The Political Spectrum

Arlen Specter has some (in his mind, at least) sage advice for the President. From the Washington Post:

President Bush would be wise to "pick up the phone" and consult with Democrats before choosing a new Supreme Court justice. "The advice clause in the Constitution has been largely ignored." If there is a vacancy on the high court, "the far right is going to come hard at a nominee if it is not a nominee of their choosing. But I think there's a much broader base in America than the far right." Changing the Senate rules to prohibit filibusters of judicial nominees -- the "nuclear option" -- could have deleterious short-term effects and run the long-term risk of eroding the rights of the minority. "If we go to the nuclear option . . . the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be hell."

The article goes on to note that

If you thought that his brush with losing the committee chairmanship had chastened the legendarily contrarian Specter, if you thought his recent diagnosis of Hodgkin's disease might have tempered his approach -- well, that wasn't the Specter on display in a visit with The Post editorial board yesterday. Instead, the discussion featured Specter Unbound: the Specter who voted against Robert H. Bork rather than the one who rallied to the defense of Clarence Thomas.

You know, I could swear someone here warned about this happening. Anyway, the Post is right, Specter has not given any indication of being remotely chastened by either his narrow primary victory or the failed Judiciary Committee coup.

Of course Specter's comments, while not endearing him to conservatives, did inspire the Post to gush about this oh-so-brave soul.

This may be the Specter conservatives feared -- but it also seems like the chairman the committee (and the country) needs.

Indeed. Surely the country needs a duplicitous, self-serving RINO chairing the committee which plays a vital role in shaping the judiciary, an individual with absolutely no loyalty to his party or president and who is seemingly committed to sinking true-blue conservatives before they breach the sanctity of our Courts, and who is well-trained in the John McCain school of kissing up to the press.

Hat tip to Kathryn Lopez.

Also posted at Confirm Them.

Read more!

At the risk of opening up a huge can of proverbial worms, I am going to attempt to tackle the two thorny "right to die" (admittedly, I don’t like this label that has been given to this issue as it, in my opinion, is nothing more than a rhetorical phrase that is wholly devoid of signifigant meaning, but since it has become the commonly accepted label I will use it albeit as sparingly as possible) issues that have received notable news attention in the last several days. I fully understand that this issue is charged with legal, emotional, religious, philosophical and other points of view, but I will do my best to stick to my so-called area of knowledge, i.e., the law.

First, the Terri Schiavo case that has re-emerged on the national scene. Speaking strictly legally, this case is pretty simple and really doesn’t raise a lot of unique issues. The relevant legal facts, in my opinion are these, Mrs. Schiavo is married and was involved in a major accident some 10 years ago, the result of which has placed her in a medical condition that requires her to be fed through a feeding tube. Mrs. Schiavo left no "living will" or other legal document that dictates what her wishes with respect to "life support"or other medical treatment is and currently is unable to effectively communicate her present desires to anyone. As I understand things, the law here is quite clear, by virture of her marriage, Mr. Schiavo is the "next of kin" and as such is authorized to make any and all decision on behalf of his wife. The fact that the parents and Mr. Schiavo disagree about what that decision is, while unfortunate and heartbreaking, is nonetheless not really relevant, since the law gives Mr. Schiavo and not her parents the legal authority to make the decision.

Some advocates of the parents point-of-view have attempted to argue that Mr. Schiavo could (and should given his new "relationship" and subsequent children) get divorced and turn Mrs. Schiavo back over to her parents who would of course continue the medical treatment. However, unfortunately, I don’t think that this is an option pursuant to Florida law. In most states that have adopted "no-fault" divorce statutes, divorce, like marriage is a consensual action. In other words, both parties have to agree to get a divorce. While usually consent isn’t difficult to obtain, it is nevertheless required. Mrs. Schiavo is, due to her condition, unable to consent to the divorce and, to my knowledge, left no legal document giving legal authorization (usually in the form of a power of attorney) to anyone that could consent to the divorce. Now, even if Florida has preserved a "fault" divorce system, and Mr. Schiavo by virtue of his actions qualified, on say, adultery grounds, it still may not be possible to obtain a divorce, because Mrs. Schiavo is the only person who would have the necessary legal standing to initiate the court proceeding required to obtain the divorce. Moreover, Mr. Schiavo also appears incapable of first obtaining a declaration of death for the purposes of obtaining a divorce, because as we are all aware, Mrs. Schiavo is not dead, but rather is severely incapacitated.

Hence, we appear to be back to the original proposition, which is that given the marriage, Mr. Schiavo, like his decision or not, has the legal right, absent any legal instrument to the contrary, to make medical decisions for his wife. No court decision that has come to any other conclusion has been upheld and intrusion by the other branches of government has been overturned as a violation of separation of powers. As I have said, a sad, tragic story, but ultimately not a difficult legal issue.

The second situation, however, involving the State of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, presents many different issues and is a much more difficult legal case. This case presents a potential conflict between the validly enacted Oregon state statute and the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which regulates the narcotics used by doctors in terminal cases. Of course the actual question that the Supreme Court will decide next term arguably ducks the "federalism" issues presented by the case and renders it essentially a statutory construction case, the policy/philosophcal questions about the role of the government, state or federal are still interesting and should be worthy of discussion.

Because I have rambled on long enough, I’ll simply say this, while it is clear from the Supreme Court's decision in Washington v. Gluksburg, that the Constitution affords no "right to die" that decision in no way precludes the State of Oregon from doing exactly what it did and enacting a statute regulating the area. Again, agree or disagree with the state’s decision, (which by the way was made in the truest of democratic fashions, via public referendum, meaning that this measue was not enacted by elected representivies in the legislature, but rather by the people of Oregon directly) their authority to make it is, in my opinion, unchallengeable. Whether the CSA has any bearing on the state’s ability to effectively execute the statute is another question, but since my theme and focus here has been on legal authority, it appears fairly clear that Mr. Schiavo and Oregon have at least that much in common, i.e., they both have the legal authority to make the decisions they have made with respect to the "right to die," regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees with their choices.

Read more!

James Taranto writes that Hillary Clinton is the person at this moment most likely to be our next President, if for no other reason than the odds are higher for her than any other individual. He makes some fine observations, then closes with this:

Republican loathing could well help her in the general election too. As we argued throughout last year's campaign, partisan loathing for President Bush was a hindrance to Democrats. They mistook their emotions for facts, which made them overconfident. They thought running a totally negative campaign would be sufficient; it didn't occur to them that doing so reflected badly on them, not on Bush. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee in 2008, Republicans run the risk of repeating these mistakes.

His comments hit me like an epiphany from on high. He is exactly right, and conservatives would do well to repeat this for the next three-and-a-half years: Do not let our hatred of Mme. Hillary get in the way. She is a loathsome figure, but just saying she is a loathsome figure is not going to defeat her. I firmly believe that the vitriol spewed at President Bush for over four years actually did more in the long-run to help him because it turned off a good number of moderates. Many of us like to deride the public as stupid, but they are not as foolish as we like to think, and many want to hear substance over simple-minded venemous comments directed at the opposition. Thus those of us on the right would do well to keep that in mind and refrain from overstepping the bounds of decent rhetoric. There is enough there substantively to defeat Hillary, we need not delve too deeply into lampoonish caricatures that only make her slightly more sympathetic to the public.

Read more!

There is no better way to celebrate Washington's birthday than by visiting his breathtaking estate in Mount Vernon. It is easy to understand why the greatest of our Founding Fathers simply wished to retire to his farm after the war rather than attend to politics, but unfortunately for our Nation's Cincinnatus, his country called him to guide it in its transition into a constitutional republic. And so he answered the call.

We honor him because without him we would not exist as a Nation. Imagine a man whose brilliance as a general guides a ragtag group of rebels to victory against arguably the greatest military force on the planet, garnering independence for a Nation which is to prove to the world that a people can be trusted with self-governance.

Now picture a second man, charged with the task of running a republic in its formative years. Every action that the man undertakes will be a precedent that will set the tone of what the Nation is to be. He had to avoid all the trappings of monarchy while also working to ensure that the office of Chief Magistrate has enough dignity and respect to ensure its own strength, and in doing so guarantee the vitaility of the republic. And on top of that, he had to manage an administration stacked with enormously talented and yet vain and headstrong individuals, all the while overseeing the development of the new Nation, quashing the occasional uprising, and keeping a jealous eye upon the European Nations.

Of course we know that George Washington is both men, and indeed the father of this great Nation has rightly earned the respect he so richly deserves. The towering monument in the middle of the Nation's capital is a fitting tribute. And today we honor the man that allowed the republic to come into being with his own special day. That's right, today we honor George Washington with
. . .President's Day?

Huh? Come again? President's day? The man just about singlehandedly is responsible for the birth of the greatest Nation in the history of the world and we honor with some generic holiday that essentially incorparates such titans as James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Jimmy Carter. Excuse me, but WHAT THE FUCK?

