The Political Spectrum

Maybe because I'm a fairly quiet blogger (OK, an awfully quiet blogger) I tend to be bored by conversations about blogging. (Not everyone shares that problem.) It sometimes gives me an outlet when I want to say something and I think it's too good to stay inside my head, but I don't think the invention of the blog marked the beginning of a New World Order.

But I am a little curious about two items that I have not seen juxtaposed.

First, over at the Volokh Conspiracy, it appears that the identity of Juan Non-Volokh will soon become public. The most informed (in the sense of, most researched) comments indicate that it is This Guy. One fact raised against that conclusion is that That Guy blogs elsewhere under his own name. So why, the argument goes, make a reasoned decision to blog anonymously in one place but not in another? There are counterarguments (ad infinitum) but I am not actually interested here in sorting through it all in a (colossally uninformed) attempt to identify Juan Non-Volokh. Rather, let us assume that it is him, and he is a (recently tenured?) law professor blogging publicly in one place and pseudonymously in another. Hold that thought.

Second, an LA Times reporter has gotten in trouble (i.e., suspended and re-assigned) because he was blogging publicly in one place and pseudonymously in another.

I don't want to blog unethically*, so I am curious to know what to think of this juxtaposition. Three possibilities present themselves as most likely: Juan Non-Volokh did something deceptive; or the LA Times incorrectly determined that its reporter had done something deceptive; or the LA Times reporter had taken some actions that JNOV had not taken (or failed to take some action that JNOV had taken, although that seems less likely). I believe I have posted comments on other blogs under my real name, so I want to know if I have done something wrong. Any thoughts?

*I use the word "unethically" with great misgivings, although it squares with most contemporary usage. I use it in the way in which lawyers speak of "legal ethics," which really aren't ethics at all, but are certain rules designed to serve as efficient means to certain (possibly incommensurable) ends: making sure you don't screw your client over; making sure your client doesn't think he's being screwed over; maintaining certain lay opinions about lawyers and the practice of law; etc. I leave for another day a full discussion of why this isn't ethics, as classically understood. Suffice it to say that Aristotle's three books (the Nicomachean and Eudemian Ethics and the Magna Moralia) propose no such rules. They engage in a more interesting and more intellectually honest study of the well-lived life (if such a thing should be possible).

Read more!

I confess to being a "tree-hugger"...

Not the "chain myself to a tree so that loggers can't earn a living" kind; (no one but my wife need suffer that vision) but the "aren't they beautiful and wouldn't it be great if my big, bald head were shielded from the sun's rays" kind. So imagine my dismay when I walked through Logan park in Philadelphia and discovered that all of the trees were removed... twig, trunk, and root.

Logan park and fountain is one of the most photographed and beloved spots in the city. I asked my wife to marry me there and have often sat beside the fountain under hundred-year old trees. It was a beautiful spot.

Now, it is a circle of grass with a few flowers and a fountain in the middle. Come August, it will be too hot to sit on the new benches.

This is part of our illustrious mayor's "beautification project." (May a pox fall on him and his administration.)

So, why do I bring this up?

Because of a delicious irony attached to the experience.

The trees are gone, but the plaque that explains their planting remains...

It reads:

"1914 1918, Tribute Trees, The trees along this parkway have been planted as a tribute of honor and gratitude to the men who served their country in the Great War."

Read more!

On the morning of February 11, 2004, Faheem Thomas-Childs, was passing through the schoolyard gate, at T.M. Peirce Elementary School in Philadelphia, when he was shot in the head. The crossing-guard at the corner was shot in the foot and dozens of children and parents ran for cover as four thugs traded gunfire in front of the busy school entrance. He was dead before he could be loaded into an ambulance.

At least 50 rounds filled the air, fired from the guns of Kareem Johnson, Kennell Spady, Cassius Broaster, and Jerome Broaster. None of the shooters were hit and, despite dozens of witnesses, only 8 persons were willing to testify. All eight of them recanted their testimony before or at the trial.

In a non-jury trial, Common Pleas Judge Jane Cutler Greenspan convicted Kareem Johnson and Kennell Spady of first-degree murder, rejecting the self-defense argument. (By their own statements, they went to the school that morning because they knew that the Broaster brothers would be dropping their children off. They were armed to the teeth.)

On Monday, April 24, 2006, the father of one of the witnesses, Devonzo Lawson, was charged with “solicitation to commit perjury” and “witness intimidation” for instructing his 18 year old daughter, Taniesha Wiggins, to recant her testimony in the Thomas-Childs case. Ms. Wiggins was one of the parents present at the school the morning that young Thomas-Childs was slaughtered. She correctly identified Johnson and Spady as the shooters and gave a detailed account of the scene to the investigators.

In court, Devonzo Lawson told her “you don’t remember nothing.” As she walked to the witness stand, he stopped her and told her to “[s]ay what I told you to say… [t]hat you don’t remember nothing.” In essence, “don’t be a snitch.” Or, more generously, “don’t get yourself or your family killed by being a hero.”

USA Today offers up, as a spokesman for the “Don’t Snitch” campaign that is sweeping the nation, Rayco Saunders, an ex drug dealer turned pro boxer, who wears a “stop snitching” shirt to “protest paid police informants.” (www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-28-stop-snitching_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA)

In an interview at the gym where he trains, he outlined a stop-snitching creed:

• Don't snitch on others just to save yourself. "Stop snitching is for those guys out there ... selling more drugs than Noriega, and their only out is to tell on somebody. ... If a (criminal) wants to be a Good Samaritan, OK. But send (him) to jail. Don't give him immunity to do what he wants on the street."

