The Cynical Political

Bring on the Crazy

2011-04-17T20:47:00.002-04:00

Again, I'm sorry we've been sucking at blogging lately. There's been a lot going on, and we've been whiffing. I did receive a request from our good friend Natty to blog on Rick Santorum, the crazy former senator from Pennsylvania. Batting leadoff and playing right field for the Crazies, Santorum had this to say on abortion: "The reason Social Security is in such big trouble is we don't have enough workers to support the retirees. Well, a third of all the young people in America aren't in America because of abortion, because one in three pregnancies end in abortion."

I'm not even sure where to begin. First, I guess Santorum believes that children only exist to sustain the elderly? Second, I'm pretty sure his numbers are wrong, that sounds like a lot of abortions. And we all know that of all the services Planned Parenthood performs, 90% or so are abortions. I'm sorry, that was not intended to be a factual statement. The real number is 3%. Finally, Social Security isn't in "big trouble." It's fully funded through 2037. And if we really wanted to ensure its solvency beyond then, we could raise the arbitrary cap on a person's income that a person pays Social Security taxes on. It's currently $106,800. We should raise that number and exempt a portion of the first dollars you earn, similar to income tax. Furthermore, we shouldn't have passed a Social Security payroll tax holiday, which brought the rate from 6.2% to 4.2% for a year. I'm afraid we won't ever get that 2% back. Those are two measures that would ensure Social Security's solvency well past 2037.

Or I guess I could just let Jon Stewart do what he does best:

The Daily Show - Indecision 2012 - Base Race - Santorum, Barbour & Trump
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Krugman on Mellon

2011-04-04T22:04:00.003-04:00

I know, it's been a while, but I hope to get back to regular blogging this week. I just read a Krugman column on American economic policy. It makes me wonder why we can't ever have good ideas. Here's the crux of it:

So that’s the state of policy debate in the world’s greatest nation: one party has embraced 80-year-old economic fallacies, while the other has lost the will to fight. And American families will pay the price.

And we wonder why we're still in a recession

Balanced Budget

2011-03-12T18:44:00.002-05:00

I just read this on Political Wire:

"They literally think you can just balance it, you know, by cutting waste, fraud and abuse, foreign aid and NPR, and it doesn't work like that."

-- House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), quoted by the Washington Post, on lawmakers and Tea Party activists who believe the deficit can be reduced without substantial cuts to Medicare and Social Security benefits.

At least Representative Ryan is right that we can't balance the budget by ending fraud and waste while cutting discretionary spending. However, I love that the chairman of the House Budget Committee doesn't know that Social Security doesn't add to the deficit. And I'll add one more thing. Representative Ryan literally thinks you can balance the budget by cutting taxes. It doesn't work like that.

Jon Stewart

2011-02-24T22:37:00.004-05:00

According to Comedy Central:

The Associated Press is reporting today that Jon Stewart is being named to the 9/11 Memorial Foundation Board this afternoon. This of course comes in the wake of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and many others recognizing the instrumental role Jon and The Daily Show played in pushing Congress to pass the 9/11 First Responders health care bill.

Well earned.

Gas Tax

2011-02-23T22:09:00.003-05:00

Thomas Friedman recently wrote that we should institute an additional $1 per gallon gas tax, phased in at 5 cents a month. To me, this is the most sensible of the new taxes - except for 3% on all income earned over a certain amount (Obama says $250,000, I would be fine just over $500,000. It's only income earned over that amount, not all income earned. But I digress). One dollar is a lot, but smaller increments are a perfect way to raise revenue without the average person really feeling it. Starting at 5 cents gallon, that's probably up to $1 every time you fill your tank. However, the benefits to the country would be huge. We could pump money into infrastructure, public transportation, clean air, and green technology all while reducing our dependence on middle eastern oil. Friedman compares our politics in the middle east as building a house at the bottom of a volcano that is about to blow. In his words:

Legislating a higher energy price today that takes effect in the future, notes the Princeton economist Alan Blinder, would trigger a shift in buying and investment well before the tax kicks in. With one little gasoline tax, we can make ourselves more economically and strategically secure, help sell more Chevy Volts and free ourselves to openly push for democratic values in the Middle East without worrying anymore that it will harm our oil interests. Yes, it will mean higher gas prices, but prices are going up anyway, folks. Let’s capture some it for ourselves.

Even if these goals are not that important and you think that the tax might really affect some people, it means fewer cars on the road, less traffic and congestion, and less productive time lost commuting. To me, that's a win-win situation.

On Wisconsin

2011-02-20T11:22:00.002-05:00

I wanted to post quickly about some bullshit arguments that conservatives are whining about regarding the Wisconsin public unions protesting to retain their right to collective bargaining, which costs the state nothing and does not help reduce any deficits.

1. "Greedy" unions are whining about pensions and health care.

They're not actually protesting paying more for these. They're just asking to retain their right to bargain collectively. That's a big difference.

2. Public unions shouldn't be able to protest because it's a conflict of interest.

This is one of the dumbest, most self-service statements I've ever heard. It's along the lines of Pat Sajak's "public employees shouldn't be allowed to vote" argument. Apparently some Republicans think that if you work for the government you don't pay taxes yourself and you shouldn't be allowed to vote. I'm glad that some people want to strip the right to vote from hard working Americans or that they think their tax dollars are meaningless. Really, this flies in the face of all American values, and I'm sure the same people making these arguments are also turning around and yelling about how everything else violates the Constitution - like the Census! Brilliant.

3. It's a problem when public unions make political contributions to a politician if he "agrees to the terms of the contract."

Sure, but it's perfectly fine when huge corporations do it for tax giveaways.

4. And finally, we get back to the "Governor Walker had to do it because of the dire financial straight."

This is where I hear arguments again that the unions caused the deficit. Again, simply not true. And what they're protesting isn't adding to the deficit. Wisconsin's problem right now is that their Governor entered office and instantly gave tax handouts to large corporations, who mostly don't pay taxes in Wisconsin anymore at the expense of its citizens - which includes (wait for it . . .) its public employees. I'll just point out that the billionaire Koch brothers practically own all the energy infrastructure in the state just got huge tax cuts. While they rake in billions of dollars, they are laying off employees in the state. That's good fiscal policy. Let the rich get richer while the middle class goes unemployed and then, because its the only terms conservatives understand, soak up state resources on unemployment. Then, the Koch brothers will fund more "grassroots" tea parties to make sure they never have to pay taxes and that the states can never balance their budgets, and more hardworking public employees and middle class workers suffer at their expense. THAT, is a "vicious cycle" if I've ever seen one.

Did Justice Thomas Cross the Line

2011-02-20T11:13:00.004-05:00

I can go for quite a while about whether Justice Clarence Thomas's recent actions have crossed the line. To be brief though, I think his extra-judicial activities (and those of his wife) have raised at the very least, the appearance of impropriety. I also think that failing to disclose his wife's income on a simple federal disclosures form is unacceptable. Unfortunately, there is no oversight of Supreme Court Justices outside impeachment, and I don't think impeachment is really appropriate here. At least not based on what we currently know. Representative Chris Murphy is introducing legislation to increase oversight of the Supreme Court:

Murphy's bill will:
apply the Judicial Conference's Code of Conduct, which applies to all other federal judges, to Supreme Court justices. This would allow the public to access more timely and detailed information when an outside group wants to have a justice participate in a conference, such as the funders of the conference;
require the justices to simply publicly disclose their reasoning behind a recusal when they withdraw from a case;
require the Court to develop a process for parties to a case before the Court to request a decision from the Court, or a panel of the Court, regarding the potential conflict of interest of a particular Justice.

I know the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government, but shouldn't the ethical rules that apply to all other federal judges also apply to the Supreme Court? The judicial branch was designed to be insulated so that political forces wouldn't sway their decisions. Isn't it troubling that Supreme Court justices are entering into political disputes and then failing to disclose payments they've received for doing so?

Hat tip to the Constitutional Law Prof Blog

Obama Screws Over Young People?

2011-02-14T17:21:00.000-05:00

That is Andrew Sullivan's take on The Daily Dish where he has come back from his sick leave spoiling for a fight with the President he so often supports:

The logic behind president Obama's budget has one extremely sensible feature: it distinguishes between spending that simply adds to consumption, and spending that really does mean investment. His analogy over the weekend - that a family cutting a budget would rather not cut money for the kids' education - is a sound one. We do need more infrastructure, roads and broadband, non-carbon energy and basic science research, and some of that is something only government can do. In that sense, discretionary spending could be among the most important things government could do to help Americans create wealth themselves. And yet this is the only spending Obama wants to cut. . . .

To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you're fools. Either the US will go into default because of Obama's cowardice, or you will be paying far far more for far far less because this president has no courage when it counts. He let you down. On the critical issue of America's fiscal crisis, he represents no hope and no change. Just the same old Washington politics he once promised to end.

I agree with a fair bit of what Mr. Sullivan says, in general. And in this case, I similarly agree with a fair bit of what he is saying in his analysis. However, I fail to see any line of clear thought that can fairly lay this all, or even mostly at the feet of this President. Sure, he's supposed to lead and he was elected to make the tough decisions, but at this point with the economy, he is coaching someone else's team, if you will allow the metaphor. Of course, it's two years in and that is a difficult argument to win with people who don't pay careful attention to these sorts of things. But to anyone who thinks seriously about the economy, it is rather obvious that the President is still dealing with someone else's mess. But he's judged on wins and losses and so he's trying to rack up as many wins as he can now, so he can secure a long-term contract extension. Once that extension is achieved, then he can go about putting in a new system and improve the overall quality of the team.

I don't think Sullivan's critique is unfair, I just think it is a bit too reactionary without being cognizant of political realities. What are your thoughts?

Supremely Political

2011-02-13T12:48:00.000-05:00

(if it's not already, someone should make this post's title, the name of a blog!)

Yesterday, Noah Feldman published a phenomenally interesting op-ed in the NYTimes. I encourage anyone who cares anything about law, history, politics, and the places where they all meet, to check out this rather quick read. You will find it well worth your time. Personally, I also find myself in complete agreement. Some highlights:

Today, even the justices’ minimal extrajudicial activities come in for public condemnation — some of it suspiciously partisan. Does anyone seriously think Justice Thomas would become more constitutionally conservative (if that were somehow logically possible) as a result of his wife’s political activism? It is true that Justice Thomas voted to protect the anonymity of some corporate contributions in the Citizens United case. But this vote reflected his long-established principles in favor of corporate speech. The personal connection was nowhere near close enough to demand recusal, any more than a justice who values her privacy should be expected to recuse herself from a Fourth Amendment decision.

After all, Martin Ginsburg, a model of ethical rectitude until his death last year, was for many years a partner in an important corporate law firm. But surely no one believes that his career made his wife, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, more positively inclined toward corporate interests on the court than she would already be as a member in good standing of America’s class of legal elites.

Justice Antonin Scalia, for his part, naturally spends time with like-minded conservatives including Representative Michele Bachmann and Charles Koch. But when the brilliant, garrulous Justice Scalia hobnobs with fellow archconservatives, he is not being influenced any more than is the brilliant, garrulous Justice Stephen Breyer when he consorts with his numerous friends and former colleagues in the liberal bastion of Cambridge, Mass.

A FEW years ago, many insisted that Justice Scalia should not sit in judgment of Vice President Dick Cheney’s claims to enjoy executive privilege, noting that the two had been on the same duck-hunting trip. Justice Scalia memorably explained that the two men had never shared the same blind. He could as easily have pointed out that before President Harry Truman nationalized the steel mills, he asked Chief Justice Fred Vinson, a poker buddy and close friend, if the court would find the action constitutional. (Vinson incorrectly said yes.)

Just a point of personal privilege...

2011-02-13T12:14:00.000-05:00

Perhaps this is not really a topic worthy of the blog and is a bit more regional in nature, however, I just saw this article referring to the death of former Chief of the Virginia Supreme Court Leroy Hassell. Chief Hassell swore both me and my wife into the Virginia Bar. Yesterday, he was laid in state in the Capitol in Richmond:

Hassell is the first African American to lie in state in the Capitol in the former capital of the Confederacy. Other notable men to lie in state there include former president John Tyler in 1862; Confederate general Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson 1863; and Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

Sen. Henry L. Marsh (D-Richmond), a hero of Virginia's civil rights movement, said he was struck by the symbolism of the tribute to Hassell in a space that was long used to remember Confederates.

"It's a tribute to a man who did so much to help us enter the modern age," Marsh said. "It shows the regard with which people held his service."

I will always remember when my wife was sworn into the Bar in a fairly small ceremony (smaller than the mass ceremony where I was sworn in ) and the way Chief Justice Hassell was insistent on the good that attorneys can do in our society and the good they must do. Even though I wasn't being sworn in, it made a great impact on me and has stuck with me to this day. Hassell will surely be missed but his legacy will continue to resonate.

A Budget Cut I Can Believe in

2011-02-12T12:34:00.004-05:00

This is one of the best plans I've seen lately to reduce spending at the federal level: "Today, U.S. Congressman Jim Moran (D-Va), joined Representatives Earl Blumenauer, Ed Markey, John Conyers, Lois Capps, Peter Welch and David Price to introduce legislation to cut the budget by ending roughly $40 billion over five years in wasteful subsidies to the oil industry." The bill is called the Ending Big Oil Subsidies Act.

The sponsor of the bill, Representative Blumenauer reminds us how well the oil industry actually does for itself. He said:

The oil industry is one of the most profitable industries in the world and does not need help from the government. With Congress already discussing painful budget cuts that will require American families to make sacrifices, it is only fair that we also stop the handouts to our richest oil companies. It makes no sense that we are borrowing money from China to subsidize the most profitable industry in the world and corporations like ExxonMobil that earn billions every year. It’s time for us to have a serious, rational discussion about cutting the budget.

From a policy perspective, it just doesn't make much sense to hand out tens of billions of dollars to wealthy corporations while we cut spending from programs that need it. While Americans struggle with unemployment, hunger, and homelessness, why should we continue to subsidize big oil corporations? It will be interesting to see if Republicans will even allow this to come to a vote. I kind of feel like they are going to choose their big business constituents over actually trying to limit spending. I predict they will show that they are actually just budget peacocks.