Have we become so historically distorted as a country that we cannot honor the greatest American, the father of this Nation, with a holiday all his own? Is it too much to ask that we can the silly euphamisms and memorialize a giant among men? Martin Luther King - a truly wonderful human being, to be sure, and certainly worthy of much praise and adoration for all of his accomplishements, but certainly someone not in the arena of George Washington - gets his own holiday, and yet we disrespect the man who gave us our freedom by honoring him along with all the other clods who occupied his office?

And I haven't even gotten to Lincoln. Oh yeah, he may have kept the Nation in tact and guided it through its most tumultuous time ever, and sure he may have liberated a few million slaves, and yeah his steady persistence and ability to carefully and brilliantly deal with the egos within his administration and the military provided steady leadership in trying times, but other than that what did he do to earn his own day of recognition?

It's easy to get caught up in the pettiness of what is really not that big a deal. And I'm going to do what's easy. It is a national disgrace that these two men do not merit special holidays all their own. And don't give me some bullshit about how "President's day" really is a commemoration of Washington and Lincoln, because then the holiday should be called "Washington and Lincoln Day." Oh no, we would not want to draw special attention in these politically correct days to truly meritorious individuals, because then we might offend the sacred memory of Benjamin Harrison, and Lord knows we wouldn't to leave him out the fun after all he accomplished. After all, who are we to say which President was truly great and who was a dud. Surely Jimmy Carter accomplished as much in office as Lincoln and Washington, after all he was the guy who almost brought us world peace. If by almost you mean destroying the country and therefore ensuring we didn't have to worry about world peace because there wouldn't be a world requiring peace.

Maybe it would be inappropriate to draw comparisons between this and the wonders of outcome-based education and other wonders of our blessed educational establishment. "Johnny is just as smart as Billy, even if Billy can split an atom and Johnny thinks 2=2=y5u24wy5. Johnny is a special kid, and he's trying, and it's the effort that counts." And just because Abraham Lincoln fulfilled the work begun by George Washington doesn't mean he's any better than the lousy peanut farmer from Georgia who gave us malaise. After all Jimmy Carter was a nice guy who smiled a lot, and that's got to count for something.

Oy. Well, for what it's worth, happy WashingtonAdamsJeffersonMadisonMonroeAdamsJacksonVanBurenHarrison
TylerPolkTaylorFillmoreBuchananPierceLincolnJohnsonGrantHayesGarfield
ArthurClevelandHarrisonClevelandMcKinleyRooseveltTaftWilsonHarding
CoolidgeHooverRooseveltTrumanEisenhowerKennedyJohnsonNixonFordCarter
ReaganBushClintonBush day everyone (with a shot out to George Will on that one).

Read more!

Lest Paul be the only one to use this forum to make recommendations re. entertainment consumption, I wish to put my two cents in on the side of The Day of the Jackal. Not the crappy Bruce Willis remake (in which Jack Black offers the only amusement) but the 1973 original. ("Original," here, means "first adaptation of the novel.)

The plot begins when the French government learns that veterans of Algeria, angered at DeGaulle's release of that country, have hired an unidentified assassin to off the French president. The ensuing cross-Continent detective work is kick-ass. The film also just looks good: men in suits; people smoking; sporty cars.

Read more!

I like to think that the radio silence on my part has been deafening. My legions of fans may have been wondering: "Is life as a first year associate that busy?" And I answer: "Yes. Yes, it is."

What prompts this return is a concurring 3d Cir. opinion from yesterday (to my attention from How Appealing, via co-clerk NMR). The op., which starts on p. 30 of the .pdf file, addresses a question that perplexed me as a law clerk: what is a question of fact and what is a question of law? This question did not perplex my co-clerks, so much as it annoyed them; it annoyed them because I was always harping on it.

The question is an important one, because it sets the standard of review. (I'm not sure district judges ever have to face the issue, though they might have to in their appellate or quasi-appellate capacity over bankruptcy judges and magistrates.) Judge Ambro's suggestion follows:

…However, a practical test I propose for determining whether a question is one of fact, of law, or of both fact and law, is as follows. A question of fact can be answered solely by determining the facts of a case (without any need to know the law relevant to the case). A question of law can be answered solely by determining what relevant law means (without any need to determine the facts of a case). A mized question of fact and law can only be answered by both determining the facts of a case and determining what the relevant law means.
For example, imagine that a man is appealing his conviction under a law that states "it is a crime to be tall." What kind of question is: “Was the trial court correct to find the man ‘tall’?” Can we answer it solely by determining the facts of the case? No, because even if we know the fact that the man is five feet ten inches, we do not know if he is “tall” in the sense that Congress intended the word “tall” to mean. Can we answer it solely by determining what the relevant law means without knowing the man’s height? No, because even if we know that the statute defines “tall” as “six feet or taller,” we do not know how tall the man is. Thus, we have a mixed question of fact and law. Once we know the facts of the case (that the man is five feet ten inches tall), and what the relevant law means (it is a crime to be six feet tall or taller), we can answer “no” to the question “Was the trial court correct to find the man 'tall’?”

Judge Ambro's solution is simple, straightforward, and completely useless.

A couple of observations. First, it presumes that Congress actually had a set of facts in mind that they wished to regulate. Of course, that is not true. (Not only do the members of Congress not have anything in mind when they legislate, they usually don't have anything in mind at all. Do people realize how stupid legislators are?) But I don't suppose this fiction works any more havoc here than it does in other places, so I'll let it pass.

Second, note the way Ambro, J.'s, distinctions are worded: Facts can be determined solely on the basis of facts. Law can be determined solely on the basis of law. Somehow, unenlightening. Oh, and for a mixed question of law and fact you need to know both the law and the facts.

More importantly, it is useless, because it produces the result that there are few pure questions of fact, and few pure questions of law. There would still be some cases in which a court had a pure question of law. So, for example, if a defendant claims "Congress' statute, enacted on such-a-date, repealed the statute under which I was convicted." The prosecution responds "No, it didn't, that was a scrivener's error." And then the district court, and court of appeals, have to decide the "pure" scope of the amendatory statute. But the vast majority of cases wind up mixed questions, in which the judge needs to parse out the standards of review: the question which was supposed to be resolved by the first round of distinctions. So we're back at where we started.

Very seldom does a legal question play as stark a role as in my repealed (or not?) statute hypothetical. It is more often the case that a judge speaking about "pure" law is -- unless he is quoting -- offering an improper advisory opinion. Judges are free to quote to their hearts' content; but unless the facts of a case force them to address an issue, what they say about law isn't worth the paper it's written on. Which leads me to a segue. (Don't you wish blogger had footnotes?) I tend to fall on the "conservative" side of legal issues. But there is a strain of that side that bugs me: the harping about how judges should apply the law without concern for the facts. This is simply silly. Judges decide cases, and you can't have cases without facts. Law is, in many ways, a second-order phenomenon that never actually happens (or can never be observed) within one case. Instead, you know the law when you observe over a sufficiently long period of time how judges dispose of fact situations. But, then again, I think all regulatory statutes should be repealed and we should return to common law regulation. (Don't you wish blogger had footnotes?)

But the root of my opposition to Ambro is based on a lesson that it took me too long to learn. The lesson is this: When you think a social form produces an unintended consequence, ask yourself if that was really the intended consequence all along. There are many seemingly-fortuitous consequences that were really intended from the get-go. Here's an example. (Don't you wish blogger had footnotes?) Congress passes a statute guaranteeing that, if you represent a veteran, you will receive a $100 fee. Wow, you might first think, Congress is making sure there are funds so that veterans have attorneys. They must want to increase the number and quality of claims on veterans' behalf. But the opposite happens (and was intended to happen): attorneys don't work for $100, so veterans wind up without representation, so there are fewer claims on the government.

Applying that lesson here, we should start with the last step: that certain aspects of a district court's decision can be easily altered on appeal, and certain aspects cannot. My conclusion is: appellate judges do not apply de novo review once they determine an issue is a legal one. Rather, they decide an issue is a legal one so that they can review de novo. I don't think this is done in a devious fashion (necessarily). Instead, it is in large part based on the hierarchical structure of judges. Consider 100 people making decisions; despite written instructions, there is going to be a lack of uniformity. But if the decisions of those 100 people are filtered through 10 reviewers, that lack of uniformity is decreased. The parts that should be uniform are what we deem to be legal questions, and are the questions that are 10 hypothetical reviewers are most free to correct. But the parts that need not be uniform (because the facts of cases differ) are the ones that the 10 people don't really care to alter.

Read more!

Slow work day, so I thought I would add to the substantive political dialogue on this site by creating a new list: my pick for the top ten movies of all time.

10. The Devil's Advocate This used to be much closer to the top, but over time, Keanu "Wow, dude, you're like Satan and stuff" Reeves' complete inability to act distracts from the affair. That said, there are two reasons to love this movie: Charlize Theron nude, and Al Pacino's completely hammy and over-the-top performance, particularly in the final 20 minutes. And how can you not like a movie that contains the classic discussion of lawyers and how they are quite literally doing Satan's work. "Do you know that there are more people in law school than there are lawyers walking the earth? We're coming out! Guns blazing."

