves strong bipartisan support in Congress.
It should be opposed because then they would insist on two senators.
Mr. Davis's measure would achieve the goal of giving the District a single vote by increasing the size of the House by two and reapportioning seats. Given the most recent census, the likely result would be an extra seat for Utah along with the District. And given party registration and voting patterns in the two jurisdictions, the Utah seat is likely to be held by a Republican and the District's by a Democrat. The new arrangement would last, under Mr. Davis's proposal, until the regular 2012 reapportionment, at which time the House would revert to 435 members to be divided by population among the District and the states. No matter what happens to the size of Utah's delegation at that point, the District would keep its seat. This should be a win-win situation.
At least for the Dems who want two more senate seats.
For those hoping to address the controversy over the last census count, when Utah just barely lost out on a fourth seat, Mr. Davis offers a remedy. As far as the District is concerned, the bill will most assuredly give D.C. residents what Mr. Davis has called "the primary tool of democratic participation: representation in the national legislature."
So would letting them be citizens of Virginia or Maryland.
Unfortunately, blind partisanship may trump democracy unless members take a stand against the present injustice. Fear that the Republican-dominated Utah state legislature would redraw lines to doom a Democratic member of the House caused Democrats to balk at the Davis proposal in the last Congress. We have stated on other occasions our own dislike for the way redistricting is being conducted in most states -- amounting to little more than state-sanctioned gerrymandering benefiting incumbents, the majority party or both -- and have offered our own thoughts on a proper alternative. However, depriving more than half a million District residents of a fundamental right enjoyed by all other Americans because of partisan politics is neither a proper nor an acceptable response by the Democratic Party. A D.C. vote in the House is the right thing to do. We remain fully committed to the District having two senators as well as representation in the House. The Davis proposal takes the nation's capital halfway there

Read More...

Public Broadcasting

Jack Shafer writes in Slate President Bush gives us a new reason to wean public broadcasting from the government teat.

It was only a couple of decades ago that the federal government, which can barely balance a budget, required broadcasters to present balanced and fair coverage of controversial issues. This policy, codified by Federal Communications Commission as the Fairness Doctrine, obliged broadcast journalists to recruit opposing viewpoints to lend Zenlike editorial balance to their pieces or face the loss of their licenses. Besides giving broadcasters fits, the policy mostly deterred radio and TV from covering controversial subjects lest they be accused of being unfair.

They could have covered controversial subjects, they just needed to give both sides equal coverage. In other words, they needed to be "Fair and Balanced" like Fox News
The airwaves finally broke free from FCC-ordered balance in 1987, when a federal court struck down the Fairness Doctrine as overreaching by the FCC and President Ronald Reagan vetoed an attempt by Congress to enshrine the doctrine in law. The great noise and debate that boils off the airwaves today owes everything to Reagan's principled stand to extend fundamental First Amendment rights to broadcasters.

While Reagan rescued commercial broadcasters from the censoring ways of the Fairness Doctrine, its spirit lives on under a different name at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The CPB is the private, nonprofit corporation that Congress established in 1967 to bankroll PBS and its member stations, public radio, and online media. The CPB charter mirrors the language of the Fairness Doctrine, stipulating that the corporation adhere to "objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature." The new CPB chairman, Republican Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, invokes the "objectivity and balance" clause to demand that PBS abandon what he considers to be its liberal line.
Good for him. The Liberals were not upset as long as NPR and PBS tilted to the left, but they are shocked to hear they might have to become Fair and Balanced. Not tilting to the Conservative side, but presenting both sides.
Tomlinson's crusade, documented in a Page One story in yesterday's (May 2) New York Times, includes the hiring of two CPB ombudsmen to inspect public television and radio content for bias. The Times says he's put in the fix for a former co-chair of the Republican National Committee to take the recently vacated slot as CPB president and CEO. Tomlinson also helped raise funds for The Journal Editorial Report, the leaden public-affairs program produced in conjunction with the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page, and has implored public stations to air it. Tomlinson cracked the CPB "objectivity and balance" whip in December 2003 with a letter to the head of PBS stating that "Now With Bill Moyers does not does not contain anything approaching the balance the law requires for public broadcasting." (Moyers has since left the program, which has a new host.)

Tomlinson was right about Now, which Moyers used to parade his liberal hobbyhorses. But, as the Times pointed out, by one measure Moyers' show was more evenhanded than The Journal Editorial Report, which Tomlinson nurtured and promoted. Now under Moyers polled conservatives for their views, while the Editorial Report mostly reiterates the Wall Street Journal editorial-page line. Yet editorial "balance" is not what either show needs—both benefit from looking at current events through ideological lenses.
But they want that ideological lens to be liberal
I'd rather watch a Miele soak cycle than view either program sanitized to CPB charter standards.
That does not sound very interesting to me, but you are free to watch whatever you want.
Left-wing activists fear that Tomlinson's meddling in CPB affairs will result in a media filibuster by the conservative majority.
Note how liberals are using the word filibuster as something to fear, yet they love the fact that Dems are using it to block an up or down vote on judicial nominees.
The activists want "the people" and "the local stations" to decide public broadcasting's future, not top-down partisans.
That sounds like a good plan to me.
Fears of a politicized CPB were first voiced not by the left but by President Richard Nixon. According to Laurence Jarvik's PBS: Behind the Screen, in the early 1970s Nixon rumbled with the fledgling CPB because he thought the Ford Foundation liberals behind the nascent public broadcasting movement—the top-down partisans of their time—would commandeer the organization and use it against his administration. For that reason, Nixon sought a ban on all funding of news, analysis, documentaries, or anything that smacked of public-affairs programming. Nixon wanted the Ford Foundation Democrats cut out of the equation and public broadcasting limited to cultural and educational programming.
I agree with Nixon. If we had to spend government money on broadcasting, it either should be Fair and Balanced, or it should be restricted to cultural and educational programming.
Nixon ultimately lost to the Democrats who controlled Capitol Hill, and news and public affairs took root in public broadcasting. But sitting on the hot plate in hell that he calls home, Nixon must be having an ironic laugh at CPB's rightward drift in the name of "objectivity and balance." You can hear his ghost cackling over PBS's politically motivated decision to un-distribute a Postcards From Buster episode in which the cartoon rabbit visited some Vermont lesbian moms. With today's Republican majority digging in, you can bet that Nixon would be a partisan of government-supported public broadcasting if still kicking.
I doubt it. Certainly a public broadcasting system should not use cartoons to try to cram acceptance of homosexuality into children's heads, but I would be as opposed to public broadcasting carrying Rush Limbaugh as I would to it having a show promoting homosexuality.
Modern conservatives like Nixon and Bush don't like to cut big government, they like to "conserve" it and refashion it to their end: A political spoil like public broadcasting is too valuable a weapon to surrender to ideology.
I disagree. We should cut all funding for public broadcasting.
The best remedy for this week's public broadcasting crisis isn't the dismantling of the "objectivity and balance" firewall but the abolishment of the CPB itself. Bureaucracies inevitably conform to the wishes of the ruling party, and as much as CPB would like to rise above politics, every federal appropriation comes laden with political baggage. No government—Republican, Democrat, or Socialist—will ever surrender control over media money it disburses. If media activists were serious about public broadcaster independence, they'd take this week's news as a cue to wean public television and radio from the federal government teat.
I agree completely.
CPB provided 15.3 percent of the $2.3 billion spent by public broadcasters in 2002, with 26 percent coming from station members "like you," 22.8 percent from businesses and foundations, and the remainder mostly from state and local governments and colleges and universities.

Although the nation's 1,000-plus public broadcasters are cash poor, they are resource rich, controlling as they do a honking chunk of valuable radio spectrum. If Congress allowed individual public broadcasters to "privatize and dezone"
A liberal supporting "privatization"
their slices of the spectrum, as Peter Huber puts it in his book Law and Disorder in Cyberspace, they could raise billions for permanent endowments by selling those frequencies to other communications companies (including cell-phone firms or other data services).
Sounds good to me, as long as we don't put liberals in charge of all of the permanent endowment funds.
In the Washington, D.C., market, for example, the three redundant public television stations—WMPT, WETA, and WHUT—could combine into one superstation funded by the sale of the other two frequencies. (As broadcasters make the mandated transition to digital television later this decade, the Washington public superstation could sell its remaining analog frequency and migrate to its digital slot.) Where public stations don't overlap, they could sell their frequencies and arrange carriage on existing cable television systems, satellite systems, and telco TV systems, or port themselves over to the Web. A consortium of superstations, flush with cash, could stop airing endless reruns of Arthur and Clifford the Big Red Dog. They could even dispatch Buster to visit devil-worshipping left-handed foot fetishists if they wanted to and there would be nothing the Republicans could do about it. (The same sell-the-bandwidth principle could be applied to the public stations that air NPR, too.)
They would also be free to carry programs like Rush Limbauch.
For the longest time, calling for the defunding of public broadcasting was a Republican pastime. Now that the GOP rules public broadcasters, who will be the first Democrat brave enough to call for the end of PBS and NPR as we know them?

Read More...

Homeschooled kids deprived...

JackLewis blogged Homeschooled kids deprived...

  1. Of opportunities to be molested
    Victoria blogged Even I was shocked when I realized that over the past few weeks, the city of New York reported 5 incidences of inappropriate sexual behavior between teachers and students. See some of the stories from the New York Daily News here, here and from the New York Post here. (By the way,could stories like these help to explain why public school teachers are loathe to teach about abstinence? Hmmmm, I wonder...) But it got even worse. The mayor of New York, Mayor Bloomberg, admitted that such occurrences happen regularly only the press does not always find out about it. But wait, the stories get even worse. Once the offending teacher is exposed, he or she typically gets a slap on the hand and is sent right back into the classroom. Think it can not get any worse than that? Guess again. The teacher's unions refuse to add any teeth to the disciplinary action to punish sexual offender teachers because of the chance that a student might just make up a story to hurt a teacher. They do not want any teachers being wrongfully disciplined
  2. Of valuable lesson in making illegal drugs
    Michelle Malkin blogged In the name of fighting the drug war, one public high school is teaching kids how to cook meth. Caught on videotape, a deputy stirs up a pot and tells the students: "Then you'll have a little bit down at the bottom, the white stuff, and that's your meth." Your tax dollars at work.

    Kheldar blogged My wife and I are planning on home-schooling our children (ok, my wife will be doing most of the work...but that's not the issue). We have a very low opinion of the current state of public schools (and private schools are going downhill, as well).We don't like the lowered expectations that the schools have of the students' test scores. We don't like the sex education meme of "kids are going to have sex anyways". We don't like the political-correctness that is invading even kindergarten (see this). And [this is] yet another thing to help lower our opinion. KEVIN adds: Kim du Toit home-schools his kids and has a long rant on the subject. I believe he and his wife have started a business for home-schooling.

    PunditGuy blogged Back when I was in school, there was no class being videotaped, so this is a new thing to me. How often are classes recorded? Is there some kind of mandated video archiving going on or is it the choice of the school? If you know, let me know.
    The McCutcheons say it's one thing to learn about the dangers of meth and how to spot a meth lab. It is another thing to show kids how it's made.
    No kidding.
    "I think it's a good thing to be educated about it, but it's bad if they're teaching you how to do it," said high school freshman Christene McCutcheon.

    We showed the same video to Grays Harbor County Undersheriff Rick Scott. He says it's the same demonstration the drug task force has been putting on for several years, but they'll review it.
    Oh great - for years they've been doing this and the little kiddies have been diligently learning their craft.
    "We talk about how methamphetamine is manufactured. I think there's a big difference between 'how' it is manufactured and 'how to' manufacture it," Scott said.
    Yeah, one word. Big difference.
    Christene is asked, "So you think you learned how to make methamphetamines because of this demonstration?" Christene answered, "Yes. I just don't know how to mix it all together."

    Scott says, "We'll look at this, but we stand pretty firm in that this is an educational tool. The schools have been very receptive to it in years passed."
    In other words, even though you've complained Ms. McCutheon, we're going to continue teaching this crap. That's why people homeschool, so they can control the type of education their children receive.


    Pierre Legrand blogged Making meth at home, fun things we learned in class today! From the police no less! I wonder if my wife and I should teach this stuff to our children in home-school? After all if the police are teaching this stuff at a high-school it must be ok eh? I'm gonna buy the stuff on the way home from work. Heck I wonder if those sheriff's will share some of their ingredients? Wouldn't do at all to fake it right?

    Bruce blogged What in gods name ever happened to "common sense"? I suppose the philosophy is that if we teach kids how to make meth they won't be so intrigued with it so they won't be so inclined to use it? Or if we teach kids how to make meth they will be able to spot a meth lab in some garage and can report it?

    Here is one for those parents that would be inclined to press charges against the school for child endangerment. From what I have heard from the MSM and read about in books and papers, cooking meth is an extremely volatile undertaking, any slight problem could result in an explosion. Aren't the fumes from cooking meth toxic? Here we have law enforcement cooking meth in a public school classroom in close proximity to many children. What happens if Mr. sheriff makes a mistake and blows the classroom up?


    The Blue Site blogged I cannot fathom how they thought this would be a good idea in any way, shape, or form...but it's not surprising. American public schools- teaching kids that homosexuality is just fine and gay families are equal to yours...teaching you how to masturbate, how to put a condom on veggies (condom races!), how to perform oral sex, and now- how to make meth! Beware tho, don't dare use the word "god" while doing ANY of this!

    Phil C blogged I don't know much about the subject, not being a biologist by training, but Wikipedia informs me that meth is highly psychologically addictive and, in large enough doses, can lead to clinical depression and massive liver and kidney damage. That's apart from the dangers inherent to the manufacturing process that the police deputy apparently demonstrated. I can speak from some experience on the matter of showing this to teenagers, though, having only recently stopped being one. Possibly the easiest way to get a teenager to do something is to tell them not to do it. Rebellion is pretty much hardcoded into the average teen. Now we should be counselling teens against getting involved with hard drugs, but actually showing them a procedure that they could easily replicate themselves? Why was this considered to be a good idea at all?
And most homeschooled kids get a better education than they could in public school.

Read More...

Suspected Al-Qaeda Leader Arrested

reported Pakistani authorities have captured an al-Qaeda leader from Libya, Abu al-Faraj, an action hailed by U.S. President George W. Bush as a "critical victory" in the war on terrorism. Abu al-Faraj, also known as al-Libi or ``the Libyan,'' was arrested a few days ago in connection with the December 2003 attacks on President Pervez Musharraf, Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said. He is being interrogated by Pakistani security forces, Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao told reporters today in the capital, Islamabad.

Al-Faraj was a "top operative" in the terrorist organization that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S., Bush said during remarks at an event in Washington. White House spokesman Scott McClellan described the capture "as the most significant since Khalid Sheikh Mohammed." Mohammed, detained in March 2003, was the al-Qaeda operations chief responsible for planning the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., according to U.S. authorities.


This was a big success, and hopefully he will yield as much information as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Read More...

Can't Wal-Mart Pay More?

NYT reported Can't Wal-Mart, a Retail Behemoth, Pay More?

If there are people willing to work for what they pay, why should they?
With most of Wal-Mart's workers earning less than $19,000 a year, a number of community groups and lawmakers have recently teamed up with labor unions in mounting an intensive campaign aimed at prodding Wal-Mart into paying its 1.3 million employees higher wages. A new group of Wal-Mart critics ran a full-page advertisement on April 20 contending that the company's low pay had forced tens of thousands of its workers to resort to food stamps and Medicaid, costing taxpayers billions of dollars. On April 26, as part of a campaign called "Love Mom, Not Wal-Mart," five members of Congress joined women's advocates and labor leaders to assail the company for not paying its female employees more. And in a book to be published this fall, a group of scholars will argue that Wal-Mart Stores, having replaced General Motors as the nation's largest company, has an obligation to treat its employees better....
What does size have to do with it? If they paid more, they would have to charge more for what they sell, then fewer people would shop there, and then they would not be as big.
Frances Browning, for example, once earned $15 a hour, but now at Wal-Mart, where she is a cashier in Roswell, Ga., she is paid $9.43. She says she is happy to have the job. "I was unemployed for two and a half years before I found my job at Wal-Mart," Ms. Browning, 57, said. "Like everybody else I'd love to make a lot more, but I have to be realistic."...
Precisely. I am sure that if that $15 job was still available, she would be working there, but that company probably had to lay her off because they were paying too much, and therefore having to charge too much for what they sell.
H. Lee Scott Jr., Wal-Mart's chief executive, vigorously defends his company, arguing that wages are primarily determined by market forces and that Wal-Mart pays more than most retailers and provides better opportunities for advancement....