• Stop Snitching doesn't mean stop talking to police. "It's always misconstrued by the public, or the powers that be, that we're trying to intimidate the regular people or the law-abiding citizens. That's not what it's about. ... If that is your only outlet, to call the police, that's what you do."

• But witnesses have no obligation to help police. "Do your job — you're the police. ... I've been wronged by the system. Do you think I would help the system? ... Do cops snitch on other cops?"

• The authorities can't protect witnesses. "What's happening to the innocent witness? They get dead or ... terrorized for life."

• Sometimes you must right wrongs yourself. "I'm a man, and I can handle my own situations like a man. ... I've done dirt. I'll admit that. So I can't run to the police."

Noble sentiments to be sure. Don’t be a tool of the government only to lesson your own penalties, but don’t be afraid to do the right thing if you’re a regular person. But, how is this being interpreted on the streets of Philadelphia?

Michael Harmon of Philadelphia writes “When the police or a government agency can protect not only the person snitching but their family too, for long periods, then I can promote ‘step up, speak up,’ but until then it would be suicide to snitch.” (www.philadelphiaweekly.com/view.php?ID=11846)

The numbers support his view:

Of the 380 murders in Philadelphia in 2005, a 9, an 11, a 13, and a 15 year old child was gunned down. Another five 16 year-olds were murdered and 7 seventeen year old boys. In 2006, we already have a 14 year old and two 15 year old children in their graves and the “long, hot summer” hasn’t even begun.

I am inclined to think that Mr. Lawson loves his daughter and was telling her to remain silent so that she wouldn’t be a target. Perhaps he though that, while tragic, Faheem Thomas-Childs, is dead and no amount of justice will bring him back or justify the loss. Maybe the consequences of fingering the murderers were present in his mind and he thought “why add another shooting or arson to the list of consequences of this senseless murder?” Surely Mr. Lawson is aware that associates of the shooters are out there and that they are as ruthless and irrational as they come. Can we blame him for advising his daughter to “not get involved?”

I was trying to think of what I would do. I can’t.

I like to think I would stand up for myself, my family, my community, Justice. I like to imagine that I would buy a gun and guard my daughter too and from every event… that I would proudly sit in the courtroom and stare down any thug who gave her a dirty look as she fingered the murderers. Only… I’m not so sure that the knowledge, that I couldn’t protect her and that she could be killed at the drop of a hat, would fail to work its horrible spell on my resolve.

In the end, as Rayco Saunders must surely know, “don’t snitch” is a warning. It is tantamount to saying to all of those around you “I am a thug. If I perceive that you told anyone about my evil deeds or if you stand up to me, I will kill you. And, if I cannot kill you myself, others, unknown to you, will do it for me.”

How do we deal with this? What would you do?

Read more!

Okay, I guess since I promised, I have to provide an answer to GipperClone’s question. I’ll do that and then use my author’s prerogative to comment on some of the aspects of the previous answers. Needless to say I am far from an expert on this subject, so I’m bound to make some mistakes and assumptions. That said, I’m fully prepared for the criticism and my fellow bloggers know I have a thick skin (and huge ego) so I can take it.

In short, I think there are four things that need to be to address the problem of illegal immigration. First, we need to amend/alter the existing legal immigration system. This needs to be done in two ways, not only to allow more people to legally enter the United States on an annual basis, but also to make it simpler and cheaper to do so. Changes in the legal process hopefully will encourage those persons who might be willing to enter the US illegally to do so properly and officially. Second, we need government intervention into the low-skilled labor market to raise wages and hopefully discourage the employment practices that have lead to the rising demand for cheap illegal workers and increase demand for American citizens to do the so-called jobs that previously they have been “unwilling” to do. Third, we need tough employer sanction laws. So tough that they destroy any incentive for a business, small or corporate, to hire anyone without conducting a through background check to ensure proper citizenship status. Finally, we need to dedicate government resources, both state and federal, towards both border enforcement and internal enforcement. I’m not sure there needs to be wholesale changes to the existing laws, but the money and “boots on the ground” need to be there, because right now they are not. Click Read more for the long version.

Allow me to elaborate a bit on why I think these are some of the solutions (or at least the first ones I would attempt). The first one seems to me to be obvious, yet it seems to be rarely discussed. Our current legal immigration system is a nightmare. Regardless of where you are from or for what purpose you seek to enter the United States, one of the recurring complaints is that the process is slow, inefficient, expensive, and overall discouraging to immigrants. If we are to believe everything our politicians say, we know that they are supposedly all “pro-immigrant,” but are by and large opposed to “illegal immigration.” Hence, it makes sense to reform the legal process to encourage more people to immigrate legally. Given the influx of people entering the US illegally, it seems rationale to conclude that there is a need and demand for these people and one way to reduce demand is to provide a viable alternative solution so that they will cease breaking the law. Dramatic increases in the number of legal avenues for immigration as well as simplifying and streamlining the process will I think take a big bite out of the demand to cross the boarder illegally. For example, more student visas and more flexibility in work visas (i.e., allowing people to go to school while on work visas and vice versa) will aid in preventing “overstays” and other problems that have increased the number of people here illegally. I don’t know what the exact numbers should look like, but I think you get the overall point; more, faster and better legal immigration policies and practices will lead to less illegal immigration and allow us to achieve some of the security protections that we all agree need to be in place.

