I was thrilled to read over at Off the Kuff that a deal may finally have been struck to lift the lifetime ban on Pete Rose that has prevented his induction into the Hall of Fame.
Of course, I also couldn't help but notice that Charles is not too happy about all of this. Charles runs what I believe to be just about the best web log in Texas and I generally agree with him about 99 percent of the time. But it looks like on this one issue we are going to diverge rather sharply.
I am unabashedly a huge Pete Rose fan and have been so since I first picked up a baseball glove. The Cinncinnatti Reds were my team when I was growing up and Johnny Bench and Pete Rose baseball cards were the Holy Grail of my youth. So I was deeply disappointed when the whole Rose scandal broke out in the late '80s, but I also felt at the time as I do now that Rose paid for his mistake. I'll go over it again... he lost his job as manager of the Reds, he had to pay a sizable fine, he served time in jail, he suffered the humiliation of having his name forever associated with gambling on baseball, he suffered the indignity of being banned from baseball.... All of these things I could understand at the time, because gambling is a serious problem for professional sports and should be dealt with harshly whenever it is rooted out. However, the lifetime ban that has prevented Rose from inclusion in the Hall of Fame was and is over the top.
Charles points to a couple of essays by baseball writers to make the argument about why Rose still requires further punishment. One of these folks is Derek Zumsteg, an author of Baseball Prospectus. But the thing that struck me most about Zumsteg's writing is just how obsessed he seems to be with punishing Rose. Here is Zumsteg summarizing his take on Rose:
“Pete Rose is scum. His actions threatened the integrity of the game that he professed to love. He betrayed the trust of every fan who appreciated him, and he especially betrayed those still in denial, those now fighting his battles for him and voting in goofy online polls. Baseball should have continued the investigations, forced him to cough up more bank records, more checks, and refused to let him plea out. They should have banned him from baseball, sued him into bankruptcy, bought his house for pennies, burned it to the ground and salted the earth so nothing could grow there. Instead of trying to play the issue down, they should have made it entirely public, showing everyone that baseball takes gambling seriously, that it would aggressively pursue those who did it, and would grant them no quarter.
Fans should spit at Rose when they see him on the street, and boo him when he hangs around stadiums. His autographed items should repel people in shock and horror. When Rose walks the street in shame, we should shake our heads and say "what kind of man would do that?"
Wow! That's pretty nasty. Sounds a lot like Ann Coulter describing how the U.S. should deal with Muslim nations (Bomb their cities, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity). It also sounds like the kind of obsessive hatred that was leveled against Bill Clinton for so many years. In fact, I might even say that Derek Zumsteg is to Pete Rose as Christopher Ruddy is to Bill Clinton. And John Dowd is Pete Rose's own Ken Starr.
Perhaps when Rose "walks the street in shame," he should be forced to wear a big scarlet letter 'G' on his breast.
Charles also points to ESPN sports columnist Rob Neyer who has this observation about Pete Rose:
“...what's truly puzzling to me is the public love for a man who's firmly established himself as one of the more despicable people to wear a major-league uniform. Peter Edward Rose Sr. is a convicted tax cheat and a crummy husband and father who has, for many years, surrounded himself with drug dealers and various other unsavory types. Granted, none of us are perfect, but it seems to me that Pete Rose is significantly farther from perfection than just about anybody you would want to know.”
So there you go. Pete Rose - "scum" "despicable" "convicted tax cheat" (So much for that liberal, namby-pamby business about the rehabilitation of criminals - Once a convict, always a convict, I guess) and what's more, he was a "crummy husband and father"...
Hmmmm. Here is Pete Rose Jr. when asked about what Bud Selig should do about his "crummy father":
"Let's get some closure to this and put my dad back in baseball, where he belongs."
Doesn't sound like Pete Jr. would go along with Rob's "crummy father" argument for keeping Pete Sr. out of the Hall of Fame.
Another problem I have with this never ending vendetta that people have against Pete Rose is their insistence that he must publicly acknolwledge his guilt and apologize before they will consider bestowing their forgiveness upon the lowly sinner. What do they think this is anyway? George Orwell's "1984" where Winston Smith is forced to admit his "thought crimes" to the satisfaction of Big Brother at the end of the novel? That is the kind of thing that happens in China today, not the U.S. I'm sorry for those folks who feel that they need that kind of a spectacle to give themselves "closure," but it is fortunately not something that our justice system today requires.
Like I have said before, the integrity of baseball is no longer the issue. The integrity of baseball was preserved by Bart Giammatti's initial actions when the scandal first came to light. What is at stake now is the integrity of the Hall of Fame which some folks would like to see turned into the Hall of Saints where tests for moral purity take precedent over a player's accomplishments on the field.
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
Monday, August 11, 2003
A loss of trust
The Washington Post is continuing to wipe the floor with the New York Times with the story about how the Bush team misled the nation about the "imminent threat" posed by Saddam Hussein.
This weekend they ran a major story detailing how the Bush administration's depiction of the Iraqi threat outgrew the supporting evidence.
Josh Marshall picks out this key graph from the story:
"The new information indicates a pattern in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their subordinates -- in public and behind the scenes -- made allegations depicting Iraq's nuclear weapons program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat than the data they had would support. On occasion administration advocates withheld evidence that did not conform to their views. The White House seldom corrected misstatements or acknowledged loss of confidence in information upon which it had previously relied ..."
And here is another piece that ran over the weekend from the AP in which they take a point-by-point reassessment of the allegations and "evidence" that Colin Powell presented to the nation prior to the war:
"It was the most comprehensive presentation of the U.S. case for war. Powell marshaled what were described as intercepted Iraqi conversations, reconnaissance photos of Iraqi sites, accounts of defectors, and other intelligence sources.
"Powell's sober speech was galvanizing, swinging opinion toward war. "Compelling," "powerful," "irrefutable" were adjectives used by both pundits and opposition Democratic politicians. Editor & Publisher magazine found prowar sentiment among editorial writers doubled overnight, to three-quarters of large U.S. newspapers. Powell's "thick intelligence file," as he called it, had won them over.
"Six months after that Feb. 5 appearance, the file does look thin. "
I lost my faith in the Reagan administration back in the mid-80s after I listened to Reagan go on television and lie about the size and extent of the weapons we had covertly shipped to Iran. I had voted for Reagan in 1984, the first year I was old enough to vote, and the realization that the president was either being so dishonest or was so grossly misinformed forced me to reassess a lot of my preconceptions at the time.
By my reckoning, the massive amount of deception that went into pulling our nation into a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq is far worse than Iran-Contra ever was. So I am just as mystified today as I was back then that so many people are willing to forgive, excuse or ignore these deceptions while they continue to back the current administration without hesitation.
This weekend they ran a major story detailing how the Bush administration's depiction of the Iraqi threat outgrew the supporting evidence.
Josh Marshall picks out this key graph from the story:
"The new information indicates a pattern in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their subordinates -- in public and behind the scenes -- made allegations depicting Iraq's nuclear weapons program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat than the data they had would support. On occasion administration advocates withheld evidence that did not conform to their views. The White House seldom corrected misstatements or acknowledged loss of confidence in information upon which it had previously relied ..."
And here is another piece that ran over the weekend from the AP in which they take a point-by-point reassessment of the allegations and "evidence" that Colin Powell presented to the nation prior to the war:
"It was the most comprehensive presentation of the U.S. case for war. Powell marshaled what were described as intercepted Iraqi conversations, reconnaissance photos of Iraqi sites, accounts of defectors, and other intelligence sources.
"Powell's sober speech was galvanizing, swinging opinion toward war. "Compelling," "powerful," "irrefutable" were adjectives used by both pundits and opposition Democratic politicians. Editor & Publisher magazine found prowar sentiment among editorial writers doubled overnight, to three-quarters of large U.S. newspapers. Powell's "thick intelligence file," as he called it, had won them over.
"Six months after that Feb. 5 appearance, the file does look thin. "
I lost my faith in the Reagan administration back in the mid-80s after I listened to Reagan go on television and lie about the size and extent of the weapons we had covertly shipped to Iran. I had voted for Reagan in 1984, the first year I was old enough to vote, and the realization that the president was either being so dishonest or was so grossly misinformed forced me to reassess a lot of my preconceptions at the time.
By my reckoning, the massive amount of deception that went into pulling our nation into a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq is far worse than Iran-Contra ever was. So I am just as mystified today as I was back then that so many people are willing to forgive, excuse or ignore these deceptions while they continue to back the current administration without hesitation.
Friday, August 08, 2003
The man who should be president
Al Gore - 50,999,897
George W. Bush - 50,456,002
That pretty much says it all.
Al Gore - the man who got a half million more votes than Bush - had this to say the other day concerning the lies that were used to push the U.S. to invade Iraq:
...what we now know to have been false impressions include the following:
(1) Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for the attack against us on September 11th, 2001, so a good way to respond to that attack would be to invade his country and forcibly remove him from power.
(2) Saddam was working closely with Osama Bin Laden and was actively supporting members of the Al Qaeda terrorist group, giving them weapons and money and bases and training, so launching a war against Iraq would be a good way to stop Al Qaeda from attacking us again.
(3) Saddam was about to give the terrorists poison gas and deadly germs that he had made into weapons which they could use to kill millions of Americans. Therefore common sense alone dictated that we should send our military into Iraq in order to protect our loved ones and ourselves against a grave threat.
(4) Saddam was on the verge of building nuclear bombs and giving them to the terrorists. And since the only thing preventing Saddam from acquiring a nuclear arsenal was access to enriched uranium, once our spies found out that he had bought the enrichment technology he needed and was actively trying to buy uranium from Africa, we had very little time left. Therefore it seemed imperative during last Fall's election campaign to set aside less urgent issues like the economy and instead focus on the congressional resolution approving war against Iraq.
(5) Our GI's would be welcomed with open arms by cheering Iraqis who would help them quickly establish public safety, free markets and Representative Democracy, so there wouldn't be that much risk that US soldiers would get bogged down in a guerrilla war.
(6) Even though the rest of the world was mostly opposed to the war, they would quickly fall in line after we won and then contribute lots of money and soldiers to help out, so there wouldn't be that much risk that US taxpayers would get stuck with a huge bill.
Now, of course, everybody knows that every single one of these impressions was just dead wrong.
He also talked about some of the lies about U.S. economic policies:
(1) The tax cuts would unleash a lot of new investment that would create lots of new jobs.
(2) We wouldn't have to worry about a return to big budget deficits -- because all the new growth in the economy caused by the tax cuts would lead to a lot of new revenue.
(3) Most of the benefits would go to average middle-income families, not to the wealthy, as some partisans claimed.
Unfortunately, here too, every single one of these impressions turned out to be wrong. Instead of creating jobs, for example, we are losing millions of jobs -- net losses for three years in a row. That hasn't happened since the Great Depression.
I really wish Gore would run for re-election.
George W. Bush - 50,456,002
That pretty much says it all.
Al Gore - the man who got a half million more votes than Bush - had this to say the other day concerning the lies that were used to push the U.S. to invade Iraq:
...what we now know to have been false impressions include the following:
(1) Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for the attack against us on September 11th, 2001, so a good way to respond to that attack would be to invade his country and forcibly remove him from power.
(2) Saddam was working closely with Osama Bin Laden and was actively supporting members of the Al Qaeda terrorist group, giving them weapons and money and bases and training, so launching a war against Iraq would be a good way to stop Al Qaeda from attacking us again.
(3) Saddam was about to give the terrorists poison gas and deadly germs that he had made into weapons which they could use to kill millions of Americans. Therefore common sense alone dictated that we should send our military into Iraq in order to protect our loved ones and ourselves against a grave threat.
(4) Saddam was on the verge of building nuclear bombs and giving them to the terrorists. And since the only thing preventing Saddam from acquiring a nuclear arsenal was access to enriched uranium, once our spies found out that he had bought the enrichment technology he needed and was actively trying to buy uranium from Africa, we had very little time left. Therefore it seemed imperative during last Fall's election campaign to set aside less urgent issues like the economy and instead focus on the congressional resolution approving war against Iraq.
(5) Our GI's would be welcomed with open arms by cheering Iraqis who would help them quickly establish public safety, free markets and Representative Democracy, so there wouldn't be that much risk that US soldiers would get bogged down in a guerrilla war.
(6) Even though the rest of the world was mostly opposed to the war, they would quickly fall in line after we won and then contribute lots of money and soldiers to help out, so there wouldn't be that much risk that US taxpayers would get stuck with a huge bill.
Now, of course, everybody knows that every single one of these impressions was just dead wrong.
He also talked about some of the lies about U.S. economic policies:
(1) The tax cuts would unleash a lot of new investment that would create lots of new jobs.
(2) We wouldn't have to worry about a return to big budget deficits -- because all the new growth in the economy caused by the tax cuts would lead to a lot of new revenue.
(3) Most of the benefits would go to average middle-income families, not to the wealthy, as some partisans claimed.
Unfortunately, here too, every single one of these impressions turned out to be wrong. Instead of creating jobs, for example, we are losing millions of jobs -- net losses for three years in a row. That hasn't happened since the Great Depression.
I really wish Gore would run for re-election.
I like Ahnold!
No, I don't think he should be the next governor of California, but I do like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
It strikes me as highly hypocritical to see all these Republicans swooning before the mighty Terminator as if he were the second coming of Ronald Reagan.
As Joe Conason points out at Salon:
"Weren't the Republicans just telling us the other day that celebrities should keep their mouths shut about politics? Didn't they blast the Dixie Chicks, Janeane Garofalo, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon and every other artist who spoke out about the war in Iraq? Wasn't the argument that fame doesn't confer experience, wisdom or competence?"
If Arnold had announced plans to run as a Democrat, without changing anything else about his policies or positions, these same folks would find plenty of things about him to criticize.
Here is a run down of some of Arnold's "contradictions" from an article at National Review Online:
“Schwarzenegger seems a bundle of contradictions: an outspoken Republican who's married to Democratic stalwart Sen. Ted Kennedy's niece, Maria Shriver (and the daughter of George McGovern's running mate!). A man who proclaims his life story to be a triumph of individual will, yet often reaches out to people less successful than he. An actor who has regularly been roughed up by critics, yet won a Golden Globe Award for Best Acting debut. A dedicated "jock" who spent years in the weight room, but also has a master of business administration degree. A brutally tough business negotiator who's given away millions to charity. An aggressive bachelor in his younger days who also helped advance women's bodybuilding. A "health nut" who has also taken massive doses of steroids. A man whose father was literally a Nazi in occupied Austria, but whose career has been immeasurably helped by Jewish promoters and producers and calls himself an "honorary Jew." A top-notch athlete whose first charitable work was with handicapped children.
“Undoubtedly his mother-in-law, Eunice, President Kennedy's younger sister, who has devoted her life to the handicapped and underprivileged, influenced him.
"Schwarzenegger faced up to his father's Nazi past, reaching out to the Jewish community and donating his salary (more than $5 million) from Terminator 2 to the Holocaust Museum. Since he met Shriver, he's been the weight-lifting coach for the Special Olympics. He's also a leading sponsor of the Inner City Games. His first independent foray in California politics was his championing of Proposition 49 in 2002 to create after-school programs for kids.
"Schwarzenegger's politics also changed as he aged. A Reagan Republican and a staunch conservative in the '80s, he moderated his politics in the last decade. Schwarzenegger says he is pro-choice, supports gay rights, and endorses "reasonable" gun controls and environmental regulation.