Wal-Mart critics often note that corporations like Ford and G.M. led a race to the top, providing high wages and generous benefits that other companies emulated. They ask why Wal-Mart, with some $10 billion in profit on about $288 billion in revenue last year, cannot act similarly....
Two days ago I blogged about how GM was paying its workers so much, and giving them such a good health care package, that they might be forced into bankrupcy, and if that happened, where would the workers go for a job.
"They don't pay a living wage," said Ms. Barker, who quit her $8.40-an-hour job in 2004 to take a $15-an-hour social work job. While at Sam's, she said, she qualified for Medicaid and $139 a month in food stamps.
If a $15 job opened up, I am not surprised she took it. I hope the Social Work job has as good a benefits package as Walmart has
By contrast, Jamie Schifferer, manager of the health and beauty aids department at a Wal-Mart in Algonquin, Ill., said Wal-Mart was a terrific employer. She quit her $25,000-a-year post running a Cingular wireless shop to go to Wal-Mart. After 20 months, she earns $12.50 an hour - close to her previous pay - but now works 40 hours a week rather than the 60 hours at Cingular. "I was very miserable," she said. "As soon as I heard about this store opening, I jumped. It's perfect for me right now."
Salary is not everything. I have also heard good things about their benefits package.
McQ blogged Interesting that the same people who demand higher wages would probably be unwilling to pay higher prices in the stores Wal-Mart runs to pay for the wage increases.

That's what I call the "Wal-Mart" dilemma. I always hear the criticism that Wal-Mart runs the "Mom and Pop" shops out of business when it comes into town. Think about it. It doesn't have too. All you have to do is have enough people willing to support Mom and Pop by patronizing their store and paying the higher prices Mom and Pop have to demand because they're unable to get the volume deals and live on the thin margin that Wal-Mart does. But it never happens does it? Mom and Pop go the way of the Dodo bird and Wal-Mart saves people a bunch of money. There's a reason for that, folks. Its because Wal-Mart has kept its costs down through volume deals and lower wages.


John Hawkins has a very good satire responding to this item.

If there were not people willing to work for the wages Walmart pays, it would have to pay more. Perhaps if we did a better job preventing illegal immigrants from coming into the country, there would be fewer people willing to work for low wages, and then Walmart would be forced to pay more, and then they would have to raise their prices, and thus fewer people would have an incentive to shop there.

Read More...

New tactic

Chicago Tribune reported GIs launch new tactic against enemy fighters

While the idea to swarm enemy fighters is not new to the Marines in Iraq, it is rare that they do it fast enough for more than a few dozen Marines to shoot back at the fighters, let alone to surround the fast-moving insurgency. When the Americans shift forces into a town, it is usually only for a few days, and the action is so telegraphed that insurgents and foreign fighters can flee ahead of them. Because several smaller units near Haqlaniyah were ready for other missions April 20, nearly 200 troops from the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines were able to respond to the shootout there within the first hour. The troops remained in town for the next three days. When left Haqlaniyah on April 23, things appeared to have returned to normal. The locals had learned on several previous occasions that the Marines rarely stay.

But on April 26, about 500 Marines from 3/25 and other battalions suddenly returned to Haqlaniyah, a small town of about 5,000 on the Euphrates River. Not only were major roads sealed off, but so were the desert and surrounding villages. Troops began rolling into all of Haqlaniyah's neighborhoods almost at once, and stayed until early Sunday. Besides being able to actually shoot back at insurgents in the first phase, more than 40 arrests were made in the second phase, said battalion commander Lt. Col. Lionel Urquhart. Marine officials said the insurgents were apparently surprised the Marines had returned.

The first move in the new strategy for Anbar could not have begun in a more mundane way. Just after noon on April 20, two gunmen fired on a civil affairs patrol carrying repair proposals to schools in a neighboring town. A description was sent out of the shooters' getaway car, which Hanselman's patrol stumbled across south of Haqlaniyah. But the Americans quickly found themselves outnumbered by an insurgent counterattack that sent gunfire and rockets down on them from several homes on the edge of town. Another American platoon arrived to pin down the Iraqi gunmen, and then a fresh company of troops backed them up. By the time the fighting died down five hours later, hundreds of Marines from the 3/25 had poured in, supported by tanks, armored vehicles and helicopters.

"It's one of the first times they actually stayed and fought," said Staff Sgt. Michael Knittle, 35, of Wakeman, Ohio, who was in the initial firefight alongside Hanselman. Then came the pullout and the surprise return April 26, when hundreds more troops from battalions as far away as the Jordanian and Syrian borders sealed off Haqlaniyah, trapping insurgents and foreign fighters. "Insurgents typically run like rats on a sinking ship," said Maj. Steve White, the operations officer who directed the fight in Haqlaniyah. "This time, I don't think they realized the ship was sinking." The 3rd Battalion moved almost all of its forces in the area into town April 26 and sat there, hoping for insurgents to grow impatient and begin fighting again.

North of them, a company from the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines, based in Al Qaim, seized the shops, neighborhood and pontoon bridge where the fight had begun a few days before. Across the river and on the outskirts of town, parts of the 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, stationed on the border with Jordan, blocked off road junctions in the desert. The insurgents soon tried to fade into the populace. In the five-day operation that followed, there was sporadic gunfire each day, a suicide car bomber and roadside blasts. No Americans were killed, and along with the more than 40 detainees swept up in raids, Marines also netted bomb-making materials, documents and weapons.

Among the prisoners was a suspected former Iraqi special forces officer believed to be coordinating local insurgent attacks, and three Sudanese men who claimed to be sheep shearers, and who sat ramrod straight and refused offers of water from their Marine captors as others begged to be let go. The detainees were brought to regimental holding facilities each night by a squadron of Humvees directed by Cpl. Josh Smith, 23, of Poplarville, Miss. His mission orders were simple: "Keep your drivers awake." On April 31, Smith made his 11th late-night prisoner run to Al Asad air base, about an hour away across darkened roads.

Both the men and vehicles were dirty from days in the field, and scratched by roadside bomb blasts. They blared heavy metal music on jury-rigged speakers and called each other frequently on the radio to keep from falling asleep. Along with the prisoners, weapons and documents, there was another benefit of the Marines' operation. During the Friday call to prayers, an imam in town declared no love for the Marines, but then denounced the insurgents for picking fights with Americans that they didn't want to finish. Younger Marines excitedly passed the news about the imam. As White put it, "Out here, you take whatever you can get."


The operation netted suspects, weapons; no Americans killed. Keep up the good work!!!

Read More...

Background

Editor and Publisher reports Washington bureau chiefs have launched a new effort to stop off-the-record and background-only White House press briefings with a campaign aimed at getting fellow D.C. journalists to demand that more briefings be on the record. "We'd like to make a more concerted effort among the media during the month of May to raise objections as soon as background briefings are scheduled by any government official, whether at the White House, other executive agencies or the Hill," the e-mail said, in part. "Please ask your reporters to raise objections beforehand in hopes of convincing the official to go public -- ask them to explain why the briefing has to be on background. If that doesn't work, object again at the top of the briefing -- at least those objections will be part of the transcript. The broadcast networks will also press for briefings to be open to camera and sound."

Jay Rosen blogged Conspicuous for going unmentioned was one of the most effective ways the press can "raise objections" to background briefings: don't go to them. Just quit. So here is my Letter to Romenesko on it, published May 3rd. It's a good way to reach the professional community, which checks in at Romenesko's place throughout the day.

Garrett M. Graff blogged A curious question to ask in all of this: Considering that the bureau chief signatories met on Friday and 40 bureau chiefs all received this email yesterday, does not one of them think that such an effort was worthy of a story? Is this issue really so obscure that it should be reported only in a trade publication? If reporters are really as (rightly) outraged about the practice as they say they are, shouldn't they perhaps use their own soapboxes?

James Joyner blogged I'm all for it but this is a non-starter. Well, that's not quite right. This is an effort than seems to start every couple of years. There is constant clamor to get rid of background briefs because they practically beg for disgruntled folks with an axe to grind to come forward. Yet they persist. Why? Because, as with any embargo, some will break it. Journalism is a business that thrives on being first with a story. This could last for a week or two but I guarantee you that the moment a juicy enough tidbit is available only on background, it'll be in a paper near you.

Editor and Publisher reports Scott McClellan, President Bush's press secretary, said Tuesday evening that he would be glad to end the use of background-only briefings -- if White House reporters would stop using anonymous sources in their reporting.

"I told them upfront that I would be the first to sign on if we could get an end to the use of anonymous sources in the media," McClellan told E&P, referring to a meeting he had with a half-dozen Washington bureau chiefs last week. He said that "people in the heartland" feel that "anonymous sources use them to hide behind efforts to generate negative publicity."


Jay Rosen blogged Meanwhile, I contend that the words "force them to..." are, esssentially, false. (In that White House reporting remains a wholly voluntary practice.) Strupp--who has been captured by his sources on this story--is participating in that falsehood. He does it by accepting the bureau chiefs' fiction that unless everyone quits the "background" farce no one can. Therefore the only issue is whether a general boycott will be called. That too is false, but Strupp believes it.

No one is forcing the press to attend any briefings, on the record or off the record. And I suspect if the press began to report things truthfully, and not slant their news reporting to be as biased as their editorial pages, then I suspect the White House would be willing to provide more on the record AND off the record briefings.

Read More...

Low morale

CNN reported The U.S. military said Tuesday it has seized a letter from Iraqi insurgents believed to be intended for Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi complaining about low morale among followers and weakening support for the insurgency.

"What has happened to myself and my brothers is an unforgivable crime, but God will punish the oppressor," the letter reads. "I swear by God that you will be asked about what happened to us because you have not asked about the situation of the migrants. Morale is down and there is fatigue among mujahedeen ranks.

"There is discrimination by some of the brethren emirs. God would not accept such actions, and a simple mistake delays victory, so what about big mistakes and gross guilts? Many underestimate them and are lenient toward them."


Joe Gandelman blogged The letter comes against this backdrop: The new government was finally sworn in and the Prime Minister tried to reach out to Sunni insurgents:""Come back to our people with atonement and apology so you can take part in the process of rebuilding and development," soft-spoken Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari said. "Our heart is big, and can encompass you all, unless you shed blood or violated the integrity of others."

Captain Ed blogged It appears that all is not well among the fanatics, who have the same issues of esprit de corps that any other unit has. The fact that such criticism exists within a notoriously top-down organization speaks volumes about the effectiveness of the counterinsurgency in Iraq. The brazenness of correcting Zarqawi by letter shows that his credibility among the lunatics of AQ may already be seriously damaged. Zarqawi's retreat from Fallujah represented a major defeat for the insurgency, even if Western news agencies were slow to recognize it. The terrorists had staked their reputation on defending what they called the City of Mosques, practically daring the Americans to drive them off. Their prestige soared when the Americans backed off an offensive last spring designed to free the city, instead agreeing to allow Fallujah to operate autonomously with a militia ostensibly loyal to the interim Iraqi government. It quickly became apparent that the city remained in control of Zarqawi's lieutenants and became a base of operation for terrorist missions throughout Iraq.

Smash blogged Don't you just hate it when other people read your private letters?

Charles Johnson blogged This isn’t good news for the inmates of Democratic Underground or useful idiots like Mike Whitney, but the “insurgency” is falling apart

James Joyner: blogged So we have a letter whose authenticity can not be verified from an individual we do not know written to someone called "Sheik" that indicates at least one person is dissatisfied with said Sheik? Color me unimpressed. Charles Johnson and Jonah Goldberg are slightly more excited.

Jonah Goldberg blogged Zarqawi (allegedly) complains that morale is low. Better news would be if he complained that his leg shackles were too tight. But we'll take what we can get. Whoops! The letter is (allegedly) to Zarqawi not from him. Sorry. Perils of fast reading when on deadline.

I can't imagine them having any reason to have a high morale

Read More...

Got it right

Guardian reported

Perhaps the neocons got it right in the Middle East
We should not be blinded by liberal prejudice when assessing Bush
Those of us who work on the gloomy side of the prediction industry about Iraq, the prospects for Middle East peace, and the sanity of the Bush administration, have been given plenty to think about lately. On the one hand, on Monday the 87th British soldier was killed in Iraq, while suicide bombs and armed clashes have accounted for more than 40 Iraqi deaths since last week. On the other, the Bush administration is in triumphalist mode. A friend who visited the White House recently described the president's buoyant account of his Iraqi crusade, which highlighted the fact that a national government has been formed. Some progress is claimed towards normalisation in Shia and Kurdish regions. Syrian withdrawal gives Lebanon a chance of making something of democracy. Washington asserts that it is involving itself more than ever in the Middle East peace process.
And a year ago, how many would have believed any of that was possible.
None of these claims should be dismissed out of hand. The greatest danger for those of us who dislike George Bush is that our instincts may tip over into a desire to see his foreign policy objectives fail. No reasonable person can oppose the president's commitment to Islamic democracy. Most western Bushophobes are motivated not by dissent about objectives, but by a belief that the Washington neocons' methods are crass, and more likely to escalate a confrontation between the west and Islam than to defuse it. Such scepticism, however, should not prevent us from stepping back to reassess the progress of the Bush project, and satisfy ourselves that mere prejudice is not blinding us to the possibility that western liberals are wrong; that the Republicans' grand strategy is getting somewhere.
Very wise
It may sound perverse to suggest that we should not measure progress in Iraq solely, or even chiefly, by counting corpses. Yet most insurgent activity is the work of Sunnis, chronically alienated by dispossession from power, or jihadists committed simply to frustrate any project sponsored by the US. The key question, surely, is how far the Shia and Kurd majority is moving towards the creation of a working society. Evidence on this is mixed. Journalists are able to travel so little outside the Baghdad enclave that the world depends for information chiefly on western military and diplomatic sources. My own contacts say that the situation is improving, but remains precarious. They suggest that criminal anarchy is gradually being stemmed. The recruitment and training of Iraqi security forces is going a little better. It is hard to derive much comfort from statistics that show a diminution in clashes between insurgents and security forces. These principally reflect a lower-profile strategy by the coalition, designed to reduce confrontation and casualties.
And also allowing the Iraqis to take the lead in running their country.
The most powerful reason for remaining cautious about Iraq must be doubt — shared by many US officers — about whether the country is sus­tainable as a unitary state. It is hard to believe that the Sunnis will quickly reconcile themselves to Shia supremacy, or that the Shias now leading the government will forswear payback for decades of subjection. The Kurds will do their own thing in their own region. Only fear of American wrath and Turkish intervention can dissuade them from breakaway. It seems wrong for either neocon true believers or liberal sceptics to rush to judgment. We of the latter persuasion must keep reciting the mantra: "We want Iraq to come right, even if this vindicates George Bush."
We all want the same thing.
Those who say that Iraqis are incapable of making a democracy work may well be proved right. But until we see what happens on the ground over the months ahead, we should not write off the possibility that the Iraqi people will forge some sort of accommodation. A premature coalition withdrawal promises catastrophe for them, not us.
Actually it would be bad for everyone but the terrorists.
The same caution seems appropriate in assessing the current dialogue between the US, the Israelis and the Palestinians. I suggested before the Iraq war that Saddam's fall might make the Israelis less tractable. For all the Muslim world's protestations of support for the Palestinians, most Arabs have little liking for their oppressed brethren, and no desire to go to the wall for them.
True. Their claimed concern for them was just to use them to beat up on Israel. If they were really concerned for them, they would have provided permanent places for them to live in other Arab countries, rather than forcing them to live in "camps" near the border.
Today, deprived of Iraqi support and with Syria also in retreat, the Palestinians are chiefly dependent for their own future upon international goodwill; a doubtful commodity. Israelis have always believed that their own security is best served by ensuring that the Palestinians are as weak as possible. Washington seems to acquiesce in this view.
That is only because they do not trust that what happened in 1967 will not happen again.
Many of us, by contrast, believe that the best chance of peace lies in creating a settlement that offers a Palestinian state the chance of political, economic and social viability. Today the new Palestinian leadership is talking, because there is nothing else it can do. The litmus test is whether Israel accepts an ultimate commitment to withdraw from the West Bank. If this remains unlikely, it seems naive to suggest that peace prospects are improving, merely because violence is temporarily eclipsed.
I do not expect them to be willing to go back to the 1967 borders, because they are not defensable, but if the Palestinian's want a state bad enough to be willing to allow Israel to have a defensable state, and if they really want to live side by side in peace, it will happen.
Washington's current optimism seems founded upon the fact that Palestinian militants command less Arab support than three years ago, because of the huge American military pressure. In short, the fundamentals still look pretty awful. Any peace founded merely upon Palestinian subjection, rather than upon territorial justice, seems unlikely to stick.
Do the Palestinians really want peace, or just freedom to build up forces to eventually destroy Israel?
Here, indeed, is the nub of the issue about American foreign policy. The Bush vision is founded upon the exercise of military power. It is hard to regard Condoleezza Rice's "charm offensive" or the state department's protestations that in the second Bush term diplomacy will blossom, as more than cosmetic. The president himself has declared that, while he welcomes more allies, they must accept that the game will be played on Washington's terms. We must respect American power, and also acknowledge that the world sometimes has much need of it. As Sir Michael Howard, wisest of British strategic thinkers, often remarks: "If America does not do things, nobody else will." We should acknowledge the limitations of the UN. The pitiful performance of many international peacekeeping contingents, not least in Afghanistan, highlights the feebleness of what passes for European security policy.

