The Political Spectrum

Is the decision to avoid childbirth the true meaning of "choice" for women?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id=1653069&page=1

One of the deeply troubling things about this kind of assertion is that it makes the choice to have and care for children seem foolish and offensive. It is elitist and cruel to connect child-rearing with ignorance and weakness.

Read more!

On the Dubai World ports deal can be found here. Just for your informed consideration.

Read more!

Check out the footnote on page 16.

HT: Southern Appeal

Read more!

From our fearless leader:

One of my concerns, however, is mixed messages. And the message is, it's okay for a British company, but a Middle Eastern company -- maybe we ought not to deal the same way. It's a mixed message. You put interesting words in your question, but I just view -- my job is to do what I think is right for the country. I don't intend to have a fight. If there's a fight, there is one, but nor do I view this as a political issue.

Now, gee Mr. president, why would we deem it necessary to deal differently with Great Britain and the United Arab Emirates? I can't possibly think of any reasons why we should view the countries differently. After all, didn't Great Britain supply two of the September 11 hijackers? Doesn't the UK suppress its laborers and prevent them from striking or unionizing? Doesn't Great Britain have a shady past when it comes to funding Islamic fascists?

No? Oh, well . . . shoot. Nevermind then.

BTW, in case any were still left wondering how to view this port deal: hint - Jimmy Carter supports it.

''The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,'' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. ``I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.''

RUUUUUUN!

Read more!

Hello folks. Paul here with a couple of helpful hints for all people who have difficulty purchasing their Metro fares in the morning.

First of all, if you are at a bluish kiosk and the message blinks "Smartrip only," and you hold in your hand what is a thin, paperish substance - this is not a Smartrip. You will not be able to trade in your paper card, because, once again, this is not a smartrip. No amount of trying to jam the paper into the machine will convince the machine to change its mind and accept your paper card.

Similarly, if you have been standing in line immediately behind this person for several minutes witnessing said person fail to trade in their farecard, and you also do not possess a Smartrip card - guess what? You, too, will unable to perform a transaction at this machine. The machine will not take a sudden look at you and say, "I like this guy. I'll permit him to do a tradein." No, you see this is a machine, and it tends to have the same uniform rules until the overlords of Metro change its mechanics.

There are all sorts of guidelines about purchasing Smartrip cards on the web, but seeing as how you are still using paper cards you must therefore also probably only have a dial-up connection, I'll spare you the pain of trying to download instructions.

Finally, if you are standing at the next kiosk and it is flashing "No bills," this is not a sign that the machine does not favor the Buffalo football franchise. You see, a bill is another word for cash. I'm actually a little surprised you are standing at this particular machine since you never seem to have bills, or cash, when you are at the local CVS and you hold up the entire freaking line so that you can buy a Snickers Bar with your credit or debit card. Anyway, this particular machine, because it is evil and so is Metro, is not taking your cash at the present moment. No matter how many different slots you attempt to stick your money into, it will not take your damned money. You can try putting it into the little crevices at the bottom, but it still will not work.

Now, if you are without a Smartcard, and you only have cash, you are now - as we like to say here in DC - completely fucked. But that's life, go get a helmut.

Thank you. The preceding public service anouncement has been paid for by the New World Order.

Read more!

I don’t particularly want to play counterweight to GipperClone with respect to foreign policy for several reasons.  Two of which are, I’m grossly under qualified and, well, to be honest, significant portions of foreign affairs doesn’t really interest me all that much.  It’s not that I don’t care, or that I think it is unimportant, but rather because I’ve always been a domestic law and policy wonk, preferring to leave the international stuff to others.  Want to talk constitutional law, I’m your man.  If it’s monetary policy, health care, minimum wage, see me I’ll gladly debate the merits of these ideas for hours and hours (as far too many readers and contributors of this blog well know).  If you want to discuss the world at large, well I’ve got my own opinions, to be sure, but I’m not really the best person on many of those subjects.  That said, the cross over that has taken place recently has peeked my interest.  If anyone has failed to notice I’m an institutionalist, I like to study and discuss how the various institutions of our government work both internally and how they work together or against each other to achieve policy or legal goals.  Hence, this article in Foreign Affairs caught my attention.  It appears to have caught the attention of at least one columnist today as well.  I’ve always maintained that I never believe 100% of anything that I read, however, this piece seems to come from a non-media, reputable source (though I’m not sure Foreign Affairs could be considered the MSM).  With that in mind, take a gander at both the article and the column; I think this could be fodder for an interesting comments section.

Read more!

David Irving pled guilty to denying the Holocaust and has been sentenced to three years in prison by an Austrian court. I find this deeply troubling because the West has been championing the right to free speech and has held up our freedom of press and publishing to the world as an example. How can we claim freedom of speech and yet jail a man for writing revisionist history?


The Associated Press refers to David Irving as a “Right-wing British historian.” This is a bit of a misstatement. Among his false claims is that there were no Nazi gas chambers in Auschwitz and the assertion that most of those who died in the concentration camps “succumbed to diseases such as typhus rather than execution.” (AP) He has echoed Goebbels in saying that Hitler was not aware of the Final Solution. He’s not much of an historian and the possibility of 10 years in jail brought out a much more conciliatory tone. He attempted to recant some of his earlier claims, but the court did not seem impressed.

My first instinct is to say “so what?” I mean, we have our own manipulators of history. Denying the Holocaust is pretty standard fare for White Supremist groups and David Duke became a national political figure on the back of this lie. Why should we care that another liar goes to jail?

We, correctly, made a big deal of the RIGHT of publications to display religious cartoons. As a Catholic, I have had to suffer through malicious cartoons for the better part of three years now. It is generally accepted that the law provides for a robust freedom of speech, tempered only by exigent circumstances and malicious intent. Plainly stated, we defend the right to say horrible things, to insult, offend, humiliate, and injure. Where, in this context, do laws against revisionist history rest?

And this isn’t merely a European hypocrisy. We have our own version in terms of “hate crimes.”

Conceptually, the attachment of additional penalties for crimes on the basis of intent, where intent is already taken into account in the grading or definition of the offense, is an attack on free speech. Take, for example, an unlawful killing or an assault. We have already taken into account intent when we charged the individual. What is the attachment of an assessment of the defendant’s state of mind in engaging in the crime, other than a means for penalizing distasteful thoughts?

I have heard the argument that these laws exist as a disinducement to others who have such thoughts. In essence, by penalizing the thought as well as the action, we discourage like-minded individuals from acting on their inclinations. This is a cop-out.

The disinducement is the penalty for the crime. The penalty already takes this, worthy, societal goal into account. (Witness the effects of racial and sexual discrimination suits in the workplace.)

My point is that this relatively new type of law is in direct conflict with one of our deepest and most carefully protected liberties… Free Speech. I’d love to hear some thoughts on this topic.


Read more!