"During the Clinton impeachment drama, Schwarzenegger said he was "embarrassed" by Ken Starr's investigation of the president's private life. While his fellow national Republicans appear to be tilting right, he's followed the recent leftward drift of California politics. He has ended up being a lot closer to Clinton than Newt Gingrich."
Yeah, I'd say he has some potential. Even if he is a Republican, I'd rather see someone like Arnold in office rather than divisive ideologues like Newt Gingrich or Tom Delay.
But I think it is a shame that Arnold has chosen this outrageous recall shenanigan as the vehicle for his entry into politics. Even if he does win, he will face the prospect of having the legitimacy of his election constantly questioned and he will face a flood of revenge petition drives calling for his own ouster by recall. After all, it only takes 12 percent!!! of the people who voted in the last election to sign a petition to force another recall election. It is outrageous and the only reason my conservative Republican friends are willing to go along with this is because Gov. Gray Davis has a D next to his name. If this were happening to a Republican governor, they would be just as outraged as I am, if not more so.
It strikes me as highly hypocritical to see all these Republicans swooning before the mighty Terminator as if he were the second coming of Ronald Reagan.
As Joe Conason points out at Salon:
"Weren't the Republicans just telling us the other day that celebrities should keep their mouths shut about politics? Didn't they blast the Dixie Chicks, Janeane Garofalo, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon and every other artist who spoke out about the war in Iraq? Wasn't the argument that fame doesn't confer experience, wisdom or competence?"
If Arnold had announced plans to run as a Democrat, without changing anything else about his policies or positions, these same folks would find plenty of things about him to criticize.
Here is a run down of some of Arnold's "contradictions" from an article at National Review Online:
“Schwarzenegger seems a bundle of contradictions: an outspoken Republican who's married to Democratic stalwart Sen. Ted Kennedy's niece, Maria Shriver (and the daughter of George McGovern's running mate!). A man who proclaims his life story to be a triumph of individual will, yet often reaches out to people less successful than he. An actor who has regularly been roughed up by critics, yet won a Golden Globe Award for Best Acting debut. A dedicated "jock" who spent years in the weight room, but also has a master of business administration degree. A brutally tough business negotiator who's given away millions to charity. An aggressive bachelor in his younger days who also helped advance women's bodybuilding. A "health nut" who has also taken massive doses of steroids. A man whose father was literally a Nazi in occupied Austria, but whose career has been immeasurably helped by Jewish promoters and producers and calls himself an "honorary Jew." A top-notch athlete whose first charitable work was with handicapped children.
“Undoubtedly his mother-in-law, Eunice, President Kennedy's younger sister, who has devoted her life to the handicapped and underprivileged, influenced him.
"Schwarzenegger faced up to his father's Nazi past, reaching out to the Jewish community and donating his salary (more than $5 million) from Terminator 2 to the Holocaust Museum. Since he met Shriver, he's been the weight-lifting coach for the Special Olympics. He's also a leading sponsor of the Inner City Games. His first independent foray in California politics was his championing of Proposition 49 in 2002 to create after-school programs for kids.
"Schwarzenegger's politics also changed as he aged. A Reagan Republican and a staunch conservative in the '80s, he moderated his politics in the last decade. Schwarzenegger says he is pro-choice, supports gay rights, and endorses "reasonable" gun controls and environmental regulation.
"During the Clinton impeachment drama, Schwarzenegger said he was "embarrassed" by Ken Starr's investigation of the president's private life. While his fellow national Republicans appear to be tilting right, he's followed the recent leftward drift of California politics. He has ended up being a lot closer to Clinton than Newt Gingrich."
Yeah, I'd say he has some potential. Even if he is a Republican, I'd rather see someone like Arnold in office rather than divisive ideologues like Newt Gingrich or Tom Delay.
But I think it is a shame that Arnold has chosen this outrageous recall shenanigan as the vehicle for his entry into politics. Even if he does win, he will face the prospect of having the legitimacy of his election constantly questioned and he will face a flood of revenge petition drives calling for his own ouster by recall. After all, it only takes 12 percent!!! of the people who voted in the last election to sign a petition to force another recall election. It is outrageous and the only reason my conservative Republican friends are willing to go along with this is because Gov. Gray Davis has a D next to his name. If this were happening to a Republican governor, they would be just as outraged as I am, if not more so.
Wednesday, August 06, 2003
Lottery - A sucker's bet
How I despise the state lottery. I wrote an article many years ago for the Texas Observer expounding on my opposition to a state lottery for Texas - using Connecticut - my domicile at that time - as an example.
In 1990-91 Connecticut was in the throes of a major budget crisis at the same time that Texas was about to adopt its first state lottery. I thought it was ironic that the politicos in Texas were touting a lottery as a miracle cure for future budget woes when Connecticut had been running its own lotter for more than 10 years at that time and look where it got them.
Of course, my protestations did little to dissuade the state from going down its current path - to this day I consider it the one big mistake made by Gov. Ann Richards.
Now we can fast-forward 10-plus years and we find Texas involved in its own budget crisis and now lawmakers want to try to squeeze more blood out of the lottery turnip by latching on to one of the grotesque multi-state con games.
The lottery is the most regressive form of taxation ever devised. It has been called a tax on stupid people and I can't argue against that assessment. It does nothing to benefit the state's economy because it does not generate new revenues - it only sops up what people are willing to throw away on their hopes and dreams.
I'm not a big fan of gambling in general, but real gamblers know that the lottery is the worst possible game with the worst odds of winning. It is a con game of the highest degree and the biggest crime here is that it is our own government - which should be protecting people from being conned - participating in this fleecing of the masses.
In 1990-91 Connecticut was in the throes of a major budget crisis at the same time that Texas was about to adopt its first state lottery. I thought it was ironic that the politicos in Texas were touting a lottery as a miracle cure for future budget woes when Connecticut had been running its own lotter for more than 10 years at that time and look where it got them.
Of course, my protestations did little to dissuade the state from going down its current path - to this day I consider it the one big mistake made by Gov. Ann Richards.
Now we can fast-forward 10-plus years and we find Texas involved in its own budget crisis and now lawmakers want to try to squeeze more blood out of the lottery turnip by latching on to one of the grotesque multi-state con games.
The lottery is the most regressive form of taxation ever devised. It has been called a tax on stupid people and I can't argue against that assessment. It does nothing to benefit the state's economy because it does not generate new revenues - it only sops up what people are willing to throw away on their hopes and dreams.
I'm not a big fan of gambling in general, but real gamblers know that the lottery is the worst possible game with the worst odds of winning. It is a con game of the highest degree and the biggest crime here is that it is our own government - which should be protecting people from being conned - participating in this fleecing of the masses.
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
Foreign influences
My friend Mark Harden has lured me into a debate over the proper role of the U.S. Supreme Court and whether it is appropriate for justices to consider legal opinions made by foreign entities when ruling on cases under the U.S. Constitution.
Mark was particularly preturbed by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for comments she made during a speech before the American Constitution Society.
He has called for her impeachment as a result.
Mark's contention is that “the only purpose of the US Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution of the United States” and thus looking to any other foreign body of law is inappropriate if not outright treasonous.
I would first note that the Constitution set up the Supreme Court under very broad parameters.
Article III, Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
But the whole bit about interpreting the Constitution or judicial review was not spelled out in the Constitution, although it was alluded to in the Federalist Papers. It was not confirmed until it was formally invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in the Marbury vs. Madison case in 1803.
You can read all about the history of the court and Constitutional interpretation on the court’s Web site here.
So saying that the court was initially set up to do something that didn't come about for a dozen or more years isn't quite accurate. The Marbury case greatly expanded the power of the court by including interpretation among its duties. It did not limit the court to only providing strict interpretations of the Constitution.
But back to the argument at hand. The recent uproar over foreign influences on Supreme Court decisions was sparked by a dissent written by Justice Antonin Scalia in the Lawrence v. Texas case that struck down the sodomy law in Texas. Scalia was upset because Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, referred to an amicus brief filed by Mary Robinson, former United Nations high commissioner for human rights that cited European cases striking down anti-homosexual laws:
"Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct," Kennedy wrote. "The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries. There has been no showing that in this country, the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent."
Scalia erupted thusly:
"Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence because some states choose to lessen or eliminate criminal sanctions on certain behavior. Much less do they spring into existence, as the Court seems to believe, because foreign nations decriminalize conduct," Scalia wrote. "The Court's discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is therefore meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since 'this Court...should not impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans.'"
Somehow I don't find the idea that adults engaged in intimate, consensual conduct should not have to fear having their door busted down by the morality police as being some kind of foreign mood, fad or fashion.
Unfortunately, what most Americans would take as a temper tantrum by a sore loser, Mark and his friends have taken up as a cause celebre to seek the ouster of ... um... Justice Ginsburg.
It is true that Judge Ginsburg referred to an international treaty in writing her decision in the Grutter v. Bollinger affirmative action case. But why Mark wants to impeach Ginsburg and not also Justice Kennedy is the big mystery here.
Oh, and let's not forget about Justice Sandra Day O'Connor! She needs to be impeached as well. Here are her comments on this issue from an interview with Prof. David Rudenstine of Cardoza University from a few years back:
Rudenstine: When looking at the history of the Supreme Court and the dialogue that goes on among justices and scholars over how to interpret and apply the United States Constitution, there is no evidence that we have looked to Italy and France and Germany or any other country for ways to interpret or rule on cases and legislation.
O'Connor: Historically courts in this country have been insulated. We do not look beyond our borders for precedents. When I went to law school, which after all was back in the dark ages, we never looked beyond our borders for precedents. As a state court judge, it never would have occurred to me to do so, and when I got to the Supreme Court, it was very much the same. We just didn't do it. Occasionally we have to interpret an international treaty - one, perhaps, affecting airlines and liability for injury to passengers or damage to goods. Then, of course, we have to look to the precedents of other member nations in resolving issues. But short of that, we have tended not to pay any attention to what other countries were doing. Yet most countries, at least in the western world, face similar issues from time to time. Look at Canada. Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is parallel to our Bill of Rights - it is not identical but similar. They have faced many of the same issues we have and at roughly the same time. It is my sense that we have not paid close attention institutionally to the jurisprudence of Canada or other nations. I think that's changing.
Rudenstine: As Justices consider a particular case that has been briefed and argued and read, would you then also consider reading opinions of a supreme court or a constitutional court in some other land as a way of gaining additional insight on our own traditions or interpretations?
O'Connor: I would, if it were an issue that had a close parallel in decisions of that other country. I would be interested to know how they handled it, yes.
Rudenstine: In any opinion that you have offered, do you recall citing an opinion of a foreign court?
O'Connor: Yes, but I don't have specifics to give you this morning.
It is a good thing to do occasionally. Let me give you some examples. We had a case not long ago involving state laws governing physician-assisted suicide. We have virtually no experience of that in this country - none. And that was a case where we had some very useful amicus briefs and materials that brought before us the experience of other countries, such as the Netherlands. I found that this was very useful, and I suspect that if we looked we would see some of these materials cited. I also recall that in some of the cases in which our court was looking at state laws governing abortion, it was very interesting to look at comparative experiences in other western nations. I suspect that we would find cited some of those materials as well.
"It is a good thing to do occasionally."
Imagine that!
Mark was particularly preturbed by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for comments she made during a speech before the American Constitution Society.
He has called for her impeachment as a result.
Mark's contention is that “the only purpose of the US Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution of the United States” and thus looking to any other foreign body of law is inappropriate if not outright treasonous.
I would first note that the Constitution set up the Supreme Court under very broad parameters.
Article III, Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
But the whole bit about interpreting the Constitution or judicial review was not spelled out in the Constitution, although it was alluded to in the Federalist Papers. It was not confirmed until it was formally invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in the Marbury vs. Madison case in 1803.
You can read all about the history of the court and Constitutional interpretation on the court’s Web site here.
So saying that the court was initially set up to do something that didn't come about for a dozen or more years isn't quite accurate. The Marbury case greatly expanded the power of the court by including interpretation among its duties. It did not limit the court to only providing strict interpretations of the Constitution.
But back to the argument at hand. The recent uproar over foreign influences on Supreme Court decisions was sparked by a dissent written by Justice Antonin Scalia in the Lawrence v. Texas case that struck down the sodomy law in Texas. Scalia was upset because Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, referred to an amicus brief filed by Mary Robinson, former United Nations high commissioner for human rights that cited European cases striking down anti-homosexual laws:
"Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct," Kennedy wrote. "The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries. There has been no showing that in this country, the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent."
Scalia erupted thusly:
"Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence because some states choose to lessen or eliminate criminal sanctions on certain behavior. Much less do they spring into existence, as the Court seems to believe, because foreign nations decriminalize conduct," Scalia wrote. "The Court's discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is therefore meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since 'this Court...should not impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans.'"
Somehow I don't find the idea that adults engaged in intimate, consensual conduct should not have to fear having their door busted down by the morality police as being some kind of foreign mood, fad or fashion.
Unfortunately, what most Americans would take as a temper tantrum by a sore loser, Mark and his friends have taken up as a cause celebre to seek the ouster of ... um... Justice Ginsburg.
It is true that Judge Ginsburg referred to an international treaty in writing her decision in the Grutter v. Bollinger affirmative action case. But why Mark wants to impeach Ginsburg and not also Justice Kennedy is the big mystery here.
Oh, and let's not forget about Justice Sandra Day O'Connor! She needs to be impeached as well. Here are her comments on this issue from an interview with Prof. David Rudenstine of Cardoza University from a few years back:
Rudenstine: When looking at the history of the Supreme Court and the dialogue that goes on among justices and scholars over how to interpret and apply the United States Constitution, there is no evidence that we have looked to Italy and France and Germany or any other country for ways to interpret or rule on cases and legislation.
O'Connor: Historically courts in this country have been insulated. We do not look beyond our borders for precedents. When I went to law school, which after all was back in the dark ages, we never looked beyond our borders for precedents. As a state court judge, it never would have occurred to me to do so, and when I got to the Supreme Court, it was very much the same. We just didn't do it. Occasionally we have to interpret an international treaty - one, perhaps, affecting airlines and liability for injury to passengers or damage to goods. Then, of course, we have to look to the precedents of other member nations in resolving issues. But short of that, we have tended not to pay any attention to what other countries were doing. Yet most countries, at least in the western world, face similar issues from time to time. Look at Canada. Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is parallel to our Bill of Rights - it is not identical but similar. They have faced many of the same issues we have and at roughly the same time. It is my sense that we have not paid close attention institutionally to the jurisprudence of Canada or other nations. I think that's changing.
Rudenstine: As Justices consider a particular case that has been briefed and argued and read, would you then also consider reading opinions of a supreme court or a constitutional court in some other land as a way of gaining additional insight on our own traditions or interpretations?
O'Connor: I would, if it were an issue that had a close parallel in decisions of that other country. I would be interested to know how they handled it, yes.
Rudenstine: In any opinion that you have offered, do you recall citing an opinion of a foreign court?
O'Connor: Yes, but I don't have specifics to give you this morning.