Another One BItes the Dust

2011-02-12T11:56:00.003-05:00

It's hard to find compelling news stories what with all that's going on in the Middle East. We got one this week that was almost buried when Jim Webb announced he would not seek reelection. This was a little surprising, but we did all suspect it, especially after he released his fundraising numbers. Naturally, this led our conservative media to whip up their frenzy to "inform" us that it pretty much guarantees that Republicans will take the Senate in 2012. I even saw one "expert" on our local Fox affiliate saying that with Webb, Joe Lieberman, and Kent Conrad retiring, it would make it that much more difficult for the Democrats to hold the Senate.

Not so fast. I hate to let facts get in the way, but I don't think this is that terrible. First, I'll concede Kent Conrad. That was a winnable seat that the Democrats will lose. Joe Lieberman? In Connecticut? Not only will the Democrats hold that seat, but they'll get a better Senator to replace Joe Lieberman. He's caused many problems since Ned Lamont beat him in a primary, and I don't see the Republicans picking this one up. Let's look at Virginia now. Just before the announcement, my new favorite politics blog looked at the potential reelection match up between Webb and former Senator George Allen (let's just assume for now that Allen wins his primary against a tea party organizer that has already declared). According to Public Policy Polling, Webb was only leading Allen 49-45 and Webb has a 43/41 approval/disapproval rating. Not bad. But also not overwhelmingly convincing for Webb. Allen isn't any more popular though. His approval/disapproval is 40/41 overall and 38/45 with independents. Allen's numbers just don't jump out to me as a well-known candidate who has it in the bag.

Now, I'm just going to spitball here about possible replacements for Webb. Tim Kaine has already won a statewide race but has said he will not run. I'm going to guess he will jump in if polling shows he is the only candidate who can beat Allen. I've heard Gerry Connolly may jump in. I like Tom Perriello more. Sure, he lost his House election, but he stuck by his principles. It was a tough year for Democrats and he fared pretty well downstate near Charlottesville. If Terry McAuliffe decides to run, he has great name recognition, a huge ability to raise funds, and has been doing good work creating jobs in Virginia. That's a bench that is 3 deep with names that could probably fare pretty well in an election. At the very least, they would make it difficult for the Republicans to win.

Elsewhere, I have a hunch that Republicans are vulnerable in Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada. Olympia Snowe is already being challenged by a tea party group and may lose the very far right in a more liberal state. Scott Brown is also being challenged by tea partiers, but has amassed a large war chest above $7 million already. He's also the state's most popular politician, but this is still Massachusetts. Jon Ensign is not popular in Nevada since he had an affair with a married staffer and had his parents pay off her husband. Nevada also has a growing Hispanic population and an excellent blueprint to follow from Harry Reid's recent win. Finally, since Webb's announcement, Jon Kyl has announced his retirement. Kyl was going to be an easy win, and it will still be difficult for the Democrats to pick up this seat, especially since they don't have any big names down there. However, this seat is now at least more in play and will probably require some resources to defend.

Now, throw in the fact that this is a Presidential election year, the electorate appears to be changing from 2010 back towards 2008 (but not all the way), the fact that Obama's approval ratings are growing in some of these states, and my prediction that Republicans nominate a Presidential candidate that is out of the mainstream, I'm going to guess that the Democrats are not in as precarious a situation as the media would make it seem. It's not that absurd to say that Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot again by choosing "ideological purity" over electability in Massachusetts and Maine while further weakening their prospects across the country by nominating a weak presidential candidate.

Reagan Turns 100

2011-02-08T20:42:00.002-05:00

This past weekend, communities across the country held their annual love fests for Ronald Reagan. I find this amusing. I find it even more amusing when every Republican, especially tea partiers, bow down at his figurative feet as if he was some sort of deity. Then, in the same breath, they go on some nonsensical rant about taxes. It's funny because Reagan would be a democrat today. Eugene Robinson, so eloquent at stating the obvious, makes the case today:

Some Republicans, I suppose, might be so enraptured by the Reagan legend that they are unaware of his actual record. I hate to break it to Sarah Palin, but Reagan raised taxes. Often. Sometimes by a lot.
When he took office as governor of California in 1967, the state faced a huge budget deficit. Reagan promptly raised taxes by $1 billion - at a time when the entire state budget amounted to just $6 billion. It was then the biggest state tax increase in history. During Reagan's eight years in Sacramento, the top state income tax rate increased from 7 percent to 11 percent. Business and sales taxes also soared.
When Reagan moved into the White House, he brought with him a theory that critics derided as "voodoo economics" - the idea that the way to balance the budget was to lower taxes, not raise them. Reagan quickly pushed through the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a tax cut of about $264 billion. Republicans seem to rank this event alongside Columbus's discovery of the New World as one of the great milestones in human history.
What eludes the GOP's selective memory is that Reagan subsequently raised taxes 11 times, beginning with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. All told, he took back roughly half of that hallowed 1981 tax cut. Why? Because he realized that the United States needed an effective federal government - and that to be effective, the government needed more money.
Republicans laud Reagan's unshakable commitment to smaller government. Yet federal employment rolls grew under his watch; they shrank under Bill Clinton. Reagan had promised to eliminate the departments of Energy and Education, but he didn't. Instead, he signed legislation that added to the Cabinet a new Department of Veterans Affairs.

It's no secret that I've never been a Reagan supporter, but I'll give him credit that he at least knew that to have an effective government, you sometimes have to raise taxes. Cutting every government program doesn't make government better. I think Burnsy nailed it today when he said to me, "Fuck the Gipper. I don't understand why he's so revered; I'd rather the mantle of Clinton than Reagan any day."

Friedman's Before Egypt

2011-02-06T12:11:00.003-05:00

We continue to monitor the situation in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood just entered talks with the government. In the US, however, the issue always revolves around the question: "What does this mean for Israel?" I may never understand why every foreign policy issue in this country revolves around Israel, but Thomas Friedman had an interesting take:

If Israel does not make a concerted effort to strike a deal with the Palestinians, the next Egyptian government will “have to distance itself from Israel because it will not have the stake in maintaining the close relationship that Mubarak had,” said Khalil Shikaki, a Palestinian pollster. With the big political changes in the region, “if Israel remains paranoid and messianic and greedy it will lose all its Arab friends.”
To put it bluntly, if Israelis tell themselves that Egypt’s unrest proves why Israel cannot make peace with the Palestinian Authority, then they will be talking themselves into becoming an apartheid state — they will be talking themselves into permanently absorbing the West Bank and thereby laying the seeds for an Arab majority ruled by a Jewish minority between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.
What the turmoil in Egypt also demonstrates is how much Israel is surrounded by a huge population of young Arabs and Muslims who have been living outside of history — insulated by oil and autocracy from the great global trends. But that’s over.
“Today your legitimacy has to be based on what you deliver,” the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, explained to me in his Ramallah office. “Gone are the days when you can say, ‘Deal with me because the other guys are worse.’ ”
I had given up on Netanyahu’s cabinet and urged the U.S. to walk away. But that was B.E. — Before Egypt. Today, I believe President Obama should put his own peace plan on the table, bridging the Israeli and Palestinian positions, and demand that the two sides negotiate on it without any preconditions. It is vital for Israel’s future — at a time when there is already a global campaign to delegitimize the Jewish state — that it disentangle itself from the Arabs’ story as much as possible. There is a huge storm coming, Israel. Get out of the way.

I find faults with the positions of both the Palestinian leadership and the Israelis, but right now, Israel could take the simple steps of halting settlements to restart the peace talks. As Friedman points out, with all that's happening in the Middle East now, renewing peace talks will be essential to the future of both Israel and Palestine.

A Reader Comments

2011-02-02T15:26:00.003-05:00

I've previously expressed my frustrations with the country's myopic media. It feels like all we've heard about this past week is Egpyt. I kind of feel badly for Jon Huntsman, who is losing all his good press time. Anyway, my friend Gabe left a comment to my last post about this subject on facebook that I wanted to share:

Uh, speaking of Tunisia, where did they go? They execute a successful peaceful revolution and get what, one day in the news? Now it's all "Egypt Egypt Egypt" all the time, and they haven't even done anything. Big deal that there's thousands of young people in the streets, there are always thousands of young Egyptians in the streets, because none of them have jobs. This is a revolution of Lebowskis. How about we spend a little more time giving kudos to Tunis, yeah?

Criminalized Farting!

2011-02-02T14:36:00.000-05:00

You must read this:

I don’t know much about Malawi. I know they had a fuel shortage recently. So when I heard they were banning gas, I thought, “Well, that’s an elegant solution.”

But Malawi isn’t banning gas, it’s going to criminalize passing gas. Yeah, because of all the things going on in Malawi, I’m sure farting is a primary concern. I’m sure the Malawian ambassador to the U.N. is going to love hearing fart jokes in 50 different languages. (And yes, the French guy is going to be obligated under international law to say: “I fart in your general direction.”)

However funny this is, and it surely is that; this measure also leaves a stench of totalitarianism, as ATL goes on to point out:

You know, these laws seem funny, but they’re actually silent but deadly. It’s not so much that the code shows a complete lack of respect for freedom and personal liberty, it’s that these laws mean that the Malawian government can arrest you for any reason or no reason at all.

So if Malawian President Bingu wa Mutharika and his ruling party doesn’t like what you think, bang, the international press has a story about how a man was “arrested for farting.” It’s always political protesters, religious leaders, and opposition candidates who get arrested for “farting,” “trespassing in a graveyard,” or “challenging somebody to fight.” Laws about farting just mask the scent of totalitarianism.

Cairo, We Have a Problem

2011-02-01T20:34:00.003-05:00

So this week has really been something in the Middle East - Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan. It seems like democracy is spreading across the region (are we finally seeing George Bush's vision when he decided to invade Iraq?), and I know that this is supposed to be a good thing. But please allow our domestic cynics to come out. First, David Brooks "teaches" us that these kind of uprisings are usually successful in forming democracies. However, after explaining the lessons we should have learned, he warns us:

The other thing we’ve learned is that the United States usually gets everything wrong. There have been dozens of democratic uprisings over the years, but the government always reacts like it’s the first one. There seem to be no protocols for these situations, no preset questions to be asked.
Policy makers always underestimate the power of the bottom-up quest for dignity, so they are slow to understand what is happening.

Need examples? Enter Ross Douthat:

Americans don’t like to admit this. We take refuge in foreign policy systems: liberal internationalism or realpolitik, neoconservatism or noninterventionism. We have theories, and expect the facts to fall into line behind them. Support democracy, and stability will take care of itself. Don’t meddle, and nobody will meddle with you. International institutions will keep the peace. No, balance-of-power politics will do it.
But history makes fools of us all. We make deals with dictators, and reap the whirlwind of terrorism. We promote democracy, and watch Islamists gain power from Iraq to Palestine. We leap into humanitarian interventions, and get bloodied in Somalia. We stay out, and watch genocide engulf Rwanda. We intervene in Afghanistan and then depart, and watch the Taliban take over. We intervene in Afghanistan and stay, and end up trapped there, with no end in sight.
Sooner or later, the theories always fail. The world is too complicated for them, and too tragic.

However, we should remember that these moments aren't about us. Sure, we should be concerned about the spread of radical political and religious ideologies and think about our national security, but, as David Ignatius reminds us, these protests are about the people trying to improve their lives:

Washington debate about the new Arab revolt tends to focus on the U.S. role: Has President Obama blundered by not forcing Mubarak out sooner? Should America abandon other oligarchs before it's too late? But this isn't about us. If Washington's well-chosen emissary, former ambassador to Cairo Frank Wisner, has helped broker Mubarak's departure and a stable transition to new elections, so much the better. But Egyptians don't need America to chart their course.
It's encouraging to see that the demonstrators in the streets of Cairo, Amman and Sanaa are not shouting the same tired slogans about "death to America" and "death to Israel" that for several generations have substituted for political debate. And it's reassuring, as well, that the Muslim Brotherhood and other militant groups have so far played it cool. They know that the past "decade of jihad" was ruinous for Muslims and is unpopular.
"This is not about slogans," says [Lebanese journalist Jamil] Mroueh. "The real issue is life: I want an apartment, I want a job." And it's about the dignity that comes from these essential human needs. In reaching out to the military, the protesters have chosen the right allies for a path of stability and change.

More on Egypt

2011-01-31T20:07:00.003-05:00

Israel may think the US should be world-deciders, but the fine gentleman from New York disagrees. Representative Gary Ackerman had this to say:

President Mubarak has been a valuable partner for the United States, but he has, by his own decisions and successive phony elections, shorn his rule of any mandate or legitimacy beyond that provided by force and arms. His last act of service to Egypt should be to facilitate a fast transfer of power to a transitional government that can prepare for free and fair elections. Accordingly, I believe the United States must suspend its assistance to Egypt until this transition is underway.

The Egyptian people have made their wishes very clear: it is time for President Mubarak to step down and allow Egypt to move forward into a new era of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Well played, sir. Well played.

Holy Shit This Is Awesome!

2011-01-31T18:16:00.000-05:00

Seriously... kudos Google! While the company has come under some fire for its policies vis-a-vis China, this stands out as quite spectacular:

Over the weekend we came up with the idea of a speak-to-tweet service—the ability for anyone to tweet using just a voice connection.

We worked with a small team of engineers from Twitter, Google and SayNow, a company we acquired last week, to make this idea a reality. It’s already live and anyone can tweet by simply leaving a voicemail on one of these international phone numbers (+16504194196 or +390662207294 or +97316199855) and the service will instantly tweet the message using the hashtag #egypt. No Internet connection is required. People can listen to the messages by dialing the same phone numbers or going to twitter.com/speak2tweet.

Israel Could Not Be More Wrong on Egypt

2011-01-31T16:09:00.000-05:00

This is the kind of petty, protectionist and short-sighted thinking that infuriates even the friends of Israel. As dobber so aptly put it: "so Israel's official policy stance is that the US should pick leaders of foreign sovereign nations over the will of their own people?"