The Corner has been discussing over the weekend the difference between conservative reaction to the deficit under Reagan and the deficit under President Bush. There are two critiques of W that are particularly harsh. The first comes from Jonah Goldberg. :

There is also the philosophical problem. Bush has done real violence to the principle of limited government with all of his talk about how the government has to move when someone is hurting and his aim to leave no child behind. Some of his programs are, I think, easily defended on the merits. But that doesn't change the fact that as general philosophical issue, Bush has conceded that the government is there to help in a way Reagan never would have. Sure, Reagan made exceptions to his general anti-government position. Sometimes they were pragmatic, sometimes they were legitimate exceptions (conservatives aren't uniformly opposed to all government interventions), and some times his deviations were hypocritical, at least in the eyes of some. But such hypocrisy was the tribute conservatives must sometimes pay to politics. Bush has conceded much of the fundamental ground to liberals when it comes to the role of government. Now the argument about governmental problem solving is technical -- "will it work?" -- rather than principled, "is it the government's job?"

Whereas Jonah emphasizes the philosophical problems with Bush's conservatism, John Derbyshire has what I think is a more devastating of President Bush:

At the time of the Roberts and Alito nominations, and especially when Harriet Miers was put forward, the following point was much made: That the modern American conservative movement, by arguing, publishing, educating, and persuading across many years, had nurtured a cadre of conservative judges ready to be called on when vacancies appeared on the Supreme Court. Much of the unhappiness about Miers arose from a belief that all this careful husbandry was going to waste.

I think there's something of the same feeling with GWB. Reagan came out of an America whose commanding heights, cultural and political, were held by liberals. Yet he was a true conservative, of great principle and conviction. In the later America from which GWB emerged, conservative ideas were much more accessible & widespread, and there was a wider, deeper pool of real conservative from which the GOP might have chosen its presidential candidates. Yet here is a guy from that much-improved background, who is insouciant to, perhaps (I wouldn't personally rule it out) ignorant of, two of the most fundamental principles of modern conservatism: fiscal restraint and government limitation. He is also distressingly naive on some key points of foreign policy, apparently believing, for example, that Vicente Fox is a friend of the USA, that Palestinian Arabs "yearn for freedom," and so on.

That GWB put forward Harriet Miers as a plausible candidate for SCOTUS is bad enough. Worse is the suspicion, among many of us limited-govt, national-issue, and fiscal conservatives, that GWB is Harriet Miers, and that Bill Buckley and the other great nurturers of US conservatism over this past half century may have labored in vain.

I think Mr. Derbyshire is onto something, though I think they are both basically correct. I have debated on this blog and many others that George Bush is not a conservative in the traditional sense, though he is certainly to the right. He does not qualify necessarily as a neo-conservative, though he reflects some of the quasi-utopianism of that branch of conservatism. Bush has almost established his own branch of conservatism, one that will hopefully not be repeated by any future Republican president.

But while we hope for another more pure conservative in the future, it's hard to wonder who will be a truly ideal candidate. John McCain has been credited by some as being an anti-big government type, but he is hardly disagreeable to large amounts of governmental regulation. Rudolph Giuliani is a tough law and order type who is much more socially conservative than some give him credit for being, and may actually be a truer example of a conservative than we realize. But there are obvious difficulties with his candidacy, not the least of which are his opinions on abortion, gay marriage and gun control. And though Senator Allen comes closest to being in the mold of Reagan, he might not be the surest choice. In fact, when all is said and done, the closest any right-wing political figure might be to being both a true conservative and someone who also possesses the intellectual gravitas is Newt Gingrich. Newt is one of the most intellectual politicians of the recent era, and he seems to be the kind of person that could restore the right to its traditional roots. But there's this whole thing about his character and the hostility the public might feel - for right or wrong - towards him. In the end, it's a challenge to think of any prominent conservative - either among the intellectual class or among the political class - who might satisfy the bulk of the right.

Though George W. Bush might be a disappointment in many respects, Andrew Stuttaford notes this little tidbit from Andrew Sullivan:

It will take a generation to undo the damage that Bush has done to conservatism, America's fiscal health, and the whole idea of limited government. My prediction: we will see huge tax increases soon after Bush leaves the scene. He will insist they are a betrayal of his legacy. They will, in fact, be the logical consequence of everything he has said and done. Once they get past their loathing, big government liberals may well look back on the Bush years and wonder at the miracle of how he did what they spent two generations failing to do.

I have my issues with President Bush, but this is horescrap, and for two reasons. For one thing, I think Sullivan greatly exaggerates the future threat of tax increases. Yes, the deficit is a great problem, and one made worse by President Bush's big government conservatism. There is the potential for a weak-kneed President attempting to over-compensate for this deficit problem, but we can also hope that a true conservative will take the reigns and realize that the solution is not saddeling us with a larger tax burden, but in actually cutting back our obscene spending ways.

The second problem with Sullivan's statement is that he is the one issuing it. Andrew Sullivan critiquing President Bush's conservative bona fides is a bit like, well, Andrew Sullivan calling out someone for not being a true Catholic. Years from now we will consider the pro-abortion (in the first trimester), pro-gay marriage, pro-stem cell, etc. ad infinitum Andrew Sullivan as the greater betrayer of fundamental conservative principles than George W. Bush.

Read more!

Chavez has declared that he intends to remain in power beyond his allotted term.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4731742.stm

Read more!

The Sixth Sense is currently playing on ABC Family. Now, I'm sure there's some family-friendly theme in the movie - like not poisoning your daughter to death or some such. And at 7:00 on a Sunday night who doesn't want to sit around the tube with the kiddies and watch a movie about some creepy little kid who can see dead people? But it does seem an odd choice for the network.

Seems much more like a Disney Channel flick to me.

Read more!

Instead of this:
We can enjoy this:


Read more!

Sometimes I lie awake at night wondering whether Dog the Bounty Hunter is a great man or a total raving lunatic. (Don't know what I'm talking about? Check out A&E.)

Read more!

Boy, this should help Chavez control his people. Why does anyone still believe him to be anything other than a dangerous dictator?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4718688.stm

Sounds like a repeat of Nicaragua.

Read more!

The Curt Jester has the scoop on the new rite of Exorcism: The Rite of Exorcism for the Spirit of Vatican II.

HT: CAEI.

Read more!

For those of you that do not eat, sleep, breathe, and otherwise have no life outside of Congress and C-SPAN you probably missed the fireworks over this week's testimony by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales with respect to the now infamous NSA Surveillance Program (I’m not going to use either party’s descriptive moniker, except to note that “liberals” have tended to insert the word “domestic” before surveillance and “conservatives” have countered this by inserting “terrorist” before surveillance). I’ve discussed the constitutionality of this in some detail previously, and there are plenty of other (read; better) opinions floating around on the internets if you want more constitutional law than one can read in a single (or several) sitting(s). The latest turn of events, however, appears to stem from a suggestion during the hearings made by Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa), Chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that the President should submit the program and all of its details to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for a review of its constitutionality. The Wall Street Journal’s (WSJ) Editorial Page takes a strong jab at the FISC and Specter’s idea by stating that “GOP Senator Arlen Specter is saying he wants to write legislation putting even more power in the hands of FISA judges. This isn't merely unconstitutional [] … in a world of WMD and fast-moving transnational terrorists, it's dangerous.” This bold assertion of unconstitutionality is where I want to focus this post. Not because I necessarily disagree with the WSJ’s conclusion, but because I want to show that it’s a lot more complicated than they are making it seem. As usual click Read more for the rest.