It is a good thing to do occasionally. Let me give you some examples. We had a case not long ago involving state laws governing physician-assisted suicide. We have virtually no experience of that in this country - none. And that was a case where we had some very useful amicus briefs and materials that brought before us the experience of other countries, such as the Netherlands. I found that this was very useful, and I suspect that if we looked we would see some of these materials cited. I also recall that in some of the cases in which our court was looking at state laws governing abortion, it was very interesting to look at comparative experiences in other western nations. I suspect that we would find cited some of those materials as well.
"It is a good thing to do occasionally."
Imagine that!
Monday, August 04, 2003
Why couldn't he be more like Strom?
Sen. Ernest Hollings' decision to not run for re-election next year is not good news for Democratic hopes of regaining control of the Senate.
Too bad he couldn't stick around as long as that other Carolina senator - Strom Thurmond. But Democrats can't just rely on the longevity of their incumbents in order to hold on to power. They are going to have to get out there and convince voters why it is to their benefit to elect them.
That shouldn't be too hard considering the way Bush and company have been running the economy these past two years. But then again you can never underestimate the electorate's determination to delude themselves.
Too bad he couldn't stick around as long as that other Carolina senator - Strom Thurmond. But Democrats can't just rely on the longevity of their incumbents in order to hold on to power. They are going to have to get out there and convince voters why it is to their benefit to elect them.
That shouldn't be too hard considering the way Bush and company have been running the economy these past two years. But then again you can never underestimate the electorate's determination to delude themselves.
"The Killer D's of Texas"
Here's a cute little ditty that will soon be making the rounds from one of the many talented songwriters who play the Kerrville Folk Festival every year.
Tune: "The Yellow Rose of Texas"
Words copyright 2003 Steve Brooks
Oh, the Killer D's of Texas,
Are going on a tour.
Don't bother trying to find them,
Down on the Senate floor.
They've gone across the border,
Down Albuquerque way.
And the Killer D's of Texas
Put the sting on Tom DeLay.
When the governor of Texas
Was putting in the fix,
He drew a map that looked like
A pile of pick-up sticks.
He tried to slip it through in
The session's waning days,
But the Killer D's of Texas
Put the sting on Tom DeLay.
They crossed the old Red River,
Holed up in a motel.
They busted up the session,
Told the governor, "Go to hell."
He went and called another,
But a dozen wouldn't play.
So, the Killer D's of Texas
Put the sting on Tom DeLay.
Back at the Grand Old Party,
Tom Delay was turning green.
And so was old Rick Perry,
His faithful Gunga Din.
He called them back to Austin,
But they flew the other way,
And the Killer D's of Texas
Put the sting on Tom DeLay.
Far from the state of Texas,
The D's have gone on strike
For democracy and justice,
And the sake of voting rights.
However long it takes them,
That how long they're gonna stay,
Till the Killer D's of Texas
Put the sting on Tom DeLay.
Now, Democrats of Texas,
We've had a losing streak.
But no more will we be Bushwhacked
Or turn the other cheek.
We'll win the next election,
'Cause crime no longer pays
Since the Killer D's of Texas
Put the sting on Tom DeLay.
Tune: "The Yellow Rose of Texas"
Words copyright 2003 Steve Brooks
Oh, the Killer D's of Texas,
Are going on a tour.
Don't bother trying to find them,
Down on the Senate floor.
They've gone across the border,
Down Albuquerque way.
And the Killer D's of Texas
Put the sting on Tom DeLay.
When the governor of Texas
Was putting in the fix,
He drew a map that looked like
A pile of pick-up sticks.
He tried to slip it through in
The session's waning days,
But the Killer D's of Texas
Put the sting on Tom DeLay.
They crossed the old Red River,
Holed up in a motel.
They busted up the session,
Told the governor, "Go to hell."
He went and called another,
But a dozen wouldn't play.
So, the Killer D's of Texas
Put the sting on Tom DeLay.
Back at the Grand Old Party,
Tom Delay was turning green.
And so was old Rick Perry,
His faithful Gunga Din.
He called them back to Austin,
But they flew the other way,
And the Killer D's of Texas
Put the sting on Tom DeLay.
Far from the state of Texas,
The D's have gone on strike
For democracy and justice,
And the sake of voting rights.
However long it takes them,
That how long they're gonna stay,
Till the Killer D's of Texas
Put the sting on Tom DeLay.
Now, Democrats of Texas,
We've had a losing streak.
But no more will we be Bushwhacked
Or turn the other cheek.
We'll win the next election,
'Cause crime no longer pays
Since the Killer D's of Texas
Put the sting on Tom DeLay.
Pirate movie
I saw “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl” over the weekend and really enjoyed it. I never saw that last big pirate movie that was such a bomb - “Cutthroat Island” - so I can’t compare it with that one, but my wife thought this film was like one of the classic Sinbad movies from the 1960s and I would have to agree. Being a Disney film, I was a little afraid that it would be too cleaned up - in other words, lots of fighting where nobody ever dies - but that wasn’t the case. There was plenty of realistic fighting and action - they just refrained from showing blood spurting in slow motion at every opportunity.
The acting was very good in the film. I was interested in seeing Orlando Bloom in his first big role outside of playing Legolas the elf in Lord of the Rings as well as “Bend It Like Beckham”s Keira Knightly.
But it was Johnny Depp who stole the show playing the pirate Capt. Jack Sparrow who he said was patterned after Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones. I’ve been a Johnny Depp fan for some time now, at least since ‘95 when he did the delightlful “Don Juan DeMarco.” I think Depp is probably due for an Oscar nomination soon, probably not for this role but maybe something else he has in the works. I saw where his next big film will be the Richard Rodriguez directed “Once Upon A Time in Mexico,” another action movie. But after that it looks like he will have a top-level drama “Neverland” playing the role of J.M. Barrie, the author of the Peter Pan children’s books.
This may have been the last film we will see in a theater for awhile as the impending birth of our first child is drawing ever nearer. I guess that’s what DVDs are for now.
The acting was very good in the film. I was interested in seeing Orlando Bloom in his first big role outside of playing Legolas the elf in Lord of the Rings as well as “Bend It Like Beckham”s Keira Knightly.
But it was Johnny Depp who stole the show playing the pirate Capt. Jack Sparrow who he said was patterned after Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones. I’ve been a Johnny Depp fan for some time now, at least since ‘95 when he did the delightlful “Don Juan DeMarco.” I think Depp is probably due for an Oscar nomination soon, probably not for this role but maybe something else he has in the works. I saw where his next big film will be the Richard Rodriguez directed “Once Upon A Time in Mexico,” another action movie. But after that it looks like he will have a top-level drama “Neverland” playing the role of J.M. Barrie, the author of the Peter Pan children’s books.
This may have been the last film we will see in a theater for awhile as the impending birth of our first child is drawing ever nearer. I guess that’s what DVDs are for now.
Friday, August 01, 2003
Aggie journalism
As an A&M journalism graduate, I'm saddened by the news that my alma mater is planning to shutter the journalism program as a way to avoid budget cuts elsewhere. I'm still hopeful, however, that the decision could be rescinded before they actually close the doors in a few years.
Since the announcement, there have been a lot of denigrating comments going around the Web about the quality of the A&M journalism program, as if that is the reason it is being shut down. I graduated in 1989 and don't have a clue about how the program is doing since I left. But like most things, the real issue is $$$.
For anyone familiar with academic institutions, the news that the department has had a lot of turnover amongst its faculty and staff recently makes it clear why it has become a target for closure. What that probably means is there are not that many tenured professors currently in the department compared to the other programs and it is therefore easier for the administration to shut it down.
But back to the denigrating comments. This one in particular from the normally level-headed folks at TAPPED (the blog for The American Prospect magazine) has got my dander up.
"When it comes to undergraduate journalism programs -- and most other pre-professional undergraduate programs -- Tapped says: Scrap away. We can't think of a bigger waste of four years of college than to study journalism there. Journalism isn't an academic subject; it's a trade, one that almost anyone with the basic skill set -- clear writing and aggressive reporting -- can pick up in six months at a small metro daily. Really good journalism isn't easy, of course, but you don't get to be a good journalist by studying "journalism" in college. Better to study economics, or history, or English literature, or philosophy, or one of the other liberal arts."
So journalism is just a trade, a blue-collar endeavor, anyone can do it, no skills needed, six-months of on-the-job training and you're on par with a four-year college grad, etc., etc., yadda-yadda-yadda.
I've heard all of this before. And fine. I've known lots of excellent journalists who got English degrees or history degrees in college. I don't have a problem with that. But I also know from experience that journalism can be a tough profession, especially when you are just starting out, and most papers - especially the smaller dailies - have notoriously high turnaround rates. If I were an editor looking to hire a new young reporter, I would be more inclined to hire a journalism graduate rather than some other liberal arts degree simply because I would feel that this person is more devoted to the profession and would be more likely to stick around over the long-term.
As for the value of a journalism degree, it is essentially a Liberal Arts degree. You learn basic reporting and interviewing skills, you study media law and libel suits. You get some basic experience before going out into the workforce. Of course, you don't need a journalism degree to be a reporter - but a waste of time? Sorry, but I disagree.
Using the same logic employed by Tapped, I suppose we should shut down all of the business schools in the nation since you obviously don't need a business degree in order to become a successful businessman. But there is the chance that you could be a better businessman than you would have been otherwise by obtaining the degree, and the same is true of journalism.
Since the announcement, there have been a lot of denigrating comments going around the Web about the quality of the A&M journalism program, as if that is the reason it is being shut down. I graduated in 1989 and don't have a clue about how the program is doing since I left. But like most things, the real issue is $$$.
For anyone familiar with academic institutions, the news that the department has had a lot of turnover amongst its faculty and staff recently makes it clear why it has become a target for closure. What that probably means is there are not that many tenured professors currently in the department compared to the other programs and it is therefore easier for the administration to shut it down.
But back to the denigrating comments. This one in particular from the normally level-headed folks at TAPPED (the blog for The American Prospect magazine) has got my dander up.
"When it comes to undergraduate journalism programs -- and most other pre-professional undergraduate programs -- Tapped says: Scrap away. We can't think of a bigger waste of four years of college than to study journalism there. Journalism isn't an academic subject; it's a trade, one that almost anyone with the basic skill set -- clear writing and aggressive reporting -- can pick up in six months at a small metro daily. Really good journalism isn't easy, of course, but you don't get to be a good journalist by studying "journalism" in college. Better to study economics, or history, or English literature, or philosophy, or one of the other liberal arts."
So journalism is just a trade, a blue-collar endeavor, anyone can do it, no skills needed, six-months of on-the-job training and you're on par with a four-year college grad, etc., etc., yadda-yadda-yadda.
I've heard all of this before. And fine. I've known lots of excellent journalists who got English degrees or history degrees in college. I don't have a problem with that. But I also know from experience that journalism can be a tough profession, especially when you are just starting out, and most papers - especially the smaller dailies - have notoriously high turnaround rates. If I were an editor looking to hire a new young reporter, I would be more inclined to hire a journalism graduate rather than some other liberal arts degree simply because I would feel that this person is more devoted to the profession and would be more likely to stick around over the long-term.
As for the value of a journalism degree, it is essentially a Liberal Arts degree. You learn basic reporting and interviewing skills, you study media law and libel suits. You get some basic experience before going out into the workforce. Of course, you don't need a journalism degree to be a reporter - but a waste of time? Sorry, but I disagree.
Using the same logic employed by Tapped, I suppose we should shut down all of the business schools in the nation since you obviously don't need a business degree in order to become a successful businessman. But there is the chance that you could be a better businessman than you would have been otherwise by obtaining the degree, and the same is true of journalism.
More bogus science
From Thursday's Wall Street Journal:
"A big flap at a little scientific journal is raising questions about a study that has been embraced by conservative politicians for its rejection of widely held globalwarming theories."
It seems that three editors of the journal Climate Research have resigned in protest over the way the review process was handled for a controversial study by a pair of astronomers published in the journal's January issue. The study claims that the 20th Century has not been unusually warm compared with earlier periods and contradicts evidence that man-made "greenhouse" gases are causing temperatures to rise. Using studies of tree rings, the paper concludes that there have been warmer periods during the past 1,000 years, particularly the "Medieval Warm Period" when the Norse settled Greenland.
The study has been harshly criticized by climatologists. The recently resigned editor in chief of Climate Reseach said the study is flawed and should not have been published. The tree ring paper contradicts another widely cited study by Dr. Michael E. Mann of the University of Virginia whose research on global temperatures shows a distinctive hockey stick pattern in recent years where temperatures had been level for centuries with a sudden upturn in recent decades. Dr. Mann and 13 other scientists have published a critique of the tree ring study saying that its research methods were flawed and that it is inconsistent with the preponderance of scientific evidence.
Despite this criticism heaped on the tree ring study, it has been embraced by the Bush administration and was recently added to an EPA report on environmental quality in place of a reference to Dr. Mann's study.
This should come as no surprise. As I have noted before, the Bush administration is filled with ideologues who are not interested in scientific accuracy unless it conforms with their predetermined beliefs. The tree ring study said what they wanted to hear and they have embraced it with a fervor while happily dismissing the more widely accepted studies that do not conform to their ideology.
The one thing I have not yet mentioned about the tree ring study is that it was partly funded by...... can you guess? .......... the American Petroleum Institute.
The questions left unanswered in the story include how the tree ring paper made it into publication in the first place. Who was pushing for its inclusion when so many editors were opposed. The WSJ story, unfortunately, is poorly edited. At the end of the article it references a Mr. Kinne who blocked a move by the dissenting editors to publish an editorial critical of the journal's publication of the tree ring study. But there is no first reference to Mr. Kinne - that part apparently having been inadvertently edited out of the story - and thus I do not know who he is.
I don't know exactly what to think about global warming, but it disturbs me a great deal to know that our president and his administration are trying to manipulate science to support their notions of the truth rather than letting science hash out these matters unimpeded.
"A big flap at a little scientific journal is raising questions about a study that has been embraced by conservative politicians for its rejection of widely held globalwarming theories."
It seems that three editors of the journal Climate Research have resigned in protest over the way the review process was handled for a controversial study by a pair of astronomers published in the journal's January issue. The study claims that the 20th Century has not been unusually warm compared with earlier periods and contradicts evidence that man-made "greenhouse" gases are causing temperatures to rise. Using studies of tree rings, the paper concludes that there have been warmer periods during the past 1,000 years, particularly the "Medieval Warm Period" when the Norse settled Greenland.
The study has been harshly criticized by climatologists. The recently resigned editor in chief of Climate Reseach said the study is flawed and should not have been published. The tree ring paper contradicts another widely cited study by Dr. Michael E. Mann of the University of Virginia whose research on global temperatures shows a distinctive hockey stick pattern in recent years where temperatures had been level for centuries with a sudden upturn in recent decades. Dr. Mann and 13 other scientists have published a critique of the tree ring study saying that its research methods were flawed and that it is inconsistent with the preponderance of scientific evidence.
Despite this criticism heaped on the tree ring study, it has been embraced by the Bush administration and was recently added to an EPA report on environmental quality in place of a reference to Dr. Mann's study.
This should come as no surprise. As I have noted before, the Bush administration is filled with ideologues who are not interested in scientific accuracy unless it conforms with their predetermined beliefs. The tree ring study said what they wanted to hear and they have embraced it with a fervor while happily dismissing the more widely accepted studies that do not conform to their ideology.
The one thing I have not yet mentioned about the tree ring study is that it was partly funded by...... can you guess? .......... the American Petroleum Institute.