The Egyptian Message Censored

2011-01-31T12:33:00.000-05:00

Egypt and the people's protests is the biggest story in the world right now. This is especially true on the heels of Tunisia, and Iran. This story dwarfs anything happening in Washington, including assessments over Washington's reaction to what is happening (though, I was quite impressed with SOS Clinton on the morning shows yesterday). I cannot tell you what, exactly I think the importance of these events are; I just have an inchoate sense that we'll look back on these times as momentous. But it's not simply momentous for an American audience, rather, its importance is largely in the example it sets throughout the world; in the opportunity it has to reach out and grab those other peoples feeling the urge of democracy. This is why, especially following Hu Jintao's trip to Washington recently, it is so disappointing to read this story regarding Chinese efforts to suppress the pro-democracy message from Egypt:

The filtering of search result and the blocking of search term “Egypt” in social media websites is to prevent certain interpretation of the political situation in Egypt. The scenes of Tanks moving into the city center, the confrontation between the people and the soldiers are very likely to recall Chinese people's memory of the June 4 incident back in 1989 and the criticism of the authoritarian government in Egypt can easily turn into a political allegory in China. The propaganda department certainly has to issue censorship alert to web-portal and social media websites, where opinions can spread rapidly and become mainstream public discourses in a few hour time.

A Morning Gem

2011-01-27T08:40:00.002-05:00

Thank you Political Wire for making my morning with this one:

Failed Nevada U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R) was in Iowa but wouldn't tell the Des Moines Register whether she was there exploring a run for president or not.

Said Angle: "I'll just say I have lots of options for the future, and I'm investigating all my options.

And then I appreciated Chris Christie's quote from Political Wire as well. I hate to give the Governor credit, but he's saying and doing some smart things regarding his political future. If only he could figure out how to run his state:

"If you don't believe in your heart that you're ready, you have no business running. And just because you see political opportunity, that's not an excuse to run."

-- New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), in an interview on CNBC, on why he's not running for president.

Quick Thought of the Morning

2011-01-26T09:01:00.002-05:00

Why will regulating health insurance companies destroy our republic and represent an overreaching of the federal government into states' rights but the federal government must absolutely as a high priority tell the states how they should decide verdicts in torts cases?

Pre-SOTU Economics Post

2011-01-25T20:40:00.003-05:00

Since President Obama is likely to spend a good portion of tonight's State of the Union address discussing government spending, I figured I would take a moment to comment on Eugene Robinson's column from the Washington Post today. Robinson asserts that Republican budget proposals slash spending based simply on spite and politics, not economic policy:

Republicans who feign attacks of the vapors and fainting spells over the big, scary deficit would be more convincing if they didn't begin with the insane premise that defense spending should be sacrosanct. The House leadership in the past few days has begun to signal retreat from this indefensible position, but it's unclear how much of the hyper-conservative GOP majority will follow.

. . .

The Republican "Pledge to America" promised to cut "at least $100 billion in the first year alone," notwithstanding "exceptions for seniors, veterans and our troops." This was never a serious proposal, given that defense, plus entitlements and other mandatory spending, consume about four-fifths of the budget. But it was a nice round number that sounded good.

. . .

Do Americans really want the effectiveness of, say, food safety inspection to be eroded by 30 percent? What about air traffic control? I didn't think so.

Robinson also reminds us that the Republicans political budget play would cut "funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Legal Services Corporation, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Energy Star program, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" while continuing to waste $13 billion for a landing craft that Secretary of Defense Bob Gates wants to cut because "we are no longer fighting World War II."

I agree with Robinson. There are plenty of wasteful defense contracts that should be among the first things we cut because they don't exist to keep our troops safe. Some things, like the FDA or the FAA or (I'll say it...) USAID are just as important as building military equipment that doesn't work or fit in with how our military operates in this millennium.

It Took 4 Years?

2011-01-25T13:15:00.004-05:00

While we wait for the State of the Union address, which Burnsy confided he hasn't missed in a whopping 17 years now, a trivial bit of news came out:

George W. Bush's White House Office of Political Affairs violated the law by giving political briefings to political employees, concludes an Office of Special Counsel report issued Monday, nearly five years after the fact.

The report, titled "Investigation of Political Activities by White House and Federal Agency Officials During the 2006 Midterm Elections," finds that the electoral success of the Republican Party and possible strategies for achieving it often were on the agenda at some of 75 political briefings at 20 federal agencies from 2001 to 2007, the Associated Press reported.

OSC found that "White House Office of Political Affairs (OPA) employees, as well as high-level agency political appointees, violated the Hatch Act through a number of practices that were prevalent during the months leading up to the 2006 midterm elections," they said in a news release.

OSC wasted 4 years investigating what we all already knew? Taxpayers footing the bill for Republican political campaigns? That's government spending Republicans can believe in!

A Push for Government Investment

2011-01-24T22:13:00.000-05:00

Fareed Zakaria laid out his hopes for President Obama's SOTU speech in Monday's Washington Post. It's a forceful call for government investment in research and development, as well as a call for scaling back obscure and harmful regulations. It's really short and definitely worth a read:

During the Cold War, the United States spent 3 percent of its gross domestic product on research and development; the government and private sector each contributed about half. Today, the private sector spends a bit more but government spends less. Obama should propose doubling federal spending on research and innovation. Three percent might have been enough in the 1950s, when Americans could still get millions of jobs in basic manufacturing. Jobs of the future lie in knowledge industries, and that means doing better than we did in the 1950s at knowledge creation.

Rush Holt Up and Coming

2011-01-22T16:22:00.004-05:00

I recently read a list of 10 up and coming politicians to keep an eye on. It included all the regulars like Michele Bachmann and Darrel Issa. I think it should have also included Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey's 12th district. Lately, Holt has been finding his voice and getting some national attention. First, he spoke out against the Social Security payroll tax holiday:

Much has been discussed about the effect that the proposed tax-cut compromise between President Obama and Congressional Republicans would have on long-term debt and much has been discussed about how many jobs the proposed agreement would generate and when. Overall, although it would reduce the money withheld from an average American's paycheck in 2011, it ultimately would increase the burden shifted onto that average American's back for funding our government. Probably the greatest damaging effect, though, would result from the 2 percent reduction in payroll tax, an ingredient injected late in the negotiations last week.

The provision puts in jeopardy the long-term survival of Social Security - a centerpiece program that has been popular, efficient, and effective for 75 years. Sixty-four percent of seniors - nearly 22 million Americans - depend on Social Security for most of their livelihood. In 1935 most seniors lived below the poverty line, a fact hard to believe since Social Security has changed that. Also 16 million others - not in their retirement years - surviving spouses and children and people with disabilities depend on Social Security.

Now, Holt is speaking out on Peter King's plan to hold extensive hearings on Muslims:

Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), the former chairman of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, said he is troubled by Rep. Peter King's (R-NY) plan to hold hearings on the radicalization of Muslim-Americans.
"I feel like my friend Peter has gone way beyond what is called for there, and I do intend to talk to him about it," Holt told TPM of King's plan.
Holt's comments to TPM came after a Brennan Center panel held Tuesday to release the center's comprehensive study of the rules that govern the FBI's authority over domestic intelligence. The rules, approved by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey in 2008, are considerably more lax than previous incarnations, vastly expand the FBI's investigatory discretion and limit oversight, the report argues.
Emily Berman, the author of the Brennan Center report, recommends that the FBI be banned from using certain investigative techniques unless there is some basis in fact to suspect wrongdoing; that agents be required to use the least intrusive investigative technique that is likely to prove effective; and that agents be banned from improperly considering race, religion, ethnicity, national origin or First-Amendment-protected activity in investigative decisions.
Holt told the audience that profiling is "lazy thinking" and mentioned that many provisions of the Patriot Act are up for renewal next month

Holt's possibilities in New Jersey are interesting. Senator Menendez appears safe for reelection but is not really the most popular politician around. I cannot see him not running for reelection, and winning, when his term is up in 2012. The other New Jersey senator, Frank Lautenberg, is a healthy 86 years old, making him the oldest member of the US Senate. When his 5th nonconsecutive term ends in 2014, I'd like to see him retire so Rush could take over. I think that election may be on his radar too.

Lieberman: Signing Off

2011-01-22T16:07:00.004-05:00

I touched briefly on Joe Lieberman announcing that he will not seek another term in the US Senate. In my mind, it is very clear he chose retirement over losing a primary and/or general election. Many have expressed their opinions on Lieberman recently. It's funny how conservatives and liberals share his history. Here are two accounts I've read recently. First is David Brooks:

If Lieberman had not been welcomed back by the Democrats, there might not have been a 60th vote for health care reform, and it would have failed.
There certainly would have been no victory for “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal without Lieberman’s tireless work and hawkish credentials. The Kerry-Lieberman climate bill came closer to passage than any other energy bill. Lieberman also provided crucial support or a swing vote for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the stimulus bill, the banking bill, the unemployment extension and several other measures.
So while Lieberman is loathed by many liberal activists, he has always had much better relations with Democratic practitioners. Vice President Biden sent me a heartfelt e-mail on Thursday that ended: “The Senate will not be the same without Joe’s leadership and powerful intellect. But it is his civility that will be missed the most.”

And here is Emily Bazelon:

My corner of Connecticut was covered in ice today, until news broke of Sen. Joe Lieberman's impending retirement. Magically, a warm glow spread. It was a delicious feeling: the end of the reign of the politician I despise most.
Why do I loathe, loathe, loathe my 68-year-old four-term senator? My feelings are all the stronger for being fairly irrational. Lieberman's views are closer to mine than many politicians on whom I don't expend one iota of emotional energy. This, of course, is his power: He never loses his power to disappoint. Then there is the spectacle of it all: After each act of grand or petty betrayal, each time he turned on his former supporters, the Democratic Party and the Obama administration came back begging for more. Throughout the last Congress, he never let anyone forget he was the 60^th vote.

Bazelon then lists a litany of reasons why she despises Lieberman. I think Lieberman irreparably tarnished his image in my opinion during the health care debate. In an effort to soothe his ego and remind everyone how important he was, Lieberman kept threatening filibuster unless he got his way, while moving the goalposts every time Harry Reid caved to his demands. Instead of holding the Senate hostage because the bill wasn't exactly what he said he wanted (after the concessions of course), Lieberman should have voted for cloture but against the bill. Democracy rules. So I say, "Good riddance, Mr. Lieberman."

UPDATE Re: Olbermann and the Prime Time lineup

2011-01-21T22:21:00.000-05:00

Update here:

MSNBC announced that O'Donnell, who had frequently filled in for Olbermann before starting his own 10 p.m. show, will take over Olbermann's time slot starting Monday. "The Ed Show," with Ed Schultz, would move to 10 p.m. Cenk Uygur of the Web show "The Young Turks," will fill Schultz's vacated 6 p.m. time slot.

"We may be at risk of being bored to death by our better angels."

2011-01-21T21:59:00.000-05:00

Kathleen Parker expresses an opinion regarding political speech and reaction thereto that I largely agree with. I especially agree with her closing thought:

Every now and then a public person is going to say or do something regrettable. I am beyond certain that our most beloved leaders were imperfect and must have said something inexact, without proper forethought or prescience. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt, among other notables, would be deeply grateful that they avoided these hyper-observant times.

Clearly, leaders are held to a higher standard and should be guardians of the light. Or, as the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy recently put it with passionate precision: "We are guardians of ze words!"

But human beings are not built for perfection or for constant scrutiny. We need time alone in our caves to reflect and imagine. We also need to be able to express our thoughts without fear of instant condemnation, granted time to reshuffle and regret, time to say, hey, I was wrong about that. Perhaps most of all, we need space to think more and talk less.

BREAKING NEWS: Keith Olbermann out at MSNBC!

2011-01-21T21:46:00.000-05:00

In breaking news this evening, Keith Olbermann has left his post hosting "Countdown" on MSNBC.

I was home tonight, drinking a glass of wine, waiting for the wife to get home from work and, as usual, my default channel is MSNBC, so I hear Keith in the background, and all of a sudden I hear him talking about how it's his last show. I wondered what the hell was going on and jumped onto the google machine to check it out. Sure enough, no one had anything about this story. It was news (albeit marginally important news) being made in real time.

I've never been a huge Keith Olbermann fan, but it was kind of nice having an over-the-top, in-your-face voice on the Left to counteract the right wing insouciance of Fox News. Again, while I'm not a big fan, it's safe to say I'll miss his voice being there.

What limited coverage I've seen, exists here.

A Mockery of Personhood

2011-01-20T17:36:00.000-05:00

That is what the U.S. Supreme Court made in Citizens United. AT&T is now asking our dearly beloved Court to take that one step further and recognize corporations as having a personal right to privacy in FCC v. AT&T. Dahlia again has the best write up on yesterday's oral argument, as she has taken AT&T's argument seriously and personified it:

AT&T slips into the Supreme Court chamber this morning, moments before arguments are set to start. He feels slightly affronted that nobody seems to notice him. (AT&T is a very emotional guy.) AT&T is handsome in the obvious way. . . .

Thankfully, it appears that there is little support for the argument:

AT&T dies a little inside when Scalia asks: "Did some members of Congress who had passed FOIA say, 'This is outrageous; what about the personal privacy of General Motors?' I'm not aware of any objections along those lines. . . ."

Even CJ Roberts, who earlier in argument did his best to trot out some defense of the contention, however halfassedly, raises an issue with AT&T's counsel:

The chief justice isn't done, either. He takes up AT&T's claim that since "person" is defined elsewhere in FOIA to include corporations, "personal" should be applied to corporations, too. Mulls Roberts: "I tried to sit down and come up with other examples where the adjective was very different from the root noun. It turns out it is not hard at all. You have craft and crafty. Totally different. Crafty doesn't have much to do with craft. Squirrel, squirrely. Right? I mean, pastor—you have a pastor and pastoral. Same root, totally different."

As Klineberg (counsel for AT&T) suggests that AT&T doesn't adhere to the "grammatic imperative" used in the 3^rd Circuit ruling, AT&T seems to understand that somewhere along the line, he has lost the confidence of the chief justice. Maybe he isn't a real person, capable of dignity and shame and other strong emotions after all. Maybe if you prick him, he does not bleed. If you tickle him he does not laugh. If you poison him, well. AT&T rises to leave the room. But he suddenly finds that he has no legs to stand on.