At first glance there appears to be two major constitutional problems with Specter’s idea: First, it would seem to violate the principles of separation of powers by unduly encroaching into powers that are within the prerogative of the Executive Branch and; second, it appears to be a call for an “advisory opinion” by a federal court, which, according to Article III of the Constitution, federal courts do not have the power to issue.

I’ll start with the separation of powers issue, in part because it is both the easiest argument to make and the least legal in nature. Generally speaking, the discretionary decision to pursue a matter in the courts of the United States is an “executive power.” Take, for example, the prosecution of criminals; this is considered an inherently executive function. Prosecutors, District Attorneys, State’s Attorneys, and Attorney’s General are all “executive branch officers” whether at the local, state, or federal level. They all generally answer to the highest executive in their branch of government. We’ve all heard the phrase “prosecutorial discretion” (and I know that one my co-bloggers is intimately familiar with it), which essentially means that it is up to the executive to decide whether or not to pursue a particular case. Legislatures have little control over this process. While legislatures can pass laws and regulations making certain behaviors subject to criminal prosecution, it is commonly accepted that legislatures cannot themselves engage in prosecution. Nor can legislatures pass laws that would force executive officials to take on specific prosecutions. As an inherently executive function, the decision about whether to take a matter to a court is something that Congress cannot encroach without unduly aggrandizing their own powers at the expense of executive power. Intuitively, given the tri-partite structure of our government this makes sense, which is why it was a bit surprising to hear Senator Specter make such a suggestion. While the executive could voluntarily submit the NSA program to the FISC if it wanted to, it seems fairly clear that Congress cannot pass a law requiring them to do so.

On the other hand (I know, I know there is always another hand with me), Congress is not wholly without recourse in this instance. Article I grants Congress the power of the purse, and as such the Supreme Court has given Congress expansive authority to set conditions on the use of said money. See South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). While Dole dealt specifically with Congress’s ability to condition federal money with respect to the States, its principles appear to be relevant here. In other words, Congress could potentially condition the continued funding of the NSA on the executive receiving a ruling on the program’s constitutionality from the FISC. It’s unlikely that Congress would de-fund the entire NSA; however, they could prevent the President from spending any federal funds to carry out this specific NSA program until the executive got a ruling from the FISC. Moreover, Congress could prevent NSA officials from receiving salaries, benefits, or reimbursement for expenses, if necessary to ensure compliance with its wishes. Politically I know that this is an unlikely scenario, but I feel compelled to point out that what Specter proposes is not necessarily a violation of the Constitution, at least not with respect to the principles of separation of powers.

Now it’s on to, in my opinion, the more interesting part of Senator Specter’s proposal; namely the issues regarding “advisory opinions.” Article III of the Constitution extends the judicial power of the United States to only “cases” and “controversies.” Throughout its history, the Supreme Court has interpreted this requirement in a number of ways, imposing some constitutional requirements, such as the “doctrine of standing” on persons bringing matters before the Court and attempting to have them qualify as “cases” and/or “controversies” that the Court can decide. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998); see also Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962). In addition, the Court has also adopted some “prudential” restrictions on the exercise of its judicial powers. The doctrines of “ripeness,” “mootness,” and “political question,” are all examples of non-constitutional prudential (self imposed) limits on the exercise of judicial power. Historically, it appears that the Court has also adopted a prohibition on the issuance of “advisory opinions, however, as I will show there is far from a clear precedent for its application.

The prohibition on advisory opinions appears to date all the way back to 1793 and Chief Justice John Jay. In 1793, noting constitutional separation of powers principles and functions, Chief Justice John Jay and the Supreme Court refused to grant the request of President Washington and Secretary of State Jefferson to construe the treaties and laws of the United States pertaining to questions of international law arising out of the wars of the French Revolution. See 3 Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay 486-489 (H. Johnston ed., 1893). According to Chief Justice Jay, “[t]hese being in certain respects checks upon each other, and our being Judges of a Court in the last resort, are considerations which afford strong arguments against the propriety of our extra-judicially deciding the questions alluded to, especially as the power given by the Constitution to the President, of calling on the heads of departments for opinions, seem to have been purposely as well as expressly united to the Executive departments.” Id. at 448. Although the Court has generally adhered to this policy of refusing to issue advisory opinions, there appear to be several examples of “advisory opinions” issued by the Justices. For example, it appears that the Justices, responding to a letter calling for suggestions on improvements in the operation of the courts, drafted a letter suggesting that circuit duty for was unconstitutional, but they apparently never sent it. See 2 G. McRee, Life and Correspondence of James Iredell 293-296 (1858). The letter was apparently never forwarded to the President. Writings of Washington, see id. at 31-32 n. 58. When the constitutional issue was raised in Stuart v. Laird, 5 U.S. (1 Cr.) 299, 309 (1803), it was passed over with the observation that the practice was too established to be questioned. In another instance Justice Johnson relayed to President Monroe, apparently with the knowledge and approval of the other Justices, their views on the constitutionality of internal improvements legislation. See 1 Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 595-97 (rev. ed. 1926). Finally, Chief Justice Hughes, in a letter to Senator Wheeler on President Roosevelt's Court Plan, appears to have questioned the constitutionality of a proposal to increase the membership and have the Court sit in divisions. See Reorganization of the Judiciary: Hearings on S. 1392 Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 75th Congress, 1st Sess. (1937), pt. 3, 491; see also S. Tyler, memorirs of Roger B. Taney 432-435 (1876) (noting Chief Justice Taney's private advisory opinion to the Secretary of the Treasury that a tax levied on the salaries of federal judges violated the Constitution).

Despite these examples, it nevertheless appears that none of these so-called “advisory opinions," have been considered or relied upon as formal declarations of the Court, nor does it appear that they were required by any legislation of Congress. Many scholars have noted these examples and have gone on to contend that the Court would no doubt have developed the rule against advisory opinions as a logical application of the case and controversy doctrine.

Unlike the separation of powers argument, I can think of no alternative to the prohibition on advisory opinions that would pass Constitutional scrutiny. Thus, it seems that Specter’s proposal would violate Article III’s requirement of a case and/or controversy. Some may point to the “Exceptions and Regulations” clause of Article III, however, that likely only extends to jurisdictional issues, and does not allow Congress to enlarge the grant of judicial power extended by the Constitution. As always, I’m open to suggestions and revisions of my research and analysis and look forward to the informed comments of my cohorts.

Read more!

TP and Paul- I am going to assume that you know most of this. Bear with me though since it may be necessary background to those who are chiming in. (For the record, I am NOT an expert in Islam. However, I have made a “study” of the practice of Islam for more than a decade. I can drag down my copy of the Quran if you wish, or you can accept my word for the following assertions.)

The world of the Prophet Mohamed (Prophet) was chaotic in the extreme. Small tribes, some nomadic, some fixed rural, and some sharing towns and villages. The Quran was designed to overcome this tribalism and unify the Arab peoples under a single, overarching philosophy. As a “law,” it is really quite general in its application. It allows, and appears to have been designed to allow, for local variation.