The questions left unanswered in the story include how the tree ring paper made it into publication in the first place. Who was pushing for its inclusion when so many editors were opposed. The WSJ story, unfortunately, is poorly edited. At the end of the article it references a Mr. Kinne who blocked a move by the dissenting editors to publish an editorial critical of the journal's publication of the tree ring study. But there is no first reference to Mr. Kinne - that part apparently having been inadvertently edited out of the story - and thus I do not know who he is.
I don't know exactly what to think about global warming, but it disturbs me a great deal to know that our president and his administration are trying to manipulate science to support their notions of the truth rather than letting science hash out these matters unimpeded.
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
The Buck Stops (belatedly) Here
Looks like President Bush is finally owning up to his role in the Niger uranium charade.
President Bush on Wednesday accepted personal responsibility for a discredited portion of last winter's State of the Union address that suggested Saddam Hussein was shopping for nuclear material in Africa.
"I take personal responsibility for everything I say, absolutely," the president said during an hour-long White House news conference where he sought to quell a controversy that has dogged his administration for weeks.
It was the first time he had specifically taken responsibility for the words. In the past, he sidestepped the question, taking responsibility only for his decisions.
I assume the next thing Bush will do is announce that he continues to have strong confidence in himself.
President Bush on Wednesday accepted personal responsibility for a discredited portion of last winter's State of the Union address that suggested Saddam Hussein was shopping for nuclear material in Africa.
"I take personal responsibility for everything I say, absolutely," the president said during an hour-long White House news conference where he sought to quell a controversy that has dogged his administration for weeks.
It was the first time he had specifically taken responsibility for the words. In the past, he sidestepped the question, taking responsibility only for his decisions.
I assume the next thing Bush will do is announce that he continues to have strong confidence in himself.
The biggest redistricting myth
Let's get one thing straight about the redistricting fight underway in the state legislature. The current congressional districts that elected 17 Ds and 15 Rs in 2002 are not based on the ones that were drawn in 1991 by Rep. Martin Frost.
Republicans have been complaining recently that it is only fair that they be allowed to redraw the districts to correct for partisan gerrymandering that was done by the Democrats in 1991. Articles such as this one at National Review Online have served to perpetuate this myth:
"The current GOP plan pales in comparison to the plan it is meant to undo. According to (Michael) Barone that plan, drawn up by Rep. Martin Frost (D., Ft. Worth) in 1991, was "The most partisan redistricting in the '90 cycle in the nation." Barone's 1991 Almanac of American Politics called the Frost plan "the shrewdest gerrymander" of its time."
The current congressional districts were drawn from scratch by a group of federal judges using, in their words, "neutral districting factors." All the details of the redistricting process can be found
here and then look at the
opinion to see the judges' detailed description of the process they went through to draw up the current districts. Here is what they said about the 1991 plan that the Republicans are pretending to still be struggling against:
"The 1991 plan as modified in 1996 is conceded by all parties to be unconstitutional made so by changes in population disclosed by the dicennial census, if not for other reasons."
The judges did not rely on partisan politics to draw up the map but rather drew a plan based on neutral factors such as "compactness, contiguity and respecting county and municipal boundaries." The only districts they left intact were the majority-minority districts protected under the Voting Rights Act.
"Starting with a blank map of Texas, we first drew in the existing Voting Rights Act protected majority-minority districts. We were persuaded that the next step had to be to locate Districts 31 and 32, the two new Congressional seats allocated to Texas... We then drew in the remaining districts throughout the state emphasizing compactness, while observing the contiguity requirement...
"Doing so did much to end most of the below the surface ripples of the 1991 plan... For example, the patently irrational shapes of Districts 5 and 6 under the 1991 plan, widely cited as the most extreme but successful gerrymandering in the country, are no more."
The judges even made a point of checking their plan against statewide voting patterns and determined that it would "likely produce a congressional delegation roughly proportional to the party voting breakdown across the state."
So the current congressional districts were drawn up under a neutral system meant to correct the past gerrymandering while continuing the meet the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. This is why Gov. Rick Perry did not call for a special session prior to the 2002 general elections - because he knew that the gerrymandering from the previous redistricting had already been addressed.
However, the Republicans were surprised when they did not win as many congressional seats in 2002 as they thought they should have. Thus the mid-decade re-redistricting effort currently under way. But it is not the Democratic plan of 1991 that they are trying to replace, it is the neutral court-drawn plan of Nov. 2001 that they do not like. What they really want is their own gerrymandered districts, or as it should now be known - Perrymandered districts.
One other point that continues to be bantered about by conservatives and Republicans as a rationale for the re-redistricting is the fact that 56 to 54 percent of the votes cast in congressional races in 2002 went to Republicans and yet they only won 15 of the 32 seats. But this phenomenon was not due to Democratic gerrymandering in the 1990s that "disenfranchised" Republican voters - rather it was due to the fact that the Democrats failed to run viable competitive candidates in many of the congressional races, thus the Republican incumbents tended to win by lopsided margins while the Democratic incumbents tended to face well-financed challenges from Republican opponents and won their races by much smaller margins. Also, voter turnout in many of the majority-minority districts was way down - almost by half in some cases - compared to turnout in other areas that voted heavily for Republican incumbents.
Republicans have been complaining recently that it is only fair that they be allowed to redraw the districts to correct for partisan gerrymandering that was done by the Democrats in 1991. Articles such as this one at National Review Online have served to perpetuate this myth:
"The current GOP plan pales in comparison to the plan it is meant to undo. According to (Michael) Barone that plan, drawn up by Rep. Martin Frost (D., Ft. Worth) in 1991, was "The most partisan redistricting in the '90 cycle in the nation." Barone's 1991 Almanac of American Politics called the Frost plan "the shrewdest gerrymander" of its time."
The current congressional districts were drawn from scratch by a group of federal judges using, in their words, "neutral districting factors." All the details of the redistricting process can be found
here and then look at the
opinion to see the judges' detailed description of the process they went through to draw up the current districts. Here is what they said about the 1991 plan that the Republicans are pretending to still be struggling against:
"The 1991 plan as modified in 1996 is conceded by all parties to be unconstitutional made so by changes in population disclosed by the dicennial census, if not for other reasons."
The judges did not rely on partisan politics to draw up the map but rather drew a plan based on neutral factors such as "compactness, contiguity and respecting county and municipal boundaries." The only districts they left intact were the majority-minority districts protected under the Voting Rights Act.
"Starting with a blank map of Texas, we first drew in the existing Voting Rights Act protected majority-minority districts. We were persuaded that the next step had to be to locate Districts 31 and 32, the two new Congressional seats allocated to Texas... We then drew in the remaining districts throughout the state emphasizing compactness, while observing the contiguity requirement...
"Doing so did much to end most of the below the surface ripples of the 1991 plan... For example, the patently irrational shapes of Districts 5 and 6 under the 1991 plan, widely cited as the most extreme but successful gerrymandering in the country, are no more."
The judges even made a point of checking their plan against statewide voting patterns and determined that it would "likely produce a congressional delegation roughly proportional to the party voting breakdown across the state."
So the current congressional districts were drawn up under a neutral system meant to correct the past gerrymandering while continuing the meet the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. This is why Gov. Rick Perry did not call for a special session prior to the 2002 general elections - because he knew that the gerrymandering from the previous redistricting had already been addressed.
However, the Republicans were surprised when they did not win as many congressional seats in 2002 as they thought they should have. Thus the mid-decade re-redistricting effort currently under way. But it is not the Democratic plan of 1991 that they are trying to replace, it is the neutral court-drawn plan of Nov. 2001 that they do not like. What they really want is their own gerrymandered districts, or as it should now be known - Perrymandered districts.
One other point that continues to be bantered about by conservatives and Republicans as a rationale for the re-redistricting is the fact that 56 to 54 percent of the votes cast in congressional races in 2002 went to Republicans and yet they only won 15 of the 32 seats. But this phenomenon was not due to Democratic gerrymandering in the 1990s that "disenfranchised" Republican voters - rather it was due to the fact that the Democrats failed to run viable competitive candidates in many of the congressional races, thus the Republican incumbents tended to win by lopsided margins while the Democratic incumbents tended to face well-financed challenges from Republican opponents and won their races by much smaller margins. Also, voter turnout in many of the majority-minority districts was way down - almost by half in some cases - compared to turnout in other areas that voted heavily for Republican incumbents.
Monday, July 28, 2003
Deja Vu All Over Again
Gov. Rick Perry has followed through with his threat of calling lawmakers back into session for a third time prompting yet another quorum break by the beleagured Democratic lawmakers.
This time it appears lawmakers are fleeing to New Mexico.
As per ususal, Burnt Orange Report and Off the Kuff are providing all the details. This one looks like it could be even more nasty than the first one.
For this third session, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst is discarding the tradition of requiring a 2/3 vote to call an issue up for a vote the same way Perry has discarded the tradition of redistricting once a decade following every Census. Perhaps he and Perry can just go one step further and do away with the rule requiring a vote in the first place. Perry could just announce that he will sign into law the redistricting bill passed earlier by the House and pretend that the Senate approval is not needed. What could the Democrats do about it anyway? Complain to the Supreme Court? The Republicans are in absolute power here and, as the old saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This time it appears lawmakers are fleeing to New Mexico.
As per ususal, Burnt Orange Report and Off the Kuff are providing all the details. This one looks like it could be even more nasty than the first one.
For this third session, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst is discarding the tradition of requiring a 2/3 vote to call an issue up for a vote the same way Perry has discarded the tradition of redistricting once a decade following every Census. Perhaps he and Perry can just go one step further and do away with the rule requiring a vote in the first place. Perry could just announce that he will sign into law the redistricting bill passed earlier by the House and pretend that the Senate approval is not needed. What could the Democrats do about it anyway? Complain to the Supreme Court? The Republicans are in absolute power here and, as the old saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Thanks For the Memories
Bob Hope died yesterday just two months after reaching his 100th birthday.
I had become a huge Bob Hope and Bing Crosby fan of late. My wife bought me the last three "On the Road" movies for my birthday this year to finish off my collection. I'm nearly finished reading Gary Giddins biography of Bing Crosby "A Pocketful of Dreams" and was reading the chapter this week describing when Bing and Bob first got together in the late 1930s. I've also started reading Bob Hope's memoir from a few years back titled "Don't Shoot! It's Just Me"
I'm glad that he made it to his 100th birthday. He couldn't have timed it any better. But then again, timing is what makes a comedian great in the first place.
Here are a couple more good tributes I've found online:
TIME.com: Nation -- That Old Feeling: Hope-ful Memories
Los Angeles Times: Comedian Bob Hope Dies at 100
I had become a huge Bob Hope and Bing Crosby fan of late. My wife bought me the last three "On the Road" movies for my birthday this year to finish off my collection. I'm nearly finished reading Gary Giddins biography of Bing Crosby "A Pocketful of Dreams" and was reading the chapter this week describing when Bing and Bob first got together in the late 1930s. I've also started reading Bob Hope's memoir from a few years back titled "Don't Shoot! It's Just Me"
I'm glad that he made it to his 100th birthday. He couldn't have timed it any better. But then again, timing is what makes a comedian great in the first place.
Here are a couple more good tributes I've found online:
TIME.com: Nation -- That Old Feeling: Hope-ful Memories
Los Angeles Times: Comedian Bob Hope Dies at 100
Sunday, July 27, 2003
California recall
I for one am very glad that Texas does not have a ridiculous Recall Law like the one in California. While I think that Rick Perry is a sorry excuse for a governor (unfortunately, Tony Sanchez wasn't much better) , I would never support his recall from office short of his commiting a criminal act. He won the past election fair and square and deserves the opportunity to finish out his full term.
I don't know all the particulars of what is happening over in California with Gov. Gray Davis, but I do know that he won his election fairly and even though things may be bad now, he should have the opportunity to turn things around.
Over at Hullabaloo there is a good post outlining some of the fallacies of the recall effort:
This unprecedented recall election is not actually about Davis vs. Issa/Schwartzenegger/Simon or somebody better. It's about whether it is acceptable that some rich guy finances a petition drive (with paid signature gatherers) in order to overturn an undisputed legal election so that he might get himself (or somebody else) elected with far fewer votes instead.
Davis cannot be on this ballot. But, in order for him to retain his legally obtained office, more than 50% of the voters in this election must vote against the recall. The replacement, however, can win with a plurality. So, in effect, 49% of the voters could vote for Davis by voting against the recall, yet Darrell Issa could actually become the governor with only 33% of the vote.
You don't have to already be registered to vote in order to vote for the recall --- you can register up to 15 days before the election. This means that even though I voted in the last election like a good citizen, somebody who didn't even bother to register, much less vote, can come in and overturn the results less than a year later.
Digby goes on to summarize the obvious Catch-22 in this whole screwed up process - that is, never-ending recall elections:
If this recall succeeds, it will be very hard to put the genie back in the bottle. It is always possible to gather 12% of those who voted in the last election to sign such a petition because there was always a losing candidate in the previous election whose supporters could be persuaded to sign up for a mulligan.
If it succeeds, therefore, I've decided that I will sign up on the very first day to work for the Committee to Recall Darryl Issa/Arnold Schwartzenegger/Bill Simon or whoever because it will be obvious that this is a situation that requires both parties to suffer from the loophole for it to be closed (as with the independent counsel law which stood until both parties paid the price for its unconstitutional, undemocratic lack of accountability.) We will have no choice but to literally illustrate for the people of California why this concept is costly and absurd and why it is necessary to have regularly scheduled elections and honor the results of the returns short of criminal behavior.
The only way to make this thing go away now is for the voters to defeat this recall effort.
I don't know all the particulars of what is happening over in California with Gov. Gray Davis, but I do know that he won his election fairly and even though things may be bad now, he should have the opportunity to turn things around.
Over at Hullabaloo there is a good post outlining some of the fallacies of the recall effort:
This unprecedented recall election is not actually about Davis vs. Issa/Schwartzenegger/Simon or somebody better. It's about whether it is acceptable that some rich guy finances a petition drive (with paid signature gatherers) in order to overturn an undisputed legal election so that he might get himself (or somebody else) elected with far fewer votes instead.
Davis cannot be on this ballot. But, in order for him to retain his legally obtained office, more than 50% of the voters in this election must vote against the recall. The replacement, however, can win with a plurality. So, in effect, 49% of the voters could vote for Davis by voting against the recall, yet Darrell Issa could actually become the governor with only 33% of the vote.
You don't have to already be registered to vote in order to vote for the recall --- you can register up to 15 days before the election. This means that even though I voted in the last election like a good citizen, somebody who didn't even bother to register, much less vote, can come in and overturn the results less than a year later.
Digby goes on to summarize the obvious Catch-22 in this whole screwed up process - that is, never-ending recall elections:
If this recall succeeds, it will be very hard to put the genie back in the bottle. It is always possible to gather 12% of those who voted in the last election to sign such a petition because there was always a losing candidate in the previous election whose supporters could be persuaded to sign up for a mulligan.
If it succeeds, therefore, I've decided that I will sign up on the very first day to work for the Committee to Recall Darryl Issa/Arnold Schwartzenegger/Bill Simon or whoever because it will be obvious that this is a situation that requires both parties to suffer from the loophole for it to be closed (as with the independent counsel law which stood until both parties paid the price for its unconstitutional, undemocratic lack of accountability.) We will have no choice but to literally illustrate for the people of California why this concept is costly and absurd and why it is necessary to have regularly scheduled elections and honor the results of the returns short of criminal behavior.