Second, we need to substantially reform the low-skilled labor market. This was the idea that I was driving at in my original post on the subject. If I’m right about a “black market” for labor than as I tried to make clear, I’m not sure that eliminating the illegal immigrants is going to raise wages substantially enough to encourage more Americans to do certain jobs. As I maintained, I don’t believe the “jobs American’s won’t do” line, but I am sure willing to bet that citizens won’t do many jobs at sub-living wages. Raising the minimum wage, preventing labor cost pass though, and providing state subsidized benefits (i.e., similar to what Massachusetts adopted last week) are all suggestions that we ought to seriously consider and adopt for those in the low-skilled labor market. If we correct the underlying flaws in the market, we might see a reduction in demand of illegal workers and an increase in the number of American workers able to get jobs.

Third, we need to enact employer sanctions with teeth. Here is about the only proposal of GC’s that I happen to agree with. We need to destroy the incentive to hire illegal workers. This proposal is not going to be politically popular by any means, and it needs to include the ability of governments to confiscate businesses that violate the law. There are, of course, legal problems with this that would need to be addressed, such as due process and takings issues, but once those are dealt with; there is no reason why a person should be able to operate a lawful business establishment while violating the law. We don’t let restaurants violate heath codes, we impose licenses and certification standards on professionals like lawyers and doctors, therefore, I agree with those who say it’s not too much to ask that businesses take the time and bear the expense of ensuring that their employees are legally entitled to be in the US. Of course there are administrative costs associated with enforcement, but the question doesn’t require me to address how we pay of any of this. Nonetheless, fines and confiscation of business assets will help as DOJ or DHS should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their enforcement proceedings much like they currently do in drug and RICO prosecutions.

Finally, we need more overall enforcement resources, both at the boarders and internally. This is fairly self explanatory and needs no further elaboration.

I realize that I really haven’t answered the question about what to do with the existing illegal immigrants that are here now. My instincts are to allow those that are not criminals to stay, but require them to be checked. We don’t necessarily have to make them citizens, but we can’t make them criminals and I don’t believe we can really deport them all (even under GC’s theory of “attrition deportation”) for any number of reasons. Last but not least I want to address the “Great Wall of the United States” idea, which I happen to think is one of the dumbest ideas out there. I know people will cite the Israeli fence as an example of this idea having some success, but I think the jury is still out on that projects long term viability. GV points out many of the reasons why a “wall” is not a good idea, the most obvious being the cost of construction and maintenance alone is almost prohibitive. Moreover, it’s a big target for sabotage and vandalism, each of which would only increase the costs of keeping it there and working. No fence, no wall, more guards, better technology, that’s the way to go, leave the wall building to the Chinese as it has worked so well for them.

There you have it, let the games begin.

Read more!

GC posed the following question regarding immigration policy:

If you had the power to make the changes you wanted, what would you do? (For the sake of the question, you may assume you have dictatorial control in order to affect the changes desired.)

It's an excellent question that I thought I would give everyone the opportunity to answer. As for me, I'm thinking it through and will try to post a comprehensive response soon.

Read more!

Speaker of the House Denny Hastert (Panderer - IL) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Laughably incompetent buffoon who makes me pine for the days Trent Lott ran the Senate - TN) held a joint press conference where thay said nothing while also guaranteeing that the Republicans go down to defeat this November.

First, let's check out this stirring statement:

America is a nation with borders and borders matter. We are a nation of citizens and citizenship matters. We are also a nation of laws and laws matter. We have an important immigrant heritage and honoring that heritage matters.

Daniel Webster and John Calhoun had nothing on these two. Though I do believe Kodos was a good role model for them:

Abortions for all! Booo.

Abortions for none! Booooo.

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for everyone else. Hurray!

But seriously, Frist is right, and I'd like to add to the list.

We are a nation with air, and air matters. We are a nation with lots of Starbucks and Starbucks matters. We are a nation with words, and words matter. We are a nation with books, and books matter. We are a nation with feet, and feet matter. We are a nation with a nation, and nations matter.

Sorry, let's get back to the press conference. You see, it's not the GOP's fault that a tough border security bill hasn't passed. Oh no! It's big bad Harry Reid.

“While we are disappointed with the House Democrat’s lack of compassion and the continued efforts by Senator Reid to block action on immigration legislation so that Congress can proceed to conference, it remains our intent to produce a strong border security bill that will not make unlawful presence in the United States a felony.”

Wow. Frist and Hastert have managed to make Harry Freaking Reid look postively statesmanlike by comparison. Do they have any idea how pissed off they've just made the base of their party? Do they have any clue whatsoever that this is a slam dunk issue which the Republicans could easily take advantage of?

But the White House will surely make things right? Right?

Weep. Wrong. The White House has e-mailed this column by Ruben Navarrette in the San Diego Union-Tribune pinning the blame on . . . everyone who doesn't reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Who killed immigration reform? The autopsy shows it was Senate Democrats.

It's tempting to put a pox on both parties. But it wouldn't be fair. Republicans were tireless in search of comprehensive, and bipartisan, reform. Sen. John McCain of Arizona joined with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., to draft the guest-worker legislation, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter made that legislation central to what his committee sent to the full Senate. Sens. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and Sam Brownback of Kansas were vocal in their support. Sens. Mel Martinez of Florida and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska offered a helpful compromise. And Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist showed leadership by reaching out to the other side.

Too bad you can't say the same for Democratic leader Harry Reid, who was the villain in this drama.