The good news, from the perspective of Islam, is that this general applicability permitted Moslem overlords to conquer non-Moslem areas and seamlessly drop Islam on top of local policy and law. In some ways, this is an approach that we should find familiar in that, where local policy or law did not conflict with the Quran, it was permitted to remain in force. The tremendous variation in dress, language, titles, and power structures that we see from the Congo to China and Morocco to the Philippines is a testimony to this Quranic accommodation. The preservation of ancient learning and adaptation in math and science during the 1000 CE to 1450 CE Caliphates owes its existence to the flexibility of Islam prior to the rise of Christendom. (We shouldn’t forget that, Islamic culture, learning, art, architecture, science, and philosophy is the backbone of our own intellectualism.) It is precisely the flexibility of the application of Quranic law in establishing local law and policy that made this possible. (Think Moorish Spain or the early Ottoman Empire.)

There is a downside to this though… By not dictating the MEANING of the Suras (Quranic verses) during the life of the Prophet, the next generation of spiritual and temporal leaders began to squabble about very fundamental issues such as the steps one had to take to become a Moslem, the duties of each portion of society: women, slaves, children, servants, brothers, fathers, and, most importantly, WHO’S interpretation held precedence.

So long as North Africa, the Middle and Near East, and the southern half of Asia were economically significant, Islam was used to preserve relative peace among Islamic peoples. Quranic sura were generally interpreted to support the power structure throughout the “Moslem world.” The two centers of interpretation became Mecca and Baghdad. (Before jumping on this assertion, I humbly acknowledge that this whole post is an oversimplification and, on this particular point, many communities ignored both as a place of proper interpretation of the Quran, preferring provincial interpretations.)

The separation of Sunni and Shiite Islam occurred within an hundred years of the Prophet’s death. By 1000 CE Shiite Islam had split into dozens of mystical traditions. By 1800, Sunni Islam had broken into several versions of Islam, some militant, some very conservative (in the sense of supporting the ruling powers). Everything began to go terribly wrong in about 1600.

Decadence and perversion had undermined the legitimacy of the Caliphates (loosely, “kingdoms”) and “Christendom” was pressing in on the Moslem world on all sides. Economic sources of power such as the spice-trade had faltered or, more correctly, been consumed by European and Asian merchants. (I read a paper a number of years ago that attributed the fall of the Caliphates to the failure to embrace sea-travel as the primary mover of goods. The author argued that overland had become so slow and subject to loss [carrying charges, banditry, taxation] that Asian merchants were only too happy to trade in the camel for the schooner.) As the economic sphere collapsed, infighting among the various power centers took off. This encouraged European meddling during the 18th and 19th centuries until, by 1900, the Moslem Umma (community) had ceased to exist.

In its place was a powerless and economically isolate group of subject powers with loose alliances to distant European powers. On Europe’s part, the Middle and Near East were barely of interest. The real battles were over Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. On the eve of WWI, the Middle East, the Near East, and North Africa were critical only as military acquisitions to slow the encroachment of other European powers on one’s colonial possessions.

Islam, during this period, was quietly going through a radical transformation. With the establishment of militant societies such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, groups of mainly poor, urban youth were beginning to strike at the governments of the Moslem world. Noting (justly) the huge disparities between the lives of the rich and poor and that those disparities were based upon the connection of powerful families to foreign, non-Moslem forces, these societies drew a connection between “foreign” and “persecuting.”

The reaction of the rulers in countries so challenged was to 1) state that they were secular and to limit the practice of Islam to a private sphere (Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Morocco, Libya, and, to a lesser extent, Egypt) or 2) to embrace a particular version of Islam and assume the authority of religious interpretation by the strict adherence to Sharia law. (For the record, we keep throwing around the term “Sharia law” in the blogsphere as though it is one, single legal code. It is not. The Quran is the central text on which the varied religious-centered Sharia laws revolve.) Examples of these countries are Afghanistan, Sudan, Jordan, the Emirs, and, most significantly, Saudi Arabia.

The dynamic between religion and politics is not so clean-cut as this and many of the “secular” states drew their strength from being “Islamic.” However, across the board, the key to power in Moslem states was still definitively “foreign.” It was their relationship with European powers, through WWII, that kept them in control. (By way of narrative, I have tried to imagine what being a powerless Moslem youth in Cairo in 1945 would have been like… No work, no national prestige, Europeans visiting my country for its quaintness and lording their wealth over me, while I have no future. I’ll bet the Muslim Brotherhood would have seemed damn attractive.)

Following WWII, the exploitation of oil resources exacerbated the problems and led to the overthrow of Iran’s secular government. Throughout the Moslem world, oil resources were assumed by the governments and used to purchase security and intelligence networks of great sophistication. These resources were turned on their own people because the governments correctly saw the threat that these unallied Muslims represented to their power. The West’s response was to bolster the governments with money and arms in order to contain the Islamist threat. This brought Western powers, already despised as the architects of the fall of the Moslem world, into direct opposition with dispossessed Moslems everywhere. Worse still, this was at least four generations on. Four generations of Moslem anger against their powerlessness and alienation.

The two factors that crystallized the problem for Moslems, in my opinion, were the “creation” of Israel and the US-Soviet conflict.

From the Moslem perspective, the Israeli problem is entirely of the West’s making. Historically, the Jewish state was abolished by the Romans and never truly recovered. Jews emigrated throughout the Moslem Caliphates prior to 1700 and there were few Jews in “Palestine” on the eve of WWII. Following the war and due as much to Soviet oppression as the holocaust, Jews began to move, without legal authority, into Palestine. (Palestine was a mess prior to this, with authority loosely shared between the British, French, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, and the chaos created a vacuum that Jews fleeing Europe were able to exploit.)

Some immigrants purchased land, some squatted, and some were “granted” land by the foregoing authorities. This was a sensational story in the Moslem world and it became a direct affront with the intervention of the United Nations and the sanction by the West.

The “creation” of Israel was perceived to be the resolution of the “Jewish” problem in Europe by deporting them to Palestine. It was seen as an outrageous example of Moslem powerlessness and European arrogance. Getting stomped in two Israeli wars exacerbated this feeling of powerlessness. Adding millions of stateless “Palestinian” refugees to the already overflowing numbers of poor and dispossessed in the Middle East was the final straw. Hatred of Israel and her Western protectors became part and parcel with the cry for “justice” against 500 years of Christian aggression.

Against this backdrop, the interplay with the Cold War and the insidious effect of socialism/communism forged a wedge between the mass of Moslem people and modernity. Their rulers were perceived as mere puppets of the Soviet Union and the US (in my opinion, this perception is an accurate one) that was played out most directly in Afghanistan. (The number of “holy warriors” that volunteered to die in the cold in Central Asia is a testimony as to how desperate for respect and opportunity Islam had become.)