The only way to make this thing go away now is for the voters to defeat this recall effort.
Friday, July 25, 2003
No Mo Kyoto
Buried in the Wall Street Journal today:
The Bush team, which pulled the U.S. out of the Kyoto Protocol aimed at curbing global warming, is planning to spend $103 million on (another) study of global climate change - especially the role of clouds.
Clouds, it seems, can cause warming and cooling effects and combine with soot and other man-made pollutants.
“The Bush administration contends scientists and policy makers need more information about (clouds) before they can make decisions to cope with man-made changes.”
The Bush plan, which includes launching satellites and other technology to track cloud movements, is part of a 10-year plan for climate-change research.
But when an actual climatologist was consulted for the story, he had this to say:
“...there was too much focus on natural causes of climate change, rather than mankind’s influence on increasing global temperatures, says Michael E. Mann at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. The plan ‘rehashes a number of issues that are pretty well settled in the scientific community.’ "
What Mr. Mann needs to understand, of course, is that the Bush team didn’t like the scientific conclusions that have already been drawn with regards to global climate change, so they want the scientists to go back and do all their experiments over again until they come up with an answer that the Bush team likes better.
The Bush team, which pulled the U.S. out of the Kyoto Protocol aimed at curbing global warming, is planning to spend $103 million on (another) study of global climate change - especially the role of clouds.
Clouds, it seems, can cause warming and cooling effects and combine with soot and other man-made pollutants.
“The Bush administration contends scientists and policy makers need more information about (clouds) before they can make decisions to cope with man-made changes.”
The Bush plan, which includes launching satellites and other technology to track cloud movements, is part of a 10-year plan for climate-change research.
But when an actual climatologist was consulted for the story, he had this to say:
“...there was too much focus on natural causes of climate change, rather than mankind’s influence on increasing global temperatures, says Michael E. Mann at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. The plan ‘rehashes a number of issues that are pretty well settled in the scientific community.’ "
What Mr. Mann needs to understand, of course, is that the Bush team didn’t like the scientific conclusions that have already been drawn with regards to global climate change, so they want the scientists to go back and do all their experiments over again until they come up with an answer that the Bush team likes better.
Thursday, July 24, 2003
Cheney offensive
In trying to defend the Bush administration's mishandling of the Iraq war and its misuse of U.S. intelligence, Vice Presidet Dick Cheney gave an address today in which he says that failing to confront Saddam Hussein would have been "irresponsible in the extreme."
Cheney asserted that "the safety of the American people was at stake" and that Bush was unwilling "to place the lives of our citizens at the mercy of Saddam Hussein."
But that is why the WMD controversy is so pertinent here. Without these elusive weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was not a threat to anyone except his own people. Our safety was never at stake, nor were we ever at the mercy of Saddam Hussein.
Cheney continues:
"At a safe remove from the danger, some are now trying to cast doubt upon the decision to liberate Iraq," Cheney said. "The ability to criticize is one of the great strengths of our democracy. But those who do so have an obligation to answer this question: How could any responsible leader have ignored the Iraqi threat?"
Who was ignoring the threat!!?!! We were enforcing U.N. dictates and pressuring Hussein to allow weapons inspectors back into his country. We were doing everything necessary to keep Hussein in check, but then Bush decided to dive headlong into a pre-emptive invasion in direct defiance of the U.N. Security Council. Now we are stuck over there and our soldiers are getting picked off one-by-one by guerrilla snipers (five killed in the last two days).
Cheney asserted that "the safety of the American people was at stake" and that Bush was unwilling "to place the lives of our citizens at the mercy of Saddam Hussein."
But that is why the WMD controversy is so pertinent here. Without these elusive weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was not a threat to anyone except his own people. Our safety was never at stake, nor were we ever at the mercy of Saddam Hussein.
Cheney continues:
"At a safe remove from the danger, some are now trying to cast doubt upon the decision to liberate Iraq," Cheney said. "The ability to criticize is one of the great strengths of our democracy. But those who do so have an obligation to answer this question: How could any responsible leader have ignored the Iraqi threat?"
Who was ignoring the threat!!?!! We were enforcing U.N. dictates and pressuring Hussein to allow weapons inspectors back into his country. We were doing everything necessary to keep Hussein in check, but then Bush decided to dive headlong into a pre-emptive invasion in direct defiance of the U.N. Security Council. Now we are stuck over there and our soldiers are getting picked off one-by-one by guerrilla snipers (five killed in the last two days).
Who said this?
“After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons. The fact that Americans are expressing these doubts shows that the president is losing his ability to lead. If the president refuses to resign for the sake of the nation, I believe he should be impeached and face Senate trial.”
It was former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, right-wing Republican extrordinaire, speaking about President Clinton in December of 1998 after the president ordered a U.S. airstrike against Iraq.
I wonder if Mr. Armey still thinks that misleading a nation into war should be an impeachable offense?
It was former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, right-wing Republican extrordinaire, speaking about President Clinton in December of 1998 after the president ordered a U.S. airstrike against Iraq.
I wonder if Mr. Armey still thinks that misleading a nation into war should be an impeachable offense?
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
Everyone makes mistakes...
It looks like former President Bill Clinton is being the bigger man here by accepting the Bush administration's latest excuse for the WMD controversy.
It must be grating for the Republicans who sought to remove Clinton from office for lying about sex to have him now offer them absolution for a much more serious truthbender in the State of the Union address.
Ironies never cease.
It must be grating for the Republicans who sought to remove Clinton from office for lying about sex to have him now offer them absolution for a much more serious truthbender in the State of the Union address.
Ironies never cease.
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
What he says...
Haven't had much time for blogging lately, so I thought I would pass along this from Matthew Yglesias.
He does a good job of summarizing the reasons why the Niger uranium story is important for those folks like Andy Sullivan who just don't get it.
What Sullivan isn't coming to grips with, however, is the evidence — clear and compelling — that the White House deliberately made claims that they knew to be false in order to bolster public support for the war. This is a serious issue, especially since the sorts of matters they lied about (classified intelligence) are not amenable to independent scrutiny by the public. If the president says that US intelligence says something or other, we pretty much have no choice but to take his word for it. That's a very serious responsibility and we need someone in the White House who's capable of discharging it.
He does a good job of summarizing the reasons why the Niger uranium story is important for those folks like Andy Sullivan who just don't get it.
What Sullivan isn't coming to grips with, however, is the evidence — clear and compelling — that the White House deliberately made claims that they knew to be false in order to bolster public support for the war. This is a serious issue, especially since the sorts of matters they lied about (classified intelligence) are not amenable to independent scrutiny by the public. If the president says that US intelligence says something or other, we pretty much have no choice but to take his word for it. That's a very serious responsibility and we need someone in the White House who's capable of discharging it.
Sunday, July 20, 2003
Pete Rose redeemed
Nice article in Slate this week about an ESPN television special in which Pete Rose gets his day in court.
The final verdict was 8-4 in favor of Rose. I don't think there should be any question that Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame. I don't care if he gambled on baseball or anything else while he was managing the Reds. He got his due punishment - jail time, a fine, lost his managing job - so why do people insist on banning him from the Hall of Fame on top of all that?
Until Pete Rose is enshrined at the Hall of Fame it will always have an asterisk next to it noting the fact that the all-time hits leader is left out. And I won't waste my time or money on the place.
The final verdict was 8-4 in favor of Rose. I don't think there should be any question that Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame. I don't care if he gambled on baseball or anything else while he was managing the Reds. He got his due punishment - jail time, a fine, lost his managing job - so why do people insist on banning him from the Hall of Fame on top of all that?
Until Pete Rose is enshrined at the Hall of Fame it will always have an asterisk next to it noting the fact that the all-time hits leader is left out. And I won't waste my time or money on the place.
Friday, July 18, 2003
Bush's crumbling credibility
Apologists for President Bush have repeatedly argued that he did not know the Niger documents were forgeries before referencing them in the State of the Union. But what is becoming more clear is that Bush’s ideologically driven administration persisted in its habit of accepting information that it agreed with without question, and dismissed information that it disagreed with regardless of its merit and authenticity. We have seen that in Bush’s economic estimates where info that went against the Republican tax cut mantra was chunked down the memory hole. We saw it in the environmental reports that were purged of scientific data showing evidence of global warming. And now we see it very clearly in the intelligence gathered in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Today, the Washington Post reports that the Bush administration had access to the forged Niger documents more than three months before Bush’s State of the Union speech. This was in addition to the first-hand report from a U.S. diplomat who debunked the Niger story almost a year earlier.
”The documents, which officials said appeared to be of "dubious authenticity," were distributed to the CIA and other agencies within days. But the U.S. government waited four months to turn them over to United Nations weapons inspectors who had been demanding to see evidence of U.S. and British claims that Iraq's attempted purchase of uranium oxide violated U.N. resolutions and was among the reasons to go to war.”
An AP story today reports that the White House is attempting to make excuses by claiming that even though some agencies had accessed the forged documents, the CIA did not get around to analyzing them until after the president made his speech.
”The White House sought to bolster its case as U.S. officials said that documents alleging Iraq sought uranium from Africa were obtained months before Bush cited them in making his case for war. But intelligence analysts did not look at them closely enough to know they were forgeries until after Bush had made the claim, U.S. officials say.”
This is bunk. Further down in the story an intelligence official says the reason the CIA had not formally analyzed the documents at that time is because they had already determined they were bogus.
”The official suggested analyzing the documents was not a top priority at the time because the CIA had already investigated their substance.”
This is no doubt why the CIA included the “footnote” in the National Intelligence Estimate that the White House is citing today.
“The material released by the White House also included a "footnote" by the State Department that said "claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are...highly dubious."
Bush has already lost credibility around the globe and, as more people begin to pay attention, he is losing it here at home as well.
Today, the Washington Post reports that the Bush administration had access to the forged Niger documents more than three months before Bush’s State of the Union speech. This was in addition to the first-hand report from a U.S. diplomat who debunked the Niger story almost a year earlier.
”The documents, which officials said appeared to be of "dubious authenticity," were distributed to the CIA and other agencies within days. But the U.S. government waited four months to turn them over to United Nations weapons inspectors who had been demanding to see evidence of U.S. and British claims that Iraq's attempted purchase of uranium oxide violated U.N. resolutions and was among the reasons to go to war.”
An AP story today reports that the White House is attempting to make excuses by claiming that even though some agencies had accessed the forged documents, the CIA did not get around to analyzing them until after the president made his speech.
”The White House sought to bolster its case as U.S. officials said that documents alleging Iraq sought uranium from Africa were obtained months before Bush cited them in making his case for war. But intelligence analysts did not look at them closely enough to know they were forgeries until after Bush had made the claim, U.S. officials say.”
This is bunk. Further down in the story an intelligence official says the reason the CIA had not formally analyzed the documents at that time is because they had already determined they were bogus.
”The official suggested analyzing the documents was not a top priority at the time because the CIA had already investigated their substance.”
This is no doubt why the CIA included the “footnote” in the National Intelligence Estimate that the White House is citing today.
“The material released by the White House also included a "footnote" by the State Department that said "claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are...highly dubious."
Bush has already lost credibility around the globe and, as more people begin to pay attention, he is losing it here at home as well.
Alternate State of the Union
Eric Alterman submits the following speech that Bush could have delivered on the State of the Union if he had not intended to deceive and mislead the American people:
“Saddam Hussein has no nuclear-weapons program. He has destroyed most of his weapons of mass destruction. He has no ties with al-Qaida, nor, insofar as we can determine, with any other major terrorist group, and even the CIA can’t pin anything on him for at least a decade. He’s a bad guy, to be sure, but one of many in the world, and we’ve used his badness when we thought it convenient. Hell, Don Rumsfeld even paid him a visit as Ronald Reagan’s private emissary and didn’t find time to mention it.
Now, we are about to embark on a war that may never end. Sure, we will cream them in the main combat phase — how could we not? — but after that our troops will remain in Iraq, alone and vulnerable to daily attacks, and increasingly resented by the population, surrounded by murderous chaos. We will pay for this war by increasing the time of service of our enlisted men and women to at least a year in that country, away from their families, while I explode the deficit (robbing future generations), and cut deeply needed services to give enormous tax breaks to the wealthy.
“Saddam Hussein has no nuclear-weapons program. He has destroyed most of his weapons of mass destruction. He has no ties with al-Qaida, nor, insofar as we can determine, with any other major terrorist group, and even the CIA can’t pin anything on him for at least a decade. He’s a bad guy, to be sure, but one of many in the world, and we’ve used his badness when we thought it convenient. Hell, Don Rumsfeld even paid him a visit as Ronald Reagan’s private emissary and didn’t find time to mention it.
Now, we are about to embark on a war that may never end. Sure, we will cream them in the main combat phase — how could we not? — but after that our troops will remain in Iraq, alone and vulnerable to daily attacks, and increasingly resented by the population, surrounded by murderous chaos. We will pay for this war by increasing the time of service of our enlisted men and women to at least a year in that country, away from their families, while I explode the deficit (robbing future generations), and cut deeply needed services to give enormous tax breaks to the wealthy.
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
For the Clinton obsessed
I can't think of a better way for conservatives to spend their money than to send it to John LeBoutillier to help him build his Counter-Clinton Library in Little Rock and Washington. Read all about it here.
That's right, an anti-Clinton Library that he wants to build next to the actual Clinton Presidential Library under construction in Little Rock.
"We already hear he's going to bring a bunch of egghead economists to his library to say how great the economy was when he was president," said former U.S. Rep. John LeBoutillier, R-N.Y. "And we'll find our own who can say it had nothing to do with him."
Yeah, the economy was so awful during the Clinton years. I'm so happy that Bush Jr. is in there now taking us back to the economic glory days of his father's administration.
Boutillier was briefly elected to Congress in 1980 during the Reagan landslide, but didn't stay there very long. His district is currently represented by Democrat Greg Meeks.
He says he only needs $5 million to create a place where people can relive the Whitewater investigation, the Paula Jones civil suit, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and much more!! So dig into your wallets and get those checks in the mail!
That's right, an anti-Clinton Library that he wants to build next to the actual Clinton Presidential Library under construction in Little Rock.
"We already hear he's going to bring a bunch of egghead economists to his library to say how great the economy was when he was president," said former U.S. Rep. John LeBoutillier, R-N.Y. "And we'll find our own who can say it had nothing to do with him."
Yeah, the economy was so awful during the Clinton years. I'm so happy that Bush Jr. is in there now taking us back to the economic glory days of his father's administration.
Boutillier was briefly elected to Congress in 1980 during the Reagan landslide, but didn't stay there very long. His district is currently represented by Democrat Greg Meeks.
He says he only needs $5 million to create a place where people can relive the Whitewater investigation, the Paula Jones civil suit, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and much more!! So dig into your wallets and get those checks in the mail!
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Bad news all around
David Broder, the “dean” of the Washington press corps, makes a point today that I think has been obvious for some time - that George Bush’s 2004 election is not going to be the cakewalk that so many Republicans have thought it would be.
He cites a lot of negative stories topping the evening newscasts, but just skimming the headlines in today’s papers makes the same point.
The Washington Post is reporting that the federal budget deficit may surpass $455 billion - a remarkable turnaround in just three years.