At least it appears that the current Court "gets it" in the sense that it cannot yet fully personify a corporation. What is most troubling is that this is even a question that can make it to the SCOTUS. Why must corporations seek refuge in personhood and continued to make a mockery of that notion? If we want to develop a bill of rights for corporations, I think the congress could do so, or we could amend the constitution. Isn't that what the judicial conservatives always suggest?

"I've been a racist since 1921..."

2011-01-20T16:46:00.000-05:00

The year 2010 has long since disappeared from the review mirror, but I just came across this nice, cynically whimsical essay on 2010 from George Will. Among the revelations is that in 2010, it was revealed that Mussolini was hurt by people saying he copied Hitler. This caused him to protest to his mistress that he had been a racist since 1921 and he didn't understand how anyone could think he was imitating Hitler!

Take a moment to read the whole article here. Some of my favorites:

“I still can’t believe they took our yogurt,” said a staffer at Rawesome Foods in Venice, Calif., when crime-busting L.A. County officers with drawn guns descended on the health-food store in search of … unpasteurized dairy products. Elsewhere, TSA airport personnel exemplified government’s hands-on concern for our safety. In Quincy, Ill., police twice arrested a man who, by offering free rides to intoxicated persons, committed the crime of operating a taxi service without the government’s permission.

In Ottawa, the sensitivity police in a children’s soccer league announced that any team attaining a five-goal lead would be declared to have lost, thereby sparing the feelings of those who were, if you will pardon the expression, losing.

An Exercise in Futility

2011-01-19T20:55:00.005-05:00

Very cute. The House is trying to play government today by passing a bill to repeal the health care law that probably won't come to a vote in the Senate, stands little chance of passing the Senate if it comes to a vote (I bet the Republicans will regret the 60-vote requirement if this comes up), and will certainly be vetoed. Regardless, Speaker Boehner rammed the repeal down our throats today to use his terminology.

Since they spent so much time pretending to care about the deficit, I will remind the Speaker that his bill raises the deficit by a whopping $230 billion.

The President Says Bunghole!

2011-01-19T10:42:00.000-05:00

God Bless America! This is an actual, taped phone call of President Johnson calling Mr. Haggar about some pants. Enjoy:

Put This On: LBJ Buys Pants from Put This On on Vimeo.

(Hat Tip: The Daily Dish)

Bush Era Warriors

2011-01-18T20:27:00.003-05:00

As Bob Dylan said: "The times they are a changing." Remember back in the Bush era when Majority Leader Bill Frist was diagnosing Terry Schiavo via video and generally stirring up a different kind of crazy? Well, now he's out of politics and saying the strangest things for a Republican. He was quoted in the Huffington Post with this little gem:

"It is not the bill that [Republicans] would have written. It is not the bill that I would have drafted. But it is the law of the land and it is the platform, the fundamental platform, upon which all future efforts to make that system better, for that patient, for that family, will be based."

He noted the law "has many strong elements. And those elements, whatever happens, need to be preserved, need to be cuddled, need to be snuggled, need to be promoted and need to be implemented."

A little creepy, but it's nice to see some bona fide conservatives speak rationally instead of calling everything "job killing" and insisting that anything the President does will spell the end of the republic.

(H/T Taegan Goddard)

SLC Punk

2011-01-18T20:11:00.004-05:00

I had a fascinating conversation over dinner this weekend with my new friend from Utah. We were talking generally about politics, and more specifically about Utah politics. Then, the conversation moved on to Orrin Hatch's future. As if on cue, an article from KSL.com pops onto my Google reader today on that very subject:

A new Utah Policy poll shows Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, could be fighting off Republicans and Democrats in 2012. University of Utah political scientist Tim Chambless says Hatch will fight an uphill battle because of age, health and distrust of incumbents." There is a possibility that Senator Hatch, the incumbent, would be challenged from within his own party and would be vulnerable to the same fate as Senator Bob Bennett," Chambless said. When Hatch is put up against possible Republican challengers he falls behind both former governor John Huntsman, Jr. and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah:
48 percent support Huntsman, who hasn't said what his plans are for the 2012 election
23 percent support Chaffetz, who has hinted he might run
21 percent support Hatch, who says he's definitely running again
7 percent said they favor someone else
1 percent said they don't know

But it's not just Republicans. According to the poll, Representative Jim Matheson is close behind Hatch, who doesn't cross that magical 50% threshold for incumbents. Hatch would win that election 48%-41%. The margin of error on these polls was 4.5%. Now, 2012 elections are still a long way away, and a lot can happen in that time. But for now, I'm very intrigued in what could become of Senator Hatch - indeed, with Kent Conrad announcing his retirement recently and Joe Lieberman set to announce his retirement tomorrow, three more long term senators could be leaving the Senate. SLC, if you're reading this, what do you think of the polls? Are they an anomaly? Is the sample size too small? Will Hatch's political acumen allow him to survive anyway?

Old School Politics in Virginia

2011-01-18T14:30:00.001-05:00

In Virginia, the General Assembly is back in session and the sweet, sweet aroma of political payback is in the air:

Del. Albert C. Pollard Jr. (D- Northumberland) wants some constituents of Del. Jackson Miller (R-Manassas) to be penalized after Miller submitted legislation that prohibits menhaden fishing in the Rappahannock River -- something Pollard claims will impact the economy in his region.

Pollard said he plans to introduce a bill Tuesday that would require all Virginia Railway Express riders in Manassas and Manassas Park to pay an extra $1 per trip to ride the commuter rail. The proceeds, Pollard said, will go to fund economic development projects in the Northern Neck.

In the words of President Obama and Sean Connery, if they bring a knife, you bring a gun. If they ban menhaden fishing, you make his people pay an extra $1 for the same amount of service!

Growing up in Michigan, a state with a full-time, permanent legislature, I am always amazed at the alacrity with which the Virginia General Assembly operates. And it's stories like this that are less likely to happen in a place like Michigan. It's also stories like this that remind me of why I love politics and that all politics is local.

Cheaters never prosper!

2011-01-18T12:36:00.001-05:00

Elie at ATL hits the nail on the head with his analysis of the purported Georgetown cheating scandal and the purported perpetrator's email in response:

What a great email. Report me or STFU.

And really, this is a skill that every lawyer should have. You have your discussions, your negotiations, and your alternative dispute resolutions, but when all that breaks down you have to have the stones to say, “Screw you, sue me.” That’s what this guy is essentially saying. No more innuendo; if you have any evidence, bring it.

It’s a great lesson for the other students in his section too. If you are going to make policing other students your business, then go out and police. That’s what people expect from future lawyers. You get no points for just knowing ethical rules, you get points for being ethical. And if that means you end up looking like a tattletale douchebag, you’ve just got to stand up to that criticism.

Criminal Justices

2011-01-17T18:06:00.000-05:00

Dahlia Lithwick does the absolute best reporting on the U.S. Supreme Court these days. Her most recent breakdown of a couple criminal cases recently before the Court is worth a read.

Beyond the style of the piece, the substance is equally attention getting. It's in the matter of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that "sliding scale" is an apt metaphor. Any analyst of the Court's work in this area always finds themselves asking where the facts put you on the metaphorical scale? In the King case discussed in Lithwick's column, it seems the Court finds itself considering allowing the police to put their heavy hand on the scale and create exigencies out of idiocies.

Crafted Self-Importance

2011-01-17T17:58:00.000-05:00

In Slate, Matt Feeney destroys the notion held by some that there is something deeper to Jared Loughner's rage than mania and narcissism. Or, that somehow, his nihilism developed from reading Nietzsche. The destruction of these myths and the cultish following of Nietzsche by the young and disaffected make "Angry Nerds" a must read. Some quotes:

The attraction of Nietzsche to socially maladjusted young men is obvious, but it isn't exactly simple. It is built from several interlocking pieces. Nietzsche mocks convention and propriety (and mocks difficult writers you'd prefer not to bother with anyway). He's funny and (deceptively) easy to read, especially compared to his antecedents in German philosophy, who are also his flabby and lumbering targets: Schopenhauer, Hegel, and, especially, Kant. If your social world fails to appreciate your singularity and tells you that you're a loser, reading Nietzsche can steel you in your secret conviction that, no, I'm a genius, or at least very special, and everyone else is the loser. . . .

If you're a thoughtful and unhappy young man, in other words, why wouldn't you want to read someone who seems to reflect both your alienation and your uncontainable desire back to you as masculine bravery and strength? Indeed, there's something in every book you're likely to pick up—some enticement of form or content or both—that addresses your horniness/alienation and flatters you in the pretense that, though you have no formal training and are actually kind of a crappy and distracted reader, you are doing philosophy. . . .

. . . in Beyond Good and Evil, it's the aphorisms—a section entitled "Epigrams and Interludes" comprising over a hundred one- and two-sentence masterworks of moral paradox and counterintuition, calculated outrage and elegant eye-poking. Nietzsche is aphoristic even when he's being systematic, and when he's being aphoristic, his writing is simply unmatched in its beauty and mayhem, its uncanny mix of compression and infinite suggestion. And for a young guy who's intellectually hungry but doesn't much enjoy reading, finding this section of philosophy-bits in the middle of this famous book is like a homecoming. You don't even have to know what these epigrams mean to enjoy them. You just feel manly and brave in entertaining them at all, not flinching but laughing when Nietzsche says: "One is best punished for ones virtues." (You even get to work out some of your girl-troubles by lingering over Nietzsche's several jabs at women.)

It's definitely worth the few minutes it will take to read the entire article. Enjoy!

Another One on Health Care Reform

2011-01-15T11:36:00.002-05:00

This video reminds me of the beginning of the town hall meetings last August with a more reasonable tone and no paranoid accusations of death panels.

So its great that Republicans want to add to the deficit by putting on their show in the House of repealing a bill that won't pass the Senate or a veto, but what is their plan to replace the popular parts? Like their other plans for cutting spending, there isn't one.

One Issue News Week

2011-01-13T21:45:00.004-05:00

I really try to avoid writing about Former Half Term Governor Sarah Palin. She contributes nothing but vitriol and only is where she is because the press repeats every nonsensical, trivial thought someone on her staff posts on Facebook or Twitter ad nauseum. So, I apologize in advance, but our wonderful media (should I call it lamestream media - its so creative!) seems to be only covering one non-issue these past few days. I'm going to post The Daily Beasts's comparison and move on, hopefully to not talk about Palin for quite some time:

The prematurely retired Alaska governor had to serve up her remarks, really a litany of complaints against her critics and political adversaries, while seated in front of a non-working stone fireplace, apparently at her home in Wasilla—a claustrophobic setting framed by an outsize American flag.
The president got to deliver his affecting half-hour of heartfelt reflection and soulful inspiration—repeatedly interrupted by standing ovations—to an arena at the University of Arizona filled to the rafters with 14,000 mourners, notably members of his Cabinet and the Supreme Court, the governor of Arizona, the astronaut-husband of wounded Rep. Gabby Giffords, the heroes who risked their own lives to save others, the doctors and nurses who tended the injured and bleeding, and the friends and families of the six people, including a 9-year-old girl, who were killed by a gun-wielding maniac Saturday morning at a shopping center.

So Palin pulled her typical nonsense - playing the victim and throwing out terms she doesn't understand to incite others ("blood libel"). Obama orates eloquently and moves an entire nation. Seems about on par.

H/T Daily Kos

Virginia's ABC Stores

2011-01-11T21:19:00.003-05:00

In some local news, Virginia's Governor, Bob McDonnell, has been trying to come up with a plan to privatize the sale of liquor in the Commonwealth. So far, his plans have yet to gain any real support. Try again, Governor:

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell will unveil a proposal Wednesday to close 332 state-owned liquor stores and replace them with 1,000 private retail outlets -- a scaled-back version of a plan he's pushed for months to end Virginia's monopoly on the sale of distilled spirits.
Under the proposal, the state is expected to reap at least $200 million upfront for the sale of new liquor licenses and $13.1 million more than it now collects each year in profits and taxes at Alcoholic Beverage Control stores, according to the governor's office.
. . .
Under McDonnell's new liquor proposal which he will unveil Wednesday, the state will continue to act as the wholesaler of liquor in Virginia, buying thousands of cases of booze directly from distilleries and selling it at a profit to private retailers, which would then set prices for consumers.

I'm really torn on this issue. I'm not really in favor of the Commonwealth banning private liquor sales. However, the Commonwealth relies on the money they make from the ABC stores, which makes it difficult to end the revenue stream without some way to offset the loss. It hurts even worse in Northern Virginia where we send lots of tax revenue to Richmond and get very little back. Therefore, I think any privatization plan needs to find raise enough revenue to replace that lost by the sale of the ABC stores, whether it be from liquor licenses or some other source. I know, real solid plan I have.

Back to Spending

2011-01-11T20:52:00.002-05:00

Eventually, life on Capitol Hill is going to go back on. When it does, I think the tea partiers are going to be rather disappointed when the Republicans don't have a plan to cut spending. Brian Williams recently asked Speaker Boehner what programs he would cut:

WILLIAMS: Name a program right now that we could do without.

BOEHNER: I don’t think I have one off the top of my head.

It's not like this was a question out of left field. This is all Republicans have been talking about for over 2 years. I have seen this question asked so many times that you would think he would at least have some obscure program or pork to eliminate. Usually the answer is "discretionary spending." I guess I can't complain too much, this might be the first honest answer from Speaker Boehner in a long, long time.

The rush to blame the Right for Tucson...

2011-01-10T19:12:00.000-05:00

I think dobber is correct in his stated desire to withhold judgment over the Tucson attack. However, most sources, particularly on my side of the aisle do not seem to share this sense of prudence. Consequently, I find myself in (at least minimal) agreement with some of the points raised by George Will in this article (certainly I do not agree with every point raised, but merely those I'm highlighting here):

The craving is for banishing randomness and the inexplicable from human experience. Time was, the gods were useful. What is thunder? The gods are angry. Polytheism was explanatory. People postulated causations.

And still do. Hence: The Tucson shooter was (pick your verb) provoked, triggered, unhinged by today's (pick your noun) rhetoric, vitriol, extremism, "climate of hate." . . .

A characteristic of many contemporary minds is susceptibility to the superstition that all behavior can be traced to some diagnosable frame of mind that is a product of promptings from the social environment. . . .

