He went about it in a round about way, but J. Francis Gardner, a local conservative columnist for the E-N, makes sense today when he addresses most of the gay rights issues that have been hot topics of late.
Gardner skirts the Supreme Court's Lawrence vs. Texas decision which struck down the state's abhorent anti-sodomy law. But he comes down in favor of allowing gay bishops in the church and proposes a middle ground on gay marriage similar to the civil unions that are now the law of Vermont.
I don't necessarily agree as Gardner states that the Bible makes it "crystal clear" that homosexuality is an abomination. No more clear than the abomination of eating pork. But Gardner does concede that even if the Bible treats homosexuality as a sin, it is not any more or less worse than any other sin so why single out one group of sinners for special mistreatment. I believe that there is a biological component to sexual preferences and so it is not fair to treat it as a choice that someone makes any more than someone chooses whether they are right-handed or left-handed.
Gardner states that any disconnect between human sexuality and reproductive potential is considered a flaw in nature's (God's) grand design. But what if it is not a flaw, but just another aspect of the design?
It would seem that a mature society should eventually come to grips with this possibility and quit ostracizing an entire segment of our society. Perhaps that time is finally coming for the U.S.
Saturday, August 16, 2003
Cornyn making sense on immigration
I've liked John Cornyn since the first time I met him back when he first ran for Texas Attorney General. He just seemed like someone who was sincere and intelligent. I still voted for Ron Kirk in the last Senate election, but I was satisified that even if Cornyn won he would be a vast improvement over Phil Gramm.
A story in today's E-N further confirms my impression of him. Cornyn says the U.S. is in denial over illegal immigration and is advocating the creation of a temporary work permit system. I have said before that the U.S. government is not trying to stop illegal immigration as much as it is trying to manage it. Cornyn's proposal sounds like it would go a long way at freeing up our Border Patrol to pursue drug trafficers, smugglers and other real threats to our nation, rather than constantly rounding up desperate laborers looking for work to support their families back home.
I don't know how likely Cornyn's proposal may be approved and implemented, but it is reassuring knowing that we have someone in Washington who is willing to take a pragmatic position in dealing with the situation.
A story in today's E-N further confirms my impression of him. Cornyn says the U.S. is in denial over illegal immigration and is advocating the creation of a temporary work permit system. I have said before that the U.S. government is not trying to stop illegal immigration as much as it is trying to manage it. Cornyn's proposal sounds like it would go a long way at freeing up our Border Patrol to pursue drug trafficers, smugglers and other real threats to our nation, rather than constantly rounding up desperate laborers looking for work to support their families back home.
I don't know how likely Cornyn's proposal may be approved and implemented, but it is reassuring knowing that we have someone in Washington who is willing to take a pragmatic position in dealing with the situation.
Friday, August 15, 2003
The Tax-Cut Terminator
Billionaire Warren Buffett, Arnold Schwarzennegger’s new financial adviser in the California recall election, has shed some light on why California is facing a $38 billion budget shortfall. Buffett tells the Wall Street Journal today that it’s because the state’s Proposition 13, which limits property tax increases, has left California with ridiculously low tax rates, particularly for the very wealthy.
Buffett readily illustrates this point using two homes that he owns - one in Omaha, Nebraska and the other in Laguna Beach, California.
Buffett’s Nebraska home is valued at roughly $500,000 and his property taxes this year were $14,401.
Compare that to his Laguna Beach home which is valued at $4 million and had property taxes this year of just $2,264.
What’s more, the property taxes on Buffett’s Nebraska house went up $1,920 this year as that state, like every other one across the nation, sought to deal with the economic turmoil brought on by the latest Bush recession. But the property taxes on Buffett’s Laguna Beach mansion went up by just $23.
$23!!! The guy probably tips his bellhop more than that for carrying his luggage! No wonder California can’t balance its budget now that Bush and Co. have screwed up the nation’s economy.
Democrats in California have either been unable or unwilling to address this problem. They have either been blocked or cowed by Republican anti-tax zealots at every opportunity. Perhaps Buffett sees in Schwarzennegger an opportunity for a “Nixon in China” moment where it falls to a “Republican” to do the responsible thing. Because unless Californians want to turn their state into a giant version of Mississippi they are going to have to come up with some way to raise more revenues to get their budget back into balance.
Buffett readily illustrates this point using two homes that he owns - one in Omaha, Nebraska and the other in Laguna Beach, California.
Buffett’s Nebraska home is valued at roughly $500,000 and his property taxes this year were $14,401.