Yet it still seems reasonable to question the optimism currently prevailing among Washington's neocons, because this remains founded upon a woefully simplistic vision. It is true that, in some chronic, unstable regions, some bad governments — those of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein — have been removed by the Americans. But the fragile advantages gained will be lost, unless Washington can match its boldness in the deployment of military power with a new sensitivity to alien cultures, matched by far more subtle political skills.


Captain Ed blogged It isn't often that one reads an endorsement of George Bush's foreign policy in the pages of the British left-wing newspaper The Guardian, even with a string of caveats and wait-and-see admonitions. Today, however, the Guardian runs an opinion piece by Max Hastings warning the British Left that dismissing the efforts of Bush and the so-called neocons on transforming the Middle East risks ignoring the real progress that has been made.
It is definitely nice to hear.
Despite what Hastings believes, the issue has never really been whether Israel will fully withdraw from the West Bank. If nothing else, American pressure could guarantee that result if it actually meant that the Palestinians would stop making war on Israel. In this case, it's Hastings' turn to be simplistic and naive. The Palestinians were given that opportunity during the Clinton Administration's final months, when Ehud Barak risked his political career to offer them 95% of the territorial demands they made, excepting only Jerusalem and trading Israeli land for a few major WB settlements. Arafat declared a second intifada as an answer to Barak's offer.

The Palestinians do not want a negotiated peace for the West Bank. The Palestinians and their terror-based leadership want nothing less than the destruction of Israel and the exile of the Jews living there now. Until those circumstances change, the only peace possible will necessarily be temporary cease-fires designed to undermine the radicals and the bombthrowers until a Palestinian middle class with economic and social stakes in peace get strong enough to push the terrorists from power. So far, the Palestianians have shown little inclination to make that transition, electing Hamas and Fatah politicians who differ only in tactics, and not at all in the long-term aim of Israeli extinction.

Believing that Palestinians will suddenly embrace the existence of Israel if the world treats them with respect and kindness ignores the entire decade of the 1990s, when Bill Clinton hosted Yasser Arafat more often than any other world leader in an attempt to do what Hastings suggested. It didn't work, not because the world didn't treat them nicely, but because they didn't get what they wanted. When they stop wanting the elimination of Israel, then they will have peace.
Precisely.
That's the difference between European and supposed neocon diplomacy today. One deals in naive, wishful thinking, and the other understands the dynamic of power. Hastings makes the mistake of identifying the two incorrectly.

Arthur Chrenkoff blogged We've heard a lot of similar second thoughts recently, but coming from Sir Max, whose commentary over the last three years I've been reading with increasing dismay (as has Mark Steyn), it's quite timely and welcome.

Marc @USSNeverdock blogged It's nice to see the left starting to admit they are wrong and Bush is right, even if they do it grudgingly.

Read More...

Wednesday, May 4

This Day In History

  • 1626   Dutch explorer Peter Minuit landed on what is now Manhattan island.
  • 1776   Rhode Island declared its freedom from England, two months before the Declaration of Independence was adopted.
  • 1886   At Haymarket Square in Chicago, a labor demonstration for an eight-hour workday turned into a riot when a bomb exploded.
  • 1916   Responding to a demand from President Woodrow Wilson, Germany agreed to limit its submarine warfare, averting a diplomatic break with Washington.
  • 1927   The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was founded.
  • 1932   Mobster Al Capone, convicted of income-tax evasion, entered the federal penitentiary in Atlanta.
  • 1942   The Battle of the Coral Sea, the first naval clash fought entirely with carrier aircraft, began during World War II.
  • 1945   German forces in the Netherlands, Denmark and northwest Germany agreed to surrender during World War II.
  • 1946   A two-day riot at Alcatraz prison in San Francisco Bay ended after five people were killed.
  • 1961   A group of Freedom Riders left Washington, D.C., for New Orleans to challenge racial segregation on interstate buses and in bus terminals.
  • 1980   Yugoslavian dictator Josip Broz Tito died at age 87.
  • 1989   Fired White House aide Oliver North was convicted of shredding documents and two other charges stemming from the Iran-Contra affair. (The convictions were overturned on appeal.)
  • 1994   Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasser Arafat signed an accord on Palestinian autonomy that granted self-rule in the Gaza Strip and Jericho.
  • 1998   Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski was given four life sentences plus 30 years by a federal judge in Sacramento, Calif., under a plea agreement that spared him the death penalty.
  • 2001   Bonny Lee Bakley, wife of actor Robert Blake, was shot to death in Los Angeles. (Blake was later charged with murder).
Happy Birthday To
  • 1889   Cardinal (Francis) Joseph Spellman (Roman Catholic clergy leader; died Dec 2, 1967)
  • 1909   Howard Da Silva (Silverblatt) (actor: The Lost Weekend, The Great Gatsby, Mommie Dearest, Abe Lincoln in Illinois; died Feb 16, 1986)
  • 1941   George F. Will (Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist)
  • 1954   Pia Zadora (Schipani) (actress)

Read More...

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Pozen Pill

Brad DeLong wrote in Slate Pozen Pill - How Bush's version of "progressive indexing" would kill Social Security Or has he? On May 1, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card appeared on Meet the Press. A proposal by Robert Pozen "... is really not necessarily the president's plan," Card noted. "It's directionally consistent with the president's plan." So what does Pozen say, and where does Bush differ?

As everyone knows, Social Security has a problem: The current level of dedicated Social Security taxes is very unlikely to bring in enough money to fully pay the benefits currently specified by law beyond the middle of this century. Social Security taxes will have to go up, Social Security benefits will have to be cut below currently projected levels, or other tax revenues will have to be earmarked to pay Social Security benefits.

Robert Pozen proposes to fill the post-2050 projected funding gap by using other tax revenues and reducing benefits. He would fill 30 percent of the hole by tapping into income tax revenue. He would fill another 10 percent of the hole by cutting Social Security disability payments. He would fill 60 percent by shifting to "progressive price indexing" of the Social Security retirement benefit formula. That means cutting benefits relative to current-law projected levels for people at the top and the middle.

All I heard Bush mention was the progressive price indexing.
To understand where Bush might be going with this, let's first review how Social Security works. People contribute to the program through Social Security taxes—12.4 percent of their wages, up to a maximum payment of $11,260 a year taken from them and their employers. In return, they get a disability insurance program, a survivors' insurance program, and a prescribed level of retirement income that's protected against inflation.

The retirement-income component of Social Security provides a better relative deal to the working poor than it does to the relatively rich. For somebody making half the average wage (that is, making $18,000 a year today), Social Security benefits "replace" 49 percent of pre-retirement earnings. For somebody making the average wage ($36,000 a year today), the "replacement rate" is 36 percent. For somebody making the maximum taxed by Social Security ($90,000 this year), it's only 24 percent. This declining replacement-rate benefit formula makes sense: Social Security returns relatively less to high earners, who are more likely to have other retirement savings. But it's not supposed to be a means-tested welfare program: Someone at the Social Security maximum wage gets a check about two-and-a-half times as large as someone making half the average wage.
So it is already progressive.
Now let's look at Pozen's numbers for those retiring in 2075. Pozen would keep the replacement rate at 49 percent for the working poor—those making half the average income. But the replacement rate for those making more would be cut: At the average income, the replacement rate would go from 36 percent to 26 percent; at one-and-a-half times average, from 30 percent to 17 percent; at the Social Security maximum, from 24 percent to 12 percent. Pozen's proposal gradually turns Social Security from a program in which benefits rise with incomes to one in which nearly everybody's benefit is roughly the same: about $1,900 of today's dollars a month. These are ferocious benefit cuts for those at or above average incomes—an across-the-board benefit cut of about one-seventh would do as much for Social Security's overall finances. But that's the point. Pozen's central aim is to keep the poorest one-third of beneficiaries from bearing any of the burden of future benefit cuts.
But the Democrats oppose doing that. They are protecting the rich.
This sounds like a not unreasonable way to keep Social Security healthy through most of the century. And progressive price indexing, by itself, is neither left-wing nor right-wing. Insulating the working poor from benefit cuts and tapping income-tax revenues to fund Social Security is "liberal." For Social Security to become a flat-benefit guardian against destitution, rather than a substantial base line layer of retirement income for everyone, is arguably "conservative." But when you combine Pozen's progressive indexing with Bush's separate proposal for private accounts, it becomes something different: a way of phasing out Social Security altogether. Here's how:

Pozen's proposal caps the maximum Social Security retirement benefit at roughly $22,500 dollars a year (adjusted for inflation). Bush's private-accounts plan—which would allow people to contribute 4 percent of their wages—makes retirees repay the taxes they diverted into private accounts out of their standard Social Security benefit. Medicare premiums are already deducted from your Social Security check. Deduct the claw-back for the private-accounts diversion as well, and by late in this century the odds are that—at least for the upper middle class—the standard Social Security check would be zero.
I know many have said he proposed a claw-back, but I have not heard him say that. What I heard was that he wanted to put 30% into personal accounts, leaving 70% for going into Social Security. What seems reasonable to me is that if someone elected personal accounts for all of their employeed years, they would get 70% of what they would have gotten had they not put money in personal accounts. And if they elected personal accounts half way though their employeed years, they would get 85% of what they would have gotten if they had not put anything in personal accounts.
Social Security would no longer be a universal program: It would be a program in which the half of America that is richer and more powerful and more likely to vote sees large chunks of its money going in and nothing coming out. Even without private accounts, aggressive means-testing a la Pozen risks undermining Social Security over time. Insulating the poor from cuts is a left-wing goal. But it will create a large class of Americans who get much, much less out of Social Security than they put in and for whom Social Security as a whole is demonstrably a very bad deal. Early Social Security guru Wilbur Cohen may well have been correct in his belief that "in the United States, a program that deals only with the poor will end up being a poor program. ... " Loading a large chunk of the burden of fixing Social Security onto America's upper middle class may be the first step in the creation of a mid-21st-century political majority for the phasing-out of the program as a whole.
Doing nothing now, or even doing something, but without personal accounts, would mean that Social Security will become so unpopular with most of the people paying high taxes without the expectations of anything when they retire, that the entire program will be scrapped, and the poor will not get anything.
Viewed in this way, Bush's embrace of a program to make the distribution of income more equal can be explained as a Trojan horse to eliminate Social Security in the long run. That must be what Bush is thinking, right? It's not that he's suddenly worried that the working poor don't get a large enough share of America's wealth, right? But quite possibly wrong. It's also possible that the White House is just desperate to somehow generate forward motion on Social Security, and that it hopes that a fiscally progressive policy change will be popular. Bush's recent press conference did not illuminate much, and the information released smelled as though the administration did not fully know what it was doing: The headline numbers made sense only if Pozen's proposal to cut disability benefits was also part of the package, but Bush expressly said disability benefits were not to be touched. So what, exactly, are the pieces of Pozen's proposals that Bush has signed on to? Will the next step be a proposal for income tax increases to cover the rest of the funding gap? Is there a second round of benefit cuts coming—possibly targeted at the poor? When it comes to the administration's ideas for Social Security, we're back where we started. No one knows.

Brad DeLong, the author of this article, has a blog here.

Read More...

Shifting Arguments Color Filibuster Debate

Yahoo reports Shifting Arguments Color Filibuster Debate

Time was, Republicans buried Bill Clinton's judicial picks by the dozen in the Senate Judiciary Committee and Democrats indignantly demanded a yes-or-no vote for each. That was then. This is now, when Democrats block a far smaller number of President Bush's court nominees — and Republicans heatedly insist the Constitution itself requires a vote. "Give them a vote. A vote up or down," Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said recently, speaking of seven appeals court nominees Democrats have vowed to block. "That's what we've always done for 214 years before this president became president." Except for more than 60 nominees whose names Clinton sent to the Senate between 1995 and 2000. Republicans didn't resort to filibusters in many of those cases. They didn't need to. They controlled the levers of Senate power at the time, and simply refused to schedule action on the nominations they opposed. Hatch, a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, played a pivotal role in the blockade.

But in the compromise Frist offerred, what happened to Clinton, holding the nominees up in committee indefinitely, would never happen again.
Inconsistency is hardly a Republican-only trait. "According to the U.S. Constitution, the president nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said in 1997. "It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor," said Boxer, who supported a move in 1995 to ease the filibuster rule. Except that she joined other Democrats in successfully filibustering 10 of Bush's first-term appeals court candidates. Bush has renominated seven of the 10, and they are at the core of the current struggle over rules governing judicial confirmation. According to the U.S. Senate Web site, "filibuster" is from a Dutch word meaning pirate. It is embedded in the rules, available to any minority — senators from one party, for example, or senators from one region — who are trying to thwart the majority.