The whole article is worth a quick read. As I said, the portions I've quoted are the one's I agree with. There are several other points in the article that I strongly disagree with, as Will simply goes too far. But he hits on a point that I think is rather important: at this point, this is just a tragedy, attributable to nothing except a crazy man with a gun, detached from reality. Let's try and keep that in mind when processing this tragedy.

Is Vitriolic Rhetoric to Blame?

2011-01-10T14:12:00.000-05:00

I'm not ready to comment on the assassination of Chief Judge John Roll or the attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Giffords. I don't know all the facts and would prefer to learn as much as I can about what happened and why before forming an opinion. However, there has been much debate about whether the increased rhetoric about revolution and excessive hyperbolic metaphors are to blame for the events on Saturday (by the tea party, by both political parties...take your pick). Anyway, I just wanted to link to 3 NY Times columns I happened to read this morning that I found interesting. I'm not saying either are right or either are wrong.

Matt Bai

Paul Krugman

Ross Douthat

What do you guys think? Have you formed an opinion yet? Are there any other columns or opinion pieces that are worth mentioning? Have at it in the comments.

Speaker "Boner"

2011-01-07T15:37:00.000-05:00

Apparently, our classy former President "Dubya's" nickname for now-Speaker of the House John Boehner was the overly-clever "Boner." This is one of the great anecdotes contained in the latest slasher piece by the Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi. It's a lengthy piece that is well worth a read, including great little bits such as this:

The fact that Boehner supported TARP and No Child Left Behind and mega-handouts to the pharmaceutical industry and a range of other federal subsidies is hardly surprising, for this is what mainstream Washington politicians of both parties do — they take great buttloads of money from giant transnational companies, play golf with the CEOs of those same companies ("If someone I've gotten to know on the golf course comes into my office with a good argument," Boehner once said, "I tend to want to listen"), and deliver taxpayer money back to their buddies when the need arises, or sometimes even when the need doesn't arise. In this regard, Boehner has had a lot more in common with campaign-contribution-devouring Democrats like Chris Dodd and Harry Reid than he has with the Tea Party Republican voters he now ostensibly represents.

Taibbi sets out Boehner as the anti-Tea Party leader of the Tea Party folks in Congress, which as dobber has already suggested, should provide us with fantastic blogging fodder. One thing is for certain, you'll want to have your Kleenex handy. And you'll want to watch and see if the Tea Party changes "Boner" or if "Boner" changes them:

The new speaker represents an increasingly endangered class of Beltway jobholders who know how to raise money and get elected, but not much beyond that. He now finds himself the party's last line of defense against millions of angry voters who, for the first time in recent memory, are at least attempting to watch what Congress is up to. The tee times are over.

This scenario could have a lasting impact on the interaction between Congress and the people they represent, or the people could once again turn their eyes from the incestuous orgy that has been Washington for 40 plus years.

(Hat Tip: A.L. Burns)

When the Constitution Gets in the Way of the Right's Agenda

2011-01-07T15:29:00.003-05:00

I think we're all familiar now with how the right fawns over the Constitution. They even went so far as to mark their property the other day by reading it into the Congressional record, just not all of it. It kind of reminds me of how my dog pisses on trees when I walk him to mark his territory. Except sometimes that damn document just gets in the way of hating foreigners and loving church in public. Slate ran a great piece on how the right absolutely loves the Constitution, except for the 1st, 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments (I'll throw in the Supremacy Clause for good measure):

This newfound attention to the relationship between Congress and the Constitution is thrilling and long overdue. Progressives, as Greg Sargent points out, are wrong to scoff at it. This is an opportunity to engage in a reasoned discussion of what the Constitution does and does not do. It's an opportunity to point out that no matter how many times you read the document on the House floor, cite it in your bill, or how many copies you can stuff into your breast pocket without looking fat, the Constitution is always going to raise more questions than it answers and confound more readers than it comforts. And that isn't because any one American is too stupid to understand the Constitution. It's because the Constitution wasn't written to reflect the views of any one American.

The problem with the Tea Party's new Constitution fetish is that it's hopelessly selective. As Robert Parry notes, the folks who will be reading the Constitution aloud this week can't read the parts permitting slavery or prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment using only their inside voices, while shouting their support for the 10th Amendment. They don't get to support Madison and renounce Jefferson,then claim to be restoring the vision of "the Framers." Either the Founders got it right the first time they calibrated the balance of power between the federal government and the states, or they got it so wrong that we need to pass a "Repeal Amendment" to fix it. And unless Tea Party Republicans are willing to stand proud and announce that they adore and revere the whole Constitution as written, except for the First, 14, 16th, and 17th amendments, which totally blow, they should admit right now that they are in the same conundrum as everyone else: This document no more commands the specific policies they espouse than it commands the specific policies their opponents support.

The most recent offensive the right is taking up against the Constitution is birth right citizenship. The 14th Amendment clearly reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Nevertheless, right-leaning state legislatures in three states want to strip citizenship from children born to illegal immigrants in this country. Too bad the Constitution, which they so dearly love, says these babies are citizens. According to the state legislatures, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means these babies do not have to become citizens. The Constitutional Law Prof Blog explains why their wrong in a fascinating article for us legal nerds:

They seem pretty confident in their interpretation, but there's good evidence against them. Start with the congressional debates over the Fourteenth Amendment--a debate eerily similar to that today. The debate in the 39th Congress focused on Chinese immigrants in California and Gypsies in Pennsylvania (among other groups), with opponents of birthright citizenship claiming that Chinese and Gypsies would take over those states. Opponents of birthright citizenship in the Amendment (obviously) lost that debate in the 39th Congress.

The article is definitely worth the 5 minutes it will take to read. It really underscores how the right will urinate all over the place claiming to own the Constitution and then at the same max volume (turn it up to 11) disclaim many of the parts that affect us most. This is why Charles Krauthammer's most recent column angered me and caused me to tell to Burnsy that it was "utter trash." But that's a column for another time.

Love America...

2011-01-06T18:26:00.000-05:00

I found this video to be absolutely fascinating:

(Hat Tip: The Daily Dish)

Home School Tax Credits

2011-01-05T19:55:00.002-05:00

Professor Paul Caron of the TaxProf Blog wrote today about a proposal to give tax credits to home schooled students:

The new Republicans in Congress have vowed to challenge Washington's role in American public education, and said they will seek to turn more power over to the states on many fronts. But one of their priorities is a new federal rule: to give parents in every state tax credits if their children are home-schooled.
Previous efforts in Congress to adopt a nationwide tax break have failed, and currently only three states -- Illinois, Louisiana and Minnesota -- allow some benefit for home schooling

I really don't see why the federal government would give tax credits to pay for someone to not use their local schools? It does sound like the typical Republican proposal though - more spending with no effect on most of the country. Additionally, its an area the states should handle, especially since your local taxes pay for schools. Am I missing something?

Those Phantom Budget Cuts

2011-01-05T16:09:00.005-05:00

I've been saying this since before the election, but the Republicans are bound to upset the Tea Partiers when they're unable to actually make any significant cuts to federal spending. I remember Chris Matthews on election night asking Republican leaders what programs they would cut, and not a single one could name a program they would cut, including mumbling nonsense from Michele Bachmann and Eric Cantor. The only thing we knew they were against was the Affordable Care Act, which, according to the CBO would reduce the federal deficit by a significant amount. In other words, the Republicans would increase spending.

Now, we have evidence that the Republicans never had a plan to actually reduce spending:

Many people knowledgeable about the federal budget said House Republicans could not keep their campaign promise to cut $100 billion from domestic spending in a single year. Now it appears that Republicans agree.
Now aides say that the $100 billion figure was hypothetical, and that the objective is to get annual spending for programs other than those for the military, veterans and domestic security back to the levels of 2008, before Democrats approved stimulus spending to end the recession.

It was hypothetical? I don't remember hearing that word during the campaign or any tea party rally. Funny timing.

I Wonder if the Rules Will Still Apply

2011-01-03T21:53:00.004-05:00

A combination of the President's vacation in Hawaii, the end of the 111th Congress, and our own vacations have brought this blog to a screeching halt. But as the 112th Congress returns, we're going to see some hilarity coming out of the House. I'm really wondering if the Republicans will keep harping about their "deficit reductions" and "new rules" in the House when it's fairly obvious they are merely words with no meaning behind them. Case in point:

CAF's Bll Scher makes what would be a very good point about the House GOP's new "cutgo" spending rule.
The House Republican leadership has announced it will enact two things immediately upon taking control of the House this week: a new "CutGo" rule to require revenue offsets for any increases in spending, and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act health reform law.
The Republicans might want to pass health reform repeal first.
Because if they install "CutGo" rules first, they won't be able to repeal health reform without also finding $1 trillion in spending cuts over the next two decades to make up for the taxpayer savings they'll be throwing away.
Which would have been the case had they not already blown a big ol' loophole in their own rule

This should be rich. No pun intended.

"You don't say 'Creep, Creep' unless you're quoting TLC..."

2011-01-03T06:50:00.000-05:00

The title to this post is simply an excuse to quote the Will Ferrell-Mark Wahlberg film, "The Other Guys," which I watched and quite enjoyed over the weekend. Though, it's not entirely irrelevant to the latest piece by Krauthammer. Charlie and George Will have been writing about the President's latest liberal designs and how he attempts to circumvent the half-Republican congress through regulation:

On Dec. 23, the Interior Department issued Secretarial Order 3310, reversing a 2003 decision and giving itself the authority to designate public lands as "Wild Lands." A clever twofer: (1) a bureaucratic power grab - for seven years up through Dec. 22, wilderness designation had been the exclusive province of Congress, and (2) a leftward lurch - more land to be "protected" from such nefarious uses as domestic oil exploration in a country disastrously dependent on foreign sources.

The very same day, the Environmental Protection Agency declared that in 2011 it would begin drawing up anti-carbon regulations on oil refineries and power plants, another power grab effectively enacting what Congress had firmly rejected when presented as cap-and-trade legislation.

For an Obama bureaucrat, however, the will of Congress is a mere speed bump. Hence this regulatory trifecta, each one moving smartly left - and nicely clarifying what the spirit of bipartisan compromise that President Obama heralded in his post-lame-duck Dec. 22 news conference was really about: a shift to the center for public consumption and political appearance only.

I think the regulatory scheme is largely the prerogative of the executive and that, so long as the implementation of legislation does not exceed the scope of the legislation, then the executive does not run afoul of the constitution. I also think that this complaint by Krauthammer is alarmism over an alleged creeping of the executive power. I think that perhaps the fear is legitimate but that the complaints regarding the Obama administration are, at best, premature. How much regulation is permitted under our scheme? What is an acceptable level of regulation by the executive.?

I've been away...

2010-12-29T15:32:00.000-05:00

I hope everybody has been enjoying their holiday season. I had a very nice, relaxing time with family and hope to get a bit more relaxing in before the first of the year. I just wanted to write a brief post and let everyone know that the reason I have not posted is that I have not read anything topical or of note over the past week and therefore, I have not been inspired to share anything. Rest assured, when I got into my office yesterday I cleared out my Google Reader and printed off a shit load of articles I am now carrying around with me in a folder like a briefing book of sorts. Nothing I've waded through has yet to spike my interest. As soon as it does, you'll know. Stay tuned.

(Don't make fun of me for operating under the fiction that there are people out there checking in on the blog to actually see what I or we have to say. It makes me feel wanted and needed!)

Health Care Costs

2010-12-25T12:33:00.002-05:00

I also wanted to post this graphic I came across on Daily Kos since I have been writing a little bit about health care reform:

In preparation for the opening of their State of Working America website, the folks at the Economic Policy Institute have been posting some "snapshots" of how the economy affects workers and their families, including the difference between the upward mobility of whites and blacks, theimpoverishment of children and the dwindling buying power of the minimum wage.
The latest snapshot in their scrapbook shows the rocketing rise in health insurance costs.

Something else Attorney General Cuccinelli should take note of while filing silly lawsuits.

Chet Edwards on Our Media

2010-12-25T12:28:00.003-05:00

Here's a quickie from Political Wire since I haven't posted yet on vacation.

"I think people are getting their news from stovepipe sources of information -- where people are basically getting the news they want to hear. Whether it's Fox on the right or MSNBC on the left, it's making it hard for centrist Democrats. It's making it hard to elect centrists, who I think are critical to the functioning of our checks and balances form of democracy."

-- Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX), in an interview with ABC News, explaining the political polarization in Congress.

Edwards is stating what is pretty obvious to me - that the 24 hours news networks are really doing more harm than good to our political system. However, the recent lame duck session of Congress makes me wonder it the effect is as pronounced as I thought it was.

TPM's Golden Dukes

2010-12-22T20:19:00.002-05:00

Talking Points Memo posted their nominees for the "Golden Duke" Awards the other day:

For Meritorious Achievement in The Crazy:
Christine O'Donnell: As TPM Reader DC put it: "A GOP candidate, witchcraft, a Satanic altar, masturbation. This was the moment when the natural world and South Park switched places." And that's not even to mention mice with human brainsor whether the separation of church and state was really part of the constitution or not.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX): As TPM Reader FM said, "Two words: 'terror babies.'"There's also "tea party" and "art director" and "government shutdown."
Tim Profitt, Head Stomper And Rand Paul Volunteer: He came, he saw, he stomped the head of a MoveOn protester, he demanded an apology from the woman he stomped and claimed he was set up. As TPM Reader EO said, "his actions were stone.cold.f------.crazy!"
Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO): In Tancredo's world, Obama's a bigger threat to America than al Qaeda and should be shipped back to Kenya. Granted, he's been crazy for years, but TPM Reader DB thought his gubernatorial run highlighted one thing we've missed: "How can a person run for governor, claiming he can create jobs and shrink government if he's never had private sector job?"
Ginny Thomas: Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas whose public affiliation with conservative advocacy groups gave people pause this year, made observers' jaws drop after she called Anita Hill, who in 1991 accused now-Justice Thomas of sexual harassment, at an odd hour and requested an apology from her. TPM Reader DS added, "Ginny's call clearly planted a turd in the punchbowl, embarrassing her husband even more."

What do you guys think? Is there another nominee you would place up there? Have at it in the comments.