9. Dr. Strangelove Speaking of hammy, over-the-top performances, this movie is full of brilliant performances of this nature. Peter Sellers proves his sheer excellence in not one, not two, but three roles, and George C. Scott as General Turgidson is one of the great performances of all-time. And of course there is the eternal image of Slim Pickens riding the nuke all the way down as it crashes into Russian soil. "Shoot, a boy can have a pretty good time in Vegas with all that stuff." Bonus points for anyone who can name the city originally mentioned in that line.

8. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back Only a true Star Wars geek would write the title out like that. And so it is. Anyway, I love all the Star Wars pics - yes, even Episode I, but really this is the only one that actually has a real substantive plot. I think what makes this the best of the lot is the dark nature of the movie. All of the rest contain much fluffery that, while endearing in its own way, detract from the mood. This has none of that. I'm praying that neither will Episode III.

7. Field of Dreams There is only one movie that can make me cry, and I trust many other guys can relate. When Ray realizes that the catcher is his father, and the two of them have a catch at the end of the movie . . . I have to pause here. Getting verklempt. Okay, better. I can even overlook Shoeless Joe Jackson batting righty in order to appreciate this movie.

6. Goodfellas From Ray Liotta as a baseball player to Ray Liotta as an out of control mobster. Actually, what makes this movie interesting is that it one of the few times that Liotta does not play the most insane character in a movie. I've thought long and hard about what not to like about this movie, and there's really nothing I can think of. Hell, even the soundtrack is brilliant. "Why am I funny?" Yeah, I've had that discussion with many a person.

5. Pulp Fiction Another movie that used to be slightly higher, but has not aged as well for some reason, though still vastly entertaining if for no other reason that it still feels completely unique. Throw out Bruce Willis' really fucking annoying wife, and this movie is perfect. But man, she's so annoying that it just drags the movie to a hault. But still, Samuel Jackson? That's one bad ass motherfucker.

4. American Beauty Okay, so this one is a tough call. I see the backlash against this movie and how it is almost conformist in its critique of conformity, but I loved it the first time I saw it, and I still appreciate every second of this wonderful picture. No, suburban life is not the hell that director Sam Mendes makes it out to be, and one should be careful about unduly praising reckless behavior. But this movie is more than some mindless Hollywood drivel about spontaneity. We all have moments in our lives when we realize that it hasn't quite turned out as expected, and we should strive to get back to the idealism of youth, though perhaps without completely abandoning the maturity that comes with age. Ah, whatever, great cast, great script, great movie.

3. The Godfather Come on, it's the Godfather. Do I really need to explain. No, then let's move on.

2. Se7en Couldn't resist the somewhat hackneyed use of the numeral in place of the letter v. So be it. I like dark movies. I like movies that do not necessarily have happy endings. I like movies that play around with theological themes in a way that is neither preachy nor mindbendingly silly. I like movies which open with Nine Inch Nails. Most importantly, I like movies in which I am entertained for every second, and this is one of the rare ones in which my fingers are not playing with the remote for even a moment in considering fast-forwarding. The fact that this movie failed to receive an Oscar nomination is the greatest crime in the history of the Academy Awards - especially considering it was passed over for such thought-provoking classics as Babe and Apollo 13 - and is a reason I rarely watch the ridiculous show, unless of course some really cool person is happening to have an Oscar party.

1. Lord of the Rings I ain't separating them, because if I did they would completely swallow the list. You see what happens Hollywood when you actually follow the text of the book? Lots of movies of this nature get caught up in the technology (see Matrix, The), but fortunately Peter Jackson remembered you also need a story in order for the viewer to appreciate the entire movie-going experience. I watched all three volumes - uncut - recently, and it just made me appreciate the sheer perfection of this movie (or movies). Action, drama, humor, great cast, and a pretty cool score to boot. But no, I did not dress like a character when I attended any of the showings, unlike the poor young chap next to me at Return of the King who claimed to be quite fluent in the "Qwindi" dialect of Elvish. It may be a great book and movie, but it's just that fellas.

Honorable mention: The Usual Suspects, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, Silence of the Lambs, Animal House, Ghostbusters, E.T., The Exorcist, The Godfather Part II

Enjoy your weekend

Read more!

One pill makes you larger
and one pill makes you small
but the ones that mother gives you
don't do anything at all
Go ask Alice
when she's ten feet tall

The other day I had the distinct privilege of going to the National Archives. Ahhh, so many cool documents, dilegently restored and kept clean by the wonderful men and women, but mostly women, who work there. (Remember kids, bookbinding is fun.)

And behold I entered the divine sanctuary which kept the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and Al Gore's Earth in the Balance. The huey green light nearly blinded me, but there they were, the sacred documents of our Nation's history. Walking up to the Consitution my body trembled, my mind pulsated with the incredible excitement of being in the presence of the one true document. Or maybe it was the lack of sleep. Whatever, the point is it was really cool.

But what was cooler was having the secret revaled to me. Though conservative since birth, and therefore not permitted to see the truth behind these documents, some divine manifestation allowed me to read what until now only the high priests of the Supreme Court had been able to see. That's right. The secret scribblings of the Constitution, written in disappearing ink, hidden to all but the mighty men in black, were revealed.

And behold I saw all sorts of penumbras and emanatations. The undisputed right to abortion on demand was suddenly visible to me. There it was, Article 7, section 3, right between the right to gay marriage and the incorporation doctrine. Finally, full enlightenment was endowed to me, pitiful conservative that I am.

And lo Harry Reid's words were revealed to be true. Indeed, whatever doubts I had about the scrappy little man from whatever the hell small town in Nevada the guy is from were erased. As Ramesh Ponnoru relates:

Harry Reid today said that the people President Bush just renominated for judgeships “have already been turned down in the Senate.” He also said that there has “always been a 60-vote [threshold] for judges”: “Go back decades and it’s always been that way.”

Nay, Harry, nay. Not decades, but centuries. For written in the secret pen oh those many years ago was the mystery clause of the Constitution. For over two centuries dimwitted fools mistakenly believed that the Constitution merely required a majority vote to confirm the President's nominees to the Courts. FOOLS! No, clearly written in the secret pen are the words "there shall really be a 60-vote threshold for judges."

You see, Senator Reid must have the same divine guidance that I felt that day. He, too, understands that the Constitution really requires a 3/5 vote for confirmation. After all, it's there in black and white. Well, really blue and gold - that's the color of the magic ink that the rest of you can't see.

And to think we made fun of this holy man last week for crying like a little girl when the Republican party sent out letters daring to criticize this true genius' judgement. Surely we were wrong in our censure of the man who has . . . the gift. We must all certainly apologize for thinking that Senator Reid's whiny little outburst from last week where he revealed himself to be a thin-skinned weakling unworthy of setting foot in the Capitol let alone holding a high seat of power because only a little girly man would have the unmitigated gaul to whine about unfair haracterizations when after all the party that he represents specializes in unfair characterizations if not outright slander against anyone who dares hold an opinion contrary to their unspoiled opinions, opinions for which no right-thinking person could ever criticize after all they've got all the wise and talented academics who know more than the rest of us dumb Americans and if they social security is not in crisis well then it must not be in crisis because after all they said so, it's not like a simple Lexis-Nexis search would quickly reveal that most of these bozos were saying the opposite thing like five years ago because that would imply they're all hypocrites.

And how can I accuse the party which just selected Howard Dean as its chairman of hypocrisy, when after all who better represents the party of Jackson's maddening descent into more madness. I could go on and on about how Howard Dean is about as qualified to lead a major political party as Michael Jackson is to be a kindergarten teacher, but that would be a cheap shot unfair to Michael Jackson. After all, he does have experience with children. And, no, I won't point out the bitter irony of a bunch of people who have spent the better part of five years deriding President Bush as a complete moron now holding up as their great icon of hope a man whose default facial expression is "deer caught in the headlights." Oh come on, it would be a cheap shot to note that every time that the man is asked a question more complex than what's your favorite type of syrup he freezes up and answers in a hesitating voice, because after all the man was what, the governor of fucking Vermont, and he like raised a lot of money in order to finish in third freaking place in the IOWA caucus. Oh yeah, he be the Messiah. I'm sure that seminar, "How to blow 52 million dollars in one month in order to lose to a horse-faced Senator from Massachusetts and some slick-talking lawyer boy from North no South no North Carolina who wouldn't know a filibuster from a Dave N' Buster in some podunk caucus in the middle of the country" has been a big hit at all the DNC events.

But when you have as much talent as the Democrats, who wouldn't be excited? You've got a Senator who has a secret insight into the Constitution leading them in the Senate, and a dingbat from Vermont leading the national party. And who can forget their weighty House leader, the woman who awed the world only a couple of weeks ago with her dramatic State of the Union response. Schoolhouses across the Middle East have posted her words in every classroom, as they have inspired millions of little would-be democrats of the true value of boredom.