Filibusters aren't forever, though. Under current rules, a 60-vote majority is enough to end one and assure final action on legislation or a nomination. That means the majority can be forced into concessions as members maneuver for the support needed to prevail. Conservatives used the filibuster against civil rights legislation a half century ago. Liberals used it during the energy crisis of the 1970s when they sought to prevent passage of natural gas deregulation legislation.
Both of those were legislation, not judicial appointments.
Republicans and Democrats agree its use or threatened use has become more frequent. Picking their words with excruciating care, many Republicans argue that before Bush came into office, there had never been a filibuster against a judicial nominee with majority support. Except for Abe Fortas.
But Abe Fortas did not have majority support.
He was a Supreme Court justice whom President Lyndon Johnson wanted to make the chief justice in 1968. The nomination drew a filibuster by Republicans and Southern Democrats who opposed Fortas' liberalism and were eager to inflict defeat on a lame duck president. The roll call on a test vote was 45-43, a majority for Fortas, but short of the total needed to advance to a final vote. The nomination was withdrawn, defeated by a filibuster.
I don't know about a test vote, but I believe the cloture vote was different.
Then there was the case of two Californians Clinton nominated, Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon. Paez's nomination languished for more than four years, Berzon's more than two, before then-Majority Leader Trent Lott agreed to a vote. "I didn't think it was right to filibuster judicial nominees then. And it's not right now," the Mississippi Republican said recently. Except it took the threat of another filibuster before he agreed to a vote in 2000, officials say. Boxer intervened at the time, promising to block action on a Lott-backed nominee to the Tennessee Valley Authority unless there was final action on Paez and Berzon. Paez was confirmed with 59 votes, Berzon with 64.
A threat of a filibuster is not a filibuster
A decade ago, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin (news, bio, voting record) called the filibuster "a dinosaur, a relic of the ancient past." Frustrated at the multiple filibusters Republicans had launched in the run-up to the 1994 elections, the Iowa senator proposed a gradually receding filibuster, in which supporters would eventually need a 51-vote majority to prevail. His attempt died on a test vote of 76-19.
If there were multiple filibusters, and if Abe Fortas is the only judicial nominee claimed to have been blocked, then this must have been legislative filibusters, which would not be affected by the Constitutional Option.
Nine Democrats still in office backed the effort, and now support efforts to block Bush's controversial nominees. "Senator Harkin's position has evolved since then," said a spokeswoman, adding that unlike the current GOP move, he attempted to amend the rules in straightforward fashion rather than through a parliamentary ruling. Among the 76 opponents of Harkin's rules change were 24 Republicans still in office, many of whom now argue heatedly that judicial filibusters are an abuse of the rules. Among them is Sen. Bill Frist, newly elected from Tennessee at the time. Changing positions, he supported a different proposal several years later to change the rules. Now, as majority leader, he is the point man in the GOP effort to ban judicial filibusters and clear the way for confirmation of Bush's nominees.

Read More...

Happy 2nd Anniversary

TulsaTopics blogged Happy 2nd Anniversary To Batesline.com

I'd like to wish Michael Bates over at Batesline.com a Happy 2nd Anniversary on his blog. Michael's blog is a wealth of information about Tulsa issues and a great alternative news source.... After learning about blogs via Batesline, I decided that something similar would be good as a "newsblog" for LCNA website, lewiscrest.org. The lewiscrest.org "newsblog" was born on September 06, 2003. Since that time, I have installed "newsblogs" at the Homeowners For Fair Zoning (HFFZ.org) website and the Tulsans For Election Integrity (TFEI.org) website. I'm sure I would eventually stumbled on to the blog craze, but Michael and Batesline.com greatly expedited the process. I eventually decided to start my own blog so I could air my two cents worth on issues, or tell you about something neato that I've found on the net.

So congrats Batesline for two years of service to Tulsans!


I also want to wish Michael a Happy 2nd Anniversary

Read More...

CNN on the Spam Attack?

Wired News reports The blogosphere is buzzing with rumors about a strange viral marketing campaign concerning CNN, that may be promoting the cable channel or squelching criticism of it -- or perhaps both at the same time. Earlier this month, blogger Nick Lewis noticed a strange post about CNN on his blog. The comment was critical of some new shows on CNN, but also included detail about the shows, their show times and the anchors hosting them. The same terms were repeated over and over, making it appear like spam. Something was not right.

Suspicious, Lewis checked other blogs and soon noticed a pattern: He found a lot of similar comments about CNN on sites like DesperateHousewives, CrankyGreg and BradBlog. All the comments were posted by someone called Joseph or Thoth, and used the same language. Lewis came across roughly three new spam comments a day.

Lewis initially suspected CNN of being behind the mysterious posts. Lewis thought CNN might be trying to jam blogs critical of the network by spamming them. The network, or a surrogate, was posting comments on blogs using a technique called "keyword stuffing," Lewis claimed.

Keyword stuffing was a technique commonly used at the height of the dot-com boom to raise a site's search-engine ranking. Stuff a site with common search terms, or keywords, and its ranking would rise. But search engines are wise to the technique. Now, when search sites detect blatant keyword stuffing, they often penalize the offending site by delisting it from their indexes, or removing it from the first 100 results. Lewis said CNN may be keyword-stuffing sites critical of the network, causing the sites to be delisted by search engines. "I don't think their motivation is malevolent so much as experimental," said Lewis. "My guess is that this was a pilot experiment, to see if it would fly."

Lewis also suggested the network may be trying to create buzz with a viral-marketing campaign. Even if the buzz is negative, chattering on blogs may encourage viewers to watch the network's new programming. CNN recently introduced several shows in an attempt to compete with Fox News. One of the shows, Showbiz Tonight, was described in one of the suspicious comments as "trashy and un-newslike." "They seemed to have put a lot of effort into casually dropping all of the times, names, etc. (of CNN shows)," said Lewis. "I think they were hoping we might watch the shows and create a buzz about how 'trashy and un-newslike' the new CNN is, and in effect advertise for them."

A CNN spokeswoman denied the network is behind the posts.


I doubt that CNN would be this stupid, but someone who disliked the criticism of a favorite show might have done it

Read More...

Abortion for 13 year old

Two days ago I blogged about "A pregnant 13-year-old girl in Florida has been told she cannot have an abortion because she lacks the maturity to make such a decision." Now it appears the judge must have been pressured by the "Culture of Death" people because now I read Juvenile Judge Ronald Alvarez on Monday ruled that the teen, who has been in state custody for four years, would not be physically or emotionally harmed by the procedure. Last week, Alvarez blocked the girl's abortion until a psychological evaluation was completed.

"He ruled that she is competent, that she has made a decision and that she has a right to act on that decision,'' said Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the girl.

The state Department of Children & Families had argued that the girl, known only in court papers as L.G., was too young and immature to decide for herself to have an abortion. The agency said state law prohibited the agency from consenting to the procedure.

Children and families officials declined to comment Monday on whether they planned to appeal Alvarez's decision. "Since this is still in litigation, I can't speak to what's going on in court,'' agency spokeswoman Marilyn Munoz told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Attorneys for the girl said the abortion was scheduled for Monday, but it was unclear whether the girl underwent the procedure.

The girl told the judge last week as part of the psychological evaluation process that she wanted an abortion, citing her age and no way to support a baby. The girl's attorneys argue that Florida law protects a minor's right to choose an abortion.

A measure is moving through the state Legislature to require notification of parents or guardians when girls seek abortion. In 2003, the Florida Supreme Court struck down a 1999 law requiring parents to be notified if their minor daughters seek an abortion.

Read More...

Moral absolutes

Dennis Prager wrote in Townhall Nothing more separates Judeo-Christian values from secular values than the question of whether morality -- what is good or evil -- is absolute or relative. In other words, is there an objective right or wrong, or is right or wrong a matter of personal opinion?

In the Judeo-Christian value system, God is the source of moral values and therefore what is moral and immoral transcends personal or societal opinion. Without God, each society or individual makes up its or his/her moral standards. But once individuals or societies become the source of right and wrong, right and wrong, good and evil, are merely adjectives describing one's preferences. This is known as moral relativism, and it is the dominant attitude toward morality in modern secular society.

Moral relativism means that murder, for example, is not objectively wrong; you may feel it's wrong, but it is no more objectively wrong than your feeling that some music is awful renders that music objectively awful. It's all a matter of personal feeling. That is why in secular society people are far more prone to regard moral judgments as merely feelings. Children are increasingly raised to ask the question, "How do you feel about it?" rather than, "Is it right or wrong?"....

An act that is wrong is wrong for everyone in the same situation, but almost no act is wrong in every situation. Sexual intercourse in marriage is sacred; when violently coerced, it is rape. Truth telling is usually right, but if, during World War II, Nazis asked you where a Jewish family was hiding, telling them the truth would have been evil.

So, too, it is the situation that determines when killing is wrong. That is why the Ten Commandments says "Do not murder," not "Do not kill." Murder is immoral killing, and it is the situation that determines when killing is immoral and therefore murder. Pacifism, the belief that it is wrong to take a life in every situation, is based on the mistaken belief that absolute morality means "in every situation" rather than "for everyone in the same situation." For this reason, it has no basis in Judeo-Christian values, which holds that there is moral killing (self-defense, defending other innocents, taking the life of a murderer) and immoral killing (intentional murder of an innocent individual, wars of aggression, terrorism, etc.).


The Secular Left shows it really does not understand, with statements like "Well, it seems it's because we are relativists, and you can tell that because we are against the Ten Commandments being propped up in courthouse yards."



Read More...

Driver's License

NYT reported Congress is moving quickly toward setting strict rules on how states issue driver's licenses, requiring them to verify whether each applicant for a new license or a renewal is in this country legally. A House and Senate conference now taking place has included the requirements, which apply to all 50 states and other jurisdictions that issue licenses, in a supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq, aides involved in the process said on Monday. The draft legislation will be completed in the next few days and is all but certain to pass. State officials complain that the new requirements will add a costly, complicated burden to the issuance of driver's licenses, which has been their responsibility for almost a century. Civil rights organizations and privacy advocates say that they are concerned that a standardized driver's license would amount to a national identification card and that a central database would be vulnerable to identify theft. The proposed regulations, intended to deter terrorist attacks, would replace a provision of the intelligence bill passed in December that called on state and federal agencies to develop new rules for licenses. That law did not specifically require states to check the citizenship or immigration status of applicants. Eleven states now grant driver's licenses to noncitizens who do not have visas. There is no reliable estimate of how many licenses have been issued to noncitizens, whether in the country legally or illegally.

I hope it passes. Normally I am in favor of States Rights, but this is important for national security.

Hugh Hewitt blogged "Eleven states now grant driver's licenses to noncitizens who do not have visas." How stupid can a state be?

McQ blogged I've always been of the opinion that driver's licenses were the perview of the state. I also tend to side with those who say that a standardized driver's license would be tantamount to a National ID (especially if it has a national central database). On the other hand, I think it is incumbent upon the states to ensure that those applying for a license are in this country legally and entitled to the make application. This is the dilemma I talk about in my article in this issue of "The New Libertarian" about immigration and security. The tendency to go too far in the name of security such that it begins to impact our liberty. This smacks of just such a stretch. While it is important that the states ensure that they aren't issuing driver's licenses to those who aren't entitled by law to have them, its just and important that the federal government stay out of areas the properly belong to the states.

Cori Dauber: blogged About Damn Time A national id is, for reasons that pass understanding, politically impossible in this country. The fact is that we have a de facto national id, it's simply a bad one -- driver's licenses. The 9/11 Commission called for standardization of these cards, and so far they've been basically ignored. You will recall that requirements for standardizing them (involving whether citizenship was a requirement, a huge debate) held up the intelligence bill for quite some time, until a deal was brokered, a deal that depended upon this issue being brought up and brought up quickly. Payback time. The proposed new rules will require states to determine whether all applicants (including those renewing licenses) are in this country legally.

Dr. Steven Taylor blogged I would think that a determined, well-financed terrorist could probably come up with a forged birth certificate. I am not one to freak out over national ID cards, but this is a patchwork approach that reeks of a TSA-like measure.

James Joyner blogged It's stunning to me that states aren't already doing this, since a driver's license is a de facto "national" ID now. Further, since the passage of Motor Voter, anyone can register to vote when they get their drivers' license, effectively giving suffrage to illegal aliens and others who should not be eligible. Of course, since many states don't require picture ID to vote--for fear of intimidating voters who are afraid of plastic--it's somewhat of a moot point.

I favor this, and I would be happy to see it become a national id card that had biometrics on it, but did not allow citizens to be tracked, but was impossible to forge, and was required to vote. I also favor visitors getting a card that showed they were not a citizen, that showed how long they could be in the country, that could be tracked if they overstayed their visas.

Read More...

On Bloggers and Money

WaPo reported You could almost hear the blogosphere sigh with relief earlier this spring when federal election officials indicated that they did not plan to crack down on bloggers who write about politics. The Federal Election Commission, which has been considering issuing new regulations on a range of political activities on the Internet -- and was said by some to be contemplating taking a tough stance on the online commentators -- revealed in late March that it intends to be much less aggressive than many had feared. But now some observers are wondering whether the FEC is not being aggressive enough when it comes to one category of bloggers: those who take money from political campaigns.

These are two very different things. The first fear was that they were going to say that a blogger who was writing favorably about a politician, or unfavorably about his opponent was in effect contributing to that candidate, and had to report that contribution, and that it could not exceed the limits for contributions to a candidate. This was an attempt to discourage the blogger to blog about a candidate.

Now they are saying that some bloggers are being paid to do it. I have no problem with a blogger that is being paid to blog by a candidate or his party having to acknowlege that fact, but if he is doing it for free, or just for advertising revenue for clearly displayed ads, he should be free to do it.
The FEC requires candidates to disclose their expenditures, including any payments to bloggers, in periodic reports to the government. Some bloggers also disclose their financial relationships with candidates, but they are not obliged to reveal those payments, and the agency recently said it is not proposing requiring them to do so. Some election law experts want the FEC to reverse that policy, saying it gives campaigns the opportunity to use ostensibly independent blogs as fronts to create the illusion of grass-roots support, mount attacks on their opponents and disseminate information to which candidates do not want their names attached. "The concern is that somebody is blogging at the behest of a campaign and nobody knows it," said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who maintains a blog on election law. "If, for example, you are a U.S. Senate candidate and you have a blogger who you're paying to write good things about you and bad things about your opponent, it will eventually come out. But that may not come out until after the election," Hasen said. "But even if it comes out, there's something to be said for having the information right there, so when you click on the Web site you see it says 'Authorized by Smith for Congress,' " he added. "Voters rely on those pieces of information as cues in terms of how much stock they should put in what someone is saying."
That sounds reasonable to me.
Others pushing for the disclaimers note the FEC said it is leaning toward requiring them on certain types of political advertising on the Internet. They say paid bloggers' sites can be tantamount to ads and ought to be subject to the same disclosure rules. The agency is tackling that and a number of other often arcane legal questions after a federal court ordered it to rewrite election rules that had left online political activities virtually free from government regulation. The six-member commission revealed its regulatory agenda March 23 in a "notice of proposed rulemaking." That document indicated that the panel is disinclined to impose many new rules on bloggers and others who use the Internet to engage in political activities. The agency, which is accepting public comments on the issue until June 3, is not expected to decide the final regulations until later this year. Scott Thomas, the FEC's Democratic chairman, said it has yet to hear from the authors of the 2002 campaign finance reform legislation or any of the prominent watchdog groups on the disclaimer issue. "We really haven't gotten any of the usual suspects to submit a comment yet," Thomas said. Congress could short-circuit the FEC process, though, if it passes a measure approved last week by the Senate Rules Committee. That bill would bar the FEC from regulating political activities online. Thomas declined to comment on the legislation.
The distinction should be whether the candidate (or his party) pay the blogger.
The FEC is taking up the disclaimer issue after news reports last year indicated that a handful of campaigns from both parties had put bloggers on their payrolls. The most contentious example came in South Dakota, where GOP senatorial candidate John Thune paid $35,000 to two local bloggers who ran sites critical of the state's largest newspaper's coverage of Thune's Democratic opponent, incumbent Thomas A. Daschle. Neither the Thune campaign nor the bloggers revealed the relationship until it was disclosed in his finance reports. Both the campaign and the bloggers -- one a history professor, the other a lawyer -- denied they were paid to write, saying they were hired as consultants.
I believe that even if they do other consulting work, if they are paid by the candidate, and blog in his behalf, they should disclose they are paid consultants.
The Daschle camp said the two were paid to smear the lawmaker. Those who want additional disclosure requirements said they fear that scenario will become increasingly common as politicians become more sophisticated in using the Internet, as blogs attract larger audiences and as more mainstream news outlets report on -- and amplify -- what the blogosphere is saying. But their complaints are meeting skepticism from those who say additional reporting requirements are not only unnecessary but would be legally suspect and difficult to enforce. Some said, for example, that campaigns routinely take a magnifying glass to their opponents' finance reports -- and can be relied upon to publicize any unannounced payments to bloggers. And some said such requirements would impose obligations on bloggers that are not expected of anyone else who takes money from campaigns and then sounds off on them in other media, such as letters to newspapers or calls to radio shows. Trevor Potter, a former FEC commissioner, said as a practical matter it would often be difficult to distinguish between those who have been hired to blog and those who have been hired for some other reason -- to help run a campaign's Internet operations, for example -- and, as is increasingly the case these days, also happen to have a blog. "The problem is that it's not going to be clear when a blogger is speaking in his or her capacity as a paid employee or consultant to a campaign and when they happen to be an employee or consultant and are blogging on their own," he said. Some political bloggers say disclaimers are unnecessary because most of them make no attempt to hide their support or opposition to individual candidates. Relatively few, some say, would risk their credibility and readership by accepting undisclosed payments -- and that those who do would be quickly outted by other bloggers.
I agree, but I still think they should disclose if they are paid by the candidate.
"I think a lot of these things are reasonable as a matter of ethics," said Duncan Black, who runs a popular liberal blog called Eschaton under the pen name Atrios. "But that's different from being reasonable as a matter of law."