Umm, Mr. Navarrette, it's "tempting to put a pox on both parties" because both parties deserve the blame. Democrats are pandering to illegals in the hopes that this will one day become a solid Democratic voting bloc. Republicans are just trying to do the same. In the meantime, both parties have ignored the overwhelming majority of Americans who want to see greater enforcement, and a significant curtailment of illegal entry into this country. And while I'm normally opposed to Democratic obstructionism, for once they're right because we've somehow manage to concoct legislation that would make matters worse than they already are.

And since the White House Communications department sent this out to us happy bloggers, I can only assume they support this Pilate-esque passing of the buck.

What a disgrace.

Read more!

Not that I need validation for my opinions (my ego is pretty big already), but it is nevertheless good to see that at least one very smart, well-regarded individual, Eugene Volokh has similar thoughts to mine regarding the “jobs American’s won’t do” argument.  Hopefully this dispels and of the “conservative” v. “liberal” portions of this line of thinking as Eugene can hardly be considered “liberal” by any political definition of the word.  

Read more!

Today hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers undocumented workers will be holding a massive rally in DC. Unfortunately I have work to do, so I can't attend. But have no fear. Theodore Cardinal McCarrick will be there to offer a blessing.

Ah, Cardinal McCarrick. When it comes to pro-choice, "Catholic" politicians he is Helen Keller. But he's sure to make his voice heard when it comes to defending people illegally crossing our borders.

Thank you, Cardinal. It's good to know the Archdiocese is in such capable hands.

Read more!

Mr. President,

Perhaps you need a civics lesson.

You see, the Framers of our Constitution didn't trust the House to legislate in a deliberative manner. To solve this problem, they instituted the Senate.

The idea was that elected officials, less beholden to local interest and with longer terms of office, would be in a position to put the breaks on reactionary legislation. The senate is SUPPOSED to take its time, to become informed about the issues, to consider the consequences of legislation that is written in a political hothouse.

Deliberation is not a "blocking tactic" and dissent is not disloyal. Get your nose out of it. You are the chief executive, not the chief legislator.

Oh, and Mr. Kennedy, shut your fat trap.

Who are YOU to say "[p]olitics got ahead of policy" on anything? You are the nation's biggest senatorial whore. More importantly, that you left a woman to die, while stumbling back to your house in a drunken stupor, destroyed any inherent right to challenge others to behave honorably.

Finally, Mr. Reid, I know you have to pretend that the Dems are a bunch of noble, hardworking, just-tryin-to-do-your-job kind of blokes, but who are you kidding in saying that the Republicans have "put partisan politics ahead of border security and immigration reform." None of you is willing to do what is right if it might cost your party, so stop pretending that Dems are faithful to their duties in the face of a political storm.

Now... y'all get back to work.

Read more!

When I was a kid, Wilson Goode was mayor of Philadelphia. He is infamous for his role in the Osage Avenue fire and MOVE incidents of the 1980s. He was also known for surrounding himself with security everywhere he went- his “entourage.”

He had the obligatory city cops and aids, but he also had at least five or six private security consultants with him at all times. In 1987, my high-school class was muscled out of the way when going through the Broad Street entrance to City Hall by this entourage. While I was just a punk kid with a clip-on tie, the size and demeanor of his security is a lasting impression of Philadelphia politics from my childhood.

Which brings me to Cynthia McKinney (D- GA).



I had no idea what the security arrangements for U.S. Representatives are or how necessary they are… so I did some checking.

On a normal basis, “regular” Representatives are not provided with security.

But, is it “normal” for Representatives to employ private security? I called six Representative’s offices (3 urban/Dem. and 3 suburban/GOP). One office said that the information was “classified.” None of the other five Representatives employ private security.

But, do Representatives NEED security? Four of the five offices that would talk to me about security acknowledged that being an elected official carries with it a definite loss of privacy. However, none felt that security was ordinarily necessary.

So, why does Rep. McKinney feel the need for an uncommon level of security?

Maybe the answer lies in the District that she represents. Her website describes her District thus:

“The District is majority Women (51% overall!). The District's ethnic diversity includes groups from all around the Asian Pacific Rim, from Central and South America as well as a growing African population. The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau figures list the population of the Fourth District at 744,717. The district, on average, has enjoyed an 8% growth rate. The median household income is $36,523 and the median family income is $42,177. While many persons in the district are doing well economically, 10.7% of the district's population live below the federal poverty line and 7.6% of all district families live in poverty.”

Review of www.phillyneighborhoods.org suggests that Rep. Chaka Fattah’s District (D- PA) is similar in demographics and economics to Rep. McKinney’s. (His website does not include similar information to that available on Rep. McKinney’s website. Instead, it includes links to schools, social organizations, events, and the like.) He does not employ private security.

(For the record, I am not suggesting that this limited review is dispositive, I am simply offering it as a comparison. It could be that Rep. McKinney’s District has a higher incidence of threats against public officials and such. But, on its surface, the perceived need for private security seems to be disconnected from legitimate security concerns.)

It is not an earth-shattering idea to suggest that a public official’s “need” for security is based, almost entirely, upon perception. That perception may be based upon experience (Wilson Goode’s experience as a political activist in the 1960s and during the Frank Rizzo era for example) or upon information not available to the general public. However, I am suspicious of people who feel the need to erect barriers, where others in similar situations see no such need. In “regular” life such persons are labeled as “paranoid.”