Let the good times roll, baby.

Cellophane flowers of yellow and green
Towering over your head
look for the girl with the sun in her eyes
and she's gone
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
Lucy in the sky with diamonds
Lucy in the sky with diamonds
Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh

Read more!

Every couple of decades a member of the DC city council says something reasonable. When such occasions arise, it is best to button up because the temperature down below - and I don't mean Paul Hogan's homeland - just got a wee bit colder.

Anyway, there is an article in the DC Examiner on the question of whether the cameras they've got all over the city in some crazy homage to Oceania have in fact saved lives. There was a 35% decline in traffic fatalities last year, and some attribute the decline to the traffic cameras. Others have noted that there were fewer drunk-driving fatalities, and certainly drunk drivers do not care about cameras. Still others have observed that there has been no discernible decline in speeding across the city.

Whatever one thinks about those marvellous cameras, which really none of us should question (Shhhhh. The red light is on, meet me over by the Waterfront mall at 2 am to discuss this issue. Wear all black.) it's hard to disagree too much with City Councilman Phil Mendelsohn - never thought I'd type that.

"You're playing with the numbers to try to prove something,to justify the amount of money you've extorted from drivers in the District," he said. "You've got mayhem and murder in the streets, but the one thing the District does well is go after drivers, because they are the cash cow."

Perhaps Councilman, oh, excuse me, councilperson Mendelsohn is being a bit unfair. After all, it is not right to expect the overworked police force of the District, people who have spent hours upon hours cautioning people not to jaywalk, patrolling the mean streets of Friendship Heights, and sitting in threes to patrol the intersection of Military Road and 31st street just to catch someone going 4 miles over the speed limit, to actually go into the dangerous areas of the city to bust people committing real crimes. Sure, there might be some guy selling crack along the Anacostia, but it's the guy chatting on his cell phone while driving that is the real menace to society.

At any rate, three cheers to Phil Mendelsohn. But just to calmly reassure my beneficent DC guardians, I repeat my allegiance:

I love big brother.

Read more!

The sun is shining just a bit brighter today, the air seems just a tad fresher, and life's worries seem to be drifting away. Why? Because pitchers and catchers reported for spring training this very day, signaling to all of us sports-starved maniacs that baseball season is but right around the corner.

For those of us who couldn't quite frankly give two shiznits about the pathetic NBA, this is truly the most miserable time of the year. Football season has ended, and there's nothing left to do but, I don't know, live life. But in camps around Florida and Arizona, the boys of summer are gearing up and getting ready to play some baseball. Of course, some have reported aleady, like this year's eventual Cy Young winner Pedro Martinez. But as of today it all begins again for the greatest sport God has ever blessed mankind with.

Everything seems possible this time of the season. Everyone is even with the Yankees, and everyone is a potential world champion. Except the Cubs, because only one curse can end per lifetime.

And speaking personally, this time of year always brings me back to my youth, of gearing up for the upcoming little league season by playing catch with my father or the kids on the block. The glove is re-oiled (ah, the smell of baseball glove oil), and there remains the eternal optimism that you just might win one game this year. Yeah, I had a really lously little league team every solitary season, but such is life.

And of course it should happen to be an incredibly bright and sunny mid-winter's day in the nation's capital, which only serves to re-inforce that Spring is nigh, and the crack of the bat will soon be heard once again in this city. Oh sure, the team will stink, but there's baseball to be played, and at least for this brief time we can focus on the glorious anticipation of a new season. I already can't wait for that first trip to RFK, to sit and watch Pedro come to town and pitch the first perfect game in Mets' history.

Hey, it's the first day of spring training. Everything is still possible.

Read more!

Dave over at Garfield Ridge has tender wishes for those dating this happy Valentine's day.

If you are not married, and you are instead dating someone on this Valentine's Day, I wish you one thing:

Ass cancer.

Yes, you heard me right: ass cancer. Festering, lumpy, hot-to-the-touch, tumor-ridden ass cancer.

If you're a man who's taking his sweetheart out for dinner this evening, I want you to get food poisoning and vomit up your gall bladder.

If you're a woman looking forward to flowers, I hope your ovaries calcify.

If you're a man shopping for the perfect piece of jewelry, may your credit rating be ruined by Nigerian identity theives.

If you're a woman salivating at the thought of Valentine's chocolates, you should know that chocolate is made out of puppies, you disgusting puppy-eater.

If you're a man splashing on a touch of cologne, I hope it splashes in your eyes, sulfurizing your corneas into a dripping mess of goo.

If you're a woman laying out here delicate underthings for an after-dark adventure, I hope you get an oily case of the Clap.

If you're a man dressing up for a night out on the town, I hope your testicles get shredded in your zipper.

But again, if you're married today: congratulations, you've found true love.

If you're a pair of dating lovebirds, however, I wish you an unending nightmare of bloody rectal ulcerations from seat worms.

Nothing personal.

While I can't say I wholeheartedly endorse Dave's sentiments, I do understand where he's coming from.

Happy Hallmark card holiday, everyone.

Read more!

According to a brief filed yesterday in the Supreme Court by the State of Virginia, the establishment clause of the First Amendment does not apply to the states (Hat tip: Findlaw via How Appealing) .

This attempt to rekindle the "incorporation" debate seems ripe for the members of this blog, many of whom take an interest in the Constitution and in constitutional interpretation. According to the Findlaw column, Virginia filed this brief in the upcoming case of Cutter v. Wilkinson, in which Florida has challenged the constitutionality of the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), specifically as it applies to "institutionalized persons" (i.e., prisoners). Apparently, Florida is one of several states experimenting with religious prisons and/or with religious prison wings (the "God Pods" in Iowa), which it seems may violate the Constitution’s establishment clause.

Now the establishment clause appears in the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (emphasis added). So how is it that such a prohibition is applied to the States, which are clearly not governed by Congress. The answer lies in what has become known as the "incorporation doctrine."

The incorporation debate has its origins in a 1938 case known as United States v. Caroline Products Co., 304 U.S. 144. In that case the Court suggested in footnote 4, what is now the most famous footnote in all of Supreme Court jurisprudence, that:

There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of
constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific
prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten Amendments,
which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the
Fourteenth.
It is unnecessary to consider now whether legislation which
restricts those political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring
about repeal of undesirable legislation, is to be subjected to more exacting
judicial scrutiny under the general prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment
than are most other types of legislation. On restrictions upon the right to
vote, on restraints upon the dissemination of information, on interferences with
political organizations. Nor need we enquire whether similar considerations
enter into the review of statutes directed at particular religious, or national,
or racial minorities. Whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities
may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of
those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities,
and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.
(internal citations omitted)

This language laid the framework for the notion that the Fourteenth Amendment fundamentally changed the interpretation of the Constitution. For example, the Court has held that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment denies the States the power to ‘deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ In resolving conflicting claims concerning the meaning of this spacious language, the Court has looked increasingly to the Bill of Rights for guidance; many of the rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments to the Constitution have been held to be protected against state action by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 147-48 (1968).

While it is true that full incorporation of the Bill of Rights has never commanded a majority of votes on the Court, the Court has adopted "selective" incorporation, which includes the First Amendment, as well as many, but not all, of the protections of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. See e.g., Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927); Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931); DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1939); Hauge v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1940); Catwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940); Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) and others.

Now it is also true that the decision of which protections to incorporate was subject to interpretation. The Court created standards that were vague and erudite such as, "principles of justice so rooted in the tradition and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental," or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" (See Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937)) to describe those protections that deserved to be applied against the States as part of the notion of "Due Process of Law."

So where does Virginia’s argument that the establishment clause shouldn’t apply to the states come from. Well, the short and admittedly cynical answer is the it comes from nothing more than a strict reading of the text of the First Amendment, and merely ignores as inconvenient the last 66 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence. There is, however, another answer, namely the idea comes from Justice Thomas dissent in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, more commonly referred to as the "Pledge of Allegiance" case. There, Justice Thomas seemed to suggest that maybe the establishment clause doesn’t apply to the states after all. Justice Thomas, who of course doesn’t agree with the notion of stare decisis and the deference that is to be given to prior precedent of the Court, seems to have arguably invited a "Pandora’s Box" if you will of federalism principles that for the most part has been settled law for almost the last three-quarters of a century.

The fact that I disagree with Thomas on this, as well as almost everything else, doesn’t mean that his argument and consequently Virginia’s is without merit. Nevertheless, it seems that at some point we have to decide what the impact of the Fourteenth Amendment had, not only on American jurisprudence, but on the history of our nation. It seems to me that until we settle the fundamental question of what the Fourteenth Amendment was supposed to accomplish and what it means, then we are destined to continue to fight over issues such whether or not the State has the power to impose religion on its citizens. As always comments and thoughts are most welcome.

Read more!