Hugh Hewitt blogged But bloggers beware, the FCC is still out there, and even the narrowest of rules has unintended consequences

McQ blogged And blogs which have spent years building up a loyal and large readership aren't about to jeopardize that with hiding a few quick bucks from a political candidate. Most are blogging for the love of blogging, not to flack for some pol. I feel most would probably reveal it if they decided to do so. It wouldn't be worth the chance they'd be found out and lose their credibility and readership. Or so I believe.

Captain Ed blogged The Exempt Media has decided to take another whack at bloggers and the exercise of free speech, this time in the Washington Post. Brian Faler writes in tomorrow's edition about the upcoming Congressional action exempting bloggers from the FEC's upcoming Internet regulations, and his article heavily emphasizes the notion that bloggers can serve as Trojan horses for political campaigns. Of course, this is why I urge people to fight for complete and immediate disclosure of all contributions and disbursements as the only effective campaign-finance reform possible. If campaigns had to disclose that information as they went along -- on a weekly or even a monthly basis -- then we would know who got paid what money and for what reason almost immediately, not when it's too late to make judgments about it.
I agree completely with complete and immediate disclosure of all contributions and disbursements online.
It would put an end to the necessity of 527s and such silly distinctions between "hard" and "soft" money, and the cash would flow directly to the candidate, who would then have no choice but to take responsibility for how it was raised and spent. Instead, we have politicians like John McCain who pass legislation supposedly taking the money out of politics while having his campaign staff remain at his beck and call through their employment at Reform Institute, funded by left-wing groups and individuals such as George Soros. Funny that Brian Faler doesn't write about that, or that Professor Hasen doesn't appear terribly concerned about it either. McCain and RI took in over $100,000 from George Soros in 2004, and like amounts from other leftists groups, while Thune paid a couple of bloggers a few thousand as consultants. Which of the two poses a greater danger of corruption to the political process? I suppose we should feel flattered that the Post considers blogging to have such an impact on politics that merely hiring a couple of local bloggers made the difference in the campaign -- even though they wrote the same type of posts before they were hired as afterwards.

This article wants to scare people, and Congress, into fighting the proposed exemption for bloggers by creating a strawman of rampant corruption in the blogosphere that doesn't exist. Even if campaigns decided to start "buying" bloggers, it would only reflect their ignorance of the marketplace. After all, why buy what one can get for free? Most of us write for our own purposes, not that of a candidate or party, and what revenue we need to justify our expense and time we generate through advertising. Buying a blogger might be more arguable for disclosure simply as a sign of cluelessness. The so-called reformers reveal themselves again as more frightened of the power of free speech and the inability of former media elites toe control the information flow. They want to regulate us into silence and clear the field for the Exempt Media to once again tell people what to believe. Fortunately for the rest of us, those days have long since gone by.

Read More...

The Republicans' Filibuster Lie

LA Times reported To justify banning Senate filibusters in judicial nomination debates, Republicans are claiming support from history. Until now, say Republicans such as Sen. John Kyl and former Sen. Bob Dole, no one has used filibusters to block nominees to the federal courts.

Not true. They have said that the filibuster was not used to block a nominee that had the support of a majority From the cloture vote it is clear that Fortus had only 45 votes.
Because Democrats have broken an unwritten rule, their logic goes, Republicans are forced to change written ones.
Sounds reasonable to me. The Senate never blocked a judicial nominee that had majority support before, and now the Dems have blocked 10 that way.
But the charge that filibustering judicial appointments is unprecedented is false. Indeed, it's surprising that so few Washington hands seem to recall one of the most consequential filibusters in modern times, particularly because it constituted the first salvo in a war over judicial nominees that has lasted ever since. Consider: From 1897 to 1968, the Senate rejected only one candidate for the Supreme Court (John J. Parker, in 1930). But since 1968, six candidates have been rejected or withdrawn, and four others have faced major hostility. During Bill Clinton's presidency, the willingness to challenge presidential prerogative spilled down to the level of appellate court nominees as well.
Frist's compromise offer would have also removed what happened to Clinton's nominees.
This contentious new era began on June 13, 1968, when Chief Justice Earl Warren decided to retire, and President Lyndon B. Johnson tapped Associate Justice Abe Fortas, his old friend and advisor, to replace him. Possessed of a distinguished career, Fortas was amply qualified for the post. But Johnson, having forsworn reelection, was a lame duck, and Republicans saw no reason to confirm Fortas before the November election. It wasn't just Republicans who balked. Conservative Southern Democrats had long abhorred the Warren court's rulings on racial equality, sexual freedom and the rights of the accused. When Sen. Richard Russell (D-Ga.) decided in early July to oppose Fortas, he brought most of his fellow Dixiecrats with him. Fortas' foes had various justifications for opposing him. Republican Robert Griffin of Michigan attacked the justice as the president's "crony." There was feigned outrage over news that he had earned $15,000 for leading summer seminars at American University — a real but petty offense that critics inflated into a disqualifying crime. There was anti-Semitism: According to Laura Kalman's biography of Fortas, Sen. James Eastland privately feared he "could not go back to Mississippi" if he voted to confirm a Jewish chief justice. At bottom, however, Fortas' critics opposed him on ideological grounds. Sen. Strom Thurmond blasted Fortas' votes in a series of pornography cases, which the South Carolina Republican said had opened the floodgates to a torrent of hard-core smut. Thurmond arranged for reporters and Senate colleagues to screen explicit films that Fortas purportedly had legalized. Thurmond also denounced Fortas for defending the rights of rapists, criticizing in particular the Supreme Court's decision in Mallory vs. United States, which freed an admitted rapist because police had detained him excessively before his arraignment — but which had come down in 1957, before Fortas joined the court. Fortas, in short, became the lightning rod for years of pent-up rage toward the Warren court. The Senate Judiciary Committee ultimately endorsed Fortas. But a band of Republicans and Southern Democrats took their fight to the Senate floor. On Sept. 25, 1968, they began a filibuster, beating back a motion to end debate, with Republican leader Everett Dirksen, once a Fortas supporter, switching sides to oppose cloture. Bested in the Senate, Johnson withdrew the nomination on Oct. 2.
And shortly after that Fortas resigned from his Associate Judge position on the USSC because of ethical problems
The first defeat for a high court nominee in 38 years, the Fortas debacle began the Senate's now-commonplace defiance of a president's judicial appointments. And unlike in the 19th century, when senators often admitted to political motives when they opposed a nominee — his stand on immigration or slavery, for example — since 1968 senators typically alight on a kind of cover story, such as Fortas' outside income, William Rehnquist's alleged voter intimidation in the 1960s or Clarence Thomas' reported sexual harassment. History belies such fictions. Fortas met defeat because of his liberal jurisprudence. And Democrats today oppose a handful of President Bush's nominees because they're extremely conservative. For this same plainly political reason, Republicans, who so masterfully deployed the filibuster in 1968, now want to abolish it.
The Republicans are not saying don't oppose the President's nominations, they are just saying they deserve an Up or Down vote, and if a majority oppose the nomination, then it goes down, but it should not go down just because a minority opposes it.

Read More...

Pajamas Media

NY Sun reported Three Political Web Logs Make a Run for the Mainstream In a dramatic sign that Web logs are going mainstream, three of the largest political blogs are banding together to form what is believed to be a first-of-its kind ad-supported network. To broaden their appeal beyond national security issues, the three - ArmedLiberal, RogerLSimon, and LittleGreenFootballs - will receive editorial advice from the owner of one of the most heavily trafficked blogs, Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds, among others.

The venture will be called Pajamas Media, a not-so-subtle reference to the September remarks of a CNN executive, Jonathan Klein, who said a typical blogger has "no checks and balances" and is just "a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas." No launch date has been set. The idea of Pajamas Media is to use an extensive network of globally affiliated blogs to provide first-person, in-depth coverage of most major news events, including both camera and video footage, Roger Simon said.

Using as an example the tsunami that swept through parts of Asia and Africa in January, Mr. Simon said bloggers managed to post hundreds of updates, first-person accounts, and video clips, often before major press organizations could deploy their staffs. With 162 affiliate blogs in dozens of different countries, according to Mr. Simon, the new venture will have the ability to get "in the middle of stories" that major news organizations can't, "because our affiliates will have a physical proximity, language, and cultural knowledge that the Associated Press man will often lack." Mr. Simon is a Los Angeles-based screenwriter and mystery novelist whose credits include the Woody Allen directed "Scenes From a Mall" and the Moses Wine detective series.

The LittleGreenFootballs blogger, Charles Johnson, said the challenge is to keep the freewheeling character of a popular blog - where opinions and criticism are given freely - while meeting high standards and aggressively pursuing stories. "Look at how blogs, with no coordination and limited money, scooped major papers and the networks on stories like Dan Rather, Eason Jordan, and the tsunami," he said. Mr. Johnson, whose blog averages about 70,000 unique visitors a day, has been called the first writer to conclude that documents purporting to prove that President Bush used political leverage to get out of Air National Guard training exercises in the early 1970s were computer-generated and inauthentic.

Instapundit.com's Mr. Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor whose blog averages more than 130,000 unique visitors a day - according to the Truth Laid Bear, a blog that tracks Web log traffic - said large press organizations have nothing to fear from a successful Pajamas Media. "I think it is a tired cliche that because there won't be newspaper editors at PJM, that somehow the product will be diminished," Mr. Reynolds said. "We do not need four or five layers of editors to screw this up like they have at the L.A. Times. Hopefully, we'll have live feeds and middle-of-the-crowd commentary from the next Beirut demonstration." Mr. Reynolds's mention of the Los Angeles Times was a reference to a March 29 column by that paper's press critic, David Shaw, asserting that reporting at the Times and other papers was preferable to the work of bloggers because of the multiple layers of editing that each story undergoes. Mr. Reynolds argued that the work of the blogger-reporters of Pajamas Media would improve the quality of reporting on major events. "Hopefully, reporters from larger organizations will use us as another resource to cite when they report on a big story," he said. "We're not a threat to their jobs, but we'll make them do their jobs better since their will be another record out there." From a practical perspective, he said, one of the goals of the founders, once financing is in place, is to get a handheld camcorder and a laptop notebook into the hands of all their affiliated bloggers.

The economics of launching what is in effect a global blog-based wire service is complex but not insurmountable, Mr. Simon said. "We have about seven different investment offers on the table right now," he said, "so getting off the ground shouldn't be a problem." Syndicating advertisements through affiliated blogs so that advertisers reach a global network, according to LittleGreenFootball's Mr. Johnson, will sustain the project. Citing demographic research he said he has done on his site, he said: "We've got a lot to offer advertisers. My blog and many others have a lot of six-figure readers, a lot of graduate degrees, and reader loyalty." Mr. Simon went a step further, saying his readers, based on an informal survey he did on his site three months ago, have a median income of $100,000. His blog averages about 18,000 unique visitors a day.

The timing is right for Pajamas Media's advertising syndication approach, according to the president of a marketing company for Web sites, Tom Hespos, who said the key to successful advertising on blogs is tapping into what he called "their audience dedication." He said blog readers will frequently log into their favorite sites three or four times a day and often do not ignore or dismiss advertisements as readily as they do in print or on television.

"As long as they continue to identify the blogger as credible, blog audiences have proven remarkably loyal and resilient," Mr. Hespos said, "and that extends to advertising." Mr. Simon said his blog makes about $1,000 a month and recently carried ads for Friendster blogs - featuring a revealing pose by the actress Pamela Sue Anderson - and a physical-conditioning program.

Mr. Hespos said that with attractive demographics, a popular blogger can make between $4,000 and $5,000 a month, which he said makes blogs economically viable. Based on standard rates of between $10 and $15 per thousand page views, he said it shouldn't be difficult to get Pajama Media's blog network into the $5,000-a-month range to start. Moreover, if the venture manages to gather page views going into the millions, the revenues could easily increase to between $12,000 and $15,000 per month.

There are caveats, however. The first is that blog advertising is unpopular with a large segment of traditional advertisers, such as Proctor & Gamble, who are uncomfortable with the potential of their products' being sold near potentially controversial copy. When advertisers consider buying space on blogs, according to Underscore Marketing's Mr. Hespos, the notion of editorial material reflecting negatively on the advertiser is a big question mark. "There are no controls for blog advertising, so you need an advertiser that has demonstrated a comfort level with that, because there is no moving a product away from a controversial opinion or off-color remark," he said. Examples of name-brand advertisers that have had an aggressive blog advertising presence include Sony and Nike, which both have had large ad placements on various Gawker Media blogs.


A.M. Mora y Leon blogged An amazing article in today’s New York Sun has the number on how blogging is revolutionizing the world. Now, there is a new project to rationalize what we look for in from blogs, utilizing their inherent competitive advantage, when a global news event happens. (Because we want to know just what it is like in the middle of the crowd when Beirut happens!) And fascinatingly, this new development is led by the genius who understands this phenomenon better than anyone else on earth, Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds, specifically speaking of revolutions. When you read the article, notice Glenn’s powerful way of cutting to the logical quick of what’s really at hand, explaining in just a few reasoned words what blogging is really about. Instapundit is the Cardinal Ratzinger of the blog world. (And you know where that led!)

James Joyner blogged In early February, I got an e-mail from Marc Danziger (aka "Armed Liberal") inviting me to join an enterprise known as Pajamas Media. The details were sketchy but sounded interesting and it came with the backing of some people whose work I respect, so I signed on, including an agreement to keep it confidential. Last week, Roger L. Simon broke word on his blog. Now, the New York Sun has a big feature in today's edition revealing the genesis and vision behind the project.

Roger L. Simon blogged Affiliated blogs have now reached 180+ (not counting an almost equal number of milblogs).

Michelle Malkin blogged Impeccable timing: The news of this groundbreaking venture comes as newspaper circulation figures plummet.

Here's how I had to read it several times before it saw it. Just click here

Jimmie blogged Bloggahs in Pajamas Are Taking O’er the World. Well, not really, but sometimes it looks as if they might, considering the occasional displays of power the blogosphere shows when bloggers work in anything resembling a coordinated manner. This looks like a good thing another one of those coordinations that could give the evolution of news reporting a much-needed kick in the pants.

Scared Monkeys blogged Looks like we have the next step in the evolution of blogging. Oh to be a fly on the wall at the MSM Network board rooms these days or as posted earlier today what must the Newspaper outlets be thinking?

AlphaPatriot blogged This will be very, very interesting. Even Michelle Malkin promises to join. I've never taken money for my blog (it's not a job), not even a tip jar, but the opportunity to support something that challenges the single-source MSM sounds like the right thing to do. Anything to make the readership of newspapers continue to decline.

Homeland Security Blog Area blogged It’s all over except for the “fat lady” singing. The Blogos has replaced the MSM as the relevant source of objective news/info of the day. This revolution has been quietly preceding for sometime.

Conservative Revolution blogged It looks as if the Dons of the Blogosphere have gotten together and decided to make a legitimate business out of these here blogs. I think that it is an excellent idea, as far as the money side goes. Those guys are going to make some huge profits off other people's ideas, writing and time. However, I understand that they will spreading the wealth by allowing any blogger to have the ads on their site. Pretty cool if they can get it all together.