Compare that to his Laguna Beach home which is valued at $4 million and had property taxes this year of just $2,264.
What’s more, the property taxes on Buffett’s Nebraska house went up $1,920 this year as that state, like every other one across the nation, sought to deal with the economic turmoil brought on by the latest Bush recession. But the property taxes on Buffett’s Laguna Beach mansion went up by just $23.
$23!!! The guy probably tips his bellhop more than that for carrying his luggage! No wonder California can’t balance its budget now that Bush and Co. have screwed up the nation’s economy.
Democrats in California have either been unable or unwilling to address this problem. They have either been blocked or cowed by Republican anti-tax zealots at every opportunity. Perhaps Buffett sees in Schwarzennegger an opportunity for a “Nixon in China” moment where it falls to a “Republican” to do the responsible thing. Because unless Californians want to turn their state into a giant version of Mississippi they are going to have to come up with some way to raise more revenues to get their budget back into balance.
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Fox News: Fairly Unbalanced
It just goes to show how often I watch Fox News (practically never), that I was completely unaware that the term “Fair and Balanced” is the news channel’s copyrighted trademark.
Fox News, for reasons that are still unknown, has filed suit against political satirist and comedian Al Franken over the title of his latest book: “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right”.
The ensuing publicity resulting from the lawsuit has had the predictable result of pushing presales of Franken’s book to the top of the charts. So that just leaves the question as to why Fox chose to do this. Either they have some mysterious reason as yet unkown for wanting to boost sales of Franken’s book, or they were just being incredibly stupid. My money is on the latter.
In the most recent issue of The New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg writes about the political imbalance on the nation’s radio talk shows which feature endless hours of mindnumbing banter from hard-right conservatives. Even in liberal New York City you can’t turn on your radio without the fear of being harangued by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Bob Grant, Mark Levin and many, many more.
He notes the recent effort underway by a couple of Chicago venture capitalists to start a competing liberal talk network - which could be hosted by Al Franken. But he has doubts that such a network could ever be as successful and I would have to agree with his assessment.
The right wing radio shows succeed because:
“a substantial segment of the right-wing rank and file enjoys listening, hour after hour, as smug, angry, disdainful middle-aged men spew raw contempt at reified enemies, named and unnamed... To the chronically resentful, they offer the sadistic consolation of an endless sneer...”
As much as I enjoy Al Franken’s humor and appreciate his political views, I just don’t think I would spend hours listening to him or anyone else on the radio everyday ranting about things from a left-wing perspective. Maybe it’s because I am comfortable enough in my beliefs that I don’t need that kind of constant reassurance.
Fox News, for reasons that are still unknown, has filed suit against political satirist and comedian Al Franken over the title of his latest book: “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right”.
The ensuing publicity resulting from the lawsuit has had the predictable result of pushing presales of Franken’s book to the top of the charts. So that just leaves the question as to why Fox chose to do this. Either they have some mysterious reason as yet unkown for wanting to boost sales of Franken’s book, or they were just being incredibly stupid. My money is on the latter.
In the most recent issue of The New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg writes about the political imbalance on the nation’s radio talk shows which feature endless hours of mindnumbing banter from hard-right conservatives. Even in liberal New York City you can’t turn on your radio without the fear of being harangued by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Bob Grant, Mark Levin and many, many more.
He notes the recent effort underway by a couple of Chicago venture capitalists to start a competing liberal talk network - which could be hosted by Al Franken. But he has doubts that such a network could ever be as successful and I would have to agree with his assessment.
The right wing radio shows succeed because:
“a substantial segment of the right-wing rank and file enjoys listening, hour after hour, as smug, angry, disdainful middle-aged men spew raw contempt at reified enemies, named and unnamed... To the chronically resentful, they offer the sadistic consolation of an endless sneer...”
As much as I enjoy Al Franken’s humor and appreciate his political views, I just don’t think I would spend hours listening to him or anyone else on the radio everyday ranting about things from a left-wing perspective. Maybe it’s because I am comfortable enough in my beliefs that I don’t need that kind of constant reassurance.
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
Too good to pass up
Here is a quote that is just too good to pass up: (Thanks to Oliver Willis for the link)
"Between trying to impeach Bill Clinton, Florida 2000, and the recall in California, I'm beginning to think that Republicans will do anything to win an election - except get the most votes."
- BILL MAHER
"Between trying to impeach Bill Clinton, Florida 2000, and the recall in California, I'm beginning to think that Republicans will do anything to win an election - except get the most votes."
- BILL MAHER
Pete Rose's Scarlet Letter
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)