Contrary to the rumors of some and the wishes of others, I have not dropped off the face of the earth, but merely have been deluged with "regular work" that has kept me from my general blogging duties until now.

Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, I want to draw attention to Robert Novak’s column in today’s Washington Post. Now I’m drawing attention to this not because its Mr. Novak’s column, but rather because of the column’s subject matter. Mr. Novak’s column reports on statements made by Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA) who is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee at the recent GOP retreat in West Virginia a couple of weeks ago. Ways and Means, of course is the committee responsible for Social Security Reform, but also the tax laws, which makes Mr. Thomas a very important figure nowadays.

According to Mr. Novak, Mr. Thomas did, in part, a very good thing. Namely, Mr. Thomas refuted and more importantly potentially killed any further debate and consideration of what may be the two worst ideas in American economic and fiscal policy: the flat tax and the national sales tax. With respect to the flat tax, Mr. Thomas pointed out that in order to implement a flat tax individual citizens would have to give up their ability to deduct popular economic policies such as the ability to deduct interest from home mortgage, charitable donations, state and local income taxes. In addition, Mr. Thomas pointed out that if you were to get rid of the graduated income levels the rate would be too high for low-income workers to pay and still be able to avoid government assistance, thus an exception would have to be created, which destroys the entire purpose of the flat tax, namely to have one rate with no exception.

Shifting to the national sales tax, Mr. Thomas reportedly challenged GOP members to guess whether they or their constituents would like to see the cost of goods, specifically consumer goods rise by approximately 30% which is one of the numbers that many have speculated would have to be instituted to generate the necessary revenue to cover the expenses of the federal government. Of course in the wake of new cost estimates for GOP enacted entitlement programs that sales tax number may even rise higher. Further, consider that many of the sales tax proposals exempt food, clothing and other "essential items" which essentially makes this a luxury tax on only the rich or on "entertainment dollars." In other words imagine paying 30% more on your already $9.00 movie ticket, making it at least $12.60. Even worse, imagine a 30% tax on a new car that costs $20,000. That $6,000 just in federal sales taxes, not to mention any applicable state sales taxes or other fees commonly associated with buying a new car.

Praise needs to be given to Mr. Thomas for directly challenging these two ideas, especially considering that they are popular among members of his own party. There needs to be a debate on these issues, and ideas need to continue to be generated, but foolish and unmanageable ideas need to be rejected as soon as they are proposed so that room can be made for ideas that might actually impose sound economic and fiscal policy in the United States.



Read more!

There is an op-ed in today's Washington Examiner written by former DNC press secretary Terry Michael, titled, "Rebuilding the Democratic Party brand - Back to the future with a return to liberalism's Jeffersonian roots." My ears, or rather eyes, perked up at the title. Reading on, the story is actually just part 7583456 in an on-going series of what the Democrats need to do in order to firm up their public image and re-connect with the voters. He argues that the Democratic party offers, in contradistinction to the GOP, no tangible and consistent political philosophy, and the party should return to its Jeffersonian roots.

From our Jeffersonian roots, we have the glue to make the brand sticky again. The new desktop-empowered generation, turned on by Republican economic choice, but turned off by the social-cultural intolerance of the GOP Taliban wing, could embrace Democrats if we return to our founder's philosophy -- a back-to-the-future Jeffersonian liberalism.

Jefferson, who said the government that governs least governs best, knew the era of big government was over before Bill Clinton proclaimed it. If we listen to the man from Monticello, who advocated "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, but entangling alliances with none," we can rediscover our anti-war, anti-interventionist nerve. We can be as insistent as Republicans that pluralistic democracy and free markets are noble and worth emulating; but we must equally assert that they be spread by example, not force.

Jefferson can be an inspiration to our candidates, who need a better way to talk about religion and politics. Instead of mumbling about restoring faith to public life, Democrats can find the courage to say what we believe: We protect religious liberty by keeping God out of government. Our Founders knew that; there is not a single reference to God in the Constitution.

While there is much to substantively critique (and laud) about this analysis, what really sticks out is the proposition that the Democratic party must return to its Jeffersonian roots. This of course implies that the Democratic party can trace its lineage back to Jefferson. The more and more I study American history, the more I ask, is this true?

This is not an ideological point. In many respects the Democrats are the inheritors of the Jeffersonian philosophy, but coming from me that is no compliment. My argument is a more historical - and perhaps semantical one.

The Republicans are the party of Lincoln. This is a rather less controversial argument in my mind. Many would argue that the current Republican party does not reflect the philosophy of Lincoln, an argument I would vehemently disagree with, but again that is besides the point. One can easily trace the lineage of the party back to Lincoln, as one can do with the Democrats and Andrew Jackson. In other words, there is a continuous link between these men and their respective parties, a link that has basically gone unbroken since, respectively, 1828 and 1860 (or 1854, if you want to go by the year when the Republican party was established).

The same cannot be said of Jefferson and the Democratic party. The history here is a little more complicated and requires us to backtrack a little bit. Jefferson and Madison formed an opposition party to the Federalists, who were composed of Washington, Adams, and Hamilton. To grossly oversimplify, the real opponents were Jefferson and, to a lesser extent Madison, versus Hamilton and, to an even lesser extent, Adams. Jefferson's party was actually called the Republican party, though this bears no relation to the party created over half a century later. Yes, I know some of you have seen Democratic-Republican in your high school history books, but that is largely inaccurate. Perhaps an occasional reference was made to democratic-republicans, but almost all of the literature of and about the era refers to them strictly as Republicans. And, after all, Jefferson did not say, "we are all federalists, we are all democratic-republicans" at his first inaugural.

Anyway, Jefferson was elected to the presidency in 1800, followed eight years later by Madison in 1808, and then Monroe 1816. The Virginia dynasty essentially killed off the Federalist party, if more in name than in essence. Thus the so-called era of good feelings and the seeming abandonment of party politics. Of course the reality was slightly less benevolent than that. There were still significant regional rivalries, and there existed a faction which was much more nationalistic in its approach, while the other faction remained more fixed to states rights.

The election of 1824 fractured the sham of one partyism. I won't go into all the details of the election, much of which most of you probably know anyway, but the elevation of the Nationalist John Quincy Adams over the more popular Andrew Jackson was the final nail in the coffin of national cohesion, sham or no sham. Four years later Andrew Jackson would defeat Adams, and the party for which he was associated would thenceforth be known as the Democratic party. Clay, Webster and others would go their own way and form an opposition party called the Whigs, who would themselves splinter in the 1850's due to the sectional grievances stemming from slavery. Out of that muck the Republicans would rise up as the dominant second party to the Democrats.

This brief recap does not do justice to the complicated issues arising out of the 1820's, but hopefully it demonstrates the inadequacy of calling the Democrats the party of Jefferson. One could perhaps allege that Adams and his cohorts were merely disgruntled Federalists who crashed the party, so to speak, and Jackson merely reclaimed the party from the usurpers, and restored the Democrats to their Jeffersonian roots. But that argument does not satisfy me. I think the two parties that emerged in the mid 1820's were two fresh parties, distinct in many ways from the Republicans of the earlier era. I do concede that the Democrats were much closer ideologically to the Republicans than were the Whigs, and as such it is not wholly incorrect for the Democrats to claim some roots in the Jeffersonian party.

Again, much of this is a semantical argument that has no bearing on the greater substantive argument made by Michael. Of which, by the way, I will just add a few comments. There is much to commend this op-ed, but when he speaks of the "Taliban wing" of the Republican party, he comes dangerously close to discrediting everything he had written to that point. This is a childish, stupid, and absurd label that should not be used by anyone attempting serious political discussion, and merits little more note. Further, the revisionist history of Jefferson as some sort of pacific, non-interventionist President does not neatly jibe with what he actually did in office. The man who successfully guided our Nation through its first war on terrorism with the Barbary states, a war many cautioned he avoid by paying the requested tributes, does not square with the imagery of the so-called pacifist.

There are other quibbles, but I have probably quibbled enough.

Read more!

Found this tidbit in a Reuters story on Pope John Paul II.

A sick Pope John Paul failed for the first time in 26 years to preside at Ash Wednesday but joined world Catholics from his hospital room in a ritual where dust is rubbed on their foreheads to remind them of mortality.

How about ashes being rubbed on our foreheads to remind us of our sinfulness. Is it so hard to get stuff like that correct?

Oddly enough, the story goes on to mention the distribution of ashes later on. Heck, it mentions ashes in the next sentence. All right, it's a minor quibble, but I did find this new theology amusing.

Read more!

It is strange that Lent should come so early this year. It seems like it was not so long ago that I was taking down my Christmas tree, and yet a mere month or so after celebrating the birth of Christ, it is time to prepare for his suffering and death.

This is the most spiritual time of the year, and yet there's always something just a tad superficial in the way we approach it. It strikes me that in many ways Catholics treat Ash Wednesday like it is another New Year's Day, preparing resolutions that are meant to last a mere 47 days. No more chocolate, no more fatty foods, no cigarettes. Of course I am not immune from this. I hold in my hand - metaphorically, I can't type with one hand quite yet - the last alcoholic beverage that I will consume for 47 days (that's another thing - it's not 40 days. Lent is 40 days, then you have another 7 for Holy Week).