This is not a quality to be admired, even if it does reflect the subject’s particular experience. In a public official, this quality can be downright dangerous.

Public officials, particularly in executive positions, have a tremendous capacity to misuse govt. resources. In legislators, there is a serious danger that one’s paranoia will lead to “extreme” reactions. On the one side we have Nixon and Wilson Goode. On the other we have Ted Kennedy and McKinney- Executives whose actions are informed by experience received through a defectively paranoid lens -Legislators whose marshalling of public opinion is tainted with a narrow, bigoted perspective.

At the end of the day, what is wrong with McKinney is that she perceives the world to be stacked against her and hers. Everyone who disagrees is an enemy. I worry about such officials- sometimes they strike out at their protectors with their cell-phone and, sometimes, they drop “incendiary devices” on rooftops.

Read more!

Yesterday I got to play the part of a real blogger, and I appeared on a panel about political blogging at Washington College located on the Eastern shore of Maryland. The other panelists were Matt Stoller of MyDD, Steve Clemons of The Washington Note, and Robert A. (not P as in Princeton Professor) George of Ragged Thots. It was a really good discussion, and for once I managed to get through a public speaking engagement without stumbling too badly. There were probbaly 30-40 people in the audience, not bad for a small liberal arts college.

My little spiel dealt primarily with why and how I got into blogging, and my (our) attempts to build a readership. (Read more) I had a bit of a unique perspective as a blogger who writes for smaller blogs (around 100 hits a day for Political Spectrum, 40 for the Cranky Conservative) and also a blog that at the height of the Harriet Miers kerfuffle had approximately 90,000 readers a day.

I detailed my work at Confirm Them and how it was rewarding to feel that my opinions were a) being read, and b) making a difference politically. I do feel that Harriet Miers would be a sitting Supreme Court justice at this moment were it not for the blogs, for talk radio, and for all forms of non-traditional communication. But I also noted I was a small cog in that machine - everyone else there is really an inside player with a lot more information. I'm more like Archie Bunker with a PhD.

Then I got into a discussion about TPS and trying to get the blog more well read. I'm not much for self-promotion, and none of the rest of the folks really have the time or desire to be active promoters. For all of us blogging is more of a hobby than a profession, though I'm probably the one more active in the "blogosphere." Really, trying to get well known in the blogopshere is like landing a job in DC - it's not so much what you know as much as who you know. In terms of the blogosphere it's about connections - getting links from outside blogs and building up a reputation. Unfortunately I don't usually actively seek to get blog links from other bloggers, though I do think bloggers will oblige you more often than not. The only time I ever e-mailed another blogger asking for a link was when I wrote my tribute post to Mike Piazza. Mett Cerrone at MetsBlog obliged my request, and within two hours we had three hundred page views, triple our usual daily amount.

But getting one link is not enough. You really have to build up the blog's reputation. Belmont Club benefitted from repeated links from Instapundit. But we all click on the linked articles on the blogs we read, and how many of us go back to those blogs again? Sometimes we notice that the linked blog has content that we want to check, and they become a regular reading habit. I've discovered all the blogs I currently read only through other blog referrals. But usually I'll click once and that is the last time I see that blog.

Ultimately, a successful blog needs to find a niche. Confirm Them was successful because it concentrated on a single issue. It became the place to go in the blogosphere for judicial appointment news.

But it really just comes down to effort. I love politics, but quite frankly I've grown a little tired of politics, and that adversely affects my writing. It also dampens my desire to be super active. So of course in the midst of this quasi political depression, what do I do? I create another blog. But this blog is a result of a sort of political fatigue. I needed a place where I can vent about other crap and concentrate a little bit less on the political side of things.

The other bloggers discussed the power of blogs and their ability to really effect change. Steve Clemons boasted of his part in squashing Bolten's nomination. But I wouldn't say there was a lot of blog triumphalism. We all noted that we have to police ourselves and make sure the content we present maintains our collective credibility. There is still a presumption out there that there really are no checks in the blogosphere, but that's not really the case. Jayson Blair and Memo Gate are just but a couple of examples of the MSM's own lack of accountability. Good bloggers provide plenty of links to back up their arguments. But there are always going to be individual cases that paint the blogosphere in a bad light, and there will be somewhat of a bias against blogs in the near future- or at least that's what I believe.

Overall it was a nice event. It was cool to meet some more distinguished bloggers than yours truly. Once again we proved that you can put people from different sides of the political spectrum in the same room together and they won't kill each other. I definitely recommend checking out their blogs because there's pretty much something there for everyone.

Read more!

If anyone is in the area of Washington College in eastern Maryland tonight, I'll be appearing on panel on the "Political Blogosphere." The event begins at 7:30 in the Norman Jeames Theater. The other panelists will be Steven Clemons of the Washington Note, Matt Stoller of MyDD, and Robert George of Ragged Thots (also a writer for NRO).

Read more!

The following should be read with the caveat that I am not a native of New Orleans. I am not even a native of The American South. But I was fortunate to clerk for a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Because of the way that my judge used his law clerks, I spent about 10 weeks of my year-long clerkship living in New Orleans. My experience of New Orleans was not that of a native. I spent every night in one of its finest hotels (I say, its finest hotel). I ate every night at one of its many fine restaurants. It was a very enjoyable experience, spent with co-clerks with whom I became close friends. The pleasure I received does not make me an expert, and it did not bestow on me the well-rounded experience of a native. All I can claim is that my time spent there meant that, when Katrina hit, I experienced a great sadness and a great frustration on behalf of a city like no other.