War, tax cuts and a third year of a flailing economy have pushed this year's budget deficit to $455 billion, the Office of Management and Budget announced today. That is 50 percent higher than the Bush administration forecast five months ago.
The deficit projection is nearly $55 billion more than economists anticipated just last week, and it underscores the continuing deterioration of the government's fortunes since 2000, when the Treasury posted a $236 billion surplus. That represents a fiscal reversal exceeding $680 billion.
"It's shock and awe," said a senior Republican Senate aide yesterday as early details about the size of the deficit were first reported.
Let me summarize - The war is now costing $4 billion a month; the tax cuts have depleted our treasury and wiped out our surplus; and the economy is not looking like it will turn around any time soon.
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan’s latest assessment is not very promising, according to the AP:
The Federal Reserve stands ready to reduce interest rates even further if necessary to boost the sluggish economy and guard against a destabilizing fall in prices, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Tuesday.
Greenspan said that the Fed was prepared to leave interest rates at low levels "for as long as it takes" - even though rates are at a 45-year low.
It is no wonder that the Bush administration wants to keep our focus on foreign affairs. But they don’t want us to think too long and hard about this story from the NY Times:
North Korean officials told the Bush administration last week that they had finished producing enough plutonium to make a half-dozen nuclear bombs, and that they intended to move ahead quickly to turn the material into weapons, senior American officials said today.
So while we’ve been flailing about in Iraq looking for non-existent nuclear weapons programs based on forged documents, North Korea has been moving right ahead with its very real nuclear production capabilities.
Meanwhile, Bush is quoted today in the Washington Post making statements that directly contradict what his aides said just last week about the bogus uranium intelligence.
Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech.
The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.
Talk about revisionist history!
He cites a lot of negative stories topping the evening newscasts, but just skimming the headlines in today’s papers makes the same point.
The Washington Post is reporting that the federal budget deficit may surpass $455 billion - a remarkable turnaround in just three years.
War, tax cuts and a third year of a flailing economy have pushed this year's budget deficit to $455 billion, the Office of Management and Budget announced today. That is 50 percent higher than the Bush administration forecast five months ago.
The deficit projection is nearly $55 billion more than economists anticipated just last week, and it underscores the continuing deterioration of the government's fortunes since 2000, when the Treasury posted a $236 billion surplus. That represents a fiscal reversal exceeding $680 billion.
"It's shock and awe," said a senior Republican Senate aide yesterday as early details about the size of the deficit were first reported.
Let me summarize - The war is now costing $4 billion a month; the tax cuts have depleted our treasury and wiped out our surplus; and the economy is not looking like it will turn around any time soon.
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan’s latest assessment is not very promising, according to the AP:
The Federal Reserve stands ready to reduce interest rates even further if necessary to boost the sluggish economy and guard against a destabilizing fall in prices, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Tuesday.
Greenspan said that the Fed was prepared to leave interest rates at low levels "for as long as it takes" - even though rates are at a 45-year low.
It is no wonder that the Bush administration wants to keep our focus on foreign affairs. But they don’t want us to think too long and hard about this story from the NY Times:
North Korean officials told the Bush administration last week that they had finished producing enough plutonium to make a half-dozen nuclear bombs, and that they intended to move ahead quickly to turn the material into weapons, senior American officials said today.
So while we’ve been flailing about in Iraq looking for non-existent nuclear weapons programs based on forged documents, North Korea has been moving right ahead with its very real nuclear production capabilities.
Meanwhile, Bush is quoted today in the Washington Post making statements that directly contradict what his aides said just last week about the bogus uranium intelligence.
Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech.
The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.
Talk about revisionist history!
Monday, July 14, 2003
Truth vs. Accuracy
It depends on what the definition of "truth" is.... That is the new line coming from Bush officials like Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld. Since trying to blame the whole bogus uranium story on the CIA chief hasn't worked as well as they had liked they are now, according to the NYTimes trying to renege and say the information was technically accurate - so no harm done right? "Bush Aides Now Say Claim on Uranium Was Accurate"
Ms. Rice, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," said that "the statement that he made was indeed accurate. The British government did say that."
And Mr. Rumsfeld said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" that "it turns out that it's technically correct what the president said, that the U.K. does — did say that — and still says that. They haven't changed their mind, the United Kingdom intelligence people."
But of course, the British intelligence is based on the same forged documents that the CIA already rejected! So it is just as untrue.
Here is Time magazine's take on the issue
Is a fib really a fib if the teller is unaware that he is uttering an untruth? That question appears to be the basis of the White House defense, having now admitted a falsehood in President Bush's claim, in his State of the Union address, that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa. But that defense is under mounting pressure from a variety of sources claiming that the White House could not have been unaware that the claim was false, because it had been checked out — and debunked — by U.S. intelligence a year before the President repeated it.
The big question I would like answered and no one even seems to be asking is who made these forged documents in the first place and why?
Ms. Rice, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," said that "the statement that he made was indeed accurate. The British government did say that."
And Mr. Rumsfeld said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" that "it turns out that it's technically correct what the president said, that the U.K. does — did say that — and still says that. They haven't changed their mind, the United Kingdom intelligence people."
But of course, the British intelligence is based on the same forged documents that the CIA already rejected! So it is just as untrue.
Here is Time magazine's take on the issue
Is a fib really a fib if the teller is unaware that he is uttering an untruth? That question appears to be the basis of the White House defense, having now admitted a falsehood in President Bush's claim, in his State of the Union address, that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa. But that defense is under mounting pressure from a variety of sources claiming that the White House could not have been unaware that the claim was false, because it had been checked out — and debunked — by U.S. intelligence a year before the President repeated it.
The big question I would like answered and no one even seems to be asking is who made these forged documents in the first place and why?
Well, that settles that...
Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer has finally cleared up that little matter about the bogus uranium report making it into the President's State of the Union speech... He says it's all just "a bunch of bull."
Thanks, Ari! I'm glad that is all finally cleared up. Now we can move on to more pressing matters like what to do about all these soldiers who keep coming home in body bags.
Thanks, Ari! I'm glad that is all finally cleared up. Now we can move on to more pressing matters like what to do about all these soldiers who keep coming home in body bags.
Sunday, July 13, 2003
Iraq history quiz
(Note: The following information is compiled from an article by journalist Robert Hennelly published in The Village Voice on Aug. 11, 1992)
1. When did Saddam Hussein come to power in Iraq?
2. Who first placed Iraq on the list of terrorist nations?
3. Who took Iraq off the list of terrorist nations and when?
4. The Iran-Iraq War began in late 1980 and lasted for eight years. How many lives were lost during the conflict?
5. Place the following events in chronological order - Iraq announces it has a new chemical weapon capable of killing 100,000 people at one time; Iraq provides safe haven for Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal; the U.S. agrees to provide $210 million in federal loan guarantees to Iraq.
6. Iraq first uses chemical weapons in its war with Iran in March 1984 killing how many Iranians?
7. In June of 1984, Democratic Congressman Howard Berman of Calif. Tries to get Iraq recategorized as a terrorist state. Who dissuades him and why?
8. On Nov. 13, 1984, what diplomatic action does President Reagan take concerning Iraq?
9. On March 13, 1985, Iraq launches 32 chemical attacks killing how many Iranians?
10. From 1985 to 1990 the amount of loan guarantees to Iraq from the U.S. Export-Import Bank grows from $35 million to how much?
11. We’ve heard repeatedly how Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons “against his own people” i.e. the Kurds, but when did most of these attacks actually take place?
12. When did President George H.W. Bush sign a top-secret directive calling for closer ties to Iraq and authorizing an additional $1 billion in U.S. government backed commodity credits for Iraq?
Answers
1. July 16, 1979
2. Jimmy Carter in Dec. 1979
3. Ronald Reagan in March of 1982
4. About 750,000
5. The events are in the order that they occurred in 1982
6. Press reports cite the deaths of 5,000 soldiers contaminated by nerve gas.
7. Secretary of State George Schultz (for Reagan) saying it would “disrupt our diplomatic dialogue.”
8. He reestablishes full diplomatic ties with Iraq for the first time since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.
9. Close to 5,000
10. $267 million
11. 1988: A particularly heinous attack occurs on Aug. 25, 1988, just five days after a cease fire takes hold in the Iran-Iraq War.
12. Oct. 2, 1989
My point in putting together this little quiz is to try and demonstrate the irony of our current stance on Iraq. Many of the atrocities that were cited as reasons for going to war with Iraq in 2003 actually occurred prior to the first Gulf War when we were supporting Iraq in its war against Iran. Back then, Hussein was seen as the lesser of two evils and we helped to build up his army with billions of dollars in federal loan guarantees so that he could counter the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic revolution in Iran. I find it extremely ironic to read back over the history of U.S.-Iraq relations in the 1980s and see all the reports of Hussein building up chemical weapon stockpiles, seeking nuclear weapons capability and consorting with terrorists - and all the while having the Reagan and Bush administrations apologizing for and supporting him at every turn. Up until the point when he was suddenly no longer useful.
For an excellent summary and links to documents check out Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein at The National Security Archive.
1. When did Saddam Hussein come to power in Iraq?
2. Who first placed Iraq on the list of terrorist nations?
3. Who took Iraq off the list of terrorist nations and when?
4. The Iran-Iraq War began in late 1980 and lasted for eight years. How many lives were lost during the conflict?
5. Place the following events in chronological order - Iraq announces it has a new chemical weapon capable of killing 100,000 people at one time; Iraq provides safe haven for Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal; the U.S. agrees to provide $210 million in federal loan guarantees to Iraq.
6. Iraq first uses chemical weapons in its war with Iran in March 1984 killing how many Iranians?
7. In June of 1984, Democratic Congressman Howard Berman of Calif. Tries to get Iraq recategorized as a terrorist state. Who dissuades him and why?
8. On Nov. 13, 1984, what diplomatic action does President Reagan take concerning Iraq?
9. On March 13, 1985, Iraq launches 32 chemical attacks killing how many Iranians?
10. From 1985 to 1990 the amount of loan guarantees to Iraq from the U.S. Export-Import Bank grows from $35 million to how much?
11. We’ve heard repeatedly how Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons “against his own people” i.e. the Kurds, but when did most of these attacks actually take place?
12. When did President George H.W. Bush sign a top-secret directive calling for closer ties to Iraq and authorizing an additional $1 billion in U.S. government backed commodity credits for Iraq?
Answers
1. July 16, 1979
2. Jimmy Carter in Dec. 1979
3. Ronald Reagan in March of 1982
4. About 750,000
5. The events are in the order that they occurred in 1982
6. Press reports cite the deaths of 5,000 soldiers contaminated by nerve gas.
7. Secretary of State George Schultz (for Reagan) saying it would “disrupt our diplomatic dialogue.”
8. He reestablishes full diplomatic ties with Iraq for the first time since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.
9. Close to 5,000
10. $267 million
11. 1988: A particularly heinous attack occurs on Aug. 25, 1988, just five days after a cease fire takes hold in the Iran-Iraq War.
12. Oct. 2, 1989
My point in putting together this little quiz is to try and demonstrate the irony of our current stance on Iraq. Many of the atrocities that were cited as reasons for going to war with Iraq in 2003 actually occurred prior to the first Gulf War when we were supporting Iraq in its war against Iran. Back then, Hussein was seen as the lesser of two evils and we helped to build up his army with billions of dollars in federal loan guarantees so that he could counter the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic revolution in Iran. I find it extremely ironic to read back over the history of U.S.-Iraq relations in the 1980s and see all the reports of Hussein building up chemical weapon stockpiles, seeking nuclear weapons capability and consorting with terrorists - and all the while having the Reagan and Bush administrations apologizing for and supporting him at every turn. Up until the point when he was suddenly no longer useful.
For an excellent summary and links to documents check out Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein at The National Security Archive.
Friday, July 11, 2003
Scapegoat time...
I've always wondered why Bush decided to leave a Clinton-appointee - George Tenet - in charge at the CIA. Now it is becoming more clear....
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Friday pointedly cited the CIA's role in clearing President Bush's State of the Union address, amid growing questions over the administration's prewar claims about Iraq.
"The CIA cleared the speech. The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety," Rice said, en route to Uganda.
"If the CIA -- the director of central intelligence -- had said, 'Take this out of the speech,' it would have been gone," Rice said.
How convenient to be able to throw everything into Tenet's lap.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Friday pointedly cited the CIA's role in clearing President Bush's State of the Union address, amid growing questions over the administration's prewar claims about Iraq.
"The CIA cleared the speech. The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety," Rice said, en route to Uganda.
"If the CIA -- the director of central intelligence -- had said, 'Take this out of the speech,' it would have been gone," Rice said.
How convenient to be able to throw everything into Tenet's lap.
Want a strong economy? Elect Democrats!
A ranking of U.S. presidents based on economic performance courtesy of P.L.A. - A Journal of Politics, Law and Autism:
1) Roosevelt (1933-45): +5.3%
2) Johnson (1963-69): +3.8%
3) Carter (1977-81): +3.1%
4) Truman: (1945-53): +2.5%
5) Kennedy (1961-63): +2.5%
6) Clinton (1993-2001): +2.4%
7) Nixon (1969-75): +2.2%
8) Reagan (1981-89): +2.1%
9) Ford (1975-77): +1.1%
10) Eisenhower (1953-61): +0.9%
11) Bush (1989-93): +0.6%
12) Bush (2001-present): -0.7%
13) Hoover (1929-33): -9.0%
The scary part is how much worse things could get before Bush Jr. catches up to Hoover.
1) Roosevelt (1933-45): +5.3%
2) Johnson (1963-69): +3.8%
3) Carter (1977-81): +3.1%
4) Truman: (1945-53): +2.5%
5) Kennedy (1961-63): +2.5%
6) Clinton (1993-2001): +2.4%
7) Nixon (1969-75): +2.2%
8) Reagan (1981-89): +2.1%
9) Ford (1975-77): +1.1%
10) Eisenhower (1953-61): +0.9%
11) Bush (1989-93): +0.6%
12) Bush (2001-present): -0.7%
13) Hoover (1929-33): -9.0%
The scary part is how much worse things could get before Bush Jr. catches up to Hoover.
About Me
I’m Mike Thomas and I started this blog to talk about politics and pop culture things that interest me. I’m 50 years old. I live in San Antonio, Texas. I have two children - a boy born in 2003 and a girl born in 2005.
I was born at Reese Air Force Base near Lubbock, Texas while my father was in pilot school. He flew F-4 Phantoms in Vietnam and received the Silver Star for heroics during the Tet Offensive. He passed away a few years ago. My mom lives in Houston half way between my sister (who is in Louisiana with her husband and four kids) and me.
I was an Air Force brat through the fourth grade. The first place I can remember clearly is Grissom AFB in Indiana. When my dad got out of the service we moved back to Texas and he went to work in the oil business. We lived for a short time in McAllen. I spent my junior high years in Victoria and went to high school in Premont, which is a small town in South Texas near Kingsville. I was in Little League Baseball, Boy Scouts, Methodist Youth Fellowship, 4-H, FFA and UIL Speech and Debate.