I guess in some way it is supposed to represent our sacrifice. Somehow I do not think my refraining from alcohol for 7 weeks quite compares with Christ wandering in the desert without food or water while also contending with Satan, but it's a start.

In all seriousness, it is an attempt at renewal of sorts. We promise to give up something - perhaps a vice, or just something which we rather enjoy, or both. But what does it mean? I'm not sure that it means anything, at least, I don't really think it is the point of the season.

Don't get me wrong, it's not necessarily a bad thing that we should choose to do this. I happen to think that while our "fasting" is but a small token of sacrifice, it still allows us to spiritually cleans ourselves in a sense. Of course the Church has made it easier over the years. Instead of fasting throughout Lent we only are required to do so on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, and at that the fast is not total.

But I think we need to do more, and I have a suspicion that many are. I am often amazed at the depths of spirituality displayed by my co-religionists. When Mass is over, I leave. Others stay, preferring to spend an extra bit of time praying. I am humbled by my own relative lack of spirituality. Though I attend Mass - Latin, at that - every week, and try to go to daily Mass as often as possible, I sometimes wonder if I am truly doing everything I can to be a good person. It is of course part of the Catholic nature to feel a profound sense of guilt. But the guilt we feel is not a senseless, mindless guilt. We all fail to meet the lofty expectations of our Lord, and we all stumble along the path. Some of us just stumble a bit more.

Maybe this is our version of New Year's. I don't know about you, but often New Year's day is a time for reflection on the past year, about how life has changed. This is a time of reflection, but one of an even deeper sort. Instead of reflecting on all the missed opportunities, or all the good fortune you have come accross, it is a time for reflecting on our spirituality, and to reflect on what we can do to become better people. I suppose I ought not to use "we." Okay, it is a time where I will sit and reflect on what I can do to be person that more accurately reflects the type of person God expects me to be.

But now I have rambled long enough in this awkward public display of religiosity. Yet this day is a day of public spirituality, at least up to a point as we prominently display our sinfulness on our foreheads. At times I think it a bit ridiculous, as though we are making a big show of our Christianity. But now I understand that it is a sign that we are sinful beings. Well, that's the Catholic in me talking. We do tend the harp on the negative sometimes, maybe a bit too much. So long as we don't get bogged down in it, it isn't such a bad thing though.

Have a blessed day.



Read more!

Like most rabid right-wingers I watch Fox News. It's in my blood, I guess. After a day of repressing women, enslaving minorities, and lying about social security when all I want to do is slowly starve the elderly to death, I need to kick back and enjoy the netowrk that works so hard to brainwash its right-wing kook audience like the automatons we all are. Ignorance is bliss after all.

But when I really want the news, when I really want to turn to an unbiased, unblemished source of information, where am I to go? I suppose there's MSNBC, but then my television really can't handle the sound of Chris Mathews' voice. Call me crazy - and I know you will - but I think I actually say my tube expanding as Mathews called Zell Miller a liar or some such. So no MSNBC. Of course there's always CBS- yeah, really, just too easy. ABC? They've got a Canadian doing American news. Case closed.

No, when in doubt I always turn to CNN for the unvarnished, never biased news. In times of doubt, Mother Mary comes to rescue me, and then she turns on the television to CNN so that I can get all the latest news, and with no hint of political bias. I mean, what's the worst that they can do? It's not like they have a chief news executive accusing American troops of deliberately killing reporters.

Oh, what's that you say? They do? Surely you jest. Eason Jordan would never have gone to Davos and made such a claim. It's not like anyone substantiates this story. Surely the head honcho of a major American mainstream news network would not accuse American soldiers of deliberately killing journalists.

What I really value as an American is the independence of our media, and our academic institutions. How can one not be instilled with hope and confidence knowing that their children will one day be placed in the capable hands of brilliant minds such as Ward Churchill and Juan Cole, a man of impeccable credentials.

But getting back to the Eason Jordan story because I don't want to go too far afield here, at least we can rely on the major news networks and papers to chronicle all the major happening. Let's take a listen:

Chirp chirp. Chirp chirp. Woooooosh. Tumbleweed.

All right, enough about Andy Reid's coaching at the Super Bowl, we're talking about the media's treatment of the Eason Jordan comments. This, after all, is a huge story, and surely the major media would not gloss over the head of a major cable news network's claims that American soldiers were deliberately slaying journalists. Unless of course you thought they were biased. In which case you're just plain crazy. You probably also think George Bush legitimately won the election, or that Hillary Clinton is running for president. Silly rabbi, kicks are for trids.

Sleep well, my friends. At least we don't have a sitting Senator and former presidential candidate who claims he sold arms to the Khmer Rouge.

the earth laughs beneath my heavy feet
at the blasphemy in my old jangly walk
steeple guide me to my heart and home
the sun is out and up and down again
i know i'll make it, love can last forever
graceful swans of never topple to the earth
and you can make it last forever, you
you can make it last, forever you

Read more!

It dawned on me that the Smashing Pumpkins failed to make either of my top ten lists. While I was hardly trying to make a seriously authoritative listing of the greatest songs and albums ever produced, it is unfortunate that such a terrific band could be overlooked.

I started listening to the Pumpkins, as I suspect most others did, right around the time of Siamese Dreams. Of course I liked it, but it would be an overstatement to say that I really loved it. Sure, there are some great songs on there, but the entire album is merely good. But then Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness was released, and my view of the Pumpkins changed.

It is a tad strange that someone who mocks Metallica for changing their style so drastically should at the same time have gained an appreciation for a band that did the same thing. But the Pumkins improved by mellowing a bit. That's not to say that either Gish or Siamese Dreams are bad albums. Hardly. But it is on Mellon Collie that the band really matured and produced some of their finest music.

When the band released Adore a few years later, I have to admit I was slow to catch on, although I was constantly exposed to it thanks to a college roommate who played in the car repeatedly for about six months. (Not that I am complaining of course). But sometime after college I picked it up, and it soon became a staple in my cd player, especially as I cranked out the great American unpublished novel. Even listening to it now I feel as though I am being whisked away to a different time in my life. The album is quite simply beautiful. Inspired by the death of his mother (if I am remembering correctly), Billy Corgan wrote some of the most powerful songs ever to be compiled on a single album. It is a thoroughly depressing - and yet strangely uplifting work of art. (Astute readers might recognize my bizarre penchant for being uplifted by morbidly depressing music)

Their last album was MACHINA/The Machines of the God, a somewhat disappointing album that nonetheless has aged well. This is one thing about the Pumpkins - I didn't really love any of their albums until after a few listenings. It seems they get better with each listening. It takes a while to get used to their music, but once you do you begin to appreciate how great they are.

If I had to rate the Pumpkins, they'd certainly be in my personal top ten (save that for another day). I regret that I never got to see them in concert, but I can say that about half a dozen bands. They are missed.

Read more!

The Washington Post reports that the administration has proposed a budget that cuts non-military discretionary spending by 1%. That's not a cut in the Washington sense of the term, meaning a decrease in the amount of proposed increase. No, these would be real cuts into various programs. It's almost as if the members of the administration woke up one day and remembered that they were Republicans.

Unfortunately Congress is Congress, and though ostensibly controlled by the conservatives, no program is too meaningless or unproductive to not have at least one member willing to go to the mattresses in order to protect it. Thus it is unlikely that many of the proposed cuts will in fact be enacted. But not worry, says Republican Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri.

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in an interview that although many of the requests will be opposed, he believes that Congress will still cut "tens of millions of dollars and set the standard that the federal government can stop doing things that it shouldn't be doing, or is not doing well."

Wow! Tens of millions of dollars! That is so amazingly impressive and goes to show that the budget hawks are in control. Let's ignore the fact that it's even less than a drop in the bucket of what the feds spend every year - I think it just spent that much in the time it took me to write this sentence. Oh no, we're on the way to real fiscal austerity now.

To be fair, even the Bush proposals hardly make that much of a dent in the deficit, and the budget does not include several very expensive items.

The spending plan does not include future expenses of the continuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, nor does it include upfront transition costs of restructuring Social Security as Bush has proposed. The administration will submit a separate supplemental request largely for Afghanistan and Iraq operations in the current fiscal year, which will be reflected in the budget charts, officials said, but war costs in 2006 and beyond will not be. Nor will be the cost of Bush's Social Security plan, which would begin in 2009 and result in $754 billion in additional debt over its first five years.

Those omissions provide ammunition to Democrats who dispute Bush's math. "The Administration's claim that it will cut the deficit in half by 2009 lacks credibility," said a report released last week by House Budget Committee Democrats. When the omitted items are included, along with the impact of making Bush's first-term tax cuts permanent, the report estimated that the government would rack up $6.1 trillion in deficit spending over the next decade.