This past weekend my judge held a reunion of law clerks. Major reunions are coordinated with a week when the judge will be in New Orleans for a sitting anyway. I had a wonderful time at the reunion, seeing former clerks I knew and meeting former clerks I had never met. This is my report about the state of New Orleans. New Orleans threatens to be our Vesuvius.

Many people have returned. And everyone who has returned is aware of the rapidly-approaching beginning to the 2006 hurricane season.

In at least a couple ways, things are back to normal. Which is to say, any tourist will find himself asking the same two questions he asked himself in pre-Katrina New Orleans: (1) Am I in danger? (2) What is that smell?

But beyond that, things are not normal. On the cab ride in from the airport to the CBD, you can't escape an eery feeling of emptiness. Even with abundant traffic, things seem strange, and only more so because you know that you have come to N.O. to have a good time when it doesn't yet seem right. (And then you justify it in your head by arguing that this is one way you, i.e., I, have to help restore the city.) There are an inordinately large number of cars -- broken down and taken apart -- on the roadway. These are far more than could have broken down in the past 24-48 hours. But it seems that they are not exactly remnants of Katrina, either. Because those remants -- hundreds of them -- are seen stored underneath overpasses. The city has nothing else to with them.

Approaching the city from the airport, the closest large building on the skyline is the Superdome. (Amazingly, it boasts a large banner about reopening in September 2006. I am incredulous.) The city has re-directed exit and entrance ramps to keep cars away from the Superdome as they enter the downtown area. As your eyes pass the Superdome, they see that many of the large office buildings downtown still have windows blown out. Some of these are covered with plywood; some are not. Some have clearly been abandoned. The 15-20 story tall hotel standing next to the Superdome has been entirely abandoned, with no effort made to keep out the elements. I did not see any security around the Superdome to keep people out. Perhaps Katrina was enough so that even squatters will not go there any more. Also apparently abandoned next to the Superdome are the LSU Medical Center buildings. (Louisiana faces a severe shortage of doctors, not just in the present, but in the future as well. Many doctors are still not back, and those who are there are pressed into emergency care. Extrapolating from the past, the only doctors who will practice in La. in the future are those who train there. And we are now approaching the second year in which the only two medical schools in La. -- Tulane and LSU -- are impeded.)

At the hotel, I recognize the head bellman from my pre-Katrine stays. He seems to be experiencing a great strain. (So I tip him $2.) He explained that most hotel services had been restored, although room service was not yet up to 24 hour service as it had been; he expressed hope that when they could get the help, it would all be back to normal. This was very modest of him, because he did not mention his own plight. I later heard that the staff of 30+ bellmen was operating with less than 10.

After arriving at my fancy-schmancy hotel, I quickly went down to meet some friends at a cafe on Jackson Square. The Quarter, as is well known, is among the highest points in the city and did not receive much (or any) flood damage. (But you pass plenty of closed buildings on the way to the Square, from the Virgin Megastore to a local microbrewery.) The Quarter has also long been a congregation point for the rough edges of society. Combining my observation of Jackson Square and later observations of Canal Street, it seems clear that the older homeless people, and the younger African American males who look like they are loitering and up to no good, have returned (if they left at all). There seem to be many more of them, in fact, then there had been previously. It is at least possible -- as some suggested -- that the homeless/gang-bangers are at the same pre-Hurricane levels, but there are not as many tourists in which to dissolve them. In any event, walking through major thoroughfares one begins to wonder -- in the broad light of day -- whether one is about to be mugged. (See question 1, supra.)

The great counter to this is that I have never seen as many N.O. cops in my life as a I saw this past weekend. The force is almost at pre-Katrina levels (1400 out of 1600), while the population and the geographic area requiring patrol is much less than it had been. As a result, greater police concentration. I have no idea how they are paying the cops' salaries.

Speaking of the cops, the cheapy tourist places to buy tchotchkes on Canal are stacked mile-high with tee shirts about Katrina. The two most popular seem to be a shirt that says "N.O.P.D." but instead of referring to the N.O. police department, it explains that it stands for "Not our problem, dude." Also popular is: "Forget Milk. Got Chocolate?"

So after drinking in the cafe on Jackson Square for several hours, I returned to my hotel to prepare for dinner. (I am 99.9% sure I saw a partner from my law firm walking around the Square, but was in no mood to make nice.) On the cab ride to the restaurant, we pass an empty Walmart with several armed security guards standing in front. ("It was flooded," the cabbie explained.) Clancy's, a fabulous restaurant uptown, is going and going strong. It was packed to the gills. The oysters with brie appetizer is as good as ever. My entree, La. drum, was not as good, however, as some other dishes I have eaten at Clancy's. Maybe I was just mad that it was Friday and I couldn't get the filet.

Post-Clancy's, we went by Harrah's, which was packed. (Co-clerk Nora couldn't find a seat at a cheap table.) And from there we quickly went to the piano bar at Pat O's. (I asked the cabbie about the crowds, and he complained that it was impossible to make any money. I take that with a grain of salt, because I believe all cabbies have the same complaint. Nevertheless, he did express hopes to make it through Jazz Fest, to see if that turned things around.) There is a big new picture up in the piano bar of the older black man who used to play the thimbles. It says he died in 2005. I overheard someone say his death was storm-related, but I have no confirmation of that.

(UPDATE: I didn't read the Pat O's website carefully enough. Yes, the man was a Katrina victim.)