I went to Texas A&M University and was in the Corps of Cadets for four years. I thought I would go into the Air Force like my father, but things didn’t work out that way. In the mid-to-late 80s the military was trying to cut back on personnel and they did this by raising medical entrance standards. Even though I don’t wear glasses, my eyesight was determined to be too poor to be a pilot or navigator. I was offered a missile officer slot for a short time until they determined that I am colorblind. Since I was not in a technical major that only left the non-tech officer slots of which there were very few and as my grades were not competitive enough I soon found myself bumped out.
Once it became clear that I was going to have to do something with myself other than join the military I decided I had better change my major to something more practical. So I went from Speech Communications to Journalism and figured I would end up doing public relations type work. During the extra year and a half that it took to make up for switching majors in my senior year, I lived in apartments off campus and supported myself by working first in the Sears parts department and later took a job at the A&M library. In my final semester I met my wife who was finishing up two degrees in biology and chemistry.
On the same day I learned I had an interview for a reporter position with the Bryan/College Station Eagle, my wife was offered a position as a research scientist at Bristol-Myers Squibb in Wallingford, Connecticut. There was no question as to which job was better, so we loaded up our belongings and began a three year adventure in New England. In 1991, the Northeast was in still in a recession and newspapers were hurting. I spent the first six months there doing freelance work until I convinced an editor at a small weekly paper in Durham to let me pretend to be a full time reporter there while being paid on a per story basis. After a while I attracted the attention of the group publisher and was moved into a full-time reporting position at a paper in Old Saybrook.
By 1993, we were ready to move back to Texas and I found a job at a small daily paper in Kerrville. I covered county and city government, the school board and local politics. One politico I interviewed during that time was an up-an-coming businessman by the name of George W. Bush who was running for governor against Ann Richards. In 1995, I took a reporting job at the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal so my wife could go back to school at Texas Tech for her doctorate. Once again I covered education, city government and local politics. I must have interviewed then-Gov. Bush at least a half dozen times over the next several years – Lubbock was a favorite place for Republican politicians to come visit.
When my wife graduated we decided to move one more time and wound up in San Antonio where we hope to stay indefinitely. I’m currently director of communications for the Bexar County Medical Society where I edit the San Antonio Medicine magazine.
Here are some more things about me:
Name: Mike Thomas
Age: 50
Height: 6’
Level of Education: B.S. Journalism - Texas A&M University 1989
Occupation: Editor and Director of Communications at Bexar County Medical Society
Birthplace: Lubbock, Texas
Places you’ve lived: Grissom AFB, Indiana; Springdale, Ark.; McAllen, Texas; Victoria, Texas; Premont, Texas; College Station, Texas; Branford, Connecticut; Kerrville, Texas; Lubbock, Texas; San Antonio, Texas.
How many children: 2 - a boy age 12 and a girl age 9 (as of Aug. 2015)
Do you drink (alcohol): No
Do you smoke: No
Favorite outdoor activities: Playing with my kids
Favorite indoor activities: Blogging, reading, watching movies
Favorite color: Maroon
Favorite types of music: Rock, Jazz, Country, Classical
Favorite musical groups/performers: The Police; The Beatles; Elvis Presley; Bing Crosby; Bruce Springsteen; Bob Dylan; Louis Armstrong; Duke Ellington; Benny Goodman; Bix Biederbecke; Led Zepplin; The Black Crowes; Red Hot Chili Peppers; The Rolling Stones; The Beach Boys; Buddy Holly; Johnny Cash; Ray Charles; Willie Nelson; Dwight Yoakum; The Dixie Chicks; U2; REM; Cheap Trick; ZZ Top; Tom Petty; Electric Light Orchestra; The Bee Gees; Smashing Pumpkins; Stevie Wonder; The Eagles; Billy Joel; Elton John; Queen; Rod Stewart; Robert Earl Keen; Stone Temple Pilots; Guns-n-Roses; Van Halen; The Who; Aerosmith; Alison Krauss; Andrews Sisters; Peggy Lee; Asia; Heart; Loverboy; J. Geils Band; John Mellencamp; Billy Squier; Boston; Buffalo Springfield; Neil Young; Paul Simon; Chuck Pyle; Dar Williams; Vance Gilbert; Tish Hinojosa; Michael McNevin; Ellis Paul; Foreigner; Rush; Santana; Jimi Hendrix; The Doors; David Bowie; Alabama; George Strait; Garth Brooks; Herb Alpert; The Kingston Trio; Deep Purple; Kiss; Prince; Danny Kaye; The Faces; Foo Fighters; Hall & Oates; INXS; Jamiroquai; Green Day; The Offspring; Jerry Jeff Walker; JET; Miles Davis; Dizzie Gillespie; Count Basie; John Denver; John Waite; Los Lobos; Lyle Lovett; Nickel Creek; Trans Siberian Orchestra; Rage Against the Machine; Public Enemy; Rick Springfield; Enya; Mannheim Steamroller; The Chieftains; Stevie Ray Vaughn; Lynyrd Skynrd; Def Leppard; Frank Sinatra; Weird Al Yankovic
Favorite soundtracks: Urban Cowboy; Grease; Saturday Night Fever; Chess; Aladdin; Dumbo; The Good, The Bad and The Ugly; Chariots of Fire; O Brother, Where Art Thou; Sound of Music; Mary Poppins;
Favorite broadway shows: Miss Saigon; Ragtime; Chicago; Les Miserables; Phantom of the Opera; Hello Dolly; Evita; Into the Woods; Cats
What’s in your home CD player right now: Veggie Tales: Silly Songs with Larry
What’s in you car CD player right now: Dixie Chicks - Taking the Long Way
Do you play an instrument: No
Croutons or bacon bits: Neither (I prefer sunflower seeds)
Favorite salad dressing: Newman’s Own Ranch
As a child, what did you want to be when you grew up: Baseball player, preferably a catcher like my hero Johnny Bench
What would be your dream job now: Editorial writer/columnist
Places you’d most like to visit: England
Your first car: 1972 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme
Your current car: 2005 Dodge mid-size pickup truck quadcab
Toothpaste: Vanilla-flavored Crest
Shampoo/Conditioner: Something for gray/silver hair
Favorite season: Baseball season
Favorite holiday: Halloween
Favorite hobbies: Collecting movies, books, music and baseball cards
Favorite sport to play: Baseball, basketball, golf, tennis
Favorite sports teams: San Antonio Spurs; Texas A&M Aggies; Houston Astros; Texas Rangers; New York Yankees; Cincinnati Reds (1972-78); Dallas Cowboys; Houston Texans
Do you have any siblings: Yes, a sister with four kids
Favorite places to visit: New England; Boston, New York; Chicago; Disney World
Favorite scent of candle: Vanilla
Favorite flower/plant: Cactus
Favorite subject in school: History
Least favorite subject in school: Math
Favorite authors: J.R.R. Tolkien; Richard Adams; Isaac Asimov; Charles Dickens; Mark Twain; Noam Chomsky; John Kenneth Galbraith; Hans Kung; Marcus Borg
Favorite columnists: Molly Ivins; Michael Kinsley; Paul Krugman; Joe Conason; Sidney Blumenthal; Eric Alterman;
Favorite book genre: Non-fiction
Favorite books: The Hobbit; Lord of the Rings; Watership Down; In Cold Blood; Gone With the Wind; Great Expectations
Daily reads: New York Times; San Antonio Express-News; Wall Street Journal; Washington Post online;
Favorite magazine: New Yorker
Favorite movie you have seen recently: Inside Out (Pixar)
Favorite movie of all time: The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Other favorite movies: The Star Wars Trilogy; Raiders of the Lost Ark; Back To the Future; Karate Kid; The Good, The Bad and The Ugly; JFK; Aladdin; Casablanca; On the Road to .... (Hope/Crosby movies); The Searchers; Planet of the Apes; Wizard of Oz; It’s a Wonderful Life; The Court Jester; A Fish Called Wanda; The Matrix... (For a complete list of my favorite movies go here. )
Favorite actors/actresses: Clint Eastwood; John Wayne; Tom Hanks; Bob Hope; Bing Crosby; Harrison Ford; Paul Newman; Cary Grant; Charlton Heston; Jimmy Stewart; Johnny Depp; Tom Cruise; Humphry Bogart; Steve Martin; Katherine Hepburn; Woodie Allen; Mel Gibson; Steve McQueen; Yul Brynner;
Favorite TV programs (current): Lost; ER; Boston Legal; Walking Dead
Favorite TV programs (all time): Star Trek (all of them); X-Files; Twilight Zone; Sliders; The Muppet Show; Frasier; Buffy the Vampire Slayer; The Carol Burnett Show; Nash Bridges; Judging Amy; Doctor Who
Favorite cartoon character: Bugs Bunny; Daffy Duck; Donald Duck; Goofy; Speed Racer; Danger Mouse;
Favorite food: It changes, but I always like a big breakfast with pancakes, bacon and eggs.
Favorite ice cream: Blue Bell Homemade Vanilla
How would you characterize your political leanings:
Liberal pragmatist with conservative sympathies. I vote Democratic.
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Green gringo fate?
Can anyone tell me what's up with this quote in this Express-News story?
San Antonio businessman Laurent Perron started the Margarita Man business in 1984 with the idea of rescuing the drink from the "insipid, green gringo fate to which she has all too often been subjected."
Maybe I'm missing something here since I don't drink alcohol, but does this strike anyone else as being just a bit offensive? The Express-News apparently thought the quote was cute enough to put in the lead of the story and it apparently inspired the headline for the story - "Margarita rescue".
Rescued from what? Those insipid green gringos? Does one have to be a member of a particular ethnic group in order to make a proper margarita? That would seem to be the implication of this quote, although the story kind of drops the matter and does not explain it further.
San Antonio businessman Laurent Perron started the Margarita Man business in 1984 with the idea of rescuing the drink from the "insipid, green gringo fate to which she has all too often been subjected."
Maybe I'm missing something here since I don't drink alcohol, but does this strike anyone else as being just a bit offensive? The Express-News apparently thought the quote was cute enough to put in the lead of the story and it apparently inspired the headline for the story - "Margarita rescue".
Rescued from what? Those insipid green gringos? Does one have to be a member of a particular ethnic group in order to make a proper margarita? That would seem to be the implication of this quote, although the story kind of drops the matter and does not explain it further.
And The Party Never Ends...
From the NY Times:
"Gen. Tommy R. Franks said today that violence and uncertainty in Iraq made it unlikely that troop levels would be reduced "for the foreseeable future," and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld nearly doubled the estimated military costs there to $3.9 billion a month."
"Gen. Tommy R. Franks said today that violence and uncertainty in Iraq made it unlikely that troop levels would be reduced "for the foreseeable future," and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld nearly doubled the estimated military costs there to $3.9 billion a month."
The Road Goes On Forever...
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Insurgents launched fresh assaults on U.S. soldiers in Iraq, killing at least two servicemen and wounding a third in shootings and rocket-propelled grenade attacks, the military said Thursday.
A soldier was fatally shot Wednesday evening near the city of Mahmudiyah, 15 miles south of Baghdad, said Spc. Nicci Trent, a spokeswoman for the military.
Another soldier was killed and one wounded Wednesday in a rocket-propelled grenade attack on a five-vehicle convoy near Baqouba...
A soldier was fatally shot Wednesday evening near the city of Mahmudiyah, 15 miles south of Baghdad, said Spc. Nicci Trent, a spokeswoman for the military.
Another soldier was killed and one wounded Wednesday in a rocket-propelled grenade attack on a five-vehicle convoy near Baqouba...
Wednesday, July 09, 2003
Summer Movie Bust
Is it just me or has this been a really disappointing summer for cinema fans? With the exception of "Finding Nemo" there just haven't been a lot of new movies coming out lately that have generated a great deal of interest or enthusiasm. Admittedly, I haven't seen any of these films, but just based on the reviews I've seen and the box office numbers that have come in there have been an inordinate number of stinkers this season.
The Matrix Reloaded was the last film that I got out to see and I liked it OK, but apparently a lot of other people did not and it hasn't made the big splash that Hollywood was anticipating. Then the Hulk came to town with a grandiose marketing campaign and lots of spin-off products in the toy stores, but the movie itself just kind of fizzled.
Charlie's Angels II seemed to be pretty flat as well and now Terminator III had a less than impressive showing over the holiday weekend.
Fortunately, It looks like the new Disney action/comedy "Pirates of the Caribbean" might be pretty good. It has been getting excellent reviews from the New York Times and Salon. And of course there is always Lord of the Rings: Return of the King to look forward to.
The Matrix Reloaded was the last film that I got out to see and I liked it OK, but apparently a lot of other people did not and it hasn't made the big splash that Hollywood was anticipating. Then the Hulk came to town with a grandiose marketing campaign and lots of spin-off products in the toy stores, but the movie itself just kind of fizzled.
Charlie's Angels II seemed to be pretty flat as well and now Terminator III had a less than impressive showing over the holiday weekend.
Fortunately, It looks like the new Disney action/comedy "Pirates of the Caribbean" might be pretty good. It has been getting excellent reviews from the New York Times and Salon. And of course there is always Lord of the Rings: Return of the King to look forward to.
Tuesday, July 08, 2003
Coulter and Weiner get whacked!
Poor Ann Coulter can’t even catch a break on her own turf.
Coulter’s latest published screed against the left entitled “Treason” has been lambasted and ridiculed since its release - all of which she could no doubt explain away as the natural reaction of the treasonous liberals who control the media, but yesterday the other shoe finally dropped when Coulter was taken to task on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal.
WSJ editorial board member Dorothy Rabinowitz penned a scathing indictment of Coulter’s book and even takes a personal slap at Coulter calling her “the Maureen Dowd of the conservatives” (Ouch! That had to hurt!).
I didn’t think too much of the matter until I found out later in the day that MSNBC had just fired Michael “Savage” Weiner, the right-wing shock jock they hired a few months ago to replace Phil Donohue. That meant that two far-right wingnuts had been slapped down in one day and that is when I became suspicious. I think I see the hand of Karl Rove in all of this.
That’s right. I think Bush has been sitting back like Michael Corleone in Godfather II and surveying the political landscape in preparation for the 2004 election season. Now he has sent out his counseilere (Rove) to whack the uncooperative wingers who might have a tendency to embarrass him during the long campaign. So that just leaves one question. Which rightwingers out there should be looking over their shoulders right now?
Coulter’s latest published screed against the left entitled “Treason” has been lambasted and ridiculed since its release - all of which she could no doubt explain away as the natural reaction of the treasonous liberals who control the media, but yesterday the other shoe finally dropped when Coulter was taken to task on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal.
WSJ editorial board member Dorothy Rabinowitz penned a scathing indictment of Coulter’s book and even takes a personal slap at Coulter calling her “the Maureen Dowd of the conservatives” (Ouch! That had to hurt!).
I didn’t think too much of the matter until I found out later in the day that MSNBC had just fired Michael “Savage” Weiner, the right-wing shock jock they hired a few months ago to replace Phil Donohue. That meant that two far-right wingnuts had been slapped down in one day and that is when I became suspicious. I think I see the hand of Karl Rove in all of this.
That’s right. I think Bush has been sitting back like Michael Corleone in Godfather II and surveying the political landscape in preparation for the 2004 election season. Now he has sent out his counseilere (Rove) to whack the uncooperative wingers who might have a tendency to embarrass him during the long campaign. So that just leaves one question. Which rightwingers out there should be looking over their shoulders right now?
Monday, July 07, 2003
Fade to Black
The WSJ has a story today about the decline of “old-style” animated movies prompted by the poor showing over the weekend of DreamWork SKG’s “Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas.”