Of course Congressional Democrats mocking the administration over spending is a bit like Peyton Manning criticizing Donavan McNabb's play against the Patriots. Still, this news hardly signals that it is time for fiscal conservatives to start popping the champagne. We're on the right track, but we've got a lot farther to go if we want to get serious about slashing the budget and reducing the grip of the federal leviathan.

Read more!

As the game approaches, it is time for my Super-pick: Pats 24, Eagles 21. The Eagles keep it close as Terrell Owens shocks the world and has a miraculously good game despite playing on one leg. But Owens' heroics won't be enough to beat the Pats. Tom Brady has too much experience, and I have an inkling that Deion Branch is due for a huge game.

Update: Must have had some server problems as this post was slow to showup.

Read more!

Why is Mark Steyn my favorite writer? Because of stuff like this.

That's the transnational establishment's alternative to Bush and Howard: appoint a committee that agrees on the need to do nothing. Thus, a few days ago, the UN Human Rights Commission announced the working group that will decide which complaints will be heard at their annual meeting in Geneva this spring: the five-nation panel comprises the Netherlands, Hungary, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. I wouldn't bet on them finding room on their crowded agenda for the question of human rights in Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe, would you? One of the mystifying aspects of UN worship is the assumption that this embryo world government is a "progressive" concept. It's not. Its squalid geographic voting blocs, which use regional solidarity to inflate the status of nickel'n'dime dictators, are merely a Third World gloss on the Congress of Vienna – a relic of an age when contact between states was confined to their governing elites. In an era of jet travel, internet and debit cards that work in any bank machine from Vancouver to Vilnius to Vanuatu, there are millions of global relationships far better for the long-term health of the planet than using American money to set up Eurowimp talking shops manned by African thugs – which is what the UN Human Rights Commission boils down to.

The Bush Administration is now said to be considering using Kofi's "shock" to effect a regime change of its own at the UN. But to whom and to what? I'd be in favour of destroying the UN – or, failing that, at least moving its headquarters to Rwanda, but either of those options would require a level of political will hard to muster in modern sentimental democracies.

The best alternative to the trans‐national jet-set is nothing – or at least nothing formal. When the tsunami hit, the Americans and Australians had troops and relief supplies on the ground within hours and were coordinating their efforts without any global bureaucracy at all. Imagine that: an unprecedented disaster, and yet robust, efficient, compatible, results-oriented nations managed to accomplish more than the international system specifically set up to manage such events. Would it have helped to elect a steering committee with Sudan and Zimbabwe on it? Of course not. But, if the UN wants to hold meetings, hector Washington, steal money and give tacit approval to genocide, let it – and let it sink into irrelevance.

Read it all.

Read more!

Every time I hang my head in sorrow after I contemplate just how incompetent the fine folks in charge of DC are, I read a few things about the man running the city of my birth, and it just doesn't see as bad. It seems Mayor Bloomberg (RINO-Limousine)has opened his yap again just in time to criticize the social security reform proposals of President Bush.

I never thought that privatizing Social Security made a lot of sense. I think what you'll see is that some people would invest unwisely and the government still would have to [step in]. You don't want anyone to go without," Bloomberg told reporters.

"These are not monies that people should be speculating with. So fundamentally, I want to see the details, but I've never thought this was a great idea," the billionaire mayor added.

Ah, it's good to see the Democrat in Republican's clothing shine as always. TSL at Geek Soap Box has a good takedown of the Mayor.

You know that it must be an election year in perhaps the most radically liberal city in the United States when our esteemed Republican mayor starts to verbally rip his fellow Republican, the president. Of course, in his haste to get out there and get his face before the cameras to record his "bold" and "courageous" stand, Mayor Mike seems to have not read or watched the State of the Union very closely. I have the attention span of a caffeinated chihuahua, and even I noted that W. was clear that the investment options to be potentially offered in Social Security private investment accounts would be extremely conservative and mostly bond-based. We aren't talking about throwing your life savings into penny stocks here. Heck, a quick scan of his own party's website could have given him all the details he'd ever need.

Meanwhile, Instapundit has the scoop on one of Mayor Mike's schemes backfiring, noting this Walter Olson story.

In January, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg signed a bill passed by the City Council making gun makers and dealers liable for crimes perpetrated with their products unless they adopt a "code of conduct" that, among other things, would limit the number of handguns they can sell to one person and require background checks on prospective buyers at gun shows. The strange thing about this new law is that it applies not only to sales within New York City, but also to sales in other states and cities.

This new law is too clever by half and it's also shortsighted. It insults the right to democratic self-governance of the 273 million Americans who don't live in New York City. Moreover, it may have a consequence that Mayor Bloomberg and other gun-control advocates have not foreseen: it could be further impetus for a bill in Congress, nearly enacted last year, which would pre-empt local efforts at gun-control through litigation.

Well, we New Yorkers, ex and current alike, do have a tendency to think we know what everyone else ought to be doing. Unfortunately Mayor Mike has decided that he has uniquely discovered how everyone else ought to live their lives. From the ridiculous smoking ban in bars to this attempt at legislating for the rest of the country, the Nanny Mayor continues to push an agenda that borders nearer and nearer to the sort of totalitarianism that Bush critics repeatedly holler about. Well, here it is in the enlightened haven of New Yawk, a city I miss less and less every day.

And the scary thing is, this guy is the best alternative in the upcoming election.

Read more!

From the New York Times:

President Bush will seek deep cuts in farm and commodity programs in his new budget and in a major policy shift will propose overall limits on subsidy payments to farmers, administration officials said Saturday.

Such limits would help reduce the federal budget deficit and would inject market forces into the farm economy, the officials said.

Forget about spreading freedom throughout the world and ending evil for all time. Forget about reforming an entrenched social program. No, that all pales in comparison to this undertaking. Truly Bush does not understand the limits of human capabilities.

Cut farm subsidies. Yeah, that'll fly. But if does, I'm all for squashing the 22nd Amendment.

Hat tip to Ramesh Ponnuru at the Corner.

Read more!

I can hear the song in my head already. "Meet the (new) Mets, meet the (new) Mets, head for the park and meet the (new) Mets." Mets blog is reporting that

Several members of the Mets front office worked the phones yesterday selling ticket plans to fans. The Journal News tells of a story that claims Minaya spent 10 minutes with a caller trying to convince him not cancel his plan from last season.

All operators were answering the phone by saying, "Thank you for calling the 'new Mets."

Seems Mr. Beltran has coined the catch phrase of the season. Well, it sure as hell beats "playing meaningful games in September" as a rallying cry.

Read more!

Wednesday night, as I was live-blogging the SOTU, I quipped about Bush's comment that we are not imposing our values upon the Iraquis. Even Peggy Noonan, who had been very critical of the President's inaugural, had complimentary words today about Bush's more moderate tone.

In the foreign-policy section the president was markedly modest in tone. The difference between us and our enemies is that we know we have "no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." Freedom is advancing, subjugated peoples are voting, democracies are being born, we are "witnessing landmark events in the history of liberty." America will work with "our friends" in the Mideast to "encourage a higher standard of freedom." The government of Saudi Arabia should become more democratic; the "great and proud nation of Egypt" is capable of showing the way to greater democracy in the region. We "expect" the Syrian government to stop supporting terrorists. We are "working with our European allies" to convince Iran not to develop nukes. We "stand with" the people of Iran. This was gentle but pointed, more specific and less messianic, than the recent inaugural--and therefore less open to misinterpretation. It was more finely calibrated, which is to say it was calibrated.

Indeed President Bush's inaugural was less "messianic" in tone than the inaugural, though not by much. It is clear that he is putting dictatorial states on notice, whether they be friend or foe, though as Noonan notes he is not quite yet ready to promise open military action.

That said, I want to get back to the line that we know we have "no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." I asked rhetorically then if this was true, and I repeat that question now? Do we have any desire to impose our values on other Nations, and if we do, should we?

The first part of the question is the trickier one to answer. In the strictest sense, we are not. It does not appear that we are hoping to create a replica of America's constitutional, federalist republic in the Middle East. We have a respect fot the different cultural norms of the people of Iraq and have largely refrained from attempting to dictate how they should construct their government. There appears, also, to be a recognition that there will not be the American style "separation of Church and state" (not going there right now) in this region, but our hope is that there will at least be a healthy respect, at the very least, of the rights of those with minority viewpoints.

But in a larger sense we are imposing a value, and it is the value of representative government. We have made a decision that this style of governance is the only one that can truly provide greater guarantees of human freedom and security, and we have undertaken a mission to spread the roots of this type of governance throughout the world. It is at one time a minimilist approach, while also being a guargantuan undertaking.

The truth is we are attempting to impose our values upon other people, albeit a rather general value that is nothing more than the fundamental cornerstone of our own polity, that being the idea that people ought to govern themselves.

So, if we acknowledge that at we are on some level attempting to impose our values abroad, that leads to this question: should we? Again, the answer is yes and no.