Furthermore, the West added insult to injury by: supporting the Shah against a popular uprising, supporting Israel in the illegal seizing of land in Sinai and Golan (the UN says it was illegal, not me, so don’t jump too hard on this point), the arming of the secular Baathist regimes of Iraq and Syria, the arming of militant groups in Lebanon and Khurdistan, the admission of Turkey into Europe on the condition that it essentially outlaw the public practice of Islam (this is a far more complex situation than I think Moslems perceive it to be, but this IS the perception), and the cooperation with brutal security and intelligence networks throughout the Moslem world that engaged in torture and murder. There is much that the West has contributed to the equation and not all of the charges leveled against us are unfair or overstated.

Philosophically, a significant shift in the interpretation of Islam had occurred. Whereas, under the Caliphates, the schools in Baghdad and Mecca had interpreted the Quran in ways that were flexible (to support the expansion of Islam) and conservative (to support the administrations of the Caliphates), new schools of thought began to gain precedence. It is important to note and has been completely overlooked in TPS posts that the Saudi approach to Quranic interpretation is directly opposed to the militant form of Islam that we have been discussing. This should not be a surprise since militant Islam has the potential to undermine the House of Saud.

In opposition to religious interpretation that supported a decayed and destroyed, intellectualized version of Islam, Wahabists, in particular, taught that all rules not specifically found in the Quran were corrupt. One of the important points here is that Wahabism comes from Pakistan, not Saudi Arabia. It came to Saudi Arabia and adopted the credibility of Meccan authority in the late nineteenth century.

Wahabism is peculiarly adapted to speaking to the poor and dispossessed. It is anti-intellectual in that no text can be considered other than the Quran. It is readily accessible in that the only language that can be used to discuss religion is an old form of Arabic, thereby excluding all of the Concordia from the Caliphates. It is “justice” oriented in that it requires self-sacrifice and equality among Moslems. And, it is definitively anti-Western.

This is where Paul’s and GC’s contentions about the nature of Islam as “violent” come in to play.
Whereas the New Testament does not contain injunctions against unbelievers, the Old Testament and the Quran do. In the West, Christians and Jews gloss over the orders to separate from or kill non-believers, lest they infect the community. (Note that we periodically encounter modern “Christian” heretics who embrace this idea.) We concentrate on the good aspects of faith and relegate the evil ones to the past. In one sense, it is, as TP contended, the decision to view our faith through a lens of modernity.

Christianity is particularly immunized against the correlation with evil practice because Christ was so explicit in his instructions to love one another and selective in the application of ancient Judaism. (We could debate this ad infinitum, but Christ was clearly doing something new.) Paulist teaching of the universality of Christianity also helped maintain Jesus’ teaching.

Nonetheless, we should not forget that Christianity has been used for great evil. Forget the Inquisition and Crusades as examples. They represent as much political and economic movements as anything else. I’m talking about the down and dirty persecution of the Reformation period. Catholic peasants, without anything to gain, burning Huguenots in France. Anglican city folk without any economic interest dragging teenagers from their houses for public beatings and burnings, merely because they were Quakers. Beheadings of priests. Burning of whole villages in Germany because they were Anabaptist. 1400-1700 in Europe ain’t pretty folks and it is just as inconceivable to the “modern” mind, or should be, as the present religion inspired violence.

Wahabists, by allowing for purely local interpretation of the Quran and by excluding more than a 1000 years of Concordia, created an extreme interpretation of the Sura. Take, for example, the Burka. The Quran requires that women maintain their modesty in dress and avoid displays of immodesty in their behavior. Saint Paul says much the same thing.

The Burka was unknown outside of Pakistan prior to 1800. However, the dress, not required by the Quran, has become the Wahabist interpretation of the modesty Sura. So too, the Quranic requirement that non-Moslems submit to Moslem rule that was interpreted so broadly in Moorish Spain was interpreted, by Wahabists, to require that one convert to Islam and observe their interpretation or social laws or be cast out. Resistance to such conversion makes on an enemy of Islam, under this interpretation, and an assault against Islam requires that Moslems defend their faith, even if such defense requires the death of the attacker.

In the last 50 years, Wahabists have grown by leaps and bounds. Saudi Arabia has a lot to do with this. The House of Saud, recognizing the danger that militant Islam represents for their continued rule, made a very practical bargain with the Wahabists… “Leave Saudi Arabia and we will build schools (Madrassas) and mosques for you in other countries.” This had the duel purpose of acting as a steam-valve and creating a foothold for Saudi intelligence and security forces in other countries. This move probably preserved the kingdom. However, the cost to the world was huge.

From 1970s on, Wahabist madrassas and mosques have been preaching that the ONLY Islam is militant, culturally united, opposed the existence of separate nation states, opposed to science, opposed to democracy, and opposed to the West.

Their influence can be felt in even the most conservative Moslem voices today. Take, for example, the standards of the Saudis, the Baathists in Syria, the Khomeini in Iran, the Taliban, the Black Moslems in America, and the Moslem revolutionaries in South-East Asia. This corrupt version of Islam has been exported throughout the world at the direct behest of Saudi Arabia. But, at its root, it is an extreme version of Pakistani Wahabism.

Paul and GC are right to be concerned and they are correct to attribute the widespread anti-intellectual, violent, militant, and anti-Western actions of Islamists to the very interpretation of Islam that is being taught throughout the world. TP is right in stating that Islam, at its root, is no more “violent” than any other religion and that the violence and anger of successive generations of Moslems is being expressed through a religions prism that does not speak to the original interpretation of Islam.

The real question is… What do we do about it?

GC points out that hand-wringing and trying to understand one who sets themselves in dogged opposition to your very way of life is dangerous. Paul points out that the unchallenged religious militancy is undermining the West. TP points out that we have to understand the root causes for which Islam is the answer if we are to address the problems. Do I have your arguments right guys?

I don’t know the answer. But, let me offer a few suggestions on how we can make things better…

1. There are moderate voices in Islam, that the West keeps at arms length for fear that there is an hidden agenda. Surely we can distinguish the moderates from the extremists and give voice to the moderates. This can’t be a government action because the very act of supporting the movement will drive a wedge between the moderate movement and a people suspicious of the West. Only the media, academics, and religious leaders can lend credibility to moderate Islam.

2. Time for “Radio free Islam.” We already have a mix of, primarily, military intelligence radio-stations in Central Asia and the Middle and Near East. We need a greatly expanded program such as that which undermined Communism in Eastern Europe. Putting militant Islam in the same context as Communism (worldwide conspiracy of power-hungry, elitist, bastards for whom personal liberty is a direct affront), there is, and must be, a deep abiding hunger for freedom. NOTHING can destroy totalitarianism and despotism of the mind more than concepts of freedom. This is the soft-underbelly of the beast.

3. Spend money on countries that have been our friends. I am thinking here of Turkey, the Philippines, Morocco, Afghanistan, and Egypt. The Marshall Plan created an economic powerhouse in Central Europe that showed Communism to be a dead-end. It was impossible to look across the Wall in 1985 and not see that Communism had failed. Our starving of moderate and well-run Islamic states because they have few resources of interest to us is misguided, short cited, disloyal, and foolish. Force the Islamists to offer an economic plan and their anti-intellectual shortcomings will become painfully obvious.