Meanwhile. Virginia's Health Care System Fails

2010-12-22T20:03:00.002-05:00

While Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is running around the state filing silly law suits to challenge laws that are meant to improve the nation's health care system, Virginia's health care system is, surprisingly, falling behind other states:

A committee advising Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) on issues surrounding health reform concludes that health-care delivery in Virginia is currently only "mediocre" and lags behind other states with much lower income levels.
The committee, chaired by Secretary of Health and Human Resources William A. Hazel Jr., says in a final report submitted to McDonnell on Tuesday that the state has plenty of good hospitals and doctors. But it notes that only 37 percent of small businesses offer employees health insurance -- down from 48 percent a decade ago. The commonwealth ranks 41 among the states in breast cancer death rates and 35th in infant mortality.
"It is hard to be proud of a system in which nearly one million Virginians -- and 150,000 children -- lack health insurance and timely access to quality care that only it can ensure," concludes the report of the committee, which was composed of 24 political, medical and business leaders.

Among the recommendations of the committee was creating an in-state Health Benefits Exchange and using electronic medical records. So, while Virginia's health care system is failing, its Attorney General is using his position as the Commonwealth's top law enforcement official to drive a fringe political agenda. It would be nice if Mr. Cuccinelli was truly concerned about his constituents who aren't so well off and cannot afford health insurance. These people are dieing of breast cancer and living on a hope that they don't get sick. I'm sure they'd rather see Mr. Cuccinelli channel his energies towards something that will actually benefit the people of the Commonwealth.

A Belief in Rehabilitation... When Commutation Works

2010-12-22T19:02:00.000-05:00

This is a very powerful argument for the value of the President using the powers of pardon and commutation.

Ten years ago, days before Christmas, President Bill Clinton changed my life forever. I was in federal prison, serving the seventh year of a 24-year sentence for a first-time nonviolent crack cocaine offense.

Clinton's mercy and acknowledgement that my sentence was unjust led him to grant me a commutation. Had he not done so, I would be in prison until 2016. On December 22, the anniversary of my release, I will join others in a fast for justice to honor those in prison who deserve the same relief from their long sentences for low-level drug offenses.

Many things have changed in the last decade. I graduated from college, attended law school, got married, raised my son who was born while I was incarcerated and gave birth to a daughter. I also established my own foundation to give hope to children of incarcerated parents.

Having a spokesperson like Ms. Pradia can only help this cause. And while I am entirely against federal mandatory minimums, I don't agree with Ms. Pradia that this necessarily means that President Obama should be out performing social justice with his commutation power... at least at this point. This is not to say that it would not be in the interests of social justice were he to do so. The mandatory sentencing scheme is clearly racially skewed with it's punitive emphasis on crack versus powder cocaine. And in a post Booker world, there is certainly a question as to what the federal sentencing scheme appropriately is today. But can you imagine the outcry if Obama were to begin commuting the sentence of black crack cocaine convicts? Okay, to be fair, can you imagine the outcry if Bill Clinton did so? Oh you say, but Bill Clinton DID commute Ms. Pradia's sentence. True. However, 10 years ago today when he issued this commutation, Bill Clinton was in the final month of his presidency and knew he would not face the political backlash for doing the right thing. That's important to keep in mind when reading such persuasive arguments as that from Ms. Pradia on what Mr. Obama should do. We can't let this be a liberal echo chamber without an understanding of the political realities. None of this shit happens in a vacuum.

The sky is falling...

2010-12-22T00:27:00.000-05:00

This article dutifully points out the downside of the "chicken little," slippery slope argument against the healthcare mandate:

Think about it. If the asparagus and broccoli are really coming to knock down our doors and kidnap our children, can helicopters loaded with cauliflower really be that far behind? And what of the eggplant in night-vision goggles? If we're soon to be governed by a totalitarian taxonomy of toxic greens, who—one wonders—will sound the warning against the tyrannical field peas?

The Hypocrisy Really Doesn't Surprise Me

2010-12-21T19:43:00.003-05:00

I was against President Obama freezing federal pay for a few reasons. First, it's merely a symbolic gesture that I think will do more harm than good. The freeze is expected to save $2 billion in fiscal year 2011, $28 billion over the next five years, and more than $60 billion over the next 10 years. Compared to federal spending as a whole, this is a mere drop in the bucket. Furthermore, that is billions of dollars that will not be pumped into the economy by federal employees' spending, with the DC Metro region as a whole hit the hardest. Second, the pay freeze unfairly targets federal employees. John Gage, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, points out, "This is no time for scapegoating. The American people didn't vote to stick it to a [Veterans Affairs Department] nursing assistant making $28,000 a year or a Border Patrol agent earning $34,000 per year." I won't even get into the my thoughts on the pay disparity between federal government workers and private workers. I will point out that my friend Stephen Losey does a great job covering the issue at the Federal Times Blog, with some examples on this issue here and here.

Of course, Republicans are so concerned about federal pay that they also froze the pay of their own staff. Or not. According to Daily Kos:

Overall, congressional payroll expenses have climbed much faster than the civilian federal work force costs that lawmakers are now clamoring to freeze. Many of the most vocal federal critics have overseen growth that rivals or outstrips the executive branch's, according to data from Legistorm, a website that tracks congressional salaries. For example:
• Firebrand Republican Michele Bachmann of Minnesota has for months pushed legislation to freeze what she calls "unconscionable" federal salaries. Meanwhile, her own payroll jumped 16 percent between 2007, when she came to Congress, and 2009.
• Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican set to chair the House subcommittee overseeing the federal work force, says Washington must "figure out how to do more with less." But the freshman lawmaker gave his own employees an average raise of about 9 percent this year.
• Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who has long criticized federal pay, has overseen an average jump of 8 percent per year in his office employee costs between 2006, his first full year in the Senate, and 2009.
Not to be outdone, incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor had his payroll go up by 81 percent since taking office in 2001 -- an average increase of 8 percent per year.

Of course, Representative Chaffetz thinks federal employees should suffer even more: Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said Congress should pass a bill temporarily canceling General Schedule employees' step increases. Never mind that his employees must not factor into the federal budget or for some reason should be exempt from his crusade to penalize federal employees. If these Republican lawmakers are serious about reducing the federal deficit, which they are not, by reducing federal salaries, they should start with themselves (most Members of Congress are millionaires) and their staffs.

Fore!

2010-12-21T11:58:00.000-05:00

This story just makes sense:

Slices, hooks and other errant shots are a common hazard on the links and a golfer can't expect to get a warning shout of "Fore!" every time a ball comes his way, New York's top court ruled Tuesday in dismissing a personal injury lawsuit.

I think the Court is ultimately correct that, absent some sign of deviation from normal golfing or other indicia of recklessness or intent, it would be an absurd policy to allow people to collect for injuries that occur within normal play on a golf course. Further, to insist on an audible calling out of "fore" would create a question of fact that would nearly always become a he-said, she-said type scenario. Even if and when you have witnesses, the number of times "fore" is yelled on a golf course would or could make it too difficult of a standard to employ.

What are your thoughts?

Democracy in action?

2010-12-21T11:32:00.000-05:00

Source:

A funny thing happened on the way to a trial in Missoula County District Court last week. Jurors – well, potential jurors – staged a revolt. They took the law into their own hands, as it were, and made it clear they weren’t about to convict anybody for having a couple of buds of marijuana. Never mind that the defendant in question also faced a felony charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs. The tiny amount of marijuana police found while searching Touray Cornell’s home on April 23 became a huge issue for some members of the jury panel. No, they said, one after the other. No way would they convict somebody for having a 16th of an ounce...

District Judge Dusty Deschamps took a quick poll as to who might agree. Of the 27 potential jurors before him, maybe five raised their hands. A couple of others had already been excused because of their philosophical objections. “I thought, ‘Geez, I don’t know if we can seat a jury,’ ” said Deschamps, who called a recess. And he didn’t. During the recess, Paul and defense attorney Martin Elison worked out a plea agreement.

(Hat Tip: The Daily Dish)

Senator Jon Stewart?

2010-12-20T21:11:00.003-05:00

Is Jon Stewart making a move from comedy to politics? Slate's Christopher Beam seems to think he used the James Zadroga Health and Compensation Act of 2010 to test the waters:

Presumably Stewart saw the 9/11 health-benefits bill as a test. He could either keep standing on the sidelines, tossing empty beer cans. Or he could suit up. He chose to suit up. The question now is whether he'll pretend it was a clown suit all along.

Stewart has always struck me as incredibly intelligent and the only person to really point out the hypocrisies of politicians across the political spectrum. He also has a potential comedian to politician switch mapped out for him as Senator Al Franken pulled it off in 2008. However, Stewart is blocked by two sitting Democratic senators in New York - Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand. This is where I should point out that Jon Stewart grew up in the great state of New Jersey, which happens to be represented by the oldest United States Senator. Frank Lautenberg's term is up in 2014, when he'll be 90 years old. As much as I would love to see Rush Holt step up and run for the seat should Lautenberg retire, Jon Stewart would entertain me as a Senator.

When Did Bob McDonnell Become the Rational Republican?

2010-12-20T20:48:00.003-05:00

I've come to expect that Republicans will try to undo any piece of legislation passed through Congress by some form of nullification. They tried it with healthcare by passing laws making it illegal to require anyone to buy health insurance. However, you would have thought that DADT was pretty safe in that it involves the military, which Congress clearly has the constitutional power to legislate (then again, Michele Bachmann claimed that the Census was unconstitutional). Not so fast. Delegate Bob Marshall of the Virginia House of Delegates is drafting legislation that would ban homosexual service members from serving in the Virginia National Guard. Here is his reasoning:

This policy will weaken military recruitment and retention, and will increase pressure for a military draft,'' Marshall said. "After 232 years of prohibiting active, open homosexuals from enlisting in our military, President Obama and a majority in Congress are conducting a social experiment with our troops and our national security...In countries where religions and cultures find homosexual acts immoral, the Obama administration's repeal policy will work to the detriment of all American troops in securing local cooperation with our nation's foreign policy goals.

That's a lot of conclusory statements without any mention of the military's report showing it will have no effect, the support of almost 2/3 of the US Senate, the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the support of the Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of Defense, and polls showing over 70% of Americans support the repeal. Enter Governor Bob McDonnell. Yes, that Governor Bob McDonnell. The one who wrote a thesis asserting that women working outside the home was detrimental. He still opposes repealing the ban but has agreed to follow the federal policy:

"The governor is a retired United States Army officer, and he knows it is critically important that there be one set of rules for all our men and women in the military, since uniformity of major policy across all branches is essential to effective operations,'' McDonnell spokesman Tucker Martin said. "We are not aware of a single instance in recent history where the Virginia National Guard has not complied with the policies and procedures of the Department of Defense. Furthermore, approximately 90 percent of the Virginia Guard's funding is federal, and any departure from federal policies may put this funding at risk. The federal legislation contemplates a further certification process by the Department of Defense, and other details and steps that are not known at this time. In his role as commander in chief of the Virginia National Guard, Governor McDonnell expects the Guard to adhere to the final guidelines implemented by the Department of Defense."

Governor McDonnell hasn't really made a good argument why he is opposed to repealing the ban, but at least he's sticking up to the radical fringe in the State House. I never thought he would be even this moderate after his campaign for governor.

Some More on John McCain

2010-12-20T15:12:00.006-05:00

Remember when you could hear someone mention John McCain and not clench out of the embarassment he must feel at who he has become? Remember when the Republicans gave us hope by nominating a sensible moderate who could work across the aisles? Now, I just kind of shake my head at the things he comes up with. I might do a post on his crazy non-sensical speech during the DADT debate, but Joe Klein does a good job summing up Senator McCain for me:

McCain distinguished himself doubly this weekend, opposing the Dream Act and leading the opposition to "Don't Ask," despite the very public positions of his wife and daughter on the other side of the issue. I used to know a different John McCain, the guy who proposed comprehensive immigration reform with Ted Kennedy, the guy--a conservative, to be sure, but an honorable one--who refused to indulge in the hateful strictures of his party's extremists. His public fall has been spectacular, a consequence of politics--he "needed" to be reelected--and personal pique. He's a bitter man now, who can barely tolerate the fact that he lost to Barack Obama. But he lost for an obvious reason: his campaign proved him to be puerile and feckless, a politician who panicked when the heat was on during the financial collapse, a trigger-happy gambler who chose an incompetent for his vice president. He has made quite a show ever since of demonstrating his petulance and lack of grace.

Klein also points out that McCain was an original sponsor of the DREAM Act and still voted against it, even though he "recently won reelection and doesn't have to pretend to be a troglodyte anymore." It makes you wonder if McCain cannot accept the fact that he cannot be president no matter how much he kicks and screams.

Getting Shit Done!

2010-12-20T08:59:00.000-05:00

That's how Sullivan sees the Obama Presidency:

But throughout he has tried, as his partisan critics have complained, not to be a partisan president, to recall, as he put it in that recent press conference, that this is a diverse country, that is is time we had a president who does not repel or disparage or ignore those who voted against him or those who have grown to despise him.

This is particularly important since so many of his opponents are white and disproportionately affected by this long recession. Trying to get them to see him accurately through the haze of Fox propaganda and cultural panic is not easy. But he seems to understand that persistence and steadiness are better tools in this than grand statements, sudden moves or grandstanding attempts to please his own base. He really is trying to be what he promised: president of the red states as well as the blue states. And a president who gets shit done.

Yet Even More on the Tax Cut Deal

2010-12-20T08:51:00.003-05:00

I know this issue is being beaten to death all over the interwebs, but it really does illustrate what makes me, and I think many others, so cynical about some of our politics. Although Burnsy is not a fan, Paul Krugman wrote today "zombie economics." His first few paragraphs caught me, which he used to discuss bad ideas becoming policy:

When historians look back at 2008-10, what will puzzle them most, I believe, is the strange triumph of failed ideas. Free-market fundamentalists have been wrong about everything — yet they now dominate the political scene more thoroughly than ever.

How did that happen? How, after runaway banks brought the economy to its knees, did we end up with Ron Paul, who says “I don’t think we need regulators,” about to take over a key House panel overseeing the Fed? How, after the experiences of the Clinton and Bush administrations — the first raised taxes and presided over spectacular job growth; the second cut taxes and presided over anemic growth even before the crisis — did we end up with bipartisan agreement on even more tax cuts?