Pat O's is in full strength, as are the hurricanes. We left shortly before the music stopped (4 a.m.) and went to Cafe du Monde for beignets and cafe au lait. Thence to bed. Is Cafe du Monde open all night, or did we catch it right as it opened?

The next day saw a need for alka-seltzer and lots of lying down. It also saw a need for a Ferdi (a po' boy) from Mother's. The lines seem to be a little shorter at Mother's. But the service is as rude as ever. (And, no, not in a charming way.) Some poor fellow named Steve asked about the location of his po' boy. The woman behind the counter began her long list of complaints against the customer: "FIRST of all, Steve...."

More lying down was required after lunch. Then a trip to the courthouse for a gathering. I learned that the imminent moving of the clerk's office to a different building is not Katrina-related. It is part of a pre-Katrina, long-term reorganization of the court's facilities to be a better use of space.

Walking around in the daylight revealed an interesting fact. Apparently all the curbs have washed out. There is a lot of sand around, and I suspect that is from receding flood waters. And there is trash everywhere in the street. I suspect that has accumulated post-flood water. But although there are asphalt roads and concrete sidewalks, there is no curb between them. The road just sort of turns into a sidewalk at the edges. Also gone are all the bus stops. There are some mailboxes (attached to movable concrete slabs). There are also some fire hydrants (strangely, with about 2 extra feet of pipe, so that they are much higher off the ground than usual). But the streets and sidewalks are basically a disaster area.

After the happy hour gathering, another blessed hour of lying down. (I had forgotten what eating and drinking in N.O. can be like.) Thence to quite possibly the most famous N.O. restaurant of them all: Galatoire's. Cocktail hour, then the Grande Goute (crabmeat salad and shrimp). And then the eating and drinking began. Turtle soup, trout amandine (not for me, I finally got a filet), custard and chicory. We had about 75-80 people, so there were multiple waiters. But the woman running the show was a waitress I recognized, one of the judge's favorites from pre-Katrina. (For all my meals there, I have never yet figured out how to read what makes a good Galatoire's waiter and what makes a bad one. I think that female waiters are prized because the men are seen as full of themselves, but I am not sure about that.) She fed updates on the LSU score to our table, until -- after hearing "losing badly" -- we didn't want to hear any more.

An interesting side note about lawyers. On the spot, 35 former clerks delivered impromptu amusing and informative 90-120 second spiels about clerking for the judge. It either shows that lawyers learn to think on their feet, or that lawyers like to hear themselves talk.

Drinking followed dinner, but all back at the hotel, so there is really no story there. Next morning up early (where is that alka seltzer?) to the airport.

So here's my take. I had read statistics showing that middle class families were moving back at faster/higher rates than the drug lords and derelicts. But that is not what I saw. I saw lots of drug lords and derelicts. I did not see crowds of tourists around them. In fairness, middle class families do not live in the CBD and do not live on Canal Street or Bourbon Street. So they could be there, but I wouldn't see them. What is there makes one reach two contradictory conclusions. One, "This ain't right." Two, "Enough has returned to remind anyone who has ever experienced it of all the things that make this city unlike any other." Which is to say, this is a city worth having around for a couple hundred more years.

Read more!

Representative Cynthia McKinney (Lunatic - GA) recently got in a spot of trouble for assaulting a Capitol Police Officer. She had allegedly hit the officer with her cell phone after he attempted to stop her and get her identification. Naturally McKinney took full responsibility for her actions and apologized.

Oh. Wait. For a second there I was confusing her with an actual human being. No, instead she chose to - surprise surprise, play the race card.

“Let me be clear, this whole incident was instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me – a female, black, progressive congresswoman,” she said. “I am certain that after a full review of the facts, I will be exonerated.”

Yes, Cynthia, the officer must have said to himself, "There goes that black, female, progressive Congresswoman. I'm going to go touch her inappropriately because, well, I just don't like them black, female, progressive Congresswomen."

Or maybe it had something to do with the fact that you refused to wear your identification lapel pin, and the officer in question simply didn't recognize you. Now, I know it must be a brutal blow to your ego to think that there's someone out there that does not recognize you, Cynthia McKinney - black, female, progressive Congresswoman - after all, somone who could forget the face of someone as clearly insane as you?

“We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11... Those engaged in unusual stock trades immediately before September 11 knew enough to make millions of dollars from United and American airlines, certain insurance and brokerage firms' stocks. What did the Administration know, and when did it know it about the events of September 11? Who else knew and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?”

Well, at least she's a fit represenative for the district representing my alma mater.

Read more!

As usual GipperClone’s last post got me to thinking, what is this immigration or “illegal” immigration debate really all about. Despite all the rhetoric, it’s not really about race, class, or even law enforcement. Moreover, it’s not about immigration policy or national security or even national sovereignty, all things that it probably should be about. No, it’s all about economics, labor economics to be precise; the rest is just verbal candy for the fundraisers and the elections. Click Read More to see the rest.