4. Treat Palestine and Israel with an even hand. I hate to agree with Europe on anything, but the US has been far too dismissive of Israeli actions in the past and the concerns of Palestinian refugees worldwide. Palestinians can’t travel (passport problems), get jobs (no economic system in place except a welfare apparatus), or advance their children. This is true whether they live in Gaza, the West Bank, or are refugees in third countries. Maybe we can’t bring “peace to the Middle East,” but we CAN treat the concerns of a displaced people with even-handed respect.

5. Create a separate directorate of Middle and Near Eastern affairs within the Department of State. I don’t mean a “desk.” We already have that. I mean a director and a separate group of intelligence operatives and analysts, diplomats and economists, religious and political scholars, and humanitarian aid policy makers that can coordinate an overarching and cohesive policy in the region.

Now that I look at this post, I recognize that it is inordinately long. For our TPS community members that are better informed than I am, sorry for rehashing stuff you already know. Hopefully, for others, this post puts the problem in some kind of perspective.

Read more!

Rumor has it there's some sort of game being played later today. Some super game. Being on the East Coast, I was aware that the Pittsburgh Steelers were in Detroit for some reason, but I thought they were in town just to collect the Vince Lombardi trophy as a reward for winning the championship two weeks ago against the Broncos. Alas, it appears as though the city of Seattle fielded an entrant into this year's NFL playoff tournament, and they are challenging the men from Pittsburgh to a contest this evening.

As they say, it's all in how you play the game. Some might say it's all about control and if you can take it. And there is a lot of truth to that, for the team that protects the ball is likely to win the game. Turnovers are brutal in these important games.

In other regards, though, the game is about pain, and who's gonna make it. The Steelers have a thunderous defense, and I expect them to apply a lot of pressure on Seahawks' quarterback Matt Hasselbeck. But the Seahawks also possess a reltively unheralded defense, and if they can contain the Steelers one-two running back combination of Porter Parker and Betis, then they will have put the game solidly in the hands of second-year quarterback Ben Roethlisberger. Even though he has shown signs of great maturity, he is still a young pup as far as the league is concerned. I expect the Seahawks to try and play some mental games with the young qb, taunting him with shouts of "I am the pain, and I know you can't take me." I think Ben will looking over his shoulder for a lot of the game, and he'll be ready to run. But Ben is ready for the game, and he wants to play.

Ultimately, though I think Seattle has a fine team, their foundations are crumbling. In the end, I fear that Shaun Alexander will be left dangling like a man from his attic, prone to heavy punishment.

Steelers 34, Seahawks 17.

All right then. It's time to play the game.

Time to play the gaaaaaaame.

Read more!

Good afternoon. I wanted to take this time to post a little helpful reminder that there really are no essential differences between Judeo-Christianity and Islam. Oh, sure, we might have different methods of protesting offensive cartoons














but that does not mean that we are fundamentally different. What's important, most of all, is that we value our children, and only hope to instill in them values that really matter.



Most importantly we all equally value peace, and are all striving to promote the message of love around the world.



HT: Michelle Malkin for the pics.

Update: As usual, Mark Steyn brings his A-game today. A couple of excerpts:

Denmark! Even if you were overcome with a sudden urge to burn the Danish flag, where do you get one in a hurry in Gaza? Well, OK, that's easy: the nearest European Union Humanitarian Aid and Intifada-Funding Branch Office. But where do you get one in an obscure town on the Punjabi plain on a Thursday afternoon? If I had a sudden yen to burn the Yemeni or Sudanese flag on my village green, I haven't a clue how I'd get hold of one in this part of New Hampshire. Say what you like about the Islamic world, but they show tremendous initiative and energy and inventiveness, at least when it comes to threatening death to the infidels every 48 hours for one perceived offense or another. If only it could be channeled into, say, a small software company, what an economy they'd have.

[edit]Thus, NBC is celebrating Easter this year with a special edition of the gay sitcom "Will & Grace," in which a Christian conservative cooking-show host, played by the popular singing slattern Britney Spears, offers seasonal recipes -- "Cruci-fixin's." On the other hand, the same network, in its coverage of the global riots over the Danish cartoons, has declined to show any of the offending artwork out of "respect" for the Muslim faith.

Which means out of respect for their ability to locate the executive vice president's home in the suburbs and firebomb his garage.

Read more!

So my girlfriend finally succeeded in dragging me to see Underworld 2: Evolution. I wasn't really thrilled to see a movie that hadn't exactly received rave reviews. I'm not one to put too much stock in movie reviews, but a movie that had received a 15% rating on Rotten Tomatoes didn't incite me to head to the movies. But I decided to go.

And you know what? It is not that bad a movie. Oh sure, it's a tad gory and a litle silly - but it's also a freaking vampire movie, so what should you expect? And as far as vampire movies go, this wasn't at all bad. In fact, I would wager to say I've plenty of movies worse than this one. Heck, I've seen Oscar winners worse than this picture. Given a choice of The English Patient, Titanic or Underworld 2, I'll go with the latter all the time.

Part of the problem is that these movies are all reviewed by the same people. The same douchebag who actually enjoys drek like The Thin Red Line will undoubtedly sneer at movies like Underworld. It's understandable how some can be taken in by such incessantly annoying "artsy" movies, but therein lies the problem.

There are different genres of movies. I'm not just talking about comedies, dramas, etc, but rather movies that take themselves seriously and those that do not. The bar is obviously lower for the latter, but that does not mean that non-serious movies often don't even fulfill their own low expectations. Michael Bay should never be allowed within a hundred miles of a movie studio. I am forever scarred by movies like Godzilla, Jurassic Park 2, and Batman and Robin. But while these movies often fail, when they fail it's sort of an innocent failure. You watch the movie, walk away regretting having spent ten bucks on such putridness, then forget about it.

But serious movies that fail linger. It's bad enough that they're bad, but they're annoying in their badness. You laugh at the ridiculousness of Armegeddon, but I was actively angry halfway through Cold Mountain. You can't even enjoy the horribleness of such flix, but instead you have to endure the heavy handedness of the movie and suck it up. Believe me, Elaine Benes was not the only person just wishing that the main character of the The English Patient would just die already.

Even more infuriating is that movie critics actually laud these films. I want the head of anyone who actually enjoyed Chocolat delivered to me on a silver platter. Oooooh, what a stirring message: people can only enjoy life when they're doing what they're not supposed to. Good God, what insipid crap, and yet it gets a best picture nod.

Looking at the list of best picture nominees it's not difficult to understand to why Hollywood is in trouble. They applaud themselves for trite bullshit like Munich, but the rest of the America is lining up to see The Chronicles of Narnia. Again, I'm not one to put a ton of stock in public opinion, but sometimes the masses are in fact right. We go to movies to be entertained, not to be lectured - badly. That's not to say that a movie can't be both deep and good, but so many modern filmakers are so terrible at what they do that when they try to be deep and profound, they miss horribly. They miss more than Michael Bay missed the mark in Pearl Harbor, and that's an awful lot girl.

Anyway, that's a long way of saying that if you're into vampire movies, then you'll probably enjoy Underworld. If not, then you might want to see something else - like Big Momma's House 2.

Read more!