The answer from the right is that the economic failures of the Obama administration show that big-government policies don’t work. But the response should be, what big-government policies? For the fact is that the Obama stimulus — which itself was almost 40 percent tax cuts — was far too cautious to turn the economy around. And that’s not 20-20 hindsight: many economists, myself included, warned from the beginning that the plan was grossly inadequate. Put it this way: A policy under which government employment actually fell, under which government spending on goods and services grew more slowly than during the Bush years, hardly constitutes a
test of Keynesian economics.

How many times do we have to prove that tax cuts aren't a stimulus? They didn't work under Bush, and they weren't working all that well in Obama's first two years - although the tea partiers will still cry about taxes and how large the stimulus was when it featured mostly tax cuts, ironic right? Under Clinton, we had higher taxes and prosperity, and even Ronald Reagan, the icon idolized by the conservative right even though he wouldn't fit under their tent today, raised taxes.

Granted, Krugman is a firm believer that government spending is the only way to get us out of recessions. However, after two full years of hearing how we're all going to die if we don't cut government spending and get the deficit under control, how do we end up with another policy that adds almost a trillion dollars to the deficit via tax cuts? And why are tax cuts for the wealthy an acceptable deficit spending measure for the right when just about nothing else is, including making sure first responders on 9/11 have access to medical care?

Thus, Krugman continues

None of this stopped the right from denouncing him as a socialist. But it helped empower bad ideas, in ways that can do quite immediate harm. Right now Mr. Obama is hailing the tax-cut deal as a boost to the economy — but Republicans are already talking about spending cuts that would offset any positive effects from the deal. And how effectively can he oppose these demands, when he himself has embraced the rhetoric of belt-tightening?

Although I think we're close to realizing the recovery of the economy, I'm worried that we won't learn from history and that the austerity measures will slow down that recovery.

Have at it in the comments.

On the Virtues of Partisanship 2

2010-12-20T08:21:00.000-05:00

It's not just the right attacking the "No Labels" movement, but also the Left, as exemplified by Frank Rich's column in the NYTimes:

The notion that civility and nominal bipartisanship would accomplish any of the heavy lifting required to rebuild America is childish magical thinking, and, worse, a mindless distraction from the real work before the nation. Sure, it would be swell if rhetorical peace broke out in Washington — or on cable news networks — but given that American politics have been rancorous since Boston’s original Tea Party, wishing will not make it so.

What are your thoughts on the varied critique of Will and Frank?

On the Virtues of Partisanship

2010-12-19T23:29:00.000-05:00

I think this article by George Will ties in quite nicely with the below discussions relating to healthcare. There is a value in partisanship. However, I think the effort of the "No Labels" movement is also well-intended and not nearly as ridiculous as Will tries to paint it. I think it is perhaps a mislabeled (pun intended) attempt to get at the heart of the animosity that often animates partisanship.

I think the healthcare debate demonstrates the potential of healthy partisanship. It also, unfortunately, demonstrates the potential of the unhealthy partisanship that is real and that the "No Labels" movement attempts to address. Both Epting and Dobber make me believe more in the Will argument--that when it comes to the constitutionality of healthcare, there is no clearly correct or clearly incorrect answer. The Cuccinelli side of the argument, and the smug presumption of constitutionality (regardless of desirability) on the Left, give me pause and make me wish for something successful to come of a "No Labels" type of movement, despite its obvious naivete.

A Green Military...

2010-12-19T22:43:00.000-05:00

That's the future TFriedman sees:

Spearheaded by Ray Mabus, President Obama’s secretary of the Navy and the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, the Navy and Marines are building a strategy for “out-greening” Al Qaeda, “out-greening” the Taliban and “out-greening” the world’s petro-dictators. Their efforts are based in part on a recent study from 2007 data that found that the U.S. military loses one person, killed or wounded, for every 24 fuel convoys it runs in Afghanistan. Today, there are hundreds and hundreds of these convoys needed to truck fuel — to run air-conditioners and power diesel generators — to remote bases all over Afghanistan.

Mabus’s argument is that if the U.S. Navy and Marines could replace those generators with renewable power and more energy efficient buildings, and run its ships on nuclear energy, biofuels and hybrid engines, and fly its jets with bio-fuels, then it could out-green the Taliban — the best way to avoid a roadside bomb is to not have vehicles on the roads — and out-green all the petro-dictators now telling the world what to do.

Andrew Sullivan Sees a Grand Design...

2010-12-19T13:03:00.000-05:00

... and it's hard to argue with him!

Like 2009's removal of the HIV ban, which was as painstakingly slow but thereby much more entrenched, this process took time. Without the Pentagon study, it wouldn't have passed. Without Obama keeping Lieberman inside the tent, it wouldn't have passed. Without the critical relationship between Bob Gates and Obama, it wouldn't have passed. It worked our last nerve; we faced at one point a true nightmare of nothing ... for years. And then we pulled behind this president, making it his victory and the country's victory, as well as ours.

It's a great day of celebration for the passage of this repeal and let us not also forget the contribution of Senators Lieberman and Collins. 65-31 sure does feel good!

DADT is Just About Done

2010-12-18T11:51:00.003-05:00

The Senate just voted to invoke cloture and end debate on Don't Ask Don't Tell 63-33. Now it needs 50 votes plus Biden to eliminate the policy.

I may have more on McCain's shenanigans later.

Fox News Misinforms? What?

2010-12-17T19:52:00.002-05:00

I know, the title is absolutely shocking. Who would have thought that fair and balanced doesn't mean fair and balanced when you have Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity as your major on air personalities. Thankfully, the University of Maryland just completed a study that found exposure to news sources correlates to being better informed. In a number of cases, however, greater exposure to a news source lead to greater misinformation.

Key finding: Fox News viewers were were "significantly" more likely than non-viewers to erroneously believe false information about the economy, taxes, climate change, bailouts and whether President Obama was born in the United States.

Again, who would have thought the gin-up-some-anger machine could lead to misinformation?

hat tip to Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

Health Care Law Follow-Up

2010-12-17T19:46:00.002-05:00

I don't want to step on Burnsy's toes, but I did want to repost what at least one of the legal scholars thinks about the issue. Professor Friedman at New England School of Law makes a compelling argument for the individual mandate's constitutionality:

In the end, you may have chosen not to pay for health insurance coverage, but you have not chosen to avoid an economic transaction. Surely Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate the aggregate effect on interstate commerce of all those individuals who have chosen to engage in that particular economic transaction.

You really need to read his whole argument (don't worry, it isn't too long). Part of its persuasiveness is in its simplicity. Anyway, I would like to hear some of those who believe it is unconstitutional. So, have at it in the comments.

If you think the health care mandate is clearly unconstitutional, this is probably over your head...

2010-12-17T18:31:00.000-05:00

I don't like talking down to anyone who would read this blog, but it's rather frustrating to hear amateur opinions as to why Congress supposedly lacks the power to enforce the individual mandate portion of the health care bill. It is most definitely not "unconstitutional." It may be unconstitutional in YOUR FUCKING OPINION. But let's not get that twisted with, like, the law...yo.

As this article so adequately details, it really doesn't matter what you or I think about the constitutionality of the mandate, it really only matters what the court concludes:

In his decision this week, Judge Hudson also mentioned the Comstock case, endeavoring to show why it didn’t save the statute. In my view, his effort to wish the case away was unpersuasive, but my view is not the one that matters. The view that ultimately may count the most is that of Chief Justice Roberts. As everyone knows, he was once William Rehnquist’s law clerk. So my question, as the health care debate continues on its path to the Supreme Court, is this: When John Roberts thinks about his former boss and mentor, which Rehnquist does he see? The one who started the federalism revolution, or the one who ended it?

So please, share your opinions and feel however you feel about the mandate as a government intrusion, but try to understand that it really isn't a black and white answer regarding wrong or right. It just sounds like you either a) don't understand "The Constitution," or b) don't understand how the system works.

DADT Must Go!

2010-12-17T14:53:00.000-05:00

The vote in the Senate is scheduled for tomorrow. Call your senators and encourage them to vote down this anachronism. And if you don't understand why it matters, read this:

And I'm reminded of the moral courage of my partner, who encourages me everyday to continue to put on that uniform; who believes that some things are worthy of our energies; who quietly plods along and prepares for my deployment as I do the same. I know as a soldier, it is the people we leave behind who bear the real brunt of deployment, who hold it all together, who send the care packages and pray for our returns. He'll have to do it on his own though. There are no support groups for the gay partners left back home.

In the meantime, gay soldiers who are still serving in silence will continue to put on our rucksacks and do what our country asks of us –- and wait.

(Hat tip: The Daily Dish)

The Hebrew Hammer Strikes Again

2010-12-17T10:27:00.000-05:00

This guy! NOT this guy!

It is perhaps a bit disconcerting when the only guy who seems to "get it" about the President is someone who stands in 180 degree opposition to him. Reading two columns back to back that laud the President, you get the feeling that perhaps you are being had. But I cannot escape the conclusion that I largely agree with him:

If Barack Obama wins reelection in 2012, as is now more likely than not, historians will mark his comeback as beginning on Dec. 6, the day of the Great Tax Cut Deal of 2010.

Obama had a bad November. Self-confessedly shellacked in the midterm election, he fled the scene to Asia and various unsuccessful meetings, only to return to a sad-sack lame-duck Congress with ghostly dozens of defeated Democrats wandering the halls.

Now, with his stunning tax deal, Obama is back. Holding no high cards, he nonetheless managed to resurface suddenly not just as a player but as orchestrator, dealmaker and central actor in a high $1 trillion drama.

Compare this with Bill Clinton, greatest of all comeback kids, who, at a news conference a full five months after his shellacking in 1994, was reduced to plaintively protesting that "the president is relevant here." He had been so humiliatingly sidelined that he did not really recover until late 1995 when he outmaneuvered Newt Gingrich in the government-shutdown showdown.

And that was Clinton responding nimbly to political opportunity. Obama fashioned out of thin air his return to relevance, an even more impressive achievement.

I'm sure Dobber would call me naive, but I think the Hammer is onto something here. I think the President played this the only way he could in order to extract an advantage. It may be a gamble, and it may not ultimately pay off in the way the Hammer (and I) predict, but it was the most clever play the President had in his arsenal. And I think it's downright funny how he is being second-guessed by the Left, which really should only help to secure his re-election chances in 2012.

9/11 First Responders

2010-12-17T08:45:00.005-05:00

You can tell the media is ineffectual when Jon Stewart is the only "newscaster" to actually report the news. Here is his most recent reporting on the entire Republican caucus - all 42 members - in the United States Senate refusing to allow a vote on providing healthcare for 9/11 first responders because millionaires haven't had tax cuts yet:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Worst Responders

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

He was even the only "news" program to actually interview first responders, although to give them credit, Fox News found plenty of first responders to interview when they wanted to scare us about an Islamic community center in downtown Manhattan:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

9/11 First Responders React to the Senate Filibuster

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

According to Open Congress, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, which has already passed the House, is

designed to improve health services and provide financial compensation for 9/11 first responders who were exposed to dangerous toxins and are now sick as a result. It would establish a federal program to provide medical monitoring and treatment for first responders, provide initial health screenings for people who were in the area at the time of the attack and may be at risk, and reopen the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund to provide compensation for losses and harm as an alternative to the current litigation system.

Congress uses protection?

2010-12-17T08:18:00.000-05:00

Is telling Americans they are getting a bipartisan tax cut simply a prophylaxis? Is this the type of thing that, if it were to break, you would be sued in Sweden?

Is America getting fucked?

I'm pretty sure Dobber thinks so...

'Tis the Season... for Charity!

2010-12-16T23:05:00.000-05:00

Hey folks. I know we're just getting started but it happens to be the Holiday Season, which is a great time to think about giving to charity. My wife and I were watching "The Last Word" with Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC tonight and he had a segment shown here on this fantastic charity through UNICEF called Kids In Need of Desks. The charity helps school age children in Malawi acquire the most basic of education infrastructure. Please check out the link and give if you can!

Big Books Are Scary

2010-12-16T21:45:00.002-05:00

From TPM:

Minutes later, in one of the most chortling colloquies of the 111th Congress, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) gloated over the defeat of the spending bill.

Kirk, the most junior member of the Senate asked, "Did we just win?"

McCain responded, "I think there's very little doubt that the Majority Leader of the United States Senate would not have taken the action he just took if we didn't have 41 votes to stop this monstrosity."

Kirk continued, "so for economic conservatives, a 1,924-page bill just died?

"A 1,924-page bill just died," McCain responded laughing.

Can I just ask why the length of the bill is more important to Senator Kirk than the actual spending contained in it? Does a bill become a poor bill at a certain page limit?

This is a test post!

2010-12-16T17:37:00.000-05:00

I am just typing out a test post before we fully get started. I want to make sure the proper notices go where they are supposed to go.

Again...I don't want to keep harping about it but...

2008-08-07T12:26:00.002-04:00

CNN has posted this article about the Great Firewall of China...

For many overseas reporters now in Beijing, covering the Summer Games has turned into an Olympian task.

We go through tedious security checkpoints to cover events and conduct interviews even as we deal with bureaucratic and linguistic barriers. But we face one particularly irritating issue: China's limits on Internet access.

Despite Beijing's earlier promise to allow open reporting and unfettered access to information, Internet access remains erratic and unpredictable. "It's so counter-intuitive to find the Internet restricted, even if only selectively," one western journalist told me in Beijing.

Last week, colleagues working in the Media Press Center faced a blank computer screen whenever they clicked on sites deemed sensitive to the Chinese authorities -- like Amnesty International and Falun Gong.

That is attributed to China's sophisticated filter system, also known as the "Great Firewall."

Why the paranoia? Pro-democracy activists, as well as advocates for Tibet independence and the spiritual group Falun Gong, have Web sites carrying information and views that the Chinese authorities deem "subversive."

Not to heap it on ...

2008-08-07T10:03:00.000-04:00

Here is a very interesting OP-ED in the Washington Post this morning talking about the perception "chasm" between how China views itself in the world and how the rest of the world views China. Give it a read.