Blogs Up, MSM Down. Power to the people!

Read More...

Liberal gives Bush a good grade

Michael Kinsley in the LA Times says Bush Gets B+ for Honesty, Even Courage, on Social Security

Question: Is the poll troubling?

The president: Polls? You know, if a president tries to govern based upon polls, you're kind of like a dog chasing your tail. I don't think you can make good, sound decisions based upon polls. And I don't think the American people want a president who relies upon polls and focus groups to make decisions for the American people.

The comic high point of President Bush's prime-time news conference Thursday evening was this muddled disquisition on how the American people don't want the president to do what (polls say) the American people want the president to do. This could be simple nonsense — an unfortunate conflation of two rhetorical devices treasured by politicians of both parties, but best kept a few paragraphs apart. One is the insistence that they don't follow the polls. The other is substituting the phrase "the American people" for the word "I" in sentences like, "The American people demand immediate passage of HR 5712, the Grotesque Subsidies to Widget Producers Act." Or the president could be struggling toward some kind of Burkean notion that he has been elected to lead people, not to follow their whims, and leadership matters only when it takes people where they don't want to go. Bush hinted at this after his reelection, saying that he had earned "political capital" that he intended to spend. And I'm giving him credit for this high-minded explanation, based on the rest of his performance Thursday.

Isn't that nice of you to give him credit for the high-minded explanation. He does feel he was elected to lead, and he is certainly trying to do just that.
There was a remarkable amount of honesty and near honesty. Bush's rebuff to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was superb. The people who oppose his judgeship nominees aren't prejudiced against religion, he said. They do it because they have a different "judicial philosophy." That is exactly the point.
President Bush and you are right - those who oppose his judgeship nominees are doing it because they dont like their judicial philosophy of looking to the original intent of the writers of the constitution, and not some evolving idea of what they must have meant. And I suspect Bill Frist agrees.
His characterization of the difference — his opponents "would like to see judges legislate from the bench" — is not quite right. Just a couple of weeks ago, his party tried desperately to force judges to "legislate from the bench" to prevent the removal of life support from Terri Schiavo. But a straightforward debate about judicial philosophy is indeed what we need.
I said at the time the Terri Schiavo matter was a mistake, but I don't agree that it was a desire to force judges to legislate from the bench. Rather the legislation took place where it should, in the House and the Senate, and it was signed by the President. I did not agree with it, but that is how legislation should be done. The judges decided to ignore what it said. That was not right. The judges should have, and could have, declared it unconstitutional, but they did not.
Then it got even better. Starting with the cliche that in America you can "worship any way you want," Bush plunged gratuitously into a declaration that "if you choose not to worship, you're equally as patriotic as somebody who does worship." How long has it been, in this preacher-spooked nation, since a politician, let alone the president, has spoken out in defense of nonbelievers?
I don't know, but he was right. Patriotism and Faith are not the same. People should have both, but having either one does not guarantee they have the other.
Above all, Bush was honest and even courageous about Social Security. Social Security is about writing checks: Money goes in, money goes out. As Bush has discovered in the last few months, there are no shadows to hide in while you fiddle with it. The problem is fewer and fewer workers supporting more and more retirees, and there are only two possible solutions: Someone has to pay more in, and/or someone has to take less out.
There is a third alternative. Keeping the government from stealing the money that comes in and does not immediately get paid out, and letting it grow somewhere the government cant touch it.
On Thursday, Bush didn't exactly go from explicitly denying this to explicitly admitting it. But he went from implicitly suggesting that his privatization scheme is a pain-free solution to implicitly endorsing a plan for serious benefit cuts. For a politician, that's an admirable difference. Even more to Bush's credit, the plan he's backing is highly progressive. Benefits for low- income workers would keep rising with average wages, as now, but benefits for middle- and high-income people would be geared more toward merely keeping up with inflation. This allows Bush to say that no one's benefits would be cut, although some people would be getting up to 40% less than they are currently promised. But in the swamp of Social Security politics, that is really minimal protection from the alligators. So Democrats now face a choice: Are they going to be alligators on this one? Why Bush has taken this on remains a mystery. There is no short-term political advantage, and there are other real long-term problems that are more pressing. But he has done it, to his credit. As this column has argued to the point of stupefaction, Bush's privatization ideas are a mathematical fraud. There is no way that allowing people to manage a portion of the money they put into the system can produce a surplus to supplement their benefits or cushion the shock of the necessary cuts.
they can certainly make more money than allowing the government to immediately spend it, and then just hope that they will decide to raise taxes in the future to redeam the IOUs they left in the so called "Trust Fund" when the money is needed
But if privatization is truly voluntary, it can't do much harm. And if that's Bush's price for being out front on a real solution to the real problem, the Democrats should let him have it.
Sounds good to me.
Unless they are complete morons — always a possibility — the Democrats could end up in the best of all worlds. They know in their hearts that Social Security has to change in some unpleasant way. Bush, for whatever reason, is willing to take this on, and to take most of the heat. And all he wants in return is the opportunity to try something that will alienate people from the Republican Party for generations.
This idiot really does not believe that people will like the idea of having something they can pass on to their heirs if they die before the retire.




James Joyner blogged Michael Kinsley, long a favorite of mine among liberal pundits, once again demonstrates why in his LAT editorial "Bush Gets B for Honesty, Even Courage, on Social Security." As I noted in my assessment of the press conference, "[I]f Bill Clinton had made this proposal, conservatives would almost surely be crying 'Socialism!'" Kinsley provides the other side of that coin: Had Clinton made this proposal, the Democrats would be gushing in praise at his brilliance. Kinsley passes the Honest Democrat test here. (Honest Democrats can find much to criticize in Bush's plan. But progressivity ain't it.) Like Michelle Malkin, I disagree with what some of Kinsley writes here (and a great deal of what he's written elsewhere). But he's worth reading because he usually gets beyond the Democratic talking points.

Michelle Malkin blogged Breaking news: A (somewhat) honest liberal. Finally, a liberal commentator capable of independent thought. Michael Kinsley admits that President Bush's Social Security indexing proposal is "honest," "courageous," and "highly progressive". Obviously, I don't agree with everything in Kinsley's column. In particular, his assertion that Bush's plan would "alienate people from the Republican Party for generations" is over the top. Nevertheless, it's refreshing to read a liberal commentator who doesn't base his arguments solely on DNC talking points.

Boughyah blogged In what comes as a shock to me, Michael Kinsley, editor of the LaTimes OpEd page, defends Bush today in his column. Kinsley gives Bush credit for standing up and essentially saying, without stating names, "Bill Frist is wrong. They don't dislike us because we're non-secularists, they dislike us because of our judicial outlook." And he's right, though I take beef with his beef that the Democrats really aren't looking for legislation from the bench, which I think they are. Supreme Court rulings that establish precedent and supercede or overturn legislation almost always favor progressive, liberal policy.

Read More...

Tuesday, May 3

This Day In History

  • 1802   Washington, D.C., was incorporated as a city.
  • 1916   Irish nationalist Padraic Pearse and two others were executed by the British for their roles in the Easter uprising.
  • 1921   West Virginia imposed the first state sales tax.
  • 1937   Margaret Mitchell won a Pulitzer Prize for her novel ''Gone with the Wind.''
  • 1945   Indian forces captured Rangoon, Burma, from the Japanese.
  • 1948   The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that covenants prohibiting the sale of real estate to blacks and other minorities were legally unenforceable.
  • 1971   National Public Radio, the U.S. national, non-commercial radio network, was born.
  • 1979   Conservative Party leader Margaret Thatcher became Britain's first female prime minister as the Tories ousted the incumbent Labor government in parliamentary elections.
  • 1986   In NASA's first post-Challenger launch, an unmanned Delta rocket lost power in its main engine shortly after liftoff, forcing safety officers to destroy it by remote control.
  • 1988   The White House acknowledged that first lady Nancy Reagan had used astrological advice to help schedule her husband's activities.
  • 2000   The archbishop of New York, Cardinal John O'Connor, died at age 80.
  • 2001   The United States lost its seat on the U.N. Human Rights Commission for the first time since the commission was formed in 1947.
  • 2002   Pipe bombs exploded in six mailboxes in rural parts of Illinois and Iowa, injuring six people.
Happy Birthday To
  • 1920   Sugar Ray Robinson (International Boxing Hall of Fame middleweight champ)
  • 1921   Joe Ames (singer: group: The Ames Brothers)
  • 1933   James Brown (The Godfather of Soul)
  • 1937   Frankie Valli (Francis Castellucio)
  • 1947   Doug Henning (magician/illusionist)

Read More...

Monday, May 02, 2005

Gates Does Blogs

Heather Green blogged Bill Gates gave an interview to the blog Engadget and it's suddenly news. It shouldn't be, really. It simply makes sense for a company to figure out what the influential blogs are and include them in the group of publications the company talks to regularly.

The interview is titled The Engadget Interview: Bill Gates, Pt. 1 which implies to me we may see more from Bill in the future, but this interview covered the next Xbox console and the next version of Windows Mobile, and Engadget saved the article in categories Cellphones, Features, Gaming, Handhelds, and Interviews. There will be at least one more part to the article, because they promise that tomorrow they will cover discuss HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray, IPTV, Windows Media Center, and why Tablet PC has struggled so much.

I appreciate Businessweek pointing to this interview

Read More...

Teen Blogging

Hat Tip to Ken Leebow for identifying three excellent articles on Teen Blogging:

Most bloggers, such as myself, would not think about restricting viewers of their blog, because they want to reach as many people as possible with the ideas they are blogging about. But for teenagers that is not necessarilly true. As mentioned in an earlier blog entry both LiveJournal and Yahoo360 have the ability to restrict blog entries to "friends", or to also include "friends of friends", or even "friends of friends of friends"

Read More...

GOP elders seeking Delay opponent

HoustonChronicle reported Former U.S. Rep. Pete McCloskey, in Houston Sunday for a conference on Palestinian issues, said he and other Republican elders are looking for a candidate to oppose U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land. "Tom DeLay is an embarrassment to the Republican Party," said McCloskey, who represented Northern California from 1967 to 1983. He met Sunday with Michael Fjetland, who was defeated by DeLay in Republican primaries in 2000 and 2002 and as an independent in the 2004 general election. McCloskey is one of nine former congressmen who have formed an informal group he called the "revolt of the elders," to oppose congressmen who they think are guilty of ethics violations.

Fjetland, 55, a lawyer from Missouri City, said he is forming a committee to see if he can gather enough support to take on DeLay in the primary. Fjetland said many voters are tired of DeLay acting like a bully.


Most of the voter that are tired of DeLay acting like a bully are Democrats, because DeLay is very effective at his job. The Republicans that are against him are probably RINOs seeking to please the Democrats.

Sal Towse blogged Pete McCloskey (represented the San Francisco Peninsula in Congress from 1967 to 1983) wrote on September 10, 2004 "Although I'm a lifelong Republican, I will vote for John Kerry on Nov. 2. The choice seems simple under traditional principles of the Republican Party."

Chris Elam blogged Pete McCloskey has nothing better to do than arrange a meeting with THREE-time loser, Mike Fjetland? The man who couldn't break THREE percent in 2004 as an Independent (after wisely deciding not to get humiliated in the '04 primary for the third straight time)?

Byron LaMasters blogged Mike Fjetland is delusional if he thinks he can get tens of thousands of Democrats to vote in the 2006 GOP primary to help oust Tom DeLay. The only way that Tom DeLay loses a Republican primary is if enough Republicans in CD 22 see him as someone that hurts their party. However, if CD 22 Republicans believe that Democrats are attempting to hijack their primary, then Republicans who might otherwise turn against Tom DeLay would support Tom DeLay in order to maintain the integrity of their primary. Since there are more Republicans than Democrats in CD 22, then the suggestion that Democrats could help defeat Tom DeLay in a GOP primary is pretty much just a pipe dream.

Read More...

Health care and the American automobile

George Will wrote in Townhall Who knew? Speculation about which welfare state will be the first to buckle under the strain of the pension and medical costs of aging populations usually focuses on European nations with declining birth rates and aging populations. Who knew the first to buckle would be General Motors, with Ford not far behind? GM is a car and truck company -- for the 74th consecutive year, the world's largest -- and has revenues greater than Arizona's gross state product. But GM's stock price is down 45 percent since a year ago; its market capitalization is smaller than Harley Davidson's. This is partly because GM is a welfare state.

In 2003 GM's pension fund needed an infusion from the largest corporate debt offering in history. And the cost of providing health coverage for 1.1 million GM workers, retirees and dependents is estimated to be $5.6 billion this year. Their coverage is enviable -- at most, small co-payments for visits to doctors and for pharmaceuticals, but no deductibles or monthly premiums. GM says health expenditures -- $1,525 per car produced; there is more health care than steel in a GM vehicle's price tag -- are one of the main reasons it lost $1.1 billion in the first quarter of 2005. Ford's profits fell 38 percent, and although Ford had forecast 2005 profits of $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion, it now probably will have a year's loss of $100 million to $200 million. All this while Toyota's sales are up 23 percent this year and Americans are buying cars and light trucks at a rate that would produce 2005 sales almost equal to the record of 17.4 million in 2000.

GM says its health care burdens, negotiated with the United Auto Workers, put it at a $5 billion disadvantage against Toyota in the United States because Japan's government, not Japanese employers, provides almost all health care in Japan. This reasoning could produce a push by much of corporate America for the federal government to assume more health care costs. This would be done in the name of ``leveling the playing field" to produce competitive ``fairness."

But remember: Employer-provided health insurance is employee compensation. It became important during the Second World War when there were wage controls and a shortage of workers. Because wages could not be bid up, companies competed for workers by offering the untaxed benefit of health care. If GM's $5.6 billion were given not as untaxed workers' compensation in the form of health care, but as taxable cash compensation of equal after-tax value, it would cost GM substantially more than $5.6 billion. Which means that soon -- GM's UAW contract is up in 2007 -- GM's workers may have to give back a value of at least $1,500 a year.


PGL blogged George Will double counts one element of employee compensation by saying GM and Ford have additional costs related to health care coverage. Does Will understand that firms and workers negotiate on the overall compensation package that includes both wages and fringe benefits? Maybe one can argue that GM and Ford management made a bad deal with the UAW on the compensation package as Mark Kleiman did, but Will’s column makes no more sense to me than it does to Jesse Taylor.

Where did George Will double count one element of employee compensation? He knows they negotiated an overall compensation package that includes both wages and fringe benefits, but with at most, small co-payments for visits to doctors and for pharmaceuticals, but no deductibles or monthly premiums they gave away a fringe benefit that they have no control over, and it may force them into bankrupcy.

Jesse Taylor blogged Universal health care will solve the expenditure shortfall GM says it experiences in comparison to Japanese auto producers (or even in experience to insurgent Korean manufacturers, who also - surprise! - have a version of national health insurance). It's up to GM to solve the rest of it.

It might level the playing field, but universal health care would require huge increases in taxes for the taxpayers to provide health care to everyone, and even if that was done, the greedy unions would probably say now that the government is paying for health care, GM must provide some other fringe benefit to replace it.

Read More...

Kingdom of Heaven

Hat Tip to lgf for pointing out that Ridley Scott’s film about the Crusades "Kingdom of Heaven" is Propaganda Film. As LGF said:

  • The film distorts history to portray Muslims in a good light.
  • Nevertheless, Muslims at first attacked the film while it was being made (including death threats).
  • Ridley Scott then subsequently slanted the film even further to appease Muslim special interest groups.
  • Eventually most of them agreed it was sufficiently dhimmified.
  • (The film, is also explicitly anti-religion, to please the Lefties.)
  • Dr. Hamid Dabashi, featured in Columbia Unbecoming, was given a private screening by Ridley Scott and gave the film his stamp of approval, as Scott viewed him as “an important Muslim in New York.”
  • Khaled Abou El Fadl at UCLA is still opposed to the movie, claiming the film will cause hate crimes against Muslims.
  • The IMDB message board for KoH was deleted in its entirety due to Muslim extremists flooding the board.
  • Christians may be planning a boycott of the film.
See the review

In this article highly respected historians are quoted as saying the film is "complete fiction" and "panders to Osama bin Laden"

Prof Riley-Smith, who is Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University, said the plot was "complete and utter nonsense". He said that it relied on the romanticised view of the Crusades propagated by Sir Walter Scott in his book The Talisman, published in 1825 and now discredited by academics.