Just about everywhere one looks these days there are stories about how corrupt, dishonest, and tied to special interests our government, especially Members of Congress have become. I would like to think that it isn’t half as bad as many people, including some Members have made it sound, but it’s a bit hard when stories like Randy “Duke” Cunningham pleading guilty of taking bribes and super-lobbyist Jack Abromoff pleading guilty to several corruption and conspiracy to bribe charges after having cut a plea bargain where he essentially promised to help in investigating and obtaining convictions of Members of Congress for their legal transgressions. (Note, while I cited two “Republican” incidents, please do not start with accusing me of partisan bias, at least not yet. The examples I chose were by far the most egregious of those available as well as the most public. Democrats are by no means any better off, nor were we any cleaner or ethical while we controlled both houses of Congress, I know this already.) While every “scandal” may not be bi-partisan, the issue of corruption and reform is and must be dealt with that way if there is any hope of saving the institution. Click Read More to see what I’m talking about. (Warning: another epic post so click at your own peril)

I can hear the questions now, so exactly how do we save the institution smart guy? Well, first we have to identify the problem, which is not as easy as one might think. Is the problem lobbyists? Not exactly, though they don’t really help anything. There have been lobbyists since the inception of government, if what you mean by lobbyists are people who have specific interests in mind and access to those with power. Money, for sure that is a problem too, but again there is nothing really new about that. In some sense trying to take money out of politics is a bit like trying to get blood from a stone. Try all the alchemy, chemistry, or modern science you want, it isn’t going to happen. Corruption, also bad and needs to be weeded out, but again that’s not really anything new or novel. There has always been corruption and eventually it always gets caught and punished. The problem here is that much of what might be considered “corruption” is not illegal, thus it flies beneath the radar of both the authorities and the public and eventually becomes entrenched as “business as usual.” That leaves us with what I think is the biggest culprit, and also the most fixable; namely, the rules of the institution itself.

Let me explain. Too few people beyond Capital Hill truly understand how the grand institution of Congress works. Ah you say, but we see it on C-SPAN all the time we know how it works, Members get up speak about nothing important for a few minutes and then vote aye or nay, if the ayes have it they win, majority rule, what could be simpler. All of this is true, and without a doubt C-SPAN is a wonderful public service that has shed more sunlight than anything on Congress in the last 30+ years, but like most things you see on TV, what you see is not exactly what you get. I’ll make my point with a bit of trivia combined with civics you don’t get in your average high school classroom. What is the most powerful committee in the House of Representatives? Many of the most knowledgeable folks out there will respond without hesitation Ways and Means. Why? Likely, they say this because they know that all the “money” bills have to clear that committee. Taxes, spending, you name it, if it involves dollars and cents Ways and Means has jurisdiction. Powerful yes, but wrong, they are not the most powerful. Armed Services, one might say. Well, also very powerful, especially in this day and age, as all military and national security legislation and issues are before Armed Services, but also wrong. Last guess and the ultra political junky might be tempted to say House Government Reform. Why, what do they do? Well, technically they can do everything. Government Reform’s jurisdiction is so broad that they can pretty much do anything they want and then some. How do you think the baseball steroids issue got before them? Simple really, they (Tom Davis, baseball junkie) wanted it, so they got it. (Little known fact: House Government Reform is the only committee where the Chairman acting on his own, sua sponte if you will, can issue a subpoena for testimony or documents, all other committees have to first get a majority vote before they can take the same action.) Anyway enough with the guessing, the most powerful committee in the House, by and far is the Rules Committee.

Here’s why: The Rules Committee controls the floor. They control what bills get to be voted on, what amendments can be considered, how much time for “debate” there is, and what the structure of the proceedings will look like. That’s real power. For example, the Rules Committee has a controversial bill before it one where both sides have entrenched positions and lots of disagreement. The bill is 85 pages long and members have submitted 200 amendments. The Rules Committee has several choices as to how this bill will come to the floor. It can offer, which it rarely does, an “open rule,” which would permit all 200 amendments to be considered with say 5 minutes of debate for each side on each one. They can also offer a “modified rule” which only allows a few amendments, selected by the Rules Committee of course, and offer limited time for debate on each one. This is generally the tactic used by the Rules Committee as it maximizes their influence. Typically, the Rules Committee will prevent the most controversial amendments from being considered. In addition, they will often also prevent otherwise popular, leadership opposed amendments from being brought to the floor, as well as prohibit secondary amendments and other parliamentary tricks from being used to add or subtract additional amendments to the bill. Finally, it allows them to structure everything around a central amendment usually called a “managers amendment,” which is offered either by the leadership or the committee chairman with jurisdiction. Last the Committee can use a “closed rule,” which is exactly what it sounds like, no amendments, limited debate, and swift floor action. Admittedly, I have simplified these examples considerably, but as you can hopefully see, the party that controls the Rules Committee controls the House in many ways more effectively than either the Speaker or the Majority Leader.

Conversely, the Senate has nothing like the House Rules Committee. In the Senate the Rules Committee is responsible for different elements of the Senate Chamber and functions more like the House Administration Committee. While the Senate Rules Committee is influential, it is not nearly as powerful as its House namesake. This is not to say that the Senate rules don’t also suffer from major defects. Probably the most notorious is the “anonymous hold,” which allows a single Senator, regardless of party and without requiring a stated public reason, to prohibit floor consideration on just about anything. All that said, the most egregious rules violation in either chamber has to do with Conference Committees. As most may know, when the House and Senate each pass similar, but not identical measures on an issue, the bills go to a Conference Committee, who “works out the differences” are reports a single identical bill back to each Chamber for consideration. Neither Chamber permits the amendment of bills reported out of conference. It is an up or down vote, thus, even if there is one provision that is not acceptable a member has to weigh whether it is worth attempting to scuttle the entire bill simply to make that point. This is why “controversial” measures are often attached in conference to “must pass” legislation such as supplemental spending measures, defense bills or other legislation considered containing essential items of public interest like tax cuts.

I have gotten a bit off track, but the diversion was necessary to make my ultimate point. Namely, the key to reform in Congress is not lobbyists, money, or corruption, but changing the rules in each Chamber to make things more transparent and more difficult to maneuver around. Restricting the floor privileges and gym access of former Members of the House is nice and sounds good, but really means nothing. Even changing the so-called “revolving door provisions,” which prohibit members and staff from lobbying their former employers for one year, is ineffective if you don’t also alter the underlying structure in each chamber. With all of this in mind, I offer the following rule reforms that would be more productive in stopping the perceived ills of Congress than anything that we have seen thus far.

1. Restrict the availability of the “modified rule” and “closed rule” in the House to only legislation that has been reported out by a 2/3 or greater majority of the committee of jurisdiction. This will force the individual committees to do more of the amendment process before reporting a bill to the floor. Too often committees restrict or limit the amendment process saving the most important and controversial amendments until the floor where they are the only options permitted by the Rules Committee, while other amendments of equal importance are left out. If the Committee fails to reach at least a 2/3 consensus, it likely means there are additional amendments that need consideration to and those should not be prohibited from reaching the floor of the House for debate and consideration.
   