The second tenet of conservatism, as written by Russell Kirk in the Conservative Mind suggests that conservatives shun a universalist approach to politics. (Go to the Conservative Philosopher for the rest of the list)

(2) Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems...This prejudice has been called "the conservatism of enjoyment."

In many ways, this echoes Edmund Burke's "little platoons," which celebrate localism and the importance of the smaller communities, and what in turn breeds the federalist ideology. It recognizes that no one group or society has a monopoly on "goodness" or "rightness." Each community has its own norms that have been established over time, and those norms reflect each society's unique historical devlopment. Thus it is unwise to blindly attempt to transfer one community's set of values onto that of another.

But does this tenet conflict with the first tenet?

(1) Belief in a transcendant order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience...True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls.

This, at a glance, acknowledges a universal set of norms, or at least the idea that there is an ultimate set of values under which we must be guided. So do these two tenets therefore collide?

It is the mistake that Leo Strauss made when he critiqued Burke to assert that that a respect for unique, local norms is a rejection of transcendental values. What Burke, and later Kirk, believed is that each local community expressed the transcendent nature of the universe in its own unique way. Similarly, James Q. Wilson notes that even though certain socities have widely divergent cultural practices, they all ultimately reflect a universal moral sense. Thus, there is a universal set of values, but no society has a monopoly on those values. The only way to truly come to understand the good is to enjoy different experiences and develop a sense for what is the ultimate good.

But we're probably getting a bit off track here. Ultimately, the issue is whether the United States ought to forcefully, or not so forcefully coerce other nations to adopt a democratic form of government. In other words, is democracy a recognizable moral value for which all nations should strive for. Francis Fukayama argues that we have reached a terminal point in our history, and that democratic government has achieved a victory as the agreed upon best form. That is not to say we have reached an actual end of history - he does not argue that at all - only that representative democracy has shown itself to be the form of government that best guarantees human freedom.

Critics of this theory have abounded. Some have misunderstood Fukayama's arguments, believing that he is arguing that democracy has conquered all, while others have made pointed philosophical criticisms. But again, one should not make the mistake of believing that Fukayama has asserted the final victory of democracy over all other forms of government. There remain plenty of governments that continue to stand athwart history in defiance of the democratic order. The question is, what should we do, if anything, to push them over the edge?

It seems undeniable to me that there is a universal human drive to control one's own destiny, and that part of that drive would include the desire to control the faith of one's own government. Even the terrorists who claim to be enemies of democracy are driven by a desire to form a government created in their idealized image. They have rebelled against their own states as much because these dictatorships do not grant to them the freedom to shape the state according to their beliefs. These terrorists hope to rid their region of any vestiges of tolerance for rule outside the shari'a law. Thus they seek the freedom to make others unfree. It is a paradox that confounds the mind.

It is this that causes many to pause and ask, well, what if the newly liberated people choose to elect a hard-line government that does not respect minority rights? Is that democracy? The answer is yes, but it is the type of democracy that is itself tyrannical. As one who has worked on a dissertation critiquing Jefferso-Rousseauian democracy, I have claimed that democracy is not a good in and of itself. But that is not to say that representative government is not the fairest and indeed best form of government. My problem with unfettered democracy of the sort that places too much stock in the momentary will of the general populace is that it is not a particularly good form of self government. Democracy of this sort is little more than mob rule.

Which leads us, inevitably, to this crashing dilemma. At bottom, we seem to have concluded that self-rule is the only way to govern. A society wherein the populace has no say in its governance is not free, and it would be odd to suggest that is in any way a satisfactory or even moral polity. Thus the human appetite for freedom would be a universal, not particular one. And yet it is unclear that we have the ability to simply force our beliefs on others. And even if all we are doing is helping people achieve their desire for self-governance, it will not be clear that the end result is a form of self-government sufficiently respectful of minority rights or the rule of law. What then? Can we merely sit on the sidelines cheering them on, perhaps kindly suggesting some things they ought and ought not do? Maybe that is the answer.

In the end, I find myself trapped in what is a - to me - unanswerable moral dilemma. In many respects we would seem to be denying the pull of human history if we do not push forward a democratic advance. I also reject the implicit notion that the conservative veneration of the particular should force us to stand on the sidelines and do nothing because, after all, not everyone can have democracy. Balderdash. Unless we are to believe that there is a segment of the world's population innately incapable of self-government, then I have to accept that the democratic drive is indeed universal in nature, and we as the world's superpower have a basic duty to assist others in garnering the freedom that we take for granted. But the recognition of the undeniable fallibility of human nature prevents me from becoming as an active cheerleader in this crusade as others. If we are to undertake this mission, we must do so with great humility and an acceptance of imperfection. We will never rid the world of evil, and it is a folly to believe that we ever will. Even having this be our goal just so we can raise our sights is to set us up for ultimate failure. We will never be free from fear; such a sentiment is just silly. We can diminish that fear and strive to create an atmosphere wherein the opportunities for great evil are reduced. But if our goal is the actual achievement of an "end of history," then we will be sorely disappointed when the goal is never attained.

So, after all that has been said, perhaps we can simply come to this conclusion. We can't impose our values because such an action is, as Ralph Wiggam would say, unpossible. Even the cruel tyrants of the Soviet empire at their zenith could not "impose" their values on the people of Eastern Europe. But we can nudge them along a bit.

Read more!

In celebration of the upcoming weekend, or as the French say, le weekend, it's time for another installment of "Paul thinks he's Casey Kasem." Here is my list of the top ten songs of all-time.

10. One, by U2 Oddly enough, I'm listening to "With or Without You" as I type this, and for me it's always a tossup between the two. "One" has the edge because it's such a meaningul song to anyone who knows the backstory. And the Regis class of 1995 will always have a special spot in its heart for it as well. Amzingly, not even the highest rated U2 song, or even song titled "One" on the list.

9. Paranoid Android, by Radiohead As I mentioned last week, it's Radiohead's "Bohemian Rhapsody" (which just missed the list, by the way). I happened to see the video last night, and though that shouldn't affect how I think of the song, it does make on appreciate just how great it is.

8. 213, by Slayer Absolutely morbid Slayer track that is the perfect combo of creepy and head-bangin' intense. And how can I leave off a song that has the line "Absorbingly masticating a part of you?"

7. Layla, by Derek and the Dominoes So Eric Clapton falls in love with George Harrison's wife, breaks up the marriage, and they still remain best friends. That's why I love rock and roll. This song is just perfect on so many levels: great guitar lick for an intro, frantic pace of the first two minues, and oh that piano. Still makes me think of Goodfellas every time.

6. November Rain, by Guns N' Roses This was a tough call. So many classic GN'R songs, and it was tough to pick one. Yeah this song is a bit weepy for Guns, but come on, it rules.

5. Stairway to Heaven, by Led Zeppelin Only number five you say. Yes, it may be rock's most recognizable tune, but there are still a few I rank above it. Still, it gives me chills every time I hear it.

4. (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction, by the Rolling Stones The greatest intro into any song ever. It also holds much sentimental value to me as I used to run around the house at an early age telling my brother to "play I Can't Get No, play I Can't Get No."

3. One, by Metallica I am amazed every time I hear this song. Whenever anyone trashes the talent of heavy metal artists I happily point them in the direction of this song. The "Landmine . . ." section is quite probably the greatest song part of all time.

2. Wish You Were Here, by Pink Floyd This song captures so much raw emotion and is yet fairly simple. Simple melody, simple lyrics, and yet so powerful. Love it.

1. Bad (live version), by U2 The studio version ain't exactly chopped liver, but the live version from Wide Awake in America is so perfect that mere words cannot convey its brilliance. Even the little change from "walk away" to "break away" (the first time he sings it) is a minor but significant improvement from the studio to the live version. My favorite concert experience is getting to see them play it live. It brought shivers up and down my spine. Absolute perfection.

Read more!

Not quite sure what to make of this survey. Its main findings indicate that 53% of Catholics voted for Bush, while mainline Protestants split their vote evenly, the highest percentage to go to the Democrats since the 1960's. One very significant number is the percentage of Protestant Hispanics - 63 - that voted for Bush. The proportion of Hispanics that are Protestant is relatively low, but they are an ever-increasing segment of the Hispanic population. I am not certain why such a higher percentage of Protestant Hispanics would throw their support for Bush as compared to Catholic and other Hispanics. My only guess is that a large number of Protestant Hispanics are Pentecostal, a somewhat more fundamentalist brand of Protestantism, and are therefore perhaps not in the mainstream Protestant category.

On the surface, the numbers are somewhat favorable to the Republicans. Catholics are an increasing proportion of the population, while mainline Protestantism is on the decline. Similarly, as just mentioned, the percentage of Protestant Hispanics is rapidly expanding. Of course, there is no telling whether the demographic trends will remain constant, or that the voting trends within those demographic areas will hold. (Not to mention one cannot be sure how accurate the poll is).

Read more!