Dr Jonathan Philips, a lecturer in history at London University and author of The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople...said: "The Templars as 'baddies' is only sustainable from the Muslim perspective..."


Jeff blogged Perhaps CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations] liked Kingdom of Heaven because the filmmakers already excised scenes of Muslim warriors spitting on the True Cross & other unacceptable material after a Muslim professor complained. (No doubt this editing was coincidental.)...

A NY Times piece on the film notes "Muslims are portrayed as bent on coexistence until Christian extremists ruin everything." Coexistence: the First Crusade was launched in 1096. Prior to that, Muslims conquered Syria (635), Palestine (638), Persia (642), Eqypt (642), North Africa (642-698), Kabul (711), the Indus region (712), Samarkand (712), Spain (712), Toulouse (721), Kyrgyzstan (751, Chinese army defeated), & Armenia (1071).

Muslim expansion into Europe was only stopped when the French defeated them at Tours (732). Someone should tell French actress Eva Green, who says, "It's not like a stupid Hollywood movie. It's a movie with substance. I hope it will wake up people in America ... to be more tolerant, more open toward the Arab people."


KelliPundit blogged A fantastic round-up of who is behind CAIR and then a great discussion of how Hollywood distorts historical facts to protect their favored minority groups. And guess what? Straight, white guys ain't one of them. Don't miss the comments either.

Darleen blogged A radical "religious" group gives approval of a new Hollywood movie, but only after the director and one of the lead actors assured them that during the production all scenes even the tiny bit critical or less than flattering to the religion's membership were excised or rewritten, even if that meant falsifying the historical facts being portrayed. The sheer power of such theocratic interference should raise eyebrows and engender column inches in the Mainstream Media over such an obvious scandal of art controlled by an outside religious group. But don't hold your breath, because we are not talking about the Religious Right, or even Christians. In yet another case of Hollywood's kneejerk dhimmitude, Ridley Scott has delivered a historical whitewash of moslems in Kingdom of Heaven.

John commented This really upsets me. Why do we always have the concept of crusaders as invaders but no movies showing the Arabs as invaders of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) empire. Syria, Lebanon, Palestine (a Roman renaming to demean the Jews) and Egypt were all Christian lands before the Arabs decided to expand their empire with no qualms as to what it would take. Not only had those lands been Christian for over 300 years they had had a Greek culture for over 900. In a place that had thousands of years of conquest and reconquest , why are the crusades singled out as been unnecessary?

It is true that after the Arab conquest of Jerusalem, the new rulers allowed the conquered people to practice their faith. However it is also true that a caliph built the Dome of the Rock over the remains of the old Jewish temple denying Jews access to that most holy site for them. The Crusades themselves did not appear in a vacuum. It was an Arab ruler in Jerusalem that decided to tear down Christian holy places and deny pilgrims access to them. Apologist for this ruler now always say that he was mad and his successor did away with his mad dictates, but that doesn’t change the fact that Pope Urban II in Rome (or France when he gave his speech) would not feel that these thing could be done again.


If any group suggested slanting the film in favor of Christians, the MSM would be screaming about interference from the "Rabid Right" and claims that Conservative Christians were setting up a Theocracy, but it seems quite acceptable to cater to CAIR and minimize anything bad that the Moslems did. This reminds me of schools allowing Hanukkah songs and displays and Kwanza songs and displays during the Holiday period (formerly known as Christmas), but no Nativity Scenes, and no songs about the real meaning of Christmas.

Read More...

Monday, May 2

This Day In History

  • 1519   Artist Leonardo da Vinci died at Cloux, France.
  • 1670   The Hudson Bay Co. was chartered by England's King Charles II.
  • 1863   Confederate Gen. Thomas ''Stonewall'' Jackson was accidentally wounded by his own men at Chancellorsville, Va. He died eight days later.
  • 1887   Hannibal W. Goodwin of Newark, NJ applied for a patent for celluloid photographic film -- the stuff from which movies are shown.
  • 1890   The Oklahoma Territory was organized.
  • 1932   NBC radio introduced an entertainer this night. The comic genius started working for a salary of $1,400 a week. His name: Jack Benny.
  • 1939   New York Yankees first baseman Lou Gehrig's streak of 2,130 consecutive games played came to an end.
  • 1941   The Federal Communications Commission agreed to let regular scheduling of TV broadcasts by commercial TV stations begin on July 1, 1941. It was the start of what would become network television.
  • 1957   Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy, the controversial Republican from Wisconsin, died at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland.
  • 1972   J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI for 48 years, died at age 77.
  • 1974   Former Vice President Spiro T. Agnew was disbarred by the Maryland Court of Appeals.
  • 1994   Nelson Mandela claimed victory in South Africa's first democratic elections.
  • 1997   Tony Blair became, at age 44, Britain's youngest prime minister in 185 years.
Happy Birthday To
  • 1729   Catherine the Great (Catherine II) (Ekaterina Alekseevna) (Russian leader [1762-1796]; died in 1796)
  • 1837   Henry M. (Martyn) Robert (U.S. Army General; author: Robert's Rules of Order, the standard for parliamentary procedure; died May 11, 1923)
  • 1903   Benjamin Spock (baby doctor, author: The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care; died Mar 15, 1998)
  • 1936   Engelbert Humperdinck (Arnold George Dorsey) (singer: After The Lovin', Release Me, There Goes My Everything, The Last Waltz, A Man Without Love, Winter World of Love, Les Bicyclettes de Belsize)

Read More...

Sunday, May 01, 2005

Democrats bound back

Post Gazette reports The only thing harder to find in the U.S. Senate these days than a Democrat with a conscience is a Republican with a spine.

Democrats may have been waxed at the polls last November, but they're running rings around Republicans in the public relations battles so far this year. Democrats benefit enormously from having most of the major media in the tank for them. Although media bias is more egregious than ever, it's not exactly a new phenomenon. You'd think Republicans would be prepared for it by now. Only ordinary incompetence is required to lose the high ground on any one of these issues, but extraordinary incompetence is required to lag so far behind on all of them.


Captain Ed blogged Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette makes the argument that the GOP has lost political momentum through the lackadaisical effort of its legislative caucuses, especially in the Senate, since the elections last year. Kelly writes that a lack of effort and basic competence in the Republican leadership has allowed the Democrats to bounce back from their stunning defeats, assisted by an ever-willing Exempt Media

Scott @PowerLine blogged Recall that President Bush commenced his second term only three months ago. If President Bush gets rolled by Democrats in Congress on the battles he should win easily at the outset of his term, it's going to be a long, long four years.

Kelly calls for "a Republican with a spine." Kelly's prescription also explains the current Democratic/media war on Tom DeLay; the war on DeLay marks him as one of the most valuable players on the Republican team. President Bush's appearance with DeLay last week demonstrates that, whatever the justice of Kelly's criticism of Bush's political operation, President Bush understands the acuity of Kelly's prescription for Republicans.


I agree with Kelly, but I have hopes that within a couple of weeks we will see Republicans with a spine as they confront the Constitutional/Nuclear option

Read More...

Left aims to smite 'theocracy' movement

Washington Times reported Secular humanists and leftist activists convened here over the weekend to strategize how to counter what they contend is a growing political threat from Christian conservatives. Understanding and answering the "religious far right" that propelled President Bush's re-election is key to preventing a "theocracy" from governing the nation, speakers argued at a weekend conference.

"The religious right now has an unprecedented influence on American politics and policy," said Ralph White, co-founder of the Open Center, a New York City institution focused on holistic learning.

Now you know how we felt when the Secular Left had such an unprecedented influence on American politics and policy.
"It is incumbent upon all of us to understand as precisely as possible its aims, methods, beliefs, theology and psychology." The Open Center, founded 21 years ago, played host to the two-day conference at City College of New York called "Examining the Real Agenda of the Religious Far Right." People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group that opposes religion in the public square, co-sponsored the conference, which drew about 500 participants. "This may be the darkest time in our history," said Bob Edgar, general secretary of the left-leaning National Council of Churches and former six-term Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania. "The religious right have been systematically working at this for 40 years. The question is, where is the religious left?"
There are certainly religious people on the left (even a few right to lifers, but they are not allowed to speak), but the Secular Humanists are the ones in control of the Liberal Agenda.
Speakers outlined such concepts -- others would say conspiracy theories -- as Christian reconstructionism and dominionism to a crowd that Mr. White said does "not understand the further reaches of religion." Dominionism is the theory that the account in Genesis in which God gave man dominion over the earth has become a political teaching advocating that Christians gain and hold power. Christian reconstructionism is the theory that Christian conservatives intend to impose Old Testament law in America. The United States is "not yet a theocracy," Joan Bokaer, founder of TheocracyWatch.org, said Friday night, but she argued that "the United States is beginning to fit the model of a reconstructed America."
Praise the Lord!!!!!
Tax cuts combined with increased funding for faith-based social programs and decreases in welfare spending, Ms. Bokaer said, were examples of "the theological right ... zealously setting up to establish their beliefs in all aspects of our society."
I understand the faith-based part, but where in the Bible does it call for tax cuts or decreases in welfare spending?
She compared the Federal Communications Commission's threatened crackdown on indecency on television with the Taliban, the repressive Islamic rulers of Afghanistan who harbored Osama bin Laden's terrorist network until toppled by a U.S.-led invasion. "Indecency police are a major part of theocratic states," Ms. Bokaer said, flashing a picture of Islamic women covered head to foot under the title, "Taliban: Ministry for the Protection of Virtue and Prevention of Vice."

Such rhetoric turned the volume up on warnings of theocratic revolution issued by some Democrats opposing Republican efforts to override their Senate filibusters of Mr. Bush's nominees for federal judgeships.
Which are based on their Judicial Philosophy, not their faith.
Former Vice President Al Gore said in a speech Wednesday that the move against judicial filibusters is driven by an "aggressive new strain of right-wing religious zealotry." Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, asked in a speech April 15 about the case of Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged Florida woman: "Are we going to live in a theocracy where the highest powers tell us what to do?" Sen. Ken Salazar, Colorado Democrat, last week called Focus on the Family, the Colorado Springs Christian advocacy group, "the Antichrist of the world." He later apologized and said he meant to call James Dobson's organization "un-Christian, meaning self-serving and selfish."

Conferees here shared Mr. Salazar's disapproval of such Christian activist groups as Focus on the Family and such politicians as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican. When Ms. Bokaer showed a slide of Mr. Frist, some in the crowd hissed loudly. Others, however, said such scorn is not helpful. "If we are going to ask the Christian right to stop engaging in demonization, we need to inspect some of our own language," Chip Berlet of the human rights watchdog Political Research Associates said in his talk Friday night. "I'm uncomfortable when I hear people of sincere religious faith described as religious political extremists," he said. "What does that term mean? It's a term of derision that says we're good and they're bad. There is no content." Afterward, in an interview, Mr. Berlet added: "The Democrats do just as much name-calling as the right. It's great for fundraising. [But] it's a heck of a way of building a social progressive movement."


Hugh Hewitt blogged Don't miss this hilarious account of a gathering of "secular humanists" in D.C., which underscores the outbreak of religiousrightitis on the left that borders on hysteria. Well, it actually is hysteria.

Read More...

Debate on global warming

Telegraph reports Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.



A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds. A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue. The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame.
That is the false opinion that the MSM would like for you to believe
The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it. Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser. However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.
Oops!!!
They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.
That is quite a difference. 75% explicitly or implicitly, vs 1% explicitly and 32% implicitly
Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet". Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said.
They probably are referring to the fact that there are a lot of people on the net challenging the global warming idea. I recall that not too many years ago some scientists were predicting that mankind was doing things that would result in global cooling, and I have seen many things indicating the world has been going through periodic warming and cooling cycles ever since Creation.
A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel." Dr Peiser rejected this: "As the results from my analysis refuted the original claims, I believe Science has a duty to publish them." Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which criticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity. As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal. Prof Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what they were intending to publish."
Of cours not. They told the truth.
Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important." He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.

As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. "Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. "The journals have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming." Concern about bias within climate research has spread to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose findings are widely cited by those calling for drastic action on global warming. In January, Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound".

A spokesman for Science denied any bias against sceptics of man-made global warming. "You will find in our letters that there is a wide range of opinion," she said. "We certainly seek to cover dissenting views."
The letters section is one thing; what about printing papers that have a dissenting view.
Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, said that the journal was always happy to publish papers that go against perceived wisdom, as long as they are of acceptable scientific quality. "The idea that we would conspire to suppress science that undermines the idea of anthropogenic climate change is both false and utterly naive about what makes journals thrive," he said.

Dr Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action," he said. "But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science."


Andrew Stuttaford blogged One of the curiosities of the debate over man-made global warming is the way in which true believers in this hypothesis seem so unwilling to enter into any debate with those that challenge them. I can understand established scientists not wanting to give equal time to cranks but shutting out experts of the calibre decribed in this account seems to be indicative of something else. Is the global warming crowd quite so sure of the science as it likes to make out?

Robin Burk: blogged Tempest in a teapot? No. It goes to the very heart of what makes science so powerful and valuable. Science changes its theories in response to observations and tests of its hypotheses. To deliberately suppress -- as opposed to analyze and perhaps refute -- contradictory evidence is to deliberately corrupt the scientific process. That it is being done for political impact is unconscionable.

I don't have firm conclusions about the phenomenon of global warming (is it occuring in any sustained way?) or of the likely causes for it if it is occurring. I know just enough about modeling and simulation of weather and climate to know I'm way in over my head on that one. What increasingly appears to be the case, however, is that the public, scientific debate on these issues is deliberately being distorted.


Kate @OTB blogged Funny stuff going on at Journal Science? When it comes to the issue of "global warming", we all know that the majority of scientists agree that the earth is .... the consensus is.... er..... ... or to put it a different way ...


Read More...

TV station hires full-time blogger

Lost Remote reports TV station hires full-time blogger
"The blog will be an extension of the News2 broadcasts as well as a general news/gossip/happenings site that will revolve around all things Music City," Brittney Gilbert blogged about her new gig at WKRN-TV


Congratulations, Brittney

Read More...

WB to Scale Back Toon Designs

On April 4 I blogged that a Tulsa boy, Thomas Adams, is taking his dislike of plans by Warner Brothers for a new cartoon series called "Loonatics" to the Internet and has found thousands of people who agree with him.

Matthew Sheffield reported that he had an effect.

CNN reports Now, nearly two months after starting an Internet petition drive against the TV series' fall debut, Thomas has gotten the company's attention.

Warner Bros. Entertainment spokesman Scott Rowe said his company wants the thousands of fans upset by the made-over characters unveiled in February to know "that's NOT all, folks." (Warner Bros. is a division of Time Warner, as is CNN.)

Those "early drawings" have been revised into characters that are softer and less menacing, he said.

"We heard the outcry from fans, including Thomas," Rowe said.

That's enough to draw an emphatic "YESSS!" from the lanky fifth-grader who started the stir with fewer than 20 signatures on a piece of paper at his private school.

Read More...

Good Posts on Judicial Filibusters

As Patterico blogged The Volokh Conspiracy has had a couple of excellent posts about judicial filibusters in recent days. Juan Non-Volokh says that, contrary to recent claims by Democrats and their shills, President Bush has the lowest appellate nominee confirmation rate of the last three Presidents. And that’s even before he has hit lame duck status! Meanwhile, Todd Zywicki analyzes the history of the filibuster, and says that (contrary to Harry Reid) it has traditionally been thought of as a tool to ensure full debate, rather than as a minority veto.