2. Prohibit Conference Committees from adding measures that were not previously included in either the House or Senate versions of the bills. This will prevent the last minute tack on of controversial or questionable legislation that cannot be amended. It’s a simple rule; if it wasn’t in the House or Senate bill originally it cannot make a first appearance in the Conference bill. The fact is that many, many of the so-called “earmarks” are added in conference, and thus this rule change would also likely cut down on the current abuses of that practice. This will also force more measures to be worked out on their own merits rather than simply being pulled from the floor and attached to “must pass” legislation at a politically sensitive time.
   
3. Require that all committees publish written reports detailing not only those amendments that were accepted but also those that were rejected. While the House has a committee reporting requirement for every bill reported, the Senate does not, hence there are rarely if at all committee reports from Senate originating bills. The House reports are themselves virtually useless because they merely regurgitate in summary form the text of the legislation itself without adding any explanatory statements. Bills that fail to have committee reports that accurately and completely describe the legislation and any amendments either accepted or rejected shall be subject to parliamentary procedures that can effectively scuttle further consideration of the legislation either by the Rules Committee or on the floor.
   
4. Elimination of the “anonymous hold” in the Senate. Senators who wish to “hold” legislation must make their intentions known on the record in a floor statement, or via submission of a written statement to the Congressional Record.
   
5. Permit the hiring of permanent professional ethics committee staff and limit their removal to only “for cause.” Currently neither ethics committee functions properly, and neither is actually capable of investigating members or fellow staff for fear of political repercussions. The hiring of professional staff and giving them “for cause removal protection” insulates them from the inherent politics of ethics investigations and will allow them do more effectively do their jobs. This will aid in the development of ethics rules, precedent and institutional memories as staff will stay in place for longer periods of time and will be able to effectively monitor and report on the ethics of the Members. Members will still have a final vote on all ethics matters, but this way they will get more objective, non-partisan, honest staff advice and investigation results.

While I sincerely doubt that any of these proposals have a chance in hell of being enacted, I hope that at least someone will raise these issues so we can stop dealing with the fluff like gym access and start at least having a debate about the real issues that are imperiling our legislature and what can be done about it to save the institution. You can’t take the politics out of Congress, and nor should one try, but there are real reforms that are possible that would make the place better, more accountable and more efficient. If only the Members would do this on their own there approval ratings would improve, quality of work and legislation would improve and the institution would be better off than it currently is, regardless of which political party is in control.

Read more!

# posted by mouldfan : 10:08 AM |

Father Sarducci asked me to pass this along. (And, yes, I am OK with the fact that I am apparently the only one who finds this funny.)

Three opinions dissenting from the Supreme Court's rehearing order in Bush v. Gore have just arrived. Each is, in its way, characteristic of its author. (Justice Souter did not write a separate dissenting opinion, but joined the dissenting opinions of his three colleagues.)

Stevens, J. "Back in my day, we didn't stand for Popery. You whippersnappers may be all high-falutin' with your Whore of Babylon and your Church of Rome. But things were better when I was born, about 15 seconds after the Big Bang. Cf. Granholm v. Heald, No. 03-1113 (Stevens, J., dissenting)."

Ginsburg, J. "I dissent. This is absurd."

Breyer, J. "The central legal issue that disposes of this case is me. Or, my precisely, my own ability to gather the contending sides on any issue around a table and let them talk until I win. I am firmly committed to the principle that when everyone is subjected to endless bouts of inane banter, I have -- in a sense -- already won. I am firmly opposed to the idea that anyone or anything might be worth fighting or even dying for. Rather, I stand for niceness and civility. Why can't we just get along?
That's why I like to go places and 'debate' Justice Scalia. I can pay endless compliments to my fellow Justices, and point out all the places in which we are in agreement. When everyone's eyes glaze over, I have achieved my goal. Conflict is avoided. No one has to decide who is right and who is wrong. Rightness and wrongness do not decide the issue. Mid-20th century mores do. And that means I win.
And so I must admit that there are a lot of good arguments in favor of the conclusion that the Pope won the 2000 election. The fact that he did not run, and to date has refused to be inaugurated, should not blind us to the merits of the majority's position. I, in fact, admire the mastery with which the majority works around the constitutional text in order to declare that the presidency be awarded to someone who has never yet been an American citizen and, in any event, was not born here (at the time at which he was born at).
On a different day, in a different Term, I might be able to join their opinion. But today I cannot. And I do not plan on offering any basis for my decision. "

Read more!

At a certain point, a single individual becomes beyond parody. Here's the exchange from the Today Show:

COURIC: He wanted to train 70,000 additional teachers in math and science.

KERRY: That's terrific. But 53 percent of our children don't graduate from high school. Kids don't have after-school programs... He didn't ask America to sacrifice anything to achieve great goals and the biggest example is making the tax cut permanent for the wealthiest people in America. The average American struggles to find time to take carry of families, working two or three jobs... It's a disgrace. He did not tell the real state of the union.

Umm, John, you're just a bit off.

Last year, 85 percent of adults age 25 and over had completed at least high school, an all-time high, the U.S. Census Bureau reported today. Also in 2003, 27 percent of adults age 25 and over had a college degree, another record.

A real quick search revealed that he couldn't even be talking about people graduating in four years, considering the states with the lowest rates hover around 60%.

Hat tip to WuzzaDem, who has a statistical observation of his own.

Read more!

Cindy Sheehan was removed from the State of the Union speech last night for wearing an anti-war tee-shirt. This is an outrageous stifling of dissent, and yet another example of the horrible intolerance so prevelent in John Ashcroft's Alberto Gonzales's America.

And she was not the only one to be removed from the scene last night:

Also removed from the gallery was Beverly Young. She's the wife of Republican Congressman Bill Young of Florida, who chairs the House defense appropriations panel. Her own shirt wasn't anti-war -- it read, "Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom."

You see how out of control this administration has become! They won't listen to the voices of dissent coming from people who support them.

Fascists.

Read more!

Tuck you in, warm within
Keep you free from sin
'til the - Wagner - he comes?

It is a one run game in New York entering the bottom of the ninth. The bullpen door opens, as the familiar opening chords of Metallica’s “Enter Sandman” blare over the PA system. Out walks…

Billy Wagner?

You look around and make sure you aren’t dreaming. You aren’t. You are just sitting in Shea Stadium, rather than Yankee Stadium. But everything else is exactly as you see it.

And that will be the scene come this spring.

No, I’m not making it up. New York’s newest closer, the crown jewel of the Mets’ off-season restructuring, enters games to the same song as the Yankees’ longtime closer, Mariano Rivera. And the first time Wagner enters a game and “Enter Sandman” plays, a controversy is going to erupt unlike any New York baseball has seen in a long, long time.

Evidently Wagner's been using "Enter Sandman" since at least the 2000 season, but that won't matter. It is true that New Yorkers believe that the world revolves around the city, but as arrogant a lot as New Yorkers are, the Yankee fan is a doubly arrogant beast. No doubt this will give the fanbase that believes it is their birthright to be world champions every year something else to bitch about besides Randy Johnson choking in the clutch again.

At any rate, this looming battle will induce heavy thoughts tonight.

But they won't be of Snow White.

Read more!