Disturbing Olympiad

2008-08-05T09:28:00.002-04:00

Okay, it is a little bit frightening that there was an explosion killing 16 people in China the week that the Olympics are to start. However, it is even more frightening that the Chinese response has been to lockdown and detain journalists who were in the area of the explosion.

Please, again, someone remind me why China gets to host the Olympics?

I understand the importance of the global economy and free trade, but surely, while our country, at least, is apparently spreading a democratic message across the globe and rooting out tyranny, does it make sense to send our athletes to compete in a country that has not yet awoken to the toll of the bells of human rights? It is tacit acceptance of China's atrocious human rights violations when we go and we further empower their already dominating economy.

Why are we filled with such cowardice?

Of course, I know the answer to that. We need China. We need their growing "consumer class," their industrial capacity, oh, and, um . . . they own a grossly enormous portion of our national debt. So, there is that too . . .

I understand it all to a certain extent. But our response is as pitiful as it is predictable, and it is a shame to see us again fall short of our ideals. But I am not an idealist really, and so I've become accustomed to the reality of our being in bed with this repressive Chinese regime that we so depend on in our international economics and politics. I bitch about it here because it is what I do. I always bitch about China. I was bitching about China back in high school when I consistently wrote letters to President Clinton and Michigan Senators Levin and Abraham, imploring them to deny China "most favored nation" trade status. But alas, we see how well that has worked out. And no matter all of the pragmatic and practical reasons for our continued support of China (notice I say support and not engagement--I support pragmatic engagement with China), it still bothers me to see us turn a blind eye to their domestic oppression and repression and their support for the genocidal regime in Khartoum. In fact, it makes me sick . . .

Speaking of sick . . .

The Hiatus is Over

2008-08-05T09:20:00.002-04:00

I should have probably informed the avid reader of this blog (both of you), why it is that I have not posted since early July. The reason for my hiatus is that I recently sat for the Virginia Bar Exam, which was July 29th and 30th, so the whole month of July was largely a wash.

How was the Bar you ask? Well, it was a painful reality for the second summer in a row. Last summer I took the Michigan Bar (and passed) and this year Virginia. In all honesty, I know that hindsight is 20/20 and that my passing the Michigan Bar probably makes it seem easier in retrospect, but it also felt easier when compared to the Virginia Bar this year. I felt more prepared this time around, and still utterly useless in the face of a creditor's rights question snuck in right before the lunch break on the first day.

We shall see how I do in Virginia, but for now, that is my explanation for my absence.

Thanks to all who helped me and offered their support during my studies, (again, both of you).

Get your pastel's here!

2008-07-02T11:18:00.002-04:00

I am not one to make light- okay, I am precisely one to make light- so here it is, I had to share this story with you all . . .

I want some comments on this!

Something you can do to help Iraq

2008-06-30T13:18:00.003-04:00

Read the Hitchens article here. And send books to:

Nathan Musselman
The American University of Iraq—Sulaimani
Building No. 7, Street 10
Quarter 410
Ablakh AreaSulaimani, Iraq
(+964) (0)770-461-5099

It's important to include the number at the end.

Must Read "Slate" Article on "Africa's Worst Dictator"

2008-06-30T12:18:00.005-04:00

I found a very interesting article on Slate.com today (it was posted nearly a week ago) that argues that the (now) infamous Robert Mugabe is not the worst African dictator. Check out the article here.

While the article is quite persuasive, especially as to the American role in propping up Obiang, it raises the more important question: What is our Africa policy? And, why are we allowing Africa to be overrun and controlled by such vicious dictators? I thought that our policy under Bush was that we were going to promote democracy . . . across the globe.

I am not arguing that we should inculcate ourself in every single mess throughout the world. And perhaps it is perfectly rationale to only pick the fights where we have a sustained economic interest. It just seems that, with everything that is going on in Africa today--Equatorial Guinea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Rwanda (yes, still), we ought to be doing something more. If only to protect our investment in providing drugs for the treatment of malaria and HIV. If only to make those efforts a little more worthwhile. Isn't there SOMETHING we can do? Because Africa is not just a democracy crisis. We are not just dealing with these disgusting dictators. We are dealing with a public health crisis with its heart on the African continent.

Maybe we are doing all that we can do. But something tells me that is not quite right. Something tells me that there is something else we can do, and that we ought to do it--sooner rather than later.

A Blind Squirrel and Bush . . .

2008-06-25T17:17:00.002-04:00

In yesterday’s NYTIMES, David Brooks made what appears to be the strongest argument on behalf of the Bush presidency, and Iraq policy in particular. (Though, strong is hardly a word for it.) The argument is that Bush, in his infinite stubbornness went to war in Iraq. His stubbornness frustrated the “purpose” of the war and created a mess. He kept approaching Iraq with the same stubbornness when it came to the “surge.” All of his military advisers and his Secretary of State thought that the surge was a bad idea, yet Bush, stubbornly went ahead with the plan. In Brooks’ words:

In these circumstances, it’s amazing that George Bush decided on the surge. And looking back, one thing is clear: Every personal trait that led Bush to make a hash of the first years of the war led him to make a successful decision when it came to this crucial call.

Bush is a stubborn man. Well, without that stubbornness, that unwillingness to accept defeat on his watch, he never would have bucked the opposition to the surge.

Bush is an outrageously self-confident man. Well, without that self-confidence he never would have overruled his generals.

Brooks may be well impressed with Bush’s stubborn decision and his willingness to keep pushing the same button, or keep filling in the same oval. His whole argument however, seems to break down to a long explanation of the old saw that, “even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in awhile.”

Yes, Brooks is correct that in politics and throughout history, no one side is right all of the time. However, I don’t think it is too much to ask of an American president that they try and find the right answer. Bush is the guy who sits down to the standardized test and answers “C” on every question. And sometimes he is “correct.” But this isn’t the approach I want from my politicians. I want someone who THINKS and recognizes that sometimes the answer is “C” and sometimes the answer is “A”, “B” or “D” and that all options ought to be, at the very least, considered. Some appreciation of nuance would be nice. The president that always answers “C” is the president that fails.

Tuesday Rant on the Headlines . . .

2008-06-24T11:55:00.003-04:00

There are numerous things in the news today that are bothering me, so if you don't mind I am just going to rant a little.

First, is the uproar over McCain advicer Charlie Black's comments suggesting that if a terrorist attack were to occur between now and the election, it would help John McCain politically. Predictably, this comment has drawn outrage from Barack Obama and strong chastisement from John McCain. But this was absolutely planned by the McCain campaign, this was not a gaffe, this was not a moment of accidental honesty (and it IS honesty) on Charlie Black's part. The McCain and Obama camps know equally that if there were another terrorist attack between now and the election, that it would turn some voters to the more "experienced" candidate in John McCain. McCain has consistently polled a little bit better than Obama on the issue of national security. This is no surprise. The outrage of Obama and the rebuke of McCain was also factored in by the McCain campaign as the "cost of doing business." These were merely transaction costs in an effort to get the issue of a possible terror attack back in the headlines and back into the minds of the American people.
Next up is the new Don Imus fiasco. I don't listen to Don Imus and I really don't care what he says. That being said, I think it was wrong that he was fired over his Rutgers comments. The comments were, if not plainly, then really close to the line of plainly, racist. They were inexcusable. But, I was under the impression that, in this country, you were allowed to express repugnant thoughts. He even apologized, which okay, maybe you don't want to take him at his word, but he DID apologize and he has paid a price for his comments, a price that was, in my mind, too high. Now, there are new suggestions of Don Imus' racism based on comments he made about the reputed NFL thug, Pacman Jones, being black. Okay, sure there is a whiff of racism when he says that he wasn't surprised to hear that Jones was black. And, it strikes me as a little disingenuous when he starts backpedaling and saying that he said he wasn't surprised because he was suggesting that the cops pick on black people. He then went on to say that the cops arrested Pacman 6 times because they were picking on him because he was black. And Al Sharpton says he hopes Imus means it. 1) Who cares what Al Sharpton hopes or thinks or says more than any other person? (How is it that treating one or two men as the spokesmen for black America is not more perjorative, demeaning and racist than what Imus spews?) 2) Pacman Jones is a thug and he has been arrested so many times because he has behaved in a way that was, shall we say, below reproach? I am not naive enough to suggest that somewhere along the line, his being black, played NO role, but I am suggesting it was not a predominant role. 3) Don Imus is what he is. If you think he is racist, then so be it. Treat him like the ignorant individual you believe him to be and don't listen to him and don't report on him. You ARE allowed to be publicly wrong, racist and ignorant in this country. But, in the words of someone wise, who, quite honestly I forget, the answer to repugnant or "bad" speech is not to shut the speaker down; the answer is MORE speech, by MORE people.
In the most "gag-me" campaign news I have ever heard, the report came out today that Obama and Hillary will make their first campaign stop together in Unity, New Hampshire, a town where they split the primary 107-107. I am quite sure that there are some people out there who think this is "neato," "cute" or "endearing." I happen to think this is absolutely obnoxious. Instead of cynically pandering to the naive and stupid, those seeking a sign, or a charming anecdote, as this clearly does, why doesn't the Obama campaign make Hillary join him in someplace where he actually needs her, like Florida, or perhaps maybe West Virginia where Hillary trounced him by 41% in a state Democrats CAN win? This is just stupid and only appeals to wild-eyed mush-brains.
Finally, Focus on the Family's James Dobson is taking on Obama over his interpretation of scripture. Dobson says of Obama, "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said. "... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter." Well said James, and perhaps you are right. But isn't that the point Obama was trying to make? That you can in fact take scripture and twist it to fit your own worldview or "confused theology?" Wasn't this Obama's point and isn't this what you have been doing for years? The idea that the Bible speaks out both (or multiple) sides of its "mouth" is neither new, nor surprising, but it underlines a basic point: USING the Bible to ones political advantage is astoundingly moronic. OF COURSE, you can find a scripture passage that "backs up" or "supports" your belief/opinion, but, for the most part, these provisions are contradicted or made ridiculous elsewhere in the Bible (both Old and New Testament) by another passage. This last point was made with typical poignancy in this clip from "The West Wing."

My Hero Tim

2008-06-19T14:36:00.002-04:00

I've been wanting to write something over the past several days since the passing of Tim Russert. But everything I wanted to say, seemed to be trite and inconsequential in any scheme of things, whether grand or small. I have watched the voluminous news coverage on NBC and MSNBC and have read about a dozen articles about Tim. Most of the stories have been light hearted and interesting and most have been confirmational of the sense that you always got from watching him.

I wanted to write about him because he was (and is) a hero to me. Why? Because he was one of the guys that worked his tail off and rose to the top. He did so without the benefit of an Ivy League education and the connections that provides. Instead, he proved himself in the crucible of Washington politics to be above "the rest."

I wrote last week in my post about Tiger and Phil, that I love watching genius at work. I love watching people who are the best at what they do. Tim Russert was the best at what he did and I loved watching him.

All of these things make him my hero. All of these are reasons why I watched him nearly every Sunday for the past 4 years. If I knew I was going to miss it, I dvr'd it, or made sure to catch a repeat. For me, watching Tim was appointment television. I hardly ever even referred to the show as "Meet the Press." Rather, I called it "Russert." He was the show and he was politics for me.

I don't think that Meet the Press will ever be the same. I don't know if it will ever be as good. I know that I will keep watching though. With this brilliant election season, how could I not?

I am not afraid to admit that I have shed a few tears over Tim's passing. It is very emotional to see his friends and his family remember him. It is very emotional to hear them say that the guy we saw on T.V. was the real guy. And so, while some may say that the coverage and eulogizing of Tim has been too much, it was just the right amount for me. I have never felt this way before. I have never felt loss from a distance, or shed a tear over someone I have never met. I have never grieved so remotely. To see and hear of others grieving so, comforted me. So for me, the coverage, the remembrances and the tears were in a word: perfect.

"If it's Sunday, it's "Meet the Press."" God Bless You Tim!

Interesting take on Muslims and Obama

2008-06-19T14:21:00.002-04:00

Here is an interesting piece from the Detroit Free Press on what Rochelle Riley thinks is the real issue with Obama volunteers asking the two Detroit area women in hijabs not to sit in the front row.

The bigger story is that hateful extremists who used to exist on the fringe of society are now taking over and too much is being done to appease them instead of ignore them.

The news media who worry that the hate-mongers will accuse them of being too kind to Obama have spent as much time on the volunteer's misguided actions as they have on what the candidates will do about the economy.

I hate hippies . . .

2008-06-18T17:38:00.002-04:00

I hate hippies almost as much as I hate fascists. This story brings them both together. Oh, and I love the First Amendment too so, this shit is dumb to me. Pun intended!

Ew!

Weird Story

2008-06-18T17:31:00.002-04:00

This is a good reader participation exercise. Here is a story from CNN.com.

The topic sentence of the story says it all: "A severed foot -- the sixth this year -- washed up on the shore of a Canadian island on Wednesday, police said."

Reader participation! I want to hear your narratives or your story to "explain" the severed feet washing up on the Pacific Northwest shore. This should be fun.

Great Sports Story!

2008-06-18T16:55:00.000-04:00

This is a cool sports story- check it out!

Paris for Obama

2008-06-17T14:35:00.002-04:00

According to Maureen Dowd of the NYTIMES, Paris has already decided thew election for Obama.

In the French imagination, Barack Obama is already the president.

To the French, the Democratic primary was the general election.

The word “elite” is not a pejorative here; it’s a compliment. It does not occur to Parisians that Americans will choose the old, white-haired one if they can have the cool, skinny one with the Ray-Bans, John le Carré novels, chic wife and secret cigarettes.

Full Column

Will on McCain

2008-06-17T14:28:00.002-04:00

In an excellent OP-ED in today's Washington Post, George Will takes McCain to task for his apparent disdain for constitutional rights, such as the right of habeas corpus. Read the article here.

Some highlights:

Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court -- meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees -- a campaign issue.

The decision, however, was 5 to 4. The nine justices are of varying quality, but there are not five fools or knaves. The question of the detainees' -- and the government's -- rights is a matter about which intelligent people of good will can differ.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), which launched and validated judicial supervision of America's democratic government, Chief Justice John Marshall asked: "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?" Those are pertinent questions for McCain, who aspires to take the presidential oath to defend the Constitution.