Juan Non-Volokh blogged In today's NYT, Princeton's Sean Wilentz has a letter (second item) responding to Bob Dole's op-ed on the filibuster of President Bush's judicial nominees. Republicans obstruction of Clinton's nominees "was much more 'extraordinary' than anything since," Wilentz claims. His evidence is the rate at which appellate nominees were confirmed.

between 1995, when the Republicans regained control of the Senate, and 2001, the Republican majority blocked 35 percent of President Bill Clinton's nominees to the federal appeals bench without giving them an up-or-down vote. Many did not even receive a hearing.

By contrast, President Bush has, since 2001, nominated 34 candidates to the federal circuit courts, 10 of whom the Democrats have blocked with filibusters - or just under 30 percent.
Wilentz is not comparing apples with apples here. He's comparing the rate of appellate confirmations under Clinton during a time period when there was a Senate controlled by the opposition party with the rate of appellate confirmations under Bush during a time period when the opposition party was only in control for a short time. To do this Wilentz omits data from the first two years of Clinton's Presidency when Democrats controlled the Senate. Why does he present this selective data? Perhaps because it helps him make his argument. If one looks at the overall confirmation rate of appellate nominees, his claim completly falls apart.
Bush 41 - 78 percent confirmed
Clinton - 74 percent confirmed
Bush 43 - 67 percent confirmed
President Bush has the lowest appellate nominee confirmation rate of the last three Presidents. This is even more remarkable because, of the three, President Bush has had the Senate under the control of the opposition party for the least amount of time. Democrats have controlled the Senate for less than half of Bush's Presidency. Clinton got more of his appellate nominees confirmed, even though the Senate was under opposition control for 75 percent of his Presidency.


So it is clear that what the Dems are saying is misrepresented (what, the Dems misrepresenting something? their mouths must be moving). But even if you accept their claim that Clinton was mistreated, why did they not embrace Frist's proposal to make it a rule that nominations would not be allowed to die in committee? That is because they know that was not the problem. They are just ticked that they dont control the Presidency, the House, or the Senate, and they want to block any effort to get conservative judges on the Court of Appeals (or the USSC).

McGehee blogged Democrats and their apologists have been defending the current obstructionism on Bush judicial nominees by sputtering about how Republicans blocked so many of Clinton’s judicial nominees, while “only a very few” of Bush’s nominees are being blocked. Juan Non-Volokh dismantles the argument.

Mark Kleiman blogged 1) It essentially misses the point. The argument here is over filibusters, not confirmation percentages.... The overall numbers are simply not relevant to the story.
If the numbers don't support your position, you declare them irrelevant.
But let's assume they are--that's what you have to do in a capital where logical arguments don't count for much with the majority party. Let's consider the second point: 2) Bush lost the 2000 election. I know that the Republicans don't want to hear about this, but their guy actually got fewer votes than ours
Presidents are elected by the Electorial College, not the popular vote.
.... The man had no mandate--unlike Bill Clinton, who after all got more votes than George HW Bush or Bob Dole. Now, the obvious response to this is: "Yes, and George W. Bush won the 2004 election." Okay--see objection 1. Were the Democrats threatening to filibuster every judicial nominee that Bush sent up, that would indeed would be a story. But they are not: they are simply doing--almost statistically--exactly what the Republicans did to Bill Clinton for 8 years.
Your position on the first term was that he did not have a mandate because he did not win the popular vote. But the second term he not only won the popular vote as well as the electorial college vote, he got more popular votes than Clinton, so he must have had an even stronger mandate than Clinton.
Todd Zywicki blogged Here's a very simple puzzle that I don't get about the filibuster question. Leave aside the constitutional questions and particularities of procedures to change internal rules. As I understand it, the justification for the use of the filibuster in the Senate (contra the House) is that the Senate is a deliberative body, and that the filibuster permits extended debate on issues that come to the floor prior to taking a vote. But doesn't that imply that when the debate is done and there is no further deliberation, that there is some obligation to bring the matter to a vote?
It certainly seems that way to me
So here's my question. Is there still some debate going on with respect to Justice Owen, for instance, whose nomination has now been pending for 4 years? Are there some Senators who are still on the fence, undecided on how they want to vote on her nomination? If deliberation is done, doesn't that mean that there is an implicit obligation to allow the matter to come to a vote? And if there is no ongoing debate or further deliberation on the matter, then it seems to me that the the Senate should be able to adopt rules that allow fully-deliberated matters to come to a vote and not allow the minority to use the filibuster to kill a matter.
I agree. And if the minority feels it needs to be sure it can fully debate the matter, Frist offerred them 100 hours of debate per nominee.
In fact, the majority needed to invoke cloture has fallen over time (summarized here). Looking at the history, it appears that the rationale for changing the filibuster rules over time has been to balance the rights of the majority to act versus the rights of the minority to state their case. Thus, where the filibuster has been abused by a minority to kill legislation, as opposed to merely slowing it and ensuring full deliberation, the Senate has moved over time to reduce minority abuse of the filibuster while preserving full deliberation. In light of this history, given the apparent absence of any further debate on some of the judicial nominees, it seems plain that the use of the filibuster against Justice Owen (most notably) is quite clearly an abuse of the power. As a result, if the minority fails to end its abuse voluntarily, the Senate majority would be well within its rights to adopt rules that eliminate abuse of the filibuster power, just as it always has in the past.
Several of those rule changes were initiated by Senator Byrd, the one most strongly opposing changing them now. One wonders whether he is really concerned about the Senate's history, or giving the Democrats power. Actually I doubt that very few really wonder about it. It is so obvious.
This distinction between the use of the filibuster to slow versus stop a particular Senate actions seems to be the intuition behind the historic criticism of the use of the filibuster to kill Civil Rights Legislation (and before that, the repeated use of the filibuster to kill anti-lynching legislation of the 1920s and 1930s). In each of those situations, the purpose of the filibuster was its use by southern Senators to kill the legislation outright, rather than merely to ensure full deliberation of the issue prior to a vote. Moreover, this may explain why in the public mind the abuse of the filibuster is associated with such stunts as Senators reading names from a phone book, because these sorts of speeches are seen as abuse of the filibuster, in that they are non-deliberative in nature.
Now they dont even make the Senators try to hold the floor by speaking continuously; they just let one say he is going to filibuster, then they take a cloture vote, and if it fails they pretend he is speaking.
I can't find anything in the Senate history that suggests that it has ever been thought an appropriate use of the filibuster to kill legislative action even after all debate and deliberation is effectively complete. And where the filibuster has been used in an abusive manner to kill rather than slow legislative activity, my reading of the history is that over time the majority has changed the rules in order to eliminate the abusive use of the filibuster power.

Of course, it should be noted the asserted rationale for the filibuster in the Senate may be an ex post rationalization more than an historic justification. Some have argued that the filibuster has nothing at all to do with the nature of the Senate versus the House, but rather is a historical accident. As a historian of the filibuster recently observed:
The right to extended debate was not created until 1806, when the Senate cleaned up its rulebook and dispensed—probably by mistake—with the rule that allowed a majority to limit the debate. Filibusters did not begin in earnest until the newly formed Democratic and Whig parties formed several decades later.
Matt Barr blogged I use scare quotes around "debate" here, describing the no longer required facet of filibustering that meant a Senator had to actually "debate," that is, speak on the floor of the Senate for however long he could keep it going, and I shouldn't. The reason Sens. Reid, Thurmond and Byrd had to get up and speak to effect what used to be a filibuster is that the filibuster was a quaint fiction grounded in a real truth: The minority's right was to continue debate on a measure, not, on its face, to hold it up in perpetuity.

Matt Barr blogged I've been patiently waiting, by the way, for someone to point out (maybe they have) that this centuries-old filibuster tradition that the Democrats want to preserve in the name of fidelity to our grand constitutional scheme until very recently required the filibuster-er to actually filibuster -- that is, "debate" on the floor and not yield time. This has meant Sen. Reid in 2003 "related over several hours the history of Searchlight, Nev., and told how desert rabbits avoid cholla, ocotillo and beaver tails, but the critters do eat other types of cacti" [link] and Sen. Thurmond give us "a 24-hour, 18-minute stem-winder delivered during a filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1957" a few years before Sen. Byrd took the floor for more than 14 hours to stymie the 1964 Civil Rights Act [link]. Easy to dig in to protect the filibuster when you don't have to do any actual work.

JMoore blogged I am firmly opposed to filibusters. I have always been. Not only judicial fiibusters, but every sort imaginable. I am also a conservative. Well, a strange mix of libertarian and conservative. Apparently, some argue that conservatives should be hesitant to nuke the filibuster because it is often an impediment to big government. Yes, this may be true, yet, the opposite may also be true.

Imagine if by some miracle there was a fiscally conservative majority in the Senate. I know, it is hard to imagine. Now, say that majority went and did something as drastic as cutting spending, but was facing opposition by fiscal liberals beholden to interest groups dependent upon such spending. If the liberal minority could employ the filibuster to block measures to reduce government, should conservatives continue to support it? This goes hand in hand with the less than altruistic history of the filibuster (i.e., being used against civil rights legislation).

Read More...

Rape Victims

DenverPost reported Imagine two rape victims taken to the same hospital emergency room. Imagine them put in adjoining examination rooms. Let's say they have identical injuries. Presume everything about them is the same except for where they are in their menstrual cycles. Do they deserve access to the same medical treatment?

At most Catholic hospitals in Colorado, they can't get it. The protocol of six Catholic hospitals run by Centura calls for rape victims to undergo an ovulation test. If they have not ovulated, said Centura corporate spokeswoman Dana Berry, doctors tell the victims about emergency contraception and write prescriptions for it if the patient asks. If, however, the urine test suggests that a rape victim has ovulated, Berry continued, doctors at Centura's Catholic hospitals are not to mention emergency contraception. That means the victim can end up pregnant by her rapist.


This is wrong. I am opposed to abortion on demand, and particularly abortion as a means of contraceptive, but I make an exception for rape and incest, as well as the life of the mother.

A rape victim should not be pressured to use emergency contraception, but they are entitled to make the decision themselves.

Read More...

Minority Rule?

Steven G. Calabresi wrote in the Weekly Standard The legal left is dangerously close to winning the political war it has been fighting against the Bush administration over the future direction of the federal courts. The evidence of this is that whenever rumors are floated of possible Bush Supreme Court nominees, there are some very prominent conservative names that aren't mentioned, though they should be. The eminently qualified conservatives Democrats have quashed include Miguel Estrada, who is Hispanic, Janice Rogers Brown, who is African American, Bill Pryor, a brilliant young Catholic, and two white women, Priscilla Owen and Carolyn Kuhl. By keeping these five nominees off the federal courts of appeals, Democrats seem to have blocked Bush from considering them for the Supreme Court.

Which is why Frist rejected Reid's offer to let two white men through, but demanding that the others be withdrawn
When George W. Bush became president in 2001, the legal left and the Democratic party rallied around the slogan "No more Clarence Thomases." By that they meant that they would not allow any more conservative African Americans, Hispanics, women, or Catholics to be groomed for nomination to the High Court with court of appeals appointments. The Democrats have done such a good job of this that, today, the only names being floated as serious Supreme Court nominees are those of white men.
The Dems figure they can get away with filibustering minorities for the appeals court, but they would not get away with filibustering them for the Supreme Court, so they have to prevent them from ever being nominated.
This is what is at stake in the fight that rages now over whether the filibuster of judges gets abolished. Leading Democratic activists like Bruce Ackerman have called on Senate Democrats never to allow another Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. If they succeed in establishing the proposition that it takes 60 instead of 51 votes to get on the Supreme Court, conservatives can forget about ever again appointing a Scalia or a Thomas.
If the Dems are successful, there is not a snowball's chance in hell they would ever get a Liberal on the court either. Which would mean that only centrist judges, or judges the President thought were centrists, could ever get elected, which would mean that no one would know what sort of court we would have. A liberal like Kennedy (appointed by Reagan) might sneak through, and a conservative might fool a Democratic President and sneak through, but no President, Democrat or Republican, would be able to nominate people they really liked.
Some Republicans have explored the idea that maybe a compromise is possible with the Democrats whereby Bush's court of appeals nominees are allowed through but the power to filibuster judicial nominees is retained. This would be a bad deal because the fight over the filibuster was always a fight about the future direction of the Supreme Court, and as long as the device is retained, it will be trotted out against any clearly conservative Bush Supreme Court nominee. It is time to drive a stake through the heart of the filibuster of judges.
I agree completely.
Senate Democrats also reportedly proposed a "compromise" of their own: Filibusters against Thomas Griffith and William Myers, nominated for the D.C. Circuit and Ninth Circuit respectively, would be dropped if Republicans would withdraw the nominations of Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen. But this bad deal just shows how afraid Senate Democrats are of Brown and Owen. Why are Senate Democrats so afraid of conservative judicial nominees who are African Americans, Hispanics, Catholics, and women? Because these Clarence Thomas nominees threaten to split the Democratic base by aligning conservative Republicans with conservative voices in the minority community and appealing to suburban women.
Absolutely. And the Dems can't afford to lose any of their minority communities.
The Democrats need Bush to nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court whom they can caricature and vilify, and it is much harder for them to do that if Bush nominates the judicial equivalent of a Condi Rice rather than a John Ashcroft.

Read More...

Let's Make a Deal

David Brooks editorialized in the NYT ill Frist should have taken the deal. Last week, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, made an offer to head off a nuclear exchange over judicial nominations. Reid offered to allow votes on a few of the judges stuck in limbo if the Republicans would withdraw a few of the others. But there was another part of the offer that hasn't been publicized. I've been reliably informed that Reid also vowed to prevent a filibuster on the next Supreme Court nominee. Reid said that if liberals tried to filibuster President Bush's pick, he'd come up with five or six Democratic votes to help Republicans close off debate. In other words, barring a scandal or some other exceptional circumstance, Reid would enable Bush's nominee to get a vote and probably be confirmed. Reid couldn't put this offer in writing because it would outrage liberal interest groups. Frist said he'd think about it, but so far he's let it drop - even though clearing the way for a Supreme Court pick is one of the G.O.P. goals in this dispute.

An offer by a Democrat to do something that he can't afford to acknowledge for fear of offending liberal interest groups, on ONE Supreme Court nominee, when replacing a Conservative with another Conservative would not change the balance in regard to abortions, is NOT a good deal.

Reid is the one that should have taken Frist's offer. The Dems were ticked off that the Republicans bottled his nominees up in committee and did not even let them out for an Up or Down vote. Frist was willing to set a rule that would allow all nominees to get an Up or Down vote, regardless of whether they were nominated by a president of the party controlling the Senate or the opposition party.
Speculation about why Frist has let it drop goes in different directions. Perhaps he didn't know if he could trust Reid to make good on his promise.
I certainly would not trust him.
Perhaps he didn't think he could sell this agreement to his own base without publicizing this private part of the deal.
A public deal that has something for both sides is far superior to one that has some parts hidden, which may or may not be honored in the future.
Perhaps he wants to keep this conflict going to solidify his support among social conservatives for his presidential run. Perhaps he believes as a matter of principle the judicial filibuster must be destroyed.

At any rate, it's now more likely that Republicans will go ahead and change the filibuster rules
Good for them
, and Democrats will begin their partial shutdown of the Senate.
If they are that stupid, let them do it.
But Frist should have grabbed Reid's offer. He should have done it, first, because while the air is thick with confident predictions about what will happen if the nuclear trigger is pulled, nobody really knows. There is a very good chance that as the battle escalates, passions will surge, the tattered fabric of professionalism will dissolve, and public revulsion for both parties will explode.
I certainly would not use the word professionalism in describing the Democrats behaviour.
If you are leading one of the greatest democratic institutions in history, it's irresponsible to lead it into this bloody unknown if a deal on the table will give you much of what you want. As one senator who supports changing the filibuster rules says, "Is this what you want on your obit?"