Now what do I mean? Well it’s simple, at the end of the day this debate is going to be decided by labor and business interests, which as usual are pretty much on opposite sides of the fence. To complicate the problem, the politics seem to be reversed. Labor, who generally favors liberal or democratic candidates, is by and large opposed to the undocumented immigrant population mostly based on the argument that they are driving down wages and taking unskilled labor jobs from Americans. (I like the word “undocumented” more than “illegal” because I think given the current law it’s more accurate. Illegal carries the connotation of criminal, although one can do something illegal without violating a criminal law, but that’s often a technical distinction lost on the non-lawyer populace, and right now, under current law, these people are, by and large, not criminals, though they are in violation of the law. Most immigration offenses, including unlawful presence, assuming no other charges or complaints are civil violations.) This of course is the same argument that many conservatives have been making for quite a while. Businesses, on the other hand, which are generally pro-conservative or more accurately pro-Republican, are generally in favor of open immigration policies, or at least policies of non-enforcement, because they mean lower labor costs, which in turn mean higher profits and happier shareholders. But you all knew that already. So that brings me to the question GC asked; what is meant by the phrase “undocumented immigrants do the jobs that Americans won’t do?”

In my post title I added a parenthetical phrase to that question, because I think it helps to understand what I think most people are saying when they make the statement in question. The phrase “under the conditions offered” is implicit to the argument that only immigrants will pick strawberries, clean houses, mow lawns, serve as maids in hotels, or be busboys in restaurants (this list could go on and on, but I think I’ve represented many of the jobs typically associated with undocumented immigrant workers). So that leaves me to explain what the conditions offered are. Though many of you already know the answer; the conditions offered in many of these jobs are not good. These jobs are underpaid (generally minimum wage ($5.15/hr by federal law, though it may be more depending on the state) or less), include no benefits, or hope for achieving benefits, have generally poor hours, long shifts, and many are not regular permanent assignments, but rather require the workers to migrate or at a minimum travel long distances between jobs. So given these facts it helps to restate the question. The question is not will no Americans pick strawberries, because I think the answer is that of course Americans will pick strawberries. Rather the better, more accurate, question is will Americans pick strawberries for $4 an hour with no benefits of any kind and under poor working conditions? Answer; by and large, no they will not (and of course we shouldn’t expect immigrants, documented or not, to work under some of the conditions offered either, but that’s another issue).

Many labor and other economists (much smarter than I) will take this exact line of argument and say that the reason that this situation exists is because the undocumented immigrants are overflowing the unskilled labor market. This large influx of workers increases supply and drives down the wages. That is certainly a reasonable and sensible position, but I don’t think it’s entirely correct. Rather, I think that what we are seeing in the undocumented immigrant labor market is the pure free market at work, outside the realm of even the most minimal of government intervention. In other words, the undocumented immigrant labor market is essentially a black market for labor, and as such, it operation, in my opinion, is less than desirable. Look at it this way; why are the wages low? They are only low by “American” standards, not the immigrant’s standards. $4/hr is a fortune for someone from a third world country where often wages rest below a dollar an hour. Why are the conditions so bad? Again they are only “bad” from an “American” point-of-view. Relative to the conditions in their native lands, even the worst working conditions here are often the equivalent of “Club Med” to immigrants from the third world. Businesses and workers know this reality and they have adjusted their labor market expectations accordingly to take full advantage of the situation. Undocumented workers can be paid less for the same (and often better) work, with no regulation or enforcement. I’m not advocating that this be done; I’m merely pointing out that such activity is rationale from the purely economic prospective of both employers and employees.

The even more disappointing reality is that the undocumented immigrant labor market is probably a very accurate picture of what the labor market would look like absent government intervention. One of the primary arguments against raising the minimum wage is that it is a government imposed market distortion. In other words, minimum wage laws do not allow employers and employees to operate under a free market wage system created by their mutual supply and demand needs, but rather imposes a artificial wage equilibrium. The reality is that strawberry picking is probably only worth $4.00 per hour because any more would likely require the price per pound of strawberries to increase to a point where many, not all, consumers would opt for another product. The same is likely true with the other markets previously mentioned. Should the cost of labor rise, there are really only two outcomes; either businesses will assume the cost increases, which eat into their profits, or they will pass the costs on to the consumers, which by definition will make the goods that we buy more expensive. Many economists have argued that even if the pass through occurs it will be minimal and not likely large enough to impact consumer preferences, but those are merely educated guesses, and my own opinion is that many of these people are dramatically underestimating the total cost savings that these businesses are getting from the undocumented immigrant labor market. In other words, it’s not just cost per hour of labor that is cheaper, but a whole host of other “costs” that are not paid (taxes being just one of them) that will have to be passed on to the consumer, because few, only the largest, of these businesses are even capable of absorbing these costs and remaining in business. Bottom line, this is one of the cases that I have argued that government intervention in the market is a good thing and generates net positive outcomes. The labor market, especially the unskilled labor market is one that is rife with abuses that even extend beyond the undocumented immigrant sector. Minimum wages are but only one solution to the problem. Nevertheless, politically they have proven to be the only possible solution, and even then the policy has not kept up with the needed changes.

Note that I’ve tried very hard to avoid normative statements about what is “good” or “bad” when it comes to immigrants or immigration policy. I’ve made suggestions regarding the minimum wage and labor market intervention, but those things benefit citizens as well as immigrants. I’m skeptical of whatever Congress comes up with on immigration as I’m not sure what the solutions are. All I do know is that the economics must be dealt with or else nothing we or anyone else does is going to have snowballs chance of succeeding. Those that are already here, legally or not, have to be dealt with as mass deportation is not really a legitimate option. That said, the labor market also has to be dealt with or else we will forever find ourselves in the same situation we’re in now. It’s not that there are jobs that American’s won’t do; it’s that there are conditions under which American’s won’t do certain jobs. Fix the conditions and I believe you can improve the labor market and slowly eliminate the need for the large number of undocumented immigrants.

Read more!