The Sinbad film, which cost $70 million to make, pulled in just $6.8 million during the July 4th weekend and the studio is already preparing to write it off as a $50 million loss. This comes on the heels of Disney’s disasterous “Treasure Planet” which cost $140 million and prompted a $98 million write-off for the Mickey Mouse company.
Now, the WSJ is reporting, Dreamworks is sworn off of the old 2-D animation and has nothing but computer-animated films in the pipeline. Disney still has a few traditional features in the works - including “Brother Bear” and “Home on the Range” - but is increasingly reliant on its relationship with computer animated champ Pixar for box-office hits.
Perhaps this is an inevitability - like color pictures taking over from black and white - but it still seems like a shame. “Aladdin” is still one of my all-time favorite films and I just can’t see it being done with computer animation. I like computer animation just fine - I’m a big Pixar fan - I haven’t even seen “Finding Nemo” yet and I’m already sold on the movie - but why can’t I have both?
In the end, I believe that quality makes more difference than the medium. I can’t really speak about Sinbad and Treasure Planet since I haven’t seen either one, but somehow I think that they just don’t measure up quality-wise to something like Miyazaki’s “Spirited Away” which won the Oscar for best animated film this past year. I think Miyazaki demonstrates that there is still life left in the old-style animation as long as you have a powerful story to tell and the talent to pull it off.
The Sinbad film, which cost $70 million to make, pulled in just $6.8 million during the July 4th weekend and the studio is already preparing to write it off as a $50 million loss. This comes on the heels of Disney’s disasterous “Treasure Planet” which cost $140 million and prompted a $98 million write-off for the Mickey Mouse company.
Now, the WSJ is reporting, Dreamworks is sworn off of the old 2-D animation and has nothing but computer-animated films in the pipeline. Disney still has a few traditional features in the works - including “Brother Bear” and “Home on the Range” - but is increasingly reliant on its relationship with computer animated champ Pixar for box-office hits.
Perhaps this is an inevitability - like color pictures taking over from black and white - but it still seems like a shame. “Aladdin” is still one of my all-time favorite films and I just can’t see it being done with computer animation. I like computer animation just fine - I’m a big Pixar fan - I haven’t even seen “Finding Nemo” yet and I’m already sold on the movie - but why can’t I have both?
In the end, I believe that quality makes more difference than the medium. I can’t really speak about Sinbad and Treasure Planet since I haven’t seen either one, but somehow I think that they just don’t measure up quality-wise to something like Miyazaki’s “Spirited Away” which won the Oscar for best animated film this past year. I think Miyazaki demonstrates that there is still life left in the old-style animation as long as you have a powerful story to tell and the talent to pull it off.
Baseball and Robert Earl Keen
As a birthday treat for me (No. 38), my wife got us tickets this weekend to see a San Antonio Missions baseball game. Some friends from Houston drove down for the occasion and we were treated to an outstanding pitching performance by Clint Nageotte who threw a one-hit shutout with 14 strikeouts to lead the Missions to a 3-0 win over the El Paso Diablos. The Missions were the champions of their league last year and look to be on course for a repeat this year.
The highlight of the game for me was getting to meet former Boston Red Sox pitcher Luis Tiant who was on hand to sign autographs on behalf of a local insurance company. I dug up one of my 1976 Topps ballcards of his and got him to sign it. He also signed his picture in the new book “The Long Ball: The Summer of ‘75” which was one of my birthday presents. It tells all about the 1975 baseball season which I remember quite vividly as my favorite team the Cinncinnatti Reds went all the way to win the World Series that year.
After the game, there was a Robert Earl Keen concert followed by a fireworks display. Keen is one of those talented Texas-based performers who I am just now beginning to catch up with. I expect that I will find the time to collect more of his music now because it was really good. Most of his songs have a small-town Texas theme and he ends every concert with his biggest hit-to-date “The Road Goes On Forever and The Party Never Ends” (not sure what the actual name of the song is) which turns into an extended jam session at the end.
The highlight of the game for me was getting to meet former Boston Red Sox pitcher Luis Tiant who was on hand to sign autographs on behalf of a local insurance company. I dug up one of my 1976 Topps ballcards of his and got him to sign it. He also signed his picture in the new book “The Long Ball: The Summer of ‘75” which was one of my birthday presents. It tells all about the 1975 baseball season which I remember quite vividly as my favorite team the Cinncinnatti Reds went all the way to win the World Series that year.
After the game, there was a Robert Earl Keen concert followed by a fireworks display. Keen is one of those talented Texas-based performers who I am just now beginning to catch up with. I expect that I will find the time to collect more of his music now because it was really good. Most of his songs have a small-town Texas theme and he ends every concert with his biggest hit-to-date “The Road Goes On Forever and The Party Never Ends” (not sure what the actual name of the song is) which turns into an extended jam session at the end.
Thursday, July 03, 2003
Haunting Words
I can hardly believe Bush actually said this, but here it is....
"Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice," Bush said. "There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on."
Now one day later it seems Bush
got his answer...
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 10 American soldiers have been wounded in attacks on Thursday in Iraq, according to U.S. military officials.
The attacks came a day after President Bush -- saying he was confident that U.S. forces in Iraq were well-protected -- said to those in Iraq looking to harm American troops, "My answer is, bring them on."
Here is
Adam Felber's satirical take which would be even more funny if it were not so tragic:
Bush Double-Dog Dares Militants to Hurt US Soldiers
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Wednesday challenged militants who have been killing and injuring U.S. forces in Iraq, saying "bring them on" because American forces were tough enough to deal with their attacks.
"There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there," Bush told reporters at the White House. "My answer is bring them on..."
"...in fact," the President continued, "I don't think Iraqi militants have the guts to kill more Americans. I think they're yeller." Bush, who during Vietnam war bravely combatted an extremely inconvenient schedule, made his remarks a mere 6,211 miles from the front lines."
"Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice," Bush said. "There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on."
Now one day later it seems Bush
got his answer...
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 10 American soldiers have been wounded in attacks on Thursday in Iraq, according to U.S. military officials.
The attacks came a day after President Bush -- saying he was confident that U.S. forces in Iraq were well-protected -- said to those in Iraq looking to harm American troops, "My answer is, bring them on."
Here is
Adam Felber's satirical take which would be even more funny if it were not so tragic:
Bush Double-Dog Dares Militants to Hurt US Soldiers
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Wednesday challenged militants who have been killing and injuring U.S. forces in Iraq, saying "bring them on" because American forces were tough enough to deal with their attacks.
"There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there," Bush told reporters at the White House. "My answer is bring them on..."
"...in fact," the President continued, "I don't think Iraqi militants have the guts to kill more Americans. I think they're yeller." Bush, who during Vietnam war bravely combatted an extremely inconvenient schedule, made his remarks a mere 6,211 miles from the front lines."
Jobless Rate Hits 9-Year High
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's unemployment rate shot up to 6.4 percent in June, the highest level in more than nine years, in an economic slump that has cost nearly a million jobs in the last three months."
Umm, weren't all those big tax cuts supposed to jump start the economy?
Umm, weren't all those big tax cuts supposed to jump start the economy?
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
Postwar Blues
The WSJ is reporting today that 63 American troops have died in Iraq in the two months since Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and declared victory. That is nearly as many as died during the three weeks of fighting that led up to the fall of Baghdad.
The other day San Antonio buried its second hometown boy killed during the Iraq war and aftermath. He was a 19-year-old Army private who was killed in a grenade attack. His death did not get a lot of national media attention partly because he did not die immediately. Instead the news was that some soldiers were wounded and by the time he died the next day the grenade attack was old news.
The WSJ goes on to report that the rising casualty figures are causing Bush's poll numbers to decline from a 71 percent approval in April to 61 percent in July.
Those poll numbers are likely to drop further the longer our troops remain in harm's way. And it doesn't look like Iraq is going to embrace a U.S.-style democracy any time soon.
The other day San Antonio buried its second hometown boy killed during the Iraq war and aftermath. He was a 19-year-old Army private who was killed in a grenade attack. His death did not get a lot of national media attention partly because he did not die immediately. Instead the news was that some soldiers were wounded and by the time he died the next day the grenade attack was old news.
The WSJ goes on to report that the rising casualty figures are causing Bush's poll numbers to decline from a 71 percent approval in April to 61 percent in July.
Those poll numbers are likely to drop further the longer our troops remain in harm's way. And it doesn't look like Iraq is going to embrace a U.S.-style democracy any time soon.
More on the Supremes
The same NYTimes article referred to below has the following observation from former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger:
"This term suggested a split between two kinds of conservative Republicans. (Justices Kennedy and O'Connor) share the sensibilities of corporate Republicans, who often have a bit of a libertarian streak in them, (while on social issues) Scalia and Thomas represent the Moral Majority strain, which is vocal but not necessarily dominant."
"Chief Justice Rehnquist, Dellinger adds, often occupies a middle position between the two groups."
If this analysis is accurate - and I think it is - then how would you classify the four remaining justices on the court? Might we say that Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter represent the "corporate Democrats," while Justice Stevens occupies a middle position between this group and the now vacant far left position once filled by Justices Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan.
This means that we currently have a court that is lopsided to the right. However, social conservatives who still lose out on their pet issues in this case might disagree.
"This term suggested a split between two kinds of conservative Republicans. (Justices Kennedy and O'Connor) share the sensibilities of corporate Republicans, who often have a bit of a libertarian streak in them, (while on social issues) Scalia and Thomas represent the Moral Majority strain, which is vocal but not necessarily dominant."
"Chief Justice Rehnquist, Dellinger adds, often occupies a middle position between the two groups."
If this analysis is accurate - and I think it is - then how would you classify the four remaining justices on the court? Might we say that Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter represent the "corporate Democrats," while Justice Stevens occupies a middle position between this group and the now vacant far left position once filled by Justices Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan.
This means that we currently have a court that is lopsided to the right. However, social conservatives who still lose out on their pet issues in this case might disagree.
Tuesday, July 01, 2003
Supreme moderation
The New York Times has a big rundown on the latest Supreme Court session with a great graphic showing how all the judges voted on 13 major cases. The first thing that jumps out at you is that Sandra Day O'Connor was on the winning side of all but one of the decisions, demonstrating in my opinion that she, and not William Rehnquist, is the de facto chief justice on the court.
However, it is also noteworthy that Rehnquist - who normally forms part of the far-right troika on the court along with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - broke away from the conservative side on four cases, as did Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Here is the NYTimes breakdown on all of the contested cases (41) decided during this term:
"The voting patterns this term gave Justice Scalia ample cause for disaffection. Thirty of 71 cases decided by published opinions were unanimous, leaving 41 contested cases. In these, Justice Scalia and Clarence Thomas were the court's most frequent dissenters, with 16 and 21 dissenting votes respectively. This was a change from recent terms, when Justice John Paul Stevens, the court's most liberal member, was consistently the most frequent dissenter.
"Justice Stevens dissented 15 times this term as did Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The fewest dissenting votes, as usual, were cast by Justice O'Connor, with eight, followed by Chief Justice Rehnquist, with nine - making the indisputably conservative chief justice appear almost a centrist in the court's current spectrum."
William Rehnquist turning into a moderate after all these years. Imagine that! I guess wisdom really does improve with age.
However, it is also noteworthy that Rehnquist - who normally forms part of the far-right troika on the court along with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - broke away from the conservative side on four cases, as did Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Here is the NYTimes breakdown on all of the contested cases (41) decided during this term:
"The voting patterns this term gave Justice Scalia ample cause for disaffection. Thirty of 71 cases decided by published opinions were unanimous, leaving 41 contested cases. In these, Justice Scalia and Clarence Thomas were the court's most frequent dissenters, with 16 and 21 dissenting votes respectively. This was a change from recent terms, when Justice John Paul Stevens, the court's most liberal member, was consistently the most frequent dissenter.
"Justice Stevens dissented 15 times this term as did Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The fewest dissenting votes, as usual, were cast by Justice O'Connor, with eight, followed by Chief Justice Rehnquist, with nine - making the indisputably conservative chief justice appear almost a centrist in the court's current spectrum."
William Rehnquist turning into a moderate after all these years. Imagine that! I guess wisdom really does improve with age.
All-Star Voting
Just cast my vote for the Baseball All Star Game. In the past I had done like everyone else and just voted for the players on my favorite team. This year I took it a bit more serious and actually compared stats before deciding who to vote for (not that it will matter, it is still just a big popularity contest).
So here are my picks for 2003:
American League
1B Carlos Delgado - Blue Jays
2B Alfonso Soriano - Yankees
SS Nomar Garciaparra - Red Sox
3B H. Blalock - Rangers
C Jorge Posada - Yankees
OF Ichiro Suzuki - Mariners
OF Manny Ramirez - Red Sox
OF Garrett Anderson - Angels
DH Edgar Martinez - Mariners
National League
1B Todd Helton - Rockies
2B Jeff Kent - Astros
SS Edgar Renteria - Cardinals
3B Mike Lowell - Marlins
C Javy Lopez - Braves
OF Albert Pujols - Cardinals
OF Gary Sheffield - Braves
OF Barry Bonds - Giants
For the past several years I have been a Yankees fan (long story), but now that they have traded away so many of their players I have begun to lose interest and I am once again looking for a team to support. I am trying to like the Astros again.
So here are my picks for 2003:
American League
1B Carlos Delgado - Blue Jays
2B Alfonso Soriano - Yankees
SS Nomar Garciaparra - Red Sox
3B H. Blalock - Rangers
C Jorge Posada - Yankees
OF Ichiro Suzuki - Mariners
OF Manny Ramirez - Red Sox
OF Garrett Anderson - Angels
DH Edgar Martinez - Mariners
National League
1B Todd Helton - Rockies
2B Jeff Kent - Astros
SS Edgar Renteria - Cardinals
3B Mike Lowell - Marlins
C Javy Lopez - Braves
OF Albert Pujols - Cardinals
OF Gary Sheffield - Braves
OF Barry Bonds - Giants
For the past several years I have been a Yankees fan (long story), but now that they have traded away so many of their players I have begun to lose interest and I am once again looking for a team to support. I am trying to like the Astros again.
Monday, June 30, 2003
Katharine Hepburn 1907 - 2003
I'll always remember Katharine Hepburn as the determined old lady who was a match for John Wayne in "Rooster Cogburn" - the first film I ever saw her in. But I really became a big fan after seeing her in "The Philadelphia Story" some time later.
When I lived in Connecticut in the early '90s, I worked for a weekly newspaper in Old Saybrook where Hepburn lived. I never saw her there, but I talked to townsfolk who would tell stories of running into her in the local grocery stores on ocassion. That was enough to give me a slight feeling of connection with her and made me even more of a fan later on.
The only movie of hers that I have in my video collection right now is "The African Queen," so I will need to remedy that situation. Maybe they will come out with a nice collectors set on DVD soon.
When I lived in Connecticut in the early '90s, I worked for a weekly newspaper in Old Saybrook where Hepburn lived. I never saw her there, but I talked to townsfolk who would tell stories of running into her in the local grocery stores on ocassion. That was enough to give me a slight feeling of connection with her and made me even more of a fan later on.
The only movie of hers that I have in my video collection right now is "The African Queen," so I will need to remedy that situation. Maybe they will come out with a nice collectors set on DVD soon.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)